Bandwidth Cap, Meet 4K Video

Have you ever seen a native IMAX feature?

thats slowly on the way out
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX#Digital_IMAX

im not a huge fan of digital film really i like the look of real film more so for animated movies
if you watch a older animated movie on film and then watch a DVD or blu-ray of it you see what im talking about
but im not sure how to describe it in words

I really don't care once you get passed DVD quality. It doesn't really "enhance" my experience.

4K will take a long time to end up on TV screens at home.

ps3 does. but no need to compress 4k foreveryone maybe have an option for people though. but i would rather download an uncompressed 100GB + movie (prob 150+ if in 3d) than download a 10-50 gig 4k movie wich has been compressed if im showing it on a projector at home. it would easily be noticeable on such a large screen.

Sorry but all HD is compressed. An uncompressed 90 minute 4K movie would be closer to 8 TB

Digital projectors run at either 60fps, or 144fps depending on if its 3D or not. So, that makes 4K content 60fps. 24FPS was for film(technically 48 since it showed each frame twice). Most theaters are going digital tho.

Sorry but all HD is compressed. An uncompressed 90 minute 4K movie would be closer to 8 TB

Compression doesn't always mean loss of quality.

Actually, with all the compression used in video that's exactly what it means. It's called "lossy compression" for a reason.

Now, whether a mere mortal can tell the difference between the source and a high quality lossy encode that's a different matter.

your cable company likely still uses MPEG2, which is down right shitty for HD.

ps3 does. but no need to compress 4k foreveryone maybe have an option for people though. but i would rather download an uncompressed 100GB + movie (prob 150+ if in 3d) than download a 10-50 gig 4k movie wich has been compressed if im showing it on a projector at home. it would easily be noticeable on such a large screen.

its not 10x bigger most 4k videos are over 25-40GB non compressed versions.

h265 is probably going to slice the requirements down a fair bit I imagine, I don't see sizes getting 10 times bigger with only 4 times the pixels. (or at least that's what I think the deal is, 4k video is the least of my worries where I live)

But this is where new technology like the Oculus rift comes in. Where 8k resolution would not only be welcome, but not enough, since the Oculus rift covers your entire field of view.

This makes me wonder if you have ever seen an IMAX movie before. The detail on the huge screen is staggering, and it doesn't even come close to covering your whole field of view.

This is why your "1080p is enough" analogy falls flat on it's face. most people can't tell the difference because they sit very far away from the screen, so the individual pixels are no longer visible. But like i said, with an application like the Oculus rift this won't be the case, and we'll need all the pixels we can get.

Not much point in wasting TFLOPs rendering a whole scene at crazy high resolutions in real-time when only 10% of it in-focus. With something like the Oculus tracking head and eye movement, it makes more sense to focus rendering and resolution on the focal point so I would not be surprised if future such devices ended up featuring non-uniform display resolutions... high resolution in the central area, low resolution to cover peripheral vision and 2-5 grades in-between to minimize distractions from pixel density changes.

a 4k standard would take at least 8 years to get into the mainstream. my new tablet has better video & audio capability than my 8 year old camcorder making it obsolete as my mp3 cd player but consumers will need time to adjust.