vedderstapp

To answer:

1. Convenience. Was browsing in a moment of boredom.
2. £2.49, or roughly 5 of your American dollars. About normal for a movie rental.
3. Nope. I transferred it to my iPod, which is hooked up to my TV, which, as I understand it, is the long-winded technophobe version of Apple TV

Brian T

I think the two can co-exist peacefully as well, and likely will for some time, even for the types of serious enthusiasts who visit forums like this one. Physical DVD collections will still have homes, but I can easily see people using the download format to actually increase their experience with cinema without necessarily increasing the weight of their existing collections. Though I can't count myself among them, there are a lot of blind buyers at sites like this, I've noticed, people who surely don't keep everything they've blind bought. But buying-to-sample is often the only option for people who don't live in big cities, and even some who do. A good download service, with above-average video/sound quality and glitch-free downloads, not unlike the one mentioned in my previous post, can provide people with an excellent "blind rental" service that expands cinematic vocabulary regardless of location, offers potentially more viewing experiences for less money ($2-$3 rentals vs., say, $5+ rentals in stores, of $10+ blind buys of actual discs), and the opportunity to then build a much more precise library of physical media with potentially fewer unprofitable sell-offs or trade-offs down the road. I think it's all in how we choose to use it.

My only concern, as a chronic consumer of non-mainstream fare, might the availability of "lesser" titles on Blu-Ray as a result. By "lesser", I don't mean inferior films, I simply mean indie stuff, foreign films, B-movies, martial arts, schlock, documentaries, and other bits n' bobs that were usually afforded "niche" status on DVD and I wonder if independent distributors might see more value in re-releasing such titles via secure, quality downloading services rather than Blu-ray, especially considering they frequently barely broke even on them even during the peak years of DVD.

I notice Blue Underground has announced titles in Blu-ray (surely other labels have, too), and perhaps as the overall costs of making the new discs come down more small companies will join them with key/premium titles from their catalogues, but it remains to be seen whether the format remains viable long enough for such companies to eventually get their entire catalogues released in this way.

The big studios might also face this issue with their enormous back catalogues of far-lesser-known titles. Once they get past the obvious (and sure to continue) blockbusters and confirmed "classics", and maybe even a box-set collections of well-known artists and film series, will the remainder really be worth all the effort when they could simply upload a file to a download service and potentially draw more actual viewers because of the lower price point? And if those viewers enjoy something enough to want to own it, I'm sure DVDs will still be around.

And then there's companies like Retro-Media, BCI , Kino et. al., where the quality of the original elements for much of the stuff they release can barely hold up to DVD specs, let alone something higher, and across-the-board restorations and remasters are probably cost-prohibitive. Companies like those might benefit more from paid downloads than they ever will from Blu-Ray. Goodness knows some of them barely scraped by releasing DVDs.

Jigen75

I think most foreign titles will never make it to Blu Ray in the US. The bigger ones will make it like Old Boy or Shinobi. But the small stuff won't. They will stick to regular DVD which is perfectly fine. I like Blu Ray and I prefer to watch something on Blu Ray, but I have no problem watching a regular DVD.

I do have a problem with downloading and paying for data. I mean even 5 bucks is to much to me. I can pick up DVDs for 5.00 new now. And have the extras and watch it all the time. I would never pay to watch something on my computer, now if it was linked to the TV then maybe but the price has to be low. 1-2 bucks max.

Brian T

This is sort of what I've been referring to. Downloading services, good ones, can be used to augment an existing and growing collection of physical media that you can touch and feel until your heart's content. There are plenty of titles, in everyone's collection I'm sure, where the bonus discs and added value material may never get watched more than once, but they're cool just to have there. There are also many thousands of titles that don't get "deluxe edition" treatment because there's just not enough extras available, no budget for them, the films are too old, too low-budget, whatever reason. These could very well be films that people might want to see, but suspect they might not want to own. Two or three dollars to watch something like that, downloaded via computer but watched via your television, which is possible (despite many here thinking it isn't, or won't be) if not exactly pristine just yet, is a much better price to pay than blind buying even a $5 disc on the outside chance you'll like it, then being stuck with another coaster if you don't. Again, I'm kind of referring to NON-mainstream, non-big-studio fare, the "small stuff" as Jigen75 calls it, that you generally don't find for $5 because the companies releasing it can't afford to unload it at that price. For that, downloading might one day be the best and only option. And that could work.

Brian T

Looks like Tai Seng smelled what's coming. They've offered 100 Asian titles through a company called EZtakes that sells downloadable--and burnable--movies, complete with any extras from the original DVDs. Some of the lesser Tai Seng titles can be streamed for free as well.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/06/prweb1016184.htm

It appears Palm, Troma, Tempe, IMAX and others have also taken a hint, as they're represented there as well. The company's download/burn prices are a bit high for my tastes, but there are many that can be had for around $4-$7, which ain't bad. Others are high enough that buying an original DVD, if you can still find some of them, is preferable. I'm sure as time goes by, and their catalogue ages, prices at services like this will drop considerably.

The Bus

The third one is the only real issue. The first have either already been solved or will be solved eventually as technology continually improves. I often get 800KB/s+ download speeds on my home connection. I can already stream, at a moment's notice, a limited library of HD movies provided by my cable provider. Neither of these things were even remotely possible ten years ago.

It is up to the studios to come up with something that makes sense. If they can lower the technological and time requirements for watching movies, then piracy won't be a problem.

Example: While pirated DVDs certainly exist, they are not a significant % of total DVDs sold and are inferior, 99.9% of the time. If the studios can make this happen with downloads, then downloads will succeed, on their terms.

The Bus

True. Without signing up with any special service (that is, doing any additional work), I can watch/rent/buy movies/TV shows from at least four sources.

Anyone who says that it can't be done is either ill informed or lives in the boonies with a satellite connection.

The Bus

Do you live in a world where technology doesn't improve?

The Apples iTunes Music Store currently holds over 4 billion songs. Consider a song to be 1/20th of the maximum size of a CD, and a CD to be 1/11th the capacity of a dual-layer DVD, and that means that each movie "equals" about 220 uncompressed songs. Add compression, and each movie "equals" anywhere from 1000 to 4000 songs.

So, at worst, Apple's current capacity model could hold one million movies.

The current hurdles for mass adoption have nothing to do with data or technology to view movies at home: as said before, I already have devices that let me do this that required no specific expenditure: my computer, two video game consoles, and cable box all allow me to do this IF...

The studios get their act together and make this happen.

Now, I do have a high-speed internet connection, but this isn't 1997 anymore. They are widely available if you're in any populated area, so the majority of Americans have it.

The Bus

And, of course, this system already exists.

And you know what? It's incredible. I've seen it demo'd and if I could afford it, I would get it. Luckily, it's technology, so it will only get cheaper.

The Bus

I actually think the opposite. I think anything in the future that goes beyond full HD will probably be download only. Certainly, within 5 years multi-TB drives are going to be so common it won't kill anyone to be able to store a file the size of, say, a 2K version of Lawrence of Arabia.

And with that being such a tiny market, studios will be able to offer higher-quality downloads through whatever the existing VOD channels are at the time. So you hook up your VOD player, select to watch a movie in HD or, if you have the required hardware, you could see it in 2K or 4K, if you wish.

After all, the displays, at least as computer monitors, already exist.

Drexl

I don't consider burned discs to be an acceptable solution. They're not as reliable as pressed discs.

The Bus

That's why VOD will not be on computers (although it will exist there, as it does now), but through either existing providers like TWC, Verizon or Comcast or what have you, or through devices, like your cable company's set-top box, the Xbox 360, Unbox through Tivo, Apple TV, the Vudu, or Netflix's Roku box, or any other number of devices.

This also negates your second reason.

Your third reason is invalid, as several of the devices I mentioned above handle HD.

The fourth reason is correct, if you're one of the people without access to high-speed internet. You'd be in the minority.

And your fifth reason is valid, but not enough to say that VOD won't work.

Brian T

Then don't burn them. Store the content on your computer/external drive and watch it through your television. No need to worry about media deterioration, etc.

Brian T

While I'm cool with virtually everything The Bus has laid out in his multiple replies, I have to point out that far too many pirated DVDs, rather frustratingly, are virtually equal to the "real" stuff. I'm no expert, nor am I tooting the horn for piracy, nor do I buy them (but I have seen them, obviously), but the fact remains that bootleggers, particularly in big cities like the one in which I live, have been churning out product that's every bit the equal of the product on legitimate store shelves, and it's galling to see, especially to a Hong Kong movie fan like myself, as it becomes increasingly difficult to source legit product (even in Chinatown!) without importing. Perhaps it's the inevitable byproduct of our Big Media Conglomerates® shifting production to regulation-lax China so they can maintain high margins when they sell it to us.

I'm sure downloading won't be immune to the scourge, either; ironic since the whole concept often feels like a response to something that the entertainment industry could no longer afford to brush off.

An4h0ny

hulu + netflix watch it now = wave of the present

there are some movies i want to own special editions of, but probably 80% of what i watch, tv and films, is now streamed online

the quality is great, and in the case of hulu, also free with a non-annoying (to me) ad scheme.

i don't even think the physical format for music will totally go away, but disc formats will be an increasingly smaller part of what i choose to watch/listen to as time goes on.

that's just me though. music and movies are both very emotional purchases so clearly opinions will vary wildly.

VHS?

http://www.vudu.com/
Brother has it.Loves it.I love it.Will be getting one.

Lastdaysofrain

I think that television and computers are and will become more and more integrated so that there really won't be much of a difference between your television and your home computer. So a hybrid of VOD/Downloading is going to be the wave of the future.

This is why Blu-Ray will never catch on past a niche videophile market. It's not easier than DVD to your average consumer. VOD/downloading IS a lot easier. Most people don't want all that stuff cluttering up their house after they watch something. Plus, we're lazy people. Why get up, pick up a DVD case, put it in a player, sit back down, when you can press two buttons on your existing remote and watch whatever you want?

Mikael79

This topic comes up all the time, and I just don't think we're going to see it take over for physical media anytime in the next 5-10 years. I do think it will accompany physical media, and as our ability to stream high-quality media, compression and massive storage capabilities improve - we'll eventually go there exclusively.

Rest assured that we'll always be re-buying films over and over again, no matter which way we buy them.

tylergfoster

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3TrPwOrf4sM&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3TrPwOrf4sM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

DJariya

I can't believe that some people would rather spend money to have a 1 GB AVI or MP4 file of their favorite film sitting on a computer hard drive than a a DVD or Blu Ray disc in a nice case with some cool artwork sitting on their shelf.

The choice is simple for me. I'd rather have a disc than a computer file. Hell no to downloading.

Brian T

This assumes, of course, that nearly everyone else in this thread is talking an "either/or" attitude towards the subject. Either nothing but DVDs, or nothing but downloading. What's wrong with a mix of both? After ten years of "collecting", some people here, including myself, are faced with a lot more than "a DVD or blu-ray . . . sitting on their shelf."

Many here, possibly yourself included, have hundreds, sometimes thousands of DVDs sitting on their shelves, or stored in boxes and totes, or broken into portions with discs temporarily offloaded at the homes of parents or girlfriends. It's unwieldy.

There comes a point, more specifically an age, where you own nearly everything you ever wanted to see thanks to this golden age of DVD (and ever-falling prices), and among those titles are undoubtedly many that you may never watch (and this is important) in their entirety again, despite having no issues with the films themselves. Sure, they have plentiful moments or favourite scenes that might make them worthy of a spin five years from now, but watching the entire film is unlikely. (and no, I'm not talking about everyone's "absolute best" here; I'm talking about blind buys you kinda liked, guilty pleasures where parts are better than the whole, genre pictures where amazing setpieces really push a home theatre system to the limit, and so on)

Some of those titles, to me (and they'll be different for everyone, of course), are worth unloading now while I can still get a modest return on my modest investment (I always buy cheap; none of this "I'm getting it on release day so I can report my deed at a forum" silliness) and, if the mood hits me to watch them in, say, five years when downloading is even further advanced than it is now, and IF the prices are in the $2-$3 range for older catalogue stuff, then I'll add them back to my collection via hard-drive, set-top box or whatever the kiddies are playing with by then.

I have no doubt that I will still own a comparatively large DVD/Blu-Ray collection by that time, but it will be much more refined, and will take up much less space in my home. But I also believe I will have a modest collection of titles that take up no space whatsoever, and as someone who reached saturation point quite some time ago and is now actively streamlining "the library", the concept of a "mix" is very, very appealing.

I also think "blind buying", which the studios probably love, will actually increase via downloading, because if you don't like the film you've paid $2 or $3 for, you can simply drag it to the trash. Clean, baby.

Cases and artwork are cosmetic things. I can't believe there are still people who are so taken with sparkly plastic and pretty pictures that they'd rather hold onto every single piece in a 1000+ (and growing) collection that they quite likely don't have room to properly store or display, let alone find the time to watch all over again, films, extras and all. Pruning is a good thing. Getting rid of entire collections, however, as some folks in these and other forums seem to be doing in times of need, is going too far.

Arguments against downloading are moot anyways. It's here now, and it will only continue to grow and improve. It's inevitable.

Brian T

An interesting piece from Anne Thompson's Variety blog. A keynote speech from industry exec Mark Gill given at the film financing conference at the Los Angeles Film Fest recently.
http://weblogs.variety.com/thompsono...mark-gill.html
It's mostly about the crisis facing the independent film world (which makes it must reading), but further in, he says this:

So again, downloading is inevitable. As mentioned in my last post, I'm comfortable with that price range (maybe a bit lower for catalogue stuff). I also suspect such a price won't just be for downloads to mobile devices, either.

Brian T

Thought this article about Sony's PS3 store was interesting:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/new...ticle_ID=13124

Those rental prices are rather appealing, especially for mainstream stuff a viewer might not want to own.

Xytraguptorh

How does this differ from what Microsoft is doing with the Xbox and Netflix. They had an E3 announcement too along the same lines. Anyone have an opinion on which service is better?

I actually may get a 360 with the price drop.