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

[alchav21]

Nothing is hypothetical anymore when it comes to Streaming Digital HD. You do need the Bandwidth and a Solid Internet connection. Until you have 50+Mbps and can do comparison testing, you really can't say Streaming has not achieved Disc Quality for HD. With the new Codec and Adaptive Streaming HD Disc Quality is a reality. With the maximum Bitrate of 40Mbps for a Blu-ray Player, and an average of 20Mbps for a BD, you tell me it that's unachievable? Yes, Sony Ultra HD+HDR is BD Quality, but so is Vudu and MA. I have the Solid 75Mbps Symmetrical Fiber Bandwidth, and have done comparison testing with those Providers. If you like Discs, there is nothing wrong with that but Digital HD has arrived, and we think it looks Fantastic!

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Nothing is hypothetical anymore when it comes to Streaming Digital HD. You do need the Bandwidth and a Solid Internet connection. Until you have 50+Mbps and can do comparison testing, you really can't say Streaming has not achieved Disc Quality for HD. With the new Codec and Adaptive Streaming HD Disc Quality is a reality. With the maximum Bitrate of 40Mbps for a Blu-ray Player, and an average of 20Mbps for a BD, you tell me it that's unachievable? Yes, Sony Ultra HD+HDR is BD Quality, but so is Vudu and MA. I have the Solid 75Mbps Symmetrical Fiber Bandwidth, and have done comparison testing with those Providers. If you like Discs, there is nothing wrong with that but Digital HD has arrived, and we think it looks Fantastic!

Streaming has not achieved blu-ray disc quality. It does not match the audio for one thing. Streaming reveals flaws in both dark scenes and background detail. There are innumerable articles that tell us this beyond just our own observations, but citing them is useless as you will not read them and you would just dismiss them if you did. This has been covered extensively in the main Digital vs Physical & The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread. You are simply repeating your same refuted repertoire in a new redundant thread.

Streaming provides very good results when the ISP allows it and the servers are not overwhelmed, but they are not equal to blu-ray disc. All of this assumes your streaming does not wind up buffering or dropping in resolution during the course of a movie. Real world results are what matter, not your perfect world imaginary ones.

As a practical matter, streaming services average a bitrate of about 16 Mbps, with the exception of Apple 4K TV, and that is well below a blu-ray disc which averages close to 25 Mbps. Streaming has a bitrate roughly 60% of the average bitrate of a blu-ray disc. The difference in compression affects the quality.

It does not matter that your ISP provides you 75 Mbps download speeds when most streaming services still only give you 16 Mbps. And many people do not have that level of internet service.

I average 80 Mbps download speed on a good day, but my ISP is so unreliable that the number is meaningless. I have to make a service call to them every two months, sometimes even more often. Relying on a ISP for movie playback stinks. The only thing ISPs are reliable for are data caps, price hikes, and service interruptions.

Sony Ultra may take advantage of some of your available bandwidth with adaptive streaming, it can reach the 20s at most, but even then you still lack the better audio codecs, so you are still not equal to disc. Sony Ultra still does not come even close to a 4K UHD disc's bitrate, adaptive streaming or not. And Sony Ultra offers only their own titles making for a small selection; they are overpriced, and they are limited to owners of select Sony TVs.

Apple 4K TV has the highest bitrate on their 4K streams and that is about 30 Mbps. While that is nearly twice what the other streaming services provide, it still is less than half of what a 4K UHD disc delivers at the low end of its range. And it lacks in the audio just as all streaming services do.

Your fantasy streaming service performance remains a fantasy until those streaming bitrates equal those of the comparable disc. They don't and you know it. No streaming service is providing a bitrate anywhere near the average of a 4K UHD disc, which varies from 60 Mbps to well into the 90s.

Streaming services do not even deliver blu-ray bitrates. While they are getting closer, close is NOT equal.

4K disc playback offers state of the art home video and audio. Streaming is only now approaching blu-ray bitrates. Physical media is where the advancements in home video first appear; streaming always lags behind.

Whatever the next evolution in home video is, 8K etc., it will come to physical media first. Streaming will still be struggling to adapt to both blu-ray and 4K UHD.

[alchav21]

Come on Vilya give it up, H.265 includes the Sound, and with a max Bitrate of 40Mbps that's easily achieved by any good Provider. You still have 4K UHD Discs which Players go up to 128Mbps, so the Streaming Providers are not there yet but that will change too. With your Oppo you can still upscale your Blu-rays with higher Bitrates, but the average Blu-ray Player only goes up to 40Mbps. With my comparison testing of Blu-ray and Digital HD Streaming shows no difference! If you can't see it, then your ISP is very inconsistent and unreliable.

[zarquon]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Come on Vilya give it up, H.265 includes the Sound, and with a max Bitrate of 40Mbps that's easily achieved by any good Provider. You still have 4K UHD Discs which Players go up to 128Mbps, so the Streaming Providers are not there yet but that will change too. With your Oppo you can still upscale your Blu-rays with higher Bitrates, but the average Blu-ray Player only goes up to 40Mbps. With my comparison testing of Blu-ray and Digital HD Streaming shows no difference! If you can't see it, then your ISP is very inconsistent and unreliable.

The H.265 codec includes the sound, yes, but no streaming provider currently offers lossless audio, nor do they stream at anywhere near 40 Mbps; sure, they could, in theory, but in practice they don't. They need to keep things to a lower common denominator to accommodate users with lesser internet speeds. Just because you have a solid 75 Mbps (which isn't that amazing, by the way, I get a pretty consistent 160 Mbps) doesn't mean your streaming speeds will increase to utilize that full bandwidth, adaptive streaming or not.

[stonesfan129]

I've got VUDU on pretty much every device in my home. I just got done watching Sicario on VUDU in HDX on my PC running a Samsung 24" 1080p LED monitor. I then used PowerDVD to watch a few minutes of my Blu-ray. Blu-ray looked slightly sharper and has Dolby Atmos. Other than that, I found it very tough to find much difference sitting a maybe 3' away from my display. I have way too many discs to keep track of as it is, I may just go entirely VUDU going forward. There isn't much I want to own physically anymore that I don't already have. My internet is great (60mbps, hardwired from my router) and I don't really experience any buffering with VUDU. I love the convenience, I can pretty much watch anything right from my desktop, laptop or Xbox. For discs if I travel, I usually just rip them and throw a couple onto a portable USB HDD and then delete them when done. Can someone convince me why I should stick with discs other than having physical ownership?

[stonesfan129]

Originally Posted by zarquon

The H.265 codec includes the sound, yes, but no streaming provider currently offers lossless audio, nor do they stream at anywhere near 40 Mbps; sure, they could, in theory, but in practice they don't. They need to keep things to a lower common denominator to accommodate users with lesser internet speeds. Just because you have a solid 75 Mbps (which isn't that amazing, by the way, I get a pretty consistent 160 Mbps) doesn't mean your streaming speeds will increase to utilize that full bandwidth, adaptive streaming or not.

H265 is a video compression codec, not an audio compression codec. Most of these providers are using Dolby Digital because it achieves better compression than the alternatives (such as DTS or lossless), is compatible with pretty much all home theater equipment (the reason why AAC isn't used) and can be pretty transparent to the lossless codecs. The fact that it achieves good compression means that there is less information to push over the pipe and this means a more consistent, less buffering-filled, streaming experience for the end user.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Come on Vilya give it up, H.265 includes the Sound, and with a max Bitrate of 40Mbps that's easily achieved by any good Provider. You still have 4K UHD Discs which Players go up to 128Mbps, so the Streaming Providers are not there yet but that will change too. With your Oppo you can still upscale your Blu-rays with higher Bitrates, but the average Blu-ray Player only goes up to 40Mbps. With my comparison testing of Blu-ray and Digital HD Streaming shows no difference! If you can't see it, then your ISP is very inconsistent and unreliable.

If anyone should give it up, it is you. Do I need to pull-up and quote the posts from the other thread where you actually admit that streaming does not equal disc?

How about this one where you said, and I quote: "You get better Sound and Video from Disc because the Bitrate is consistent and higher than most Internet access and Provider Bitrates."

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=8084

Disc and streaming utilize H.265, but streaming still uses far greater compression and that adversely impacts the quality. The bitrates don't lie and streaming does not deliver an equivalent experience.

Streaming does not provide equivalent audio codecs, either. Streaming does not produce an equivalent experience here, either.

The video is not equal. The audio is not equal. Streaming is not equal to disc performance.

If you can not see the difference between a streaming and a disc presentation, you need to start paying attention or maybe see an eye doctor. You have a good TV, so I know it is not to blame.

Regardless, your inability to see a difference does not mean there is no difference. It just means you have some undetermined obstacle in perceiving what is clearly evident to people with a more discerning eye.

Streaming does not handle dark scenes as well and background detail is not as well defined. Anomalies appear in both areas.

Streaming offers far lower bitrates, averaging just around 16 Mbps, than disc playback. It is a fact. Blu-ray disc averages near 25 Mbps and 4K discs average about 65 Mbps with peaks in the 90s. What the internet and streaming services could provide is immaterial because they are not providing it. You go on and on with your hypotheticals when it is concrete results that matter.

Streaming can look very good. I have said that many times, but it still fails to equal disc playback. Ever heard the phrase: "Close, but no cigar?" Close is still not equal no matter how many times you say otherwise.

For whatever reason, streaming providers are not utilizing the bandwidth that some ISPs can offer. They send far more compressed video and audio. Again, real world results are what matter, not the woulda coulda shoulda maybe someday scenarios you spin and spout off about.

[Steedeel]

Shouldn’t this thread be merged?

[chrislong2]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Come on Vilya give it up, H.265 includes the Sound, and with a max Bitrate of 40Mbps that's easily achieved by any good Provider. You still have 4K UHD Discs which Players go up to 128Mbps, so the Streaming Providers are not there yet but that will change too. With your Oppo you can still upscale your Blu-rays with higher Bitrates, but the average Blu-ray Player only goes up to 40Mbps. With my comparison testing of Blu-ray and Digital HD Streaming shows no difference! If you can't see it, then your ISP is very inconsistent and unreliable.

Dude, with all due respect to you, you seriously have no idea what you are talking about.

There is not a single streaming provider that I know of that is providing actual 1920x1080 HD streams of 25-30mbps right now, and until they do, they aren't going to reliably be able to equal Blu-ray quality. Period! I don't care if you have a 90000mbps Internet Connection, the actual stream bandwidth is what matters!

Most non-4k HD streams are under 10mbps and that's a fact, friend.

The fact that newer codecs with better compression with adaptive technology exists does NOT change this equation! In fact, if anything, those technologies are what allow for LESS bandwidth to be required, but it's still just simple math. A 10mbps encode from the same HD source as a 30mbps encode (regardless of whether H264 or H265) is not going to be able to fully match the 30mbps encode.

I personally watch streaming and discs and have a >50mbps connection and use a variety of services, and while streaming can look good and even great, Blu-ray does consistently look better.

While one day, probably not even that terribly far off in the future, this will change, for now Blu-ray still has the clear edge. Even once all the infrastructure supports it on a mass-scale (it doesn't yet), the providers would have to create new higher quality encodes to take advantage of it, and for many titles, that's going to take awhile for that to actually happen.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by chrislong2

There is not a single streaming provider that I know of that is providing actual 1920x1080 HD streams of 25-30mbps right now, and until they do, they aren't going to reliably be able to equal Blu-ray quality. Period! I don't care if you have a 90000mbps Internet Connection, the actual stream bandwidth is what matters!

Most non-4k HD streams are under 10mbps and that's a fact, friend.

I can see that you are very knowledgeable, but one Provider has higher Bitrates than 10Mbps for their HD Streams, that is Sony Ultra. All their Codec is H.265 with Adaptive Streaming, and go from SD, HD, to 4K depending on your Bandwidth. So until you test them out, I stand by my claims. They also have HDR for all their Streaming. My set up for my Sony UHD TV is Cat5 straight from my Fiber Feed Gigabit Switch.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I can see that you are very knowledgeable, but one Provider has higher Bitrates than 10Mbps for their HD Streams, that is Sony Ultra. All their Codec is H.265 with Adaptive Streaming, and go from SD, HD, to 4K depending on your Bandwidth. So until you test them out, I stand by my claims. They also have HDR for all their Streaming. My set up for my Sony UHD TV is Cat5 straight from my Fiber Feed Gigabit Switch.

Your claims change with the weather.

Sony Ultra has an average bitrate of 16 Mbps. Sony Ultra only offers Sony titles and it is an expensive service that is only available to owners of certain Sony TVs. It is a poorly rated service overall.

When you do a search for this year's best streaming services, guess who is not even listed? Sony Ultra. It makes none of the lists.

An article dated Dec. 12, 2017 from Digital Trends said this about Sony Ultra:

"you’ll be hard-pressed to find virtually anyone using Ultra, as its many restrictions make it one of the least enticing services on the list, and one of the least battle-tested."

https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-t...k-uhd-content/

Sony Ultra, and the far better streaming providers, in no way utilize the available bandwidth that some ISPs offer. Try and remember that it is real world results that interest us, not what you think could happen someday somewhere.

You yourself have said on more than one occasion that disc looks better than streaming. Do I need to find more of your quotes to that effect? I sure hope not; reading your posts more than once is more than anyone should have to do.

Your posts often contradict one another and that makes it really difficult to take your comments seriously.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Shouldn’t this thread be merged?

Give it time; it likely will be merged eventually.

For now, it gives anchovy21 a new playground in which to post his repetitive misinformation that has already plagued the main thread.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It has Dolby vision so that was a consideration. I will get a really high quality projector so it’s not the be all and end all.

I have seen the LG OLEDs and they are a sight to behold. I wish they had retained 3D support on their newer models. I have heard that the 3D on the LG 2016 models, the 6 series, looked fantastic.

LG OLEDs are in their third model year now and if they still had 3D support, I would be tempted to move heaven and earth to get one.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I have seen the LG OLEDs and they are a sight to behold. I wish they had retained 3D support on their newer models. I have heard that the 3D on the LG 2016 models, the 6 series, looked fantastic.

LG OLEDs are in their third model year now and if they still had 3D support, I would be tempted to move heaven and earth to get one.

I have moved my Panny Full HD to the bedroom so I can still enjoy 3D until I get new projector. I also can watch it on VR headset although it’s not as sharp

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I have moved my Panny Full HD to the bedroom so I can still enjoy 3D until I get new projector. I also can watch it on VR headset although it’s not as sharp

I really don't want to have to own two TVs and/ or a projector in order to enjoy both 3D and the latest evolution in 4K displays.

From what I have read so far, even the best projectors do a poor job with blacks. Replacing bulbs gets expensive fast, too. Projectors also require active shutter glasses for 3D and I am not a fan of those; they are more expensive, require recharging, and they are lot heavier than passive glasses.

I keep hoping that 8K TVs will arrive with glasses-free 3D, or even conventional passive 3D, but I have heard rumors that 8K 3D may not be compatible with existing 3D blu-rays.

The TV manufacturers have made it really difficult and expensive to be a fan of both 3D and 4K. It was entirely unnecessary for them to drop 3D as adding 3D support to a TV is not an expensive feature.

I have read that incorporating 3D reduces TV brightness and that impedes the holy grail of ever higher nit ratings that 4K TVs voraciously crave.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I really don't want to have to own two TVs and/ or a projector in order to enjoy both 3D and the latest evolution in 4K displays.

From what I have read so far, even the best projectors do a poor job with blacks. Replacing bulbs gets expensive fast, too. Projectors also require active shutter glasses for 3D and I am not a fan of those; they are more expensive, require recharging, and they are lot heavier than passive glasses.

I keep hoping that 8K TVs will arrive with glasses-free 3D, or even conventional passive 3D, but I have heard rumors that 8K 3D may not be compatible with existing 3D blu-rays.

The TV manufacturers have made it really difficult and expensive to be a fan of both 3D and 4K. It was entirely unnecessary for them to drop 3D as adding 3D support to a TV is not an expensive feature.

I have read that incorporating 3D reduces TV brightness and that impedes the holy grail of ever higher nit ratings that 4K TVs voraciously crave.

Tell me about it. So frustrating and a perfect example of how tech can slowly vanish from the scene despite many claiming it doesn’t work that way.

[Vilya]

The TV industry introduced 3D to the market in 2010 and by 2016 all TV manufacturers had dropped support. LG was the last one to drop 3D; Samsung dropped it in 2015, and I beleive Vizio dropped it as early as 2013. We barely got 6 years of hardware support for this still relatively young home video format.

Personally, in my opinion, I believe manufacturers of tech products, especially expensive ones like 3D TVs, should be required to support their technology for a minimum of 10 years. Their premature abandonment has left 3D fans holding the proverbial bag.

It makes me wary of adopting any new tech until it has been out for a couple of years thereby allowing me to evaluate how it is performing and selling. Jumping in early is extremely risky, especially as the standards for new tech are not fully defined at product launch- it is as if we are unwittingly paying to be their beta testers until they work out the bugs and add refinements.

Those unfortunate enough to have purchased a 4K TV in 2015 knows this all too well. Those early 4K sets have no HDR support at all and HDR is now arguably the largest selling point of the 4K tech and format.

[The_Donster]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Tell me about it. So frustrating and a perfect example of how tech can slowly vanish from the scene despite many claiming it doesn’t work that way.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The TV industry introduced 3D to the market in 2010 and by 2016 all TV manufacturers had dropped support. LG was the last one to drop 3D; Samsung dropped it in 2015, and I beleive Vizio dropped it as early as 2013. We barely got 6 years of hardware support for this still relatively young home video format.

Personally, in my opinion, I believe manufacturers of tech products, especially expensive ones like 3D TVs, should be required to support their technology for a minimum of 10 years. Their premature abandonment has left 3D fans holding the proverbial bag.

It makes me wary of adopting any new tech until it has been out for a couple of years thereby allowing me to evaluate how it is performing and selling. Jumping in early is extremely risky, especially as the standards for new tech are not fully defined at product launch- it is as if we are unwittingly paying to be their beta testers until they work out the bugs and add refinements.

Those unfortunate enough to have purchased a 4K TV in 2015 knows this all too well. Those early 4K sets have no HDR support at all and HDR is now arguably the largest selling point of the 4K tech and format.

For sure. That 10 year rule would be great.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by The_Donster

Just stating a fact.