matcarl
join:2007-03-09
Franklin Square, NY | reply to techygeek
Re: could 2160p SDV give FIOS the edge over cable & sat tv
Here's an interesting story on Ultra HD
»www.multichannel.com/article/383···_Def.php |
|
jasg
join:2008-12-13
Seattle, WA
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by matcarl  :From the article: as well as 22.2-channel “three-dimensional” sound I will have to start negotiations with my wife now for enough wallspace in 2015 to mount 24 speakers... |
|
techygeek
join:2008-04-30
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
3 edits | reply to shark2k
I would think cable can do this too but I think they would have to make an entirely new delivery system based on IPTV, forget the docsys approach. If AT&T can deliver 1080p & high speed internet via copper lines, I would think cable should be able to do the same thing with coax at 2160p.
It would mean a huge change and boxes that support IPTV but it wouldn't be the first time cable came out with a newer type of system. Best of my knowledge, there are both analog & digital systems out even now, this would be yet a newer type of system.
With cable, I feel it happening anytime too soon which is where I think VZ has the chance to grab the spotlight by offering it through FIOS. |
|
shark2k
join:2008-06-01
West Orange, NJ
| said by techygeek :I would think cable can do this too but I think they would have to make an entirely new delivery system based on IPTV, forget the docsys approach. If AT&T can deliver 1080p & high speed internet via copper lines, I would think cable should be able to do the same thing with coax at 2160p. It would mean a huge change and boxes that support IPTV but it wouldn't be the first time cable came out with a newer type of system. Best of my knowledge, there are both analog & digital systems out even now, this would be yet a newer type of system. With cable, I feel it happening anytime too soon which is where I think VZ has the chance to grab the spotlight by offering it through FIOS. AT&T doesn't send out 1080p broadcasts and on top of that they use both fiber-to-the-node technology and have also been using fiber-to-the-premise technology recently (what Verizon did with FiOS from the start). I got this from Wikipedia. Either way, AT&T Uverse probably used more fiber than cable companies who are really hybrids (use some fiber but a majority coaxial or something like that).
You just don't seem to be understanding the fact that the amount of bandwidth required is huge and really not worth it.
-Shark2k |
|
techygeek
join:2008-04-30
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
3 edits | That is cool to know, matcarl.. I hope we do see 4K or 8K Ultra HD in the next 5-10 years.
shark2k, I stand corrected, I wrote 1080p in error but I do think if cable used an IPTV based U-Verse like approach & they weren't transmitting all their cable channels to the customer at the same time, I would think they should be able to pump out even 300Mbps of Mpeg4 picture quality (easily enough for even 3 8K channels) and I do think its worth it, my feeling anyway.
At this point I pretty much brought up all I could on this so i'll try to leave this my last reply |
|
blue_trooper
join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA
| reply to shark2k
said by shark2k :I just checked out Iron Man and it's encoded using AVC at 27.127 Mbps. That is probably the average bit rate, but that average is already abut 8 Mbps higher than what TV maxes out at and Blu-ray maxes out at 40 Mbps. Just saw a review of the new Star Trek on AVSForums and they listed the video as 32 Mbps with the audio accounting for another 4 Mbps.
Didn't really want to bump this thread but that video figure is 5Mb higher than I'm used to seeing and if you add the audio in (assuming that it doesn't need to be quadrupled) you'd need 132Mbps for a fully effective 2160p.
"That's a big twinkie" |
|
