NETFLIX 4K is here....

[Stacey Spears]

Frank Glencairn]This is what your glorious 4k footy (frame from a moving crane shot - 200% crop) looks like, when delivered at 15Mbps by Netflix.

4k Blu-ray is currently looking to support up to 60 Mbps, but there is a push to move that to 100 Mbps for 60p content. HEVC encoders are in their infancy.

 

[Michel Hafner]

This is what your glorious 4k footy (frame from a moving crane shot - 200% crop) looks like, when delivered at 15Mbps by Netflix.

Does anybody think, that there is 4k of image information in there?

No, but which rate did Redray use?

 

[Jarred Land]

No, but which rate did Redray use?

REDRAY @ 9Mbps blows the doors off of what they are using here. But just remember, REDRAY is a very specific secure hardware decoder for professional applications, This Netflix rollout needs to work for everyone.

 

[Paul Harb]

ka ka

This is what your glorious 4k footy (frame from a moving crane shot - 200% crop) looks like, when delivered at 15Mbps by Netflix.

Does anybody think, that there is 4k of image information in there?

 

[Eric Haase]

REDRAY @ 9Mbps blows the doors off of what they are using here. But just remember, REDRAY is a very specific secure hardware decoder for professional applications, This Netflix rollout needs to work for everyone.

Would be awesome to have REDray hardware built into the displays.

 

[Dunkan Wolf]

So it begins...

 

[Jarred Land]

Just a bit of an update on the Curved Samsung.. I am ditching it. The subtle geometry distortion from the curve is just is too troublesome for the way I am using it ( as a desktop monitor ) There are a couple new 40" displays I am going to take for a spin and the new LG Thunderbolt 2 34" super wide looks pretty impressive.

So anyways.. back to the flat.

 

[Phil Holland]

I firmly think for many 32-46" is going to be a beautiful balance for most people. We need more 40-46" options.

 

[Jarred Land]

I firmly think for many 32-46" is going to be a beautiful balance for most people. We need more 40-46" options.

Completely agree. I've tried a bunch of 28" 4K monitors now and they are just too small in 4K. 55" and above is just too big. 40-46" probably is perfect.

 

[Tom Greenberg]

Completely agree. I've tried a bunch of 28" 4K monitors now and they are just too small in 4K. 55" and above is just too big. 40-46" probably is perfect.

Just to clarify, you guys are talking about monitoring 4K footage from your computer, not necessarily viewing finished 4K content "recreationally", right? In that case, I would think that bigger is better.

 

[John Marchant]

4K on the desk is the topic, and I really want a solid 40" approx solution.

For final viewing, overall size is more dictated by how many people need comfortably to view the image at an appropriate field of view. Viewing for one you can sit anti-socially close. Viewing for two, or for a small group you need feet not inches

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Just a bit of an update on the Curved Samsung.. I am ditching it. The subtle geometry distortion from the curve is just is too troublesome for the way I am using it ( as a desktop monitor ) There are a couple new 40" displays I am going to take for a spin and the new LG Thunderbolt 2 34" super wide looks pretty impressive.

So anyways.. back to the flat.

I think you'll love the LG 34" super wide... It's a beauty and in my opinion an absolute perfect Monitor for Portrait mode too, just stunning!!

 

[Stacey Spears]

I've tried a bunch of 28" 4K monitors now and they are just too small in 4K. 55" and above is just too big. 40-46" probably is perfect.

Been using the 32" Sharp since release and its a bit small. Wish more companies would include DisplayPort on their TVs. So far Panasonic is the only one that I am aware of.

 

[paulherrin]

have i heard correctly that the 40-in seiki quality is less than that of its big brother?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The 40" SEIKI is 1080p.

For 4K, there's a 39", 55" and 65" SEIKI. The 65" is the good one. The 39" and 55" are pretty much identical other than the size. Their back–light is overly blue, and they're difficult to dial in if you want any reasonable color accuracy. They still look pretty good after you get them adjusted, but I wouldn't judge colors or an overall image from them. Resolution is good. The 39" and 55" will not show proper 24/23.98 fps when you feed them such a signal. They pull up to 29.97 and introduce judder. There are issues with the inputs on the 39" and 55" in terms of proper signal transmission/ reception, EM shielding on HDMI 2 of the 55" is a real problem and makes that input all but unusable.

With all the other options hitting the market lately, I would recommend staying away from these older SEIKI models. Personally I wouldn't buy a 4K display right now unless it had proper 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 input. Just seems like you're cutting yourself way short if you buy something crippled by HDMI 1.4 and other first-gen 4K monitor tech.

As for resolution vs. monitor size. 4K is awesome on a 22" to 24" display if you use it as a "retina" display with high-DPI scaling. My Dell 24" 3840x2160 as a "retina" display makes for a better, sharper and more comfortably sized 2560x1440 monitor than any 27" at that native resolution. Of course, opinions vary, but I'm finding it very comfortable that way. If you want native resolution pixels, then Jarred's assessment of the 40~46" or so seems about right. I don't mind 4K on a 32" display, but I find 32" displays to be an awkward size to sit at. Or maybe it's just because of the resolution. The displays are too big to use 3840 pixels as a "retina" mode, but then you have to sit too uncomfortably close to use them at native resolution for extended periods.

 

[Ryan Wilmott]

Crazy... I wonder how this net neutrality BS is going to effect this.

 

[L. Langer]

Crazy... I wonder how this net neutrality BS is going to effect this.

Many ISPs are launching or building up their existing streaming services to compete with Netflix, but they might hold out on 4K for a long time given the lack of 4K TV's in households and the general preference for 1080P at this time.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Crazy... I wonder how this net neutrality BS is going to effect this.

Its' not BS. It's a serious issue. Imagine if there were special lanes reserved on physical highways only for employees of certain companies, or only for rich people. This really is the same thing.

Already Netflix has a near monopoly as a buyer of certain types of content, so whatever content in that genre that does not agree with their tastes or politics will have a tough time getting made or reaching an audience

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

ISP's that are also content providers are trying to compete and most are playing catch-up at this point. Beyond that, most ISP's still need to build up their infrastructure to accommodate the increasing traffic from services like Netflix and others, rapidly growing media distribution or whatever. The new FCC proposals to allow for premium fast-lanes might help with some things, but they also create a situation that would allow ISPs to deny adequate bandwidth to competing services (like Netflix) and could also put consumers in a situation where they have to pay a premium for access to services using these fast-lanes. They also create yet another outcome where existing giants like Netflix can buy up all the fast-lane access with more neutral ISPs, effectively pushing other players out of contention on that ISP's network.

Some of the Comcast / Xfinity offices around the country are already blocking services. I don't know of any that are ballsy enough to block Netflix directly at the moment, but there's one in my area that has killed off access to Roku, which in turn denies Netflix or other services being accessed through Roku's channel interfaces. While bandwidth is increasing, the demand for it is increasing even faster. I think we're only seeing the start of what will be a shit storm of internet 'turf wars.' In the end, the ISPs have the upper hand because they can dictate what their customers can access. This was only reinforced to a higher degree with the recent FCC hearings on "net neutrality."

People want the instant gratification of streaming. But I think for those who want quality or don't want to get caught up in a tangled mess of blocked services and access premiums, the model of downloading before watching is going to become a lot more popular than it is now. Nobody wants another disc format, I know that… 4K Blu-Ray? Consumers won't go for it. Videophiles like me probably would because it *should* be better than what we'll be able to download or stream. But that's not going to sustain a new format. Likewise, consumers don't want to pay more for internet access or pay ISP premiums on top of monthly fees for services like Netflix just to access them, especially when their data connection isn't getting faster, it's just paying to allow better use of what they're supposedly already paying for.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Agreed fully with your assessment Jeff... But either way, it seems that we are always cut in the middle of something t and always forced to make the best of it... Sadly.