Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

How many people would even care about pirating this sort of content? A 4K movie can easily take up 50-100GB in its native format - even the cost of storing this on durable media is quite non-trivial. I suspect that there's nothing of substance behind this renewed "protective" push besides content studios' artificial paranoia, the point of which is mostly to cling onto a delusion that their content is somehow uniquely valuable.



The cost and hassle of storing 1080p back when it first became common is about on-part with the cost of handling 4K content today. Lots of folks have 100-1000Mbit connections, and storage capacities have increased to keep pace.

Although, anecdotally, after setting everything up for 4K I've been underwhelmed by the content - Modern film CGI at 4k looks garbage, the kind of fidelity leap we saw with HD isn't nearly as ubiquitous. On tbat basis, 4k's not 'must have'.


For me the point of 4k isn't actually 4k, it's HDR.


A 2 hour movie at Netflix's 4K bitrate (17Mbps) would be 15GB.

    >>> 2.0*60*60*(17*1000*1000)/8/1000/1000/1000
    15.3


HEVC can compress it to about 4GB. At 10Mbps cable internet (typical in urban Comcast), it would take ~1hr to download 4K 2hr movie at this compression. This is what makes realtime 4K streaming possible.


HEVC isn't 4x better. 4-5Mbps 4k HEVC is going to look bad under a whole lot of conditions.

And 17Mbps 4k h.264 wasn't a great place to start in.


Doesn't Netflix already stream 4K content using HEVC?


This is the same reasoning against why anyone would ever listen to music or watch a movie on a computer.

Bandwidth will improve, storage will get cheaper, and compression will get better.


I have cheap gigabit internet. Bandwidth already is not a problem. What matters the most for me is convenience. This is the proper way to stop pirating.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: