Physical effects. Slow it down in replay to 0.25 speed in HD (1080P) and you can see things ripplingly away...You'd never see it in real time; it's too fast--but slowed down, you can see the vest change, the cards inward towards him to "disappear" and so on.

Still really cool

It's only 1080p.

No kidding. I just got to 1080P back in the end of 2014!

Japan is planning to film the 2020 Olympics in 8k@120fps and the cameras have been around for 3-4 years now. Multiple companies are working on 16k VR prototypes. 4k is generally pointless unless as I said you simply want "productive" realestate, or sit very close to the display. Because VR displays are so close to your eye the required resolution to match visual acuity is around 16k. My point wasn't anything to do with VR or games but rather the effective viewing distance from the screen(s).

"At 6 meters or 20 feet, a human eye with that performance is able to separate contours that are approximately 1.75 mm apart"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_acuity
6meters isn't a particular helpful distance for this argument but I'm sure you can do the math. 65" 4k display with 0.37mm pixel pitch would require a much closer distance to resolve the image properly. There is an advantage over 1080p but at normal viewing distances you won't be seeing all the detail of 4k.

There are a lot of parallels between advertising and copyright. Buy wholeheartedly in to either, and you end up sort of failing to accept the reality of their flaws.

Advertisers think they have a big problem whenever someone circumvents their ads. They panicked when VCRs came around and allowed people to record shows and fast-forward through ads. They panicked when DVRs came out and let people digitally skip through ads. And they are panicking now, with more and more people getting fed up and putting ad-blocking software on their computers or devices.

Copyright holders think they have a big problem when someone tries to circumvent their system, too. They worried about libraries giving people free access to books; but at least a physical book is pretty much limited to one person at a time. They freaked out about cassette tapes being easily copied with a dual cassette deck. They freaked out about people sharing MP3 music over the internet. They freaked out when DVDs came out with CSS protection which was circumvented almost immediately. They continue to freak out by pushing for ever more and more drastic DRM schemes, that are generally circumvented quite rapidly.

The general theme in both advertising and copyright is escalation; a sort of arms race. The problem is that that solution doesn't actually improve things for anyone, in either case. Ads get more and more offensive and annoying, more and more people block/skip them. Copyright gets more and more locked-down, more and more people circumvent it. In both cases, as the "legitimate" side squeezes harder, it ends up making the user experience better for those who circumvent it "illegitimately". See, for example, this good old comic from The Oatmeal:
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

The web with adblock software is a massively better experience than the web without it. A pirated 1080p movie or TV show lets you skip the previews/commercials that are often unskippable on a DVD. And on and on.

This arms race doesn't have a good future. Creators and distributors must start wracking their brains to come up with whole new ideas, or at least variants of the old ones, that break that cycle and ensure that "illegitimate" users/viewers don't have a better experience than legitimate ones. I'm sure not holding my breath though.

Vimeo is better, but it's still pretty low. I'd like for their bitrates to be at least double what they are right now. 4x would be ideal, but I know even 2x is asking a lot.

For instance, the "Posing and Rendering CGI Characters" video from Filmmaker IQ:

Youtube 720p - 782 kbps video (44 khz 125 kbps audio / 178MB file)
Vimeo 720p - 1,077 kbps video (48 khz 256 kbps audio / 135MB file)

Youtube 1080p - 1,474 kbps video
Vimeo 1080p - 2,545 kbps video

Also, if downloads are enabled for the video on Vimeo you can download the original file, which looks like this:

Vimeo 1080p original - 10,100 kbps video. (1.35 GB file)

The Galaxy Tab S2 (and the iPad) has a 2048x1536 (not 1080p) screen, but it's not the resolution they're bragging about. Samsung uses OLED screens, which offer far better picture quality than IPS LED. The contrast, color reproduction, and viewing angles are way better than any IPS LED screen.

Display Mate rated the S7 screen rated as the best they'd ever tested. ([url redacted] I really want to get an OLED TV someday, but they're so expensive... Someday...

Edit: It won't let me post urls, so you'll have to google the display mate review I guess...

Uhhh... your shit is 1080p like everyone elses, fatty. i tablet is just fine.

The YouTube bitrate for live encoding is published on the google support page titled Live encoder settings, bitrates and resolutions

720p
Resolution: 1280x720
Video Bitrate Range: 1,500 - 4,000 Kbps

The normal encoder is likely to use better compression to reduce the bitrate while maintaining similar quality (in theory anyway) at the cost of not being realtime (after you upload a vid it takes a while before the encoding is finished and all resolutions are available).

According to http://blog.waterworld.com.hk/post/hd-quality-youtube-vs-vimeo the normal youtube encoder is limited to 3Mbps for 720p, but Vimeo is limited to 10Mbps (similar to a DVD).

What the higher bitrate means depends on how fast your internet connection is. If your connection speed is between 3Mbps and 10Mbps then this means that yt 720 will play without buffering, but Vimeo will stop. If your connection is 10Mbps or higher then the higher bitrate means nicer looking video with less compression artefacts.

Here's a bitrate comparison 2Mbps vs 5Mbps vs 10Mbps from the Aussie YouTube channel Tech YES City


YT is actually limited to 8Mbps for 1080p so for certain videos, with lots of motion for instance, the Vimeo 720p would be higher quality than YT 1080p.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

The Hateful Eight - Teaser Trailer (Remake HQ 1080p) has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

downloading the 1080p hi-def as we speak (I hope my work doesn't mind ) *quality

I'm not talking about building a "serious gaming rig". Any half decent gaming pic is 2-3 times more powerful than an xbone/ps4. 1080 is really pretty low end for modern PCs.

I'm talking about building a low end PC that's comparable to a console. There are plenty of articles detailing it on the web.

As for configuration, drivers, etc, this isn't the 90s any more. If you want to build a god machine, oc the hell out of it, then yeah, you need to put some serious effort in. But to build a simple machine, run windows and steam, and play at 1080p? Not really much work involved.

I built a pretty powerful machine last year (water cooled, over clocked, etc) and it took a lot of work. But I haven't really needed to do much since.

@ChaosEngine

Everything @newtboy said. I think you're exaggerating just a tad. You're not going to build a PC that runs newly released games at 1080p at 60fps and also includes a blu-ray drive , 500 GB HD, and wireless motion sensitive controller for under $400 US (current price of PS4 on US Amazon). Plus, you're almost certainly going to have to buy a 1080p monitor (since most people don't do their computing on their TV or keep their tower case in the living room), which will set you back $200 minimum even for a cheap one that's likely to ghost.

As far as games go, nearly EVERY major release will be on all platforms and in fact will likely come out on console first (GTA V). Sure, some kickstarter stuff like Pillars of Eternity won't be available but it works both ways--you won't get some awesome console exclusives on the PC (Mario Kart, Little Big Planet, etc.) either.

Plus as newtboy mentioned, you can rent and sell console games. Yeah, PC games drop to much lower price points as they get older (I usually pick up all the good stuff I missed at $3-5 during Steam sales) but reselling isn't an option for most stuff (yet). You can mod most PC games, though, so that's a plus for them.

Look, I play 90% of my games on my gaming PC. That's because I have the time and money to do so. I don't understand the attitude of looking down on people who don't have those luxuries or who don't want to spend the prerequisite time required pouring over tech forums, price comparing at hardware vendors websites like Newegg, and downloading proper drivers just to build a gaming PC on the cheap when they can just go to a store down the road and pick up something comparable with virtually no effort.