T-Mobile Netflix Rate Increase

[Yespage]

Mine up converts 4K to 8K, well worth it.

If you are sitting three feet from it, yes, I bet it is. If not, your eyeballs aren't seeing 8K. But it is probably a real nice tv.

 

[comfortably_numb]

8K? Pssh. I want 128K!

 

[KAB]

I have a Sony 77" OLED, and I honestly can't see much difference between HDR/non-HDR 4k. Sometimes I see something so vivid with black details and I think (before I verify on TV) this has to be HDR/DolbyV...then it turns out not to be.

 

[N6BY]

I have a Sony 77" OLED, and I honestly can't see much difference between HDR/non-HDR 4k...

HDR hurts my eyes. Its so bright its like driving at night and someone going the other way has their high beams on.

And I usually cannot tell the difference between HD and 4K on my 65" Sony Bravia.

 

[klang]

One thing to remember, If you have a 4K TV, it scales everything to that resolution. Sony has always been considered one of the best at doing so. It does seem reasonable that HD can look quite good.

 

[Bruce]

If you are sitting three feet from it, yes, I bet it is. If not, your eyeballs aren't seeing 8K.

85 x 1.2 is 8.5 feet.

I am 7 feet away now, can easily tell the difference.

I just bought the 4K version of Aliens, such a massive difference, you would have to have the worst vision with no glasses not to notice the improvements on such a older movie.

But it is probably a real nice tv.

It is, Sony Bravia Z9K, will be 2 years this summer since purchasing it, still feel no need to upgrade it yet, which is a miracle for me, love upgrading stuff.

 

[KAB]

85 x 1.2 is 8.5 feet.

I am 7 feet away now, can easily tell the difference.

I just bought the 4K version of Aliens, such a massive difference, you would have to have the worst vision with no glasses not to notice the improvements on such a older movie.

I bought it 4 yrs ago, pre-pandemic. Yes it is a bit sharper, but not massive..

 

[Bruce]

I bought it 4 yrs ago, pre-pandemic. Yes it is a bit sharper, but not massive..

The digital version of Aliens just came out last December, the disc in March this year.

 

[KAB]

The digital version of Aliens just came out last December, the disc in March this year.

So the new digital version is better than the original 4k BluRay?

 

[Bruce]

So the new digital version is better than the original 4k BluRay?

Aliens has never been released as a 4K Disc, first time will be in March.

Unless you are confusing it with the first movie, Alien, no s, which does not even come close to the resolution of the new 4K Aliens.

 

[KAB]

Aliens has never been released as a 4K Disc, first time will be in March.

Unless you are confusing it with the first movie, Alien, no s, which does not even come close to the resolution of the new 4K Aliens.

OK, I GIVE, thought I saw ALIEN, not 'S.

 

[Bruce]

OK, I GIVE, thought I saw ALIEN, not 'S.

Here is the review-

The result is remarkable clarity and detail, but it is a bit jarring. Applied to Titanic (reviewed here), this unique remastering process feels completely appropriate. Applied to Aliens, which has always been a film with a grittier look, it takes more getting used to. The film looks almost modern now as opposed to vintage late 80s, which appears to be Cameron’s intent. On the other hand, I’ve just spent the entire morning going back and forth between the Alien Anthology Blu-ray and the new 4K Digital presentation on Vudu, Apple TV, and Movies Anywhere, and I definitely prefer the 4K (with a caveat that the forthcoming physical UHD should release improve upon it). There’s no doubt that this is James Cameron’s Aliens looking better than you’ve ever seen it before. There’s still light photochemical grain visible. There is plenty of fine image detail visible.

Aliens (4K Digital Review)

More than half a century after the events of Ridley Scott’s original Alien (1979), Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), the sole survivor of the commercial towing vessel Nostromo, is rescued from hypersleep in her drifting escape shuttle. Upon returning to Earth, Ripley is made to face the wrath of...

thedigitalbits.com

 

[Yespage]

85 x 1.2 is 8.5 feet.

I am 7 feet away now, can easily tell the difference.

No, you can't. The color and brightness and picture quality are very well likely to be superior, but 8K resolution on a relatively rinky dink 85" screen?

An 8K resolution is 7680x4320 and an 85" screen is about 74" wide. This provides with a pixel that is about 0.01 inches. The average eye can resolve about 1 arc minute. The math says, in order to see a 0.01 inch pixel you need to be no further away than 2.3 feet.

In order to benefit from that resolution, you need to be closer than 3 feet. Otherwise it gets washed out. 8K is much more a BIG screen thing, like massive screens for outdoors, not living rooms.

I just bought the 4K version of Aliens, such a massive difference, you would have to have the worst vision with no glasses not to notice the improvements on such a older movie.

That isn't the 4K nearly as much the HDR.

 

[Yespage]

I have a Sony 77" OLED, and I honestly can't see much difference between HDR/non-HDR 4k. Sometimes I see something so vivid with black details and I think (before I verify on TV) this has to be HDR/DolbyV...then it turns out not to be.

Reminds me of sports on Peacock and ESPN+. Stream on Peacock, and it looks awesome. Stream on ESPN+, and on my goodness does it look better. Both are "HD". The trouble with streaming is that HD isn't really HD unless it is HD HD.

 

[Bruce]

No, you can't. The color and brightness and picture quality are very well likely to be superior, but 8K resolution on a relatively rinky dink 85" screen?

An 8K resolution is 7680x4320 and an 85" screen is about 74" wide. This provides with a pixel that is about 0.01 inches. The average eye can resolve about 1 arc minute. The math says, in order to see a 0.01 inch pixel you need to be no further away than 2.3 feet.

In order to benefit from that resolution, you need to be closer than 3 feet. Otherwise it gets washed out. 8K is much more a BIG screen thing, like massive screens for outdoors, not living rooms.

Love how you are telling me what I see, I can tell the improvement, hence why I was using Aliens as a example, it was such a drastic improvement that most would see how much better it looks.

Also, what do you have for a Television, which might affect how much improvement you are viewing?

As far as eyes go, found this-

If you have normal vision, you can usefully use display resolution increases until the point where pixels are about one arcminute in size as seen by your eye. That happens when the pixel pitch is about 1/3500 of the distance between the screen and your eye.

Suppose you have a full HD display, which is 1080 pixels high. If you view this TV from a 3500/1080 = 3.2 times the picture height, it will still look almost as sharp as “real world” objects, but if you get much closer you will start to see artifacts due to pixels. (The calculation also works if you use width instead of height; the closest useful distance for viewing a 1920-pixel-wide image is 3500/1920 = 1.8 times the picture width).

If you have a UHD/4K display which is 2160 pixels high, you can view from as close as 1.6 times the display height and have a sharp image (while if you are viewing from more than 3.2 times the display height away, a HD display would work just about as well, so the 4K is wasted.

Going to 8K, the image is sharp down to 0.8 times the picture height, but if you are further away than 1.6 times the picture height you might as well be using 4K.

This extends forever. You can always use more pixels, if you are using the extra pixels to view the image from closer, and to get a larger FOV. On the other hand, for any given display size and viewing distance, there is a pixel count beyond which the extra pixels are not really useful. That can be calculated by rearranging the formula above.

For example, if you want to view a 2 m wide screen from 1 m away (0.5 times the display width), the optimum display width in pixels would be 3500/0.5 = 7000. At that distance, you would see the difference between 8K and 4K display. On the other hand, viewing the same display from 1 times the display width, the optimum number of pixels would be 3500, so 4K is useful but 8K would be wasted.

That isn't the 4K nearly as much the HDR.

It is both.

Higher resolution with Dolby Vision, which is not just colors, but also black levels, which makes the picture have more detail and depth.

 

[Bruce]

Reminds me of sports on Peacock and ESPN+. Stream on Peacock, and it looks awesome. Stream on ESPN+, and on my goodness does it look better. Both are "HD". The trouble with streaming is that HD isn't really HD unless it is HD HD.

Maybe higher bitrates.

I do not know the rates for the above, but do on the movie services, Movies Anywhere and iTunes are close to each other for peak/average bitrate for video, about 30-40mbps average and peaks up to 50-60mbps (same as 4K Discs).

Vudu is right in the 10-20mbps range for both.

Then we have Kaleidescape, premium Movie Service, bitrates averages in the 50-60mbps, peaks in the 70mbps range, which exceeds discs.

I always use Movie’s Anywhere, doubtful at my age Kaleidescape would provide much more improvement, also the discs are the same price, so makes the more economical sense to have a 4K Player (around $200-300) and buy discs vs a Kaleidescape player of $4000-up.

 

[Yespage]

Love how you are telling me what I see, I can tell the improvement, hence why I was using Aliens as a example, it was such a drastic improvement that most would see how much better it looks.

And I didn't claim the picture wasn't superior. I was saying the resolution, unless up close isn't being directly observed. You can dislike the math, but the math is accurate.

As far as eyes go, found this-

Going to 8K, the image is sharp down to 0.8 times the picture height, but if you are further away than 1.6 times the picture height you might as well be using 4K.

Okay... you quoted what I was effectively saying.

 

[Yespage]

Maybe higher bitrates.

Yes, it is better or less compression. But they are both allegedly HD...ish. That is the problem with streaming, or really "4K" releases of movies that are not filmed or scanned at 4K. Media companies are effectively allowed to blur the lines as to what they are actually providing you verses what they say you are getting.

I do not know the rates for the above, but do on the movie services, Movies Anywhere and iTunes are close to each other for peak/average bitrate for video, about 30-40mbps average and peaks up to 50-60mbps (same as 4K Discs).

I'll need to check that out. Granted, I have all the movies I own ripped, so I stream at the bitrate the blu-ray is physically at. But obviously movies I don't own I need to stream from elsewhere.

 

[Mochuf]

If you have any doubts about how effective HDR is, watch the Harry Potter movies (especially the last two) on 4k discs. The shadows in the Blu-Rays were far too dark. You can actually see the details on the 4K discs.