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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

It should be obvious how cutting costs benefits consumers. You've heard of supply and demand, right? Of course you have. And you likely know that in a reasonably functional marketplace prices are set by the interactions between supply and demand.

Well, supply curves are basically just cost curves. And when companies develop cheaper ways to produce their goods or services they effectively shift their cost curves to the right. That means more of that good or service is produced at a lower cost to consumers.

It's a win/win.

With regard to codecs specifically, just to pick one example, do you watch live sports?

I do. I love watching live sports.

So even if I never streamed a single minute of a TV show or a movie I would still benefit from better codecs.

And as it happens in addition to live sports, I watch a lot of other stuff on cable too. For me, better codecs would most definitely be a Good Thing.

No, cutting bit rates also? You conveniently left that out.

[Steedeel]

Sport? Yeah, I watch 4K via satellite.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

No, cutting bit rates also? You conveniently left that out.

Cutting bit rates is what a better codec does, no?

Cutting bit rates is what would allow a cable channel to either provide a higher quality stream at the same price or the same quality stream at a lower price.

Cutting bit rates means more data can flow through a pipe of a given size.

These are all Good Things.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sport? Yeah, I watch 4K via satellite.

If anybody should want better codecs it's satellite customers.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Cutting bit rates is what a better codec does, no?

Cutting bit rates is what would allow a cable channel to either provide a higher quality stream at the same price or the same quality stream at a lower price.

Cutting bit rates means more data can flow through a pipe of a given size.

These are all Good Things.

. You are definitely a glass half full guy. Some might say gullible though.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

If anybody should want better codecs it's satellite customers.

Sky Q is quite good. I dont have any complaints. It’s not like it’s a film.

[tjritter79]

The fact is when you stream ANYTHING, you really don't know from where it originated, or what equipment it's going through. Amazon streaming is not a "central location". I happen to get most of the streaming services from a school in Philadelphia (not sure if that's a Comcast contract or what) or at least an I.P. trace takes me there.
Next to bandwidth, which I'm sure we all can agree is the most important component as far as streaming is concerned....there are still other factors which can affect picture quality.
When I first started streaming, it was through my Sony TV, which was brand new at the time. But that was 3 or 4 yrs ago I think (I have an 800D, so when they came out...). Netflix was fine, but everything else dropped out or buffered. I thought the 1st thing was my internet speed (but then why was Netflix so good?). I went from wireless to wired, directly from the router....at the time I had a Nighthawk R7000...very little improvement.
Then over a yr ago, I did a set-up for somebody who had a Roku, and he told me something that hadn't occurred to me. The Roku is going to give you a better quality picture because it has MORE internal memory for streaming then the TV's internal memory has. So first I tried one of those USB sticks...again little to no difference...so I put the stick on the downstairs TV, its also a Sony, but its about 10 yrs old. HD only. No 4K. But the stick performed a LOT better there than it did upstairs. So, I got a Roku Ultra, wired to the router. That was half-way decent quality, no drops or buffers, but the picture didn't look quite right. April I got an Apple TV 4K I got the 64GB version.
I'm tellin ya, the picture just leaps off the screen....on all channels. I don't know if its the memory or what, but all the cables are the same as what I had with the Ultra...and I've had zero problems with the Apple TV. I'll also say the same time I got the ATV, my internet went from 150 to 400mbps. Never tried the Roku on the 400 speed.
So, just to summarize, as far as I'm concerned, what you use to stream matters just as much as how you have it wired. Cables have limitation, ports have limitations. You also don't know what path the media takes to get from where it originates till it gets to you. You can't change what you don't have influence over, but you can change everything else.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by tjritter79

The fact is when you stream ANYTHING, you really don't know from where it originated, or what equipment it's going through. Amazon streaming is not a "central location". I happen to get most of the streaming services from a school in Philadelphia (not sure if that's a Comcast contract or what) or at least an I.P. trace takes me there.
Next to bandwidth, which I'm sure we all can agree is the most important component as far as streaming is concerned....there are still other factors which can affect picture quality.
When I first started streaming, it was through my Sony TV, which was brand new at the time. But that was 3 or 4 yrs ago I think (I have an 800D, so when they came out...). Netflix was fine, but everything else dropped out or buffered. I thought the 1st thing was my internet speed (but then why was Netflix so good?). I went from wireless to wired, directly from the router....at the time I had a Nighthawk R7000...very little improvement.
Then over a yr ago, I did a set-up for somebody who had a Roku, and he told me something that hadn't occurred to me. The Roku is going to give you a better quality picture because it has MORE internal memory for streaming then the TV's internal memory has. So first I tried one of those USB sticks...again little to no difference...so I put the stick on the downstairs TV, its also a Sony, but its about 10 yrs old. HD only. No 4K. But the stick performed a LOT better there than it did upstairs. So, I got a Roku Ultra, wired to the router. That was half-way decent quality, no drops or buffers, but the picture didn't look quite right. April I got an Apple TV 4K I got the 64GB version.
I'm tellin ya, the picture just leaps off the screen....on all channels. I don't know if its the memory or what, but all the cables are the same as what I had with the Ultra...and I've had zero problems with the Apple TV. I'll also say the same time I got the ATV, my internet went from 150 to 400mbps. Never tried the Roku on the 400 speed.
So, just to summarize, as far as I'm concerned, what you use to stream matters just as much as how you have it wired. Cables have limitation, ports have limitations. You also don't know what path the media takes to get from where it originates till it gets to you. You can't change what you don't have influence over, but you can change everything else.

But doesn’t the Apple TV pre-buffer the content so you are effectively downloading a section of the content?

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You Wireless people might not get Buffering, but I'm sure your PQ will not be as good as someone who is Wired. The Wireless people are more likely to complain about Degradation.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

You seem to be thoroughly confused, read that article again. Already provided you with one reference where a user was using AC to stream a UHD BD rip (>110Mbps) from his media server using a Sony UBP-X800. That is the equivalent of almost 7, simultaneous, UHD streams (Netflix, Amazon, etc.).

Yes, for some applications wired is much better but in the context being discussed here, wireless is just fine.

You're right about one thing Wireless makes it "Good Enough." If you are set up perfectly with a strong signal, and no interference it might be good for today's Standards but maybe not tomorrow. According to an Article in Money Magazine, Amazon Prime is in third place behind HBOGo, with Netflix leading the way. So Bitrates are going up, and there will be no shaving on Quality. Original Content will be the driving force, and Streaming has become a Dog Eat Dog World!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You're right about one thing Wireless makes it "Good Enough." If you are set up perfectly with a strong signal, and no interference it might be good for today's Standards but maybe not tomorrow. According to an Article in Money Magazine, Amazon Prime is in third place behind HBOGo, with Netflix leading the way. So Bitrates are going up, and there will be no shaving on Quality. Original Content will be the driving force, and Streaming has become a Dog Eat Dog World!

Oh and Dorothy destroys a brand new witch before grabbing some gold slippers and becoming queen of Oz.

Thought I would join the sarcasm gang.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I read that was the reason the issue came to light. What’s so hilarious? It’s not my story, it was reported on several tech sites. I wasn’t participating nor do I pirate so I can only form an opinion on what I read.

I like pirate stories; this is a funny one. And you used it as the basis for your entire prediction that ALL streaming providers were going to lower the quality of their content.

I read your gizmodo link. The story says that forum members on a pro piracy website complained about Amazon's streaming quality. It also states that people complained on Reddit as well who were legitimate subscribers. The article does not say that "mostly" pirates were doing the complaining; it just says that both pirates and subscribers complained. The pirates complaints were, well, more vocal.

Subscribers complained; you said elsewhere they would not. Whatever Amazon was doing did not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Consumers did not lie down for lower quality.

If a more efficient codec comes along that delivers equal or better quality and uses less data that would be a win for everybody. Clearly, the viewing public is paying attention and that is all that this article demonstrates besides the colorful vernacular of the pirate community.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I like pirate stories; this is a funny one. And you used it as the basis for your entire prediction that ALL streaming providers were going to lower the quality of their content.

I read your gizmodo link. The story says that forum members on a pro piracy website complained about Amazon's streaming quality. It also states that people complained on Reddit as well who are legitimate subscribers. The article does not say that "mostly" pirates were doing the complaining; it just says that both pirates and subscribers complained.

Subscribers complained; you said elsewhere they would not. Whatever Amazon was doing did not go unnoticed or unchallenged. Consumers did not lie down for lower quality.

If a more efficient codec comes along that delivers equal or better quality and uses less data that would be a win for everybody. Clearly, the viewing public is paying attention and that is all that this article demonstrates besides the colorful vernacular of the pirate community.

Yeah, I agree. All is rosy and streaming providers will strive for the best quality for their customers.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

. You are definitely a glass half full guy.

Not when it comes to HT or tech, I'm not. When it comes to tech and HT the glass is full and it gets bigger every day.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Some might say gullible though.

If any of those people want to raise that with me directly I'd be more than happy to discuss it with them.

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sky Q is quite good. I dont have any complaints. It’s not like it’s a film.

So good enough is good enough?

Cool.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yeah, I agree. All is rosy and streaming providers will strive for the best quality for their customers.

Are you using more of that sarcasm you find so distasteful in others? Tsk tsk.

I never said that all is "rosy"; I think I can safely say that I have griped plenty about streaming providers.

I never said that they would offer the best of anything; they would have to sell discs to achieve that goal.

I said that consumers will not tolerate a reduction in quality and your own linked article supports that assertion. Any business that wants to be successful must please their customers. Lowering the quality that consumers are already accustomed to and for the same price that they are already paying, or even more later, will not work.

A healthy business model is to contain costs and improve quality. Innovation makes both possible.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

Not when it comes to HT or tech, I'm not. When it comes to tech and HT the glass is full and it gets bigger every day.



If any of those people want to raise that with me directly I'd be more than happy to discuss it with them.



So good enough is good enough?

Cool.

Sport and film are very different beasts in my house.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Oh and Dorothy destroys a brand new witch before grabbing some gold slippers and becoming queen of Oz.

Thought I would join the sarcasm gang.

Join? You're a charter member.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sport and film are very different beasts in my house.

And that's not a dire threat to the future of TV sets or anything, is it?

I'd hate to think you helped bring about the very future you've been warning against by settling for a satellite feed that's 'good enough' simply because you didn't care all that much.

I mean, that would be like Greek Tragedy level irony.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

And that's not a dire threat to the future of TV sets or anything, is it?

I'd hate to think you helped bring about the very future you've been warning against by settling for a satellite feed that's 'good enough' simply because you didn't care all that much.

I mean, that would be like Greek Tragedy level irony.

TV sets have no future; we have already been forewarned.

Broadcast sports don't either unless they can be reduced to 10 minute or less short subjects optimized for low rez phone viewing. But at least they will have HDR.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You're right about one thing Wireless makes it "Good Enough." If you are set up perfectly with a strong signal, and no interference it might be good for today's Standards but maybe not tomorrow.

Not just good enough, but identical. Data received is data enjoyed regardless of whether it was received over a wired or a wireless network. The data wasn't soiled somehow because it came over a wireless network.

An 802.11ac rated router delivers a speed of up to 1,300 Mbps (that's faster than even Cat5e ethernet cable) over the 5 Ghz band and and up to 450 Mbps over the 2.4 Ghz band. What "tomorrow" are you hallucinating about where these speeds will not exceed the needs of streaming by a parsec or more?

4K streaming is currently at 16 Mbps with a recommended internet speed of 25+ Mbps. When exactly is that 802.11ac router going to become obsolete?

802.11ac: " Fastest maximum speed and best signal range; on par with standard wired connections."

Please read, learn, comment in that order.

https://www.lifewire.com/wireless-st...02-11ac-816553

The above article was updated 10 days ago just so you know and before you try to label it as "old" information.

[flyry]

I went into the store today and bought a disc of a movie I had bought digitally last week. (Upgrade).

How bout that?