71–80 of 102 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Netflix still saves money when someone watches in a lower resolution.
Yes, but what they care about is profits. People aren't going to pay for the expensive plan if they can't actually use the features of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To what extent does this watermarking survive transcoding? Would not transcoding multiple times possibly affect it? > They also use a traitor tracing scheme (Tardos codes) such that if multiple pirates get together to try and remove the watermark they will fail, you would need an unreasonably large number of pirates to succeed for some length of time. Why?
> To what extent does this watermarking survive transcoding? Would not transcoding multiple times possibly affect it? They are designed to survive being recorded by a phone at an angle. The embedding is only 1-bit per segment which can be multiple megabytes. > Why? Tardos codes scale as the square of the number of traitors times a constant. For example, a movie would typically have 2000 segments -> 2000 bits of encod…
Any idea what this looks like? I assume it's not visible to the human eye, but being able to survive this level of degradation is quite impressive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I've noticed about Netflix's supposedly 4k content is that it looks like crap compared to the same show downloaded through illicit means (and viewed on Plex or something else). What's the deal with Netflix's not-very-good 4k streams? Colour quantization or something? It's not just a one-off, why do 4k netflix shows look like rubbish compared to a moderately encoded whatever from bittorrent?
Probably extreme compression, their 4K streams are very low bandwidth.
So, about 10GB or less on Netflix to 30GB or more on AppleTV+, dissected by DPI on my TP-Link Omada Gateway.
And indeed, i think it shows - i can't notice any banding or moire effect on pretty much any AppleTV+ content, while it is as clear as night and day that Netflix compresses the hell out of their content.
Hello HN, I have an important thing to point out: THIS EXTENSION DOES NOT WORK! let me put it another way: THIS EXTENSION DOES NOTHING USEFUL! The author did not reverse engineer anything. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the outputs. The author did not check if the extension actually works. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the ou…
The author said the extension did not work in Chrome.[1] But they did not respect other people to say this where everyone would see it and plainly.
Why is this flagged ? Can HN force people who flag to provide a reason, even if only the mods see it?
It doesn't work in Chrome/Firefox, it works only in Edge.
Hello HN, I have an important thing to point out: THIS EXTENSION DOES NOT WORK! let me put it another way: THIS EXTENSION DOES NOTHING USEFUL! The author did not reverse engineer anything. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the outputs. The author did not check if the extension actually works. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the ou…
Have you tested it? I have no doubt that it was vibecoded, and there's a lot of bogus stuff in the readme, but there's also a good chance it's at least slightly functional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you tested it? I have no doubt that it was vibecoded, and there's a lot of bogus stuff in the readme, but there's also a good chance it's at least slightly functional.
WTF does "slightly functional" mean in this context.
This extension tries to spoof HDCP status and codec support which is stupid and will not provide any benefit, since it is ultimately enforced by hardware.
But it also patches Cadmium to request a custom set of profiles which is useful and can improve compatibility: https://github.com/Pickle-Pixel/netflix-force-4k/blob/72e179...
For example, here's a set of profiles that makes 1080p work on Linux, as opposed to a mere 720p: https://github.com/DavidBuchanan314/Turbo-Recadmiumator/blob... (or at least it used to, I haven't tested it in ages)
Hello HN, I have an important thing to point out: THIS EXTENSION DOES NOT WORK! let me put it another way: THIS EXTENSION DOES NOTHING USEFUL! The author did not reverse engineer anything. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the outputs. The author did not check if the extension actually works. He simply asked Claude Code to make this without testing or verifying any of the ou…
Many such cases
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To what extent does this watermarking survive transcoding? Would not transcoding multiple times possibly affect it? They are designed to survive being recorded by a phone at an angle. The embedding is only 1-bit per segment which can be multiple megabytes. > Why? Tardos codes scale as the square of the number of traitors times a constant. For example, a movie would typically have 2000 segments -> 2000 bits of encod…
> They are designed to survive being recorded by a phone at an angle. Any idea what this looks like? I assume it's not visible to the human eye, but being able to survive this level of degradation is quite impressive.
It generally occurs as patterns which are slightly in the noise. Good systems pick locations where its easier to hide and turn it off when the scene would expose it. Usually when badly done increasing sharpness in a scene can help reveal it.
Basically, if you can damage the watermark the picture quality is bad enough that it's harming your viewing. You need to compress into crap SD quality to make it hard to detect and even then you'll get something.
You don't even need a complete pattern, if you can get enough fragments you can narrow down the possible identities until you have a high match probability. I.e. partial fingerprints or DNA match.