Why There's No 4K Netflix Or Amazon On A PC

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Why can't you get 4K Netflix or Amazon on your PC or Mac? Because you are all a bunch of crooks.

That's right, Amazons’ new Ultra HD streaming service won’t work on a PC or Mac. Even worse, Amazon appears to be following Netflix’s lead by leaving Mac and PC users stranded with pedestrian 1080p video despite the hardware being ready for it.
Click to expand...
 
Because as we all know, no one has an HDCP stripper and a capture card.

Well, I guess Netflix & Amazon are right in a way. This way you keep the number of sources stealing limited to people willing to add $1000 of extra hardware when most people have laptops incapable of such things, and a ton of other people have cheap desktops.
 
It takes one person to figure out a workaround, however convoluted, to get it on "the cloud". They did this crap with DVD and BluRay, and it was all ripped on day one. When will they learn that screwing over your paying customers isn't helping, and if anything will simply encourage them to download the 4K content for free... *facepalm*
 
So what is the reason? Richard Doherty, research director at the technology-assessment and marketing-analysis firm Envisioneering, is pretty sure this is just another means of DRM.
Click to expand...

Or quite possibly Silverlight doesn't support 4K video...DUR. Richard Doherty is an idiot.
 
You know, it's because of things like this that pirating exists.
It's like they want you to comply, but you have to bend over and get f*cked first, then they get mad when you aren't thankful for them f*cking you and having the blessing of complying.

I hope Comcast and Netflix choke each other to deth. DETH! :D

Trancers5SuddenDeth-PosterArt.jpg
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Or quite possibly Silverlight doesn't support 4K video...DUR. Richard Doherty is an idiot.
Click to expand...

SL and Flash are both capable of supporting 4k, that's not the problem. There's no way to encrypt the stream from video output until the next version of HDCP arrives. It's an issue of DRM.
 
Hard for me to be concerned about no 4k support when my best available internet speed barely will do 720p.
 
to be honest, 4K using H265 really isn't an improvement over H264 1080p

This is because the error delta allowed on a macro block is bigger.

As many studies have shown, the law of diminishing returns applies to video/image resolution too. If you sit at a fixed distance from your video display device eventually you will no longer be able to distinguish the difference between 720p, 1080p and 4K resolutions due to your eye’s inability to resolve tiny pixels from a certain distance. Ipso facto, as the video resolution goes up your eyes become less likely to distinguish compression artifacts too – which means the video compression can afford to get sloppier.
Click to expand...

src: http://blogs.iis.net/alexzam/archive/2013/01/28/h-265-hevc-ratification-and-4k-video-streaming.aspx

To be honest most people don't realize your eyes can't make out pixels on 4K video unless your face is right in it. And then you can't enjoy the entire picture at once. 4K is marketing hype for the most part.
 
heatlesssun said:
I stand corrected. However Netflix has tons of players for various devices and platforms. There's HTML 5 and I know that H.265 can be done in Windows 8 modern apps as VLC supports it in there app. The problem here isn't with players.
Click to expand...

HTML5 doesn't support HDCP for those hidef formats. The proposed fix got slammed by the HTML steering committee as it required plugins.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Or quite possibly Silverlight doesn't support 4K video...DUR. Richard Doherty is an idiot.
Click to expand...

That's a huge part. Another, how many have 4K monitors? I don't, though I have started looking at availability and price.

So my first question is;

"Do any of the streaming boxes like Western Digital's TV Live and Google's Cromecast or the FireTV work with 4K?"
 
DigitalGriffin said:
to be honest, 4K using H265 really isn't an improvement over H264 1080p

This is because the error delta allowed on a macro block is bigger.



src: http://blogs.iis.net/alexzam/archive/2013/01/28/h-265-hevc-ratification-and-4k-video-streaming.aspx

To be honest most people don't realize your eyes can't make out pixels on 4K video unless your face is right in it. And then you can't enjoy the entire picture at once. 4K is marketing hype for the most part.
Click to expand...

Wrong on every last point, sir. The bit rate is a lot higher so the errors don't happen as often while you gain a very large boost to fidelity thanks to quadrupling the resolution.

Your eyes can, depending on your eyesight, see extremely high resolutions. The ultimate goal is to get indistinguishable pixels for clarity, but we're nowhere near that just yet. You also can't arbitrarily claim that the resolution isn't visible without stating both a screen size and seating distance. A 4 inch screen at 20 feet? Yeah you won't see he pixels. But a normal display at a few feet, or a 60, 70 inch screen at 8 to 12 feet? Easily still, as well as aliasing. You might want to learn more about vision before making claims that have no scientific basis.
 
4k should be accessible on every device because the quality of a 4k stream is what a 1080p stream is supposed to look like. Well, that's my experience on YouTube content, anyway.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Wrong on every last point, sir. The bit rate is a lot higher so the errors don't happen as often while you gain a very large boost to fidelity thanks to quadrupling the resolution.

Your eyes can, depending on your eyesight, see extremely high resolutions. The ultimate goal is to get indistinguishable pixels for clarity, but we're nowhere near that just yet. You also can't arbitrarily claim that the resolution isn't visible without stating both a screen size and seating distance. A 4 inch screen at 20 feet? Yeah you won't see he pixels. But a normal display at a few feet, or a 60, 70 inch screen at 8 to 12 feet? Easily still, as well as aliasing. You might want to learn more about vision before making claims that have no scientific basis.
Click to expand...

Word.

Like the old FPS argument the same people like to make.
 
From what I see on NewEgg, most of the 4K monitors available cost as much as a Smart TV so I could just call it a wash and the ones that are smaller and cheaper are getting small enough the 4K just isn't really that much better then 1080P.

You need a 4K display to get the real benefit of 4K streaming. The cost of a 4K monitor is as much as a 4K TV that supports 4K streaming from NetFlix, and Netflix actually has a list of which TVs are supported so I am betting there are 4K TVs that are not currently supported, buy smart.
 
Seems like this could go the other way, gives pirates a reason to keep pirating rather than sign up for a cheap service. Are they admitting that their streaming devices are not secure? I mean we all know they are not, I mean heck one reason to buy a firetv is just to throw XBMC on there.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Wrong on every last point, sir. The bit rate is a lot higher so the errors don't happen as often while you gain a very large boost to fidelity thanks to quadrupling the resolution.

Your eyes can, depending on your eyesight, see extremely high resolutions. The ultimate goal is to get indistinguishable pixels for clarity, but we're nowhere near that just yet. You also can't arbitrarily claim that the resolution isn't visible without stating both a screen size and seating distance. A 4 inch screen at 20 feet? Yeah you won't see he pixels. But a normal display at a few feet, or a 60, 70 inch screen at 8 to 12 feet? Easily still, as well as aliasing. You might want to learn more about vision before making claims that have no scientific basis.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I can see the pixels on my 55" 1080p TV at 15 feet away when watching a movie on Blu-ray, no matter what type of encoding was used. How people can say that there is no discernible difference is baffling to me.
 
jpm100 said:
Its easy to make that claim when hardly anyone has seen it. I think people will decide for themselves.

And, nobody is putting a gun to your head to upgrade.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I was seeing it on display at Best Buy on Black Friday and any other day of the week and it looks pretty freaking sharp to me. Almost sold my cheap assed wife on buying one.
 
Megalith said:
4k should be accessible on every device because the quality of a 4k stream is what a 1080p stream is supposed to look like. Well, that's my experience on YouTube content, anyway.
Click to expand...

Are you watching on a 4K display?
 
The way this is worded seems to point the blame at Netflix and Amazon ... isn't the ability to stream at certain resolutions and on certain platforms exclusively at the discretion of the studio who owns the rights to the programming ... they determine whether 4K streaming is permitted, not Amazon or Netflix

Personally I would like to see the government force the switch to 4K like they did with HD ... but I doubt the government has the stomach to do that a second time ... a switch to 4K would be a tremendous boon to the the electronics and internet industries and hopefully we can get consumers to make the jump sooner than later ... I am hoping to add a 4K TV early next year ... I don't really have a PC powerful enough for 4K gaming yet so I will probably hold off on that conversion for a little longer
 
GoldenTiger said:
Wrong on every last point, sir. The bit rate is a lot higher so the errors don't happen as often while you gain a very large boost to fidelity thanks to quadrupling the resolution.

Your eyes can, depending on your eyesight, see extremely high resolutions. The ultimate goal is to get indistinguishable pixels for clarity, but we're nowhere near that just yet. You also can't arbitrarily claim that the resolution isn't visible without stating both a screen size and seating distance. A 4 inch screen at 20 feet? Yeah you won't see he pixels. But a normal display at a few feet, or a 60, 70 inch screen at 8 to 12 feet? Easily still, as well as aliasing. You might want to learn more about vision before making claims that have no scientific basis.
Click to expand...

That seating distance versus resolution versus screen size all boils down to Eye Resolution in arc seconds. If I pixel is below the arc second resolution of the eye, you can't see it. And arc second eye resolution is based on all spectra of visible color.

Believe me I've done that math. anything further then 6' seating on a 120" screen is a waste above 1080p. If you sit closer then that, you are really outside Dolby and THX viewing standards. (In other words, you can't possibly see the whole screen at once based on a 50mm eye standard.)

Like I said, marketing hype. The electronics industry needed to push more TV's and projectors. 3D flopped. 4K was their next "Gotta have it" feature.

Is 4K sharper then 1080p? well dur yes But you have to be up front and personal side by side to see the diff. And believe me I've seen the best there is offered in 4K/1080p

In fact I would pay money for someone sitting at an proper seating distance to tell the difference between the two.
 
Then what's the deal with the new TVs? How are they pulling the magic? I walked in the first time and the sharpness and brilliance was certainly beyond anything I had seen before so what's the deal?
 
kbrickley said:
The way this is worded seems to point the blame at Netflix and Amazon ... isn't the ability to stream at certain resolutions and on certain platforms exclusively at the discretion of the studio who owns the rights to the programming ... they determine whether 4K streaming is permitted, not Amazon or Netflix
Click to expand...

Yeah that would be my assumption as well, since it has always been the studios/rights holders being dragged kicking and screaming into each new iteration of digital delivery of content. Although Intel developed HDCP, movie studios made it clear they would never let out "unprotected" HD content so there was basically no future in digital content on computers (e.g., the things Intel puts their chips in) without some form of digital protection. If DRM is the issue now then I imagine it's the people who own the digital rights who are actually creating this arbitrary limitation.

Since when has Amazon, for instance, cared a whit about the profit margins of license holders (e.g., publishers?) If they could sell you 4K, they would.
 
lcpiper said:
Then what's the deal with the new TVs? How are they pulling the magic? I walked in the first time and the sharpness and brilliance was certainly beyond anything I had seen before so what's the deal?
Click to expand...

I couldn't answer without knowing your viewing conditions (ie: Distance and source) and how the TV's were calibrated.

For example: TV mfg's like to push up contrast and brightness on edges to create a sense of higher definition and "pop."
 
DigitalGriffin said:
That seating distance versus resolution versus screen size all boils down to Eye Resolution in arc seconds. If I pixel is below the arc second resolution of the eye, you can't see it. And arc second eye resolution is based on all spectra of visible color.

Believe me I've done that math. anything further then 6' seating on a 120" screen is a waste above 1080p. If you sit closer then that, you are really outside Dolby and THX viewing standards. (In other words, you can't possibly see the whole screen at once based on a 50mm eye standard.)

Like I said, marketing hype. The electronics industry needed to push more TV's and projectors. 3D flopped. 4K was their next "Gotta have it" feature.

Is 4K sharper then 1080p? well dur yes But you have to be up front and personal side by side to see the diff. And believe me I've seen the best there is offered in 4K/1080p

In fact I would pay money for someone sitting at an proper seating distance to tell the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

You sir need to go see an eye doctor and put your math pencil down. 4K is not 3D. Two completely different techs. One was a foreseeable bad experiment with current technology, the other is a much-needed evolution in getting us one step closer to realism and immersion. Let me guess, you were one of the ones who said 1080p was undetectable by the human eye?
Wash, rinse and repeat. This happens every time. "720p and 1080p are virtually identical to the human eye!"
 
Brahmzy said:
You sir need to go see an eye doctor and put your math pencil down. 4K is not 3D. Two completely different techs. One was a foreseeable bad experiment with current technology, the other is a much-needed evolution in getting us one step closer to realism and immersion. Let me guess, you were one of the ones who said 1080p was undetectable by the human eye?
Wash, rinse and repeat. This happens every time. "720p and 1080p are virtually identical to the human eye!"
Click to expand...

RIF...
 
DigitalGriffin said:
I couldn't answer without knowing your viewing conditions (ie: Distance and source) and how the TV's were calibrated.

For example: TV mfg's like to push up contrast and brightness on edges to create a sense of higher definition and "pop."
Click to expand...

Ummm, no, they always do that. Been playing those games for a long time. It doesn't explain why I walk in and see a display so utterly and completely beyond anything I have ever experienced. I remember a Harry Potter display video and fish swimming in a stream on blueray but this is well beyond that. Seeing a video concert where all the people on stage as well as everyone in the seats watching are clear and defined. This on 65" displays from a distance of roughly 7' give or take.

If they were pumping up the previous technology for wow factor and this is beyond that, then it looks to me like the base technology must still be better then before.

At the same time I am not fooled into thinking standard 1080P and my normal Netflix streams are going to look like what I was seeing. The source has to catch up. Until it's there, no real reason to buy now.
 
I can see part of the desire and resistence is that downloading 4K regularly is nearly impractical. It would need to be dumbed down to 1080p. I would look for a system with great upsampling
 
jpm100 said:
I can see part of the desire and resistence is that downloading 4K regularly is nearly impractical. It would need to be dumbed down to 1080p. I would look for a system with great upsampling
Click to expand...

That's why physical media and lossless audio still rules. Ripped to and played from NAS, of course.
IMO 4K BD distribution will have much slower adoption, as the fact remains, most folks just don't have the room or desire to stick a 70"+ TV in the living room, no matter how affordable the large sets get. They just upgraded to 1080p BD to accompany their huge 46" screens from 15ft viewing distances and are wondering what 1080p did for them.
 
Once again Hollywood is trying to delay the advancement of technology. Netflix and Amazon need to keep making their own content, and do away with Hollywood altogether.
 
BladeVenom said:
Once again Hollywood is trying to delay the advancement of technology. Netflix and Amazon need to keep making their own content, and do away with Hollywood altogether.
Click to expand...

With a major Hollywood film coming in at 100 million or more in costs (rumors are the next Bond film is looking at 300 million :eek: ) I wouldn't hold my breath on Hollywood dropping out of the equation just yet ... neither Amazon nor Netflix has the billions it would take to start consistently producing their own new content ... and not everyone has access to the millions needed to make TV shows and movies without accessing the studio money

We also need to push for more aggressive infrastructure improvements if we want to stream everything at 4K resolutions (or higher, since 8K is just beyond the horizon) ... we need to make sure that both the end user pipes and all the Tier 1 internet backbone companies can support the infrastructure speeds to support that resolution ;)
 
Ducman69 said:
It takes one person to figure out a workaround, however convoluted, to get it on "the cloud". They did this crap with DVD and BluRay, and it was all ripped on day one. When will they learn that screwing over your paying customers isn't helping, and if anything will simply encourage them to download the 4K content for free... *facepalm*
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding. How many try to record anything off Amazon or Netflix? :confused: Heck, I can* download a 15-20gb encoded bluray rip in less time that it takes to rip and encode it myself. If people want to pirate, they are going to do so, unless it is literally impossible for ANYONE to rip the content -- and since we know that will never happen, it's a giant waste.

Although toss me into the camp of "4K is unnecessary for 99% of people's setups" and so I'm not too worried about this either way.


*not that I would, of course
 
DigitalGriffin; For example: TV mfg's like to push up contrast and brightness on edges to create a sense of higher definition and "pop."[/QUOTE said:
This right here is how so many people were sold on LED back light LCD screens rather than buying the much superior Plasma displays.
I love my Panasonic 1080p plasma and I don't even have the best of Panasonic's last gen displays before they shut down their production lines for them.

Kiba is sad plasmas are goin bye bye....truly. Here's hoping OLED HDR displays get as good and cheap as plasma did, and soon!
Click to expand...
 
This kind of "clusterfuckery" is the exact reason why I do not go out of my way to maintain a Netflix , or Hulu subscription and though I have Amazon Prime (primarily for the overnight shipping) I don't see myself using Amazon video too often (especially considering how much content still is priced a la carte!). These kind of decisions are infuriating. For instance, look at the new AmazonFire TV. I thought it would an affordable, flexible device adding Amazon, Hulu, Netflix etc... and other content streams, alongside "normal" features of a "media streamer box"....like playing files hosted on a LAN! However, this was not to be - FireTV didn't allow you to watch .mkv encoded 1080p content with subtitles from my own server, the way my Ouya kitted out with XBMC does...or even the 5+ year old WDTV that I bought for my parents! Of course, the reason for this isn't technical, its business - the attempt to lock you into a handful of controllable revenue streams and that's where any potential funds I'd spend in their direction are shut forever.

I've never been a fan of how Netflix is restrictive when it comes to their streaming. For instance, gaining content to 1080p HD content while using their Android app was difficult, for a time. I really hate how they use Silverlight etc... on Windows and that trying to access their service on Linux is a huge issue. Even if you manage to do so, you can't watch on any browser of your choice, because there is only a proprietary pepperAPI plugin which essentially means you have to use Chrome (or an emulated form of Silverlight and a user-agent spoof). All of this, because of DRM garbage. There's zero reason that Netflix and any other streaming media company couldn't just use HTML5 video... hell, with the latest "hook" for DRM included in the spec, they can't even bitch about that any longer.

I really have zero sympathy for the studios or streaming services, especially with this 4K deal. They have the potential to say "Hey, look what we've got! Higher resolution goodness! We'll even sell it to you much, much cheaper than putting it on a disc and we'll make it easy for you to enjoy it!", which would lead to real revenue gains. Of course, the MPAA cartel is going the other direction and caring more about faux-losses than real gains, as they have always done. It should be the easiest thing in the world for a PC user, regardless of their operating system, to be able to use their browser/plug in etc...and select the full assortment of resolutions available, including new 4K. Telling us "Sorry, you need to buy a new monitor/special TV" however? Forget it.

Enough of this. If they want to make some real progress, the need to make it easier, more convenient, using technical open means etc..and stop allowing the fear of piracy to make the experience worse for all your users. They have to know by now that one the major elements driving piracy is this exact behavior!
 
Ducman69 said:
It takes one person to figure out a workaround, however convoluted, to get it on "the cloud". They did this crap with DVD and BluRay, and it was all ripped on day one. When will they learn that screwing over your paying customers isn't helping, and if anything will simply encourage them to download the 4K content for free... *facepalm*
Click to expand...

If it's not on the PC and people want it on the PC - they will go for the pirate download. They know it's not legit, but they are willing to pay for it if it was available - it's just not available through legit means. It's possible and they are able to do it, they just don't. To prevent piracy. Which causes people to find a workaround and rip it and post it online to share with others...

This is one reason piracy got worse than it should have. There is no legitimate ways, but it's easy peasy to just download it for free. Eventually, the torrents/Napster/Kazaa/Usenet method became commonplace and it's the new way to get things. If Netflix and Amazon were to push the 4K to users and make it easily accessible, people would stay legit for the most part (you'll never get everyone to do it).

They lose customers due to the lack of options that they could easily provide. They do lose sales, but they aren't selling the product.
 
rhouck said:
Although toss me into the camp of "4K is unnecessary for 99% of people's setups" and so I'm not too worried about this either way.
Click to expand...

People said the same for 1080p vs 720p. But, having the market for 1080p made it grow faster and be adopted faster. Screens got bigger and better. Things were optimized for 1080p. I'm all for 4K. May not make a big difference now (it's noticeable, but not a huge difference with smaller screens), but in 5 years when the 100" 4K LCD screen is on your wall, it will. Or more people will adopt a projector and a 135"+ screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top