Breaking News
Blog

The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood

Media server, anyone?
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
Bert22306   2/4/2013 10:24:22 PM
NO RATINGS
Well, the movie theaters we frequent on most Saturday nights have recently converted to the Sony Cinema 4K standard. That's something. Must save the studios a ton of money, not to have to distribute those bulky movie platters (or whatever they're called), no? I found the comment "TCP/IP is not well suited to truly popular audio-visual content, either" to be surprisingly wrong. It may not have been when few households had broadband access, and ISPs were still operating slow core networks. But those realities are quickly becoming yesterday's realities, certainly for the wired Internet. TCP/IP and UDP/IP also used to be poorly suited for voice telephony. But that too is ancient history. It's the same progression going on here. Assuming we always need this "next big thing," it should be proper Internet distribution of TV and movies. With intelligently designed connected TVs out on store shelves. And by the way, we're essentially there already. Only no one seems to get this. I was amazed, for example, to see someone on the cbs.com site ask whether CBS would re-air the episode of "Elementary" which followed the Superbowl yesterday, sometime during the week. Egad, people. CBS had that episode available online almost immediately, and I watched it comfortably on my TV set. So could even the tech-illiterates, if only the CE companies would sell intelligently designed connected TVs! Make that this "next big thing," if you need one.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
Bert22306   2/5/2013 12:33:36 AM
NO RATINGS
And I also disagree on the 4K TV point. Of course, it would also be "potentially a race to the bottom." I'd go so far as to take "potentially" out of that sentence. This is consumer electronics we're talking about. It's always a race to the bottom. All a manufacturer can hope for is to buy a few years of high profits, then very low profits but lots of volume. For the consumer, though, it means constant and affordable improvements. Or we would still be watching black and white TVs on 16" screens with rounded sides, right? Or better yet, most of us would still be listening to radio dramas rather than own an expensive, high-profit TV. When HDTV was being considered, I heard some of these same arguments. A standard question was, "What's in it for broadcasters?" The answer is, "survival." You either upgrade, or you watch your competition take away your loyal viewers. HDTV was ALWAYS intended to be a mass-market medium. So is UHDTV. The alternative is failure of the medium.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
krisi   2/5/2013 5:39:17 PM
NO RATINGS
The problem with TV in my opinion is lack of decent things to watch and the content being dispersed across thousands of channels so it is taking lots of time to chase whatever is worthwhile to watch...more pixels is not going to fix that problem

DarkMatter0
User Rank
Rookie
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
DarkMatter0   2/5/2013 5:56:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Agreed! Digital eye-candy is nice, but if the story (what, we need a story?) isn't compelling, why would anyone want to spend money to watch it, let alone own it.

GQQSER2
User Rank
Rookie
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
GQQSER2   2/5/2013 6:23:59 PM
NO RATINGS
You nailed it. My 52 inch TV does not get the use it once did because it is a hassle to find something worth watching. As you said, content being dispersed. Existing TV's do not compete very well with streaming via tablets.

DMcCunney
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
DMcCunney   2/5/2013 7:21:11 PM
NO RATINGS
"The trouble for Hollywood is that consumers seem content to stream movies and TV shows. They donít want to shell out the money to buy them." "Buying them" implies you'll want to watch the content *again*. How many movies and TV shows have you seen that weren't worth watching the first time? Hollywood makes a huge noise about digital piracy, in the fond believe that if they could only stop people from pirating content, the Promised Land would be in sight, as all of those pirates would instead buy. They wouldn't. They would simply do without. The content is not valuable enough to those people to be worth paying for. The market will pay for value. Hollywood and TV are still struggling with the issue of providing value, and understanding what the market *will* pay for.

BobsView
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
BobsView   2/5/2013 7:23:26 PM
NO RATINGS
"Assuming we always need this "next big thing," it should be proper Internet distribution of TV and movies. With intelligently designed connected TVs out on store shelves. And by the way, we're essentially there already. ***Only no one seems to get this." Bert, I couldn't agree more. My entire viewing experience consists of an Over-The-Air antenna (the way TV was meant to be) and Netflix. I get all the networks and more live sports TV than my neighbors get with Cable. Last year, my neighbor complained that the local cable service blacked out the World Series - unless you had the premium channels. Yet I was freely watching it in HD over the airways. Regarding lack of stuff to watch, between over-the-air TV and my Netflix steaming and DVD account, I have probably 150,000 movies and shows to watch at any one time. And all this for only $16/mo. To be totally honest, I'm never without anything good to watch. If I watched 2 movies a day, 7 days a week, it would take me over 200 years to see everything. I'm not complaining.

DMcCunney
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
DMcCunney   2/5/2013 7:25:27 PM
NO RATINGS
@Bert33506: "Well, the movie theaters we frequent on most Saturday nights have recently converted to the Sony Cinema 4K standard. That's something. Must save the studios a ton of money, not to have to distribute those bulky movie platters (or whatever they're called), no?" Good for the studios, but bad for a lot of others. It's getting harder to find 35MM prints, and new films are increasingly released in digital only. Expect too see a lot of smaller theaters go out of business because they can't afford the $100K+ costs of upgrading to digital projectors to show the new content.

BobsView
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
BobsView   2/5/2013 7:27:42 PM
NO RATINGS
Forgot to mention Roku. There's got to be another 100,000 free channels on there also for a total of 250,000 sources of content. And Roku makes it so easy to find what you want to watch.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
re: The view looks grim from Digital Hollywood
krisi   2/5/2013 7:58:39 PM
NO RATINGS
It is already happening...two movie theaters just went belly up as they could not afford moving from 25mm to digital

Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week