or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › AVS Forum Radio Show › Blu-ray vs. Streaming
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Blu-ray vs. Streaming - Page 2

post #31 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Susilo View Post

Yes, Netflix offer 5.1 and 7.1 sound.
Thank you very much David.

From what I just read in this thread by imagic the quality still isn't up-to-snuff with a hard disc. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1469412/django-unchained-blu-ray-vs-itunes-vs-vudu-hdx

For convenience I guess you can't beat streaming and for TV shows I'd be OK with it but for movies I'll take physical media any day of the week.
post #32 of 94
Have any of you had BDs go bad? I had a the Earth BD and a Superman disc become unreadable just sitting in my Sony BD changer? No scratches or anything else.

I tried to read these in an Oppo 103, a PS3, and a PC. All were unable to read the discs. Are some suseptible to the old "laser rot" ? Thanks.
post #33 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by satfam View Post

Have any of you had BDs go bad? I had a the Earth BD and a Superman disc become unreadable just sitting in my Sony BD changer? No scratches or anything else.

I tried to read these in an Oppo 103, a PS3, and a PC. All were unable to read the discs. Are some suseptible to the old "laser rot" ? Thanks.

 

I have never had a Blu-ray go bad on me. I have had Blu-rays that refused to load for one reason or another but usually a firmware update took care of that. I don't really own any Blu-ray's that are more than a year or two old. Anecdotally, I've read some other posts from people who have had similar problems. From what I understand, Blu-ray should be very stable unless there is a manufacturing defect.

post #34 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post

AVS Forum Newsbreaker Mark Henninger talks about his ongoing series of comparisons of movies delivered on Blu-ray and the online streaming services iTunes and Vudu, including how streaming has improved over the past year, how he conducts comparisons with screen caps and photos, what still frames can tell us, the value of "pixel peeping" and brightness enhancement, the strengths and weaknesses of Vudu versus iTunes, answers to chat-room questions, and more.

The pixel peeping comparisons are basically worthless. Not only do they not even include Amazon, but Amazon would look horrible in a pixel peeping comparison, since it's only 720p except on TiVo. However, IRL, even though Amazon is visibly not as sharp as iTunes 1080p, it's more pleasing to watch, and IRL, VUDU HDX looks identical to Blu-Ray.
post #35 of 94
this all does not bode well for 4k content...
post #36 of 94
The problem is 100% data caps + speed + reliability. Blue ray has superior audio/visual quality that streaming presently cannot rival.

I tried watching season 2 of "The Walking Dead" via netflix streaming and almost shot myself dead because the "HD" quality was terrible.

I then downloaded it in 720p format (MKV) and it was SUBSTANTIALLY better. Finally went and popped in the blue-ray and voila, peace within.
post #37 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manzola View Post

The problem is 100% data caps + speed + reliability. Blue ray has superior audio/visual quality that streaming presently cannot rival.

I tried watching season 2 of "The Walking Dead" via netflix streaming and almost shot myself dead because the "HD" quality was terrible.

I then downloaded it in 720p format (MKV) and it was SUBSTANTIALLY better. Finally went and popped in the blue-ray and voila, peace within.

Yeah, the legal sources need to up their game when TPB is beating them on quality. biggrin.gif
post #38 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

I agree, Blu-ray does win. It wins every time in terms of ultimate quality. Every comparison that I have done has demonstrated that. The point of these comparisons is to determine the suitability of the online distribution formats for viewing in a home theater environment.

It's like buying a Ferrari and then testing to see which brand of cheap gas is least detrimental to performance. This is an AV enthusiast site. I can't see anyone spending the time and money to carefully select the best performing components they can afford, then punt on quality at the end.

The largest flaw I see in the pixel peeping tests is they are based on static images. Movie theaters use JPEG compression for each frame. Consumer formats compress further by using JPG for a single reference frame and follow with a series of "difference" frames. The derived difference frames have progressively more errors, the image starts to degrade, and then a new reference frame comes along and clears everything up. Both Bluray and the streaming formats work that way, but the streaming formats lower the number of reference frames in order to get by with less bits. If you are only comparing reference frames between the formats, you're missing some of the worst artifacts introduced with bitrate constrained streaming.

The difference in quality between reference vs derived frames can also skew static image comparisons. If you compare a reference frame on one format with a derived frame on another, you're comparing apples to oranges and the comparison will not be fair. The re-encoding can put the I-frame (reference) and P & B-frame (derived) frames in different locations in the stream for the same movie. So if you pick the clearest pictures from one format, and compare that exact frame against all the other formats, you might inadvertently be comparing one format's high quality I-frame render quality against another formats B-frame quality.

The selection criteria for frames could also skew the results. You pick a few frames out of hundreds of thousands. Then you zoom in on a specific area of the frame. What is the criteria for what you choose to show us? Do you select images that show the greatest difference between Bluray and the formats you're comparing? Or do you select areas that look relatively close to help support for enthusiasm for streaming?

I enjoy the science of it and like streaming, pixel peeping has it's place. I just don't understand why each of these threads trying to make the case that streaming is good enough are front page news for AVS.
Edited by rabident - 4/26/13 at 7:28pm
post #39 of 94
Why invest time an energy to determine which level of crap is tolerable?

This is a hint. When I was a kid the first records that I heard were 78 RPM scratch and poppers. People who restrict themselves to MP3 sound quality, or CRT SD picture quality or smaller LCD flat panel quality could care less. Streaming companies will be very happy to make those people happy. That's fine with me if they will leave the shiny disks alone for a few more years. rolleyes.gif
post #40 of 94
how many movies can i watch with a 300GB monthly cap?
post #41 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by domingos38 View Post

how many movies can i watch with a 300GB monthly cap?

 

A movie viewed at top quality will consume anywhere between 3 GB and 6 GB of bandwidth, and I would peg the average at 4 GB. 300÷4 = 75, so at least two movies per day.

post #42 of 94
I love blu ray all around, even though i do watch streaming every now and then. I bet google fiber will fix this issue 1GB smile.gif blu ray ftw!.
post #43 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by domingos38 View Post

how many movies can i watch with a 300GB monthly cap?

A movie viewed at top quality will consume anywhere between 3 GB and 6 GB of bandwidth, and I would peg the average at 4 GB. 300÷4 = 75, so at least two movies per day.
From what source? DVD, Blu-ray or something else? The Blu-ray sourced movies I've converted to ISO files are about ten times bigger. "Zero Dark Thirty" and "The Hobbit" are about 34 GB. 300/30 = 10, so at least one movie every three days. wink.gif

EDIT: And you would have to kick the AVS habit. smile.gif
post #44 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by htwaits View Post


From what source? DVD, Blu-ray or something else? The Blu-ray sourced movies I've converted to ISO files are about ten times bigger. "Zero Dark Thirty" and "The Hobbit" are about 34 GB. 300/30 = 10, so at least one movie every three days. wink.gif

 

I was using iTunes HD as my example. Vudu HDX could possibly consume a bit more bandwidth but two movies a day would still be under 300 gigs. Of what relevance is Internet bandwidth to DVD or Blu-ray ISO files? This is not a thread about stealing movies.

post #45 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by htwaits View Post

From what source? DVD, Blu-ray or something else? The Blu-ray sourced movies I've converted to ISO files are about ten times bigger. "Zero Dark Thirty" and "The Hobbit" are about 34 GB. 300/30 = 10, so at least one movie every three days. wink.gif

I was using iTunes HD as my example. Vudu HDX could possibly consume a bit more bandwidth but two movies a day would still be under 300 gigs. Of what relevance is Internet bandwidth to DVD or Blu-ray ISO files? This is not a thread about stealing movies.
Sweet. Neither am I. What I am about is picture and audio quality.

What this thread seems to be about is rationalizing accepting a 4 GB version of a streamed movie that would be stored on a Blu-ray disk using about 30 GB. For movies I wouldn't mind down loading a rented copy of the full 30 GB for a one time viewing. The movies and musical performances that I buy, and that I also store on HDD are ones that I'll watch multiple times. For instance, I have three versions of the opera Carmen, and they are all copied on HDD from our purchased shiny disks. I wouldn't take the time to watch any of them in a 4 GB streamed version. Why would anyone want to buy three versions of Carmen. That's easy. I love her!

By the way, if I should happen to decide to get rid of the Blu-ray version of something that I own, then just like I've done since 1984 in the computer software world, I will delete the relevant file from it's HDD. I understand that some folks collect for the pure pleasure of it, but I've never felt that urge. Once we watch "Zero Dark Thirty" it might be one that I'll pass on. On the other hand, I won't be allowed to do that with "The Hobbit" because it belongs with the extended version of "The Lord of the Rings" on our Blu-ray shelf. eek.gif
Edited by htwaits - 4/27/13 at 11:25am
post #46 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by htwaits View Post


Sweet. Neither am I. What I am about is picture and audio quality.

What this thread seems to be about is rationalizing accepting a 4 GB version of a streamed movie that would be stored on a Blu-ray disk using about 30 GB. For movies I wouldn't mind down loading the full 30 GB for a one time viewing. The movies and musical performances that I buy, and that I also store on HDD are ones that I'll watch multiple times. For instance, I have three versions of the opera Carmen, and they are all copied on HDD from our purchased shiny disk. I wouldn't take the time to watch any of them in a 4 GB streamed version.

By the way, if I should happen to decide to get rid of the Blu-ray version of something that I own, then just like I've done since 1984 in the computer software world, I will delete the relevant file from it's HDD. I understand that some folks collect for the pure pleasure of it, but I've never felt that urge. Once we watch "Zero Dark Thirty" it might be one that I'll pass on. On the other hand, I won't be allowed to do that with "The Hobbit" because it belongs with the extended version of "The Lord of the Rings". eek.gif

 

I would like to see the overall quality of the top online distribution formats increase. I don't think there is any rationalizing going on, at current file sizes online distribution formats do a very good job. Quite a few comments seem to stem from maximalist notions of what's acceptable to view and home theater. As I note in the beginning of the interview, the primary motivation for me choosing online distribution was a combination of convenience and availability. Middle of the winter, that means it's cold outside. James Bond movie is new, only available online. The end result, I rented the movie and watched it. The experience was good, so I repeated it a number of times since then.
 
If you want to call it rationalizing, fine. I have to say that the difference in quality is not enough to get me excited anymore. Maybe for some blockbuster films that I'm really looking forward to watching, the extra fidelity is worth it. For 3-D movies, Blu-ray is still the only choice for me. 
 
Going back to the original question, it was how many movies can one expect to be able to watch on monthly basis with a 300 GB limit on bandwidth. Based on current file sizes for online distribution high definition movies, the answer is about two per day. I think the reason why so much compression is used is self-explanatory. However, it also seems like the forthcoming 4K online formats will satisfy your desire (and mine) for a format that meets or beats Blu-ray in terms of quality.

Edited by imagic - 4/27/13 at 11:41am
post #47 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

 
Going back to the original question,
 it was how many movies can one expect to be able to watch on monthly basis with a 300 GB limit on bandwidth. Based on current file sizes for online distribution high definition movies, the answer is about two per day. 
I think the reason why so much compression is used is self-explanatory. However, it also seems like the forthcoming 4K online formats will satisfy your desire (and mine) for a format that meets or beats Blu-ray in terms of quality.
Given my age, and that I saw my first 3D images at a public library some years ago, I'm not that interested. eek.gif

I'm happy to wait for the Blu-ray release of any film that I care about seeing. In most cases that means waiting even longer because I use Netflix rental. We watched and listened to a Netflix concert last night that I liked enough to go to the computer and place an Amazon order as soon as it was finished.

Our Kuro is only 60" so no, I'm not waiting for 4K. One of my friends has the 4K Sony projector and a 128" screen. He seems to have the potential to get more out of 4K sourced material than I do.

Like you, I tried Netflix streaming when it was free. I watched old English TV programs on the computer with it's 24" screen. It was OK for old TV programs. Maybe the reason I've never tried it again is that we live in an area with better winter weather, and I am also old enough to enjoy reading. wink.gif

There are some very good transfers on DVD. The Fifth Element (Superbit) is one of them. Is that the quality level that you find satisfying enough for the movies that you stream? I didn't know that on-line 4K formats were coming. Will wonders never cease.
post #48 of 94
Bluray hands down
post #49 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by htwaits View Post

Why invest time an energy to determine which level of crap is tolerable?

This is a hint. When I was a kid the first records that I heard were 78 RPM scratch and poppers. People who restrict themselves to MP3 sound quality, or CRT SD picture quality or smaller LCD flat panel quality could care less. Streaming companies will be very happy to make those people happy. That's fine with me if they will leave the shiny disks alone for a few more years. rolleyes.gif

Well said.
Also, we invest in better equipment, larger screens and so forth and then they try to shove this streaming aberration down our throats - I watched How To Train Your Dragon streamed from Amazon and it sucked so much that it looked 480p at best! Not even close to the 720p they advertised. Why bother to have a movie with such a stunning picture quality when you're gonna butcher it like that?
post #50 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishniknork View Post

Thank you very much David.

From what I just read in this thread by imagic the quality still isn't up-to-snuff with a hard disc. http://www.avsforum.com/t/1469412/django-unchained-blu-ray-vs-itunes-vs-vudu-hdx

For convenience I guess you can't beat streaming and for TV shows I'd be OK with it but for movies I'll take physical media any day of the week.

Other than documentaries and stand-up comedies, I don't stream. It's a waste of my bandwidth and my time from enjoying the best my HT can deliver. I saved for a long time to be able to afford to build a purpose-built room with dedicated power source and dedicated separate room for my equipments to not use the best source I can afford to watch anything in it. biggrin.gif
post #51 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddgtr View Post


Well said.
Also, we invest in better equipment, larger screens and so forth and then they try to shove this streaming aberration down our throats - I watched How To Train Your Dragon streamed from Amazon and it sucked so much that it looked 480p at best! Not even close to the 720p they advertised. Why bother to have a movie with such a stunning picture quality when you're gonna butcher it like that?

Exactly! When I included Amazon in a comparison, it's unsuitability for home theater use was obvious. Amazon HD video is a step down from Vudu HDX and even iTunes HD. That's why I "invest time and energy to determine which level of crap is tolerable"tongue.gif. For an animated feature, I'd stick with Vudu HDX, among the online formats.


Edited by imagic - 4/28/13 at 3:13am
post #52 of 94
On my widescreen dell studio one 19 pc the hd looks pretty good on itunes and is better than youtube hd on ps3. Psn video quality is good. Fios is soso. Bluray wins. How does apple tv video quality fare
post #53 of 94
Thanks Mark, I really appreciate the time and effort you have put into these comparisons. As with most other AVS members, I am in the Blu-Ray wins category. One thing to also add to the equation is a cost analysis. For example, at ~$2 at RedBox I get a movie in 1080p/24 with lossless audio in my dedicated home theater. For ~$120 (fiber to the premise internet and VOD costs) I get a sub-par version of the same movie streamed to my Blu-Ray player. To me, circa 2013, Blu-Ray is still the best choice. biggrin.gif
post #54 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagic View Post

That's why I "invest time and energy to determine which level of crap is tolerable"tongue.gif
Thanks for the quote. biggrin.gif
post #55 of 94
Guys,

What about the 800 lb elephant in the room?? Namely the original aspect ratio?? If I've got it right many movies from any streaming service serve them up in 1.77:1. Not the original 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. The streaming services simply zoom in to the frame, crop it at 1.77:1 (so that it neatly fills up a 16 X 9 display) and send it down the pipe.To do that to 2.35:1 films (which the bulk majority are shot in) a great travesty, injustice to the diriector and audience.

It seems like an awful waste of time, destroys the visual intent of the film and wait......all because people don't want to see "black bars" on the tops and bottoms of their "widescreen" set and their getting "the whole picture!" With the popularity of these services apparently people are ignorant to what they are getting or really just don't care. I suspect it's a little of both. I think we were all hoping that by now viewers would have gottent the basic premise of "widescreen" down but alas I don't think it's the case, not even close or it would not exist this way.

We can debate all we want about the various other factors of streaming but this aspect ratio issue to me is the biggest one I have against their services and content/

Have you guys discussed this and have any insight into it?

smile.gif
post #56 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Navarre View Post

Guys,

What about the 800 lb elephant in the room?? Namely the original aspect ratio?? If I've got it right many movies from any streaming service serve them up in 1.77:1. Not the original 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. The streaming services simply zoom in to the frame, crop it at 1.77:1 (so that it neatly fills up a 16 X 9 display) and send it down the pipe.To do that to 2.35:1 films (which the bulk majority are shot in) a great travesty, injustice to the diriector and audience.

It seems like an awful waste of time, destroys the visual intent of the film and wait......all because people don't want to see "black bars" on the tops and bottoms of their "widescreen" set and their getting "the whole picture!" With the popularity of these services apparently people are ignorant to what they are getting or really just don't care. I suspect it's a little of both. I think we were all hoping that by now viewers would have gottent the basic premise of "widescreen" down but alas I don't think it's the case, not even close or it would not exist this way.

We can debate all we want about the various other factors of streaming but this aspect ratio issue to me is the biggest one I have against their services and content/

Have you guys discussed this and have any insight into it?

smile.gif

 

The angle I was pursuing was to compare the 1080p (and sometimes 720p) premium offerings, meant to be online distribution substitutes for Blu-ray. Thus far, there have been no instances where the online distribution version had a different aspect ratio than Blu-ray. I suppose when dealing with a streaming service like Netflix you see the 16 x 9 crop on some movies, but that's not the kind of comparison I was thinking of what I set out to do this. I'm definitely looking for movies that have the original aspect ratio, and thus far that is always been the case with iTunes HD and Vudu HDX.

 

So far, I've been comparing new releases. In the case of older movies, I would only do a comparison if there is a new release on Blu-ray with some kind of remastering.

post #57 of 94
What video/program is playing in the background during the interview?
post #58 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkDread View Post

What video/program is playing in the background during the interview?

That's Aeon, from SoundSpectrum — makers of G-Force.

post #59 of 94
Mark,

I see your point and that's good to hear that aspect ratio alteration has not been an issue with a lot of streaming content. It is however dominant on just about all premium channel services (Cinemax, Starz, Showtime) in which they charge by the movie. They all participate in this aspect ratio distortion for their movie content (Even though they are in 1080i) . Not every movie but most of them. I suppose that's the subject of another time:).

Thanks Aga:)in
post #60 of 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Navarre View Post

Mark,

I see your point and that's good to hear that aspect ratio alteration has not been an issue with a lot of streaming content. It is however dominant on just about all premium channel services (Cinemax, Starz, Showtime) in which they charge by the movie. They all participate in this aspect ratio distortion for their movie content (Even though they are in 1080i) . Not every movie but most of them. I suppose that's the subject of another time:).

Thanks Aga:)in

 

Sure, it's not directly related to this thread. However, cropping to 16x9 is one of the reasons why I completely abandoned cable television and rely entirely on Blu-ray plus online distribution. Cable TV is one place where I do not get my content. The 1080i limitation also bothered me, not to mention the fact that (my cable company) Comcast actually charged more than iTunes or Vudu for a rental.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AVS Forum Radio Show
AVS › AVS Forum › News Forum › AVS Forum Radio Show › Blu-ray vs. Streaming