Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: What Did You Watch? 2024-06-02 (Sunday)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 10:39:42 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <v3nk1s$h4gf$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3kn7m$3uc18$1@dont-email.me> <v3kr3d$3v0d4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7vv$1dg9$3@dont-email.me>
 <662060138.739213740.146717.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 19:48:45 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8fdd943c0be60a3e4c396fb7125479f3";
	logging-data="561679"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1848iWzDfBnZnNiUVxVr7NvIOhc+rBfNoA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WcS88cX2BQyjS9T9Sf1gf4JiTXc=
In-Reply-To: <662060138.739213740.146717.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3180

On 6/4/2024 10:15 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 6/3/24 9:30 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> 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.