And it would range from a 4/10 to a 9.9/10.
JOHN WICK 2 MAKEMKV MOVIE
I could label everything I've streamed, from demo material to the worst dated movie that's a bad transfer. It fills the frame nicely and it looks fantastic. I was watching "Ten Rings" on Disney Plus the other day, they tag it as "IMAX" or whatever.
The best of streaming looks pretty much literally perfect to my eyes. But I think Streaming is good enough, and Disney/Apple etc are for the most part putting out good enough streaming quality that I'm not chasing Blu's any more. It's not that I'm trying to argue streaming is better, I know it's worse, less bits per second. But I'm never going "bah, this is shitty quality, I wish I had the blu-ray", I usually think "I wish this was a better transfer" or maybe "this movie looks like it was cheaply filmed in the mid 80's" not "this is riddled with streaming artefacts".
And there is a huge variation in quality between different movies, their age, the master, the transfer, how its filmed, the streaming platforms. Now it's kinda sad, but streaming movies don't look as good as hand picked youtube demo material for the most part. There is an Avatar HDR demo on youtube that looks much better than any version of Avatar I've seen anywhere. The quality is like practically looking through a window to real life. I certainly don't notice it looking 'like shit'. Go watch Gemini Man 60fps demo clips on youtube. to be honest lots of that demo material looks better than any movie I've ever seen, Blu-Ray or otherwise. I load up youtube on my Apple TV, then watch some HDR demo footage. Or at least, with the current streaming bitrates I'm getting, it's good enough that it's not an important factor. Source material movie/film/camera/quality/age > transfer/master of movie > delivery bitrate. I think it's more like this in order of importance:.
0 kommentar(er)
