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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Yes, the motion score was the outlier, and not surprising. Comparing the rest of the scores for the top 2 sets though were pretty close. And seeing higher color accuracy scores for streaming was interesting...

The second place TV, the LG 65C9P OLED, had HDR reference scores that beat every streaming score, including color accuracy. The LG's C9P motion resolution score for HDR reference was still 17.4% better than the streaming score.

The color accuracy score on the winning Sony TV that favors the streaming score by a mere 1.5% is an oddity.

[sapiendut]

It’s big when it comes to motion, actually. And that exactly reflects what I hate most from streaming. Compression artifacts in motion (and also the crushed blacks)

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by octagon

I don't really have a dog in this fight so I'm just playing Devil's Advocate but is a 20% difference necessarily huge?

The distinctions between a four star presentation and a five star presentation can get pretty subtle sometimes. I have no idea if this is one of those cases or not but I also don't know if one can just look at two numbers and draw any real conclusions about the practical differences between a 7.88 motion resolution score and a 9.5 motion resolution score.

Right. This was not a direct disc vs streaming comparison and the info we have on the different tests is pretty vague. Doesn't stop us from drawing our own conclusions though...

[Vilya]

The principal conclusion that I drew is that I think I want a Sony A9G TV.

I am not surprised that HDR reference mode produced substantially better scores for motion resolution than the streaming scores did. In my experience with both 4K streaming and with 4K discs, streaming does not handle motion resolution nearly as well.

I am not saying that 4K streaming is bad or unwatchable, very far from it, but motion resolution is where many of streaming's compression artifacts really become noticeable.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The principal conclusion that I drew is that I think I want a Sony A9G TV.

Heh, yeah, I can see that but as sexy as Mr. Right can be I suspect I shall continue to content myself with Mr. Right Nows for the foreseeable future.

Though to be fair, the Mr. Right Nows of the world are pretty freaking impressive too these days.

So, you know, first world problems and whatnot.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Heh, yeah, I can see that but as sexy as Mr. Right can be I suspect I shall continue to content myself with Mr. Right Nows for the foreseeable future.

Though to be fair, the Mr. Right Nows of the world are pretty freaking impressive too these days.

So, you know, first world problems and whatnot.

Seeing as my "Mr. Right Now" supports 3D, and 4K HDR Dolby Vision, I would keep it even if I were to buy a newer, righter, Mr. Right.

[sapiendut]

I’ll stick with my Panasonic FZ1000 and when it’s released, I’ll upgrade mine with Panasonic GZ1000 come end of this year.

[stonesfan129]

I think convenience just wins out for a lot of people. That is why fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and vinyl versus signing up for streaming subscriptions. The same is true of movies and TV. Fewer people are buying DVD and Blu-ray because it's easier to sign up for streaming and not really notice much of a difference without good gear. Who has the money or time to enjoy good gear? I went streaming cause discs were just taking up too much shelf space. I can stream something for a couple bucks and it obviously isn't the same quality as Blu-ray or DVD, but looks pretty darn impressive. Someone who just wants to stream the latest Game of Thrones episode isn't going to sit there and criticize the black levels. And no you can't hear the difference between CD-quality lossless and a decent lossy encoder like iTunes AAC running at 256kbps.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

I think convenience just wins out for a lot of people. That is why fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and vinyl versus signing up for streaming subscriptions. The same is true of movies and TV. Fewer people are buying DVD and Blu-ray because it's easier to sign up for streaming and not really notice much of a difference without good gear. Who has the money or time to enjoy good gear? I went streaming cause discs were just taking up too much shelf space. I can stream something for a couple bucks and it obviously isn't the same quality as Blu-ray or DVD, but looks pretty darn impressive. Someone who just wants to stream the latest Game of Thrones episode isn't going to sit there and criticize the black levels. And no you can't hear the difference between CD-quality lossless and a decent lossy encoder like iTunes AAC running at 256kbps.

Retired people? Like me, for one. Well, more the free time than the money, but I manage to buy most of the things that I want. I deny myself very little.

Yes, streaming is convenient and it can look very good. However, as I have said before, there are a vast number of titles in my collection that subscription streaming simply does not offer. Many titles in my library are not available with video on demand services, like Vudu, either. Physical media offers a massively better selection for my viewing interests by far.

While some titles are definitely exclusive to subscription streaming services, there are very few such titles that I would even care to have in my collection. If I really wanted to do so anything that is streamed can be captured, stored on a hard drive, and even burned to disc. There are many software programs that make this possible.

Besides the quality advantages of physical, which I find to be quite noticeable, there is also the control over the content issue. My collection is not subject to being edited or sanitized to appease prevailing fits of political correctness. The content that I have on disc can not be retroactively homogenized into some inoffensive pablum meant to mollify the hyper sensitive among us.

My discs do not randomly disappear and then reappear hours or days later like sometimes happens with digital collections. Further, I am not dependent upon my internet provider to watch my discs; a service that has proven to be unreliable for extended periods many times in the past.

Discs do take up space, but in my anecdotal experience people make room for the things that they really want to own. Every person that I know, save for one minimalist, has at least one large collection of something and usually more than one large collection of several somethings.

It is possible to hear a difference between the lossy audio used by streaming services and the lossless audio provided by discs whether you choose to believe that or not. Some of our forum members have complained about the audio quality of streaming as much as that of the video and I am not about to tell any of them that no, they can not hear any difference. Each individual has different hearing acuity and different gear as well. Just because you can't hear a difference does not mean that there is no perceptible difference for everyone.

As humans we always like to assume that our perceptions are the same as everyone else's and that is not true at all. Kinda like alchav's inability, or refusal, to see streaming's compression artifacts. Those artifacts are real and they are there whether he notices them or not. Some people can hear a difference between lossy streaming audio and lossless disc audio even if other people can not.

For fun, NPR offers this interesting listening test to see if you can identify the uncompressed wav file from a 320 Kbps MP3 and even a 128 Kbps MP3. They offer three short samples each of six different songs and then they ask you to indicate which one you think is the best sounding one. It is late as I write this so I will take their test tomorrow when I am more alert.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thereco...-audio-quality

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

I think convenience just wins out for a lot of people. That is why fewer and fewer people are buying CDs and vinyl versus signing up for streaming subscriptions. The same is true of movies and TV. Fewer people are buying DVD and Blu-ray because it's easier to sign up for streaming and not really notice much of a difference without good gear. Who has the money or time to enjoy good gear? I went streaming cause discs were just taking up too much shelf space. I can stream something for a couple bucks and it obviously isn't the same quality as Blu-ray or DVD, but looks pretty darn impressive. Someone who just wants to stream the latest Game of Thrones episode isn't going to sit there and criticize the black levels. And no you can't hear the difference between CD-quality lossless and a decent lossy encoder like iTunes AAC running at 256kbps.

That doesn’t make sense. If people have time to binge watch an entire series, they have time to enjoy a film or show on high end equipment.

Before you say they can stream on different devices, the majority of Netflix viewing is done on the living room tv (I think Hastings himself stated as much)

[ShePearl]

Does anyone have any insights to why many 4k blu-ray titles are missing on Dolby Vision?
Most of those HDR10-only 4k blu-ray titles have Dolby Vision grading on iTunes.

Why are many 4k blu-ray titles are missing on DV while their iTunes counterparts have DV intact?

[ShePearl]

NM. double post.

[stonesfan129]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Retired people? Like me, for one. Well, more the free time than the money, but I manage to buy most of the things that I want. I deny myself very little.

Yes, streaming is convenient and it can look very good. However, as I have said before, there are a vast number of titles in my collection that subscription streaming simply does not offer. Many titles in my library are not available with video on demand services, like Vudu, either. Physical media offers a massively better selection for my viewing interests by far.

While some titles are definitely exclusive to subscription streaming services, there are very few such titles that I would even care to have in my collection. If I really wanted to do so anything that is streamed can be captured, stored on a hard drive, and even burned to disc. There are many software programs that make this possible.

Besides the quality advantages of physical, which I find to be quite noticeable, there is also the control over the content issue. My collection is not subject to being edited or sanitized to appease prevailing fits of political correctness. The content that I have on disc can not be retroactively homogenized into some inoffensive pablum meant to mollify the hyper sensitive among us.

My discs do not randomly disappear and then reappear hours or days later like sometimes happens with digital collections. Further, I am not dependent upon my internet provider to watch my discs; a service that has proven to be unreliable for extended periods many times in the past.

Discs do take up space, but in my anecdotal experience people make room for the things that they really want to own. Every person that I know, save for one minimalist, has at least one large collection of something and usually more than one large collection of several somethings.

It is possible to hear a difference between the lossy audio used by streaming services and the lossless audio provided by discs whether you choose to believe that or not. Some of our forum members have complained about the audio quality of streaming as much as that of the video and I am not about to tell any of them that no, they can not hear any difference. Each individual has different hearing acuity and different gear as well. Just because you can't hear a difference does not mean that there is no perceptible difference for everyone.

As humans we always like to assume that our perceptions are the same as everyone else's and that is not true at all. Kinda like alchav's inability, or refusal, to see streaming's compression artifacts. Those artifacts are real and they are there whether he notices them or not. Some people can hear a difference between lossy streaming audio and lossless disc audio even if other people can not.

For fun, NPR offers this interesting listening test to see if you can identify the uncompressed wav file from a 320 Kbps MP3 and even a 128 Kbps MP3. They offer three short samples each of six different songs and then they ask you to indicate which one you think is the best sounding one. It is late as I write this so I will take their test tomorrow when I am more alert.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thereco...-audio-quality

I have done such a test with music that better lends itself to finding those differences. You won't hear them without good gear like I have (outboard DAC/amp, Sennheiser HD800 headphones) and knowing what differences to listen for. Even with a more advanced MP3 encoder such as LAME, the differences are more pronounced because MP3 is just an outdated encoder. Use something more advanced like iTunes AAC or Opus and those minor differences become much tougher to pick out. Yes discs are higher quality but not by that much. Bitrates do not tell the whole story. Yes there will always be things that streaming doesn't always offer. That's not a disadvantage of streaming but more the content creators being greedy. Tomorrow they could quit making DVD/BD players or send out an update that cripples playback. No collection lasts forever.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by ShePearl

Does anyone have any insights to why many 4k blu-ray titles are missing on Dolby Vision?
Most of those HDR10-only 4k blu-ray titles have Dolby Vision grading on iTunes.

Get a Oppo UDP-203 or one of the new Sony players and set the output to always be DV. That way you will always get to see your little DV indicator on and be pleased as punch .

AFAIK, all the DV titles on UHD BD are graded by a colorist. I strongly suspect many (most) of the streaming DV titles are produced via computer in a automated process.

Are you aware that DV has 6 different profiles and 9 different levels? IOW, not all DV titles are created equal, even on UHD BD.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Click here to vote for Sony titles to be released on UHD/4K BD.

My picks:

SENSE AND SENSIBILITY (1995)

SILVERADO
THE LEGEND OF ZORRO
THE MASK OF ZORRO

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Get a Oppo UDP-203 or one of the new Sony players and set the output to always be DV. That way you will always get to see your little DV indicator on and be pleased as punch .

AFAIK, all the DV titles on UHD BD are graded by a colorist. I strongly suspect many (most) of the streaming DV titles are produced via computer in a automated process.

Are you aware that DV has 6 different profiles and 9 different levels? IOW, not all DV titles are created equal, even on UHD BD.

And per usual, you're wrong. Every major studio but Fox is grading their content in DV for theater release. And for example, a Disney film, would have the DV metadata stripped off for it's UHD blu ray release as they only do HDR10. There is no separate grading by a computer for streaming versions.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

And per usual, you're wrong. Every major studio but Fox is grading their content in DV for theater release. And for example, a Disney film, would have the DV metadata stripped off for it's UHD blu ray release as they only do HDR10. There is no separate grading by a computer for streaming versions.

Having that reading comprehension problem again? I made no statements of facts. I do know what Netflix has said about their Dolby Vision titles, the Kaleidescape fellow clearly stated they created their own Dolby Vision titles. As to Disney, that makes no sense, the DV workflow can produce a DV, HDR10 and SDR.

• Save time and money
  
  Using the Dolby Vision workflow, you can master once to create all of your deliverables. Grade your content with the most advanced HDR toolset and efficiently generate Dolby Vision HDR, generic HDR10, and SDR media.

Just curious, ever done work on an Avid? ProTools (Avid)? Sonic Solutions?

[avs commenter]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Having that reading comprehension problem again? I made no statements of facts. I do know what Netflix has said about their Dolby Vision titles, the Kaleidescape fellow clearly stated they created their own Dolby Vision titles. As to Disney, that makes no sense, the DV workflow can produce a DV, HDR10 and SDR.

Just curious, ever done work on an Avid? ProTools (Avid)? Sonic Solutions?

And that's basically what I said. The film is graded in DV. But for Disney, only the HDR10 version ends up on disc.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

Every major studio but Fox is grading their content in DV for theater release.

Almost forgot, only some titles get a DV release at a theater capable of DV. Titles here.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by avs commenter

And that's basically what I said.

No, it is not, you said the metadata was stripped off, it is not, it was never there to begin with.

It is clear to me you have no idea how audio and video work flows work. Prove me wrong, tell me about how the DV plugins work for the Avid.