Commentary: Swimming down the video stream

Last summer I wrote that, despite the advent of more digital download options, I thought DVD/Blu-ray represented the best format for home video. I still generally feel this way, but to borrow the title of a wonderful 1988 movie, "Things Change."

The biggest shift came in November, when Netflix -- which represents three-fifths of all on-demand movies sold -- announced a new online-only membership plan, and increased the number of titles available for instant viewing.

Plus, many more options for downloading or streaming movies have ramped up: Amazon Instant Video, Apple iTunes, Hulu Plus, Wal-Mart's VUDU, to name a few.

I still hold that a physical disc is the best option for watching movies. The picture and sound quality is unbeatable, and you don't have to worry about filling up your memory drive or getting your entire film collection zapped by a thunderstorm.

But for casual viewing, whether on the big-screen TV in your living room or on the go with your mobile device, streaming/downloading has many advantages. If you're just renting, it's a lot cheaper than shelling out to buy a disc. And the ability to choose your movie and start watching it within seconds (via streaming) is a consumer's dream.

Until recently I was working at home with our son, and when I needed to distract him for a few minutes there was nothing easier than using Netflix to call up a Barney or Care Bears video. (Hey, he's 6 months old, so no accounting for taste.)

The analogy I make for discs vs. downloads is your friends vs. your Facebook friends. Your friends are solid, real and valuable to you. Your Facebook friends are folks you want to stay loosely connected with -- the ease and convenience of doing so online means you don't have to lose sight of them completely.

In the same way, streaming video is for movies you want to watch right now, and convenience is paramount. With more choices available online, it becomes a more attractive option.

Still, the vast majority of titles are only available as a disc. For instance, if you want to watch "Things Change," you'll have to have Netflix mail you a disc -- it's not available for streaming.

Video: Discs vs. Downloads

We're in a dry spell for new video releases, so I'm using this week's column to discuss the future of home video.

A lot of very smart people think the video market is moving away from a physical object you keep on a bookshelf and insert into a player -- aka DVD or Blu-ray discs -- and toward all-digital libraries you store on a hard drive or stream whenever you want.

They've got some good evidence: DVD/Blu-ray sales were down 7 percent in the first half of 2010, while video rentals shrank nearly 5 percent, according to The Digital Entertainment Group. Meanwhile, downloads and on-demand were up 23 percent.

While there's no doubt hand-held devices like smart phones, iPods and iPads are a great match with downloaded movies, for the home theater aficionado who wants the biggest and best picture possible, discs still have the upper hand.

In order to squeeze file sizes down so they don't take a day and a half to download or stream, a movie's image suffers tremendously. A film that looks great on a four-inch iPhone would look horrendous on a 50-inch LCD.

Then there's the question of video extras, which are almost never included with downloaded and streamed movies. For many like myself, getting a behind-the-scenes peek at the filmmaking process or deleted scenes is an added value we've come to expect with Blu-ray/DVD.

And, more and more discs are including a digital copy to load on your personal device -- so you get the best of both worlds.

Personally, I'd rather pay $15 or $20 for a disc that looks great anywhere, comes with extra goodies and is hard to destroy, versus paying a few bucks less to download some ephemeral cloud of bytes that's only viable on a tiny screen, includes no extras and could get zapped by the next electrical storm or computer virus.

Not to mention: With discs, you can borrow a movie from a friend. Try that with iTunes' proprietary noose.

On Blu-ray and downloading videos

I had planned to follow my Christmas tradition of buying myself a nice present during the after-Christmas sales, and finally break down and get a Blu-ray video player. Obviously, we're being pretty tight with our money now, so that idea is out the window for the time being.

I've always been an early adopter of video technology. I bought a laser-disc player back in the 1980s, when less than 2 percent of homes had one. The first digital video format was not a bad one, although the discs were expensive ($40-$50 each) and you had to flip them once or more during a typical length movie.

Then I bought a DVD player in 1999, just a few months after they came out, even though they were overpriced -- I think mine was $500.

But I resisted investing in the next generation of video until the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD was resolved. I didn't want to be stuck with hundreds of dollars worth of obsolete discs. For example, just before moving to Indiana in 2005, I sold all my laserdiscs on Ebay, typically getting just a few pennies on the dollar for what I paid for them.

But even when HD DVD suddenly folded nearly a year ago, I've hesitated to jump on Blu-ray. Part was the expense, with even discounted players going for $300 and up, and discs typically priced at about a 50 percent markup from regular DVDs. But I kept reading (and as a reporter, writing) about how the industry people think that the next big jump is going to be to downloading video.

I still don't buy that argument, for several reasons.

First of all, unless you're content to have a low-res version of the movie that only looks good on a two- or three-inch screen, it takes a honking long time to download a movie -- several hours, in most cases. Yes, it's cool to travel on a plane and watch a movie on your little MP3 player. But I think most serious videophiles feel that if they're going to own a movie permanently, they want to be able to watch it on the biggest screen and with the best sound possible. And the download speeds aren't a function of technology, but a limitation of the nationwide high-speed cable system. You would have to effectively rip the whole thing up and start over. So download times aren't going to decrease significantly any time soon.

Second, virtually everyone has experienced the tragedy of having a computer hard disk fried or dropping their iPhone into a toilet. If all your movies are stored digitially, there's a greater chance of them being lost permanently than with a physical object like a DVD. How would like to have bought a bunch of movies from the iTunes store for $12-$15 each, and then a lightning strike renders them null and void?

Third, most folks just like having the physical object -- they can display it on a bookshelf, admire the cover art, and take them with them wherever they go. "Hey, it's movie night at Bernie's. What are we watching?" "I dunno, just grab a bunch of DVDs and we'll choose." There's more of a psychological sense of ownership with something you can touch.

Fourth, storage space on even huge disk drives can be filled up quickly with digital copies of movies. Even the low-res flicks I've rented from iTunes take up about one gigabyte each. A high-def version is more like seven or eight gigs. I have about 250 DVDs in my collection; how much do you think a two terabyte drive would cost me -- about the size of a typical academic research library?

I believe that Blu-ray will eventually become the new video standard once the price on players and discs drops a bit more. Especially since regular DVDs will play on them, so there's no need to replace your current collection.