Log in
  

Blogs
 

April 27, 2015

NAB, EMA Share Closed Caption Interests

Recognizing how much our industry is changing, the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) attended the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Show for the first time recently. In the past, the NAB Show would not have been of particular interest to us, given its focus on cameras, cranes, video editing software, and the other apparatuses necessary for television and radio broadcasters.

However, as broadcast television and online video converge and the lines between the two become less distinguishable, it has become clear we share common interests with our colleagues in the broadcast industry. Indeed, a number of EMA members exhibited at this year’s NAB Show, and many more attended.

In addition to visiting EMA members exhibiting at the NAB Show and co-hosting a reception for our attending members, EMA assembled a forum on closed captioning for online video.

Closed captioning is a good example of where the interests of broadcasters and the online video industry are converging. Broadcasters have for many years been required to caption their programming. In the past few years, the legal requirements for closed captioning have been extended to the online video industry, making online video more accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing consumers.

Putting aside the legal requirements, closed captioning of online video just makes sense. Why would we as an industry not want to make our products as accessible to the widest possible audience? And captioning serves not only the deaf and hard-of-hearing community, but the larger audience as well. I must admit I find myself sometimes turning the captions on during programs produced in Great Britain. The accents in programs such as “Downton Abbey” can make it difficult for me to fully comprehend what is being said.

Our discussion about closed captions at the NAB Show — which included retailers, studios and captioning houses — revealed that captioning is not just simply putting the words on the screen. Some of the issues are technical, such as converting captions on legacy broadcast programming to formats that can display correctly on a variety of online platforms, ensuring proper positioning, and synchronizing the caption frame rate with the associated video frame rate.

Other issues are stylistic. I learned from the attendees at our forum that content providers and retailers have a variety of style guides they use that dictate things such as italicization, capitalization, fonts and colors. It’s a challenge to make sure that correct style is used for a particular title.
The forum attendees also discussed the emerging movement to provide audio descriptions of onscreen activity for the benefit of the blind and low-vision people. (Coincidentally, later that day Netflix announced its new initiative to add audio descriptions to select titles that it offers. I’m pleased to see the industry embracing this without a legal mandate.)

EMA has already done some work in trying to bring some consistency to captioning practices. We just released a document called “Best Practices for Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video Programming in the United States.” Developed by a working group of retailers, with assistance from MovieLabs, the document identifies recommended options for caption files formats, describes how to communicate the frame rate used in the caption files, and explains how to meet the captioning legal requirement if closed captions are not provided.

The best practices document is available at .

Based on the suggestions at our forum, we will expand our efforts to provide greater consistency in closed captioning practices for online video. This will not only help remove inefficiencies and costs from the digital supply chain, but also hopefully make more programming accessible to the widest possible audience.

And we look forward to continue to attend the NAB Show to learn more about issues, like closed captioning, that are common to the broadcast and the online video industries.

Posted in: , ,
Bookmark it:

February 09, 2015

Music Licensing — Getting It Right

Music licensing for movie and television programs can be complex, and it is vital to get it right to ensure proper monetization and to avoid copyright liability issues.

Music is an asset. It is important to recognize it can provide significant revenue opportunities to whoever holds the rights to it. In fact, the global music publishing industry generates more than $10 billion in revenue annually. Visual media companies have an opportunity to capture some of this value.

If you own the copyright to music in an audio-visual work you can derive income from:
• “Public performance royalties” when
  o the music composition is performed on broadcast television, cable television, or the Internet;
  o the sound recording is performed by way of digital audio transmissions in the United States and through any medium in most countries abroad;
• “Mechanical reproduction” royalties when the music is reproduced in phonorecords such as a soundtrack album
• In “synchronization” licenses when the music is licensed by other audio/visual producers for subsequent productions.
• Borrowing against future music revenue as gap financing for production; and
• Selling your music library, as many have done.

So if you commission music for a video production, you should contemplate doing it as a “work for hire,” meaning the composer is a contractor and you retain the rights to whatever musical work he or she creates. That way, you will collect the royalties (and because the copyright in a work for hire lasts for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation — whichever is shorter — your heirs may continue to collect royalties well into the future).

Of course, many productions will use already existing music — in which case, you should assume that the work is copyrighted and you will need a license. Because music copyrights usually consist of two separate copyrights — the copyright for the music composition and the copyright for the sound recording in which the composition is fixed — one must determine who holds each.

Once you have identified the copyright holders, you have to negotiate a license. As an audio-visual licensee, you need to acquire a synchronization license from both the holders of the copyrights of the sound recording (the “record label”) and the composition (the “publisher”). This license will provide the right to make a derivative work (the audio-visual program with music synchronized and mixed in) and to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform and display the derivative work with the sound recording and/or music composition embedded.

One way to avoid the pitfalls of music licensing is to use music that is in the public domain, meaning not subject to copyright. These include very old compositions and recordings (and works from before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed) and royalty-free stock sound recordings. There is also the “fair use” exception to copyright, but that is an area fraught with litigation.

Because copyright infringement is essentially strict liability — it doesn’t matter whether you intended to do it or just made a mistake — getting all of this right is essential. (And, as a practical matter, it is advisable to purchase errors and omissions insurance for your production that includes coverage for copyright lawsuits due to the music infringing someone's rights.)

To provide some clarity in this area, the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) recently released a white paper on music licensing for audio-visual works to provide an overview of the applicable laws, practices and issues involved in successfully sourcing and licensing music for synchronization with audio-visual programming. The white paper is available at http://www.entmerch.org/digitalema/ema-music-rights-white.pdf.

Jason Peterson is CEO of ContentBridge, a leading supplier of digital supply chain services and technology to the media industry, and is a member of the Entertainment Merchants Association’s Digital Steering Committee.
Posted in: , , ,
Bookmark it:

October 10, 2014

Why You Need to be in the Land Grab for Digital Video Buyers

“It’s the eco-system, stupid”... to misquote a phrase from political elections long gone by.

Approximately 12 million to 15 million consumers in the United States buy digital video to own, while more than 100 million consumers still regularly buy DVDs and Blu-ray Discs.

But those scales are shifting.

According to DEG: The Digital Entertainment Group, consumer spending on discs dropped 8% in the first half of 2014 to $3.3 billion, compared with the first half of 2013.

While electronic sellthrough enjoyed a 37% jump in the period, growing to $671 million, this gain was far short of making up the declining physical dollars. Fortunately, subscription streaming revenue is growing too, albeit with lower margins.

As spending shifts from physical to digital, two things are clear. First, it’s vital that the overall video industry sustains purchase-to-own as a viable long-term behavior. If the video industry follows what happened in music, tens of millions of buyers will forever abandon their purchase behavior. While people still consume more music than ever, the number of actual buyers is a fraction of the past, and profitable revenue models remain elusive for most.

Second, digital service providers and retailers who want to capture and sustain these video buyers need to act now. Once a video consumer locks into a given digital ecosystem, such as Apple iTunes, Amazon or Vudu, it becomes increasingly difficult to lure them away. The more devices in a common ecosystem and the more titles owned in a digital library, the more committed the customer becomes. Of course, Apple has known this for some time, using their iTunes ecosystem as both a value-add to their devices, as well as a retention tool.

By measure of the massive advertising campaign Google has recently launched for their Google Play platform, it appears they are ready to go all in for these digital buyers as well. This battle is clearly not all about content. It’s about locking the customers into the device, content or service ecosystem.

Assuming many or even most of the 100 million physical video buyers will eventually become digitally active, there are still many millions of digital video buyers yet to be captured. But you need to capture these buyers before the competition does. This will take investment in marketing to increase awareness and communicate differentiation as well as in content discounts and free promotional content.

However, sitting on the sidelines putting short-term margins above the strategic imperatives will cede digital buyers perhaps forever. At a minimum, these buyers will be far more expensive to lure away later than to capture now.

Don’t miss the digital land grab. It’s on now.

Posted in: , ,
Bookmark it:

October 09, 2014

Friday Street Date? Shelve It

Recently some in the music industry have started talking about a uniform worldwide Friday street date for all album and singles releases. To get out in front of this issue, now’s the time to say that a standard Friday street date would be bad for home video and video games, and any consideration should be shelved straight away.

In the United States, street dates for music are usually on Tuesdays, just as they are for home video and for a number of video game titles. Music is released on different days of the week in other countries —Mondays in the United Kingdom and Fridays in Germany, for example.

According to the International Federal of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), the international music industry organization, a uniform worldwide street date of Friday would benefit the music industry by allowing coordinated global promotional campaigns for new releases. It would be good for consumers, in IFPI’s view, by letting them know that wherever they are in the world the week’s new releases will be available just after midnight local time on Friday.

There may indeed be benefits to a uniform worldwide street date — and the Entertainment Merchants Association would be happy to have a dialogue about that — but Friday is a terrible choice for the day of the week.

“Why?” you might ask. “Movies release theatrically on Fridays quite successfully, and wouldn’t it make sense to have other entertainment products released just as the weekend is starting to attract consumer dollars to our industries?”

There are plenty of reasons:

• A Tuesday street date is operationally efficient and promotes a better in-stock position of new releases during the high-demand weekend, therefore maximizing both sales and profits. Retailers, distributors and content providers gauge consumer demand in the first couple days of release and have time to then ensure that retail stores are properly stocked for weekend sales. A Friday street date would mean that restocks would occur, if possible, during the weekend, incurring warehouse overtime, overnight shipments, and weekend shipping costs.

• A Friday street date doesn’t leave room for logistical errors. Digitally released titles are at risk of late onboarding and QC issues that can now be corrected before the peak weekend demand. In addition, making titles available well in advance of the weekend helps ensure that Internet capacity and capability aren’t taxed with consumers all downloading or streaming on Friday.

• Most of the largest retailers of home video and game products enjoy additional store traffic from the midweek street date and profit from sales of other non-video products purchased during store visits.

• Many independent specialist retailers also realize a surge of mid-week business, balancing their operational and labor costs through the week.

• A Friday street date would mean that the popular Sunday circulars would support only the following Friday and Saturday sales (that is, if the consumer keeps the ads around that long). And many mid-to-lower tier titles would never be promoted in weekly retail ads if that were to be the case and would, as a result, not warrant shelf space. The home video and video game industries cannot afford lower category productivity, which will ultimately lead to reduced shelf space and spiral sales further downward.

• If the music industry adopts Friday as a common street date, it is highly unlikely the home video and video game industries will follow. This will result in further inefficiencies in shipping — as movies, music and games often are shipped in the same cartons — and in increased costs in all three industries.

• Consumer confusion would likely result due to the many years of branding Tuesday as the new release day for all packaged media.

The Tuesday street date for music, home video and (to a lesser extent) video games has been the standard for years because it works. While the past has a vote, and not a veto, we should not abandon a successful practice unless the alternative is found analytically to be superior. A Friday street date is clearly not and should be summarily rejected.

 

Posted in: , ,
Bookmark it:

July 21, 2014

A Peek Into the Digital Future?

The issue of Netflix wanting to run their fleet of 18 wheelers roughshod over Verizon’s roads without paying extra taxes to maintain them got me thinking about how this plays out over the long haul. I thought about a few potential scenarios, some more possible than others:

■ Someone new (Google?) comes into the picture as a new mega-ISP, flush with massive bandwidth from all the dark fiber they have been quietly buying up around the country. They serve as both content provider and distributor, cornering the market on lightning-fast downloads and streaming for an incredibly cheap price subsidized by its other businesses. To compete, Verizon buys Netflix, and other companies partner up with equally synchronistic bedfellows. Within three years all ventures collapse since nobody understands the other side(s) of the business and they eat each other from within. Somewhere, the ghost of Blockbuster says, “Heeeyyyy … that’s my jam!”



■ Fiber? Cable? DSL? It’s all obsolete as everything goes wireless. After quietly building wireless bandwidth to a level where it can support the traffic, the cell phone companies drop their data limits and embrace streaming big time, adding set-top boxes that are basically cell phones you can operate with your cell phone. (After the Big One finally hits SoCal, their spinner powered STB is the only game in town.) Soon, the cable and fiber companies are begging Netflix to use their roads at a discount. The new super ISP, T-Mob-Verizo-Flix, just laughs and has the former CEO of Redbox peel them another grape.

■  The whole issue becomes moot as the last person in America to learn how to use BitTorrent (93-year-old Marjorie Henspittle of Appalachia, Tenn.) logs on to The Pirate Bay and successfully downloads season 12 of “Game of Thrones” — the one where Tommen hooks up with Deanery’s daughter (Honey Boo Boo Stormborn) and they rule Westeros with an iron fist, a velvet glove and dragons. Nobody in Hollywood gets paid for anything anymore, but they still continue to create programming simply to qualify for awards shows.

■ Once every physical dollar has completely been replaced with a digital penny, the studios find that they can only afford to create Vines and superhero movies with sock puppets. No problem, though, since the average Mac user can make an effects-laden comic book movie in their backyard using a 4K camera for less than $500. Soon the world runs out of comic book heroes so we have to import them from the Third World. (Look! Up in the sky! It’s Súper Poderoso Hombre Asombroso Fantástico!) Nobody is getting paid (still!), but since network TV is now 97% awards shows (and “CSI”), the content flows and flows.  



■ YouTube is allowed to place remote wireless cameras everywhere, and just by being born you are automatically signing a release allowing them to broadcast webcam footage of you getting hit by a car, robbing a liquor store or whatever shows up on their cameras. But the most popular YouTube channel, now in its 15th year, is the Sneezing Panda Channel (SPC), responsible for 73% of all traffic on fiber and cable. (In second place, the Getting Hit by a Car channel, which mostly is people throwing themselves in front of cars in an attempt to win something at the YouTube Award Show.) 



It’s gonna be a brave new world! How’s your bandwidth?

Posted in: , , ,
Bookmark it:

June 30, 2014

Perfecting the Digital Supply Chain: It's Not Sexy, But It's Important

Mentioning “supply chain” to most people in the industry is a sure way to end a conversation. It’s not that people don’t recognize its importance, it’s just not a sexy topic. We’d rather talk content or technology or business models — anything but supply chain!

But getting content from the suppliers through retail/distribution and, ultimately, to consumers efficiently and without quality issues is essential. In the digital environment, supply chain challenges are enormous. Getting a video online for consumers is much more complicated than getting DVDs or Blu-ray Discs in their hands. Content owners must ensure the online video plays seamlessly on a multitude of platforms and devices, that it is offered only in those territories in which it is authorized and that it is available only within the designated window, among a host of other issues.

And in this nascent industry with a multitude of start-ups, digital supply chain work processes were invented as they went along. Everybody was doing the same thing, but in different ways.

An example I often cite is the Content Availability Metadata, commonly called “avails.” These are the communications from content providers to retailers about when a video will be available online and in which territories, the title, language, run-time, HD or SD, EST or VOD, etc.

The avails were communicated in a variety of different formats, depending on the preferences of the content providers and the requirements of the retailers. Some were on spreadsheets, others in the bodies of emails, still others in PDFs, and I even heard about them being communicated via JPEGs.

As a result, this important data — which is necessary for licensing compliance as well as retailer workflows — had to be manually inputted into the retailers’ systems. This was incredibly time-consuming. One retailer told me it took them 50 person-hours to ingest 1,000 avails. And the system introduced the opportunity for error. Errors in transcribing avails can result in violations of licensing contracts if, as a result, a title is released early or not removed at the end of the license term.

A few years ago, online video retailers asked the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) for help promoting supply chain efficiencies in the digital marketplace. They recognized that common practices would ensure that more product could get to consumers quicker and with fewer technical glitches. They also saw there was no competitive advantage to be gained in insisting on proprietary methods in all aspects of the digital supply chain.

The first thing we facilitated was the development of a glossary for online video, as we found that different companies called things by different names.

When the glossary was completed, we identified five areas most in need of consistency: metadata, mezzanine files, image files, closed captions and avails. We put together working groups for each, and populated them with representatives from major online retailers, plus experts from content providers. Amazon, Google and Netflix were particularly active participants. The working groups have developed or are in the process of finalizing best practices, specifications and/or standards for each of these five supply chain areas.

We take the final work product and share it with a representative group of content providers and service and technology companies to ensure the process works for them as well.

Our first project was metadata standardization. Metadata is the information that identifies and describes the contents of a medium. This can include descriptive information such as title, artist, production company, seasonal/episodic description and original release date. It can also include technical information such as file types and codecs, as well as business-related information such as pricing and availability. Metadata for digital video distribution is too often communicated manually and in a variety of inconsistent structures and formats. Missing metadata or bad metadata that is translated to retailer sites can cause lost sales. In addition, delays entering the metadata into the retailer’s system can bottleneck the supply chain and impede product availability.

With DEG: The Digital Entertainment Group, Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem, Entertainment ID Registry and MovieLabs, we created the Media Entertainment Core Metadata. The schema includes approximately 60 fields that provide the essential basic information about the content — such as title, run-time and cast — and information about the digital asset.

Another aspect of the digital supply chain that needed standardization was the mezzanine file. This online video master file is used to create manageable files for streaming or downloading. Content providers and post-houses are currently generating this film in numerous formats for various customers, which causes unnecessary costs and delays in the supply chain and constrains the flow of new content.

EMA’s “Mezzanine File Creation Specification and Best Practices” seeks to reduce duplicate work and provide optimal quality with a reasonable file size to enable rapid transmission. It addresses video preparation, video and audio encoding, and containers.

Image files have been a pain point in the supply chain because, at the request of retailers, content providers have been creating image files unique to each. Additionally, sometimes retailers will edit and adapt the image files they receive, which requires approval from the content provider. All this imposes costs and results in delays.

A working group developed image artwork best practices and specifications for both movie and TV properties. The spec establishes a set of consistent sizes, file formats, colors, naming and the like for image artwork. One retailer told me this spec will likely save them two person-years annually.

EMA’s closed captions working group is focused on ensuring compliance with the legal requirements for captioning online video. This group is finalizing best practices for identification of when closed captions are not legally required (and why), closed caption file formats and frame rates.

Finally, there is the avails group, which developed “Best Practices & Standards for the Delivery of Avails.” This consists of approximately 40 standardized fields that provide all the information a retailer needs to schedule an online video offering. The avails can be communicated in either Excel or XML, with the eventual goal of solely using XML.

And the retailer that required 50 person-hours to ingest 1,000 avails has implemented the EMA avails spec and can now ingest 1,000 titles in less than 30 minutes, with a 0% error rate!

EMA’s digital supply chain initiatives demonstrate how by working cooperatively to solve common problems it is possible to create efficiencies that improve the consumer experience and drive unnecessary costs out of the supply chain.

I encourage all participants in the online video market to take a look at these best practices, specifications and standards (available at DigitalEMA.org) and incorporate them into their workflows, where appropriate.

As I said, it may not be sexy, but it is essential.

Posted in: , ,
Bookmark it:

June 11, 2014

Warner Preorder Snafu Part of a Larger Amazon Push

On May 29 a fan of the anime series “Bleach” and “Naruto Shippuden” posted on distributor Viz Media’s Facebook page, asking why the latest DVD installments of those shows were unavailable for preorder on Amazon.

“Hi Sam, our products are distributed by Warner Brothers, and currently they're in contract negotiations with Amazon,” Viz Media replied. “Preorders are disabled while that goes on, but we’re hoping it will be resolved soon.”

That one-paragraph reply to a customer concern on social media offered insight into a dispute that reaches beyond a pair of fringe home entertainment titles. Since mid-May, Amazon has prohibited the preorder availability of nearly every Warner-distributed new-release disc title, including heavyweights The Lego Movie (June 17) and 300: Rise of an Empire (June 24). Notably, Amazon Instant Video early electronic sellthrough of new-release Warner titles has been unaffected.

A Warner spokeswoman told Home Media Magazine the studio had no comment regarding the preorder situation. Amazon did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Amazon has some leverage here. It’s America’s No. 1 online retailer, and the loss of brick-and-mortar sellthrough outlets for disc can only embolden the company in contract negotiations, even when it comes to the biggest studio in Hollywood. Amazon has already shown it’s willing to play hardball with suppliers, evidenced by its well-publicized fight with book publisher Hachette.

While the Warner/Amazon dispute may seem troublesome to distributors, the retailer’s apparent hardline stance on disc — when so many other outlets exist — could backfire. There are no shortage of alternatives to Amazon for Warner’s discs: head over to Walmart.com and preorder anything the studio offers. Warner is happy to let consumers preorder titles via its own online store.

Posted in: , , , ,
Bookmark it:

February 17, 2014

I Rented a Disc From Redbox — for the First Time

When it comes to movies, I have never been a frequent renter. And when the retail rental stores in my extended neighborhood became extinct, I stopped completely. It’s been several years since I last rented a movie. Renting from a red vending machine just didn’t have the same appeal compared to my recollection of wandering the aisles of titles.

Recently I gave in and decided to give Redbox a try. My usual modus operandi is to buy Blu-rays I’m interested in at Amazon or a local retailer, but for some reason I just couldn’t do it with Elysium, despite the positive review at Home Theater Forum. I’m not sure if it was budget overload from the holidays or a feeling that it wouldn’t get a lot of repeat viewings, but I just couldn’t get myself to pull the trigger at the sellthrough price. After carrying it around Best Buy for 20 minutes while shopping, it hit me: I could check it out through Redbox. For $1.50 why not give it a shot? That seemed a lot more reasonable than spending $25 for a film I may not watch again.

I went home, set up an account online, reserved a copy at my nearest Redbox and picked it up. It was pretty painless. It was a bit annoying to become reacquainted with the “watch me now or pay more later” feeling that comes from knowing you need to have a title back in 24 hours to prevent additional charges. That, combined with the fact it took me a few tries to feed my return into the machine the wrong way (I’m not good with following directions), were the only things standing in the way of me considering the experience a complete success.

Does my first successful rental mean I will be a frequent customer? Not really. I plan on renting Ender’s Game, so my local Redbox will be seeing more of me, but I don’t think we will ever be on a first-name basis. There are a few things still preventing me from switching from retail to more rental. Vending rental has limited title selections, a lack of catalog and no 3D titles. Also, the studios are releasing rental versions with limited or no special features. The biggest obstacle for me, however, is the rental blackout window many studios have — normally I’m not willing to wait an extra 28 or so days to watch a movie, and considering the instant gratification, special features (including 3D) and the usual inclusion of a digital copy, a new-release Blu-ray is a pretty good value when you take into account retailer discounting.

So even though I’m going back for another rental, blackout windows and a lack of special features on some titles deter me from renting. I think it’s telling that I’ve already purchased or preordered nine titles this month that won’t be at my local Redbox until several weeks after retail release.

Posted in: , , ,
Bookmark it:

March 17, 2014

How Studios, Theaters and TV Manufacturers All But Killed 3D

When CES 2014 ended, I half-expected to see an obituary for 3D from the press. Some TV manufacturers (such as Vizio) eliminated 3D as a feature on their 2014 models, while others (such as Panasonic) reduced the number of models with this feature. Though the number of 3D movies being released to theaters hasn’t quite diminished, the number of screens and showings has, with some of the smaller exhibitors (Starlight Cinemas chain in Southern California) getting out of 3D altogether. Some say the nail in the coffin came when Disney opted to forego the release of a 3D Blu-ray edition of one of its most successful animated films in years, Frozen (although the title is available on 3D digitally). How did we get to this point and is 3D really dead?

■ 3D-Capable Televisions Arrived Too Late: Samsung and Panasonic debuted their 3D televisions in 2010. By then close to 65% of U.S. households had already upgraded to HDTV and didn’t plan on upgrading again for at least another five years.

■ High Cost of Active-3D Glasses With No Universal Standard: When 3D TVs first arrived at retail, most sets came with one pair of 3D glasses. Up until the 2013 model year, most Panasonic active-3D sets shipped without glasses. If a customer needed more, the cost was typically around $100 each. Costs have dropped considerably for some manufacturers (Samsung’s glasses sell for $19.99 for battery operated, $49.99 for rechargeable), but Panasonic’s are still quite high at $69.99. What’s worse is that when many of the manufacturers introduced new and improved glasses, they were not backward-compatible with prior-model year TVs.

■ Public Perception of Limited Content: When I tell people I have a 3D-capable TV, they often ask why I bothered, since there’s little content. If you look, you will find it. Most people are unaware that Netflix has many movies available in 3D on its streaming service. Walmart’s streaming service, Vudu, has several titles available in 3D, as does PlayStation Network. Many cable and satellite services offer pay-per-view movies in 3D. None of this is very well publicized, hence the public perception. One thing that did get a lot of public attention, though, was the announcement of ESPN 3D going off the air, with most 3D naysayers proclaiming it was the public’s rejection of 3D. My opinion is that most people didn’t want to watch that same old game over and over again.

■ High Cost of Content: It’s understandable 3D Blu-ray titles were around $50 when the format launched. Nearly four years later, most 3D Blu-rays still have an MSRP of $49.99.

■ 3D Surcharge at the Local Cineplex: I still do not understand the reason for this, although I used to think it was to pay for the glasses. What is even more confusing is the variance in this surcharge. Most Regal Cinemas locations charge $4 more, as do AMC and Cinemark. But the smaller chains charge a lot less, some as low as $2. This surcharge often brings ticket prices in excess of $19.

■ Too Many Bad 3D Conversions: I’ve seen some great 3D conversions of films originally shot in 2D. The Nightmare Before Christmas stands as one of the best. But other, poorer conversions, soured the 3D experience for many moviegoers. What the studios don’t understand is the public is rejecting bad 3D.

So, is 3D dead? It is definitely in a state of decline, but not down for the count. I prefer to say 3D is going into hibernation, waiting for James Cameron’s much-anticipated “Avatar” sequels to help give 3D its much-deserved comeback.

Posted in: , , ,
Bookmark it:

May 10, 2014

Why I Still Buy and Collect Discs

Despite DVD and Blu-ray sales dwarfing those of digital purchases, many see the writing on the wall for physical media. But the disc collector is a hardy breed. The slide into digital media feels inevitable, but the buying power and passion of the physical media collector remains. The collector is intensely loyal. Favorite films are snatched up upon release, then repurchased when new special features are created, or a new transfer struck, or when a new, higher quality medium is available. In all cases, the collector takes pride in displaying the movie on the shelf.

Why own all these films on physical disc when the world seems to be on an inevitable march into the cloud? Because there is nothing that comes close to holding the movie case in your hands, or seeing the new purchase sit in an endless run of shelves in all their resplendent glory. Each physical case or special package says a little something about the collector. And there is nothing like running your eyes over the spines and occasional awkward-shaped cases that contain trips into many and varied cinematic realms. Nothing can replace the joy of seeing the Alien egg cast a slight shadow over the Iron Man-head-shaped case, just below the shelf with the complete series of “Battlestar Galactica,” both the Cylon head containing the original and the bizarre cardboard creation of the reimagined series.

That’s an emotional connection that digital libraries simply cannot replace.

Even though they like physical copies, many collectors aren’t stuck in the past. The inclusion of a digital copy to store in the cloud is a nice bonus — a convenience that helps meet a need when flying, commuting on trains, or simply watching content anywhere the home theater can’t follow. Accessing a digital library is wonderful, but it’s a bonus, a nice feature, a handy convenience, but certainly no replacement for the quality and reliability of physical media. It is important for physical and digital delivery mediums to exist side-by-side, for the collectors to follow their passion and fill their shelves.

Posted in: , , ,
Bookmark it:

Bookmark it: