Future of Home Video

So, in Ady's ESB:R thread there was a discussion about whether Blu-Ray is on it's way out and will be replaced by streaming. I wanted to continue the debate without derailing Ady's thread.

My opinion is that physical formats are not on their way out and Blu-Ray is currently the best physical medium commercially available, so I expect it to stay a while. I think Blu-Ray is to DVD what LD was to VHS and LD was around for over 20 years.

I think Blu Ray will still be replaced by a better physical medium in a few years, rather than streaming, because the only problem with BD is that it's still got too much compression; 1080p is what many theatres use for digital projection on huge screens and it looks great, so I think that will always be enough for home presentation, at least in terms of content, but what will be needed is higher bitrate.

I watched Aliens on BD some time ago and the film was really grainy, as it well should be, but the compression algorithm couldn't quite cope with the grain and it often got pretty pixelated. I noticed the same effect to one degree or another in practically every film on BD, so I think if there's going to be a future format, rather than more resolution, it should add enough bitrate to accommodate lossless 1080p; and it will probably be a long long time before most people are able to stream a movie with a bitrate of lossless 1080p, while some physical media can already provide that now.

It's also owning a physical copy of the movie that's important to me and I'm sure many others, so I think physical media are not going anywhere for at least the next decade but probably longer.

I'm torn. I've barely bought dvds or blu-rays in the past few years because of various reasons, but I am a person who prefers to have a physical copy when possible. In fact, most of my purchases have been Criterion Collection blu-rays during sales. I haven't opened many of them and almost view them as an investment in case they go out of print.

My biggest gripe with blu-ray would be all of Sony's proprietary bullshit. They are a pain in the ass with licensing the codecs. For example, if you buy a blu-ray drive for a computer you also need to buy a license for one of two or three pieces of software that can actually read blu-rays. It's not "open source" like DVD. This is one of the reasons I rooted for HD-DVD - not because HD-DVD was the better format, but because Sony is a horrible, horrible company.

On the other hand I don't see a market for something beyond blu-ray for anybody except the high level enthusiasts an technophiles. If we end up with three formats on the market at the same time, it could be overwhelming for some people.

My guess is BD is the last major disc format. DVDs still sell quite well and people just aren't ready for upgrades to their hardware and discs. Digital is just too easy for most people. I'd love if digital distribution incorporated a method of having a bit more ownership on your digital content. For example, maybe you download a movie you bought and store it on a blu-ray or hard drive. That file is encrypted such that it can be viewed only on devices you've registered with the digital distributor. This would cut down on piracy and at the same time give people a greater sense of ownership.

The ultimate problem with anything downloaded is that it can be deleted. 

If there is a physical defect in the property you are purchasing, you can get a replacement or refund.  You can possibly get a re-download if your first one is corrupted or deleted, but how can you prove it?  What if it is an issue with a media player that just won't play the download?  In the case of the physical media, you can return the defective item, thus giving proof of the need of a replacement.  Digital downloading will fail when it comes to customer service and replacements, as it will be harder to prove a download was unsuccessful or faulty (as companies would be wary of someone wanting to try to get a movie 2 or 3 times for one price).

Also keep in mind that people still love physical objects, if for no other reason that you can hold it in your hand.  Physical media is going to remain the same way cash will remain: people are always going to want something permanent that they can physically call their own.

^ I agree with the above. This is why I haven't invested myself into digital content. I stream music but don't buy any of it. I only really buy games digitally, and in those cases I always choose DRM-free when it's possible to backup the installers.

But the nature of the beast is that people have invested so much into digital libraries. Like I said above, if consumers have solid options to physically back up their digital movies without too much hassle or too many strings attached, it could satisfy most, if not all, consumers.

Count me in among the "I'd much rather own the movie than own the rights to it" crowd.

Personally, I think the biggest problem with physical media vs streaming is the potential for the physical media to get worn out. I would love to see the next generation of media come in the form of something akin to UMD, with an outer casing that prevents direct damage to the disc.

I HATE streaming/downloading, because while costs may be less for individual films, the cost of a new hard drive and fast internet come in large chunks, and bandwidth limits what you are able to view, despite those costs.

And its nice to see the blurays on the shelf :)

The problem with physical media is that

1. It breaks

2. Distribution is slow and expensive compared to digital

3. Every time we want to make advancements in quality, they make you pay again. This last one is my biggest gripe with DVD-->Blu-->Future

4. Also, the proprietary nature of Blu-Ray sucks

For those of you who talk about how you don't get alternate commentary tracks, etc with digital

1. That's possible with digital

2. Most people don't care

timdiggerm said:

The problem with physical media is that

1. It breaks

You buy an optical disc -> You watch it -> You still have it -> The optical disc may break -> You wouldn't have that one movie any more.

You stream a movie -> You watch it -> You don't have that movie any more.

You download  movies -> You watch them -> You still have them -> Your HDD may break -> You don't have any of those movies any more.

2. Distribution is slow and expensive compared to digital

It takes me less time to get off my ass and go to a shop to buy a Blu-Ray than it does to download 50GBs from the internet and it will for the foreseeable future (and at the school dorms I've probably got the fastest internet connection available in my country).

3. Every time we want to make advancements in quality, they make you pay again. This last one is my biggest gripe with DVD-->Blu-->Future

That one I have to give you. Although, if we were talking directly about BD, I already have all the tech and at this point to stream movies, you must buy specialized tech too or at least f*ck around with the tech you already have.

4. Also, the proprietary nature of Blu-Ray sucks

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

For those of you who talk about how you don't get alternate commentary tracks, etc with digital

1. That's possible with digital

True, it's possible but so far not available.

2. Most people don't care

That's why I compared BD to LD, the people who do care (have standards) will rather buy the film on BD or some even better future format than download it.

3. Every time we want to make advancements in quality, they make you pay again. This last one is my biggest gripe with DVD-->Blu-->Future

That one I have to give you. Although, if we were talking directly about BD, I already have all the tech and at this point to stream movies, you must buy specialized tech too or at least f*ck around with the tech you already have.

The problem here is that this will continue to be the case for digital copies of movies as well, because of the simple fact that streamable/downloadable copies tend to mimic the quality of currently available physical media. DVD was the physical media, so we got 480p digital files. Bluray is the physical media, so we get 1080p (often just 720p) digital files. This is going to be the case in the future, IMHO. Which means each time the physical format moves forward, you'll need better PCs, more space, better internet... 

As a side note, I personally think that Standalone Upconverting DVD players greatly diminished what could have been a very successful Bluray takeover. By only allowing Bluray players to upconvert DVDs, everyone would've had to dip a toe into Bluray. Combine that with combo-pack only releases, where people would choose to watch the Bluray copy and be wowed...

The problem here is that this will continue to be the case for digital copies of movies as well, because of the simple fact that streamable/downloadable copies tend to mimic the quality of currently available physical media. DVD was the physical media, so we got 480p digital files. Bluray is the physical media, so we get 1080p (often just 720p) digital files. This is going to be the case in the future, IMHO. Which means each time the physical format moves forward, you'll need better PCs, more space, better internet... 

That's exactly what I meant - you still either need a really good computer hooked to your TV (which can be difficult) or a standalone player (or console) capable of dealing with the latest on-line content. So in this sense it's not very different than BD or other physical media.

I still prefer to be able to hold the movie in my hand but that admitedly sounds like a good service. What's the audio and video quality like?

Admittedly, I do like the idea of iCloud and so forth, but I don't trust even Google (he types from his Chromebook) enough to have them keep my movies. What if the studios decide Apple can't store their movies anymore? What if your account gets hacked? I'd much rather still have the disc and all of its features, where the studios won't throw a fit because they feel like they're losing money somehow.

Don't get me wrong... I love BOTH.  My issue with physical media is that after a while it just takes up a lot of space... at the same time (if you're single like me), if you have a dedicated room you can use as a library (or man cave), you can fill up the shelves with blu-rays and other things and show off your collection/inability to grow up and act like an adult.

At the same time, I have an Argosy media player with a 2 TB hard drive (and plan on moving up to a Mede8er 500X), which works fantastic!  Lots of 2.5 to 4.5 gb 720p MKVs, with a few 8 gb 1080p MKVs for the more appreciated movies (like SUSPIRIA), combined with MKV MERGE, which can add audio tracks later to the movie files (like commentaries or dub tracks).

The Argosy runs @ $95 (the Mede8er 500X about $150 to $200); the 2 TB hard drive @ $80 on ebay.  So for about $300 to $400 (a media player and 2 hard drives, one to use and one for a back up) you are pretty much set for life on movies.  Even so, I LOVE my blu-ray digibooks and special editions.

In the end, there is nothing saying you can have both.

Yeah, that's why I'm asking what the quality of the iCloud movies is, because while a 4.3GB 720p or 8GB 1080p can be fairly watchable on a small screen like for example a laptop, it's pretty bad on a big TV or a projector (depending of course on viewing distance, but if you're sitting far enough not to notice all the compression, you could just as well watch SD). And even on a small screen it still doesn't do the film justice - like I said, even BDs are still far too compressed (especially films with lots of grain like Aliens or Godfather) so if the streaming services offer video in anything smaller than 20GB you can't even compare them to BD - if they came from the same master, you'd probably get better quality and resolution from an anamorphic DVD9 than something like a 4GB 1080p.

 The Blu-ray version of the telephone pole close-up shows much more detail—including noise or grain. The trouble with noise is that it's random so it doesn't compress well. This means the stronger iTunes compression needs to get rid of both detail and noise—which are the same thing to a compression algorithm—to hit its compression target. The BRD, on the other hand, can happily reproduce the noise as present in the source, burning up untold megabits and leaving details untouched.

 

Now, this is exactly what I was talking about. That looks ugly as f*ck in the iTunes version. Over-all the film is probably very watchable (which is admittedly quite an achievement at less than 1/10 the size of a BD) but it just doesn't do justice to the original cinematography.  Then of course, if you're watching this on an iPad or a small laptop, you probably won't even notice the difference but if you blow it up to like 50 inches or more, that's when thing will get ugly. And like I said, even a 50GB Blu-Ray of a film the original cinematography of which was very grainy, will have this problem (Aliens and Godfather are perfect examples of this).

Upgrades in format will also go hand in hand with equipment upgrades. It took a long time to go across the board 16:9, then HD, then 1080p. To go to theater standard 2K is not much of a jump from Blu-ray but it will require new software, new TVs and this is something people will not want to do.

The better idea would be going for a 4K format/system to justify the upgrade. This is what is used in the better standard theaters and is the digital rough equivalent of a 35mm print. (Being a physical medium, film can never properly be measured for digital pixels.) Of course, this would also render every digital theater at 4K or lower obsolete. (And with the terrible presentations now, you can already get a better experience with lower resolution Blu-ray at home, and that's not even getting into sound nowadays which theatrically is godawful.)

I dislike streaming primarily because I love to have the physical copy in my hands. Books, LPs, LDs, and film itself need that physical connection. That said, my big reason for avoiding streaming besides limited bandwith is the fact that you have no control over the content. It can be mastered or released in any way with little to no regards for quality. And people eat it up! Just because it is portable does not mean it is necessarily better. Never have I been satisfied with any streaming I have purchased, with image quality being sporadic at best. Then it's usually cropped to an improper ratio, downmixed to mp3 standard or less 2.0 stereo, and then you have the joys of buffering or losing the HD feed.

Sometimes I think they should just pay people to make 720p rips of Blu-rays and rent those to consumers. It's ridiculous that you pay for such terrible quality and yet those who illegally download for free are getting the superior content.

I think and hope that there will be a physical successor to Blu-ray but that it will likely become more and more of a niche market compared to the streaming/media downloads crowd.

Since you kids are on my lawn anyway...

Blu Ray will not be the final physical format, but all of its successors (including 4K Blu Ray) will be, at best, seriously niche players.  Not niche like Laserdisc, niche like SACD.  New physical formats require new hardware purchases (let alone new media purchases), and very few will think any difference above Blu Ray will be worth the cost.  MAYBE a new format will succeed in the very long term if it's backwards-compatible and cost-competitive with Blu Ray (people would buy 4K players to replace a broken Blu Ray player, but continue to play 2K Blu Rays, in much the same way some people buy Blu Ray players just to play standard DVDs today).  Basically I see Blu Ray as a terminal format the same way CDs were.  Yes, there were successors but 9 out of 10 people couldn't tell you what they were.

Streaming is already the new rental model, and it may eat into purchases a little bit more than you'd think.  Parents used to own stacks of VHS tapes and DVDs that their kids would watch over and over.  They bought them so that they wouldn't have to keep renting them, not because they thought they were worth collecting.  Now if you have a Netflix subscription you can watch Thomas & Friends once a week for five years, and then, mercifully, you can stop.  People will still purchase Blu Rays (and DVDs), but not like they used to--only for the things they really, truly love.  I really, really don't see how purchased-streaming plans like UltraViolet make any sense in a world where people already have Netflix-like subscriptions for rental-type streams.  If you already have the subscription and you want to stream it, just save the cash and stream it from Netflix.  Who cares if you don't own it?

I think there's already a consumer fatigue with revisionism and gimmickry related to media upgrades, which will dampen any enthusiasm for a new format.  Not everyone is as worked up about Star Wars as we are, but really, let's say you actually own and like the Blu Rays--are you really going to upgrade to 4K just so you can watch Alderaan shoot first, or watch it in 3D, or with pre-rendered interpolated frames for a 48fps presentation?  What about other films--a few more deleted scenes, a different shade of teal & orange?  Nobody cares.  I can find lots of faults with most modern Blu Rays, but most of them could be fixed without changing the Blu Ray format itself (better transfers, less compression, less DNR, etc).  More resolution and the things that would require a new format may help, but they're not even in the first 10 pages of improvements I'd typically like to see.

Of course I suppose I should mention I have a history of being a complete Luddite and missing many very important trends.  I didn't see much point in cell phones until they started removing pay phones, for example.  So there you have it.

Just agreeing with you from the other thread Harmy. I would much rather see 1080P in 10bit per channel @ 4:4:4 with lossless compression rather than 4K screens.

I do wish the brightside technology had taken off. THe huge dynamic range allowed by that tech was way, way, way more impressive than the 4K screens.