Breaking Bad Arrives on Netflix in 4k Resolution

Breaking Bad Arrives on Netflix in 4k Resolution

Breaking Bad Walter White

Watch Walter White's downfall in the highest of high def.

If you haven't yet watched Breaking Bad -- or even if you have -- you can now stream all five seasons from Netflix in full 4k resolution. This ultra high definition will let you experience the tragedy all over again, but with a crystal clear picture that puts 1080p to shame. Of course you'll need a 4k TV that can display at this resolution and -- perhaps more problematic -- an ISP that can support the sort of bandwidth (25 megabits per second) needed to stream at that quality. That's five times the bandwidth Netflix recommends for streaming in HD, and with most American ISPs having trouble keeping up with the rising bandwidth use of streaming video that's probably the going to be the catch.

Breaking Bad joins House of Cards to become the second show Netflix streams in 4k, with more Netflix original content likely to follow. Hey, Netflix, can we request Orange Is the New Black next?

Source: The Verge

Permalink

Funny coincidence: I just got back to Netflix, and WOW, the service is bad, at least at night. They must have anemic servers because even on standard definition, they can't even reliably load a movie. How is anyone going to be able to watch this if the service can't even handle HD?

*Sits down on couch* Well, there goes my free time for the next few days.

Awesome, now we can watch fuck all happening in stunning 4K resolution.

Woohoo. Let's give the greedy cable execs more reason to complain. Despite the fact very little people can and will take advantage of this, Big Internet will say it's putting extra strain on their servers, thereby justifying a tiered internet in their eyes. Why don't the people with the 100" plus 4K systems stick with 4k blu rays/full downloads and PC games running on rigs that cost more than a decent used car until the net neutrality thing is over? At peak times I doubt users would even get a full 4K resolution since Netflix automatically down scales to keep the buffer filled so users don't complain their video keeps cutting out.

I think 4K is 5 years to a decade too early, and just like 3D, it's being forced on us buy the TV industry since they have no other gimmicks[1] they want to try and there's not enough of the general public buying any new TVs after their recent upgrade to HDTV. 4K is of no noticeable benefit to TVs smaller than 70 inches and the streaming infrastructure just can't handle it right now, both hardware wise and politically.

[1] It is stupid that they dropped the hype for multi-channel functions because I'd be interested in a 2D 40-60" 1080p TV with PIP fuction that lets me watch 4:3 or 16:9 videos in one another or side by side from various sources (PC, PS3, Wii, DVDs, HDMI, Display Port, Component, Composite etc) and being able to mix audio at various levels of my choosing.(I can't justify the xbone's functionality similar to this since you're stuck with the 'bone as one of the sources and I'm not paying $400-500 for that crap.

I don't understand why everyone thinks 4k is so impressive. Once they reach over 9k resolution, then it will be worth talking about and making a fuss over.

4k? cool, remind me when 4k monitors/TV's are cheap and I mean cheap in maybe another decade because right now they aren't any cheaper than a 1080p and even if there's 1 or two, that's not enough choice, just in case someone hops on here with the claim.

Xman490:
Funny coincidence: I just got back to Netflix, and WOW, the service is bad, at least at night. They must have anemic servers because even on standard definition, they can't even reliably load a movie. How is anyone going to be able to watch this if the service can't even handle HD?

Its likely your ISP and not Netflix.

DAMMIT NETFLIX!!! I have work to do you know.

synobal:

Xman490:
Funny coincidence: I just got back to Netflix, and WOW, the service is bad, at least at night. They must have anemic servers because even on standard definition, they can't even reliably load a movie. How is anyone going to be able to watch this if the service can't even handle HD?

Its likely your ISP and not Netflix.

Blaming Netflix is exactly what the ISPs are hoping will happen. What they're doing is illegal. But there's nobody to stop them since the regulators are basically working for them.

4K is pointless. Read this article:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

Good, we need 4k programming to make reasons to buy 4k TVs, otherwise the only thing that can run 4K now is PC.
Then again, this is Netflix, and with netflix compression their 1080p look worse than uncompressed 720p, so this will look similar to real 1080p perhaps?

harpere:

Watch Walter White's downfall in the highest of high def.

highest of high def currently is 8K. can i watch it in 8k? no? then what are you talking about?

Hairless Mammoth:
Why don't the people with the 100" plus 4K systems stick with 4k blu rays/full downloads and PC games running on rigs that cost more than a decent used car until the net neutrality thing is over? At peak times I doubt users would even get a full 4K resolution since Netflix automatically down scales to keep the buffer filled so users don't complain their video keeps cutting out.

I think 4K is 5 years to a decade too early, and just like 3D, it's being forced on us buy the TV industry since they have no other gimmicks they want to try and there's not enough of the general public buying any new TVs after their recent upgrade to HDTV. 4K is of no noticeable benefit to TVs smaller than 70 inches and the streaming infrastructure just can't handle it right now, both hardware wise and politically.

perhaps because 4k blue rays dont exist and full downloads are illegal[1]? Well as far as rigs costing more than used cars, granted, my rig costs more than my car, then again, my car costs less than 100 dollars and would be worth more as scrap metal. does not say much.
Netflix downscaling is an issue obviuosly, but peak times got nothing to do with it. not if the ISP has any brains in it and sets its cables right. then again, US ISPs dont.

3D is actually over 50 years old, its ironic how anyone can thin its "Too early". this is early stages of 4K, yes. but you dont have to use it if you dont want to. there ARE people that WANT to use it. and now they finally CAN.

4k benefits exist and are significant, meanwhile infrastructure is there, your just not getting acess to it. at least hardware wise. politically, yes, US is quite fucked.

Eri:
I don't understand why everyone thinks 4k is so impressive. Once they reach over 9k resolution, then it will be worth talking about and making a fuss over.

do you by chance mean the human eye resolution beating as humans see around 8k in movement while around 46k while static objects without movement?

super_mega_ultra:
4K is pointless. Read this article:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

your "ARticle" which is nothing but cherry picking comments and then providing non-answers most of the time in no way disproves the need of 4K. in fact youd be better off if you had linked the original article that these comments could be found on.

4k isnt pointless, and only blind people think it is. but then, they are blind, cant see resolution anyway.

[1] there is no legal way of buying a downloadable movie in high resolution

I had 25 Megabit internet in 2006-ish, don't see why it's a big deal. Some of my friends have 60/60 lines, even 100/100 (we live in Denmark).

Strazdas:
4k isnt pointless, and only blind people think it is. but then, they are blind, cant see resolution anyway.

The funny thing is that people who rave about 4k have no idea what good picture quality is. Tell me what tv you own.

You kids and your netflixes, in Australia, we have no 4K broadcasts, no netflix and we like it!

super_mega_ultra:
4K is pointless. Read this article:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

Okay, you've not told us why "4K is pointless, just linked us to a website. This is what they call a low content post, and spam. So If I were you, I'd edit this post to make it clear what your point is.

ripdajacker:
I had 25 Megabit internet in 2006-ish, don't see why it's a big deal. Some of my friends have 60/60 lines, even 100/100 (we live in Denmark).

I get 11mb/s on a good day at home.

I've never watched breaking bad.

Evil Smurf:
You kids and your netflixes, in Australia, we have no 4K broadcasts, no netflix and we like it!

super_mega_ultra:
4K is pointless. Read this article:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

Okay, you've not told us why "4K is pointless, just linked us to a website. This is what they call a low content post, and spam. So If I were you, I'd edit this post to make it clear what your point is.

ripdajacker:
I had 25 Megabit internet in 2006-ish, don't see why it's a big deal. Some of my friends have 60/60 lines, even 100/100 (we live in Denmark).

I get 11mb/s on a good day at home.

I've never watched breaking bad.

It's pointless since you can't see such high resolution, unless you have a 200" screen.

super_mega_ultra:

Evil Smurf:
You kids and your netflixes, in Australia, we have no 4K broadcasts, no netflix and we like it!

super_mega_ultra:
4K is pointless. Read this article:

http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid-still/

Okay, you've not told us why "4K is pointless, just linked us to a website. This is what they call a low content post, and spam. So If I were you, I'd edit this post to make it clear what your point is.

ripdajacker:
I had 25 Megabit internet in 2006-ish, don't see why it's a big deal. Some of my friends have 60/60 lines, even 100/100 (we live in Denmark).

I get 11mb/s on a good day at home.

I've never watched breaking bad.

It's pointless since you can't see such high resolution, unless you have a 200" screen.

Two can play at that game. You can't tell the difference, but I can. Now what? Who's right?

-- I loved Breaking Bad, but I can't see myself ever affording a 4K display. At least not yet. I don't think this is the kind of show that I'll rewatch, but it's cool seeing a number of shows getting the treatment. Now if only ISPs could grow up.

Alcaste:

Two can play at that game. You can't tell the difference, but I can. Now what? Who's right?

Ah, my mistake, I didn't realize I was speaking to an alien creature with vastly superior eye sight. You see, us humans have a finite resolution to our eye sight, one that is meet using 1080p video at normal viewing distance of even very large screens. This resolution is also met by the so called retina display of certain apple products.

What tv model do you own anyways?

Strazdas:
snip

4K Blurays might not be for sale, yet, but actually Sony and Samsung have their own download services and hard drives that plug in to 4K TVs. I'd bet waiting for that 40GB file to download is better than Netflix compressing your stream to sub 1080p resolutions and negating the reason to own a new 4K TV.

I said "decent" used car. In layman's terms, I meant the kind of PC someone with enough disposable income to buy a 4K TV might already have. My old, rusty, but dependable truck probably couldn't be sold for enough to cover the cost of a PC the can run the newest games at 4K.

TV manufacturers ARE forcing it on us and harming both us and themselves in the process. They want to move more units, yet virtually everyone who wanted an HD set now has it. No one but a few enthusiasts wanted 3D TVs and the TV makers realized this only after sinking tons of money into development and advertising. (Of course 3D was always a gimmick that looked like 2-3 layers of moving cardboard cutouts. People should just be impressed with the human mind's ability to discern subtle differences in size and shadows as depth, even with one eye closed and 2D animators' knowledge of and skill at artistic perception) Now they're doing it again in less time than the HDTV to 3DTV gap, only now the benefits only are apparent on sets that are 6 feet(I'm being generous here) or larger. There is no sudden jump in image quality like the first jump, unless you're sitting too close to the screen or bought a tv so big the most people today would have to take out a 5 year loan to pay for. I'm not against 4K TV itself. (When my 40" 1080p TV bites the big one and 4K costs have gone down, I might consider a 4K projector if I move to a place with an ideal layout for that instead of a 2K or 4K TV. Also, this 4K craze is lowering 2K costs, so that will help when I have to help my dad, who doesn't care if it's 2k,4k,8K or 480i as long as it's big and can play M*A*S*H, find a new TV.) What I am against is manufacturers hyping up their products' features to the public and deceiving them. That is what they are doing with sub-100 inch 4K sets.

Why do you think most of us here in the US are pissed? Netflix (a company that is for an open internet) is giving both ours and their political opponents ammunition to argue against net neutrality just because Netflix wants to play an unnecessary game of catch up by offering (virtually fake) 4K streaming. Even if the infrastructure is there, ISPs can say their infrastructure can't handle nationwide 4K streaming, and any experts sent to verify those claims will either be indirectly on their payroll or shown just the tip of the iceberg to fool them into agreeing. They could have waited until this FFC SNAFU was over, and we new whether on not Big Cable was allowed more access to our wallets. 4K is still in the early adopter stage there will be plenty of time for a big company like Netflix to seize their share of the market after we get the FCC to stop letting ISP and cable conglomerates use them as sock puppets.

super_mega_ultra:

Strazdas:
4k isnt pointless, and only blind people think it is. but then, they are blind, cant see resolution anyway.

The funny thing is that people who rave about 4k have no idea what good picture quality is. Tell me what tv you own.

Tv... i dont know its some old inherited thing. I use Monitors because they give much better image quality and PPI as well as higher refresh rates.

super_mega_ultra:
You see, us humans have a finite resolution to our eye sight, one that is meet using 1080p video at normal viewing distance of even very large screens.

yes, humans rye sight resolution is finite. 4k does not come close to that resolution though. Its 8k while in motion, over 40k while static images.

Hairless Mammoth:

4K Blurays might not be for sale, yet, but actually Sony and Samsung have their own download services and hard drives that plug in to 4K TVs. I'd bet waiting for that 40GB file to download is better than Netflix compressing your stream to sub 1080p resolutions and negating the reason to own a new 4K TV.

ah i havent heard abou....."compatible only with Sony televisions".... and thats why i havent. Still i appluad thier effort. the sad thing is.... 40 GB is worrying. thats how much a high quality (but still compressed) 1080p movie would take. (assuming around 2 hours). whick makes me believe it actually is still quite compresed, but still eons better than netflix or youtube quality.

the article states overnight download, but i think i could stream that. 40 GB for 2 hours video would count into 5,6(8) MB/s download assuming stable download for 2 hours. I got 12.5 MB/s line. can watch two of these at once, so yes please

I said "decent" used car. In layman's terms, I meant the kind of PC someone with enough disposable income to buy a 4K TV might already have. My old, rusty, but dependable truck probably couldn't be sold for enough to cover the cost of a PC the can run the newest games at 4K.

well, my car works, gets me where i need to go, and fits within existing car regulations. thats decent enough for me. its also 6 months younger than me!
Well, i got a 800 dollar PC. while i do run games at 1080p usually, i use true AA on some games which measn that games are being generated in 4k and downsampled to remove aliasing artefacts. Granted, it has enough juice to do this only for older games, but it works for them. High resolutions are mostly dependant on graphical ram actually. and a single Titan Black (going bellow 1000 dollars nowadays) will output 4k at 60fps for almost any game you throw at it. granted more supersampling may not be feasible because then you would need to generate even higher resolutions, but at 4k antialiasing becomes much less a problem than on low resolutions. dont know how much your truck costs.

What I am against is manufacturers hyping up their products' features to the public and deceiving them. That is what they are doing with sub-100 inch 4K sets.

except that, you know, people actually see a difference in sub-100 inck 4k sets. while hyping does exist (it exists for every product nowadays), not so sure about decieving.

Even if the infrastructure is there, ISPs can say their infrastructure can't handle nationwide 4K streaming, and any experts sent to verify those claims will either be indirectly on their payroll or shown just the tip of the iceberg to fool them into agreeing.

ANd the sensible solution would be to upgrade infrastructure to be up to snuff with the rest of the owrld, but this being US who cares about sensible solutions right?

4K is still in the early adopter stage there will be plenty of time for a big company like Netflix to seize their share of the market after we get the FCC to stop letting ISP and cable conglomerates use them as sock puppets.

but if you suvesfully seize the early adopters, you get your most loyal costumers right where you want. Also you underestimate how many people nowadays are buying above 1080p monitors. and i mean mostly the 1440p standard which is becoming relatively cheap now. we dont need to make leaps from 1080p to 2160p. we can have intermediate steps too. jsut like we went 480p-720p-1080p instead of 480p-1080p.

Shadow-Phoenix:
4k? cool, remind me when 4k monitors/TV's are cheap and I mean cheap in maybe another decade because right now they aren't any cheaper than a 1080p and even if there's 1 or two, that's not enough choice, just in case someone hops on here with the claim.

Depends on what you call cheap. Is 600$ for a 4K monitor cheap? Normally 4K runs in the couple thousands. I know Pc gamer did a review on it and gave it an 87 out 100. Thats good enough for Netflicks right?

I mean, its a good deal if you want one right now when the price is so high. But I am sure it will go down even further.

I also know that laptops have 4K screens now. I think it was 1K for it and it had some nice specs. So there's that too.

I think 4K is catching on faster than 1080p did.

Strazdas:
[quote="super_mega_ultra" post="7.853010.21102882"]
yes, humans rye sight resolution is finite. 4k does not come close to that resolution though. Its 8k while in motion, over 40k while static images.

Even if it's true that 8k is the resolution of the human eyes (something you need a source to proce), that is for the entire sight picture. A normal tv only takes up a fraction of everything you are watching, which is kind of my point. That under normal circumstances, with a normal sized tv (40-60") 4k is pointless.

Xman490:
Funny coincidence: I just got back to Netflix, and WOW, the service is bad, at least at night. They must have anemic servers because even on standard definition, they can't even reliably load a movie. How is anyone going to be able to watch this if the service can't even handle HD?

You must have really shitty internet because just last night I was streaming Full Metal Alchemist in HD while also using Hola to get access to the US Netflix library.

I had absolutely no problems, nor have I while using it to watch several sitcoms and movies as well.

super_mega_ultra:

Strazdas:
[quote="super_mega_ultra" post="7.853010.21102882"]
yes, humans rye sight resolution is finite. 4k does not come close to that resolution though. Its 8k while in motion, over 40k while static images.

Even if it's true that 8k is the resolution of the human eyes (something you need a source to proce), that is for the entire sight picture. A normal tv only takes up a fraction of everything you are watching, which is kind of my point. That under normal circumstances, with a normal sized tv (40-60") 4k is pointless.

this is true, however its worth noting that 4k is only 1/4th of 8k, so a TV that takes up 25% of your sight area would fully benefit from the resolution.
i dont know what distance you need to be from your TV that a 60" TV would take less than 25%. do you own a private movie theater or something? and here i sit typing at 27" monitor with ~1 meter distance from the screen and it takes around 75% of my visual spectrum. if it was 60" distance could more thna double to sustain same spectrum.

Strazdas:

super_mega_ultra:

Strazdas:
[quote="super_mega_ultra" post="7.853010.21102882"]
yes, humans rye sight resolution is finite. 4k does not come close to that resolution though. Its 8k while in motion, over 40k while static images.

Even if it's true that 8k is the resolution of the human eyes (something you need a source to proce), that is for the entire sight picture. A normal tv only takes up a fraction of everything you are watching, which is kind of my point. That under normal circumstances, with a normal sized tv (40-60") 4k is pointless.

this is true, however its worth noting that 4k is only 1/4th of 8k, so a TV that takes up 25% of your sight area would fully benefit from the resolution.
i dont know what distance you need to be from your TV that a 60" TV would take less than 25%. do you own a private movie theater or something? and here i sit typing at 27" monitor with ~1 meter distance from the screen and it takes around 75% of my visual spectrum. if it was 60" distance could more thna double to sustain same spectrum.

I have a 46" and sit at only 180 cm from it. I counted that 18 more tvs of the same size could fit in my total view. This is only slightly above 5 % of the total view. It is important to understand that the total view (that you claim is capable of 8k, but still haven't given a source) is a lot bigger than you assume because people tend to think only of what they are focusing on. If I was sitting in a round room covered by tvs I could probably see more than 19 at the same time without refocusing my eyes or move my head.

It is also important to remember that you wouldn't want a tv that occupies 100 % of the view, because most tv-series, movies and games place only important things on the screen and they expect you to be focused on all of the screen. When producers place less important, but immersive things on the edges then you might want a tv that occupies 100 % of the view.

Xman490:
Funny coincidence: I just got back to Netflix, and WOW, the service is bad, at least at night. They must have anemic servers because even on standard definition, they can't even reliably load a movie. How is anyone going to be able to watch this if the service can't even handle HD?

It must have to do with your ISP because no matter what time I watch it, day or night, my video is always in HD. I've never had a problem with quality.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here