Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[bhampton]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

anybody here ever used Zappiti?

You can find users on AVS.

I haven't ... I use Plex and infuse.

-Brian

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

anybody here ever used Zappiti?

Is that a type of pasta?

If anyone here has, it would be Wendell.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by bhampton

Can we get fiffy or someone in here to suggest streaming is the without a doubt future ?

It's going to suck is everyone realized Physical media is the way to go and this whole thread goes dark.

I like talking to fiffy, but I am not sure that he feels the same way.

Streaming is NOT the future; it is the present. It is just another form of Pay TV.

Holograms and Star Trek holodecks are the future!



Damn kids! Even with a holodeck at their disposal, they prefer their smartphone!

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

anybody here ever used Zappiti?

Why unless you now want to be into ripping?

See this post

I saw this 5 page discussion just now as I am on the west side of the states. Bit of heat wave kept us all up.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

anybody here ever used Zappiti?

Originally Posted by Vilya

If anyone here has, it would be Wendell.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Could be they could not compete with Zappiti. It will be interesting to see if Zappiti will replace the Realtek RTD1295 design with a new one using the newer RTD1619.

Don't have any Zappiti but if they update their players to the RTD1619 I may give it a go. Have already programmed my MX-980 remote with Zappiti codes.

Sound & Vision review here by Kris Deering.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Streaming is NOT the future; it is the present. It is just another form of Pay TV.

Its the past Vilya actually. Yes the present model is akin to PayTV with subscriptions, you got that right!

The WWW came into being 1989 with HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) along with HTML (Hypertext Markup Language). The forerunner of this was Hypercard on early Macintosh's in 1987.



Providing hypertext links to files was always part of the web. Gradually improving image resolution and web page design over the years was HTML evolving to allow the web to mimic a fancy magazine's format. But even if people think this if the future, its been around 31 years now. Now you can click on a region of the web page and see a graphic preview of content showing. The hypertext links to the content with transcoded file in invisible but just use a Firefox Developer tools such as inspector to look at the scripts/code and so on.

IMHO most people that claim something is the future fail to actually understand how this all works and how much time it takes to provide this content and how expensive it is to maintain.

Everything is meant to be about making it easier to play content but a streaming app like its forerunner a widget is mostly a pseudo web browser that is customized to for a specific service.

Now if you present something that has a very pretty interface and provides all this content at your fingers to the average consumer they are clueless to how old a lot of this is. For one to think its the future, no its older, more common, but still evolving as it encompasses more then just streaming video to a TV.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Its the past Vilya actually. Yes the present model is akin to PayTV with subscriptions, you got that right!

The WWW came into being 1989 with HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) along with HTML (Hypertext Markup Language). The forerunner of this was Hypercard on early Macintosh's in 1987.

[Show spoiler]

Providing hypertext links to files was always part of the web. Gradually improving image resolution and web page design over the years was HTML evolving to allow the web to mimic a fancy magazine's format. But even if people think this if the future, its been around 31 years now. Now you can click on a region of the web page and see a graphic preview of content showing. The hypertext links to the content with transcoded file in invisible but just use a Firefox Developer tools such as inspector to look at the scripts/code and so on.

IMHO most people that claim something is the future fail to actually understand how this all works and how much time it takes to provide this content and how expensive it is to maintain.

Everything is meant to be about making it easier to play content but a streaming app like its forerunner a widget is mostly a pseudo web browser that is customized to for a specific service.

Now if you present something that has a very pretty interface and provides all this content at your fingers to the average consumer they are clueless to how old a lot of this is. For one to think its the future, no its older, more common, but still evolving as it encompasses more then just streaming video to a TV.

I offered a similar history lesson awhile back myself:

Originally Posted by Vilya

The first video code standard for streaming was H.261 that debuted in November of 1988. The first streamed movie was Wax or the Discovery of Television Among the Bees and it streamed over the internet on May 22, 1993 almost 12 years before Youtube uploaded its first video in April of 2005. Streaming actually has its roots as far back as 1972 when the discrete cosine transform, DCT, a form of lossy compression was first proposed. It was introduced in 1974 and it has been called: " the most important data compression technique that later enabled practical video streaming."

Netflix streaming launched in 2007, almost 14 years after the first movie was streamed over the internet. Their customers would ultimately make streaming a phenomenon, but these eventual Netflix subscribers did not lay the foundation for this; the early adopters did.

Even with Netflix offering streaming as early as 2007, it was nine years before SVOD took in more money than disc purchases; SVOD first overtook disc sales in 2016. The general public was kinda slow to adopt streaming even with the advent of Netflix and Youtube (2005) before it. Widespread adoption of streaming was extremely slow when you remember that the first movie was streamed in 1993.

Buying into all of that early computer and networking hardware to utilize streaming was a HUGE expense that was borne by enthusiasts and geeks. These pioneers paved the way for today's affordable streaming, not the masses who reaped the benefits so many, many years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_online_video

When I say that streaming is the present I am referring to the fact that almost everyone already has such a service. Streaming is no more the future than is cable TV; they are both dirt common and they are just two forms of accessing content for a recurring fee.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

For one to think its the future, no its older, more common, but still evolving as it encompasses more then just streaming video to a TV.

Agreed, WEB streaming is older than the DVD.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

We were streaming (live and recorded a/v) in the 90's via T3 lines between different facilities. The point was streaming a/v over data lines has been around a long time. We started streaming our main program channel to the internet in the late 90's.

Started surfing the WEB in about 1993 using Mosaic V1.0

[JohnAV]

It's still interesting that we have people that come to this forum on occasion, looking for consensus with their own opinions rather than using the topic to get other perspectives. All of us represent both and are familiar with both. But the topic title kinda is a moth to the flame of sorts.

[JohnAV]

What's on my HBO Max? [First Impressions] - YouTube

He a bit excitable, but he does pan though the new HBO Max interface quite adequately. Skip to 1:10 where he starts demonstrating.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

When I say that streaming is the present I am referring to the fact that almost everyone already has such a service. Streaming is no more the future than is cable TV; they are both dirt common and they are just two forms of accessing content for a recurring fee.

Well streaming is a lot more progressive than cable TV. They had no issue with 4K like the cable/telecoms that provide TV content. The latter tries to make everything about SD compatibility with offering HD and some 4K now for a premium with rented receivers, where as streaming only provides SD when the content is SD.

If OTA broadcast progressed to using ATSC 3.0 to provide 4K OTA my hope is that this intrenched beaver DAM setup by the cable/telecom monopolies will finally get washed away and we can move forward. It would also be the case that people wouldn't turn to streaming as much if 4K OTA was plentiful, except to offer more variance with content options.

Here's another observation today from FlatPanelsHD on HBO Max delivers 1080p at 2x bitrate compared to HBO Now.

It is disappointing to see HBO Max launch without 4K HDR support but at least it delivers significantly higher video bitrate for 1080p. FlatpanelsHD is seeing an average of 7-10 Mb/s bitrate for 1080p (with MPEG4 AVC) while streaming Joker, Wonder Woman, Batman v Superman, and X-Men: Dark Phoenix, with video bitrate peak at around 13-14 Mb/s.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Well streaming is a lot more progressive than cable TV. They had no issue with 4K like the cable/telecoms that provide TV content. The latter tries to make everything about SD compatibility with offering HD and some 4K now for a premium with rented receivers, where as streaming only provides SD when the content is SD.

If OTA broadcast progressed to using ATSC 3.0 to provide 4K OTA my hope is that this intrenched beaver DAM setup by the cable/telecom monopolies will finally get washed away and we can move forward. It would also be the case that people wouldn't turn to streaming as much if 4K OTA was plentiful, except to offer more variance with content options.

Here's another observation today from FlatPanelsHD on HBO Max delivers 1080p at 2x bitrate compared to HBO Now.

The cable/satellite TV providers, and TV stations in general, know quite well that most of their customers do not care that much about quality and that the 720 to 1080p content that they offer readily satisfies them. Many of pay TVs customers are no more discriminating when it comes to A/V quality than are most streaming customers. This is all tailored for the "its cheap, convenient, and good enough" mindset that still likes DVDs for much the same reasons. These are people that feel that built-in TV speakers, headphones, and $199 soundbars sound "fantastic."

While 4K content offered over pay and broadcast TV would be a welcome improvement, most consumers do not care about this level of quality. They will take it if it becomes the standard, but few will pay anything extra for it given the choice.

I will now venture into anecdote land, that fabled place where any point can be proven without any kind of verification. I have Netflix thanks to account sharing with my friends, but the reason why some of them have a 4K Netflix plan is not for access to 4K content, but rather because this plan allows for more devices than do the lower quality plans. They own 4K TVs not because they prize 4K quality, but because that is all that they sell now in the larger TV sizes. Big screens interest them, not so much 4K content from any source.

As for those HBO Max high definition bitrates color me . Single digit bitrate averages do not lift my skirt; they don't even stir it. A blu-ray offers bitrates that can reach 48 Mpbs and they can average in the high 20s to low 30s.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Well streaming is a lot more progressive than cable TV. They had no issue with 4K like the cable/telecoms that provide TV content. The latter tries to make everything about SD compatibility with offering HD and some 4K now for a premium with rented receivers, where as streaming only provides SD when the content is SD.

If OTA broadcast progressed to using ATSC 3.0 to provide 4K OTA my hope is that this intrenched beaver DAM setup by the cable/telecom monopolies will finally get washed away and we can move forward. It would also be the case that people wouldn't turn to streaming as much if 4K OTA was plentiful, except to offer more variance with content options.

Here's another observation today from FlatPanelsHD on HBO Max delivers 1080p at 2x bitrate compared to HBO Now.

You should have started with "Once Upon A Time" when discussing 4K OTA. It's a fairy tale . . . nothing more. There are plans to either use 1080i and upscale it to 1080P (HDR optional) or just use 1080P (again HDR optional). No real plans for 4K HDR OTA. Too much of a bandwidth hog.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You should have started with "Once Upon A Time" when discussing 4K OTA. It's a fairy tale . . . nothing more. There are plans to either use 1080i and upscale it to 1080P (HDR optional) or just use 1080P (again HDR optional). No real plans for 4K HDR OTA. Too much of a bandwidth hog.

The cable and broadcast TV industry have little reason to spend more money upgrading to 4K quality when their customers are already satisfied with 720p which is the most that many stations offer. It is the same reason why streaming providers do not see any need to improve their bitrates. I don't think that I will ever see over the air 4K broadcasts in this country, but I wouldn't mind being wrong about that.

I wonder if I will ever see broadband internet service being available to every home. In the year 2020, all my sister can get is ADSL and she only lives a couple miles outside of town.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

You should have started with "Once Upon A Time" when discussing 4K OTA. It's a fairy tale . . . nothing more. There are plans to either use 1080i and upscale it to 1080P (HDR optional) or just use 1080P (again HDR optional). No real plans for 4K HDR OTA. Too much of a bandwidth hog.

Remember Edge Networks’ ATSC 3.0 Subscription TV Service Eyes Summer Launch

At the time of the interview, Achilles envisioned being able to offer 40 720p HD channels via a single 6 MHz TV channel allotment by taking advantage of ATSC 3.0. In January, Edge Networks was already on-air multicasting a 4K UHD 2160p channel and a 720p channel using ATSC 3.0 as it began its preparation for the Evoca launch, he said

While we have this bad FCC that wants to give all bandwidth to cell telecoms, it could be reversed with a change of administration. Other countries like south Korea have a large percentage able to see 4K OTA.

Does every ATSC 3.0 broadcast channel need to be used for 720P/1080P OTA in the future?

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The cable and broadcast TV industry have little reason to spend more money upgrading to 4K quality when their customers are already satisfied with 720p which is the most that many stations offer.

Are they really or is this just a forced concept from the cable and broadcast TV industry? Its the #1 reason people stream compared to using cable and broadcast TV industry products.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Remember Edge Networks’ ATSC 3.0 Subscription TV Service Eyes Summer Launch



While we have this bad FCC that wants to give all bandwidth to cell telecoms, it could be reversed with a change of administration. Other countries like south Korea have a large percentage able to see 4K OTA.

Does every ATSC 3.0 broadcast channel need to be used for 720P/1080P OTA in the future?

Are you trying to make this political now? Only good things can come from that approach.

4K broadcasts would have to be paid for by someone. Consumers do not want higher cable TV bills and 4K broadcasting would necessitate a price hike. Cable TV is already losing subscribers in the U.S.; higher prices won't lure them back.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Are they really or is this just a forced concept from the cable and broadcast TV industry? Its the #1 reason people stream compared to using cable and broadcast TV industry products.

People stream because it is cheap, convenient, available on many devices, and the content selection is large.

Back on Anecdote Island, few people have any idea what resolution they are viewing content in. They only stream in 4K when it is automatically selected and included for the same price such as with Disney+; they will seldom pay extra for it or even make the effort to look for what content is offered in it.

I have demonstrated 4K content, both in my home and in store showrooms, to several people and while they all said that it looked "nice" not a single one of them was willing to pay an extra cent to view it in their own homes.

[JohnAV]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Are you trying to make this political now? Only good things can come from that approach.

4K broadcasts would have to be paid for by someone. Consumers do not want higher cable TV bills and 4K broadcasting would necessitate a price hike. Cable TV is already losing subscribers in the U.S.; higher prices won't lure them back.

Thinking about that now, kinda reminds me of of the brotherhood of man song. (1:14)

Daniel Radcliffe - Brotherhood of Man - How To Succeed In Business - 65th Annual Tonys - YouTube

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by JohnAV

Thinking about that now, kinda reminds me of of the brotherhood of man song. (1:14)

Daniel Radcliffe - Brotherhood of Man - How To Succeed In Business - 65th Annual Tonys - YouTube

I don't think I will be buying any Daniel Radcliffe CDs, but his singing didn't make my ears bleed, either.