-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

NetFlix SUPER HD!!!


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 of 11 Everett Stallings

Everett Stallings

    Second Unit

  • 376 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 24 1998
  • Real Name:Everett
  • LocationWilmington,De

Posted January 31 2013 - 05:11 AM

http://www.engadget....d-3d-streaming/
Former projectionist @ all downtown theatres in Balto. City.Which are all closed. frown.gif

#2 of 11 Jason Charlton

Jason Charlton

    Screenwriter

  • 2,872 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2002
  • Real Name:Jason Charlton
  • LocationBaltimore, MD

Posted January 31 2013 - 05:45 AM

While that is indeed interesting, I find it particularly amusing that they are choosing to call it "SuperHD".


Post edited - made too big a generalization


With an expected total bitrate (audio + video) of 7 Mbps (2D) and 12 Mbps (3D), that's significantly less than the average video bitrates of most commercially available titles (ranging from a low of 14 Mbps, but averaging well over 20 Mbps with some titles chewing up well over 30 Mbps - again, for video only).


"Super" indeed.


I am still fascinated by the seemingly large portion of the population that places a higher premium on portability than audio/video quality.


Are you new to the Home Theater Forum? Stop by the New Member Introductions area and introduce yourself! See you there!


#3 of 11 Everett Stallings

Everett Stallings

    Second Unit

  • 376 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 24 1998
  • Real Name:Everett
  • LocationWilmington,De

Posted January 31 2013 - 06:46 AM

I am still fascinated by the seemingly large portion of the population that places a higher premium on portability than audio/video quality. Yes, I am puzzled by this also.:rolleyes:
Former projectionist @ all downtown theatres in Balto. City.Which are all closed. frown.gif

#4 of 11 KHH256

KHH256

    Auditioning

  • 10 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 30 2010

Posted February 01 2013 - 12:48 AM

I am still fascinated by the seemingly large portion of the population that places a higher premium on portability than audio/video quality. Yes, I am puzzled by this also.:rolleyes:

The same people who've settled for lossy audio iPod as 'acceptable' are the same people who will accept VHS-like quality for their portable movie viewing. Depressing, but true.

#5 of 11 Dave Upton

Dave Upton

    Owner

  • 811 posts
  • Join Date: May 16 2012
  • Real Name:Dave Upton
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted February 01 2013 - 12:54 AM

I make en effort to bring my friends into the theater whenever they come over to demo Netflix/Streaming quality vs Blu-ray. Even the luddites are shocked. I think the real problem is that most of them don't have a system capable of truly displaying the difference. An uncalibrated cheap LCD panel and a $150 HTIB don't do much to aid our cause :)



#6 of 11 DaveF

DaveF

    Moderator

  • 13,536 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 04 2001
  • Real Name:David Fischer
  • LocationOne Loudoun, Ashburn, VA

Posted February 03 2013 - 01:09 AM

The same people who've settled for lossy audio iPod as 'acceptable' ...

so that's "everyone" for the past 30 years, since the Sony Walkman? People want easy. Blu-ray is hard. It could have been easier. It could have even be easier to make blu portable, if instead studios hadn't worked so tirelessly to make harder and illegal.

#7 of 11 MattAlbie60

MattAlbie60

    I Work for Mr. E. H. Harriman of the Union Pacific Railroad.

  • 561 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2010
  • Real Name:Stephen Lilley
  • LocationBaltimore, Maryland

Posted February 03 2013 - 01:13 AM

I don't understand how Blu-ray is any harder than any other disc-based format. Or "less portable." Things that fit in my hand, by definition, are portable ;)

#8 of 11 Jim Mcc

Jim Mcc

    Producer

  • 3,710 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2004
  • Real Name:Jim
  • LocationOconomowoc, WI.

Posted February 03 2013 - 09:17 AM

I make en effort to bring my friends into the theater whenever they come over to demo Netflix/Streaming quality vs Blu-ray. Even the luddites are shocked. I think the real problem is that most of them don't have a system capable of truly displaying the difference. An uncalibrated cheap LCD panel and a $150 HTIB don't do much to aid our cause :)

Are you saying that Blu-ray looks much better than Netflix "HD" streaming? If so, I disagree with that. Are you streaming with a device that's 1080p capable? Since I upgraded to my Pan. 220 player(which streams Netflix in 1080p) the difference is very small in most cases, and in some cases look just as good. In fact, some Blu-rays I've seen look worse than Netflix HD streaming. And I'm talking about viewing with my projector/106" diagonal screen setup. It cannot be said that "All Blu-rays look better than Netflix HD streaming". It's not true. It's also not true that "All Blu-rays look better than DVD's". I've seen some Blu-rays that look no better than DVD's. And I've seen some DVD's that look better than some Blu-rays. It all depends...

#9 of 11 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,772 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted February 03 2013 - 10:22 AM

It's also not true that "All Blu-rays look better than DVD's". I've seen some Blu-rays that look no better than DVD's. And I've seen some DVD's that look better than some Blu-rays. It all depends...

Such as? I can think of a handful of upconverted SD transfers on Blu-ray but even those still look the same as the DVD.

#10 of 11 Jim Mcc

Jim Mcc

    Producer

  • 3,710 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 11 2004
  • Real Name:Jim
  • LocationOconomowoc, WI.

Posted February 03 2013 - 05:30 PM

Some I can't remember because I don't own them, but a couple terrible looking Blu-rays I can think of right now are The Godfather, Texas Chainsaw Massacre(original). And there are some "Superbit" DVD's like Terminator 2 that look GREAT, better than some Blu-rays. All I was trying to say is it's not a given that ALL Blu-rays will look better than ALL DVD's. That simply is not true.

#11 of 11 TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,772 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted February 04 2013 - 12:37 AM

Some I can't remember because I don't own them, but a couple terrible looking Blu-rays I can think of right now are The Godfather, Texas Chainsaw Massacre(original).

The Godfather is a highly regarded disc. It doesn't have a crystal clear image but it shouldn't. The intent of a Blu-ray transfer should be to look as close to what a print of the movie looked like when it played in the theater and The Godfather Blu-ray succeeds at that.

And there are some "Superbit" DVD's like Terminator 2 that look GREAT, better than some Blu-rays. All I was trying to say is it's not a given that ALL Blu-rays will look better than ALL DVD's. That simply is not true.

You can't compare one movie to another. Obviously, a decades-old low budget movie shot on 16mm like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is not going to look as nice as The Avengers or Finding Nemo. The only fair comparison to make is between the DVD and the Blu-ray of the same movie and when you do that, I can't think of one example of where the DVD looks better than the Blu-ray of the same movie. Granted, there's probably tens of thousands of titles out of there so there may be one example out there somewhere. That's certainly not to say that all Blu-rays are good (they aren't) but barring some massive and incredibly rare error, they are better than or at least on par with their DVD counterpart.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users