8 reasons you should keep buying movie discs

Friesiansam

Well-known member
Two better reasons not to buy films on disc:

1: I've got nothing to play the discs on.

2: I don't watch enough films to make it worth spending any money.

It may surprise you all at WHF but, not everyone cares about films.
 

rocky01

Member
Jul 30, 2022
2
0
20
Well written and bold. Some may be content with subscriptions, compression and lowest common denominator. Tech oligarchs' dream.
 

manicm

Well-known member
May 1, 2008
1,504
448
20,070
Well written and bold. Some may be content with subscriptions, compression and lowest common denominator. Tech oligarchs' dream.
(Rude comment removed by moderation.)

As I said, it's not that simplistic, and you assume that people are not interested - well I can't obtain a 4k disc player where I reside. The only one available is the Reavon, and I'm not sure I can spend that much. I can't get a Panasonic or Sony etc, because distributors here have determined there's not enough demand, all while the latest TVs are available.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kandy

Active member
Jul 30, 2022
1
2
25
Two better reasons not to buy films on disc:

1: I've got nothing to play the discs on.

2: I don't watch enough films to make it worth spending any money.

It may surprise you all at WHF but, not everyone cares about films.
If you don't care about films what are you doing reading this article? DUH!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big Aura and Tonya

Tonya

Well-known member
Sep 9, 2008
57
3
18,545
Apart from the obvious advantages, I like the idea that no one can re-edit my disc after I bought it.
This practice of removing certain shots, even from old films is starting to get out of hand.
Back To The Future (the O-La-La magazine sequence) and E.T. (removing the rifles and replacing them with flashlights) being prime examples.
 
In my country of residence 4k disc players are practically unobtainable, due to lack of demand.
Can you not import one? Doesn’t have to be a majorly expensive one - I use the Sony X800m2 which is a good little player. With the lack of high-end players around, I think I’d rather stick to a relatively budget player and replace when the lack of software updates starts kicking in. If I was to move to Reavon, I’d want to know I’m getting Oppo levels of back-up service.
 
Apart from the obvious advantages, I like the idea that no one can re-edit my disc after I bought it.
This practice of removing certain shots, even from old films is starting to get out of hand.
Back To The Future (the O-La-La magazine sequence) and E.T. (removing the rifles and replacing them with flashlights) being prime examples.
And that’s one big point not mentioned in this piece. Too many platforms are scared of the woke backlash and edit their films to avoid being targetted by people who have nothing better to do than moan. A film, usually, is a piece of art, and should be presented exactly as it was, regardless of its age or content. Times change, outlooks change, and any sensible film viewer can appreciate that 50, 70, or even 10 years ago, mindsets were different.

I started writing a piece like this almost two years ago, which was meant to be similar to this piece - highlighting the shortcoming and pitfalls of streaming services, and comparing them on many points. As I continued to write it, and to try and explain all points simply, it ended up way too long for a blog, so has sat languishing in blog limbo ever since.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WayneKerr and Tonya
And one correction I’d like to add to WHF’s piece - for the piece I’ve written that I mentioned in my previous post, I did a comparison of Kong: Skull Island, which I chose because I had the 4K Bluray, bought it on iTunes purely for comparison, and it was on Netflix at the time. The Netflix one was a fixed bit rate of 7mbps for picture, whereas the 4K Bluray was anywhere between about 30mbps and 99mbps. It looked soft in comparison.

The problem is that people don’t understand that it’s not the resolution that is the most important, it’s the bandwidth/bitrate of the picture. The public sees 4K streaming and presumes its the same as a 4K disc, especially becaise its the same amount of pixels. As mentioned, it’s video compression that’s the killer, and not only does streaming services use more compression, but it’s not even the same video carrier as UHD discs. UHD uses HEVC, Bluray uses AVC or VC1, DVD uses MPEG 1 or 2, and streaming services use different ones, but you’re looking at something like MPEG4. The main criteria for streaming compression is to compress to a point where it reduces issues when played in homes - it needs to be a signal that can be handled by everybody’s broadband, no matter how bad.
 

rocky01

Member
Jul 30, 2022
2
0
20
Hello: My comment was on this article, not your posts and certainly not your feelings. These forums can be tiresome. You assume too much. If someone does take on your comments it will be with your commemt in quotes. Seems to me. No desire here to do any such thing. My comments may not align with yours but you're a big boy, no? As for your insults, irrelevant to this poster.
 
Jul 30, 2022
2
0
20
Two better reasons not to buy films on disc:

1: I've got nothing to play the discs on.

2: I don't watch enough films to make it worth spending any money.

It may surprise you all at WHF but, not everyone cares about films.
To make it worth spending any money? I didn't realise streaming was free now. Equally, discs are a minimal investment when bought second hand from charity shops, etc. And it's far from the case that those are all in duffed up condition.
 

Tinman1952

Well-known member
May 19, 2021
1,453
867
2,070
Can you not import one? Doesn’t have to be a majorly expensive one - I use the Sony X800m2 which is a good little player. With the lack of high-end players around, I think I’d rather stick to a relatively budget player and replace when the lack of software updates starts kicking in. If I was to move to Reavon, I’d want to know I’m getting Oppo levels of back-up service.
Agreed. The Sony is extremely well built, quiet and perfect for Bluray and SACD! 👍
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidf

no-name-123

Well-known member
Feb 18, 2020
33
6
1,545
Two better reasons not to buy films on disc:

1: I've got nothing to play the discs on.

2: I don't watch enough films to make it worth spending any money.

It may surprise you all at WHF but, not everyone cares about films.
No magazine such as what hi-fi can expect every article to apeal to every reader. Possibly streaming might better apeal to you
 

Terry Webb

Well-known member
Feb 10, 2020
30
9
1,545
I heartily concur with a lot of what John Archer is saying in this article but I have to strongly disagree with the assertion that DVDs are pretty much aimed at the casual buyer who will turn to streaming. There is a vast amount of films, TV series, documentaries and general interest subjects which were, and still are, being released only on DVD and are ignored for whatever reason by the streaming companies and any that are streamed can be withdrawn from their catalogues at any time. Long live DVDs if it means people get to view what they want to see.
 

no-name-123

Well-known member
Feb 18, 2020
33
6
1,545
I heartily concur with a lot of what John Archer is saying in this article but I have to strongly disagree with the assertion that DVDs are pretty much aimed at the casual buyer who will turn to streaming. There is a vast amount of films, TV series, documentaries and general interest subjects which were, and still are, being released only on DVD and are ignored for whatever reason by the streaming companies and any that are streamed can be withdrawn from their catalogues at any time. Long live DVDs if it means people get to view what they want to see.
Yes I can identify with DVDs being for casual buyers, since they are the cheapest option. Streaming is great if you only want to watch something once. But why, shakeing my head in disbelief release things on DVD? Just who buys a large 4K TV then humiliates it with a DVD
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS