Stream 4K

Did you grab a remux? Cause there is no way a 120GB UHD Bluray copy looks worse than an ~80GB 1080p Bluray.

Attached: 2019-01-29 19_18_33.png (949x130, 36K)

>streaming
>anything

Jesus are movies that big? Is that uncompressed? I thought they came compressed on the disk. I’d expect 1080p to be something like 3-6GB and 4k to be 12GB or 24GB or something

Sorry went retard - thats a season not a single 1.5-2hr movie

desu I don't know for sure that it was mastered from the stream but it definitely is worse than the standard BluRay. The UHD BluRay came out some months after the standard BluRay so it's possible it was a rushed job done for demand or done by a different company. Looking at the comparison now it just looks like it was poorly mastered.

These are straight from the disc remuxes

Attached: 2019-01-29 19_25_07-Window.png (988x79, 14K)

fully uncompressed the Phantom Flex 4k camera is around 1500GB per hour. So a 2 hour movie would be over 3 terabytes.

Compressed 4k is around 50-100mbps depending on the content. Sometimes even less if mastered from a 2k source. This gives a 2 hour movie around 60-80GB file size for a UHD 4k bluray.

1080p blurays are around 25-45GB again, depending on length and the content.

Stranger things is a TV show, and so is even longer than a standard movie, hence the 120GB+ file sizes for an uncompressed UHD bluray copy

>Most 4K porn look better than their equivalent 1080p version
>All 4K sporting events I watched were noticeably better than their equivalent 1080p version
>4K60fps in gaymen can be reliably achieved with RTX 2080, Vega VII, and crossfire of Vega 64
Ebin resolution indeed. I wonder if we can ever achieve 4K120fps in gaymen. We will have to wait at least a decade before nVidia reaches 7nm or 5nm.

Sorry, forgot the screenshot comparison

screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/128987

We know, OP. We know.

Are you shitting me?

Just looks like shitty mastering, on both copies honestly.

The UHD copy is less sharp, but has less grain artifacts. The opposite is true on the 1080p.

I don't know what UHD is normally like on disc but 1080p blu-ray is normally around 35-50GB H264 for a movie, although I have seen some movies that were released early in blu-ray's life span that were in VC-1 which was the main codec for HDDVD and those were often around 20GB because they were straight ports of the HD DVD to blu-ray.
>3-6GB
If movies were that small there would be no reason for blu-ray, you can fit 8.5GB on a double layer DVD.

So netflix pushing 4k at 15-25Mbps is garbage 4k thats really somewhere between 4k and 1080p?

Is there a source for determining which UHD bluerays are “legit”? Or just upscaled 1080p?

Are they rippable even these days? With those files sizes its probably most practical to put them back onto a disk after ripping rather than a hard dribe

Yeah basically. For most people they wont notice, but if you regularly work with high bit-rate content, you quickly get sensitive to lower bit-rate content and the various flaws that become noticeable.
It's especially bad for movies with lots of dark scenes because streamed it ends up with huge chunks of grey and black that are compressed to a single shade and look blocky as fuck.

bitrate and resolution are two different things

>Is there a source for determining which UHD bluerays are “legit”? Or just upscaled 1080p?
No, nothing official.

4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/

This list is not exhaustive nor is it sourced.

No way to for absolutely sure. There used to be a nice website that broke down the mastering process but it went down. Now I just go to IMDB and look at the full tech specs. If you see the words "2K Master" then it's an upscale. That being said even upscales can benefit from UHD BluRay thanks to HDR and less compression.

And can UHD bluerays be easily ripped? Never looked into ripping since 2006 or so... i imagine things have gotten harder. Cant afford to buy and keep all the 4ks but buying used, rip, sell, can work.

Just took a look at this and yeah this is missing a lot of stuff. One UHD that is really weird is The Martian, it's like half real 4K and half up scaled, all the scenes where Matt Damon is in his shelter and there is no CGI it looks like real 4K, but once he's out on the surface of Mars it looks up scaled because all those scenes were probably rendered at a lower resolution.

>And can UHD bluerays be easily ripped?
No, but they aren't difficult to find online, available on most private trackers and various public trackers should have a copy or two floating around for most things.

While it's not impossible to rip it yourself, it requires a decent hardware investment in a bluray drive that can read the UHD bluray discs.

If you have the internet for it you'd be better off to just get into a private tracker. HD-Torrents.org is a pretty decent one and I think you can officially buy an invite for like $15.

Pic related is the latest UHD Remuxes on HD-Torrents.

Attached: 2019-01-29 19_39_20-Window.png (680x695, 178K)

Never mind, apparently The Martian is on there and they claim it's 4K which I doubt is 100% true.

>playing 4k
>on non-4k screen
>complain

Attached: Patty.gif (272x205, 1.91M)

>Implying

>roommate thumbing around on his phone
>"This 4k looks like shit. lol"

Attached: 1536854965485.jpg (640x951, 44K)

It's 100% not real 4k.

Just look at the IMDB tech specs. Clearly says the mastering was done with a 2k copy. The source for that was 4k and 6k, but the mastering format was 2k.

Attached: 2019-01-29 19_49_32.png (585x73, 6K)

Ah... well the issue is security and if you could rip it yourself you’d know its quality... but if its that hard though

This is why 8k is a joke but I welcome it since it will provide a ceiling to 4k costs.

If you're downloading a remux, there should be no quality difference, a remux is just putting the source data into an MKV file.

No compression or anything is done to the movie.

Just realized my drive isn’t one to write blurays. Maybe it is cheaper / more convenient to just horde data on drives like seems to be popular now... rather than write disks.

Pretty much yea

lossless video compression when?

>lossless
>compression
?

Yup. It's pretty stupid how it goes.

>new resolution comes out
>barely anything supports it
>buy new monitor anyway
>be frustrated because of lack of viewing material

at the same time
>resolution you upgraded from is finally becoming mainstream
>new resolution can be down-sampled to get 4:4:4 color sampling and extremely high virtual bitrate
>older monitors with great features, refresh rate, and contrast ratio are ignored because muh resolution

2019 is the year when you can actually get the most out of a 1080p television and nobody even seems to care.

Attached: 1525299837653.jpg (768x872, 190K)

8K TV is about to come

4K is literally the endgame of resolutions as far as legacy content is concerned.
The advantage over 1080p is that it can scale all the previous resolutions without effort.

even 480p?

And 60 fps will never be a thing because 30 fps will always be "good enough" for normalfags. There's actually been a great frame rate apocalypse in the last 20 or so years where many shows that were originally broadcast in 480i with 60 fields of motion per second are not available in that format now. They are always converted to 30 fps. And before you go "correcting" me on this, they are not the same thing.

Attached: ch11.jpg (906x1208, 1.2M)

Now we just need 120Hz screens (or maybe 240Hz) everywhere and we'll be done. Fucking 144Hz going backwards and not being 60Hz compatible.

You need a TV the size of your wall to get any benefit out of 8k if you are sitting on a couch. And that is assuming you have an 8k video with the proper amount of bitrate as well as everything else in the production chain being set up right. And everything you watch better be in razor sharp focus or else there's no point in it.

No but 4.50 is a nicer number than the 2.25 you get from scaling to 1080p.
Getting 8K just for 480p content seems like a really dumb idea.
Just use a CRT.

well 480p in 16:9 is 854x480 res.

To get that scaled to 4k requires a ~4.497 multiplier.

However, 360p 16:9 scales evenly just multiplying by 6.

640 * 6 = 3840
360 * 6 = 2160

I've been fooling around with trying to get the most out of my old JVC TM-13U CRT. It's 480i composite only.
So I downloaded some demo videos in 4k 60 fps and then downscaled them to 720p60 and I've been playing them back on a blu-ray player via the composite output.
The results have been very good and surprising. A casual would mistake it for high definition based on the contrast, colors, and smooth motion. Standard Definition never really got maxed out within its lifetime. DVD was not the farthest you could go with it.

Attached: techmoan.jpg (1921x1139, 992K)

>It's 480i composite only
Yikes

At 13" the difference between composite and component is minimal. I know because I have compared this monitor and a JVC 14-F703 side by side running the exact same thing and from 3 feet away you have to strain to see any difference. The biggest one will be any scene with a very saturated red.

At the same time there are various differences between CRTs that go beyond input signal that are harder to put down. Nit brightness, types of phosphor elements used, that sort of thing.

Why not just get a PC CRT?
All of them can do up to 1080i through RGB/VGA

also keep in mind a lot of devices with composite video output didn't do a very good job of it. A older blu-ray player like this one has one of the best composite video outputs you'll ever see. The gamecube is also very good at it.

Well, you could, but that's no fun to muck around with. I liked seeing what the old 80s monitor was really capable of if you brought out the best in it.

I do mess around with PC CRTs a lot too.

what is ape, flac, png, rar, zip...

not video, that's for sure

Attached: CYe77Q3U0AAsN9R.jpg (1200x713, 212K)

yup, clearly not true 4k

>we started with 2K assets up-converted to 4K.

The parts they filmed in 2k were upconverted but they also used the RED dragon so those parts were preserved in 4k for the final master and never downscaled to 2k.

So some shots were real 4k and some were fake.

Well yeah, it's just not true 4k. It's still gonna be better than the 1080p bluray copy thats for sure.

I've watched the martian UHD copy on my 43" 4k. It looks good all things considered.

Probably some fucked out shit x264 codec
X265/av1 looks absolutely mint even tiny 500mb TV rips or 3gb+ movies

Why not? There's lossless audio compression

The UHD bluray looks better desu, the grain and upscaling is giving an artifical sharpness

keep in mind the series was filmed on lenses to mock the lightly blurry 80's movie look

I mean, even x264 has a lossless encoding method, it just uses a fuckton of space.

The maximum size of a blu ray disc is 100GB

A 1080p lossless 2 hour movie is almost a terabyte. A 4K would be about ten terabytes.

Lel

>optical media will die in your lifetime
>there will be no physical media replacement
>you will never again be able to watch movies at home with anything other than YouTube tier compression

Attached: punished.png (512x512, 281K)

In a future with bandwidth caps there will always be physical media

no, there will just be tighter compression and pissed of customers

Movie in 60 fps looks like shit but for sports, I like it.

>implying customers even know what compression means

iirc the vast majority of (1080p) 144hz monitors can also do 120hz, it's just marketing to advertise them as 144hz

Yup. Mine's set to 120.