Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

technical answer
the way encoding works is you have I-frames, p-frames and possibly b frames.

think of I-frames like a picture (like a jpg) it can be compressed but should try and represent the whole picture. when it is over compressed it will lose detail

p-frames stands for predicted frame and just records the changes to the preceding frame (plus, possibly, additional detail lost in the previous frame)

b-frames stand for bi directional predicted frame and is there for trick play (e.g. rewind) it is like the p frame but from both directions (i.e. these are the differences from the previous frame and these are the differences from the next one (so that when you go backwards the image can also be smoother)

why did I include the above? a simple picture in an I-frame will need less info then a more complex one, plus, even more importantly, if the frame is a p/b and there is almost no difference the p/b can be very small.

so the rate will depend on
a) what is happening on screen (can we do it in less bits)
b) variables inputted in the encoder (aka a ceiling on quality aka don't use more bits even though the picture needs it because the media can't afford it)

I think we will just stick with my answer, thanks!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by SCLee

Thanks. What, even in an animated film? Because that's what I'm watching.

that is especially true in animation, where laziness and costs can lead to less action on screen when it is not "needed".

when a real life person is talking there is a lot in his face that might change (a wrinkle here, a dimple there, a hair moved by the wind...…) in an animation they might just move the lips a bit or even not at all.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think we will just stick with my answer, thanks!

maybe, but if all we had are uncompressed I-frames nothing would matter and it would be a fixed bitrate and if all we had were I-frames then detail would matter but not action....

I feel it is important in understanding the why to get in that annoying technical discussion. It is also important in understanding picture quality (i.e. comparing a black scene is useless what you want to do is compare a high action/high detail scene)

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

maybe, but if all we had are uncompressed I-frames nothing would matter and it would be a fixed bitrate and if all we had were I-frames then detail would matter but not action....

I feel it is important in understanding the why to get in that annoying technical discussion. It is also important in understanding picture quality (i.e. comparing a black scene is useless what you want to do is compare a high action/high detail scene)

Oh yes, for sure. I was just joking Anthony.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Netflix began their streaming service in 2010. By that time all the mom and pop video rental stores were long gone. They perished because Hollywood set up a different model for DVD (ownership) than it did for VHS (rental).

Netflix began their streaming service in 2007.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...eaming-success

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think we will just stick with my answer, thanks!

I liked his explanation; it was both interesting and informative.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Netflix began their streaming service in 2007.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...eaming-success

Ok - still doesn't change my response.

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I don't know where you get that idea that I like shared accounts. I don't like shared accounts because you bring in more problems. You have to rely on the Shared Members to not change things on accounts. For this reason I never share accounts.

Nobody loves paying more for Movies and TV Shows, bargains are always in high demand. My Streaming is mostly in HD, and all I need for this Quality is 20Mbps Average. Very easy to accomplish with my set up, equipment, and Bandwidth. So I am set for the Streaming Future with FTTH and Hard Wired!

I have a different opinion about paying more for movies. Take for example this Tuesday as I will be paying $32.99 for the steel book version of 1917 as someone from Best Buy will bring it to my car. I have not seen the movie as the last time I went to the theater was 8 years ago. I only saw part of the trailer and avoided any spoilers other than everyone singing the movie’s praises. I will drive home, make a batch of popcorn, make a delicious cocktail, pop it into a system that outperforms the majority of commercial theaters, and get to experience a movie for the first time without any interruptions or thoughts of social distancing or wiping down any seats or armrests.

That experience is something I love, and keeps me supporting a hobby that has given me so much enjoyment over the years. It also supports the studios (which I have no problem doing) and retailers who stock discs for me to buy. I certainly enjoy a bargain, and buy several movies during BF sales and other time I see a good deal, but have no problem paying full price for something.

So when you say “Nobody loves paying more for movies”, you are simply wrong.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I liked his explanation; it was both interesting and informative.

You sadist!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Phillip c. Niethe

Physical media for life, the majority of people that I know who use streaming happen to mostly stream illegally, films that are in theatres along with their cheap Netflix and Hulu accounts and most the digital downloads they aquire are from people who give away their digital slips or sell them for a buck...I myself give away all my slips to a couple of people who can't afford to collect physical. I often wonder how many of those digital numbers vs physical media numbers are the people not actually spending a single cent. I prefer to finance the producers of the products that I purchase so they continue to produce more high quality products... Streaming and red box killed the rental brick stores and robbed hundreds of thousands of mom and pop businesses out of a job. Streaming should be illegal as it destroys the ability to draw income for hundreds of thousands and places it in the pockets of dozens

I agree with the first four words of your post.

Almost everyone that I know uses streaming to some degree and NONE are doing so illegally. While that is anecdotal, too, I do not believe that "most" people stream illegally as I have seen no sources that support your anecdote as being indicative of the majority of those who stream content. Your story suggests that most people who stream are thieves and I do not believe that without proof.

Subscription streaming's affordability alone deters much of the incentive to steal it. Combine that with account sharing, which is perfectly permissible under their terms of service, and there just isn't much reason to steal a $10 per month streaming service.

Illegal downloading is another matter. When people steal, they want to possess the file, not merely stream it.

As for the numbers being posted about digital vs. physical media, these are mostly revenue numbers and these come from the official sales of both digitally distributed content and physical media.

Yes, some people sell, or give away, the digital codes that come with their discs. These are not reflected in the digital revenue figures because they can not be tracked.

The same is true with the sale of used physical media. Sales of discs in pawn shops, ebay, yard sales, etc. likewise are not reflected in physical media sales. Further, some people sell, or give away, the extra disc in the combo packs that they buy the same as others do with the included digital codes.

The revenue numbers quoted here only reflect the sale of new product from official retail outlets. The secondary market is not included and is all but impossible to track.

Streaming also employs a lot of people; Netflix alone employs 8600 people full time and that number has doubled since 2016. Factor in the fact that video streaming uses 60% of the internet's bandwidth and it is not hard to envision how many jobs that creates just to provide and support the immense internet infrastructure needed to meet that demand.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...lix-employees/

Having worked in video rental stores, the majority of such jobs were part-time, minimum wage, and offered no benefits of any kind.

I strongly disagree that streaming should be illegal. A product, or a service, should stand or fall upon its merits, not be propped up by protectionism. Protectionism is a slippery slope that stymies progress anywhere that it rears its ugly head.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Ok - still doesn't change my response.

A post is stronger when it is factually correct, especially in its opening statement.

All of the "mom and pop" video rental stores were not gone by 2010, either; that is outright hyperbole. I still have some near me to this very day; you forget that there are people living in rural areas then as now.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Netflix began their streaming service in 2010. By that time all the mom and pop video rental stores were long gone. They perished because Hollywood set up a different model for DVD (ownership) than it did for VHS (rental).

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Ok - still doesn't change my response.

I am not sure what your point was.


in most big communities Mom & pop rental stores where killed by the big rental chains (like Blockbusters) but they still needed mom and pop to run and work at the place.

retail rental was killed /hurt by mail (like Netflix) and machines (like redbox)

[Vilya]

In 2011, a year after Lee claims that "mom and pop" video rental stores were killed off entirely, subscription streaming had not even broken $1 billion in revenue yet; it was just $993.57 million.

Video rental stores alone brought in $1.644 billion in 2011. Rental kiosks brought in another $1.663 billion. Physical disc by mail subscriptions brought in $2.366 billion. All totaled physical rentals earned $5.673 billion.

Video rental store revenue was in steep decline that year, down 28.82%, but it was far from gone. Subscription streaming on the other hand was just beginning to gain traction.

Source here:

https://www.degonline.org/portfolio_...inment-report/

This is why I dislike hyperbolic posts; they are almost always factually wrong. Such posts are also lazy as no effort was made in fact checking them.

[Phillip c. Niethe]

[QUOTE=Vilya;17457632]I agree with the first four words of your post.

Almost everyone that I know uses streaming to some degree and NONE are doing so illegally.[Quote]
I said: the people that "I" know, not the people you know

[Vilya]

[quote=Phillip c. Niethe;17457687][QUOTE=Vilya;17457632]I agree with the first four words of your post.

Almost everyone that I know uses streaming to some degree and NONE are doing so illegally.

I said: the people that "I" know, not the people you know

I amended my opening statement to reflect that your comment was anecdotal, but I still do not believe that your story is indicative of the majority of those who stream without a supporting citation. It does say something interesting about the people that you know, however.

[LordSummerIsle]

Physical media has been a niche since at least 2006. We'll be just fine.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Vilya

A post is stronger when it is factually correct, especially in its opening statement.

All of the "mom and pop" video rental stores were not gone by 2010, either; that is outright hyperbole. I still have some near me to this very day; you forget that there are people living in rural areas then as now.

Right! I forgot! With you anecdotal snippets are facts!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Right! I forgot! With you anecdotal snippets are facts!

I provide citations; where are yours? Where is your proof that all "mom and pop" video stores ceased to exist by 2010?

Would providing you the exact addresses of the rental stores near me satisfy you? These stores still exist and that is NOT an anecdote; it can be verified.

Every single thing in your post was wrong and you know it...now.

When I use an anecdote to illustrate something, I clearly label it as an anecdote. That is why the very word appears in my post when I offer one.

Our experiences are as much a part of our discussions as are the facts that we cite and I always differentiate between the two. I always provide the source for anything that I offer up as factual; you are often too lazy to do so instead expecting people to take your every word as the gospel.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by scwilli1

Physical media has been a niche since at least 2006. We'll be just fine.

IMHO, compared to the total home entertainment pay TV spend (cable, satellite, SVOD, AVOD) physical media has always been a niche product.

I agree, we will be just fine with physical media because it still brings in many millions of dollars every week.

[Phillip c. Niethe]

[quote=Vilya;17457704][quote=Phillip c. Niethe;17457687]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I agree with the first four words of your post.

Almost everyone that I know uses streaming to some degree and NONE are doing so illegally.

I amended my opening statement to reflect that your comment was anecdotal, but I still do not believe that your story is indicative of the majority of those who stream without a supporting citation. It does say something interesting about the people that you know, however.

Hahaa, I didn't say they were my friends. On a slightly lateral note, if Streaming services both legal and illegal were removed then rental stores would pop back up like weeds.