Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Javs

  • Rank
    50+ Post Club

Profile Fields

  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

117 profile views
  1. Thats a good post, thanks. I think we are mostly on the same page here. In that case I am doing 'MTF Correction' also, but using MadVR NGU scaling. Its really quite excellent. This might interest you, I did this a while back investigating MadVR, its the same image I posted before, and it fits into what we are discussing. So I took the control 5.7k holiday image and shrunk it down to 2160p, then I output a specific 1080p version of the same file using the same 'master' as the source. Then what I did is compared them all using MadVR and essentially vanilla up-scaling from Kodi, which I think is nearest neighbour or something fairly default, then I also up-scaled using the MadVR NGU settings I use for 99% of my viewing and compared them all against the original master image. Doing this of course we know what the original would look like in true 4k as it were, and we can see how good/close up-scaling can get to that original. Control UHD Master vs 1080p Vanilla Up-scale http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/113576 1080p Vanilla Up-scale vs MadVR NGU Up-scale http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/113575 MadVR NGU Up-scale vs Control UHD Master http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/113573 Indeed NGU comes very close to the original, but not quite there yet. I should note the Control UHD is still passing through MadVR, but all its doing is Chroma up-sampling, no sharpening.
  2. There really is no argument here Al, You were saying Netflix essentially has nothing over 3mbit worth of content, I say that couldn't be further from the truth is all... Since this seemed to stem from the discussion of discernible difference between UHD Netflix content and 1080p Bluray. If you want to talk about ISP's that's an entirely different discussion dont you think? Whats it got to do with video quality I am seeing while watching 4k Netflix? I guess i mistook your original point? Which is you dont have fast enough internet to stream Netflix properly? If so, then yeah mate by all means go 100% disc. Its never going to become my primary critical viewing platform either, but then again I dont even have the ability to watch free to air TV since I hate it, so, for any shows I want to watch, its either download, or Netflix. Films are not the only things available for viewing.
  3. You might be misinterpreting the data, Its the average throughput at a certain time of the streaming bit-rate of all users, not how slow the connection is. Netflix claim you only need around 5mbit to watch 1080p streams, and lets face it, most people are not watching 1080p streams, most are probably 720p at best if you look at the really big picture here, so many of the people are going to be teenagers on laptops sitting on their bed looking at Netflix in a browser window, hell there are heaps of shows on netflix which are not even full HD let alone UHD. If most people are watching 720p streams (Which I bet you is the reality) then why would the average bitrate climb? I dont get how its relevant though, you are using it as a reason for drop outs and overall bad quality when that is not what they are measuring? My previous house and this house both have 100mbit connections, I pretty much never have a stream stuff up mid way, but I have had many discs skip and stop! Its pretty ironic actually. My copy of Lucy on UHD is not well at all, it does not like being played. None of this changes the fact that a UHD stream on Netflix uses 7GB per hour of content, that's not a shabby data rate for a streaming service. I think its very respectable.
  4. Al that graph has absolutely zero to do with the actual available content on Netflix. That's surveying the average throughput on netflix through entire ISPs this is 480p/720p etc right up to UHD, and its average throughput, so people on their crappy tablets, everything. Since a small portion of Australia have internet connections fast enough and a Netflix 4k app to even show you the 4k content, I hardly think this is telling us anything at all. That would be like surveying the average router activity across all internet connections in Australia, then averaging them and claiming that's how fast our internet is, when some people such as myself on full fiber to the home NBN can and do get 100Mbit throughput all day long. If that's the angle you are coming from, fine, but that's got diddly squat to do with what actual content exists on netflix. Netflix even say so themselves: The Netflix ISP Speed Index lists the average prime time bitrate for Netflix content streamed to Netflix members during a particular month. For ‘Prime Time’, we calculate the average bitrate of Netflix content in megabits per second (Mbps) streamed by Netflix members per ISP. We measure the speed via all available end user devices. For a small number of devices, we cannot calculate the exact bitrates and streaming via cellular networks is exempted from our measurements. The speed indicated in the Netflix ISP Speed Index is not a measure of the maximum throughput or the maximum capacity of an ISP. Also, Al, did you look up the US? UK? Its hardly any different. https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/us/ UK https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/uk/ Pretty flawed analytical system if you ask me.
  5. Sorry but thats just not true. UHD On Netflix uses about 7GB per hour of content according to multiple sources on google that seems to equate to about 1.93MB/Sec download speed required, which also lines up with Netflix's minimum UHD requirements of 20-25mbit internet speeds... As far a I recall, they use something similar to HEVC for UHD material on there, and HEVC uses about 60% less data than h264 at UHD resolution depending, so if you compare a 40mbit 1080p bluray in h264 to a ~20mbit stream they are going to end up pretty similar, its why UHD Blurays are using HEVC and also why the 4k video files on those discs are not kissing 170GB Each since there is literally 4x more data in each frame. I Watch a lot of 4K Netflix, I was just telling you guys what show is without a doubt the highest quality on there, and its Chefs Table and the show FOOD. Both of those are insanely detailed and sharp. The other dramas have tons of grain added, or moody lighting and whatever, whereas these other shows, if you are talking about raw resolution and quality, they are way at the top of the list because they are highly considered shots very close up under lots of lighting, as such the detail level is off the charts, and it was majorly obviously watching them. Im not saying I prefer Netflix, just pointing out that in the last couple of years they have SERIOUSLY got thier act together and the quality is franky pretty darn excellent. As for the films on Netflix, cant even comment as I dont watch them, the audio is crap, and I only use it for shows, but some shows, I have noticed looked outstanding.
  6. Good example, check out the shows Chefs Table and the documentary FOOD. Stunning 4k on Netflix, better than the TV Dramas in my opinion. They are shot under much better lighting conditions with macro level focus.
  7. Well the 'rips' are the real deal, they are proper remux from the original discs now, so, perhaps you havent looked around recently. There is now software that you can buy so we can backup our own discs, I have tested it on some of my own and it works. MadVR can then chroma upsample the content and its never looked better, not that the Panasonic UB900 was particularly bad at chroma upsampling anyway. As for MTF corrected screen? Please elaborate on this, explain what you are doing here? Give me an example by using the JVC? How does one 'MTF correct' a display. If you are talking about simply using sharpening on the display perhaps just say so?
  8. So, you are saying because films move they are useless at higher resolution, what about when they DONT move? Like, in at least 30-40% of films, there are countless shots that are totally still and only an object moves through the frame, sorry but that is a pretty lame point of view, its totally flawed. The Revenant, Sicario, Any Cohen Brothers film, just a few that comes to mind that have a lot of stillness to them, PLENTY of time to appreciate the higher resolution. Transformers, not so much. Again, I am not sure why you are shooting the format down??? Were you the guy saying the same thing when DVD was around and bluray was just around the corner? There is no scenario in which extra resolution and its accosiated benefits are going to make a film look worse. You may hit a platau with some movies, but its never going to make them look worse.
  9. I get what you are saying nd I agree with you mostly, but you seem to be fixating on the idea of us thinking we like 4k because it offers 4k of visible resolution, you are demonstrating in your posts, and the white paper does also, that if you had video encoded at 4k, you have far higher MTF values for the content up to about 3k, what about the films shot in 6.5 and 8k??? There are lots of them now. Are we ignoring those too? Those will have much greater MTF too. The Arri paper goes on to confirm this and explains to get the MAXIMUM visible resolutino from a 35mm neg under lab conditions, you must scan the neg at upwards of 6-10k and then when you have your 4k master, you will have the sharpest possible image, that does NOT mean there is 6k worth of information there, it just means due to nyquist etc, the neg must be scanned at more than double the maximum detail in order to not induce aliasing. I think you may be scrutinising the term more than the results though, There is a very real difference between a 2k film from 4k master and a 4k film from a 4k master, there are instances where the differences are pretty noticable, or if analysed they can be seen, we all know the difference between 2k and 4k from a distance to the brains memory is not a lot, but on analasys its easy to see the detail. You are also not giving Netflix enough credit, if you have ever seen the cooking shows on there, Chefts Table, FOOD, and a couple others, they are STUNNING in 4k, and far beyond whats possible with 2k video, they also use codecs similar to HEVC and have bitrates up around 20mbit, so combined with the high efficiency of the bitrate there are real benefits. Of course if those same shows were on UHD Bluray at 60mbit they would look better, but not 2k bluray.
  10. This is a really great read. Grab a coffee/tea and sit down and read it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/68u56u4n3w5dfce/Arri White Paper.pdf?dl=0
  11. 2k DI's are becoming less common as time goes on, more and more 4K remasters are being done from high res scans of film (greater than 4k scans), and digital movies shot on cameras like the Alexa 65 at 6.5k then mastered at 4k are holding information that begins to take full advantage of the medium. Add in cameras like Red Helium at 8k and you are quickly raising the MTF bar at 4k... My digital camera takes 5.7k stills, its not even particularly crash hot, Canon 7D Mark II, but very easy to get quality images from it that seem to far surpass those on UHD Bluray, and its probably because each frame is 25MB so there is just so much more density there. although I have seen raw still frames from Arri Alexa's and high end RED cameras and they look literally no different to high res stills photos. Its that we lose so much by compressing them. If you look at the image below, that's a 3840pix downscale from the 5.7k master, I wager its possible to pull a still from from a UHD Bluray which is far sharper due to the camera and optics films are shot with.
  12. If a customer ordered one, it would go from Sony directly to the customer I don't have a physical store front, so no stock comes to me.
  13. I have no plans to put one in my room. They use the same lenses, and unless native contrast has sailed past 100k:1 I cannot consider them for ownership personally. Would like to look at one though of course.
  14. As for that, I think this shows it pretty well, Ive had these images for a while now, it really illustrates the difference the JVCs are capable of when fed a UHD signal of any kind vs 1080p. As for what we are looking at, here is an image I photographed in the Whitsundays (JPEG). Here is the same image photographed from my screen from just behind the main viewing position. (JVC) Now here is a close up from that image, I moved right up to the screen for these, and the pixel grid is clearly visible in all modes. View them FULL SIZE to see the pixel grids. NO, my screen has zero texture, its a smooth surface, so any texture you see it pixel grid. Very clear to see when viewed full size UHD (E-Shift) Here is 1080p E-Shift Here is 1080p