The HD download option.

[brantlew]

Inevitably when people start arguing about the HD format war someone ends up screaming something to the effect of "well it doesn't really matter because online distribution is going to supersede both formats." Does anyone else besides me think that this is a really dumb argument?

The fact is that all of the distributed HD content that I have seen whether it be via cable, over-the-air, satellite, or Internet all suffers from the same glaring problem that nobody seems to mention - compression artifacts. Watch an HD program from your favorite distribution channel and tell me you don't see clunky, blocky, pixellated sections throughout the program. That's because the content providers compress the crap out of the film so it can fit down their thin data channel.

In order to get really great perceptually lossless quality you have to dial down the compression and increase the file size of a movie to about 20 - 25 GB. And unless you have fiber running into your home you probably can't dependably sustain a download of that size in real time.

So until they somehow fix the bandwidth problem which seems to me to be a ways off - downloadable content just doesn't seem to be a viable option and physical media like Blu-Ray or HD-DVD (or HVD for that matter) seems to be the only option.

And besides - doesn't it seem easier to store disks than to keep adding more hard drives? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in downloadable movies.

 

[navychop]

I agree with you.

1. Download times will not be in real time. Yet I'd gladly have the option (DishOnline or whatever) to order an HD film one night for viewing the next.
2. The internet infrastructure will not support a rapid increase in this kind of traffic.
3. ISPs have an inclination to cap, slow or somehow limit such downloads since they are massive bandwidth hogs, and may compete with other offerings from the ISP.
4. It is cumbersome to download today to your PC and then display it on your TV. At least, Joe Six Pack views it that way- and so does his wife! Currently too complicated for the masses.
5. The model of sticking in a disk and watching is well entrenched. And the need to switch inputs on the TV/stereo is considered a hassle by many!

 

[harshness]

I don't think that a disproportionate number of people have illusions about downloading HD movies in real time. I think the real shock is going to come when the cable companies (and perhaps some phone companies) start throttling data or instituting bandwidth limits. Cable companies will likely come first because downloaded movies are often in direct competition with their PPV offerings.

 

[Paradox-SJ]

Internet speeds are a bit like More's Law.... If you live in an Meto area you will have the ability to DL HD content.

XBL using VC-1 and 720p content avg's around 7GB a movie.

Here the catch...it doesnt look as good a one of the new formats but it looks BETTER than DVD...and in today's market you dont have to be the best...

So yes...DL HD content is a real threat to in your hands media...

 

[bidger`]

I know Mark Cuban talked about using hard drives that the content providers would add their contents and any protection schemes to and the consumer could connect them to a USB, Firewire. or e-SATA port.

I like the idea, but I doubt Hollywood would go for it.

 

[diogen]

And unless you have fiber running into your home you probably can't dependably sustain a download of that size in real time.
So until they somehow fix the bandwidth problem which seems to me to be a ways off - downloadable content just doesn't seem to be a viable option...

You mix two different technologies in one basket: downloadable content (e.g. XBox Live) and VOD.
Real time bandwidth limitations affect VOD and to a very small degree downloadable content.

In order to get really great perceptually lossless quality you have to dial down the compression and increase the file size of a movie to about 20 - 25 GB.

XBox Live movies are 720/24p, take less space than a DL DVD and you have to do audio/video for a living to see differences with BD/HD in most installations.
Using different VC1 encode parameters - longer GOPs, larger vbuffers, more B-frames - would most likely allow 1080/24p with today's BD/HD quality under 15GB.

And besides - doesn't it seem easier to store disks than to keep adding more hard drives? I just don't see why anyone would be interested in downloadable movies.

At the moment, downloadable content targets the renting market, not "movie ownership": you can't make a copy, DRM-ed or not.

Diogen.

 

[s8ist]

I agree. It doesn't seem likely that streaming content will be available to the average joe given that the average internet speed even through broadband just isn't sufficient for delivery of HD video. Why this idea is perpetuated is just beyond me... perhaps to extend the format war? XBL's quality is okay for rental, but not to own. People will want to be able to own their films. That's why DIVX failed.

 

[brantlew]

Thanks for all the comments so far.

I can buy the fact that download could compete well in the rental market where quality is not important, but not in the ownership market. Sure you can make tradeoffs to squeeze file sizes, but I still think the bandwidth requirements are only accessible to a small percentage of people - the power users who are ironically the same people that care the most about video quality. I don't think the guy with a T1 into his house and a 60" 1080p TV and a $3000 stereo is going to pull down an 8GB movie. On the flip side, joe average is not going to wait all night and day for an 8GB HD movie to come down either. So downloadable and on-demand content will remain small and crummy for rent by the masses and high quality content will remain on physical media where it can realize its full potential.

At least that what me thinks...

 

[navychop]

me thinks you think correctly.

 

[diogen]

Let's do some math.
Assuming the movie is 2h long and 9GB in size.
To get this amount delievered in real time, you need a pipe 9000/120=75MB/min=75*8/60=10Mbps.
Unlikely as sustained bandwidth for an average household.

But I have no problems downloading at half this bitrate (e.g. SP2 from Microsoft site). And it costs me under CAN$40/month.
That means I have to decide 2h in advance that I want to watch this particular movie (i.e. half the bitrate would require twice the time).
I don't see this as outrageously inconvenient.

And I'm puzzled why you think the quality of 9GB/720p is crummy
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-ent...place-why-theres-no-big-difference-222337.php

I'm not saying renting hidef movies over the internet is the future.
But technologically it is almost doable today. And if priced right (e.g. $1 to download and watch within 12 hours), has a chance to take off, I think.

And let's not forget that North America is very far from being a world leader in last mile bandwidth.

"We always overestimate what will happen in 3 years and always underestimate what will happen in 10" (don't remember who said).

Diogen.

 

[r.jones1116]

Call me old fashioned but I kinda like going to the video store and buying/renting movies.

 

[brantlew]

And I'm puzzled why you think the quality of 9GB/720p is crummy

Diogen.

I don't. I think it's pretty good, but I just think it is a niche market available to technophiles with patience where as the market for 2GB downloads and 25 GB disks is broader.

Probably bandwidth will catch up in the next 10 years but I don't see it happening before one of the disk formats gets entrenched. I think we are in a period analogous to 15 years ago when music downloads were possible but not very practical. And still even today when music downloads are trivial to just about everyone there are still plenty of reasons why people still want and buy CDs.

 

[diogen]

This is not about hidef, but it is about VOD.
And considering Apple's knack to establish new ways of doing things, it might be of importance.
Hollywood studios in video talks with Apple

Diogen.