The 5 Biggest Lies in HDTV

[Woochifer]

Found this spot-on article over the weekend on the lies and deceptions being used to sell different HD services. Swanni of TV Predictions, along with Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits, are probably the two most level headed voices when it comes to analyzing trends with HDTV and home video. I generally agree with their takes on the industry because they center on reality rather than wishful thinking. Their cogent framing of the market issues puts the tech writers at CNET, PC World, et al to shame, because they base their views on actual consumer behavior rather than blatant shilling for the computer industry's latest "convergence" scheme.

Here is Swanni's list of the five biggest lies in HDTV

1. Comcast Has More HD Than Anyone Else
2. DIRECTV Has 130 National HD Channels
3. Verizon's Fios Has the Best HD Picture
4. The Blu-ray Picture Is Not Much Better Than a DVD Or Digital Download
5. Americans Want to Interact With Their Blu-ray Discs

http://www.tvpredictions.com/lies120708.htm

#4 in particular is something that I've seen pushed quite a bit by the tech press over the past few months. Bill Hunt of The Digital Bits published a couple of excellent (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa162.html#ki) rebuttals (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa161.html#bdrant) to some of these articles (http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=365&tag=nl.e539) a few weeks ago. But, I think Swanni's article perfectly summed up the idiocy of the anti-Blu-ray writers, and exposed the real agenda behind their rantings against Blu-ray. Anyone who has a Blu-ray player can see the difference for themselves, even if these tech reviewers ignore/disregard them.


4. The Blu-ray Picture Is Not Much Better Than a DVD Or Digital Download
This big whopper often is uttered by members of the technology press, particularly those who believe that digital downloads are the real future of home video. Desperate to criticize the Blu-ray high-def disc, some journalists will downplay its picture quality while overestimate the picture quality of a download sent over the Net to your TV. But consumer studies -- and scientific ones -- have shown that the Blu-ray picture is dramatically better than a DVD, a digital download or anything else that's out there, including cable, satellite and the telcos.

So, Why Lie?
Many tech journalists are not comfortable unless they are promoting cutting edge products, such as digital downloads. To them, Blu-ray is old-fashioned, just another hard disc like a standard-def DVD. It's much sexier to write about new technologies that can stream video over the Net to your televisions. So, in their zeal, the journalists tend to overestimate the qualities of digital downloads to justify their position.

This Big Lie is supported by companies pushing digital download services, such as Microsoft, Apple and others. They use the journalists' writings to back their claims in the marketplace that downloads are just as good (or better) than Blu-ray.

[pixelthis]

Downloading is the future for most, just because it can't beat Blu now doesnt
mean it never will.
I am a fan of blu, which is why I WAS SUCH A BIG CRITIC of the so called "format war".
WE movie fans need to get a decent HD format established for collecting before the DOWNLOADING TRAIN gets up a good head of steam.
And we are closer than most might think, 1080i deinterlaced is already close to Blu,
when you have good source material.
This is another bonus of a 1080p set BTW.
Just like deinterlacing made DVD look so good, so does deinterlacing 1080i.
But basically, BLU is 1080p outta the box, DL has variety, with a lot more choices.
AND AS bandwidth increases more and more DL will be 1080p
AS for the other stuff, well all of it is pretty obvious. :1:

[captjamo]

AND AS bandwidth increases more and more DL will be 1080p

Hey guys, Happy Holidays to all. Lots of working and remodeling, and not much time for my favorite forum. Been reading but not commenting, though. It seems to me that it will be several years before we are blanketed thoroughly in this country with up to 100 mbps (Verizon says they can) broadband speeds that would make haste of 1080p uncompressed downloads. Verizon bought the old TV analog bandwidth, but don't they have to build an entirely new gen system from the ground up and then; how long for good coverage? I believe this will be many years off since they don't even have very thorough 3G coverage yet. And 3G mobile bandwidth is so scarce that when you start downloading a movie using a network card they must have throughput monitoring software in place because DL speeds seem to taper off as the DL progresses.( :mad2: ) Verizon does not even offer an unlimited usage mobile broadband rate anymore.:rolleyes: My main point is this...it is going to be quite a long time before bandwidth can handle millions of uncompressed downloads that can compete with BLU quality and then you still have the archiving issues. So, I believe, like Pix, that BLU is the best candidate for filling the premium quality archivable media niche.

[Feanor]

...


4. The Blu-ray Picture Is Not Much Better Than a DVD Or Digital Download
This big whopper often is uttered by members of the technology press, particularly those who believe that digital downloads are the real future of home video. Desperate to criticize the Blu-ray high-def disc, some journalists will downplay its picture quality while overestimate the picture quality of a download sent over the Net to your TV. But consumer studies -- and scientific ones -- have shown that the Blu-ray picture is dramatically better than a DVD, a digital download or anything else that's out there, including cable, satellite and the telcos.


...

These are the same folks who described 128kbps MP3 as "CD quality". :mad:

[Mr Peabody]

#5 let's me feel that I'm not alone in the world after all.

Cable companies vary a lot from market to market.

[nightflier]

Went to BB this weekend and talk to a sales guy who wanted me to buy into Vudu. At $250 that's a whole lot to pay, especially since all that buys you is the "ability" to rent movies, with only some at HD-like quality (whatever that means). You even have to pay for regular TV shows! That $250 could also buy me over a year of NetFlix with a larger selection of full-quality BR movies. That said, it is convenient and easy to use according to the demo in the store.

I think the biggest issue with these technologies is the price of entry. $250 for Vudu, $300 for Tivo, and up from there. It's just not worth the expense, even if it does have a nice GUI. If there really was a real incentive to get people to move to downloads, these hardware costs would be waved, kind of like the cell phone companies did it. My guess is that nobody wants 100M homes downloading movies in this country because our decades-old Internet infrastructure could never support it. I'm glad Obama is the first president to want to do something about this, but frankly it's going to take a lot to get it built, i.e. a lot of $$$, money that we currently don't have.

Anyhow, does anyone out there have Vudu? What is the picture quality really like? How long does it take to download one of those HD-ish movies? And how much do the movies cost?

[Woochifer]

Went to BB this weekend and talk to a sales guy who wanted me to buy into Vudu. At $250 that's a whole lot to pay, especially since all that buys you is the "ability" to rent movies, with only some at HD-like quality (whatever that means). You even have to pay for regular TV shows! That $250 could also buy me over a year of NetFlix with a larger selection of full-quality BR movies. That said, it is convenient and easy to use according to the demo in the store.

I think the biggest issue with these technologies is the price of entry. $250 for Vudu, $300 for Tivo, and up from there. It's just not worth the expense, even if it does have a nice GUI. If there really was a real incentive to get people to move to downloads, these hardware costs would be waved, kind of like the cell phone companies did it. My guess is that nobody wants 100M homes downloading movies in this country because our decades-old Internet infrastructure could never support it. I'm glad Obama is the first president to want to do something about this, but frankly it's going to take a lot to get it built, i.e. a lot of $$$, money that we currently don't have.

Anyhow, does anyone out there have Vudu? What is the picture quality really like? How long does it take to download one of those HD-ish movies? And how much do the movies cost?

All of these devices seriously compromise the video quality in order to reduce the lag time, the Vudu is no different. Would not surprise me if they use the lowest bitrate for the Dolby Digital tracks either (that is, if they are even 5.1 to begin with). There are a lot of options on the market right now competing for shelf space, and every one of them has different viewing choices, restrictions, and pricing.

It's a totally balkanized market, and if the parent company goes under or decides to terminate the service, it's off to the recycling center you go. That's the danger of buying into a hardware device that feeds exclusively off of a single service provider, especially if that provider is not Apple.

Consider that the PS3 sells for $400. While it too gives you access to a video rental/purchase library and media center features, it also includes Blu-ray and gaming functionality. Apple TV is about $300, and its trump card is the library of titles available via iTunes. The Vudu might cost less than those other options, but it doesn't really have anything to offer up, other than maybe a better user interface and $50 in price. Might not be enough considering that Netflix is now busy integrating its online service with various Blu-ray player models.

[Mr Peabody]

I wonder if these DL services are expecting you to use the service in place of cable/satelite or just to augment your viewing pleasure? If the latter, how much TV can one family watch. I first thought the Netflix tie in to Blu-ray players was crazy but now I can see it was very smart.

[Woochifer]

I wonder if these DL services are expecting you to use the service in place of cable/satelite or just to augment your viewing pleasure? If the latter, how much TV can one family watch. I first thought the Netflix tie in to Blu-ray players was crazy but now I can see it was very smart.

I just think they're trying to ramp up market share before the on-demand services from cable and satellite providers begin to pick up momentum. If they can garner enough customers, then they have more bargaining power with the studios for content and pricing. And if their customers are loyal enough, then they might be able to find a market niche even as the shifts occur.

Just look at Tivo. Despite everybody promoting their own DVRs, Tivo has managed to maintain enough customer loyalty to stay afloat (and ink a new deal with Directv) because of their superior user interface.

Still though, it will be tough sledding for all of these standalone media players. My new Directv HD DVR has an ethernet port for Directv's new on-demand service built in. I don't use it because the receiver lacks wi-fi connectivity (decided that I didn't care enough about on-demand to buy a wireless ethernet bridge or Powerline connector). Directv initiated the on-demand service less than a year ago, and the program offerings remain thin. But, I would expect that services with millions of subscribers have more leverage than these upstarts. If Vudu wants to gain that leverage, they'd better do better than $250.

[nightflier]

I'm still curious about Vudu's claims about picture quality and sound. They say on their website:

"HDX movies with TruFilm technology deliver the highest quality, true high-definition 1080p video available from any Internet, broadcast or satellite on-demand service"

"Standard resolution movies automatically upscaled to 1080p for optimized viewing on an HDTV"

and:

"TruFilm technology delivers stunning HD quality"

That said, they don't mention anything about the sound, and that's a big issue for me. They also say that you need 4Mb/s download speeds to even be able to download "HDX" movies, so many people won't even be able to do that. Has anyone actually seen HDX and how it compares to upconverted DVDs or even BR?

For my money, I still think the price is way too steep, even if what I'm paying for is convenience. The only way that would happen in my case is if one of my clueless relatives gives me another BB gift certificate because they know I'm "into audio-video." And I think Tivo's price is even more outrageous. I mostly watch movies, not TV, so maybe the Tivo criticism is a tad harsh, but I can't see myself dishing out that kind of coin just for the "privilege" to then spend more money to rent movies. And with Netflix/Blockbuster you also get BR and there's no bouncer at the door asking you to slip him three bills to get you in out of the cold.

[Mr Peabody]

Before I cut cable a couple years ago they had On Demand and it was free with the DVR service. They had a good selection of free content. It was one feature I missed. Actually the product the cable company had, Charter, was pretty good, it was the company itself I couldn't get along with. One of the worst I've ever had to try to deal with.

[Woochifer]

Before I cut cable a couple years ago they had On Demand and it was free with the DVR service. They had a good selection of free content. It was one feature I missed. Actually the product the cable company had, Charter, was pretty good, it was the company itself I couldn't get along with. One of the worst I've ever had to try to deal with.

The difference is that the on-demand services are moving into HD. Directv and Dish were both slow to get on-demand going, but their newer receivers include the feature. Dish is now touting 1080p PPV movies, and Directv is due to launch the same service anytime now. Problem is that even with purported 1080p resolution, the data rate that they use falls well below that of Blu-ray. This means much heavier compression and compromised picture quality, not to mention no lossless audio. And I think that ties into lie #4 very easily.