Which is better, streaming 480p H.264 with very good internet, or DVD 480i MPEG-2?

[Streetlight]

I'm asking about video and audio quality, that's it, no ownership factoring in, just PQ and AQ.
This is based on the condition of very good internet.

[kannibaliztik]

they will both be nearly the same, awful looking.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Streetlight

I'm asking about video and audio quality, that's it, no ownership factoring in, just PQ and AQ.
This is based on the condition of very good internet.

You'd have to provide a bit more context. For example, is the original picture material interlaced or progressive (this is independent from the encoding format)? What audio codec is being used? And "good Internet" doesn't say anything about the encoding rate.

Generally, MPEG-2 is a really outdated codec and has miserable efficiency by today's standards . Given similar file sizes, H.264 is far superior for storing progressive material. If you want minimum file size, you should take a look at H.265 which has modes that are specifically designed for low-bitrate encoding.

[Streetlight]

Original Picture material is progressive, sourced from the same master, audio is Dolby Digital. Uses 32 Mbps video and 770 Kbps audio for streaming. Use the average bitrate of DVD-9 video and audio for DVDs.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Streetlight

Original Picture material is progressive, sourced from the same master, audio is Dolby Digital. Uses 32 Mbps video and 770 Kbps audio for streaming. Use the average bitrate of DVD-9 video and audio for DVDs.

I'm assuming by 32 Mbit/s you mean the master? Most likely streaming providers use a better source in a studio format to encode their files (if available, which isn't always the case particularly for older material).

DVD has a theoretical maximum bitrate of about 10 Mbit/s (although most movies use less). Streaming services typically use less than 2 Mbit/s for H.264 encoded SD content. Quality varies wildly between different content. For example, Babylon 5 looks pathetic on iTunes, and a little better on DVD. Modern shows, OTOH, can actually look pretty good in SD H.264 on smaller screens or tablets and exhibit less compression artifacts than DVDs.

Why are you even interested in SD content if you assume that a higher-definition master is available?

[Streetlight]

Max bitrate for streaming and max average bitrate for a DVD-9, no HD version available.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Streetlight

Max bitrate for streaming and max average bitrate for a DVD-9, no HD version available.

There is no "max bitrate" for streaming. It all depends on the provider's policy. I don't know what "max average bitrate" is supposed to mean. Since you are not explaining what exactly you are after I'm not sure what more I could tell you.

[Streetlight]

The average video and audio bitrate for DVD-9 and the maximum bitrate a 480p stream can output

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Streetlight

The average video and audio bitrate for DVD-9

Determining that would require measuring the bitrate of all available DVDs and thus is obviously infeasible.

and the maximum bitrate a 480p stream can output

Streaming 480p video at 24 frames/s uncompressed uses about 854x480x8x3x24 bits/s, which is the theoretical limit. Does that answer your question?

[Streetlight]

The general bitrate that DVD-9 uses and the peak bitrate of a 480p stream, not uncompressed. Kinda like this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=12

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Streetlight

The general bitrate that DVD-9 uses and the peak bitrate of a 480p stream, not uncompressed. Kinda like this:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=12

Sigh. OK, here some estimates based on prior experience:

DVD video (MPEG 2): most discs are around 4-5 Mbit/s, the highest bitrates (e.g. on Sony's old "Superbit" releases) around 7 Mbit/s. Depends primarily on what audio tracks and how much extra material is on the disc.

DVD audio: AC3 can be up to 448 kbit/s, some discs use 384 kbit/s. DTS can be up to 1500 kbit/s, many discs use only 750 kbit/s.

480p streaming video (H.264): downloaded iTunes SD files are encoded at around 1.5 Mbit/s. I haven't measured any other streaming platforms recently, but they are probably still all under 2 Mbit/s for SD. On the audio front 384 kbit/s AC3 is common for multi-channel sound.

You are very welcome to do your own research similar to the linked post and share your results. All you need is an Apple TV with activated developer HUD and time.

[Streetlight]

Which one would win, the higher bitrate of DVD, or the more sophisticated codec of streaming?

[Vilya]

Does an MPEG2 encoded DVD with a far greater bitrate look better than a SD stream encoded with H.264 and its much heavier compression? I believe in general that the DVD does look better because compression artifacts suck no matter the codec.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Does an MPEG2 encoded DVD with a far greater bitrate look better than a SD stream encoded with H.264 and its much heavier compression? I believe in general that the DVD does look better because compression artifacts suck no matter the codec.

It depends a lot on the content. Modern digitally shot movies are generally easy to compress and can look pretty good even at moderate bitrates. Older movies with lots of grain or other noise are more difficult and will suck in both formats. Some content is problematic for historical reasons (e.g. the above mentioned Babylon 5).

To some extent it also depends on the skills of the compressionist and the quality of the encoder. Generally speaking, H.264 has more "tools" that an encoder can leverage for optimization. In particular it deals far better with motion than MPEG-2.

One potential advantage of streaming is that your content may improve over time as streaming providers up their specs. They can do that because adaptive streaming allows them to select the best version of a stream for a specific device at playback time. So if, for example, Amazon tomorrow decides to encode SD content using H.265 at 10 Mbit/s, they can do that, while serving a lower-spec stream to devices that are not capable of playing the new format. A disc, on the other hand, will never improve and has to be authored to the lowest common denominator (i.e. it has to play even on the least capable players).

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

It depends a lot on the content. Modern digitally shot movies are generally easy to compress and can look pretty good even at moderate bitrates. Older movies with lots of grain or other noise are more difficult and will suck in both formats. Some content is problematic for historical reasons (e.g. the above mentioned Babylon 5).

To some extent it also depends on the skills of the compressionist and the quality of the encoder. Generally speaking, H.264 has more "tools" that an encoder can leverage for optimization. In particular it deals far better with motion than MPEG-2.

One potential advantage of streaming is that your content may improve over time as streaming providers up their specs. They can do that because adaptive streaming allows them to select the best version of a stream for a specific device at playback time. So if, for example, Amazon tomorrow decides to encode SD content using H.265 at 10 Mbit/s, they can do that, while serving a lower-spec stream to devices that are not capable of playing the new format. A disc, on the other hand, will never improve and has to be authored to the lowest common denominator (i.e. it has to play even on the least capable players).

One size fits all answers are problematic and thus why I said in general. Ultimately, which looks better is in the eye of the beholder, anyways.

Streaming providers could improve many areas of their delivery, but they have done very little since 2015, especially with their HD and SD streams. Bitrates and codecs are unchanged. Their biggest improvement has been adding HDR and Dolby Vision support to their 4K streams, but even with that their bitrates are stagnant and they are a small fraction of the corresponding 4K disc format. They still only offer lossy audio as well.

Improving streaming would increase data consumption which would increase costs that consumers would have to pay for and I'm not so sure that streaming customers want more expense when they are seemingly already satisfied with the quality that they receive now. Data caps are very real in small markets like mine; using more data would cost more money likely from both the streaming provider and insatiably greedy ISPs.

The DVD is trapped in amber on the other hand and it in itself can not improve, but my upscaling 4K disc player combined with my 4K TV have worked minor miracles with many of them even when viewed on an 85" screen. My DVDs have new life thanks to these advanced players and displays.

I can watch HD and 4K streams with few major complaints, but SD streams range from just passable to looking like shit in my experience.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Vilya

One size fits all answers are problematic and thus why I said in general. Ultimately, which looks better is in the eye of the beholder, anyways.

Streaming providers could improve many areas of their delivery, but they have done very little since 2015, especially with their HD and SD streams. Bitrates and codecs are unchanged.

Not true for HD. E.g. Apple has significantly increased their HD streaming bitrates, and Amazon has started streaming H.265 encoded HD content. It's true though that nobody pays much attention to SD content.

Their biggest improvement has been adding HDR and Dolby Vision support to their 4K streams, but even with that their bitrates are stagnant and they still only offer lossy audio.

For the price of an ATV4K I have upgraded dozens of titles to 4K. Sadly, none of my BDs have magically turned into 4K discs after buying a UHD player.

Improving streaming would increase data consumption which would increase costs that consumers would have to pay for

On the other hand, Internet access keeps getting less expensive on a cost/bit basis on average. Just a few years ago MA's or Apples's 30 Mbit/s streams would have been unthinkable.

I can watch HD and 4K streams with few major complaints, but SD streams range from just passable to looking like shit in my experience.

The problem is that for most content that is still only offered in SD at this point, there are no real good source materials (e.g. all those TV shows from the 80s and 90s that were mastered on video.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

Not true for HD. E.g. Apple has significantly increased their HD streaming bitrates, and Amazon has started streaming H.265 encoded HD content. It's true though that nobody pays much attention to SD content.
For the price of an ATV4K I have upgraded dozens of titles to 4K. Sadly, none of my BDs have magically turned into 4K discs after buying a UHD player.
On the other hand, Internet access keeps getting less expensive on a cost/bit basis on average. Just a few years ago MA's or Apples's 30 Mbit/s streams would have been unthinkable.
The problem is that for most content that is only offered in SD at this point, there are no real good source materials (e.g. all those TV shows from the 80s and 90s that were mastered on video.

I have no direct experience with Apple, but I have seen nothing in print that quantifies the bitrate increase that you are claiming. Apple has always been among the best streaming providers in terms of their bitrates, but I have not read anything that quantifies an improvement to their HD streams.

As for Amazon, they are the most, and only, problematic streaming provider that I ever used. Despite having ample internet bandwidth and despite having no problems with any other streaming provider, Amazon can not maintain a consistent HD stream, yet alone a 4K stream, even over my wired network. Using H.265 doesn't help much when their streams freeze and collapse into SD levels. The better codec is nice, but Amazon's bitrates are still crap which kinda nullifies any gain offered by that codec.

Other streaming providers, such as Netflix, Hulu, and Vudu, have not changed their internet speed requirements for streaming any level of content in years because their bitrates have not budged. I have made a point to watch for such changes. I even quoted a Vudu service engineer, in another thread, who stated that their bitrates were unchanged since 2015. The internet service requirements for these streaming providers have not changed because their streaming bitrates have not changed.

No, my blu-rays can not become 4K discs, but that magic that my 4K disc player and my 4K TV does with DVDs is even more evident with my blu-rays. Many, but not all, of my blu-rays upscaled on my 4K TV look better than their 4K streamed counterpart as they have less compression artifacts. The blu-ray gives me lossless audio in many cases and streaming lacks that altogether.

Some content that still languishes in SD has serious source limitations; video tape sources in particular for some vintage TV shows, but many were also shot on actual film stock. MASH (the TV series) looks sad on DVD despite having been filmed on 35mm film; it deserves better.

Internet service may be getting cheaper on a bit per dollar basis, but that comforts me very little as my internet bill has risen 40% in just three years and I have seen no benefit associated with that cost increase. My internet costs more, my data cap is unchanged, and my streaming looks the same; I'm not feeling the bargain here.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I have no direct experience with Apple, but I have seen nothing in print that quantifies the bitrate increase that you are claiming. Apple has always been among the best streaming providers in terms of their bitrates, but I have not read anything that quantifies an improvement to their HD streams.

See e.g. here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=7243

As for Amazon, they are the most, and only, problematic streaming provider that I ever used. Despite having ample internet bandwidth and despite having no problems with any other streaming provider, Amazon can not maintain a consistent HD stream, yet alone a 4K stream, even over my wired network.

I have never had any such issues with Amazon. I just recently streamed the 4th season of The Expanse and it was excellent.

Some content that still languishes in SD has serious source limitations; video tape sources in particular for some vintage TV shows, but many were also shot on actual film stock. MASH (the TV series) looks sad on DVD despite having been filmed on 35mm film; it deserves better.

Indeed. I would love to have proper HD versions of Sledge Hammer!, Space Above & Beyond, Tour of Duty and a number of other shows. Sadly, it will likely never happen and we're saddled with material that even the best encoding will not turn into good quality.

I will not respond to your remaining remarks since we really don't need another "physical vs. digital" thread.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Fiffy

See e.g. here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=7243
I have never had any such issues with Amazon. I just recently streamed the 4th season of The Expanse and it was excellent.
Indeed. I would love to have proper HD versions of Sledge Hammer!, Space Above & Beyond, Tour of Duty and a number of other shows. Sadly, it will likely never happen and we're saddled with material that even the best encoding will not turn into good quality.

I will not respond to your remaining remarks since we really don't need another "physical vs. digital" thread.

No, we have plenty of that in other threads; I agree.

You live in a densely populated area whereas I live in a rural one and I have observed that people living in such areas as you do have less trouble with Amazon. Still, even when Amazon is intermittently delivering its best 4K stream, it still looks worse than most other providers and reliably worse than most of my blu-rays. It is no coincidence that Amazon comes in last in forum member samlop10's detailed comparative post:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...6&postcount=12

The post that you link to is comparing the bitrate of an Apple stream to an Apple download and that is not what I am talking about at all. I had hoped to see evidence that Apple now streams its HD content at a higher bitrate than it streamed it at in, say, 2015, or 2016, etc. I have seen no evidence that any streaming provider has improved their streaming bitrates nor have any of them raised their internet speed requirements to reflect such a change.

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The post that you link to is comparing the bitrate of an Apple stream to an Apple download and that is not what I am talking about at all. I had hoped to see evidence that Apple now streams its HD content at a higher bitrate than it streamed it at in, say, 2015, or 2016, etc.

Until last year or so Apple streamed at the same video bitrate as the downloads (around 5 Mbit/s).

I have seen no evidence that any streaming provider has improved their streaming bitrates nor have any of them raised their internet speed requirements to reflect such a change.

I think pretty much all of them have increased their bitrates at various times (e.g. just a few months ago Netflix increased their audio bitrates to 640/786 kbit/s). If the minimum internet speed requirements haven't gone up that doesn't mean much since they all use adaptive streaming anyway these days, so they can serve a lower bitrate stream if the customer doesn't have sufficient speed for the highest tier.