dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
447
share rss forum feed

txfeinbergs

join:2009-03-10
Allen, TX

What is the point of 4K

.... when you can't even get 1080P uncompressed. Maybe someone will come up with a converter box that takes a 4K channel (which by the time all the compression is done on it really turns out to be 2.5K), and convert it to a true 1080P uncompressed picture. You would not have to buy a new TV, and you would get a much better picture than what is offered today. That is what I hope to get out of 4K.

H.265 is 50% more efficient. At what, hiding your picture degradation that is obviously there. Data gone is data gone.



Guspaz
Guspaz
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:23

Because distributing uncompressed 1080p content is completely infeasible? Uncompressed 1080p60 at 24-bit would require about 3 gigabits per second. A two hour movie would take up roughly 2.5 terabytes for the video alone. You could fit that on about 50 dual-layer bluray discs.

Your statements about 4K to 2.5K don't make any sense... Sufficiently high bitrate compression is perceptually lossless; humans can't tell the difference between the compressed and uncompressed copies. Bluray is typically perceptually lossless. There's no reason to expect that 4K video encoded using h.265 at a somewhat higher bitrate than the average blu-ray shouldn't be able to achieve the same thing. You could even do it within blu-ray's maximum video bitrate (40Mbps), although new hardware would be required to play back the content.

More likely we'll see a new standard adopted that combines 4K, BDXL discs (which increase density and layer count to hit up to 128GB per disc), and h.265 into a single standard.
--
Developer: Tomato/MLPPP, Linux/MLPPP, etc »fixppp.org



anon anon

@charter.com
reply to txfeinbergs

Hey txfeinbergs you realize that even blu-ray is severly compressed.


tech_head

join:2001-03-01
Hayward, CA

There is no hardware for H.265.
Most providers, Dish, Comcast, etc still have not fully gone to H.264. Even though ATSC has supported H.264 since 2008, how many TV sets can receive those broadcasts?

4K TV, really? How large does the TV have to be for you to be able to tell the difference at a reasonable difference.


tech_head

join:2001-03-01
Hayward, CA
reply to anon anon

There is no hardware for H.265.
Most providers, Dish, Comcast, etc still have not fully gone to H.264. Even though ATSC has supported H.264 since 2008, how many TV sets can receive those broadcasts?

4K TV, really? How large does the TV have to be for you to be able to tell the difference at a reasonable difference.

With no hardware to decode H.265 in the field and providers still struggling to get H.264 deployed. Getting this anytime soon is a pipe dream.


pb2k

join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1

For the time being, H.265 will be of far more use in internet video. I wouldn't expect to see any cable/sat/iptv deployments for upwards of a decade.


34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by pb2k:

For the time being, H.265 will be of far more use in internet video. I wouldn't expect to see any cable/sat/iptv deployments for upwards of a decade.

Having to buy new encoders on the backend and roll out new STBs or users upgrading TVs is a lot of work and would take forever. cable/sat providers need to finish converting to H.264 from MPEG-2 first before even thinking about H.265 at all; not that they will any time soon.

zod5000

join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC
Reviews:
·Shaw
reply to txfeinbergs

said by txfeinbergs:

.... when you can't even get 1080P uncompressed. Maybe someone will come up with a converter box that takes a 4K channel (which by the time all the compression is done on it really turns out to be 2.5K), and convert it to a true 1080P uncompressed picture. You would not have to buy a new TV, and you would get a much better picture than what is offered today. That is what I hope to get out of 4K.

H.265 is 50% more efficient. At what, hiding your picture degradation that is obviously there. Data gone is data gone.

It seems to be the trend on new video techniques. IE Digital Cable doesn't look nearly as good as a dvd, and HD cable doesn't look nearly as good as a bluray. They seem to move on to the next format before finding a high quality method to distribute the next one.

I don't really see 4k catching on though. It's a long way out before technology can handle its distribution. I don't see a mass revolution of people upgrading to 70"+ tv's either.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by zod5000:

It seems to be the trend on new video techniques. IE Digital Cable doesn't look nearly as good as a dvd, and HD cable doesn't look nearly as good as a bluray. They seem to move on to the next format before finding a high quality method to distribute the next one.

The vast majority of broadcast TV is still using MPEG-2. If cable/sat providers finally moved everything over to MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) they would have enough bandwidth to provide decent bitrate encodings of the channels instead of overcompressed MPEG-2 based channels as they are now. 4K will only happen when it is possible to use H.264.


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

said by 34764170:

said by zod5000:

It seems to be the trend on new video techniques. IE Digital Cable doesn't look nearly as good as a dvd, and HD cable doesn't look nearly as good as a bluray. They seem to move on to the next format before finding a high quality method to distribute the next one.

The vast majority of broadcast TV is still using MPEG-2. If cable/sat providers finally moved everything over to MPEG-4 AVC (H.264) they would have enough bandwidth to provide decent bitrate encodings of the channels instead of overcompressed MPEG-2 based channels as they are now. 4K will only happen when it is possible to use H.264.

The problem is many OITA broadcasters(if not most) would use the more efficient codec to add more channels in the same amount of bandwidth and still have the similar crappy quality.

34764170

join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON

said by aaronwt:

The problem is many OITA broadcasters(if not most) would use the more efficient codec to add more channels in the same amount of bandwidth and still have the similar crappy quality.

With digital cable and SDV or IPTV the bandwidth issue there has been removed so it isn't an issue; they don't have the same incentive to do that.

zed260
Premium
join:2011-11-11
Cleveland, TN
Reviews:
·Charter

said by 34764170:

said by aaronwt:

The problem is many OITA broadcasters(if not most) would use the more efficient codec to add more channels in the same amount of bandwidth and still have the similar crappy quality.

With digital cable and SDV or IPTV the bandwidth issue there has been removed so it isn't an issue; they don't have the same incentive to do that.

most 1 gigherts cable plants if combined with the new h265 codec would probably be able to offer almost limitless channels