# Ultra HD TV's



## Ziggy86 (Jun 23, 2004)

I have been seeing and hearing a lot about these new TV sets and was curious if the Tivo units will work with them. I assume the cable providers need to supply the signal and will Tivo just pass it through or will we have to get a different TiVo unit down the road?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

There is a thread about this in the Roamio section. Bottom line is your cable company isn't going to be your source for 4K TV any time soon.

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=511725&highlight=4k​
Just for reference for 4K & Ultra HD are the same thing.


----------



## Ziggy86 (Jun 23, 2004)

Thanks.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

They should work fine. The 4K/Ultra HDTVs should have no problem displaying whatever you feed it at the native resolution, much the same way that current HDTVs can display 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p material. Broadcasters aren't likely to start swapping out hardware to deliver programs in the new high-res format anytime soon, if ever. I believe the new HDTVs are mostly intended to handle whatever will supplant Blu-Rays as the next media format. There won't be a need to get rid of your existing HD Tivos for years to come.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> They should work fine. The 4K/Ultra HDTVs should have no problem displaying whatever you feed it at the native resolution, much the same way that current HDTVs can display 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p material. Broadcasters aren't likely to start swapping out hardware to deliver programs in the new high-res format anytime soon, if ever. I believe the new HDTVs are mostly intended to handle whatever will supplant Blu-Rays as the next media format. There won't be a need to get rid of your existing HD Tivos for years to come.


The original poster mixed 2 very different questions with opposite answers:


Will existing TiVos work on 4K TVs: Answer: Yes
Will existing TiVos work with 4K content/signals: Answer: No
The thread I pointed too in the second post has a very good discussion about it all.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

My point was that the OP probably won't have anything to worry about anytime soon. 4K content won't be coming down the pike in the near future and render his Tivo obsolete. The thread you referenced reinforces exactly what I said. 4K will most likely be used for a Blu-Ray replacement format, not broadcast TV. Current HD Tivos will remain unaffected by any of this.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If they can get H.265 working efficiently then eventually they should be able to squeeze a 4K video into about the same bandwidth as current MPEG-2 1080i channels. After that we'll probably see a few specialty channels pop up on cable. Maybe a couple of sports channels and/or movie channels. However there wont be wide spread adoption of 4K for at least another decade, probably longer.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

One of the big problems with 4K TVs right now is what's out there is only HDMI 1.4a or so, so you get 4K @ 30fps. New HDMI 2.0 sets coming out this year should up that to 60fps.

Or, in other words, 4K tech is incredibly immature and won't stabilize for the next year or two. And probably work out the bugs because the people getting this stuff are running home theatres with extensive AV equipment.

Nevermind the primary problem - content! No one's really worked out a distribution method for it yet, so 4K content tend to be a bit scarce as you can't just go out and visit the 4K Blu-Ray section at Best Buy. (Plus while most movies are shot in 4K, cinema 4K is a different resolution from consumer 4K, needing a pan-and-scan process to convert it since cinema 4k is just a bit wider).

I'd say there's no worry yet about 4K content obsoleting your TiVos - in fact, most 4K sets will probably just be used with regular 1080p content scaled up as 4K sets are getting cheap, but very little content players or media are out there.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Worf said:


> One of the big problems with 4K TVs right now is what's out there is only HDMI 1.4a or so, so you get 4K @ 30fps. New HDMI 2.0 sets coming out this year should up that to 60fps.
> 
> Or, in other words, 4K tech is incredibly immature and won't stabilize for the next year or two. And probably work out the bugs because the people getting this stuff are running home theatres with extensive AV equipment.
> 
> ...


4K may be another SVHS debacle, no significant consumer demand.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

lessd said:


> 4K may be another SVHS debacle, no significant consumer demand.


I think 4K TV is going to be like 3D and "smart" TV. 3D and "smart" TV became part of all the top tier TVs so if you wanted a top tier TV you had to pay for a 3D Smart TV also. Now that doesn't mean it will ultimately succeed, Vizio has dropped 3D from all of it's 2014 TVs and time will tell how that works out. But it looks like 4K TV is going the same path.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm probably going to be buying a new TV here in the next 3-4 months (selling my house and plan to leave the installed flat panel behind if it helps in negotiations) and I have to make a call on 4K when I do so.

regular 1080P's are so cheap now, it really doesn't seem worth it to go to 4K. If I am not mistaken, current gen consoles can't do 4K and the only thing that will be able to, technology wise, for the next decade is BD or netflix/other DV service, right?


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> I think 4K TV is going to be like 3D and "smart" TV. 3D and "smart" TV became part of all the top tier TVs so if you wanted a top tier TV you had to pay for a 3D Smart TV also. Now that doesn't mean it will ultimately succeed, Vizio has dropped 3D from all of it's 2014 TVs and time will tell how that works out. But it looks like 4K TV is going the same path.


I have to disagree with this a little bit. I see 4k as being very much like 1080p in the sense that there is very little native 1080p content available. Almost all HD content is either 720p or 1080i, yet virtually every TV sold today is 1080p. I think 4k will be very much like this in 5 years. There will be little native 4k content available, but virtually every TV sold will be 4k.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I have to disagree with this a little bit. I see 4k as being very much like 1080p in the sense that there is very little native 1080p content available. Almost all HD content is either 720p or 1080i, yet virtually every TV sold today is 1080p. I think 4k will be very much like this in 5 years. There will be little native 4k content available, but virtually every TV sold will be 4k.


Actually there is a significant number of 720p sets still being sold. LCD/Plasma TVs are "p" instead of "i" because of the nature of the tech. In any event most TVs shows are "filmed" in 1080p and most theater movies are "filmed" in 4 or 8K. The reason OTA/cable is broadcast in 720p or 1080i is because most of it is still sent in MPEG 2 so there are bandwidth issues if they had upgraded their equipment to broadcast in H.264 they could be sending 1080p now. Of course there will be the same issues with 4K until/unless they convert to the upcoming H.265 format.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yep. The only reason 720p and 1080i are the main formats for broadcast is because they couldn't fit 1080p/60 MPEG-2 into the max 19.2Mbps of the ATSC spec. The spec actually allows for 1080p/30, but the whole reason interlaced video was invented is because 60fps interlaced looks better then 30fps progressive. So broadcasters favor 1080i/60 over 1080p/30. The only reason 1080p/24 is so popular now with movies is because movies are shot on film at 24fps and displaying them at their native frame rate looks better then up converting them to 60fps.

There was an update to the ATSC spec back in 2008 that added support for H.264, which would allow full resolution 1080p/60 video to be broadcast, but there are currently laws that prevent it from being used on primary channels because it would break older devices that don't support H.264 decoding. It can be used on sub-channels, but those are typically SD anyway.

Cable has a lot more leeway and could actually broadcast all their channels in 1080p/60 if they wanted. But there are bandwidth limitations to consider there as well. A single QAM still doesn't have enough bandwidth to support 1080p/60 in MPEG-2, so they would have to convert to H.264 as well. But to do that they would need to replace all their equipment which would be expensive. I'm actually surprised Dish or DirecTV hasn't started broadcasting 1080p/60 content yet. They already transmit all their channels in H.264. maybe the equipment is still an issue though. Older boxes may not be able to handle 1080p/60 content even if it's just to down convert it to 1080i.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Actually there is a significant number of 720p sets still being sold.


I guess it depends on what your definition of "significant" is. The only 720p TVs sold today are the cheapest, lowest-end models under 32". I don't really consider that to be a significant part of today's market for televisions.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I have to disagree with this a little bit. I see 4k as being very much like 1080p in the sense that there is very little native 1080p content available. Almost all HD content is either 720p or 1080i, yet virtually every TV sold today is 1080p. I think 4k will be very much like this in 5 years. There will be little native 4k content available, but virtually every TV sold will be 4k.


Not if there is a big price difference, just like 3D that has not gone over that well with consumers, For over 65" 4K is still much more money than HD is and UHD works only with a difference you can see with HDTVs over 65". I saw a demo of a 65" split screen UHD vs normal HD (they did not tell you if the normal was 720p or 1080p/24) and the difference was hard to see, unless you looked closely, and as I said this was a demo so they must have had a source of UHD.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah 4K is really meant for big TVs. Unless you sit 2' from the TV.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah 4K is really meant for big TVs. Unless you sit 2' from the TV.


Sounds about right for gaming.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> They should work fine. The 4K/Ultra HDTVs should have no problem displaying whatever you feed it at the native resolution, much the same way that current HDTVs can display 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i, or 1080p material. Broadcasters aren't likely to start swapping out hardware to deliver programs in the new high-res format anytime soon, if ever. I believe the new HDTVs are mostly intended to handle whatever will supplant Blu-Rays as the next media format. There won't be a need to get rid of your existing HD Tivos for years to come.


This is huge. 4K TVs can upconvert 720p or 1080i by just tripling or doubling the pixels, respectively. They will process it, but the upconversion is a lot cleaner than the 720p to 1080p conversion we currently have to do fro 720p channels with modern 1080p TVs.



Dan203 said:


> If they can get H.265 working efficiently then eventually they should be able to squeeze a 4K video into about the same bandwidth as current MPEG-2 1080i channels. After that we'll probably see a few specialty channels pop up on cable. Maybe a couple of sports channels and/or movie channels. However there wont be wide spread adoption of 4K for at least another decade, probably longer.


I think DirecTV will launch between 3 and 10 4K channels, and that will be it for at least the rest of this decade. However, there will be tons of streaming and disc-based 4K content, especially movies, since they are already filmed at 4K or on film and scanned to 8K. However, the providers have a LONG way to go with 720p and 1080i quality wise before they move to 1080p60, much less 2160p60.

A lot of sports will start to be filmed in 4K, so that they can do full-resolution zoom-ins, but it will still be delivered to the customer at 720p (ESPN). They will be able to zoom in to 1/9th of the picture (triple size) without losing any resolution over 720p, and probably zoom in well past that with limited degradation of the picture.

Just like now, HDTVs can handle SD, 4K TVs will be able to handle everything, and many people will get 4K TVs, and have a real mix of content, with some 4K movie and Netflix content, lots of 1080i/p and 720p, and some SD.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I guess it depends on what your definition of "significant" is. The only 720p TVs sold today are the cheapest, lowest-end models under 32". I don't really consider that to be a significant part of today's market for televisions.


Yes many or most are smaller TVs but the last time I looked a TV is a TV a search of Best Buys web site shows 381 720p TVs and 523 1080p TVs so yes I would say a significant number of new TVs are still 720p sets.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

atmuscarella said:


> Yes many or most are smaller TVs but the last time I looked a TV is a TV a search of Best Buys web site shows 381 720p TVs and 523 1080p TVs so yes I would say a significant number of new TVs are still 720p sets.


Just out of curiosity, I looked up the 2013 lcd TV lineups for Samsung and LG (the 2 largest manufacturers of lcd TVs).

Samsung 2013 lineup:
9 LCD models. Of those, 8 models are 1080p (available from 22" to 75") and only 1 model is 720p (available only in 19" and 29")

LG 2013 lineup:
13 LCD models. Of those, 10 models are 1080p (available from 32" to 60"), 2 are 720p (available from 22" to 32"), and 1 is 4k (84")

So from the 2 largest manufacturers, less than 14% of the models are 720p and almost 82% are 1080p. I haven't checked, but I'm guessing that the other large LCD manufacturers like Sony and Vizio would be pretty similar to this. 1080p has become pretty much standard for TV hardware above 32" despite the lack of native content.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yeah 720p is only for the really small ones. I have the 19" Sammy 720p, and it doesn't look nearly as good as a 1080p TV, but it serves it's purpose pretty well.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

According to this chart...








If you sit 8' from the screen you wont notice a difference between 1080p and 4K until the screen gets to about 70". The difference between 720p and 1080p only become apparent above 50".

The average TV is 42" and most people sit 8-10' from the TV. So at that size/distance 1080p does not matter. (all other factors being equal) The reason people can see a difference between 720p and 1080p is because 720p TVs typically use cheap panels and poor back lighting. Not because of the resolution.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

What's interesting is the number of sets now available over 70-inches diagonally. I was in Costco today and they had one that's 85" (I believe it was a Sharp model). If sets of that size start saturating the market at a decent rate then 4K could become a reality. I'm just not holding my breath expecting it to happen anytime soon. Unless you have a dedicated home theater, most people don't have room for sets that big, not to mention the WAF. I can just envision husbands drooling in the showrooms over these sets, only to have their wives burst their bubble by saying "It's too big." 4K is probably best suited for projectors and not flat screens, except for the largest models.

I don't see broadcasters flocking to this new format, at least not for many years. Look what happened to 3DTVs. They just never really took off like the manufacturers hoped they would. AFAIK, there aren't any channels broadcasting in 3D. If you need a huge set to see the benefits of 4K then it's going to end up being a niche product. I still think it's going to be available only in a special media format similar to Blu-Ray. Broadcasters aren't going to spend huge amounts of money to convert their hardware for such a small market.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

mr.unnatural said:


> What's interesting is the number of sets now available over 70-inches diagonally. I was in Costco today and they had one that's 85" (I believe it was a Sharp model). If sets of that size start saturating the market at a decent rate then 4K could become a reality. I'm just not holding my breath expecting it to happen anytime soon. Unless you have a dedicated home theater, most people don't have room for sets that big, not to mention the WAF. I can just envision husbands drooling in the showrooms over these sets, only to have their wives burst their bubble by saying "It's too big." 4K is probably best suited for projectors and not flat screens, except for the largest models.
> 
> I don't see broadcasters flocking to this new format, at least not for many years. Look what happened to 3DTVs. They just never really took off like the manufacturers hoped they would. AFAIK, there aren't any channels broadcasting in 3D. If you need a huge set to see the benefits of 4K then it's going to end up being a niche product. I still think it's going to be available only in a special media format similar to Blu-Ray. Broadcasters aren't going to spend huge amounts of money to convert their hardware for such a small market.


You got the picture correct (no pun intended) as I have a 80" top end Sharp LED-LCD HDTV and found than it is better to ask forgiveness than permission from the wife, was she ever mad, but it is now all mounted and looks great, I sit a little under 10 feet from the screen so for UHD to make a difference I would need a 140" UHD TV and a good divorce lawyer. My 80" is on a swing arm that let me push it up against the cabinet covering some cabinet doors, but the TV can be pulled out and moved out of the way if I need to open any cabinet door. the arm is mounted in the front (by building a frame to attach the arm to) of the 60" space that had my old DLP 65" HDTV.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

mr.unnatural said:


> I don't see broadcasters flocking to this new format, at least not for many years. Look what happened to 3DTVs. They just never really took off like the manufacturers hoped they would.


3DTVs had a huge flaw that UHD doesn't have....THE GLASSES. Nobody wants to sit in their living rooms watching TV with 3D glasses on all the time. And this problem could actually have a possible solution with higher resolution displays like 4K and 8K. Once you get resolutions high enough, it becomes technically possible to do 3D without the glasses.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> 3DTVs had a huge flaw that UHD doesn't have....THE GLASSES. Nobody wants to sit in their living rooms watching TV with 3D glasses on all the time. And this problem could actually have a possible solution with higher resolution displays like 4K and 8K. Once you get resolutions high enough, it becomes technically possible to do 3D without the glasses.


I saw a 3D TV at NAB a couple years ago that used some sort of prism to create a glassesless 3D effect for 8 different viewing angles. It was using a 1080p screen so the resolution wasn't great, but if they did the same thing with a 4k, or better yet 8k, panel they could do some amazing things. With a 4k panel they could do the same thing I saw but in full 1080p resolution. With an 8k panel they could double the positions so you wouldn't have to sit "just right" to get the effect. I'm betting 3D makes a comeback in 10-15 years once that technology matures to a point where there are no compromises.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Dan203 said:


> I saw a 3D TV at NAB a couple years ago that used some sort of prism to create a glassesless 3D effect for 8 different viewing angles. It was using a 1080p screen so the resolution wasn't great, but if they did the same thing with a 4k, or better yet 8k, panel they could do some amazing things. With a 4k panel they could do the same thing I saw but in full 1080p resolution. With an 8k panel they could double the positions so you wouldn't have to sit "just right" to get the effect. I'm betting 3D makes a comeback in 10-15 years once that technology matures to a point where there are no compromises.


I wonder if you have more information about that?

I know I have a 4K set at work that has a film applied over it to do glasses-free 3D, and a box that attaches to it to take 1080p input and convert it for display. It works (a 50" set viewed 8' away), but it's a bit far to see full 1080p resolution I think.

I think I heard a mention about an earlier 1080p demonstration a few years ago, wonder if it's the same company. I do know they had some demonstrations at CES this year of their technology except using a 4K display now as the base.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> According to this chart...
> If you sit 8' from the screen you wont notice a difference between 1080p and 4K until the screen gets to about 70". The difference between 720p and 1080p only become apparent above 50".
> 
> The average TV is 42" and most people sit 8-10' from the TV. So at that size/distance 1080p does not matter. (all other factors being equal) The reason people can see a difference between 720p and 1080p is because 720p TVs typically use cheap panels and poor back lighting. Not because of the resolution.


That sounds about right. But that's also assuming you have good 1080p content to start with. Compressed 1080i on cable doesn't look that great even with a far smaller display...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's more of an artifact problem then a resolution problem. I suspect that as cable companies transition to H.264 that'll become less of an issue as they'll be able to use less bandwidth and get better compression. So they could use say 2/3 the bitrate they're using now and actually end up with better quality. Although knowing them they'll probably use the minimum bitrate, compressing the crap out of the video, just so they can squeeze more channels into the lineup so they can charge more money.


----------



## Davelnlr_ (Jan 13, 2011)

Grakthis said:


> regular 1080P's are so cheap now, it really doesn't seem worth it to go to 4K. If I am not mistaken, current gen consoles can't do 4K and the only thing that will be able to, technology wise, for the next decade is BD or netflix/other DV service, right?


Pretty much true, unless DirecTv, which has a reputation for such things, decides to introduce a 4K channel or two when they launch their new satellite. Whether their current receivers would be able to handle it through a firmware upgrade is the question.

The one reason you might want to consider 4K is if you hook it up to a computer with a 4K video card, or want some of the higher end features a lot of 4K monitors are incorporating, such as local dimming LED backlighting, which is hard to find in a 1080p set. The added contrast might be worth the extra cash.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Davelnlr_ said:


> Pretty much true, unless DirecTv, which has a reputation for such things, decides to introduce a 4K channel or two when they launch their new satellite. Whether their current receivers would be able to handle it through a firmware upgrade is the question.


"DirecTV president and CEO Mike White....noted that consumers will need new TVs and new set-top boxes to receive 4K, while pay TV providers will need a new video compression scheme to deliver it. 'Everybody is working on pieces of that, and I do think you'll see a little bit more of it next year,' White said. But he doesn't believe that 4K will have 'any kind of material impact' on the US TV landscape until 2015 or 2016.

DirecTV CFO Patrick Doyle said his company's new satellites under development haven't been designed specifically for 4K. But he asserted that they could handle UltraHD video if need be. 'If 4K takes off, we're in a good position as far as capacity.'"

http://www.lightreading.com/cable-video/video-services/directv-preps-for-4k/d/d-id/706586


----------



## Davelnlr_ (Jan 13, 2011)

To be honest, I would love to see DirecTv and Disney team up for a 1080p version of ESPN. As expensive as ESPN is, the quality at 720p leaves a lot of room for improvement.
Glad DirecTv is thinking ahead as usual though. I have seen 4K sets on display, but none of the stores here in my state are using 4K content, so they look like regular old TVs to me.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Davelnlr_ said:


> To be honest, I would love to see DirecTv and Disney team up for a 1080p version of ESPN. As expensive as ESPN is, the quality at 720p leaves a lot of room for improvement.
> Glad DirecTv is thinking ahead as usual though. I have seen 4K sets on display, but none of the stores here in my state are using 4K content, so they look like regular old TVs to me.


When you think about it, it's really ridiculous that ESPN had a 3D channel before a 1080p channel.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That's more of an artifact problem then a resolution problem. I suspect that as cable companies transition to H.264 that'll become less of an issue as they'll be able to use less bandwidth and get better compression.


They will probably squish it hard. MPEG-4 softens up quicker than MPEG-2, but it also handles motion a LOT better...



Davelnlr_ said:


> The one reason you might want to consider 4K is if you hook it up to a computer with a 4K video card, or want some of the higher end features a lot of 4K monitors are incorporating, such as local dimming LED backlighting, which is hard to find in a 1080p set. The added contrast might be worth the extra cash.


Plus, Netlfix is doing 4K. And soon there will be a disc standard and other rental services. So even if it's not there on the TV side, it will be there on the movie side.



tarheelblue32 said:


> DirecTV CFO Patrick Doyle said his company's new satellites under development haven't been designed specifically for 4K. But he asserted that they could handle UltraHD video if need be. 'If 4K takes off, we're in a good position as far as capacity.'"


Someone asked him an idiotic question. A satellite can't be designed for one type of content or another. It's designed to move X amount of data. How that is used, and what compression is used has jack **** to do with the satellite itself. They may launch 4K immediately after launching the new bird, just because it may open up new raw capacity be doing better spot beams and freeing up bandwidth currently used for locals or something.



Davelnlr_ said:


> To be honest, I would love to see DirecTv and Disney team up for a 1080p version of ESPN. As expensive as ESPN is, the quality at 720p leaves a lot of room for improvement.
> Glad DirecTv is thinking ahead as usual though. I have seen 4K sets on display, but none of the stores here in my state are using 4K content, so they look like regular old TVs to me.


They should switch to 1080i. It looks so much better (when done properly, CBSSN is a total mess). Given that they are 720p, providers could just throw more bandwidth at ESPN, and it would look better. Their feed to the MSOs is a far higher bitrate than what the end user gets.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

There's a reason why providers can choose between 720p and 1080i. The bandwidth is roughly the same, so the reason why you have both is easy - you can choose between framerate and resolution. If you're doing a high-action thing (e.g., sports) you sacrifice resolution but get a full 60 frames a second. If instead your action is controlled, you can sacrifice framerate and go with 1080i, which gives you half the framerate, but more resolution.

You can't go between 720p and 1080i without sacrificing something. Both can be converted to 1080p without loss, though.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

tarheelblue32 said:


> When you think about it, it's really ridiculous that ESPN had a 3D channel before a 1080p channel.


 When you think about it, it's really ridiculous that everyone's talking about new, higher resolutions like 4 & 8K when service providers and broadcasters can't even give us the full 19.2 Mbps bitrate for the resolutions we already supposedly have! I remember when HD used to look "HD"!!! (Can you say.....Discovery HD Theater, Full bitrate PBS-HD, HDNet, etc.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> There's a reason why providers can choose between 720p and 1080i. The bandwidth is roughly the same, so the reason why you have both is easy - you can choose between framerate and resolution. If you're doing a high-action thing (e.g., sports) you sacrifice resolution but get a full 60 frames a second. If instead your action is controlled, you can sacrifice framerate and go with 1080i, which gives you half the framerate, but more resolution.
> 
> You can't go between 720p and 1080i without sacrificing something. Both can be converted to 1080p without loss, though.


In my experience, 1080i just about always looks better (unless it's really poorly done), as the end user's hardware can do de-interlacing and make it look pretty darn much like 1080p, but if you don't have the resolution in the first place, there's not much you can do to make 720p look like 1080p. During the Olympics, I never once had a deinterlacing issue. Admittedly, I may be a bit biased, since I'm running my video through a DVDO EDGE to a 60" TV. The DVDO EDGE handles the deinterlacing or scaling from the native output of my TiVo Premiere XL4 to 1080p for the TV.

I get the theory, but I think that the 40% or so of channels that are running 720p would be much better off by switching to 1080i, and that the whole mantra of "720p for sports, 1080i for other things" really isn't true in real life. ESPN has pushed 720p as far as it can be pushed, but their video just looks soft compared to 1080i broadcasts (except CBSSN, which is just a mess, having nothing to do with their use of 1080i). 1080i uses slightly more bandwidth than 720p, but Comcast triple channels both, and I think they have some QAMs running 3 1080i channels. It's definitely not as good looking at the full 19.2mbps that HD was designed for, but they have gotten a lot better over the last year in reducing artifacts and the like.



HarperVision said:


> When you think about it, it's really ridiculous that everyone's talking about new, higher resolutions like 4 & 8K when service providers and broadcasters can't even give us the full 19.2 Mbps bitrate for the resolutions we already supposedly have! I remember when HD used to look "HD"!!! (Can you say.....Discovery HD Theater, Full bitrate PBS-HD, HDNet, etc.)


True. I never had HD back then, but remember that when Discovery HD Theater went up on 110W, DirecTV was sending it with rectangular pixels, re-compressed in MPEG-2. It was something like 1280x1080, not 1920x1080. Today, DISH uses 1440x1080i for a lot of their channels, which all started with D* on 110W. Only OTA was full bitrate at the time, and I don't think cable had much of anything other than OTA and maybe a couple of cable channels.

Our best hope now is MPEG-4. I'd be rather happy if Comcast would go to 5 HD's per QAM with MPEG-4, as the quality would go up dramatically.

FIOS still does full bitrate HDs, although in some cases they are re-encoding MPEG-4 stuff, so who knows exactly what's going on with those feeds. I would think that their locals today are better than OTA if they are getting them over fiber and encoding them at 19.2mbps?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

In the end mass uniformed gullible consumers end up driving what we get on the hardware side and to some extent the content quality side.

Consumer electronic companies need easy to market features to drive sales. Because the reality is the majority of consumers buy TVs based more on marketing hype than actual value and picture quality (or worse - how bright the TV is in the show room). The same is true for content picture quality, quantity and price are easier to market and seem to sell over quality so that is what we get. However on the content side I do think that part of the problem is people have small enough sets that they really cannot see the difference, so we don't complain or actively seek out higher quality content. As an example of this I have tested some of my blu-rays against the Vudu HDX ultraviolet version and when I can stream HDX it is hard for me to see the difference between that and the actual Blu-ray unless I cut my current viewing distance in half.

In my opinion right now 4K is a feature designed more for marketing than anything else. It is giving the CE companies something new they can add to their high end sets to help sell them. Until HDMI 2.0 and H.265 4K video sources are available it is all just hype and even after both HDMi 2.0 and H.265 4K video sources are available my guess is for sets under 60-65", the 1080p sets will be the ones with superior value for the picture quality you get for the next several years.

I do believe that just like 1080p, smart TV, and 3D, 4K will end up being standard in most or all of the higher end sets within a few years so you will end up getting a 4K set by default if you want a higher end one. The tech to provide a high quality 3D picture without glasses on a 4K TV is one place where I believe smaller 4K TVs may become justified - but that is years away.

Right now there is really very little reason for most people based on how far they sit away from their TVs for TVs under 42-50" to be anything more than 720p and sets under 60-65" to be anything more than 1080p. But having your marketing be "You can't see the difference anyways so buy our high end lower resolution set" just doesn't work. So we have come to a point where most of the 720p sets are also low end and that maybe where 1080p sets are going if 4K sets end up being cheap enough to produce.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Davelnlr_ said:


> Pretty much true, unless DirecTv, which has a reputation for such things, decides to introduce a 4K channel or two when they launch their new satellite. Whether their current receivers would be able to handle it through a firmware upgrade is the question.
> 
> The one reason you might want to consider 4K is if you hook it up to a computer with a 4K video card, or want some of the higher end features a lot of 4K monitors are incorporating, such as local dimming LED backlighting, which is hard to find in a 1080p set. The added contrast might be worth the extra cash.


I know Vizio's razor line of 1080P TVs does local dimming. For like, $800 for a 60 inch!


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Dan203 said:


> According to this chart...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For anecdotal data, I have a 55'' 1080P LED. I sit about 6 feet from it, maybe 7 or 8. but I think 6 is closer to correct. It's a little too close, but what can you do?

We buy the Disney BD's for my daughter that come with digital copies. The digital copies are 720P generally. The BD's are obviously the full 1080P. I also sometimes record movies from Encore and HBO etc that we own on BD. The reason we like both is because my daughter will watch the same movie over and over and not having to switch disks is a huge advantage...

Anyways, the point here is I can tell a significant clarity difference between the BD version of, for example, the Little Mermaid and the Digital streamed version from Amazon. And I can tell a visible difference between the Encore version of the Incredibles and the BD version.

Of course, there are other factors here than just the resolution (streaming, tv, etc) but I think that's within the range of your chart... I *should* see a difference at that range and TV size, right?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Grakthis said:


> For anecdotal data, I have a 55'' 1080P LED. I sit about 6 feet from it, maybe 7 or 8. but I think 6 is closer to correct. It's a little too close, but what can you do?
> 
> We buy the Disney BD's for my daughter that come with digital copies. The digital copies are 720P generally. The BD's are obviously the full 1080P. I also sometimes record movies from Encore and HBO etc that we own on BD. The reason we like both is because my daughter will watch the same movie over and over and not having to switch disks is a huge advantage...
> 
> ...


You must have a small room or a very interesting setup. My eyes are about 14' from my TV and I have several feet behind my chair with room for a small table and then a full wall book case. In any event at 6' the chart does show someone with 20/20 is able to see (benefit from) all the resolution on a 1080p 55" TV and might even benefit slightly (see more resolution) from 4K. At the distance you are sitting (6') I can also tell the difference between blu-ray and Vudu HDX (1080p) streaming on my 1080p 50" TV, it isn't a resolution difference but the picture doesn't appear to be as "good" - but I can not see any difference at the distance I sit at (14'). For 720p streaming (Vudu HD) versus blu-ray it is a little different, if I stand at 6' there is a big difference, where I normally sit there is a slight difference.


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

atmuscarella said:


> You must have a small room or a very interesting setup. My eyes are about 14' from my TV and I have several feet behind my chair with room for a small table and then a full wall book case. In any event at 6' the chart does show someone with 20/20 is able to see (benefit from) all the resolution on a 1080p 55" TV and might even benefit slightly (see more resolution) from 4K. At the distance you are sitting (6') I can also tell the difference between blu-ray and Vudu HDX (1080p) streaming on my 1080p 50" TV, it isn't a resolution difference but the picture doesn't appear to be as "good" - but I can not see any difference at the distance I sit at (14'). For 720p streaming (Vudu HD) versus blu-ray it is a little different, if I stand at 6' there is a big difference, where I normally sit there is a slight difference.


Small room. We're selling this place and getting something bigger very very soon, but life forced us to stay in this one until now.

I expect our next house to give us a lot more space, but I also plan to upgrade the TV to at least a 60''.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> In the end mass uniformed gullible consumers end up driving what we get on the hardware side and to some extent the content quality side.
> 
> Consumer electronic companies need easy to market features to drive sales. Because the reality is the majority of consumers buy TVs based more on marketing hype than actual value and picture quality (or worse - how bright the TV is in the show room). The same is true for content picture quality, quantity and price are easier to market and seem to sell over quality so that is what we get. However on the content side I do think that part of the problem is people have small enough sets that they really cannot see the difference, so we don't complain or actively seek out higher quality content. As an example of this I have tested some of my blu-rays against the Vudu HDX ultraviolet version and when I can stream HDX it is hard for me to see the difference between that and the actual Blu-ray unless I cut my current viewing distance in half.
> 
> ...


I beg to differ. Sure, the way a lot of people watch stuff, they may not make that much of a difference. However, Netflix is launching 4k content right off the bat. You have integer scaling of 720p and 1080i. However, the other parts of 4k, not just the resolution, but also the additional contrast, color space, and the new compression codec are equally as important in enhancing the viewing experience.



atmuscarella said:


> You must have a small room or a very interesting setup. My eyes are about 14' from my TV and I have several feet behind my chair with room for a small table and then a full wall book case. In any event at 6' the chart does show someone with 20/20 is able to see (benefit from) all the resolution on a 1080p 55" TV and might even benefit slightly (see more resolution) from 4K. At the distance you are sitting (6') I can also tell the difference between blu-ray and Vudu HDX (1080p) streaming on my 1080p 50" TV, it isn't a resolution difference but the picture doesn't appear to be as "good" - but I can not see any difference at the distance I sit at (14'). For 720p streaming (Vudu HD) versus blu-ray it is a little different, if I stand at 6' there is a big difference, where I normally sit there is a slight difference.


I'm about 9' from my 60", which is about right for having Comcast and triple-channeled QAMs making up the vast majority of what I use it for, even though I should be 6 feet from my 60" TV per the THX guidelines. If I only watched VUDU HDX and Blu-ray content, then that would make sense, or maybe even if I moved a few miles over to Rhode Island where I could get FIOS. I have quite a bit of room behind my couch, which allows me to have the rear surrounds legitimately behind me, not right on top of the surrounds. I have an almost perfect 7.1 setup, except for my left surround, which is a couple of feet too far back to avoid getting stepped on.


----------



## pluckey (Mar 5, 2014)

Just to add to the confusion, there is a difference between 4K and Ultra HD (UHD). The terms are often used interchangeably, while intending to mean different resolutions.

For example: 4K video standard is 4096x2160 pixels. Ultra HD is 3840x2160 pixels. 

When a device, TV or service claims to be "4K" do they really mean the Ultra HD version of 4K, the professional version of 4K, or both? There's no consistency at this early stage of 4K/UHD development.

And yes, there is technically the "4K UHD" standard, at 3840x2160. As well as the 8K UHD standard. So how should the "other" 4K (4096x2160) be referred to?

At least by using the term UHD it's more definitive what you're talking about (these days that's going to be 3840x2160 -- while I have seen an 8K camera and projection in person, it's still very rare). Saying just "4K" might mean 2 different results and creates more confusion.

IMHO!


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

pluckey said:


> while I have seen an 8K camera and projection in person, it's still very rare).IMHO!


I know it isn't the same as a digital 8k camera, but doesn't traditional IMAX 70mm film have resolution roughly equivalent to 8K?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

pluckey said:


> Just to add to the confusion, there is a difference between 4K and Ultra HD (UHD). The terms are often used interchangeably, while intending to mean different resolutions.
> 
> For example: 4K video standard is 4096x2160 pixels. Ultra HD is 3840x2160 pixels.
> 
> ...


3840x2160 is going to win out as the official "4k". It's exactly 4x the resolution of 1080p which makes it very easy for 4k TVs to scale older HD content without a significant loss in quality. It's also exactly 16:9, which has become the standard aspect for TV programming.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> 3840x2160 is going to win out as the official "4k". It's exactly 4x the resolution of 1080p which makes it very easy for 4k TVs to scale older HD content without a significant loss in quality. It's also exactly 16:9, which has become the standard aspect for TV programming.


Exactly. And then there's movies which are wider than the 4096x2160p format...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. And then there's movies which are wider than the 4096x2160p format...


And for those wider movies you get a black band at the top and bottom of your screen (if you don't want any distortion of the original movie) and that when my 80" HDTV really does a good job because of its size.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

I think it's been decided that "4K" really means consumer 4K - Ultra HD, Quad-(Full) HD 3840z2160.

If you want to refer to the cinema version, 4096x2160, it's referred to as cinema 4K.

As someone who plays with a 4K monitor at work, the HDMI descriptors are very similar - you get 3 3840x2160 video modes (24, 25 and 30 fps), and one cinema 4K mode (at 24 fps)

Of course, cinema 4K scaled correctly to consumer 4K will just increase the amount of letterboxing on the image. The main reason we have 16:9 displays is because that's the best compromise shape to get the least amount of waste when displaying both 2.35:1 movies and 4:3 standard TV content. There never actually was a native 16:9 format when the standard was conceived decades ago. It's just the one that maximized the amount of viewable image area when you took letterboxing of the cinematic content and pillarboxing of TV content into account.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> And for those wider movies you get a black band at the top and bottom of your screen (if you don't want any distortion of the original movie) and that when my 80" HDTV really does a good job because of its size.


I'm thinking resolution, not physical size. Do they end up being 3840x1648, or 5032x2160?



Worf said:


> If you want to refer to the cinema version, 4096x2160, it's referred to as cinema 4K.


That's not 2.33:1/2.35/2.39:1.

Correct, 16:9 is a compromise, and still is a good one, especially now that we have a lot of 16:9 content. 2.35:1 always look really weird on a 1.33:1 TV, now it works a lot better, and 1.33:1 TV content (is there any left?-the only SD channel I still watch has letterboxing now so I just zoom it off on my video scaler) is stretched...


----------



## milan03 (Mar 4, 2014)

I think most of us here are forgetting that 4K content could and will be delivered mostly using over-the-top apps like Netflix, HBOgo, etc... Not a traditional broadcast, at least not for a long time.

Netflix's House of Cards is entirely shot and ready in 4K or UHD as they call it, but they're completely unable to deliver it as no TVs w/Netflix preloaded support H.265, and no STB support H.265 or have HDMI 2.0... So they're stuck.

This is where platform companies like Apple and Google could step in, sign some kind of partnership and deliver the content. Honestly, why would Apple build a TV set and enter that market, and who would buy Apple's TV set unless it delivers superb user experience head and shoulders above the competition. There is a good reason why they're delaying the launch.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Bigg said:


> That's not 2.33:1/2.35/2.39:1.


Cinematographers use anamorphic lenses to convert 2.35/2.39/2.40:1 down to 16:9 or 1.37:1 (35mm frame format).

In cinematography, there generally is no standard aspect ratio - it depends heavily on the equipment used and the camera settings for the shot, and often in modern all digital gear, it records in higher resolutions (I believe the basic RED Epic is now a 5K sensor and you get a 5k image out) and it's cropped during post-processing to the final standard used (formerly 35mm, but it's going all digital now to cinema 4k projectors and anamorphic lenses to widen it out).

IMAX is closer to a 16:9 format, so depending on how a movie was filmed, you could have it switch aspect ratios dynamically (the IMAX filmed scences are full frame, while the other scenes are letterboxed), or the IMAX version may be pan-and-scanned so you don't have the letterboxing at all. Of course, if it was all filmed in IMAX, then they'd matte/crop to anamorphic dimensions.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

milan03 said:


> I think most of us here are forgetting that 4K content could and will be delivered mostly using over-the-top apps like Netflix, HBOgo, etc... Not a traditional broadcast, at least not for a long time.
> 
> Netflix's House of Cards is entirely shot and ready in 4K or UHD as they call it, but they're completely unable to deliver it as no TVs w/Netflix preloaded support H.265, and no STB support H.265 or have HDMI 2.0... So they're stuck.
> 
> This is where platform companies like Apple and Google could step in, sign some kind of partnership and deliver the content. Honestly, why would Apple build a TV set and enter that market, and who would buy Apple's TV set unless it delivers superb user experience head and shoulders above the competition. There is a good reason why they're delaying the launch.


The 2014 models of 4K smart TVs support H.265 and streaming Netflix.



Worf said:


> Cinematographers use anamorphic lenses to convert 2.35/2.39/2.40:1 down to 16:9 or 1.37:1 (35mm frame format).
> 
> In cinematography, there generally is no standard aspect ratio - it depends heavily on the equipment used and the camera settings for the shot, and often in modern all digital gear, it records in higher resolutions (I believe the basic RED Epic is now a 5K sensor and you get a 5k image out) and it's cropped during post-processing to the final standard used (formerly 35mm, but it's going all digital now to cinema 4k projectors and anamorphic lenses to widen it out).
> 
> IMAX is closer to a 16:9 format, so depending on how a movie was filmed, you could have it switch aspect ratios dynamically (the IMAX filmed scences are full frame, while the other scenes are letterboxed), or the IMAX version may be pan-and-scanned so you don't have the letterboxing at all. Of course, if it was all filmed in IMAX, then they'd matte/crop to anamorphic dimensions.


Isn't 2.35:1 or something very close to that pretty much the standard for most movies these days?


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Yes, it's also known as anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses compress the image horizontally so they can fit on a sensor or frame that's not as wide. On the other end, you need an anamorphic projection lens to widen the image. Effectively, the camera lens is slimming, while the projection lens fattens it out again (sort of like playing 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen by stretching).

It falls from 35mm use (it's very closely related in size to the 35mm film you put in your film camera), and the typical frame is "4 perf" (i.e., it's 4 holes high). 

I have strips and frames from various movies on theatrical 35mm (what the theatres run through the projector - it's a positive image) and they all are squished vertically (i.e., slimmed). The tradition continues with digital so the vertical resolution is slightly lower than the horizontal resolution when projected. On 35mm, it's slightly worse as you have a DTS timecode and the optical stereo track alongside the frame. (The Dolby Digital track doesn't consume space on the film - it's like a QR code and imprinted in-between the perforations)

Modern digital techniques do vary - though use of anamorphic lenses is fairly common - they're plentiful, directors and DPs understand the technology and it makes full use of the sensor. A 2.40:1 4K recorded straight means you have a 4096x1707 pixels, wasting around 20% of the sensor (2160 pixels high). Use an anamorphic lens and you can use the entire sensor. 

I suppose they could build sensors with a 2.40:1 aspect, and they might, but it's all in flux. Like I said, there's no real standards, and most are filmed using only one set of equipment and workflow (i.e., you'll very rarely find they mix RED and ARRI, or RED and film, etc. It has happened, but rare.)


----------



## milan03 (Mar 4, 2014)

Bigg said:


> The 2014 models of 4K smart TVs support H.265 and streaming Netflix.


They do, but there is only a few commercially models to chose from, and they cost arm and leg,so the market penetration of 4K content is less than 1%.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

milan03 said:


> They do, but there is only a few commercially models to chose from, and they cost arm and leg,so the market penetration of 4K content is less than 1%.


Can you seriously not look ahead a couple of years? 4K is moving far faster than HD did in it's second year of existence, and within a few years, there will be TONs of sets on the market, almost all of them with 4K Netflix.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> Yes, it's also known as anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses compress the image horizontally so they can fit on a sensor or frame that's not as wide. On the other end, you need an anamorphic projection lens to widen the image. Effectively, the camera lens is slimming, while the projection lens fattens it out again (sort of like playing 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen by stretching).
> 
> It falls from 35mm use (it's very closely related in size to the 35mm film you put in your film camera), and the typical frame is "4 perf" (i.e., it's 4 holes high).
> 
> ...


Hmmm, why are they still using anamorphic lenses then? It seems like with digital technology, they should be dead...


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Because like he said it uses the whole sensor. 4K cameras are basically 16:9, so their sensors are also 16:9, so if you want to shoot in a wider aspect you either have to mask the picture, which means you're not using part of the sensor or you use an animporhic lens to squish the picture so you use the full resolution of the sensor. Having full vertical resolution with animorphic horizontal resolution produces a better picture then masking and reducing the vertical resolution.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Because like he said it uses the whole sensor. 4K cameras are basically 16:9, so their sensors are also 16:9, so if you want to shoot in a wider aspect you either have to mask the picture, which means you're not using part of the sensor or you use an animporhic lens to squish the picture so you use the full resolution of the sensor. Having full vertical resolution with animorphic horizontal resolution produces a better picture then masking and reducing the vertical resolution.


Don't using another lens that you wouldn't otherwise need have implications for clarity and potentially some distortion?


----------



## milan03 (Mar 4, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Can you seriously not look ahead a couple of years? 4K is moving far faster than HD did in it's second year of existence, and within a few years, there will be TONs of sets on the market, almost all of them with 4K Netflix.


Sure I can, but I thought we are talking 2014-2015 timeframe.
There is a limited amount of UHD sets, and content is lacking. I'm sure in 3-5 years we'll be enjoying 4K content mostly. I'm still a believer that we'll be getting most of the 4K content from OTT providers like Netflix, Amazon, or platform providers like Apple and Google.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Don't using another lens that you wouldn't otherwise need have implications for clarity and potentially some distortion?


These things cost thousands of dollars, so they are made with super precision. The only "distortion" is the intended distortion, and that's corrected for on the way out.

Since we're dealing with light, and not actually pixels, both are technically a distortion of the original. So it's really all about perception. And nearly a century of film making has led to the conclusion that anamorphic has a greater perceived quality then letter boxed video. People are much more sensitive to the lack of resolution in a letter boxed shot then the slight distortion caused by an anamorphic shot.

Now the best way to do it would be to create a camera that has a sensor that's actually wide enough to capture the full resolution of all aspects without having to resort to anamorphic lenses. But absent that your only options are letter box or anamorphic and between those anamorphic is better.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

milan03 said:


> Sure I can, but I thought we are talking 2014-2015 timeframe.
> There is a limited amount of UHD sets, and content is lacking. I'm sure in 3-5 years we'll be enjoying 4K content mostly. I'm still a believer that we'll be getting most of the 4K content from OTT providers like Netflix, Amazon, or platform providers like Apple and Google.


My only chance to every get 4K is a new blu-ray standard. My Frontier supposed 6Mbps DSL in slowing down to dial up speeds in the evening, last night I hit a new low 0.81Mbps and couldn't even stream vudu SD, of course I just tested it again now and I am back up to 5.93Mbps, in any event I am guessing I will never be able to stream 4K even if I switch to streaming/watching TV in the morning.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

milan03 said:


> Sure I can, but I thought we are talking 2014-2015 timeframe.
> There is a limited amount of UHD sets, and content is lacking. I'm sure in 3-5 years we'll be enjoying 4K content mostly. I'm still a believer that we'll be getting most of the 4K content from OTT providers like Netflix, Amazon, or platform providers like Apple and Google.


That's a year or two away. 4K adoption is going to happen quickly. Most 4K content will be OTT, there just isn't enough bandwidth on cable or satellite to do a lot of 4K. They can't even get HD right, although maybe more 4K sets out there will force them to finally do HD right, even if it's still just 720p or 1080i.



Dan203 said:


> These things cost thousands of dollars, so they are made with super precision. The only "distortion" is the intended distortion, and that's corrected for on the way out.
> 
> Since we're dealing with light, and not actually pixels, both are technically a distortion of the original. So it's really all about perception. And nearly a century of film making has led to the conclusion that anamorphic has a greater perceived quality then letter boxed video. People are much more sensitive to the lack of resolution in a letter boxed shot then the slight distortion caused by an anamorphic shot.
> 
> Now the best way to do it would be to create a camera that has a sensor that's actually wide enough to capture the full resolution of all aspects without having to resort to anamorphic lenses. But absent that your only options are letter box or anamorphic and between those anamorphic is better.


Interesting.



atmuscarella said:


> My only chance to every get 4K is a new blu-ray standard. My Frontier supposed 6Mbps DSL in slowing down to dial up speeds in the evening, last night I hit a new low 0.81Mbps and couldn't even stream vudu SD, of course I just tested it again now and I am back up to 5.93Mbps, in any event I am guessing I will never be able to stream 4K even if I switch to streaming/watching TV in the morning.


You don't have TWC available?


----------



## pluckey (Mar 5, 2014)

Worf said:


> I think it's been decided that "4K" really means consumer 4K - Ultra HD, Quad-(Full) HD 3840z2160.
> 
> If you want to refer to the cinema version, 4096x2160, it's referred to as cinema 4K.


Very good points.

I've recently noticed 4096x2160 also referred to as DCI 4K (as on the new GH4 camera's specs). I shall henceforth use DCI 4K and cinema 4K to help distinguish it from UHD.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Bigg said:


> You don't have TWC available?


No I live in a "cable free zone". I am about .75 miles from the end of the TWC line. There are 10 house between me and the end of the cable line and when I asked a few years ago they said they would run the line if we would being willing to pay the up front costs which were several hundred dollars each if everyone was willing to pay, but most of my neighbors already had satellite and weren't interested.

DSL should work fine, I am about 1.25 miles from Frontiers switching station/building and the techs told me there was no issues with 7+Mbps from my house to my local switching station. They said the slow down at night was being caused by the equipment in the switching station in the next town where the lines from several switching stations go to (come together) before going on to where ever. It is the same story everyday near 6Mbps in the morning then it slows down each afternoon and evening. Not doing bad right now has only slowed down to 2.6Mbps - but it is nice day and I am guess there is less traffic right now compared to other early evenings..


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

atmuscarella said:


> No I live in a "cable free zone". I am about .75 miles from the end of the TWC line. There are 10 house between me and the end of the cable line and when I asked a few years ago they said they would run the line if we would being willing to pay the up front costs which were several hundred dollars each if everyone was willing to pay, but most of my neighbors already had satellite and weren't interested.
> 
> DSL should work fine, I am about 1.25 miles from Frontiers switching station/building and the techs told me there was no issues with 7+Mbps from my house to my local switching station. They said the slow down at night was being caused by the equipment in the switching station in the next town where the lines from several switching stations go to (come together) before going on to where ever. It is the same story everyday near 6Mbps in the morning then it slows down each afternoon and evening. Not doing bad right now has only slowed down to 2.6Mbps - but it is nice day and I am guess there is less traffic right now compared to other early evenings..


Wow. If I were in your position, I'd definitely pay for a plant extension- and a few hundred dollars a house sounds like a deal, even if you have to pay all 10. I've heard of quotes in the tens of thousands for plant extensions, with costs going over $10/foot.

Hmm, sounds like a connectivity issue from the CO upwards, as your line sounds fine. That sucks that they can't get the easy part right.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

5 years from now it will be like 1080/720 is today.

All larger sets (60"+) will be 4K, only smaller sets will be 1080.

Until HDMI 2.0 & better codecs are standard it does not pay to buy 4K.

I convinced a relative who a decade ago paid $10,000+ for a custom-install 50" plasma monitor to just go to Costco and pick a 70" off-the-shelf 1080 LCD HDTV as a replacement.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ncbill said:


> 5 years from now it will be like 1080/720 is today.
> 
> All larger sets (60"+) will be 4K, only smaller sets will be 1080.
> 
> ...


I think 55" will be the split point. Most living room TVs are going bigger than 55" anyways, and other areas are space limited (KT, BD) so they will stay <37" or smaller, depending on the application.

Netflix is already supporting 4K, although the HDMI ports might be an issue if the hardware can't be upgraded to the new standard...


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

A 55" TV will require you to sit only a few feet away to appreciate 4K, which is why they're all 70" and larger. Even so, at 4K, the average sitting distance of 8' or so is too far to use 4K - you can't tell the difference between it and 1080p on a 70" set or so.

And that's the real problem with high-def and U-HDTV. The average family sits too damn far away from their set. Back in the SDTV days, you could sit pretty far away - most people sat too close so a nice HDTV will be an improvement.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Worf said:


> A 55" TV will require you to sit only a few feet away to appreciate 4K, which is why they're all 70" and larger.


Samsung, LG, and Sony all currently sell 55" 4Ks.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> A 55" TV will require you to sit only a few feet away to appreciate 4K, which is why they're all 70" and larger. Even so, at 4K, the average sitting distance of 8' or so is too far to use 4K - you can't tell the difference between it and 1080p on a 70" set or so.
> 
> And that's the real problem with high-def and U-HDTV. The average family sits too damn far away from their set. Back in the SDTV days, you could sit pretty far away - most people sat too close so a nice HDTV will be an improvement.


Based on the THX sizing guidelines, you're supposed to be about 5.5 feet away from a 55" TV anyways. Personally, I'm a bit farther back (about 9 feet from my 60", versus the recommended 6 feet) because those guidelines are based on Blu-Ray content, and Comcast's cable HD is pretty heavily compressed.

Most people don't seem to understand what size TVs should be to have a truly immersive experience.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

LIke I said, most people sit too damn far away from the screen.

And heavily overcompressed 4K content defeats the purpose of 4k. You'd probably get better resolution sending it as lightly-compressed 1080p.

It's like some early Blu-Rays whose mastering was so awful that the DVD had a better picture. (SO bad that a couple of years later they were re-released).


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Worf said:


> LIke I said, most people sit too damn far away from the screen.


I don't think most people really have that much of a choice about how far away they sit from their television. Peoples' houses have rooms that are a certain fixed size and only so many ways they can configure their furniture and televisions so the layout of the room doesn't look ridiculous. Putting your television set or sofa smack in the middle of your living room just so you can be the perfect distance away from your television set is just not going to work for most people.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I don't think most people really have that much of a choice about how far away they sit from their television. Peoples' houses have rooms that are a certain fixed size and only so many ways they can configure their furniture and televisions so the layout of the room doesn't look ridiculous. Putting your television set or sofa smack in the middle of your living room just so you can be the perfect distance away from your television set is just not going to work for most people.


Sharp makes 80" and 90" TVs.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Sharp makes 80" and 90" TVs.


I know it's hard to believe, but some people (aka women) think that TVs that large are ugly and won't allow them into their homes.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I know it's hard to believe, but some people (aka women) think that TVs that large are ugly and won't allow them into their homes.


Yeah, I know. People say all kinds of incredibly stupid things!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I know it's hard to believe, but some people (aka women) think that TVs that large are ugly and won't allow them into their homes.


That is why I purchased my 80" Sharp, had it installed, than asked forgiveness from the wife, the only way to get that big of a HDTV. (and not end up with a divorce)


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I don't think most people really have that much of a choice about how far away they sit from their television. Peoples' houses have rooms that are a certain fixed size and only so many ways they can configure their furniture and televisions so the layout of the room doesn't look ridiculous. Putting your television set or sofa smack in the middle of your living room just so you can be the perfect distance away from your television set is just not going to work for most people.


I didn't say people intentionally sat too far away from their TVs. I just said people generally sit too far away from their TVs. Reasons vary - from room size, arrangement, aesthetics, habit, whatever. And habits are a big one - I mean, I remember when you sat maybe 6' away from the 29" SDTV set back as a kid, you got scolded for sitting too close.

So yeah, it's a problem in that we've hit "retina" resolutions for practical sized TVs in practical "normal" rooms. Maybe not for those who can do things IMAX style in a special theatre room, but most normal people don't have that - they have a living room most likely a certain size (at least 10' x 10') and while it was great when your "big screen" TV was 29" or 32" back in the SDTV days, it's proving a bit distant for modern HDTV. And even worse, today's HDTVs may have to fit inside the space where the old set took up, so you're limiting yourself to good ol' 42" sets or so.

Hell, you know, I remember when 29" was a "big screen" TV. And how when we got 42", it was ginormous. These days, 52", 60", it just seems so... regular.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Worf said:


> Hell, you know, I remember when 29" was a "big screen" TV. And how when we got 42", it was ginormous. These days, 52", 60", it just seems so... regular.


In fairness, a 42" diagonal on a 4:3 aspect ratio screen gives you more surface area than a 42" diagonal on a 16:9 aspect ratio screen.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> I didn't say people intentionally sat too far away from their TVs. I just said people generally sit too far away from their TVs. Reasons vary - from room size, arrangement, aesthetics, habit, whatever. And habits are a big one - I mean, I remember when you sat maybe 6' away from the 29" SDTV set back as a kid, you got scolded for sitting too close.
> 
> So yeah, it's a problem in that we've hit "retina" resolutions for practical sized TVs in practical "normal" rooms. Maybe not for those who can do things IMAX style in a special theatre room, but most normal people don't have that - they have a living room most likely a certain size (at least 10' x 10') and while it was great when your "big screen" TV was 29" or 32" back in the SDTV days, it's proving a bit distant for modern HDTV. And even worse, today's HDTVs may have to fit inside the space where the old set took up, so you're limiting yourself to good ol' 42" sets or so.
> 
> Hell, you know, I remember when 29" was a "big screen" TV. And how when we got 42", it was ginormous. These days, 52", 60", it just seems so... regular.


I think people just don't realize how big of a TV they really need. Another one is fitting the TV in existing furniture, because they won't get rid of furniture designed for a 36" CRT TV.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, the ol' 36" SDTV also weighed a ton so furniture built for it tends to be very well built, so changing the furniture is generally a non-starter. Nevermind how people get attached to it, no one wants to move the heavy solid wood TV stand and other equipment.

I know it was hard for us to get rid of some solid oak entertainment center furniture which was designed for a 32" SDTV we had. Then we upgraded to a 42" HDTV and it wouldn't fit.

And yes, going to 42" HDTV was ginormous back in the day. Nowadays they're like $100 at Best Buy.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Worf said:


> Well, the ol' 36" SDTV also weighed a ton so furniture built for it tends to be very well built, so changing the furniture is generally a non-starter. Nevermind how people get attached to it, no one wants to move the heavy solid wood TV stand and other equipment.
> 
> I know it was hard for us to get rid of some solid oak entertainment center furniture which was designed for a 32" SDTV we had. Then we upgraded to a 42" HDTV and it wouldn't fit.
> 
> And yes, going to 42" HDTV was ginormous back in the day. Nowadays they're like $100 at Best Buy.


Furniture can be a major problem when upgrading. For years my parents had this big, solid wood entertainment center that their old CRT set was entombed in, and the thing weighed a ton. I know, because when they finally upgraded recently, I had to help my dad haul that thing out of the house.

Fortunately, I did not have to help bring in the new, heavier replacement piece of furniture that my mother demanded my father buy if he was going to get the 65" TV that he wanted in the living room. The irony is that they spent a little over $2,000 for the TV, but about 3 times that much for the furniture piece from Ethan Allen that the TV is sitting on/in. Luckily for me, for almost $6,000, delivery was included, and at no extra charge!


----------



## Grakthis (Oct 4, 2006)

Sheesh. Do your parents not know about Ikea? ^_^


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Grakthis said:


> Sheesh. Do your parents not know about Ikea? ^_^


I know, right? My mother has expensive taste and my father is cheap. I was shocked he agreed to it, but he really wanted a TV larger than 32". But did I mention that delivery was free?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Furniture can be a major problem when upgrading. For years my parents had this big, solid wood entertainment center that their old CRT set was entombed in, and the thing weighed a ton. I know, because when they finally upgraded recently, I had to help my dad haul that thing out of the house.
> 
> Fortunately, I did not have to help bring in the new, heavier replacement piece of furniture that my mother demanded my father buy if he was going to get the 65" TV that he wanted in the living room. The irony is that they spent a little over $2,000 for the TV, but about 3 times that much for the furniture piece from Ethan Allen that the TV is sitting on/in. Luckily for me, for almost $6,000, delivery was included, and at no extra charge!


Yeah, it's unbelievable how people get attached to that stuff. And, people should have gotten over the whole enclosed TV stand thing. Not only are they ugly, but they limit upgrade options later down the road. A flat stand that the TV goes on top of, and has the components underneath is the way to go these days. My parents have a similar thing, and it only fits a 37" flat panel, but luckily their 55" is upstairs on an old wooden kit stand that it just sits on, so the fact that it was made for a 19" Trinitron isn't a huge problem. The 55" probably weights less than the 19" Trinitron...


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, it's unbelievable how people get attached to that stuff. And, people should have gotten over the whole enclosed TV stand thing. Not only are they ugly, but they limit upgrade options later down the road. A flat stand that the TV goes on top of, and has the components underneath is the way to go these days. My parents have a similar thing, and it only fits a 37" flat panel, but luckily their 55" is upstairs on an old wooden kit stand that it just sits on, so the fact that it was made for a 19" Trinitron isn't a huge problem. The 55" probably weights less than the 19" Trinitron...


I could not remove the built-in that my original TV was in so to fit the 80" HDTV I has a frame built into the hole that was left after removing the old TV and had the swing arm mounted to this frame, works great as now you can now pull the HDTV out, turn it, or swing it from side to side, if you have to get into the cabinets. It does cover the cabinet doors when flat up against the built-in, but we only set the HDTV that way when we have guests over.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I could not remove the built-in that my original TV was in so to fit the 80" HDTV I has a frame built into the hole that was left after removing the old TV and had the swing arm mounted to this frame, works great as now you can now pull the HDTV out, turn it, or swing it from side to side, if you have to get into the cabinets. It does cover the cabinet doors when flat up against the built-in, but we only set the HDTV that way when we have guests over.


That's why building stuff like that in is a terrible idea. I hate seeing anything built specifically for a specific type of technology, or where wiring is very specific to the technology of today. Tons of speaker wire, RG-6 and CAT-6 is good, but specific stuff is not.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That's why building stuff like that in is a terrible idea. I hate seeing anything built specifically for a specific type of technology, or where wiring is very specific to the technology of today. Tons of speaker wire, RG-6 and CAT-6 is good, but specific stuff is not.


I assume you are referring to the built cabinets in my home that had the old TV mounted into it. 
When we built the room my wife liked the built ins so I had the old CRT 40" built in with a removable frame so I could put in a new bigger HDTV sometime in the future, that idea work for the first TV upgrade from 40" CRT to a 65" DLP, but now with my 80" I had to improvise, but I think my wife though that a 65" HDTV for a room that size was always going be OK and for most people it would be, just not for me.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I assume you are referring to the built cabinets in my home that had the old TV mounted into it.
> When we built the room my wife liked the built ins so I had the old CRT 40" built in with a removable frame so I could put in a new bigger HDTV sometime in the future, that idea work for the first TV upgrade from 40" CRT to a 65" DLP, but now with my 80" I had to improvise, but I think my wife though that a 65" HDTV for a room that size was always going be OK and for most people it would be, just not for me.


That's exactly why I cringe at building stuff like that in. With an open piece of furniture, you can just put whatever you want on top of it or sell it and replace it with something else.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Adoption of 4k is going to be a lot more slower than the move to HD from SD.

We don't even get BR quality cable feeds yet do we? Most aren't going to notice 4k.

Then you won't be saving room or electricity by upgrading this time around like what happened when everyone dumped their old crt tvs.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

trip1eX said:


> Adoption of 4k is going to be a lot more slower than the move to HD from SD.


People think that SD to HD happened quickly, but the Japanese actually began development of HDTV back in the late '70s. I remember hearing about HD back in the early 90s and we had a local station in Raleigh broadcasting in HD in 1996 (I believe they were the first in the nation to do so). But I didn't get my first HDTV until 2009, and now all 4 of the TVs in our house are 1080p HD (yet I still don't have a blu-ray player).

In contrast, 4k development didn't even start until 2003 and there are already 4k TVs on the market by most major manufacturers only 10 years later. If HD had developed as quickly as UHD, there would have been HDTVs on the market by 1990.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah HDTV was a lot slower then people think. It just hit critical mass quickly. When I got my first HDTV in 2005 all the broadcast networks and a few of the premium cable channels already had HD.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Well, a few things are different this time around.

First, we have the technology now. Back in the 70s and 80s, we didn't have much in the way of technology. Digital electronics was still in its infancy, and computers well, they didn't have enough memory for one SDTV frame. In fact, one of the reasons why the Atari 2600 and other computers of the era were cheap was they didn't try to spend money with a framebuffer - they had a live character generator that rendered graphics and text line-by-line from a description.

And in the mid-80s it was still iffy - a framebuffer graphics PC was expensive and the framebuffer consumed a ton of RAM. See original Macintosh with its 512x384 screen whose 128K configuration cost $2600 back in the day (over $10,000 now I believe), and of which half the RAM was used by the system for the bitmapped graphics and other system functions.

So computers and digital electronics were nowhere close to helping solve the HDTV problem - the only way to do it was analog electronics, which made them big, bulky and heavy and consume way more bandwidth than was feasible.

These days we have modern digital electronics to which tossing a 3840x2160 24/30/36 bits per pixel consume a trivial amount of RAM (so little we can triple buffer them and it's still a trivial amount of RAM), advanced compression algorithms able to take that and fit it in a bitstream not much bigger than what an analog channel takes up (of course, we could fit 3 HDTV streams in that same space) etc.

HDTVs while they may have been in planning and development for 40 years, most of it was really because we didn't have the technology until recently. The first HDTVs came on the market in the very late 90s. $20,000+. We didn't have a medium to drive it though, as DVDs, also very new then, were only SDTV or EDTV in quality.

By the mid 2000's, HDTVs were a curiosity - families were starting to adopt them, initially. It's why the PS3 and Xbox360 adopted HDTV standards (though there were enough teething issues - a lot of early players found many games were unplayable because they assumed an HDTV and they only had SDTVs). By this time, though, HDTVs were down from $20,000+ to around $2000 or so for a "ginormous" 42" set.

It's also why Nintendo didn't put HDTV graphics in the Wii - they figured that most families, if they had HDTVs, it would be the main TV. The WIi would go into kid's rooms and spare rooms for playing, an very few people had the money to have more than one HDTV.

Fast forward to 2008 or so and it's all over - Blu-Ray won and HDTVs were falling rapidly in price.

In 2013, UHDTVs were $20K+. In 2014, a 55" set can be had for under $3k regular price. We don't have the sources for it yet, like we didn't back around the turn of the millennium (that would take another 6+ years!). Early UHDTVs are 4k @ 30FPS only due to bandwidth limitations, but this year promises HDMI 2.0 which will allow 4k @ 60FPS.

The sources are probably not going to be around for a couple of years yet though, but adopting standard what we have now technology makes it feasible (i.e., Blu-Ray with many layers)

By the end of this decade we may see 4K become extremely common. But likely adoption is going to be much slower. The move from VHS to DVD was fast because DVD gave you so much more quality. Likewise the move from SD to HDTV was beneficial because of the same. But going from DVD to Blu-Ray, or HDTV to UHDTV will be much slower as the quality benefits are more subtle. It's likely that 4K may also end up being a "wank" feature as most people realize they can't see the enhanced quality.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Worf said:


> I think it's been decided that "4K" really means consumer 4K - Ultra HD, Quad-(Full) HD 3840z2160.
> 
> If you want to refer to the cinema version, 4096x2160, it's referred to as cinema 4K.
> 
> ...


Fun thread, and an interesting point. Some of the older Cinemascope movies might fit into that, as modern movies generally are shot at 1.85:1 (although 16:9 is actually 1.77:1). I don't know, but those differences may account for the slight difference in ratio between "consumer 4K" and "cinema 4K" that I am reading about on here. I find it curious though that the 16:9 ratio also happens to be the square of 4:3, or 4:3 the square root of 16:9. Probably either arbitrary or coincidental, but not both.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Worf said:


> Yes, it's also known as anamorphic. Anamorphic lenses compress the image horizontally so they can fit on a sensor or frame that's not as wide. On the other end, you need an anamorphic projection lens to widen the image. Effectively, the camera lens is slimming, while the projection lens fattens it out again (sort of like playing 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen by stretching).
> 
> It falls from 35mm use (it's very closely related in size to the 35mm film you put in your film camera), and the typical frame is "4 perf" (i.e., it's 4 holes high).
> 
> ...


Interesting, once again. I am just not sure about the "theater 4K" being the same as 2.40:1. I had suspected that the 1.85:1 ratio, commonly used in cinemas today, was the source for the "4K" since 16:9 has a ratio of 1.77:1. Below though you say that they use anamorphic lenses for 2.40:1, so maybe that is what you meant.

I find it ironic that anamorphic lenses still get used with digital projection systems. That would mean that also they get used on the cameras, and in the production of Blu-rays,dVDs, and digital content.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Hmmm, why are they still using anamorphic lenses then? It seems like with digital technology, they should be dead...


I just thought about this for a minute too, and the transform that an optical lens provides will be faster (instantaneous in fact), cleaner (no digital rendering errors), and require no digital overhead. It is an elegant solution.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Worf said:


> LIke I said, most people sit too damn far away from the screen.
> 
> And heavily overcompressed 4K content defeats the purpose of 4k. You'd probably get better resolution sending it as lightly-compressed 1080p.
> 
> It's like some early Blu-Rays whose mastering was so awful that the DVD had a better picture. (SO bad that a couple of years later they were re-released).


I'm still largely into DVDs, even for more recent movies. However over the years I have replaced many of my first-generation DVDs with the re-releases where applicable. Apparently the newer higher-resolution film transfers they did to accommodate Blu-Ray benefited later DVD releases too. I have read some Amazon reports about some instances though where the Blu-Ray was barely any better than the DVD. It seems they skipped the Blu-Ray film transfer altogether and just upscaled from the DVD film transfer.


----------



## christheman (Feb 21, 2013)

Worf said:


> I didn't say people intentionally sat too far away from their TVs. I just said people generally sit too far away from their TVs. Reasons vary - from room size, arrangement, aesthetics, habit, whatever. And habits are a big one - I mean, I remember when you sat maybe 6' away from the 29" SDTV set back as a kid, you got scolded for sitting too close.
> 
> So yeah, it's a problem in that we've hit "retina" resolutions for practical sized TVs in practical "normal" rooms. Maybe not for those who can do things IMAX style in a special theatre room, but most normal people don't have that - they have a living room most likely a certain size (at least 10' x 10') and while it was great when your "big screen" TV was 29" or 32" back in the SDTV days, it's proving a bit distant for modern HDTV. And even worse, today's HDTVs may have to fit inside the space where the old set took up, so you're limiting yourself to good ol' 42" sets or so.
> 
> Hell, you know, I remember when 29" was a "big screen" TV. And how when we got 42", it was ginormous. These days, 52", 60", it just seems so... regular.


LoL! I remember having a 19" B&W Zenith TV in the corner of a cozy little 15'x20' family room and more than enough to watch between "Friday Night At The Movies", Prime Time TV, and UHF TV. Times have changed, and so has my eyesight.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

trip1eX said:


> Adoption of 4k is going to be a lot more slower than the move to HD from SD.
> 
> We don't even get BR quality cable feeds yet do we? Most aren't going to notice 4k.
> 
> Then you won't be saving room or electricity by upgrading this time around like what happened when everyone dumped their old crt tvs.


4K will be a lot faster to be mass-market, due to the more rapid advanced in technology. That being said, I doubt we will see many 4K TV feeds for a long time. My guess is 3 4K channels within the next couple of years from DirecTV, and not much else for quite a while.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> 4K will be a lot faster to be mass-market, due to the more rapid advanced in technology. That being said, I doubt we will see many 4K TV feeds for a long time. My guess is 3 4K channels within the next couple of years from DirecTV, and not much else for quite a while.


We can't even get much 3D cable feeds, Comcast in my area had two 3D feeds but I think they gave up one of them.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> We can't even get much 3D cable feeds, Comcast in my area had two 3D feeds but I think they gave up one of them.


Yeah, because no one wants them and 3D is a kludge. When there are a lot of 4K sets out there, there will be 4K feeds, but they will be few and far between for a long time, as they are big bandwidth hogs.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

It's odd as the 3D used for cable is half-resolution 3D - i.e., it takes the same amount of bandwidth because the resolution is cut in half.

For interlaced video, it's interlaced 3D - one field is left eye, the other field is right eye, and the missing lines are interpolated.

For progressive, it's generally side-by-side - the horizontal resolution is cut in half. The entire frame is shrunk horizontally to make it very skinny and the left and right frames are the left and right images. The TV expands the image horizontally.

(It's also how the Xbox360 and PS3 generated 3D images - because it's just the same output). HDMI 1.4a allows for frame-packed images which gives you two complete full resolution frames. It also allows 4K at 30Hz as that's the same bandwidth as frame-packed 1080p at 60Hz.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Worf said:


> It's odd as the 3D used for cable is half-resolution 3D - i.e., it takes the same amount of bandwidth because the resolution is cut in half.
> 
> For interlaced video, it's interlaced 3D - one field is left eye, the other field is right eye, and the missing lines are interpolated.
> 
> ...


They still had to find bandwidth for a *second* copy of ESPN or whatever else they were broadcasting in 3D, and ultimately, no one really wanted it.


----------

