 (Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
|
Just waiting for hdmi 2.0when the price drops to something I'm comfortable with , and has HDMI 2.0 ports for 4K 60FPS content from connected devices, I'll jump.
Just waiting for stuff to settle, I don't pay early adopter prices anymore or deal with having to upgrade again when the standards are finalized.
I've matured enough to know that's for suckers. | |
|
 | | |
why60loss
Premium Member
2015-Mar-11 12:25 pm
Re: Just waiting for hdmi 2.0said by MovieLover76:when the price drops to something I'm comfortable with , and has HDMI 2.0 ports for 4K 60FPS content from connected devices, I'll jump.
Just waiting for stuff to settle, I don't pay early adopter prices anymore or deal with having to upgrade again when the standards are finalized.
I've matured enough to know that's for suckers. I only got a 4k TV last year because I got a good deal on it. Now the prices are dropping like a rock and it won't be long before the cost isn't all that much over a 1080P set at this rate. And we still don't even have much 4k video yet. Hope the new blu-ray disk start shipping soon with 4k video on them. I made sure the set I got had HDMI 2.0 as that will likely be what is used for 4k on TV's for a while. | |
|
| | (Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
|
Re: Just waiting for hdmi 2.0Yep, I'm mostly waiting out the price drops at this point.  I also have a few other financial goals I promised myself I'd meet before buying any new toys lol If my TV started going now , I'd get a 4K set tommorrow, but with the limited content their is no rush for me while my 1080p set is still working fine. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to MovieLover76
Of course then you have to make sure you have an HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 compliant receiver if you want to actually enjoy it. Whole upgrade route is pretty pricey right now if you're looking to do it right -- and above 50 inches. | |
|
| | (Software) pfSense
Asus RT-AC68
Asus RT-AC66
|
Re: Just waiting for hdmi 2.0Yea worried about the receiver issue too, mine is fairly new and I really don't want to replacing i right away. I wonder if it will work for just HD audio if I don't pass the video through the receiver and just run the sound out of the TV to the reciever.
Normally I run everything through the receiver put if I can put that cost off by running the video directly to the tv and just send the audio to the receiver, I'll likely upgrade sooner. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Just waiting for hdmi 2.0The problem is that receivers with multiple HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 inputs don't even exist yet (well, I think other than a few Onkyo) and won't be released until later this year. I can't imagine the number of people buying new receivers right now who think they're future proofing, but aren't. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Just waiting for hdmi 2.0I like the comment. When I moved to HD fairly early on I couldn't find receivers that more than 1 or 2 hdmi ports. Onkyo's had 6! (5 in the back one in the front). I guess those guys are way ahead of the curve. | |
|
| | | |  aztecnologyO Rly?
Premium Member
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA |
to Karl Bode
I heard recently that the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo will be broadcast in 8k in the host country. We'll see how far along we get in the US and find out what signal NBC will send back home... | |
|
| | | | | MaynardKrebsWe did it. We heaved Steve. Yipee.
Premium Member
join:2009-06-17 |
Re: Just waiting for hdmi 2.0said by aztecnology:I heard recently that the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo will be broadcast in 8k in the host country. We'll see how far along we get in the US and find out what signal NBC will send back home... Not certain I really need to see individual sweat droplets or individual facial hairs on the Russian women shotputters. | |
|
 PhoenixDownFIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY |
Pfft, call me when its in retina qualityJohn Kenney | |
|
| |
bockbock
Anon
2015-Mar-11 12:22 pm
Impressive but..."While the company only released the series in 4K, it created 6K archive masters that are roughly 5.5TB for each one-hour episode."
Oh, wow! Thanks to data caps imposed by the ISPs, would one ever be able to obtain this service? I would like to know how much bandwidth a 6K stream requires. Again, most American viewers won't be seeing 4K or 6K for various reasons (data caps and bandwidth constraints). Only time will tell before we have holograph available! | |
|
| | |
caster
Anon
2015-Mar-11 12:30 pm
Re: Impressive but...Well when roaming that will only cost $85M-110M in data fees. | |
|
| | |
Holodeck to bockbock
Anon
2015-Mar-11 12:30 pm
to bockbock
said by bockbock :"While the company only released the series in 4K, it created 6K archive masters that are roughly 5.5TB for each one-hour episode."
Oh, wow! Thanks to data caps imposed by the ISPs, would one ever be able to obtain this service? I would like to know how much bandwidth a 6K stream requires. Again, most American viewers won't be seeing 4K or 6K for various reasons (data caps and bandwidth constraints). Only time will tell before we have holograph available! Lol. Will be able to watch stuff like this when the data is sent by transporter beam and can be played back in my homes holodeck. | |
|
| | |
to bockbock
said by bockbock :"While the company only released the series in 4K, it created 6K archive masters that are roughly 5.5TB for each one-hour episode."
Oh, wow! Thanks to data caps imposed by the ISPs, would one ever be able to obtain this service? I would like to know how much bandwidth a 6K stream requires. Again, most American viewers won't be seeing 4K or 6K for various reasons (data caps and bandwidth constraints). Only time will tell before we have holograph available! 5.5TB is for the purely raw file and they always use some compression when selling to customers on movie/TV shows. Like with 4k stuff they stream at 25mbs, it isn't even close to the amount of bit rate you would need to stream it in it's raw uncompressed format. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Impressive but...said by why60loss: they always use some compression when selling to customers on movie/TV shows. When I had Netflix streaming, I tried to watch some videos in HD, and because of the compression artifacts over the crappy Frontier DSL, it was often worse than in standard definition. In any case, eventually, I expect connection speeds and caps to improve, and perhaps Netflix can make an agreement with ISPs so that their content wouldn't count against the cap, or it would count against a different class of caps. As an example, some future monthly cap could be: 50 TB general bandwidth plus 150 TB from selected video streaming sites. (Note: numbers were pulled out of thin air to illustrate the concept) | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Impressive but...said by aurgathor:said by why60loss: they always use some compression when selling to customers on movie/TV shows. When I had Netflix streaming, I tried to watch some videos in HD, and because of the compression artifacts over the crappy Frontier DSL, it was often worse than in standard definition. In any case, eventually, I expect connection speeds and caps to improve, and perhaps Netflix can make an agreement with ISPs so that their content wouldn't count against the cap, or it would count against a different class of caps. As an example, some future monthly cap could be: 50 TB general bandwidth plus 150 TB from selected video streaming sites. (Note: numbers were pulled out of thin air to illustrate the concept) I just can't picture what would happen to someone who used 150TB in a month on any ISP right now. Even if is was one with no caps or said the service was unlimited. That would take something like google fiber or AT&T gigapower (Or any really high speed fiber service) to do. I think the TWC maxx 300mbs service could get you into the 50TB club or higher if used 24/7 and the speeds held. But I don't see that happening as that would be half of the total bandwidth being used 24/7 or nearly 24/7 to do that. It will be funny if we read a story this year about a customer using 50TB+ in a month and the comments that would follow. I am sure many will ask "Did that customer download the whole internet?". Getting more on topic, because there are so many stuck with crappy internet via DSL that is using trash bags to "fix" things or cable business who also let there copper rot or otherwise don't upgrade I don't see bit rates going up a lot anytime soon. That and Netfilx doesn't want to pay for a load of bits as Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Time warner cable and others have made them do. (None of those are going to put Netfilx in a different class of caps for the sake of pay TV they want to save. If they do Netfilx will really be paying for it or it won't be there to help the customer to say the lest.) | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Impressive but...We have a fat fiber here I'm not sure the whole office does 50TB a month. | |
|
| | | |  djrobx
Premium Member
join:2000-05-31
Reno, NV |
to why60loss
My TWC 300mbps hits 38MB/sec pretty consistently when saturated. Using MB/GB instead of MiB/GiB to keep things simple...
38MB/sec = 2280MB/minute = 136800MB/hour = 136.8GB/hour = 3283.2GB/day = 3.28TB/day =
101.78TB/31 days. | |
|
| | | |
HereToHelp to why60loss
Anon
2015-Mar-11 7:26 pm
to why60loss
said by why60loss:5.5TB is for the purely raw file and they always use some compression when selling to customers on movie/TV shows. Like with 4k stuff they stream at 25mbs, it isn't even close to the amount of bit rate you would need to stream it in it's raw uncompressed format. Yep 1080p uncompressed is 1.4 TB. Still who needs 6K let alone 4K? Maybe I'm just not a video nerd. I watch content on my 720p HDTV just fine. Clearly an improvement over 480p. Not sure what 4K is going to bring to the table? So I can see actors make-up lines and pores? Sometimes less is more | |
|
| | |  rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay |
rebus9
Member
2015-Mar-12 10:07 am
Re: Impressive but...said by HereToHelp :said by why60loss:5.5TB is for the purely raw file and they always use some compression when selling to customers on movie/TV shows. Like with 4k stuff they stream at 25mbs, it isn't even close to the amount of bit rate you would need to stream it in it's raw uncompressed format. Yep 1080p uncompressed is 1.4 TB. Still who needs 6K let alone 4K? Maybe I'm just not a video nerd. I watch content on my 720p HDTV just fine. Clearly an improvement over 480p. Not sure what 4K is going to bring to the table? So I can see actors make-up lines and pores? Sometimes less is more Speaking strictly from my own personal preferences..... The higher the resolution, the better. I love crystal clear. I want a picture so sharp, it will cut glass. So sharp that I can see every hair, every blade of grass, every ant on the picnic blanket. To me, what makes or breaks the "swept away" experience is frame rate. My TV does 60 and 120 Hz (but not 240). I like the evening news at 120 Hz because it feels like the anchor is live in the room with us. It's real, it's raw, and I don't want to be swept away into the story. But for TV shows and movies, absolutely NOT. 120 Hz generates a visual effect that is "too real". I want to feel like I've transported into the show and am watching in first person. Watching at 120 Hz, it's impossible for me to transport into the show. Instead my brain is all too aware these are hi-def, high frame rate pictures being displayed 2 dimensionally on a screen. It's like the difference reading a book and being carried into the story, versus hearing the same story read by a 1st grader having to sound-out every other word. Kinda kills the illusion. If that makes sense.... | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Impressive but...That's because the resolution is too low. Once you get up to 16k the high frame rate will be much more appealing. | |
|
|  TechyDad
Premium Member
join:2001-07-13
USA |
to bockbock
Download one episode and blow through your year's data cap before it ends! | |
|
| | |
to bockbock
5.5TB is for a master-quality archive, which means little to no compression.
The final version for distribution would have h265 compression and likely drop below 40GB. Many 4k movies are being distributed on BluRay, which is ~120min on 50GB or so.
Personally, I do not bother streaming videos at more than 720p. The slightly better video quality going to 1080p is not worth the 50% higher bit rates and 50% bigger dent in my cap. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Impressive but...4k movies aren't currently being distributed on bluray. They call them 4k masters, but they still downconvert them to 1080p so that it meets the current bluray standard. I would imagine when 4k blurays actually start come out they'll need more layers as they'll need more than the 50gb's available on a current disc. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Impressive but...The 4k BD spec uses h265 to cram 4k movies in the standard 50GB disk format. The 66GB and 100GB BD formats are expected to come out later.
Gotta love market fragmentation. We may end up seeing 4k BD movies mastered for both 50GB (newer players with hardware capable of handling 4k/h265 after a firmware upgrade) and 66/100GB players. | |
|
| | | |  aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
|
aaronwt
Premium Member
2015-Mar-11 7:43 pm
Re: Impressive but...said by InvalidError:The 4k BD spec uses h265 to cram 4k movies in the standard 50GB disk format. The 66GB and 100GB BD formats are expected to come out later.
Gotta love market fragmentation. We may end up seeing 4k BD movies mastered for both 50GB (newer players with hardware capable of handling 4k/h265 after a firmware upgrade) and 66/100GB players. The UHD Blu-ray spec has not been finalized yet. | |
|
| | | |
to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:5.5TB is for a master-quality archive, which means little to no compression.
The final version for distribution would have h265 compression and likely drop below 40GB. Many 4k movies are being distributed on BluRay, which is ~120min on 50GB or so.
Personally, I do not bother streaming videos at more than 720p. The slightly better video quality going to 1080p is not worth the 50% higher bit rates and 50% bigger dent in my cap. Yep watch something on Netflix at 3000 kbps then at 5800 kbps. See a difference? Most won't, but you'll save 1.3 GB per hour. | |
|
| | | | |
Re: Impressive but...said by HereToHelp :Yep watch something on Netflix at 3000 kbps then at 5800 kbps. See a difference? Most won't, but you'll save 1.3 GB per hour. The differences are fairly obvious if you stick your nose close to the screen and look for them. When I am watching a show though, I am usually far more interested in the story than seeing every blemish and makeup flaw on people's skin. Half of the time when I am "watching" something on Netflix or YouTube, I'm actually tabbed out or on my tablet doing other stuff until what I hear tells me I might want to see what is about to happen. | |
|
| | | aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA Asus RT-AX89
|
to HereToHelp
said by HereToHelp :said by InvalidError:5.5TB is for a master-quality archive, which means little to no compression.
The final version for distribution would have h265 compression and likely drop below 40GB. Many 4k movies are being distributed on BluRay, which is ~120min on 50GB or so.
Personally, I do not bother streaming videos at more than 720p. The slightly better video quality going to 1080p is not worth the 50% higher bit rates and 50% bigger dent in my cap. Yep watch something on Netflix at 3000 kbps then at 5800 kbps. See a difference? Most won't, but you'll save 1.3 GB per hour. Even on my small 47" HD set the difference is noticeable. It's even more noticable on my larger HDTVs. | |
|
| | | | | |
HereToHelp
Anon
2015-Mar-11 8:42 pm
Re: Impressive but...said by aaronwt:Even on my small 47" HD set the difference is noticeable. It's even more noticable on my larger HDTVs. I guess you sit 3 feet in front of the thing. Seriously if this bothers people how did they ever watch TV on old tube TVs in 480i? Must have been torture. 47" is not small by the way. | |
|
| | | | | aaronwt
Premium Member
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA Asus RT-AX89
|
aaronwt
Premium Member
2015-Mar-11 9:57 pm
Re: Impressive but...said by HereToHelp :said by aaronwt:Even on my small 47" HD set the difference is noticeable. It's even more noticable on my larger HDTVs. I guess you sit 3 feet in front of the thing. Seriously if this bothers people how did they ever watch TV on old tube TVs in 480i? Must have been torture. 47" is not small by the way. But you are going back a long time. I got my first HDTV back in 2001. I dumped SD sets a long time ago. I sit six feet away from the 47" set and I sit nine feet away from my 82" set. While I'm fourteen feet back from a 67" set in the bedroom. On all those HDTVs the difference with those Netflix bitrates is noticeable. | |
|
| | | |
to InvalidError
There are no 4K movies on Blu-ray. What you are being fooled by is a marketing gimmick.
They remaster the movie into a 4K digital master from the film version, then they down convert that to 1080p, and then stamp on the box that it is 4K mastered. Meaning the master copy that it was made from is 4K. The movie on on the disc is not in 4K.
Then to even further fool you, they put on the box that it is optimized for UHD TV's. | |
|
| mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
to bockbock
You could watch about 5 minutes of an episode and then turn your internet off for the rest of the month, it reminds me of Dragon Ball Z episodes "on the next time of DRAGON BALL ZZZZZZZ" sigh, caps, what a joke............... | |
|
| | rebus9
join:2002-03-26
Tampa Bay |
rebus9
Member
2015-Mar-12 11:29 am
Re: Impressive but...said by mmay149q:You could watch about 5 minutes of an episode and then turn your internet off for the rest of the month, it reminds me of Dragon Ball Z episodes "on the next time of DRAGON BALL ZZZZZZZ" sigh, caps, what a joke an industry sham from bad actors who are too big to fight............... Allow me to make one correction above. | |
|
| | | mmay149q
Premium Member
join:2009-03-05
Dallas, TX |
mmay149q
Premium Member
2015-Mar-12 12:13 pm
Re: Impressive but...I stand corrected lol | |
|
| | |
to bockbock
shit programming whether it's in HD, 4K, or 6K is still shit programming.. | |
|
| |  Omega
Premium Member
join:2002-07-30
Golden, CO |
Omega
Premium Member
2015-Mar-11 7:18 pm
Re: Impressive but...You really think House of Cards is shit programming? The third season wasn't the best, but it is a really good series. | |
|
| | | |
to 78204168
What the heck do you watch then?
If HoC is shit programming, I want to know what is good. | |
|
|  koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK |
to bockbock
5.5 TB/hour is approximately 1.5 GB/s or 12.5 Gbps. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Impressive but...said by koolman2:5.5 TB/hour is approximately 1.5 GB/s or 12.5 Gbps. So the need for more than a 10gbs internet connection has shown up, to stream 6k video in raw format. LOL Just kidding Netfilx would never pay the cost of the bandwidth on there end to do that. (Nor would any sane streaming business.) | |
|
| |
A bit of a waste considering most can't take advantage of it.Most people don't have TV sets large enough or do they sit close enough to take advantage of 4k and much less 6k.
It's like having a Ferrari, but never being able to go faster than 55 miles per hour. | |
|
|
••••••• |
 JimThePCGuyFormerly known as schja01.
MVM
join:2000-04-27
Morton Grove, IL |
Waiting for broad band caps to be enforcedI picked up a 4K Samsung for a song at Thanksgiving time on Amazon. I love it. My broadband usage more than doubled and I don't watch all than much 4K content. When 4K becomes more common and Comcast starts enforcing broadband caps I might be in trouble. | |
|
|
••• |
| |
Flyonthewall
Anon
2015-Mar-11 2:37 pm
Industry needs to stop pushing consumptionTech should never be forced. Especially when existing transfer methods will never allow this to be used in any high degree, which is likely WHY broadcasters and content providers push it. To keep internet as a distance and non-viable option to their current model. | |
|
| | |
smk11
Member
2015-Mar-11 5:22 pm
Re: Industry needs to stop pushing consumptionsaid by Flyonthewall :Tech should never be forced. Especially when existing transfer methods will never allow this to be used in any high degree, which is likely WHY broadcasters and content providers push it. To keep internet as a distance and non-viable option to their current model. Need checkmarks to sell more widgets. 3D failed. Curved screen failed. 4K will fail. Maybe 5-6K will catch on and finally be a big enough jump to justify upgrading. | |
|
| | | |
compton
Member
2015-Mar-11 10:25 pm
Re: Industry needs to stop pushing consumptionsaid by smk11:said by Flyonthewall :Tech should never be forced. Especially when existing transfer methods will never allow this to be used in any high degree, which is likely WHY broadcasters and content providers push it. To keep internet as a distance and non-viable option to their current model. Need checkmarks to sell more widgets. 3D failed. Curved screen failed. 4K will fail. Maybe 5-6K will catch on and finally be a big enough jump to justify upgrading. 3-D TVs failed because of their high prices and lack of programming content. 4K TVs may fail for the same reason. However, broadcasters still broadcast in 1080i or 720p and yet almost everyone has a 1080p TV set. So, 4k TVs may catch on if prices falls to where 1080p TV sets are now. | |
|
 tmh
@comcastbusiness.net |
tmh
Anon
2015-Mar-11 5:37 pm
Meh!Unless you have an 80" screen or sit at arms length to the display, you're not going to see much difference, or care. Do you really want to see every wrinkle on Frank Underwood's visage? | |
|
|
•••• |
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX |
Kamus
Member
2015-Mar-12 6:53 am
I've said this many times before to the naysayers...People that claim that 4k will take many years to gain traction have been proven wrong already.
We no longer have to wait for standards like bluray. Companies like Netflix will simply offer higher resolution on their newest shows the second they hit the service.
Bought a 200" 8K TV? No problem.. chances are it comes with Netflix and a dedicated 8K capable decoder. So all amazon, Netflix, youtube would need to do is offer the resolution (and your ISP to not suck balls and offer at least 50 mbits by then)
After that... we won't really need more resolution for 2d displays. But with VR taking off in a big way starting this year, and improving exponentially for the next 10 to 20 years. Resolution will need to be a lot higher than just 8k.
How high? We're talking 24k by 16k... PER EYE. and that's just with a 100 degree field of view. | |
|
| |
compjunkie
Anon
2015-Mar-12 3:54 pm
Sure let's do 10K and make it blurry, it will sell out.Believe it or not many DVDs actually look better than HD due to video quality, many HD videos are surprising low video quality. It doesn't take a genius or videophile to realize that your photographic camera quality doesn't look the same in a video even at lower resolution.
The compression will continue to dumb down HD to the point where it doesn't matter anymore. Also, yes distance matters. Will we have access to those archives? Netflix should atleast offer uncompressed as an option!, that why bandwidth starved users and capped users could realize what they are missing at friend's homes. Netflix only allow 3 options, and now defaults to Super HD, so regular HD is gone, the app slows done on many smart tvs. | |
|
| koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK |
koolman2
Premium Member
2015-Mar-13 3:25 pm
Re: Sure let's do 10K and make it blurry, it will sell out.Uncompressed? You jest. Uncompressed video at 1920x1080, 24 bits per pixel, and 30 frames per second is 178 MB/s - that's about 1.4 Gbps. Not happening. | |
|
 w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR |
w0g
Member
2015-Mar-12 11:57 pm
analogI had this awesome idea .. cause analog is waay better than digital here, we should capture in analog then convert to digital later. Reason is we could theoretically capture info at many times todays HD resolution for archive tomorrow. I am talking about 10000K resolution.
Film and analog capture methods capture the physics that exists during a period of exposure to the elements, whereas digital merely captures the 4K or 6K array of pixels at specific frequencies over the course of so many snap shots per second..
You can save analog losslessly but digital always has a loss. You can create digital off analog losslessly when done right.
Digital is ultimately analoggy but limited to how high res it will record.. digital manufactures like to compress and limit compute power and even storage if info. An analog system doesn't do that. | |
|
| koolman2
Premium Member
join:2002-10-01
Anchorage, AK |
koolman2
Premium Member
2015-Mar-13 3:27 pm
Re: analogThe problem is there are no analogue storage media that aren't subject to degradation. | |
|
|
|
