The Evolution of Home Theater - Big Tech of the Small Screen

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Most of it involves reading lots of articles and books trying to find a good story :)

[@stojko88]

this is hands down one if the best channels on yt

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It's the full technical term for "REC 709" - Engineers and their acronyms... :P

[@SamLovesMovies25]

10:27 That's how I feel when people who still watch DVDs ask me what makes Blu Rays so much better and if they're worth the additional money lol. I always have some comparison pictures ready to show the difference that high def picture makes as well as some sound clips to show the benefits of remastered sound. Now with the rise of 4K it just keeps getting even better :p

[@WAQWBrentwood]

I still have DVDs (and DVD quality video files) as I shot a lot of NTSC (SDTV) video in the '80s-'00s that were converted to DVD digital, Plus there's 60± years of videotaped content that wouldn't benefit from HD or UHD. Old films can benefit, as they can be rescanned, But with old NTSC (SDTV) content from tape, you're stuck with what's there. You can't add resolution that doesn't exist unless you add fake data,but that's like "colorized” B&W... You know, The process that gave Frank Sinatra BROWN eyes!

[@SamLovesMovies25]

yeah I know, it's a shame that kind of stuff that was shot on video can't be made into high def :(

[@WAQWBrentwood]

Yeah, I wish I would have had 4K in 1985, But there's something to be said about the limitations of the times. It does give each era a "look" that identifies it. Like "silent" movies, mono radio shows or black and white movies/TV, It marks itself with It's time.

[@vfx747]

Please do a video on the "obsession" of many low-budget filmmakers with making digital video look like film and what are the elements you need to achieve the film look(color grading, lighting, etc). I think this topic would make for a very interesting and technical video like the ones you have on the subject of color. Thanks!

[@RMoribayashi]

Digital compression had another unforeseen effect. Analog TV satellites only had a few channels so networks would pay millions of dollars for long term contracts. Compression meant that each channel could now carry five or six networks. Owners either filled them up themselves or leased the extras out. That's why we have so many cable channels today.

[@nikosvault]

Very nice introduction! I wish you had touched on the digital sound of LD and more importantly, the revolutionary invention of the “Special Edition” release with supplementary material. This figures to be a major part the survival of home video formats against the video-on-demand.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Good point! Though with the internet and so much supplementary material that can be found right here on KZbin - maybe the demand isn't as strong...

[@jamesslick4790]

IIRC the audio of "Disc O Vision"/"Laser Disc" led directly to the CD audio format standard. The LD audio likely drove as many LD sales as the picture quality (especially given the limitations of TVs at the time.). One could get amazing sound from movies by hooking up an LD player to their stereo system that they couldn't from videotape.(VHS and Beta still being analog and mono then.) LD wasn't so much a "flop" as it was a niche device, like an open reel audio deck became after the 60s. A serious movie fan would have one like an audiophile would have an O.R. deck.

[@JeremyRatzlaff]

I was in BestBuy the other day and saw a 4K image on a home theater system. It blew my mind.

[@yaosio]

VR/AR headsets are the next new display method, although they need to be higher resolution. Since the video can be rendered as a texture in a 3D virtual world you can make the image as big or as small as you want. Image quality is limited by the resolution and FOV of your headset. Current headsets suck in regards to resolution and FOV, but the generation after should hopefully be better. The downside is that unlike a TV each person needs their own headset. If headsets become popular then it's not that big of a deal though, like how everybody carries around those hand computers.

[@chefkendranguyen]

This discussion isn't complete to me without talking about big screen TV's. Great episodes, I wish it was longer! :)

[@RMoribayashi]

Many projection TV's use a technology last seen on the Moon and the Space Shuttle, mechanical color TV. A black and white projector with a spinning colored cylinder behind the lens. That's how lunar cameras on Apollo 13 to 17 and early Space Shuttles worked. A B&W camera with a spinning six color disk was turned into color TV when it got to Earth.

[@Vortex_Now]

Shouldn't the TV be the medium screen? And small should be like KZbin/Netflix Since those are usually viewed on tablets, phones?

[@juffan]

Wish you would have touched more on the format wars between Betamax and VHS, and HDDVD and BluRay, and why one was better than the other. Also, the Panamorph plug was confusing.

[@StefanHomberger]

My RCA CED player is sad you skipped it :(

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Stefan Homberger Hadn't even heard of CED before - that's an interesting development :)

[@StefanHomberger]

Filmmaker IQ I find that surprising considering your obvious (and very informative & entertaining) knowledge of the history of film, & the prevalence of CED in early rental markets in the 80's. While not a massive success (killed off by VHS & Beta's record-able tapes & laserdisc's superior quality), CED was around for over 6 years and had close to 2,000 titles released (including things like all 3 original Star Wars movies, the entire Peter Sellers Pink Panther series, Raider of the Lost Ark, ect). It's an interesting format that uses a form of vinyl records. You should research it, I think you'd find it fascinating.

[@WAQWBrentwood]

Yep, RCA's CED format was called SelectaVision and actually used a stylus to decode the video! Unfortunately neither Laserdisc nor SelectaVision allowed home recording. While both disc based formats had better quality than tape, neither allowed home recording, a huge advantage tape had as it could be a multipurpose format.(Especially for "home movie" makers and "time shifters) Hell, I didn't convert to DVD Untill DVD-RW became a consumer thing. (along with DVD cameras) A legacy was left though: many of RCAs VHS machines were also dubbed "SelectaVision"! In the same way that Sony calls it's digital media players "Walkman". SelectaVision was a pretty cool bit of tech!

[@Robin_Glader]

Also important is D-VHS which was the first high defenition home video format. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS

[@acelakid94]

Loved the way you subtly transitioned into that Panamorph advert at the end. Real smooth. All advertisements should be like that.

[@CharlesTheClumsy]

I don't really like Netflix and other similar companies. I've seen several people watching movies on their cell phones which is unbearable.

[@urwholefamilydied]

11:26... hollywood is so fucking greedy. You could already pirate videotapes. The same thing happened when tape cassettes came out, the movie industry threw a fit about people recording music off the radio while ripping off their artists and having no inherent talent of their own. Dead Kennedy's then released an album in an attack on them, purposefully leaving one side blank on one of their albums, encouraging buyers to record other material to that side of the cassette. Thank god for the internet... ditch your netflix account folks... there's plenty of websites with free content.

[@linusfotograf]

Charles J Gartner You are greedy, expecting free content.

[@edwnx0]

6:19 - "Netflix" and chill is born.

[@WAQWBrentwood]

Well, I guess it beats "Blockbuster" and chill, After all who remembered to "Be kind and rewind" afterwards!😀

[@Htrails1952]

I have watched almost every video. I have found it informative and inspirational. I'm directing my first short thanks to Filmmaker IQ

[@wado1942]

Sadly, the Panamorph solution is not much more than a marketing gimmick IMO. Yes, the movie uses the whole imaging chip, but it's still an 800-line image digitally stretched (causing degradation) to 1080. Then it goes through cylindrical optics (more degradation) to make it wider. I suspect you'd get a better image just using a slightly shorter conventional projector lens and a 2.4:1 screen.

[@videolabguy]

8:00 - Nice photo! Looks just like MY Umatic deck. In fact, it is! I shot that photo on the floor at the company I worked at, at that time, Prime Image in San Jose. I still have that deck in my collection somewhere. Heeheeeheeee! I've been in the video trade from the early 1970s. Had every format you mentioned. I also still have a few Cartrivision tapes, partial machines and still have one complete unit. Shipped my other Cartrivision VCR one to Indiana only a couple of weeks ago. I own the oldest home recorder possible, the Wesgrove VKR-600. It was a kit sold in 1964. Worked awful!!! If it worked at all. 5 minutes on 2400 feet of quarter inch tape traveling at 120 IPS, ten feet per second! Ah, nostalgia. See more old video recorders at www.labguysworld.com and be sure to watch my recent YT videos to be truly amazed at old video tech! In my latest project, I found an Indian Chief hiding inside a magic bottle made by RCA in 1939! I successfully got the poor fellow to see the light of day once again! New video coming tomorrow! I promise, you will love it.

[@JarrodTetreault]

I thoroughly enjoyed this episode, and the jaunt back through my youth (I remember thinking laser discs were so cool.... I used to push the lid release pins so I could open the top and look inside. I don't know what I expected to see, but I was kinda disappointed when I figured out it was just a record). Good Job, as usual Mr. Hess.

[@chriswhite8717]

Panamorph isn’t the only game in town . They’re awesome for sure but ISCO does it better IMO.

[@brettsnyder]

So much great history, thanks Filmmaker IQ!

[@Finchspielberg]

With great power comes great responsibility. With great challenges comes great opportunities.

[@RCassinello]

Good video, as ever. Intriguing, though, that in a presentation made in 2013, DVD is written off as having ended around 2006 - and yet it's only now 2017 that DVD has been beaten as the home market leader. I certainly would have said in 2013 that DVD was about to fall off the same cliff edge as VHS did in about 2007 - but to this day there's still miles and miles of superstore shelf space stocked full of the shiny discs! I actually think that DVD could be here to stay for the foreseeable future as there simply isn't anything replacing it in quite the same way - available in a format that almost everyone can play back and right there on a shelf you idly walk past that makes you stop and think for a second "Yeah, go on then..."

[@FilmmakerIQ]

+Ronstar308 did I say DVD was dead? Been so long that I can't remember. :/ You're right that DVD is going to be around got a while still. Many third world countries operate exclusively on DVD. Nollywood with all its hype is pretty much exclusively DVD. But personally, I haven't bought a DVD is a long time... Blu-ray yes, but not DVD

[@richardmurphy9006]

"headphones" that was the day enjoyed everything in full Surrasound and still do. Oft forgot how important for Film Buff`s Headphones are!

[@fuckenps3]

Headphones only provide pseudo surround

[@mychalsimmons4177]

Is conventional theater being extinct? I still love the Theater.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I really hope not. But the fact of the matter is it is definitely changing. I'm kind of hoping MoviePass (which I just had to cancel) opened up the subscription model. I hate to say it but we'll see. But even if Tarantino calls digital movies, watching TV in public, the movie theater has a way better TV (and sound system) than I do.

[@RXP91]

@@FilmmakerIQ What TV have you got? In cinema there's a lot of talk of the screen size - but what's actually important is viewing angle. You can achieve a multiplex viewing angle at home by sitting 1.5m away from a 65" TV. You can achieve an IMAX viewing angle (70 degrees) by sitting 1m away from the same TV. With OLED you have contrast that no projection on the planet can match (even Laser). So the picture aspect is taken care of. With modern loud speaker technology you can get far more accurate, less distorted sound with companies like KEF with their LS50 range. Combine that with a modern subwoofer and you have the ability to go lower and punch you more in the chest than even an IMAX theater. The only limitation is what your neighbours will put up with! But even here binural convolution can simulate any set of loud speakers over a pair of headphones. So you can get full surround sound on a pair of Air Pods. It's really crazy the era we're in now.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

My home setup isn't trying to be a movie theater. My TV is a 15 year old Sony HD that I watch from probably 4m away

[@Wizkid490]

It's interesting that the big movie studios seem to always bet on tech that the consumers don't want, and against the ones that we do. We want audio cassetes, they say that home taping is illegal in will kill the music industry. We want MP3 players for our legally obtained content, they want us to pay again to take our music with us. We want recordable VHS/Beta, they want them made illegal. We want VCDs, they want DVDs because we could write our own VCDs (they naturally delayed DVD ripping and authoring as long as they could, too). We want to stay with DVDs so we can pay once and get our money's worth, they want us to pay $600 for a DIVX disk player (which is naturally incompatible with our DVDs) that will invade our privacy (has to be connected to the internet) and make us pay per view (after we pay for the disks, of course). We want to be able to share our videos online, and exercise our constitutional right to free speach, they want that made illegal because some people MIGHT abuse it. We want efficient file-sharing technologies so we can share our legitimate content with friends and family, they want them made illegal because they could be used to share potentially copyrighted material (unsurprisingly, they ignore all of the potential legitimate uses). Now to be fair, the jury is still out on the last two, but I think that all of the others demonstrate that the companies don't care about the consumer, only making a buck. Ironically, movie companies have actually benefitted from the rise of CDs, DVDs, and online media, as they typically earn MUCH more than the theatrical revenues... I think that it's also fair to say that none of these will be the death of any industries, like those same companies continue to insist. Don't believe me? Look up: Home taping is killing music! And it's illegal. (Just FYI, neither part of the above slogan is true.)

[@FilmmakerIQ]

Well you can't blame them for wanting to make a buck... it's that old story of the frog and scorpion... it's just in their nature.

[@FengXingFengXing]

And they buy/corruption longer copyright people never want, violate agreement "temporary monopoly". Next revolution is open content, free culture license or CC0 will break this monopoly. People want content they can reuse, recycle, share, change.

[@Goodboy0953]

Video sell through or placing movies at a lower price for sonsumers to purchase really didn't get started until the release of Pretty Woman ( I was there in the video store rental business). Even then Walmart didn't really stock new releases. It would be 1996 and latter before that happened. Video store purchases of movies grossed more than the box office for several years. Ghost was the first movie to carry a $99.99 price. Pretty Woman didn't come out on Vhs till fall of 92 with a pricemof $19.99. We purchase 75 copies for one store, rented them all, then sold them after 30 days for $9.95...

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I remember as a kid seeing the price tag of 89.99 on a VHS rental of Dick Tracy in Long's Drugs and think that was nuts.

[@funkmastershazaam6077]

Andre Blay, not Andrew Blay, of Magnetic Video.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

that is correct - thank you for pointing that out.

[@thesupertaco1934]

I have a normal 8 projector

[@manutrivedi5771]

good. except the typing sounds are driving me nuts. thought you guys at least would have figured it wasn't needed.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

All videos start without sound effects. The fact that we add them should indicate that we prefer them.

[@cornishchris8404]

9:57 you should've mentioned CBS Video was workin with MGM prior to '82

[@allinallkarthibanthiruvarur]

Hi...john..what about 8mm projector home video format..i know that there but i don't much about ..

[@mateydave7118]

at present I have blu-ray HD projector and Bijou Cinema in back garden on Lincolnshire UK east coast. you missed so much in history of home cinema. first in mid 1930s we have 9.5mm in Europe. sound feature films using optical sound which could hired and brought. quality was like 16mm. there was Kodak stand 8mm library which was in Europe and USA.in the 1970 super 8mm started to kick off with Fox, Columbia, MGM, Warners, UA started putting out under license feature films like 2001, Gone With the Wind, Sound of Mucus, King Kong, Citizen Kane, Hunchback of Naughty Dame. full length and sound. people there own home cinemas with 10ft 'scope screens and curtain with footlights and house lights. big problems was colour fade. this period seems to have lasted longer then DVD.

[@WHYNOTDOTTV]

Maybe this is a juvenile request; can you make a video about all the work that is involved in producing a you tube filmmaker IQ clip? " This is definitely inspiring to create something great and professional"

[@whahappa]

No mention of CED's or Videodiscs? I remember watching those when I was a kid. They were awesome!

[@keithnaylor1981]

Interesting Query - I think the first CinemaScope movies like How to Marry a Millionaire were 2:55 not 2.35? KAN UK

[@FilmmakerIQ]

They were 2.55 for a couple years but we use the value of 2.35 as they came to be in 1955

[@keithnaylor1981]

Filmmaker IQ - thank you. I've often wondered when they changed from 2:55 to 2:35. KAN. PS. I'm now going to spend the next few years wondering WHY the aspect changed!!!

[@erikamohrmann7986]

Lol 9 years later there are like 5,000 streaming platforms. Netflix is just one among many

[@RockitNowAlready]

John, do you think the Univisium 2:1 format will ever be adopted?

[@FilmmakerIQ]

It's pretty popular on Netflix - I think for TV it's a good compromise between 1.77 and 2.39

[@RockitNowAlready]

I would like to see technology in 16:9 TV's which can crop 2.39 down to 1.77 in increments maintaining correct proportions reducing or eliminating letterboxing thereby filling more of the screen.

[@keithnaylor1981]

For years large 16:9 TVs have been promoted as Home Cinema - this is a bit of a con. In the showroom they look stunning with their 16:9 screen totally FULL, and showrooms rarely, if ever, have letter boxed movies showing! So, it's only when you get your 'home cinema' home and put on your Star Wars Blu Ray that you realise a 16:9 TV makes cinema scope movies SMALLER than the screen. The difference becomes Quite Irritating as your viewing size constantly changes between 16:9 TV programmes and your DVD and Blu Ray movies, the MAJORITY of which are in 2.35 scope. There is a solution! ALL TVs should be 21:9. All formats fill the screen from top to bottom, and 2.35 spectacles like Star Wars etc fill the screen completely! Now that is home cinema! People MUST keep asking for 21:9 TVs and create a demand. Only then will the makers of all the 16:9 TVs stop and listen and give viewers what they really need - a TV to cope with all formats sensibly. KAN 7.19 UK.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

That's a bunch of nonsense... if all TVs were 21x9, than any movie that isn't scope is going to be even smaller. Want to watch Citizen Kane? - it'll take up less than half of your screen. Want to watch any Netflix Original- those are 2:1 aspect again you're dealing with black bars on the side. Want to watch Wimbledon telecast? Even worse, that's in 16x9. Frankly I'd much prefer my images cover the width of my TV, not the height.

[@keithnaylor1981]

Filmmaker IQ - 21:9 TVs - can I please ask you to look at this from another angle. Let's suppose my 21: 9 tv presents a 16:9 picture about 37" wide and 21" high, and you have a 43" 16:9 tv which would present the same sized 16:9 picture. We could also watch Citizen Kane and our screen pictures would identical approx 28" wide and 21" high. In both cases our TVs side by side would be showing identical sized pictures. Now let us suppose we each put in a Star Wars Blu Ray. Your screen picture would be reduced in size to 37" wide and 16" high whereas my Star Wars picture would be 49" wide and 21" high. Would you be content to watch your Star Wars picture covering 600 sq inch or would you prefer to watch it on my TV where is covers 1030 sq inch, an increase in size of about 70%. Can you still say the concept of 21:9 TVs is nonsense? Regards, Keith, UK.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

I didn't say that 21x9 screens are nonsense - if you spend your time watching a ton of widescreen movies, it might be a worthy investment. My rejection is to the idea that ALL TVs should be 21x9 - and they certainly should NOT. First and foremost is that there is no broadcast standard that is 21x9... therefore no media that is natively 21x9. BluRays are 16x9 so you're still watching a 16x9 video blown up with the bottom and top chopped off. Secondly, if you had a 21x9 TV that was as tall as a 16x9 TV it would be more expensive because it's got more screen area. The only way a 21x9 can compete with a 16x9 if it has smaller dimensions - so we're back to Citizen Kane being smaller on a 21x9 than 16x9. Lastly - 21x9 monitors are good for one kind of thing - watching cinemascope movies. They don't work for viewing other kinds of programming. Your conclusion relies heavily on watching Star Wars, but if I want to watch say Back to the Future - a 16x9 screen would have a lot less wasted space.

[@alejandronieto576]

Thanks

[@goldenretriever6440]

DVDs are great but they they're far too delicate I find it ridiculous that they didn't put these disks in a protective casing that goes into the home device like floppy disks And I'd like to mention that I would think the military has use for this stuff and it would more than likely be a problem if one of these disks were damaged I don't know if I'm the only one who thinks this is a problem I'll shut up

[@artsyfartsy9876]

I completly Agree with you about dvds I havet dvds that are like less then 10years old that no longer works while one the other hand my old VHS tapes from over 20years ago still plays just fine.🤔

[@DrewHewitt]

I know these videos are a lot of work but boy are they beneficial.

[@EaziGX]

I just wish I could reach into the video and straitened his glasses

[@mikedelgado8888]

This is exactly what I wanted to see

[@Minerofthediamonds]

Me to

[@jacobkapoor5991]

What about 8mm, super 8, and 16mm? Those brought home ( at least portions of) movies.

[@jacobkapoor5991]

Oh, and the Japanese vhd. It's a slightly smaller ced.

[@allissondiego1989]

10:15

[@ThomasBaxter]

I really love these talks. Thanks for posting.

[@lukejtmulder]

12:58 wut?

[@JCMaldonado13]

Love the videos, keep them coming!

[@TheVisualDigitalArts]

I liked before i even watched. :)

[@IWTBFOY]

Awesome videos as always

[@lddevo88]

Fantasic video!!!

[@Crlarl]

It would nice if DVDs were actually anamorphic. Aspect ratios higher than 1.78:1 are always letterbox'd.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

That's because the DVD format is specifically 16x9 (or 4x3). Unless you have a TV or Player with stretching capabilities (which not all do) you would have lots of people watching squished video.

[@Crlarl]

Filmmaker IQ 'Tis true, 'tis pity. Blu-ray should at least do this. The wider the aspect ratio from 1.778:1, the lower the resolution gets. The best way to use a home theatre would be with a computer and an anamorphic projector (or wide-wide screen spherical one). This is why VLC is amazing.

[@StevenMorganN75]

DVD's are anamorphic.

[@FilmmakerIQ]

You're right in that the pixel aspect ratio is 1.2 for 16x9 but I think OP was refererring to anamorphic as in the film ranges of 2.39

[@spiderbite7849]

There doesn't seem to be much benefit in using something like that 'Panamorph' anamorphic lens on a home theatre projector. Anamoprhic lenses are useful when recording at 2.40:1, as you can make use of the entire film or sensor. But once it has been distributed on a blu-ray for example, it is stored as a 1920x1080 file with letter boxing (1920x800). There is no gain in resolution by digitally stretching it on a projector and then optically de-stretching it through a lens, you are actually more likely to loose quality depending on the pixel up-scaling method. You might as well just magnify your projector so it fills up a 2.40 screen (if you have one). I have nothing against advertising, but can anyone point on the purpose of this product?

[@Peetz0r]

MitchAndo96 It would work if the source file is actually stored in a higher resolution (4K maybe) but the projector is still 1080p.

[@musaran2]

Nope : Proper encoding uses the full media definition, stretching as needed. And proper playback stretches/pans/adds bars as needed by the display. At least DVD could do that, so I assume Blu-ray can. Of course some lazy encoders just hard-code black bars, in that case yes you do lose useful definition.

[@cradica]

When you said Nickelodeon I thought you meant the channel

[@cradica]

Nickelodeon is owned Paramount.