Physical media vs. Digital media

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 13958
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mumbai
Allstar wrote:
Crazy Eight wrote:I just download full quality Blu-ray rips from the internet and put them on an external.

Lets stop acting like that isn't what "digital media" means to like 90% of the people here.
Downloading is for plebs. Streaming in HD is the goat.
well plebs have a shitty internet connection so we have to download 15 gigs hd rip instead of streaming it

did i say we? i mean they, okay?

Posts: 55632
Joined: May 2010
Yeah, allstar, can you please tell me where to stream at least eighty years of movie history? It's either blu-ray/DVD (if the title isn't obscure) or torrent, mostly torrent. My high school for example has a large amount of torrents on hard drive purely for educational purposes, Frankenstein's Bride, Nosferatu, The Wicker Man, Battleship Potemkin etc, same thing when I was in college.

User avatar
Posts: 13944
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
I don't really see the value of owning a digital copy on disc outside of wanting technical stability (not relying on your internet or your computer's media player). It's all digital. A compressed file of a movie with zero variance from copy to copy. This isn't a film print or a vinyl pressing. I guess if packaging suits your fancy then cool, but otherwise it seems like a million miles away from the fundamental purpose of media collecting of old. I'd rather download the highest quality version of the movie for free online and then spend my money on memorabilia.

Posts: 55632
Joined: May 2010
Crazy Eight wrote:I don't really see the value of owning a digital copy on disc outside of wanting technical stability (not relying on your internet or your computer's media player). It's all digital. A compressed file of a movie with zero variance from copy to copy. This isn't a film print or a vinyl pressing. I guess if packaging suits your fancy then cool, but otherwise it seems like a million miles away from the fundamental purpose of media collecting of old. I'd rather download the highest quality version of the movie for free online and then spend my money on memorabilia.
Those are some really interesting points. What sort of memorabilia are we talking/do you have? I have couple of valuable possessions but it's mostly fancy blu-ray collections that are harder to find now or really pricey movie related books. Bond 50 for example is really hard to find these days, and for a reasonable price, Taschen's Kubrick Archives , Hitchcock Collection etc.

physical copies make you feel good.

User avatar
Posts: 26396
Joined: February 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Image

User avatar
Posts: 13958
Joined: May 2010
Location: Mumbai
mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:physical copies make you feel good.
and thats why everyone should get physical
geddit, geddit? ;)

User avatar
Posts: 13944
Joined: June 2009
Location: La La Land
m4st4 wrote:
Crazy Eight wrote:I don't really see the value of owning a digital copy on disc outside of wanting technical stability (not relying on your internet or your computer's media player). It's all digital. A compressed file of a movie with zero variance from copy to copy. This isn't a film print or a vinyl pressing. I guess if packaging suits your fancy then cool, but otherwise it seems like a million miles away from the fundamental purpose of media collecting of old. I'd rather download the highest quality version of the movie for free online and then spend my money on memorabilia.
Those are some really interesting points. What sort of memorabilia are we talking/do you have? I have couple of valuable possessions but it's mostly fancy blu-ray collections that are harder to find now or really pricey movie related books. Bond 50 for example is really hard to find these days, and for a reasonable price, Taschen's Kubrick Archives , Hitchcock Collection etc.
Basically just posters and figurines and yeah, those pricey making of books are pretty dang addicting. I'd just rather put my money into that, or seeing movies at more pricey and nicer theaters, then on a physical disc. Especially now, when a ton of premiere titles will have outdated quality in the next few years.

User avatar
Posts: 43129
Joined: May 2010
mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:physical copies make you feel good.

Posts: 55632
Joined: May 2010
mchekhov 2: Chek Harder wrote:physical copies make you feel good.
True, so true.
Crazy Eight wrote:Basically just posters and figurines and yeah, those pricey making of books are pretty dang addicting. I'd just rather put my money into that, or seeing movies at more pricey and nicer theaters, then on a physical disc. Especially now, when a ton of premiere titles will have outdated quality in the next few years.
Making of books are the worst... damn addiction I tell ya.

Yeah, about that outdated quality... personally I don't feel the need for a picture quality greater than 1080p. I've seen 4K videos in stores mostly and it looks out of this world good but not as absolute necessity for me, if that makes sense. Like how much more do you need after 20-30-40 gigs of space already taken on blu-ray? And perhaps more valid question: how much can your eye take? Sounds silly but I remember feeling dizzy watching Avatar on blu for the first time. It takes time to adjust to new medium and I feel really comfortable with (just) 1080p.

Post Reply