The Future of Home Video

[Zot!]

4K Blu-ray has been approved, will be called UltraHD Blu-ray with 66 GB [dual layer] and 100 GB [trial layer] disc sizes. A new player will be required, and manufacturers are required to include back-compatibility with regular Blu-ray discs.

That's all well and good, as long as everything still fills up my TV screen.

I assume these expectations align exactly with those who record things vertically on their phones, which I hope they also stretch.

[tarpilot]

Shhh, you'll give Xavier Dolan ideas

[mfunk9786]

TV companies' slow adoption of providing 4K content seems like an indicator to me that it's too much, too soon and there just isn't much of a market for it yet. Hell, there are still channels that Verizon FiOS doesn't carry in HD, let alone 4K - so why would I run out to buy a new TV in this day and age for something like this that has barely any content to go with it?

[Tropical Kaiju]

Oppo has been selling a Blu Ray player equipped with a chip that offers "upgrade" to 4K. Does automatized, digital manipulation makes up for the dearth on native 4K media?

Anybody around here has tried that player's feature?

If anything, the 4K monitors will move off the shelves as luxury items, status symbols.

Not sure if the web as we know it can handle widespread streaming of 4K content.

[domino harvey]

Awful in every way AV Club article on the "death" of DVD-- the comments are even worse (Did you know DVDs are only good for backwater hicks and soldiers?). Instant gratification via internet streaming and a reinforced cultural perspective with regards to film that only extends back to the length of one's birth year are undoing all the good that DVDs prominence in the last decade did in creating a new generation of informed film lovers

[Professor Wagstaff]

When I saw Alex McCown's name on the byline, I knew I'd likely agree with you, Domino. I've read a few of his pieces over at the AV Club and found his insights smugly misguided. I still can't decide if he's just wrongheaded or trying to stir the pot.

[Drucker]

This whole paragraph is such garbage.

Digital storage technology is rendering hard copies of software and content obsolete. Being able to keep your music, movies, games, and books in your hardware system—or better yet, the cloud—is creating a concomitant desire to be done with yet another bulky material object. Obviously, fetishists for material goods will maintain the survival, however minimal, of the format. Just as there are those who celebrate the retro pleasures of vinyl or the cassette tape, there will be a home for DVD, even as Blu-ray eventually follows it to oblivion in the popular marketplace. The internet’s ability to keep everything online has stoked a fantasy of being able to contain all of our entertainment and arts in the digital netherworld, perpetually at our fingertips.

[David M.]

Total tripe.

Here's what happens when network-only content (can they stop calling it "digital" as if DVD and BD are analog?) disappears into the ether:

http://m.ign.com/articles/2015/04/29/ps ... bay-for-1k" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Drucker]

Yep, it's so great to have any film you want at your fingertips at any time!

[MichaelB]

I have thousands of films at my fingertips at any time because I rip them to MP4 and then store the DVDs in my shed. This involves a tiny bit more upfront effort than streaming, but the advantages are so massive that it's easily worth it. Not least the fact that, barring damage to the disc, they're a permanent fixture.

And also, the choice reflects my own taste - I've got sixteen Miklós Jancsó films sitting in my iTunes library and can watch them on my big telly within seconds of picking up the Apple TV remote. How many streaming services offer even one?

[FrauBlucher]

This whole paragraph is such garbage.

Digital storage technology is rendering hard copies of software and content obsolete. Being able to keep your music, movies, games, and books in your hardware system—or better yet, the cloud—is creating a concomitant desire to be done with yet another bulky material object. Obviously, fetishists for material goods will maintain the survival, however minimal, of the format. Just as there are those who celebrate the retro pleasures of vinyl or the cassette tape, there will be a home for DVD, even as Blu-ray eventually follows it to oblivion in the popular marketplace. The internet’s ability to keep everything online has stoked a fantasy of being able to contain all of our entertainment and arts in the digital netherworld, perpetually at our fingertips.

What's next, art collectors' storing their possessions, photographed in the cloud, and then getting rid of the physical pieces.

I've heard this train whistling for quite some time, but it has yet to reach it's destination. Even the illustrious Nick Redman gave the physical media a 5 to 7 year window, and it's 4 years and counting for his label that seems to be doing very well with no end in sight.

[swo17]

I don't know, I thought that whole article was a fascinating insider look at the DVD era. Like, who knew that DVDs would often come with "bonus content" or that something called the World Wide Web was apparently popular enough to change the way that many people live?

[DarkImbecile]

That shift in expectations is due in large part to the single most significant invention of the last 50 years, and arguably in most of human history: the internet.

I'd like to argue that.

The whole article reads like Even Dumber Tom Friedman, which... sigh.

[Zot!]

As others have hinted, there is not so much wrong with the new technologies themselves. The problem is that instead of liberating viewers, it's being used to influence timid viewers toward viewing an intended product, and reigning in more resolute viewers, who currently have a world of product available to them, and a true freedom of choice. Even excluding bonus content, the quality, transfer, and other technical specifications of streamed content is completely random, and can be changed instantly by the rights owner. The ultimate inequity for me is that it removes all rights to a product for the user. One can no longer sell, loan or gift their media.

[Tommaso]

As others have hinted, there is not so much wrong with the new technologies themselves. The problem is that instead of liberating viewers, it's being used to influence timid viewers toward viewing an intended product, and reigning in more resolute viewers, who currently have a world of product available to them, and a true freedom of choice.

I'd even say that making use of the new technologies could theoretically even increase the freedom of choice if institutions and archives made more use of it by actually distributing the chunks of film history they're sitting on (I'm obviously talking about silent and early sound films here, mainly). But in spite of some occasional efforts like the EFG 1914 project or some few archival films which end up on Vimeo, nothing much has happened in this direction so far. On the contrary, for instance the BFI has apparently resorted to geoblocking even for silent rarities that they have the sole rights for or which are in the public domain anyway. Why, in god's name? It's clear that many of these films would not be feasible for a release on a physical medium because they would never recuperate the costs, but archival activity for me clearly includes making the archive available to everyone who is interested, and the modern technologies are the ideal medium for that.

The above-mentioned disappearance of films from netflix or other streaming sites is mirrored by the disapperance of releases on the physical medium, however. The number of films that were once available on dvd and are now impossible to find even on ebay or amazon marketplace increases steadily. Best current example: many, if not most, of the films of Manoel de Oliveira. This, by the way, is also true for the more and more popular decision to go the 'limited edition' route, for instance by the BFI and by Arrow. While MichaelB and others have quite convincingly explained the rationale behind it, I still find it very deplorable that young film fans who might only learn about people like Rossellini, Mizoguchi or Yoshida in a few years won't have any chance to find these films if that policy isn't changed (or adapted to high quality downloads).

[Drucker]

On top of that, of course, is the death of physical media stores. So no perusing the used bins for old copies of discarded treasures.

[MichaelB]

This, by the way, is also true for the more and more popular decision to go the 'limited edition' route, for instance by the BFI and by Arrow. While MichaelB and others have quite convincingly explained the rationale behind it, I still find it very deplorable that young film fans who might only learn about people like Rossellini, Mizoguchi or Yoshida in a few years won't have any chance to find these films if that policy isn't changed (or adapted to high quality downloads).

While Mizoguchi is rather famously out of Eureka's hands now, Rossellini and Yoshida will remain available on DVD, presumably until the relevant licenses expire (assuming they're not renewed). That's hardly denying people access to their work.

The adjective "deplorable" should perhaps most appropriately be targeted at Sony for ensuring that Blu-ray manufacturing still costs many times that of the DVD equivalent, not least because of compulsory licensing fees. Reduce the cost of manufacturing and there'd be far less need (and I'm afraid it is an increasing need) to devise initiatives to ensure continuous cashflow to distributors.

[Drucker]

You've made this point before, Michael, and I'm perplexed. If Sony reduced the costs, wouldn't there be more titles produced via bluray? Wouldn't that offset the lost revenue? What would Sony's reply be to this?

[domino harvey]

From the comments

"As DVD breathes its last...." Another smug eulogy for physical media despite more films than ever being released on DVD and Blu-ray. I wonder if this guy's desk is anywhere near the other AV Club guy who didn't cover DEATH WISH V for his DEATH WISH "Run the Series" overview because--per his own admission--he couldn't find it streaming anywhere, even though he could've ordered a physical copy from Amazon for less than $5.

[tenia]

I'm an ardent defensor of the physical format, but numbers definitely show a collapsing market. For sure, it's not going to disappear overnight (especially DVD), but I wouldn't be hopeful either. UHD BD will certainly never take off, BD doesn't interest enough people, and even the good ol' DVD is plunging.

But about the AV Club piece : it's at the same time approximative, superficial and many times condescendant. I really had a bad time reading this and, as somebody who still heavily relies on physical copies, felt insulted at times.

[MichaelB]

You've made this point before, Michael, and I'm perplexed. If Sony reduced the costs, wouldn't there be more titles produced via bluray? Wouldn't that offset the lost revenue? What would Sony's reply be to this?

I suspect Sony isn't that bothered about small labels with small print runs, given that the bulk of their revenue presumably comes from high-volume customers who have no alternative manufacturing source.

[tenia]

You've made this point before, Michael, and I'm perplexed. If Sony reduced the costs, wouldn't there be more titles produced via bluray? Wouldn't that offset the lost revenue? What would Sony's reply be to this?

I suspect Sony isn't that bothered about small labels with small print runs, given that the bulk of their revenue presumably comes from high-volume customers who have no alternative manufacturing source.

But the bulk of their revenue wouldn't come from high volume customers with no alternative if the costs would have decreased ! That would have allowed smaller labels to run more titles on BD because of cheaper costs, allowing a bigger catalogue at a presumably lower prices, allowing for simply a bigger market and more customers.

Basically, it means that Sony chose to keep elitist high costs, prohibiting many titles / labels to go to BD.

I can't even imagine how this might have driven to the current awful state of the BD market.

[TMDaines]

I have thousands of films at my fingertips at any time because I rip them to MP4 and then store the DVDs in my shed. This involves a tiny bit more upfront effort than streaming, but the advantages are so massive that it's easily worth it. Not least the fact that, barring damage to the disc, they're a permanent fixture.

And also, the choice reflects my own taste - I've got sixteen Miklós Jancsó films sitting in my iTunes library and can watch them on my big telly within seconds of picking up the Apple TV remote. How many streaming services offer even one?

Agreed, MichaelB. As you suggest, digital libraries and streaming may well be the future, but that sure doesn't have to mean Netflix. I love flicking through my Plex library and looking at all the rare and wonderful films at my fingertips.

As long as labels keep pumping out lovely editions of titles of interest and everyone's favourite website comes back online I'll be quite happy.

[Drucker]

A fine but nothing special article by Vox on music ownership/streaming features this awful second paragraph.

But we now know that this whole way of thinking about the music business was wrong. Customers don't want to buy music, and they don't want to build music collections. Smartphones allow something much better: services that allow unlimited streaming of millions of songs. These services are rendering traditional music ownership obsolete.

[Jonathan S]

I guess my bemusement at the reductive definition of music as "songs" (which I've encountered before in the digital world) places me firmly in the article's "old people" bracket long before any technical considerations!