Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[pentatonic]

First of all, the vinyl example that comes up all the time is not a valid one. While the final product delivers the same music, the means are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Vinyl being an analog device, the whole experience is different. But for a BD, 0s and 1s are 0s and 1s.

How does it matter how you access those. By limiting ourselves to a rigid standard we also push back innovation as it has to fit those standards. Ultimately compression is going to get better and better, but with hard media your stuck to a defined standard that will be way too long to update.

Now have a soft solution that just needs a patch, voila. And who says extras are necessarily dead, just an option at your convenience. No cover art, why not, you have tons of screens to admire it. How many rely on morning paper news for info? That is not the world we are making happen, yes, us, young and old. We love being always on and couldn't go back. And if owning a plastic disk makes you feel in control, well, ok then.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That is the death of movies for the future gen. Watching on a mobile or worse smartwatch. Doesn't anyone see the sheer tragedy that that represents? It's the death knell for movies in the future, if that happens.

Yes, that would definitely be tragic. A zombie plague or an alien invasion would probably suck a lot too.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That is the death of movies for the future gen. Watching on a mobile or worse smartwatch. Doesn't anyone see the sheer tragedy that that represents? It's the death knell for movies in the future, if that happens.

I have a feeling he's winding you up. Just because bike sales are increasing doesn't mean the car will be obsolete in 10 years. The trend for blockbuster movies now is Imax. The idea that someone will watch a film on a watch is laughable. Just have a think about it. That sort of tech has been around for years, I was watching stuff on my Nokia N73 on the way to work, it hasn't had the slightest impact on TV size or cinema going.

I know tons of people with Ipads and none of them, young or old, use it as a primary source for movies/TV. At best, its for on the move or watching while the main set is in use by the rest of the family. No different to a portable TV - did the introduction of those mean that's all we use now? Come on, man, get a grip.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That is the death of movies for the future gen. Watching on a mobile or worse smartwatch. Doesn't anyone see the sheer tragedy that that represents? It's the death knell for movies in the future, if that happens.

Steed, I'm sure many said the same for Vaudeville. many here seem to only be capable of seeing this through 2013 eyes. I can't see why you love technology so much (basic assumption, being on this forum) but are so afraid of change at the same time. Look at what's happening with 4k, darn almost reminds me of the hidef wars.

And now it will be BD against DD. How does it matter how you access those as long as you can. Many prefered BDs over HD DVDs for such and such. We are still stuck with a compromised format (color space, etc.) and they finally locked us down on another. Why would an open format that can evolve easily be so scary, when it's ultimately a better way (just look at the reaction to HDMI 2.0 if you don't believe me).

And all that for a hardly recyclable plastic disk and a few dead trees, I really don't get it, I guess that's why change can be so long.

I'm done and apologize if anyone feels I was rude or whatever. Good luck guys

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Steed, I'm sure many said the same for Vaudeville. many here seem to only be capable of seeing this through 2013 eyes. I can't see why you love technology so much (basic assumption, being on this forum) but are so afraid of change at the same time. Look at what's happening with 4k, darn almost reminds me of the hidef wars.

And now it will be BD against DD. How does it matter how you access those as long as you can. Many prefered BDs over HD DVDs for such and such. We are still stuck with a compromised format (color space, etc.) and they finally locked us down on another. Why would an open format that can evolve easily be so scary, when it's ultimately a better way (just look at the reaction to HDMI 2.0 if you don't believe me).

And all that for a hardly recyclable plastic disk and a few dead trees, I really don't get it, I guess that's why change can be so long.

I'm done and apologize if anyone feels I was rude or whatever. Good luck guys

But technology is useless if it doesn't serve my needs. That's speaking from my viewpoint. All I envisage when I think downloads/streaming is smartphones/watches/tablets/laptops. It is for that generation that watched online rather than tv. Meanwhile, tv sales decline rapidly.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

And if owning a plastic disk makes you feel in control, well, ok then.

That's not a trivial point. Granted, some of the 'if the power grid goes down I can fire up a generator and still watch BDs' rhetoric gets a little paranoid but questions of ownership and control are legitimate.

The truth is we don't know what future licensing/rights schemes are going to look like or how secure they'll be over the long-term. If you buy a physical copy of something you're going to have access to that title until your copy wears out or there are no more players to play it on.

Maybe hypothetical digital libraries will be similar. Maybe I'll pay my upfront fee and be able to watch that title as many times as I want over as many years as I want. Maybe I'll be able to loan them out or trade them or sell them. But maybe I won't.

That all remains to be seen.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Steed, I'm sure many said the same for Vaudeville. many here seem to only be capable of seeing this through 2013 eyes. I can't see why you love technology so much (basic assumption, being on this forum) but are so afraid of change at the same time. Look at what's happening with 4k, darn almost reminds me of the hidef wars.

And now it will be BD against DD. How does it matter how you access those as long as you can. Many prefered BDs over HD DVDs for such and such. We are still stuck with a compromised format (color space, etc.) and they finally locked us down on another. Why would an open format that can evolve easily be so scary, when it's ultimately a better way (just look at the reaction to HDMI 2.0 if you don't believe me).

And all that for a hardly recyclable plastic disk and a few dead trees, I really don't get it, I guess that's why change can be so long.

I'm done and apologize if anyone feels I was rude or whatever. Good luck guys

because many of us like to OWN our products...the kind of products that once we get our hands on them they are OURS to do with as we wish and the studios can't take them away or modify them at will as they can with digital streams. possession is a LARGE part of our collecting habits

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by wormraper

because many of us like to OWN our products...the kind of products that once we get our hands on them they are OURS to do with as we wish and the studios can't take them away or modify them at will as they can with digital streams. possession is a LARGE part of our collecting habits

I agree control (doing what you want with what you bought) is a big plus in physical ownership. However I think the studios would like to reclaim some of that control, like they had in the VHS days. First Doctrine doesn't apply to digital and they are well aware of that. I think physical will always be here (collectors gotta collect) but I think ultimately it will be tied to a digital purchase. Kinda like MS was going to do with the XB1, sell physical copies with only a digital key on the disc, so that they can bypass First Doctrine. Hopefully that'll never come to pass, but I think that's what the studios want (more control and freedom from First Doctrine).

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by wormraper

because many of us like to OWN our products...the kind of products that once we get our hands on them they are OURS to do with as we wish and the studios can't take them away or modify them at will as they can with digital streams. possession is a LARGE part of our collecting habits

Apparently I was not done.

If owning said disk makes you feel like you own the movie, great, but like with any intellectual property, you only have a legal copy for your own viewings. The laws on intellectual properties are very strict, it's the studios and musicians etc. that are not.

They could do a forced firmware update and you'd lose it if they wanted. But they have to think of marketing and education.

Also, everyone only speaks of streaming, but a dd would also be in YOUR hands, just somewhere on your PC instead, but in this case you could watch it anywhere and everywhere in your house.

Anyways, I do apologize as I really just don't get it. I mean I own Star Trek on Beta, yeaaaa it's mine, all mine.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

Apparently I was not done.

If owning said disk makes you feel like you own the movie, great, but like with any intellectual property, you only have a legal copy for your own viewings. The laws on intellectual properties are very strict, it's the studios and musicians etc. that are not.

They could do a forced firmware update and you'd lose it if they wanted. But they have to think of marketing and education.

Also, everyone only speaks of streaming, but a dd would also be in YOUR hands, just somewhere on your PC instead, but in this case you could watch it anywhere and everywhere in your house.

Anyways, I do apologize as I really just don't get it. I mean I own Star Trek on Beta, yeaaaa it's mine, all mine.

We speak of streaming because it's painfully clear that that is where the media is heading. Cloud computing is the thing and, pretty soon, the idea of having a hard drive in your house will be as odd as a shelf full of VHS. I exaggerate but I really don't know that many people with PCs anymore. They've all gone tablet. 128 GB. What's that, two blurays?

Film rights are funny things. Some films get released in some territories and some sit on the shelf for years. Right now, if you want to own, say, both versions of Miami Vice or The Shining your only choice is importing the other disc. That's what we mean by ownership. Why anyone would give up the world marketplace in exchange for being sold only what they want to sell you in each territory is beyond me. Because, make no mistake, that's what we'd end up with.

At the moment, if I want to watch Criterion's release of The Third Man or The Man Who Fell To Earth I can easily. Not so easy if I'd relied on Hulu....ownership FTW!

How on earth could they force a firmware update that would render a film useless? My main player isn't even connected to the internet. I genuinely don't get that point.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

If owning said disk makes you feel like you own the movie, great, but like with any intellectual property, you only have a legal copy for your own viewings. The laws on intellectual properties are very strict, it's the studios and musicians etc. that are not.

That's not entirely accurate. At least not in the US it isn't.

Under US law the First Sale Doctrine allows purchasers of copyrighted materials to resell or transfer legitimate copies of that copyrighted work.

They can't make additional copies but they can dispose of the copy they bought pretty much however they want.

And of course that legitimately purchased copy can't be taken away later.

Again, those things aren't trivial.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by KRW1

We speak of streaming because it's painfully clear that that is where the media is heading. Cloud computing is the thing and, pretty soon, the idea of having a hard drive in your house will be as odd as a shelf full of VHS. I exaggerate but I really don't know that many people with PCs anymore. They've all gone tablet. 128 GB. What's that, two blurays?

Film rights are funny things. Some films get released in some territories and some sit on the shelf for years. Right now, if you want to own, say, both versions of Miami Vice or The Shining your only choice is importing the other disc. That's what we mean by ownership. Why anyone would give up the world marketplace in exchange for being sold only what they want to sell you in each territory is beyond me. Because, make no mistake, that's what we'd end up with.

At the moment, if I want to watch Criterion's release of The Third Man or The Man Who Fell To Earth I can easily. Not so easy if I'd relied on Hulu....ownership FTW!

How on earth could they force a firmware update that would render a film useless? My main player isn't even connected to the internet. I genuinely don't get that point.

First off you guys can't seem to get past the 2013 eyes thing. You even admit that the Cloud is just a matter of time, but on this issue it's a problem. Like I said earlier, I DON'T CARE EITHER WAY. But I also realize that IT now and IT in say 10 years is as different as fruit and vegetables. In 20?....

The infrastructure isn't yet capable of all, but it will come, in time. I believe the problem is mostly fear with a system we don't really trust as we are still in its infancy, but there is no denying it, as you said, and why would movies be different. I'm sure many here download their software, use Cloud services and run Office 365.

It will take some time, but it is inevitable as our choices in life and our great dependance on IT will not shrink. While I'm sure many turn off their cells at home, I'd bet over 75% just can't.

And somehow many seem to think the studios don't want $$$ anymore. They will always cater to a cash cow. In the end we are just changing delivery system, and it will change. Just that BD happened to play DVDs, we expect every other generation to be fully backward compatible, nice but there is always a cut off point. And it will happen, just not tomorrow.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's not entirely accurate. At least not in the US it isn't.

Under US law the First Sale Doctrine allows purchasers of copyrighted materials to resell or transfer legitimate copies of that copyrighted work.

They can't make additional copies but they can dispose of the copy they bought pretty much however they want.

And of course that legitimately purchased copy can't be taken away later.

Again, those things aren't trivial.

I didn't say I didn't agree, but in 15 years from now, let's say 8k is the norm, if you feel the need to stay at 1080p for that right and miss out on better for the sake that it isn't available otherwise, I agree, stick with it. But in a society that has such horrible habits towards the environment, and a serious need to change, I can't see that option as even moral anymore.

[Nick The Slick]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

First off you guys can't seem to get past the 2013 eyes thing. You even admit that the Cloud is just a matter of time, but on this issue it's a problem. Like I said earlier, I DON'T CARE EITHER WAY. But I also realize that IT now and IT in say 10 years is as different as fruit and vegetables. In 20?....

The infrastructure isn't yet capable of all, but it will come, in time. I believe the problem is mostly fear with a system we don't really trust as we are still in its infancy, but there is no denying it, as you said, and why would movies be different. I'm sure many here download their software, use Cloud services and run Office 365.

It will take some time, but it is inevitable as our choices in life and our great dependance on IT will not shrink. While I'm sure many turn off their cells at home, I'd bet over 75% just can't.

And somehow many seem to think the studios don't want $$$ anymore. They will always cater to a cash cow. In the end we are just talking delivery system, and it will change. Just that BD happened to play DVDs, we expect every other generation to be fully backward compatible, nice but there is always a cut off point. And it will happen, just not tomorrow.

I pretty much agree with you on this pentatonic, I don't much care how my media is delivered as long as I can access it and get the quality that I expect from Blu-Ray (or better). There in lies my little issue with this though. When I buy a Blu-Ray, I don't have to worry about where I'm going to store it. It already has it's own little disc that neatly fits the entire movie on it. However with downloading I now suddenly become responsible for buying the media as well as storage to keep it. Well why not stream it then? Fine, but my internet connection would never stream the full 1080p and lossess audio quality that I expect from my Blu-Rays, and I'm definitely not paying another $100 a month just to do so. So for either way to work for me there would either have to be a big compromise on my part, or compression methods willl have to become so efficient that I can store my BR quality movies on my HDD with much less impact than the full 25-50GB. Not that I'm seriously worried about this anyways, as I don't see physical media going completely away anytime soon (or even in my lifetime). I'm just trying to see all points of view here.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by KRW1

We speak of streaming because it's painfully clear that that is where the media is heading. Cloud computing is the thing and, pretty soon, the idea of having a hard drive in your house will be as odd as a shelf full of VHS. I exaggerate but I really don't know that many people with PCs anymore. They've all gone tablet. 128 GB. What's that, two blurays?

Film rights are funny things. Some films get released in some territories and some sit on the shelf for years. Right now, if you want to own, say, both versions of Miami Vice or The Shining your only choice is importing the other disc. That's what we mean by ownership. Why anyone would give up the world marketplace in exchange for being sold only what they want to sell you in each territory is beyond me. Because, make no mistake, that's what we'd end up with.

At the moment, if I want to watch Criterion's release of The Third Man or The Man Who Fell To Earth I can easily. Not so easy if I'd relied on Hulu....ownership FTW!

How on earth could they force a firmware update that would render a film useless? My main player isn't even connected to the internet. I genuinely don't get that point.

That's my point, kind of. Most people you know have downsized to a portable device. If they can do that for computing/entertainment, they can do that for films also. Bear In mind that many insiders are tipping smartwatches to eventually replace smartphones as the personal mobile device of choice. Now, if tablets take a hit in the next several years that kind of leaves us with a small 1.5-2 inch screen for our young generation. Fast forward to 15-20 years and if tv doesn't last last out we all have no media device except a tiny smartwatch to watch media on. Does it still sound far fetched? Maybe it does, but there is some logic to it.

[Clark Kent]

Watching television on giant screens is not going to die in the United States anytime soon. But everything will be delivered to those screens from streaming and server clouds.

[Nick The Slick]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That's my point, kind of. Most people you know have downsized to a portable device. If they can do that for computing/entertainment, they can do that for films also. Bear In mind that many insiders are tipping smartwatches to eventually replace smartphones as the personal mobile device of choice. Now, if tablets take a hit in the next several years that kind of leaves us with a small 1.5-2 inch screen for our young generation. Fast forward to 15-20 years and if tv doesn't last last out we all have no media device except a tiny smartwatch to watch media on. Does it still sound far fetched? Maybe it does, but there is some logic to it.

I see your point and your logic, but I still say it sounds far fetched. I mean, look at how long smart phones, mobile computing, portable dvd players etc. have been out and people still PREFER a much larger screen (i.e. big TV, movie theater, projection). Notice I say PREFER. People may ACCEPT a small screen while on the move, or for casual viewing when they're in their bedroom or whatever and don't feel like turning on the main entertainment system, but they still PREFER a larger screen when they really want to be entertained. I don't think the idea of a big screen is going away at all. In fact I think they'll keep finding ways to make screens bigger with better picture quality.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

I didn't say I didn't agree, but in 15 years from now, let's say 8k is the norm, if you feel the need to stay at 1080p for that right and miss out on better for the sake that it isn't available otherwise, I agree, stick with it. But in a society that has such horrible habits towards the environment, and a serious need to change, I can't see that option as even moral anymore.

The environment????

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you're not really trying to claim some sort of moral high ground in a disc vs download discussion.

With regard to 8k, I don't believe anybody has argued that physical media should be frozen at current capacities. Rather, people are a simply expressing their desire that future generations of home video are delivered in a manner similar to the way home video is currently delivered.

[Nick The Slick]

Originally Posted by pentatonic

I didn't say I didn't agree, but in 15 years from now, let's say 8k is the norm, if you feel the need to stay at 1080p for that right and miss out on better for the sake that it isn't available otherwise, I agree, stick with it. But in a society that has such horrible habits towards the environment, and a serious need to change, I can't see that option as even moral anymore.

Bringing up 8k or other resolutions higher than 1080p further emphasizes the point I made in my earlier post. At that point, if I'm forced to download then HDD's better be as cheap as $1 per TB lol.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by octagon

The environment????

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you're not really trying to claim some sort of moral high ground in a disc vs download discussion.

With regard to 8k, I don't believe anybody has argued that physical media should be frozen at current capacities. Rather, people are a simply expressing their desire that future generations of home video are delivered in a manner similar to the way home video is currently delivered.

Again, 2013 eyes. You guys seem to think that the late 80s and 90s generation share the same values as we do, they don't and it is not only normal, it is also necessary, like it always has been in a "free" world. Let me tell you, their views on waste management and such are much stronger, they were raised on it, so no I wasn't joking, I was expressing a future concern, if you don't care about all the trash your country and mine create, that's ok, they do.

As for delivery, that same generation with the soon-to-be purchasing power has been raised downloading their songs, not albums, on iTunes or Amazon (for the legal ones anyways), purchasing their games the same way. Even when they purchase hard copies, it's still from Amazon. The concept of B&M is already dying a painful death when it comes to media. The step from there is rather small. Again, I don't care either way, I just can't see technological advancement being frozen by the need for junk materials.

Originally Posted by Nick The Slick

Bringing up 8k or other resolutions higher than 1080p further emphasizes the point I made in my earlier post. At that point, if I'm forced to download then HDD's better be as cheap as $1 per TB lol.

Well, that's fine Nick, it's not for tomorrow, but with better infrastructures in place, in time, and with hindsight many will laugh at our opposition as is always the case when new technology that changes important foundations. But to deny that it will happen is just plain ridiculous IMO. Now if someone really believes media will be hard-copy for ever, that's ok, I just don't see it.