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

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The Sony 65X900E was never rated at the "top" of LED TVs. It was a mid priced Sony model costing $1399 when released. Sony's flagship LED TV at that time was the Z9D and it was priced at $7000 for the 65" model when it debuted. There's nothing wrong with you liking your TV, but calling it the top LED TV is just factually wrong. It was not even the top model within Sony's lineup.

You really like to knock and hit below the belt, your pricing on my Model is way off. I bought it in 2017 and the MSRP was $3300, and it was rated high for LED's. I see you don't put what Display you have, all I know is that you have an Oppo 203.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You really like to knock and hit below the belt, your pricing on my Model is way off. I bought it in 2017 and the MSRP was $3300, and it was rated high for LED's. I see you don't put what Display you have, all I know is that you have an Oppo 203.

I did not knock your TV nor did I hit you below the belt. All I said was that it was a mid tier model, and it was, not at all the "top" one like you wrongly claimed. The Z9D had that honor among the Sony LED models at that time.

The price of $1399 was from the CNET article reviewing your exact TV dated Dec. 1, 2017.

https://www.cnet.com/reviews/sony-xbr65x900e-review/

This article dated Nov. 28, 2017 reviewing your exact TV specifically says that the list price was $2000, not $3300, as you incorrectly claim:

Quote from article:

"the midrange X900E series, which lists for $2,000 for the 65-inch model"

https://www.soundandvision.com/conte...ra-hdtv-review

I don't make this stuff up; I look it up. How else would I know what your TV cost? It's called research. No one with any shopping savvy pays MSRP for a TV.

As for the Sony Z9D, the 65" model listed for $7000, but could be purchased for $5500 when reviewed in this article dated March 27, 2017:

Quote from article:

"Sony first introduced its flagship Z Series of UHD TVs with much fanfare at a special event in July of last year. The Z Series represents the pinnacle of what Sony can deliver in UHD TV performance, and the company still considers it to be the flagship TV line, even as the new Sony OLED TVs arrive."

https://hometheaterreview.com/sony-x...d-tv-reviewed/

We discussed our TVs awhile back, but apparently you have forgotten that already.

See here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8685

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8687

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Placing overhead speakers is the only daunting task; I'd probably feel better hiring someone to do that for me.

What type ceiling do you have?

All I need is for an overhead speaker to fall and crack my head open.

You must be planing on some very heavy speakers!! could not resist .

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

What type ceiling do you have?

You must be planing on some very heavy speakers!! could not resist .

My ceilings are that bumpy plaster crap; sorry I'm not a carpenter in any sense of the word.

You're right about my head; I should be more worried about the speakers surviving than the other way around.

[mrveggieman]

Originally Posted by dublinbluray108

For those of you talking about the removal of Michael Jackson from The Simpsons digital copies and possibly future physical releases.

WB have now apparently beginning to remove R Kelly's music video 'Gotham City' from their upcoming UHD Blu-ray release of Batman & Robin which is due for release in the summer. I had a look at the UHD back cover of the movie an hour ago on it's own thread. It say it has 3 music videos included on the UHD release. On the Special Edition DVD & original Blu-ray master of the movie; they all have 4 videos included. R Kelly's music video is one of the video's presumably not going to be included in the upcoming UHD release of Batman & Robin this time round. This is probably going to be more controversial from WB because R Kelly himself is still alive & he should be able to defend himself in court as a result of his apparent allegations going from the recently released documentary on him. All I'm saying here is that if R Kelly is found completely innocent of his crimes in court when it get's to it's eventual verdict. WB could find themselves in hot water with fans for removing his music video if it wasn't taken lightly from the UHD Blu-ray of Batman & Robin.

Does anyone else agree with what I'm saying here?

They will remove R. Kelly even though he hasn't been convicted of a crime and Mike even though he has been dead for 10 years but you never hear of anyone removing Cardi B's music even though she admitted to drugging, robbing and in some cases having her victims raped. Make that make sense.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

I am waiting to see what Kris Deering has to say about it.

You gotta answer some questions first!!!

1.78 or 2.40? aspect masking? Size? Curved or Flat? Anamorphic lens? Acoustically transparent (speaker behind the screen)? Fixed frame or pulldown? Gain? Budget?

AVS members have done everything from painted walls (special paint), DIY frames and material to expensive out of the box solutions. Forum here.

Mine is a Da-Lite 52" X 122" (2.35:1) HD Progressive 1.1 Perf with a Pro Imager Horizontal Screen Masking System. All are covered with Pro-Trim® fabric. The screen has begun to weep adhesive thru the micro perfs and a call will be placed soon to Da-Lite to see what they have to say about this problem.

I have not researched screens enough to answer some of those questions. I know that I do not want a curved screen nor do I need a motorized one that disappears when not in use. I do not need to hide the speakers. I want a screen that will do full justice to all aspect ratios, even Ben Hur with its 2.76:1 ratio. I prefer high quality materials, but I also want easy maintenance of the same. I have no budget in mind yet.

I do not yet know what image size I would want to project even, but clearly I would want a good balance of size and image quality. It's all new territory for me, but I want something better than my mid tier TV AND something that retains 3D support. I am unwilling to give 3D up.

Oozing adhesive sounds like a nightmare to me!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I consider a high quality display to be vastly more important than just a larger one.

That's fine but as I said, I wasn't speaking to quality directly. I was more talking about whether an okay projector is better able to replicate the theater experience at home than an awesome 65" TV.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Also, the image provided by a TV is nowhere near as adversely impacted by ambient light as that of a projector, so there is no compelling need to view it in an otherwise pitch black room.

Yes, that's a strong point in favor of the TV if one is weighing the pros and cons of going full-blown home theater vs a more multi-use space.

But it doesn't make the TV any better able to replicate the commercial theater experience at home.

Originally Posted by Vilya

My doing unrelated activities in either a dedicated or a multi-purpose room does not automatically lessen the performance of the gear within it.

No but whether that gear is in a dedicated room or a multi-purpose does determine at least in part how well that gear is going to be able to replicate the commercial theater experience at home.

Which is what we're discussing here, after all.

Whether an okay projector in a decently designed room is better able to replicate the theater experience at home than an awesome TV in a room designed for multiple uses.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Our difference of opinion again only shows that there is no objective definition as to what a "true" home theater means.

I was pretty content with your definition.

Originally Posted by Vilya

The use of the word "true" usually implies some type of superiority over someone else's set-up and their interpretation of the term.

Again, I can only speak to what I mean and when I say true home theater I'm basically distinguishing a space designed to replicate the theater experience at home from a TV room where people watch movies.

Not that there's anything wrong with TV rooms where people watch movies. As I said, I've never really considered any of my setups true home theaters. For various reasons they've always been more on the TV Room Where People Watch Movies end of the spectrum. And they've been pretty awesome.

[Vilya]

If I control ambient light in a multi-purpose room to the same extent that I do in a dedicated room, I then have the same lighting conditions in both rooms and a projector, or a TV, will both be able to present their image without any adverse effect from ambient light.

All I am saying is that the room containing one's home theater gear does not have to be restricted to a single purpose. If having a dedicated room gives that room more of a theater "feel", then that's a desirable aesthetic, but the equipment will offer the same performance in either room type if both ambient light and acoustic considerations are addressed and made equivalent.

[avs commenter]

Saw this article the other day. Not sure if the data is new or been posted before, but thought I would share....

"During the same 5-year period, the "digital" market for home video entertainment (online transaction and subscription) has surged 170% globally from $15.7 billion in 2014 to $42.6 billion in 2018. Last year, the market grew 29%.

- “Since 2014, digital spending has increased by 170 percent globally, while physical spending has decreased by 48 percent during the same period, reflecting the shift toward digital viewing choices,” the report from MPAA said.

As a whole, the home video entertainment market has grown from $40.9 billion in 2014 to $55.7 billion in 2018. Growth is driven by subscription streaming services and the market is expected to grow further when Apple, Disney, and WarnerMedia soon join the likes of Amazon, HBO, and Netflix."

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1554952970

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Saw this article the other day.

How many times does one have to say SVOD = Pay TV? EST = physical. When will you people ever learn?

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I have not researched screens enough to answer some of those questions.

Vilya, I am going to be on the road for the next 3 days, upon return I will PM you several references and links.

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

How many times does one have to say SVOD = Pay TV? EST = physical. When will you people ever learn?

I love posting links to articles on this thread and everyone get triggered and acts like I wrote the article. So damn sensitive....

[avs commenter]

Offer still stands Wendy. Apologize and I'll leave this thread forever.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

I love posting links to articles on this thread and everyone get triggered and acts like I wrote the article. So damn sensitive....

The differences has been pointed out several times so why continue to post stuff that is not relevant and has blatant omissions? If an article or poster wants to crow about SVOD revenue then they should include the 200 billion traditional pay TV has.

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Offer still stands Wendy. Apologize and I'll leave this thread forever.

Was this intended for me . Is so, I do not know what you are making reference to. At any rate I could care less if you stay or go or .....

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

The differences has been pointed out several times so why continue to post stuff that is not relevant and has blatant omissions? If an article or poster wants to crow about SVOD revenue then they should include the 200 billion traditional pay TV has.

Was this intended for me . Is so, I do not know what you are making reference to. At any rate I could care less if you stay or go or .....

If that article is not relevant for this thread, maybe someone should change the name of this thread.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Saw this article the other day. Not sure if the data is new or been posted before, but thought I would share....

"During the same 5-year period, the "digital" market for home video entertainment (online transaction and subscription) has surged 170% globally from $15.7 billion in 2014 to $42.6 billion in 2018. Last year, the market grew 29%.

- “Since 2014, digital spending has increased by 170 percent globally, while physical spending has decreased by 48 percent during the same period, reflecting the shift toward digital viewing choices,” the report from MPAA said.

As a whole, the home video entertainment market has grown from $40.9 billion in 2014 to $55.7 billion in 2018. Growth is driven by subscription streaming services and the market is expected to grow further when Apple, Disney, and WarnerMedia soon join the likes of Amazon, HBO, and Netflix."

https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.ph...&id=1554952970

The main problem with this article is that it lumps all types of digital expenditures together, EST digital purchases, subscription streaming, and Video on Demand services. The article lumps physical purchases and physical rentals together, too. Purchases and rentals are different critters.

The explosive growth in the digital market is with subscription streaming. Digital purchases were only 14% of total digital revenue while subscription streaming was 74% and video on demand was 12%.

The article tells us nothing new; the stats for 2018 have been discussed previously here, but if you want to bring them up again, that's fine, but mixing rental and purchase numbers together for both digital and physical is kind of misleading.

The 2018 DEG report summary can be seen here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1046

Physical sales numbers were later revised slightly upwards from $4.03 billion to $4.109 billion as seen here and this link gives us sales totals by format and year over year percentage change by format:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=1057

Also, there is no reason for you to leave this thread unless you want to do so. Digital advocates and their views are needed here. I, for one, do not enjoy being inside an echo chamber.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

How many times does one have to say SVOD = Pay TV? EST = physical. When will you people ever learn?

This is the guy who apparently doesn’t have an agenda. Best to ignore him.

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This is the guy who apparently doesn’t have an agenda. Best to ignore him.

do you have an agenda?

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Also, there is no reason for you to leave this thread unless you want to do so. Digital advocates and their views are needed here. I, for one, do not enjoy being inside an echo chamber.

Considering I buy both disc and digital, I'm probably the least biased one in this thread. I don't post much 'pro disc' stuff because, as you indicated, there is already plenty of that here.

And yeah, it would be tough leaving this thread. Steedeel is probably the dumbest poster on this whole site. And yet, I'm addicted to his nonsense. Hell, he might even be a parody account, that's been trolling us this whole time. I don't care. It still entertains me.

[Vilya]

I don't think he deserves that title at all. I think he worries too much, likely because he cares so much, but that is a different matter.

I can think of three candidates who are real contenders for that dubious distinction; only one of which haunts this thread.