100 replies to this topic

[Tortle]

Great articles, Soups! It's always fun to revisit this thread and see how things have changed. I initially meant that DVD specifically would be the primary medium for movies for a long time to come. That was true then, as it's 5 years later and DVD is still overwhelmingly the primary medium. Although Blu-Ray sales have increased, they're still a very small fraction of total movie sales, usually hovering around 10%. I'd also say that DVD still has many more years before it falls by the wayside. I think that will be because its competitors have inherent limitations. Blu-Ray technology depends on whether or not the person owns a high-def television. And digital downloading depends on whether the person has a reliable high speed connection and some method of playback on the television. Each option requires some sort of additional investment. So DVD will be here for quite a while.

A dual-layer Blu-ray disc can store an impressive 50 gigabytes, but discs which can hold 20 times as much data have just taken a step closer, thanks to new materials that make reading and writing 3D holograms more reliable

That's great, but I think there are limits to how much storage a person realistically needs. More storage means a better picture, but then you have to make better televisions to see that picture. And there are real limits as to how much better a picture can get and be noticeably better.

For many people this type of instant universal access is better than owning. No responsibility of care, backing up, sorting, cataloging, cleaning, or storage.

I think this would be awesome. Some people would balk at it because they like to have collections of things (which I can totally understand), but I'd really dig it. I think this is a pie in the sky idea, though. There's a lot that would have to be worked out logistically, and I'm not sure if it's even feasible. But it's a cool idea.

I have another update, though. I got a wireless connection for the PS3 primarily to play games online, but I also noticed that I can rent movies on the PS Network. I rented Solaris (standard def) and it was pretty cool. The movie took a while to download (maybe 15 minutes) and you can only play the movie for 24 hours after you started the download, but it was very convenient. The problem with the PSN is the lack of selection and the insanely high prices. But a Netflix player solves both problems, so I might pick up one of those this year.

[Soupie]

I'd also say that DVD still has many more years before it falls by the wayside. I think that will be because its competitors have inherent limitations. Blu-Ray technology depends on whether or not the person owns a high-def television.

I think it's a matter of perspective. Technically, I think DVD has already fallen by the wayside. Do a majority of people still buy a majority of DVDs? Yes. However, I think the torch has already been unofficially passed to Blue-Ray. I expect to see the sales of Blue-Ray discs sore for a few reasons:

(1) Blue-Ray is now the preferred high-def format. There will be no more competition from HD-DVD.
(2) There are now affordable, non-PS3 Blue-Ray players on the market.
(3) High-def TVs are quickly becoming ubiquitous.
(4) People owning high-def televisions are purchasing high-def cable. People watching high-def cable on a high-def TV are going to be much more likely to buy an affordable high-def Blue-Ray player to play high-def movies on their high-def TVs. I don't see people being satisfied watching DVD-quality movies on their high-def setups.

Regardless, the overwhelming trend is toward purely digital technology. I was listening to a Fresh Air discussion about print Newspapers going completely digital. Look for this trend to continue as well. I really like what the one gentlemen said: "Print is a luxury that we can no longer afford."

Whaa? Print a luxury? But it makes perfect sense. Why print millions of newspapers when digital is cleaner, cheaper, and better? Eventually, the same forces will be at work in the disc-making business. Once we can get high-def movies piped directly to our homes and other devices... we will.

Personally, I think this is happening -- and will continue to happen -- at an ever increasing rate.

[Tortle]

I agree, but I think that DVDs will outsell everything else for many years to come.

Blu-Ray sales are growing at a steady pace, and mimic DVD sales back in its early days. But VHS took a long time to die down to the point where it wasn't the dominant medium. So, even though Blu-Ray is the winner of the HD format wars, DVD will be around for quite a while. I'm not sure I'd say it's fallen by the wayside when it regularly garners at least 90% of the movie sales. I'd agree it's a dying technology, though.

I agree that digital downloads will become a major player in the future, but the format has a long way to go before it's mainstream. Two main problems I see with downloads right now (not including Internet infrastructure):

1) Unless I'm missing something, there still isn't a way to own downloaded movies outside of an iPod. For digital to become the primary medium, there needs to be some sort of ability to own movies and play them back via a device. Or, like that article was saying, having a service that provides movies in a more holistic sense rather than owning individuals. Regardless, the technology to provide movies for anything other than rentals just isn't there.

2) Download technology needs to provide rentals of newly released movies. As it stands now, few digital download services offer rentals of new movies, and those that do only have a limited selection.

I suppose my point is that although download technology may win in the end, disc-driven technology will be the go-to format for quite a while because downloads just aren't feasible yet. And even when downloads start taking off, it will be many years before it becomes dominant.

Using CDs vs. Digital Music as an example, CD sales STILL surpass digital sales. Clearly, CDs are a dying technology. But it just goes to show how slowly these things die off.

Source: http://arstechnica.c...in-trouble.html

[Soupie]

I don't think that you'd be able to get the same quality from a downloaded movie vs. a HD-DVD. I'd imagine that real HD quality would be too big to send via the Internet.

Apparently several companies feel that there is a viable future for digital high definition. As usual, tech is moving at a break-neck pace.

High-Def Is in the Air

New technologies wirelessly transmit high-definition video.

At CES, SiBeam demonstrated its wireless chipset, which could stream high-definition video and audio from a media player to a television. With SiBeam's technology, it would be possible to hang a television on a wall and place the media player in the same room, but far away and out of sight, without wiring the two together. In the demonstration, the company sent data from the media player to the television at a rate of two gigabits per second, fast enough for standard high-definition video, which is known as 1080i. But the company's first commercial chips--available in Panasonic displays in early 2009--will be better. They will transmit data at four gigabits per second, fast enough to stream the highest-quality high-definition video, 1080p. ...

High-Definition Video over Wi-Fi

Wireless chips could soon manage a gigabit of data per second.

Several next-generation wireless schemes, including WiMax, 4G cellular technology, and others that explore previously untapped parts of the radio spectrum, promise faster, better connectivity through the air. But these standards still face business and technological challenges. In the midst of all this, a startup called Quantenna plans to improve wireless connectivity simply by supercharging Wi-Fi. With this goal in mind, the company, based in Sunnyvale, CA, will release chip sets in the coming months that can handle a gigabit of data per second over Wi-Fi--enough to stream high-definition video and other content over short distances. ...

Beam forming at Wi-Fi frequencies couldn't happen without the 4x4 antenna scheme , says Goldsmith. This is because antennas don't just send and receive data: they can also monitor the environment and detect interference. In fact, if there are two data streams, in a 4x4 antenna, then there will be an extra antenna to monitor the environment and instruct the other antennas to subtly alter the beam's path to correct for disruption. "Having four antennas allows you to mitigate the impact of interference and point the beam in the optimal direction," Goldsmith says. ...

Other tricks include developing algorithms to manage all the environmental information collected by the fourth antenna, and making sure that a line-of-sight connection can be corrected quickly enough when interference is detected, so that there's no lag in wireless speed."Beam forming is indeed a good way of improving capacity," says Jan Rabaey, a professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's definitely something that will happen." ...

Obviously, the rest of the Internet won't be able to handle such large chunks of data at similar speeds. One would have to most likely factor in several hours of download time before streaming a movie to their TV.

In any case, I was more interested in the fact the several companies are seriously working on digital high-def. It's still a long way off, but I'm even more certain than before that this will one day be a reality.

[musclemenkids]

Yesterday at work we we given a presentation of 3Dtv.... all i can say is holy eff!! Seriously it is amazingly good.

[Tortle]

Here's an interesting contender in the mix:

Roku Digital Video Player
The Roku digital video player instantly streams high quality movies over the Internet directly to your TV. The affordable Roku player is compact, easy to set up and intuitive to use.

The Roku comes with everything you need to start watching within minutes of opening the box - the standard yellow, white and red cables, both Wi-Fi and Ethernet are built in, wireless remote and batteries. Start watching instantly anywhere you have a TV and a high-speed Internet connection.

More than 40,000 choices are currently available from Amazon Video On Demand and Netflix with more being added every week.

Up till now, the Roku device has been specific only to the Netflix Instant Viewing library. I've been considering buying it, but the Netflix Instant Viewing selection is somewhat limited and never has any new releases. With the addition of Amazon Video On Demand, there seems to be more of a selection of new releases, if I want to pony up the dough to rent them. But since I already have a Netflix account, the Netflix rentals are at no additional charge.

This device also lets the user buy movies, which is another complaint I've had of movie downloads. I don't know if I would actually buy any movies if I owned the Roku. Obviously the hard drive space on the device dictates how many movies you can buy, and I would doubt if it could hold many. Also, it depends on the picture quality. Some reviewers say that the picture quality is near-HD and for rentals, that's perfectly fine. But if I own a movie I want it to look the best it possibly can.

Regardless, it looks like I'll be switching to digital downloads a lot earlier than I expected, at least for rentals.

[Scumdogg]

The Roku digital video player instantly streams high quality movies

The Roku comes with everything you need to start watching within minutes of opening the box - the standard yellow, white and red cables

This seems contradictory. I assume it's HD-ready though and you just have to buy the proper cables separately, correct?

Also, man, the Netflix instant viewing selection is AWESOME. You just need to expand your viewing interests. I literally have like 240 things on my instant queue, from movies to the complete series of Voltron, The Office, and more. I will never understand how people can disparage the instant selection.

[Soupie]

Also, it depends on the picture quality. Some reviewers say that the picture quality is near-HD and for rentals, that's perfectly fine. But if I own a movie I want it to look the best it possibly can.

It appears to be 720p.

Video Modes: 16:9 HD (720p), 16:9 anamorphic (480p), 4:3 standard (480i)

Here's an interesting cnet article about 720p vs. 1080p. It looks like the Roku streams the data from the net in real time. My guess is that there is a little wait time up front as a few minutes of the movie download to build a buffer; it then continues to download as you watch the movie.

[Adamantiumwulf]

Picture quality is also determined by your download speed. If your speed drops it will pause and re buffer and possibly lower your picture quality.

[Tortle]

Here's an interesting cnet article about 720p vs. 1080p.

Wow... I really wish I read that article before I bought my TV. On one hand, it's good to have the best resolution possible because when you're really studying the visuals in a movie at least you can get up and move closer to the TV to see more detail. But on the other hand, I just watched Burn After Reading on Blu-Ray, and the close-ups had so much detail that the actors were frankly revolting. Be careful what you wish for....

But that does convince me that the Roku resolution will be more than adequate. I'm cool even with a DVD's resolution for rentals, so I don't think it will be a problem at all.

It looks like the Roku streams the data from the net in real time. My guess is that there is a little wait time up front as a few minutes of the movie download to build a buffer; it then continues to download as you watch the movie.

I suspect it's like the PSN movie rentals, which did exactly that. You just start the download, go to the bathroom and take a massive, and when you come back the movie's ready to go!

Also, man, the Netflix instant viewing selection is AWESOME. You just need to expand your viewing interests. I literally have like 240 things on my instant queue, from movies to the complete series of Voltron, The Office, and more. I will never understand how people can disparage the instant selection.

I do have very particular movie interests. For example, none of the classic 70's Pam Grier movies are available for instant viewing. But I was pleased to see that Star Trek: TOS Season 1 was available. And like you said, there are plenty of great classic cartoons like Voltron and Captain N: The Game Master.

[Tortle]

Another update: I bought a Roku Digital Video Player a few weeks ago. I've been hemming and hawing over it for a while, and this thread finally pushed me over the edge.

The picture quality is sporadic and ranges from near-HD to sub-DVD. It seems that the quality depends not only on download speed, but also on the compression of the movie that's served by Netflix. For example, I watched one episode of The Office and the quality was near-HD; the very next episode was sub-DVD, even though the Roku indicated that the download speed was the same.

But even the sub-DVD quality is watchable. And the near-HD quality is really nice. It's not as good as Blu-Ray (despite that cnet article, you can tell a difference), but it's more than adequate for rentals. I've been watching Star Trek: TOS Remastered in HD quality, and I'm loving life. But you'll definitely need an HDMI cable if you want HD.

The downloading is quick and easy. I have a cable Internet connection, which probably runs at about 10 mbps, and I haven't experienced any lag time after the initial buffer. But fast-forwarding and rewinding are clunky. You cycle through a series of screen caps, and when you click "Play" again, it rebuffers.

Choosing a movie to play is clunky, too. You cycle through a series of DVD covers to find a movie in your Instant Viewing queue. If you have 50 movies in your queue, browsing through the queue can be a pain. I keep my queue at around 30 movies, which seems to work well.

But those are pretty minor complaints. Overall, I'm very pleased with the system. It's very easy to set up, the picture quality is usually pretty good, and it's insanely convenient.

[Soupie]

Tortle, I applaud you for being a guinea pig with all this new technology. Despite all my yammering about this stuff, I really don't consume enough movies and TV shows to justify investing in this stuff, at least not yet. (I finally gave up on the only current TV show that was holding my interest, Fringe.)

In any case, I'm glad that the ease and convenience of use outweighs any negatives. Furthermore, the negative things you've listed will certainly be ironed-out in future versions of this technology.

[Scumdogg]

Sounds pretty identical to the experience via Xbox Live. Same weird fast forward/rewind deal (fortunately that's a feature i rarely find myself using anyway), same setup for cycling through the instant queue. Although if you think it's hard to find movies in your queue, you should see mine...i think it's sitting around 265 right now, and that's with me watching a new movie and deleting it nearly every day.


I haven't had anything on mine be a noticeably lower quality than advertised though (episodes of the Office were always HD for me when available), and i can't say i've seen anything that was particularly sub-DVD quality. Other than maybe two movies that were streamed in 4:3 and therefore probably got crappy DVD releases to begin with.


And now that Starz is teamed up with Netflix the instant selection seems to be getting incrementally better. The downside to this is that their movies do rotate off the list occasionally, and there seems to be no way to tell from your queue itself when they're going away. I had Truck Turner and Apocalypto drop off before i could watch 'em.

[Tortle]

Thanks, Soups.

In any case, I'm glad that the ease and convenience of use outweighs any negatives.

I think that will be the deciding factor. Of course, it's not as good as Blu-Ray, and I doubt it ever will be. Quality issues aside, it still doesn't have special features or subtitles. But I don't care about that for most rentals, and most people probably feel the same way.

Another plus for the Roku player is the price. At $100 (and free Netflix rentals), it seriously undercuts the AppleTV.

The downside to this is that their movies do rotate off the list occasionally, and there seems to be no way to tell from your queue itself when they're going away.

You should be able to see which movies will be discontinued in your Instant Viewing queue on your computer. At least, I noticed a few of my selections were set to expire April 1st.

By the way, here are a couple of related posts about this topic on Hacking Netflix:

Netflix's Swasey: "People Will Be watching movies on DVD for another 10-15 years"

Netflix will use DVD rental—and Netflix [DVD mailing rental] will grow for at least 5 more years. And even after the peak, whenever that is—there’ll still going to be people wanting to watch movies on DVD. DVD is a very, very good format, and it’ll be around for a long time. People will be watching movies on DVD for another 10-15 years—at least—if not more.

Roku To Add 10 Channels & Amazon Search

The device maker is working with several other content providers and expects to start unveiling new partners this summer. Roku expects to add about 10 new "channels" by the holidays, turning its device into a wide-open conduit for delivering Internet entertainment to the TV.

Nobody knows what "channels" will be included (I'm hoping for YouTube and Hulu), but it sounds like the Roku player will be an inexpensive bridge connecting the Internet to home televisions.

[Scumdogg]

You should be able to see which movies will be discontinued in your Instant Viewing queue on your computer. At least, I noticed a few of my selections were set to expire April 1st.

Aww for the love of... I have like 20 movies dropping off on or before April 1st. Not sure i can manage 3 a day, cuts will have to be made.

Thanks for the heads-up though, i'm not sure why i never thought to look there.

Edited by Scumdogg, 23 March 2009 - 12:17 PM.

[Soupie]

In case anyone cares, itunes is now offering all EMI music as DMR free! You can also convert all your DRM'd EMI music to DRM free for $.30 a song. iTunes automatically sorts our which songs are EMI for you. I currently use my LG phone as an mp3 player, so this was worth it for me.

[Scumdogg]

I do have very particular movie interests. For example, none of the classic 70's Pam Grier movies are available for instant viewing.

Just a heads-up, Foxy Brown is instantly viewable now.

[Soupie]

YouTube boosts full-length movies, TV show lineup



The long-form videos will be housed on a unique page at http://www.youtube.com/shows and get a "Shows" tab on the main YouTube site.

The offering, which went live late Thursday, marks a further departure from the fuzzy homemade clips that made the Web site popular and is the latest move in YouTube's attempt to boost sales and profits. Last week, YouTube announced it was teaming up with Universal Music Group to create an online music video venture.

"It's a first step in a long commitment," said Shiva Rajaraman, a YouTube senior product manager, in a conference call with reporters. ...

[Tortle]

Awesome. I hope YouTube is one of the channels that Roku will be adding in the next year. Although all the other channels on the Roku have content that you pay for, so I doubt it.

Here's another interesting development:

Time Warner Issues Statement on Consumption Based Billing

"With the ever-increasing flood of content on the Internet, bandwidth consumption is growing exponentially. That’s a good thing; however, there are costs associated with this increased Internet usage. Here at Time Warner Cable, consumption among our high-speed Internet subscribers is increasing by about 40% a year. As a facilities based provider, we’ve built a network that must be maintained and upgraded. We have increasing variable costs and we have to continue to invest in the network itself.

"This is a common problem that all network providers are experiencing and must address. Several other providers have instituted consumption based billing, including all major network providers in Canada and others in the U.K., New Zealand and elsewhere. In the U.S., AT&T has begun two consumption based billing trials and other providers including Comcast, Charter and Cox are using varying methods of monitoring and managing bandwidth consumption.

"For good reason. Internet demand is rising at a rate that could outpace capacity within a few years. According to industry analysts, the infrastructure may not be able to accommodate the explosion of online content by 2012. This could result in Internet brownouts. It will take a lot of money to fix the problem. Rather than raising prices on all customers or limiting usage, we think the fairest approach is to move to a tiered model in which users pay more if they use more."

Source:
http://www.hackingne...ed-billing.html

If this becomes common, it would undercut the efforts of Netflix, Amazon, and Apple to provide downloadable content directly to the TV. But it seems like Time Warner is backing off from their plans because of negative customer reaction.

[Scumdogg]

Yeah, i'm already looking into alternatives to Time Warner, i'm not excited to end up with like a $150 internet bill from 5 hours or so of streaming video a day plus gigantic work-related file transfers. And until i see them *completely* back off, i'm still investigating the competition. I don't really want to have a plan with anyone who thinks this might be a good idea. I would however be perfectly happy to pay for consumption-based internet if i could also have consumption-based cable through Time Warner.

I read the pseudo-retraction in that link, and this is one of my favorite things in it:

How does this compare with what other network providers are doing?
In fact, several other providers have instituted consumption based billing, including all major network providers in Canada and others in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and elsewhere. In the US, other broadband providers are also conducting consumption based billing trials or are using varying methods of monitoring and managing bandwidth consumption.

Yes....other people do it. Just not a single one of our competitors. What kind of rational argument is based around "Just be happy you don't live in New Zealand"? This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to undercut services like Xbox Live and Netflix, who are becoming a very valid threat to Time Warner's ridiculously overpriced cable tv offerings.

[musclemenkids]

So how does it work in U.S. at the moment?

Over here in the uk you have different broadband packages for example a small, a medium and large package. The small package may give you a download limit of about 2G, the medium package maybe 40G and the large package is 'unlimited'.

[Scumdogg]

So how does it work in U.S. at the moment?

Over here in the uk you have different broadband packages for example a small, a medium and large package. The small package may give you a download limit of about 2G, the medium package maybe 40G and the large package is 'unlimited'.

Currently you pay a flat rate ($45-$50 or so) and use it as much as you want. Much like cable tv. The problem lies in the fact that Time Warner is looking at making their top tier around the limit of your middle tier, and charging MORE for it than we're currently paying for unlimited. The only "unlimited" tier they're planning is based on getting the 40G tier and then capping your overage fees at $75 on top of that. And is yours actually just a download limit? They're proposing an actual transfer limit which will also include uploads and streaming video. Effectively nerfing services like YouTube, Xbox Live, and Netflix. I watch enough streaming movies via netflix to double or triple their proposed top tier package most months.

Other broadband companies are starting to increase their territories though, and are actually looking to get and keep customers, so i imagine a pretty huge amount of customers (especially in cities) will just drop Time Warner if this happens.

[Soupie]

Amazon launches HD movie rental, TV show sales

(AP) -- Online retailer Amazon.com Inc. said Tuesday it is adding high-definition video to its on-demand service, offering consumers the ability to rent movies and purchase television episodes shown in HD.

"Our customers have been asking us for two things: HD and the ability to watch movies and TV shows instantly on their television," said Bill Carr, Amazon vice president of music and video, in a statement.

The Seattle-based company said it will add more than 500 HD TV shows and movies to its Amazon Video On Demand service. Titles are from major networks and studios like Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures and Showtime Networks, with new-release movie titles including "Twilight" and "Frost/Nixon" and TV shows such as "The Tudors" and "Smallville."

Customers can use Panasonic VIERA CAST-enabled HDTVs, the Roku digital video player, certain types of TiVo and the Sony Bravia Internet Video Link device to order and watch HD movies for $3.99 to $4.99 each. Television episodes are available for purchase at $2.99 each.

Customers also can buy the content to watch on their personal computers or download it for later viewing offline.

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Wow! This is all happening so quickly. I wonder how much the economy and businesses seeking to streamline and find new revenues is driving this?

[Tortle]

Here's another interesting story:

NPD Study Shows Consumers Prefer Discs

According to a study by the NPD Group, 88% of consumer home entertainment dollars go toward DVD and Blu-ray Disc purchases and rentals. Each US consumer spent an average of $25 per month on all types of home entertainment. Most of that money, 63%, was spent on DVD purchases; 7% was spent on BD purchases; and 18% went to DVD and BD rentals.

Just 9% was spent on Video on-demand (VOD), and 3% went to digital downloads and online streaming.

Most consumers don't use digital options to watch a full-length movie, although the numbers have grown over the last year. Digital movie downloaders also tend to buy and rent Blu-ray Discs more than the average consumer: 25% of them bought or rented a Blu-ray Disc in the last three months, versus 5% overall.

"While many in the home video industry worry that digital consumers might walk away from packaged media, that hasn't happened yet," said Russ Crupnick, entertainment industry analyst for NPD. "Discs are still and by far the dominant way Americans enjoy home video."

Source: Blu-Ray.com

It's kind of a confusing study: Blu-ray disc buyers also tend to download movies (which is actually true in my case as well). Regardless, some people in the post-back on that site are using this study as proof that people prefer discs. I think the study shows nothing of the sort. It just says that right now, discs are dominant, but it also says that the number of digital downloads is growing.