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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

I don't like to wear glasses, or do I want to get rid of my TV. But in 10 years, I'll do both because you are always right about this kind of stuff.

It doesn’t matter. You will do what everyone else does. Once a pair of glasses gives you access to gaming, film, tv, computing, web browsing, every app you can think of AND AR on top of it, you will buy. It’s that simple.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The more I read about it, the more I’m convinced AR glasses are going to replace the tv set. Looks like I’m going to be right guys.

The evidence is pointing towards Apple releasing AR glasses in 2020. They will be powered by the smartphone apparently. So they will be just as thin as regular glasses. I understand multiple glasses can connect to the SAME video which is a big deal. Where is the value of a tv set or projector for the mainstream (not disc collectors like us) when these things hit their peak and they overtake the smartphone? In 10 years, the tv could be gone.

You know, I'm trying not to be as harsh with you as I have been in the past, but when you post this kind of stupid nonsense, you aren't exactly making that easy.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

You know, I'm trying not to be as harsh with you as I have been in the past, but when you post this kind of stupid nonsense, you aren't exactly making that easy.

Go ahead.......why couldn’t that happen? Try to explain WHY without insulting me if you can.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Why? Well, for one, I highly doubt that people are going to opt in droves to sit around wearing individual headsets instead of all looking at one TV for their basic, casual, regular TV watching.

Heck, 3D is no longer included in newer TVs and is dying off in general due in large part to people not wanting to have to wear glasses just to experience 3D at home. But you expect us to believe that the day will come - in 10 years no less - where putting on a headset is the only option available because "everyone" will have shifted to that - at least enough to warrant the discontinuation of TVs? That's beyond absurd.

I doubt that families watching TV or a movie together are going to want to be separated by headsets instead of watching the same large screen.

Also, keep in mind that many people multi-task while watching TV. People with a baby or toddler aren't going to want to have their face in a headset when they need to hold and take care of a baby, or keep an eye on a toddler/small child. Some people may eat dinner while watching TV. And many, many other scenarios in which wearing a headset would just be absurdly inconvenient. You see things from a very, very narrow point of view and don't see the larger picture that includes many scenarios in which this would just not be feasible.

It is just not reasonable to believe that this will come to pass.

I will point out the irony, though, of you toting on and on about how great VR is while also dreading the possibility of headsets taking over for movie and TV watching.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Well looking at the Hardware Thread I see there are many levels of Quality even for the Physical people. Listening to Robert Zohn and Vincent Teoh, "Good Enough" applies to the Physical people too.

First, why the hell can't you just say something like, "People who prefer physical media"? Why do you have to use stupid terms like "You disc people" or "Physical people" (the latter of which is especially stupid since it just sounds like you are referring to the fact that people are, themselves, physical beings). And while I know this is nothing new with you, why the hell do you feel the need to randomly capitalize the first letter of words in the middle of a sentence that aren't proper names or otherwise calling for capitalization? It's ridiculous and annoying.


In regards to what you've actually said here, there's a difference between enthusiasts on this site settling for "good enough" in terms of their income and what they can reasonably budget to put towards their set up while also making sure that other priorities in their life are taken care of, and the "average joe" who settles for low quality streaming or buys DVDs instead of Blu-Rays even when the price difference is extremely minimal.

And there's always going to be gray areas and something of a "spectrum" for this sort of thing. While it can be difficult to find an exact scenario on where to draw the line, when it comes to looking at the more extreme ends of things, it is easy to tell that they have crossed the line from "the best I can afford" to "eh, it's good enough," regardless of where exactly that line is drawn.

With the big Blu-ray Player shake out, taking out Oppo and Samsung leaving Panasonic UB9000 as the Premium Player, you have to have deep pockets just to keep up. For a good high end set up, 75" OLED, UB9000, A/V System you are talking about $10K easy! Streaming is sounding better and better.

You say this as if going with streaming instead of physical discs will somehow knock that price way, way down. Sure, if someone opts for streaming exclusively, then there won't be a need for the Panasonic UB9000, which goes for about $1,000 if you are paying full price. And there are other models out there from Panasonic that are cheaper and still of really great quality.

At any rate, if people want to get the most out of whatever way they watch their content (i.e. via streaming and/or discs), having as nice of a TV and sound system as possible is still going to be preferable. The price of the TV and sound system doesn't magically go down when someone opts for streaming over discs.

So in your scenario here, the OLED TV and sound system would still be at least about a $9,000 purchase. Sure, the difference of $1,000 is nothing to sneeze at, but when someone is already spending $9 grand and is theoretically comfortable in doing so, coming up with another grand isn't exactly the difference between this being reasonably affordable to absurdly expensive.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Why? Well, for one, I highly doubt that people are going to opt in droves to sit around wearing individual headsets instead of all looking at one TV for their basic, casual, regular TV watching.

Heck, 3D is no longer included in newer TVs and is dying off in general due in large part to people not wanting to have to wear glasses just to experience 3D. But you expect us to believe that the day will come - in 10 years no less - where that's the only option available? That's beyond absurd.

I doubt that families watching TV or a movie together are going to want to be separated by headsets instead of watching the same large screen.

Also, keep in mind that many people multi-task while watching TV. People with a baby or toddler aren't going to want to have their face in a headset when they need to hold and take care of a baby, or keep an eye on a toddler/small child. Some people may eat dinner while watching TV. And many, many other scenarios in which wearing a headset would just be absurdly inconvenient. You see things from a very, very narrow point of view and don't see the larger picture that includes many scenarios in which this would just not be feasible.

It is just not reasonable to believe that this will come to pass.

I will point out the irony, though, of you toting on and on about how great VR is while also dreading the possibility of this.

First of all, get past this headset thing. I’m talking about glasses, much the same as you see now. Apple are going to use the latest IPhone to power the AR glasses, so they can be thin and stylish.

Secondly, what’s stopping families sitting around watching the same content? As long as they have glasses, they can watch the same thing. In sync no less.

The tv can be resized to fit a wall and pinned there. In other words, everyone can watch the same screen in the same place, much like now. The next day, when everyone enters the family room, the tv is still pinned where it was last put.

If AR really is the next computing platform, everyone will have one.

Absolutely nothing stops a person from tending to a toddler, you can see whatever you would see without the glasses. You would just switch AR off if you didn’t want any graphics/images etc.. simple press of a button.

For all those inconvenient times? Well what do Peoole do with regular glasses in this instance?

It’s you who is seeing things in a ‘narrow’ way.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

First of all, get past this headset thing. I’m talking about glasses, much the same as you see now. Apple are going to use the latest IPhone to power the AR glasses, so they can be thin and stylish.

Secondly, what’s stopping families sitting around watching the same content? As long as they have glasses, they can watch the same thing. In sync no less.

The tv can be resized to fit a wall and pinned there. In other words, everyone can watch the same screen in the same place, much like now. The next day, when everyone enters the family room, the tv is still pinned where it was last put.

If AR really is the next computing platform, everyone will have one.

Absolutely nothing stops a person from tending to a toddler, you can see whatever you would see without the glasses. You would just switch AR off if you didn’t want any graphics/images etc.. simple press of a button.

For all those inconvenient times? Well what do Peoole do with regular glasses in this instance?

It’s you who is seeing things in a ‘narrow’ way.

Even if it is just glasses instead of a headset, my point remains the same, especially the comparison to what happened with 3D (keep in mind that several people sitting around with 3D glasses on are effectively watching the same content "in sync" with each other, too ).

People with regular glasses are a non-comparison because they need regular glasses to see anyway, though they do have the option of contact lenses. And going back to the 3D comparison, one frequent complaint about 3D was from people who need glasses to see trying to put the 3D glasses over their regular ones. That would still be an issue with these glasses.

I'm not viewing this in a narrow way. You are just absurdly paranoid.

You get upset and act like this poor little victim when people insult you in response to this nonsense, but this stuff is so ridiculous that you and anyone else who actually believes this stuff and keeps harping on about it deserve to be insulted.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Even if it is just glasses instead of a headset, my point remains the same, especially the comparison to what happened with 3D (keep in mind that several people sitting around with 3D glasses on are effectively watching the same content "in sync" with each other, too ).

People with regular glasses are a non-comparison because they need regular glasses to see anyway, though they do have the option of contact lenses. And going back to the 3D comparison, one frequent complaint about 3D was from people who need glasses to see trying to put the 3D glasses over their regular ones. That would still be an issue with these glasses.

I'm not viewing this in a narrow way. You are just absurdly paranoid.

You get upset and act like this poor little victim when people insult you in response to this nonsense, but this stuff is so ridiculous that you and anyone else who actually believes this stuff and keeps harping on about it deserve to be insulted.

The 3D glasses are dark and block out light. The glasses would have no such limitations.

Also, you wouldn’t need to put glasses over glasses. Apple are not that stupid. The technology will be available with prescription glasses. It’s also strongly rumoured, Apple are working on glasses that will adapt to weaknesses in the user’s eye. Astigmatism, far sightedness etc.. in other words, it will be adjustable and tuneable. Possibly even by software.

If it becomes the new smartphone and the next big shift in computing, everyone will want one.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Even if "everyone will want one" (which remains to be seen), as it is, you already keep going on about things like smart phones and tablets killing off TVs. Yet despite the fact that most "everyone" has a smart phone these days, TVs are still selling just fine and people continue to watch them. It's almost as if these technologies can co-exist. What a crazy concept!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Even if "everyone will want one" (which remains to be seen), you keep going on about things like smart phones and tablets killing off TVs. Yet despite the fact that most "everyone" has a smart phone these days, TVs are still selling just fine and people continue to watch them. It's almost as if these technologies can co-exist. What a crazy concept!

I’m going to disagree with that statement. AR would genuinely kill off several different tech items. A resizable screen in your vision when you need it would kill off the tv for sure. 4K in each eye? 100+ inch screen? Smartphone level mass adoption. That’s before we even get to the staggering potential of social media and gaming through these things.

It’s obvious by your replies, that you don’t understand how cutting edge AR would work.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

First of all, get past this headset thing. I’m talking about glasses, much the same as you see now. Apple are going to use the latest IPhone to power the AR glasses, so they can be thin and stylish.

You know the phone isn't going to be supplying electrical power to the glasses, right? They're just talking about computing power.

Is a power source that can fit inside a pair of standard-sized eyeglasses and is capable of powering the kinds of displays you're envisioning the stuff of science fiction?

No, it's probably not decades off. But it's not going to be here in time for your various ten year predictions to pay off.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Secondly, what’s stopping families sitting around watching the same content? As long as they have glasses, they can watch the same thing. In sync no less.

Expense, probably. Even if the myriad technical hurdles are overcome in the more or less near future these things undoubtedly won't be cheap. And they probably won't stand up to kids very well either.

A regular ole TV, on the other hand...

Originally Posted by Steedeel

If AR really is the next computing platform, everyone will have one.

You really need to stop basing your world view on press releases.

These things haven't even been introduced and you've got them in every pocket and purse.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

For all those inconvenient times? Well what do Peoole do with regular glasses in this instance?

I don't know about anybody else but one of the things I don't do with regular glasses is wear another pair of glasses over them.

To be honest, I haven't really tried all that hard to get used to 3D glasses but I don't see it ever happening. Could the AR revolution come up with an affordable way of addressing that? Maybe but color me skeptical.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Frankly IMO these glasses killing off TVs is about as likely as someone winning 5 Mega Millions lottery jackpots in a row... not technically impossible, but statistically HIGHLY improbable.


But for argument's sake, let's say you are right and this will happen. What do you hope to accomplish by worrying about this and most everything else that you concern yourself with to this extent?

IF it happens, then it happens. I likely wouldn't be thrilled about it and will have my complaints. But to keep posting and harping on these things and acting like everyone else posting here (including those who still prefer an actual TVs and physical media) is crazy for not being as concerned about it as you are is ridiculous.

What good is it going to do for us to worry ourselves and run around in a circle going, "Shit! Shit! Shit!!!"? All that any of us can do is continue to buy our discs and watch them on our TVs, and upgrade those TVs from time to time where reasonable, applicable, and affordable to do so.

If this catches on to the extent that it does kill off TVs, there isn't much that we can do about it. So for me to worry about it THAT much now makes no sense, especially since it does seem highly improbable anyway. I'll just keep supporting the tech and formats that I prefer. That's about all anyone can do.







But to play devil's advocate, while I don't see these glasses replacing traditional TVs altogether, and I don't see myself ever not having a traditional TV so long as they continue to be made and/or the ones that I have keep working, why would these glasses necessarily be a bad thing?

Let's suppose that the technology matures to the point that these glasses can and do offer picture quality similar to that of a high end 4K TV or projector, but potentially for a lot less money... AND with the option of making the screen as big as you want. Regardless of the fact that you aren't actually watching a physical TV, if what you are seeing through these glasses replicates that experience and from your perception it looks like you are watching a really nice TV screen, and possibly at a size much larger than you would probably be able to afford (or is even available) in an actual TV set, then where exactly is the downside?

Now yes, it would be a deal breaker if there was no way to watch my discs through it. Given that things like physical media, cable boxes, and game consoles exist, there will likely have to be some kind of external box to connect those devices to that sends the signal to the glasses. I wouldn't want to be limited to only certain streaming apps that can only be accessed directly through the glasses. But assuming that you can watch any content in whatever format that you want through them, then what exactly is the down side, besides the potential inconvenience (if you see it as such) of having to wear a pair of glasses?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

Frankly IMO these glasses killing off TVs is about as likely as someone winning 5 Mega Millions lottery jackpots in a row... not technically impossible, but statistically HIGHLY improbable.


But for argument's sake, let's say you are right and this will happen. What do you hope to accomplish by worrying about this and most everything else that you concern yourself with to this extent?

IF it happens, then it happens. I likely wouldn't be thrilled about it and will have my complaints. But to keep posting and harping on these things and acting like everyone else posting here (including those who still prefer an actual TVs and physical media) is crazy for not being as concerned about it as you are is ridiculous.

What good is it going to do for us to worry ourselves and run around in a circle going, "Shit! Shit! Shit!!!"? All that any of us can do is continue to buy our discs and watch them on our TVs, and upgrade those TVs from time to time where reasonable, applicable, and affordable to do so.

If this catches on to the extent that it does kill off TVs, there isn't much that we can do about it. So for me to worry about it THAT much now makes no sense, especially since it does seem highly improbable anyway. I'll just keep supporting the tech and formats that I prefer. That's about all anyone can do.







But to play devil's advocate, while I don't see these glasses replacing traditional TVs altogether, and I don't see myself ever not having a traditional TV so long as they continue to be made and/or the ones that I have keep working, why would these glasses necessarily be a bad thing?

Let's suppose that the technology matures to the point that these glasses can and do offer picture quality similar to that of a high end 4K TV or projector, but potentially for a lot less money... AND with the option of making the screen as big as you want. Regardless of the fact that you aren't actually watching a physical TV, if what you are seeing through these glasses replicates that experience and from your perception it looks like you are watching a really nice TV screen, and possibly at a size much larger than you would probably be able to afford (or is even available) in an actual TV set, then where exactly is the downside?

Now yes, it would be a deal breaker if there was no way to watch my discs through it. Given that things like physical media, cable boxes, and game consoles exist, there will likely have to be some kind of external box to connect those devices to that sends the signal to the glasses. I wouldn't want to be limited to only certain streaming apps that can only be accessed directly through the glasses. But assuming that you can watch any content in whatever format that you want through them, then what exactly is the down side, besides the potential inconvenience (if you see it as such) of having to wear a pair of glasses?

The downside would be big tech not being able to solve severely degrading vision/severe astigmatism. Despite all my reading up on this subject, I haven’t came to any firm conclusions with that yet. I guess we will know in 18 months.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Steedeel generally seems to think that everyone but him is extremely persuaded by marketing gimmicks. When a company advertises that their product is "the future of [insert field here]" he think that everyone is going to buy that product but him and therefore whatever came before is going to be replaced.

Apparently altered reality, short form content, and interactive movies are all "the future" because the companies promoting them say they are. Only Steedeel is immune to their advertisements.

Wrong! My views outdate such articles. They are merely backing up what I have said in the past. (In most cases).

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

You know the phone isn't going to be supplying electrical power to the glasses, right? They're just talking about computing power.

Is a power source that can fit inside a pair of standard-sized eyeglasses and is capable of powering the kinds of displays you're envisioning the stuff of science fiction?

No, it's probably not decades off. But it's not going to be here in time for your various ten year predictions to pay off.



Expense, probably. Even if the myriad technical hurdles are overcome in the more or less near future these things undoubtedly won't be cheap. And they probably won't stand up to kids very well either.

A regular ole TV, on the other hand...



You really need to stop basing your world view on press releases.

These things haven't even been introduced and you've got them in every pocket and purse.



I don't know about anybody else but one of the things I don't do with regular glasses is wear another pair of glasses over them.

To be honest, I haven't really tried all that hard to get used to 3D glasses but I don't see it ever happening. Could the AR revolution come up with an affordable way of addressing that? Maybe but color me skeptical.

We are rumoured to be 1 year to 18 months away, so we will soon see.

Yes, I did know the phone won’t be powering the glssses. Obviously.

Once again, why would Apple release glasses that you had to wear over other glasses? You dint honestly believe that?

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Wrong! My views outdate such articles. They are merely backing up what I have said in the past. (In most cases).

You must be a billionaire by now with your incredible predictive powers of what will become extremely popular.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

You must be a billionaire by now with your incredible predictive powers of what will become extremely popular.

Especially AR glasses.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

First, why the hell can't you just say something like, "People who prefer physical media"? Why do you have to use stupid terms like "You disc people" or "Physical people" (the latter of which is especially stupid since it just sounds like you are referring to the fact that people are, themselves, physical beings). And while I know this is nothing new with you, why the hell do you feel the need to randomly capitalize the first letter of words in the middle of a sentence that aren't proper names or otherwise calling for capitalization? It's ridiculous and annoying.


In regards to what you've actually said here, there's a difference between enthusiasts on this site settling for "good enough" in terms of their income and what they can reasonably budget to put towards their set up while also making sure that other priorities in their life are taken care of, and the "average joe" who settles for low quality streaming or buys DVDs instead of Blu-Rays even when the price difference is extremely minimal.

And there's always going to be gray areas and something of a "spectrum" for this sort of thing. While it can be difficult to find an exact scenario on where to draw the line, when it comes to looking at the more extreme ends of things, it is easy to tell that they have crossed the line from "the best I can afford" to "eh, it's good enough," regardless of where exactly that line is drawn.

Why do you let these little things bother you, I changed it from Disc to Physical. I just find it short for the preference of Media, a lot more respectful than calling someone stupid or ridiculous. As for capitalizing, I just do it on words I want to emphasize. I think I started this when I wrote reports when I was a Service Manager at PacBell.

I find it annoying when someone refers to Streaming as "Good Enough" or "Convenient." Especially when all they are going by is published Bitrates and Bandwidth, and not actual Streaming because they don't have the proper set up. That's why I say now Quality is very subjective, depending on your equipment and set up. Even Vincent Teoh put disclaimers behind his Streaming findings because of his insufficient Bandwidth. So if using the wrong HDMI Cables on UHD Blu-Ray Players affects Bandwidth, don't you think it will do the same for Digital Streaming?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Once again, why would Apple release glasses that you had to wear over other glasses? You dint honestly believe that?

No, I'm assuming that the initial rollout of devices like these will simply write off people who wear prescription lenses.

When I said that the AR revolution might one day affordably address those concerns I was envisioning (hahahaha, get it?) something along the lines of a regular old pair of prescription glasses - indistinguishable from any other pair of low-tech prescription glasses - capable of beaming pinpoint-sharp UHD images directly onto our retinas or whatever it was you said in the other thread.

Is that kind of device possible? Sure.

But I would think it's also quite a ways down the road.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

No, I'm assuming that the initial rollout of devices like these will simply write off people who wear prescription lenses.

When I said that the AR revolution might one day affordably address those concerns I was envisioning (hahahaha, get it?) something along the lines of a regular old pair of prescription glasses - indistinguishable from any other pair of low-tech prescription glasses - capable of beaming pinpoint-sharp UHD images directly onto our retinas or whatever it was you said in the other thread.

Is that kind of device possible? Sure.

But I would think it's also quite a ways down the road.

They could never produce a product that is being tipped to replace the smartphone without including people ho need prescription glasses. Around 65% of the US population have a eye prescription of some sort. The tech can’t alienate billions around the world. If Tim Cook believes AR is profound and could the next computing platform, it needs to be universal.

As for the tech itself, Mgic Leap and Hololens are the front runners but Apple bought a company that specialises in holographic images in smart glasses I believe. Like you say, early versions may be simple examples, but one thing even early versions will have in common is that they can project a high definition screen to your eyeballs.