If you define HD as bits per pixel at a specified minimum resolution (thereby requiring a specific minimum bitrate), if the Met Opera iteration of the Move Player is the same as the new ABC player it is in fact not only HD, but better HD than you get from the HDMI port on most set top boxes. ABC.com ported to my 40″ from my MacMini with a DVI to HDMI cable is an amazing image that tops that coming from my Time Warner Cable set top box.

Dear non-techies - apologies in advance for this.

Part of the problem is that the term has become so diluted, by both online and broadcast/cable/satellite/iptv, is that its hard to come up with a real definition of HD. In fact, if you were to peak behind the curtain, pretty much everybody not working in PR for an online video portal acknowledges that online HD streaming isn’t the same as broadcast HD, and a sizeable percentage wonder whether streaming real HD will even be possible on the current version of the public internet. I’m in the latter camp, because if you look at the major CDNs, their egress capacity needs to be increased 50-100 times just to reach the requirements of a moderately successful prime time program, assuming no other internet activity.

We use four factors in our definition:

1.) resolution
2.) bit rate
3.) delivery device
4.) smell test (although its more like a sight test)

Trying to make this an apples to apples comparison: ABC broadcasts in 720p. Since the move player is 1920 x 1080, which translates to 1080p, I’m guessing that’s where your Move > TWC argument lies.

But it would be a false conclusion.

The Move player streams at a peak rate of somewhere around 2 to 2.5 mbps. TW would broadcast at 8 mbps (assuming MPEG-4, which it isn’t, it’s MPEG-2, in which case it would max at 19 mbps, although the 12-15 mbps range.) The amount of visual information being delivered by the signal just isn’t close enough to think that the signal quality is close. Looking at a higher end device, Blu-ray players “stream” at up to 36 mbps, so in that context Move’s player gives you about 5 cents on the dollar for image quality.

When you look at the picture, it just doesn’t pass the HD smell test. The color reproduction isn’t as sharp, and there are significant video artifacts. When the subject matter is still, such as two people standing and talking, the artifacts aren’t as noticeable, although there is a dullness to the image. But, the second you get significant movement, the image deterioration is very noticeable.

For real HD, you’re looking at total data being delivered of at least 6 GB/hour. Move at 2mbps is 900 MB/Hour, or about 15% of that standard.

You’re right–there’s been a lot of discussion about true HD online. General consensus is that it doesn’t exist.

But when it comes to picture quality, the only thing that matters to me is the image. As long as I have something to compare it to, forget resolution, MB/s, and everything else.

I’ve seen the Move player in a demo situation at Streaming Media West in San Jose. It was amazing. Not only was it NOT capping out at 2.5mbps, it was fluctuating between 3.5 and 4mbps–and this was on a showroom floor sharing the connection with 25 other companies sucking all the bandwidth they possibly could at the same time.

This leads me to believe that the Move player can push whatever bandwidth that 1) the publishing company will allow (it will cost them more to stream at higher bandwidths), and 2) the local network connection can provide. If restrictions aren’t set by the broadcaster, your ISP, or just your network conditions, I’d imagine you can get whatever highest quality profile the content has been encoded in.

The content was running (no cache) on a 50″ HDTV and it was absolutely stunning. This is where my judgment on picture quality comes in. There were no visible artifacts, the colors were as vivid as can be, and action scenes were clear and smooth. It was BY FAR better than any picture I’ve ever received “over the air” on my HDTV at home (especially when it came to “ringing artifacts” around the edges of subject on screen).

So is it actual HD? By your definition, no. Was it better than any other image I’ve seen on the Internet? FAR. Better than “HD” on TV? Absolutely. Better than Blue Ray? Nope.

I won’t be subscribing to the Met Opera, so I don’t think I’ll be able to see it with my own eyes, but I can place a safe bet that those of you who do will be as impressed as I was, and wishing that every clip on the web was published using a similar player.

Jason,

You indirectly raise a very interesting question: at one bitrate does this argument become moot. By the time an HD signal gets from the broadcast center to your TV, its been encoded, decoded and reencoded several (4-6?) times. There’s definitely a loss of image fidelity as a result.

Reminds me of a case study from business school where we discussed why fruit was fresher from the long gone Webvan, because it was only being transported and stored 6 or 7 times from tree to table, whereas the same piece of fruit is transported 12-14 times when you buy it at the supermarket, and as such is more likely to be bruised and banged up.

The minimum bitrates I used can also be fairly scrutinized, as some operators have been overcompressing HD signals. The numbers I used were from the minimum bitrate requirement that HBO (appropriately) forced on to cable/sat/telco providers earlier this year.

So, can a 4mbps stream equal or exceed what comes across on your TV at home? Wouldn’t surprise me if it did. Will the Met be streaming at the higher bit rate? I personally don’t know. The player on their site capped at 2 for me, and that image quality was definitely not HD.

Of course, full on A/V geeks (of which I count many as friends) will note that there are a ton of other variables at play, such as the quality and calibration of the monitor, whether or not the basic signal was interlaced, etc, but given the number of homes that think you get an HD signal without a HD tuner, and then wonder what the big deal with HD is, we can give those details a pass.

Maybe what’s getting lost in this discussion is the fact of perception vs. reality of the ‘regular consumer’ who really doesn’t know much about the difference between Pixels and PixiStix and who simply wants to see a ‘better’ picture than what they currently get.

Of course, that assumes that they even realize that there is such thing as ‘better’ thanwhat they currently have over an analog signal.

As of April, about 25% of US Homes have an HDTV… only 70% of them have DIGITAL reception of an HD Signal (Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS146170+24-Apr-2008+PRN20080424).

“Full On A/V Geeks’ can argue until the pixels are gone about what’s best and worst online and whether it’s as good as the best picture on the fastest converter/set-top box, etc…, but the reality is that for the ‘Joe the Consumer’, the online video experience IS getting better… and if they know how to do it, the transition to their video screen is getting better as well.

As ’set-top IP TV’ becomes more and more of a possibility and companies like Comcast move to cap monthly streaming usage and maybe even move to a ‘metered cost’, the bottom line will be whether the consumer thinks what they GET is better than what they HAD.

ABC with Move is BETTER than CBS was with their Windows Media Player a year ago…

Brightcove in full-screen mode is better than YouTube a year ago…

Is it all ‘perfect’ in the sense that it is ‘True HD’? No… but if I compare a stream of ABC’s online player (even the Non-HD) hooked up to my 56″ Samsung DLP to the analog feed of the same program coming out of my Comcast set-top box, it’s GAME OVER… the analog signal stinks like month old rotten broccoli in comparison.

So, in summary… use of the word ‘HD’ is all semantics, kind of the Audio/Videophile version of Political Correctness. I’m worried less about what it’s called and more about how it looks in comparison to what I had… and I’m guessing the vast majority of consumers would agree with me.

[...] the electronics field has done a poor job of standardizing what is, and what isn’t HD. We previously discussed this topic in the context of the Met Opera’s “HD” [...]