UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Aliens -- in 4k UHD (2 Viewers)

[JohnRice]

This conversation is also assuming a perfect scenario. There are so many links in the streaming chain that can affect bitrate and AV quality - ISP throughput, ISP throttling, in-home network speed, streaming device, device setup, time of day, etc., etc. What one viewer sees and hears may not be the same as the neighbor two blocks away. There is a LOT of variability.

I was going to mention that myself, plus even though a 4 layer BR disc can hold up to 100GB, it's virtually unheard of for the feature itself to occupy 90GB. So that stat strikes me as motivated reasoning.

For me, with my HT that is more audio capable than video (with a 65" QLED) and Gb internet with ethernet to my AppleTV 4K, I hardly see any real visual difference, but I do hear an audio difference, at least with action movies. So, in general, I've stopped buying streaming versions of action movies.

 

[Wes Candela]

Wes,

I don't have the numbers on this. I can't say you are right or wrong. However, even 25% seems very low. I have seen streamed movies in 4k that look almost indistinguishable from the disc. That's coming off of iTunes on an Apple TV, which is known to be the best streaming device.

Hey Ron, oh agreed...I think Apple 4K looks great and Movies Anywhere
tgey look and sound great.

I think HEVC codec and faster int speeds have allowed for streaming videos to look as good as they do,

the math is for example...

A film streaming in 4K (depending on the length and content of film)

Approximately 20gb.., at 640kbps

On 4K UHD (with the same factors considered as above)

80GB … approximately 50,000kbps to 80,000kbps

Visually your only getting 25% of what the disc offers visually.

Sonically,
An streaming Dolby Digital Plus Atmos track is 600MB at 640kbps

on the UHD, a Dolby trueHD Atmos track 3GB at 5,000kbps or 5mb a sec.

so compared to the web version, you're hearing 10% of the audio quality that the physical disc offers.

 

[Wes Candela]

Yes, bit rate is not the only gauge of picture quality. While I do think there is some difference between streaming and disc, I think even the most ardent videophiles would have a tough time telling which is which in a double-blind test.

Depends what sequence you’re showing them

 

[Wes Candela]

I was going to mention that myself, plus even though a 4 layer BR disc can hold up to 100GB, it's virtually unheard of for the feature itself to occupy 90GB. So that stat strikes me as motivated reasoning.

For me, with my HT that is more audio capable than video (with a 65" QLED) and Gb internet with ethernet to my AppleTV 4K, I hardly see any real visual difference, but I do hear an audio difference, at least with action movies. So, in general, I've stopped buying streaming versions of action movies.

In my opinion, you cannot do better than the physical disc.

I don’t spend tons of money on grabbing every 4K out there because I’ve done that with DVD and Blu-ray, OK with getting a Web download from apple If I’m not that interested in the movie

But otherwise, the first few discs I purchased when I got my 4K set up two years ago were

Zack Snyder’s Justice league

Lawrence of Arabia

DUNE part one

and Verigo

 

[JohnRice]

In my opinion, you cannot do better than the physical disc.

Actually, Kaleidescape is better than disc, with a cost to match.

Also, I still think you're rather overstating the amount of data dedicated to 4K movies on disc. I understand even 80GB is beyond rare. It seems to tend more to a max of 40-50GB for a 2 hour movie.

I have a UHD computer drive that I can verify that with, but I need to revert the firmware on it to get it to read 4 layer video discs. I haven't bothered to do that.

...but... we're going way off topic.

 

[Kyle_D]

I understand even 80GB is beyond rare. It seems to tend more to a max of 40-50GB for a 2 hour movie.

It’s not all that rare. 50-60 GB is typical. Kino and Criterion releases are almost all now 80-90 GB, and larger file sizes are becoming more common from other distributors as they increasingly use triple layer discs. I rip all my UHDs to a media server, and my wallet has become keenly attuned to the required hard drive space

That said, I agree with all the comments that there’s not a linear relationship between bitrate and perceived quality. IME doubling or tripling the bitrate may yield, at most, a 5-10% increase in perceived quality, and it’s highly content-dependent.

 

[Tino]

I think even the most ardent videophiles would have a tough time telling which is which in a double-blind test.

Absolutely. I’d say streaming is about 90% as good as physical discs.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

One thing to keep in mind with streaming, that works to its benefit, is that it can take advantage of advances in compression algorithms. When a new revision of the AVC or HEVC codecs come out, media and hardware providers can and do update their apps, so that these advantages can be folded into their workflow immediately. This means that when the compression improves so that a new 5GB file can hold all of the same information that it used to take a 10GB file to hold, they can abandon the outdated spec in favor of the more efficient one.

On the other hand, disc providers can’t. The 4K UHD disc standard was locked in 2016 to ensure that every single 4K UHD disc can be handled by every player that bears that logo. So even though you need less space in 2024 to get the same results as you did in 2016, disc players can’t utilize that, so all 4K UHD discs are beholden to a dated compression standard, which will result in file sizes larger than they would be if someone was trying to compress the same source file to the same quality today. That means that a direct comparison of disc file size vs streaming file size is irrelevant to gauging quality.

 

[Kyle_D]

When a new revision of the AVC or HEVC codecs come out, media and hardware providers can and do update their apps, so that these advantages can be folded into their workflow immediately.

I understand the updates to the HEVC spec have mainly added support for additional profiles and metadata that do not really impact compression efficiency, but once streaming fully transitions to AV1 (which is 30% more efficient than HEVC), I expect streaming video to match or even surpass UHD.

 

[Wes Candela]

Actually, Kaleidescape is better than disc, with a cost to match.

Also, I still think you're rather overstating the amount of data dedicated to 4K movies on disc. I understand even 80GB is beyond rare. It seems to tend more to a max of 40-50GB for a 2 hour movie.

I have a UHD computer drive that I can verify that with, but I need to revert the firmware on it to get it to read 4 layer video discs. I haven't bothered to do that.

...but... we're going way off topic.

I have found that movie prior to 2020 were mainly between 50 to 55 GB… 4K UHD that is

Blade Runner, the Empire strikes back
they were not utilizing the full 90 GB size for their movies

but if you look at the movies released in the last year or two, you will notice more movies are being released at 70 gigs to 85 gigs.

this was not the case when the format was first released. I’m pretty familiar with the sizes also having to rip them to my media server.

The images are getting better. The sound is getting better.

The quality is getting better.

and the movie files are getting larger.

They still do release films at 55 to 60 GB but I have seen that lesson less since 2021

especially in 2023.

 

[Wes Candela]

This conversation is also assuming a perfect scenario. There are so many links in the streaming chain that can affect bitrate and AV quality - ISP throughput, ISP throttling, in-home network speed, streaming device, device setup, time of day, etc., etc. What one viewer sees and hears may not be the same as the neighbor two blocks away. There is a LOT of variability.

Very true
I just prefer my sources to be physical
I want the highest spit rate ability to see all the details possible and no, I have an excellent version of the film in 4K
But that’s me, I get the same way about audio (I’m a snob…I freely admit it).

Can’t do MP3
More of a 96kHz/24bit hi-res listener.

I like to hear all the nuances
With the earbuds I have, the difference is clear.

 

[Robert Harris]

It’s not all that rare. 50-60 GB is typical. Kino and Criterion releases are almost all now 80-90 GB, and larger file sizes are becoming more common from other distributors as they increasingly use triple layer discs. I rip all my UHDs to a media server, and my wallet has become keenly attuned to the required hard drive space

That said, I agree with all the comments that there’s not a linear relationship between bitrate and perceived quality. IME doubling or tripling the bitrate may yield, at most, a 5-10% increase in perceived quality, and it’s highly content-dependent.

Keep in mind that aspect ratio is a major function.

 

[Wes Candela]

Keep in mind that aspect ratio is a major function.

Agreed, wholeheartedly agree Mr. Harris changes the movie entirely, it alters the visual aspect of the movie greatly I’m pretty sensitive to it

 

[TonyD]

I thought he may have meant that the image on the screen and the data being sent to the screen in regard to black bars

 

[Wes Candela]

I thought he may have meant that the image on the screen and the data being sent to the screen in regard to black bars

Ahh
yes. Very true.

 

[Wes Candela]

It’s not all that rare. 50-60 GB is typical. Kino and Criterion releases are almost all now 80-90 GB, and larger file sizes are becoming more common from other distributors as they increasingly use triple layer discs. I rip all my UHDs to a media server, and my wallet has become keenly attuned to the required hard drive space

That said, I agree with all the comments that there’s not a linear relationship between bitrate and perceived quality. IME doubling or tripling the bitrate may yield, at most, a 5-10% increase in perceived quality, and it’s highly content-dependent.

Yes, for myself, I use bitrate as an example
My wallet has felt the effects of 4K disc sizes also.
ugh
But with all of that data on the discs Especially now that they are coming out in larger sizes, the FILM files, it’s yielding a better picture… A better image.
One that is superior to a download in my humble opinion

 

[Kyle_D]

Keep in mind that aspect ratio is a major function.

Yes, capture medium and screen size as well. 5-10% perceived improvement on a 65” screen may be perceived higher at 14 feet.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I'd say there's more (noticeable) diff between good BDs and good HD streams than the 4K versions... probably in large part because the vast majority of us can't actually fully resolve 4K rez in our normal viewings anyway. Heck, the diff between good BD and 4K isn't that great either for that matter.

But yeah, well made action films (and similar) plus some that feature awesome music tracks probably benefit the most from 4K disc over 4K streaming as @JohnRice mentioned, eg. that's partly why I waited for 4K disc to see Tar at home even though Peacock made it available in 4K so quickly for instance.

_Man_

 

[Tino]

One that is superior to a download in my humble opinion

Superior to a 1080p download yes absolutely. Superior to a 4K stream? Yes but only marginally so.

 

[Wes Candela]

Superior to a 1080p download yes absolutely. Superior to a 4K stream? Yes but only marginally so.

May come down to the equipment content being viewed on, and listened to with.