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

[gotmule]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Yeah, the wait time from theater premiere to home video debut was often a very long one.

For film buffs, we live in heaven now. Home video has never looked or sounded better and today it costs so very little while delivering such vastly improved quality.

And it gets delivered to our doorstep or mailbox.

[twobelowpar]

The Dolby Vision quality in Movies Anywhere of titles such as Toy Story 4 is making it harder and harder to purchase physical HDR10 discs for full price.

[sapiendut]

Which part off streaming quality is crap that you don’t get? Just because it says Dolby Vision does not mean it’s better than physical media. Streaming at best it’s 25 mbps and physical media at best is around 110 mbps

It’s not hard at all to not choose streaming

[rui no onna]

Originally Posted by twobelowpar

The Dolby Vision quality in Movies Anywhere of titles such as Toy Story 4 is making it harder and harder to purchase physical HDR10 discs for full price.

It's $24.99 on Vudu for 4K. For that alone, I'd rather get disc and just make use of the digital copy codes.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

That being said, I stand by my previous post that another reason is that there are less people purchasing physical media & Blu/DVD players than in the past - because of the ease of & advancements in streaming.

I am not too sure about that. I have been exclusively buying films since the 80's. I have always hated discussing my collection with the general public because it boggles peoples mind and then they look at you as if you are some kind of three headed mutant. The simple truth is very few people just buy, the largest % was always just rents followed by people that that mostly rent (even in this thread I think I am the only one that just buys).

I would agree with the idea there are a lot less people renting physical media (and if they don't rent then here is no use for a player) but the effect on purchasing physical media would be negligible (as EST show). I think it is also possible that people that mostly rent shifted to renting more. But I don't think that buyers (or the buy portion to mostly renters) has switched t from physical to streaming (or Dl) that is why the EST numbers are so week.

The problem is that you fail to realize most people were always just renters.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Yeah, the wait time from theater premiere to home video debut was often a very long one.

For film buffs, we live in heaven now. Home video has never looked or sounded better and today it costs so very little while delivering such vastly improved quality.

agree

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Re: Laserdisks (or LD's), I never got into that format - and am glad I didn't. LD's were very expensive, large/bulky, and inefficient - I also hated how you had to turn them over half-way through a film. I'm surprised anyone was a fan of these even before the DVD era.

some people care about quality others don't, why is that hard to understand.

[twobelowpar]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Which part off streaming quality is crap that you don’t get? Just because it says Dolby Vision does not mean it’s better than physical media. Streaming at best it’s 25 mbps and physical media at best is around 110 mbps

It’s not hard at all to not choose streaming

Because it’s not “crap”. I’ll always admit it’s not as good, but calling it crap just minimizes your argument.

[twobelowpar]

Originally Posted by rui no onna

It's $24.99 on Vudu for 4K. For that alone, I'd rather get disc and just make use of the digital copy codes.

4K code for $10 or less. If codes weren’t a thing, of course I’d go physical if the prices were the same.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Re: Laserdisks (or LD's), I never got into that format - and am glad I didn't. LD's were very expensive, large/bulky, and inefficient - I also hated how you had to turn them over half-way through a film. I'm surprised anyone was a fan of these even before the DVD era.

The early models of laserdisc players required that you flip the disc over. Later models mounted the laser onto a U-shaped track and the laser assembly simply moved to the other side of the disc in order to read it. My surviving laserdisc player, the Pioneer DVL-909, which also plays DVDs, has this feature.

Sometimes these moving laser assemblies created their own unique problems, but for the most part they worked really well.

The reason people were a fan of laserdiscs before DVDs was pretty simple. For 13 years, 1984-1997, laserdiscs provided the best video and audio quality possible on a home video format. Laserdiscs were also the first home video format that routinely presented movies in their original aspect ratios. VHS tapes were almost entirely pan & scan and their quality was very poor. VCRs had the bad habit of "eating" the occasional tape as well.

Laserdiscs may have had to been flipped over with the early models of players, but you never had to rewind them. Laserdiscs were the best way to watch movies at home and even back then there were plenty of people who wanted the best that was possible.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by twobelowpar

Because it’s not “crap”. I’ll always admit it’s not as good, but calling it crap just minimizes your argument.

Even a pro physical media person such as myself will not calling streaming quality "crap." If it was crap, I would not use it.

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Even a pro physical media person such as myself will not calling streaming quality "crap." If it was crap, I would not use it.

Okay, fine, unacceptable for my front projection at all to the point that when I watch streaming it should be on my 55” viewed from 12ft away.

You know what.... it is crap for my regular viewing purposes.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Okay, fine, unacceptable for my front projection at all to the point that when I watch streaming it should be on my 55” viewed from 12ft away.

You know what.... it is crap for my regular viewing purposes.

You have a rather unique background growing up with your hands-on movie theater experience and that combined with your viewing very large projected images to this very day helps to explain why you might feel this way.

On my TVs, streaming typically looks very good, but I am limited to an 85" screen. At 200", I might be less generous in my assessment. I did not have the privilege of a childhood with regular access to a theater's projection booth, either.

[Trekkie313]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The early models of laserdisc players required that you flip the disc over. Later models mounted the laser onto a U-shaped track and the laser assembly simply moved to the other side of the disc in order to read it. My surviving laserdisc player, the Pioneer DVL-909, which also plays DVDs, has this feature.

Sometimes these moving laser assemblies created their own unique problems, but for the most part they worked really well.

The reason people were a fan of laserdiscs before DVDs was pretty simple. For 13 years, 1984-1997, laserdiscs provided the best video and audio quality possible on a home video format. Laserdiscs were also the first home video format that routinely presented movies in their original aspect ratios. VHS tapes were almost entirely pan & scan and their quality was very poor. VCRs had the bad habit of "eating" the occasional tape as well.

Laserdiscs may have had to be flipped over on the early models of players, but you never had to rewind them. Laserdiscs were the best way to watch movies at home and even back then there were plenty of people who wanted the best that was possible.

They were also the first consumer format to present movies in HD.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

They were also the first consumer format to present movies in HD.

I never got to see one of the HD high end models, though. It was all I could do to afford a regular consumer model and even these were extravagantly expensive.

Laserdiscs were pricey, but they offered the best in home video at that time. I have no regrets for the not-so small fortune that I spent on them.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by twobelowpar

Because it’s not “crap”. I’ll always admit it’s not as good, but calling it crap just minimizes your argument.

It doesn’t at all. In my eyes it is crap as well. Banding In backgrounds, pixelated backgrounds, fluctuating picture (depending on connection) tinny sound at its worst (again, connection) blocking in areas of the same colour, poorly defined background detail etc..


Yep, crap.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Okay, fine, unacceptable for my front projection at all to the point that when I watch streaming it should be on my 55” viewed from 12ft away.

You know what.... it is crap for my regular viewing purposes.

Same here.

[gotmule]

I know there are a couple of folks who spent time in a projection booth that may appreciate this. Hell, I never stepped foot into one, and I am mildly fascinated with this guy’s skill as it is an entertaining way to spend 8 minutes watching a still in use imax projector being setup.

https://dailyblocks.com/r/videos/com...ctor_is_still/

[Gretiem]

Originally Posted by gotmule

I know there are a couple of folks who spent time in a projection booth that may appreciate this. Hell, I never stepped foot into one, and I am mildly fascinated with this guy’s skill as it is an entertaining way to spend 8 minutes watching a still in use imax projector being setup.

https://dailyblocks.com/r/videos/com...ctor_is_still/

Was a great watch thanks

[rui no onna]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Okay, fine, unacceptable for my front projection at all to the point that when I watch streaming it should be on my 55” viewed from 12ft away.

You know what.... it is crap for my regular viewing purposes.

Lol, 55” from 12ft away *is* my regular viewing setup. That’s already best case. The other two TVs are 42” and 32” 1080p.