On 2017-06-27 14:01:25 (+0200), Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> 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. _______________________________________________ Debconf-video mailing list [email protected] http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-video
