Rob_Premium
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL | End of an era As of 11:00PM Central, ESPN 3D went black, no color bars, no nothing, just a black screen, an end of an era to those who enjoyed it.
3D TV isn't the same as going to the movies.
-Rob |
|
|
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | passing fad. good riddance.
next up: 4k tv
--
Despises any post with strings. |
|
Rob_Premium
join:2008-07-16
Mary Esther, FL | How about just replacing all feeds with HD feeds? Since 99.9 percent of the channels are in HD?
-Rob |
|
 Optimus2357Premium
join:2010-11-21
West Warwick, RI
kudos:3 | There are still ALOT of people who still watch on 4:3 SD TV's. But it's coming. Most analog will be gone probably in a couple years. And even 4K, I really don't see the point. On a 23" screen I doubt many can tell the difference between 720 and 1080. On a 32" screen I doubt many will be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 40k. We are approaching a bottleneck which is the human eye. LOL |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to Rob_
but they aren't rob. alot ar still stretch - o - vision
--
Despises any post with strings. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to Optimus2357
not when its bitstarved. it'll be unwatchable.
--
Despises any post with strings. |
|
| reply to Optimus2357
said by Optimus2357:There are still ALOT of people who still watch on 4:3 SD TV's. But it's coming. Most analog will be gone probably in a couple years. And even 4K, I really don't see the point. On a 23" screen I doubt many can tell the difference between 720 and 1080. On a 32" screen I doubt many will be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 40k. We are approaching a bottleneck which is the human eye. LOL
It would be great if Cox would offer a choice of just HD and no SD for a lower rate. I can't remember the last time I viewed the SD channels, but I still pay for them.  |
|
Optimus2357Premium
join:2010-11-21
West Warwick, RI
kudos:3 | Well I don't think Cox pays for the HD feeds. I thought most provide those for free. So since Cox can't save any money doing it that way, I don't think customers will be anytime soon either. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | cox double dips. you pay for the sd you're SUPPOSED to get the hd for free. aka 'free hd' what a joke!!1
im paying for sd hbo yet i have to pay extra for what i'm supposed to be getting for 'free'. their ad is a joke. 'cox is the only one that can say things' sure cox you can say anything but that don't make it so!!1
--
Despises any post with strings. |
|
Optimus2357Premium
join:2010-11-21
West Warwick, RI
kudos:3 | I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about what you pay Cox, I was talking about what Cox pays ABC/CBS/FOX/etc. Does Cox have to pay extra for the HD feeds or are they supplied with what ever amount Cox pays for basic re-broadcast rights? If so, then it wouldn't make sense from a business standpoint to offer HD only service, since Cox would have no way to reimburse the savings. It would end up being less service for about the same price. |
|
| reply to dvd536
said by dvd536:cox double dips. you pay for the sd you're SUPPOSED to get the hd for free. aka 'free hd' what a joke!!1
im paying for sd hbo yet i have to pay extra for what i'm supposed to be getting for 'free'. their ad is a joke. 'cox is the only one that can say things' sure cox you can say anything but that don't make it so!!1
What are you paying extra for? SD and HD are the same price. SD boxes and HD boxes are the same price.
What am I missing? |
|
| reply to Optimus2357
what about channels that don't have plans to have an HD version? |
|
| reply to Anonguy
said by Anonguy :What are you paying extra for? SD and HD are the same price. SD boxes and HD boxes are the same price.
What am I missing?
The last time I checked, the HD receiver was extra. At least it was for me. |
|
Xsk8er
join:2001-01-02
Columbus, OH Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Insight Communic..
| reply to Optimus2357
said by Optimus2357:I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about what you pay Cox, I was talking about what Cox pays ABC/CBS/FOX/etc. Does Cox have to pay extra for the HD feeds or are they supplied with what ever amount Cox pays for basic re-broadcast rights? If so, then it wouldn't make sense from a business standpoint to offer HD only service, since Cox would have no way to reimburse the savings. It would end up being less service for about the same price.
]
As seen with Dish Network and TWC disputes it all depends on the contracts with the networks.. Some are requiring additional fees for the HD version along side the SD version... There has been a few cases with Dish Network that dish did not want to pay the "extra" fees for the HD versions of "some channels" so was only provided the SD version instead.. It all depends on the carriage contract with the provider of the channel in question. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
·Cox HSI
| reply to Optimus2357
said by Optimus2357:There are still ALOT of people who still watch on 4:3 SD TV's. But it's coming. Most analog will be gone probably in a couple years. And even 4K, I really don't see the point. On a 23" screen I doubt many can tell the difference between 720 and 1080. On a 32" screen I doubt many will be able to tell the difference between 1080 and 40k. We are approaching a bottleneck which is the human eye. LOL
It depends on how far away you sit from the screen, in addition to its size. Realistically though we won't stop at 4k. I'm fairly certain that the end game will be 8k, which is already a defined standard, and should cover almost any comfortable viewing distance on even a theater projected screen.
Good luck getting cablecos to adopt anything above 1080p though. In fact, to be honest, I think broadcast television is approaching the end of its era, to be replaced with pure multicast.
Not only is there simply not going to be enough bandwidth available for these high resolution formats, but the content providers are also pricing themselves out of the market. They increase their re-transmission fees to the cable providers, which raises prices for customers, which makes customers not want to subscribe, which reduces their revenue, causing them to demand yet higher rates per subscriber. It's a nasty vicious cycle that has just started recently, and it won't end until cable tv is dead. |
|
dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to Guzzler
the hd dvr is also extra |
|
| reply to Guzzler
said by Guzzler:said by Anonguy :What are you paying extra for? SD and HD are the same price. SD boxes and HD boxes are the same price.
What am I missing?
The last time I checked, the HD receiver was extra. At least it was for me. In AZ where dvd and I are all boxes are the same price $8.50.
Only extras are if you add DVR service. |
|
Optimus2357Premium
join:2010-11-21
West Warwick, RI
kudos:3 | reply to Rakeesh
Good point. I guess I was talking about the technology overall and not so much it's adaptation by broadcast television. I think media, not television, has been the driving force for home entertainment advancement. 1080p from a bluray on a decent TV will blow away any cable broadcast.
I agree with you that I think TV is dying and will be replaced with video over IP some how. So if 4K takes off and Netflix, Amazon, Youtube, etc start adopting then bandwidth caps will start to be even more of a issue IMHO. |
|
