581–590 of 788 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm discussing the product and service, no interest in moral or legal judgements.
Took a while to find an example of someone treating availability of other people's work on their own terms as a human right but here we are.
It needs to be easy as possible to let this person buy things
Maybe you have some insight
Maybe when I am 60, 70 or 80 the film industry will get their shi* together and finally agree on a solution that has long been found in the music business. For a truly complete platform, I would FOR SURE pay more than the 10$ a month for Netflix. 20, maybe 30! But then I want it ALL. All films they have in storage. I mean, it is 2017 and there are a lot of films I can't find on Netflix, Amazon Prime or, when I am in…
...a solution that has long been found in the music business. Perhaps you're fortunate that everything you want to listen to is on your preferred music streaming service, but what they offer is far from everything in the music industry's catalogue. Ask any classical music fan what they think of streaming services and you'll hear a tirade against the woeful offerings that streaming services make available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If every studio thinks I'm going to pay them $10+ a month to stream their content, they are going to be very mistaken One of the biggest misconceptions about the post-tv-cable world is that people actually thought they could cut their TV bill from $50-$100/mo to $10/mo.
I'm not even sure i could watch $50/month of streaming content. I can barely keep up with HBO and Netflix pumping out content on a weekly basis. I could see a family buying a plethora of bundles, but I strongly suspect it will continue to be cheaper than the equivalent cable package. I can't speak at all for sports; i imagine that alone could be hundreds a month to watch a local game.
You may be right but I just don't think the industry can go from taking in $50-100/mo to $10/mo - they will figure out a way. And people didn't mind paying that amount. What people disliked was the forced bundles and less flexibility compared to what pirating gave you.
>I can't speak at all for sports; i imagine that alone could be hundreds a month to watch a local game.
NBA is about $200/season - which isn't bad given that's for every game. When local telecoms that bought rights for local games wise up it won't even be that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider for a moment that 4k resolution is not easy to obtain from film - you need to shoot the whole thing digitally to really get the right product. I also don't much care for how 4k looks - or the bandwidth needed to transport it around.
Really? I was under the impression that a good quality 35mm film can resolve to as much as 8K without much trouble. Why would extracting 4K out of it be a problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Consider for a moment that 4k resolution is not easy to obtain from film Why's it not easy? You just do a 4k scan of the film don't you?
Indeed and there's many methods for this that are being used to restore many old films from archive. Modern film cameras used by major networks record at 4K-6K (full open). Beyond that even if the cameras on set are recording at 3.2K or 2K pro-res etc... it doesn't mean that the post-production and up-scaling upon rendering doesn't benefit from a final output of 4K. Finally - we must think to the future and not hold…
And again, resolution is just a small component of the final image quality. There is a major 3.2(ish)K camera on the market that has substantially better IQ than 4 and 6K alternatives. And another 6K camera that has substantially better IQ than 8K options.
As for upscaling, we're probably better off leaving that for the end user as better upscaling algos are created and deployed all the time and baking it in from the studio locks us into what will soon be old methodology.
Maybe when I am 60, 70 or 80 the film industry will get their shi* together and finally agree on a solution that has long been found in the music business. For a truly complete platform, I would FOR SURE pay more than the 10$ a month for Netflix. 20, maybe 30! But then I want it ALL. All films they have in storage. I mean, it is 2017 and there are a lot of films I can't find on Netflix, Amazon Prime or, when I am in…
I would have thought this would be better for the studios too. I don't mind paying for your stuff but the barrier to finding and consuming it needs to be lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grooveshark was a lot better than Spotify, both in functionality and in offering, but alas... Youtube is probably the most complete but (1) I don't want to waste bandwidth on downloading the video every time I try to listen to music and (2) it's missing the discovery component that dedicated music services have.
As a solution to (1) you can use youtube-dl https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/ It supports downloading only the audio.
Plus, it's pretty illegal if I'm not mistaken!
Plus, sound quality on youtube isn't very good