Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the its-the-size-that-counts dept.

Jeffrey Katzenberg, head of the Dreamworks studio, recently spoke about future pricing models for streaming video. Katzenberg thinks it would be a good idea for movies to have just a 3-week theater run before being made available for download, world-wide. But then the cost to watch the video would be determined by the size of your display, the bigger it is the more you pay. So, kind of a two steps forward, one step back approach to catching up with the modern world. At least it is one step in the right direction.

Now, I'm off to put a piece of paper right up to the front of my projector for a postage-stamp sized image. That'll save me thousands of dollars!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Theophrastus on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:23PM

    by Theophrastus (4044) on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:23PM (#38558)

    ..(minus fovea)is 850 mm2. i think we need a legal ruling on whether to double that expense for 3d viewing.

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:36PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:36PM (#38688) Journal

      the usable area of my retina is... ..(minus fovea)is 850 mm2.

      Upgrade [wikipedia.org] then.
      (grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:23PM (#38559)

    errr .. the more you pay the more pixels you get?
    can't wait for "the making of pixel" teh movie! now in a holografic version : )

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by EvilSS on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:47PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:47PM (#38574)
      Actually, it's weirder than that. He is suggesting the more you pay, the BIGGER the pixels you get are. From the article:

      The pricing model he suggested was $15 (£9) per film for a movie-sized screen, $4 (£2.40) for a 75in (190cm) TV and $1.99 (£1.20) for a smartphone.

      I suspect this is just some exec spouting off. I have no clue how you could possibly do this from a technical perspective. You can't rely on resolution. I have 47", 42", 27", 21", 17", and 5.5" screens that are all 1080p. Not every device reports its size. What about a projector? Its image size is a function of it's distance from the screen.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:03PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:03PM (#38586) Journal

        Certainly this would have to be based strictly on resolution (pixels) of the video, because, as you mention, there is no way they can know the screen size.

        So the original AC statement ("the more you pay the more pixels you get") was more correct.

        It costs them some small amount to create all of these different resolutions (once) and make them available for purchase (once) and then transmit them (each time). There is only one part of that which is NOT a fixed cost: the transmission of video file.

        So you are paying for the enjoyment factor of image quality.

        Now if we could only pay for the enjoyment fact of the movie quality! Because basically, the crap they crank out these days is either really good or utterly horseshit, and virtually nothing in the middle.

        Maybe they should let us pay AFTER viewing.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Foobar Bazbot on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:15PM

          by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Thursday May 01 2014, @11:15PM (#38681) Journal

          Certainly this would have to be based strictly on resolution (pixels) of the video, because, as you mention, there is no way they can know the screen size.
          Eh, no. You're just assuming they actually let you have a file/stream to play in your own player, or that at least you'll be able to run the app they give you on commodity hardware with freely interchangeable displays.

          In Katzenberg's vision of the future, everything has a locked-down bootloader that only lets you run trustworthy OSes that will reliably report the physical sizes of all attached screens to video apps. Legacy screens that don't provide signed physical size data, or screens that sign their data with keys revoked due to pirate activity, will be billed at the "large residential TV" rate, but signal will be degraded to 480i, with periodic overlays exhorting the user to stop pirating and buy a compliant screen.

        • (Score: 1) by Wierd0n3 on Friday May 02 2014, @06:04AM

          by Wierd0n3 (1033) on Friday May 02 2014, @06:04AM (#38765)

          Have you ever set up a ps3? when you do the screen setup, it knows the size. (at least every time i've done it, every Samsung TV and Toshiba mentions the size when i'm configuring).

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:05PM (#38588)

        "I have no clue how you could possibly do this from a technical perspective."

        Given how the RIAA thinks: DRM up the wazoo.
        Sure, everybody who actually understand the tech knows it won't reliably work and will probably mess up consumers' systems but that won't stop them.

        • (Score: 1) by linuxrocks123 on Friday May 02 2014, @12:35AM

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Friday May 02 2014, @12:35AM (#38699) Journal

          MPAA. DRM on music is dead. The RIAA acquiesced. Give them some credit.

          It's the MPAA we need to be ragging on now.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:13PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:13PM (#38590)

        > Not every device reports its size.

        You forget the wonders of DRM. Want to bet that HDCP 2.2 compliance mandates that the tv report the screen size to the player?

        > What about a projector?

        Although I joked about it in the submission, they'll probably just charge the maximum for any projector because they can.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:30PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:30PM (#38599) Homepage Journal

        I came to say that. Plus your distance from the screen changes the apparent screen size. He wants to pay more for the front row than the last?

        I'd say not just "an executive" but "some clueless moron."

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 2) by zim on Friday May 02 2014, @05:05AM

          by zim (1251) on Friday May 02 2014, @05:05AM (#38751)
          So, HIGH level executive...
  • (Score: 1) by Professr on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:31PM

    by Professr (1629) on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:31PM (#38561)

    Or you could put really a big magnifying glass in front of a very tiny screen!

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Tramii on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:44PM

    by Tramii (920) on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:44PM (#38571)

    Trying to price a movie by screen size is silly. Pricing by picture quality / resolution is not.

    I'm sure the studios would totally screw this up, but I actually prefer a model where the movie studios released all movies in say, three resolutions: 4K, 1080p and 480p. The 4K version would be shown in movie theaters and would cost the most. The 1080p version would cost less, but I could stream it over the internet and watch it at home on my HiDef TV. The 480p would cost the least and would stream to my tablet, smartphone or whatever else. All three versions should be available simultaneously.

    If they implemented this scheme along with a *reasonable* pricing model, I would buy/rent a lot more videos.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Jaruzel on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:57PM

      by Jaruzel (812) on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:57PM (#38582) Homepage Journal

      I am lucky enough to have a 120 inch screen in front of my projector, so I think I'd be one of the few who'd gladly pay extra for the 4K version - the only sticking point is how do I get it ? It's too big to stream (yes... netflix... but that's still only a tech demo) and there's no offical disc format yet... Some sort of read only USB3 key would be ideal purchase medium if it could be kept DRM free, which I doubt.

      But yeah, a three tier pricing model based on resolution is the only way to implement this realistically.

      -Jar

      --
      This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
      • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:18PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:18PM (#38592)

        > the only sticking point is how do I get it ? It's too big to stream

        Sony FMP-X1 4k Ultra HD Media Player [amazon.com]

        Also, RedRay, [red.com] PS4 and probably Xbone. Of course they will probably have to sign deals with verizon, et al, before there is enough throughput to get the video to you.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Heathen on Thursday May 01 2014, @07:52PM

        by Heathen (965) on Thursday May 01 2014, @07:52PM (#38620)

        the only sticking point is how do I get it

        That problem has been technically solved for a long time. Bit-Torrent & fibre.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:20PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:20PM (#38594) Journal

      The 4K version would be shown in movie theaters and would cost the most.

      They would certainly charge the most, but it wouldn't COST the most.

      Your scheme requires them to film in the highest possible resolution. They can then downsample (or whatever) to arrive at the various other resolutions.

      This is like building a high quality car and putting a governor in it and crappy seat covers over the hand stitched imported leather seats. Then selling it at one price for the original and cheaper for the one with extra quality reducing add ins.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Tramii on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:50PM

        by Tramii (920) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:50PM (#38607)

        As you said, the 1080p and 480p versions will actually cost them MORE to make since they start out with the 4K version, and then have to do some extra work to generate the two smaller versions. (I'm sure the extra work is pretty cheap/trivial, but still it's extra work.)

        The justification for charging more for the 4K would be to offset bandwidth costs. It certainly costs a lot more to stream a 4K video than a 480p one.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Vanderhoth on Thursday May 01 2014, @07:07PM

          by Vanderhoth (61) on Thursday May 01 2014, @07:07PM (#38612)

          Well, concerning the new developments with the FCC and their stance on net neutrality. They might have to pay more to process it up front to convert from 4K to other formats, but it might cost them significantly more to stream 4K than 1080p or 480p, if they have to pay Comcast et al. to be in the "fast lane", which you'd have to be to make streaming 4K even plausible.

          --
          "Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
      • (Score: 1) by jcross on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:42PM

        by jcross (4009) on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:42PM (#38640)

        Seems like given the (almost) zero marginal cost of making copies (unlike for a car), the price differential does not need to reflect the cost differential at all, and is a pretty standard price discrimination technique, where customers who want the "deluxe" experience are willing to pay more, and you still get to sell a cheaper version for people who just want to watch the damn movie and don't care about immersive resolution.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by olorin1 on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:46PM

      by olorin1 (2432) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:46PM (#38604)

      Alot of cellphones and tablets have higher resolution than TV's. I can't see general consumers being fine with paying more for a movie on their Ipad with Retina than their 60" big screen.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Rune of Doom on Thursday May 01 2014, @09:38PM

      by Rune of Doom (1392) on Thursday May 01 2014, @09:38PM (#38660)

      In other words, they'd continue the current model, where the pirate version is not only free, but superior in quality too? (Since you can pirate whichever format you want and then modify it, instead of "here's the tablet version we have decided is superior for your tablet, and which you are only allowed to to watch on your tablet".)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 01 2014, @05:48PM (#38576)

    "But then the cost to watch the video would be determined by the size of your display, the bigger it is the more you pay."

    Whew, I'm glad I'm not a Ferengi. They'd charge according to the size of your lobes!

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:25PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:25PM (#38597)

      Classic CEO thinking: Bigger is better.
      Also wonder how much they'd charge for google glass?

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:36PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:36PM (#38600)
    Am I crazy in thinking they'd be better off, from a PR point of view I mean, pricing by the output resolution instead...?
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:49PM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday May 01 2014, @06:49PM (#38606) Journal

      Pretty sure that's what they meant.

      Never assume the pronouncements of the technically incompetent media mogul, as explained to the iphone toting incompetent journalism major, are meant to be taken at face value.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 1) by SecurityGuy on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:02PM

    by SecurityGuy (1453) on Thursday May 01 2014, @08:02PM (#38623)

    There's no way they mean the theater paying $15 to show the movie to as many people as they can pack into a theater. That would be a massive loss for the movie producers. I can only assume they mean $15/person to watch it in a theater, which is a rather massive price increase where I live.

    IMO, a 17 day window will kill theaters. I actually go to a lot of movies. It's cheap entertainment. I'd rather not spend ~$20 to go watch a movie (ticket and concessions), but I do it because I don't want to wait months for it to show up at the cheap theater. That will all change if "waiting" means waiting 17 days. I'd rarely go to the movie theater if I only had to wait 17 days. I'm really trying to think of a movie that's coming out in the foreseeable future, including any of the in-production or planned sequels, and I can't think of a single one I'd have to see on opening weekend.

    • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday May 02 2014, @12:57AM

      by urza9814 (3954) on Friday May 02 2014, @12:57AM (#38708) Journal

      You can get a decent home theater projector for $500 (that's what I paid for my Epson Powerlite 710HD around Black Friday, 2012), and those are only gonna get cheaper. Popular new releases can often be found on pirate sites within a week of release in theaters -- some can even be found *before* they release in theaters. If screen size and timing are the only things theaters can think of to sell, they're already dead.

      This actually sounds like a pretty good plan to combat the piracy issue if you ask me. Trying to save theaters with staggered releases is a lost cause regardless -- might as well try to convert some of those pirates into paying customers. Because if they want the movie early they're gonna get it one way or another.