You really don’t need 25Mbps for decent 4K quality - depends on the content. Netflix has some encodes that go down to 1.8Mbps with a very high VMAF: https://netflixtechblog.com/optimized-shot-based-encodes-for-4k-now-streaming-47b516b10bbb
Apple TV has the highest bitrate encodes of any mainstream streaming service, and those do top out at ~25Mbps. Could they be more efficient? Probably… On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 7:19 AM Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink < starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > > Le 02/05/2024 à 21:50, Frantisek Borsik a écrit : > > Thanks, Colin. This was just another great read on video (and audio - in > the past emails from you) bullet-proofing for the near future. > > To be honest, the consensus on the bandwidth overall in the bufferbloat > related circles was in the 25/3 - 100/20 ballpark > > > To continue on this discussion of 25mbit/s (mbyte/s ?) of 4k, and 8k, here > are some more thoughts: > > - about 25mbit/s bw needs for 4K: hdmi cables for 4K HDR10 (high dynamic > range) are specified at 18gbit/s and not 25mbit/s (mbyte?). These HDMI > cables dont run IP. But, supposedly, the displayed 4K image is of a higher > quality if played over hdmi (presumably from a player) than from a server > remote on the Internet. To achieve parity, maybe one wants to run that > hdmi flow from the server with IP, and at that point the bandwidth > requirement is higher than 25mbit/s. This goes hand in hand with the disc > evolutions (triple-layer bluray discs of 120Gbyte capacity is the most > recent; I dont see signs of that to slow). > > - in some regions, the terrestrial DVB (TV on radio frequencies, with > antenna receivers, not IP) run at 4K HDR10 starting this year. I dont > know what MPEG codec is it, at what mbit/s speed. But it is not over the > Internet. This means that probably ISPs are inclined to do more than that > 4K over the Internet, maybe 8K, to distinguish their service from DVB. The > audience of these DVB streams is very wide, with cheap one-time buy > receivers (no subscription, like with ISP) already widely available in > electronics stores. > > - a reduced audience, yet important, is that of 8K TV via satellites. > There is one japanese 8K TV satcom provider, and the audience (number of > watchers) is probably smaller than that of DVB 4K HDR. Still, it > constitutes competition for IPTV from ISPs. > > To me, that reflects a direction of growth of the 4K to 8K capability > requirement from the Internet. > > Still, that growth in bandwidth requirement does not say anything about > the latency requirement. That can be found elsewhere, and probably it is > very little related to TV. > > Alex > > , but all what many of us were trying to achieve while talking to FCC (et > al) was to point out, that in order to really make it bulletproof and > usable for not only near future, but for today, a reasonable Quality of > Experience requirement is necessary to be added to the definition of > broadband. Here is the link to the FCC NOI and related discussion: > https://circleid.com/posts/20231211-its-the-latency-fcc > > Hopefully, we have managed to get that message over to the other side. At > least 2 of 5 FCC Commissioners seems to be getting it - Nathan Simington > and Brendan Carr - and Nathan event arranged for his staffers to talk with > Dave and others. Hope that this line of of cooperation will continue and we > will manage to help the rest of the FCC to understand the issues at hand > correctly. > > All the best, > > Frank > > Frantisek (Frank) Borsik > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/frantisekborsik > > Signal, Telegram, WhatsApp: +421919416714 > > iMessage, mobile: +420775230885 > > Skype: casioa5302ca > > frantisek.bor...@gmail.com > > > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 4:47 PM Colin_Higbie via Starlink < > starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net> wrote: > >> Alex, fortunately, we are not bound to use personal experiences and >> observations on this. We have real market data that can provide an >> objective, data-supported conclusion. No need for a >> chocolate-or-vanilla-ice-cream-tastes-better discussion on this. >> >> Yes, cameras can film at 8K (and higher in some cases). However, at those >> resolutions (with exceptions for ultra-high end cameras, such as those used >> by multi-million dollar telescopes), except under very specific conditions, >> the actual picture quality doesn't vary past about 5.5K. The loss of detail >> simply moves from a consequence of too few pixels to optical and focus >> limits of the lenses. Neighboring pixels simply hold a blurry image, >> meaning they don't actually carry any usable information. A still shot with >> 1/8 of a second exposure can easily benefit from an 8K or higher sensor. >> Video sometimes can under bright lights with a relatively still or slow >> moving scene. Neither of these requirements lends itself to typical home >> video at 30 (or 24) frames per second – that's 0.03s of time per frame. We >> can imagine AI getting to the point where it can compensate for lack of >> clarity, and this is already being used for game rendering (e.g., Nvidia's >> DLSS and Intel's XESS), but that requires training per scene in those games >> and there hasn't been much development work done on this for filming, at >> least not yet. >> >> Will sensors (or AI) improve to capture images faster per amount of >> incoming photons so that effective digital shutter speeds can get faster at >> lower light levels? No doubt. Will it materially change video quality so >> that 8K is a similar step up from 4K as 4K is from HD (or as HD was from >> SD)? No, at least not in the next several years. Read on for why. >> >> So far that was all on the production side. But what about the consumer >> side? Mass market TV sizes max out below about 100" (83" seems to be a >> fairly common large size, but some stores carry larger models). Even those >> large sizes that do reach mass-market locations and are available on >> Amazon, still comprise a very small % of total TV sales. The vast, vast >> majority of TV sales are of sub 70" models. This is not just because of >> pricing, that's a factor. It's also because home architecture had not >> considered screens this big. At these sizes, it's not just a matter of >> upgrading the entertainment console furniture, it's a matter of building a >> different room with a dedicated entertainment wall. There is a lot of >> inertia in the architecture and building that prevents this from being a >> sudden change, not to mention the hundreds of millions of existing homes >> that are already sized for TV's below 100". >> >> And important to this discussion, at several feet from even a 70" - 90" >> screen, most people can't see the difference between 4K and 8K anyway. The >> pixels are too small at that distance to make a difference in the User >> Experience. This is a contrast with 4K from HD, which many people (not all) >> can see, or from SD to HD, an improvement virtually everyone can see (to >> the point that news broadcasts now blur the faces of their anchors to >> remove wrinkles that weren't visible back in the SD days). >> >> For another real-world example of this curtailing resolution growth: >> smartphones raced to higher and higher resolutions, until they reached >> about 4K, then started pulling back. Some are slightly higher, but as often >> as not, even at the flagship level, many smartphones fall slightly below >> 4K, with the recognition that customers got wise to screens all being >> effectively perfect and higher resolutions no longer mattered. >> >> Currently, the leading contender for anything appearing at 8K are games, >> not streaming video. That's because games don't require camera lenses and >> light sensors that don't yet exist. They can render dimly lit, fast moving >> scenes in 8K just as easily as brightly lit scenes. BUT (huge but here), >> GPUs aren't powerful enough to do that yet either at good framerates, and >> for most gamers (not all, but a significant majority), framerate is more >> important resolution. Top of the line graphics cards (the ones that run >> about $1,000, so not mainstream yet) of the current generation are just >> hitting 120fps at 4K in top modern games. From a pixel moving perspective, >> that would translate to 30fps at 8K (4x the # of pixels, 120/4 = 30). 30fps >> is good enough for streaming video, but not good enough for a gamer over 4K >> at 120fps. Still, I anticipate (this part is just my opinion, not a fact) >> that graphics cards on high-end gaming PCs will be the first to drive 8K >> experiences for gamers before 8K streaming becomes an in-demand feature. >> Games have HUDs and are often played on monitors just a couple of feet from >> the gamer where ultra-fine details would be visible and relevant. >> >> Having said all of that, does this mean that I don't think 8K and higher >> will eventually replace 4K for mass market consumer streaming? No, I >> suspect that in the long-run you're right that they will. That's a >> reasonable conclusion based on history of screen and TV programming >> resolutions, but that timeframe is likely more than 10 years off and >> planning bandwidth requirements for the needs 10-years from now does not >> require any assumptions relating to standard video resolutions people will >> be watching then: we can all assume with reasonable confidence based on >> history of Internet bandwidth usage that bandwidth needs and desires will >> continue to increase over time. >> >> The point for this group is that you lose credibility to the audience if >> you base your reasoning on future video resolutions that the market is >> currently rejecting without at least acknowledging that those are projected >> future needs, rather than present day needs. >> >> At the same time, 4K is indeed a market standard TODAY. That's not an >> opinion, it's a data point and a fact. As I've said multiple times in this >> discussion, what makes this a fact and not an opinion are that millions of >> people choose to pay for access to 4K content and the television programs >> and movies that are stored and distributed in 4K. All the popular TV >> devices and gaming consoles support 4K HDR content in at least some >> versions of the product (they may also offer discounted versions that don't >> do HDR or only go to 1080p or 1440). The market has spoken and delivered us >> that data. 4K HDR is the standard for videophiles and popular enough that >> the top video streaming services all offer it. It is also not in a chaotic >> state, with suppliers providing different technologies until the market >> sorts out a winner (like the old Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD fight 15 years ago, or >> VHS vs. Beta before that). Yes, there are some variants on HDR (Dolby >> Vision vs. HDR-10), but as TV's are manufactured today, Dolby Vision is >> effectively just a superset of HDR-10, like G-Sync is a superset of >> Adaptive Sync for variable refresh rate displays needed for gaming. So, >> yes, 4K HDR is a standard, whether you buy a Blu-ray UHD movie at Walmart >> or Best Buy or stream your programming from Netflix, Disney+, Max, or >> Amazon Prime. >> >> So again, this is why the minimum rational top bandwidth any new ISP >> should be developing (at least in developed countries – I think it's fair >> to say that if people have no Internet access within hundreds of miles, >> even slow Internet for connectivity to a local library in travel distance >> from home is far better than nothing) is 25Mbps as the established >> bandwidth required by the 4K providers to stream 4K HDR content. This does >> not mean more would not be better or that more won't be needed in the >> future. But if you are endorsing ISP buildout focused around low-latency >> under load at anything LESS THAN 25Mbps, you have simply shifted the >> problem for customers and users of the new service from poor latency (this >> group's focus) to poor bandwidth incapable of providing modern services. >> >> To be taken seriously and maximize your chances at success at influencing >> policy, I urge this group's members to use that 25Mbps top bandwidth as a >> floor. And to clarify my meaning, I don't mean ISPs shouldn't also offer >> less expensive tiers of service with bandwidth at only, say, 3 or 10Mbps. >> Those are fine and will be plenty for many users, and a lower cost option >> with less capability is a good thing. What I mean is that if they are >> building out new service, the infrastructure needs to support and they need >> to OFFER a level of at least 25Mbps. Higher is fine too (better even), but >> where cost collides with technical capability, 25Mbps is the market >> requirement, below that and the service offering is failing to provide a >> fully functional Internet connection. >> >> Sorry for the long message, but I keep seeing a lot of these same >> subjective responses to objective data, which concern me. I hope this long >> version finally addresses all of those and I can now return to just reading >> the brilliant posts of the latency and TCP/IP experts who normally drive >> these discussions. You are all far more knowledgeable than I in those >> areas. My expertise is in what the market needs from its Internet >> connectivity and why. >> >> Cheers, >> Colin >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Starlink <starlink-boun...@lists.bufferbloat.net> On Behalf Of >> starlink-requ...@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 5:22 AM >> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Subject: Starlink Digest, Vol 38, Issue 13 >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: It’s the Latency, FCC (Alexandre Petrescu) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 11:21:44 +0200 >> From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> >> To: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Subject: Re: [Starlink] It’s the Latency, FCC >> Message-ID: <94ba2b39-1fc8-46e2-9f77-3b04a6309...@gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >> >> >> Le 30/04/2024 à 22:05, Sebastian Moeller via Starlink a écrit : >> > Hi Colin, >> > [...] >> > >> >> A lot of responses like "but 8K is coming" (it's not, only >> >> experimental YouTube videos showcase these resolutions to the general >> >> public, no studio is making 8K content and no streaming service >> >> offers anything in 8K or higher) >> > [SM] Not my claim. >> >> Right, it is my claim. '8K is coming' comes from an observation that it >> is now present in consumer cameras with ability to film 8K, since a few >> years now. >> >> The SD-HD-4K-8K-16K consumer market tendency can be evaluated. One could >> parallel it with the megapixel number (photo camera) evolution, or with the >> micro-processor feature size. There might be levelling, but I am not sure >> it is at 4K. >> >> What I would be interested to look at is the next acronym that requires >> high bw low latency and that is not in the series SD-HD-4K-8K-16K. This >> series did not exist in the times of analog TV ('SD' appeared when digital >> TV 'HD' appeared), so probably a new series will appear that describes TV >> features. >> >> Alex >> >> > >> >> and "I don't need to watch 4K, 1080p is sufficient for me, >> > [SM] That however is my claim ;) >> > >> >> so it should be for everyone else too" >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
