dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed


Old Bethpage, NY
reply to fishacura

Re: Ultra HD at CES

I wonder if our human eyes can really see a noticeable difference between 1080p and 4K. I guess if you are a movie enthusiast and rent/buy movies a lot and are interested in higher resolution, this will be great. I am quite happy with what I have. Also, seeing these '99-'04 prices kinda sways my position. I'll admit, I most certainly wouldn't mind having one of these 4K/OLED sets but yeah,...can't afford them at those prices.


said by PhoenixOne:

I wonder if our human eyes can really see a noticeable difference between 1080p and 4K.

They can.

4K doesn't even come close to approaching the limits of human vision.

said by PhoenixOne:

Cable providers max resolution is 1080i (correct me if I am wrong). DirectTV offers 1080p movies on demand and there are no broadcast channels that are 1080p. So the only content for 4K would be Blu-ray movies.

There was a time when cable providers' max resolution was 480i.

If you build it, they will come.

Right now a typical DVB-S transponder and a single QAM256 channel have enough bandwidth to provide decent quality 4K with the H.265/HEVC codec. 38 Mbps should suffice.

Verizon and Google Fiber could easily handle 4k channels via IPTV. Google Fiber is all IPTV so they are ready already.

Right now Verizon offers 300 Mbps Internet packages. That is ten times the amount of bandwidth that a 4K UHDTV channel would require.

You could stream ten 4k channels simultaneously on Verizon's 300 Mbps tier.

The bandwidth is there to deliver 4k via satellite, fiber, and cable; it's all just a matter of competence, which we know all these companies tend to lack. The only provider in trouble with this is AT&T. Their pathetic U-verse product doesn't come close to having enough bandwidth to deliver 4k.