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

[squatting hen]

Originally Posted by darkknightman

Digital definitely needs to change so that wherever you buy a movie, you have it on several services like DMA. The way it is now is the equivalent of having to own different dvd players to play different movies. That has to change. It will also bring about competition among the digital storefronts.

As has been mentioned before, this is exactly what UV was created to do. Have one locker with the ability to connect to numerous services. Everyone was invited to join....

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

It shocks me that the digital supporters can watch a movie in 25% of the quality of a blu ray disc. Sure I understand that most people think its "good enough" but the differences are very profound. I watched Rogue One on blu ray last night and the bit rate was nearly 40 mbps. The streamed version is what? 10mbps? For old movies- you can't tell much of a difference on disc because an old movie is still going to look like an old movie.

In fact, many brand new movies are much easier to compress than older ones because they tend to have a cleaner picture with less grain and noise (which are notoriously hard to compress due to the high entropy). This is mostly due to modern digital shooting techniques and, for movies such as Rogue One, due to the fact that a lot of what you see on the screen is computer-generated. Such movies can look indistinguishable from the Blu-ray at a lower bitrate.

[cpr3584]

ill have to check the quality again but im watching on a 65 inch samsung 1080p TV. I am running a wireless connection to my Xbox One. There are major differences in quality- the stream looks a little washed out in color and looks like 720p. It looked the same in my old house when i was running a wired connection.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

In fact, many brand new movies are much easier to compress than older ones because they tend to have a cleaner picture with less grain and noise (which are notoriously hard to compress due to the high entropy). This is mostly due to modern digital shooting techniques and, for movies such as Rogue One, due to the fact that a lot of what you see on the screen is computer-generated. Such movies can look indistinguishable from the Blu-ray at a lower bitrate.

Bull.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

ill have to check the quality again but im watching on a 65 inch samsung 1080p TV. I am running a wireless connection to my Xbox One. There are major differences in quality- the stream looks a little washed out in color and looks like 720p. It looked the same in my old house when i was running a wired connection.

They will see what they want to see.

[cpr3584]

thats what i think. The bit rates dont lie. More information to the screen means brighter colors, sharper picture, better sound- plain and simple.

[Dustin44]

I am not concerned about bit rates.

I watch a lot of movies on Vudu and the quality is good enough for me.

[cpr3584]

I am. Why pay the same amount for an inferior product? Until streaming quality can match disc, i'll stick with discs- especially for big blockbusters.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

thats what i think. The bit rates dont lie. More information to the screen means brighter colors, sharper picture, better sound- plain and simple.

Exactly. It's always justification. People have sold out I feel. Plus, I hear some guys in the U.S view from 10 feet or more. Here, in the U.K, our living rooms are a bit smaller. I would say we are around 6-7 feet from our big screen in general. The artefacts that are obvious to me may not be at 10 feet. It's a bit like DVD, if you get close to the screen, artefacts are very obvious.

I find it soul destroying that so many people don't seek out the best A/V. So called movie lovers.

[Dustin44]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

I am.

That's fine. I know some want the absolute best quality possible and won't settle for anything less.

Originally Posted by cpr3584

Why pay the same amount for an inferior product?

The majority of my Vudu collection was by D2D which cost me a $1 or $2 for each movie in HDX.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I find it soul destroying that so many people don't seek out the best A/V. So called movie lovers.

You seem to be very passionate about movies. (I see you are a big horror fan, and I am too)

But you worry way too much. Just enjoy watching the movies you have.

Anyway, that's my last post in this topic, just enjoy your movies.

[wolfpackTri]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Exactly. It's always justification. People have sold out I feel. Plus, I hear some guys in the U.S view from 10 feet or more. Here, in the U.K, our living rooms are a bit smaller. I would say we are around 6-7 feet from our big screen in general. The artefacts that are obvious to me may not be at 10 feet. It's a bit like DVD, if you get close to the screen, artefacts are very obvious.

I find it soul destroying that so many people don't seek out the best A/V. So called movie lovers.

You can love movies without being obsessed about a perfect image and sound.

It's a movie. There is more to life.

[PCFan]

Well I'm in the process of selling most of my blu-rays. I'm sticking with iTunes on my Apple TV. I already built up a decent size movie library through iTunes. HD iTunes codes are cheap and iTunes has been getting frequent sales. It's good for me that their are some people still buying blu-rays with digital codes and selling their codes. If it weren't for cheap digital codes, I don't think I would have gone digital. Not all my digital iTunes movies come from codes. About half of them come from the frequent sales iTunes has. It's cheaper in the long run for me going digital. I just can't see myself going back to physical media.

[darkknightman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Exactly. It's always justification. People have sold out I feel. Plus, I hear some guys in the U.S view from 10 feet or more. Here, in the U.K, our living rooms are a bit smaller. I would say we are around 6-7 feet from our big screen in general. The artefacts that are obvious to me may not be at 10 feet. It's a bit like DVD, if you get close to the screen, artefacts are very obvious.

I find it soul destroying that so many people don't seek out the best A/V. So called movie lovers.

Once again, those of us that stream movies do not love film as much as Steed. Dude, you need therapy. I love movies just as much as anyone else. Stop with this BS already. It's irritating.

[darkknightman]

Originally Posted by PCFan

Well I'm in the process of selling most of my blu-rays. I'm sticking with iTunes on my Apple TV. I already built up a decent size movie library through iTunes. HD iTunes codes are cheap and iTunes has been getting frequent sales. It's good for me that their are some people still buying blu-rays with digital codes and selling their codes. If it weren't for cheap digital codes, I don't think I would have gone digital. Not all my digital iTunes movies come from codes. About half of them come from the frequent sales iTunes has. It's cheaper in the long run for me going digital. I just can't see myself going back to physical media.

I have already sold off pretty much everything. I am quite happy with digital. But we don't love movies that much I guess.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Bull.

Right back at you, pal.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by cpr3584

ill have to check the quality again but im watching on a 65 inch samsung 1080p TV. I am running a wireless connection to my Xbox One. There are major differences in quality- the stream looks a little washed out in color and looks like 720p. It looked the same in my old house when i was running a wired connection.

Which service did you use?

You can easily test yourself what I wrote above. Take a video encoder that has a constant quality mode (such as Handbrake/ffmpeg), and encode a modern digitally shot movie and an older movie shot on film with grain at the same quality setting. Very likely the encoder will produce a significantly smaller file when encoding the new movie.

thats what i think. The bit rates dont lie. More information to the screen means brighter colors, sharper picture, better sound- plain and simple.

Of course the bitrate plays a role, but there is a point of diminishing returns (which depends on the material being encoded) where the differences get very small, especially on relatively small TV screens like 65" viewed from typical living room distances (large projection screens can be more revealing). Modern codecs and improving encoder implementations keep reducing the bitrate required for good image quality.

[master gandhi]

I wouldn't say I choose digital because it's cheaper. It's nice that it's generally cheaper, but I just find digital to be more efficient than disc.

If it weren't for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 getting a 4K/3D combo exclusive at Best Buy, I'd very likely have purchased it on digital on August 8th instead of waiting an extra two weeks.

I also waited for the Rogue One 3D-exclusive at Target earlier this year. If the physical version can offer more than the digital version (besides higher bitrates), I'm prone to going with the physical version.

It depends on the movie, though. I got Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad on iTunes the day they came out because I wanted to see their extended cuts more than I wanted 3D or 4K.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

Which service did you use?

You can easily test yourself what I wrote above. Take a video encoder that has a constant quality mode (such as Handbrake/ffmpeg), and encode a modern digitally shot movie and an older movie shot on film with grain at the same quality setting. Very likely the encoder will produce a significantly smaller file when encoding the new movie.
Of course the bitrate plays a role, but there is a point of diminishing returns (which depends on the material being encoded) where the differences get very small, especially on relatively small TV screens like 65" viewed from typical living room distances (large projection screens can be more revealing). Modern codecs and improving encoder implementations keep reducing the bitrate required for good image quality.

Isn't that like cracking a fine China cup and spinning it around to hide the damage. It's there you just can't see it.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Isn't that like cracking a fine China cup and spinning it around to hide the damage. It's there you just can't see it.

That's what perceptual encoding is all about. And guess what: It affects Blu-rays as well. There are plenty of BDs with obvious encoding artifacts if you know where to look.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Isn't that like cracking a fine China cup and spinning it around to hide the damage. It's there you just can't see it.

No, it's like the Retina Display on Apple products. If the resolution was any higher, it would still look about the same to the naked eye. So all these phones/tablets advertising that they're 4K is pretty much overkill.

On a 65" TV, well-encoded Digital HD download/stream and a well-produced Blu-ray might look about the same overall. Sure, you could nitpick the differences in screenshots, but during playback, the naked eye generally won't tell the difference.