Greetings. An old friend of mine -- a veteran in the L.A. broadcasting brotherhood -- recently made some disparaging comments about the quality of Internet video during a chat we were having about YouTube.

"I can't stand watching that stuff," he complained. "The quality is so low it's like looking through a spaghetti strainer."

I pointed out that the quality of YouTube videos was almost totally dependent on the skill and resources of the party doing the encoding, and that the various HQ and HD YouTube encodings could look very good, even when viewed as I often do on a conventional 16:9 TV. Are they "broadcast quality" by industry standards -- no. But all things considered, often quite nice indeed, and getting even better.

For that matter, even most of the non-HQ, non-HD encodings on YouTube are not necessarily painful to watch -- not great, but they can be just fine (I'm speaking of video encoding quality, not necessarily content quality -- the latter is a whole 'nuther ball of wax, but to each their own).

This got me thinking. Leaving aside my friend with the "golden eyes" -- how much do most people really care about video quality? This is not just an academic question -- vast sums of money and other resources are in play expanding video on the Internet, and the tolerance of viewers to differing quality levels is a significant issue.

Which brings us to the Betamax -- Sony's first consumer videocassette format, essentially a scaled down version of their U-Matic 3/4" format. (U-Matic still survives by the way -- Sony sells associated gear. In fact there's a quite heavy U-Matic player just a few yards from where I'm sitting that I use when digitizing old tapes.)

U-Matic quality is really quite good by 1970s standards -- Beta (especially Beta Hi-Fi) as well. But Beta was wiped out in the consumer market by VHS, which -- it is generally agreed -- had significantly lower video and audio quality, but did possess the characteristic of longer record and play times per cassette.

But most people never cared much about VHS' video quality. They wanted to watch movies, record TV shows, and in general use their videocassette units as "memory machines" of one sort or another.

And therein is the key to the video quality conundrum. For we don't actually see videos with our eyes alone, we see them with our brains. And our brains can be very forgiving of imagery that is less than "perfect" -- especially if that imagery is triggering old memories.

In my very young youth, in the days before consumer videotape, I used to record the audio tracks of movies I liked when they aired on TV. I could play back those tapes and "watch" well-loved movies in my head almost as if I was really viewing them.

When U-Matic videotape units started to circulate, casual, non-commercial video "piracy" became practical. Often someone working in a tape transfer house would make an original copy, then people would copy that copy on and on, generation after generation, to hand out to their friends, who would continue the process.

Watching a videotaped copy of Star Wars about ten generations down is quite an experience. Drifting sync causes the image to bobble around like a ship pitching on stormy seas. Audio buzz and background noise "breathing" could be awesome to behold. But everyone still got a kick out of watching such things, quality be damned.

What does this all suggest? Well, for one thing, that perhaps people are generally more tolerant of less than stellar video (and audio) quality when they're getting it for free. Another possibility -- if you're viewing or listening to material that you already know well, the quality is less important since it's mainly acting as a guide track to the virtual copy of that performance that's playing out simultaneously from your own brain's memory.

Does this mean that a service streaming old episodes of Batman (shades of the only real Catwoman -- and quite a lady -- Julie Newmar), can get away with visually much lower quality and lower bandwidth streams than a first-run movie service?

The answer to this would seem to be an obvious yes as far as most viewers are concerned, yet there's surprisingly little discussion in Internet infrastructure circles about viewers' attitudes toward different video quality levels vis-a-vis such content-specific factors. In an age of looming -- in some cases perhaps draconian -- bandwidth caps, these issues may be taking on new importance.

Which brings us back to my friend with the spaghetti strainer. Even he would probably admit that his views are not characteristic of most Internet users. But if nothing else, he does help to demonstrate that video quality is in the eye -- and the brain -- of the beholder, even on the Internet ... perhaps especially on the Internet.

--Lauren--
Catwoman: I could give you more happiness than anyone in the world.
Batman: How?
Catwoman: By being your partner in life, it's me and you against the world.
Batman: What about Robin?
Catwoman: Robin ... Oh I've got it. We'll kill him!