HDTV Almanac - Bye-bye, Polycarbonate Discs!

[alfredpoor]

The writing is on the wall. Or perhaps it is just encoded in microscopic pits on a polycarbonate disc. But wherever you choose to read the signs, it is clear that physical distribution of entertainment media is on the way out. It has happened in the music industry, and we appear to be reaching a [...]

Read Column

[GiovannaVisconti]

I think any serious film collector knows that BD is absolutely superior to standard DVD. So, my question is: Does the PQ of a streamed film match that of a Blu-Ray disc?

As a long time collector of LPs and CDs, I still wouldn't trade them for a "streamed" version of same. There are many involved reasons for this I shouldn't go into here. However, one primary reason is, of course, the VERSION of the recorded music (i.e., the performers, etc.). One cannot--at least at the moment--necessarily find the recordings one WANTS in some streamed version. Quality complaints STILL remain in 2012 about CD reissues. Not as many as there were in the early Nineties, but still too many.

There are differences between audio and video as we all know. But to make the issue concrete with just two examples: The BD remastered/reissued "Ben Hur," and "Gone With the Wind" are examples of just how good BD quality is.

Is a streamed version of "Ben Hur" or "GWTW" comparable?

Thanks,

Giovanna

[videograbber]

Giovanna,

> Is a streamed version of "Ben Hur" or "GWTW" comparable? < (to Blu-ray)

Of course not. Not even close. But one of the points that Alfred is making is that the majority of the "market" doesn't care about quality. Just as the majority are satisfied with poor-quality MP3 for their music.

Alfred,

> Keep in mind, however, that the marginal cost — the cost to produce the next copy of a product — is nearly zero for the streaming version. <

Bul-oney. This is one point that all the pundits like to ignore. The costs to stream those 30+ GB of an HD movie are NOT free. As all who have 15-20 MBit/sec pipes will readily tell you. And they're also not unlimited. As more usage-caps kick in (which they will have to as more HD streaming takes hold), the more outcries we'll hear.

And in spite of the large bandwidth demands, the quality STILL won't equal a simple BD disc.

- Tim

(Alfred, I think you should tell whoever it is that keeps writing on your walls to stop, and make them clean up their mess. <grin>)

[GiovannaVisconti]

Thanks, Videograbber, for making my point exactly about why the disc, at least the BD disc, isn't quite dead...to paraphrase Monty Python.

I knew the answer. I just didn't want to sound like some oh-so superior "serious" collector looking down my nose at the "average" consumer who couldn't care less about quality.

As to streaming music, well, the "high end" user is at least driving the quality here--as far as it CAN be driven--toward better and better hardware. However, it won't reach the ultimate in my lifetime, I'm afraid, and I'll likely be gone by the time the video side of the equation achieves that status.

And your points about bandwidth and caps may make the entire subject moot.

BTW, has anyone SEEN a streamed "Ben Hur," I wonder? Talk about bandwidth usage!!

Giovanna

[dturkheimer]

Most broadband access is through a shared cable drop. The cable companies do not add drops as they become saturated with broadband access; their algorithm for adding drops is based on number of cable tv subscribers per drop. Consequently, your access for streaming video can be compromised not by the cable companies' throttling but just by too much shared access in your neighborhood.

I know this from both ends. When I worked for Cablevision, there was no policy for dealing with overloaded internet access; if we couldn't find anything wrong (too many customers on one drop was certainly not anything wrong) with our online tools, we would send a tech. But note that your cable agreement does not guarantee a minimum download speed. That's why.

Also, I lived in an apartment complex in which streaming died every evening -- too many users. I switched to DSL, which is slower but NOT shared, so the quality was decent and reliable. But DSL is not available for everyone.

I believe it will be quite awhile before you can count on an infrastructure for what is essentially IPTV that mirrors the performance of Cable TV.

And I am one of those without cable TV. Just Netflix, Roku, and crossed fingers every night that my neighbors haven't started streaming.

[alfredpoor]

Tim, I'm not saying that it doesn't cost anything to stream a movie. I'm just saying that the marginal cost is near zero, because when you have the system set up and it is streaming to 10,000 viewers, the cost of the next viewer is nearly nothing. And I'm talking about the cost to Netflix; yes, there is a cost to the viewer, especially if it pushes them past their service provider's monthly cap, but that also is near-zero for the majority of viewers.

Streaming offers a much lower per-viewer cost compared with DVDs and Blu-rays, just as DVDs and Blu-rays offer a much lower per-viewer cost than the local cinemas. The neighborhood movie theater has not disappeared yet, and I don't expect movie discs to disappear soon either, but in both cases, they will be the minority choice for people who want to watch a movie.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac

[videograbber]

Tim, I'm not saying that it doesn't cost anything to stream a movie.

Right, you did mention marginal costs being near zero.

And I'm talking about the cost to Netflix; yes, there is a cost to the viewer,

But this part you did not mention. And it's not something that can be overlooked. By shifting that cost burden to the consumer, they can certainly maximize their profits, but that doesn't mean the costs have vanished. And they are far from "near zero".

if it pushes them past their service provider's monthly cap, but that also is near-zero for the majority of viewers.

?? Even ignoring the monthly caps, which will kick in pretty quickly for anyone watching more than one Blu-ray movie a month, high-bandwidth pipes aren't cheap. At least where I'm at. Since I don't need that high a bandwidth for anything else, then HD streams alone would dictate a significant additional monthly cost for me, for the Premium service. And that's ignoring the fact that not everyone (by a long shot) even has those fat pipes as an option, at any price.

Streaming offers a much lower per-viewer cost compared with DVDs and Blu-rays,

This is where we disagree. My position is that if you actually streamed BR-quality content, that the aggregate costs would be higher, not lower. They may however be lowered by reducing the quality of the so-called "Blu-ray like" streaming, if they can get enough folks with poor vision to buy into it. Of course, then you're not really streaming Blu-rays, so the comparison falls apart.

I don't expect movie discs to disappear soon either, but in both cases, they will be the minority choice for people who want to watch a movie.

I don't necessarily disagree with you there. It will depend on how tolerant folks with large, high-quality HD screens are to lower-quality, but convenient, streaming content. A surprising number seem to be willing to put up with highly visible artifacting and numerous other ills, as long as one avoids the "sin" of not filling every square inch of their 16x9 screen. Low bit-rates rule. And of course, misleading articles like yours (and there will be many) that convince readers that streaming is "just as good" (but cheaper and more convenient), will only serve to accelerate that transition to low-quality acceptance.

But please, don't muddy the waters by referring to this as "streaming Blu-rays". The much-maligned, and "nearly obsolete" polycarbonate discs deliver something which streaming currently does not, and can not (economically). Quality.

- Tim

[videograbber]

Giovanna,

your points about bandwidth and caps may make the entire subject moot.

BTW, has anyone SEEN a streamed "Ben Hur," I wonder? Talk about bandwidth usage!!

Well, with average bitrates on Ben Hur of 30 MBit/sec (and frequent peaks of 40 MBit/sec and beyond) this is one example that would not do well (to be kind) when streamed at a peak of 8 MBit/sec (Netflix's newest, recently added, top-tier HD streaming rate). The bitrates on this film were set so high, to capture the full quality of the new conversion from film, that they had to use TWO 50GB Blu-rays to hold it all.

[Back in '08, the Netflix concept of "HD" was, "Netflix streams HD content using Microsoft VC1AP encoding at a maximum bitrate of between 2600 kbit/s and 3800 kbit/s (depending on the movie)." Wow! "HD" at <4 MBit/sec (average 3.2 MBit.sec). They've made improvements since then, but even 6-8 MBit/sec is pretty anemic, and sadly inadequate. Their biggest "innovations" have been in adaptive throttling, so it can automatically downshift to 5 MBit/sec (720p), then 3 MBit/sec ("DVD quality"), to avoid buffering pauses, when the Netflix servers can't keep up. I can see that really enhancing the Ben Hur experience on my 8' screen. <grin>]

The simple fact is that streaming can't come anywhere close to handling Blu-ray quality (with luck they may handle ~6 MBit/sec sustained average, and hope you don't get interrupted by too many pauses). And to deliver this 3 and a half hour movie in a non-streamed format (downloading with local buffering) would take over 14 hours, running continuously at the max Netflix rate (which I highly doubt they could sustain in most regions). It would likely take closer to 20 hours, for "delivery".

- Tim

[GiovannaVisconti]

"The bitrates on this film were set so high, to capture the full quality of the new conversion from film, that they had to use TWO 50GB Blu-rays to hold it all."

Yes, VideoGrabber, I know! I own it. Fourth "incarnation" of the film I've bought. This one, the Blu-Ray, is worth every penny paid. It is truly magnificent. As is the 70th Anniversary Blu-Ray "Gone With The Wind," BTW.

Giovanna

[alfredpoor]

Good points, Tim. I agree that Internet service -- as it exists today -- can't support HD content distribution in real time for any significant portion of the viewers in this country, let alone worldwide.

But the part we agree on is the part that I think will drive changes to the current "broadband" situation. The bandwidth that I had available 10 years ago was a fraction of what I have today, and it was totally sufficient for my needs then. I expect that 10 years from now, I'll be wondering how I got along with the ridiculously small service that I have today (and the "exorbitant" price that I currently pay for it even though it currently feels like a bargain). I think the same forces that have us trending away from physical discs will trend us toward greater bandwidth at lower cost. I believe that there's still room for a Moore's Law-type effect to keep working on telecommunications.

Alfred Poor
HDTV Almanac