Comments & Trackbacks

1. As youtube is way less than standard PAL (or NTSC) resolution (SD), HD currently is a step too far: an upgrade to SD would be a first step in the right direction.

   PanMan on July 30th, 2007 at 7:23 am - Permalink

2. This is a double-edged sword — since, improvement in the resolution being pushed through will only INCREASE showing off the generally poor quality of most internet video — whatever flaws are inherent to the original shoot, are only magnified.

   Even for professional content in this space, due to budgets, there can be problems. For example, if you originate in HD, you’ll need a make-up artist who has experience in this area, and, they can often charge a premium (in excess of what most budgets can afford). But, the alternative, is showing every facial blemish imaginable (and, that becomes the focus of the end user, because it’s SO NOTICEABLE). Nearly everyone will need to migrate to 24p, in order to derive some visual texture and quality (and, those cameras cost more, etc.)…

   UGC and professional content are actually deriving some benefits from the low-resolution/crap bit rates and smaller frames, in terms of “forgivability.”

   Will the “HD upgrade” be what kills the watchability of UGC? Or, will we all get used to nightmarish detail levels we never wanted to see in the first place?

   cdn on July 30th, 2007 at 9:48 am - Permalink

3. [...] The quality of the video shown in tiny windows is maybe okay for giggles, but can get quite tiresome after a few minutes. Enter HD web video. Is Web Video ready for an HD upgrade? [...]

   GigaOM Nanosolar, Web HD Video & Personal Productivity « on July 30th, 2007 at 3:03 pm - Permalink

4. Hi Om, standard-resolution streaming, for one hour, at 300kbps, on average costs only 3 cents per hour for the major studios. anyone who is paying 15, is getting ripped off and not paying the going rate. so cachelogic and others will need to do a lot better in pricing if they are going to be raising content providers delivery bills.

   Dan Rayburn on July 30th, 2007 at 4:22 pm - Permalink

5. Om

   Thanks for including me in your reporting.

   Dan, in the previous comment, and I, actually agree. To reach standard definition (SD) like decent cable TV requires 1.2 meg to 2.0 meg at state of the art MPEG4 encoding rates. So his three cents an hour quote for 300K (YouTube-like) is nearly exactly the same as the fifteen cents an hour I quoted for SD. At 6 meg HD rates, I’m finding traditional pricing at something like 30-50 cents an hour today, again matching what Dan (who’s the expert on this) is seeing.

    We'd all be very happy to see the jump to 1.5-2 meg from where we are today, and I believe Liz has already reported on ABC's beta at 1.9 meg. I believe that's one of the first of the new generation, hybrid p2p , server technologies (More Networks) and exactly what I see coming soon. Going from there to HD is going to be a step only for the adventurous, but the technology and economics are ready.
   

   The higher demands for HD production mentioned in another comment are real, so HD isn’t for everyone. Even some programs at major stations haven’t swutiched. But for all those with movies and HD content, including all the netowrks, good to know they can deliver it to you. A surprising number of “little guys” are also shooting in HD, with some amazingly good cameras from $2,000 to $9,000. Jennie took her $3,000 Sony FX-1 to a fashion show and found herself shooting HD side by side with a major cable network using the same camera.

   Chips like Ambarella will be bringing true HD cameras down to under $1,000 next year. With care and skill, they'll be great. 99% will continue to be garbage, as your commenter notes.
   

   db

   Dave Burstein on July 30th, 2007 at 6:21 pm - Permalink

6. [...] Il video online è pronto per l’HD? L’Alta Definizione vedrà nella rete il vettore di trasporto per eccellenza. Nuovi algoritmi di compressione, la diffusione del P2P faranno si che a breve comincerà a nascere una nutrita offerta di contenuti NETV in HD. (tags: HD altadefinizione Highdefinition video online nettv) [...]

   Le News del 31.7.2007 | tommaso.tessarolo on July 30th, 2007 at 9:27 pm - Permalink

7. Hi,

   I think the dollars raised by the likes of Joost, Veoh, Babelgum, etc. also goes a long way to show how much the tech and media industry at large are gearing up for enhanced viewing on the web. I think the market is truly ready for online HD and will pay for it.

   Have any of you tried ABC’s latest offering – their HD channel on the ABC Full Episode Player? It is truly amazing! They are streaming full 1080p at 1280 x 720 resolution. I’ve read about that for some time now but they actually pulled it off!

   As they use MOVE networks, it will throttle the bitrate based on your hardware and bandwidth but ABC has built a cool HD meter that indicates if you’re actually getting the full resolution. I was quite impressed this weekend when I saw it.

   Thanks OM. As always.

   Sav

   Sav Khetan on July 30th, 2007 at 9:52 pm - Permalink

8. The “start-up called HotSwap” uses DivX, so what’s the point?

   Mike on July 31st, 2007 at 5:04 am - Permalink

9. I too was wondering where HotSwap’s “technology” is.

   It seems that P2P CDNs don’t support Flash (or Flash doesn’t support them, whatever), so this may be a roadbump on the way to bandwidth nirvana.

   Wes Felter on July 31st, 2007 at 10:02 am - Permalink

10. Comparativley I’m pretty impressed with what DivX has done with Stage6.com. Quality wise it far excels passed YouTube, it has solid content and could serve as a good platform. Granted it has a few bugs, but for qualities sake, its HD streaming is right up there.

    Arvin on July 31st, 2007 at 7:29 pm - Permalink

11. [...] That finding is out of line with the commonly accepted wisdom at NewTeeVee that people prefer availability of content to quality of content — a conclusion drawn from the enormous popularity of YouTube and P2P file-sharing. However, many, like our fearless leader Om, are eagerly awaiting the day when video quality gets “an HD upgrade,” as he called it last week. [...]

    NewTeeVee Survey Says: Poor Video Quality Drives Watchers Away « on August 7th, 2007 at 2:34 pm - Permalink

12. Well,

    I have discover/created the best HD video online today… Check it out for yourself:

    960×540p
    http://www.interactivedna.com/HD

    and

    1280×720p
    http://www.interactivedna.com/HD_720p/

    PS: To watch HD video you must have a decent pc/mac with broadband connection.

    So far all the feedbacks are amazing like. How about yours? let me know what you think!

    Ney Vasconcelos
    ney@interactiveDNA.com

    Ney on August 20th, 2007 at 9:47 pm - Permalink

13. True HD 720p in Full-screen

    http://www.interactivedna.com/HD_FullScreen

    requires the Flash Player 9 Update 3 Beta player from:
    http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer9.html

    PS: Look at the quality and playback comparing to all other DEMOs using the Beta Flash Player. And the SUPER is only 60% quality of the orignal file.

    Best,

    Ney

    Ney on August 25th, 2007 at 4:40 am - Permalink

14. [...] Is Web Video Ready for an HD Upgrade? « NewTeeVee Interesting numbers on delivery costs. (tags: hd cdn dsl contentdeliverynetworks video internet) [...]

    Television Archiving » Blog Archive » links for 2007-08-28 on August 28th, 2007 at 3:23 pm - Permalink

15. Fantastic Ney

    Amazing . You’re the leader.

    Keep up good work

    Ed

    Ed on October 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pm - Permalink

16. Thanks Ed!

    This is flash8 in HD! And I am only using flash9 version for the FullScreen mode.

    Flash8 version
    http://www.interactivedna.com/HD_FullScreen/HD_flash8.html

    Flash9
    http://www.interactivedna.com/HD_FullScreen/

    Thanks For the Very Good Feedback!

    I am looking for a Partner! Anyone?

    Ney on October 12th, 2007 at 4:21 pm - Permalink

17. [...] New HD Strategy: Show, Don’t Tell Better video quality sounds great and all, but it’s not clear there’s demand for high-definition content online yet. Akamai (AKAM), in an attempt to sign up customers for its new HD offering, is pounding the [...]

    Akamai’s New HD Strategy: Show, Don’t Tell « NewTeeVee on October 29th, 2007 at 3:00 am - Permalink

18. [...] Many of us have found a way of smuggling over-sized HD flat panels, past disapproving partner’s stares, into the living room – and I certainly won’t be watching Football in Standard Def. ever again. But, at this stage, you have to wonder whether anyone is ready for HD on the web? I know my 3Mbps down isn’t. Om Malik at NewTeeVee asks the same question. [...]

      Bandwidth Check by freedompictures on October 31st, 2007 at 6:49 pm - Permalink

19. [...] wrote a few months ago that the economics of delivering HD online are changing, making the prospect more affordable. But even super-huge CDN Akamai (AKAM), which is [...]

    Does HD Online Matter? AOL, CBS Say No « NewTeeVee on November 1st, 2007 at 9:15 am - Permalink

20. [...] It was only last month that we questioned whether HD online mattered, and Om asked last summer if web video was ready for an upgrade. From the flurry of recent announcements, it looks like the answer to both question is [...]

    Viva La HD Revolution! « NewTeeVee on December 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pm - Permalink

21. […]looks like the answer to both question is […]

    oldweys on January 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm - Permalink

22. [...] was only last month that we questioned whether HD online mattered, and Om asked last summer if web video was ready for an upgrade. From the flurry of recent announcements, it looks like the answer to both question is [...]

    Bandwidth Crisis » Blog Archive » Viva La HD Revolution! on February 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm - Permalink

23. i think HD is to far away for web bcoz it needs so much bandwidth and also high level of hardwares so i think it will take around 5 to 6 years to be come out.and i have seen now mostly everybody is looking for HD files, so lets hope for the best….

    sam on October 10th, 2008 at 9:05 pm - Permalink