Video files on a netbook

[Gelinas23]

Hi,

I'm considering getting a netbook, for a number of reasons, one of which is to watch downloaded TV shows while on the road.

I recently poked my head into the local Future Shop and the guy there said there was "no way" I could play downloaded content on a netbook citing bitrate numbers, and he was kind of rude, so I got out of there, but I digress). This is where I become confused as I have read in different forums (including here) that it IS possible to play video files, just so long as they are not HD.

Now I download regular stuff like House and 24, and it plays fine on my desktop PC, but will I actually be able to play it on a netbook?

I suppose what I'm really asking is whether the video files that I watch are HD or SD, but how the heck would anyone else know what I downloaded. (They're .avi files about 350MB if that helps.)

Thanks in advance for your help.

(FYI, i'm considering a cheaper model netbook to save a few bucks, something along the lines of a N270 processor, 1G RAM, and 950 GMA.)

[ThisIsNot]

HD videos are defined by their resolution and video bitrate. Many HD "downloads" that you see out there aren't really HD. They are someone recording a 720p broadcast with their DVR (going from lossy-to-lossy) and then further compressing said video file to fit a resolution smaller than 1280X720 (which is 720p).

Feel free to post the specs of the videos you plan on playing such as video container (AVI, mpeg-4, QuickTime, VOB, m2ts, mkv, etc.), video format (WMV VC-1, h.264, standard mpeg-4, divx, xvid, mpeg-2, etc.), audio format, and audio bitrate. You can determine said specifications by opening up the videos in a program such as VLC or Media Player Classic and have it report the information.

That is really the only way to tell if the video will work with pure Intel hardware or if the videos will require hardware acceleration from Nvidia (ION) or Broadcom (Crystal HD). Don't worry, we aren't going to be rude or anything like that. We just need to know more information about your videos. Feel free to post the specs of different videos too. I know that people often don't watch just one single video format and live in a mixed media world.

[ericinboston]

I'd also add that the longer you wait, naturally computers get faster, better, and cheaper.

If you intend on playing anything that calls itself HD, I would get the latest netbook with the best video specs you can get (screen resolution, HDMI output, and generally advertising that states it will play HD content).

As Thisisnot pointed out, you will likely need to gather the specifics of the shows/movies you intend on playing so you can compare those specs to the machine(s) you are looking at.

Unless I'm wrong, you're not going to be able to play BluRay quality on any netbook today. DVD quality, definitely. Then there's that fuzzy line between DVD and BR that everyone loves to call "HD".

-Eric

[ThisIsNot]

Yes, Broadcom Crystal HD and Nvidia ION equipped netbooks can playback full on Blu-ray movies. Then can even output 1080p video. So netbooks can get Blu-ray "quality" today by directly playing back Blu-ray movies.

[JesterEric]

TiNman and EIB are right, you should tell us (well, them ) the formats and video containers you're looking at watching.

That said, here's a "bigger" question: why bother?

First, the guy at Future Shop's an idiot: lots of videos work on netbooks.

Next, as ThisIsNot pointed out, a lot of HD downloads aren't really HD. Here's where my "why bother" comes in--there's no reason you *have* to watch an HD-quality download on a netbook. Most screens are so small the HD clarity isn't really a selling point, IMO. (Of course, your mileage may vary, ThisIsNot here is an admitted video junkie).

I'd expect most of your downloads to work fine on notebooks already out. I suspect the biggest issue won't be clarity, but might be speed and the possibility of the video "skipping." That could be an issue, and I'd suspect you're looking at Windows netbooks, so I can't help there, but I'm running linux (xandros) on an EEE PC with 512MB of RAM. Running AVI files (h264 and other codecs) or DivX files from a portable HD or from the SD card have had minimal skipping issues (none for the AVIs, only large DivX files have caused skips).

The folks here will be happy to confirm with further information from you, as you can tell the community here is great, but that said, I would suggest with some confidence that you will probably have no issues (except, perhaps, with the frustrations of Windows 7 Starter)

[ThisIsNot]

Originally Posted by JesterEric

Most screens are so small the HD clarity isn't really a selling point, IMO.

It all depends on the resolution of said screens. For example, many Asus Eee PCs have a resolution of 1024X600. A 640X480 (and 720X480) video will look alright on that and anything else (1280X720 and 1920X1080) will be drastically scaled down. You would have to sit about 6 inches from a 10" 1024X600 in order to really differentiate between between an SD video being scaled up and an HD video being scaled down.

However, on 10"-11.6" screen with a resolution of 1366X768, the difference between HD and SD is rather drastic. I am talking about normal 1-2 ft viewing distances here. A 720p will drastically look better than a 480p video. 1080p doesn't really matter when using the netbook's screen though. However, when pumping the video to an external monitor capable of 1080p, the difference matters.

There is a common census that small screens don't require HD video. Well, that normally holds true for HDTVs as they have viewing distances of 4-8 ft. However, computer monitors have long been in the 1080p+ realm simply because we sit so close to them. We would need HDTVs capable of more than 1080p if we were using them as an actual computer monitor by sitting 1-2 ft away from them. That isn't the case. Hence why computer monitors use really high resolutions and why HD videos look better even on smaller monitors. Viewing distances make all the difference in the world. We can get away with 1280X720 when sitting in a living room with a 40" HDTV. Take a 20" monitor, put it right in front of your face, and 1280X720 is no longer what it used to be.

[ericinboston]

Originally Posted by ThisIsNot

There is a common census that small screens don't require HD video. Well, that normally holds true for HDTVs as they have viewing distances of 4-8 ft. However, computer monitors have long been in the 1080p+ realm simply because we sit so close to them.

Right...but the smallest computer monitor used by the average Joe dating back to 1990 (20 years ago) is 15". Most people used 17" starting around 1995. 19" became big around 2000. And of course, with the popularity of LCD screens, 20"-24" have been hugely popular for about 2 years.

I can understand if someone wants to watch a single 30 min video clip every day on a small, 10" or 11" screen. But watching 2+hour movies every other day?! Or watching several vids a day? There's just not much point on such a small device and also looking for it in "HD" format. If your goal is to watch movies (and high quality formats) on a portable computer, do the right thing and buy the portable computer that fits the use-case: a 15" or 17" laptop that also has a much higher screen resolution...all for about $600-$750 these days.

Remember, the whole point of true HD (Blu Ray) is not just video...it's also the wonderful audio that kills dvd's audio soundtracks.

-Eric

[Gelinas23]

Wow, thanks for all the responses. I appreciate it a lot, you've all been incredibly helpful.

I use VLC to watch the videos, so I looked at a number of different downloads, and as far as I can tell they're all pretty similar:

Video Container: .avi files

Video Format: Xvid codec

Audio Format: mpga

Sample Audio Bitrate (kb/s): 128, 224, 112

Sample resolutions: 624x352, 608x336, 416x240


From the examples you've all posted, I am thinking that these files will probably play just fine, and I would probably be OK with something that's currently run-of-the-mill (for example, a minimum N270 processor, 1G RAM, and 950 GMA)

If I may, a few more questions:

1) If I were to be a little more forward thinking, should I consider an HD-capable netbook -- I realize HD on a 10" screen is silly, but I was thinking more along the lines of whether SD videos will even be available to download in the near future, as HD becomes more and more prominent?

2) Does the size of a file have any bearing on the netbook's ability to play it? (ie. 30 minute TV show vs. 2 hour movie)

3) ThisisNot, you piqued my curiosity: what sort of specs are required to output to an hdtv? (ie. 40" lcd)

I'm definitely not opposed to going for a full notebook if it better suits my needs, especially if i'd be paying a comparable price for a higher end netbook. I'm just trying to see what I might get away with by taking advantage of the netbook's lower cost.

Again, thanks very much!

[ThisIsNot]

1. It would all depend if these video files contain DRM. For example, I can download HD videos from the iTunes Store but my netbook, which can playback Blu-ray movies, will play those iTunes Store downloads back with choppy results. The reason being is that iTunes is not compatible with my Broadcom card and it isn't compatible with the Nvidia ION chip. Having the hardware is only half of the equation, you need the appropriate software to use said hardware. There are specific applications out there such as TotalMedia Theatre HD and PowerDVD 9 that can use the hardware for proper playback. So your videos must be played back in certain software. Hence why it depends on the sources of your videos. HD downloads and online streaming are becoming more mainstream but most are still stuck in SD simply because the portable devices designed to playback said videos have hardware that is capable of SD playback only.
2. No. It is all dependent on the software being used for playback, audio bitrate and format, and the video bitrate and format. For example, an Atom N270 along with GMA 950 can open a 5Mbps mpeg-4 AVC 720p video with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. The video won't playback in Windows Media Player but VLC can play it back. CPU usage will be up around 70% but it still works. It doesn't matter if this movie is a 90 second commercial/trailer or a full on 5 hour epic movie.
3. Most netbooks have VGA output and are capable of a maximum resolution beyond 1080p. So you could just hook the netbook up to a 40" LCD HDTV via a VGA cable. The only issue with that is that HDTV manufacturers like to cripple the VGA input of their TV's. For example, a 1080p 46" HDTV can accept 1080p through HDMI and component. The VGA input might be limited to 1336X768 or somewhere closer to 1080p. Manufacturers do this to push consumers to purchase more HDMI devices. Netbooks with HDMI output (along with the appropriate hardware such as the Nvidia ION platform) don't have issues outputting 1080p through HDMI and HDTVs will receive the full resolution. This isn't to say that VGA is bad. It is an older analog connection but it has been mastered over the years so that it can produce the same quality as DVI and HDMI. The issue is that manufacturers like to limit their hardware output and input when it comes to VGA. So you might want to think about an HDMI capable netbook if HDTV connectivity is important to you. Just be careful as both Dell and Acer have HDMI equipped netbooks with terrible specs. They have Atom Z520 or Z530 processors and Intel GMA 500 graphics. That is worse than the GMA 950 and definitely can't playback 720p videos even in VLC.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

Right...but the smallest computer monitor used by the average Joe dating back to 1990 (20 years ago) is 15".

Even then, the viewing distances make HD worth it in smaller screened devices. That is why the iPad has a resolution of 1024X768 and why 1366X768 is becoming more common place in the 10-11.6" screen size range.

Originally Posted by ericinboston

But watching 2+hour movies every other day?!

Not every other day but it definitely comes in handy for the long trips. Many people also watch videos on YouTube on a daily basis. Would it be better to watch the small standard 320X240 videos (which look terrible even on a lower resolution Eee PC screen) or a 720p video that is capable of filling the entire screen with little compression artifacts?

Originally Posted by ericinboston

Remember, the whole point of true HD (Blu Ray) is not just video...it's also the wonderful audio that kills dvd's audio soundtracks.

Well, Blu-ray has many purposes behind it: interactive and online special features (fan chats, picture-in-picture features), lossless audio, bookmarking, and HD video. There isn't a single computer out there that will take advantage of every point behind Blu-ray. Said computer would have to be hooked up to a lossless capable surround sound system, work with BD-Live, work with BD Java, and output to a 1080p screen. That just isn't the average setup of Blu-ray equipped computers. So, if I am not going to take advantage of the lossless audio, I might as well use the HD video, bookmarking, and interactive special features (and/or BD-live functionality). People don't have to use all aspects behind Blu-ray in order to take advantage of the format.