Because Blu-Ray will "obviously" be replaced rapidly by streaming only...

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by arrow61095

+1
I mean I have a 42 inch 1080P LG LED TV (120 Hz) and the following sound system:

http://www.klipsch.com/rb-51-ii-home-theater-system


with a viewing distance of about 5-6 feet and I can notice a difference in both picture quality and audio quality (especially audio) between blu-ray and netflix.

How much of a difference do you notice?

Why I ask is because iTunes and Netflix from Apple TV look awesome compared to iTunes or Netflix from a laptop Even though my laptop was hooked up via HDMI. Also Netflix is good but not great on my dads Sharp Aquas when I visit him at his place. Netflix on my older PS3 is average but not great

Beat I have seen to date is Apple TV

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by octagon

Dude, you kept a deleted post from a deleted thread on your phone and then dragged it into another thread days later.

And this is your first point? That discussions are meant to go forwards and not backwards?

Seriously?

Yeah seriously, what you are not going to answer the post?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Yeah seriously, what you are not going to answer to the post?

What's the point?

You say right and wrong but you don't really mean right and wrong. You say better than but that's just a figure of speech. You say you agree with Anthony but you dismiss as irrelevant the conversation Anthony was actually having when you agreed with whatever it was you were agreeing with.

If those posts were all still around it would be pointless (not to mention boring) to rehash them. It's beyond pointless now.

I draw a distinction between things like contrast ratio which lend themselves to objective measurement and quality which does not. You seem to think that's semantic nit-picking.

I'm fine with that.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by wormraper

only if you count crappy netflix and amazon prime..... with their substandard titles and 99% DTV schlock. the rest of the streaming community is just eeking by

I wonder what kind of numbers things like Comcast's OnDemand put up. I would think they're pretty decent.

If you consider OnDemand 'streaming' (and I pretty much do, I mean how else can you categorize it) then my freaking mother streams tv shows and movies.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by octagon

I wonder what kind of numbers things like Comcast's OnDemand put up. I would think they're pretty decent.

If you consider OnDemand 'streaming' (and I pretty much do, I mean how else can you categorize it) then my freaking mother streams tv shows and movies.

On demand is not streaming, video on demand is from your cable provider. I do not have cable and never will again.

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

How much of a difference do you notice?

Why I ask is because iTunes and Netflix from Apple TV look awesome compared to iTunes or Netflix from a laptop Even though my laptop was hooked up via HDMI. Also Netflix is good but not great on my dads Sharp Aquas when I visit him at his place. Netflix on my older PS3 is average but not great

Beat I have seen to date is Apple TV

I notice a huge difference in audio quality.
In terms of picture quality -- it depends on what you are watching, but I do notice a big difference on action/high special effects movies.

I am watching both the blu-ray and netflix using a newer PS3 that has the audio and video passed via Linear PCM to my audio receiver which handles the audio and passes the video to the TV. For all parts I use High speed HDMI cables (tested for version 1.4 so deep color works).

Maybe you are only using regular speed HDMI cables and thus only getting 720p or 1080i?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Cables

In terms of audio quality, I would go:

blu-ray on my home theater with lossless sound > IMAX > regular movie theater or blu-ray on my home theater with lossy sound > DVD > Cable > Netflix or Amazon Prime

In terms of video quality, I would go:

blu-ray on my home theater > IMAX > regular movie theater > Verizon Fios Cable HD channel > Correctly Upscaled DVD > Netflix or Amazon Prime or Comcast cable HD channel > Non-upscaled DVD

note: the reason IMAX & other movie theaters go below bluray are:
1. For audio, it is quite difficult to properly position yourself for the optimal audio (unless you are the only person in the theater)
2. For video, the downfall is the screen. While the 35 mm is great, the screen they show it on often isn't.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

On demand is not streaming, video on demand is from your cable provider. I do not have cable and never will again.

It's network delivery of an av stream. Who gets the check doesn't really enter into it too much.

It's clearly on the 'not physical media' side of the fence.

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's network delivery of an av stream. Who gets the check doesn't really enter into it too much.

It's clearly on the 'not physical media' side of the fence.

+1
if my router goes out, my on demand goes out. Definitely streaming of video.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's network delivery of an av stream. Who gets the check doesn't really enter into it too much.

It's clearly on the 'not physical media' side of the fence.

But that distinction is meaningless in your example. Any television service, including satellite, would be considered not physical by this very, very broad definition of streaming.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by octagon

It's network delivery of an av stream. Who gets the check doesn't really enter into it too much.

It's clearly on the 'not physical media' side of the fence.

Yes it might be but I can't access a video on demand from cable on my ipod, TV, Apple TV or a laptop. Generally it is fixed to the cable box

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Yes it might be but I can't access a video on demand from cable on my ipod, TV, Apple TV or a laptop. Generally it is fixed to the cable box

nope, can get my fios on demand on my laptop.
It goes through the internet just like netflix.

depends on the provider.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

But that distinction is meaningless in your example. Any television service, including satellite, would be considered not physical by this very, very broad definition of streaming.

Fair enough. I'm not defining streaming as any kind of non-physical media.

I don't know if 'packaged media' is the term I'm looking for but regardless, OnDemand and NetFlix are far more similar than different.

If we're going to discuss the popularity of browsing a menu, clicking a few buttons and watching a movie over a network I don't thank one can ignore VOD.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by arrow61095

I notice a huge difference in audio quality.
In terms of picture quality -- it depends on what you are watching, but I do notice a big difference on action/high special effects movies.

I am watching both the blu-ray and netflix using a newer PS3 that has the audio and video passed via Linear PCM to my audio receiver which handles the audio and passes the video to the TV. For all parts I use High speed HDMI cables (tested for version 1.4 so deep color works).

Maybe you are only using regular speed HDMI cables and thus only getting 720p or 1080i?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Cables

In terms of audio quality, I would go:

blu-ray on my home theater with lossless sound > IMAX > regular movie theater or blu-ray on my home theater with lossy sound > DVD > Cable > Netflix or Amazon Prime

In terms of video quality, I would go:

blu-ray on my home theater > IMAX > regular movie theater > Verizon Fios Cable HD channel > Correctly Upscaled DVD > Netflix or Amazon Prime or Comcast cable HD channel > Non-upscaled DVD

note: the reason IMAX & other movie theaters go below bluray are:
1. For audio, it is quite difficult to properly position yourself for the optimal audio (unless you are the only person in the theater)
2. For video, the downfall is the screen. While the 35 mm is great, the screen they show it on often isn't.

I like your comparisons, however, I must point out that blu ray and digital cinema (IMAX Digital included) are limited to 1080p unless you are showing 4K movies.

A DCP is of much higher quality than a blu ray, just the GB alone reflect that.

All 2K and 4K digital cinemas can show blu ray movies however a blu ray player or non DCP compliant projector cannot show DCP movies.

Both digital cinema and blu ray are capable of loss less audio. IMAX digital as well.

35mm is still far, far, far superior than blu ray and 2K digital which is limited to 1080p. However, 35mm is not always better and is lossy. (Laserdisc uses exact same Dolby Digital) soundtrack as theatre prints. DVD soundtracks were enhanced for home theatre.

I disagree that audio in blu ray equipped home theatres is better than a digital cinema or a 35mm cinema. Especially when THX is, was, were, are involved.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by octagon

Fair enough. I'm not defining streaming as any kind of non-physical media.

I don't know if 'packaged media' is the term I'm looking for but regardless, OnDemand and NetFlix are far more similar than different.

If we're going to discuss the popularity of browsing a menu, clicking a few buttons and watching a movie over a network I don't thank one can ignore VOD.

To me, there is still difference in the category between streaming vs video on demand....however, neither is physical media.

[arrow61095]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

.......
I disagree that audio in blu ray equipped home theatre is better than a digital cinema or a 35mm cinema. Especially when THX is involved.

Oh the movie theater is definitely louder if you are going for loud booms and explosions (especially THX), but as for clear immersive audio, my home theater is preferred. Both my wife and I have had times where we thought it was raining or grabbed the phone or went to the door because the sounds from my home theater were so well placed and authentic.

I just can't say the same for a theater. Maybe if you were the only person in it and in the optimal listening position...............

That being said, my home subwoofer is currently set to 1, at 5 it rattles the windows and shakes the house ---- it goes up to 13.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by arrow61095

Oh the movie theater is definitely louder if you are going for loud booms and explosions (especially THX), but as for clear immersive audio, my home theater is preferred. Both my wife and I have had times where we thought it was raining or grabbed the phone or went to the door because the sounds from my home theater were so well placed and authentic.

I just can't say the same for a theater. Maybe if you were the only person in it and in the optimal listening position...............

That being said, my home subwoofer is currently set to 1, at 5 it rattles the windows and shakes the house ---- it goes up to 13.

Fair enough, however in a properly design and equipped THX cinema, there are multiple places in the cinema that are optimized for good sound.

Also, THX crossover, baffle walls, air gaps in the walls of cinema, absence of HVAC noise are very hard to achieve in a home cinema.

Anyways, I am glad you get great pleasure out of your home cinema

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Yes it might be but I can't access a video on demand from cable on my ipod, TV, Apple TV or a laptop. Generally it is fixed to the cable box

That doesn't change the fact that information is being streamed live to an electronic device in your home for "on the fly" viewing. Streaming has nothing to do with how many or what type of devices can be used to watch it. Streaming is defined by the sole factor that the information is not being stored in its entirety at the location of viewing while viewing it. It doesn't even technically have to include internet access to be considered a streaming feed.

By this definition, I do consider the very nature of cable TV to be a streaming service. Especially now that more cable providers are turning to the internet to deliver their content.

So, On Demand services definitely qualify in this argument. And the question about what kind of bitrates they offer is of justifiable substance when comparing all of these streaming services.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by octagon

What's the point?

You say right and wrong but you don't really mean right and wrong. You say better than but that's just a figure of speech. You say you agree with Anthony but you dismiss as irrelevant the conversation Anthony was actually having when you agreed with whatever it was you were agreeing with.

If those posts were all still around it would be pointless (not to mention boring) to rehash them. It's beyond pointless now.

I draw a distinction between things like contrast ratio which lend themselves to objective measurement and quality which does not. You seem to think that's semantic nit-picking.

I'm fine with that.

Did you not read the post? I explained perfectly what I was actually agreeing with of Anthony's, you just simply misunderstood, and assumed I was agreeing with one thing when I was in fact agreeing with something different. Anthony made many comments and points, just because I agreed with one point doesn't mean that I was agreeing with them all. You and Rickah88 overlooked the part of Anthony's point which I was agreeing with, but I saw his point. What's the point in continuing? Well for me it is simply for you to acknowledge that point, and the fact that you misunderstood what I was agreeing with. You made a mistake, but I don't expect you to admit it. If the posts were still there they would show this, though I can prove it as I have every post from page 20-34 of that deleted thread saved to my phone. Just so you know that I'm telling the truth here is one of your other posts from that thread

Originally Posted by octagon

“Can science tell us whether or not itunes downloads are comparable to BDs? Or is comparable a value judgment?

Can science tell us whether or not AppleTV is superb? Or is superb a value judgment?”

and here's one of Richah88's replies to Anthony

Originally Posted by rickah88 Really? A blind person. You are devolving, and I think you know it.
You've done nothing but miss the point. Your arguments are horrible.
Please respond when you have something productive to share.

If the Mod's were to look through the deleted thread they would see these posts match up.

How I said 'right' and 'wrong' was in context, because it was being used alongside Allan Brown's post about calibration.

Originally Posted by Alan Brown
"Good" is definitely not subjective in the context of achieving a correct video image. The motion imaging industries are governed by objective international standards and best practices.

You don't have to agree that these things are objective, but the fact is there is nothing you can come back with from that post, and you know it. Now rather than you replying with something like this, I'll say it 1st: give me my medal and get back in line

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

That doesn't change the fact that information is being streamed live to an electronic device in your home for "on the fly" viewing. Streaming has nothing to do with how many or what type of devices can be used to watch it. Streaming is defined by the sole factor that the information is not being stored in its entirety at the location of viewing while viewing it. It doesn't even technically have to include internet access to be considered a streaming feed.

By this definition, I do consider the very nature of cable TV to be a streaming service. Especially now that more cable providers are turning to the internet to deliver their content.

So, On Demand services definitely qualify in this argument. And the question about what kind of bitrates they offer is of justifiable substance when comparing all of these streaming services.

Agreed. Same in UK.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

I like your comparisons, however, I must point out that blu ray and digital cinema (IMAX Digital included) are limited to 1080p unless you are showing 4K movies.

This is not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Digital_IMAX

"Because 70mm film and projectors are costly and difficult to mass produce, IMAX debuted a digital projection system in 2008. It uses two projectors that can present either 2D or 3D content in DCI or IMAX Digital Format (IDF) (which in itself is a superset of DCI). As of 2012, IDF uses 2K-resolution Christie projectors with Texas Instruments' Digital Light Processing (DLP) technology alongside parts of IMAX's proprietary formats. The two 2K images are projected over each other to make the image brighter."


To be clear, 2K is NOT the same as 1080p. They are completely different ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_reso...Digital_cinema

"2K represents the horizontal resolution because there are numerous aspect ratios used in film. So while the horizontal resolution is kept constant, the vertical depends on the aspect ratio with the principal decides to work."

In other words, a film projecting at 4:3 aspect ratio would have vastly more pixels than a film projecting at 2.35:1 aspect ratio, simply because more horizontal pixels would be projected to keep the same 2000 horizontal pixels at that aspect ratio.


I also want to point out that some digital cinemas are projecting at 4K resolution and could easily have an upscaling feature built-in for 2K sources.

Finally, true IMAX resolution is far different than digital IMAX resolution. For picture quality, true IMAX cannot be beat by any home setup, as true IMAX resolution "is estimated to be up to 12,000 × 8,700 pixels with at least 6,120 × 4,500 minimum discernible pixels (27 megapixels)".