Re:Can't pay, won't pay: streaming services are driving view...
by abbycurtis33 on Thursday August 14, 2025 @10:25PM
(#44907965)
Yes! Someone came after me on here because I said there really is no 4k streaming.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Can't pay, won't pay: streaming services are driving view...
by bombcar on Thursday August 14, 2025 @11:55PM
(#44908459)
I’m going to develop 8k streaming - it’s just the normal low bitrate shit, but if you pause it sends a full quality 8k frame.
Nobody will figure it out!
Re:Can't pay, won't pay: streaming services are driving view...
by gmueckl on Friday August 15, 2025 @12:12AM
(#44908533)
When your source material shows fast sweeping motions you'd certainly get away with that.
Re:Can't pay, won't pay: streaming services are driving view...
by dawnerd on Friday August 15, 2025 @11:58AM
(#44913989)
The marketing of a resolution really won out. People will fight you if you suggest a high bitrate 1080p encode can look better than a low bitrate 4k.
Re:Can't pay, won't pay: streaming services are driving view...
by ProfessorLayton on Friday August 15, 2025 @02:23PM
(#44915800)
Bitrate aside, the marketing stopped making sense long ago:
- 720p/1080p is counting vertical pixel resolution
- 4k/8k is counting horizontal pixel resolution
- "4k/8k" is not actually 4,000/8,000 horizontal pixels
- Suddenly the "p" becomes irrelevant (Not that most people even knew what it meant to begin with)
- 720/1080/4k/8k totally disregards aspect ratio
- Consumers already have a way to compare, and they're called "megapixels"
- 2.1MP (1080p) and 8.3MP (4k) etc. is a lot more consumer friendly since it's already used for cameras.
Marketing really won at making this a mess.