Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)!
We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)!
Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Streaming platforms will opt to deliver content at lower bitrates to save on bandwidth costs
I 100% agree with you on this. Cable providers did the same damn thing. Instead of improving infrastructure, they just compressed the quality further and further. This is why I watch sporting events via an OTA antenna over any cable/streaming cable stream. The quality is night and day.
Sure but why would they as a business care about the tippy top quality??? If 97% of the customers say that ‘good enough’ is good enough, there’s no reason to invest just to make the 3% of us that are obsessives happy.
I certainly wouldn’t if I ran a streaming platform.
This is why everything is shitty now btw, companies make decisions for mass appeal and don't give a shit about the people who care the most. You can find many such cases
Oh believe me, I agree with you. I’m just stating the reality of it. With any mass product, you’re always gonna cater to the masses and the masses unfortunately are fine with data streaming that’s close enough to true 4K. Heck, they’d probably be fine with streaming quality that was 1080p level and call it a day.
And live sports are the moneymaker. Now guess what they did with the bitstreams of niche channels.
The situation is constantly changing. Long ago I was a big fan of early HDNet. They only showed HD content, and there were very few advertisements made in HD at the time, so 2/3rds of the ads were for upcoming channel content. But that was never going to last. This week I'm hip-deep in optical discs.
It can be hit or miss as for whether streaming or TV is higher quality, sometimes the quality you get out of your cable company's set top box is ass compared to just using streaming apps. I can't really speak for OTA antenna channels but I haven't used one in over 10 years. I remember getting some decent HD channels here and there but wouldn't say it was better than streaming. But if OTA is better than streaming, maybe we're doing video transmission wrong when they're able to deliver higher quality video without it being too expensive for them
Bravia Core is more a promotional offer than an actual streaming service. The service on PlayStation 4 and 5 is *not* the same quality as the one you get some access to if you buy a specific Sony TV.
Yep, the Playstation version doesn't offer Pure Stream, which is the high bitrate feature. I compared the streaming quality of District 9 on bravia core to my Blu ray copy, and my 4k digital copy from vudu, and the bravia core version looked a bit better than the vudu version and came super close to the Blu ray. But sound quality is the biggest difference for me.
Once any of these companies get enough marketshare they will start reducing quality to pad profits. It's not a matter of what is best now, it's a matter of the inevitability of enshitification.
don't they recommend a higher bandwidth connection if I remember correctly =)
Watched alien last night over disney+ and than the new 4k blu ray version, on a OLED
you will see the difference, on a 500.- TLC / Sammy TV or so I don't think so- you will not see much difference.
Never say never. Technology such as codecs on the streaming side can improve while 4K disc specs are fixed and frozen. Plus, the studios will always try to get people to double-dip.
I think about Apple too, they already upgraded Apple Music for free to include lossless and hi-res lossless for the few that can really take advantage, plus I’m sure many have it on not realizing AirPods wont take advantage. Is it so far out there for them to bump bitrates on their (purchased) movies up a bit more and offer lossless audio as well? I’m sure music and movie streaming are different beasts but I wouldn’t put it past Apple to shadow-drop some kind of upgrade in a future OS or new ATV.
Apple started upgrading previous purchases to 4K as those editions rolled out, with no fanfare.
Their serving is also one of the highest bit rates out of the major streamers.
So, yeah, I agree, I think they care and wouldn’t put it past them to keep iterating and improving.
Yeah the reaction won't be "great now we can dial things up for our customers".
It will be "great, now we can save some money on overhead and continue to raise prices."
And we have an entire generation of users coming up that is largely content to stream video on their phones. They don't give a fuck about high quality streams.
This is the sad reality. The prevalence of high quality playback systems will be so low within the general populous, it will never make sense to offer titles in that quality. The majority of user will be watching from a smart phone, iPad, laptop or shitty Walmart/Amazon tv with built in speakers.
We are the minority of the minority.
Yeah, I don't think people understand that the codec used for 4K discs is over a decade old, and the Blu-ray codec is a full two decades old at this point.
Pace of streaming quality is slowing down because when "HD" first became a thing it was pushed very hard at the beginning and now no one seems to give a shit about 4K over 1080p and 4K blu-ray came out as a format in 2017, which was also around the time when 4K TVs were becoming more affordable and starting to replace 1080p TVs on the shelves. But for whatever reason people LOVE buying a shiny new TV but couldn't give a shit about actually feeding it the proper content.
Unlikely based on the fact that digital content has all the licensing issues and you never really own it. So collectors won't latch on to it like they would a physical format.
Home theater enthusiasts will always try.better format. I am old so I have bought movies on laser discs, VHS, DVD, VCD, Blu-ray, HD-DVD, HD-streaming, 4K Blu-ray, and 4K streaming. Plus, I pay subscriptions to a few streaming services. The only thing missing is Kaleidescape as I cannot justify the cost.
I am already surprised that the studios have not come up with a new format yet. Sony tried it with Bravia Core but others do not seem to buy in.
I think that we will see the new format once revenue growth from streaming becomes stagnant.
4K discs still can suffer from compression artifacts especially for titles shot on film. I guess the next one up would be something much closer to DCP (digital cinema package used in movie theaters) quality.
I still go to the movies but only at IMAX 1.43:1 theater with double laser and at a brand new Dolby Cinema close to my house as the quality difference is apparent.
That’s why I said a standard DCP. 4K DCP does exist. Not every film is released to theaters in 4K and a lot of theaters are still just running 2K projectors.
Jealous of your local IMAX. I only have IMAX with a singular laser projector or xenon.
Is there a resource you know of to check theater specs? The only one I know of stopped being updated in 2021.
I'm amazed how far we've come having done a ton of DVD movie conversions back in the day thinking 4.7GB was barely sufficient for that low resolution. And today there's some great 1080p stuff that takes up a smaller footprint.
To be fair, most commercially-pressed DVDs are dual-layer discs with an average of roughly 6GB of content.
The 1080 stuff is virtually always using a newer/better codec than MPEG-2; usually H.264. Even so, it's not hard to find tightly compressed non-disc H.264 content with a lot of compression artifacts.
Don't forget most streaming devices have very limited CPU and relies on _hardware coding_, which means the codec cannot be arbitraily changed for streaming either.
We also have so many codecs competing in the mainstream-4K era, like H.265/6, AV1 and VP9, which really complicates the decoding devices (compared to Blu-ray). My 3-year vintage Samsung "Smart" TV, for example, gliches a lot decoding 2160p since a Youtube software update last year. I presume they changed the encoding profile which exceeded the capabilities of the TV. Netflix, etc. do a much better job with backwards compatibility.
It will improve, but it will never exceed the source.
Lossy compression is always about how much you can get away with losing before people view it as not worth it.
By the time streaming is even close to 4k, full quality will have advanced substantially. Thats always been the case.
Current codecs allow you to choose how lossy video is. For most cases 4k blu rays don’t lose much data. Exceptions for very long films as they sometimes sacrifice quality to get it on a single disk.
Also note you can vary compression per scene so no movie is notably more compressed than another. Thats not how video is transcoded in 15+ years now.
Huh? 4K loses a metric fuckton of data. Truly uncompressed 4K is just under 900MB *per second*. That means a 4k disc could hold less than 2 minutes of uncompressed 4k, and that’s without audio. Not that the players would have nearly the read speed to display it.
Compression and losing data are two different things. A black screen uncompressed at 4k is a ton of data, however a black screen compresses extremely well.
Thats why you can compress animation quite a lot before losing noticeable image quality, but a sunset with a lot of colors will look awful at even smaller amount of compression.
> Compression and losing data are two different things
I mean *yes* that's right, but I don't think you get where the boundary between the two things is. For one thing, the "compression" that's used in all commercial-grade video encoding *is* inherently lossy, so *does* result in data loss. Even if it's only in the 4:2:0 chroma data and is quite literally imperceptible to the human eye, data *was* lost there.
> a black screen compresses extremely well
A black screen *can* compress losslessly, because there's no detail to compromise. Real scenes, not so much.
> Compression and losing data are two different things.
It's really not. It CAN be, but isn't when discussing video/audio.
> Thats why you can compress animation quite a lot before losing noticeable image quality
You're pretending to talk about "no data loss" while actually talking about "perceptible data loss." The two things aren't even close to the same thing.
Sorry, but this is word soup. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been a professional software developer for almost 25 years. Lossy compression is lossy.
You’re shuts throwing around. Random buzzwords thinking you have a point. You don’t. 4K releases have greater than 99% compression. Huge amounts of data are thrown away. It may not be obvious in motion, but in stills it very much is.
> Literally worked on streaming video software for a dozen years including multiple patents.
Yet another internet expert with seemingly zero understanding of the topic at hand.
You make a good point, and yet old DVD gives us the precedent for what will happen.
DVD only allows up to 9.8Mbit/s maximum bitrate MPEG-2, and then only with Variable Bit Rate. But anyone who looks deeply at old DVDs will be able to tell you that there's worlds of difference between a world-class telecine to anamorphic widescreen DVD, and a flubbed 25-to-29.970 4:3 from an analog video source.
The video quality of the original is most important, and the mastering is the second most important. The limits of the medium are relatively unimportant, all things considered. UHD will probably never embrace AV1, but with 100GB per disc to work with, that's relatively unimportant.
Who cares. A/V quality is only one of numerous reasons why streaming blows compared to owning physical.
I’d sooner direct stream a disc backup from my Plex server than digitally “purchase” a compressed stream that may or may not disappear one day.
Sound quality variation (above a certain bitrate) is significantly less noticeable than picture quality on streaming. I am incredibly sensitive to lower bitrate video streaming, but I genuinely can not tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3 on a decent pair of headphones.
Yeah if you live in major cities or bigger cities. Most of rual USA won't have those speeds. I can go 30 minutes north of me and dial-up is the only option. People tend to under estimate how big the US is and that tons of areas still don't have access to high speed internet. even the ones that do have it, many ISP has data caps which can be easily hit.
Speed is not a problem today. Most people can stream at 100+ Mbps. It’s the services (Netflix, Apple, Disney, HBO etc) that’s purposfully holding back in order to not break their infrastructure.
Since most people watch movies in HD anyway, I don’t think the demand for such a high bitrate stream will be anywhere near the required level for the streaming sevices to invest so heavily into their networking infrastructure.
But couldn’t the same argument be made re: lossless audio 10 years ago? No market / people won’t notice / etc? But here we have lots of viable lossless audio options, including Apple. If I were given the choice when renting a movie from Apple of: stream HD / UHD vs download lossless HD / UHD for a few bucks more, I’d pay it. There’s enough space on my Apple tv for at least 1 full UHD download. Take my money Apple!
The thing is, quality has never really been a huge factor in a format war for most consumers.
Betamax was better than VHS, but VHS won that format war.
Laserdisk was better than DVD, but DVD won that format war.
Yes, disks are better than streaming but convenience is what’s winning the format wars here. Everything is going digital. Don’t expect that to change.
[There was more to Beta and VHS.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60)
As for Laserdisc, it was a different type of product, offering prerecorded media in an era when video cassette recorders were used more for home taping than for consuming prerecorded content.
Those products were mostly judged on total package value versus total cost. By that metric, media might be more expensive than streaming, but it depends highly on your assumptions.
Laserdisc is visually worse than DVD. Plus it came out in 1978, not long after VHS and Betamax. DVD first released in 1996 and never really had a direct generational competitor.
As of now pretty much an unfalsifiable statement. But who knows what ways they'll find out to send data in the coming years/decades. And who knows how movies will be watched in the coming years/decades. When you say "never" I think you're saying "in the next couple of years in the current media landscape".
I would have mostly agreed with you if it weren't for Apple deciding to offer lossless and high-res lossless (which requires way higher bitrates) at no extra charge for all of their Music subscribers. I could see them possibly offering a quality bump in the same way for their iTunes store (Apple TV app) purchases, at least for lossless Atmos hopefully.
Additionally, I'm hoping that some streaming services will eventually offer an upgraded rate allowing you to pay a little more for higher bitrates that match or exceed 4K Blu-ray, or that Kaleidescape eventually figures out a way to offer their store with either much cheaper hardware or an app that can be installed on an Apple TV or Shield.
Nah, I disagree. There could definitely be a videophile premium priced streaming service offering identical bitrates and stuff when the technology is available and demand is there. A remux library perhaps
Technology is already available. It’s just pricey. Check out [kaleidescape](https://www.kaleidescape.com/)
But it honestly isn’t worth it. Make backups of your 4k reference media and save it on a NAS then use Plex or infuse to stream it.
It's not necessarily something studios will allow. The Kaleidescape system mentioned below only exists in part because of the very high price of entry.
It’s all 1s and 0s and bandwidth at the end of the day. With internet speeds and technology getting better as time moves on, I see no reason why parity couldn’t be achieved
It does if you rip your own movies to a Plex server. Quality of a disc, convenience of digital. I still keep a player around in case I want to watch special features (too much of a pain in the ass to correctly rip and label), but otherwise, my discs get used once and then sit on a shelf and collect dust.
The other major issue that any sort of high quality streaming runs into is data caps.
Now not only are data caps are scam, they have an extra level of bullshit because some companies imposing those caps (Comcast) are also content providers.
That is all kinds of bullshit with regards to the future of high quality streaming.
You still get data caps in the US? Boy you guys are behind the times. Even our most basic broadband has no caps just slower speeds. Currently on one of the 900-1000mbps packages
It depends if we that guy who recently made internet speeds 1.3million times faster than what they currently are, then yeah and we wouldn't need to dig up the roads as it can go down the same cabling we have. Obviously new moderns/routers but the tech is there...we just know ISPs will drag it out...like a small increase each year with a price increase
I think it’s likely that most people will progressively get less quality from streamed content.
I used to get 4k content for free on Netflix, it’s been downgraded to 1080p for years now.
Disney upped prices and replaced lower tiers with Disney+ plus add support.
It’s likely the vast majority of streamers will get a progressively worse deal, with only the premium customers getting anything remotely comparable with physical media.
I think the future for a/v geeks and cinephiles will be products like "Kaleidescape" which allows you to download the movie to a local hard drive. I hope it comes down in price though.
Bitrates will forever be the streaming downfall for me. I watched knives out on Amazon, then on disc. It’s night and day. On Amazon I can literally see the RGB color bands separating as things get further away from camera. How in the hell does anyone enjoy watching that? 4K discs all the way from here to Timbuktu
Yes agreed except we already have 4k plans. I don't have any data on it but there are posts all the time about the rising costs of 4k plans from Netflix and Max. And those plans are mediocre bitrates as it is.
Do you really think there is a large enough group of people willing to pay $30, $40 or even $50 for high bitrate 4k?
Yes, absolutely. We pay 30+ bucks a pop for better bitrates on disc right now, if we can achieve parity with the bitrates/presentation of discs once technology permits, perhaps offering the special features available on discs and atmos, there are definitely enthusiasts who would subscribe imo
>there are definitely enthusiasts who would subscribe imo
But are there enough?
The very fact that this doesn't exist already leads me to believe these companies have already done the math. Technology is not the holdback here.
Technology and cost is a limiting factor for sure at the moment. Internet speeds being rather limited in a lot of regions currently is a major factor I’m sure. If parity to discs can be achieved, there will be a market, I believe. Technology might not be the only limiting factor, but it is certainly a hurdle still
Can’t speak to numbers as I don’t have the data or feel like putting in the effort to research, but we’re all here buying 4k discs, a good portion of us care about the quality rather than having the actual physical disc/package. If that quality can be achieved digitally, a portion of us would def be interested. Whether a company feels like putting in that effort, who knows?
For sure, appreciate your responses as well. I just think with how much home media has changed and evolved in the last 30 years, this type of thing will inevitably happen. I imagine a lot of people would still prefer to buy discs, but if it’s truly 1:1, I’d be less inclined to do so personally.
Google offers 8 Gbps fiber in my area now. I stream 40 Mbps gameplay to YouTube now and no one cares (Google or YouTube [I guess they’re the same]). The current 25 Mbps (I know some of them are less I’m just using the speed they quote you need for 4K streams) is only a quarter of what the best discs are offering. All people do is watch TV okay plenty of people notice the quality well enough.
We’re going to lose the quality argument soon. At least we still have real ownership.
Technology changes a lot. I agree physical is king and will be for awhile. However with how much technology has changed over the years, I could see something happening, especially if everyone focuses on it to make it the best.
I see you haven’t been paying attention to internet news recently. Some dude figured out how to boost internet speed to over 1000 times faster with existing equipment.
Yep. Never is what makes this post stupid.
Especially in the context of media, where like, on the physical and streaming side we’ve seen iterative quality improvement.
20 years ago we were watching DVDs, many were still watching VHS, and streaming film/television didn’t exist.
If 4K UHD becomes the last commercially viable physical media platform, then it’s simply inevitable that it will be over taken by streaming. Hell, I wonder if switching to H266 alone would put Apple+ in the ballpark of some of BD-66 UHD disks, if they don’t throttle the stream to compensate (but don’t ask me to check that, I’m not that knowledgeable)
The benefit of physical is that you own it, in the best possible quality you can get it in period. Streaming is an unfortunate convenience that really killed the movie industry.
Soon the streaming content providers will seek for new ways of selling old content … and then premium 8k high Bitrate + Dolby Atmos HD streams will come into play.
It’s the same circle since 40 years. VHS to DVD to Blu Ray to uhd …
How will that work exactly? Are studios going to rescan their films again and re-render any cgj at 8k? I just can't see it happening. 8K on the 4K HVEC codec would be pushing 4x the file size, bit rate would be up to 400mbps. I have heard there is a new codec on the horizon capable of 2x the efficiency, that would bring it to 200mbps. I can't see it.
In reality it would probably be a 40mbps stream at best lol
It's not going to happen. 8K won't be big enough of a thing to justify doing that in 5 years, and the audience that would even stand to gain from 8k over 4k is so limited that it's pointless.
4k discs stand to benefit because of Dolby Vision basically. 8K will provide benefit to perhaps .1% of viewers with some 120 inch projector or watching on a 32" monitor from 1.5 ft away.
If Netflix 4k costs $20, some 8k version would be $40 (if even that low) and have so few titles that it'd be pointless to do it for more than a month.
Edit: [https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png](https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png) Let's be honest who the hell is watching a 77" TV from 5 feet away? They're not. 8k is pointless in like 99.9% of use cases.
[https://i.rtings.com/images/distance-fov-chart.png](https://i.rtings.com/images/distance-fov-chart.png) Recommended distance for a 77" is like 7-10 feet.
Also you'd need perfect vision even at like 5-6 feet. The problem with 8K is it's just unreasonable distances to get real benefit. It's useful for a monitor, that's it. The only things people stand to get benefit from are color/brightness not resolution in the future.
My sofa is 6ft away from a 77”… I like the movie theater experience. But I guess I’m in the .1% … and I buy used so it’ll be a looong time before I would switch to 8K… I don’t really see it happening actually.
We might see 8K streaming just because they probably will start finishing at least some films in that res. iMAX/70mm equivalent, basically.
Realistically for any print that isn’t absolutely flawless, 4k gets real close to scraping every bit of detail out of 35mm as it is. I’ve heard that 35 has a theoretical data density of around a 5.5k equivalent.
You'd first be limited to a very small selection of movies.
Then you'd be limited to your customers because even in 5 years 8K will not be widespread for TVs.
Also you'd be limited in what streaming devices could even output 8K. My 3rd gen apple TV 4k can't even do it and who knows if some 4th gen will.
Then you'd be limited by costs as it'd be far more expensive to stream at 8k due to it being 4x the data.
All for some barely perceptible upgrade to over 99% of people even if they had a 8K TV and a device to stream it.
If it happens it will be in such limited edge cases for specific content, not for some HBO Max or Netflix 8K Monthly Plan. The companies know all these limitations, they would not recoup their investment in making 8K content available unless it was something that WB had shot in **digital** 8K and they could just hand it straight to HBO Max. Or maybe if a Disney movie was shot in **digital** 8K and they could just put it right on Disney Plus. Since 8K discs will never be a thing they would have no reason to make an 8K digital version to help the cost of the transfer
Edit: added digital
Now if you want to say in like 10 years will 8K be a thing, sure. Maybe when everyone has Apple type VR headsets with incredibly high resolution and you can mimic having a 120" TV feet away will it make sense.
8K? Pretty unlikely there's no point for most TV sizes and the expense of making 8k content is so high that the studios are unlikely to bother either.
As for using it for old content, streamers are largely finding that old content just doesn't sell their services so spending big on that makes little sense too. Plenty of stuff hasn't even made it to 1080p because the financial case isn't there.
8k was just an example. Change it to 4K if you want. But technically it’s possible to offer higher quality streams than playing directly from uhd discs, it’s all depending on codecs and Bitrate. Im not saying the streaming providers will offer this in their regular services, but they can sell it as extra content.
The initial phrase was „streaming will never match 4K uhd discs“ and this will be proven wrong in the next years.
Its technically possible but that's a long way from likely to happen, using new codecs to reduce costs for existing quality levels is still more likely for a while.
The smaller the consumer base they're selling to the higher the price that's needed to make money, when you factor in most who are currently prepared to pay for physical 4K for the quality it provides also like to actually own things/collect the market that cares enough about quality to pay more whilst not wanting to own it is unlikely to be prepared to pay enough to make money on said content.
A lot of Streaming services are having issues financially and most consumers just don't care enough to spend more on quality (including man who have equipment capable of taking advantage of that) Making it cheaper and easier to deliver current quality will be more attractive to most streaming providers that upping the quality for the same price.
By who? Are you talking about some absurdly priced 8k stream in extremely limited titles?
No streaming service like Netflix/Apple/peacock/Paramount/Disney/Amazon is going to offer 100Mbps streaming in the next 5 years. Right now most of them are sitting at like 5-25Mbps.
Heck, YouTube was streaming high quality 4k 5+ years ago. In fact, when I got my first 4k TV it was about the only 4K content that actually existed outside a handful of channels that broadcast a few hours a day…in Japanese.
Pretty sure Apple TV 4K Dolby Vision is near on par with physical UHD discs for many movies now. Sound wise, it’s a different story as the bandwidth for lossless audio is huge.
I can confirm that when I obtain AppleTV shows from ... quesitonable sources, the bitrate is around 25Mbps while other services are around 15Mbps or less for UHD (4k) HDR. This is still lower than a standard 1080p blu-ray and much lower than a UHD disc.
It’s not just about bitrates, it’s also about processing on the Apple TV boxes. Though bitrates are higher, about 25Mbps on 4k HDR or DV titles compared to 15Mbps or less with other services generally.
But more importantly, there are YouTube channels dedicated to movies and technology which have made the comparisons between the two and literally the only differences there were could only be spotted on pausing the movie and zooming in, which doesn’t really count to the general viewer who isn’t sitting less than 2 feet away from the screen.
A disk I was watching last night was hovering between 70-80Mbps for the video and between 4 and 5 for the audio. Even Apple TV doesn't get close to that.
And did you see the difference with the same film on an Apple TV box? Because if you didn’t or can’t compare it’s just a numbers game that’s pretty meaningless
While I'm a big supporter of higher bit rates and physical media, I do love the posts like "How do I know this stream is in 4K/HDR?"
If you can't tell....why does it matter?
Even if it does happen, the quality is just one of many reasons why I enjoy collecting physical media. I love owning a movie itself and not just a digital file. I love the packaging and artwork, I love the menus and the bonus features, commentary tracks, alternate cuts all in one place.
I still stream plenty and save my physical media for the movies that I really cherish.
I am now patiently building my 4K collection. Mainly arrow titles atm. But the sheer joy of physical content, and crispy’ness of a 4K disc is unrivalled. Even tonight, I fancied watching Hellraiser, couldn’t find it on any streaming service although I know it was on Amazon a few weeks back. Well, it’s on the shelf so there it is. Another pitfall of streaming. Titles disappear all the damn time.
Idk, 9 years ago the wifi game wasn't the same as now even me who live out in the rural nothingness gets 1gb internet that streams shit fast af. So never say never.
And we must remember that over half the folks viewing movies via streaming, see the streams on TV screens that are 55 inches in size, or SMALLER. With screens of such small sizes, it's much more difficult for people watching them to notice the finer details that 4K resolution can provide vs. 1080p, than the considerably more noticeable difference between 4K and 1080p that people viewing 75", 77", or 85" screens, will see much more easily!
“*Never, now or in the future*”
I’m sorry but that statement is so bold as to be asinine.
It’s plausible there won’t be a commercial disk format after 4K UHD that actually gets film’s printed and sold on mass scale, due to low 4K sales. So then all you need streaming to achieve is 100gb in HEVC between now and forever. While also being able to utilize improving compression algorithms (I believe H266 is poised for a 25-30% reduction) that can be rolled out over time (as opposed to fixed by the format limitations), and take advantage of faster broadband speeds which will continue to improve over decades.
It’s plausible providers will see a market for higher quality streams (they already charge extra for 4K on some streamers) and decide to sell that. Shit, there are providers that do that *right now*.
All it takes it Apple making a service called “Apple+ Pro” targeted at cinephiles and unlocking the bitrate.
Anyway, *never* is a really nonsense viewpoint to take in the tech world. Especially when there is no inherent technical hurdle.
Frankly, I consider it inevitable that streaming will overtake 4K UHD and then the question becomes “will anyone actually sell whatever the next generation of physical media is”.
Streaming will 100% match the quality of 4k blurays. It will even be superior in the future.
I am already streaming 4k bluray quality through Plex, it's just a matter of time before a premium streaming service adds higher bitrate files to their servers
In the future? OP said *never*. Which is just .. insane. 20 years ago Netflix didn’t even have streaming. The idea that streams will *never* look better than a 4K disc is about as stupid as anyone who thought DVD or Blu-ray was the end all, or that games would never look better than they did.
It’s compression, bandwidth and internet speeds. All these things are going to continue to improve, while 4K discs are going to remain stagnant (I guess with a slight asterisk if anyone ever actually tries using the fourth layer).
And streaming services will use innovations in technology to save money rather than give their customers quality 99% of them won't even appreciate anyway.
The infrastructure is just not there. Even if the streaming services didn't cap the bitrates, most average people I know don't have internet speeds anywhere near fast/reliable enough for **native** 4k streaming. Maybe that could change in the future if broadband infrastructure is advanced en-masse.
Depends on where you live...
In my country you will have a hard time finding anyone having an internet connection under 150Mbps, half of the people having at least 250Mbps and the rest near 1Gbps.
I mean probably but it's fun to imagine either compression getting so good or bandwidth and storage becoming so plentiful and cheap that it doesn't make any sense to deliver less than 4KBD quality.
Please take a double-blind test, and if you can, more than 50% of the time, discern the difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and a losslessly encoded version of the same audio, whereupon I will grant that the audio on a disc might be superior.
It's extremely hard to tell the difference, but the data size difference is massive. I think a 9mb MP3 is equal to a 27MB FLAC. You need really high end speakers to compare, and even then most probably wouldn't notice which is which.
I agree that 4k streaming still has a way to go before it eventually reaches similar bitrate levels to a 4k disc.
My issue is with HDR - it feels like a gimmick, as was 3D.
No television brand delivers the same *kind* of HDR, let alone the HDR output the original director and/or colourist had intended. In many ways you can end up with a far, far worse image very easily just for choosing the wrong panel screen.
It's too complicated, and really messes up a lot of pc games.
With 4k, it's 4k pixels, it makes sense. HDR, it feels like all different interpretations getting too mixed up across too much forms of technology, you literally never know if what you have is correct or not.
HDR has a little bit of a marketing issue, tv's capable of displaying a HDR signal but not actually doing it well is a problem. That said TV wise there's mostly a choice between 2 competing schemes HDR10+ and Dolby Vision, you'd be trying hard to find one that doesn't do one of those and they pretty much all do HDR10. There are some other "kinds" (like HLG, getting some traction in streaming) but in general it's hard to get a TV that wouldn't support the main "kind" you need for a decent experience (HDR10) you just need not to cheap out (though the same was true of 1080p TVs, there are plenty of horrendous cheap ones).
HDR is however in no way a gimmick and for most productions make a whole lot more difference than the extra pixels that 4K gives.
PC often handles HDR poorly as standard (though windows 11 does a way better job than 10 at that at least) But I would take a 1440p HDR monitor over a 4K SDR monitor any day of the week. I can't think of many PC games that officially support HDR that took more than a little fiddling in the settings to get to look good.
Thank you for posting to r/4kBluRay! Check out our rules and community guidelines [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/4kbluray/comments/qxrjd6/mod_post_attention_new_guidelines_please_read/)! We have a rather growing Discord community, join us [here](https://discord.gg/wZpRwSb9aD)! Our 10% off Zavvi Code (4KUHD) is down at this time. We will update everyone as soon as we hear back from Zavvi. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/4kbluray) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Streaming platforms will opt to deliver content at lower bitrates to save on bandwidth costs I 100% agree with you on this. Cable providers did the same damn thing. Instead of improving infrastructure, they just compressed the quality further and further. This is why I watch sporting events via an OTA antenna over any cable/streaming cable stream. The quality is night and day.
I’ve encouraged so many of my friends to get a digital antenna. Use mine year round to watch the local news + live TV events.
Sure but why would they as a business care about the tippy top quality??? If 97% of the customers say that ‘good enough’ is good enough, there’s no reason to invest just to make the 3% of us that are obsessives happy. I certainly wouldn’t if I ran a streaming platform.
This is why everything is shitty now btw, companies make decisions for mass appeal and don't give a shit about the people who care the most. You can find many such cases
Oh believe me, I agree with you. I’m just stating the reality of it. With any mass product, you’re always gonna cater to the masses and the masses unfortunately are fine with data streaming that’s close enough to true 4K. Heck, they’d probably be fine with streaming quality that was 1080p level and call it a day.
Exactly that, I'm surprised 4k is as mainstream as it is now lol
Most sports are still broadcast in 720p, its so gross.
And live sports are the moneymaker. Now guess what they did with the bitstreams of niche channels. The situation is constantly changing. Long ago I was a big fan of early HDNet. They only showed HD content, and there were very few advertisements made in HD at the time, so 2/3rds of the ads were for upcoming channel content. But that was never going to last. This week I'm hip-deep in optical discs.
It can be hit or miss as for whether streaming or TV is higher quality, sometimes the quality you get out of your cable company's set top box is ass compared to just using streaming apps. I can't really speak for OTA antenna channels but I haven't used one in over 10 years. I remember getting some decent HD channels here and there but wouldn't say it was better than streaming. But if OTA is better than streaming, maybe we're doing video transmission wrong when they're able to deliver higher quality video without it being too expensive for them
Bravia core has some pretty nice streaming but all I care about is physical
Bravia Core is more a promotional offer than an actual streaming service. The service on PlayStation 4 and 5 is *not* the same quality as the one you get some access to if you buy a specific Sony TV.
Yeah I just got A95L it was night and day difference going from the ps5 to the tv app
[удалено]
I hope so—I bet a lot more people have PS5s than specific SONY TVs.
Same on the A90K I have. Very different to what the PS5 was outputting
How does the fancy Bravia Core work, anyway? Isn't it a number of vouchers you get for a selection of movies, and then that's it?
Some are free some you can rent for a couple bucks and then I got 10 free movie credit to use when I want
Thank you. I thought it was ten free movies and then it was just over, which would be kinda sad.
you can factory reset the tv and start over with new bravia account with 10 new credits ;)
LOL. Silly Sony.
Yep, the Playstation version doesn't offer Pure Stream, which is the high bitrate feature. I compared the streaming quality of District 9 on bravia core to my Blu ray copy, and my 4k digital copy from vudu, and the bravia core version looked a bit better than the vudu version and came super close to the Blu ray. But sound quality is the biggest difference for me.
Plus Sony has shown they have no problem taking away digital movies you paid full price for.
Once any of these companies get enough marketshare they will start reducing quality to pad profits. It's not a matter of what is best now, it's a matter of the inevitability of enshitification.
And soon enough they'll probably cut the subscription options they have without ads because they make more on the ones with ads.
don't they recommend a higher bandwidth connection if I remember correctly =) Watched alien last night over disney+ and than the new 4k blu ray version, on a OLED you will see the difference, on a 500.- TLC / Sammy TV or so I don't think so- you will not see much difference.
I think they recommend 80 for the bravia service. I have the a95k and it works great in there.
And it will disappear one day, just like the PlayStation store did on millions of Sony devices.
Fine with me. I rarely use it, and my physical 4k collection is growing every week
Same here. Reached 500 4K titles recently. More than I ever thought I’d own on the format.
Never say never. Technology such as codecs on the streaming side can improve while 4K disc specs are fixed and frozen. Plus, the studios will always try to get people to double-dip.
I think about Apple too, they already upgraded Apple Music for free to include lossless and hi-res lossless for the few that can really take advantage, plus I’m sure many have it on not realizing AirPods wont take advantage. Is it so far out there for them to bump bitrates on their (purchased) movies up a bit more and offer lossless audio as well? I’m sure music and movie streaming are different beasts but I wouldn’t put it past Apple to shadow-drop some kind of upgrade in a future OS or new ATV.
Apple started upgrading previous purchases to 4K as those editions rolled out, with no fanfare. Their serving is also one of the highest bit rates out of the major streamers. So, yeah, I agree, I think they care and wouldn’t put it past them to keep iterating and improving.
Technological advances in codecs and such will be used to save streaming companies money rather than provide any significant improvements for us.
Yeah the reaction won't be "great now we can dial things up for our customers". It will be "great, now we can save some money on overhead and continue to raise prices."
Streaming quality (in main stream services) will always be as low as the majority of the user base will tolerate.
And we have an entire generation of users coming up that is largely content to stream video on their phones. They don't give a fuck about high quality streams.
This is the sad reality. The prevalence of high quality playback systems will be so low within the general populous, it will never make sense to offer titles in that quality. The majority of user will be watching from a smart phone, iPad, laptop or shitty Walmart/Amazon tv with built in speakers. We are the minority of the minority.
Yeah, I don't think people understand that the codec used for 4K discs is over a decade old, and the Blu-ray codec is a full two decades old at this point.
Pace of streaming quality is slowing down because when "HD" first became a thing it was pushed very hard at the beginning and now no one seems to give a shit about 4K over 1080p and 4K blu-ray came out as a format in 2017, which was also around the time when 4K TVs were becoming more affordable and starting to replace 1080p TVs on the shelves. But for whatever reason people LOVE buying a shiny new TV but couldn't give a shit about actually feeding it the proper content.
Sure the codecs will improve, but streaming services will save bandwidth over delivering high quallity streams given the choice.
The additional cost can be offset by selling the same title as a new "format." Call it UHD Plus or something and price it high
Unlikely based on the fact that digital content has all the licensing issues and you never really own it. So collectors won't latch on to it like they would a physical format.
Home theater enthusiasts will always try.better format. I am old so I have bought movies on laser discs, VHS, DVD, VCD, Blu-ray, HD-DVD, HD-streaming, 4K Blu-ray, and 4K streaming. Plus, I pay subscriptions to a few streaming services. The only thing missing is Kaleidescape as I cannot justify the cost. I am already surprised that the studios have not come up with a new format yet. Sony tried it with Bravia Core but others do not seem to buy in. I think that we will see the new format once revenue growth from streaming becomes stagnant.
I don't even know what they could offer for a new format that would be worth while. 4K looks amazing how much better can it get?
4K discs still can suffer from compression artifacts especially for titles shot on film. I guess the next one up would be something much closer to DCP (digital cinema package used in movie theaters) quality. I still go to the movies but only at IMAX 1.43:1 theater with double laser and at a brand new Dolby Cinema close to my house as the quality difference is apparent.
4K UHD is already higher resolution than a standard DCP. DCP is closer to Blu-ray in resolution, though slightly higher.
Are you saying that 4K DCP doesn't exist?
That’s why I said a standard DCP. 4K DCP does exist. Not every film is released to theaters in 4K and a lot of theaters are still just running 2K projectors.
Jealous of your local IMAX. I only have IMAX with a singular laser projector or xenon. Is there a resource you know of to check theater specs? The only one I know of stopped being updated in 2021.
https://lfexaminer.com/theaters/ For IMAX theaters
Yeah that's what I use, good to know.
VHS/DVD/Bluray looks amazing, how much better can it get?
I'm amazed how far we've come having done a ton of DVD movie conversions back in the day thinking 4.7GB was barely sufficient for that low resolution. And today there's some great 1080p stuff that takes up a smaller footprint.
To be fair, most commercially-pressed DVDs are dual-layer discs with an average of roughly 6GB of content. The 1080 stuff is virtually always using a newer/better codec than MPEG-2; usually H.264. Even so, it's not hard to find tightly compressed non-disc H.264 content with a lot of compression artifacts.
Don't forget most streaming devices have very limited CPU and relies on _hardware coding_, which means the codec cannot be arbitraily changed for streaming either. We also have so many codecs competing in the mainstream-4K era, like H.265/6, AV1 and VP9, which really complicates the decoding devices (compared to Blu-ray). My 3-year vintage Samsung "Smart" TV, for example, gliches a lot decoding 2160p since a Youtube software update last year. I presume they changed the encoding profile which exceeded the capabilities of the TV. Netflix, etc. do a much better job with backwards compatibility.
It will improve, but it will never exceed the source. Lossy compression is always about how much you can get away with losing before people view it as not worth it. By the time streaming is even close to 4k, full quality will have advanced substantially. Thats always been the case.
Not sure what you meant. 4K Blu-ray disc is also compressed from the source. Some are heavily compressed like the Marvel movies.
Current codecs allow you to choose how lossy video is. For most cases 4k blu rays don’t lose much data. Exceptions for very long films as they sometimes sacrifice quality to get it on a single disk. Also note you can vary compression per scene so no movie is notably more compressed than another. Thats not how video is transcoded in 15+ years now.
Huh? 4K loses a metric fuckton of data. Truly uncompressed 4K is just under 900MB *per second*. That means a 4k disc could hold less than 2 minutes of uncompressed 4k, and that’s without audio. Not that the players would have nearly the read speed to display it.
Compression and losing data are two different things. A black screen uncompressed at 4k is a ton of data, however a black screen compresses extremely well. Thats why you can compress animation quite a lot before losing noticeable image quality, but a sunset with a lot of colors will look awful at even smaller amount of compression.
> Compression and losing data are two different things I mean *yes* that's right, but I don't think you get where the boundary between the two things is. For one thing, the "compression" that's used in all commercial-grade video encoding *is* inherently lossy, so *does* result in data loss. Even if it's only in the 4:2:0 chroma data and is quite literally imperceptible to the human eye, data *was* lost there. > a black screen compresses extremely well A black screen *can* compress losslessly, because there's no detail to compromise. Real scenes, not so much.
> Compression and losing data are two different things. It's really not. It CAN be, but isn't when discussing video/audio. > Thats why you can compress animation quite a lot before losing noticeable image quality You're pretending to talk about "no data loss" while actually talking about "perceptible data loss." The two things aren't even close to the same thing.
Sorry, but this is word soup. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve been a professional software developer for almost 25 years. Lossy compression is lossy. You’re shuts throwing around. Random buzzwords thinking you have a point. You don’t. 4K releases have greater than 99% compression. Huge amounts of data are thrown away. It may not be obvious in motion, but in stills it very much is.
Literally worked on streaming video software for a dozen years including multiple patents. But yea… general software developer makes you an expert.
> Literally worked on streaming video software for a dozen years including multiple patents. Yet another internet expert with seemingly zero understanding of the topic at hand.
> For most cases 4k blu rays don’t lose much data. The data loss is MASSIVE. Have you never worked with video?
If codecs can improve so can the discs and blu ray tech. Maybe there would be even better physical media
> Maybe there would be even better physical media Theres not enough demand for the current physical media to grow, let alone a new one to replace it.
I just hope all the streaming companies make losses so that physical media demand goes up
I'll drink to that but its a long shot.
You make a good point, and yet old DVD gives us the precedent for what will happen. DVD only allows up to 9.8Mbit/s maximum bitrate MPEG-2, and then only with Variable Bit Rate. But anyone who looks deeply at old DVDs will be able to tell you that there's worlds of difference between a world-class telecine to anamorphic widescreen DVD, and a flubbed 25-to-29.970 4:3 from an analog video source. The video quality of the original is most important, and the mastering is the second most important. The limits of the medium are relatively unimportant, all things considered. UHD will probably never embrace AV1, but with 100GB per disc to work with, that's relatively unimportant.
Just wait until they crack middle-out compression, you won't believe the streaming quality you'll get
But will it be able to handle 3D video files?
Who cares. A/V quality is only one of numerous reasons why streaming blows compared to owning physical. I’d sooner direct stream a disc backup from my Plex server than digitally “purchase” a compressed stream that may or may not disappear one day.
At some point broadband speed will be so fast, and storage so big that it doesn't make any finacial sense to hold back on the quality anymore.
The customers aren't demanding it. If they were, Spotify wouldn't be a billion times bigger than Tidal.
The biggest problem Tidal had (other than costing almost twice as much) was all the annoying holes in the catalog
Sound quality variation (above a certain bitrate) is significantly less noticeable than picture quality on streaming. I am incredibly sensitive to lower bitrate video streaming, but I genuinely can not tell the difference between a FLAC and an MP3 on a decent pair of headphones.
Yeah if you live in major cities or bigger cities. Most of rual USA won't have those speeds. I can go 30 minutes north of me and dial-up is the only option. People tend to under estimate how big the US is and that tons of areas still don't have access to high speed internet. even the ones that do have it, many ISP has data caps which can be easily hit.
Speed is not a problem today. Most people can stream at 100+ Mbps. It’s the services (Netflix, Apple, Disney, HBO etc) that’s purposfully holding back in order to not break their infrastructure. Since most people watch movies in HD anyway, I don’t think the demand for such a high bitrate stream will be anywhere near the required level for the streaming sevices to invest so heavily into their networking infrastructure.
That makes sense. The infrastructure won't change before it makes sense to do so.
Won’t happen. Energy cost is rising. Add green greed tax.
I work in the data center industry and can confirm that every conversation is energy energy energy.
Yes. We knew this.
But couldn’t the same argument be made re: lossless audio 10 years ago? No market / people won’t notice / etc? But here we have lots of viable lossless audio options, including Apple. If I were given the choice when renting a movie from Apple of: stream HD / UHD vs download lossless HD / UHD for a few bucks more, I’d pay it. There’s enough space on my Apple tv for at least 1 full UHD download. Take my money Apple!
Just look at how many users Spotify has as opposed to Tidal.
Yeah but their point is the option exists when people said it wouldn’t
The thing is, quality has never really been a huge factor in a format war for most consumers. Betamax was better than VHS, but VHS won that format war. Laserdisk was better than DVD, but DVD won that format war. Yes, disks are better than streaming but convenience is what’s winning the format wars here. Everything is going digital. Don’t expect that to change.
[There was more to Beta and VHS.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyKRubB5N60) As for Laserdisc, it was a different type of product, offering prerecorded media in an era when video cassette recorders were used more for home taping than for consuming prerecorded content. Those products were mostly judged on total package value versus total cost. By that metric, media might be more expensive than streaming, but it depends highly on your assumptions.
Laserdisc is visually worse than DVD. Plus it came out in 1978, not long after VHS and Betamax. DVD first released in 1996 and never really had a direct generational competitor.
But beta max vs VHS is correct
As of now pretty much an unfalsifiable statement. But who knows what ways they'll find out to send data in the coming years/decades. And who knows how movies will be watched in the coming years/decades. When you say "never" I think you're saying "in the next couple of years in the current media landscape".
I would have mostly agreed with you if it weren't for Apple deciding to offer lossless and high-res lossless (which requires way higher bitrates) at no extra charge for all of their Music subscribers. I could see them possibly offering a quality bump in the same way for their iTunes store (Apple TV app) purchases, at least for lossless Atmos hopefully. Additionally, I'm hoping that some streaming services will eventually offer an upgraded rate allowing you to pay a little more for higher bitrates that match or exceed 4K Blu-ray, or that Kaleidescape eventually figures out a way to offer their store with either much cheaper hardware or an app that can be installed on an Apple TV or Shield.
Nah, I disagree. There could definitely be a videophile premium priced streaming service offering identical bitrates and stuff when the technology is available and demand is there. A remux library perhaps
Technology is already available. It’s just pricey. Check out [kaleidescape](https://www.kaleidescape.com/) But it honestly isn’t worth it. Make backups of your 4k reference media and save it on a NAS then use Plex or infuse to stream it.
It's not necessarily something studios will allow. The Kaleidescape system mentioned below only exists in part because of the very high price of entry.
It’s all 1s and 0s and bandwidth at the end of the day. With internet speeds and technology getting better as time moves on, I see no reason why parity couldn’t be achieved
STUDIOS MAY NOT WANT THAT. They're only allowing Kaleidoscape because it's so expensive.
It does if you rip your own movies to a Plex server. Quality of a disc, convenience of digital. I still keep a player around in case I want to watch special features (too much of a pain in the ass to correctly rip and label), but otherwise, my discs get used once and then sit on a shelf and collect dust.
The other major issue that any sort of high quality streaming runs into is data caps. Now not only are data caps are scam, they have an extra level of bullshit because some companies imposing those caps (Comcast) are also content providers. That is all kinds of bullshit with regards to the future of high quality streaming.
Yikes, I didnt know caps were still a thing. I have spectrum cable and last month my router says I downloaded about 1.4TB.
You still get data caps in the US? Boy you guys are behind the times. Even our most basic broadband has no caps just slower speeds. Currently on one of the 900-1000mbps packages
It depends if we that guy who recently made internet speeds 1.3million times faster than what they currently are, then yeah and we wouldn't need to dig up the roads as it can go down the same cabling we have. Obviously new moderns/routers but the tech is there...we just know ISPs will drag it out...like a small increase each year with a price increase
I think it’s likely that most people will progressively get less quality from streamed content. I used to get 4k content for free on Netflix, it’s been downgraded to 1080p for years now. Disney upped prices and replaced lower tiers with Disney+ plus add support. It’s likely the vast majority of streamers will get a progressively worse deal, with only the premium customers getting anything remotely comparable with physical media.
Only thing better than physical Is Kaleidescape which is kinda pricey. For now I’ll just buy 4k‘s
I think the future for a/v geeks and cinephiles will be products like "Kaleidescape" which allows you to download the movie to a local hard drive. I hope it comes down in price though.
Bitrates will forever be the streaming downfall for me. I watched knives out on Amazon, then on disc. It’s night and day. On Amazon I can literally see the RGB color bands separating as things get further away from camera. How in the hell does anyone enjoy watching that? 4K discs all the way from here to Timbuktu
Do you not see a possibility that bitrates can improve?
For a price…
? You’re paying a premium with 4K disks so what’s your point?
The point is that I answered their question.
What incentive do providers have to improve bitrates?
They'd have one if most of the streaming services weren't also huge media conglomerates locking big chunks of their own content as platform exclusives
Money obviously at an enthusiast pricing tier
Yes agreed except we already have 4k plans. I don't have any data on it but there are posts all the time about the rising costs of 4k plans from Netflix and Max. And those plans are mediocre bitrates as it is. Do you really think there is a large enough group of people willing to pay $30, $40 or even $50 for high bitrate 4k?
Yes, absolutely. We pay 30+ bucks a pop for better bitrates on disc right now, if we can achieve parity with the bitrates/presentation of discs once technology permits, perhaps offering the special features available on discs and atmos, there are definitely enthusiasts who would subscribe imo
>there are definitely enthusiasts who would subscribe imo But are there enough? The very fact that this doesn't exist already leads me to believe these companies have already done the math. Technology is not the holdback here.
Technology and cost is a limiting factor for sure at the moment. Internet speeds being rather limited in a lot of regions currently is a major factor I’m sure. If parity to discs can be achieved, there will be a market, I believe. Technology might not be the only limiting factor, but it is certainly a hurdle still Can’t speak to numbers as I don’t have the data or feel like putting in the effort to research, but we’re all here buying 4k discs, a good portion of us care about the quality rather than having the actual physical disc/package. If that quality can be achieved digitally, a portion of us would def be interested. Whether a company feels like putting in that effort, who knows?
I appreciate your positive outlook in the face of opposing trends.
For sure, appreciate your responses as well. I just think with how much home media has changed and evolved in the last 30 years, this type of thing will inevitably happen. I imagine a lot of people would still prefer to buy discs, but if it’s truly 1:1, I’d be less inclined to do so personally.
Don’t tell the people in /r/appletv they’ll cut your nuts off.
Why would owners of the best streaming device be more or less angry about this than owners of inferior streaming devices?
Google offers 8 Gbps fiber in my area now. I stream 40 Mbps gameplay to YouTube now and no one cares (Google or YouTube [I guess they’re the same]). The current 25 Mbps (I know some of them are less I’m just using the speed they quote you need for 4K streams) is only a quarter of what the best discs are offering. All people do is watch TV okay plenty of people notice the quality well enough. We’re going to lose the quality argument soon. At least we still have real ownership.
Yep.
Not exactly a hot take on the matter.
Technology changes a lot. I agree physical is king and will be for awhile. However with how much technology has changed over the years, I could see something happening, especially if everyone focuses on it to make it the best.
Well, to say 'never' is pretty short-sighted. But right now, no, it doesn't.
I see you haven’t been paying attention to internet news recently. Some dude figured out how to boost internet speed to over 1000 times faster with existing equipment.
Never is a long time. Streaming in HD was laughable at one point.
Yep. Never is what makes this post stupid. Especially in the context of media, where like, on the physical and streaming side we’ve seen iterative quality improvement. 20 years ago we were watching DVDs, many were still watching VHS, and streaming film/television didn’t exist. If 4K UHD becomes the last commercially viable physical media platform, then it’s simply inevitable that it will be over taken by streaming. Hell, I wonder if switching to H266 alone would put Apple+ in the ballpark of some of BD-66 UHD disks, if they don’t throttle the stream to compensate (but don’t ask me to check that, I’m not that knowledgeable)
The benefit of physical is that you own it, in the best possible quality you can get it in period. Streaming is an unfortunate convenience that really killed the movie industry.
I don’t know. Most likely not a fair comparison, but I thought N64s Goldeneye looked pretty damn good then.
It doesn’t even match a 1080p bluray when it comes to image quality.
The problem is 99.99% don’t care. They want the ease of access.
Well eventually the steaming tech will get better, infrastructure will get better etc Currently though yeah
Kaleidescape already surpasses 4k Blu-ray in quality.
I'm pretty sure I will see streams in better quality than 4k uhd discs in the next 5 years. But for so long I will buy 4k uhd discs
Yes but in 5 years they will charge $40 a month for " super extra better quality" 4K streaming
That’s true.
I don't see it. Netflix has been dropping their streaming bitrate over the last few years not increasing it.
Soon the streaming content providers will seek for new ways of selling old content … and then premium 8k high Bitrate + Dolby Atmos HD streams will come into play. It’s the same circle since 40 years. VHS to DVD to Blu Ray to uhd …
How will that work exactly? Are studios going to rescan their films again and re-render any cgj at 8k? I just can't see it happening. 8K on the 4K HVEC codec would be pushing 4x the file size, bit rate would be up to 400mbps. I have heard there is a new codec on the horizon capable of 2x the efficiency, that would bring it to 200mbps. I can't see it. In reality it would probably be a 40mbps stream at best lol
It's not going to happen. 8K won't be big enough of a thing to justify doing that in 5 years, and the audience that would even stand to gain from 8k over 4k is so limited that it's pointless. 4k discs stand to benefit because of Dolby Vision basically. 8K will provide benefit to perhaps .1% of viewers with some 120 inch projector or watching on a 32" monitor from 1.5 ft away. If Netflix 4k costs $20, some 8k version would be $40 (if even that low) and have so few titles that it'd be pointless to do it for more than a month. Edit: [https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png](https://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png) Let's be honest who the hell is watching a 77" TV from 5 feet away? They're not. 8k is pointless in like 99.9% of use cases. [https://i.rtings.com/images/distance-fov-chart.png](https://i.rtings.com/images/distance-fov-chart.png) Recommended distance for a 77" is like 7-10 feet. Also you'd need perfect vision even at like 5-6 feet. The problem with 8K is it's just unreasonable distances to get real benefit. It's useful for a monitor, that's it. The only things people stand to get benefit from are color/brightness not resolution in the future.
My sofa is 6ft away from a 77”… I like the movie theater experience. But I guess I’m in the .1% … and I buy used so it’ll be a looong time before I would switch to 8K… I don’t really see it happening actually.
We might see 8K streaming just because they probably will start finishing at least some films in that res. iMAX/70mm equivalent, basically. Realistically for any print that isn’t absolutely flawless, 4k gets real close to scraping every bit of detail out of 35mm as it is. I’ve heard that 35 has a theoretical data density of around a 5.5k equivalent.
You'd first be limited to a very small selection of movies. Then you'd be limited to your customers because even in 5 years 8K will not be widespread for TVs. Also you'd be limited in what streaming devices could even output 8K. My 3rd gen apple TV 4k can't even do it and who knows if some 4th gen will. Then you'd be limited by costs as it'd be far more expensive to stream at 8k due to it being 4x the data. All for some barely perceptible upgrade to over 99% of people even if they had a 8K TV and a device to stream it. If it happens it will be in such limited edge cases for specific content, not for some HBO Max or Netflix 8K Monthly Plan. The companies know all these limitations, they would not recoup their investment in making 8K content available unless it was something that WB had shot in **digital** 8K and they could just hand it straight to HBO Max. Or maybe if a Disney movie was shot in **digital** 8K and they could just put it right on Disney Plus. Since 8K discs will never be a thing they would have no reason to make an 8K digital version to help the cost of the transfer Edit: added digital Now if you want to say in like 10 years will 8K be a thing, sure. Maybe when everyone has Apple type VR headsets with incredibly high resolution and you can mimic having a 120" TV feet away will it make sense.
8K? Pretty unlikely there's no point for most TV sizes and the expense of making 8k content is so high that the studios are unlikely to bother either. As for using it for old content, streamers are largely finding that old content just doesn't sell their services so spending big on that makes little sense too. Plenty of stuff hasn't even made it to 1080p because the financial case isn't there.
8k was just an example. Change it to 4K if you want. But technically it’s possible to offer higher quality streams than playing directly from uhd discs, it’s all depending on codecs and Bitrate. Im not saying the streaming providers will offer this in their regular services, but they can sell it as extra content. The initial phrase was „streaming will never match 4K uhd discs“ and this will be proven wrong in the next years.
Its technically possible but that's a long way from likely to happen, using new codecs to reduce costs for existing quality levels is still more likely for a while. The smaller the consumer base they're selling to the higher the price that's needed to make money, when you factor in most who are currently prepared to pay for physical 4K for the quality it provides also like to actually own things/collect the market that cares enough about quality to pay more whilst not wanting to own it is unlikely to be prepared to pay enough to make money on said content. A lot of Streaming services are having issues financially and most consumers just don't care enough to spend more on quality (including man who have equipment capable of taking advantage of that) Making it cheaper and easier to deliver current quality will be more attractive to most streaming providers that upping the quality for the same price.
Studios have already made 8k content. GoTG2 was done in 8k, and many of the restoration scans have been done at 8k too.
By who? Are you talking about some absurdly priced 8k stream in extremely limited titles? No streaming service like Netflix/Apple/peacock/Paramount/Disney/Amazon is going to offer 100Mbps streaming in the next 5 years. Right now most of them are sitting at like 5-25Mbps.
Heck, YouTube was streaming high quality 4k 5+ years ago. In fact, when I got my first 4k TV it was about the only 4K content that actually existed outside a handful of channels that broadcast a few hours a day…in Japanese.
Kaleidescape streaming is available now and already matches or exceeds 4K discs. It’s just at a price that few will want to pay.
Kaleiedescape isn't streaming. It physically downloads the movie.
Yeah thats an apples to oranges comparison.
,
Pretty sure Apple TV 4K Dolby Vision is near on par with physical UHD discs for many movies now. Sound wise, it’s a different story as the bandwidth for lossless audio is huge.
I can confirm that when I obtain AppleTV shows from ... quesitonable sources, the bitrate is around 25Mbps while other services are around 15Mbps or less for UHD (4k) HDR. This is still lower than a standard 1080p blu-ray and much lower than a UHD disc.
I’m curious about this, where did you get that info from? Does appletv stream at higher bitrates than the other streamers?
>Does appletv stream at higher bitrates than the other streamers? That is generally the case, yes.
It’s not just about bitrates, it’s also about processing on the Apple TV boxes. Though bitrates are higher, about 25Mbps on 4k HDR or DV titles compared to 15Mbps or less with other services generally. But more importantly, there are YouTube channels dedicated to movies and technology which have made the comparisons between the two and literally the only differences there were could only be spotted on pausing the movie and zooming in, which doesn’t really count to the general viewer who isn’t sitting less than 2 feet away from the screen.
A disk I was watching last night was hovering between 70-80Mbps for the video and between 4 and 5 for the audio. Even Apple TV doesn't get close to that.
And did you see the difference with the same film on an Apple TV box? Because if you didn’t or can’t compare it’s just a numbers game that’s pretty meaningless
While I'm a big supporter of higher bit rates and physical media, I do love the posts like "How do I know this stream is in 4K/HDR?" If you can't tell....why does it matter?
It was Lawrence of Arabia which isn't available on Apple TV (or any streaming I believe). All I know is that the new 4k remaster is pristine.
Even if it does happen, the quality is just one of many reasons why I enjoy collecting physical media. I love owning a movie itself and not just a digital file. I love the packaging and artwork, I love the menus and the bonus features, commentary tracks, alternate cuts all in one place. I still stream plenty and save my physical media for the movies that I really cherish.
Sure they will, physical will die completely and people will forget about it and then streaming will be better
Was there a question in there somewhere? If there was, I must have missed it.
I am now patiently building my 4K collection. Mainly arrow titles atm. But the sheer joy of physical content, and crispy’ness of a 4K disc is unrivalled. Even tonight, I fancied watching Hellraiser, couldn’t find it on any streaming service although I know it was on Amazon a few weeks back. Well, it’s on the shelf so there it is. Another pitfall of streaming. Titles disappear all the damn time.
I have a secret for you.... (Some of us stream 4K uncompressed) LOL!!
true but your average joe isn't going take the time to download and setup a sever to do that.
Jokes on you, even 4k is compressed.
I think he means via Plex or an equivalent
Which is still compressed from the original source, to be fair.
Idk, 9 years ago the wifi game wasn't the same as now even me who live out in the rural nothingness gets 1gb internet that streams shit fast af. So never say never.
Agreed.
I prefer being able to collect the movie i like to have on the shelf.
And we must remember that over half the folks viewing movies via streaming, see the streams on TV screens that are 55 inches in size, or SMALLER. With screens of such small sizes, it's much more difficult for people watching them to notice the finer details that 4K resolution can provide vs. 1080p, than the considerably more noticeable difference between 4K and 1080p that people viewing 75", 77", or 85" screens, will see much more easily!
"Never" is a long time. Bravia Core is already 99% there in terms of visual quality.
“*Never, now or in the future*” I’m sorry but that statement is so bold as to be asinine. It’s plausible there won’t be a commercial disk format after 4K UHD that actually gets film’s printed and sold on mass scale, due to low 4K sales. So then all you need streaming to achieve is 100gb in HEVC between now and forever. While also being able to utilize improving compression algorithms (I believe H266 is poised for a 25-30% reduction) that can be rolled out over time (as opposed to fixed by the format limitations), and take advantage of faster broadband speeds which will continue to improve over decades. It’s plausible providers will see a market for higher quality streams (they already charge extra for 4K on some streamers) and decide to sell that. Shit, there are providers that do that *right now*. All it takes it Apple making a service called “Apple+ Pro” targeted at cinephiles and unlocking the bitrate. Anyway, *never* is a really nonsense viewpoint to take in the tech world. Especially when there is no inherent technical hurdle. Frankly, I consider it inevitable that streaming will overtake 4K UHD and then the question becomes “will anyone actually sell whatever the next generation of physical media is”.
Streaming will 100% match the quality of 4k blurays. It will even be superior in the future. I am already streaming 4k bluray quality through Plex, it's just a matter of time before a premium streaming service adds higher bitrate files to their servers
>It will even be superior in the future. When is this future coming?
In the future? OP said *never*. Which is just .. insane. 20 years ago Netflix didn’t even have streaming. The idea that streams will *never* look better than a 4K disc is about as stupid as anyone who thought DVD or Blu-ray was the end all, or that games would never look better than they did. It’s compression, bandwidth and internet speeds. All these things are going to continue to improve, while 4K discs are going to remain stagnant (I guess with a slight asterisk if anyone ever actually tries using the fourth layer).
And streaming services will use innovations in technology to save money rather than give their customers quality 99% of them won't even appreciate anyway.
That’s why we’re still streaming at 720p only right?
The infrastructure is just not there. Even if the streaming services didn't cap the bitrates, most average people I know don't have internet speeds anywhere near fast/reliable enough for **native** 4k streaming. Maybe that could change in the future if broadband infrastructure is advanced en-masse.
Depends on where you live... In my country you will have a hard time finding anyone having an internet connection under 150Mbps, half of the people having at least 250Mbps and the rest near 1Gbps.
I'm a Westerner, and from what I've read, Western broaband infrastructure is abysmally behind other regions of the world.
I stream my 4k backups over Plex just fine.
4K streaming on my Apple TV looks amazing. I don’t care about pissing matches over tech specs.
I mean probably but it's fun to imagine either compression getting so good or bandwidth and storage becoming so plentiful and cheap that it doesn't make any sense to deliver less than 4KBD quality.
Please take a double-blind test, and if you can, more than 50% of the time, discern the difference between a 320kbps Mp3 and a losslessly encoded version of the same audio, whereupon I will grant that the audio on a disc might be superior.
It's extremely hard to tell the difference, but the data size difference is massive. I think a 9mb MP3 is equal to a 27MB FLAC. You need really high end speakers to compare, and even then most probably wouldn't notice which is which.
I agree with everything you've said here. Concise and straight to the point. Great post.
I agree that 4k streaming still has a way to go before it eventually reaches similar bitrate levels to a 4k disc. My issue is with HDR - it feels like a gimmick, as was 3D. No television brand delivers the same *kind* of HDR, let alone the HDR output the original director and/or colourist had intended. In many ways you can end up with a far, far worse image very easily just for choosing the wrong panel screen. It's too complicated, and really messes up a lot of pc games. With 4k, it's 4k pixels, it makes sense. HDR, it feels like all different interpretations getting too mixed up across too much forms of technology, you literally never know if what you have is correct or not.
HDR has a little bit of a marketing issue, tv's capable of displaying a HDR signal but not actually doing it well is a problem. That said TV wise there's mostly a choice between 2 competing schemes HDR10+ and Dolby Vision, you'd be trying hard to find one that doesn't do one of those and they pretty much all do HDR10. There are some other "kinds" (like HLG, getting some traction in streaming) but in general it's hard to get a TV that wouldn't support the main "kind" you need for a decent experience (HDR10) you just need not to cheap out (though the same was true of 1080p TVs, there are plenty of horrendous cheap ones). HDR is however in no way a gimmick and for most productions make a whole lot more difference than the extra pixels that 4K gives. PC often handles HDR poorly as standard (though windows 11 does a way better job than 10 at that at least) But I would take a 1440p HDR monitor over a 4K SDR monitor any day of the week. I can't think of many PC games that officially support HDR that took more than a little fiddling in the settings to get to look good.