New Idea for Data...(just my thoughts)

[lou99/maximus1987]

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/ Use the form under the article and above the comments to see when an average person with 20/20 vision could see all the detail on screens of different sizes at different resolutions and different distances.

 

Just for fun, I plugged in a 7 inch diagonal screen which is larger than all telephones have. 7 inches is actually the size of the smaller tablets. The form states that you need to have your screen 2 feet or closer to see all the detail at 480p resolution and 1 foot or closer to see all the detail at 1080p resolutions. It says you have to have the screen 0 feet or closer to see the detail at 4K resolution.

 

I do not know how close you like to keep your telephone screen from your face but I am guessing that you keep it 1.5 to 3 feet away when looking at it when watching video on it. This means that your eyes likely cannot see the difference between 480p and 4k resolution. You would have an even more difficult time seeing the difference if you were on a smaller screen than 7 inches diagonal.

Thanks.

 

This is why anything more than 1080p on a phone is ludicrous. The iPhone 6+, 5.5inch, is 1080p. I don't hear anyone complaining about its resolution.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Arysyn]

I think the 2k screens currently on smartphones are probably going to provide the max benefit of conventional video/display usage, especially on current battery states of 3000 to 4000. I doubt much heavier batteries are going to be used on smartphone devices, instead more efficient usage technologies in place to make battery life on 4k devices sufficient, meaning smartphones.

 

So despite my not thinking 4k is going to do much more visually for typical usage of smartphones, I'm seeing it happen more for the benefit of VR headset technology where 4k smartphones can be used, and in those cases, 4k will be more helpful to have than 2k. Yet, 4k likely will be the max for that, at least for a very long time.

[lou99/maximus1987]

I think the 2k screens currently on smartphones are probably going to provide the max benefit of conventional video/display usage, especially on current battery states of 3000 to 4000. I doubt much heavier batteries are going to be used on smartphone devices, instead more efficient usage technologies in place to make battery life on 4k devices sufficient, meaning smartphones.

 

So despite my not thinking 4k is going to do much more visually for typical usage of smartphones, I'm seeing it happen more for the benefit of VR headset technology where 4k smartphones can be used, and in those cases, 4k will be more helpful to have than 2k. Yet, 4k likely will be the max for that, at least for a very long time.

Any sources for any of your assertions?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WiWavelength]

Any sources for any of your assertions?

 

I agree, but the shoe can be on the other foot...

 

Any sensible pruning for your quotes?

 

Any posts from an actual computer, not Tapatalk?

 

Any reason not to remove your posts for trolling and/or laziness?

 

AJ

[Arysyn]

What I wrote are based from my opinions, which are based from my observations of things, such as reading different tech websites. I wasn't reporting any specific news in my post. Otherwise, I'd post a link.

[Arysyn]

By the way, if anyone wants to know specific websites I read, although I've answered this in the past, I'll mention it again. My method of learning about wireless technology and carrier development is by going to Google search and searching news for it. Carriers, for example, I start first searching information for Sprint, although that is after I've already visited S4GRU. Then I search Verizon, followed by AT&T, and finally T-Mobile, though its between that and visiting TmoNews, which I'm trying to break away from for reasons AJ has pointed out in the past very well concerning its writer, Cam Bunton. The writing and advertising there have worsened the site. I'd visit T4GRU more often if there was more daily content to read.

 

Now before getting attacked or criticized for that being my only connection to technology, I will never have any opportunity to have a job in technology, wireless, etc., because I have a severe neuroathic illness which has me unable to live any sort of "normal" life, along with being in near chronic pain and on pain medications which would have any employer nervous about hiring me. Then there are a bunch of other details that basically lead me to not having a life, things I cannot do anything about, but I'm not going to go into here. If you want, pm to me and I'll share some info, along with my media stuff from some years ago. Otherwise, I'm basically just someone here posting opinion and my own ideas, not trying to prove anything with inside fact or something expecting verification regarding technology.

[travismheim]

I think Sprint was smart to modify its tos on new plans to include video streaming may be limited to 1mbps when they did. If streaming UHD content becomes the norm on phones, I can see other carriers following in Sprint's footsteps. What I would like to see is the ability to cache video for offline use similar to how Spotify allows it with music. It's already available for Google Play, getting Netflix and others onboard could go a long way toward solving the problem.

[Arysyn]

I think Sprint was smart to modify its tos on new plans to include video streaming may be limited to 1mbps when they did. If streaming UHD content becomes the norm on phones, I can see other carriers following in Sprint's footsteps. What I would like to see is the ability to cache video for offline use similar to how Spotify allows it with music. It's already available for Google Play, getting Netflix and others onboard could go a long way toward solving the problem.

Sounds like a good idea to me too.

 

I was very disappointed when Amazon removed the possibility to download videos, which now can only be streamed. So now anyone who wants to watch Amazon videos away from WiFi only has the option to stream using cellular. Hopefully that will change too.

[plato2876]

That one's tricky because of a lot of the copyright stuff mixed up in there. With Spotify/youtube, there's direct relationships in place with the music labels to enable a subset of it. Going beyond that - a lot of the legacy gatekeepers are going to freak out, just from the perception that "their" content is residing on someone's device at any point in time, and therefore far more monies should be paid to them for that "privilege".

[Ascertion]

I wish all the cell carriers would agree that nobody would be able to run 4k streaming over their cell network unless they buy a special costly plan.   There is really no need for the average person to tie up the network with a 4K stream.

Honestly, I feel like a 720p screen is sufficient for a 5" smart phone.  There's no need for 1440p, 4K resolution, etc.  1080p is already pushing it but I didn't notice much of a difference jumped from my S3 (720p) to my G2 (1080p).  

[mozamcrew]

Starting at about 5" screens and larger, you do notice a quality improvement going from 720p to 1080p, when viewed from a typical distance for a mobile device. For screens smaller than that, 720p is sufficient IMHO. Frankly, given the typical viewing distance for TV, MOST people won't be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k (UHD), unless they have one of the larger 55-60" displays.

[techfranz]

A company’s responsibility is to its shareholders.

 

As a shareholder, my view is that no one needs 4k on their phone.

This reminds me of some old arguments like:

-Who can afford a data plan?

-Why do you need to carry email around with you on your cell phone?

-With such a tiny screen is it even useful to browse the web on a cell phone?

-Cell phones are for making phone calls.

 

Any you know what happened.....

[Fraydog]

Bill Gates is one of the smartest people on Planet Earth and he said we'd only need 640k.

 

Now let's get real, even if you don't need that much bandwidth, doesn't mean there won't be applications in the future that will change your mind.

[Trip]

This reminds me of some old arguments like:

-Who can afford a data plan?

-Why do you need to carry email around with you on your cell phone?

-With such a tiny screen is it even useful to browse the web on a cell phone?

-Cell phones are for making phone calls.

 

Any you know what happened.....

 

- Data plans became less expensive.

- I don't remember this argument (I may have been too young; I always thought this would be a good idea).

- Screens got much bigger (I also always thought this would be a good idea).

- Which they are, as well as other things now that the data plans are less expensive and cell phones got bigger.

 

4K, however, is strictly dependent on the resolution of your eyes.  My eyes cannot tell the difference between 1080p and 4K, for example, except on a very large screen.  To stream 4K to a phone instead of 1080p (or even a lower resolution) does nothing for me.  Our eyes aren't suddenly going to improve in their resolution to the point where we will suddenly be able to see a difference between 1080p and 4K on a 6 inch screen.  Any increase in resolution is going to be wasted.

 

If I'm understanding Fraydog correctly, I'm more inclined to agree with that argument, which is that while 4K might not make sense, there may be other applications which need 4K-level bandwidth on a phone in the future.  I see no reason to discount the potential future need for the bandwidth, but I don't think streaming 4K to a tiny device is an efficient or sensible use of that bandwidth.

 

- Trip

[WiWavelength]

Starting at about 5" screens and larger, you do notice a quality improvement going from 720p to 1080p, when viewed from a typical distance for a mobile device. For screens smaller than that, 720p is sufficient IMHO. Frankly, given the typical viewing distance for TV, MOST people won't be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 4k (UHD), unless they have one of the larger 55-60" displays.

 

Any quality improvement from 720p to 1080p on a 5 in screen is more likely related to compression than resolution.  Streaming services seem to "bit starve" the lower resolution options more than they do the higher resolution options.  In a blind test, play a clip at 720p with an adequate bit rate, then the same clip at 1080p, and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

 

The same holds true for most HDTVs.  At typical viewing distances, people cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.  The upgrade from 1080p to 2160p is not going to change that situation -- especially not on just a 55-60 in display, unless it is being used at a computer monitor viewing distance.  No, almost any visible improvement from UHD will come not from 2160p but from wider color gamut, additional frame rates, and more meticulously captured or scanned source material.

 

AJ

[mozamcrew]

Any quality improvement from 720p to 1080p on a 5 in screen is more likely related to compression than resolution.  Streaming services seem to "bit starve" the lower resolution options more than they do the higher resolution options.  In a blind test, play a clip at 720p with an adequate bit rate, then the same clip at 1080p, and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.

 

The same holds true for most HDTVs.  At typical viewing distances, people cannot tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.  The upgrade from 1080p to 2160p is not going to change that situation -- especially not on just a 55-60 in display, unless it is being used at a computer monitor viewing distance.  No, almost any visible improvement from UHD will come not from 2160p but from wider color gamut, additional frame rates, and more meticulously captured or scanned source material.

 

AJ

 

I like to think it's more helpful to think about it in terms of DPI and distance from the screen. A 50 inch TV and a phone with a 5 inch screen might both be "1080p" but the DPI on the phone screen is ten times higher because you are jamming those pixels into a screen one tenth the size. Now you are usually much closer to the mobile screen too, but frankly, unless you are sitting at distances more typical of a computer monitor, I think 2k and 4k displays are kind of a waste as TVs go. 

[Arysyn]

I think what eventually will happen is that everything will be a minimum 1080p, possibly having QHD being scrapped in favor of 4k. Some midrange devices may have 1080p, though I think it'll become standard for budget devices, while midrange and premium devices have 4k. Instead of competing so much on display resolution, devices will focus on features, very notably virtual reality.

 

I think most television screens under 48 inches will be 4k, while sizes above will be starting at 8k.

[travismheim]

I think what eventually will happen is that everything will be a minimum 1080p, possibly having QHD being scrapped in favor of 4k. Some midrange devices may have 1080p, though I think it'll become standard for budget devices, while midrange and premium devices have 4k. Instead of competing so much on display resolution, devices will focus on features, very notably virtual reality.

 

I think most television screens under 48 inches will be 4k, while sizes above will be starting at 8k.

Devices may move up to that resolution but it doesn't mean its a good thing. You can have a beautiful display with 1080p resolution on a screen the size used in phones. TV's may keep following that path, but content needs to catch up. I deliver and install tv's and appliances and any time I set up one of the newer UHD tv's I have to sit there and explain why it looks like shit compared to what they saw in store.

[Fraydog]

Devices may move up to that resolution but it doesn't mean its a good thing. You can have a beautiful display with 1080p resolution on a screen the size used in phones. TV's may keep following that path, but content needs to catch up. I deliver and install tv's and appliances and any time I set up one of the newer UHD tv's I have to sit there and explain why it looks like shit compared to what they saw in store.

Wouldn't a lot of that boil down to the utter and complete lack of 4K content out there? I know that's the main reason I would not upgrade right now.

[travismheim]

Wouldn't a lot of that boil down to the utter and complete lack of 4K content out there? I know that's the main reason I would not upgrade right now.

Pretty much. I won't upgrade for a long time. It's never fun trying to explain the reason their TV looks bad is because cable TV can't keep up. Upscaling only goes so far.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[S4GRU]

I know this is not popular out there, but I have no need for greater than a 1080p phone screen. Looks crystal clear. The extra computer processing, memory needs (RAM and storage) and battery life hits are just not good payoffs for greater resolution.

 

And then the big kicker is what it will do to wireless data. Each frame of video of 4K takes 16x more data than 1080p. 16 times!!! 1080p streaming is nearly crippling networks now. Can you imagine what increasing the video streaming burden 16x would do?

 

4K could be good for very large screen TV's. But on a phone, it's not useful, not worth the extra cost and not worth the other negatives it creates. Hopefully getting away from the contract model where people actually pay for their devices will cause 4K telephones to not be worth people forking over more money. It's almost all negatives to me.

 

And then people are going to demand getting unlimited 4K streaming everywhere they go. And bitch about the network bogging down. And then I'm going to prison when I strangle every last breath from them.

 

So I pray that 4K resolution smart phones aren't the Next Big Thing.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

[cletus]

I know this is not popular out there, but I have no need for greater than a 1080p phone screen. Looks crystal clear. The extra computer processing, memory needs (RAM and storage) and battery life hits are just not good payoffs for greater resolution.

 

And then the big kicker is what it will do to wireless data. Each frame of video of 4K takes 16x more data than 1080p. 16 times!!! 1080p streaming is nearly crippling networks now. Can you imagine what increasing the video streaming burden 16x would do?

 

4K could be good for very large screen TV's. But on a phone, it's not useful, not worth the extra cost and not worth the other negatives it creates. Hopefully getting away from the contract model where people actually pay for their devices will cause 4K telephones to not be worth people forking over more money. It's almost all negatives to me.

 

And then people are going to demand getting unlimited 4K streaming everywhere they go. And bitch about the network bogging down. And then I'm going to prison when I strangle every last breath from them.

 

So I pray that 4K resolution smart phones aren't the Next Big Thing.

 

Using Nexus 6 on Tapatalk

Same here. Until 4k screens don't come with huge battery life penalties I am fine with 1080p. If 1080p is good enough for me to watch a movie on my TV then it should be good enough on a itty bitty screen as well.

 

The jump from 480/720/1080p was noticable but I feel the jump from 1080p to 2k and 4k is less noticeable because except for a few youtubers (MKBHD) and Netflix (House of Cards?) I can't think of any reliable sources for 4k video anyways. I mean, honestly, as it is streaming Twitch.tv to my phone even @720p looks great. 

 

The fact of the matter is many people can't stream 4k over a household internet connection much less a mobile connection.  Even Netflix with their excellent compression is at 15.6 Mbps or higher when trying to do 4k. 

(They recommend 25 Mbps minimum connection speed though https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306)

 

The sad truth is that something like 25% of American households have home internet connections that can reliably sustain that speed. 

 

We just plan don't have the infrastructure for land connections much less mobile connections.

[WiWavelength]

The fact of the matter is many people can't stream 4k over a household internet connection much less a mobile connection.  Even Netflix with their excellent compression is at 15.6 Mbps or higher when trying to do 4k. 

(They recommend 25 Mbps minimum connection speed though https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306)

 

The sad truth is that something like 25% of American households have home internet connections that can reliably sustain that speed. 

 

We just plan don't have the infrastructure for land connections much less mobile connections.

 

Hooray, laissez faire capitalism!

 

AJ

[cletus]

Hooray, laissez faire capitalism!

 

AJ

Hey, as long as Google Fiber comes to your town then you have internet options to do it! Google Fiber announced they were coming to Austin and my TWC internet was boosted 5x the past speed so now I have 100 down for $45/mo.

Residential Plans	Current Speeds	New Speeds
(Downstream/Upstream)	(Downstream/Upstream)
Everyday Low Price	2×1	3×1
Basic	                3×1	10×1
Standard	        15×1	50×5
Turbo	                20×2	100×10
Extreme	                30×5	200×20
Ultimate	        50×5	300×20

[nick]

 

Hey, as long as Google Fiber comes to your town then you have internet options to do it! Google Fiber announced they were coming to Austin and my TWC internet was boosted 5x the past speed so now I have 100 down for $45/mo.

Residential Plans	Current Speeds	New Speeds
(Downstream/Upstream)	(Downstream/Upstream)
Everyday Low Price	2×1	3×1
Basic	                3×1	10×1
Standard	        15×1	50×5
Turbo	                20×2	100×10
Extreme	                30×5	200×20
Ultimate	        50×5	300×20

cant wait to see this type of competition all across the country, it will be refreshing to have the cable monopolies shaken to the core, like we have seen in wireless.