# Ultra HD-ready TiVo in the works.



## drebbe (Apr 11, 2012)

Broadcom Powers TiVo's New Ultra HD Set-top Box Solution

Collaboration to Enable Delivery of Streaming and Linear 4K Content to Subscribers

News Highlights:

o*Expands TiVo's advanced integration of linear TV, on demand and over-the-top (OTT) streaming content onto Broadcom's latest platforms
o*Brings TiVo experience to an Ultra HD-ready platform, critical as 4k content becomes more widely available
o*Broadcom decoding delivers vivid live-action viewing with 60 frames-per-second resolution and 10-bit color for Ultra HD content

Broadcom Corporation (NASDAQ: BRCM), a global innovation leader in semiconductor solutions for wired and wireless communications, today announced it will power TiVo's Ultra HD set-top box technology. Broadcom and TiVo (NASDAQ: TIVO), a global leader in the advanced television entertainment market, will demonstrate TiVo's new Ultra HD set-top box technology that can deliver 4X the resolution of traditional 1080p60 HD displays at IBC, September 12-16, RAI Amsterdam, in Broadcom's booth 2.C25. For more news, visit Broadcom's Newsroom.

"This new offering builds on the ongoing collaboration between Broadcom and TiVo, including our work on the TiVo® Series4 and TiVo Roamio^ DVRs," said Rich Nelson, Broadcom Senior Vice President of Marketing, Broadband & Connectivity Group. "As a leading provider of silicon for Ultra HD technology, Broadcom's BCM7445 SoC will allow TiVo to display life-like resolution speeds of 60 frames per second (4Kp60) and richer color gradation with the10-bit Rec 2020 color standard."

"TiVo is committed to bringing the ultimate viewing experience to our customers, delivering all video content to any room and any screen with the only user experience that allows consumers to easily discover content whether it is linear, On Demand, or over-the-top. With Broadcom, we can deliver the stunning picture quality and color clarity of Ultra HD to our subscribers worldwide," said Jeff Klugman, Executive Vice President, General Manager of Products and Revenue, TiVo. "Demonstrating our 4k capabilities with Broadcom at IBC marks an important next step in our bringing Ultra HD to consumers everywhere."

Broadcom and TiVo Demonstration Details

o*Decoding provided by Broadcom's flagship video decoder system on-a-chip (SoC), the BCM7445, with high efficiency video codec (HEVC) compression, 60 frame-per-second resolution and 10-bit color standard
o*TiVo's TV Everywhere and multi-room solutions feature an award-winning user interface and access to integrated linear TV, On Demand and OTT streaming content all in one simple search

Availability

Broadcom's BCM7445 Ultra HD SoC is currently in volume production.*


----------



## sbiller (May 10, 2002)

Info from Broadcom on the BCM7445 SoC...

http://www.broadcom.com/products/Cable/Cable-Set-Top-Box-Solutions/BCM7445

21,000 DMIP CPU which is 7 times faster than Roamio's BCM7425.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Makes sense if TiVo wants to continue to market itself as a premium product...

I still say - Meh


----------



## ebockelman (Jul 12, 2001)

It's a bit chicken and egg. There's no 4k content to DVR, but there's no DVR for 4k content.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

something in my head keeps telling me to hold off on upgrading my premieres. Yesterday's Fry's $88 mini lifetime sale and best buy's match thats is now gone pushed me a bit towards upgrading, but now, ill hold off a bit to see if they announce this soon so i can use these minis.

I care more about the speed bump and new processor than anything else.


----------



## P42 (Jan 7, 2003)

But will the menus be ready


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

P42 said:


> But will the menus be ready


We need 4K UI!!!!!!

Damn, TiVo, when are they going to complete the 4K UI - There is still a third tier setup screen that hasn't been completed...


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

Aero 1 said:


> something in my head keeps telling me to hold off on upgrading my premieres. Yesterday's Fry's $88 mini lifetime sale and best buy's match thats is now gone pushed me a bit towards upgrading, but now, ill hold off a bit to see if they announce this soon so i can use these minis.
> 
> I care more about the speed bump and new processor than anything else.


a chip that much faster would make for a great next TiVo -- but I would not hold off on the roamio. The premiere was the box to skip and the roamio got a lot of things right as a result of what they learned.

I would be surprised if we see a different chip in the next 2 years


----------



## meoge (Oct 8, 2008)

Aero 1 said:


> something in my head keeps telling me to hold off on upgrading my premieres. Yesterday's Fry's $88 mini lifetime sale and best buy's match thats is now gone pushed me a bit towards upgrading, but now, ill hold off a bit to see if they announce this soon so i can use these minis.
> 
> I care more about the speed bump and new processor than anything else.


I've been reading the forums and waiting for the right time to move from my Windows Media Center setup to Tivo for the past few months. I was planning on doing it after the new year, but I came very close to jumping on the $88 mini price. In the end I decided it would save me less than $200 for 3 of them and I know a new Mini is on the way. Now I'm hoping a new Roamio is also on the way. I should know better than playing the game of waiting for the new "thing" that is going to be released, but my current setup still works so I'm not under pressure to make the move. I also PM'd Spherular yesterday about his ebay code and he said the price for the mini is still $174 using the code, but he expects it to change at some point. I'm hoping that maybe it'll drop it down to something closer to $100.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

I have 6 Minis (and about to buy a 7th). I can stream 5 live TV streams, plus a recorded stream to all Minis.

If a 4K TiVo is developed, how will this effect streaming? Will the 4K TiVo and TiVo Minis need MoCA 2.0 to keep up with the bandwidth to stream 4K, or will MoCA 1.1 suffice (for multiple streams).

I'm not sure what the bandwidth requirement is for 4K.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

4k broadcasts will use H.265 encoding. H.265 offers about a 200% compressiong advantage compared to MPEG-2, meaning equivelent files would be about 1/4 the size using H.265. However 4K has 8x as many pixels as a 1080i broadcast so it will still be twice the size. (4x resolution plus 2x frame rate) So if the average MPEG-2 channel is currently using 12-15Mbps, then a 4k station would be 24-30Mbps.

Still shouldn't be a big issue for gigabit networking. But the I/O performance of the box might be a limiting factor. Recording six 4k streams and playing one locally will use more I/O bandwidth then your current setup with all the Minis running.


----------



## JimboG (May 27, 2007)

It would be awesome if this new TiVo offers Netflix's 4K content. 4K from YouTube would be nice too.

As it stands, there are a lot of dumb solutions like Samsung TVs with built in 4K streaming or Sony 4K boxes that only work with Sony LCD TVs.

What I really want is a somewhat reasonably priced dumb 4K projector and a fairly cheap box for streaming and the "smart" part of smart TV. A new 4K Roku for $200-300 that works with most any brand of 4K TV for example.:up:

I'm happy to upgrade a set top box fairly frequently. I want my new 4K projector to last for at least five years.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Can't have a 4k device like that until HDMI 2.0 is ratified. Until then the only 4k content you can get on a 4k TV is from an app inside the TV itself.


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Can't have a 4k device like that until HDMI 2.0 is ratified. Until then the only 4k content you can get on a 4k TV is from an app inside the TV itself.


tell that to sony

http://store.sony.com/sony-4k-ultra-hd-media-player-zid27-FMPX10/cat-27-catid-All-Internet-Players


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Can't have a 4k device like that until HDMI 2.0 is ratified. Until then the only 4k content you can get on a 4k TV is from an app inside the TV itself.


HDMI 1.4 will support 4k @30fps. You would only have to have HDMI 2.0 for 4k @60fps.

There are also other alternatives like DisplayPort or HDBaseT. I really wish that TV manufacturers would diversify more with the ports they put on TVs. Instead of 5 HDMI ports on a TV, just give me 3 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, and 1 HDBaseT.


----------



## SullyND (Dec 30, 2004)

But TiVo has no hardware engineers! 



It's nice to see so much movement from TiVo recently.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Aero 1 said:


> tell that to sony
> 
> http://store.sony.com/sony-4k-ultra-hd-media-player-zid27-FMPX10/cat-27-catid-All-Internet-Players





tarheelblue32 said:


> HDMI 1.4 will support 4k @30fps. You would only have to have HDMI 2.0 for 4k @60fps.
> 
> There are also other alternatives like DisplayPort or HDBaseT. I really wish that TV manufacturers would diversify more with the ports they put on TVs. Instead of 5 HDMI ports on a TV, just give me 3 HDMI, 1 DisplayPort, and 1 HDBaseT.


4k @60fps is real 4k. Anything else is a stop gap. The only way to get true 4k from an external device is after HDMI 2.0 is ratified.

Also I'm not sure I'd buy a 4k device of any kind for a handful of Netflix and YouTube videos. Even that Sony box only gives you access to "50 titles". Until broadcasters actually start transmitting 4k TV a 4k TiVo is useless. And that's years off. Realtime H.265 encoders don't even exist yet and the bandwidth requirements exceed ATSC limits.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I wonder what the cost will be? If not too expensive it could at least be an upgrade to a faster box over the Roamio Pro/Plus/basic since the broadcom chip would be faster. And also possibly a larger hard drive. I would certainly consider it if the price premium isn't too much and it also came with a 4TB, 5TB, or 6TB drive.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

With the uncertainty in the cable industry surrounding CableCARDs I don't think I'll be buying any new TiVos in the near future.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> 4k @60fps is real 4k. Anything else is a stop gap. The only way to get true 4k from an external device is after HDMI 2.0 is ratified.
> 
> Also I'm not sure I'd buy a 4k device of any kind for a handful of Netflix and YouTube videos. Even that Sony box only gives you access to "50 titles". Until broadcasters actually start transmitting 4k TV a 4k TiVo is useless. And that's years off. Realtime H.265 encoders don't even exist yet and the bandwidth requirements exceed ATSC limits.


Displayport supports beyond 4kHD. Dell's new 5k monitor uses Displayport as do thier current 4k monitors. Displayports are not that common on larger TVs .


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

We still have a content problem. Right now is like HDTV in 1995. It's a proof of concept with little to no actual content. Until someone starts broadcasting 4k there is zero use for a 4k TiVo.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jcthorne said:


> Displayport supports beyond 4kHD. Dell's new 5k monitor uses Displayport as do thier current 4k monitors. Displayports are not that common on larger TVs .


Display port is also a computer connection and not a consumer electronics connection.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> We still have a content problem. Right now is like HDTV in 1995. It's a proof of concept with little to no actual content. Until someone starts broadcasting 4k there is zero use for a 4k TiVo.


UHD content should first show up with VOD and maybe one or two select canle channels depending on the provider. So if the TiVo is able to work with the cable comanies VOD, that will be an option for UHD content. But as far as Broadcast UHD content, I don't see that happening anytime soon. I can definitely see a use for a UHD TiVo. UHD from Netflix would be a better option than using what the TV has on board. Or would aloow one to get a less expensive UHD Tv that doesn't have streamign apps included. Which is what I would prefer anyway. Although I have no plan to get a UHD set anytime soon. Heck, UHD BD content won't be out until late 2015 if we are even lucky.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> Display port is also a computer connection and not a consumer electronics connection.


Computers aren't "consumer electronics"? There is absolutely no reason why DisplayPort can't be used for TVs or any other consumer electronics. The new DisplayPort 1.3 standard supports 8k resolution. It will be years before HDMI standards get around to that.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Computers aren't "consumer electronics"? There is absolutely no reason why DisplayPort can't be used for TVs or any other consumer electronics. The new DisplayPort 1.3 standard supports 8k resolution. It will be years before HDMI standards get around to that.


Yes Display Port supports those higher resolutuions. But they went out of their way to design a PC spec that is different from the consumer Electronics HDMI spec. If they had decided on a common connection it would have been better. But they didn't go they way, deciding to keep things split.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> Yes Display Port supports those higher resolutuions. But they went out of their way to design a PC spec that is different from the consumer Electronics HDMI spec. If they had decided on a common connection it would have been better. But they didn't go they way, deciding to keep things split.


And why can't a TV manufacturer give me 3 HDMI ports and 1 DisplayPort on a HDTV rather than a 4th HDMI port that I will probably never need. And even if I did, I could just use an HDMI switch.

Oh look, a UHDTV with a DisplayPort:

http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-L65WT600


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

My initial reaction is that this is an empty press release. Sure they'll provide a technical demonstration and all that, but this product has no real market here for 6-10 years outside of avid VOD/Netflix-type users.

And it's interestingly a *Broadcom* demonstration in _Amsterdam_ in a few days, and not a Tivo demonstration now at CEDIA.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> .... this is an empty press release.


I think just saying press release is enough. adding "empty" to it is redundant.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Maybe they could base the Mega on this, to make it more worthwhile.


----------



## jcthorne (Jan 28, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Display port is also a computer connection and not a consumer electronics connection.


Does not have to be. The lines between computer and consumer electronics went way beyond blurred a long time ago.

Regardless, HDMI or Displayport, large format 4k displays and projectors have and will have the needed connections. Its not stopping the roll out of 4k. Content is.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

aaronwt said:


> Display port is also a computer connection and not a consumer electronics connection.


It would be a consumer electronics connection if they started putting it on consumer electronics. Everyone will need new and different cables for HDMI 2.0 anyway, might as well be display port cables right now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> And why can't a TV manufacturer give me 3 HDMI ports and 1 DisplayPort on a HDTV rather than a 4th HDMI port that I will probably never need. And even if I did, I could just use an HDMI switch.
> 
> Oh look, a UHDTV with a DisplayPort:
> 
> http://shop.panasonic.com/shop/model/TC-L65WT600


But will you see a Display port from other consumer electronic devices It's rare to find it on a TV. And they might start putting them on more TVs. But I will be surprised to start seeing them put on consumer electronic devices like a UHD BD player.

I can see them putting them on more TVs so people can easily connect their PC to it for the higher resolutions.

Anyway do they have any idea when the UHD(or 4K as some people like to call it) TiVo will be coming out. Anytime before Summer 2015?


----------



## Aero 1 (Aug 8, 2007)

so when do we think this thing will be officially announced by tivo? 

i know i am reaching here, but i hope they make an OTA version of it.


----------



## mbhuff (Jan 25, 2004)

tomhorsley said:


> It would be a consumer electronics connection if they started putting it on consumer electronics. Everyone will need new and different cables for HDMI 2.0 anyway, might as well be display port cables right now.


Wrong.

Both Samsung and Sony are shipping UHD TVs with HDMI 2.0 ports. No new cables required if you are currently using "HiSpeed" HDMI cables. The final 4k BluRay spec should be done in Q1 2015, and 4k BluRay players should be available in Q3 2015.

Traditional QAM based distribution systems won't see 4k anytime in the next 5-10 years due to the cost of upgrading the entire broadcast system, but IPTV solutions aren't limited in that way.

BTW, most films and TV shows are shot in 4k already (google "red camera").


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

wmcbrine said:


> Maybe they could base the Mega on this, to make it more worthwhile.


That would make a little more sense. Since 4k files will likely be about 2x the size of current HD files more space makes sense. Although even then 24TB seems like overkill.


----------



## wkearney99 (Dec 5, 2003)

The little I saw of 4K players were NOT offering streaming of genuine 4K content. The Sony and Kaliedescape boxes were both targeted toward 'wait and watch' where the ENTIRE movie would have to be downloaded FIRST before any playback would begin. There's some sense to this as the movies are weighing in a 40GB+ and not everyone's got downlinks capable of serving that up fast enough to actually stream.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I just hope that a UHD TiVo will be able to output the 2160P content in 1080P. Then I could still try watching the higher quality content on my old 2K display. If the price is right and it has more storage, I would have no problem getting a UHD TiVo before I actually own a UHD Display.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> But will you see a Display port from other consumer electronic devices It's rare to find it on a TV. And they might start putting them on more TVs. But I will be surprised to start seeing them put on consumer electronic devices like a UHD BD player.
> 
> I can see them putting them on more TVs so people can easily connect their PC to it for the higher resolutions.
> 
> Anyway do they have any idea when the UHD(or 4K as some people like to call it) TiVo will be coming out. Anytime before Summer 2015?


Actually UHD and 4K are two different things. UHD is 3840 x 2160 which is twice the standard HD res of 1920 x 1080, and it is the consumer TV and broadcast standard, and less than true 4K which is used by the movie industry and was the original Digital Cinema standard which I was working with about 10 years ago. True 4K is 4096 by 2160.

The company I work with now, makes 4K equipment including HD base T products as well as products that handle HDMI and Display Port. Unless you are sitting a foot or two away from the affordable UHD TVs, it really is hard to detect a big difference in the quality of the picture between HD and UHD, since the resolution is so high, you eye can't perceive it anyway when at a normal viewing distance. ( Apple calls this concept "Retina display". ) Working with computer displays, 4K probably has more of an advantage to the viewer, because then the viewer is usually much closer to the display, and can see the higher resolution. I work with these displays several times a week, and frankly, even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy one now, due to the cost , the smaller size of something that is affordable, and the lack of content, and the bandwidth required to transmit the content. 
4K looks great on Digital Cinema Projectors, but now we are looking at a screen that is maybe 60 feet wide, and the projector is projecting content that is coming from a hard drive.

The current HDMI standard 1.4 works perfectly with UHD displays.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> Actually UHD and 4K are two different things. UHD is 3840 x 2160 which is twice the standard HD res of 1920 x 1080, and it is the consumer TV and broadcast standard, and less than true 4K which is used by the movie industry and was the original Digital Cinema standard which I was working with about 10 years ago. True 4K is 4096 by 2160.
> 
> The company I work with now, makes 4K equipment including HD base T products as well as products that handle HDMI and Display Port. Unless you are sitting a foot or two away from the affordable UHD TVs, it really is hard to detect a big difference in the quality of the picture between HD and UHD, since the resolution is so high, you eye can't perceive it anyway when at a normal viewing distance. ( Apple calls this concept "Retina display". ) Working with computer displays, 4K probably has more of an advantage to the viewer, because then the viewer is usually much closer to the display, and can see the higher resolution. I work with these displays several times a week, and frankly, even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy one now, due to the cost , the smaller size of something that is affordable, and the lack of content, and the bandwidth required to transmit the content.
> 4K looks great on Digital Cinema Projectors, but now we are looking at a screen that is maybe 60 feet wide, and the projector is projecting content that is coming from a hard drive.
> ...


Yes UHD and 4K has two different resolutions. UHD is the official name for the consumer format, not 4K.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

aaronwt said:


> Yes UHD and 4K has two different resolutions. UHD is the official name for the consumer format, not 4K.


I disagree. Just like the term "widescreen" can mean either theatrical widescreen or television widescreen, "4k" can mean either theatrical 4k or television 4k.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I disagree. Just like the term "widescreen" can mean either theatrical widescreen or television widescreen, "4k" can mean either theatrical 4k or television 4k.


But technically, there is no such thing as 4K Television at this time, and there most likely will never be. Widescreen is the same kind of nonsense to tell people that don't know anything about technology. The width of the screen is spelled out in the aspect ratio, of which there are many different ones. Since this Forum has quite a few people that are into technology, I would assume that the technically correct terms would be what members of this forum would want to get used to.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> But technically, there is no such thing as 4K Television at this time, and there most likely will never be.


It depends on what you mean. There are lots of "4k televisions" being sold today, so technically there are "4k televisions". But if by "technically" you mean that there aren't 4k televisions because they don't literally have a horizontal resolution of exactly 4,000 pixels, then that is true. But then technically there is no such thing as cinematic 4k either, because that doesn't have exactly 4,000 horizontal pixels either.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> It depends on what you mean. There are lots of "4k televisions" being sold today, so technically there are "4k televisions". But if by "technically" you mean that there aren't 4k televisions because they don't literally have a horizontal resolution of exactly 4,000 pixels, then that is true. But then technically there is no such thing as cinematic 4k either, because that doesn't have exactly 4,000 horizontal pixels either.


I don't want to beat this to death, but just as an LED TV is not really an LED TV but an LCD TV with LED backlights, marketing folks who *don't really care about being technically accurate*, decided that LED is a good way to market the difference in the backlight technology without confusing the public. In the same way, people don't understand what 4K or UHD means, so they slap the incorrect name on UHD. As I said before, I think we on a forum like this should try and use the correct terms when possible, rather than letting the marketing ( sales people) dictate what we should call these technologies. The industry standard for Digital Cinema is 4K, and that is what the manufacturers and the people that actually work in this field call it. The industry standard for people that work with hi res TV, call it UHD.

But if it makes you feel better, to call UHD, 4K... Hey knock yourself out...


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

4k has a nicer ring to it and I prefer it for that reason even though it is technically incorrect.

As for lamenting about a lack of content, that problem is fading fast. When I got my 4k TV a few months ago, literally the only 4k content available to me was House of Cards season 2. Now I have that, all five seasons of Breaking Bad, for time lapse half hour nature shows, season one of The Blacklist, and six or seven movies (off memory, at least Smurfs 2, Jerry Maguire, Philadelphia, Hitch, and Ghostbusters). This all appeared in only the last two or so months. Next month is the date Amazon has announced their entry into 4k, and while what exactly that entails is unclear, they have also previously announced that they are shooting all their shows in 4k and several are set to debut soon. MGo, a Vudu competitor, has also announced intent to begin having native 4k rentals, though I am not sure where they are at as I don't really use the a la carte services.

I don't think cable will go 4k any time soon, but the streaming services are well on the way. For me I will be excited when Hulu Plus gets in the game and begins offering broadcast TV in 4k, but that is likely a ways off.

All this is to say is that yes, there isn't a lot of 4k content right now, but there is a hell of a lot more than there was just a couple months ago and there is a hell of a lot more on the way. The snowball has started rolling down the mountain and a 4k Tivo box would be able to provide the content those apps provide while potentially future proofing itself.

The real problem I see, however, is why bother with TiVo when it comes to your 4k? All 4k TVs are smart tvs and will be for time to come and they certainly have the apps to provide the only 4k content to justify their existence. So if you already have them, is it really worth the investment just to have them on your TiVo box too?


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 3, 2009)

abovethesink said:


> 4k has a nicer ring to it and I prefer it for that reason even though it is technically incorrect.
> 
> As for lamenting about a lack of content, that problem is fading fast. When I got my 4k TV a few months ago, literally the only 4k content available to me was House of Cards season 2. Now I have that, all five seasons of Breaking Bad, for time lapse half hour nature shows, season one of The Blacklist, and six or seven movies (off memory, at least Smurfs 2, Jerry Maguire, Philadelphia, Hitch, and Ghostbusters). This all appeared in only the last two or so months. Next month is the date Amazon has announced their entry into 4k, and while what exactly that entails is unclear, they have also previously announced that they are shooting all their shows in 4k and several are set to debut soon. MGo, a Vudu competitor, has also announced intent to begin having native 4k rentals, though I am not sure where they are at as I don't really use the a la carte services.
> 
> ...


so how does netflix work for you with 4k? Does it drop down to lower resolution a lot?

I have 25 Mbps u-verse and I have a lot of issue trying to stream 3D or keeping it at super HD resolution.


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

Jeff_DML said:


> so how does netflix work for you with 4k? Does it drop down to lower resolution a lot?
> 
> I have 25 Mbps u-verse and I have a lot of issue trying to stream 3D or keeping it at super HD resolution.


I have 30 Mbps Time Warner and it works perfectly, absolutely no drops, but Netflix signed that terrible preferred traffic deal with Time Warner and I don't know how much that has to do with it. Amazon will be a better test. Netflix recommends a 25 Mbps and the stream itself is supposedly 15.6 Mbps. Speed tests, both speedtest.net and Time Warner's speed test, report my peak hours (like 5-8 PM) speed to be below the 15.6 Mbps that the stream should require, but it still is clearly in 4k (it is OBVIOUS, 4k is amazing) and is labeled as such anyway. That is why I suspect it is the deal they signed.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Jeff_DML said:


> so how does netflix work for you with 4k? Does it drop down to lower resolution a lot?
> 
> I have 25 Mbps u-verse and I have a lot of issue trying to stream 3D or keeping it at super HD resolution.


You are paying for 25Mbps, but are you really getting 25Mbps from U-verse? I doubt it.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

abovethesink said:


> .................
> The real problem I see, however, is why bother with TiVo when it comes to your 4k? All 4k TVs are smart tvs and will be for time to come and they certainly have the apps to provide the only 4k content to justify their existence. So if you already have them, is it really worth the investment just to have them on your TiVo box too?


It depends on the features of the Tivo. But if it has what I want, I would pick up the Ultra HD TiVo before I even get an Ultra HD TV. And I would just use it with my current 1080P/2K HD set.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Jeff_DML said:


> so how does netflix work for you with 4k? Does it drop down to lower resolution a lot?
> 
> I have 25 Mbps u-verse and I have a lot of issue trying to stream 3D or keeping it at super HD resolution.


Aren't the Netflix 3D streams only around 12Mb/s?


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 3, 2009)

tarheelblue32 said:


> You are paying for 25Mbps, but are you really getting 25Mbps from U-verse? I doubt it.


speedtest.net has me around ~25mbps when I run it.

Edit: I always take it with a grain of salt but saying 29mbps right now.

http://www.speedtest.net/my-result/3758332020


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

abovethesink said:


> I have 30 Mbps Time Warner and it works perfectly, absolutely no drops, but Netflix signed that terrible preferred traffic deal with Time Warner and I don't know how much that has to do with it. Amazon will be a better test. Netflix recommends a 25 Mbps and the stream itself is supposedly 15.6 Mbps. Speed tests, both speedtest.net and Time Warner's speed test, report my peak hours (like 5-8 PM) speed to be below the 15.6 Mbps that the stream should require, but it still is clearly in 4k (it is OBVIOUS, 4k is amazing) and is labeled as such anyway. That is why I suspect it is the deal they signed.


If people start streaming UHD in prime time, network congestion will kick in, and you won't be seeing 25mPs, you can bet the farm on that.. By the way, to really see UHD, how far away are you sitting from your display, and what is the screen size.? Just curious.


----------



## abovethesink (Aug 26, 2013)

Captainbob said:


> If people start streaming UHD in prime time, network congestion will kick in, and you won't be seeing 25mPs, you can bet the farm on that.. By the way, to really see UHD, how far away are you sitting from your display, and what is the screen size.? Just curious.


The difference is jarring from anywhere in the room, whether it be 6 feet or 15 feet. We are currently doing alternating episode rewatches of LOST and Breaking Bad on Netflix and poor LOST, what I remember being a beautiful HD show back in its prime, is just muddled and lacking in detail when we switch back to it in Netflix Super HD. Even more jarring is switching from Breaking Bad to 1080i cable broadcasts. It isn't the jump that SD to HD was, but it also is closer than for whatever reason people seem to want to believe. And our TV is only 55".

I will freely admit to buying the TV on a whim and not doing research which is totally out of character, so I really didn't know what to expect. Somehow this was fortuitous. There are an absurd amount of ideas floating around about 4k that just seemed to be repeated because others are repeating them. The idea that you can't see it below X inches or you need to be within X feet has become some sort of bizarro tech urban legend. Maybe it is because people have become used to the post 1080p TV marketing pushes having been all hype and no substance. Maybe people are subconsciously rejecting the idea of upgrading to a new standard this quickly. Whatever it is, it is wrong. 4k video, even the compressed Netflix version, is night and day from 1080p. Content concerns are valid, though say in a year's time I really think that will be much less so (and comparing 2014 4k content to that of 1995 HD as I saw above is crazy by the way), but to deny the benefits of the tech is just a head scratcher. All it takes is eyes.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

abovethesink said:


> The difference is jarring from anywhere in the room, whether it be 6 feet or 15 feet. We are currently doing alternating episode rewatches of LOST and Breaking Bad on Netflix and poor LOST, what I remember being a beautiful HD show back in its prime, is just muddled and lacking in detail when we switch back to it in Netflix Super HD. Even more jarring is switching from Breaking Bad to 1080i cable broadcasts. It isn't the jump that SD to HD was, but it also is closer than for whatever reason people seem to want to believe. And our TV is only 55".
> 
> I will freely admit to buying the TV on a whim and not doing research which is totally out of character, so I really didn't know what to expect. Somehow this was fortuitous. There are an absurd amount of ideas floating around about 4k that just seemed to be repeated because others are repeating them. The idea that you can't see it below X inches or you need to be within X feet has become some sort of bizarro tech urban legend. Maybe it is because people have become used to the post 1080p TV marketing pushes having been all hype and no substance. Maybe people are subconsciously rejecting the idea of upgrading to a new standard this quickly. Whatever it is, it is wrong. 4k video, even the compressed Netflix version, is night and day from 1080p. Content concerns are valid, though say in a year's time I really think that will be much less so (and comparing 2014 4k content to that of 1995 HD as I saw above is crazy by the way), but to deny the benefits of the tech is just a head scratcher. All it takes is eyes.


drop in SD to HD and this is the exact kind of thing said during that transition. Lots of folks still watching SD channels and not being all that jarred by it.  I can see the difference so get there is indeed a difference but at the end of the day it is still just a TV screen and for most people the Definition is not all that important to them


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Space available. Please call 18006543210.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

abovethesink said:


> The difference is jarring from anywhere in the room, whether it be 6 feet or 15 feet. We are currently doing alternating episode rewatches of LOST and Breaking Bad on Netflix and poor LOST, what I remember being a beautiful HD show back in its prime, is just muddled and lacking in detail when we switch back to it in Netflix Super HD. Even more jarring is switching from Breaking Bad to 1080i cable broadcasts. It isn't the jump that SD to HD was, but it also is closer than for whatever reason people seem to want to believe. And our TV is only 55".
> 
> I will freely admit to buying the TV on a whim and not doing research which is totally out of character, so I really didn't know what to expect. Somehow this was fortuitous. There are an absurd amount of ideas floating around about 4k that just seemed to be repeated because others are repeating them. The idea that you can't see it below X inches or you need to be within X feet has become some sort of bizarro tech urban legend. Maybe it is because people have become used to the post 1080p TV marketing pushes having been all hype and no substance. Maybe people are subconsciously rejecting the idea of upgrading to a new standard this quickly. Whatever it is, it is wrong. 4k video, even the compressed Netflix version, is night and day from 1080p. Content concerns are valid, though say in a year's time I really think that will be much less so (and comparing 2014 4k content to that of 1995 HD as I saw above is crazy by the way), but to deny the benefits of the tech is just a head scratcher. All it takes is eyes.


Compare your netflix 4k to a BR and then we'll talk. Just not buying that there is a diff from 15' away on a 55" tv.

This concept of not being able to tell the difference in pixels on a certain sized screen from a certain distance isn't something people made up.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tomhorsley said:


> It would be a consumer electronics connection if they started putting it on consumer electronics. Everyone will need new and different cables for HDMI 2.0 anyway, might as well be display port cables right now.


Not true, cables for HDMI 2.0 are exactly the same.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

abovethesink said:


> The difference is jarring from anywhere in the room, whether it be 6 feet or 15 feet. We are currently doing alternating episode rewatches of LOST and Breaking Bad on Netflix and poor LOST, what I remember being a beautiful HD show back in its prime, is just muddled and lacking in detail when we switch back to it in Netflix Super HD. Even more jarring is switching from Breaking Bad to 1080i cable broadcasts. It isn't the jump that SD to HD was, but it also is closer than for whatever reason people seem to want to believe. And our TV is only 55".
> 
> I will freely admit to buying the TV on a whim and not doing research which is totally out of character, so I really didn't know what to expect. Somehow this was fortuitous. There are an absurd amount of ideas floating around about 4k that just seemed to be repeated because others are repeating them. The idea that you can't see it below X inches or you need to be within X feet has become some sort of bizarro tech urban legend. Maybe it is because people have become used to the post 1080p TV marketing pushes having been all hype and no substance. Maybe people are subconsciously rejecting the idea of upgrading to a new standard this quickly. Whatever it is, it is wrong. 4k video, even the compressed Netflix version, is night and day from 1080p. Content concerns are valid, though say in a year's time I really think that will be much less so (and comparing 2014 4k content to that of 1995 HD as I saw above is crazy by the way), but to deny the benefits of the tech is just a head scratcher. All it takes is eyes.


You need the same size 1080p TV setting next to your 4K TV with the 1080p TV playing a 1080p video and the 4K TV playing the same video in native 4K. Then you will be able to see if your eyes can see any increased resolution (detail) at a set distance.

Picture "quality" is a whole other thing. That is dependent on any particular TV's abilities.

All you have done so far is confirm that you 4K TV doesn't scale HD content up to 4K very well. The same was true when we were moving from SD to HD many TV review sites were rating how well the HD TVs where scaling SD content some did a good job and some didn't.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

abovethesink said:


> The difference is jarring from anywhere in the room, whether it be 6 feet or 15 feet. We are currently doing alternating episode rewatches of LOST and Breaking Bad on Netflix and poor LOST, what I remember being a beautiful HD show back in its prime, is just muddled and lacking in detail when we switch back to it in Netflix Super HD. Even more jarring is switching from Breaking Bad to 1080i cable broadcasts. It isn't the jump that SD to HD was, but it also is closer than for whatever reason people seem to want to believe. And our TV is only 55".
> 
> I will freely admit to buying the TV on a whim and not doing research which is totally out of character, so I really didn't know what to expect. Somehow this was fortuitous. There are an absurd amount of ideas floating around about 4k that just seemed to be repeated because others are repeating them. The idea that you can't see it below X inches or you need to be within X feet has become some sort of bizarro tech urban legend. Maybe it is because people have become used to the post 1080p TV marketing pushes having been all hype and no substance. Maybe people are subconsciously rejecting the idea of upgrading to a new standard this quickly. Whatever it is, it is wrong. 4k video, even the compressed Netflix version, is night and day from 1080p. Content concerns are valid, though say in a year's time I really think that will be much less so (and comparing 2014 4k content to that of 1995 HD as I saw above is crazy by the way), but to deny the benefits of the tech is just a head scratcher. All it takes is eyes.


Absolutely not true, and I currently work with video professionals that have worked with displays that cost into the 6 figures. All of us agree, and we work with 4K and UHD everyday, testing our equipment, that when you step back 8 or more feet, comparing a quality 2K display and a 4K display, the difference is *minuscule.* I would suggest reading forums like *AV forum *and listen to some people that are knowledgeable on this topic and have worked with and used 4K displays on a daily basis.

The bottom line is that the human eye can only resolve a certain number of pixels per inch, and when they are closer than the distance your eye can resolve, you won't see any more detail. Here is a chart that shows this . http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html This is a chart based on science rather than some anecdotal mumbo jumbo. You can clearly see that for a 60" screen which would be a fairly large and expensive 4K display, the viewing distance where you could actually see a difference is about 3 feet away from the screen. For a computer display, this is fine, and is about how far I sit away from the 4K displays I work with, but this isn't the distance I sit away from a TV. Now if you wanted to sit around 10 feet from the screen, you would need, according to this chart, a screen width of around 110". You better have a hefty bank account to be able to afford that, cause it will cost almost $150,000 for a Samsung that size. http://www.cnet.com/news/samsungs-110-inch-4k-tv-to-cost-us150000/

http://www.avforums.com/

By the way, what you see on Netflix can vary depending on your ISP, your bandwidth especially in prime time, and your TV .


----------



## tough joe (Sep 16, 2006)

I wonder if using the new box - even on regular HD - would be better than the existing roamio? Snappier picture response, snappier screen load times. Snappier everything?? Even if I don't use it for 4k content, it still may be better to upgrade just for the processing power alone.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tough joe said:


> I wonder if using the new box - even on regular HD - would be better than the existing roamio? Snappier picture response, snappier screen load times. Snappier everything?? Even if I don't use it for 4k content, it still may be better to upgrade just for the processing power alone.


Digital data is digital data, it goes at a certain rate, and that rate is determined by the display device it is feeding. When you connect the display to the source, the display tells the source what rate it needs so that it can display the video properly ( called the EDID) . The HD display, tells the Roamio to send this data at the HD format and rate. No difference even if the Roamio is capable of sending UHD, when connected to an HD display.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Captainbob said:


> Digital data is digital data, it goes at a certain rate, and that rate is determined by the display device it is feeding. When you connect the display to the source, the display tells the source what rate it needs so that it can display the video properly ( called the EDID) . The HD display, tells the Roamio to send this data at the HD format and rate. No difference even if the Roamio is capable of sending UHD, when connected to an HD display.


But the UHD TiVo has a faster processor. So while this should not affect picture quality it should affect other functions of the TiVo UI in the foreground and background processes.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

abovethesink said:


> The difference is jarring from anywhere in the room, whether it be 6 feet or 15 feet. We are currently doing alternating episode rewatches of LOST and Breaking Bad on Netflix and poor LOST, what I remember being a beautiful HD show back in its prime, is just muddled and lacking in detail when we switch back to it in Netflix Super HD. Even more jarring is switching from Breaking Bad to 1080i cable broadcasts. It isn't the jump that SD to HD was, but it also is closer than for whatever reason people seem to want to believe. And our TV is only 55". I will freely admit to buying the TV on a whim and not doing research which is totally out of character, so I really didn't know what to expect. Somehow this was fortuitous. There are an absurd amount of ideas floating around about 4k that just seemed to be repeated because others are repeating them. The idea that you can't see it below X inches or you need to be within X feet has become some sort of bizarro tech urban legend. Maybe it is because people have become used to the post 1080p TV marketing pushes having been all hype and no substance. Maybe people are subconsciously rejecting the idea of upgrading to a new standard this quickly. Whatever it is, it is wrong. 4k video, even the compressed Netflix version, is night and day from 1080p. Content concerns are valid, though say in a year's time I really think that will be much less so (and comparing 2014 4k content to that of 1995 HD as I saw above is crazy by the way), but to deny the benefits of the tech is just a head scratcher. All it takes is eyes.





ZeoTiVo said:


> drop in SD to HD and this is the exact kind of thing said during that transition. Lots of folks still watching SD channels and not being all that jarred by it.  I can see the difference so get there is indeed a difference but at the end of the day it is still just a TV screen and for most people the Definition is not all that important to them





Captainbob said:


> Absolutely not true, and I currently work with video professionals that have worked with displays that cost into the 6 figures. All of us agree, and we work with 4K and UHD everyday, testing our equipment, that when you step back 8 or more feet, comparing a quality 2K display and a 4K display, the difference is minuscule. I would suggest reading forums like AV forum and listen to some people that are knowledgeable on this topic and have worked with and used 4K displays on a daily basis. The bottom line is that the human eye can only resolve a certain number of pixels per inch, and when they are closer than the distance your eye can resolve, you won't see any more detail. Here is a chart that shows this . http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html This is a chart based on science rather than some anecdotal mumbo jumbo. You can clearly see that for a 60" screen which would be a fairly large and expensive 4K display, the viewing distance where you could actually see a difference is about 3 feet away from the screen. For a computer display, this is fine, and is about how far I sit away from the 4K displays I work with, but this isn't the distance I sit away from a TV. Now if you wanted to sit around 10 feet from the screen, you would need, according to this chart, a screen width of around 110". You better have a hefty bank account to be able to afford that, cause it will cost almost $150,000 for a Samsung that size. http://www.cnet.com/news/samsungs-110-inch-4k-tv-to-cost-us150000/ http://www.avforums.com/ By the way, what you see on Netflix can vary depending on your ISP, your bandwidth especially in prime time, and your TV .


While I agree with Captainbob, I also understand the position and opinions of ZeoTiVo and abovethesink. I recall, back when the SD vs HD upgrade and debate raged on, that I read that there was also a study done with a bunch of joe six packs and they tested the size, resolution and distance debate. IIRC, the participants, almost unanimously, always picked the higher resolution image and when asked why said it just "had something" that their brains subconsciously detected vs the lower rez one, even taking into account and applying all the science that Captainbob references about your eyes not resolving it. It just seemed to have that "It Factor" and they couldn't really describe why. I think it had something to do with your brain understanding more than just what your obvious senses picked up (sight, sound, feel, taste, etc).

I equate it to a LOT of instances that I experienced doing ISF calibrations where the thing that separated the better calibrators from the "assembly line drone calibrators" who only relied on the numbers they saw on their meters and nothing else, like their eyes, experience and their intuition, to tweak that last ounce of quality out of the system they were tweaking. I look at it like being not only a scientist, but an artist as well. Your brain just knew, this was better than that.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> While I agree with Captainbob, I also understand the position and opinions of ZeoTiVo and abovethesink. I recall, back when the SD vs HD upgrade and debate raged on, that I read that there was also a study done with a bunch of joe six packs and they tested the size, resolution and distance debate. IIRC, the participants, almost unanimously, always picked the higher resolution image and when asked why said it just "had something" that their brains subconsciously detected vs the lower rez one, even taking into account and applying all the science that Captainbob references about your eyes not resolving it. It just seemed to have that "It Factor" and they couldn't really describe why. I think it had something to do with your brain understanding more than just what your obvious senses picked up (sight, sound, feel, taste, etc).
> 
> I equate it to a LOT of instances that I experienced doing ISF calibrations where the thing that separated the better calibrators from the "assembly line drone calibrators" who only relied on the numbers they saw on their meters and nothing else, like their eyes, experience and their intuition, to tweak that last ounce of quality out of the system they were tweaking. I look at it like being not only a scientist, but an artist as well. Your brain just knew, this was better than that.


Meh. There's a difference between being able to pick out the better image after studying it and being able to pick out the better image in normal viewing.

Nevermind then choosing to pay lots of $$$$ to have that better image that you could only find when studying the difference between the 2 side by side.

That's assuming this 1 study was flawless.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

I didn't say it was something I or they thought was worth the money to get that last ounce of quality. There's a point of diminishing returns with everything. I was merely pointing out that there's much more to things that the human brain can decipher that can't be easily explained by science and numbers alone.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> Compare your netflix 4k to a BR and then we'll talk. Just not buying that there is a diff from 15' away on a 55" tv.
> 
> This concept of not being able to tell the difference in pixels on a certain sized screen from a certain distance isn't something people made up.


Your eyesight plays a big roll in this HD/4K debate, I have a 80" normal HDTV and sit 10 feet away, and when I put on my glasses the different in what I see in resolution is amazing, IMHO 4K would buy me nothing as the quality of the TV program is the most important part of the TV experience. I watch *The Honorable Woman *on the Sundance channel, Comcast in my area has no HD version of that channel, so if I want to watch it live I have to settle for SD, if I want to wait a few days I can see the program using OD in HD, but I don't want to wait.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

HarperVision said:


> I didn't say it was something I or they thought was worth the money to get that last ounce of quality. There's a point of diminishing returns with everything. I was merely pointing out that there's much more to things that the human brain can decipher that can't be easily explained by science and numbers alone.


but the numbers and science are based on our experience.

It would be interesting to know more about this study you mention. I haven't heard of it.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

lessd said:


> Your eyesight plays a big roll in this HD/4K debate, I have a 80" normal HDTV and sit 10 feet away, and when I put on my glasses the different in what I see in resolution is amazing


This is a good point. The visual acuity of the individual can play a large role. Normal, healthy vision is usually considered to be 20/20, but many people have worse vision. So if your vision is 20/40 or worse, them 4k is probably less important if your vision isn't being corrected by glasses while watching TV. And conversely, some people have better vision, going all the way down to 20/10 or even slightly better. If you are one of the "super sight" humans, 4k will look better at a farther distance than the standard charts would indicate.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> This is a good point. The visual acuity of the individual can play a large role. Normal, healthy vision is usually considered to be 20/20, but many people have worse vision. So if your vision is 20/40 or worse, them 4k is probably less important if your vision isn't being corrected by glasses while watching TV. And conversely, some people have better vision, going all the way down to 20/10 or even slightly better. If you are one of the "super sight" humans, 4k will look better at a farther distance than the standard charts would indicate.


The charts have ranges not fine lines. Not sure they aren't taking this into account already.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

trip1eX said:


> The charts have ranges not fine lines. Not sure they aren't taking this into account already.


The chart must assume 20/20 corrected vision, few people have better than that.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> This is a good point. The visual acuity of the individual can play a large role. Normal, healthy vision is usually considered to be 20/20, but many people have worse vision. So if your vision is 20/40 or worse, them 4k is probably less important if your vision isn't being corrected by glasses while watching TV. And conversely, some people have better vision, going all the way down to 20/10 or even slightly better. If you are one of the "super sight" humans, 4k will look better at a farther distance than the standard charts would indicate.


The limiting factor is the spacing of the sensors in the human eye, rods and cones, and their ability to see each pixel. As the display pixels get closer and closer together, they are closer than the spacing of the sensors in the eye, so the eye can't resolve them individually. You could have 2 million pixels horizontally across a 50" screen, but your eye would only resolve about the same picture, at a normal viewing distance, as a good HD display . That is science, and physics, and no matter how much mumbo jumbo marketing people from TV and display manufacturers shovel out to get the public to buy a new product, it isn't going to change the characteristics of the human eye which are very measurable. If they can convince people that their UHD TV will look fantastic, compared to their HD TV, they have earned their pay. Unfortunately, when the customer gets it home and realizes that for the money they spent, it doesn't look that much better than their HD TV, unless they sit 3 feet from the screen, they will realize they bought some snake oil.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

lessd said:


> The chart must assume 20/20 corrected vision, few people have better than that.


Yeah you're probably right.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Captainbob said:


> The limiting factor is the spacing of the sensors in the human eye, rods and cones, and their ability to see each pixel. As the display pixels get closer and closer together, they are closer than the spacing of the sensors in the eye, so the eye can't resolve them individually. You could have 2 million pixels horizontally across a 50" screen, but your eye would only resolve about the same picture, at a normal viewing distance, as a good HD display . That is science, and physics, and no matter how much mumbo jumbo marketing people from TV and display manufacturers shovel out to get the public to buy a new product, it isn't going to change the characteristics of the human eye which are very measurable. If they can convince people that their UHD TV will look fantastic, compared to their HD TV, they have earned their pay. Unfortunately, when the customer gets it home and realizes that for the money they spent, it doesn't look that much better than their HD TV, unless they sit 3 feet from the screen, they will realize they bought some snake oil.


We aren't at the true physical limitation of the human eye. If we were then you would not be able to see a difference between 1080p and 4k no matter how close you were to the screen.


----------



## Captainbob (Sep 1, 2014)

tarheelblue32 said:


> We aren't at the true physical limitation of the human eye. If we were then you would not be able to see a difference between 1080p and 4k no matter how close you were to the screen.


I'm afraid you just don't understand optics, so continuing this discussion is a total waste of time.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

At 3" from your face the human eye can discern something like 2000ppi, we're no where near that with HDTV. A 50" HDTV is only about 44ppi. But the PPI we can perceive drops quickly with distance. That's why these charts use size and distance. Size effects PPI at a set resolution (i.e. a 20" HDTV would have a PPI of ~110) and distance effects our perception of that PPI. 

Most people sit 6-810' from their TV, at those distances most people would be hard pressed to see the difference between a 50" HDTV and a 50" 4k TV, all other factors being exactly equal except resolution. That's the catch though, rarely are all other factors equal. If you go to BestBuy and stand in front of the wall of TVs you'll see that even though all are the same resolution the quality can vary vastly from one to the next. That's because other things such as the image processing, LCD technology used for the panel, the back lighting, etc... can make a huge difference. Right now 4k TVs are high end, so they're well tuned and using state of the art technology. But if 4k catches on then we'll have a similar slathering of quality and crap TVs on the shelves and the resolution will have little to do with how they actually look in your living room.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

trip1eX said:


> but the numbers and science are based on our experience. It would be interesting to know more about this study you mention. I haven't heard of it.


Yes maybe when I have some free time I'll start researching it. From what I recall it was somewhere within around the first 5 years of HD broadcasting.

I also recall a similar discussion involving the eye and brain seeing and being able to resolve the various higher color gamuts.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Well Cnet just did a review of a 55" 1080P OLED TV and there is hope for those of us who value picture quality:

"The next picture quality battle will be fought between LED LCD and OLED. For this review I compared two of the best new 4K-resolution LED LCD TVs to LG's OLED, and the outcome was never in question. The LG 55EC9300 is easily the best-performing TV you can buy today, and I'd be surprised if any future LCD surpassed it."​
Their opinion on the value of 4K at the 55" level is shown in this statement: 
"The 55EC9300 has "only" 1080p resolution, not 4K. LG wants 10 grand for its cheapest 4K OLED, however, and since at 55 inches the benefits of 4K are scant to nonexistent, I'm not complaining."​
Very good article lots of good info and links to more info in it, including links to their review of 4K. Just in case you do not want to read their 4K review this quote sums it up:

"With video on a TV, the difference between 4K/ UHD and 1080p/HD resolution is really hard to see. Many of the words in those reviews were written on a laptop in my lab at a theatrically close seating distance, comparing a 65-inch 1080p and a 65-inch 4K TV. Despite all the extra pixels I knew made up the 4K TV's screen, most of the time I didn't see any difference at all, especially with HD TV shows and Blu-rays. The differences in detail I did see were limited to the very best 4K demo material. Larger TVs or closer seating distances make that difference more visible, as do computer graphics, animation, and games, but even then it's not drastic."​


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

But $3k for a 55" 2k OLED TV? That is still expensive for such a small size. Even though LG has really lowered the price from earlier. Now granted my 57" rp CRT HDTV from 2001 was also $3k, but I don't think I would pay so much for such a small TV ever again. I don't care how good the picture quality is. That is just too small for the price.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> But $3k for a 55" 2k OLED TV? That is still expensive for such a small size. Even though LG has really lowered the price from earlier. Now granted my 57" rp CRT HDTV from 2001 was also $3k, but I don't think I would pay so much for such a small TV ever again. I don't care how good the picture quality is. That is just too small for the price.


Well I had to pay $2200 for my 50in but I agree that the price is still to high based on today's LCD cost. But everything is heading in the correct direction with this OLED TV great picture quality and lower price, by the time I am actually ready to buy another TV (hopefully at least 5 yrs from now) an OLED in the 65 inch range should be lower in cost.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> Well Cnet just did a review of a 55" 1080P OLED TV and there is hope for those of us who value picture quality:
> 
> "The next picture quality battle will be fought between LED LCD and OLED. For this review I compared two of the best new 4K-resolution LED LCD TVs to LG's OLED, and the outcome was never in question. The LG 55EC9300 is easily the best-performing TV you can buy today, and I'd be surprised if any future LCD surpassed it."​
> Their opinion on the value of 4K at the 55" level is shown in this statement:
> ...


You trying to get people to buy a curved TV?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

This 4K business for HDTV is a point of what I call diminishing returns, I have a one year old high end 80" HDTV, and when I start watching Netflix the movie starts out 480 SD than starts to improve until it gets to super HD, the picture get better but it would still be watchable at 480 SD, when an old 50s TV clip is showed on a news program the difference is day and night, I would not want to watch that resolution from the 50s, so we have come a long way. I don't think many people could walk into a room with a good quality HDTV and quickly tell if it was 4K or just HD. SD to HD got me to change my 40" SD TV to a 65" DLP HDTV in 2004, 4K will never get me to change out my HDTV to a 4K TV, but some people do want the best of some things, even if they can't really see the difference, or say they do see the difference because of the extra money they spent.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

4k will be a boon to small apts. You'll be able to create a living room if there is enough room to put a chair down.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You can do that now with a smaller TV. It's all about PPI.

If you want to sit 3' from a 60" TV then 4k will matter.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The thing most people don't realize is the logistics of it all. Broadcasting in 4k is not even currently possible. 4k has 8x the number of pixels compared to 1080i. So if you figure a current HD stream requires 12-15Mps for MPEG-2 then an equivalent 4k stream would require 96-120Mbps for MPEG-2. If they switched to H.264 the best case scenario is a 50% reduction, so now we're down to 49-60Mbps. The next step is H.265 which can theoretically provide about a 60% reduction compared to H.264. That brings it down to 20-24Mbps. That's manageable, but the catch is that there are currently no H.265 encoders in existence that can do 4k in realtime and retain the full 60% efficiency. 

Netflix and Amazon can do it because... a) they are dealing with static content that they can do multi-pass encodes on, with no worries about speed and b) because they are doing movies which are only 24fps which reduces the pixel count by more then 1/2 compared to the 60fps planned for broadcast TV. 

4k is still theoretical at this point. If you buy a 4k TV then you better make sure it has a really good scaler because 99.9% of what you watch on it is just going to be upscaled HD.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> 4k is still theoretical at this point. If you buy a 4k TV then you better make sure it has a really good scaler because 99.9% of what you watch on it is just going to be upscaled HD.


It was pointed out the first 4K HDTV will have high quality components built in, as they are very costly, in a few years when the price will drop so will the quality of the lower end 4K HDTVs


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Exactly, so there will be even less reason to buy because even upscaled HD wont look good.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

lessd said:


> It was pointed out the first 4K HDTV will have high quality components built in, as they are very costly, in a few years when the price will drop so will the quality of the lower end 4K HDTVs


Lower quality UHD TVs are already out there. You can already get a 65" UHD TV from Amazon for $1304 shipped. $1k for a 55" version.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FJPO5O8/ref=twister_B00M0K7KGK

Of course it can only handle up to 30Hz 2160P content since it is a 2013 model, but it is still a UHD display.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> Lower quality UHD TVs are already out there. You can already get a 65" UHD TV from Amazon for $1304 shipped. $1k for a 55" version.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FJPO5O8/ref=twister_B00M0K7KGK
> 
> Of course it can only handle up to 30Hz 2160P content since it is a 2013 model, but it is still a UHD display.


Will a top end HDTV give you a better picture than a low end 4K HDTV ??


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

lessd said:


> Will a top end HDTV give you a better picture than a low end 4K HDTV ??


Probably.

It was most definitely true for several years of competitors' early 1920x1080 plasmas and LCDs compared to my old Fujitsu P50 plasma which was a 720p panel. The thing simply had superb color accuracy and the internal electronics did wonders when scaling and upconverting, too. But I suspect the differences are less nowadays among various models.

But I would still never make a decision without seeing them in person, at least for my primary viewing room's television.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

Here's a thought: I wonder if a Ultra HD TiVo will finally support picture in picture? It would be nice to have 4 full HD channels on the screen at one time (especially during college football season .


----------



## hotkeynmd (Sep 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> We still have a content problem. Right now is like HDTV in 1995. It's a proof of concept with little to no actual content. Until someone starts broadcasting 4k there is zero use for a 4k TiVo.


That's. To necessarily true. Broadcasters still only broadcast in 720P which is why I haven't really upgraded mo 1080i set. The benefits for 1080I /p were blue ray...an alternate source of content. If all you care about is cable tv then you are set but there are sources for content who do higher resolutions ... ultimately including 4K.

I imagine some day people will have a option of watching a show stepped down to a broadcast resolution ant a specified time, or watching it in the show's recorded resolution of 4K when it is available for streaming.

I've already started laying a foundation for 4K. For example, I increased my internet speed to 100MPS. I think content cable providers are also preparing because it would be infinitely easier to deliver 4K via MoCA then to have to rewire your entire house with CAT5+ or CAT6.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

hotkeynmd said:


> That's. To necessarily true. Broadcasters still only broadcast in 720P which is why I haven't really upgraded mo 1080i set. The benefits for 1080I /p were blue ray...an alternate source of content. If all you care about is cable tv then you are set but there are sources for content who do higher resolutions ... ultimately including 4K. I imagine some day people will have a option of watching a show stepped down to a broadcast resolution ant a specified time, or watching it in the show's recorded resolution of 4K when it is available for streaming. I've already started laying a foundation for 4K. For example, I increased my internet speed to 100MPS. I think content cable providers are also preparing because it would be infinitely easier to deliver 4K via MoCA then to have to rewire your entire house with CAT5+ or CAT6.


Welcome to the forum, but it sounds like you got some things wrong. Broadcasters do broadcast in 1080i, not just 720p. I don't see why you wouldn't have upgraded your TV to a native 1080p set (if that's what you were saying?). It is a simple deinterlacing step from 1080 interlaced to 1080 progressive. The resolution is the same, 1920 pixels wide by 1080 pixels high. This resolution is not just for Blu ray.

I'm not sure what else you were trying to say in the rest of your post, so no comment there unless you'd like to clarify further?


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Here in Los Angeles some stations are 720p, most are 1080i. Amazon Instant is a sweet 1080p. I've set my TiVo at 720p, 1080i and 1080p for extended periods; there is a noticeable difference but probably not worth upgrading your hardware for, especially if you're thinking about 4K. But if your TV and TiVo support it, not setting 1080p is a shame.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> Here in Los Angeles some stations are 720p, most are 1080i. Amazon Instant is a sweet 1080p. I've set my TiVo at 720p, 1080i and 1080p for extended periods; there is a noticeable difference but probably not worth upgrading your hardware for, especially if you're thinking about 4K. But if your TV and TiVo support it, not setting 1080p is a shame.


The difference can be pretty awesome if you have a large, well set up screen. That being said, a lot of people are sitting 15' away from a 55" screen, so they're never going to notice the difference.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The difference can be pretty awesome if you have a large, well set up screen. That being said, a lot of people are sitting 15' away from a 55" screen, so they're never going to notice the difference.


I was trying to be generous; if someone is living with 720p at this point they're probably not that sensitive to screen resolution, lots of people aren't. I see 20/10 and my plasma is 65" in a small den, so the difference with 1080p is dramatic to me. But on the other hand my wife never notices, and I think the average viewer is more like her than me. I bought my stepmother an HD TV a couple of years ago and she still watches the SD network channels instead of HD because they're easier to find in the program guide. Some people are really insensitive to screen resolution, oblivious even.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

hotkeynmd said:


> That's. To necessarily true. Broadcasters still only broadcast in 720P which is why I haven't really upgraded mo 1080i set. The benefits for 1080I /p were blue ray...an alternate source of content. If all you care about is cable tv then you are set but there are sources for content who do higher resolutions ... ultimately including 4K.


I said there was no use for a 4K TiVo. TiVo is a DVR so if there is no 4K being broadcast for it to record then what's it's purpose? I guess they could add 4K streaming from Netflix and Amazon, but there are likely to be much cheaper boxes from Roku, Apple, etc... that can do that.

The 4K BD spec isn't even done yet so there wont be any 4K BDs or players until next year some time.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> I was trying to be generous; if someone is living with 720p at this point they're probably not that sensitive to screen resolution, lots of people aren't. I see 20/10 and my plasma is 65" in a small den, so the difference with 1080p is dramatic to me. But on the other hand my wife never notices, and I think the average viewer is more like her than me. I bought my stepmother an HD TV a couple of years ago and she still watches the SD network channels instead of HD because they're easier to find in the program guide. Some people are really insensitive to screen resolution, oblivious even.


Unfortunately, the average viewer can't tell the different between 1080 and 720, is using TV speakers or a soundbar, doesn't have their TV calibrated, and is still WAY too far away from it. Relatively few have properly sized screens that are calibrated, 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound that has been calibrated, native output from their DVR, etc, etc. I'm one of those few. I just re-calibrated everything after the room changed slightly so that I'm ready for basketball season.


----------

