Hi Alexandre,
> On 30. Apr 2024, at 16:25, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink > <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > Colin, > 8K usefulness over 4K: the higher the resolution the more it will be possible > to zoom in into paused images. It is one of the advantages. People dont do > that a lot these days but why not in the future. [SM] Because that is how in the past we envisioned the future, see here h++ps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHwjceFcF2Q 'enhance'... > Spotify lower quality than CD and still usable: one would check not Spotify, > but other services for audiophiles; some of these use 'DSD' formats which go > way beyond the so called high-def audio of 384khz sampling freqs. They dont > 'stream' but download. It is these higher-than-384khz sampling rates > equivalent (e.g. DSD1024 is the equivalent of, I think of something like 10 > times CD quality, I think). If Spotify is the king of streamers, in the > future other companies might become the kings of something else than > 'streaming', a name yet to be invented. > For each of them, it is true, normal use will not expose any more advantage > than the previous version (no advantage of 8K over 4K, no advantage of 88KHz > DVD audio over CD, etc) - yet the progress is ongoing on and on, and nobody > comes back to CD or to DVD audio or to SD (standard definition video). > Finally, 8K and DSD per se are requirements of just bandwidth. The need of > latency should be exposed there, and that is not straightforward. But higher > bandwidths will come with lower latencies anyways. [SM] How that? Capacity and latency are largely independent... think a semi truck full of harddisks from NYC to LA has decent capacity/'bandwidth' but lousy latency... > The quest of latency requirements might be, in fact, a quest to see how one > could use that low latency technology that is possible and available anyways. > Alex > Le 30/04/2024 à 16:00, Colin_Higbie via Starlink a écrit : >> David Fernández, those bitrates are safe numbers, but many streams could get >> by with less at those resolutions. H.265 compression is at a variable bit >> rate with simpler scenes requiring less bandwidth. Note that 4K with HDR (30 >> bits per pixel rather than 24) consistently also fits within 25Mbps. >> >> David Lang, HDR is a requirement for 4K programming. That is not to say that >> all 4K streams are in HDR, but in setting a required bandwidth, because 4K >> signals can include HDR, the required bandwidth must accommodate and allow >> for HDR. That said, I believe all modern 4K programming on Netflix and >> Amazon Prime is HDR. Note David Fernández' point that Spain independently >> reached the same conclusion as the US streaming services of 25Mbps >> requirement for 4K. >> >> Visually, to a person watching and assuming an OLED (or microLED) display >> capable of showing the full color and contrast gamut of HDR (LCD can't >> really do it justice, even with miniLED backlighting), the move to HDR from >> SDR is more meaningful in most situations than the move from 1080p to 4K. I >> don't believe going to further resolutions, scenes beyond 4K (e.g., 8K), >> will add anything meaningful to a movie or television viewer over 4K. Video >> games could benefit from the added resolution, but lens aberration in >> cameras along with focal length and limited depth of field render blurriness >> of even a sharp picture greater than the pixel size in most scenes beyond >> about 4K - 5.5K. Video games don’t suffer this problem because those scenes >> are rendered, eliminating problems from camera lenses. So video games may >> still benefit from 8K resolution, but streaming programming won’t. >> >> There is precedent for this in the audio streaming world: audio streaming >> bitrates have retracted from prior peaks. Even though 48kHz and higher >> bitrate audio available on DVD is superior to the audio quality of 44.1kHz >> CDs, Spotify and Apple and most other streaming services stream music at >> LOWER quality than CD. It’s good enough for most people to not notice the >> difference. I don’t see much push in the foreseeable future for programming >> beyond UHD (4K + HDR). That’s not to say never, but there’s no real benefit >> to it with current camera tech and screen sizes. >> >> Conclusion: for video streaming needs over the next decade or so, 25Mbps >> should be appropriate. As David Fernández rightly points out, H.266 and >> other future protocols will improve compression capabilities and reduce >> bandwidth needs at any given resolution and color bit depth, adding a bit >> more headroom for small improvements. >> >> Cheers, >> Colin >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Starlink <starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of >> starlink-requ...@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 9:31 AM >> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9 >> >> >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 11:54:20 +0200 >> From: David Fernández <davidf...@gmail.com> >> To: starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC >> Message-ID: >> <CAC=tz0rrmwjunlvgupw6k8ogadcylq-eyw7bjb209ondwgf...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Last February, TV broadcasting in Spain left behind SD definitively and >> moved to HD as standard quality, also starting to regularly broadcast a >> channel with 4K quality. >> >> A 4K video (2160p) at 30 frames per second, handled with the HEVC >> compression codec (H.265), and using 24 bits per pixel, requires 25 Mbit/s. >> >> Full HD video (1080p) requires 10 Mbit/s. >> >> For lots of 4K video encoded at < 20 Mbit/s, it may be hard to distinguish >> it visually from the HD version of the same video (this was also confirmed >> by SBTVD Forum Tests). >> >> Then, 8K will come, eventually, requiring a minimum of ~32 Mbit/s: >> https://dvb.org/news/new-generation-of-terrestrial-services-taking-shape-in-europe >> >> The latest codec VVC (H.266) may reduce the required data rates by at least >> 27%, at the expense of more computing power required, but somehow it is >> claimed it will be more energy efficient. >> https://dvb.org/news/dvb-prepares-the-way-for-advanced-4k-and-8k-broadcast-and-broadband-television >> >> Regards, >> >> David >> >> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 19:16:27 -0700 (PDT) >> From: David Lang <da...@lang.hm> >> To: Colin_Higbie <chigb...@higbie.name> >> Cc: David Lang <da...@lang.hm>, "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" >> <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC >> Message-ID: <srss5qrq-7973-5q87-823p-30pn7o308...@ynat.uz> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" >> >> Amazon, youtube set explicitly to 4k (I didn't say HDR) >> >> David Lang >> >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, Colin_Higbie wrote: >> >> >>> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 01:30:21 +0000 >>> From: Colin_Higbie <chigb...@higbie.name> >>> To: David Lang <da...@lang.hm> >>> Cc: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> >>> Subject: RE: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC >>> >>> Was that 4K HDR (not SDR) using the standard protocols that streaming >>> >> services use (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, etc.) or was it just some >> YouTube 4K SDR videos? YouTube will show "HDR" on the gear icon for content >> that's 4K HDR. If it only shows "4K" instead of "HDR," then means it's SDR. >> Note that if YouTube, if left to the default of Auto for streaming >> resolution it will also automatically drop the quality to something that >> fits within the bandwidth and most of the "4K" content on YouTube is >> low-quality and not true UHD content (even beyond missing HDR). For example, >> many smartphones will record 4K video, but their optics are not sufficient >> to actually have distinct per-pixel image detail, meaning it compresses down >> to a smaller image with no real additional loss in picture quality, but only >> because it's really a 4K UHD stream to begin with. >> >>> Note that 4K video compression codecs are lossy, so the lower quality >>> the >>> >> initial image, the lower the bandwidth needed to convey the stream w/o >> additional quality loss. The needed bandwidth also changes with scene >> complexity. Falling confetti, like on Newy Year's Eve or at the Super Bowl >> make for one of the most demanding scenes. Lots of detailed fire and >> explosions with fast-moving fast panning full dynamic backgrounds are also >> tough for a compressed signal to preserve (but not as hard as a screen full >> of falling confetti). >> >>> I'm dubious that 8Mbps can handle that except for some of the simplest >>> >> video, like cartoons or fairly static scenes like the news. Those scenes >> don't require much data, but that's not the case for all 4K HDR scenes by >> any means. >> >>> It's obviously in Netflix and the other streaming services' interest >>> to >>> >> be able to sell their more expensive 4K HDR service to as many people as >> possible. There's a reason they won't offer it to anyone with less than >> 25Mbps – they don't want the complaints and service calls. Now, to be fair, >> 4K HDR definitely doesn’t typically require 25Mbps, but it's to their credit >> that they do include a small bandwidth buffer. In my experience monitoring >> bandwidth usage for 4K HDR streaming, 15Mbps is the minimum if doing nothing >> else and that will frequently fall short, depending on the 4K HDR content. >> >>> Cheers, >>> Colin >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: David Lang <da...@lang.hm> >>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 8:40 PM >>> To: Colin Higbie <colin.hig...@scribl.com> >>> Cc: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] Itʼs the Latency, FCC >>> >>> hmm, before my DSL got disconnected (the carrier decided they didn't >>> want >>> >> to support it any more), I could stream 4k at 8Mb down if there wasn't too >> much other activity on the network (doing so at 2x speed was a problem) >> >>> David Lang >>> >>> >>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024, Colin Higbie via Starlink wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:32:36 +0000 >>>> From: Colin Higbie via Starlink <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> >>>> Reply-To: Colin Higbie <colin.hig...@scribl.com> >>>> To: "starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net" <starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> >>>> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC >>>> >>>> >>>>> I have now been trying to break the common conflation that download >>>>> >> "speed" >> >>>>> means anything at all for day to day, minute to minute, second to >>>>> second, use, once you crack 10mbit, now, for over 14 years. Am I >>>>> succeeding? I lost the 25/10 battle, and keep pointing at really >>>>> terrible latency under load and wifi weirdnesses for many existing >>>>> >> 100/20 services today. >> >>>> While I completely agree that latency has bigger impact on how >>>> >> responsive the Internet feels to use, I do think that 10Mbit is too low for >> some standard applications regardless of latency: with the more recent >> availability of 4K and higher streaming, that does require a higher minimum >> bandwidth to work at all. One could argue that no one NEEDS 4K streaming, >> but many families would view this as an important part of what they do with >> their Internet (Starlink makes this reliably possible at our farmhouse). 4K >> HDR-supporting TV's are among the most popular TVs being purchased in the >> U.S. today. Netflix, Amazon, Max, Disney and other streaming services >> provide a substantial portion of 4K HDR content. >> >>>> So, I agree that 25/10 is sufficient, for up to 4k HDR streaming. >>>> 100/20 >>>> >> would provide plenty of bandwidth for multiple concurrent 4K users or a 1-2 >> 8K streams. >> >>>> For me, not claiming any special expertise on market needs, just my >>>> own >>>> >> personal assessment on what typical families will need and care about: >> >>>> Latency: below 50ms under load always feels good except for some >>>> intensive gaming (I don't see any benefit to getting loaded latency >>>> further below ~20ms for typical applications, with an exception for >>>> cloud-based gaming that benefits with lower latency all the way down >>>> to about 5ms for young, really fast players, the rest of us won't be >>>> able to tell the difference) >>>> >>>> Download Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough if not doing UHD video >>>> streaming >>>> >>>> Download Bandwidth: 25 - 100Mbps if doing UHD video streaming, >>>> depending on # of streams or if wanting to be ready for 8k >>>> >>>> Upload Bandwidth: 10Mbps good enough for quality video conferencing, >>>> higher only needed for multiple concurrent outbound streams >>>> >>>> So, for example (and ignoring upload for this), I would rather have >>>> >> latency at 50ms (under load) and DL bandwidth of 25Mbps than latency of 1ms >> with a max bandwidth of 10Mbps, because the super-low latency doesn't solve >> the problem with insufficient bandwidth to watch 4K HDR content. But, I'd >> also rather have latency of 20ms with 100Mbps DL, then latency that exceeds >> 100ms under load with 1Gbps DL bandwidth. I think the important thing is to >> reach "good enough" on both, not just excel at one while falling short of >> "good enough" on the other. >> >>>> Note that Starlink handles all of this well, including kids watching >>>> >> YouTube while my wife and I watch 4K UHD Netflix, except the upload speed >> occasionally tops at under 3Mbps for me, causing quality degradation for >> outbound video calls (or used to, it seems to have gotten better in recent >> months – no problems since sometime in 2023). >> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Colin >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Starlink mailing list >>>> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >>>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >> URL: >> <https://lists.bufferbloat.net/pipermail/starlink/attachments/20240430/5572b78b/attachment-0001.html> >> _______________________________________________ >> Starlink mailing list >> Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink >> > _______________________________________________ > Starlink mailing list > Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink _______________________________________________ Starlink mailing list Starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/starlink
