

Gilitar

join:2012-02-01

Mobile, AL Gilitar Member Not too bad I thought 4K would need much more than 15 Mbps. There is plenty of people with internet connections that are fast enough to support this.



dvd536

as Mr. Pink as they come

Premium Member

join:2001-04-27

Phoenix, AZ dvd536 Premium Member Re: Not too bad it will. 15mbps will be very bitstarved



PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13

Baltimore, MD PapaMidnight Member Re: Not too bad Indeed. 4K at 15Mbps is going to be worse than the rmvb compression of old.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus Member Re: Not too bad said by PapaMidnight: Indeed. 4K at 15Mbps is going to be worse than the rmvb compression of old. That's a terrible analogy.

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) to dvd536

Member to dvd536

If they are using h.265 15 Mbps will be like 30 Mbps with h.264.

46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad 1080p needs 30 Mbps with H.264.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad Not even close. Completely wrong.

your moderator at work hidden : Personal attacks

AaronMK

join:2009-10-05 AaronMK to 34764170

Member to 34764170

Re: Not too bad Since 1080p only refers to decoded image resolution, and not picture quality, it does not "need" much data. When we define "need" to mean the data necessary for an image without visible compression artifacts, Murica IS close.



Although some blu-rays have achieved 1080p transparancy at 23 Mbps, 30 Mbps is usually where you can rest assured that any problems with the image are not compression related.

biochemistry

Premium Member

join:2003-05-09

92361 biochemistry to dvd536

Premium Member to dvd536

No it won't. Have you seen the reviews of 10mbps RedRay 4K videos? They look amazing.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: Not too bad relative the original quality, it will be bit starved, but it will still look awesome.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 1 recommendation 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad Wasting bits for the sake of wasting bits is stupid.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: Not too bad There is a difference between being wasteful and the diminishing returns "costing" too much. But given the rate of technology, what is prohibitive and "Wasteful" today will be virtually free and underutilized tomorrow.



It's not actually wasteful as you still get perceptibly and measurable better quality.



Managed memory systems like Java and .Net were considered wasteful because it used a relatively lot of CPU cycles to run the Garbage Collector, now they are quite standard.



In the Internet world, bandwidth is outpacing Moore's "law". Cisco's latest bad-boy router is 8 times faster while using 1/4 the power of their last gen.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad said by Bengie25: There is a difference between being wasteful and the diminishing returns "costing" too much. But given the rate of technology, what is prohibitive and "Wasteful" today will be virtually free and underutilized tomorrow. said by Bengie25: It's not actually wasteful as you still get perceptibly and measurable better quality. said by Bengie25: Managed memory systems like Java and .Net were considered wasteful because it used a relatively lot of CPU cycles to run the Garbage Collector, now they are quite standard. said by Bengie25: In the Internet world, bandwidth is outpacing Moore's "law". Cisco's latest bad-boy router is 8 times faster while using 1/4 the power of their last gen. That's not the point. As I have already said, there is a difference between Netflix's 7Mbps encoding and 30Mbps but you don't need to go from 7 to 30 to have excellent quality with a good H.264 encoding.Measuring and perceptual differences are two different things. Measuring the difference is useless if you can't see the difference. It's just "feel good" to say its 30Mbps bit rate.They're still wasteful and run like crap. Notice the vast majority of apps are not in Java or C# even though they have been around for close to or over a decade.The core is not the edge. Mentioning the core is useless. The edge is what matters. The core has never been an issue.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX Kamus to dvd536

Member to dvd536

said by dvd536: it will. 15mbps will be very bitstarved 10 mbit 1080p video looks great using x264. I can see 15 mbit 4k being just about "good enough" if they use h.265 once encoders are mature enough.

46436203 (banned)

join:2013-01-03 46436203 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad No it doesn't. It looks like shit.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad Complete hyperbole.

Kamus

join:2011-01-27

El Paso, TX 2 recommendations Kamus to 46436203

Member to 46436203

said by 46436203: No it doesn't. It looks like shit.



I'm not referring to the codec (h.264) but the encoder here. x264 is an amazing encoder and can produce incredible results at very low bitrates. I dare you to tell the difference in a blind test between an x264 encoded at 10-12 mbps file from a higher bitrate one in most material.I'm not referring to the codec (h.264) but the encoder here. x264 is an amazing encoder and can produce incredible results at very low bitrates.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: Not too bad I dare you to look at a normal 40mb-50mb BluRay still frame side-by-side to a 12mb encoded frame.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad Who the f4%k cares about still frames. You don't watch movies like that.



PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13

Baltimore, MD PapaMidnight to Kamus

Member to Kamus

I'll take that challenge: I'll admit that the dithering effects of some colors with x264 at around those bit-rates can bother me a bit, but not enough to diminish the experience - but do believe that it is noticeable; and I'm not talking about when going frame by frame.

Bigglesworth

join:2011-02-22

Santa Barbara, CA 1 recommendation Bigglesworth to dvd536

Member to dvd536

You people have zero idea how video compression works these days.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Not too bad That isn't surprising for DSLR.



buzz_4_20

join:2003-09-20

Biddeford, ME buzz_4_20 Member But... Will the picture quality be better than a 1080p bluray disk?



FFH5

Premium Member

join:2002-03-03

Tavistock NJ FFH5 Premium Member Re: But... said by buzz_4_20: Will the picture quality be better than a 1080p bluray disk? Unlikely



dvd536

as Mr. Pink as they come

Premium Member

join:2001-04-27

Phoenix, AZ dvd536 to buzz_4_20

Premium Member to buzz_4_20

course not when a quality blu ray is around 40mbps.

15mbps 4k will be unwatchable!

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 1 recommendation 34764170 (banned) Member Re: But... Blu-ray's are wasteful of the medias space. They're using bits for the sake of using bits not doing so because it is necessary.

your moderator at work hidden : Personal attacks

hidden : Personal attacks

elefante72

join:2010-12-03

East Amherst, NY 4 recommendations elefante72 to buzz_4_20

Member to buzz_4_20

That is the idea on 4k ON RESOLUTION. The question is optically do you really need it. In many cases 720p at sufficient distance and screen size is all one can resolve.



The more disturbing things are macroblocks, color saturation, and gradation which is more of a transcoding issue than a resolution issue.



As a matter of fact, resolution is like 3rd or 4th on the most important aspects of a pleasing user experience.



To me 4k is like 3d, the next attempt at TV manufacturers to prop up margins with a dubious product.



gjrhine

join:2001-12-12

Pawleys Island, SC gjrhine to buzz_4_20

Member to buzz_4_20

Blu-ray (correct spelling) can get up to 50 Mbps.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16

Tampa, FL brianiscool to buzz_4_20

Member to buzz_4_20





»entertainment.slashdot.o ··· th-4k-tv Nope not at all. You are talking about extreme compression. A 4K video uncompressed is 600MB/s . Modern hard drives can not even read at that bit-rate.



PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13

Baltimore, MD PapaMidnight Member Re: But... But a high performance SSD on SATA6 or via the PCI Bus can - just a thought.



Not arguing you here - uncompressed 4K would be completely impractical by today's standards.



Corehhi

join:2002-01-28

Bluffton, SC Corehhi to buzz_4_20

Member to buzz_4_20

said by buzz_4_20: Will the picture quality be better than a 1080p bluray disk? Seriously doubt it.

neufuse

join:2006-12-06

James Creek, PA neufuse Member high compression ugh... heck I'd rather have a 15Mbit 1080p stream... with MPEG4 at 15Mbit that is pretty high quality for HD... I'd expect 4K to be at minimum 20Mbit at MPEG4

amungus

Premium Member

join:2004-11-26

America amungus Premium Member less than I thought Yeah, 1080p can be done decently with 8-10Mbps. Would think they'd need closer to 20Mbps for decent 4k, but then again, I don't know if this is h.265 they're talking about here, which could explain an increase in efficiency.



skeechan

Ai Otsukaholic

Premium Member

join:2012-01-26

AA169|170 skeechan Premium Member I have 50Mb... ...along with a 400GB/mo cap. So much for "being fine". Of course that is Cox's plan...can't compete so price competitors out of the video market with otherwise unjustifiable usage caps.



exocet_cm

Writing

Premium Member

join:2003-03-23

Brooklyn, NY exocet_cm Premium Member What movie Is that picture of Liam Neeson from?



swintec

Premium Member

join:2003-12-19

Alfred, ME swintec Premium Member Re: What movie said by exocet_cm: Is that picture of Liam Neeson from? Possibly Taken?



Packeteers

Premium Member

join:2005-06-18

Forest Hills, NY ·Verizon FiOS

·Charter

Asus RT-AC3100

(Software) Asuswrt-Merlin

3 edits Packeteers Premium Member doubtful 15mbps down is 2MB/s transfer rate on a good low latency day. i highly doubt that's enough for 4K, let alone a stable 30fps 1080p stream.



displayport and soon hdmi are capable of 60Hz 4K are 18MB/s transfer wires. so even if you reduced it to 30Hz and compressed it by half,



2MB/s would still not be enough even under ideal latency conditions.

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16

Tampa, FL brianiscool Member HD How about better HD quality? Stream blue-ray quality before you go to 4k. You will need 45Mbps - 55Mbps for the exact quality of a blue-ray video.



RockCake

Premium Member

join:2005-07-12

Woodbridge, VA RockCake Premium Member Stop worrying about 4K.... ...and concentrate on improving your movie library.



(I know, I know, it's not Netflix, it's the studios, blah, blah, blah)

clone (banned)

join:2000-12-11

Portage, IN clone (banned) Member 720, 1080, 4K... Crap shot in HD is still crap.



"The only thing high-definition television will do is provide sharper pictures of the garbage." --George Carlin



WHT

join:2010-03-26

Rosston, TX WHT Member "If you've got a 50-megabit connection you146;ll be fine." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

88615298 (banned)

join:2004-07-28

West Tenness 88615298 (banned) Member 6.5 GB per hour at 15 Mbps. Just 1 hour a day and that's nearly 200 GB a month.



Black_Mage

iMage

Premium Member

join:2012-09-12

USA Black_Mage Premium Member Re: 6.5 GB per hour Oh wow. That's an eye opening revelation.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 1 recommendation 34764170 (banned) to 88615298

Member to 88615298

Not an issue for me, but for you poor suckers on ISPs ripping you off I feel bad for you.

tmc8080

join:2004-04-24

Brooklyn, NY tmc8080 Member theoretical, none of you have 4k video monitors or UHDTVs yet. The best you can possibly watch now are 2k... It's also likely what you will see is a majority of sets specs have initial specs such as 720p/1080i (2160p/4096i) to make them affordable, 4k (p)will likely be sky high in price for the first 18 months--- you know, just because they can..



what is more important is, you might end up seeing Netflix and other streaming providers adopt 4k faster than cable companies-- and this could lead to consumers dropping their cable companies like a hot potato for video, excepting satellite which will probably be first to the punch... as they were with HD (2004/2005)



much is contingent upon you having decent broadband, and a provider who doesn't send you a registered piece of mail saying your consuming too much bandwidth warning letter.

biochemistry

Premium Member

join:2003-05-09

92361 biochemistry Premium Member The Codec



36Mb/s Cinema for big screen theatres.

18Mb/s Premium, good for Home Theatre screens.

9Mb/s for situations when small files are most important.



Now, H.265 is a whole other discussion.



I invite people to view the thread on avsforum.



»www.avsforum.com/t/14843 ··· consumer The ability to have 15 mpbs 4k streams will of course depend upon the codec. Early reviews of the Redray codec are highly encouraging. These files are encoded in one of three ways:36Mb/s Cinema for big screen theatres.18Mb/s Premium, good for Home Theatre screens.9Mb/s for situations when small files are most important.Now, H.265 is a whole other discussion.I invite people to view the thread on avsforum.

Bigglesworth

join:2011-02-22

Santa Barbara, CA 1 recommendation Bigglesworth Member Re: The Codec 4k can be done in 7-9mbps now with high quality results. You simply dont keep the fast compression settings on like they do with shitty youtube compression. They just toss bits atthe problem. The hardly makes it impossible.



joako

Premium Member

join:2000-09-07

/dev/null 81.9 7.1

1 recommendation joako Premium Member I could care less Not a pleased Netflix viewer. Have to click their HD button multiple times and watch poor qualify video while "HD Is buffering." I would rather wait a few seconds at the start and watch 100% HD.



Then they "release" their super HD but don't let the majority of their users access it.



Now they will release 4k video and of course not offer it to the majority of their customers. Who cares what the ISP thinks about it? Just offer the service to your paying customers regardless.

Bengie25

join:2010-04-22

Wisconsin Rapids, WI Bengie25 Member Re: I could care less said by joako: Not a pleased Netflix viewer. Have to click their HD button multiple times and watch poor qualify video while "HD Is buffering." I would rather wait a few seconds at the start and watch 100% HD. That's not Netflix, that's your ISP.



Black_Mage

iMage

Premium Member

join:2012-09-12

USA Black_Mage Premium Member Meh I still don't have a HD TV yet. I'm more excited at the prospect of 1080p OLED TVs than 4K



Dryvlyne

Far Beyond Driven

Premium Member

join:2004-08-30

Newark, OH Dryvlyne Premium Member Hastings is delusional... quote: ...As an overall system load, it will grow quite slowly and steadily, giving people lots of time to build the infrastructure Right, because ISPs have done such a bang up job of pro-actively keeping their infrastructure updated to meet today's demands /sarcasm Right, because ISPs have done such a bang up job of pro-actively keeping their infrastructure updated to meetdemands /sarcasm



houkouonchi

join:2002-07-22

Ontario, CA houkouonchi Member Try more like atleast 25 megabits. Atleast while its still x264... 15 megabits is a joke. That is like youtube's bitrate for 4k when you chose 'original quality' which completely negates the benefit of 4k as 15 meg is *way* too low of a bit rate for 4k. Honestly netflix's bit-rates are already too low and look like crap IMHO which is one of the reasons I don't have their service.

34764170 (banned)

join:2007-09-06

Etobicoke, ON 34764170 (banned) Member Re: Try more like atleast 25 megabits. It wouldn't be using H.264, it would be using H.265



TheTechGuru

join:2004-03-25

TEXAS TheTechGuru Member No Problem Here... Your Speed Result:

Download Speed: 43594 kbps (5449.3 KB/sec transfer rate)

Upload Speed: 4238 kbps (529.8 KB/sec transfer rate)