Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

4K Netflix Arrives On Windows 10, But Only Via Microsoft's Edge Browser (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-hardware-required dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Netflix 4K streaming is finally heading to Windows PCs this week. While a number of TVs and set-top-boxes already support 4K Netflix streams, the PC has largely been left out of the high-quality streams due to piracy fears. Netflix is now supporting 4K streaming through Microsoft's Edge browser, but you'll need a new PC to actually make use of it. Netflix is only supporting 7th generation (Kaby Lake) Intel Core processors, and there aren't many laptops that actually support both the 4K display required and the new Intel processors. As a result, Microsoft is using the 4K Netflix support as a marketing effort for its Edge browser and to encourage people to upgrade their hardware to watch new episodes of the Gilmore Girls. It all might seem like a bit of a con, but it's largely the fault of DRM requirements from Hollywood studios and TV networks. Content providers have strict controls for 4K playback, so that streams can't be captured and redistributed illegally. The latest hardware decryption features simply aren't available on older Intel processors, and the new Kaby Lake chips now support 10-bit HEVC, a popular 4K video codec.

73 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. If only... by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If only things could be decrypted without "hardware decryption features."

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they are taking advantage of the new memory protection feature of the selected Kaby Lake processors.

    2. Re:If only... by oakgrove · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In case you're wrong, you should probably friend everyone too. Just to be sure.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    3. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Content providers have strict controls for 4K playback, so that streams can't be captured and redistributed illegally

      And somewhere, a pirate goes "Another challenge! Bring it on."

    4. Re:If only... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Of course they can be decrypted in software. The fly in the ointment is that Netflix can't stream the movies and TV shows without Hollywood's approval. And Hollywood insists only on approving solutions on a hardware device basis. This is what delayed Netflix coming to Android. The software itself was easy enough, but Netflix had to get Hollywood's stamp of approval for every Android handset out there running the same software. That's why during the rollout, the Netflix app for Android was or wasn't available in Google's Play store depending on which phone or tablet you had.

      So likely Hollywood is pulling the same shenanigans again, and only approved 4k Netflix streaming for Kaby Lake and the Edge browser at this time. Maybe they'll give approval for older processors and different browsers in the future. Maybe not. It's up to Hollywood - their content, their rules. If you don't like it, support independent artists and producers instead of the Hollywood establishment.

    5. Re:If only... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      No offense but I'm pretty sure you used to be one of the more notorious MS shills.

      Totally. Now someone else you don't like signs my checks, and next year it will be someone else still.

      My checks are signed by reason.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Did you know that splitters work by using the TV's authentication handshake and therefor sending the unencrypted signal down the other cable?

      That is incorrect. There is no "unencrypted signal" in HDCP. Even after the handshake the signal is still encrypted. They work because the HDCP master key was leaked, or rather enough device keys were extracted that the master key was derived by inverting the matrix. I don't know that the HDCP2 master key has been publicly discovered yet.

      With HDCP it didn't really matter as you could already go to your favourite parts supplier and buy chips from TI or AD, among others, that had the keys builtin and would output the video as unencrypted LVDS. Connect one of those back to back with an HDMI transmitter IC and you have your HDCP stripper.

    7. Re:If only... by exomondo · · Score: 2

      If only things could be decrypted without "hardware decryption features."

      They can, there's plenty of different processors that support 10-bit HVEC decoding, in fact there's even many Android set-top boxes with ARM processors that can do it just fine. In this case their decoder implementation is taking advantage of Kaby Lake features because they are more efficient at doing it.

    8. Re:If only... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Are you talking about SGX? I thought that was only going to be for specific enterprise features? If not, that's going to open up the possibility of impossible to detect malware.

    9. Re:If only... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could always just resort to piracy. You see, pirated content doesn't care if your hardware supports the latest DRM, it just fucking works.

    10. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly, Windows 10 is the most safe and secure OS in the history of the universe.

    11. Re:If only... by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be honest, what do many of us care about the higher resolution? I've been renting movies from Google Play for a while now, and I never buy the high-def version (which is always a buck or two more), and unless I'm standing about six inches from my TV, I couldn't tell the difference. I guess if I hard a very large TV or a projection TV, that would make a difference, but then again, people watch DVDs on those TVs without too many complaints. Beyond that, I'm on a shitty DSL connection that I get nailed if I go over a limit (something like 30gb, can't quite remember), so if I start viewing streaming video at highest resolution, well, I'm going to breaking that particular thermometer every month.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    12. Re:If only... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      What a great idea. That way people can just walk into the studio in your delightful little heaven, put guns to the producers' heads and force them to hand over the video, because FREE!!!!!

      You do understand that New Hampshire is part of the United States, and you can't have a "free state" inside a nation state or a constituent jurisdiction. You'd best relocate your little commune to Mars.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I tried amazon prime... doesn't work on chromium cos open source !== DRM. So just downloaded show on torrent instead, as usual "just fucking works" is one of the main reasons to resorting to piracy.

    14. Re:If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What about Netflix's original content? Last I checked, they still cap the resolution at 720p for people using HTML5 + Widevine, which is how I use it on my Linux laptop.

    15. Re:If only... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem is that if DRM stuff can hide its execution and memory contents, then malware can hide itself from debuggers and other means of developing countermeasures. SGX should not be a thing at all, in my opinion, in the same way that other crappy technology such as ActiveX shouldn't have ever been a thing. If enterprises are concerned about application security, then they should segregate it on a type 1 hypervisor.

    16. Re:If only... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Oh that's ok, even a 1:1 rip plays perfectly in Kodi and Plex. I think the last time I played a blu-ray disc in my own house was back in 2012, so I can't say I've ever experienced cinavia.

    17. Re: If only... by Malc · · Score: 1

      I have 10-bit HEVC decoding in MS Edge on my MBP from last year (booted to Win10 in Boot Camp.). Neither Kaby nor Skylake required. I doubt it can do 4K60, which I haven't tried, but less demanding streams work.

    18. Re: If only... by Cowclops · · Score: 1

      There are some definite diminishing returns on 4K vs 1080p unless you have a huuuuuuge tv/projector. However, you could have pretty crappy vision and still tell the difference between a DVD and a bluray or "480p" vs "1080p" streaming. Unless you're sitting 20 feet away from a 24" tv, the difference should not be subtle. DVDs are pretty hard to go back to once you're used to bluray or even just amateur 1080p YouTube videos. The artifacting is absurd.

    19. Re:If only... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Protestations to the contrary, rights only exist if you can enforce them. Or, you can claim the rights exist anyway, but then they are completely worthless. Same difference in the end.

    20. Re:If only... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Way ahead. You have been able to get HDMI capture cards capable of receiving 4k video for a while now. Combine with a device to degrade the HDCP version to one it can handle and job done.

      The company that makes those devices counts Netflix among its customers, presumably as they need it to rip 4k BluRay into a format they can stream.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    21. Re:If only... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A lot of people use those cheap HDMI splitters. One input, several outputs. They work by decrypting the signal and sending it four encryption/HDMI protocol chips that handle the outputs. Interception is as simple as soldering a few wires to a DisplayPort socket.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. What is the point? by hackel · · Score: 1

    Is the human eye even capable of perceiving the difference between 1080p and 4k on a desktop/laptop monitor? This just seems so pointless. Of course it makes sense on a large TV, and I realise some people are silly enough to output their PC signal to their TVs instead of getting a dedicated box, but surely they are in the minority. I think I've only used Netflix in a browser a couple of times since I subscribed several years ago, and that was just for testing. What use case am I missing here?

    The DRM involved in this is absolutely despicable.

    1. Re:What is the point? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Is the human eye even capable of perceiving the difference between 1080p and 4k on a desktop/laptop monitor?
      Absolutely.

      I realise some people are silly enough to output their PC signal to their TVs instead of getting a dedicated box, but surely they are in the minority
      Of my world view of people I know in real life and people I know online, a majority do just that

      The DRM involved in this is absolutely despicable
      Sure it is. But it is probably a necessary caveat in contract negotiation for netflix to be allowed to stream it

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    2. Re:What is the point? by SumDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      YES! I own a 4k MSI laptop and can totally tell a difference with 4k. I can even use that laptop to power a 4k DCI display:

      http://penguindreams.org/blog/running-a-lg31mu97-on-linux-at-4096x2160-at-60hz/

      It is night and day; even on small screens. If you do a lot of photography work and have a camera that captures over 4000x?, it's really amazing. I love being able to pull up photos in Lightroom and see the entire image in fullscreen without scaling. They're really amazing:

      http://journeyofkhan.us

    3. Re:What is the point? by MasseKid · · Score: 1

      I've got a 32" 4K monitor on my desk. At the viewing distance on a desk, it's probably relatively larger than a 75" TV is at normal couch viewing differences. If you've got even a 24" monitor, you should be able to notice the difference. Now 4K on a 13" screen on a laptop, I'm not sure I see the point.

    4. Re: What is the point? by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

      MHZ/GHZ marketing and penis waving. Again.

    5. Re:What is the point? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Is the human eye even capable of perceiving the difference between 1080p and 4k on a desktop/laptop monitor?

      Yes easily, though most of the extra resolution 3K->4K is beyond what you can see unless you have a literal home cinema with projector and a hundred square yard canvas.

      The full difference is only seen on sharp details like text (like on a computer monitor), and less so on moving pictures with natural gradients, such as movies. So yeah, the difference in resolution itself is not that visible. The HDR though is a much bigger upgrade.

    6. Re:What is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, the human eye can tell. I have a 4K monitor, a 23.8" monitor to be exact.

      The right question is "does that extra detail amount to anything?" No, not really. 4K is great for photography because you can zoom in and see details. 4K is not really as good for video because video compression tends to destroy 75% of the details to begin with. Most HD video uses a YUV420p colorspace, which means that only 25% of the pixels contain color data. A 444 colorspace would retain that color, hence we get into "HDR" video.

      So yes, if you can get a 4K TV that does rec.2020 (none do) then you are in for a treat. Otherwise most of the 4K content and 4K playback hardware out there is barely any better than the previous HD content and HD playback hardware because ultimately there isn't enough reason to buy this content again. If you had it on DVD, and bought it on Blueray, just skip 4K and wait for 8K. 4K is a stop-gap that we get right now because that is what hardware can do right now. An 8K panel is too expensive and 8K video content isn't being created except in animated features.

    7. Re:What is the point? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I call absolute bullshit

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    8. Re:What is the point? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Is the human eye even capable of perceiving the difference between 1080p and 4k on a desktop/laptop monitor?

      My eye is, easily. In fact I find that a 1080p monitor is a recipe for eyestrain.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  3. Re:Image All The Idiots by unixisc · · Score: 2

    Yeah. And I didn't get this 'Edge' thing - there already exists an app for Netflix that one can download from the Windows Store. Shouldn't that automatically detect what type of hardware you are using and adjust the resolution accordingly?

  4. Meh by markdavis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yawn.

    Wake me up when more than even a fraction of 1% of the population can even tell the difference between 1080P and 4K (much less UPSCALED 1080P and 4K). At any reasonable size or distance it really doesn't matter much.

    1. Re: Meh by rayjaymor85 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Unless you have a gigantic screen it's hard to tell with video content. Games, maybe. But definitely not video. Besides that my internet connection would never handle 4K so makes no difference to me.

    2. Re:Meh by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, we heard the same thing going DVD to Bluray and going from standard smartphone/tablet/laptop screens to retina-level displays and now we're seeing it yet again with 1080p to 4k. Yes not everybody can tell the difference, if you can't then obviously this isn't relevant to you, for those that can it is relevant to them.

    3. Re:Meh by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I'll wake you up for the next round of marketing 3D in 4K.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Meh by markdavis · · Score: 2

      There is a hugely diminishing return. I guarantee if you double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance. And remember, we are not talking about text and stills on monitors... we are talking about Netflix video.

      Sure, there are some small cases where it will be useful, but generally it is just a marketing gimmick. If they focused on things that actually matter, like HDR or color space, it would be different.

    5. Re:Meh by markdavis · · Score: 1

      > I'll wake you up for the next round of marketing 3D in 4K.

      At least 3D is *meaningful*. One can argue how useful it is or how much it is abused with "fake" or invented 3D instead of being shot natively. But most people can easily tell the difference 2D and 3D , and 3D can very much add to an experience (when done right). But yeah, I am sure it will be resurrected again when they run out of 4K hype.

    6. Re:Meh by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      I have a 2K and a 1280p Sony tablet - same size. The difference is very visible, especially for text.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Meh by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we are talking about Netflix video, not text and stills.

    8. Re:Meh by markdavis · · Score: 1

      You are probably right in that the test would be better to show them the video one at a time rather than than simultaneously.

    9. Re:Meh by exomondo · · Score: 1

      There is a hugely diminishing return. I guarantee if you double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance.

      Well it depends on what your eyesight is like, how big your TV is and how far you sit from it. The same as with 720p vs 1080p or retina-level screens on smartphones, tablets or PCs. Obviously if those variables align such that you can't tell the difference then it has no value to you so you don't invest in it, otherwise it does. But like I said, if you can't tell the difference then fine, it doesn't matter to you so why are you so worried about it?

      If they focused on things that actually matter, like HDR or color space, it would be different.

      They are doing HDR. Netflix aren't beholden to only doing the things where you can tell the difference.

  5. Data Cap by SubtleGuest · · Score: 1

    How long can the average american stream a 4k movie with the typical data cap they enjoy for a month?

    1. Re:Data Cap by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      88 hours Netflix claims to need 25Mbps for 4K
      Most providers (comcast,att) are switching to a 1TB cap now.
      Or did you mean those of us that can't get wireline service? Oh they're still pretty screwed they either can't get the speed required to watch 4K or can't afford the GBs required to watch it.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  6. Re: Image All The Idiots by BlytheBowman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Judging by all of the HDTVs i've seen hooked up through an SD composite connection to an HD compatable *box and the pictures being in both stretchovision and cropovision, I would not be suprised.

  7. 4k on 2560x1440 and 1080p monitors by BrookHarty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    4k looks night and day different on a 1080p monitor compared to a normal 1080p blueray. When downsampled, the picture looks more detailed.

    There are some 4k nature demos on youtube, using chrome you can test multiple resolutions, 4k/2k/1080 on your monitor and test for yourself the difference.
    4k sampled down, I can see higher detail in the water compared to a 2k resampled. Check out the Nature Relaxation channel to check out its demo videos, they are watermarked, but make great test videos.

    I saw a video blog that said the reason that 4k on a 1080p looks so well, is the 4 pixel blocks downsampled are no longer sharing chroma, but each pixel is independent, so the higher detail. (I'm recalling from memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong).

    I have a 2560x1400, and 4k looks great even it. So people who say you can see a difference, really need to try some of those 4k youtube videos on chrome.

    1. Re:4k on 2560x1440 and 1080p monitors by KiloByte · · Score: 2

      If that's true, then it's a case of bad compression rather than any upsides of 4k.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:4k on 2560x1440 and 1080p monitors by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I saw a video blog that said the reason that 4k on a 1080p looks so well, is the 4 pixel blocks downsampled are no longer sharing chroma, but each pixel is independent, so the higher detail. (I'm recalling from memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong).

      That is true. The native mode is YUV420, so for every 4 pixels, you have 4 samples of luminance, and 1 sample each of U and V. This is h.264 natively and what Blu-Ray and others use.

      So yes, downsampling does increase quality because you effectively go from YUV420 encoding to YUV444.

    3. Re:4k on 2560x1440 and 1080p monitors by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Human eyes can barely tell the difference except in contrived cases.

      The more likely reason it looks better is that 4K will simply have had more bits thrown at it in the first place and therefore can still plausibly have more detail after downscaling than a compressed 1080p stream would.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:4k on 2560x1440 and 1080p monitors by dwywit · · Score: 1

      I think it shows up the compression that has to be done get a film to fit on a blu-ray - the Digital Cinema Package files I get to see are "2K", but they're also upwards of 100 or even 200GB - whereas a 2K blu-ray is 25 or 50GB - so there's a lot of data lost from a film when mastered to fit on blu-ray. We're even starting to see 4K DCP disks turn up - I was worried our server or projector wouldn't cope, but apparently it'll just downsample the 4K stream to 2K - so it's throwing away roughly 3 of every 4 pixels - that's a LOT of detail.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    5. Re:4k on 2560x1440 and 1080p monitors by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      I saw a video blog that said the reason that 4k on a 1080p looks so well, is the 4 pixel blocks downsampled are no longer sharing chroma, but each pixel is independent, so the higher detail. (I'm recalling from memory, so forgive me if I'm wrong).

      I saw the video you were referring to, and it was partly true. Yes, of course a higher chroma resolution will look better. But the answer is more complicated than that.

      I say partly because over the years many video players have taken shortcuts on quality in the name of performance or ease of implementation. Video has by and large looked worse than it needed to. Things like disabling deblocking, point resampling chroma, and imprecise YCbCr -> RGB conversion were very common and contributed to a dramatic drop in quality. If you've ever seen some red on black that looked absolutely atrocious, this is why it looked like that.

      Doubling resolution is an easy way to work around those issues, because you're adding more precision in. The end result is that you'll only see error introduced by the final resampling, which is almost always subjectively good enough even when it's objectively lackluster.

    6. Re:4k on 2560x1440 and 1080p monitors by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Technically yes. Realistically no. Content is produced to okay standards of the target device. There are restrictions on bandwidth and common standards at play. You're not going to get that incredible level of graphics on a 1080p steam as a result.

  8. Public scams and collusion by WaffleMonster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    4k is an interesting marketing scam given perceptible "quality" issues are a direct result not of limited resolution but rather deliberate efforts to minimize bandwidth requirements for Internet streaming, satellite and cable to just below the threshold where most people would bitch.

    Hey Russia if you could "locate" documents demonstrating collusion with what remains of the Wintel cartel I would be most grateful.

  9. Pirates not affected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    With piracy you can have all the 4K content on Linux you want.

  10. It's Nice and All by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I like seeing technology advance and 4K video looks fantastic but there are still few devices capable of displaying video at these resolutions. Furthermore, Big Telecom isn't a fan of giving people large amounts of data for cheap so anyone that has both limited broadband and limited mobile data will be unable to partake in this offering. The harsh, cold reality is that data infrastructure is pathetically weak in the United States. Since there is virtually no competition with the few big telecoms out there having regional monopolies, there is no incentive for them to offer larger data pipelines at affordable prices. With my current plans, one 4K video would just about kill my internet usage for 30 days.

  11. Re:Edge is designed from the ground up for perform by ahabswhale · · Score: 2

    Edge is irrelevant. Their using Kaby Lake's fancy new hardware decoding to get the job done. There's really no reason it couldn't be supported on any browser.

    --
    Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  12. Use UltraFlix instead by SB5407 · · Score: 1

    Use UltraFlix (ultraflix.com) instead for 4K on Windows PCs.
    They stream in 4k without requiring Kaby Lake:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article...

  13. That's nice by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    However, since the folks who own the pipes continue to put caps in place, I don't see 4K streaming going very far.

    Can't have that silly online streaming service compete with our own data exempt offerings. . . no sir. . :|

  14. I tried to warn you. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Informative

    I told you this was coming but nobody listened.

    the lack of a CDM specification was an intentional action by the companies currently drafting the EME for the express purpose of creating hardware dependance. While the EME does not preclude a system agnostic CDM specification, the companies drafting the EME have a vested financial interest in preventing it. If it's too late in the process to add a CDM specification, then the EME should be withheld from the approval process until an accompanying system agnostic CDM specification is approved.

    This has already had real consequences.

    Due to the lack of a proper CDM specification, Microsoft was able to make deals with major content providers to require Microsoft Playready 3.0 which uses a CDM that only works on a few browsers, only on Windows platforms and only if you have the latest Intel or AMD CPU. This is also the reason why Linux computers cannot view 4K videos on Netflix website. The only Linux computers that can view 4K content are SmartTVs made by companies that paid Microsoft.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:I tried to warn you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      EME: encrypted media extension: the w3c standard for browser- based DRM

      CDM: content decryption modules: the non-standardized component used by the EME to decrypt protected content

    2. Re:I tried to warn you. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      DRM exists so that approved parties can do approved actions, if everyone could use the CDM (content decryption module) to do anything it wouldn't be DRM at all. The EME (encrypted media extensions) is basically a framework to interact with a locked box but the actual lock is left to the implementation. Just like in the real world where you have tons of different locks and authentication schemes and what you trust to be "good enough" and who should have keys evolves. One "CDM to rule them all" would be like insisting everyone use a TSA lock, which would be quickly broken and useless. You can always try to make the DRM proponents shoot themselves in the foot, but it's not surprising they rejected it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  15. Re:I remember this argument being made... by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >...during the switch to 480i...decades ago!!!!

    You mean from crappy analog like VHS to digital DVD? That was 480i to 480i, so that is not a valid comparison.

    If you mean from 480 to 720/1080 that was a HUGE difference and one that probably 50% of the public could see immediately.

    I *guarantee* if I double-blind test 1000 random people and place them 10 feet from two identical 70" 4K TV's both playing the same identical video, one playing it from 1080P video upscaled to 4K and the other playing the 4K native, almost nobody would be able to notice any difference, resulting in about a 50/50 chance.

  16. Re:10 years too late... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    What is a cw?

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  17. Some of it is the chroma by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is true that basically all video encoding these days is done with a 4:1 luma:chroma ratio. So ya 4k video has 1920x1080 chroma samples. However another, probably more important part when talking Youtube is just bitrate. Youtube is pretty aggressive about the bitrates they use to save on bandwidth costs and play on a wide variety of connections. For 1080p30 it uses a bitrate of about 2.5-3mbps. That's pretty crap, considering Blu-rays are usually more in the realm of 25mbps at the same picture size. More bits = more detail in compression, regardless of how many pixels.

    Well it gets a lot better at higher picture sized. 2.5k video is about 8-9mbps and 4k video is about 16-18mbps (these are all for VP9 streams). It's a big jump, more than the resolution increase itself would require for equal quality. Hence, a better output even when downsampled.

    In fact if you were to take a 1080 video from a camera, upsample it to 4k at a high bitrate and feed that to Youtube, the result would look better played at 4k and downsampled to 1080 on your screen than if you just uploaded the 1080 video directly to Youtube simply because Youtube will allocate more bits to its compression.

  18. Misleading by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 1

    So that actually means it does not arrive on Windows 10 at all.
    Hell, I only just discovered that there is this abomination on Windows 10, next to Internet Explorer, called "Edge" that purports to be some Windows app-version of a browser?
    How many people actually know that "Edge" thing even exists?

  19. Re:Another example by shione · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's due to higher quality cameras being used more than the resolution.

    So true. The source matters so much more than the end resolution. I've seem some really good 144p videos and some really atrocious 1080p videos on YT. If the source sucks the higher resolution isn't going to help and at the same time a low resolution can still look great if the source is pristine and clean, just don't stretch the video out too much.

  20. Re:Edge is designed from the ground up for perform by Malc · · Score: 1

    It's possible that you might be wrong on this. Edge is the only browser at the moment that can natively play HEVC. Chrome for instance requires you to install a plugin. HEVC decoding by Windows 10 is only available if the hardware supported. On my Macbook Pro running Win 10 in a Boot Camp (not a VM under OS X), I can play 10-bit DASH-265 (HEVC) using the DASH-IF reference player v2.30 (http://dashif.org/reference/players/javascript/index.html) in MS Edge.

  21. Re: I remember this argument being made... by Malc · · Score: 1

    Give it time. It does depend on the content. 4K60 BT.2020 with possibly HDR will be noticeably different. Lack of displays is the biggest problem I see because production abilities and beginning to fall in to place for this.

  22. But why bother? by jandersen · · Score: 1

    I know I am an extreme case, probably, but I reallly can't imagine why I would want to pay for a thing like Netflix in any form. I think it has been years since I watched any entertainment programme and enjoyed it - actually, that isn't true, there is something called "Have I got news for you" on BBC, which is occasionally intelligently witty, but it's been a while since I watched it. But if people around here really are interested in sciency/techy stuff, there are several good collections on youtube, such as:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    and:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Both are very entertaining, and the latter is the gentlest introduction to tensor calculus I have ever come across. Really nice, far better than "Batman - The Dark Tosser Returns" or whatever.

  23. 4K for Gilmore Girls lol. by ze_jua · · Score: 1

    Gilmore Girls (Great show) surely requires 4K. Sarcasm and great quotes sounds better in 4k.

  24. Or just watch porn by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    I imagine the restrictions will lead to poor uptake. Lots of hassle and 4k, vs little or no hassle and full hd, will lead most to decide that full hd is good enough. Porn sites, on the other hand, are churning our drm free downloadable 4k porn. I can imagine a scenario where a disproportionately high amount of 4k entertainment watched is porn for just this reason (though there again we have the full hd is good enough thing).

    --
    John_Chalisque
  25. Re:Another example by SirMasterboy · · Score: 1

    I don't think I've seen 1080 video look that good.

    Ah, but you just did... It's being played back at 1080p on 1080p pixels. It's the source that affects the quality. They used a high quality pure digital camera to film it. It doesn't look better because it's 4K on a 1080p monitor. You are only seeing 1080p pixels on your screen. They could encode the video that way in the first place and at that bitrate and it would look the exact same as you are seeing now.

  26. Steps by allo · · Score: 1

    - Buy Windows 10
    - Install Edge
    - Rent Netflix
    - Watch Movie
    - On 4K Monitor
    - Cut the Cable inside the monitor and grab the signal after the HDCP-Decoder
    - Send torrentz plz!!!

    As soon as there is unbreakable DRM, someone will start doing so and every new DRM will just be costly to the video service, but cannot help against this method, which just doesn't rely on decrypting it itself.