Why optical disc won't die anytime soon (1 Viewer)

[jcroy]

and that is that things go oop.

when i was a kid, it never dawned on me that there would be music that i could not buy whenever i wanted to.

while most of the old stuff is finally available on cd, not everything is. and some stuff was released, but again oop.

During the 1990's and 2000's, I just lived without the cd titles that went out of print (oop).

Even stuff that I wanted that was oop or never officially released at all on cd to begin with.

I didn't even bother digitally recording my old vinyl records of such oop or never-released-on-cd titles.

I just lived without it.

(A lot of stuff I use to listen to a lot, has never been officially released on cd).

 

[jcroy]

It's just like physical books which I much prefer over anything digital.

At the present time, I still read a lot of physical books. Largely out of inertia.

Mostly books on some highly technical subjects.

For fiction stuff, I find it easier to buy older novels at book fairs and library cutouts. (I don't read fiction regularly).


Maybe one day I'll eventually go to digital books.

 

[jimmyjet]

During the 1990's and 2000's, I just lived without the cd titles that went out of print (oop).

Even stuff that I wanted that was oop or never officially released at all on cd to begin with.

I didn't even bother digitally recording my old vinyl records of such oop or never-released-on-cd titles.

I just lived without it.

(A lot of stuff I use to listen to a lot, has never been officially released on cd).

well of course you lived without it - you didnt have a choice.

i also have albums. but i dont have much interest in that quality of music. again, when it was the only thing in town, it was great.

but with the clarity of cd, i am not motivated to listen to all the cracks, pops, needle noise, etc.

perhaps a better title of the thread would have been ownership or not.

cuz that is what we are all discussing. if they came up with some better technology that replaced the optical disc, we would mostly all jump for it. just like we did with vinyl, 8-track, cassette, cd.

the issue is about whether we own a copy of it, or we play it from some stream in the internet clouds.

i know i will never do that. either i own it, or i dont. they wont get any money from me any other way. if we ever really did have the norm be no ownership, i would have already acquired more than i could ever listen or watch in a lifetime, so i wont really care.

there is not much new that i even care to watch.

 

[Yorkshire]

So what happens if I have MORE than 60 Blu-Rays? Am I going to have to disconnect one hard drive and plug in another? What's more "elegant and efficient" about that? It doesn't specify exactly how I'm going to get those 60 movies onto it either.

I have a fairly simple solution.

I have 3 x 6tb HDDs attached via a USB hub to my WDTV Live media player. These contain my films. To be fair they're not all full - about 5tb each I think.

I have a further 3 x 3tb NAS drives which contain my ripped CDs, photos and non-fiolm video (pop vdeos, TV programmes, documentaries, etc).

I never have to unplug or swap anything.

Steve W

 

[Brian Dobbs]

1) As an enthusiast, my opinion is that streaming will never EVER replace physical media in terms of quality.

2) They need to figure out either a Hard Disk or Blu-Ray successor for 4K / 8K. Who knows, maybe one day we'll buy our copies of movies on flash disks, bring them home, and load them on a server. What needs to remain is the ability to play a High Definition movie with 7.1 sound with 100% reliability. No drop-outs. No buffering, etc.

3) They also need to give us a better solution than splitting long movies on 2 discs. I'm holding out for LOTR Extended Editions on 4K, hoping they'll remedy that issue. Perhaps a Hard Disk media server is the only way, unless they can figure out a way to give us 100 or 200 gig optical discs.

 

[FoxyMulder]

1) As an enthusiast, my opinion is that streaming will never EVER replace physical media in terms of quality.

2) They need to figure out either a Hard Disk or Blu-Ray successor for 4K / 8K. Who knows, maybe one day we'll buy our copies of movies on flash disks, bring them home, and load them on a server. What needs to remain is the ability to play a High Definition movie with 7.1 sound with 100% reliability. No drop-outs. No buffering, etc.

3) They also need to give us a better solution than splitting long movies on 2 discs. I'm holding out for LOTR Extended Editions on 4K, hoping they'll remedy that issue. Perhaps a Hard Disk media server is the only way, unless they can figure out a way to give us 100 or 200 gig optical discs.

They already have figured a way to give us in excess of 200GB discs, they just won't do it, it means investing in or upgrading production lines again and that is costly, it also means a new format and a new name, they want to keep blu ray as it's known by the general public, they think the new HEVC codec aka H.265 can deliver 4K on a standard blu ray disc and longer films will fit on a 100GB triple layer diss, 4K is coming, i expect Sony in particular to promote it hard once the blu ray disc association ratify the HDMI 2.0 standard.

 

[Patrick Donahue]

perhaps a better title of the thread would have been ownership or not. cuz that is what we are all discussing... the issue is about whether we own a copy of it, or we play it from some stream in the internet clouds. i know i will never do that. either i own it, or i dont.

Out of nothing but a desire to spur discussion...What about downloading the movie files to your hard drive and streaming them directly to your TV instead of streaming from the cloud, as I do? I completely understand not trusting that Vudu or iTunes will always keep your movies in the cloud for you, but once you download the file it's yours. Granted it's not as exciting because you can't hold it in your hand, but you forever have ownership of that file, do you not?

 

[Ejanss]

What about downloading the movie files to your hard drive and streaming them directly to your TV instead of streaming from the cloud, as I do? I completely understand not trusting that Vudu or iTunes will always keep your movies in the cloud for you, but once you download the file it's yours. Granted it's not as exciting because you can't hold it in your hand, but you forever have ownership of that file, do you not?

You do, but...how much hard space have ya GOT? However much you have, it'll never be enough.
Pretty soon, you'll start cleaning things to make room, and then...looks like they weren't such permanent "keepers" after all, were they?
Unless, of course, you start moving everything onto external drives, and keeping them on shelves. Which, y'know, is completely different from keeping disks on shelves, because with external drives, you always have access to the movies. Not like anyone worries about quality, or anything.

 

[Patrick Donahue]

You do, but...how much hard space have ya GOT? However much you have, it'll never be enough.Pretty soon, you'll start cleaning things to make room, and then...looks like they weren't such permanent "keepers" after all, were they?Unless, of course, you start moving everything onto external drives, and keeping them on shelves. Which, y'know, is completely different from keeping disks on shelves, because with external drives, you always have access to the movies. Not like anyone worries about quality, or anything.

To be fair, for about the cost of a blu-ray player, I have a 3tb hard drive hiding under my TV stand, completely out of sight, that will hold approximately 768 1080p movies. I do not remotely indend on owning that many movies as there aren't enough hours in the day, although if I do, increasing compactly would be a cinch. That *is* completely different than having 768 blu-rays on a shelves. And as an added bonus, I plan to buy a second HD so everything is backed up, an impossibility with physical media. That HD, which is about the size of a paperback book, can easily be tucked away into a drawer or, better yet, a friends house.I am not saying one is better over the other here, but to say there are not *some* nice things about streaming just isn't a reasonable argument...

 

[ROclockCK]

I question how restrictive and invasive the DRM on those digital movie files will become...if not tomorrow or next year...then at some point downstream when the studio (or service provider) decides you've already watched this release of the movie enough and wants you to purchase a 'new and improved' version. I mean, keys that unlock, can just as easily be used to lock up again.

Dismiss that as wild paranoia if you like, but I simply don't trust the meta reasons for this push to get everything into 'the cloud'. Even local storage via media server wouldn't completely shield you from a vendor using basic 'Net connectivity to cripple media you purchased years ago. Heck, I've been blackmailed into upgrading 'Net apps this way...you just wake up one day and are presented with the choice of upgrading the app or the previous version no longer works.

And horror stories have already emerged of iTunes users who lost their account ID via moves outside the U.S. and in the process, also the lost access to the media they'd paid for. 'Ownership' seems to be getting rather fuzzy in this brave new realm...

Uhm, thanks, but no thanks.

 

[schan1269]

I question how restrictive and invasive the DRM on those digital movie files will become...if not tomorrow or next year...then at some point downstream when the studio (or service provider) wants you to purchase the title again. I mean, keys that unlock, can just as easily be used to lock up again.

Dismiss that as wild paranoia if you like, but I simply don't trust the meta reasons for this push to get everything into 'the cloud'. Even local storage via media server wouldn't completely shield you from a vendor using basic 'Net connectivity to cripple media you purchased years ago. Heck, I've been blackmailed into upgrading 'Net apps this way...you just wake up one day and are presented with the choice of upgrading the app or the previous version no longer works.

And horror stories have already emerged of iTunes users who lost their account ID via moves outside the U.S. and in the process, also the lost access to the media they'd paid for. 'Ownership' seems to be getting rather fuzzy in this brave new realm...

Uhm, thanks, but no thanks.

Yep. My cousin is currently in England. Last time there, she made the mistake of riding her Ipod on the hotels wifi to use Skype. After the phone call...her itunes was "bricked" till she came back home to re-sync with her imac.

Her Spotify went down as well. That cleared up as soon as she landed back in the US.

 

[ROclockCK]

Un-friggin-believable.

So much for being unleashed and enabled via mobile technology...

 

[Patrick Donahue]

I question how restrictive and invasive the DRM on those digital movie files will become...if not tomorrow or next year...then at some point downstream when the studio (or service provider) decides you've already watched this release of the movie enough and wants you to purchase a 'new and improved' version. I mean, keys that unlock, can just as easily be used to lock... Even local storage via media server wouldn't completely shield you from a vendor using basic 'Net connectivity to cripple media you purchased years ago.

Fair point.I guess I'm just not quite to the point of being paranoid enough to think companies will literally cripple files residing on my own hard drives. One reason I just don't think that would happen is because the marketplace wouldn't allow it. Let me explain: if a company were to take away a ton of purchases en masse either from the cloud or your own system, consumers would stop buying the product, and studios would have to change if they wanted to get in our good graces again. Just look at how quickly Microsoft changed their DRM policies for XBox One when it became clear that everybody was going to ditch it for Playstation. Our wallets do speak. If 20th Century Fox decided to pull all of their titles you've already paid for from the cloud or from your hard drive, you can bet the consumer,er wouldn't buy any more of their titles. If Vudu decided to charge you for streaming of titles you already own, everybody would run to CinemaNow or iTunes. Am I right with all of that? Of course not. I'm just saying it's why I am not as worried as some.

 

[jimmyjet]

Out of nothing but a desire to spur discussion...What about downloading the movie files to your hard drive and streaming them directly to your TV instead of streaming from the cloud, as I do? I completely understand not trusting that Vudu or iTunes will always keep your movies in the cloud for you, but once you download the file it's yours. Granted it's not as exciting because you can't hold it in your hand, but you forever have ownership of that file, do you not?

hi patrick,

persian brought this up before. and i dont mind the idea. i dont care what physical medium i own.

but the main problem with that, at least as was mentioned by someone else, is the length of time it would take to download it.

someone else also mentioned buying it on a flash drive of some sort, and loading it onto your disk, which would take little time.

my main concern is knowing that i have it, and am not dependent on someone else to play it.

 

[jcroy]

well of course you lived without it - you didnt have a choice.

For quite a few titles, there was actually a choice.

The main reason I lived without it for some titles, was that cd version was an expensive import from overseas (such as from Japan, Germany, etc ...) and/or the cd version was a crappy "digitization" straight from a vinyl copy of the album (ie. they didn't have access to the original master tape).

No point in wasting money on such official cd releases, regardless of how much I wanted it desperately.

 

[Persianimmortal]

It's so funny that, after what must be close to ten years of similar articles addressing the death of the CD, we've finally come around to the death of the DVD (and I guess Blu-ray).

Some information presented as facts in this discussion are significantly incorrect. There is no last, single plant pressing discs in the U.S. There are not just two plants producing CDs worldwide.

If you're looking for the actual death of any media, it can often take generations to fully disappear. They still produce VHS tapes for example. You can buy all manner of blank VHS tapes here on Amazon. So can we say that VHS isn't dead? After all, it's still being produced and used. Of course the reality is that VHS is effectively dead as a storage medium; it has no future.

CD certainly isn't dead as such, but the bulk of people these days purchase and use music via direct digital download. CD is dying off.

Optical media is not slow or wasteful; moving parts or the power needed to operate the laser have nothing to do with discs being anywhere near cumbersome or, worse, obsolete.

Sorry, but just stating something without any facts does not make it so. Optical media is slow and wasteful. The Blu-ray spec for example allows an average speed of anywhere from 6.5 MB/s to 63 MB/s (the higher speed is for data discs); hard disk drives have an average speed of 300 MB/s; Solid state drives have a potential speed of 550 MB/s. The reason for this is that optical drives have physical moving parts, while hard drives have more efficient moving parts hence are faster, and SSDs have no moving parts, and are fastest. Optical media is effectively obsolete from a technical point of view.

As for power consumption, well my Panasonic BDT300 specs say that it uses 32W during playback; a solid state drive like the Intel 520 in my PC uses 850 mW during full load according to its specs. That's 32,000 mW vs. 850 mW. Once again, that's because the BD player has moving parts and a laser; the SSD has no moving parts and no laser, just data access on chip.

Then there's the fact that millions of tons of plastic, lots of fuel for transport, and other resources are used to print, store, distribute and retail optical discs. I'm no tree hugger, but doesn't that seem like a rather wasteful and inefficient method of data distribution, when the end result we're going for is obtaining, storing and playing back a digital file on our displays?

I question how restrictive and invasive the DRM on those digital movie files will become...if not tomorrow or next year...then at some point downstream when the studio (or service provider) decides you've already watched this release of the movie enough and wants you to purchase a 'new and improved' version. I mean, keys that unlock, can just as easily be used to lock up again.


Dismiss that as wild paranoia if you like, but I simply don't trust the meta reasons for this push to get everything into 'the cloud'. Even local storage via media server wouldn't completely shield you from a vendor using basic 'Net connectivity to cripple media you purchased years ago. Heck, I've been blackmailed into upgrading 'Net apps this way...you just wake up one day and are presented with the choice of upgrading the app or the previous version no longer works.

And horror stories have already emerged of iTunes users who lost their account ID via moves outside the U.S. and in the process, also the lost access to the media they'd paid for. 'Ownership' seems to be getting rather fuzzy in this brave new realm...

Uhm, thanks, but no thanks.

This is a fair point, and certainly the main the reason why the model I discuss hasn't been implemented yet for movies. The real trick will be in providing a balance of sufficient DRM for studios to be happy to get on board, while also not being restrictive enough to prevent customers from feeling like they own the product, and can rely on it for playback whenever they want.

What helps me overcome the skepticism is, once again, that there is a working model of what I'm talking about in video gaming (Steam), and it has been running for a decade now, used by millions of people. Gamers were among the first to be exposed to DRM, and believe me, are the most vocal about it. I, like many others, was resistant to the concept of a digital-only product and insisted on buying my games in physical boxes up until a few years ago. Over time though, I was converted, as I saw how reliable and convenient the model is compared to physical ownership. There are always "horror stories" regarding any online service (Ebay, Amazon, Paypal, Steam, cloud providers, Apple's iTunes). These are not the majority though, and much of it is simply teething pains as the technology matures.

But to counteract the potential negatives, there are also many potential additional benefits to a digital-only model:

[*]The ability for studios to release any movie regardless of its popularity. Once the server infrastructure is in place, any movie can be released for download as long as its digital file is available. No more concerns about whether there's a big enough market to start pressing and distributing BDs of it. This means more of our favorites can become available in HD and UHD much more quickly, rather than this trickle feed method we're used to (or no release at all in some cases).

[*]The ability to update movies without needing to do disc recalls or reissues. For example, a minor problem like the wonky credits in Back to the Future can be easily fixed, then a patch rolled out for existing purchasers, or provision to download the newer version. Fixing movie problems is no longer an expensive hassle for studios or consumers. Additional language packs, subtitles, extras can all be added in this way as well. Steam already does this for games, and more recently, general software, keeping them up-to-date with the latest patches automatically at no charge.

[*]The ability to obtain and view a movie on release day. Steam allows a process known as "preloading", whereby you can begin downloading a game up to a week prior to its official release date. The data is downloaded in unplayable encrypted form, then at the official release time, the file is automatically decrypted and you can enjoy the product immediately.

[*]The ability to dynamically manage your movie collection. Search and sort your movie library in virtually any way you wish. Sit down in front of your display and bring up a list of all movies you own starring Cary Grant. Or all of your westerns. Or all noir movies. Much better than having a shelf-bound arrangement.

[*]Prices will eventually fall. I know people will challenge this notion, but it happened for digital music. I recall buying CD singles at $8 a pop, entire albums at $18. Now it's 99c a single, and $9.99 for an album via iTunes. Similarly, retail PC games are usually $60 on launch, but on Steam they very quickly fall in price via regular sales to half that within a couple of months, and a while later can be had for only a few dollars each.

[*]Offline mode - in the Steam model, if it doesn't detect an Internet connection, or if you want to do so manually, an "offline mode" is available to allow you to access your content. As long as any updates to Steam itself or your product are downloaded regularly, and it's allowed to communicate with its servers at regular intervals, this means that there is little chance of being locked out of your own content due to a momentary glitch or network outage. This is why I recommend this model compared to cloud or streaming solutions.

[*]Much faster loadup time as there's no disc spinup, and Java content can load in a fraction of a second, given the average hard drive or SSD is roughly 10-50 times faster than a BD drive.
[/list]

I know it seems like I'm trying to sell something here, but I'm not. I'm just trying to balance what is inevitably a one-sided discussion. As human beings, most of us are partial to tangible objects, and wary of things we can't physically control. Furthermore, as movie collectors, some with large libraries of discs, to which we're constantly adding, the notion that it will all change is unsettling. What I'm proposing isn't a radical departure, but a gradual, inevitable, and indeed necessary change to the way we distribute and store digital content - away from plastic discs, and towards a much more efficient and less restrictive format: direct digital download and storage on fast drives. What remains to be seen is whether the movie industry can make it happen. It's already happening for the equally large and lucrative field of video games.

 

[schan1269]

I want to know what turntables you all are using that sound worse than CD.The best LP still sound better than Red Book.

 

[jcroy]

I want to know what turntables you all are using that sound worse than CD.

I haven't used mine in over 20 years.

It was an old hunk of junk Dual CS 5000.

 

[jcroy]

Optical media is slow and wasteful. The Blu-ray spec for example allows an average speed of anywhere from 6.5 MB/s to 63 MB/s (the higher speed is for data discs); hard disk drives have an average speed of 300 MB/s; Solid state drives have a potential speed of 550 MB/s. The reason for this is that optical drives have physical moving parts, while hard drives have more efficient moving parts hence are faster, and SSDs have no moving parts, and are fastest. Optical media is effectively obsolete from a technical point of view.

Even worse is when the bluray-rom drive is going through a usb2 port. (It takes almost 55 minutes on my usb2 connected bd-rom drive to copy an entire 50-gigabytes fully packed bluray iso to the computer's hard drive, without doing any intermediate decryption).

 

[jcroy]

[*]Much faster loadup time as there's no disc spinup, and Java content can load in a fraction of a second, given the average hard drive or SSD is roughly 10-50 times faster than a BD drive.
[/list]

I thought the most annoying pc games were the ones that required the cd-rom (or dvd-rom) disk to be in the drive, with the drive constantly spinning. After an hour or so of playing the game, the disc was really hot after taking it out of the cd/dvd-rom drive.

Later no-cd hacks revealed that some games didn't even access any information on the constantly spinning cd/dvd-rom drive. The main program only detected whether the cd-rom disc was in the drive or not, as a form of DRM.