SvennoJ said:
invetedlotus123 said:
H.265 encoding solves the size problem in a way. If 4k needed 4x the size of a 1080p file ( since it`s 4x times pixels), with h.265 it needs only 2x, with the same quality, and when encoding techniques evolve the files size will be even lower. Remember when a 1080p movie needed 20gb~15gb for 2 hours and now we can get files with 4 gb that have no discernible compression artifacts or lower quality unless you are the super crazy videophile.
|
I am kind of a videophile, far from crazy though! The difference between Netflix HD and blu-ray is immediately noticeable. I would never mistake the soft look of Netflix to the crisp detailed look of blu-ray. Yet I can't see the difference between ps4 and pro in 1080p unless I switch back and forth between inputs.
Netflix 4K streams at 15mbps, upto 18mbps for HDR titles. Even if h.265 is used optimally, that still only equates to 30 to 36 mbps h.264, or blu-ray quality... (blu-ray reads upto 54 mbps, I've seen video spikes upto 48 mbps) It would be nice if Netflix would use 15 mbps h.265 for crisp 1080p, or downscale the 4K feed to a non chroma subsampled 1080p stream.
I wonder when we'll have lossless compression for video as we have now for audio. It still takes about 4 mbps for a lossless compressed 7.1 DTS HD MA stream. Which is another sore point with Netflix, lossy 5.1 audio.
But sure, if you're coming from DVD, Netflix looks pretty good.
|
This! Blu Ray still looks a lot better than streamed HD content. Hopefully that will change over time, but I still watch movies on Blu Ray if I have the option.
