Although I find this highly unnecessary for streamers and general video chatting (even 1080p has issues with smooth frame rates), I do think something like this could be great for computer vision applications.

schmidtbag:

Although I find this highly unnecessary for streamers and general video chatting (even 1080p has issues with smooth frame rates), I do think something like this could be great for computer vision applications.

It used to be but now that occidental country are mostly in FTTH and that computers can do 1080p as minimum, this argument is no more 100% valid.

rl66:

It used to be but now that occidental country are mostly in FTTH and that computers can do 1080p as minimum, this argument is no more 100% valid.

Most ISPs throughout the world can allow you to download 1080p, but most are not capable of uploading 1080p without major quality losses. So yes, this argument is still very much valid.

Woah, better resolution than my mirror 😀

Oh, noooo! Yet another piece of sh..err... I meant to write ''hardware'', from the notorious...err...well-renowned spy agency...err..microhard-macrosoft company 🙄. Great: expect even more Meltdowning and Spectrascoping and BigBadBillBro is watching you. https://wp.me/p2Vnvc-s0A2 But, wait a minute! Is the camera going to be produced by Nokia? And running on WP or windows immobile? If yes, then there will be no problem - the gadget wont function anyway...

The moment you realize that they are thinking their OS is fixed from being broken and they still getting into hardware and/or peripherals thing instead of becoming more credible and reliable.. 😱

schmidtbag:

Most ISPs throughout the world can allow you to download 1080p, but most are not capable of uploading 1080p without major quality losses. So yes, this argument is still very much valid.

Most Europe can stream upload 4K without problems. Probably most eastern Asia too. As an example, in Spain more than 80% of homes have FTTH availability, and the minimum you can get is 50/50 Mbps (the most common speeds are 300/300 and 600/600). Always unlimited data on home connections. Even the slowest speed is more than enough for 4K streaming.

schmidtbag:

Most ISPs throughout the world can allow you to download 1080p, but most are not capable of uploading 1080p without major quality losses. So yes, this argument is still very much valid.

The minimum bandwith in here is 500 in both way FTTH in here and most usual is 1000.

heffeque:

Most Europe can stream upload 4K without problems. Probably most eastern Asia too. As an example, in Spain more than 80% of homes have FTTH availability, and the minimum you can get is 50/50 Mbps (the most common speeds are 300/300 and 600/600). Always unlimited data on home connections. Even the slowest speed is more than enough for 4K streaming.

I confirm for asia and north africa too

rl66:

I confirm for asia and north africa too

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.

As Microsoft Azure accomodates more storage than ever, they can store 4k footage from their devices. Little Red Riding Hood asks: Microwolf, why are you looking at me with 4k webcams?? To spy on you even better!!!

rl66:

I confirm for asia and north africa too

heffeque:

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.

I'd consider your statement very narrow-minded. Go outside of major cities throughout east Asia or northern Africa and you won't get such high speeds. Also, apparently South America and Oceania don't exist at all to you? Are Greenland, Cyprus, and Iceland not part of Europe, because their connection speeds are crap. I know the stereotype is Americans only think of themselves, but at least I'm the one accounting for the majority of the world's population, and remembering people outside of my geographically little bubble exist. EDIT: BTW, there are plenty of connections in NA with speeds competitive with speeds in the areas of Europe and Asia with high population densities.

I see this as a beneficial add on to a streaming system as everyone don't want to spend a fortune on an expensive camera just to show your face on your stream.

I've been using a Logitech Brio for like 2 years now (4K). Works good with Windows Hello

schmidtbag:

I'd consider your statement very narrow-minded. Go outside of major cities throughout east Asia or northern Africa and you won't get such high speeds. Also, apparently South America and Oceania don't exist at all to you? Are Greenland, Cyprus, and Iceland not part of Europe, because their connection speeds are crap. I know the stereotype is Americans only think of themselves, but at least I'm the one accounting for the majority of the world's population, and remembering people outside of my geographically little bubble exist. EDIT: BTW, there are plenty of connections in NA with speeds competitive with speeds in the areas of Europe and Asia with high population densities.

I expanded your US-centric comment (since most 1st world countries don't fit into the problem you described) and expanded it with a couple examples yet I was the one being narrow-minded? I'm confused. I do know about South America (I've actually lived there for some time a few years ago) but the percentage of population there that can afford it and also have FTTH is very low. Anyway, back to the previous conclusion: there's a big potential market for it in Europe and Eastern-Asia which is more than enough to justify this webcam. The fact that there are other places that might also make use of them is a plus. PS: The majority of the world's population doesn't even have a computer at home, so if you are going to use the term literally, please make sure that it makes sense to do so. (I really doubt that Microsoft was thinking about selling them in DR Congo when they launched the webcam).

heffeque:

I expanded your US-centric comment (since most 1st world countries don't fit into the problem you described) and expanded it with a couple examples yet I was the one being narrow-minded? I'm confused.

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.

I do know about South America (I've actually lived there for some time a few years ago) but the percentage of population there that can afford it and also have FTTH is very low.

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

Anyway, back to the previous conclusion: there's a big potential market for it in Europe and Eastern-Asia which is more than enough to justify this webcam. The fact that there are other places that might also make use of them is a plus.

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.

PS: The majority of the world's population doesn't even have a computer at home, so if you are going to use the term literally, please make sure that it makes sense to do so. (I really doubt that Microsoft was thinking about selling them in DR Congo when they launched the webcam).

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/

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 Spoiler: "Options:"

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.

schmidtbag:

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.

heffeque:

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.

heffeque:

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.