An all Digital Version of your Disney Movie Collection?

[quiden]

I just read his article http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.0 ... .html?pg=2 in wired magazine and it got me thinking, so I thought this might be a good crowd to open a discussion on this subject with.

I for one am all over not buying another CD and buying all of my music through iTunes, but I feel a bit different about only having digital movies. I actually like the book-like qualities of owning a movie and being able to have a "collection". I guess I never really thought of my music like that, at least not my CDs. I did have a large record collection, but alas, no more.

So, will you embrace having an all digital collection of your hi def movies stored on a drive in your home or will you want to have a hi def or blue ray DVD collection that you can see on your shelf like so many books. I, for one, like possessing them. That's why movie piracy doesn't appeal to me.

What do you think?

[danamichelle]

I definitely do not want downloadable movies. I like the idea of collecting them and having the movies on display on my bookself. I am satisfied with the quality of my dvds and the case they come in but if the market looks like it will be going in a new direction, I will start buying Hd or blu ray dvds (I will never want movies on my hard drive). However, I am not going to replace my current collection with whatever new technology comes out.

[DaveWadding]

Only movies I have/will download is stuff that is hard to get or is unavailable in the States (Song of the South)

[Jayden]

Forget it! I hate downloadable music, and REALLY hope that the advent of downloadable movies never comes to pass. I like having a REAL collection. Besides, if your computer crashes, you're SOL and have to buy everything again, what a waste of money

[Lazario]

What is this post really about? The change of the format from whatever DVD is the standard for digital movies now to whatever will be the new standard in 2007/later? Updating or replacing our current DVDs?

Hi-Def means crap to me. I mean, it would be amazing if it weren't some kind of new EPIDEMIC of out-with-the-old. It really seems to me like it's becoming harder to keep up with all the new changes and updating tv's and video players (DVD). Because with Hi-Def TV and (pay) on-demand Hi-Def movies/sports, does this now mean I have to buy brand new copies of my favorite movies if I ever want to see them in hi-defintion, as well as a new TV and cable/television service? I don't really know, so I'm guessing here- you need both a hi-def TV and video disc together right, or else you don't get hi-def experience? Why in the living hell are people going to be willing to update everything, for a hefty price, just for something which will most likely be oldhat in another 4-7 years? Is this going to be like the start of DVD, all over again? Like waiting forever for your favorite movies and shows to be re-released on DVD again, in a new hi-def format?

Here's the situation- let's say I waited a decade throughout the 1997-2006 advent of DVD for some movies to be released- like oh I don't know, Halloween and The Shining. They come out in 2006 (this is hypothetical), then in 2007 DVDs start coming out in some different kind of ray-technology or hi-def... That means 2007 discs won't play in my current DVD player (2004, hypothetically)? Does this mean that if I want to see a hi-tech new digitally-perfect hi-def-type version of Halloween or The Shining, I have to wait until like 2009 or 2013 (hypothetically again), all that time, to see them the way this whole big stupid new change was invented for in the first place??? Does this mean with this big new stupid change, all of our previous DVDs will go in the garbage while we wait all over again for all of our favorite movies and TV shows to be put out on hi-def DVD all over again?

[quiden]

Lazario, you have a good point. I have to say I agree. I have heard that any new player for hi def or blue ray will also play older DVDs.

I am in a situation, though, where I would like to have something a little higher resolution that what's out there now. I'm building a theater in my basement. I don't have a projector yet, but I keep borrowing them from work and I project it to about a 7 foot wide screen. I really notice in this situation that the resolution of a DVD isn't as great as I'm sure it will be in HI def or blue-ray. I'm sure that when that technology starts coming available, I'll be wanting to jump in, but as the article states, you might be asked to make a choice between one or the other, and then they both might become obsolete by popularity of downloadable movies.

I for one am one of the people who likes having the movies on the shelf. Especially because I can grab the movie, listen to it while I work, take it in the car in a portable DVD player, play it in my laptop, play it in my theater room or play it in the player in our little tv up stairs. I don't think we'll be able to do all of that if we are downloading a file that has to reside somewhere.

I thought this would be a good question to ask here because of everyone who likes to give an account of all the dvds in their collections.

By the way, even though a DVD projected at 7 feet is a little fuzzy, it is still incredibly cool and looks great.

[Lazario]

By the way, even though a DVD projected at 7 feet is a little fuzzy, it is still incredibly cool and looks great.

And even in that situation, you'll want the quality of the DVD picture to be in as good a shape is possible. I saw a commercial on one of those home-shopping channels for those projectors and that was REALLY cool! But I did notice the picture quality didn't seem to be that great. They were watching previews of The Lion King and Jersey Girl. And of course I'm talking about the actual projector and not the other ad/infomercial on the portable player that attaches to the back of carseats. I saw this infomercial for the projector about a week ago, or 5 days.

I mean, I'm all for new technology. But when you figure you have to buy- new hi-def TV, hi-def video players, hi-def cable/TV service, AND hi-def digital video discs, this f-ing revolution begins to run into money. And only rich people can afford all of this- I don't think anyone here can really afford all of this- on top of what some here already pay for their phones/cellphones, computers/internet service, computer help/virus protection services/technical assistance, living expenses, lifestyle expenses (smoking, drinking, fine eating ((takeout/eating out)), fashion, and recreational drug use)...

I'll get back to you on this. Emergency calling.

[Jayden]

By the way, even though a DVD projected at 7 feet is a little fuzzy, it is still incredibly cool and looks great.

And even in that situation, you'll want the quality of the DVD picture to be in as good a shape is possible. I saw a commercial on one of those home-shopping channels for those projectors and that was REALLY cool! But I did notice the picture quality didn't seem to be that great. They were watching previews of The Lion King and Jersey Girl. And of course I'm talking about the actual projector and not the other ad/infomercial on the portable player that attaches to the back of carseats. I saw this infomercial for the projector about a week ago, or 5 days.

I mean, I'm all for new technology. But when you figure you have to buy- new hi-def TV, hi-def video players, hi-def cable/TV service, AND hi-def digital video discs, this f-ing revolution begins to run into money. And only rich people can afford all of this- I don't think anyone here can really afford all of this- on top of what some here already pay for their phones/cellphones, computers/internet service, computer help/virus protection services/technical assistance, living expenses, lifestyle expenses (smoking, drinking, fine eating ((takeout/eating out)), fashion, and recreational drug use)...

I'll get back to you on this. Emergency calling.

You are precisely right, Hi-def would be nice, but I'm sick and tired of having to update my technology all the time (Computers are the absolute worst!). Let us have a good format (i.e. DVD, which is just great right now) for a while before even mentioning anything about the next wave.

Again, you're 100% correct on the money issue. Not a lot of people have the funds to afford all of the upgrades required to get better than DVD performance out of Hi-def right now, and that's the thing that I think is REALLY going to kill HD-DVD (Mind you, I also want to see it fail). People have too much going on in their lives to allow for the breathing room required for all of this HD stuff. (First University, then my Relationship keeps sucking the money right out of me ). I just think they're really jumping the gun on this one, and wish they would wait many more years before even talking about a new format. It's too early for this.

As stated above, no to downloadable movies. This whole downloadable thing is really annoying for several reasons: first and formost, not everyone is comfortable giving out their payment info online (I'm not all that comfortable, I do it now and again, but not very often and I don't wish to increase the frequency), secondly if your computer crashes (as they so often do!) (or becomes infected with spyware you can't get rid of by conventional means) you're SOL and have to pay for the stupid thing again. It's nonsense really. Besides, I love being able to see my collection, and I love covers.

[Noriel]

I like to own the DVD because I enjoy showing my collection.

Downloading a movie can take a long time. Not only that, but I want my computer to have actual space on the hard disc so I can save my reports/programs/emails/etc. And, as someone else has said, what if your computer crashes? You'll have to give money, either way (to get the computer fixed and to retrieve the movie).

As for HD-DVD, I'm not ready for that. I own a PS2, which is my DVD player. At the moment, I can only affored a movie practically every few months --- getting new technology isn't on my "to do" list.

[deathie mouse]

Mmmm.. i want to project my movies in a 18 feet wide screen and look sharp and detailed! As they were intended to.

Film can do that

DVDs can't do that

And mmm this thing about upgrading technology and mass media has been going on for years. First it was 78RPM records, then it was 33.33RPM Lps and 45RPM singles, then it was VHS, VHS Hi Fi, Super VHS, 8mm, Hi-8, CDs, Laserdiscs, DV video, DVD, 16:9 enhancement, Mono, Stereo, MatrixSurround, Dolby 5.1, DTS 5.1, Dolby EX 6.1, DTS ES 6.1, and it'll keep on and on.

Most people on this site are usually new to DVD and stuff so it's like the first time that might be happening to them, but others (i would think of, for example mvealf) have gone thru this when going from LD to DVD

Only YOU decide when it's good enough for YOU.

Some people still like and cling to VHS and pan scan 4:3 movies to this day. We don't cus we need something of better quality, no? otherwise we could still be playing The Lion King on 4:3 VHS though a 3 inch mono speaker on a 13" TV thru the antenna conection.

DVD (at best) (And with that i mean PAL digital transfers) is just 16mm film quality.

Theatrical movies since the beginnning were made in 35mm and some have been done in 70mm (which is up to 5 times the quality of 35mm) A PAL DVD can't hold all the detail of even a finely preserved old Silent Movie film negative.

If you think The Lion King DVD on a 7 foot screen is a litle fuzzy well on Blu-Ray it would be tack umbelievable sharp, in fact good enough to be done on a 18 wide screen if you wanted to. Probably look better than the print that was projected on the theater too.

Now if you don't want or need that, you don't have to buy into the technology. Yes it's bothersoeme that the technology is changing at a faster pace and if you want to keep up you either have to invest and replace, or just hold out and stay with the current one or not buy the current one at all and wait for the next one. If you like DVD quality by all means stay with it. It's gonna be around for a long while!
Maybe all those who still have VHS will love jumping to Blu-Ray cus to them it'll be a humongous difference and they didnt get to do DVD, while for mamy of us it'll be a little painfull cus we loved DVD and invested on it (i have half a K of DVD titles and also half a K of LD titles and half a K of CD titles so don't think i'm not "affected" by it )

But on the other hand i'm tired of geting postcard sized versions of the movies I like, and i want the REAL thing, and a Blu-Ray disc has the promise of giving me what the LD or DVD can't: a version equal or better than the original 35mm print for Standart Widescreen and Academy movies. And I'd like that.

(btw puny hd-dvd (the other format) won't give you THAT, so that's why I don't like it or care about it. If the next HD format were just the WUP hd-dvd, even I would recomend a multiPASS not worth the truble)

Many of us complain when we don't get the whole ratio or the original mix, or the complete unedited version, etc. But i don't see many complaining about the loss of definition or lack of Spectacular Scope feeling you get on a DVD. Well guess what? When you buy a standart definition video version of a movie you're geting a shrunk version that only has 20% of the detail and size of the original version so it's incomplete!

The roads in Mad Max and the Road Warrior are supposed to encircle you and have you look left and right to see all the horizon. You can't do that on your 32" TV with DVD

When i see 2001: A Space Odissey even on my PAL DVD it doesn't have as many stars in the space shots as it did when i've seen it on the theater. You might think that doesn't matter but it does! Stanley Kubrick shot it in 70mm so it would look as live and real as it could be like staring at the night sky in space so you could ACTUALLY FEEL YOU WERE IN SPACE with Bowman and HAL. And you DID.

Now when i see it on DVD, i go: My God it's missing stars!

I'm watching a cool movie but im not living it. Not gonna do it. Not in space.


On video
some people find it boring.
Well it WAS breathtaking.





I myself also like having the dvd tangible disc things (altho they occupy lots of space) cus im a hoarding mouse. So if i can get my Film experience on disc one day i'll be happy

On the other hand if 35mm quality digital D/Ls would be available and were a cheaper/faster way to get the theatrical experience in my home and it wasn't a complicated thing i wouldnt mind that neither.

The point when we are gonna have HD (or Ultra HD one day!) at home in mass, well that's a little fuzzy still, but you must know that it's being implemented, and it will be strange to have up to 35mm quality Broadcast and Cable TV piping into our TVs soon while still having to pay $15 or more to have a 16mm quality (if that!) DVD disc.

This hasn't happened since the 80's where you had better looking discs (Laserdiscs) than what you got on TV. DVD's look better than regular TV now but if they don't go HD at one point they will be the equivalent of VHS some day.


Now again i don't see why all this lamentation and gnashing of the teeth, people upgraded from VHS to DVD without complaining, no?

Well actually some did and on that note here i'll post (better here than there ) some stuff i looked up while thinking of a reply after reading Jayden's post on the gold retreat thread about DVD and format introductions and evolutions. The ones that did complain, gave the acronym "DVD" a special meaning. Sound familiar?

Here's how my post was coming tru:


Actually DVD is more than 8 years old...

(From the DVD FAQ):

there was a time that DVD stood for:

Dead, very dead (from naysayers who predicted DVD would never take off)

DVD

The first players appeared in Japan in November, 1996, followed by U.S. players in March, 1997. Prices for the first players in 1997 were $1000 and up. By the end of 2000, players were available for under $100 at discount retailers. In 2003 players became available for under $50. Six years after the initial launch, close to one thousand models of DVD players were available from over a hundred consumer electronics manufacturers

Mass-market DVD movie players list for $40 to $3000 now.

DVD-Audio

The first DVD-Audio players were released in Japan by Pioneer in late 1999, but they did not play copy-protected discs. Matsushita (under the Panasonic and Technics labels) first released full-fledged players in July 2000 for $700 to $1,200.

SACD

Sony released a SACD player at the tear-inducing price of $5,000 in limited quantities in the U.S. at the end of 1999. Sony shipped a $750 SACD player in Japan in mid 2000.

DVD discs

The first titles released in the U.S., on March 19, 1997, by Lumivision, authored by AIX Entertainment, were IMAX adaptations.
The Warner Bros. U.S. launch followed on March 24.
By December 1997 about 530 titles.
By the end of 1999 about 5,000 titles.
By the end of 2000 there were over 10,000 titles available in the US and over 15,000 worldwide.
By the end of 2001 there were about 14,000 titles available in the U.S.
By the end of 2002 there were about 23,000 titles available in the U.S.
Just over 10,000 new DVD titles were released in 2003, and almost 11,000 came out in 2004, for a total of 42,500 titles (with about 40,300 still available).
(Note that these numbers don't include adult titles, which account for an additional 15% or so.)

It would cost you about $800,000 to buy one copy of each.

Some UD members are aiming for that


Well all through those years people kept buying VHS too

The first CD player was also about $1000

There are single purpose Blu-Ray RECORDERS in Japan for about $3000 now. Mass market PLAYERS should be much cheaper than that.

Just in case Jayden feels i'm like fencing with him, I like your posts they have valid points which i take (and agree with some of them too!) and make my cerebellum gush with great disscussion

It's by UD discussion I set my mind in motion, the thoughts adquire speed the keys adquire pressure, it is by UD discussion I set my mind in motion