this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
49 points (86.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

39139 readers
2070 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
49
Why hasn't video quality improved much over the past ten years? (lemmy.world)
submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

While 4K resolutions provide a very detailed image for average viewers, 16K resolutions exceed the detail the human eye can perceive at typical viewing distances. Therefore, most people may not notice significant improvements with higher resolutions like 16K.

https://9meters.com/technology/highest-resolution-the-eye-can-see

These links explain it technically, but in summary, 4k or 5k video is really all we can perceive up close. Anything beyond this is really just wasted, unless you're talking really large screens.

We're almost at the limits of what we can see, so improvements beyond this like IMAX aren't needed for most applications unless you're recording 360⁰ video, or projecting onto a huge cinema screen.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

OEMs forgot to add hardware support for AV1 because H.265 jumped the gun in an attempt to stay relevant with clout from H.264 lol.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

It’s cyclical, years ago, video quality improved dramatically, and then stagnated for almost 40 years as prices fell until it was economical for video quality to improve again. We likely won’t see a meaningful improvement for another 15-20 years, then prices will come down and then we’ll see another improvement.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago

As others mentioned it's diminishing returns, but there's still a lot of good innovation going on in the codec space. As an example - the reduction in the amount of space required for h265 compared to h264 is staggering. Codecs are a special form of black magic.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Compression. While Compression tech HAS improved, its been maintaining our current quality while reducing bandwidth needs.

A 1080p Bluray disk will look far far better than Netflix in 4k every time because its not compressed. The reality is that any form of compression will cause loss in fidelity in some way, so the only way to really improve video is to increase the bandwidth of the video.

I talk to IT nerds frequently who are asking things like "why do you need 16x 400GB ports of non blocking bandwidth" to which I have to explain that a SINGLE stream of uncompressed UHD is 12GB/s and we are trying to put 200+ streams onto their network.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Is that "real" uncompressed or using a lossless compression? Or are uncompressed video streams inherently losslessly compressed because they only show changes, not sending a full image every frame?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Ok, since were (as a group not you specifically) are getting pedantic, I should clarify that any recording of video is inherently compressed. There is no way to capture 100% of an image ever. There is optical compression created by the lenses, then their is encoding compression created by the Analog to Digital conversion, or if capturing in analog there is physical medium compression. Film has grain size and quality which limits it resolution, analog tape is limited by the speed, width, and magnetic medium density.

So for the sake of this larger discussion Uncompressed should probably refer to the point at which the content is being captured to a medium regardless of what that medium is.

Now in the context of broadcast and professional video production Uncompressed means specifically that the transport and capture of the content is dont done without the removal of any part of the data. Now even that is a little misleading because the sensors on most professional cameras can capture higher data rates than 12G, but the transport specification only allows for 12G we have to use chroma sub-sampling to go from 444 to 422 when we put the content onto the wire.

So all that said, when I talk about Uncompressed UHD video requiring 12G I mean that no codec is applied, and no frames are dropped. We are running at the maximum specified bandwidth of our link which is 12G UHD video at 59.94 frames per second. Every pixel is written every frame regardless of if its a camera pointed at a wall watching paint dry or not.

So, last thing on Lossless compression, as a professional I frequently take issue with codecs that claim lossless quality because frequently I can see the difference between the vast majority of compressed formats vs uncompressed formats. Sometimes instantly, sometimes it takes a few min before I see the compression. Lossless compression generally is one of theos 9 out of 10 doctors things were the majority of people say they cant see a difference therefor they can claim its "lossless." I can frequently see the difference between 444 and 422 chroma subsampling, and that is not even considered compression. I am one of the annoying people who walks into a bar and asks why all the HD tvs are set to "fill" on an SD channel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You mean 12 Gbps right?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

The standard is defined as 12000Mbits/s and spelled out as 12G-SDI or 12G SMPTE 2110.

So i do tend to mix things up since big G and little G mean different things in computer land.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

A 1080p Bluray disk will look far far better than Netflix in 4k every time because its not compressed.

You’re not wrong about the quality difference but video on a Blu-ray is compressed. There is no way to get raw video unless you’re shooting it yourself.

any form of compression will cause loss in fidelity in some way

Lossless video compression also exists although I don’t think any consumer products have it.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 days ago

Yep. On a Blu-ray disk, you have 25-100GB of space to work with. The Blu-ray standard allows up to 40mbps for 1080p video (not counting audio). Way more for 4K.

Netflix recommends a 5mbps internet connection for 1080p, and 15mbps for 4K. Reportedly they cut down their 4K streams to 8mbps last year, though I haven't confirmed. That's a fraction of what Blu-ray uses for 1080p, never mind 4K.

I have some 4K/UHD Blu-rays, and for comparison they're about 80mbps for video.

They use similar codecs, too, so the bitrates are fairly comparable. UHD Blu-rays use H.265, which is still a good video codec. Some streaming sites use AV1 (at least on some supported devices) now, which is a bit more efficient, but nowhere near enough to close that kind of gap in bitrate.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Why not download? Streaming is always going to be dogshit quality unless we find something faster than light. I don't really understand the context. There's really barely any difference between YouTube's """"1080p"""" and Netflix. But throw on a BDRemux or even a decent X265 10 bit BDRip encode from a trusted release group and let your eyes feast.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not all content can be downloaded, and for many people they want to watch what they want to watch right now, and waiting for the download is not something they are interested in.

Also rights holders dont want you to have an offline copy if they can avoid it, that way its easier to monetize for them.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Also rights holders dont want you to have an offline copy if they can avoid it, that way its easier to monetize for them.

Well ain't that a shame. I'll weep for them I swear.

Not all content can be downloaded,

Like livestreams? That being the exception but most 'content' isn't live.

and for many people they want to watch what they want to watch right now, and waiting for the download is not something they are interested in.

Bet they use YouTube through the home page too. Some people are animals and it can't be helped. That doesn't mean the rest of us must suffer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Like livestreams? That being the exception but most ‘content’ isn’t live.

A shocking amount of content is live, and then encoded for streaming. Given that you are on Lemmy I would guess that your interests dont overlap much with content that requires live transmission. So this is an expected selection bias, not being critical, and totally not judging, just pointing it out so you can be aware. I bet your parents still have cable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

My parents barely know how to use a computer at all, but they're old and don't have internet. They mostly just watch their own DVD movie collections or tune in to movies on DVDs.

I did teach my dad to find news on YT instead of TV (they are Russian, I'd rather they listen to Meduza than Putinist propaganda channels).

I honestly dunno what content requires live transmission apart from livestreams? I didn't just mean twitch btw I meant sports games etc. None of those require a very high bitrate or quality etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Most news is real-time transmission and over the air TV is still running very high bandwidth. It's you plug in an HD antenna or ATC.3.0 antenna it will blow away the video quality vs Netflix Amazon or YouTube.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Then why does it look like dogshit?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Over the air to an HD tuner looks like dog shit? What channel and location i can investigate.

If it's a local station over cable then it's because it's compressed and at best 720p.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

fullHD already looks pretty good

actually transfering all the data is a problem, like my wifi struggles even with streaming fullHD sometimes, so 4K is just unusable (+ you need a more expensive screen to actually show the 4K which I don't have either)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

I’m pretty sure that most devices have to compress the data going over HDMI and DisplayPort cables anyway.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Because the details get harder and harder to notice the difference.

I mean, I have difficulty seeing the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD, maybe in some cases if some effort were to be put in. But even so.

1080p and 4K? Barely can tell.

Things like going from VHS to DVD, yeah you can tell significantly. 360p to 720p to 1080p? You can tell, less pixelation.

Now I understand that it's all about being great quality in greater resolutions, I get that, but really I don't get the big freaking deal for 4K and 8K and all that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Odd. I can immediately tell the difference.

I did an empirical test with friends comparing various bitrates and resolutions of the same source (on a 100 inch projector screen with a good 4k projector). I could guess 100% of the time correctly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I work in tech and I have a bit of a retail component to my job. This includes selling monitors.

I assure you you're (we're*--I can also tell the difference easily) in the extreme minority. The vast majority of people buy color and size, not clarity.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

on a 100 inch projector screen

That's why. You notice it because more pixels do help a lot with huge screens. I was watching some old series shot for TV recently, on my 34" monitor it doesn't look too bad. On my projector with a ~100" screen it looks terrible with artefacts all over the place.

(My monitor is 1440p and the projector is only 1080p but I don't think it mattered in this case since the source video was 480p)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Honestly I’m not sure I completely agree, we’re pretty close to a perfect TV with new LED technology.

But maybe we’re talking about a next stage here, like true 3D or something else like smell? I’m not sure what the future will be, but TVs look pretty good to me and I’m not sure what perfections the current ‘variant’ needs.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

1080p is enough for most people’s eyes. What do you want?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Depends on your setup. On my 100 inch projector screen you can immediately tell when it's not 4k. And low bitrates (like Netflix) become especially noticable with rubber banding and loss of sharpness.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Those are compression and bandwidth issues, not resolution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

No I'm also talking about resolution too. You can tell on 100 inches. On 100 inches a 1080p pixel is more than one millimeter in diameter. You can definitely see that when you sit 3 meters away from the screen. 4k will give you visibly more sharpness. Provided of course that you don't butcher your movie with terrible bitrate compression.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Diminishing returns.

4k on a 75in and 8k on a 75in isn't a big difference.

Not to mention most streaming content is 1080 for bandwidth and tvs upscale to 4k. So while there is difference, it's hard to quantify upscaling, and even if you find a store with displays, they're being fed native 4k.

If you go to rtings.com or a similar site you can compare specifics and see that there is advancement happening.

It's just not like back in the day when they could keep doubling resolution.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

On top of that regular TV broadcasts tend to be 720p/1080i

[–] [email protected] 47 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Diminishing returns. It's already hard for many people to see the difference between 1080p and 4k. The difference between 4k and 8k is almost nonexistent at significantly higher storage costs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Yep. There are already systems designed to watch and play back 8k video at home, but it is largely seen as not worth the expense of implementing the system.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Mean on TV or YouTube videos or what?