AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Wreck-It Ralph: Comparing iTunes, Vudu and Blu-ray
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wreck-It Ralph: Comparing iTunes, Vudu and Blu-ray - Page 2  

post #31 of 47
3/14/13 at 7:02am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

My "theory" has nothing to do with it being a "conspiracy to stick people with a 2mbps connection". Re-read what I've clearly detailed and you'll find nothing of the sort...shocker, there. Our nation-wide speeds are- at best- about 15ish due to a myriad of other factors, including laughably antiquated i-net infrastructure, but most here already realize that.

Onward, I never claimed "the country as a whole gets 1/3 of that speed". Again, re-read and stop misrepresenting what I HAVE laid out in plain english.

But of course NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with comparing image quality of a 4 gig file vs a 35 gig version and coming to he conclusion that the 35 gig version is "better".

Then, in this very thread asserting that it indicates VUDU is the choice for streaming when your other (equally pointless and circular) threads (as already pointed out by others) show apple 1080 files are visually superior. Go figure.

Now I'll apologize to other members for being the main reason why this thread has received more than 10 posts.

James

I'm just looking for a link to an article that discusses the national median internet speed, which you cited as a more realistic number. Can't find it. Help us all out with you Google skills, please. As for the comparisons, they are visual. They are there so you can reach your own conclusions, whether they be right, wrong, or just matter of opinion. Vudu HDX did the best job compressing Wreck-It ralph for online distribution and is clearly sharper, more resolute with better color and tonality than iTunes 1080p. The examples are so rock solid, I dare say it's a bit daft to deny the results.
Edited by imagic - 3/14/13 at 7:07am

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #32 of 47
3/14/13 at 7:36am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post


See? Nearly 3 out of 4 are BELOW 5 mbps, with nearly 30% below 2. Also blows holes in your ridiculous 56k blather. Go figure. I'm done. Believe what you want to believe, but I'm certainly not going to simply let it slide.

James

That's great, a chart that you admit is at least two years old. The rest of your theory rests on the assumption nothing has changed since then? Proof of your argument is not a outdated, undated chart. Comcast doubled the speed of their internet tiers last July and they are not the only company boosting speeds; there is no question competition is heating up and the trend is for broadband speeds to double every two to three years. If you simply double the numbers you are throwing at me, it would be much closer to the situation today, but not for long going forward. The recession is coming to an end, expect to see rapid growth in high-speed broadband availability.
post #33 of 47
3/14/13 at 7:44am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post

http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/12960

The Bluray screenshots have very noticeable aliasing and stair-stepping which simply shouldn't be there on a Bluray source.

Either it is a very poor Bluray, or more likely the screenshots were not taken correctly.

I had to take a good look before responding. The same aliasing is there in the iTunes 1080p version, just blurrier. My guess it that's how the characters are animated, since they exist in a video game and that scene occurs "in-game" i.e. while the game is being played. I'm guessing it's a subtle visual cue that gets overlooked if you don't freeze the movie. I know it's not an issue with the screen grab, it displays the same way on the PS3, although I have no way of getting a screen grab off of it.
post #34 of 47
3/14/13 at 7:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I'm just looking for a link to an article that discusses the national median internet speed, which you cited as a more realistic number. Can't find it. Help us all out with you Google skills, please. As for the comparisons, they are visual. They are there so you can reach your own conclusions, whether they be right, wrong, or just matter of opinion. Vudu HDX did the best job compressing Wreck-It ralph for online distribution and is clearly sharper, more resolute with better color and tonality than iTunes 1080p. The examples are so rock solid, I dare say it's a bit daft to deny the results.

Sigh. Why am I not shocked that you cannot understand why it's NOT "daft" to deny the results when those results fly in the face of other "results" posted by the same human?

Why do you need a link? You're already having enough problems interpreting a simple bar chart. I have provided you with (a) chart/script...the source is at the bottom. I've already done the "work" for you, lmao. And you can forget "us"...it's only YOU.

Anyone else can understand the contention that I have just verified. If you need (further) help with the chart, politely ask and I'll explain to you what it precisely indicates...especially when contrasted with a purported "average" speed of 6.6 (or anything higher which is even more laughable).

This concludes the dialog regarding the difference between "average" and "median" internet speeds. I now cordially ask that the focus returns to screen shots of downloads.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 3/14/13 at 2:01pm
post #35 of 47
3/14/13 at 7:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

That's great, a chart that you admit is at least two years old. The rest of your theory rests on the assumption nothing has changed since then? Proof of your argument is not a outdated, undated chart. Comcast doubled the speed of their internet tiers last July and they are not the only company boosting speeds; there is no question competition is heating up and the trend is for broadband speeds to double every two to three years. If you simply double the numbers you are throwing at me, it would be much closer to the situation today, but not for long going forward. The recession is coming to an end, expect to see rapid growth in high-speed broadband availability.


Incorrect. Again. You can easily unearth the subscription (and comprehensive speed) trends of ALL ISP's and service methodologies and see that it hasn't NEARLY doubled in the last two years. That's a flat-out lie. No more than a 10% fluctuation...at most. As for breaking out the ISP and national economic crystal balls, sure, whatever helps you sleep at night, but AGAIN, it's all irrelevant as the dialog revolves around the NOW.

Predictably you have attempted to thwart valid data under the guise of "well, things have changed dramatically in the last 18-24 months" when that's simply not the case...and no you cannot prove otherwise (again, re the MEDIAN speeds americans see). Your OWN link earlier shows that we're talking about a couple hundred thousand subscriber changes ANNUALLY, NATION WIDE.

I won't continue this any further...to the glee of all, I'm sure. You can have the last word, lol. I'm 100% certain it will not validate your assertions anymore than the patent lies, irrelevant "averages" and misinformation littered above.

The fact that you continue to post "average" anything speaks VOLUMES as to your...well, never mind.

James
Edited by mastermaybe - 3/14/13 at 8:11am
post #36 of 47
3/14/13 at 8:08am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

What about the sound?

Vudu is Dolby Digital Plus 5.1/7.1 with newer titles.

I watched Red Dawn last night and Vudu HDX nailed the visuals and the sound effects. The deep bass was especially notable - very well defined and impacting. I have four subs tuned to 16Hz with 2,000 watts of power so I can feel the low stuff and Red Dawn was shaking things up. I chose to rent through Vudu because I knew it was not a movie I was going to purchase (still isn't) but I wanted the best sound and visuals from an online release. So far, that's been watching Vudu HDX using a PS3 with 7.1 surround (when available).
post #37 of 47
3/14/13 at 8:10am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nummer 6 View Post

Just wanna say THANK YOU for all these comparisons! I've been looking for quite some time for serious reviews of downloaded movies. I do use Blu-ray as well but my apartment is overflowing with discs and I need to downsize. For some movies I can live with a download, but the quality differs widely (iTunes user here). While the Bond movies that I bought (QoS/TLD/Skyfall) looked great to me, some grainy classics like "Marathon Man" looked nearly identical to my DVD version mad.gif. Bit-starved compression is surely to blame. Please continue these reviews (maybe even expand them?) as they help me and probably a lot of others. Would love to see a thread like this for "Zero Dark Thirty"!

You will see that comparison shortly after "Zero Dark Thirty" is released on Blu-ray. Count on it.
post #38 of 47
3/14/13 at 8:17am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wattheF View Post

Thanks, I have a PS3 so i guess either is an option but in most cases i much rather spend a few more bucks on the bluray.

If it is just streamed (not to own) what is the average cost?

Digital distribution new release HD rentals typically cost $5.99 from iTunes and Vudu. I remember Vudu HDX costing a dollar more that iTunes, but it looks like they are matching Apple's prices for now - I just checked the website.
post #39 of 47
3/14/13 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

All of those numbers in the previous discussion are old. Today, U.S average download speed is 16mbps. http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

http://www.netindex.com/download/2,1/United-States/

I appreciate the debate, I was wrong and I am going back and correcting my 5.8 Mbps figure to reflect current speeds in 2013: 16 Mpbs


Even allowing the term average vs median... I don't know... I highly doubt that it's changed that much. 16Mpbs would mean we had an increase of roughly 250% from the previous year, and I'm doubting that.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/09/akamai-global-average-broadband-speeds-up-by-25-u-s-up-29-to-6-7-mbps/

EDIT:

OK, I see what's going on. This is from Speedtest's numbers. That right there is a big red flag. How many rural DSL customers over the age of 50 are running to Speedtest to confirm their promised figures? The site will be skewed towards the technically inclined, and the technically inclined are the ones who are willing to pay more for a faster connection. EVERY country fares better on this site's numbers vs the actual data we've seen from published reports in the past as a result. Not just the US.

EDIT:

So this site will probably give you a good idea of the percent increase year over year, (compare the site's own numbers to itself, year over year) but not the actual median download speed.
Edited by chirpie - 3/14/13 at 9:26am
post #40 of 47
3/14/13 at 9:25am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post

Even allowing the term average vs median... I don't know... I highly doubt that it's changed that much. 16Mpbs would mean we had an increase of roughly 250% from the previous year, and I'm doubting that.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/09/akamai-global-average-broadband-speeds-up-by-25-u-s-up-29-to-6-7-mbps/

EDIT:

OK, I see what's going on. This is from Speedtest's numbers. That right there is a big red flag. How many rural DSL customers over the age of 50 are running to Speedtest to confirm their promised figures? The site will be skewed towards the technically inclined, and the technically inclined are the ones who are willing to pay more for a faster connection.

The key stat is that broadband data rates are increasing year-over-year, making a two-plus year old chart nearly meaningless. Besides, the "technically inclined" are the prime market for home theater and living-room viewing, which is what the digital distribution HD formats are targeted for. A TV, a cable box, a car and a local movie theater is fine for many folks who don't want to bother with watching HD movies at home. A large 1080p TV is the prerequisite. Either a Blu-ray player or broadband is required to play one of these formats.

Here's one of Akamai's latest reports, with the U.S. pegged at 7.2 Mbps: http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/q3_2012_soti_infographic.pdf

Based on the numbers tossed around, I'm guessing as of Q2 2013, the USA is right around 8-9Mbps average, nationally. Comcast's roll-out of 2X speed for their Xfinity tiers is bound to have a significant impact, the same way the doubling of speeds did in England over the past year: http://thenextweb.com/uk/2013/03/14/12mbps-the-average-uk-broadband-speeds-hit-double-digits-as-connected-devices-drive-demand/
Edited by imagic - 3/14/13 at 6:29pm
post #41 of 47
3/14/13 at 12:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

The images are already so fantastically close ZOOMED IN that I seriously doubt there's virtually any meaningful differences at typical viewing distances...and I own about 350 blu rays so I'm hardly biased.


James

Wow. I own about 15. With 12 of them being for my kids.
post #42 of 47
3/14/13 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post

Even allowing the term average vs median... I don't know... I highly doubt that it's changed that much. 16Mpbs would mean we had an increase of roughly 250% from the previous year, and I'm doubting that.

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/09/akamai-global-average-broadband-speeds-up-by-25-u-s-up-29-to-6-7-mbps/

EDIT:

OK, I see what's going on. This is from Speedtest's numbers. That right there is a big red flag. How many rural DSL customers over the age of 50 are running to Speedtest to confirm their promised figures? The site will be skewed towards the technically inclined, and the technically inclined are the ones who are willing to pay more for a faster connection. EVERY country fares better on this site's numbers vs the actual data we've seen from published reports in the past as a result. Not just the US.

EDIT:

So this site will probably give you a good idea of the percent increase year over year, (compare the site's own numbers to itself, year over year) but not the actual median download speed.

Trust me, you don't want to head down this road with a guy who cannot understand/process the imperative distinction between mean and median- proven time and time again by his continuing to post the (ever-improving, lol) latter in a futile attempt to disprove the former.

Wait, you last posted hours ago...smarter man than I in that regard, I'll grant you that.

James
post #43 of 47
3/14/13 at 3:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I figure I'll just run along now like others have in your other "screen shot" threads that all end up circling the drain in a similar manner.

James
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Now I'll apologize to other members for being the main reason why this thread has received more than 10 posts.

James
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

This concludes the dialog regarding the difference between "average" and "median" internet speeds. I now cordially ask that the focus returns to screen shots of downloads.

James
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

I won't continue this any further...to the glee of all, I'm sure. You can have the last word, lol. I'm 100% certain it will not validate your assertions anymore than the patent lies, irrelevant "averages" and misinformation littered above.
James
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Trust me, you don't want to head down this road with a guy who cannot understand/process the imperative distinction between mean and median- proven time and time again by his continuing to post the (ever-improving, lol) latter in a futile attempt to disprove the former.

Wait, you last posted hours ago...smarter man than I in that regard, I'll grant you that.

James
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ Laugh it up...a baseless personal jab is really cool, unfortunately it does absolutely to disprove what I've asserted- and verified. Now back to screen shots...and internet speed "averages".

James


Glad we got that settled. wink.gif
Edited by imagic - 3/15/13 at 5:40am
post #44 of 47
3/14/13 at 3:45pm
Yes thank God. I just don't think he's smarter than a fifth grader haha.
post #45 of 47
3/15/13 at 5:37am
^ Laugh it up...a baseless personal jab is really cool, unfortunately it does absolutely to disprove what I've asserted- and verified. Now back to screen shots...and internet speed "averages".

James
post #46 of 47
3/15/13 at 5:47am
You made this personal about 10 posts ago, by attacking a thread that was meant to be constructive. Maybe if you went about it the right way we could all learn something. The thread starter actually backs up what he says and if you took the time to check out his credentials you would know why he says what he does. Don't come onto a thread like a know it all and you'll get more respect. If you prefer drama Facebook is that way >>
post #47 of 47
3/15/13 at 5:56am
Enough.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Gaming & Content Streaming › Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming › Wreck-It Ralph: Comparing iTunes, Vudu and Blu-ray