Why is Netflix HDR content so poor compared to other sources?

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Yes they have a huge 4K DV offering but I cancelled my sub few months ago as £14.99 was too much for me and I don't watch dramas.

Without checking on how much that is in USD currency, I do agree that Netflix rates have gotten a bit out of control. But having subscribed and unsubscribed to many different streaming serves, I do feel Netflix has the most content, and especially 4K content. HBO Max is also pretty good in terms of content, but their 4K content is extremely slim and they don't have as much exclusive content as Netflix either. And I sometimes encountering buffering issues and app glitches that I never encountered with Netflix.

Even though Netflix may charge a high price compared to other streaming services, it's still much cheaper than cable TV. It sucks that it's hard to get regional sports without cable TV tho, so that's a big sacrifice I have to make by not paying for cable.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by MrHT

Without checking on how much that is in USD currency, I do agree that Netflix rates have gotten a bit out of control. But having subscribed and unsubscribed to many different streaming serves, I do feel Netflix has the most content, and especially 4K content. HBO Max is also pretty good in terms of content, but their 4K content is extremely slim and they don't have as much exclusive content as Netflix either. And I sometimes encountering buffering issues and app glitches that I never encountered with Netflix.

Even though Netflix may charge a high price compared to other streaming services, it's still much cheaper than cable TV. It sucks that it's hard to get regional sports without cable TV tho, so that's a big sacrifice I have to make by not paying for cable.

I don't do cable and don't watch regular TV channels. So that's £14 per month saved by not paying TV license.

Only have Disney+ and Prime.

I will re-sub to Netflix if the price is under £10.

All my digital movie purchases are on iTunes.

[fredreed]

It depends on where the source is coming from. Some content might be better then others where It comes from. This also happens quite a lot with Live TV streaming services as well. Certain channels may look better because it's presented In a better resolution then other channels are being offered. HDR is also new so It will take time especially If Netflix is just now offering this for the first time. If your having issues getting HDR to be work properly I would contact Netflix with your TV Brand and whatever else Netflix needs from you so do they can better help you.

It may also be your location remember that and It could also your Internet service provider that you have. You may not enough bandwidth to carry the signal. These can be factors that you need to think about.

[alchav21]

You guys are right Bandwidth and ISP are very important to get good Streaming. mx77 never responded to my question on how his 85" Sony was connected for Streaming. I believe in Hardwire for good Solid Streaming, Wireless is subject to many problems that can drop Bandwidth. I mainly use Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Vudu with some other Streaming Providers, and have no problems with Picture and Sound Quality.

[Wendell R. Breland]

For years I have explained how adaptive streaming works, how to do speed test between you and your ISP, you and a remote server, and very importantly, when to test. Have provided links to videos showing what not to have enabled on your TV, videos that showed a user using Apple HUD and I told folks what to look for in those test. For Android users there is a speed test app that works fairly well, it will run a test and log it so you can see previous test. Prime Video diagnostics (see pic) will not show your network bandwidth but will show audio and video data rates.

At my location I have observed as much as a 25:1 speed difference between 6:00PM and 9:00PM. As an example, at 6:00PM a Netflix server test (see pic) may show 260 Mbps and that same test at 9:00PM may be down to 25 Mbps. A speed check at those same times between me and my ISP server will be in the 260 to 290 Mbps.

My bating average for getting folks to do some of these test is really low. It is really perplexing and I do not understand what the problem is.

[Show spoiler]

[Wendell R. Breland]

PS Post.

For Netflix, on my Nvidia Shield Pro (Android device) F4 via a keyboard will bring up what the current content resolution is and the data rate. I use a FLIRC with mine so I can use with a URC remote control. Page one for Shield:

[Show spoiler]

[mx77]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You guys are right Bandwidth and ISP are very important to get good Streaming. mx77 never responded to my question on how his 85" Sony was connected for Streaming. I believe in Hardwire for good Solid Streaming, Wireless is subject to many problems that can drop Bandwidth. I mainly use Amazon Prime, Netflix, and Vudu with some other Streaming Providers, and have no problems with Picture and Sound Quality.

Sorry, I have only watched Netflix via Phone for a couple of days, so can't really say anything about the pq. Will get back to you when I get back home. But what I can answer now, is that my tv has ethernet cable connected directly from the tv to router. When I have seen bad quality on Netflix, I have checked the bitrate and it has been something like 14-17mb/s and I guess that using these bitrates especially movement and artifacts around (fast) moving objects are the easies way to notice the subpar quality.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by mx77

I have checked the bitrate and it has been something like 14-17mb/s and I guess that using these bitrates especially movement and artifacts around (fast) moving objects are the easies way to notice the subpar quality.

If you get those data rates from Netflix during prime time for UHD content then count yourself lucky. Just finished the Warrior Nun and Wednesday in UHD, if I viewed around 6:00 PM EST they would stream around 15 Mbps but if we viewed around 8:30 PM then the data rate was between 4 to 5 Mbps. Viewed via Shield Pro, did not try via the Apple TV4K.

For reference, during prime time viewing: UHD content from Amazon Prime Video; video = 15 Mbps, DD+ audio = 192 Kbps , DD+ Atmos = 384 Kbps. One exception, The Rings of Power, video = 20 Mbps, audio DD+ Atmos = 448 Kbps. Checked using Shield Pro and Prime Video diagnostics.

[mx77]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

If you get those data rates from Netflix during prime time for UHD content then count yourself lucky. Just finished the Warrior Nun and Wednesday in UHD, if I viewed around 6:00 PM EST they would stream around 15 Mbps but if we viewed around 8:30 PM then the data rate was between 4 to 5 Mbps. Viewed via Shield Pro, did not try via the Apple TV4K.

For reference, during prime time viewing: UHD content from Amazon Prime Video; video = 15 Mbps, DD+ audio = 192 Kbps , DD+ Atmos = 384 Kbps. One exception, The Rings of Power, video = 20 Mbps, audio DD+ Atmos = 448 Kbps. Checked using Shield Pro and Prime Video diagnostics.

Ok, got back home and started playing with Netflix. Right now I'm watching White Noise, and the tv says that it is streaming 17.38 Mb/s /2160. And despite the "good" bitrate, the picture quality is no better that what one can see in 1080 blu-rays.

On to Red Notice, getting 18.45 Mb/s and surprisingly, this looks pretty good. The dark scenes seem to lose some detail, but exceeds my expectations. The movie itself sucks big time though.

And now Bird Box. 10.48 Mb/s and the closeups of faces etc. look quite bad. And while Red Notice had some nice Dolby Vision, Bird Box is very dull. Pretty much artifacts on the river shots also. Not even Sandra Bullock can save this one. She would, if this was 15 years ago though.

So, I can understand how the convenience factor overcomes the quality loss regarding physical media, but what I still don't get is that people buy expensive stuff and then waste the potential with quite lousy streaming. I believe that one day streaming will catch up as the physical media is not going to develop further, but there is still pretty long way to go.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by mx77

Ok, got back home and started playing with Netflix. Right now I'm watching White Noise, and the tv says that it is streaming 17.38 Mb/s /2160. And despite the "good" bitrate, the picture quality is no better that what one can see in 1080 blu-rays.

On to Red Notice, getting 18.45 Mb/s and surprisingly, this looks pretty good. The dark scenes seem to lose some detail, but exceeds my expectations. The movie itself sucks big time though.

And now Bird Box. 10.48 Mb/s and the closeups of faces etc. look quite bad. And while Red Notice had some nice Dolby Vision, Bird Box is very dull. Pretty much artifacts on the river shots also. Not even Sandra Bullock can save this one. She would, if this was 15 years ago though.

So, I can understand how the convenience factor overcomes the quality loss regarding physical media, but what I still don't get is that people buy expensive stuff and then waste the potential with quite lousy streaming. I believe that one day streaming will catch up as the physical media is not going to develop further, but there is still pretty long way to go.

I’m checking “White Noise” right now and the picture quality looks pretty good with fantastic HDR. I admit the picture isn’t that finely detailed, but the HDR is very good.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by mx77

Ok, got back home and started playing with Netflix. Right now I'm watching White Noise, and the tv says that it is streaming 17.38 Mb/s /2160. And despite the "good" bitrate, the picture quality is no better that what one can see in 1080 blu-rays.

On to Red Notice, getting 18.45 Mb/s and surprisingly, this looks pretty good. The dark scenes seem to lose some detail, but exceeds my expectations. The movie itself sucks big time though.

And now Bird Box. 10.48 Mb/s and the closeups of faces etc. look quite bad. And while Red Notice had some nice Dolby Vision, Bird Box is very dull. Pretty much artifacts on the river shots also. Not even Sandra Bullock can save this one. She would, if this was 15 years ago though.

So, I can understand how the convenience factor overcomes the quality loss regarding physical media, but what I still don't get is that people buy expensive stuff and then waste the potential with quite lousy streaming. I believe that one day streaming will catch up as the physical media is not going to develop further, but there is still pretty long way to go.

What TV do you have?

Not every movie is shot the same way. The ones you watched are Netflix exclusive to the best of my knowledge. Saying it looks no better than 1080p Blu-ray without a disc version to compare against is like saying Godzilla Vs Kong Blu-ray looks better than Escape to Alcatraz 4K. Did you know Con Air remastered on streaming blows the crap BD out of the water? Did you know Total Recall iTunes stream has no macroblocking when the disc has it? I think we should stop this extreme comparisons between physical and digital. They both have their pros and cons. Enjoy whatever pleases you.

Where the Crawdads Sing as of now is 4K Dolby Vision only on streaming. iTunes version streams at 25 Mbps hitting peak of 31 Mbps. The BD's AVBR is 24 Mbps . If I say the 4K DV stream which is HEVC encoded looks better than the 24 Mbps AVC encoded BD, would you agree?

Also HDR grading differs from movie to.movie and not everything is made to look pristine. Still there are many out there complaining 4K HDR looking dimmer than SDR due to poor understanding of how HDR works.

Birdbox used to stream at 16 Mbps but as it's old, I think Netflix probably has bumped it down. One thing I remember is the excellent usage of overhead channels but hey if I say it was a full immersive experience on my 11.1.4 soundbar, it won't bode well with separate owners. The same old complaints will continue. 200 inch screen owners laughing at 150 inch screen owners, 150 inch screen owners laughing at TV owners, 7.4.6 owners laughing at 5.1.2 owners and so on.

Don't have Netflix any longer due to price.

[mx77]

Originally Posted by lgans316

What TV do you have?

Not every movie is shot the same way. The ones you watched are Netflix exclusive to the best of my knowledge. Saying it looks no better than 1080p Blu-ray without a disc version to compare against is like saying Godzilla Vs Kong Blu-ray looks better than Escape to Alcatraz 4K. Did you know Con Air remastered on streaming blows the crap BD out of the water? Did you know Total Recall iTunes stream has no macroblocking when the disc has it? I think we should stop this extreme comparisons between physical and digital. They both have their pros and cons. Enjoy whatever pleases you.

Where the Crawdads Sing as of now is 4K Dolby Vision only on streaming. iTunes version streams at 25 Mbps hitting peak of 31 Mbps. The BD's AVBR is 24 Mbps . If I say the 4K DV stream which is HEVC encoded looks better than the 24 Mbps AVC encoded BD, would you agree?

Also HDR grading differs from movie to.movie and not everything is made to look pristine. Still there are many out there complaining 4K HDR looking dimmer than SDR due to poor understanding of how HDR works.

Birdbox used to stream at 16 Mbps but as it's old, I think Netflix probably has bumped it down. Don't have Netflix any longer due to price.

I have a Sony 85X... something. I find it funny how most of the times a difference in opinion is "poor understanding". Bird Box looked pretty bad with "soft" picture. If the streaming will be hitting something like 25 mbit/s, there should be enough data to represent a good quality picture. And like I said, streaming is going to catch up with physical eventuall, but at this point, the gap is still very much noticeable.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by mx77

I have a Sony 85X... something. I find it funny how most of the times a difference in opinion is "poor understanding". Bird Box looked pretty bad with "soft" picture. If the streaming will be hitting something like 25 mbit/s, there should be enough data to represent a good quality picture. And like I said, streaming is going to catch up with physical eventuall, but at this point, the gap is still very much noticeable.

So you don't even know the exact TV model you own lol.

A lot of content these days are shot digitally and doesn't need super high bit rates to look better. Diminishing returns

There will always be a gap otherwise one will completely dethrone the other which is not good for the consumers.

Let these mediums co-exists, otherwise it will be too boring. Comparing is fine but extreme comparisons is not worth it for me.

[mx77]

Originally Posted by lgans316

So you don't even know the exact TV model you own lol.

A lot of content these days are shot digitally and doesn't need super high bit rates to look better. Diminishing returns

There will always be a gap otherwise one will completely dethrone the other which is not good for the consumers.

Let these mediums co-exists, otherwise it will be too boring. Comparing is fine but extreme comparisons is not worth it for me.

I just didn't remember the exact model, but here it is: Sony KE-85XH9096. And what the hell is there to lol about?

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by mx77

I just didn't remember the exact model, but here it is: Sony KE-85XH9096. And what the hell is there to lol about?

When you critique the picture seen through your TV especially in AV science forums, its natural to expect one to know the model number byheart.

[mx77]

Originally Posted by lgans316

When you critique the picture seen through your TV especially in AV science forums, its natural to expect one to know the model number byheart.

Yes, and I did KNOW it, just didn't REMEMBER the exact model id.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by mx77

Yes, and I did KNOW it, just didn't REMEMBER the exact model id.

Sorry. No harm intended.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by mx77

So, I can understand how the convenience factor overcomes the quality loss regarding physical media, but what I still don't get is that people buy expensive stuff and then waste the potential with quite lousy streaming. I believe that one day streaming will catch up as the physical media is not going to develop further, but there is still pretty long way to go.

I don't stream for convenience, I do it for content not available on disc. Have always just over looked the video and audio shortcomings of streaming.

With disc I truly own the medium and no one can change the disc once it is pressed. I do despise all disc that do not load direct to the main menu. My solution, a Zappiti NAS (98TB) and Neo media player (here). Zappiti is not without its own warts but I really like the way you select your content.

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

I don't stream for convenience, I do it for content not available on disc. Have always just over looked the video and audio shortcomings of streaming.

With disc I truly own the medium and no one can change the disc once it is pressed. I do despise all disc that do not load direct to the main menu. My solution, a Zappiti NAS (98TB) and Neo media player (here). Zappiti is not without its own warts but I really like the way you select your content.

No to mention we buy what we want to own and watch several times. We stream what we want to watch once. We are not going to buy everything we want to watch.

Instead of wasting money on cable tv and dealing with commercials, we subscribe to a streaming service and watching on demand with no ads.

[fredreed]

That depends on where the source is coming from and where they got the source from. It also depends on how bad the actual source is meaning the condition. Not all 4K content will look clear and crisp like other 4K content. I would also make sure that the Xbox is up to date as well.