Microsoft have sait they'd rather it wasn't on a disc. What do enthusiasts think?

PUBLIC POLL.

I'd rather it on a disc. I've had too many hard drives decide they just didn't want to store anything anymore in my day, so I just don't think it's a good enough option. At least with a good pressed disc (provided I take good care of it) I can pretty much be 100% assured that I will have it forever and that it will play forever (provided my equipment doesn't take a dive).

I prefer the disc option because of the regional restrictions of downloads. Even with disc region encoding there is a way around it, but if you lived in Europe you just couldn't download the Animatrix.

I prefer disc:
-own and can view always (and "forever")
-quality will be superior (at least for a long time)

Today's download options are pretty bad. If you have any Content Management system in place, once your harddrive fails, you may lose all your "certificates" etc, plus often you pay per viewing/limited time period. Quality is VERY poor.

Satellite is a bit better, but quality is still poor, and it's PPV (though I'm not sure if you can possibly store PPV movies on DVR and rewatch indefinitely? (I would think they frown upon that). Even if you could, once the harddrive crashes, you start from scratch.

Broadband bandwidth will not be where it needs to be for the next five years at least, ten at the pessimistic end, and instead of opting for a tiered PQ structure the content providers will cater to the lowest common denominator: low-bitrate, heavily lossy compression.

No thanks.

So they can try DRM and spyware, if not DIVX/XBL style limited viewings? nothxbye.

On a sidenote from my previous post - I would be open for the occasional viewing of a PPV/downloaded movie, if I don't think it is worth to own. I would require the following though:
1. Identical datastream to what is in either BluRay or HDDVD. (no recompression/lower bitrates!)
2. Obviously a slick system to get everything sent to the tv/receiver. (I'd prefer some sort of "movie set-top box" to a computer - or I suppose Xbox/PS3). Obviously we should not have to worry about codecs, different file extensions, explorer type browsing etc....
3. Pricing must be reasonable 24 hrs window for $4
4. Internet/Distribution channel must be improved, so that I have max 5 minutes lag time before the movie starts from the time I ordered it.

Count me in for physical media as well. I'm a collector by nature so I love having the ability to put actual stuff on my shelves and display it. And optical discs should last at least as long as I do. Not confining the file to ever-decreasing bitrates is also a plus.

I also like:
-having pretty packaging and artwork,
-Not needing to worry about hard drive crashes,
-never worrying about whether or not my drive has a high enough capacity to last me a long time,
-not being at the mercy of a buggy OS,
-not having it DRM-ed to Hell, and
-not worrying about microtransactions (buying the feature, then downloading bonus material at additional cost).

XBL Video Marketplace is CC's Divx reborn without the waste of optical media. People have shown that they prefer to buy instead of rent. None of these companies has really come out with a good purchase scheme as of yet. It will ave nothing more than niche crowd for movies. If it makes an impact it will be with TV shows as people may be willing to pay a couple bucks to catch a commercial free episode that they missed the night before.

People like to compare VOD to how Downloadable mp3s have taken off compared to standard CDs. This is a completly different market. We love our music to be portable, we take it to the gym, to the library, and wherever we go. The MP3 player replaced the bulky and low capacity CD player that we all used to carry around.

How many people ever had portable, hand held TVs? Maybe a few, but I don't think i've seen one for nearly 10 years. The only time portable video is utilizied is when someone goes on a long car trip, plane trip, or where they will be waiting a long time. No one takes their portable DVD player sticks it on the treadmill or takes a break from studying in the library and breaks out their 'Soprano's DVDs'.

Not only that, but VOD isn't even targeting the portable market. They are targeting the home market to replace optical media. What are the most popular threads on this forum? They are easily the 'Show off your BR/HD/X360/DVD collection" and 'Show off your HT' threads. People like collecting crap and then they like showing people what they have. It is just human nature. Guys do it with HDTVs and girls do it with Jewlery (sterotyping, yeah, but for a big chunk of the population, it is true). I don't think that we will see too many 'Show off the contents of your Hard Drive' thread. ;) If VOD does take over optical media in ten years, it will mean that peoples purchases will go WAY down. They won't have that urge to collect digital bits like they do actual DVDs. Suddenly, that average sequal in a trilogy isn't worth your cash to complete the set. Why would it? It is just bits. No box art, no physical product.

Finally, digital video is tied directly to piracy. Offering a high quality digital video solution all pre-made for the pirates of the companies are just asking to get ripped off. HD DVD and BR are hard to pirate because 1)HUGE Downloads and 2)Burners and Media would cost more than just buying the movie. If we have a good VOD on system, that means download bandwith isn't an issue and getting physical media or tools isn't required. You can do everything on the same computer. Which, of course, means that VOD will have a MUCH higher DRM element to it than currently seen in optical formats.

D DVD and BR are hard to pirate because 1)HUGE Downloads and 2)Burners and Media would cost more than just buying the movie.

Can get a nice 720p rip at around ~4.5gb. Not that huge. And can be burnt on a regular dvd-5 or dvd-9.

Fact is piracy will happen no matter what. Just time for media companies to catch up.

Disc.

Disc, for many reasons. Major one is, i pay for a product i can resell down the road. I am paying for a object that gives me entertainment, not just entertainment that doesnt hold any value.

Considering enthusiasts a-la AVS are always "contrarians" in terms of public opinion, HD download has a bright future! :p

Diogen.

In an unrealistically ideal scenario where:

1) the two were identical in quality, and the only difference was the method of delivery
- and -
2) the download service involves a wider selection of titles

...I'd go for downloads without hesitation. I think #2 would practically be a given in a case like this, but #1...not so much.

The idea of being able to watch whatever I want, whenever I want is tremendously appealing to me, especially if I have a much more extensive selection at my fingertips compared to what we're getting now. If the quality's not there, though, I'd pass.

Purchased downloads and download rentals. Meaning I could buy the movie and download it and even burn to disc if I so desired. With rentals, the current XBox Live rental setup if fine for me!

What's wrong with having both again? What people are forgetting about Xbox Live Video is that except for TV shows, it's RENTED material. It's the HD (in many cases) equivelent of a redbox, netflix, or BB movie. And without the possibility of getting that nice cracked or scratched up disc.

XBL Video Marketplace is CC's Divx reborn without the waste of optical media. People have shown that they prefer to buy instead of rent. None of these companies has really come out with a good purchase scheme as of yet. It will ave nothing more than niche crowd for movies. If it makes an impact it will be with TV shows as people may be willing to pay a couple bucks to catch a commercial free episode that they missed the night before.

Microsoft, Lionsgate, and a few other of the companies offering movies up on Video Marketplace would absolutely disagree with you. Lionsgate just laid massive love on XBLVM for boosting it's digital revenue 50%, and actually helping them recoop money on that horrible "Employee of the Month" movie they put out.

It's already making an impact with both movies, and the very TV show downloads you're talking about. So much so that more networks are coming on board with TV offerings.

That said, it's still just that, rental material (except TV shows which you get to keep). If I want to buy a movie, I buy it. But we were perfectly happy renting Crank on the Xbox 360 (and thank goodness I didn't buy that crap either), and we'll be renting a few more over the weekend to watch.

So give me both options.

IT's THE IMAGE QUALITY, STUPID

Please, please, no flaming.

Not saying anyone is stupid here . . . . . just paraphrasing the old Clinton Campaign maxim on the economy.

The question the poll raises is important.

That said, as it now reads the poll is an INVALID question until the issue of image quality is the same for both optical and download.

IMHO if Apple, MS, Netflix, Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, the studios et al think they can get away with less than FULL HD quality on their downloads THEY WILL ABSOLUTELY DO IT.

The ARE doing it.

I propose that a more germane question for THIS FORUM would be;

How can we ensure / enforce that image quality -- IE FULL HD -- is maintained
and not short changed for the sake of convenience. . . . . specifically in downloads but ALSO optical.

In this Wal-Mart driven world convenience trumps quality EVERY time.

The very real danger is if we all casually say "yeah, sure I'd download"
then we might all get stuck with lower image quality.

Never forget all the studios that refused to do anamorphic DVD's in the
beginning . . . . . . . . that could happen again with downloads.


-30-

I think it is a function of mindset. For example, part of the charm in buying an LP was the album art cover. It did not matter that CD's were 'better' but the pictures were/are to small. This generation, everything is mp3, and the album cover is even smaller on the screen on an ipod for example. This generation does not care about that kind of stuff.

With regards to downloads, vs disc, I think it is a matter of 'ownership'. Most of us collect movies as part of a hobby, as clearly it makes no financial sense. Having 100 HD movies on a large hard drive makes a lot of sense like having 1000's of songs on a mp3 player. It is convienient, fast, easy to access, and takes much less space. However unlike music which we may choose to listen every day, we do not watch the same movies daily. As a result, if downloads were permament (ie like i-tunes) where you own your own movies and can watch them whenever you pleased, I think that would be the future. However if down loads are temporary (like Xbox), it is no different than going to blockbuster/netflix and the winner will be the oe who offers the most convienience.

Disc...

When people come over, I dont want to be dependent on some other company's service for my entertainment as with downloading.

I want my movie right in my hands, where I can put it in my system that I know works, and we can all be entertained.

I dont want to be completely screwed because an idiot down the street hit a cable line and took out my internet connection 12 seconds before the movie was downloaded or something of the sort.

THe honest truth is that most people dont expect their internet to be reliable. They more expect their own personal equipment that sits in their house day in and day out to be reliable.

when I want, where I want, how I want... those things cannot be garaunteed with downloads and hence.... I dont want.

disc it is

Disc. Its always available right there.
Some people don't want to pay a monthly premium for the fattest pipe(bandwidth) available from their local DSL/Cable provider. Plus if they are allowed to store it, they don't want to have to pay to buy this enormous hard drive. Plus, hard drives are more likely to fail than an optical disc would.

+1 for Disc

Disc only, even if the quality is the same.
The day movies/music are only available via download is the day they stop getting my money.

i like both.... because my primary method of watching movies is to rent and one area download services can be much better is the rent market.

As long as both experiences are the same, it doesn't matter to me(although a download would physically take up less space and I also would need to get those PITA stickers off the boxes). But right now the viewing experience from disc surpasses that of a download.

I voted for "I prefer it on a disc" and let me explain why.

1. I only have so many cable connections in my house as they charge extra for more. the option for me to use it in a room where I don't have cable/sat. (or have it downloaded to a recorder)

2. The option to take the disk with me for my PC/laptop, on the road or what have you.

3. The option to sell it later on if I so choose.

4. The option to have the kids take movies to the aunt/uncle/grandparents house when I need a babysitter.

5. If quality is going to be an issue and unable to get the PQ/AQ that I have now then I would rather have disks.

Neither download or disc -- I want 50Gb flash memory cards for error-free playback. :cool:

What's wrong with having both again? What people are forgetting about Xbox Live Video is that except for TV shows, it's RENTED material. It's the HD (in many cases) equivelent of a redbox, netflix, or BB movie. And without the possibility of getting that nice cracked or scratched up disc.

Microsoft, Lionsgate, and a few other of the companies offering movies up on Video Marketplace would absolutely disagree with you. Lionsgate just laid massive love on XBLVM for boosting it's digital revenue 50%, and actually helping them recoop money on that horrible "Employee of the Month" movie they put out.
It's already making an impact with both movies, and the very TV show downloads you're talking about. So much so that more networks are coming on board with TV offerings.

That said, it's still just that, rental material (except TV shows which you get to keep). If I want to buy a movie, I buy it. But we were perfectly happy renting Crank on the Xbox 360 (and thank goodness I didn't buy that crap either), and we'll be renting a few more over the weekend to watch.

So give me both options.

As a rental market it may end up working, assuming they drop their ridiculous prices. It could end up becoming Pay Per View without the Cable subscription. What MS is talking about is REPLACING optical media with VOD entirely in the next 10 years. Something I don't think will happen. There are a lot of technical issues to work out right now and i'm not sure if even basic broadband penetration is where it needs to be for people to throw out their DVD players anytime soon.

Remember, a BR/HDDVD player will eventually cost $30 at Walmart and the discs will sell for 2 for $5.99. That isn't going to be this year, next, or maybe even the year after but eventually it will happen. VOD will ALWAYS require a $30-$50/month internet connection plus $3-$6 a movie for a RENTAL fee.

Do you think a basic $14.99/month 768k DSL Connection can do VOD? There aren't that many people springing for 6 MB and 8 MB packages from the local cable company or those ready to switch over to a Fios service if it means that their monthly bill will double or triple.

Why should they? Their connection works just fine for checking email, reading news, and surfing the web.

Just as it is with women, I prefer something tangible.

At the moment I prefer optical media, no doubt about it. Come the day I have a 10Gbit fat line to my house and petabytes of reliable storage, I will switch over to downloads.

As a rental market it may end up working, assuming they drop their ridiculous prices. It could end up becoming Pay Per View without the Cable subscription. What MS is talking about is REPLACING optical media with VOD entirely in the next 10 years. Something I don't think will happen. There are a lot of technical issues to work out right now and i'm not sure if even basic broadband penetration is where it needs to be for people to throw out their DVD players anytime soon.

Remember, a BR/HDDVD player will eventually cost $30 at Walmart and the discs will sell for 2 for $5.99. That isn't going to be this year, next, or maybe even the year after but eventually it will happen. VOD will ALWAYS require a $30-$50/month internet connection plus $3-$6 a movie for a RENTAL fee.

Do you think a basic $14.99/month 768k DSL Connection can do VOD? There aren't that many people springing for 6 MB and 8 MB packages from the local cable company or those ready to switch over to a Fios service if it means that their monthly bill will double or triple.

Why should they? Their connection works just fine for checking email, reading news, and surfing the web.

Imo the download market isnt targeted at the people who dont already have broadband. The consumer who has just the basic level service isnt who MS/others is targeting. Cable companies as it is dont make much money off those basic subscribers. Where they get their money are the ones who have digital cable w/dvr and medium grade HSI. You cant even easily sign up for live w/o broadband (although there are ways of tricking it).

And I dont see it replacing the download to keep market either.... where I see downloads really taking over is the netflix model & blockbuster rent models. A download service really can do alot of things better than those two markets and with the right pricing can take over (although netflix might beat most of them to the punch themselves). The pricing is still far too high to replace blockbuster and netflix. But I really wish I could find some stats on how many movies are rented vs. bought. I would suspect 75-80% of most movies are rented. Either way its a very large market.

I would like the option of downloading for rentals as long as the quality was the same. You obviously couldn't do that in realtime now and probably not for a long time.

Personally, I wouldn't mind ordering it Monday and having it available Tuesday or something like that. Basically order it and give it 24 hours to download. It's still faster than Netflix by snail mail and you avoid the reliability problems of sharing physical discs.

I chose "both," but at the moment it is clearly a preference for a physical disc. However, when flash drives are in the terabyte range for a reasonable price and cable speeds are around 50mbps and higher, I'd gladly adopt downloaded HD provided the movies were at a much greater discount (say $9.99 each).

I think the disc is much better for many reasons for the consumers, while the $ for the downloads are a bit more interesting for some companies..So ofcourse I voted for disc!

I have been a big "collectable" person, have 600 LD's and 500 DVD's. I have something on every title I ever wanted and then some.

However, I am beginning to think that some sort of electronic delivery would be better in many cases. If I could simply look up any film ever made and look at it on the spot, in really high quality, that would be interesting.

It would also very likely save me money in the future.

Quality, convenience, and overly restrictive DRM are clearly issues. [Why rent something that self-destructs in 24 hours, that is too short a time frame.]

The list of companies that are now working on some sort of solution is very large and the content involved dwarfs the pitiful number of nextgen disks.

The format war has given electronic delivery a really nice window of opportunity, we will see what they do with it.

I do not download movies.

I do not download music.

I have zero interest in downloads of either sort.

If I can't buy a hard media copy, I will not make the purchase.

I prefer it on the disc, but I would also like downloads. Why would I want to limit how I can get movies? Downloads as rentals or purchases will nicely add to my physical movie collection.

I don't follow the audio market that much, but for those who want us to believe that downloads will be higher quality because there is no fixed bandwidth limit, is there anyplace that people can legally download mainstream audio that is the same or higher quality than SACD or DVDA? Audio should have lower bandwidth requirements than video by quite a bit, so I wonder if there is higher quality stuff there for download.

One nice thing about discs is that unless the price between single layer and dual layer is significant to studios there isn't a big incentive to compress things a lot more and especially not the incentive to just keep compressing things a little more like there is with the download model. Much like DIRECTV, where theoretically they could give us 4k at 100Mbps, but reality doesn't match that fantasy.

--Darin

I prefer disk without hesitation.

And as others said, about hard drives dieing. Even if that isn't the problem, all the DRM crap you have to go through to get your files working on another computer/electronic is annoying.

hard media for me (disk, card.... I don't care) but not DL

There are rare cases where I would want to own the disc, but over 600 SDVDs, the *vast* majority watched only once, I would be money way ahead with a download *rental* model.

Most people knee jerk on this thinking they will pay $20+ to "own" a downloaded copy. That doesn't interest me. Let me pay <$5 for a chance to view (within reasonable time) and then delete it from my local copy. On the outside chance I want to watch it again, I'll rent it again.

Worries about hard drive failures just go away with this model. Think "Netflix" without the mailing back and forth. That would be *sweet*.

By the time I am likely to want to watch them again, the formats would have improved and I would want the newer HD format anyway...

Ken

There are rare cases where I would want to own the disc, but over 600 SDVDs, the *vast* majority watched only once, I would be money way ahead with a download *rental* model.

Most people knee jerk on this thinking they will pay $20+ to "own" a downloaded copy. That doesn't interest me. Let me pay <$5 for a chance to view (within reasonable time) and then delete it from my local copy. On the outside chance I want to watch it again, I'll rent it again.

Worries about hard drive failures just go away with this model. Think "Netflix" without the mailing back and forth. That would be *sweet*.

By the time I am likely to want to watch them again, the formats would have improved and I would want the newer HD format anyway...

Ken

or even better imo... the netflix model via download. let me pay 20 bucks a month and get 2 or 3 movies at a time. It also negates the need for massive storage (because you would only ever have 3 movies at a time) and largely the bw concerns becuase you have 2 movies at all times on your 360 and by the time you watch those the 3rd would be downloaded.

you could even do cool stuff down the road to enhance it where you setup your queue through xbox.com or the 360 itself and when you delete a movie it automatically starts downloading the next one.

I also much prefer renting most movies.... There arent too many I really will watch more than once. And thats also another advantage of a download service is it would be like a having a "massive" e-library to choose from because with the netflix membership you could just redownload a movie if you wanted to watch it again and wait a few hours for it to download. (or in my longterm idea start it downloading at work from xbox.com and when you get home the movie is ready)

There are rare cases where I would want to own the disc, but over 600 SDVDs, the *vast* majority watched only once, I would be money way ahead with a download *rental* model.

Most people knee jerk on this thinking they will pay $20+ to "own" a downloaded copy. That doesn't interest me. Let me pay <$5 for a chance to view (within reasonable time) and then delete it from my local copy. On the outside chance I want to watch it again, I'll rent it again.

This is where I am. I have around 550-600 DVD's right now sitting in 3 shelving units. Sadly, I actually have some that are UNOPENED (movies I've seen elsewhere that I just wanted to own). I can't tell you how little I pull them off the shelf just to watch. Especially with Comcast right there for me to watch as well.

Being married with a 2 year old and a new house also limits my spending by quite a bit. I can't spend $200 a month anymore on DVD's like I used to. This is where the Xbox 360 has been fantastic for my wife and I. We look at the list of movies, and pick one to watch that night. I download it, and we've got it right there ready to go when we want it. And on a movie like Crank, I'm glad I didn't spend $20-30 on this movie. 420 points and I never have to own it or watch it again.

I'm just not in that position to say "If I can't own it I won't download it" anymore. And there are a LOT of family folk like me in the same situation.

i'd rather microsoft keep their nose in the OS business, and have nothing to do with movie content at all.

Couldn't there be a solution that satisfies the need to have the content on a physical medium and the convienance of HDD storage and customization?

How about a service where you download the movie package (menu, movie, extras) then have the option of burning it onto a special dvd/BRD/HD-DVD with a Lightscribe or like tech top(store bought). Users can then produce their own disc art (with the correct drive) or use the art provided with the movie package. The cover could be printed out on special paper provided in the blank dvd/BRD/HD-DVD case. Again, you can choose to use the standard studio artwork or whatever custom cover you desire.

Of course strict DRM would be involved but isn't that what that managed copy stuff is about? I think adding the option of burning your own copy to put on your shelf along with custom artwork could be interesting. The custom art can be done now but I think there are legal problems.

Disc, but ask the question again in eighty years and the poll will favor DL.

There are rare cases where I would want to own the disc, but over 600 SDVDs, the *vast* majority watched only once, I would be money way ahead with a download *rental* model.

Most people knee jerk on this thinking they will pay $20+ to "own" a downloaded copy. That doesn't interest me. Let me pay <$5 for a chance to view (within reasonable time) and then delete it from my local copy. On the outside chance I want to watch it again, I'll rent it again.

Worries about hard drive failures just go away with this model. Think "Netflix" without the mailing back and forth. That would be *sweet*.

By the time I am likely to want to watch them again, the formats would have improved and I would want the newer HD format anyway...

Ken

I absolutely despise this model - download only, PPV. Why? There is no guarantee that the 30-yr-old movie that you want to see will still be available.

Let me give an example - Disney's 'Song of the South'. If this had only been available in a download model, you simply could not watch it - it would have vanished from the face of the earth, as far as the consumer is concerned.

This also opens the door to censorship from both a corporate and government standpoint.

If, OTOH, you buy it when it is available, you can still watch it 40 years later if you so desire, and there's nothing the studio can do to stop you.

i'd rather microsoft keep their nose in the OS business, and have nothing to do with movie content at all.

What does that even mean?



Let me give an example - Disney's 'Song of the South'. If this had only been available in a download model, you simply could not watch it - it would have vanished from the face of the earth, as far as the consumer is concerned.

That's not a great example since the average person can't watch Song of the South ANYWAY because Disney refuses to pull it out of the vault for PC reasons. You have to import it if you want any chance of watching that movie. And again, outside of you, me, and the couple hundred people that post here; who is actually going to do that?

As far as the mainstream consumer goes, that movie HAS vanished. This generation of people don't even know what that movie even is or that it exists.

Intercourse Microsoft.

Discs.

I do not download movies.

I do not download music.

I have zero interest in downloads of either sort.

If I can't buy a hard media copy, I will not make the purchase.

My feelings exactly.
J

I buy lossless 5.1 channel surround music from MusicGiants via downloads. Even though it has DRM I have no problems playing the music on any of the PCs on my home network. Can even copy it from one hard drive to another -- it just "calls home" the next time the title is played. Works for me. :)

Disc...

But I'm wondering why all this Microsoft hate when Sony made a similar comment...

Generally I prefer downloads to discs, so I can just shove everything on a server. But HD video is so big that disc space is a pain, so I prefer discs for now. Also, even with 8mbps broadband, HD video is a lot to download.

If hard drives were ten times bigger and my downloads five times as fast, I'd say downloads. Currently I'd rather have 1GB h264 downloads than SD DVD movies on disc. But HD is different, for now.

Let's get in the real world, 90% of people don't have the capacity to download HD content, 50%+ don't have the knowledge to do so!

The average guy on the street can just about get by surfing the internet, nevermind getting into the business of downloading. keeping track of this content, and getting it from their PC to their TV.

Microsoft have sait they'd rather it wasn't on a disc.

You mean the statements taken out of context?

So much for truth. Information. Relevance. Clarity, huh? :rolleyes:

Let's get in the real world, 90% of people don't have the capacity to download HD content, 50%+ don't have the knowledge to do so!

The average guy on the street can just about get by surfing the internet, nevermind getting into the business of downloading. keeping track of this content, and getting it from their PC to their TV.

and this is the same person who isnt going to bother getting hdtv let alone hd-dvd or bluray. the person who bothers to even know about this war and own hdtv's are the people downloads are targeting.... and that same person is going to be the one who is comfortable on the internet.

I prefer the disks too. Downloadable media is good for rentals and such, but I would want a favorite movie of mine in my hands. That is why we have the B&M's and online stores. To get what we want for keeps.

and this is the same person who isnt going to bother getting hdtv let alone hd-dvd or bluray. the person who bothers to even know about this war and own hdtv's are the people downloads are targeting.... and that same person is going to be the one who is comfortable on the internet.


In the UK at least, most new TV sales are HDTV's, while Sky HD is starting to take off.

But there's a generation gap, I persoanally know plenty of people with HDTV's who don't even have a PC!

Disks for me.

Current storage technology in hard disk drive has its own inherent weaknesses. " Careful son, keep those magnets away from my hard drive collection "

I like shiny things.

Interesting that it's many of the most vocal die hard HDDVDers who are willing to entertain both while just about everyone else wants it on disc...

Why does it have to be one or the other? I do not get the why people are so set on clinging to one of two competing items and argue tooth and nail that their choice is better. Just like Blu-Ray and HD-DVD can co-exist forever with dual format hardware and lower costs, downloadable content and physical media can continue to co-exist. The main benefit to downloadable content is convenience. The second is cost. My opinion is that if it is a keeper, I'd prefer to own the physical media, and as long as the quality is on par, if it isn't a keeper, or it is more convenient, I prefer downloadable content, especially when it becomes more refined.

There you go.... I'm "Media Type Neutral". I would prefer both types be available and I plan to continue to consume both. For me, this isn't a pick one or the other type question.

Where did you get the idea it has to be one or the other? There are plenty of other choices... they're just not nearly as popular. :)

Interesting that it's many of the most vocal die hard HDDVDers who are willing to entertain both while just about everyone else wants it on disc...


I guess it's because we're more in touch with reality?


You know you CAN have a choice. Or do you honestly think Sony will never delve into down loadable online movie content? Ha Ha /Nelson

I guess it's because we're more in touch with reality?

At 16%? Maybe you need a reality CHECK? :p


You know you CAN have a choice. Or do you honestly think Sony will never delve into down loadable online movie content? Ha Ha /Nelson

I'll certainly have a choice to buy Sony downloadables online and Blu-rays. I'll bet the Xbox 720 offers the EXACT same options in a couple years, too, including the Blu-ray part. :)

At 16%? Maybe you need a reality CHECK? :p



I'll certainly have a choice to buy Sony downloadables online and Blu-rays. I'll bet the Xbox 720 offers the EXACT same options in a couple years, too, including the Blu-ray part. :)


I'd say it's the other 84% that need a reality check if they think both can't coexist or that down loadable content will be the only available choice for everyone in the near future.

If it's down loadable content, what makes you think it would be BD??? BD is an optical disc, goofy. ;) BD is not a down loadable movie file. What you may mean to say you may be able to DL bloated subpar mpeg2 movies from Sony, and the better encodes of VC-1 from MS.

Both....disc for movies I want to own, download for movies I want to rent. My XBLM experiences have been nothing but positive so far...my wife & I watched Braveheart in 720p HD recently & loved it. Done a few other things as well with no problems. I also own HD DVD & Blu Ray players for movies I want to keep. The more options, the better.
If peanut butter & chocolate can peacefully coexist inside one single little Reeses cup, surely the mere concept of disc & download on the same blue planet can one day be socially acceptable.
;)

I'd say it's the other 84% that need a reality check if they think both can't coexist or that down loadable content will be the only available choice for everyone in the near future.


Ah, so EVERYONE ELSE is wrong but you're right. Gotcha. :o
Cocaine is a helluva drug. </Chappelle>



If it's down loadable content, what makes you think it would be BD??? BD is an optical disc, goofy. ;)


I apologize for not clarifying an inference I thought obvious. Sony is and has invested heavily in Blu-ray. They're not mutually exclusive and Sony won't stop supporting Blu-ray even if they have a downloadable scheme take off. I wouldn't say the same for other companies, especially those of the HDDVD tripod. ;)

BD is not a down loadable movie file. What you may mean to say you may be able to DL bloated subpar mpeg2 movies from Sony, and the better encodes of VC-1 from MS.

If you're just trolling, which means more likely, then I shouldn't dignify it with a response, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If you really believe that silly rhetoric, I'd ask you to advance past September 06 and join us in Jun 2007 where most Sony movies are AVC. I'd also advise you to compare identical encodes of VC1 and MPEG2 titles in the same environment and try to point out a single visible difference. Hint, you won't be able to. ;)

So much for truth. Information. Relevance. Clarity, huh? :rolleyes:
Please tell us you're kidding and you're not really sniping at Grubert's contributions to this forum.

Downloads are fine for rentals, but when you want to make a title a 'keeper,' and you want the best A/V quality, and you don't want to worry about losing the title when your system crashes...always better to have a pristing 'hard copy'.

I love the HD download service on my XBOX 360...but it doesn't hold up to the 'collector' test.

That's not a great example since the average person can't watch Song of the South ANYWAY because Disney refuses to pull it out of the vault for PC reasons. You have to import it if you want any chance of watching that movie. And again, outside of you, me, and the couple hundred people that post here; who is actually going to do that?


I think that was his point. If you bought a hard copy in the past you still have it and no one can take it away from you, but if it is DL/rent (instead of DL/buy) then you are at their mercy because they can pull a movie off the server and you are screwed. You don't need to go that far as PC reasons. Just look at normal renting, a new movie comes out they have a lot of copies, then after a few months the number goes down....e3ventually if it is not a movie that gets rented enough there is 0 copies. Yes I know servers and HDD are easier to add, but I think it nuts to think the service provider will have every movie for perpetuty.

I think that was his point. If you bought a hard copy in the past you still have it and no one can take it away from you, but if it is DL/rent (instead of DL/buy) then you are at their mercy because they can pull a movie off the server and you are screwed. You don't need to go that far as PC reasons. Just look at normal renting, a new movie comes out they have a lot of copies, then after a few months the number goes down....e3ventually if it is not a movie that gets rented enough there is 0 copies. Yes I know servers and HDD are easier to add, but I think it nuts to think the service provider will have every movie for perpetuty.

Ive been trying to get Fantasia 2000, but Disney pulled it. Cant find it anywhere now, and netflix/blockbuster online both pulled it. This is what happens when you rely on someone else.

Ah, so EVERYONE ELSE is wrong but you're right. Gotcha. :o
Cocaine is a helluva drug. </Chappelle>


I didn't say they're completely wrong. I said they may need a reality check as I'm sure they all have CD and MP3 in their home.

I would buy my favorite movies or at least the demo pq titles and dl others that I'd just otherwise rent.

I think there can be a happy medium. It doesn't have to be black or white. IF you don't want it to be...



I apologize for not clarifying an inference I thought obvious. Sony is and has invested heavily in Blu-ray. They're not mutually exclusive and Sony won't stop supporting Blu-ray even if they have a downloadable scheme take off. I wouldn't say the same for other companies, especially those of the HDDVD tripod. ;)

You don't need to apologize. You're one of the funner member's on the "other" side to respond to.



If you're just trolling, which means more likely, then I shouldn't dignify it with a response, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



Now come on Uxi... I let you troll me with a line like "I'll bet the Xbox 720 offers the EXACT same options in a couple years, too, including the Blu-ray part. :) ". I didn't call you a troll on it. Don't tell me I can't troll you with a little tongue in cheek comment in return ;)

I wouldnt mind downloading it if I could burn it and keep it and also if it improves on current quality

In a perfect world, I would pay-per-view downloadable movies, or alternatively, pay a monthly fee for unlimited access to a catalogue, and I would be downloading at internet2 speeds.

I'm not a movie collector. I like to watch movies.

I'd take D/L's over physical discs, but right now there's no real viable means of doing that. The current D/L's available don't have high enough quality, have unintelligent and consumer-unfriendly DRM and there's not a very efficient way of storing them/backing up/retrieving. I see the future of D/L's where consumers purchase but they don't physically D/L the content. Their "account" has their purchases and everything's streamed with maybe some sort of buffer system. We'd need a more robust internet connectivity infrastruture for that though - along the lines of Verizon's higher tier FiOS service.

More food for thought:

Panelists: Downloads 10 to 20 years from mainstream (http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6452274.html)

By Jennifer Netherby -- Video Business, 6/14/2007
JUNE 14 | SANTA MONICA, Calif.—Executives from leading movie download companies said their business is 10 years or more away from becoming a mainstream consumer offering, with an unlimited range of movies that can be viewed easily on the TV.

Speaking at a Digital Hollywood panel Wednesday, executives from Amazon.com Unbox, CinemaNow, bit-torrent and other companies said that everything from lack of content, restrictive release windows, interoperability problems and technological hurdles are holding the business back from taking off in the immediate future.

Amazon director of digital media Roy Price was the most optimistic, predicting that it will be eight to 10 years before movies are widely available by download and easy to view. But he thinks mainstream consumers will start downloading in the next two to four years.

Execs from Movielink and CinemaNow, both doing downloads for the longest time, predicted the business is 10 to 20 years from really taking off. CinemaNow CEO Curt Marvis was the most cautious in his estimate, predicting it could be 20 years. However, he said he thinks when it does, it will be bigger than the home video industry and all other channels.

Execs from bit-torrent, Hewlett-Packard and Akimbo put takeoff around 10 years or less.

[...]

Now hopefully some people can sleep at night. 10 or more years until the SS comes to their door and takes away their precious optical media.

BTW, for all you afraid of downloads coming in and disintegrating all your DVD's, you might not like this:

"How can I watch movies instantly on my PC?
With Netflix, you will be able to watch movies instantly on your PC at no additional cost. You will get one hour of instant viewing included in your membership for each dollar of monthly plan cost. For example, if you select the 3 at-a-time unlimited plan for $17.99 a month, you will also get access to 18 hours of instant watching - all in addition to your regular "by mail" selections! Once you become a member, click the "Watch Now" tab for more information."

Ruh-roh.

BTW, for all you afraid of downloads coming in and disintegrating all your DVD's, you might not like this:

"How can I watch movies instantly on my PC?
With Netflix, you will be able to watch movies instantly on your PC at no additional cost. You will get one hour of instant viewing included in your membership for each dollar of monthly plan cost. For example, if you select the 3 at-a-time unlimited plan for $17.99 a month, you will also get access to 18 hours of instant watching - all in addition to your regular "by mail" selections! Once you become a member, click the "Watch Now" tab for more information."

Ruh-roh.

18 hours of High def ?

I guess it's because we're more in touch with reality?


You know you CAN have a choice. Or do you honestly think Sony will never delve into down loadable online movie content? Ha Ha /Nelson

Exactly

Today I can buy music on a physical CD from Best Buy, Target, Barnes and Noble, Wal-Mart, Borders

Or I can download music from a variety of places for varying fees, iTunes, eMusic, Rhapsody, MusicMatch, Napster, Virgin.

I don't limit the ways I obtain music, why would I want a limited way to get movies? The market for downloadable movies will have many competitors including Microsoft, Sony. I don't understand the irrational fear of movie downloads, I would like both and thanks to my 360 I am enjoying both :)

18 hours of High def ?

;)

18 hours of High def ?

Sigh......

Downloads. DOWNLOADS..

How long before HD becomes part of that? Microsoft already does it.

If downloads and IPTV is launched before enough "free" bandwidth and enough "reliable storage" --- ie: 1TB of flash (NOT HDD). We will get substandard movies at below 10Mbps and perhaps even 1280x720 resolutions or worse.

Many will just take it the same way mp3s seem to have killed other audio formats such as CD-audio, that are provably supperior, and the prevalence of 128kbps mp3s over 320kps can attest to this sort of cheap mentality and economics taking over.

Even if the movies can be made available at 10Mbps vs 28Mbps vs 40Mbps video bitrate, I expect the 28Mbps one will be more expensive, and the 40Mbps (or above) will be prohibitively even more expensive. Unlike HDM.

If downloads and IPTV is launched before enough "free" bandwidth and enough "reliable storage" --- ie: 1TB of flash (NOT HDD). We will get substandard movies at below 10Mbps and perhaps even 1280x720 resolutions or worse.

Many will just take it the same way mp3s seem to have killed other audio formats such as CD-audio, that are provably supperior, and the prevalence of 128kbps mp3s over 320kps can attest to this sort of cheap mentality and economics taking over.

Even if the movies can be made available at 10Mbps vs 28Mbps vs 40Mbps video bitrate, I expect the 28Mbps one will be more expensive, and the 40Mbps (or above) will be prohibitively even more expensive. Unlike HDM.

Most of the 720p movies I've downloaded from XBLM look nice. Crank, V for Vendetta, Braveheart all looked good for a 720p download, HD DVD still beat them but I'm not compaining especially since Braveheart, a 7.9 GB download, allowed me to see it in High Definition :) I don't have a problem with 720p for downloads as rentals. If I downloaded a movie to own I'd definitely go with the 1080p version.

Buy the license, download the content, burn it on a disc, print out cover and insert. It's inevitable.

Interesting information here:

U.S. Ranks Low in Download Speeds (http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=10818)


[...]

The median download speed for the nation is 1.9 megabits per second (mbps), a pedestrian figure compared to most of the world, according to the survey commissioned by the Communications Workers of America (CWA), released June 25. At more than 60 mbps, the Japanese can download in two minutes what takes Americans two hours. South Korea is second to Japan in download speed, hitting 45 mbps. Finland, Sweden and France are all around 20 mbps, and even Canada is leaving America behind (7.6 mbps), according to the survey.

The CWA, using the results of the survey, faults the federal government for not having a national policy to promote high-speed broadband, and calls for the United States to have a nationwide infrastructure to carry 10 mbps in downloads and 1 mbps for uploads by 2010.

[...]

I like shiny things.
Same here :) LOL

How long would it take to download a 2 hour HD movie at 60 mbps?

How long would it take to download a 2 hour HD movie at 60 mbps?72 minutes. Did you forget a smiley? Was this a rhetorical question?

This poll is a total blowout; prefer to download is ~3.5% of the sample.

This poll is a total blowout; prefer to download is ~3.5% of the sample.

NO . . the poll worked. Article dated yesterday 6/27/07 - Downloads are a niche buisiness:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6456108.html?industryid=47214

NO . . the poll worked. Article dated yesterday 6/27/07 - Downloads are a niche buisiness:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6456108.html?industryid=47214

Huh? How does that contradict what I said?

72 minutes. Did you forget a smiley? Was this a rhetorical question?

No, it was a serious question. 60 mbps is what Japan can do, so I was wondering how long it would take to download a 2 hour HD movie, and how that would compare to the average DL speed in the US.

of course disc, the great looking covers, cases, the look of the collection at all, ect.

Downloads are usually encumbered by DRM which locks it to a particular device right? In that case I'll take disc.

No, it was a serious question. 60 mbps is what Japan can do, so I was wondering how long it would take to download a 2 hour HD movie, and how that would compare to the average DL speed in the US.

It depends on how much data your moving. Let's use King Kong as an example. 187 minutes of run time for the movie, using close to 30GB of disc space for everything on the disc.

60Mbps = 7.5MB/sec

30,000MB / 7.5MB/sec = 4,000 seconds = 66.6 minutes to download

Downloads will happen eventually, but the right offering needs to be put together for it to work.

If a service provider like comcast/dish/directv used their DVR as the device handling this content, and offered consumers an easy way to scale their storage on their DVR, they could create a service where you could rent or buy downloadable content.

I don't believe real time content delivery is required. Netflix has a lot of customers who wait to get their movies today. Amazon sells a lot of discs, and consumers don't get their purchase instantly either.

Here's one example that I think would sell. A rental service as part of your DVR that allowed you to pay a flat monthly fee and in return you get to build a que of titles you want to rent. As soon as you build your que, the first three titles start to download and you have them all stored by the next day. When you finish watching a title, you delete it from your DVR, and the next title on your que automatically starts to download. You always have three titles stored and available to watch on your hard drive. No more trips to the mailbox to return your movies.

Thanks 2Channel.

So if it takes 66 minutes to download 30gigs at 60mbps, I assume it would take MUCH longer with the average DL speed here in the states!

Edit: if my math is right, it would take about 60 hours to DL 30gigs at 2mbps, correct?

Thanks 2Channel.

So if it takes 66 minutes to download 30gigs at 60mbps, I assume it would take MUCH longer with the average DL speed here in the states!

Most folk on cable broadband would be getting peak rates of 5Mbps, with averages being lower - so at least twenty times longer. Someone on a DSL line that peaks out at 768Kbps would be taking nearly 200 times longer.

Most folk on cable broadband would be getting peak rates of 5Mbps, with averages being lower - so at least twenty times longer. Someone on a DSL line that peaks out at 768Kbps would be taking nearly 200 times longer.

Ouch!

We suck! ;)

Microsoft have sait they'd rather it wasn't on a disc. What do enthusiasts think?

PUBLIC POLL.


I want each frame of the film compressed losslessly in JPEG2000 and transfer to my home either via net or disc. Since it is lossless, couldn't care less about the bandwidth/codec/medium...

i collect movies on disc that i want to keep the download option would work for me on movies
i am curios about but would probably never watch twice.

60Mbps = 7.5MB/sec

30,000MB / 7.5MB/sec = 4,000 seconds = 66.6 minutes to downloadYes I got that initially -- but added approx 10% overhead for a low term download since a peak 60 Mbps rate is not likely to be absolutely maintained over a longer period of time. Just trying to come up with a more conservative and more likely estimate. :)

Microsoft have sait they'd rather it wasn't on a disc. What do enthusiasts think?

PUBLIC POLL.

Awesome poll Grubert. I voted for disk only.

Disk. How else could I justify a 65 Inch 1080p plasma. :p

[Stupid Question]
Since one can never assume..

Do the High Def player specs allow downloaded content to access the on-board DD+/TrueHD decoders should that signal be present or just output DD via digital out ? I can't imagine this to be the case as it would be a big mistake.

[/Stupid Question]

At this point in time I'm all for hard copies. In the future I imagine we'll be able to d/l and watch on the fly by purchasing "keys" which we hold in place of the actual content.

Mike

Microsoft have sait they'd rather it wasn't on a disc. What do enthusiasts think?

PUBLIC POLL.

I think AVS has firmly spoken...

Thanks 2Channel.

So if it takes 66 minutes to download 30gigs at 60mbps, I assume it would take MUCH longer with the average DL speed here in the states!

Edit: if my math is right, it would take about 60 hours to DL 30gigs at 2mbps, correct?

Sure, that's why I believe that these are the last physical formats we're likely to see. Bandwidth is not sufficient yet. Currently I have 6mbps DSL which would make the above scenario take 660 minutes (ideal of course, real life will be somewhat longer).

So those pioneering this technology today, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Netflix, etc. do so by reducing the payload delivered and therefore cutting down delivery time significantly.

5 years from now the picture is likely to be very different as bandwidth to the home will be much greater.

As 10, 20, 30, 40+mbps connections become more common the ability will be there. Buy the license, download the content. Then you can play it with Powerdvd/Windvd or burn it to a disc and play it on a hardware player/console. If we're lucky the file sizes won't be too low.

Disc (for permanent ownership).

1. I like ownership of the discs.

2. I prefer dedicated players to computers for watching movies or listening to music.

3. My Broadband cable subscription only allows max. 60GB/month at present (the highest level of subscription allows 150GB/month).

Sure, that's why I believe that these are the last physical formats we're likely to see. Bandwidth is not sufficient yet. Currently I have 6mbps DSL which would make the above scenario take 660 minutes (ideal of course, real life will be somewhat longer).

So those pioneering this technology today, Microsoft, Sony, Apple, Netflix, etc. do so by reducing the payload delivered and therefore cutting down delivery time significantly.

5 years from now the picture is likely to be very different as bandwidth to the home will be much greater.

You are talking 10s of billions of dollars in infrastructure and ISP changes, along with a collective behavioral change in Americans' desire for broadband. All of that in 5 years? Not happening.

Check out the results of this poll, they are not trivial. You are talking about a lot of higher-tech individuals who voted *overwhelmingly* that downloads are not the primary desired format. That speaks volumes.

You are talking 10s of billions of dollars in infrastructure and ISP changes, along with a collective behavioral change in Americans' desire for broadband. All of that in 5 years? Not happening.

Check out the results of this poll, they are not trivial. You are talking about a lot of higher-tech individuals who voted *overwhelmingly* that downloads are not the primary desired format. That speaks volumes.

Hey! Something that we completely agree on! :)

So...

How is the online version of the Music Industry working?

Take a look at that, compare it to the movie industry and draw your conclusions.

Remember to substract the iPOD and add the size of movie downloads :)

So...

How is the online version of the Music Industry working?

Take a look at that, compare it to the movie industry and draw your conclusions.

Remember to substract the iPOD and add the size of movie downloads :)

Music takes up way less space and bandwidth. Even SD movie downloads encoded with VC-1 would take up ~1 GB.

Hey! Something that we completely agree on! :)

LOL!!! I guess we are two blind squirrels that found the acorn! :D

LOL!!! I guess we are two blind squirrels that found the acorn! :D
:p

I like having discs. First of all, I can easily bring it over to a friend's to watch, second because I like to go to the store and browse through the isles.

Finally, never underestimate the WOW-factor of a huge rack of discs when people see your movie collection ;o)

I do not believe that we are going to get 1080p high bit rate/bandwidth HD video and uncompressed or lossless audio from a download anytime soon...if ever.

I also prefer to own titles on a disc...but would do an occasional download of movies I don't want to own because of the re-playability factor if it had the specs mentioned above.

Because this will most likely not happen, I will keep buying optical as well as the occasional optical rental.