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

[f451]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

"Dead" from a business standpoint doesn't necessarily mean "absolutely doesn't exist at all anymore". I can still find a store that sells typewriters. Are typewriters dead? I would say yes.

If you look at the share of 3D titles, it's negligible. In the U.S., the week of April 18th, the 3D title with the highest share was Aquaman with a share of 0.57%. Only four 3D titles were listed that week because sales below that were so small, but the average of those four titles was a share of just 0.22%.

The week of 4/4/20, the #1 3D title was Suicide Squad with a 0.19% share and an average share for the top 5 titles of just 0.12%.

And as others have pointed out, new TV's don't support 3D.

So is 3D still available? Sure. But it's just a niche of a niche. There's nothing wrong with niches. Some of the highest quality products are niches.

IMO, a number of strategic mistakes were made with the development and marketing of 3D. The TV's should have waited for passive 3D. The first time I saw passive 3D on a standard monitor using theatrical RealD glasses, I was amazed how great it looked. Glasses should have been compatible with any TV. And it was a mistake to issue films that were (badly) post converted to 3D and then charge extra for them at theaters. I understand why theaters charged more because they had to invest in the glasses and the cleaning of the glasses, but it caused a lot of negativity and bad 3D turned off a lot of people as well as the fact that theatrical 3D was generally very dim.

So while 3D might not be absolutely dead, it's certainly in its death throes. But for those who want their 3D, considering how low the unit sales are, it's quite nice of the studios to still issue 3D titles.

That sums up the situation nicely. Back in the day when I was looking to buy our first flat screen tv, I noted a display in our local Best Buy. On one side was a LG active 3D set and on the other a LG passive 3D set. I found the active glasses were clunky and blinky. The passive were light and right. I bought the passive and acquired the 3D films that I had previously enjoyed in IMAX 3D. I find passive 3D the way to go -- light and comfortable and enjoyable.

Since my initial LG purchase, I had the power board replaced once. When it finally died and replacement arts were no longer available, I found a used LG OLED 3D to replace it. OLED is fabulous! I hope I can find a C7 or E7 at some point to replace it when its time comes.

I wish manufacturers had left in the 3D option in the 4K specs. From what I've read, 3D on OLED 4K looks stunning -- made for each other. If only Samsung would make a mini-LED 3D tv ...

Theatrically, 3D was/is racked by poor RealD presentations. I tried a few different RealD theaters and uniformly the presentations are dark. At the last one I tried, all of The Black Panther was dark -- that includes the brilliant daylight scenes. After that, I've never bothered with RealD -- good concept, lousy execution. YMMV.

IMAX 3D was/is dazzling and worth the extra charge.

Poor post-conversion is simply poor and didn't/doesn't give the audience a sense of real 3D. The 1953 It Came from Outer Space has better 3D than most contemporary post-conversions.

Matters weren't helped any by lackluster films combined with poor post conversion.

I find good 3D enhances my appreciation of a film -- along with good story, acting, direction, music, cinematography, etc. While my idea of viewing quality 3D films may be a niche, it's an enjoyable one.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Do you plan to procure a ATSC 3.0 tuner?

In a perfect world eventually a PVR. But for now

1) I have not seen any plans for ATSC 3.0 in Canada.
2) Burlington, VT – Plattsburgh, N.Y. falls in Additional TV markets (not 40 initial markets)

I will need to wait and see what is available in 2-3 years n this front. (channels and equipment)

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by f451

I wish manufacturers had left in the 3D option in the 4K specs. From what I've read, 3D on OLED 4K looks stunning -- made for each other. If only Samsung would make a mini-LED 3D tv ....

Its the SoC vendors that removed this functionality from their integrated device, with all 2017 TV sets being devoid of it. Don't know very many TV vendors that own those vendors. Example is MediaTek that makes these for smart phones, TV's, BD players.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

In a perfect world eventually a PVR. But for now

1) I have not seen any plans for ATSC 3.0 in Canada.
2) Burlington, VT – Plattsburgh, N.Y. falls in Additional TV markets (not 40 initial markets)

I will need to wait and see what is available in 2-3 years n this front. (channels and equipment)

Canada has some involvement with this. Example.

Yiyan Wu, a scientist at Canada’s Communications Research Centre who has been heavily involved in the development of ATSC 3.0, added another factor in the signal’s potential versatility “ATSC 3.0’s OFDM modulation has a longer guard interval [than 1.0’s] and this provides more protection,” said Wu. “ATSC 1.0 uses variable equalization, and the longest echo that it can handle is about 64 microseconds. ATSC 3.0 can handle 150 microseconds. Longer echo means that your power can push out further. The longer the guard interval, the less transmission power you need.”

Impact of ATSC 3.0 on Canadians getting USA reception - TV Fool forum

You're assuming it becomes mainstream, but my opinion is that it will be "probably not too much" if and when it happens..

You'll likely need to worry a great deal more about the effects of the on-going repack as the assigned channels get shuffled around on both sides of the border. Co-channel and adjacent channel interference are probably going to be the limiting factors as there will about the same number of stations crammed into a much smaller section of RF real estate.

US broadcasters, in order to transition to ATSC 3.0, will have to channel share with an existing licensed facility My guess is that this will have to happen on both the ATSC 1 and the ATSC 3 sides of the equation. They will be required to maintain an ATSC 1 signal, whether on their own licensed signal or would have to share with another licensed station (on that station's ATSC 1 signal) in order to free up their own signal to carry ATSC 3. I'd expect to see several (2-3, perhaps) stations in an area share one station's signal for ATSC while the ATSC 1 signals get shared on others. I'd be very surprised to ever see the Canadian broadcasters make the move to ATSC 3.0.

You will most certainly lose the ability to receive some if not many of those fabulous Buffalo,
NY stations. Perhaps you might want to contact Canadian Broadcasters and
ask them why they do not carry worthwhile programming. I've not understood why
Canadian Broadcasters do not often use their available sub-channels. For example,
why is CTV-2 not carried as a sub-channel of CFTO rather than a UHF stand alone
signal??? You'll have to get by with reruns of Red Greene or Coronation Street!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Canada has some involvement with this. Example.

what I meant was deployment plans. No use buying a tuner, new Tv with tuner or PVR if there are no channels in the area. And not that that Canadians did not help create this new standard or the CRTTC has not talked with networks...

A big issue IMHO for OTA aficionados here is the reality of OTA channels

Videotron owns TVA (French) a bunch of specialty channels and cable

Bell owns CTV(CTV-2) and V(French) a bunch of specialty stations and fiber TV / satellite

Rogers owns cityTV a bunch of speciality stations and cable

Shaw owns globalTV a bunch of speciality channels and

there is also

CBC/SRC (French) public/Canada also has speciality channels

and here in the Montreal area

tele-Quebec(French) public Quebec
savoir (French) university station
ici (ethnic) independent


when you look at the bold part, the major OTA networks they are part of conglomerates that comprise BDUs (cable, sat, fiber) and speciality channels (only available on BDUs and where people pay extra for them)

so there will never be a push by the channels themselves to making OTA better.

I've not understood why Canadian Broadcasters do not often use their available sub-channels. For example, why is CTV-2 not carried as a sub-channel of CFTO rather than a UHF stand alone signal???

I know that was you quoting someone else. But since you quoted and bolded that part I will explain it.

I know what I will say next goes counter to reality, my rant above and what the quote above appears to be saying.


According to CRTC rules sub channels are allowed but

1) content shown on the subchannel has to belong to the broadcaster
2) in order to limit concentration a broadcaster is not allowed to own more than one "channel" in a given market.

so except for global that for a time being was showing the same stuff in HD 16:9 and SD 4:3 for a short time on the two sub channels using a sub channel for different programming is legally impossible.

Now as for the apparent contradiction (why is there CTV and CTV-2) CTV-2 used to be a different network called /A\ (mostly in Alberta) since /A\ was mostly in different markets from CTVs bought by CTVglobemedia the CRTC decided since they were mostly in different markets they were allowed to buy them. There is also a bit of a game being played for example Ottawa has both CTV and CTV-2 but CTV is in Ottawa proper while CTV-2 is in Pembroke, so even though the same person in Ottawa is watching both the CRTC to look at as if they are two different markets and allow both to keep operating.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

According to CRTC rules sub channels are allowed but1) content shown on the subchannel has to belong to the broadcaster
2) in order to limit concentration a broadcaster is not allowed to own more than one "channel" in a given market.

We just did our 4/29 local transition.

Many over-the-air TV channels across the U.S. will be changing frequencies to help open up airwaves for new high-speed wireless services.

I had enough with the current FCC management that bends over backwards to cell telecoms. They need to combine their frequencies and remove half of those businesses from our marketplace.

But it shows in the USA we do not play this same game of broadcasters have rights to a channel. They share sub channels with other broadcasters. Please look at this OTA broadcast for Palo Alto, CA.

Do you see how much Canada needs to modify their broadcast kingdoms to make way for progress? ATSC 3.0 could have dozens of 720P channels in one channel bandwidth as a example. .

[Lee A Stewart]

Pro AV, CE and leisure sectors set to lose $120 billion due to COVID-19 pandemic

Upwards of $120 billion could be wiped off the combined retail value of consumer electronics, Pro AV and entertainment content sectors this year by the COVID-19 outbreak, say experts.

Social lockdowns, plus interruptions to supply and manufacturing chains, are exerting massive force downwards, says Simon Bryant, Director of Research at Futuresource Consulting. But each sector is finding itself under slightly different pressures.

A new report from Futuresource suggests that while digital video and streaming services could see growth of 200 per cent over pre COVID-19 forecasts, total consumer spend on video, TV, music and games is expected to decline by 1 per cent this year due to declines in Pay-TV, Box Office and packaged media.

Lockdown could even hasten the demise of physical media, suggests GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company, as consumers migrate en masse to streaming sites.

http://www.insideci.co.uk/articles/p...-pandemic.aspx

[Lee A Stewart]

NBCUniversal Expects More Digital Releases

https://www.widescreenreview.com/new...l.php?id=22348

[Lee A Stewart]

NPD: Blu-ray Player And DVD Sales Jump In Pandemic

Sales of DVD and Blu-Ray players were both up 27% in unit sales for the week ended April 18 compared to the same week last year, according to data from the NPD Group.

“Sales are up as consumers stay at home and look for multiple forms of entertainment,” said NPD analyst Stephen Baker. “These include DVDs and Blu-ray discs to entertain children while their parents are working, backup access devices if Internet access is challenged by streaming, or simply the consumers’ realization that they may need a physical disc player as an alternative to streaming and either they didn’t already have one or the one they do have needs an upgrade.”

Meanwhile, streaming player sales jumped 42%.

Overall, NPD tracked U.S. Consumer Tech sales increased 23% year-over-year (29% week-over-week) during the week ending April 18 to nearly $1.8 billion. This topped the 21% increase tracked during the week ending March 21 sales spike.

“We saw broad-based increases across almost all categories, unlike in March, when the work-from-home categories dominated,” Baker said.

https://www.widescreenreview.com/new...l.php?id=22346

[cheez avenger]

It's expected. People are at home, so they want even more convenience in digital items. Since physical media is not an essential item, digital HD's and streams, are instant. Makes sense.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by cheez avenger

It's expected. People are at home, so they want even more convenience in digital items. Since physical media is not an essential item, digital HD's and streams, are instant. Makes sense.

Excuse me for critiquing this statement, but even during the pandemic people are still able to order online, pick up for a store. Nobody is monitoring what someone plays using a player, but they do keep a record of everything you stream. I stream too, but these consumption metrics don’t track everything.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Please see this map of current ATSC 3.0 status.

As for built-in tuners inside TVs, some models released this summer and onward will incorporate ATSC 3.0 tuners.
Given South Korea's recent history it will come faster then you think, the map shows their coverage.

Thanks for the link, but the problem with that site is that while it lists markets, it doesn't list which or how many stations in the market are electing to go ATSC 3.0. It lists New York, but it maybe it's just one station. And there's no timeline. These things can take forever (in the U.S.) The OTA repack still hasn't been totally completed. And ATSC 3.0 can become a chicken and egg situation, much like the additional OTA channels, most of which are not carried by the cable and satellite companies and as a result, have garbage programming.

ATSC 3.0 has a lot of interesting capabilities and I've attended a few SMPTE meetings about it over the last few years, but the question is whether anyone will care. When people watch sporting events, do they really want to be able to listen to different announcers? Even though people complain all the time that they can't hear dialog, will they bother to use the controls that will enable them to increase levels on the center channel? Will they care about second screen apps? That was a hot topic a few years ago and it crashed with a thud. While it supports multiple languages, will the content providers make use of it? Etc.

It also has capabilities regarding customized advertising capabilities, which advertising agencies might love, but consumers won't care and might even resent because it involves tracking and identifying people, maybe not individually, but according to certain attributes (like showing a sports car ad to younger people and a medicine ad to older people at the same time).

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Excuse me for critiquing this statement, but even during the pandemic people are still able to order online, pick up for a store. Nobody is monitoring what someone plays using a player, but they do keep a record of everything you stream. I stream too, but these consumption metrics don’t track everything.

I think the Distribution Model is changing, people can purchase new content instantly and view it, they don't have to go to a store or wait for an online order. The Studios see this as another revenue option. Now we will have to see how Studios use this, because Theaters and Discs still make money but cost will play a big role in their future.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I think the Distribution Model is changing, people can purchase new content instantly and view it, they don't have to go to a store or wait for an online order. The Studios see this as another revenue option. Now we will have to see how Studios use this, because Theaters and Discs still make money but cost will play a big role in their future.

We are all watching this play out.

Streaming for the majority of consumers is a supplement to what they regularly utilize (broadcast/cable/satellite). But it’s still for most purposes a experiment to whether is financially stable in the long term. It’s not itself making a lot of revenue for the hosts as they spend more and more to attract users. Now studios have a choice of limit time leases to hosts, or to retract content from hosts, and make their own streaming services to maximize revenue. Even if you select Disney it’s their theatre revenue that primary with film, with media being less profitable as you mentioned, but the streaming with all those subscribers is still not balancing anyone’s accounting books.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

We are all watching this play out.

Streaming for the majority of consumers is a supplement to what they regularly utilize (broadcast/cable/satellite). But it’s still for most purposes a experiment to whether is financially stable in the long term. It’s not itself making a lot of revenue for the hosts as they spend more and more to attract users. Now studios have a choice of limit time leases to hosts, or to retract content from hosts, and make their own streaming services to maximize revenue. Even if you select Disney it’s their theatre revenue that primary with film, with media being less profitable as you mentioned, but the streaming with all those subscribers is still not balancing anyone’s accounting books.

Disney Plus already has 50 million subscribers around the world, even though it only launched 5 months ago

So @ $6.99 per subscriber rounded off that's $4.2 Billion per year. 5 months ago Disney had zero revenue from streaming other than what it leased out to Netflix. Where will their subscriber count be 5 months from now?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

So @ $6.99 per subscriber rounded off that's $4.2 Billion per year. 5 months ago Disney had zero revenue from streaming other than what it leased out to Netflix. Where will their subscriber count be 5 months from now?

Do people alway think more subscribers pays for expansion and going international?

The direct-to-consumer business that includes Disney Plus posted revenue of $4 billion, up from $918 million a year ago, while its operating loss widened to $693 million from $136 million.

We'll see how it is doing at the end of this quarter - that was early feb. They were hoping to be profitable by 2024.

Added
Netflix Is The Modern-Day Blockbuster

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Do people alway think more subscribers pays for expansion and going international?

I would think so or else they wouldn't do it right? Disney will take USA only HULU international next year.

We'll see how it is doing at the end of this quarter - that was early feb. They were hoping to be profitable by 2024.

The numbers you are quoting are from Feb. 4 when Disney said they had 29 million subs. Disney also originally said it would take until 2022 to hit 50 million subs - they did that in 5 months

I would imagine startup costs for a brand new streaming service could be very high.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I would think so or else they wouldn't do it right? Disney will take USA only HULU international next year.



The numbers you are quoting are from Feb. 4 when Disney said they had 29 million subs. Disney also originally said it would take until 2022 to hit 50 million subs - they did that in 5 months

I would imagine startup costs for a brand new streaming service could be very high.

These are interesting comparing Disney to Netflix

I was hoping that Netflix earned Money in creative ways, but they don't really. No selling user data and like. Purely relying on massive amounts of subscribers.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

These are interesting comparing Disney to Netflix

I was hoping that Netflix earned Money in creative ways, but they don't really. No selling user data and like. Purely relying on massive amounts of subscribers.

Netflix IMO is between a rock and a hard place. As the Media Giants birth their own streaming services Netflix is dependent on buying and creating new, original content - a very expensive hit or miss proposition. For every TIGER KING they probably have a dozen shows that never rise anywhere near the top. Lots of complaints about how long it takes to get another season added especially to hits.

I see Universal is still leasing them content (BACK TO THE FUTURE films) but said content is old and "worn out."

Netflix is a one horse company. They put all their money in a single basket. Yes the pandemic is helping them, and other streamers but what will Netflix look like 3 months from now when severe S-I-P restrictions are lifted?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Pro AV, CE and leisure sectors set to lose $120 billion due to COVID-19 pandemic



http://www.insideci.co.uk/articles/p...-pandemic.aspx

Clickety click. So DVD and BluRay player sales are up but people might migrate to Streaming? Nothing to do with disc deliveries being all over the place and stores shut.