You saying Arstechnica is an unknown webpage with no credibility? This is completely wrong. You may not be familiar with it but it is an excellent technology site.
To add to this. Its interesting how I can sit with friends watching a Netflix streaming movie on a 40" screen TV. I can see banding, aliasing, and artifacting. Most noticeably in areas with a mass of black, because that is difficult to encode. They seem to be completely unfazed by it and stay largely engrossed in the movie.
It is the trade off for being able to instantly watch a movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What you and Supreme are talking about is a larger display with larger pixels... but you sit farther away than from a PC monitor. What you guys are doing is comparing the monitor itself to a better display, but that's not what is in question here. The question is how iTS 1080p compares to 1080p found on a 50 GB Blu-ray disc. All this talk of it being calibrated by trained koalas eating free range eucalyptus is irrelevant to what is better or worse (i.e.: a comparison).
Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range
That's a strawman argument. We're not comparing analog audio cables here, but video encoding quality, and the quality difference between content encoded with the same encoder and codec, but significantly lower bitrate is enormous, and easily quantifiable.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the post you were responding to? The guy wasn't complaining about that. Yes, some people are willing to trade quality for convenience and that's great if they want to do that.
The problem comes when people claim that the quality of iTunes 1080p comes close to matching blu-ray when clearly, it does not.
Yes it is great that some people love downloads. I just don't understand why they just can enjoy it without hating on physical media. I have an AppleTv and Blu-ray player. They can co-exist.
Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.
I don't know about other download services, but with iTunes this was true before the upgrade to 1080p. 720p and below use H.264 Main Profile but the 1080p downloads use the High Profile; this is the same profile as Blu-Ray.
the original has these specs http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1031 the video stream is 20GB in size, encoded via VC-1. the VC-1 codec was developed by Microsoft and was made a standard in 2006. so, it appears the technical discussion is less about iTunes 2012 and Blu-ray and a bit more more about h.264 versus VC-1.
You know there are multiple profiles that Blu-ray can support, they don't have to use H.264 Main Profile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I don't know about other download services, but with iTunes this was true before the upgrade to 1080p. 720p and below use H.264 Main Profile but the 1080p downloads use the High Profile; this is the same profile as Blu-Ray.
How often do movies have giant screens of black for you to look at. They don't. They are all colors and change and movement. So who cares what a screen you are going to see for perhaps 1/10th of a second looks. unless you have the ultimate case of OCD perhaps
This is my issue with this whole comparison. They are looking at still shots out of a moving medium. These images are going to fly by the eye in a fraction of a second so people won't be noticing the appearance of one screen. Show us the comparisons as they are meant to be seen, moving.
Also, remember that not everyone wants absolutely perfect. They were fine with the 720p so all they are going to care about it getting a better version for free. And if Apple does it that way now as they improve the files, we are likely to get another free 'upgrade'. That's impressive right there since they could have tagged a couple of extra bucks on the files and made us pay that to upgrade our purchases like they did with music.
You understate the case. Millions of people are just fine with DVD - which is even worse than 720p.
Personally, if I never had anything better than DVD, I'd be OK with it unless I get a screen larger than my 60" screen (and maybe even then). I watch a movie for the content, not straining every second to see if I can defect an artifact on the screen.
It would be different if it was being suggested that BR be taken off the market, but that's not the case. If you want BR, you can still buy it - no one's stopping you. But for the millions of people who value convenience over a minor (to their eyes) difference in quality, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.
I'm aware of that, but the profiles typically used for streaming actually make tradeoffs that result in lower image quality, not improve it. If I remember correctly they use less efficient entropy coding to allow better error correction on lost packets, and there are more constraints on encoder features, bitrates and image sizes etc. All of this to set a reasonable baseline that streaming decoders can adhere to so they don't have to implement every bit of the complete H264 spec (which is huge).
You know there are multiple profiles that Blu-ray can support, they don't have to use H.264 Main Profile.
Again this is technically true, but I'm pretty sure Main Profile is the minimum/least advanced profile that Blu-Ray uses. You won't find baseline or streaming profile on a Blu-Ray disc, since it would be pointless with all the storage and decoding hardware a Blu-Ray player has.
You understate the case. Millions of people are just fine with DVD - which is even worse than 720p.
Personally, if I never had anything better than DVD, I'd be OK with it unless I get a screen larger than my 60" screen (and maybe even then). I watch a movie for the content, not straining every second to see if I can defect an artifact on the screen.
It would be different if it was being suggested that BR be taken off the market, but that's not the case. If you want BR, you can still buy it - no one's stopping you. But for the millions of people who value convenience over a minor (to their eyes) difference in quality, it's a tempest in a teapot.
You're exactly right- as long as Blu Ray is still there, the option remains. But as far as not noticing- I use my wife (who is just your typical girl) as my barometer. When I changed from my calibrated Onkyo 607 to Calibrated 1009, I noticed big time. I asked my wife- she had no idea. But 100% (I mean- every time) that I put on a DVD in the player because its a movie thats not available on Blu-Ray, or whatever, she says "This is a DVD isn't it?". Keep in mind, my calibrated projector will make DVDs look better, and the Onkyo receiver has a 4k Upconverter, and one of the best up upconvertors on the market.
Moral of the story- if she notices- almost anyone notices or they never have seen a good, calibrated setup before (or at the very least- they aren't conditioned to a good setup).
What I want to know is the minimum bit rate required, for someone with 20/20 vision rate for viewing on a 1080p HDTV or HD monitor, to allow for the content to be indistinguishable from the best Blu-ray encode available today under all conditions.
So what are all the conditions to check for?
What Blu-ray film(s) could be used to cover all aspects of the test?
Is the x264 encoder good enough to make a blanket assesment for all H.264 encoders?
What I want to know is the minimum bit rate required, for someone with 20/20 vision rate for viewing on a 1080p HDTV or HD monitor, to allow for the content to be indistinguishable from the best Blu-ray encode available today under all conditions.
So what are all the conditions to check for?
What Blu-ray film(s) could be used to cover all aspects of the test?
Is the x264 encoder good enough to make a blanket assesment for all H.264 encoders?
That's an unanswerable question. It depends on the particular movie and scene as well as the observer. It also depends on the observer's condition (when tired, they will be less likely to pick up differences).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
You're exactly right- as long as Blu Ray is still there, the option remains. But as far as not noticing- I use my wife (who is just your typical girl) as my barometer. When I changed from my calibrated Onkyo 607 to Calibrated 1009, I noticed big time. I asked my wife- she had no idea. But 100% (I mean- every time) that I put on a DVD in the player because its a movie thats not available on Blu-Ray, or whatever, she says "This is a DVD isn't it?". Keep in mind, my calibrated projector will make DVDs look better, and the Onkyo receiver has a 4k Upconverter, and one of the best up upconvertors on the market.
Moral of the story- if she notices- almost anyone notices or they never have seen a good, calibrated setup before (or at the very least- they aren't conditioned to a good setup).
You're making a big deal out of calibration and it's irrelevant. That suggests strongly that you're playing the "I'm better than you" game based on snobbery rather than facts.
The reason that calibration doesn't matter is that if you have pixelation in the streamed video, it will be pixelated regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not. If you have banding, it will have banding regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not.
It's nice that your wife can tell the difference (or at least wants you to think she can tell the difference - which is understandable given your snobbery). It's also irrelevant. Millions of people are happy with DVD quality, so it's good enough for a large fraction of the population. If Apple wants to offer 1080p, it's up to the individual consumer whether to buy it or not - you don't get to decide for anyone else.
That's an unanswerable question. It depends on the particular movie and scene as well as the observer. It also depends on the observer's condition (when tired, they will be less likely to pick up differences).
You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.
You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.
But the difference between observers is much larger than the error - so it's still a meaningless question.
For me, even a DVD is close enough that I wouldn't complain if no one ever released another BR disk. For others (some of them posting on this forum), DVD is a zillion miles away from BR quality and shouldn't even be compared.
It's too dependent on the individual for the answer to mean anything.
You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.
unfortunately, it's not that simple because 'minimum bitrate required' depends on encoding methods, the source material, your desired output quality and delivery mechanism (i.e., real-time streaming or batch downloads from a server farm). the desired output quality is a qualitative metric that varies from person to person. in other words, you won't get a definitive answer to your question.
the results of the comparison are clear:
- films delivered via iTunes 2012 look impressive and will satisfy many people
- thus far, Blu-ray provides the best video and audio fidelity to the general consumer market
I don't believe any of us here are vehemently anti-physical media. We are just being realistic about where the larger market is headed in regard to enjoying media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
perhaps those who vehemently oppose physical media have been, since 2007, trying to justify their support for Apple TV and/or digital downloads
Comments
thanks for the information because it helped me, in part, to find this http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2145
That's the sequel- but it'll be pretty close (with the exception the original was with Dolby True HD not DTS-HD. But pretty comparable regardless).
You saying Arstechnica is an unknown webpage with no credibility? This is completely wrong. You may not be familiar with it but it is an excellent technology site.
About as much as Apple Insider.
It is the trade off for being able to instantly watch a movie.
What you and Supreme are talking about is a larger display with larger pixels... but you sit farther away than from a PC monitor. What you guys are doing is comparing the monitor itself to a better display, but that's not what is in question here. The question is how iTS 1080p compares to 1080p found on a 50 GB Blu-ray disc. All this talk of it being calibrated by trained koalas eating free range eucalyptus is irrelevant to what is better or worse (i.e.: a comparison).
That's a strawman argument. We're not comparing analog audio cables here, but video encoding quality, and the quality difference between content encoded with the same encoder and codec, but significantly lower bitrate is enormous, and easily quantifiable.
About as much as Apple Insider.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the post you were responding to? The guy wasn't complaining about that. Yes, some people are willing to trade quality for convenience and that's great if they want to do that.
The problem comes when people claim that the quality of iTunes 1080p comes close to matching blu-ray when clearly, it does not.
Yes it is great that some people love downloads. I just don't understand why they just can enjoy it without hating on physical media. I have an AppleTv and Blu-ray player. They can co-exist.
Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.
I don't know about other download services, but with iTunes this was true before the upgrade to 1080p. 720p and below use H.264 Main Profile but the 1080p downloads use the High Profile; this is the same profile as Blu-Ray.
That's the sequel- but it'll be pretty close ...
yes, my mistake.
the original has these specs http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1031 the video stream is 20GB in size, encoded via VC-1. the VC-1 codec was developed by Microsoft and was made a standard in 2006. so, it appears the technical discussion is less about iTunes 2012 and Blu-ray and a bit more more about h.264 versus VC-1.
I don't know about other download services, but with iTunes this was true before the upgrade to 1080p. 720p and below use H.264 Main Profile but the 1080p downloads use the High Profile; this is the same profile as Blu-Ray.
How often do movies have giant screens of black for you to look at. They don't. They are all colors and change and movement. So who cares what a screen you are going to see for perhaps 1/10th of a second looks. unless you have the ultimate case of OCD perhaps
This is my issue with this whole comparison. They are looking at still shots out of a moving medium. These images are going to fly by the eye in a fraction of a second so people won't be noticing the appearance of one screen. Show us the comparisons as they are meant to be seen, moving.
Also, remember that not everyone wants absolutely perfect. They were fine with the 720p so all they are going to care about it getting a better version for free. And if Apple does it that way now as they improve the files, we are likely to get another free 'upgrade'. That's impressive right there since they could have tagged a couple of extra bucks on the files and made us pay that to upgrade our purchases like they did with music.
You understate the case. Millions of people are just fine with DVD - which is even worse than 720p.
Personally, if I never had anything better than DVD, I'd be OK with it unless I get a screen larger than my 60" screen (and maybe even then). I watch a movie for the content, not straining every second to see if I can defect an artifact on the screen.
It would be different if it was being suggested that BR be taken off the market, but that's not the case. If you want BR, you can still buy it - no one's stopping you. But for the millions of people who value convenience over a minor (to their eyes) difference in quality, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Yes it is great that some people love downloads. I just don't understand why they just can enjoy it without hating on physical media.
perhaps those who vehemently oppose physical media have been, since 2007, trying to justify their support for Apple TV and/or digital downloads
Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.
I'm aware of that, but the profiles typically used for streaming actually make tradeoffs that result in lower image quality, not improve it. If I remember correctly they use less efficient entropy coding to allow better error correction on lost packets, and there are more constraints on encoder features, bitrates and image sizes etc. All of this to set a reasonable baseline that streaming decoders can adhere to so they don't have to implement every bit of the complete H264 spec (which is huge).
You know there are multiple profiles that Blu-ray can support, they don't have to use H.264 Main Profile.
Again this is technically true, but I'm pretty sure Main Profile is the minimum/least advanced profile that Blu-Ray uses. You won't find baseline or streaming profile on a Blu-Ray disc, since it would be pointless with all the storage and decoding hardware a Blu-Ray player has.
You understate the case. Millions of people are just fine with DVD - which is even worse than 720p.
Personally, if I never had anything better than DVD, I'd be OK with it unless I get a screen larger than my 60" screen (and maybe even then). I watch a movie for the content, not straining every second to see if I can defect an artifact on the screen.
It would be different if it was being suggested that BR be taken off the market, but that's not the case. If you want BR, you can still buy it - no one's stopping you. But for the millions of people who value convenience over a minor (to their eyes) difference in quality, it's a tempest in a teapot.
You're exactly right- as long as Blu Ray is still there, the option remains. But as far as not noticing- I use my wife (who is just your typical girl) as my barometer. When I changed from my calibrated Onkyo 607 to Calibrated 1009, I noticed big time. I asked my wife- she had no idea. But 100% (I mean- every time) that I put on a DVD in the player because its a movie thats not available on Blu-Ray, or whatever, she says "This is a DVD isn't it?". Keep in mind, my calibrated projector will make DVDs look better, and the Onkyo receiver has a 4k Upconverter, and one of the best up upconvertors on the market.
Moral of the story- if she notices- almost anyone notices or they never have seen a good, calibrated setup before (or at the very least- they aren't conditioned to a good setup).
So what are all the conditions to check for?
What Blu-ray film(s) could be used to cover all aspects of the test?
Is the x264 encoder good enough to make a blanket assesment for all H.264 encoders?
What I want to know is the minimum bit rate required, for someone with 20/20 vision rate for viewing on a 1080p HDTV or HD monitor, to allow for the content to be indistinguishable from the best Blu-ray encode available today under all conditions.
So what are all the conditions to check for?
What Blu-ray film(s) could be used to cover all aspects of the test?
Is the x264 encoder good enough to make a blanket assesment for all H.264 encoders?
That's an unanswerable question. It depends on the particular movie and scene as well as the observer. It also depends on the observer's condition (when tired, they will be less likely to pick up differences).
You're exactly right- as long as Blu Ray is still there, the option remains. But as far as not noticing- I use my wife (who is just your typical girl) as my barometer. When I changed from my calibrated Onkyo 607 to Calibrated 1009, I noticed big time. I asked my wife- she had no idea. But 100% (I mean- every time) that I put on a DVD in the player because its a movie thats not available on Blu-Ray, or whatever, she says "This is a DVD isn't it?". Keep in mind, my calibrated projector will make DVDs look better, and the Onkyo receiver has a 4k Upconverter, and one of the best up upconvertors on the market.
Moral of the story- if she notices- almost anyone notices or they never have seen a good, calibrated setup before (or at the very least- they aren't conditioned to a good setup).
You're making a big deal out of calibration and it's irrelevant. That suggests strongly that you're playing the "I'm better than you" game based on snobbery rather than facts.
The reason that calibration doesn't matter is that if you have pixelation in the streamed video, it will be pixelated regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not. If you have banding, it will have banding regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not.
It's nice that your wife can tell the difference (or at least wants you to think she can tell the difference - which is understandable given your snobbery). It's also irrelevant. Millions of people are happy with DVD quality, so it's good enough for a large fraction of the population. If Apple wants to offer 1080p, it's up to the individual consumer whether to buy it or not - you don't get to decide for anyone else.
That's an unanswerable question. It depends on the particular movie and scene as well as the observer. It also depends on the observer's condition (when tired, they will be less likely to pick up differences).
You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.
You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.
But the difference between observers is much larger than the error - so it's still a meaningless question.
For me, even a DVD is close enough that I wouldn't complain if no one ever released another BR disk. For others (some of them posting on this forum), DVD is a zillion miles away from BR quality and shouldn't even be compared.
It's too dependent on the individual for the answer to mean anything.
You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.
unfortunately, it's not that simple because 'minimum bitrate required' depends on encoding methods, the source material, your desired output quality and delivery mechanism (i.e., real-time streaming or batch downloads from a server farm). the desired output quality is a qualitative metric that varies from person to person. in other words, you won't get a definitive answer to your question.
the results of the comparison are clear:
- films delivered via iTunes 2012 look impressive and will satisfy many people
- thus far, Blu-ray provides the best video and audio fidelity to the general consumer market
perhaps those who vehemently oppose physical media have been, since 2007, trying to justify their support for Apple TV and/or digital downloads