dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7094
share rss forum feed

Bytezboy

join:2001-05-17
New York, NY
reply to fishacura

Re: Ultra HD at CES

I witnessed 4K in the theater for the first time with The Hobbit. The difference was quite noticeable.
--
75/35 Fios, Triple Play Extreme.


Wag

join:2009-05-05
Natick, MA

Was The Hobbit off a 4K source or was it upscalled from a 1080p source?

I'd really be interested in one of those 65" 4k TVs, but I really can't afford it. I bet the prices will be somewhere in the $15k+ range.


kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2

It was shot at 4k in 48fps.


UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to fishacura

As someone who owns and is spoiled by a 15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display (which I'm going to colloquially call a "3K" display), 1080p is no-longer enough. Bring on the 4K displays!



bull3964

@stargate.net
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Yeah, that's all well and good for you, but I'll take the one with better contrast and a more uniform picture.

The 4k displays that are seen right now are not representative of the quality we'll see when these are consumer level displays. You can afford to take a bit more time on QC on a $12k display that's a limited production run. When Samsung starts churning out $3k UHD panels for their mainstream line, corners will have to be cut elsewhere to make the economically feasible and you could very well end up with an objectively worse display than a 1080p display at the same price.

I do not think we'll see average TV size double again. Many people have already bought a TV that's constrained by the physical space in their viewing area. For me, that was 55", for my parents, that was 37". Neither one of use will ever buy a larger TV unless we move as the viewing area does not allow for a larger display no matter how thin and light it is.

I'm not getting any perceived screen door effect now with my TV at my viewing distance. Any increase in resolution is going to be a marginal change in perceived quality no matter how the numbers shake out. On top of that, I'm simply not going to go through the cycle of updating the resolution of my media again, so 4k sources are going to be few and far between.

It's simply not something I can get excited about and neither can most of the market. That's why they rebranded it from 4k to Ultra HD. No one cares about 4k pixels verses 1920, but the word "ultra" denotes a quality improvement without nailing down exactly how the quality is supposed to be improved. It also prevents people from asking the question of "do I need to re-buy all my movies again for this higher resolution."

Eventually everyone will have 4k just like eventually everyone will have 3d capability. It will eventually be a no-cost add feature due to economies of scale. 4k sources will continue to lag though and I doubt many people will go to the effort to seek them out. It was hard enough to convince people that they need to subscribe to HD service when they bought their HDTV. Telling them that they need something better than blu-ray is going to be a non-starter.


miataman

join:2010-10-27
Chelmsford, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by bull3964 :

Many people have already bought a TV that's constrained by the physical space in their viewing area. (None) of us will ever buy a larger TV unless we move as the viewing area does not allow for a larger display no matter how thin and light it is.

Well said. Most overlooked factor in marketing new sets. New "features" can always be had, with a new set same size as the current one.
--
"My hat, my cane, Jeeves".


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

I'm not sure why I'm going to reply to this thread but I will. Yes you will eventually see 4K channels but not for a while as they sort out compression. No one expects UHD to feed raw uncompressed video, no one is getting raw uncompressed 720 or 1080 so why would anyone expect less for 4K. Expect it to be roughly 2X to 3X what a 1080 is today..once they finish all the work that still has to be done on the codecs.

Is is gimmick? Sure, the average home owner wont be seeing any 4K TV's in their home for 5+ years when they finally come down out of the stratosphere.

Finally you need a LARGE space for them to be of any benefit. Sure the eye can discern blah blah blah...but fact is...720p and 1080 are "good enough" Joe public doesnt give a crap. The name "UHD" is pure marketing that is all, the whole bigger is better.

»s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

From that chart....one of many I know..you need a min size of 50" and be sitting 5' away, that's pretty close. Most folks just don't have a need of or space for a 65" tv, which is what you need if you are the average 8' away from your TV.

I do expect 4K TV's to be norm and reasonable priced within 5 years. I also expect there to be OLED monster reasonable priced TV's within the next 3 years which the consumer will truly be gushing over given the huge contrast and picture improvement they represent. They are more than "good enough" and most who just dropped a few hundred to a few thousand (2k) aren't going to upgrade to UHD anytime in the next 10 years.

It's not DOA technology. It's time has just not yet arrived.

The British did closed circuit 4k and 8K broadcasts to massive screens around London during the Olympics. Those that got to see them first hand were in awe of the clarity and crispness. Think digital movie theater on the street the screens were roughly the same size as the small screens at your local megaplex.

end of rant...



danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.



bull3964

@stargate.net

said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

I know, personally, I will never see another 48fps movie again. The whole thing just felt cheap.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to bull3964

said by bull3964 :

said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Hell. Yes.

said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

No they aren't.

The bulk of theaters still have crappy 2K screens - you know, the same resolution as your TV. And it's blown up to a giant screen.

This is why I refuse to see movies in theaters. They look like shit. My $1,500 46" LED 3DTV displays 2K and 3D better than the local movie theaters thanks to its higher pixel density.

There is a list of 4K movie theaters here. My closest 4K theater is 30 miles away. Not worth the drive when I can wait for the Blu-ray.

Once you've seen a 4K movie in a 4K theater you don't go back to 2K theaters.

In addition you can see all movies available in 4K here.

As you can see, The Hobbit is not among them. Unfortunately it is only a 2K title.


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

1 edit
reply to Greg2600

said by Greg2600:

Yes I could discern PQ if I walked up to the screen. People aren't watching that closely like they would on a computer screen.

Exactly. SD to HD was one thing. SD was glaringly insufficient for 50"+ TVs. Most people just don't have room for the 70"+ inch TV that will be necessary to see the difference at a typical viewing distances.

People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option. I'm not even really itching to replace my 720p 50" set. I'm actually more interested in that OLED set for black level and color reproduction characteristics than I am the pixel density.

You know what I *CAN* see on my 720p set watching typical broadcast channels? Compression artifacts galore! Why are we talking about 4k when we can't even get the most out of a 720p set?

I anticipate 4k to get filed in the same bin as DVD-Audio and SACD. Better audio quality exists, but CD audio is good enough for most people's ears. Consumers became more interested in actually losing some quality for improved convenience and portability. Along the same lines, I would not be surprised to find that the average population finds HD quality video to be all they need for home viewing.

U-verse TV is mighty popular in my neighborhood, despite the HDpicture quality being noticeably worse than cable or DirecTV. People love the multiroom and wireless set top features. People love their satellite radio, despite the sound quality being trash. I saw a poll a while back and some ridiculous 50% of the responders thought XM audio was the same as CD quality. Some even thought it was better.

I will be happy to be wrong, if I am wrong. I would love to have the best quality possible. I just don't think consumers care enough about quality for it to ever take off.

--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03

said by djrobx :
Exactly. SD to HD was one thing. SD was glaringly insufficient for 50"+ TVs. Most people just don't have room for the 70"+ inch TV that will be necessary to see the difference at a typical viewing distances.

You need to consult an optometrist if you think 1080p is even remotely sufficient for current HDTV screen sizes.

quote:
People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option. I'm not even really itching to replace my 720p 50" set. I'm actually more interested in that OLED set for black level and color reproduction characteristics than I am the pixel density.

You need to consult an optometrist if you think 720p is even remotely sufficient for current HDTV screen sizes.

quote:
You know what I *CAN* see on my 720p set watching typical broadcast channels? Compression artifacts galore! Why are we talking about 4k when we can't even get the most out of a 720p set?

There are already numerous sources available that can 'get the most' out of a 1080p set.

quote:
I anticipate 4k to get filed in the same bin as DVD-Audio and SACD. Better audio quality exists, but CD audio is good enough for most people's ears. Consumers became more interested in actually losing some quality for improved convenience and portability. Along the same lines, I would not be surprised to find that the average population finds HD quality video to be all they need for home viewing.

U-verse TV is mighty popular in my neighborhood, despite the HDpicture quality being noticeably worse than cable or DirecTV. People love the multiroom and wireless set top features. People love their satellite radio, despite the sound quality being trash. I saw a poll a while back and some ridiculous 50% of the responders thought XM audio was the same as CD quality. Some even thought it was better.

I will be happy to be wrong, if I am wrong. I would love to have the best quality possible. I just don't think consumers care enough about quality for it to ever take off.

HD, and Ultra HD, has never been about catering to the lowest common denominator. They are irrelevant.


jawhip

@verizon.net

I have seen the new 84" 4k sets and I must say, I was unimpressed. Sure, it you sit really close, you can't see the pixels, maybe 5 or 6 feet away. However, I don't sit that close and never would want to. I like to sit 9 or 10 feet away and at that distance, the increased resolution is barely noticeable, if at all. You need a screen size of 100 inches or more, which is why 4k works so well in a theater and would be great in the home for a front projector set up. IT also does have some application at smaller sizes for passive 3D. Other than that, it is more marketing hype. The real exciting stuff is OLED with its fantastic blacks and color. That is what the eye really pics up. Resolution is not as significant as those factors.



danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

1 edit
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

said by bull3964 :

said by MURICA:

Even the worst 4k TV will be better than the best 1080p TV.

So you would take a panel with 50% higher minimum black level or apparent clouding just because it's 4k over a 1080p TV that doesn't?

Hell. Yes.

said by danclan:

FYI all digital screens in theaters are 4K.

It's 48fps that's new and what is causing a stir.

No they aren't.

The bulk of theaters still have crappy 2K screens - you know, the same resolution as your TV. And it's blown up to a giant screen.

Sorry...I thought most had finally converted over. Where I live, all the theaters are 4K and have been for a long time.

However I disagree with your statements about quality. For the Video junkie it makes a difference. For the general public, it's "good enough". 48fps however is totally up to the viewer. Like many things artsy its totally in the eye of the viewer. 48fps for me felt like I was watching a soap opera and distracted me from the film itself.


danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

1 edit

The more I read the more I see 4K as a solution in search of a problem.

Sure there will always be those in search of 1000$ copper cables to make their speakers sound better. These TV's currently are very much in that same vein. If broadcasts were all 1080p I doubt very much we would be caring about 4K. As it is, with the horrible job many cable companies are doing with supplying HD content, 4K content will also be subject to horrific artifacts and compression residue.

The plus side of all this? Maybe cable co's will actually bite the bullet and move everyone over to mpep4. That alone would free up a HUGE amount of bandwidth to provide better quality broadcasts and freeing up bandwidth to boot.

Will it happen? Not likely the deployed base of slow dated cable boxes with no upgrade path will forever keep this away from the public.

If the FCC were to finally allow us to purchase and own our cable boxes we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be a boom in features, capabilities and options for consumers as well as variety of choice and lower costs.

edit: grammer


fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to djrobx

said by djrobx:

People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option.

I understand your perspective but on this point, are you kidding? I'd love to meet that person and see their corrective lenses perscription. Seriously, there's no comparrison here...
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


Abraxas601

@pacbell.net
reply to danclan

My biggest interest in 4K is the effect it will have on high resolution computer monitors. I look forward to the current standard of 1920x1080 to be replaced with 4096x2160 (or 3840x2160). It would be nice to start buying LCD monitors that are 30" or greater in size and not cost $1K.

I predict that since very little needs to change with existing hardware technologies, support will be adopted at a rate similar to 3D. It will be available whether you want it or not. I believe it's mostly just a chip hardware update. The latest HDMI (1.4) has support and existing panel technology shouldn't have a problem.

I think it will quickly become the standard for projectors since they would benefit the most. Already Blu-ray players and A/V receivers are adding 4K support at little to no additional cost.

The biggest failing will be content. Source material will come in the form of "criterion" style Blu-rays at double the cost and directed towards the Home Theater enthusiast. Similar to Laserdiscs in the early 90s.



Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

Thank you danclan and Abraxas601 for seeing my point. Adoption rates, whether a result of price, lack of hardware offerings from providers, or plain ambivalence, will be low for a LONG time. Yes TV's may well have this tech at a cheap price point in 2 or 3 years, but the cable companies will not. Verizon long ago stopped advertising about their wealth of HD content. As I said, widespread acceptance might be 10 years off. So to start jumping up and down now is just getting excited over nothing. Who really thinks Fios will have a large slate of UHD channels in the next 5 years?


MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to danclan

said by danclan:

However I disagree with your statements about quality. For the Video junkie it makes a difference. For the general public, it's "good enough". 48fps however is totally up to the viewer. Like many things artsy its totally in the eye of the viewer. 48fps for me felt like I was watching a soap opera and distracted me from the film itself.

But I am a video junkie.

I won't watch a TV show when it airs if I know there's going to be a Blu-ray release.

That's right; I am always consistently one season behind on shows like Modern Family, The Walking Dead, and Breaking Bad.

I won't watch a network affiliate. I'd rather take the time and effort to retrieve the national distribution feed off C-BAND.

And even I will admit that resolution is the single most important factor when it comes to video quality.

said by danclan:

If the FCC were to finally allow us to purchase and own our cable boxes we wouldn't be having this discussion as there would be a boom in features, capabilities and options for consumers as well as variety of choice and lower costs.

They do. It's called the CableCARD.

said by Abraxas601 :

I predict that since very little needs to change with existing hardware technologies, support will be adopted at a rate similar to 3D. It will be available whether you want it or not. I believe it's mostly just a chip hardware update. The latest HDMI (1.4) has support and existing panel technology shouldn't have a problem.

HDMI 1.4 does not support 4k at a refresh rate higher than 24 fps. This will need to change for computer monitor usage. Anything below 60 Hz is unacceptable.

said by Abraxas601 :

The biggest failing will be content. Source material will come in the form of "criterion" style Blu-rays at double the cost and directed towards the Home Theater enthusiast. Similar to Laserdiscs in the early 90s.

I think once again the porn industry will be leading the charge in providing 4K content. When HD was in its infancy it was the porn sites which offered the first widespread HD video via the Internet. Today, they are still leading the way when it comes to quality. Brazzers delivers 1080p MPEG-4 scenes at 12 Mbps for all of its new material. This blows everyone else away except for Blu-ray. It's higher quality than cable, Verizon, iTunes, Netflix, etc and twice the bitrate of DirecTV's MPEG-4 HD channels.

All a player like Manwin needs to do is get ahold of a few RED cameras. 4K digital cameras are gradually decreasing in price.

Because they already have a great Internet distribution system in place they are in a better position to get lots of 4K content out there at this stage in the game than mainstream Hollywood which is locked into bureaucracies with bandwidth-starved cable providers, a high definition home video format which does not have 4K support in its technical specifications, and Apple's iTunes service which won't support 4K until Apple decides to release a piece of hardware that plays 4K.


Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to fishacura

8K would be really sweet.

However equipment will need to be upgraded and things will need filmed in 8k.

That's a lot of money that carriers and production studios don't want to spend.
--
"If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.


MURICA

join:2013-01-03

We'll get there some day.

As it stands now everything shot on 35mm film is 4k ready and everything on 70mm is 8k ready.



danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

What many of those here don't want to admit it that they are a minority of a minority, 4K and up is of no importance to the general public, regardless of how much content their might be.

1080p is more than good enough and will be the dominant content resolution for at least another 10 years.

And no Cablecard is not a cable box option. There is effectively no market for cablecard. The cable co's make it next to impossible to deploy them and hobble them so as to make them a very poor substitute for a true independent cable box solution.


JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4

I have to agree that the market probably isn't clamoring for 4k. The standards keep getting progressively higher resolution to allow for an immersive experience at larger and larger TV sizes. But that's the problem - at some point, you hit a point of saturation. How large do you have to get to to make 4k worthwhile? 84"? 100"? At that point you're getting larger than most people want in their homes. Even if the rooms they have can accommodate the larger screen.

I'm case in point with that - last year we got a new TV for our family room. I opted for a 50", even though the room could easily handle something larger. But I didn't want anything larger. I didn't want the TV to be THE focal point of the room. And our family room is large. Even if there are consumers out there just jonesing for a 100" TV, how many have rooms that can accommodate them? And if you don't have the space for anything larger than say a 50" TV, then why do you need/want 4k? You get the full immersive experience at 1080p.

That's not to say that 4k won't eventually catch on. It may. But only after the price drops enough (drops in price spur increased demand). I think eventually that'll happen. The price will drop enough to push creation of demand for the format. But I really don't see that happening for at least a few years. Couple this with the lack of bandwidth available for cable companies to move to 4k, and I think the drive for the format will be tepid for some time.

As for the cable box comment, earlier on, that if the FCC just pushed for the creation of a third-party market all these problems would go away. Um... what? While I'm a big proponent of such a move, I really don't see how that solves issues in terms of bandwidth. Besides, many on here who claim that we will never have third party box manufacturers... what makes you say that? Yes, I think the cable card was a fiasco. The cable industry was forced into creating of such a device, and as such were very loathe to support it. But recent moves by the FCC are designed to create just such a market, and it does amaze me that so many on this forum have missed it.

The over the top IP streaming requirement that the FCC put out there is designed to do just that. It has many advantages over things like the cable card. First, you don't have to lease anything, beyond maybe a router, from your cable company for it to work. Second, it's not tied to just viewing on your TV. Third, the FCC was smart in this move - the industry was moving in this direction ANYWAY. They just jumped on board that train and called that their solution for doing away with the STB monopoly. Yes, cable companies can define their own standards for their own over the top streaming, but the latest set of requirements require that they keep their architecture open, and fully spec'd. Which opens the door to all sorts of third parties coming in developing boxes of all sorts. Think it's a coincidence that Roku just announced an app for streaming TWC channels? No, this move doesn't get rid of the cable company - just the need for a cable box.



Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to danclan

1080 is horrible quality. Provider stream compression doesn't help either.

Is more detail better of course. Is it practical right now? Not really.
--
"If something about the human body disgusts you, complain to the manufacturer" - Lenny Bruce
What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.



Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to fishacura

Streaming quality throughout the web is frankly not up to snuff. YouTube's is often horrible. You could have the TV, the FIOS infrastructure, all ready. But if the source of the feed is crud, what good is it?


PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:2

said by Greg2600:

Streaming quality throughout the web is frankly not up to snuff. YouTube's is often horrible. You could have the TV, the FIOS infrastructure, all ready. But if the source of the feed is crud, what good is it?

I agree. Case in point: AMC HD.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to danclan

said by danclan:

What many of those here don't want to admit it that they are a minority of a minority, 4K and up is of no importance to the general public, regardless of how much content their might be.

That's ironic because 720p and up is also of no importance to the general public.

A quarter of American households still don't have HDTVs. Of those 75% that do, a third don't have any sort of HD service hooked up to their HDTVs.

DVDs are still the top selling physical media format.

If you like HD or UltraHD you are in the minority.

This has never been about catering to the lowest common denominator. We do not care about the lowest common denominator. We drag the lowest common denominator, kicking and screaming, along with us. As the minority of elite video fidelity lovers, it is our job to push and support new video formats like 4K regardless of what the general public cares about.

said by JPL:

I have to agree that the market probably isn't clamoring for 4k. The standards keep getting progressively higher resolution to allow for an immersive experience at larger and larger TV sizes. But that's the problem - at some point, you hit a point of saturation. How large do you have to get to to make 4k worthwhile? 84"? 100"? At that point you're getting larger than most people want in their homes. Even if the rooms they have can accommodate the larger screen.

Nope! 46" just fine. I am typing this on my 46" 1080p TV right now and I can literally count the pixels on each letter that I type.

4K will be a vast improvement for current display sizes.

said by Greg2600:

Streaming quality throughout the web is frankly not up to snuff. YouTube's is often horrible. You could have the TV, the FIOS infrastructure, all ready. But if the source of the feed is crud, what good is it?

You want to know the fastest way to solve a bitrate crisis? Launch a new HD format like 4K which pushes these services to put out 20+ Mbps streams.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to JPL

said by JPL:

................... Think it's a coincidence that Roku just announced an app for streaming TWC channels? No, this move doesn't get rid of the cable company - just the need for a cable box.

But all the Roku does, with being able to stream 300 channels from TWC, is take us back to watching TV like we did decades ago. You can't rewind, pause, Fast forward etc... Who wants to watch TV that way and be exposed to over twenty minutes of commercials every hour?
I started time shifting my TV watching in 1984. I couldn't imagine going back to how I watched TV prior to that.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to MURICA

No offense, but your responses are somewhat elitist. Lowest common denominator? Can you possible be more insulting? In other words, what you're referring to is: the market. Without widespread acceptance of a product, it won't go anywhere. If there is no market, there is no product. Period. You think they're going to make uber-high-end TVs for a handful of people? Where's the money in that?

Next, if you sit 6" from your TV, yes you will see the pixels. So? Full immersion is about just that. If I sit in the front row of a movie theater, the picture looks blurry too. So what? The idea is that you become immersed at a normal viewing distance. In order to make 4k worthwhile, you need to have something that will benefit from that format. That means a super large TV. I don't know many homes that can handle a 100" TV. Given that, there is really no benefit of 4k over 1080p. If you sit 8' from your TV, then a 1080p TV in the 50 - 60" range will give you full immersion. Eventually 4k will probably catch on, but not until the prices come down. And until there's at least a modicum of acceptance, the prices won't come down. You need some base level of acceptance to drive down the price enough to create a market for a product. Otherwise, unless you're willing to plunk down $25k for a TV, you can forget about 4k.


JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to aaronwt

Right now that's true. No one believes that Roku will be the be-all, end-all here. It's a first step. Roku is more tailored to IP streaming anyway. My point is that this move by the FCC opens the door for real honest-to-goodness STBs made by other companies that don't require a cable card. Give it time. You'll see improvements.