dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
7089
share rss forum feed

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to Mike

Re: Ultra HD at CES

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.



TitusTroy

join:2009-06-18
New York, NY
reply to fishacura

4K does not excite me as there will be little to no content for many years...you will just have a very expensive upscaler...the OLED sets on display at CES were jawdropping...forget 4K, I'll take 1080p with an OLED



aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA

said by TitusTroy:

4K does not excite me as there will be little to no content for many years...you will just have a very expensive upscaler...the OLED sets on display at CES were jawdropping...forget 4K, I'll take 1080p with an OLED

But will OLED gain a foothold? If 4K errrr UltraHD sets gains a foothold first and starts dropping in price, it could wipe out any potential for OLED, no matter how much better it looks.

I would really like to see an OLED set in person.


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

By that argument we'd all be still watching black and white tv with bunny ears or listening to transistor radio.

4k or 8k is the next technology jump. It's going to happen... not sure when. OLED is just trying to squeeze more out of a format without actually doing anything.



AVITWeb

join:2002-01-11
Trenton, NJ
reply to fishacura

4K has been around for a while. Sony has been selling a projector for at least the last 2 years. Problem is, as has been stated, you need something to feed it. 4k for cable television is pointless because they can't even get 1080i to look like it should.



TitusTroy

join:2009-06-18
New York, NY
reply to aaronwt

said by aaronwt:

But will OLED gain a foothold? If 4K errrr UltraHD sets gains a foothold first and starts dropping in price, it could wipe out any potential for OLED, no matter how much better it looks

OLED will be crazy expensive ($12,000 for a 55" set) but 4K sets will also be expensive...I don't see either technology taking off for awhile as the vast majority of people don't even seem to care about current 1080p...OLED sets can do 4K as well, so it's not limited to 1080p

you need somewhere close to an 80" set to even notice the difference with 4K AND be sitting really close to the screen...so that's another reason why I think OLED is the real gamechanger

I'm a videophile and want to see new tech but don't know if these will gain widespread acceptance anytime soon (if ever)...when HDTV first launched it had the advantage of a new optical media to go alongside it (Blu-ray and HD-DVD)...but 4K is launching pretty much on its own which will hurt its growth

check out this video of the new LG OLED set from CES...

»ces.cnet.com/8301-34435_1-575624···ut-$12k/


Greg2600

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

said by MURICA:

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.

I wish it were that easy. Again, this kind of change requires a lot of money to be spent. The providers will not spend it. Just getting them to HD 1080i was a huge endeavor. Will you get UHD Blu-Rays and TV sets? Yes most likely. Doesn't cost them all that much to produce either. But you will not get UHD broadcast or cable television, not for years and years. 3D takes up twice the QAM than regular HD. There just won't be a ROI.


Webcobbler

@verizon.net
reply to TitusTroy

Titus,

I totally agree that OLED is a Gamechanger, and will be the next generation of 1080p HDTVs. OLED tech can make TV sets thinner, more Energy Star efficient , cheaper to make, Infinite Contrasts, etc.

I am totally looking forward to OLED, and believe that even though they are debuting with 55"+ OLED sets, that they will filter down to regular sizes of 40-60 inches for the everyday home (like myself and others whom Family room can only support a Finite TV size.)

I also believe that OLED will be the manufactured norm for the non-to-distant future 1080p HDTV set, as well as Ultra HD sets before they are in the stores so we can see and purchase.

On that note: Samsung's curved OLED TV at CES, to me, was awesome, and IMHO would really take off if it was manufactured. Documentaries and sports would really benefit from the curved shape. This can Only be done with OLED displays, mind you.

Anywho...After all this trickles down, Before long, Computer Monitors will be OLED for only a few Hundred bucks. Like how for 300 dollars , one could get a 1080p LED 27' Monitor now.

I am eager to see what the future will bring in regards to this, and when affordable, I will get an OLED set, and then inevitably, an Ultra HD set when there is Media out there that are in Native form, (like Native 4k BluRays with Native BluRay Players, UHD STBs, and channels.)


MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to JPL

said by JPL:

No offense, but your responses are somewhat elitist. Lowest common denominator?

Of course my responses are elitist. I am on a fiber optic forum discussing an emerging higher resolution television technology.

You are meant to sit close to smaller TVs like a 46". How exactly does one become 'immersed' when they are sitting ten feet away and their TV only takes up 10% of their field of view?

You aren't meant to sit 8 feet away in the 50-60" range.

said by aaronwt:

said by TitusTroy:

4K does not excite me as there will be little to no content for many years...you will just have a very expensive upscaler...the OLED sets on display at CES were jawdropping...forget 4K, I'll take 1080p with an OLED

But will OLED gain a foothold? If 4K errrr UltraHD sets gains a foothold first and starts dropping in price, it could wipe out any potential for OLED, no matter how much better it looks.

I would really like to see an OLED set in person.

All the 4K TVs are OLED.

If UltraHD gains a foothold, OLED gains a foothold alongside it.

said by Greg2600:

said by MURICA:

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.

I wish it were that easy. Again, this kind of change requires a lot of money to be spent. The providers will not spend it. Just getting them to HD 1080i was a huge endeavor. Will you get UHD Blu-Rays and TV sets? Yes most likely. Doesn't cost them all that much to produce either. But you will not get UHD broadcast or cable television, not for years and years. 3D takes up twice the QAM than regular HD. There just won't be a ROI.

They already have a 4K channel broadcasting on European FTA satellite.

It can be done. The bandwidth is there. It's all about using it in an intelligent manner. It shouldn't cost that much to upgrade equipment to utilize the existing spectrum.


jawhip

@verizon.net

Not all the 4k sets are OLED. yes, Sony and Panasonic had 4k OLEDs but they were prototypes only. The 84" Sony 4K is an edge lite LED. IN fact, all of the current 4K sets that you can actually buy are. As for OLEDs, while it is the future, they will be expensive for the nest 3 years. personally, I wouldn't buy one now even if they were available. I would wait at least a year or even too so see how reliable they are in the field, how uniformily the phosphors age, etc.



Nezmo
The name's Bond. James Bond.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-11-10
Coppell, TX
kudos:1
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

...
You are meant to sit close to smaller TVs like a 46". How exactly does one become 'immersed' when they are sitting ten feet away and their TV only takes up 10% of their field of view?

You aren't meant to sit 8 feet away in the 50-60" range.

...

LOL, so you'd sit less than 8 feet from a 46" display to watch TV. I sit close to my computer monitors as they are on my desk in front of me but in my living room and other places I have TVs I prefer not to stand in front of the set so I can be 'immersed.'

Yes, the ideal is to be 'closer' but we can't all fit 60+" displays in our rooms. Your logic basically says that all TVs that are less than 50" are pointless unless you live in a broom closet.
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo


bull3964

@verizon.net
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

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

It isn't really true though because a lot of the intermediate and post work is done in 2k or even 1080p due to cost.

For example, your previous linked list of Sony 4k movies lists Spiderman 2. Yes, Spiderman 2 was mastered in 4k, but nearly ALL of the special effects work was rendered in 2k and upscaled to 4k for the final master.

There are hundreds of movies that have used a digital intermediate for some if not all of the movie and 4k for the whole process is still exceedingly rare. The final mastering is usually done in 4k so they can strike a good 35mm print, but a good chunk of the process can (and often is) done at lower resolutions and upscaled.

We're basically going to have the same problem we have now with TV series that were edited on SD video in the 80's and 90's. The source elements could be rescanned at the higher resolutions, but to get the final product at that resolution the whole work would have to be re-edited with special effects re-created when necessary. There will be a few things here and there that will warrant and get that treatment, but a good chunk will not.

Older movies with significant cultural importance will likely get the full 4k treatement since they didn't use any sort of digital intermediate and indeed some are already ready (such as Blade Runnner.) But there are going to be a LOT of post 2000 era movies that will be struck from the 4k master and will offer some improvement over 1080p, but they will not be TRUE 4k products through and through.

Basically, the workflow is going to have to change to mastering in 8k and keeping all steps in-between at a minimum of 4k in order to have a real 4k movie and we are a ways away from that.


Greg2600

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

said by MURICA:

They already have a 4K channel broadcasting on European FTA satellite.

It can be done. The bandwidth is there. It's all about using it in an intelligent manner. It shouldn't cost that much to upgrade equipment to utilize the existing spectrum.

They are called FTA for a reason, they are free! European television business is completely different than US. In the US, almost everything is pay to receive, where again, costs make a big difference. Their model will never be accepted here. I again refer FIOS. Verizon gave up touting the range of HD channels years ago now, when they stopped increasing their offerings. If the service with the most bandwidth barely does enough to give us HD offerings, and almost no 3D, how can we expect UHD? We cannot. Would I like to see everything in UHD in 5 years time? Yes. Do I expect it? No. I appreciate your enthusiasm for this, but the reason I am speaking so pessimistically is because I have reason to. I'm not going to get pumped up over a technology I likely won't experience for half a decade or longer.

SilentMan

join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
reply to fishacura

said by fishacura:

said by Greg2600:

To assume that bandwidth is limitless is not right,

Really? Look at the IBM PS2 which was thought to have more computing power than an individual would ever need.

said by Greg2600:

And definitely not for the money that will have to be spent to get there

VCR in 1980 - $1200
VCR in 1990 - $99
VCR now - Obsolete

Not only will we get there, prices will fall and something ELSE will come along. Always happens, always will. Just a matter of time.

As far as horsepower, gas mileage, it's the tomAto, tomato argument.....whatever the variable, clearly PQ is critical.

And also remember that 40"+ plasma cost $9000+ during the first few years of this century.

As it's always the case, the 8K flat screen will have a high price tag so that the company can recover most of the money invested in that technology, but the price will eventually come down to acceptable levels.

And then just when you thought that you bought the ultimate 8K UHD TV for $2600, along comes the announcement at CES2035 of the new 20K, 100" flat screen And that would be the entry level. The 1% will be excited watching sports and movies on their 600" flat

SilentMan

join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

:
:
:

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.

Well, man, I agree with you. First I was saying "wow" about the 4K resolution, but now with the 8Ks out, I could wait a few more years until the prices get more reasonable. I hope that happens before my time is up on this earth


Webcobbler

@verizon.net
reply to SilentMan

SilentMan,

I agree with you that 10 years ago a 50 inch Plasma was about $12,000 dollars. It was a new technology back then.

Now if we take in to consideration that the price fell over the next few years after the Plasma's introduction, could we Assume the same would imply for the new OLED technology in TVs today?

I believe Yes, because for example: Samsung's 55" OLED is $12,000 dollars. It is a brand new technology, as Plasma's were 10 years ago. Over the next few years, OLED TVs will decrease in price, as Plasma's did. You all can see where I am going with this.

So, they say that OLED it the best technology in TVs in the past 10 years, and I can believe that. Given one knows about OLED, and the benefits of it, etc.

In conclusion, like TVs of the past, in this case Plasma's vs OLED and how Plasma's declined in price over the next few years after they were introduced, I can see that OLED TVs will do the same in the same time frame, or even a quicker pace because there are HDTV channels and Media that were not widespread 10 years ago when Plasma's were introduced.



Webcobler

@verizon.net
reply to SilentMan

I also agree with you that I wish all this good stuff will come before my time is up on this Earth, as well.

I sometimes wish that if I could be cryogenically frozen, then just wake me up when i can get a Ultra HD tv with several UHD channels to watch, Native 4k Bluray's to buy etc. And wake me when 8k TVs are at a price reasonable with Native media out there , so it is worth getting.

But I can probably wait until 1Gbps is available for our homes, because i believe, since it was just announced, that it will be available within 3-5 years



Nezmo
The name's Bond. James Bond.
Premium,MVM
join:2004-11-10
Coppell, TX
kudos:1

said by Webcobler :

...

I sometimes wish that if I could be cryogenically frozen, then just wake me up when i can get a Ultra HD tv with several UHD channels to watch, Native 4k Bluray's to buy etc....

Personally I'd be more excited about seeing a cure for cancer or a huge reduction in poverty levels or eradication of cruelty to kids, or seeing my great great grand kids... etc. The next thing in TV is fun, sure but not something I'd want to be frozen so I could eventually see, lol. But hey, each to their own.

I don't think there's any argument that the new tech will come down in price. It's when, not if. But there are some limiting factors and diminishing returns at play as others have mentioned. Again, not everyone can physically accommodate a 100" screen (where this really comes in to it's own) but it is true that those that early adopt and overpay for the privilege will spur on price drops for those regular folks who want the higher tech even though they probably really don't need it. That's just how it works.
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo


TitusTroy

join:2009-06-18
New York, NY
reply to fishacura

the people clammoring for huge screens (65"+) need to invest in a projector over any plasma or LED

as far as 4k vs OLED...most people that have seen 4k up close say that the leap in picture quality is not as substantial as the leap from standard def to 1080p HD...the people that have seen OLED are all still picking their jaws up off the floor



danclan

join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA

To add to the confusion:

»www.avsforum.com/t/1451171/why-u···s-not-4k

enjoy....



aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
reply to bull3964

said by bull3964 :

said by MURICA:

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

It isn't really true though because a lot of the intermediate and post work is done in 2k or even 1080p due to cost.

................................

1080P (1920x1080P) is considered 2K. Even though it's not quite at 2000 and only 1920. Just like the 3840x2160 resolution of UHD is considered 4K even though it's only 3840 lines of resolution.