quignirv jaesyn julius

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Cristhian Cinq-Mars

unread,

Aug 2, 2024, 9:17:57 AM8/2/24

to wortentdumbne

This is where the streaming revolution comes in. Smart TVs and streaming devices give access to apps such as Netflix, Prime Video, Disney Plus and more, meaning people can watch millions of hours of movies and TV shows, in up to 4K, for set monthly fees, which ends up being significantly cheaper, and tidier, than buying hundreds of Blu-rays.

So it begs the question: why would people bother with physical media such as 4K Blu-ray anymore? As someone with experience in AV retail and now a tester of TVs, I knew there was a quality difference so I decided to check it out for myself and the results were surprising.

For these tests, I used the Panasonic UB154, a budget 4K Blu-ray player and the Panasonic DP-UB820, a mid-range 4K Blu-ray player connected to the Panasonic MZ1500, a mid-range OLED TV, which was set to Filmmaker or Cinema picture mode, and watched the same movies on both Blu-ray and streaming.

Beginning with John Wick 4, I immediately ran into some trouble. Advertised as 4K on Prime Video, I could not get it to stream anything higher than HD (after some research I discovered I was not alone) so I opted for HD quality vs standard Blu-ray.

Moving on to Godzilla vs Kong, again in 1080p HD on Netflix vs standard Blu-ray, and it was the same story. The Netflix version looked better than I expected, carrying a lot of the vivid, colorful punch on the neon signs in Tokyo that was on the Blu-ray version but again the Blu-ray version showed deeper black levels and more refined details and textures. I was still, however, impressed with how good the streaming version looked.

Finally, I managed to test a 4K Blu-ray vs a 4K stream in the fantastic re-master of Alien, which was on Disney Plus. In both versions, black levels and contrast were superb, capturing the eerie, doom-laden nature of the movie well. Textures were again sharp on both versions. Although there was that little bit more perceived definition in the 4K Blu-ray. Skin tones, for example, looked accurate on both, but more so on the 4K Blu-ray. It is worth noting that the Disney Plus version was in HDR10, whereas the Blu-ray version was in HDR10+, which gave the Blu-ray the perception of a clearer picture.

Whether it was the UB820 or UB154, Blu-ray did indeed have better picture quality overall thanks to 4K upscaling and performance, but the comparison between them and streaming was closer than anticipated.

After being surprised by picture quality comparisons, sound was the next logical test. Running the Panasonic MZ1500 through a Sonos Beam (Gen 2) soundbar, one of the best soundbars at a mid-range price, I tested the same movies again. This time, the difference made itself known.

For Godzilla vs Kong, the story was the same. The roars and shrieks from Kong and Godzilla sliced through the room with more heft when played through the Blu-ray compared to streaming. The crunching blows and shattering of buildings during their climatic fight scene had more direction through the room and just more power altogether. This not to say the Netflix sound was bad, just that the Blu-ray did it better.

When I put both Blu-ray and streaming in as close to the same conditions as possible, I was pleasantly surprised by just how close the picture quality battle was. Both had excellent details and colors that would make any viewer happy, although for the real movie lover, Blu-ray had the upper hand thanks to better contrast levels, despite streaming offered a suitable alternative.

James is the TV Hardware Staff Writer at TechRadar. Before joining the team, he worked at a major UK based AV retailer selling TV and audio equipment, where he was either telling customers the difference between OLED and QLED or being wowed by watching a PS5 run on the LG 65G2. When not writing about the latest TV tech, James can be found gaming, reading, watching rugby or coming up with another idea for a novel. "}), " -0-11/js/authorBio.js"); } else console.error('%c FTE ','background: #9306F9; color: #ffffff','no lazy slice hydration function available'); James DavidsonSocial Links NavigationTV Hardware Staff Writer, Home Entertainment James is the TV Hardware Staff Writer at TechRadar. Before joining the team, he worked at a major UK based AV retailer selling TV and audio equipment, where he was either telling customers the difference between OLED and QLED or being wowed by watching a PS5 run on the LG 65G2. When not writing about the latest TV tech, James can be found gaming, reading, watching rugby or coming up with another idea for a novel.

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below. By entering your email address you agree for your data to be handled in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Drawing on analysis at the International Energy Agency (IEA) and other credible sources, we expose the flawed assumptions in one widely reported estimate of the emissions from watching 30 minutes of Netflix. These exaggerate the actual climate impact by up to 90-times.

The relatively low climate impact of streaming video today is thanks to rapid improvements in the energy efficiency of data centres, networks and devices. But slowing efficiency gains, rebound effects and new demands from emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain, raise increasing concerns about the overall environmental impacts of the sector over the coming decades.

Update 25/11/2020: The energy intensity figures for data centres and data transmission networks have been updated to reflect more recent data and research. As a result, the central IEA estimate for one hour of streaming video in 2019 is now 36gCO2, down from 82gCO2 in the original analysis published in February 2020. The updated charts and comparisons also include the corrected values published by The Shift Project in June 2020, as well as other recent estimates quoted by the media.

Looking at electricity consumption alone, the original Shift Project figures imply that one hour of Netflix consumes 6.1 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity. This is enough to drive a Tesla Model S more than 30km, power an LED lightbulb constantly for a month, or boil a kettle once a day for nearly three months. The corrected figures imply that one hour of Netflix consumes 0.8 kWh.

With 167 million Netflix subscribers watching an average of two hours per day, the corrected Shift Project figures imply that Netflix streaming consumes around 94 terawatt hours (TWh) per year, which is 200-times larger than figures reported by Netflix (0.45TWh in 2019).

The assumptions behind the Shift Project analysis (largely based on a 2015 paper, whose assumptions have been significantly revised in 2019 and 2020) contain a series of flaws, which, taken together, seriously exaggerate the electricity consumed by streaming video.

This difference stemmed from a stated assumption of 3Mbps apparently being converted in error to 3 megabytes per second, MBps, with each byte equivalent to eight bits. The Shift Project corrected this error in its June 2020 update, but did not revise any of its other assumptions, discussed below.

Second, the Shift Project analysis overestimates the energy intensity of data centres and content delivery networks (CDN) that serve streaming video to consumers by around 35-fold, relative to figures derived from 2019 Netflix electricity consumption data and subscriber usage data.

My original February 2020 analysis showed that the Shift Project assumptions for data transmission energy intensity (0.15-0.88 kWh/GB) were much higher than more recent estimates (0.025-0.23kWh/GB). However, the latest research shows that these data-based intensity values (kWh/GB) are not appropriate for estimating the network energy use of high bitrate applications, such as streaming video. Instead, experts advise using time-based energy intensity values (kWh per viewing hour). Therefore, my assumptions for data transmission energy use have been updated with time-based energy intensity values.

Taken together, my updated analysis suggests that streaming a Netflix video in 2019 typically consumed around 0.077kWh of electricity per hour, some 80-times less than the original estimate by the Shift Project (6.1 kWh) and 10-times less than the corrected estimate (0.78kWh), as shown in the chart, below left. The results are highly sensitive to the choice of viewing device, type of network connection and resolution, as shown in the chart, below right.

For example, a 50-inch LED television consumes much more electricity than a smartphone (100 times) or laptop (5 times). Because phones are extremely energy efficient, data transmission accounts for more than 80% of the electricity consumption when streaming.

But as the chart above shows, this figure depends heavily on the generation mix of the country in question. In France, where around 90% of electricity comes from low-carbon sources, the emissions would be around 2gCO2e, equivalent to 10 metres of driving.

Using country average emission factors may still overestimate emissions, particularly from data centres. Technology firms operating large data centres are leaders in corporate procurement of clean energy, accounting for about half of renewable power purchase agreements in recent years.

The electricity mix is also rapidly decarbonising in many parts of the world. For instance, the emissions intensity of electricity in the UK fell by nearly 60% between 2008 and 2018. Compared to 2019 levels, global emissions intensity of electricity falls by around a quarter by 2030 in the IEA Stated Policies Scenario and by half in the Sustainable Development Scenario.

As well as changes that are invisible to the consumer, there are also obvious trends in the technology seen everyday. Devices are also becoming smaller and more efficient, for example, in shifts from CRT to LCD screens, and from personal computers to tablets and smartphones.

Many new video streaming and cloud gaming services have also launched in recent months. Particularly noteworthy is the rapid growth in video traffic over mobile networks, which is growing at 55% per year. Phones and tablets already account for more than 70% of the billion hours of YouTube streamed every day.