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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Groot

I own my own business and do outsourced work for major brands. But thanks. I do feel my sarcasm game is pretty strong.

You are a gal not a guy!

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

You are a gal not a guy!

Don’t assume my gender. I may identify as a tree today.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Groot

Don’t assume my gender. I may identify as a tree today.

I won't make any such assumptions; I wouldn't want to bark up the wrong tree.

[Groot]

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The issue was with Amazon's crappy streaming service as experienced by multiple members posting here. These same members also reported that all other streaming services that they subscribe to perform normally.

And what was your explanation? It must be the fault of their wireless home networks because you yourself have no problems streaming from Amazon. If it works to your satisfaction, then it must be their fault.

Never mind that their other streaming services work just fine over that same wireless network and never mind that the problem with Amazon's streaming service occurs even over a wired connection, never mind any of that because you, cable internet installer extraordinaire, have diagnosed the problem and you blame the wireless network.

And you don't even know the capabilities of the different rated routers, but you fault the wireless home network every. single. time. anyone has any problem with streaming.

You ignore all of the articles that multiple people have posted in a futile attempt to educate you about wireless networks and about streaming services. You persist in your folly while continually revealing your ignorance and that is not going to change.

I read some of your comments today about wireless networks and streaming, word for word, to my CIO friend in New Zealand. Speaking what you have written aloud made me feel dumber just for saying it. His reply was succinct: "What an idiot; he doesn't know what he's talking about." It might seem like a harsh assessment, but it is absolutely correct. You really don't know shite from apple butter.

You were asked nicely earlier today to stop with this nonsense, but you never do, so wear this ; you have earned it ...again.

Here you go again with this name calling, you take off on these rants when you really can't find any proof. Did you read the Link I Posted, where Wired will always work better than Wireless. Yes, under ideal conditions Wireless works fine, even my Brother-in-Law in Texas is Wireless and his Streaming is good. He did say once in a while it Degrads. You know my Telco background, and I worked with Techs and Data Engineers and they all said Wired was the best. I did Contract Work in the Silicon Valley, and their Networks were Hard Wired with Cat5. Especially with everyone going Streaming the Bandwidths and Bitrates will keep going up, and Hard Wired will be the best way to go.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Groot

Don’t assume my gender. I may identify as a tree today.

I’m identifying as a truffle.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Here you go again with this name calling, you take off on these rants when you really can't find any proof. Did you read the Link I Posted, where Wired will always work better than Wireless. Yes, under ideal conditions Wireless works fine, even my Brother-in-Law in Texas is Wireless and his Streaming is good. He did say once in a while it Degrads. You know my Telco background, and I worked with Techs and Data Engineers and they all said Wired was the best. I did Contract Work in the Silicon Valley, and their Networks were Hard Wired with Cat5. Especially with everyone going Streaming the Bandwidths and Bitrates will keep going up, and Hard Wired will be the best way to go.

You are not a victim, but rather a repeat offender.

Plenty of proof has been provided to you and from several forum members and on many occasions with multiple citations about both wireless networking and about streaming service bitrates and their own stated ISP recommendations. You're just too damn dense to grasp any of it.

Despite all of this, you persist in saying stupid shit about things you clearly know nothing about. You were asked nicely to give it a rest by another forum member, but you had to keep at it. For that reason alone, you deserve to be called out with the ridicule you are due.

No one said anything against wired networking. No body at all. It simply is not necessary for streaming 4K videos at their paltry 16 Mbps bitrates. A wireless network can easily and reliably stream 4k video content in the exact same quality as that of a wired network under ordinary conditions. When the maximum bitrate from the streaming provider is received, it will look and sound as good as it possibly can regardless of the network type over which it arrived. When both a wireless and a wired network deliver the full bitrates from a streaming provider, they are both performing the same. Neither is better than the other: they both yield the same results. You really have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

The principal benefits of a wired network are low latency and signal stability. All of us who use wireless networks can determine if we are experiencing signal interference on our networks. How? Because, for starters, it would adversely impact ALL, not just one, of our streaming services. Those of us who use wireless networks are neither stupid nor blind; we would make changes if they were needed.

Yes, we know your stated background, some of the details about your stated work history were proven to be untruthful like your claiming to have retired from AT&T when you did not. I can re-quote those posts, if necessary, to refresh your memory. What other details have you fudged?

Just because you worked for a Telco doesn't mean you were any good at it. Working with an engineer does not make you an engineer, either. Furthermore, installing networks is easy and that is essentially all you were: a cable internet installer with delusions of grandeur.

You claim vast expertise about networking, yet you know nothing about routers. You talk about future proofing homes with wired networks, but you recommend using cheap, outdated, and unshielded Cat5 ethernet cable, a cable that is actually slower than a 802.11ac 5 Ghz band router.

You don't know the difference between streaming and bit streaming. You think all digital files are the same because they are all digital. You also think that how they are accessed and where they are stored makes no difference.

You claim to be an expert on streaming services, but you don't know how the largest one, Netflix, even works. You also don't know what bitrates the major services stream at. You blather on and on about adaptive streaming, without understanding its limitations, like it was some new miracle without comprehending that streaming providers still just offer 16 Mbps no matter what speed your ISP can obtain.

The list of of what you don't know for someone who claims to know so much is just mind boggling. My friend the CIO wasn't being mean to you when he called you an idiot, just accurate and honest. The truth sometimes hurts and it must be delivered to you bluntly due to your own intransigence. You can't drill into a granite block using a soft touch.

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Here you go again with this name calling, you take off on these rants when you really can't find any proof. Did you read the Link I Posted, where Wired will always work better than Wireless. Yes, under ideal conditions Wireless works fine, even my Brother-in-Law in Texas is Wireless and his Streaming is good. He did say once in a while it Degrads. You know my Telco background, and I worked with Techs and Data Engineers and they all said Wired was the best. I did Contract Work in the Silicon Valley, and their Networks were Hard Wired with Cat5. Especially with everyone going Streaming the Bandwidths and Bitrates will keep going up, and Hard Wired will be the best way to go.

Originally Posted by Vilya

No one said anything against wired networking. No body at all. It simply is not necessary for streaming 4K videos at their paltry 16 Mbps bitrates. A wireless network can easily and reliably stream 4k video content in the exact same quality as that of a wired network.

Wow, it's hard to keep up with this thread .

As Vilya stated, I did not disparage wired networks. We are merely stating that they are not necessary to stream content in the home. A wireless network is capable of delivering the exact same performance a wired network does. And is much more convenient. And as a streaming devotee, isn't convenience what you're all about?

I am not a network engineer, but I do work in IT and deal with networks daily. I have years of experience with both wired and wireless networks. And as Vilya stated, your mention of Cat5 is out of date. Not only because Cat6 is being rolled out in many of the places I have worked, but also because most of them use Fiber as their backbone instead of copper Ethernet. Fiber is much, much faster. So your information is out of date. If you are going to play expert you may want to do some research into what you are talking about and not rely on years old, second hand knowledge.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Ender14

Wow, it's hard to keep up with this thread .

As Vilya stated, I did not disparage wired networks. We are merely stating that they are not necessary to stream content in the home. A wireless network is capable of delivering the exact same performance a wired network does. And is much more convenient. And as a streaming devotee, isn't convenience what you're all about?

I am not a network engineer, but I do work in IT and deal with networks daily. I have years of experience with both wired and wireless networks. And as Vilya stated, your mention of Cat5 is out of date. Not only because Cat6 is being rolled out in many of the places I have worked, but also because most of them use Fiber as their backbone instead of copper Ethernet. Fiber is much, much faster. So your information is out of date. If you are going to play expert you may want to do some research into what you are talking about and not rely on years old, second hand knowledge.

I came across an advertisement from 2014 that recommended way back then using Cat7 cable when hard wiring a home. It's faster, shielded, and it has a longer life expectancy than earlier Cat cables. Considering that you won't want to rewire your home a second time, using the longest lasting cable is by itself a compelling reason to use double shielded Cat7 cable even if you do not anticipate needing the speed it offers (10 Gbps at 100 meters). At the very least, use Cat6a. It, too, is always shielded. Anyone hard wiring their homes should have shielded cabling.

Why doesn't our self anointed networking expert know any of this?

Cat5e is not even shielded:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/comput...hernet-cables/

I use Cat7 cable on my wired computer network for its durability and its double shielding. My particular cable is also a real nice shade of blue. And even over it, Amazon streaming still degrades. My wireless network must still be to blame regardless.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Did you read the Link I Posted, where Wired will always work better than Wireless.

This from a person that has a lot of wired and wireless, there is lots of info on this subject, no need for me to repeat it. It appears you have never used a network analyzer (many types) and neither have I for ethernet use (was not in my department), if you had you would see there is no difference in the data between a wired and wireless connection. Quicken shows the same amount in my banking account regardless of the computer connection, wireless for laptop, wired for desktop. There are situations were one may need a wired (shielded) connection, like in close proximity to certain RF transmitters but most residential users seem to be fine with wireless.

Do you have a wireless router? Wireless access point(s)?

Image shows my wireless speed through 3 walls and > 40ft. from Linksys wireless router.

[tjritter79]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Not a chance 1080p will be phased out. It will become essential if HDR is here to stay. Bookmark this reply and come back in 5 years. Not a chance.

It will be phased out because 4K screens will be more cost effective and the demand for HD/1080 will fall. It will become a niche market for screens below 20" or around there. In a couple years, computer monitors and TV screens will be all 4K above that size, and the refresh rate will be higher too.

Content is a different story. Cable will by necessity try to hold on to HD as long as possible. They cannot afford a major infrastructure upgrade to 4K. So cable institutions will either embrace 4K customers through their streaming apps or some other way without the cable box.
Comcast is one of the major cable companies here in the states, they are beta testing their "content app" which is now available on Apple TV, they claim that streaming customer will, when the program is out of beta, get this content in 4K....we'll see. But I don't need to tell you how huge Comcast is, they own NBC, Universal, HULU...and more. One of the few entities that control content from start to finish. More will come, others will follow. Spectrum, Philo, they have these in the works now. They know cable as we knew it in the 70's, 80's, 90's ...to today, HAS to change, it has to morph and evolve beyond what it is or it will perish. This is why they are buying up each other. Fox & Disney, AT&T & Time/Warner, a larger customer base means more money to spend.....to reinvest....in newer technologies....to find a market that didn't exist before.
The reason small-dish satellite was established was to bring cable TV to those in too remote areas where long cable runs and regional relays/headends weren't profitable. A direct-to-home approach. Well if the phone line isn't adequate, and too many satellite customers drop service...those in remote areas will find it too expensive to maintain. So, another alternative is needed. Which is why I think over-the-air internet, if feasible...will make a huge difference.

Oh, I forgot to mention HDR, well HDR was originally a 4K only technology. Technically, you don't need 4K for HDR, but nobody I'm aware of makes HD/1080 TV's with HDR.

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/do-you-n...4k-tv-for-hdr/

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Despite all of this, you persist in saying stupid shit about things you clearly know nothing about. You were asked nicely to give it a rest by another forum member, but you had to keep at it. For that reason alone, you deserve to be called out with the ridicule you are due.

No one said anything against wired networking. No body at all. It simply is not necessary for streaming 4K videos at their paltry 16 Mbps bitrates. A wireless network can easily and reliably stream 4k video content in the exact same quality as that of a wired network under ordinary conditions. When the maximum bitrate from the streaming provider is received, it will look and sound as good as it possibly can regardless of the network type over which it arrived. When both a wireless and a wired network deliver the full bitrates from a streaming provider, they are both performing the same. Neither is better than the other: they both yield the same results. You really have no reading comprehension skills whatsoever.

The principal benefits of a wired network are low latency and signal stability. All of us who use wireless networks can determine if we are experiencing signal interference on our networks. How? Because, for starters, it would adversely impact ALL, not just one, of our streaming services. Those of us who use wireless networks are neither stupid nor blind; we would make changes if they were needed.

Yes, we know your stated background, some of the details about your stated work history were proven to be untruthful like your claiming to have retired from AT&T when you did not. I can re-quote those posts, if necessary, to refresh your memory. What other details have you fudged?

Just because you worked for a Telco doesn't mean you were any good at it. Working with an engineer does not make you an engineer, either. Furthermore, installing networks is easy and that is essentially all you were: a cable internet installer with delusions of grandeur.

You claim vast expertise about networking, yet you know nothing about routers. You talk about future proofing homes with wired networks, but you recommend using cheap, outdated, and unshielded Cat5 ethernet cable, a cable that is actually slower than a 802.11ac 5 Ghz band router.

You don't know the difference between streaming and bit streaming. You think all digital files are the same because they are all digital. You also think that how they are accessed and where they are stored makes no difference.

You claim to be an expert on streaming services, but you don't know how the largest one, Netflix, even works. You also don't know what bitrates the major services stream at. You blather on and on about adaptive streaming, without understanding its limitations, like it was some new miracle without comprehending that streaming providers still just offer 16 Mbps no matter what speed your ISP can obtain.

The list of of what you don't know for someone who claims to know so much is just mind boggling. My friend the CIO wasn't being mean to you when he called you an idiot, just accurate and honest. The truth sometimes hurts and it must be delivered to you bluntly due to your own intransigence. You can't drill into a granite block using a soft touch.

I don't want to lower myself to your level, but no one should be disrespected. You made this mistake before, and I accepted your apology. Now you are attacking me again, I'm surprised a Mod hasn't talked to you. Like I said, there is no need for name calling. Yes, I go back Decades with Cat5e, my last three homes have had it. Cat5e is rated up to a Gig, and that's plenty for a few years. Shielded Cat6/7 of course is better, but it's more expensive and not as flexible. I was just saying if you had a choice between Wired or Wireless that you should go Wired. Even at 16Mbps, and that's a year old Average it could go higher or lower, Wired is going to give you the best connection. Wireless has many disadvantages, going through walls, studs, distance, and location just to name a few. I know people love their Wireless for that Convenient Clean Look, but I feel Wired is best to Stream to your UHD TV.

I started with Pacific Telephone under Parent Company AT&T back in 1965, and Retired from PacBell owned by SBC in 1996. SBC changed the name to AT&T. I started running jumper as a Fame Attendant, and worked my way up to a Second Level Service Manager. I was never an Internet Installer, I did Contact Work on Telephone Switches and Networking.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by tjritter79

It will be phased out because 4K screens will be more cost effective and the demand for HD/1080 will fall. It will become a niche market for screens below 20" or around there. In a couple years, computer monitors and TV screens will be all 4K above that size, and the refresh rate will be higher too.

Content is a different story. Cable will by necessity try to hold on to HD as long as possible. They cannot afford a major infrastructure upgrade to 4K. So cable institutions will either embrace 4K customers through their streaming apps or some other way without the cable box.
Comcast is one of the major cable companies here in the states, they are beta testing their "content app" which is now available on Apple TV, they claim that streaming customer will, when the program is out of beta, get this content in 4K....we'll see. But I don't need to tell you how huge Comcast is, they own NBC, Universal, HULU...and more. One of the few entities that control content from start to finish. More will come, others will follow. Spectrum, Philo, they have these in the works now. They know cable as we knew it in the 70's, 80's, 90's ...to today, HAS to change, it has to morph and evolve beyond what it is or it will perish. This is why they are buying up each other. Fox & Disney, AT&T & Time/Warner, a larger customer base means more money to spend.....to reinvest....in newer technologies....to find a market that didn't exist before.
The reason small-dish satellite was established was to bring cable TV to those in too remote areas where long cable runs and regional relays/headends weren't profitable. A direct-to-home approach. Well if the phone line isn't adequate, and too many satellite customers drop service...those in remote areas will find it too expensive to maintain. So, another alternative is needed. Which is why I think over-the-air internet, if feasible...will make a huge difference.

Oh, I forgot to mention HDR, well HDR was originally a 4K only technology. Technically, you don't need 4K for HDR, but nobody I'm aware of makes HD/1080 TV's with HDR.

https://www.cnet.com/how-to/do-you-n...4k-tv-for-hdr/

I’m pretty sure Sony have made a 1080p HDR set.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by tjritter79

It will be phased out because 4K screens will be more cost effective and the demand for HD/1080 will fall. It will become a niche market for screens below 20" or around there. In a couple years, computer monitors and TV screens will be all 4K above that size, and the refresh rate will be higher too.

If 480p is ever gone, i.e: DVDs, then I might listen to this prediction about 1080p fading away. Sorry, but I do not believe this prediction of yours anymore than I believe the full time amateur Nostradamus you quoted in your post.

4K TVs will no more kill 1080p content than 1080p TVs killed off 480p content. Under your theory the latter should have set a precedent for the former. It did not happen; it will not happen. My Magic 8 ball says I'm right and that you are wrong.

Many of my DVDs actually look pretty darn good on my 4K TV and many of my blu-rays look simply delightful. I'm not parting with any of them even when 8K displays come along.

[tjritter79]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Nah, vertical video is going to be huge. The more people shoot with it, the more movement we will see towards feature films shot for the next generation. Kids go to the cinema for the social experience, not to see HQ widescreen entertainment. They don’t give a chuff about quality generally speaking.

I have to agree 100% with you on this Steel!
BUT, the market will be terribly limited.
I think vertical video will only be consumed by those affixed solely to their phones. It has no value to anyone using a TV, especially since a TV is at a 16:9 ratio.
You Tube, and the "like" (because there is going to be more than one entity involved in this) is going to use this as an "anyone can direct" sort of promotion, and yes, certain features will be exclusively in the vertical format.
In fact, you ever see the movie "Hardcore Henry" that would have been perfect in a vertical format for You Tubers only.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I don't want to lower myself to your level, but no one should be disrespected. You made this mistake before, and I accepted your apology. Now you are attacking me again, I'm surprised a Mod hasn't talked to you. Like I said, there is no need for name calling. Yes, I go back Decades with Cat5e, my last three homes have had it. Cat5e is rated up to a Gig, and that's plenty for a few years. Shielded Cat6/7 of course is better, but it's more expensive and not as flexible. I was just saying if you had a choice between Wired or Wireless that you should go Wired. Even at 16Mbps, and that's a year old Average it could go higher or lower, Wired is going to give you the best connection. Wireless has many disadvantages, going through walls, studs, distance, and location just to name a few. I know people love their Wireless for that Convenient Clean Look, but I feel Wired is best to Stream to your UHD TV.

I started with Pacific Telephone under Parent Company AT&T back in 1965, and Retired from PacBell owned by SBC in 1996. SBC changed the name to AT&T. I started running jumper as a Fame Attendant, and worked my way up to a Second Level Service Manager. I was never an Internet Installer, I did Contact Work on Telephone Switches and Networking.

Play the poor widdle victim all you like; you are just attempting to deflect attention away from just how often and how wrong you are about every aspect of both streaming services and about networking. You keep repeating falsehoods despite requests to cease; you know that you are annoying people, yet you keep doing it. You are behaving like a troll. And trolls are not known for being very bright.

The streaming speeds are still valid, the articles cited by multiple forum members are still valid, and some forum members have also tested and confirmed that these speeds are still valid. The streaming providers still recommend internet speeds of 25+ Mbps; the same as they did last year and the same as they do now because their bitrates have not changed. Deny it all you want; you have NO evidence to support anything to the contrary.

A wireless network delivers identical streaming results as a wired one. This has been explained, citations given, and proven ad nauseum by several people. Class dismissed: you flunk.

SBC did not acquire Pacific Telesis Group until 1997 (holding company for PacBell) until after you had retired in 1996. SBC did not acquire AT&T until 2005, nine years after you retired. You should know this even better than I, but clearly you do not.

Link to history of Pacific Telesis Group with all relevant merger dates:

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

[tjritter79]

Originally Posted by Vilya

If 480p is ever gone, i.e: DVDs, then I might listen to this prediction about 1080p fading away. Sorry, but I do not believe this prediction of yours anymore than I believe the full time amateur Nostradamus you quoted in your post.

4K TVs will no more kill 1080p content than 1080p TVs killed off 480p content. Under your theory the latter should have set a precedent for the former. It did not happen; it will not happen. My Magic 8 ball says I'm right and that you are wrong.

Many of my DVDs actually look pretty darn good on my 4K TV and many of my blu-rays look simply delightful. I'm not parting with any of them even when 8K displays come along.

You could be right Vilya, but again, you are mixing up my intention of what I was trying to say.
Screens, displays in 1080, will go away. Look at prices of these screens now. There is very little cost difference between a 1080 & 4K screen of the same size. At some point mfg will say "why bother". How long did cathode ray tube sets last after plasmas and LCD's became more cost efficient? How long was the HD initial standard of 720 after 1080 hit the market? Plus, if you want to view HDR, isn't that more of a standard on 4K sets? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make a 4K screen with HDR then to change mfg to make a 1080 screen with HDR?

Content, different story altogether! As long as people by DVD's they will still make them. It just won't have as large a market share.

[tjritter79]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I’m pretty sure Sony have made a 1080p HDR set.

show me?

https://www.sony.com/electronics/tv/...rice(lowtohigh)

perhaps they do, but none that I can find are offered to the U.S. market.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by tjritter79

I have to agree 100% with you on this Steel!
BUT, the market will be terribly limited.
I think vertical video will only be consumed by those affixed solely to their phones. It has no value to anyone using a TV, especially since a TV is at a 16:9 ratio.
You Tube, and the "like" (because there is going to be more than one entity involved in this) is going to use this as an "anyone can direct" sort of promotion, and yes, certain features will be exclusively in the vertical format.
In fact, you ever see the movie "Hardcore Henry" that would have been perfect in a vertical format for You Tubers only.

Is there a reason why these budding smartphone cinematographers could not, would not, simply rotate their phones 90 degrees and film in widescreen? Phones can film in landscape mode, even ancient ones like my Samsung Note 3.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by tjritter79

You could be right Vilya, but again, you are mixing up my intention of what I was trying to say.
Screens, displays in 1080, will go away. Look at prices of these screens now. There is very little cost difference between a 1080 & 4K screen of the same size. At some point mfg will say "why bother". How long did cathode ray tube sets last after plasmas and LCD's became more cost efficient? How long was the HD initial standard of 720 after 1080 hit the market? Plus, if you want to view HDR, isn't that more of a standard on 4K sets? Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make a 4K screen with HDR then to change mfg to make a 1080 screen with HDR?

Content, different story altogether! As long as people by DVD's they will still make them. It just won't have as large a market share.

I thought you were predicting that 1080p content was endangered by 4k displays. I actually agree that 4k displays will eventually replace 1080p displays as TV manufacturers reduce, and eventually cease, their production with the possible exception of smaller screen displays.