Netflix adds 3D and Super HD - Page 9

True, but the ISPs have no reason to accept any deal which lowers their profits.

Hence, ISPs not going along with Netflix's Open Connect.

If the costs associated with the car are cutting into my take home....then what is the incentive? Assuming I have a car, I have more flexibility but less money. More of a liability or asset? In addition suppose you were getting some sort of kickback for riding the bus? lol. NF is still a competitor to ISPs who incidentally are cable companies. I have friends right now that dont have satellite or cable, their main staple is NF.

Apostate, I agree with your stances on this subject. I dont like being used as a pawn, I would just assume to pay NF an extra couple bucks for the privilege of the upgrades. The problem with that is, we are a small minority who even know or care what Super HD and 3D brings. Like the other gentleman said....these are not mainstream market services...hell, its only been a few years since people stopped being totally loyal to Blockbuster. I remember trying to sell people on having your movies delivered to your mailbox rather than going to a BM. To the novice or non-technical person....the concept was still hard to grasp.

What NF is doing is very slick and to the poster that detailed about the "big dumb pipe" that was excellent. Its not a matter of if...but when. Both NF and the ISP's are doing what they have to do to survive and for right now that puts the customer on hold. I dont have a dog in this, but my issue is the quality of the stream. I dont want to shell out any extra to either party if the stream standard changes or the value isnt immediately apparent.

I have been waiting to see if anyone picked up on this but have not seen any comments so here goes:

Benefits of Super HD

• Netflix Super HD delivers the best Netflix picture quality yet, even better than HD.

SMPTE 274M and Rec. 709 define HD and our source and display devices should conform to these standards so how can Super HD be better than HD? Just more Netflix smoke and mirrors. H.265, which can accommodate UHDTV, has not been ratified yet so I seriously doubt there is any silicon for it yet. There may be software H.265 encoders and decoders.

I believe Netflix means better than their (Netflix) HD (which is not necessarily HD in a conventional sense). That's why it's Super HD (compared to what Netflix calls HD). Come on, Wendell, it's Netflix's world and we just live in it.

I'm thinking its the ole add 50% to cost and have a 1/2 price off sale trick. Make you think you are getting more when actually you are getting the same thing. When my NF streams like it's supposed to, I cant imagine the PQ getting any better for a streaming service. So Super HD is not what gets me truly amped. Its the 3D, because to me thats where the value lies. I dont have to go back to buying BD or doing the rent and return whether its kiosk or mail. Streaming rentals are more than I wish to pay, I may as well do the former as opposed to that.

Again, if this were the case, I'd expect the ISPs who object to joining up for Super HDs to be crowing it from the rooftops, especially TWC.

So far we haven't heard any of the ISPs say that they'd decided that they weren't interested in arranging access for Open Connect. Even TWC has stated that they're in negotiations with Netflix about it. Probably all of the major ISPs are.

A forum member reports seeing connections to nflxvideo.net (domain of Open Connect) to Netflix playing devices (here); his ISP is TWC. He's not seeing Super HD, though.

 

I'd say they are virtually the opposite. Blowing away DVD customers... long term strategy. Creating new distribution market... long term strategy. Cutting into profits/creating losses to develop/expand foreign markets... long term strategy. Obviously, they are playing towards the future and have given up short term concerns. Regarding Amazon, they aren't really a long term threat (in their existing configuration) as they are losing tons of money with their licensing deals (written off as marketing I presume). Now if they can someday make streaming stand alone who knows... it will be a big challenge.

What's "the conventional sense"?


VUDU's 9000 Kbps 1080p HDX quality video and Xbox Video's 10000 Kbps 1080p are superior to Netflix's old 4800 Kbps 1080p (replaced with 3.85 Mbps. (VUDU HDX has 3 encodes--the middle one is better than Netflix old 1080p encodes). I can imagine better still .

I am sorry, I meant to say from NF....because their sub base is much larger. Still it could be better but it looks pretty darn good to me. So I was trying to say, if Super HD is that much better than wow....but the bandwidth requirements dont scream wow. I just recently started watching VUDU so I will have to do some comparisons. Watched MI: Ghost Protocol last night and when it was fully buffered up, it was amazing detail.

Well, from Wikipedia, the bit rate for over-the-air HDTV is about 19 Mb/s for 720p and 25 Mb/s for 1080i signal. Blu ray is 40 Mb/s (max for video). Since these two formats are ubiquitous, I reckon we can consider them as HD in the conventional sense.

What's Netflix HD? 3.85 Mb/s did you say? Now Netflix may have much more efficient encoding etc., but still 3.85 Mb is much less than 19 Mb. I say this while admitting (and give credit) that Netflix HD look perfectly fine to my eyes.

Of course not. You'd be very naive if you believe corporations will behave in such childish manner.

ISPs, or any legitimate business, will not bad-mouth any potential future customer/ally/friend in any public setting. Is Neflix bad-mouthing ISPs? No, for the same reason.

Is Samsung bad-mouthing Apple (outside the context of their lawsuit)? Is Apple bad-mouthing Samsung? Not in public.

It is simply bad business practice to denigrate other businesses in public. It's unprofessional and it's just not done.

As that Japanese saying goes, "Business is War," and today's friend can be your enemy tomorrow and vice versa. "Nothing personal, just business," right?

 

We wish as you can see here in real life the rates aren't even close to such and getting worse (everyday).

You're talking about maximum bit rates for an OTA broadcast standard and a video disc format. (That broadcast standard is generally confined to MPEG-2, which can't be compared on a 1-to-1 bit rate basis to AVC or VC-1, which disc and streams are generally encoded in). You will not find an official definition of "High Definition" which includes any bit rate; it'd be silly since new encoding schemes which produce higher quality results at lower bit rates are constantly being developed. High Definition refers solely to resolution. The ATSC defined HD resolutions as being 1080x1920 and 720x1280, both of which Netflix and some other streaming video sources provide (though only a few provide 1080 res at this point).

We almost never see maximum bit rates used in HDTV. Local broadcasters usually get video from their networks encoded at very high bit rates to withstand being manipulated in studio without significant loss of PQ (sort of like using high precision numbers in computer program calculations). After doing what they need to with it (adding overlays, inserting commercial ads, etc) the stations re-encode at a bit rate of their choosing. (Fox encodes to broadcast rates at the network and its affiliates use a system to insert their content without re-encoding). In the past cable systems have further re-encoded broadcast material to even lower bit rates, though I don't know how common that is today, given higher bandwidth cable systems and Switched Digital Video (last time I checked, my system wasn't). Looking at the sizes of my TiVo recordings the bit rates used by Bravo, ABC, Fox, ESPN, A&E, CBS and HBO are all over the place, none higher than 13.8 Mbps (ESPN for live 720p) and as low as 9.2 Mbps (A&E for canned 720p). It all looks pretty decent. The encoding equipment that they use gets progressively better at making efficient use of bandwidth.

As for HD video disc bit rates, those vary a great deal as well. I see Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was encoded at 12.8 Mbps and Troy at 11.7 Mbps--both got 4.5 of 5 stars for video quality in their High-Def Digest reviews. I'm certain that there are titles encoded to BD at higher bit rates with terrible PQ. In short, bit rate does not equal picture quality.

Really, isn't how it looks to you what really matters? To my mind, HD denotes a certain degree of sharpness and ability to discern fine details which much of Netflix's video delivers. (See this example of their 3.85 Mbps 1080p--looks pretty crisp to me. Could it be even crisper? No doubt. With the new encoding with eyeIO tech, 3.85 Mbps 1080p24 replaces 4.8 Mbps and 3 Mbps 720p replaces 3.6 Mbps). Not all of their encodes are as good as I'd like, but the same can be said for film on BD.
Edited by michaeltscott - 1/24/13 at 12:54pm

Who said anything about "bad mouthing"? I'm talking about stating the truth, politely (if this were the truth): "We'd be amenable to arranging access to Netflix's 'free' Open Connect CDN except that they're asking us to accept lower fees than we currently collect for taking their traffic into our networks. We can't really consider that."

My guess is that Netflix and the major US ISP are negotiating financial terms for their connecting to Open Connect and that Netflix isn't insisting on better deals than the other CDNs get.

Actually ATSC is 19.39 Mbps payload. The broadcaster has several options on how to use that payload, as in a mix of several SD channels, HD channels and data services. Regardless of the content the payload remains at 19.39 Mbps. My previous address CBS affiliate had only 9 Mbps allocated for their main HD channel and it showed (artifacts), my current CBS affiliate, WSPA, averages about 14.5 Mbps for their HD main channel and generally looks quite good and it has been this way since I have been here (2 years).

With 40 Mbps for 2D and 60 Mbps for 3D (video only) Blu-ray is the current bit rate champ and will likely stay that way for the foreseeable future. Cheap, high speed bit stamping has been with us for sometime and there does not appear to be a replacement anywhere on the horizon.

I don't know about Netflix not insisting on better deals. From the link in one of your earlier posts, this is what TWC said in its statement:

What do you think unprecedented preferential treatment is? Sounds like Netflix is trying to get a better deal. Actually what TWC said is closest thing to bad-mouthing a corporation would do.

Hey, no argument on Netflix PQ from me. I think Netflix HD is fine other than the irritating bitrate adjustment. What I want is the 3D.

And as all will agree, it's Netflix which is holding it from its customers, not ISPs as Netflix would you have believe.

I think that "unprecedented preferential treatment" is asking ISPs to hook up to their private servers, something that other streaming video sources like YouTube, VUDU, Amazon Instant Video, Hulu Plus, etc., haven't asked for. They're not regarding Open Connect as being like the other CDNs, with which they do make direct connections and keep storage cache servers within their networks.

I really think that if it were a matter of Netflix asking them to accept lower profits that they'd make that very clear. Nearly everyone reading about it would side with them.

I don't know if I would call what Netflix is doing long-term strategies. What Netflix is doing is what any other company that has dominated (saturated) their niche would do to grow and mature: expand geographical markets (foreign markets), expand product offering (SuperHD and 3D). The "strategies" are not long-term per se since Netflix is doing it right now. The results may bear fruit in the long run but can pose short-term risk in costs. Amazon went through the exact same process.

Obviously, Netflix is attempting to increase its revenue while decreasing costs. As I see it, Netflix spent more than was wise in getting the content. To maintain the profit margin, Netflix needed to reduce costs and getting out of DVD by mail would be one component. Netflix also saw that it could probably save money in terms of technology/transit costs by weaning away from 3rd party CDNs and running their own CDN but only if cost of running its own CDN plus ISP access cost were less than that of its current 3rd party CDN transit costs. I am guessing that Netflix found both situations would cost about the same in the short-term.

Since Netflix had already committed to its own CDN, Open Connect, it needed to make the numbers work. So it wants a discount from ISPs which wouldn't make sense to ISPs on multiple levels ergo only 5% adoption rate for Open Connect as someone posted. So Netflix concocts a strategy that will leverage (manipulate) its customers to increase pressure on ISPs. Unfortunately, this strategy is lose/lose situation for both the Netflix customers and ISPs. The only one who would gain are the shareholders, if it works. This is where I think "American" corporate short-term mentality comes into play. Wall Street vultures like Icahn (a major shareholder) are interested in immediate returns. I am sure Icahn had an influence on the shift in thinking.

Otherwise, why would Netflix force the issue when looking at the situation, ISP would naturally go Netflix's way? It's because Netflix needs immediate results. I don't know if Netflix is in a good financial position now. Granted they eked out a profit but $8 million on $954 million revenue? A company the size of Netflix? Really? I think Netflix spent a little too much and is in a financial hurt in a short-term.

As to what you said about Amazon, it reminds me of what Blockbuster would have said about Netflix in the early days. Difference is that Amazon has deep pockets. Don't dismiss Amazon so readily.
Edited by Apostate - 1/24/13 at 5:01pm

I don't think any company would discuss financial terms and conditions of any negotiation. That simply isn't done at all. It also may be against SEC rules (not sure).

I think we can put this discussion to bed. We beat it to death several time over.

I am sure you'll agree. We both just want SuperHD and 3D not held hostage to Netflix's negotiation tactics.

You're joking, right? Right??? We hear open details of business negotiations all the time: "Corporation X tendered an offer of suchandsomany dollars in a combination of cash and preferred stock today for the acquisition of Company Y; the offer was declined". Financial rags are full of stuff like that and it sometimes bleeds into mainstream news if it's something with general interest to a large enough group of people. Endless articles discussing details of TWC's multi-year negotiations for carriage of the NFL Network are a famous case in point. The SEC is not concerned with such disclosures if they're released to all of the public at the same time. Time Warner Cable making a statement that Netflix's terms for connection to Open Connect would cost them profits (if that were true) would not be a problem.

True. We can agree to disagree .

Check out some of the news releases at DBS talk .com.



Ian

The author of this Forbes OP ED article makes some interesting points (while critiquing a new book called Captive Audience) http://www.forbes.com/sites/bretswanson/2013/01/21/big-broadbands-secret-plan-to-deliver-wildly-popular-content-and-apps-to-happy-consumers/

From the article 'broadband is easily cable’s most profitable product, precisely because the universe of content is so diverse, compelling, and mostly free. Isn’t this an incentive for broadband providers to encourage a flourishing, open Internet?'

and

'But last week Netflix flexed its newfound confidence. Netflix is now withholding its new Super HD content from its own subscribers – unless the subscriber’s broadband provider agrees to host Netflix’s content for free. The law professors who dreamed up Net Neutrality are rolling over in their ivory towers.'

I still think Netflix is handling the SuperHD and 3D roll out poorly. - but as has been said before 'Open Connect' would seem to be in everyone's (customers, ISPs and netflix) best interest. Hopefully Netflix and the ISPs will find a way to work it out.......
Edited by undecided - 1/24/13 at 10:53pm

Wendell has given you clarification on the ATSC specs. Some additional comments.

If I recall correctly HBO offers 8 Mbps MPEG4 streams and this is what DirecTV uses for HBO (not sure about cable/Dish). I think they (HBO/DirecTV) have been using this for about 4 years now.

Google and you will find this

http://www.homeboxoffice.com/to/Recently_Updated/HBO_MPEG4_HD_Tech_Summary_B2B_20080916.pdf

HBO on DirecTV looks pretty good.

At the end of the day as 'michaeltscott' says above bit rate is not necessarily the the same as image quality - although the combination of the bit rate and encoding algorithm will give a good estimate of the best possible image quality.

I have hopes that Netflix 5800 kps stream using eyeIO encoding will look also pretty good - if Netflix ever let me see it through Comcast

Dude? Clearly a Southern California greeting Now what's this chillax and do I need a perscription

OK maybe I had a little to much caffeine - but I think we are allowed to be passionate here about video quality.

Maybe the rest of the world doesn't care - but if we don't who will......

I agree that one way or the other Netflix needs to deliver SuperHD and 3D to the majority of its US consumers - anything else would be just plain stupid.......

I agree that PQ is the combination of bit rate and encoding but I still think bit rate is a better indictor of PQ. I understand that certain encoding algorithm or format may be much more efficient but 200 - 300% more efficient? That doesn't sound likely. I may be wrong. I am definitely not an expert on encoding.