Trash Panda Guides

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
automation:no4k

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

automation:no4k [2025/12/21 00:11] – created - external edit 127.0.0.1automation:no4k [2025/12/21 00:14] (current) – privacyl0st
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Why We Reject 4K (By Default) ======
 +
 +**Purpose:**  
 +This environment intentionally rejects 4K/UHD content by default. This is not due to technical limitations or lack of appreciation for quality, but a deliberate design choice grounded in **efficiency, scalability, and real-world usability**.
 +
 +This system is built to serve a growing library with minimal ongoing maintenance — not to curate a boutique, cinephile archive.
 +
 +---
 +
 +===== The Reality of 4K =====
 +
 +4K content introduces significant costs that rarely translate into proportional real-world benefits.
 +
 +These costs include:
 +  * 2–4× larger file sizes
 +  * Increased storage growth rates
 +  * Higher CPU/GPU requirements for transcoding
 +  * Reduced client compatibility
 +  * Greater network bandwidth demands
 +
 +In many cases, these tradeoffs deliver **marginal visual improvements** on typical viewing setups.
 +
 +---
 +
 +===== Storage Efficiency =====
 +
 +Consider the long-term storage impact:
 +
 +  * A well-encoded 1080p WEB or Bluray file typically ranges from **4–10 GB**
 +  * A comparable 4K encode often ranges from **15–40+ GB**
 +
 +At scale, this results in:
 +  * Faster disk exhaustion
 +  * More frequent storage expansions
 +  * Increased backup and recovery costs
 +
 +For episodic content, the inefficiency compounds rapidly.
 +
 +---
 +
 +===== Playback Compatibility =====
 +
 +Not all clients handle 4K equally well.
 +
 +Common issues include:
 +  * Forced server-side transcoding
 +  * HDR tone-mapping inconsistencies
 +  * Audio compatibility mismatches
 +  * Buffering on remote or wireless clients
 +
 +1080p content, by contrast, is:
 +  * Universally playable
 +  * Rarely transcoded
 +  * Consistent across devices
 +  * Easier to stream remotely
 +
 +---
 +
 +===== Diminishing Returns =====
 +
 +On most viewing setups:
 +  * Screen sizes under ~75"
 +  * Normal seating distances
 +  * Mixed lighting conditions
 +
 +The perceptual difference between a clean 1080p encode and a 4K encode is often negligible — especially once compression, streaming, and client limitations are factored in.
 +
 +The return on investment simply isn’t there.
 +
 +---
 +
 +===== Automation Impact =====
 +
 +4K complicates automation:
 +
 +  * More frequent mis-grabs
 +  * Increased reliance on custom formats
 +  * Longer processing times in Unmanic
 +  * Higher failure rates during transcodes
 +
 +This environment values:
 +  * Predictability
 +  * Low-touch operation
 +  * Long unattended runtimes
 +
 +4K actively works against those goals.
 +
 +---
 +
 +===== When 4K *Might* Make Sense =====
 +
 +4K is not forbidden — it’s **opt-out by design**.
 +
 +Exceptions may include:
 +  * A small, curated set of reference films
 +  * Dedicated home theater environments
 +  * Separate libraries with different quality rules
 +
 +If enabled, 4K should be:
 +  * Isolated
 +  * Intentional
 +  * Manually managed
 +
 +---
 +
 +===== Final Position =====
 +
 +Rejecting 4K is not about settling for less — it’s about **choosing the most efficient point on the quality curve**.
 +
 +A clean 1080p library:
 +  * Looks excellent
 +  * Scales predictably
 +  * Streams reliably
 +  * Requires less intervention
 +
 +For this environment, that balance point is exactly where we want to be.
  
automation/no4k.txt · Last modified: by privacyl0st