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

[surfdude12]

As long as people want physical media/collections = always

As long as streaming technology is vulnerable to outrages from weather/etc = always

[newtonp01]

Originally Posted by joluboga

If there's still an ancient Kodak forum somewhere, we'll see threads from 20 years ago, with people talking about how digital cameras will never replace film, because of the lack of quality and things like that.

Nowadays, we use OUR PHONES (not even digital cameras, unless you're a professional photographer) to take pictures and a huge stock of unused film must be rotting on some random landfill.

You guys can say whatever you want, and buy as many discs as you want, that's your prerogative, but the future is digital and there's not much anyone can do about it, except trying to delay the end as long as they can.

I think your example actually supports the opposite point. For the majority of people taking a picture, they'll be taking it digitally off an iPhone - but the key point that you used in your post was that those people are not professional photographers who do not care much about quality. Professional photographers, some of which still use film today, have an entirely different viewpoint; and I do think we here on bluray.com would have more in common with the latter.

I suppose my point is that if the highest-grossing movie last year was shot on film, then film will continue to be produced - and if there are enough of us collectors that vote with our wallets (I mean, look what some people pay for certain OOP Arrow/Criterion/TT titles!), then blu-rays will also continue to be produced.

[Dirk504]

I don’t really see Blu Ray going anywhere. Digital isn’t really reliable. There are some internet outages in my area, and the fastest speed available for me is 25mbs. I notice a dip in quality from time to time. Overall it’s just not reliable. Plus we don’t spend all of this money on HT equipment to watch something compressed to hell.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Ultra HD Blu-ray has a maximum bitrate of 128Mbps. You'd know that if you checked facts instead of making blanket statements.

Originally Posted by alchav21

I was comparing Blu-ray Disc to Digital HD, where the maximum Bitrate on a Blu-ray Player is 40Mbps. This Bitrate is easily achieved by any High Quality Streaming Provider. I was talking about Sony Ultra where all their Movies are 4K+HDR, but drop down in Bitrate to HD+HDR if you don't have the 4K Version. Making the Bitrate for HD easily match Blu-ray Disc. Now matching UHD Discs at 128Mbps is a large step, but not impossible. Talking to their Support, their goal is to match Disc Quality for 4K UHD. All you would need is Bandwidth in the 200Mbps range, which some here have. My ISP is looking to offer Gigabit Fiber, so UHD Disc Quality is not out of the question.

Originally Posted by alchav21

People just shop for the best price in Movie watching, that's why DVD has lasted so long. Now that Streaming Quality has caught up to Disc, you have more options. Like not having to wait till the Disc Release Date. I know you guys talk about Subscription taking over, but what does that mean exactly Amazon and Netflix handling everything. Amazon has Subscription, but also your Movie Collection. So I see it differently, Subscription will be in there but your Movie Collection is going nowhere. What did I say, Digital Bit Streaming is the same from a Disc or Server, it's just all in the Bandwidth.

Originally Posted by Vilya

You can repeat this nonsense all you like, but streaming quality has not caught up with disc unless by disc you mean dvd. Streaming services can look quite good, but they do not equal either blu-ray disc or 4K UHD discs.

And again, there is no such thing as streaming from a disc. Reading data off of a disc is plain data transfer while obtaining data from a server requires the internet. Why you can not grasp the dictionary definition of streaming is beyond perplexing. Is it a mental block, a learning disability, or are you just simply being willfully obtuse? Reading an optical disc requires ZERO bandwidth; no internet is involved. Of all the nonsensical word salads you toss repeatedly, this is among the most absurd when you do not even know the definitions of the very words you repeat ad nauseum.

"Amazon has Subscription, but also your Movie Collection." That sentence of your makes no sense at all. It ranks among your greatest hits. I have my movie collection right here in my home, shelf after shelf of neatly alphabetized titles. I do not need Amazon, Netflix, servers, or the internet to watch any title in my library. I use NO bandwidth in doing so; I stream absolutely nothing.

From Collins English Dictionary: streaming definition:

"a method of sequentially transmitting an audio or video presentation, as over the Internet: the data is playable as it is being received, rather than only after it is completely downloaded."

and:

"Streaming is a method of transmitting data from the Internet directly to a user's computer screen without the need to download it."

You do know we are talking about Bit Streaming, and that could be done from a Disc or Server. The maximum Bitrate for a Blu-ray Player is 40Mbps, so you do have Bandwidth restrictions. Then Penguin said UHD Players go up to 128Mbps. 4K Streaming Providers average 25Mbps, and the average Blu-ray Player averages 20Mbps. So Blu-ray Disc Quality has been achieved, and the top Streaming Providers are working on matching UHD Disc Quality. I always say being Hard Wired gives you the most Bandwidth, just like a Disc Player with an HDMI Cable.

[flyry]

This thread is as maddening as watching people debate the second amendment on facebook comments

[Vilya]

While digital bit streaming is defined as "the transmission of binary digits as a simple, unstructured sequence of bits" doing so from a disc versus a server are not the same because of what is necessary to accomplish it. The latter requires the internet and all of the infrastructure that goes with it; the former requires none of that. The disc needs a player, a cable, a display, and electricity.

Bandwidth "describes the maximum data transfer rate of a network or internet connection" and while this can more broadly refer to data transfer rates in general, in the context of comparing disc to streaming services it is referencing internet bandwidth and disc playback does not use any of it.

Discs use no internet bandwidth and the data transferred by a disc player is not as compressed (and therefore it is not as prone to compression artifacts) as data transferred over an internet connection from a streaming service's server. This difference in compression is a major reason for the difference in quality. Disc playback is not limited by what the internet can currently provide in one market versus another while streaming from a server is fully dependent on these widely varying restrictions and thus the need for the greater compression. Disc playback realizes all of its potential while streaming is confined to what a given ISP provides in one locale versus another.

Because of these compression differences alone, high definition streaming does not equal the quality from a blu-ray disc. 4K streaming is much further from equaling a 4K UHD disc. In both of these instances, streaming does not equal disc performance.

Quotes from:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bitstream

https://techterms.com/definition/bandwidth

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by flyry

This thread is as maddening as watching people debate the second amendment on facebook comments

[Vilya]

And saying a 4k stream equals what a blu-ray disc provides is dubious praise indeed. A 4K stream needs to equal a 4K disc and it does not. Telling us that 4K streaming providers can match in 2018 what a blu-ray disc player accomplished in 2007 is hardly something to get excited about.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

And saying a 4k stream equals what a blu-ray disc provides is dubious praise indeed. A 4K stream needs to equal a 4K disc and it does not. Telling us that 4K streaming providers can match in 2018 what a blu-ray disc player accomplished in 2007 is hardly something to get excited about.

If that's true, and I don't know if it is, it actually would be kind of cool.

I love buying BDs but I wouldn't turn my nose up at being able to stream their equivalent too. I could see that being kind of handy from time to time.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

If that's true, and I don't know if it is, it actually would be kind of cool.

I love buying BDs but I wouldn't turn my nose up at being able to stream their equivalent too. I could see that being kind of handy from time to time.

I am just responding to another forum member's assertion. Streaming in HD does look good and 4K streaming looks very good, but saying 4k streaming matches, or even exceeds, a blu-ray disc is like praising a FLAC file for sounding as good as or better than a MP3 file. That much should be a given. A 4K stream should be compared to a 4K disc, not a blu-ray. With this definition of streaming "progress", we will have to wait for 8K streaming to match a 4K disc in who knows how many more years?

If you want to stream in 4k to achieve blu-ray disc quality your ISP better have generous data caps or offer unlimited data because 4K streaming has a voracious appetite.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

This thread is as maddening as watching people debate the second amendment on facebook comments

Yet you continue to complain but keep visiting.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yet you continue to complain but keep visiting.

Coming from someone who has "quit" this thread saying it's not good for him about 45 times and always returns...

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Vilya

A 4K stream should be compared to a 4K disc, not a blu-ray.

I don't get this argument. I think the best available stream should be compared to the best available disc, 4K or not. If you want to watch e.g. Silence of the Lambs, the best available version today is available via streaming.

[bessetmath]

In my opinion, now i prefere digital movies.

I own more over 1000 dvds and bluray.

This is why i prefere digital now :

1- take less space in my home.

2- cheaper than buying bluray movies. (via facebook bluray.com and google group or website)

3- more convenient can watch movies during traveling, during pause at work.

I don't mind the picture quality. I don't own a house, appartment... no surround system.

For me it's cheaper this way for my hobby.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

Coming from someone who has "quit" this thread saying it's not good for him about 45 times and always returns...

True but then again, I’m not bemoaning the thread itself. It’s like those YouTube bloggers who pretend to be amazed and overact on those tedious tv show reaction vides. I watched it once, and never again. If you find a thread such a bind, simply don’t read. It’s like moaning about how much you hate Apples, then searching recipes for Apple pie.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by bessetmath

In my opinion, now i prefere digital movies.

I own more over 1000 dvds and bluray.

This is why i prefere digital now :

1- take less space in my home.

2- cheaper than buying bluray movies. (via facebook bluray.com and google group or website)

3- more convenient can watch movies during traveling, during pause at work.

I don't mind the picture quality. I don't own a house, appartment... no surround system.

For me it's cheaper this way for my hobby.

You are a text book digital fan.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

I don't get this argument. I think the best available stream should be compared to the best available disc, 4K or not. If you want to watch e.g. Silence of the Lambs, the best available version today is available via streaming.

What you are ignoring is the fact that millions don’t have a rock solid connection and sometimes, the picture drops to SD. So even if it does that for a second, it is not the best way to watch. Imagine settling down to watch The Revenant and the picture resembles YouTube?

Plus, when SOTL comes to 4K disc, you all know it will blow the streaming version out of the water.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What you are ignoring is the fact that millions don’t have a rock solid connection

I bet there are way more people who don't have a UHD disc player.

So even if it does that for a second, it is not the best way to watch. Imagine settling down to watch The Revenant and the picture resembles YouTube?

Sorry to hear that you have such crappy Internet. Maybe look for a different provider?

Plus, when SOTL comes to 4K disc, you all know it will blow the streaming version out of the water.

That may take years, or perhaps not happen at all. And I'm pretty certain streaming will eclipse even UHD discs in a few years. The visible differences are already very small. In some ways the available streams are already better (e.g. iTunes has many titles in Dolby Vision that are just static HDR10 on disc).

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am just responding to another forum member's assertion. Streaming in HD does look good and 4K streaming looks very good, but saying 4k streaming matches, or even exceeds, a blu-ray disc is like praising a FLAC file for sounding as good as or better than a MP3 file. That much should be a given.

I get why you said it, I just it's remarkable that you said it. It wasn't that long ago that people were flatly rejecting the idea that streaming could ever come close to rivaling blu-ray and your reaction to that proposition coming to fruition seemed to be 'well, duh, of course streaming is as good as blu-ray, that's not saying much'.

That was eye-catching cause 'as good as blu-ray' doesn't sound like faint praise to me. That sounds like some pretty serious progress.

Again, with the qualifier: if true.

Originally Posted by Vilya

A 4K stream should be compared to a 4K disc, not a blu-ray. With this definition of streaming "progress", we will have to wait for 8K streaming to match a 4K disc in who knows how many more years?

Sure, within the context of a partisan foodfight it's always important to compare apples to apples. But I don't really have a dog in that fight.

If it really is the case that streaming is knocking on the door of BD quality that's pretty freaking impressive. And if a few years from now it's knocking on the 4k door that will be pretty freaking impressive too.

Originally Posted by Vilya

If you want to stream in 4k to achieve blu-ray disc quality your ISP better have generous data caps or offer unlimited data because 4K streaming has a voracious appetite.

Stay thirsty my friends - YouTube

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

I don't get this argument. I think the best available stream should be compared to the best available disc, 4K or not. If you want to watch e.g. Silence of the Lambs, the best available version today is available via streaming.

The best available steaming is 4K and the best available disc format is 4K UHD, so that is the pair that I would compare; the best of one with the best of the other.

Even if 4K streaming offers a bitrate equivalent to that of a blu-ray player reading a blu-ray disc, it still has far more compression than the data on a blu-ray disc. Even setting the matter of compression aside, it means that 4K streaming competes favorably not with the best disc format, 4K UHD, but with its predecessor, blu-ray. In 2018, streaming can now approximate what blu-ray achieved in 2007.

Silence Of The Lambs on Criterion blu-ray is pretty impressive, especially when you factor in all of the extra content provided with it; I have not seen the 4K streaming version of it, so I can not speak to how they compare.