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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by whipnet

Hey guys, sorry if this has already been answered here, but can someone tell me which is better.... Physical Copies or Digital?

Thanks

I am going shopping later today; I will be sure to ask a few random customers. Five of them should be enough. We will know conclusively then.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by whipnet

Hey guys, sorry if this has already been answered here, but can someone tell me which is better.... Physical Copies or Digital?

Thanks

Jury’s still out. Nobody here has an opinion about it.

[irighti]

it is fine for a debate, but people getting angry or defensive on either side are silly.

let us just appreciate that we have access to films in so many different ways now. I do get a little kick when people are so sure one side is right, etc.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by WestMan

Streaming services are going to hurt digital more than physical. People who want ownership will still crave a tangible product.

The next 5 years will give everyone a good picture of how the music and movie industries will be. Right now both are experiencing growth in streaming. When that growth ends, a clearer picture will emerge.

Originally Posted by irighti

it is fine for a debate, but people getting angry or defensive on either side are silly.

let us just appreciate that we have access to films in so many different ways now. I do get a little kick when people are so sure one side is right, etc.

You're right it's a good debate, but people should not take it personal. I think the Digital side is a little more lenient, because they see the merits in Discs. The only draw back I see is ownership, but how many Movies do you really want to own. Probably for these expensive Physical Discs or Digital Media Server.

[slimdude]

Physical media will always outweigh digital! There is no comparison, especially the audio. Digital is limited to lossy 5.1, why the discs are capable to 9.1 and beyond. Digital is also compressed, not to mentioned the required storage space on your hard drive to accommodate a large collection of digital movies.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Physical media will always outweigh digital! There is no comparison, especially the audio. Digital is limited to lossy 5.1, why the discs are capable to 9.1 and beyond.

That is not accurate. Vudu and iTunes both support 7.1 channels, and Vudu also supports Dolby Atmos (which can take advantage of 9.1 or even higher speaker configurations).

Digital is also compressed

The video on Blu-rays is also compressed, and many have visible artifacts.

not to mentioned the required storage space on your hard drive to accommodate a large collection of digital movies.

Beats the required storage space on your shelf to accomodate a large collection of physical movies.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You're right it's a good debate, but people should not take it personal. I think the Digital side is a little more lenient, because they see the merits in Discs. The only draw back I see is ownership, but how many Movies do you really want to own. Probably for these expensive Physical Discs or Digital Media Server.

So because you don't want to own a bunch of movies (which is your choice), that means that is shouldn't be a priority for anyone else? You shirk this issue off as if it's some minor, petty detail. All while toting the benefits of digital, and insisting that people move and/or lobby their local government and service providers for improve infrastructure, because somehow from your twisted view point that is somehow more logical and reasonable than walking a few feet across the room and putting a disc in the machine.

There are some people on both sides who are more lenient than others. And while that does include several people on the digital side, you most certainly are not one of them, especially with your constant condescending "disc lovers" comments and the like.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

The video on Blu-rays is also compressed, and many have visible artifacts.

Yes, but generally it is not as compressed as digitally distributed movies, so it is still "the lesser of two evils" in that sense.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

The video on Blu-rays is also compressed, and many have visible artifacts.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Yes, but generally it is not as compressed as digitally distributed movies, so it is still "the lesser of two evils" in that sense.

You're quick to put Digital down, Providers have come a long way and the Bitrates have been going up to produce Disc Like Quality. Have you tried Sony Ultra with a properly set up Sony UHD TV? The Picture and Sound Quality is Amazing.....4K UHD+HDR!

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You're quick to put Digital down, Providers have come a long way and the Bitrates have been going up to produce Disc Like Quality. Have you tried Sony Ultra with a properly set up Sony UHD TV? The Picture and Sound Quality is Amazing.....4K UHD+HDR!

Until it actually matches or surpasses the quality of the 4K disc equivalent in all respects, then the disc is still the "lesser evil" in that regard, period. And even when/if that happens, the ownership issue will still be a huge factor.

[Vilya]

After it was suggested that I get out more and talk to people, I did just that! I completed my highly scientific survey of five random shoppers at my local Super Walmart tonight asking them whipnet's question: Physical or Digital? and 4 out of 5 of them prefer... turtles!

[Show spoiler]This is a reference to whipnet's earlier post, page 345 post #6881

While there, I counted every title that was offered in the form of a digital download card, both at the front checkouts and in the video section of the electronics department and my Super Walmart carried exactly 5 digital download titles in one of the biggliest sections I have yet seen.

I rewarded myself for doing this in depth and painstaking research by buying two movies, one a 4K UHD disc and the other a blu-ray disc. There were 3 dozen 4K disc titles there to choose from, a slightly bigglier section than the digital download one. No need to mention the two full aisles of blu-rays or the one aisle of compact discs.

This Super Walmart was located in a major city with a population of 26,000, so these observations extrapolate perfectly to encompass the entire known galaxy.

[Wasgo]

Not sure why it hasn't been said so far, but neither physical or digital is best. The best option is to view the movie with your imagination!

Infinite resolution, immersive sound, and better acting to boot. Buying stuff is for suckers.

[Steedeel]

Isn’t that what digital fans do already? They don’t see the many artefacts.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You're quick to put Digital down, Providers have come a long way and the Bitrates have been going up to produce Disc Like Quality. Have you tried Sony Ultra with a properly set up Sony UHD TV? The Picture and Sound Quality is Amazing.....4K UHD+HDR!

Have you tried 4K disc with HDR?

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Yes, but generally it is not as compressed as digitally distributed movies

Sure, but some people seem to think that Blu-ray is not compressed or only lightly compressed. But in reality, both are heavily compressed. An uncompressed 2K movie in JPEG2000 format consumes about 1TB/hour, i.e. even on the highest-bitrate Blu-ray a 2-hour movie is compressed down by more than a factor of 40.

Many people have very little idea what bitrates are actually required and appropriate to produce good image quality. A lot of content, particularly modern digitally shot movies with little grain, don't need high bitrates to produce excellent image quality. Others are hard to handle even with Blu-ray. There is no magical threshold that makes all Blu-rays good and all digital files bad.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

Sure, but some people seem to think that Blu-ray is not compressed or only lightly compressed. But in reality, both are heavily compressed. An uncompressed 2K movie in JPEG2000 format consumes about 1TB/hour, i.e. even on the highest-bitrate Blu-ray a 2-hour movie is compressed down by more than a factor of 40.

Many people have very little idea what bitrates are actually required and appropriate to produce good image quality. A lot of content, particularly modern digitally shot movies with little grain, don't need high bitrates to produce excellent image quality. Others are hard to handle even with Blu-ray. There is no magical threshold that makes all Blu-rays good and all digital files bad.

But logic suggests the lower the bit rate, the poorer the quality. That almost always rings true. One of the big positives for me moving from DVD to Blu-ray was how the latter handled grain structures. As a rule, DVD could barely handle it even with Superbit level bit rates. Dark grainy scenes on DVD suddenly looked stunning on Blu-ray. Digital still struggles with dark scenes and banding is easy to spot also. Yes Blu-ray has a few bad transfers but that’s the exception to the rule. Basically, if you have a high quality system it’s never going to fully purr until you feed it those discs. Be it 4k or Full HD. That’s not a opinion, it’s a fact.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

But logic suggests the lower the bit rate, the poorer the quality.

No. For any combination of content and a specific video encoder there is a point of diminishing returns where decreasing the compression ratio will have only very small or no perceptible effect. To take an extreme example, many CG-generated animation movies (say, Despicable Me) are extremely compressible. You won't be able to spot a difference between a Blu-ray and a good digital copy.

Basically, if you have a high quality system it’s never going to fully purr until you feed it those discs. Be it 4k or Full HD. That’s not a opinion, it’s a fact.

That's an opinion, and it heavily depends on your definition of "fully purr".

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

No. For any combination of content and a specific video encoder there is a point of diminishing returns where decreasing the compression ratio will have only very small or no perceptible effect. To take an extreme example, many CG-generated animation movies (say, Despicable Me) are extremely compressible. You won't be able to spot a difference between a Blu-ray and a good digital copy.
That's an opinion, and it heavily depends on your definition of "fully purr".

Even with your example though, there will be more detail in the disc version. Banding is still visible in CGI efforts also. A artefact that Digital is very much prone to.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Even with your example though, there will be more detail in the disc version.

No, not necessarily.

Banding is still visible in CGI efforts also.

I could just as well say "banding is still visible on Blu-rays". It's a meaningless statement in this generality.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

No, not necessarily. I could just as well say "banding is still visible on Blu-rays". It's a meaningless statement in this generality.

It isn’t, because banding is far more pronounced on digital. I know this, I have fibre and I have sampled a great range of Digital efforts. Captain Philips is one such movie. Bright scenes look good, night scenes with static shots of the ship suffer from banding on several occasions. That was the Itunes version by the way. I could give you further examples but I’m wasting my time. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. I have heard it all now, Digital has the same detail as disc? Get out of here!