News - Sony’s 4K movie download service will come to PlayStation 4

[HEXUS]

However some downloadable movie content could be as hefty as 100GB.

Read more.

[bridges009]

Hope 4k gets a big push so I can get myself a >1080p monitor without paying an outrageous premium.

[shaithis]

Hope 4k gets a big push so I can get myself a >1080p monitor without paying an outrageous premium.

Not a chance IMO. It took the average joe years to upgrade to HD from SD. The jump to 4k is more expensive and less noticeable. Joe P will wait a LONG time for prices to drop, rather than drive the price drop.

[Brewster0101]

4K monitors will not reach the main stream consumer and if they do it is a pointless technology.

There are many review/reports from well known tech and video sources that clearly indicate that 4K has no place in the home unless you have a 60" + TV. The extra resolution over 1080p is completely wasted as the eye can't see the difference.

But there was one good argument , Passive 3D TV in 4K would benefit. As a 4K screen splitting the image into half the resolution for each eyes means passive 3D in full 1080P resolution.

[Tpyo]

4K monitors will not reach the main stream consumer and if they do it is a pointless technology.

There are many review/reports from well known tech and video sources that clearly indicate that 4K has no place in the home unless you have a 60" + TV. The extra resolution over 1080p is completely wasted as the eye can't see the difference.

But there was one good argument , Passive 3D TV in 4K would benefit. As a 4K screen splitting the image into half the resolution for each eyes means passive 3D in full 1080P resolution.

Yup...that's what I'm thinking of - I never really thought of 4K but my biggest gripe re: the LG passive 3D screens (which otherwise I'd prefer to the active ones I've seen) is the huuuuge drop in resolution when you swap to 3D.

[d032sh]

if you live out in the sticks using a dial up modem then I'd wager you're not the person who'll have a 4k screen!

So not living in a major city means you're either not interested in technology or poor? Interesting logic there....

[Jay]

on my connection 100GB would take over 4 days

[miniyazz]

100GB for a movie? Not so bad. That's less than four hours for those of us with fast connections. And if you live out in the sticks using a dial up modem then I'd wager you're not the person who'll have a 4k screen!

So not living in a major city means you're either not interested in technology or poor? Interesting logic there....

Yeah not sure I buy that logic. Many wealthy people will live out in the countryside in large houses with modern tech but be unable to get fast broadband. Not to mention the people in cities who are still lumbered with shoddy connections.

Personally, while I'm not aware of any download limits per se on my internet, it would take me over a week to download 80GB - and that's at max speed; in reality it frequently drops to half that. Just slightly too long for a film I think!

[jim]

Not a chance IMO. It took the average joe years to upgrade to HD from SD. The jump to 4k is more expensive and less noticeable. Joe P will wait a LONG time for prices to drop, rather than drive the price drop.

Maybe, but it should help.

For instance, the new 21:9 monitors - 21:9 televisions were brought out long before those things started appearing at the usual PC outlets.

[Ross1]

how come when you stream 1080p content from netflix, buy 1080p from itunes, watch 1080p content on youtube, the bandwidth is usually 7-8Mb/s at best? (which for any live action show is nowhere near enough for 1080p, and results in massive detail loss. with itunes their 720p genuinely looks better than their 1080p in the vast majority of cases because they starve the bitrate so much!)

I can imagine them all doing exactly the same crap for 4k. Wont be anything like 100GB, you can probably knock a 0 off that figure and get pretty close to what it will be.

[edzieba]

ere are many review/reports from well known tech and video sources that clearly indicate that 4K has no place in the home unless you have a 60" + TV. The extra resolution over 1080p is completely wasted as the eye can't see the difference.

Totally false, unless you like like to sit far too far away from your TV (stop following size recommendations that were written when SD CRTs were barely hitting 30"! Viewing height:distance for HDTV is significantly different). Not only can the human eye discern line resolution down to 1 pixel/arcminute, but vernier/hyper-acuity, can discern aliasing right down to the 1 pixel/arcsecond level! We're a LONG way yet from getting displays that can actually present data that our retina cannot distinguish from reality.

[danroyle]

why are they trying to push 4k when HD tv is 1080i from sky and most freesat hd boxes are the same, the only true full HD we get is bluray and some games.

Most people dont even know or care that there sky hd isnt even full HD.

[Unique]

i doubt the downloads will be anything like 100gb. that would take me about 2 hours to download, which is fine if i want to watch a movie in HD, but on a 1tb drive you would only be able to store about 9 movies, and i doubt they will give 4tb drives in the machine, and even then that would only let you store about 36 movies. having a higher resolution but with lower bitrate than 1080p is perhaps pointless, but then i'd need to see samples. Of course on top of the fastest internet in the UK and a new expensive games console you will need a new expensive tv to be able to take advantage, and as yet how few people have such a setup in their home in the UK? I think my next screen will be a 4k or even 8k 60" at least, so I get the same kind of increase as moving from 32" to 50" all those years ago. But also, how long will it take for the movies I want to be availble in 4K? Some of them still aren't on on bluray yet.

[abaxas]

Increase in quality != increase in enjoyment. Suspension of belief is far more important than visual quality for almost all fiction.

Also please stop conning people with increased contrast to make it look 'better'.

[Scribe]

I watch a 50" plasma from quite close and I can honestly say I'd benefit from 4K, if the iPad Retina is anything to go by, there is a noticeable difference when you can't spot individual pixels, things feels more solid and real as your mind treats what it sees much more like a real object than a group of pixels (as you can't see the fake surface detail).

On the other hand, I have noticed animes, far and few require the move from 720p to 1080p and I can't imagine being able to tell the difference beyond this and, in fact, some benefit from lower resolutions. Likewise, 3D gaming, I'm still stuck in 720p due to the HDMI 1.4a standard and most computers couldn't handle >1080p resolution so this is an area that could be focused on in the meantime rather than leaping to 4K.

Physical storage isn't out of the question for mainstream but you require x4 the data rate for 4K content at Bluray quality. Given that some films max out a 50GB dual-layer disc, you'd require both a quad-layer disc and accompanying reader (minimum x3 speed on all layers) with H.265 compression (double the compression). I'm guessing this assumption is where the 100GB figure comes from.

[Ang3lsCurse]

4K monitors will not reach the main stream consumer and if they do it is a pointless technology.

There are many review/reports from well known tech and video sources that clearly indicate that 4K has no place in the home unless you have a 60" + TV. The extra resolution over 1080p is completely wasted as the eye can't see the difference.

But there was one good argument , Passive 3D TV in 4K would benefit. As a 4K screen splitting the image into half the resolution for each eyes means passive 3D in full 1080P resolution.

Well known tech and video sources on the pay roll so people go out and buy expensive 1080p screens instead of saving, by not buying, or buying a cheaper 1080p screen. Resolution is not relative to screen size and makes me chuckle every time I read someone saying "1080p is pointless below this size, UHD is pointless this size". The only thing screen size is relative to is viewing distance which may be increased for comfort, especially for multiple viewers. Look at a 10" screen 10" away, and a 100" screen 1000" away and tell me which needs a higher resolution. You know you are not meant to be able to see individual pixels? The whole point in increasing pixel resolution is so you don't see them - not so someone can say decrease them till we can see them - not being able to see them makes it pointless? I am waiting for 1080p+ 3D but am put off by the cheap 3D monitors, low refresh rate expensive 3D TVs, and more likely to buy one of the QHD 2D monitors; though I am not rich, would like 3D and I sure wouldn't upgrade for 3D alone - I'd just never experience 3D until screens were revolutionised.