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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

There is no incentive for the content providers (Netflix, Amazon, VUDU, Hulu) to increase their file sizes. Would just increase their storage and data transport cost, the incentive for them is smaller file sizes, not larger. So far this year Netflix alone accounts for 40% of all internet download usage. If interested, click here for an Netflix article that has a lot of links to other info.

Folks really need to get past this streaming A/V is/will equal the quality of UHD Blu-ray or Blu-ray disc. The streaming content providers know they only need to have similar quality to that of pay TV providers (satellite and cable).

To be fair, 4K streaming picture quality already exceeds what cable and satellite TV offer. Even I have noticed that with my limited use of these services.

I doubt that streaming providers have any incentive to offer more than what they are currently offering which means that streaming will continue to fall short of the equivalent disc in overall quality. Perhaps 8K will motivate them to do more if anything becomes of it? I think I have read that some streaming providers are starting to offer Dolby Atmos, albeit a more compressed version of it.

Streaming is always more compressed, but it offers very good quality when, and if, both provider and ISP are cooperating. My experiences with streaming often get hung up on that "if" part; all the stars must be properly aligned for me to be able to enjoy it.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

There is no incentive for the content providers (Netflix, Amazon, VUDU, Hulu) to increase their file sizes. Would just increase their storage and data transport cost, the incentive for them is smaller file sizes, not larger. So far this year Netflix alone accounts for 40% of all internet download usage. If interested, click here for an Netflix article that has a lot of links to other info.

Folks really need to get past this streaming A/V is/will equal the quality of UHD Blu-ray or Blu-ray disc. The streaming content providers know they only need to have similar quality to that of pay TV providers (satellite and cable).

Yes there is. Netflix already is toying with the idea of a premium 4K + hdr plan. You don't think they will want to do something similar with 8k in the future?

Ditto for 8K movies on digital providers. Many still charge a premium for 4k (vudu not as much since itunes put pressure, just for disney, but fn and amazon still tend to)

And as vilya stated streaming has been better than cable for years. So you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

Yes there is. Netflix already is toying with the idea of a premium 4K + hdr plan. You don't think they will want to do something similar with 8k in the future?

Ditto for 8K movies on digital providers. Many still charge a premium for 4k (vudu not as much since itunes put pressure, just for disney, but fn and amazon still tend to)

And as vilya stated streaming has been better than cable for years. So you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Depends which services you are talking about. In the U.K., Sky is 4K so it looks just as good as Netflix. Both services are nowhere near UHD disc though, nowhere near.

The point is, we will be moving down the quality ladder with streaming, as it will ALWAYS be playing catch up.

Also, it’s a disgrace expecting people to pay more for 4K HDR on their tv. I lost a lot of respect for Netflix when I heard that.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Depends which services you are talking about. In the U.K., Sky is 4K so it looks just as good as Netflix. Both services are nowhere near UHD disc though, nowhere near.

The point is, we will be moving down the quality ladder with streaming, as it will ALWAYS be playing catch up.

Also, it’s a disgrace expecting people to pay more for 4K HDR on their tv. I lost a lot of respect for Netflix when I heard that.

How much content is truly in 4k though?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

How much content is truly in 4k though?

The sport is and looks quite good. Some new films have 4K versions also. Content is improving. As fior genuine 4K, well that’s debatable but it doesn’t alter the quality argument. A 2K master is still going to look superior on disc., especially with HDR. I think the sport is shot in 4K.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

To be fair, 4K streaming picture quality already exceeds what cable and satellite TV offer. Even I have noticed that with my limited uses of these services.

I doubt that streaming providers have any incentive to offer more than what they are currently offering which means that streaming will continue to fall short of the equivalent disc in overall quality. Perhaps 8K will motivate them to do more if anything becomes of it? I think I have read that some streaming providers are starting to offer Dolby Atmos, albeit a more compressed version of it.

Streaming is always more compressed, but it offers very good quality when, and if, both provider and ISP are cooperating. My experiences with streaming often get hung up on that "if" part; all the stars must be properly aligned for me to be able to enjoy it.

Can not speak directly about pay TV but streamers only need picture quality to be ≥ pay TV providers. That is IMHO because the last time I saw comparison data the vast majority of viewing for the US was done via pay TV and OTA.

Awhile back an avid Netflix person posted on AVS that Netflix Dolby Digital + (Plus) data rate for a 5.1 stream was 192Kbps. Can not remember what device (Roku?) he was using but I believe the info came from the Netflix diagnostic screen. AFAIK for Dolby Atmos all streamers use Dolby Digital + and Dolby Atmos as an add on to DD+.

About 3 nights ago started to watch another episode Penny Dreadful via Netflix about 2130 hours and it was awful looking. Checked the bit rate and it was very low, ≪1Mbps, normally runs 2.85Mbps. Stopped and checked the Netflix speed via the app (Sony UBP-X800) and it was about 2 Mbps.

Went to the PC and checked the speed using the ISP speed test and it showed about 24Mbps, then I checked using Speed of Me and it showed about 2 Mbps. So I called the ISP and told the person they had a problem on their end and it was not between me and the ISP but between the ISP and the backbone. She said she understood and would get their people on it. The next morning the service was normal when I checked.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The sport is and looks quite good. Some new films have 4K versions also. Content is improving. As fior genuine 4K, well that’s debatable but it doesn’t alter the quality argument. A 2K master is still going to look superior on disc., especially with HDR. I think the sport is shot in 4K.

That was not the discussion we were having. Even if that is essentially the thread premise no one was talking about disc.

We were talking about wendell sounding like he is ready to join your tinfoil hat club saying digital won't improve

[Wendell R. Breland]

Below is a screen shoot of a single transponder from AMC-21 satellite. Look in the lower left and the black box with the green lettering and you will see the Last Second bit rate of 90.809Mbps. Many satellites are capable of 24 transponders. Video providers cram too many program streams into a single transport stream is the reason video can look bad. Video can look quite good via satellite if done right.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Can not speak directly about pay TV but streamers only need picture quality to be ≥ pay TV providers.

The most important aspect for most people is likely the picture quality by far, but when so many people listen to their content with either their awesome TV speakers or, at most, a bargain priced soundbar then that comes as no surprise. Audio quality takes a backseat for a lot of people.

Assuming my ISP is up and running and the streaming provider's servers are not overwhelmed, I have never noticed such anemic bitrates when streaming from Netflix or from anywhere else. It is these fluctuating variables of ISP and content provider performance that prevent me from utilizing their services with any frequency. Streaming will remain a rental source and research tool for me, but I will always prefer the quality, control over content, and the stability of discs.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

There is no incentive for the content providers (Netflix, Amazon, VUDU, Hulu) to increase their file sizes.

Sure there is. It would allow an individual content provider to distinguish itself from its competitors.

A lot of people understandably view this stuff through the lens of previous generations of home video but I'm always reminded of computer tech.

Nature abhors a vacuum but not nearly as much as programmers. As drives got bigger and bigger programs got bigger to fill them. As graphics cards got faster and faster, programs got more demanding.

My guess is a similar dynamic will play out here. As pipes get bigger and faster - which they inevitably will - content providers will trip over each other trying to clog them up.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Folks really need to get past this streaming A/V is/will equal the quality of UHD Blu-ray or Blu-ray disc. The streaming content providers know they only need to have similar quality to that of pay TV providers (satellite and cable).

Sure, there's something to that in the short to mid term. But none of this is frozen in place. Storage and transmission are only going to get cheaper over time. And screens are going to get bigger and bigger.

Now, does any of this mean consumers are going to clamor en masse for streaming equivalents of UHD discs? No, probably not. But it does mean content providers will be able to cheaply offer that kind of value added to those consumers that do want it.

Analog broadcasting standards were frozen in place for decades for a variety of technical and regulatory reasons. We're past that. We're living in an age where individual broadcasters can virtually create their own standards.

There's no reason to think those are going to be frozen in place.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The most important aspect for most people is likely the picture quality by far

In this context I know what you mean but if quality was first and foremost then DVD's would be history and folks would purchase only BD. It would be interesting to see any real data to show purchase decisions based on quality vs price.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by octagon

Sure there is. It would allow an individual content provider to distinguish itself from its competitors.

Do you know of any reason they could not do this now? Netflix already runs 16Mbps for UHD while VUDU does 11Mbp. Why does VUDU choose not to use 16Mbps? Why did Amazon remove this kind of info from their site?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Do you know of any reason they could not do this now? Netflix already runs 16Mbps for UHD while VUDU does 11Mbp. Why does VUDU chose not to use 16Mbps? Why did Amazon remove this kind of info from their site?

Why are they offering UHD at all?

They just have to be as good as plain vanilla Comcast and Dish, right?

And again, I don't disagree with that assessment, exactly. There isn't a huge incentive for any content provider to be a lot better plain vanilla Comcast or Dish because there isn't currently much of a demand for anybody to be a lot better than plain vanilla Comcast or Dish.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by octagon

Why are they offering UHD at all?

You know as well as I do that only a few truly know the answer to that. IMO, first and foremost, marketing! None of the streaming providers want to be seen as being in 2nd place technologically speaking. Blu-ray has 1080 so we must have 1080, UHD Blu-ray has 2160 so we must have 2160, Blu-ray has 3D so we must have 3D, UHD Blu-ray has HDR10 & Dolby Vision so we must have HDR10 & Dolby Vision, Blu-ray has Dolby Atmos and DTS:X therefore we must have Dolby Atmos and DTS:X(?).

Streamer are simply cashing in on the advancements of physical media. Do you know of a single advancement streamers have made before it was available on physical media?

Another big problem I see for streamers, compatibility. I have already made reference to this and provided links.

(?)Not sure any streamer is using DTS:X, anyone know for sure?

[The_Donster]

I’m curious where you are getting your UHD speeds for Netflix and VUDU Wendell Because I can test Netflix & some other apps directly on my KS8000 and I’m pulling in higher numbers depending on the content

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

You know as well as I do that only a few truly know the answer to that. IMO, first and foremost, marketing! None of the streaming providers want to be seen as being in 2nd place technologically speaking. Blu-ray has 1080 so we must have 1080, UHD Blu-ray has 2160 so we must have 2160, Blu-ray has 3D so we must have 3D, UHD Blu-ray has HDR10 & Dolby Vision so we must have HDR10 & Dolby Vision, Blu-ray has Dolby Atmos and DTS:X therefore we must have Dolby Atmos and DTS:X(?).

Streamer are simply cashing in on the advancements of physical media. Do you know of a single advancement streamers have made before it was available on physical media?

There is very, very little 3D content available from streaming. If there was a decent selection, that would increase my interest in streaming... somewhat.

I can not think of any picture or audio improvement that did not first appear on physical media. Of the advancements that streaming has adopted, they are more heavily compressed versions, kinda like a less than perfect clone.

[Show spoiler]

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Streamer are simply cashing in on the advancements of physical media.

Well, that's not entirely true. Streamers are also cashing in on advancements of Ye Olde Information Superhighway.

Kind of like Amazon. Jeff Bezos didn't invent catalog shopping or the internet. He didn't even invent online shopping. He just did it really well and Amazon was really smart about leveraging its initial successes.

And I'm rather glad they were because Amazon's pretty freaking awesome.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

Do you know of a single advancement streamers have made before it was available on physical media?

Nothing comes to mind.

But so what? I can't think of a single advancement Sam Walton made before it was available at other stores but I still like shopping at Target and Walmart.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

In this context I know what you mean but if quality was first and foremost then DVD's would be history and folks would purchase only BD. It would be interesting to see any real data to show purchase decisions based on quality vs price.

Obviously, not everyone has to have the very best quality. People make their own judgments as to what constitutes acceptable quality. These new 4K players and 4K TVs work wonders with many DVDs, too- I am surprised how good some of them look on my set-up.

Streaming, when all is working properly, can offer a very good experience. It is also very affordable and it is super convenient. A service that offers high quality (even if not the best), attractive prices, and convenience will be always be very popular.

Likewise, there will similarly be those who want the best and physical media fulfills that desire. Outside of these forums, I personally know very few people who care about having the best home theater experience they can, but at the same time this forum confirms that we are not alone in our desire to have the utmost in quality, limited only by our means.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Obviously, not everyone has to have the very best quality.

Parks Associates estimates that 30% of Netflix (NFLX) subscribers are getting the premium service tier, up from 21% in late 2017. Meanwhile, the share of subscribers getting the lowest-priced tier has fallen to 27% from 35%, the research firm reported Thursday

.

Do you or anyone else know of any data that shows what subs use Premium for UHD and what subs use Premium for 4 screens at a time?

For grins, have had Netflix UHD almost from the get go via the Sony FMP-X10, refused to buy the FMP-X1 because of no IR control.

[HarcourtMudd]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Obviously, not everyone has to have the very best quality. People make their own judgments as to what constitutes acceptable quality. These new 4K players and 4K TVs work wonders with many DVDs, too- I am surprised how good some of them look on my set-up.

Streaming, when all is working properly, can offer a very good experience. It is also very affordable and it is super convenient. A service that offers high quality (even if not the best), attractive prices, and convenience will be always be very popular.

Likewise, there will similarly be those who want the best and physical media fulfills that desire. Outside of these forums, I personally know very few people who care about having the best home theater experience they can, but at the same time this forum confirms that we are not alone in our desire to have the utmost in quality, limited only by our means.

I would add that not everyone's definition of "the best home theater experience" is the same. I know that what I call my theater would generate a lot of laughing (You call that a home theater...?!?) and yet I would prefer it over any commercial theater I have ever been in. It is not all important to me that the picture is on par with having a 35mm projector over my shoulder, but what is important is that it is an enjoyable showing of whatever I am watching. To me, content is king: I would sooner watch a 3rd generation VHS SLP dub of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" than a picture perfect, 8k, holographic release of "Ultraviolet" (which I do own, sorry to say, but it sits proudly in my "Hall of Shame," right next to "10,000 BC")...

Oh, and if you know what "SLP" stands for in the context of VHS, you are betraying your age...