|
8K TV'sAfter seeing the 8K tv offerings from Sharp and Samsung at CES and knowing that there's something better right around the corner, I'm honestly not sure whether or not to upgrade just yet.
I wonder when they'll start announcing 8K Tv's mainstream? |
|
1 recommendation |
to waycoolphil
Re: I for oneTwo points. Number one: If there's money to be made, and there is, rest assured 4k projectors will be made for homes
Number two: How exactly did I insult anyone? It is a scientific fact that old people's vision is not as good as that of the younger generation. |
|
|
chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
to ke4pym
Re: 4K is uselessHeck there's already 12K cameras... |
|
openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
to antonio010
Re: 8K TV'sThere's always something better right around the corner. |
|
chip89 Premium Member join:2012-07-05 Columbia Station, OH |
to Eagles1221
Re: 4K is uselessMine is like 8 in my basement where I play video games.. |
|
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to zod5000
Re: 4K and Data Caps ?said by zod5000:720p/1080p caught on because there was a big switch from old tube tv's to bigger lcd/plasma tv's. I'm not sure the world is ready to have uber big tv's in every room..... Yep. My family room can handle about 65" of a very thin-bezeled TV. Any bigger and I'd have to do some major construction work (moving the fireplace insert that's off to the right) to make it work right. My sisters have some pretty huge family rooms, and even 70" is big in those spaces. All that said, I'd love to watch the down-sampled 4K video on my current 1080p TV. It's going to be a LOT better than the highly compressed 1080i or 1080p stream we get. People WILL think they see a difference with 4K video, but it will probably be because of the better source signal. And agreed - 1080p is not necessary on a 42" screen unless you're right on top of it. Hell, I have a 480p "EDTV" plasma that most people think has a beautiful, crisp picture from across the room. You only notice the deficiencies when you walk up to it, and even then, only small static text seems to suffer. |
|
|
to RevisedHelp
Re: Netflix now saying 25 Mbps required...When I first heard that Netflix, and even Amazon will be streaming 4k content at 15mbps, I thought to myself "that is not good enough."
Many streaming sites are streaming 1080p at 12mbps, or so in High Profile. They look very nice.
Even though HEVC is a must for UHD 4K content, I thought 25mbps should be the minimum requirement, using HEVC codec. Also IMO, a 10bit chip and HEVC 10 profile is a must. 4k in 8bit will not due. I believe 10bit is the minimum for 4k. Also, UHDTV manufactures Should already have 10bit panels in their respective 4k sets by now,
So I guess that now is the case. Hopefully when Amazon starts streaming later this year, they will up their initial bit rate of 15 to 25mbps now, since it will only benefit the viewers. |
|
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to dvd536
Re: 4K and Data Caps ?said by dvd536:yet nobody is broadcasting in 1080P 1080p is not needed for 24fps film material (movies, most non-reality TV shows). 1080i/60 has more than enough pixel data to perfectly construct a 1080p/24 film-source. In fact, you can throw out some redundant frames. Today's de-interlacers are very adept at identifying film material and doing this. I got a good chuckle out of Dish Network's early "blu ray quality 1080p video on demand" advertising. Sounds like they're doing something cutting edge, when in reality, 1080p/24 is simply the most efficient way to encode a 24fps movie. Nevermind that they're delivering nowhere near blu-ray bandwidth. 1080p/60 would be awesome for sports, though, and you're right - nobody's broadcasting that. |
|
BiggA Premium Member join:2005-11-23 Central CT ·Frontier FiberOp.. Asus RT-AC68
|
to ke4pym
It's tough right now since everything over 65-70" is crazy expensive for 4K, but they will come down in price over time, and people can have 75-80" screens for a reasonable price where you can actually see the resolution difference. And there is currently no way to get Netflix in 4K on a projector, so when that comes along, that will be another option... |
|
BiggA |
to 78036364
Re: 4K is uselessAccording to the THX guidelines, you should be sitting 5-7.5 feet from a 50" TV. I sit 9' away from my 60", which is a bit far, but I can't stand Comcast's crappy video quality any closer... |
|
BiggA |
to IPPlanMan
Re: Verizon...4K video isn't going to be 1% of Netflix traffic before they finish their peering connections at the end of the year. Continuing adoption of HD Netflix will put way more load on the network than 4K in that timeframe... |
|
BiggA |
to RevisedHelp
Re: Netflix now saying 25 Mbps required...The video is about 15mbps, 15.9, IIRC, but they need some overhead for buffering and the like... |
|
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to aaronwt
Re: 4K is uselesssaid by aaronwt:The current ATSC standard allows for up to 1080P30, MPEG2 broadcasts.
Not that it would look very good if anyone actually broadcast at that resolution at the low data rate with MPEG2. 1080p/30 is the same number of pixels as 1080i/60. |
|
|
to biochemistry
Re: I for one"Too many blind old guys on dslreports" is a nasty judgemental insult. How do you know the age of the people that say they can't see the difference? And some "old people's vision" is better than some young people. You are stereotyping and not helping your argument. |
|
djrobx Premium Member join:2000-05-31 Reno, NV |
to biochemistry
Re: 4K is uselesssaid by biochemistry:I don't think you understand what factual means. What you actually stated was your opinion. It's a fact that human eyes can only resolve so much resolution (see chart). It's also a fact that the majority of folks don't have screens / rooms large enough to where they'd be able to see the quality improvement (again, see chart). My opinion is that I wish I had a room and a TV large enough to see it. My opinion is also that I'd like to see us push the technology forward regardless, because it takes so damn long for this stuff to evolve. Hell, we don't even have a 100% of the channels we watch in HD yet, and I bought my first HDTV capable TV 16 years ago. |
|
djrobx
1 recommendation |
to biochemistry
Re: I for oneIt's not an old/young thing. Older folks can't see things up close because they've lost accommodation (ability to focus close up). They can see things in the distance just as well as you can. |
|
|
Jon GebLong time member join:2001-01-09 Howell, MI |
to BiggA
Re: 4K is useless4K isnt even close yet.... Bandwidth is the issue. Comcast, DIsh, DTV are currently limited by bandwidth to have full quality 1080p right now. We don't need 4K... We need real 1080p uncompressed. |
|
Jon Geb
1 recommendation |
Google and FIOS will be first to get 4KThese are the only two providers who will have the bandwidth. |
|
|
what about Satellite? DirecTV? Don't you think they would be the first? |
|
hayabusa3303Over 200 mph Premium Member join:2005-06-29 Florence, SC |
on c and ku bands they have been running it.. On the mini dishes they will need to launch a few more birds in the air... |
|
1 recommendation |
to djrobx
Re: I for oneNot if they develop cataracts which a significant portion of the 70+ do. |
|
mahicks join:2001-06-20 Tallahassee, FL 3 edits |
to cablegeek01
Re: 4K is uselessTotally agree with you Cable Geek! BUT....That chart is a little misleading though it does come from a genius source. The "cones of color" should be read as a "potential screen size you could even properly resolve 4K". The real data for optimal resolution is the thin colored lines.
Example using your 110" projector: Absolutes... 1. You can see 20/20 (This IS VERY important. If you are 20/40 corrected then you must cut the distance in HALF or the DOUBLE the screen size...) 2. Your projector and screen must be able to generate 4K pixels. (detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this reply but us techies know what I am talking about so we will just assume it does..)
IF those are a given and absolute then: 1. Your 4K IDEAL viewing distance for 110" screen is a little over 8'. 2. Your threshold viewing ranges to resolve 4K at all are around 7' to 14'. 3. Unfortunately at that optimal viewing distance of 8' you will see 1080P source actual pixels with a screen size that is HALF of your current screen. 4. Unfortunately if you set up your 110" projector system to be at the OPTIMAL viewing distance for 1080P you would be around 14 feet which just so happens to get you to the very end of seeing any noticeable difference between 1080P and 4K (around a 30% improvement.) 5. Unfortunately if you calculate all of this using Carlton Bales formula's directly you would end up sitting even closer to the screen to optimally resolve 4K. His calculator would put you 7' from the screen and I am not sure if I could sit that close to a 110" projector in most home theater setups optimally and even if I could, I am not sure if I could tolerate it for very long. That would be VERY immersive!
Overall if it was me I would setup the above system around 12' and get a huge improvement on the amount of info I could resolve @ 4K for that distance (about an 80% improvement over 1080P) and hope my scaler could help me work out the fact that I am sitting about 25% to close too screen for 1080P material. Even then, My wife would not tolerate sitting that close to that size screen so YMMV. As you can see, everything is a trade off.. |
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
to Jon Geb
Re: Google and FIOS will be first to get 4KNearly every cable ISP has packages at or better than the recommended 25Mbps (for Netflix). Bandwidth is really only going to be an issue for those on wireless, DSL (including Uverse) or who can't afford/don't-want higher cable tiers. Caps on the other hand will be a limiting issue. |
|
54761437 (banned) join:2013-01-18 Durham, NC |
to dvd536
Re: 4K and Data Caps ?said by dvd536:What a joke. a decent blu ray is double that. as usual netflix is bitstarved garbage. The max bitrate for A 1080p Blu-ray is 40Mbps, but won't H.265 alleviate bandwidth concerns for 4K? |
|
|
46436203 (banned)
Member
2014-Jun-17 9:29 pm
NOPE. A H.265 encoded 4K movie will still require twice the bitrate of a H.264 encoded 1080p movie. |
|
46436203 |
to zod5000
You need to visit an optometrist. |
|
|
to ke4pym
Your brain's ability to resolve detail is an order of magnitude greater than your retina's ability to resolve pixels. |
|
betam4x join:2002-10-12 Nashville, TN |
to djrobx
I disagree. I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p televisions. I CANNOT tell the difference between a 1080p TV scaling up 720p content since it's actually using the same pixel density. I've personally been able to see the difference between 2 TVs of similar size (32") and similar distance (8 ft). |
|
|
to Jon Geb
Re: Google and FIOS will be first to get 4Klol with a 50/25 fios line i'm watching netflix at 235 bitrate most of the time for the last year. verizon netflix speeds went down in may dropping 2 more spots on the short list behind a dsl provider. on the long list fios is 50th and there dsl comes in last at 60th. there are 49 providers above fios so i don't see how they could be 1 of the only 2 providers with the bandwidth. since fios is half the average speed of google
verizon said to finish upgrades for netflix we are looking at dec of 2014. witch i don't think they will make. |
|
kenn10 join:2003-09-10 Highlands, NC |
kenn10
Member
2014-Jun-18 8:06 am
4K on Comcast? How amusing....With my 50/5 service on Comcast, I'm still lucky to watch anything in HD without continual dropped frames or buffering messages. I can imagine how great it would be to try something requiring more bandwidth. Perhaps peering agreements with Comcast are not yet in place serving metro Atlanta. |
|