SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In case you needed another reason to pirate movies, Microsoft is introducing a new hardware-based DRM scheme called PlayReady to lock down 4k content on Windows PCs. The user-restricting tool will only be available on Windows 10, ensuring users orphaned on earlier versions of the OS will need to upgrade to view the high-definition format.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2908089/all-about-playready-30-microsofts-secret-plan-to-lock-down-4k-movies-to-your-pc.html
From the article:
“Dad?! What’s going on? Why do we have to watch this movie in crappy standard-def?” The name of the movie might as well be Digital Rights Management: The New Nightmare. It stars Microsoft, who is working with chip vendors Intel, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm to protect Hollywood’s movies from piracy as they travel through your PC. The technology it’s promoting is called PlayReady 3.0.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Sunday April 26 2015, @01:26PM
You forgot to mention that 4k itself doesn't really matter. It's just a marketing gimmick, and device and content producers would be far better off improving other aspects of their devices/content (framerates, contrast, color fidelity, durability... security maybe?).
But they need to keep on selling, so they go with what the "market" wants.
Reminds me of digital photography in late 00s. "we've got more pixels!", it might have been relevant at the time, and consumers got to think that more pixels meant more quality. So the producers followed the flow, and made camers with ridiculous pixel counts. It's just a numer, and it's easy to hook up a customer on that.
I totally enjoyed films in vhs, at the time. Personally I don't feel I need 4k for anything general-purpose.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mrcoolbp on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:22PM
There's truth to that statement, but more pixels do have a significant impact on the picture. There's of course a point at which this no longer helps (when approaching the angular resolution limits of our eyes). 4K TVs, therefore, are better at being bigger, and still looking good. With computer monitors, generally we sit much closer, so again, (I haven't done the research so someone can prove me wrong here), I'm pretty sure our eyes can still take advantage of most of those pixels (see stagnant monitor resolutions over the past 10-15 years).
Further, at least some companies are trying to improve some of these qualities on 4K panels; my friend is working on improving 4K panels by using nano dots to help produce true white light (instead of the "biased" light produced by typical light sources, the dots are manufactured to absorb and re-emit the correct wavelengths making much more "pure" white). This will improve contrast as well because they don't have to turn up the brightness in order to produce the colors which are less represented by typical light sources. His specific project isn't working on "durability" per-say, but rather how to make this tech last as long as possible (exposure to oxygen kills the nano dots). Framerates are tough for the TV world, as the vast majority of all source content is already in 24/29.97/60 FPS, but boy would I love to see some higher frame-rates.
I have no interest in a 4K TV (until they aren't much more expensive then regular TVs), but I would certainly consider a 4K monitor if it wasn't exorbitantly priced (good luck on that though?).
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday April 26 2015, @03:21PM
I'd love to see how far display technologies will be pushed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Tiers_and_levels [wikipedia.org]
For example, HEVC 6.2: 3,840 × 2,160 @ 300.0 FPS and 8,192 × 4,320 @ 120.0 FPS.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:08PM
Content distribution is a problem even for just 4k @ 30 fps. Only satellite links with PVR or content cache with fiber links will perhaps do it. But that requires some business rethinking and users to change behavior and expectations. Not happing really.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:27PM
We keep hearing that 15-20 Mbps is sufficient for 4K streaming [dailytech.com], and VP10, NETVC, Perseus, etc. [soylentnews.org] could cut down on the bandwidth needed vs. H.265. 7-12 Mbps may be possible.
Plus the major application for 4K @90 FPS or better won't be prerendered movies, it will be VR. VR companies want to deliver 90-120 FPS [roadtovr.com] at resolutions better than 2560x1440.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:07PM
15-20 Mbit/s seems alright. Provided it works when millions of people starts to watch that stream too ;-)
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday April 26 2015, @07:26PM
Beads of dripping sweat and all...
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday April 26 2015, @10:23PM
And the zits on the womens' asses.