Netflix Chief Product Officer: expect 4K streaming within a year or two

[jamesc]

Unlike 3D, one big difference in this round is that 4K has the backing of Silicon Valley. New media wants to take a big bite of old media's $160+ billion yearly ad dollars and 4K is one of the major weapons in the Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood milkshake drinking strategy. Silicon Valley wants New Media to be what Cable was to Broadcast TV, and slowly, it's happening. Here are the sequence of events that have led up to this and will occur soon:


• Apple's "Retina" marketing scheme takes flight. Everyone races to increase their ppi's. Consumers become used to 300+ppi on all devices and begin to expect it.
• Google launches fiber in Kansas City. When they announce fiber in Austin, AT&T announces their own fiber to compete. Watch this trend continue.
• Netflix + all other streaming services upgrade to 4K capable streaming. On an infrastructure level, it's pretty easy for them, servers are already in place to re-encode everything. They're only dependent on bandwidth, which Google is trying to take care of.
• hvec/h.265 compression helps out even further with bandwidth.
• Netflix's big risk to independently finance House of Cards for $100 million pays off (according to the internet)
• TV manufacturers attempt to push 4K onto consumers.
• Apple announces 4K Apple Retina TV with great fanfare.


I believe Apple's announcement is the key to all this working. Like others have stated, 4K by itself probably won't be enough to persuade consumers to upgrade. But the Apple factor might. And as this will potentially be the first new product announcement for Tim Cook, I'd imagine a lot is at stake for Apple to get this right.


Content-wise, as stated above, the current broadcast infrastructure cannot and will not support 4K for a very long time. As such, there will be little incentive for studios to embrace a 4K pipeline. That being said, this will create a strong opening and advantage for indie filmmakers & indie studios who are agile enough to adopt 4K. With major tech advances, the 4K playing field is definitely within reach for indies. And with more production money being pumped into Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Blip.TV, etc, quality of programming should increase across the board as well.


This is probably three to five years away from reaching ubiquity, as it will require some major elements to fall into place from several different players. The two biggest factors being an accelerated fiber roll-out in the US and Apple's marketing ability for their Retina TV. Plus, Hollywood is not about to let this go down without a big fight. If it happens though, it surely won't wipe out broadcast media, but it may very well cause a good amount of consolidation and redistribution of power in Hollywood. Say good-bye to 500+ cable channels (finally).


It's a great time to be an indie filmmaker though, as the shake-up should allow a slew of opportunities for emerging talent to rise. And hopefully, allow for some great stories to be told.

 

[adkimery]

Content-wise, as stated above, the current broadcast infrastructure cannot and will not support 4K for a very long time. As such, there will be little incentive for studios to embrace a 4K pipeline. That being said, this will create a strong opening and advantage for indie filmmakers & indie studios who are agile enough to adopt 4K. With major tech advances, the 4K playing field is definitely within reach for indies. And with more production money being pumped into Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, Blip.TV, etc, quality of programming should increase across the board as well.

I disagree that there is little incentive for movie studios to embrace 4K. For example, if Netflix wants to roll out a worthwhile amount of 4K content it will have to come from movie studios. Sony is releasing a new line of Blu-ray's that were "mastered in 4K" as well as a 4K streaming service and I think this will force the hands of other the other studios. Not to mention studios relish re-releasing library content again, again, and again in new formats.


-Andrew

 

[Bassman2003]

I just do not see a clean move to 4k in such a timely fashion. They thought Blu-ray would do this and sort of forgot that DVD would still be their competition...forever. The 4k broadcast leap would face the same odds. 4k for televisions would directly compete with lame old high definition that everybody is tired of... Not. Lets face it, current HD looks great and "normal" people love it. I just don't see the major entities in broadcast paying up big time to give people more pixels that they need to compress.

As far as internet based delivery. Show me the business model that comes close to the broadcast, DirecTV, cable world for producers. Do you think a show the caliber of "Game of Thrones" would be produced for internet distribution?

Companies like Netflix, Apple, Google etc... make money off of other peoples' content in this space. They might want to generate their own but it will take a long time if ever to get the level of existing entities that have been producing for many, many years. Also, with a little focus, all it would take for the "big boys" to catch up is relax a little and put their content online which they are already doing.

Lastly, internet connection speeds are low in the US. How many people can even stream in 1080p right now? In my view, without fiber, any internet delivery will be watered down. People don't even have 4k computer monitors and the large computer monitor craze is already in full swing. A lot of odds are against this one being a slam dunk. It might happen but I think 4k will just exist as a choice, not a huge shift.

 

[Gillvane]

I think "expect 4k streaming" means they will have the capability to stream 4k and roll it out to some people in places like Kansas City that have the new super high speed Google Fiber and other high density cities that have super high speed internet access, and then those people have to have 4k monitors/TVs.

Ubiquitous 4k streaming in a couple of years? No.

 

[J Davis]

All talk - I'll believe it when I see it. The internet is moving onto mobile devices. More and more consumers are watching on devices with less resolution and do you know what? 90% of them don't give a s*%t about resolution. We have a giant flat screen at home that only gets used when the kids play mario, my wife walks around the house watching greys anatomy or game of thrones on her iPad, and me, I do nearly all my watching on a laptop.

edit: my above rant concerns narrative not sports. Internet streaming for sports coverage is a whole different thing.

 

[adkimery]

The 4k broadcast leap would face the same odds. 4k for televisions would directly compete with lame old high definition that everybody is tired of...

I don't think b'cast will ever do it because it would require a whole sale change over almost as bad as the switch from analog to digital broadcasting. It's not worth the time nor the hassle especially when IP delivery can improve at the drop of a hat by comparison and will continue to dig into b'casting's (and cable's) revenue.

As far as internet based delivery. Show me the business model that comes close to the broadcast, DirecTV, cable world for producers. Do you think a show the caliber of "Game of Thrones" would be produced for internet distribution?

House of Cards on Netflix and HBO has already mentioned publicly that HBO Go could be made available to non-cable/sat subscribers in the future. The change is slow because lots of money and lots of hands are involved but the change is happening.

It might happen but I think 4k will just exist as a choice, not a huge shift.

I think it will exist as a choice too (ex. Netflix currently has 120 encodes for every piece of content it streams, what's a few more for 4K support?) and I think it will take at least 5yrs for it to be a mainstream option. Viewing devices need to hit the mainstream price point, ISPs need more fat, affordable pipes in place, etc.,. YouTube went from 240p to 1080p in 4 years and has supported higher than HD resolutions since 2010 (I think) so we aren't exactly in unprecedented space here.

All talk - I'll believe it when I see it. The internet is moving onto mobile devices. More and more consumers are watching on devices with less resolution and do you know what? 90% of them don't give a s*%t about resolution. We have a giant flat screen at home that only gets used when the kids play mario, my wife walks around the house watching greys anatomy or game of thrones on her iPad, and me, I do nearly all my watching on a laptop.

edit: my above rant concerns narrative not sports. Internet streaming for sports coverage is a whole different thing.

Viewership is expanding to mobile devices, not fleeing from TV. Average TV watching is still measured in hours per day while mobile video is measure in minutes and the trend in tablets is to give them screen resolutions that are beyond HD. 2K or 4K streaming to your wife's iPad (which will probably we watched at arms length) actually makes more sense than 4K to a 60" TV that is probably 10' or 12' away from the couch. But when has quality ever really been a deciding factor w/reagards to mass consumer adaption?? Make it convenient, make it appear superior (4K is 4 times better than HD!1!!!!), make the public want it and they will come.


-Andrew

 

[Gary Huff]

But when has quality ever really been a deciding factor w/reagards to mass consumer adaption?? Make it convenient, make it appear superior (4K is 4 times better than HD!1!!!!), make the public want it and they will come.

Digital video discs were convenient. 3D television was supposedly "superior"...but they couldn't make the public want that.

Convenience trumps everything. Until most people start having 70+ inches in their living room, I don't believe there's going to be much demand for 4k content.

 

[dustylense]

Digital video discs were convenient. 3D television was supposedly "superior"...but they couldn't make the public want that.

Convenience trumps everything. Until most people start having 70+ inches in their living room, I don't believe there's going to be much demand for 4k content.

I've had a 73" set in my den for the past 6 years. 1080 is juuuuuuuust fine.

4K is a marketing ploy, especially for consumers. The first place you will see 4k is in video games. "come on mom, my Playstaion has 4K games. Can we plllllleeeease get this 4K ready LED"? A great deal of the US still watches TV with standard def. How did that 3D fad go with the public?

 

[legrevedotcom]

Why 70+.... See that Seiki TV 50" in 4K for...... 1300 dollars. At that price you'd be bloody stupid getting an HD tv.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736

It might not be Samsung or Sony or whatever, but this just goes to show... it's here, and it's cheap already, so stop questioning the future. Just embrace it and help it move in.

If anyone was a smart patato and had a lot of money, one would right now start an online tv company that completely embraces the idea of 4K above anything else. I guarantee you it will be worth billions in 3 years time.
I know I would if I had the money for it :S

There's absolutely no incentive NOT to move on the 4K world... I've repeated myself again and again and will continue to do so; Current broadcast companies are losing way with the exception of something like Discovery networks who actually seem interested in doing the sensible thing and trying out the new stuff. The ones to rule the world in 3-4 years time will be those who have the guts to make the first move and take a chance, rather than worrying too much about what to do with all the out dated gear in all their bloody OB vans.

Now I'm saying this from a European point of view, because it seems like America, the home of entertainment and IT for some reason can't seem to fathom the value of an extensive and evolved digital infrastructure.
I'm currently getting a 50/5 line for a small price. If I wanted I could boost that to 100/10 for a mere 16 dollars a month and I wouldn't give it a thought.
As it is streaming content is a joy... 4K.... we will adapt if the line bandwidth isn't enough.

It's all about how you sell the idea to the public. If you continue to dwell in nostalgia or ideas of "oh we can't do that... too much trouble" well then yes, the public won't embrace it.

But if YOU embrace it and sell the idea of it, then the public will eat that cookie instead and come along with you.

ALSO... we KNOW that eventually broadcasters are going to be offering 4K content and streaming. The question is.... why not NOW, instead of later.

I know that back 10 years ago when I had a measly 512 kbit line, phone companies were saying "oh no... excisting lines can't carry much faster than 1mbit (or something like that).
Well hey... here we are 10 years later and you know what, those lines are still the same old copper **** that was there 10 years ago, and suddenly the max bandwidth of those lines are 20mbit???

Broadcasters and others, including photographers and videographers, will try to pitch that we need to wait with 4K because they have HUGE investsments in the current tech, in most cases maybe even gear that hasn't fullfilled their ROI. That is the only reason to hold back on 4K.

And also the exact reason why someone new should swoop in for a kill and take over the lead with the new tech. Build it from the bottom, sell the service and ideas to the big production companies and watch it thrive.

Now if someone is in on that idea, give me a shout, I'd love to be involved in that step, because I just can't stand slow progress....

 

[refocusedmedia]

I almost pulled the trigger on a 3D plasma last year to replace my 65" Mitsu DLP. I ended up using my money more wisely, and now I have no desire for a 3D anything. I admit all the marketing and 3D hype almost got me, but thankfully it failed in the end.

As for 4K, I might be willing to upgrade to a 4K TV for a few reasons:

- Quality upscaling from Bluray
- 4K games
- The ability to preview 4K edits
- I'm gonna need a new TV at some point down the road, and if 4K is out and available then I don't see me getting another 1080p set

 

[Gary Huff]

Why 70+.... See that Seiki TV 50" in 4K for...... 1300 dollars. At that price you'd be bloody stupid getting an HD tv. http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7674736

Except it's a terrible knockoff TV. And at 50", are you even going to notice a difference?

It might not be Samsung or Sony or whatever, but this just goes to show... it's here, and it's cheap already, so stop questioning the future. Just embrace it and help it move in.

Except that "embracing it" requires me to throw money around. Screw that.

If anyone was a smart patato and had a lot of money, one would right now start an online tv company that completely embraces the idea of 4K above anything else. I guarantee you it will be worth billions in 3 years time. I know I would if I had the money for it :S

No, because if you had the money, then any financial advisor worth their salt would tell you that you'd probably lose your shirt.

There's absolutely no incentive NOT to move on the 4K world...

Yes there is...I'm not wasting money.

I've repeated myself again and again and will continue to do so; Current broadcast companies are losing way with the exception of something like Discovery networks who actually seem interested in doing the sensible thing and trying out the new stuff. The ones to rule the world in 3-4 years time will be those who have the guts to make the first move and take a chance, rather than worrying too much about what to do with all the out dated gear in all their bloody OB vans.

Wow...do you even have any hard numbers to back any of this up, or is this just from your fantasy world?

As it is streaming content is a joy... 4K.... we will adapt if the line bandwidth isn't enough.

We're not even streaming authentic 1080 yet.

But if YOU embrace it and sell the idea of it, then the public will eat that cookie instead and come along with you.

"How to Win at the Stock Market"
Step 1: Buy Low
Step 2: Sell High
Step 3: PROFIT!!!

That easy. Just how easy it is to say, "Well, just sell it!" History is littered with advertising failures, so it's not quite that easy.

ALSO... we KNOW that eventually broadcasters are going to be offering 4K content and streaming. The question is.... why not NOW, instead of later.

Because it makes little business sense to completely upgrade the broadcast infrastructure so soon after having done it for HD when there's no demand. Seriously, people...I could render out a 4k test from my gear right now...but how would I show it off? There's nothing and the overwhelming vast majority of people don't even have a proper display for it (the Apple Cinema display comes close, but it's not quite there yet). You cannot even begin to argue it. If you had a 4k master right now, please, someone, for the love of god, tell me how you'd post it up here on DVXUser to show off? And which of you could actually play it back on a native display?

Broadcasters and others, including photographers and videographers, will try to pitch that we need to wait with 4K because they have HUGE investsments in the current tech, in most cases maybe even gear that hasn't fullfilled their ROI. That is the only reason to hold back on 4K.

First, Broadcasters are in no hurry to move to 4k because their market is not demanding it. Not even close. Second, photographers? Really? Guess you didn't think that through very well. Third, videographers will push for 4k because the ones that could afford the new cameras will face an uninterested client base and will basically dump 4k shooting on them for free just so they can talk about shooting in 4k, all the while spending post time downrezzing to 1080 for the deliverables (like a lot of the Red projects I've worked on have been).

Do you know how often the Alexa is used to shoot 1080 to SxS?

 

[Ron Evans]

I am just a serious amateur so my views are definitely different from the pro perspective. I view 4K much as I did HDV and will get a suitable camera as soon as available. My story of HDV may be of interest. Back in 2004 I bought an FX1 when they first came out. At the time for a few events I shot I used to rent a Panasonic pro camera shooting DVCPro at the time and which with lens cost close to $26000 new. I bought the FX1 for I think $4500 and never rented the Panasonic again. The apparent quality difference was evident to anyone not for HDV 16x9 but normal downconvert 4x3 SD. For almost 3 years I mainly used the FX1 in SD 4x3 mode to match all the other DV cameras I had at the time and since few had 16x9 sets the output was SD 4x3 anyway !!! When the small DV cameras were replaced with AVCHD cameras I moved the FX1 to 16x9 HDV until it became evident it did not compete with the lower cost AVCHD cameras and I then moved to a NX5U. However for many events I shot HDV with the FX 1 and pan and scanned a 4x3 or 16x9 SD image from the HDV file in a normal SD project giving me on several occasions the effect of a multicamera shoot with 1 camera. I of course have these HDV shoots going back to 2005 that are now of value to me. I am sure any 4K camera would have the same capabilities the FX1 gave me and why I would be a customer for my NX5U replacement with the same capabilities but in 4K. The mockup Sony showed at CES would be just perfect, looked just like a 4K NX5U !!!!

Ron Evans

 

[Gabriel Berube]

Meanwhile, in Canada, we're still stuck with Netflix lite (i.e. in SD), because of outdated monthly data plans. Yay!

 

[adkimery]

Digital video discs were convenient. 3D television was supposedly "superior"...but they couldn't make the public want that.

Convenience trumps everything. Until most people start having 70+ inches in their living room, I don't believe there's going to be much demand for 4k content.

3D presented hurdles to consumers (glasses, headaches, etc.,) that 4K does not. 'Upgrading' to 4K for the consumer will be as simple as buying a 4K TV a 4K video camera or a phone that shoots 4K. The vast majority of people would be fine with 720p HDTVs but they buy 1080p because 1080p is higher resolution and therefore in the average person's mind better quality. Never mind the fact that they will be sitting far enough away from that 36" 1080p TV that they couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p if their life depended on it. I also think companies will just phase out HDTVs the way they phased out SD TVs.

Because it makes little business sense to completely upgrade the broadcast infrastructure so soon after having done it for HD when there's no demand. Seriously, people...I could render out a 4k test from my gear right now...but how would I show it off? There's nothing and the overwhelming vast majority of people don't even have a proper display for it (the Apple Cinema display comes close, but it's not quite there yet). You cannot even begin to argue it. If you had a 4k master right now, please, someone, for the love of god, tell me how you'd post it up here on DVXUser to show off? And which of you could actually play it back on a native display?

I agree that broadcast won't go 4K any time soon (if ever) because of the costs. It would be the analog to digital transition all over again (including consumers getting new TVs as current ATSC receivers would not be compatible with 4K signals... assuming ATSC eventually adapts 4K).

Cable/Sat and streaming are a different story though. Cable/Sat just has to send out new set top boxes to customers that want 4K and streaming, well, those upgrades are nearly invisible to the end user. Is 4K going to become mainstream next year? No. In two years? No. In 5-10yrs? I certainly think so. Look at where consumer technology was in 2003. Look at where streaming technology was in 2007. It has change radically and I don't see why it won't continue to change radically by 2018 and 2023.


-Andrew

 

[Bassman2003]

Then why are we discussing it now? 5-10 years is quite a ways away.

 

[adkimery]

Then why are we discussing it now? 5-10 years is quite a ways away.

Probably the same reason we discuss new technology in general. It's interesting to see what advancements are happening and to speculate on how things will change in the future because of what's happening today.

I think 4K entering the mainstream is at least 5 years out but the tip of the spear is already here.

 

[androbot2084]

The problem is that I had to watch last years Olympics in crummy interlace 1080i which only resolves the equivalent of 540p which is not much better than standard definition. We desperately need an upgrade to 4K.

 

[Bassman2003]

I think you 4k people need to take a breath here. Just because something shows up at NAB as a buzz word does not mean it will be mainstream right away. If you want to watch 4K over a broadcast situation you will be waiting a long time.

Think of the first step towards HD - this was HDV. Basically hugely compressed pseudo HD stuffed into a DV container. The broadcast "pipe" is only so big. 1080p is barely out there on DirecTV pay per view. The whole point is that broadcasters are already filled to the brim with data. The compression levels just keep going up. I do not see any room for 4k in the near term. Yes it will be here some day...

As far as HD not being good enough...? I do not know what you are watching on but I am not longing for detail in television broadcasts here. I just don't see the use of the word "desperately" in any way.

 

[adkimery]

The problem is that I had to watch last years Olympics in crummy interlace 1080i which only resolves the equivalent of 540p which is not much better than standard definition. We desperately need an upgrade to 4K.

1080i can resolve more than 540p. A few years ago I did some tests comparing 1080i30 and 720p60 and, long story short, while viewing a split screen playback they were basically identical but if you stopped playback and did an A/B comparions the 1080i30 was more detailed (the increased detail came at the expensive of some interlace artifacting though).

Even if 1080i=540p that would still be a big step up from SD as SD didn't resolve full raster either.

I think you 4k people need to take a breath here. Just because something shows up at NAB as a buzz word does not mean it will be mainstream right away. If you want to watch 4K over a broadcast situation you will be waiting a long time.

Think of the first step towards HD - this was HDV. Basically hugely compressed pseudo HD stuffed into a DV container. The broadcast "pipe" is only so big. 1080p is barely out there on DirecTV pay per view. The whole point is that broadcasters are already filled to the brim with data. The compression levels just keep going up. I do not see any room for 4k in the near term. Yes it will be here some day...

As far as HD not being good enough...? I do not know what you are watching on but I am not longing for detail in television broadcasts here. I just don't see the use of the word "desperately" in any way.

I see lots of people saying things like "pseudo HD" and I don't get it. I don't remember people calling DV or DVD "pseudo SD" just because neither looked as nice as D-beta. If it has the proper frame rate and frame size as laid out by the ATSC then it's HD, IMO. I agree that OTA b'cast doesn't currently have room to grow which is why I don't think 4K will come to it. OTA is based on ATSC standards of MPEG-2 @ about 19Mbit/s per channel (HDV is MPEG-2 @ 25Mbit/s, for what it's worth). Cable and satellite follow a different standard (Digital Video Broadcast) which gets them nearly double the bandwidth per channel compared to ATSC. All digital broadcasting supports sub channels (13.1, 13.2, 13.3, etc.,.) and cable/sat especially take full advantage of the sub channels to maximize revenue streams but at the cost of image quality. This is why OTA of NBC generally looks better than NBC on cable/sat even though cable/sat have more bandwidth per channel at their disposal.

Both ATSC and DVB have incorporated H.264 into their standards (H.264 is about twice as efficient as MPEG-2) but it requires gear that can support H.264. For cable/sat it's basically a matter of replacing the set-top box their customers currently have with ones that support H.264. For OTA it is more tricky and would require either a new TV that had a tuner supporting H.264 or a separate set-top box that supports H.264. This is another reason why I don't think OTA will go 4K. I haven't even mentioned streaming yet and it has the most flexibility when it comes to adopting new tech. For example, YouTube went from 240p to 1080p in 4 or 5 years and these upgrades were largely transparent to the end user.

I do agree that we are in the fledging stages of 4K (similar to '03/'04 w/regards to HD). JVC was first out the door with an HD camera and they were also first out the door with a 4K camera. Sony released the FX1 in '04 and about 5ys later everything from stills cameras to cell phones were recording HD video and HD is streaming from sources like Netflix and YouTube. I think "some day" is going to get here quicker than people think. It's not a foregone conclusion that it will happen in the same time frame as HD but I wouldn't be surprised if it did. Of course the 4K you get in your home is not going to look as pristine as the 4K you see in a theater or the 4K coming off a RED camera but hasn't that drop off in quality as ways been the case?

I look at 4K as another example of our industry expanding. We are moving away from the new replacing the old (HD over SD, DVD over VHS, cassette over 8-track, etc.,) to the new coexisting with the old. We have many choices now where as in the past we had very few. Am I going to make time for my 'appointment TV' or just DVR it? Do I want to watch TV on my big TV or on my tablet? Do I want to stream a movie or pop in a Blu-ray? Do I want to pay extra for the 4K stream or watch the regular HD stream?

I don't know about everyone else but I find myself watching a mix of OTA (I don't have cable/sat), streaming and DVD/blu-ray on a combination of my computer, mobile device and TV. I love being able to chose which mix of services and devices best meshes with how and when I want to watch something.


-Andrew

 

[Ron Evans]

The problem is that I had to watch last years Olympics in crummy interlace 1080i which only resolves the equivalent of 540p which is not much better than standard definition. We desperately need an upgrade to 4K.

It depends on the display you watch on. 1080i has to be deinterlaced to view on a LCD or plasma and the quality of what you see is directly dependent on how good this deinterlacing is done in each TV. I high quality interpolating display of 120 or 240hz will give as good an image as full 60p. I have a Sony 240hz display and I cannot see the difference between a direct feed of 60i or 60p from my Sony CX700 or Sony NX30 over HDMI. The set interpolates the missing fields and also creates even more full frames in the process. I normally shoot 60p in those cameras but did the test just to see. Remember 60i is the same temporal motion as 60p just half the vertical resolution. The timecode for 60i is 29.94fps, timecode is incremented every 2 fields ( 2 fields =1 frame , 59.97 fields per sec =29.94 frames per sec) however a unique picture is displayed 59.97 times a sec. The source is fields and the LCD or plasma display has to turn this into full frames on a progressive display. A CRT did not have to do this but just displayed the fields as part of the whole design process of interlace TV. For colour NTSC TV 59.97 unique pictures a sec. Our eyes filled in the blanks with help from the CRT phosphors !!!

Ron Evans