Motion blur is different from what I'm talking about. Motion blur is an anomaly of recording motion pictures.
I'm talking about compression for digital delivery. Compression algorithms are tasked to find every way possible to eliminate excess picture information while maintaining a given bit rate. This process by nature decreases the sharpness of the entire movie.
The reason compression for video works so well is because motion picture has the advantage of temporal resolution and does not need as much spacial resolution.
Actually when the picture is still and the camera is not moving. That is a prime opportunity for the compression algorithms to get rid of a lot of picture information. Scenes that are not moving require less information than scenes with lots of action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
Yes, I'm quite familiar with motion blur. However, there are plenty of scenes in films where there is very little motion, and filmed with a sharp camera at full resolution, it shouldn't be too hard to find a sharp image.
Consumption means nothing to the media companies if they can't make money from it, they are looking at the fact that sales are decreasing
Are you sympathetic that a bunch of billionaires are making less billions this year than they made 5 years ago?
You aren't using the terminology entirely correctly. Sales are when people are buying stuff. Sales are down when people are not buying as much stuff as they did before. People are consuming more media, they are just buying it at a cheaper price than they would have paid before.
What the studios are complaining about is the fact that revenues are not increasing at the same rate that peoples consumption of media is increasing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Why are you always going on about the iPhone, what does that have to do with sitting distance from your tv?
You really don't understand how any of this works. Which is OK you don't have to understand how it works, but don't enter a debate about it if you don't understand.
Quote:
You seem to be all over the place, how does this explain why the Blu-ray movies look so much better than the Apple 720p version?
Because the marketing machine has simplified this stuff so that they can sell it. Resolution is only one factor in what makes a good video picture. Resolution is the easiest one to explain and market.
Its easy to read 1080P in big bold letters. But its not that simple.
Not every Blu-ray is superior to 720p stuff. There are poor Blu-ray masters that exist, and there are poorly shot or poorly archived films that won't benefit from full HD resolution.
But for the most part, you are correct.
And those poor masters used for the Blu-ray will also produce poor 720p videos as well.
It's all pixels, the same principals apply when it comes to picture sharpness.
it's all pixels... Yes, I would rather have the higher pixel count, together with the higher bitrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
HD streaming is better quality than DVD so it's not the best of the worst, it's only 2nd to Blu-Ray. Sometimes the silver medal is ok if you can get it while sitting in your armchair.
I'm not that lazy, so it doesn't worry me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You may only have hardware that allows you to download from certain suppliers at a given time.
I guess this interoperability concept is lost on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
This is what happens on the most popular Blu-Ray player - the PS3:
Do you want me to make a video of my AppleTV and how long it takes to power on, and how long it takes to start streaming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think that if people don't have a living space that accommodates a 60" TV then they won't buy a 60" TV.
I think you are starting to take the piss now. If I have the choice of watching a moving on my iPod, my phone, my 24" iMac, or my 40" TV, I would choose the TV first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It's quite simple, overall physical media sales are down but 10% of people used to buying DVDs now buy Blu-Ray. Digital sales have grown since last year. Digital sales aren't dropping to feed Blu-Ray growth, it's DVD sales that are dropping to feed Blu-Ray growth.
Digital sales have barely grew at all, it would be hard for them to drop at all. No one is denying the fact that DVD sales have dropped, it is a well documented fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You are probably interpreting it to mean that DVD buyers are migrating to both streaming and Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray is growing faster. I don't think that's an accurate interpretation. Those people are coming from abandoning TV subscriptions, it's a different market:
No, that's not how I am interpreting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The point is that 1080p vs 720p doesn't matter because if it doesn't matter for stills then it certainly doesn't matter for moving pictures so the issue is bitrate. If streaming services are not good enough quality for you then either they are streaming at too low bitrates or your connection isn't fast enough. For people who have the right setup, they don't see a vast difference between Blu-Ray and HD streaming but note that streaming is faster to switch between the content.
Yes it does, a high resolution, high bit rate video looks nicer than a low resolution, low bit rate video, that is a simple fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Again your problem is with Apple. There are other services with better pricing models. Also you keep saying Blu-Ray is so much better. Review after review says that it's not vastly better than the best streaming services.
The only problem I have with Apple is they are currently the only provider, and they are over priced. And that makes it Apples problem because I won't give them money for movies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Blu-Ray has its place. They just announced Star Wars on Blu-Ray. Would I rather own Star Wars as a streaming pass or on Blu-Ray? My answer would be on Blu-Ray. If I want to watch a new movie though, I would rather stream the movie instantly than get a physical disc. If I like it and want to own it, I'd buy it on Blu-Ray.
Blu-Ray for ownership, streaming for everything else - TV, rentals etc. (the vast majority of media consumption).
As I have said, streaming isn't any good when it is dramatically more expensive than renting from a video store.
In general, no. Only better on the benchmark scale, but in real life, your video gear will determine the degree of improvements you can achieve. Your head needs to be placed within 4 - 5 ft away from the screen on the ~45" screen to really notice. Most people do not follow the viewing specs at home. My computer screen is 37" 1080p viewing 2ft away right now, and 720p vs. 1080p is not noticeable. Have you not seen garbage 1080p video transfers on bluray? And off course, best 720p video content will always be better than the bad 1080p contents. Your claim dismissed.
You guys really need to stop reading from the same incorrect "spec" sheet.
If you have a 37" monitor, and you are sitting 60cm from it and can't notice a difference between 720p and 1080p then you need to get your eyes checked. I can tell the difference on my iMac without issue, and I can tell the difference on my 40" TV without issue.
And your last statement, what is that about? The majority of blu-ray releases will always look better than the majority of 720p releases. Your claim dismissed.
Are you sympathetic that a bunch of billionaires are making less billions this year than they made 5 years ago?
No I'm not, do you want to to post the same rubbish that people post here regarding how much profit Apple makes off their products and why it is important that they make that profit?
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You aren't using the terminology entirely correctly. Sales are when people are buying stuff. Sales are down when people are not buying as much stuff as they did before. People are consuming more media, they are just buying it at a cheaper price than they would have paid before.
Again, you are missing the point, do you think these content producers are happy they are making less money by selling more product?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
You really don't understand how any of this works. Which is OK you don't have to understand how it works, but don't enter a debate about it if you don't understand.
Fine, if you think you are so much better than everyone else, please tell me, why does the resolution of the iPhone matter in relation to how far I sit from my TV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell;1780551Because the marketing machine has simplified this stuff so that they can sell it. Resolution is only one factor in what makes a good video picture. Resolution is the easiest one to explain and market.
Its easy to read [b
1080P[/b] in big bold letters. But its not that simple.
I know that, I haven't ever stated resolution alone as the quality marker, but as usual you like to ignore certain parts of peoples postings. If that is the way you do things, fine, if it makes it easier for you to understand, fine. Just stop making assumptions just because you don't read everything.
You guys really need to stop reading from the same incorrect "spec" sheet.
If you have a 37" monitor, and you are sitting 60cm from it and can't notice a difference between 720p and 1080p then you need to get your eyes checked. I can tell the difference on my iMac without issue, and I can tell the difference on my 40" TV without issue.
And your last statement, what is that about? The majority of blu-ray releases will always look better than the majority of 720p releases. Your claim dismissed.
Nope. Good video gear will make bad transfer more apparent, but good 720p transfer will scale as well as good 1080p contents. Try it yourself, this will be true even on 100+" screen. If you can walk into a room and tell number of content pixels playing on the display, then you've got talent.
it's all pixels... Yes, I would rather have the higher pixel count, together with the higher bitrate.
If they brought out 2000p at 100MBits/s in 5 years, would you buy a new 80" screen, player and discs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I'm not that lazy, so it doesn't worry me.
So you still carry a bucket down the road to the well for fresh water? You can call it laziness or you can call it convenience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I guess this interoperability concept is lost on you.
The interoperability achievable with a cross-provider agreement is higher than trying to get Blu-Ray content to work on every device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Do you want me to make a video of my AppleTV and how long it takes to power on, and how long it takes to start streaming?
The Apple TV rentals aren't instant-on but others are. The buffer time depends on how fast your connection is. Still, it does it once and you can flip between other content while it loads. With Blu-Ray, you have to wait for every single disc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I think you are starting to take the piss now. If I have the choice of watching a moving on my iPod, my phone, my 24" iMac, or my 40" TV, I would choose the TV first.
It doesn't matter if the largest screen size doesn't show perceptible differences between the videos. It may do for you right now but with the right network connection and a decent bitrate service, it won't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Yes it does, a high resolution, high bit rate video looks nicer than a low resolution, low bit rate video, that is a simple fact.
There is a point where the difference becomes negligible/imperceptible. You use the words high and low but you don't define bitrate limits for those words. What bitrate would you describe as an unacceptably low bitrate? The Blu-Ray video bitrate limit is 40Mbits/s. Here's a list of Blu-Ray bitrates used on films:
A significant amount are under 30Mbits/s. 2001: A Space Odyssey was done at 13MBits. Your own broadband is higher than that. Blade Runner was done at 17MBits/s.
When you use advanced codecs like VC-1/AVC, you just don't need the bitrates to be all that high. Given that 1080p is only slightly sharper than 720p with sufficient bitrate, streaming services just need to hit a certain bitrate and then it doesn't matter for most people. I think the streaming services have hit that quality bar already where most people don't care about the difference.
That doesn't mean that everyone will be content with streaming vs Blu-Ray but like with everything, the quality enthusiasts are the minority. Your stance seems to be that people will move to streaming, just not now and we need Blu-Ray support now.
You already said that given the choice, you wouldn't watch a movie on anything less than the biggest screen in your house so why would computers need support for it? There is already 3rd party support for data archiving. I think it's silly to keep optical drives in laptops because they waste far too much space and cost too much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
The only problem I have with Apple is they are currently the only provider, and they are over priced.
They aren't the only provider by a long way. There are quite a few streaming services.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
As I have said, streaming isn't any good when it is dramatically more expensive than renting from a video store.
$4.99 per HD rental is high vs $1.50 Blu-Ray rental from redbox but Netflix subscriptions are cheaper overall and don't have the return conditions with redbox. Apple's streaming service needs to go subscription or pay-per-minute not pay-per-movie. This isn't Apple's fault though but the studios'.
why does the resolution of the iPhone matter in relation to how far I sit from my TV?
When the pixels on a screen are at a certain density for an intended viewing distance and converge to the point where it's scientifically not possible for 20/20 visual acuity to determine the difference between it and a higher density of pixels then there is no reason to add more.
The iPhone was an example of a screen that has reached this density but it is also an example of a screen where a lot of people don't see an important difference despite the pixels going up by a factor of 4. The sharpness is there as seen in the following picture but the phones in the picture are huge so you don't see that difference nearly as much when you use the phone:
The difference from 720p to 1080p is only a factor of 2 in the number of pixels. So the difference in sharpness is nowhere near the iPhone difference.
The statement I am making is the following: Given sufficient bitrate, 1080p is at best slightly sharper. You seem to disagree with that but I showed it clearly with the images on the previous page. At times you make your argument clear about high bitrate 1080p vs low bitrate 720p but then it slips back to just 1080p vs 720p.
The biggest issues with streaming are prices and bitrates. 720p vs 1080p is the least important factor.
If you want to try it out and have access to Windows, you can rip your 1080p Blu-Ray to 8MBits 720p with an AVC high profile encoder and compare it streaming from your computer to your ATV vs Blu-Ray. The difference in quality will be negligible.
The problem I think you have is that you can't right now get 720p 8MBits instant-on for $1.50 per rental. That would be a fair argument but technology transitions have to start somewhere and while what we have now is not quite up to that level, it's at a point where people who value convenience over picture quality are migrating.
The playstation network actually streams 8MBits 1080p and that's not far off some of the Blu-Ray bitrates but I'm not sure on the pricing.
I would agree that 720 is good enough such that other factors become paramount for many people today.
But at the same time, it seems you're being quite dismissive to those people who can see a diffeeence with 1080. A large percentage of people have better than 20/20 vision. I am legally blind without glasses or contacts. Yet I can still see iPhone pixels and the difference between 720 and 1080.
The immediacy of streaming makes me willing to accept 720 over the higher res and bitrate of blu-ray. But 1080 streaming is still preferable. Twice the pixels is not just "slightly sharper" for many viewers.
With that said, at times Netflix x-high hd is damn good. I'd have to eat some crow if I discovered the movie I steamed last night was 720 instead of 1080.
But at the same time, it seems you're being quite dismissive to those people who can see a difference with 1080.
Not dismissive of the fact they can see a difference but that the difference matters so much to the point where people say that until the Apple TV gets 1080p, it's not worth buying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
But 1080 streaming is still preferable.
Perhaps but then you have to compromise on bitrate. I'd say it's better to have 720p above a bitrate threshold than 1080p below it. I'd rather have 8MBits 720p than 8MBits 1080p for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Twice the pixels is not just "slightly sharper" for many viewers.
It's only 50% more per pixel though because in order to display that larger areal size, the second pixel is split top, right and upper-right. The iPhone is double:
Here are some Tron Legacy comparisons from the Apple 720p and 1080p trailers (mixed up just for kicks again - the last ones were both 1080p in the top ones, 720p in the bottom):
The point is not really to see if you can tell which is 1080p, just to show that the difference is small and in a moving picture, it's unlikely you'd even bother about it unless you consciously made the effort to find fault with the picture or if you were freeze-framing Basic Instinct and looking closely at the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
With that said, at times Netflix x-high hd is damn good. I'd have to eat some crow if I discovered the movie I steamed last night was 720 instead of 1080.
Yeah Netflix seem to have started streaming 1080p for people with good enough connections. They said for certain it's not 1080i. As I say, I personally would rather watch 720p at the same bitrate but whatever is preferred can be offered for consumers with 10Mbps broadband.
lol. That reply reads like it was written by a team of lawyers. Are you really trying to prove me wrong about something?
Perhaps more charts and graphs are needed to prove that we don't understand pixels.
Yes, some of us can see the difference between 720 and 1080 and have the bandwidth to stream 1080. Can't someone say that without getting a manifesto rebuttal?
lol. That reply reads like it was written by a team of lawyers. Are you really trying to prove me wrong about something?
Perhaps more charts and graphs are needed to prove that we don't understand pixels.
Yes, some of us can see the difference between 720 and 1080 and have the bandwidth to stream 1080. Can't someone say that without getting a manifesto rebuttal?
The discussions over 720p vs. 1080i vs. 1080p have been heavily beaten to death in AVSforum with outcome really depending on many things other than just pixels. In theory, 1080p is the best, but in real application in many homes, the PQ difference or being able to tell the PQ difference from the pixel counts alone is not that apparent within the variants of the HD contents.
Obviously, starting with the 1080p source material would provide the best potential for achieving the best PQ in theory. There is no question about that, but what % of consumers will have the system to utilize the 1080p source material to it's maximum potential?
In this regards, I do feel that it is more of a marketing gimmick on the 1080p. This is apparent on majority of blu-ray titles we buy everyday. Not all 1080p contents will produce PQ at it's maximum potential regardless of the available pixel counts. Since we are talking about number of pixels provided on the movie titles per frame other than purest still test screen/frames, the overall PQ is heavily dependent of source material/authoring/mastering/transfer, and in most cases the material will not challenge the potential of how 1080p material should be. Is 1080p source of such material really essential or the major factor of the video PQ? I doubt that and this is what we are talking about. There are probably 5-10% of released title worthy of 1080p and these materials can also stream in great PQ for most homes, it will look as good as if it was played from the 1080p blu-ray disc.
In many ways, The HD video market does share many similarities with the HiDef Audio scam. Not sure how many have bought into SACD, but many enthusiast found out the CD layer of the SACD was able to reproduce sound quality close or equal to SACD, however, the same CD audio title on the redbook version sounded much worse. Obviously, we are not talking about audio here on this thread, but this is an example of qualify of authoring/mastering alone capable of improving sound quality without utilizing HiDef audio format. I feel that the video market is very similar in the way it's driving HD video market.
Regardless, I am sucker for a new technology. Therefore, I have been walking the path of a typical early adapter for many years on my AV hobbies, including HD audio and video on discs, and now via streaming. I have bought into 3D already, and actually it's more exciting this time than the initial HD video roll-out. I can enjoy 3D with my whole family and my kids love them the most. I just hope they would release more titles. Once again, no thanks to the choppy 3d authoring, it will be as useless as badly mastered/authored/transferred 1080p contents on blu-ray.
Nope. Good video gear will make bad transfer more apparent, but good 720p transfer will scale as well as good 1080p contents. Try it yourself, this will be true even on 100+" screen. If you can walk into a room and tell number of content pixels playing on the display, then you've got talent.
Using your logic, why aren't we just using VCD for everything? It scales as well.
And if you can't tell a 720p video on a 100"+ screen there is something wrong with your eye sight.
If they brought out 2000p at 100MBits/s in 5 years, would you buy a new 80" screen, player and discs?
That depends really doesn't it, if it was a single vendor product, then certainly not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
So you still carry a bucket down the road to the well for fresh water? You can call it laziness or you can call it convenience.
No I don't have too, we have a well out the back of the house, it is very convenient.
There are a lot of items available today that makes life very convenient, that doesn't mean they are better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The interoperability achievable with a cross-provider agreement is higher than trying to get Blu-Ray content to work on every device.
Really? I can get a Blu-ray from Sony, one from Warners etc and they all play on my Blu-ray player, they managed to organise something, why can't the digital download people do this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The Apple TV rentals aren't instant-on but others are. The buffer time depends on how fast your connection is. Still, it does it once and you can flip between other content while it loads. With Blu-Ray, you have to wait for every single disc.
I take it you mean if you are viewing it from your computer? Because if I try to watch something streaming from my AppleTV, I can't do anything else until it starts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It doesn't matter if the largest screen size doesn't show perceptible differences between the videos. It may do for you right now but with the right network connection and a decent bitrate service, it won't.
So you are telling me a product that doesn't exist right now is better than the products that do currently exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There is a point where the difference becomes negligible/imperceptible. You use the words high and low but you don't define bitrate limits for those words. What bitrate would you describe as an unacceptably low bitrate? The Blu-Ray video bitrate limit is 40Mbits/s. Here's a list of Blu-Ray bitrates used on films:
A significant amount are under 30Mbits/s. 2001: A Space Odyssey was done at 13MBits. Your own broadband is higher than that. Blade Runner was done at 17MBits/s.
When you use advanced codecs like VC-1/AVC, you just don't need the bitrates to be all that high. Given that 1080p is only slightly sharper than 720p with sufficient bitrate, streaming services just need to hit a certain bitrate and then it doesn't matter for most people. I think the streaming services have hit that quality bar already where most people don't care about the difference.
How does that compare to the streaming services, say like Apples iTunes which peak at around 4Mbits/s?
Right, I get it that you don't want a quality product, you are happy with paying more to save yourself 15 seconds, you are happy for vendor lock-in, fine, I don't care, just stop with the crap trying to convince people that the current streaming model is better quality that Blu-ray, it isn't, and nothing you say will change the fact that Blu-rays are a higher quality product that steaming, or digital downloads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
You already said that given the choice, you wouldn't watch a movie on anything less than the biggest screen in your house so why would computers need support for it? There is already 3rd party support for data archiving. I think it's silly to keep optical drives in laptops because they waste far too much space and cost too much.
Now for starters, I haven't said I wanted a blu-ray drive in a computer, personally it doesn't worry me, but, now this is the thing I think you are having the issue with, I am not the only consumer in the world, people have different ideas to me and want different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They aren't the only provider by a long way. There are quite a few streaming services.
I don't live the US, I have said this a number of times, and I am saying it again, Apple is the only player in this market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
$4.99 per HD rental is high vs $1.50 Blu-Ray rental from redbox but Netflix subscriptions are cheaper overall and don't have the return conditions with redbox. Apple's streaming service needs to go subscription or pay-per-minute not pay-per-movie. This isn't Apple's fault though but the studios'.
let me say it again, I don't live in the US, I can't access Netflixs, I can rent a 720p movie from Apple for $8, or I can walk 4 minutes to the video store (conveniently located for me) and rent a Blu-ray for $2 - $5. I don't want a subscription, I am happy with pay per movie, I just don't want the prices Apple is charging, especially when it eats up 5% of my internet limit per movie (which ups the rental price)
The statement I am making is the following: Given sufficient bitrate, 1080p is at best slightly sharper. You seem to disagree with that but I showed it clearly with the images on the previous page. At times you make your argument clear about high bitrate 1080p vs low bitrate 720p but then it slips back to just 1080p vs 720p.
Again, you are showing static images of a phone, compared to moving images on a video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
If you want to try it out and have access to Windows, you can rip your 1080p Blu-Ray to 8MBits 720p with an AVC high profile encoder and compare it streaming from your computer to your ATV vs Blu-Ray. The difference in quality will be negligible.
I don't own a Blu-ray drive for my computer sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The playstation network actually streams 8MBits 1080p and that's not far off some of the Blu-Ray bitrates but I'm not sure on the pricing.
I'll have to believe you, I don't live in a county with PSN movies, as I have said, Apple is the only player.
lol. That reply reads like it was written by a team of lawyers. Are you really trying to prove me wrong about something?
I move to dismiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Perhaps more charts and graphs are needed to prove that we don't understand pixels.
Yes, some of us can see the difference between 720 and 1080 and have the bandwidth to stream 1080. Can't someone say that without getting a manifesto rebuttal?
The point I'm making with the comparisons is that people very often say they can see a vast difference between 1080p and 720p but generally what is meant by that is they have 720p from one source and 1080p from a different source and 1080p looks better under the assumption that it's the higher pixel number making the difference and not other factors or they are talking about seeing a 720p TV next to a 1080p TV.
All I'm saying is that, while you can tell the difference, the actual factual difference between the image resolutions is slight and the only artifact it can produce is a mild softening of the picture. Any other artifacts come from compression or color differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
That depends really doesn't it, if it was a single vendor product, then certainly not.
Say it was a product like Blu-Ray where you have to buy a special decoder for every device you own, would you upgrade to vastly superior 4k resolution if it became available? Also, will be you be in another discussion like this one saying that 4k is vastly better than 1080p and if you can't tell 1080p on a 100" screen, you need glasses? 4k resolution is 4x the pixels of Blu-Ray and generally what movies are shot at so your Blu-Ray is 1/4 the size of the source.
Or is Blu-Ray quality your quality threshold for all movies from now on? If it is then you have a threshold and for a lot of people, HD streaming at 4MBits meets their quality threshold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Really? I can get a Blu-ray from Sony, one from Warners etc and they all play on my Blu-ray player, they managed to organise something, why can't the digital download people do this?
Digital boxes offer more than just movies though so you get the TV networks fighting over the rights to it. That isn't a problem with the format though just the networks. While it's a valid criticism, you can't get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-Ray and never will so that format will always be the primary distribution medium for that content.
I agree entirely that the networks need to stop being greedy and holding back technology. This affected Blu-Ray too with the HD-DVD mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
if I try to watch something streaming from my AppleTV, I can't do anything else until it starts.
The new one allows you to do things while it buffers in the background and then notifies you when it's ready to watch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
So you are telling me a product that doesn't exist right now is better than the products that do currently exist?
Streaming is better than Blu-Ray for convenience right now; Blu-Ray has better picture quality right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Lovely list, why don't you link to one that is getting updated now?
It doesn't matter about how up-to-date it is. What's important is that some of the highest selling Blu-Ray movies e.g the Dark Knight are authored at much lower than the maximum bitrate Blu-Ray allows and people don't seem to be complaining. It's still a higher bitrate than streaming but in many cases, not by a lot which suggests that people can't tell the difference between say 8MBits streaming and 16MBits Blu-Ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
stop with the crap trying to convince people that the current streaming model is better quality that Blu-ray, it isn't
Nobody said anything about streaming being better quality than Blu-Ray. The question would be is the difference in quality between Blu-Ray and streaming enough to prevent streaming being a viable alternative. The answer is no. You could forget about Blu-Ray entirely and be content with streaming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I can walk 4 minutes to the video store (conveniently located for me) and rent a Blu-ray for $2 - $5.
Not everyone has that luxury though. You are also depending on a single supplier to have the movie you want. You may want to rent a movie from the 90s and the rental store might not stock it. Streaming can store any and every movie that's ever been made if the studios would let them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
I'll have to believe you, I don't live in a county with PSN movies, as I have said, Apple is the only player.
That's a different issue altogether though. If I said which tastes better McDonalds or KFC, you can't say McDonalds because I don't have a KFC near me.
Using your logic, why aren't we just using VCD for everything? It scales as well.
Because DVD writable disc price is low as CD writable disc. Did you not know that? I bet you also don't know that most people now use SD or USB storage these days to carry video files around. I would much prefer using the internet to transfer files via filezilla, though.
And yes, if you encode them properly, even a 2.5GB movie files at 720p encodes do upscale very well on 1080p screen.
Say it was a product like Blu-Ray where you have to buy a special decoder for every device you own, would you upgrade to vastly superior 4k resolution if it became available? Also, will be you be in another discussion like this one saying that 4k is vastly better than 1080p and if you can't tell 1080p on a 100" screen, you need glasses? 4k resolution is 4x the pixels of Blu-Ray and generally what movies are shot at so your Blu-Ray is 1/4 the size of the source.
If I had to purchase a product from a single vendor to enable me to watch videos that you could only purchase from that vendor, then no, I would not purchase it, regardless of the resolution, bitrate, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Or is Blu-Ray quality your quality threshold for all movies from now on? If it is then you have a threshold and for a lot of people, HD streaming at 4MBits meets their quality threshold.
It is the current bench mark for consumer video, and just like everything before it, something else will come along that is better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Digital boxes offer more than just movies though so you get the TV networks fighting over the rights to it. That isn't a problem with the format though just the networks. While it's a valid criticism, you can't get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-Ray and never will so that format will always be the primary distribution medium for that content.
Why can't you get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-ray? BR-Live allows for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The new one allows you to do things while it buffers in the background and then notifies you when it's ready to watch.
That sounds better, but not enough make me want to replace the current one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Streaming is better than Blu-Ray for convenience right now; Blu-Ray has better picture quality right now.
Convenience differs for individuals, I have a video store a couple of minutes walk away, that is convenient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It doesn't matter about how up-to-date it is. What's important is that some of the highest selling Blu-Ray movies e.g the Dark Knight are authored at much lower than the maximum bitrate Blu-Ray allows and people don't seem to be complaining. It's still a higher bitrate than streaming but in many cases, not by a lot which suggests that people can't tell the difference between say 8MBits streaming and 16MBits Blu-Ray.
It doesn't matter how up to date it is? How can you claim the majority are under a certain bitrate if it hasn't been updated in over a year, that misses out a tonne of releases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Nobody said anything about streaming being better quality than Blu-Ray. The question would be is the difference in quality between Blu-Ray and streaming enough to prevent streaming being a viable alternative. The answer is no. You could forget about Blu-Ray entirely and be content with streaming.
Like I said, the lack of streaming stops it being a viable alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Not everyone has that luxury though. You are also depending on a single supplier to have the movie you want. You may want to rent a movie from the 90s and the rental store might not stock it. Streaming can store any and every movie that's ever been made if the studios would let them.
Wonderful word "IF".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's a different issue altogether though. If I said which tastes better McDonalds or KFC, you can't say McDonalds because I don't have a KFC near me.
So if a service is not available to me, how can that service be better, or more convenient? The service doesn't exist, which means it isn't viable. The service that does exist is better by default, you can't question that.
Because DVD writable disc price is low as CD writable disc. Did you not know that? I bet you also don't know that most people now use SD or USB storage these days to carry video files around. I would much prefer using the internet to transfer files via filezilla, though.
And yes, if you encode them properly, even a 2.5GB movie files at 720p encodes do upscale very well on 1080p screen.
commercial movies don't come on dvd writable disc, so that price doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, your perception of quality, and mine differ, if you can are happy with a low quality video upscaled then fine, just don't expect everyone else to be.
Comments
I'm talking about compression for digital delivery. Compression algorithms are tasked to find every way possible to eliminate excess picture information while maintaining a given bit rate. This process by nature decreases the sharpness of the entire movie.
The reason compression for video works so well is because motion picture has the advantage of temporal resolution and does not need as much spacial resolution.
Actually when the picture is still and the camera is not moving. That is a prime opportunity for the compression algorithms to get rid of a lot of picture information. Scenes that are not moving require less information than scenes with lots of action.
Yes, I'm quite familiar with motion blur. However, there are plenty of scenes in films where there is very little motion, and filmed with a sharp camera at full resolution, it shouldn't be too hard to find a sharp image.
Consumption means nothing to the media companies if they can't make money from it, they are looking at the fact that sales are decreasing
Are you sympathetic that a bunch of billionaires are making less billions this year than they made 5 years ago?
You aren't using the terminology entirely correctly. Sales are when people are buying stuff. Sales are down when people are not buying as much stuff as they did before. People are consuming more media, they are just buying it at a cheaper price than they would have paid before.
What the studios are complaining about is the fact that revenues are not increasing at the same rate that peoples consumption of media is increasing.
Why are you always going on about the iPhone, what does that have to do with sitting distance from your tv?
You really don't understand how any of this works. Which is OK you don't have to understand how it works, but don't enter a debate about it if you don't understand.
You seem to be all over the place, how does this explain why the Blu-ray movies look so much better than the Apple 720p version?
Because the marketing machine has simplified this stuff so that they can sell it. Resolution is only one factor in what makes a good video picture. Resolution is the easiest one to explain and market.
Its easy to read 1080P in big bold letters. But its not that simple.
Not every Blu-ray is superior to 720p stuff. There are poor Blu-ray masters that exist, and there are poorly shot or poorly archived films that won't benefit from full HD resolution.
But for the most part, you are correct.
And those poor masters used for the Blu-ray will also produce poor 720p videos as well.
It's all pixels, the same principals apply when it comes to picture sharpness.
it's all pixels... Yes, I would rather have the higher pixel count, together with the higher bitrate.
HD streaming is better quality than DVD so it's not the best of the worst, it's only 2nd to Blu-Ray. Sometimes the silver medal is ok if you can get it while sitting in your armchair.
I'm not that lazy, so it doesn't worry me.
You may only have hardware that allows you to download from certain suppliers at a given time.
I guess this interoperability concept is lost on you.
This is what happens on the most popular Blu-Ray player - the PS3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbV8vf7nuMA
Both actually took at least 20 seconds.
Do you want me to make a video of my AppleTV and how long it takes to power on, and how long it takes to start streaming?
I think that if people don't have a living space that accommodates a 60" TV then they won't buy a 60" TV.
I think you are starting to take the piss now. If I have the choice of watching a moving on my iPod, my phone, my 24" iMac, or my 40" TV, I would choose the TV first.
It's quite simple, overall physical media sales are down but 10% of people used to buying DVDs now buy Blu-Ray. Digital sales have grown since last year. Digital sales aren't dropping to feed Blu-Ray growth, it's DVD sales that are dropping to feed Blu-Ray growth.
Digital sales have barely grew at all, it would be hard for them to drop at all. No one is denying the fact that DVD sales have dropped, it is a well documented fact.
You are probably interpreting it to mean that DVD buyers are migrating to both streaming and Blu-Ray and Blu-Ray is growing faster. I don't think that's an accurate interpretation. Those people are coming from abandoning TV subscriptions, it's a different market:
No, that's not how I am interpreting it.
The point is that 1080p vs 720p doesn't matter because if it doesn't matter for stills then it certainly doesn't matter for moving pictures so the issue is bitrate. If streaming services are not good enough quality for you then either they are streaming at too low bitrates or your connection isn't fast enough. For people who have the right setup, they don't see a vast difference between Blu-Ray and HD streaming but note that streaming is faster to switch between the content.
Yes it does, a high resolution, high bit rate video looks nicer than a low resolution, low bit rate video, that is a simple fact.
Again your problem is with Apple. There are other services with better pricing models. Also you keep saying Blu-Ray is so much better. Review after review says that it's not vastly better than the best streaming services.
The only problem I have with Apple is they are currently the only provider, and they are over priced. And that makes it Apples problem because I won't give them money for movies.
Blu-Ray has its place. They just announced Star Wars on Blu-Ray. Would I rather own Star Wars as a streaming pass or on Blu-Ray? My answer would be on Blu-Ray. If I want to watch a new movie though, I would rather stream the movie instantly than get a physical disc. If I like it and want to own it, I'd buy it on Blu-Ray.
Blu-Ray for ownership, streaming for everything else - TV, rentals etc. (the vast majority of media consumption).
As I have said, streaming isn't any good when it is dramatically more expensive than renting from a video store.
In general, no. Only better on the benchmark scale, but in real life, your video gear will determine the degree of improvements you can achieve. Your head needs to be placed within 4 - 5 ft away from the screen on the ~45" screen to really notice. Most people do not follow the viewing specs at home. My computer screen is 37" 1080p viewing 2ft away right now, and 720p vs. 1080p is not noticeable. Have you not seen garbage 1080p video transfers on bluray? And off course, best 720p video content will always be better than the bad 1080p contents. Your claim dismissed.
You guys really need to stop reading from the same incorrect "spec" sheet.
If you have a 37" monitor, and you are sitting 60cm from it and can't notice a difference between 720p and 1080p then you need to get your eyes checked. I can tell the difference on my iMac without issue, and I can tell the difference on my 40" TV without issue.
And your last statement, what is that about? The majority of blu-ray releases will always look better than the majority of 720p releases. Your claim dismissed.
Are you sympathetic that a bunch of billionaires are making less billions this year than they made 5 years ago?
No I'm not, do you want to to post the same rubbish that people post here regarding how much profit Apple makes off their products and why it is important that they make that profit?
[
You aren't using the terminology entirely correctly. Sales are when people are buying stuff. Sales are down when people are not buying as much stuff as they did before. People are consuming more media, they are just buying it at a cheaper price than they would have paid before.
Again, you are missing the point, do you think these content producers are happy they are making less money by selling more product?
You really don't understand how any of this works. Which is OK you don't have to understand how it works, but don't enter a debate about it if you don't understand.
Fine, if you think you are so much better than everyone else, please tell me, why does the resolution of the iPhone matter in relation to how far I sit from my TV?
Its easy to read [b
1080P[/b] in big bold letters. But its not that simple.
I know that, I haven't ever stated resolution alone as the quality marker, but as usual you like to ignore certain parts of peoples postings. If that is the way you do things, fine, if it makes it easier for you to understand, fine. Just stop making assumptions just because you don't read everything.
You guys really need to stop reading from the same incorrect "spec" sheet.
If you have a 37" monitor, and you are sitting 60cm from it and can't notice a difference between 720p and 1080p then you need to get your eyes checked. I can tell the difference on my iMac without issue, and I can tell the difference on my 40" TV without issue.
And your last statement, what is that about? The majority of blu-ray releases will always look better than the majority of 720p releases. Your claim dismissed.
Nope. Good video gear will make bad transfer more apparent, but good 720p transfer will scale as well as good 1080p contents. Try it yourself, this will be true even on 100+" screen. If you can walk into a room and tell number of content pixels playing on the display, then you've got talent.
it's all pixels... Yes, I would rather have the higher pixel count, together with the higher bitrate.
If they brought out 2000p at 100MBits/s in 5 years, would you buy a new 80" screen, player and discs?
I'm not that lazy, so it doesn't worry me.
So you still carry a bucket down the road to the well for fresh water? You can call it laziness or you can call it convenience.
I guess this interoperability concept is lost on you.
The interoperability achievable with a cross-provider agreement is higher than trying to get Blu-Ray content to work on every device.
Do you want me to make a video of my AppleTV and how long it takes to power on, and how long it takes to start streaming?
The Apple TV rentals aren't instant-on but others are. The buffer time depends on how fast your connection is. Still, it does it once and you can flip between other content while it loads. With Blu-Ray, you have to wait for every single disc.
I think you are starting to take the piss now. If I have the choice of watching a moving on my iPod, my phone, my 24" iMac, or my 40" TV, I would choose the TV first.
It doesn't matter if the largest screen size doesn't show perceptible differences between the videos. It may do for you right now but with the right network connection and a decent bitrate service, it won't.
Yes it does, a high resolution, high bit rate video looks nicer than a low resolution, low bit rate video, that is a simple fact.
There is a point where the difference becomes negligible/imperceptible. You use the words high and low but you don't define bitrate limits for those words. What bitrate would you describe as an unacceptably low bitrate? The Blu-Ray video bitrate limit is 40Mbits/s. Here's a list of Blu-Ray bitrates used on films:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mov...ates-here.html
A significant amount are under 30Mbits/s. 2001: A Space Odyssey was done at 13MBits. Your own broadband is higher than that. Blade Runner was done at 17MBits/s.
When you use advanced codecs like VC-1/AVC, you just don't need the bitrates to be all that high. Given that 1080p is only slightly sharper than 720p with sufficient bitrate, streaming services just need to hit a certain bitrate and then it doesn't matter for most people. I think the streaming services have hit that quality bar already where most people don't care about the difference.
That doesn't mean that everyone will be content with streaming vs Blu-Ray but like with everything, the quality enthusiasts are the minority. Your stance seems to be that people will move to streaming, just not now and we need Blu-Ray support now.
You already said that given the choice, you wouldn't watch a movie on anything less than the biggest screen in your house so why would computers need support for it? There is already 3rd party support for data archiving. I think it's silly to keep optical drives in laptops because they waste far too much space and cost too much.
The only problem I have with Apple is they are currently the only provider, and they are over priced.
They aren't the only provider by a long way. There are quite a few streaming services.
As I have said, streaming isn't any good when it is dramatically more expensive than renting from a video store.
$4.99 per HD rental is high vs $1.50 Blu-Ray rental from redbox but Netflix subscriptions are cheaper overall and don't have the return conditions with redbox. Apple's streaming service needs to go subscription or pay-per-minute not pay-per-movie. This isn't Apple's fault though but the studios'.
why does the resolution of the iPhone matter in relation to how far I sit from my TV?
When the pixels on a screen are at a certain density for an intended viewing distance and converge to the point where it's scientifically not possible for 20/20 visual acuity to determine the difference between it and a higher density of pixels then there is no reason to add more.
The iPhone was an example of a screen that has reached this density but it is also an example of a screen where a lot of people don't see an important difference despite the pixels going up by a factor of 4. The sharpness is there as seen in the following picture but the phones in the picture are huge so you don't see that difference nearly as much when you use the phone:
http://teenstalktech.files.wordpress...3gs-screen.jpg
The difference from 720p to 1080p is only a factor of 2 in the number of pixels. So the difference in sharpness is nowhere near the iPhone difference.
The statement I am making is the following: Given sufficient bitrate, 1080p is at best slightly sharper. You seem to disagree with that but I showed it clearly with the images on the previous page. At times you make your argument clear about high bitrate 1080p vs low bitrate 720p but then it slips back to just 1080p vs 720p.
The biggest issues with streaming are prices and bitrates. 720p vs 1080p is the least important factor.
If you want to try it out and have access to Windows, you can rip your 1080p Blu-Ray to 8MBits 720p with an AVC high profile encoder and compare it streaming from your computer to your ATV vs Blu-Ray. The difference in quality will be negligible.
The problem I think you have is that you can't right now get 720p 8MBits instant-on for $1.50 per rental. That would be a fair argument but technology transitions have to start somewhere and while what we have now is not quite up to that level, it's at a point where people who value convenience over picture quality are migrating.
The playstation network actually streams 8MBits 1080p and that's not far off some of the Blu-Ray bitrates but I'm not sure on the pricing.
But at the same time, it seems you're being quite dismissive to those people who can see a diffeeence with 1080. A large percentage of people have better than 20/20 vision. I am legally blind without glasses or contacts. Yet I can still see iPhone pixels and the difference between 720 and 1080.
The immediacy of streaming makes me willing to accept 720 over the higher res and bitrate of blu-ray. But 1080 streaming is still preferable. Twice the pixels is not just "slightly sharper" for many viewers.
With that said, at times Netflix x-high hd is damn good. I'd have to eat some crow if I discovered the movie I steamed last night was 720 instead of 1080.
But at the same time, it seems you're being quite dismissive to those people who can see a difference with 1080.
Not dismissive of the fact they can see a difference but that the difference matters so much to the point where people say that until the Apple TV gets 1080p, it's not worth buying.
But 1080 streaming is still preferable.
Perhaps but then you have to compromise on bitrate. I'd say it's better to have 720p above a bitrate threshold than 1080p below it. I'd rather have 8MBits 720p than 8MBits 1080p for example.
Twice the pixels is not just "slightly sharper" for many viewers.
It's only 50% more per pixel though because in order to display that larger areal size, the second pixel is split top, right and upper-right. The iPhone is double:
Here are some Tron Legacy comparisons from the Apple 720p and 1080p trailers (mixed up just for kicks again - the last ones were both 1080p in the top ones, 720p in the bottom):
The point is not really to see if you can tell which is 1080p, just to show that the difference is small and in a moving picture, it's unlikely you'd even bother about it unless you consciously made the effort to find fault with the picture or if you were freeze-framing Basic Instinct and looking closely at the screen.
With that said, at times Netflix x-high hd is damn good. I'd have to eat some crow if I discovered the movie I steamed last night was 720 instead of 1080.
Yeah Netflix seem to have started streaming 1080p for people with good enough connections. They said for certain it's not 1080i. As I say, I personally would rather watch 720p at the same bitrate but whatever is preferred can be offered for consumers with 10Mbps broadband.
Perhaps more charts and graphs are needed to prove that we don't understand pixels.
Yes, some of us can see the difference between 720 and 1080 and have the bandwidth to stream 1080. Can't someone say that without getting a manifesto rebuttal?
lol. That reply reads like it was written by a team of lawyers. Are you really trying to prove me wrong about something?
Perhaps more charts and graphs are needed to prove that we don't understand pixels.
Yes, some of us can see the difference between 720 and 1080 and have the bandwidth to stream 1080. Can't someone say that without getting a manifesto rebuttal?
The discussions over 720p vs. 1080i vs. 1080p have been heavily beaten to death in AVSforum with outcome really depending on many things other than just pixels. In theory, 1080p is the best, but in real application in many homes, the PQ difference or being able to tell the PQ difference from the pixel counts alone is not that apparent within the variants of the HD contents.
Obviously, starting with the 1080p source material would provide the best potential for achieving the best PQ in theory. There is no question about that, but what % of consumers will have the system to utilize the 1080p source material to it's maximum potential?
In this regards, I do feel that it is more of a marketing gimmick on the 1080p. This is apparent on majority of blu-ray titles we buy everyday. Not all 1080p contents will produce PQ at it's maximum potential regardless of the available pixel counts. Since we are talking about number of pixels provided on the movie titles per frame other than purest still test screen/frames, the overall PQ is heavily dependent of source material/authoring/mastering/transfer, and in most cases the material will not challenge the potential of how 1080p material should be. Is 1080p source of such material really essential or the major factor of the video PQ? I doubt that and this is what we are talking about. There are probably 5-10% of released title worthy of 1080p and these materials can also stream in great PQ for most homes, it will look as good as if it was played from the 1080p blu-ray disc.
In many ways, The HD video market does share many similarities with the HiDef Audio scam. Not sure how many have bought into SACD, but many enthusiast found out the CD layer of the SACD was able to reproduce sound quality close or equal to SACD, however, the same CD audio title on the redbook version sounded much worse. Obviously, we are not talking about audio here on this thread, but this is an example of qualify of authoring/mastering alone capable of improving sound quality without utilizing HiDef audio format. I feel that the video market is very similar in the way it's driving HD video market.
Regardless, I am sucker for a new technology. Therefore, I have been walking the path of a typical early adapter for many years on my AV hobbies, including HD audio and video on discs, and now via streaming. I have bought into 3D already, and actually it's more exciting this time than the initial HD video roll-out. I can enjoy 3D with my whole family and my kids love them the most.
Nope. Good video gear will make bad transfer more apparent, but good 720p transfer will scale as well as good 1080p contents. Try it yourself, this will be true even on 100+" screen. If you can walk into a room and tell number of content pixels playing on the display, then you've got talent.
Using your logic, why aren't we just using VCD for everything? It scales as well.
And if you can't tell a 720p video on a 100"+ screen there is something wrong with your eye sight.
If they brought out 2000p at 100MBits/s in 5 years, would you buy a new 80" screen, player and discs?
That depends really doesn't it, if it was a single vendor product, then certainly not.
So you still carry a bucket down the road to the well for fresh water? You can call it laziness or you can call it convenience.
No I don't have too, we have a well out the back of the house, it is very convenient.
There are a lot of items available today that makes life very convenient, that doesn't mean they are better.
The interoperability achievable with a cross-provider agreement is higher than trying to get Blu-Ray content to work on every device.
Really? I can get a Blu-ray from Sony, one from Warners etc and they all play on my Blu-ray player, they managed to organise something, why can't the digital download people do this?
The Apple TV rentals aren't instant-on but others are. The buffer time depends on how fast your connection is. Still, it does it once and you can flip between other content while it loads. With Blu-Ray, you have to wait for every single disc.
I take it you mean if you are viewing it from your computer? Because if I try to watch something streaming from my AppleTV, I can't do anything else until it starts.
It doesn't matter if the largest screen size doesn't show perceptible differences between the videos. It may do for you right now but with the right network connection and a decent bitrate service, it won't.
So you are telling me a product that doesn't exist right now is better than the products that do currently exist?
There is a point where the difference becomes negligible/imperceptible. You use the words high and low but you don't define bitrate limits for those words. What bitrate would you describe as an unacceptably low bitrate? The Blu-Ray video bitrate limit is 40Mbits/s. Here's a list of Blu-Ray bitrates used on films:
http://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mov...ates-here.html
Lovely list, why don't you link to one that is getting updated now?
Here is one
http://www.blu-raystats.com/Stats/Te...y=VideoBitrate
A significant amount are under 30Mbits/s. 2001: A Space Odyssey was done at 13MBits. Your own broadband is higher than that. Blade Runner was done at 17MBits/s.
When you use advanced codecs like VC-1/AVC, you just don't need the bitrates to be all that high. Given that 1080p is only slightly sharper than 720p with sufficient bitrate, streaming services just need to hit a certain bitrate and then it doesn't matter for most people. I think the streaming services have hit that quality bar already where most people don't care about the difference.
How does that compare to the streaming services, say like Apples iTunes which peak at around 4Mbits/s?
Right, I get it that you don't want a quality product, you are happy with paying more to save yourself 15 seconds, you are happy for vendor lock-in, fine, I don't care, just stop with the crap trying to convince people that the current streaming model is better quality that Blu-ray, it isn't, and nothing you say will change the fact that Blu-rays are a higher quality product that steaming, or digital downloads.
You already said that given the choice, you wouldn't watch a movie on anything less than the biggest screen in your house so why would computers need support for it? There is already 3rd party support for data archiving. I think it's silly to keep optical drives in laptops because they waste far too much space and cost too much.
Now for starters, I haven't said I wanted a blu-ray drive in a computer, personally it doesn't worry me, but, now this is the thing I think you are having the issue with, I am not the only consumer in the world, people have different ideas to me and want different things.
They aren't the only provider by a long way. There are quite a few streaming services.
I don't live the US, I have said this a number of times, and I am saying it again, Apple is the only player in this market.
$4.99 per HD rental is high vs $1.50 Blu-Ray rental from redbox but Netflix subscriptions are cheaper overall and don't have the return conditions with redbox. Apple's streaming service needs to go subscription or pay-per-minute not pay-per-movie. This isn't Apple's fault though but the studios'.
let me say it again, I don't live in the US, I can't access Netflixs, I can rent a 720p movie from Apple for $8, or I can walk 4 minutes to the video store (conveniently located for me) and rent a Blu-ray for $2 - $5. I don't want a subscription, I am happy with pay per movie, I just don't want the prices Apple is charging, especially when it eats up 5% of my internet limit per movie (which ups the rental price)
The statement I am making is the following: Given sufficient bitrate, 1080p is at best slightly sharper. You seem to disagree with that but I showed it clearly with the images on the previous page. At times you make your argument clear about high bitrate 1080p vs low bitrate 720p but then it slips back to just 1080p vs 720p.
Again, you are showing static images of a phone, compared to moving images on a video.
If you want to try it out and have access to Windows, you can rip your 1080p Blu-Ray to 8MBits 720p with an AVC high profile encoder and compare it streaming from your computer to your ATV vs Blu-Ray. The difference in quality will be negligible.
I don't own a Blu-ray drive for my computer sorry.
The playstation network actually streams 8MBits 1080p and that's not far off some of the Blu-Ray bitrates but I'm not sure on the pricing.
I'll have to believe you, I don't live in a county with PSN movies, as I have said, Apple is the only player.
lol. That reply reads like it was written by a team of lawyers. Are you really trying to prove me wrong about something?
I move to dismiss.
Perhaps more charts and graphs are needed to prove that we don't understand pixels.
Yes, some of us can see the difference between 720 and 1080 and have the bandwidth to stream 1080. Can't someone say that without getting a manifesto rebuttal?
The point I'm making with the comparisons is that people very often say they can see a vast difference between 1080p and 720p but generally what is meant by that is they have 720p from one source and 1080p from a different source and 1080p looks better under the assumption that it's the higher pixel number making the difference and not other factors or they are talking about seeing a 720p TV next to a 1080p TV.
All I'm saying is that, while you can tell the difference, the actual factual difference between the image resolutions is slight and the only artifact it can produce is a mild softening of the picture. Any other artifacts come from compression or color differences.
That depends really doesn't it, if it was a single vendor product, then certainly not.
Say it was a product like Blu-Ray where you have to buy a special decoder for every device you own, would you upgrade to vastly superior 4k resolution if it became available? Also, will be you be in another discussion like this one saying that 4k is vastly better than 1080p and if you can't tell 1080p on a 100" screen, you need glasses? 4k resolution is 4x the pixels of Blu-Ray and generally what movies are shot at so your Blu-Ray is 1/4 the size of the source.
Or is Blu-Ray quality your quality threshold for all movies from now on? If it is then you have a threshold and for a lot of people, HD streaming at 4MBits meets their quality threshold.
Really? I can get a Blu-ray from Sony, one from Warners etc and they all play on my Blu-ray player, they managed to organise something, why can't the digital download people do this?
Digital boxes offer more than just movies though so you get the TV networks fighting over the rights to it. That isn't a problem with the format though just the networks. While it's a valid criticism, you can't get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-Ray and never will so that format will always be the primary distribution medium for that content.
I agree entirely that the networks need to stop being greedy and holding back technology. This affected Blu-Ray too with the HD-DVD mess.
if I try to watch something streaming from my AppleTV, I can't do anything else until it starts.
The new one allows you to do things while it buffers in the background and then notifies you when it's ready to watch.
So you are telling me a product that doesn't exist right now is better than the products that do currently exist?
Streaming is better than Blu-Ray for convenience right now; Blu-Ray has better picture quality right now.
Lovely list, why don't you link to one that is getting updated now?
It doesn't matter about how up-to-date it is. What's important is that some of the highest selling Blu-Ray movies e.g the Dark Knight are authored at much lower than the maximum bitrate Blu-Ray allows and people don't seem to be complaining. It's still a higher bitrate than streaming but in many cases, not by a lot which suggests that people can't tell the difference between say 8MBits streaming and 16MBits Blu-Ray.
stop with the crap trying to convince people that the current streaming model is better quality that Blu-ray, it isn't
Nobody said anything about streaming being better quality than Blu-Ray. The question would be is the difference in quality between Blu-Ray and streaming enough to prevent streaming being a viable alternative. The answer is no. You could forget about Blu-Ray entirely and be content with streaming.
I can walk 4 minutes to the video store (conveniently located for me) and rent a Blu-ray for $2 - $5.
Not everyone has that luxury though. You are also depending on a single supplier to have the movie you want. You may want to rent a movie from the 90s and the rental store might not stock it. Streaming can store any and every movie that's ever been made if the studios would let them.
I'll have to believe you, I don't live in a county with PSN movies, as I have said, Apple is the only player.
That's a different issue altogether though. If I said which tastes better McDonalds or KFC, you can't say McDonalds because I don't have a KFC near me.
Using your logic, why aren't we just using VCD for everything? It scales as well.
Because DVD writable disc price is low as CD writable disc. Did you not know that? I bet you also don't know that most people now use SD or USB storage these days to carry video files around. I would much prefer using the internet to transfer files via filezilla, though.
And yes, if you encode them properly, even a 2.5GB movie files at 720p encodes do upscale very well on 1080p screen.
Say it was a product like Blu-Ray where you have to buy a special decoder for every device you own, would you upgrade to vastly superior 4k resolution if it became available? Also, will be you be in another discussion like this one saying that 4k is vastly better than 1080p and if you can't tell 1080p on a 100" screen, you need glasses? 4k resolution is 4x the pixels of Blu-Ray and generally what movies are shot at so your Blu-Ray is 1/4 the size of the source.
If I had to purchase a product from a single vendor to enable me to watch videos that you could only purchase from that vendor, then no, I would not purchase it, regardless of the resolution, bitrate, etc.
Or is Blu-Ray quality your quality threshold for all movies from now on? If it is then you have a threshold and for a lot of people, HD streaming at 4MBits meets their quality threshold.
It is the current bench mark for consumer video, and just like everything before it, something else will come along that is better.
Digital boxes offer more than just movies though so you get the TV networks fighting over the rights to it. That isn't a problem with the format though just the networks. While it's a valid criticism, you can't get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-Ray and never will so that format will always be the primary distribution medium for that content.
Why can't you get new TV shows or trailers on Blu-ray? BR-Live allows for this.
The new one allows you to do things while it buffers in the background and then notifies you when it's ready to watch.
That sounds better, but not enough make me want to replace the current one.
Streaming is better than Blu-Ray for convenience right now; Blu-Ray has better picture quality right now.
Convenience differs for individuals, I have a video store a couple of minutes walk away, that is convenient.
It doesn't matter about how up-to-date it is. What's important is that some of the highest selling Blu-Ray movies e.g the Dark Knight are authored at much lower than the maximum bitrate Blu-Ray allows and people don't seem to be complaining. It's still a higher bitrate than streaming but in many cases, not by a lot which suggests that people can't tell the difference between say 8MBits streaming and 16MBits Blu-Ray.
It doesn't matter how up to date it is? How can you claim the majority are under a certain bitrate if it hasn't been updated in over a year, that misses out a tonne of releases.
Nobody said anything about streaming being better quality than Blu-Ray. The question would be is the difference in quality between Blu-Ray and streaming enough to prevent streaming being a viable alternative. The answer is no. You could forget about Blu-Ray entirely and be content with streaming.
Like I said, the lack of streaming stops it being a viable alternative.
Not everyone has that luxury though. You are also depending on a single supplier to have the movie you want. You may want to rent a movie from the 90s and the rental store might not stock it. Streaming can store any and every movie that's ever been made if the studios would let them.
Wonderful word "IF".
That's a different issue altogether though. If I said which tastes better McDonalds or KFC, you can't say McDonalds because I don't have a KFC near me.
So if a service is not available to me, how can that service be better, or more convenient? The service doesn't exist, which means it isn't viable. The service that does exist is better by default, you can't question that.
Because DVD writable disc price is low as CD writable disc. Did you not know that? I bet you also don't know that most people now use SD or USB storage these days to carry video files around. I would much prefer using the internet to transfer files via filezilla, though.
And yes, if you encode them properly, even a 2.5GB movie files at 720p encodes do upscale very well on 1080p screen.
commercial movies don't come on dvd writable disc, so that price doesn't matter.
At the end of the day, your perception of quality, and mine differ, if you can are happy with a low quality video upscaled then fine, just don't expect everyone else to be.