What the People Want

[Martin Whittier]

I am getting very close to distribution on my short film "The Hardest Six," completely shot on Red and mastered in 2K. I've watched test exports on BluRay and the movie looks stunning. So I posed a simple question to the 1200 fans of the movie on Facebook, which format do you want most for this movie or any movie. The results of the poll so far have been very interesting and surprising. I think it is easy for us tech camera guys and gals to get so lost in 2k, 4k, 10k+ discussions and we don't ever think "What does the AVERAGE viewer want. So here is a snapshot in time of the poll. Thoughts?

 

[Vladimir Druts]

I must admit I'm surprised more people didn't say Digital Download but I think choice for DVD makes sense. New media/storage systems take a long time to trickle-down, besides I have a feeling people are getting fed up with constantly having to update. VHS > LaserDisk > DVD > Blueray, what's next right? People don't want to have to replace their collections and hardware every few years.

I think the entire conversation around 4K is pointing towards the future more than anything. I also think Blueray will only take off once 4K TV's are available.

 

[Mike P.]

To be fair, supersampling 4k down to 480p should look pretty awesome... And Scarlet's 1k/120fps just got a whole lot more useful.

 

[adam r]

I must admit I'm surprised more people didn't say Digital Download but I think choice for DVD makes sense. New media/storage systems take a long time to trickle-down, besides I have a feeling people are getting fed up with constantly having to update. VHS > LaserDisk > DVD > Blueray, what's next right? People don't want to have to replace their collections and hardware every few years.

I think the entire conversation around 4K is pointing towards the future more than anything. I also think Blueray will only take off once 4K TV's are available.

"Apple TV 2012 Review: Can You Hear Blu-ray’s Death Rattle?"

http://gizmodo.com/5894882/apple-tv-2012-review-can-you-hear-blu+rays-death-rattle

Apple wants to become a major force in the future of 4k TV. No they don't want blueray players

 

[Troy Bakewell]

IMO Apple is in out-to-lunch with their opposition to Blu Ray and disk media in general. I love my Blu Rays and can't wait for Redray. I have a huge 120" screen and a projector so maybe I'm biased but when I see Direct TV HD stuff on other peoples big screens I can't believe how bad it looks compared to Blu Ray. It's a simple equation of raw data capacity and compression.

I donno. I can't see our bandwidth being high enough to make Blu Ray or Red Ray die any time soon. It's just much more efficient to throw 50-100 gigs on a disk vs streaming it.

My $0.02

 

[Stephen Gentle]

I donno. I can't see our bandwidth being high enough to make Blu Ray or Red Ray die any time soon. It's just much more efficient to throw 50-100 gigs on a disk vs streaming it.

My $0.02

As far as I can tell, REDRAY no longer has a disk option (I can't remember when RED removed it from the specs but it definitely wasn't there at NAB). Looks like it's only flash media, USB, Esata or FireWire, along with whatever online solution RED are cooking up.

I guess theoretically you could plug an external DVD drive to it if you really wanted to though (and if it supported the file system)

 

[Christoffer Glans]

This is what I have been trying to point out in the 4K discussion. Yes, the business is going 4K this year, yes, the companies all agree UHD is the future/next step. But the content providers and the consumers works in sync with eachother. The only ones who will ask for 4K will be a small portion of people, cinephiles, professionals and so on. The majority of people seem to not see the difference between DVD and BluRay, or they don't care. Do anyone really think they are going to care for the difference between 1080p and 4K?

For us, yes, it looks better, we want it, we cheer for it. But the consumers out there in the big world doesn't care for 4K. The growing interest in streaming films and television where the content is most of the time only 720p at it's maximum, is even worsening for the demand for higher resolution. People want something easy and fast, they want to be able to just sit down and watch a movie wherever they are.

So my question is, how do you change the world if the world doesn't care to be changed?

 

[Thomas Koch]

In planning my web series, DVD is far and away the most useful distribution method for physical media. It's the lowest common denominator. We plan on having 2K and 4K digital downloads, but DVD is our physical disk choice to meet the majority of what people want.

 

[Mike P.]

The other good thing about DVD (cheapness aside) is that you could always include a 4k digital video file on disc as well... So use it as a regular DVD in a player (because it's the lowest common denominator and in pretty much every home), and then pop that DVD into your computer to access a 4k x264 file for UHD on media players, etc., which kind of future-proofs the purchasers. There are plenty of options... a lot of them super cheap.

 

[Ryan De Franco]

For you, this might be sad.

For the industry, might be a good thing. Box office makes up a sliver of revenue but determines the "success" of a film, from micro-budget indie to tentpole studio feature. With 4K projectors in tens of thousands of movie theaters and shit broadcast streams, but shit web compression and shit 480p DVD at home, perhaps people will keep going to the movies.

So many A/V nuts want to eliminate the multiplex and create one in their basement... for those wealthy enough to afford that hobby, there is RedRay. For everyone else, pay $12 to see a Redray projected movie on a Christie 4K projector at AMC

(I say all this as a former projectionist... can't tell you how much I miss seeing the marks and scars the leader on a film has after traveling the festival circuit then showing up at my theater... but most people like crisp images, not living ones).

 

[PatrickFaith]

Does anyone have anything like this https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr_120808b/ by country ? I think the overall trend is multi-resolution channels, where no channel is ignored by the distributor.

 

[Les Dittert]

So the Red Player is for movie theaters, maybe? That makes sense, as Sony is releasing a home UHD player with their new compression.
As far as 'what people want' : first and formost they want to be entertained. So DVD can do that well, for sure.

It seems that even here on Reduser, 'What people want' applies as well... did you notice that 95% of posted sample images are 2K and under ? Snapped R3D posts do not count, they are posted for diagnostic purposes usually.
Reduser, the home of 4K, has no section of moderated 4K image grab posts. Unsatisfactory. I hope they remedy this very soon.

Still camera people post and look at 4K 5K and above images all the time. My computer is ready to browse them, but is Reduser ready to show them ?
I think of my camera as a motion DSLR sometimes.
I know I'm begining to rant, but the Texan term 'All hat and no cattle' needs to be dispelled here.

 

[Lauri Kettunen]

This is an interesting issue and simultaneously so difficult to anticipate, what kind of format will be dominating among ordinary viewers in the future.

On one hand perhaps the difference between SD and HD is too small, and therefore people are not so keen on BluRays. That is, the big mass does not recognize a significant different. In this respect it is interesting to see the effect 4K monitors, as they should make a big difference in the eyes of everybody, and consequently create a demand for better image quality.

On the other hand, thinking of audio, what has happened is, the dominating format is qualitywise worse than that of CDs. If one takes into account the audio quality of TVs, which is pretty horroble, it's interesting that nobody seems to care. For some reason, I don't care that much myself, although I very much value goodaudio quality. This could suggest that simplicity --to have huge amount of music in a small equipment, or to switch on image and audio from one and the same button-- is more important to most of the people than quality. If so, stereo images which require any sort of glasses will not become a really big thing, but we'll see.

If I had to bet, I would anticipate the new Ultra HD format will make a difference and at that point everybody realized HD was indeed only a side step towards better quality. Not so confident about stereo images among home viewers. But should add, haven't yet seen a 3D movie in which the stereo image was really exploited powerfully in storytelling.

 

[Les Dittert]

The jump in visual quality is MORE going from SD to HD, as at normal viewing distances the eyes resolving power is still much more than the screen resolution. But when you go from HD to UHD you have to get a big screen to see the difference. This is because you are approaching the acuity of the human eye. Diminishing returns. So the Public will have a harder time seeing the difference, not easier.

To put it in another way, going from 4K to 8K with a 60" TV set at 3 meters viewing distance, you will see NO difference at all.
The human eye is limited. Facts of life. Not up-gradable !

Personally, I can't wait to get a decent priced 4K projector, and a 4K computer monitor. My eyes are 500cm from my computer monitor, I'll see the benefit.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

The jump in visual quality is MORE going from SD to HD, as at normal viewing distances the eyes resolving power is still much more than the screen resolution. But when you go from HD to UHD you have to get a big screen to see the difference. This is because you are approaching the acuity of the human eye. Diminishing returns. So the Public will have a harder time seeing the difference, not easier.

To put it in another way, going from 4K to 8K with a 60" TV set at 3 meters viewing distance, you will see NO difference at all.
The human eye is limited. Facts of life. Not up-gradable !

Personally, I can't wait to get a decent priced 4K projector, and a 4K computer monitor. My eyes are 500cm from my computer monitor, I'll see the benefit.

...and most people doesn't care. I know people in the industry who don't see the difference between SD and HD when gathering together to watch a movie, while some of them just doesn't care.
The thing is and what I have been trying to point out, is that the idea for 4K and for future preservation of your work by a resolution that is going to be the standard is good for yourself, if you find it easy to save all your work in that resolution. Think about when this resolution will be a standard; we are talking about ten years into the future. I don't mean that it's ten years before 4K is "here", because it's already here, I mean 4K in daily life, in everyones home as the "standard resolution" of let's say netflix. It's when broadcast stations broadcast 4K, when your new Iphone X shoots 4K Raw.

The only thing that is "future preserved" is if you manage to save your work for future generations. That has nothing to do with resolution but with how the heck you are going to preserve something hundreds of years into the future. THAT is something I want, THAT is something that means more to me then the difference between 1080p and 4K.

So, save your beautiful 4K material for now, it might be gone tomorrow.

 

[Elan Gunos]

Digital Download should've been #1 IMO, but I think this is a testament to how bad internet service providers still are in the US. I love the idea of cloud-based libraries, software, computing, etc. but the reality is, ISPs are still the bottleneck with no incentive to improve their current offerings (i.e Comcast in my neck of the woods). Until they are usurped by more innovative products (i.e Google Fiber in Kansas, and others), can we have true real high quality movie streaming.

I am getting very close to distribution on my short film "The Hardest Six," completely shot on Red and mastered in 2K. I've watched test exports on BluRay and the movie looks stunning. So I posed a simple question to the 1200 fans of the movie on Facebook, which format do you want most for this movie or any movie. The results of the poll so far have been very interesting and surprising. I think it is easy for us tech camera guys and gals to get so lost in 2k, 4k, 10k+ discussions and we don't ever think "What does the AVERAGE viewer want. So here is a snapshot in time of the poll. Thoughts?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Those results seem pretty much in line with similar studies I've seen conducted by the major studios. I know a lot of us here would like digital download, but the masses don't feel that way, yet... For me, I think the only anomalous reading is the DVD+BluRay combo pack. Typically it scores the highest of all in any of the big studio surveys. The catch is, however, that option only scores highest when the studios make it clear that it will be the same price or less than a $3 premium as compared to the DVD only package.

In terms of the truly average consumer at this time, DVD is still the number one option by far. A great many people who opt for the DVD+Blu combo packs are usually doing it because they can get them for about the same price or just a couple $ more. I think a lot of people look at it as getting a little something extra, like two copies of the same movie. Or in some cases, future-proofing their purchase. As others have found DVD-only package for $19 sells OK. Blu-Ray for $24 on the shelf right next to it doesn't perform well at all. Make a DVD+BluRay pack for $25 and it performs much better. Cut the price back to $20 and it sells like proverbial hotcakes. Throw in a digital copy option or download coupon at the same price and you boost your sales another 5~15%, depending on the target demographic of the film. UltraViolet distribution and many digital download formats are failing because of resolution -- the majority of people gadget-savvy and tech-hungry to use these options also want full HD. When they buy a 1080p BluRay and then also get a digital copy version to load onto their devices, they want 1080p there -- after all, the devices they're loading it onto have 1080p or better displays. UltraViolet is an OK idea, but it seems like they drew up the plan 6 years ago and didn't upgrade to fit market when they launched it.

 

[Mike P.]

Honestly, it doesn't make sense to buy a movie for $25 a pop, when they can be duplicated and distributed digitally for pennies a glass (yes, even with bandwidth costs.) Digital content (on iTunes and the like) still costs way too much and the consumer knows this, hence the reluctance to purchase... Similarly, if there was a push in cheap digitally distributed content by the major players, the price of physical media would be forced to plummet as a result and everyone involved would still make a profit (just not the 5x-10x rip they currently make.)

If a company like RED ever got into the distribution game and actually believed in passing on savings to the customers (as they suggest with their recent hardware price drops), they'd probably sell 4k digital copies of movies for $1 and still make 50 cents per transaction...

..too bad they don't have a means with which to deliver content to homes digitally... too bad...

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I agree that $25 is a bit expensive for a movie, especially when contained in a form of distribution that will eventually obsolete itself. On the other hand, when people complain about $0.99 songs to download, I have a hard time agreeing that they're too cheap. Of course the distribution medium or bandwidth is cheap, minuscule fractions of a cent for each one, that's beside the point. The value is in the intellectual property itself and the overhead it takes to maintain that IP ownership as well as the progression of other aspects, not to mention the continuous creation of new content. Looking at the iTunes model, a song is typically 99 cents, plus tax where applicable. Of that 99 cents, Apple takes 30% of it right off the top, leaving 66 cents to the IP owner. In most cases, that is a media label, although we're seeing more and more independent artists these days.

Personally, I don't mind paying for music since the days of draconian DRM seem to have passed, as long as bit rate and quality are not compromised. For now, anyway, until somebody else comes up with some new scheme...

As for movies, I think I prefer the subscription model. I don't watch a movie as often as I might listen to a song. There are few movies I will ever watch more than once or twice, ever. Netflix has a great implementation and I'd love it if they never had to mail me a disc ever again. But the quality could use a bump in most cases. They could definitely benefit from a much higher quality codec now that computers are more powerful and continue to get more powerful for decoding. Wavelet and similar algorithms can pack a lot more data into the same or smaller space used by most currently used streaming codecs. The other area where the instant viewing falls short is selection. Netflix is working on that and the issue is getting the studios on-board with appropriate pricing structures for on-demand.

How iTunes handles movies isn't bad, but I think the prices are too high. They're essentially charging full price to buy a movie through them when I could get the BluRay from WalMart or Amazon for the same or just $1 or $2 more. And the iTunes picture and sound quality is severely lacking. They have upgraded it considerably in the past year, but their HD distributions are still noticeably inferior to decent BluRay transfers. Which is sad, because even the best BluRay transfers out there still leave a lot to be desired. Then again, some of that is not a fault of the technology, but of decisions made to facilitate a good picture on least-common-denominator type devices.

 

[Peter Arnold]

It takes time ... a looooooong time for new standards to establish.
The first time I saw Full HD or HDVS as it was called back then was 1988, a quarter century ago!

Just saying.

Peter