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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Current events aren't following your plan:

Both The Flash and Barbie are schedule to hit MAX in the fall. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny for October on Disney+. No scheduled disc announcement yet.

And how is that turning out? Is it a sustainable business? I say no.

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

The important thing with streamers, it must be cheap, A/V quality is of very little importance according to a recent survey (below).

That poster has some weird fascination with files being played from a server. IIRC his old Panasonic Blu-ray player will play certain file types from a server via UPnP (DLNA) and SMB.

[Show spoiler]

Regarding your picture, I do think it's funny (and sad) how little people care about how it looks/sounds.

I have a decent setup, nothing even remotely close to what some of you folks have in the way of a home theater. But when I show folks a 4K disc in my theater room with the surround going in complete darkness I always hear "This looks amazing" "My movies don't look this good", "What kind of TV is this". And I'm not saying this to toot my own horn, more that I don't think people know what they can have at home because they aren't aware of the difference in TVs and Streaming vs. Discs.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by RevolverOcelScott

Regarding your picture, I do think it's funny (and sad) how little people care about how it looks/sounds.

Has anything really changed all that much? For me, 1989 procured the letter boxed version of Blade Runner on LD for $19.99 ($49 in 2023) in a sale (list was $49.99, $123 in 2023). People I showed it to, “Yea, it looks and sounds good but $20 just for one title you must be crazy. It has big ugly black bars at the top and bottom. It has been on HBO and did not have those bars. I rented and copied to my SLP VHS and just don’t see that much difference plus it fills my screen”.

[RevolverOcelScott]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Has anything really changed all that much? For me, 1989 procured the letter boxed version of Blade Runner on LD for $19.99 ($49 in 2023) in a sale (list was $49.99, $123 in 2023). People I showed it to, “Yea, it looks and sounds good but $20 just for one title you must be crazy. It has big ugly black bars at the top and bottom. It has been on HBO and did not have those bars. I rented and copied to my SLP VHS and just don’t see that much difference plus it fills my screen”.

Haha, reminds me of when I worked at FYE in my college years. Every major DVD coming with fullscreen and widescreen releases. "But you get more picture with the fullscreen version, right?"

I tried to convert as many people at the register as possible...

[cheez avenger]

The first widescreen VHS film I ever bought was Pulp Fiction. I remember Sam Goody would let you reserve a copy for $5 and you'd have a copy ready on release day. I still remember getting out of school, waiting for the bus in the rain, and walking over to the mall and getting that VHS. I had missed it in theaters and it was all the rage. I was not working yet, so it would be a few more years before I upgraded to the CC LD of it for $149.99.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Worry not; our "banter" is actually a welcome diversion for me.

You're a case in a point. As frugal as you are, how much more would you be willing to pay per month, and per streaming service, to have streaming quality equal that of 4K discs? I bet that you wouldn't pay even a dollar more to get it and nor would most streaming customers like you.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

The important thing with streamers, it must be cheap, A/V quality is of very little importance according to a recent survey (below).

You guys have a Fascination for classifying Streamers as Cheap. We enjoy Movie watching too, and with my setup Streaming Quality is very good. I do have 100Mbps Symmetrical, and Streaming comes in Rock Solid. What do you guys think is the minimum setup for Quality HT Disc setup...be honest!

[deatheats]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It feels like watching (and hearing) them afresh. The Lost Boys took me back to happier times for example. I used to watch that film quite often on a worn out VHS tape. It looks and sounds fantastic.

I took my first trip to Santa Cruz earlier this year and as we pulled up to the boardwalk I had a sudden sense of Deja Vu…like I know I’ve been here before, later that day I realized why. Seen this movie a million times and never thought to ask where it was filmed.

Apparently there is a showing on the Boardwalk scheduled for September 8th.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by deatheats

I took my first trip to Santa Cruz earlier this year and as we pulled up to the boardwalk I had a sudden sense of Deja Vu…like I know I’ve been here before, later that day I realized why. Seen this movie a million times and never thought to ask where it was filmed.

Apparently there is a showing on the Boardwalk scheduled for September 8th.

That’s quite cool to be fair.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

with my setup Streaming Quality is very good.

What happened to it being "Fantastic!"? Did you finally get your vision corrected and now you can finally see streaming's limitations?

"Very good" is how I would describe streaming- if I was feeling charitable.

Originally Posted by alchav21

You guys have a Fascination for classifying Streamers as Cheap.

Once again you failed to answer the question put to you:

Originally Posted by Vilya

how much more would you be willing to pay per month, and per streaming service, to have streaming quality equal that of 4K discs?

Well, how much already? You insist that streamers aren't cheap; here's your chance to tell us exactly how much better quality is worth to you.

All you have to do is look at the chart that Wendell posted to see what people value most in a "tv service"...and it sure isn't audio/video quality. Here's that chart in plain view for you:



What's listed at the very top of the chart? Lookie there, it's: "Low Price", or "cheap", if you prefer. It's kinda the headline, too, hard to miss, really. Picture quality is way, way down the list coming in at 14th.

Originally Posted by alchav21

What do you guys think is the minimum setup for Quality HT Disc setup...be honest!

I never thought in terms of "minimums"- that's streamer talk. I always pursued the best that I could afford and never gave any thought to the least that I could get away with.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by RevolverOcelScott

Haha, reminds me of when I worked at FYE in my college years. Every major DVD coming with fullscreen and widescreen releases. "But you get more picture with the fullscreen version, right?"

I tried to convert as many people at the register as possible...

Even to this day, most people believe that their screen must be filled and that they are somehow being cheated if isn't. The concept of aspect ratios, and geometry in general, is entirely lost upon them.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Current events aren't following your plan:

Both The Flash and Barbie are schedule to hit MAX in the fall. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny for October on Disney+. No scheduled disc announcement yet.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

And how is that turning out? Is it a sustainable business? I say no.

For quite some time, it does seem like the studios have been trying to cut off their nose to spite their face.

They release movies on their own streaming services too soon after the theatrical window, in which case they are basically just giving them to their existing subscribers at no additional cost, which helps to negate any reason those people would have to buy the movie directly (whether that be physically or digitally), rent it directly through some service, or even license it out to another streamer where at least the studio would make money directly on that specific title.

Whether it be for a movie that flopped theatrically (like The Flash and Indy 5), where they could use all of the additional revenue they can get, or a movie that is doing extremely well theatrically, like Barbie, where they could ride that momentum to make even more revenue (and profit in the case of something like Barbie), but they would rather just essentially give it away for free (in the sense that many of the people subscribed likely still would be regardless of how soon many of these movies hit these services).



It does seem like they are learning their lesson a bit though. For The Flash and Indy 5 specifically, the amount of time between their theatrical runs and streaming availability (on the service owned by their respective studios) it longer than it has been previously. That could still be the case with Barbie, since "the fall" is a fairly wide time frame.

But it may not be enough. Even if the purchase options come out first in some of these instances, if the time frame between those and the releases on these streaming services isn't that huge, people may just wait. So the studios are doing a great job of discouraging people from spending money on their products.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I can’t wait for the Hellraiser: Quartet of Torment 4K boxset.

I am of the opinion that Hell is more fun to raise than it is to watch.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

For quite some time, it does seem like the studios have been trying to cut off their nose to spite their face.

They release movies on their own streaming services too soon after the theatrical window, in which case they are basically just giving them to their existing subscribers at no additional cost, which helps to negate any reason those people would have to buy the movie directly (whether that be physically or digitally), rent it directly through some service, or even license it out to another streamer where at least the studio would make money directly on that specific title.

Whether it be for a movie that flopped theatrically (like The Flash and Indy 5), where they could use all of the additional revenue they can get, or a movie that is doing extremely well theatrically, like Barbie, where they could ride that momentum to make even more revenue (and profit in the case of something like Barbie), but they would rather just essentially give it away for free (in the sense that many of the people subscribed likely still would be regardless of how soon many of these movies hit these services).



It does seem like they are learning their lesson a bit though. For The Flash and Indy 5 specifically, the amount of time between their theatrical runs and streaming availability (on the service owned by their respective studios) it longer than it has been previously. That could still be the case with Barbie, since "the fall" is a fairly wide time frame.

But it may not be enough. Even if the purchase options come out first in some of these instances, if the time frame between those and the releases on these streaming services isn't that huge, people may just wait. So the studios are doing a great job of discouraging people from spending money on their products.

It’s a total mess, add the strike to the bonfire and a few studios will be burning.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am of the opinion that Hell is more fun to raise than it is to watch.

You know you want to order the boxset! Or am I just playing Devil’s advocate!

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

For quite some time, it does seem like the studios have been trying to cut off their nose to spite their face.

They release movies on their own streaming services too soon after the theatrical window, in which case they are basically just giving them to their existing subscribers at no additional cost, which helps to negate any reason those people would have to buy the movie directly (whether that be physically or digitally), rent it directly through some service, or even license it out to another streamer where at least the studio would make money directly on that specific title.

Whether it be for a movie that flopped theatrically (like The Flash and Indy 5), where they could use all of the additional revenue they can get, or a movie that is doing extremely well theatrically, like Barbie, where they could ride that momentum to make even more revenue (and profit in the case of something like Barbie), but they would rather just essentially give it away for free (in the sense that many of the people subscribed likely still would be regardless of how soon many of these movies hit these services).



It does seem like they are learning their lesson a bit though. For The Flash and Indy 5 specifically, the amount of time between their theatrical runs and streaming availability (on the service owned by their respective studios) it longer than it has been previously. That could still be the case with Barbie, since "the fall" is a fairly wide time frame.

But it may not be enough. Even if the purchase options come out first in some of these instances, if the time frame between those and the releases on these streaming services isn't that huge, people may just wait. So the studios are doing a great job of discouraging people from spending money on their products.

You are not understanding the issue at hand for streaming: CHURN. They have to keep their subscribers. If there's nothing new to watch they will cancel. How do they attract new subscribers? With recent theatrical movies and made for their service TV shows.

It's not about making additional money. It's all about keeping the money you are getting and adding to it.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You are not understanding the issue at hand for streaming: CHURN. They have to keep their subscribers. If there's nothing new to watch they will cancel. How do they attract new subscribers? With recent theatrical movies and made for their service TV shows.

It's not about making additional money. It's all about keeping the money you are getting and adding to it.

I understand that they want to keep subscribers. But churn is happening anyway. And they are sacrificing other profitable revenue streams in favor of one that has been highly unprofitable.


Even if they don't want to license out their best content (i.e. newer movies) to other streaming services, they could still wait longer between other home release options (sales and rentals) and then putting it up on their own streaming service. That way the titles would still ultimately be exclusive to their service, they would be able to get money from the other streams, and if it's just a matter of waiting (just to pick a number) 6 months after each movie is in the theater to go on their own service, it would ultimately result in that content being added in consistent intervals. It would just be more delayed compared to what the case currently is.

The people who like that particular studio's films will continue subscribing, especially if they prefer having a streaming service with a lot of content for one monthly cost, and don't want to pay to watch those movies individually anyway.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

It's not about making additional money. It's all about keeping the money you are getting and adding to it.

If I add money to the money that I am keeping aren't I making "additional money?"

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You know you want to order the boxset! Or am I just playing Devil’s advocate!

Try not to be the devil's plaything.

I never saw 3 or 4, so I am kinda about the set at the moment. I would be more likely to get 1 & 2 by themselves, if available, unless the price is really tempting for the whole set and/or I discover that I like 3 & 4.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I never thought in terms of "minimums"- that's streamer talk. I always pursued the best that I could afford and never gave any thought to the least that I could get away with.

For me it has always been what is desired, cost and design process. Sometimes the desired cost way more than we had so I traded my time for dollars. For example, in the early 80's Fosgate (Tate) had a audio processor that I really wanted but did not have the dollars for one so I designed and constructed my own. I used a Bucket-brigade device (here) for the Dolby Surround delay and in a pseudo-stereo generator (mono to pseudo stereo). No remote control and two volume controls to set but by doggie, I had a for real surround setup for movies.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Try not to be the devil's plaything.

I never saw 3 or 4, so I am kinda about the set at the moment. I would be more likely to get 1 & 2 by themselves, if available, unless the price is really tempting for the whole set and/or I discover that I like 3 & 4.

I think you will buy it!