Who here still buys physical BD and DVD discs?

[hogger129]

I feel like I'm missing out sometimes because movies on places like iTunes will come out a few weeks before the ones on physical media. I also like having an external hard drive so I can watch my movies while traveling. The problem is iTunes has DRM and I haven't found any media players that will ignore the DRM, though there are some ways around it which I won't discuss here. There is also the other, time-consuming alternative of making my own mobile versions.

In my opinion, iTunes HD also looks very decent for compressed 1080p video, but that's the issue. It's compressed. And with movies that really lend themselves well to fine detail, you can easily find the faults in iTunes HD.

So what do you guys buy? Do you still go for the physical discs or are you buying the digital downloads? I'm the same way with music. I like the convenience of things like iTunes but the quality is still better with the actual CD.

[SameSelf]

Stopped buying DVD/BD a few years ago. They simply take up too much space and rarely get watched more than once. Or worse, if I have viewed a DVD/BD too many times, I never want to watch it again, ever. However, with that said, there are handful of key films that I will always own simply because they are too classic to not own. But other than that, everything else is just dross.

[usually_quiet]

I still buy and rent DVDs and Blu-Ray discs. With 3 Mbps Internet service, HD streaming from Netflix or Amazon isn't an option. Last time I looked, my cable service charged at least $4.99 to watch a new movie in HD.

If I take into account the cost of paying the extra $20 to $30 per month for faster Internet service, plus the cost of the movie, plus the cost of installing a wired home network, Redbox wins for both price and quality and is conveniently located at my favoite grocery store.

[computeguy]

I will never stop buying BD / DVD discs... Love having the physical media in my possession.

[DB83]

I also buy. In fact I have never rented a single DVD/BD.

Of course, space is always a problem and I have more (even with quite a modest collection) than I really have room for. True that many have been watched once, twice at most, but as long as the technology to view them remains then atleast they are there if and when.

Also do not have a particularly fast connection - most UK is still phone-line based rather than cable - so I doubt I could use the online services effectively.

[computeguy]

1100 discs and counting no space issues here

[DB83]

Never actually counted (how would you count a box set ? )

[godai]

they can be good for backup reasons

[Bjs]

Buy ... cause anything else is lower quality

Need a shed just to hold it all.

[netmask56]

Only buy selected Blu Ray discs - haven't bought a DVD for yonks. Transfer them onto my NAS and put the disc away in my storeroom. A very few I make a lower re copy for my iPhone for when traveling. I record a lot of stuff off free to air TV for later viewing or time shift commercials out on my PVR (an Enigma 2 clone) and a few old classics I transfer onto my NAS. Fortunately no DRM or no record lock on local TV and no problem transferring PVR items to computer in Oz.

[HemLok]

I buy movies on disc that I know I want. I'll stream stuff via Netflix, Amazon VOD, etc, when I'm bored and it isn't something I've ever wanted to own. I rent new releases on disc when I have some interest in seeing the movie once. I've never purchased a digital download and have zero interest in doing so.

[Kerry56]

I still buy the occasional Blu-ray disc, usually used from one of the few rental shops still in existence in my area, Hastings. Its been a couple of years since I last bought a DVD.

Buying used discs, the first thing I do is rip it to the hard drive of my HTPC. If it won't rip, back it goes.

[_Al_]

Where are you from? You can buy BD's from rental stores, they usually get rid of their copies, if you want to get blockbusters. Much cheaper than in stores. You just need to wait a bit longer I guess.

[Cornucopia]

I buy blanks: BDs & DVDs. (for both authored MM & general data use)

I buy blanks: CDs. (for authored MM use)

I buy & rent prerecorded: BDs & DVDs (both Redbox, Netflix & video stores).

I buy prerecorded CDs (and possibly SACDs now) - particularly used, but also still new.

I also stream & DL & VOD like crazy.

Why limit your options? I have a wider array of choices with physical media. And with P.M., I can do whatever I want with them, including convert with high quality, and share to both lowest common denominator users/devices and highest, without interference from "The MAN".

Scott

[Arnold_Layne]

Still buy BD discs. Though I do rip them to a media server, but I don't compress them. All my movies stay uncompressed just ripped with MakeMKV.

[SameSelf]

I have a friend who used to rent and rip literally thousands of titles. With the rise of streaming and downloads, no más. Why? After laughing and looking at me like I am from Mars, in his words, "Not worth the hassle."

[KarMa]

It's 2016 and I still have no way to watch or burn a Bluray. Have not even bothered buying a basic $50 player. Mostly just Netflix/DVD for me. Bluray is great if you want the best 1080p quality publicly available.

In my opinion, iTunes HD also looks very decent for compressed 1080p video, but that's the issue. It's compressed. And with movies that really lend themselves well to fine detail, you can easily find the faults in iTunes HD.

iTunes and other digital video retailers seem to use lousy H.264 encoders or lousy settings. I tend to believe they cut corners by using faster H.264 settings and possibly even single pass ABR. I look at the stuff they sell and think they could do better, but that would cost more CPU cycles or is not compatible with what ever hardware encoder they use.

This is my general view of iTunes and is subject to change, and does not apply to every digital video retailer.

[hello_hello]

The itunes video I've seen is fairly good quality. I don't know what encoder settings they use, but when I've tried re-encoding some of it there's generally not enough bitrate saving at CRF18 to make it worth while. For TV shows they use about 5000kbps for 1080p and 4000kbps for 720p (no CABAC for 720p, hence the bitrate not being far behind 1080p).

The video itself tends to be a bit more processed than Bluray video, mostly in respect to noise removal. Bluray does look better as generally more fine detail is retained, but I don't think the itunes encoding is all that bad as a rule.

[flashandpan007]

I buy Blu-rays and also DVDs if nothing else is available too, because then I have a physical medium where the movie is stored and if I compare the price of the Disc with a visit at the cinema, it's quite cheap. I am going to buy UHD Blu-rays, too.
-> higher resolution, HFR support, 3D 1080 HFR support, more colors Rec2020 and 10 bit per color -> 30 bit color depth.
Keep also in mind that 1080p on Blu-ray can be better than streaming UHD, because the bitrate of the streaming media is too low for the encoder to produce a "good" picture.

Just my opinion ...

[KarMa]

For TV shows they use about 5000kbps for 1080p and 4000kbps for 720p (no CABAC for 720p, hence the bitrate not being far behind 1080p).

CABAC does not justify that tiny bump up in bitrate from 720p to 1080p, when we are talking about the 5-10% improved efficiency. Basing quality on bitrate is far from accurate but would think they would bump it up some more, since they insist on doing ABR. Maybe something closer to double.

Most of my gripe is when the video is sourced from film, particularly old and grainy film. Which seemed to cause their encoder care more about maintaining the grain on wall than the actual subjects of interest. Leaving massive blocking artifacts in the dark spots and/or easy to compress areas. I think their adaptive quantizer settings were not great and played a big part, besides the bitrate. Can't speak for anything they've sold in the past year or so.

[sneaker]

3D 1080 HFR

Source? From what I've read UHD BluRay will not offer 3D at all. (players might be backwards-compatible to the "old" 3D BluRay)
And "HFR" does not include 48 Hz.

You won't be able to see the Hobbit like in the cinema.

[cornemuse]

I view dvds from the libraries. (not bluerays, yet) The thrift stores have suprisingly new & excellent dvds for 3$,
(1/2 off on wednesdays) Library 'Friends of the library' book-store are 2$ ea, once a month half price. (<-good books cheap too.)
County library is part of "Link" system = access to (a whole lot of) libraries throughout the state (CA) "Link" requirement = cannot charge fee's for check-outs. I've checked out some extremely obscure films on dvd/vhs <-yes, some stuff available only on vhs/laserdisk.

-c-

[flashandpan007]

On https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Definition_Multimedia_Interface I saw the HDMI 2.0 specs and there is "1080p 3D HFR support" listed as supported and I was already happy to see 3D HFR @1080p, but you're right, it looks like it is not in the specs. But to be honest I never cared so much about 3D. I'm going to buy UHD Blu-rays for the better colors Rec2020 with 10 bit per color, the higher resolution and the higher framerate support.
YouTube does support HFR now @2160p
like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPVrJjpoAYk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlD3nJtTL1I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI2Fp8twyo8

[Attachment 35521 - Click to enlarge]

[Zero Niner]

Oh, I'll never get rid of my physical media! First of all, I live out in no man's land and don't have a fast enough Internet connection for streaming. DSL is both what's affordable and what's available where I live.

The U.S. has notoriously slow average Internet speed when compared with many Asian countries and even Europe, especially out in the rural areas and suburban bedroom communities. Some places in the South still have dial-up, if you can believe that. Not only do these places not have the physical infrastructure for fast internet (Verizon FiOS, for instance, is very selective about where it lays down its cables -- while Comcast controls everything else). But a lot of us have never recovered from economic transitions like outsourcing and the shift to the service economy, and then the 2007 recession (or never had much to recover to begin with). So, we can't afford the high cost of $100+ every month for streaming-capable Internet, when we have to pick between groceries, rent/mortgage, or paying for essential utilities (Internet isn't really "essential" compared to heat or electric -- and even then, it's sometimes a choice between paying heat or electric, meaning you can consider yourself lucky to live in a warmer climate where you don't really need heat).

In which case, the occasional $5 bargain-bin DVD (I don't have a Blu-ray player) is both less expensive and a treat. It's also all but necessary if I want to watch something that doesn't come over the airwaves (I cut the cord and went with antenna-vision out of economic necessity).

Heck, I still have VHS tapes that I'll never get rid of either

But the tapes are actually useful in some instances, because the later DVD releases are actually different from the original theatrical/VHS version. This infamously applies to E.T., where in the 20th anniversary DVD release, the guns that the government agents were carrying were replaced by walkie-talkies, because by the time 2002 rolled around, guns weren't considered "family-friendly." So new technologies can actually bring with them forms of Bowdlerization and censorship, and other alterations depending on the "director's vision." Star Wars titles are notorious for this, as Lucas keeps pulling a mulligan on his magnum opus every chance he gets...

Not only that, but even if I did have streaming capability, the thought of not having personal control over when I watch what I want to watch is frightening to me. Netflix only keeps films on the roster for a limited time (not sure about Hulu or Amazon, but I'd imagine it's the same). That seems to be an issue of licensing rights with the studios (and a whole Pandora's box about the copyright system), but if I want to watch Star Wars and Disney decides on a whim to pull all their IP from Netflix to start their own streaming service, at least I can pick and choose between the VHS, the Beta, or the DVD when I decide, rather than the House of Mouse.

I've heard rave reviews about Netflix's original shows too, but I'm not interested enough to subscribe even if I could.

I'll just wait until House of Cards comes out on DVD

[Tom Saurus]

Yes I still buy DVDs. I buy my DVDs from a Company based in Montreal. What I appreciate about them is that they allow me to place an order by C.O.D. or money order. I notice however the selection is diminishing and that is frustrating because I am missing out on stuff I thought I would have the luxury of time to acquire. I don't have a large income so I can only buy DVDs when I have the money to spare. My DSL is barely fast enough and sometimes it dips lower than what is required for Shaw Direct HD On Demand. I don't have a credit card and won't pay those pre-paid card fees which are outrageous so Netflix is not on the horizon for our family at the moment. I might be able to pay a relative that has it some money to add us on to his though I haven't broached that subject yet. He says he added one of his children on for 2 bucks a month so I could come up with the money for a year in advance plus a bonus for his effort; but that is only if it allowable to do that.

But the streaming as nice as it is I would like it a lot better if Netflix just had ever show that was ever made, even the classic sitcoms, westerns, those funny old Britcoms and even defunct soap operas like "Another World", "One Life To Live", "Guiding Light" and "As The World Turns". I know that isn't going to happen, but that would be what I would want.

At the moment I want to get a bunch of the classic Britcoms but that would mean the Company in Montreal ordering them from Amazon U.K. and with the British Pound being so highly valued and the shipping and handling it may not be a cheap thing to accomplish. But I am so tired of such tepid, unfunny shows putting on the pretense of being comedies that the Britcoms and the classics become all the more appealing.

[MindController]

I still actively buy all of my movies on dvd/Blu-ray. The cloud is a joke and so is digital only. Just an opinion. But I prefer menus and all that.

[hello_hello]

For TV shows they use about 5000kbps for 1080p and 4000kbps for 720p (no CABAC for 720p, hence the bitrate not being far behind 1080p).

CABAC does not justify that tiny bump up in bitrate from 720p to 1080p, when we are talking about the 5-10% improved efficiency. Basing quality on bitrate is far from accurate but would think they would bump it up some more, since they insist on doing ABR. Maybe something closer to double.

I just encoded 5 minutes of a PAL video (one I'd recently finished encoding and had handy) using x264's default settings and CRF 18, with and without CABAC, and the file size difference was a tad under 14%.

Make of this what you will.....
I split off the first five minutes of a random 1080p itunes video. According to Bitrate Viewer it has an average bitrate of 5612 kbps.
I re-encoded it at 720p, CRF18, default settings except no CABAC. 1900 kbps
I re-encoded it at 1080p, CRF18, default settings, including CABAC. 5442 kbps
One more time at 1080p, CRF20, default settings, including CABAC (because I tend to use a higher CRF value for 1080p). 3713 kbps

Based on that you could argue the itunes bitrate is excessive for 720p more-so than inadequate for 1080p, but that's just based on a single little sample and I'm aware it doesn't mean much. I just thought it'd be interesting....

Most of my gripe is when the video is sourced from film, particularly old and grainy film. Which seemed to cause their encoder care more about maintaining the grain on wall than the actual subjects of interest. Leaving massive blocking artifacts in the dark spots and/or easy to compress areas. I think their adaptive quantizer settings were not great and played a big part, besides the bitrate. Can't speak for anything they've sold in the past year or so.

I'm not sure I've seen much old and grainy. The Walking Dead would be the closest. 16mm...... the one thing I dislike about the show...... and I've seen a few itunes episodes of older TV shows such as The Sopranos and West Wing. I kind of remember those being noisy and thinking the bitrate was too low, but even well encoded grain annoys me. Aside from that though, most of the itunes video I've seen is new and/or digital which is probably why I have less issues with their bitrates.

[OneIron]

Just purchased two Mark Knopfler and one Eagles performance. Can't remember the last time I purchased a movie though...

[KarMa]

There is some apple and oranges going on. From what I can tell, iTunes uses 1-Pass ABR (much worse than CRF), a max of 1 B-Frame, smaller GOPs (150 frame max, no min size), no weighted prediction for P/B frames, and uses some hardware based codec (non-x264). I've even seen scenes with 6 I-frames either touching each other or a few frames away.

Going by bit rate alone, 5000kbps should give decent results but their settings can really hurt the quality on certain demanding video. Looking on google I found someone else talking about WEB-DLs (iTunes I'm going to guess) https://psarips.com/news/one-thing-i-hate-about-web-dls/

-------------

In a 1080p test of my own I used a constant quantizer of 21 with the very slow preset, and it was ~11 minutes long. Normally I would use CRF but figured for this test I would switch. This may help, hurt, or be inert to the results idk. The only difference between the two videos was the use of CABAC or CALVC.

Results
CALVC: 7352 kbps
CABAC: 6513 kbps

6513/7352=11.5% #Similar to your results