Yep, just imagine how bad the compression artefacts will be if they double the resolution but keep storage/network costs the same.
Comment on Big Surprise—Nobody Wants 8K TVs
MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I don’t want 8K. I want my current 4K streaming to have less pixilation. I want my sound to be less compressed. Make them closer to Ultra BluRay disc quality before forcing 8K down our throats… unless doing that gives us better 4K overall.
Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz 2 days ago
Typhoon@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
Doubling the dimensions make it 4x the data.
LodeMike@lemmy.today 1 day ago
That’s not true for compressed video. It doubles the bitrate for the same quality on modern codecs (265, av1, etc.)
IhaveCrabs111@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Not if you only double it in one direction. Checkmate.
Anivia@feddit.org 1 day ago
Increasing resolution but keeping the same bitrate still improves the image quality, unless the bitrate was extremely low in the first place. Especially with modern codecs
TrojanRoomCoffeePot@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Bingo, if I were still collecting DVDs/HD DVDs like I was in the 90’s, it might be an issue. Streaming services and other online media routed through the TV can hardly buffer to keep up with play speed at 720, so what the fuck would I want with a TV that can show a higher quality of picture which it can also not display without stutter-buffering the whole of a 1:30:00 movie?
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 day ago
Streaming services and other online media routed through the TV can hardly buffer to keep up with play speed at 720
This is a problem with your internet/network, not the TV.
ramble81@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Yeah 4K means jack if it’s compressed to hell, if you end up with pixels being repeated 4x to save on storage and bandwidth, you’ve effectively just recreated 1080p without upscaling.
Just like internet. I’d rather have guaranteed latency than 5Gbps.