dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2014-03-12 12:25:07: Broadcasters don't seem entirely sure that they want to run face-first toward higher-resolution 4K broadcasts. Many are only just finishing up the transition to regular HD, and others are still battling the analog to digital transition. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · next


OnlyIf Low

@comcast.net

4K TVs only if price no higher than 1080P HDTVs

The only way I'd end up with a 4K TV is if it was in the same price range as good 1080P TV. In other words if 4k was a no cost extra feature of the TV.



trparky
Apple... YUM
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:2

I don't see the need...

I don't see the need for 4K televisions. My current 1080p 60Hz Samsung television from five years ago still works just fine and looks exactly the way it did when I bought it.

Tell me, why do I need 4K? I see 4K as the next "3D" in the sense that it's just another ploy to make people buy new TVs.
--
Tom
Tom's Tech Blog



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

"Tell me, why do I need 4K?"

How many millions asked the same question about HD?



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to OnlyIf Low

Re: 4K TVs only if price no higher than 1080P HDTVs

Given some time mainstream 4K TVs will drop in price to where they do not add much to the price of a TV. 4k and 1080p will be about as far a part as 720 and 1080 is today. 720 will go away and the choice will be 1080 and 4k with a similar price spread.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

4K will be more of a movie format.

I don't really see where 4K will take off anytime soon in broadcast TV but I can see where it will have a market for the movie channels.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to trparky

Re: I don't see the need...

At 65" or less I see no current need either. If I had a mcmansion and a room that could sport something larger I might be more interested.

I see 4k like SACD / DVD-Audio. It'll be great for some purists, but not really practical or needed for the mainstream. In the audio world, I think trying to improve beyond CD quality audio yielded minimal returns. After all, you only have two ears capable of hearing a certain range of frequencies. People were more interested in the conveniences gained by compressing the audio (quantity/convenience over minor gains in quality. )

There are similar limitations to eyeballs, you can only see so much clarity for a given amount of surface area from a typical viewing distance. HD was badly needed for screens larger than 32". With flat screens, even for people in small living spaces could enjoy bigger screens.

That said, I support the industry pushing 4K forward. Home theater gear evolves very slowly, I bought my first HD-ready TV in 1998. 16 years later and we still don't have a pure HD lineup. Might as well be ready for future advances.



Jon Snow

@comcast.net

3 recommendations

reply to trparky

said by trparky:

Tell me, why do I need 4K?

How big is your screen and how far do you sit from it? I have both a 55" telly and a 120" projector screen. In both cases I sit far enough away from the screen, for simple comfort and optimum viewing angle, that I would NOT benefit from 4k video. I doubt you'd benefit from it either, albeit you probably would benefit from 1080p.

There's a handy-dandy graph a helpful person has crafted, based on human eye's visual acuity, here: »cdn.avsforum.com/a/a2/a2ff0203_v···ance.png (lifted from »carltonbale.com)

At optimum viewing angles (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HD···distance), 1080p is about the optimum resolution. Older television material was recorded for much-narrower-than-optimum viewing angle, so the rules are different, but that's material that isn't even available in 1080p, let alone 4k...


djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
reply to battleop

HD was badly needed, and an obvious quality leap for common screen sizes when it made its debut. Big, blurry rear projection TVs were pretty common in the late 90's. The clarity couldn't really be improved, because the source wasn't good enough.

In contrast, I've yet to see a picture in someone's home where I thought 1920x1080 resolution was the limiting factor. Just recently I went to a friend's house in Malibu to watch the oscars, where he had his FiOS HD picture projected full size onto his large living room wall. Even at that size, the picture was still beautifully crisp. 4K probably would have made a small incremental improvement, but not the same magnitude that SD to HD was to more practical common viewing scenarios.


jasondean

join:2009-08-28
Brooklyn, NY

Chicken and egg...

One small byproduct of manufacturers producing high priced 4KTVs will hopefully be cheaper 1080p TV prices. Yes there are fewer eyeballs on a 4K program since there aren't that many TVs out there yet but there is one major difference when comparing to 3D. 4K doesn't require special glasses or sitting in optimal spots to properly view the content.

Cable companies are somewhere in the process of killing off analog transmissions to recover the bandwidth. That bandwidth will allow providers to broadcast 4K content. Unfortunately there is still a ton of wasted bandwidth and I'm not sure who's responsible. As the article mentioned, ABC/Disney hasn't converted all their content to HD yet. That isn't as much of an issue as long as they can upconvert the signal and kill off ther SD channels. I have a good chunk of channels with TWC still simulcasting SD and HD signals (for channels that actually have both - like local broadcasters' primary HD channel). Why should TWC be forced to use the bandwidth to broadcast WABC in SD on 7 and HD on 707? Most cable boxes have analog outputs and can easily downconvert signals to older TVs. TWC Customers can easily use those boxes to tune to channel 707 and see all programing in letterbox (or zoom in and view part of the picture if they prefer). Recover the bandwidth of all those channels and I guarantee they will have enough to carry a few 4K channels.

OTA/Broadcasters do have an issue as the increase data may be a challenge but they all own cable only channels that can benefit from the increased quality (and more importantly they can CHARGE for that content). Just like TWC did (and most other companies), they can have a whole new "4K Tier".

I know ESPN was on the front line with 3D and the investment wasn't worth it but 4K shouldn't suffer because 3D failed miserably. They should easily be on the front lines with this one instead of taking a back seat.


YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY
reply to djrobx

Re: I don't see the need...

On that CD note... I don't know if you are aware of it, but records (vinyl) had much more frequency range and a natural bass range than a CD ever will. That did not have to be amplified to hear bass as does with a CD. The original format specification for the critter also included a directory. It was nixed as were most other things that made sense. The space it would have been located on remains open to this day.

Did you know that the Sony BetaMax had a DIGITAL recording format and was lost to the inferior VCR. Money won again.

You should know that our corporate overseers have no intention of letting you have good quality for less. They had this stuff in Japan YEARS AGO! It was also cheap. We live in a controlled environment where features get our way to squeeze a buck here and there. It has been retired in Japan by the time we get it, and our corporate veeps pay pennies for what they sell as new cool tech.

Just an FYI.. -Al


YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY
reply to battleop

Re: 4K will be more of a movie format.

Actually it is in theaters now. The 4K format is used to paint that big screen instead of a 35mm format.


NLiveris

join:2001-11-25
Chicago, IL

Need to leverage exising format better

I think 4K will be awesome with an adequate bit rate. I see no objection to higher resolutions. It's quite easy to distinguish that a 1920x1080 cell phone display looks much nicer than one of only 960x540.

However, I think the broadcast industry is making poor use of the existing format with low bit rates/ high compression and using lower resolutions like 720p. ABC in particular needs to rid itself of 720p. I understand ABC uses 720p for sports but that's a mere fraction of their programming. Brian Williams' 1080i newscast looks substantially sharper than Diane Sawyer's in 720p. Anyone with decent vision and a reputable HDTV can easily distinguish the differences.

I've noticed Bears football games on Fox look quite awful as well. If you stand close to your TV, do you ever notice all of the compression fuzziness around the player's helmets? My provider RCN says they do no adulterate the network feeds so that could mean Fox is at fault for using an inadequate bit rate?

I think spatial resolution is more important than temporal resolution for anything other than sports. However, has anyone noticed that 1080i can look acceptable for sports if your HDTV has one of those anti-flicker features (auto motion plus) that are usually enabled by default?

Regardless of my opinions here, everything should be 1080p with high bit rates. Why can't HDTV look as good as bluray??? If broadcasters are too cheap with HDTV bandwidth imagine what they'll do to UHDTV?


BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
reply to battleop

Re: 4K will be more of a movie format.

Isn't broadcast TV still behind with 720p/1080i? I haven't seen any 1080p broadcast, I would think that's necessary first before even considering 4k.

With that said, I agree, 4k is strictly going to be a format used with movies and streaming applications. It serves no benefit with TV currently (and probably for quite some time).


ke4pym
Premium
join:2004-07-24
Charlotte, NC
Reviews:
·VOIPO
·ooma
·Verizon Broadban..
·Northland Cable ..
·Time Warner Cable
reply to NLiveris

Re: Need to leverage exising format better

said by NLiveris:

I think 4K will be awesome with an adequate bit rate. I see no objection to higher resolutions. It's quite easy to distinguish that a 1920x1080 cell phone display looks much nicer than one of only 960x540.

Regardless of my opinions here, everything should be 1080p with high bit rates. Why can't HDTV look as good as bluray??? If broadcasters are too cheap with HDTV bandwidth imagine what they'll do to UHDTV?

Have you ever watched on OTA signal before? Because coming off the transmitter, that's as uncompressed as it gets. Cable companies are the ones introducing the compression and artifacting.

For what it's worth, the human eye cannot see 4k at distances found in 99% of the living rooms in the world.

This is a pure play by the TV makers to give people a reason to upgrade.

Gardener
Premium
join:2006-10-19
Burnaby, BC

Now, about that programming

Hardware is not the problem. 4K will not improve the content, and any actress past 25 will positively hate it.



Mr Guy

@charter.com
reply to BlueC

Re: 4K will be more of a movie format.

said by BlueC:

Isn't broadcast TV still behind with 720p/1080i? I haven't seen any 1080p broadcast, I would think that's necessary first before even considering 4k.

With that said, I agree, 4k is strictly going to be a format used with movies and streaming applications. It serves no benefit with TV currently (and probably for quite some time).

Broadcast can't really do 1080p with the current mpeg-2 tech they use. If they switched to h.264 or better yet the newer h.265 codec then sure. They aren't doing that unless there is some incentive to do so..

bgreen965

join:2005-04-26
Savannah, GA
reply to ke4pym

Re: Need to leverage exising format better

This is not true in all cases. Some local stations compress their over the air signal A LOT. The stations have 19.39 mbps to fit whatever content they want. They have to have at least 1 ATSC compliant mpeg2 channel in that space. However, many choose to put multiple channels, lowering the bandwidth going to each individual video stream. It's too bad H.264 wasn't mature enough at the start of DTV to be a part of the standard. You could really fit 2 high quality h.264 1080p channels in 19.39mbps with statistical multiplexing.



Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
reply to battleop

Re: I don't see the need...

I'm one of those ones. We still have a 32 inch standard definition set in the living room and won't buy an HD set until our old standard definition one dies. We have an HD set in the bedroom, but that's only because our bedroom's standard definition set died and the only sets available were HD ones.
--
-Jason Levine


sparky007

join:2011-08-25
Avondale, AZ
Reviews:
·Vonage
reply to OnlyIf Low

Re: 4K TVs only if price no higher than 1080P HDTVs

I say at least 2 to 3 years the price and features should be cheap enough. I just need my big screen projection to last a few more years..



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to BlueC

Re: 4K will be more of a movie format.

I think we have one station that claims they are broadcasting in 1080 but what they fail to tell people is that they are feeding the signal with 720. The rest are 720 because they have multiple sub channels running.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.


YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

Yes none of them really use 1080P as it would eliminate the sub channels. You are 100% on that one. And once you get this lower quality signal fed to you compressed using lossy compression (1 in 3 frames is a filler with blurred useless content) you have crap-tv. The only one I know of that uses a bare minimum of this compression is FIOS. Still, they do use it. You are not even getting 720P. More like 600i if there were such a thing on a TV.


YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY
reply to Gardener

Re: Now, about that programming

Ha! Love it!



battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000
reply to YDC

Re: 4K will be more of a movie format.

The only time I really care about it is when I'm watching movies. For watching regular TV 720-1080 (or what ever it works out to with compression) is OK with me.
--
I do not, have not, and will not work for AT&T/Comcast/Verizon/Charter or similar sized company.



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to NLiveris

Re: Need to leverage exising format better

said by NLiveris:

My provider RCN says they do no adulterate the network feeds so that could mean Fox is at fault for using an inadequate bit rate?

That's somewhat misleading because FOX (all major networks) offers feeds in SD on up in every possible format UPTO their own network max if RCN chooses to forward a lower bit rate feed or one that has already been stretched/resized it will look bad without them doing anything more to it.


telcodad

join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:7
reply to djrobx

Re: I don't see the need...

Besides the increase in resolution going from SD to HD, another improvement was that HDTVs also provided a wider "view" (screen), going from SDTV's 4:3 aspect ratio to HDTV's 16:9 one. That was also a major selling point for me.

4K UHDTVs still have the same aspect ratio as HDTVs though, so there's no improvement there.


YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY
reply to battleop

Re: 4K will be more of a movie format.

You really only notice the compression on fast moving objects (sports mostly). They look fuzzy as many times a visible frame is the lossy one.


why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..
·CenturyLink
·AT&T Wireless Br..
reply to Jon Snow

Re: I don't see the need...

said by Jon Snow :

said by trparky:

Tell me, why do I need 4K?

How big is your screen and how far do you sit from it? I have both a 55" telly and a 120" projector screen. In both cases I sit far enough away from the screen, for simple comfort and optimum viewing angle, that I would NOT benefit from 4k video. I doubt you'd benefit from it either, albeit you probably would benefit from 1080p.

There's a handy-dandy graph a helpful person has crafted, based on human eye's visual acuity, here: »cdn.avsforum.com/a/a2/a2ff0203_v···ance.png (lifted from »carltonbale.com)

At optimum viewing angles (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HD···distance), 1080p is about the optimum resolution. Older television material was recorded for much-narrower-than-optimum viewing angle, so the rules are different, but that's material that isn't even available in 1080p, let alone 4k...

At 8ft or less and 55in and over I will say 4k is something you will see make an impact. (Or at lest it seemed to for me)

Not every one has 10+FT rooms to use tv yet could fit a bigger tv and could pay for a high end screen.

I will how ever be waiting for content and lower tv cost before hopping on the 4k bandwagon.

RST fiber plans to do uncompressed upto 4k TV service so I hope to use that with also 4k movies via disk or 1gbs internet.

InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
reply to bgreen965

Re: Need to leverage exising format better

h264 has been added to the ATSC standard in July 2008 so it should be fairly common in TV models launched in 2009 or newer.


andyross
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-04
Schaumburg, IL

Just like 3DTV

Maybe the studios are realizing what a bust 3DTV is (Disney-owned ESPN 3D was shut down several months ago), that they want to be more cautious about over-hyping stuff, especially if it costs them $$$ to upgrade everything.



Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Somerset, NJ
reply to Jason Levine

Re: I don't see the need...

said by Jason Levine:

I'm one of those ones. We still have a 32 inch standard definition set in the living room and won't buy an HD set until our old standard definition one dies. We have an HD set in the bedroom, but that's only because our bedroom's standard definition set died and the only sets available were HD ones.

And the picture quality on the HD set isn't giving you the need to replace your TV?

Though are you even getting HD feeds?
--
What smells like blue?