Ok so semantics perhaps. 16x the number of pixels - depends on how you want to describe "resolution." One common definition is the amount of detail that the image holds, in which case, 8k is 16x the resolution of 1080.
New invention idea - "Dial-a-resolution" feature for your remote control! Not liking what you're seeing? Fuzz it up until the balance between reality and your imagination hits the sweet spot.
It seems inevitable doesn't it? They are all just displays in the end, some are bigger, some are smaller, some have different aspect ratios, etc. What matters are the use cases.
I should temper my statement a little. Live television is almost always produced at 720p rather than 1080. The penetration is higher in non-live production.
sure, some shows are, but most shows are not. Interestingly enough, recording something at 1080p and then down-converting it to 720 usually yields a superior product to shooting in 720 naively.
Remember that computer monitors are typically much smaller than televisions. Making a 50" 1080p display is a lot easier than making an 8" display of the same resolution. There are companies out there who are making 4k consumer displays, none of them are very small.
Most of them can provide you with full HD, but the content typically is not being produced at full HD anyway (for regular television) and people seem to be giddy for lots of channels and internet bandwidth so they trade off quality for quantity. When some channels get eliminated you will get both higher internet bandwidth and higher quality video.
Or less channels - most of the linear channels out there are carrying nothing but pre-recorded content which could be delivered over IP rather than QAM in a much more satisfying experience for the average TV watcher. Ditch a couple dozen of those things and you can open up the spectrum for higher bandwidth video real quick.
The infrastructure is sufficient but right now the market is asking for more channels and more internet bandwidth rather than higher quality video channels. The networks can handle the traffic, it's just not what people seem to want yet.
4k could end up getting skipped as a broadcast standard given how quickly 8k is growing up. It will be a lot easier to dedicate that much bandwidth to a single channel once we eliminate those which serve no useful purpose in the linear domain (those which carry only pre-recorded shows).
This is actually much more than 2x standard broadcasts in terms of resolution as far as the US market is concerned. In the US almost everything "HD" is 720 @ 60fps (or sometimes even 30!). This is 8k, which is 16x the resolution of 1080, and twice the frame rate.
Sounds like the issue should be with Apple then, since they developed an app and provided it to folks to pre-install with the option to disable it based on the network configuration. They gave AT&T that option, and now AT&T is changing the way that they implement it on their network. Presumably Apple could have done things differently, but instead decided to do things this way. Why? No idea, but I can come up with various guesses. Maybe Apple and AT&T struck some kind of deal where in exchange for additional promotional consideration, Apple elected to limit the use of their new app to WiFi rather than AT&Ts overburdened network?
I'm not sure I understand your beef here. It seems as though the argument he lays out is that AT&T does not have a dog in the fight when it comes to what apps folks use for video chat over the 3G network. As a network operator they were initially concerned with the burden that those apps would place on the network so they did not allow them to operate. The situation has now changed, and they are willing to start opening it up to certain classes of users that would present a more moderate load than the class of customers with unlimited data plans. I'm not sure how this violates the FCC net neutrality rules, perhaps you could enlighten me.
This post really makes a lot of sense. I think the most under-appreciated factor in your list is
a cost per byte that's not higher than what people currently pay for the unlimited bytes they actually use
A cursory inspection reveals that the new share plans come with unlimited minutes and text messages. These may not appear competitive relative to the cost of the grandfathered data plans, particularly for those heavy data users out there. But to the average user, this could be a significant net savings to switch out of those holdover contracts due to the discounts you would receive on the other aspects of your plan. It stands to reason that a good number of those folks out there with unlimited plans for a single device may not be using enough data to actually be saving any money on the byte. They could in fact be paying a serious premium for a class of service that is not actually delivering any additional value for them.
T-Mobile is having trouble retaining / gaining subscribers. I doubt this is altruistic, they need to draw more customers in so they are attempting deep discounting.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok so semantics perhaps. 16x the number of pixels - depends on how you want to describe "resolution." One common definition is the amount of detail that the image holds, in which case, 8k is 16x the resolution of 1080.
You are missing something, it is 16x the resolution. 4k is 8x the resolution.
As they did with cableCARDs?
Excellent point! The FCC has proposed a replacement for the CableCARD standard that would address this issue specifically (allvid)
New invention idea - "Dial-a-resolution" feature for your remote control! Not liking what you're seeing? Fuzz it up until the balance between reality and your imagination hits the sweet spot.
It seems inevitable doesn't it? They are all just displays in the end, some are bigger, some are smaller, some have different aspect ratios, etc. What matters are the use cases.
If that's what the customer wants! That will probably change soon though
I should temper my statement a little. Live television is almost always produced at 720p rather than 1080. The penetration is higher in non-live production.
sure, some shows are, but most shows are not. Interestingly enough, recording something at 1080p and then down-converting it to 720 usually yields a superior product to shooting in 720 naively.
Remember that computer monitors are typically much smaller than televisions. Making a 50" 1080p display is a lot easier than making an 8" display of the same resolution. There are companies out there who are making 4k consumer displays, none of them are very small.
Higher resolution content will look better on your new 90"+ TV
Most of them can provide you with full HD, but the content typically is not being produced at full HD anyway (for regular television) and people seem to be giddy for lots of channels and internet bandwidth so they trade off quality for quantity. When some channels get eliminated you will get both higher internet bandwidth and higher quality video.
Why not rotate your monitor to be portrait rather than landscape?
Some providers are much better than others at not ruining the signals. You should switch!
Or less channels - most of the linear channels out there are carrying nothing but pre-recorded content which could be delivered over IP rather than QAM in a much more satisfying experience for the average TV watcher. Ditch a couple dozen of those things and you can open up the spectrum for higher bandwidth video real quick.
The infrastructure is sufficient but right now the market is asking for more channels and more internet bandwidth rather than higher quality video channels. The networks can handle the traffic, it's just not what people seem to want yet.
And most TV in the US is not even produced at 1080p, but rather 720p.
4k could end up getting skipped as a broadcast standard given how quickly 8k is growing up. It will be a lot easier to dedicate that much bandwidth to a single channel once we eliminate those which serve no useful purpose in the linear domain (those which carry only pre-recorded shows).
What makes a 4:3 ratio so much better than a 16:9 ratio for your monitor?
This is actually much more than 2x standard broadcasts in terms of resolution as far as the US market is concerned. In the US almost everything "HD" is 720 @ 60fps (or sometimes even 30!). This is 8k, which is 16x the resolution of 1080, and twice the frame rate.
Sounds like the issue should be with Apple then, since they developed an app and provided it to folks to pre-install with the option to disable it based on the network configuration. They gave AT&T that option, and now AT&T is changing the way that they implement it on their network. Presumably Apple could have done things differently, but instead decided to do things this way. Why? No idea, but I can come up with various guesses. Maybe Apple and AT&T struck some kind of deal where in exchange for additional promotional consideration, Apple elected to limit the use of their new app to WiFi rather than AT&Ts overburdened network?
I'm not sure I understand your beef here. It seems as though the argument he lays out is that AT&T does not have a dog in the fight when it comes to what apps folks use for video chat over the 3G network. As a network operator they were initially concerned with the burden that those apps would place on the network so they did not allow them to operate. The situation has now changed, and they are willing to start opening it up to certain classes of users that would present a more moderate load than the class of customers with unlimited data plans. I'm not sure how this violates the FCC net neutrality rules, perhaps you could enlighten me.
A cursory inspection reveals that the new share plans come with unlimited minutes and text messages. These may not appear competitive relative to the cost of the grandfathered data plans, particularly for those heavy data users out there. But to the average user, this could be a significant net savings to switch out of those holdover contracts due to the discounts you would receive on the other aspects of your plan. It stands to reason that a good number of those folks out there with unlimited plans for a single device may not be using enough data to actually be saving any money on the byte. They could in fact be paying a serious premium for a class of service that is not actually delivering any additional value for them.
How is that obvious?
T-Mobile is having trouble retaining / gaining subscribers. I doubt this is altruistic, they need to draw more customers in so they are attempting deep discounting.