  tshirtPremium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:3 | However... Bob Costas is just as boring at 8K.
We don't lack in technology, we lack content and nessesary subject matter . | |
|
 |  scavioPremium
join:2001-07-14
Melmac | Re: However... There is plenty of content and subject matter. Unfortunately, those things don't necessarily equal ratings so we may not get our hands on it. | |
|
|  vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | As long as BBC keeps making nature documentaries, I'll keep buying higher resolution TV's. | |
|
| | | | Re: However... At some point, it will be cheaper to fly on-location and see it for ourselves! | |
|
| | | vpokoPremium
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA | Re: However... Yeah, but who wants to sit perfectly still, wearing camouflage for two weeks to get the perfect shot of a Bird of Paradise. Plus, I'm not putting on a SCUBA tank and going into an underwater cave no matter how cheap it is. Hell, you can pay me and I wouldn't do it. | |
|
|  NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ | 20 years from now, we will have the bandwidth for this available on our mobile phones. | |
|
| | | | Re: However... said by NickD:20 years from now, we will have the bandwidth for this available on our mobile phones.
Are you sure? As greedy and stubborn these companies are in deploying upgrades and whatelse not, I wouldn't be suprised to see us still on a 3mbps connection in 20 years, wireless or landline.  | |
|
| | | |
|  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | is never use the phrase very very long time. | |
|
 gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 | Nice.. I don't even have an HDTV yet.
Not really interested in 3D either.
While this sounds interesting, it sounds a bit like overkill.
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com | |
|
| Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: Nice.. said by gatorkram:I don't even have an HDTV yet.
Not really interested in 3D either.
While this sounds interesting, it sounds a bit like overkill.
Overkill?
I won't be happy until i and everyone i know has a holodeck. | |
|
| | | | Re: Nice.. The invention of the holodeck would mean the end of civilization as we know it. | |
|
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Re: Nice.. ...but it won't be like Star Trek. From an imagination perspective, the concept is incredible but unless all that we know about physics is wrong, a holodeck that converts energy to matter as easily as a modern flat-panel creates 2D images is all but impossible. In nature, exploding stars create heavy elements. To think that we can connect dilithium crystals to holodeck emitters and get matter or even generate fields that feel, smell and act like matter is pretty far fetched.
What's far more likely and maybe even plausible is creating the holodeck in our mind like Inception or The Matrix.
You are probably right that regardless of how it's created, it would mean the end of civilization. | |
|
| | | | Aimhere
join:2001-04-02
Green Bay, WI | Re: Nice.. said by rradina:...but it won't be like Star Trek. From an imagination perspective, the concept is incredible but unless all that we know about physics is wrong, a holodeck that converts energy to matter as easily as a modern flat-panel creates 2D images is all but impossible. In nature, exploding stars create heavy elements. To think that we can connect dilithium crystals to holodeck emitters and get matter or even generate fields that feel, smell and act like matter is pretty far fetched.
I may be showing my geek here, but that's not quite how the holodecks are described as working in Star Trek. A holodeck supposedly creates a visual hologram that is customized for the individual eyes of each user. Matter or forcefields are only used for props and set pieces the user actually touches (with material objects supposedly seamlessly introduced and removed by transporter as needed). But yeah, it's pretty much all fantasy without the real-world physics to back it up.
You are probably right that regardless of how it's created, it would mean the end of civilization.
 | |
|
|  antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by gatorkram:I don't even have an HDTV yet.
Not really interested in 3D either.
While this sounds interesting, it sounds a bit like overkill.
Same here. My 20" Sharp CRT TV, from 1996, still kicks arse. | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Might be good for movie distro Way overkill for home use but movie theaters may benefit from that type of digital projection capability. No law says it has to be streamed live. That 8K is getting toward IMAX HD territory which I think is 10000x7000 or something like that. | |
|
|  danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | Re: Might be good for movie distro digital theaters are already using 4K display technology because you need to be that far away for it to be of any use...8K will be of NO use to you since you need to be a block away with a screen a block big to notice... | |
|
| | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: Might be good for movie distro I see grain in digital projection at the theaters I go do and I figured it was resolution driven. Maybe it is from the transfer of the print. | |
|
| | | antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Might be good for movie distro said by skeechan:I see grain in digital projection at the theaters I go do and I figured it was resolution driven. Maybe it is from the transfer of the print.
I see dirts, grains, bad colors, etc. on films. Yuck. | |
|
| | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | Re: Might be good for movie distro Between that and inconsiderate, noisy people I don't go to the movies much any more. I'll go to IMAX for a big summer movie but never for a regular one. The experience largely sucks now. | |
|
| | | | | antdudeA Ninja AntPremium,VIP
join:2001-03-25
United State
kudos:4 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Might be good for movie distro said by skeechan:Between that and inconsiderate, noisy people I don't go to the movies much any more. I'll go to IMAX for a big summer movie but never for a regular one. The experience largely sucks now.
For me, others and I don't have time. I like go with friends, but we're all old now. I did not get to see The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises movies. | |
|
| |
| | | | Re: Might be good for movie distro Once you add compression all bets are off. | |
|
| | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: Might be good for movie distro I don't know if it is Cox or if it is the network but sometimes, particularly for sports, CBS HD is so over-compressed it is annoying to watch. It's like the image is made of Legos. But I see the same with some OTA HD...like networks want to punish you with degraded picture to drive you to cable or DBS where they get rebroadcast fees. | |
|
| | FTTH? Meh. DSL is fine. To all those saying "Why would I ever need a connection faster than 2 Mbsp?"
Here's your answer. | |
|
| | | Re: FTTH? Meh. DSL is fine. and pigs sleep in their shit, what is your point? | |
|
| JTR
join:2012-05-19
Carbondale, IL Reviews:
·Mediacom
| said by Arty50:To all those saying "Why would I ever need a connection faster than 2 Mbsp?"
Here's your answer.
Last time I checked, we're looking at 500mbps for 4k streaming. Most content servers out there have gigabit lines and a HDD RAID array. Streaming 4k is going to require a huge jump in server network speeds, cheaper bandwidth, faster and cheaper SSDs, cheap 4k display tech, and of course we can't ignore the simple fact that there's no physical distribution method short of shipping hard drives that can store the massive filesizes of 4k video for. Oh yeah, and there's still the whole battle to get everyone to start filming their stuff with $50k cameras. And this isn't even going into 8k territory yet. Oh, and I didn't even mention the challenge and expense of wiring up America with FTTH. | |
|
| | Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·voip.ms
| Re: FTTH? Meh. DSL is fine. I remember when CD players were launched at $10,000 ($30k in today $). I picked one up for my kids for $3 at dollar general last year. So what is a pipe dream in 2012, my grandkids will be enjoying as toys in 20 years.
All technology gets cheaper and better over time, except your cable bill. Go figure...
As for wiring up America, just use the USF funds for 2 years. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| Re: FTTH? Meh. DSL is fine. said by elefante72:I remember when CD players were launched at $10,000 ($30k in today $). I picked one up for my kids for $3 at dollar general last year. So what is a pipe dream in 2012, my grandkids will be enjoying as toys in 20 years.
All technology gets cheaper and better over time, except your cable bill. Go figure...
As for wiring up America, just use the USF funds for 2 years.
More like 30 years, I think the first CD players came out in the early 80's? I bought one in 86 for something like $120. In todays money it wasn't cheap and the CD's costed about double what an album cost. BTW I don't think 9600 baud modem speeds were available yet... and I used a cassette for a tape drive. | |
|
| | | | Cue the demos of analog HDTV in the 1980's -- we were saying the same things back then.
Now even our phones have HDTV cameras built in. (Tell that to someone in the 1980's -- cameras in a telephone???) | |
|
| | | | On the server side, check out a FusionIO drive. Already super-small (just a PCIE card size) but has 2.4 Tb at 892,000 IOPS. Just wow. Already retailing for a mere 20K (give or take). »www.fusionio.com/products/iodrive2-duo/
Everyone will probably have smaller versions these on their phones in 20 years.
--
If a man speaks in a forest and no woman is around to hear him, is he still wrong? | |
|
| NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ | Comcast is just looking for ways for you to blow your 300GB cap in an hour | |
|
| | | | Re: FTTH? Meh. DSL is fine. Exactly!!! | |
|
| | Perfect Now all those people that say 20mbits or whatever is good enough, now there's a good example of why even google fiber doesn't quite cut the mustard. | |
|
|
See 20 replies to this post |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| They will need to rebuild cable systems They will probably need to rebuild cable systems to handle that high of resolution and we are talking about having to build dual cable systems to handle that much bandwidth. We used to have a dual cable system in Springfield (MA) and they rebuilt it back in 2002 with a single cable system. I moved here in August of 2002 and the new system went online in our neighborhood in December of 2002 (our neighborhood was one of the first to go online). The A/B cable system was a pain in the butt as you either had to rent an analog converter (despite having a cable ready TV) with automatic A/B switching or you had to fumble with an A/B switch to take advantage of a cable ready TV.
They could have used an A/B system with digital as they could put the standard definition programming (both analog and digital), high speed Internet and VoIP on the A side cable and put the high definition programming and VOD streams on the B side cable. I think there is an attachment that goes on the back of set-top boxes that is used to accommodate an A/B cable system (at least on older set-tops). I know the Motorola DCT 2000 boxes have an attachment that allows analog pass-thru as the Mediacom boxes in Cedar Rapids (IA) had them. They could test a high bandwidth dual cable system in Springfield (MA) as most of the housing is wired for dual cable from the A/B cable system (although the plant has been rebuilt and only one cable line is in use but most of the customer premises wiring is still dual cable).
--
I wish I still lived in Iowa; Everything there from rent and groceries to Cable TV is much cheaper in Iowa (especially with an overbuilder in town). | |
|
|  DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | Re: They will need to rebuild cable systems Why spend all the money building a dual cable system again? Spend it building out fiber from the node to the home instead. | |
|
|  quetwoThat VoIP GuyPremium
join:2004-09-04
East Lansing, MI | With modern cable systems, this is no longer the case. This is all just a matter of bandwidth. 4k signal takes 1 QAM with minimal compression running at MPEG-4. 8k signal will take 2-3 QAM channels each @ 6Mhz. (You can get about 3 - 5 720p channels into a single QAM, and about 2 1080p in a single QAM with minimal compression).
Modern 1Ghz systems (which, not all systems are at -- many are currently at 800Mhz or 550Mhz) can have ~ 157 QAM channels, although you wouldn't usually wouldn't have that many.
When you account for technologies like SDV (which is already out), you gain even more bandwidth in the final mile. There will be even newer technologies that come out soon that will allow even more bandwidth in the final mile by the time this hits the main-stream. | |
|
| | DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | Re: They will need to rebuild cable systems said by quetwo:With modern cable systems, this is no longer the case. This is all just a matter of bandwidth. 4k signal takes 1 QAM with minimal compression running at MPEG-4. 8k signal will take 2-3 QAM channels each @ 6Mhz. (You can get about 3 - 5 720p channels into a single QAM, and about 2 1080p in a single QAM with minimal compression).
Modern 1Ghz systems (which, not all systems are at -- many are currently at 800Mhz or 550Mhz) can have ~ 157 QAM channels, although you wouldn't usually wouldn't have that many.
When you account for technologies like SDV (which is already out), you gain even more bandwidth in the final mile. There will be even newer technologies that come out soon that will allow even more bandwidth in the final mile by the time this hits the main-stream.
I know all of that...
It just gets to a point where fiber is cheaper. Especially when you can mux 20 or more wavelengths on a fiber and each wavelength has as much bandwidth as a 1Ghz or more cable system.
Everything is going to IP anyway... cable is pushing IP all the way to the hub at the edge of their network, then converting to RF just to get over the last mile.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes. | |
|
| |  Google Fiber
8K Internet streaming video. If you thought 1080p was a big leap from standard definition, then this will blow your mind. This is 16x the resolution of 1080p. 1080p was only 6x the resolution of 480p.
Once compression codecs for this new format are improved some more Google Fiber ought to be able to handle three 8K streams at once.
Now I'm sure there will be some tool who will come into my thread and try to damage control this by spouting lies like "nah dude, human vision isn't good enough to see more detail in resolutions higher than 1080p!" or "nah dude, 8K will never happen, we should all just be content with the current mediocre state of Internet video forever." | |
|
| DrDrewSo that others may surf.
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:8 | Re: Google Fiber By the time 8K video makes it to the home in any real way, Google will have had to rebuild their fiber network to properly support it, maybe twice. | |
|
|  The Dv8orJust call me Dong Suck Oh, M.D.Premium
join:2001-08-09
Denver, CO | said by 09129800:Now I'm sure there will be some tool who will come into my thread and try to damage control this by spouting lies like "nah dude, human vision isn't good enough to see more detail in resolutions higher than 1080p!" or "nah dude, 8K will never happen, we should all just be content with the current mediocre state of Internet video forever."
Those questions can be answered pretty easily with basic science. It's not hard for specialists in the field to discern at what point is it no longer practical to go certain resolutions on certain sizes.
--
You're so vain... I bet you think this post is about you. | |
|
| danclan
join:2005-11-01
Midlothian, VA | Enter the tool!
But it wont sadly. You need your whole wall (or sizable portion of it) to be a screen to be able to take advantage that high a resolution.
It's not your eyes its your viewing space and screen size (wallet) that will limit the usefulness of this technology. So that your eyes can in fact discern the details that this resolution provides.
There are currently raging discussions over what impact if any this will have on viewing content...i.e. how much is too much and does it really impact your viewing experience, can you see it? Do you want or need to see it?
8K Wont happen more so due to market reasons than anythings else the public has dropped serious dime on new HD TV's. They are not really going to drop more any time soon, after all, their last TV (most likely a tube tv) probably lasted 20+ years....
With the last mile being what it is, unless you have fiber it aint gonna happen...but hey you can have your 8K TV and upscale your bluray an be happy right?
Oh and all the big screens around London are 8K that show live events...I wonder if Jimmy Johnson will have to replace his crappy 1080p screens now in the Cowboy Stadium. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Pointless
quote:
... the demonstration itself required the use of an Internet2 connection, and even after compression the NHK/Sharp prototype television still required 360Mbit/s to display the 8K signal.
Cable companies already compress the heck out of HD... and while I don't know if off air broadcasters do the same, there's is definitely a noticeable quality difference between the off-air signal and the cable display of the same channel.
If compression is used... what's the point?
--
Romney 2012 - Put an adult in charge. | |
|
| | | Re: Pointless Maybe with Ultra HD, the cable companies can actually show us what real HD looks like.
It might be compressed down enough to be a uncompressed 1080p feed. Imagine that. | |
|
| | | | Re: Pointless Lossless 1080i60 video is around 1 Gbps. Lossless compression can bring that bitrate down to around 300 Mbps. The level of bandwidth required for this to be lossless with zero compression would be insane - 15+ Gbps, easily.
As far as lossy compression goes, assuming they are using the new HEVC compression format for this 8K format, which is supposed to be twice as efficient as H.264, it will require 8x the bitrate as 1080p video does even though it is 16x the resolution.
At the stated bitrate of 360 Mbps for this test, this compression quality they used for this test is equivalent to 1080p H.264 video at 45 Mbps. Blu-ray's maximum supported bitrate for video is 40 Mbps, although most Blu-rays are authored using H.264 @ 20-30 Mbps.
So this has less compression than a Blu-ray... | |
|
| skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | IF used it could be used for special PPV events. If they put the release date movie thing together (where you have a $30 PPV) it might be good for that. They wouldn't use it for HBO or AMC. | |
|
|  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
·VOIPo
·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
| said by pnh102: quote:
... the demonstration itself required the use of an Internet2 connection, and even after compression the NHK/Sharp prototype television still required 360Mbit/s to display the 8K signal.
Cable companies already compress the heck out of HD... and while I don't know if off air broadcasters do the same, there's is definitely a noticeable quality difference between the off-air signal and the cable display of the same channel. If compression is used... what's the point? Exactly. I wondered the same thing when HD came about. A really good double-layer DVD with anamorphic encoding still looks pretty good on a moderate (<= 42") sized TV. Why don't we work on decreasing the compression levels a bit before worrying about upping the resolution.
All of the providers who advertise their 1080p VOD as "Blu-Ray Quality" just because it's 1080p make me want to scream. Bitrate people, bitrate!
-- Rob
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.
| |
|
| | | Some cable companies DO compress ( Comcast). Others do NOT (FiOS). So go with the cable company that doesn't compress. | |
|
| | Yea right... quote:
Obviously it will be some time before our networks, codecs and broadcast techology can handle such bandwidth...
And that will be probably 100 years from now. With the current path that nearly all ISPs are taking, i.e. caps on data, they are going to get real cozy with those caps and probably never upgrade their network. Why upgrade when you can just sit on it and rake in all the dough? | |
|
gatorkramNeed for SpeedPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2 | Sports! Will it be TV and sports, and all this talk of higher definition video that will push internet last mile technology? I'd be fine with that, as long as it is something that does it...
Now what can we do to solve the upstream limits... Oh yeah, we need to get higher def video cameras out there, so everyone wants to upload to youtube and facebook.. There we go..
Problems solved, and the killer apps to push it all...
Woohoo bring on the bandwidth...
--
What the heck is a GatorKram? »www.gatorkram.com | |
|
 maartenaElmoPremium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
kudos:1 | 360 Mbps now, probably 100 Mbps with newer compression I think that with new developments in compression, (and chips decompressing it live in your tuner unit) a Ultra HD stream can probably be brought down to about 100 Mbps without any noticeable loss in quality.
That said, if eventually we develop a good standard with more-or-less 100 Mbps as the bitrate, most cable carriers will be able to carry at least 10 UltraHD stations with some changes to their current network, and probably a lot more if they get in to upgrades to 1.4, 1.6, Ghz and beyond. FIOS will also be able to deliver this over their network. DirecTV has already said that on their next satellite launches (2014, 2015 and 2016 will see new launches) they will be "Ultra HD ready", so they can probably carry a pretty good number of Ultra HD channels, and I am sure Dish Network will also be able to.
Who will be lagging behind? AT&T U-Verse. Without updates to their infrastructure, they will not be able to carry even a SINGLE Ultra HD station and deliver it to their customers.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" | |
|
| | What to Use it For This technology along with a decent 3D system that does not require glasses could result in some interesting porn movies. Considering the past this might be what would jump start the technology.
I wonder if the Ultra-HD would work via antenna. If so less compression. I say that because the current compression on cable makes HD and regular TV service inferior to a good antenna. I would expect the compression on an Ultra-HD signal might reduce to to a good HD level. | |
|
|  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: What to Use it For said by No to ESPN :This technology along with a decent 3D system that does not require glasses could result in some interesting porn movies. Except that would cost a lot of money to make such a porn movie since it would require new equipment and since no one is paying for porn anymore why would a porn producer go out the expense? | |
|
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | 8k from TV providers? no thanks. I'm very hopeful that by the time we have the bandwidth for multiple 8k streams TV providers are no longer relevant.
When we do get enough bandwidth for that. You can be sure that it won't be thanks to the incumbents.
We'll have to work that one out for ourselves. | |
|
Reviews:
·ooma
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS
| 10 years off.. anything past 1080p is 10 or more years off.. we dont' fully take advantage of 1080p at all. 40% of all hdtv's made only have resolutions upto 1080i (65% of 32" or smaller screens are 720p primarily and 1080i capable).
this is not really a consumer friendly technology yet. these are really meant for super large screens such as in a war room, movie theatre for the super rich, sports arenas, big city electronic billboards. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: 10 years off.. More than 10 years. We don't even have 4K TVs on sale let alone 8K TV and it would take 10 years for such TV to come down in price and be in enough homes for cable to make this technology available to consumers. Even then the amount of content available in 8K format will be minimal for several more years. definitely at least 20 years away minimum. Look how long it took HDTV to take off. | |
|
|
ineel
join:2011-08-12
Sacramento, CA | Uverse In 20 years uverse will have 8k bitrate at 30mbps while fios will be at 300 | |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Compression I really don't want it if it's going to be compressed to hell. Many Comcast HD channels have heavy amounts of compression artifacts because of broadcasters cramming as many channels they can using MPEG2.
I pray they go to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC), also known as H.265 and MPEG-H Part 2. Yes it will require new hardware at the customer end but we need to let go of old hardware, even at a hefty price. Clinging onto legacy hardware doesn't get us anywhere to reaching the full potential of current hardware. | |
|
 newviewEx .. Ex .. ExactlyPremium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
kudos:1 | You gotta be rich The USA will have the greatest internet/video/TV technology in the world ... available to the 10% of the population that can afford it ... very much like our medical system is now. | |
|
| Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX | Re: You gotta be rich said by newview:The USA will have the greatest internet/video/TV technology in the world ... available to the 10% of the population that can afford it ... very much like our medical system is now.
That's probably the dumbest thing I've read today. | |
|
| NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by newview:The USA will have the greatest internet/video/TV technology in the world ... available to the 10% of the population that can afford it ... very much like our medical system is now.
Don't worry, we'll soon have Obamavision in which we all will be required to get a cable subscription whether we watch the Ultra HD channels or not | |
|
BiggA
join:2005-11-23
EARTH | Bandwidth They don't want to upgrade their networks. If they would all do GPON fiber with multicast, it would work fine, but with consumers not even taking full advantage of HDTV, there's just no demand for it...... | |
|
| | Blow Out Your Caps TV At 360Mb/s, it would take under 2 hours to hit Comcast's 300GB monthly cap. Even if their networks could handle it, caps would need to be seriously raised.
--
-Jason Levine | |
|
| NickDPremium
join:2000-11-17
Princeton Junction, NJ | Re: Blow Out Your Caps TV They already support 305 megabits, so 360 isn't much more. | |
|
|
|
