Blu-Ray disc use receding faster than expected

[Derek McCabe]

Streaming will replace Blu-Ray. Or a thumb drive hoked to USB3.

You will not see people going out to buy new DVD players (because they don't make them anymore) or even a Blu-Ray player. Can't buy a VHS player either.

Consumer are caught in the middle of a huge tech change, which will make streaming the fastest and easiest choice for consumers.

For filmmaker and content creators... many new cloud based companies are starting to offer streaming servers. They will compete with Vimeo and YouTube. Creators will just upload their final products to servers... and customers will be glad to just get a url link to what they just purchased.

Take a look at FileFactory.com. They are similar to DropBox. They are now offering UNLIMITED hard drive space for $199 for 5 years. *unlimited storage but a monthly bandwidth limit. The bandwidth is the gotcha, but as each month goes by, they keep giving more bandwidth for lower prices. And they cloud ISPs are now offering video streaming as part of there services.

So you want to shoot in 4K and deliver to a client? Send them a URL.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

Streaming will replace Blu-Ray. Or a thumb drive hoked to USB3

Streaming works in some cases, but not on an airplane or other non-connected situation. We will always need local storage (maybe downloaded, rather than removable).

We don't stream from our cameras do we? We use local, removable media. :)

[Tim Polster]

This debate is highly dependent upon what type of work you do. Single client, corporate work is obvious. Multi client for distribution is where it is so messy. Streaming and downloads are fine for large, well known companies like Apple and Amazon. For the rest of us, physical media is a much better option right now. A least for me. It is tough to reliably expect many people to go to a certain website (that they do not know) and make a purchase or download something they purchased a ticket for etc... It may sound simple and easy, but I would not want to trust sales on it.

[Derek McCabe]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Streaming works in some cases, but not on an airplane or other non-connected situation. We will always need local storage (maybe downloaded, rather than removable).

We don't stream from our cameras do we? We use local, removable media. :)

Cloud services are working on streaming video as a number one feature, it's not going away... why would ANY "client" actually need to have video files locally when they can stream to watch it to a computer, tablet or cellphone. Video delivery is going to be streamed. Physical devices will go the way of Blockbuster video.

You may prefer local media, and keep buying hard drives.. while the rest of us will be uploading to a more cost effective "cloud".

Cloud costs a now coming down to lower than physical media. Watch DropBox, Hightail and FileFactory. Three billion dollar cloud companies poised to get into video streaming services.

[Bruce Dempsey]

[QUOTE=
We don't stream from our cameras do we? We use local, removable media. :)[/QUOTE]

Yes I have several events that are live steamed from the camera to ustream and nary a local media insight
Weiyun offers 10tb streamable storage "free" and it works, but it's somewhat difficult to setup and use because of the language issue

I'm going to coin a phase here: Internetosphere - A data stream band encircling the globe to and from which all our stuff can be put or retrieved on any conceivable device for real time viewing and we'll probably do it sort of like WiFi, IE effortlessly and most likely at near or $0 cost

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

Cloud services are working on streaming video as a number one feature, it's not going away... why would ANY "client" actually need to have video files locally when they can stream to watch it to a computer, tablet or cellphone. Video delivery is going to be streamed. Physical devices will go the way of Blockbuster video.

Corporate entities with serious Intellectual Property concerns and network security risks routinely disallow streaming services. I have worked in several healthcare facilities and streaming services including YouTube are often actively disallowed on the internal network connections due to bandwidth restrictions as well as security concerns. I have also had issues where certain PowerPoint slides are embargoed on outbound webcasts due to the streaming servers being international and falling under US jurisdiction which is problematic for unreleased research.

The issues are much broader than "DVD sucks! SD sucks! Everyone should stream my gorgeous footage in 4k on YouTube because it looks better"

[Derek McCabe]

re: "Corporate entities with serious Intellectual Property concerns and network security risks routinely disallow streaming services."

The new cloud streaming services will be professional companies that offer secure networks... we are talking a trillion dollar cloud market.

Stop trying to make it like progress in cloud and streaming is not happening. It's like arguing that ISPs are not "secure" for running a website with "intellectual property".

DVDs are a VERY LOW resolution format.. it's going away. If you are shooting a video for web or streaming, it will never be in SD format. And the options of streaming video on a secure company intranet.
Does the hospital have email? Is that secure? Then they have a secure intranet that can offer videos.

As a filmmaker, it is your job (read that as opportunity) to educate the customer the differences between SD and HD.. let alone 4K.

4K is what will push the streaming services into a profitable venture.

[Jim Michael]

Even for home use most people are bandwidth constrained, with 4k likely to further inhibit performance. Jerky video isn't pleasant to watch. Yet the ability to download the streamed video for later viewing may be prohibited by the licensing terms associated with the material, the assumption being that downloading increases piracy risk. At least this was the case last I looked into it.

[Derek McCabe]

20Mbps for 4K streaming... here in the New York tri-state area my FIOS connection is 80Mbps, and ALL the other cable services offer 50+Mbps.

via Netflix Press Release:

Netflix Now Streaming in Ultra HD 4K

We’re excited about the picture quality we’re seeing in Ultra HD 4K, and we’re even more excited that expert reviewers of the first TVs capable of streaming Netflix Ultra HD 4K, including the Samsung HU8550 and HU9000, seem to agree. This is just the the beginning, expect more TVs that support Netflix in Ultra HD 4K in stores soon from Samsung, Sony, LG, and Vizio. If you buy one of these new TVs, just connect it to a power outlet and the internet, turn it on and sign into Netflix. Ultra HD 4K streaming will work out of the box.

To get the highest quality Netflix experience in Ultra HD 4K, we recommend available bandwidth of at least 20Mbps. This provides enough throughput for the stream, which is about 16Mbps, plus headroom for service variability. And speaking of variability, there are many things that can affect the data throughput to a specific device on your home network. One of those variables is how a broadband provider chooses to handle incoming bits from Netflix. Any broadband provider that’s directly connected to Netflix will deliver a better experience, especially during primetime.

...but you have steered to discussion to 4K.. we were discussing HD streaming vs SD DVD delivery.

Please show me a corporate client willing to hire a video production team that DOESN'T have the ability to stream 1080P HD content on their internal intranet. Cloud services can host the video content (if the client does not want to host the servers themselves), and a simple website can be the player to low-end desktops, tablets or even cellphones. This is not new technology!

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Tim Polster

This debate is highly dependent upon what type of work you do.

And this is the key, vital point here. Sorry, but there's a general tone in this thread of "my solution is best because.....". In practice, it depends on circumstance. Who's the work for? Is it important now, gone tomorrow? Is it's worth in future value? Is streaming even viable (due to connection issues)? There is no one size fits all.

There is no doubt that for certain applications, streaming is the way to go. For others, forget it. For such as wedding videos, if I was the client, there may be a lot to be said for having a streamed option for aunties and uncles living hundreds of miles away to see - but would I regard that as a serious option to be able to watch in the future? In ten, twenty, even thirty years time? No. No way.

And for all the reasons given earlier, then *AT THE MOMENT* an optical disc (be it DVD or Blu-Ray) must be the best choice for something that can be put on a shelf for years and have a decent chance of being viewable in the future.

As far as "DVD or Blu-Ray?" then why not supply both for such as a wedding? Assuming an HD camera, the shooting, editing, even authoring is the same amount of work is common in each case - it's then a matter of rendering the same project first to DVD, then to Blu-Ray. Very little extra work, and not much extra in blank material.

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

DVDs are a VERY LOW resolution format.. it's going away.

Which is why there is Blu-ray to supplement it.

Does the hospital have email? Is that secure? Then they have a secure intranet that can offer videos.

Yes, with attachment sizes limited to 25MB. There's a winner for you.

As a filmmaker, it is your job (read that as opportunity) to educate the customer the differences between SD and HD.. let alone 4K.

No it isn't.

4K is what will push the streaming services into a profitable venture.

No it won't.

[Derek McCabe]

Gary Huff - "Yes, with attachment sizes limited to 25MB. There's a winner for you."

So... do you think a URL link in an email will be over 25MB? Are you sure you know how this works?

[Gary Huff]

Originally Posted by Derek McCabe

So... do you think a URL link in an email will be over 25MB? Are you sure you know how this works?

Yes, and I don't think you do. Just because you can send links in a URL doesn't mean you can stream videos over your Intranet.

[Derek McCabe]

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

Just because you can send links in a URL doesn't mean you can stream videos over your Intranet.

Yes it does. When you use a cloud service to host your videos, all you do is include a link or embed your link on the internal company intranet. A normal corporate network can easily handle the playback traffic. That is the entire point of outsourcing your streaming video needs to a professional cloud service. Dropbox, Google, HighTail, FileFactory, among others all all getting into cloud video services.

Go to any company, have every employee launch a video on YouTube or Vimeo at the same time, and see if it works. Not an issue. And not every employee will ever have the need to stream all day, at the same time.

Need to have 30-40 employees watch a training video. No problem.

I think you really should stop making a fool of yourself in this discussion, it is obvious have very little experience with hosting video for streaming.

[Jim Michael]

If the cloud hosting is outsourced to a company not on the internal network (e.g. Dropbox, AWS) then the data must share the bandwidth on the company's Internet feed. Companies tend to have a lot more Internet bandwidth than home users because they have more users, but that doesn't mean every user gets a firehose for Internet access. In some cases a company might establish a dedicated feed to an external vendor, but that's often bandwidth limited due to the cost involved. It's true that internal bandwidth (intranet) speeds are faster because the hardware is available to provide that inexpensively.