Originally Posted by phill1978
doesnt it seem a bit counter intuitive to offer 4k,8k,16k,32k.. 1 million K etc.. and then have youtube levels of compression applied? Blueray @ 1080p is usually around 25 - 30mbps for just the video stream. The audio codecs is about 5mpbs - 7mbps so the typical net result for a blueray @ 1080p = 35MBPS
So, 4K is 4 x 1080p but here we have only 50% video bandwidth of 1080p blueray. Even if the new codec is 50% better that is still a lot less bandwidth and just more lost pixels, banding and blocking.
Just as has been discussed (as per the Vsauce episode on resolution) Distance and Lighting play a huge role in perceived resolution for the human eye, 1080p may not be perfect but pushing a 4k Ultra-HD standard through a small bandwidth pipe vs less compressed 1080p at typical viewing distances where by its already hard to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k on anything less than a 60" screen is just marketing hype.
The marketing buffs answer is to sit closer to the TV with 4K
The answer is 4K is best used for computer Monitors so the eye can perceive the details and you are already sat closer. 4K makes more sense in the world of computers.
At least Id prefer it if they offered a proper 40- 50mbps stream with HD audio and said here you go, if you have the connection enjoy the best...
Unfortunately this is the reality of things. We saw the same thing happen with music and mp3s, even though we were capable of lossless digital formats not long after mp3 was all the rage, mp3 and other lossy formats continued on. Heck, we were even in a position to where we could have improved
upon the CD standard quality and yet we still regressed for the most part. People will give up quality for convenience, and ignorance will keep them from knowing any better and they'll be content because, for the most part, the compromise isn't so bad.
Originally Posted by Shiftstealth
I'm sure you could still point out the 4k tv if it is next to a 1080p tv
assuming you have 20/20 vision, you'll only notice if you're sitting closer than ~6 feet to a screen less
than ~90" in size. To truly enjoy 4K resolution while sitting at the average 10' viewing distance, you need a screen over 150"...
and if they are the same price why not go for the 4k.
because they're not the same price? and resolution is really not that important in producing a quality picture (contrast ratio, black/white levels, color accuracy, compression...these can easily be far more important than how many pixels you have), so a higher end 1080p model (assuming similar price range) is easily a better choice
Its all about consumerism. They will sell which is why they are providing them.
consumers can be extremely ignorant, 4K is little different from the ridiculous Hz marketing of a few years ago when TVs started to go to and beyond the 120Hz mark, its just so much easier to market a higher resolution because consumers can see a finite number that can't really be fudged (like contrast ratio can be and has been) and so it makes it easier to convince themselves in purchasing what they perceive to be the higher spec model
You can still see a difference. It might be minuscule but its still a difference that people are willing to pay for and have the money to pay for.
again, you can only see it if you're sitting too close for any realistic TV setup (using it for a monitor is another story) or you have bird of prey vision. And of course people are willing to pay for it, because the marketing is doing a good job of selling something people don't need. By now, the 1080p market is pretty saturated, so its only natural that we start to see a push by the manufacturers to put out something that causes people to continue to spend their money (which is a good thing, its just unfortunate its 4K LCD that's doing that, and not something like OLED or plasma with superior contrast ratio, black levels, colors, motion clarity, etc)
Originally Posted by t00sl0w
15mbps puts it around a 1080p bluray compressed with DTS-MA audio.
assuming your file is around 10gb or so at 1.5-2hrs.
video and audio track only.
the 15mbps requirement probably allows for plenty of overhead (they say they require a 15mbps connection, not 15mbps bit rate), so the actual video bitrate is likely far less than that; I'd guess 8-10mbps. However its also using H.265 which promises much improved efficiency, albeit not nearly enough to match the equalized bitrate quality BluRay provides for merely 1080p.