Netflix 4K streaming goes live but only on newest TVs
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Although we still serve less than 4K resolution (we've not found demand yet), I can confirm that NONE of the things said in the article like TV set age or contracted internet speed are in the top list of issues that we are dealing with on a daily basis.
In our experience, what is giving us most of the headaches is the network congestion at the time of download/stream; at weekend nights some ISPs just can't deal with the amount of traffic that this kind of services are demanding. We are spending quite a lot of resources in customer service for this reason. Unfortunately, at the end the solution is always the same, "please, try again later". Of course, this is not something people like, specially when they have paid for the contents they intend to watch "now".
Surprisingly, people who have contracted a low speed internet connection seem to be already aware of his connectivity limitations and are not much of a problem. However, the ones who have good connections are not aware of the peering agreements his provider might or might not have with other networks[2]. Some might be even suffering from bandwidth throttling without even knowing.
[2] We use AWS Cloudfront CDN. We've talked with other netflix-like services, and although they use other CDNs, they still suffer from the same problems like us.
Unfortunately this is the reality for "budget" ISPs. I may be paying $20 a month more than others do, but my quality is far more consistent in peak load times.
I just really hope that my ISP doesn't end up having to compete with the lowest common denominator because all the customers leave for cheap providers.
In my case, Charter was simply oversubscribed, knew about it, and wasn't addressing the problem. I had a 100Mbps subscription, but the best I ever got (even with their own speed tests) was 65Mbps, and during primetime it averaged 30Mbps. I complained, explained that it consistently slowed during evening hours and bounced back late at night. They insisted on sending out a technician (who informed me that he wasn't allowed to run diagnostics that would bypass my connection and simply test the speed from the node). They replaced every inch of wire from the line to my house, and after they were done the speed was even slower. This was because by evening the traffic in my neighborhood had ramped up. Their techinican told me that they were fully aware they were oversubscribed, but they woudn't address the issue unless there was a complaint. Even then, they wouldn't fix the issue directly but would instead grease the squeaky wheels by offering a partial refund.
Even when you have a TV that supports 4K (i.e. sufficient number of pixels + HEVC decoder chip in order to use services like this), a very large screen is needed for viewers to appreciate the higher resolution at a sane viewing distance:
http://www.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-televi...
The article mentions an average bitrate of ~16 Mbit/s for the streamed content. Even with the awesome compression efficiency of HEVC, I would expect noticeable compression artifacts with such a low bitrate. Consider that Blu-rays (usually encoded with AVC) often have a video bitrate much higher than that. Is this going to look any better than Blu-ray? I doubt it. Better than Netflix's 1080p streams, though.
In any case, this is good news. The relentless march of technology continues! Let's hope for consumer OLED 4K TVs in the near future.
Isn't that an absurdly low bitrate?
HD 720p/1080i for broadcast is about that rate, so quality-improvement for going to a higher resolution will be quite dependent on coding efficiency.
I think everyone will have relatively large 4k displays eventually, but can't imagine paying 2-3x the cost (for now) for something that is only 60-70". I doubt you could tell the difference for movies/TVs unless they were side by side at that size (or you were sitting a only a few feet away). As a computer monitor though, it's a huge difference I think.
What was really cool with the 4k is that I could get literally 2 inches from the screen and still not see the pixels. It still looked natural even at that distance.
I don't really know why everyone assumes that a large screen must be a TV. Projectors are really inexpensive compared to large televisions and allow for a LOT larger image sizes. Brightness and lamp life problems are also largely a thing of the past. I have a three and half year old ~900€ full HD projector (Benq W1000+) and would not even consider going back to a (relatively) tiny and expensive TV.
I assume the context that downvoters are missing here is that the streaming curretly only supports the newest TVs because only they contain the necessary hardware to decode HEVC 4K streams.
But Chromecast is one of several dongle/boxes which separates these problems out, so as soon as an external dongle supports 4K you'll be able to plug it in to a last year model 4K TV, or even a non-4K TV, and be able to take advantage of 4K streams.
There's at least one already:
The cheapest internet package that I have available has 20mbit download, which is more than needed for 4k streaming; and where FTTH is available, nobody really bothers to offer DSL/etc anymore.
data caps on the internal traffic that never leaves the network
I think there is a massive reluctance on the part of companies to stream this type of content. 3D TV demonstrated the need not to believe the hype and is considered a failure. They don't want to be burnt again.
4K has a major bandwidth issue that cannot easily be overcome by national broadcasters without sacrificing multiple channels, that is, content.
Somebody like Amazon can bring this on board without having an impact on their business.
I recently went into Richer Sounds (hi-fi/tv specialist) and although they had 4K screens for sale, the moment you mention that the standards haven't been sorted yet. they agree it's better waiting a couple of years.
Anecdotal evidence from my wife is that she can hardly tell the difference between 480 and 1080p content let alone going to 4K. I think selling it to the public is going to be hard. Harder than 3D TV.
I'm guessing you may need 4K at around the 50" screen width to begin appreciating it.
On a side note, I do believe 4K 39" displays have a place in the workplace. Waiting for a cheap one with a minimum 60hz refresh rate to come on the market.
Youtube has 4K content.
I ask because there is a significant visual diff between the two and I cannot fathom someone not noticing the difference.