Re: [Debconf-video] Report from last week-end's single-user single-day DebConf Video sprint
On 2017-06-27 14:01:25 (+0200), Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:43:55AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 01:26:37PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Right, but I doubt we'll ever want to do more than 1080p (if even that),
> >
> > I used to say the same about DV ("thats all we need") but after having seen several
> > cccongress videos in 1080p I must say, higher resolution *is* better.
> >
> > Both for videos with many small details as well as for "boring videos" where you
> > only see the speaker???
> >
> > So I can imagine doing DebConf videos in 4k by now :)
>
> Oh, yeah, sure. I can *imagine*, that's not the problem. Perhaps I
> should clarify:
>
> - I doubt voctomix can deal with 4K on today's hardware;
Nageru might, although I should still try it on a more modern GPU (it runs
out of VRAM on my ancient GTX560ti with only 1GB VRAM with a 4k signal, it
does 1080p just fine)
> - Most people will not want to download a one-hour 2160p stream (which will be
> around 35G if done right) if a 1080p one (about 5G) will suffice;
unlimited broadband internet exists for a reason :)
> - While 4K screens do exist, I don't know how many DDs have such screens today
> (as opposed to FullHD ones);
Also other people watch debconf I think.
> - Even if the above point wasn't true, the bandwidth requirements for live
> streaming 2160p to a few hundred people will be insane;
> - When I bought my 40" TV a few years back (which does both types of 4K), I
> calculated that at that size, 4K comes down to 4.something pixels per
> millimeter; that's over sixteen per square millimeter. As such, I say
> that unless you have a really really *really* big screen and some
> serious bandwidth, you will not see the difference between 1080p and
> 4K.
You can get 70" 4k screens for less than 2k now..
>
> I do agree that higher resolution is generally better, and we should
> consider to switch to 1080p in a few years, when technology has improved
> to a level where it makes technical sense for us to push that far.
The tech is here. I don't really see what's missing TBH.
> However, 4K is so far down the line before it'll be useful for us that I
> don't think we should care about that with the cameras that we're buying
> today; by the time we do move to 4K, 10-15 years from now, these cameras
> will be so old that they'll need to be replaced anyway.
I don't think so. 4k should be perfectly doable in less than 5 years.
Peter.
Reply to: