Your experience is definetly not typical since the way Live works is once you've purchased a video once under your Gamertag you can download it again for free under the same gamertag. I've done it between my two 20GB hard drives a couple times now since I was trying to decide which one I wanted to save demos too and which I wanted to save XBLA games.

Something is definetely amiss with the experience you've had.

JackBee pointed out that he took the XBOX away to a place that may or may not have an internet connection. In either event, without "phoning home" the DRM is such that your license rights are restricted.

Dahlism I would contend that MS lawyers (& any "shrink wrap" EULA's that we both agreed to, when we opened the box the XBOX 360 came in), would say that you don't own any of that content.

What you have is a limited* use license that is wholly up to the whims of the original content producer(s) & MS to change (or not!) as they see fit. I think that is what JackBee was trying to get at.

Yep. Just as purchasing a Ford auto is only a limited use license to drive it, but not to publish pictures of yourself with it.

From the Slashdot artical today Ford Claims Ownership Of Your Picture (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/14/1628204). Let's all hear it for licenses and copyrights!

Mike Rogers writes
"In a move that can only be described as 'Copyright Insanity', Ford Motor Company now claims that they hold the rights to any image of a Ford vehicle, even if it's a picture you took of your own car. The Black Mustang Club wanted to put together a calendar featuring member's cars and print it through CafePress, but an attorney from Ford nixed the project, stating that the calendar pics and 'anything with one of (member's) cars in it infringes on Ford's trademarks which include the use of images of their vehicles.' Does Ford have the right to prevent you from printing images of a car you own?"

- Tom

The maximum video+audio encode for HD-DVD is 30.24Mbps. If you used DD+ at 1.5Mbps, that leaves a little under 28Mbps for video. TrueHD usually comes in around 5Mbps (though the max is up to 18Mbps) still leaving about 25Mbps for video.
...minus the 3 other audio sound tracks, minus the IME, etc.

I think it was said on here that Matrix came in at 12-13 Mbps and a few titles dipped below 10 Mbps.

Ben if you had free hands

How much PeakBitrate and AvarageBitrate would you give a 720/24P clip that would be more or less transparant to the source.

Or what would be a good limit for most content?
I find 6/12 is ample for a simple 2-pass encode with the new SDK version of VC-1. I can push it lower if I was willing to do segment reencoding. Heck, I've got some pretty darn good 4 Mbps streaming (CBR) 720p24 encodes, although the highest action scenes can be a a little problematic.

Bear in mind downloads can use longer GOPs which makes for somewhat more efficient encoding than for optical disc.

Ben, correct me if I am out of line, but a download service should be able to provide HD DVD/BD quality movies at around 15 Mbps average or less, assuming a high bit rate DD+ encode (1.5 Mbps).
Well, for download we could use a more efficient audio codec like WMA Pro (Dolby is great, but not as efficient for low bitrates, and normally doesn't use VBR audio).

For a widescreen movie, I've been happy with experiments using 8 Mbps average and 448 Kbps VBR audio at 1080p (in this case 1440x800 anamorphic and cropped). With 10 Mbps total, I think we could match the quality of most HD DVD/BD titles. The codec continues to get better, and we can save bits on audio* and longer GOPs.

* bear in mind that you don't need to download all the audio tracks at one time. Easy to have the commentary track be added later for the second viewing, or even streamed in realtime when turned on. Most users don't listen to most of the languages as well.

Well, for download we could use a more efficient audio codec like WMA Pro (Dolby is great, but not as efficient for low bitrates, and normally doesn't use VBR audio).

For a widescreen movie, I've been happy with experiments using 8 Mbps average and 448 Kbps VBR audio at 1080p (in this case 1440x800 anamorphic and cropped). With 10 Mbps total, I think we could match the quality of most HD DVD/BD titles. The codec continues to get better, and we can save bits on audio* and longer GOPs.

* bear in mind that you don't need to download all the audio tracks at one time. Easy to have the commentary track be added later for the second viewing, or even streamed in realtime when turned on. Most users don't listen to most of the languages as well.

Ben -

With telecined film based material do you find this 1440x800 format usually gets you more observable detail or visible quality than just a cropped 1280x720p encode? Or does it take a carefully done 4k telecine before you can notice it?

- Tom

But one of the good thing about digital downloads is that you can spec for 1080P 4:4:4 10bit

But just start to deliver lower quality (720P) until the bandwith picks up for the avarage user.

...minus the 3 other audio sound tracks, minus the IME, etc.

I think it was said on here that Matrix came in at 12-13 Mbps and a few titles dipped below 10 Mbps.

No, that's just one soundtrack and the video, and remember, you have to go with being able to support all movies, not just the ones that compress nicely. If you're streaming you can forget IME and secondary audio unless you figure out a way to encode DD+/TrueHD on the fly. Otherwise you have to stream PCM which eliminates any advantages of using audio compression.

I'm a big proponent of digital downloads as the future, but I'm also trying to be realistic. I want HDM quality downloads. That means VC-1 type compression at 1080p/24, with losslessly compressed audio if possible, DD+ if necessary. To get that type of quality over TCP/IP, you're going to need 40-50Mbps.

With telecined film based material do you find this 1440x800 format usually gets you more observable detail or visible quality than just a cropped 1280x720p encode? Or does it take a carefully done 4k telecine before you can notice it?


Sure, if you have a good enough display it's a visual improvement - a little shy of 2x the pixels. Plus it means you only have to scale on one axis.

Dahlism I would contend that MS lawyers (& any "shrink wrap" EULA's that we both agreed to, when we opened the box the XBOX 360 came in), would say that you don't own any of that content.

What you have is a limited* use license that is wholly up to the whims of the original content producer(s) & MS to change (or not!) as they see fit. I think that is what JackBee was trying to get at.

No doubt you're correct which is why I put "own" in quotes. As I mentioned I was pointed to the Xbox Live terms of service and clearly what you purchase is not ownership but a "retained rights" license or some such.
The actual rights you have to the content are all in the fine print.

It's not a bad compromise really given that we know content owners constantly fight on what is essentially the "non-consumer" side of "fair use (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12757187#post12757187)". Apparently MS has been able to perform the balancing act well enough to get XBLM to where it is.

As I said though,for real "ownership" and unrestricted use you still can't beat a shiny disk.

@Ben and MS
Any chance of someone taking a drive by at this question (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12814453#post12814453) about what became of the 1000 Indies program and the possibility of XBLM to burn on demand ordering?

Here's an example of some "HD" content at 1 Mbps. Not typical content of course, but a taste of what's possible.

http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/VC-1-for-screen-recordings-New-Expression-Encoder-encodes-up/Default.aspx

I see Google enters the fray for VOD.

http://www.news.com/Google-entering-video-on-demand-business/2100-1025_3-6021998.html

Recap in the last few weeks.
XstreamHD
DirecTV on demand
AppleTV
Google VOD
and a host of others I am sure.

Most enabled soon by WiMax (75 Mbps peak/45 Mbps typical)

the google version is very very old... its more or less failed already.

It will be interesting to see what Cisco does with Scientific Atlanta. since they are completely bringing them into the fold, they might begin to include features such as WAAS modules and client software to accelerate and preposition video content. that could greatly advance the ability to do VOD by increasing throughput 20-100x.

Dave

If this billing method becomes the mainstream:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080117/media_nm/timewarner_internet_dc

You can kiss video download services and anything like that goodbye. It will overnight become completely unaffordable.

If this billing method becomes the mainstream:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080117/media_nm/timewarner_internet_dc

You can kiss video download services and anything like that goodbye. It will overnight become completely unaffordable.

We have no idea how they will be charging and the amount they will be charging. Without that information there is no way to even guess what a metered service will do.

From TVPredictions.com today:

ZDNet technical director George Ou says the picture quality on the HD downloads is not as good as the PQ on a DVD 1080p upconverter player.

In a column just posted at ZDNet, Ou writes that high-def downloads has become an industry "big lie," meaning they really don't offer HD-quality images.

He contends that HD downloads must be compressed so that the bit rate used in the transmission is typically just 1.5 to 4 mbps for 720p H.264.

In layman's terms, that means that the signal strength -- and picture quality -- is far lower than what you'll see on a Blu-ray or HD DVD high-def disc. It's even lower than what's offered by cable and satellite operators and a good DVD upconverter player.

"There’s just one minor little problem (with HD downoads), it’s not HD," Ou says. "These so-called HD movies use very low bit-rates compared to even standard definition DVDs let alone something like HD DVD or Blu-ray DVD."

I think the main problem with George Ou's article is that he's lumping all the services that claim to be HD together and using some dodgy arithmetic to back up his claims. Just because some are doing bad, bitrate starved encodes doesn't mean they all are.

I haven't seen the Xbox service (apart from living in the UK I don't own an Xbox, so unless Microsoft expand the service to PC users I'm unlikely to) but comments I've seen here about PQ have been very positive; considering that people here tend to put quality above everything else I get the impression that George hasn't it either...

At least he acknowledges that modern codecs are more efficient than DVD's MPEG2.

ExtremeHD on their web site claims they have the ability to have up to 80mbps for their download service.

No, that's just one soundtrack and the video, and remember, you have to go with being able to support all movies, not just the ones that compress nicely. If you're streaming you can forget IME and secondary audio unless you figure out a way to encode DD+/TrueHD on the fly. Otherwise you have to stream PCM which eliminates any advantages of using audio compression.

I'm a big proponent of digital downloads as the future, but I'm also trying to be realistic. I want HDM quality downloads. That means VC-1 type compression at 1080p/24, with losslessly compressed audio if possible, DD+ if necessary. To get that type of quality over TCP/IP, you're going to need 40-50Mbps.

Comparing HDM bitrate to Digital Download bitrate is apples to oranges. Digital Download bitrate does not use the same codec specifications as HDM. The HDM codec specifications are very strict and require higher bandwidth.

Ben can you post a analysis that explains this in layman's terms something like 5Mbs VC-1 in Digital Download equals 25Mbs VC-1 in HDM? A rough example is all we need to get past the apples to oranges discussion.

Thanks

Comparing HDM bitrate to Digital Download bitrate is apples to oranges. Digital Download bitrate does not use the same codec specifications as HDM. The HDM codec specifications are very strict and require higher bandwidth.

Ben can you post a analysis that explains this in layman's terms something like 5Mbs VC-1 in Digital Download equals 25Mbs VC-1 in HDM? A rough example is all we need to get past the apples to oranges discussion.

Whoof, it's nowhere near 5:1.

So, what's more effiicent about downloads?

First, we can use longer GOPs. That's more efficient in itself (fewer I-frames mean fewer expensive intra blocks), plus we can get away with a lower overall bitrate without getting as bad keyframe popping. Also, we can use WMA Pro in 2-pass VBR, which is a lot more efficient than having to use CBR AC-3 or DD+.

Plus we can handle things like PIP or alternate audio tracks as their own downloads.

But all said and done, we can't reduce our bitrate THAT much compared to HD DVD to give the exact same experience. Most downloads are 720p, and throwing away more than half the pixels certainly helps reduce bitrates more than the above :).

But, codecs keep getting better. 1080p downloads are actually getting pretty plausible. 10 Mpbs for video + audio? Maybe could do something good with anamorphic at 8 Mbps?

Here's a link from apple for refurbished 40gb AppleTV for $209.00 canhttp://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore.woa/wo/StoreReentry.wo?cjid=10481138-749547-&PID=749547&aosid=p201&cid=AOS-CAN-AFFC-CPU&AID=10481138&family=CertifiedMac

It looks interesting there are also alot of hacks such as divx, running OSX and such from this site http://www.appletvhacks.net/.

Here's a link from apple for refurbished 40gb AppleTV for $209.00 canhttp://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/canadastore.woa/wo/StoreReentry.wo?cjid=10481138-749547-&PID=749547&aosid=p201&cid=AOS-CAN-AFFC-CPU&AID=10481138&family=CertifiedMac

It looks interesting there are also alot of hacks such as divx, running OSX and such from this site http://www.appletvhacks.net/.

Those specs don't seem to come close to the VUDU. If the specs matched the VUDU box I would try the AppleTV box. But I think I'll pass unless I can get one for free.

Whoof, it's nowhere near 5:1.

So, what's more efficient about downloads?

First, we can use longer GOPs. That's more efficient in itself (fewer I-frames mean fewer expensive intra blocks), plus we can get away with a lower overall bitrate without getting as bad keyframe popping. Also, we can use WMA Pro in 2-pass VBR, which is a lot more efficient than having to use CBR AC-3 or DD+.

Plus we can handle things like PIP or alternate audio tracks as their own downloads.

But all said and done, we can't reduce our bitrate THAT much compared to HD DVD to give the exact same experience. Most downloads are 720p, and throwing away more than half the pixels certainly helps reduce bitrates more than the above :).

But, codecs keep getting better. 1080p downloads are actually getting pretty plausible. 10 Mpbs for video + audio? Maybe could do something good with anamorphic at 8 Mbps?

To me the main difference is it seems HDM is more constrained by peak bit rate while downloads are more constrained by average bit rate. This makes a huge difference since not all material encodes equally.

But, possibly even more, downloads can, for little extra overhead, offer the user the choice of both download resolution and bit rate. Thus, if I wanted something to collect and watch many times in the future on varying displays I might prefer a high bit rate 1080p version. But if I wanted to watch something only once, right away, on a smaller 720p display then I would almost certainly choose the smaller resolution version, especially if it was a tiny bit cheaper.

Different consumers will have different needs at different times. Meanwhile server space to keep a diverse inventory is becoming mostly free as technology advances. And advances in storage technology seem to be moving more rapidly than bandwidth improvements. So it is cost effective to offer many more choices with downloads. This could also include the choices of language tracks, foreign subtitles, etc.

- Tom

Will it be possible to stream entire movies on BD 2.0 machines at some point in the future?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/24/vudu-price-slashed-to-keep-up-with-apple-tv/

Competition is a good thing, and now that the Apple TV is actually turning into a solid offering in its space, Vudu is cutting the price on its box to stay relevant. Originally launched at $399, you can now snag a Vudu to rent your movies and TV shows straight into your living room for $295. The best news is that if paid the full price for one of these things in the past 30 days, you can call up Vudu and get a $100 movie credit. Who knows if it'll be enough to mitigate the aggressively-priced and now competitively-featured $229 Apple TV, but it looks like consumers are winning already.

Will it be possible to stream entire movies on BD 2.0 machines at some point in the future?

There is going to be tv/movie rental from the PSN (playstation store) 'soon'.

Haven't heard about plans to make them available to other players.

Anyone know if the situation in Canada will ever change???

Download services like 360's XBL has about 5% of the content that americans have, AppleTV doesnt have any. I heard its a similiar case with PAL countries aswell. And video streaming from network sites are of course blocked off to anyone who isnt accessing the site from the US.

Its horrible, I think when D/D finally catches up in the US, Canada will still be a good 5 years behind if this trend doesnt change.

Blame the content providers.

So.. pretty much never..

I hate canadian broadcasting laws, we can have free trade together yet for some reason watching each others shows are just out of the question..

Wow... this is a great thread.

First, I would like to say that my interest in this fascinating subject may be a little different than most of the ones i read so far... still, I'd love to hear you.

The thing I find very strange when we discuss video download services is the idea that physical media becomes obsolete - therefore, prone to disappear. Now I pose two questions: do we really want that? COULD we really adapt to that?

Before having 1500 or more DVDs in my collection, I used to have hundreds of VHS tapes. And before VHS, my dad used to have Super-8 films... and so on and so on...
Being the movies such an important part of our family entertainment, could we really live in a world where (as objects) they are absent?

I have lots of books, DVDs and CDs... and they are such a part of my house that I am not sure I would feel happy if one day I would find that they're coming from a socket on my wall (meaning, the thing we call "film collections" are gone).

With books, for example I find it interesting that it's been said that we do not relate to photocopies of books in the same way we relate to the REAL book. I agree. Could it be that we will not relate to downloadable-only movies in the same way we do with those objects we treasure in our shelves?

How is the Kindle selling, by the way? - honest question... does anybody know?

I will not argue which version of a movie is better (disc or download). Instead, I'd argue that both offer unique advantages over each other.

But still I wonder if we could really live without discs.

Thanks.

Wow... this is a great thread.

First, I would like to say that my interest in this fascinating subject may be a little different than most of the ones i read so far... still, I'd love to hear you.

The thing I find very strange when we discuss video download services is the idea that physical media becomes obsolete - therefore, prone to disappear. Now I pose two questions: do we really want that? COULD we really adapt to that?

Before having 1500 or more DVDs in my collection, I used to have hundreds of VHS tapes. And before VHS, my dad used to have Super-8 films... and so on and so on...
Being the movies such an important part of our family entertainment, could we really live in a world where (as objects) they are absent?

I have lots of books, DVDs and CDs... and they are such a part of my house that I am not sure I would feel happy if one day I would find that they're coming from a socket on my wall (meaning, the thing we call "film collections" are gone).

With books, for example I find it interesting that it's been said that we do not relate to photocopies of books in the same way we relate to the REAL book. I agree. Could it be that we will not relate to downloadable-only movies in the same way we do with those objects we treasure in our shelves?

How is the Kindle selling, by the way? - honest question... does anybody know?

I will not argue which version of a movie is better (disc or download). Instead, I'd argue that both offer unique advantages over each other.

But still I wonder if we could really live without discs.

Thanks.

I could easily live without discs as long as the download experience mirrored the disc experience. I would never touch a disc again if that were the case.

I could easily live without discs as long as the download experience mirrored the disc experience. I would never touch a disc again if that were the case.

I agree. If the experience could be mirrored then I would have no problem with downloadable content. And I would like to be able to redownload any purchased content like Xbox live or Vudu, unlike Apple. The best non disc experience I have used over all is Vudu, it comes pretty close.

I agree, the VUDU box is the best non disc experience right now.

I could easily live without discs as long as the download experience mirrored the disc experience. I would never touch a disc again if that were the case.


I agree. If the experience could be mirrored then I would have no problem with downloadable content. And I would like to be able to redownload any purchased content like Xbox live or Vudu, unlike Apple. The best non disc experience I have used over all is Vudu, it comes pretty close.


Well... that's where the whole thing is. Will downloadable content fully mirror the disc experience?

I have my doubts.

If you are reducing the experience to just watching the movie, then you might be right.
But I believe there is more than meets the eye here.

I like the beauty of the packaging, for example. Getting a gorgeous printed press book with my GONE WITH THE WIND 4-disc edition is a great thing. The tin cans on those WALT DISNEY TREASURE (and all the printed material that comes inside those DVDs) are also a great thing to have. How about the raindrop marks on the RASHOMON Criterion booklet?

Isn't this also a part of the experience?

But there's more....
I live in Europe, so please excuse me if I have not tried the Vudu service yet (I'm sure it is great). So let me put this honest question... is it really the aim of these content download services to mirror the disc experience?

I'm having some trouble thinking they do.

Can I store the 1500 movies + 20 seasons of several TV shows I will buy in the next ten years on my downloadable service? The Vudu doesn't seem to allow me that. Plus: 1500 movies at $10 each will make my Vudu box worth $15000 in content. It takes a minute to steal it (regardless if the thief will or not be able to use it - while it takes a truck and a few hours to steal my discs). How long does it take for me to download everything again? A month? Can I insure it? What if Vudu (or whatever) gets bankrupt? Do I get $15000 back? Any studio can go broke (or lose the distribution rights to its titles). But I already got the disc. It will always play in any DVD player. If Vudu loses Sony and Fox (only available somewhere else), will we fall into a downloadable content war? :-)
Can I take just ONE movie to a friend's house without taking the full collection with me? Ok, then maybe I'll be able to access my collection through his box. What if he has no space left on his Vudu?

All I'm saying is that I believe discs and downloads can give you different experiences... different possibilities...

Downloads can give you space (no more shelves!!). It can also give you access to your whole collection at your home in Florida AND at your Grandma's house in Maine when you are there on vacation PROVIDING your grandma's house has a high-speed internet connection.

I'm sure that (and more) could be arranged.

But will it cost the same and give you the same commodity as putting one disc and pressing play?

Perhaps. I don't know.

I just feel we are wrong in assuming we'll have the same experience we have with the disc. That's all. I think the aim is to have something else.

Thanks.

It can also give you access to your whole collection at your home in Florida AND at your Grandma's house in Maine when you are there on vacation PROVIDING your grandma's house has a high-speed internet connection.Thats what Im waiting for but with DRM heavy downloads this will be a problem. In the perfect world we could all be sharing our files like Napster.. Im thinking studios wouldnt want that though.

Thats what Im waiting for but with DRM heavy downloads this will be a problem. In the perfect world we could all be sharing our files like Napster.. Im thinking studios wouldnt want that though.

I did not mean sharing (which is illegal and I do not endorse)... I meant accessing your content wherever you are - which can be a granted thing for some while an unkept and uncontrollable promise to others.

Of course, it all depends on how perfect is the world and on how perfect these content providing companies think things out.

The thing I am worried about is consumer's rights and commodity. And it seems to me that you'll never mirror the disc experience because in some ways, getting the content directly from the wall contradicts some of the things that are the crux of physical media.

PS: if I grow tired of a movie after viewing it 50 times over two years, can I sell it "used" to someone for 50% off the price? How? Are we REALLY buying movies or personal momentary licenses to own them? Plus: it seems to me that DVDs are such a great gift to give to people. I wonder how many people will turn to other products the moment they see that the actual gift was turned into an e-mail. Plus: these services plan to end the financial burden of physical media distribution, right? Well... I don't see a significant difference in prices if the go from $10 to $20 per movie.

Thanks.

One definition of the value of something is the amount you could probably sell it for. So if you cannot sell your downloads then they would certainly seem to have less value.

Likewise, right now it is perfectly legal to loan a DVD to a friend, forgetting the issue of how their kids smeared peanut butter on it last time. The ability to 'share' this disc probably also has some value to us that we would hate to lose. I would certainly pay less if I was not also purchasing this potential benefit.

- Tom

I did not mean sharing (which is illegal and I do not endorse)... I meant accessing your content wherever you are - which can be a granted thing for some while an unkept and uncontrollable promise to others.Well.. wouldnt I want to share my movies just like how I can share my DVD's? And how would the content know its 'owner?'
It wouldnt be able to tell the difference between someone accessing their own content or someone else 'borrowing' your content.
Unless every box also had some sort of ID scanner with it. And well.. that opens up some more problems.

I guess this is the same reason why even revenue from music downloads are still 10% of CD's.

Well.. wouldnt I want to share my movies just like how I can share my DVD's?

Technically, sharing physical DVDs is illegal, isn't it?

Technically, sharing physical DVDs is illegal, isn't it?

He he, according to the MPAA Cartel it is. ;)

To me the main difference is it seems HDM is more constrained by peak bit rate while downloads are more constrained by average bit rate. This makes a huge difference since not all material encodes equally.

But, possibly even more, downloads can, for little extra overhead, offer the user the choice of both download resolution and bit rate. Thus, if I wanted something to collect and watch many times in the future on varying displays I might prefer a high bit rate 1080p version. But if I wanted to watch something only once, right away, on a smaller 720p display then I would almost certainly choose the smaller resolution version, especially if it was a tiny bit cheaper.

Different consumers will have different needs at different times. Meanwhile server space to keep a diverse inventory is becoming mostly free as technology advances. And advances in storage technology seem to be moving more rapidly than bandwidth improvements. So it is cost effective to offer many more choices with downloads. This could also include the choices of language tracks, foreign subtitles, etc.

- Tom

I notice that Sony offers trailers in both formats at the PS store. I have downloaded both copies of several different titles.

Interestingly enough, on my 720 PJ (Panny AE900), the 1080 versions are clearly superior to the 720 versions. Not sure why.

http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/15592/Xbox-Live-Marketplace-New-TV-shows-and-Films-Coming/

“LOST” fans looking to catch up on past episodes and find more hidden clues need look no further than Xbox 360. U. S. Xbox LIVE members will be able to start downloading TV shows from ABC Television, including “LOST,” “Ugly Betty,” “Desperate Housewives” and “Grey’s Anatomy” this coming month. All episodes will be available in high definition.

The launch of “LOST” coincides with the show’s season premiere today, with new episodes arriving on Xbox LIVE within 24 hours of airing on TV. Shows and TV movies from Disney Channel will be launching later this month as well, including “Hannah Montana,” “High School Musical,” “High School Musical 2” and “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody,” adding to the more than 700 episodes of kid-friendly content already available on the service.

This month will also mark the launch of new releases and classic library titles from MGM available for download beginning the week of February 18. Additional movies from studios such as Lionsgate, Warner Bros, Paramount and New Line will also be added to the service, including the video game documentary “King of Kong: Fistful of Quarters” about two gamers who battle for the world record score in Donkey Kong. Many films will be available in high definition.

Movies hitting Xbox LIVE this month include:

* Mr. Brooks (MGM, available in SD and HD)
* The complete Rocky series (MGM, available in SD and HD)
* Films from the James Bond series (MGM, available in SD and HD)
* The Usual Suspects (MGM, available in SD and HD)
* 3:10 to Yuma (Lionsgate, available in SD and HD)
* Saw IV (Lionsgate, available in SD and HD)
* King of Kong (New Line, available in SD)
* The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Crawford (WB, available in SD and HD)
* Michael Clayton (WB, available in SD and HD)
* Stardust (Paramount, available in SD and HD)

He he, according to the MPAA Cartel it is. ;)

According to the MPAA, probably the only part of the entire experience that isn't illegal is when they get your money.
;)

VUDU HD Downloads Not Much Better Than SD

The difference in playback between the HD DVD and the HD download was huge. My wife laughed, saying 'Even I can see the difference.' (http://gizmodo.com/352392/vudu-test-confirms-hd-download-worries-plus-what-needs-to-be-done)

I don't know what that person was looking at?. I made a comparison tonight between the VUDU SD and HD version and the XBox Live HD version. Both HD versions are obviously better than the VUDU SD version. There was no mistake about it. There is no way to confuse them The only thing I can think of is the person had the output on 480P or they were partially blind. It was very obvious.
The VUDU HD version was better than the Xbox Live Version too, at least with the parts that I compared between them. The XBL version had some macro blocking in the helecopter attack scene while the VUDU HD version in the same scene was fine.
IN the RAdar screen scene the text at the bottom of the screen on the VUDU SD version was unreadable. On the VUDU HD version it was clear and crisp. On the XBL version it was clear but not crisp.

There is no way to confuse them The only thing I can think of is the person had the output on 480P or they were partially blind. It was very obvious.
Post some screenshots like Gizmodo did.

Post some screenshots like Gizmodo did.

I had posted to this yester day but I guesss it got lost. Pictures aren't the best way but it's all I guess i can do.

I tried taking some pictures with one of my digital cameras. The pictures will never show exactly what I see. The picture looks much better than what I see but these examples will show the difference in text between two scenes and the macroblocking from the XBL version.
The VUDU version overall is better than the Xbox Live Version. And of course HD DVD will be the best. But the VUDU fills a nice spot above SD DVDs, and Xbox Live HD.

Radar Scene SD from VUDU. Text is unreadbale at bottom.

http://www.aaronwt.net/downloads/VUDU/Radar%20SD_VUDU.JPG

Radar scene from Xbox Live HD. Text at bottom is readable but not as crisp.

http://www.aaronwt.net/downloads/VUDU/Radar%20HD%20Xbox.JPG

Radar scene from VUDU HD

Now when actually watching the movie the text at the bottom of the screen is clear and crisp. The XBL version is mostly clear but not as crisp as the VUDU HD version. Again this is from a camera and a camera pic really doesn't show the differences as well as it actually looks.
When actually watching the movie all the text at the bottom is easy to read.

http://www.aaronwt.net/downloads/VUDU/Radar%20HD_VUDU.JPG

This scene is from the Xbox Live HD version and it shows the macroblocking from the bright flashes. This is right after the helicopter Transformer attacks and all the glass breaks in the scene before this.

http://www.aaronwt.net/downloads/VUDU/Bright%20Flash%20Xbox%20HD.JPG

This the same scene from the VUDU HD version.

http://www.aaronwt.net/downloads/VUDU/Bright%20Flash%20VUDU%20HD.JPG

Now these pictures were not taken in pause mode which is also one of the reasons that everything looks so poorly. When viewing normally and not through a camera the text at the bottom of the radar screen is unreadable in SD. With the VUDU HD version it is clear and crisp while the Xbox 360 HD version is fairly clear but not as crisp.

The other two pics show the macroblocking in the Xbox Live HD version while there is none in the VUDU HD version.
This is one of the main reasons I think VUDU is better than broadcast. You see macroblocking all the time in TV shows and sporting events anytime you have fast pans, fast movement and bright flashes.
This is one of the reasons I rank the VUDU HD above broadcast quality.

VUD is much better (less macroblocking, crisper) than Xbox video. Thank you.

Thanks aaronwt for the side by side comparisons. It would be interesting to see how the Blu-ray or HDDVD equivalent stacked up against VUDU HD.

Personally, I'm going to try and wait until XstreamHD comes out this winter and pick whichever is better between Vudu and XstreamHD.

Thanks aaronwt for the side by side comparisons. It would be interesting to see how the Blu-ray or HDDVD equivalent stacked up against VUDU HD.

Personally, I'm going to try and wait until XstreamHD comes out this winter and pick whichever is better between Vudu and XstreamHD.

I didn't bother taking pictures from the HD DVD since there didn't seem to be any question about the quality of the HD DVD when compared to the other sources.

Thanks aaronwt for the side by side comparisons. It would be interesting to see how the Blu-ray or HDDVD equivalent stacked up against VUDU HD.

Personally, I'm going to try and wait until XstreamHD comes out this winter and pick whichever is better between Vudu and XstreamHD.

Going by specs I would expect XstreamHD to be best with 7.1 DTS-MA audio and bitrates higher than BD is capable of. But XstreamHD is also Vaporware right now so until it actually releases a product, i'm not even going to consider it.

I might just have to get another box. I just saw that DVRupgrade has Vudu for $295. Much more affordable. Now my bedroom will have one, too. Way to go Vudu !!Well on your way to crushing Netflix, Blockbuster, and HD/BR players (in my opinion, anyway)

I might just have to get another box. I just saw that DVRupgrade has Vudu for $295. Much more affordable. Now my bedroom will have one, too. Way to go Vudu !!Well on your way to crushing Netflix, Blockbuster, and HD/BR players (in my opinion, anyway)


VUDU dropped the price to $295 on January 25th which seemed in response to the Apple TV price that was announcced earlier in the month.
Either way it's a much better deal for $295.

The Apple TV update is out. People are reporting that the update has added 1080P support.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/guidedtour/

There are supposedly 75 HD titles available at launch. I wonder where one would find this list.

And do they have full 5.1 audio?

What are the file sizes?

The Apple TV update is out. People are reporting that the update has added 1080P support.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/guidedtour/

Isn't that just 1080P output? The HD content is supposed to be 720P. The VUDU HD content is 1080P24(although that is also the max resolution it will output. The VUDU doesn't output at 1080P60)

I updated my AppleTV and looked at the list of 75 HD movies. About 1/3 (I count 26) are released on HD DVD and/or Blu-ray. I'm beginning to think that if one wants to always watch the best version of a movie sometime during the next few years, one will have to use a variety of services (optical disc, download, broadcast/cable) to get this content.

Are any of these movies Dolby Digital? That is the dealkiller for me. I'm interested in renting some HD content from Apple, but I want better sound than Dolby Pro Logic.

SCD

Isn't that just 1080P output? The HD content is supposed to be 720P. The VUDU HD content is 1080P24(although that is also the max resolution it will output. The VUDU doesn't output at 1080P60)

Yes.

I think for out of the box Apple offering 75 movies in HD is pretty good. Most of them appear Dolby Digital 5.1 as they have the DD logo.

I'm sure they aren't Blu-ray quality but it appears the selection will be larger and for viewing in my den (55" TV) they should work fine. I don't see them playing in my theater anytime soon.

The new feature to use it as an Airport Express (stream music) remotely without having to use the TV is a great feature. Almost makes it worthwhile for that feature alone.

Plus searching and playing YouTube videos is a rather different experience. Most certainly not what you'll find on Blu-ray. :)

I'm not sure if this is the best place for this, but I can't seem to find the xstreamHD thread anywhere....

I know it's still vaporware, but I emailed them about being in the Beta (that according to the site is supposed to be in Q2) and got this response back:

Beta will now most likely be Q4 of 2008. I will add you to the mailing list for product updates as well as the list of potential beta testers.

Thanks for your interest in XStreamHD.

Regards,

Daisy McNeil
XStreamHD


So if it does eventually come out, doesn't look like it will be this year, considering the Beta got pushed back 6 months already.

Side by Side screen shots of blu-ray, apple tv, hd cable, and standard dvd.

http://ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/

Side by Side screen shots of blu-ray, apple tv, hd cable, and standard dvd.

http://ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/Thanks for the link. I thought they had an open mind and did a great job. I was surprised they thought Apple TV looks better than cable's HD movies.

Yesterday I downloaded The Brave One in HD via Apple TV. It only took six hours for a roughly 7GB file. The bottleneck was my T1 connection not Apple's servers.

Typically I'll use the Apple TV in my den but since this was my first HD download I figured I'd test it out in my theater. I'm using a 1080p projector with a 110 inch image.

Since the movie is encoded at 720p I tried various resolutions out of the Apple TV including 1080i and 1080p. After a few looks at each I ended up with letting the Apple TV scale the image to 1080p. It just looked a little smoother than when the projector did the upscaling.

One thing I did notice is that I could select 50Hz and it would display fine and at the same time it slowed the color wheel down which reduced the projector's noise a good deal.

I haven't seen The Brave One in Blu-ray (yet) so I can't compare them directly although I can say you would never mistake the image for SD. The image is very nice and if I didn't know any different I would think I was watching the Blu-ray version. Such that it certainly looks better than the "worse" Blu-ray transfer I have seen.

The image has a lot of pop (contrast) and as others have stated any shots with motion appear very crisp almost like those new 120Hz sets. Most the of the movie is rather dark and the black levels were great.

Audio wise was pretty much the same a very pleasing Dolby Digital 5.1 track with plenty of presence and depth.

Without comparing the two I can't say how close it is to Blu-ray but the file size alone says it shouldn't be close. But in real life I can say previously I thought I would restrict the Apple TV to the den but now I'll be happy to use it for rentals in the theater.

Since I'm pretty much a renter I hope they end up with a large selection of titles and I'll be willing to pay close to or the same as Blu-ray rentals. Now if I want to purchase a title I still want Blu-ray just as I purchased a CD yesterday instead of downloading it from iTunes.

Quality matters if I'm keeping it for life but for rentals Apple TV is a pretty good second. :)

Nice endorsement Charles R. I may have to give it a look.

Ok, so I've been looking at AppleTV. I'm not sure I want to start paying $5 per movie though, but I got a quick question. Do they continually add movies, or do they kindof rotate them in and out?

I guess I"m asking if movie X is available today, will it still be available to watch a year from now, or will it be replaced with something else? Are they continually building the library or is it like Comcast On Demand where it's a crapshoot what movies are available when? Or maybe it's too early in the product lifecycle to tell?

Or maybe it's too early in the product lifecycle to tell?I think it's too early to draw any conclusions outside of it's not going to replace HD media anytime soon. :) I believe Apple stated they would have 1,000 (SD) movies by the end of this month. How many will be HD is most anyone's guess.

Five dollars is what Blockbuster and Hollywood Video charges for HD rentals around here so the cost is the same. Apple charges four dollars for older (HD) releases so they are a buck cheaper.

All things being equal I'd prefer Blu-ray but since I don't have a Blu-ray player in the den Apple's rentals might win out there for a while. Also I'm hoping they will have a larger selection than Blu-ray as at times I find it hard to find something I want to watch on Blu-ray.

Ok, so I've been looking at AppleTV. I'm not sure I want to start paying $5 per movie though, but I got a quick question. Do they continually add movies, or do they kindof rotate them in and out?

I guess I"m asking if movie X is available today, will it still be available to watch a year from now, or will it be replaced with something else? Are they continually building the library or is it like Comcast On Demand where it's a crapshoot what movies are available when? Or maybe it's too early in the product lifecycle to tell?

Their plan is to continually add, like music on the iTunes store. I think they intend to add a significant number of titles to the current 75 HD titles by the end of February, and then probably will bring more on line every week. There's really no reason to delete anything once it is in digital file form. The cost of storage space is insignificant, and once the investment has been amortized in digitizing the movie, any additional rental (even one a year) is pure gravy.

John C.

Their plan is to continually add, like music on the iTunes store. I think they intend to add a significant number of titles to the current 75 HD titles by the end of February, and then probably will bring more on line every week. There's really no reason to delete anything once it is in digital file form. The cost of storage space is insignificant, and once the investment has been amortized in digitizing the movie, any additional rental (even one a year) is pure gravy.

John C.

Thanks for the feedback. I was asking because the current VOD that I've experienced (Comcast) still rotates them in and out, despite your point of "once it's in digital form, storage space is insignificant." Never made sense to me, so I assumed it was some sortof agreement with the studio or something.

I know $5/movie isn't overly expensive....just I'm used to my ~15 movies/month on Netflix which comes out to like $1 or so per movie.

I guess I'm not sure what I'm going to do at this point, but am researching my options.

the xbox 360 has expiration dates on their movies.... id assume since apple is buying into the same model they will expire as well.

and i agree with you.... the key to all of this going forward is getting netflix subscription model married to digital distribution. thats what is really going to make this a significant player in the movie market. assuming they remedy the expiration thing.

the xbox 360 has expiration dates on their movies.... id assume since apple is buying into the same model they will expire as well.

and i agree with you.... the key to all of this going forward is getting netflix subscription model married to digital distribution. thats what is really going to make this a significant player in the movie market. assuming they remedy the expiration thing.

That will be up to the content providers and with the speed that they make changes, it could be years before a subscription model happens.
FOr now though I'll use my VUDU as my primary HD VOD source, with Xbox Live second, and FIOS third.

Just saw this thread referenced from another one so thought I chime in. Not sure if this has all been discussed already.

A HDDVD or BluRay movie is ~30 gigabytes and the average high speed broadband home gets approx 1 Mbit/sec, so this works out to (30*8*1000)/3600 or 66.7 hours to download a HD movie. Granted Comcast just announced BLAST in some areas which for $10/mo get you greater than 10Mbit/sec, so these times could be reduced by a factor of 10. This would mean a HD movie in ~7 hours.

With a service like Netflix where you have a queue setup movies can be downloaded before you even want to watch them, so within 1 day you could have 4 movies ready for viewing. Granted with only a 1Mbit/sec connection I would take over a week to download only 3 movies, but this could alwasy be working in the background trying to have future selections already downloaded.

Now if you change your mind and just want to watch a movie that wasn't near the top of your queue, then you can see you really need 100Mbit/sec to the home and that is quite a ways off before it becomes mainstream. Only homes that have fiber to the curb even have that option and that is a very small percentage of US homes. With 100Mbit/sec you can download this HD movie in less than an hour, and since it steams in the background you could watch it almost immediately.

jcg

Just saw this thread referenced from another one so thought I chime in. Not sure if this has all been discussed already.

A HDDVD or BluRay movie is ~30 gigabytes and the average high speed broadband home gets approx 1 Mbit/sec, so this works out to (30*8*1000)/3600 or 66.7 hours to download a HD movie. Granted Comcast just announced BLAST in some areas which for $10/mo get you greater than 10Mbit/sec, so these times could be reduced by a factor of 10. This would mean a HD movie in ~7 hours.

With a service like Netflix where you have a queue setup movies can be downloaded before you even want to watch them, so within 1 day you could have 4 movies ready for viewing. Granted with only a 1Mbit/sec connection I would take over a week to download only 3 movies, but this could alwasy be working in the background trying to have future selections already downloaded.

Now if you change your mind and just want to watch a movie that wasn't near the top of your queue, then you can see you really need 100Mbit/sec to the home and that is quite a ways off before it becomes mainstream. Only homes that have fiber to the curb even have that option and that is a very small percentage of US homes. With 100Mbit/sec you can download this HD movie in less than an hour, and since it steams in the background you could watch it almost immediately.

jcg

ok, I'll bite. (Just healthy debate)

Your math is off a little, a 1Mb connection is 1024 - 1536 bits per second. Not a huge difference unless 1536 is used.

But then, here is the other difference. It all gets back to the basic Blu vs HD argument that was never solved (taste great/less filling). Yes Blu had more bandwidth, but was that bandwidth worth anything? Can you and I tell the difference between 20Mbs vs 30Mbs? At what point does the extra information really not make much of a difference? So say with good compression, a 10GB appletv file looks pretty good, enough to satisfy 90% of the country, then your numbers are pointless.

Also, take me for instance. I live in an area that other than buying every movie at Wal-mart, (sorry wont pay $30 for most of the crappy movies made) I have 1 place within 120 miles of me that rents Blu. It is a little mom and pop place that has all of 20 movies for a test. I have seen everything they have. So being able to get movies that have been rated a little better than cable from the comfort of my living room is very compelling.

Don't ever overlook what is happening to the music industry. Music downloads showed that convenience ranks pretty high to a lot of people today. Being able to watch anything I want at slightly worse quality than Blu and download Thurs night, waiting for me on Friday evening, is pretty compelling.

Also I have a 720p TV, I want to see a review that compares 720 cable/apple/blu in quality. I would bet at 10 foot distances, it would look really close.

I own Blu (and HD) but I don't think blu-ray is out of the woods. I am curious at what Video Downloads will do in the near future.

Also I have a 720p TV, I want to see a review that compares 720 cable/apple/blu in quality. I would bet at 10 foot distances, it would look really close.



http://ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/

most reviewers I've read place the order BD, ATV, Broadcast, Cable
I agree with these from my own system 60" plasma - sit about 11' away...

ken

http://ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/

most reviewers I've read place the order BD, ATV, Broadcast, Cable
I agree with these from my own system 60" plasma - sit about 11' away...

ken


I read that article, but I thought the comparison was 1080p which throws an extra upconversion on the apple. At 720, it would be native as well.

Unless I am reading it wrong. :)

MarkS

http://ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/

most reviewers I've read place the order BD, ATV, Broadcast, Cable
I agree with these from my own system 60" plasma - sit about 11' away...

ken
What about Xbox? I'd place that above ATV since the bitrate is higher, but...

I know that 1M is 1024, I was just making the math easy. It was also just a reference point as many people have cable and get closer to 4Mbit or more. My cable company just updated the network and I'm getting 7-8MBit download, so basically you can divide this ~66 hrs by 4 or 8 or whatever download speeds to you get to figure out how long it would take to download a HD movie on your network.

I live in the SF Bay Area and we still can't get much of a selection of HD or Bluray movies, so I think that is just the way it is now and why everyone that wants HD movies used Netflix or Blockbuster online. I have both so I always have HD movies. If you haven't tried either you are missing out as it sure beats driving to the rental store.

As for compaing to music I think it's a bit different. Even someone with a slower cable or DSL network can download an .mp3 file in minutes. To do this with a HD movie would take a 100Mbit/sec connection. Personally for me I want the highest quality picture as I have a projector and large screen, so I hope bluray continues to prosper. Of course you are right that 90% of people probably couldn't tell the difference in pic quality, just like they couldn't tell that a .mp3 sounds worse than a CD.

jcg

ok, I'll bite. (Just healthy debate)

Your math is off a little, a 1Mb connection is 1024 - 1536 bits per second. Not a huge difference unless 1536 is used.

But then, here is the other difference. It all gets back to the basic Blu vs HD argument that was never solved (taste great/less filling). Yes Blu had more bandwidth, but was that bandwidth worth anything? Can you and I tell the difference between 20Mbs vs 30Mbs? At what point does the extra information really not make much of a difference? So say with good compression, a 10GB appletv file looks pretty good, enough to satisfy 90% of the country, then your numbers are pointless.

Also, take me for instance. I live in an area that other than buying every movie at Wal-mart, (sorry wont pay $30 for most of the crappy movies made) I have 1 place within 120 miles of me that rents Blu. It is a little mom and pop place that has all of 20 movies for a test. I have seen everything they have. So being able to get movies that have been rated a little better than cable from the comfort of my living room is very compelling.

Don't ever overlook what is happening to the music industry. Music downloads showed that convenience ranks pretty high to a lot of people today. Being able to watch anything I want at slightly worse quality than Blu and download Thurs night, waiting for me on Friday evening, is pretty compelling.

Also I have a 720p TV, I want to see a review that compares 720 cable/apple/blu in quality. I would bet at 10 foot distances, it would look really close.

I own Blu (and HD) but I don't think blu-ray is out of the woods. I am curious at what Video Downloads will do in the near future.

A HDDVD or BluRay movie is ~30 gigabytes and the average high speed broadband home gets approx 1 Mbit/sec, so this works out to (30*8*1000)/3600 or 66.7 hours to download a HD movie.To me attempting to compare downloads to Blu-ray is silly. As has already been covered many times music downloads only account for roughly 15% of the market. Movie downloads aren't going to challenge HD media (for purchase) anytime soon. Now in the reasonably short term they have a chance for rentals.

So far I have rented two HD movies via Apple TV. The first took six hours over a T1 and the second I have no idea as it was downloaded overnight. I gave my impression a few posts up so I won't repeat them here. However overall I'm more impressed than I thought I would be.

I bought the Apple TV mainly for music streaming in the den with the idea that if the movie rentals look good it would be a bonus. For $225 it's not a major commitment for a nice wireless music client. Throw in the photo sharing (again I was impressed), TV shows, Podcasts, YouTube and the ability to rent movies and it fits a good size niche.

After having it for a few weeks the convenience can't be beat. If I want to watch A Mighty Heart tonight in HD I push a few buttons on my Harmony remote this afternoon and I'm set.

Now no matter how easy it is to operate or convenient to use it does require some level of commitment (you have to purchase it) and as such for it to be successful they will have to offer something you can't obtain elsewhere.

The only option with HD will be selection and only until Blu-ray becomes mainstream enough that all movies are same day release. They aren't going to be able to compete on pricing with Netflix for the heavy renters.

They do have a small window as it's next to impossible to rent new HD releases either online or at your local rental shop which allows them to keep prices fairly high.

But I see this window as an opportunity to make Apple TV a success. If they offer a large selection of titles at a great price they have a chance to build a good size user base before HD media takes hold.

At its current price it can compete with Blu-ray players and if everything that you can buy on Blu-ray is available for rent on Apple TV at the same or less price I think many people will buy in.

I know if that's the case I won't be adding a Blu-ray player in my den. At 55 inches the image is darn good... not the best but that's not their market. Even at 110 inches in the theater it's more of knowing it's not the best than seeing and hearing an obvious inferior product.

For mass appeal I don't think the quality of the transfer will come into play. Of course for collectors and hardcore enthusiasts it will and I'll be right with them in my theater. :)

Just saw this thread referenced from another one so thought I chime in. Not sure if this has all been discussed already.

A HDDVD or BluRay movie is ~30 gigabytes and the average high speed broadband home gets approx 1 Mbit/sec, so this works out to (30*8*1000)/3600 or 66.7 hours to download a HD movie. Granted Comcast just announced BLAST in some areas which for $10/mo get you greater than 10Mbit/sec, so these times could be reduced by a factor of 10. This would mean a HD movie in ~7 hours.

With a service like Netflix where you have a queue setup movies can be downloaded before you even want to watch them, so within 1 day you could have 4 movies ready for viewing. Granted with only a 1Mbit/sec connection I would take over a week to download only 3 movies, but this could alwasy be working in the background trying to have future selections already downloaded.

Now if you change your mind and just want to watch a movie that wasn't near the top of your queue, then you can see you really need 100Mbit/sec to the home and that is quite a ways off before it becomes mainstream. Only homes that have fiber to the curb even have that option and that is a very small percentage of US homes. With 100Mbit/sec you can download this HD movie in less than an hour, and since it steams in the background you could watch it almost immediately.

jcg

I had 5mbs down/1mbs up eleven years ago.

I read that article, but I thought the comparison was 1080p which throws an extra upconversion on the apple. At 720, it would be native as well.When I viewed The Brave One I pretty much tried every resolution combination there is.

1. 720p out of the Apple TV - letting the projector display it natively (not using the entire panel).
2. 720p out of the Apply TV - letting the projector scale it to 1080p.
3. 1080i out of the Apple TV - letting the projector deinterlace the image.
4. 1080p out of the Apple TV - letting the projector display it natively.
5. I even played with 50Hz at several different resolutions.

Since I didn't have any test patterns to view it was next to impossible to tell which was the most accurate image. I'm presuming 720p being displayed by the projector natively (one to one pixel) would be it. But since it didn't fill my screen I didn't view it very long.

After switching back and forth many times the biggest difference I saw was when I set the Apple TV to 1080p. The image had an increased smoothness to it. Not such that it appeared less detailed rather it appeared like it had additional detail which made the image less rough.

My conclusion was I didn't really have one as to which was best for a 1080p display. However I did leave the Apple TV set to 1080p for the rest of the movie. That was with a 110 inch image and I'm guessing with a smaller image I would have thought the other settings looked sharper and I would have preferred them.

Has anyone seen a comparison of Apple TV versus XBox Live? All I've seen is a table comparing feature lists. I'm curious how the same movie compares quality-wise in actual viewing.

They have similar offerings and pricings, but they use slightly different bit rates, and different (but competitive) codecs, and they have different built-in scalars. I'm wondering which comes out ahead overall.

A HDDVD or BluRay movie is ~30 gigabytes and the average high speed broadband home gets approx 1 Mbit/sec, so this works out to (30*8*1000)/3600 or 66.7 hours to download a HD movie.
Where did you get the average broadband speed of 1Mbps? Or were you just generalizing? I really doubt 1Mbps is the US national average of broadband speeds. Maybe if you factor in dialups.....

I had 5mbs down/1mbs up eleven years ago.
Yeah, yeah, we all hate you with your FiOS! :p I'm actually not too bad off, my employer pays for my commercial cable line and I get 18/2Mbps.

What about Xbox? I'd place that above ATV since the bitrate is higher, but...
I think we sweat preprocessing more than Apple TV. You'd be amazed by how much stuff comes in with broken cadence or other issues that need to be fixed before encoding, or sent back for a better master.

I know that 1M is 1024.
Actually, 1Mbps==1,000,000 bits/second.

Telecommunications and compresion both use the base-10 SI measurements for K/M/G, not the erroneous base-2 measurements from the computer industry.

For the appropriate pedantry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

I'm always surprised by how much this ambiguity can mess things up in practice, particular in the "G" range where it's more than a 7% difference.

A HDDVD or BluRay movie is ~30 gigabytes and the average high speed broadband home gets approx 1 Mbit/sec, so this works out to (30*8*1000)/3600 or 66.7 hours to download a HD movie. Granted Comcast just announced BLAST in some areas which for $10/mo get you greater than 10Mbit/sec, so these times could be reduced by a factor of 10. This would mean a HD movie in ~7 hours.

With a service like Netflix where you have a queue setup movies can be downloaded before you even want to watch them, so within 1 day you could have 4 movies ready for viewing. Granted with only a 1Mbit/sec connection I would take over a week to download only 3 movies, but this could alwasy be working in the background trying to have future selections already downloaded.

Now if you change your mind and just want to watch a movie that wasn't near the top of your queue, then you can see you really need 100Mbit/sec to the home and that is quite a ways off before it becomes mainstream. Only homes that have fiber to the curb even have that option and that is a very small percentage of US homes. With 100Mbit/sec you can download this HD movie in less than an hour, and since it steams in the background you could watch it almost immediately.

Oh, you wouldn't need even 100 Mbps. With 30 Mbps, you could real-time stream really high quality experiences. Bear in mind that when you get off optical disc, you can use different codec modes (like longer GOPs and VBR audio) which are harder to take avantage with on a spinning disc.

Also, for downloads, there's no reason to bundle all the alternative audio langages, trailers, extras into the base download - you'd initially just download the movie and the main audio, and make the other stuff optional or downloaded after the main movie. With just movie + main audio, you'd be surprised what you can do in 8-12 GB. And codecs are only getting more efficient every year...

Most people never experience the majority of bits on a packed disc.

I have a rock solid 20Mbps Verizon FiOS connection. Feed me Seymour!

It's not a problem of bandwidth for me. It's a problem that Netflix has spoiled me and I don't want to pay for each movie individually anymore. Give me a subscription and I will gladly pay, especially if that subscription includes unlimited viewing.

To me attempting to compare downloads to Blu-ray is silly. As has already been covered many times music downloads only account for roughly 15% of the market. Movie downloads aren't going to challenge HD media (for purchase) anytime soon. Now in the reasonably short term they have a chance for rentals.


An article I read 2 weeks ago said MP3s now account for nearly 35% of music revenue in 2007 in the US. And CD sales have dropped by about 30% since 2004.

Where we are in the movie download situation is where we were about 12 years ago for MP3 downloads. 12 years ago most people have a 56k dialup and it took hours to get a full MP3. Today people have a few Mbps and it takes hours to get a movie. Then in the late 90s people started getting highspeed internet connections and they could get MP3s within minutes. OVer the next ~24 months we should see large increases in bandwidths to the home that will allow people to get movies very fast. Comcast is piloting a program for 160Mbps to the home. That will allow people to download a HD movie in a few minutes. But even if we see a drastic increase from 5Mbps to 30Mbps on avg. That will cut the download to a few hours.

That said, i still think a rental service coupled with VOD is the best way to do this.

To address download speeds, couldn't a service just offer as part of a purchase to stream a rental mp4 for 'immediate' viewing; then your purchased download can be done at leisure for future viewing....

ken

What about Xbox? I'd place that above ATV since the bitrate is higher, but...
Will many people use the Xbox? I know that a lot of people have said they don't want a PS3 as their BD player because is so loud (fan noise) and the Xbox is much worse (noise wise) than the PS3. Just wondering...

Actually, 1Mbps==1,000,000 bits/second.

Telecommunications and compresion both use the base-10 SI measurements for K/M/G, not the erroneous base-2 measurements from the computer industry.

For the appropriate pedantry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_prefix
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix

I'm always surprised by how much this ambiguity can mess things up in practice, particular in the "G" range where it's more than a 7% difference.

I know you are telling the truth Ben, but I can tell you, at least in this area, when you purchase 1mb dsl, you will get 1.54 Mb . I have seen it range from 1 - 1.54 Mb in size. So my point was that just cause it says 1Mb, it is not an even 1M bites per second. So it makes the math harder.

The bigger point that I think you will agree with is that at what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in. Will a highly tuned 15gb HD file compare to a decent 30gb file? That is what will be key to Apple and Xbox. What is the lowest quality file that satisfies 90% of the people out there. If it is manageable by downloads, then HD media may have some issues.

Ben, you would be a good one to ask this question. Has your group found a sweet spot in MB/s or GB/file for high quality video?

Thanks,
MarkS

Yeah you are quite lucky as that clearly wasn't the norm. Most people were dialup or ISDN at the time if you want something faster.

jcg

I had 5mbs down/1mbs up eleven years ago.

I'm generalizing just for arguments sake. DSL used to offer 384K, 512K, and 784K services depending on what you want to spend. Maybe that isn't the case anymore as I have cable and haven't looked into DSL for years. Even when DSL had higher speeds it was at T1 speeds which is around 1.5Mbits/sec. Anyways maybe my generalization is getting dated and the average is higher, but I doubt it is much higher. And I don't know what percentage of the population still uses dialup, so that needs to factor in too.

jcg

Where did you get the average broadband speed of 1Mbps? Or were you just generalizing? I really doubt 1Mbps is the US national average of broadband speeds. Maybe if you factor in dialups.....

Will many people use the Xbox? I know that a lot of people have said they don't want a PS3 as their BD player because is so loud (fan noise) and the Xbox is much worse (noise wise) than the PS3. Just wondering...

The PS3 is whisper quiet when watching video. The Xbox is pretty much always loud. Some people have lucked out with their motherboard/fan combination and have gotten a relatively quiet 360, but they're hard to come by and luck of the draw. I got the right motherboard (Falcon) but the worst possible fans (the ones that say "Brushless").

Even if we agreed the average download speed in the US was 5Mbit/sec (vs the 1M I originally stated) and that we could get a Bluray quality HD movie in 15Gbytes (vs the 30 I stated) then we have decreased the download time by a factor of 10 to about 7hours. I know technology will get there, but I just don't see if becoming mainstream for 5-10 years. IMHO, Netflix and BB will continue to be the option of choice for most people.

jcg

Oh, you wouldn't need even 100 Mbps. With 30 Mbps, you could real-time stream really high quality experiences. Bear in mind that when you get off optical disc, you can use different codec modes (like longer GOPs and VBR audio) which are harder to take avantage with on a spinning disc.

Also, for downloads, there's no reason to bundle all the alternative audio langages, trailers, extras into the base download - you'd initially just download the movie and the main audio, and make the other stuff optional or downloaded after the main movie. With just movie + main audio, you'd be surprised what you can do in 8-12 GB. And codecs are only getting more efficient every year...

Most people never experience the majority of bits on a packed disc.

Now if Netflix comes out with a similar type download box to the Apple TV then I could see this becoming more mainstream. I also wouldn't pay on a per movie basis as I've just gotten used to using my BB & Netflix for 12-15 movies per month for about $20/mo. I know people complain about not getting the latest HD releases, but I have never had this issue and I get 95% of all the latest HD movies.

So if Netflix wanted to give me a download box, and charge me the same monthly fee, and this download box would just constantly download movies from my queue (so I always had my allotment) then that would be cool. It would save them on the mailing costs, and those savings could subsidize the download box. The box could download 1-2 more movies than you subscribe to, so that the download times we are discussing would be completely hidden. I beleive Netflix is working on something like this but haven't heard much. Of course for me the final thing would be that the quality has to be at least as good as Bluray or I'll just stick with getting the discs in the mail.

jcg

I have a rock solid 20Mbps Verizon FiOS connection. Feed me Seymour!

It's not a problem of bandwidth for me. It's a problem that Netflix has spoiled me and I don't want to pay for each movie individually anymore. Give me a subscription and I will gladly pay, especially if that subscription includes unlimited viewing.

If you want quiter xbox fans you can check out this website.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2246298,00.asp

jcg

The PS3 is whisper quiet when watching video. The Xbox is pretty much always loud. Some people have lucked out with their motherboard/fan combination and have gotten a relatively quiet 360, but they're hard to come by and luck of the draw. I got the right motherboard (Falcon) but the worst possible fans (the ones that say "Brushless").

Is there really a comcast pilot for 160Mbit/sec or is that a typo? I've heard of the new Comcast BLAST pilot/rollout which is 16Mbit/sec, so just wanted to see if the extra 0 was correct.

jcg

An article I read 2 weeks ago said MP3s now account for nearly 35% of music revenue in 2007 in the US. And CD sales have dropped by about 30% since 2004.

Where we are in the movie download situation is where we were about 12 years ago for MP3 downloads. 12 years ago most people have a 56k dialup and it took hours to get a full MP3. Today people have a few Mbps and it takes hours to get a movie. Then in the late 90s people started getting highspeed internet connections and they could get MP3s within minutes. OVer the next ~24 months we should see large increases in bandwidths to the home that will allow people to get movies very fast. Comcast is piloting a program for 160Mbps to the home. That will allow people to download a HD movie in a few minutes. But even if we see a drastic increase from 5Mbps to 30Mbps on avg. That will cut the download to a few hours.

That said, i still think a rental service coupled with VOD is the best way to do this.

Is there really a comcast pilot for 160Mbit/sec or is that a typo? I've heard of the new Comcast BLAST pilot/rollout which is 16Mbit/sec, so just wanted to see if the extra 0 was correct.

jcg
It is not a typo. This is what they announced at CES. When and how large scale the deployment would be is in question....

Is there really a comcast pilot for 160Mbit/sec or is that a typo? I've heard of the new Comcast BLAST pilot/rollout which is 16Mbit/sec, so just wanted to see if the extra 0 was correct.

jcg

No typo, it's part of the DOCSIS 3.0 project.

Will many people use the Xbox? I know that a lot of people have said they don't want a PS3 as their BD player because is so loud (fan noise) and the Xbox is much worse (noise wise) than the PS3. Just wondering...

AFAIK the Xbox service is already a success (when compared to any other DD service). What it needs now is an expansion of its movie content. With Apple's aggressive plans for content on AppleTV, the gauntlet has been thrown down.

There's been a lot of talk about 15GB 1080p downloads on this page. The XBox service is roughly equal to that - but at 720p and therefore around 6GB instead. The AppleTV service uses somewhat worse bitrate, around 4GB in size.

I know you are telling the truth Ben, but I can tell you, at least in this area, when you purchase 1mb dsl, you will get 1.54 Mb . I have seen it range from 1 - 1.54 Mb in size. So my point was that just cause it says 1Mb, it is not an even 1M bites per second. So it makes the math harder.

The bigger point that I think you will agree with is that at what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in. Will a highly tuned 15gb HD file compare to a decent 30gb file? That is what will be key to Apple and Xbox. What is the lowest quality file that satisfies 90% of the people out there. If it is manageable by downloads, then HD media may have some issues.

Ben, you would be a good one to ask this question. Has your group found a sweet spot in MB/s or GB/file for high quality video?

Thanks,
MarkS

But be aware many ISPs (cablecos) have caught on to the idea of speed testing and may burst an apparently high bit rate for the first few seconds or even minutes of a test download and then throttle back to the lower stated rate. You can test this by downloading a large file (>10 minutes) and timing how long the first half vs the 2nd half takes.

- Tom

The bigger point that I think you will agree with is that at what point does the law of diminishing returns kick in. Will a highly tuned 15gb HD file compare to a decent 30gb file? That is what will be key to Apple and Xbox. What is the lowest quality file that satisfies 90% of the people out there. If it is manageable by downloads, then HD media may have some issues.
Yes, all compression has a "rate-distortion curve" that shows how increased data rate improves quality. It's a classic curve, starting out nearly vertical early on where small increases in banwidth can provide huge improvements, and then going nearly horizontal where big increaes in bitrate provide marginal at best improvements in quality. So, it really depends where on the curve you are. For "just the movie" of a two-hour feature content wth VC-1 at 1080p24, I'd say 30 GB would look and sound essentially identical to 15 GB. But 15 GB might look a little better than 10 GB, and would definitely be a LOT better than 5 GB.

Ben, you would be a good one to ask this question. Has your group found a sweet spot in MB/s or GB/file for high quality video?
12 Mbps for video using download specs is generally ample for 1080p24, and there's certainly content that can go down from there.

12 Mbps is a little too much for the North American market today, so XBLM today is 720p24 @ 6 Mbps.

Our new house is supposed to be able to get 10/5 DSL, so I'll probably start lobbying for higher bitrate as soon as we move :).

I'm generalizing just for arguments sake. DSL used to offer 384K, 512K, and 784K services depending on what you want to spend. Maybe that isn't the case anymore as I have cable and haven't looked into DSL for years. Even when DSL had higher speeds it was at T1 speeds which is around 1.5Mbits/sec. Anyways maybe my generalization is getting dated and the average is higher, but I doubt it is much higher. And I don't know what percentage of the population still uses dialup, so that needs to factor in too.

Here in Portland, Qwest still offers DSL down to 256/256, although I presume those customers aren't downloading much video :). But most enthusiasts will go for the 3-5 Mbps option, which is what I've got, and that seems to be what's being offered in other regions (assuming people have a good enough/short enough copper connection to the local station).

Verizon, who has other neighborhoods around here, only goes up to 3 Mbps (and charge $15/month a more for it). But they're pushing FIOS to those lucky sods out in the burbs. If only I wasn't constitutionally incapable of living in a post-WWII house...

So what is the cost for 3-5Mbps DSL? I have comcast cable and own my own docsis 2.0 modem for $42.95/mo. I'm getting about 7-8Mbps download and about 1-2Mbps upload. They are currently advertising the 16Mbps download BLAST upgrade for an additional $10/mo, but I have no plans to get that as my current speeds are plently fast.

jcg

Here in Portland, Qwest still offers DSL down to 256/256, although I presume those customers aren't downloading much video :). But most enthusiasts will go for the 3-5 Mbps option, which is what I've got, and that seems to be what's being offered in other regions (assuming people have a good enough/short enough copper connection to the local station).

Verizon, who has other neighborhoods around here, only goes up to 3 Mbps (and charge $15/month a more for it). But they're pushing FIOS to those lucky sods out in the burbs. If only I wasn't constitutionally incapable of living in a post-WWII house...

An article I read 2 weeks ago said MP3s now account for nearly 35% of music revenue in 2007 in the US.

Per the latest report I can find (this month)...

"The industry body said CD sales fell 11 percent between 2005 and 2006 and were likely to drop further in 2007. Digital music revenue has so far failed to make up for the decline -- and is also showing signs of slowing, the IFPI said.

From $380 million in 2004, digital revenue roughly tripled in 2005 and nearly doubled in 2006, but brought only a modest 40 percent increase in 2007, the IFPI said.

But it said digital downloads have grown in five years to account for 15 percent of the world's music sales, with more than 500 legally licensed music sites selling around 6 million tracks of music."

Believe it or not a lot of the online revenues are from ringtones!

So what is the cost for 3-5Mbps DSL?
jcg

I'm at 6Mbps dsl for $12/month; I can upgrade to 12Mbps for $20/month which I may do soon...
(these prices require me to buy a local phone line at about $18/month additional)

ken

I'm at 6Mbps dsl for $12/month; I can upgrade to 12Mbps for $20/month which I may do soon...

ken

I wish DSL was available in my area :(

The PS3 is whisper quiet when watching video. I owned several PS3s including a couple of 40GB models and I would never describe them as whisper quiet... even close to being quiet. Compared to the PS3 the Apple TV doesn't exist. :)

As much as I liked the PS3 not being a gamer I eventually sold them off as I purchased other Blu-ray players. Form factor the Apple TV is great and I can use my Harmony remote with it. It has enough storage for several HD movie rentals and since I stream everything else storage isn't an issue.

Regarding download speeds I have a full T1 at the house (1.5Mbps upstream) but as long as I can order a movie the night before or in the morning and watch it that evening I don't care how long it takes.

The deciding factor to me will be selection. Of the 75 HD movies Apple started with there are only three or four I'm interested in. The rest are rather old (if interested I would have watched them a long time ago) or some what current and I have no interest. Having downloaded three movies Apple won't be seeing any more money from me until the selection increases.

Download speed, cost, image quality, convenience and everything else only matters if there is something you actually want to watch. :)

I owned several PS3s including a couple of 40GB models and I would never describe them as whisper quiet... even close to being quiet. Compared to the PS3 the Apple TV doesn't exist. :)

As much as I liked the PS3 not being a gamer I eventually sold them off as I purchased other Blu-ray players. Form factor the Apple TV is great and I can use my Harmony remote with it. It has enough storage for several HD movie rentals and since I stream everything else storage isn't an issue.

Regarding download speeds I have a full T1 at the house (1.5Mbps upstream) but as long as I can order a movie the night before or in the morning and watch it that evening I don't care how long it takes.

The deciding factor to me will be selection. Of the 75 HD movies Apple started with there are only three or four I'm interested in. The rest are rather old (if interested I would have watched them a long time ago) or some what current and I have no interest. Having downloaded three movies Apple won't be seeing any more money from me until the selection increases.

Download speed, cost, image quality, convenience and everything else only matters if there is something you actually want to watch. :)

Good points all around. I don't have a T1, but if I could:
a) Start a download the night before and watch it the next day
or
b) Add the movie to Netflix, hope it's in stock, wait two days for it to get to my house and then watch it and hope it's not scratched

I will take (a) everytime. Selection is key. How is AppleTV about new releases (i.e. do they come out on day-and-date)? Personally, I could see companies like Apple working out deals to actually get them early...I mean, once the digital authoring is done, it would take almost no work to get it onto a download service....whereas it still needs to go to the printers/packagers/distributors to ge the disc to stores. Would be nice and a good selling point.

I am going to the Apple store today just to see first hand how Apple TV works.I also hope they dont have some man or woman in there telling things they dont know or I know is not to be true.If a lot of movie goers look at this realistic this is the best thing to come along in a while.Sitting on the couch when bored and rent any movie I want if the content is there is really appealing to a lot of people.If Apple TV is as good as advertised I will probably get it and try it out.I have 6 megs and I believe that is enough to download 720 content which will probably look very well on my 720 projector.

I owned several PS3s including a couple of 40GB models and I would never describe them as whisper quiet... even close to being quiet. Compared to the PS3 the Apple TV doesn't exist. :)

As much as I liked the PS3 not being a gamer I eventually sold them off as I purchased other Blu-ray players. Form factor the Apple TV is great and I can use my Harmony remote with it. It has enough storage for several HD movie rentals and since I stream everything else storage isn't an issue.

Regarding download speeds I have a full T1 at the house (1.5Mbps upstream) but as long as I can order a movie the night before or in the morning and watch it that evening I don't care how long it takes.

The deciding factor to me will be selection. Of the 75 HD movies Apple started with there are only three or four I'm interested in. The rest are rather old (if interested I would have watched them a long time ago) or some what current and I have no interest. Having downloaded three movies Apple won't be seeing any more money from me until the selection increases.

Download speed, cost, image quality, convenience and everything else only matters if there is something you actually want to watch. :)

Ok Charles, I have to ask. What is the price of that T1 Private Line & are you paying for it or your employer. :)

Ok Charles, I have to ask. What is the price of that T1 Private Line & are you paying for it or your employer. :)The cost is a lot less than it was a few years ago and strictly business related. Compared to a lot of resources nowadays the T1 is rather slow across the board. If it wasn't required I would look for a faster avenue although I'm sure the downtime would increase dramatically.

I think you are making Netflix sound a bit worse than it is. First off most people have a queue already, so there are already movies on your queue. I think most people are on a 3 at a time plan, so that also means that you have 3 movies at your home. And yes once you watch one, put it in the mailbox you won't have a replacement for 2 days but you also still have 2 other movies to watch. I've been a member since 2000 and I think I've gotten less than 5 movies that wouldn't play, and 3 of those were HD combo movies that supposedly were fixed with later DVD player firmware. Non playable DVDs just isn't a real issue.

I'm not saying downloads don't have there place, but at least for me I'm not the kind of person that all of a sudden gets it in my head that I just have to see a certain movie and I must download it now. Having 3 movies at home gives me plenty of choice, and they are all movies I want to watch since I had them at the top of my queue.

jcg

Good points all around. I don't have a T1, but if I could:
a) Start a download the night before and watch it the next day
or
b) Add the movie to Netflix, hope it's in stock, wait two days for it to get to my house and then watch it and hope it's not scratched

I will take (a) everytime. Selection is key. How is AppleTV about new releases (i.e. do they come out on day-and-date)? Personally, I could see companies like Apple working out deals to actually get them early...I mean, once the digital authoring is done, it would take almost no work to get it onto a download service....whereas it still needs to go to the printers/packagers/distributors to ge the disc to stores. Would be nice and a good selling point.

So I have a question on how the companies that are doing downloads are encoding the movies in HD. Is there an actual spec or is each company using a proprietary approach? I'm assuming they need to work out a deal with the studios to get the movies, right? And if so does the studio dictate the level of quality that the movie can be encoded at? Or does the company get a copy that would be say as good as the Bluray version of the movie? I guess I'm just wondering why there isn't a 1080p downloadable version that is as good as the Bluray disc? Is it just bandwidth issues, studio copyright fears, technical issues?

jcg

Oh, and another question. What about error correcting codes? For those that have downloaded a movie on AppleTV do you ever get times when the picture degrades like it would if you got scratches on a DVD? Or do you get a perfect "scratchless" version everytime because the protocol has ECC and checksums, etc?

jcg

So I have a question on how the companies that are doing downloads are encoding the movies in HD. Is there an actual spec or is each company using a proprietary approach? I'm assuming they need to work out a deal with the studios to get the movies, right? And if so does the studio dictate the level of quality that the movie can be encoded at? Or does the company get a copy that would be say as good as the Bluray version of the movie? I guess I'm just wondering why there isn't a 1080p downloadable version that is as good as the Bluray disc? Is it just bandwidth issues, studio copyright fears, technical issues?

jcg

From what I've read with VUDU. The content providers supply the movie and the VUDU people do the encoding themselves. That way they have more control over the quality. I wouldn't mind comparing the ATV to the VUDU sometime. If my brother gets one I will do it. Against XboxLive VUDU easily beats it.

OK, but then the big question is what quality is the movie in, that the content providers give to VUDU & Apple? If it is in the quality of the master, then theoretically VUDU could encode it in a format better than Bluray. Or do the studios dictate that it has to be a lower quality than Bluray??

If it isn't even in the quality of a Bluray DVD to start with, then of course after another encode it clearly would be even lower quality.

jcg

From what I've read with VUDU. The content providers supply the movie and the VUDU people do the encoding themselves. That way they have more control over the quality. I wouldn't mind comparing the ATV to the VUDU sometime. If my brother gets one I will do it. Against XboxLive VUDU easily beats it.

I just ordered the AppleTV. Our only movie store just closed down and the VOD selection from Dish Network is terrible. I'll still buy plenty of blu-rays (nothing like owning my favorite movies forever in a 1080/24P, lossless audio format), but for those spur-of-the-moment times when we just want to watch a movie, I think it will work well. That's why I don't think downloads will ever replace physical discs. Just my humble opinion of course.

Reading today's NY TIMES... Page1 of the Business section. 'Web Movies Show Why DVDs Sell'.

(not sure if there is an internet link to today's paper).

They give 4 'collosal' reasons why downloads are years and years away...


Most here know this..but this article spells it out clearly for those who wish otherwise..

One 'collosal' reason was A/V quality of downloads is poor compared to HD media. The other reasons: required hi speed connection (only 1/2 of homes have it), short window to view and lack of 'extras' to watch.

Great news for Blu Ray! Great news for us HD media snobs!

Reading today's NY TIMES... Page1 of the Business section. 'Web Movies Show Why DVDs Sell'.

(not sure if there is an internet link to today's paper).

They give 4 'collosal' reasons why downloads are years and years away...


Most here know this..but this article spells it out clearly for those who wish otherwise..

One 'collosal' reason was A/V quality of downloads is poor compared to HD media. The other reasons: required hi speed connection (only 1/2 of homes have it), short window to view and lack of 'extras' to watch.

Great news for Blu Ray! Great news for us HD media snobs!

Everyone here who claims not to already know this has an agenda.

If a SP offers HD-DVD quality downloads, I'll buy. Doesn't need to be real time.

If the download experience would mirror the disc experience I would never buy another disc, well almost never.

The biggest issue with downloads is not the ones listed in the article. It's that there will be no one download provider to enjoy the kind of unified network effects that Blu-Ray is now able to enjoy. The download market will be split between Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Sony, the cable companies, the telcos.. each downloading to a specific subset of the player market, DRMed to a fare-thee-well and non-portable between player silos.

That's not such a very compelling alternative, honestly. If the industry could unify on a DRM solution in the way that HDM vendors have consolidated, such that the media could be portable between all players, archivable in home media servers, etc., then you'd have something, but until then, downloaded HD video won't be a patch on Blu-Ray or on DivX rips of DVDs.

I guess they weren't quoting me... my last three HD rentals have been downloads. Trying to compare downloads to HD media sales is rather silly as they are two totally different markets.

I live in the fourth largest city in the us and we don't have near the fiber network
it would take to get 20% of the city.

Reading today's NY TIMES... Page1 of the Business section. 'Web Movies Show Why DVDs Sell'.

(not sure if there is an internet link to today's paper).

They give 4 'collosal' reasons why downloads are years and years away...


Most here know this..but this article spells it out clearly for those who wish otherwise..

One 'collosal' reason was A/V quality of downloads is poor compared to HD media. The other reasons: required hi speed connection (only 1/2 of homes have it), short window to view and lack of 'extras' to watch.

Great news for Blu Ray! Great news for us HD media snobs!

37% of homes have a HDTV
People have already shown they will drop the quality for an easier delivery system(MP3).

I'd venture to guess that only the most elite can truely see the difference between a HD download and a Blu-Ray disc.

And lets not forget that the Apple store shipped about 7 million movies last year while Blu-Ray and HD-DVD shipped about 5.1 million discs combined. BTW I would love to know of those 5.1 million, how many were give aways.

So I think anybody dismissing movie downloads as being a long ways off is smoking something fierce. It may not topple Blu-Ray but I think it will eat into their market and keep it from dominating like DVD has within its market.

Downloads will have neglidgeable impact on Blu Ray disc sales / rentals... This is great for us enthusiasts....

Well the link with the reasons is gone so I can read what they were.

But two things that should be considered.

1. In Europe we have cheaper and faster bandwith that some have in the states. So our infrastructur is more ready for downloads.

2. Its intresting that many thinks that HD downloads is the biggest threat, SD downloads is the biggest threats. Because if people are content (J6P) with it, then they can choose that instead of going HD.

Over here they already delivers the standard channels over the internet to users that wants it. I havnt seen it (since I get the channels the ordinary way even if I wouldnt want them)

But downloading comes more and more.



But I agree that for us moviegeeks (that wants grain), downloading HD isnt up to the PQ yet.

I have an idea. Why dont the mods make a forum specifically for High Definition Video on Demand. Ban the comparisons to Blu Ray or optical media.... that way.... people who are REAL fans of VOD will have a place to discuss VOD.

That way we can see how many people are truly interested in VOD as a means to watch High Definition Video.... rather than as a format to slow blu ray.

Reading these posts, I get the feeling that most people who are "interested" in VOD... are only interested because they want Blu Ray to fail.

I live in the fourth largest city in the us and we don't have near the fiber network
it would take to get 20% of the city.

I am so fortunate. I live in a small town of 9000 and the city, even better than some co., installed fiber two years ago. It is awesome for HD CAble.

I love BD, but I want downloads as I mainly rent anymore. I had a in depth discussion playing devil's advocate with a extremely knowledgeable forum member who works in the industry. He said HD downloads are not possible with the current internet the way it is. I tried in vain to make some points about dark fiber, etc. It doesn't matter if I or anyone has FIOS or unlimited bandwith. It is the overall capacity that is the issue. I conceded. The bottom line is it is NOT going to happen with the infrastructure we have now.

Hughmc, can you expand that about capacity?

Hughmc, can you expand that about capacity?

I am a novice. I know little. I will try to find and reference the posts that he and I made. He is an industry insider who I believe works in the telco industry, but don't even quote me on that.

The bottom line is it is NOT going to happen with the infrastructure we have now.It's happening right now!

If you are trying to say that 100% of homes won't be downloading HD movies within a year... sure it won't happen. 100% of anything isn't going to happen.

But HD downloads are alive on many fronts (VUDU, XBox, Apple TV, TiVo (before long)) and none of them will have a great affect on HD media (sales). They do have an outside chance of taking over a large chunk of the rental market.

It's happening right now!

If you are trying to say that 100% of homes won't be downloading HD movies within a year... sure it won't happen. 100% of anything isn't going to happen.

But HD downloads are alive on many fronts (VUDU, XBox, Apple TV, TiVo (before long)) and none of them will have a great affect on HD media (sales). They do have an outside chance of taking over a large chunk of the rental market.

Infrastructure of the internet.

Here it is. Look at this page in particular, but the whole thread relates.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12869571#post12869571

I used to work in the networking industry so I'll take a stab. If you looked at the internet from your home back to whatever server or website you are looking at it goes through a bunch of routers. It's like a tree where the branches get smaller and smaller the further out you get (closer to the home). The capability and bandwidth of the routers decreases the closer they are to the home. The main routers of the internet are huge and capable of routing terabits of info. Also much of the broadband to the home is cable, and cable is a shared infrastructure so everyone in your neighborhood shares the same cable line. Yes you can get 4-8Mbits/sec to your home, but that is because all the people that share that cable network probably aren't downloading at the same time. If all of a sudden everyone on that shared network started a massive download you would not be getting 4-8Mbits/sec anymore.

So my guess is this person outlined the bottlenecks in the network and showed that if too many people were using VOD that the whole internet infrastructure couldn't handle it.

Now as always they are making routers faster and faster, so the internet infrastructure is always getting faster, and if HD VOD starts gaining traction then the ISPs and others will start upgrading their routers to handle this extra bandwidth. So over time this wouldn't be an issue, but that's why I think people say it will be 5-10 years out before it is more mainstream.

Of course if I misinterpreted your conversation with this other person please let everyone know.

jcg

Hughmc, can you expand that about capacity?

Ok, looks like I was typing my reply as you posted. I read the link, and basically I think I said the same thing.

jcg

I would too. Here is what I think the requirements are for such a service. The download box needs to sell for $299 or less. It needs to be a subscription service like Netflix, or the price for a HD movie needs to be $1.99 or less. I currently rent 10-15 movies/month for a cost of around $20 (between Netflix and BB online), so I estimate my cost per movie to be around $1.75. Every new release needs to be available on Tuesday like they are at Netflix and BB. The quality needs to be as good as the Bluray DVD would be.

So basically what I'm asking for is my Netflix on VOD, and I'd definately sign up for that.

jcg

If a SP offers HD-DVD quality downloads, I'll buy. Doesn't need to be real time.

I would too. Here is what I think the requirements are for such a service. The download box needs to sell for $299 or less. It needs to be a subscription service like Netflix, or the price for a HD movie needs to be $1.99 or less. I currently rent 10-15 movies/month for a cost of around $20 (between Netflix and BB online), so I estimate my cost per movie to be around $1.75. Every new release needs to be available on Tuesday like they are at Netflix and BB. The quality needs to be as good as the Bluray DVD would be.

So basically what I'm asking for is my Netflix on VOD, and I'd definately sign up for that.

jcg

Yep, that's what I'm waiting for too. $3.99 - $4.99 per movie is too much for the added convenience.

There also needs to be a bigger selection. I think AppleTV has like 75 HD movies available. They need a lot more. And it needs to be a growing, and not a rotating, library of titles (i.e. if I rent a movie today and want to watch it again 2 years from now, it needs to still be available)

It's happening right now!

If you are trying to say that 100% of homes won't be downloading HD movies within a year... sure it won't happen. 100% of anything isn't going to happen.

But HD downloads are alive on many fronts (VUDU, XBox, Apple TV, TiVo (before long)) and none of them will have a great affect on HD media (sales). They do have an outside chance of taking over a large chunk of the rental market.

they are already having an effect on the rental market and the rental market has an effect on sales.... its not like bluray is setting the world on fire with its sales numbers (and it would really be doing badly w/o those bogo deals). i think some of it can be attributed to more options to get your movies. the more people rent the less purchases we see and with high movie prices its going to happen alot more.

just look at xbox live's service which has been around for 1.5 yrs and they released a figure yesterday that 250 million has been spent in their marketplace (which covers everything) of which the movies are the biggest money maker. no way to know the breakdown for sure but id guess atleast 60% of all money is made on the movie rental service. doing the math it comes out to 150 million. And doing the math with the average price of a movie being $5 thats 30 million movies rented (sd and hd). And this is just one service. Now you cant guarantee all of those are hd but id bet a pretty large number are. my point is there is no outside shot... they are already affecting the marketplace and will make even more of a splash going forward.

I just wanted to expand my thoughts on infrastructur.

Lets say everyone downloads. And a big release is comming out like a new bondmovie.

So everyone starts to download it.

So while everyone is downloading it you basicly sending the same data over the network, so by making some modifacations to current tech like torrents. You could make huge bandwith savings on the network.

The other thing that could be used, would be that everyone downloads parts of the movie days in advance before a big release, but the final pieces/keys arnt downloaded until release day. you could basicly download just 5mb the last day.

A few points which I think aren't often taken into account...

1. HD itself has yet to become mainstream and as such you can't except anything related to it to have either. They can only grow as a subset of HD itself.
2. Downloads do not equal VOD. Waiting several hours to view your movie is doable.
3. Downloads are and will be marketed to your typical renter. Not users who subscribe to multiple online services and pay $40 a month hoping to get the latest releases (I certainly never did).
4. There will always be a market for HD media. Just as there is for DVD sales and rentals.
5. Downloads can compete in the rental market now.
6. Downloads currently don't have a chance in the sales market.
7. Once you obtain any volume level (at all) the rental and purchase markets aren't competing with each other. Once the media is available purchasers will purchase and renters will rent. Regardless of how they are delivered.

To my mind the future of downloads can grow at the same rate as HD itself. Just like HD isn't mainstream downloads doesn't have to be either. Also it doesn't have to be the best fit for the HD niche of today.

Long term it seems ideally suited for mainstream rentals. I don't feel it's an if it will happen rather more of when.

The other thing that could be used, would be that everyone downloads parts of the movie days in advance before a big release, but the final pieces/keys arnt downloaded until release day. you could basicly download just 5mb the last day.VUDU does this now. They automatically download x minutes of movies in the background. So when you decide to watch a movie the beginning is stored on your hard drive. This allows for a streaming buffer (if needed).

So while everyone is downloading it you basicly sending the same data over the network, so by making some modifacations to current tech like torrents. You could make huge bandwith savings on the network.VUDU does this as well...

A few points which I think aren't often taken into account...

1. HD itself has yet to become mainstream and as such you can't except anything related to it to have either. They can only grow as a subset of HD itself.
2. Downloads do not equal VOD. Waiting several hours to view your movie is doable.
3. Downloads are and will be marketed to your typical renter. Not users who subscribe to multiple online services and pay $40 a month hoping to get the latest releases (I certainly never did).
4. There will always be a market for HD media. Just as there is for DVD sales and rentals.
5. Downloads can compete in the rental market now.
6. Downloads currently don't have a chance in the sales market.
7. Once you obtain any volume level (at all) the rental and purchase markets aren't competing with each other. Once the media is available purchasers will purchase and renters will rent. Regardless of how they are delivered.

To my mind the future of downloads can grow at the same rate as HD itself. Just like HD isn't mainstream downloads doesn't have to be either. Also it doesn't have to be the best fit for the HD niche of today.

Long term it seems ideally suited for mainstream rentals. I don't feel it's an if it will happen rather more of when.

there is a cross road reached at the moment for my friends and family... whether to continue to spend time and money on dvd entertainment or something else.

imo they will probably choose to spend their time and money on high speed internet because there is A LOT to be gained far beyond movies. there is a big local push by comcast to sign up users.

that slice of time and money meshes well with movie download services as the next delivery system after dvd for them. currently they are not showing much interest in hd dvd or bd but there is a lot of discussion about online services and ipods, etc.

imo if content providers try to drive prices up for purchase, people will turn to renting... especially if the rental is really easy (no waiting for snail mail or driving and no waiting in a queue for popular titles, no problems with damaged media).

imo if content providers try to drive prices up for purchase, people will turn to renting... especially if the rental is really easy (no waiting for snail mail or driving and no waiting in a queue for popular titles, no problems with damaged media).

Yes when older DVDs came down to the same price as renting a new DVD, i found myself rather buy then rent.

But with 40$ I looking more for rent. The perfect balance would be: rent a movie twice should be the same cost as purchasing the movie.

Yes when older DVDs came down to the same price as renting a new DVD, i found myself rather buy then rent.

But with 40$ I looking more for rent. The perfect balance would be: rent a movie twice should be the same cost as purchasing the movie.
i think in general consumers are wising up to owning movies is not cost effective compared to renting simply because most people dont ever watch the same movie enough times to warrant the extra cost over a rental. when movies get cheap enough where its the same price to buy vs rent then ya its a no brainer but there are very few movies that ever get that cheap.

ive said it for a long time but the model i see winning out overall is a subscription model via digital downloads. where i can see a huge library of movies at my fingertips and watch any of them in near realtime. also since it would be a huge library it even would meet some of the collectors needs as well since you could watch almost any movie with your subscription at any time (and have a far larger collection than any collector could dream of... well most of them)

ive said it for a long time but the model i see winning out overall is a subscription model via digital downloads. where i can see a huge library of movies at my fingertips and watch any of them in near realtime. also since it would be a huge library it even would meet some of the collectors needs as well since you could watch almost any movie with your subscription at any time (and have a far larger collection than any collector could dream of... well most of them)

Well its a factor of quality, quatantity and price.

The best way would be if the internet distr. had the collection and access to them were baked in the the internet price.

The filmmakers would get their sum from the providers split by what movies the users watched.

So the real question would be, what bandwith do we need to access HD movies with great PQ?

I'm not sure DVDs ever get down to a price where buying makes more sense than renting. With a subscription service rentals are in the $1.50/movie range and that includes HD and new releases. Yeah maybe if you wanted to wait a year to see a movie you might find it in a bin a walmart for some real low price, but most people don't have that mentality. I haven't bought a DVD or HDVD since I joined Netflix in 2000, except maybe an occasional Disney title that my kids would watch over and over when they were younger. If I ever want to rewatch a movie I've already seen, which is rarely the case then I just add it to my queue and re-rent it.

jcg

Yes when older DVDs came down to the same price as renting a new DVD, i found myself rather buy then rent.

But with 40$ I looking more for rent. The perfect balance would be: rent a movie twice should be the same cost as purchasing the movie.

there is a cross road reached at the moment for my friends and family... whether to continue to spend time and money on dvd entertainment or something else.For me I own a Blu-ray player, a couple of TiVo HDs and an Apple TV. If I had to give up one I would have to give up the Blu-ray player. I enjoy it the most while it is in use but on a monthly basis it hardly gets used.

I'm not purchasing movies at over $20 and even if I was willing to the selection isn't there. There are typically one or two movies a month I'm interested in and I end up renting them locally (even cheaper than a monthly online subscription).

TiVo I more or less couldn't live without even with the few TV channels I subscribe to and HD rentals are right around the corner. I purchased the Apple TV for music streaming in the den but found out the silly stuff like YouTube and photo viewing is fun. Not to mention yet again HD rentals are available and don't look half bad in my theater.

My (pure) guess is the HD selection is going to be larger for TiVo and Apple TV than Blu-ray for the near future. Certainly I would love Blu-ray for the few killer releases each year but having a larger selection of titles and an image and sound that was superior to the worse Blu-ray transfer I have seen I'll take the downloads.

As the HD market matures quality will be more in play but first you need to have something worth watching to be entertained. As an example I turned off Transformers (the big release!) about two-thirds the way through. Sure it looked and sounded pretty but it made the Fast and Furious franchise look like Oscar material.

Also regarding infrastructure. When I first started out in networking back in the early 90s VOD was the next hot thing, yes even way back then. The internet was building out at the time, and bandwidth was being added. Most people may remember that email was what everyone said was driving bandwidth back then, but the real thing driving it was porn (that wasn't politically correct to talk about at the time). The internet infrastructure has always been a chicken and egg issue. ISP didn't want to spend money on building out more infrastructure if they didn't need to, so it happens at a somewhat slow pace and overall internet bandwidth dictates that pace.

So the buildout never happened fast enough to support VOD and then came DVD. So just when the internet got close to being able to support VOD out comes a disc that is 4.7Gbytes, and would takes days to download at then current internet speeds. Then comes broadband and the homes start migrating from dialup, and when there is more bandwidth people come up with ways to use it. So the next big thing file sharing and peer to peer networks. Of course this requires more internet infrastructure as it becomes more and more popular. Now we are getting streaming video with youtube and again porn with youporn. So the internet is just in the past few years gotten to the point where we have the infrastructure to VOD standard DVD, but what happens? We get a new DVD format that once agains bumps up file size to ~20-30Gbytes. I'm telling you VOD has been the next hot thing for the past 15 years if you were in the networking business.

Anyways as I've already said it will happen this time. I know a very small percentage of people are doing it now, and if this grows the ISPs will upgrade the infrastructure so more and more people can do it. That will take time and as I've said IMHO it will be mainstream in 5-7 years.

jcg

I hear what many of you are saying, but if you read that entire link and talk to him with those suggested scenarios I am guessing he will reitterate what he already said. Sure some of the scenarios may work to some extent now for early adopters, but ISp's are already limiting heavy bandwith users. I believe, without proof, the reason the ISP's charge so much for higher bandwith speeds, like 30megs and up are because they wouldn't want everyone to be downloading using so much bandwith for capacity that wouldn't be there. This is funny, almost, because now I am playing devil's advocate for his case. :D

In all this infrastructure talk my questions in post 372 & 373 got lost. I'll repost again as I'm hoping maybe we have some insiders on this thread that may know the answers.

So I have a question on how the companies that are doing downloads are encoding the movies in HD. Is there an actual spec or is each company using a proprietary approach? I'm assuming they need to work out a deal with the studios to get the movies, right? And if so does the studio dictate the level of quality that the movie can be encoded at? Or does the company get a copy that would be say as good as the Bluray version of the movie? I guess I'm just wondering why there isn't a 1080p downloadable version that is as good as the Bluray disc? Is it just bandwidth issues, studio copyright fears, technical issues?

Oh, and another question. What about error correcting codes? For those that have downloaded a movie on AppleTV do you ever get times when the picture degrades like it would if you got scratches on a DVD? Or do you get a perfect "scratchless" version everytime because the protocol has ECC and checksums, etc?

jcg

I'm not sure DVDs ever get down to a price where buying makes more sense than renting. ...

jcg


it does if you have a group of people that buy that you can share with.

if you think about it, renting is the same thing only with people you don't know.

Oh, and another question. What about error correcting codes? For those that have downloaded a movie on AppleTV do you ever get times when the picture degrades like it would if you got scratches on a DVD? Or do you get a perfect "scratchless" version everytime because the protocol has ECC and checksums, etc?Via the Apple TV I viewed The Brave One in my den at 55 inches and in the theater with a 1080p projector at 110 inches and in both cases if I didn't know any different I would have thought I was watching it via Blu-ray.

I'm not saying the audio and video were as good as the Blu-ray version rather there was nothing to suggest that I wasn't watching a Blu-ray movie. It certainly looked and sounded better than the worse Blu-ray transfer I have seen. The biggest difference I noticed was the lack of menus and chapters. They do have a resume feature.

Regarding your other question I believe one of the Microsoft insiders addressed how the movies are encoded early in the thread. Including the statement that Microsoft takes more care than Apple. :)

USA Today has a review in today's edition...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2008-02-20-apple-tv_N.htm

"Is Apple TV about to emerge from "hobby" status and become a marquee business for Apple (AAPL)? It's plausible, now that the second version has arrived — with on-demand movie rentals."

Maybe for really old releases, but as an example I got American Gangster in HD this week from Netflix. Amazon has it new for $27, and I estimate my average rental cost to be about $1.75/movie. So I need 15 other families to share with for this to make sense, plus driving around to drop off movies (~$3/gal for gas). Maybe it makes sense for you, but definately not something I will be doing. Way too much hassle and I really don't think it saves much if anything.

jcg

it does if you have a group of people that buy that you can share with.

if you think about it, renting is the same thing only with people you don't know.

Maybe for really old releases, but as an example I got American Gangster in HD this week from Netflix. Amazon has it new for $27, and I estimate my average rental cost to be about $1.75/movie. So I need 15 other families to share with for this to make sense, plus driving around to drop off movies (~$3/gal for gas). Maybe it makes sense for you, but definately not something I will be doing. Way too much hassle and I really don't think it saves much if anything.

jcg


Well but some movies you wanna rewatch, and times like that it makes more sense to have the movie. Its not about price, its about convinience.

It doesnt really make sense to have a hometheater either. I must have spent money that equals 1000 visits to the theater. (And its expensive going to the theaters over here...)

OK, I read more of the beginning of this thread and there is some interesting stuff. It looks like the Microsoft insider is benwaggoner, so hopefully he can reply to my post #410.

He says in post #179 that the studios do the encoding, and in post #271 says we are getting close to being able to do 1080p downloads with the latest codecs. So I guess if the studios do the encoding I don't get why there is all this talk of Microsoft's work on the VC-1 encoder. Is it because they are giving this encoder to the studio, and they use it to provide the encoded movie back to Microsoft to use on the XBL service? If so does that mean others like Apple do their own encoder and give that to the studio to produce their version of the movie? Or does everyone get to use this same VC-1 encoder? If that is true then there is nothing stopping us from getting true 1080p download versions that would be exactly as good in video quality as a Bluray or HDDVD version.

jcg

Via the Apple TV I viewed The Brave One in my den at 55 inches and in the theater with a 1080p projector at 110 inches and in both cases if I didn't know any different I would have thought I was watching it via Blu-ray.

I'm not saying the audio and video were as good as the Blu-ray version rather there was nothing to suggest that I wasn't watching a Blu-ray movie. It certainly looked and sounded better than the worse Blu-ray transfer I have seen. The biggest difference I noticed was the lack of menus and chapters. They do have a resume feature.

Regarding your other question I believe one of the Microsoft insiders addressed how the movies are encoded early in the thread. Including the statement that Microsoft takes more care than Apple. :)

USA Today has a review in today's edition...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2008-02-20-apple-tv_N.htm

"Is Apple TV about to emerge from "hobby" status and become a marquee business for Apple (AAPL)? It's plausible, now that the second version has arrived — with on-demand movie rentals."

He says in post $179 that the studios do the encoding, and in post #271 says we are getting close to being able to do 1080p downloads with the latest codecs.Here he states they do some of the processing...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13165756#post13165756

"I think we sweat preprocessing more than Apple TV. You'd be amazed by how much stuff comes in with broken cadence or other issues that need to be fixed before encoding, or sent back for a better master."

Infrastructure of the internet.

What about it? Is it a finite resource or something?

^^ Yes, but not that simple. You have to read the link to the original thread and what the insider says.

^^ Yes, but not that simple. You have to read the link to the original thread and what the insider says.

That isnt what he is saying. He is saying the last mile currently has bottlenecks that will hamper the growth of downloads. I'd say at this point it is hard to argue when we have 3-5Mbps on avg to the home, that isnt a major roadblock for HD movie downloads.

His opinion is this wont change very quickly. I have heard otherwise and that many of these telco's and cable companies have been expanding their capacity at the CO and in the last mile. All they need to do is flip the switch in many area's.

The internets infrastructure and capacity grows each year, it isnt a finite resource, and each year it has more capacity.

^^ Yes, but not that simple. You have to read the link to the original thread and what the insider says.I think the moment you agree downloads don't equal VOD bandwidth isn't an issue for a good segment of the population. Certainly a larger group than the number people who own Blu-ray players. :)

A few points which I think aren't often taken into account...

1. HD itself has yet to become mainstream and as such you can't except anything related to it to have either. They can only grow as a subset of HD itself.
2. Downloads do not equal VOD. Waiting several hours to view your movie is doable.
3. Downloads are and will be marketed to your typical renter. Not users who subscribe to multiple online services and pay $40 a month hoping to get the latest releases (I certainly never did).
4. There will always be a market for HD media. Just as there is for DVD sales and rentals.
5. Downloads can compete in the rental market now.
6. Downloads currently don't have a chance in the sales market.
7. Once you obtain any volume level (at all) the rental and purchase markets aren't competing with each other. Once the media is available purchasers will purchase and renters will rent. Regardless of how they are delivered.

To my mind the future of downloads can grow at the same rate as HD itself. Just like HD isn't mainstream downloads doesn't have to be either. Also it doesn't have to be the best fit for the HD niche of today.

Long term it seems ideally suited for mainstream rentals. I don't feel it's an if it will happen rather more of when.
I don't think they ever find a way to take this market unless they give you a way to make a backup copy. I don't think that is likely, but if you go the Xbox live route then you are entrusting all your stuff to Microsoft (or other provider). Want to do that? Then read further... http://www.achieve360points.com/articles/my-experience-with-18004myxbox/

that guy doesnt know what he is talking about.... ive been through one rrod and was able to get new licenses for all of my content.

i do think the arcade requires you be signed on and that sucks but id bet it will be fixed soon enough. thats one of the biggest advantages here in that its going to continually improve over time and will be a seamless transition.

i have been very impressed i am able to go redownload any content i have ever downloaded at any time through my download history. really helps for tv shows you get to keep where you dont have to keep them on your console all the time.

That isnt what he is saying. He is saying the last mile currently has bottlenecks that will hamper the growth of downloads. I'd say at this point it is hard to argue when we have 3-5Mbps on avg to the home, that isnt a major roadblock for HD movie downloads.

His opinion is this wont change very quickly. I have heard otherwise and that many of these telco's and cable companies have been expanding their capacity at the CO and in the last mile. All they need to do is flip the switch in many area's.

The internets infrastructure and capacity grows each year, it isnt a finite resource, and each year it has more capacity.


I disagree and since I am not that knowledgeable I won't get into a debate about specifics. That also relates to what you are saying. He has the knowledge and experience that you and I don't. Question him and his points and I am almost certain he will set the record straight.


P.S. If you read my posts you will see that I want downloads, so I am not just being a stick in the mud here.

Your saying you have heard otherwise without proof does little to prove he is wrong. He has the knowledge and proof to back it up. Wanting it to be different and claiming it is, again without proof leaves me to call BS until I hear otherwise.

He gave his background and credentials. What do you have besides hearsay and your opinion?

Here are the facts again in his words in case some didn't read them:

They do not have the bandwidth in place to service the users. Nowhere near it...not even remotely close....

If only 1% of their customers [in any market] use the service they would need to add hundreds of thousands of GBs or Thousands of TBs of bandwidth.

The cost to do so is ASTRONOMICAL. And Comcast or any Cable Operator, Telco or utility [which is regulated as well as are public companies] does not have the Carte Blanche to drop the kind of money required to build out to the degree necessary.

The cost cannot be justified.

IE: Every 10 download customers @ 100 MBPS is 1000 MBPS / 1 GBPS...what if 1000 customers in the same market want the same thing AROUND the same time? It means Comcast needs 1,000,000 MBPS or 1000 GBPS bandwidth available at that moment. They don't have it. No ISP and ESPECIALLY no residential ISP has this type of capacity [on demand].


If we step outside of Comcast's national footprint for a moment take DSL for example. DSL runs on analog / copper POTS lines. The native bandwidth for a POTS line is 64K but can OBVIOUSLY be increased by compression but NEVER will a 64K POTS line be capable of 100 MBPS let alone 400 - 500 MBPS.

In regards to cable modem, the more people on it around you the slower you go as you are on a shared loop / ring for access. I have BrightHouse / RoadRunner & ping around 3500 KBPS however standing right next to a full of T1 internet access @ 1.54 MBPS the T1 runs laps around my [alleged] 3500 KBPS cable modem. The T1 is uncompressed so the data @ 1.54 MBPS is ACTUALLY much faster than the compressed 3500 KBPS cable modem.

Most residential accounts aren't going to order a T1 of internet @ $350 - $400 MRC AND buy a $500+ T1 router etc....and the T1 is only 1.54MBPS nowhere near 100 MBPS Comcast is touting which would be called an OC3 [an uncompressed 135 MBPS connection] An OC3 runs around $4050.00 MRC + the local loop MRC of around $2500.00 for a total of $6550.00 monthly...Comcast would need to add 7,407.40 OC3s to any market where 1000 customers or more will want the service at any given time.

The bandwidth at $30 per MBPS wholesale runs a paltry $30,002,962.00 monthly per market. If they need to offer in say 10 national markets that an extra $300mil monthly overhead...realistic???? Shareholders will love it...right??

Also, to make the downloads work MAY require MPLS [multiple packet label service] to seperate the different tpes of data traveling across the consumers internet connection at the same time as the movie download. If you have Comcast digital phone for example or if anyone in the house is using the internet at the same time...you don't want phone call voice packets getting mixed into your movie download rendering the file corrupted & unplayable...

The download will require a PVC VBR between Comcasts server the movie is downloaded from end to end to the consumers PC or set top box / tivo / dvr /pvr/ hdd etc...both MPLS & the hardware to generate the PVC VBR add to the cost of the download to make it work.

The bandwidth required is just not deliverable to make this work nor can the cost to deliver EVER be justified.

All Comcast did was try to steal some Blu-Ray CES thunder..the Comcast CEO saw some reporters so he did what comes natural he exaggerated.

In regards to Apple TV well you have to buy the hardware & it is already described as nowhere near BD or HD DVD quality so really not worth addressing. And it is not as easy as download & play..there are multiple steps involved that the average person just won't take the time to learn. Apple TV is a loser as a product & iTunes movie downloads are for iPods & iPhones. Plain & Simple.

The whole Comcast "tell an interesting lie as opposed to the boring truth" will blow over..in a few months when NOTHING materializes who will even remember what the Comcast CEO even said?

A few points which I think aren't often taken into account...

4. There will always be a market for HD media. Just as there is for DVD sales and rentals.



Always is a pretty strong word. I could envision a scenario where in 10 years at most something like 90% of US households would have a data pipe into their home that would deliver 1080p HD video, on demand.

In such a future, you go to your HD Tivo and pick any movie you want any time and it is streamed to you instantly. Assuming that this is the case, who is going to be buying HD media?

The earlier poster who mentioned the subscription model where you pay $x per month to have access to an entire VOD library of HD movies to watch anytime you want is I believe on the right track.

Physical media is on the way out. CD sales are declining, while music downloads are rising. DVD sales are slowing, while digital movie downloads are rising. This is *all* the result of higher network bandwidth. In the future, network bandwidth will increase even faster. While there may always be a market for HD media, I guess my main point would be that I could see that market being <10% of the download market in time. And the content providers will follow the money, as we have recently seen with the HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray war.

RT

They do not have the bandwidth in place to service the users. Nowhere near it...not even remotely close....
I totally disagree. If you redirected even a small percentage of the illegal music and movie downloads you would have plenty of bandwidth for today's and tomorrow's download requirements. Which is exactly what some providers are starting to do... rather rudely at that.

In regards to Apple TV well you have to buy the hardware & it is already described as nowhere near BD or HD DVD quality so really not worth addressing. And it is not as easy as download & play..there are multiple steps involved that the average person just won't take the time to learn. Apple TV is a loser as a product & iTunes movie downloads are for iPods & iPhones. Plain & Simple.Have you even tried a Apple TV? Just what are these multiple steps? All I ever do is push three or four button on my Harmony remote. So everyone is going to use movie downloads on their iPods which requires you to use a computer (outside of iTouch) and Apple TV doesn't but they won't use it... makes a lot of sense.

Have you compared an Apple TV movie with a 55 and 110 inch image against the same Blu-ray movie? I agree it's not worth addressing if you have no knowledge of the subject.

Here are the facts again in his words in case some didn't read them:

They do not have the bandwidth in place to service the users. Nowhere near it...not even remotely close....

If only 1% of their customers [in any market] use the service they would need to add hundreds of thousands of GBs or Thousands of TBs of bandwidth.

The cost to do so is ASTRONOMICAL. And Comcast or any Cable Operator, Telco or utility [which is regulated as well as are public companies] does not have the Carte Blanche to drop the kind of money required to build out to the degree necessary.

The cost cannot be justified.

IE: Every 10 download customers @ 100 MBPS is 1000 MBPS / 1 GBPS...what if 1000 customers in the same market want the same thing AROUND the same time? It means Comcast needs 1,000,000 MBPS or 1000 GBPS bandwidth available at that moment. They don't have it. No ISP and ESPECIALLY no residential ISP has this type of capacity [on demand].


If we step outside of Comcast's national footprint for a moment take DSL for example. DSL runs on analog / copper POTS lines. The native bandwidth for a POTS line is 64K but can OBVIOUSLY be increased by compression but NEVER will a 64K POTS line be capable of 100 MBPS let alone 400 - 500 MBPS.

In regards to cable modem, the more people on it around you the slower you go as you are on a shared loop / ring for access. I have BrightHouse / RoadRunner & ping around 3500 KBPS however standing right next to a full of T1 internet access @ 1.54 MBPS the T1 runs laps around my [alleged] 3500 KBPS cable modem. The T1 is uncompressed so the data @ 1.54 MBPS is ACTUALLY much faster than the compressed 3500 KBPS cable modem.

Most residential accounts aren't going to order a T1 of internet @ $350 - $400 MRC AND buy a $500+ T1 router etc....and the T1 is only 1.54MBPS nowhere near 100 MBPS Comcast is touting which would be called an OC3 [an uncompressed 135 MBPS connection] An OC3 runs around $4050.00 MRC + the local loop MRC of around $2500.00 for a total of $6550.00 monthly...Comcast would need to add 7,407.40 OC3s to any market where 1000 customers or more will want the service at any given time.

The bandwidth at $30 per MBPS wholesale runs a paltry $30,002,962.00 monthly per market. If they need to offer in say 10 national markets that an extra $300mil monthly overhead...realistic???? Shareholders will love it...right??

Also, to make the downloads work MAY require MPLS [multiple packet label service] to seperate the different tpes of data traveling across the consumers internet connection at the same time as the movie download. If you have Comcast digital phone for example or if anyone in the house is using the internet at the same time...you don't want phone call voice packets getting mixed into your movie download rendering the file corrupted & unplayable...

The download will require a PVC VBR between Comcasts server the movie is downloaded from end to end to the consumers PC or set top box / tivo / dvr /pvr/ hdd etc...both MPLS & the hardware to generate the PVC VBR add to the cost of the download to make it work.

The bandwidth required is just not deliverable to make this work nor can the cost to deliver EVER be justified.

All Comcast did was try to steal some Blu-Ray CES thunder..the Comcast CEO saw some reporters so he did what comes natural he exaggerated.

In regards to Apple TV well you have to buy the hardware & it is already described as nowhere near BD or HD DVD quality so really not worth addressing. And it is not as easy as download & play..there are multiple steps involved that the average person just won't take the time to learn. Apple TV is a loser as a product & iTunes movie downloads are for iPods & iPhones. Plain & Simple.

The whole Comcast "tell an interesting lie as opposed to the boring truth" will blow over..in a few months when NOTHING materializes who will even remember what the Comcast CEO even said?

Great job with the facts. This debate is like the contest for the democratic nomination: we have a person who make a lot of promises and great speeches but has no idea how to deliver on them, and we have someone else who can get things done but isn't pie in the sky enough for people looking for a revolution.

Always is a pretty strong word. I could envision a scenario where in 10 years at most something like 90% of US households would have a data pipe into their home that would deliver 1080p HD video, on demand.Not going to happen in anytime close to 10 years. Even if it did you aren't going to get everyone to subscribe to it. Being an old fart I have found things don't change that fast. :)

Physical media is on the way out. CD sales are declining, while music downloads are rising. DVD sales are slowing, while digital movie downloads are rising.Not really. If you look at the numbers posted early in this thread you'll see CD sales are down only single digits the last couple of years. Add in the fact that the growth of downloads has dropped dramatically and physical media isn't going anywhere.

Of course always is a strong word. However I used it such that currently there is nothing in place (or close to being in place) to replace it.

I totally disagree. If you redirected even a small percentage of the illegal music and movie downloads you would have plenty of bandwidth for today's and tomorrow's download requirements.

Could you please elaborate?

Could you please elaborate?If you do a little research you'll find that illegal downloads consume a large percentage of today's Internet activity.

Movie downloads even if they grow at a healthy annual rate aren't going to be that big of a demand. We are only talking about a small percentage of the population for several years.

If they become mainstream (which is not 100% of the population) bandwidth won't be an issue. By the time it happens the bandwidth will be available. How? That's easy... the providers will make the download size fit into the (existing at the time) environment.

I disagree and since I am not that knowledgeable I won't get into a debate about specifics. That also relates to what you are saying. He has the knowledge and experience that you and I don't. Question him and his points and I am almost certain he will set the record straight.


P.S. If you read my posts you will see that I want downloads, so I am not just being a stick in the mud here.

Your saying you have heard otherwise without proof does little to prove he is wrong. He has the knowledge and proof to back it up. Wanting it to be different and claiming it is, again without proof leaves me to call BS until I hear otherwise.

He gave his background and credentials. What do you have besides hearsay and your opinion?

That is fine but like I said in my reponse. I have heard otherwise from people within the very same industry. The proof I gave is no different than the proof he gave. You just happen to believe him which is fine. Just dont be surprised within ~24 months if he start seeing large increases in bandwidth to the home. The groundwork is laid or in the final process of being laid for many telco's and cable companies. It is just a matter of turning it on for the home users.

I can keep returning to this thread and we can keep playing you say yes and I say no. It doesn't change the facts. I respect where some of you are coming from, but if you really read what he said and reread your responses like I have it seems you are being selective. Let's also factor in the vast amount that don't even have broadband yet in the US, but will be tugging on a system that as of now can't handle capacity just as Daddy described. I am with you guys, really as I want the same, but I cannot get arround what he is saying.

That is fine but like I said in my reponse. I have heard otherwise from people within the very same industry. The proof I gave is no different than the proof he gave. You just happen to believe him which is fine. Just dont be surprised within ~24 months if he start seeing large increases in bandwidth to the home. The groundwork is laid or in the final process of being laid for many telco's and cable companies. It is just a matter of turning it on for the home users.


I must have missed it, but what is your proof?

Let's also factor in the vast amount that don't even have broadband yet in the US, but will be tugging on a system that as of now can't handle capacity just as Daddy described.Who is trying to download movies and can't? I know I don't have any problems. I haven't seen any reports of others as well.

Why are you saying untold number of people (without broadband) are going to overflow today's capacity? Since they don't have broadband they are irrelevant to today's requirements for downloads and today's capacity doesn't represent tomorrow's.

I get the idea you are trying to say if every person in the world tried to place a call at once many would get a busy signal. Guess what? They would but that doesn't stop the phone system from working. Nor would some theory that if downloads became wildly more popular than they will instantaneously stop downloads from working.

Always is a pretty strong word. I could envision a scenario where in 10 years at most something like 90% of US households would have a data pipe into their home that would deliver 1080p HD video, on demand.

Not going to happen in anytime close to 10 years. Even if it did you aren't going to get everyone to subscribe to it. Being an old fart I have found things don't change that fast. :)

Lets see, my wayback machine takes me back to 1998 and lo and behold I was using my brand spankin new 56,000 bps modem, having recently upgraded from the 28,000 model. DSL was a distant dream. Then 10 years later I see that my Charter cable modem is peaking at exactly 5 mbps. Seems they are throttling me at exactly that mark, interesting. So, in 10 years the speed increased by a factor of 89. If the same thing happened during the next 10 years, an 89x improvement, you would be looking at 445 mbps.

Thats a big number, so lets assume that the technology won't produce an 89x improvement. Just imagine a 20x improvement. That would then put us at 100 mbps. Given that you can get a Fios connection running at 30 mbps today from Verizon, 100 mbps doesn't seem like such a great leap in 10 years.

1080i ATSC transmission requires 19.39 mbps, so double that for 1080p to 38.78 mbps. And remember, thats using the ancient MPEG-2 codec, so switching to one of the newer ones that Blu-Ray uses would put your 1080p requirement closer to half that or about 20 mbps.

So if a typical household gets a 100 mbps connection in 10 years, it would seem reasonable that 20 mbps of that could be 1080p video.

I don't know how many people would subscribe to it. I guess you could compare CD sales to those online music subscription services where you can download any of 2,000,000 songs to your MP3 player for a $14.95 per month charge. Thats a pretty compelling business model when you think about it: For the cost of a single CD from one band per month, you can listed to any of 2,000,000 different songs anytime that you want. And most people probably end up buying more than 1 CD a month back when that was the in thing to do.

To make the video comparison, you can buy a single HD movie for $25, or you can subscribe to a service for $25 that would let you watch any movie you want, instantly, in 1080p HD on your big screen. It's instant HD Netflix. All that the physical media offers in the comparison is vastly less selection for your $25 per month, though you do get a nice shiny disk to put on your shelf with your other ones.

I think people would gobble it up, especially us really old retired farts :) Besides, what do you do with all those HD disks when the Super-HD players come out?

RT

All I know is that sometimes my speed is great, like at night, but during the day my connection speed is lousy.

Lets see, my wayback machine takes me back to 1998 and lo and behold I was using my brand spankin new 56,000 bps modem, having recently upgraded from the 28,000 model. DSL was a distant dream.I go back to 1978 or 1979 (PC wise). I don't think you can magically say everyone will have untold amounts of bandwidth available to them. But even if they do it really doesn't matter. Having something available doesn't make it mainstream or better yet have it completely replace something else.

I think we can all agree replacing music media is much easier than replacing movie media. However in all these years online sales are only around 10% of revenues (if you remove silly stuff like ringtones) and again the growth rate of music downloads is dropping dramatically.

If you can't even replace music I think it's rather silly to suggest that downloads will be replacing physical media ever (foreseeable future). Forrester predicts download music to exceed physical sales in 2012. How long before the remaining 50% disappears?

Certainly in the untold future VOD could take over the world. Unfortunately that future isn't anywhere close.

I totally disagree. If you redirected even a small percentage of the illegal music and movie downloads you would have plenty of bandwidth for today's and tomorrow's download requirements. Which is exactly what some providers are starting to do... rather rudely at that.

Have you even tried a Apple TV? Just what are these multiple steps? All I ever do is push three or four button on my Harmony remote. So everyone is going to use movie downloads on their iPods which requires you to use a computer (outside of iTouch) and Apple TV doesn't but they won't use it... makes a lot of sense.

Have you compared an Apple TV movie with a 55 and 110 inch image against the same Blu-ray movie? I agree it's not worth addressing if you have no knowledge of the subject.


I must say I am very impressed with Apple TV. It fits my needs perfectly. Increase the library of movies and I will have no need for anything else.

56kbs modem in 1998?:eek: I had a 5mbs down/1mbs up cable connection in late 1997. Before that I had a one way cable modem(1mbs down from cable, 56kbs up with dial up, at least I think it was 56kbs. It could have been 33kbs)
Now I have a 30mbs/5mbs connection. But prices have gone up. That 5mbs connection was only $16 a month. The 30mbs is $55 a month, at least for the first 12 months.

Lets see, my wayback machine takes me back to 1998 and lo and behold I was using my brand spankin new 56,000 bps modem, having recently upgraded from the 28,000 model. DSL was a distant dream. Then 10 years later I see that my Charter cable modem is peaking at exactly 5 mbps. Seems they are throttling me at exactly that mark, interesting. So, in 10 years the speed increased by a factor of 89. If the same thing happened during the next 10 years, an 89x improvement, you would be looking at 445 mbps.

Thats a big number, so lets assume that the technology won't produce an 89x improvement. Just imagine a 20x improvement. That would then put us at 100 mbps. Given that you can get a Fios connection running at 30 mbps today from Verizon, 100 mbps doesn't seem like such a great leap in 10 years.

1080i ATSC transmission requires 19.39 mbps, so double that for 1080p to 38.78 mbps. And remember, thats using the ancient MPEG-2 codec, so switching to one of the newer ones that Blu-Ray uses would put your 1080p requirement closer to half that or about 20 mbps.

So if a typical household gets a 100 mbps connection in 10 years, it would seem reasonable that 20 mbps of that could be 1080p video.

I don't know how many people would subscribe to it. I guess you could compare CD sales to those online music subscription services where you can download any of 2,000,000 songs to your MP3 player for a $14.95 per month charge. Thats a pretty compelling business model when you think about it: For the cost of a single CD from one band per month, you can listed to any of 2,000,000 different songs anytime that you want. And most people probably end up buying more than 1 CD a month back when that was the in thing to do.

To make the video comparison, you can buy a single HD movie for $25, or you can subscribe to a service for $25 that would let you watch any movie you want, instantly, in 1080p HD on your big screen. It's instant HD Netflix. All that the physical media offers in the comparison is vastly less selection for your $25 per month, though you do get a nice shiny disk to put on your shelf with your other ones.

I think people would gobble it up, especially us really old retired farts :) Besides, what do you do with all those HD disks when the Super-HD players come out?

RT

I'd imagine there are some who will not have the bandwidth for downloading, but I'm in a somewhat retro Comcast market and have no problem whatsoever downloading an Apple TV HD movie to start in less than 2 minutes.

Rather than focus on those who can't, is anyone paying attention to what percentage actually can and will? From my vantage point, the convenience of Apple TV rentals is revolutionary in how it is causing me to think about the future necessity of optical media.

My new limit for purchasing movies is $10 because I figure that's two HD rentals on Apple TV, and I know I've averaged less than two viewings of each title I own on disc. Anything more than that will likely be a waste. Sure, there may be some event-type movies that are appropriate for purchase, but those will be few and far between for me. Paying as I view will save money in the long run. If the catalog expands significantly over time, Apple can be my instant access movie database.

56kbs modem in 1998?:eek: I had a 5mbs down/1mbs up cable connection in late 1997.I started with a 120-baud modem at roughly $6.50 an hour (CompuServe).

First computer... complete with cassette tape storage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS-80

I'd imagine there are some who will not have the bandwidth for downloading, but I'm in a somewhat retro Comcast market and have no problem whatsoever downloading an Apple TV HD movie to start in less than 2 minutes.

Rather than focus on those who can't, is anyone paying attention to what percentage actually can and will? From my vantage point, the convenience of Apple TV rentals is revolutionary in how it is causing me to think about the future necessity of optical media.

My new limit for purchasing movies is $10 because I figure that's two HD rentals on Apple TV, and I know I've averaged less than two viewings of each title I own on disc. Anything more than that will likely be a waste. Sure, there may be some event-type movies that are appropriate for purchase, but those will be few and far between for me. Paying as I view will save money in the long run. If the catalog expands significantly over time, Apple can be my instant access movie database.


I feel the same way with VUDU. VUDU is my number one rental source now followed by Xbox Live. Nothing beats the instant viewing of VUDU. It is just too easy and convenient.

I started with a 120-baud modem at roughly $6.50 an hour (CompuServe).

I remember those days. UNfortunately.:D

A couple of issues


If only 1% of their customers [in any market] use the service they would need to add hundreds of thousands of GBs or Thousands of TBs of bandwidth.

The cost to do so is ASTRONOMICAL. And Comcast or any Cable Operator, Telco or utility [which is regulated as well as are public companies] does not have the Carte Blanche to drop the kind of money required to build out to the degree necessary.

The cost cannot be justified.

IE: Every 10 download customers @ 100 MBPS is 1000 MBPS / 1 GBPS...what if 1000 customers in the same market want the same thing AROUND the same time? It means Comcast needs 1,000,000 MBPS or 1000 GBPS bandwidth available at that moment. They don't have it. No ISP and ESPECIALLY no residential ISP has this type of capacity [on demand].



This is not correct. Depending on the technology used to deliver the video, the demand is different. If you are watching a movie @ 1080p, the throughput (bitrate) required is a known quantity to maintain quality of service. That would be a peak of 54 mb/s, not sure about the average bit rate, which is the important metric (ex: Pirates of the Caribbean has a 19 MBit /s average bit rate). The demand placed on each individual pipe is the average bit rate; remember that the pipes themselves are measured in bytes, not bits. A 54 mbit/s is 7 MBites/s; 19 Mbits/s are more like 2-3 Mbytes/s. Now this is a simplification, since the demand can spike (30-35 Mbits or ~4 Mbytes). The pipe, if shared may be 100-140 MBytes for, say 30 users. Those users are not going to be using this consistently at all times, ISP's and server based applications depend on an average percentage using the pipe at any one time (my rule of thumb is ~20%).

IMO, this is not an additive problem / issue. This is more about the bandwidth that you are limited to and the demand.




Most residential accounts aren't going to order a T1 of internet @ $350 - $400 MRC AND buy a $500+ T1 router etc....and the T1 is only 1.54MBPS nowhere near 100 MBPS Comcast is touting which would be called an OC3 [an uncompressed 135 MBPS connection] An OC3 runs around $4050.00 MRC + the local loop MRC of around $2500.00 for a total of $6550.00 monthly...Comcast would need to add 7,407.40 OC3s to any market where 1000 customers or more will want the service at any given time.


I know we are talking Comcast here, but FIOS delivers true 20/5 speeds on the internet side at $42 / month if we are talking IP based delivery (which their VOD service is based on), but if not using IPTV, then much higher bandwidth is available. That is consistent 20 Mbytes down, 5 Mbytes up (which I've metered at my house), not a 10 second burst.



The bandwidth at $30 per MBPS wholesale runs a paltry $30,002,962.00 monthly per market. If they need to offer in say 10 national markets that an extra $300mil monthly overhead...realistic???? Shareholders will love it...right??

Also, to make the downloads work MAY require MPLS [multiple packet label service] to seperate the different tpes of data traveling across the consumers internet connection at the same time as the movie download. If you have Comcast digital phone for example or if anyone in the house is using the internet at the same time...you don't want phone call voice packets getting mixed into your movie download rendering the file corrupted & unplayable...


Again, multiplexing like this is already done on FIOS, can't see why it couldn't be done by Comcast. Any packet based network already does this. Each packet is of a different type and has all of the address information to reach its destination properly. The mixing already happens and is accounted for.



The download will require a PVC VBR between Comcasts server the movie is downloaded from end to end to the consumers PC or set top box / tivo / dvr /pvr/ hdd etc...both MPLS & the hardware to generate the PVC VBR add to the cost of the download to make it work.


The bandwidth required is just not deliverable to make this work nor can the cost to deliver EVER be justified.


It can work, HD VOD at 1080i is already being delivered. The step up to 1080p, while considerable is not an order of magnitude, especially for more modern networks.



All Comcast did was try to steal some Blu-Ray CES thunder..the Comcast CEO saw some reporters so he did what comes natural he exaggerated.

In regards to Apple TV well you have to buy the hardware & it is already described as nowhere near BD or HD DVD quality so really not worth addressing. And it is not as easy as download & play..there are multiple steps involved that the average person just won't take the time to learn. Apple TV is a loser as a product & iTunes movie downloads are for iPods & iPhones. Plain & Simple.

The whole Comcast "tell an interesting lie as opposed to the boring truth" will blow over..in a few months when NOTHING materializes who will even remember what the Comcast CEO even said?

I'm not a fan of Comcast (having left them for FIOS), and I am more than open to Bluray, but the infrastructure is being built up now and since internet access speeds are very competitive, there is a lot of incentive to provide higher speeds for all uses, including video delivery.

I have comcast and of late they must be compressing it more because during almost
half of my programing will pixel for a second or two ,but i believe fios could reach
these speeds and keep customers happy bad thing its not available in my area.

I'm not sure if anyone stated anything like this, This thread is too long to read every post. Everyone seems to fixate on downloading movies only to internet broadband, Has it accrued to anyone here there are other ways to "download" a movie without high a speed internet connection? There are company's right now that are going to launch downloading movie services that operate through satellites like www.XStreamHD.com

Using something like that cuts out the broadband provider and the downloading bottleneck every seems to think is killing movie downloads. I just figured I'd chime in and give my two cents.

^^ most are aware on this forum. There is even the possibility of doing OTA when analog stations are freed in 2009 and Wimax even though most say it is vapor vaporware.

Internet Broadband is about to get much faster.

Super-speed Internet satellite blasts off in Japan

Japan launched a rocket Saturday carrying a satellite that will test new technology that promises to deliver "super high-speed Internet" service to homes and businesses around the world.

The rocket carrying the WINDS satellite -- a joint project of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries -- lifted off its pad at 5:55 p.m. (0855 GMT).

If the technology proves successful, subscribers with small dishes will connect to the Internet at speeds many times faster than what is now available over residential cable or DSL services.

The Associated Press said the satellite would offer speeds of up to 1.2 gigabytes per second.

The service initially would focus on the Asia-Pacific region close to Japan, a JAXA news release said.

"Among other uses, this will make possible great advances in telemedicine, which will bring high-quality medical treatment to remote areas, and in distance education, connecting students and teachers separated by great distances," JAXA said.

The rocket was launched from Japan's Yoshinobu Launch Complex at the Tanegashima Space Center.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/02/23/japan.satellite/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

^^ This is what we want.

1.2 gigabytes per second? Wouldn't that be 9.6gbs? :eek:

edit: Ok I found an article that says ".. The WINDS satellite communication system aims for a maximum speed of 155Mbps (receiving) / 6Mbps (transmitting) for households with 45-centimetre aperture antennas (the same size as existing Communications Satellite antennas), and ultra-high speed of 1.2 Gbps for offices with five-meter antennas..."
So the one press release has a typo and it's gigabits, not gigabytes. But still that is extremely fast from a setllite broadband connection.

And earlier in this thread Comcast doing 160Mbits/sec over Docsis 3.0 cable was also mentioned. It's clear that downloads of 1080p HD movies will be a reality, I guess it's just a guess as to when it will be mainstream.

jcg

And earlier in this thread Comcast doing 160Mbits/sec over Docsis 3.0 cable was also mentioned. It's clear that downloads of 1080p HD movies will be a reality, I guess it's just a guess as to when it will be mainstream.

jcg

It's already a reality with VUDU. I watched a 1080P movie this evening with my VUDU box.

It's already a reality with VUDU. I watched a 1080P movie this evening with my VUDU box.

Key word as he said is mainstream. You having it is not mainstream, more like less than 100 of 1 %.

Key word as he said is mainstream. You having it is not mainstream, more like less than 100 of 1 %.

I missed mainstream. That would be a long time. Considering most people don't even have an HD set. And most of the people that do have an HD set, it's not a 1080P set. So it will be a very long time for 1080P to be mainstream, if ever.

^^ I know, bummer. And some think we are going to have 4k p in a few years...again maybe, but not mainstream.

It's already a reality with VUDU. I watched a 1080P movie this evening with my VUDU box.

I just checked the VUDU web site, looks to be similar to the new Apple TV HD version. Anybody ever see any comparisons between the two? I have used Amazon Unbox for maybe 10 SD purchases of old TV shows and the quality was pretty good given the age of the material being watched.

I'm surprised that with all of the different download video suppliers: Amazon, VUDU, Apple and soon XstreamHD, that these guys don't yet deserve their own specific forum. This has to be coming soon...

RT

Thats funny about CompuServe, I haven't thought of that service in a long time. They were certainly on the right track. Pre-web that is.

I just checked the VUDU web site, looks to be similar to the new Apple TV HD version. Anybody ever see any comparisons between the two?I haven't compared the two but my guess is Vudu looks a little better. Now if Apple TV takes off at all I think their catalog will be much larger and Vudu is perhaps a little more risky long term (will they survive?)

I purchased the Apple TV mainly for music. If I only wanted to use them in my theater it would have been a tougher decision. The strong newcomer versus the somewhat established veteran... take your pick.

One note Vudu doesn't offer wireless and Apple TV comes with wireless N so the price difference in many cases is greater. But the Vudu comes with a lot more storage... again there is a case for each.

Can a Vudu user confirm you can download the entire movie before viewing or are you required to stream? I ask because on their Web site they say my 1436kbps isn't fast enough for HD. On the same topic note that Vudu uses your bandwidth to help others download their movies... a form of peer to peer network.

I haven't compared the two but my guess is Vudu looks a little better. Now if Apple TV takes off at all I think their catalog will be much larger and Vudu is perhaps a little more risky long term (will they survive?)

I purchased the Apple TV mainly for music. If I only wanted to use them in my theater it would have been a tougher decision. The strong newcomer versus the somewhat established veteran... take your pick.

One note Vudu doesn't offer wireless and Apple TV comes with wireless N so the price difference in many cases is greater. But the Vudu comes with a lot more storage... again there is a case for each.

Can a Vudu user confirm you can download the entire movie before viewing or are you required to stream? I ask because on their Web site they say my 1436kbps isn't fast enough for HD. On the same topic note that Vudu uses your bandwidth to help others download their movies... a form of peer to peer network.

Yes you can download the entire movie first if you like. No requirement to stream. You can download the title, disconnect the box and take it somewhere without an internet connection and still watch it if you like.

Once you download a rental title you have 30 days to start viewing it. Three of weeks ago I picked out several titles that I wanted to watch so they have been sitting on my box waiting for me to watch them. I only have a couple left. Or you can just decide at the spur of the moment to watch. If you do want to stream you need a 2mbs connection for SD and a 4mbs connection for HD. If your connection is slower you would have delayed viewing of the title.

56kbs modem in 1998?:eek: I had a 5mbs down/1mbs up cable connection in late 1997. Before that I had a one way cable modem(1mbs down from cable, 56kbs up with dial up, at least I think it was 56kbs. It could have been 33kbs)
Now I have a 30mbs/5mbs connection. But prices have gone up. That 5mbs connection was only $16 a month. The 30mbs is $55 a month, at least for the first 12 months.
Now I'm really feeling ripped off. I have comcast and it's $59.00 per month for their best connection ($49.00 for standard speed connection). I'm relatively happy with the service, but I hate paying more for less. :(

^^ I know, bummer. And some think we are going to have 4k p in a few years...again maybe, but not mainstream.

Personally, I vote for a larger colorspace next over D-Cinema since since we will need full wall sized HD to take advantage of 4k.

So I was checking out the Vudo website and is there a way to see which movies are in HD and what quality the movie is? I clicked on the website below and it gives a sampling of their offers, but I would hope there is a way to see the entire library. Are there movies in 720p or 1080p? I noticed the box outputs in 1080p, but that has nothing to do with whether the movie is actually in 1080p.

http://www.vudu.com/product_movies.html

jcg

Yes you can download the entire movie first if you like. No requirement to stream. You can download the title, disconnect the box and take it somewhere without an internet connection and still watch it if you like.

Once you download a rental title you have 30 days to start viewing it. Three of weeks ago I picked out several titles that I wanted to watch so they have been sitting on my box waiting for me to watch them. I only have a couple left. Or you can just decide at the spur of the moment to watch. If you do want to stream you need a 2mbs connection for SD and a 4mbs connection for HD. If your connection is slower you would have delayed viewing of the title.

So I was checking out the Vudo website and is there a way to see which movies are in HD and what quality the movie is? I clicked on the website below and it gives a sampling of their offers, but I would hope there is a way to see the entire library. Are there movies in 720p or 1080p? I noticed the box outputs in 1080p, but that has nothing to do with whether the movie is actually in 1080p.

http://www.vudu.com/product_movies.html

jcg
The HD content is encoded in 1080P24, the SD content is 480P24.
Output resolution choices are 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i, and 1080P24.
I don't think they have a full listing of titles on the website. I think itis something they need to add. I know when I checked this weekend on my box there were over 5100 titles that came up.

Ok, so a couple more questions as now I'm thinking I might be interested in this. Awhile back in this thread I thought it was mentioned that no one was actually doing full 1080p downloads as that means the video should be on par with Bluray or HDDVD as they are encoded the same way. Have you compared the same Bluray or HDDVD movie to a Vudu version? What size is a typical Vudu movie in 1080p and how long does it take you to download it? How many HD movies does Vudo have and is EVERY HD movie in 1080p or do they vary? How long before new releases are out on Vudo? What is the cost per 1080p movie?

jcg

The HD content is encoded in 1080P24, the SD content is 480P24.
Output resolution choices are 480i, 480P, 720P, 1080i, and 1080P24.
I don't think they have a full listing of titles on the website. I think itis something they need to add. I know when I checked this weekend on my box there were over 5100 titles that came up.

Ok, so a couple more questions as now I'm thinking I might be interested in this. Awhile back in this thread I thought it was mentioned that no one was actually doing full 1080p downloads as that means the video should be on par with Bluray or HDDVD as they are encoded the same way. Have you compared the same Bluray or HDDVD movie to a Vudu version? What size is a typical Vudu movie in 1080p and how long does it take you to download it? How many HD movies does VUDU have and is EVERY HD movie in 1080p or do they vary? How long before new releases are out on VUDU? What is the cost per 1080p movie?

jcg

VOD is not going to be as good as BD/HD DVD. VUDU says their content is broadcast quality. I rate it as above broadcast, between broadcast and HD DVD/BD because you don't have the macroblocking that occurs in every show from broadcast sources. VUDU is about convenience. When I'm in the mood to watch something I can watch it right away. Instead of being in the mood for a title and having to wait a couple of days for it to arrive, when by the time I receive I won't be in the mood to watch it so the disc will sit around. The VUDU fills a nice spot for movies I want to watch that I'm not going to buy on BD/HD DVD or wait for a rental to arrive.

Ok, so a couple more questions as now I'm thinking I might be interested in this. Awhile back in this thread I thought it was mentioned that no one was actually doing full 1080p downloads as that means the video should be on par with Bluray or HDDVD as they are encoded the same way. Have you compared the same Bluray or HDDVD movie to a Vudu version? What size is a typical Vudu movie in 1080p and how long does it take you to download it? How many HD movies does Vudo have and is EVERY HD movie in 1080p or do they vary? How long before new releases are out on Vudo? What is the cost per 1080p movie?

jcg

Vudu's encodes are done extremely well (SD looks better than dvd IMO) I would say BD and HD DVD are better but after those formats Vudu is the next best thing. The sound is a big issue with me the HD movies are encode with DD+ but right now the box will only output DD 5.1. I watched 3:10 to Yuma on Both and the picture quality on the vudu was very close to that of BD. I took it over to a friends house to see what he had to say and on his 50" DLP RP he said he couldn't tell the difference. Again the sound was more enveloping on the BD.
I am not sure of the size of the HD files on Vudu (aaronwt might be able to help with that) But using BT technology vudu has made it so you can start watch right away if you have at 4mb dl speeds. This is one of the things I love about Vudu. With my Apple TV, Xbox 360, and TivoHD/unbox you have to wait to watch. Vudu instant playback is nice. They do this by loading the first 30sec of every film on your box so when you start playing it has a 30sec buffer. I have never had a hiccup watching a movie on Vudu. I wish I could say the same thing about Apple TV
Vudu has over 5000 movies around 91 or so are in HD. All HD movies are 1080p/24 and all SD movies and TV shows are 480p/24. As far as release schedule that is up to the studio. warner does day and date purchase and rental on Vudu. Most studios have day and date purchase with a 3 week VOD window before the rental option opens up. A 1080p movie is 3.99 for catalog and 5.99 for new releases.

I hope that answers some of your questions...sorry I couldn't answer them all.

I guess I don't get why Vudu would be broadcast quality if they encode HD in 1080p. Bluray is 1080p also, so I guess the only thing is they must use a lower end codec than VC1? I don't get why they would do that? If you are going to go 1080p it seems to me the point is to get the best quality, and if that isn't there intent they should have gone 720p (if smaller file size is what they want). One way to tell is to download the movie and see what size the file is compared to a Bluray disc. Can that be done?

Not having DD+ or the new high end audio is for sure a negative. Have they said they plan to upgrade to that or doesn't the hardware support it?

jcg

I guess I don't get why Vudu would be broadcast quality if they encode HD in 1080p. Bluray is 1080p also, so I guess the only thing is they must use a lower end codec than VC1? I don't get why they would do that? If you are going to go 1080p it seems to me the point is to get the best quality, and if that isn't there intent they should have gone 720p (if smaller file size is what they want). One way to tell is to download the movie and see what size the file is compared to a Bluray disc. Can that be done?

Not having DD+ or the new high end audio is for sure a negative. Have they said they plan to upgrade to that or doesn't the hardware support it?

jcg

To me personally Vudu is better than broadcast quality. They use H.264 (high) for HD encodes and H.264 (Main) for SD encodes as compared to Apple who uses H.264 main for both HD and SD. I would say that they are close enough to BD quality that your average consumer is not going to know the difference between the two. The file size I believe is roughly 5g. (not exactly sure)

filesize is pretty important imo.... because it shows the bitrate of the movies (since vudu's should be quite a bit larger than xbox live/appletv being those services are 720p).

So I don't know much about H.264 but I guess the question is how does it compare to VC-1 which is used on most HD discs? Earlier in the thread it was estimated that most Bluray movies are approx 15Gbytes if you removed the bonus material and languages that weren't used. So that means that the Bluray version is 3 times larger than your estimate of 5Gbytes. VC-1 is also a new codec, so if it is generating a file 3x bigger I assume that the pic quality must be better. How did you get the 5G size, can you see that somewhere on the Vudu box or are you estimating based on download time, or something else?

Also if anyone knows the relative merits of H.264 (high) vs VC-1 please chime in.

jcg

To me personally Vudu is better than broadcast quality. They use H.264 (high) for HD encodes and H.264 (Main) for SD encodes as compared to Apple who uses H.264 main for both HD and SD. I would say that they are close enough to BD quality that your average consumer is not going to know the difference between the two. The file size I believe is roughly 5g. (not exactly sure)

I know I keep saying I want cheaper rentals or a monthly plan, but I keep looking and looking at these. A few questions (this time about VUDU):


On the VUDU page, it says it has enough storage for "100 hours of owned movies" but doesn't specify anything about SD vs HD. Any idea?
What if I buy 105 hours worth of movies? Or does that mean I can only store 100 hours locally, and I'd have to delete something to download another owned movie? And if so, it brings me to my next question:
Will the movie still be available if I have to re-download? It says something on the movie page about "Featured titles are the property of their respective studios and are available through the VUDU service, subject to contractual obligations." So if I buy a movie and I can't store it locally on the box (because of the 100 hour thing), do I run the risk of it not being available?
They say the prices of purchased movies goes up to $19.99. I assume the HD movies are that much....which is a fair price. Not really a question I guess.
Is there any studio support differences between VUDU and AppleTV? I think they both have full support, but not sure.
Are there any extras for rent also? I know sometimes on Comcast OnDemand I can get a featurrette or something for a movie. Do they make any extras available? Not a biggie if it's movie-only, but would be nice.
Should I be concerned about all the talk of ISPs imposing bandwidth caps? I'd hate to buy a VUDU box and then not be able to use it because Comcast imposes a bandwidth cap in 6 months. Or it will be too expensive for the bandwith (referring to this article (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/11801))


Thanks. I am so undecided about buying one right now....

I know I keep saying I want cheaper rentals or a monthly plan, but I keep looking and looking at these. A few questions (this time about VUDU):

...
[7]Should I be concerned about all the talk of ISPs imposing bandwidth caps? I'd hate to buy a VUDU box and then not be able to use it because Comcast imposes a bandwidth cap in 6 months. Or it will be too expensive for the bandwith (referring to this article (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/11801))
[/LIST]

Thanks. I am so undecided about buying one right now....

Take my post with a grain of salt since I know little about VUDU except it sounds interesting. But #7 bothers me a bit too because:

a) I thought VUDU uses some sort of torrent P2P technology and Comcast has been shown to be sabotaging P2P by forging reset packets which force a torrent seeder to drop a connection.

b) Supposedly Comcast starts calling you an 'excessive user' somewhere around 100 GB downloaded per month. And while Cox doesn't seem to be yet doing anything about it I think their basic broadband plan specifies only 40 GB per month (IIRC). Either of these limits could be possibly hit with VUDU.

c) Cable companies have an incentive to provide their own material and thus a disincentive to provide customers with upload capability that can compete with that. A ratio of 20:1 download to upload speeds is currently not unusual. If in the future the cable companies start monthly caps on upload usage then any service relying upon P2P could be crippled.

But all the above is pretty much just speculation and worry on my part.

- Tom

a) I thought VUDU uses some sort of torrent P2P technology and Comcast has been shown to be sabotaging P2P by forging reset packets which force a torrent seeder to drop a connection.
Apparently the FCC isn't too fond of this...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2008-02-25-fcc-comcast-internet_N.htm

"Federal regulators on Monday said they are ready to discipline Internet service providers who secretly favor certain types of data traffic, like Web surfing, over others, like file sharing.

At a hearing over allegations of traffic discrimination by Comcast Corp., the Federal Communications Commission chairman said the complaints underscore the need to enforce the FCC's current broad principles intended to promote so-called "Net neutrality."

The commission is ready, willing and able to step in if necessary to correct any practices that are ongoing today," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said in opening statements of the hearing at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society."

Take my post with a grain of salt since I know little about VUDU except it sounds interesting. But #7 bothers me a bit too because:

a) I thought VUDU uses some sort of torrent P2P technology and Comcast has been shown to be sabotaging P2P by forging reset packets which force a torrent seeder to drop a connection.

b) Supposedly Comcast starts calling you an 'excessive user' somewhere around 100 GB downloaded per month. And while Cox doesn't seem to be yet doing anything about it I think their basic broadband plan specifies only 40 GB per month (IIRC). Either of these limits could be possibly hit with VUDU.

c) Cable companies have an incentive to provide their own material and thus a disincentive to provide customers with upload capability that can compete with that. A ratio of 20:1 download to upload speeds is currently not unusual. If in the future the cable companies start monthly caps on upload usage then any service relying upon P2P could be crippled.

But all the above is pretty much just speculation and worry on my part.

- Tom


Vudu does use P2P technology for video delivery. Also I have comcast as my isp and have not had any trouble with them...Yet...knock on wood.

I tested out my connection at Vudu's website as they want you to have 4Mbits/sec download speeds and it is totally different than the 2 sites (see links below) that I normally use. Vudu only gives me about 1/2 the speed the others say I have???? Anyone else have similar situation or have any idea what might be going on???

http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/default.asp
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest?flash=1

jcg

Are any of these services ever going to be available for PCs? None of vudu/Apple/xbox allow HD rentals/downloads to PCs. I am guessing the studios are all saying no to HD on PCs for now. I have a pc hooked up to my hdtv, that I would love to be able to rent hd movies on, it is too bad there are no legal choices.

I tested out my connection at Vudu's website as they want you to have 4Mbits/sec download speeds and it is totally different than the 2 sites (see links below) that I normally use. Vudu only gives me about 1/2 the speed the others say I have???? Anyone else have similar situation or have any idea what might be going on???

http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/default.asp
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest?flash=1

jcg
It was accurate for me.

Ben,

Any chance of MS giving a 1080p option for downloads and as much as you guys would love to charge extra for it, please don't. :) Just would be a great option for those of us with faster broadband and the 120GB HDD.

I know I keep saying I want cheaper rentals or a monthly plan, but I keep looking and looking at these. A few questions (this time about VUDU):


On the VUDU page, it says it has enough storage for "100 hours of owned movies" but doesn't specify anything about SD vs HD. Any idea?
What if I buy 105 hours worth of movies? Or does that mean I can only store 100 hours locally, and I'd have to delete something to download another owned movie? And if so, it brings me to my next question:
Will the movie still be available if I have to re-download? It says something on the movie page about "Featured titles are the property of their respective studios and are available through the VUDU service, subject to contractual obligations." So if I buy a movie and I can't store it locally on the box (because of the 100 hour thing), do I run the risk of it not being available?
They say the prices of purchased movies goes up to $19.99. I assume the HD movies are that much....which is a fair price. Not really a question I guess.
Is there any studio support differences between VUDU and AppleTV? I think they both have full support, but not sure.
Are there any extras for rent also? I know sometimes on Comcast OnDemand I can get a featurrette or something for a movie. Do they make any extras available? Not a biggie if it's movie-only, but would be nice.
Should I be concerned about all the talk of ISPs imposing bandwidth caps? I'd hate to buy a VUDU box and then not be able to use it because Comcast imposes a bandwidth cap in 6 months. Or it will be too expensive for the bandwith (referring to this article (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/patterson/11801))


Thanks. I am so undecided about buying one right now....

1. Vudu can store about 50 - 60 hours of HD movies and 100 hours of SD movies.

2/3. It is my understanding that you will soon be able to redownload the title. From what I have read the Vudu engineers are working on a software update that will enhance Vudu. Three of the key area for me are being able to delete a file locally (as of now you have to call customer service to have them delete purchased content. I guess to keep one from accidentally doing this). The second is redownloading of purchased content, and the third is opening the two USB ports to allow for storage expansion.


4. The only HD available for purchase is the Bourne Ultimatum it is 24.95. The First two movies in the Bourne trilogy in HD come free with the Vudu. The other 98 HD movies are rental only.

5. Both ATV and Vudu have full support of the movie studios. The movies they offer in HD are about 90% the same though Vudu offers some that Apple does not and vice versa.

6. No extras that I have seen are available (Though they do offer a smattering of classic films for free each week)

7. I have Comcast and they don't throttle me so I have yet to experience problems. Actually Comcast in my area has been slowly increasing bandwidth over the last several months I have gone from 4mbs to 20mbs and no rate increase.

And what speeds are your downloads? I'm just wondering as the 2 links I provided give me a download speed over 7Mbits/sec, but Vudu says I'm at 3.5Mbits/sec. I'm wondering if Vudu's server is fast enough to give accurate readings or what else might be going on?

jcg

It was accurate for me.

And what speeds are your downloads? I'm just wondering as the 2 links I provided give me a download speed over 7Mbits/sec, but Vudu says I'm at 3.5Mbits/sec. I'm wondering if Vudu's server is fast enough to give accurate readings or what else might be going on?

jcg
Good point. I'm at 3Mbps down, but maybe Vudu can't accurately represent higher than 3.5? Although since they recommend a minimum of 4, that would be odd.

I tested out my connection at Vudu's website as they want you to have 4Mbits/sec download speeds and it is totally different than the 2 sites (see links below) that I normally use. Vudu only gives me about 1/2 the speed the others say I have???? Anyone else have similar situation or have any idea what might be going on???

http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/default.asp
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest?flash=1

jcg

The first test only shows 7.891 mbs but the second test shows closer at 25.05mbs.
My download speed is 30mbs with FIOS.
The VUDU test shows my download speed accurately at 30.061mbs

I tested out my connection at Vudu's website as they want you to have 4Mbits/sec download speeds and it is totally different than the 2 sites (see links below) that I normally use. Vudu only gives me about 1/2 the speed the others say I have???? Anyone else have similar situation or have any idea what might be going on???

http://www.pcpitstop.com/internet/default.asp
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest?flash=1

jcg

It really depends on your route. Once it leaves your network. You are subject to the whims of the internet.

Netflix Dazzles As Competition Thins (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=17&issue=20080227)

Netflix also has a growing list of more than 7,000 movies and TV shows that can be watched instantly on PCs. Netflix offers nine subscription plans, starting at $4.99 a month, which include both DVDs delivered by mail and videos to watch online.

With an eye toward the future, Netflix also is working with consumer electronics firms to get its service on TVs through Internet-connected devices. The first such device is from LG Electronics and is slated for release later this year.

"Netflix's desire is to have our service be available on game consoles, in high-definition DVD players, in dedicated Internet set-tops and directly in TVs eventually," Hastings said. "We're following all of those avenues."

Hastings wouldn't comment on the possibility of Netflix being available through Microsoft's (MSFT) Xbox 360 video game console.

But Pachter, the Wedbush Morgan analyst, says a partnership with Microsoft will happen eventually "because it makes too much sense." Hastings sits on Microsoft's board of directors.
Well, that certainly is interesting...Amir, Ben, care to comment?

Netflix Dazzles As Competition Thins (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=17&issue=20080227)


Well, that certainly is interesting...Amir, Ben, care to comment?

So they want to stream movies to Blu-Ray players?

TiVo should work with netflix imo.

So they want to stream movies to Blu-Ray players?Certainly not the ones without a network port. ;)

Maybe this is what BD-Live is capable of? And what about HD DVD players? Don't know...that's why I'm asking Ben and Amir. :)

It had been previously mentioned that HD DVD players were capable of streaming movies if they decided to implement it.
It really doesn't matter now.

i want to know which service has the most hd-dvd/blu-ray movies you can ddl from?

IBM Network Prototype Promises 1-Second Movie Downloads (http://www.forgotten-gamer.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=110077)

The technology uses photons of light, instead of electrons, to transmit information at 8 trillion bits per second.

February 29, 2008 04:24 PM

Forget Blu-ray or the recently demised HD DVD format. IBM (NYSE: IBM) on Friday said it's working on high-speed networking technology that could let consumers download a high-definition movie off the Internet in less than a second.

It's a breakthrough that could put an end to DVDs. "We're taking an important step toward commercializing this technology," IBM researcher Clint Schow said in a statement.

The technology that IBM's developing uses photons of light, instead of electrons, to transmit information. That, the company says, promises networks in which 8 trillion bits of information could be transferred in a second using power equivalent to that required by a single, 100-watt bulb.

That's about 1% of the power that's needed by today's standard electrical interconnects.

IBM thinks the technology -- dubbed "green optical link" -- could spark a revolution in high-def content. For instance, Web sites that offer movies could use it to access libraries of millions of high-definition videos in seconds. And laptops equipped with optical data ports could download such content in an instant.

The technology could also be used to turn cell phones and PDAs into portable HD displays.

To ready green optical link technology for commercialization, IBM is building compatible circuit boards that it's calling Optocards. The boards employ an array of low-loss polymer optical waveguides to conduct light between transmitters and receivers.

A complete databus built from Optocards would not only incorporate a large number of high-speed channels, IBM says it would also pack them together to create an architecture of unprecedented bandwidth density. That's because each waveguide channel is smaller than a human hair.

TiVo should work with netflix imo.

If Tivo came out with a DVR that downloaded HD from Netflix, the WAF would be 100%. The question would be - How soon can we get it? Cost? - not so important.

I have an Apple TV in the den mainly for music and it's great for the occasional HD movie rental but I have been thinking about using it for rentals in the theater. However quality wise it should be lacking Blu-ray and even Vudu which supports 1080/24p.

So I thought about getting a Vudu for in the theater where I don't view movies all that often and quality is the most important factor. Then I thought what's available on Vudu that isn't on Blu-ray movie wise? From what I can tell not a whole lot. Convenience doesn't come into play as I don't use the theater all that often and I'd be happy to use Blu-ray.

Since I have no interest for TV shows or other content outside of movies in the theater do you think we will see movie downloads that aren't available via Blu-ray? The answer I think will go a long way towards determining how successful downloads are in the near short term.

The geeks are willing to spend the money if there are HD movies to watch that aren't available elsewhere. At least I know I decided against adding one until I get the impression that there will be exclusive movie content.

I have an Apple TV in the den mainly for music and it's great for the occasional HD movie rental but I have been thinking about using it for rentals in the theater. However quality wise it should be lacking Blu-ray and even Vudu which supports 1080/24p.

It should be lacking, but is there anything from keeping you from trying it out in the theater? Without focusing on the specs, it may be worth checking out to see if it's gives an enjoyable HD experience.

Since I have no interest for TV shows or other content outside of movies in the theater do you think we will see movie downloads that aren't available via Blu-ray? The answer I think will go a long way towards determining how successful downloads are in the near short term.

There are already titles on Apple TV that are not on either HD format. If Apple continues to add at the rate they've been, they'll likely surpass and stay ahead of Blu-ray in number of titles. Studios seem reluctant to release older titles in HD due to low sales. IMO, without the cost of pressing and packaging discs, which must be recouped in sales volume, it's likely that digital distribution for HD rentals will offer a broader selection in the long run.

It should be lacking, but is there anything from keeping you from trying it out in the theater? Without focusing on the specs, it may be worth checking out to see if it's gives an enjoyable HD experience.Even The Brave One via the Apply TV looked very nice in the theater (I posted my thoughts earlier in this thread). However with an 110 inch image and untold number of watts one wants to feel comfortable they are getting the best source they can.

I didn't do a direct A/B comparison between Blu-ray and Apple TV with the movie but I'm guessing it would be noticeable. Once I find a movie I already own or want to buy on Blu-ray (that is available on Apple TV) I'll compare them directly.

I guess my point was at least for me (in the theater) downloads have to offer more than convenience and since the quality isn't going to be as good or better content is the only thing I can dream up.

There are already titles on Apple TV that are not on either HD format. If Apple continues to add at the rate they've been, they'll likely surpass and stay ahead of Blu-ray in number of titles.I have yet to see any new releases that weren't already available on either HD DVD or Blu-ray and they have already started to pull some titles like 300.

Short term they need us geeks to make downloads viable and I don't think they will buy into it unless it has something Blu-ray doesn't. I feel the same thing is hurting Blu-ray against DVDs. They offer better quality but that's not enough you need same day releases for the major titles... the only thing mainstream consumers (basically) rent and purchase.

There are plenty of releases for Apple TV that aren't available via HD DVD or BD. Feel free to peruse the complete list at:

www.appletvjunkie.com

I agree with the opinion that Apple will make a huge impact if they continue to add HD movies at the current rate. They are at 101 movies already...and it only took them 19 days.

The few titles that have been pulled (most notably 300) have also been pulled by other download sites (Amazon unobox) as well, so it is believed that it is a studio decision or lawsuit situation...not Apple (or Amazon) just deciding to remove the movies.

There are different rental/buy windows for movies. They will usually get pulled when they are going to air on a premium movie channel like HBO. Then once that run is over with they will reappear on the download services.

Any chance of MS giving a 1080p option for downloads and as much as you guys would love to charge extra for it, please don't. :) Just would be a great option for those of us with faster broadband and the 120GB HDD.
Sure, the Xbox is obviously capable playing any HD DVD spec VC-1 content. It's really just a matter of how much bandwidth consumers have, and probably how much we want to pay for.

My main engagement with the service has been how to help them improve quality given the requirements defined from Upon High. But with the VC-1 Encoder SDK, we can clearly do quite nice 1440x1080 anamorphic at 8 Mbps with a wide variety of content.

Ben,

Any chance of MS giving a 1080p option for downloads and as much as you guys would love to charge extra for it, please don't. :) Just would be a great option for those of us with faster broadband and the 120GB HDD.

Actually it might be a good idea if they did have two versions and charged a buck or so less for the 720p flavor. It would give everybody a chance to vote with their $$$'s which one they were really willing to pay for. They could even have a package deal where if you bought the 1080p version you could also get the 720p version for comparison purposes.

Some highdef movies have enough detail it would make a useful difference and some don't. Meanwhile, some displays may show that difference and others might not. So it would make a market and gather some useful statistics.

- Tom

Sure, the Xbox is obviously capable playing any HD DVD spec VC-1 content. It's really just a matter of how much bandwidth consumers have, and probably how much we want to pay for.

My main engagement with the service has been how to help them improve quality given the requirements defined from Upon High. But with the VC-1 Encoder SDK, we can clearly do quite nice 1440x1080 anamorphic at 8 Mbps with a wide variety of content.

Ben is there any plans for this service in Europe? Bandwith is there it just movies that are abscent.

There are plenty of releases for Apple TV that aren't available via HD DVD or BD.I have yet to see any new releases available on Apple TV that aren't available elsewhere. I'm talking about new movies that are just being released. Sure there are a handful of older movies but going forward will have they have exclusive new releases?


Update 1:
I take that back I did find one new movie (released in 2007 or later) In The Land of Women (it looks like it was scheduled to be released on Blu-ray but delayed or cancelled). Most of the other movies not available on other HD media are like Kickboxer 4: The Aggressor and The Little Prince.

Update 2:
I take the take back back. :) It was released overseas in both Blu-ray and HD DVD. Still no new content exclusive to Apple TV.

Ben is there any plans for this service in Europe? Bandwith is there it just movies that are abscent.
That's down to licensing issues AFAIK. Fortunately, I'm not even slightly involved with that kind of legal/business negotiation. I just help make the good video small and the small video good :).