4 ms·

have you run 4K video through things like Handbrake? They've been proven to seriously reduce the amount of space (and, therefore, bandwidth) that video files n

have you run 4K video through things like Handbrake? They've been proven to seriously reduce the amount of space (and, therefore, bandwidth) that video files need, and considering that 4K videos have about three times the resolution [1] they have a lot of space to gain from it. I would guess that there are appliances that can run some flavor of compression in real-time to get 4K to stream well. Yes, it will take more space than 1080p will, but that's to be expected. [1] (31802160)/(19201080) = 3.3125

zeusk 8y ago
4K is 3840x2160, or 4 times 1920x1080. Pedantically, 4K is 4096x2160 but UHD has come to resonate as 4K thanks to TV marketing.
- HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
  Nuts! I must have had a typo somewhere. I could've sworn it was 4 times. Thanks.
tracker1 8y ago
precompressed content at 4K h.265 is pretty damned good at even relatively high compression. I also prefer the degredation method h.265 uses over h.264. For 720p-1080p it can actually go both ways, the higher the resolution the better h.265 is as the compression algo. However, that means nothing for live streaming as generally speaking "live stream" compression really tends to suck a lot. And as to the above, a lot of devices don't do well with 4k h.265 streams for playback, but getting better. Also, I really don't think I'd notice going from 4K to 8K for home video, maybe for some gaming, but even then I'm doubtful. Also, I'd expect 8K gaming on even next gen's console to be closer to Wii model quality than what we see in 1080p gaming today.
- jerf 8y ago
  "but even then I'm doubtful. Also, I'd expect 8K gaming on even next gen's console to be closer to Wii model quality than what we see in 1080p gaming today." That's something I kinda wish more game ethusiasts would pick up on. There's not really a such thing as "4K" or "1080P" or whatever; it's more about fill rates and other numbers and the question of how much you can push at 1080P or whatever, vs. what the developer tries to push. There's actually a couple of PS2 games that push 1080 (can't remember if it's P or i) with the right setup. But obviously, there's a quality stepdown. There's no particular reason other than lack of hardware outputs the PS3-era machines couldn't push 4K games. They'd just have to be very, very simple games. I recall being impressed in the PS2 era by Katamari Damacy, which seemed to be one of the few games of its era that noticed that if you only allocate like 10 polygons and a teenytiny texture for a game world object you can have a crapton of things happening on the screen, at a high frame rate, and build a game around it. I can only imagine what a full-powered, brand-new Katamari Damacy would look like on even a Switch today.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  It's a fun comparison there, because 1080p to 4K demands a doubling of bandwidth, and h.264 to h.265 lets you cut bandwidth in half. So you get all that extra quality for free.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    It's roughly 4X the bandwidth, not 2X... though 4K at roughly double the size with h.265 or even close to the same size is often "good enough" looking and better than 1080p. Though, I still tend to mostly use 720p h.265 for TV watching as, again, it's "good enough" that I often don't notice too much. 65" TV at about 10' away. I do notice from 720p to 1080 and from 1080 to 4k (UHD). It depends more on what I'm watching. Some settings are better on some content, and as I mention I actually like the way h.265 degrades (often blurry in the background) vs blocky h.264. (facial hair for live motion is my guide)
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Once you're already at HD, 4x the resolution is not 4x the bandwidth.
      - tracker1 8y ago
        It's pushing 4x the number of pixels, unless you're magically not pushing data for a large portion of those pixels?
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        When increasing the level of detail, most nearby pixels are similar enough that it takes less than 4x the bits to split each pixel into four. Most guidelines that I can find seem to agree that 4K needs about 2x as much bandwidth as 1080p. Here's some random ones, because I can't find a proper study: https://support.video.ibm.com/hc/en-us/articles/207852117-Internet-connection-and-recommended-encoding-settings https://support.video.ibm.com/hc/en-us/articles/207852117-In... https://www.howtogeek.com/338983/how-much-data-does-netflix-use/ https://www.howtogeek.com/338983/how-much-data-does-netflix-... https://help.yitechnology.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005742328-What-is-the-bitrate-for-each-resolution- https://help.yitechnology.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005742328...

zeusk 8y ago

4K is 3840x2160, or 4 times 1920x1080. Pedantically, 4K is 4096x2160 but UHD has come to resonate as 4K thanks to TV marketing.

HeWhoLurksLate 8y ago
Nuts! I must have had a typo somewhere. I could've sworn it was 4 times. Thanks.

tracker1 8y ago

precompressed content at 4K h.265 is pretty damned good at even relatively high compression. I also prefer the degredation method h.265 uses over h.264. For 720p-1080p it can actually go both ways, the higher the resolution the better h.265 is as the compression algo. However, that means nothing for live streaming as generally speaking "live stream" compression really tends to suck a lot. And as to the above, a lot of devices don't do well with 4k h.265 streams for playback, but getting better. Also, I really don't think I'd notice going from 4K to 8K for home video, maybe for some gaming, but even then I'm doubtful. Also, I'd expect 8K gaming on even next gen's console to be closer to Wii model quality than what we see in 1080p gaming today.

jerf 8y ago
"but even then I'm doubtful. Also, I'd expect 8K gaming on even next gen's console to be closer to Wii model quality than what we see in 1080p gaming today." That's something I kinda wish more game ethusiasts would pick up on. There's not really a such thing as "4K" or "1080P" or whatever; it's more about fill rates and other numbers and the question of how much you can push at 1080P or whatever, vs. what the developer tries to push. There's actually a couple of PS2 games that push 1080 (can't remember if it's P or i) with the right setup. But obviously, there's a quality stepdown. There's no particular reason other than lack of hardware outputs the PS3-era machines couldn't push 4K games. They'd just have to be very, very simple games. I recall being impressed in the PS2 era by Katamari Damacy, which seemed to be one of the few games of its era that noticed that if you only allocate like 10 polygons and a teenytiny texture for a game world object you can have a crapton of things happening on the screen, at a high frame rate, and build a game around it. I can only imagine what a full-powered, brand-new Katamari Damacy would look like on even a Switch today.
Dylan16807 8y ago
It's a fun comparison there, because 1080p to 4K demands a doubling of bandwidth, and h.264 to h.265 lets you cut bandwidth in half. So you get all that extra quality for free.
- tracker1 8y ago
  It's roughly 4X the bandwidth, not 2X... though 4K at roughly double the size with h.265 or even close to the same size is often "good enough" looking and better than 1080p. Though, I still tend to mostly use 720p h.265 for TV watching as, again, it's "good enough" that I often don't notice too much. 65" TV at about 10' away. I do notice from 720p to 1080 and from 1080 to 4k (UHD). It depends more on what I'm watching. Some settings are better on some content, and as I mention I actually like the way h.265 degrades (often blurry in the background) vs blocky h.264. (facial hair for live motion is my guide)
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Once you're already at HD, 4x the resolution is not 4x the bandwidth.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      It's pushing 4x the number of pixels, unless you're magically not pushing data for a large portion of those pixels?
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        When increasing the level of detail, most nearby pixels are similar enough that it takes less than 4x the bits to split each pixel into four. Most guidelines that I can find seem to agree that 4K needs about 2x as much bandwidth as 1080p. Here's some random ones, because I can't find a proper study: https://support.video.ibm.com/hc/en-us/articles/207852117-Internet-connection-and-recommended-encoding-settings https://support.video.ibm.com/hc/en-us/articles/207852117-In... https://www.howtogeek.com/338983/how-much-data-does-netflix-use/ https://www.howtogeek.com/338983/how-much-data-does-netflix-... https://help.yitechnology.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005742328-What-is-the-bitrate-for-each-resolution- https://help.yitechnology.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005742328...