Microsoft to launch 4K webcams in 2019

#5621218 Posted on: 12/27/2018 12:46 AM

---

Except it wasn't US-centric, nor did it even imply that... In fact, I explicitly stated "throughout the world". America is not the world. Just today on another news thread, there are mainland Europeans who mentioned ISP issues with 4K content. I hear from people of other countries all the time who have internet issues. Your comfortable little bubble of high-speed internet is not as far-reaching throughout Europe and Asia as you think. So, spare me your inferrals and accusations.

And yet, you conveniently left them out, knowing how they are a counter to your point.

There is some potential, but even in places that can upload 4K streams, I can't imagine there's a big demand for it. People use webcams to talk to their families or have remote office meetings. You don't need a resolution high enough to see the pores on someone's skin to do that.

Actually, I initially only focused on "ISPs throughout the world", only to realize it doesn't matter to distinguish such a thing. Whether you focus on all connected devices or just people, the fact remains the same - the majority do not have access to Internet reliably capable of uploading decent-quality 4K content.

EDIT:
BTW, I looked up Spain's average speeds, and although they're not bad, they're not impressive either:
http://www.speedtest.net/reports/spain/

#5621220 Posted on: 12/27/2018 01:03 AM

---

Well, upload thing is actually more about CPU and codec. I am streaming games at 1080p@48fps via OBS Studio which uses x264. I use CRF 29/32 (CPU Usage=placebo; Profile=none; Tune=Film) depending on game and
8x8dct=1 aq-mode=1 aq-strength=1.8 ipratio=1.8 bframes=3 pbratio=2.5 b-adapt=2 open-gop=normal fullrange=on colorprim=smpte240m transfer=smpte240m colormatrix=smpte240m deblock=-1:-1 direct=temporal min-keyint=30 keyint=180 level=4.1 me=umh merange=12 crf-max=48 min-keyint=auto mixed-refs=1 no-mbtree=0 partitions=p8x8,b8x8,i8x8,i4x4 psy-rd=0.5:0.0 rc-lookahead=0 ref=1 scenecut=50 subme=6 threads=12 vbv-maxrate=3600 ratetol=20 vbv-bufsize=0 trellis=1 weightb=1 weightp=2

Bitrate ranges from 1.5 to 5.4 Mbps on CRF 30. With options above one can easily control CPU (8C/16T) requirements (20~55%) vs. bitrate by CRF.
Now, streaming conversation is much easier as most of scene will be static. That what does move is likely going to move as big chunk easy to analyze and encode.
And x265 will be in picture very soon.

#5621231 Posted on: 12/27/2018 02:07 AM

---

And yet, you conveniently left them out, knowing how they are a counter to your point.

Actually, I initially only focused on "ISPs throughout the world", only to realize it doesn't matter to distinguish such a thing. Whether you focus on all connected devices or just people, the fact remains the same - the majority do not have access to Internet reliably capable of uploading decent-quality 4K content.
I think you still didn't get my point. "ISPs throughout the world" regarding a 4K cam means one of two things:

ISPs throughout the 1st-world
or literally ISPs throughout the whole world, including ISPs in countries where most people don't even have computers to begin with

First case was my original point: most 1st world countries do have general access to fast enough internet speeds to be able to make use of 4K streaming both down and up. Being the US and Canada two major exceptions.
The second case is just pointless: you seem to think that Microsoft is building these cameras for people that can't afford them and don't have access to good enough internet speeds.

Obviously 1st world countries are more than enough to justify this webcam, yet you seem to believe that this 4K webcam is useless because most ISPs can't handle it. I could grab your argument and say that 1080p webcams are useless too because most ISPs around the world can't handle them either. Heck, webcams are useless because most people in Africa can't use them! Brilliant argument!

Most 1st world ISPs can handle 4K without problems, so this product's existence is more than justified.

PS: also what Fox2232 says: for those without good enough internet connection, better codecs can do their magic.

#5621241 Posted on: 12/27/2018 02:53 AM

---

I think you still didn't get my point. "ISPs throughout the world" regarding a 4K cam means one of two things:

ISPs throughout the 1st-world
or literally ISPs throughout the whole world, including ISPs in countries where most people don't even have computers to begin with

First case was my original point: most 1st world countries do have general access to fast enough internet speeds to be able to make use of 4K streaming both down and up. Being the US and Canada two major exceptions.
The second case is just pointless: you seem to think that Microsoft is building these cameras for people that can't afford them and don't have access to good enough internet speeds.
Except I wasn't referring to just "the 1st world". One of the most common uses of webcams is to see people in places across the world. Whether you're travelling, doing a business trip, doing journalism, or living abroad (and want to talk to family), there are all sorts of people in every corner of every continent who could be a potential candidate for a product like this.
Also, you seem to think North American internet is a lot worse than it really is. I have a relatively low-tier connection for my apartment and it's higher than Spain's average. Considering how you seem to think your country's internet is so superior, something sure doesn't seem to add up here.
Obviously 1st world countries are more than enough to justify this webcam, yet you seem to believe that this 4K webcam is useless because most ISPs can't handle it. I could grab your argument and say that 1080p webcams are useless too because most ISPs around the world can't handle them either. Heck, webcams are useless because most people in Africa can't use them! Brilliant argument!
I never said the webcam wasn't justifiable, I said it was "highly unnecessary for streamers and video chat". That doesn't mean it can't be justified, it means it's very niche and not all that practical.
Besides, isn't what you said supporting my point even more? Despite 1080p being 1/4 the data (which means more attainable compression and lower bandwidth requirements), it's still a little too much for a lot of international communication.
Most 1st world ISPs can handle 4K without problems, so this product's existence is more than justified.
Again, never said it wasn't justified. Also, under what metric, or statistics? You could compress a video to around 3Mbps, plus or minus 1, which most connections could handle. But at that point, you either need processing power that the average webcam user isn't going to have access to, or, the quality is going to suffer so much that you might as well use 1080p.

#5621243 Posted on: 12/27/2018 03:11 AM

---

I think you still didn't get my point. "ISPs throughout the world" regarding a 4K cam means one of two things:

ISPs throughout the 1st-world
or literally ISPs throughout the whole world, including ISPs in countries where most people don't even have computers to begin with

First case was my original point: most 1st world countries do have general access to fast enough internet speeds to be able to make use of 4K streaming both down and up. Being the US and Canada two major exceptions.
The second case is just pointless: you seem to think that Microsoft is building these cameras for people that can't afford them and don't have access to good enough internet speeds.

Obviously 1st world countries are more than enough to justify this webcam, yet you seem to believe that this 4K webcam is useless because most ISPs can't handle it. I could grab your argument and say that 1080p webcams are useless too because most ISPs around the world can't handle them either. Heck, webcams are useless because most people in Africa can't use them! Brilliant argument!

Most 1st world ISPs can handle 4K without problems, so this product's existence is more than justified.

PS: also what Fox2232 says: for those without good enough internet connection, better codecs can do their magic.


Fact one: "Most ISPs throughout the world can allow you to download 1080p, but most are not capable of uploading 1080p without major quality losses." Is correct. Your statement: "In conclusion, just because the US, Canada, Mexico, etc don't have general fast speed internet availability doesn't mean that the rest of the world can't enjoy 4k streaming." ignores fact one and isn't a conclusion. It's a troll IMO.