Path: ...!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: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 06:52:48 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <v3pqjg$1039j$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v3kn7m$3uc18$1@dont-email.me> <v3kr3d$3v0d4$2@dont-email.me>
 <v3l7vv$1dg9$3@dont-email.me>
 <662060138.739213740.146717.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <v3nk1s$h4gf$2@dont-email.me>
 <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 <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> 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