Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are you gonna sign up for Disney's new streaming service?

This is topic Are you gonna sign up for Disney's new streaming service? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007602

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-30-2018, 06:03 PM:

I'm just curious how many Film-Techers are planning to sign up for the new Disney streamer (which is going to be called Disney Play) and if so, will you be dumping Netflix? What about other streamers?

Or don't you stream at all?

I'm on the fence. I think Disney Play will have a TON of stuff on it that I'll want to watch, but hell, I never have a chance to watch most of what I want to watch now.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-30-2018, 06:19 PM:

I don't watch television, so I'm not interested in streaming services either.

I do some stuff for the local cable tv company and one of them is to be the local monitor, meaning that they phone me occasionally and ask me to check channel number X for picture and sound quality. I have a digital box with "all of the channels" but I really just use it for playing music in my living room. The box lives on the "70's channel" and just gets switched to something else when they call me. Just playing a digital music channel all day tells me if the whole thing lays down and dies, which is part of the point of having it.

But other than that there's 600-and-some channels of everything from praise-the-lord to porn, and there's still nothing that I want to watch. [Razz]

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 08-30-2018, 06:46 PM:

I think we have enough TV with Netflix and Amazon. We also have an antenna for over-the-air, which gets used to watch 60 Minutes, and that's about it. I think we've been spending more time watching movies in theaters than watching television. We're currently watching The Americans on Amazon. Meanwhile, we've seen Puzzle, Skate Kitchen, Miseducation of Cameron, and a bunch of other stuff in theaters in the past few weeks.

While I think it's worthwhile for content producers to sell direct to consumers (like Disney is doing), I think this should be more of a pay per play instead of a subscription. If they have a movie I want to see, I should be able to go directly to the corresponding URL and pay to watch it. Bundling content has worked well for Netflix and Amazon, but we're headed down the same path as cable television where you may a monthly fee that includes a bunch of stuff you don't watch. A la carte seems to be the direction cable television is going to have to go, and I suspect the same for streaming.

Harold

Posted by James Wyrembelski (Member # 9037) on 08-30-2018, 08:19 PM:

I just cut cable 2 months ago finally. I barely use Netflix or Amazon as it is, so I doubt I'll fork over more money for yet another service.

Most of my entertainment time is gaming.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-31-2018, 02:49 PM:

I don't have any plans to subscribe to Disney's streaming service. If anything I'll be cutting back on pay TV subscriptions rather than adding any. I plan to get rid of Dish Network once I finish watching the un-watched shows on my DVR. That will free up roughly $100 per month of positive cash flow. I'm having a hard time justifying subscriptions to both Netflix and Amazon Prime because I don't think I watch shows on either service enough. Another service, such as Hulu, would add to the bulk of un-watched shows.

One exception: After getting rid of Dish I might consider adding the stand-alone HBO Now service for certain shows, like the upcoming final season of Game of Thrones.

Traditional cable TV just has so much CRAP on nearly all of its channels. "Unscripted" Reality TV-type programming has hopelessly infected these channels. There's marathon blocks of that garbage, interrupted only by infomercials! The disease that ruined channels like MTV spread to many other networks. AMC, FX and a few others have some blocks of actual real TV series, but that's the minority of what's being programmed. Whole seasons of those series appear months later on Netflix, Hulu and Prime. Live sports is the only thing left that can actually keep certain customers hooked on cable. ESPN is starting to tip toe in the direction of "de-coupling" with ESPN+, but it's nothing like what HBO Now is to the cable version of HBO.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-31-2018, 03:25 PM:

It's kind of strange -- I've looked at a lot of news articles about the Disney service and I have yet to see one comment post that says "Can't wait! Bring it on!" Instead there are a zillion comments like the ones we're seeing here. It makes me wonder if Disney is a little late to the party with this idea.

Never underestimate their marketing though. And who knows, maybe they'll buy another studio at some point and have even more content.

One thing for sure though - when Disney stuff starts dropping off of Netflix, it will be sorely missed. That's a lot of popular content leaving.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-31-2018, 08:36 PM:

I don't know about this yet. Part of the decision will be based on whether Disney still has their content on HBO or Amazon. I don't really have a problem with another $10 a month plan, other than I don't know whether I would use it enough to justify the cost. Of course if Disney makes their entire library of content available it might be worthwhile.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-01-2018, 12:12 AM:

That'd be great, but I'm guessing Disney won't be able to resist the idea of rolling out a whole menu of choices, such as:

Disney Play Basic - has the newest stuff and "selected" classics
Disney Play Classic - has the classics but doesn't give you the new stuff
Disney Play Gold - has almost everything, but leaves out just enough to make you want to spring for...
Disney Play Ultimate - has nearly everything, because you know Disney is never going to give you everything.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-01-2018, 06:04 AM:

I doubt it will fly out of the door immediately, but like with many other Disney initiatives, if they hold their breath sufficiently long, then I'm pretty sure their streaming service will become popular, at least as long as they put their really good stuff in there and not just Disney Channel quality content...

With Disney owning an increasing amount of Hollywood's net output, I guess we'll see how much of the content still available on other streaming services will move to Disney's exclusive streaming service.

I guess Disney's strongest selling power will still be among the younger generations. And as part of peer pressure, the kids will force their parents to give in and pay the extra bucks...

Over in Europe, Disney did not yet pull their content from Netflix, so it looks like this Disney Streaming service will be an American experiment for the time being.

Disney actually already owns a big stake in a streaming service: Hulu. Although I guess it will die an even slower death like it is dying today, after the Disney streaming services might get a foothold.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-01-2018, 12:05 PM:

There have been some articles recently about the concern that some parents have about the content on Netflix and the availability of questionable material when all they want is a video babysitter. It's difficult to hand little Jimmy the remote and he starts scrolling past iffy stuff on the way to his videos.

If Disney can provide a "video babysitter" that meets those expectations, they may have the next "Disney channel" that so many houses just have running non-stop.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-01-2018, 10:32 PM:

quote:
ver in Europe, Disney did not yet pull their content from Netflix,

It's still on Netflix here too, it doesn't start coming off until the end of 2019.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-02-2018, 08:12 PM:

I have no plans to subscribe to Disney’s service. If I like something of theirs enough, I buy the Blu-ray. Unless they get some really great original programming (the sole reason I have Netflix). Then I’ll reconsider.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-03-2018, 12:42 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
It's still on Netflix here too, it doesn't start coming off until the end of 2019.

I was under the impression they already started to pull certain content (and moved it to iTunes exclusively), but it would obvious make sense to wait until the alternative is around.

It's a bit strange though, that they need more than two years to come up with it. You'd say they could probably use the Hulu interface and infrastructure and redress it as Disney to get an early start. It's all their own content, so getting the necessary licensed content in place, which is often the blocking factor for other services, isn't a problem here.

quote: Sam Graham
I have no plans to subscribe to Disney’s service. If I like something of theirs enough, I buy the Blu-ray. Unless they get some really great original programming (the sole reason I have Netflix). Then I’ll reconsider.

I wonder for how long content will still be available on Blu-Ray. I seem to be the only one who regularly still buys Blu-Rays, while all the rest I know doesn't even have a Blu-Ray player or doesn't know their PlayStation can be used as one (albeit a pretty cumbersome one.)

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-03-2018, 01:10 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I wonder for how long content will still be available on Blu-Ray. I seem to be the only one who regularly still buys Blu-Rays, while all the rest I know doesn't even have a Blu-Ray player or doesn't know their PlayStation can be used as one (albeit a pretty cumbersome one.)

As long as I can, I’ll take ownership of physical media over relying on the rights to my favorite movies and shows not being dropped by the streaming services.

Also, Netflix looks blatantly inferior to Blu-ray on my TV.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-03-2018, 07:28 AM:

I guess that, as long as it makes economic sense to still ship it on physical media, they'll do so.

The problem though, is that there will be less evolution in physical media, as nobody is really putting in any research efforts for the replacement of the Blu-Ray right now. Read-only mass media seems to be at the end of the curve and as soon as Blu-Ray goes the way of VHS, it will most likely be the end of physical media for video.

quote: Sam Graham
Also, Netflix looks blatantly inferior to Blu-ray on my TV.

In my case I'd say it depends. Some of the newer content in 4K HDR and/or Dolby Vision really looks far superior to the average Blu-Ray content. But I sometimes see spikes of 40 MBit/s in peak, which certainly isn't usable over every kind of broadband connection.

You also require the highest subscription, which will most likely be raised by another few dollars a months and matching hardware (supporting the correct DRM), to be able to access the 4K and "4K+" content.

Many of the older content seems to be the lower grade SD content, whereas there often are better alternatives on Blu-Ray.

Also, if Netflix decides that your connection is no good, it will play it in a shitty bitrate.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-03-2018, 02:18 PM:

Streaming is OK, as long as you're not a stickler for image quality and the content you want is available. There are so many companies all wanting us to subscribe to their own "exclusive" content, that it's impossible to find everything you might want on one or even a half dozen services.

I have a feeling the brave new world of streaming is going to make us all wish for the simpler and cheaper days of cable and BluRays. At least until the inevitable shakeout and/or when Disney just owns everything.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-04-2018, 08:30 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
The problem though, is that there will be less evolution in physical media, as nobody is really putting in any research efforts for the replacement of the Blu-Ray right now. Read-only mass media seems to be at the end of the curve and as soon as Blu-Ray goes the way of VHS, it will most likely be the end of physical media for video.

Yeah, but my thinking is there's little need for evolution at this point. I think 4K Blu-ray is positioned to have a long maturity. Some of the catalog titles I've seen (I would highly recommend "Grease") are so jaw-dropping, it's hard to imagine they could possibly improve on them.

So my hope is enough collectors will continue to support the format long-term. We have the product. We just need the people.

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 09-04-2018, 10:47 AM:

I've never streamed anything ! No plans to. I still buy all stuff on DVD.

Mike

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 09-04-2018, 12:11 PM:

We have a small DVD collection and a larger CD collection. It's very rare for us to play one of these. The convenience of streaming is just too great.

Bandwidth and streaming quality continues to improve. I read that Blu Ray can have up to 128 GB using four layers. If this 128 GB is used for a two hour movie, it would be about 142 Mbps. That's available to many Internet users now, and will be available to more in the future (server capacity has to be pretty high to handle a lot of users - I like the Bit Torrent technique for spreading server load).

I think the main problem with streaming is the content licensing. Content comes and goes. It is not available reliably on any one service, so you subscribe to several, and even there, there's no guarantee the content is available. As mentioned before, I think the ultimate solution is for the content owner to host the content and allow users to play it by paying for the individual playout. You'd use Google to find the movie, then pay a buck or two to watch the movie. Users should have access to all content all the time, not just what some packager (such as Netflix) has chosen to license at this particular point in time.

Harold

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 09-04-2018, 12:30 PM:

I ripped all of my cd's to mp3's a while back and haven't touched them since.

But unlike streaming that content lives on my computer and I'm not dependent on someone else to provide it to me.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-04-2018, 12:35 PM:

quote: Harold Hallikainen
I think the ultimate solution is for the content owner to host the content and allow users to play it by paying for the individual playout. You'd use Google to find the movie, then pay a buck or two to watch the movie. Users should have access to all content all the time, not just what some packager (such as Netflix) has chosen to license at this particular point in time.

The problem with that, though, is what if you want to watch a movie in parts? There's been times I would have "rented" a movie from Amazon, but they only give you 48 hours to finish it once you start. That's a load-a-crap to me -- you should be able to pay for it and have until forever to finish watching it.

When somebody puts that kind of deal together and can make the content owners cooperate, that'd be a slam dunk. But they need that steady subscription income, so it'll probably never happen.

What about a low subscription price in addition to a pay-as-you-go option for the content? Maybe something like $5 a month for "membership," and then the movie rentals on top of that. It's the same thing Amazon is doing right now with Prime, except for that pesky 48-hour thing.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 09-04-2018, 12:45 PM:

Thanks for the comments! How many subscriptions would you need? One with each content owner? I think we should just pay when we watch the content (kinda like going to a theater). Also, the 48 hour window seems reasonable. We usually watch a movie in one sitting (just like in a theater).

Harold

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-04-2018, 01:12 PM:

quote: Harold Hallikainen
the 48 hour window seems reasonable. We usually watch a movie in one sitting (just like in a theater).

Yeah but you're not everybody. Some nights I have an hour or two to watch TV, but then I might have several nights in a row where I don't have that much time. Maybe I get tired in the middle of a movie and plan to finish it the next night but then "something comes up" and I don't get to do that.

My point is there's no NEED for the stupid window. If I paid the 4 bucks to watch the movie, why should they care if I finish it tomorrow night or a month from now? It's just a bunch of servers playing out content.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 09-04-2018, 01:40 PM:

Good point! I think they MIGHT do the window so they don't have to do a playout count. The time window lets you go back (including to the beginning) to catch what you missed. Perhaps the playout window should be larger. My point, though, is that I don't think the content should be based on a subscription to a particular studio or other content distributor (including Netflix) where the content can come and go, but should be available to everyone with no monthly charge but with a per play (or, perhaps with a one week window) payment. This would be similar to Red Box where you don't have to subscribe, you just pay when you use it. I don't have to subscribe to Red Box and every video store in the area (recognizing there are few), but, instead, I just pay to get the content for a limited time. With streaming, I can visit every video store without leaving my house.

The major advantages I see with Blu Ray over Netflix are image quality (though Netflix should be able to approach Blu Ray quality) and the fact that the content will not disappear. We are forever wanting to watch something we saw before on Netflix, but it's not there anymore. I don't know how Netflix licenses their content from the owners. IF it were done on a per play basis, it seems like there'd never be a reason for content to go away. I suspect, though, that there's some minimum payment to the content owner, so Netflix has to evaluate whether it's worth that minimum. Finally, content owners (like Disney) may not want to give Netflix a cut of the income, so they decide to stream directly. But, again, consumers end up paying a bunch of monthly fees instead of just paying for what they watch.

Sorry I'm repeating myself here. I'll try to avoid that!

Harold

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-04-2018, 02:00 PM:

At present time, I have no plans to expand my streaming beyond the Netflix and Amazon (which I already had for the free shipping). I have a very fast broadband connection, and the Netflix content servers are directly on my ISP's network, so I get a 1080p and 4K picture that is as good as Bluray for most programming.

What Marcel meant to say above is that Disney initially plans to keep their programming on Netflix outside the USA. I assume at some point, they will expand Disney Play to other countries if it is successful here.

Finally, I assume that Disney owned feature films will eventually turn up on disc. There are too many profit participants to not issue their titles on disc and to the highest bidder for streaming rights. Both Warner (to HBO) and Paramount (to Showtime) tried this, and the profit participants sued because the studio was undervaluing there internal sales. What will remain exclusive is programming produced explicitly for the streaming service.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-04-2018, 02:55 PM:

quote: Mike Croaro
I've never streamed anything ! No plans to. I still buy all stuff on DVD.

I've always bought movies on physical media; I've yet to buy a virtual "digital HD" version of a movie to download or stream. I didn't even fart with the download coupons that often came with retail Blu-ray versions of movies.

With that being said, it has now been nearly 2 years since I have bought any movies on disc. And that was when Hastings Books Music & Video was doing its chain-wide liquidation fire sale. My movie disc buying habits had badly trailed off well before that fire sale.

For me personally I have two problems with buying movies these days.

Problem one: I don't have an infinite amount of space for all that crap. A large and growing collection of movie disc cases eats a pretty significant amount of living & storage space. Each disc purchase adds to the pile. Most of the DVDs I bought between the late 1990's to about 2008 are now in a couple storage bins in my 2nd bedroom (perhaps developing laser rot if I didn't know better). There's only enough space on the shelves in my living room for Blu-rays. I could probably free up space by selling off a good bit of the collection, but given the current environment I would get a fraction of the original purchase price. And that's for the Blu-ray quality stuff; the dated SD resolution DVDs would earn far less, if anything at all.

Problem two: far too few movies really, truly have repeat viewing potential. Even a lot of "good" movies fall into this category. I watched BlacKkKlansman this past weekend at the theater. It's an honestly good movie I recommend. It's not a sequel, remake or other derivative kind of movie easy to forget. But seeing the movie once was enough; I have no desire to watch it again, much less buy a copy of it on disc. Far too many times I've bought movies on disc only to watch them just a couple or so times before they started gathering dust on the shelves. A customer needs to watch a Blu-ray disc at least 4 to 6 times just to equal what it would have cost to rent it repeatedly at the video store. In the end a bunch of these disc purchases end up being wastes of money.

One thing that kind of disturbs me is how I'm starting to feel about some old favorites I've bought multiple times. I'll throw in a Blu-ray of something like Die Hard, The Matrix or Fight Club. At some point I'll either just stop the disc or let my attention drift to other things around the house rather than concentrating on the movie. Deep down, though I hate to admit it, I've seen many of those old favorites enough to get sick of them.

I have mixed feelings about streaming. The quality is definitely inferior to physical media. My cable Internet connection runs a steady, respectable 27 megabits per second. At that speed some movies and TV shows will show off 1080p quality comparable to a good Blu-ray. Other titles can look terrible. I think it all varies from one show to the next. I tried, but couldn't sit through a Netflix version of Jurassic Park. The video quality was terrible and the sound mix was wimpy as hell. I wonder if companies like Netflix and Amazon give more download bandwidth to certain titles than others.

Streaming is definitely more appealing to those who want (or are forced) to down-size and simplify certain aspects of their lives. Traditional cable/satellite TV is too damned expensive. It's a lot cheaper to get a TV antenna and subscribe to a couple of streaming services. You don't have to worry about the shows your watch (or buy) eating shelf space and turning into cheap yard sale fodder. If you move the lack of discs is just one less thing to pack.

quote: Sam Graham
Yeah, but my thinking is there's little need for evolution at this point. I think 4K Blu-ray is positioned to have a long maturity. Some of the catalog titles I've seen (I would highly recommend "Grease") are so jaw-dropping, it's hard to imagine they could possibly improve on them.

In principal I want the technology companies to keep pushing boundaries and improving quality levels, even if it's not so easy to tell the difference between a new quality standard and the previous standard. 8K (or even 4K) may seem like overkill to some, including a good number of technology critics. But is it necessary to clearly see each individual pixel on a TV monitor? Shouldn't TV technology strive to reach a point where an image at looks like a high quality photograph rather than something built on a visible grid of pixels? Shouldn't the technology have the capacity to deliver such a thing at close viewing distances or really big sizes? For me that's one of the things "digital" needs to do to be a worthwhile replacement for film. IMHO, the pixel grid of a TV set should ultimately be able to show film grain as film grain and not square bits of digital noise.

The entertainment industry isn't doing the technology any favors. If anything they're fighting a quiet war against it. There's still very little true 4K content (much less anything 8K). Movie and TV studios still hold to the cost cutting belief that 2K is good enough. They're perfectly willing to up-rez a 2K movie to "4K" and then sell it on UHD Blu-ray at a premium $7-$10 higher than 1080p Blu-ray. There's some great new 4K OLED TV sets out there. The prices are coming down to far more reasonable levels. Still the lack of native 4K content makes it a bad buy.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-05-2018, 07:48 PM:

Streaming will never approach or exceed the quality available on physical disc (on average of course, as there will always be isolated exceptions), simply because the pressures are always against quality.

A streaming service pays for its bandwidth and storage in form of service and capital expenses. An internet provider pays for its bandwidth and capacity in the same way. While we in the U.S. largely do not pay for usage, we do pay for levels of speed, and the day will probably come when caps and usage metering will be a thing. Under those circumstances, it's always in the best interest of those paying the bills to do it as cheaply as the market will bear. Constrain the bandwidth of movies being delivered as much as possible, just above the point where complaints happen or competitive pressures require (although not too many people are sitting there comparing the relative video quality of Netflix vs. Hulu vs. Vudu vs. Amazon, etc.).

According to the all-knowing and usually accurate Wikipedia, Blu-ray is capable of up to 54 Mbps. Ultra HD Blu-ray is 128 Mbps. My speedtest shows that I've got a 200 Mbps connection, but streaming an HD-quality show on Netflix is only 5.5 Mbps. The 4K stream of The Crown clocks in at 15.26 Mbps.

Is it pretty good? Yes. And perfectly fine for watching TV shows, channel surfing, and movies that you decide to watch on a whim. But no one should ever think that these services approach the video quality (much less audio quality) of their physical media equivalents. The artifacts are there, and not all that hard to see. Artifacts that would be completely unacceptable on physical media, and yet many seem to accept it as a tradeoff for the convenience of it all.

The problem with yet another streaming service is that it is yet another streaming service that wants a monthly fee with a subset of titles that overlaps with some of the other services but will always have some exclusive strangle-hold that makes it impossible to consolidate one's purchasing decisions to a reasonable level.

I have Amazon Prime and Netflix streaming, but I also am on the two-disc-at-a-time Netflix disc-by-mail service. When I want to watch a movie that's worth watching, I prefer to get it on physical disc. Buying a streaming video is not an option I'll consider except in the most unique circumstance, and renting a streaming video happens about 2-3 times per year because we want to watch something that isn't available in any other way (e.g. trying to watch a particular version of The Christmas Carol at 9:30pm over a holiday weekend).

For movies that I think I'll watch more than once, I don't mind paying $20-25 to get the 4K disc. I usually watch for sales and try to get them for $15 and build up a library of movies to see so I'm not beholden to last-minute availability choices.

I don't see a scenario where the Disney streaming service would take the place of either Amazon or Netflix at this point, and I have no interest in adding a third, at any (monthly) price. If they go the Vudu route of individual rentals, it wouldn't be a problem and I'd be happy to add it to the list of places I'd check when streaming is my best option.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-05-2018, 09:36 PM:

> My speedtest shows that I've got a 200 Mbps connection, but streaming an HD-quality show on Netflix is only 5.5 Mbps. The 4K stream of The Crown clocks in at 15.26 Mbps.

Just curious, what speedtest are you using? If you are not using fast.com or the fast.com app, you are not testing against actual Netflix content servers. While 5.5 Mbps is in theory is the minimum speed for HD, according to Netflix you need at least 25 Mbps for 4K.

I am paying for 100 Mbps, and getting very close to that when measuring with most general purpose speedtests, but when I use fast.com (or the ios app), I average around 44 Mbps from Netflix. If you are getting less, you should complain to your ISP, they are throttle your connection to Netflix.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-05-2018, 11:10 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
Streaming will never approach or exceed the quality available on physical disc (on average of course, as there will always be isolated exceptions), simply because the pressures are always against quality.

Never say never. Physical media has its own limitations, like disc data capacity and maximum bandwidth limits. The discs cost a good bit of money to author and replicate. It takes at least 7-10 years for a new generation of optical disc technology to move from stages of R&D to finished retail products on store shelves. Lately there's a lot fewer store shelves for those discs and disc players.

The long term prospects of optical disc technology does not look good. I'm not at all happy about saying that either. I still very much prefer buying music on CD rather than downloading lossy compressed song files. The UHD Blu-ray format is not exactly taking the world by storm. Is any company working on a next-generation "super duper" optical disc that can play 8K movies?

IP-based movie streaming is currently still clearly inferior to the video quality on optical discs. But that's due to the fact much of the US still has relatively slow Internet connection speeds. Streaming services like Netflix and their content providers encode video at bit rates that will work good enough for as many customers as possible, including people with crappy Internet connections.

Residential Internet service providers are under a great deal of pressure to increase download and upload speeds. Some of the pressure is coming from customers jealous of the new subdivision the next neighborhood over all wired up with fiber and pulling gigabit download speeds. But the real pressure is coming from the mobile phone space. Depending the location and service provider current 4G LTE tech can easily deliver top speeds to phones over 100 megabits per second. 5G technology is now emerging and has much higher top speeds. So, a residential ISP giving customers puny 3 megabit service and thinking that standard can last for years to come will risk losing customers. Just like cable TV companies are losing customers to "cord cutting," residential ISPs can fall victim to the same thing.

Anyway, average Internet connection speeds will continue to improve. As they do so will the quality of video encodes uploaded to streaming services. At some point the quality will overtake what is available on optical discs, especially if there isn't much (or any) future development of optical disc technology.

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 09-07-2018, 11:52 AM:

quote:
Just curious, what speedtest are you using? If you are not using fast.com or the fast.com app, you are not testing against actual Netflix content servers. While 5.5 Mbps is in theory is the minimum speed for HD, according to Netflix you need at least 25 Mbps for 4K.

I checked both Speedtest.net and fast.com, and they were both within 10 Mbps of each other.

I just tried my experiment again, given that it is now the middle of the day (as opposed to the evening):

Fast.com: 210 Mbps

Netflix Stream (as reported by the info display within the Netflix app of my Sony TV)
1080 stream of The Crown: 5.53 Mbps
2160 stream of The Crown: 15.26 Mbps
2160 stream of Groundhog Day: 15.26 Mbps

quote: Bobby Henderson
IP-based movie streaming is currently still clearly inferior to the video quality on optical discs. But that's due to the fact much of the US still has relatively slow Internet connection speeds. Streaming services like Netflix and their content providers encode video at bit rates that will work good enough for as many customers as possible, including people with crappy Internet connections.

My stance remains that the audio and video quality of streaming services will never approach, match, or exceed that on physical disc, because the market pressures will always be to skimp on quality to save costs. Only competitive pressure would change that, and even with the relatively low-bandwidth music marketplace, high-resolution music is still a rarity in streaming services. I highly doubt that the streaming movie services will do any differently.

I have a 200 Mbps service from my internet provider, as confirmed by multiple speed tests through multiple servers (Netflix, as well as multiple servers available via speedtest.net). I have plenty of available bandwidth, but Netflix will not deliver a 4K feed that exceeds 16 Mbps, which is just a third of the max bandwidth possible with HD Blu-ray, and less than 12% of that possible on 4K UHD Blu-ray.

If we are in the final days of movies on physical media, I don't yet see it. Do I believe it is inevitable? Most likely. Until that day comes, however, I will continue to enjoy and champion the best way to watch movies, which is on physical disc, while still recognizing the convenience of streaming as an option. (But no one should make any mistake that it's the best quality possible)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-07-2018, 04:05 PM:

quote: Scott Jentsch
My stance remains that the audio and video quality of streaming services will never approach, match, or exceed that on physical disc, because the market pressures will always be to skimp on quality to save costs. Only competitive pressure would change that, and even with the relatively low-bandwidth music marketplace, high-resolution music is still a rarity in streaming services. I highly doubt that the streaming movie services will do any differently.

None of the content on physical media is "master grade" quality. Movies are all significantly data compressed to fit within storage capacity and bandwidth I/O limits. Some movie studios data compress their material worse than others. For instance I've seen plenty of puny bit rates on Warner Bros movie discs. WB is well known for that.

Regarding the music industry, it's a mess. In that market convenience and price are both stepping all over interest of quality. Sales of retail CDs is in the toilet. Some of that is via the big downturn in brick and mortar retail. Lately the continued downturn is being fueled by half a dozen or more music streaming services (Spotify, Pandora, Apple Music, Google Music, Amazon Prime, Sirius|XM, etc). The rise of music streaming services has severely eaten into the sales of individual song downloads. Very few people are listening to their music on audiophile-grade home stereo systems. They're mainly listening on a wide variety of devices (mobile phones, work computers, car stereo systems, tablets, portable Bluetooth speaker boxes, etc). Music is often treated as background noise for other activities.

I think viewers hold image quality from a movie to a higher standard than they do audio quality from music.

quote: Scott Jentsch
I have a 200 Mbps service from my internet provider, as confirmed by multiple speed tests through multiple servers (Netflix, as well as multiple servers available via speedtest.net). I have plenty of available bandwidth, but Netflix will not deliver a 4K feed that exceeds 16 Mbps, which is just a third of the max bandwidth possible with HD Blu-ray, and less than 12% of that possible on 4K UHD Blu-ray.

Only a small minority of people have residential Internet connections whose plans have maximum download speeds of 100Mb/s or greater. My connection's speed is only 1/8th your 200Mb/s service, but 25 megabit service is still good enough to be considered well above average. I could get up to 250Mb/s from my local cable ISP, but I would pay a hell of a lot for it.

Most "broadband" users are still stuck in mediocre DSL-like speeds of 3Mb/s-6Mb/s. The content on all streaming platforms is encoded for that common denominator. The streaming services are not going to post better than Blu-ray encodes if that means most customers waiting forever for the content to buffer/download. Most users just want the movie starting right away with as few hiccups during start-up and playback as possible. Netflix cemented itself as the most popular movie streaming service because it did more with its network backbone than competitors to reduce buffering issues.

With that being said, I routinely see 1080p video quality on streaming services look better than the same content does on satellite TV. That wasn't always the case. I'd rather watch a program streaming from HBO GO than watch the same show playing through Dish Network on one of the HBO channels. Video streams on digital satellite are severely compressed by necessity.

I think image quality from streaming services with incrementally improve as a greater percentage of viewers gain access to Internet connections faster than 20Mb/s. We're not there yet. But just like the days of 56k dial-up modems this paradigm of Internet service will pass.

quote: Scott Jentsch
If we are in the final days of movies on physical media, I don't yet see it. Do I believe it is inevitable? Most likely. Until that day comes, however, I will continue to enjoy and champion the best way to watch movies, which is on physical disc, while still recognizing the convenience of streaming as an option. (But no one should make any mistake that it's the best quality possible)

I think the days of physical disc-based media are numbered. Retail video sales/rental stores have disappeared completely in many communities. The same goes for music stores. Even book stores are dying off rapidly. Too many people want their "content" now and are not willing to wait a day or two for a physical movie/music disc or book to arrive in the mail. If the current trend keeps going on its current path it won't take many more years before mass retailers like Target and Walmart clear their floor space of that kind of product.

I recently bought a new pickup truck (a 2018 Chevy Silverado LT "Texas Edition" to replace the aging 2002 Silverado I drove for 16 years). I was actually pleasantly surprised to see the stereo system still had a CD player. Quite a few new cars and trucks no longer have CD players. It's just USB ports and Bluetooth connections for your personal music connection and then a receiver for Sirius|XM.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-07-2018, 05:45 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Music is often treated as background noise for other activities.

For fun, the other day I watched the movie "The Naked Gun" with the commentary track. The director noted that the movie was based on the TV series "Police Squad" and the reason the TV show failed was, you actually had to sit and pay attention to enjoy it. Given the number of sight gags in those properties I can totally see where he's coming from.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Quite a few new cars and trucks no longer have CD players. It's just USB ports and Bluetooth connections for your personal music connection and then a receiver for Sirius|XM.

At the store we just got flyers for some new Dual brand head-units that don't have CD players. First time I've ever seen one, although I know they've existed for some time. If my Ford pickup's sound system wasn't so tied-in to the rest of the truck's workings, I'd seriously consider replacing it because it only works with my iPod about 15% of the time, if that. Whereas CDs work 100% of the time, but I never have CDs with me.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 09-07-2018, 05:49 PM:

I put all of my mp3's on a flash drive and plugged it into the slot under the console between the seats. Never looked it again since, and the music just plays when I start up and quits when I stop and open the door.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-07-2018, 08:41 PM:

I've done that from time to time, but I'm picky about what I hear depending on what kind of mood I'm in, and the mp3 interface in the vehicle is a pain for finding what I want compared to working with the iPod. Plus songs that segue from one to the next have a gap with mp3's, which drives me nuts. (Yes, I'm a bit anal when it comes to tunes.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-08-2018, 01:00 AM:

Gap-less playback, or rather the lack thereof, is one of my biggest gripes with using music file formats other than LPCM WAV. And in most cases the only way you get gap-less playback dependably is by playing those LPCM files on a Red Book CD.

I've seen claims from various music streaming services and devices that play lossy compressed MP3 or AAC files about gap-less playback. So far it's all been baloney. There's always some kind of gap. It's not seamless. That totally blows if you're listening to an album whose songs transition from one track to the next with no silence. I'll usually listening to The Wall or Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd only on Red Book CD. LPCM WAV files in Windows Media Player will also work gap free. If there's any MP3/AAC music player that can play the same albums in those lossy formats I'm all ears. Which one, if any, actually delivers the goods?

I'd also like to see better support for the FLAC Lossless audio format in mobile phones, car stereo system and other devices. And gap-free playback with it! The nice thing with FLAC is the audio quality is every bit as good as LPCM (and even better if encoding a higher than music CD bitrate source). Unlike LPCM WAV files you can add all sorts of metadata to a FLAC file, like album cover art and all sorts of other stuff.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-08-2018, 04:01 PM:

I recently listened to the PULSE live recording of Pink Floyd using the streaming service included with my car lease (Deezer). It lists separate tracks for that concert and if I'm not mistaken, Dark Side of the Moon is played in its entirety during that concert [Smile]

.

It played without any audible gaps, which was a first for me, because even Spotify wouldn't be able to handle that.

It's not really that difficult to do it, it's more a matter of just getting it right. Most people are just too lazy to do it.

It's been a while, but I once built decoding and playback software, supporting OGG and FLAC natively. Most players take the shortcut of closing the audio-device and re-opening it after playing each track. Why? Because it's simpler to program it that way. I didn't do that. Even if one track was encoded in OGG, the other in FLAC and the other just a simple wave file, I wouldn't close the audio device or wipe the output buffers, to enable a smooth transition between tracks. Even if songs were in a different sample rate, I wouldn't simply reset the audio device to the bitrate and let the audio drivers and audio devices figure it out, I would resample it to the bitrate the output buffer was initialized to... I'm pretty sure they're all far too lazy to do this anymore.

Sometimes you can "trick" your playback software to do something that's almost identical to "seamless" playback of albums that are supposed to be played back uninterrupted: Use the auto-crossfading option and make the cross-fading time as short as possible.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-08-2018, 10:55 PM:

quote:
I recently listened to the PULSE live recording of Pink Floyd using the streaming service included with my car lease (Deezer). It lists separate tracks for that concert and if I'm not mistaken, Dark Side of the Moon is played in its entirety during that concert [Smile] .

There's a video that I sure wish was available on 5.1 BluRay. But apparently (according to a couple of online sources I saw) the multritrack masters don't exist anymore, or something like that, so they can't remix it in surround...or else there is no HD video of it. Maybe both.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-09-2018, 07:53 AM:

Since it was recorded in 1994 with video cameras and not film cameras, I doubt there is a HD version of the recording, that's probably also why there is no Blu-Ray release yet. By now, people would probably even expect a 4K version for a Blu-Ray release.

There is at least one Dolby Digital 5.1 version of this concert, on the 2006 DVD release. It actually features two 5.1 tracks, one in 448kbit/s and also one in 640kbit/s. The 448kbit/s version was retained for compatibility reasons with older playback gear.

There was also a laserdisc release, but I'm not sure if that featured a Dolby Digital or DTS track in 5.1.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 09-09-2018, 10:21 AM:

I find it funny that "cutting the cord" has turned into needing 15 different streaming services. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people end up paying more in total after cutting the cord than they did for cable/satellite before.

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 09-09-2018, 11:28 AM:

As mentioned before, I think subscriptions are the wrong way to go here. Content you want to see will always be on the other service. Content owners should host the content themselves (or pay someone to do it) and charge for each viewing. No subscription fee. I don't think people are going to pay a bunch of subscription fees.

Harold

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 09-09-2018, 01:00 PM:

I would like to agree with you, but unfortunately, the reality looks a little different.

Yes, people will buy stuff "a pop", but they're far more likely to buy a subscription to something that gives them "more" than to pay for anything individually.

I know, because I've seen it happen. In the past, I did some on-demand streaming projects for ISPs and telcos. In the very beginning, you only had a bunch of crap on those on-demand services, but eventually, high-profile Hollywood productions and popular series would turn up on them. Still, most of the services ended up as loss-leaders. None of the on-demand services I know of, ever really made it. Yes, maybe the iTunes store did, but only for music, but everything else is mostly dead now.

You only need to look at the models that have been successful to see that most of the people, aren't really interested in pay-per-view.

The old Netflix model for example, was an alternative for the pay-per-view model of the bygone video rental store era and it did its part in destroying the entire video rental industry.

The popularity of the "all-you-can-eat" buffet and similar formulas. All-inclusive hotel resorts, cruises, etc. Or even the much discussed MoviePass, that offered a loss-leading "all-you-can-watch" subscription, that nevertheless attracted roughly three million customers in the U.S. alone.

The "new" model of Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify, you name it... it's all examples of "all you can eat" formulas.

I think we'll see an era, where all-you-can-watch streaming services will compete with each other, with exclusive content, price and features. Most people will simply choose two or maximum three services and be done with what's on them. If something isn't on there, they simply don't watch it, until it eventually will become available. Unless, you happen to be that immortal fan that will just buy the subscription anyways.

I'm not saying that I'm happy with this situation, but I'm simply afraid that's how it already mostly is and how it will be for the foreseeable future. The battles for the streaming subscribers have just begun.

Unfortunately, what you'll also see is that the quality of the individual subscription services will go down. High quality content is pretty expensive and there is just a limited amount of it available. Creating sufficient new, high quality content based on bottom-feeding subscription rates will be challenging, if not even entirely impossible. Even Netflix and Amazon have learned you can still earn a pretty buck with a theatrical release, for example.

That's why I also expect to see a diversification in the type of streaming services. Where an HBO and Disney might choose to go for more quality output and Netflix and Amazon might purely focus on the binge-watcher that needs to have an evening-filling program, every day.