Is there a reason why 1080p Web-DLs are terrible? I have a

>>51560531
The Simpsons is shit after the 10th season.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 3.35.28 PM.png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

Another example. Look at those lines! And this is the best version of this episode I can find, it's not like they have Blu-Ray releases.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 3.36.45 PM.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

Here's a 1080p Web-DL release. I'll show a Blu ray release in a sec.

File: Screen Shot 2015-11-27 at 3.37.39 PM.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>51560578
Blu-Ray.

See the difference?

>>51560601
Nope

File: 1448150410102.jpg (747KB, 1470x2637px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1470x2637px

>>51560553
Definitely.

>>51560601
Other than the fact that it's completely different source material so it can't really be compared?

>>51560624
In the Web-DL release, everyone looks waxy. Look at the detail on the black guy's face and the faces of one of the white guys in the other image. You see more detail in the Blu-Ray.

>>51560658
It definitely can. It's not like they use completely different equipment with each episode.

File: 1443301870149.png (127KB, 365x365px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 365x365px

>>51560652
>looser

>>51560660
You're one of those guys that spends $200 a piece for HDMI cables, aren't you?

Because poor people have slow ass connections for high bitrate streams.

>>51560719

No, I get them from a box of cables in my basement because I'm not an idiot.

Why is caring about video quality mocked these days? I'm not watching these on an old CRT like most people on /g/ are.

>>51560531
Because digital is an overall cheaper means of distribution. You don't need to manufacture discs, create menus, pay factory workers, package or ship.

Whereas with digital, you only need to upload a file that meets with the standard of being 720p or 1080p as advertised and expected by consumers to the digital distributors. Video bit rate or frame rate is usually irrelevant, and having a lower over-all bit rate reduces the bandwidth costs for digital distributors.

This is especially prevalent for streaming services, and what has helped make costs low and profit high.

https://twitter.com/Daiz42/status/668234073844940800

>>51560763
And because of this, you don't have to pay $300 for a Simpsons box set.

Normies don't care about quality.

>>51560800
>>51560763

The problem is that that low bitrate 1080p videos are soon becoming the only options for many movies and shows. Imagine if the only legal route for music you could get was 320kbps mp3s or aacs from iTunes. That would suck for anyone who cares about the quality they're getting.

Or maybe you do need to pay $300....how is the Simpsons not on Netflix or Amazon?

OP.

Most 1080p WEBDL shit is bitrate starved garbage or even worse, upscales. For WEB-DL stick to 720p and even then I'd only suggest getting it if the 720p TV encode of a show is complete fucking shit, and with group's like FLEET and 0SEC there is a high chance of it being complete fucking shit.

These days, a nice proper HDTV 1080p will be much better than a WEBDL version. Do note those encodes usually start around 3GB though, and may go up to 8 to 25 GB for some shows.

>>51560800

Normies don't sit 4 feet close to their monitor and try to pick apart visual artifacts and zaggy lines.

If you can ignore the staticy artifact of a VHS tape but you can't take your eyes off digital artifacts on a modern release, then you need to change how you look at things.

You also have to consider the content and whether it was worth the effort of making a decent encode. If I was encoding workaholics or Simpsons I wouldn't give a shit about nitrates, so long as it looks decent from the couch. However, if I was encoding something like the new series The Hunt from BBC, where they spent a tremendous amount of effort on visual quality, I'd spend more time and effort on the encode.