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

[The_Donster]

I’m glad to hear you are enjoying your new toy Vilya. I’ve never had as much trouble as you have with Prime (Hulu was my Prime), but only watch a few here’s and there’s. I need to get back and catch up on Bosch when I get a chance. I just wrapped up on Sherlock finally on Netflix streaming last night and it looked great. While streaming may not as great as discs to some, it is as least better than cable for me.

[Vilya]

Streaming is better than cable as far as I am concerned for selection, cost, and quality. It is why I pay for streaming, but not cable. My antenna is good enough to get most broadcast channels, except for NBC and UPN, and there is no recurring cost.

Of course, anything that I want to own, I will only buy on disc. None of the three movies that I watched last night on Amazon Prime were worth buying, so I am glad that I got to see them this way.

[The_Donster]

Yep, nothing we haven’t already discussed. Streaming isn’t the big bad anymore than the myth that you have to be hardwired to get the best out of it. It has saved me lots of money on more than a few mediocre movies and unnecessary tv series at this point. If something grabs my attention, it goes up on the shelf with the rest of my BD’s.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Streaming isn’t the big bad anymore than the myth that you have to be hardwired to get the best out of it.

Agreed, had Amazon Prime, Netflix and Vudu since day one. I just take them for what they are.

My problem is with statements as in, “streaming looks as good as Blu-ray.” I have no problem with, “IMO, streaming looks as good as Blu-ray.” People should be prepared to backup statements, opinions are just that, opinions (I am told everyone has one).

[sapiendut]

Not a big bad? I’m sorry. I value my time. If I can spend my 2 hours watching something at the best quality why would I want to waste that time to watch something at merely acceptable quality?

I know, I know, some people don’t value their time, but I do.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Streaming is better than cable as far as I am concerned for selection, cost, and quality. It is why I pay for streaming, but not cable. My antenna is good enough to get most broadcast channels, except for NBC and UPN, and there is no recurring cost.

Of course, anything that I want to own, I will only buy on disc. None of the three movies that I watched last night on Amazon Prime were worth buying, so I am glad that I got to see them this way.

Cable doesn’t have the drop off in quality that streaming does when it has problems or the home network has issues.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Not a big bad? I’m sorry. I value my time. If I can spend my 2 hours watching something at the best quality why would I want to waste that time to watch something at merely acceptable quality?

I know, I know, some people don’t value their time, but I do.

This^. I hear some say they get movies they care about on disc and others they stream. That is nonsense to me. They may love what they stream and want it on disc in the best quality. Also, if they are watching blind via streaming, how do they know if they love it or not until they watch it? It’s a really odd stance.

I want my first experience of a film to be the best presentation and audio possible.

Is The Conjuring for example, the same experience on a tv with a sound bar compared to w great surround mix and sharp, clear picture quality? Of course not. It degrades the initial experience watching on streaming services. (Or crapovision as I like to call it)

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Cable doesn’t have the drop off in quality that streaming does when it has problems or the home network has issues.

No cable or pay satellite at my house for many years but we travel a fair amount and see pay TV in restaurants, motels and other places. In the US the problem I see is providers are putting so many sub-channels on a single 6 MHz RF main channel or way too many program streams on each satellite transponder so each program is severely bit starved.

Quality with streaming has numerous variables so one never knows what the quality could be. At least with Netflix I can check from servers to home with their app. Since my ISP has finally replaced a faulty fiber node close by my Netflix prime time speed has been ≥ 50 Mbps.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

No cable or pay satellite at my house for many years but we travel a fair amount and see pay TV in restaurants, motels and other places. In the US the problem I see is providers are putting so many sub-channels on a single 6 MHz RF main channel or way too many program streams on each satellite transponder so each program is severely bit starved.

Quality with streaming has numerous variables so one never knows what the quality could be. At least with Netflix I can check from servers to home with their app. Since my ISP has finally replaced a faulty fiber node close by my Netflix prime time speed has been ≥ 50 Mbps.

I have Sky (dish) and the quality is very good. The 4K looks great, especially with sports and nature docs. I remember when we had cable, the footballers on a soccer broadcast had a strange mosquito style artefact around them. I can only describe it as a halo of pixelation. Maybe what I was seeing was a result of what you describe?

These days, my pay tv is rock solid. Sky are expensive but high quality. Mind you, Comcast now own Sky so things may or may not change. We get NBC Universal’s new streaming service for free next year. They are going to distribute it through broadband/fibre so it will be interesting to see what we get.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rui no onna

Lol, now you're sounding like alchav21.

Data is data. If you do a 1:1 rip (no encoding/recompression) of a 4K UHD Blu-ray disc and stream to, say, an Oppo over 1Gbe or 10Gbe LAN, you get the same quality.

Actually you sound more like alchav21 then steedeel did. Since he is constantly saying data is data and pretends it means something. The simple truth is no one is talking about viewing a 1:1 rip of a UHD BD from a locale disk server when they use the trem streaming even though it could mean that, but stuff like Netflix or amazon prime or vudu…. or any of the other internet based service.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by rui no onna

I would. Easy access to the "disc" library from any room. Plus, it stops others from handling my precious discs and scratching them.

I would? what is stopping you?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I agree Steedeel. I honestly don't understand the desire to rip discs. Sure, the end result may make it a little more convenient, however people that do this certainly aren't saving themselves anytime overall. If ripping a disc was a one minute process, like it is to insert and load up most discs, then maybe I could see the point, but it's not. I would need to insert, load up, and eject a disc more than 10 times before I considered ripping to be a time saving option for me. There are only so many hours in a day... I only watch a movie or two a day, the whole 2-3 minutes it takes me insert, load up and remove 1-2 discs per day, is nothing in comparison to the time I would need to invest if I were to rip discs. To be honest, I also think that ripping is a bit unethical, and is something a lot of geeks do that have nothing better to do than sit in front of their computer for much of the day.

well maybe they live in 5 floor 500 room palace and they have reduced mobility so it takes them a long time to walk from one d to the other and back but yeah except for some ridiculous scenarios I fully agree.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Do you know how Adaptive Streaming works?

LOL, you are the only one on here that has no idea how it works even though every one else has repeatedly tried explaining it to you.

To me it makes sense, if the Provider knows certain detail information they can adjust the Stream to those Specs. You say the Streaming Provider will never do that because of cost. What if they charge accordingly, if you want the higher Quality you'll need the Bandwidth plus pay the higher premium rates.

so what are you willing o pay? 50$ a month? 500$ a month? 5000$ a month?...

Nothing is Free, Disc prices are going up along with High Quality Streaming!

first there is no such thing as high quality streaming second streaming is going up but not physical media.

[sapiendut]

“High quality streaming” = “gourmet fast food”

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think it’s going to be tough for digital lovers in the coming years. 5G and 4K streaming are just not sustainable climate wise with carbon emissions. Get used to very strict caps, very costly 1080p and 4K streaming and surround sound becoming a luxury product. It’s going to be SD all round.

5G is going to increase energy consumption by huge levels as everything becomes connected also.

I got laughed at for making these comments before but I stand by them.

even though i agree that streaming and 5g has a big environmental impact your analysis misses the obvious.

1) 5g needs more cell towers and so there is an obvious environmental cost building those towers and the equipment and cabling that goes with it. but where I live the electricity used for those towers is all green and so usage will have 0 carbon foot print, now if we were talking about a place where the electricity has a high carbon foot print (like coal) the network will also have a high daily carbon foot print. So it is not easy to determine the environmental impact of 5g. Let alone something like streaming

2)We all have stuff that are more or less important to us but everything we do including breathing has a negative impact on the environment. It is all about as individuals and as a society deciding what can be given up or not. Do you think the over 500k people that took part in the climate march a few days ago here in Montreal will be willing to give up their phones?

3) Perspective. It is easy to see the crap that comes out from a car, it is easy to see the disk and knowing it had to be made and then transported all the way to your home. It is much harder to realise that those few minutes of streaming means the cell tower needs to work 24/7 and the server that let you stream that film and everything in between and all of that has an environmental impact. Not to mention constantly upgrading and throwing away all that equipment you don't see.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I was thinking that. How the heck do you manage that? “Oh boss, can you throw the cost of my cable package in there too?”

I am think his boss thought it was cheaper then listening to why he should be paying for it.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

even though i agree that streaming and 5g has a big environmental impact your analysis misses the obvious.

1) 5g needs more cell towers and so there is an obvious environmental cost building those towers and the equipment and cabling that goes with it. but where I live the electricity used for those towers is all green and so usage will have 0 carbon foot print, now if we were talking about a place where the electricity has a high carbon foot print (like coal) the network will also have a high daily carbon foot print. So it is not easy to determine the environmental impact of 5g. Let alone something like streaming

2)We all have stuff that are more or less important to us but everything we do including breathing has a negative impact on the environment. It is all about as individuals and as a society deciding what can be given up or not. Do you think the over 500k people that took part in the climate march a few days ago here in Montreal will be willing to give up their phones?

3) Perspective. It is easy to see the crap that comes out from a car, it is easy to see the disk and knowing it had to be made and then transported all the way to your home. It is much harder to realise that those few minutes of streaming means the cell tower needs to work 24/7 and the server that let you stream that film and everything in between and all of that has an environmental impact. Not to mention constantly upgrading and throwing away all that equipment you don't see.

It makes me incredibly nervous.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It makes me incredibly nervous.

What doesn't?

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This^. I hear some say they get movies they care about on disc and others they stream. That is nonsense to me. They may love what they stream and want it on disc in the best quality. Also, if they are watching blind via streaming, how do they know if they love it or not until they watch it? It’s a really odd stance.

I want my first experience of a film to be the best presentation and audio possible.

Is The Conjuring for example, the same experience on a tv with a sound bar compared to w great surround mix and sharp, clear picture quality? Of course not. It degrades the initial experience watching on streaming services. (Or crapovision as I like to call it)

don't you watch streaming?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

don't you watch streaming?

Not films, which of course are my passion.