Compression. While Compression tech HAS improved, its been maintaining our current quality while reducing bandwidth needs.
A 1080p Bluray disk will look far far better than Netflix in 4k every time because its not compressed. The reality is that any form of compression will cause loss in fidelity in some way, so the only way to really improve video is to increase the bandwidth of the video.
I talk to IT nerds frequently who are asking things like “why do you need 16x 400GB ports of non blocking bandwidth” to which I have to explain that a SINGLE stream of uncompressed UHD is 12GB/s and we are trying to put 200+ streams onto their network.
A 1080p Bluray disk will look far far better than Netflix in 4k every time because its not compressed.
You’re not wrong about the quality difference but video on a Blu-ray is compressed. There is no way to get raw video unless you’re shooting it yourself.
any form of compression will cause loss in fidelity in some way
Lossless video compression also exists although I don’t think any consumer products have it.
Yep. On a Blu-ray disk, you have 25-100GB of space to work with. The Blu-ray standard allows up to 40mbps for 1080p video (not counting audio). Way more for 4K.
Netflix recommends a 5mbps internet connection for 1080p, and 15mbps for 4K. Reportedly they cut down their 4K streams to 8mbps last year, though I haven’t confirmed. That’s a fraction of what Blu-ray uses for 1080p, never mind 4K.
I have some 4K/UHD Blu-rays, and for comparison they’re about 80mbps for video.
They use similar codecs, too, so the bitrates are fairly comparable. UHD Blu-rays use H.265, which is still a good video codec. Some streaming sites use AV1 (at least on some supported devices) now, which is a bit more efficient, but nowhere near enough to close that kind of gap in bitrate.
Why not download? Streaming is always going to be dogshit quality unless we find something faster than light. I don’t really understand the context. There’s really barely any difference between YouTube’s “”““1080p””“” and Netflix. But throw on a BDRemux or even a decent X265 10 bit BDRip encode from a trusted release group and let your eyes feast.
Not all content can be downloaded, and for many people they want to watch what they want to watch right now, and waiting for the download is not something they are interested in.
Also rights holders dont want you to have an offline copy if they can avoid it, that way its easier to monetize for them.
Like livestreams? That being the exception but most ‘content’ isn’t live.
A shocking amount of content is live, and then encoded for streaming. Given that you are on Lemmy I would guess that your interests dont overlap much with content that requires live transmission. So this is an expected selection bias, not being critical, and totally not judging, just pointing it out so you can be aware. I bet your parents still have cable.
My parents barely know how to use a computer at all, but they’re old and don’t have internet. They mostly just watch their own DVD movie collections or tune in to movies on DVDs.
I did teach my dad to find news on YT instead of TV (they are Russian, I’d rather they listen to Meduza than Putinist propaganda channels).
I honestly dunno what content requires live transmission apart from livestreams? I didn’t just mean twitch btw I meant sports games etc. None of those require a very high bitrate or quality etc.
Most news is real-time transmission and over the air TV is still running very high bandwidth. It’s you plug in an HD antenna or ATC.3.0 antenna it will blow away the video quality is Netflix Amazon or YouTube.
Compression. While Compression tech HAS improved, its been maintaining our current quality while reducing bandwidth needs.
A 1080p Bluray disk will look far far better than Netflix in 4k every time because its not compressed. The reality is that any form of compression will cause loss in fidelity in some way, so the only way to really improve video is to increase the bandwidth of the video.
I talk to IT nerds frequently who are asking things like “why do you need 16x 400GB ports of non blocking bandwidth” to which I have to explain that a SINGLE stream of uncompressed UHD is 12GB/s and we are trying to put 200+ streams onto their network.
You mean 12 Gbps right?
The standard is defined as 12000Mbits/s and spelled out as 12G-SDI or 12G SMPTE 2110.
So i do tend to mix things up since big G and little G mean different things in computer land.
You’re not wrong about the quality difference but video on a Blu-ray is compressed. There is no way to get raw video unless you’re shooting it yourself.
Lossless video compression also exists although I don’t think any consumer products have it.
Yep. On a Blu-ray disk, you have 25-100GB of space to work with. The Blu-ray standard allows up to 40mbps for 1080p video (not counting audio). Way more for 4K.
Netflix recommends a 5mbps internet connection for 1080p, and 15mbps for 4K. Reportedly they cut down their 4K streams to 8mbps last year, though I haven’t confirmed. That’s a fraction of what Blu-ray uses for 1080p, never mind 4K.
I have some 4K/UHD Blu-rays, and for comparison they’re about 80mbps for video.
They use similar codecs, too, so the bitrates are fairly comparable. UHD Blu-rays use H.265, which is still a good video codec. Some streaming sites use AV1 (at least on some supported devices) now, which is a bit more efficient, but nowhere near enough to close that kind of gap in bitrate.
Why not download? Streaming is always going to be dogshit quality unless we find something faster than light. I don’t really understand the context. There’s really barely any difference between YouTube’s “”““1080p””“” and Netflix. But throw on a BDRemux or even a decent X265 10 bit BDRip encode from a trusted release group and let your eyes feast.
Not all content can be downloaded, and for many people they want to watch what they want to watch right now, and waiting for the download is not something they are interested in.
Also rights holders dont want you to have an offline copy if they can avoid it, that way its easier to monetize for them.
Well ain’t that a shame. I’ll weep for them I swear.
Like livestreams? That being the exception but most ‘content’ isn’t live.
Bet they use YouTube through the home page too. Some people are animals and it can’t be helped. That doesn’t mean the rest of us must suffer.
A shocking amount of content is live, and then encoded for streaming. Given that you are on Lemmy I would guess that your interests dont overlap much with content that requires live transmission. So this is an expected selection bias, not being critical, and totally not judging, just pointing it out so you can be aware. I bet your parents still have cable.
My parents barely know how to use a computer at all, but they’re old and don’t have internet. They mostly just watch their own DVD movie collections or tune in to movies on DVDs.
I did teach my dad to find news on YT instead of TV (they are Russian, I’d rather they listen to Meduza than Putinist propaganda channels).
I honestly dunno what content requires live transmission apart from livestreams? I didn’t just mean twitch btw I meant sports games etc. None of those require a very high bitrate or quality etc.
Most news is real-time transmission and over the air TV is still running very high bandwidth. It’s you plug in an HD antenna or ATC.3.0 antenna it will blow away the video quality is Netflix Amazon or YouTube.
Then why does it look like dogshit?
Over the air to an HD tuner looks like dog shit? What channel and location i can investigate.
If it’s a local station over cable then it’s because it’s compressed and at best 720p.