VOGONS

Is OTT content picture quality lower than the TV picture quality at the same resolution?

Topic actions

First post, by BEEN_Nath_58

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

In India, we use Sony LIV for streaming of various series and live content or PPVs. However I can clearly see a reduced picture quality in what is broadcasted on OTT.

Various YouTube channels (illegally of course) upload sports content, some are derived out of Sony LIV while others are from foreign channels (for example, FOX). The difference in picture quality is massive. The Sony logo looks alright, high quality to be considered FHD, however the video content is washed out. It looks to be running at a very low bitrate.

On the other hand, the Fox logo looks a little "edged out" but the image quality of the video is miles better, other than the fact it runs at 50fps against 30fps on Sony.

Is this quality difference standard and normal; there is no option on the platform to change quality other than the resolution. Or it is not the standard OTT broadcast quality, and I can do better by moving to a different platform for the same (VPN + other OTT?)

previously known as Discrete_BOB_058

Reply 1 of 2, by Ryccardo

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

It depends - you can always come to Italy, pay a 100+ € yearly tax for merely owning a TV receiver, and see the absymal bitrates for most small commercial channels to allow them to cram more spam channels often copying each others' lotto and mediums infomercials complete with the channels' watermarks -
but yes, commercial streaming is usually inferior to "real TV", mainly because the general internet (as opposed to ISP-provided IPTV) isn't multicast → each viewer requires a separate stream → lots of load → compensate by skimping on bitrate...
Whereas digital TV is inherently CBR (well, it can be ABR shared across channels in the same mux/broadcaster, but this mist be coordinated at the source), so the channel operator rents some bandwidth from the mux or satellite owner and has less incentive to micromanage!

A VPN wouldn't matter, except for probably allowing you to access more sources for the same movie/race/etc 😀

Reply 2 of 2, by BEEN_Nath_58

Posted on 
User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Ryccardo wrote on 2024-11-09, 10:22:
It depends - you can always come to Italy, pay a 100+ € yearly tax for merely owning a TV receiver, and see the absymal bitrates […]
Show full quote

It depends - you can always come to Italy, pay a 100+ € yearly tax for merely owning a TV receiver, and see the absymal bitrates for most small commercial channels to allow them to cram more spam channels often copying each others' lotto and mediums infomercials complete with the channels' watermarks -
but yes, commercial streaming is usually inferior to "real TV", mainly because the general internet (as opposed to ISP-provided IPTV) isn't multicast → each viewer requires a separate stream → lots of load → compensate by skimping on bitrate...
Whereas digital TV is inherently CBR (well, it can be ABR shared across channels in the same mux/broadcaster, but this mist be coordinated at the source), so the channel operator rents some bandwidth from the mux or satellite owner and has less incentive to micromanage!

A VPN wouldn't matter, except for probably allowing you to access more sources for the same movie/race/etc 😀

Looks like my streaming service won't improve 😀, it has quite a traffic and often during live sports (COVID history), it crossed the 100M simultaneous streams on the platform.

Other than a TV, what could be a good portable option for my viewing?

previously known as Discrete_BOB_058

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Back to Milliways
Close window
Close window