Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Streaming and common sense.

1. The Costs Are Not The Issue.

The real surprise was not Netflix's recent rate increase; it was that so many people complained so vociferously about it. Streaming video content is the future of entertainment, and its costs will only rise. Even after the rate increase, it's still an incredible value. People who claim otherwise clearly have not explored the full spectrum of what's available on these services.

I have not had cable in years, but I do have Netflix and Hulu Plus. Even after this recent increase, I'll be getting more content than I'll ever be able to watch just over $30 a month. That's less than half what it would cost me to have cable, digital and/or satellite TV service, and with a fraction of the commercials to sit through.

So... duh. Ditch your cable, folks, and stop bitching.

2. The Content Is The Issue.

The biggest problem with streaming right now is quality presentation, and it's wildly, wildly variable. Here are some of the biggest issues:

Aspect ratios. Ever the irritant of the home-viewing cineaste, proper aspect ratios in streaming content continue to be elusive. Hulu, for example, offers an impressively wide spectrum of Miramax releases, for example, but all releases shot in full widescreen (2.35:1) are cropped to 1.78:1. Jackie Chan's whirling-dervish fight sequences look noticeably compromised; Chan's Hong Kong action extravaganzas are carefully composed for the widescreen frame and suffer when portions of the picture are missing.

With more titles being offered comes more problems, and Netflix has an even bigger melange of aspect ratio woes. Every single Warner Brothers title I have tried on Netflix streaming that was originally shot in widescreen is cropped down to fill the 1.78 standard widescreen frame. This includes several Clint Eastwood titles like The Gauntlet, and other various catalog titles. WB is normally a company whose titles are given exacting treatment on home video and it's a shame their streaming catalog offerings are so mangled.

The "HD" misnomer. Compression artifacts abound in most of the so-called "HD" streams I've sampled. It's less noticeable when viewed on smaller screens, but the larger you go, the more the fine detail breaks down. This is less of an issue to me than the aspect ratio problem, to be honest, but it's still important. Full, proper HD should have no such liabilities.

Another odd anomaly of streaming is something I call MFS (Missing Frame Syndrome). Many Lionsgate and Anchor Bay titles on Netflix, both newer films and older catalog titles, exhibit this problem; frames seem to be missing from the picture, giving the image an odd, jerky look every few seconds or so. Even some of the Criterion titles on Hulu exhibit this issue: Fellini's La Strada is unwatchable because of it.

Starz Play is the devil incarnate. Every single Starz Play title I have sampled via Netflix has been completely unwatchable. It's either in the wrong ratio, or it's crawling with MFS. If it's got the Starz Play logo on it, don't bother, because if you care at all about presentation, it'll just piss you off.

3. The Content Providers Aren't Screwing Up. The Studios Are.

Netflix and Hulu are not to blame for the above problems, popular though it might be to think so. The real problem comes from the studios supplying them with substandard broadcast masters. It's incumbent upon the faithful to remind the studios that they need to provide materials to Hulu, Netflix and whomever else that's in the proper aspect ratio and isn't a muddled mess.

The thing is, a lot of them are doing it right. Universal has many choice titles from their back catalog available in sharp, clear HD and in the proper ratios available on Netflix right now, like Robert Aldrich's Ulzana's Raid, Fred Schepsi's Iceman, Jack Fisk's Raggedy Man, and Daniel Petrie's Resurrection, as well as fun genre titles like John Irvin's Ghost Story and newer offerings like BASEketball and The Shadow. Many of the aforementioned titles have never been on disc in their proper aspect ratios (or on disc at all).

MGM's titles on Netflix are also to be commended. The fun 1950s sci-fi offering It! The Terror From Beyond Space boasts a beautiful B&W transfer, for example, and several other titles, including the unintentional-comedy classic Revenge of the Ninja, are offered in widescreen, unlike their currently-available DVDs. Warner Brothers offers some great titles from time to time as well; last year, John Landis' Innocent Blood was available in a widescreen, extended cut, and gorgeous HD transfers of Terence Fisher's Hammer classic Horror of Dracula and Carl Reiner's riotous The Man With Two Brains have also been made available recently as well.

So anyway. Keep up the battle, film fans. Make the studios get it right.

3 comments:

  1. Wow! Excellent post, Jason. Explains streaming services (their limitations and potential) better than anything I've read on the subject. A quick question (that may require a few beers to fully explore)...should I place my films on the traditional streams: Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon, iTunes (which is now possible for about 2K) or, just I stream them for free/donation on my own site?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, that's kind of a different question altogether, but I'll give my two cents anyway.

    If you're ultra-serious about how good you want your films to look (and I presume you are), then I'd suggest offering them up on your own site. Once you offer them up to the other venues, your control over presentation goes away, as does a percentage of the profits.

    Of course, the flipside to this is, your exposure will be limited (unless you're a particularly savvy marketer), so if you're willing to accept the inevitable compromises that go with some of the major viewing platforms, they're an excellent stepping stone.

    ReplyDelete