1080P: What comes after it?

[DarthTom]

It isn't, assuming there is a source for such high res files. .

There is also the problem with carriers complaining about streaming a lot of data content. Eg. Verizon is asking for more $$ to carry Netflix programming and is intentionally slowing down the speed of their content

WSJ

Long-running disputes involving Verizon, Netflix, and Internet bandwidth providers are flaring up, causing recent slowdowns in Netflix speed.
According to a Wall Street Journal report tonight, "[t]he online-video service has been at odds with Verizon Communications Inc. and other broadband providers for months over how much Netflix streaming content they will carry without being paid additional fees. Now the long simmering conflict has heated up and is slowing Netflix, in particular, on Verizon's fiber-optic FiOS service, where Netflix says its average prime-time speeds dropped by 14 percent last month."

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I've definitely noticed the slower speeds on Netflix, but I assumed it was an issue on Netflix's end, not Verizon deliberately slowing it down.

What the fuck are they selling fat fiber pipes for if not for people to use them? Jesus Christ.

 

[GalaxyX]

It isn't, assuming there is a source for such high res files. .

Wasn't all of TNG's live action done on 35mm film? I believe the theoretical max of resolution for that format is equivalent to 2K.

So it's impossible to "remaster" it again to 4K because the originals do not have any new data.

As it is, the original scans have a lot of film grain, probably due to how old some of those reels are, and how they were stored.

I think they did a fantastic job with the source data and budget, but I think our current remastered version is all we're going to get as far as an HD TNG release.

Anything filmed in IMAX 70mm theoretically has enough resolution to get 4K content out of it. So for 4K to become viable, everything has to be filmed at least in IMAX format.

I've definitely noticed the slower speeds on Netflix, but I assumed it was an issue on Netflix's end, not Verizon deliberately slowing it down.

What the fuck are they selling fat fiber pipes for if not for people to use them? Jesus Christ.

What's sad is how cable/satellite companies are responding to this.

Instead of offering people viable alternatives to NetFlix, they want to choke hold people at the hardware level, by limiting access to the pipeline itself.

Personally I only have NetFlix, and their content is abysmal and getting worse (And I'm using a DNS rerouting service to get content from different countries).

But what's the alternative? Pay $80 a month for shitty content on a Cable or Dish package?

Looks like they are cracking down on torrent sites, but they are giving people no choice.

There's some excellent series on iTunes for example, but they usually want $50+ a season, and for a 7 season show, that's $350.

And they expect people to pay this much for every show they want to watch?

What I would like to see is NetFlix offer better quality programming. I'm be perfectly fine with paying, let's say $30/mth if it meant that they can afford to pay for licensing of a lot more decent movies and shows, instead of all the Asylum b-movie shit they have there now.

 

[Captrek]

What I would like to see is NetFlix offer better quality programming. I'm be perfectly fine with paying, let's say $30/mth if it meant that they can afford to pay for licensing of a lot more decent movies and shows, instead of all the Asylum b-movie shit they have there now.

For $30/month, Netflix will indeed give you access to an excellent library of movies and TV. The catch is, it's on disc instead of streaming.

 

[DarthTom]

Instead of offering people viable alternatives to NetFlix, they want to choke hold people at the hardware level, by limiting access to the pipeline itself.

The cable companies view Netflix as a competitor because it eats into the revenues they make with On-Demand programming.

Unless people en mass begin to quit their service with companies like Verizon as noted above who is throttling Netflix or Comcast who is throttling everything based on your service level they are going to attempt to squeeze Netflix as a competitor - either to get Neflix to pay and/or for consumers to pay for higher speeds to download their content.

As an aside it would be interesting to know what kind of bandwidth load the release of House of Cards put on all internet providers on Valentines day.

 

[Venardhi]

All of which is an argument for strict net neutrality laws, not against "UHD" content.

 

[AviTrek]

It isn't, assuming there is a source for such high res files. .

Wasn't all of TNG's live action done on 35mm film? I believe the theoretical max of resolution for that format is equivalent to 2K.

So it's impossible to "remaster" it again to 4K because the originals do not have any new data.

As it is, the original scans have a lot of film grain, probably due to how old some of those reels are, and how they were stored.

I think they did a fantastic job with the source data and budget, but I think our current remastered version is all we're going to get as far as an HD TNG release.

Anything filmed in IMAX 70mm theoretically has enough resolution to get 4K content out of it. So for 4K to become viable, everything has to be filmed at least in IMAX format.

I've definitely noticed the slower speeds on Netflix, but I assumed it was an issue on Netflix's end, not Verizon deliberately slowing it down.

What the fuck are they selling fat fiber pipes for if not for people to use them? Jesus Christ.

What's sad is how cable/satellite companies are responding to this.

Instead of offering people viable alternatives to NetFlix, they want to choke hold people at the hardware level, by limiting access to the pipeline itself.

Personally I only have NetFlix, and their content is abysmal and getting worse (And I'm using a DNS rerouting service to get content from different countries).

But what's the alternative? Pay $80 a month for shitty content on a Cable or Dish package?

Looks like they are cracking down on torrent sites, but they are giving people no choice.

There's some excellent series on iTunes for example, but they usually want $50+ a season, and for a 7 season show, that's $350.

And they expect people to pay this much for every show they want to watch?

What I would like to see is NetFlix offer better quality programming. I'm be perfectly fine with paying, let's say $30/mth if it meant that they can afford to pay for licensing of a lot more decent movies and shows, instead of all the Asylum b-movie shit they have there now.

You might be willing to pay $30/month because you don't have a cable TV package. I imagine most Netflix subscribers pay for Netflix on top of cable TV. For those people $30 is way too much of an add-on. Until Netflix gets access to most new shows that are appearing on TV it won't be able to entice enough subscribers at $30/month to drop their TV package.

 

[Gepard]

[
...35mm film? I believe the theoretical max of resolution for that format is equivalent to 2K.

So it's impossible to "remaster" it again to 4K because the originals do not have any new data.

In terms of what's theoretically possible, that's very much not the case:

These films, with good lenses, are capable of resolving as much as 7000 pixels (3500 "line pairs") over the width of a 35mm frame -- about 5000 dots per inch. However, at that point, while they can resolve "line pairs," the image is pretty noisy. The lines are not resolved as straight, sharp-edged entities, but you can tell there is a white line next to a black line.

....

To make the image not look "grainy", you need to pull back. Subjective tests suggest this is to about 3200 DPI, or around 4300 pixels. For a 4:3 frame, that means a bit under 14 million pixels. (Of course some people don't mind grain as much as others, so your mileage may vary. Also, if you can get a scan that good, digital techniques can reduce the visibility of grain and extend the resolution of film.)

What this means is that a 4000 x 3000 digital camera would produce a shot as good as a quality 35mm camera in most conditions -- provided you could get more than 8 bits per pixel. You could blow up the 35mm shot a little bit more and see a little bit more, but only at the cost of producing a grainy image.

That's basically 4K right there, and as the article points out, you can go even higher if you don't care about increased grain.