Netflix ? Lovefilm ?

[nfe]

I've never tried to watch anything on a phone, but it'd certainly be easier to take on the bus than a plasma screen and stack of DVDs.

I don't think anyone prefers to watch films on smaller, poorer screens.

[Philly Q]

I dont think its the watching it on a phone that is desirable as much as the convenience

I've never tried to watch anything on a phone, but it'd certainly be easier to take on the bus than a plasma screen and stack of DVDs.

I don't think anyone prefers to watch films on smaller, poorer screens.

I never said anyone preferred to watch films on a phone (or tablet or whatever), but the manufacturers definitely try to make it a selling point.

Of course I can see that it's "convenient" if you want to watch a film/TV show whilst travelling, but (me personally, just my opinion, etc etc....) I don't see why people want to watch film/TV in that environment at all, when it's so much better to watch on a bigger screen in a cinema (or your living room, for that matter). 

[Dmoney]

Oh yeah. I agree. But then I listen to so much badly recorded stuff. I dunno, with music and films, sometimes I guess the story is more important than the way in which you get to hear it. Sort of reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. haha. Maybe people are just used to having all kinds of text (in a wider sense) to consume at the push of a button. I think it makes things more disposable and It makes me a bit sad to be honest.

I do have Netflix incidentally. I don't own a TV. I do get paid to watch TV though. (pretty much)

[nfe]

I dont think its the watching it on a phone that is desirable as much as the convenience

I've never tried to watch anything on a phone, but it'd certainly be easier to take on the bus than a plasma screen and stack of DVDs.

I don't think anyone prefers to watch films on smaller, poorer screens.

I never said anyone preferred to watch films on a phone (or tablet or whatever), but the manufacturers definitely try to make it a selling point.

I know. It was more that Blue's post seemed to imply that it was people's chosen medium, rather than just the only option in certain circumstances.

[Philly Q]

Oh yeah. I agree. But then I listen to so much badly recorded stuff. I dunno, with music and films, sometimes I guess the story is more important than the way in which you get to hear it.

Yeah, that's true - better poor quality than not at all.

With music, I don't have anything even close to "audiophile" quality, most of the time I'm listening through headphones on the PC, to be honest.

With films, I'll do everything I can to get the best possible version, wherever in the world that may be.  But if I really like a film, and it's only available on a cr@ppy non-anamorphic DVD.... then I'll put up with it.  The picture quality will annoy me the first few minutes, then I tune it out.  I draw the line at VHS though.  :P

[JJretroTONEGOD]

I also prefer blue-ray, have seen streaming versions of the same film and they look too compressed/bad quality to my eyes.

[richard]

I'm not overly bothered about picture quality but the jerkiness/glitching of Lovefilm was driving me batty.

[blue]

I know. It was more that Blue's post seemed to imply that it was people's chosen medium, rather than just the only option in certain circumstances.

that is what i was saying, i know a girl who sits in her room and watches torrents of movies most nights of the week.  she boasts that she's seen all the new films for free!  and my mate watches most of his tv on his samsung galaxy phone, including when he's at home. 

i know it's all personal preference, (leaving aside the illegality of her movie torrents for a moment) but personally i couldn't enjoy watching like that.  i agree with Philly that if something you really want to see or hear is only available in  lower quality, be it mp3 or an old dvd or whatever, then it does fine.  but i prefer to get things in the best quality available to me and my equipment

[Lezard]

I'd only torrent dvd rips myself, otherwise I just go to the cinema.
Caught my mum watching an "Old style" pirate dvd last month, complete with audience laughter and people standing up and blocking the screen  :?

[ToneMonkey]

I had Love Film and it went straight through the (Sony) internet telly.

Picture was fine and the sound was fine, but I didn't find the choice of films all that good. I've not been into films for a long time though, so there were probably decent ones that I hadn't heard of. I mainly got it for kids films, but they're choice was fairly bad.

Overall I didn't think it was worth the money for me, but I'm sure some people would use it more. Are they still doing a months free trial?

[nfe]

I know. It was more that Blue's post seemed to imply that it was people's chosen medium, rather than just the only option in certain circumstances.

that is what i was saying, i know a girl who sits in her room and watches torrents of movies most nights of the week.  she boasts that she's seen all the new films for free!  and my mate watches most of his tv on his samsung galaxy phone, including when he's at home. 

And do they do this whilst they have the DVD of the same show/film sitting beside their TV?

[blue]

they've made the choice to watch in this way rather than get a dvd.  it's their choice of course

[nfe]

Right, so it's not necessarily their favourite medium then, it's just the only one that's accessible when they decide they want to watch a particular movie on the spur of the moment and it's the easiest one to afford.

[blue]

no, they've decided that that's how they'll watch.  they could buy dvd's, but they'd rather watch like this.  the girl with the laptop in particular insists that anyone buying a dvd is an idiot.  she watches anything she wants for free.  now, she's far from penniless, she is in a well paid job and spends plenty of money elsewhere.

you're right, of course, that many people only want to see the film or programme and don't really think about the quality of picture or sound.  i know i get caught up in properly setting up televisions and amps, while others don't care as long as they can see and hear it.  my issue is that newer ways of receiving content are seemingly of an ever lower quality, and that convenience is now seen to be much more important.  and as long as you have people like this girl who won't pay at all, and will happily settle for poor quality, that's only going to continue.  that's for both movies and music. 

[nfe]

Again, if you decide, say, at half 11 tonight you want to watch Terminator and don't have it on dvd, or if you don't have a tv, the only option is to watch it at a lesser quality (though that said, my computers all have better resolution than any telly I've ever owned).

I don't think it's a problem for either film/tv or music. People will always prefer higher quality, they'll just also often be quite happy to settle for the most accessible, cheapest format.

Frankly, if you can watch something instantly, for free, actually going and buying a dvd, let alone an expensive tv and stereo, is a hassle.