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

T

THoff

Member With Answers
Just saw this on another forum:
You don't think this push for the 4K format and ultra high-definition by the film studios and TV manufacturers is an attempt to wall out streaming services like Netflix? That's a lot of info to stream.On the contrary. Streaming will be the best way to get the 4K picture into people's homes. That's because of the challenges involved in upgrading broadcast technologies and the fact that it isn't anticipated within the Blu-ray disc standard. Clearly we have much work to do with the compression and decode capability, but we expect to be delivering 4K within a year or two with at least some movies and then over time become an important source of 4K. 4K will likely be streamed first before it goes anywhere else. To that point, our own original House of Cards was shot in 4K. It's being mastered in full HD, but the raw footage, or a good chunk of it, was shot in 4K, and we hope to have some House of Cards 4K encodes later this year.
Click to expand...
For the full article, please visit http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/14/4...hunt-expect-4k-streaming-within-a-year-or-two
 
Sure, the top 1% will have 4K but the average consumer will not buy 4K UDTVs until prices fall to todays 1080p HDTV price range of under $1,000 for a 60" and that is more than one to two years away.
 
What I think what is very... well, scary... is what he is saying about frame rates, "I think that the pixel count is easily identifiable and prints out on a glossy brochure and fits nicely into marketing material, so the industry has pushed hard on upping that number, but they've missed a beat in terms of figuring out that frame rate matters more than pixel count." It looks like the mover and shakers in the entertainment industry are bound and determined to force HFR down our throats.
 
If things go HFR in the indie market I'm gonna quit :P

Either way 4K is definitely coming eventually. It'll be interesting to see what content is still mastered in 2K in a few years. Things are gonna have to loosen a bit. You'll see plenty of blown up content. Everybody isn't ready to go and re-master everything in 4K just yet I think. Just my opinion of course...we'll see what happens.
 
I don't see Netflix as taking a lead in this. As a long time Netflix customer they really push their streaming service but, when you look closer over 60% of their library is on DVD and not available for streaming. Much of their streaming material is pretty old stuff. They seem to talk a bigger game than what they deliver.
 
Nice to see more companies wanting to jump the band wagon.... I'm a hands down proponent of this development and I can still easily see this happening within the next year. If you build it, people will buy it.....

In regards to bandwidth... I just got bumped to 50 / 5 mbit for free in my private home. The Danish government wants to improve the internet within 5 years and more or less guarantee 100 / 30 mbit for everyone in Denmark. The EU wants to do the same.
I hate to say it, I know America isn't the fastest country in evolving tech-wise, but hey... you guys don't get to dictate the future :) Europe is a huge market as well, and once the smoking internet bandwidth has hit everyone, someone will be there to utilize it to its fullest. I can't wait to get rid of that god awful 4:3.... really, I almost feel like switching channels when I see that format, welcome to the future, get on the train dammit!

And about the HD tv thing, it's not about those who haven't bought the HD tv thing yet. If they haven't got an HD tv yet, they wont be buying an ultra HD tv within the next 4-5 years anyways.... those are not the people who companies should be targetting, let those people fall behind and out of the game all together.
It's those people who see the reason and sensibility to stay updated and follow progress rather then sticking to something they trust and know. Granted, I won't buy a 4K tv if the price is more than 1500 dollars, but once it gets below that point, I see no reason why I shouldn't get one.

After that, as a consumre I'll start adressing the companies who actually DID DO the smart thing and go 4K with delivery and completely ditch those who still think SD is even acceptable and slowly begin to look for 4K alternatives to my favourite HD things.
More people will follow suit, the 4K companies will start noticing an increasing interest for their products, the HD companies will start to notice a decreasing interest for their products and such is the way of progress that if you want to survice you HAVE TO follow the front runners and offer the same thing. If you can't... well, maybe you shouldn't have gotten in the race in the first place then....

This is not about wether Netflix can deliver it... Have you thought about that maybe the reason the package contents from Netflix at the moment is so mediocre might be because they are developing the 4K concept in the background and thus can't be bothered to put more effort into HD that is sensible in the long run?
At least that is what I would do.... spend my efforts on what will be most interesting in the future rather than evolving an already outdated concept that really just took too long to get running (HD in case you don't know what I mean).

All the errors and short comings that all the companies have made in the HD race will be adressed in the 4K race, they just need to adjust to the amount of data streams needed. And someone will adjust....
 
IMHO 4k is the new 3d.

We all know, it takes - at least - a 6k sensor to get anywhere near 4k of information.
But only if you record uncompressed/raw, since any compression would throw away resolution.

Let's say you record uncompressed/raw 4k from a 6k sensor.
The only person that is gonna see 4k in full glory, is the editor, suppose he has a 4k monitor and hardware that can handle 4k in real time.
At some point the whole shebang needs to be heavily compressed for delivery and usually it gets compressed a second time for broadcast.
That would reduce the real resolution (though it's still 4k nominal) to less than 2k.

Call me a heretic, but what's the whole point of 4k at home?
 
Mark Williams said:
Much of their streaming material is pretty old stuff. They seem to talk a bigger game than what they deliver.
Click to expand...

The lack of "brand new" content is due to ham-handed studio restrictions, but even still they have the largest streaming library of any other provider. Second place is not even close. There was an article I saw (which I can't seem to find) that compared the quality of their library to other major providers (like comparing the AFI top 100 list, IMDb top 250, etc.) and again Netflix came out on top.

They might not be perfect, but they are by far the best option available.
 
legrevedotcom said:
All the errors and short comings that all the companies have made in the HD race will be adressed in the 4K race, they just need to adjust to the amount of data streams needed. And someone will adjust....
Click to expand...

What are the errors of the HD race? Your post while excited, talks as if SD is still the norm while waiting for something decent like 4K. HD looks great and is the norm now. I do not see a waning interest for 1080p movies from people just to get 2,000 more pixels. A lot of people are happy with DVD! I think the larger market will see it as techno stuff and keep what they have until what it is is cheap. Just my opinion :)
 
Those giant companies can't get their tummies full enough. Always pushing for new formats and everyone is supposed to jump boat right away.

It took how many years for broadcasters to switch to HD? 4K might be a specialty flavor but i don't think broadcasters will invest in the infrastructure to support it (yet). It may take several years and most of the market is happy with their DVD/HD standards...so it will take a long time i think.
 
I have an OTA for free local HD viewing and both Netfix DVD and Streaming subscriptions. I am happy with the video quality of both as it looks very good to me. I need to see something in 4K on a 46" device to judge if the difference is significant.
 
Postmaster said:
IMHO 4k is the new 3d.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. 4K is going to be the next big hook to sell cameras and TVs but unlike 3D it doesn't require special glasses or give people headaches.


Gary Huff said:
To sell more TVs!
Click to expand...

Exatly.


samtheman said:
It took how many years for broadcasters to switch to HD? 4K might be a specialty flavor but i don't think broadcasters will invest in the infrastructure to support it (yet). It may take several years and most of the market is happy with their DVD/HD standards...so it will take a long time i think.
Click to expand...

The move from SD to HD was also a move from analog transmission to digital, a move from 4:3 to 16:9 and a movie from 480i NTSC to an plethora of formats under ATSC. There was a lot going on which is one reason it took so long. The move to 4K is just a move to more pixels. Broadcasters are not going to make the switch to 4K though, IMO. It will cost too much money and b'cast is shrinking, not growing. 4K will come via streaming (and possibly Blu-ray). Streaming is the growing distribution model and it does not have the same infrastructure limitations as broadcast. Everything is just data on the internet where as broadcast gear is specialized hardware that requires specific signals in order to work.

Sony says the movies in its 4K streaming service will be about 100gigs each which is obviously way to big for current mass consumption but better compression methods and growing broadband adaption will make 4K delivery common in the next 8yrs or so I think. I also think HD and 4K will live side by side for a long time.


-Andrew
 
adkimery said:
Yes and no. 4K is going to be the next big hook to sell cameras and TVs but unlike 3D it doesn't require special glasses or give people headaches.




Exatly.




The move from SD to HD was also a move from analog transmission to digital, a move from 4:3 to 16:9 and a movie from 480i NTSC to an plethora of formats under ATSC. There was a lot going on which is one reason it took so long. The move to 4K is just a move to more pixels. Broadcasters are not going to make the switch to 4K though, IMO. It will cost too much money and b'cast is shrinking, not growing. 4K will come via streaming (and possibly Blu-ray). Streaming is the growing distribution model and it does not have the same infrastructure limitations as broadcast. Everything is just data on the internet where as broadcast gear is specialized hardware that requires specific signals in order to work.

Sony says the movies in its 4K streaming service will be about 100gigs each which is obviously way to big for current mass consumption but better compression methods and growing broadband adaption will make 4K delivery common in the next 8yrs or so I think. I also think HD and 4K will live side by side for a long time.


-Andrew
Click to expand...

Spot on, excellent post.
 
Imagine how small the fonts will be on your new 4k computer monitor. I have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor and they are pretty small already! I am just not on the 4k train. Maybe in 8 years.
 
this is going to bring to a head even faster who controls bandwidth and what premiums will be charged. The cable companies are already considering a netflix charge for high bandwidth users and as revenues decline for traditional television and commercial advertising, it is going to be an ugly fight for who controls the internet visa vi the pipeline. Regardless 4K streaming is going to cost consumers more than just their netflix subscription and the cost of the 4K tv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top