True 4K / Native 4K - Pixel Shift - Help me understand it all?

[Javs]

3 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

I haven't seen enough 4K Blu-rays from 4K digital intermediates to be able to form an opinion, but my experience with Full HD Blu-rays has been that they tend to provide a fairly soft image, in many or most scenes of the film. (Perhaps that is because of a desire to avoid visible artefacts (e.g. pixelation) in the Blu-ray, with the limited bitrate available for the video compression: better to be soft and film-like, than sharp with occasionally noticeable artefacts.)

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

[MLXXX]

2 hours ago, Javs said:

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

Thanks. I have had a quick scan through it. It seems to be soundly based, and well presented, if I may presume to express an opinion!  (I have read about MTF and related topics quite a lot in the past.)

 

I can say that for myself, 4K even from non-HDR Netflix 4K titles (in particular slow moving scenes where the limited bitrate of Netflix doesn't preclude high visible resolution), can be a distinctly worthwhile step-up in visible resolution from Full HD Blu-ray.  But of course it is a relatively subtle improvement, not to be compared with the dramatic improvement in PQ obtainable when going from PAL DVD to Full HD Blu-ray.

Edited October 13, 2017 by MLXXX

[Mobe1969]

Got to say, I'm starting to feel a bit overwhelmed with it all, and the complexity of it and tuning.

 

On the old CRT technology, I spent so much time tuning them, convergence, overscan (spits), linearity, etc. And then 1:1 mapped source:display technology with LCD. And it had been simpler. If the mothers hadn't dropped 3D I'd still be looking at the largest OLED screen I could get. And it annoys me that it would add nothing much to the cost for active 3d. Firmware and maybe an additional emitter.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Mobe1969

[betty boop]

1 hour ago, Mobe1969 said:

Got to say, I'm starting to feel a bit overwhelmed with it all, and the complexity of it and tuning.

 

On the old CRT technology, I spent so much time tuning them, convergence, overscan (spits), linearity, etc. And then 1:1 mapped source:display technology with LCD. And it had been simpler. If the mothers hadn't dropped 3D I'd still be looking at the largest OLED screen I could get. And it annoys me that it would add nothing much to the cost for active 3d. Firmware and maybe an additional emitter.

nothing to do with the topic of this thread. however 3D I can tell you needs immersion. I'm sitting at thx spec for immersion and can tell you its a fantastic experience.

 

the reason i have no doubt they got rid of 3D on flat panels is with little TVs you simply cant have the same immersion, you'd have to be sitting very close as they max out in size and the largest OLED (we dont get) is VERY expensive many many multiples than projector setups we are talking here. even my relatively small projector setup has a screen 50% larger than the larger oled can buy right now.

 

I've been enjoying 3D on projectors since the launch of the format and not something id be so keen to give away. bought 3 current releases on 3D just in the last week and very much look forward to watching. 

[Mobe1969]

5 hours ago, al said:

nothing to do with the topic of this thread. however 3D I can tell you needs immersion. I'm sitting at thx spec for immersion and can tell you its a fantastic experience.

 

the reason i have no doubt they got rid of 3D on flat panels is with little TVs you simply cant have the same immersion, you'd have to be sitting very close as they max out in size and the largest OLED (we dont get) is VERY expensive many many multiples than projector setups we are talking here. even my relatively small projector setup has a screen 50% larger than the larger oled can buy right now.

 

I've been enjoying 3D on projectors since the launch of the format and not something id be so keen to give away. bought 3 current releases on 3D just in the last week and very much look forward to watching. 

I definitely don't disagree with you. But I've gotten lazy or rather less diligent with TV tuning since I waved goodbye to CRT technology... Just starting to feel a bit daunted at the thought of getting back into it. I'm getting older...  I'll do it, and the results will pay off, just got to psych myself up to it!

 

And in my opinion, my post was on topic as I'm trying to understand the technology and situation and I was surprised to see it wasn't as clear cut or understandable as panel technology, and now I'm seeing it has more in common complexity wise as the CRT technology.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Mobe1969

[Owen]

20 hours ago, MLXXX said:

I haven't seen enough 4K Blu-rays from 4K digital intermediates to be able to form an opinion, but my experience with Full HD Blu-rays has been that they tend to provide a fairly soft image, in many or most scenes of the film. (Perhaps that is because of a desire to avoid visible artefacts (e.g. pixelation) in the Blu-ray, with the limited bitrate available for the video compression: better to be soft and film-like, than sharp with occasionally noticeable artefacts.)

I suspect you may be right about the studios playing it safe with 1080 Bluray production, especially with lower quality movies. Any sort of digital artefacts would be a total fail IMHO so to be on the better safe side.

Having said that, high quality 1080 titles like Lucy are anything but "soft" on my 100" screen viewed from 3m, especially after appropriate MTF correction has been applied which makes a BIG difference.

MTF correction is like speaker or room correction for audio, its a way to get a flatter amplitude (MTF) response on the particular display in use to get the "correct" level of sharpness over a wider range of spatial frequencies, not too much and not too little.

It can also be tweaked for individual movie titles if desired.   To do this properly we need control of which spatial frequencies are boosted and by how much, more like a graphic or parametric equaliser rather than the basic treble (sharpness) control provided by displays.

 

Remember image sharpness is directly related to contrast, so if you want to do a proper comparison of 1080 and 4K content from various sources you simply MUST calibrated the display so that major variables like display brightness are eliminated. Brighter will always look sharper even if "resolution" is lower, and HDR video will trigger the display into "bright high contrast" mode making a valid comparison to SDR video impossible.

With projectors we can run the same peak output for HDR and SDR using custom gamma mapping.

 

As for Netflix so called 4K, I'm very sure that if you down scaled it to 2K to strip out any detail above 2K, and then scaled it back up to 4K for display it would look the same. On a BIG screen 1080 Bluray is still superior, particularly for audio.

I have done the above experiment with some 4K "rips" and there was nothing 4K about them other than the pixel count, even though the file sizes where huge. People who download those "rips" are deluding themselves if they think they are the real deal.

 

Look, I'm not suggesting that 1080 Bluray is the equal of 4K Bluray, its plainly not technically, however given how great 1080 Bluray can look on a properly setup MTF corrected big screen system, and the VASTLY greater range of content available on 1080 disk, I just cant get excited about 4K video at all.

 

 

[Owen]

Here are some links to videos I posted here years ago, they cover the issues of digital sampling, the need to low pass filter and the effects of MTF on what we see.

 

The presenters go to great lengths to point out that high “resolution” is not useful for moves, the game is all about high MTF at low to medium spatial frequencies NOT super high “resolution”.

 

4K is useful not because it provides 4K resolution but because it provides higher MTF at 2K and under which is what the eye perceives are sharpness.

 

There is one noted difference between what John Gult has to say about usable resolution limits and what the Arri paper suggests. Arri suggest that the 10% MTF point is a useful limit while John and just about all major camera manufacturers and testers of both still and video cameras typically use 30%. The 30% limit is MUCH more realistic given that a 100% full amplitude input signal is only valid in a test environment, real would details have MUCH lower contrast with 30% being generous. A 30% contrast input signal going into a system with 30% MTF at a given spatial frequency will give an output of only 10% in the video which is useless.

 

All properly engineered digital cameras have a 30% MTF point at about 75% of the pixel count (3K for a 4k camera) because MTF (amplitude response) MUST fall to almost zero at a spatial frequency equal or greater than the cameras image sensor grid pitch. Higher resolution cameras tend to be worse because they are more lens limited.

 

It should be noted that the usable resolution limit of 35mm film exposed in a camera via a lens and scanned at 4K is about 2K best case under laboratory perfect test conditions.

 

Neither the Arri paper or the Panavision presentation take into account colour sub sampling, video compression or most importantly MOTION. Movies are captured at 24fps and almost always with 1/24^th shutter speed which is really slow and incapable of high resolution if there is ANY motion what so ever. So real world “resolution” is going to be less then the ideal and ofter MUCH, MUCH less.

For example a small error in focus distance can halve resolution at 4K or worse.

Anything more than slow motion can drag resolution down to VHS tape levels, no matter if the camera is 40K “resolution”.

The slow shutter speeds and the motion blur it creates are needed to disguise low frame rate jitter that would otherwise give the audience a headache with medium panning shots.

 

So, until much higher frame rates and much faster shutter speeds are used to make movies high “resolution” will remain a dream. Even that wont work most of the time because there is typically not enough light to run a faster shutter speed unless its an outdoors day time shot.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht4Mv2wIRyQ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht4Mv2wIRyQ

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96yhEr-DWM

 

 

[MLXXX]

25 minutes ago, Owen said:

As for Netflix so called 4K, I'm very sure that if you down scaled it to 2K to strip out any detail above 2K, and then scaled it back up to 4K for display it would look the same.

Actually I did do such an exercise for some scenes, just to satisfy myself that my eyes weren't deceiving me. I paused the Netflix 2160p stream, photographed a portion of my 65" LCD 4K display, and then did the necessary calculations and downscaled the photo to an equivalent to 1080p format and then back up to an equivalent to 2160p format.  I was able to satisfy myself that for some scenes the 2160p Netflix stream was not merely upscaled 1080p. For example, I found there could be a reduced legibility of video text (such as sign posts and advertising on shop windows) if I downscaled the photograph of the screen to an equivalent  1080p format.

 

As an example of the types of investigations I did, here is one of a number of gifs I created showing differing versions of a scene that appeared in the opening credits for the American version of House of Cards (set in Washington DC):

 

http://s112.photobucket.com/user/albertocaruso/media/Resolution comparisons/Shopintersection-resolutioncomparison_zpsfz7m17ot.gif.html?sort=3&o=3

 

It's quite clear from that gif that the Neflix 2160p stream gives better visible resolution of the scene than the Netflix 1080p and 720p stream versions.

 

I did present some of this type of material in an old thread.  Here is a relevant post in that thread: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Javs]

14 hours ago, Owen said:

Here are some links to videos I posted here years ago, they cover the issues of digital sampling, the need to low pass filter and the effects of MTF on what we see.

 

The presenters go to great lengths to point out that high “resolution” is not useful for moves, the game is all about high MTF at low to medium spatial frequencies NOT super high “resolution”.

 

4K is useful not because it provides 4K resolution but because it provides higher MTF at 2K and under which is what the eye perceives are sharpness.

 

 

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.

[Javs]

14 hours ago, Owen said:

Neither the Arri paper or the Panavision presentation take into account colour sub sampling, video compression or most importantly MOTION. Movies are captured at 24fps and almost always with 1/24^th shutter speed which is really slow and incapable of high resolution if there is ANY motion what so ever. So real world “resolution” is going to be less then the ideal and ofter MUCH, MUCH less.

For example a small error in focus distance can halve resolution at 4K or worse.

Anything more than slow motion can drag resolution down to VHS tape levels, no matter if the camera is 40K “resolution”.

The slow shutter speeds and the motion blur it creates are needed to disguise low frame rate jitter that would otherwise give the audience a headache with medium panning shots.

 

So, until much higher frame rates and much faster shutter speeds are used to make movies high “resolution” will remain a dream. Even that wont work most of the time because there is typically not enough light to run a faster shutter speed unless its an outdoors day time shot.

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.

[Javs]

14 hours ago, Owen said:

I have done the above experiment with some 4K "rips" and there was nothing 4K about them other than the pixel count, even though the file sizes where huge. People who download those "rips" are deluding themselves if they think they are the real deal.

 

Look, I'm not suggesting that 1080 Bluray is the equal of 4K Bluray, its plainly not technically, however given how great 1080 Bluray can look on a properly setup MTF corrected big screen system, and the VASTLY greater range of content available on 1080 disk, I just cant get excited about 4K video at all.

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?

[Javs]

13 hours ago, MLXXX said:

Actually I did do such an exercise for some scenes, just to satisfy myself that my eyes weren't deceiving me. I paused the Netflix 2160p stream, photographed a portion of my 65" LCD 4K display, and then did the necessary calculations and downscaled the photo to an equivalent to 1080p format and then back up to an equivalent to 2160p format.  I was able to satisfy myself that for some scenes the 2160p Netflix stream was not merely upscaled 1080p. For example, I found there could be a reduced legibility of video text (such as sign posts and advertising on shop windows) if I downscaled the photograph of the screen to an equivalent  1080p format.

 

As an example of the types of investigations I did, here is one of a number of gifs I created showing differing versions of a scene that appeared in the opening credits for the American version of House of Cards (set in Washington DC):

 

http://s112.photobucket.com/user/albertocaruso/media/Resolution comparisons/Shopintersection-resolutioncomparison_zpsfz7m17ot.gif.html?sort=3&o=3

 

It's quite clear from that gif that the Neflix 2160p stream gives better visible resolution of the scene than the Netflix 1080p and 720p stream versions.

 

I did present some of this type of material in an old thread.  Here is a relevant post in that thread: 

 

 

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.

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Javs said:

 

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.

Thanks, although we are not all that much into cooking shows!

 

As regards PQ of 4K TV dramas, one that has impressed me (particularly in its later episodes) is Grace and Frankie. It's not every scene that is really sharp but from time to time I get really bowled over by the clarity.  This drama consists almost entirely of static or near static shots so that  even at the limited bitrate used for the Netfix 2160p Streaming of this show, a quite impressive picture quality is feasible. 

[Mobe1969]

Anyone checked that new David Fincher series on Netflix? I noticed in the end credits it had Dolby Vision. I wonder if the Netflix 4k has that capable (or any Netflix players handle it).

 

Brilliant series. I'm only 1080p at the moment though...

[Owen]

16 hours ago, MLXXX said:

It's quite clear from that gif that the Neflix 2160p stream gives better visible resolution of the scene than the Netflix 1080p and 720p stream versions.

Come on mate, fair go. I specifically stated the comparison was between 1080 Bluray  disk and 4K Netflix.

The maximum bit rate 1080 Netflix stream is CRAP compare to 1080 Bluray. Its bad on a TV and intolerable on the projection screen as far as I am concerned. Not only has the resolution been trashed but there are heaps of compression problems, particularly in shadow areas, with pixelation, low colour resolution etc. Its ugly so I will not watch any movies on Netflix, quality 720 content eats 1080 Netflix. On top of all that the sound quality SUCKS.

 

Its no loss to me as their movie content is either old and I've seen it, or of no interest.

[betty boop]

4k might be ok for cooking shows and such documentaries and such but i'll take my movies on disc blu-ray and uhd. nothing beats those for bit rate quality of picture and audio. even likes of planet earth is on uhd so why would i take 2nd best  

 

also keeping in mind realistic bit rates.... netflix publish their rates their peak times rates max out around 3 mbps which forget about 4k wont even support 1080p

[betty boop]

2 hours ago, Mobe1969 said:

Anyone checked that new David Fincher series on Netflix? I noticed in the end credits it had Dolby Vision. I wonder if the Netflix 4k has that capable (or any Netflix players handle it).

 

Brilliant series. I'm only 1080p at the moment though...

apparently apple tv is supposed to get dolby vision but it is a complete mess of a thing from what I can work out from all sources. keep an eye out on streaming devices, there is the amazon fire, the google cast. definitely in too early days with regards DV.

 

to be truthful I have to date on read very mixed dealings about DV as well. am not hearing its the massive thing it was made out to be. so time will only tell on it. 

 

the biggest issues wiht streaming for me is lack of proper audio support and things like not even getting frame rate right. these are basics as far as concerned.

[Javs]

7 minutes ago, al said:

4k might be ok for cooking shows and such documentaries and such but i'll take my movies on disc blu-ray and uhd. nothing beats those for bit rate quality of picture and audio. even likes of planet earth is on uhd so why would i take 2nd best  

 

also keeping in mind realistic bit rates.... netflix publish their rates their peak times rates max out around 3 mbps which forget about 4k wont even support 1080p

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.

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, Owen said:

Come on mate, fair go. I specifically stated the comparison was between 1080 Bluray  disk and 4K Netflix.

Yeah well that's why in that post Owen I didn't merely refer you to that gif, but to a thread in which, amongst other things, I compared  1080p Bluray to 1080p Netflix; and very relevantly I compared a 2160p Netflix frame as photographed to that photograph rescaled to 1080p.

 

It turns out that Netflix 4K can in static or very slow moving scenes provide surprisingly good visible resolution, exceeding that possible with a 1080p video  format. I have made this point more than once over the last couple of years, and I have actually gone to the trouble of uploading sample images to support my subjective assessments.

 

1 hour ago, Owen said:

The maximum bit rate 1080 Netflix stream is CRAP compare to 1080 Bluray. Its bad on a TV and intolerable on the projection screen as far as I am concerned. Not only has the resolution been trashed but there are heaps of compression problems, particularly in shadow areas, with pixelation, low colour resolution etc. Its ugly so I will not watch any movies on Netflix, quality 720 content eats 1080 Netflix. On top of all that the sound quality SUCKS.

I would have to say that I do find 1080p Netflix a little disappointing. It will depend on the particular title but I find there is an additional softness beyond the softness I experience with typical 1080p Blu-ray material. However my overall assessment of the picture quality of 1080p Netflix is not nearly as negative as yours. 

 

As regards sound quality, I believe a particularly low bitrate is used under very adverse streaming conditions such as when Netflix is providing the video at only 240p; but at video resolutions of say 720p and above the sound quality is quite reasonable and sounds no worse to my ears than PAL DVD surround sound quality. The sound with 480p video streaming is better for my ears than nominal 64kbps stereo from DAB+ radio [admittedly a low bar].

 

___

 

Does anyone know what audio codec and bitrate Netflix Australia typically uses when streaming at 1080p?  

Edited October 15, 2017 by MLXXX

[Satanica]

3 minutes ago, MLXXX said:

Does anyone know what audio codec and bitrate Netflix Australia typically uses when streaming at 1080p?  

DD+

[MLXXX]

43 minutes ago, al said:

also keeping in mind realistic bit rates.... netflix publish their rates their peak times rates max out around 3 mbps which forget about 4k wont even support 1080p

????

I think you may be referring to certain averages, across a wide variety of internet connections. Some of these cannot supply high bandwidth from any site. For example certain ADSL connections on copper wire distant from the exchange provide very ordinary download rates. So the limitation there is not with Netflix.

As an example of of real life experience, where I reside in the inner northern suburbs of Brisbane, accessing the internet through Optus cable, 4K Netflix Australia titles will stream at 4K at almost all times. An exception occurred about two weeks ago. Friends tell me this was probably due to it being school holidays. 

[MLXXX]

6 minutes ago, Satanica said:

DD+

No wonder it sounds so decent then.

[betty boop]

1 hour ago, Javs said:

Sorry but thats just not true.

 

~

it is true. from the horse. they survey all

 

https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/australia/

 

 

and this is how we rate as a country our wonderfull high of 3,61 average of 3.49 and low of 3.38

 

[betty boop]

1 hour ago, Javs said:

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.

yep I dont mind watching cooking shows and doccos etc but id rather watch movies on disc. the audio side particularly and get the who deal with regards video side. we invest so much in audio video systems I jsutsee no sense to compromise on source  

[Javs]

57 minutes ago, al said:

it is true. from the horse. they survey all

 

https://ispspeedindex.netflix.com/country/australia/

 

 

and this is how we rate as a country our wonderfull high of 3,61 average of 3.49 and low of 3.38

 

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.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2017 by Javs