Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Arthur Lipscomb Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-06-02 (Sunday) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 06:52:48 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Message-ID: References: <662060138.739213740.146717.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> <250704133.739220064.338222.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 15:52:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="54569000a6d47cb874c060a43d16a95b"; logging-data="1051955"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19B/q6IjF+/8t3TFIBfvQM3dCmOnrMa5bI=" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:M+1fsEKZZU93t7ewh2ZCcR3hgU4= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <250704133.739220064.338222.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> Bytes: 4103 On 6/4/2024 7:33 PM, anim8rfsk wrote: > Arthur Lipscomb wrote: >> On 6/4/2024 10:15 AM, anim8rfsk wrote: >>> Ian J. Ball wrote: >>>> On 6/3/24 9:30 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ian J. Ball wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The Wolf of Wall Street (Apple TV+) - In glorious 4k. (But it's film, >>>>>> and grainy, so I don't think this one really benefited much.) >>>>>> Yeah, I had never seen this before. >>>>>> If you enjoy funny stories about inveterate addict swindlers, this >>>>>> 2013 film is one of the better examples of the "genre", even despite >>>>>> clocking in at 3 hours. Leo even does a pretty good job. >>>>>> Anyway, I did enjoy this. >>>>> >>>>> Will you stop desparaging film? Film was always superior technology >>>>> versus 4K. There's still more grain than pixels. It's very tiresome that >>>>> you won't acknowledge this. Also, there's a video intermediary since, >>>>> what, the '70s? Nobody has edited on film since then. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what your point is. My point is that some things (generally >>>> stuff produced within the last 3 years) looks noticeably better when >>>> streamed as 4k. Other stuff (generally films a decade or more old) do >>>> not really seem to benefit from a 4k stream. I don't know the actual >>>> technical reasons why. But I know what my own eyes are telling me. >>>> >>> >>> The big mystery is why if I can choose between an HD and a 4K feed on >>> something like the Netflix does the 4K version look better on my 1080 >>> plasma? >>> >>> My theory is that 4K is using different compression algorithms. >>> >>> >>> >> >> It probably would look better, but I don't think Netflix gives you the >> option to watch the 4K stream on a 1080 device. >> >> My TV and my projector are capable of different incompatible HDR >> options. But I'm only ever shown the option that the device I'm going >> to play it on is capable of producing. And then it plays it at that >> resolution automatically. Across all the different streaming platforms >> I use, I can't up or downgrade the resolution. It's all automatic. >> > > I haven’t aveiled myself of the option in a long time, but I know some > streamer I use used to give me the choice. And the 4K looked better. Not > screamingly better like the difference between 480 and 1080 but still just > a little bit prettier. > I don't really think of it as a streamer but YouTube will let you select the resolution and in that instance 1080 or 4K will look noticeably better than 480. I'm not a "gamer" so I can't speak to modern games, but I know old games, like *really* old games, would let you select the resolution too. But in those games 4K hadn't been invented yet. And neither had 1080. LOL