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

[Wendell R. Breland]

@Steedeel

Back in the 80's small video cameras became available as well as some film cameras. Some movies, made for TV movies and TV series started being made using handheld cameras and continues to this day. I very much dislike the use handheld cameras and refuse to watch a movie or TV where that is the main style of shooting. Many movie rentals get ejected because of this style of shooting. I used to be real concerned about this but it turns out many movies and TV continue to make use of dollies and tracks, cranes, tripods, Jimmy Jibs and Steadicams.

Hope Roger Deakins is the DP on the next Bond movie.

Now if Disney would step-up and start utilizing immersive audio (Dolby Atmos/DTS:X) the way they should then I would be a happier camper. They get a D- or F for their past efforts.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Attention spans are absolutely getting shorter. I don’t care what the article says. It’s just common sense. Look around you. Young people grab their phones the second they are bored or something else loses their attention. I see it with football matches as well. Both at home and live. Also the cinema, the theatre, resteraunts.

Now you sound like someone else here who eschews actual science for what they casually observe. That's your choice, but I will take the real science over your fiction any day and twice on Sundays.

I change what I am doing when I become bored as well; it does not mean that I can not focus on more complex tasks. It just means I am looking for something more entertaining- simple human nature.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

@Steedeel

Back in the 80's small video cameras became available as well as some film cameras. Some movies, made for TV movies and TV series started being made using handheld cameras and continues to this day. I very much dislike the use handheld cameras and refuse to watch a movie or TV where that is the main style of shooting. Many movie rentals get ejected because of this style of shooting. I used to be real concerned about this but it turns out many movies and TV continue to make use of dollies and tracks, cranes, tripods, Jimmy Jibs and Steadicams.

Hope Roger Deakins is the DP on the next Bond movie.

Now if Disney would step-up and start utilizing immersive audio (Dolby Atmos/DTS:X) the way they should then I would be a happier camper. They get a D- or F for their past efforts.

I am not fond of shaky camera footage. It actually makes one of my friend's nauseous. I can tolerate it in limited instances.

There are those who probably predicted that the use of hand held cameras would eliminate filming with more traditional and more stable methods, but as we both know that did not happen. There is no need to keep a supply of Dramamine on hand for movie night. We are safe.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am not fond of shaky camera footage. It actually makes one of my friend's nauseous.

Thanks for that. I had my flame retardant suit ready after making that post. In some cases I can stand a little more than my better half, she is like your friend.

I can tolerate it in limited instances.

Same here, I dis-like the way George Miller did Mad Max: Fury Road but the Tom Hardy character just cracks me up running around with that file trying to remove that metal piece from his head.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Now you sound like someone else here who eschews actual science for what they casually observe. That's your choice, but I will take the real science over your fiction any day and twice on Sundays.

I change what I am doing when I become bored as well; it does not mean that I can not focus on more complex tasks. It just means I am looking for something more entertaining- simple human nature.

How is it fiction? People have requested this function. Plus think about all the bandwidth they would save by removing a full screen feature?

Most younger people listen to podcasts at 1.5 speed. If they do that, why do you think they wouldn’t just passively watch tiny video while surfing the web or constantly browsing YouTube while not actually watching ANYTHING properly.
Go and use your phone (if it’s modern) watch YouTube and minimise the video. Get back to me after that. Remember, people are REQUESTING this. It’s not a case of browsing then selecting s full screen video, it seems to suggest they want to constantly be browsing while watching micro screen.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Now you sound like someone else here who eschews actual science for what they casually observe. That's your choice, but I will take the real science over your fiction any day and twice on Sundays.

I change what I am doing when I become bored as well; it does not mean that I can not focus on more complex tasks. It just means I am looking for something more entertaining- simple human nature.

Actual science, lol. It’s no different to the scientists telling us new stuff in the tabloids every other week. Most of it is bollocks imo.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

How is it fiction? People have requested this function. Plus think about all the bandwidth they would save by removing a full screen feature?

Most younger people listen to podcasts at 1.5 speed. If they do that, why do you think they wouldn’t just passively watch tiny video while surfing the web or constantly browsing YouTube while not actually watching ANYTHING properly.
Go and use your phone (if it’s modern) watch YouTube and minimise the video. Get back to me after that. Remember, people are REQUESTING this. It’s not a case of browsing then selecting s full screen video, it seems to suggest they want to constantly be browsing while watching micro screen.

Your belief that human attention spans are getting shorter: that is fiction, disproven by multiple scientists.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Your belief that human attention spans are getting shorter: that is fiction, disproven by multiple scientists.

Tell the kids in my local cinema that.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Actual science, lol. It’s no different to the scientists telling us new stuff in the tabloids every other week. Most of it is bollocks imo.

It is entirely different. These studies were published in both scientific publications and reported widely by respected news outlets worldwide. I guess your declining attention span did not permit you to detect any of these numerous articles.

Established news organizations quoting respected, even renowned, scientists in their field of expertise after the completion of years of study into this question have concluded that human attention spans are unchanged. Human attention is task dependent; attention is applied for the length of time necessary to perform the task at hand.

When people try to refute proven science with weak and silly analogies like your tabloid comparison, it does nothing to discredit the science. It only discredits the person presenting the analogy. It makes you look even sillier than you already often appear with your patently bizarre cataclysmic predictions about movies and more.

Facts matter and you have none to disprove the science, so you resort to a weak attempt at discrediting scientific study in general. You, like someone else who haunts this thread, only likes science when it fits your agenda. In this case it doesn't, so you must attack it. You yourself have not disproved the science here, but you have proven just how closed your mind can be.

I respect the science and I reject your sophomoric attempts to discredit it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It is entirely different. These studies were published in both scientific publications and reported widely by respected news outlets worldwide. I guess your declining attention span did not permit you to detect any of these numerous articles.

Established news organizations quoting respected, even renowned, scientists in their field of expertise after the completion of years of study into this question have concluded that human attention spans are unchanged. Human attention is task dependent; attention is applied for the length of time necessary to perform the task at hand.

When people try to refute proven science with weak and silly analogies like your tabloid comparison, it does nothing to discredit the science. It only discredits the person presenting the analogy. It makes you look even sillier than you already often appear with your patently bizarre cataclysmic predictions about movies and more.

Facts matter and you have none to disprove the science, so you resort to a weak attempt at discrediting scientific study in general. You, like someone else who haunts this thread, only likes science when it fits your agenda. In this case it doesn't, so you must attack it. You yourself have not disproved the science here, but you have proven just how closed your mind can be.

I just look at practical every day scenarios. Also, I think the majority of teachers would disagree with these scientists imo. Personally I don’t think there are any doubts that attention spans are falling.

Plus, Not a single person has recognised that, yes indeed, soon people are going to be watching a 1 inch screen. I said this would happen. I have scientific proof. (Well, I have proof, it’s all in this thread). Some that mocked me for saying that must have short attention spans. Ummmmmm.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I just look at practical every day scenarios. Also, I think the majority of teachers would disagree with these scientists imo. Personally I don’t think there are any doubts that attention spans are falling.

Plus, Not a single person has recognised that, yes indeed, soon people are going to be watching a 1 inch screen. I said this would happen. I have scientific proof. (Well, I have proof, it’s all in this thread). Some that mocked me for saying that must have short attention spans. Ummmmmm.

Beliefs do not matter here. The science matters. Facts are not dependent upon beliefs. Beliefs are choices that often defy fact, but that defiance does not change the truth one iota.

We can cite many examples of widely held beliefs that are not true, but yet are steadfastly believed. Racism being one of the worst such examples. If I produce 1,000 quotes from people who believe that the world is flat, does that make it true? Of course not; it just shows that there are a lot of willfully misinformed people out there.

Science requires rigorous testing and examination by multiple scientists from across the globe to reach a conclusion. A conclusion that is then subjected to further review and challenge and through this process becomes a verified fact.

What do beliefs require? Practically nothing more than the desire for something to be true with none of the hard work and effort to establish it.

As for the screen sizes people watch whatever upon, I do not care. What I reject is your concluding that this somehow imperils other existing art forms, large screen TVs, and freedom itself.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Beliefs do not matter here. The science matters. Facts are not dependent upon beliefs. Beliefs are choices that often defy fact, but that defiance does not change the truth one iota.

We can cite many examples of widely held beliefs that are not true, but yet are steadfastly believed. Racism being one of the worst such examples.

Science requires rigorous testing and examination by multiple scientists from across the globe to reach a conclusion. A conclusion that is then subjected to further review and challenge and through this process becomes a verified fact.

What do beliefs require? Practically nothing more than the desire for something to be true with none of the hard work and effort to establish it.

As for the screen sizes people watch whatever upon, I do not care. What I reject is your concluding that this somehow imperils other existing art forms, large screen TVs, and freedom itself.

Trends always change things, sometimes for the worse. Habits stick and it will have affect on how media is consumed, mark my words.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Trends always change things, sometimes for the worse. Habits stick and it will have affect on how media is consumed, mark my words.

I can't "mark" your words when I have already dismissed them; sorry. If it makes you feel any better, you can blame that on my declining attention span. I am getting up there, afterall.

I am going to redirect that attention to my computer game as I will actually make progress in it.

Just for the record, I have kept many of my old habits while adding new ones. It is a type of growth and it is not to be feared.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I can't "mark" your words when I have already dismissed them; sorry. If it makes you feel any better, you can blame that on my declining attention span. I am getting up there, afterall.

I am going to redirect that attention to my computer game as I will actually make progress in it.

Just for the record, I have kept many of my old habits while adding new ones. It is a type of growth and it is not to be feared.

Well, Microsoft are talking about putting games on mobile via streaming so the same arguments will exist there in time. Especially with the lack of ‘proper controls’ imo.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

But while you are searching for other content you are not consuming the video properly. Your attention is in two places. The same would be true if this was introduced by Netflix. People have already said they spend way too long browsing rather than watching. This would increase that habit while not actually consuming the content properly. It’s a really really bad potential trend.
If Youtube can force their mini screen while people browse other stuff, all the other services will NEED to implement the same system lest they lose eyeballs.

BS. People "second screen" with TVs as it is.

I admittedly check my phone occasionally if a show or movie isn't holding my full attention

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

BS. People "second screen" with TVs as it is.

I admittedly check my phone occasionally if a show or movie isn't holding my full attention

What exactly is BS?

Again, people dive in without reading the link or my views. To me, that article says what I have expected all along. That the people who request that option aren’t engaging with the content properly. I mean, how can you on a -1 inch screen?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What exactly is BS?

It stands for "bullsh*t."

Happy to help; no need to thank me. Really, the pleasure was all mine. Call upon me anytime.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Again, people dive in without reading the link or my views.

We're waiting for the Cliff notes version. Short attention spans and all.

Could you explain it in one of those vertically framed phone videos? I don't have a wristwatch to view it on.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What exactly is BS?

Again, people dive in without reading the link or my views. To me, that article says what I have expected all along. That the people who request that option aren’t engaging with the content properly. I mean, how can you on a -1 inch screen?

A lot of people listen to music on youtube.

I "watch" movie reviews sometimes and I don't really need to view so I occasionally search other things on my phone while listening. and that's when that minimized youtube player helps.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It stands for "bullsh*t."

Happy to help; no need to thank me. Really, the pleasure was all mine. Call upon me anytime.

No, i mean what in my post!