Discs vs. data: Are we helping the environment by streaming?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Blu-ray is obviously way greener than streaming if you take into consideration second hand discs.
Upvote
18
(40
/
-22)
Um...
I'm pretty tolerant of low video quality, but 5MB for an hour is below even my low standards. This looks like it is probably referring to Mbit (bitrate)? Or perhaps GB/hr, but that's a bit high then.
//EDIT: Yeah. 5Mbit is 2.25GB for an hour, which sounds right. 85Mbit is ~38GB, which... sounds sane, though is anyone actually delivering 4k content at that bitrate? That's far beyond at least what my internet connection will sustain.
Also, would be interesting to see the impact of switching to h.265 vs h.264 - you can move quite a bit less data, at the cost of encoding and decoding complexity.
However, there's an important advantage of offline media (assuming it's not going through a smart TV and automatic content recognition): What I watch or listen to offline is my business, not some big data aggregator's business.
Upvote
100
(102
/
-2)
Personally I've started to buy music on discs again. I've never found music streaming all that compelling and have found how actually having the full album to listen to is both a different experience and that you finda lot more great songs by doing so.
I think the failure to factor in multiple plays and used/resale of discs in the original assessment is a big miss. The fact that you can amortize costs (both dollar and environmental) across multiple plays or multiple owners is a big advantage for physical media. It's why tapes worked for rental at all, dubbing a tape made them expensive but with rental you have one copy that many people use once or twice and can share the costs. Plus a disc isn't sucking up power perpetually like a server and having to retransmit the data to me every time I watch something. Coupled with the "encouragement" to binge or watch more stuff on steaming services constantly I could easily see that the more popular streaming gets the worse it's impact will be
I think the failure to factor in multiple plays and used/resale of discs in the original assessment is a big miss. The fact that you can amortize costs (both dollar and environmental) across multiple plays or multiple owners is a big advantage for physical media. It's why tapes worked for rental at all, dubbing a tape made them expensive but with rental you have one copy that many people use once or twice and can share the costs. Plus a disc isn't sucking up power perpetually like a server and having to retransmit the data to me every time I watch something. Coupled with the "encouragement" to binge or watch more stuff on steaming services constantly I could easily see that the more popular streaming gets the worse it's impact will be
Upvote
69
(72
/
-3)
Has anyone considered the cost of people reloading Ars to see the shifting article titles? 
Seriously though - this is hard to measure. Playing blu-rays also requires a player, which itself is using power, and which if its a dedicated one serves no other purpose and which had to be manufactured too. The cost of that gets amortized across all the media you play with it, but it's still another thing that has to be made, and then winds up discarded eventually. Streaming may need another device (like a Chromecast or Roku), but frequently its used on hardware you already have for some other purpose and is commonly built in on TVs these days too.
It seems that generally, not sending a few billion disk cases to the landfill has significant benefits outside of just emissions.
And of course, the whole picture will change again with new codecs that use less bandwidth but require more horsepower to use (like AV1).
Seriously though - this is hard to measure. Playing blu-rays also requires a player, which itself is using power, and which if its a dedicated one serves no other purpose and which had to be manufactured too. The cost of that gets amortized across all the media you play with it, but it's still another thing that has to be made, and then winds up discarded eventually. Streaming may need another device (like a Chromecast or Roku), but frequently its used on hardware you already have for some other purpose and is commonly built in on TVs these days too.
It seems that generally, not sending a few billion disk cases to the landfill has significant benefits outside of just emissions.
And of course, the whole picture will change again with new codecs that use less bandwidth but require more horsepower to use (like AV1).
Upvote
55
(61
/
-6)
Barring some sort of magic compression, this seems way too low. Perhaps this should say "one minute of HD video"?
Upvote
25
(25
/
0)
There's a mistake here. 5MB is like the size of a 4 min. 128K MP3. You're not getting an hour of video from that.
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
True, how could an hour of streamed HD video be only 5MB when to get that on disc takes a multi gigabyte blue ray disc? If we could get HD video that small we would have had them on 700MB CDs
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I'd be really curious how this plays out in the "in between" of owning digital files, but not streaming them. My typical TV/Movie watching is done on files I've ripped from DVDs and watch through KODI on a connected computer. I'm not hitting a data center, so my power usage at that point is going to be slightly different.
Similar, and maybe even more applicable, I download most of my music once as FLAC/ALAC files (or rip them from CD/Vinyl), then everything is local to whatever device they're on. Presumably downloading them from a data center once, and then having them offline from then on out, would use less than say Spotify or Apple Music?
Regardless, interesting stuff and I look forward to more of these comparisons.
Similar, and maybe even more applicable, I download most of my music once as FLAC/ALAC files (or rip them from CD/Vinyl), then everything is local to whatever device they're on. Presumably downloading them from a data center once, and then having them offline from then on out, would use less than say Spotify or Apple Music?
Regardless, interesting stuff and I look forward to more of these comparisons.
Upvote
52
(52
/
0)
Back when DVDs dominated, you were virtually guaranteed extras on a disc, be it commentaries, behind-the-scenes bits, out-takes, interviews, or what have you. Now in the age of streaming, even discs usually have nothing, so countless pounds are saved not producing or cleaning up that extra footage. Surely, that's worth something to the environment.
Upvote
10
(17
/
-7)
maybe:
5 mbps => hd
20 mbps => full hd
85 mbps => 4K
but it depends on fps, quality, etc
5 mbps => hd
20 mbps => full hd
85 mbps => 4K
but it depends on fps, quality, etc
Upvote
6
(9
/
-3)
I've gotten my old turntable back online again (took some 3D printed replacement parts to restore full functionality, the cue system had a broken plastic contraption in it), and I've enjoyed it a lot. Planning to build myself a Bottlehead preamp at some point, because tubes. I know they're not transparent, and I simply don't care, I like how they sound. And I like the idea of being purely analog as a way of rejecting the digital absurdity. How many times I listen to a record is my business, not theirs. I'm not making any strong claims about audio quality, simply observing that "Curling up on the couch and listening to music on record is a very different experience from always-streaming music and I enjoy it." I've discovered some interesting stuff with the "keep playing music like this" feature of streaming services, but it's just a very different way to interact with music.
I've also ripped our CD collection to FLAC on a local server, which is nice - some stuff still just doesn't encode sounding quite right until you get the bitrate up high enough that you're halfway to FLAC anyway.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
I found an app that plays the albums the way god intended. I have been collecting for 30 years and have 2000 or so discs. Seems silly to pay a streaming service. I copy a few dozen discs into my phone from my ripped copy of my disc collection, listen for a while until I start getting bored with that group. Delete them find another couple dozens discs, rinse repeat.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
I also listen to a lot of vinyl, a lot of which I've owned for decades now... it's one of the only music listening experiences that reminds me of growing up in the pre-internet era. Sitting and listening to a whole album, rather than a playlist, has brought back what I loved about it back then.
Like you I don't make any grand claims about quality, my FLAC's generally sound as-good or better, but the experience is really enjoyable.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
If only I could just buy the digital equivalent of a BD directly. I don't need the physical disc, but it's the highest quality version you can buy. Plus the extra features are sometimes fun.
Upvote
37
(37
/
0)
Really? Almost every DVD we had the extras were on the primary disc filling up otherwise unused space
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
I think it's important to consider a both/and (rather than either/or) situation. Streaming doesn't produce physical waste at the local level, but some things I want to watch have disappeared from streaming services. (Or they're now scattered across a dozen services, of which I subscribe to only a few.)
For programs that I know I want to watch several times, I want a local copy that I control. That copy does not have to be a plastic disc. The bits could easily be transferred an SSD. (Technically easy, although rights would likely complicate things.)
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
Sounds like it'd be akin to how a friend once described trying to play Borderlands on the lowest settings. Slightly less brown smudges moving around a big brown smudge.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Many recent releases I've borrowed from the library have no extras at all. (They are not "rental only" versions, either.)
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
Thinking about it more does anyone else find it odd that one of the cornerstones of the "streaming is better for the environment" angle is a college student case study with incredibly narrow scope? This seems like the kind of analysis that would properly require a lot of statistics gathering and modelling to reach any meaningful conclusion, aka a full research paper or disertation
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
Very much agree... plus as someone above mentioned throw in buying used to the equation. I buy CDs used all the time since they aren't produced new that much anyway. The CD gets ripped to FLAC, then the CD goes in a binder as my physical media back-up.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Pfft you guys are crazy. I used to watch movies on CEDs, but I moved on to the format of the future, Game Boy Advance video cartridges.
Upvote
14
(17
/
-3)
Perhaps most of those "extras" discs were from the early days of DVD when makers really wanted to show off what the premium new format could do compared to VHS in terms of fancy tricks that nobody really cared about past a 5 minute wow factor. It wouldn't surprise me that once DVD was cheap and mainstream/dominant that most of that fluff was cut in the service of costs and efficiency. Sometime market factors will do the good/green/unwasteful thing in the end
Upvote
9
(11
/
-2)
Offtopic, but I was at a record store on record store day and the dude had a restored GBA for $65... bought it plus Mario Super Circuit off ebay for my 13 year old (he's like a Nintendo historian, loves this stuff)... he's now hooked and hunting for old games while his Switch gathers dust
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
It's hard for me to compare streaming with disks.
The sheer volume of media available to me streaming is just ENORMOUS compared to disks.
The content volume is so different that I feel like it's hard to talk about them being the same thing as far as an activity goes ...
The sheer volume of media available to me streaming is just ENORMOUS compared to disks.
The content volume is so different that I feel like it's hard to talk about them being the same thing as far as an activity goes ...
Upvote
1
(5
/
-4)
Probably the greenest way overall would be to buy the tracks digitally from a store that won't die anytime soon like iTunes (store depending on what file format you want/need). No physical product is produced like a disc but also only have to transfer/stream the data once and then you have it locally forever to play/copy/burn/transfer
Upvote
23
(24
/
-1)
Unless I missed it (which is possible given how big I have to have the text on screen to read these days), the article seems to imply that the study considers each disc is only viewed once (despite a throwaway line at the top about watching seinfeld "umpteen" times).
While I currently have a NAS to store my movies on (thanks to the CMR/SMR articles here that got me interested) back in "the olden days" (that is, before those articles) I'd buy DVDs of things I would watch multiple times. Whole TV series flew through the vcr every year, and most of my pre-NAS movie collection has been viewed several times each.
So, I feel like there should probably be a break even point (because if any data was presented otherwise, I didn't see it).
I wonder if streaming it off of a local NAS is significantly different for people who rip their own collection (as opposed to people who "acquire a collection by other means").
While I currently have a NAS to store my movies on (thanks to the CMR/SMR articles here that got me interested) back in "the olden days" (that is, before those articles) I'd buy DVDs of things I would watch multiple times. Whole TV series flew through the vcr every year, and most of my pre-NAS movie collection has been viewed several times each.
So, I feel like there should probably be a break even point (because if any data was presented otherwise, I didn't see it).
I wonder if streaming it off of a local NAS is significantly different for people who rip their own collection (as opposed to people who "acquire a collection by other means").
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I'm surprised nobody already made the joke that torrenting a movie/show would clearly give us the best of both worlds...
But yeah, what you're describing would be nice. A legal equivalent to downloading a local copy of a Blu-ray rip would be something I could get behind.
As it is, I continue to buy movies on disc—and give the "digital copy" license codes to my friends—even some movies that are available on streaming services I have logins for, since the crappy Internet connection here can sometimes limit picture quality despite viewing on a nice 4k TV.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
I think in a lot of cases they're selling both a bare-bones disc and a multi-disc special pack with extras. Libraries will save cash and go for the basic option.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Agreed, and for newer music that I can't get on CD this is generally the route I go, typically through a site serving FLAC's, since AFAIK you can't get ALACs from iTunes? I could be wrong about that. I don't often burn from file to disc anymore though since so many of the CD-R's produced now are complete garbage with a high failure rate.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
To add to this I'd like to see more depth on playback than was in the article (I recognize there was a little of this). My powered shelf speakers and sub obviously draw more than my son's setup of iPad to Bluetooth speaker.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
I think it may also depend on how much and what you watch.
When I don't know what to watch, I re-watch Star Trek. Is it better to keep re-watching something on-prem at my house vs re-streaming the same thing over and over thru the net?
How's that change with someone who wants to always see new stuff instead?
One thing I hate is how all the "smart" boxes seem to want to stay on 24x7 and if you don't do that (I have mine switched power with the display) you sit for 10-30 minutes for updates where you run the entire entertainment system waiting for it to be ready to use. With playing a digital file or DVD I never had that happen, I turned on the TV/computer and hit play immediately, no sucking up power just waiting for an update to watch something.
EDIT: And I guess you would also need to factor in how many hours its used, and how much power it draws "on" vs "off" and if its fully powered down (turn off a power strip, or smart strip) when not watching vs "standby" that gear does now. So many variables.
When I don't know what to watch, I re-watch Star Trek. Is it better to keep re-watching something on-prem at my house vs re-streaming the same thing over and over thru the net?
How's that change with someone who wants to always see new stuff instead?
One thing I hate is how all the "smart" boxes seem to want to stay on 24x7 and if you don't do that (I have mine switched power with the display) you sit for 10-30 minutes for updates where you run the entire entertainment system waiting for it to be ready to use. With playing a digital file or DVD I never had that happen, I turned on the TV/computer and hit play immediately, no sucking up power just waiting for an update to watch something.
EDIT: And I guess you would also need to factor in how many hours its used, and how much power it draws "on" vs "off" and if its fully powered down (turn off a power strip, or smart strip) when not watching vs "standby" that gear does now. So many variables.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Upvote
4
(7
/
-3)
I only stream in 4k, which uses my 4-way overclocked SLI Nvidia GeForce 3090s. Good thing I have a 1200-watt power supply. And I only use streaming services that accept Bitcoin as payment.
Upvote
-7
(5
/
-12)
I find that interesting, aside from YouTube I've found the opposite a lot lately.
More and more I want to watch something and exhaust all the streaming services I pay for. When I do find stuff, I've had increasingly that it goes away before I'm done consuming all of it for a series of shows/movies. Physical discs seem more and more compelling to me.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
Don't worry, once everything moves to Proof of Stake your carbon footprint will go completely negative! Wildflowers will grow from the server farms, and the poor will be uplifted! /s
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Has anyone considered the cost of people reloading Ars to see the shifting article titles?
Seriously though - this is hard to measure. Playing blu-rays also requires a player, which itself is using power, and which if its a dedicated one serves no other purpose and which had to be manufactured too. The cost of that gets amortized across all the media you play with it, but it's still another thing that has to be made, and then winds up discarded eventually. Streaming may need another device (like a Chromecast or Roku), but frequently its used on hardware you already have for some other purpose and is commonly built in on TVs these days too.
It seems that generally, not sending a few billion disk cases to the landfill has significant benefits outside of just emissions.
And of course, the whole picture will change again with new codecs that use less bandwidth but require more horsepower to use (like AV1).
FWIW I haven't brought a DVD player since probably 2002ish and have never had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. Once I got my PS3 that replaced my DVD player and handled BR as well. My XB1S took over media playback since it can handle 4k BR too. I did get a remote for both which cost a little extra but was worth it. Eventually when I get a PS5 or XBX it'll take over media playback from the older XB1S.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I have symmetric gigabit fiber and I still don't use those codes. I have the disc that has the best possible version of the movie (that us mortals can get our hands on anyway). I'm just going to pull that video off the disc, not stream some shitty version crushed down to 10Mbps.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)