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. ..


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.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

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.
sparky007

join:2011-08-25
Avondale, AZ
Reviews:
·Vonage
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..

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

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

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

How many millions asked the same question about HD?

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

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

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.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

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.
MURICA

join:2013-01-03
>FiOS TV
>Watching the Oscars (a program broadcast on ABC, a 720p television network - not even 1920x1080!)
>In addition to being low resolution, it is also bitrate starved MPEG-2
>Thinks that fewer than one million pixels being projected on a full size screen is "beautifully crisp."

Son, I have bad news for you. You need to get your eyes checked.

You are like a starving African who just got handed a McDonald's cheeseburger by an aid worker and now thinks he has just experienced the finest cuisine in the world.

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
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

Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Denver, CO

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?

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA

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

The picture quality is better (and we are getting HD feeds), but money is tight. Spending money to replace a TV that is still working - even if only in standard definition - isn't a priority. When that TV dies, we'll replace it. Until then, we'll remain on SD.
--
-Jason Levine

djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO
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.
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

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

anon_anon

@comcastbusiness.net

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

No, Betamax was analog. Sony created an add on called the PCM-F1 to allow digital audio recording, but it did not allow video recording because the device used a video signal to encode the audio. The device was also compatible with VHS recorders.

As far as vinyl being superior to CD. It's pure BS and has been debunked time and time again by double blind studies.

A better example of the a technologically superior product from the 80's being a commercial flop was laserdisk. But even during 80's when people had more spending money even VHS was a huge expense to the average family.

During the 1980's there were repeated allegations that Japan dumped their electronics in the USA at below cost with the full cooperation of the Japanese government. The japanese paid more for their products, hence the accusations of dumping. Of course they got the new products first in the same way American movies get released in the USA before they are released internationally. Japan was a country of technophiles during the 80's. Japanese electronics manufacturers are going to test market in their own country first before ramping up production for the international market. Just as there were many successful products that were released in japan first, there were also products that never left japan because they were market failures. Chalk that up to an evil corporate conspiracy all you want.

BTW thumb through an old catalog and be astounded how much those wonderful 80's vintage electronics cost.
sonicmerlin

join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH
kudos:1
You don't know anything about vision. There's far more to visual acuity than simply being able to resolve pixels on a screen.

Jon Snow

@comcast.net

3 recommendations

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...

why60loss

join:2012-09-20
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Time Warner Cable
·Verizon Wireless..

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.

Jon Snow

@comcast.net

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

Point being that there's method to the madness

Going by THX recommendation, the screen should occupy anywhere from 28° to 40° of your field of vision. In case of a 55" screen that means you need to sit between 8' and 5.5' away from the screen. Going for full-on on the immersion, i.e. the screen occupying 40° of your field of vision, you do start to see the benefits of 4k video. If you're like me, though, and watch the telly from ~7' away, 1080p is almost the perfect resolution.

As an aside, I've noticed that movies are often better with more immersion, i.e. the screen occupying a larger segment of your field of vision, while TV shows and news are often better when they're not quite as immersive -- few exceptions notwithstanding.
mikesco8

join:2006-02-17
Ludlow, MA
Probably the most important feature of the 4k Standard is the improved color palette. However most people will not miss what they don't know they are missing. Also, even thought these charts may be accurate in some sense, you will still see some difference beyond what the charts show, especially if you have vision better than 20/20. The problem with 4k is not that it is not a worthy technology, it is just that it is happening way too soon at too large of a premium. It will eventually become cheap enough that the difference in price will be minimal from 1080p, and if you have to replace your old set you might as well go with the 4k, but it will be another 10 years before we hit that point.

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

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

I don't have 20/20 vision, I wear glasses and they are a hell of a strong set of lenses.
--
Tom
Tom's Tech Blog

Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
Thanks for posting that graph. I just looked at it and measured the distance to my 32" TV in my living room. (Still a SD set until it dies and we replace it with an HD one.) It's 9 feet from where I sit to the screen.

According to that graph, I'd need a 60" set for 1080p to be noticeable and a 90" set for 4K to be noticeable. Of course, my living room is too small to fit either size TV so I don't think I'll rush into 4K TVs when they start being sold.
--
-Jason Levine
InvalidError

join:2008-02-03
kudos:5
TV standards are primarily dictated by what is considered good enough for the vast majority of people while reasonably achievable with current technology and costs. That's how analog TV ended up lasting roughly 70 years.

With the costs of moving to 4k and little if any benefit for most people, I would not expect the TV industry to be in any hurry to upgrade so soon after going through the digital/HD transition.

I can't imagine 4k becoming significant within the next 10-15 years.
tabernak

join:2013-08-10
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T DSL Service
There isn't much need yet, but it's growing. My next computer monitor later this year will be 4k, which is a more realistic use case. I could see a future where 80-100" sets become affordable and in many cases people would then benefit from 4k.

Having said that, I bought a 60" Vizio black Friday special last year to bridge me over. I tend to be a bit of an early adopter on tech, but I don't see any TV use cases for me for a few years yet and I also expect to have to buy an 80"+ TV to appreciate it.
MURICA

join:2013-01-03

1 recommendation

I don't see the need for horseless carriages. My current Stallion purebred from five years ago still works just fine and transports me exactly the way it did when I bought it.

Tell me, why do I need a horseless carriage? I see horseless carriages as the next "mobile telephone" in the sense that it's just another ploy to make people buy new forms of transport/communication.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
BINGO! just another fad to get you to buy new hardware.
how many 1080P channels are there? ZERO!
--
Despises any post with strings.

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.
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

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.
MURICA

join:2013-01-03

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

Very few films are given true 4K digital cinema releases. The Hobbit for example is 2K only (the same resolution as Blu-ray). Not to mention there are many crappy theaters who don't have 4K projectors.

This is the reason why movies in the theater usually look so terrible compared to watching them at home on Blu-ray on your 1080p TV. You are getting the same crappy 1080p resolution in the theater but instead of being in the more pixel dense area of your television display it is blown up to a massive screen where the lack of resolution is even more noticeable.
BlueC

join:2009-11-26
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Integra Telecom
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).

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

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

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

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.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

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.
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

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.
MURICA

join:2013-01-03
Those ABC affiliates that do that do it so they can produce their local programming in 1080i, and quite frankly I don't blame them for wanting to override Disney/ABC's 720p broadcasting standard. 720p is TERRIBLE.

Of course programming on those channels that originate from the national ABC programming is upscaled, as the national ABC feed is native 720p. But the local news broadcast for that channel should look considerably better than ABC programming because it will be produced at native 1080i.

battleop

join:2005-09-28
00000

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

"720p is TERRIBLE"

When we pass 16K local programming will still be crap.
MURICA

join:2013-01-03

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

At least it will look good.

I would rather have a polished turd than an unpolished one.

Mr Guy

@charter.com
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..
MURICA

join:2013-01-03

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

1080p and 1080i are one and the same.

1080i60 uses the same amount of bandwidth as 1080p30.

Once 1080i60 is de-interlaced it becomes 1080p30.

They could just broadcast at 1080p30 but that breaks compatibility with a lot of equipment just like broadcasting with H.264 would so they don't. And they never will.
MURICA

join:2013-01-03
1080i is just fine.

The problem with broadcast TV isn't resolution. It's bitrate.

Broadcast TV looks like shit not because it is 1080i, but because it is encoded using an ancient and shitty codec - MPEG-2 - a codec that is 20 YEARS OLD and was used for DVD - AND it is not given a proper bitrate, resulting in a blurry mess of macroblocks.

1080i IS 1080p once it is de-interlaced. Give 1080i a proper bitrate and it will look Blu-ray quality.
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.
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?

•••••••••
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.
YDC

join:2007-11-13
Hewlett, NY

Re: Now, about that programming

Ha! Love it!
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.
C4Xplosive

join:2002-02-21
Vancouver, WA

That's cool

We can't even get 1080p broadcasts for the past 8 years anyways. Let alone I'm one of those who will refuse to pay the extra $10 a month to rent a stupid box only to view the same channels being sent into my home in HD over the SD selection.

Milked HD, not falling for your stupid 4K trap. Only place I'm looking forward to 4K is in monitors.

Hate to be childish, but take your 4K and even your extra charge HD and suck it. I'll stick with Netflix, iTunes, or Amazon when it comes to HD content.

••••
BiggA

join:2005-11-23
EARTH

Streaming, disks, upscaling

Streaming and disks will come, and you can integer upscale from 720p or 1080i... all good reasons to go 4K...
MURICA

join:2013-01-03

Well of course they don't.

Disney can't even get their shit together when it comes to HD.

The Disney Channel, ABC, ESPN, A&E - they all look like ASS. And why is that? Because they're not even full HD! Unlike most HD channels, which are 1080i, these Disney owned channels are half the resolution of your typical HD channel because they are 720p and you certainly can tell. 4K would be a 4x resolution increase for most HDTV channels; in Disney's case, because they are so far behind the times with their 720p broadcasting, it would be an 8x resolution increase.

It's why I refuse to watch ABC content. I hold out for the Blu-ray or 1080p web release.

And as for 4K content, there is already plenty of it available in the form of PC games. A 4KTV is worth it for 4K PC gaming alone. Movies and television in 4K are just an added bonus. That's fine if Disney wants to be luddites and refuse to hop on this train. We don't need them.
decifal

join:2007-03-10
Bon Aqua, TN
kudos:1

until

Another streaming quality that will be usable to a large portion of this country.. Why bother with it until someone steps in and makes ATT and friends use their usf funds to actually build out their networks.. All i've seen ATT do here is bring "more" options to people that already had DSL to begin with by adding uverse..

Ethics and planning from this company are bizarre at best... I swear they must make their build out plans by cutting the head off a chicken and where ever the corpse collapses is where they go. Assuming they have already built out there in the first place

chicknfood

@sbcglobal.net

good reason

For passive 3D viewing technology so both eyes get full HD. Also for larger screen sizes that actually look like HD without the screen door effect. With enough people looking for it, the market will bring more content.