Breaking Bad in 4k

[BeeBoop]

How do I watch BB in 4k without breaking my data cap?? D:

http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/08/breaking-bad-netflix-june/

.

 

[brainhulk]

H.265?

 

[PliotronX]

Holy cow, would that require the use of Windows 8's NF app with the "Ultra HD" option?

Oh yeah and data caps.. Google needs to hurry up and deploy its fiber service everywhere.

 

[Fritzo]

There comes a point where there's too much resolution

We just got a Samsung 240hz 55" LED and it makes everything so realistic it's disturbing. Even old black and white shows are so damn sharp it looks more like watching a play instead of a TV show. Animated shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy are especially weird because you're able to see the separation between the static backgrounds and the moving characters overlayed on top.

 

[purbeast0]

There comes a point where there's too much resolution

We just got a Samsung 240hz 55" LED and it makes everything so realistic it's disturbing. Even old black and white shows are so damn sharp it looks more like watching a play instead of a TV show. Animated shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy are especially weird because you're able to see the separation between the static backgrounds and the moving characters overlayed on top.

i can't stand watching shit in 240hz. that was the first feature i turned off on my tv when i got it. my brother got a new tv and he thought that is just how they were, but i showed him how to turn it off and he was so happy that he wasn't stuck in that mode.

i don't want my shows/movies to look like i'm watching a play on a set. i want it to look like a show/movie.

 

[soulcougher73]

i can't stand watching shit in 240hz. that was the first feature i turned off on my tv when i got it. my brother got a new tv and he thought that is just how they were, but i showed him how to turn it off and he was so happy that he wasn't stuck in that mode.

i don't want my shows/movies to look like i'm watching a play on a set. i want it to look like a show/movie.

Yeah i cant do 240hz either. Looks fake and not natural. But i have plasma so i dont have to worry about that

 

[sdifox]

I dont see the point of 4k. Give me full bitrate 1080p and I am happy.

 

[artvscommerce]

I dont see the point of 4k. Give me full bitrate 1080p and I am happy.

Many people said the exact same thing when HD was a new thing... just sayin!

 

[brainhulk]

I have a large screen projector. For me and others with equally big ass tv's, this is good news.

4K is coming

 

[JackBurton]

I'm sure it is just an upconversion of the 1080p BD. That being said, if you have a 4K set, just get the BD's. You'll have full uncompressed audio PLUS 4K upconversion courtesy of your TV's 4K scaler. I'm sure it will look and sound better than Netflix's version.

 

[sdifox]

Many people said the exact same thing when HD was a new thing... just sayin!

1080P is very nice. But most people don't get that from satellite/cable. Satellite is better but still not full bit rate. Cabke is just utter crap. This is based on my local market, your service level might be different.

 

[brainhulk]

What download speed would one need for smooth 4k streaming?

 

[PliotronX]

What download speed would one need for smooth 4k streaming?

According to NF the nitrate is 15.6Mbps so I'd figure at least 17Mbps.

 

[soulcougher73]

Many people said the exact same thing when HD was a new thing... just sayin!

Except SD to HD was a huge jump to our eyes. HD to 4k isnt. It is technically but its not very perceivable to our eyes, thus making it not seem worthwhile to most. It is coming, but i dont think the transition will be quick at all. Hell by the time it starts to be bought 8k will come out or something else utterly stupid.

 

[squarecut1]

I personally care a lot more about the quality of content than that of the video.

Lawrence of Arabia in its original format is better than all ten oscar nominated movies of this year combined.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Many people said the exact same thing when HD was a new thing... just sayin!

By the time HD hit cable was able to provide an image quality better than VHS and in some cases better than DVD.

Currently no option gives you better quality than a fairly old optical disc (Blu Ray) because of bandwidth.

For 4K the real bottleneck isn't the TV or the consumer, but our limited (and getting even more limiting) distribution platforms.

 

[PliotronX]

By the time HD hit cable was able to provide an image quality better than VHS and in some cases better than DVD.

Currently no option gives you better quality than a fairly old optical disc (Blu Ray) because of bandwidth.

For 4K the real bottleneck isn't the TV or the consumer, but our limited (and getting even more limiting) distribution platforms.

Down the slope we go as the rest of the world advances.. funny this announcement coincides with the death of net neutrality and NF having to increase rates to compensate for paying off Comcrap et al.

 

[BeeBoop]

Except SD to HD was a huge jump to our eyes. HD to 4k isnt. It is technically but its not very perceivable to our eyes, thus making it not seem worthwhile to most. It is coming, but i dont think the transition will be quick at all. Hell by the time it starts to be bought 8k will come out or something else utterly stupid.

Not true at all. The more resolution you have, the more details you can see and the bigger the picture you can see all at once. Go visit your local Best Buy to see a 4k TV on display and you will know what I'm talking about. 4K is a huge leap over current resolution.

 

[Rakehellion]

Except SD to HD was a huge jump to our eyes. HD to 4k isnt.

To YOUR eyes maybe.

 

[poofyhairguy]

A big part of the value problem is that the only 4K devices we have are LCD/LEDs.

Those displays are great if you just want to look at static pictures or static scenes in 4k, and that is what they demo in stores. But if you want to watch content with fast-paced action, flaws inherent in LCD technology create a situation where the motion resolution is much much lower than 4k unless you enable interpolation which can creates the soap opera effects and artifacts.

Display technologies that can give you full motion resolution, such as OLED or plasma, are not available in 4k resolutions. So the entire 4k revolution currently is based on a technology that throws the resolution advantage out the window the second something moves quickly on screen.

A 4k TV is great if you are using it as a computer monitor or only watch really slow moving shows like Downton Abbey, but if you want to be a normal consumer watching recent blockbuster action films or fast-paced sports you are better off with technologies that give better motion resolution even if their resolution is capped at 1080p.

Add in the fact that no LED can touch the best of OLED and plasma when it comes to very important aspects of picture quality such as black levels and off-angle viewing, and it becomes clear that NO 4K set currently offered has a clear picture quality advantage over the best 1080p TVs despite the difference in cost.

Oh, and unlike 1080p, 4k content is scarce and plans for it are threatened by net neutrality and underpowered "next gen" consoles.

I would much rather watch a Blu Ray at its native 1080p on a display with great motion resolution and black levels, then watch the same Blu Ray upscaled to 4k on a display with worse black levels than my four year old budget plasma.

 

[BeeBoop]

A big part of the value problem is that the only 4K devices we have are LCD/LEDs.

Those displays are great if you just want to look at static pictures or static scenes in 4k, and that is what they demo in stores. But if you want to watch content with fast-paced action, flaws inherent in LCD technology create a situation where the motion resolution is much much lower than 4k unless you enable interpolation which can creates the soap opera effects and artifacts.

Display technologies that can give you full motion resolution, such as OLED or plasma, are not available in 4k resolutions. So the entire 4k revolution currently is based on a technology that throws the resolution advantage out the window the second something moves quickly on screen.

A 4k TV is great if you are using it as a computer monitor or only watch really slow moving shows like Downton Abbey, but if you want to be a normal consumer watching recent blockbuster action films or fast-paced sports you are better off with technologies that give better motion resolution even if their resolution is capped at 1080p.

Add in the fact that no LED can touch the best of OLED and plasma when it comes to very important aspects of picture quality such as black levels and off-angle viewing, and it becomes clear that NO 4K set currently offered has a clear picture quality advantage over the best 1080p TVs despite the difference in cost.

Oh, and unlike 1080p, 4k content is scarce and plans for it are threatened by net neutrality and underpowered "next gen" consoles.

I would much rather watch a Blu Ray at its native 1080p on a display with great motion resolution and black levels, then watch the same Blu Ray upscaled to 4k on a display with worse black levels than my four year old budget plasma.

Bullshit. The Best Buy demo I saw was not stactic even though there were some static ones on display. Now, it could be possible that I could have imagine it all but I did a quick google search to find that a lot of people can see much more details on 4k resolutions, so it's not just me.

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-201312153517.htm

 

[Lean L]

There comes a point where there's too much resolution

We just got a Samsung 240hz 55" LED and it makes everything so realistic it's disturbing. Even old black and white shows are so damn sharp it looks more like watching a play instead of a TV show. Animated shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy are especially weird because you're able to see the separation between the static backgrounds and the moving characters overlayed on top.

Nothing is more realistic. Everything is designed for 24hz. Going 10x that rate is just going to make everything look like a crystal clear soap opera.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Bullshit.

No, not really.

I mean motion blurring is a KNOWN disadvantage of LCD/LED technology, as is the usually higher black levels.

I am not disputing that for an average consumer, at an average distance, that they can't tell a difference between 1080p content and high bitrate 4K content. That depends on individual eyesight.

What I AM saying is that when you get past the cherry picked stuff they use to sell 4ks tvs and watch real world content, that current 4K offerings do not offer OVERALL better picture quality.

Picture quality is not just how many pixels you have on a screen, a TV is not a tablet. It is a combination of resolution YOU CAN SEE (hence where the motion resolution argument comes in), the black level, the uniformity of the screen, the colors, etc. Therefore it is possible for a 4k TV to offer a better resolution, while offering a worse picture quality than a 1080p TV.

But don't take my word for it:

All announced (and most of the previewed) Ultra HD displays are still just LCDs, with all of that technology's shortcomings . These so-called "next-generation" televisions will still have poor off-axis picture quality and mediocre contrast ratios. They'll likely have poor picture uniformity, too, as many models are edge-lit. True, they all have higher refresh rates, but without motion interpolation, higher refresh rates do little to fix motion blur. If the drop in resolution with current LCDs is any indication (and No. 5 shows it is), these "2160p" TVs will resolve something like 1,296 lines with motion.

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/

The 4K resolution advantage gets cut in half when someone moves, to a point that is roughly the same resolution of a mediocre 1080p plasma TV (WITHOUT the plasma's black level and screen uniformity).

Oh and this all assumes you have 4K content without bitrate throttling, which is asking a lot.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Not true at all. The more resolution you have, the more details you can see and the bigger the picture you can see all at once. Go visit your local Best Buy to see a 4k TV on display and you will know what I'm talking about. 4K is a huge leap over current resolution.

can't see those details if you simply cannot see those details, our vision has limits; @ 6.5' sitting distance, assuming 20/20 vision, a 50" 1080p display would classify as a "retina display" under Apple guidelines...for 4K at that same 6.5' viewing distance (which is pretty close) we'd need a 100" 4K TV to achieve retina display status...and good luck if you actually sit 8+ feet away like most people with screens that size.

going to a store and standing in front of the TVs and sitting down in front of your own setup are often completely different things

in the store you can look at the ginormous models you'd never dream of spending money on, and you're also more likely to get right up next to the models, a much closer distance than you'd be when its finally set up at home.

I'd go as far as to say that buyers shouldn't even consider 4K vs. 1080p for anything 65" and less (unless all the other specs and pricing are otherwise equal, or unless you're planning to use it as a monitor) and that we would be much better off going with a higher end 1080p set as contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy are all more important factors than resolution for producing image quality in our HDTVs.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Funny how everyone is hyping 4K when 1080P is not even common.