Don’t believe the low bit-rate ‘HD’ lie

[xwingsct]

Very interesting article to read.

Last week at CES, Comcast announced their “HD” video on demand download service over its future DOCSIS 3.0 that allows 4 minute downloads of entire HD movies. Attendees at MacWorld this week were told that disk-based HD formats like HD DVD and Blu-ray are essentially obsolete because you can simply download “HD” movies from your Apple TV 2.0 box on demand. Microsoft started offering “HD” downloads for the XBOX360 starting in late 2006. You can even watch “HD” videos from ABC right from the web. There are even YouTube competitors that offer user uploaded “HD” content. There’s just one minor little problem, it’s not HD.

As I’ve tried to educate my readers last year with my blog “Why HD movie downloads are a big lie“, these so-called HD movies use very low bit-rates compared to even standard definition DVDs let alone something like HD DVD or Blu-ray DVD. Raw uncompressed 1080p video at 60 frames per second is about 3000 mbps so even HD DVD’s 28 mbps needs to be compressed about 107 to 1 with the H.264 or VC-1 codec. By all reasonable standards this needs to be the minimum bit-rate for acceptable loss in quality on 1080p video.

Standard definition 480i DVD movies are typically 5 to 8 mbps (megabits per second) MPEG-2 whereas these so-called HD wannabes weigh in at a pathetic 1.5 to 4 mbps of 720p H.264. Marketing will push the nicer sounding “720p” aspect of the video but they don’t tell you it’s way too compressed to offer good video fidelity. Blu-ray has a maximum bit-rate of 40 mbps while HD DVD offers 28 mbps. Over the air broadcasts can be up to 24 mbps though they’re typically between 16 to 20 mbps.

Modern video compression codecs like H.264 or VC-1 can hide these compression artifact problems much better than MPEG-2 video compression but there’s only so much it can do. At best you might get away 50% more compression over older compression technology but 1.5 to 4 mbps H.264 will not be better than 8 mbps MPEG-2 under most video complexity requirements. The only time 4 mbps 720p will look better than 8 mbps 480i is when the video on the screen is almost entirely stationary or it’s a low-complexity video such as animation movies. Under most normal circumstances, the low bit-rate 720p so-called “HD” video will be inferior though many companies are betting that consumers won’t know any better.

So the bottom line is that so-called “HD” video from Microsoft’s XBOX360 HD download service and Apple’s new Apple TV service or any other web download service is simply not HD by any respectable definition. These companies cannot and should not use the “HD” name with video that is lower fidelity than standard DVD. As for Comcast, there’s not much detail on it but I highly doubt it’s more than 4 to 8 mbps even on DOCSIS 3.0 because its 160 mbps total capacity is divided amongst 50 to 400 customers. Only FiOS technology with its massive capacity and possibly U-Verse (but slower than real time) has sufficient last-mile capacity to deliver true HD movie downloads at the quality of HD DVD and Blu-ray technology.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t buy these services from Microsoft, Apple, or other websites that offer low bit-rate 720p video downloads, but consumers must be aware of the fact that they’re slightly worse than a 1080p up-converted DVD

Source:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=959

And here's another one

http://www.tvpredictions.com/zdnet011808.htm

[kpkelley]

low complexity video such as animation movies? Cars and Ratatouille are some of my favorite blus.

[radagast]

This is a great link. Thanks. I am having an ongoing debate about hd-dvd, Blu-ray and downloads. He is against Blu-ray, period. Since the bottom dropped out of hd-dvd's future, he has shifted to downloads as the future. I have tried to explain the technical issues, but he just says I am wrong. maybe this link will help him understand.

[gearyt]

Super Info.... Thanks
I have been looking for a "clean and simple" answer

[webmaster@michaelbay]

Whomever wrote this article is naive to say the least.

In less that 5-10 years we will be getting technology that will *****slap us.

1. As of now, Verizon FIOS is being tested in select markets (VZW has capped the bandwidth at around 30Mbits/sec). FIOS is very well capable of handling 100 -500 MBits/sec without breaking a sweat. Caltech has tested technology that is being developed, by transferring 859 gigabytes of data in less than 17 minutes across nearly 16,000 kilometers of networks at a rate of 6.63 gigabits per second. That was 2004.
   
2. Last year at NAB, Apple introduced ProRes422, a new codec for the Final Cut editing software. Designed to reduce the amount of storage space necessary for broadcast quality video. ProRes422 delivers UNCOMPRESSED HD quality (usually 165.72 MBytes/sec) at SD data rates (27.97 MBytes/sec)- and in a side-by-side comparison no one could tell the difference. This type of more advanced compression software, coupled with the newer internet protocols mentioned below, will make delivering large amounts of data infinitely easier.
   
   
3. Storage: assuming people like Apple will want to just stream instead of downloading, I don't see it being an issue. And if not, Holographic storage:
   
   READ YOUR HEART OUT
   
   or search holocube storage in Google. Holocubes are being used on those fridges that have LCS screens.

[Seretur]

Okay, but this technology isn't available now, nor will it be in under 5 to 10 years.

And even then, it will be available -- where, exactly?

Not anywhere close to where I live. Or where the vast majority of people in this world live.

Sorry, something that's available only in the major metropolitan areas of the US isn't at all interesting to me. And the article quoted in the OP is talking about the here and now, not some imaginary techno-blissful future.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

Whomever wrote this article is naive to say the least.

In less that 5-10 years we will be getting technology that will *****slap us.
[LIST=1][*]Caltech has tested technology that is being developed, by transferring 859 gigabytes of data in less than 17 minutes across nearly 16,000 kilometers of networks at a rate of 6.63 gigabits per second. That was 2004.

Are you expecting that type of service to your home?

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

Whomever wrote this article is naive to say the least.

Not naive, but thinking of the real world for the majority of the people in the U.S. and the vast majority of the people in the entire world.

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

In less that 5-10 years we will be getting technology that will *****slap us.

See below...

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

As of now, Verizon FIOS is being tested in select markets (VZW has capped the bandwidth at around 30Mbits/sec). FIOS is very well capable of handling 100 -500 MBits/sec without breaking a sweat.

Yes, it is possible in very limited areas in the U.S. to get 30 Mbps FIOS. However, I will be shocked if more than 50% of the households in the U.S. have access to even 10 Mbps in five years.

Think of it this way. Even in urban areas a very large fraction of the population lives in apartments. Many of those are large apartment complexes. Most of those will definitely not be wired (or rewired at customer request) for even 10 Mbps FIOS in the next five years.

Rural areas are not going to get FIOS for a very long time.

This only slides out further in time if you make the baseline for this 50 percentile mark 20 Mbps or even further for 30 Mbps. I will be shocked if more than 50% of the households in the U.S. even have access to 30 Mbps connections of any type in under 10 years -- let alone have actually subscribed to it.

Will it happen? Yes. But not on that time scale. It just takes too long to roll out the "last mile" technology.

And while the fibers (if the right fiber types are chosen) can support up through 500 Mbps and higher, the transceiver equipment becomes much, much more expensive once you get above the lowest levels.

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

Caltech has tested technology that is being developed, by transferring 859 gigabytes of data in less than 17 minutes across nearly 16,000 kilometers of networks at a rate of 6.63 gigabits per second. That was 2004..

This was a very, very specialized test and involved bundling several data streams in parallel over multiple fiber lines. It has absolutely no relevance to connections to the average household. It has absolutely no relevance to the average business connection.

Speaking of which...
Think of what happens when 1,000 plus people want to stream down high quality video from some service. Assuming high quality BD compressed rates [I assume you and Mr. Bay don't want your imagery/audio compromised] (25-30 Mbps on average) this is 25 to 30 Gbps from the provider. You're talking multiple OC-192s at this point. Something very, very few companies can afford now or will be able to afford in 5 - 10 years.

Now think of this in terms of real world and think of a service like iTunes for movies. This service conceivably can have 100,000 or more people connected at once streaming movies. That's 2,500 to 3,000 Gbps. Even moving this to iBEAM equivalent distributed service, the data rates at any one site would be overwhelming -- even five years from now.

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

Last year at NAB, Apple introduced ProRes422, a new codec for the Final Cut editing software. Designed to reduce the amount of storage space necessary for broadcast quality video. ProRes422 delivers UNCOMPRESSED HD quality (usually 165.72 MBytes/sec) at SD data rates (27.97 MBytes/sec)- and in a side-by-side comparison no one could tell the difference. This type of more advanced compression software, coupled with the newer internet protocols mentioned below, will make delivering large amounts of data infinitely easier.

The data rate you quote was an average rate. Since ProRes 422 is a VBR scheme, what was the peak rate? Remember that when using streaming protocols the bandwidth has to accommodate peak rates or else packets get dropped. (Streaming protocols don't do acknowledgments for each packet in order to minimize overhead and maximize information throughput at the recognized risk of dropped packets -- which happens anytime the transmission bandwidth is exceeded.) If the peak rate is twice that 27.97 Mbps (which it could have been) then the end user would have to have a line to his/her household that handles about 56 Mbps.

Additionally, as others have mentioned the end user only gets a fraction of the stated peak rate in their home connection. For streaming protocols this fraction can be 90% or so of the stated value but it certainly is not 100%. Thus for this peak *information* rate of 56 Mbps the connection would have to be rated at a peak of over 62 Mbps -- well over the 30 Mbps you reference above.

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

Storage: assuming people like Apple will want to just stream instead of downloading, I don't see it being an issue. And if not, Holographic storage:

READ YOUR HEART OUT

or search holocube storage in Google. Holocubes are being used on those fridges that have LCS screens.

As someone who has been tracking holographic storage since 1981 (when I was a lab rat helping a team do research on holographic storage as a side interest to my other efforts at the time) I can say with absolute certainty that holographic storage will get there eventually. Without pointing a finger at any particular company I was directly promised that a certain manufacturer (the current leader in the field) would have 300 MB drives and disks shipping in full production quantities no later than Q4 2007. This promise was made less than a year ago. Suffice it to say that quantities are no where near this. Their projections to go to higher storage densities are not tracking prior projections either.

Yes, holographic storage will get there. People just need to realize that the holographic vendor's schedules for availability are extremely optimistic.

[reiella]

Originally Posted by webmaster@michaelbay

Whomever wrote this article is naive to say the least.

In less that 5-10 years we will be getting technology that will *****slap us.
[*]As of now, Verizon FIOS is being tested in select markets (VZW has capped the bandwidth at around 30Mbits/sec). FIOS is very well capable of handling 100 -500 MBits/sec without breaking a sweat. Caltech has tested technology that is being developed, by transferring 859 gigabytes of data in less than 17 minutes across nearly 16,000 kilometers of networks at a rate of 6.63 gigabits per second. That was 2004.

Terrabit speeds have been successfully tested, not for consumer usage though.

Market deployment with FiOS will depend heavily on your primary phone carrier. Vz is trying to shed off some more of their rural markets, instead focusing on the nice profitablity ones.

Only other thing on that I'd like to share is the 'select markets' are now select because of being most profitable, no other reason [unlike, say Keller and Carrolton].

It's rather neat, and as others mention the shift is also going through at the same time as the back-end changes [which is the other reason you're only finding the metropolitian areas deploying so far].

If you do not have Verizon as your primary phone company, then you're not going to be able to get FiOS. If you have AT&T, you can hope for one of their FTTH solutions, but they don't push the same kind of bandwidth [it's more of a mid-step solution than anything imo]. This year might actually see that change though, depending on how other companies see Vz's results performing.

All that said, we currently have the bandwidth possible to deploy DVDs online in a fairly reasonable time. Why hasn't this 'taken off' like the anticipation is HD downloads will when the common level of technology catches up?

[radagast]

bump