Steve E Posted April 10, 2010 Report Share Posted April 10, 2010 Don't know. I'm not a lawyer. Much to my mother's dismay. You may not be a lawyer but you may be the fastest responder on the forum. - Thoth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codemer Posted April 10, 2010 Report Share Posted April 10, 2010 As for Bluray.... Does anyone have an opinion on whether it will run side by side with DVD until some new fangled thing kills them both? Or do you think Bluray will kill DVD before it is killed by the next thing? I know VHS is still around etc. etc., but it's mostly dead, so that's what I mean. I have a BlurRay player and some movies. These are my impressions. First, in most movies I've watched, there didn't seem to be much difference between 480i and 1080p. I-Robot on BluRay looks slightly better than I-Robot on DVD. Pure CG movies like Up are definitely better. Non sci-fi/special effect heavy movies look a little sharper is all. An up-sampling DVD player is comparable for that. VHS to DVD was a huge difference. DVD to BluRay seems like a minor difference on a standard size TV. I found the difference of going from CRT/Projector to LCD much more noticable than going from DVD to BluRay. Second, what is with the unskippable previews? I mean, this is really redundantly obnoxious. I paid for the friggin movie so I could watch the movie. First, you're forced to stare at the "You're a Thief, Get Over It" FBI warning which seems more obnoxious than ever, and then you can't seem to get straight to the menu to start the movie. No skipping. You can only use the fast forward. DVDs still work the same, but BluRay discs seem to share this obnoxious unskippable quality. Talk about making people want to go out and download a movie they can just watch without the annoyance. Third, BluRay discs are generally a poor value. Case in point: LOTR. Seriously? The theatrical version? Then they'll want us to shell out again for the extended edition when it comes out? Netflix even charges you a dollar extra per month per movie to get BluRay discs. Finally, price makes a big difference in the player. BluRay discs can take a long time to load. My first player was a cheap box store brand, and we wound up replacing it after a few months. The cheaper the player, the longer it takes to boot a BluRay disc, and the more often it seems to get these little skips like it can't keep up with the compressed video. If you are still undecided, I would recommend trying an upsampling DVD player. I have seen them for $80 on sale at the local box electronics store. I can see most people going this route unless there is a dramatic price drop in BluRay. IF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orrenm Posted April 10, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 10, 2010 I have a BlurRay player and some movies. These are my impressions. Interesting how different opinions can be. I have the opposite opinion on nearly everything. I think there's a huge difference in video quality for most of my blu-rays, although I do have some poor transfers (like "A Time To Kill"). However, if you're an audiophile, the difference in sound between DVD (16-bit compressed surround) and blu-ray (uncompressed 24-bit, higher sample rate) to be profound. I do have a 42" HDTV, not a projector. Just a couple points: Second, what is with the unskippable previews? I mean, this is really redundantly obnoxious. I agree, total crap. However, you know that you can hit the "forward next" button and go to the next one (and finally menu) right? So you can't skip them all, but you can use a few remote presses to go through them in a couple of seconds. Third, BluRay discs are generally a poor value. I got 2001 on blu-ray—an amazing transfer—for $4.99. I think I have maybe 10 blu-rays in my collection that cost me $8.99 to $12.99, current movies not crap. There are some great deals out there if you just know where to look. In my area, for example, I've found Fry's Electronics has absolutely amazing deals on blu-ray discs. Case in point: LOTR. Seriously? The theatrical version? Then they'll want us to shell out again for the extended edition when it comes out? Yeah, that's a bummer. But I really like the theatrical versions, in some cases more than the EEs. And while I wish they were all in one set, how is this "double dipping" different than what they did with DVDs? The studios just want tons o' money, any way they can get it. And BTW—The Hobbit movie has been held up due to studio financial troubles, so perhaps my purchase of the blu-ray will help get those movies made! Finally, price makes a big difference in the player. I believe the best blu-ray player on the market is the Playstation 3. And at $299 (I think) it's not too expensive either. Think of it as a blu-ray player that can play Guitar Hero. Orren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealtruismsociety Posted April 10, 2010 Report Share Posted April 10, 2010 Only issue with BR is you need a really amazing set up or it honestly doesn't look much better than DVD. The only advantage is storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 12, 2010 Report Share Posted April 12, 2010 Click here. Thanks! You are changing the metaphor. The software is the gun. That is, would US law protect software manufacturers from prosecution if the software itself (not some non-standard plug-in) allowed people to defeat copy protection by design? I believe it should. It's being debated as someone mentioned, but you should be able to back up your DVD collection and put it on your computer for personal use. If you can put your CD on your computer to put it on your MP3 device, I think you should be able to do the same with your DVDs, especially with more devices like the iPad coming out, which would be great for watching movies, but you can't actually put a DVD into it. I am not going to repurchase a movie I already own, just so I can have it on my iPad or computer to watch when I want to. I wouldn't repurchase a CD I bought just to get it on my computer. That's my opinion. But can I fire a pen like a 9mm Baby Eagle? How fast can you throw? Second, what is with the unskippable previews? I agree. I have a couple DVDs like that. It's annoying. - Jules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve E Posted April 12, 2010 Report Share Posted April 12, 2010 ... you should be able to back up your DVD collection and put it on your computer for personal use. If you can put your CD on your computer to put it on your MP3 device, I think you should be able to do the same with your DVDs, especially with more devices like the iPad coming out, which would be great for watching movies, but you can't actually put a DVD into it. I am not going to repurchase a movie I already own, just so I can have it on my iPad or computer to watch when I want to. I wouldn't repurchase a CD I bought just to get it on my computer. That's my opinion. I agree. But then, we are the consumers, not the creators, of CDs. The argument made, from the last century, is that a CD is like a book. And photocopying a book you had purchased, even as back-up, is a violation of copyright. This argument works well for the manufacturers and distributors but I don't think it takes modern usage and devices into account (as you noted). They say you're paying for the convenience. I say I paid for the convenience when I bought the device and paid for the content the first time. But I don't think the real question is who is right. There is reason and morality on both sides. I think the real question is which model proves to be the more economically viable. - Thoth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 12, 2010 Report Share Posted April 12, 2010 I agree. But then, we are the consumers, not the creators, of CDs. The argument made, from the last century, is that a CD is like a book. And photocopying a book you had purchased, even as back-up, is a violation of copyright. This argument works well for the manufacturers and distributors but I don't think it takes modern usage and devices into account (as you noted). They say you're paying for the convenience. I say I paid for the convenience when I bought the device and paid for the content the first time. But I don't think the real question is who is right. There is reason and morality on both sides. I think the real question is which model proves to be the more economically viable. - Thoth I agree. Though with books, you (generally) don't need an electronic device to use it. You just read it and you can read it anytime anywhere. You need a device to use a CD or DVD. I can understand the paying for the convenience argument with books & ebooks more than I can with a CD or DVD. Wouldn't it be nice if all books came with their ebook? lol. That'd probably kill the industry quicker though. - J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orrenm Posted April 12, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 12, 2010 Wouldn't it be nice if all books came with their ebook? lol. That'd probably kill the industry quicker though. I don't think it would kill the industry. I think it makes total sense. I say this working for a publisher, BTW, not in my "consumer hat." As a publisher, you want to sell "content." You don't care how that content is consumed, you just want it to be consumed. That's why movies on DVD/blu-ray these days often ship with a digital copy—they get it. Many musicians, especially independent ones like Nine Inch Nails, when you buy the CD, they give you the digital files as well as a convenience. If I'm trying to sell you content, I want you to be able to access that content as easily as possible. And the easier we make it, the more content we sell, and ultimately the more we sell even considering piracy. How can this be done for books, you ask? Good question! Here's one way I've seen discussed, that I feel holds promise. On the inside cover of books (or inside flap of hardbacks) you have a registration code, hidden behind that scratch-off silver junk. When someone buys the book, if they want a digital copy, they can scratch away the silver junk and redeem the code with the publisher. Then the code deactivates. Is this method foolproof? Absolutely not. If the clerks at the bookstore aren't paying attention, people could scratch off the code from books on the shelves. Perhaps a "two-stage" solution, in which both the code and a receipt code is needed would help. And of course this would make it pretty easy for one person to buy a book and then put the eBook on PirateBay. But they're already doing that now, buying the eBook and putting it on pirate sites. Anyway, there may be better solutions, and the industry is far from standardizing it (I've only heard of this in very limited trials of tech books) but I think it's a fantastic idea, and as an acquisitions editor, if my company went for it, I'd push it for all my titles. As you can guess, this is harder to do for print on demand books, unless they buy directly from you. But if I do end up self-publishing, I'll see if I can find a way to offer people a free eBook if they forward their receipt/invoice, etc. Orren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 12, 2010 Report Share Posted April 12, 2010 That sounds great. I'd love that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orrenm Posted April 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2010 That's why movies on DVD/blu-ray these days often ship with a digital copy—they get it. Speaking of the movie industry trying to get digital copies "into the wild" so to speak, here's an interesting article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100412/tc_nm/...agate_paramount Okay, not LOTR related, but still sci-fi/fantasy, and this certainly is a novel way of distributing movies! Orren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codemer Posted April 13, 2010 Report Share Posted April 13, 2010 Speaking of the movie industry trying to get digital copies "into the wild" so to speak, here's an interesting article:http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100412/tc_nm/...agate_paramount Okay, not LOTR related, but still sci-fi/fantasy, and this certainly is a novel way of distributing movies! Interesting bundle. I wonder what kind of sales they will see. I think they need to discount the movies more, since they are DRM'd. If I can't resell it, I'm not willing to pay full price. IF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orrenm Posted April 13, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2010 I think they need to discount the movies more, since they are DRM'd. If I can't resell it, I'm not willing to pay full price. What constitutes "full price?" By that I mean, what if they sold movies that way for $4.99 but you could also find the DVD or blu-ray in $4.99 sale racks? Does the digital version always need to be cheaper, or is there a threshold below which you don't mind? Personally, I just won't buy movies only playable on computers, as I think I say earlier in the thread. Orren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 13, 2010 Report Share Posted April 13, 2010 Interesting bundle. I wonder what kind of sales they will see. I think they need to discount the movies more, since they are DRM'd. If I can't resell it, I'm not willing to pay full price. IF I agree. You can't resell it.... easily take it to a friends house to watch on their awesome movie set up.... etc. etc. Why would want to pay the same price or more than the DVD for a download, when the dvd can do all those things? Personally, I just won't buy movies only playable on computers, as I think I say earlier in the thread. Orren Yup. Me too, so far anyway. I want something I can watch on any TV be it mine or a friends, plus my computer, etc. etc. I would rent movies on my computer if it didn't cost $5 to watch it once. I could go to a movie rental place and rent a movie for a week for $5 and watch it as many times as I wanted. If they were priced like RedBox, $1 a night, I'd do it. A Pay per watch makes more sense to me. - J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codemer Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 What constitutes "full price?" By that I mean, what if they sold movies that way for $4.99 but you could also find the DVD or blu-ray in $4.99 sale racks? Does the digital version always need to be cheaper, or is there a threshold below which you don't mind? Personally, I just won't buy movies only playable on computers, as I think I say earlier in the thread. Full price is what ever the DVD costs. I occasionally plug my computer into my TV and watch streaming movies. I don't mind that the movie has to be played by *a* computer. I just think it should be heavily discounted if I can only play it on *this* computer, and I vote with my pocketbook on this one. IF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orrenm Posted April 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Full price is what ever the DVD costs. Great answer to the question. But I see now I asked the wrong question. I was asking for your perceived value of digital streaming movies themselves, not necessarily in relation to physical media. So lets say that a future movie you enjoyed and would like to have at home is never released on any sort of physical media, and can only be purchased as a digital download (or on a hard drive, like this Seagate offer). So what price do you consider the price at which you'd consider buying it, DRM'd and all? As I said, this is the only option (other than illegal methods). FWIW, in the audio world, to my $5 is about the limit of what I'd pay for a compressed album w/out "extras" (meaning, the song files alone). There's no right or wrong, I'm just curious how different people think about this issue. Orren PS—to sort of get this back on topic, I believe that each LOTR movie is $9.99 purchase, in "pseudo HD" with "compressed 5.1" and no extras. Go ahead and rail against that, I'll second it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 If the only option to buy my absolute favorite movie was to buy it as a download that I could not play on any other device than my computer, can't resell, etc. etc.... I'd pay something around $3-$5 for it willingly, but only because it was my favorite movie ever, and then you bet that I'm going to do everything in my power to get it onto something physical I can watch on my TV and my friend's TV without having to go buy a bunch of stupid cables and adapters and deal with all the hassle of learning how the heck to hook up my computer to my TV and all that (I'm far from inclined to do that even though once you have the proper cables and adapters it might be easy. I don't want to buy more cables, not to mention lose the use of my computer while watching the movie. What if I didn't have a laptop that could be hooked into a TV? Then I'd pay even less for it). If it's not my favorite movie.. then... I might pay $1 to rent it. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 And as this is the Lounge, I believe we are allowed to wander from topics as much as we please, though perhaps I'm wrong? Incase I am.... Was anyone else annoyed the fact that they changed how Gollum looked between the movies to make him look more like the actor who plays Smeagol in the third movie, or is that just me? Oh my.. is it really almost 2? time for bed. - Jules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve E Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 To be candid, I hadn't noticed. Good night all. - Thoth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Probably just me then. I notice odd things like that sometimes Night! - Jules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orrenm Posted April 14, 2010 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Was anyone else annoyed the fact that they changed how Gollum looked between the movies to make him look more like the actor who plays Smeagol in the third movie, or is that just me? All I noticed is that in the first little "looksie" of him we got in Fellowship of the Ring he wasn't very defined, but I thought in movies 2&3 he looked like he looked; I didn't perceive him change much. And I thought he looked really amazing (best CGI character until the Na'vi!) Oh my.. is it really almost 2? Nah, it's only 10:50pm here in Southern California! Orren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joolissa Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 I remember there being a noticeable change from movie 2 to 3, but maybe I'm remember them in the wrong order and thinking of 1 to 3. Psh! You PDT people.... Okay.. really.. I'm going to ignore the "Storyist Reply Notification" emails in my inbox now...... must... sleep... - JulZzzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codemer Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 I was asking for your perceived value of digital streaming movies themselves, not necessarily in relation to physical media. So lets say that a future movie you enjoyed and would like to have at home is never released on any sort of physical media, and can only be purchased as a digital download (or on a hard drive, like this Seagate offer). So what price do you consider the price at which you'd consider buying it, DRM'd and all? As I said, this is the only option (other than illegal methods). I consider the hard drive distribution just a gimmick. People don't go out and buy HDDs regularly enough that this distribution method makes a lot of sense in the long run. For pure digital distribution, I'm going to look at the quality of what I'm getting. I see the primary competition as unlimited standard-def Netflix streaming which is bundled with 2 or more disc rental packages. We can be talking on the order of cents to rent the streams. Then there's the perceived value of not having any media. That lowers the overall value of downloaded video in my mind because I have to worry about making my own backups. Lastly, there's DRM. Well implemented DRM is not as much of a drag as poor DRM. If I can take a movie to my friend's house on my notebook, and hook into his mondoultracool theater system with a DVI and audio cable, I still get some portability. If I can transfer the movie to my other devices, I get better portability. But, you are correct that I can't lend the media to a friend without breaking the DRM. I think DRM devalues media 20-75% depending on how well or poorly it is implemented. So, do answer your question, with the current state of things, I would be willing to pay up to $10 for an HD encoded movie that I really like, and maybe $4-5 for SD encoded movies that are nice-to-haves. IF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.