Netflix 4K streaming goes live but only on newest TVs(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Netflix 4K streaming goes live but only on newest TVs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26957001
11 comments
How netflix solves this: https://www.netflix.com/openconnect
It's really hard to educate on ISP "quality". Here in my country, two of the most successful ISPs have horrible peering. Even some of my colleagues in a university IT department don't understand why I pay significantly more than them for my connection: because my ISP offers IPv6 and has peering arrangements that mean every packet doesn't get sent to a city 350km away first.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
It's very frustrating that content owners don't allow "downloading." This issue could be mostly mitigated by predicting what a customer will watch (not hard, most users are binge watchers, and you don't need it to work for everyone to be effective) and downloading that content ahead of time during non-peak hours.
I'm pretty happy with my SD-x264 rips on a 1080P monitor served up by plex. Comcast would put a bolt in my head if I even tried regular viewing of 4K video.
I wish they'll serve the 4K content even to normal HDTVs if they have enough bandwidth, if only to get better compression than the current one, even at 1080p it's sometimes terrible...
In terms of display tech, I am much more excited about OLED, which makes a significant difference in image quality compared to what you get with the 4K LCD TVs that are available now. Not to mention that there is very little 4K content as of yet, though this will change soon enough.
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.
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.
Blurays may be 25mbps H264 for 1080p, but Netflix is 6mbps for their highest quality stream. Also, bitrate used by increasing the resolution but keeping the quality the same does not scale linearly, and H265 will also improve compression for <4k streams.
If they stream 1080p at 6mpbs, I doubt that streaming 4k at 16mpbs have any sense, probably marketing dictates them to do it. You could get more quality by increasing bitrate without any hardware hassle. Content producers spend much effort and money to create HQ, high-bitrate picture and then you flush it down the toilet scaling to low values. And post production for 4k image is much more compute intensive and much more expensive.
I don't know which surprises me more: "an average speed of 15.6 Mbps would be required to stream its 4K content" or "only 15% to 20% of households have the speeds necessary"
Isn't that an absurdly low bitrate?
Isn't that an absurdly low bitrate?
I'm pretty sure Super HD 1080p is around 10mbps actually.
> The article mentions an average bitrate of ~16 Mbit/s for the streamed content.
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.
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.
By the way, anybody who saw real 4k in action, is it really worth it? Or you'll need 120''+ TV to notice the difference?
The Sony store in NYC has 50"+ TVs running 4K, and honestly they look stunning. You easily notice the difference. I wasn't even there to look at TVs, but they catch your eye and you go "wow". That said, I feel no urge to upgrade given the huge costs, extremely limited content availability, and high bandwidth requirements, but I'm looking forward to it when in 5 years or so all that is hopefully a minimal issue.
I may be a bit biased since I work for Netflix, but I did notice a difference when we had the 4K and 1080p next to each other.
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.
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.
Do you find it worth it for the massive increase in bandwidth needed? The tracker I use haves 1080P rips that are around 10GB for a movie. Nobody ever really downloads that. The 720P versions are way more popular. They are good enough for people that don't buy gold HDMI cables.
People absolutely download the 1080p rips. 10GB is really not a lot with the bandwidth and storage available today in first world countries. You're certainly not getting into "videophile" territory when you can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p when viewed on a 1080p display.
Quality 1080p video looks much better on a large 1080p TV. If you were watching on a 21" monitor then it probably wouldn't make a difference. 10gb isn't much of a deterrent considering I have 10tb of space. You can get 2tb drives for pretty cheap these days.
I have a ~90" projector screen with a bit over 3 meters of viewing distance and I could definitely use larger resolution than 1080p. Also, many people have 120"+ screens (but my living room conditions don't currently allow for that).
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 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 feel obligated to add that you really want a dark room for projector, and either opaque curtain or blinds. Viewing movies on projector is not that nice when the living room walls are bright and/or a lot of light comes into room from outside.
I watched a demo setup for a Sony 4k TV. It was ~60" IIRC and the differences in scenes from a few movies were subtle but noticeable when I was standing about 4 feet away. The difference in text was pretty big though.
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.
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.
I've got to disagree - "only" 60-70" is massive for many properties. I might want a 50" screen just because, but it just won't fit in my house.
30" used to be massive too, but TVs has steadily gotten bigger and now 30" seems absurdly small. TVs used to fit in 25" holes in entertainment centers, then in small nooks in walls and corners. They will continue to take up larger portions of walls and people will adapt to accommodate them. I'm sure there's a limit at some point, but I have a 160" (~13 feet) screen and have found room for it in every apartment and house that I've lived in (which is half a dozen or so).
It looks great even on a 15" screen (you have to be quite close in that case obviously) and on a 40" screen it looks amazing. That said, if I was going to spend that amount of money on a TV I would prefer to get a 1080p screen where the deepest black is indistinguishable from the bezel, which works out about the same price.
I have a 39inch $500 4k seiki tv and its wonderful, especially if you're a developer. It's the 'desktop' I've always wanted. And those 4k youtube trailers do look way better than normal 1080. Highly recommended. I wish netflix supported 4k on the computer.
I'm extremely pleased with my 24" UHD computer monitor. The difference is impossible to not notice.
Every in-store demo I've watched has been very impressive, even on screens around the 50" size.
I've only seen it in the in-store demo, but it looked amazing on a 60".
Someone needs to inform netflix that resolution is not the same thing as quality. I understand that there are streaming limitations and you can't have good quality downloading fast enough, but the consumers all seem to think that 4k would somehow be better than 1080p at twice the bitrate.
Sounds like this 15 Mbps quality would be a big improvement for 1080x1920 screens as well. But will their client software let you use it without a 4k screen res?
I'll just wait until Chromecast supports 4k.
This comment was downvoted as I wrote this comment:
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:
http://www.nuvola4k.com/
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:
http://www.nuvola4k.com/
How is bandwidth not going to be a huge problem. I already have periodic problems with normal resolutions.
Four words: fiber to the home.
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.
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.
I've got 100mbit fiber at home and still have problems with Netflix occasionally dropping out. There is more to bandwidth bottlenecks than simply the last mile.
Sure, Australians got themselves FTTH and guess what, incumbent industry think tank helped during the planning phase by slipping some great ideas ... like data caps :D
data caps on the internal traffic that never leaves the network
data caps on the internal traffic that never leaves the network
Nope. Australians lost their FTTH when they elected a new government. They are getting upgrades to existing HFC, FTTN or wireless/satellite and the rollout is going to be much slower and more expensive and without the speed guarantees. Crony capitalism at its best.
Better encoding will help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding
Too bad that the vast majority of Netflix' content is of a quality that would make 2006's YoutTbe blush with embarrassment.
I guess we can add Netflix to a list of companies that the BBC are happy to provide free advertising for.
I may be ignorant but I don't know of any other UK content provider who is providing 4K streaming content.
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.
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.
Are you serious about your wife not being able to tell 480i content from 1080p content?
I ask because there is a significant visual diff between the two and I cannot fathom someone not noticing the difference.
I ask because there is a significant visual diff between the two and I cannot fathom someone not noticing the difference.
> I don't know of any other UK content provider who is providing 4K streaming content.
Youtube has 4K content.
Youtube has 4K content.
Ooh didn't know that. Now to buy a monitor that can handle it :)
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.
[1] https://KiteBit.com
[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.