dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
6
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.

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.


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.

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 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


Webcobler

@verizon.net
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


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.


bull3964

@stargate.net
said by aaronwt:

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.

I was making the differentiation on aspect ratio, but yes, 1080p is technically 2k.

The point still stands though. Most feature films since around 2000 have been using 2k digital intermediates (especially when special effects are involved) and the practice continues even today depending on budget. Those movies, even with a 4k master, are never going to benefit fully from a 4k display unless the movie goes back to the source 35mm footage and is re-edited and gets re-created special effects (if there are any.) They will be barely better than the 1080p blu-ray copy otherwise.

Older movies that were edited on film can be easily re-scanned at 4k, but there's the question of how many are going to be done.

Let's face it, the only reason why we have blu-ray copies for some movies is that they did an HD master when they did the original DVD release. It's very unlikely that the studios are going to see the value in doing a 4k rescan of their back catalog for anything other than their top gems. It's just not going to be economically viable.