Three-time Oscar-nominated director of many awesomesauce movies Ridley Scott penned a HuffPo article yesterday, detailing why streaming movies are still vastly inferior to physical media such as Blu-ray. Oh, yeah, Mr Scott? You’re… you’re… absolutely right. Sigh.
As much as we like our on-demand flick fix, Scott has a point. Namely, that we’re so quick to be wooed by a new and convenient delivery method that we forget that it can’t deliver kick-ass video and audio fidelity. He thinks the film experience trumps convenience every time. What else would you expect from a director? Obviously, to see a film in the way in which the auteur intended, you have to go to a movie theatre. For a home viewing experience, though, he’s all about the Blu-ray.
…the technically sophisticated Blu-ray disc, of which I’ve been a supporter since its inception, is the closest we’ve come to replicating the best theatrical viewing experience I’ve ever seen. It allows us to present in a person’s living room films in their original form with proper colours, aspect ratio, sound quality, and, perhaps most importantly, startling clarity.
Streaming may be “good enough” in a number of situations (no experience is going to make The Hangover Part II any good), but Scott is right: a lot is lost. The reason for this is compression. In theory, there’s no reason why a streamed movie couldn’t be just as high quality as Blu-ray, except that there’s a bottleneck, and that bottleneck is the current state of broadband Internet. In order to closely reproduce the quality of the original movie, Blu-ray movies have a bitrate as high as 42Mbps (the average is around 30Mbps). On the other side of the equation, “HD” movies on Netflix stream at a bitrate of around 3.8Mbps. In other words, there is about 1/10th of the information that’s in the original. Until we all have ultrafast 100Mbps home internet connections, that’s the way it’s going to remain.
Scott says, “physical media has years of life left and must be preserved because there is no better alternative”. He’s probably right. DVDs may slowly give way to Blu-ray, but it’s going to be a long time before Blu-ray gives way to streaming. Check it out and decide for yourself. [Huffington Post]
JHorn
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 7:33 AMMusic has already been through this and continues to thrive on over compressed, ordinary sounding iPod’s all in the name of convenience, Ridley get used to it. Those that appreciate better quality will buy the movies (like music), but they are the minority.
RB
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 8:54 AM+1
The difference between the quality of the movie (or music for that matter as has already happened with streaming services / radio broadcasts) that the director intended us to see, and the quality that the average Joe will tolerate for convenience and still enjoy the ‘experience’ is vastly different.
Just remember, a lot of people still watch these movies on their TVs, in standard def with horribad compression, all over the world every single day. In reality, streaming is replacing THIS service.
Sicarius123
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 9:27 AMStreaming doesn’t even compete on price in Australia. I can’t understand why it costs MORE to rent a movie from Zune or PSN which is horribly compressed and uses my download limit, than it does to rent a bluray from blockbuster.
Without the bricks and mortar, and easy one click delivery, shouldn’t it be cheaper?
bazuden
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:38 AMYeah, they should be cheaper with no shipping, production, rent, etc to pay. But I guess M$ and Sony think they’re customers are idiots. One of the main drivers for piracy, if you ask me.
cayal
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 11:15 AMI believe (though not 100% sure) Microsoft and Sony don’t set the prices but places like Paramount etc set the prices (well Sony Pictures would have a hand in that).
Which I believe is the same for PSN/XBL games, the prices are set by companies like Capcom, Rock* etc.
Billy Ray
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 11:17 AMTheir.
moloko
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 9:29 AMI hate streaming movies so I agree with him. It will just be a good excuse to cut off physical media and jack up the price for crapper quality which you will never actually own.
Drew
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 9:37 AMStreaming ftw, I cbf wearing my contacts on weekends when I get time to watch TV so for me the picture quality is a moot point.
I would much rather have a good story than a super dupper high resolution steaming pile of shit.
Ian
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 9:44 AMI’d prefer to get DVD quality streaming video (PSN not iTunes – which is crap quality) as opposed to travel to the video store hire a disc that’s been all scratched up and then get half way through the film before it starts freezing from the scratch.
light487
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 9:48 AMWhat I could probably see as something to move forward, whilst still physical media, is SSD.. you select the size.. everywhere from a hugely compressed 2GB usb-drive to a theatrical production level 1TB SSD (which is still compressed of course) and you’re basically paying for the quality of the film. If you are a die-hard movie buff and want to see the movie in all its glory on your $100,000 home theatre system, you’re not going to worry too much about paying big bikkies for an expensive SSD. On the other hand, someone who just wants HD can go for something around the 8gb to 64gb usb drive range.
woodsdog
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 9:56 AMwow image the amount of people that have watched movies in poor quality and couldn’t care less. Does anyone remember we used to watch these high quality movies on VHS on a CRT, and it was fine…
The point is Divx is fine for some movies, sure HD is better for blockbusters, but a comedy is still funny no matter what the resolution. Riddley Scott is a dumb arse and talks for the few % that care about Blu Ray. I for one, do not.
Stream me up SCOTTY!!!
light487
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:39 AMYup.. exactly.. that’s why I don’t mind watching most TV shows in standard definition (those 350MB divx files).. it’s not about the video quality or even the sound quality.. unless it’s my favourite show.. then I will go and grab the hi-def versions, whether that be a digital copy or physical.
I just grabbed Harry Potter complete 8 movie collection on blu-ray ($44.84AUD from Amazon) and love the hi-def of it.. but I wouldn’t do tat for every movie..
Richard
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:59 AMThe difference being that at the time there weren’t widely available commercial alternatives to VHS. It was the best there was. Yes people were happy and the film is still the same, but clearly he is comparing two currently widespread technologies and pointing out why one is inferior.
James
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:35 AMI can watch a shitty cam and not give a shit. I think these directors put too much stock in their belief that everyone wants unbelievable clarity. I don’t really care about it at all and I’m a huge film buff.
yrrnn
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 11:25 AMI can’t really handle cams, and I do enjoy getting my favourite films in nice crisp HD, but yeah everything else I’m happy to watch in SD.
But I can understand where he’s coming from – as a director he wants people to see his art in the best possible format. If you were a painter, would you want people to see your original painting on canvas or some crappy print out of a photo you took of it with your 5 year old mobile phone camera? While everybody else may not care, you sure as hell would.
Tim
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 2:09 PMAs a director he should be more worried about the quality of the movie script/acting than the compression.
Most people couldn’t find fault with a 4GB MKV over a full bitrate BluRay, and even then most of the people wouldn’t care enough to sacrifice convenience.
Its this holier than though attitude from the content producers that is screwing them. People want convenience so they will pirate the movie, but the directors/producers etc dont want to compromise (most likely that they make 10x more from cinema sales per person then dvd sales, since a family of 4 costs something like $56 (with home made popcorn and store boght drinks) vs something like $8 for a rental.) Ever since movie tickets went from $15 to $18 i went from 1 movie a month (min) to now, maybe 3 a year and rent the other times, also due to the lower quality of movies being produced).
sid
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:50 AMI think the point is that we have the ability to choose, that one system doesn’t dominate. If you want to stream crap quality because you’re more concerned with the story – fine. Equally if you want to be able to see the little freckles on Amanda Seyfried’s boobs – fine. I know which way I’m tending…
Stricks
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 10:59 AMI got a PS3 on launch day, and got my first BluRay ont eh same day. I have a 7.2 Surround setup at home, with a Full HD TV. I watch both Streamed / compressed movies, and RS is right. I am not immersed by the Compressed versons as easilt as the uncompressed. It depends how much I like a move though. Movies which i WANT to have the real director version of are usually movies i really like.
Transformers 1/2/3, 300, Kill Bill, X men: WO & First CLass, Inception to name a few where the TrueHD audio is just awesome when on BluRay. But i think i am one of the few, not the greater population, who actually care about this stuff.
TSH
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 11:08 AMHorses for courses; appropriate media for the content. I’ve found movies with epic scale, scope and visuals to really benefit from the true HD quality you find on BRDs. Comedies and dramas, not so much. The same is true of TV shows – Battlestar Galactica is amazing on BRD. On the other hand Mad Men isn’t any more dramatic in HD.
Personally I find it incredible that content delivery businesses have failed so far to provide quality HD at a competitive price. On YouTube I watch StarCraft 2 replay commentary @ 720p and 1080p for the cost of a 15 second ad. Some games go as long as 45 minutes. Granted, it’s all a rendering of computer-generated imagery but on the flip side these are videos posted by amateurs, being delivered for free via an ordinary page on the World Wide Web.
John
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 11:10 AMI agree with him, but it’s completely true what commenters are saying about most people not caring about the quality of streaming films. I insist only on renting blu rays because I have a home theatre and an HD TV. But my wife couldn’t care less – she doesn’t even notice the difference and happily rents DVDs whenever she goes to the video store.
Zip
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 12:59 PMtrue HD all the way. Streaming is for those who don’t give a shit (or have never heard) about high fidelity. I have a kick arse burr-bfown DA amp and $8k speakers, and everyone I show can tell the difference easily. No brainer. Ridley Scott is right. Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, Iron Man, are phenomenal on Bluray with a well-equipped system (an HD system is a lot more than a FullHD tv).
light487
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:14 PMYup, I completely understand and I know and can see the difference on such systems… but to say that other people do not have the right (and I’m not saying you are saying that, just discussing….) to watch/listen to the content in their own, albeit non HD, way is arrogant and selfish.
Thom
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:25 PMIts not whether people can tell the difference, they can, it whether they give a crap, the sales figures say no.
Chemenski
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:12 PMWhen I first watched a 720p blu ray rip, I was blown away by the quality (compared to DVDs). If I could stream this I would be satisfied. I mean I don’t have some kick arse home theatre setup or anything. Maybe if I had better gear, I’d care a bit more?
goodwin
Thursday, December 8, 2011 at 1:47 PMStreaming can be high quality, and most people who care about quality will not stream it directly from the net but instead save a copy to their local drive and either a) play it directly from where it’s stored, or b) stream it via their local network to their TVs at minimum available speeds of 100Mbps.
Justin N.
Sunday, December 25, 2011 at 11:30 AMStreaming has its place, but so does Physical Media like Blu-Ray. If you’re just consuming media en masse, streaming is a great way to go. There are some of us, though, who truly cherish a film or masterfully-written/directed TV Show and want the best possible quality of it to add to our archive. It’s the same reason people collect original artworks, quality reprints, or visit museums – they don’t see a picture of the Mona Lisa on a post card and feel fulfilled, they want to see the brushwork of Da Vinci on canvas, every line a bristle left in the thick paint as it was brushed, mixed, and transformed into artwork. To some of us, movies and TV fall into that same category, and for Directors especially, they want to see their artwork preserved and displayed in the highest quality possible.
It’s a matter of attitude, really. Many people are just fine with cheap streaming media in a good quality, but there’s still a sizable amount of us who want the films and shows we truly love and cherish to be in an archival quality so we can enjoy them for years or decades to come. Saying that we should do away with Blu-Rays entirely because “most” find streaming just fine is like saying we should toss the collected works at the Louvre in the trash because most people only see the items in textbooks or compressed JPEGs. Movies and TV Shows may be commodities now, but so were Roman Coins, Dickens Novels, & Egyptian pottery. Who is to say future generations won’t revere some of them as art, or history, and viewed as significant contributions to the collective culture of man?