NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: The Betamax Lesson: For YouTube and Others, Does Video Quality Matter?
All other things being equal e.g., record time, price, availability,
download times, then quality does matter. Beta lost because it lacked
record time and smut.
As for Internet streaming, download time doesn't matter since you're
streaming it in real time. So long as your bandwidth can support it and so
long as the provider can afford to offer it, then bitrate is one of the
fundamental determinant in video quality and it DOES matter to people. The
reason Internet video is so popular is because it has superior availability
because it is available on demand at a very good price (typically ad
supported). That trumps any concern about the quality though people will
generally take HQ mode over standard mode or HD mode over HQ mode if they're
given a chance.
There are some who say compression will keep getting better and better, but
it's not going to provide better fidelity when the video is fast and
complex. Better compression algorithms may be better at hiding obnoxious
artifacts and they may be able to provide very sharp quality when the video
is relatively motionless, but they instantly degrade in quality when motion
goes up. The only way to get high motion and high image quality at the same
time is to have the higher bitrates.
George Ou
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Lauren Weinstein
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 9:06 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] The Betamax Lesson: For YouTube and Others, Does Video
Quality Matter?
The Betamax Lesson: For YouTube and Others, Does Video Quality Matter?
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000528.html
Greetings. An old friend of mine -- a veteran in the L.A.
broadcasting brotherhood -- recently made some disparaging comments
about the quality of Internet video during a chat we were having about
YouTube.
"I can't stand watching that stuff," he complained. "The quality is
so low it's like looking through a spaghetti strainer."
I pointed out that the quality of YouTube videos was almost totally
dependent on the skill and resources of the party doing the encoding,
and that the various HQ and HD YouTube encodings could look very good,
even when viewed as I often do on a conventional 16:9 TV. Are they
"broadcast quality" by industry standards -- no. But all things
considered, often quite nice indeed, and getting even better.
For that matter, even most of the non-HQ, non-HD encodings on YouTube
are not necessarily painful to watch -- not great, but they can be
just fine (I'm speaking of video encoding quality, not necessarily
content quality -- the latter is a whole 'nuther ball of wax, but to
each their own).
This got me thinking. Leaving aside my friend with the
"golden eyes" -- how much do most people really care about
video quality? This is not just an academic question --
vast sums of money and other resources are in play expanding
video on the Internet, and the tolerance of viewers to differing
quality levels is a significant issue.
Which brings us to the Betamax -- Sony's first consumer videocassette
format, essentially a scaled down version of their U-Matic 3/4" format
(U-Matic still survives by the way -- Sony sells associated gear. In
fact there's a quite heavy U-Matic player just a few yards from where
I'm sitting that I use when digitizing old tapes).
U-Matic quality is really quite good by 1970s standards -- Beta
(especially Beta Hi-Fi) as well. But Beta was wiped out in the
consumer market by VHS, which -- it is generally agreed -- had
significantly lower video and audio quality, but did possess the
characteristic of longer record and play times per cassette.
But most people never cared much about VHS' video quality. They
wanted to watch movies, record TV shows, and in general use their
videocassette units as "memory machines" of one sort or another.
And therein is the key to the video quality conundrum. For we don't
actually see videos with our eyes alone, we see them with our brains.
And our brains can be very forgiving of imagery that is less than
"perfect" -- especially if that imagery is triggering old memories.
In my very young youth, in the days before consumer videotape, I used
to record the audio tracks of movies I liked when they aired on TV. I
could play back those tapes and "watch" well-loved movies in my head
almost as if I was really viewing them.
When U-Matic videotape units started to circulate, casual,
non-commercial video "piracy" became practical. Often someone working
in a tape transfer house would make an original copy, then people
would copy that copy on and on, generation after generation, to hand
out to their friends, who would continue the process.
Watching a videotaped copy of "Star Wars" about ten generations
down is quite an experience. Drifting sync causes the image to bobble
around like a ship pitching on stormy seas. Audio buzz and background
noise "breathing" could be awesome to behold. But everyone still got
a kick out of watching such things, quality be damned.
What does this all suggest? Well, for one thing, that perhaps people
are generally more tolerant of less than stellar video (and audio)
quality when they're getting it for free. Another possibility -- if
you're viewing or listening to material that you already know well,
the quality is less important since it's mainly acting as a guide
track to the virtual copy of that performance that's playing out
simultaneously from your own brain's memory.
Does this mean that a service streaming old episodes of "Batman"
(shades of the only real Catwoman -- and quite a lady --
Julie Newmar - http://www.julienewmar.com ), can get away
with visually much lower quality and lower bandwidth streams
than a first-run movie service?
The answer to this would seem to be an obvious yes as far as most
viewers are concerned, yet there's surprisingly little discussion in
Internet infrastructure circles about viewers' attitudes toward
different video quality levels vis-a-vis such content-specific
factors. In an age of looming -- in some cases perhaps draconian --
bandwidth caps, these issues may be taking on new importance.
Which brings us back to my friend with the spaghetti strainer. Even
he would probably admit that his views are not characteristic of most
Internet users. But if nothing else, he does help to demonstrate that
video quality is in the eye -- and the brain -- of the beholder, even
on the Internet ... perhaps especially on the Internet.
Catwoman: I could give you more happiness than anyone
in the world.
Batman: How?
Catwoman: By being your partner in life, it's me and
you against the world.
Batman: What about Robin?
Catwoman: Robin ... Oh I've got it. We'll kill him!
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org
Founder, GCTIP - Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: LW1