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

[JohnAV]

Opinion: California’s net neutrality law just cost AT&T wireless customers a free streaming perk. That’s a good thing - LATimes 3/18

AT&T informed its nationwide cellphone customers on Wednesday that it was ending a program that allowed websites and services to buy their way around AT&T’s data caps. In particular, the “Data Free TV” program enabled customers to stream video from selected services, including AT&T’s own HBO Max, without using up their monthly data allowances.

But under California’s law, internet providers can’t charge sites and services for that sort of thing. They can exempt applications from data caps (a practice known as “zero rating”), but only if they do so for every application at no charge to the provider.

So from now on, AT&T customers hoping to stream HBO Max’s “Justice League” on their phones will have to do so at the expense of their monthly data allotment unless they can find a WiFi connection. That’s easy enough to do at home; not so easy while, say, waiting in line at the mobile vaccination site.

Thought they could offer their HBO Max as not being metered for cell based data allotment, nope says the courts.

[sapiendut]

I know it’s not the point but if someone wants to stream a 4 hour movie to watch on their mobile device, then they deserved to be f—d.

[JohnAV]

Hollywood's Debt Dilemma: "You Are Sitting on All This Cash, What Do You Do With It?" - Hollywood Reporter 3/19

Industry giants raised capital in 2020 in anticipation of a big financial hit — and now executives are deciding where and how to invest.
Shuttered cinemas, closed theme parks, lower advertising spending — one year ago, the realization sank in across Hollywood that the pandemic would cause a hit to earnings and cash flow for an unknown duration. At the time, entertainment giants pivoted to raise capital and started preserving cash by freezing stock buybacks or dividends, and drawing up plans for cost cuts and layoffs. As ratings agencies handed out downgrades, debt burdens and cash war chests moved into Wall Street’s focus.

Now, in the wake of those decisions, the industry’s balance sheets are showing higher debt-to-earnings ratios. But that may not be worrying executives. Wall Street observers say most entertainment giants are in solid financial positions despite higher debt and express hope that the worst pain of the pandemic is in the rearview mirror for the sector, with vaccine availability expected to greatly increase by May. Investors have now zeroed in on where Hollywood firms will choose to put their money, beyond investments in their streaming services.

“At the beginning of the pandemic, all companies, from smaller ones all the way up to Disney, were concerned about liquidity. So they issued a lot of debt to build up liquidity,” says S&P Global Ratings analyst Naveen Sarma. “Now the question becomes, ‘You are sitting on all this cash, what do you do with it? Do you pay down debt, use it on M&A, do you buy back stock'?”

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Did you prefer "full screen" versions of movies when you had a 4:3 TV? It's pretty much the same scenario: people wanted 16:9 movies cropped to 4:3 to fill their 4:3 TVs and now you want 4:3 movies to be cropped to 16:9 to fill your 16:9 TV.

The JL is made up of 5 characters. Standing in a line is going to cramp the scene versus 1.78 FS or better 2.40 widescreen.

It's not a case of filling your screen - at least not for me. It's looking at a movie and how the characters are placed in the scene. That's why there has never been a 1.33 AR comic book movie prior to ZSJL. Bad fit.

[Wendell R. Breland]

I am now in a internet state of flux, my small independent ISP Morris Broadband is being sold to Altice.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

The JL is made up of 5 characters. Standing in a line is going to cramp the scene versus 1.78 FS or better 2.40 widescreen.

It's not a case of filling your screen - at least not for me. It's looking at a movie and how the characters are placed in the scene. That's why there has never been a 1.33 AR comic book movie prior to ZSJL. Bad fit.

And once again you have no faith in the fact that the director filmed it like that?

I think there is fundamental disconnect with the fact that there is such a thing as scaling.

I have watched full screen movies a ton of times on my HD 16:9 screen and never once have I thought how a movie designed and filmed for full screen had any problems whatsoever.

Superhero movies are special???

If anything this movie is special because the director wanted it Imax scope throughout.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yeah, I am fine with it being the artists preference but in this case, it’s a odd choice. It was shot for IMAX but people are watching this at home. For films that want to create Intimate scenarios and claustrophobic, tense atmospheres, it works a treat.
However, this is a huge comic book team up of epic proportions.

First of all, people are getting this idea that they are missing picture.

While the powers that be wanted to open up the frame, this is not about what the director chose to film.

If you want that vision, go back to the theatrical versions.

The Imax image is a set ratio and you are seeing all of what was intended to be seen.

The idea that it is "cramped" is completely missing the point. If you crop it to make it fill up the 16x9, you are LOSING picture. A crap ton of picture actually.

Why is it a lot, because for one not only are you losing the image, but it is a 4 hour movie which is of course is that much loss for every frame.

How much loss, lest see how about one third of (because to correctly frame to 16x9 you would need to have a proportion of 16 to 12 not 16 to 9) the ratio!

I am sorry, but this idea of "cramped" is absolute nonsense. What is cramped is cutting into people's heads and midsections to make people feel all comfortable about filling their screens.

A director composes a shot for how they want it presented. There are millions of instances where the director makes choices beyond what the couch potatoes decide is best.

Dude this is just surreal coming from you.

Slim, it’s Steedeel mate.

That was a typo. My bad, it was not on purpose.

Originally Posted by Ender14

If someone can provide definitive proof for one or the other then fine. But since IMAX content is supposed open the frame and be a larger image I tend to favor the 16:9 framing. It feels more expansive which is how IMAX should feel.

Imax has always been a taller format for the example mentioned. Don't know where any of these film buffs thought otherwise.

It is simple math. 16x9 is 1.78 to 1.

Imax in this case is 1.43 to 1. This is not as wide obviously. Putting it in 16x9 is cutting picture and it is a huge disservice to the artists original intent.

Of course this isn't news because Zack Snyder also filmed Batman v Superman in 1.43:1 aspect ratio for the Imax scenes as well.

Joss Whedon likes it wide and that is his film. Thankfully we all have choices despite the cry babies want to tell artists what they should be.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by slimjean

And once again you have no faith in the fact that the director filmed it like that?

Most humans appear to have vision of about 1.7 to 1.8 to 1. Don't know how much influence that had on choosing 16x9. For me, I prefer all movies be in 2.39 (or greater) especially location vista shots.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by slimjean

The idea that it is "cramped" is completely missing the point. If you crop it to make it fill up the 16x9, you are LOSING picture. A crap ton of picture actually.

I really don't understand all this talk of 4:3 being cramped either. It's cramped when you take an image composed for 16:9 and cut off the sides but how can an image become cramped by adding more information to the top and bottom?

A movie filmed in 4:3 with IMAX cameras is not the least bit similar to a movie filmed in 16:9 and cropped to 4:3 with pan and scan.

[JohnAV]

Unless you consider this the only content out there worth talking about, soon we will alll become like this.




I like this top reviewer's comment

Four-plus hours is plenty of time for Snyder to have his say, yet he doesn't appear willing to let it go. But justice has been served, and it's time to move on.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I really don't understand all this talk of 4:3 being cramped either. It's cramped when you take an image composed for 16:9 and cut off the sides but how can an image become cramped by adding more information to the top and bottom?

A movie filmed in 4:3 with IMAX cameras is not the least bit similar to a movie filmed in 16:9 and cropped to 4:3 with pan and scan.

Here is the kicker that some ignore, Snyder was darn near finished with the film before his tragedy/issues.

So this absolute foolishness that it was squeezed down and not what it actually was..which was his filmed intent is just nutty.*

I mean the film was in post for crying out loud?? Were people not listening to the news when this happened??

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Most humans appear to have vision of about 1.7 to 1.8 to 1. Don't know how much influence that had on choosing 16x9. For me, I prefer all movies be in 2.39 (or greater) especially location vista shots.

Actually that is not true. Human field of vision is closer to 1.5:1.

The lense is the indicator.

The more off center you get the less acurate without the eye moving. Widescreen gives the eyes a workout...which isn't a bad thing.

Imax aspect ratio in a smaller scale allows the eye to easily take everything in.

But hey I love widescreen too!

*update uhoh...I read 2 things. Snyder didn't use Imax cameras and he framed it fir 1.85:1.

Crap I gotta eat my words. Oops. I made a big mistake on my rant.

https://www.polygon.com/movies/22336...box-look-on-tv

[Lee A Stewart]

Snyder original said that he would preset the film in the old European Widescreen format: 1.66. Then later he changed his mind to 1.33. So it was not always his intention to use the 1.33 AR.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Snyder original said that he would preset the film in the old European Widescreen format: 1.66. Then later he changed his mind to 1.33. So it was not always his intention to use the 1.33 AR.

See my correction above. I made a mistake and admit to it. For that I apologize.

I was defending what I thought was true.

[bhampton]

It's 4:3 and 4 hours ?

Geez. Went to the peter jackson editing class apparently.

[JohnAV]

Go look here guys and form your own conclusions with the comparisons.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slimjean

And once again you have no faith in the fact that the director filmed it like that?

I think there is fundamental disconnect with the fact that there is such a thing as scaling.

I have watched full screen movies a ton of times on my HD 16:9 screen and never once have I thought how a movie designed and filmed for full screen had any problems whatsoever.

Superhero movies are special???

If anything this movie is special because the director wanted it Imax scope throughout.



First of all, people are getting this idea that they are missing picture.

While the powers that be wanted to open up the frame, this is not about what the director chose to film.

If you want that vision, go back to the theatrical versions.

The Imax image is a set ratio and you are seeing all of what was intended to be seen.

The idea that it is "cramped" is completely missing the point. If you crop it to make it fill up the 16x9, you are LOSING picture. A crap ton of picture actually.

Why is it a lot, because for one not only are you losing the image, but it is a 4 hour movie which is of course is that much loss for every frame.

How much loss, lest see how about one third of (because to correctly frame to 16x9 you would need to have a proportion of 16 to 12 not 16 to 9) the ratio!

I am sorry, but this idea of "cramped" is absolute nonsense. What is cramped is cutting into people's heads and midsections to make people feel all comfortable about filling their screens.

A director composes a shot for how they want it presented. There are millions of instances where the director makes choices beyond what the couch potatoes decide is best.

Dude this is just surreal coming from you.



That was a typo. My bad, it was not on purpose.



Imax has always been a taller format for the example mentioned. Don't know where any of these film buffs thought otherwise.

It is simple math. 16x9 is 1.78 to 1.

Imax in this case is 1.43 to 1. This is not as wide obviously. Putting it in 16x9 is cutting picture and it is a huge disservice to the artists original intent.

Of course this isn't news because Zack Snyder also filmed Batman v Superman in 1.43:1 aspect ratio for the Imax scenes as well.

Joss Whedon likes it wide and that is his film. Thankfully we all have choices despite the cry babies want to tell artists what they should be.

Ok, I need to address your post. First of all, I completely understand that I’m not missing information, come on, it’s me you are talking too. I said that for me that ratio is cramped. I prefer the cinematic format that we are all accustomed too.
There are films that I have loved in that aspect ratio, namely The Lighthouse, Fishtank and Elephant. They were shot that way to enhance the claustrophobic surroundings of the characters and in the case of Fishtank, to emphasise the girl’s oppressive living conditions. In fact, almost every example I can think of with modern directors shooting that way is to increase tension, cause claustrophobia or focus on restrictions within a character’s journey. Why? Because that is what that ratio does for modern audiences accustomed to a wide image.

However, this was a cinematic, superhero blockbuster about dudes fighting other dudes on a gigantic scale. I prefer my blockbusters wide. It’s that simple, it’s grandiose and epic on a projector and big screen tv. I’m sure Justice League looks great but I know there will be part of me that wishes it was just shot like most other IMAX films when it comes to the home video release.

We have a bit of a freak situation here in that this film was intended for cinema audiences in IMAX but most of the world has seen it at home on their tv. That’s the reality.

It just boils down to preference. I don’t want anything cut, cropped or formatted to suit my preference, like you say that’s stupid. I just wish he hadn’t shot it that way. There is a reason most directors shoot wide. Also, it’s jarring to own the likes of WW, Joker, MOS and have this film in a completely different aspect ratio.

Maybe I will change my mid when I buy the UHD. Maybe that aspect ratio will continue to be used by more and more directors and we will all have to buy 4:3 tv screens (for those that don’t project). That of course brings its own problems, namely the tug of war between displaying the comeback king format and not being able to enjoy all our bought widescreen Blu-rays/UHD in the correct format.

By the way, the misspelling of my name is just a running gag as people spell it like that at least once a day, it wasn’t intended to be a snipe at you.

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Go look here guys and form your own conclusions with the comparisons.

Watched a few minutes..... not in line to watch 4 hours of it.

[cheez avenger]

I'm gonna watch it again tonight. I'm in love.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by slimjean

Actually that is not true. Human field of vision is closer to 1.5:1.

Depends on the science one uses as a reference and perception of the person in question. My h plane view is almost 180°. There are ratios that are pleasing to the eye and some are not. The Greeks knew about this when they designed the Parthenon and the construction has some pretty amazing design work.

[slimjean]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It just boils down to preference. I don’t want anything cut, cropped or formatted to suit my preference, like you say that’s stupid. I just wish he hadn’t shot it that way.

See my correction. Big oops. He didn't shoot it full originally.

By the way, the misspelling of my name is just a running gag as people spell it like that at least once a day, it wasn’t intended to be a snipe at you.

No prob. I get it to.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Depends on the science one uses as a reference and perception of the person in question. My h plane view is almost 180°. There are ratios that are pleasing to the eye and some are not. The Greeks knew about this when they designed the Parthenon and the construction has some pretty amazing design work.

I agree completely on the perception of person translating to preference. The brain/eye can be trained.

My aspect ratio quote was out of the box.

[flyry]

Physical media sales (DVDs, Blu-Rays) fell around 20 percent worldwide, now representing only nine percent of revenues.

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/03/mp...ed-1234624380/