Giz Explains: Why HD Video Downloads Aren't Very High Def

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Yesterday Apple introduced HD TV downloads to the iTunes store, meaning you can watch Peter be super emo on Heroes at a crispy 720p resolution. That's a higher resolution than DVD, and technically, yup, that's HD. There's a catch though. Like every other video download service touting HD videos, it's all actually lower quality than DVD.

It's all about bitrate: How much data is packed into a file, described as bits per second. Generally speaking, a higher bitrate translates into higher quality audio and video, though quality can also be affected by codec?the encoding and compression technique that was used to make and read the file?so bitrate is not an absolute mark of quality, but it's still a very good indicator.

You're probably most familiar with this bitrate business when it comes to ripping your CDs. When you shove a CD into your computer, your ripping program will ask what format you want and what bitrate you want. A song ripped at a higher bitrate will sound better, with more presence and detail, but it does take up more space.

The same principle applies with video, though it's actually a bigger deal, because it's easier to see quality differences in video than it is to hear differences in audio. The bits make a huge difference when you get into fast moving stuff like sports or action movies?to be frank, they'll look like splattered, smeared **** in highly compressed low-bitrate vids. This chart below, expertly crafted by George Ou at ZDNet provides a solid starting point for comparison, with average bitrates of most digital video available.

As you can see, regular DVD runs at about 6-8 megabits per second. High-def iTunes content, despite having a higher resolution, is half that, a mere 4Mbps. Vudu's current HD movies is also about 4Mbps, if you've got the pipes. Xbox Live Marketplace has the highest bitrate?and indeed, often gets props for its quality?at close to 6.8Mbps. On the other hand, standard-def movies on the Netflix Roku box max out at around 2.2Mbps?and are often delivered in lower qualities because of bandwidth constraints. iTunes standard def TV shows run around 1.5Mbps. Now, consider that Blu-ray is a mean 40Mbps and you see that the definition of "HD" is suddenly remarkably vague.

That's a ****load of numbers. What does that mean?

This comparison test we ran in February pretty much shows you what's wrong: No matter how awesome MPEG-4 compression?or whatever the codec of the month is?gets, it can't work miracles when it's missing bits. It's why Vudu, for instance, is testing out a new closer-to-real-HD service?that they've revealed to us has three times the bitrate of any other download service on the market, meaning it should be close to 20Mbps?that will take hours to deliver to your home. But even then, the notion that it would truly rival Blu-ray is totally laughable.

It's not just download services giving you this watered-down so-called "HD lite", either. Comcast was busted cramming three HD channels into the space of two, resulting in crappy looking HDTV, and the satellite guys adding a million HD channels a year aren't much better.

Now that you understand what makes or breaks an HD picture?the amount of data? it's probably no surprise to you that the major reason everyone is peddling subpar HD is bandwidth. HD content is pipe-bustingly huge?a standard-def Battlestar Galactica file on iTunes is 520MB and takes about 15 minutes to download via a strong cable connection. The 720p HD download is 1.4GB and takes 40 minutes or so for your hard drive to completely swallow. The Blu-ray version of the same ep might be 10 times that?like 14GB. Putting that in more context, a single TV episode would take up twice the space as the average dual-layer DVD movie.

Right now, we don't have the broadband infrastructure to support it, and who knows when we will? Hell, the people with the best chance of giving us that added bandwidth?the major ISPs like Comcast and AT&T?are doing just the opposite: Implementing usage caps that will mean less HD downloading. The sad thing is, they probably won't even use the added bandwidth to make their own HD TV channels look better.

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5048025/giz-explains-wh...t-very-high-def

[TruckWEB]

Nice to see it in clear text for some people to understand. It was obvious that "HD" quality that we are being feed from many sellers is FAR from being real HD that we can find on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

I watch some movies on TMN-HD (The Movie Network), and many times I feel like I'm looking at upscaled DVD (Using Videotron Digital Cable).... The only channel displaying real/clear HD content is Discovery HD.

When I got the Blu-Ray movie "The Eye", included was a free download of the movie on iTune and I tell you, the picture quality is much worst and the compression artifact are everywhere.

I just hope that people will not do with movies/HDTV as they did with MP3, accept lower quality over convenience.

[jerzdawg]

Wow.. I was not aware of the fact that Dishnetwork and DirectTV were not on the same HD level as digital cable... I was so close to switching to DISH just to cut the cost of my cable bill (currently @ $140 with internet+phone)

[Express]

Wow.. I was not aware of the fact that Dishnetwork and DirectTV were not on the same HD level as digital cable... I was so close to switching to DISH just to cut the cost of my cable bill (currently @ $140 with internet+phone)

HD in US in already crap quality. These satellite provider make it even crappier.

[MiG-]

The trouble with these comparisons is the codecs used. The reason why mpeg2 used in blue ray an HD dvd uses 40mbits per sec is because the codec is shoddy, in terms of compression and size, but has very good results, just takes up **** loads of space.

This gets more apparent when moving from SD To HD, but not enough to warrent huge downloads. Decent quality HD at 720p in a format such as .mkv, .divx is much lower file size, let still retains excellent 'true HD' so to speak. It works out at around 1.5gb per hour of video. Thats with a bit rate of around 5000kbits.

Obviously if decent audio is to be pushed with the video, the stream will be closer to 6000kbits, but that is still under the typical mpeg2 level for DVD's.

If HD is to be taken seriously for download at the minute, these better codecs need to be used.

:)

[rajputwarrior]

HD in US in already crap quality. These satellite provider make it even crappier.

canada is the same, cause all they do is shove more HD content on the same pipeline, and to do that they lower the quality of the HD content, it's stupid. Only true HD is BluRay and HD DVD that i have seen so far. ANd i didn't realize Blu Ray bit rate is twice of HD DVD...

[BajiRav]

canada is the same, cause all they do is shove more HD content on the same pipeline, and to do that they lower the quality of the HD content, it's stupid. Only true HD is BluRay and HD DVD that i have seen so far. ANd i didn't realize Blu Ray bit rate is twice of HD DVD...

Because initially BD was using MPEG2...I wonder if they started using AVC/VC1 now...

[Richard Hammond]

Blu-Ray has been using VC-1 and H.264 since it came out, its just the odd title mainly old films that used inferior MPEG-2 codec.

[eXtermia]

Blu-Ray has been using VC-1 and H.264 since it came out, its just the odd title mainly old films that used inferior MPEG-2 codec.

or poor encoding period look at Blu-Ray's first release of the "The 5th Element" upscaled DVD looked better in some cases... Until they re-issued it at least.

Oh and my Heros Season 1 looks no different on my Full HD plasma 54" playing on my PS3 or on my HDDVD xbox 360 on hdmi..

Perhaps I need to go buy some those "Monster" cables to improve on my digital signal over about 5 foot away... umm because the analog loss ... yeah that's it.... :p

Oh and for those fast VidCard users (CUDA NVIDIA only) check out badaboom www.nvidia.com/theforcewithin

It doesn't do VC1 yet but it is pretty nice.

[eXtermia]

HD in US in already crap quality. These satellite provider make it even crappier.

most HD in europe is crap too....

[TruckWEB]

Blu-Ray has been using VC-1 and H.264 since it came out, its just the odd title mainly old films that used inferior MPEG-2 codec.

Almost all first release on Blu-Ray where in MPEG2, old or new movies. In fact, it was a major battle point against HD-DVD that used VC-1 from the start. HD-DVD movies where better looking, even compared to BD50 Mpeg2 title.

But now, almost all Blu-Ray title are in VC-1, rarely you will see one in MPEG2.

[Boz]

Blu-Ray has been using VC-1 and H.264 since it came out

Completely incorrect. Majority of movies released within the first year of Blu-Ray were MPEG-2.

[HawkMan]

The trouble with these comparisons is the codecs used. The reason why mpeg2 used in blue ray an HD dvd uses 40mbits per sec is because the codec is shoddy, in terms of compression and size, but has very good results, just takes up **** loads of space.

This gets more apparent when moving from SD To HD, but not enough to warrent huge downloads. Decent quality HD at 720p in a format such as .mkv, .divx is much lower file size, let still retains excellent 'true HD' so to speak. It works out at around 1.5gb per hour of video. Thats with a bit rate of around 5000kbits.

Obviously if decent audio is to be pushed with the video, the stream will be closer to 6000kbits, but that is still under the typical mpeg2 level for DVD's.

If HD is to be taken seriously for download at the minute, these better codecs need to be used.

:)

I'm thinking the article is doing somethign creative with their stats, and listing both codecs for BD, but only listing the bitrate used with MPEG2. Not sure though, I just don't reallt see H264 or VC1 BD's using 40 bitrate.

[soniqstylz]

Completely incorrect. Majority of movies released within the first year of Blu-Ray were MPEG-2.

Erm, I dunno what that chart is supposed to represent officially, but according to that, the majority are AVC/H.264/MPEG4. And, in fact, MPEG-2 are the smallest part of that chart.

[afusion]

For example take Macross Zero Blu Ray 720p

RELEASE.DATE..: 11.09.2008

RUNTiME.......: 157 min

SiZE..........: DVD5

ViDEO.CODEC...: H.264 (x264)

FRAMERATE.....: 23.976

BiTRATE.......: ~3300 kbps

RESOLUTiON....: 1280x720

AUDiO.........: Japanese AC3 5.1 640 kbps

SUBTiTLES.....: English ASS (translation by anbu-aone)

Does 3300kbps put the quality in between Apple iTunes and Web "HD"?

[soniqstylz]

I'm thinking the article is doing somethign creative with their stats, and listing both codecs for BD, but only listing the bitrate used with MPEG2. Not sure though, I just don't reallt see H264 or VC1 BD's using 40 bitrate.

Not consistently, but there are several movies that do peak into the 40+ bitrate range.

Spiderman3, PotC3, and a few others I know firsthand hit over 40. Toss in audio (which you would have to consider for a digital download), and it's even higher.

Most of them seem to average around 25 - 30 for the video for the entire disc.

Edited September 14, 2008 by soniqstylz

[HawkMan]

Not consistently, but there are several movies that do peak into the 40+ bitrate range.

Spiderman3, PotC3, and a few others I know firsthand hit over 40.

Well if you talk about peak then it's VBR. In this case the article shoudl refer to the average bitrate. and I just don't see any BD movies using non Mpeg2 codecs using ~40Mbps bitrates.

[Boz]

Erm, I dunno what that chart is supposed to represent officially, but according to that, the majority are AVC/H.264/MPEG4. And, in fact, MPEG-2 are the smallest part of that chart.

How about you read what I was responding too.. 1/4 of movies released on Blu-Ray are indeed MPEG2.. most of that was in the first year of the format.. The response was towards the comment that since the format's start they've been encoding with VC1 or AVC.

[Coldgunner]

Its amazing how a thread has gone from being purely about downloadable video to blurays bitrates.

mpeg2 at high bitrate doesn't look any different to avc or vc-1 at standard bitrate. For downloadable content, you can blame the format as the codec is the choice of the provider. you cannot blame the codec on bluray because the studios define the codec used, not the content provider (in this case the bda).

[kak]

For example take Macross Zero Blu Ray 720p

RELEASE.DATE..: 11.09.2008

RUNTiME.......: 157 min

SiZE..........: DVD5

ViDEO.CODEC...: H.264 (x264)

FRAMERATE.....: 23.976

BiTRATE.......: ~3300 kbps

RESOLUTiON....: 1280x720

AUDiO.........: Japanese AC3 5.1 640 kbps

SUBTiTLES.....: English ASS (translation by anbu-aone)

Does 3300kbps put the quality in between Apple iTunes and Web "HD"?

Perhaps, but I haven't seen anything from iTunes or other web vendors. However, you're copying information from a compressed BD encode. Goes without saying that there is going to be a good bit of data lost, but people who are going after those copies of the film aren't worried about the best presentation as much as they are about getting it for free. I'm also not completely sure how efficient x264 is over standard h.264 or whatever all these codecs are. I've read and read and read and it still means nothing to me. Some codecs fit one source better than another while some always look good. Bleh.

[Blaine]

Thank you topic poster! I downloaded some of the free tv episodes in hd and they looked like ****. I was so disappointed because I do not own any of the high def players. The only thing that is even capable of watching high def content is my pc monitor. Can't wait soon enough for a blu ray imac :)

[kjordan2001]

For example take Macross Zero Blu Ray 720p

RELEASE.DATE..: 11.09.2008

RUNTiME.......: 157 min

SiZE..........: DVD5

ViDEO.CODEC...: H.264 (x264)

FRAMERATE.....: 23.976

BiTRATE.......: ~3300 kbps

RESOLUTiON....: 1280x720

AUDiO.........: Japanese AC3 5.1 640 kbps

SUBTiTLES.....: English ASS (translation by anbu-aone)

Does 3300kbps put the quality in between Apple iTunes and Web "HD"?

That seems like a downloaded version that is probably highly compressed so it'll fit in 4GB or less. The original would be at least 6x that.

[I am Reid]

Wow.. I was not aware of the fact that Dishnetwork and DirectTV were not on the same HD level as digital cable... I was so close to switching to DISH just to cut the cost of my cable bill (currently @ $140 with internet+phone)

yes, they are quite ****, in fact for awhile pretty much everything on DirectTV was only a 1440x1080 native resolution, instead of 1920x1080, and Dish started doing the same, its called HDLite, as far as I know they both still do it, along with their **** bitrate. But hey, you get like 100 channels, most of them being like 30 versions of FSN and channels that just loop the same thing over and over. I will take cable with 30ish HD channels over that crap, not to mention the future of SDV(basically kinda like on demand channels, so only the channel you request is pushed, and not all of them taking up the bandwidth.)

[Dotdot]

Tbh I find the whole HD thing overated. Aslong as it looks as clear on a HD Tv as it does on a VGA monitor then thats fine. The technical aspects etc and "true" HD dont really bother me. The only time Ive been a bit miffed is when using standard TV resolutions (i.e scart etc) for gaming on a large TV screen. Even then it doesnt distract from the enjoyment.

Mind you standard res on a small TV and trying to read some of the txt that developers put in is a pet of hell. Seriously how the hell am i supposed to read a wall of txt in 8-10pt print on a screen thats 13-15inch visible.

[gunnerhkjp]

or poor encoding period look at Blu-Ray's first release of the "The 5th Element" upscaled DVD looked better in some cases... Until they re-issued it at least.

I don't think encoding has much to do with the improvement in The 5th Element.

They used the same source they used for DVD for the first release, and for the re-issue they rescanned the source from film.