dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
37

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to tom_tom

MVM

to tom_tom

Re: Do we really need unlimited monthly usage?

Yikes... To follow up on my post about 4K, Sony has announced their 4K movie streaming service, to be compatible with the PS4...

Total size of a streamed movie? 100GB+. For a two hour movie, that equates to 113 Mbps, which is crazy overkill for a streaming service. They should be able to do good streaming-quality 4K video at under 20 Mbps no problem...

Even for bluray, it'd be excessive. Bluray video currently tops out at 40 Mbps, and audio bitrates have no need to increase over current, which if you're using 40 Mbps for video, is capped at 8Mbps (way more than DTS needs, way less than DTS-HD requires)... Therefore I can't see even a 4K bluray needing more than 88 Mbps of bandwidth... And of course no bluray is actually encoding 40 Mbps video!

It's not even practical from a storage standpoint. Current shipping bluray discs hold up to 128GB (presumably the PS4 is compatible with all shipping BDXL variants). If you set a definition of wanting to fit a 3-hour movie on a single-sided disc (let's say the bonus features could be on the other side), you have a maximum possible average bitrate of 97 Mbps for audio and video. That's more than sufficient for 4K, but not with Sony's crazy streaming specs of "100GB or more".

TypeS
join:2012-12-17
London, ON

TypeS

Member

4K/Ultra HD wide adoption is years away, I estimate at least half a decade to a decade. Even know Full HD 1080p still doesn't have the same market adoption as DVD and SD TV broadcasting saw.

I know lots of family and friends that ask why I bother watching HD off blurays or streams when according to them they see no different between DVD quality and HD or Full HD. Some people just don't care.

And when Ultra HD streaming arrives, they will not be a monstrous increase in bandwith. 7~12Mbps is enough for the vast majority of 1080p films (films with lots of CGI, action or dark scenes would be at the high end) in h264/AVC. Netflix currently caps out at 5.8Mbps, people don't seem to have issues there with quality.

H.265 is around the corner as well, although adoption on that will take its time as well. Ultra HD will be that big of bog on bandwidth anymore than HD was when it came out against SD/DVD resolutions. I personally won't care for an Ultra HD TV until 80-100" TVs are common place and reasonably priced, 1080p is fine right now for 32-60" TVs.

Nitra
join:2011-09-15
Montreal

Nitra

Member

There is a lot more technology that people that are limited bandwidth wise cannot really consider.

There's been streaming gaming for a while, but it's never really taken off, party because of limits imposed.
There's IPTV from providers that don't have access to local VLANS.

Consider this.
You have a 100Mbps unlimited connection.
You get an IPTV provider from Vancouver, you have a PS4, most of your library is online, not local. You have 3 STB's in your house, and 2 kids and your wife/husband.
If you live in say, Montreal, your son can stream all of his game library on his PS4 direct from Sony, your wife/husband can watch their favorite shows all the while your other 2 STB's are in use elsewhere in the house, all in HD, all not saturating the connection.

And guess what... You won't have to worry about going over your paltry limit imposed by the big providers.
You will have a choice of where/when you and your family consume content, you are not bound by what the big provider dictate.
All of this technology is here, NOW.
The reason it's not available, or that everyone can use/access it, is because the big providers don't want you to, they will lose money if you have a choice.

We've been beaten for years to believe that the big providers are the better choice, most of us have come to accept that as the norm.
Just look at what happened when TPIA started, all of a sudden, more providers popped up, the big providers got scared and started lobbying. There's no difference here, there's no change.
There is no reasonable argument at this day in age to limit any connection. Cost of delivery is $1-$4, they charge us $30-$90, or more, there's no reason for this, but for the money, think of Kevin O'Leary running the big providers in his voice saying "it's all about the money", because in reality, that's all it's about.
DSL_Ricer
Premium Member
join:2007-07-22

DSL_Ricer to TypeS

Premium Member

to TypeS
said by TypeS:

Netflix currently caps out at 5.8Mbps, people don't seem to have issues there with quality.

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).
morisato
join:2008-03-16
Oshawa, ON

morisato

Member

said by DSL_Ricer:

said by TypeS:

Netflix currently caps out at 5.8Mbps, people don't seem to have issues there with quality.

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).

I hope you have Kids the example you cited Requires it P:)

Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

Guspaz to DSL_Ricer

MVM

to DSL_Ricer
said by DSL_Ricer:

For most of everything it's good enough. There's still some occasional points where it's noticeable but not distracting... and then there's some points where it godawful (like in Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure when there's the blue pixie dust explosion the whole screen has blocks for several seconds).

That sounds more like a VBR failure than an overall bitrate failure. Netflix videos are encoded off-line and can take advantage of decently high VBR bitrates for bursts since they can buffer ahead (unlike a live stream). Perhaps that scene required even more than they could afford to burst above the average bitrate, in which case, perhaps h.265 will help

TwiztedZero
Nine Zero Burp Nine Six
Premium Member
join:2011-03-31
Toronto, ON

TwiztedZero to Nitra

Premium Member

to Nitra
said by Nitra:

Just look at what happened when TPIA started, all of a sudden, more providers popped up, the big providers got scared and started lobbying. There's no difference here, there's no change.
There is no reasonable argument at this day in age to limit any connection. Cost of delivery is $1-$4, they charge us $30-$90, or more, there's no reason for this, but for the money, think of Kevin O'Leary running the big providers in his voice saying "it's all about the money", because in reality, that's all it's about.

I hate that man, and just how many are like him out there that only care about how much they can squeeze from your wallet just because money hoarding is the end all be all.