I tried Netflix on the PS/3 and I can confirm that it supports 5.1 audio if the stream has it. But when I first started watching an episode of Terminator: SCC, I balked because it started playing at the lowest quality possible but then quickly upped the quality. I'm still not convinced that it's streaming HD and not DVD quality, will have to watch a few different things and compare.

So far, I can't see any indication as to the currently streaming quality. One thing about the TiVo is that it tells you while it's buffering what your quality is and stated "HD" when it's the best.

Quoting Taro:

Quote:

I wonder if in 10 years time we'll have internet that can handle the streaming of full HD (1080p) and lossless audio. Seems to me like they'll have to seriously buff up the infrastructure to get there.

Have you ever heard the saying, "They just don't build them like they used to?"  It comes from much older generations who happen to still be alive who have made it through the slow digression of products to save time or make more money.

I can easily see this sort of thing happening with streaming video where the companies could reason, "Why have a product that is 'great' when a bunch of people are willing to settle with 'ok' as it is now?" They begin with impovements and then slowly, over time, pull them back down again because it saves them money, but by then you are paying a higher rate than before it all began.


For those who are speaking of streaming tv and other media because it's cheaper or with cable you were paying a lot for so few actual channels watched, do you not think that once streaming tv becomes "the norm" that they won't start charging you as much as was being charged for cable? More likely I think they would be charging per channel, but at a higher rate. It could also result in laws passed that put stricter penalties on those who stream outside of specific parameters set by the industry (ie: unless they are getting paid for your streaming something, it becomes illegal)

Current generations have become so comfortable with replacing all other media with Internet/online/streaming formats that they forget once streaming become a majority market, things will likely change to turn streaming into what cable has been now and what we know as streaming now will be changed or largely eliminated. If one format is causing another format to not make as much money, you eventually raise the price of the format not making as much money or slowly push away the other.



It's just the way that I see it, though.

Quoting Blair:

Quote:

For those who are speaking of streaming tv and other media because it's cheaper or with cable you were paying a lot for so few actual channels watched, do you not think that once streaming tv becomes "the norm" that they won't start charging you as much as was being charged for cable? More likely I think they would be charging per channel, but at a higher rate.

Right now I don't stream a thing ... it's something I would think about if I had more time.  But if the cost was where cable is today, or more, I wouldn't do it.  I haven't watched TV at home in five years.  I don't miss it very much either.  There are a few channels that I check out when I'm at a friend's house, but the cost wasn't worth it ... and won't be worth $100 a month in the future, either.

However, if it did go to a format of charging by channel, that would be more appealing.  It's something I would consider, just to have the few that I would watch.  But again, it would depend on price.  It would have to be reasonably low, or I wouldn't do it.  I have a lifetime of DVDs I can watch; I don't need TV.  It's a low priority luxury.

Isn't the high resolution something of a technicality when we're talking about a 4 inch screen?  It's all well and good that they've mashed all those pixels in there, but I'm not sure what the point is.  The only real value is to connect the phone to a sizable display that could actually make use of the resolution.  More to the point, if they lowered the res, you wouldn't see much of a difference on the phone itself.

Regardless, I will defer to your point that people are streaming hi-def to their phones.

Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Wall-E has it figured out.

Brazil had that 25 years ago:

(skip to 1:00 if you are in a hurry)

cya, Mithi

Books, Music, Movies: my money only for physical media.

Quoting Mithi:

Quote:
Quoting Dr. Killpatient:

Quote:
Wall-E has it figured out.

Brazil had that 25 years ago:
(skip to 1:00 if you are in a hurry)

I never made the connection... I wonder if it is purely based on the iPod Wall-E uses or if there is an actual Brazil reference here...

Quoting mediadogg:

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think other things than resolution are at play when you talk about "HD." For example, data rate. I have seen "HD" at various levels of quality depending on the data rate of the encoding. Higher data rates for a given resolution means more color depth, and the ability to follow faster action without interpolation (stop your video with pause - the higher the data rate, the more it will look like a photograph). Also, HD implies high quality audio, ususally in multiple formats.

Youtube style "HD" is enjoyable, but I think the compromises are made in those areas: data rate and number and quality of audio formats, and probably other stuff I don't know about. Otherwise I don't think the processors in those devices could run a codec fast enough to produce a steady picture.

Does this meet with your understanding? Did I get it right? I read a lot about this stuff, but there is conflicting info out there, and I'm not always sure I've "got" it.

You are absolutely correct.  Netflix may push the required number of pixels, but it can't match the bitrate coming off a BD disc.  Not by a long shot.  The image coming from Netflix is far more compressed which really hurts picture quality.

Which is what brings me back to my earlier comment.  If it's something that matters to me, I'll get it on disc.  That brings a much higher bitrate which will result in a much better quality image.  Plus you get the better audio (again, MUCH better for the most part).  You also get bonus material, better control (Netflix is a pain if you want to go back 10 seconds for example).  You also get the security of knowing you can pick the disc up and have it going in a minute or two.  No worries about a bad internet connection.  And you know it's available.  I started watching Sport Night on Netflix on a recent trip I took.  Then it was gone for a few days.  Then it was back again.  With my Sports Night discs, I know with 100% certainty that it's always available to me.

Streaming of course has it's advantages too.  I can watch on my PS3 and my big TV.  I can watch on my iPhone.  I can watch on my computer or laptop.  I can watch at my place, at work, at a friends, etc.  With the proper cables, I could even hook my iPhone up to my friends TV over HDMI and stream at her house.  You also don't need to worry about storage space for all your discs.  Nor do you ever need to worry about theft with someone stealing your discs.  Plus, it's a cheap and easy way to try before you buy.

For me, both discs and streaming have their advantages and shortcomings.  Different people have different needs.  Some people are disc only because of the advantages that brings.  Some are streaming only because it meets their needs perfectly.  And most fall somewhere in between.  Most folks here probably lean towards owning vs. streaming.  But this is not the right group to gauge overall interest of society in general.