Soldato
Yeah that's right, I know someone that works at a lab, can't remember what film it was but they were scanning it at 16K 16bit, so it was a GB per frame, 24GB of data per second!
Last edited:
Streaming Data - How much does it actually cost?
- Thread starter Troezar
- Start date
Who said you can't future proof.
I'd heard they were now scanning at 16k but couldn't find much on it. That will be good for a very long time to come.
I think the other thing often forgotten is viewing distance. 4K is no better than 1080p if you sit too far back from the screen.
A couple of points. A lot of the discussion here has focused on the resolution being 4X that of 1080p. IMO, @Mr_Sukebe hit the nail on the head.
4K uses a far more efficient CODEC than 1080p, and so in terms of data storage and streaming bandwidth it's about 2.5X the bandwidth required to store and send UHD. However, because it's a different CODEC (H.265 vs H.264) then I'm guessing that the services do need to store files in both versions since there'll still be some devices around that can't decode H.265.
Honestly though, I believe that these costs are a minor consideration. The driver here is supply and demand. Services charge what they can. For example, Sky still charges extra for HD at a time when nearly all new TVs are 4K.
4K uses a far more efficient CODEC than 1080p, and so in terms of data storage and streaming bandwidth it's about 2.5X the bandwidth required to store and send UHD. However, because it's a different CODEC (H.265 vs H.264) then I'm guessing that the services do need to store files in both versions since there'll still be some devices around that can't decode H.265.
Honestly though, I believe that these costs are a minor consideration. The driver here is supply and demand. Services charge what they can. For example, Sky still charges extra for HD at a time when nearly all new TVs are 4K.
Totally agree, hence I won't pay extra for 4K streaming content, at that point I wait and buy the better physical version. If it's just a TV show I'm not that bothered. Sky really take the michael charging for HD, SD is unwatchable to me on a decent 4K TV. I can see a bit realignment coming in the streaming space. Too many players with too little content and charging too much, soon to include adverts. I've looked around three separate streaming channels recently and struggled to find anything worth watching or that I hadn't seen before.A couple of points. A lot of the discussion here has focused on the resolution being 4X that of 1080p. IMO, @Mr_Sukebe hit the nail on the head.
4K uses a far more efficient CODEC than 1080p, and so in terms of data storage and streaming bandwidth it's about 2.5X the bandwidth required to store and send UHD. However, because it's a different CODEC (H.265 vs H.264) then I'm guessing that the services do need to store files in both versions since there'll still be some devices around that can't decode H.265.
Honestly though, I believe that these costs are a minor consideration. The driver here is supply and demand. Services charge what they can. For example, Sky still charges extra for HD at a time when nearly all new TVs are 4K.