# DirecTV 4K UHD plans



## SomeRandomIdiot

I happened to be in Best Buy today for the first time in a while and noticed this next to the Samsung UHD display. You will notice a familiar logo.









Has DirecTV announced 4K / UHD plans? This is probably on display at every Best Buy as well as other Samsung retailers....who are all clueless about UHD sources.

As far as I knew, DirecTV does not even have a unit with a UHD output.

Anyone shed any light?


----------



## P Smith

I see there is an asterisk, do you see any footnote by it ?


----------



## Paul Secic

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I happened to be in Best Buy today for the first time in a while and noticed this next to the Samsung UHD display. You will notice a familiar logo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4kDTV-MOD.JPG
> 
> Has DirecTV announced 4K / UHD plans? This is probably on display at every Best Buy as well as other Samsung retailers....who are all clueless about UHD sources.
> 
> As far as I knew, DirecTV does not even have a unit with a UHD output.
> 
> Anyone shed any light?


I doubt it.


----------



## Diana C

Beyond saying the 4K support may be "important" to DirecTV, I don't think they have said much.


----------



## carlsbad_bolt_fan

That looked like a general 4K UHD claim, as I saw other providers listed.


----------



## Steve

DIRECTV was one of the first to support 1080p and 3D, so I have no doubt there's a 4K box "coming soon". Just my .02.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Samsung (and others) cannot use DirecTV's logo without their permission - so clearly DirecTV approved it.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/06/samsung-4k-content-deals/


----------



## Sixto

UHD is coming with the new satellites. Just about a certainty, similar to the 1080p support. Not clear which hardware.


----------



## inkahauts

I almost expect to see uhd on the new bss frequencies and sticking with mpeg4 for now... Several offerings on demand and then maybe ten linear channels, some ppv and an HBO channel and a couple others.... And I kind suspect the hr44 can do it now... Maybe... If not I suspect it will launch sometime shortly after d15 is operational, which would mean new hardware to go with it in about a year. Just my wild guessing...


----------



## Laxguy

Another take: Many channels will get 1080p and will look pretty swell on UHD TVs....


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> Another take: Many channels will get 1080p and will look pretty swell on UHD TVs....


How? The networks don't provide 1080p feeds, it is all 720p or 1080i.

I think the networks will the biggest roadblock to 4K. They already spent a lot of money upgrading to HD production and distribution and aren't likely to want to upgrade again, especially when the benefits of HD->4K will be much less visible to consumers than the benefits of analog SD->digital HD were. I'm sure they'll be willing if 4K really takes off, but the plans for most are probably "let's wait and see, in case it is another 3D debacle"

As far as Directv goes, they've given plenty of lip service to 4K, but they haven't announced anything specific as far as equipment, availability date, what will be available, etc.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> How? The networks don't provide 1080p feeds, it is all 720p or 1080i.
> 
> I think the networks will the biggest roadblock to 4K. They already spent a lot of money upgrading to HD production and distribution and aren't likely to want to upgrade again, especially when the benefits of HD->4K will be much less visible to consumers than the benefits of analog SD->digital HD were. I'm sure they'll be willing if 4K really takes off, but the plans for most are probably "let's wait and see, in case it is another 3D debacle"
> 
> As far as Directv goes, they've given plenty of lip service to 4K, but they haven't announced anything specific as far as equipment, availability date, what will be available, etc.


The move to 4k will be even easier considering many movies are already shot in it. Natural attrition will take care of it. It was much more difficult to change everything to a totally new technology where as this is simply a newer version of the same. They won't need to build new studios and such as they did for Hi Definition. Hi Definition was a much much more massive undertaking.

And as for 1080p. I believe several channels are already done completely in 1080p and downgraded for distribution. NFL network and I think espn are among them but not positive about espn.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> How? The networks don't provide 1080p feeds, it is all 720p or 1080i.


They can and will change over time, but I was really thinking the higher end will roll first- the HBO's, ESPNs of the world.


----------



## jerrylove56

A couple of things: 1) How could DTV try to jump into another "trending" technology when it has yet to fully upgrade SD channels to HD? 2) At what point can DTV stop justifying fees for HD? 3) I am not employed by DTV or own stock, so exactly why should this company continue to expend monies on questionable fads? (i.e., 3D TV)

It just appears that management has lost its vision and ideals for the future. Yes making money is obvious for any for-profit entity, but DTV reminds me of Circuit City years ago. Big and profitable, but without a vision, drive or singular purpose. I still remember back in the 80's when DTV's cutting edge technology was announced. I just don't see the same company anymore. Just a corporation trying to squeeze its consumers.


----------



## fireponcoal

jerrylove56 said:


> A couple of things: 1) How could DTV try to jump into another "trending" technology when it has yet to fully upgrade SD channels to HD? 2) At what point can DTV stop justifying fees for HD? 3) I am not employed by DTV or own stock, so exactly why should this company continue to expend monies on questionable fads? (i.e., 3D TV)
> 
> It just appears that management has lost its vision and ideals for the future. Yes making money is obvious for any for-profit entity, but DTV reminds me of Circuit City years ago. Big and profitable, but without a vision, drive or singular purpose. I still remember back in the 80's when DTV's cutting edge technology was announced. I just don't see the same company anymore. Just a corporation trying to squeeze its consumers.


DirecTV is a 'Premium' service and trendy tech is Premium service for Premium folks. Perhaps you aren't Premium enough for good ole' DirecTV.. 

Hah! I saw these at Best Buy over the weekend as well..


----------



## Laxguy

Disagree. DIRECTV serves many many folk who get by with a fifteen year old washed out color set watching SD. 

If you think the company is headed for the trash bin, short the stock! i.e., put your money where your mouth is.


----------



## fireponcoal

Well, that's the opinion they pay you to have. I know that they truly don't but sometimes one has to wonder. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Laxguy

fireponcoal said:


> Well, that's the opinion they pay you to have. I know that they truly don't but sometimes one has to wonder.


To whom are you addressing this?
Who is "they"?
Why so truculent?


----------



## GregLee

Introducing 1080p and 3D didn't require new boxes. D* might find 4k sources, get 4k signals up to the satellites and thence down to users' boxes. But how does the 4k signal get from box to TV? I doubt that can be done with current boxes.

Today I watched for the first time some 4k youtube videos on the 4k TV that I just bought my wife. Since I only get about 14mbps from the internet into my home, I was expecting an overcompressed second-rate picture, but I was surprised at how good the videos looked.

D* better get a move on.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> The move to 4k will be even easier considering many movies are already shot in it. Natural attrition will take care of it. It was much more difficult to change everything to a totally new technology where as this is simply a newer version of the same. They won't need to build new studios and such as they did for Hi Definition. Hi Definition was a much much more massive undertaking.
> 
> And as for 1080p. I believe several channels are already done completely in 1080p and downgraded for distribution. NFL network and I think espn are among them but not positive about espn.


Do any Directv receivers even support 1080p60? AFAIK, the 1080p they support is only 1080p24. That's fine for movies, but sports, not so much. No point in going from either 720p or 1080p to 1080p24 for that.

Don't assume that because HD is digital and 4K is digital that its just a software upgrade. Maybe they don't need a whole new studio, but if they replace all the equipment in that studio it is still pretty damn expensive. The cameras have to be 4K, there is 8x as much data passing around (assuming they go from 720p/1080i to 60fps 4K) They need new editing equipment, new encoding equipment, more satellite uplink capacity. I don't believe it will be as simple as you seem to believe.

Doing 4K for PPV will be easy, assuming customers will pay more for it to offset the cost of delivery. I could see HBO and SHO doing a 4K movie channel. But live action sports? Non-broadcast network content like Walking Dead or Salem? Color me skeptical. What's the point of providing a 4K feed if everything on it is simply upconverted HD?


----------



## slice1900

GregLee said:


> Introducing 1080p and 3D didn't require new boxes. D* might find 4k sources, get 4k signals up to the satellites and thence down to users' boxes. But how does the 4k signal get from box to TV? I doubt that can be done with current boxes.
> 
> Today I watched for the first time some 4k youtube videos on the 4k TV that I just bought my wife. Since I only get about 14mbps from the internet into my home, I was expecting an overcompressed second-rate picture, but I was surprised at how good the videos looked.
> 
> D* better get a move on.


1080p and 3D did require new boxes, you probably had ones that supported it. The H20 (original MPEG4 HD receiver) doesn't support either. If you'd had one of those, you'd have had to upgrade if you wanted to watch 3D, but almost nobody did so the support didn't matter.

I know some people believe that the HR44 may be capable of 4K, but I can't see how. AFAIK the HDCP 2.x spec was not complete when it was designed, which makes it useless for displaying 4K movies (they will _all_ be protected by HDCP 2.x from day one)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> I almost expect to see uhd on the new bss frequencies and sticking with mpeg4 for now... Several offerings on demand and then maybe ten linear channels, some ppv and an HBO channel and a couple others.... And I kind suspect the hr44 can do it now... Maybe... If not I suspect it will launch sometime shortly after d15 is operational, which would mean new hardware to go with it in about a year. Just my wild guessing...


The HR44 cannot do UHD output.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I know some people believe that the HR44 may be capable of 4K, but I can't see how. AFAIK the HDCP 2.x spec was not complete when it was designed, which makes it useless for displaying 4K movies (they will _all_ be protected by HDCP 2.x from day one)


Exactly. And they will need h265 for decoding, which the HR44 does not do (again, timing is off).

Furthermore, if they were even experimenting with a single UHD/4K in a test mode, it would show up on the Sixto report.


----------



## fireponcoal

Laxguy said:


> To whom are you addressing this?
> Who is "they"?
> Why so truculent?


Really? They being the company that loves you and the other devotee.. Old men and their cable/dbs company, a love of that lasts the ages.


----------



## Rich

fireponcoal said:


> Really? They being the company that loves you and the other devotee.._ Old men_ and their cable/dbs company, a love of that lasts the ages.


What does age have to do with it?

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

fireponcoal said:


> Really? They being the company that loves you and the other devotee.. Old men and their cable/dbs company, a love of that lasts the ages.


I get you are loaded with sarcasm and arch little quips, but why not be a man and write exactly what your beef is? It doesn't take loads of testosterone to do so.


----------



## dpeters11

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The HR44 cannot do UHD output.


So, those that have a free upgrade in class may have something to look forward to, particularly if they don't require you have a 4k set already.

Unless they do it like they did with 3D.


----------



## fireponcoal

Rich said:


> What does age have to do with it?
> 
> Rich


Young(er) people generally are not in love with their cable/dbs provider is all I'm getting at. They're sort of over it one might say.. 4K is simply another premium service like 3D that DBS Talk and the like will be all over. At the end of the day like 3D it'll be the same 10 to 15 posters acting like it's the be all, end all, must have option when in reality is just another extra 'feature' to milk even more money out the a mostly over it consumer base. Those 10 to 15 people will put out their best D* sales pitch as if a certain company was paying them to do so. 'ish is tired.


----------



## GregLee

Since D* will have to make new boxes for 4k anyhow, I hope they'll do it right and build in capability for Dolby Vision, too, including High Dynamic Range and Wide Gamut video.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

GregLee said:


> Since D* will have to make new boxes for 4k anyhow, I hope they'll do it right and build in capability for Dolby Vision, too, including High Dynamic Range and Wide Gamut video.


Considering Dolby Vision has been available for 5 years and is still just seen the light of day in a few retail sets, it may get lost in the 4k transition, which is really ashame.

Besides, the sets with it on display at CES had really screwed the color up anyway. Marketing liked it far away from D65.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

dpeters11 said:


> So, those that have a free upgrade in class may have something to look forward to, particularly if they don't require you have a 4k set already.
> 
> Unless they do it like they did with 3D.


You are missing the point. It is being advertised NOW in stores and wreaks of false advertising.

Not talking about what will be available in 2016 when Genie clients get a 2 year upgrade - but what is available now in June 2014.


----------



## WB4CS

I checked out the new Samsung UHD at Best Buy last weekend and the sales associate (early 20's young lady) was showing me the TV. I mentioned that it's nice but not worth the money since there's not really any content available for UHD. She said, "Oh no, that's not true. DirecTV will have 4K channels *in a couple of months.*" I kind of laughed/smiled and said, "Where did you hear that nonsense?" She said, "Oh our manager told us that." I smiled again, remembered why I never ask a Best Buy employee anything about the products they sell, and told her, "Your manager is incorrect. But thanks for demoing the TV for me."


----------



## dpeters11

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You are missing the point. It is being advertised NOW in stores and wreaks of false advertising.
> 
> Not talking about what will be available in 2016 when Genie clients get a 2 year upgrade - but what is available now in June 2014.


In terms of the in store advertising, the asterisk is key, depending on what it says.


----------



## GregLee

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Considering Dolby Vision has been available for 5 years and is still just seen the light of day in a few retail sets, it may get lost in the 4k transition, which is really ashame.


Yes, Dolby Vision may well not succeed. Even so, some similar technology adapted to 10 or 12 bit TV panels is likely, I think, and it will require even more data to be passed to the TV than 4k requires.


----------



## bjoe

WB4CS said:


> I checked out the new Samsung UHD at Best Buy last weekend and the sales associate (early 20's young lady) was showing me the TV. I mentioned that it's nice but not worth the money since there's not really any content available for UHD. She said, "Oh no, that's not true. DirecTV will have 4K channels *in a couple of months.*" I kind of laughed/smiled and said, "Where did you hear that nonsense?" She said, "Oh our manager told us that." I smiled again, remembered why I never ask a Best Buy employee anything about the products they sell, and told her, "Your manager is incorrect. But thanks for demoing the TV for me."


I think they are loosely throwing around the word 'channel' here. Directv and the other logos in that add are scheduled to supply streaming 4k content via the add-on ' Samsung UHD VideoPak'. Their own FAQ never promises linear channels this year.

'YouTube and Netflix currently have UHD content available to stream. You need to have between 11MB and 15MB internet connection for the UHD content to stream properly. There is a UHD Video Pack available for Samsung UHD TVs. It is a 1TB external HDD that has 5 movies and 3 documentaries in UHD. Click here to find out more. Amazon, M-GO, Comcast, and DirecTV are scheduled to start making UHD content available by the end of the year.'

http://www.samsung.com/us/support/faq/FAQ00060244/87715/UN85S9VFXZA


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Comcast???

They don't have SDV and are lacking HD channels that other smaller cable systems have and they plan to have UHD???

Directv may have some soon when D-14 and D-15 go up.


----------



## keenan

JoeTheDragon said:


> Comcast???
> 
> They don't have SDV and are lacking HD channels that other smaller cable systems have and they plan to have UHD???
> 
> Directv may have some soon when D-14 and D-15 go up.


Comcast could do it via IP delivery with newer STBs that they're already planning to deploy that will be MPEG4 and IPTV capable.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

keenan said:


> Comcast could do it via IP delivery with newer STBs that they're already planning to deploy that will be MPEG4 and IPTV capable.


As I am not anywhere near a Comcast system, have not kept up with what the Xfinity system would do, but how would they do it without an output connection/chip set that could do UHD output on their STB?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

GregLee said:


> Yes, Dolby Vision may well not succeed. Even so, some similar technology adapted to 10 or 12 bit TV panels is likely, I think, and it will require even more data to be passed to the TV than 4k requires.


Not following you.

Dolby Vision is built into the panel....not the STB.

Works with any input.

It's very impressive and I have wanted one since I saw the first test model in early 2009 under the name Brightside. However, 6+ years later........

for info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrightSide_Technologies

I would also tell you that adding HDR to the UHD specs (which has been discussed by the ITU) as a second phase will not happen until 2017 or 2018 at the earliest....and would render all the current UHD sets up to that point incompatible. Tests and a decision are supposed to be decided by next Spring.

And finally, speaking of format wars, there are 4 competing standards for HDR now: Phillips, Technicolor, Dolby and the BBC.


----------



## keenan

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As I am not anywhere near a Comcast system, have not kept up with what the Xfinity system would do, but how would they do it without an output connection/chip set that could do UHD output on their STB?


I was speaking in terms of the data delivery, but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine an STB that was UHD capable in the very near future. To the best of my knowledge, the IPTV system is still in testing stage, but it is the long term plan as it helps ease the dependence on more and more bandwidth, only the requested channel(data) or channels(if more than one viewer) is sent down the line.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

keenan said:


> I was speaking in terms of the data delivery, but it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine an STB that was UHD capable in the very near future. To the best of my knowledge, the IPTV system is still in testing stage, but it is the long term plan as it helps ease the dependence on more and more bandwidth, only the requested channel(data) or channels(if more than one viewer) is sent down the line.


The point that people are missing is if there is to be a new 4K UHD STB/IRD in the near future, regardless of the system, it would need to be in field tests now.

The whole thing is probably worse than HD was in 2000-2005 with lack of HDMI etc, as Panasonic UHDs out now CANNOT playback Netflix 4k - and see above (HDR) which might obsolete all UHD panels by 2017-2018.


----------



## mkdtv21

I'm just curious if and when Directv will bring uhd broadcasts, will it provide dolby digital truehd or just digital plus 7.1. Since there will be so much bandwidth required for the broadcast maybe we will finally get lossless audio or the addition of 7.1 surround would be nice too even if it's lossy.


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The HR44 cannot do UHD output.


Why and how do we know? Just point me to a post if I missed the explanation of how that was figured out. We didn't think the hrs could do 1080p or 3d and yet most did. It's not all that far fetched to think there's a chance a hr44 can. I wouldn't think any others could buy an hr44 is new enough it just might have the hardware to do it. It's very very different than an HR34 IMHO.

And that ad... I'll have to go by best buy and see it for myself. That's a bit beyond ridiculous IMHO. No one should advertise content till they have it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> Why and how do we know? Just point me to a post if I missed the explanation of how that was figured out. We didn't think the hrs could do 1080p or 3d and yet most did. It's not all that far fetched to think there's a chance a hr44 can. I wouldn't think any others could buy an hr44 is new enough it just might have the hardware to do it. It's very very different than an HR34 IMHO.
> 
> And that ad... I'll have to go by best buy and see it for myself. That's a bit beyond ridiculous IMHO. No one should advertise content till they have it.


Look at the chipset in use for the HDMI output and look at it's specs.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Total speculation based on thinking about this for 2 days.

According to DirecTV, certain Samsung 2011 HDTV models (D6000, D6400 and D6420) are RVU compliant. All 2012 & 2013 Samsung SMART TVs are RVU compliant. 

The 2014 Samsung UHDTVs are SMART TVs, so it seems logical that these Samsung TVs would need to run as an RVU over the network to get 4K programming, bypassing HDMI UHD Color connection.

It would seem most likely that this would not support a linear channel (though I could be wrong), but only streaming 4K VOD using the Genie as a passthru for internet data, as HEVC is not available in the Genie, unless DirecTV plans to use .h264 for linear channels, which I doubt they have the bandwidth to use (but they could surprise us I guess).

Given ESPN was burned on 3D, as was DirecTV, I imagine they will be more conservative in UHD linear channels this time.


----------



## dpeters11

I don't think 3D and UHD are comparable. 3D failed for reasons that don't apply here.


----------



## Diana C

bjoe said:


> 'YouTube and Netflix currently have UHD content available to stream. *You need to have between 11MB and 15MB internet connection *for the UHD content to stream properly...


The *average* broadband speed (including businesses) in the US is still *under 10 Mbits/second*, so most people can't stream 4K.


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> The *average* broadband speed (including businesses) in the US is still *under 10 Mbits/second*, so most people can't stream 4K.


Well, perhaps a 4K revolution will cause that to be fixed. Hey, you never know til you try.

Rich


----------



## peds48

Rich said:


> Well, perhaps a 4K revolution will cause that to be fixed. Hey, you never know til you try.
> 
> Rich


this takes more than Just a "fix"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

If people were surprised that Directv receivers were able to do 3D and 1080p before Directv announced it, they probably weren't aware that those features were included in pretty much every HDMI chipset available for years before that.

This isn't the case with either h.265 or HDMI 2.0 support (I think they're going to want HDMI 2.0 to support the full 60 fps frame rate with 4K) Neither was available in chipsets when the HR44 was designed. Unless Directv is implementing a half ass version of 4K using MPEG4 compression and 24fps output just to say they're "first" and make the HR44 the HR10 of the 4K world, the HR44 can't do 4K.


----------



## GregLee

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Not following you.
> 
> Dolby Vision is built into the panel....not the STB.


No, Dolby Vision is built into everything. In Dolby's phraseology, it is an end-to-end project for greater visual fidelity, requiring of panels greater color depth, wider gamut, and higher brightness. It requires new processing methods and standards in the movie-making business (it has sponsered the first Dolby Vision movie master of the movie _Chicago_), new equipment in theaters, new broadcast TV methods for the extra information about brightness and color, new set top boxes to get the enhanced video signals to users' TVs, new blu-ray specs to record the enhanced signals.

Dolby Vision is a big, big project. Google "Dolby Vision".


----------



## WB4CS

Diana C said:


> The *average* broadband speed (including businesses) in the US is still *under 10 Mbits/second*, so most people can't stream 4K.





Rich said:


> Well, perhaps a 4K revolution will cause that to be fixed. Hey, you never know til you try.
> 
> Rich


Oh sure, it can be fixed. But at a cost.

Unlimited data is almost gone now. I've got a 15 Mbits/second pipeline but a 250GB a month data cap. I could get 30 Mbits if I wanted, with a 350GB a month cap. I think it's about $10 per 1GB over on your bill.

It's one thing to get more people to upgrade to 15+Mbits data for streaming 4K, but it's another thing to change the way ISP's serve up their data. Many ISP's are also TV providers, so they're not going to give you unlimited streaming of 4K unless it's coming from them.

This is the world without net neutrality. You want to stream Netflix or DirecTV 4K? No problem, but it will cost you another $100/mo and you can only stream 200GB a month. Oh, don't like that? Well switch to our digital cable TV package and we'll give you unlimited 4K streaming from our own library. It only costs $199 a month!

Again, my opinion is 4K is nothing more than a fad like 3D. Or 4K will be what Laserdisc was in the 1980s - For people with lots of money and high end home theater systems. The average Joe watching Fox News or reruns of "How I Met Your Mother" are not going to care about 4K.


----------



## dpeters11

peds48 said:


> this takes more than Just a "fix"
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hopefully more will offer really high speed Internet. Last night I mentioned to my wife that while I don't know that Gigabit really makes sense for most and I'm probably not going to subscribe to that tier, it will hopefully drop the price of the lower tiers. Google fiber is helping, and it's not just those markets where they have put in service.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

GregLee said:


> No, Dolby Vision is built into everything. In Dolby's phraseology, it is an end-to-end project for greater visual fidelity, *requiring of panels greater color depth, wider gamut, and higher brightness*. It requires new processing methods and standards in the movie-making business (it has sponsered the first Dolby Vision movie master of the movie _Chicago_), new equipment in theaters, new broadcast TV methods for the extra information about brightness and color, new set top boxes to get the enhanced video signals to users' TVs, new blu-ray specs to record the enhanced signals.
> 
> Dolby Vision is a big, big project. Google "Dolby Vision".


Well aware of what it is. There is the stripped down version that gives better Contrast on Dolby Vision sets (which was shown late last decade) and a total turnkey which 4 Companies are fighting for inclusion of the Second Generation UHD ITU standards (HDR) which I referenced above.

That is why I am saying you can not just plug in an external unit to make any display do Dolby Vision as the contrast control of the panel is the most crucial part.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> If people were surprised that Directv receivers were able to do 3D and 1080p before Directv announced it, they probably weren't aware that those features were included in pretty much every HDMI chipset available for years before that.
> 
> This isn't the case with either h.265 or HDMI 2.0 support (I think they're going to want HDMI 2.0 to support the full 60 fps frame rate with 4K) Neither was available in chipsets when the HR44 was designed. Unless Directv is implementing a half ass version of 4K using MPEG4 compression and 24fps output just to say they're "first" and make the HR44 the HR10 of the 4K world, the HR44 can't do 4K.


Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner.

However, you cannot output 1920x1080 from a STB/IRD and get UHD resolution, so no way to even half ass it.

3D was easy using side by side that still used a 1920x1080 output. The STB/IRD just passed the 1920x1080 side by side signal to the TV (or 3D Adapter in Mitsubishi's case) which did all the heavy lifting.

The H20-100 can do 3D technically for this reason, the chip just had issues with the HDCP standard which is why 3D was not allowed on the H20-100. All the other units had chips that supported HDCP, so it was allowed.


----------



## keenan

inkahauts said:


> Why and how do we know? Just point me to a post if I missed the explanation of how that was figured out. We didn't think the hrs could do 1080p or 3d and yet most did. It's not all that far fetched to think there's a chance a hr44 can. I wouldn't think any others could buy an hr44 is new enough it just might have the hardware to do it. It's very very different than an HR34 IMHO.
> 
> And that ad... I'll have to go by best buy and see it for myself. That's a bit beyond ridiculous IMHO. No one should advertise content till they have it.


----------



## dpeters11

That's a pretty big asterisk.


----------



## keenan

dpeters11 said:


> That's a pretty big asterisk.


Haha, yes it certainly is!


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Total speculation based on thinking about this for 2 days.
> 
> According to DirecTV, certain Samsung 2011 HDTV models (D6000, D6400 and D6420) are RVU compliant. All 2012 & 2013 Samsung SMART TVs are RVU compliant.
> 
> The 2014 Samsung UHDTVs are SMART TVs, so it seems logical that these Samsung TVs would need to run as an RVU over the network to get 4K programming, bypassing HDMI UHD Color connection.
> 
> It would seem most likely that this would not support a linear channel (though I could be wrong), but only streaming 4K VOD using the Genie as a passthru for internet data, as HEVC is not available in the Genie, unless DirecTV plans to use .h264 for linear channels, which I doubt they have the bandwidth to use (but they could surprise us I guess).
> 
> Given ESPN was burned on 3D, as was DirecTV, I imagine they will be more conservative in UHD linear channels this time.


I actually expect them to start off 4k similar to how they did with hd. Only a few channels and with MPEG4. They will have the room with the bss sats. five channels will not be that hard to set up.

I will have to figure out how to figure out what chipsets it uses. I have never seen that actually published. People always just say what it is but never cite any source that I have seen. I miss half the posts though, so Im not surprised I missed it. 

And I see no reason they couldn't do it vod and have you download it to the genie, and then play it via rvu as you suggest. That would allow them to start offering 4k extremely soon, tomorrow if they wanted really.


----------



## inkahauts

They better have actual written statements that say that's not a lie that they are going to offer it too!


----------



## Laxguy

Not a chance! The best they could do would be something like: 'It is our belief that we will be offering 4k material to our customers at some point in the future, unless there's a material change in business plans, or acquisition by another company".


----------



## Diana C

Or even more truthfully: "We will supply a robust selection of 4K channels - unless we don't."


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I actually expect them to start off 4k similar to how they did with hd. Only a few channels and with MPEG4. They will have the room with the bss sats. five channels will not be that hard to set up.
> 
> I will have to figure out how to figure out what chipsets it uses. I have never seen that actually published. People always just say what it is but never cite any source that I have seen. I miss half the posts though, so Im not surprised I missed it.
> 
> And I see no reason they couldn't do it vod and have you download it to the genie, and then play it via rvu as you suggest. That would allow them to start offering 4k extremely soon, tomorrow if they wanted really.


I'm skeptical they'll do it with MPEG4. Since they need new receivers to handle 4K anyway, they'll provide them h.265 decoders as well and avoid the need for later swapping out equipment for all the early adopters.

I'm not sure MPEG4 chipsets were available when the H10 was designed, so they didn't have a chance but to deploy HD the way they did, but they won't have that problem with 4K.


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> Well, perhaps a 4K revolution will cause that to be fixed.


Just as 3D will be the reason people upgrade their TVs?


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Or even more truthfully: "We will supply a robust selection of 4K channels - unless we don't."


Or as it was with 3D, we'll offer several channels and then we won't.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Or as it was with 3D, we'll offer several channels and then we won't.


Its all about customer demand. It isn't as though consumers wanted 3D programming and Directv dropped the channels. They dropped them due to lack of interest.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Its all about customer demand. It isn't as though consumers wanted 3D programming and Directv dropped the channels. They dropped them due to lack of interest.


Is DBS delivered UHD likely to be sufficiently more appealing or find a larger audience of UHD equipped subscribers? 3D arguably offers a more immersive experience but UHD offers only the _potential_ for better PQ.

Will DIRECTV offer a UHD DVR with which to comfortably utilize this new offering as was available for 3D?

How do they market it against their standard product?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Is DBS delivered UHD likely to be sufficiently more appealing or find a larger audience of UHD equipped subscribers? 3D arguably offers a more immersive experience but UHD offers only the _potential_ for better PQ.
> 
> Will DIRECTV offer a UHD DVR with which to comfortably utilize this new offering as was available for 3D?
> 
> How do they market it against their standard product?


What difference does "DBS delivered" 4K make versus "cable delivered" or "fiber delivered" or "internet delivered" 4K? The delivery method is independent of the quality, bit rate is a choice, it is not mandated by the technology.

I'm not sure what you're asking here about whether Directv will offer a UHD DVR? They have to offer hardware capable of outputting 4K or there isn't much point in trying to deliver 4K channels, is there?

I have no idea whether 4K will succeed, if I had to bet I would say it won't, but my opinion doesn't matter. The public has made Honey Boo Boo a star, so they will do what they want regardless of what I think


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> ...How do they market it against their standard product?


Simple...it will BE the standard product. If the HR44 can't output a 4K HDMI signal (and I agree it is unlikely, given the vintage of everything else on the MB) then the next Genie will. Of course, as has been pointed out elsewhere, you don't need to send it out the HDMI port if you have a 4K RVU capable TV. But just like 3D Broadcom will build it into the silicon and there will be no incremental cost to speak of in the hardware.


----------



## P Smith

next box wouldn't be named genie


----------



## Alan Gordon

P Smith said:


> next box wouldn't be named genie


Ultra Genie?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

P



P Smith said:


> next box wouldn't be named genie


You see anything on a transponder that indicates any type of UHD testing?


----------



## HoTat2

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> P
> 
> You see anything on a transponder that indicates any type of UHD testing?


Considering data the satellite TPN maps are based upon can see the compression format used, but not the actual resolution of the images being compressed. Unless DIRECTV mentions it as such under the various "NOTES" category, would a UHD program stream using MPEG-4 (at least initially) appear any different than a current MPEG-4 HD or SD stream?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Diana C said:


> Simple...it will BE the standard product. If the HR44 can't output a 4K HDMI signal (and I agree it is unlikely, given the vintage of everything else on the MB) then the next Genie will. Of course, as has been pointed out elsewhere, you don't need to send it out the HDMI port if you have a 4K RVU capable TV. But just like 3D Broadcom will build it into the silicon and there will be no incremental cost to speak of in the hardware.


I have a feeling that there will be some interesting developments when it comes to both how 4K is offered and also what it takes to deploy content in this format. The latest technology for 4K content in terms of compression and distribution includes some flexibilities.


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> next box wouldn't be named genie


If that turns out to be true, it would be dumb marketing. They have spent a lot of money establishing the Genie name in the marketplace. To come out with a new name would be a waste of money.

I expect that the Genie name will be around for quite a while. The next unit will have a different model number (HR54?) but I'll make a wager that it is still called Genie.


----------



## Steve

Diana C said:


> I expect that the Genie name will be around for quite a while. The next unit will have a different model number (HR54?) but I'll make a wager that it is still called Genie.


+1. They will likely have to change their warranty replacement policy, however, if the latest Genie offers capabilities not found in the HR34/HR44, like UHD or more than 5 tuners.


----------



## peds48

Steve said:


> +1. They will likely have to change their warranty replacement policy, however, if the latest Genie offers features not found in the HR34/HR44, like UHD or more than 5 tuners.


Not necessarily. If it only offers UHD, then a customer could call in with a code to get an upgraded version fee of charge, just like they did if you and a 3D TV and an HR20. if it offers more tuners, then I would assume it will known as Genie 2.0 and be a totally different product requiring an upgrade path along with 2 years commitment


----------



## Steve

peds48 said:


> Not necessarily. If it only offers UHD, then a customer could call in with a code to get an upgraded version fee of charge, just like they did if you and a 3D TV and an HR20. if it offers more tuners, then I would assume it will known as Genie 2.0 and be a totally different product requiring an upgrade path along with 2 years commitment


I mean once a customer has one, if it fails, it needs to be replaced with a similar model, not an HR34 or HR44, like today.


----------



## dcowboy7

Its not really even 4K.

Its really 3.84K.


----------



## Diana C

I wonder what the UHD content fee will be?


----------



## P Smith

Diana C said:


> .. I'll make a wager that it is still called Genie.


you should never underestimate the Dark Fo... umm, DTV soon to be AT&T 

How much of your wage you wanna put on the bet ? year salary ? or just one month of it ?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I suspect that once 4K is supported within the DirecTV world...some of the speculation about technology changes might prove to be "interesting" when looking back in time to the present. I predict there will be as many things incorrect regarding the speculation as those things that are correct when it comes down to the 4K solution delivered to homes.

Time will tell.


----------



## slice1900

dcowboy7 said:


> Its not really even 4K.
> 
> Its really 3.84K.


The industry standard for 4K is actually 4096x2160, which is what digital cinema equipment uses. Consumer level 4K uses 3840x2160 because that's a simple 2x multiple of 1080p and uses the same 16:9 aspect ratio. I imagine some higher end 4K consumer projectors and some Blu Rays will do 4096x2160 for the "true" cinema experience though


----------



## slice1900

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I suspect that once 4K is supported within the DirecTV world...some of the speculation about technology changes might prove to be "interesting" when looking back in time to the present. I predict there will be as many things incorrect regarding the speculation as those things that are correct when it comes down to the 4K solution delivered to homes.
> 
> Time will tell.


I'm sure if one went back to 2004 to see what people were speculating about here for the HD rollout there were some "interesting" theories as well!


----------



## James Long

HoTat2 said:


> Considering data the satellite TPN maps are based upon can see the compression format used, but not the actual resolution of the images being compressed. Unless DIRECTV mentions it as such under the various "NOTES" category, would a UHD program stream using MPEG-4 (at least initially) appear any different than a current MPEG-4 HD or SD stream?


As long as the channel(s) were unavailable to meer mortals it may not matter how they show up in the tables ... but I would expect some difference between a regular HD channel and a UHD channel in the tables. Then again, I am spoiled by the codes in DISH's tables.


----------



## P Smith

not that big difference in APG system tables ... yes, you could deduct by special group number if it's something like UHD or pr0n ... and some other signatures like enormous bitrate of some channels


----------



## Scott Kocourek

I have a tv that I will be replacing in the next couple months, a 4K TV or UHD TV will be an awesome fit for that spot. If they deliver, I will buy.


----------



## P Smith

Scott Kocourek said:


> I have a tv that I will be replacing in the next couple months, a 4K TV or UHD TV will be an awesome fit for that spot. If they deliver, I will buy.


not a chance in a couple months ...

perhaps next year... summer ... not early then that, just calculating by physics


----------



## inkahauts

They could have 4k available by morning via on demand. The question is, is there a way to get on someone's screen right now.


----------



## slice1900

Yup, until they have a receiver that can do 4K it is all academic. Even if they had 4K channels for internal testing (whether MPEG4 with enormous bit rate or h.265) it wouldn't tell anyone how soon they'll be available to end users.

All we know is that Directv has committed to providing 4K, but in the end how much they provide will depend more on customer demand and provider willingness to provide than anything else. Directv will have plenty of bandwidth after D14 and D15 launches to provide a number of 4K channels if the demand for it surfaces.

Those who are interested, as always, will be better off waiting and buying a 4K TV later rather than sooner because new technology is always cheaper and/or better the longer you're willing to wait!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

HoTat2 said:


> Considering data the satellite TPN maps are based upon can see the compression format used, but not the actual resolution of the images being compressed. Unless DIRECTV mentions it as such under the various "NOTES" category, would a UHD program stream using MPEG-4 (at least initially) appear any different than a current MPEG-4 HD or SD stream?


Well aware of that. However I know some things about P Smith's abilities that you may not, which is why I asked him and not others.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

P Smith said:


> not that big difference in APG system tables ... yes, you could deduct by special group number if it's something like UHD or pr0n ... and some other signatures like enormous bitrate of some channels


Exactly - your engineering skills are second to none - providing you are currently in this part of the world.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Yup, until they have a receiver that can do 4K it is all academic. Even if they had 4K channels for internal testing (whether MPEG4 with enormous bit rate or h.265) it wouldn't tell anyone how soon they'll be available to end users.
> 
> All we know is that Directv has committed to providing 4K, but in the end how much they provide will depend more on customer demand and provider willingness to provide than anything else. Directv will have plenty of bandwidth after D14 and D15 launches to provide a number of 4K channels if the demand for it surfaces.


You are clearly no Sherlock Holmes.

Not testing 4k internally speaks volumes as to roll out of real time linear channels or new equipment like the Ultra Genie.

Ditto not having a test channel up, even just a simple loop, would tell us how far things are down the 4k path.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

This is the real factor as to when you should buy into UHD.....

http://advanced-television.com/2014/06/19/nhk-pushes-on-with-8k-tv/


----------



## GregLee

Scott Kocourek said:


> I have a tv that I will be replacing in the next couple months, a 4K TV or UHD TV will be an awesome fit for that spot. If they deliver, I will buy.


I wasn't going to buy a 4k set until some 4k sources became available. However, I suffered a TV emergency when my wife's TV broke. I got her a Samsung HU8550, 4k, which comes with, among other apps, an HBO-GO and a youtube app. The HBO-GO app lets me use my DirecTV HBO subscription and the youtube app lets me play 4k videos. The 4k youtube videos look great.

So, it seems that if DirecTV wants to cooperate with Samsung and provide some 4k content over the Internet, this is feasible. They could just make an app that does that.


----------



## Diana C

Honestly, we all know what is going to happen with UHD. Regardless of its commercial success as a delivery medium, from a TV technology point of view it will be just like 3D and high refresh rates. It will be built into all but the lowest end models. Whether or not there are a lot (or any) UHD sources that aren't physical storage on discs, the sets will get really good at up-converting 1080i and 1080p to UHD.

Then we'll get to do this all over again when the glasses-less 3D TVs come out in a few years.


----------



## GregLee

Diana C said:


> Honestly, we all know what is going to happen with UHD. Regardless of its commercial success as a delivery medium, from a TV technology point of view it will be just like 3D and high refresh rates. It will be built into all but the lowest end models.


Just like 3D? Arguably the highest end TV of 2014 will be the Vizio Reference sets, but Vizio has eliminated 3D from all its 2014 models.


----------



## Diana C

Well, to a lot of people the term "high end Vizio" is an oxymoron  , but you know what I mean. The manufacturers will push it as far down their product line as they can, whether or not the public actually demands it, mainly as a way to keep the price point elevated.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You are clearly no Sherlock Holmes.
> 
> Not testing 4k internally speaks volumes as to roll out of real time linear channels or new equipment like the Ultra Genie.
> 
> Ditto not having a test channel up, even just a simple loop, would tell us how far things are down the 4k path.


Until new Ultra Genie or whatever leaves their lab for external testing, there's no reason to dedicate satellite capacity for test channels. They can generate the bitstream in the lab.


----------



## P Smith

yeas, that's the way of validating and testing during development of such devices [EVT, DVT, PVT stages ]

usually we see out-of-house activity [on sats, in system tables, new FW in stream] before exhibitions or press releases with demoing of new technology


----------



## inkahauts

Diana C said:


> Well, to a lot of people the term "high end Vizio" is an oxymoron  , but you know what I mean. The manufacturers will push it as far down their product line as they can, whether or not the public actually demands it, mainly as a way to keep the price point elevated.


So true. Vizo makes fine tvs but they are very far from "reference"


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> If that turns out to be true, it would be dumb marketing.


It remains to be seen whether the whole Genie thing was a good idea.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Yup, until they have a receiver that can do 4K it is all academic. Even if they had 4K channels for internal testing (whether MPEG4 with enormous bit rate or h.265) it wouldn't tell anyone how soon they'll be available to end users.


This goes back to my earlier statement. 3D didn't make much of a splash even though most of the installed base of hardware was capable at the time. 4K doesn't have that going for it.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> It remains to be seen whether the whole Genie thing was a good idea.


I am no fan of the name, or the original campaign that introduced it, but the fact remains that they have spent a lot of time and money establishing it in the marketplace. If they don't use "Genie" then they will likely go with a thematically related name like "Aladdin."

But again, timing will be everything...if AT&T is in charge by then, all bets are off.


----------



## inkahauts

Naming it something was a goo idea. Gives them a product with a name to market, even if not everyone likes the name they chose.

With that said, no reason a next gen unit that can do UHD (assuming this one really can't) can't simply be called a Genie Ultra.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> It remains to be seen whether the whole Genie thing was a good idea.


No it really doesn't. Its working just fine for them right now. Why on earth you think it remains to be seen is not surprising, you always think everything directv does is sketchy at best, which is funny considering how successful they are. If everything was the way you said, they'd be out of business years ago.


----------



## dpeters11

harsh said:


> This goes back to my earlier statement. 3D didn't make much of a splash even though most of the installed base of hardware was capable at the time. 4K doesn't have that going for it.


But 3d had other issues, including the need for special glasses, the money insignificant number of users with non stereoscopic vision etc.

Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## slice1900

dpeters11 said:


> But 3d had other issues, including the need for special glasses, the money insignificant number of users with non stereoscopic vision etc.


If that hurt 3D, why won't the fact most people don't have 20/20 vision (including many of those with glasses/contacts) hurt 4K?

IMHO, 3D flopped because the effect was used as a gimmick 99% of the time. All those movies that "just happened" to have stuff coming directly at you all the time to show off 3D, and the utter lack of any real enhancement provided by 3D on live content like sports are what killed it.

At least 4K provides _something_ all the time. How many people will see the difference, and will care about it enough to pay Directv more every month to get it if they do see it can be argued, but it isn't a gimmick like 3D.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> At least 4K provides _something_ all the time. How many people will see the difference, and will care about it enough to pay Directv more every month to get it if they do see it can be argued, but it isn't a gimmick like 3D.


Both systems provide the potential for improvement. The flaw in both is the same ... will people see the difference?

Creating 3D content without the cliche camera angles and unreal action sequences leaves it up to the viewer to be able to discern a barely perceivable difference between cameras placed a few inches apart. 3D producers exaggerate the difference between cameras and add very close objects to give the viewer something to perceive. Live 3D failed due to production costs and limited value. Go to a sporting event and close one eye ... is the view that much different than when both eyes are open? The barely perceivable differences make 3D useless.

4K faces the same challenges ... how does one convey the difference between HD and UHD to the viewer? Just as 3D requires glasses or glasses free technology that limits where the viewer can be in front of the display, 4K requires the viewers to be very close or have a large display (or both). What can a 4K producer do to showcase their technology? Tell people to move closer or buy a bigger set?

The cost of producing and transmitting something in 3D is not prohibitive. At best it takes up twice as much satellite space ... anything less and you're increasing compression and losing quality to gain the third dimension. 4K will face the same problem. Unless 4K channels are given four times as much satellite space they will need to use increased compression and potentially lose quality. One can argue that newer compression standards are better and less lossy ... but what is the point in producing UHD content if it gets more compression than HD? Will the compression of UHD make it only twice as good as HD? Is twice as good with a viewer forced to sit close to a large display to see any difference at all marketable?

Probably. 4K with those limitations is marketable to the same type of people who actively seek out 3D just because they think it is better than a 2D HD display.


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> ... but what is the point in producing UHD content if it gets more compression than HD?


Maybe because it looks better. Your implication that UHD compressed more than HD will look no better than HD seems to me to be no more than a conclusion you've jumped to. I've now watched some youtube 4k videos, and I think they look very nice (though I don't know how much they've been compressed). Also, writing off 3D is hasty, since 4k helps 3D quality more than it helps 2D. I've watched some DirecTV 3D now on a 4k active 3D set, and it looks considerably better than active 3D on my two preceding plasma sets. I just watched part of Predator over DirecTV using 2D->3D conversion, and that also looked good.


----------



## James Long

GregLee said:


> Maybe because it looks better. Your implication that UHD compressed more than HD will look no better than HD seems to me to be no more than a conclusion you've jumped to.


The point is that additional compression that reduces picture quality takes away from the full benefit of UHD. Perhaps UHD will still be better than HD. (Read carefully and you will see I did not say UHD would be no better than HD.) But will the improvement in quality between the HD picture delivered and the UHD picture delivered be worth the price?

Based on posts in this thread there will be people who will say UHD will always be better even if viewed on a 37" set from 30ft away. 

A better HD display can also do a better job of displaying HD (within the limits of the source signal). If that better HD set also has 3D or 4K capabilities you're still watching HD - not UHD. You're just watching a better display.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> ...Will the compression of UHD make it only twice as good as HD?


I agree with everything you said, but 4K starts out only "twice as good" as HD. It has 4 times as many pixels, but it can only reproduce twice as many lines of resolution as regular HD (because there are only twice as horizontal and twice as many vertical pixels).


----------



## Laxguy

And whether it's touted to be "four times the resolution", or twice the resolution, or whatever, the improvement won't, by any reasonable scale, be twice—much less four—times "better" for most definitions of "better picture".

That said, I am in the market when/if/as there's content I am interested in.... FB, hockey, futbol, Baseball, in that order. Yes, of course, movies, too, but the former will drive my interest.


----------



## slice1900

Quality is by nature subjective, so you can't assign a number to how much better 4K is than HD, or HD is than SD. It like Potter Stewart's definition of pornography as "I know it when I see it".

I believe that a lot of the jump in quality people ascribed to HD was due to the simultaneous (for most) switch from analog to digital. Going from high quality (i.e. non-progressive DVD) SD on a digital display to high quality "broadcast" HD (720p or 1080i, not 1080p) on a digital display is not nearly the jump most actually experienced going to HD.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Quality is by nature subjective, so you can't assign a number to how much better 4K is than HD, or HD is than SD.


I am sure that there will be plenty of people pushing the numbers as if better numbers make a better picture. Twice the resolution, four times the pixels, like it or not we will hear the numbers.



slice1900 said:


> I believe that a lot of the jump in quality people ascribed to HD was due to the simultaneous (for most) switch from analog to digital.


Those of us with satellite service made the jump to digital long before broadcast and cable. Somehow it was used in the marketing as if digitizing a picture down to a lower resolution improved the picture. When HD came along we got our pixels back ... and a few more. HD seems to be the only way of getting a picture at least as good as analog SD once was.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> I am sure that there will be plenty of people pushing the numbers as if better numbers make a better picture. Twice the resolution, four times the pixels, like it or not we will hear the numbers.


Oh I'm sure we'll seeing plenty of "4x sharper picture" when the 4K ads start coming, but I think that would be a mistake because people will expect a far more dramatic difference than what the reality is and end up underwhelmed.



James Long said:


> Those of us with satellite service made the jump to digital long before broadcast and cable. Somehow it was used in the marketing as if digitizing a picture down to a lower resolution improved the picture. When HD came along we got our pixels back ... and a few more. HD seems to be the only way of getting a picture at least as good as analog SD once was.


Why do you believe digital SD was digitized down to a lower resolution? NTSC is 525 lines interlaced, with some of those used for vertical blank and overscan, leaving 480 lines as what was expected to be displayed. It can be overcompressed, but if you look at a good quality DVD (one made after the first few years once they got encoders working really well) it is at worst identical in quality to analog SD on an analog set.

Or are you talking about satellite only? Was it digitized below 480i during the early days, similar to Dish's HD lite?


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> If that hurt 3D, why won't the fact most people don't have 20/20 vision (including many of those with glasses/contacts) hurt 4K?
> 
> IMHO, 3D flopped because the effect was used as a gimmick 99% of the time. All those movies that "just happened" to have stuff coming directly at you all the time to show off 3D, and the utter lack of any real enhancement provided by 3D on live content like sports are what killed it.
> 
> At least 4K provides _something_ all the time. How many people will see the difference, and will care about it enough to pay Directv more every month to get it if they do see it can be argued, but it isn't a gimmick like 3D.


Avatar is one of the few movies that used 3d to simply make a better picture.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> Why do you believe digital SD was digitized down to a lower resolution?


The difference is in horizontal resolution. And compression, as you note. SD became describable as "pixels wide" only after it was turned into digital.

DVDs are 720x480, ATSC has 702x480 and 640x480 formats.



slice1900 said:


> Or are you talking about satellite only? Was it digitized below 480i during the early days, similar to Dish's HD lite?


I don't believe DISH ever went below 640x480 for SD but if I recall correctly 480x480 was used by DirecTV. The color information was reduced to 240x240. I'm not sure how many pixels DirecTV uses for SD today.


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> The difference is in horizontal resolution. And compression, as you note. SD became describable as "pixels wide" only after it was turned into digital.
> 
> DVDs are 720x480, ATSC has 702x480 and 640x480 formats.
> 
> I don't believe DISH ever went below 640x480 for SD but if I recall correctly 480x480 was used by DirecTV. The color information was reduced to 240x240. I'm not sure how many pixels DirecTV uses for SD today.





James Long said:


> The difference is in horizontal resolution. And compression, as you note. SD became describable as "pixels wide" only after it was turned into digital.
> 
> DVDs are 720x480, ATSC has 702x480 and 640x480 formats.
> 
> I don't believe DISH ever went below 640x480 for SD but if I recall correctly 480x480 was used by DirecTV. The color information was reduced to 240x240. I'm not sure how many pixels DirecTV uses for SD today.


480 x 480 is the typical SD resolution I understand DIRECTV still uses.

Which would make for 240 x 240 color resolution with the usual 4:2:0 sampling used by the MPEG standards.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> ...I don't believe DISH ever went below 640x480 for SD but if I recall correctly 480x480 was used by DirecTV. The color information was reduced to 240x240. I'm not sure how many pixels DirecTV uses for SD today.


They sure did...I have the MPEG frames of the Dish logo somewhere that proves it. Back in the late 90's, when they only had 22 Ku transponders at 119 to work with, they used 480x480 (with red and blue components of the signal at 240x240). I don't think DirecTV went to that scheme for SD until much later.

Found them...
The luminance/green component:







The blue component:







The red component:







All assembled at native resolution:







Pixel AR adjusted to full screen:


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> The difference is in horizontal resolution. And compression, as you note. SD became describable as "pixels wide" only after it was turned into digital.
> 
> DVDs are 720x480, ATSC has 702x480 and 640x480 formats.


I think you misunderstand how horizontal resolution in analog NTSC worked. It was describable in pixels wide, based on the clock rate of the luminance signal. See the below link for a good explanation of the true limits:

http://www.cardinalpeak.com/blog/the-math-behind-analog-video-resolution/

You think 333 horizontal lines is bad, that's just the B&W resolution. The color resolution was far worse, due to limitations in the chroma signal:

http://nemesis.lonestar.org/reference/internet/web/color/ntsc_primer.html

This is why DVDs were such a big improvement over NTSC on a good TV set. Not that many had a good TV set back then, almost all CRTs were designed with the limits of NTSC. The difference between NTSC and DVD was actually much larger than most people realized, but they didn't have a set capable of providing full DVD quality until they went to a plasma or LCD.

The jump from analog cable or broadcast was an order of magnitude greater than the jump from HD to 4K will be. That's why I think 4K isn't going to impress people, because compared to the quality jump most experienced going to HD, the jump to 4K is pretty small, even from up close.


----------



## Laxguy

Right; it may not even be a "jump", but rather a progression. Still, when if and as my Sammy plasma goes to electronics Heaven, I am in for one.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> Right; it may not even be a "jump", but rather a progression. Still, when if and as my Sammy plasma goes to electronics Heaven, I am in for one.


Everyone who buys a TV in a few years will buy a 4K TV, because that's all there will be, at least in larger sizes.

How many are willing to pay more for 4K content is another matter. Well, assuming Directv has some sort of "4K fee" to offset the cost of delivery. If it is free like 3D then it will have a much better chance.


----------



## David Ortiz

slice1900 said:


> Everyone who buys a TV in a few years will buy a 4K TV, because that's all there will be, at least in larger sizes.


That is something that I will appreciate. When I purchased my current TV, a 55" Sony SXRD rear projection model, I could have opted for the 60" model. But I felt that at my viewing distance, that extra enlargement made the picture too blocky.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> Everyone who buys a TV in a few years will buy a 4K TV, because that's all there will be, at least in larger sizes.
> 
> How many are willing to pay more for 4K content is another matter. Well, assuming Directv has some sort of "4K fee" to offset the cost of delivery. If it is free like 3D then it will have a much better chance.


Define 'in a few years'! And "larger sizes'! I hope you are right, though, as it will drive a bit more from content providers.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Define 'in a few years'! And "larger sizes'! I hope you are right, though, as it will drive a bit more from content providers.


Just like throwing in 3D capability has helped give the content providers something to display their programming on.


----------



## longrider

What I have only seem mentioned in passing is that most people using typical screen sizes and viewing distance wont even be able to tell the difference.



> What the chart shows is that, for a *84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn't fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen.* For a "tiny" 55-inch screen, you'll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren't going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers, much less 8k.


from: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

His tables match exactly what i researched years ago regarding my TV. At 9 feet from a 50" screen I would be barely able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Until my old 720P RPLCD dies I am not going to worry about the "upgrade"


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> Just like throwing in 3D capability has helped give the content providers something to display their programming on.


Oh, Lord, save us! 

In seriousness, filming in UHD would be a bit more prevalent if there were a lot of sets to watch it on. And we'd not see the stretches made in 3D "to make it interesting"- or whatever- the excesses of bad film making seen in 3D efforts, on UHD, as higher rez shouldn't prompt any basic changes in technique of movie making.


----------



## HoTat2

longrider said:


> What I have only seem mentioned in passing is that most people using typical screen sizes and viewing distance wont even be able to tell the difference.
> 
> from: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
> 
> His tables match exactly what i researched years ago regarding my TV. At 9 feet from a 50" screen I would be barely able to tell the difference between 720 and 1080. Until my old 720P RPLCD dies I am not going to worry about the "upgrade"


Yep;

The average human eye has a resolution of about 1 minute of 1 degree (or 60 seconds).

Therefore any detail of a size less than the arc subtended by this angle is going to be undetectable. And this cannot be changed.

So unless the screen is gargantuan approaching somewhere north of near 80 inches for viewing distances of around 10 ft. or so, the additional pixels of 4K will not be detectable.

Again there's no way around this simple principal of physics, so 4K while fine for digital projectors of the large theater screen dimensions of cinema is practically useless for home TV viewing ...


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> In seriousness, filming in UHD would be a bit more prevalent if there were a lot of sets to watch it on. And we'd not see the stretches made in 3D "to make it interesting"- or whatever- the excesses of bad film making seen in 3D efforts, on UHD, as higher rez shouldn't prompt any basic changes in technique of movie making.


It is pointless to produce a format people are not going to see ... but what will help is theatrical content where digital projectors are taking over. When content producers make their movies and concert events for digital projection they will also be creating content for 4K television channels. Which means pay-per-view, OnDemand and perhaps movie/events channels being the first (if not only) channels to take advantage of 4K. (Just like 3D ... although there is no HBO 3D and I expect there will be a HBO 4K.) There will also be at least one 4K "demo channel" where people can watch something and dealers can display DirecTV 4K content.

The nature programmers that want to use that extra resolution to show more detail are the types that like IMAX ... scale that down to 4K and one has content.

The problem will be with sports ... with the overwhelming success at great expense to create ESPN 3D, will ESPN make the financial commitment to produce 4K programming? Perhaps they will ... but ESPN 4K may follow in the footsteps of ESPN 3D. There, we did it, now lets get back to doing what we do best.

Perhaps over time the use of 4K cameras will increase and more content will be produced in 4K. I suspect that transition will be slow. HD is too good.


----------



## yosoyellobo

James Long said:


> It is pointless to produce a format people are not going to see ... but what will help is theatrical content where digital projectors are taking over. When content producers make their movies and concert events for digital projection they will also be creating content for 4K television channels. Which means pay-per-view, OnDemand and perhaps movie/events channels being the first (if not only) channels to take advantage of 4K. (Just like 3D ... although there is no HBO 3D and I expect there will be a HBO 4K.) There will also be at least one 4K "demo channel" where people can watch something and dealers can display DirecTV 4K content.The nature programmers that want to use that extra resolution to show more detail are the types that like IMAX ... scale that down to 4K and one has content.The problem will be with sports ... with the overwhelming success at great expense to create ESPN 3D, will ESPN make the financial commitment to produce 4K programming? Perhaps they will ... but ESPN 4K may follow in the footsteps of ESPN 3D. There, we did it, now lets get back to doing what we do best.Perhaps over time the use of 4K cameras will increase and more content will be produced in 4K. I suspect that transition will be slow. HD is too good.


I suspect that sports will be were 4K will make the it's biggest splash.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> Oh, Lord, save us!
> 
> In seriousness, filming in UHD would be a bit more prevalent if there were a lot of sets to watch it on. And we'd not see the stretches made in 3D "to make it interesting"- or whatever- the excesses of bad film making seen in 3D efforts, on UHD, as higher rez shouldn't prompt any basic changes in technique of movie making.


Most Hollywood films are already produced in 4K, because that's what digital projectors use - typically 4096x2160 in theatres, but that's close enough as they can just chop off a bit at the edges for 4K consumer TVs.

We know we'll get 4K Blu Rays, along with 4K Netflix and On Demand, but how much investment is made to deliver this via linear channels for cable/satellite, let alone broadcast, is the billion dollar question.


----------



## slice1900

yosoyellobo said:


> I suspect that sports will be were 4K will make the it's biggest splash.


Why do you think so? It is only in the last five years that HD cameras became light enough to use for the handheld/moving cameras used to capture a lot of the action at live sporting events. I don't know how heavy 4K cameras are, but probably aren't there yet, and will be far more expensive than HD cameras because the demand will be so much less. Besides maybe ESPN for certain marquee events, who is going to make the investment in this until they know there's a return?

Live events will be the most expensive to produce in 4K, because they need to do realtime encoding, have at least 2x more satellite uplink capacity, and providers have to be willing to devote the bandwidth to carry a "4K" channel that has a few paltry hours of true 4K programming and a whole lot of upconverted HD that just wastes channel capacity. Unless a ESPN4K channel shows reruns of the same half dozen games over and over again, there isn't anything for them to show most of the time other than a lot of HD content.

HD was demanded by sports bars because it was much better than SD, but hardly any will care about 4K because only those with massive projectors or video walls will see any benefit from it. Even with a 90" TV, all but maybe a half dozen people will sit too far away in a sports bar to tell the difference. Providers will have to rely solely on demand from residential customers, and it remains to be seen whether people will want it enough to be willing to pay more for it, or alternatively if providers will carry 4K feeds and provide 4K equipment without additional cost to customers.


----------



## GregLee

HoTat2 said:


> Yep;
> 
> The average human eye has a resolution of about 1 minute of 1 degree (or 60 seconds).
> 
> Therefore any detail of a size less than the arc subtended by this angle is going to be undetectable. And this cannot be changed.
> 
> So unless the screen is gargantuan approaching somewhere north of near 80 inches for viewing distances of around 10 ft. or so, the additional pixels of 4K will not be detectable.
> 
> Again there's no way around this simple principal of physics, so 4K while fine for digital projectors of the large theater screen dimensions of cinema is practically useless for home TV viewing ...


What "simple principle of physics"? I can't find any such principle involved in what you've written here. A limitation on human visual acuity is not a principle of physics.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Why do you think so? It is only in the last five years that HD cameras became light enough to use for the handheld/moving cameras used to capture a lot of the action at live sporting events. I don't know how heavy 4K cameras are, but probably aren't there yet, and will be far more expensive than HD cameras because the demand will be so much less. Besides maybe ESPN for certain marquee events, who is going to make the investment in this until they know there's a return?
> 
> Live events will be the most expensive to produce in 4K, because they need to do realtime encoding, have at least 2x more satellite uplink capacity, and providers have to be willing to devote the bandwidth to carry a "4K" channel that has a few paltry hours of true 4K programming and a whole lot of upconverted HD that just wastes channel capacity. Unless a ESPN4K channel shows reruns of the same half dozen games over and over again, there isn't anything for them to show most of the time other than a lot of HD content.
> 
> HD was demanded by sports bars because it was much better than SD, but hardly any will care about 4K because only those with massive projectors or video walls will see any benefit from it. Even with a 90" TV, all but maybe a half dozen people will sit too far away in a sports bar to tell the difference. Providers will have to rely solely on demand from residential customers, and it remains to be seen whether people will want it enough to be willing to pay more for it, or alternatively if providers will carry 4K feeds and provide 4K equipment without additional cost to customers.


That's the thing 4k is not going to cost like moving to digital did. It just won't. The investment is minimal for companies to move slowly to 4k where as it was astronomical to move to digital.

And actually yeah, within five years I wouldn't be surprised if 4k cameras are the same cost and smaller than today's 1080 camas. Heck they may be close in pricing and size already. I haven't looked but I doubt its as big a difference as you are making it out to be, they have been using them for years in films already.

Bandwidth is going to be the true roadblock and compression schemes will likely lower that barrier over the next few years.


----------



## unixguru

HoTat2 said:


> The average human eye has a resolution of about 1 minute of 1 degree (or 60 seconds).
> 
> Therefore any detail of a size less than the arc subtended by this angle is going to be undetectable. And this cannot be changed.
> 
> So unless the screen is gargantuan approaching somewhere north of near 80 inches for viewing distances of around 10 ft. or so, the additional pixels of 4K will not be detectable.
> 
> Again there's no way around this simple principal of physics, so 4K while fine for digital projectors of the large theater screen dimensions of cinema is practically useless for home TV viewing ...


Like many things in life, we don't want to let the facts get in the way.

Here is another angle (no pun intended) worth considering. Manufacturers aim for a price point (to generate a certain profit). The price profile of anything electronic is getting toxic for companies. When anything and everything they make rapidly declines in cost over a few short years they have a significant problem - as many of them do right now. They clamour for anything they can promote as better must-have features. _*Anything*_ that can help sustain the price point they want.

I've always thought that a sit-down restaurant has this in mind as well. They want a certain $ per seat per hour.

Its hard to justify the prices of high-end TVs. If one wants the best picture, black levels, etc, then one has to swallow the highest prices. Only so many people are going to care about local dimming (not edge-lit local dimming), uniform diffusers (addressing banding issues), etc. The masses don't see these things or deem them necessary - especially if they cost a lot more. So rather than refine the resolution we have now, the manufacturers have to push the bling.

Most TVs will have 4K in a couple years. 1080p will be just like 720p shrinking to the very bottom. At my viewing distance (and age!) I can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 65". Try and buy a 65" with only 720. Try and buy a 65" with great black levels *without* all the smart tv garbage.

When 4K reaches the maturity that 1080p has now then the next step will be there - 8K?

In short this is why all TV manufactures are having problems. The products have gotten so good that people don't need the newer stuff.

Actually, the same thing is happening in the PC market.


----------



## HoTat2

GregLee said:


> What "simple principle of physics"? I can't find any such principle involved in what you've written here. A limitation on human visual acuity is not a principle of physics.


Perhaps you're right;

Let me restate then ...

"Its a simple matter of trigonometry"

At practical viewing distances and screen sizes, the dimensions of the individual 4K TV pixels will be smaller than the distances on the screen ascribed by the arc of a 1 minute angle, making them indiscernible.

How's that? .... 

And note --- the 1 minute average eye resolution angle applies to black and white transitions, not color ones which have much larger angles and consequently far less resolving power.


----------



## Diana C

unixguru said:


> Most TVs will have 4K in a couple years. 1080p will be just like 720p shrinking to the very bottom. At my viewing distance (and age!) I can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 65". Try and buy a 65" with only 720. Try and buy a 65" with great black levels *without* all the smart tv garbage...


Gee...where have I seen that before? http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/212552-directv-4k-uhd-plans/page-5#entry3265412


----------



## GregLee

HoTat2 said:


> At practical viewing distances and screen sizes, the dimensions of the individual 4K TV pixels will be smaller than the distances on the screen ascribed by the arc of a 1 minute angle, making them indiscernible.
> 
> How's that? ....


It's fine, until you push on from this, as many have, to conclude that people cannot distinguish a 4k TV picture from a 2k picture at a reasonable viewing distance. The line of reasoning would make sense if the only way we have to perceive a difference in resolution is by counting pixels in a certain area. Then, since we couldn't discern the pixels, of course we couldn't count them. But why assume that we would do it by counting pixels? I don't feel that I need to count pixels to tell the difference between resolutions.

The argument you make (which many others make as well) just makes no sense to me. It doesn't follow.


----------



## James Long

It goes to the claim that 4K is better because it has more pixels. If one cannot see those pixels then how does the picture improve?

At a distance the average viewer loses sight of the additional pixels and all other things being equal the 4K picture looks the same as a 2K picture ... or less as the distance increases.


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> It goes to the claim that 4K is better because it has more pixels. If one cannot see those pixels then how does the picture improve?


Once I thought that Indian dishes were better because they have more spices. Yet I can't distinguish the individual spices in a curry. So I must have been wrong in thinking that is why Indian food is so delicious.


----------



## studechip

GregLee said:


> Once I thought that Indian dishes were better because they have more spices. Yet I can't distinguish the individual spices in a curry. So I must have been wrong in thinking that is why Indian food is so delicious.


A totally specious argument. If pixels are spices, there is a lot more to food than spices. Pixels are the defining quality in television resolution.


----------



## Sixto

"In order to keep up with consumers' demand for more video content and the increasing bandwidth required to deliver such content (especially in high definition), DIRECTV currently operates a fleet of satellites operating in the both Ku- and Ka-bands. In order to meet future demand, including the impending introduction of high-bandwidth programming in Ultra HD format, DIRECTV is now adding a third frequency band to its operations - the 17/24 GHz BSS band. The DIRECTV RB-2 payload is an important part of that expansion effort."

http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1050268


----------



## P Smith

That's something, giving whole BSS band (400 MHz) of RB-2/D15 to UHD!
So, how many channels we could see? One per tpn? Whooping 20 channels!!!


----------



## slice1900

Devoting the whole BSS band to UHD? How in the heck do you get that from the statement Sixto quoted?

Anyway, it would actually be 800 MHz. Two polarities, right? Not to mention another 800 MHz at 99, which Directv just filed an extension for since D14's launch has been delayed. That's 36 36 MHz wide transponders, nearly as much as the 44 36 MHz CONUS transponders they currently have from 99 & 103.


----------



## HoTat2

GregLee said:


> Once I thought that Indian dishes were better because they have more spices. Yet I can't distinguish the individual spices in a curry. So I must have been wrong in thinking that is why Indian food is so delicious.


This is an Improper analogy, since you actually need the opposite effects in the two cases.

For food you want the individual spices added to mostly blend together as a composite to create unique flavors.

For visual imagery when the discrete pixels appear to blend or merge together to create larger apparent pixels as what happens when the 4K pixel elements become too small to distinguish individually, the PQ drops down to appear the same as that of a lower resolution image.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> It goes to the claim that 4K is better because it has more pixels. If one cannot see those pixels then how does the picture improve?
> 
> At a distance the average viewer loses sight of the additional pixels and all other things being equal the 4K picture looks the same as a 2K picture ... or less as the distance increases.


Motion.


----------



## Diana C

I can't believe we are spending so much time arguing over whose opinion is right!

Guys, they are OPINIONS, not facts...

o·pin·ion (əˈpinyən/) - noun - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

Some people say that 4K looks "better" compared to 1080p at any distance, with any screen size. Others say that the difference is imperceptible at "normal" distances and screen sizes.

We can argue this until the standard home viewing system is whatever follows 8K and it still won't be settled.

If you can see the difference and that difference is worth the cost to you, then go ahead and buy a 4K set. Otherwise, don't. The market will determine if 4K succeeds.

It isn't a matter of being "right."

Now...back to topic:

The FCC filings made by DirecTV for milestone extensions for D14 and D15 (due to launch delays) hint very strongly that at least some of the RDBS frequency band will be used for 4K.


----------



## GregLee

HoTat2 said:


> This is an Improper analogy, since you actually need the opposite effects in the two cases.


The analogy was not meant to show that 4k pictures look better, or even that they could look better. Our appreciation of the curry does not rest on discerning the individual spices that flavor it. Just as, in the analogy, there is no reason to suppose that our appreciation of the 4k picture is founded on our discerning the individual pixels that make it up.

Well, maybe you think that is wrong and there is such a reason. Then tell me the reason. You said first it was a principle of physics, then that it was a principle of trigonometry. Whatever. But what _is_ this mysterious principle?


----------



## Rich

GregLee said:


> It's fine, until you push on from this, as many have, to conclude that people cannot distinguish a 4k TV picture from a 2k picture at a reasonable viewing distance. The line of reasoning would make sense if the only way we have to perceive a difference in resolution is by counting pixels in a certain area. Then, since we couldn't discern the pixels, of course we couldn't count them. But why assume that we would do it by counting pixels? I don't feel that I need to count pixels to tell the difference between resolutions.
> 
> The argument you make (which many others make as well) just makes no sense to me. It doesn't follow.


A lot of this doesn't make sense. You've got a 4K, please tell us more about it. Do you have a 4K upscaler? Any hands on info would be appreciated. Lots of learned folk were upset by Copernicus and this thread seems to running in that direction. I don't care about numbers, I care about what I will see and I'd like to know what you see. I'll trust someone who owns something more than various theoretical arguments.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> I can't believe we are spending so much time arguing over whose opinion is right!
> 
> Guys, they are OPINIONS, not facts...
> 
> o·pin·ion (əˈpinyən/) - noun - a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
> 
> Some people say that 4K looks "better" compared to 1080p at any distance, with any screen size. Others say that the difference is imperceptible at "normal" distances and screen sizes.
> 
> We can argue this until the standard home viewing system is whatever follows 8K and it still won't be settled.
> 
> If you can see the difference and that difference is worth the cost to you, then go ahead and buy a 4K set. Otherwise, don't. The market will determine if 4K succeeds.
> 
> It isn't a matter of being "right."
> 
> Now...back to topic:
> 
> The FCC filings made by DirecTV for milestone extensions for D14 and D15 (due to launch delays) hint very strongly that at least some of the RDBS frequency band will be used for 4K.


Thank you! I could not agree more. Two years from now we'll all be watching 4K content (I hope) and be quite content (I hope).

Rich


----------



## Rich

GregLee said:


> The analogy was not meant to show that 4k pictures look better, or even that they could look better. Our appreciation of the curry does not rest on discerning the individual spices that flavor it. Just as, in the analogy, there is no reason to suppose that our appreciation of the 4k picture is founded on our discerning the individual pixels that make it up.
> 
> Well, maybe you think that is wrong and there is such a reason. Then tell me the reason. You said first it was a principle of physics, then that it was a principle of trigonometry. Whatever. _*But what is this mysterious principle?*_


Probably something like, "Of course the Sun rotates around the Earth, are you completely stupid?"

Rich


----------



## GregLee

Rich said:


> I'll trust someone who owns something more than various theoretical arguments.


I would trust a carefully conducted experiment that tested whether people can distinguish 4k from 2k pictures at reasonable viewing distances. Unfortunately, I haven't heard of such a test. I would trust a theoretical argument, if there was a real theory involved and the argument was logical. Unfortunately, I haven't heard such an argument.

I would be happy to tell you my own conclusion based on my experience with my 4k set, if I could. Unfortunately, I can't make the kind of comparison that would be required. I like the 4k picture, but I haven't compared it side by side with a 2k set of the same size at the same distance.


----------



## Rich

GregLee said:


> I would trust a carefully conducted experiment that tested whether people can distinguish 4k from 2k pictures at reasonable viewing distances. Unfortunately, I haven't heard of such a test. I would trust a theoretical argument, if there was a real theory involved and the argument was logical. Unfortunately, I haven't heard such an argument.
> 
> I would be happy to tell you my own conclusion based on my experience with my 4k set, if I could. Unfortunately, I can't make the kind of comparison that would be required. I like the 4k picture, but I haven't compared it side by side with a 2k set of the same size at the same distance.


OK, I understand that. Putting my best 1080p set next to a 4K set would be the first thing I would do if/when I buy a 4K. Then I'd know for sure without all these opinions.

Rich


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> OK, I understand that. Putting my best 1080p set next to a 4K set would be the first thing I would do if/when I buy a 4K. Then I'd know for sure without all these opinions.


Based on blind tests like this, I'd try to put a 4k display next to the best _new_ 1080p set as well.

E.g, in this shoot-out of top of the line 4k, plasma and OLED displays, not one 4k display received a vote for "best TV" from 17 viewers. The top of the line Panny 4k did beat out the top of the line Sony and Samsung 4ks.


----------



## GregLee

Steve said:


> Based on blind tests like this, I'd try to put a 4k display next to the best _new_ 1080p set as well.


Why do you say that was a blind test?

It was really a test of black levels (which we already knew plasmas and OLEDs are better at). Note this conclusion: "On the whole, any minor advantage in resolution on the 4K models was trumped by the superior contrast performance of the OLED and plasma televisions."

Now, let's ask why the 4k LEDs did worse at contrast. Contrast is the ratio of peak brightness to lowest black. LEDs do brightness better, so if they had better contrast, it would have to be because their advantage in brightness outweighed their disadvantage in blacks. But the competition was rigged. The sets were _all_ calibrated to give a maximum brightness of 154 nits, which is the maximum brightness the Panasonic plasma champ could be wound up to give. What a crock.


----------



## Steve

GregLee said:


> Why do you say that was a blind test?


Dumb on my part. Should have said "shoot-out".

As far as maximum brightness, the max brightness my displays would be set at is about 25% less than 154 nits, so i don't see that as a disadvantage. Just my .02.


----------



## Diana C

Rich said:


> Thank you! I could not agree more. Two years from now we'll all be watching 4K content (I hope) and be quite content (I hope).
> 
> Rich


Or not. Time will tell.

Given the comments in the FCC filings, it would appear that RDBS is going to be used for consumer broadcasts and the equipment needed has been developed. So, we will see these frequencies in use sooner rather than later.

Again, assuming that at least some of this capacity is used for 4K (which is hinted at in the filings and which makes sense) I would assume that the first 4K content will be PPVs or VODs of some sort, given there are no linear 4K channels yet.

It will be interesting to see if any particular content type drives 4K. Sports was a big driver for HD, but I wonder if it will be the same for UHD? The comment made earlier about watching a game in 2D versus 3D looking about the same might apply to HD vs, UHD as well.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> It will be interesting to see if any particular content type drives 4K. Sports was a big driver for HD, but I wonder if it will be the same for UHD? The comment made earlier about watching a game in 2D versus 3D looking about the same might apply to HD vs, UHD as well.


No one can say for sure about residential viewers, but in my opinion as someone in the business, it won't be a big driver in the commercial sector. Few bars will want to replace all their HDTVs with 4K TVs, when the placement of TVs rarely allows getting close enough to tell the difference - unless the layout allows getting a lot closer than places I'm familiar with. Maybe the ones that have a TV at each booth, though those tend to be fairly small, 32" or so.

Large projectors and video walls would benefit from 4K, but it is hard to see how the typical 40-90" TVs found in sports bars could benefit from 4K considering the locations they're being watched from.


----------



## HoTat2

GregLee said:


> The analogy was not meant to show that 4k pictures look better, or even that they could look better. Our appreciation of the curry does not rest on discerning the individual spices that flavor it. Just as, in the analogy, there is no reason to suppose that our appreciation of the 4k picture is founded on our discerning the individual pixels that make it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you can't discern the individual pixels, then you can't see the added detail 4K resolution delivers over that of an image at a lesser resolution.
> 
> Well, maybe you think that is wrong and there is such a reason. Then tell me the reason. You said first it was a principle of physics, then that it was a principle of trigonometry. Whatever. But what _is_ this mysterious principle?
Click to expand...

The "principle" is hardly "mysterious" and quite simple and readily apparent I would have thought.

Anytime you have a fixed angle, the arc it subtends on a surface becomes progressively larger the further an observer (located at the vertex of the angle) moves away from it. 

Just Google "arc subtended by angle" for a plethora of sites explaining the basic mathematical "principle" of trigonometry.

Anyway, for a full explanation of my point, see the CNET article by Geoffery Morrison,

"Why 4K TVs are stupid"
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-4k-tvs-are-stupid/

And the follow on;

"Why Ultra HD 4K TVs are still stupid."
http://www.cnet.com/news/why-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-are-still-stupid/


----------



## James Long

The benefit of UHD seems to be the ability to get closer. Once one is within the optimum viewing distance for HD, getting closer is a negative experience. Dang it, if I get 12 inches from the display I can see the lines! UHD provides more pixels and on the same size screen would allow one to get closer.

I agree with the articles HoTat2 linked. People will buy 4K because one number is bigger than another. For some reason numbers sell - and the reality that people will buy a smaller set (for wife acceptance factor or cost) or place it further away than the optimal viewing distance when they brag about their picture they will do it up close.

(Please check the screen cleaning instructions before bragging about your display ... people are going to be close enough to touch. Unless your display is huge - and huge displays are fairly impressive, even in HD.)


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> The benefit of UHD seems to be the ability to get closer.


Why does it seem that way? I've seen several informal reports from people who claim to be able to easily distinguish 4k from 2k, and several have said that colors have a more solid appearance on the 4k displays. Nothing to do with discerning individual pixels or picture details.

I guess that you are implicitly making some assumption to the effect that the perception of the whole is governed by the perception of its parts. But there is no such correct perceptual principle. For instance, recall Land's famous experiment in which he showed people projections of slides which were locally various shades of pink but which were perceived as natural scenes in full color.


----------



## slice1900

There's a limit to how close you want to get thought. Think about why most people over 16 don't like to sit in the front row at the movie theatre. It gets tiring having to move your head/eyes all the time to different parts of the screen. It is much easier sitting back far enough that you can take in the whole screen at once and not to have focus on different parts of it.


----------



## James Long

GregLee said:


> Why does it seem that way? I've seen several informal reports from people who claim to be able to easily distinguish 4k from 2k, and several have said that colors have a more solid appearance on the 4k displays. Nothing to do with discerning individual pixels or picture details.


I've heard "informal reports" about oxygen free cables and other over priced marketing gimmicks. Sure, one should avoid junk cables. But it seems that those who "can hear the difference" are reporting from belief, not actual human hearing.

A high quality HD display can also display colors better than a lower quality display. Attributing the quality of the pixel color to the number of the pixels is a fallacy.



GregLee said:


> I guess ...


Don't guess, just read. And if you do not agree that is fine. Expressing my opinion is my job, not yours. Please do not express my opinion.


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> I've heard "informal reports" about oxygen free cables and other over priced marketing gimmicks. Sure, one should avoid junk cables. But it seems that those who "can hear the difference" are reporting from belief, not actual human hearing.


Whereas you, on the other hand are reporting about actual human seeing. Yes, of course you are.


----------



## James Long

Q: Which one of the following images is better, and why?







or








(Hint: It is not the number of pixels as each image is the same size.)


----------



## yosoyellobo

James Long said:


> Q: Which one of the following images is better, and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Hint: It is not the number of pixels as each image is the same size.)


Is this a trick question?  I can't tell.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

yosoyellobo said:


> Is this a trick question?  I can't tell.


An still image of a screen is not the same as viewing them...so it would appear to be a "trick question" of sorts.

The only viable comparison method is to have the same content and source presented on side-by-side (tuned) displays.

This was available at CES back in January, and I can testify that there was absolutely a visible difference between 4K and 1080p video and still content with those formats.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Perhaps UHD will still be better than HD.


I still go back to the idea that a superlative HD picture may be as good or better than a good UHD picture and it would serve millions more customers.

I think DIRECTV's customer base would be much better served by upping the quality of HD as opposed to offering the same channels again in UHD.


----------



## Laxguy

Why don't you write Mr. White and express your opinion as a potential customer?


----------



## yosoyellobo

Visited Best Buy yesterday just to check out 4K tv's. The first thing I notice is that they are pushing 4k's a lot. They were all showing demos which look fantastic but I seem to remember the same demos looking great on 2K model also. The real test would watching real tv on a 4K model. Maybe they should skip 4K and go directly to 8K.


----------



## Steve

The thing 4k in stores and shows has going for it, IMO, is it's human nature to walk up close to those displays, where resolution actually makes a difference. After that, even if you move back to normal viewing range, it's hard to forget that 'close-up' impression.


----------



## HoTat2

yosoyellobo said:


> Visited Best Buy yesterday just to check out 4K tv's. The first thing I notice is that they are pushing 4k's a lot. They were all showing demos which look fantastic but I seem to remember the same demos looking great on 2K model also. The real test would watching real tv on a 4K model. Maybe they should skip 4K and go directly to 8K.


4K or 8K are also focusing in on the wrong end of the stick, since resolution is not really the main factor limiting PQ for moving digital imagery. It's the degree of compression and smartness or sophistication of its algorithm used, both of which are beyond control of the TV set manufacturers assuming the TV's circuitry decodes whatever is sent to it correctly of course.

But since this is about the only side the set makers can try an improve upon to try and excite consumers about "the next best thing," I guess I can understand the campaign to hype it.


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> Q: Which one of the following images is better, and why?
> 
> (Hint: It is not the number of pixels as each image is the same size.)


I know that one. The one on the left is better, because it has "4K" at the lower right corner.


----------



## GregLee

HoTat2 said:


> ... But since this is about the only side the set makers can try an improve upon to try and excite consumers about "the next best thing," I guess I can understand the campaign to hype it.


But 4k/8k resolution is not quite the only thing the set makers can try and are trying. HDR, High Dynamic Range in conjunction with 10 bit color is another thing to try. Vizio showed a prototype of their 120" Dolby Vision set at CES and it got good comments for its picture quality from all commentators that I read. It's true that that set was 4k, but the demos of "Dolby Vision" that Dolby put on last year with their own special monitors used 1080p. There's no real connection with 4k. Technicolor also has a system of this sort, and Sony and Samsung have some sort of HDR sets in the works.

There is some dispute whether 4k is even discernible, as we have seen, but there is no dispute that in nature we see scenes with much higher dynamic range than current TVs and TV standards can show us.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Is there any truth that with 16K you be able to shake hand with Godzilla?


----------



## GregLee

harsh said:


> I still go back to the idea that a superlative HD picture may be as good or better than a good UHD picture and it would serve millions more customers.
> 
> I think DIRECTV's customer base would be much better served by upping the quality of HD as opposed to offering the same channels again in UHD.


Yes, it would be better served. But it's not going to happen, because (brace yourself now!), in our economic system, businesses are not out to serve customers. They're out to make profits.


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> Or not. _*Time will tell.*_
> 
> Given the comments in the FCC filings, it would appear that RDBS is going to be used for consumer broadcasts and the equipment needed has been developed. So, we will see these frequencies in use sooner rather than later.
> 
> Again, assuming that at least some of this capacity is used for 4K (which is hinted at in the filings and which makes sense) I would assume that the first 4K content will be PPVs or VODs of some sort, given there are no linear 4K channels yet.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if any particular content type drives 4K. Sports was a big driver for HD, but I wonder if it will be the same for UHD? The comment made earlier about watching a game in 2D versus 3D looking about the same might apply to HD vs, UHD as well.


I sure hope it's soon. I was in a Costco yesterday and they had no 4K sets on display.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> There's a limit to how close you want to get thought. Think about why most people over 16 don't like to sit in the front row at the movie theatre. It gets tiring having to move your head/eyes all the time to different parts of the screen. It is much easier sitting back far enough that you can take in the whole screen at once and not to have focus on different parts of it.


Over 16? I didn't like the front row when I was just a wee tot.

Rich


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> Q: Which one of the following images is better, and why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Hint: It is not the number of pixels as each image is the same size.)


The 4K jumped out at me.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> The thing 4k in stores and shows has going for it, IMO, is it's human nature to walk up close to those displays, where resolution actually makes a difference. After that, even if you move back to normal viewing range, it's hard to forget that 'close-up' impression.


Think of the impression you got at a Costco when viewing the same content side by side using an LCD and a plasma. If I wouldn't have known better I'd have quite a few LCD sets instead of my fleet of plasmas.

Rich


----------



## Rich

GregLee said:


> I know that one. The one on the left is better, because it has "4K" at the lower right corner.


I saw that on my brand new laptop with the resolution set as high as it could be. The 4K picture still looked better when I got up and moved about five feet away from my 17" display. I hope that wasn't a setup.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

I moved 17' away, and couldn't make out either image....


----------



## HarleyD

They're exactly the same picture with different labels.

What those labels did to your perception of a 'superior' image is the point I believe.


----------



## longrider

yosoyellobo said:


> Is there any truth that with 16K you be able to shake hand with Godzilla?


Only if it is 16K 3D


----------



## yosoyellobo

longrider said:


> Only if it is 16K 3D


Thanks.


----------



## Laxguy

But then we're almost at holograms!


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I think DIRECTV's customer base would be much better served by upping the quality of HD as opposed to offering the same channels again in UHD.


DirecTV is not having a problem with HD quality. The new satellite space will help DirecTV stay away from over-packing transponders (perhaps even unpack a couple, if needed). And for those who sit close enough and have a large enough screen UHD will be an improvement. If the current receivers can be made compatible channels may just be upgraded as content providers upgrade their feeds. Drop the HD, add the UHD and have "more pixels" available for all subscribers.


----------



## James Long

GregLee said:


> I know that one. The one on the left is better, because it has "4K" at the lower right corner.





Rich said:


> The 4K picture still looked better when I got up and moved about five feet away from my 17" display. I hope that wasn't a setup.





HarleyD said:


> They're exactly the same picture with different labels.
> 
> What those labels did to your perception of a 'superior' image is the point I believe.


 

For those influenced by the label here is another test:







or









The perception is the point ... I don't know your screen resolution or the zoom setting on your browser but both pictures (in both posts) are 300x225 pixels. There is a physical limit on how good either image can be. The "one arc second of vision" is also a physical limit. If one's eyesight is better than 20/20 great! But that just means the physical limit is different for that person - not that the physical limit is abolished.

Whatever your personal limit is, you can only see so many pixels per arc second. Any more pixels than your limit just becomes a blur of neighboring pixels - a situation that can be recreated on a regular HD set (all other factors being equal, such as color depth, etc).


----------



## Rockaway1836

Guys, I must admit, I am getting a kick out of this thread. I was asked some time ago to start a thread as a 4k owner. Back then, I had purchased a Sony XBR65900A. In that thread I reported my impressions, which were quite positive. Since I never owned a plasma, I think my impressions were more or less blown off.

Since that time, I was lucky enough to win a Sony XBR55850A. Now, as I admit never owning a plasma. I have seen quite a few; both in store, and at the homes of friends.

Both of my 4K sets blow the socks of any television I have ever seen. It's not even close ! With the exception of LG's OLED. The OLED was playing a demo loop, which we all know is a come on. We never see material with the bit rate that demos display. In the case of the 4K Sony I saw demo loops too. Which I always have reservations about.

However, at the time Sony was the only one with actual 4K content (4K Media Player) so I took a shot. What I have experienced since is an incredible picture, with deep black levels and vibrant colors. Zero fast motion blur, zero light bleed. Just a jaw dropping picture. That goes for 4K content as well as 1080p and 1080i. Everyone that walks in my house is amazed at the PQ of both sets.

I can't wait for Directv to launch the next bird and get this puppy up and running. Also, I will not hesitate to pick up Vizio P series, when they become available. ( rumor of Sept)


----------



## yosoyellobo

Good to hear. Now if I could win a Sony.


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> For those influenced by the label here is another test:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The perception is the point ... I don't know your screen resolution or the zoom setting on your browser but both pictures (in both posts) are 300x225 pixels. There is a physical limit on how good either image can be. The "one arc second of vision" is also a physical limit. If one's eyesight is better than 20/20 great! But that just means the physical limit is different for that person - not that the physical limit is abolished.
> 
> Whatever your personal limit is, you can only see so many pixels per arc second. Any more pixels than your limit just becomes a blur of neighboring pixels - a situation that can be recreated on a regular HD set (all other factors being equal, such as color depth, etc).


The one on my left looks better, look at the tail.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Rockaway1836 said:


> Guys, I must admit, I am getting a kick out of this thread. I was asked some time ago to start a thread as a 4k owner. Back then, I had purchased a Sony XBR65900A. In that thread I reported my impressions, which were quite positive. Since I never owned a plasma, I think my impressions were more or less blown off.
> 
> Since that time, I was lucky enough to win a Sony XBR55850A. Now, as I admit never owning a plasma. I have seen quite a few; both in store, and at the homes of friends.
> 
> Both of my 4K sets blow the socks of any television I have ever seen. It's not even close ! With the exception of LG's OLED. The OLED was playing a demo loop, which we all know is a come on. We never see material with the bit rate that demos display. In the case of the 4K Sony I saw demo loops too. Which I always have reservations about.
> 
> However, at the time Sony was the only one with actual 4K content (4K Media Player) so I took a shot. What I have experienced since is an incredible picture, with deep black levels and vibrant colors. Zero fast motion blur, zero light bleed. Just a jaw dropping picture. That goes for 4K content as well as 1080p and 1080i. Everyone that walks in my house is amazed at the PQ of both sets.
> 
> I can't wait for Directv to launch the next bird and get this puppy up and running. Also, I will not hesitate to pick up Vizio P series, when they become available. ( rumor of Sept)


I wondered what happened to you. Good post! I believe you. Monday, I'm gonna do some exploring.

Rich


----------



## Rich

yosoyellobo said:


> Good to hear. Now if I could win a Sony.


I won 2 dollars at a Sunoco gas station years ago. I won a cherry tart at a USO bingo game when I was in the navy. See what kinda luck I have? To win a Sony 4K would be truly wonderful, but I know it ain't gonna happen.

Rich


----------



## yosoyellobo

Rich said:


> The one on my left looks better, look at the tail.
> 
> Rich


I see what you mean. I did not notice the flea before.


----------



## HoTat2

Rich said:


> The one on my left looks better, look at the tail.
> 
> Rich


I guess that's what James meant about perception, because to me the one on the right looks better. 

The picture "seems" (key word here) brighter, contrast better, and colors more vibrant "to me" (again, key expression) ...

Either way, whatever the perceived differences it's not related to resolution is the point though as they are the same ....


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> Whatever your personal limit is, you can only see so many pixels per arc second. Any more pixels than your limit just becomes a blur of neighboring pixels - a situation that can be recreated on a regular HD set (all other factors being equal, such as color depth, etc).


This is reminiscent of a physical argument, but actually it is just a dressed up tautology. You can't see more pixels than the limit of the pixels you can see, because then that would not be the limit of the pixels you can see.

Don't be fooled by pseudo-physics.


----------



## Laxguy

I guess we need more actual side-by-side comparisons by real people with real content that'll be available to us one day in order to be sure. 


And even then.... Opinions will vary.


----------



## James Long

Rich said:


> The one on my left looks better, look at the tail.





yosoyellobo said:


> I see what you mean. I did not notice the flea before.





HoTat2 said:


> I guess that's what James meant about perception, because to me the one on the right looks better.
> 
> The picture "seems" (key word here) brighter, contrast better, and colors more vibrant "to me" (again, key expression) ...


Thanks for playing along guys.

(The two dog images are identical. They are the same image. They even have the same URL.)


----------



## James Long

GregLee said:


> This is reminiscent of a physical argument, but actually it is just a dressed up tautology. You can't see more pixels than the limit of the pixels you can see, because then that would not be the limit of the pixels you can see.
> 
> Don't be fooled by pseudo-physics.


One cannot take a single shot ten megapixel picture with a one megapixel camera. 

I do not question that people can see a difference between a higher quality display that happens to be UHD and a lower quality display that happens to be HD. Attributing the "improvement" viewed at a distance to the number of pixels is a fallacy.

One might as well argue that they can see the difference between a UHD and a HD display on their existing television ... those TVs in the commercials look sharp. Or that the UHD display in the store 10 miles from your house looks better from your couch than the HD display next to it in the store (without taking the couch to the store).


----------



## inkahauts

This discussion over small
Pictures on computer screens being able to give us an idea of the difference between 720 1080 and 4k just isn't going to solve the real world question of if you gain something in a 4k tv. Motion changes everything and makes this debate while not entirely useless, rather mundane. 

It's like you want to compare a couple sports coupes from Mazda and Honda and ford and decide based on what their gas mileage is in relation to how they Handel the difference between a corvette and a Saleen and a Ferrari based on the relative gas mileage of the cars on how they all Handel on the road simply because you know how the other cars handle. It's just not real


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> I guess we need more actual side-by-side comparisons by real people with real content that'll be available to us one day in order to be sure.
> 
> And even then.... Opinions will vary.


Well, you won't get anything but a truthful opinion from me when I do that. The only problem I have now is getting my hands on one that I can return if it doesn't pan out. I hope it pans out, I really do. I hope all the naysayers are dead wrong, but I'm not gonna bet any money on that.

Rich


----------



## James Long

There will be real content some day ... DirecTV will offer it, people will pay for it (PPV, VOD or higher rates if UHD is bundled with HD service). Customers may or may not get any actual benefit out of having UHD content, but they will have bragging rights.
"I have more pixels than you!"


----------



## boukengreen

James Long said:


> There will be real content some day ... DirecTV will offer it, people will pay for it (PPV, VOD or higher rates if UHD is bundled with HD service). Customers may or may not get any actual benefit out of having UHD content, but they will have bragging rights.
> "I have more pixels than you!"


wait your tv is better then mine cause it has more pixels? Lol


----------



## P Smith

Old scheme and exploit ...

They use same catch when does selling breast or penis enlargements


----------



## unixguru

I hope there is a $25/mo+ UHD fee and that they do away with the HD fee.


----------



## P Smith

More realistic to see $25 per movie and no channel to subscribe in near future. Perhaps XXX channel come first...


----------



## James Long

unixguru said:


> I hope there is a $25/mo+ UHD fee and that they do away with the HD fee.


More like increase the "advanced receiver fee" to $30 whether there is pervasive UHD content or not.
If UHD can be done on current receivers then I predict no change except higher prices for UHD PPV and VOD.



P Smith said:


> More realistic to see $25 per movie and no channel to subscribe in near future. Perhaps XXX channel come first...


Not quite THAT high for PPV/VOD (although porn in SD is expensive, according to the price list).
As far as "XXX first", past performance is not indicative of that result. DirecTV added Playboy Channel on August 15th, 2013. If improvements in resolution were to benefit porn before other content, Playboy HD would have been added years earlier. (DISH added Hustler TV in HD back in October 2009.)


----------



## Rockaway1836

Gotta love the pessimists .


----------



## JoeTheDragon

unixguru said:


> I hope there is a $25/mo+ UHD fee and that they do away with the HD fee.


who knows u verse had an $10 3D fee and 3d flopped.

We need 4K content and right now there is not much bandwidth for that. Now push / download / Blu-ray 4k may work.

Right now lot's of movies are in 4K.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Live events will be the most expensive to produce in 4K, because they need to do realtime encoding, have at least 2x more satellite uplink capacity, and providers have to be willing to devote the bandwidth to carry a "4K" channel that has a few paltry hours of true 4K programming and a whole lot of upconverted HD that just wastes channel capacity. Unless a ESPN4K channel shows reruns of the same half dozen games over and over again, there isn't anything for them to show most of the time other than a lot of HD content.


You really are out of the loop. All facilities where Major League sports are played have had fiber connections for the backhaul for close to 10 years now. Satellite Backhauls are used as a backup source (and usually lower bandwidth), with the exception of Pre-Season.

Besides the Satellite Backups for the majors, the only primary satellite backhauls (again excluding pre-season) are for non-professional (college, little league etc) games.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

I do NOT believe anyone has stated that 4k looks better to 1080p at any distance. Could you please link to that post?

This thread started because I could tell the difference in a bright lit Best Buy of a 85" UHD TV on the wall compared to the others walking down a intersecting aisle 15-20 ft away.

The most interesting post in the subject speculation why is because of the increased color gamut of the UHD specs, which I believe you posted.



Diana C said:


> Guys, they are OPINIONS, not facts...
> 
> Some people say that 4K looks "better" compared to 1080p at any distance, with any screen size. Others say that the difference is imperceptible at "normal" distances and screen sizes.
> 
> We can argue this until the standard home viewing system is whatever follows 8K and it still won't be settled.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Rich said:


> I sure hope it's soon. I was in a Costco yesterday and they had no 4K sets on display.
> 
> Rich


They do in Sams Club

EDIT: They have them at Costco, just not on display in local stores yet, as you noted

http://www.costco.com/4k-tvs.html


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

GregLee said:


> Why do you say that was a blind test?
> 
> It was really a test of black levels (which we already knew plasmas and OLEDs are better at). Note this conclusion: "On the whole, any minor advantage in resolution on the 4K models was trumped by the superior contrast performance of the OLED and plasma televisions."
> 
> Now, let's ask why the 4k LEDs did worse at contrast. Contrast is the ratio of peak brightness to lowest black. LEDs do brightness better, so if they had better contrast, it would have to be because their advantage in brightness outweighed their disadvantage in blacks. But the competition was rigged. The sets were _all_ calibrated to give a maximum brightness of 154 nits, which is the maximum brightness the Panasonic plasma champ could be wound up to give. What a crock.


This might be more to your liking - came out Saturday (and yes, they admit the Panasonic Plasmas at 1080 have a superior picture in many regards).

http://televisions.reviewed.com/features/high-noon-for-high-res-a-4k-tv-showdown

As noted previously, do not even think of this generation of Panasonic UHD as it will not do some of the early 4k.

Panasonic and Sony are supposed to come out with new sets this Fall and hopefully they will be better. The Vizio set did not fair that well either.

Even the Editor Choice Samsung had issues (but then again, with LED, that is expected).

No tests on a 4K OLED because, well, there are no 4K OLEDs on the market to test...


----------



## harsh

JoeTheDragon said:


> who knows u verse had an $10 3D fee and 3d flopped.


And DIRECTV's free offering fared a whole lot better?


----------



## unixguru

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I do NOT believe anyone has stated that 4k looks better to 1080p at any distance. Could you please link to that post?
> 
> This thread started because I could tell the difference in a bright lit Best Buy of a 85" UHD TV on the wall compared to the others walking down a intersecting aisle 15-20 ft away.
> 
> The most interesting post in the subject speculation why is because of the increased color gamut of the UHD specs, which I believe you posted.


My motto is do not believe anything you see at a retailer. Everything is in the default flame thrower mode. Wouldn't surprise me if they are tweaked so that the ones they have the highest profit on, or have the most in the warehouse, look the best.

When I was researching a purchase a few years ago I couldn't even find a Sony I was considering (XBR-65HX929). This in Best Buy's home market of Minneapolis metro.

That is what I ended up getting and now, after being calibrated, it looks nothing like what it did out of the box. The picture actually looks like reality. Imagine that.

Right now I suspect I would have a difficult task finding a UHD with black levels as good as mine.


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> They do in Sams Club
> 
> EDIT: They have them at Costco, just not on display in local stores yet, as you noted
> 
> http://www.costco.com/4k-tvs.html


Thanx for the link. I've got to see them before anything happens. I thought I could get to a BB tomorrow, but that idea tanked.

I'm really not into buying big items at Costco, even tho I spend a lot of money there. In the last few years I've had to return generators that didn't work, snowblowers that didn't work and have had to contact manufacturers for parts of several items. I do like the Churros and Italian Sausage sandwiches at the snack stand, tho. Our two Home Depots and our Lowes have restarted their restocking of returned items no matter what shape they're in and I'm running out of places to buy big items.

But, I guess I'll have to purchase a 4K set at Costco only because of their 90 day return policy on TVs if I want to do the side by side thing. Nobody else but Amazon offers a return of TVs that I know of and I don't feel like going thru that with Amazon. Getting hard to spend money these days.

Rich


----------



## JoeTheDragon

harsh said:


> And DIRECTV's free offering fared a whole lot better?


well ESPN wanted like $5 mo per sub just for ESPN 3D.


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> PC Richards does have a few 4K OLEDs. Here's a _*link*_. Not my favorite store, but I gotta check them out too.
> 
> I can wait for the Fall, I'd hate to make a mistake and jump too quickly.
> 
> Rich


Is one of your tvs going bad? If not I'd wait a year unless you plan on upgrading several and do them one a year or so.


----------



## Laxguy

Rich said:


> PC Richards does have a few 4K OLEDs. Here's a _*link*_. Not my favorite store, but I gotta check them out too.
> 
> I can wait for the Fall, I'd hate to make a mistake and jump too quickly.


No 4K OLEDs there. 4Ks, an OLED or two, but not combined.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Is one of your tvs going bad? If not I'd wait a year unless you plan on upgrading several and do them one a year or so.


No, just trying to keep up with the wife's spending. A futile endeavor, to be sure, but I do try.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> No 4K OLEDs there. 4Ks, an OLED or two, but not combined.


Oops, you're right. I'll delete that post. Sorry, everyone, should have read the ad closer.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Feel downright foolish, I do. :nono2:

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> No, just trying to keep up with the wife's spending. A futile endeavor, to be sure, but I do try.
> 
> Rich


Well if that's the goal you need a TV outside by the BBQ IMHO. Maybe try this one.... And it won't even matter if it's 4k or not. :lol:

www.cseed.tv

Be sure and watch the video of it that's at the bottom of the page.


----------



## GregLee

Rich said:


> No, just trying to keep up with the wife's spending. A futile endeavor, to be sure, but I do try.


I bought a 50" 4K LED, Samsung HU8550, mainly for my wife, to replace a 6 year old Samsung plasma which suddenly failed. She likes it. She uses it to watch DirecTV 1080i stuff, mostly, and for that, I'd put picture quality as roughly what one could expect from 1080p blu-ray (though there is no blu-ray player attached). That is, it's good, but not necessarily better than a 1080p set would have been, resolution-wise. I doubt that my wife will ever be interested in watching 4k sources.

Off axis viewing is poor.

I have its brightness control turned down to give a plasma-like black level at the cost of some lost shadow detail in night scenes.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Has the price gone down any yet. I am waiting for it to get to Costco. The c-seed tv that is.


----------



## Steve

yosoyellobo said:


> Has the price gone down any yet. I am waiting for it to get to Costco. The c-seed tv that is.


Last time I checked, it was 500,000 euros!


----------



## Laxguy

Wonder how many knots of wind that thing can take? And can you put solar panels on the back?


----------



## dcn66100

Has anyone mentioned that direct v is already testing 4k 60fps via rvu to a Samsung 4k tv they had a demo when I went to directv hq it was stored on hr44 genie with beta software.I did not sing a nda it was for google io extended.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Well if that's the goal you need a TV outside by the BBQ IMHO. Maybe try this one.... And it won't even matter if it's 4k or not. :lol:
> 
> www.cseed.tv
> 
> Be sure and watch the video of it that's at the bottom of the page.


Wow! I don't know what else to say. Wow!

Rich


----------



## Rich

GregLee said:


> I bought a 50" 4K LED, Samsung HU8550, mainly for my wife, to replace a 6 year old Samsung plasma which suddenly failed. She likes it. She uses it to watch DirecTV 1080i stuff, mostly, and for that, I'd put picture quality as roughly what one could expect from 1080p blu-ray (though there is no blu-ray player attached). That is, it's good, but not necessarily better than a 1080p set would have been, resolution-wise. I doubt that my wife will ever be interested in watching 4k sources.
> 
> _*Off axis viewing is poor.*_
> 
> I have its brightness control turned down to give a plasma-like black level at the cost of some lost shadow detail in night scenes.


That alone would be a deal killer.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Last time I checked, it was 500,000 euros!


Or only $683,992. You really have to be rich to afford one of them. Really rich. Really, really rich.

Rich


----------



## yosoyellobo

Rich said:


> Or only $683,992. You really have to be rich to afford one of them. Really rich. Really, really rich.
> 
> Rich


When are you planning on getting one.


----------



## lugnutathome

One has to wonder about 4K given the 3D "promise" only to fall to limited avialable media. Sure it works, looks incredible at times but limited media and glasses that are uncomfortable.

4K hits bandwidth heavy, limited media, and I suspect its entry level costs will remain prohibitive to the masses. IF it catches on then service providers may invest in it but I think considering the fizzle in 3D there may be a reluctance to blast forward till a more assured return on such investments exist.

Personally, I am most happy at 1080p and frankly the 1080i rerendered on a 1080p 120hz display is pretty darned good. 4K is like a high quality glossy photograph stunning but unnatural for the most part.

Don "just blabering here" Bolton


----------



## slice1900

Rockaway1836 said:


> However, at the time Sony was the only one with actual 4K content (4K Media Player) so I took a shot. What I have experienced since is an incredible picture, with deep black levels and vibrant colors. Zero fast motion blur, zero light bleed. Just a jaw dropping picture. That goes for 4K content as well as 1080p and 1080i. Everyone that walks in my house is amazed at the PQ of both sets.


Deep black levels, vibrant colors, zero fast motion blur and zero light bleed are not a property of 4K, they're a property of the LCD panel. You have a TV with a high quality high end LCD panel that happens to be 4K, but those properties can all be attained in an HDTV. And are, if you buy the very high end LCD HDTVs. But few of us do, because they cost so much more. As a result, there are many many more low end HD TVs so when comparing to a high end TV the difference is noticeable.

If you had bought a low end 4K TV, like one of those 50" Seikis that have been selling for under $1000 for well over a year now, you would not have the same experience, because it is a cheap TV that happens to be 4K. Read the reviews for it, no one praises it for the qualities you're praising your 4K TV for.

In a few years when all TVs are 4K, it'll be like the same situation with HDTVs today. There will be some high end models with great pictures like yours, and many more low end models like that Seiki, that don't give the same experience as you're getting with your quality TV.


----------



## Laxguy

lugnutathome said:


> One has to wonder about 4K given the 3D "promise" only to fall to limited avialable media. Sure it works, looks incredible at times but limited media and glasses that are uncomfortable.
> 
> 4K hits bandwidth heavy, limited media, and I suspect its entry level costs will remain prohibitive to the masses. IF it catches on then service providers may invest in it but I think considering the fizzle in 3D there may be a reluctance to blast forward till a more assured return on such investments exist.
> 
> Personally, I am most happy at 1080p and frankly the 1080i rerendered on a 1080p 120hz display is pretty darned good. 4K is like a high quality glossy photograph stunning but unnatural for the most part.
> 
> Don "just blabering here" Bolton


But you always "blabber good"!

I think there will be plenty of movies available, as more and more are being shot in 4k, and I suspect there's already a few hundred now. Ooops, now I re-read the post and you may be referring to limitations of 3D content. ..... Otherwise, agree with it all.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> Deep black levels, vibrant colors, zero fast motion blur and zero light bleed are not a property of 4K, they're a property of the LCD panel.


They can be! But aren't they even more the property of good plasmas? Although, unfortunately, we may never see a 4k plasma. (OK, I am sure someone will link to an existing 4K plasma......! )


----------



## Steve

Laxguy said:


> (OK, I am sure someone will link to an existing 4K plasma......! )


"Plasma-like" is close as I could find: http://www.cnet.com/news/panasonics-prototype-4k-led-boasts-plasma-like-picture/


----------



## inkahauts

lugnutathome said:


> One has to wonder about 4K given the 3D "promise" only to fall to limited avialable media. Sure it works, looks incredible at times but limited media and glasses that are uncomfortable.
> 
> 4K hits bandwidth heavy, limited media, and I suspect its entry level costs will remain prohibitive to the masses. IF it catches on then service providers may invest in it but I think considering the fizzle in 3D there may be a reluctance to blast forward till a more assured return on such investments exist.
> 
> Personally, I am most happy at 1080p and frankly the 1080i rerendered on a 1080p 120hz display is pretty darned good. 4K is like a high quality glossy photograph stunning but unnatural for the most part.
> 
> Don "just blabering here" Bolton


Within ten years nothing Hollywood shoots for tv or theaters will be on anything but 4k or better and they are already well headed down that road.

That's not at all the same as what happens with 3d. That takes additional stuff. 4k cameras are the replacements for 1080 ones. Big difference. (And I'm not sure but they may be headed for all 8k cameras now)

Hollywood wants the best quality thy can get for archiving.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

lugnutathome said:


> One has to wonder about 4K given the 3D "promise" only to fall to limited avialable media. Sure it works, looks incredible at times but limited media and glasses that are uncomfortable.
> 
> 4K hits bandwidth heavy, limited media, and I suspect its entry level costs will remain prohibitive to the masses. IF it catches on then service providers may invest in it but I think considering the fizzle in 3D there may be a reluctance to blast forward till a more assured return on such investments exist.
> 
> Personally, I am most happy at 1080p and frankly the 1080i rerendered on a 1080p 120hz display is pretty darned good. 4K is like a high quality glossy photograph stunning but unnatural for the most part.
> 
> Don "just blabering here" Bolton


Within ten years nothing Hollywood shoots for tv or theaters will be on anything but 4k or better and they are already well headed down that road.

That's not at all the same as what happens with 3d. That takes additional stuff. 4k cameras are the replacements for 1080 ones. Big difference. (And I'm not sure but they may be headed for all 8k cameras now)

Hollywood wants the best quality thy can get for archiving.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

Heh. I bet it's a pretty decent set! When and if they get to production on it.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> They can be! But aren't they even more the property of good plasmas? Although, unfortunately, we may never see a 4k plasma. (OK, I am sure someone will link to an existing 4K plasma......! )


That's true of course - due to the different design, black levels, motion blur and light bleed should not be a problem on plasma regardless of high or low end. They aren't perfect though, low end plasmas have their own issues and will have an inferior picture to a modern (this year or last) high end LCD.

Since the post I was replying to involved a 4K LCD TV, I was discussing specifically with regard to LCDs, particularly since black levels, motion blur and light bleed are dramatically different between the LCDs most people own (i.e. lower end of the pricing range) and the very high end LCDs of recent vintage like the one the guy I was responding to has. Even the high end LCDs of 3-4 years ago fared rather poorly on these metrics, but the state of the art in LCD panels has advanced rapidly.

Simply comparing "here's what I have at home" to "here's this 4K TV I see in the store or my friend has" is going to blur the distinction between what benefits are being provided by having 4x more pixels, and what are provided by having a much higher quality LCD panel. If he compared his 4K TV to a similarly priced HD LCD TV, he'd see the same black levels and lack of motion blur or light bleed. That would be a much fairer comparison than comparing to older TVs, or to a low end (I assume?) plasma won in a drawing.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Hollywood wants the best quality thy can get for archiving.


Hollywood wants to sell everyone the movies they like as many times as possible (VHS, Laser Disc, DVD, Blu Ray, 4K Blu Ray, 8K download...)


----------



## Laxguy

Agreed. 

Do you think we will ever see plasma 4Ks? Or are plasmas just dead, Jim, dead?


----------



## slice1900

I think the investment is in trying to make OLED affordable. If they could do that it solves all the problems that LCD and plasma have, and the only problem it brings to the table is color accuracy. Which most people don't care all that much about, given how few calibrate their sets now.


----------



## Laxguy

OK, put me down for a 90" 4K OLED under $4K.....


----------



## Diana C

You may be joking, but that will probably only take 5 to 7 years.


----------



## Laxguy

Diana C said:


> You may be joking, but that will probably only take 5 to 7 years.


Me want now! Was joking as to it being here now, but agree on the above time frame. Maybe four years!


----------



## Steve

Laxguy said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Do you think we will ever see plasma 4Ks? Or are plasmas just dead, Jim, dead?


I remember reading somewhere the power draw of a 4k plasma likely wouldn't pass muster with the authorities that monitor such things.


----------



## Beerstalker

Newer plasmas were much better with power consumtion than the older ones. My Panasonic TC-P65VT60 has an average power consumption of 189W, the rated consumption is 585W though. Panasonics new TC-65AX800U 4K LED has an average power consumption of 179W, the rated consumption is 320W. So there isn't really much difference in the average power consumption of the two, but there is a pretty big difference in the rated power consumption (not sure what makes it so much higher).


----------



## lugnutathome

Well then. . . "Nevermind" 

Seriously it seems the market and the providers are headed down seperate paths with the consumer market demanding "fast food" delivery on all sorts of devices incapable of high res and even if they were High Res unable to distiguish (thinking mobile devices here), the off air networks spent a ton revamping to the still recent HD standards of 720p and 1080i, and the existing cable/sat providers are stuck with millions leveraged into infrastructures to meet the pre and newly spawned HD content infrastructures.

Meanwhile "for pay" providers are losing marketshare to cord cutting and the aforementioned "fast food" delivery systems. Unless High Res becomes the standard for broadcasting somehow in a timeframe that won't price the "for pay" providers and networks into recievership. . .

I can see a high end market segment using 4K but I suspect the avarage Joe (JSP) will top out at the current 1080i/p for some time to come and the cord cutters/Internet Ala catre offerings will erode our existing services to where the provider services we now enjoy may be forced into a diffrent model or they will erode away. Once the investor confidence goes, it won't last long.

Don "at leest that's whut my farth grad ecmeucashion telz me" Bolton



inkahauts said:


> Within ten years nothing Hollywood shoots for tv or theaters will be on anything but 4k or better and they are already well headed down that road.
> 
> That's not at all the same as what happens with 3d. That takes additional stuff. 4k cameras are the replacements for 1080 ones. Big difference. (And I'm not sure but they may be headed for all 8k cameras now)
> 
> Hollywood wants the best quality thy can get for archiving.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve

lugnutathome said:


> Seriously it seems the market and the providers are headed down seperate paths with the consumer market demanding "fast food" delivery on all sorts of devices incapable of high res and even if they were High Res unable to distiguish (thinking mobile devices here), the off air networks spent a ton revamping to the still recent HD standards of 720p and 1080i, and the existing cable/sat providers are stuck with millions leveraged into infrastructures to meet the pre and newly spawned HD content infrastructures.
> 
> Meanwhile "for pay" providers are losing marketshare to cord cutting and the aforementioned "fast food" delivery systems. Unless High Res becomes the standard for broadcasting somehow in a timeframe that won't price the "for pay" providers and networks into recievership.


One good thing coming from all of this may well be the H.265 codec. If it ever becomes mainstream, it could help stretch monthly 4g data quotas. It promises better video quality while consuming less bandwidth than H.264.


----------



## Laxguy

Always "a good thing". What are the impediments for wide spread adoption?


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Always "a good thing". What are the impediments for wide spread adoption?


$$$$$

Embedded codecs in current chips replaced by embedded codecs in new chips (read: new receivers) or firmware codecs that may require more buffer memory and processing power than current receivers. Nearly every improvement comes at a cost.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> You may be joking, but that will probably only take 5 to 7 years.


That's what they said 5 to 7 years ago. There are some technical issues with making quality large OLEDs for an affordable price. Some have been solved, some have not. It will have to beat or at least come really really close to LCD in price to succeed. Even if it offers a much better picture than what LCD will be capable of in 2020, most consumers will buy what is cheapest.


----------



## Rockaway1836

slice1900 said:


> Deep black levels, vibrant colors, zero fast motion blur and zero light bleed are not a property of 4K, they're a property of the LCD panel. You have a TV with a high quality high end LCD panel that happens to be 4K, but those properties can all be attained in an HDTV. And are, if you buy the very high end LCD HDTVs. But few of us do, because they cost so much more. As a result, there are many many more low end HD TVs so when comparing to a high end TV the difference is noticeable.
> 
> If you had bought a low end 4K TV, like one of those 50" Seikis that have been selling for under $1000 for well over a year now, you would not have the same experience, because it is a cheap TV that happens to be 4K. Read the reviews for it, no one praises it for the qualities you're praising your 4K TV for.
> 
> In a few years when all TVs are 4K, it'll be like the same situation with HDTVs today. There will be some high end models with great pictures like yours, and many more low end models like that Seiki, that don't give the same experience as you're getting with your quality TV.


I would not argue the point. The same has been true with all TVs. Plasma, CRT, front projection, and rear projection, some sets are simply better than others. I expect that to hold true even with OLED.

That set can be found under $500
http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=as_li_qf_sp_sr_il_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&index=aps&keywords=B00BXF7I9M&linkCode=as2&tag=cenccentnacid-20&linkId=SG4AMHEYRNRLD2A2


----------



## harsh

lugnutathome said:


> One has to wonder about 4K given the 3D "promise" only to fall to limited avialable media. Sure it works, looks incredible at times but limited media and glasses that are uncomfortable.


The issue with 4D is how you get it to the TV. With 3D, there were options sufficiently in advance of the introduction.

I still think the glasses thing was a red herring.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Embedded codecs in current chips replaced by embedded codecs in new chips (read: new receivers) or firmware codecs that may require more buffer memory and processing power than current receivers. Nearly every improvement comes at a cost.


Since modern DVRs run on modern dedicated hardware, substantially more general CPU power isn't necessarily going to be required. The CODECs are generally implemented in hardware as are any character generator or video effects (windows, scrolling) to that doesn't load up the DVR as much as it might on a more primitive device.

The RAM and CPU come into play when implementing the guide, maintaining the filesystem and supervising all that is going on.


----------



## lugnutathome

4D? 4K, fourk  .

My thought train wasn't clearly expressed. I was comparing the furvor over 3D that flashed by like a meteor which left a lot of undue expense in its wake. Now with 4K being the newly emerging technology of the moment, unless it can be commoditized in short order will likely suffer the same fate as 3D. Great novelty but not sustainable given the expense of both provider and subscriber migration to HD and the rebounds of investing in the last technology of the moment. Enough is enough, especially with 1080p being more then good enough for the vast majority of the marketplace.

Don "knot a coledge boy hea  " Bolton



harsh said:


> The issue with 4D is how you get it to the TV. With 3D, there were
> 
> options sufficiently in advance of the introduction.I still think the glasses thing was a red herring.


----------



## Rich

yosoyellobo said:


> When are you planning on getting one.


Can't afford that unless they throw in a house. :rotfl:

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

lugnutathome said:


> 4D? 4K, fourk  .
> 
> My thought train wasn't clearly expressed. I was comparing the furvor over 3D that flashed by like a meteor which left a lot of undue expense in its wake. Now with 4K being the newly emerging technology of the moment, unless it can be commoditized in short order will likely suffer the same fate as 3D. Great novelty but not sustainable given the expense of both provider and subscriber migration to HD and the rebounds of investing in the last technology of the moment. Enough is enough, especially with 1080p being more then good enough for the vast majority of the marketplace.


Alternative idea: Manufacturers figure that for all medium to high end production, they'd do better switching to all 4K lines. The added cost of more pixels and hardware is a few bucks [de minimus!], especially as long runs of one product is more efficient than two or more. So 4K sets start to abound, whether we need them or not.

The first two sentences make big assumptions, and perhaps someone with mfg. experience can chime in.


----------



## studechip

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> They do in Sams Club
> 
> EDIT: They have them at Costco, just not on display in local stores yet, as you noted
> 
> http://www.costco.com/4k-tvs.html


There was one in my local Costco a few weeks ago.


----------



## GregLee

Laxguy said:


> Or are plasmas just dead, Jim, dead?


Dead, Bones, quite dead. Samsung has announced it will cease plasma production as of Nov. 30.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-samsung-sdi-plasma-idUKKBN0F62W620140701


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> The issue with 4D is how you get it to the TV. With 3D, there were options sufficiently in advance of the introduction.
> 
> I still think the glasses thing was a red herring.


Yet that is specifically why everyone I know never cared for 3d. They didn't want to have to wear glasses.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

lugnutathome said:


> 4D? 4K, fourk  .
> 
> My thought train wasn't clearly expressed. I was comparing the furvor over 3D that flashed by like a meteor which left a lot of undue expense in its wake. Now with 4K being the newly emerging technology of the moment, unless it can be commoditized in short order will likely suffer the same fate as 3D. Great novelty but not sustainable given the expense of both provider and subscriber migration to HD and the rebounds of investing in the last technology of the moment. Enough is enough, especially with 1080p being more then good enough for the vast majority of the marketplace.
> 
> Don "knot a coledge boy hea  " Bolton


Again it's just different. 4k is just the next generation of where we are headed. It's not like 3d where it's entirely different line. Two different worlds.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

Laxguy said:


> Alternative idea: Manufacturers figure that for all medium to high end production, they'd do better switching to all 4K lines. The added cost of more pixels and hardware is a few bucks [de minimus!], especially as long runs of one product is more efficient than two or more. So 4K sets start to abound, whether we need them or not.
> 
> The first two sentences make big assumptions, and perhaps someone with mfg. experience can chime in.


This is exactly one of the reasons 4k will take over in terms of TV sets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

James Long said:


> $$$$$
> 
> Embedded codecs in current chips replaced by embedded codecs in new chips (read: new receivers) or firmware codecs that may require more buffer memory and processing power than current receivers. Nearly every improvement comes at a cost.





harsh said:


> Since modern DVRs run on modern dedicated hardware, substantially more general CPU power isn't necessarily going to be required. The CODECs are generally implemented in hardware as are any character generator or video effects (windows, scrolling) to that doesn't load up the DVR as much as it might on a more primitive device.


Try reading again. If the CODEC is not in the current chips one is going to need new chips (and new receivers to sell those chips in) or hardware robust enough to run a software CODEC. Yes, "CODECs are generally implemented in hardware" ... which is what I said. But what does one do when the CODEC one needs is not in the hardware one has in the field? Change the hardware in the field ... and that is where the $$$$$ comes in.


----------



## Rockaway1836

At the end of the day, I am able to sit here with the TV that I won,( which is located on my screened-in porch) ( Lots of light) I am able to see individual blades of grass behind the batter, while watching the Yankee game.

As to Seiki mentioned earlier, while it may be cheap, I would check out the owner reviews on Amazon as well as the threads on AVS. The first review that I had read about it, I think was from CNET. The same folks that wrote the article; ( WHY 4K IS STUIPID ) In their latest review of this years Sony they were no where near as critical. While they never even took the time to do a full review of last years sets.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> But what does one do when the CODEC one needs is not in the hardware one has in the field?


For the few that need the new CODEC to get the programming, replacement is going to have to happen anyway. Software CODECs at this level simply aren't an option.

Refurb programs, something that DIRECTV seems to be very proud of, reduce the impact of these upgrades by shipping the old box out to a customer for whom it suffices.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Refurb programs, _something that DIRECTV seems to be very proud of_, reduce the impact of these upgrades by shipping the old box out to a customer for whom it suffices.


* Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.*


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> Refurb programs, something that DIRECTV seems to be very proud of, reduce the impact of these upgrades by shipping the old box out to a customer for whom it suffices.


Because Dish is not "proud" of the same also. I keep forgetting that you come to thrash the DirecTV® forums because Dish is SO perfect.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> For the few that need the new CODEC to get the programming, replacement is going to have to happen anyway. Software CODECs at this level simply aren't an option.
> 
> Refurb programs, something that DIRECTV seems to be very proud of, reduce the impact of these upgrades by shipping the old box out to a customer for whom it suffices.


Why would you think D* is proud of its refurbishing program? I've never seen them touting it. They have, apparently, improved it since the advent of the 24s, but "proud"? I don't agree.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

peds48 said:


> Because Dish is not "proud" of the same also. I keep forgetting that you come to thrash the DirecTV® forums because Dish is SO perfect.


Apparently he thinks that once a customer leaves or a receiver breaks, it should be thrown in the trash instead of re-used. If Directv did that he'd be slamming them for being wasteful and not being a "green" company. There's no winning with some people.


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> Why would you think D* is proud of its refurbishing program? I've never seen them touting it.


There's a section on their sustainability web page that talks about the program:


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> There's a section on their sustainability web page that talks about the program:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refurbish.jpg


Notice that they only use 2012 as a date they did something right? I don't think they did much work on returned HRs before the advent of the 24s. Certainly not a program to be proud of. And if it's on their sustainability web page (bet you really had to dig for that one) it's not like they're shouting about it from the rooftops.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> There's a section on their sustainability web page that talks about the program:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Refurbish.jpg


Ah yes, because nothing says "this company is crowing about something" like hiding it somewhere that 99% of customers will never read.


----------



## peds48

slice1900 said:


> Ah yes, because nothing says "this company is crowing about something" like hiding it somewhere that 99% of customers will never read.


Yep, never knew that page existed


----------



## longrider

I can remember when the rental program went into effect that they publicly stated in on of the investor calls that it was done for accounting reasons. I dont remember the details but the plan had nothing to do with sustainability.


----------



## Rich

longrider said:


> I can remember when the rental program went into effect that they publicly stated in on of the investor calls that it was done for accounting reasons. I dont remember the details but the plan had nothing to do with sustainability.


That plan had everything to do with their bottom line.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Ah yes, because nothing says "this company is crowing about something" like hiding it somewhere that 99% of customers will never read.


On a website that is difficult to navigate in the first place. Next we'll be hearing about their "transparency".

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

longrider said:


> I can remember when the rental program went into effect that they publicly stated in on of the investor calls that it was done for accounting reasons. I dont remember the details but the plan had nothing to do with sustainability.


Accounting as in being able to right the cost of the box off over five years and refurbishing and sending them back out also saves in costs of buying an entire new box....


----------



## slice1900

longrider said:


> I can remember when the rental program went into effect that they publicly stated in on of the investor calls that it was done for accounting reasons. I dont remember the details but the plan had nothing to do with sustainability.


It doesn't make sense for Directv to have customers owning their receivers. Without Directv service they're useless, so former customers would be selling them and people would be buying receivers that may be out of date, not working properly or modified in unspecified ways by their former owners. Having them go back through Directv for refurbishing, even if all that is done to them is cleaning them, making sure the firmware is up to date, and passing self-test, insures that customers don't have a bad experience with Directv due to factors that aren't under Directv's control. They know customers are starting with working hardware, or at least stuff that isn't known to be flaky or had someone experimenting on.

Having customers pay for receivers they don't get ownership of is kind of dumb, as it confuses many into thinking they own them, but I guess that offers a convenient way for them to give discounts to new customers by being "generous" and "saving" $299 when they offer a free Genie  Cable companies don't charge for receivers, so they have to offer discounts in another way - usually via bundling discounts, which Directv can't do. Once AT&T owns Directv they will, so maybe they'll do away with the "purchase" price for receivers down the road.

The accounting reason is an obvious one, as Directv owning them allows them to be depreciated and reduce Directv's tax bill. Even if sustainability wasn't a stated reason when they started doing this 8 years ago or whenever it was, it has become more important for all companies as more consumers pay attention to this sort of thing. They'd definitely list it as being among the reasons if they were making this change today.

The big thing they're missing in their sustainability efforts is that they don't recover non-recoverable receivers. They have a recycling program, they should ask for every receiver back, even obsolete ones, and send the ones they don't refurbish to recycling. Seems so obvious, I can't understand why they don't see it. I guess its good for me though, as it means plenty of H20s will always be coming up on Ebay for next to nothing if need more receivers!


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Do any Directv receivers even support 1080p60? AFAIK, the 1080p they support is only 1080p24. That's fine for movies, but sports, not so much. No point in going from either 720p or 1080p to 1080p24 for that.
> 
> Don't assume that because HD is digital and 4K is digital that its just a software upgrade. Maybe they don't need a whole new studio, but if they replace all the equipment in that studio it is still pretty damn expensive. The cameras have to be 4K, there is 8x as much data passing around (assuming they go from 720p/1080i to 60fps 4K) They need new editing equipment, new encoding equipment, more satellite uplink capacity. I don't believe it will be as simple as you seem to believe.
> 
> Doing 4K for PPV will be easy, assuming customers will pay more for it to offset the cost of delivery. I could see HBO and SHO doing a 4K movie channel. But live action sports? Non-broadcast network content like Walking Dead or Salem? Color me skeptical. What's the point of providing a 4K feed if everything on it is simply upconverted HD?


I think you are underestimating what dtv can likely do an what Hollywood is likely doing in general and how they have been building their studios for digital.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I think you are underestimating what dtv can likely do an what Hollywood is likely doing in general and how they have been building their studios for digital.


Hollywood is irrelevant as far as movies go. That gets us 4K for PPV and a one 4K channel for HBO and SHO, maybe a few others. Everyone already expects but, that's not going to get say TNT or AMC to want to switch to 4K anytime soon.

The production facilities producing big budget movies are very different from the ones producing stuff like the Big Bang Theory.


----------



## James Long

Unless there is a major change in OTA TV, 4K production for broadcast shows is not going to help.
4K for cable networks makes sense ... starting with programs produced for the movie channels (HBO, etc).

4K is an expense from the camera to the distribution to satellite/cable companies for viewing by the public ... and every step in between. The difference between SD and HD was great enough to turn that expense into an investment. I don't see the difference between 4K and HD driving production companies to make the investment unless there is a large return. Cheap cable networks that are barely HD are not going to pay producers for 4K content. The return on expense is too low. The producers of shows for cheap cable networks might as well stay with HD production.


----------



## Steve

I think networks will film many shows in 4k they same way they filmed in 16:9, long before that format was available to consumers, perhaps with an eye on cable syndication. E.g., shows like Seinfeld (1989), Friends (1994) and Law & Order (1990) were filmed in 16:9 HD, way back when.


----------



## Laxguy

Steve said:


> I think networks will film many shows in 4k they same way they filmed in 16:9, long before that format was available to consumers, perhaps with an eye on cable syndication. E.g., shows like Seinfeld (1989), Friends (1994) and Law & Order (1990) were filmed in 16:9 HD, way back when.


Yes, and I made a similar point a while ago. The HBOs, ESPNs and at the network level TV will move to 4K, while locals will not for some time. Movie production has already started with 4K, but I do not have a count of what's in the can or the percentage of major house production now being shot in the bigger resolution.


----------



## slice1900

Steve said:


> I think networks will film many shows in 4k they same way they filmed in 16:9, long before that format was available to consumers, perhaps with an eye on cable syndication. E.g., shows like Seinfeld (1989), Friends (1994) and Law & Order (1990) were filmed in 16:9 HD, way back when.


Seinfeld was produced on 35mm film, which can be scanned at whatever resolution and cropped as needed to fit 4:3 480i or 16:9 HD. They don't film shows in 35mm any longer, so whatever resolution it is shot at is what it is stuck with. Filming in 4K costs more, so it might happen here and there, but isn't going to be "many" shows unless there's a good reason for them to displace the HD cameras they already own with new 4K cameras they have to buy.

I could see stuff like Game of Thrones getting produced in 4K (possibly it already is) since HBO will probably be one of the first to introduce a 4K channel. Much less likely it happens to the shows on the masses of other channels out there. Is AMC going to produce The Walking Dead in 4K? Not only would that cost more for the production, the special effects would have to be much better to not be visible at 4K - makeup people had the same issues switching from SD to HD having to up their game.


----------



## Steve

slice1900 said:


> Seinfeld was produced on 35mm film, which can be scanned at whatever resolution and cropped as needed to fit 4:3 480i or 16:9 HD. They don't film shows in 35mm any longer, so whatever resolution it is shot at is what it is stuck with.* Filming in 4K costs more*, so it might happen here and there, but isn't going to be "many" shows unless there's a good reason for them to displace the HD cameras they already own with new 4K cameras they have to buy.


Assuming it does cost more to master in 4k, it probably cost more to shoot 35mm film, back in the day. My point is simply those shows were shot at a higher resolution and wider aspect ratio than needed for first airing on 4:3 CRTs. I agree it won't be every show going forward, but I'll bet a good % of them do get shot 4k.


----------



## dpeters11

GoT mainly uses the Alexa. I think they tested Red's Dragon. 

Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> Seinfeld was produced on 35mm film, which can be scanned at whatever resolution and cropped as needed to fit 4:3 480i or 16:9 HD. They don't film shows in 35mm any longer, so whatever resolution it is shot at is what it is stuck with. Filming in 4K costs more, so it might happen here and there, but isn't going to be "many" shows unless there's a good reason for them to displace the HD cameras they already own with new 4K cameras they have to buy.
> 
> I could see stuff like Game of Thrones getting produced in 4K (possibly it already is) since HBO will probably be one of the first to introduce a 4K channel. Much less likely it happens to the shows on the masses of other channels out there. Is AMC going to produce The Walking Dead in 4K? Not only would that cost more for the production, the special effects would have to be much better to not be visible at 4K - makeup people had the same issues switching from SD to HD having to up their game.


The amount of makeup needed and quality of effects won't need to really change much for 4k they are already having to be great for Hi Definition. I think 4k will make for more difference on the delivery side than the shooting side of film and TV. I mean they already do that for movies, TV shows won't be different really.

And again, unless things have changed, very few studios actually own cameras. They rent them.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

slice1900 said:


> It doesn't make sense for Directv to have customers owning their receivers. Without Directv service they're useless, so former customers would be selling them and people would be buying receivers that may be out of date, not working properly or modified in unspecified ways by their former owners. Having them go back through Directv for refurbishing, even if all that is done to them is cleaning them, making sure the firmware is up to date, and passing self-test, insures that customers don't have a bad experience with Directv due to factors that aren't under Directv's control. They know customers are starting with working hardware, or at least stuff that isn't known to be flaky or had someone experimenting on.
> 
> Having customers pay for receivers they don't get ownership of is kind of dumb, as it confuses many into thinking they own them, but I guess that offers a convenient way for them to give discounts to new customers by being "generous" and "saving" $299 when they offer a free Genie  Cable companies don't charge for receivers, so they have to offer discounts in another way - usually via bundling discounts, which Directv can't do. Once AT&T owns Directv they will, so maybe they'll do away with the "purchase" price for receivers down the road.
> 
> The accounting reason is an obvious one, as Directv owning them allows them to be depreciated and reduce Directv's tax bill. Even if sustainability wasn't a stated reason when they started doing this 8 years ago or whenever it was, it has become more important for all companies as more consumers pay attention to this sort of thing. They'd definitely list it as being among the reasons if they were making this change today.
> 
> The big thing they're missing in their sustainability efforts is that they don't recover non-recoverable receivers. They have a recycling program, they should ask for every receiver back, even obsolete ones, and send the ones they don't refurbish to recycling. Seems so obvious, I can't understand why they don't see it. I guess its good for me though, as it means plenty of H20s will always be coming up on Ebay for next to nothing if need more receivers!


directv commercial subs own the boxes


----------



## slice1900

JoeTheDragon said:


> directv commercial subs own the boxes


Yes, I am one, so I'm aware of that - and in fact I can buy "leased" or "non-recoverable" receivers off Ebay and add them to my account no problem. For all I know that might even change them to owned status, though since I never sell them I have no way of knowing.

Since commercial subs don't upgrade all the time like residential customers do, it would be rarer that they'd end up with unused working receivers aside from a SD to HD upgrade which most will have already done long ago. The exception to that would be places using modulated video like hotels and nursing homes. They'll have to upgrade to HD receivers at some point, but those receivers still have composite output so they can continue using their SD modulators if they can't afford to upgrade (HD modulators cost a small fortune)

There are some owned residential receivers too, and Directv wouldn't send a return kit for them (except by mistake) I just think that Directv ought to send a return kit for every leased receiver, even the ones that are "non recoverable" so they can insure they are recycled and not tossed in the trash. More importantly, as they phase out the SD receivers and presumably offer free/cheap trade-ins to HD receivers I sure hope they insist on getting the SD receivers back so they can insure they're properly recycled.


----------



## slice1900

dpeters11 said:


> GoT mainly uses the Alexa. I think they tested Red's Dragon.


The max resolution the Alexa can record in 16:9 mode is 2880x1620, and it supports 1920x1080 as well. Either way it looks like GoT isn't produced in 4K today, and that's probably the highest budget non-broadcast (maybe even highest budget including broadcast) series.


----------



## edpowers

Steve said:


> Assuming it does cost more to master in 4k, it probably cost more to shoot 35mm film, back in the day. My point is simply those shows were shot at a higher resolution and wider aspect ratio than needed for first airing on 4:3 CRTs. I agree it won't be every show going forward, but I'll bet a good % of them do get shot 4k.


Seinfeld was shot at a wider ratio simply because 35mm happens to be 1.5x (3:2) instead of 1.33x (4:3). They still framed everything for 4:3 SDTV viewing. Sony remastered Seinfeld using the original 35mm, but its still cropped to fit in 1.77x (16:9). They used as much width as they could, depending on the scene (avoiding boom mics, etc) but the final product is still compromised with cropping (cutting off tops and bottoms). Remastering is a painstaking, time-consuming, expensive process.

A lot of Sony shows are already being shot in 4K. I'm not sure how many are actually doing post in 4k. House of Cards on Netflix is 4k and I'm sure the rest of their shows will convert as well.

Sony also recently remastered Breaking Bad in 4K. Luckily, Breaking Bad was shot on 35mm (framed 16:9). They won't have such luck with any shows shot in 2K digital.


----------



## edpowers

slice1900 said:


> The max resolution the Alexa can record in 16:9 mode is 2880x1620, and it supports 1920x1080 as well. Either way it looks like GoT isn't produced in 4K today, and that's probably the highest budget non-broadcast (maybe even highest budget including broadcast) series.


And no doubt they will eventually do _something _with their 3K master and sell it as "4K Remastered".


----------



## Laxguy

edpowers said:


> Seinfeld was shot at a wider ratio simply because 35mm happens to be 1.5x (3:2) instead of 1.33x (4:3). They still framed everything for 4:3 SDTV viewing. Sony remastered Seinfeld using the original 35mm, but its still cropped to fit in 1.77x (16:9). They used as much width as they could, depending on the scene (avoiding boom mics, etc) but the final product is still compromised with cropping (cutting off tops and bottoms). Remastering is a painstaking, time-consuming, expensive process.


At some point didn't they shoot in a "safe" mode, whereby there was enough room on the sides and the top so that it could be cropped for either format and not lose anything essential, or need to stretch?


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> I think networks will film many shows in 4k they same way they filmed in 16:9, long before that format was available to consumers, perhaps with an eye on cable syndication. E.g., shows like Seinfeld (1989), Friends (1994) and Law & Order (1990) were filmed in 16:9 HD, way back when.


Is there someplace that shows Seinfeld in HD or BD? I'd like to rewatch the whole series again, but not in SD.

Rich


----------



## Steve

They're on a couple of times a day on PIX and TBS widescreen. You can also get them widescreen on DVD. Best sitcom ever, IMHO.


----------



## Laxguy

Was Larry David the genius that made it work, or was it Seinfeld himself- or the two together? (or some other entity!)


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> They're on a couple of times a day on PIX and TBS widescreen. You can also get them widescreen on DVD. Best sitcom ever, IMHO.


A few years ago someone sent me a box of DVDs that he had recorded of Seinfeld that were all in 4:3 and in the proper order. He had tried to sell them on eBay and sent them to me after he got shot down for trying to sell them. Must have been a member of this forum that I helped in some way, but I don't really remember. I traded them to a contractor for some work. I'll have to check Amazon and see what they've got. My Sammy BD players do an outstanding job of upscaling DVDs to 1080p. I'd rather have it on BD or on NF SHD, but I guess that's never gonna happen.

Just checked Amazon. Nada. Nothing but 4:3. Nuts. They certainly have dropped in price tho. Whole set of the show in 4:3 for about $85. Might buy it, the upscalers don't seem to care what the aspect is. God, I love that show!

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Was Larry David the genius that made it work, or was it Seinfeld himself- or the two together? (or some other entity!)


Just a guess, but I'd go with Seinfeld over David, probably 60-40. What would that show been like without that cast? Just the casting was a stroke of genius.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Just did a Google search for widescreen DVDs of Seinfeld. Found plenty of hits from 2008, but nothing recent. I'll keep searching. Where's _*Sigma*_ when I need him and his search skills? That was a hint...

Rich


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> Just checked Amazon. Nada. Nothing but 4:3. Nuts. They certainly have dropped in price tho. Whole set of the show in 4:3 for about $85. Might buy it, the upscalers don't seem to care what the aspect is. God, I love that show!


Me too. I just assumed the DVDs were 16:9, because the syndicated reruns are airing 16:9. Odd they're not the same.

*EDIT:* Looks like 16:9 (and 4k) is planned:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Seinfeld-The-Complete-Series-Blu-ray/33557/


----------



## dcowboy7

Steve said:


> Me too. I just assumed the DVDs were 16:9, because the syndicated reruns are airing 16:9. Odd they're not the same.
> 
> *EDIT:* Looks like 16:9 (and 4k) is planned:
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Seinfeld-The-Complete-Series-Blu-ray/33557/


The dvds are still only 4x3 because they came out before they converted the show to 16x9.

Also that page on bluray.com is really just a placeholder there are no rumours at all of it coming out on blu strange as it is.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Me too. I just assumed the DVDs were 16:9, because the syndicated reruns are airing 16:9. Odd they're not the same.
> 
> *EDIT:* Looks like 16:9 (and 4k) is planned:
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Seinfeld-The-Complete-Series-Blu-ray/33557/


Thanx, I can wait for that!

Rich


----------



## Rich

dcowboy7 said:


> The dvds are still only 4x3 because they came out before they converted the show to 16x9.
> 
> Also that page on bluray.com is really just a placeholder there are no rumours at all of it coming out on blu strange as it is.


Dream killer.

Rich


----------



## dennisj00

I can't imagine the 4k cameras being a big hit on the budget of any major series or movie. If you look at the cast / support list in the credits of any production, multiply that by the number of days of production for salary, expenses, food, lodging, etc, 10 or so 4k capable cameras is miniscule.

There's a ton of other equipment that they rent / lease for lighting, generators, etc.


----------



## P Smith

dennisj00 said:


> I can't imagine the 4k cameras being a big hit on the budget of any major series or movie. If you look at the cast / support list in the credits of any production, multiply that by the number of days of production for salary, expenses, food, lodging, etc, 10 or so 4k capable cameras is miniscule.
> 
> There's a ton of other equipment that they rent / lease for lighting, generators, etc.


Cameras are not the end of expenses, add SW processing, computers, servers, etc


----------



## dennisj00

P Smith said:


> Cameras are not the end of expenses, add SW processing, computers, servers, etc


Which are also very cheap (and reusable) compared to personnel, etc.


----------



## P Smith

dennisj00 said:


> Which are also *very cheap* (and reusable) compared to personnel, etc.


hehe ... you should look into that financial sheets to see if it's cheap or not (lets forget about the mythical "very cheap" words)


----------



## Steve

dennisj00 said:


> Which are also very cheap (and reusable) compared to personnel, etc.


ya. I thought I read somewhere that the last season of Game of Thrones cost about $75 million to produce.


----------



## P Smith

he is not in the game and thinking he know everything to throw the words


----------



## Steve

P Smith said:


> he is not in the game and thinking he know everything to throw the words


not sure what you mean, but I agree with Dennis. The added cost of 4k may be a rounding error, compared to overall production costs.


----------



## dennisj00

P Smith said:


> he is not in the game and thinking he know everything to throw the words


Not sure what you're talking about, but I have seen some spreadsheets - 'Homeland' was filmed near here. You wouldn't believe what a catered lunch or dinner cost. (more than a 4k camera!!)


----------



## slice1900

Steve said:


> ya. I thought I read somewhere that the last season of Game of Thrones cost about $75 million to produce.


And yet it isn't produced in 4K...


----------



## peds48

Rich said:


> God, I love that show!
> 
> Rich


Until you meet him in person, after you will change your mind..... At least I have. Worse "celebrity" I have ever met. Could it because it was in his home so he was "natural"


----------



## Laxguy

Rich said:


> Just a guess, but I'd go with Seinfeld over David, probably 60-40. What would that show been like without that cast? Just the casting was a stroke of genius.


Yes, but again, was that David or Seinfeld, or a collaboration?


----------



## P Smith

dennisj00 said:


> Not sure what you're talking about, but I have seen some spreadsheets - 'Homeland' was filmed near here. You wouldn't believe what a catered lunch or dinner cost. (more than a 4k camera!!)


I'm talking about IT side of the process mostly, while I know something less about FX part (all movies getting into it somehow) ...


----------



## James Long

dennisj00 said:


> Not sure what you're talking about, but I have seen some spreadsheets - 'Homeland' was filmed near here. You wouldn't believe what a catered lunch or dinner cost. (more than a 4k camera!!)


I wonder what would affect the quality of a show more: shooting and producing in less than 4K or cutting back on craft services.

Some day a 4K camera will just be a camera and shooting/editing in HD will be as undesired as shooting/editing in less than HD is today. We have not reached that day. If it doesn't need 4K for theatrical release I don't see most production companies spending the money.


----------



## dennisj00

James Long said:


> I wonder what would affect the quality of a show more: shooting and producing in less than 4K or cutting back on craft services.
> 
> Some day a 4K camera will just be a camera and shooting/editing in HD will be as undesired as shooting/editing in less than HD is today. We have not reached that day. If it doesn't need 4K for theatrical release I don't see most production companies spending the money.


I'd think at this point it would be for 'future proofing' the production.


----------



## Steve

dennisj00 said:


> I'd think at this point it would be for 'future proofing' the production.


Yup. Like shooting in 35mm, 25 years ago.


----------



## edpowers

P Smith said:


> Cameras are not the end of expenses, add SW processing, computers, servers, etc





dennisj00 said:


> Which are also very cheap (and reusable) compared to personnel, etc.


Interesting related article from last year ...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/after-earth-among-1st-movies-to-be-shot-shown-in-4k-1.1305890

_The increased number of pixels involved in 4K movies creates extra work for special effects artists, especially on effects that require a human touch, such as the pixel-by-pixel cutouts of objects in each frame known as "rotoscoping."_

_Working entirely in 4K means a movie could take up to 30 per cent more time, as well more money on labour and better computers, says Jenny Fulle, chief executive of The Creative-Cartel, which handled the special effects in "After Earth."_

_The extra cost and time is one of the reasons that the sci-fi flick starring Tom Cruise, "Oblivion," was released in 2K in April. It would have cost an extra $1.5 million to finish the film in 4K, according to Sony Electronics' business development manager, Keith Vidger._

_Jeffrey Okun, chairman of the Visual Effects Society, a non-profit organization of Hollywood special effects practitioners, says that making the change to all-4K effects will be difficult but necessary. He calls it "another leap in quality."_
_"No industry has made more leaps in a shorter amount of time than the visual effects industry," he says._


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Yes, but again, was that David or Seinfeld, or a collaboration?


I meant a collaboration. I think Seinfeld had the most input.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

edpowers said:


> Interesting related article from last year ...
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/after-earth-among-1st-movies-to-be-shot-shown-in-4k-1.1305890
> 
> _The increased number of pixels involved in 4K movies creates extra work for special effects artists, especially on effects that require a human touch, such as the pixel-by-pixel cutouts of objects in each frame known as "rotoscoping."_
> 
> _Working entirely in 4K means a movie could take up to 30 per cent more time, as well more money on labour and better computers, says Jenny Fulle, chief executive of The Creative-Cartel, which handled the special effects in "After Earth."_
> 
> _The extra cost and time is one of the reasons that the sci-fi flick starring Tom Cruise, "Oblivion," was released in 2K in April. It would have cost an extra $1.5 million to finish the film in 4K, according to Sony Electronics' business development manager, Keith Vidger._
> 
> _Jeffrey Okun, chairman of the Visual Effects Society, a non-profit organization of Hollywood special effects practitioners, says that making the change to all-4K effects will be difficult but necessary. He calls it "another leap in quality."_
> _"No industry has made more leaps in a shorter amount of time than the visual effects industry," he says._


Those added costs are chump change compared to revenues...

At $12-$20 for just one movie ticket these days...and then there's the 4K fixed media (upgraded from Blu ray) additional revenues per movie, which are even a greater sources of revenue on many movies made today...

The stated premise of the cost increase is a poor argument by Hollywood (more like an excuse).


----------



## slice1900

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Those added costs are chump change compared to revenues...
> 
> At $12-$20 for just one movie ticket these days...and then there's the 4K fixed media (upgraded from Blu ray) additional revenues per movie, which are even a greater sources of revenue on many movies made today...
> 
> The stated premise of the cost increase is a poor argument by Hollywood (more like an excuse).


But will a 4K movie generate better box office revenue than 2K? Hardly.

Will it generate more sales from on demand and Blu Ray media sales? Perhaps, but it remains to seen whether it would be a lot or a drop in the bucket like 3D. That's why they're hesitant to make the additional investment. Maybe their revenue means they can afford to do it, but why spend $1.5 million extra if you don't have to unless you're certain you'll make it up and then some?


----------



## P Smith

they know their books better then we can guess all day long

bottom point, it will give them revenue or it will never happen

perhaps mfg industry of mass devices like TV sets, future XBR (BR with 4K/8K content), etc has an agreement with producers (not necessary published)


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> But will a 4K movie generate better box office revenue than 2K? Hardly.
> 
> Will it generate more sales from on demand and Blu Ray media sales? Perhaps, but it remains to seen whether it would be a lot or a drop in the bucket like 3D. That's why they're hesitant to make the additional investment. Maybe their revenue means they can afford to do it, but why spend $1.5 million extra if you don't have to unless you're certain you'll make it up and then some?


It may well do better at the box office. After people get educated.

The $1.5MM increase is for hand editing special effects, CGI, etc. Hardly anywhere near that for movies that don't have to rely on such gimmicks.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> It may well do better at the box office. After people get educated.
> 
> The $1.5MM increase is for hand editing special effects, CGI, etc. Hardly anywhere near that for movies that don't have to rely on such gimmicks.


"Get educated"? 4K doesn't make movies any better than 3D made them better, and I've never heard anyone complain about 2K movies having crappy resolution. It will make the picture a bit better, but that is unlikely to draw people to the theater who would have otherwise waited a few months to watch it at home.

The other problem with 4K movies is that many theaters don't have 4K projectors. Those are _expensive_, and most places are probably in no hurry to upgrade after having done the expensive digital projector upgrade not too long ago. Even when they're the same price as 2K projectors, why are theater owners going to spend tens of thousands to replace a perfectly good 2K projector? Few moviegoers would notice the difference, and it would take a lot of them to go to another theater across town that has 4K equipment (assuming there is one nearby - that's probably only going to true in bigger cities) to pay for it.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> "Get educated"? 4K doesn't make movies any better than 3D made them better, and I've never heard anyone complain about 2K movies having crappy resolution. It will make the picture a bit better, but that is unlikely to draw people to the theater who would have otherwise waited a few months to watch it at home.
> 
> The other problem with 4K movies is that many theaters don't have 4K projectors. Those are _expensive_, and most places are probably in no hurry to upgrade after having done the expensive digital projector upgrade not too long ago. Even when they're the same price as 2K projectors, why are theater owners going to spend tens of thousands to replace a perfectly good 2K projector? Few moviegoers would notice the difference, and it would take a lot of them to go to another theater across town that has 4K equipment (assuming there is one nearby - that's probably only going to true in bigger cities) to pay for it.


Picture quality matters, when its that much better. Just ask how people liked the picture quality of Avatar...And ask Hollywood how much money they make simply because something is shown in IMAX or one of the other bigger screen formats...


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> It may well do better at the box office. After people get educated.


Good luck with that. Are you suggesting that theaters should charge more for 4K the way that they charge more for 3D?

Poor resolution in a theater may keep me from seeing the next film in a theater (I might as well watch it at home if the image quality is bad in a theater). Marketing the movie as "4K" is going over the head of most people. And quite frankly, I expect a lot more than 4K when I go to a theater. I really don't think about the resolution unless it is bad once I get into the theater (after buying the ticket) ... but putting "4K" in the advertising just reminds me that there is a limit to the resolution. Now I have to do the math to figure out how far back I need to sit so I don't see the pixels.

I choose the movies I see in the theater based on the content of the film. The Tom Cruise film ... probably fine in 2K. If I ever see it I'll probably watch it on HBO or FX or wherever it lands. The Hobbit? That might be worth seeing in 4K. Although due to the decision to split it into three films I refuse to see The Hobbit in a theater. The decision to buy a ticket or wait for TV depends on plot and cast ... not resolution. For me, seeing the resolution advertised for a movie is a negative.

(I have paid to see a couple of regular feature films in IMAX. But that is a different experience than 4K on a regular screen.)


----------



## inkahauts

I don't think they can charge more, but they can get people to go to a particular theater because of it over another, or more importantly, chose one movie over another when deciding which to see in markets that have many megaplexs...


----------



## GregLee

One word: reruns.


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah, I have a feeling people don't realize how much money Hollywood spends in the middle of this country to try and keep actual film in pristine condition in our salt mine vaults, the better digital copy they can make, the happier they will be.


----------



## James Long

256K should be enough for everyone.

Once digitized one can not get more bits. 35MM is approximately 6K. IMAX is approximately 18K. I suppose that would be the most one should expect if the original filming was done in 35MM or IMAX. But as we look toward the future what is future proofing? Digital 8K? 32K? 256K? It seems that there will always be a future with a higher resolution.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> ..I choose the movies I see in the theater based on the content of the film. The Tom Cruise film ... probably fine in 2K. If I ever see it I'll probably watch it on HBO or FX or wherever it lands. The Hobbit? That might be worth seeing in 4K. Although due to the decision to split it into three films I refuse to see The Hobbit in a theater. The decision to buy a ticket or wait for TV depends on plot and cast ... not resolution. For me, seeing the resolution advertised for a movie is a negative.
> 
> (I have paid to see a couple of regular feature films in IMAX. But that is a different experience than 4K on a regular screen.)


This.

The producers of Oblivion made the right decision...$1.5 million less to flush down the drain. (That movie was a waste of 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.)

Amazingly sharp visuals and outstanding sound will not make a bad movie better. Likewise, Fritz Lang's Metropolis is still a great movie, even though it was shot on a hand cranked camera with no sound. The Transformers movies have some outstanding effects, but 30 years from now I guarantee you none of them will be on anyone's "Best movies of the last 50 years" lists.

I think sometimes that the obsession with more and more sophisticated technology in entertainment is just a smoke screen that obscures the fact that most "entertainment" these days just isn't all that entertaining.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Diana C said:


> This.
> 
> The producers of Oblivion made the right decision...$1.5 million less to flush down the drain. (That movie was a waste of 2 hours of my life that I'll never get back.)
> 
> Amazingly sharp visuals and outstanding sound will not make a bad movie better. Likewise, Fritz Lang's Metropolis is still a great movie, even though it was shot on a hand cranked camera with no sound. The Transformers movies have some outstanding effects, but 30 years from now I guarantee you none of them will be on anyone's "Best movies of the last 50 years" lists.
> 
> I think sometimes that the obsession with more and more sophisticated technology in entertainment is just a smoke screen that obscures the fact that most "entertainment" these days just isn't all that entertaining.


I agree with you on modern entertainment. One of the greatest movie I ever seen is Abel Gance Napolean from 1927.


----------



## acostapimps

People would buy tickets to watch a 4k movie content, just to see what the hype is all about, Then when it's all settled and done
And the hype wears off, they'll go back to watching on any resolution. But would rather watch 4k on TV instead.


----------



## Diana C

Let's be absolutely real...

The prospects of 4K network broadcasts are so remote, I think we're more likely to see free unlimited broadband first. For a broadcast channel to move to 4K will either require the allocation of second frequency to each and every TV station, or the development of new compression that can get a 4K signal down to about half what h.265 or VP9 can achieve. Since a LARGE portion of what most people watch is on their local broadcast network affiliate, this will make 4K a non-factor for most content. 

Before cable can move anything onto 4K they will have to either develop entirely new distribution systems (by moving to IP delivery, expanding beyond the current 864 MHz frequency stack or both) or completely eliminate all SD channels. The same is true (though to a somewhat lesser extent) for satellite systems. Since over 85% of households still rely on some form of MVPD for television content this means that 4K won't be a factor for most people for several more years.

Most 4K TVs on the market today are also crippled. To get 60fps 4K requires HDMI 2.0, which is not yet available. Therefore the most any UHD TV set can receive to day is 30fps 4K (there are a few TVs with removable HDMI interface cards so, assuming HDMI 2.0 cards become available. they can be upgraded), Add in the fact that you need a TV that is over 5 feet diagonally, and/or sit closer to the TV than most people do, in order to see the difference between 1080p and 4K and the prospects for widespread acceptance becomes bleaker.

So, until there is very little difference between the price of a 1080p set and UHD set, I don't see how 4K expands outside the videophile market. Of course, the whole point of 4K (like 3D before it) from the manufacturer's point of view is to keep the price of TVs high, waiting for the price to come down is not going to work for the vendors.

For at least the next several years the only viable source of 4K content will be UHD BluRay disks (assuming they ever materialize) or streaming. Relying on BluRay is just like the situation with 3D - and look how that worked out. Relying on streaming runs up against data caps and cost, plus the lack of sufficiently high speed broadband availability in vast parts of the country.

It is all driven by content. Until the technology exists to fit a 4K signal into a standard 6MHz broadcast TV channel I just seriously question how quickly this format will be adopted. Even with h.265, you have to compress 4K output so severely to make it fit into a 6MHz channel that you lose the very thing (better image quality) that you are trying to achieve.


----------



## slice1900

The technology exists to fit a 4K broadcast into the 6 MHz band now, using h.265. Remember they're currently using MPEG2 which is roughly 4x less efficient, and are able to deliver 720p and 1080i along with a subchannel or two today.

They are already working on standardization of future ATSC versions that will allow for 4K delivery. The problem is as you say they'll need a second frequency since they can't stop delivering HD, and the FCC is reducing the available frequency by auctioning off channels 31-51 next year. Big cities won't have much if any room for dedicated 4K channels.


----------



## slice1900

acostapimps said:


> People would buy tickets to watch a 4k movie content, just to see what the hype is all about, Then when it's all settled and done
> And the hype wears off, they'll go back to watching on any resolution. But would rather watch 4k on TV instead.


I don't believe that for a second. There are theaters already that have 4K movies and projection equipment, and no one goes to them especially because of that. The only 4K hype is around 4K TVs only, and they can satisfy that curiosity in Best Buy.

This isn't like 3D, where the theater/TV watching experience is (supposedly) going to change. Adding a third dimension, even if poorly and only as a gimmick, is a lot bigger change than a slightly sharper image. When theaters went digital, the resolution went *down* versus 35mm, and you didn't see a bunch of people up in arms about how blurry films suddenly looked.

I'll bet even the 4K proponents in this forum wouldn't notice if they went into a theater to watch a film they knew had been produced in 4K and it was shown in 2K because the 4K equipment was broken down.


----------



## GregLee

Diana C said:


> Let's be absolutely real...
> 
> The prospects of 4K network broadcasts are so remote, I think we're more likely to see free unlimited broadband first. For a broadcast channel to move to 4K will either require the allocation of second frequency to each and every TV station, or the development of new compression that can get a 4K signal down to about half what h.265 or VP9 can achieve. Since a LARGE portion of what most people watch is on their local broadcast network affiliate, this will make 4K a non-factor for most content.
> ...
> 
> Most 4K TVs on the market today are also crippled. To get 60fps 4K requires HDMI 2.0, which is not yet available.


Why do you think a 4k signal can't be carried on a broadcast channel? Since a 4k signal can be compressed down to a very small bandwidth, I think it can. I've seen an estimate of 18mbps for current HD broadcast video, and IIRC, Netflix requires a download bandwidth of 17mbps before it will stream you a 4k video.

Hot news: my 4k TV, Samsung HU8550, has HDMI 2.0.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> The technology exists to fit a 4K broadcast into the 6 MHz band now, using h.265. Remember they're currently using MPEG2 which is roughly 4x less efficient, and are able to deliver 720p and 1080i along with a subchannel or two today.
> 
> They are already working on standardization of future ATSC versions that will allow for 4K delivery. The problem is as you say they'll need a second frequency since they can't stop delivering HD, and the FCC is reducing the available frequency by auctioning off channels 31-51 next year. Big cities won't have much if any room for dedicated 4K channels.


FCC action would be needed to allow anything but the current standards the FCC has accepted for ATSC. Theoretically broadcasters could transmit any format along side a valid SD stream but with a lack of tuners that would do anything other than the FCC approved formats stations would want to keep HD alive.

With the direction the FCC is going cutting broadcast frequencies I don't see them offering double channels to stations again. 4K broadcast is pretty much a non-starter.

They can still produce in 4K for secondary markets and "future proofing" ... but there are a lot of shows that never make it past the "the show failed ... sell DVDs to the few fans we had" phase. It would take a lot of faith that the program would succeed and become one of those seven season mega-hits that air 24/7 on some station somewhere.

And then you have to convince the cable networks doing syndication to upgrade to 4K channels. Considering how many years it took to get networks to spend to be HD I do not expect a lot of takers.

VODs ... PPVs ... the main movie channels ... a "demo" channel of 4K only content like 3DNet. That is the future I see.


----------



## Diana C

GregLee said:


> Why do you think a 4k signal can't be carried on a broadcast channel? Since a 4k signal can be compressed down to a very small bandwidth, I think it can. I've seen an estimate of 18mbps for current HD broadcast video, and IIRC, Netflix requires a download bandwidth of 17mbps before it will stream you a 4k video.
> 
> Hot news: my 4k TV, Samsung HU8550, has HDMI 2.0.


Any video content can be compressed to any bit rate desired. The question is: "how much detail is lost in the process?" All high efficiency compression algorithms are lossy - details are lost as part of the compression. H.265, like H.264 before it, simply improves on the cleverness with which sections of the image are selected for maximum compression. I can tell you one thing for certain...a 17Kbps stream from Netflix is not going to resemble the 4K demo material you'll see in stores.

Which HDMI 2.0 features does your Samsung have? See this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-hdmi-q-one-connector-world/1523994-hdmi-2-0-cedia-webinar.html

My point is that there are a ton of 4K TVs out there that will never be able to display a 60fps image.


----------



## txfeinbergs

Diana C said:


> Any video content can be compressed to any bit rate desired. The question is: "how much detail is lost in the process?" All high efficiency compression algorithms are lossy - details are lost as part of the compression. H.265, like H.264 before it, simply improves on the cleverness with which sections of the image are selected for maximum compression. I can tell you one thing for certain...a 17Kbps stream from Netflix is not going to resemble the 4K demo material you'll see in stores.
> 
> Which HDMI 2.0 features does your Samsung have? See this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-hdmi-q-one-connector-world/1523994-hdmi-2-0-cedia-webinar.html
> 
> My point is that there are a ton of 4K TVs out there that will never be able to display a 60fps image.


Honestly, once DirecTV offers 4K channels (likely at a premium), I would like the option of being able to pay that premium to watch them on my 1080P set but at a higher bitrate (i.e. less compression). This is the thing that really irritates me. We are paying for a heavily compressed 1080P signal already. Why not give me the option of using my current television at a much higher bitrate instead of having to go out and buy a 4K TV. We aren't even using the full quality of our current sets yet.


----------



## unixguru

Diana C said:


> Any video content can be compressed to any bit rate desired. The question is: "how much detail is lost in the process?" All high efficiency compression algorithms are lossy - details are lost as part of the compression. H.265, like H.264 before it, simply improves on the cleverness with which sections of the image are selected for maximum compression. I can tell you one thing for certain...a 17Kbps stream from Netflix is not going to resemble the 4K demo material you'll see in stores.
> 
> Which HDMI 2.0 features does your Samsung have? See this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-hdmi-q-one-connector-world/1523994-hdmi-2-0-cedia-webinar.html
> 
> My point is that there are a ton of 4K TVs out there that will never be able to display a 60fps image.


True BUT... I owned a TV that could only do 720p. If I recall correctly there were then models that could do 1080i but not 1080p. Then 1080p but only at 24 or 30 fps. This same trickle of feature enhancements will continue.

It will only be a few years until everything but the bottom will be 4K 60fps.

No doubt there will then be HDMI 2.1, 2.2, ..., HDMI 3.0, ... 8K...

There were arguments about 720p vs 1080i. Then 1080i vs 1080p. etc, etc, etc.

History proves one thing. Technology will continue to advance. At each step there will be those that argue against the technical feasibility, need, economic sanity, etc. But its only an issue of when, not if.

Sure, we can think of 3D and say some things will fail. But that won't stop the process.

It's a long time until we have holographic seeing, hearing, and smelling (and I suppose wind, temperature, humidity, IR heat, vibration, tactile, etc) that is indistinguishable from reality.

The only realistic discussion to have here is *when*.


----------



## unixguru

txfeinbergs said:


> Honestly, once DirecTV offers 4K channels (likely at a premium), I would like the option of being able to pay that premium to watch them on my 1080P set but at a higher bitrate (i.e. less compression). This is the thing that really irritates me. We are paying for a heavily compressed 1080P signal already. Why not give me the option of using my current television at a much higher bitrate instead of having to go out and buy a 4K TV. We aren't even using the full quality of our current sets yet.


Agreed.

I suspect that quality is too difficult to quantify for joe public. In other words, nothing short and sweet to _sell_.

Nobody in the industry is going to want to talk about how a 4K program can look worse than a 720p. Or that even if both were uncompressed a consumer may not see a difference depending on the features of a particular TV or viewing distance.

Marketing is about obfuscation - terse glitz. Its what works for the majority - that aren't here on this forum.


----------



## GregLee

Diana C said:


> I can tell you one thing for certain...a 17Kbps stream from Netflix is not going to resemble the 4K demo material you'll see in stores.
> 
> Which HDMI 2.0 features does your Samsung have? See this: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/168-hdmi-q-one-connector-world/1523994-hdmi-2-0-cedia-webinar.html
> 
> My point is that there are a ton of 4K TVs out there that will never be able to display a 60fps image.


I don't know what HDMI 2.0 features my HU8550 has. I doubt that it accepts 60fps 4k video. Samsung says they'll later offer an add on box implementing features not yet available, so if it doesn't now, it probably will do 60fps in the future.

I would be interested to know how you became certain that "a 17Kbps stream from Netflix is not going to resemble the 4K demo material you'll see in stores." I've at least seen both in store demos and an approximately 17mbps 4k stream (from youtube). Have you?


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Any video content can be compressed to any bit rate desired. The question is: "how much detail is lost in the process?" All high efficiency compression algorithms are lossy - details are lost as part of the compression. H.265, like H.264 before it, simply improves on the cleverness with which sections of the image are selected for maximum compression. I can tell you one thing for certain...a 17Kbps stream from Netflix is not going to resemble the 4K demo material you'll see in stores.


The 4K Directv and cable companies provide won't resemble what you get on a 4K Blu Ray any more than the HD pictures you get from them resemble what you get from a Blu Ray today. So while you're right that you can't deliver Blu Ray quality 4K through the ATSC bit rate of 19.39 Mbps, that's irrelevant. They can deliver the same quality Netflix does today with its 4K, or have less quality and have subchannels. Just like many TV stations do today with HD.

Obviously the idea of 4K OTA broadcasts is many years away, if it ever happens, since the standards need to be completed/tested, the FCC has to approve it and come up with some scheme for its deployment, and TV stations need to make the investment necessary to broadcast it. It may never happen for broadcast, but if 4K really caught on the TV stations could deliver 4K video to those cable/satellite providers who receive it via fiber/co-lo, even if they only broadcast HD. That would allow the networks to provide 4K network programming without the TV stations needing to make the size of investment that would be required to actually broadcast 4K.

There's a big difference in HD quality from Blu Ray, to top quality HD broadcasts, to crap quality HD broadcasts. The same will be true for 4K. Oh, initially it'll all be pretty high quality stuff, because there will only be a couple 4K channels and they'll want to show it off in the best light possible to get more people to pay for 4K service. But if it starts to catch on as some people here believe/hope, it'll eventually get treated just like HD does now, and some channels will be allowed better quality and many will end up worse than good quality HD - just as quite a few "lesser" stations are laughably bit starved on HD today on many providers.

If we go through this whole game again in a decade with 8K, the same will be true then.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> Obviously the idea of 4K OTA broadcasts is many years away, if it ever happens, since the standards need to be completed/tested, the FCC has to approve it and come up with some scheme for its deployment, and TV stations need to make the investment necessary to broadcast it.


This opinion may be hasty. Dolby has claimed, "Dolby Vision is a "dual-codec" technology that uses the HEVC 10-bit base layer plus an 8-bit AVC enhancement layer or two 8-bit AVC encodes. With this approach, existing broadcast and encoder/decoder technology may easily adopt Dolby Vision while retaining backward compatibility." http://www.display-central.com/free-news/display-daily/dolby-reveals-details-behind-dolby-vision-2/


----------



## slice1900

I'm not sure if I read that to mean what I think you're implying: that they can broadcast a bitstream that will be decoded as HEVC 4K by 4K capable devices, and decoded as AVC HD by HD capable devices. It would have to work with 100% of existing ATSC capable devices for the FCC to approve it. If it works with 98% of them, no go.

It isn't clear what Dolby means here:



> *Is a special chip needed or can the algorithm be implemented on GPU or CPU processors already in the TVs, or licensed into brand specific IC cores?*
> 
> We are integrating Dolby Vision into the TV and STB SoCs currently under development for next generation products.


Is that the Dolby Vision image enhancement? Or is that the combining of 4K and HD data into a single stream?


----------



## Steve

slice1900 said:


> If we go through this whole game again in a decade with 8K, the same will be true then.


You can be sure if it's not 8k, it'll be something else manufacturers come up with that will make folks want to replace perfectly good displays with some other technology that won't look any better at normal viewing distances.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> Is that the Dolby Vision image enhancement? Or is that the combining of 4K and HD data into a single stream?


I don't know what they mean. Dolby Vision doesn't seem to have anything intrinsically to do with 4k resolution, but here they seem to be saying that it is compatible with 4k, and it's compatible with broadcast standards (given a modest extra bandwidth requirement). But if 4k is now incompatible with broadcast standards, maybe Dolby is just saying that adding in Dolby Vision doesn't make things any worse -- it's no more incompatible than it was before.


----------



## Diana C

GregLee said:


> ...I would be interested to know how you became certain that "a 17Kbps stream from Netflix is not going to resemble the 4K demo material you'll see in stores." I've at least seen both in store demos and an approximately 17mbps 4k stream (from youtube). Have you?


I have seen both...that's what makes me certain.


----------



## GregLee

GregLee said:


> I don't know what HDMI 2.0 features my HU8550 has. I doubt that it accepts 60fps 4k video.


Correction: The HU8550 does accept 60fps 4k video. According to the review here, http://hdguru.com/samsung-un55hu8550-uhd-4k-tv-review/, "All of the HU8550′s HDMI ports were compatible with video signals up to 2160p at 60Hz - as confirmed with the DVDO AVLab TPG - 4K Test Pattern Generator."


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/directv-gears-4k/382897

DirecTV Gears Up For 4K
Will Be Ready For 4K VOD This Year, With Live 4K To Follow7/31/2014 10:00 PM Eastern


*By: Jeff Baumgartner*
Follow @thebauminator










DirecTV will be ready to deliver 4K video on an on-demand basis this year, and be set up to follow with live 4K streaming next year or by early 2016, company president and CEO Mike White said Thursday on the company's second quarter earnings call.

"We're working to secure some [4K] content," White said. "We expect certainly in 2015 or early 2016, to be able to stream live content."

The live side of the 4K ledger is dependent on the launches of two new satellites, slated to be in orbit over the next 18 months, that will give DirecTV the additional capacity it'll need.

That extra headroom will "give us a unique advantage of capacity to be able to provide a great customer experience," he said, reiterating that DirecTV should be able to offer 4K VOD before those birds are in place.

DirecTV's 4K plans are relatively ggressive among U.S. pay-TV providers as consumer adoption of Ultra HD remains in the early phases.

At the Consumer Electronics Show in January, DirecTV, Comcast, Netflix, M-GO and Amazon allannounced plans to offer a package of 4K content to Samsung Ultra HD sets. Among them, Netflix has already begun to offer a small library of 4K fare.

A Comcast official said the MSO is still on schedule to launch its on-demand Xfinity TV 4K app before the end of the year, but hasn't announced a specific launch date. Comcast is also working on a new generation of boxes for its X1 platform that uses HEVC and can decode native 4K signals.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/directv-gears-4k/382897
> 
> DirecTV Gears Up For 4K Will Be Ready For 4K VOD This Year, With Live 4K To Follow7/31/2014 10:00 PM Eastern
> 
> 
> *By: Jeff Baumgartner*
> Follow @thebauminator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DirecTV will be ready to deliver 4K video on an on-demand basis this year, and be set up to follow with live 4K streaming next year or by early 2016, company president and CEO Mike White said Thursday on the company's second quarter earnings call.
> 
> "We're working to secure some [4K] content," White said. "We expect certainly in 2015 or early 2016, to be able to stream live content."
> 
> The live side of the 4K ledger is dependent on the launches of two new satellites, slated to be in orbit over the next 18 months, that will give DirecTV the additional capacity it'll need.
> 
> That extra headroom will "give us a unique advantage of capacity to be able to provide a great customer experience," he said, reiterating that DirecTV should be able to offer 4K VOD before those birds are in place.
> 
> DirecTV's 4K plans are relatively ggressive among U.S. pay-TV providers as consumer adoption of Ultra HD remains in the early phases.
> 
> At the Consumer Electronics Show in January, DirecTV, Comcast, Netflix, M-GO and Amazon allannounced plans to offer a package of 4K content to Samsung Ultra HD sets. Among them, Netflix has already begun to offer a small library of 4K fare.
> 
> A Comcast official said the MSO is still on schedule to launch its on-demand Xfinity TV 4K app before the end of the year, but hasn't announced a specific launch date. Comcast is also working on a new generation of boxes for its X1 platform that uses HEVC and can decode native 4K signals.


and in comcast land that may take 3-5 years for that hardware to come out.


----------



## txfeinbergs

SomeRandomIdiot, nice find!


----------



## Riverpilot

I dunno if anyone knows Slash, from Guns N Roses, Slash' snakepit, et al.. ?

They're recording a show from LA in 4k that is supposed to be streaming on directv in November. I'm wondering if any other TV besides Samsung will do any of this yet, or ??


----------



## CraigerM

When I skimmed the SEC filing on the merger ATT talked about DTV's plans for 4K. Sounds like that is one of the reasons they wanted DTV. They also said they were going to merge the distribution centers so they can use the best compression technology. I wonder if that means they will be able to get 4K with both satellite and IPTV? They also mentioned using DTV's equipment for DTV's customers and for new UVerseTV customers.


----------



## GregLee

GregLee said:


> Why does it seem that way? I've seen several informal reports from people who claim to be able to easily distinguish 4k from 2k, and several have said that colors have a more solid appearance on the 4k displays. Nothing to do with discerning individual pixels or picture details.


Having thought about this some more, I think I understand better the reports of improved color in 4k, and why seeing an improved picture with 4k does not have to do with whether you can see individual pixels. In a sense, actually, the improvement comes because you can't discern the pixels.

As you all know, a color TV does not show all the colors we see on the screen directly, but depends on the perceptual merger of 3 RGB sub-pixels (or sometimes 4), and for a panel with 8 bit color depth, we get the perceptual effect of combining 2^8 values of the 3 sub-pixels, which gives (2^8)^3 = 2^24 colors. (It's a little less, because not quite all the 2^8 values can be used for color.) A way to improve the color is to use a panel with 10 or 12 bit color, which is expensive, however.

In the same screen area that a 2k TV has a single pixel, a 4k TV has four pixels, which gives it 4*3 = 12 RGB subpixels. Since we can't discern the individual sub-pixels on a 2k set, of course we can't discern the still smaller sub-pixels on a 4k set, either, and the color we see at this spot on the screen will be a perceptual merger of the values given to the 12 sub-pixels. The number of levels of red that can be shown with 4 red sub-pixels is 4 * 2^8 = 2^10 for an 8 bit panel. So since we have more and smaller pixels, we get more colors, (2^10)^3, which is the number of different colors available on a 2k set that has a 10 bit panel.

The combining of several small pixels of varying colors to display additional intermediate shades, by dithering, is something that is already done by video cameras.


----------



## harsh

dennisj00 said:


> I'd think at this point it would be for 'future proofing' the production.


Since such a preponderance of new movies are based on or remakes of old themes or movies, I'm not convinced that is a goal.


----------



## harsh

JoeTheDragon said:


> and in comcast land that may take 3-5 years for that hardware to come out.


As if the THR-22 came out the door at the early end of the projection and the HMC was ready by EOY 2006.


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> In the same screen area that a 2k TV has a single pixel, a 4k TV has four pixels, which gives it 4*3 = 12 RGB subpixels. Since we can't discern the individual sub-pixels on a 2k set, of course we can't discern the still smaller sub-pixels on a 4k set, either, and the color we see at this spot on the screen will be a perceptual merger of the values given to the 12 sub-pixels. The number of different colors that can be shown is, accordingly, (2^8)^12 for an 8 bit panel. So since we have more and smaller pixels, we get more colors. Lots more. (2^8)^12 = (2^32)^3, which is the number of different colors available on a 2k set that has a 32 bit panel.


This only matters if the processing hardware supports these extremes. Real time encoding is going to be strained even if they make huge leaps above the current technology. I'd bet that the providers will probably cut at least half of the theoretical capability out up front in the interest of fitting the stream within a reasonable bandwidth.


----------



## dennisj00

harsh said:


> Since such a preponderance of new movies are based on or remakes of old themes or movies, I'm not convinced that is a goal.


Another case of "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK"


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Since such a preponderance of new movies are based on or remakes of old themes or movies, I'm not convinced that is a goal.


I guess don't really get what Hollywood likes to do just like you don't get directv half the time. Do you know how many millions of dollars Hollywood spends to keep and restore old prints every Year? They always want the best quality they can get when it makes any semblance of sense to do.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> Do you know how many millions of dollars Hollywood spends to keep and restore old prints every Year?


Until they let college interns into the vaults that end up throwing out much of irreplaceable masters.


----------



## inkahauts

I don't think I they let interns into the vaults hundreds of feet underground in Kansas or whichever state around there it is..


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> I don't think I they let interns into the vaults hundreds of feet underground in Kansas or whichever state around there it is..


They were not always stored there. Check a bit into history and you will find that either UCLA (though it might have been USC) interns threw out many masters years ago - film and master tapes of TV and LPs.


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah maybe ages ago when they where not realizing money could be made from all these additional avenues of vcr tapes, then dvd, then blu Ray, then 4k then.... Not to mention rerelease ins movies in theaters. Dvd is really what helped launch a massive amount of restorations of old prints for movies and some tv.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

http://www.multichannel.com/news/technology/cablelabs-boots-4k-video-sharing-website/383154

CableLabs Boots Up 4K Video Sharing Website
Provides Access To 4K Fare Under The Creative Commons License8/13/2014 12:45 PM Eastern


*By: Jeff Baumgartner*
Follow @thebauminator









TakeAway
CableLabs' new 4K microsite will offer an expanding library of Ultra HD video for non-commercial testing and demonstrations

CableLabs has launched a 4K-focused microsite that provides access to Ultra HD/4K video clips to help platform developers, vendors, network operators and other video pros conduct tests with the emerging eye-popping format.

CableLabs said it's offering the content under the Creative Commons License, meaning it can be used freely for non-commercial testing, demonstrations and the general advancement of technology.

As vendors utilize content from the site to test new technology, CableLabs helps the industry get one step closer to standardizing 4K content and delivering to the home.

As of this writing, the site hosts seven videos, all shot with a Red Epic camera. The longest of the batch is a fireman-focused clip titled "Seconds That Count" that runs 5 minutes and 22 seconds.

On the site, CableLabs has integrated an upload form for anyone who wants to share their 4K videos for the purpose of testing. Interested particiapnts are directed to provide a lower bite-rate HD file for preview purposes along with a 4K version. CableLabs is accepting pre-transcoded versions using MPEG HEVC or AVC, or Apple ProRes version. CableLabs will take on the task of transcoding the content into two high quality versions available for download on the website.

"Our intent is to make this a marquis website for vetting next-generation content that can be available to platform developers and network operators," the site FAQ reads. "By sharing your video content through this site, you have the opportunity to gain unique connections directly with cable operators around the world."

CableLabs notes that uploaded content might be used for demos at forums, shows, and conferences.

CableLabs is launching the site as the cable industry just begins to develop plans around 4K. Among major U.S. MSOs, Comcast plans to launch an Internet-based, on-demand Xfinity TV 4K app before the end of the year that will initially be available on new Samsung UHD. The MSO is also working with partners on a new generation of boxes for its X1 platform that uses HEVC and can decode native 4K signals.

On the competitive front, DirecTV president and CEO Mike White said on the company's second quarter earnings call that the satellite TV giant will be ready to deliver 4K video on an on-demand basis this year, and be set up to follow with live 4K streaming next year or by early 2016.

http://4k.cablelabs.com


----------



## gphvid

inkahauts said:


> The move to 4k will be even easier considering many movies are already shot in it. Natural attrition will take care of it. It was much more difficult to change everything to a totally new technology where as this is simply a newer version of the same. They won't need to build new studios and such as they did for Hi Definition. Hi Definition was a much much more massive undertaking.
> 
> And as for 1080p. I believe several channels are already done completely in 1080p and downgraded for distribution. NFL network and I think espn are among them but not positive about espn.


While movie and TV production might be in 4k now, it will be bandwidth that will be the issue for transmission. It took some time before they got a decent codec for 2k transmission. I expect 4k to take as long if not longer. And I do not expect true 4k from alot of different sources for quite some time.


----------



## inkahauts

Past experience says it will take less and less time to get a good codec for 4k transmission, and in fact I read the other day someone (forgot who and where, think it was in Japan as usual) already figured out a low bandwidth way to broadcast full 4k...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Past experience says it will take less and less time to get a good codec for 4k transmission, and in fact I read the other day someone (forgot who and where, think it was in Japan as usual) already figured out a low bandwidth way to broadcast full 4k...
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The more I look at the 4K TVs the more I want one. Just give me enough content and I'll happily buy one.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

I'd say wait a year I think pricing will come down even more and content will Increase significantly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

You're both in my camp! However, until my gorgeous Sammy plasma starts to falter, I'm most likely on the sidelines, rooting for 4k....


----------



## jonesron

slice1900 said:


> The 4K Directv and cable companies provide won't resemble what you get on a 4K Blu Ray any more than the HD pictures you get from them resemble what you get from a Blu Ray today. So while you're right that you can't deliver Blu Ray quality 4K through the ATSC bit rate of 19.39 Mbps, that's irrelevant. They can deliver the same quality Netflix does today with its 4K, or have less quality and have subchannels. Just like many TV stations do today with HD.
> 
> Obviously the idea of 4K OTA broadcasts is many years away, if it ever happens, since the standards need to be completed/tested, the FCC has to approve it and come up with some scheme for its deployment, and TV stations need to make the investment necessary to broadcast it. It may never happen for broadcast, but if 4K really caught on the TV stations could deliver 4K video to those cable/satellite providers who receive it via fiber/co-lo, even if they only broadcast HD. That would allow the networks to provide 4K network programming without the TV stations needing to make the size of investment that would be required to actually broadcast 4K.
> 
> There's a big difference in HD quality from Blu Ray, to top quality HD broadcasts, to crap quality HD broadcasts. The same will be true for 4K. Oh, initially it'll all be pretty high quality stuff, because there will only be a couple 4K channels and they'll want to show it off in the best light possible to get more people to pay for 4K service. But if it starts to catch on as some people here believe/hope, it'll eventually get treated just like HD does now, and some channels will be allowed better quality and many will end up worse than good quality HD - just as quite a few "lesser" stations are laughably bit starved on HD today on many providers.
> 
> If we go through this whole game again in a decade with 8K, the same will be true then.


The ATSC has been working on the UHD broadcast standard for he past couple of years with a target to have a proposed standard completed in 2015. Once it is ready then there will a need to conduct field tests, followed by any revisions to the proposed UHD standard to address issues and limitations uncovered by the field testing. Once this is completed and there is a matured and validated proposal then there will need to be a transition plan developed and finally FCC approval. The first routine commercial UHD broadcasts in the USA are not expected until at least 2020 and perhaps several years later. The versions of UHD supported may very well include both 4K (2160p) and 8K (4320p) in a manner similar to allowing 720p, 1080i for HD broadcasts. The current plan is HEVC will be used (i.e., h.265) for the UHD codec and perhaps a new more efficient modulation scheme (as compared to HD broadcasts) will also be introduced. Similar UHD standards work is going in Europe and Japan.

As for Directv, they have already announced a 4K/UHD on demand service (i.e, internet delivered) for the end of this year using specially equipped UHD TVs (I.e., no dedicated Directv receiver involved) and the shareholder's report indicated a satellite delivered UHD service may be available by the end of 2015. I assume the satellite UHD services will require a new generation of Directv UHD receivers and DVRs that will be equipped with HDMI 2.0 and with HEVC decoders. These may become available by this time next year.


----------



## Aridon

I'll get excited about 4k about 5 years after I start getting 1080p on the channels we watch.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jonesron said:


> As for Directv, they have already announced a 4K/UHD on demand service (i.e, internet delivered) for the end of this year using specially equipped UHD TVs (I.e., no dedicated Directv receiver involved) and the shareholder's report indicated a satellite delivered UHD service may be available by the end of 2015. I assume the satellite UHD services will require a new generation of Directv UHD receivers and DVRs that will be equipped with HDMI 2.0 and with HEVC decoders. These may become available by this time next year.


Interesting considerations. Time will tell.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> This only matters if the processing hardware supports these extremes. Real time encoding is going to be strained even if they make huge leaps above the current technology. I'd bet that the providers will probably cut at least half of the theoretical capability out up front in the interest of fitting the stream within a reasonable bandwidth.


Fact is that hardware already exists outside the U.S. from the same manufacturers that can/will bring it here...for that matter...so does 8K...so it's neither theory nor "extreme" to realize 4K is closer than some folks think. Even last year at CES...plenty was seen and more will come in January for 2015 new hardware releases (and not just UHDTVs).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

jonesron said:


> The ATSC has been working on the UHD broadcast standard for he past couple of years with a target to have a proposed standard completed in 2015. Once it is ready then there will a need to conduct field tests, followed by any revisions to the proposed UHD standard to address issues and limitations uncovered by the field testing. Once this is completed and there is a matured and validated proposal then there will need to be a transition plan developed and finally FCC approval. The first routine commercial UHD broadcasts in the USA are not expected until at least 2020 and perhaps several years later. The versions of UHD supported may very well include both 4K (2160p) and 8K (4320p) in a manner similar to allowing 720p, 1080i for HD broadcasts. The current plan is HEVC will be used (i.e., h.265) for the UHD codec and perhaps a new more efficient modulation scheme (as compared to HD broadcasts) will also be introduced. Similar UHD standards work is going in Europe and Japan.


While you are probably correct in when UHD hits mainstream, many of your statements are incorrect.

Japan has a UHD OTA Network either up now or about ready to go - not in 2020. In fact, they plan to have a 8K Network ready in the 2018-2019 range, prior to the 2020 Olympics.

While there ATSC 3.0 specs are still in the works, Futurecast, one of the systems under consideration for the physical layer of ATSC 3.0 standard was tested on-air at WKOW-TV in Madison, WI earlier this week.

http://www.virtualpressoffice.com/publicsiteContentFileAccess?fileContentId=1784027&fromOtherPageToDisableHistory=Y&menuName=News&sId=&sInfo=

The demo describing the system can be seen here:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Japan has a UHD OTA Network either up now or about ready to go - not in 2020. In fact, they plan to have a 8K Network ready in the 2018-2019 range, prior to the Olympics.
> 
> While there ATSC 3.0 specs are still in the works, Futurecast, one of the systems under consideration for the physical layer of ATSC 3.0 standard was tested on-air at WKOW-TV in Madison, WI earlier this week.
> 
> http://www.virtualpressoffice.com/publicsiteContentFileAccess?fileContentId=1784027&fromOtherPageToDisableHistory=Y&menuName=News&sId=&sInfo=
> 
> The demo describing the system can be seen here:


Thanks for sharing that information.

Yes...agree...4k UHDTV is closer than people think...and already further along outside the U.S.


----------



## Diana C

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for ATSC 3.0 to be implemented. It requires the station to license an additional broadcast channel from the FCC, so unless it becomes a regulatory requirement I don't see it happening.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for ATSC 3.0 to be implemented. It requires the station to license an additional broadcast channel from the FCC, so unless it becomes a regulatory requirement I don't see it happening.


Actually stations want to move to it giving up the current ATSC structure and move to ATSC 3.0 will allow scaling to mobile, HD and UHD in the same signal. Mobile is key for stations.


----------



## Laxguy

Aridon said:


> I'll get excited about 4k about 5 years after I start getting 1080p on the channels we watch.


That may never happen! It's entirely possible that content providers and deliverers will for the most part jump from 1080i and/or 720p to 4K. As mentioned, time will tell.....


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> That may never happen! It's entirely possible that content providers and deliverers will for the most part jump from 1080i and/or 720p to 4K. As mentioned, time will tell.....


Indeed...or even 8K...

Yup....time will tell. A year from now we'll have a much better handle on the timelines and incremental progress of 4K Ultra HDTV. Some of that might even just surface in January at CES.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Laxguy said:


> That may never happen! It's entirely possible that content providers and deliverers will for the most part jump from 1080i and/or 720p to 4K. As mentioned, time will tell.....


Actually ATSC 3.0 scales......so it will deliver 4K, 1080p and mobil from the same stream.

It simply adds resolution in with additional data.

So 1080p is a part of ATSC 3.0.....just like 4K is.


----------



## Laxguy

Well, that'd certainly make 1080p a much bigger possibility! But aren't there major hurdles with ATSC 3.0?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually ATSC 3.0 scales......so it will deliver 4K, 1080p and mobil from the same stream.
> 
> It simply adds resolution in with additional data.
> 
> So 1080p is a part of ATSC 3.0.....just like 4K is.





Diana C said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for ATSC 3.0 to be implemented. It requires the station to license an additional broadcast channel from the FCC, so unless it becomes a regulatory requirement I don't see it happening.


There certainly is still some evolutionary review going on in terms of the platform infrastructure. One set of manufacturers are looking to support 4K and/or 8K in "one fell swoop" of technology...so there is still some "standards debate" underway. Hopefully by the time CES rolls around in January, we can get some answers as to a consensus on those standards going forward.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually stations want to move to it giving up the current ATSC structure and move to ATSC 3.0 will allow scaling to mobile, HD and UHD in the same signal. Mobile is key for stations.


Since ATSC 3.0 is not backwards compatible with existing ATSC tuners, the stations would need to keep their existing frequency as well unless they want to cut off all their existing OTA viewers (or start a new round of adapter boxes).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> Since ATSC 3.0 is not backwards compatible with existing ATSC tuners, the stations would need to keep their existing frequency as well unless they want to cut off all their existing OTA viewers (or start a new round of adapter boxes).


Everyone realizes that it would have to be flash cut. There is not the Spectrum to do what was done from 1999 - 2009.

As only roughly 12% of viewing is OTA, it really is not that big of an issue.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Laxguy said:


> Well, that'd certainly make 1080p a much bigger possibility! But aren't there major hurdles with ATSC 3.0?


The real issue is it works best in the 500+ MHz to 700 MHz range.....with the 600 MHz being the sweet spot (Channel 36-51 are 600 MHz to 700 MHz), but of course the FCC wants to take away the 600 MHz Spectrum, repack it again and let the Wireless Companies end up with the 600 MHz Spectrum.


----------



## mexican-bum

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Everyone realizes that it would have to be flash cut. There is not the Spectrum to do what was done from 1999 - 2009.
> 
> As only roughly 12% of viewing is OTA, it really is not that big of an issue.


Well with cord cutting the new trend that number may go up so its a bigger issue than you make it out to be. Sending out vouchers and converter boxes to 30+ million people cost money. Especially since if given a vote most general public would say what we have now is good enough.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

mexican-bum said:


> Well with cord cutting the new trend that number may go up so its a bigger issue than you make it out to be. Sending out vouchers and converter boxes to 30+ million people cost money. Especially since if given a vote most general public would say what we have now is good enough.


1) There will be no coupons this time.

2) When you add up all the MVPDs for total subs, the total loss over the last several years is FAR LESS than 1%. Everyone talks of cord cutting, but the total sub counts just do not show it. Most likely, as the economy went to Hell, more and more people did not leave home/moved back home with the parents, so you did not have the growth of new households. This seems like it is a better explanation than cord cutting when one looks at ALL the data - not just the hype. To be clear, yes, several hundred thousand have cut the cord, but it really is not a big number - and some of those cord cutters might come back with a better economy.


----------



## mexican-bum

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 1) There will be no coupons this time.
> 
> 2) When you add up all the MVPDs for total subs, the total loss over the last several years is FAR LESS than 1%. Everyone talks of cord cutting, but the total sub counts just do not show it. Most likely, as the economy went to Hell, more and more people did not leave home/moved back home with the parents, so you did not have the growth of new households. This seems like it is a better explanation than cord cutting when one looks at ALL the data - not just the hype.


1. No coupons huh..!!! Lol! Ok, I am sure that will go over real well here in oklahoma where OTA broadcast is your main tornado warning system.

2. Okay......I think your being a little naive but time will tell.


----------



## harsh

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Japan has a UHD OTA Network either up now or about ready to go - not in 2020.


Japan also had analog HD networks up and running some years ago. What they do has little to do with what is done "in the US" on a routine commercial basis.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Everyone realizes that it would have to be flash cut. There is not the Spectrum to do what was done from 1999 - 2009.
> 
> As only roughly 12% of viewing is OTA, it really is not that big of an issue.


12% translates to over 12 million households, and that is just households where there is OTA only...a lot of cable/sat homes also use OTA. There are probably more TVs receiving OTA signals now than in 2000.

ATSC 3.0 will only get implemented if the government mandates it (which is the only way we got digital broadcasts at all) or UHD is so wildly successful that broadcasters are forced to embrace it to keep an audience (highly unlikely).

What everyone needs to understand is that most people not only don't care about picture quality, they can't see the difference. UHD TVs will be common and dominant, just as 1080p sets are now. But the ubiquity of 1080p displays have not been accompanied by widespread broadcasting in 1080p (in fact, there is NO 1080p broadcasting). Likewise, the widespread use of UHD TVs will not drive UHD broadcasts.


----------



## damondlt

I saw a study where 53 million homes were claimed to be using OTA.


----------



## damondlt

Here is one study from last year.
https://gigaom.com/2013/06/21/ota-60-million-antenna-users-cord-cutting/


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> You're both in my camp! However, until my gorgeous Sammy plasma starts to falter, I'm most likely on the sidelines, rooting for 4k....


Ah, but have you seen the gorgeous Sammy 4Ks? I have and I think I'm gonna go with one when I buy a 4K. I've seen them run on flash drives, normal content (can't tell the difference between the 1080p sets and the 4Ks) and on several 4K loops coming from somewhere, I didn't see a flash drive in them, just HDMI cables. All were really good. Now just get the prices down and someone give me an idea how to interpret the model numbers and I'm ready. I do not believe that this is another 3D fiasco.

A couple years ago, I was PMing with a person we all know (not VOS) and he told me he was waiting for a TV with an outrageous resolution. Knowing him to be even minded...well, I kinda thought he might be losing it for a moment there...but he was right and here they are.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> That may never happen! It's entirely possible that content providers and deliverers will for the most part jump from 1080i and/or 720p to 4K. As mentioned, time will tell.....


I agree, why bother with 1080p? Not that I wouldn't like to see it become a standard, but jumping right to 4K seems to be the way it's heading.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

What is the incentive for any station to upgrade to ATSC 3.0? If networks start delivering 4K programs, sure, they can provide that 4K feed to cable/satellite companies who are receiving them via fiber, doing so costs them almost nothing. It'll cost real money to upgrade their broadcast facilities to ATSC 3.0, and require a lot of viewer education and forcing them to yet another converter box. Where's the return on that investment for free OTA?

Most OTA subscribers either can't afford cable/satellite, or place a low value on TV in general and don't find it to be worth paying for. Advertisers aren't going to pay more to run ads on a 4K channel, especially not via OTA. Only 10% of ads were produced in HD as of Q2 2010, so advertisers aren't exactly early adopters chomping at the bit to produce 4K ads, anyway.

The only way stations will upgrade is if they're forced to so by the government, like they were in 2009 for ATSC. Given that timeline I wouldn't look for that to happen before 2025. There would be years of requiring ATSC 3.0 tuners to be built into 4K sets first.


----------



## inkahauts

Diana C said:


> ........
> 
> What everyone needs to understand is that most people not only don't care about picture quality, they can't see the difference.
> 
> .......


Tell that to imax theaters... I just don't buy this argument. If someone is shown the difference properly in store, they will see it. Every time. I saw if for years when I sold this stuff. Many people say nah, there is no difference, etc.. I'd say let me show you. And then they'd buy an HDTV.... I didn't even have to sell it anymore, it became about which one, not if..

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> What is the incentive for any station to upgrade to ATSC 3.0? If networks start delivering 4K programs, sure, they can provide that 4K feed to cable/satellite companies who are receiving them via fiber, doing so costs them almost nothing. It'll cost real money to upgrade their broadcast facilities to ATSC 3.0, and require a lot of viewer education and forcing them to yet another converter box. Where's the return on that investment for free OTA?
> 
> Most OTA subscribers either can't afford cable/satellite, or place a low value on TV in general and don't find it to be worth paying for. Advertisers aren't going to pay more to run ads on a 4K channel, especially not via OTA. Only 10% of ads were produced in HD as of Q2 2010, so advertisers aren't exactly early adopters chomping at the bit to produce 4K ads, anyway.
> 
> The only way stations will upgrade is if they're forced to so by the government, like they were in 2009 for ATSC. Given that timeline I wouldn't look for that to happen before 2025. There would be years of requiring ATSC 3.0 tuners to be built into 4K sets first.


I imagine that the next change we will make for over the air isn't even on the board yet and will be another 5 years before it is, and another 10 to 15 before it's even used.

Tv over the air has had thee major versions, and a fourth is sure to come someday, but not quickly unless it's completely backward compatible. Like color and black and white...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Japan also had analog HD networks up and running some years ago. What they do has little to do with what is done "in the US" on a routine commercial basis.


Actually...what happens in the Pacific Rim has plenty to do with what is done.

First...all the major manufacturers are based there and influenced by trends and market expectations.

Second...there have been numerous tech releases in that part of the world years ahead of the U.S. Europe also launches some new tech before the U.S.


----------



## peds48

inkahauts said:


> Tell that to imax theaters... I just don't buy this argument. If someone is shown the difference properly in store, they will see it. Every time. I saw if for years when I sold this stuff. Many people say nah, there is no difference, etc.. I'd say let me show you. And then they'd buy an HDTV.... I didn't even have to sell it anymore, it became about which one, not if..
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Tha change form HD to 4K is not as dramatic as when we went from SD to HD


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> 12% translates to over 12 million households, and that is just households where there is OTA only...a lot of cable/sat homes also use OTA. There are probably more TVs receiving OTA signals now than in 2000.


That's nationwide. That becomes a small number when you look at it on the DMA market level.

What TV Broadcasters are looking at is being able to be on smartphones with ATSC 3.0, which is much more valuable than the 12% receiving OTA signals now.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> ATSC 3.0 will only get implemented if the government mandates it (which is the only way we got digital broadcasts at all) or UHD is so wildly successful that broadcasters are forced to embrace it to keep an audience (highly unlikely).





slice1900 said:


> What is the incentive for any station to upgrade to ATSC 3.0? If networks start delivering 4K programs, sure, they can provide that 4K feed to cable/satellite companies who are receiving them via fiber, doing so costs them almost nothing. It'll cost real money to upgrade their broadcast facilities to ATSC 3.0, and require a lot of viewer education and forcing them to yet another converter box. Where's the return on that investment for free OTA?
> 
> The only way stations will upgrade is if they're forced to so by the government, like they were in 2009 for ATSC. Given that timeline I wouldn't look for that to happen before 2025. There would be years of requiring ATSC 3.0 tuners to be built into 4K sets first.


Incorrect.

Broadcasters want to go to ATSC 3.0 so they can broadcast to smartphones and tablets. The external Dyle unit did not have the acceptance that was wanted, so they want it built into smartphones and tablets.

That is why they WANT to go to ATSC 3.0.

Now, even going to ATSC 3.0, will they broadcast in UHD fulltime? I suspect most will not for the time being. 4K is not a must broadcast in ATSC 3.0 specs - only an option, just as HD is not mandatory on the .1 channel. I suspect that 4K will only be broadcast on special occasions.

Given that HVEC/h.265 saves between 45%-49% from MPEG4/h.264 in the latest test - and Broadcast is not even on h.264 yet, this give the Broadcast Stations much more data capabilities to program multiple channels in HD as well. Another reason why Broadcasters want the change ASAP - and why very little content will be actually broadcast in UHD.

If you have not figured it out from this reply, the only thing the FCC has to do is approve the standard, not mandate it. Times have changed and it is not like it was in the 90s when the change from NTSC to ATSC was contemplated.


----------



## slice1900

Do you seriously believe there's demand to watch live OTA TV on a mobile device? From who?? The iPod and the iPhone never had the ability to receive FM radio broadcasts like much of its competition did, but that lack never hurt their sales. They were proven right - Samsung dropped the ability to receive FM radio from their phone lineup a couple years ago (and the 10 people who used it were probably upset) No one wants to listen to radio on their mobile device, when they have the ability to listen to their own music, or choose among many many streaming options.

If people don't want to listen to commercial laden FM on their mobile devices, why should they want to watch commercial laden OTA TV on them? People have their own video to watch, an endless source of new content on the internet, they've got Netflix/Hulu/iTunes, and networks already make their content available for streaming a day or two after it airs. The only thing they'd _conceivably_ want to watch OTA is live sports, do you think that's going to generate enough demand for broadcasters to pay for ATSC 3.0 upgrades simply to be able to broadcast to such a tiny audience?

The ability to broadcast to mobile devices is a totally irrelevant capability that consumers aren't asking for and aren't going to care about. Any early adopter broadcasters who go to ATSC 3.0 will quickly find almost no one watches their station on a mobile device and the rest will know that whatever reason they might have to upgrade to ATSC 3.0, broadcast to mobile devices is not one of them.

Not to mention that given reception issues people have with OTA even with large carefully aimed outdoor antennas, how well is the tiny randomly-aligned antenna in a smartphone going to cope? I can just see it now, you're at a wedding some Saturday afternoon in the fall in the south, and a dozen guys are holding their phone above their heads at odd angles so they can pick up the Bama game !rolling


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Do you seriously believe there's demand to watch live OTA TV on a mobile device? From who?? The iPod and the iPhone never had the ability to receive FM radio broadcasts like much of its competition did, but that lack never hurt their sales. They were proven right - Samsung dropped the ability to receive FM radio from their phone lineup a couple years ago (and the 10 people who used it were probably upset) No one wants to listen to radio on their mobile device, when they have the ability to listen to their own music, or choose among many many streaming options.
> 
> If people don't want to listen to commercial laden FM on their mobile devices, why should they want to watch commercial laden OTA TV on them? People have their own video to watch, an endless source of new content on the internet, they've got Netflix/Hulu/iTunes, and networks already make their content available for streaming a day or two after it airs. The only thing they'd _conceivably_ want to watch OTA is live sports, do you think that's going to generate enough demand for broadcasters to pay for ATSC 3.0 upgrades simply to be able to broadcast to such a tiny audience?
> 
> The ability to broadcast to mobile devices is a totally irrelevant capability that consumers aren't asking for and aren't going to care about. Any early adopter broadcasters who go to ATSC 3.0 will quickly find almost no one watches their station on a mobile device and the rest will know that whatever reason they might have to upgrade to ATSC 3.0, broadcast to mobile devices is not one of them.
> 
> Not to mention that given reception issues people have with OTA even with large carefully aimed outdoor antennas, how well is the tiny randomly-aligned antenna in a smartphone going to cope? I can just see it now, you're at a wedding some Saturday afternoon in the fall in the south, and a dozen guys are holding their phone above their heads at odd angles so they can pick up the Bama game !rolling


I must agree;

While I respect many of SRI's views and inside information he post's, I really don't see how broadcasters can still be seriously interested in trying to get their programming to viewers' portable devices via OTA.

I mean, hasn't the current mobile standard, "ATSC M/H," really been a flop with little to no adoption by TV stations and SM and tablet manufacturers?

Didn't Qualcomm's OTA MediaFLO service fail miserably a few years back?

No, just don't see this being the case at all any longer ... :nono2:


----------



## Diana C

Not to mention that the content offered on the sub-channels available today is less than compelling, so there is no reason to expect that if broadcasters had the ability to have 10, 20 or even more sub channels that the content would improve. People aren't watching broadcast TV because they don't like the content, not because they can't get it live on their tablets or smartphones. What ever broadcast shows they do want are available on Hulu or the channel's own website in most cases. People want on-demand content...on their tablets, their smartphones, their computers and on their TVs. That is what drives cord shaving and cutting, and is why Verizon still wants to launch a mobile, IP based, TV service, despite the failure of Redbox.


----------



## inkahauts

All i can say in short is Sri is more on spot for some markets than some of you think. I imagine it's going to be more of a market by market desire for the switch to 3.0. 

Here in Los Angeles for example we have 100 sub channels I think maybe more. It matters in our market big time. It's the different languages that drive it here. So yeah more sub channels is a desired affect. 


And we have never had any portable over the air device wort while. Having it would be a big Boone telling people you don't have to log in or use your data to stream our channels anymore. Or more importantly data. Think if they locked up some sub channels and sold subscriptions directly to people to get certain cable channels
Via over the air on mobile devices only. Massive influx of dollars. Heck ABC would even sell ESPN directly should a la cart and streaming really start hurting traditional outlet sales. And they'd both have to invest in third party's to deliver the content. 

Yeah that's a little wild but in 20 years....


----------



## Diana C

If broadcasters are really dying to have more sub channels I find it very amusing.

It seems everyone (wireless service providers, phone companies, broadcasters) wants to be a multichannel operator - except the people in that business already: the cable companies. They are doing all they can to become ISPs as they watch their TV profits shrink, but their broadband profits explode.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> All i can say in short is Sri is more on spot for some markets than some of you think. I imagine it's going to be more of a market by market desire for the switch to 3.0.
> 
> Here in Los Angeles for example we have 100 sub channels I think maybe more. It matters in our market big time. It's the different languages that drive it here. So yeah more sub channels is a desired affect.


How many of the people watching all these subchannels are going to upgrade their TV to one that supports ATSC 3.0 to get more subchannels, or buy a ATSC 3.0 converter box? Without a government mandate driving volumes, if it is only in certain markets where ATSC 3.0 is adopted, the production quantity of those converter boxes won't be very high, which will lead to a higher production cost and therefore higher sales price. They won't be as cheap as the ATSC converter boxes.

If there are already 100 subchannels, the viewers must be spread pretty thin. Is it worth it for a station to upgrade to gain the ability to add more subchannels and spread those viewers even thinner - especially if they know other stations may do the same and viewers are spread thinner yet? I get that LA has a lot of immigrants (aside from the obvious Spanish speakers) who would want programming in their native language. If you can offer subchannels in Mandarin, Vietnamese, and so on you can capture them and maybe increase your viewer base. On the other hand, if networks back home start streaming content they'll watch it that way and not bother buying an antenna and that investment is suddenly a waste...

I will say even though I'm pretty skeptical, that's a lot more valid reason than the fantasy that there's any sort of demand to watch live TV on mobile devices.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> How many of the people watching all these subchannels are going to upgrade their TV to one that supports ATSC 3.0 to get more subchannels, or buy a ATSC 3.0 converter box? Without a government mandate driving volumes, if it is only in certain markets where ATSC 3.0 is adopted, the production quantity of those converter boxes won't be very high, which will lead to a higher production cost and therefore higher sales price. They won't be as cheap as the ATSC converter boxes.
> 
> If there are already 100 subchannels, the viewers must be spread pretty thin. Is it worth it for a station to upgrade to gain the ability to add more subchannels and spread those viewers even thinner - especially if they know other stations may do the same and viewers are spread thinner yet? I get that LA has a lot of immigrants (aside from the obvious Spanish speakers) who would want programming in their native language. If you can offer subchannels in Mandarin, Vietnamese, and so on you can capture them and maybe increase your viewer base. On the other hand, if networks back home start streaming content they'll watch it that way and not bother buying an antenna and that investment is suddenly a waste...
> 
> I will say even though I'm pretty skeptical, that's a lot more valid reason than the fantasy that there's any sort of demand to watch live TV on mobile devices.


The thing is out here in Los Angeles that is what's happening they already have the antennas. A converter box and they are good. Assuming one is built which i am sure it would be.

And we have so many channels that are not English or Spanish it's amazing.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Do you seriously believe there's demand to watch live OTA TV on a mobile device? From who?? The iPod and the iPhone never had the ability to receive FM radio broadcasts like much of its competition did, but that lack never hurt their sales. They were proven right - Samsung dropped the ability to receive FM radio from their phone lineup a couple years ago (and the 10 people who used it were probably upset) No one wants to listen to radio on their mobile device, when they have the ability to listen to their own music, or choose among many many streaming options.
> 
> If people don't want to listen to commercial laden FM on their mobile devices, why should they want to watch commercial laden OTA TV on them? People have their own video to watch, an endless source of new content on the internet, they've got Netflix/Hulu/iTunes, and networks already make their content available for streaming a day or two after it airs. The only thing they'd _conceivably_ want to watch OTA is live sports, do you think that's going to generate enough demand for broadcasters to pay for ATSC 3.0 upgrades simply to be able to broadcast to such a tiny audience?
> 
> The ability to broadcast to mobile devices is a totally irrelevant capability that consumers aren't asking for and aren't going to care about. Any early adopter broadcasters who go to ATSC 3.0 will quickly find almost no one watches their station on a mobile device and the rest will know that whatever reason they might have to upgrade to ATSC 3.0, broadcast to mobile devices is not one of them.
> 
> Not to mention that given reception issues people have with OTA even with large carefully aimed outdoor antennas, how well is the tiny randomly-aligned antenna in a smartphone going to cope? I can just see it now, you're at a wedding some Saturday afternoon in the fall in the south, and a dozen guys are holding their phone above their heads at odd angles so they can pick up the Bama game !rolling


Shows you never saw what could be done with Mobile DTV, MPEG4 and heavy error correction. Reception really is not an issue.

Here's a YouTube Video I found from January 2010 for M-DTV - and technology has gotten better in the 4 years since.






Bottom line - does not matter what I believe or what you believe - it matters what the Broadcast Companies believe.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Diana C said:


> If broadcasters are really dying to have more sub channels I find it very amusing.
> 
> It seems everyone (wireless service providers, phone companies, broadcasters) wants to be a multichannel operator - except the people in that business already: the cable companies. They are doing all they can to become ISPs as they watch their TV profits shrink, but their broadband profits explode.


...not to mention that with anticipated prices rising for broadband services going forward....profits will grow even further.

Cutting the cord will become an expensive path, and perhaps that is why most people have not yet taken that approach. In addition....limitations will also deter majority adoption.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Here in Los Angeles for example we have 100 sub channels I think maybe more. It matters in our market big time. It's the different languages that drive it here. So yeah more sub channels is a desired affect.


What works in a place with population densities approaching that of NYC or LA has little application in areas where the population is measured in people per square mile rather than people per square yard.

Unless they think that cellular TV makes sense and "free" TV with all of the additional costs to cover the service area can still be supported by diminishing advertising revenues, I'm not sure that mobile makes much sense. Replacing IPTV via wireless with cellular TV seems like a lot of effort and expense for precious little return.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Bottom line - does not matter what I believe or what you believe - it matters what the Broadcast Companies believe.


I agree, but where's the evidence the station owners like Sinclair believe there is an untapped market in mobile devices viewing live OTA TV? They're the ones who must make the investment, not whoever was pushing for its inclusion in ATSC 3.0.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I agree, but where's the evidence the station owners like Sinclair believe there is an untapped market in mobile devices viewing live OTA TV? They're the ones who must make the investment, not whoever was pushing for its inclusion in ATSC 3.0.


While the broadcasters make a substantial initial investment, the viewers also have to make a substantial monetary commitment to whatever gear is required to receive mobile TV once the broadcasting side is in place.

I just can't see PBS going mobile to deliver Sesame Street to the minivan.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> While the broadcasters make a substantial initial investment, the viewers also have to make a substantial monetary commitment to whatever gear is required to receive mobile TV once the broadcasting side is in place.
> 
> I just can't see PBS going mobile to deliver Sesame Street to the minivan.


Minivans that build in a TV screen for the back seat could add ATSC reception capability pretty cheaply compared to the overall price of the vehicle, but I agree, why restrict yourself to the TV station's schedule. That's why those minivans all come with a DVD player.

I wonder what the licensing costs will be? ATSC has or had some fairly substantial licensing fees (at least as far as FRAND licensing goes) If that's the same for ATSC 3.0, forget seeing it in any phones/tablets. They may implement it if the only cost is a bit of chip area, but if they have to pay a few dollars per phone, forget it.

Even then, Samsung dropping FM from recent phones _despite having the FM hardware still in place inside them(!)_ doesn't bode well for ATSC 3.0 mobile gaining any traction with Android (there's zero chance Apple will ever add something that niche to the iPhone/iPad)


----------



## ep1974

Was thinking of purchasing a Samsung 4K set. For those that have 4k sets, was curious as to the Directv picture quality of HD programs on 4K sets. Does it look the same, worse or possibly better. Samsung says the HD picture will be upscaled and was wondering if the picture quality is indeed better. Also, does SD look any better?


----------



## Laxguy

I've heard anecdotally that it's a touch better. But I'm one who'll have to see for myself, which I will do at CES in January. 
I doubt that SD will ever look ok to me, so I am the wrong guy to reply.


----------



## loveshockey

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Broadcasters want to go to ATSC 3.0 so they can broadcast to smartphones and tablets. The external Dyle unit did not have the acceptance that was wanted, so they want it built into smartphones and tablets.
> 
> That is why they WANT to go to ATSC.


Glad I haven't given up my unlimited data plan

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> I just can't see PBS going mobile to deliver Sesame Street to the minivan.


I can. The other major network stations are doing it to get their content delivered. I'm surprised there are not more mobile services available via ATSC.

Of course it is getting to the point where it is easier to turn the mini-van into a hotspot and use a data plan to feed content to the occupants than upgrade the TV to the DTV Mobile standards.


----------



## slice1900

ep1974 said:


> Was thinking of purchasing a Samsung 4K set. For those that have 4k sets, was curious as to the Directv picture quality of HD programs on 4K sets. Does it look the same, worse or possibly better. Samsung says the HD picture will be upscaled and was wondering if the picture quality is indeed better. Also, does SD look any better?


So long as the 4K set is capable of 60 fps, there's no way it could look worse, because a 720p program has 3x the pixels in each dimension, a 1080i/1080p program 2x as many pixels in each dimension. Whether the upscaling really helps or not depends on the content and how closely you look at it, but I'm pretty sure it can be disabled if you don't like it so worst case it looks the same.

SD often looked worse on HD sets than SD sets because the dimensions (320x480 for broadcast NTSC, 640x480 for digital cable/satellite; both 4:3) don't fit evenly into the number of pixels in a HD screen, which was typically 1280x720 (especially on earlier HDTVs when there was still a lot of SD around) 1366x768, or 1920x1080 16:9. Between that, and simply dealing with viewing 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen via stretching or bars on the sides, made it pretty unpleasant to view.

4K won't suffer from that, same 16:9 format and 2-3x the pixels in either direction will make it a painless transition so even if it doesn't look better to your eye it won't look worse like SD often did on a HD TV.


----------



## Laxguy

Good points. Another reason SD often looks worse is that when viewed on a newer, larger screen, the pixel-per-inch ratio gets even weaker, and the increased resolution of a 1080 screen underscores that.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I agree, but where's the evidence the station owners like Sinclair believe there is an untapped market in mobile devices viewing live OTA TV? They're the ones who must make the investment, not whoever was pushing for its inclusion in ATSC 3.0.


You really need to do your homework.

Sinclair is the most active of any Broadcast Company pushing the envelope in technology via ATSC 3.0 / ODFM.

Google it if you don't believe it.

They also had a BETTER idea than the 8VSB system for HDTV / ATSC years ago, but no one listened. That would have made reception much easier - and even allowed mobile reception in the initial ATSC specs.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/sinclair-and-technicolor-do-atsc--k-over-the-air-broadcast/272758


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

harsh said:


> While the broadcasters make a substantial initial investment, the viewers also have to make a substantial monetary commitment to whatever gear is required to receive mobile TV once the broadcasting side is in place.
> 
> I just can't see PBS going mobile to deliver Sesame Street to the minivan.


But they would prefer to deliver 4 HD Programs on a stream vs 1 HD and 2 SD....or 4 SD.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Minivans that build in a TV screen for the back seat could add ATSC reception capability pretty cheaply compared to the overall price of the vehicle, but I agree, why restrict yourself to the TV station's schedule. That's why those minivans all come with a DVD player.
> 
> I wonder what the licensing costs will be? ATSC has or had some fairly substantial licensing fees (at least as far as FRAND licensing goes) If that's the same for ATSC 3.0, forget seeing it in any phones/tablets. They may implement it if the only cost is a bit of chip area, but if they have to pay a few dollars per phone, forget it.
> 
> Even then, Samsung dropping FM from recent phones _despite having the FM hardware still in place inside them(!)_ doesn't bode well for ATSC 3.0 mobile gaining any traction with Android (there's zero chance Apple will ever add something that niche to the iPhone/iPad)


As you can see what it can deliver in an emergency situation (via the video clip) one wonders if the Government (House/Senate) or FCC will one day force inclusion, as they have already seen that Cell Data Systems fail in emergency situations. All it will take is a few more big emergency that the cell systems cannot handle. Considering 9-11 to the Hurricane in NYC late 2012, Cell Service has not been reliable. It even went down in DC during the Earthquake several years ago. We have not had a Cat 3 or Cat 4 hurricane hit a big American city since 2005, irc. Several more disasters and this will be mandated.

BTW, FM activated on Sprint Phones and NextRadio app that controls it has been downloaded over 1,000,000 times.

T-Mobile offering free mobile streaming for iHeartRadio and other similar apps.

I would not count anything out yet.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

loveshockey said:


> Glad I haven't given up my unlimited data plan


M-DTV does not use any cell data, thus the selling point - and why Wireless does not want to include it in the phones.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> M-DTV does not use any cell data, thus the selling point - and why Wireless does not want to include it in the phones.


Which undermines the entire premise. While broadcasters may THINK there is gold in the mobile hills, they need the wireless providers to allow reception. Since every wireless provider customizes the software on phones and tablets they sell, the chances of them permitting a feature that could reduce their wireless data revenue is unlikely to see the light of day (granted, Apple devices are less customized than Android, but Apple is unlikely to support it since they want to protect iTunes video sales). So, the only users will be those that pay full price for an open unlocked phone or tablet (a small minority of US cellular customers).


----------



## slice1900

Apple firmware is completely uncustomized by every carrier in the world, they don't have the signing keys that would allow them to modify it. There are "carrier updates" but they only specify stuff like which bands to use and disabling certain features Apple allows them to disable (like cellular tethering) Android is another matter, but I'm sure Google would like to cut them out of the loop if they could. The problem is that there are other alternatives like Tizen or FirefoxOS waiting in the wings that would gain instant carrier support if Google did so.

I agree that Apple won't support ATSC (or FM, absent a government mandate for emergency messages that I hope we can disable) but I don't agree it is because of protecting iTunes revenue. People always trot that out, as if Apple makes more than a fraction of their revenue/profit from iTunes. They make almost all their money on hardware sales, and most of that from iPhone alone. iTunes is an ever decreasing percentage since iPhone sales are still growing YoY - and iTunes revenue is actually declining now, as more people are going to streaming music on a monthly charge rather than buying music so there will be less to "protect" in the future. They aren't going to risk decreasing hardware sales, as even a 1% loss of sales due to preventing something people wanted would cost them far more than than whatever iTunes revenue they protected!


----------



## knoxbh

I wish Pandora had a car receiver the same as Sirius does (had that system but didn't like the music choices that Pandora has). Would save having to hookup the phone or Ipad every time we travel, particularly locally. Noticed that ads for Honda (I believe it was Honda) on the TV is stating that Pandora radio is included.


----------



## harsh

James Long said:


> Of course it is getting to the point where it is easier to turn the mini-van into a hotspot and use a data plan to feed content to the occupants than upgrade the TV to the DTV Mobile standards.


Here's the big issue. Until such time as the existing technology is relatively nasty compared to the new technology (such as DIRECTV has created with their SD service), the new technology is going to have a very difficult time making inroads.

It is bad enough that people will text in your face, imagine them shushing you because they're watching TV.


----------



## Rich

ep1974 said:


> Was thinking of purchasing a Samsung 4K set. For those that have 4k sets, was curious as to the Directv picture quality of HD programs on 4K sets. Does it look the same, worse or possibly better. Samsung says the HD picture will be upscaled and was wondering if the picture quality is indeed better. Also, does SD look any better?


I've seen Sammy 4Ks side by side with Sammy 1080ps with an HDMI feed and could not see any difference in PQ. I don't know where the HDMI feed was coming from in those cases.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> I've heard anecdotally that it's a touch better. But I'm one who'll have to see for myself, which I will do at CES in January.
> I doubt that SD will ever look ok to me, so I am the wrong guy to reply.


I spent a lot of time looking at them side by side and the only difference I could see was the $1500 difference in price. They sure didn't seem to be upscaling that feed.

Rich


----------



## Rich

James Long said:


> I can. The other major network stations are doing it to get their content delivered. I'm surprised there are not more mobile services available via ATSC.
> 
> Of course it is getting to the point where it is easier to turn the mini-van into a hotspot and use a data plan to feed content to the occupants than upgrade the TV to the DTV Mobile standards.


Chevrolet now has 4G LTE reception in some of their cars and they can easily be used as a hot spot. Or so the commercial said. The ad showed a couple kids using tablets in the car and a guy with a laptop sitting outside his pickup merrily typing away. Gotta wonder how much that costs.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Rich said:


> I spent a lot of time looking at them side by side and the only difference I could see was the $1500 difference in price. They sure didn't seem to be upscaling that feed.
> 
> Rich


Sure. You really have to know what the feed is. At what distance were you comparing??


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Here's the big issue. Until such time as the existing technology is relatively nasty compared to the new technology (such as DIRECTV has created with their SD service), the new technology is going to have a very difficult time making inroads.
> 
> It is bad enough that people will text in your face, imagine them shushing you because they're watching TV.


Directv hasn't gone out of their way to lower quality of SD trying to increase HD uptake, since they're going to force people to drop SD anyway. That's simply the side effect of limited bandwidth on 101 versus the ever-increasing number of channels they have to carry.

Crappy SD quality might induce some people to upgrade, but may also induce them to switch to another provider, so it wouldn't be a very sound strategy IMHO...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> Which undermines the entire premise. While broadcasters may THINK there is gold in the mobile hills, they need the wireless providers to allow reception. Since every wireless provider customizes the software on phones and tablets they sell, the chances of them permitting a feature that could reduce their wireless data revenue is unlikely to see the light of day (granted, Apple devices are less customized than Android, but Apple is unlikely to support it since they want to protect iTunes video sales). So, the only users will be those that pay full price for an open unlocked phone or tablet (a small minority of US cellular customers).


Reread Post 430


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Here's the big issue. Until such time as the existing technology is relatively nasty compared to the new technology (such as DIRECTV has created with their SD service), the new technology is going to have a very difficult time making inroads.
> 
> It is bad enough that people will text in your face, imagine them shushing you because they're watching TV.


That has been a minuscule market driver all along and will remain as such.

People upgrade primarily for how a new glass is half full (or more)...not how half empty the old glass was...

Providers can lead the way (which is what ESPN and some others have declared), follow the herd, or trail behind. The course has been defined. There will always be naysayers and people bringing up the rear on nearly every evolutionary direction.

No worries. Those nearer the front of the line get the longest enjoyment and benefits. Those in the rear whine, complain, make justifications, and live with old ways. It's always been that way and 4K UHDTV will be no different.


----------



## P Smith

and in a continuation - 8K is not that far from now


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That has been a minuscule market driver all along and will remain as such.


I disagree with this position. Look how long VHS held on versus the technically superior delivery formats and more recently, how many continue to buy DVDs in the clear presence of Blu-rays.

Having to upgrade everything is a bigger step than you allow and there is clearly no transition to 4K as there was to color TV or 3D.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Sure. You really have to know what the feed is. At what distance were you comparing??


Well, they both had the same feed, so that's what caused me to come to the conclusion that they would play most of D*'s content (I have no interest in SD programming) as well as a 1080p set.

On the sets that just had a single feed or used a flash drive I couldn't really make any comparisons, but I did walk backwards as far as I needed to to ensure myself that distance wasn't gonna be a problem. At about 15 feet, I was still impressed by the quality of the pictures on several Samsungs.

I haven't seen any sets other than Sammys and I think with all the work they've done to bring us 4K I'll be going with one of them when I make my purchase. The only things that really bother me are the pricing and I have no idea if 4K will solve the "judders" problem that I have seen on older Samsungs and other brands of LCDs. I don't like that.

Rich


----------



## Rich

P Smith said:


> and in a continuation - 8K is not that far from now


Careful, you'll have people saying you have to be a foot away from an 80" screen to see the difference. :rolling:

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I disagree with this position. Look how long VHS held on versus the technically superior delivery formats and more recently, how many continue to buy DVDs in the clear presence of Blu-rays.
> 
> Having to upgrade everything is a bigger step than you allow and there is clearly no transition to 4K as there was to color TV or 3D.


The transition is actually far less cumbersome than some would have you believe. It's mostly about investment and deployment...nominally about development.

As for the VHS reference...change in tech in 2014 takes place many times faster than in those "olden days"...just because the Boy Scouts still teach how to start a fire by rubbing together sticks like cavemen did it doesn't mean there remains much use of it anymore in overall civilization.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The transition is actually far less cumbersome than some would have you believe. It's mostly about investment and deployment...nominally about development.
> 
> As for the VHS reference...change in tech in 2014 takes place many times faster than in those "olden days"...just because the Boy Scouts still teach how to start a fire by rubbing together sticks like cavemen did it doesn't mean there remains much use of it anymore in overall civilization.


There is if you plan to compete on Survivor (or go missing from a Denver Broncos Game......or go avoiding law enforcement in PA)....


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The transition is actually far less cumbersome than some would have you believe. It's mostly about investment and deployment...nominally about development.
> 
> As for the VHS reference...change in tech in 2014 takes place many times faster than in those "olden days"...just because the Boy Scouts still teach how to start a fire by rubbing together sticks like cavemen did it doesn't mean there remains much use of it anymore in overall civilization.


http://advanced-television.com/2014/10/02/uhd-progressing-faster-than-hd/


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

P Smith said:


> and in a continuation - 8K is not that far from now


Japan now shooting for 2016 testing....

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2824372/sharp-nhk-push-8k-tvs-ahead-of-2020-olympics.html

http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2014/10/nhks-research-labs-serves-as-breeding-ground-for-8k-innovation/


----------



## damondlt

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Japan now shooting for 2016 testing....
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2824372/sharp-nhk-push-8k-tvs-ahead-of-2020-olympics.html
> 
> http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2014/10/nhks-research-labs-serves-as-breeding-ground-for-8k-innovation/


What are we looking at?
Are we supposed to be impressed at the over contrasting that's in the tv on the right?

You want to try and make 4K or 8 look impressive you might want post a different picture comparison.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

damondlt said:


> What are we looking at?
> Are we supposed to be impressed at the over contrasting that's in the tv on the right?
> 
> *You want to try and make 4K or 8 look impressive you might want post a different picture comparison.*


Anything less than a super-duper HD image of original 4K content will fail to provide any real idea of the comparison.

Then again...seeing original 4K content on 4K and 1080p units side by side at CES was already seen by a number of folks at DBSTalk.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The transition is actually far less cumbersome than some would have you believe. It's mostly about investment and deployment...nominally about development.


If only a small fraction of the population is interested (or could possibly discern the difference), why go to the trouble?

1125 line TV went through much the same pattern and we never saw it in the US so that the wily Japanese are doing may be nothing more than a curiosity.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> If only a small fraction of the population is interested (or could possibly discern the difference), *why go to the trouble*?
> 
> 1125 line TV went through much the same pattern and we never saw it in the US so that the wily Japanese are doing may be nothing more than a curiosity.


Negatively theorizing how many people will fail to adopt it is futile. That same misguided logic could be applied for any new technology.

The fact is that it is further down the road for adoption elsewhere in the world and being embraced by consumers there.

By the way...apparently it's no "trouble" at all...since content creators, content delivery systems, networks, digital camera manufacturers, and transmittal system technology firms are all investing significantly to deliver 4K UHD.

There will be leaders, followers, and also rans...just like it was for 1080p HD. DirecTV, ESPN, Samsung, Paramount, Netflix, Amazon, and others intend to be leaders in their respective areas.

No trouble at all.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> By the way...apparently it's no "trouble" at all...since content creators, content delivery systems, networks, digital camera manufacturers, and transmittal system technology firms are all investing significantly to deliver 4K UHD.


Content creators are probably using 4K (and I'll bet its not the 3840x2160 flavor) because that's what the people who once used film are using, not because it's where broadcast TV is headed.

For dozens of years TV programming has been shot using much more advanced "formats" than would be delivered to the end customer.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> *Content creators are probably using 4K (and I'll bet its not the 3840x2160 flavor) because that's what the people who once used film are using, not because it's where broadcast TV is headed.*
> 
> For dozens of years TV programming has been shot using much more advanced "formats" than would be delivered to the end customer.


I guess that's why ESPN has already purchased and has been using 4K cameras in advance of their publicly-stated intent of launching their 4K content and being a leader with that format...hmmm...seems to be some disconnect.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I guess that's why ESPN has already purchased and has been using 4K cameras in advance of their publicly-stated intent of launching their 4K content and being a leader with that format...hmmm...seems to be some disconnect.


The possible disconnect is between what someone announces they are going to do and what they actually do. ESPN made similar claims about 3D and after enormous investment and a fairly good trial, look where it's at now.

This is kind of like DIRECTV associating 4K with the inservice of DIRECTV 14. They probably aren't related in any technological way but it sounds good.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> The possible disconnect is between what someone announces they are going to do and what they actually do. ESPN made similar claims about 3D and after enormous investment and a fairly good trial, look where it's at now.
> 
> This is kind of like DIRECTV associating 4K with the inservice of DIRECTV 14. They probably aren't related in any technological way but it sounds good.


Then again...what one reads on the Internet as opposed to obtaining information from those directly involved in the 4K UHD movement/initiatives will differ in their depth of substance/accuracy. That's disconnect in terms of facts.

It's also fair to assume that large organizations making public commitments risk the consequences of not achieving them. The ESPN commitment/investment to 3D paled in comparison to 4K UHD.

This is an evolving technology, with more turns along the way.


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Negatively theorizing how many people will fail to adopt it is futile. That same misguided logic could be applied for any new technology.
> 
> The fact is that it is further down the road for adoption elsewhere in the world and being embraced by consumers there.
> 
> By the way...apparently it's no "trouble" at all...since content creators, content delivery systems, networks, digital camera manufacturers, and transmittal system technology firms are all investing significantly to deliver 4K UHD.
> 
> There will be leaders, followers, and also rans...just like it was for 1080p HD. DirecTV, ESPN, Samsung, Paramount, Netflix, Amazon, and others intend to be leaders in their respective areas.
> 
> No trouble at all.


I can't believe how many naysayers there are on this thread.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> I can't believe how many naysayers there are on this thread.
> 
> Rich


Sometimes there is one barking so loud you just think there's many many more.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Rich said:


> I can't believe how many naysayers there are on this thread.
> 
> Rich


Agree.

What makes it all the more "interesting" is that the loudest barkers aren't even DirecTV customers...yet the continue talking about what DirecTV might/will/might not provide. Hopefully those legitimately interested in this topic don't get derailed by their unfounded negative rhetoric.


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> The possible disconnect is between what someone announces they are going to do and what they actually do. ESPN made similar claims about 3D and after enormous investment and a fairly good trial, look where it's at now.
> 
> This is kind of like DIRECTV associating 4K with the inservice of DIRECTV 14. They probably aren't related in any technological way but it sounds good.


So you are equating 3D with 4K? That's where you have gone wrong. 3D is and has always been a fad. 4K is no more a fad than HD was 15 years ago.


----------



## peds48

Little birdie told me 4K is coming very soon to DIRECTV® (it looks PPV only first) and only via RVU TVs (Samsung 2014 only models)


----------



## Laxguy

peds48 said:


> Little birdie told me 4K is coming very soon to DIRECTV® (it looks PPV only first) and only via RVU TVs (Samsung 2014 only models)


Good news! My Sammy is on a C41, and that one is only 32".... Dunno if the trouble to set up RVU on it will be worth it.... And of course, it's only 1080p, so I don't think that'll be wholly satisfactory.


----------



## samrs

peds48 said:


> Little birdie told me 4K is coming very soon to DIRECTV® (it looks PPV only first) and only via RVU TVs (Samsung 2014 only models)


That little birdie's diagram looks stupid. Then you have to pay six bucks a month for the Genie plus six for the RVU and the content is pay per view. Oh well, their first.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

harsh said:


> If only a small fraction of the population is interested (or could possibly discern the difference), why go to the trouble?
> 
> 1125 line TV went through much the same pattern and we never saw it in the US so that the wily Japanese are doing may be nothing more than a curiosity.


Are you talking about the old Japanese Analog HDTV system?

Japan started that in the late 70s.

However, Digital hit in the early 80s - with CDs coming out in 1983.

There were actually plans for the USA to use it. In fact, HBO announced they would have a HD Channel by 1987 (One would use their C Band Dish and appropriate hardware).

But when the CD exploded, all plans in the USA were put on hold.

There was no reason to build an outdated Analog HD system when it would be (in theory) much better digital.

Digital took longer than expected to roll out (notice how long it took DVDs to come out after the CD), but Japan had to replace their HD system twice - because their MUSE system was inferior to the ATSC standards. The USA did not want to go through that with Digital on the horizon.

So that answers your question as to why we did not go with the MUSE system. We were on plans to go with it, but Digital became the buzzword - and it was put on hold.

If your question is to why we are going after 4k instead of waiting 5 years for 8k, good question. I've often thought about that.

However, TVs lasted 10+ years in the 60s / 70s and 80s. Today getting 3-4 years out of a HDTV is normal. Likewise, a big screen SD TV cost $3k-$5k in the late 80s (which inflation adjusted is at least double what it is now) so prices did come down considerably. I guess they plan that you will have to replace the unit by 2020 anyway.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

damondlt said:


> What are we looking at?
> Are we supposed to be impressed at the over contrasting that's in the tv on the right?
> 
> You want to try and make 4K or 8 look impressive you might want post a different picture comparison.


If you had bother to read, it was to demonstrate the motion blur at 60 frames of 4k v 120 frames of 8k.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I guess that's why ESPN has already purchased and has been using 4K cameras in advance of their publicly-stated intent of launching their 4K content and being a leader with that format...hmmm...seems to be some disconnect.


Again, they are using 4K Cameras for Instant Replay so they can zoom into a specific area at higher resolution.

NOTHING ELSE is being fed by the 4K Cameras (the rest of the remote video path is too narrow nor equiped for 4K. It is fed directly to the slo-mo recorders.

And fwiw, TNT is NOT using 4K for NBA replays as the depth of field is too narrow with 4K cameras.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

peds48 said:


> Little birdie told me 4K is coming very soon to DIRECTV® (it looks PPV only first) and only via RVU TVs (Samsung 2014 only models)


Wow....who speculated that was the way it would work in this thread many, many months ago.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> *Again*, they are using 4K Cameras for Instant Replay so they can zoom into a specific area at higher resolution.
> 
> NOTHING ELSE is being fed by the 4K Cameras (the rest of the remote video path is too narrow nor equiped for 4K. It is fed directly to the slo-mo recorders.
> 
> And fwiw, TNT is NOT using 4K for NBA replays as the depth of field is too narrow with 4K cameras.


*Again*...the point was made in the context of 4K cameras already being in production and being used as a stepping stone to launching more future 4K UHD content by ESPN. They have to start somewhere if they intend to be a leader in that format as they have publically stated. Other content creators and providers are also starting to use 4K cameras as well.

Here's a piece that summarizes the 3D to 4K comparison well for those who remain interested:

http://techrealist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/3d-and-4k-are-going-in-opposite-directions/

But much of the conversation here seems to be:


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Here's a piece that summarizes the 3D to 4K comparison well for those who remain interested:
> 
> http://techrealist.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/3d-and-4k-are-going-in-opposite-directions/


If you substitute 3D for 4K in the second half of the article it would fairly accurately represent what was going on in 2009. All of the noted attributes of UHD (including the commitments from carriers and ESPN) were present with 3D.

Additional attributes in 3D's favor were that 3D already had a suitable disc format (where UHD's disc format is at least a year off), it could be delivered via most of the installed HD STBs to most manufacturer's 3DTVs and it could be done with existing live satellite delivery channels.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14923


----------



## Aridon

What a shock, 4k will look exactly like 1080p on DirecTV. ppv only and 99% of what people actually watch will still be in 720p or 1080i.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Sometimes there is one barking so loud you just think there's many many more.


Good point.

Rich


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Agree.
> 
> What makes it all the more "interesting" is that the loudest barkers aren't even DirecTV customers...yet the continue talking about what DirecTV might/will/might not provide. Hopefully those legitimately interested in this topic don't get derailed by their unfounded negative rhetoric.


Another good point. I don't understand the way our collective minds work. We stand idly by while the best TVs go away forever and complain about a new technology that would seem to make those plasmas disappearing a bit easier to take. I know I'm gonna buy a 4K very soon, I'm very impressed by what I've seen from Samsung.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Aridon said:


> What a shock, 4k will look exactly like 1080p on DirecTV. ppv only and 99% of what people actually watch will still be in 720p or 1080i.


We have to give it time. This instant gratification crap serves no purpose. Next thing you know people will be complaining about kids being born without the ability to walk or talk right after birth. Better to take baby steps with new technology than to have it royally screwed up by makers rushing to produce products that aren't ready. Can no one remember the advent of the 20-700?

Rich


----------



## Aridon

Instant gratification? How long have 1080p sets been out and we are still stuck with what we have? Yet people somehow think when there are already severe bandwidth limitations preventing 1080p that 4k is just around the corner?

Enjoy the $15 ppv 4k.

4k is a joke. I'd be happier if we could just get to 1080p. I'd bet most of you with 4k TVs couldn't tell the difference in a blind test once the actual content hits your set and not some tech demo.


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Again, they are using 4K Cameras for Instant Replay so they can zoom into a specific area at higher resolution.
> 
> NOTHING ELSE is being fed by the 4K Cameras (the rest of the remote video path is too narrow nor equiped for 4K. It is fed directly to the slo-mo recorders.
> 
> And fwiw, TNT is NOT using 4K for NBA replays as the depth of field is too narrow with 4K cameras.


But as we all know over time stuff gets upgraded and I expect the next time any pathways get upgraded that unless it's outrageously costly it'll be to pathways capable of 4k or even 8k and then cameras as well. It's going to be about natural attrition this move imho.

Plus soon enough the compression schemes will make it easier too. I'm guessing that is a couple years out right now.


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Wow....who speculated that was the way it would work in this thread many, many months ago.


No fair. You used logic to make that prediction!

Nice prediction it was though.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> If you substitute 3D for 4K in the second half of the article it would fairly accurately represent what was going on in 2009. All of the noted attributes of UHD (including the commitments from carriers and ESPN) were present with 3D.


Not even close. The timelines are entirely different in length, and the investments are also totally different in $$$.

More misinformation spin.


----------



## I WANT MORE

The only 4k display I would even consider right now is the Panny AX900u. It is the only one even close to ready for prime time.


----------



## peds48

Aridon said:


> 4k is a joke. I'd be happier if we could just get to 1080p.


Why? 1080p24 is almost the same as 1080/60 so :shrug:


----------



## Laxguy

Aridon said:


> Instant gratification? How long have 1080p sets been out and we are still stuck with what we have? Yet people somehow think when there are already severe bandwidth limitations preventing 1080p that 4k is just around the corner?
> 
> Enjoy the $15 ppv 4k.
> 
> 4k is a joke. I'd be happier if we could just get to 1080p. I'd bet most of you with 4k TVs couldn't tell the difference in a blind test once the actual content hits your set and not some tech demo.


I'll take you up on that. Where do you live? (Missing from profile info)

DIRECTV® is increasing its capacity in the near future.


----------



## Rockaway1836

Interesting article here.

http://www.homecinemaguru.com/can-we-see-4kuhd-on-a-normal-sized-screen-you-betcha/


----------



## acostapimps

You have to get RVU TV on top of the Samsung line of 4k TV's if compatible to get 4k content from PPV, another $6 for watching 4k? and from your own TV which I find to be a Because We Can fees.

Basically making it $12 with the Genie 
if the Genie is your additional TV receiver.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> I'll take you up on that. Where do you live? (Missing from profile info)


Add me to your bet.

But of course...we already know better, don't we? :biggrin: 
_*(When ya gonna tell him we've already seen the comparison side by side firsthand??? :grin: )*_


----------



## peds48

acostapimps said:


> You have to get RVU TV on top of the Samsung line of 4k TV's if compatible to get 4k content from PPV, another $6 for watching 4k? and from your own TV which I find to be a Because We Can fees.
> 
> Basically making it $12 with the Genie
> if the Genie is your additional TV receiver.


That is the way it looks for now, kinda like a work around until DIRECTV® comes with a 4K capable receiver. Most of the times early adopters pay premium, the ones who wait until the technology is mature enough are the ones that get to pay the lower price.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not even close. The timelines are entirely different in length, and the investments are also totally different in $$$.


Care to back up this rather bold claim with documented evidence of the magnitude and how any additional amount is going to make uptake more likely (or more speedy)?

I believe I've illustrated where 3D had a distinct timeline advantage of being able to be delivered over widely deployed technology.

It isn't as if the future depends on our analysis of the process, but it isn't often that a failure is so vivid in our memories that we can summarily dismiss it as not representative without carefully addressing the parallels (or lack thereof if that is the case).

If consumers have to wear glasses to see the difference in quality, I see no difference whatsoever.


----------



## harsh

Rockaway1836 said:


> Interesting article here.
> 
> http://www.homecinemaguru.com/can-we-see-4kuhd-on-a-normal-sized-screen-you-betcha/


As applied to first generation content (as noted), perhaps (although I'm not sure how they got around the physics of human vision).

Be that as it may we all know that that quality of reproduction can't be sustained in any meaningful way while being economically delivered to consumers.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Care to back up this rather bold claim with documented evidence of the magnitude and how any additional amount is going to make uptake more likely (or more speedy)?


I'll avoid sounding harsh. The facts are the facts. Can you back up your position with data? No way...if the choice is only to read _*selective contrarian information*_ off the Internet, rather than factual data.


harsh said:


> ...Be that as it may we all know that that quality of reproduction can't be sustained in any meaningful way while being economically delivered to consumers.


WOW...just WOW. Other than personal agendas...not sure why a very small number of people would post that kinda negative FUD stuff...but hopefully most people seriously interested in 4K UHD _*don't buy into this distorted propaganda*_.

If anyone does 5 minutes of _*real*_ research...they'd easily find existing 4K UHD TVs already being offered at "economically delivered" prices. During Black Friday later this month, and into the holiday season...there will be plenty more.

Just taking 5 minutes into a local Best Buy store will demonstrate what is being promoted and sold - 4K UHD.

FACT is that many content providers and delivery services are already in the midst of spending millions on delivering 4K. That's already been posted and links to that information is readily available.

On topic - DirecTV has publically announced they intend to be a leader in 4K UHD delivery. Until someone can _*prove*_ otherwise...generalic contrarian claims are just interference noise.


----------



## slice1900

I did a little digging to figure out how 4K is going to overcome the problems I outlined a few pages back. Apparently there is a new version of DVB, DVB-S2X, that was recently finalized. It standardizes use of 16APSK, 32APSK and optionally 64APSK modulations, along with finer granularity FEC coding schemes, to improve the data rate possible per transponder. To improve the efficiency of stat muxes allocating bandwidth amongst the much larger 4K channels, it supports bonding up to 3 transponders into a single stream. (This means if Directv bonded 3 transponders into a single stream, a 4K receiver would use 3 SWM channels/"tuners" for each 4K channel it could watch/record)

I have no idea how much ability to use higher order modulations would really help - every doubling of the coding rate requires another 3 db of signal margin, but you can "buy back" that margin using additional error correction. I doubt you'd realize much improvement if you wanted to maintain the same signal margin as you have with today's HD, but if you were willing to trade that, who knows? Would the people looking forward to 4K be willing to make a trade for doubling the bit rate available for 4K (i.e. greatly improved per channel quality or double the number of channels possible) in exchange for accepting signal loss in the slightest weather - assuming the receiver automatically switched to the HD version for uninterrupted viewing/recording?

The bonding of three transponders is particularly interesting. I felt there a major limitation here, as fitting two 4K channels into a single transponder would be too much of a quality sacrifice, at least once you move beyond 24 fps movies. On the other hand, devoting an entire transponder to a 4K channel would not allow for very many channels. Initially, 4K will be sold based on quality, so this wouldn't be a problem so long as the number of 4K channels offered is low. If it ever becomes mass market and the majority of channels go 4K, we'll undoubtedly see bit starved 4K channels just as we see bit starved HD channels today. Having three times the bit rate to work with in a single stat mux stream would improve matters greatly, and if an extremely high quality 4K stream was desired for a sports event at 60 or someday perhaps 120 fps it would no longer be limited to the bit rate of a single transponder.


----------



## James Long

hdtvfan0001 said:


> On topic - DirecTV has publically announced they intend to be a leader in 4K UHD delivery. Until someone can _*prove*_ otherwise...generalic contrarian claims are just interference noise.


DirecTV will lead by being one of the few companies actually delivering 4K UHD. If other companies come along after DirecTV then DirecTV can still claim to be leading by being one of the first. As for now, they are leading by announcing their plan to deliver 4K UHD.

DirecTV led fairly well on 3D HD as well. They added PPV and On Demand content and when linear channels became available those were also added. Unfortunately the most recent iteration of 3D did not fare any better than each of the previous attempts. 3D HD remains available PPV and On Demand. The retention of the linear channel keeps DirecTV ahead of the competition on 3D HD.

The same applies to 1080P HD. DirecTV has linear PPV and On Demand content. I am surprised that HBO or another premium has not offered a 1080P linear channel ... perhaps they will offer a UHD linear channel. Perhaps not.

1080P is a mature technology - which is why I am surprised a premium movie channel has not converted to 1080P delivery. That decision is one of the reasons why I do not expect UHD to explode as much as some predict. What is driving a linear channel to upgrade to UHD? The market needs to mature before companies make the investment.

4K UHD via PPV and On Demand is a smaller investment ... just like 3D HD and 1080P HD, content that is available can be delivered without dedicating a linear channel with non-4K, 3D or 1080P content mixed in (the way early HD channels were introduced - where many "HD" channels were upconverts all but a few hours per week). I suspect other providers will not be far behind.


----------



## inkahauts

acostapimps said:


> You have to get RVU TV on top of the Samsung line of 4k TV's if compatible to get 4k content from PPV, another $6 for watching 4k? and from your own TV which I find to be a Because We Can fees.
> 
> Basically making it $12 with the Genie
> if the Genie is your additional TV receiver.


It'll be the same cost for equipment in your scenario as it would be if you had an RVU tv and a regular tv with a genie.. Not sure where y get the $12. The question will be what the cost of the PPV movies will be, but then that's still a PPV cost. I'm guessing an extra couple dollars over Hi Definition PPV, but who knows.. Maybe it'll be the same to encourage more people to get it for now, and we won't see a 4k costs until they get some linear channels up.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> The same applies to 1080P HD. DirecTV has linear PPV and On Demand content. I am surprised that HBO or another premium has not offered a 1080P linear channel ... perhaps they will offer a UHD linear channel. Perhaps not.


There's no difference between 1080i and 1080p24 on most TVs - surprisingly few HDTVs are capable of actually displaying at a true 24 fps when fed a 1080p24 signal. Many TVs older than 5+ years can't even accept a 1080p24 signal, so people using 'native' on their receivers would have to disable that, otherwise uncheck 1080p from the supported resolutions.

HBO would have also have to change it when they show non-24 fps content. Boxing surely isn't 24 fps, maybe Game of Thrones and other original content isn't either. Seems like a lot of hassle for something with benefit to only a few, so I'm hardly surprised HBO never did this...


----------



## James Long

1080x1920x24 is less than 1080x1920x30 ... so there are less pixels before compression. Perhaps the content providers did not want to rely on receivers/TVs to convert 1080p to 1080i for displays that were less than 1080p. Plus converting any non 1080p content for transmission just to have it converted back on older displays.

In any case, the content is available on PPV or On Demand delivery separate from "normal channels". Will we see a linear 4K UHD channel (other than PPV) by the end of 2015? It all depends on how big of a risk the programmers wish to make.


----------



## acostapimps

inkahauts said:


> It'll be the same cost for equipment in your scenario as it would be if you had an RVU tv and a regular tv with a genie.. Not sure where y get the $12. The question will be what the cost of the PPV movies will be, but then that's still a PPV cost. I'm guessing an extra couple dollars over Hi Definition PPV, but who knows.. Maybe it'll be the same to encourage more people to get it for now, and we won't see a 4k costs until they get some linear channels up.


Umm RVU TV is $6 monthly and requires a Genie which is another $6 unless the Genie is the primary TV with no other boxes
then it's just $6.


----------



## dennisj00

acostapimps said:


> Umm RVU TV is $6 monthly and requires a Genie which is another $6 unless the Genie is the primary TV with no other boxes
> then it's just $6.


Which is the same cost with normal programming.


----------



## longrider

Where the extra cost comes in is if you only have one TV. Even though it is hooked directly to the Genie with HDMI you still have to enable it as an RVU client to watch 4K.


----------



## samrs

New customers pay six dollars for the primary receiver. The 2014 Samsung 4K has to be activated as an RVU client to do 4K. Two remotes are required, CEC has to be off. In a single room install.


----------



## inkahauts

acostapimps said:


> Umm RVU TV is $6 monthly and requires a Genie which is another $6 unless the Genie is the primary TV with no other boxes
> then it's just $6.


As someone else said its $6 a mother per outlet in the house. Doesn't matter if its RVU or genie or mini or whatever. So the only way it's an extra $6 a month is if the have only one tv.

How many people that have a 4k tv have only one tv? Not to many I'd imagine.

And I'm sure someday we'll see a receiver that's 4k and then it'll all be good.


----------



## Rockaway1836

harsh said:


> As applied to first generation content (as noted), perhaps (although I'm not sure how they got around the physics of human vision).
> 
> Be that as it may we all know that that quality of reproduction can't be sustained in any meaningful way while being economically delivered to consumers.


Harsh, if you have any questions, doubts, or agenda, I suggest you ask the man himself. http://www.homecinemaguru.com/about/


----------



## samrs

> As someone else said its $6 a mother per outlet in the house. Doesn't matter if its RVU or genie or mini or whatever. So the only way it's an extra $6 a month is if the have only one tv.
> 
> How many people that have a 4k tv have only one tv? Not to many I'd imagine.
> 
> And I'm sure someday we'll see a receiver that's 4k and then it'll all be good.


I have two TV's, Sony and Panasonic. Four DVR's, I mostly watch TV on the Sony. If I buy a Samsung 2014 4K I would most likely retire the Sony(except for baseball season). The 4K would be an additional 6 bucks, unless I dropped a DVR. What Moron would do that.


----------



## slice1900

I wouldn't worry about it, if you want 4K VOD there are other alternatives and more will be added over time. Directv is just introducing it to say they're "first", or whet people's appetites.

Once they have proper 4K receivers you won't have to go through these kludges, but if they plan to implement DVB-S2X in their 4K receivers (which I think is kinda likely, given what it offers) you probably won't see them outside of CE/test markets until 2016.


----------



## inkahauts

samrs said:


> I have two TV's, Sony and Panasonic. Four DVR's, I mostly watch TV on the Sony. If I buy a Samsung 2014 4K I would most likely retire the Sony(except for baseball season). The 4K would be an additional 6 bucks, unless I dropped a DVR. What Moron would do that.


What DVRs do you have? Add a genie and drop a dvr you still gain one additional tuner to record if you don't already have a genie. Then the fees stay the same.

Most people would call you crazy for having two DVRs per tv in the first place. I say welcome to the family, I'm the same. :lol:


----------



## samrs

> What DVRs do you have? Add a genie and drop a dvr you still gain one additional tuner to record if you don't already have a genie. Then the fees stay the same.
> 
> Most people would call you crazy for having two DVRs per tv in the first place. I say welcome to the family, I'm the same. :lol:


It's in my sig, Genie and what not.


----------



## inkahauts

Yeah tapa talk hides it. :lol:


----------



## samrs

> I wouldn't worry about it, if you want 4K VOD there are other alternatives and more will be added over time. Directv is just introducing it to say they're "first", or whet people's appetites.
> 
> Once they have proper 4K receivers you won't have to go through these kludges, but if they plan to implement DVB-S2X in their 4K receivers (which I think is kinda likely, given what it offers) you probably won't see them outside of CE/test markets until 2016.


It might be coming sooner rather than later.

Upgrade your bar, Cuz.

They will come.


----------



## yosoyellobo

With the technology now available would ESPN be able to transmitt sports events in real time thru something like Google Fiber.


----------



## samrs

yosoyellobo said:


> With the technology now available would ESPN be able to transmitt sports events in real time thru something like Google Fiber.


Would Google be willing to pay ESPN?


----------



## yosoyellobo

samrs said:


> Would Google be willing to pay ESPN?


Everything is negotiable.


----------



## samrs

yosoyellobo said:


> Everything is negotiable.


LoL.

For me Google has always been free....

ESPN costs a few bucks month. 

Someone has to pay..just sayin.


----------



## yosoyellobo

samrs said:


> LoL.
> 
> For me Google has always been free....
> 
> ESPN costs a few bucks month.
> 
> Someone has to pay..just sayin.


Google is free. Google fiber starts at $70 a month were available.


----------



## slice1900

samrs said:


> It might be coming sooner rather than later.
> 
> Upgrade your bar, Cuz.
> 
> They will come.


I'm going to bet if they come sooner than that they'll be a dead end H10/HR10 type model.

Anyway, with Directv not having satellites able to broadcast RDBS launched yet, and not having a LNB able to receive RDBS either, having receivers is several steps away.


----------



## samrs

slice1900 said:


> I'm going to bet if they come sooner than that they'll be a dead end H10/HR10 type model.
> 
> Anyway, with Directv not having satellites able to broadcast RDBS launched yet, and not having a LNB able to receive RDBS either, having receivers is several steps away.


Buy the TV's.

Advertise..

Your customers wont know the difference,


----------



## samrs

yosoyellobo said:


> Google is free. Google fiber starts at $70 a month were available.


And if Google offered content.........


----------



## harsh

samrs said:


> And if Google offered content.........


We know it as YouTube.


----------



## samrs

harsh said:


> We know it as YouTube.


That's just not the same.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The facts are the facts. Can you back up your position with data?


I can't back it up with comparative data because you've offered no specific data to compare it to; only oblique references to "links".


> If anyone does 5 minutes of _*real*_ research...they'd easily find existing 4K UHD TVs already being offered at "economically delivered" prices. During Black Friday later this month, and into the holiday season...there will be plenty more.


The TVs aren't the problem (although you still get what you pay for) just as they weren't the problem for 3D.

The issue is whether or not anyone can economically deliver content (live or pre-recorded) that allows UHD to live up to its promise of being discernibly better than HD. The techrealist article referred to first generation video being discernible but we know that nothing that comes to us now is anywhere near first generation.

A theory that I've been advancing all along is the idea that stellar quality HD may be better (and certainly more appealing to those without UHD TVs) than good UHD content.


> FACT is that many content providers and delivery services are already in the midst of spending millions on delivering 4K. That's already been posted and links to that information is readily available.


Here's and interesting link from last year; just one month before ESPN shut down their 3D channel:

http://www.satellitetoday.com/publications/2013/08/20/espn-exec-no-plans-for-separate-ultra-hd-channel/

The applicable information is this:


> While ESPN recently cancelled its 3-D TV channel, the network began showing Ultra-HD content on its HDTV channels, ESPN currently has no plans to produce a separate UHDTV channel, according to Chuck Pagano, executive vice president and CTO at ESPN in an exclusive interview with SatelliteTODAY.com. In addition, satellite providers such as Dish and DirectTV, have not yet asked the network for an UHDTV channel, Pagano added.


Note that this came less than 50 days after Pagano announced that ESPN was ramping up to be the leader in 4K production:

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/68238/pagano-espn-plans-to-be-the-4k-leader

Again, producing content in 4K doesn't equate to delivering live UHD. I realize this has been one of your biggest arguments but this revelation doesn't help your case.

Doesn't it seem odd that a little more than a year ago, DIRECTV wasn't interested in ESPN developing a linear channel? If live sports is a major adoption driver, this would seem to be the means.

That 4:2:2 bandwidth requirement is pretty remarkable.


> On topic - DirecTV has publically announced they intend to be a leader in 4K UHD delivery. Until someone can _*prove*_ otherwise...generalic contrarian claims are just interference noise.


While DIRECTV put their money where their mouth was on their 3D claims, what did being the leader in 3D get them?

Promoting a new technology can be difficult and setting unrealistic expectations can make it a whole lot harder. At least now we know that DIRECTV's current crop of receivers isn't capable so that expectation can be cast aside.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Promoting a new technology can be difficult and setting unrealistic expectations can make it a whole lot harder. At least now we know that DIRECTV's current crop of receivers isn't capable so that expectation can be cast aside.


WOW - considering you are a Dish subscriber...you sure seem to know a lot about DIrecTV's strategy, plans, 4K UHD hardware, contractual commitments, investments, and so on...hmmmm...then again....what is found in the open Internet contains just a fraction of the facts...so Perhaps there's much more to the story that isn't learned from doing just some Google searches.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> I can't back it up with comparative data because you've offered no specific data to compare it to; only oblique references to "links".
> The TVs aren't the problem (although you still get what you pay for) just as they weren't the problem for 3D.
> 
> The issue is whether or not anyone can economically deliver content (live or pre-recorded) that allows UHD to live up to its promise of being discernibly better than HD. The techrealist article referred to first generation video being discernible but we know that nothing that comes to us now is anywhere near first generation.
> 
> A theory that I've been advancing all along is the idea that stellar quality HD may be better (and certainly more appealing to those without UHD TVs) than good UHD content.
> Here's and interesting link from last year; just one month before ESPN shut down their 3D channel:
> 
> http://www.satellitetoday.com/publications/2013/08/20/espn-exec-no-plans-for-separate-ultra-hd-channel/
> 
> The applicable information is this:
> Note that this came less than 50 days after Pagano announced that ESPN was ramping up to be the leader in 4K production:
> 
> http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/68238/pagano-espn-plans-to-be-the-4k-leader
> 
> Again, producing content in 4K doesn't equate to delivering live UHD. I realize this has been one of your biggest arguments but this revelation doesn't help your case.
> 
> Doesn't it seem odd that a little more than a year ago, DIRECTV wasn't interested in ESPN developing a linear channel? If live sports is a major adoption driver, this would seem to be the means.
> 
> That 4:2:2 bandwidth requirement is pretty remarkable.
> While DIRECTV put their money where their mouth was on their 3D claims, what did being the leader in 3D get them?
> 
> Promoting a new technology can be difficult and setting unrealistic expectations can make it a whole lot harder. At least now we know that DIRECTV's current crop of receivers isn't capable so that expectation can be cast aside.


You still miss that 3d was not an extension or natural evolution of Hi Definition but rather a second form that had to be done simultaneously.

UHD will not be like that. It is something that can simply replace and still fulfill Hi Definition. One route instead of two. Big difference and it's exactly why Hi Definition happened the way it did.

Example mnf. It had a year where they did it in hd then it went away for three or so. Why? Because the first effort was like 3d a totally different platform and had to be done simultaneously. It came back when it was able to be one production to create all formats. That's when UHD will take over and that will happen through attrition. The only thing will be broadcasters having room for two channels which DIRECTV will be able to do easily.


----------



## Drew2k

I'm baffled by the amount of energy expended in this thread in either trying to prove 4K has no future or that DIRECTV isn't up to the job of delivering 4K. Why do some feel the need to prove the new format will fail at such an early stage of its deployment? The case has been made, so why not sit back and wait for DIRECTV to fail and be proven right?


----------



## Aridon

I think most would love to see it work but understand the limitations far better than those that ran out to buy first gen sets and think it's coming soon. it's not unless you want to count an overpriced ppv channel or two via a bastardized delivery method. In 2 years we'll still be taking about what is coming on uhd.


----------



## Laxguy

Are we still in first generation on 4K sets? I ask in earnestness.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> You still miss that 3d was not an extension or natural evolution of Hi Definition but rather a second form that had to be done simultaneously.


3D runs on the same tracks as HD. This is just as important to adoption now as it was when NTSC TV transitioned from B/W to color. I think 3D was created more out of a need to sell new TVs than it was to fulfill a mandate.


> UHD will not be like that. It is something that can simply replace and still fulfill Hi Definition. One route instead of two. Big difference and it's exactly why Hi Definition happened the way it did.


Are consumers in dire need of a replacement for HD or is this also driven by the CE industry to boost sales of profitable product lines?

Can UHD be successful without a paradigm shift on the scale of the government mandated DTV transition that drove consumers to replace their SD TVs if for no other reason than to get an integrated tuner?

For DIRECTV's part they should be relatively harmless as it is mostly a configuration issue where the hardware and bandwidth can be re-purposed.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> 3D runs on the same tracks as HD. This is just as important to adoption now as it was when NTSC TV transitioned from B/W to color. I think 3D was created more out of a need to sell new TVs than it was to fulfill a mandate.
> Are consumers in dire need of a replacement for HD or is this also driven by the CE industry to boost sales of profitable product lines?
> 
> Can UHD be successful without a paradigm shift on the scale of the government mandated DTV transition that drove consumers to replace their SD TVs if for no other reason than to get an integrated tuner?
> 
> For DIRECTV's part they should be relatively harmless as it is mostly a configuration issue where the hardware and bandwidth can be re-purposed.


No it doesn't. It has to be processed by different equipment. Normal Hi Definition equipment can not create a 3d product.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> Are we still in first generation on 4K sets? I ask in earnestness.


There would be three generations to cover the roadmaps I've seen for 4K. First gen are HDMI 1.4 and thus capable of only 24 or 30 fps 4K. I would not buy one of these, they were rushed to market to capitalize on the 4K hype but can only properly display movies.

Second generation will be HDMI 2.0. These are starting to appear now, and are capable of 60 fps 4K as well as 24/30 fps 4K with 12/16 bit color (even the best LCD panels can't display more than 12) I would look for a HEVC decoder if it has "smart" features, and make sure to read the specs carefully that it can actually display 4K in 60 fps (I could see someone trying to unload leftover 30 fps display drivers from their Gen 1 model by bolting on a HDMI 2.0 chipset and hoping suckers will think it is a Gen 2 model)

Third generation will use some future standard of HDMI that doesn't exist yet. For all I know they'll have to change the physical layer, squeezing another 2x out of those crappy soldered cables will be tricky. But whatever it uses, it'll do 4Kp120. These are probably a few years out.


----------



## Sixto

Drew2k said:


> I'm baffled by the amount of energy expended in this thread in either trying to prove 4K has no future or that DIRECTV isn't up to the job of delivering 4K. Why do some feel the need to prove the new format will fail at such an early stage of its deployment? The case has been made, so why not sit back and wait for DIRECTV to fail and be proven right?


Drew, you nailed it. Exactly.

While I do think 4K will do better then 3D, best to just sit back and enjoy the ride. It doesn't seem very productive to predict failure or great success, the answer is probably somewhere in between.

Not sure why I'm still hooked to this thread, but I always do enjoy the technical details from Diana and Slice.


----------



## coolman302003

James Long said:


> 3D HD remains available PPV and On Demand.


Actually, the 3D On Demand quietly disappeared a while ago; I believe the time frame was after n3D ceased distribution. IIRC, 3D VOD was at channel 105 previously with a majority of the content coming from n3D.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/208793-3d-on-demand/


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> No fair. You used logic to make that prediction!
> 
> Nice prediction it was though.


You know the ***** of it....

I was really close to pulling the trigger on the 75" LG OLED 4K, but as that is not compatible with the D* RVU structure which will have the programming in the beginning, not to mention Sony's 4K Cinema Server only works with Sony Products, that negates paying that much for the Display


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Aridon said:


> What a shock, 4k will look exactly like 1080p on DirecTV. ppv only and 99% of what people actually watch will still be in 720p or 1080i.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/technology/personaltech/sharper-image-4k-tv-gimmick-worth-having.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=3


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I did a little digging to figure out how 4K is going to overcome the problems I outlined a few pages back. Apparently there is a new version of DVB, DVB-S2X, that was recently finalized. It standardizes use of 16APSK, 32APSK and optionally 64APSK modulations, along with finer granularity FEC coding schemes, to improve the data rate possible per transponder. To improve the efficiency of stat muxes allocating bandwidth amongst the much larger 4K channels, it supports bonding up to 3 transponders into a single stream. (This means if Directv bonded 3 transponders into a single stream, a 4K receiver would use 3 SWM channels/"tuners" for each 4K channel it could watch/record)
> 
> I have no idea how much ability to use higher order modulations would really help - every doubling of the coding rate requires another 3 db of signal margin, but you can "buy back" that margin using additional error correction. I doubt you'd realize much improvement if you wanted to maintain the same signal margin as you have with today's HD, but if you were willing to trade that, who knows? Would the people looking forward to 4K be willing to make a trade for doubling the bit rate available for 4K (i.e. greatly improved per channel quality or double the number of channels possible) in exchange for accepting signal loss in the slightest weather - assuming the receiver automatically switched to the HD version for uninterrupted viewing/recording?
> 
> The bonding of three transponders is particularly interesting. I felt there a major limitation here, as fitting two 4K channels into a single transponder would be too much of a quality sacrifice, at least once you move beyond 24 fps movies. On the other hand, devoting an entire transponder to a 4K channel would not allow for very many channels. Initially, 4K will be sold based on quality, so this wouldn't be a problem so long as the number of 4K channels offered is low. If it ever becomes mass market and the majority of channels go 4K, we'll undoubtedly see bit starved 4K channels just as we see bit starved HD channels today. Having three times the bit rate to work with in a single stat mux stream would improve matters greatly, and if an extremely high quality 4K stream was desired for a sports event at 60 or someday perhaps 120 fps it would no longer be limited to the bit rate of a single transponder.


The biggest issue is live programming (Sports) that cannot be optimized for transmission. That really cannot be transmitted by cable/internet currently. Pre-recorded programming can be optimized for transmission via cable/internet, but not live programming.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

yosoyellobo said:


> With the technology now available would ESPN be able to transmitt sports events in real time thru something like Google Fiber.


No.

The STBs Google Fiber uses are not UHD Ready.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Laxguy said:


> Are we still in first generation on 4K sets? I ask in earnestness.


We are on second generation of 4K sets with a sub-$1000 brand name now available.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

This shows the problems with 4K Broadcasting that is so basic, yet one does not think of - how to move the signal in the studios and plant.

And as noted, the suppliers are not sure even.....

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/smpte--coax-for-ktv-/272993

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/smpte--uncompressed-video-over-cots-ethernet-switches/272983


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

And finally, bitrate savings of h265/HEVC tested and verified which will be needed for 4K.

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/smpte--hevc-bitrate-savings-verified/272970


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

And from the "does anyone really care about this 4k Channel".....

http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/%E2%80%98k-in-four-years/272399


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> There would be three generations to cover the roadmaps I've seen for 4K. First gen are HDMI 1.4 and thus capable of only 24 or 30 fps 4K. I would not buy one of these, they were rushed to market to capitalize on the 4K hype but can only properly display movies.
> 
> Second generation will be HDMI 2.0. These are starting to appear now, and are capable of 60 fps 4K as well as 24/30 fps 4K with 12/16 bit color (even the best LCD panels can't display more than 12) I would look for a HEVC decoder if it has "smart" features, and make sure to read the specs carefully that it can actually display 4K in 60 fps (I could see someone trying to unload leftover 30 fps display drivers from their Gen 1 model by bolting on a HDMI 2.0 chipset and hoping suckers will think it is a Gen 2 model)
> 
> Third generation will use some future standard of HDMI that doesn't exist yet. For all I know they'll have to change the physical layer, squeezing another 2x out of those crappy soldered cables will be tricky. But whatever it uses, it'll do 4Kp120. These are probably a few years out.


Good summary!

We are already seeing a number of the 2nd generation technology. Agree that the 3rd generation is a few years into the future.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Normal Hi Definition equipment can not create a 3d product.


DIRECTV doesn't create 3D product -- they simply deliver 3D using all but a couple of their Plus HD receiver models. For DIRECTV the problem is acquiring 3D content and selling 3D PPV.

UHD doesn't have the benefit of in-place hardware with DIRECTV or any other carrier. It will come, but it won't be a matter of a few months. Early projections at DIRECTV's announcement were for 2016 but some speculated it could be five to seven years or more.

In the interim, people will need to be convinced that the end product represents a sufficient jump in quality to bother. It isn't as if UHD truly adds dimension like 3D did.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Second generation will be HDMI 2.0. These are starting to appear now, and are capable of 60 fps 4K as well as 24/30 fps 4K with 12/16 bit color (even the best LCD panels can't display more than 12)


So until OLED or some heretofore ignored (or abandoned) technology going to have to rise to prominence before UHD can begin to meet its promise?


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> So until OLED or some heretofore ignored (or abandoned) technology going to have to rise to prominence before UHD can begin to meet its promise?


Well you'll need some new technology to display full 16 bit color, or the return of plasma for 4K sets, which doesn't seem likely. 16 bit is optional for consumer gear, so I doubt stuff like Directv receivers, non-pro Blu Ray players etc. will output more than 12 anyway. As with increases in resolution, there are diminishing returns as you go up, so the increase from 12 to 16 won't be nearly as noticeable as the gain from 8 to 12.

BT.2020 colorimetry is really more important (wider gamut) than adding finer gradation. While people can tell the difference between very small changes in brightness in side by side tests, you don't watch TV that way so I don't think 16 bit color really matters for home users. It would matter more for professional photographers, graphic designers, radiologists, etc.

OLED isn't really a solution for this anyway, as while it can support 16 bit color it has much greater color inaccuracy than a quality LCD (let alone plasma) so you'd have to trade one for the other.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> The biggest issue is live programming (Sports) that cannot be optimized for transmission. That really cannot be transmitted by cable/internet currently. Pre-recorded programming can be optimized for transmission via cable/internet, but not live programming.


What do you mean by "cannot be optimized for transmission"? Are you referring to the lack of real time HEVC encoders / statmuxes, or something else?


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> I'm baffled by the amount of energy expended in this thread in either trying to prove 4K has no future or that DIRECTV isn't up to the job of delivering 4K. Why do some feel the need to prove the new format will fail at such an early stage of its deployment? The case has been made, so why not sit back and wait for DIRECTV to fail and be proven right?


Baffles me too. A few years ago I had an argument with two guys on a different forum, one I now wish I had never visited, about BD players and the way they upscaled. After a couple weeks of them telling me it's impossible to upscale a DVD, I finally asked them how many BD players they had. Not only didn't they own one, neither of them had even tried upscaling on one! I gave up on that forum (which I had to pay for monthly) very quickly. They were absolutely convinced a BD player couldn't upscale. And they were well thought of on that forum. I don't read most of the stuff in this thread, just browse quickly thru and only read the few posts that interest me. I know what I've seen and I'm gonna get one some day soon.

Rich


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> ...While DIRECTV put their money where their mouth was on their 3D claims, what did being the leader in 3D get them?
> 
> Promoting a new technology can be difficult and setting unrealistic expectations can make it a whole lot harder. At least now we know that DIRECTV's current crop of receivers isn't capable so that expectation can be cast aside.


It probably netted them several thousand subscribers they wouldn't have otherwise had, since they were pretty much the only venue for live 3D content. While 3D may not have taken off like some expected, it did (and still does) have its fans. Maybe thousands out of 20 million isn't huge, but I doubt Dish, or any other provider, would turn them away.  It also helped reinforce the DirecTV brand as being a technology leader and a provider of innovations as soon as their customers want them (and sometimes even before they want them).

All the UHD technical issues will be overcome eventually. Realtime HEVC encoders will be developed, HDMI 2.x will appear on more and more TVs and all the in studio and transmission issues will be solved. The only question is how big a commitment content providers make to UHD. There is a chicken and egg situation between content availability and display ubiquity. Will UHD reach critical mass in 2015, 2016 or beyond? Nobody knows for sure. Some, like DirecTV, are betting on sooner (or at least will spend the money to protect their technological leadership reputation). Others are more skeptical. Time will tell who is correct.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Are we still in first generation on 4K sets? I ask in earnestness.


I think having patience and seeing how this whole thing shakes out in real life is the way to go. I'm not gonna jump all that quickly. But, I know what I've seen and I will buy one.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> DIRECTV doesn't create 3D product -- they simply deliver 3D using all but a couple of their Plus HD receiver models. For DIRECTV the problem is acquiring 3D content and selling 3D PPV.
> 
> UHD doesn't have the benefit of in-place hardware with DIRECTV or any other carrier. It will come, but it won't be a matter of a few months. Early projections at DIRECTV's announcement were for 2016 but some speculated it could be five to seven years or more.
> 
> In the interim, people will need to be convinced that the end product represents a sufficient jump in quality to bother. It isn't as if UHD truly adds dimension like 3D did.


And I was addressing content. That's the point. The content creators needed to spend a ton extra that was for a second feed. 4k will not be like that on the long run. It'll be arbitrary the cost of also having a 1080 feed.

And you must not get that directv will have some people that can get UHD very soon. Very soon. Not years away. And this time content will only grow over time not shrink like 3d did.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> What do you mean by "cannot be optimized for transmission"? Are you referring to the lack of real time HEVC encoders / statmuxes, or something else?


Without getting into heavy technical discussion, look at the improvements gained when buffer time is increased over 2 seconds for look forward.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> It probably netted them several thousand subscribers they wouldn't have otherwise had, since they were pretty much the only venue for live 3D content. While 3D may not have taken off like some expected, it did (and still does) have its fans. Maybe thousands out of 20 million isn't huge, but I doubt Dish, or any other provider, would turn them away.  It also helped reinforce the DirecTV brand as being a technology leader and a provider of innovations as soon as their customers want them (and sometimes even before they want them).
> 
> All the UHD technical issues will be overcome eventually. Realtime HEVC encoders will be developed, HDMI 2.x will appear on more and more TVs and all the in studio and transmission issues will be solved. The only question is how big a commitment content providers make to UHD. There is a chicken and egg situation between content availability and display ubiquity. Will UHD reach critical mass in 2015, 2016 or beyond? Nobody knows for sure. Some, like DirecTV, are betting on sooner (or at least will spend the money to protect their technological leadership reputation). Others are more skeptical. Time will tell who is correct.


As they were really the ONLY outlet with a variety of 3D programming, I suspect it was certainly an increase greater than several thousand. I would put it in the high tens of thousands, if not 100k, given the excitement that brought customers into the stores during a recession - and the growth of DirecTV subs during that same period.

17.6M 12/31/2008 For a Baseline
18.5M 12/31/2009
19.2M 12/31/2010
19.9M 12/31/2011
20.1M 12/31/2012
20.3M 12/31/2013


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Without getting into heavy technical discussion, look at the improvements gained when buffer time is increased over 2 seconds for look forward.


Delaying by an extra two seconds wouldn't be a problem, nothing "live" is truly live. When Directv first started HD broadcasts the HD channels were at least five seconds behind their SD version. Worst comes to worse if they really thought it was going to be a problem they could add a delay to the HD broadcasts to bring them back in sync.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As they were really the ONLY outlet with a variety of 3D programming, I suspect it was certainly an increase greater than several thousand. I would put it in the high tens of thousands, if not 100k, given the excitement that brought customers into the stores during a recession - and the growth of DirecTV subs during that same period.
> 
> 17.6M 12/31/2008 For a Baseline
> 18.5M 12/31/2009
> 19.2M 12/31/2010
> 19.9M 12/31/2011
> 20.1M 12/31/2012
> 20.3M 12/31/2013


How can anyone know what percentage of Directv's customer adds during that period had anything to do with 3D? They were launching multiple HD satellites during that time, and in many areas greatly surpassed the number of HD channels on cable alternatives. That seems a much more plausible explanation for additions (if indeed these additions had ANYTHING to do with 3D or HD, rather than better pricing/new customer offers, hating their cable company, NFLST, availability of locals on Directv in more DMAs, etc.)


----------



## James Long

coolman302003 said:


> Actually, the 3D On Demand quietly disappeared a while ago; I believe the time frame was after n3D ceased distribution. IIRC, 3D VOD was at channel 105 previously with a majority of the content coming from n3D.


That is strange ... Are you saying that movies such as "X-Men: Days of Future Past" and "Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow" are not available in 3D on DirecTV? Or are such movies only available on a linear channel and not On Demand?


----------



## coolman302003

James Long said:


> That is strange ... Are you saying that movies such as "X-Men: Days of Future Past" and "Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow" are not available in 3D on DirecTV? Or are such movies only available on a linear channel and not On Demand?


The only 3D on DirecTV now is a linear HD PPV channel at 104. The guide data for that channel only goes out to 11/14 but only the following titles are available for rental on a rotating basis:

Maleficent 3D
Planes: Fire & Rescue 3D
James Cameron's Deepsea Challenge 3D 
Step Up: All in 3D
In the past there was a VOD (requiring internet to download) at channel 105 that offered various 3D content, some was from n3D and I believe some from other sources.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Delaying by an extra two seconds wouldn't be a problem, nothing "live" is truly live. When Directv first started HD broadcasts the HD channels were at least five seconds behind their SD version. Worst comes to worse if they really thought it was going to be a problem they could add a delay to the HD broadcasts to bring them back in sync.


The 2 second buffer was for 1080 using HVEC (nor was 2 seconds Optimized). That is only where the major improvements starting taking place.

It will take a lot longer than that to get 4K (much more data) where it needs to be for optimal size/quality.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> How can anyone know what percentage of Directv's customer adds during that period had anything to do with 3D? They were launching multiple HD satellites during that time, and in many areas greatly surpassed the number of HD channels on cable alternatives. That seems a much more plausible explanation for additions (if indeed these additions had ANYTHING to do with 3D or HD, rather than better pricing/new customer offers, hating their cable company, NFLST, availability of locals on Directv in more DMAs, etc.)


I noted that one could not know how many that 3D contributed, no more than the Original Poster attribute several thousand to it. That's why I did not count several million new subscribers because of 3D.

Noticed you did not question her on her figure, only mine.

I will also say with SDV, Cable (TWC, Brighthouse, et al) and even AT&T had more HD Channels available than DirecTV during the 3D time frame. DirecTV advantage over cable at the time (that they were pushing) was 3D.

And considering the millions of 3D TVs sold during the period (They did $55M worth of sales in the first 3 months available in 2010), 1 million in 2010, increased the base to 4% of the US TV Households with 4.5M total at the end of 2011, not to mention 30% of the LCD panels shipped in 2012 were 3D capable, I can clearly see a 6 figure gain in subs instead of a 4 digit gain. I personally belief no one could say it was only several thousand with a straight face.


----------



## slice1900

I responded to your post because you made the more outrageous suggestion that a large number of Directv's subscriber gain had to do with 3D. Suggesting it only a few thousand isn't that outrageous to me, though that post was equally without proof.

I don't think 3D TV sales help your case any. Just because a bunch of TVs that can do 3D were sold doesn't mean they were actually used for 3D. A lot of people buy TVs with smart features they never make use of. Even if they bought them for 3D, they could have bought them for 3D Blu Ray viewing, it doesn't mean they were excited to watch the crapfest that was ESPN3D.

It is a big stretch to suggest that simply because they had 3D TVs they'd switch providers to get 3D programming. Especially since Directv never had more than a handful of 3D channels. How many people would switch providers to get a few 4K channels? Would even the boosters like hdtvfan001 switch providers tomorrow to get a half dozen 4K channels?

You seem to be operating under the "build it and they will come" scenario. Because x number of 3D TVs were sold, people will somehow want to get 3D programming. That was a feature included in a lot of higher end TVs, so if you bought one you'd get that feature whether you wanted it or not. Plus there was a lot of hype associated with it, I'm sure a lot of people made sure they got it in a TV they bought for future proofing - you'd hate to be stuck with an old school 2D TV if 3D became the next big thing like the press was breathlessly claiming at the time!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I responded to your post because you made the more outrageous suggestion that a large number of Directv's subscriber gain had to do with 3D. Suggesting it only a few thousand isn't that outrageous to me, though that post was equally without proof.
> 
> I don't think 3D TV sales help your case any. Just because a bunch of TVs that can do 3D were sold doesn't mean they were actually used for 3D. A lot of people buy TVs with smart features they never make use of. Even if they bought them for 3D, they could have bought them for 3D Blu Ray viewing, it doesn't mean they were excited to watch the crapfest that was ESPN3D.
> 
> It is a big stretch to suggest that simply because they had 3D TVs they'd switch providers to get 3D programming. Especially since Directv never had more than a handful of 3D channels. How many people would switch providers to get a few 4K channels? Would even the boosters like hdtvfan001 switch providers tomorrow to get a half dozen 4K channels?
> 
> You seem to be operating under the "build it and they will come" scenario. Because x number of 3D TVs were sold, people will somehow want to get 3D programming. That was a feature included in a lot of higher end TVs, so if you bought one you'd get that feature whether you wanted it or not. Plus there was a lot of hype associated with it, I'm sure a lot of people made sure they got it in a TV they bought for future proofing - you'd hate to be stuck with an old school 2D TV if 3D became the next big thing like the press was breathlessly claiming at the time!


DirecTV had much more content than ESPN 3D including the Panasonic Sponsored 3D channel and 3Net, not to mention the Linear 3D Movie Channel.

Did anyone else even have 2? I know FiOS had ESPN 3D for a large upcharge (which DirecTV ate). Panasonic obviously underwrote Channel 103.

Regardless, not that many 3D Blu-Rays were even sold, so if people wanted content (beside games), DirecTV was the Provider.

I am not of the build it and they will come, but I think it is really naive to think there were that were that many 3D sets (which granted, never got past the 19% Early Adopter Phase) to think that it resulted in only several thousand subscriptions - especially during a recession when money was tight and thus DirecTV would provide the best value for a 3D TV purchase.

And bottom line, I do not expect any one of a thousand regulars that post on DBSTalk to switch providers for any reason (especially as many are hooked on the heroin of CE downloads). However, most of America seldom goes to a forum and posts (Although if the CE did not exist, I do suspect those people would be flaming DirecTV on all sites and forums for the bugs that exists in the current hardware/firmware).


----------



## I WANT MORE

Rich said:


> I think having patience and seeing how this whole thing shakes out in real life is the way to go. I'm not gonna jump all that quickly. But, I know what I've seen and I will buy one.
> 
> Rich


As one who is stricken with Earlyadopteritis this is one technology that I am staying on the sideline for. 
There are way too many variables at this point. 
There is no way I would purchase a 4K display right now. No Way.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Diana C said:


> All the UHD technical issues will be overcome eventually. Realtime HEVC encoders will be developed, HDMI 2.x will appear on more and more TVs and all the in studio and transmission issues will be solved.


HDMI v2.x 4K UHD units carry no risk - they will continue to support 1080p just fine - so if the price comes down (as anticipated) at year end and into early 2015....1Q 2015 might just be a good time to get start getting on board. The exact timing isn't all that important.

Likely, we'll learn a lot more about the HDMI 2.x device availability at CES 2015 in January, and some folks will dig into that topic with manufacturers face-to-face.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> What do you mean by "cannot be optimized for transmission"? Are you referring to the lack of real time HEVC encoders / statmuxes, or something else?


Think of what they did with "ProcAmps" back in the day to contour or "punch up" the picture. It can be done in the digital domain but it requires quite a bit of horsepower.

Just to crank up the contrast to the eye-searing plasma levels is a fairly significant task not to mention diddling the chroma in an effort to get the optimal bang for the buck from compression.


----------



## patmurphey

Silly question, with all this arguing about TV hardware, what DirecTV hardware will this so called UHD pass through "soon"?


----------



## 242424

patmurphey said:


> Silly question, with all this arguing about TV hardware, what DirecTV hardware will this so called UHD pass through "soon"?


They won't hear you, too much noise from chest pounding lol


----------



## Laxguy

Those who know cannot and will not say; the rest of us are left to guessing and hoping......


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> Those who know cannot and will not say; the rest of us are left to guessing and hoping......


Not to mention there is so much noise from "outside" that somebody should close the window... :grin:


----------



## samrs

patmurphey said:


> Silly question, with all this arguing about TV hardware, what DirecTV hardware will this so called UHD pass through "soon"?


Someone with a Genie, a correctly installed Samsung 2014 4K RVU Client TV(Tech Visit) and an internet connection with a wired CCK(?) will have access to about eight Video On Demand movies. Around mid November. $14.99?


----------



## Rich

I WANT MORE said:


> As one who is stricken with _*Earlyadopteritis*_ this is one technology that I am staying on the sideline for.
> There are way too many variables at this point.
> There is no way I would purchase a 4K display right now. No Way.


A new phobia? Just gotta have it when it comes out? That was funny, I'm chuckling right now. But, all kidding aside, I think we should be patient and see how this shakes out. I already have concerns about differing formats from Sony and Samsung.

Rich


----------



## Rich

samrs said:


> Someone with a Genie, a correctly installed Samsung 2014 4K RVU Client TV(Tech Visit) and an internet connection with a wired CCK(?) will have access to about eight Video On Demand movies. Around mid November. $14.99?


Sounds like the DVD players when they first came out. Pricey, but little content. Gotta give it time.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Do I hear the faint cluck of Galli domestici in the barnyard next door?? 

Your old _Melleagris gallopavo friend....._


----------



## harsh

patmurphey said:


> Silly question, with all this arguing about TV hardware, what DirecTV hardware will this so called UHD pass through "soon"?


It _may_ be buffered on a Genie on the way to a Samsung UHD TV where all the heavy lifting will be done.


----------



## patmurphey

harsh said:


> It _may_ be buffered on a Genie on the way to a Samsung UHD TV where all the heavy lifting will be done.


OK, what level of UHD goes to the RVU? Are you suggesting that the only customers to get UHD are Samsung RVU customers? Genies and Clients use current generation HDMI.


----------



## Christopher Gould

As an example. I just bought a samsung 60" hu8550. It's a 4k 3d tv. I'm not able to upgrade to the lastest greatest all the time to poor for that. But I did buy this tv because it does have a port that allows upgrading the ports and software. It wasn't much more expensive than a top of the line 1080p. Last tv was 7 years old sony RPTV that suffered the green blob issue no blue in picture. So if I'm an example people will buy 4k.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900

patmurphey said:


> OK, what level of UHD goes to the RVU? Are you suggesting that the only customers to get UHD are Samsung RVU customers? Genies and Clients use current generation HDMI.


What Directv will be offering in a couple weeks is video on demand, with a (very) small selection of movies, which will be recorded to the Genie, but the only means of watching it will be a Samsung 4K TV via RVU. You can't watch them via the Genie or a client. If you have a Samsung 4K TV, you can already watch a larger selection of 4K movies from Amazon and Netflix, so Directv's offering is really only getting their foot in the door to say "first!" among cable/satellite companies.

The Genie and client don't have "current generation" HDMI, they have HDMI 1.4. HDMI 2.0 wasn't finalized when the HR44 and C41 were developed - heck it is only in the last few months that TVs that support it have come to market! While HDMI 1.4 has the bandwidth for 4Kp24, the chipset has to support 4K video output. I highly doubt any satellite chipsets available back then did so, or that Directv would be willing to pay extra for them if there were, given how limited a receiver with HDMI 1.4 and no HEVC would be for 4K.

When Directv introduces their new 4K hardware, it will implement HDMI 2.0, an HEVC decoder, and probably DVB-S2X support as well. Chipsets that support HDMI 2.0 and HEVC have only recently become available, but DVB-S2X support will not come until next year. How soon we soon 4K hardware from Directv depends on whether they wait for DVB-S2X, which I think they will (and if they don't, I think it is very likely those early 4K receivers have a very short life and are obsoleted like the H10/HR10 were)

The other piece they'll need in place along with that new hardware is the ability to receive RDBS bands that D14 & D15 will broadcast to carry 4K programming. It appears the SWM 13 LNB does NOT support this - so I kind of wonder how long before we see a LNB that does. Doesn't seem like it will be all that soon.

Directv's quarterly earnings call is this afternoon, I'm sure 4K will come up so we may learn more about the roadmap from that.


----------



## Rich

Christopher Gould said:


> As an example. I just bought a samsung 60" hu8550. It's a 4k 3d tv. I'm not able to upgrade to the lastest greatest all the time to poor for that. But I did buy this tv because it does have a port that allows upgrading the ports and software. It wasn't much more expensive than a top of the line 1080p. Last tv was 7 years old sony RPTV that suffered the green blob issue no blue in picture. So if I'm an example people will buy 4k.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Me too. Last set I bought was a Panny plasma that's supposedly "smart", something I've never seen an indication of. It's also a 3D set. I never use the 3D option. What people forget is that the Panny plasmas with 3D put out much better PQ when used as a normal TV. Or 2D, if you will.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Me too. Last set I bought was a Panny plasma that's supposedly "smart", something I've never seen an indication of. It's also a 3D set. I never use the 3D option. What people forget is that the Panny plasmas with 3D put out much better PQ when used as a normal TV. Or 2D, if you will.
> 
> Rich


That's because they didn't have any low end models with 3D, so if you went towards the higher end you got both better PQ (which you wanted) and 3D (which you didn't) right?


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> That's because they didn't have any low end models with 3D, so if you went towards the higher end you got both better PQ (which you wanted) and 3D (which you didn't) right?


Yup. I knew what I was doing. I have no use for the smart features either. I just bought it for the PQ, which I'm very satisfied with.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> That's because _*they didn't have any low end models with 3D,*_ so if you went towards the higher end you got both better PQ (which you wanted) and 3D (which you didn't) right?


I always go for the more expensive models. I'm far too picky to do anything else. Sometimes, most times it works out in my favor. The sets that I saw that weren't 3D didn't have near the PQ that the 3D sets did. In 2D, I mean. One of these days I've gotta try the 3D out. I have the glasses.

Rich


----------



## Diana C

Rich said:


> ...One of these days I've gotta try the 3D out. I have the glasses.
> 
> Rich


It gives me a headache.


----------



## samrs

harsh said:


> It _may_ be buffered on a Genie on the way to a Samsung UHD TV where all the heavy lifting will be done.


There is no buffering pound puppy, the movie has to be completely downloaded before it can be purchased and watched.


----------



## samrs

Rich said:


> Sounds like the DVD players when they first came out. Pricey, but little content. Gotta give it time.
> 
> Rich


I remember. My first HD install the man had an $8,000 Mitsubishi rear projection, with the satellite receiver built in the back. Directv had two channels. One pay per view and an HBO. Likely less content than 4K. I thought it was overpriced, he thought it was cutting edge. It was a few years and more content before I jumped on board.


----------



## Christopher Gould

Rich said:


> I always go for the more expensive models. I'm far too picky to do anything else. Sometimes, most times it works out in my favor. The sets that I saw that weren't 3D didn't have near the PQ that the 3D sets did. In 2D, I mean. One of these days I've gotta try the 3D out. I have the glasses.
> 
> Rich


Samsung's active 3d glasses works fine with my glasses. Hardly know they r there.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900

They mentioned 4K a bit during the investor call earlier today. They said the reason they're providing this limited VoD offering was to "kind of some content as a starter to get people to see what the experience is all about". They mentioned that when D14 is operational they'll have the ability to do more VoD as well as live streaming, but "to be honest with you, we need to see who's interested in a channel. I'm guessing, at least initially, it's more likely to be event driven or VOD driven, but we'll be prepared to do live streaming next year."

It isn't clear exactly what hardware they'd be doing that with. Would it require the same "via a Genie, but you need a Samsung RVU TV to watch it", or is there 4K hardware coming soon? Maybe the C51 client that appeared a few months ago will provide a sort of halfway solution, possibly being capable of displaying 4K via RVU so people don't need a particular model of 4K TV?

They could do a bit of 4K using MPEG4 and existing satellite slots initially, similar to how they did HD initially using MPEG2 and Ku band satellites, before moving to the real solution using MPEG4 and Ka band a year later.


----------



## inkahauts

patmurphey said:


> Silly question, with all this arguing about TV hardware, what DirecTV hardware will this so called UHD pass through "soon"?


The rumor is that it will be via genies and an rvu tv, and the rvu tv is what will actually show it, not the genie where it is downloaded too.. for now at least...


----------



## Tom Robertson

In yesterdays conference call, which I blogged for Solidsignal.com (sorry, I couldn't blog two places at once as I have in the past), the only hardware mentioned was the Samsung DIRECTV compatible TV. 

And they indicated they are taking strong leadership for the benefit of the industry, as they have in the past with HD and 3D. (2 out of 3 ain't bad, cuz I'm presuming 4k will work.) 

So we know DIRECTV will have 4k output someday. 

We also know that the current Genies can support 4k clients, so I'll expect the first DIRECTV offering just might be a client for existing Genies. Or a client introduced at the same time with a future Genie--though us with a current Genie would likely only need to upgrade clients. (And TVs...) 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Diana C

DirecTV has had good success with the Genie server/client model. I would expect that any UHD solution will follow this model. For the near future, any kind of live content will have to be in MPEG4, obviously. Until all the standards are settled and DirecTV has settled on the ones they want to use it makes sense to do much interim support in the Minis as possible. It is a lot cheaper to replace a Mini (no matter who is paying) than to replace a 5 tuner DVR.

I hope they don't have TOO much UHD content...if they use MPEG4 for UHD the 1TB drive in the Genie will fill up fast.


----------



## slice1900

Tom Robertson said:


> We also know that the current Genies can support 4k clients, so I'll expect the first DIRECTV offering just might be a client for existing Genies. Or a client introduced at the same time with a future Genie--though us with a current Genie would likely only need to upgrade clients. (And TVs...)


So long as the Genie can receive something, and it can receive MPEG4, it is just "bits" getting sent to the client (whether that client is a 4K TV or some future client that is able to output 4K on its own) The Genie has no idea what to do with a 4K stream, but if it passes it on to something else that can deal with it that's good enough for an initial deployment since there are no real 4K channels for Directv to carry anyway.

That would allow them time to get the pieces in place, like the ability to encode HEVC streams on their headend, DVB-S2X support to be available in receiver chipsets, etc. So it might be some time before we see a Genie able to output 4K on its own, the use of HEVC, and LNBs able to receive the RDBS band.


----------



## P Smith

Essentially, support 4k means implementing H.265 in first hand, perhaps HDMI 2.x, regardless DVB-S2X tuners.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Essentially, support 4k means implementing H.265 in first hand, perhaps HDMI 2.x, regardless DVB-S2X tuners.


Why? What stops them from using MPEG4 initially, just like they used MPEG2 initially for HD?


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> It gives me a headache.


Yet another reason I haven't used it. I finally found out what has caused my years of headaches and I don't need any device giving me more.

Rich


----------



## Rich

samrs said:


> I remember. My first HD install the man had an $8,000 Mitsubishi rear projection, with the satellite receiver built in the back. Directv had two channels. One pay per view and an HBO. Likely less content than 4K. I thought it was overpriced, he thought it was cutting edge. It was a few years and more content before I jumped on board.


I was in a Nobody Beats the Wiz when I encountered DVD players for the first time. I watched a guy pay a lot for one and he got a "free" DVD of _Independence Day _that had just been released thrown in. I asked him what he planned to do with the DVD player (even the video stores around here didn't rent them at the time) once he watched the movie. He gave me a puzzled look and said he had no idea. Nothing like an educated consumer.

Rich


----------



## CraigerM

Can IPTV do 4K TV and DTV's current HD quality? I think one of the advantages to the merger is that if AT&T does model their TV service after DTV, they choose their boxes and guide. They could offer the same DTV HD quality current and 4K TV over both IPTV and the dish.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> So long as the Genie can receive something, and it can receive MPEG4, it is just "bits" getting sent to the client ...


If it is simply being passed through does it have to be any particular format? If I am reading correctly, the feed only has to be something the TV knows how to process - after the receiver passes it through.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

For Q4, 2014, DirecTV intends to "preload" several UHD of the more popular movies on Genies for On Demand Viewing (just as they do for HD movies now) for viewing on Samsung UHD TVs.

DirecTV will also will have a VOD using the internet, but the title has to ordered a night in advance for the next day.

That makes me believe that in Q4 2014, they will actually be distributing the UHD material in mpeg4, not hevc, though I freely admit that could easily be incorrect. It would seem if they were distributing the VOD via HEVC with a 50% savings in size, but 2x the data, one would not need overnight for the movie, perhaps only an hour or two lead time.

On another note, Comcast will also have a UHD app on Samsung TVs for 4K Movies. I do suspect that will be HEVC from Day 1.


----------



## inkahauts

Where did you hear all this. I hadn't heard anything about preloaded (targeted to RVU customers with4k tvs only maybe?) and definitely not overnight. Just that it has to fully download to the DVR before you begin playback.


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> If it is simply being passed through does it have to be any particular format? If I am reading correctly, the feed only has to be something the TV knows how to process - after the receiver passes it through.


nope, it's the same TS, actually filtered to PIDs what are a content of the event, plus little bit of metadata - PAT and PMT tables (in term of FW, it's TSP)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> Where did you hear all this. I hadn't heard anything about preloaded (targeted to RVU customers with4k tvs only maybe?) and definitely not overnight. Just that it has to fully download to the DVR before you begin playback.


Well, to begin with they only have signed rights to about a dozen 4K movies thus far, so it is not like there is a big selection.

It certainly has to be targetted to RVU customers with Samsung 4K TVs as clients. Waste of space on Genie for others.

They will load the most popular - of course they can expand or contract that depending on how it plays out.

But the rest will be available via Overnight VOD.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> DirecTV has had good success with the Genie server/client model. I would expect that any UHD solution will follow this model. For the near future, any kind of live content will have to be in MPEG4, obviously. Until all the standards are settled and DirecTV has settled on the ones they want to use it makes sense to do much interim support in the Minis as possible. It is a lot cheaper to replace a Mini (no matter who is paying) than to replace a 5 tuner DVR.
> 
> I hope they don't have TOO much UHD content...if they use MPEG4 for UHD the 1TB drive in the Genie will fill up fast.


They will target accounts with the 2014 UHD Samsung RVU on them.


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Well, to begin with they only have signed rights to about a dozen 4K movies thus far, so it is not like there is a big selection.
> 
> It certainly has to be targetted to RVU customers with Samsung 4K TVs as clients. Waste of space on Genie for others.
> 
> They will load the most popular - of course they can expand or contract that depending on how it plays out.
> 
> But the rest will be available via Overnight VOD.


Yes but where did you read this. It all makes perfect sense but I'm looking for DIRECTV announcement of it. I'm surprised it hasn't hit yet and it sounds like it did and I missed it.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> Yes but where did you read this. It all makes perfect sense but I'm looking for DIRECTV announcement of it. I'm surprised it hasn't hit yet and it sounds like it did and I missed it.


Really does not matter. People will just say I am making it up and do not know what I am talking about as they always do.

Of course, they do not want to say Some Random Idiot on the internet told them....


----------



## Laxguy

Heh, get the point, but you're OUR random idiot!


----------



## James Long

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Really does not matter. People will just say I am making it up and do not know what I am talking about as they always do.


That seems to be the role that you are choosing. As for the content of your posts "sounds logical, where's the proof" is a valid response. If you're right you're the unknown genius. If you're wrong you are as you state ... just "some random idiot".


----------



## patmurphey

Interesting. So, DirecTV is going to introduce and promote 4K that only works on one brand of RVU 4K TVs that are Genie clients? Are most homes with RVUs set up with the main TV watching on client RVUs and not the Genie? How are the RVUs currently working with all of the Genie features?


----------



## slice1900

patmurphey said:


> Interesting. So, DirecTV is going to introduce and promote 4K that only works on one brand of RVU 4K TVs that are Genie clients? Are most homes with RVUs set up with the main TV watching on client RVUs and not the Genie? How are the RVUs currently working with all of the Genie features?


Initially it'll just be the one brand of TV, but later other 4K TVs might be compliant.

It would make a lot of sense for them to introduce a new client that can output 4K, for the 4K TVs people are buying or already own that can't do RVU. If they do that, perhaps that client will decode HEVC, so they could use HEVC for 4K from day one.

SRI's comment about preloading 4K content came from their quarterly earnings call a couple days ago. The Genie should know if it has a 4K TV (or client maybe in the future) that can display 4K content connected to it, so it can download the content for them. Assuming the Genie works like a Tivo does, the preloaded content wouldn't really take up hard drive space, as if it is needed for a recording it would be deleted to make room.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Chipsets that support HDMI 2.0 and HEVC have only recently become available, but DVB-S2X support will not come until next year. How soon we soon 4K hardware from Directv depends on whether they wait for DVB-S2X, which I think they will (and if they don't, I think it is very likely those early 4K receivers have a very short life and are obsoleted like the H10/HR10 were)


The Broadcom BCM7445 was announced about two months ago for inclusion into a UHD TiVo. How long it takes to start bringing solutions to market is a whole other issue.

The DVB website has news article that agree with your assessment that both DVB-S2X and HEVC should be rolled out together:

https://www.dvb.org/news/dvb_s2x-garners-market-momentum

What that would seem to mean for delivery is that DIRECTV's additional bandwidth is indeed coincidental with their UHD offering and one is not the direct result of the other.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Where did you hear all this. I hadn't heard anything about preloaded (targeted to RVU customers with4k tvs only maybe?) and definitely not overnight. Just that it has to fully download to the DVR before you begin playback.


Will the 24s be able to handle 4K?

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Heh, get the point, but you're OUR random idiot!


As I've said before, he certainly doesn't sound like a random idiot.

Rich


----------



## Diana C

Rich said:


> Will the 24s be able to handle 4K?
> 
> Rich


One would assume not, since you need RVU support to get the data to the screen. The 24s could probably store an UHD recording as well as a Genie, but it would have no way to get it to an UHD display.


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> Will the 24s be able to handle 4K?


Since the requisite chipset (Broadcom BCM7445) is not in the H(R)24, that would be a pretty solid no.

Because the HR24 cannot host an RVU client, it couldn't be used as a RVU server for a Samsung RVU TV.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> The Genie has no idea what to do with a 4K stream, but if it passes it on to something else that can deal with it that's good enough for an initial deployment since there are no real 4K channels for Directv to carry anyway.


Ah, but the Genie must be able to generate a suitable interface for the UHD RVU TV so it isn't entirely clueless. That this may have to be done entirely in software is going to be interesting.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> The DVB website has news article that agree with your assessment that both DVB-S2X and HEVC should be rolled out together:
> 
> https://www.dvb.org/news/dvb_s2x-garners-market-momentum
> 
> What that would seem to mean for delivery is that DIRECTV's additional bandwidth is indeed coincidental with their UHD offering and one is not the direct result of the other.


Well, the DVB standards org would say that, wouldn't they? That's like asking Samsung and Panasonic if they think 4K will be a massive hit with consumers 



harsh said:


> What that would seem to mean for delivery is that DIRECTV's additional bandwidth is indeed coincidental with their UHD offering and one is not the direct result of the other.


I don't see where you get this idea, but you like to make crazy leaps without any information all the time so I won't even try to understand why you think that.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Ah, but the Genie must be able to generate a suitable interface for the UHD RVU TV so it isn't entirely clueless. That this may have to be done entirely in software is going to be interesting.


Why would it need a different GUI? Directv's HD receivers had a SD interface for quite time before the HD interface was introduced, and the H20 still uses the old SD interface.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> ...
> 
> The DVB website has news article that agree with your assessment that both DVB-S2X and HEVC should be rolled out together:
> 
> https://www.dvb.org/news/dvb_s2x-garners-market-momentum
> 
> What that would seem to mean for delivery is that DIRECTV's additional bandwidth is indeed coincidental with their UHD offering and one is not the direct result of the other.


nope, not nessesary both
acually two different independent parts of delivery UHD to TV sets
Btw, in Europe been tested 4k transmission via sat using S2 standard


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Too lazy to go searching myself.

When did DirecTV first apply for the licenses (not granted) for RDBS service/frequencies?


----------



## slice1900

I don't know the exact date, but Directv did some RDBS testing in 2008 using a test payload that was rather hurriedly added to D11 shortly before it was launched, so even if they hadn't officially applied at that time they were certainly thinking about it.

Directv applied for a bunch of RDBS slots and did some horse trading and dropping other applications to end up with RDBS at 99/103, which I think was their plan all along. Makes sense since they already make heavy use of those satellite locations - should make LNBs simpler/cheaper and reduce LOS issues versus a wider arc.

Whether 4K was the plan for it all along who knows, but it doesn't really matter. Directv hasn't ever said they'll be using RDBS for 4K, we all just assume since it makes sense - especially if they use a different standard (DVB-S2X for HEVC/4K vs DVB-S2 for MPEG4/HD vs DSS for MPEG2/SD)

In a few years when MPEG2 goes away and 101 is freed up, they'll do a lot of shifting, probably moving a bunch of HD onto 101 and then they might start using some freed up Ka transponders on 99/103 for 4K if they need it for more 4K channels. If not, well, they'll have lots of room for higher bit rates for higher quality


----------



## inkahauts

Or maybe a fair amount of 4k will end up on 101. The timing for that may work out.

As I recall DIRECTV had already gotten licenses for bss by the time they where testing. It was quite a while ago.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I don't see where you get this idea, but you like to make crazy leaps without any information all the time so I won't even try to understand why you think that.


The party line used to be that the introduction of UHD would be a result of the newfound satellite bandwidth. That's clearly not the case for at least a year or two.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Why would it need a different GUI? Directv's HD receivers had a SD interface for quite time before the HD interface was introduced, and the H20 still uses the old SD interface.


Because the bitmaps are much larger with UHD, they probably can't render them with SD/HD character generator hardware in the Genie. This matters because RVU doesn't support client-side rendering of the interface. The interface bitmaps have to come in the appropriate dimensions from the server at least until such time as they implement the new HTML5 interface.

I don't recall that the RVU specification speaks to being able to scale the incoming bitmaps.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Or maybe a fair amount of 4k will end up on 101. The timing for that may work out.


I think that's very unlikely. Why would they want to waste the "prime real estate" on 101 for 4K? It is much more valuable to them with HD on it for RV customers (or tailgaters) who could use a 101 only dish that's easy to aim. They may even sell a package tailored for RVs with all the most watched HD channels on 101.

What would be their reason for wanting to put 4K on 101? If they need capacity (though I highly doubt they'll be even close to filling up the 36 RDBS tpns when MPEG2/SD is decommissioned) all the HD that moves to 101 will free up Ka transponders on 99/103...


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> ... especially if they use a different standard (DVB-S2X for HEVC/4K vs DVB-S2 for MPEG4/HD vs DSS for MPEG2/SD)
> 
> ...


It's not a case to tie strong the pairs. Video compression is not a part of transmitting modulation. They're could benefit, but not required.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I don't know the exact date, but Directv did some RDBS testing in 2008 using a test payload that was rather hurriedly added to D11 shortly before it was launched, so even if they hadn't officially applied at that time they were certainly thinking about it.
> 
> Directv applied for a bunch of RDBS slots and did some horse trading and dropping other applications to end up with RDBS at 99/103, which I think was their plan all along. Makes sense since they already make heavy use of those satellite locations - should make LNBs simpler/cheaper and reduce LOS issues versus a wider arc.
> 
> Whether 4K was the plan for it all along who knows, but it doesn't really matter. Directv hasn't ever said they'll be using RDBS for 4K, we all just assume since it makes sense - especially if they use a different standard (DVB-S2X for HEVC/4K vs DVB-S2 for MPEG4/HD vs DSS for MPEG2/SD)
> 
> In a few years when MPEG2 goes away and 101 is freed up, they'll do a lot of shifting, probably moving a bunch of HD onto 101 and then they might start using some freed up Ka transponders on 99/103 for 4K if they need it for more 4K channels. If not, well, they'll have lots of room for higher bit rates for higher quality


So to recap your post, RDBS was tested in 2008 with no idea if 4K was their plan for it all along - thus meaning that 4K is a coincidence that the RDBS and UHD are coming together at the same time. Which I agree with (but you refuted in an earlier post).

DirecTV knew bandwidth was critical period - and saw a chance for more in the same orbital spots and went for it - regardless of what they decided to eventually put there.

You also state that DirectV may not use RDBS for 4K. Well sure, why don't they just clean out all the SD channels and put them on RDBS, causing immediate truck rolls for 20 million households - or put 4K on RDBS where they can slowly do the truck rolls as customers purchase 4K TVs.

The answer is pretty obvious.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You also state that DirectV may not use RDBS for 4K. Well sure, why don't they just clean out all the SD channels and put them on RDBS, causing immediate truck rolls for 20 million households - or put 4K on RDBS where they can slowly do the truck rolls as customers purchase 4K TVs.
> 
> The answer is pretty obvious.


I didn't say that Directv "may not use RDBS for 4K", I said that they hadn't stated anywhere that they would, only that we'd all assumed it for the reasons you said and more.


----------



## P Smith

Watch Gary's thread - DTV is cranking video compression to squeeze 10+ HD per tpn


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> It's not a case to tie strong the pairs. Video compression is not a part of transmitting modulation. They're could benefit, but not required.


They don't have tie the two together, but it makes a lot of sense. They broadcast HD using MPEG2 compression and DSS modulation on Ku at first, but when they moved to Ka they used MPEG4 compression and DVB-S2 modulation. Better compression and improved modulation made for better efficiency, and since Ka was greenfield spectrum for Directv customers this could easily be done.

Same is true for 4K. They might initially use MPEG4 and/or DVB-S2 on Ka, but they'll want to use HEVC and DVB-S2X for better efficiency. It isn't required, but it doesn't make sense to use a modulation that will limit their ability to statmux effectively when they're going to need new receivers for 4K and are using greenfield spectrum.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Watch Gary's thread - DTV is cranking video compression to squeeze 10+ HD per tpn


He's talking about spot beam tpns which use 8PSK and have 50% more bandwidth than CONUS tpns, and they aren't 10+ HD per tpn, they're 10+ _MPEG4_ per tpn. There isn't any way for him to tell from his data which ones are HD, and he pointed that out (even though he titled the tab poorly)

There might be some markets where they deliver 10 HD channels in a tpn, but they're going to be rather overcompressed. Maybe that's not a problem though, as some of those locals might already be overcompressed in their original MPEG2 if they have a lot of SD subchannels!


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> He's talking about spot beam tpns which use 8PSK and have 50% more bandwidth than CONUS tpns, and they aren't 10+ HD per tpn, they're 10+ _MPEG4_ per tpn. There isn't any way for him to tell from his data which ones are HD, and he pointed that out (even though he titled the tab poorly)
> 
> There might be some markets where they deliver 10 HD channels in a tpn, but they're going to be rather overcompressed. Maybe that's not a problem though, as some of those locals might already be overcompressed in their original MPEG2 if they have a lot of SD subchannels!


Interesting.

Someone else is agreeing with what I said several months ago that the 19.392658 fiber feeds to DirecTV were clones of the Station's ASI feed to their transmitter, without using the entire Bandwidth for Main Channel Distribution - and so many took issue with that statement then.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:



> I think that's very unlikely. Why would they want to waste the "prime real estate" on 101 for 4K? It is much more valuable to them with HD on it for RV customers (or tailgaters) who could use a 101 only dish that's easy to aim. They may even sell a package tailored for RVs with all the most watched HD channels on 101.
> 
> What would be their reason for wanting to put 4K on 101? If they need capacity (though I highly doubt they'll be even close to filling up the 36 RDBS tpns when MPEG2/SD is decommissioned) all the HD that moves to 101 will free up Ka transponders on 99/103...


There are no more 18 inch single spot dishes. 101 by itself is legacy only and will be gone with sd.


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Someone else is agreeing with what I said several months ago that the 19.392658 fiber feeds to DirecTV were clones of the Station's ASI feed to their transmitter, without using the entire Bandwidth for Main Channel Distribution - and so many took issue with that statement then.


Are you saying that you think the stations are giving directv their main and sub channels the same way the transmit them ota to the masses and then DIRECTV is splitting out just their main feeds?

I would not be surprised by that at all and to me it means DIRECTV probably could supply all sub channels too except that the amount of guide data would be so large that they probably wouldn't want to because of that.

I wish they'd find a way to do that though.


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> So to recap your post, RDBS was tested in 2008 with no idea if 4K was their plan for it all along - thus meaning that 4K is a coincidence that the RDBS and UHD are coming together at the same time. Which I agree with (but you refuted in an earlier post).
> 
> DirecTV knew bandwidth was critical period - and saw a chance for more in the same orbital spots and went for it - regardless of what they decided to eventually put there.
> 
> You also state that DirectV may not use RDBS for 4K. Well sure, why don't they just clean out all the SD channels and put them on RDBS, causing immediate truck rolls for 20 million households - or put 4K on RDBS where they can slowly do the truck rolls as customers purchase 4K TVs.
> 
> The answer is pretty obvious.


I know everyone thinks 4k may be headed to rdbs but I think maybe that bandwidth is going to be used to do Hi Definition for foreign language and they will move all the 96??? 79??? Stuff to there so they can stop all two dish installs. While it may not be a big deal in all areas I know the installers in Los Angeles say they do a lot of two dish installs. And I see them on a lot of places. I suspect that's the case in a few other areas as well. If they also moved spanish there someday it might be a great way to organize stuff. Add in moving all the 119 stuff to imho and I think that's the real plan for rdbs. Getting rid of Los issues would be nice I think.

But who knows maybe it's really going to be used for sat fed on demand at high speed.

But I don't see DIRECTV needing more than a few of the transponders for 4k for quite a while.

Then again it could be that they will have all this stuff spread out in all these places.


----------



## P Smith

add Bay Area for many international dish installs


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Interesting.
> 
> Someone else is agreeing with what I said several months ago that the 19.392658 fiber feeds to DirecTV were clones of the Station's ASI feed to their transmitter, without using the entire Bandwidth for Main Channel Distribution - and so many took issue with that statement then.


Directv gets some feeds via fiber, some they pick up OTA. If they pick up overcompressed OTA feeds they'll be poor quality on OTA. As for the fiber feeds, some of them are _better_ quality than what the station in broadcasting (IIRC there some cases where a station is broadcasting in SD but Directv is picking up HD from the station)

So you can't really make any blanket statements about what they're doing "in general", it is different for different stations.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Directv gets some feeds via fiber, some they pick up OTA. If they pick up overcompressed OTA feeds they'll be poor quality on OTA. As for the fiber feeds, some of them are _better_ quality than what the station in broadcasting (IIRC there some cases where a station is broadcasting in SD but Directv is picking up HD from the station)
> 
> So you can't really make any blanket statements about what they're doing "in general", it is different for different stations.


Actually, they do not, as I have pointed out - and have first hand knowledge of such.

Stations would need an additional encoder just to encode the main program video at a different rate than what they send out over the air. They feed all MVPD feeds the same ASI feed.

In rare instances where a big 4 network is downgraded on a sub-channel, they do make a special provision, but only in those cases.

I suggested to the CE at KABC in Los Angeles that they feed the fullbit rate feed to DirecTV after they added on Live Well HD on 7.2 years ago and the Main Channel was obviously degraded. He did not have an encoder available for that and stated the MVPD did not want to pay for more bitrate.

Later I suggested that he have discussion with DirecTV to move an mpeg4 encoder to the Burbank Facility so a higher bitrate could be sent for uplink with the same bandwidth. He followed up on this and DirecTV declined.

Considering that DirecTV has a disproportionate share of the subs in Southern California (approximately 12% of DirecTV's USA subs are in Southern California) they should certainly do this in LA for the #1 rated station for News and Local Events if they were to do it anywhere.

I know from other conversations that the standard is the OTA feed or the their ASI feed that is sent to the transmitter. This has been confirmed by the heads of Engineering for most of the major TV Broadcast Groups.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> There are no more 18 inch single spot dishes. 101 by itself is legacy only and will be gone with sd.


I'm suggesting they might bring it back as an option for RV customers. They could fit over half their CONUS HD capacity on 101, so they could move the more popular HD channels to it and be able to offer service to RV customers from 101 only, if they didn't need some of the less popular/premium channels (they could still get those with a regular HD dish) 101 dishes will work with a SWM switch, and nothing would stop Directv from offering a SWM LNB for this if they made it a product for RV customers.

Even if they don't, putting the most watched HD channels on Ku may make sense as it is (slightly) more resistant to rain fade.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Actually, they do not, as I have pointed out - and have first hand knowledge of such.


Do not what, pick up some locals via OTA? They most certainly do. You may have "first hand knowledge" of a DMA where they pick them all up via fiber, but that is not true everywhere by a longshot. I know for a fact they pick up several locals in my area via OTA.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> I know everyone thinks 4k may be headed to rdbs but I think maybe that bandwidth is going to be used to do Hi Definition for foreign language and they will move all the 96??? 79??? Stuff to there so they can stop all two dish installs. While it may not be a big deal in all areas I know the installers in Los Angeles say they do a lot of two dish installs. And I see them on a lot of places. I suspect that's the case in a few other areas as well. If they also moved spanish there someday it might be a great way to organize stuff. Add in moving all the 119 stuff to imho and I think that's the real plan for rdbs. Getting rid of Los issues would be nice I think.
> 
> But who knows maybe it's really going to be used for sat fed on demand at high speed.
> 
> But I don't see DIRECTV needing more than a few of the transponders for 4k for quite a while.
> 
> Then again it could be that they will have all this stuff spread out in all these places.


They might use RDBS for the international content on 95*, but that's only 9 transponders so if they mirror the content in MPEG4 that's only 4 RDBS transponders. That leaves 32 left for 4K. If they mirror the content on 119* that's another 7 Ku transponders, or 3 RDBS transponders using MPEG4.

I think it is a slam dunk Directv will eliminate the need for 95* and 119* with the new satellites, especially 95* since eliminating that second dish would save a lot of installation cost. Whether they use the additional Ka transponders on 99ca or use RDBS, who knows, but I agree they'll do it. Its just that it wouldn't use up very many of the total of 36 RDBS transponders they'll have available when D14 and D15 are in service.

Of course, first we need a LNB that can receive RDBS, and it doesn't look like we have that yet.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

inkahauts said:


> Are you saying that you think the stations are giving directv their main and sub channels the same way the transmit them ota to the masses and then DIRECTV is splitting out just their main feeds?
> 
> I would not be surprised by that at all and to me it means DIRECTV probably could supply all sub channels too except that the amount of guide data would be so large that they probably wouldn't want to because of that.
> 
> I wish they'd find a way to do that though.


Yes, they give them everything they transmit OTA, but DirecTV decodes MPEG2 > BaseBand > MPEG4 at whatever rate DirecTV decides (of course it it stat-muxed, but that in itself limits the bandwidth).

If they put the subchannels up, that would just take more bandwidth and quite frankly, would really be a waste of bandwidth, imo, considering how few subchannels are worth watching.

I suspect at sometime in the future Dish and DirecTV will be forced to take those channels.

But, as noted, the way they are cramming channels in now, really no reason to get a better feed from the source - only to have DirecTV throw more bits away.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Do not what, pick up some locals via OTA? They most certainly do. You may have "first hand knowledge" of a DMA where they pick them all up via fiber, but that is not true everywhere by a longshot. I know for a fact they pick up several locals in my area via OTA.


That is not what I said.

They do NOT get a feed with more bandwidth from the original station except where a second big 4 network is on the subschannel.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I'm suggesting they might bring it back as an option for RV customers. They could fit over half their CONUS HD capacity on 101, so they could move the more popular HD channels to it and be able to offer service to RV customers from 101 only, if they didn't need some of the less popular/premium channels (they could still get those with a regular HD dish) 101 dishes will work with a SWM switch, and nothing would stop Directv from offering a SWM LNB for this if they made it a product for RV customers.
> 
> Even if they don't, putting the most watched HD channels on Ku may make sense as it is (slightly) more resistant to rain fade.


As Ka is 3 times more susceptible to rain feed than Ku (much more than "slightly") that would be a good idea.

As for the few thousand RV accounts, they certainly would not change everything around for that. There are an exponential number more of International Subs than RV subs, so if they were going for most numbers, international would be placed there (and so you do not read into this, I do NOT expect to happen).


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Because the bitmaps are much larger with UHD, they probably can't render them with SD/HD character generator hardware in the Genie. This matters because RVU doesn't support client-side rendering of the interface. The interface bitmaps have to come in the appropriate dimensions from the server at least until such time as they implement the new HTML5 interface.I don't recall that the RVU specification speaks to being able to scale the incoming bitmaps.


Scaling from 1080 HD (which the Genie DVR and Minis clearly CAN output) to UHD is trivial - you just light up 4 physical pixels for each logical pixel. Even is this has to be done in software, it is a very lightweight process. All that would need to be up scaled in any event is the overlays (progress bar and info) which might be done by the TV itself.

But don't let me interfere with your belief that you have thought of things that DirecTV did not.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> Scaling from 1080 HD (which the Genie DVR and Minis clearly CAN output) to UHD is trivial - you just light up 4 physical pixels for each logical pixel.


I think it is folly to assume that the CG unit delivers somewhere to a frame buffer where you can perform operations on the resultant bitmap. If the frame buffer is limited to HD, how will you operate on it and stuff it back in for the next stage?


----------



## Laxguy

Anyone have information on apparent up-rezzing of 1080i to 4K? I say apparent, because you can't create detail where there is none, but the way in which upscaling is done might be important to a finer looking picture. I am trying to distinguish between mere upscaling and apparent up-rezzing.


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> One would assume not, since you need RVU support to get the data to the screen. The 24s could probably store an UHD recording as well as a Genie, but it would have no way to get it to an UHD display.


Couldn't you do it the same way you can use a 20-700 to store 3D and use a newer HR to play that content?

Rich


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As Ka is 3 times more susceptible to rain feed than Ku (much more than "slightly") that would be a good idea.
> 
> As for the few thousand RV accounts, they certainly would not change everything around for that. There are an exponential number more of International Subs than RV subs, so if they were going for most numbers, international would be placed there (and so you do not read into this, I do NOT expect to happen).


I say "slightly" because while there's a fair difference between Ka and Ku numbers-wise as you indicate, in practical terms it doesn't matter all that much because I find storms strong enough to take out HD almost always take out SD as well. Maybe other areas of the country that have more storms that hit that sweet spot where Ka is out but Ku is not, but we get a lot of supercell based storms here. Directv uses a much greater level of FEC on Ka so the rain fade gap between Ka and Ku is not as wide as it would be otherwise.

Regardless, it sounds like we both agree that however you quantify the benefit, it would make sense to place the most watched HD channels on 101 to gain that benefit. So if they're going to do that anyway, they might as well take advantage of it to better serve RV customers. I don't know subscriber counts for that, but a "few thousand" seems kind of low. I agree that if RVs were the only reason to move HD to 101, it wouldn't make sense. That's more of a side benefit if you're going do it anyway.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Couldn't you do it the same way you can use a 20-700 to store 3D and use a newer HR to play that content?


That should work, once Directv has some hardware able to output 4K.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I say "slightly" because while there's a fair difference between Ka and Ku numbers-wise as you indicate, in practical terms it doesn't matter all that much because I find storms strong enough to take out HD almost always take out SD as well. Maybe other areas of the country that have more storms that hit that sweet spot where Ka is out but Ku is not, but we get a lot of supercell based storms here. Directv uses a much greater level of FEC on Ka so the rain fade gap between Ka and Ku is not as wide as it would be otherwise.
> 
> Regardless, it sounds like we both agree that however you quantify the benefit, it would make sense to place the most watched HD channels on 101 to gain that benefit. So if they're going to do that anyway, they might as well take advantage of it to better serve RV customers. I don't know subscriber counts for that, but a "few thousand" seems kind of low. I agree that if RVs were the only reason to move HD to 101, it wouldn't make sense. That's more of a side benefit if you're going do it anyway.


In Florida, the lightning capital of the USA and the "don't like the weather, wait 10 minutes", I find that when DirecTV Ka goes out, around 90% of the time Ku from Shaw / Canada or Dish (although in different orbital positions) usually remains unaffected. Also, the time length of the outages, when they happen are less on Ku via Dish and Shaw than on Ka from DirecTV.

So yes, moving SD off and moving the major HD channels to 101 would be good step for DirecTV. Unfortunately, that would not help the locals, where 35% of the television viewing is done.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Rich said:


> Couldn't you do it the same way you can use a 20-700 to store 3D and use a newer HR to play that content?
> 
> Rich


Of course, but also realize that a HR20-700 could play 3D, but was not allowed to because it was not capable of the HDMI digital content protection/EID info which was required. There was nothing special about the 3D signal in terms of format, it was identical to 1920x1080, only split screen with the images crunched together. Quite frankly, you see similar examples of this on the Evening News every night. The hard work was done at the 3D adapter which took the Split Screen and converted it to full screen - which was true with all DirecTV HRs and 3D.


----------



## mexican-bum

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> In Florida, the lightning capital of the USA and the "don't like the weather, wait 10 minutes", I find that when DirecTV Ka goes out, around 90% of the time Ku from Shaw / Canada or Dish (although in different orbital positions) usually remains unaffected. Also, the time length of the outages, when they happen are less on Ku via Dish and Shaw than on Ka from DirecTV.
> 
> So yes, moving SD off and moving the major HD channels to 101 would be good step for DirecTV. Unfortunately, that would not help the locals, where 35% of the television viewing is done.


May wanna check your dish, as from my experience here in oklahoma western Arc dish HD usually goes out before directv KA, mainly due to dish's FEC


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

mexican-bum said:


> May wanna check your dish, as from my experience here in oklahoma western Arc dish HD usually goes out before directv KA, mainly due to dish's FEC


Getting 100% on multiple transponders on all birds.....hard to get better than that.


----------



## Diana C

Rich said:


> Couldn't you do it the same way you can use a 20-700 to store 3D and use a newer HR to play that content?
> 
> Rich


Sure, assuming the device used for playback is UHD capable, which no DirecTV STB is, currently (just like you needed something capable of sending 3D to the screen). Should they produce a receiver with UHD capabilities then you could theoretically record UHD on any DirecTV DVR for playback through that device. But given DirecTV's dedication to the 4X design, I doubt they will produce a full receiver, opting for a Mini instead, which means you need a Genie.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> I think it is folly to assume that the CG unit delivers somewhere to a frame buffer where you can perform operations on the resultant bitmap. If the frame buffer is limited to HD, how will you operate on it and stuff it back in for the next stage?


I think it is folly to assume that DirecTV is deploying a service that can't work. You make a bunch of assumptions...perhaps the largest of which is that the TV can't do scaling of the UI. Even an HD RVU client has to scale the DirecTV UI since the Genie, when it sends the UI data to the TV, doesn't know the supported resolutions on the TV. Or, do you think that, if I change channels on a RVU capable TV from a 720p channel to a 1080i channel, the Genie ships all new UI data to the TV???

Scaling the output is not a function of the RVU spec, but it sure as heck is a function of EVERY digital TV made.

But again, don't let me interfere with your delusion that you are smarter than everyone at DirecTV.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ...So yes, moving SD off and moving the major HD channels to 101 would be good step for DirecTV. Unfortunately, that would not help the locals, where 35% of the television viewing is done.


But wouldn't that be wasteful of bandwidth? The narrower Ku transponders wouldn't support as many channels, and fewer channels reduces the efficiency of stat-mux. Dish does it by squeezing each channel down to the point where they can fit 6 or so to a transponder (with a corresponding decrease in PQ).

Of course, it will be YEARS before the last SD customer is turned off, and by that time who knows what else we may be looking for and what technologies exist.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> But wouldn't that be wasteful of bandwidth? The narrower Ku transponders wouldn't support as many channels, and fewer channels reduces the efficiency of stat-mux. Dish does it by squeezing each channel down to the point where they can fit 6 or so to a transponder (with a corresponding decrease in PQ).
> 
> Of course, it will be YEARS before the last SD customer is turned off, and by that time who knows what else we may be looking for and what technologies exist.


Note I stated the "major HD Channels", not all National Channels. It was worded that way on purpose.

Then again, considering what AT&T Universe sends out in terms of quality - as the customer has spoken and wants more choices over Picture Quality.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> In Florida, the lightning capital of the USA and the "don't like the weather, wait 10 minutes", I find that when DirecTV Ka goes out, around 90% of the time Ku from Shaw / Canada or Dish (although in different orbital positions) usually remains unaffected. Also, the time length of the outages, when they happen are less on Ku via Dish and Shaw than on Ka from DirecTV.
> 
> So yes, moving SD off and moving the major HD channels to 101 would be good step for DirecTV. Unfortunately, that would not help the locals, where 35% of the television viewing is done.


Actually it would, at least for some markets. They'll have all those spot beams on 101 freed up, so nothing would stop them from moving HD locals for certain markets onto 101.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> But wouldn't that be wasteful of bandwidth? The narrower Ku transponders wouldn't support as many channels, and fewer channels reduces the efficiency of stat-mux. Dish does it by squeezing each channel down to the point where they can fit 6 or so to a transponder (with a corresponding decrease in PQ).
> 
> Of course, it will be YEARS before the last SD customer is turned off, and by that time who knows what else we may be looking for and what technologies exist.


The Ku transponders are narrower, but they don't have that much less bandwidth. Currently Directv uses QPSK and 6/7 FEC with a symbol rate of 20 Ms/s on Ku, for a bit rate of just over 34 Mbps. On Ka they use QPSK and 2/3 FEC with a symbol rate of 30 Ms/s for a bit rate of just under 40 Mbps (they use 8PSK on spot beams to get almost 60 Mbps)

Probably the reason they use QPSK for Ku is older receivers can't do 8PSK - because they do use 8PSK (with 2/3 FEC and 20 Ms/s) on tpn 24 of 119 which delivers HD channels. That works out to the exact same bit rate as they get out of the 50% wider Ka transponders. I'd guess they'd use 8PSK on all the 101 tpns if they moved HD there, and it would be an exact 1:1 mapping of Ka to Ku transponders if they did so. There are 26 CONUS tpns on 101, and currently 44 CONUS Ka tpns. So they could cover around 2/3 of all full time channels (some of the capacity is used for PPV)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Actually it would, at least for some markets. They'll have all those spot beams on 101 freed up, so nothing would stop them from moving HD locals for certain markets onto 101.


Truth of the matter, they just put the big 4 networks affilliates lil on the Spotbeams, no reason to waste bandwidth on the others in market. Those could continue to be relegated to Ka (along with the other .2 diginets that some want).


----------



## James Long

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Truth of the matter, they just put the big 4 networks affilliates lil on the Spotbeams, no reason to waste bandwidth on the others in market. Those could continue to be relegated to Ka (along with the other .2 diginets that some want).


DirecTV cannot discriminate against TV stations within a market. Putting some stations on a "better" satellite location than another would not be acceptable.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

James Long said:


> DirecTV cannot discriminate against TV stations within a market. Putting some stations on a "better" satellite location than another would not be acceptable.


I do not believe that is correct. Federal Law only mandates channels discrimination - not delivery.

In fact, one could argue that the lower QAM channels are better than the 700-900 Mhz QAM channels on a cable system. As thus, I do not believe there is anything to prevent DirecTV from channel delivery where it sees fit - just as long as the channel position does does not put the programming at a disadvantage.


----------



## slice1900

It would be tough to argue that putting a channel on 99/103 instead of 101 was "discrimination". If you can argue that, could I also make the same argument for the choice of 99 or 103 in a large DMA that delivers locals from both satellites? For instance, in LA, putting a local on 99 instead of 103 isn't quite identical, since it would be received at a slightly steeper angle and may come in just a bit weaker. Sure, that's splitting hairs, but what if Directv used 79 and 123 instead of 99 and 103, and the difference was a lot more significant?

This would be a pretty tough line to draw. There is already "discrimination" going on in the form of decisions about how much compression to use for various stations, some stations are only carried in SD and not HD for various reasons, etc. That's a lot worse than Ku vs Ka.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> This would be a pretty tough line to draw. There is already "discrimination" going on in the form of decisions about how much compression to use for various stations, some stations are only carried in SD and not HD for various reasons, etc. That's a lot worse than Ku vs Ka.


Within each market the differences should be going away, if not already gone. The "carry one carry all" agreement DirecTV entered into with the FCC means if any station is carried in HD within a market, all stations are offered HD carriage within a market. If DirecTV is not living up to their commitment perhaps that should be taken up in an appropriate thread. There is also a lot of interesting language written by Congress that controls what DirecTV (and DISH) can do with local broadcast signals. Such language makes the line easier to draw.

Anyways ... back to DirecTV's plan for UHD.


----------



## P Smith

Diana C said:


> Scaling from 1080 HD (which the Genie DVR and Minis clearly CAN output) to UHD is trivial - you just light up 4 physical pixels for each logical pixel. Even is this has to be done in software, it is a very lightweight process. All that would need to be up scaled in any event is the overlays (progress bar and info) which might be done by the TV itself.
> 
> But don't let me interfere with your belief that you have thought of things that DirecTV did not.


nay, perhaps you're spoiled by PC, but STB does using very hard customized chips (usually ppl name it CPU, in reality it's a combo of generic CPU and a few specialized decoders,decompressors,etc - see descriptions by Broadcom),
So no, no change in FW will allow you pull 4k/H.265 video from any current IRD, hence passing TSp via RVU to TV FW clients.
One way to handle sat 4k is pass it to that device what could process such stream...


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> Couldn't you do it the same way you can use a 20-700 to store 3D and use a newer HR to play that content?


In theory it is possible but absent any HR (and perhaps even DIRECT2PC) that can play UHD and given the relatively small capacity of the typical HR20, it wouldn't be practical to pursue such a scheme. There may also be some heretofore unvisited performance limitations that may inhibit optimal performance due to the substantially increased data volume (at least double under the best of circumstances).


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

P Smith said:


> nay, perhaps you're spoiled by PC, but STB does using very hard customized chips (usually ppl name it CPU, in reality it's a combo of generic CPU and a few specialized decoders,decompressors,etc - see descriptions by Broadcom),
> So no, no change in FW will allow you pull 4k/H.265 video from any current IRD, hence passing TSp via RVU to TV FW clients.
> One way to handle sat 4k is pass it to that device what could process such stream...


There's an interesting point (as P Smith often brings up!) .

What is the total bandwidth under perfect circumstances that a Genie can pass via wireless to all clients? And then again, have assume that the signal attenuates further away from Server.

One would assume that the number of clients were limited due to bandwidth concerns - and 4k will certainly be more?

Just wondering. Never checked into the Wireless Specs of the 44/Clients.

Has there been any threads / testing /discussion of bandwidth?


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> There's an interesting point (as P Smith often brings up!) .
> 
> What is the total bandwidth under perfect circumstances that a Genie can pass via wireless to all clients? And then again, have assume that the signal attenuates further away from Server.
> 
> One would assume that the number of clients were limited due to bandwidth concerns - and 4k will certainly be more?
> 
> Just wondering. Never checked into the Wireless Specs of the 44/Clients.
> 
> Has there been any threads / testing /discussion of bandwidth?


I believe they are using 802.11n, but there are different values for it depending on frequency and MIMO. Wireless bandwidth is so dependent on factors like the number of internal walls / type of construction and so forth that it is hard to pin down an exact number for a given technology. Whatever the number, Directv could increase it by upgrading to 802.11ac in 4K Genie/clients to preserve the same number of wireless clients.


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> nay, perhaps you're spoiled by PC, but STB does using very hard customized chips (usually ppl name it CPU, in reality it's a combo of generic CPU and a few specialized decoders,decompressors,etc - see descriptions by Broadcom),
> So no, no change in FW will allow you pull 4k/H.265 video from any current IRD, hence passing TSp via RVU to TV FW clients.
> One way to handle sat 4k is pass it to that device what could process such stream...


I'm not talking about pulling UHD video from a STB, we are just talking about the menus, and this all assumes that the Genie is simply acting as a streaming proxy, sending all UHD content to a device that can process it (in this case, a UHD TV with RVU support).

For any full screen menu the Genie will simply send the RVU TV a standard HD screen (without inset video if needed), which the TV will scale to UHD. Once the UHD stream is flowing from the Genie, all that has to be overlaid is the progress bar and info banner (mini guide and other pop ups could be skipped).

My point is that there are numerous avenues to address this requirement - it is not an obstacle to the deployment.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> I believe they are using 802.11n, but there are different values for it depending on frequency and MIMO. Wireless bandwidth is so dependent on factors like the number of internal walls / type of construction and so forth that it is hard to pin down an exact number for a given technology. Whatever the number, Directv could increase it by upgrading to 802.11ac in 4K Genie/clients to preserve the same number of wireless clients.


IIRC the Wireless Bridge uses 5GHz 802.11n with a 40MHz wide channel. So they have lots of room to upgrade bandwidth. However, I think what DirecTV is finding is that even with control of both ends of the connection, environmental factors make performance of wireless connections somewhat unpredictable. Theoretically, 802.11ac could provide over a gigabit of throughput but that level of performance is rare in the field. For most homes, it would require multiple APs which have their own complexities.

But remember that (at least as currently designed) the Wireless Bridge attaches to the DVR via the coax LAN which will limit output from the DVR to DECA speeds (unless DirecTV decides to support ethernet or build the Wireless Bridge into the Genie itself).


----------



## slice1900

I thought the HR44 already had the wireless video bridge built in? Or is it only acting as a client to a required WVB if you want to use the wireless clients? If so, "no boxes, no wires" sounds even more silly 

I agree with you about ac not coming close to the gigabit theoretical, my point was that it offers significantly improved data rates given the conditions. Where conditions don't allow wireless to work, obviously it will not improve matters (though a MIMO implementation with good diversity may help)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I believe they are using 802.11n, but there are different values for it depending on frequency and MIMO. Wireless bandwidth is so dependent on factors like the number of internal walls / type of construction and so forth that it is hard to pin down an exact number for a given technology. Whatever the number, Directv could increase it by upgrading to 802.11ac in 4K Genie/clients to preserve the same number of wireless clients.


Agree that WiFi is iffy enough with all the variables and all the other WiFi sources floating around, which is why I was asking the question.



Diana C said:


> IIRC the Wireless Bridge uses 5GHz 802.11n with a 40MHz wide channel. So they have lots of room to upgrade bandwidth. However, I think what DirecTV is finding is that even with control of both ends of the connection, environmental factors make performance of wireless connections somewhat unpredictable. Theoretically, 802.11ac could provide over a gigabit of throughput but that level of performance is rare in the field. For most homes, it would require multiple APs which have their own complexities.
> 
> But remember that (at least as currently designed) the Wireless Bridge attaches to the DVR via the coax LAN which will limit output from the DVR to DECA speeds (unless DirecTV decides to support ethernet or build the Wireless Bridge into the Genie itself).


5GHz causes EVEN MORE issues with full house coverage (especially in larger houses).

Of course that is why Wireless Data Providers would rather not use 2GHz frequency and use reclaimed TV Spectrum at 600 Mhz.


----------



## harsh

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> One would assume that the number of clients were limited due to bandwidth concerns - and 4k will certainly be more?


AVC UHD could be up to four times the bandwidth (unless they crush UHD into something that won't be much better than HD).

Even with the most optimistic projections today, HEVC UHD will be double the bandwidth of 1080p but that's not going to happen with today's TV hardware.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

harsh said:


> Even with the most optimistic projections today, HEVC UHD will be double the bandwidth of 1080p but that's not going to happen with today's TV hardware.


As I posted those SMPTE results several pages back, i am aware.


----------



## slice1900

If Directv needs more bandwidth for DECA, they can upgrade it to MoCA 2.0 which provides almost 5x the bandwidth (from 175 Mbps to 800 Mbps)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Multichannel 4K Ultra HD Service launches Friday

VOD....20 Titles from Paramount Pictures and K2 Communications.

_Forrest Gump
Star Trek (2009)
Amistad
The Terminal
McLintock! 
Transformers: Age of Extinction 
The Last Reef
Mummies: Secrets of the Pharaohs
Antarctica
Dolphins
Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag
Dinosaurs Alive!
Coral Reef Adventure
Space Junk
Yellowstone 
Legends of Flight 
Rescue
The Ultimate Wave Tahiti
Mysteries of the Great Lakes _

Need Genie and Samsung 4K UHD TV, as expected.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> I thought the HR44 already had the wireless video bridge built in? Or is it only acting as a client to a required WVB if you want to use the wireless clients? If so, "no boxes, no wires" sounds even more silly
> 
> I agree with you about ac not coming close to the gigabit theoretical, my point was that it offers significantly improved data rates given the conditions. Where conditions don't allow wireless to work, obviously it will not improve matters (though a MIMO implementation with good diversity may help)


At this time... Witless built into the hr44 is only for connecting to the Internet not for connecting to wireless clients. Only a wvb will do that.

Wireless built into the hr44 is n.

I thought the wvb was ac. I'll have to check. I know it's 5ghz.

And there is no need to worry about UHD wireless because there is no wireless solution at this time for any 4k capable setup. Any setup that can do 4k right now is all in the hardwired deca cloud.

And deca as has been said is 100. Not gig.

I kind of expect moca 2.0 at some point as well as long as it doesn't interfere with swim channels including any dswim channel.


----------



## Diana C

inkahauts said:


> At this time... Witless built into the hr44 is only for connecting to the Internet not for connecting to wireless clients. Only a wvb will do that.
> 
> Wireless built into the hr44 is n.
> 
> I thought the wvb was ac. I'll have to check. I know it's 5ghz.
> 
> And there is no need to worry about UHD wireless because there is no wireless solution at this time for any 4k capable setup. Any setup that can do 4k right now is all in the hardwired deca cloud.
> 
> And deca as has been said is 100. Not gig.
> 
> I kind of expect moca 2.0 at some point as well as long as it doesn't interfere with swim channels including any dswim channel.


I doubt the WVB is 802.11ac capable - I don't think that the ac spec was finalized in time for it be used in the WVB (it was only finalized in mid 2013 and wasn't ratified until January 2014). I suppose it is possible, if they implemented an earlier iteration and then updated the firmware, but I don't recall any mention of ac support during the rollout.

DirecTV chose 5GHz for the WVB knowing that it had poorer propagation characteristics than 2.4GHz, but it is also much less crowded than 2.4GHz. I'm pretty sure you can have 2 WVBs, but I've never read about anyone that has more than one.

In the case of MOCA 2.0, the mid-RF spec (the one that DirecTV uses in their DECA system) is still 500 to 850MHz so there will be no interference with SWiM. BTW, MOCA 2.0 has 3 speed modes: Basic @ 400 Mbps, Enhanced @ 800 Mbps and Turbo @ 1 Gbps.


----------



## ep1974

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Multichannel 4K Ultra HD Service launches Friday
> 
> VOD....20 Titles from Paramount Pictures and K2 Communications.
> 
> _Forrest Gump
> Star Trek (2009)
> Amistad
> The Terminal
> McLintock!
> Transformers: Age of Extinction
> The Last Reef
> Mummies: Secrets of the Pharaohs
> Antarctica
> Dolphins
> Fighter Pilot: Operation Red Flag
> Dinosaurs Alive!
> Coral Reef Adventure
> Space Junk
> Yellowstone
> Legends of Flight
> Rescue
> The Ultimate Wave Tahiti
> Mysteries of the Great Lakes _
> 
> Need Genie and Samsung 4K UHD TV, as expected.


Where did this list come from? Which VOD Channels on Directv will these shows appear on?


----------



## KyL416

There was a press release issued today:
http://investor.directv.com/press-releases/press-release-details/2014/DIRECTV-Continues-to-Revolutionize-Television-as-First-Multi-channel-Video-Provider-to-Deliver-4K-Ultra-HD-VOD-to-Customers-Homes/default.aspx

Like SomeRandomIdiot said a few days ago, it's only available with a newer Samsung 4K TV connected to a Genie as a client. (If it's connected directly to a genie or a mini via HDMI it won't work) The transponder maps list a 4K On Demand on channel 1102, not exactly sure if it will be listed with everything else on channel 1000 or 1100 as well. There will also be a 4K icon in one of the menus if it's available.


----------



## beacher69

Pricing for 4K movies will range from $3.99 - $15.99, and will be on a per-movie-basis.

http://news.directv.com/2014/11/13/directv-continues-to-revolutionize-television-as-first-multi-channel-video-provider-to-deliver-4k-ultra-hd-vod-to-customers-home/


----------



## loudo

How many Mbps will be required to download these videos?


----------



## Sixto

Yep, it will be interesting to see how big the files are.


----------



## inhd40

I hope I'm not out of line in asking this but it is somewhat in the spirit of the thread. I'm looking to buy a tv and am wondering about 4K. Vizio has a 50" 4K for about 1000 bucks and you can get a 1080p/120 for about half that. Would it be dumb to go with the older technology or with 4K would the gap between actually getting the content make it not worth it? I know that when HD first came out even on an SD set you could really see the difference. I'm wondering if the same would be true 4K/HD. I think I read where there is some upconverting so maybe a better picture even with HD. The display model was very impressive, but I'm not sure if the source was 4K or not. Unfortunately streaming 4K from Directv is not an option as my DSL takes about 2 days to download an HD movie.


----------



## loudo

inhd40 said:


> I hope I'm not out of line in asking this but it is somewhat in the spirit of the thread. I'm looking to buy a tv and am wondering about 4K. Vizio has a 50" 4K for about 1000 bucks and you can get a 1080p/120 for about half that. Would it be dumb to go with the older technology or with 4K would the gap between actually getting the content make it not worth it? I know that when HD first came out even on an SD set you could really see the difference. I'm wondering if the same would be true 4K/HD. I think I read where there is some upconverting so maybe a better picture even with HD. The display model was very impressive, but I'm not sure if the source was 4K or not. Unfortunately streaming 4K from Directv is not an option as my DSL takes about 2 days to download an HD movie.


That is a question I asked myself, last month when I bought my new TV. It is all a personal preference. As of now, I said I would wait until I am ready for my next set. This purchase ended up being another HDTV. There was nothing available programing wise at that time and I remembered how long it was until HDTV become plentiful. Now I see the new 4K On Demand channel is lighting up tomorrow. My answer today is still, stick with HDTV. I can't see paying for more content when I am already paying over $150 a month now for my programing.

But like I said, it is all personal preference. As far as the difference, you definitely can see the better PQ in true 4K video. They had a sample 4K feed hooked up to a 4K TV when I bought my HDTV, at Best Buy. They also showed an up-converted 1080p picture but it didn't look as good as the 1080p HDTVs did, looking at the same video. My main reason at this time for waiting, was lack of available 4K content, and the higher price of the 4K sets.


----------



## Laxguy

Totally a personal choice, with many factors. I anticipate taking a long time to d/l a single 4K movie, but for me, so what. I have lots of other stuff to watch and can d/l several movies in a row to put in the can. I also anticipate I will be paying premiums for some time for content, but I am content with that....

Best wishes for your new TV, whatever it may be.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

loudo said:


> How many Mbps will be required to download these videos?


As noted previously, you order them the night before you want to view them.

Not really VOD, actually more VSOODWPR (Video Sort Of On Demand With Prior Reservation)


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> As noted previously, you order them the night before you want to view them.
> 
> Not really VOD, actually more VSOODWPR (Video Sort Of On Demand With Prior Reservation)


Naaaaaaah.

It's *VOD ODD* (Video On Demand Once Download's Done)


----------



## inhd40

Thanks loudo and Laxguy, very good info. Much appreciated.


----------



## peds48

Diana C said:


> I'm pretty sure you can have 2 WVBs, but I've never read about anyone that has more than one.


Absolutely! you can have as baby WVB as you want/need. the wireless clients are smart enough to connect to the WVB with the strongest signal. I have installed a few Genie systems with 2 WVBs, and one that had 3 WVB with 6 clients. a customer can get up two WVB included in the install, the third one is charged at $99.00


----------



## acostapimps

If there's no list of compatible Samsung UHD 4k TV's for RVU compatibility,
how would people know that are thinking of buying 4k TV's and have Genies what works or not?
Or are they creating a list when it officially launch?


----------



## smiddy

Ok, in line with acostapimps, what does "DIRECTV 4K Ready" mean?

I am considering a Sharp UHD 4k TV, and now have second thoughts: http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/Models/LC60UD27U.aspx

I am now frantically checking out the interfaces, since it is possible that not all 4k sets do the same thing. I had anticipated teh HDMI interface would be where it would be transported, but that appears to potentially be incorrect. Can someone here shed some light on that?


----------



## smiddy

This is the only Samsung TV that comes up with "DirecTV 4k Ready" : http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN85S9AFXZA


----------



## hdtvfan0001

smiddy said:


> This is the only Samsung TV that comes up with "DirecTV 4k Ready" : http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN85S9AFXZA


According to the information on the DirecTV.com website...all Samsung 4K Smart UHD TV's are DirecTV ready. There are other brand units compatible as well.

https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4385/~/what-is-a-directv-4k-ready-tv-and-how-does-it-work%3F

A 4K UHD TV compatibility list is included on this DirecTV.com page:

https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3992


----------



## I WANT MORE

inhd40 said:


> I hope I'm not out of line in asking this but it is somewhat in the spirit of the thread. I'm looking to buy a tv and am wondering about 4K. Vizio has a 50" 4K for about 1000 bucks and you can get a 1080p/120 for about half that. Would it be dumb to go with the older technology or with 4K would the gap between actually getting the content make it not worth it? I know that when HD first came out even on an SD set you could really see the difference. I'm wondering if the same would be true 4K/HD. I think I read where there is some upconverting so maybe a better picture even with HD. The display model was very impressive, but I'm not sure if the source was 4K or not. Unfortunately streaming 4K from Directv is not an option as my DSL takes about 2 days to download an HD movie.


http://www.cnet.com/news/is-now-the-time-to-buy-a-4k-tv/


----------



## smiddy

This link: https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4385/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNDE1OTcwMDMxL3NpZC9oc1FZWm83bQ%3D%3D

Needs to be a 2014 model...which looks like three other sets besides the one I posted. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN65HU8550FXZA

Man, this stinks...I wanted to buy that Sharp...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

smiddy said:


> This link: https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4385/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNDE1OTcwMDMxL3NpZC9oc1FZWm83bQ%3D%3D
> 
> Needs to be a 2014 model...which looks like three other sets besides the one I posted. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN65HU8550FXZA
> 
> Man, this stinks...I wanted to buy that Sharp...


Per my link in the earlier post...only Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba (so far).

Since the RVU alliance is just really rolling out now for 4K...I anticipate there will be more models and brands coming up in the near future.

It will be one of the questions (which manufacturers and models are pending?) that is asked at CESin January by those of us onsite.


----------



## ep1974

Did Directv 4K VOD launch today? If so, what channels can they be found on?


----------



## slice1900

smiddy said:


> This link: https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4385/session/L2F2LzEvdGltZS8xNDE1OTcwMDMxL3NpZC9oc1FZWm83bQ%3D%3D
> 
> Needs to be a 2014 model...which looks like three other sets besides the one I posted. http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN65HU8550FXZA
> 
> Man, this stinks...I wanted to buy that Sharp...


Do you consider 4K RVU a deal breaker? It isn't as though Directv's current 4K offering is any different than Netflix and Amazon's (aside from Directv having less 4K content to choose from) and it is a bigger pain to use at the moment due to its restriction to 4K RVU TVs.

Any 4K TV with HDMI 2.0 will work on a Directv 4K receiver, once those become available when Directv actually begins live 4K broadcasts down the road. RVU isn't going to be a requirement for 4K (other than this minimal offering they put out to say "first!") any more than it is today for HD. If it is that important to you to avoid having a client I guess it matters, but I can't imagine letting something like that steer me away from a product I otherwise wanted to buy.


----------



## smiddy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Per my link in the earlier post...only Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba (so far).
> 
> Since the RVU alliance is just really rolling out now for 4K...I anticipate there will be more models and brands coming up in the near future.
> 
> It will be one of the questions (which manufacturers and models are pending?) that is asked at CESin January by those of us onsite.


I am only seeing Samsung as DirecTV 4K Ready. Toshiba and Sony are not on the listings...unless I'm missing something.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

smiddy said:


> I am only seeing Samsung as DirecTV 4K Ready. Toshiba and Sony are not on the listings...unless I'm missing something.


The link I posted shows this...


----------



## slice1900

That list is not 4K ready TVs, it is "Directv ready" TVs, any RVU. Most of those models are not 4K.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> That list is not 4K ready TVs, it is "Directv ready" TVs, any RVU. Most of those models are not 4K.


Doing a simple search for DirecTV Ready 4K on their site renders this...

https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4385/kw/directv%20ready%204K


----------



## Rich

smiddy said:


> Ok, in line with acostapimps, what does "DIRECTV 4K Ready" mean?
> 
> I am considering a Sharp UHD 4k TV, and now have second thoughts: http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/Models/LC60UD27U.aspx
> 
> _*I am now frantically checking out the interfaces, since it is possible that not all 4k sets do the same thing.*_ I had anticipated teh HDMI interface would be where it would be transported, but that appears to potentially be incorrect. Can someone here shed some light on that?


That's what's stopping me from even considering buying a 4K set. This all sounds an awful like the Toshiba vs Sony BD formats. I'll wait until everyone agrees to the same approach to 4K.

Rich


----------



## smiddy

slice1900 said:


> Do you consider 4K RVU a deal breaker? It isn't as though Directv's current 4K offering is any different than Netflix and Amazon's (aside from Directv having less 4K content to choose from) and it is a bigger pain to use at the moment due to its restriction to 4K RVU TVs.
> 
> Any 4K TV with HDMI 2.0 will work on a Directv 4K receiver, once those become available when Directv actually begins live 4K broadcasts down the road. RVU isn't going to be a requirement for 4K (other than this minimal offering they put out to say "first!") any more than it is today for HD. If it is that important to you to avoid having a client I guess it matters, but I can't imagine letting something like that steer me away from a product I otherwise wanted to buy.


Deal breaker? No, but I had a particular brand and model in mind that is about $700 less expensive than a comparible Samsung.

I did further digging, and you are correct, the HDMI 2.0 sets will be able to handle the 4k content up to 60 fps, so perhaps no need to get frantic. 

The Sharp is still my first choice: http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/Models/LC60UD27U.aspx


----------



## smiddy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The link I posted shows this...


Yeah, that's for RVU, not DirecTV 4k...


----------



## smiddy

Rich said:


> That's what's stopping me from even considering buying a 4K set. This all sounds an awful like the Toshiba vs Sony BD formats. I'll wait until everyone agrees to the same approach to 4K.
> 
> Rich


As long as the set has HDMI 2.0 it looks like it will do 4k at 60 fps over HDMI. The ones I have looked at have that already. But, that isn't DirecTV 4k, it looks like you have to have a 4k set with the new RVU firmware too, my best guess at the moment.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> That's what's stopping me from even considering buying a 4K set. This all sounds an awful like the Toshiba vs Sony BD formats. I'll wait until everyone agrees to the same approach to 4K.
> 
> Rich


Everyone is going to use HDMI for 4K. *Everyone!* So long as you buy one with HDMI 2.0 you are future proofed. The only thing the "Directv ready 4K" TVs buy you is RVU capability with Directv - the ability to act as a client without a client box. Same thing as a RVU ready TV buys you with HD, the ability to act as a client to a Genie without a client box.

Since Directv rushed out a half assed 4K offering so they could put out press releases claiming they beat Dish and cable to 4K, they were only able to make it work with a 4K RVU TV. The Directv ready 4K TVs will *not* be required for 4K in the future, once Directv has proper 4K equipment that outputs 4K via HDMI. It is only required for this initial 4K VOD offering since they had to come up with a kludge to make it work with the current Genie which cannot output 4K.


----------



## harsh

ep1974 said:


> According to the Directv website, this article is dated Nov. 13 with a launch of 4K VOD tomorrow which would be Mon. Nov. 14.


November 14th (today), is a Friday.


----------



## harsh

A CNET version of the announcement speaks to the 9000 and 8550 models as DIRECTV 4K Ready capable. It specifically mentions that the 2013 models are not DIRECTV 4K Ready (though it doesn't say if they can be upgraded or not).


----------



## toobs

I'm confuse. Directv 4K will only work on Samsung TV's for now? No Vizio, Sony, etc?


----------



## Sixto

toobs said:


> I'm confuse. Directv 4K will only work on Samsung TV's for now? No Vizio, Sony, etc?


Samsung RVU connected, not HDMI.


----------



## toobs

So, the TV set to have RVU in order to get 4k from Directv?


----------



## Diana C

toobs said:


> So, the TV set to have RVU in order to get 4k from Directv?


Yes, the TV must support RVU and 4K for this to work at all. It sounds like DirecTV has only tested it on Samsung (one of their partners) TVs. The TV must also be connected to the Genie AS an RVU client, not via HDMI to the Genie, a Mini or any other DirecTV device.


----------



## toobs

I'm about to buy a 4k by Vizio. Do you think that Directv will support their screens?


----------



## Diana C

Eventually new DVRs and clients will be released that support UHD via HDMI. Until then, a Vizio will be only be supported if it has RVU client support *and* DirecTV announces support for it.


----------



## toobs

So, what you are saying that the current Genies can't handle 4k without RVU?


----------



## Sixto

That is what everyone is saying, as best we know now.


----------



## Diana C

toobs said:


> So, what you are saying that the current Genies can't handle 4k without RVU?


As far as we all know at the moment, that is correct. There is no evidence that the Genies can decode a UHD signal, even if encoded with MPEG-4. We know that the Genies do not support HDMI 2.0, and HDMI 1.4 (the version they do support) can't output UHD at 60fps (although for the near future the vast majority of UHD will be fild origianls and so will only be 24fps). It is also extremely unlikely that the Genie's will be able to decode H.265. UHD content encoded with MPEG-4 is 4 times as large as 1080p at the same frame rate.


----------



## toobs

Now, you have me second guessing if I should get a Vizio and wait for Directv to support it and wait for a 4k dvr, or buy a Samsuhg with RVU.


----------



## yosoyellobo

I would consider getting a 4K TV the day I could watch a football game live on ESPN at bestbuy.


----------



## Diana C

Honestly, IMO unless you need to replace an existing TV, I would wait before buying a UHD set. Not all UHD sets on the market have HDMI 2.0 ports, so these will be forever limited to a max of 30 fps (except for the tiny number that have up-gradable HDMI modules). There is also so little UHD content available that I don't see the point of jumping now. Of course, some people just HAVE to have all the shiny new toys.


----------



## Rob

Will they charge us an additional $10 a month 4K fee?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Rob said:


> Will they charge us an additional $10 a month 4K fee?


Count on an additional fee.

Even Netflix added $4 a month if you want 4K.


----------



## Sixto

$6 RVU fee for the TV, until native support.


----------



## smiddy

https://support.directv.com/app/answers/print/a_id/4385

More info, sorry if this has already been posted.


----------



## Shockee

So, here I am with a RVU enabled 2014 UHD Samsung set and wondering, what do I do next? Right now the set is connected via HDMI to my Genie receiver in the living room. The Samsung takes all 1080p signals from the Genie and upscales them to 4K. But I guess the Genie can't pass the new DTV 4K content to the Samsung via HDMI. So how does one enable a new Samsung UHD set as a RVU client? Can the Samsung be a RVU client and be an HDMI connected set too? My general thoughts are:


DTV is already "late" to the table when it comes to UHD content. Netflix offers a few movies and documentaries in 4K that are viewable using an internet connection and the Netflix App on the Samsung Smart Hub. I'm already watching the second season of "House of Cards" and other content in 4K.
Samsung offered purchasers of their UHD sets a one-terrebyte USB drive that included UHD movies and documentaries. At least that way you could watch 4K content if you had no other sources available.
There are numerous 4K videos on YouTube that you can stream to the Samsung, again using the YouTube app on the Samsung Smart Hub.
I don't particurarly want to pay extra to watch DTV's 4K offerings. The Samsung already does a remarkable job upscaling 1080p content to 4K. I don't really want to make this expensive new TV a RVU client (and I don't even know how to do this). And, if I were to enable my Samsung as a RVU client, what about the audio? Presumably Dolby Digital 5.1 is in the media stream of the 4K content from DTV? If so, it would have to be decoded by my amplifier to work in my HT setup. How does that work?

I applaud DTV for pursuing 4K, just as they did HDTV so many years ago. I have always been impressed with their committment to new TV technologies but am confused as to how to implement this latest version. Any thoughts are appreciated....


----------



## Sixto

Just thinking out loud ... having never done this myself ... need the TV on your home IP network, Ethernet or via DECA, need to enable RVU on the TV, must be some Samsung screens for that, need to register the Samsung RVU client with the Genie ($6/month), use the Samsung remote or DirecTV remote but talking to TV not receiver ... initial thoughts.


----------



## damondlt

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Count on an additional fee.
> 
> Even Netflix added $4 a month if you want 4K.


And you also must have a minimum of 25 mbps internet service for Netflix 4K streaming
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306


----------



## I WANT MORE

And it all requires a truck roll.


----------



## Diana C

Shockee said:


> ...I don't particurarly want to pay extra to watch DTV's 4K offerings. The Samsung already does a remarkable job upscaling 1080p content to 4K. I don't really want to make this expensive new TV a RVU client (and I don't even know how to do this). And, if I were to enable my Samsung as a RVU client, what about the audio? Presumably Dolby Digital 5.1 is in the media stream of the 4K content from DTV? If so, it would have to be decoded by my amplifier to work in my HT setup. How does that work?
> 
> I applaud DTV for pursuing 4K, just as they did HDTV so many years ago. I have always been impressed with their committment to new TV technologies but am confused as to how to implement this latest version. Any thoughts are appreciated....


No DirecTV set top box (STB), including the Genie, has the ability to decode an UHD recording and send the data out the HDMI port. That will have to wait until a new STB reaches the market.

So, in the interim, in order to deliver some UHD content, DirecTV has put together a workaround. Since the Genie can act as a RVU server and some Samsung UHD-TVs can act as RVU clients, they can stage the recordings on a Genie and then feed them directly to the Samsung TV to decode and display. The RVU stream contains both audio and video. The interface looks just like the Genie/Mini interface, and it plus the content pass over your in house LAN to the TV instead of over HDMI.

To do this does require that the TV be attached to the network (to be officially supported, it must be connected via a DECA to the coax LAN) and has to be registered as a client on the Genie (which will incur an extra $6 per month on your DirecTV bill).

That's how it works...only you can decide if access the the titles DirecTV is offering in UHD is worth the cost and trouble.


----------



## ep1974

damondlt said:


> And you also must have a minimum of 25 mbps internet service for Netflix 4K streaminghttps://help.netflix.com/en/node/306


What is the average internet speed for consumers? I have Netflix and called my provider and was told I get about 9 mbps. Was told that maybe I could upgrade to about 20 mbps. Still not quite enough for 4k according to Netflix. Anyone know if 20 mbps would deliver 4k on Netflix?


----------



## knoxbh

I presently have a Samsung Directv ready TV in the Florida Room. It is connected to Directv via a HR24. I also have a Genie HR44 which is connected to my Sharp TV in the living room. Now, how do I set up the Samsung to receive UHD? Do I move the Genie to the Florida Room? And if so, how would I connect it to the Samsung? I am a little lost as to how to get the UHD programs from which I have read here. Any help for a 89 yr old would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## Diana C

The TV has to be a *UHD* Samsung DirecTV-Ready set. If so, the simplest solution is to add a two way splitter to the coax going to the HR-24, and use a DECA adapter to connect the DECA coax network to the TV's ethernet port. Then you'd need to call DirecTV and register the Samsung TV as a client of the HR44. That will cost $6/month. At this point the HR24 is redundant, except for the recordings on the hard drive. Content then can flow from the HR44 to Samsung TV directly over the network.


----------



## damondlt

ep1974 said:


> What is the average internet speed for consumers? I have Netflix and called my provider and was told I get about 9 mbps. Was told that maybe I could upgrade to about 20 mbps. Still not quite enough for 4k according to Netflix. Anyone know if 20 mbps would deliver 4k on Netflix?


It's around 22 , up from 16 from last year.
So as long as providers keep dropping the rates and supplying more Data it shouldn't be a big factor.


----------



## Laxguy

yosoyellobo said:


> I would consider getting a 4K TV the day I could watch a football game live on ESPN at bestbuy.


If you watch your football at BB, why even buy a TV?

:rolling:


----------



## Laxguy

ep1974 said:


> What is the average internet speed for consumers? I have Netflix and called my provider and was told I get about 9 mbps. Was told that maybe I could upgrade to about 20 mbps. Still not quite enough for 4k according to Netflix. Anyone know if 20 mbps would deliver 4k on Netflix?


You really need to do your own tests; ISPs are noted for exaggeration as to speed. Try speedtest.com, and do it at different times of day. Be skeptical. Who's your provider and where are you?


----------



## Rich

smiddy said:


> As long as the set has HDMI 2.0 it looks like it will do 4k at 60 fps over HDMI. The ones I have looked at have that already. But, that isn't DirecTV 4k, it looks like you have to have a 4k set with the new RVU firmware too, my best guess at the moment.


Yeah, it's almost dismally chaotic right now. I'll wait until the dust settles.

Rich


----------



## Rich

toobs said:


> I'm confuse. Directv 4K will only work on Samsung TV's for now? No Vizio, Sony, etc?


You're confused? Me too. I'd hate to spend a lot of money (I've decided to spend big when I buy) and end up with something that doesn't work with everything.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Sixto said:


> That is what everyone is saying, as best we know now.


This is almost too much for me to wrap my mind around. I'm glad this thread exists, I could have made a terrible mistake by now if it didn't, but it's confusing me to the point where I kinda dread reading it.

Rich


----------



## Rich

toobs said:


> Now, you have me second guessing if I should get a Vizio and wait for Directv to support it and wait for a 4k dvr, or buy a Samsuhg with RVU.


I don't think I'd buy anything but a Samsung right now.

Rich


----------



## ep1974

Laxguy said:


> You really need to do your own tests; ISPs are noted for exaggeration as to speed. Try speedtest.com, and do it at different times of day. Be skeptical. Who's your provider and where are you?


My provider is Whidbey Telecom here in the NW.


----------



## ep1974

damondlt said:


> It's around 22 , up from 16 from last year.So as long as providers keep dropping the rates and supplying more Data it shouldn't be a big factor.


But would 20 mbps be enough to watch Netflix 4K or would I need 25 mbps as Netflix recommends?


----------



## damondlt

Not sure, My tvs don't do 4k


----------



## yosoyellobo

Laxguy said:


> If you watch your football at BB, why even buy a TV?
> 
> :rolling:


Poof of concept. If it works at best buy most likely it would work at my house.


----------



## Laxguy

yosoyellobo said:


> Poof of concept. If it works at best buy most likely it would work at my house.


Of course- I hope you saw my post as only an attempt at humor. Or humour.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Laxguy said:


> Of course- I hope you saw my post as only an attempt at humor. Or humour.


I did. Just Wanted to explain it anyway.


----------



## Laxguy

Thanks. In my experience, even if it doesn't work at BB, it may work at home. When they're hooked up to a closed system that's designed to show off UHD, that's one thing. When and if they set up to do off the sat. stuff, a whole 'other ballgame. They have been known to down rez the internal distribution.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> I don't think I'd buy anything but a Samsung right now.


Why? The RVU support is meaningless, especially for you since you don't even have a Genie! The only benefit it offers (other than allowing this temporary patched together VOD solution for a handful of 4K movies so Directv can claim "first!") is not needing a client box for that TV. Since you still pay Directv $6/month to activate that TV as a "client" you don't even save any money.

When Directv offers 4K "for real" they'll have new equipment with a HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 output that plugs in to a compliant TV or AV receiver, just like with HD.


----------



## JB3

Some of the existing 4K sets look great in BB, but I'm still going to wait to buy one. Standards are still in flux and next years set is sure to beat this years model. There's talk about adopoting an expanded color gamut for 4K in the future. That could leave this years hardware as not able to display future content to it's fullest.

I figure if I wait a year or two, things will settle down and I might be able to afford that 85" OLED!


----------



## Laxguy

.....Next year will always be better! 

Can you tell us any more on the color gamut?


----------



## Christopher Gould

ep1974 said:


> But would 20 mbps be enough to watch Netflix 4K or would I need 25 mbps as Netflix recommends?


For what I have read their r 4 speed/quality rates. Highest one is 18mbps. The 25mbs is to give you plenty of over head.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## yosoyellobo

Laxguy said:


> .....Next year will always be better!
> 
> Can you tell us any more on the color gamut?


You don't have to wait until next year. It will be coming mañana.


----------



## Diana C

The h.265 standard (which, BTW, the Motion Picture Experts Group calls MPEG-H) includes support for 10, 12 and, IIRC, even 16 bit color depth. MPEG-4/h.264 only supported 8 or 10 bit color. So UHD could support a larger gamut and finer gradations. I don't know what is used for the currently available content, nor whether the current crop of sets can display the larger gamut.

This is one of the areas of picture quality that is often missed. It makes no difference whether I have 100 versus 400 pixels per square inch if my color palette forces the entire square inch to be the same exact color. I suspect that many of the reports of improved picture quality at screen sizes and distances that defy the perception limits of the human eye are in fact due to the improved color resolution, rather than a pure pixel density difference.

Of course, when compressing video for live transmission one of the first things sacrificed is color depth (which manifests itself as the familiar color blocking). So the greater color depth will likely be most visible in BluRay and specially prepared UHD material.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> I suspect that many of the reports of improved picture quality at screen sizes and distances that defy the perception limits of the human eye are in fact due to the improved color resolution, rather than a pure pixel density difference.


If color gamut were everything, GIF would have never caught on. Dithering is a very powerful tool that uses the brain's ability to smooth things out.


----------



## Sixto

We have a few threads on UHD and I certainly appreciate all the info, especially from Diana and Slice. I didn't realize the lack of HDMI 2.0 @ 18Gbps & HDCP 2.2 on any shipping TV, for a source that can deliver HEVC/H.265. When I do buy a set, at least I now know what the minimum requirements will be, for me.

And it may be a while before we have the whole path from source to TV fully capable, especially STB, A/V receiver, and TV, all fully compliant. It may be a while.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> If color gamut were everything, GIF would have never caught on. Dithering is a very powerful tool that uses the brain's ability to smooth things out.


How you get from my comment to "color gamut is everything" boggles the mind.

In any event, I doubt you would enjoy watching TV that was processed as a series of GIFs. That is like comparing apples and hand grenades.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Why? The RVU support is meaningless, especially for you since you don't even have a Genie! The only benefit it offers (other than allowing this temporary patched together VOD solution for a handful of 4K movies so Directv can claim "first!") is not needing a client box for that TV. Since you still pay Directv $6/month to activate that TV as a "client" you don't even save any money.
> 
> _*When Directv offers 4K "for real" they'll have new equipment with a HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 output that plugs in to a compliant TV or AV receiver, just like with HD.*_


That's what I'm waiting for. As for the Sammy comment, they look the best of the sets I've seen. And they seem to be leading the pack. I still don't want or need a Genie, but if/when they come out with a DVR specifically designed for 4K, I'll be getting one.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Sixto said:


> We have a few threads on UHD and I certainly appreciate all the info, especially from Diana and Slice. I didn't realize the lack of HDMI 2.0 @ 18Gbps & HDCP 2.2 on any shipping TV, for a source that can deliver HEVC/H.265. When I do buy a set, at least I now know what the minimum requirements will be, for me.
> 
> And it may be a while before we have the whole path from source to TV fully capable, especially STB, A/V receiver, and TV, all fully compliant._* It may be a while.*_


Yup, I'd rather be patient.

Rich


----------



## I WANT MORE

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-avs-forum-podcasts/1471727-joe-kane-4k.html

Recommended viewing for anyone considering purchasing a UHD TV.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> The h.265 standard (which, BTW, the Motion Picture Experts Group calls MPEG-H) includes support for 10, 12 and, IIRC, even 16 bit color depth. MPEG-4/h.264 only supported 8 or 10 bit color. So UHD could support a larger gamut and finer gradations. I don't know what is used for the currently available content, nor whether the current crop of sets can display the larger gamut.


I wouldn't worry about higher color depth. 16 bit color is "optional" for consumer gear in HDMI 2.0, only 12 bit support is required. Even 12 bit color isn't worth worrying about if you're buying a 4K LCD. While LCDs have processors that will claim to process 12 bit color (and maybe someday even 16 bit color) they can't actually DISPLAY at that fine a level. Because the backlight is not uniform, the differences in luminosity across the panel makes even an attempt to provide 10 bit color rather meaningless.

The first few generations of LCD TVs (at least the less expensive ones) used TN panels that displayed only 6 bits of color. Hardly anyone noticed because they used fluorescent backlights rather than the LEDs w/diffusers they use now, so the brightness difference across the panel was quite large.

To be capable of accurately displaying 10 bits of color, let alone 12 or 16, requires a self illuminating display rather than one that uses a backlight (i.e. OLED, QD, or plasma if they brought it back) Or a switch to a uniform backlight...maybe one of those strip OLEDs that are now available for architectural lighting if they can be made bright/cheap enough.

One of the reasons they're able to compress video so well is that they can throw away a lot of those unnecessary bits of luminosity, especially in fast action - it is more perceptible in still or slow motion shots. This is one of the reasons why Blu Ray has such a huge bit rate, it isn't throwing away all those extra bits of color info. If 12 bit color becomes an expectation of people WRT to 4K broadcasts/streams, the required bit rates are going to go up by a LOT!


----------



## Aridon

JB3 said:


> Some of the existing 4K sets look great in BB, but I'm still going to wait to buy one. Standards are still in flux and next years set is sure to beat this years model. There's talk about adopoting an expanded color gamut for 4K in the future. That could leave this years hardware as not able to display future content to it's fullest.
> 
> I figure if I wait a year or two, things will settle down and I might be able to afford that 85" OLED!


Great advice.


----------



## Laxguy

I WANT MORE said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/138-avs-forum-podcasts/1471727-joe-kane-4k.html
> 
> Recommended viewing for anyone considering purchasing a UHD TV.


Thread was started 18 months ago and the OP has been flamed mercilessly. I don't know the players, who's blowing smoke and who's not. I hope there are better articles about!


----------



## samrs

Rich said:


> Yup, I'd rather be patient.
> 
> Rich


When NESN and YES broadcast live games, in UHD, on Directv, I'll be in the market.


----------



## slice1900

samrs said:


> When NESN and YES broadcast live games, in UHD, on Directv, I'll be in the market.


I wouldn't hold my breath...I'd be surprised if this happens before 2020 (if at all)


----------



## samrs

> I wouldn't hold my breath...I'd be surprised if this happens before 2020 (if at all)


That would take the breath out of my sails, it's all about the motion on the pitch.


----------



## RandomDTVguy

4K Movies are already being offered in OD. It must be streamed to an RVU Television (IE Sony or Samsung). The pricing on them range from 3.99 for shorts to 15.99 for full length new releases. Today alone we were forecasted for 100,000 plus 4K PPV orders.

If that actually happened or not, I won't know until the report comes in on Tuesday.


----------



## slice1900

100,000? If you assume every Directv customer who owns a 4K RVU TV watches one movie today, that would mean 0.5% of Directv's entire customer base already owns such a TV! Somehow that seems very unlikely to me, but if I'm wrong and you hit anywhere near that number then 4K TVs are selling a lot faster than I thought.


----------



## Laxguy

A few ordered two or three......


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Thread was started 18 months ago and the OP has been flamed mercilessly. _*I don't know the players, who's blowing smoke and who's not*_. I hope there are better articles about!


That's exactly why I avoid that site.

Rich


----------



## PolkSDA

Well crap. I bought a Sony XBR-65X900B last month... and here I am SOL with respect to DirecTV 4K. Samsung only? FFS!

Looks like it's just Netflix 4K for me until Amazon Prime gets its 4K streaming going.

*harumph*


----------



## slice1900

You'll be fine once Directv introduces real 4K equipment. You're only SOL with respect to the 20 movies Directv is offering via VOD today...probably not missing much


----------



## SledgeHammer

PolkSDA said:


> Well crap. I bought a Sony XBR-65X900B last month... and here I am SOL with respect to DirecTV 4K. Samsung only? FFS!
> 
> Looks like it's just Netflix 4K for me until Amazon Prime gets its 4K streaming going.
> 
> *harumph*


I think you're more SOL cuz you bought a TV that isn't going to work in a year LOL. 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 will be required going forward for full 4K goodness.


----------



## smiddy

Shockee said:


> So, here I am with a RVU enabled 2014 UHD Samsung set and wondering, what do I do next? Right now the set is connected via HDMI to my Genie receiver in the living room. The Samsung takes all 1080p signals from the Genie and upscales them to 4K. But I guess the Genie can't pass the new DTV 4K content to the Samsung via HDMI. So how does one enable a new Samsung UHD set as a RVU client? Can the Samsung be a RVU client and be an HDMI connected set too? My general thoughts are:
> 
> 
> DTV is already "late" to the table when it comes to UHD content. Netflix offers a few movies and documentaries in 4K that are viewable using an internet connection and the Netflix App on the Samsung Smart Hub. I'm already watching the second season of "House of Cards" and other content in 4K.
> Samsung offered purchasers of their UHD sets a one-terrebyte USB drive that included UHD movies and documentaries. At least that way you could watch 4K content if you had no other sources available.
> There are numerous 4K videos on YouTube that you can stream to the Samsung, again using the YouTube app on the Samsung Smart Hub.
> I don't particurarly want to pay extra to watch DTV's 4K offerings. The Samsung already does a remarkable job upscaling 1080p content to 4K. I don't really want to make this expensive new TV a RVU client (and I don't even know how to do this). And, if I were to enable my Samsung as a RVU client, what about the audio? Presumably Dolby Digital 5.1 is in the media stream of the 4K content from DTV? If so, it would have to be decoded by my amplifier to work in my HT setup. How does that work?
> 
> I applaud DTV for pursuing 4K, just as they did HDTV so many years ago. I have always been impressed with their committment to new TV technologies but am confused as to how to implement this latest version. Any thoughts are appreciated....


Someone may have answered most of your questions already and I have some of the same audio questions. I am on the fence as to which TV to purchase soon, but am considering Samsung's 60" HU8550. I know that with RVU clients, that I just added to my account, they simply add the ability to your Genie to have a client, your TV would need to be connected via a coax, [just ran a serach and found this: http://support-us.samsung.com/cyber/popup/iframe/pop_troubleshooting_fr.jsp?idx=394882&modelname=UN55D6000SF] So you may need an additional coax-to-ethernet connection it appears. Then follow the on screen prompts.

I would assume you "could" back-connect your audio out ot your AVR. In my case my AVR is in a media closet, nowhere near my TV(s). So my video quality may be top notch, but my sound quality will lack, in this situation.

I am finding that there are several limiting factors, towards providing HDMI 4k @ 60 Hz. These initial offerings are to get the technology started, I would think. I haven't researched Netflix's technical specifications on 4k, but wonder if it is full 4k (4096×2160) or UHDTV 4k (3840×2160).

I am likely going to buy a set before the end of the year, but it is likely not going to be fully compatible once all the wrickles are ironed out on producing all the whickets in order to do full HDMI 4k @ 60 Hz.

Smiddy


----------



## Christopher Gould

smiddy said:


> Someone may have answered most of your questions already and I have some of the same audio questions. I am on the fence as to which TV to purchase soon, but am considering Samsung's 60" HU8550. I know that with RVU clients, that I just added to my account, they simply add the ability to your Genie to have a client, your TV would need to be connected via a coax, [just ran a serach and found this: http://support-us.samsung.com/cyber/popup/iframe/pop_troubleshooting_fr.jsp?idx=394882&modelname=UN55D6000SF] So you may need an additional coax-to-ethernet connection it appears. Then follow the on screen prompts.
> 
> I would assume you "could" back-connect your audio out ot your AVR. In my case my AVR is in a media closet, nowhere near my TV(s). So my video quality may be top notch, but my sound quality will lack, in this situation.
> 
> I am finding that there are several limiting factors, towards providing HDMI 4k @ 60 Hz. These initial offerings are to get the technology started, I would think. I haven't researched Netflix's technical specifications on 4k, but wonder if it is full 4k (4096×2160) or UHDTV 4k (3840×2160).
> 
> I am likely going to buy a set before the end of the year, but it is likely not going to be fully compatible once all the wrickles are ironed out on producing all the whickets in order to do full HDMI 4k @ 60 Hz.
> 
> Smiddy


I got the 60" hu8550 and I love it. I had to get a new tv because my old sony rptv lost its blue color. I think the one connect will do just fine for fixing connection problems in a few years. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I've been researching all year my choices were samsung hu8550 Vizio p series or samsung h7150. Read hundreds of pages on avforums. Before I made my choice.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Laxguy

Christopher Gould said:


> I got the 60" hu8550 and I love it. I had to get a new tv because my old sony rptv lost its blue color. I think the one connect will do just fine for fixing connection problems in a few years. If you have any questions feel free to ask. I've been researching all year my choices were samsung hu8550 Vizio p series or samsung h7150. Read hundreds of pages on avforums. Before I made my choice.


Very sound! Look forward to any commentary going forward.


----------



## I WANT MORE

I would hope that no one would choose a television simply because it will work with DirecTv's pseudo UHD.


----------



## harsh

Christopher Gould said:


> I think the one connect will do just fine for fixing connection problems in a few years.


I assumed that as well but we're being told that you can't upgrade a 2013 model to be DIRECTV 4K Ready so that theory doesn't seem to hold up in practice.


----------



## ep1974

Are Directv's UHD VOD channels listed in the guide? If so, where are they located?


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> I assumed that as well but we're being told that you can't upgrade a 2013 model to be DIRECTV 4K Ready so that theory doesn't seem to hold up in practice.


Are you sure? Christopher mentioned in another thread that he was 100% confident that Samsungs OneConnect upgradability would keep him in the ball game.


----------



## ep1974

SledgeHammer said:


> Are you sure? Christopher mentioned in another thread that he was 100% confident that Samsungs OneConnect upgradability would keep him in the ball game.


I believe they are Directv ready. I have a 55 in. 7200 series that is Directv ready. At least that's what the specs online say. Not sure if mine is a 2013 or 2014 model. It is also upgradeable for the future.


----------



## SledgeHammer

ep1974 said:


> I believe they are Directv ready. I have a 55 in. 7200 series that is Directv ready. At least that's what the specs online say. Not sure if mine is a 2013 or 2014 model. It is also upgradeable for the future.


Well, that's a 7 series and they are currently on the 8 series, so I'll assume that's the 2013 model.

According to DirecTVs web site, **ONLY** the 2014 models are compatible with the 4K workaround.

https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4385/~/what-is-a-directv-4k-ready-tv-and-how-does-it-work%3F

Currently only the following Samsung TV models are DIRECTV 4K Ready:

*Brand*

*Year*

*Models*

Samsung

2014

All Smart UHD/4K TV Models

But they do say "Currently", so that's not to say that the 2013 models can't be upgraded at some point, but according to Harsh, he was told that the 2013 cannot be upgraded for now, so that would render the "upgradability" of the OneConnect a moot point.

Though, that is just for the time being for the hacky work-around. Once the legit 4K equipment comes out, yeah, you'll be able to use that TV and yeah they'll *probably / maybe* come out with a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 box. If they do not release a compatible 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2, no, you will not be able to use that TV.


----------



## Laxguy

I WANT MORE said:


> I would hope that no one would choose a television simply because it will work with DirecTv's pseudo UHD.


Your hopes are fulfilled. Samsung makes excellent TV sets.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> _*I think you're more SOL cuz you bought a TV that isn't going to work in a year LOL*_. 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 will be required going forward for full 4K goodness.


Do you understand the concept of schadenfreude?

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Do you understand the concept of schadenfreude?
> 
> Rich


I do. What does that have to do anything? Not doing your homework and/or taking the word of a sales person hardly qualifies. If he was in Best Buy purchasing the TV and one fell on his head from an earthquake, that would be schadenfreude. I certainly would not LOL at that, although everybody on YouTube would after a security guy posted the video.


----------



## hasan

The most common meaning of shadenfreude is taking pleasure at the misfortune of others, and it certainly seems to apply to your reply ending in LOL. There is nothing funny about making a significant economic mistake. It doesn't matter whether the person caused their own misfortune or not, taking pleasure at their unfortunate error is the classic example of shadenfreude, and the exact OPPOSITE of why these forums exist, i.e., to help others, and not to revel in their mistakes.


----------



## PolkSDA

SledgeHammer said:


> I think you're more SOL cuz you bought a TV that isn't going to work in a year LOL. 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 will be required going forward for full 4K goodness.


Before you go making claims that someone is SOL and you start laughing about it, it might help if you did your homework first. The 65X900B has two HDMI 2.0 ports, one of which is HDCP 2.2 compliant. Is it ideal that not ALL HDMI ports qualify? No, but hardly SOL.


----------



## SledgeHammer

PolkSDA said:


> Before you go making claims that someone is SOL and you start laughing about it, it might help if you did your homework first. The 65X900B has two HDMI 2.0 ports, one of which is HDCP 2.2 compliant. Is it ideal that not ALL HDMI ports qualify? No, but hardly SOL.


So should you . That HDCP 2.2 port you are talking about is only 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0, not 18Gbps HDMI 2.0. 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 + HDCP 2.2 does not exist today. So congratulations on your new HDCP 2.2 compatible TV purchase. How do you plan on using it for 60fps 4K?

BESIDES... for all those upset with my use of SOL, I suggest you read the OPs post. **HE** used the term, not me. He was just mistaken about the reason for which he was SOL...

Oh wait a sec... that was you who said you were SOL... I'm confused...


----------



## Laxguy

hasan said:


> The most common meaning of shadenfreude is taking pleasure at the misfortune of others, and it certainly seems to apply to your reply ending in LOL. There is nothing funny about making a significant economic mistake. It doesn't matter whether the person caused their own misfortune or not, taking pleasure at their unfortunate error is the classic example of shadenfreude, and the exact OPPOSITE of why these forums exist, i.e., to help others, and not to revel in their mistakes.


Well put. Sledge, you have engaged in it, so it would seem. And you seem to like rubbing some people's faces in not having all the uptodate standards. But I generally enjoy learning from many of your posts.


----------



## Shockee

ep1974 said:


> But would 20 mbps be enough to watch Netflix 4K or would I need 25 mbps as Netflix recommends?


Well if you are asking me, the answer is 'probably not.' Netflix 4K on a 2014 UHD Samsung set really needs at least as much as 25 mbps to stream properly but you are better off with 50 mbps and up. When I first brought homemy UHD set and tried streaming Netflix 4K (with a 16-17 mbps internet connection - which was my average speed through TW with a Standard cable modem plan) the results were predictable - the content would flip between UHD, HD, and SD all in one program! Thankfully, TW boosted internet speeds in the L.A. area to 50 mbps for those with my cable internet plan and all has been smooth sailing in the 4K realm since. Not a hiccup....


----------



## Shockee

I WANT MORE said:


> I would hope that no one would choose a television simply because it will work with DirecTv's pseudo UHD.


I certainly didn't purchase the 65-inch UHD Samsung set based on the "promise" of UHD being supplied by DirecTV. I bought it because my 40-inch Sony LCD just stopped working one evening. As an early adopter I plunged ahead, knowing that the content would follow. There is a distinct advantage by going with Samsung as they are agressivley pushing for 4K content to be made available to their UHD customers - whether from Netflix, Youtube, or DTV. Plus they have some of their proprietary Smarthub apps that are now featuring 4K content. BUT, you must have sufficient internet speeds to use all of this. Also, what "future-proofed" this set for me was the stellar job it does of upconverting 1080p Blueray and other content to UHD. That alone makes the set worth the purchase. The 4K content will come...eventually. Finally, the Samsung sets have a One-Connect feature that supposedly upgrades the hardware of the set if 4K standards change over time.....


----------



## Christopher Gould

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, that's a 7 series and they are currently on the 8 series, so I'll assume that's the 2013 model.
> 
> According to DirecTVs web site, **ONLY** the 2014 models are compatible with the 4K workaround.
> 
> https://support.directv.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4385/~/what-is-a-directv-4k-ready-tv-and-how-does-it-work%3F
> 
> Currently only the following Samsung TV models are DIRECTV 4K Ready: *Brand* *Year* *Models* Samsung 2014
> All Smart UHD/4K TV Models
> 
> But they do say "Currently", so that's not to say that the 2013 models can't be upgraded at some point, but according to Harsh, he was told that the 2013 cannot be upgraded for now, so that would render the "upgradability" of the OneConnect a moot point.
> 
> Though, that is just for the time being for the hacky work-around. Once the legit 4K equipment comes out, yeah, you'll be able to use that TV and yeah they'll *probably / maybe* come out with a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 box. If they do not release a compatible 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2, no, you will not be able to use that TV.


So you keep saying you are going to need 18gbps. Why do you believe this.? Larger color gambit? 60fps?

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SledgeHammer

Christopher Gould said:


> So you keep saying you are going to need 18gbps. Why do you believe this.? Larger color gambit? 60fps?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


If we are talking only your TV, then 60fps, dual video streams, extra color depth.

If we are talking AVR, BluRay, etc. then the same plus extra audio channels for Dolby Atmos and/or higher sampling rate.

Never said all these HDMI 2.0 features are going to be applicable to DirecTV boxes, but if your TV doesn't support it...

To be fair, I'm sure a lot of people will be perfectly happy with 24fps and by far the most popular speaker configuration is 5.1 and Dolby Atmos appears to be DOA, so...

I'm going to upgrade to 4K for certain and perhaps I'll never use any of those features that require 18.2Gbps, but I certainly would never invest in technology that I know for certain is not going to work in a year or at best is an incomplete / partial implementation.

I don't need to be the first guy on my block with a 4K setup. I'd rather have one that's proper.


----------



## slice1900

Christopher Gould said:


> So you keep saying you are going to need 18gbps. Why do you believe this.? Larger color gambit? 60fps?


10.2 Gbps isn't fast enough for 60 fps 4K, even with only 8 bits per color - which is the minimum the HEVC main profile allows. Interestingly, it is fast enough for 50 fps, so it'll be good enough for the boys across the pond who've always used 50 Hz systems...

If you only want to watch movies on your 4K TV then you don't need full speed 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0. There isn't likely to be any 60 fps content for a few years at least, other than maybe a couple one offs to hype 4K like the Masters or college football NC game.

If you want gear you buy today to be able to display sports content when it becomes available, which will be 60 fps to start (and someday maybe 120 fps) you'll need that 18 Gbps.


----------



## Keeska

I have seen two people ask in this thread where one finds the 4k VODs in the Guide or search. But have not found an answer. I have tried looking at both but nothing shows up. I already have an HR34 and a 2014 Samsung UHD TV. I called to enable RVU on the TV and it works so we appear to be ready. Does anyone know how I can order one of the 4k VODs?

In case anyone asks we bought this model TV after checking specs and viewing UHD TVs side-by-side in the showroom. We actually didn't know it was DirecTV Ready let alone DirecTV 4k ready until the DirecTV press release.

Thanks,

kees


----------



## Rich

hasan said:


> The most common meaning of shadenfreude is taking pleasure at the misfortune of others, and it certainly seems to apply to your reply ending in LOL. There is nothing funny about making a significant economic mistake. It doesn't matter whether the person caused their own misfortune or not, taking pleasure at their unfortunate error is the classic example of shadenfreude, and the exact OPPOSITE of why these forums exist, i.e., to help others, and not to revel in their mistakes.


Well said, Hasan.

Rich


----------



## p3pilot

Keeska said:


> I have seen two people ask in this thread where one finds the 4k VODs in the Guide or search. But have not found an answer. I have tried looking at both but nothing shows up. I already have an HR34 and a 2014 Samsung UHD TV. I called to enable RVU on the TV and it works so we appear to be ready. Does anyone know how I can order one of the 4k VODs? In case anyone asks we bought this model TV after checking specs and viewing UHD TVs side-by-side in the showroom. We actually didn't know it was DirecTV Ready let alone DirecTV 4k ready until the DirecTV press release. Thanks, kees


You go to Menu | Search & Browse and there I have an icon for "4K UHD Programs"


----------



## Laxguy

p3pilot said:


> You go to Menu | Search & Browse and there I have an icon for "4K UHD Programs"


So, are there six icons (plaques) on that page?


----------



## Keeska

p3pilot said:


> You go to Menu | Search & Browse and there I have an icon for "4K UHD Programs"


I do not have a 4K UHD icon. Just 5 icons - Movies, Sports, TV Shows, Smart Search, On Demand.

I guess I just have to wait for Amazon to start 4K or try mGo.

Thanks,

kees


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

From another thread on a different topic, the following was posted - but no attention paid to the entry on the bottom line, the 3rd from the bottom line and the 5th from the bottom entries.

Most likely the first picture you will see of the DirecTV answer to 4K UHD non-RVU sets.


----------



## peds48

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> From another thread on a different topic, the following was posted - but no attention paid to the entry on the bottom line, the 3rd from the bottom line and the 5th from the bottom entries.
> 
> Most likely the first picture you will see of the DirecTV answer to 4K UHD non-RVU sets.


Is has been discussed that the C51 does not support 4K. And is listed as such...


----------



## slice1900

peds48 said:


> Is has been discussed that the C51 does not support 4K. And is listed as such...


How do we know the C51 does not support 4K? I don't remember any discussion showing that it doesn't... The only reference to it I can find in this thread is my mention a couple weeks ago that maybe it could provide a similar halfway solution [to the Samsung 4K TV, for current Directv 4K VOD offering] if it outputs 4K. And back in July when it was originally discussed and I suggested that if there is a new HR54 (rumored on the other site back nearly a year ago now) that supported 4K, it would need a 4K client, which the C51 may be.

Do we know what chips it uses and know for sure it doesn't support HDMI 2.0 or HEVC? If not, I don't see how we can rule out the ability for it to do 4K.

As for "not being listed as such", nothing on that RVU web site specifies 4K support. The Samsung TV says it is a "4K TV" product type, which isn't the same thing as saying it supports '4K RVU' (though we know it does)


----------



## slice1900

Another data point. Since the other site claimed 4K uses two transponders carrying up to 5 4K channels, and there are already people testing it and viewing 4K programming, it must leave an obvious footprint in Directv's transponders.

It would have to use Ka right now, so I checked Gary's TPN map and lo and behold, transponders 10-13 on 103cb show no programming at all as of the latest map. Now it is possible these transponders are unused for other reasons, or they carry private corporate channels, but I'm going to bet that's what they're using for 4K testing.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

peds48 said:


> Is has been discussed that the C51 does not support 4K. And is listed as such...


Let's assume for a minute that you are correct.

Why would a C51 be released that does everything the C41 does - but does not do 4K?


----------



## peds48

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Why would a C51 be released that does everything the C41 does - but does not do 4K?





> DIRECTV is excited to announce the launch of our newest client in the Genie system, the C51. This next-generation hardware will continue to leverage our exceptional technology and customer interface, with identical functions and capabilities to the C41; however, the C51 capitalizes on lessons we've learned from our manufacturing processes to allow this new client to be produced more efficiently. Because the C41 and C51 function identically, technicians should be able to seamlessly transition to using the C51, and as such, no field training is planned at this time.


----------



## slice1900

> No field training is planned _at this time_.


They wouldn't be training installers on unannounced capabilities, until they're needed.


----------



## peds48

slice1900 said:


> They wouldn't be training installers on unannounced capabilities, until they're needed.


when ever there is a new product that changes how is it install, DirecTV always requires training as dumb as that sounds. all techs have to be "genie" certified in order to be able to close Genie work orders. this training was required when the HR34 came out but not when with HR44 since the HR44 install the same way as the HR34. when ever the "HR-" (fill in the blanks with the new model number) and if is different than the previous Genies, a new training will be required.


----------



## Laxguy

So I wonder where the " you'd better use WiFi on the '44s...." came from? Or was it strictly an incentive matter, $$?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

They also said there was no difference in the HR20-100 and HR20-700 in 2006.

Once all the features the unit could perform were activated, there certainly were major differences.


----------



## samrs

C51 capitalizes on lessons we've learned from our manufacturing processes to allow this new client to be produced more efficiently

In the video we watched the wording was a little different. Something about costing less to produce. This doesn't sound like new technology to me. There was definitely no mention of 4K.

We got our first shipment of C51's last week and I got some on Tuesday. They come 24 to the box which is to many for most techs, So we get individual C51's in static wrap. I'm still trying to figure how not to loose one, at $45 a pop just like a C31or C41.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> They also said there was no difference in the HR20-100 and HR20-700 in 2006.
> 
> Once all the features the unit could perform were activated, there certainly were major differences.


I have one of each and don't see much of a difference.


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> They also said there was no difference in the HR20-100 and HR20-700 in 2006.
> 
> _*Once all the features the unit could perform were activated, there certainly were major differences.*_


Sure were. If any of you get a chance to take both apart, you'll see very quickly why.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> They also said there was no difference in the HR20-100 and HR20-700 in 2006.
> 
> Once all the features the unit could perform were activated, there certainly were major differences.


I don't think the fact the 20 -100 are all defective is reason to say they are different. (Not to mention there is a workaround so you never know it while using it only while hooking it up) That most certainly isn't on purpose. And I only know of the one difference. What where the others?


----------



## SledgeHammer

inkahauts said:


> I don't think the fact the 20 -100 are all defective is reason to say they are different. (Not to mention there is a workaround so you never know it while using it only while hooking it up) That most certainly isn't on purpose. And I only know of the one difference. What where the others?


Apperently lots.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/80136-hr20-100-vs-hr20-700/?p=888438

Also, if you read through the thread, there are other differences as well, like the RF antenna, caller id, etc.


----------



## peds48

samrs said:


> . They come 24 to the box which is to many for most techs,


Not for me cuz, I use about 30 or more weekly...


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> Apperently lots.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/80136-hr20-100-vs-hr20-700/?p=888438
> 
> Also, if you read through the thread, there are other differences as well, like the RF antenna, caller id, etc.


It wasn't missing any features at all once they got to a feature complete firmware, between the two. That was the point of his post I thought. And even the defect of the power for deac didn't keep it from working with mrv. As for style (the lights where just style) they even had two different colors for them.. not really a true difference to me. Neither is needing an external antenna or different power cord. They did and could accomplish the same things...

The fact the -100 had more issues was more int he workmanship, not the abilities in the first place... There is a big difference between that concept and if the c51 has the hardware to pas and do 4k, which I just don't see it having, but who knows, I hope I am wrong. I have seen them at a friend who just had Directv installed and they do look identical on the outside to a c41 for sure, and they work the same... Maybe a tidbit faster


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Rich said:


> Sure were. If any of you get a chance to take both apart, you'll see very quickly why.
> 
> Rich


Yes, they look NOTHING alike inside.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, they look NOTHING alike inside.


What we do know for certain is that neither unit supports 4K (thread topic).

My recommendation (when it comes to 4K UHD with DirecTV) is that they become familiar with the information found throughout this site:

http://rvualliance.org/


----------



## Diana C

I would be very surprised to see native UHD support in any DirecTV STB before late next year. It will take that long for the standards dust to settle, and for the silicon to support them to be available in quantity.


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, they look NOTHING alike inside.


And they were cheaper to make. As are all the HRs ending with 100. The 24-100s are the only 100s I've had that actually work. And work surprisingly well. But when you open one up, it's pretty obviously a 100, you can see that right away. But they work, that's all I care about.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> I would be very surprised to see native UHD support in any DirecTV STB before late next year. It will take that long for the standards dust to settle, and for the silicon to support them to be available in quantity.


If the C51 and new Genie have no ability to output 4K, I agree that late 2015 would be the absolute earliest we'd see it - and I'd place my money on 2016 for the public release. Since the C51 made it on the RVU web site in July, it would have had to have been designed early this year. Probably too soon to support HEVC.

Does anyone know whether Directv is using HEVC or MPEG4 for their 4K VOD offering? If it is MPEG4, it is possible the C51 and new Genie have been designed to output 4Kp24, so 4K VOD would be expanded beyond 4K RVU TVs. Otherwise Directv's 4K offering in 2015 is just a pointless marketing exercise.

Makes me wonder what those four transponders on 103cb that aren't be used are doing, but maybe that sort of thing is typical and I just hadn't ever looked before.


----------



## P Smith

By Gary report, 4k in H.264 push vod coming from d10: " PUSH - MPEG4 D10	PUSH - 4K 1 (D10 Txp 10)	8500	4KCAROUSEL"


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Otherwise Directv's 4K offering in 2015 is just a pointless marketing exercise.


It isn't pointless if it generates positive excitement in a market that just saw its first Q3 subscriber decline in a very long time (if ever).

That it isn't what anyone would consider "conventional" and isn't a result of any new satellite bandwidth or whiz-bang technology is, as I noted previously, a coincidence.

It is notable that all 2014 Samsung TVs are supposed to be able to handle HEVC so that wouldn't appear to be the reason DIRECTV stuck with MPEG4.


----------



## P Smith

> all 2014 Samsung TVs are *supposed* to be able to handle HEVC


it must support H.265 to be certified, not a draft HEVC when year(s) ago such 2014 TV been designed


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> By Gary report, 4k in H.264 push vod coming from d10: " PUSH - MPEG4 D10 PUSH - 4K 1 (D10 Txp 10) 8500 4KCAROUSEL"


Interesting, that's one of the transponders I mentioned a few days ago as carrying no programming. I wonder if it is only transponder 10, and if so what are 11-13 doing? What's the '8500', is that the channel number this would be carried on?

If the new Genie and C51 are able to output 4K, which I'll bet they are, they'll be capable of supporting a temporary version of 4K using MPEG4. This would be similar to H10/HR10 supporting MPEG2 HD and once the MPEG4 HD solution was in place became SD only receivers.

Of course maybe they can't output 4K, and similar to internet based VOD the only way to access this will be using a 4K RVU TV. I think that would be a bad strategy since most 4K TVs sold are not RVU compatible, but I'm not the one calling the shots


----------



## Diana C

They probably stuck with MPEG4 because they already own MPEG4 encoders. The current crop of h.265 encoders take longer to process the content and are expensive. I'm sure they are holding off buying HEVC equipment until the technology matures a bit (which is pretty ironic).


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> They probably stuck with MPEG4 because they already own MPEG4 encoders. The current crop of h.265 encoders take longer to process the content and are expensive. I'm sure they are holding off buying HEVC equipment until the technology matures a bit (which is pretty ironic).


The content comes as a download so I'm pretty sure that real-time encoding is NOT a part of the delivery process.


----------



## P Smith

perhaps the "new" encoders (I'm doubt they are exist to implement at sat companies' racks) just barely compress 4K source stream, so there is no alternative to old well working H.264 encoders, hence the 4K PUSH channels


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> The content comes as a download so I'm pretty sure that real-time encoding is NOT a part of the delivery process.


Who said it was? The time it takes is still relevant since the content has to be encoded at SOME point prior to transmission. If it takes all day to encode a 2 hour movie (and get the size down to double AVC compression of 1080p) it makes WAY more business sense to just use the AVC encoders that they already own and get a 4x larger file in just 2 hours.

And again, the REAL point I was making is that they ALREADY own AVC encoders (lots of them). So why spend big bucks on an HEVC encoder that is inefficient, and which (since it can't do realtime) they will have no use for in the future?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> Who said it was? The time it takes is still relevant since the content has to be encoded at SOME point prior to transmission. If it takes all day to encode a 2 hour movie (and get the size down to double AVC compression of 1080p) it makes WAY more business sense to just use the AVC encoders that they already own and get a 4x larger file in just 2 hours.
> 
> And again, the REAL point I was making is that they ALREADY own AVC encoders (lots of them). So why spend big bucks on an HEVC encoder that is inefficient, and which (since it can't do realtime) they will have no use for in the future?


Though I do not disagree with you, it would not be the first time in the last several years that Directv had to spend a small fortune to replace every encoder in the system had a hardware problem that firmware updates could not solve the issue.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Though I do not disagree with you, it would not be the first time in the last several years that Directv had to spend a small fortune to replace every encoder in the system had a hardware problem that firmware updates could not solve the issue.


That experience would probably make them a bit gun shy about buying HEVC encoders too "early", and instead wait for the bugs to be shaken out.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> That experience would probably make them a bit gun shy about buying HEVC encoders too "early", and instead wait for the bugs to be shaken out.


Actually they thought the MPEG4 Encoders they had to replace in late 2011 systemwide were very mature - in life there are never any guarantees - just look at the HR34 which is still a POS 3 years after multiple firmware updates.


----------



## jburns

I need some advice. I want to be able to stream Direc's 4k. I have the HR34 hooked directly to a Samsung 2014 model 8550. All the info I find is about RVU where your HR34 is connected to a non 4k ready TV and you're adding a 4K TV to the system in another room. Mine is much simpler. I just want to be able to access the 4k content on the TV connected directly to the HR34. My internet is plenty fast enough. I must be missing something simple. Any ideas?


----------



## harsh

jburns said:


> I must be missing something simple.


You're missing that DIRECTV doesn't currently offer what you're seeking. The ONLY way they currently deliver UHD content is through RVU. That means a satellite download to a Genie DVR.

If you want to do 4K Internet streaming, you'll need to add a provider that offers it. Your TV should be able to handle that without the Genie or a CCK connection to same.


----------



## HoTat2

harsh said:


> You're missing that DIRECTV doesn't currently offer what you're seeking. The ONLY way they currently deliver UHD content is through RVU. That means a satellite download to a Genie DVR. ...


To be clear, you need a Genie DVR connected to an "RVU enabled" 4K UHD TV is what's required for now at this early stage.


----------



## jburns

harsh said:


> You're missing that DIRECTV doesn't currently offer what you're seeking. The ONLY way they currently deliver UHD content is through RVU. That means a satellite download to a Genie DVR.
> 
> If you want to do 4K Internet streaming, you'll need to add a provider that offers it. Your TV should be able to handle that without the Genie or a CCK connection to same.


Got it. I assume if i have Direc come and do what they do to set it up, I could have it on my TV that is directly connected to the HR34. Or am I wrong about that as well. I do have NetFlix so I'll settle for theirs for a while. I was just trying to broaden my options.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.


----------



## Laxguy

jburns said:


> I need some advice. I want to be able to stream Direc's 4k. I have the HR34 hooked directly to a Samsung 2014 model 8550. All the info I find is about RVU where your HR34 is connected to a non 4k ready TV and you're adding a 4K TV to the system in another room. Mine is much simpler. I just want to be able to access the 4k content on the TV connected directly to the HR34. My internet is plenty fast enough. I must be missing something simple. Any ideas?





jburns said:


> Got it. I assume if i have Direc come and do what they do to set it up, I could have it on my TV that is directly connected to the HR34. Or am I wrong about that as well. I do have NetFlix so I'll settle for theirs for a while. I was just trying to broaden my options.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.


No, right now you cannot bring UHD onto your TV via HDMI. It must be an RVU setup. - though some might say that's directly connected....


----------



## jburns

HoTat2 said:


> To be clear, you need a Genie DVR connected to an "RVU enabled" 4K UHD TV is what's required for now at this early stage.


 My TV is a 2014, Samsung un65hu8550. Supposed to be compatible from what I've read.


----------



## P Smith

jburns said:


> My TV is a 2014, Samsung un65hu8550. Supposed to be compatible from what I've read.


first, you will need to read all the info posted in the tread last week. Then digest it....


----------



## jburns

P Smith said:


> first, you will need to read all the info posted in the tread last week. Then digest it....


I read it. Seem to have indigestion.


----------



## inkahauts

jburns said:


> My TV is a 2014, Samsung un65hu8550. Supposed to be compatible from what I've read.


It is compatible. Via RVU only. no one makes anything yet that can output 4k via a hdmi output.

That will start happening next year hopefully.

By the way I don't think it's just receivers either. The tvs also will need some newer stuff or firmware depending. That's why you need to use the built in Netflix app on your tv to see 4k right now.

Here is one way to think about it though it's not technically how ironworks but....

Hooking up a HR34 via RVU allows the built in "app" If you will access the 4k stuff from
DIRECTV. Just like the built in Netflix app.


----------



## Rich

jburns said:


> My TV is a 2014, Samsung un65hu8550. Supposed to be compatible from what I've read.


I read the specs for that model the other day when PC Richard had it on sale for $1,999. It seems to have more than the minimum requirements, if I read the specs correctly.

Rich


----------



## peds48

jburns said:


> Got it. I assume if i have Direc come and do what they do to set it up, I could have it on my TV that is directly connected to the HR34. Or am I wrong about that as well. I do have NetFlix so I'll settle for theirs for a while. I was just trying to broaden my options.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.


Dont forget there is an extra monthly fee of $6.00 for the RVU TV&#8230;.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> no one makes anything yet that can output 4k via a hdmi output.


This is not an accurate statement. Panasonic offers the uber-expensive BDT700 Blu-ray player that features HDMI 2.0 and can upscale to THX certified UHD at 60fps. The step down, the BDT-460 employing HDMI 1.4 can upscale DVD or Blu-ray to UHD at 24fps.

Such is not to say that they do this with the full glory of what each specification promises, but they do offer UHD through HDMI. That the specification has multiple tiers of support kind of calls its value into question.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> This is not an accurate statement. Panasonic offers the uber-expensive BDT700 Blu-ray player that features HDMI 2.0 and can upscale to THX certified UHD at 60fps. The step down, the BDT-460 employing HDMI 1.4 can upscale DVD or Blu-ray to UHD at 24fps.
> 
> Such is not to say that they do this with the full glory of what each specification promises, but they do offer UHD through HDMI. That the specification has multiple tiers of support kind of calls its value into question.


I think a lot of the confusion was created by manufacturers, with Sony creating this "level A" and "level B" business for HDMI 2.0 (level B is 10.8 Gbps, level A is the full 18.2 Gbps the HDMI standard requires)

I think it was all an excuse to keep using old HDMI 1.4 parts and upgrading the firmware to support some HDMI 2.0 features and lying to consumers and calling it HDMI 2.0. Unfortunately once one OEM starts such a scam, the rest quickly follow so they don't seem behind.

That's why it is very difficult to figure out what really supports HDMI 2.0 at this point.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> This is not an accurate statement. Panasonic offers the uber-expensive BDT700 Blu-ray player that features HDMI 2.0 and can upscale to THX certified UHD at 60fps. The step down, the BDT-460 employing HDMI 1.4 can upscale DVD or Blu-ray to UHD at 24fps.
> 
> Such is not to say that they do this with the full glory of what each specification promises, but they do offer UHD through HDMI. That the specification has multiple tiers of support kind of calls its value into question.


Yes it was and still is.

First Nothing does it at the full spec we will have next year. So therefore nothing does it.

Second it's not native UHD since they don't have native 4k Bly Rays yet that I have seen. Unless you can point one out?

My post was not inaccurate at all. I was discussing 4k content. You are not.

Some people really love the tea cups at Disneyland.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

fwiw, I noticed several stores, including Walmart, are currently selling the Samsung 55" UHD 4K SmartTV UN55HU6840 for less than $1,000.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> ... What's the '8500', is that the channel number this would be carried on?
> ...


just found - yes, 4K Push VOD channels are 8500-8504
and a few more channels:
!DTV 9051 4K CTO 4K Romulo Test channel
!4K 1101 DIRECTV 4K DIRECTV 4K Homepage
"*4KTest" 1103 "DIRECTV 4K TEST Homepage" "DTV 4K TEST" "4KHomeTest.ch" "7914" "DIRECTV4KTEST_LINK"
"*4KTest" 1103 "DIRECTV 4K TEST Homepage" "DTV 4K TEST" "4KHomeTest.ch" "7915" "DIRECTV4KTEST_LINK"
"4K" 1102 "DIRECTV 4K Homepage" "DIRECTV 4K" "4KHome.ch" "7916" "DIRECTV4K_LINK"
"4K" 1102 "DIRECTV 4K Homepage" "DIRECTV 4K" "4KHome.ch" "7917" "DIRECTV4K_LINK"


----------



## patmurphey

jburns said:


> Got it. I assume if i have Direc come and do what they do to set it up, I could have it on my TV that is directly connected to the HR34. Or am I wrong about that as well. I do have NetFlix so I'll settle for theirs for a while. I was just trying to broaden my options.
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to reply. I appreciate it.
> 
> Can you use the RVU connection and the Genie connected to the same TV? They are different inputs that you could switch between, right?


----------



## Laxguy

patmurphey said:


> Can you use the RVU connection and the Genie connected to the same TV? They are different inputs that you could switch between, right?


Can't think of a reason why not, unless the TV is pretty old, lacking connections- then it wouldn't be an RVU capable set, would it?!


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> just found - yes, 4K Push VOD channels are 8500-8504
> and a few more channels:
> !DTV 9051 4K CTO 4K Romulo Test channel
> !4K 1101 DIRECTV 4K DIRECTV 4K Homepage
> "*4KTest" 1103 "DIRECTV 4K TEST Homepage" "DTV 4K TEST" "4KHomeTest.ch" "7914" "DIRECTV4KTEST_LINK"
> "*4KTest" 1103 "DIRECTV 4K TEST Homepage" "DTV 4K TEST" "4KHomeTest.ch" "7915" "DIRECTV4KTEST_LINK"
> "4K" 1102 "DIRECTV 4K Homepage" "DIRECTV 4K" "4KHome.ch" "7916" "DIRECTV4K_LINK"
> "4K" 1102 "DIRECTV 4K Homepage" "DIRECTV 4K" "4KHome.ch" "7917" "DIRECTV4K_LINK"


Any information on what sat/tpn those are carried from? I'm assuming on the ones on 103cb that don't show as having any channels on Gary's spreadsheet.


----------



## P Smith

that would be Gary's "cap of tea"...


----------



## Drew2k

patmurphey said:


> Can you use the RVU connection and the Genie connected to the same TV? They are different inputs that you could switch between, right?





Laxguy said:


> Can't think of a reason why not, unless the TV is pretty old, lacking connections- then it wouldn't be an RVU capable set, would it?!


I'm wondering if it would be problematic, though....

On the Samsung RVU TV this could be avoided by using the on-screen remote, but that is quite cumbersome. DIRECTV also recommends RVU clients use the RC71, which out of the box uses IR code set 0001 and which Genie receivers respond to by default. So if you have a Genie under your RVU TV and tune to the RVU input on the TV, wouldn't you be sending commands directly to both the Genie directly and the RVU client in the TV?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Drew2k said:


> I'm wondering if it would be problematic, though....
> 
> On the Samsung RVU TV this could be avoided by using the on-screen remote, but that is quite cumbersome. DIRECTV also recommends RVU clients use the RC71, which out of the box uses IR code set 0001 and which Genie receivers respond to by default. So if you have a Genie under your RVU TV and tune to the RVU input on the TV, wouldn't you be sending commands directly to both the Genie directly and the RVU client in the TV?


Move the Genie to IR code set 0003?


----------



## Drew2k

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Move the Genie to IR code set 0003?


A logical choice for savvy DBSTalk readers, but I wonder if Joe Six Pack will know enough to do that, or if DIRECTV will be instructing installers setting up Samsung TVs as RVU clients to do that when the Genie is in the same room as the Samsung TV ...

So going back to the original question of "will it work in the same room": to me the answer is "no" if just want to you use it "out of the box", but it's a "yes" if you know you'll need to make a change to the Genie code set.


----------



## peds48

Drew2k said:


> I'm wondering if it would be problematic, though....
> 
> On the Samsung RVU TV this could be avoided by using the on-screen remote, but that is quite cumbersome. DIRECTV also recommends RVU clients use the RC71, which out of the box uses IR code set 0001 and which Genie receivers respond to by default. So if you have a Genie under your RVU TV and tune to the RVU input on the TV, wouldn't you be sending commands directly to both the Genie directly and the RVU client in the TV?


No, the remote gets programmed as a full Samsung remote for RVU operation, in this case the code is 54000 for the RC71/2


----------



## peds48

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Move the Genie to IR code set 0003?


There is no need. See above


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> I'm wondering if it would be problematic, though....
> 
> On the Samsung RVU TV this could be avoided by using the on-screen remote, but that is quite cumbersome. DIRECTV also recommends RVU clients use the RC71, which out of the box uses IR code set 0001 and which Genie receivers respond to by default. So if you have a Genie under your RVU TV and tune to the RVU input on the TV, wouldn't you be sending commands directly to both the Genie directly and the RVU client in the TV?


Can this actually get any more confusing?

Rich


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Move the Genie to IR code set 0003?


We would know that, but we aren't normal viewers.

Rich


----------



## P Smith

Back to the topic, does someone seen these 4k dedicated channals on screen?


----------



## peds48

P Smith said:


> Back to the topic, does someone seen these 4k dedicated channals on screen?


Yes. Pretty much looks like a blue ray movie.


----------



## P Smith

Any chance to post screen shots? Guide lines, info during watching it?


----------



## inkahauts

I saw a 4k 3d demo on a lg ($6k) at a magnolia inside a best buy today. 



Wow

Wow

Wow

Sadly still Needs glasses but it was incredible. Best I have ever seen without question. Nothing else has ever even been close.


----------



## Sixto

DirecTV, Elemental Connect On 4K
Taps Vendor's File-Based Transcoding Platform

http://www.multichannel.com/news/tv-apps/directv-elemental-connect-4k/386051


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

As TV-Buying Season Arrives, 4K UHD Content Inches Toward the Home

With quotes from Mitch Wasden, senior director, engineering, digital video design, DIRECTV

http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2014/12/as-tv-buying-season-arrives-4k-uhd-content-inches-toward-the-home/


----------



## harsh

If file-based encoding is coming "as early as 2015", the live sports content that will drive widespread UHD adoption would seem to be quite a ways off.

The bellwether sporting events are the 2016 Summer Games in Rio and World Cup 2018 in Russia.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> If file-based encoding is coming "as early as 2015", the live sports content that will drive widespread UHD adoption would seem to be quite a ways off.
> 
> The bellwether sporting events are the 2016 Summer Games in Rio and World Cup 2018 in Russia.


If the Olympics is delivered to Directv in HEVC 4K as a one-off, Directv could deliver those streams to customers unmodified - it isn't like there will be a lot of 4K channels in summer 2016 so they'll have plenty of bandwidth available for a one time event. Be a good way for them to promote 4K. Probably safe to assume they'll have some real 4K receivers available by then.

However, if the Olympics is delivered that way it wouldn't mean that Directv would have the infrastructure in their broadcast centers for full time 4K live broadcasts yet - if there is no live content except for special events like the Olympics why should they invest it in when it isn't needed as the hardware will become cheaper/better the longer they wait?


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> Yes. Pretty much looks like a blue ray movie.


Is the 4K demo LEGIT / NATIVE 4K at full resolution / not overly compressed? If its heavily compressed with MPEG4, its not going to look like real 4K. A guy I work with said he is watching 4K videos on YouTube. I hardly doubt thats native 4K.

So, just for arguments sake, if you consider DirecTVs 4K to look as good as a BluRay, do you consider DirecTVs 1080p to look the same?

Just trying to get a relative scale .


----------



## slice1900

Blu Ray uses over 50 Mb/sec for 1080p24 video. Neither Netflix nor Directv nor anyone else comes close to that for their HD VoD offerings. 4K Blu Ray will use up to 110 Mb/sec for 4Kp24 video. Neither Netflix nor Directv nor anyone else will come close to that for their 4K VoD offerings.

Anyone who thinks anyone's VoD offering looks as good as Blu Ray has poor eyesight or is on crack


----------



## Aridon

But but but the company says it has 4k content so it has to be true and the people that want to sell me a TV had this cool demo


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Blu Ray uses over 50 Mb/sec for 1080p24 video. Neither Netflix nor Directv nor anyone else comes close to that for their HD VoD offerings. 4K Blu Ray will use up to 110 Mb/sec for 4Kp24 video. Neither Netflix nor Directv nor anyone else will come close to that for their 4K VoD offerings.
> 
> Anyone who thinks anyone's VoD offering looks as good as Blu Ray has poor eyesight or is on crack


Is that 110Mb/sec mpeg4 #'s or hevc #'s or "rendered to the display" #'s? Cuz hevc is "supposed" to produce a compressed stream up to 50% smaller then mpeg4 at the same "quality".


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

SledgeHammer said:


> Is that 110Mb/sec mpeg4 #'s or hevc #'s or "rendered to the display" #'s? Cuz hevc is "supposed" to produce a compressed stream up to 50% smaller then mpeg4 at the same "quality".


Correct about h264 v h265. See the link I posted on testing earlier in the thread.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Is that 110Mb/sec mpeg4 #'s or hevc #'s or "rendered to the display" #'s? Cuz hevc is "supposed" to produce a compressed stream up to 50% smaller then mpeg4 at the same "quality".


4K is has 4x more pixels than 1080p, so with double the compression ratio it will require double the bit rate. Combine that with the additional bpp and additional audio channels that 4K Blu Ray allows, and the jump from ~ 50 Mbps to ~ 110 Mbps makes perfect sense.

HEVC would produce a compressed stream 50% smaller than MPEG4 if it was used for compressing 1080p, but that's not what we're talking about here...

These numbers are "off the disc", MPEG4 compressed for Blu Ray and HEVC compressed for 4K Blu Ray (that standard is still being defined so isn't finalized yet AFAIK)


----------



## Drew2k

I know some of you live and die by the "numbers", but regardless of the actual bitrates, etc., I'm sure we can all agree that DIRECTV's "version" of 4K will still look better than today's HD, which looks better than SD, right?

I'll be happy when it gets here...


----------



## Laxguy

Drew2k said:


> I know some of you live and die by the "numbers", but regardless of the actual bitrates, etc., I'm sure we can all agree that DIRECTV's "version" of 4K will still look better than today's HD, which looks better than SD, right?
> 
> I'll be happy when it gets here...


Ditto. And that's right about looking better.

I am curious about comparing bitrates of blu-ray disks with potentials of satellite distribution.... Aren't BRDs minimally compressed ?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Drew2k said:


> I know some of you live and die by the "numbers", but regardless of the actual bitrates, etc., I'm sure we can all agree that DIRECTV's "version" of 4K will still look better than today's HD, which looks better than SD, right?
> 
> I'll be happy when it gets here...


If you listen to the naysayers, they say they cannot see the difference at any distance (even though they have not tried), so I suspect some will debate that.


----------



## slice1900

Drew2k said:


> I know some of you live and die by the "numbers", but regardless of the actual bitrates, etc., I'm sure we can all agree that DIRECTV's "version" of 4K will still look better than today's HD, which looks better than SD, right?
> 
> I'll be happy when it gets here...


Undoubtedly, but you'll be disappointed if you expect the difference will be anything like as dramatic as the difference between SD and HD - especially today's SD on Directv which has dropped considerably in quality over the years as more channels have been crowded in.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> Undoubtedly, but you'll be disappointed if you expect the difference will be anything like as dramatic as the difference between SD and HD - especially today's SD on Directv which has dropped considerably in quality over the years as more channels have been crowded in.


I doubt anyone is looking for that.

I look forward to the day when I can watch a sports mix - 6 or 8 windows at once, all in HD or 4K, on a 4K screen.


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> I know some of you live and die by the "numbers", but regardless of the actual bitrates, etc., I'm sure we can all agree that DIRECTV's "version" of 4K will still look better than today's HD, which looks better than SD, right?
> 
> I'll be happy when it gets here...


I've spent enough time looking at them to know they're the next big step up. Now, if they'd just get the chaos calmed down and make it simple plug and play, I'd jump on one. Doesn't look like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

Rich


----------



## Diana C

The interesting thing about the 4K content I've seen (and in at least one case I was able to do side by side comparison with 1080p) is that the perceived image quality improvement is not really about the resolution per se. For example, even at a distance where I should not have been able to see a difference, the 4K display looked sharper, even with 1080p content. My theory is that the denser pixel pitch on the 4K display handles aliasing better, which makes the image seem sharper.

As Rich says: once the standards settle down, and all the equipment supports the final standards, 4K sets will be the thing to buy. But unless your current set dies, or you don't mind dropping a few grand on a set that may be obsolete in a year or two, I'd wait until that happens.


----------



## inkahauts

Diana C said:


> The interesting thing about the 4K content I've seen (and in at least one case I was able to do side by side comparison with 1080p) is that the perceived image quality improvement is not really about the resolution per se. For example, even at a distance where I should not have been able to see a difference, the 4K display looked sharper, even with 1080p content. My theory is that the denser pixel pitch on the 4K display handles aliasing better, which makes the image seem sharper.
> 
> As Rich says: once the standards settle down, and all the equipment supports the final standards, 4K sets will be the thing to buy. But unless your current set dies, or you don't mind dropping a few grand on a set that may be obsolete in a year or two, I'd wait until that happens.


This. This is what I have been saying all along. And it's why you will be able to tell the difference on any size television. It's not simply resolution it's also how it deals with moving images. Smoothness of images. All of this is going to be better with 4K and in some cases is even more important than simply doubling the resolution in and of itself. I also believe the color depth is going to be better on these 4K TVs in a long run.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> The interesting thing about the 4K content I've seen (and in at least one case I was able to do side by side comparison with 1080p) is that the perceived image quality improvement is not really about the resolution per se. For example, even at a distance where I should not have been able to see a difference, the 4K display looked sharper, even with 1080p content. My theory is that the denser pixel pitch on the 4K display handles aliasing better, which makes the image seem sharper.


I didn't see this in the demo I saw that provided the best view of it. 1080p content was shown on the 4K TV with 1-to-4 pixel mapping on one half (i.e. what 1080p really looks like) and upscaled to 4K on the other half. Then 4K content was shown downscaled to 1080p with 4-to-1 mapping on one side and true 4K on the other.

In the former I could notice very little difference even up close, so I didn't see upscaling as much of a draw. Obviously I could see the difference in the latter demo up close - 4K was very impressive from a couple feet away, though at a normal viewing distance it was pretty subtle.

I think any demos that show a 4K TV and HD TV side by side are hard to make a good judgement, especially if it is in a store where they're trying to sell 4K TVs, because of course they're trying to make the difference as large as possible so they won't use the best quality HD TV, might deliberately mess up the settings a bit, might not have the best possible HD sources, etc.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Diana C said:


> The interesting thing about the 4K content I've seen (and in at least one case I was able to do side by side comparison with 1080p) is that the perceived image quality improvement is not really about the resolution per se. For example, even at a distance where I should not have been able to see a difference, the 4K display looked sharper, even with 1080p content. My theory is that the denser pixel pitch on the 4K display handles aliasing better, which makes the image seem sharper.
> 
> As Rich says: once the standards settle down, and all the equipment supports the final standards, 4K sets will be the thing to buy. But unless your current set dies, or you don't mind dropping a few grand on a set that may be obsolete in a year or two, I'd wait until that happens.


The REAL comparison that matters for 4K UHD is seeing 4K UHD content on the displays.

When the same 4K UHD content is viewed on a 4K UHD TV compared with a 1080p display...the difference is crystal clear (pun intended).

The challenge at this time is that most folks have not actually seen 4K UHD content. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to see side-by-side 4K content comparison have no difficulty seeing the difference.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> The interesting thing about the 4K content I've seen (and in at least one case I was able to do side by side comparison with 1080p) is that the perceived image quality improvement is not really about the resolution per se. For example, even at a distance where I should not have been able to see a difference, the 4K display looked sharper, even with 1080p content. My theory is that the denser pixel pitch on the 4K display handles aliasing better, which makes the image seem sharper.


Interesting, considering you were one of those insisting that was impossible when I first reported it at the beginning of this thread.


----------



## Laxguy

Diana C said:


> The interesting thing about the 4K content I've seen (and in at least one case I was able to do side by side comparison with 1080p) is that the perceived image quality improvement is not really about the resolution per se. For example, even at a distance where I should not have been able to see a difference, the 4K display looked sharper, even with 1080p content. My theory is that the denser pixel pitch on the 4K display handles aliasing better, which makes the image seem sharper.


Yes, indeed. It's not just about pixel peeping. Much less aliasing, greater color depth. We may not be able to "see" differences in the latter, and indeed, may insist there's no benefit, but apparently, we do perceive it on a subconscious level.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

http://cms.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/hevc-vs-vp-which-will-win/273598

HEVC vs. VP9: Which Will Win?
Performance depends on who you ask


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> This. This is what I have been saying all along. And it's why you will be able to tell the difference on any size television. It's not simply resolution it's also how it deals with moving images. Smoothness of images. All of this is going to be better with 4K and in some cases is even more important than simply doubling the resolution in and of itself. I also believe the color depth is going to be better on these 4K TVs in a long run.


I've found them to be remarkable. I've also found myself nearly buying one each time I look at them. I know I have to wait. I don't wait easily.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Interesting, considering you were one of those insisting that was impossible when I first reported it at the beginning of this thread.


You're right, but everything the pundits were saying led a lot of people to believe that 4K wasn't really all that good and had caveats that seemed to make it difficult to see any difference. You really have to go look at them in many different settings to see how good they are. It's always good to see a person change their mind instead of blockheadedly insisting that they are right. Mark of intelligence, I think.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://cms.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/hevc-vs-vp-which-will-win/273598
> 
> HEVC vs. VP9: Which Will Win?
> Performance depends on who you ask


Performance is irrelevant, HEVC/h.265 has already won because what gets built into hardware is what matters. VP9, like VP8 before it, will be built into in a minority of products but all of those will also have h.265 so as with VP8, Google will be the only one pushing VP9.

MPEG LA made sure the licensing terms for h.265 decoders are very simple and quite cost effective for those using them by the millions (i.e. set tops, phones, etc.) In fact, Apple already includes a h.265 decoder in the A8 SoC used in the iPhone 6 / 6 plus, and many other phones will follow in 2015.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> You're right, but everything the pundits were saying led a lot of people to believe that 4K wasn't really all that good and had caveats that seemed to make it difficult to see any difference. You really have to go look at them in many different settings to see how good they are. It's always good to see a person change their mind instead of blockheadedly insisting that they are right. Mark of intelligence, I think.
> 
> Rich


Unfortunately, at this stage in the game, seeing a 4K display in person and seeing a 4K display in person thats actually playing native 4K content are two completely different things.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SledgeHammer said:


> Unfortunately, at this stage in the game, seeing a 4K display in person and seeing a 4K display in person thats actually playing native 4K content are two completely different things.


That was my point earlier.

While those of us at CES have seen it, it's not that commonplace in retailers (yet)...but that will be changing in the months ahead during 2015.


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That was my point earlier.
> 
> While those of us at CES have seen it, it's not that commonplace in retailers (yet)...but that will be changing in the months ahead during 2015.


I have seen the same source feed both a Samsung 4K and a Sammy 1080p. But the feed wasn't in 4K. Looked really good on both sets, tho.

Rich


----------



## PolkSDA

_Taken from a post I made at another board earlier this year. It's specifically as relates to Sony 4K sets, but some here may find the comparison tools handy in person when evaluating 1080P->4K upscaling and 1080P vs 4K sets on the same content._

This may be old news to many, but some of the newer faces trying to decide on 4K sets may not be familiar with this tool.

If anyone trying to decide between various Sony 4K sets has not been to Best Buy and spent some time with the Sony interactive 4K kiosk, you REALLY need to do so. I spent about an hour at one today, digging a bit deeper than I had previously, as I hadn't realized the extent of the demo material available.

Unlike the Samsung display, which only allows you to view the native 4K loop, Sony apparently isn't afraid to let you see a variety of sources, warts and all, without having to get a salesdroid to change inputs, etc. The contents of the kiosks appear to vary by store.

For example, here is a picture of a kiosk lifted from Google:










Note the 65X900B at center and the 55X900B at lower left.

The setup at my store was different, and actually more useful:

Upper Left: 65X850B
Lower Left: 65X900B
Center: 65X950B
Upper Right: 65W950B (1080P native)
Lower Right: 70W850B (1080P native)

Now what I hadn't realized before today is that the kiosk allows you to switch between a number of different sources, running the same signal to all 5 TVs simultaneously (my apologies if I have any of these incorrect as I'm quoting from memory):

1. Native 4K demo loop
2. 4K Extended dynamic range demo
3. 4K Triluminous color demo
4. Sony Subwoofer demo (?)

Those are the main options, but if you swipe the Native 4K demo loop onto the TVs, at lower right there is a "demo other sources" button. Press on that and you get to see 1080P content upscaled, which is infinitely more useful in my opinion. I don't know if the options vary from store to store, but here are the options my store had:

1. Blu-Ray. It was a demo Blu-Ray consisting of a number of clips from different sources, including World Cup soccer, Gran Turismo VI (I think), the movie 2012 trailer, a very contrasty monochromatic Sin City-esque music video. There may be more, but those are the ones I remember.
2. ESPNHD (DirecTV)
3. VelocityHD (DirecTV)
4. FoodHD (DirecTV)
5. PalladiaHD (DirecTV)

[EDIT: I deleted the comparison of the 3 Sony sets, as apparently some view it as a Sony commercial. For those missing the point, it's NOT about Sony, but a way that you can compare either 4K on multiple sets simultaneously, and more importantly see the same 1080P content on both 4K and 1080P native sets at the same time. THAT is the point.]


----------



## Laxguy

What is your relationship with Sony?


----------



## PolkSDA

Seriously? That is what you come up with?

I said in the intro that it was from a discussion specifically on SONY 4K sets.

I was comparison shopping 4K sets throughout the month of October and there were other people asking 850B vs. 900B vs. 950B questions, so I posted the above as information on the other forum.

It's germane to this thread here as there appear to be a bunch of people asking about 1080P content on 4K sets vs. 1080P content on 1080P sets, and this allows you to compare sets and sources firsthand, something that most people don't have access to.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> What is your relationship with Sony?


Those numbers he's using, 800, 850, 900 and 950 are the processors, with 950 being the best.

Rich


----------



## WestDC

In 18 Months you will be able to get a 4K SEKI 60" at walmart for $999 :rolling: Good review :righton:


----------



## davring

> In 18 Months you will be able to get a 4K SEKI 60" at walmart for $999 :rolling: Good review :righton:


You can get a 65" 4K Seiki, if that's what you really want, at Tiger Direct for $999.00, in stock now.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8673866&Sku=FEI-102109728


----------



## WestDC

davring said:


> You can get a 65" 4K Seiki, if that's what you really want, at Tiger Direct for $999.00, in stock now.
> http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8673866&Sku=FEI-102109728


 NA!- It would have the same old 2.0 Hdmi the Newer SEKI (in 18 months) will come with 3.1 HDMI for more EYE POP than the SEKI of today :rotfl:


----------



## slice1900

A little roadmap I saw that shows the three phases for UHD (we can probably ignore the third for now, pretty sure no one will be interested in 8K anytime soon after requiring three 4K upgrades for the early adopters )

As far as I'm concerned, it starts getting interesting with phase 2 with 120 fps and HDR. I'll be skipping phase 1 since there will be little content beyond movies prior to 2017/2018 anyway....


----------



## WestDC

Here's your sign

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/lg-has-8k-monitor-on-deck-before-4k-can-become-standard/


----------



## Laxguy

PolkSDA said:


> Seriously? That is what you come up with?
> 
> I said in the intro that it was from a discussion specifically on SONY 4K sets.
> 
> I was comparison shopping 4K sets throughout the month of October and there were other people asking 850B vs. 900B vs. 950B questions, so I posted the above as information on the other forum.
> 
> It's germane to this thread here as there appear to be a bunch of people asking about 1080P content on 4K sets vs. 1080P content on 1080P sets, and this allows you to compare sets and sources firsthand, something that most people don't have access to.


All well and good, but have you any business relationship with Sony or its distributors? An easy question you could have answered with a word or two.


----------



## Laxguy

WestDC said:


> Here's your sign
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/lg-has-8k-monitor-on-deck-before-4k-can-become-standard/


8K sets were on display almost a year ago at CES. All the big guys can make them now, but no one has put them into production, nor do I think it'd be a smart move to do so now.


----------



## PolkSDA

Laxguy said:


> All well and good, but have you any business relationship with Sony or its distributors? An easy question you could have answered with a word or two.


FFS. No. Unless you consider buying a Sony HDTV "a business relationship".


----------



## knoxbh

Was at BJ's yesterday and they had a Samsung 65" curved 4k ultraHD set for $2175!!


----------



## Diana C

Laxguy said:


> 8K sets were on display almost a year ago at CES. All the big guys can make them now, but no one has put them into production, nor do I think it'd be a smart move to do so now.


Of course not...they will only roll out 8K when the price of 4K sets drop to the point that their margins get as thin as they are on 1080P sets today.


----------



## ep1974

knoxbh said:


> Was at BJ's yesterday and they had a Samsung 65" curved 4k ultraHD set for $2175!!


Saw the same TV at Costco yesterday, same price.


----------



## Oli74

I wonder when channel would switch to 1080p all my HD channels are 1080i 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Oli74 said:


> I wonder when channel would switch to 1080p all my HD channels are 1080i


perhaps when H.265 will be mature and implemented in silicon and all devices [DVR,TV,STB,BR players, etc] will have chips with it; I'm not telling you as a consumer, about encoders at content provider/sat/cable companies .as relevant part of the process


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> What is your relationship with Sony?


The idea that Sony is willing to set up these kiosks and the other manufacturers are relying on the sales people to "educate" their customers about how the TVs will perform in the real world speaks volumes.


----------



## WestDC

Laxguy said:


> 8K sets were on display almost a year ago at CES. All the big guys can make them now, but no one has put them into production, nor do I think it'd be a smart move to do so now.


Yes, I agree but in my post I was keeping in sync - as soon as one format is ON another is out the door - (example) anything 2.0 will be non supported in 18 months YMMV- SO anything 4K Now will be old school in 18 months  - Not that there is anything wrong with that :rotfl:

I applaud all the folks that run out and get the new stuff FIRST - it makes my wait that much better 

Still enjoying the 108i & 1080p/24 with same old eyes that for so many years enjoyed the Color & 480i I didn't know was no good.


----------



## slice1900

Oli74 said:


> I wonder when channel would switch to 1080p all my HD channels are 1080i


Probably never, the only way you're likely to see 1080p60 content on your HDTV is if you watch a 4Kp60 channel with a 4K receiver on your HDTV


----------



## Guest

Just re-registered....password problems!

I finally retired my 15 year old Toshiba 65" rear projection HDTV. In 1999 I was blown away by HD picture from PBS, CBS, etc. feeds on C-band satellite. Now I have Samsung 65" curved 4KTV. I got the free video pack so I had something to watch. My 13mbps DSL gives me a great 4K stream from Netflix and YouTube. So now I want to upgrade my DirecTV. I have a couple of questions.

Where does the software/firmware reside for the DirecTV function on the Samsung TV? I would think it is in the Genie or software maintenance would be a real problem. If I move my Genie to a different room and wire everything accordingly, will the DirecTV function on the Samsung be identical to that of the Genie? Does the distance between the two matter? I don't see anything about 4KTV on my Genie anymore. Is anyone watching it?

Thanks


----------



## P Smith

_Where does the software/firmware reside for the DirecTV function on the Samsung TV? _
- on both: RVU server at DTV side and RVU client at TV;
_I would think it is in the Genie or software maintenance would be a real problem._
- why you think that ?
_If I move my Genie to a different room and wire everything accordingly, will the DirecTV function on the Samsung be identical to that of the Genie?_
- you are talking about 4K processing, right ? then no, genie cannot decompress H.265 as a DVR too;
_Does the distance between the two matter? _
- nope, if you are in tech specs;
_I don't see anything about 4KTV on my Genie anymore. Is anyone watching it?_
- anymore ? have you seen some 4k channels/events before your post ? There are VOD 4K channels (see my old post with names/numbers) avalable to special customers (beta-testers?)


----------



## ep1974

Al in AZ said:


> Just re-registered....password problems!
> 
> I finally retired my 15 year old Toshiba 65" rear projection HDTV. In 1999 I was blown away by HD picture from PBS, CBS, etc. feeds on C-band satellite. Now I have Samsung 65" curved 4KTV. I got the free video pack so I had something to watch. My 13mbps DSL gives me a great 4K stream from Netflix and YouTube. So now I want to upgrade my DirecTV. I have a couple of questions.
> 
> Where does the software/firmware reside for the DirecTV function on the Samsung TV? I would think it is in the Genie or software maintenance would be a real problem. If I move my Genie to a different room and wire everything accordingly, will the DirecTV function on the Samsung be identical to that of the Genie? Does the distance between the two matter? I don't see anything about 4KTV on my Genie anymore. Is anyone watching it?
> 
> Thanks


I have a curved 55" Samsung. I was under the impression(according to Netflix) that we need 25 mbps in able to watch 4k programming. Any help out there. What is the minimum mbps that is needed to watch Netflix or Youtube 4K? Thanks.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> _I don't see anything about 4KTV on my Genie anymore. Is anyone watching it?_
> - anymore ? have you seen some 4k channels/events before your post ? There are VOD 4K channels (see my old post with names/numbers) avalable to special customers (beta-testers?)


I think those channels are what is delivering Directv's 4K VOD offering, I don't think it is any "special customers" anyone is eligible.

Delivering the programs this way is why you have to order the program the day before - there are 5 VOD streams delivered from that one transponder, which means they'll take longer than real time to deliver (longer than two hours to deliver a two hour movie) Presumably those five channels switch between the different movies offered either via schedule or depending on what customers are ordering, but if you order something and it isn't being delivered by those five channels at the time the Genie will have to wait until it is before it can start saving it for later replay to your RVU TV.


----------



## Laxguy

Al in AZ said:


> Just re-registered....password problems!
> 
> I finally retired my 15 year old Toshiba 65" rear projection HDTV. In 1999 I was blown away by HD picture from PBS, CBS, etc. feeds on C-band satellite. Now I have Samsung 65" curved 4KTV. I got the free video pack so I had something to watch. My 13mbps DSL gives me a great 4K stream from Netflix and YouTube. So now I want to upgrade my DirecTV. I have a couple of questions.
> 
> Where does the software/firmware reside for the DirecTV function on the Samsung TV? I would think it is in the Genie or software maintenance would be a real problem. If I move my Genie to a different room and wire everything accordingly, will the DirecTV function on the Samsung be identical to that of the Genie? Does the distance between the two matter? I don't see anything about 4KTV on my Genie anymore. Is anyone watching it?


Welcome to DBSTalk!

What DIRECTV gear do you currently have? For DIRECTV 4k, you'll need to set up your Sammy as an RVU client.


----------



## peds48

Laxguy said:


> Welcome to DBSTalk!
> 
> What DIRECTV gear do you currently have? For DIRECTV 4k, *you'll need to set up your Sammy as an RVU client.*


And pay six "bucks" a month for it.


----------



## Oli74

I'm thinking of buying a Sony 4K after the holidays just in time for SuperBowl but know if it's worth it since no 4K context on cable TV should I wait for a couple more years? Or should I get it now 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48

I would not jump to it just for 4K. If you need a new TV right now then go for it, but if what you seeking is 4K, then I would wait


----------



## Oli74

peds48 said:


> I would not jump to it just for 4K. If you need a new TV right now then go for it, but if what you seeking is 4K, then I would wait


I have a Sony 40in 1080p but all HD channels only have 1080i when do think they would change to 1080p?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48

Oli74 said:


> ...when do think they would change to 1080p?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


IMO, never


----------



## Rich

Oli74 said:


> I'm thinking of buying a Sony 4K after the holidays just in time for SuperBowl but know if it's worth it since no 4K context on cable TV should I wait for a couple more years? Or should I get it now
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Have patience. Wait for everything to settle down. Wait until 4K delivery becomes simple, just plug and play.

Rich


----------



## P Smith

Oli74 said:


> I have a Sony 40in 1080p but all HD channels only have 1080i when do think they would change to 1080p?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


can't keep track of your questions ?  recently you did ask the same q


----------



## Oli74

P Smith said:


> can't keep track of your questions ?  recently you did ask the same q


Duh lol sorry

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ep1974

peds48 said:


> I would not jump to it just for 4K. If you need a new TV right now then go for it, but if what you seeking is 4K, then I would wait


I would agree. I needed a new set so that's why I purchased a 55" 4K Samsung. If you do purchase one however, you won't be disappointed. They upscale everything to near 4K quality, or so they say. I'm not so sure about that, but the picture is very very good.


----------



## slice1900

ep1974 said:


> I would agree. I needed a new set so that's why I purchased a 55" 4K Samsung. If you do purchase one however, you won't be disappointed. They upscale everything to near 4K quality, or so they say. I'm not so sure about that, but the picture is very very good.


Why would anyone bother with 4K broadcasts if that was true? For that matter, why would anyoen have bothered with HD broadcasts, if SD upscaled on a HDTV was "near HD quality"? :rotfl:


----------



## James Long

4K quality is not that far from HD quality. Especially when people are not getting full benefit from 4K by not having a large enough set for their viewing distance. "Near 4K quality" would be closer to HD than actual 4K quality. When the issue is built around perception the difference in quality becomes opinion.

The initial quality of the source and every step it goes through needs to be taken into consideration. A full quality SD signal upconverted to HD was the way we got HD on many channels for most of the programming day. Now we are fortunate to have more shows produced in HD (or close to HD).

Upconverting DirecTV's SD feeds would not give the same results due to the levels of compression DirecTV uses on SD feeds. One of the early benefits of HD channels on DirecTV was not just the HD content that eventually filled the programming day, but the additional bandwidth allotted to SD upconverts being transmitted as HD.


----------



## ep1974

slice1900 said:


> Why would anyone bother with 4K broadcasts if that was true? For that matter, why would anyoen have bothered with HD broadcasts, if SD upscaled on a HDTV was "near HD quality"? :rotfl:


I said that's what Samsung "claims" about upscaling. Regardless, IMO still a much sharper picture than my previous TV.


----------



## harsh

Al in AZ said:


> If I move my Genie to a different room and wire everything accordingly, will the DirecTV function on the Samsung be identical to that of the Genie? Does the distance between the two matter?


RVU clients don't offer all of the functionality of the Genie. The most obvious omission is PIP.

The distance doesn't much matter unless you get too many of the wrong kind of splitters involved.


----------



## patmurphey

If you have decent internet speed and data limits (mine is 25mbps DSL, no limit), the DirecTV 4k seems like a waste. With a Samsung 2014 4k TV, the Netflix app offers more movies several good TV series including the just out Marco Polo, and all future Netflix TV series in 4k for a modest monthly increase. The Amazon app offers some movies and TV series free to Prime customers plus a good selection of movies for purchase. Youtube also has 4k viewing. I suspect that more streaming services will jump on the bandwagon. The internet 4k streaming has run perfectly for me and starts in seconds - no overnight download of limited pay VOD offerings.

Good satellite 4k is a long way off. I doubt that my provider, Dish, will have anything decent to offer, either. But 4k on my Black Friday $597 Samsung 4k set is here with a vengeance.


----------



## Laxguy

Do either Amazon or Netflix (or Youtube) offer anyway to download 4K content for those of us in the boonies with low d/l speeds? I expect by the time I get a 4k set, DIRECTV® will be further along the pike with its offerings, but I'd like all of them.


----------



## Rambler

Nope.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Do either Amazon or Netflix (or Youtube) offer anyway to download 4K content for those of us in the boonies with low d/l speeds? I expect by the time I get a 4k set, DIRECTV® will be further along the pike with its offerings, but I'd like all of them.


Is there no cable provider in your area?

Rich


----------



## Al K

Laxguy said:


> Welcome to DBSTalk!
> 
> What DIRECTV gear do you currently have? For DIRECTV 4k, you'll need to set up your Sammy as an RVU client.


Sorry, I had to re-re-register because the site won't let me in.

I have an HR44 and a 2014 Samsung TV.


----------



## Al K

formerly Al in AZ

I have been pleasantly surprised at my ability to find and watch 4K material. M-GO offers movies for rent or purchase and you can even download them to a Samsung UHD video pack. Amazon and HBO will offer 4K soon. I think online streaming is probably the best way to go for now, and maybe for a long time. Netflix just started the new series Marco Polo which is good example of what 4K can do.

As I said in my "Al in AZ" post, I upgraded from a 15 year old rear projection HDTV to the Samsung 4KTV, and everything looks better to me. I can't tell how much of the improvement in HD quality comes from the 4KTV and how much is from the age of my old TV.

Early next year I will have DirecTV come out and set my TV as an RVU client and I hope my results are encouraging as online streaming has been.


----------



## Laxguy

Al in PHX said:


> formerly Al in AZ
> 
> I have been pleasantly surprised at my ability to find and watch 4K material. M-GO offers movies for rent or purchase and you can even download them to a Samsung UHD video pack. Amazon and HBO will offer 4K soon. I think online streaming is probably the best way to go for now, and maybe for a long time. Netflix just started the new series Marco Polo which is good example of what 4K can do.
> 
> As I said in my "Al in AZ" post, I upgraded from a 15 year old rear projection HDTV to the Samsung 4KTV, and everything looks better to me. I can't tell how much of the improvement in HD quality comes from the 4KTV and how much is from the age of my old TV.
> 
> Early next year I will have DirecTV come out and set my TV as an RVU client and I hope my results are encouraging as online streaming has been.


A large part of the bump comes from ditching a 720 rear projector to going to a modern flat screen (or curved!) HD, and the bump to 4K upscaled is the icing on the cake.

Please tell more about M-GO and downloading to the Sammy video pack!


----------



## Oli74

Al in PHX said:


> What's is a RVU client?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Al K

Laxguy said:


> A large part of the bump comes from ditching a 720 rear projector to going to a modern flat screen (or curved!) HD, and the bump to 4K upscaled is the icing on the cake.
> 
> Please tell more about M-GO and downloading to the Sammy video pack!


The M-GO app on the Sammy Smart TV has 32 4K titles. The app can read and write to the video pack. The pack has 1 terabyte of memory. Using th M-GO app, it says that I have 500 gigabytes left.

The movies can be purchased or rented. The latest Sin City movie can be rented for $4.99 and bought for $13.99. The latest X-Men can be bought for $29.99. There is no rental price listed. I'm assuming that if I buy a movie that it ends up on the video pack.

The M-GO website will shed a little more light on the subject.


----------



## Al K

Oli74 said:


> What's is a RVU client?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It means that the Samsung TV can act like a DirecTV receiver. It will respond to a DTV remote and take the place a DTV receiver (no need to lease another receiver, but you get charged $6 a month). This is the only way one can watch DTV's 4K material. Only 2014 Samsung 4KTVs will work.


----------



## Oli74

Al in PHX said:


> It means that the Samsung TV can act like a DirecTV receiver. It will respond to a DTV remote and take the place a DTV receiver (no need to lease another receiver, but you get charged $6 a month). This is the only way one can watch DTV's 4K material. Only 2014 Samsung 4KTVs will work.


Would it work if I get a Sony 4K?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

Al in PHX said:


> It means that the Samsung TV can act like a DirecTV receiver. It will respond to a DTV remote and take the place a DTV receiver (no need to lease another receiver, but you get charged $6 a month). This is the only way one can watch DTV's 4K material. Only 2014 Samsung 4KTVs will work.


It's the equivalent of a Genie client, which many call a "Genie Mini", but it is not a receiver by itself-neither are the clients; they must be paired with a Genie.


----------



## Laxguy

Oli74 said:


> Would it work if I get a Sony 4K?


Not today, but I'd be surprised if Sony doesn't complete a 4K RVU.


----------



## slice1900

Oli74 said:


> Would it work if I get a Sony 4K?


I have no idea if/whether Sony will support RVU, but remember this matters today ONLY for Directv's 4K VOD offering. If you want to watch actual 4K channels, you will be able to use any 4K TV, but you'll need to wait for them to come out with receivers that can output 4K via HDMI - none of the Genies, clients or anything else can. Of course when they have a new Genie/clients that can do this, you'd obviously be able to watch Directv's VOD using it, too.

If I were you, I'd get whatever brand of TV you want and use Netflix or Amazon for 4K VOD if the TV you happen to own isn't compatible with Directv's version today. Or better yet, wait until TVs that will definitely be compatible with 60fps 4K come out. So far as we're aware, no 4K TV you can buy today is.


----------



## Rich

LG has announced a new technology (Sony has it too) that might be far better than LCDs for 4K. We might want to wait for that to come down before jumping on a new 4K set too soon.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> It's the equivalent of a Genie client, which many call a "Genie Mini", but it is not a receiver by itself-neither are the clients; they must be paired with a Genie.


This is just what bothers me about this whole 4K thing. I don't want any receivers in my home that don't have a hard drive and the capability to record content. And I certainly don't need a Genie. I don't like being told what to buy, even tho I have pretty much decided to go the Samsung route when I do buy the 4K set. When, and if, D* gets their..stuff together, and we can just buy any 4K set without having to have special equipment (if NF and Amazon can do it, why can't D*?) then and only then will I jump.

Rich


----------



## P Smith

Rich said:


> LG has announced a new technology (Sony has it too) that might be far better than LCDs for 4K. We might want to wait for that to come down before jumping on a new 4K set too soon.
> 
> Rich


Any details of the new technology ?


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> LG has announced a new technology (Sony has it too) that might be far better than LCDs for 4K. We might want to wait for that to come down before jumping on a new 4K set too soon.


Don't be fooled by LG's announcement. Like TV makers tried to fool people into thinking they were buying "LED" TVs to capitalize on future promise of OLED TVs, LG is trying to claim they'll be selling quantum dot TVs. Just like LED TVs were LCDs with LED backlights, LG's quantum dot TVs are LCDs with LED backlight and some quantum dot crystals added that extend the color range (but keep in mind, there are no BT.2020 sources yet)

The real quantum dot TVs will be using a totally different technology that uses self illuminating quantum dots - no LCD, no backlight. They will be far superior to any LCD/LED or whatever LG marketing is calling this. Superior even to OLED. We'll probably have to wait a few years for them, but don't be fooled that what they're going to be selling next year is anything but yet another warmed over LCD panel marketers are trying to make people think is a breakthrough.

I've seen the two distinguished as QLED (for LG's fake quantum dot panel) and QDLED (for the real thing that isn't available yet) but I don't know if that will survive. Nothing would stop LG from trying to call theirs QDLED. It is like how the meaning of 3G and 4G was taken over by cellular company marketers. We didn't get real 3G under the official ITU definition until AT&T started deploying HSPA+, but they called that 4G because Verizon was already deploying LTE which they called 4G. Even the fastest LTE deployed today wouldn't qualify as 4G under the ITU definition. When they start deploying LTE Advanced, we'll finally be getting true 4G, but I wouldn't be shocked if the cellular companies market that as 5G! :nono2:


----------



## Aridon

Yeah a lot of what you hear is marketing baloney to move sets. It's hard to sell new TVs when people are /yawn at your product and the one they have at home works just fine. Always have to hype it up.

Cell phones do the same thing and that is another market that will see their 300% mark up dwindle to near nothing as consumers feel no compelling reason to drop $700 every year on a tiny update.


----------



## peds48

Aridon said:


> Cell phones do the same thing and that is another market that will see their 300% mark up dwindle to near nothing as consumers feel no compelling reason to drop $700 every year on a tiny update.


Apple will beg to differ... They will spice it up just a bit to warrant an upgrade...


----------



## Laxguy

peds48 said:


> Apple will beg to differ... They will spice it up just a bit to warrant an upgrade...


It's often been a lot more than "a bit"! For me, the iPhone upgrade from 5S to 6+ was huge. YMMV.


----------



## peds48

Laxguy said:


> It's often been a lot more than "a bit"! For me, the iPhone upgrade from 5S to 6+ was huge. YMMV.


I was referring to something like the 5 to 5S, adding the Touch ID was "just enough" to make folks wanted to upgrade. Of course from the 5S to the 6 was a HUGE (pun intended) improvement !


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> It's often been a lot more than "a bit"! For me, the iPhone upgrade from 5S to 6+ was huge. YMMV.


To 6*+* was huge ... not exactly pocket sized - unless one has big pockets.

The 6 is more popular among the people I know ... and I know a couple of people who decided to buy a 5S instead of a 6 within the past month. Most of the people I know who would consider the larger 6+ just buy a Samsung S5 or the new Note 4.


----------



## Oli74

peds48 said:


> I was referring to something like the 5 to 5S, adding the Touch ID was "just enough" to make folks wanted to upgrade. Of course from the 5S to the 6 was a HUGE (pun intended) improvement !


I upgraded from the 4S to the 6 and of course I see a huge difference the phone I ever had to date. 
Now let's stay to the topic of 4K on D

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Can we please get back to the topic? Isn't about 4k tv?


----------



## Rich

P Smith said:


> Any details of the new technology ?


I would have posted a link if I could have remembered where I read it. Apparently, Sony also has it. I'll try to find it.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

P Smith said:


> Can we please get back to the topic? Isn't about 4k tv?


When whinging about tangents, the way to get back on topic is to:

*Post something of interest that is on topic.*


----------



## P Smith

Laxguy said:


> When whinging about tangents, the way to get back on topic is to:
> 
> *Post something of interest that is on topic.*


If I'll have it - I'll post it, to opposite to these who have nothing to post on topic and derailing the thread.


----------



## Drew2k

Rich said:


> I would have posted a link if I could have remembered where I read it. Apparently, Sony also has it. I'll try to find it.
> 
> Rich


I had read this on Engadget a few days ago: http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/15/lg-4k-quantum-dot-hdtv/


----------



## Aridon

P Smith said:


> If I'll have it - I'll post it, to opposite to these who have nothing to post on topic and derailing the thread.


So much better than the actual derail?


----------



## Laxguy

P Smith said:


> If I'll have it - I'll post it, to opposite to these who have nothing to post on topic and derailing the thread.


I think you missed the point!

Your "Get back on topic" posts do nothing to get back on topic, and are a nuisance, a waste of pixels.

Please leave the moderation to the Moderators.


----------



## Al K

Today I found two more sources of 4K material online. I went into the Samsung "Smart Hub" on my TV and found Xfinity and Ultraflix. Xfinity is the Comcast online site and I couldn't get on it. Ultraflix has a ton of material, but the movies are ones you never heard of starring people you never heard of. It does have stuff worth watching, and even has some porn. A few titles are short and offered for free. I had trouble with streaming and had to wait a few times for buffering. They let you select the maximum data rate for the stream. I used "auto" and "15 mbps" with the same results. My actual max is 13 mbps. An online article about this site says "NanoTech's streaming 4K UHD software archives up to 50 percent better compression than with H.264; effectively delivering the same 4K Ultra HD quality at nearly half the bitrate. The site is the only one with which I have had data rate problems. I'm going to play around with the settings, but it may be there compression scheme.

It would be nice to have a site that lists all of the online sources of 4K material.


----------



## MrLatte

How do these RVU Samsung 4K TVs connect to the Genie exactly? Do they require an external DECA so the coax goes to the DECA then an ethernet cable connects to the TV? Or does the coax connect directly to the TV?


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> I had read this on Engadget a few days ago: http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/15/lg-4k-quantum-dot-hdtv/


I think I read about it in the NY Daily News. I'd search for the article, but you've covered all that the News had to say. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> I had read this on Engadget a few days ago: http://www.engadget.com/2014/12/15/lg-4k-quantum-dot-hdtv/


This is just another thing that cries out to me to wait. Too much happening at once to know exactly what choices to make.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

MrLatte said:


> How do these RVU Samsung 4K TVs connect to the Genie exactly? Do they require an external DECA so the coax goes to the DECA then an ethernet cable connects to the TV? Or does the coax connect directly to the TV?


Via ethernet from the Genie! Coax to the Genie.

Call me: Mr. Cappuccino....


----------



## Sixto

MrLatte said:


> How do these RVU Samsung 4K TVs connect to the Genie exactly? Do they require an external DECA so the coax goes to the DECA then an ethernet cable connects to the TV? Or does the coax connect directly to the TV?


Yes, if you want to keep the TV within the DECA cloud, it can be external DECA-to-Ethernet to TV. I think this is the preferred official DirecTV setup.

It can also be Ethernet from the Switch (or Router) directly to the TV, with the traffic crossing the CCK bridge if the Genie is not Ethernet connected.

There's also more complicated wireless options.


----------



## hasan

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Interesting, considering you were one of those insisting that was impossible when I first reported it at the beginning of this thread.


I had a similar thought, but held my tongue. I reported my experience in a store, saying I could clearly see a difference at 12 to 15 feet, and was roundly discredited as having gone off my meds.
I said back then, SOMETHING is going on, separate from raw pixels. I stand guilty of being prematurely correct. :cheers2:

I do think Diana's assessment is correct, as is Rich's. Now is not the time to buy. Patience will pay off in performance, compatibility and price.

It helps to have both a sense of humor and a long memory in these discussions.


----------



## harsh

hasan said:


> Now is not the time to buy. Patience will pay off in performance, compatibility and price.


If you have sufficient discipline, this is pretty much always the case.

UHD is even more rarified as the technology remains significantly undefined in terms of delivery.

Color and 3D were incremental changes on the technology of the day. HD and UHD are fairly large leaps.


----------



## Laxguy

hasan said:


> I had a similar thought, but held my tongue. I reported my experience in a store, saying I could clearly see a difference at 12 to 15 feet, and was roundly discredited as having gone off my meds.
> I said back then, SOMETHING is going on, separate from raw pixels. I stand guilty of being prematurely correct. :cheers2:


Maybe not entirely "roundly"!

Can't disagree that it's premature to buy one, though I may go off prematurely on this one.

I'd really like a very small (24-28") TV, but I see only monitors of that size in full UHD, at least in the Samsung line. Maybe I'll dredge out my old LaCie Electron Blue CRT, which has 2048 x 1536 pixels.


----------



## Rich

hasan said:


> I had a similar thought, but held my tongue. I reported my experience in a store, saying I could clearly see a difference at 12 to 15 feet, and was roundly discredited as having gone off my meds.
> I said back then, SOMETHING is going on, separate from raw pixels. I stand guilty of being prematurely correct. :cheers2:
> 
> I do think Diana's assessment is correct, as is Rich's. Now is not the time to buy. Patience will pay off in performance, compatibility and price.
> 
> It helps to have both a sense of humor and a long memory in these discussions.


I've struggled to understand the posts in this thread. I just don't have the background for complete understanding of the more complicated aspects. But, as usual, I've learned enough to know what to look for, sorta. Like you, I also could see the difference in sets from a distance, but the constant hammering, not just from this forum but from all the pundits, about the distance being critical, gave me reason to doubt what I was seeing. Then I came to my senses and believed what I was seeing. And what I was seeing conflicted with what the pundits were saying.

Rich


----------



## James Long

Rich said:


> Like you, I also could see the difference in sets from a distance, but the constant hammering, not just from this forum but from all the pundits, about the distance being critical, gave me reason to doubt what I was seeing. Then I came to my senses and believed what I was seeing. And what I was seeing conflicted with what the pundits were saying.


I believe you (and others) saw *A* difference between the sets from a distance ... but I wonder if UHD was the difference. For years people have walked into stores, stood too far away from TV sets and said "that display is better than that other display" - when both displays were HD. With both displays being HD one had to look for another explanation of why one was better than the other. It is too easy to assume that "4K" or "UHD" is the reason. If I were in retail I'd probably put a HD TV next to the 4K/UHD TV that made the more expensive 4K/UHD TV look as good as possible.

I would not be surprised to hear people see that a 4K/UHD TV was better and later find out that they were watching a HD source. It was simply a better TV than the HD set they were comparing it to. If it is a 4K/UHD source how is it downconverted for the HD TV? Is part of the signal quality being lost in the conversion? Something that would take the quality below the best HD signal?

And at the end of the day ... will we be receiving the same high quality 4K/UHD sources used by stores to sell 4K/UHD TVs in our homes? Seeing the commercial for UHD that showed a live sporting event with everybody amazed by the screen sells TVs ... but where are the live sporting events in UHD? It is practically false advertising. Perhaps some day a signal like that will be delivered to people's homes ... but not by Christmas.


----------



## harsh

There was a time when HD was relatively mature that we all understood and acknowledged what torch mode was and how and why it was used. Perhaps what some perceive as "brighter" or "sharper" or "more saturated" are simply adjusted to appear that way relative to the other TVs. ISF calibration probably isn't running rampant in the UHD TV market; especially when we suspect that the differences between the panels reside mostly in the pixel density.

The physics of optometry are relatively immutable but the marketing of same is subject to tampering with the "constants".


----------



## yosoyellobo

To me getting a 4k TV will be a no brainer the the I go to best buy and see the game of the week live on a Visio 60" for less than 1k.


----------



## Aridon

James Long said:


> I believe you (and others) saw *A* difference between the sets from a distance ... but I wonder if UHD was the difference. For years people have walked into stores, stood too far away from TV sets and said "that display is better than that other display" - when both displays were HD. With both displays being HD one had to look for another explanation of why one was better than the other. It is too easy to assume that "4K" or "UHD" is the reason. If I were in retail I'd probably put a HD TV next to the 4K/UHD TV that made the more expensive 4K/UHD TV look as good as possible.


This. Go into any store and look at the sets and quality is all over the place.

The companies know this and their floor plans are placed accordingly.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Laxguy said:


> Do either Amazon or Netflix (or Youtube) offer anyway to download 4K content for those of us in the boonies with low d/l speeds? I expect by the time I get a 4k set, DIRECTV® will be further along the pike with its offerings, but I'd like all of them.


If you read this article and understand the implications, ALL 4k internet delivery could be in peril.

http://4k.com/news/netflix-upload-traffic-mysteriously-increases-with-possible-consequences-for-streaming-quality-4688/


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Comcast starts DirecTV similar 4K VOD and adds ability to watch NBC and USA Current Series in 4K.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/ultra-hd-finally-evolves-beyond-ces-hype-and-real-products/2014-12-22

But this fall has seen a steady drumbeat of Ultra HD programming announcements and studies, suggesting consumer demand and shipments are on the rise.

We had more major indicators this week, when Comcast rolled out its new Ultra HD programming service, complete with current shows from two major networks.

In the pay-TV business, this was the biggest step yet in terms of the development of 4K/Ultra HD into a mainstream consumer standard, trumping DirecTV's rollout in November of a handful of older Paramount movies and assorted nature documentaries.

Comcast's service launches as a somewhat realized product, enabling subscribers to watch full lineups of current series on NBC and USA Network in Ultra HD format.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

hasan said:


> I had a similar thought, but held my tongue. I reported my experience in a store, saying I could clearly see a difference at 12 to 15 feet, and was roundly discredited as having gone off my meds.
> I said back then, SOMETHING is going on, separate from raw pixels. I stand guilty of being prematurely correct. :cheers2:
> 
> I do think Diana's assessment is correct, as is Rich's. Now is not the time to buy. Patience will pay off in performance, compatibility and price.
> 
> It helps to have both a sense of humor and a long memory in these discussions.


As I pointed out in several posts months ago, just like people that made statements about audio without going in and listening with their own ears - as more people actually go in and see with their own eyes what I posted at the beginning of the this thread (and now others including yourself have witnessed for yourself), there is clearly something going on with UHD.

As I saw it from a good distance away the first time, I had no pre-conceived notion that it was UHD and had to be better, as I did not know it was a 4k TV. I saw the TV from across the store and simply walked over to find out why that TV looked so much better from that extreme distance than all the others around it.

As also posted much earlier, new tech brings about measurements that the Engineering side had never to bother measuring in the past. From TIM or IM distortion with transistors to digital jitter with CDs. Those who did not listen to the technical people about how the sound was perfect and pointed out the issues. Years later, those became standard tests as Engineers found out there was indeed something going on.

Years ago schools taught that Proton, Neutrons and Electrons were the smallest items everything was made up. Try telling that to anyone today in Science.

Perhaps there is something else going on. Or perhaps it is as simple as the expanded color gamut, even though many HD TVs had this ability (but literally no source material).

But congrats on using your eyes to view and make up your own mind, despite what others would want you to believe is impossible.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Saving Bandwidth Before and After Compression
Pre- and post-processing is gaining favor to complement file size reduction.

When it comes to preserving bandwidth for multichannel distribution of video, much of the discussion has centered on new compression algorithms (H.264 AVC and H.265 HEVC) that reduce bits and maintain image quality. That's because less data enables faster transfers, requires less storage space and allows lower operation costs while providing the opportunity to add more streams and channels for higher revenue.

Several content providers are working with technology suppliers to develop workflows that process content before (Digital Rapids and Faroudja Enterprises) and after (Cinova) the compression stage. These approaches, they say, realize an even greater bandwidth reduction by identifying redundant bits and making adjustments in software accordingly. Perhaps the best part, the technology works with all existing infrastructures, so wholesale equipment upgrades (set-top boxes and other decoding devices) are not necessary when migrating to the latest compression tools.

http://www.videoedge.net/news/research-development/saving-bandwidth-and-after-compression/359612


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

4K is Here, and It's a Game Changer for Live Events

By Les Goldberg, CEO of LMG, one of the world's top AV staging companies.

Every now and then a technology comes along that changes everything. On these rare occasions, we see the industry shift in a direction where the standards in how we support live events are altered, and the bar is raised in our perception of quality. This type of change is upon us once again, in the form of 4K Ultra HD.

http://www.avnetwork.com/av-technology/0002/4k-is-here-and-its-a-game-changer-for-live-events/94274


----------



## Laxguy

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you read this article and understand the implications, ALL 4k internet delivery could be in peril.
> 
> http://4k.com/news/netflix-upload-traffic-mysteriously-increases-with-possible-consequences-for-streaming-quality-4688/


Heh. Well, if the article is true, it'll be true whether or not I read it! 

I will read it. Thanks for the link.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> Heh. Well, if the article is true, it'll be true whether or not I read it!
> 
> I will read it. Thanks for the link.


Not to worry....every time a new platform is proposed and launched...there are plenty of technology format "shiny new things" that come along during the early phases.

That doesn't mean each of those "shiny things" will be adopted, even if they have upside...as others may have the same or more upside as well.

It's all normal in the lifecycle of new technology - we saw the very same thing with compression modes in HDTV, as well as other elements of the delivery. HDMI 2.x standards are nearing their finalization for 4K UHD...just one example.

As others have stated, 2015 will be a tipping point on 4K UHD in terms of standards, content production, and the related technologies.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you read this article and understand the implications, ALL 4k internet delivery could be in peril.http://4k.com/news/netflix-upload-traffic-mysteriously-increases-with-possible-consequences-for-streaming-quality-4688/


It seems to me that this article points out the problem with "cord-cutting" and cloud based DVRs. When significant numbers of users are streaming video to their TVs the bandwidth required goes through the roof. Today, less than 10% of TV households have no linear video service...what happens when that reaches 20%, or even 30%? We have already seen pushback from Verizon and Comcast on upgrades to peering nodes, forcing Netflix to pay for the upgrades. Now Amazon traffic is suffering with overloaded peering nodes. The Internet can't handle a doubling or tripling of the video load, which will happen if UHD streaming becomes common. Multi-casting would solve the problem, but forces us back to a linear broadcast model. If everyone started streaming video every evening the capacity of the Internet would have to increase by at least an order of magnitude. That will cost a LOT of money. Who is going to pay?


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> If you read this article and understand the implications, ALL 4k internet delivery could be in peril.
> 
> http://4k.com/news/netflix-upload-traffic-mysteriously-increases-with-possible-consequences-for-streaming-quality-4688/


Yet another reason to wait.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

So, a while ago there was a discussion in this thread with a guy who bought the Samsung "upgradable" 4K TV and said he was 100% sure it was future proof because of the One Connect box. Well, world on the street from what I'm reading is that CES will be the day everybody trots out the quantum dot 4K sets. Not sure how Samsung is going to upgrade an LED screen to quantum dot, but like Rich said... "Yet another reason to wait". If you aren't buy a full spec HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 quantum dot set... Plasma is officially dead and Samsung just announced they are pretty much dumping OLED for Quantum Dot. That leaves LG as the only OLED manafacturer... not to mention people aren't buying the curved screen concept.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> So, a while ago there was a discussion in this thread with a guy who bought the Samsung "upgradable" 4K TV and said he was 100% sure it was future proof because of the One Connect box. Well, world on the street from what I'm reading is that CES will be the day everybody trots out the quantum dot 4K sets. Not sure how Samsung is going to upgrade an LED screen to quantum dot, but like Rich said... "Yet another reason to wait". If you aren't buy a full spec HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 quantum dot set... Plasma is officially dead and Samsung just announced they are pretty much dumping OLED for Quantum Dot. That leaves LG as the only OLED manafacturer... not to mention people aren't buying the curved screen concept.


I hope you realize the "quantum dot" displays they are rolling out now and will be hyping at CES are NOT the ones that are better than OLED. The ones they're rolling out now are same old same old LCDs, with an LED backlight. The quantum dots are added to the LCD crystals to give it a wider color range, that's it.

The _real_ quantum dot displays are still a few years out. Those will use self illuminating quantum dots so they'll have the perfect blacks of plasma/OLED, the perfect color reproduction of plasma (which OLED can't come close to) but avoid plasma's downfall of power draw by using less power than any other display technology. That is what will finally make me replace my plasma. By then there might actually be some real 4K content other than movies and demos...


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> I hope you realize the "quantum dot" displays they are rolling out now and will be hyping at CES are NOT the ones that are better than OLED. The ones they're rolling out now are same old same old LCDs, with an LED backlight. The quantum dots are added to the LCD crystals to give it a wider color range, that's it.
> 
> The _real_ quantum dot displays are still a few years out. Those will use self illuminating quantum dots so they'll have the perfect blacks of plasma/OLED, the perfect color reproduction of plasma (which OLED can't come close to) but avoid plasma's downfall of power draw by using less power than any other display technology. That is what will finally make me replace my plasma. By then there might actually be some real 4K content other than movies and demos...


I currently have a 1080p plasma. Unfortunately, plasma is dead. OLED is pretty much dead too. I certainly wouldn't buy a curved TV. Nothing else to really get. LCD or QD. QD is better then LCD, but its only the first gen, so it'll improve over time..

But yeah, I won't get a 4K TV until all the assorted equipment is out and there is native 4K content in some form.

Seems like there will be though... much more interest in 4K then the various other DOA technologies like 3D and Atmos.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> I hope you realize the "quantum dot" displays they are rolling out now and will be hyping at CES are NOT the ones that are better than OLED. The ones they're rolling out now are same old same old LCDs, with an LED backlight. The quantum dots are added to the LCD crystals to give it a wider color range, that's it.
> 
> The _real_ quantum dot displays are still a few years out. Those will use self illuminating quantum dots so they'll have the perfect blacks of plasma/OLED, the perfect color reproduction of plasma (which OLED can't come close to) but avoid plasma's downfall of power draw by using less power than any other display technology. That is what will finally make me replace my plasma. *By then there might actually be some real 4K content other than movies and demos..*.


By then the 8k sets will be where we are with 4k sets are today.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> By then the 8k sets will be where we are with 4k sets are today.


Yes, but I really doubt anyone is going to care about 8K. Most theatres with digital projection equipment don't even project 4K, just "2K" (i.e. 2048x1080)

You'd think all these people who think 4K is a must for 65" screens would complain about the terrible picture on the 500" screen in their local theatre


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Yes, but I really doubt anyone is going to care about 8K. Most theatres with digital projection equipment don't even project 4K, just "2K" (i.e. 2048x1080)
> 
> You'd think all these people who think 4K is a must for 65" screens would complain about the terrible picture on the 500" screen in their local theatre


Hard to say. People said 720p was "good enough" with the half-assed first gen sets. They claimed you couldn't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. I know people who still have 720p sets (that aren't even set up correctly!), so... People are saying the same thing about 1080p vs. 4K even when there is really no native content beyond demo reels. Most people who are not educated (about video) just assume all video sources are created equal. So hooking up a VCR to a 4K TV is watching 4K .

4K just feels like it has a lot of hype / momentum behind it whereas 3D and Dolby Atmos didn't/don't. I think I read somewhere that 5.1 is still like 95+% of the market. Problem with Dolby Atmos is the low WAF . 3D, who wants to sit and wear glasses for 2 hours?

Dunno if 8K will take off... the bandwidth / storage capacity / cost per MB just isn't there. You're really going to need OAM multiplexing or something similiar to work in a big way to really get past 1080p.


----------



## Drew2k

SledgeHammer said:


> So, a while ago there was a discussion in this thread with a guy who bought the Samsung "upgradable" 4K TV and said he was 100% sure it was future proof because of the One Connect box. Well, world on the street from what I'm reading is that CES will be the day everybody trots out the quantum dot 4K sets. Not sure how Samsung is going to upgrade an LED screen to quantum dot, but like Rich said... "Yet another reason to wait". If you aren't buy a full spec HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 quantum dot set... Plasma is officially dead and Samsung just announced they are pretty much dumping OLED for Quantum Dot. That leaves LG as the only OLED manafacturer... not to mention people aren't buying the curved screen concept.


I think you may be mis-remembering the discussion or maybe don't understand the function the One Connect box provides. For starters, it's the CPU, memory, and ports. It obviously can't upgrade a display panel, and is not intended to. What it will do, assuming Samsung fulfills their promise to make and sell new One Connect boxes, is to allow the customer to move to the latest version of HDMI, for example, when it's finally ready.

Customers need to think of the Samsung TVs that come with One Connect boxes more like a PC: there's a monitor (the big expense) and the brains (the One Connect box, less expensive), and they will keep the monitor and can choose to upgrade the brains when a new box is available. If the customer is happy with the display resolution and other properties of the display, it's definitely cheaper than buying a whole new 4K TV to just upgrade one component...

My hope is Samsung DOES fulfill their promises, but like others, I'm taking a wait and see approach.


----------



## Christopher Gould

<br />
Yes you get it drew
<br />
Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SledgeHammer

Drew2k said:


> or maybe don't understand the function the One Connect box provides


Uh... I think you missed my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm . I know it can't upgrade the display itself, duh... LOL... that's why I was telling the guy that it was essentially a useless feature. The boxes cost $400+ and the only thing you'll get out of it is connectivity upgrades. Like he'll be able to upgrade his HDMI port to full HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. For $400+, he'd be better off just selling the TV and getting a better one.

"Upgrades" are generally a lose-lose deal for the consumer in the home electronics area...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> Yes, but I really doubt anyone is going to care about 8K.


That is what most people in this thread said 6 months ago about 4k.


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> That is what most people in this thread said 6 months ago about 4k.


It still remains to be seen what the average consumer thinks of 4K. Judging market-wide interest level in 4K by reading posts on a board that talks about TV in a thread that talks about 4K is the height of folly.

If most people don't care (by "don't care" I mean they might buy a 4K TV when it is time to replace their TV because there's little price difference but wouldn't be willing to spend extra to get 4K from their service provider) what hope would 8K have?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> It still remains to be seen what the average consumer thinks of 4K. Judging market-wide interest level in 4K by reading posts on a board that talks about TV in a thread that talks about 4K is the height of folly.
> 
> If most people don't care (by "don't care" I mean they might buy a 4K TV when it is time to replace their TV because there's little price difference but wouldn't be willing to spend extra to get 4K from their service provider) what hope would 8K have?


Just like anything else, I judge market-wide interest not by looking at what is said on dbstalk.com, but by looking at the projections and how 4K has smashed through those every quarter - as well as the fact that 4K 2 years in is is already where HDTV was 10 years after the specs were ratified.

http://advanced-television.com/2014/10/02/uhd-progressing-faster-than-hd/

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2824372/sharp-nhk-push-8k-tvs-ahead-of-2020-olympics.html

http://sportsvideo.org/main/blog/2014/10/nhks-research-labs-serves-as-breeding-ground-for-8k-innovation/


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> It still remains to be seen what the average consumer thinks of 4K. Judging market-wide interest level in 4K by reading posts on a board that talks about TV in a thread that talks about 4K is the height of folly.


I suspect all the "experts" forecastings have a fraction of the value of watching retail sales of 4K UHD units and/or seeing people's (consumers) interest in retail stores. If the local Best Buy here is any indication...2015 will be a substantial year for 2015 sales.

Early adopters debate not always adopt. The mass market will determine acceptance. Once prices drop next year, the average consumer will see the difference in the end product without the influence of a major gap in the price tag. Some of that has already started.

We also know that providers like ESPN have invested substantially in 4K UHD cameras (in the field already) and production facilities. We also know that both existing and soon-to-be-active satellite delivery systems are positioned to support 4K UHD. Major networks are also gearing up.

The "experts" have been wrong more times than not before. Looking at all the money being poured into the equipment, technology, infrastructure, content production, and scheduled distribution...that tells the real story of where this is headed. When comparing the scale of investment and momentum to 3D for example, 4K UHD is exponentially greater already at this relatively early stage. A year from now, we'll all know.


----------



## SledgeHammer

hdtvfan0001 said:


> A year from now, we'll all know.


I don't think you need a year. I think its already pretty obvious that the market is transitioning to 4K. 1080P sets will move to the bargain bin at Costco and Walmart and 4K sets will become the mainstream. They already pretty much are. You can get a top of the line 4K set for under $2k. Remember, when HD went mainstream, 50" 1080P sets were about $5k. Its pretty easy to spot DOA technologies like 3D and Dolby Atmos. Both were hyped by manufacturers as the next big thing, but you could tell from day 1 that nobody cared about either. 3D has a LONG history of failure.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't think you need a year. I think its already pretty obvious that the market is transitioning to 4K. 1080P sets will move to the bargain bin at Costco and Walmart and 4K sets will become the mainstream. They already pretty much are. You can get a top of the line 4K set for under $2k. Remember, when HD went mainstream, 50" 1080P sets were about $5k. Its pretty easy to spot DOA technologies like 3D and Dolby Atmos. Both were hyped by manufacturers as the next big thing, but you could tell from day 1 that nobody cared about either. 3D has a LONG history of failure.


Agree....some of us already know where things will be in a year :yesman: ...others have to wait to satisfy their scepticism.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

hdtvfan0001 said:


> If the local Best Buy here is any indication...2015 will be a substantial year for 2015 sales.


I agree. 2015 will be a substantial year for 2015 sales. In fact I predict 2015 will be not only be a substantial year for 2015 sales, but it will be 100% for 2015 sales. I also predict that 2014 and 2016 will have no affect on 2015 sales.

I look forward to more info like this from you as you report from CES!



hdtvfan0001 said:


> We also know that providers like ESPN have invested substantially in 4K UHD cameras (in the field already) and production facilities.


The only 4k cameras in the field are connected to replay equipment only. They have no way to interface with switchers that can be used live on the air.

Please make sure you get the FULL story and not leap to conclusion in your CES reports.


----------



## Laxguy

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I agree. 2015 will be a substantial year for 2015 sales. In fact I predict 2015 will be not only be a substantial year for 2015 sales, but it will be 100% for 2015 sales. I also predict that 2014 and 2016 will have no affect on 2015 sales.


Very funny.

But your prediction that the preceding year will have no effect on the next year's sales is wrong.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> So, a while ago there was a discussion in this thread with a guy who bought the Samsung "upgradable" 4K TV and said he was 100% sure it was future proof because of the One Connect box. Well, world on the street from what I'm reading is that CES will be the day everybody trots out the quantum dot 4K sets. Not sure how Samsung is going to upgrade an LED screen to quantum dot, but like Rich said... "Yet another reason to wait". If you aren't buy a full spec HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 quantum dot set... Plasma is officially dead and Samsung just announced they are pretty much dumping OLED for Quantum Dot. That leaves LG as the only OLED manafacturer... not to mention people aren't buying the curved screen concept.


I read an article about curved screens the other day and they concluded that for one person sitting directly in front of it, it would be fine. My son and I went to a Costco the other day and we checked out a couple curved screens and they were right. Or so we thought.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> By then the 8k sets will be where we are with 4k sets are today.


I can't take this!

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> I think you may be mis-remembering the discussion or maybe don't understand the function the One Connect box provides. For starters, it's the CPU, memory, and ports. It obviously can't upgrade a display panel, and is not intended to. What it will do, assuming Samsung fulfills their promise to make and sell new One Connect boxes, is to allow the customer to move to the latest version of HDMI, for example, when it's finally ready.
> 
> Customers need to think of the Samsung TVs that come with One Connect boxes more like a PC: there's a monitor (the big expense) and the brains (the One Connect box, less expensive), and they will keep the monitor and can choose to upgrade the brains when a new box is available. If the customer is happy with the display resolution and other properties of the display, it's definitely cheaper than buying a whole new 4K TV to just upgrade one component...
> 
> My hope is Samsung DOES fulfill their promises, but like others, I'm taking a wait and see approach.


I just took a couple Sammy BD players to the dump. Couldn't get NF HD on them. I'd like to think that Samsung would fulfill their promises, but I don't really trust big corporations all that much. I sure didn't buy those BD players with the expectation that in 3 years they'd be almost obsolete.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> That is what most people in this thread said 6 months ago about 4k.


You're right. That's scary.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't think you need a year. I think its already pretty obvious that the market is transitioning to 4K. 1080P sets will move to the bargain bin at Costco and Walmart and 4K sets will become the mainstream. They already pretty much are. You can get a top of the line 4K set for under $2k. Remember, when HD went mainstream, 50" 1080P sets were about $5k. Its pretty easy to spot DOA technologies like 3D and Dolby Atmos. Both were hyped by manufacturers as the next big thing, but you could tell from day 1 that nobody cared about either. 3D has a LONG history of failure.


4K TVs will sell like hotcakes, because that's all there will be in a few years. The question is whether people will pay more for 4K channels from their provider. The necessary upgrades in all parts of the chain will cost a lot of money, they aren't going to give it away for free, any more than they gave HD away for free. People were willing to pay extra to get HD. How many will be willing to pay extra to get 4K? That is what will determine its success. If everyone has a 4K TV but most are content to watch HD content on it, then where will the money come from to pay for producing and delivering it?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Rich said:


> I can't take this!
> 
> Rich


There is ALWAYS better technology in the pipeline.

In the 60s and 70s, a TV would last a minimum of 15 years - most much longer.

My parent's RCA Tube Based Color TV purchased in 1965 lasted 15 years.

A 9" Hitachi manufactured in 1973 was still working when I threw it out around 2010 - as there were no more NTSC stations.

My parent's Sony Triniton 21" purchased in 1980 to replace the RCA lasted for 25 years.

A 42" Sony retailed for $4,200 in 1989. It still worked when I threw it out in 2010.

Today the price is so much lower, even before adjusting for inflation, than it was then.

However, they are made cheaply and have a very low life expectancy - and essentially cheaper to dispose and replace instead of repair.

Again, someone can always wait for the next advance, but sets just do not last that long any longer.

Planned obsolesce.

I refused to buy a single DVD from the day they were launched - because I knew HD was fast approaching. In fact, I was at the 1990 CES for the specific reason demoing a HD Projector I was about to buy (Barcos were about $19k then). So why buy into a SD format?

I refused to buy an iPhone 4s when I needed a new smartphone because it would not do LTE on Verizon.

Essentially I did the same thing you are speaking of - waiting for the next tech.

One can wait - but unlike tech, humans have a finite time on earth.

Every individual has to decide for themselves is it always better to wait for the next big thing - or enjoy what is available in the finite days you have left.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> I just took a couple Sammy BD players to the dump. Couldn't get NF HD on them. I'd like to think that Samsung would fulfill their promises, but I don't really trust big corporations all that much. I sure didn't buy those BD players with the expectation that in 3 years they'd be almost obsolete.
> 
> Rich


Why take them to the dump? You could have sold them on eBay. I still don't get eBay. I'm not a huge seller on there (maybe 30 items) and some stuff I think will sell for $200, I end up getting < $75 for and stuff I think won't sell at all, I got "bank" for.

When HD first came out and it was all buggy and stuff, I waited and cobbled together a "cheap" solution until the AVRs stabilized. My cheap solution was some HDMI wall plates to dress things up and a cheapo HDMI switcher and a cheapo RCA -> HDMI converter. When I finally got my HDMI AVR, I sold all the cobbled together HDMI solution as an "HDMI Toolkit" and ended up getting over $100 for it. Couple of months ago, I tried to sell an almost new HP LaserJet 5P and could barely get somebody to buy it for like $60 LOL.

I did sell a DVD player on there for $200 just a couple of years ago believe it or not, but it was a "beast mode" player, so...

I don't think I'd get much money for my Panny 50" 1080P TV. I see them selling for like $100 on eBay . Paid $5k for it. I'll probably just donate it and write off > $100.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> 4K TVs will sell like hotcakes, because that's all there will be in a few years. The question is whether people will pay more for 4K channels from their provider. The necessary upgrades in all parts of the chain will cost a lot of money, they aren't going to give it away for free, any more than they gave HD away for free. People were willing to pay extra to get HD. How many will be willing to pay extra to get 4K? That is what will determine its success. If everyone has a 4K TV but most are content to watch HD content on it, then where will the money come from to pay for producing and delivering it?


As usual, early adopters will always pay more.

How much more, depends on the content.

I still remember a friend who is a Dish sub that purchased a HDTV in 2004 because he has a Sports Fan, yet when I looked at his system in 2006, he still only had a Dish SD Receiver connected to it.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> 4K TVs will sell like hotcakes, because that's all there will be in a few years. The question is whether people will pay more for 4K channels from their provider. The necessary upgrades in all parts of the chain will cost a lot of money, they aren't going to give it away for free, any more than they gave HD away for free. People were willing to pay extra to get HD. How many will be willing to pay extra to get 4K? That is what will determine its success. If everyone has a 4K TV but most are content to watch HD content on it, then where will the money come from to pay for producing and delivering it?


Well, NF charges $3/mo extra for access to the 4K stuff, so people are paying that...

I'd pay DirecTV $3/mo extra for 4K assuming its like it is now where the channels add 4K versions and start broadcasting native 4K content. I wouldn't pay anything if it was 1 or 2 channels like ESPN. I'd probably go up to $10/mo extra... but if they want $25/mo or something crazy like that, I'd have to think about it.

At the end of the day, DirecTV and everybody else is going to have to figure out how to broadcast 4K.

I'm sure the equipment manufacturers are putting pressure on the broadcasters to do it.

HEVC/H.265 is one step towards that goal. They'll also need some form of multiplexing I assume as compression alone won't cut it I don't think.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

SledgeHammer said:


> I'd pay DirecTV $3/mo extra for 4K assuming its like it is now where the channels add 4K versions and start broadcasting native 4K content. I wouldn't pay anything if it was 1 or 2 channels like ESPN. I'd probably go up to $10/mo extra... but if they want $25/mo or something crazy like that, I'd have to think about it.


Given past charges, one would think $3 is out of the question and $10 is probably a safe bet.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> I'd pay DirecTV $3/mo extra for 4K assuming its like it is now where the channels add 4K versions and start broadcasting native 4K content. I wouldn't pay anything if it was 1 or 2 channels like ESPN. I'd probably go up to $10/mo extra... but if they want $25/mo or something crazy like that, I'd have to think about it.


They may have a low/no 4K fee at first since they will have only a few channels, but if so they could still recover their costs through the 'lease' fee for new 4K equipment, higher fees for a 4K install, etc.

If you avoid paying $10/month for the first couple years because they decide they aren't justified in charging a 4K fee when you can count the 4K channels on one hand have you really saved anything if you must pay $500 to get a 4K Genie?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> They may have a low/no 4K fee at first since they will have only a few channels, but if so they could still recover their costs through the 'lease' fee for new 4K equipment, higher fees for a 4K install, etc.
> 
> If you avoid paying $10/month for the first couple years because they decide they aren't justified in charging a 4K fee when you can count the 4K channels on one hand have you really saved anything if you must pay $500 to get a 4K Genie?


DirecTV is in the process of being sold....or sold again - and always at a higher price.

They need to pay for those purchases....whether Liberty and/or AT&T, not to mention new satellites.

So you think this is the time they will be charitable instead of taking the easy money?


----------



## Aridon

I don't see any major changes in the next 2 years but eventually I could see:

1. Charge for 4k which will likely be as close to 4k as what we have now is to 1080p60

2. Down rezzing of current hd just like how current sd has suffered

3. Wide spread 4k (more than ppv and a few channels) will likely come after the removal of the legacy mpeg2 stations in 5 years or so.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> They may have a low/no 4K fee at first since they will have only a few channels, but if so they could still recover their costs through the 'lease' fee for new 4K equipment, higher fees for a 4K install, etc.
> 
> If you avoid paying $10/month for the first couple years because they decide they aren't justified in charging a 4K fee when you can count the 4K channels on one hand have you really saved anything if you must pay $500 to get a 4K Genie?


Seeing as they charge $3/mo so you don't have to get off your butt and walk to the other room  (WHDVR) and $5 to watch GhostBusters II on HD (and only keep it for 24 hours nonetheless!) and like $15/hr for that other stuff that's on the internet for free LOL, I'd be surprised if they give ANYTHING for free.

I don't even see why they even support SD anymore. Are there really that many people that still have SD? This is like Microsoft still supporting XP.

Of course, the Tivo fanatics will raise a stink about it until DTV caves and comes out with a 4K Tivo DVR. Are those things even selling? I like Tivo, but I wouldn't pay the service fee for it. Not worth it.


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't think you need a year. I think its already pretty obvious that the market is transitioning to 4K. 1080P sets will move to the bargain bin at Costco and Walmart and 4K sets will become the mainstream. They already pretty much are. You can get a top of the line 4K set for under $2k. Remember, when HD went mainstream, 50" 1080P sets were about $5k. Its pretty easy to spot DOA technologies like 3D and Dolby Atmos. Both were hyped by manufacturers as the next big thing, but you could tell from day 1 that nobody cared about either. 3D has a LONG history of failure.


You are right about 3d failures. But even I have to say it's best chance is with 4k. The demos of true 4k 3d on an lg was amazing and they where lite passive glasses too. I just can't express how incredible that picture was from all angles compared to any other 3d I have ever seen.


----------



## inkahauts

Aridon said:


> I don't see any major changes in the next 2 years but eventually I could see:
> 
> 1. Charge for 4k which will likely be as close to 4k as what we have now is to 1080p60
> 
> 2. Down rezzing of current hd just like how current sd has suffered
> 
> 3. Wide spread 4k (more than ppv and a few channels) will likely come after the removal of the legacy mpeg2 stations in 5 years or so.


With all the new bandwidth they won't ever need to degrade the Hi Definition signals. They have tons of bandwidth now.

I don't think the mpeg2 shutoff will have Any impact on 4k channels unless they have a lot of them. I think channels coming online will be more determining to the speed.

As for quality of 4k signal it's way to early to say but I suspect that since its launching (new hardware wise) with all know abilities that they be able to do full or all specs. 1080p didn't really exists when the HR20 came out in any hardware. Full 4k will.


----------



## I WANT MORE

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't think you need a year. I think its already pretty obvious that the market is transitioning to 4K. *1080P sets will move to the bargain bin at Costco and Walmart and 4K sets will become the mainstream. They already pretty much are.* You can get a top of the line 4K set for under $2k. Remember, when HD went mainstream, 50" 1080P sets were about $5k. Its pretty easy to spot DOA technologies like 3D and Dolby Atmos. Both were hyped by manufacturers as the next big thing, but you could tell from day 1 that nobody cared about either. 3D has a LONG history of failure.


Funny, I was in Wal-Mart on Saturday and they had* (2)* UHD sets. *(2)*.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I WANT MORE said:


> Funny, I was in Wal-Mart on Saturday and they had* (2)* UHD sets. *(2)*.


I was at Best Buy Wednesday and they had 29 4K UHD TVs on display (yes I counted them). The Store Manager (Rich) told me there were more coming and more that would be put on display in January. The entire department was "made over" about a month ago in the store, and 4K UHD is the lead presentation all over their TV area.


----------



## patmurphey

Critics of early adoption don't get it. Most important, my $597 Samsung 4k 40" TV is giving me noticeably better HD from a Dish Network Hopper every day. I can dabble in the limited but nice 4k offerings from Netflix, Amazon Prime, and You Tube. All of the "smart" TV functions are a plus, because they let me quickly play the 4k content via Ethernet, display Samsung phone and Kindle content among other things. The promised upgrade with an Evolution box is a plus, but delivery of programming through advanced HDMI is going to depend on delivery hardware. Meanwhile, I have a very nice TV that is a cut above my previous 40" set.


----------



## Al K

patmurphey said:


> Critics of early adoption don't get it. Most important, my $597 Samsung 4k 40" TV is giving me noticeably better HD from a Dish Network Hopper every day. I can dabble in the limited but nice 4k offerings from Netflix, Amazon Prime, and You Tube. All of the "smart" TV functions are a plus, because they let me quickly play the 4k content via Ethernet, display Samsung phone and Kindle content among other things. The promised upgrade with an Evolution box is a plus, but delivery of programming through advanced HDMI is going to depend on delivery hardware. Meanwhile, I have a very nice TV that is a cut above my previous 40" set.


I've noticed that good HD programming is noticably better on my 4K TV. I don't think that it's some kind of up conversion doing it as much as it is the number of pixels. Poor quality HD programming still looks poor. My Samsung has too many auto modes. I turned them off to get the picture that I liked.

I have sampled Amazon Prime and found that for the most part I can watch it without problems through my 13mbps DSL. Their selection isn't the greatest, although they have some relatively new titles to buy at $20 to $30. I had to delete and reload the Ultraflix app to get it to work right. I still have some problems with bandwith though. I'm going to wait on upgrading to 20mbps until after I try DirecTV 4K.


----------



## slice1900

I wonder how much of the "HD looks better on my new 4K TV" is due to the 4K TV simply being of higher quality than the HDTV formerly being used? LCD panels have been continually improving in quality, and LED backlights allow them to be brighter. Tests have shown that most people consider one identical TV showing an identical picture better than another if one is set to a higher level of brightness - that's one reason why the TVs on display are cranked up to the highest possible brightness (the other reason being that those stores are often very well lit, so it helps them stand out better)

That is supposedly one of the reasons that plasma lost out to LCD, because plasmas couldn't crank up the brightness as high so the typical consumer felt the LCD had a better looking picture.

Certainly the cases of people claiming the 4K TV has a better picture even from a considerable distance (20 or 30 feet) as they approach the display has to be accounted for by some difference in the quality of the panel, its brightness or something else. They sure as hell aren't seeing more detail from 30 feet away.


----------



## Aridon

Just look at the comments of people streaming 4k with 15mbs connections and you know full and well it's not the resolution.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> Why take them to the dump? You could have sold them on eBay. I still don't get eBay. I'm not a huge seller on there (maybe 30 items) and some stuff I think will sell for $200, I end up getting < $75 for and stuff I think won't sell at all, I got "bank" for.
> 
> When HD first came out and it was all buggy and stuff, I waited and cobbled together a "cheap" solution until the AVRs stabilized. My cheap solution was some HDMI wall plates to dress things up and a cheapo HDMI switcher and a cheapo RCA -> HDMI converter. When I finally got my HDMI AVR, I sold all the cobbled together HDMI solution as an "HDMI Toolkit" and ended up getting over $100 for it. Couple of months ago, I tried to sell an almost new HP LaserJet 5P and could barely get somebody to buy it for like $60 LOL.
> 
> I did sell a DVD player on there for $200 just a couple of years ago believe it or not, but it was a "beast mode" player, so...
> 
> I don't think I'd get much money for my Panny 50" 1080P TV. I see them selling for like $100 on eBay . Paid $5k for it. I'll probably just donate it and write off > $100.


I stopped selling stuff on eBay a couple years ago. I had an iPad 2 up for auction and it sold for $400. Immediately after the auction ended, I got a message from the winner saying he wasn't gonna buy it. I quickly found out that the message you get that says you are entering into a binding contract when you start bidding (don't remember the exact wording so I'm paraphrasing that) is BS. I contacted eBay and they said they couldn't do anything but ban the buyer from further auctions. All the guy had to do was change his email address and he was right back in the mix, I would think and so did eBay, but nothing was done.

Those BD players I took to the dump? I simply would not sell them on eBay or CL. They didn't work well with NF and I just don't sell stuff unless I know I'm not gonna get any complaints about the items.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Those BD players I took to the dump? I simply would not sell them on eBay or CL. They didn't work well with NF and I just don't sell stuff unless I know I'm not gonna get any complaints about the items.


What's wrong with selling them and being up front about the issues you had? If you sell at as "I couldn't get this to work well with Netflix, so don't buy it if that's your intended use". Someone might not care about that, or might want one for parts, or maybe they know what the problem is and get a great deal because that message might scare other buyers away


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> What's wrong with selling them and being up front about the issues you had? If you sell at as "I couldn't get this to work well with Netflix, so don't buy it if that's your intended use". Someone might not care about that, or might want one for parts, or maybe they know what the problem is and get a great deal because that message might scare other buyers away


Yup. I'm always super honest about the physical and cosmetic condition of an item because honestly I don't need the hassle over getting an extra $10 - $20. As far as what the item can or cannot do, that is up to the buyer to do his due diligence. If they specifically ask me if my DVD player can change a flat tire on their car, then I'll say "No, it can't".


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> That is supposedly one of the reasons that plasma lost out to LCD, because plasmas couldn't crank up the brightness as high so the typical consumer felt the LCD had a better looking picture.


I think the main reason the plasmas went south is the lack of knowledge of the people buying TVs. We did this with Beta-Max VCRs. In all the years I had VCRs (and I had a lot of them), I never had one that came close to a Sony Beta-Max for PQ.

I've tried several LCD sets, never a top line model, but I've got five 720p plasmas that still look really good after six or seven years of use. And all 3 of my 1080p sets pump out great PQ. I never see that quality in other people's homes where they have LCDs. I see juddering in sports, don't see that on the plasmas. A friend of ours has 70" Sharp Aquos and you cannot see facial hair or any small details on that monster.

I'm not aiming these comments at anybody on the forum who bought LCDs in the past, I just don't understand why they didn't buy plasmas.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> What's wrong with selling them and being up front about the issues you had? If you sell at as "I couldn't get this to work well with Netflix, so don't buy it if that's your intended use". Someone might not care about that, or might want one for parts, or maybe they know what the problem is and get a great deal because that message might scare other buyers away


Several reasons. I lost faith in eBay after that iPad fiasco. I used to sell a lot of stuff on the Internet, but it became an obsession and too much work. I'm very serious about being extremely lazy. I don't need the few bucks I would have gotten from the sale of the obsolete BD players and I kinda doubt that anyone would have bought them. Really not worth the bother. And I've been trying to curb my obsessive side.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> I think the main reason the plasmas went south is the lack of knowledge of the people buying TVs. We did this with Beta-Max VCRs. In all the years I had VCRs (and I had a lot of them), I never had one that came close to a Sony Beta-Max for PQ.
> 
> I've tried several LCD sets, never a top line model, but I've got five 720p plasmas that still look really good after six or seven years of use. And all 3 of my 1080p sets pump out great PQ. I never see that quality in other people's homes where they have LCDs. I see juddering in sports, don't see that on the plasmas. A friend of ours has 70" Sharp Aquos and you cannot see facial hair or any small details on that monster.
> 
> I'm not aiming these comments at anybody on the forum who bought LCDs in the past, I just don't understand why they didn't buy plasmas.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, plasmas have always been better PQ then LCDs. I had a buddy once who was buying a new TV and he was going LCD instead of plasma. I asked him why and his only reason was the "power consumption". You know, the early plasmas cost an extra $10 a year to run and he claimed that plasmas ran hot and he was afraid of his kids getting burned LOL. LOLing about a plasma being hot enough to burn somebody, not kids getting injured of course .


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> _*Yeah, plasmas have always been better PQ*__* then LCDs*_. I had a buddy once who was buying a new TV and he was going LCD instead of plasma. I asked him why and his only reason was the "power consumption". You know, the early plasmas cost an extra $10 a year to run and he claimed that plasmas ran hot and he was afraid of his kids getting burned LOL. LOLing about a plasma being hot enough to burn somebody, not kids getting injured of course .


And isn't that what we all look for? How could this happen?

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> And isn't that what we all look for? How could this happen?
> 
> Rich


Well, yeah, we do, but most other people went for the cheaper technology and lower power consumption.


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> I stopped selling stuff on eBay a couple years ago. I had an iPad 2 up for auction and it sold for $400. Immediately after the auction ended, I got a message from the winner saying he wasn't gonna buy it. I quickly found out that the message you get that says you are entering into a binding contract when you start bidding (don't remember the exact wording so I'm paraphrasing that) is BS. I contacted eBay and they said they couldn't do anything but ban the buyer from further auctions. All the guy had to do was change his email address and he was right back in the mix, I would think and so did eBay, but nothing was done.
> 
> Those BD players I took to the dump? I simply would not sell them on eBay or CL. They didn't work well with NF and I just don't sell stuff unless I know I'm not gonna get any complaints about the items.
> 
> Rich


I would have suggested donating to good will. I done that with almost anything that doesn't have much value but still works. It's rare I sell on eBay or cl anymore.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> I think the main reason the plasmas went south is the lack of knowledge of the people buying TVs. We did this with Beta-Max VCRs. In all the years I had VCRs (and I had a lot of them), I never had one that came close to a Sony Beta-Max for PQ.


Yeah, but the average person has a lack of knowledge when it comes to just about any product. They are no more knowledgeable when it comes to buying computers, smartphones, dishwashers, or cars. If they like the look of one car or it claims 'more' of something they want (trunk space, towing capacity, whatever) they'll buy it. I remember overhearing a friend of a friend saying he bought his new car because it had more airbags than any other model they looked at so he figured it must be safer! When I heard that the fact that the number of air bags is listed in the specs began to make more sense.

Supposedly the reason why VHS beat out Beta is porn, and while Sony's refusal to allow adult studios to distribute videos on Beta may have given a leg up to VHS, what most likely was the deciding factor was price. VHS VCRs were much less expensive. Most people don't feel an increase in quality above what they feel is 'good enough' is worth spending more on, and the people who really wanted high quality bought Laser Disc. A VCR's recording quality was a non-factor for most - I remember reading something long ago that less than 10% of people regularly used their VCR to record.

Plasmas sold a lot better in the larger sizes where they were cheaper than LCDs, but not as well in the smaller sizes where you had to pay more because most people feel LCD is "good enough". As the fab technology used to make LCDs improved the crossover keeps getting bigger and bigger, but the appetite for larger screens is finite - most people have limited space they're willing to devote to a TV. Between that, and wanting to market 4K which would increase the power draw and cost of plasmas a lot more than it did for LCDs, was pretty much the death knell for plasma.

It probably didn't help that plasmas last much longer than LCDs (all the plasmas I've bought back as far as 2005 are still in service - over two dozen, all lower end consumer models) and most of these spent more time on than off. In that same time frame I've had two monitors and one small LCD TV fail. I recently upgraded to a 4K monitor (27" Dell IPS) and I wouldn't be shocked if all those plasmas are still going strong when this monitor fails as well!


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> I would have suggested donating to good will. I done that with almost anything that doesn't have much value but still works. It's rare I sell on eBay or cl anymore.


I've actually had a difficult time giving things away. Finally found a charitable organization called Christian Charities that gladly takes all big stuff we want to get rid of. The little items nobody wants.

Rich


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Rich said:


> I stopped selling stuff on eBay a couple years ago. I had an iPad 2 up for auction and it sold for $400. Immediately after the auction ended, I got a message from the winner saying he wasn't gonna buy it. I quickly found out that the message you get that says you are entering into a binding contract when you start bidding (don't remember the exact wording so I'm paraphrasing that) is BS. I contacted eBay and they said they couldn't do anything but ban the buyer from further auctions. All the guy had to do was change his email address and he was right back in the mix, I would think and so did eBay, but nothing was done.


Then sell it to the #2 bidder - under second chance option.

Very easy to do.


----------



## inkahauts

Rich said:


> I've actually had a difficult time giving things away. Finally found a charitable organization called Christian Charities that gladly takes all big stuff we want to get rid of. The little items nobody wants.
> 
> Rich


Really? Shoot our good will takes anything we give them. I do mean anything to. I've even given them 30 year old fluorescent tube hanging fixtures form old garages... I couldn't believe they'd take them, but they did happily.


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Then sell it to the #2 bidder - under second chance option.
> 
> Very easy to do.


Tried that, best offer was $350. By that time I was so aggravated I gave up and gave the iPad to my son.

Rich


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> Really? Shoot our good will takes anything we give them. I do mean anything to. I've even given them 30 year old fluorescent tube hanging fixtures form old garages... I couldn't believe they'd take them, but they did happily.


We can't even get the Salvation Army to take furniture, never mind the small stuff. We don't keep furniture very long, we're getting ready to buy new living room furniture soon and we'll be giving our "old" couch and loveseat to a recently married couple who just got approved for their first house. They have no furniture at all at the moment. The "old" couch and loveseat both look as if they're brand new but I want a big sectional and want to start using that living room again.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

That boggles my mind. Salvation Army has a few restrictions out here, but they take most things. Habitat for humanity will take anything. From furniture to plywood.... And I already told you about goodwill here. I can't believe some of the stuff I see in their truck when I drop stuff off....

I wonder why it's so different there?


----------



## James Long

Perhaps they got tired of getting rid of the garbage. When the "donations" end up costing the charity more than they are making in resale or giving in benefit of the people they are helping it is time to ask people to use their own dumpster for their trash and the collection box for donations with value.

Some areas may have recyclers who can assist with the garbage and take on the expense of handling useless donations in exchange for scrap value - or just as a donation. Not everywhere may have found a benevolent partner to take the trash.


----------



## yosoyellobo

James Long said:


> Perhaps they got tired of getting rid of the garbage. When the "donations" end up costing the charity more than they are making in resale or giving in benefit of the people they are helping it is time to ask people to use their own dumpster for their trash and the collection box for donations with value.Some areas may have recyclers who can assist with the garbage and take on the expense of handling useless donations in exchange for scrap value - or just as a donation. Not everywhere may have found a benevolent partner to take the trash.


How else are we going to supply our nation thriving garage sales.


----------



## Rich

inkahauts said:


> That boggles my mind. Salvation Army has a few restrictions out here, but they take most things. Habitat for humanity will take anything. From furniture to plywood.... And I already told you about goodwill here. I can't believe some of the stuff I see in their truck when I drop stuff off....
> 
> I wonder why it's so different there?


I dunno. I find it surprising too, especially when I'm getting rid of stuff that has nothing wrong with it. Apparently, I'm not alone. Our dump looks like a treasure house to me. The electronics truck looks like a lot could be salvaged from it. I've seen lots of 50" and bigger TV sets in there and I'd love to scavenge thru that "junk". I don't even know where Goodwill places are here. Just to get rid of furniture and save my dump tickets, I've spent a lot of time on the phone calling the Salvation Army and other places that you'd think would be delighted to get my stuff, but, until I found Christian Services I was at a loss.

I just Googled Goodwill in NJ and they do have retail stores and do say they'll pick up smaller items. If Christian Services goes south, I'll give them a call next time around. Right now, with the new home our relatives have, we have a good place to get rid of unwanted items. They just barely qualified for the new home and I don't see them buying too much furniture in the near future. And they have access to a large van.

Rich


----------



## GregLee

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Perhaps there is something else going on. Or perhaps it is as simple as the expanded color gamut, even though many HD TVs had this ability (but literally no source material).


There is something else going on. Not expanded color gamut, but an expanded number of color shades. Since each R/G/B subpixel can show the same number of shades in HD and UHD, but there are 4 times as many subpixels in a given area of screen in UHD, a UHD screen can show many times more color shades than an HD screen. Think of the shades shown in two sand paintings done with just two colors of sand, but one of the paintings done with much smaller sand grains.


----------



## P Smith

If we can get back to 4K topic... Turkey has dedicated tpn at 42E and transmitting 4K channel with video rate at 30 Mbps


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> If we can get back to 4K topic... Turkey has dedicated tpn at 42E and transmitting 4K channel with video rate at 30 Mbps


That doesn't tell us anything about the quality, frames per second, etc. They delivered a 4K channel in 30 Mbps because that was their only option, since that tpn is only 15 MHz wide and they don't have the DVB-S2X capability of combining tpns.


----------



## P Smith

that's good example what you'll see from DTV soon , I mean 30 Mbps per one channel using HEVC/H.265
at least it's linear channel, not VOD

BTW, if you know good TS analyzer program what would tell us HEVC bitrate/fps/etc, we could get more from that stream


----------



## Oli74

Happy New Year hopefully is the year for more HD channels 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Drew2k

SledgeHammer said:


> Uh... I think you missed my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm . I know it can't upgrade the display itself, duh... LOL... that's why I was telling the guy that it was essentially a useless feature. The boxes cost $400+ and the only thing you'll get out of it is connectivity upgrades. Like he'll be able to upgrade his HDMI port to full HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. For $400+, he'd be better off just selling the TV and getting a better one.
> 
> "Upgrades" are generally a lose-lose deal for the consumer in the home electronics area...


Yup, totally did. Sorry about that. 

And to stick with the toipic, LG announced today they will also support DIRECTV 4K in their 2015 lineup, so there's now an alternative to Samsung...


----------



## SledgeHammer

Dish announced the Joey 4K today @ CES and plans to go live during the summer. Where's the Genie 4K?


----------



## Christopher Gould

SledgeHammer said:


> Dish announced the Joey 4K today @ CES and plans to go live during the summer. Where's the Genie 4K?


Their was a post on the forums that seemed to be from someone that said to much and it disappeared, that said 4k genie in February

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## patmurphey

In my mind the winner will be the one that provides 4 content live and recordable that is not PAY PER VIEW - Like the Netflix series but without the Internet streaming data limits.


----------



## slice1900

patmurphey said:


> In my mind the winner will be the one that provides 4 content live and recordable that is not PAY PER VIEW - Like the Netflix series but without the Internet streaming data limits.


Neither one will be offering any 4K live content for a while because no network is providing any. Can't offer what doesn't exist


----------



## yosoyellobo

slice1900 said:


> Neither one will be offering any 4K live content for a while because no network is providing any. Can't offer what doesn't exist


The day they are ready to broadcast in 4K live, the cables and satellite better be also or Google and their likes will steal their candy.


----------



## slice1900

yosoyellobo said:


> The day they are ready to broadcast in 4K live, the cables and satellite better be also or Google and their likes will steal their candy.


Why? You really think people would trade watching ESPNHD on cable/satellite for WatchESPN streaming something that might be 4Kish when the stream is running well but have various glitches that drop it to less to SD resolution here and there? Not to mention an inability to record or pause/rewind.

Last weekend ESPN's streaming site completely broke down during the college football playoffs. Anyone really want to rely on that versus cable and satellite which might have their occasional outages, but they're at least random rather than being more likely the bigger the event is!


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> They have tons of bandwidth now.


Not yet.


----------



## yosoyellobo

slice1900 said:


> Why? You really think people would trade watching ESPNHD on cable/satellite for WatchESPN streaming something that might be 4Kish when the stream is running well but have various glitches that drop it to less to SD resolution here and there? Not to mention an inability to record or pause/rewind.
> 
> Last weekend ESPN's streaming site completely broke down during the college football playoffs. Anyone really want to rely on that versus cable and satellite which might have their occasional outages, but they're at least random rather than being more likely the bigger the event is!


I was thinking about Google fiber http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber and AT&T Giga Power. http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/article346078/ATT-might-challenge-Google-Fiber-with-high-speed-Internet-service-in-KC.html
As I said if the networks are ready and the Cable and Satellite are not, it will create a vacuum which Google and AT&T would be foolish to pass by. I know I would have to no problem giving up Directv for such a service.


----------



## patmurphey

slice1900 said:


> Neither one will be offering any 4K live content for a while because no network is providing any. Can't offer what doesn't exist


I wouldn't be surprised to see 4k content from the likes of HBO via satellite sooner than later - certainly not broadcast TV. Bragging rights are a huge part of marketing. Internet streaming of content will hit a bandwidth and data limit wall if 4k is widely adopted. The issue is looming soon enough with HD streaming.


----------



## ep1974

patmurphey said:


> I wouldn't be surprised to see 4k content from the likes of HBO via satellite sooner than later - certainly not broadcast TV. Bragging rights are a huge part of marketing. Internet streaming of content will hit a bandwidth and data limit wall if 4k is widely adopted. The issue is looming soon enough with HD streaming.


If HBO were to broadcast in 4K, would we all need new 4K receivers or would the Genies be compatible?


----------



## longrider

ep1974 said:


> If HBO were to broadcast in 4K, would we all need new 4K receivers or would the Genies be compatible?


The current Genie can do 4K through an RVU capable Samsung TV. It is not capable of putting out 4K via HDMI


----------



## ep1974

longrider said:


> The current Genie can do 4K through an RVU capable Samsung TV. It is not capable of putting out 4K via HDMI


Will Directv be releasing a new 4K receiver then?


----------



## longrider

I would certainly think so but no one outside DirecTV knows. No public announcements have been made.


----------



## Rich

ep1974 said:


> Will Directv be releasing a new 4K receiver then?


Be kinda foolish of them not to, no?

Rich


----------



## Sgtsbabygirl1

I know that Directv does absolutely intend to be one of the leaders in 4K. It doesn't make any sense that we wouldn't have a new receiver on the horizon that makes 4K doable for everyone with the TVs not just Samsung owners. It hasn't been released yet but I'm pretty sure it will lol


----------



## SledgeHammer

patmurphey said:


> via satellite sooner than later - certainly not broadcast TV


Not true. They are working on the ATSC 3.0 standard. 4K over the air. ATSC 3.0 (like DirecTV 4K I'm assuming) will use H.265. Last I read, most of the big players are on board except for ABC and CBS (so far). And of course, the smaller stations are whining about it (but MA!! I just cleaned my room 10 yrs ago!).


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Be kinda foolish of them not to, no?
> 
> Rich


They better step up and announce thier intentions. Dish announced the Joey 4K and plans to go live by summer.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> They better step up and announce thier intentions. Dish announced the Joey 4K and plans to go live by summer.


I'd be quite happy to wait until they have a stable platform to give us 4K. Let's not forget what rushing them causes. Remember the 20-700s coming out before they were ready? That was a couple years of pure agony. And then there was the push for the HD Guide, remember all the bad things that caused and how long it took them to get it right? And then there's the good old DLB fiasco. Lots of folks couldn't wait for that, and we paid dearly. Have patience, you know and I know they have to step up to the plate. Let them get their swings in, study the problem, make sure they know what they're doing and then release it. Just my opinion, I can live quite nicely without any more major nightmares.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Not true. They are working on the ATSC 3.0 standard. 4K over the air. ATSC 3.0 (like DirecTV 4K I'm assuming) will use H.265. Last I read, most of the big players are on board except for ABC and CBS (so far). And of course, the smaller stations are whining about it (but MA!! I just cleaned my room 10 yrs ago!).


It isn't close to being finalized yet (haven't even determined what modulation they're going to be using) and won't be backwards compatible. They'll pretty much have to license a new channel to deliver it, since I can't imagine there would be a lot of public support for dropping current ATSC broadcasts that hundreds of millions of TVs can receive in exchange for ATSC 3.0 broadcasts that at first hardly any TVs will be able to receive. The audience for OTA broadcasts tends towards people lower on the economic ladder or who care less about TV - not a group who will be pushing for 4K.

Nothing stops local stations from delivering 4K via fiber to cable/satellite providers if/when they get the capability to deliver 4K network content (i.e. sports and network programs...wouldn't look for 4K local news anytime in the next couple decades)


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> They better step up and announce thier intentions. Dish announced the Joey 4K and plans to go live by summer.


Where is their content going to come from? Must be streaming? They don't have the sat bandwidth right now.

And I imagine it's cheaper to build and create a client than a hooper/genie so I am not surprised that they will have that long before a hopper. DIRECTV beat them to it simply because of RVU but I expect a client may be before a genie that can do 4k too... Should be interesting to see.

Did they have a working demo?


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Not yet.


Nope they have it now. Today. This instant.


----------



## SledgeHammer

inkahauts said:


> Where is their content going to come from? Must be streaming? They don't have the sat bandwidth right now.
> 
> And I imagine it's cheaper to build and create a client than a hooper/genie so I am not surprised that they will have that long before a hopper. DIRECTV beat them to it simply because of RVU but I expect a client may be before a genie that can do 4k too... Should be interesting to see.
> 
> Did they have a working demo?


I imagine it will be similar to 1080P. Equipment was out before you could get content, no? First on sports and the top shows and eventually all the way down to viagra commercials.

I would not be surprised to see something like The Big Bang Theory in 4K in 1 - 2 yrs.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> I imagine it will be similar to 1080P. Equipment was out before you could get content, no? First on sports and the top shows and eventually all the way down to viagra commercials.
> 
> I would not be surprised to see something like The Big Bang Theory in 4K in 1 - 2 yrs.


How exactly are they going to deliver BBT or any network programming in 4K in only 1 to 2 years?

Maybe in VOD, but it will be years before there's even the technical means to deliver 4K via OTA. Directv and Dish have nowhere near the spot beam capacity to deliver 4K locals and would have to complete revamp their whole LiL system to do so, so you can forget that happening anytime soon. Possibly you could get it via cable if the local channels deliver 4K feeds directly from the network to the cable company.

The local stations won't have 4K capability internally for years, because what's the point of making that investment when you need ATSC 3.0 finalized (which is years away - they haven't even decided on the modulation to use) hardware designed and the FCC to figure out how to roll it out in a way that allows people with ATSC 1.0 tuners to continue receiving HD? Yet another free converter box program from the government in 2020...who knows?

Here's a question for you - how would local stations feel if networks delivered popular programming in 4K via VOD or streaming, when those stations can only offer it in 1080i? I would think they'd be upset, so it will be a while before even that happens.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> How exactly are they going to deliver BBT or any network programming in 4K in only 1 to 2 years?
> 
> Here's a question for you - how would local stations feel if networks delivered popular programming in 4K via VOD or streaming, when those stations can only offer it in 1080i? I would think they'd be upset, so it will be a while before even that happens.


Not saying or thinking all spot beams will be converted to 4K, but LA and/or NY possibly and probably ESPN. Then ESPN can charge $80/sub instead of the $50/sub they charge now (that's sarcasm by the way, I know they aren't $50, but they are like 20x every other channel).

I think OTA 4K is probably like a decade away LOL. OTA people move slow.

Hey, I know that little podunk station in Wormlick, Montana is going to be upset that people are watching SNL in 4K on the LA or NY feed, but Sux2BU to them I guess . Technology advances. Sorry, but the days of analog TV and a standard lasting 60 yrs is long gone. If a station thinks they are going to coast on 1080i for the next 40 yrs, they deserve to go belly up.

Every mfg went 4K this year. From what I read, DirecTV and DISH are both super anxious to get into the 4K game.

D* has a new bird up and another one the way. Aren't those going to be primarily for 4K?

EDIT: BTW, yes, I do think its entirely possible that OTA can get left behind if they don't pick up the pace. DirecTV & Dish & Cable doesn't need the OTA folks to deliver 4K. They don't even really need a standard, sorry to say. DirecTV & Dish especially... maybe not so much cable as they have the CableCard stuff.

Dunno why you are shocked that Sat may be the only way to get 4K. It was the only way to get a digital signal for like 10+ yrs, right?


----------



## P Smith

OTA is going to extinct, watch how FCC selling its freqs. When time will come to adopt ATSC 3.0, it will be no OTA at all .


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Not saying or thinking all spot beams will be converted to 4K, but LA and/or NY possibly and probably ESPN. Then ESPN can charge $80/sub instead of the $50/sub they charge now (that's sarcasm by the way, I know they aren't $50, but they are like 20x every other channel).


If they did the LA/NY channels in 4K it would only benefit the people who live there, and maybe the people with DNS (though whether they'd grandfather in the ability to watch them in 4K, who knows) Only a fraction of the country lives in those markets, and even with DNS only a fraction of Directv subscribers can watch those channels.


----------



## James Long

SledgeHammer said:


> Hey, I know that little podunk station in Wormlick, Montana is going to be upset that people are watching SNL in 4K on the LA or NY feed,


Not a problem. The 4K feed from outside of their market will not be available in their market. Just like today ... if you live in a market where there is a local affiliate you get THAT local affiliate ... in whatever level of quality they provide (SD only satellite market, constant interruptions for super dopey radar coverage of the daily storm, banners announcing day care closings ruining the prime time shows). One gets the affiliate from their market.

Unless the network affiliation agreements change do not expect to see national feeds of network stations where there is a local affiliate. The local affiliate holds the rights.


----------



## inkahauts

I see 4k being much easier to implement for cable channels Than locals. Much. But by the time locals consider it I don't think it will cost nearly as much as the original digital transition.


----------



## Aridon

I doubt the ota option will remain for much longer.


----------



## inkahauts

Oh, I don't see OTA going anywhere ever. No way, there's a certain aspect of that will be here forever. It will transform some, but we will always get radio and tv OTA.


----------



## MarkN

Aridon said:


> I doubt the ota option will remain for much longer.


Your wrong OTA isn't going anywhere.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Nope they have it now. Today. This instant.


Getting them to part with their part-time sports/most time PPV bandwidth isn't as easy as all that.


----------



## P Smith

MarkN said:


> Your wrong OTA isn't going anywhere.


Really ?! Perhaps you never use ch# higher then 54 ? But there was stations before.

So, tell us, where are the numbers gone ?


----------



## MarkN

P Smith said:


> Really ?! Perhaps you never use ch# higher then 54 ? But there was stations before.
> 
> So, tell us, where are the numbers gone ?


Seriously? So they are just going to leave people that can't afford pay tv with nothing?? Your out of touch my friend


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Really ?! Perhaps you never use ch# higher then 54 ? But there was stations before.
> 
> So, tell us, where are the numbers gone ?


Reducing the number of wasted frequencies for channel slots in almost every market isn't the same as dropping OTA entirely. Even when they do the next auction and sell off the channels above 30, while it will undoubtedly result in some stations ceasing operations, most won't - they'll just move to a currently unused slot at a lower frequency and some will share channels.

With digital filtering there is no longer much reason to worry about adjacent channel interference so they don't have to keep wasting half the channel slots in every market by only assigning every other one.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> Really ?! Perhaps you never use ch# higher then 54 ? But there was stations before.
> 
> So, tell us, where are the numbers gone ?


I still have a channel 69 in my market. It isn't about channel numbers - it is about number of channels. With the conversion to digital we did not lose number of channels. They moved to different frequencies in a more compact range ... and new stations have applied for spaces that have opened up. Less total bandwidth assigned to TV? Yep. But less channels? Not so much.



slice1900 said:


> With digital filtering there is no longer much reason to worry about adjacent channel interference so they don't have to keep wasting half the channel slots in every market by only assigning every other one.


For most UHF channels it was every sixth one (which allowed for adjacent markets). With digital, adjacent channels can be found in the same market. (There are still issues with adjacent channels from neighboring markets but that would be better discussed in a highly technical OTA thread ... not this thread or the DirecTV forum.)

Getting back to DirecTV ... I expect that if any OTA station anywhere actually transmits a 4K UHD signal DirecTV will carry it to the fullest extent allowed by law.

DirecTV plans to be a leader in 4K UHD ... just like they were with 3D. 3D may have faded back into the ether until the next revival ... but I expect that DirecTV will carry whatever 4K UHD is made available to them - currently PPV. If/when a linear channel is introduced and DirecTV has access to it I expect that will be carried too.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> I still have a channel 69 in my market. It isn't about channel numbers - it is about number of channels. With the conversion to digital we did not lose number of channels. They moved to different frequencies in a more compact range ... and new stations have applied for spaces that have opened up. Less total bandwidth assigned to TV? Yep. But less channels? Not so much.


You don't have a channel 69. You have a channel on some lower frequency that PSIP identifies as 69. Like how I have a channel 29 that is identified as channel 2. If you put your zip code into tvfool.com it can tell you what the actual RF channel number is for all your channels, including that '69'.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> You don't have a channel 69. You have a channel on some lower frequency that PSIP identifies as 69. Like how I have a channel 29 that is identified as channel 2. If you put your zip code into tvfool.com it can tell you what the actual RF channel number is for all your channels, including that '69'.


Please read in context! P Smith was talking about channel numbers (including a "channel 54"). I most certainly have a channel numbered 69. There is no need to tell a condescending lie to say I don't.


----------



## slice1900

He clearly meant RF channel numbers, as that's how the frequencies are assigned. RF channel 51 is currently the highest, though they can use PSIP to identify as higher numbers (not sure if 69 is the limit or they can go can higher)


----------



## inkahauts

We have more channels with less bandwidth now then we had before digital. It's not going anywhere.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Getting them to part with their part-time sports/most time PPV bandwidth isn't as easy as all that.


They don't need to. They already own the bandwidth. Period. Satelites up and running or not they have no need to degrade anything to add channels and 4k as it comes online. Your spin is wrong as usual. And the new sat is already up and running. So they also have not only the bandwidth but some of the equipment working too.


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> Please read in context! P Smith was talking about channel numbers (including a "channel 54"). I most certainly have a channel numbered 69. There is no need to tell a condescending lie to say I don't.


nope, I'm talking about RF channels, if anyone have logical skills,he could understand that easy, the word using in conjunction with FCC selling the freqs at auctions


----------



## I WANT MORE

Another thread trashed by OT conversations.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

inkahauts said:


> Where is their content going to come from? Must be streaming? They don't have the sat bandwidth right now.
> 
> And I imagine it's cheaper to build and create a client than a hooper/genie so I am not surprised that they will have that long before a hopper. DIRECTV beat them to it simply because of RVU but I expect a client may be before a genie that can do 4k too... Should be interesting to see.
> 
> Did they have a working demo?


You make some very great points.

In the Dish booth, they did have a "demo" at CES...but when I asked a senior engineer ...he stated that it was actually a "4K simulation", and that "Dish _planned _to have _something with 4K ready_ later in 2015". _[I wrote down his response to make sure I recorded the exact words he used in his response to my question]_

But since this is a thread on the topic of DirecTV's 4K UHD plans - perhaps we can all get back to that subject matter.


----------



## MarkN

P Smith said:


> nope, I'm talking about RF channels, if anyone have logical skills,he could understand that easy, the word using in conjunction with FCC selling the freqs at auctions


Dude your hilarious!


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> nope, I'm talking about RF channels, if anyone have logical skills,he could understand that easy, the word using in conjunction with FCC selling the freqs at auctions


Channel 54 is not a valid RF channel. It was poor of you to state it in your post.

The point still stands - it is not about the channel numbers but the number of channels. Have you seen a significant decrease in the number of licensed TV channels in the US?

As of September 2014 there were 1,782 full power TV stations. 10 years prior there were 1,748 full power stations. Sure, the US gave up some TV frequencies - but they didn't give up channels.

And that is the point.

Now ... lets get back to what DirecTV can actually carry - not channels that don't exist.


----------



## slice1900

Fox Sports exec sounds pretty pessimistic about 4K: "We spent millions going to HD and never got an extra dime from advertisers. &#8230; It seems today [that 4K] is a monumental task with not a lot of return."

http://advanced-television.com/2014/11/03/super-bowl-to-get-6-uhd-cameras/


----------



## yosoyellobo

slice1900 said:


> Fox Sports exec sounds pretty pessimistic about 4K: "We spent millions going to HD and never got an extra dime from advertisers. &#8230; It seems today [that 4K] is a monumental task with not a lot of return."
> 
> http://advanced-television.com/2014/11/03/super-bowl-to-get-6-uhd-cameras/


Sooner or later they will have to spend millions without getting the extra dime from the advertisers once they solve the problem of realtime transmition and reception.


----------



## James Long

Going to HD eventually became a survival decision. If a network did not convert it would be left behind to become an "also ran" channel of programs. Perhaps not a decision that brought in additional sponsor dollars but one that maintained the dollars they had.

4K/UHD will need to become competitive before networks see it as a "do it or be left behind" decision. I expect ESPN will be first - or at least early - for live content. HBO will probably put up a movie channel once 4K/UHD catches on.

BTW: Fox's number one advertiser, occupying 14% of the total commercial spots during Fox Network programming, is ... Fox Network. Their biggest advertiser is self promotion of other shows. It is important to them to get people to watch other shows (and their commercials) to keep the network funded.


----------



## inkahauts

FOX is a joke. They resisted for years even going Hi Definition and advertised and told consumers that 480p was all that was ever needed. They delayed as long as they possibly could before going Hi Definition. 

4k will come more through attrition than anything else in how the industry upgrades itself this time. At some point when they need to replace a camera etc only ones capable of 4k will even be available.


----------



## Laxguy

Just one more reason to loathe Fox.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Going to HD eventually became a survival decision. If a network did not convert it would be left behind to become an "also ran" channel of programs. Perhaps not a decision that brought in additional sponsor dollars but one that maintained the dollars they had.


I agree with this, there are some people who will not watch a channel if it is not offered in HD. That's probably magnified on Directv since their MPEG2 SD bandwidth is so overburdened that the SD quality has suffered and the difference between their SD and HD is larger than on other providers.

As you improve from SD->HD, HD->4K, 4K->8K the marginal difference is smaller with each step, so the number of people unwilling to watch a channel at all if it is in "yesterday's" resolution is smaller. Will there be enough people who refuse to watch HD channels and only watch 4K channels? I doubt it, but we'll see. Certainly I can't imagine there would ever be any such pressure on anyone to broadcast in 8K. At least, I'd like to see someone try to defend that maybe someday people will refuse to watch that crappy old 4Kp120 on their sweet 8K TV


----------



## Oli74

slice1900 said:


> I agree with this, there are some people who will not watch a channel if it is not offered in HD. That's probably magnified on Directv since their MPEG2 SD bandwidth is so overburdened that the SD quality has suffered and the difference between their SD and HD is larger than on other providers.
> 
> As you improve from SD->HD, HD->4K, 4K->8K the marginal difference is smaller with each step, so the number of people unwilling to watch a channel at all if it is in "yesterday's" resolution is smaller. Will there be enough people who refuse to watch HD channels and only watch 4K channels? I doubt it, but we'll see. Certainly I can't imagine there would ever be any such pressure on anyone to broadcast in 8K. At least, I'd like to see someone try to defend that maybe someday people will refuse to watch that crappy old 4Kp120 on their sweet 8K TV


I would imagine most people have a HDTV now that prices have gone down. I have a Sony 40in HDTV 5 years ago it cost me close to 1,000 now the same TV is about 500 and with extra stuff. This mean more homes have at least one HD box. I have two HD boxes and one SD. Hopefully by 2020 all TV stations would switch to 4K and by that time we will talk about 8k and possibly a 12k or higher.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## patmurphey

Oli74 said:


> I would imagine most people have a HDTV now that prices have gone down. I have a Sony 40in HDTV 5 years ago it cost me close to 1,000 now the same TV is about 500 and with extra stuff. This mean more homes have at least one HD box. I have two HD boxes and one SD. Hopefully by 2020 all TV stations would switch to 4K and by that time we will talk about 8k and possibly a 12k or higher.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually, 4k will be the gold standard for a long time. It does what HD does not, that is, to provide a sharp picture on larger TV sets near the limit of visual acuity at normal watching distances. It is also directly scalable from 1080 by 4 pixels for each one. 8k is not directly scalable - 16k would be, but it is an unnecessary step for normal TV viewing. 4k upscaling will give an improved view of 1080 content during what will be a fairly long transition. My 1080i satellite programing is already noticeably sharper with a 4k TV, and 4k streaming content is growing at a good rate. The limit is now Internet bandwidth and data limits. Cable companies will probably have an edge in getting live content out ahead of DirecTV and Dish Network. Live content and local recording is far more efficient than streaming.


----------



## slice1900

patmurphey said:


> Actually, 4k will be the gold standard for a long time. It does what HD does not, that is, to provide a sharp picture on larger TV sets near the limit of visual acuity at normal watching distances. It is also directly scalable from 1080 by 4 pixels for each one. 8k is not directly scalable - 16k would be, but it is an unnecessary step for normal TV viewing. 4k upscaling will give an improved view of 1080 content during what will be a fairly long transition. My 1080i satellite programing is already noticeably sharper with a 4k TV, and 4k streaming content is growing at a good rate. The limit is now Internet bandwidth and data limits. Cable companies will probably have an edge in getting live content out ahead of DirecTV and Dish Network. Live content and local recording is far more efficient than streaming.


What are you talking about? 8K is directly scalable, four pixels per 4K pixel. Not that I think we'll ever see 8K content, unless 120"+ TVs become popular.


----------



## patmurphey

My bad, I didn't realize that 8k was 16 times the resolution. My point about visual acuity for home TV viewing is valid.


----------



## inkahauts

patmurphey said:


> Actually, 4k will be the gold standard for a long time. It does what HD does not, that is, to provide a sharp picture on larger TV sets near the limit of visual acuity at normal watching distances. It is also directly scalable from 1080 by 4 pixels for each one. 8k is not directly scalable - 16k would be, but it is an unnecessary step for normal TV viewing. 4k upscaling will give an improved view of 1080 content during what will be a fairly long transition. My 1080i satellite programing is already noticeably sharper with a 4k TV, and 4k streaming content is growing at a good rate. The limit is now Internet bandwidth and data limits. Cable companies will probably have an edge in getting live content out ahead of DirecTV and Dish Network. Live content and local recording is far more efficient than streaming.


Directv actually has an edge over just about everyone for getting 4k channels up live since they have more unused bandwidth than anyone else. Dish is probably last.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

slice1900 said:


> What are you talking about? 8K is directly scalable, four pixels per 4K pixel. Not that I think we'll ever see 8K content, unless 120"+ TVs become popular.


8K was actually being demoed at CES LAST YEAR already, and folks might just be surprised how many people have 96"+ displays out there already (or will get them this year).

Keep in mind there are an estimate 850,000 Home Theaters in the U.S. alone with projectors and screens - many of which have 96"+ screens. Those would be some viable candidates for 4K UHD projectors (they showed those at CES this year), not to mention some households that already have 90" HDTV's.

In my subdivision alone, I know of 12 people who have 96"+ displays / screens...and have been told there could be as many as 30. It's quite common to have a dedicated Home Theater in this area...with a projector and screen at minimum.

In any case...the availability of 4K/8K content will drive the momentum more than anything else...just like it did during the 7 year primary adoption period for HD.


----------



## peds48

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Keep in mind there are an estimate 850,000 Home Theaters in the U.S. alone with projectors and screens -


That is just a drop in the bucket. Or the "1%"

The majority of the 125 millions homes in the US would not either will able to accommodate such a monstrosity or would not be able to afford them


----------



## hdtvfan0001

peds48 said:


> That is just a drop in the bucket. Or the "1%"
> 
> The majority of the 125 millions homes in the US would not either will able to accommodate such a monstrosity or would not be able to afford them


Actually...that's just folks with Home Theaters, in contrast to "Media Rooms".

There are plenty of Media Rooms that could support a 90" or larger 4K UHD.


----------



## harsh

How many movie theaters have 2K or lower projectors?

How DIRECTV approaches 4K broadcast is surely going to have a lot to do with whether or not a market develops. It appears to be a long way from here to there and 4K broadcast could just as easily go the way of 3D as it could succeed at this point.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> How many movie theaters have 2K or lower projectors?
> 
> How DIRECTV approaches 4K broadcast is surely going to have a lot to do with whether or not a market develops. It appears to be a long way from here to there and 4K broadcast could just as easily go the way of 3D as it could succeed at this point.


A minority of digital theaters in the US are 4K. Funny how no one ever complains "man that movie was great, but I couldn't enjoy it because the resolution was too low!"


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> A minority of digital theaters in the US are 4K. Funny how no one ever complains "man that movie was great, but I couldn't enjoy it because the resolution was too low!"


I had problems with Star Wars Episode One when it came out ... I sat too close and could see pixels. This was a digital print on film - not digitally projected - but was still a problem related to not enough resolution.

If theaters can "get away" with 2K resolution it diminishes the professional market for 4K. Personally I expect theaters to go 4K as they can afford to convert - which will open the market wider. But their conversions are fairly expensive and their margins are thin (a lot of the ticket price goes to the movie company).


----------



## peds48

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually...that's just folks with Home Theaters, in contrast to "Media Rooms".
> 
> There are plenty of Media Rooms that could support a 90" or larger 4K UHD.


FWIW, my Master Bedroom is my "media room"

"media room" is the poor's people "home theatre".

I have been to hundreds "media rooms" where they could hardly fit a 55 incher


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are plenty of Media Rooms that could support a 90" or larger 4K UHD.


Now that I see 4K projectors for under $5,000, I'm starting to get interested.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Now that I see 4K projectors for under $5,000, I'm starting to get interested.


Yup.

Saw several at CES...and now that they are getting below that price point...interest is growing to a broader audience.

My 1080p from 6 years ago was double that cost, and the new ones are far superior in multiple ways.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

peds48 said:


> FWIW, my Master Bedroom is my "media room"
> 
> "media room" is the poor's people "home theatre".
> 
> I have been to hundreds "media rooms" where they could hardly fit a 55 incher


Understood.

I have been to more than 130 dedicated Home Theaters...with screen, projector, no ambient light, sophisticated rack-mounted audio, lutron or other electronic lighting, and stadium or other advanced seating. Many have complimentary billiard or game rooms. Most were large enough for at least 8-10 people in terms of seating (3 had seating over 15 people).

The average investment for most of those 130 were over $150K. In 5-6 cases, the investments were >$200K. The interesting thing is that similar Theaters can now actually built for considerable less investment because the electronics have come down in price while improving specs at the same time.

For those who really want the Theater experience at Home and build such an area...its very much used and enjoyed. Not every wants or needs one of course. But with plenty out there, not to mention more people wanting the large screen size experience....4K UHD units 90"+ will become more commonplace in the future.


----------



## peds48

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Understood.
> 
> I have been to more than 130 dedicated Home Theaters...with screen, projector, no ambient light, sophisticated rack-mounted audio, lutron or other electronic lighting, and stadium or other advanced seating. Many have complimentary billiard or game rooms. Most were large enough for at least 8-10 people in terms of seating (3 had seating over 15 people).
> 
> The average investment for most of those 130 were over $150K. In 5-6 cases, the investments were >$200K. The interesting thing is that similar Theaters can now actually built for considerable less investment because the electronics have come down in price while improving specs at the same time.


Are you suggesting the average middle class can have the luxury of spending half the Home's value on just the "theater" room.? You know better than that bro!

What you just described is what you find in homes of the 1% folks!


----------



## peds48

hdtvfan0001 said:


> For those who really want the Theater experience at Home and build such an area...its very much used and enjoyed. *Not every wants or needs one of course*. But with plenty out there, not to mention more people wanting the large screen size experience....4K UHD units 90"+ will become more commonplace in the future.


More like NOT every one can afford one!!!!!


----------



## Laxguy

What!!?? Are you indicating there are people here not in the top 1% of income or net worth??
I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> My 1080p from 6 years ago was double that cost, and the new ones are far superior in multiple ways.


I notice that the projectors from Canon, JVC and Sony are all LCoS so I'm guessing that chagrined you.


----------



## peds48

Laxguy said:


> What!!?? Are you indicating there are people here not in the top 1% of income or net worth??
> I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!


apparently there are! If they can afford a $200,000 HT, pretty sure they homes are value at least 10x as much

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> apparently there are! If they can afford a $200,000 HT, pretty sure they homes are value at least 10x as much
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Haven't you seen those "How much house does your $$$ buy in various areas" slideshows on MSN? Couldn't find one at the moment... but if you go to http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/, then you'll notice that if you move from Long Island, NY to, say, West Virginia, you too can easily afford a $200K theater! .

I mean, check this out:

http://www.luxuryhomes.com/lh/listing/United_States/West_Virginia/Charleston/154487

That house is only $780k and probably like 10x the size of your house or mine.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

peds48 said:


> Are you suggesting the average middle class can have the luxury of spending half the Home's value on just the "theater" room.? You know better than that bro!
> 
> What you just described is what you find in homes of the 1% folks!


People often get lost on the dollar amounts discussed.

Keep in mind that the cost of housing varies significantly. A $300,000 home in one area might be a dump in another.

Mind is by no means a "rich" area...but the expectation is a finished basement and frequently that includes a Home Theater. Without one, 20% of the people looking at homes in this area won't even consider one without it.


peds48 said:


> More like NOT every one can afford one!!!!!


Anyone can go into debt to build a Home Theater. It's about choices. As I originally said...the main point was that there are millions of candidates for 4K UHD projectors and TV units. It's not as exclusive as some folks would try and have you believe. Once more content becomes available and the prices come down a bit further...traction will happen, and to much more than just a niche market.


----------



## SledgeHammer

hdtvfan0001 said:


> People often get lost on the dollar amounts discussed.
> 
> Keep in mind that the cost of housing varies significantly. A $300,000 home in one area might be a dump in another.
> 
> Mind is by no means a "rich" area...but the expectation is a finished basement and frequently that includes a Home Theater. Without one, 20% of the people looking at homes in this area won't even consider one without it.
> Anyone can go into debt to build a Home Theater. It's about choices. As I originally said...the main point was that there are millions of candidates for 4K UHD projectors and TV units. It's not as exclusive as some folks would try and have you believe. Once more content becomes available and the prices come down a bit further...traction will happen, and to much more than just a niche market.


Yeah, as I mentioned, housing prices do vary significantly in different areas, but so does salary. So if a pimped out, 10,000 sq ft house on a 2 acre lot is $300k in your area, its also unlikely that most people are pulling down 6 figures. Maybe its my upbringing, but if I'm making $100k - $120k, I wouldn't be spending $200k on a home theater reno... that's dumb. And I like TV. A lot.

Even if my household income was $500K/yr, I don't think I'd drop $200k on a home theater. I'd probably need like a $1M/yr household income before I'd consider spending $200k on one room. Again, that's just me LOL. There's plenty of people who'll buy $100k cars on a $45k/yr salary.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, as I mentioned, housing prices do vary significantly in different areas, but so does salary. So if a pimped out, 10,000 sq ft house on a 2 acre lot is $300k in your area, its also unlikely that most people are pulling down 6 figures. Maybe its my upbringing, but if I'm making $100k - $120k, I wouldn't be spending $200k on a home theater reno... that's dumb. And I like TV. A lot.
> 
> Even if my household income was $500K/yr, I don't think I'd drop $200k on a home theater. I'd probably need like a $1M/yr household income before I'd consider spending $200k on one room. Again, that's just me LOL. There's plenty of people who'll buy $100k cars on a $45k/yr salary.


...and yet there are 8 $100K+ home theaters on my 15 home street alone (1 is over $225K)...and this is NOT a subdivision of that many people making $500K in income. In fact, according to local governmental statistics, the average home listing at this time here is $399K and the the median income for a family was $111,918.

Hardly Beverly Hills... yet Home Theaters are very, very common, and in some areas here, and expectation for home buyers. There are at least a dozen Home Theater consulting/design companies that do s good bit of business in the north part of the state.

So beyond all that ancillary information...the topic is DirecTV's 4K UHD plans...and the main point is that the market goes beyond niche.


----------



## peds48

hdtvfan0001 said:


> People often get lost on the dollar amounts discussed.
> 
> Keep in mind that the cost of housing varies significantly. A $300,000 home in one area might be a dump in another.
> 
> Mind is by no means a "rich" area...but the expectation is a finished basement and frequently that includes a Home Theater. Without one, 20% of the people looking at homes in this area won't even consider one without it.
> Anyone can go into debt to build a Home Theater. It's about choices. As I originally said...the main point was that there are millions of candidates for 4K UHD projectors and TV units. It's not as exclusive as some folks would try and have you believe. Once more content becomes available and the prices come down a bit further...traction will happen, and to much more than just a niche market.


what you are trying to imply makes no sense. so a $300,000 has a room that is worth 70% of the homes value.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

peds48 said:


> what you are trying to imply makes no sense. so a $300,000 has a room that is worth 70% of the homes value.


That's not what I said.

If you read my _*earlier*_ post...the _*average*_ homes in my subdivision average $450K+, and yes...people spend $100K+ on Home Theaters routinely (and at least 2 I know of got back $1.25 on each dollar invested in building them when they sold their house). There are at least 40 homes in the $600K" in the area as well (and nearly every one of those has a Home Theater.

Heck...on Long Island and many other parts of the country....million dollar homes are commonplace, so a $100K Home Theater is just another home enhancement project there.

But all this is secondary to the topic - so enough said.

When DirecTV delivers 4K UHD content beyond VOD...they'll be a market for it.


----------



## peds48

hdtvfan0001 said:


> When DirecTV delivers 4K UHD content beyond VOD...they'll be a market for it.


There is a market for 4K, i just dont see a "huge" market for 90+ inch displays


----------



## hdtvfan0001

peds48 said:


> There is a market for 4K, i just dont see a "huge" market for 90+ inch displays


Maybe...maybe not....we'll know better in 1-2 years most likely.


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> There is a market for 4K, i just dont see a "huge" market for 90+ inch displays


Probably not, I'm predicting the masses will top out at around 65". Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the hell out of 4K on a 55" flat 4K OLED though. That's going to be my next TV .


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> Probably not, I'm predicting the masses will top out at around 65". Doesn't mean you can't enjoy the hell out of 4K on a 55" flat 4K OLED though. That's going to be my next TV .


4K will let us up size our TVs without having to move our couches back. most folks as you say will most likely go from a 40 to a 55 and those with bigger displays already will most likely max out as you say at 65. the fact that TVs are slimmer and smaller in a sense (the bazel is smaller) will allow us to move up jsut a bit in size

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

All this talk of home theaters, if I was to build one it would have a theme..


----------



## inkahauts

peds48 said:


> There is a market for 4K, i just dont see a "huge" market for 90+ inch displays


There are a couple contractors in Arcadia which isn't to far from me that are building new 4 to 6 million dollar homes all around the city whenever they can get their hands on a lot. They are building home theater rooms with 110 inch screens in ever one of them.

I still would call the demand good and not huge unless you are taking about people who'd be interested in something of that nature in the first place. I'm guessing within a couple years people looking at projectors will all be looking at 4k rather than anything else so relatively speaking the demand will be huge compared to the demand for other projectors. But over regular tvs? Eh no.


----------



## peds48

inkahauts said:


> There are a couple contractors in Arcadia which isn't to far from me that are building new 4 to 6 million dollar homes all around the city whenever they can get their hands on a lot. They are building home theater rooms with 110 inch screens in ever one of them.


in those kind of homes, that is to be expected. no disagreement from me there. but that reinforces my point, that the huge projector market is a niche one


----------



## Aridon

Hah awesome!


----------



## loudo

Been out of the loop on this thread for a while. Is there a list, anywhere, of the TVs that support DirecTV 4K? I see on the DirecTV web site it lists all 2014 models, but without doing a lot of research for each set? I was wondering if there was something easier than looking up each model and finding when it was released.


----------



## P Smith

search for "4k RVU directv"


----------



## hdtvfan0001

peds48 said:


> in those kind of homes, that is to be expected. no disagreement from me there. but that reinforces my point, that the huge projector market is a niche one


Then again...neither a $4000 4K UHD projector or $2000 4K UHD TV require a $4 Million home.

I suspect DirecTV knows that...as well as ESPN...as well as Netflix...as well as Google...as well as Amazon...etc.


----------



## peds48

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again...neither a $4000 4K UHD projector or $2000 4K UHD TV require a $4 Million home.
> 
> I suspect DirecTV knows that...as well as ESPN...as well as Netflix...as well as Google...as well as Amazon...etc.


I am not disputing that, my "beef" was with your claim that anyone could afford a 150,000 HT

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

peds48 said:


> I am not disputing that, my "beef" was with your claim that anyone could afford a 150,000 HT


Where did he say that?

In any event, I'd have to build a wing to accommodate any kind of theatre, and while I am thinking of a guest house, I doubt it'll have a separate theatre. Too bad, friends will have to rough it!


----------



## longrider

Another point on the cost is that while there certainly are $150,000 home theaters you don't have to spend that. That picture I posted yesterday, while I was just having fun with the Star Trek bridge theme the fact is he built that for just $15,000. He did do most of the labor himself but it can be done.


----------



## peds48

Laxguy said:


> Where did he say that?
> 
> In any event, I'd have to build a wing to accommodate any kind of theatre, and while I am thinking of a guest house, I doubt it'll have a separate theatre. Too bad, friends will have to rough it!


 somewhere on this thread.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

longrider said:


> All this talk of home theaters, if I was to build one it would have a theme..


Much as I care about TV in all its forms, I really don't like rooms like the one in your picture. I'm not sure why, but I've been in some and I just never felt comfortable. Just my opinion, not looking to argue, but I can think of better ways to spend money. For those folks who have so much money that it doesn't matter to them what anything costs, good for them!

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

peds48 said:


> somewhere on this thread.


C'mon, pal, you know the drill: You make the statement, you back it up with specifics when challenged....


----------



## peds48

Laxguy said:


> C'mon, pal, you know the drill: You make the statement, you back it up with specifics when challenged....


and I always do, but I am mobil now, and it sucks! so this time around you are going to have to do the diggin.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

peds48 said:


> and I always do, but I am mobil now, and it sucks! so this time around you are going to have to do the diggin.


Good reply! But I can wait until you are truly back online.

Have fun.


----------



## peds48

jimmie57 said:


> All that needs to be done is do a search of this thread for 150,000.


aasy to say then done when you are using an app instead of the full website. I miss my Mac...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

too many posts about homes/HT/cost/etc - isn't time to get back to the topic ?
:backtotop:


----------



## P Smith

check the theme - we are talking about DTV 4k offers ...


----------



## Steve

jimmie57 said:


> I can say for certain that the UHD is not in my near future.
> Until there is a lot of broadcast content for me it does not exist.


And even if DIRECTV does broadcast a lot of 4k content, I'm not planning on sitting 7 feet or closer to my 65" display anytime soon. That's where Sony says folks with 20/20 vision need to sit to benefit from 4k resolution. I usually sit 10' to 12' away and I can barely see a difference between 1080p and 720p, if I see one at all. 

That calculation comes from page 8 of this Sony white paper. My 65" display is about 32" tall, so 2.3x the screen height works out to about 7'.


----------



## Laxguy

P Smith said:


> too many posts about homes/HT/cost/etc - isn't time to get back to the topic ?


The best way to do so is for each wanna be mod to *post something interesting *that _*is on topic.*_


----------



## Laxguy

Steve said:


> And even if DIRECTV does broadcast a lot of 4k content, I'm not planning on sitting 7 feet or closer to my 65" display anytime soon. That's where Sony says folks with 20/20 vision need to sit to benefit from 4k resolution. I usually sit 10' to 12' away and I can barely see a difference between 1080p and 720p, if I see one at all.
> 
> That calculation comes from page 8 of this Sony white paper. My 65" display is about 32" tall, so 2.3x the screen height works out to about 7'.


Calculations, schmalculations! Yes, I understand math, but the whole thing isn't just about pixel peeping or precise distances where one can or cannot discern a difference in pixels. It's the whole enchilada, and there's more to it than pixel differentiation. (Steve, I am not saying you don't grok this!)


----------



## Steve

Laxguy said:


> It's the whole enchilada, and there's more to it than pixel differentiation.


Agree. t's always been about picture quality for me. If a 65" 4k TV looks better than a 65" 2k TV past 7', it's because it's a better engineered TV, not because it has more pixels. What I take from that Sony paper is if all else is equal (dynamic range, black levels, etc), a 65" 4k display will look smoother and/or more detailed than a 2k display closer than 7', content permitting.

BTW, using that same Sony distance metric (2.3 x screen height), a 100" screen is 49" tall, so you need to sit 9.3' or closer to appreciate the resolution bump.


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> what you are trying to imply makes no sense. so a $300,000 has a room that is worth 70% of the homes value.


I've seen bathroom and kitchen remodels that cost half as much as a house each.

It all comes down to who and what you want to invest in.


----------



## dennisj00

I can show you a 3.5 Million house that was taken down to the topsoil and is being replaced with something bigger! It's about a mile from the 20,000 sq ft house Denny Hamlin is building. (Nascar)

Can't imagine the HT in either. (or the one that was destroyed)


----------



## Aridon

Nothing like using outlier data points which mean nothing for something.


----------



## peds48

Exactly!


----------



## P Smith

Laxguy said:


> The best way to do so is for each wanna be mod to *post something interesting *that _*is on topic.*_


Mods!

The thead is temporary exhausted - nothing to post before D14 will start transmit REAL 4k content.
Could you please:
- move all the _HT/homes/prices offtrack posts_ to new dedicated thread?
- put on hold the thread?


----------



## Laxguy

Mr. Smith!

Get a life! or:

Don't read this thread, or:

Don't post unless on topic!


----------



## I WANT MORE

My wife moved my treadmill to the back of the room.
Now I can barely see my 50" TV. 
I ordered a 70" 4K. 
Who won?


----------



## P Smith

Treadmill!


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Calculations, schmalculations! Yes, I understand math, but the whole thing isn't just about pixel peeping or precise distances where one can or cannot discern a difference in pixels. It's the whole enchilada, and there's more to it than pixel differentiation. (Steve, I am not saying you don't _*grok*_ this!)


I do hope you've read _Stranger in a Strange Land_ by Heinlein.

Rich


----------



## Rich

I WANT MORE said:


> My wife moved my treadmill to the back of the room.
> Now I can barely see my 50" TV.
> I ordered a 70" 4K.
> Who won?


You might have won the battle, but you'll never win the war... :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Steve

I WANT MORE said:


> My wife moved my treadmill to the back of the room.
> Now I can barely see my 50" TV.
> I ordered a 70" 4K.
> Who won?


Whoever gets the 50" as a hand-me-down?


----------



## Laxguy

Put the old TV in front of the treadmill, and the 4K in front of an easy chair. Then you'll have everything.... Except maybe a happy wife.

Good luck!


----------



## loudo

I had said earlier in this thread, I was buying a 1080p set (new Sony), at that time, and would wait until my next set to buy a 4K TV. Well the other night my 57" DLP TV died, so I took the big step and bought a Samsung 55" 4K. It does a pretty good job upscaling the 1080p to 4K, but a little grainy when you are close to the TV, the SD video is very grainy. The 4K stuff on You Tube is fabulous. just have to wait for more 4K content to come around.


----------



## P Smith

loudo said:


> I had said earlier in this thread, I was buying a 1080p set (new Sony), at that time, and would wait until my next set to buy a 4K TV. Well the other night my 57" DLP TV died, so I took the big step and bought a Samsung 55" 4K. It does a pretty good job upscaling the 1080p to 4K, but a little grainy when you are close to the TV, the SD video is very grainy. The 4K stuff on You Tube is fabulous. just have to wait for more 4K content to come around.


How DTV will suit you in using 4k capabilities ? Isn't the thread about ? Yeah ...


----------



## slice1900

Why the concern over keeping this thread on topic? There isn't anything new to discuss that's "on topic" until Directv makes its next move in 4K beyond the current VOD offering, which may be a year from now. Even if they wanted to move faster they can't, since there are zero 4K channels available and zero even announced, so there is nothing for them to broadcast unless people would get excited about watching demo loops. They may have some test channels and beta hardware sometime this year so they're ready when 4K linear content finally arrives, but such discussion wouldn't be allowed in an open forum.

If the mods were concerned they'd lock this thread, but keeping this thread around allows them a place to redirect any discussion in other threads that gets off track arguing whether 4K will be a hit or a flop, or viewing distances, or whatever


----------



## yosoyellobo

Is there anychance that the networks are ready to provide realtime 4K transmittion next year? If so and if cable and satellite are ready to transmitt will they offer it online?


----------



## P Smith

I'm afraid not, good encoders H.265 and multiplexors are not ready for real workload.


----------



## slice1900

yosoyellobo said:


> Is there anychance that the networks are ready to provide realtime 4K transmittion next year? If so and if cable and satellite are ready to transmitt will they offer it online?


Do you mean cable networks like AMC or HBO? Maybe. If you mean broadcast networks like CBS and ABC, it will be years before you see that. The new ATSC standard that will be required is not even close to complete, is not backwards compatible, etc. so don't hold your breath.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Too bad. I am dying to see real live sports in 4K.


----------



## slice1900

yosoyellobo said:


> Too bad. I am dying to see real live sports in 4K.


Other than perhaps a few special events, I'll bet that's a few years away yet.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> _*Why the concern over keeping this thread on topic? *_There isn't anything new to discuss that's "on topic" until Directv makes its next move in 4K beyond the current VOD offering, which may be a year from now. Even if they wanted to move faster they can't, since there are zero 4K channels available and zero even announced, so there is nothing for them to broadcast unless people would get excited about watching demo loops. They may have some test channels and beta hardware sometime this year so they're ready when 4K linear content finally arrives, but such discussion wouldn't be allowed in an open forum.
> 
> If the mods were concerned they'd lock this thread, but keeping this thread around allows them a place to redirect any discussion in other threads that gets off track arguing whether 4K will be a hit or a flop, or viewing distances, or whatever


We seem to get into some pretty good discussions when we go off topic. In a thread like this, we'd just see repeated posts worded slightly differently. I see no problems with going off topic. Just my opinion.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Other than a few special events, like the BB game from London- and I think that was for private or at least very limited viewing—the only way to get 4K of a sporting event is to buy a ticket and go to the stadium. There it's 8k or better! 



But I agree: sports will be key to full development/deployment of 4K.


----------



## slice1900

Since it is quite recently that HDMI 2.0 chipsets that allow the full 18 Gbps bandwidth required for 4Kp60 have been available, almost all the 4K TVs sold to date wouldn't support 4K sports anyway. Probably better that it takes a while for that to happen, so most people will be fine to watch them and only the early adopters will be screwed.


----------



## harsh

yosoyellobo said:


> Too bad. I am dying to see real live sports in 4K.


You may have to take a trip to the other side of the planet around the time of the Olympic Games to see that.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Since it is quite recently that HDMI 2.0 chipsets that allow the full 18 Gbps bandwidth required for 4Kp60 have been available, almost all the 4K TVs sold to date wouldn't support 4K sports anyway. Probably better that it takes a while for that to happen, so most people will be fine to watch them and only the early adopters will be screwed.


Not having 18Gbps HDMI doens't prevent the broadcast of lower bandwidth UHD that will fit on HDMI 1.4.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> Not having 18Gbps HDMI doens't prevent the broadcast of lower bandwidth UHD that will fit on HDMI 1.4.


and it most likely real take of sat companies;
regardless of HDMI version, they will compress video to absolute minimum as we saw what happened with HD


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> Not having 18Gbps HDMI doens't prevent the broadcast of lower bandwidth UHD that will fit on HDMI 1.4.


HDMI 1.4x @ 10.2Gbps supports 4K @ 30fps
HDMI 2.0 @ 10.2Gbps supports 4K @ 60fps 4:2:0
HDMI 2.0 @ 18Gbps supports 4K @ 60fps 4:4:4

You are missing one minor detail though... assuming DirecTV plays by the rules and the Genie4K is protected by HDCP 2.2 as it is supposed to be, HDMI 1.4x wouldn't even work. HDCP 2.2 is only supported on HDMI 2.0.

Streaming / RVU doesn't go through HDMI, so its not HDCP 2.2 protected content.

I don't expect DirecTV's 4K RVU hack to last too long... they just wanted bragging rights.


----------



## Aridon

You'll be waiting awhile.


----------



## Diana C

P Smith said:


> and it most likely real take of sat companies;
> regardless of HDMI version, they will compress video to absolute minimum as we saw what happened with HD


Exactly...and cable operators compress HD to beyond the minimum, so if they ever carry UHD they will do the same to it.


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> HDMI 1.4x @ 10.2Gbps supports 4K @ 30fps
> HDMI 2.0 @ 10.2Gbps supports 4K @ 60fps 4:2:0
> HDMI 2.0 @ 18Gbps supports 4K @ 60fps 4:4:4
> 
> You are missing one minor detail though... assuming DirecTV plays by the rules and the Genie4K is protected by HDCP 2.2 as it is supposed to be, HDMI 1.4x wouldn't even work. HDCP 2.2 is only supported on HDMI 2.0.
> 
> Streaming / RVU doesn't go through HDMI, so its not HDCP 2.2 protected content.
> 
> I don't expect DirecTV's 4K RVU hack to last too long... they just wanted bragging rights.


Not sure why you call it a hack per se, as it does do what its intended to do, and with so few 4k titles out there, I think it more than adequately meets what is needed today. SO the question then becomes, when will there be more content. A lot more....


----------



## SledgeHammer

inkahauts said:


> Not sure why you call it a hack per se, as it does do what its intended to do, and with so few 4k titles out there, I think it more than adequately meets what is needed today. SO the question then becomes, when will there be more content. A lot more....


Well, they do make you pay for an extra TV for one thing . Is that more of a scam, or more of a hack?


----------



## Ed Campbell

slice1900 said:


> Other than perhaps a few special events, I'll bet that's a few years away yet.


Check sales numbers for folks like Vizio, gossip abt traffic battles between Amazon and Netflix - and footdragging content providers, esp sports, will lose to hungry producers.

Even with uprezz'd content like sports, we rearranged LR furniture to move closer to the same size set we had before 4K.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## longrider

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, they do make you pay for an extra TV for one thing . Is that more of a scam, or more of a hack?


That only comes up in a single TV household. In all other cases you delete a client when you add the RVU TV so the cost is the same


----------



## harsh

longrider said:


> That only comes up in a single TV household. In all other cases you delete a client when you add the RVU TV so the cost is the same


Unless you drop a TV or move the Genie to a different TV, you're paying for an additional TV.


----------



## slice1900

Ed Campbell said:


> Check sales numbers for folks like Vizio, gossip abt traffic battles between Amazon and Netflix - and footdragging content providers, esp sports, will lose to hungry producers.


Sports providers can drag their feet all they want, because they have zero risk of losing to "hungry producers". It is all about who holds the rights. NFL fans aren't going to start watching soccer instead of the NFL if soccer is available in 4K first.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Unless you drop a TV or move the Genie to a different TV, you're paying for an additional TV.


No you are not. Well, maybe you would if you were a DIRECTV® subscriber, but most of us have more than one TV. You simply turn in the client/receiver you had on the second TV.


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, they do make you pay for an extra TV for one thing . Is that more of a scam, or more of a hack?


How many people actually have only one tv though? Because that's the only people that affects. I would not call that a scam or a hack.

Back to one tv, Especially only one 4k tv. Yes there will be a few but I bet it's maybe 1%. Could be wrong but maybe a little poll would shed some light.


----------



## dennisj00

SledgeHammer said:



> Well, they do make you pay for an extra TV for one thing . Is that more of a scam, or more of a hack?


Let's just say there won't be record profits from this charge! And what's $6.50 a month if you just bought a 4k TV?


----------



## slice1900

dennisj00 said:


> Let's just say there won't be record profits from this charge! And what's $6.50 a month if you just bought a 4k TV?


Given that the Netflix upgrade (if you aren't already on the Family Plan) to allow streaming 4K content is only $3/month, quite a lot. The $11.99 a month you pay for Netflix allows unlimited 4K streaming and up to four streams at once, while you pay Directv $6.50/month for your 4K TV and then pay them per movie on top of that up to $15.99 for a single title! Netflix has a larger library too.

Directv just did this for the publicity of saying "we've got 4K", but it isn't an offer that makes financial sense for anyone.


----------



## James Long

dennisj00 said:


> Let's just say there won't be record profits from this charge! And what's $6.50 a month if you just bought a 4k TV?


True. It would probably be easier to pay the $6.50 than move equipment around to make the 4K TV a remote placing the genie at another location. Some cost savings are not worth the hassle.


----------



## djrobx

dennisj00 said:


> Let's just say there won't be record profits from this charge! And what's $6.50 a month if you just bought a 4k TV?


A lot. I just bought a 4k 65" TV for $1499. I wasn't really shopping for a 4K TV but my 2 year old Samsung plasma died and needed something decent to replace it. There's no way I'd spend an extra $6.50/mo for a relatively small PQ quality increase. We haven't bought into the more expensive Netflix plan either. I can definitely see a difference from HD to 4K but it's an incremental improvement. It's nowhere near the improvement SD to HD was on a 65" screen. Maybe if I had a 120" screen I'd feel differently.


----------



## dennisj00

James Long said:


> True. It would probably be easier to pay the $6.50 than move equipment around to make the 4K TV a remote placing the genie at another location. Some cost savings are not worth the hassle.


And you don't have to move the Genie. . . you can have the Genie on one input and still use the built in client on the same TV.

What several posters didn't get from my post is if you bought a $2k TV (pick a number) the $6.50 a month is less than the interest on the credit card bill!! Plus the lack of programming at + $10 a pop or the higher streaming for Netflix at more $.

The last TV I bought (~$1500), the retailer threw in a $200 soundbar which if you need it (need?) which is almost 3 years of the 6.50 charge.

I don't have one but I'd guess if you talked to a CSR nicely, you'd probably get the 6.50 credited.

There seems to be around 20 people here on the board that qualify / use the 4k , so maybe 50 or even a 100 total ? Not a big money maker for D.


----------



## inkahauts

You know one option you could add 4k for a month watch all the 4k programs they have and then turn it off for six months till there was enough new stuff to turn it in again for a month. Rinse and repeat. 

But really if someone has a client somewhere already in the house then personally I'd just switch clients for the once in a blue moon that I actually watched 4k myself. 

Till there is a lot more to watch little workaround solutions solve any issues IMHO.


----------



## James Long

dennisj00 said:


> And you don't have to move the Genie. . . you can have the Genie on one input and still use the built in client on the same TV.


Then you are paying for two receivers for the same set (first receiver free on older accounts, but I hope you see the point). The complaint was customers being forced to pay $6.50 for the client ... the argument against the complaint was the ability to move equipment to other TVs. Your suggestion doesn't save the $6.50 for the client.


----------



## dennisj00

James Long said:


> Then you are paying for two receivers for the same set (first receiver free on older accounts, but I hope you see the point). The complaint was customers being forced to pay $6.50 for the client ... the argument against the complaint was the ability to move equipment to other TVs. Your suggestion doesn't save the $6.50 for the client.


I understand completely. But before I'd move the 44, I'd substitute the client while I wanted to watch 4k. . . or as I posted . .

'if you talked to a CSR nicely, you'd probably get the 6.50 credited.' Directv doesn't have a method to check that it's a client on the same TV as the 44.

But my overall point still stands . . if you're buying a 4k TV of any quality, $6.50 a month isn't something to worry about. Drive by Starbucks once or twice a month!


----------



## Laxguy

Heh, I drive by them every day of the week! 

By one set of calculations, by roasting and brewing my own espresso drinks, I am 'making' about $70 a week. 
(3 drinks @ $3.50 each per day). Making as in "a penny saved is a penny earned". (Now have to figure in capital cost of grinder and espresso machine and over what period to amortize it)


----------



## dennisj00

Laxguy said:


> Heh, I drive by them every day of the week!
> 
> By one set of calculations, by roasting and brewing my own espresso drinks, I am 'making' about $70 a week.
> (3 drinks @ $3.50 each per day). Making as in "a penny saved is a penny earned". (Now have to figure in capital cost of grinder and espresso machine and over what period to amortize it)


And you're not complaining about a $6 bag of coffee for your $$$ machine.


----------



## Laxguy

dennisj00 said:


> And you're not complaining about a $6 bag of coffee for your $$$ machine.


Nope, and these $5-7 bags are an actual pound! (Vs. A frequent level of $13-17 for premium roasted coffees).

I see a trend in CA to sell coffee in 12 oz bags. Da bums!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Speaking of DirecTV 4K UHD plans....(the original topic)....

With the D-14 sat poised to go live *soon* and D-15 coming...it seems fair to assume that those big-investment units were being positioned to update, improve, and expand capacities in advance of delivering 4K services.

It seems that following what ESPN, major networks, pay services, Disney, and others are planning for 4K UHD this year and beyond could be useful to understand the trends as well as the "big picture" future. Since I don't drink coffee,,I have more time to follow 4K things (and use potential coffee money for future services)... :grin:


----------



## Laxguy

But if you did drink coffee, and effected the savings I do, you'd be rich! You could buy 20 4K sets, one for each room in your mansion! 



It seems to me that only DIRECTV has the capacity to make big with UHD. That it remains to be seen just how big is the question in my mind. GO DIRECTV!


----------



## SledgeHammer

Laxguy said:


> It seems to me that only DIRECTV has the capacity to make big with UHD. That it remains to be seen just how big is the question in my mind. GO DIRECTV!


Dish announced the Joey 4K (with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 ) for this summer. DirecTV hasn't done jack yet except figure out how to charge you twice per TV and make you pay ~$20 to watch Ghostbusters.


----------



## Laxguy

Your disdain is showing. 

It's not so much about the in home DVRs as it is about the ability to get it to your dish. I don't see any one, except maybe fibre in some markets, being able to deliver the bandwidth that DIRECTV® will shortly be able to. 

Can anyone dispute the latter point?


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> You simply turn in the client/receiver you had on the second TV.


Because PiP/PbP looks so much better on the 39" TV?


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> It's not so much about the in home DVRs as it is about the ability to get it to your dish. I don't see any one, except maybe fibre in some markets, being able to deliver the bandwidth that DIRECTV® will shortly be able to.
> 
> Can anyone dispute the latter point?


Delivering bandwidth and valuable programming are two completely separate issues. Remember the promise of capacity for more than 150 national HD channels made back in the Summer of 2004?

DIRECTV has suggested they might start carrying real UHD next year but who knows even what kind of LNB and switchgear will be required at this point?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> DIRECTV has suggested they might start carrying real UHD next year but who knows even what kind of LNB and switchgear will be required at this point?


I bet DirecTV knows.


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> Dish announced the Joey 4K (with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 ) for this summer. DirecTV hasn't done jack yet except figure out how to charge you twice per TV and make you pay ~$20 to watch Ghostbusters.


With so little true 4k available it'll be no different than what DIRECTV offers now and again unless it's a one tv household there's no extra fee. And you are dreaming if you think dishes won't be PPV too at the same price ranges.

And it sounds like theirs will come over the Internet instead of via sat tying up your internet. I hope not but they don't seem to have the bandwidth for much UHD. And they won't have much for a long time.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Laxguy said:


> Your disdain is showing.
> 
> It's not so much about the in home DVRs as it is about the ability to get it to your dish. I don't see any one, except maybe fibre in some markets, being able to deliver the bandwidth that DIRECTV® will shortly be able to.
> 
> Can anyone dispute the latter point?


LOL, I do have disdain for a LOT of DirecTVs business practices. I don't think I've ever felt that way about any other company tbh.

DirecTV did the RVU hack / work-around / whatever you want to call it, so they could claim they were the first with 4K. Personally, I'd give those bragging rights to DISH with the Joey 4K (assuming they deliver on time) as of today. If DirecTV delivers a viable solution for 4K before the Joey 4K is out, I'd probably change my tune assuming it doesn't involve the usual DirecTV racketeering charges :sure: .

I mean, seriously dude, if you don't see a problem with double charging you on a TV just so you can pay ~$20 to watch Ghostbusters, I dunno what else to tell you . DirecTV does all sorts of things like that, that nobody else does. $3 for WHDVR, $3.63 (mine) RSN when I watch ZERO sports (didn't even watch the superbowl), double charging for 4K, calling ALL DVRs the same thing when they clearly are not. Nobody considers the HR20 to be equivalent to the HR24 and nobody considers the HR34 to be equivalent to the HR44. Forcing you to take truck rolls for upgrades @ $50 a pop... charging +$30 compared to DISH, etc. The list goes on. These are all the same complaints that a lot of people have, not just me.

Now granted, there are "work-arounds" for some of these things, but thats the whole point...


----------



## SledgeHammer

inkahauts said:


> With so little true 4k available it'll be no different than what DIRECTV offers now and again unless it's a one tv household there's no extra fee. And you are dreaming if you think dishes won't be PPV too at the same price ranges.
> 
> And it sounds like theirs will come over the Internet instead of via sat tying up your internet. I hope not but they don't seem to have the bandwidth for much UHD. And they won't have much for a long time.


Since I'm a one TV household, I get hit by a few "we hate one TV households" fees .


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Dish announced the Joey 4K (with HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 ) for this summer. DirecTV hasn't done jack yet except figure out how to charge you twice per TV and make you pay ~$20 to watch Ghostbusters.


It is a bit too early to be congratulating Dish. There's not much point to having a 4K receiver until there are actual 4K channels, which don't exist yet and none have been announced. All Dish can do is offer VOD, PPV and demo loops. Until real content exists, Dish's 4K announcement is every bit as much of a pointless marketing exercise as Directv's.

Directv is in a much better position if 4K is a big success because they have a lot more bandwidth available to deliver it than Dish does. Dish can't even deliver RSNs in full time HD, if 20 4K channels were available at this time next year, Directv would be in a position to deliver them. Dish wouldn't have a prayer.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> ...Dish wouldn't have a prayer.


Never say never when it comes to Dish. Nobody thought they had the bandwidth to do enough HD to be competitive either, but they managed to scrap together the bandwidth. Though, if you look at what they have been doing lately, it seems to me that Charlie Ergen is planning his exit from the DBS business just like he planned his exit from the big C-band dish business 30 years ago. It would appear that his next big endeavor is going to be wireless internet, based upon the amount of spectrum they've been buying.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Because PiP/PbP looks so much better on the 39" TV?


That has nothing to do with the price of eggs!

Some of us don't use PiP except as a rarity.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> It is a bit too early to be congratulating Dish. There's not much point to having a 4K receiver until there are actual 4K channels, which don't exist yet and none have been announced. All Dish can do is offer VOD, PPV and demo loops. Until real content exists, Dish's 4K announcement is every bit as much of a pointless marketing exercise as Directv's.
> 
> Directv is in a much better position if 4K is a big success because they have a lot more bandwidth available to deliver it than Dish does. Dish can't even deliver RSNs in full time HD, if 20 4K channels were available at this time next year, Directv would be in a position to deliver them. Dish wouldn't have a prayer.


Quite. The point (second paragraph) I made a few times also. I would have done the same with the first para, but you beat me to it!


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> It is a bit too early to be congratulating Dish. There's not much point to having a 4K receiver until there are actual 4K channels, which don't exist yet and none have been announced. All Dish can do is offer VOD, PPV and demo loops. Until real content exists, Dish's 4K announcement is every bit as much of a pointless marketing exercise as Directv's.
> 
> Directv is in a much better position if 4K is a big success because they have a lot more bandwidth available to deliver it than Dish does. Dish can't even deliver RSNs in full time HD, if 20 4K channels were available at this time next year, Directv would be in a position to deliver them. Dish wouldn't have a prayer.


Didn't I read a couple of days ago that Dish just won a huge swath of bandwidth?


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Didn't I read a couple of days ago that Dish just won a huge swath of bandwidth?


That was wireless bandwidth on Earth. Not satellite. The latter isn't auctioned off, you file requests with the FCC on a first come/first saved basis and have to meet milestones for building satellites and using it.

Dish may well have some unused satellite licenses they've won but aren't using yet, but they'd have to launch a satellite able to use it and deploy equipment for their customers to receive it so it isn't something they could put into use immediately - certainly not by June, or probably even next June unless they're nearly ready to launch a new satellite.

However, given the lengthy timeline likely for 4K to really get going (i.e. years) that may not be an issue.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> There's not much point to having a 4K receiver until there are actual 4K channels, which don't exist yet and none have been announced. All Dish can do is offer VOD, PPV and demo loops. Until real content exists, Dish's 4K announcement is every bit as much of a pointless marketing exercise as Directv's.


Having a real 4K box and an LNB that can pull reverse band would be something real... even if its only used for VOD and PPV at this point. We sort of have a chicken and the egg problem.

Nobody is going to announce a 4K channel until there is a way to deliver it. There is none at this time except DirecTVs RVU hack or streaming options like Netflix / Amazon.

For DirecTV to deliver 4K to you (by the book), the 4K Genie would have to be 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2.

For DirectTV to have a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 4K Genie, you'd at the very least need an 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. 4K TV and optionally a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 AVR.

Most AVR mfgrs are releasing AVRs by the end of the year.
UltraHD BluRay is out by Xmas
Joey 4K is out by summer
TVs are trickling out -- early adopters who don't have 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 4K TVs are going to be left holding the proverbial bag

Once the hardware infrastructure is in place, the 4K channels will start trickling out like they did with HD. First the big primetime shows and eventually cialis commercials.

Seeing as the hardware will be in place by EOY 2015, I'd expect at least one 4K channel by EOY 2016 at the latest.


----------



## yosoyellobo

C-span in 4k. I can't wait.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Having a real 4K box and an LNB that can pull reverse band would be something real... even if its only used for VOD and PPV at this point. We sort of have a chicken and the egg problem.
> 
> Nobody is going to announce a 4K channel until there is a way to deliver it. There is none at this time except DirecTVs RVU hack or streaming options like Netflix / Amazon.
> 
> For DirecTV to deliver 4K to you (by the book), the 4K Genie would have to be 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2.
> 
> For DirectTV to have a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 4K Genie, you'd at the very least need an 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. 4K TV and optionally a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 AVR.
> 
> Most AVR mfgrs are releasing AVRs by the end of the year.
> UltraHD BluRay is out by Xmas
> Joey 4K is out by summer
> TVs are trickling out -- early adopters who don't have 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 4K TVs are going to be left holding the proverbial bag
> 
> Once the hardware infrastructure is in place, the 4K channels will start trickling out like they did with HD. First the big primetime shows and eventually cialis commercials.
> 
> Seeing as the hardware will be in place by EOY 2015, I'd expect at least one 4K channel by EOY 2016 at the latest.


Chips implementing full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 are already available, so those shouldn't be holding up 4K receivers. Directv may wait for DVB-S2X, if so you won't see any 4K hardware until the end of this year or into next. I highly doubt there are networks all ready to flip the switch on a 4K channel but are holding off just because they don't have a provider on board. Directv and Dish will know who is where on delivering 4K and set their schedules accordingly. I am willing to bet there won't be any linear 4K channels in 2015.

Also, don't hold your breath waiting for primetime shows on 4K, especially for satellite customers. Those will take years, because there is no way to deliver them OTA, and Directv and Dish's current spot beam setup can't deliver them via satellite. You'll see crap reality shows like Honey Boo Boo in 4K before you see Big Bang Theory or the Super Bowl in 4K.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Chips implementing full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 are already available, so those shouldn't be holding up 4K receivers. Directv may wait for DVB-S2X, if so you won't see any 4K hardware until the end of this year or into next. I highly doubt there are networks all ready to flip the switch on a 4K channel but are holding off just because they don't have a provider on board. Directv and Dish will know who is where on delivering 4K and set their schedules accordingly. I am willing to bet there won't be any linear 4K channels in 2015.
> 
> Also, don't hold your breath waiting for primetime shows on 4K, especially for satellite customers. Those will take years, because there is no way to deliver them OTA, and Directv and Dish's current spot beam setup can't deliver them via satellite. You'll see crap reality shows like Honey Boo Boo in 4K before you see Big Bang Theory or the Super Bowl in 4K.


Serious question... do you think OTA is going to hold up the 4K switchover? ATSC 3.0 is supposedly the OTA standard for 4K. Its probably about 10 yrs away. If ever.

They might just do a thing like they did with HD at first, only have the LA and NY feeds in 4K and split the country in half, or maybe even give you both. There might be some annoyance from the local affiliates, but whatcha gonna do? I do see to remember, at the way early beginning I was able to get both the LA and NY feeds for the networks.

Once people start buying 4K equipment, they are going to start demanding 4K content beyond streaming and UHD BluRay. I don't think the internet could handle 4K streaming across the board.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> That was wireless bandwidth on Earth. Not satellite. The latter isn't auctioned off, you file requests with the FCC on a first come/first saved basis and have to meet milestones for building satellites and using it.


Some DBS spectrum was auctioned. DISH bought their spectrum at 110 from an auction winner, and won spectrum they used at 148.



slice1900 said:


> Dish may well have some unused satellite licenses they've won but aren't using yet, but they'd have to launch a satellite able to use it and deploy equipment for their customers to receive it so it isn't something they could put into use immediately - certainly not by June, or probably even next June unless they're nearly ready to launch a new satellite.


DISH has other plans to open up existing spectrum in June. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> Some DBS spectrum was auctioned. DISH bought their spectrum at 110 from an auction winner, and won spectrum they used at 148.
> 
> DISH has other plans to open up existing spectrum in June. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.


I didn't realize DBS spectrum had ever been auctioned, but anyway the point was that the $10 billion in spectrum Dish won in the recent auction is earthbound spectrum, not satellite.

I assume the "existing spectrum" opening up in June refers to the 8PSK conversion? Dish isn't going to net all that much from that... If they go from 20 Ms/s QPSK 7/8 to 21.5 Ms/s 8PSK 2/3 they go from about 35 Mbps to 43 Mbps, a bit over 20% gain. So if they did that across 20 transponders (I don't know how many would be converting, this is just an example) they'll add bandwidth equivalent to adding only 4 1/2 new transponders!

They are using other combos like 20 Ms/s QPSK 5/6 and you mentioned they have some 22.5 Ms/s 8PSK so the gain may be a bit better depending on exactly what they're converting to what, but it isn't like they'll be gaining 50%. They'll be doing well to get half that. If you can point to which satellites will be converting in June it would be simple to count up the transponders, assume the 'slow' ones will be upgraded to match the others on the same satellite, and calculate exactly what they'll get.

This will hardly build them a major beachhead for 4K given that they still have holes they have to fill in their HD lineup. Of course Directv has some holes to fill in their HD lineup too, but they've got 16 transponders for HD and 18 for 4K in orbit ready to light up any day now, and another 18 for 4K launches in a few months. It is pretty obvious Directv is in a far better position bandwidth-wise overall, and especially for 4K, than is Dish.


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> Since I'm a one TV household, I get hit by a few "we hate one TV households" fees .


Id be calling for discounts then to offset the one extra fee you could possibly have which is for 4k.

Whole Home Service is not an extra fee even if you have only one tv. Their DVR service is 15 now. You are paying 13 if you have Whole Home Service as a separate line time so you come out ahead. They basically are giving all old customers a 2discount for having DVRs a long time.

And you do realize the irony of your argument for dish right? It's a Joey. Joeys only work with hoppers. So it's still a minimum two tv solution from dish as well. Add in the Internet factor and they are as big or bigger a "hack" I would say.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> Some DBS spectrum was auctioned. DISH bought their spectrum at 110 from an auction winner, and won spectrum they used at 148.
> 
> DISH has other plans to open up existing spectrum in June. But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.


Dishes best chance at having good bandwidth for 4k is killing off sd.


----------



## James Long

How many 4K channels does any provider need to support in June 2015? June 2016? June 2020?

This discussion reminds me of the introduction of HD where new satellites were introduced with the capacity for a large number HD channels. It took years to get to the level of 100 channels actually carried. Will there be 20 UHD/4K channels to carry in June? Will there be 10 channels? Five?

Capacity is good ... but filled capacity is better. The content is not coming as fast as the capacity.

I also expect to see multiple channels per transponder ... not multiple transponders per UHD/4K feed. Even on DirecTV. That certainly helps find capacity for the limited content that will be available.


----------



## SledgeHammer

inkahauts said:


> Id be calling for discounts then to offset the one extra fee you could possibly have which is for 4k.
> 
> Whole Home Service is not an extra fee even if you have only one tv. Their DVR service is 15 now. You are paying 13 if you have Whole Home Service as a separate line time so you come out ahead. They basically are giving all old customers a 2discount for having DVRs a long time.
> 
> And you do realize the irony of your argument for dish right? It's a Joey. Joeys only work with hoppers. So it's still a minimum two tv solution from dish as well. Add in the Internet factor and they are as big or bigger a "hack" I would say.


I doubt they'd give me any more discounts as I'm pretty much maxed out in that department . A while ago, I tried to get WHDVR credited so I could upgrade to a Genie in my 1 TV household and they said no.

I'm an old timer, man... my bill is $10 HD + $10 DVR fee. WHDVR would bump up my bill by $3 assuming they would let me use that "version" and not make me go to the "$25 version".

Yes, I did mention the 4K *Joey *specifically, but I assumed a 4K Joey would require a 4K Hopper. Perhaps a mistaken assumption. If viewing 4K on Dish requires "2 TVs" and they don't issue credits for 1 TV accounts, then yeah, I'd have a problem with them in that area too.

I'm not picking on DirecTV just because...


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> There's not much point to having a 4K receiver until there are actual 4K channels, which don't exist yet and none have been announced.


You and inkahauts need to compare notes.


----------



## James Long

SledgeHammer said:


> Yes, I did mention the 4K *Joey *specifically, but I assumed a 4K Joey would require a 4K Hopper. Perhaps a mistaken assumption. If viewing 4K on Dish requires "2 TVs" and they don't issue credits for 1 TV accounts, then yeah, I'd have a problem with them in that area too.


Nope. No "4K Hopper" will be required ... but the same issue you complain about will apply in one TV homes. Hopper plus 4K Joey to serve one TV. With DISH's $7 fee (unless they charge more for the 4K). 

Perhaps there will be a "4K Hopper" at some point in the future. The satellite receivers can handle a 4K signal just fine. Getting the signal to the TV set is the challenge. DirecTV has solved that problem via RVU ... DISH will solve it via a new Joey. If 4K becomes as popular as some predict I expect all providers will update their receivers appropriately.


----------



## Rich

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I bet DirecTV knows.


I hope they know that better than they knew the 20-700s that they unleashed on an unsuspecting public in late 2006. I hope they know that better than they knew how to give us DLBs (and the assorted nightmares that brought). I hope they know that better than they knew how to put out an HD Guide. I hope we don't see any more of these nightmares, I hope a lot, but I don't trust them.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> _*LOL, I do have disdain for a LOT of DirecTVs business practices. I don't think I've ever felt that way about any other company tbh.*_
> 
> DirecTV did the RVU hack / work-around / whatever you want to call it, so they could claim they were the first with 4K. Personally, I'd give those bragging rights to DISH with the Joey 4K (assuming they deliver on time) as of today. If DirecTV delivers a viable solution for 4K before the Joey 4K is out, I'd probably change my tune assuming it doesn't involve the usual DirecTV racketeering charges :sure: .
> 
> I mean, seriously dude, if you don't see a problem with double charging you on a TV just so you can pay ~$20 to watch Ghostbusters, I dunno what else to tell you . DirecTV does all sorts of things like that, that nobody else does. $3 for WHDVR, $3.63 (mine) RSN when I watch ZERO sports (didn't even watch the superbowl), double charging for 4K, calling ALL DVRs the same thing when they clearly are not. Nobody considers the HR20 to be equivalent to the HR24 and nobody considers the HR34 to be equivalent to the HR44. Forcing you to take truck rolls for upgrades @ $50 a pop... charging +$30 compared to DISH, etc. The list goes on. These are all the same complaints that a lot of people have, not just me.
> 
> Now granted, there are "work-arounds" for some of these things, but thats the whole point...


I could not agree more. Back in 2007, my wife was asking me why I put up with D*. Her comment was something like, you have little patience with other companies, yet you put up with this ("this" being the nightmare we were in at the time). At the time I had very good reasons for sticking with them, but it does get tiresome. But when you have no other viable choices, what are you gonna do? Learn how to play the game, go with the workarounds. Think what Cablevision did to Yankee fans on 2002. I wasn't going back to them. Dish didn't have YES. I wasn't going to them. What else was there? Now I know how to play the game, they can jack up their prices all they want, I'll keep my monthly payments where I want them.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> That has nothing to do with the price of eggs!
> 
> Some of us don't use PiP except as a rarity.


Technology from the '90s, not many people cared for it then. I kept trying to find a use for it, since all my TVs had it, but I gave up on it.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

The use case for PiP was to switch over to something else during commercials, or watch two things at once. DVRs obsoleted the first case, dual tuner DVRs that allowed switching between two live tuners (and better yet, allowed going back for what you missed) obsoleted the second. No point for PiP now.


----------



## SledgeHammer

James Long said:


> Nope. No "4K Hopper" will be required ... but the same issue you complain about will apply in one TV homes. Hopper plus 4K Joey to serve one TV. With DISH's $7 fee (unless they charge more for the 4K).
> 
> Perhaps there will be a "4K Hopper" at some point in the future. The satellite receivers can handle a 4K signal just fine. Getting the signal to the TV set is the challenge. DirecTV has solved that problem via RVU ... DISH will solve it via a new Joey. If 4K becomes as popular as some predict I expect all providers will update their receivers appropriately.


Well, we know DirecTV is going to need a new Dish / LNB / Multiswitch / SWM / DVR to pull reverse band, so I'd expect there to be a 4K Genie or maybe they'll at least call it a reverse band capable box. From what I've read on here, the HR44 isn't capable of tuning to reverse band and the... forget the acronym, but something like DVB2X or something like that?


----------



## yosoyellobo

slice1900 said:


> The use case for PiP was to switch over to something else during commercials, or watch two things at once. DVRs obsoleted the first case, dual tuner DVRs that allowed switching between two live tuners (and better yet, allowed going back for what you missed) obsoleted the second. No point for PiP now.


I try it a few times to watch two soccer games at once. Was ok as long as I did not try to chew gum.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> The use case for PiP was to switch over to something else during commercials, or watch two things at once. DVRs obsoleted the first case, dual tuner DVRs that allowed switching between two live tuners (and better yet, allowed going back for what you missed) obsoleted the second. No point for PiP now.


Never really saw a point of it in the first place and I tried and tried to find a use for it. I had a huge 40" Sony that would put side by side pictures on the screen. Never saw any use for that either.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, we know DirecTV is going to need a new Dish / LNB / Multiswitch / SWM / DVR to pull reverse band, so I'd expect there to be a 4K Genie or maybe they'll at least call it a reverse band capable box. From what I've read on here, the HR44 isn't capable of tuning to reverse band and the... forget the acronym, but something like DVB2X or something like that?


The only thing that MUST change to receive reverse band is the LNB. Depending on the choices they made, reverse band would or wouldn't be compatible with the other stuff. Since it will be used for 4K it is irrelevant whether current receivers can receive it (though I'll bet existing SWM8/SWM16s are able to deal with it just fine) But had they decided to use it for HD, they could design a new LNB I'd swap out and all the equipment in my signature would work just fine with the new HD channels on reverse band.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Yeah, I haven't used PIP in a long, long time. I remember I would use it to flip through channels during commercials and have the real channel I wanted in the PIP. Now I just start watching 15 mins into the show so I can FF through commercials.


----------



## Drew2k

SledgeHammer said:


> For DirecTV to deliver 4K to you (by the book), the 4K Genie would have to be 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2.
> 
> For DirectTV to have a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 4K Genie, you'd at the very least need an 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. 4K TV and optionally a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 AVR.


Quite a while back I recall discussion of the TV also needing to support H.265 encoded video. Is that still a separate requirement or is that now essentially automatic in 4K TVs that have HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 ?


----------



## SledgeHammer

Drew2k said:


> Quite a while back I recall discussion of the TV also needing to support H.265 encoded video. Is that still a separate requirement or is that now essentially automatic in 4K TVs that have HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 ?


3 completely seperate things 

HDMI 2.0 - transport mechanism between devices... there are 2 flavors out 10.2Gbps / 18Gbps... you want 18Gbps to be "future proof" as well as you can be at this point in the 4K game

HDCP 2.2 - the copy protection mechanism used for 4K over the HDMI 2.0 transport... current deployed out in the wild version is 1.4 (4K will definitely require HDCP 2.2)

H.265 is one of the 4K video encoding methods (think a better MPEG2, MPEG4)

I believe H.265 decoders in TVs have been standard for a while, but I can't guarantee that .

FYI, there are NO full spec HDMI 2.0 18Gbps / HDCP 2.2 devices out today... the silicon needed just recently became available, so devices should be out before EOY.

*Gotta really read the specs of anything you buy carefully as lots of manafactures are being deceitful about HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2... *for example, so say an AVR "supports HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2", but you have to read the fine print to see that the 18Gbps HDMI input is HDMI 1, but HDCP 2.2 is only supported on HDMI 3 which is 10.2Gbps, etc .


----------



## Drew2k

Thanks Sledgehammer. I did know what all three things were, but I was clumsy in my question, trying to determine if a TV came with HDMI 2.0 as well as HDCP 2.2 if that meant it was automatic it could handle H.265 encoding, but I guess like you said that might be a standard now anyway, and is a side issue.


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> I believe H.265 decoders in TVs have been standard for a while, but I can't guarantee that .


I suspect that H.265 decoders are probably limited to 2014 and later UHD TVs. I have yet to find an HDTV that claims HEVC among its features.

Since the Full HDTVs to date don't support HEVC, it doesn't seem like there would be much motivation to visit HEVC in that domain. Any bandwidth savings would likely be eaten up by the added cost of real-time transcoding or maintaining two copies of everything.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> I suspect that H.265 decoders are probably limited to 2014 and later UHD TVs. I have yet to find an HDTV that claims HEVC among its features.
> 
> Since the Full HDTVs to date don't support HEVC, it doesn't seem like there would be much motivation to visit HEVC in that domain. Any bandwidth savings would likely be eaten up by the added cost of real-time transcoding or maintaining two copies of everything.


You wouldn't find an HDTV that supports HEVC / H.265, I don't think since H.265 is only being used on 4K and UltraHD BluRay right now. There isn't anything technical or otherwise that would prevent using H.265 on 1080P, but for backwards compatibility sakes, its not...


----------



## slice1900

For those who may not get the difference, h.265 and HEVC are the same thing. HEVC was the 'code name' during development, h.265 is the name of the standard, but they are used interchangeably. Some may try to pick a nit that they aren't exactly identical but they're like the people who constantly correct people who use common words like 'irregardless' and whine that they aren't words.

h.265 support will not matter for Directv when they have 4K hardware that outputs HDMI. It only matters for RVU, and by definition all "4K RVU" compliant TVs must have h.265 support.

"Smart" TV features are likely to be the dividing line. If you have a 4K smart TV, in order for it to be able to display 4K streaming video it better have a h.265 decoder or it won't be able to stream most 4K content. If a TV doesn't have smart features, it is a waste of money including that. As far as Directv goes there's no reason to care whether a 4K TV claims h.265 decoding or not.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> How many 4K channels does any provider need to support in June 2015? June 2016? June 2020?
> 
> This discussion reminds me of the introduction of HD where new satellites were introduced with the capacity for a large number HD channels. It took years to get to the level of 100 channels actually carried. Will there be 20 UHD/4K channels to carry in June? Will there be 10 channels? Five?
> 
> Capacity is good ... but filled capacity is better. The content is not coming as fast as the capacity.
> 
> I also expect to see multiple channels per transponder ... not multiple transponders per UHD/4K feed. Even on DirecTV. That certainly helps find capacity for the limited content that will be available.


I'm thinking that by the time there's significant channels and need for them sd will be just about gone from dish. Dish doesn't have room for more than a handful soon I have a feeling.

DIRECTV is just about ready for a good amount of channels. And will have a ton of space when they get rid of sd just like dish.

I have a feeling DIRECTV will have a lot of PPV at first for quite a while. Then in a year or two only a few channels for quite some time. Dish can probably do similar for the next few years. They just won't have as many PPV linear channels as DIRECTV can have for a while.

Of course we'll see if they have that anyway on either service.

And who knows maybe someone is about to launch several 4k channels similar to how HDNet started.


----------



## Laxguy

Where's Mark Cuban??


----------



## SledgeHammer

inkahauts said:


> I'm thinking that by the time there's significant channels and need for them sd will be just about gone from dish. Dish doesn't have room for more than a handful soon I have a feeling.
> 
> DIRECTV is just about ready for a good amount of channels. And will have a ton of space when they get rid of sd just like dish.
> 
> I have a feeling DIRECTV will have a lot of PPV at first for quite a while. Then in a year or two only a few channels for quite some time. Dish can probably do similar for the next few years. They just won't have as many PPV linear channels as DIRECTV can have for a while.
> 
> Of course we'll see if they have that anyway on either service.
> 
> And who knows maybe someone is about to launch several 4k channels similar to how HDNet started.


Why does DirecTV even have SD channels anymore? They could just give people HD DVRs set to output at 480i. Only reason they do, I think, is so they can charge a HD fee.

Does anybody know how many people are still on SD equipment?


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> For those who may not get the difference, h.265 and HEVC are the same thing. HEVC was the 'code name' during development, h.265 is the name of the standard, but they are used interchangeably. *Some may try to pick a nit *that they aren't exactly identical but they're like the people who constantly correct people who use common words like 'irregardless' and whine that they aren't words.
> 
> h.265 support will not matter for Directv when they have 4K hardware that outputs HDMI. It only matters for RVU, and by definition all "4K RVU" compliant TVs must have h.265 support.
> 
> "Smart" TV features are likely to be the dividing line. If you have a 4K smart TV, in order for it to be able to display 4K streaming video it better have a h.265 decoder or it won't be able to stream most 4K content. If a TV doesn't have smart features, it is a waste of money including that. As far as Directv goes there's no reason to care whether a 4K TV claims h.265 decoding or not.


OK, let me  do that. It's H.265, not h.265


----------



## P Smith

SledgeHammer said:


> Why does DirecTV even have SD channels anymore? They could just give people HD DVRs set to output at 480i. Only reason they do, I think, is so they can charge a HD fee.
> 
> Does anybody know how many people are still on SD equipment?


imho, a couple millions


----------



## James Long

Half would be a better guess ... and replacing all existing non-HD capable equipment will cost billions. Billions that will be spread out over several years. (Perhaps the new equipment will have an AT&T logo. )

BTW: For those who missed it - there is no HD fee for new customers on DirecTV as of last year. All new customers get compatible equipment and pay a per receiver fee (including the first receiver). Only older customer are subject to the HD fee --- assuming they do not have it credited for one reason or another.


----------



## SledgeHammer

James Long said:


> Half would be a better guess ... and replacing all existing non-HD capable equipment will cost billions. Billions that will be spread out over several years. (Perhaps the new equipment will have an AT&T logo. )
> 
> BTW: For those who missed it - there is no HD fee for new customers on DirecTV as of last year. All new customers get compatible equipment and pay a per receiver fee (including the first receiver). Only older customer are subject to the HD fee --- assuming they do not have it credited for one reason or another.


So, in a single TV house, on the old structure its $10 + $10 = $20 vs. $15 + $6.50 for a new customer?

Ok, so lets say there is 1M SD only customers. Well DirecTV has 40M subs, so losing those 1M subs is cheaper then paying to upgrade them honestly.

Yeah, I complain about DirecTVs "bogus fees" (RSN, WHDVR, double charge for 4K), but come on, refusing to upgrade to HD after all this time? Its like spending $100 taking your 16" b&w Goldstar 1980 CRT TV to the shop to repair it.

If I was DirecTV, I'd start by trying to "nudge" the customers to upgrade... drop support for some of the bells & whistles on SD over 6 mo to a year. Like protection plan, VOD, PPV, porn, movie channels. Chances are if you aren't paying for HD, you aren't using any of those services anyways. PP and VOD obviously wouldn't save bandwidth, but might encourage a few... then just start dropping the least popular channels...

Or, like I said, losing all 1M customers vs spending billions to upgrade them is probably a better option.

DirecTV didn't have a problem telling all the people who paid $1000 for the HR10-250 that it was worthless .


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Just an observation...

There seem to be a number of random assumptions being made on this topic, both in terms of the 4K UHD rollout plans as well as corresponding hardware requirements and/or upgrade paths. Having followed this thread from the start...most of the discussion seems to center on speculation. That's all OK of course.

However, there are plenty of facts that are _*not*_ publically known at this time regarding the 4K UHD DirecTV rollout strategy - but it is safe to assume all the considerations in discussion in this thread have already been internally vetted and addressed within some form of "roadmap" by DirecTV. None of us have that information.

Just because the information isn't public doesn't mean the roadmap doesn't exist or isn't being executed over time.


----------



## Diana C

In all the discussion about UHD content and when broadcast channels will be available, it has to be noted that, as of today, there are no viable realtime encoders that support h.265. The few realtime encoders available, besides being outrageously expensive, don't come anywhere close to 50% bandwidth savings that h.265 is capable of delivering. At the moment, only pre-encoded content (VOD/PPV and soon BDs) can get down to that level of compression. Until reasonably priced and efficient encoders are available you are not likely to see any UHD linear channels.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> For those who may not get the difference, h.265 and HEVC are the same thing. HEVC was the 'code name' during development, h.265 is the name of the standard, but they are used interchangeably. Some may try to pick a nit that they aren't exactly identical but they're like the people who constantly correct people who use common words like_* 'irregardless' and whine that they aren't words.*_
> 
> h.265 support will not matter for Directv when they have 4K hardware that outputs HDMI. It only matters for RVU, and by definition all "4K RVU" compliant TVs must have h.265 support.
> 
> "Smart" TV features are likely to be the dividing line. If you have a 4K smart TV, in order for it to be able to display 4K streaming video it better have a h.265 decoder or it won't be able to stream most 4K content. If a TV doesn't have smart features, it is a waste of money including that. As far as Directv goes there's no reason to care whether a 4K TV claims h.265 decoding or not.


That bothers you, irregardless of the fact that it isn't a word? :rolling:

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> In all the discussion about UHD content and when broadcast channels will be available, it has to be noted that, as of today, there are no viable realtime encoders that support h.265. The few realtime encoders available, besides being outrageously expensive, don't come anywhere close to 50% bandwidth savings that h.265 is capable of delivering. At the moment, only pre-encoded content (VOD/PPV and soon BDs) can get down to that level of compression. Until reasonably priced and efficient encoders are available you are not likely to see any UHD linear channels.


That's kind of surprising, given that the iPhone 6 has a hardware realtime h.265 encoder built in its A8 SoC, though it is currently used only for Facetime (I would hazard a guess because it can only manage the 720p video the front camera is capable of)

I know the two aren't comparable, as 4K is 9x more pixels and you'd want it to have stat mux support integrated, etc. Still, given that this probably didn't even add a dollar to the A8's manufacturing cost (based on the estimated cost of the entire SoC) the high cost of h.265 encoders is probably more due to lack of demand at this point rather than difficulty to build.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> That's kind of surprising, given that the iPhone 6 has a hardware realtime h.265 encoder built in its A8 SoC, though it is currently used only for Facetime (I would hazard a guess because it can only manage the 720p video the front camera is capable of)
> 
> I know the two aren't comparable, as 4K is 9x more pixels and you'd want it to have stat mux support integrated, etc. Still, given that this probably didn't even add a dollar to the A8's manufacturing cost (based on the estimated cost of the entire SoC) the high cost of h.265 encoders is probably more due to lack of demand at this point rather than difficulty to build.


I believe Facetime runs @ 720p / 30fps, not sure of the color gamut. So its really much higher then 9x the data. Then again, the power of a real time H.265 encoder vs. what's in a cell phone is a big difference too.

Even if dumping the SD channels isn't going to help out on 4K yet, I'd personally like to see DirecTV crank up the quality of the HD channels with all that extra bandwidth. Give us something for our money until 4K is ready.

I'd think that cranking up the quality of HD and having a more general solution is worth more in marketing pizzaz vs carrying SD for a million people who refuse to upgrade.


----------



## Laxguy

Rich said:


> That bothers you, irregardless of the fact that it isn't a word? :rolling:
> 
> Rich


 Everyone knows it's "disirregardless".......


----------



## Laxguy

SledgeHammer said:


> I believe Facetime runs @ 720p / 30fps, not sure of the color gamut. So its really much higher then 9x the data. Then again, the power of a real time H.265 encoder vs. what's in a cell phone is a big difference too.
> 
> Even if dumping the SD channels isn't going to help out on 4K yet, I'd personally like to see DirecTV crank up the quality of the HD channels with all that extra bandwidth. Give us something for our money until 4K is ready.
> 
> I'd think that cranking up the quality of HD and having a more general solution is worth more in marketing pizzaz vs carrying SD for a million people who refuse to upgrade.


I believe it's substantially more than a million with SD STBs, out of a domestic cluster of near 20, not 40, million subs.


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> So, in a single TV house, on the old structure its $10 + $10 = $20 vs. $15 + $6.50 for a new customer?
> 
> Ok, so lets say there is 1M SD only customers. Well DirecTV has 40M subs, so losing those 1M subs is cheaper then paying to upgrade them honestly.
> 
> Yeah, I complain about DirecTVs "bogus fees" (RSN, WHDVR, double charge for 4K), but come on, refusing to upgrade to HD after all this time? Its like spending $100 taking your 16" b&w Goldstar 1980 CRT TV to the shop to repair it.
> 
> If I was DirecTV, I'd start by trying to "nudge" the customers to upgrade... drop support for some of the bells & whistles on SD over 6 mo to a year. Like protection plan, VOD, PPV, porn, movie channels. Chances are if you aren't paying for HD, you aren't using any of those services anyways. PP and VOD obviously wouldn't save bandwidth, but might encourage a few... then just start dropping the least popular channels...
> 
> Or, like I said, losing all 1M customers vs spending billions to upgrade them is probably a better option.
> 
> DirecTV didn't have a problem telling all the people who paid $1000 for the HR10-250 that it was worthless .


First, DIRECTV® does not have 40M subs, more like 23M. Second there are more than 1M subs with SD equipment. Third, SD receivers do not support VOD. Fourth, what good would it be to drop support for certain features that are not used (according to your assumption) by these customers in hopes that they move to HD equipment. If they don't use them, they wont be missed as such they wont see the need to upgrade

DIRECTV® never "told" its subscribers that the HR10 was worthless, it became worthless by itself since it was not able to see the Ka band.


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> First, DIRECTV® does not have 40M subs, more like 23M. Second there are more than 1M subs with SD equipment. Third, SD receivers do not support VOD. Fourth, what good would it be to drop support for certain features that are not used (according to your assumption) by these customers in hopes that they move to HD equipment. If they don't use them, they wont be missed as such they wont see the need to upgrade
> 
> DIRECTV® never "told" its subscribers that the HR10 was worthless, it became worthless by itself since it was not able to see the Ka band.


I suggested rolling off features and channels by popularity. If a feature / channel is not used in the SD world at all, its already been "rolled off". Technically . Now yeah, some of the features might only be used by 100 or a 1000 people, but every little bit helps I guess. It was just an idea for an "orderly shutdown" rather then a hard stop date. Either way works.

I guess if there are 23M subs and 2M or more subs, makes sense to try to milk them a bit longer and/or try to convert them before just saying "screw you guys". Not a super high priority to kill 2M or whatever the number is until the bandwidth is needed for 4K... but for all we know 4K is going to be exclusively in reverse band from what DirecTV has implied.

So DirecTV had no idea they were switching to MPEG4 when they happily sold a $1000 DVR? :rotfl:


----------



## slice1900

Directv knew they would be switching to MPEG4, and I'd argue anyone paying attention should have known this as well. If you want to be an early adopter, you pay early adopter prices and risk obsolescence.

All those 4K TVs that will never do 4Kp60 that have been sold the past few years weren't sold with the disclaimer that they won't work for 4K live sports broadcasts when those begin, what's the difference between the two?


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> So DirecTV had no idea they were switching to MPEG4 when they happily sold a $1000 DVR? :rotfl:


So is Samsung's fault that the TV you bought today wont show 8K In 5 or 10 years from now? We all know that the stuff we buy today is useless tomorrow, that at least is hard fact.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> All those 4K TVs that will never do 4Kp60 that have been sold the past few years weren't sold with the disclaimer that they won't work for 4K live sports broadcasts when those begin, what's the difference between the two?


Not true . Crutchfield warns you .


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> So is Samsung's fault that the TV you bought today wont show 8K In 5 or 10 years from now? We all know that the stuff we buy today is useless tomorrow, that at least is hard fact.


I'd think 5 to 10 yrs is a reasonable lifespan. How long did the $1000 HR10-250 last? I want to say just 1 or 2 yrs, but I could be wrong. It certainly wasn't 5 to 10.

But, if selling a $1000 DVR to the public when its known it'll only pull a few channels for a few years and then they'll be switching over to MPEG4 is cool... why is dropping SD not? Hell, you can't even buy SD equipment, DVR, TV, anymore, etc.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> For those who may not get the difference, h.265 and HEVC are the same thing. HEVC was the 'code name' during development, h.265 is the name of the standard, but they are used interchangeably. Some may try to pick a nit that they aren't exactly identical but they're like the people who constantly correct people who use common words like 'irregardless' and whine that they aren't words.


Kind of like using the term 4K rather than UHD?


----------



## Laxguy

Did DIRECTV® itself sell $1000 DVRs? I bought mine from a retailer, but I am a sample of one.


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> I'd think 5 to 10 yrs is a reasonable lifespan. How long did the $1000 HR10-250 last? I want to say just 1 or 2 yrs, but I could be wrong. It certainly wasn't 5 to 10.
> 
> But, if selling a $1000 DVR to the public when its known it'll only pull a few channels for a few years and then they'll be switching over to MPEG4 is cool... why is dropping SD not? Hell, you can't even buy SD equipment, DVR, TV, anymore, etc.


The hr10-250 didn't stay a grand for long. It was 750 then 550.

Everyone was pretty much explained to what it would and wouldn't do (more Hi Definition down the road) if you bought it from a reputable dealer.

And unlike if dtv where to kill off sd the hr10250 still worked with all but ten channels after they switched to all mpeg4. And that was I want to say 5 or more years after it first launched when they finally killed all the non mpeg4 feeds.


----------



## yosoyellobo

harsh said:


> Kind of like using the term 4K rather than UHD?


UHD sounds like some form of birth control.


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> I'd think 5 to 10 yrs is a reasonable lifespan. How long did the $1000 HR10-250 last? I want to say just 1 or 2 yrs, but I could be wrong.


Yep, you are wrong. The HR10 still works, albeit only on SD. It was about 3 years or more between the HR10 and HR20. So you can say you got your money's worth.


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> But, if selling a $1000 DVR to the public when its known it'll only pull a few channels for a few years and then they'll be switching over to MPEG4 is cool... why is dropping SD not? Hell, you can't even buy SD equipment, DVR, TV, anymore, etc.


There were not many folks with the HR10 as there are folks with SD equipment. "killing" SD is a more drastic move.


----------



## inkahauts

True not many but we had almost a 500 that had put in orders over six months before it actually hit the shelves. It was highly anticipated by people who wanted the best available Hi Definition out there and a DVR.


----------



## inkahauts

SledgeHammer said:


> Why does DirecTV even have SD channels anymore? They could just give people HD DVRs set to output at 480i. Only reason they do, I think, is so they can charge a HD fee.
> 
> Does anybody know how many people are still on SD equipment?


I'd bet they have at least five million of their 24 on sd only. And I'd bet half their subs have at least one sd box.

At one point they said they had 60 million boxes as I recall that where sd in the field back when they had 20% Hi Definition customers. Maybe that's 20 million boxes today? Don't know it's all a guess. But they can't afford to lose customers over this.

I think the key is when they get the costs to build genies to where they can see it as economical to start swapping equipment. (Buy more bandwidth and launch more sats for it vs replacing equipment). Then it will begin in Ernest. But only at a pace they can accommodate. They won't want to hire new installers just to swap out for Hi Definition equipment at no cost to the customer. I expect it to be phased beginning late this year personally and take about four years. That's my wag. 

It's going to happen.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> Half would be a better guess ... and replacing all existing non-HD capable equipment will cost billions. Billions that will be spread out over several years. (Perhaps the new equipment will have an AT&T logo. )
> 
> BTW: For those who missed it - there is no HD fee for new customers on DirecTV as of last year. All new customers get compatible equipment and pay a per receiver fee (including the first receiver). Only older customer are subject to the HD fee --- assuming they do not have it credited for one reason or another.


Say 5 million homes need a service call. Say that cost then 200 each. That's probably high but close enough.

The. Another 10 million boxes shipped at say $20 a piece. (H24 and 25 refurbished must be super cheap by now. )

I don't think billions is right. Maybe over a billion. But less than billions seems more reasonable.

Now add in what they might save in mpeg2 equipment at the offices that may not be a one for one replacement for new stuff.

I'd be interesting to see the books.


----------



## peds48

Now lets not forget that SD equipment is still being installed....


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Say 5 million homes need a service call. Say that cost then 200 each. That's probably high but close enough.
> 
> The. Another 10 million boxes shipped at say $20 a piece. (H24 and 25 refurbished must be super cheap by now. )
> 
> I don't think billions is right. Maybe over a billion. But less than billions seems more reasonable.


The availability of refurb receivers will certainly help in the transition. You have agreed to the first billion by having 5 million $200 service calls. The last time I saw a price tag was years ago when more people were SD only and less refurbs were available.

A billion dollars is still a lot of money.


----------



## slice1900

The cost is irrelevant until Directv starts forcing people to switch from SD to HD en masse. That will be several years away, and there will be far fewer SD customers remaining by then.

Directv's investor calls often have good clues on where they are as far as HD vs SD, but they never use the same metrics twice so it makes it hard to know exactly how quickly things move. I'm sure it'll come as a real shock to some people here that it was only a couple years ago they said they crossed the line where half of their new installs were HD! A lot of people have apparently been willing to save money by sticking with SD... That's no longer possible since July, the only way to save money now is going with receivers only to save the $15 AR fee. Last year they said 2/3 of their new installs included a Genie, so those free Genie offers have been doing pretty well for them even before they cut off SD installs.

Given how recently the HD/SD install crossover occurred, I'm sure way over 5 million of Directv's 20 million (it is 20 million, not 24 million) customers are SD only. Likely millions more HD customers with at least one SD receiver, though they can be addressed cheaply by just shipping them replacement receivers when the time comes. Now that new installs are 100% HD, hopefully Directv will be asked in a future investor call about how many SD customers remain or how quickly they're being converted to HD. The big thing Directv has going for them in switching out the SD customers is their churn rate is about 1.5% per month. A year from now, 18% of today's customers will have left, and been replaced by (approximately) the same number of new customers, who will all be HD customers. They'll be disconnecting way over a million SD customers a year through voluntary attrition.

They can use various strategies of discontinuing SD service for certain channels/packages and/or in certain markets to help push this along if they want it to go faster. They may not feel much urgency to drop SD, because they have enough bandwidth for HD thanks to D14 and will enough RDBS bandwidth for 4K to last them beyond 2020. Dropping SD (whenever that finally happens) will add capacity for both, and if they need even more (if/when idiots start pushing 8K) the licenses for Ka at 101 could come into play once those 101 sats are replaced in 2020 or so.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Any chance they'll be improving PQ of HD anytime soon?


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Any chance they'll be improving PQ of HD anytime soon?


They're adding bandwidth. Maybe they use it for more channels and more PPV, maybe they use it for better PQ. Which do you think is more likely?


----------



## Laxguy

There should be room for all the above.


----------



## ep1974

Laxguy said:


> There should be room for all the above.


More channels in HD, AND better picture quality would be great. Hope it's coming soon.


----------



## James Long

SledgeHammer said:


> Any chance they'll be improving PQ of HD anytime soon?


DirecTV does not need better HD picture quality. While videophiles will never be satisfied their current PQ works just fine for the majority of their customers.

The next improvements in PQ will be for SD channels converting to HD, SD channels getting more bandwidth and 4K/UHD.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ep1974 said:


> More channels in HD, AND better picture quality would be great. Hope it's coming soon.


No idea what you are referencing...the HD here is stunningly high quality with multiple units on multiple HDTVs.

Having seen one location with 4K UHD VOD content..that was outstanding as well.


----------



## ep1974

hdtvfan0001 said:


> No idea what you are referencing...the HD here is stunningly high quality with multiple units on multiple HDTVs.
> 
> Having seen one location with 4K UHD VOD content..that was outstanding as well.


Better SD picture quality and upgrading SD channels to HD as someone mentioned earlier


----------



## slice1900

ep1974 said:


> Better SD picture quality and upgrading SD channels to HD as someone mentioned earlier


You will not get better SD picture quality. Even if they had the bandwidth to do it, what is their incentive to improve it? It gives people more of a reason to switch to HD.


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> You will not get better SD picture quality. Even if they had the bandwidth to do it, what is their incentive to improve it? It gives people more of a reason to switch to HD.


SD is not completely going away ... better PQ would make the remaining channels more acceptable. Channels that will not be converting to HD.


----------



## Aridon

There is no incentive to improve hd picture. First, virtually no one is complaining, second they are still limited by the source so it's not like there is any 1080p60 waiting to be sent and finally it would hurt UHD deployment.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> They're adding bandwidth. Maybe they use it for more channels and more PPV, maybe they use it for better PQ. Which do you think is more likely?


Well, we do need a few 24/7 Ghostbusters channels. DirecTV seems to love that movie. They use it to showcase pretty much every technological step.

Also, Martin only airs about 10 times a day. We need more!!!


----------



## SledgeHammer

Aridon said:



> There is no incentive to improve hd picture. First, virtually no one is complaining, second they are still limited by the source so it's not like there is any 1080p60 waiting to be sent and finally it would hurt UHD deployment.


Well, right now its 1080i and its heavily compressed. They could turn down the compression a bit and/or go to 1080P. Isn't 1080P PPV and VOD much higher quality then the regular channels?

I mean, yeah, I certainly want a $7 Ghostbusters PPV to look pristine, but so should everything else. Would reduce pixilation, motion artifacts, etc.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> SD is not completely going away ... better PQ would make the remaining channels more acceptable. Channels that will not be converting to HD.


Yeah, I meant the MPEG2 SD duplicates. The MPEG4 SD channels use the same bandwidth pool as the HD channels, so they can improved or converted to HD if available/desired.

I don't think Directv has much incentive improve the quality of MPEG2 SD, nor do they have the resources to do so.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, right now its 1080i and its heavily compressed. They could turn down the compression a bit and/or go to 1080P. Isn't 1080P PPV and VOD much higher quality then the regular channels?
> 
> I mean, yeah, I certainly want a $7 Ghostbusters PPV to look pristine, but so should everything else. Would reduce pixilation, motion artifacts, etc.


The Ghostbusters Blu Ray is $12.99 online. That will provide far better quality for not much more than the PPV price


----------



## Diana C

inkahauts said:


> Say 5 million homes need a service call. Say that cost then 200 each. That's probably high but close enough.
> The. Another 10 million boxes shipped at say $20 a piece. (H24 and 25 refurbished must be super cheap by now. )
> I don't think billions is right. Maybe over a billion. But less than billions seems more reasonable.
> Now add in what they might save in mpeg2 equipment at the offices that may not be a one for one replacement for new stuff.
> I'd be interesting to see the books.


The number I heard (about a year ago) was that there were 18 million SD receivers still in use by DirecTV customers. Keep in mind that many HD subs have one or two SD boxes on kitchen TVs or in a spare bedroom, etc. Even the most optimistic reduction in that number would still leave 15 million SD receivers (at least some of which are old DirecTiVos). 5 million or so is probably close to the right number of SD only subs.

5 million subs requiring a service call and HD dish, at $200 per visit, works out to $1 billion
15 million HD replacements for SD receivers and DVRs at an average of $50 each is $750 million

So, in round numbers, we're talking about a cost of just under $2 billion. Why spend that money when these same customers cost very little to support, and mostly cost way less to acquire back when they signed up versus what new subs cost? These subs are cash cows, easily generating well over $100 million per month. DirecTV would much rather let them be and wait for them to pay for their own upgrades.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> SD is not completely going away ... better PQ would make the remaining channels more acceptable. Channels that will not be converting to HD.


Now that we have had FiOS TV for over 6 months, we have really come to appreciate how absolutely awful SD is on DirecTV. The SD PQ on FiOS is almost as good as 720p HD. We NEVER watched SD on DirecTV, because it was so bad. On FiOS SD is actually enjoyable.


----------



## yosoyellobo

A couple of months age I gave away my last SD TV. I am now SD free.


----------



## inkahauts

Diana C said:


> The number I heard (about a year ago) was that there were 18 million SD receivers still in use by DirecTV customers. Keep in mind that many HD subs have one or two SD boxes on kitchen TVs or in a spare bedroom, etc. Even the most optimistic reduction in that number would still leave 15 million SD receivers (at least some of which are old DirecTiVos). 5 million or so is probably close to the right number of SD only subs.
> 5 million subs requiring a service call and HD dish, at $200 per visit, works out to $1 billion
> 15 million HD replacements for SD receivers and DVRs at an average of $50 each is $750 million
> So, in round numbers, we're talking about a cost of just under $2 billion. Why spend that money when these same customers cost very little to support, and mostly cost way less to acquire back when they signed up versus what new subs cost? These subs are cash cows, easily generating well over $100 million per month. DirecTV would much rather let them be and wait for them to pay for their own upgrades.


Although I expect the costs to drop some in the next year or so...

I imagine the value of using that spectrum for other things at some point will far outweigh the cost of moving to all hd. And if you spread it out over five years....

And since they are cash cows, and if the upgrades are free, then they will likely still stay on a long time and continue to be a cash cow that would pay for the upgrade the same as a new customer does in less than two years. Maybe even a year or less depending...

It's just to hard to really make a perfectly good argument either way without seeing their books and knowing the costs of their equipment and what their long term future plans are.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Even if it worked out to $2B, yeah, that's a lot of money, but it could be written off as a business expense. There really isn't any need to do anything with them right now since the bandwidth isn't needed at this time.


----------



## peds48

yosoyellobo said:


> A couple of months age I gave away my last SD TV. I am now SD free.


I would never do that kind of harm to anyone.... !rolling


----------



## Drucifer

Hey with hi-dif getting ever higher, what is the entertainment industry going to about makeup?

Getting ever closer on a large screen may actually destroy the effect the makeup is supposed to have.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> Although I expect the costs to drop some in the next year or so...
> 
> I imagine the value of using that spectrum for other things at some point will far outweigh the cost of moving to all hd. And if you spread it out over five years....


The cost probably won't change much. The equipment gets cheaper to make, but the cost of installer visits will go up. On balance the cost of the upgrades isn't likely to change much one way or the other over time.

I think the value of the Ku spectrum at 101 is mainly for additional HD. 4K should be well taken care of at least through 2020, and they can deploy their Ka at 101 (when they replace those 101 sats) if 4K looks to grow beyond the capacity of 36 RDBS tpns. With D14 they'll be OK for HD channels in English, at least people will really have to start scraping the barrel to find SD only channels that 1) are available in HD and 2) aren't public interest channels unwilling to pay extra for HD carriage. The non-English channels have very little HD and Directv may want to start addressing that to keep those customers from switching to streaming.

The cost of migration doesn't impact them until they stop migrating SD customers via attrition and voluntary upgrades as they are today, and start forcing migration on the "unwilling". In 2013 Directv had $32 billion in revenue, $8 billion in operating profit and $2.4 billion FCF. They could absorb the $2 billion hit people are talking about in a single year if they had to, but attrition over the next three years will cut the number of SD subscribers in half, and voluntary upgrades will cut it further. Even if they start forcing migrations as soon as 2017 hoping to have them all done by the end of that year, the cost would be well under a billion, perhaps as little as a half billion (using the same per SD subscriber figures others have been using)

The question is, what is their timetable for adding HD channels beyond the capacity that D14 adds? No one here knows, but I'm sure Directv has a project manager somewhere in El Segundo who has a plan all laid out with milestones, and one "quit doing new SD installs" was checked off last July, and another "successful launch and operation of D14" will be checked off real soon now...


----------



## Rich

Drucifer said:


> Hey with hi-dif getting ever higher, what is the entertainment industry going to about makeup?
> 
> Getting ever closer on a large screen may actually destroy the effect the makeup is supposed to have.


I don't know what can be done about it, but I can see facial hair on women's chins on my 1080p sets when using my BD players to stream or my Fire TV boxes. I noticed it quite often while watching _Sons of Anarchy_ reruns on NF. Gemma had a couple hairs and even Jax's wife had a couple of them. I don't remember ever seeing that on 1080i content.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

Get better looking women and cleverer makeup people.


----------



## I WANT MORE

I was very much a sceptic on 4k. I wanted to replace an older Phillips tv in my basement so I purchased the 70" Vizio P series 4k tv because it is relatively inexpensive.
Color me sold on 4k. 
The Blacklist on Netflix is unbelievable. 
The sooner D* gets it's 4k going the better.


----------



## P Smith

And what price you paid for it ?


----------



## Diana C

SledgeHammer said:


> Even if it worked out to $2B, yeah, that's a lot of money, but it could be written off as a business expense. There really isn't any need to do anything with them right now since the bandwidth isn't needed at this time.


Leased receivers are already being written off (as a depreciating asset). Any new equipment will be leased, so any tax benefit of replacing SD equipment (most of which, I have to believe, is owned by the sub) would take at least 5 years to realize. Without any burning need for the bandwidth I don't see DirecTV becoming proactive. In 5 years, maybe - but not anytime soon.


----------



## SledgeHammer

I WANT MORE said:


> I was very much a sceptic on 4k. I wanted to replace an older Phillips tv in my basement so I purchased the 70" Vizio P series 4k tv because it is relatively inexpensive.
> Color me sold on 4k.
> The Blacklist on Netflix is unbelievable.
> The sooner D* gets it's 4k going the better.


Industry is obviously moving to 4K rapidly. As was the case with early adopters in the SD -> HD game, many 4K early adopters will get burned and left with useless equipment if homework is not done. Equipment that isn't HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 won't be able to view 4K content.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SledgeHammer said:


> Equipment that isn't HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 won't be able to view 4K content.


That's not entirely a true statement...


----------



## Laxguy

SledgeHammer said:


> Industry is obviously moving to 4K rapidly. As was the case with early adopters in the SD -> HD game, many 4K early adopters will get burned and left with useless equipment if homework is not done. Equipment that isn't HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 won't be able to view 4K content.


Useless? No.

Your insistence that UHD is nothing but problems makes me wonder if you've been burned by BetaMax or LaserDiscs or something?


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Get better looking women and cleverer makeup people.


One of the hairs I saw must have been an eighth of an inch long. Makeup won't help that. That was on Jackson's wife's chin.

Rich


----------



## Rich

I WANT MORE said:


> I was very much a sceptic on 4k. I wanted to replace an older Phillips tv in my basement so I purchased the 70" Vizio P series 4k tv because it is relatively inexpensive.
> Color me sold on 4k.
> The Blacklist on Netflix is unbelievable.
> The sooner D* gets it's 4k going the better.


Now we're finally getting some good folks that actually have 4K sets. Gee, they seem to be seeing just what I've been seeing.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's not entirely a true statement...


Well, unless the device streams it, or its unprotected content. However, unprotected content from something like a PC or console could very well be 4K @ 60fps 4:4:4, that would require 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 .


----------



## hdtvfan0001

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, unless the device streams it, or its unprotected content. However, unprotected content from something like a PC or console could very well be 4K @ 60fps 4:4:4, that would require 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 .


Again...while your information may be partially correct, it may not necessarily apply to all scenarios for delivering 4K UHD content to a 4K device. HDMI 2.x, for example, is not an exclusive means to accomplish the task.

Absolutely statements tend not to be absolute once all the possibilities are learned.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Laxguy said:


> Useless? No.
> 
> Your insistence that UHD is nothing but problems makes me wonder if you've been burned by BetaMax or LaserDiscs or something?


Where did you get that I said UHD is nothing but problems?

I've never been burned by anything. I do my homework .

Just doing my public service to warn people that equipment out in the field that sleazy salesman or websites are pushing as "4K" is not entirely "4K ready". As the 2015 models start to trickle out later this year, this warning will be moot. Unless of course you're trying to save a buck or two by buying a used older model.

I've always said 4K is coming and I will be getting it. My first piece of 4K equipment will likely be the 2015 55" LG flat 4K OLED. Assuming its 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 / MHL 3.0 and not insanely priced, of course.

If you don't want to believe you're going to need 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 for 4K, be my guest and buy all the HDMI 1.4 / HDCP 1.4 equipment you want .


----------



## I WANT MORE

P Smith said:


> And what price you paid for it ?


$1999.00


----------



## loudo

SledgeHammer said:


> Industry is obviously moving to 4K rapidly.


That is for sure. I had a TV bite the dust, in October and went to my local Best Buy, to purchase a new one. they had 2 4K sets on display, so I bought a new Sony 60" 1080p. In January the second set died. I went back to the Best Buy and about 50% of the Large TVs displayed were 4K. I was amazed at how many more they had on display, in just 3 months. So I broke down and made the jump to 4K.


----------



## Drucifer

UHD Alliance to Establish Premium Quality Standards
for UHD Content and Devices Announced at CES 2015
About UHD Alliance

The UHD Alliance is a global coalition of leading film studios, TV brands, content distributors, post-production and technology companies that aim to create a unified criterion for premium UHD platforms, from devices to content including next generation features like as 4K resolution, High Dynamic Range, Wide Color Gamut, High Frame Rate and Immersive Audio. The group is composed of DIRECTV, Dolby Laboratories, LG Electronics Inc., Netflix, Panasonic Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Sony Visual Product Inc., Technicolor, The Walt Disney Studios, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Bros. Entertainment.

I'll wait until the standard specs are set. So I'll know what look for in a new television.


----------



## P Smith

loudo said:


> That is for sure. I had a TV bite the dust, in October and went to my local Best Buy, to purchase a new one. they had 2 4K sets on display, so I bought a new Sony 60" 1080p. In January the second set died. I went back to the Best Buy and about 50% of the Large TVs displayed were 4K. I was amazed at how many more they had on display, in just 3 months. So I broke down and made the jump to 4K.


seems to me, if don't provided HDMI/HDCP versions of your new 4k tv nor its model, you don't care how you'll feed the tv by uhd content, sad approach...


----------



## loudo

P Smith said:


> seems to me, if don't provided HDMI/HDCP versions of your new 4k tv nor its model, you don't care how you'll feed the tv by uhd content, sad approach...


With the large increase in the amount of 4K sets being sold, I don't think it will be to long before we see more 4K content. In the mean time we have the DirecTV PPV channels, You Tube as some 4K content, as does the new Samsung Ultra Flix and for those who have Xfinity they have an app on Samsung Smart 4k TVs, with 4K content.


----------



## P Smith

if you would post a model of your new 4k tv...


----------



## Drucifer

P Smith said:


> seems to me, if don't provided HDMI/HDCP versions of your new 4k tv nor its model, you don't care how you'll feed the tv by uhd content, sad approach...


I doubt if the Best Buy salesperson had any knowledge beyond knowing where the 'on' botton is, and maybe not even that, if they used a remote to turn on the TV.


----------



## I WANT MORE

P Smith said:


> if you would post a model of your new 4k tv...


 VIZIO P702ui-B3 70-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED HDTV


----------



## Diana C

I WANT MORE said:


> VIZIO P702ui-B3 70-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED HDTV


Which, according to Visio website, has 5 HDMI inputs, 1 HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2 (the only one capable of UHD at 60fps), 2 HDMI 1.4 ports with HDCP 2.2 (which can do UHD at 30fps), and 2 HDMI 1.4 ports without HDCP 2.2 support (which can only do UHD at 30fps if it is not copy protected).

I assume the fact that not all ports are HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 is a result of the licenses being priced on a per port basis.


----------



## P Smith

Cool ! It's the right one.


----------



## slice1900

Aren't there some chipsets that do HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 but are only 10.8 Gbps instead of 18 Gbps? Not sure how you'd know if that Vizio has that, or any other TV for that matter. Depends on how many older HDMI PHYs they have to dump.

I would find it hard to believe that having only one HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 port is licensing cost related. It is more likely due to a shortage of available parts.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Aren't there some chipsets that do HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 but are only 10.8 Gbps instead of 18 Gbps? Not sure how you'd know if that Vizio has that, or any other TV for that matter. Depends on how many older HDMI PHYs they have to dump.
> 
> I would find it hard to believe that having only one HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 port is licensing cost related. It is more likely due to a shortage of available parts.


Yup. Well. 10.2Gbps. I'd have to assume the Vizio P702ui-B3 has the 10.2Gbps HDCP 2.2 chipset because there is no mention of deep color support in the manual. Plus, its not exactly a FOTB TV .


----------



## Rich

Got a good price on it. Amazon's got it for about $2500.

Rich


----------



## Diana C

Vizio specifically say they support UHD at 60fps, which requires more than 10.2 Gbps. To license the 2.0 technology the manufacturer (even if already a HDMI licensee) must sign an addendum that specifically requires the manufacturer to conform to all 2.0 specifications, including 18 Gbps support.

So, unless Vizio is intentionally lying, HDMI 5 is a full 18 Gbps, HDCP 2.2 compliant, HDMI 2.0 port and so can support UHD all the way up to 60 fps.

From the website:

HDMI Ports 5 (2 side / 3 down)
· HDMI Port 1 SpecUHD Video @30Hz, HDCP 2.2 support
· HDMI Port 2 SpecUHD Video @30Hz, HDCP 2.2 support
· HDMI Port 3 SpecUHD Video @30Hz
· HDMI Port 4 SpecUHD Video @30Hz
· HDMI Port 5 SpecUHD Video @60Hz, HDCP 2.2 support


----------



## SledgeHammer

Diana C said:


> Vizio specifically say they support UHD at 60fps, which requires more than 10.2 Gbps. To license the 2.0 technology the manufacturer (even if already a HDMI licensee) must sign an addendum that specifically requires the manufacturer to conform to all 2.0 specifications, including 18 Gbps support.
> 
> So, unless Vizio is intentionally lying, HDMI 5 is a full 18 Gbps, HDCP 2.2 compliant, HDMI 2.0 port and so can support UHD all the way up to 60 fps.
> 
> From the website:
> 
> HDMI Ports 5 (2 side / 3 down)
> · HDMI Port 1 SpecUHD Video @30Hz, HDCP 2.2 support
> · HDMI Port 2 SpecUHD Video @30Hz, HDCP 2.2 support
> · HDMI Port 3 SpecUHD Video @30Hz
> · HDMI Port 4 SpecUHD Video @30Hz
> · HDMI Port 5 SpecUHD Video @60Hz, HDCP 2.2 support


Actually, the 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 link supports 4K @ 60fps, but just at a lower chroma of 4:2:0. The 18Gbps is only required for 4:4:4 as well as a few other features that aren't super high on peoples "must have" list right now (21:9, dual view, etc.).

I doubt I would use 21:9 and dual view any time soon, but I would want the 18Gbps just in case. Not gonna drop $3.5k to $5k on a TV that doesn't have it .


----------



## peds48

Diana C said:


> From the website:
> 
> HDMI Ports 5 (2 side / 3 down)
> · HDMI Port 1 SpecUHD Video @30Hz, HDCP 2.2 support
> · HDMI Port 2 SpecUHD Video @30Hz, HDCP 2.2 support
> · HDMI Port 3 SpecUHD Video @30Hz
> · HDMI Port 4 SpecUHD Video @30Hz
> · HDMI Port 5 SpecUHD Video @60Hz, HDCP 2.2 support


This model is only make it harder for folks to know where to plug things in. Are they label as such on the TV itself?


----------



## SledgeHammer

Diana C said:


> To license the 2.0 technology the manufacturer (even if already a HDMI licensee) must sign an addendum that specifically requires the manufacturer to conform to all 2.0 specifications, including 18 Gbps support.


I'd find that hard to believe tbh , because its well documented that its not whats going on. Onkyo, for example opted for HDCP 2.2, but they are only supporting 10.2Gbps links, while Denon opted for 18Gbps support, but they don't support HDCP 2.2. Those were the only two options available during the design of "this wave".

Devices trickling out now have full 18Gbps / HDCP 2.2 support.

One other marketing trick a lot of companies are using is to claim they have both 18Gbps and HDCP 2.2, but you have to read the fine print to see its not on the same HDMI port.

HDMI 2.0 support is worthless without HDCP 2.2.

10.2Gbps is useless *IMO* as its not the full spec and you won't be able to support the newer features. Some people claim that there will never be 4:4:4 content , but I'm not willing to bet $3500 - $5000 on that .


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> Actually, the 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 link supports 4K @ 60fps, but just at a lower chroma of 4:2:0. The 18Gbps is only required for 4:4:4 as well as a few other features that aren't super high on peoples "must have" list right now (21:9, dual view, etc.).
> 
> I doubt I would use 21:9 and dual view any time soon, but I would want the 18Gbps just in case. _*Not gonna drop $3.5k to $5k on a TV*_ that doesn't have it .


Never gonna spend over 2 grand on a TV again. Worst example of depreciation I've ever seen.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Actually, the 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 link supports 4K @ 60fps, but just at a lower chroma of 4:2:0. The 18Gbps is only required for 4:4:4 as well as a few other features that aren't super high on peoples "must have" list right now (21:9, dual view, etc.).
> 
> I doubt I would use 21:9 and dual view any time soon, but I would want the 18Gbps just in case. Not gonna drop $3.5k to $5k on a TV that doesn't have it .


Are you absolutely sure 10.8 Gbps supports 4Kp60? According to this table at wikipedia, there are no HEVC profiles with 6 bit color, the minimum for any 4:2:0 format is 8 bit. That means a minimum bit rate of 11.9 Gbps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Profiles

I suppose just because HEVC will decode to at least 8 bit color doesn't mean the HDMI link can't throw away some color information, but that's pretty crappy of Vizio to claim that TV does 4K @60fps.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Never gonna spend over 2 grand on a TV again. Worst example of depreciation I've ever seen.
> 
> Rich


LOL. True dat. I spent $5k on my 50" Panasonic 1080P 9 Series Plasma Pro. I'm still using it and it still works fine, but checking on eBay, people are getting about $100 to $200 for them . When I get my 4K TV, I'll probably just donate it and get mroe then $100 to $200 for it.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> LOL. True dat. I spent $5k on my 50" Panasonic 1080P 9 Series Plasma Pro. I'm still using it and it still works fine, but checking on eBay, people are getting about $100 to $200 for them . When I get my 4K TV, I'll probably just donate it and get mroe then $100 to $200 for it.


Just because a charity is willing to give you a receipt for a higher value doesn't mean you wouldn't still get in trouble if you're audited. You're supposed to value tax deductible donations to charity at fair market value, so if they're going for $200 on eBay...


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Just because a charity is willing to give you a receipt for a higher value doesn't mean you wouldn't still get in trouble if you're audited. You're supposed to value tax deductible donations to charity at fair market value, so if they're going for $200 on eBay...


I'm not sure if eBay is considered "bluebook value". Hell, I've sold cheap junk on there and made bank and sold expensive stuff and gotten hosed.


----------



## Laxguy

SledgeHammer said:


> I'm not sure if eBay is considered "bluebook value". Hell, I've sold cheap junk on there and made bank and sold expensive stuff and gotten hosed.


Well, yeah, there can be aberrations in any direction, but the point is made: you risk audit trouble if you're far off market.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Are you absolutely sure 10.8 Gbps supports 4Kp60? According to this table at wikipedia, there are no HEVC profiles with 6 bit color, the minimum for any 4:2:0 format is 8 bit. That means a minimum bit rate of 11.9 Gbps.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding#Profiles
> 
> I suppose just because HEVC will decode to at least 8 bit color doesn't mean the HDMI link can't throw away some color information, but that's pretty crappy of Vizio to claim that TV does 4K @60fps.


From everything that I've read on the internet 10.2Gbps can pass 4K @ 60fps. Who knows anymore? LOL...

All I know is that I'm not touching anything thats not HDMI 18Gbps / HDCP 2.2 and doesn't clearly state 60fps and 4:4:4 support.

Too many half assed implementations out there, right now.


----------



## Bill Broderick

SledgeHammer said:


> When I get my 4K TV, I'll probably just donate it and get mroe then $100 to $200 for it.


The people to whom I gave my 65" RPTV when I bought my 82" DLP are encouraging me to jump into 4K wholeheartedly, because they would love to be the owners of a 5.5 year old 82" DLP.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> LOL. True dat. I spent $5k on my 50" Panasonic 1080P 9 Series Plasma Pro. I'm still using it and it still works fine, but checking on eBay, people are getting about $100 to $200 for them . When I get my 4K TV, I'll probably just donate it and get mroe then $100 to $200 for it.


Selling a TV set or trying to is really a humbling experience. I made the mistake of buying a 58" 720p Panny plasma a few years ago. Don't remember exactly what it cost at the time, somewhere around $2500. 3 years or so ago, I offered it to a plumber for $500. It still has a really good picture on it, but he turned me down. That thing is never gonna die and justifying the purchase of another set when we have 8, all working fine and with good pictures, is gonna be tough. Unfortunately, five of the sets are 720p. Stupid mistakes.

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick

Rich said:


> Selling a TV set or trying to is really a humbling experience.


I've always found that it's both it easier and far more rewarding to give the TV's that I'm retiring to people or organizations who can't afford to upgrade, but could make very good use of what I'm getting rid of. I gave a 34" CRT based HDTV to the athletic department of a local middle school, where a friend of mine coaches football, for them to use to review game film and I gave my 65" RPTV to a family who lives paycheck to paycheck and didn't want to take on debt for a TV. Years later, their daughter continues to tell me how much she likes that TV.

That's worth far more than the few hundred dollars I could have gotten by selling them.


----------



## slice1900

Why are 720p sets a mistake? Half of broadcast TV is 720p, and the upgrade to 1080p does nothing for 720p content and I don't think it really does all that much for 1080i.

Think of all the money you saved not buying 1080p back then - since I'm sure like me the reason you own some 720p TVs is because 1080p TVs were far more expensive at time. What's the difference in resale value between the them now?


----------



## Oli74

I'm not going to buy a 4KTV until TV programs are in 4K and that's a long wait. I will though get an bigger screen just without the 4K 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Yes, I think the lesson of the depreciation on TVs is don't spend money unnecessarily to "future proof". The $1000 extra you might spend on a large 4K TV versus the same size 1080p TV isn't worth it if you don't expect to upgrade until there is plenty of 4K content rather than just a few channels. By the time there are a couple dozen full time 4K channels you'll probably be able to buy the same size TV in 4K for that $1000 you saved - and you'll know it supports all the standards that matter then and still have that old 1080p TV for another room or to sell for whatever pittance it is worth then


----------



## SledgeHammer

Oli74 said:


> I'm not going to buy a 4KTV until TV programs are in 4K and that's a long wait. I will though get an bigger screen just without the 4K
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, (4K) UltraHD BluRay is coming in about 6 - 8 months, on the shelves for XMas 2015, so you'll be missing out .


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Unfortunately, five of the sets are 720p. Stupid mistakes.


You could always "accidently" drop the sets and get new ones under PP :grin:.

Trying to sell my 50" 1080P set for $100 to $200 is not even worth the hassle. I figure I can donate and write off at least $500 - $800 for it. With big, expensive to ship items, people are always going to take advantage of the seller because they know its a hassle. I tried to sell some 19" rims a few years back... after packing and shipping expenses, I would have done better to just dump 'em on the side of the freeway right in front of a cop and take the littering fine :sure: .


----------



## slice1900

How the heck could you possibly justify writing off a several year old 50" 1080p TV for $500 to $800 when a new 50" 4K Visio is $900, a Samsung $1000 and a Seiki only $499? You'll end up paying penalties if you get audited, because you won't have any ground to stand on that even $500 is a reasonable valuation of such a TV when there are tons of brand new with full warranty 50" 1080p TVs selling for under $500...


----------



## James Long

If I were in the market for a new TV I'd probably look at 4K and see if the extra pixels were worth the upcharge ... but I would not dump a current working set for an upgrade. I feel the same way about 3D ... if it is an option and doesn't severely increase the price of the set I'd consider it.

There would need to be some really good content in UHD to justify dumping a perfectly good TV set.


----------



## Oli74

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, (4K) UltraHD BluRay is coming in about 6 - 8 months, on the shelves for XMas 2015, so you'll be missing out .


Well if it's a Sony 4k BluRay maybe then lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer

James Long said:


> If I were in the market for a new TV I'd probably look at 4K and see if the extra pixels were worth the upcharge ... but I would not dump a current working set for an upgrade. I feel the same way about 3D ... if it is an option and doesn't severely increase the price of the set I'd consider it.
> 
> There would need to be some really good content in UHD to justify dumping a perfectly good TV set.


I guarantee 100% you'd change your tune when you see the 2015 flat 4K OLEDs . Granted, OLED is like 2x the price of LCD, but you gotta see it LOL.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> How the heck could you possibly justify writing off a several year old 50" 1080p TV for $500 to $800 when a new 50" 4K Visio is $900, a Samsung $1000 and a Seiki only $499? You'll end up paying penalties if you get audited, because you won't have any ground to stand on that even $500 is a reasonable valuation of such a TV when there are tons of brand new with full warranty 50" 1080p TVs selling for under $500...


LOL... well, I'll see what my accountant says... he is overly conservative anyways.


----------



## James Long

SledgeHammer said:


> I guarantee 100% you'd change your tune when you see the 2015 flat 4K OLEDs . Granted, OLED is like 2x the price of LCD, but you gotta see it LOL.


I guarantee that there will be no 4K TV set in my house unless an older set dies. Best Buy sales pushers hate me.


----------



## SledgeHammer

James Long said:


> I guarantee that there will be no 4K TV set in my house unless an older set dies. Best Buy sales pushers hate me.


 . Nobody pushed me. I just had to take one look at the picture. There are a couple of flat 1080P OLEDs, but for what they cost, you'll probably be able to get a flat 4K LG OLED this year for like 1/2 the money. Pricing hasn't been announced yet though. Flat ones are supposed to come out in July / August.

You should check out the OLEDs in person. You'll take a hammer to your LCDs for insulting your eyes. Its that big of a dif . IMO, it blows away my plasma by far, granted, I got the pre NeoPDP set, but my dad has a NeoPDP panel in his TV and the OLED still kicks its ass.

The 4K is icing on the cake compared to going LCD/plasma -> OLED. 90% of the improvement is just from OLED. A 2014 1080p OLED will blow away any 2015 4K LCD. LCD isn't even in the game. But like I said, you gotta pay to play . They are still like 2x the price of LCD if the pricing rumors are correct.


----------



## Aridon

In a year or two they'll all be in the Costco bargain rack. Doesn't matter to me one bit. Not much reason to buy one IMO when they first hit the shelves.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Aridon said:


> In a year or two they'll all be in the Costco bargain rack. Doesn't matter to me one bit. Not much reason to buy one IMO when they first hit the shelves.


LOL... maybe some day, but def not in a year or two.

The 55" discontinued 2014 curved 1080P OLED from Samsung (who completely dropped out of the OLED game for now) still costs $9000.

The 55" 2014 curved LG 1080P is a more reasonable $3500.

Yeah, its headed to the Costco bargain bin for sure .


----------



## slice1900

Without competition, LG isn't going to have much incentive to lower prices on OLED. Hopefully they figure out that curved TVs are dumb dumb dumb! Just a stupid gimmick they do "because they can" not because anyone asked for it.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Without competition, LG isn't going to have much incentive to lower prices on OLED. Hopefully they figure out that curved TVs are dumb dumb dumb! Just a stupid gimmick they do "because they can" not because anyone asked for it.


Yeah, no competition, but they kinda have to make OLED work (for them). They have invested so much $$$ in it and put all their eggs in the OLED basket. LG can't compete with Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, etc. on the LCDs. If they have a viable production process, they'll get a free ride for at least 2 - 3 yrs with the OLED market all to themselves. Samsung was never really able to make OLED viable. Panasonic is supposedly buying panels from LG as well.


----------



## Aridon

http://m.costco.com/curved-tvs.html

Starting at 1799 not bad.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Aridon said:


> http://m.costco.com/curved-tvs.html
> 
> Starting at 1799 not bad.


The 2 Samsungs are LEDs, not OLED. Big diff. Besides, who the hell wants a curved TV??


----------



## Aridon

SledgeHammer said:


> The 2 Samsungs are LEDs, not OLED. Big diff. Besides, who the hell wants a curved TV??


You were the first to mention curved display.


----------



## Drucifer

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, no competition, but they kinda have to make OLED work (for them). They have invested so much $$$ in it and put all their eggs in the OLED basket. LG can't compete with Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, etc. on the LCDs. If they have a viable production process, they'll get a free ride for at least 2 - 3 yrs with the OLED market all to themselves. Samsung was never really able to make OLED viable. Panasonic is supposedly buying panels from LG as well.


Almost every week now I'm reading about bendable electronics - LG wont be the only curved screen in less then two years time.


----------



## P Smith

Drucifer said:


> Almost every week now I'm reading about bendable electronics - LG wont be the only curved screen in less then two years time.


As DTV, who will send bended signal in 4k to match your TV curve.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Aridon said:


> You were the first to mention curved display.


I may have mentioned that over the past year or two, if you wanted OLED, they were almost all curved. I *never* said I would buy a curved TV cuz I wouldn't . I've also never seen somebody who actually bought one or even wanted one, although obviously some people buy them. Then again, to be fair, I've never seen somebody with an OLED either. Although everybody who sees one wants one .


----------



## Bill Broderick

Aridon said:


> http://m.costco.com/curved-tvs.html
> 
> Starting at 1799 not bad.





Aridon said:


> You were the first to mention curved display.


No. You posted a link to Curved TV's at Costco. He responded to your link.


----------



## Oli74

I don't get the point off a getting a curved TV. For years I seen its time to go flat. I bought my 1st flat Panasonic 27in in 2004 and it still looks great and great sound I used it for my SD receiver. When I bought a Sony 40in in 2010 I got a HD DVR receiver. I rather have a flat screen TV 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Why are 720p sets a mistake? Half of broadcast TV is 720p, and the upgrade to 1080p does nothing for 720p content and I don't think it really does all that much for 1080i.


Becuase most of the highest PQ content (usually disc-based) is 1080?

Either way you go, there will be compromises but going with the one that gives you the best rendition of the best available PQ content makes more sense.

I submit that PQ for the majority of content is only important up to the point that it isn't distractingly poor.


----------



## Rich

Bill Broderick said:


> I've always found that it's both it easier and far more rewarding to give the TV's that I'm retiring to people or organizations who can't afford to upgrade, but could make very good use of what I'm getting rid of. I gave a 34" CRT based HDTV to the athletic department of a local middle school, where a friend of mine coaches football, for them to use to review game film and I gave my 65" RPTV to a family who lives paycheck to paycheck and didn't want to take on debt for a TV. Years later, their daughter continues to tell me how much she likes that TV.
> 
> That's worth far more than the few hundred dollars I could have gotten by selling them.


I give all mine away too. That's getting harder to do. Fortunately I gave all my CRTs away before the flat screens really caught on. I don't know how I'd have got them to the dump or even out of the house. But I'd still like to see some return on that 58" 720p mistake.

Rich


----------



## harsh

Oli74 said:


> I don't get the point off a getting a curved TV.


I remember when front projection TVs first became widely available and everyone scoffed because they had grossly concave screens. It wasn't until they flattened them out that people took them more seriously as an alternative to the other large display technologies of the day (movie and slide projectors).


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Becuase most of the highest PQ content (usually disc-based) is 1080?
> 
> Either way you go, there will be compromises but going with the one that gives you the best rendition of the best available PQ content makes more sense.
> 
> I submit that PQ for the majority of content is only important up to the point that it isn't distractingly poor.


For the TVs you watch high quality 1080p content on, a 720p TV is bad. If you just watch cable/satellite, it doesn't matter nearly as much.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Why are 720p sets a mistake? Half of broadcast TV is 720p, and the upgrade to 1080p does nothing for 720p content and I don't think it really does all that much for 1080i.
> 
> Think of all the money you saved not buying 1080p back then - since I'm sure like me the reason you own some 720p TVs is because 1080p TVs were far more expensive at time. What's the difference in resale value between the them now?


Do you own Panny plasmas of each resolution? If you don't, and I'm assuming you don't because the question wouldn't be asked, the difference in PQ is very noticeable. I can clearly see the difference between 720p and 1080i on both the 720p and 1080p sets.

I don't really watch much D* content, I like the streaming content that I get at 1080p on NF and Amazon. I'd dump D* in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the rest of the family.

When I bought the sets, I let frugality take over when I should have used my head and bought all 1080p sets. I had the money, that really wasn't an issue. The issues were my overbearing frugality and my ignorance. I know better now, but it doesn't help me. And these plasmas are gonna outlive me.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Why are 720p sets a mistake? Half of broadcast TV is 720p, and the upgrade to 1080p does nothing for 720p content and I don't think it really does all that much for 1080i.
> 
> Think of all the money you saved not buying 1080p back then - since I'm sure like me the reason you own some 720p TVs is because 1080p TVs were far more expensive at time. What's the difference in resale value between the them now?


I have no idea what the resale value of my plasmas would be if I were to make a concerted attempt to sell them. Next to nothing, I would imagine.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> You could always "accidently" drop the sets and get new ones under PP :grin:.
> 
> Trying to sell my 50" 1080P set for $100 to $200 is not even worth the hassle. I figure I can donate and write off at least $500 - $800 for it. With big, expensive to ship items, people are always going to take advantage of the seller because they know its a hassle. I tried to sell some 19" rims a few years back... after packing and shipping expenses, I would have done better to just dump 'em on the side of the freeway right in front of a cop and take the littering fine :sure: .


Yeah, the price of shipping has really gone up. I can remember when you could ship a TiVo to any part of the country for about $15. It costs a lot more now.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> I give all mine away too. That's getting harder to do. Fortunately I gave all my CRTs away before the flat screens really caught on. I don't know how I'd have got them to the dump or even out of the house. But I'd still like to see some return on that 58" 720p mistake.
> 
> Rich


I still have a 27" Sony Trinitron CRT. Its not even plugged in or hooked up to anything. I kind of just use it as a shelf to write on in my workout room. I don't think its been plugged in or hooked up in like 7 yrs. Not sure why I still have it. At this point I'm not even sure how to get it out of the house or what to do with it. Its 27" and it takes like 2 healthy people to move it LOL.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> How the heck could you possibly justify writing off a several year old 50" 1080p TV for $500 to $800 when a new 50" 4K Visio is $900, a Samsung $1000 and a Seiki only $499? You'll end up paying penalties if you get audited, because you won't have any ground to stand on that even $500 is a reasonable valuation of such a TV when there are tons of brand new with full warranty 50" 1080p TVs selling for under $500...


That would scare me too. I know the services I use to donate furniture and TVs give us a slip with the amount they think the stuff is worth, but it's never much. As a child, I was taught by some people to never screw around with the "G". We never lie on our taxes, never. And we've never been audited.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> I guarantee 100% you'd change your tune when you see the 2015 flat 4K OLEDs . Granted, OLED is like 2x the price of LCD, but you gotta see it LOL.


Still too pricey for me. I'm pretty satisfied with my 1080p sets.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Yeah, the price of shipping has really gone up. I can remember when you could ship a TiVo to any part of the country for about $15. It costs a lot more now.
> 
> Rich


The eBay and paypal fees also kill you. Getting worthless to sell stuff on eBay, they take too big of a cut now, but its either that or the trash.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Without competition, LG isn't going to have much incentive to lower prices on OLED. Hopefully they figure out that curved TVs are dumb dumb dumb! Just a stupid gimmick they do "because they can" not because anyone asked for it.


I agree. After reading a report on the curved TVs that said they were good for one viewer sitting in "the sweet spot", my son and I went out and looked at them and the report was right on the button. I didn't say anything to my son about the report, I just wanted to see if he'd come to the same conclusion and he did. For one person, I can see it. But how many households have just one person watching TV at a time?

Rich


----------



## Rich

P Smith said:


> As DTV, who will send bended signal in 4k to match your TV curve.


Ahh Pete, sometimes you come up with some beauts. This one has me laughing. :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> Becuase most of the highest PQ content (usually disc-based) is 1080?
> 
> Either way you go, there will be compromises but going with the one that gives you the best rendition of the best available PQ content makes more sense.
> 
> I submit that PQ for the majority of content is only important up to the point that it isn't distractingly poor.


I see some pretty poor content on ABC and Fox. Then I see the same show streamed and it's great. I think ABC does 720p better than Fox, but I know Fox can do better. The last _24 _was on Fox and that came over pretty well. I had to check the TV to make sure it was 720p. Roku always did 720p better than ABC or Fox, I thought.

Rich


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> I remember when front projection TVs first became widely available and everyone scoffed because they had grossly concave screens. It wasn't until they flattened them out that people took them more seriously as an alternative to the other large display technologies of the day (movie and slide projectors).


Best front projection TV I ever saw was a Sony and it came with a slightly curved screen. Huge screen. That was when Sony had stores in the malls.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> For the TVs you watch high quality 1080p content on, a 720p TV is bad. If you just watch cable/satellite, it doesn't matter nearly as much.


After watching streaming 1080p/60fps streaming, the PQ on D* looks pretty bad until my eyes adjust. Even then, it bothers me. Tolerable, but when you know something better is out there...

Rich


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> I still have a 27" Sony Trinitron CRT. Its not even plugged in or hooked up to anything. I kind of just use it as a shelf to write on in my workout room. I don't think its been plugged in or hooked up in like 7 yrs. Not sure why I still have it. At this point I'm not even sure how to get it out of the house or what to do with it. Its 27" and it takes like 2 healthy people to move it LOL.


I had one of them. There was a time when I could lift it by myself, like when I bought it. I had that set for a long time, it still had a pretty decent SD picture on it when I gave it away. Took two of us to get it upstairs then.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> I submit that PQ for the majority of content is only important up to the point that it isn't distractingly poor.


And so it is-for you and some others.

I much prefer an outstanding picture, and find it adds to even the most engrossing of films.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> The eBay and paypal fees also kill you. Getting worthless to sell stuff on eBay, they take too big of a cut now, but its either that or the trash.


Agreed. I stopped selling on eBay a while ago for just that reason. That and the fact that they don't back up sellers if buyers reneg.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> And so it is-for you and some others.
> 
> I much prefer an outstanding picture, and find it adds to even the most engrossing of films.


Yup, I agree. I'm in the process of watching the whole _Sopranos _show on Amazon and the PQ is really good. I gave away the DVD sets of the show to a church's rummage sale because the PQ on Amazon is so much better.

Rich


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> I much prefer an outstanding picture, and find it adds to even the most engrossing of films.


I put a higher priority on good surround sound in terms of enhancing to the experience. I've stopped watching a program that isn't delivered in good surround because you can't fool my ears where you may be able to trick my eyes.

Getting a truly outstanding picture from broadcast (or streaming) video is relatively rare in my experience.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> I put a higher priority on good surround sound in terms of enhancing to the experience. I've stopped watching a program that isn't delivered in good surround because you can't fool my ears where you may be able to trick my eyes.
> 
> Getting a truly outstanding picture from broadcast (_*or streaming*_) video is relatively rare in my experience.


Odd. What do you stream with?

Rich


----------



## Smuuth

Most charitable organizations won't even accept donations of ANY televisions because of the environmental laws regarding disposal/recycling of electronic equipment. Recycling centers commonly charge at least $1/diagonal inch to recycle flat screen TVs.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> I put a higher priority on good surround sound in terms of enhancing to the experience. I've stopped watching a program that isn't delivered in good surround because you can't fool my ears where you may be able to trick my eyes.
> 
> Getting a truly outstanding picture from broadcast (or streaming) video is relatively rare in my experience.


I am fine with simple stereo sound for most programs. A lot of surround sound can be distracting to visually oriented people.

But as to picture quality, you've changed to "truly outstanding picture" from "isn't distractingly poor". Which is it?


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Do you own Panny plasmas of each resolution? If you don't, and I'm assuming you don't because the question wouldn't be asked, the difference in PQ is very noticeable. I can clearly see the difference between 720p and 1080i on both the 720p and 1080p sets.
> 
> I don't really watch much D* content, I like the streaming content that I get at 1080p on NF and Amazon. I'd dump D* in a heartbeat if it wasn't for the rest of the family.
> 
> When I bought the sets, I let frugality take over when I should have used my head and bought all 1080p sets. I had the money, that really wasn't an issue. The issues were my overbearing frugality and my ignorance. I know better now, but it doesn't help me. And these plasmas are gonna outlive me.


I have 720p and 1080p Pannys and 720p and 1080p LGs. I even have my oldest 720p LGs next to a 65" Panasonic P65S1, each fed by identical H24-700s. I feel there is very little difference for Directv's 720p and 1080i content viewed on them. As I've stated before, I strongly prefer the 720p broadcasts over 1080i because sports looks better at 60fps rather than the 30fps of 1080i. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of sports viewing, and in this case viewing distances are rarely inside 10 feet and often up to 20 feet or so.

In my home it is a different story, I sit 8' or so away from my TV but as it is 1080p I can't compare how I'd feel with a 720p for the programming I view at home which is mostly non-sports.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> I see some pretty poor content on ABC and Fox. Then I see the same show streamed and it's great. I think ABC does 720p better than Fox, but I know Fox can do better. The last _24 _was on Fox and that came over pretty well. I had to check the TV to make sure it was 720p. Roku always did 720p better than ABC or Fox, I thought.


This has a lot to do with the local stations you're watching, and how many subchannels they have, etc. A few years ago my local CBS and Fox stations had no subchannels, and the video quality was amazing. The CBS channel added a subchannel fairly recently, the Fox added one a few years ago and recently added a second. The quality there is noticeably less than it used to be.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> I see some pretty poor content on ABC and Fox. Then I see the same show streamed and it's great. I think ABC does 720p better than Fox, but I know Fox can do better. The last _24 _was on Fox and that came over pretty well. I had to check the TV to make sure it was 720p. Roku always did 720p better than ABC or Fox, I thought.
> 
> Rich


Do you get the NY feed? I get the LA feed and can't see much diff between DirecTV and OTA.


----------



## Aridon

SledgeHammer said:


> LOL... maybe some day, but def not in a year or two.
> 
> The 55" discontinued 2014 curved 1080P OLED from Samsung (who completely dropped out of the OLED game for now) still costs $9000.
> 
> The 55" 2014 curved LG 1080P is a more reasonable $3500.
> 
> Yeah, its headed to the Costco bargain bin for sure .


So you said nothing about curved displays here? I was in error about oled and led but to claim you never mentioned curved displays is incorrect.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Aridon said:


> So you said nothing about curved displays here? I was in error about oled and led but to claim you never mentioned curved displays is incorrect.


Yeah, somebody said OLEDs are going to be in the Costco bargain bin in a year. So I pointed out the pricing of existing OLED sets that hit the market. The new flat 4K LG OLED sets aren't available or priced yet, so I couldn't really post that info. The 2014 77" flexible OLED where you can switch back and forth between curved and flat was $25k, but that never shipped, so thats not really a fair comparison. So I quoted the curved ones that you can actually buy.

EDIT: actually, my bad, LG does have a 55" 1080P FLAT OLED on sale. The 55EA8800 costs about $4K to $4.6K, but the TV is stuck to a stupid picture frame with large borders around it to simulate electronic art, so it takes up a lot of space and I'm not even sure if you can still buy it although it looks like people have it for sale, but I'm not going to call 'em up and verify just for the sake of this post .


----------



## Drucifer

14x9 no matter how big doesn't need a curved screen, but it nice to know the technolgies is aleady delvelop for when the home screen becomes super-wide.


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> Odd. What do you stream with?


Playstation 3 and Roku 3.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> But as to picture quality, you've changed to "truly outstanding picture" from "isn't distractingly poor". Which is it?


I haven't changed at all. I was contrasting my position on what's most important to yours.


----------



## Rich

Smuuth said:


> Most charitable organizations won't even accept donations of ANY televisions because of the environmental laws regarding disposal/recycling of electronic equipment. Recycling centers commonly charge at least $1/diagonal inch to recycle flat screen TVs.


Our dump has a free electronics recycling truck in it. No charge at all.

I'd love to root around in that truck.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> I haven't changed at all. I was contrasting my position on what's most important to yours.


You're still way off the mark.

*~~~ Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK*


----------



## Rich

Smuuth said:


> Most charitable organizations won't even accept donations of ANY televisions because of the environmental laws regarding disposal/recycling of electronic equipment. Recycling centers commonly charge at least $1/diagonal inch to recycle flat screen TVs.


We use Christian Services to donate TVs or furniture that nobody wants. All they do with the TVs is ask us to plug them in and if they see snow, they take them. No feeds required, just snow is enough to tell them the TV works. No charge.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you get the NY feed? I get the LA feed and can't see much diff between DirecTV and OTA.


I get the NYC feed. I don't use OTA, but I did years ago and was surprised at how much better the picture was. But that good picture wasn't present on every OTA channel, some were worse than my cable picture. I live in a bad spot for OTA reception. Using a radio for sports talk in anything but a car is iffy at best.

Rich


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> Playstation 3 and Roku 3.


I'm using Sammy BD players and Fire TV boxes and my picture quality on them is outstanding.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> You're still way off the mark.
> 
> *~~~ Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- JFK*


I just went back and read what caused this. I don't understand the point he was trying to make either.

Rich


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> I have 720p and 1080p Pannys and 720p and 1080p LGs. I even have my oldest 720p LGs next to a 65" Panasonic P65S1, each fed by identical H24-700s. I feel there is very little difference for Directv's 720p and 1080i content viewed on them. As I've stated before, I strongly prefer the 720p broadcasts over 1080i because sports looks better at 60fps rather than the 30fps of 1080i. I'm looking at this from the standpoint of sports viewing, and in this case viewing distances are rarely inside 10 feet and often up to 20 feet or so.
> 
> In my home it is a different story, I sit 8' or so away from my TV but as it is 1080p I can't compare how I'd feel with a 720p for the programming I view at home which is mostly non-sports.


From 20 feet away in a bar I probably wouldn't be able to see the difference, but I certainly can in my home. I've had this argument before with someone else and he said he couldn't tell the difference between the two resolutions. I can. That I can state as a fact. The only sports we get on Fox is the occasional Yankees game and football. Both are noticeably worse than the same Yankees games on YES or the football games on CBS and NBC.

Let's end this argument. I know what I see and if you don't see the same thing, I believe you. You're in Iowa and I'm in NJ. I don't know what difference that makes but it seems to make some kind of difference where you get the feed from. What I'd like to know is this: What do you think of the LG sets? Reliability-wise and PQ-wise. My son wants to buy an LCD 1080p LG and I've had nothing but good posts about the LGs in another thread.

Rich


----------



## longrider

For a second opinion Rich I can tell you I am very happy with LG sets. I have one at home for about 8 years and it has been flawless until very recently. Once last night and once a couple months ago I had the illumination fail to light but cycling the power fixed it and that is the only issue I have had for those 8 years. Also at work I have 20+ LG commercial sets ranging in age from 3 to 7 years and have had no issues with those at all.


----------



## Rich

longrider said:


> For a second opinion Rich I can tell you I am very happy with LG sets. I have one at home for about 8 years and it has been flawless until very recently. Once last night and once a couple months ago I had the illumination fail to light but cycling the power fixed it and that is the only issue I have had for those 8 years. Also at work I have 20+ LG commercial sets ranging in age from 3 to 7 years and have had no issues with those at all.


Thanx, this will be the first TV the son's bought and I have no history with LGs. So far, everything looks good.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> From 20 feet away in a bar I probably wouldn't be able to see the difference, but I certainly can in my home. I've had this argument before with someone else and he said he couldn't tell the difference between the two resolutions. I can. That I can state as a fact. The only sports we get on Fox is the occasional Yankees game and football. Both are noticeably worse than the same Yankees games on YES or the football games on CBS and NBC.
> 
> Let's end this argument. I know what I see and if you don't see the same thing, I believe you. You're in Iowa and I'm in NJ. I don't know what difference that makes but it seems to make some kind of difference where you get the feed from. What I'd like to know is this: What do you think of the LG sets? Reliability-wise and PQ-wise. My son wants to buy an LCD 1080p LG and I've had nothing but good posts about the LGs in another thread.


Is your Fox station WNYW? That's got three subchannels, so it isn't surprising you find its quality lacking...

I've got six LG plasmas and my only LED (outdoor viewing ability required the brightest possible display) is also LG. They are all still working fine, but one of the 50" plasmas from 2007 is becoming a bit balky taking about turning on when cold. It is fine when it is already warmed up, but when cold it doesn't display a picture for about five minutes. So that may fail someday but it has been like that for at least six months and hasn't got any worse. By comparison I'm batting 1000 on my Pannys, no trouble with any of them and the oldest turns 10 this summer.


----------



## Rich

longrider said:


> For a second opinion Rich I can tell you I am very happy with LG sets. I have one at home for about 8 years and it has been flawless until very recently. Once last night and once a couple months ago I had the illumination fail to light but cycling the power fixed it and that is the only issue I have had for those 8 years. Also at work I have 20+ LG commercial sets ranging in age from 3 to 7 years and have had no issues with those at all.


My son bought the LG LCD set yesterday. He's very happy with it, so far. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## P Smith

So, does someone with new shiny 4k TV seen DTV VOD on it ?


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Is your Fox station WNYW? That's got three subchannels, so it isn't surprising you find its quality lacking...
> 
> I've got six LG plasmas and my only LED (outdoor viewing ability required the brightest possible display) is also LG. They are all still working fine, but one of the 50" plasmas from 2007 is becoming a bit balky taking about turning on when cold. It is fine when it is already warmed up, but when cold it doesn't display a picture for about five minutes. So that may fail someday but it has been like that for at least six months and hasn't got any worse. By comparison I'm batting 1000 on my Pannys, no trouble with any of them and the oldest turns 10 this summer.


Yup, it's that station. Take a football game, for instance. The closeups are fine, the players' helmets stand out beautifully. Then the kickoff and that's where the PQ becomes shabby compared to the same shots on NBC and CBS. The field looks terrible on Fox (again compared to NBC and CBS) when seen from a distance. I set my sports events to record games well in advance of the actual dates and rarely remember which team is on which channel. When the game's on Fox, whether it be baseball or football, I can tell right away.

Those Pannys are gonna outlast us. You'll be giving them away to get rid of them and they'll still play well. Panasonic estimates 42 years at 3 hours a day. They might be right.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Those Pannys are gonna outlast us. You'll be giving them away to get rid of them and they'll still play well. Panasonic estimates 42 years at 3 hours a day. They might be right.


Mine are on 4-5x longer than that, so I may outlive them yet! I'm fine with the long life, I see no pressing need to replace them, so I'd rather they last a few more years until large OLEDs or better yet self-illuminating quantum dot TVs are affordable.

I have a feeling those won't have a lifetime that compares to plasma. No doubt the TV manufacturers wouldn't mind a bit of built in obsolescence so they can start pushing 8K TVs in 2020


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Yup, it's that station. Take a football game, for instance. The closeups are fine, the players' helmets stand out beautifully. Then the kickoff and that's where the PQ becomes shabby compared to the same shots on NBC and CBS. The field looks terrible on Fox (again compared to NBC and CBS) when seen from a distance. I set my sports events to record games well in advance of the actual dates and rarely remember which team is on which channel. When the game's on Fox, whether it be baseball or football, I can tell right away.


Unfortunately that's your station, due to those subchannels, and not the fault of 720p. I'm sure if you could see my Fox station's 720p via OTA (especially a few years ago when it had no subchannels) you'd be amazed at how much better it is.


----------



## I WANT MORE

P Smith said:


> So, does someone with new shiny 4k TV seen DTV VOD on it ?


No because DirecTV has chosen to use a gimmick set up for their 4K VOD.


----------



## Diana C

Fox compresses the daylights out of many of their distribution feeds. I recently was comparing FNC to MSNBC (somebody at TCF thought the crappy picture was the fault of their TiVo). It wasn't hard to tell that FNC was a lower resolution, but there were also a TON of artifacts in things like a person's clothing and some of the backgrounds. Just gobs of macroblocking and mosquito noise. The MSNBC feed (granted it is 1080i) was pristine. I tried every 720p channel I could and none were as bad as Fox's news channels (FNC and FBC were the worst PQ I could find on FiOS) and WNYW was not significantly better. WABC runs as many sub channels as WNYW and also broadcasts in 720p but looked miles better than WNYW. Fox just doesn't care.


----------



## Laxguy

Yabbut, Fox has such quality sports casters!!


----------



## P Smith

I don't get it !

70 pages and 1.4k posts - no ONE has the trio: 4k RVU TV + DTV + mini ?
No ONE watched 4k movie from DTV VOD ?

Shame on you, "polluters"


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> Fox compresses the daylights out of many of their distribution feeds. I recently was comparing FNC to MSNBC (somebody at TCF thought the crappy picture was the fault of their TiVo). It wasn't hard to tell that FNC was a lower resolution, but there were also a TON of artifacts in things like a person's clothing and some of the backgrounds. Just gobs of macroblocking and mosquito noise. The MSNBC feed (granted it is 1080i) was pristine. I tried every 720p channel I could and none were as bad as Fox's news channels (FNC and FBC were the worst PQ I could find on FiOS) and WNYW was not significantly better. WABC runs as many sub channels as WNYW and also broadcasts in 720p but looked miles better than WNYW. _*Fox just doesn't care.*_


And yet, that last _24 _series had a very good picture on it. Obviously they can do better, but, as you said, they just don't care unless it's an important (to them) event. ABC also looks much better than Fox usually does. But compared to a 1080i program on CBS or NBC...well I can easily see the difference.

Rich


----------



## P Smith

No one seen DTV 4K in native resolution ?!


----------



## Laxguy

No one in the last nine hours...........


----------



## P Smith

well, the 4k VOD spooling last months !


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> No one seen DTV 4K in native resolution ?!


I saw a set at Best Buy with a floating DirecTV logo ... I was not interested in the set (or any others) so I didn't bother to see if it had a 4K feed.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

[YOUTUBEHD]ZHjsKHKKnw0[/YOUTUBEHD]


----------



## Laxguy

Liked, though if given a 4K curved set, I'd make room for it in a heartbeat.


----------



## loudo

Love my UN55HU7250 curved set. The glasses might make it even better. :righton:


----------



## P Smith

Is the price of VOD too prohibitive for "rich" owners of new DTV RVU capable 4k TV sets to view it ?


----------



## I WANT MORE

P Smith said:


> Is the price of VOD too prohibitive for "rich" owners of new DTV RVU capable 4k TV sets to view it ?


IMO it would not be very intelligent to purchase a display solely based upon the fact that it is RVU compliant. 
Purchasing 4k equipment of any kind is a bit risky at the moment.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> No one seen DTV 4K in native resolution ?!


I can't wait until the AT&T acquisition is complete and DTV can be used uniquely for Digital TeleVision.

http://www.fcc.gov/digital-television

There have been several testimonials about the performance of DIRECTV's UHD programming. That there isn't very much of it and the relatively high cost likely means that it isn't getting watched all the time.


----------



## Rich

Scott Kocourek said:


> [YOUTUBEHD]ZHjsKHKKnw0[/YOUTUBEHD]


Ahh, that was good for a chuckle. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

P Smith said:


> Is the price of VOD too prohibitive for "rich" owners of new DTV RVU capable 4k TV sets to view it ?


Maybe they are "rich" cuz they don't pay $20 to watch Ghostbusters in 2015?


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Diana C said:


> Fox compresses the daylights out of many of their distribution feeds. I recently was comparing FNC to MSNBC (somebody at TCF thought the crappy picture was the fault of their TiVo). It wasn't hard to tell that FNC was a lower resolution, but there were also a TON of artifacts in things like a person's clothing and some of the backgrounds. Just gobs of macroblocking and mosquito noise. The MSNBC feed (granted it is 1080i) was pristine. I tried every 720p channel I could and none were as bad as Fox's news channels (FNC and FBC were the worst PQ I could find on FiOS) and WNYW was not significantly better. WABC runs as many sub channels as WNYW and also broadcasts in 720p but looked miles better than WNYW. Fox just doesn't care.


You bet they don't care! You know, they're still using Standard Def cameras for much of their NFL coverage, and it's definitely not the fault of the locals. (MN and Detroit games still seem to look the worst, from my experience.) Many times when coverage switches to another game to fill in time (or highlights) the PQ goes way up.

Same thing happens in baseball games, with the West coast ones looking the best. (Maybe they invested heavily in wide-screen standard-def back in the day and they're still using those crummy cameras and equipment.)


----------



## P Smith

May we stay on topic,please? There are many other dedicated threads to you sidetrack discussionS, damn!

As to $20 movie... well, we have seen posters here who did prise their new 4k tv with rvu, eg already dtv subscribers with genie/mini setup.
Spending a lot for the tv and dtv sub and do not try the 4k Vod?! Common!!


----------



## SledgeHammer

P Smith said:


> May we stay on topic,please? There are many other dedicated threads to you sidetrack discussionS, damn!
> 
> As to $20 movie... well, we have seen posters here who did prise their new 4k tv with rvu, eg already dtv subscribers with genie/mini setup.
> Spending a lot for the tv and dtv sub and do not try the 4k Vod?! Common!!


Again, why? Nobody is going to pay $20 for Ghostbusters LOL. Besides, they could also use Amazon 4K, Netflix 4K, Youtube 4K.

Or they could just be playing 1080P content and not know or care that its not native 4K.

Got a co-worker who just got a 4K TV and he had ZERO knowledge about how to feed it 4K. Just said the 1080p stuff looks awesome.

EDIT: Besides, I *suspect* that anybody with a Genie period has the server on thier main / best TV. Thats what I would do and use the clients for the bedroom, etc. In order to get DirecTV 4K, you'd have to move the Genie to another TV or pay double.


----------



## yosoyellobo

How does one goes about subscribing to the Athlon646464 post on ESPN going live with 4K?


----------



## twaller

I am now paying double for my Genie connected to my Samsung 4k TV via HDMI & RVU. I have recorded and watched the 4k demos that are free, but am not about to pay some huge $$ for a PPV 4k movie.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## SledgeHammer

twaller said:


> I am now paying double for my Genie connected to my Samsung 4k TV via HDMI & RVU. I have recorded and watched the 4k demos that are free, but am not about to pay some huge $$ for a PPV 4k movie.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


Why not move the Genie to another TV and/or drop the RVU since you've watched everything free? No need to flush $6.50 down the can for nothing.


----------



## twaller

Good point, the $6.50 a month seems like a waste


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> Why not move the Genie to another TV and/or drop the RVU since you've watched everything free? No need to flush $6.50 down the can for nothing.


If I had to choose, I would not want my main TV being an RVU type.


----------



## Drucifer

peds48 said:


> If I had to choose, I would not want my main TV being an RVU type.


I'm not a fan of builtins. I prefer 3rd party addons. As the first has too many cooks in the kitchen. I much prefer the single third party plugin that could be jacked into a STB and a TV for wireless communication.


----------



## P Smith

It has to be someone who did view dtv 4k movie at least first minute without pay for it!


----------



## Beerstalker

SledgeHammer said:


> Why not move the Genie to another TV and/or drop the RVU since you've watched everything free? No need to flush $6.50 down the can for nothing.


I agree.

He should be able to drop the RVU TV from his account and stop paying $6.50 a month for it (I would leave the DECA hooked up to keep supplying internet to the TV though). Then in a few months if he hears that more content can be added he can always call in and activate the RVU client again at that time (then cancel again after he has watched everything, and repeat).

Turning an RVU client on and off should have no effect on your commitment to DirecTV (excluding a Mini Genie).


----------



## harsh

Beerstalker said:


> Turning an RVU client on and off should have no effect on your commitment to DirecTV (excluding a Mini Genie).


The "commitment" is uniquely a programming commitment. It doesn't depend on what hardware or billable features you may or may not be using; only that you're still subscribing to a qualifying programming package.

That you may be asked to return an inactive leased box has always been the case.


----------



## Beerstalker

harsh said:


> The "commitment" is uniquely a programming commitment. It doesn't depend on what hardware or billable features you may or may not be using; only that you're still subscribing to a qualifying programming package.
> 
> That you may be asked to return an inactive leased box has always been the case.


I realize this. I was just saying he should be able to add and remove his RVU TV at will without starting a new 24 month commitment to keep DirecTV service.

Addind leased receivers does start a new 24 month agreement every time you do so. Where it becomes a little iffy is with genie mini clients. I am not 100% sure if they automatically start a new 24 month agreement whenever you activate one. I believe if you deactivate one you are able to keep it and activate it again later without starting a new 24 month agreement, but I am not 100% sure of that.


----------



## Al K

I have an HR44 and a Samsung 4ktv. After reading on this and other forums, I took the step to hookup my Samsung as an RVU TV. Here are some comments concerning DirecTV and 4ktv from my prospective.

My HR44 and tv are in the same room. I plugged in a wired ethernet to my HR44 and used a DECA to go to the tv via coax. When I tried to reboot my HR44 into ethernet mode, it didn't work. I had to reset the network
settings to "default".

I then called DirecTV and told them that I wanted to setup my tv as a client. The first guy had no idea about anything and I hung up. The next man sent me to someone who was familiar with the 4k setup. I first asked if
I qualified for any deals, since I didn't want to pay $6.50 for a 2nd receiver in the room. I got a $7 a month for one year deal and proceeded with the authorization. It went smoothly. After he authorized a new client, I
gave him the new MAC address from the screen. A couple of minutes later it was all set up. I did not pay for a $50 service call.

The first movie I downloaded failed to play. I called in and told another 4k tech that all I got was a black screen. He said that this is a known problem and had me send in a data dump to their engineers. I later downloaded
another video and it worked fine. The quality was excellent. The first movie still doesn't work.

I can now compare 4k material from the Samsung 4k movie pack that came with my tv, netflix, and DirecTV. The quality of the program from DirecTV may have been every bit a good as the ones from the Samsung hard drive.

Comments:

I put the TV and HR44 in the same room because I had read that the performance of the RVU was not good. This is the case. It is very slow and the graphics are not sharp. This function is not ready for prime time.

There is much misleading info online in this and other forums about installations and how things work. There is a lot of bickering when someone disagrees with someone else's opinion. Diana C. and a few others seem
to know what they're talking about and they helped me figure out the deca installation.

One cannot determine how much a movie costs to rent until it is downloaded. I told DirecTV that they need to fix this. Also, the selection is limited and the costs too high. Some of the movies that are available, I already have for
for free from Samsung. Overall, this temporary (I hope) solution is not for those who don't like to mess with this stuff.


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> If I had to choose, I would not want my main TV being an RVU type.


Me neither. Tell your buddies to ship the 4K Genie hardware and I wouldn't use RVU period .


----------



## SledgeHammer

Beerstalker said:


> I realize this. I was just saying he should be able to add and remove his RVU TV at will without starting a new 24 month commitment to keep DirecTV service.
> 
> Addind leased receivers does start a new 24 month agreement every time you do so. Where it becomes a little iffy is with genie mini clients. I am not 100% sure if they automatically start a new 24 month agreement whenever you activate one. I believe if you deactivate one you are able to keep it and activate it again later without starting a new 24 month agreement, but I am not 100% sure of that.


DirecTV will probably find a way to convince you that once you activate your TV as an RVU client, it turns into leased equipment !rolling !rolling !rolling .


----------



## harsh

Al K said:


> I put the TV and HR44 in the same room because I had read that the performance of the RVU was not good. This is the case. It is very slow and the graphics are not sharp. This function is not ready for prime time.


This may be related to the Genie having to generate the UHD GUI in software or that the TV is having to upscale HD bitmaps.


----------



## slice1900

One of Directv's SVPs (Philip Goswitz) was speaking at a satellite conference and stated Directv will have "50 to 70 4K channels by 2020", and said sports would be the big factor for 4K. He didn't give a date for when Directv would begin 4K broadcasts.


----------



## Oli74

slice1900 said:


> One of Directv's SVPs (Philip Goswitz) was speaking at a satellite conference and stated Directv will have "50 to 70 4K channels by 2020", and said sports would be the big factor for 4K. He didn't give a date for when Directv would begin 4K broadcasts.


In order for that to happen sport channels like ESPN and FS1 need to upgrade to 4K but they don't even broadcasts in 1080p as of now I dint see them in about 5 years in 4K

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

Oli74 said:


> In order for that to happen sport channels like ESPN and FS1 need to upgrade to 4K but they don't even broadcasts in 1080p as of now I dint see them in about 5 years in 4K


 ESPN is already on the road to upgrading to UHD.


----------



## Oli74

Laxguy said:


> ESPN is already on the road to upgrading to UHD.


You think in 5 years we will see 4k from ESPN??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy

Oli74 said:


> You think in 5 years we will see 4k from ESPN??


I think so. And I think we'll see some special broadcasts of big sporting events in the next year or two.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> I think so. And I think we'll see some special broadcasts of big sporting events in the next year or two.


With the biggest sporting event coming from NBC and the next World Cup coming in 2018, I'm dubious. There have to be several things in place that don't appear to have a solution available yet.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> I think so. And I think we'll see some special broadcasts of big sporting events in the next year or two.


Since they've already bought more than 3 dozen 4K UHD professional cameras and they're investing in 4K studio infrastructure upgrades...and they also publicly stating they intend to be a leader in 4K UHD...it's reasonable to assume that it will not only happen...but sooner than 5 years.


----------



## James Long

Oli74 said:


> You think in 5 years we will see 4k from ESPN??


We will probably see a ESPN 4K channel next year if not by the end of this year. ESPN managed to produce a 3D channel with very little content. Putting together a 4K channel won't be impossible. Being a leader in 4K content would fit their company.

DirecTV needs a couple of channels to go along with VOD content and then they can see how the market accepts the service. I have no doubt that ESPN will provide one of those channels.


----------



## WestDC

You will see 4K- First when the NFL Changes Most of it's camera's to 4k - That is if the MFG's can come to any standard agreement first.


----------



## Oli74

So their jumping from 720p or some channels 1080i to 4k?? That's a huge jump 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

Oli74 said:


> So their jumping from 720p or some channels 1080i to 4k?? That's a huge jump
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If 4K becomes a standard of some sort, they'll have to upgrade to be relevant. It's not like ESPN is broke and can't afford to do it.

Rich


----------



## Oli74

Rich said:


> If 4K becomes a standard of some sort, they'll have to upgrade to be relevant. It's not like ESPN is broke and can't afford to do it.
> 
> Rich[/quoted
> 
> Oh they def can afford it
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Oli74 said:


> So their jumping from 720p or some channels 1080i to 4k?? That's a huge jump


There will probably never be 1080p channels, if you want 1080p on your HDTV the best way to get it will be to get a 4K receiver and 4K service when available. I'm sure it will be capable of outputting 1080p just like HD receivers can output SD.

You'd need a 4Kp60 channel of course, since 4Kp30 would downscale to 1080p30, which is essentially the same thing as 1080i. Most TVs (probably all of them now) deinterlace 1080i and display it as 1080p30.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ... You'd need a 4Kp60 channel of course, since 4Kp30 would downscale to 1080p30, which is essentially the same thing as 1080i. Most TVs (probably all of them now) deinterlace 1080i and display it as 1080p30.


Thought 1080p HDTVs commonly de-interlace 1080i/30 into it's two constitute fields and then though a process of "bob" or "weave" generates 1080p/60 frames per sec. for display at a 60 Hz or greater multiple refresh rate?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## WestDC

Read this -Today

http://www.techinvestornews.com/Mobile/Latest-Mobile-News/4ktv-standards-are-a-mess-and-just-41-even-know-what-4k-is


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> Thought 1080p HDTVs commonly de-interlace 1080i/30 into it's two constitute fields and then though a process of "bob" or "weave" generates 1080p/60 frames per sec. for display at a 60 Hz or greater multiple refresh rate?


1080i is defined as 30 fields per second, with two 1920x540 frames per field, one with the 'odd' lines and one with the 'even' lines. There isn't any way to output 1080p60 from that, other than doing some sort of interpolation. That could also be done with 720p to upscale to 1080p60, but neither is real 1080p60.


----------



## slice1900

WestDC said:


> Read this -Today
> 
> http://www.techinvestornews.com/Mobile/Latest-Mobile-News/4ktv-standards-are-a-mess-and-just-41-even-know-what-4k-is


That's pretty much what a bunch of us have been saying in this thread. I think TV manufacturers are killing the golden goose by sticking it to the early adopters by shipping millions of substandard 4K TVs - pretty much all of those shipped prior to this year (and still many of those shipping today)

When the owners of those TVs find out they can't display 4Kp60, don't support HDCP 2.2, or other limitations, rather than run out and buy another TV like the manufacturers probably hope, they may feel burned and decide being an early adopter isn't so smart after all. Good luck to the industry when they try to push 8K down the road, if there are too few early adopters left.

These problems didn't exist for HDTVs, the early adopters may have massively overpaid if they bought one in the late 90s/early 00s, but those TVs are still usable today with cable and satellite providers using their component inputs.


----------



## yosoyellobo

slice1900 said:


> That's pretty much what a bunch of us have been saying in this thread. I think TV manufacturers are killing the golden goose by sticking it to the early adopters by shipping millions of substandard 4K TVs - pretty much all of those shipped prior to this year (and still many of those shipping today)
> 
> When the owners of those TVs find out they can't display 4Kp60, don't support HDCP 2.2, or other limitations, rather than run out and buy another TV like the manufacturers probably hope, they may feel burned and decide being an early adopter isn't so smart after all. Good luck to the industry when they try to push 8K down the road, if there are too few early adopters left.
> 
> These problems didn't exist for HDTVs, the early adopters may have massively overpaid if they bought one in the late 90s/early 00s, but those TVs are still usable today with cable and satellite providers using their component inputs.


The problem might be worse for the manufacturers. Imagine ESPN start televising in 4K and all these early adopters are unable to watch. I have seen class action for less. As for me the day I could watch 4K at bestbuy and the sets are reasonably price I am taking on home.


----------



## slice1900

yosoyellobo said:


> The problem might be worse for the manufacturers. Imagine ESPN start televising in 4K and all these early adopters are unable to watch. I have seen class action for less. As for me the day I could watch 4K at bestbuy and the sets are reasonably price I am taking on home.


I would imagine the receivers will be able to drop a 4Kp60 signal to 4Kp30. The question is whether there will be some sort of on-screen message that lets people know it happens, or if it will happen silently so they don't know they aren't getting the quality they think they get (like all the idiots who input SD into their HDTVs and are none the wiser)


----------



## James Long

slice1900 said:


> These problems didn't exist for HDTVs, the early adopters may have massively overpaid if they bought one in the late 90s/early 00s, but those TVs are still usable today with cable and satellite providers using their component inputs.


As long as it is a channel or content where the DRM allows component output.


----------



## Drucifer

Rich said:


> If 4K becomes a standard of some sort, they'll have to upgrade to be relevant. It's not like ESPN is broke and can't afford to do it.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> Oh they def can afford it
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can afford it, because at the end of the line, it is us who wil be paying for it.
Click to expand...


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> As long as it is a channel or content where the DRM allows component output.


If there are cable/satellite providers that will allow output via HDMI only it is news to me. There are restrictions on using them simultaneously, but component alone still works.


----------



## Ed Campbell

slice1900 said:


> There will probably never be 1080p channels, if you want 1080p on your HDTV the best way to get it will be to get a 4K receiver and 4K service when available. I'm sure it will be capable of outputting 1080p just like HD receivers can output SD.
> 
> You'd need a 4Kp60 channel of course, since 4Kp30 would downscale to 1080p30, which is essentially the same thing as 1080i. Most TVs (probably all of them now) deinterlace 1080i and display it as 1080p30.


Been streaming 1080p from AppleTV for a while. Getting streamed 4Kp60 from Amazon, I believe [or so the TV set says].


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Since they've already bought more than 3 dozen 4K UHD professional cameras and they're investing in 4K studio infrastructure upgrades...and they also publicly stating they intend to be a leader in 4K UHD...it's reasonable to assume that it will not only happen...but sooner than 5 years.


ESPN has never been averse to talking about the future. That being said, it seems like they haven't begun their 1080p program out of their DC-2 production center in earnest yet.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> ESPN has never been averse to talking about the future. That being said, it seems like they haven't begun their 1080p program out of their DC-2 production center in earnest yet.


Why would they proceed with that when 4K looms on the horizon?


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Why would they proceed with that when 4K looms on the horizon?


Because there is no apparent broadcast infrastructure for live UHD and even hours delayed sports content is a significantly less interesting.

Imagine if everyone who wanted to watch the Rose Bowl had to download it over an indeterminate time period. Imagine what would be involved in checking in on another March Madness game during a commercial.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> ESPN has never been averse to talking about the future. That being said, it seems like they haven't begun their 1080p program out of their DC-2 production center in earnest yet.


You're redirecting the fact that "talking about" something with "actually spending money" are not the same thing. ESPN is spend money - lots of money on 4K UHD - in 2015 and beyond. That process is already underway.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> If there are cable/satellite providers that will allow output via HDMI only it is news to me. There are restrictions on using them simultaneously, but component alone still works.


My 1080p plasmas really don't like component wiring. Have no idea why (naturally), but I get a pretty crappy picture when I use component.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> Why would they proceed with that when 4K looms on the horizon?


Not only that, but I'm not sure any providers have STBs capable of outputting 1080p60 because all (or at least most) of the SoCs they use are designed around 720p/1080i/1080p24.

The 1080p capability may be useful for 4K broadcasting, as 1080p upscaled in a 4K broadcast would be an improvement over 1080p quality downscaled in a 720p broadcast. They can create a 4K channel, but it will take a long time before a significant amount of their content is 4K. Some I hope never is...who wants to see Lou Holtz in 4K?


----------



## dennisj00

harsh said:


> Because there is no apparent broadcast infrastructure for live UHD and even hours delayed sports content is a significantly less interesting.
> 
> Imagine if everyone who wanted to watch the Rose Bowl had to download it over an indeterminate time period. Imagine what would be involved in checking in on another March Madness game during a commercial.


And a really bad impact on gambling revenue!


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You're redirecting the fact that "talking about" something with "actually spending money" are not the same thing. ESPN is spend money - lots of money on 4K UHD - in 2015 and beyond. That process is already underway.


You're suggesting that spending money makes things happen (as if their enormous commitment to 3D is paying big dividends today). It doesn't much matter how much money ESPN spends if there's nobody that can receive and decode the fruits of their investment.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> Not only that,* but I'm not sure any providers have STBs capable of outputting 1080p60* because all (or at least most) of the SoCs they use are designed around 720p/1080i/1080p24.
> 
> The 1080p capability may be useful for 4K broadcasting, as 1080p upscaled in a 4K broadcast would be an improvement over 1080p quality downscaled in a 720p broadcast. They can create a 4K channel, but it will take a long time before a significant amount of their content is 4K. Some I hope never is...who wants to see Lou Holtz in 4K?


I would assure you (have two of them) there are many of them worldwide. You are just too obscure in your own sandbox


----------



## slice1900

I'm curious, what's the model number, and if you know what SoC are they using?


----------



## P Smith

Ali36xx


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> You're suggesting that spending money makes things happen (as if their enormous commitment to 3D is paying big dividends today). It doesn't much matter how much money ESPN spends if there's nobody that can receive and decode the fruits of their investment.


Spending money does make things happen. Spending serious money makes serious things happen.

Add in serious commitment from a number of people in the 4K UHD world (money and technology), and you have significant commitment.

Some folks need to wake up and smell the roses.


----------



## gman0661

If someone would be kind of enough to offer me there opinion on 4K TV. I'm looking at TVs to buy now. I have always bought Sony tvs and never had problems. I have DIRECTV with the Genie. Sony doesn't real offer many 4K tvs in the size I'm looking for, around 50 to 55 inches. My two questions are if not a Sony TV with whom would you recommend and is 4K worth spending the extra money. Is there a really big difference in picture quality and sound.


----------



## Laxguy

I switched to Samsung a few years back and am glad I did. I have a beautiful plasma, and if it died, I'd be buying a 4K Sammy TV tomorrow. As to worth, you'll find opinions abound! Good luck!


----------



## peds48

As much as I hate Samsung, I will admit they do make the best TVs


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> If there are cable/satellite providers that will allow output via HDMI only it is news to me. There are restrictions on using them simultaneously, but component alone still works.


Since this is a 4K thread, I'd have to mention that 4K won't work on anything but HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 as far as I know. For outputting purposes I mean. Obviously, you can watch 4K using streaming apps within your TV without HDMI even getting involved.


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> As much as I hate Samsung, I will admit they do make the best TVs


As far as LCDs go? Ok, maybe. Best TVs in general? LOL... even the best LCDs with FALD cannot compete on any level with OLED. Except for price, of course. Then LCD wins by a mile. As far as PQ goes... not even a race vs. OLED. OLED already won the race while LCD is still busy downing raw eggs and eating Wheaties for breakfast.


----------



## mexican-bum

SledgeHammer said:


> As far as LCDs go? Ok, maybe. Best TVs in general? LOL... even the best LCDs with FALD cannot compete on any level with OLED. Except for price, of course. Then LCD wins by a mile. As far as PQ goes... not even a race vs. OLED. OLED already won the race while LCD is still busy downing raw eggs and eating Wheaties for breakfast.


are you saying Samsung doesn't make OLED displays.... Because they probably make the most.


----------



## SledgeHammer

mexican-bum said:


> are you saying Samsung doesn't make OLED displays.... Because they probably make the most.


Samsung doesn't make OLED TVs.

Do you mean they *used to*? They did make a 1080P OLED if that's what you mean. They don't make OLEDs anymore and they've certainly never released a 4K OLED.

Only one company has a 4K OLED and that's LG.


----------



## P Smith

gman0661 said:


> If someone would be kind of enough to offer me there opinion on 4K TV. ...


Wouldn't reading the thread will give you the opinions and technical tidbits ?

Practically, there is just one opinion - *Do NOT BUY 4K TV NOW !*


----------



## I WANT MORE

SledgeHammer said:


> As far as LCDs go? Ok, maybe. Best TVs in general? LOL... even the best LCDs with FALD cannot compete on any level with OLED. Except for price, of course. Then LCD wins by a mile. As far as PQ goes... not even a race vs. OLED. OLED already won the race while LCD is still busy downing raw eggs and eating Wheaties for breakfast.


Your stated love for OLED is a bit misplaced IMO. 
"Not ready for prime time" Way too many issues.


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> As far as LCDs go? Ok, maybe. Best TVs in general? LOL... even the best LCDs with FALD cannot compete on any level with OLED. Except for price, of course. Then LCD wins by a mile. As far as PQ goes... not even a race vs. OLED. OLED already won the race while LCD is still busy downing raw eggs and eating Wheaties for breakfast.


You are comparing technologies to manufacturers and that is not what I meant. Apple to Apples...


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> As long as it is a channel or content where the DRM allows component output.


I've never ever heard of this.


----------



## damondlt

peds48 said:


> As much as I hate Samsung, I will admit they do make the best TVs


They make good Tvs, but I've had issues with some.
I still have some, there are other brands that can be had for far less money that will out perform Samsung in function PQ, and features .
Sony and Samsung over rated and over priced.


----------



## Laxguy

damondlt said:


> They make good Tvs, but I've had issues with some.
> I still have some, there are other brands that can be had for far less money that will out perform Samsung in function PQ, and features .
> Sony and Samsung over rated and over priced.


Can you be specific?


----------



## peds48

damondlt said:


> They make good Tvs, but I've had issues with some.
> I still have some, there are other brands that can be had for far less money that will out perform Samsung in function PQ, and features .
> Sony and Samsung over rated and over priced.


I did have some issues with a beautiful Plasma Sammy. After I gave it away to a friend I found out I could of fix it for less then $10! It seems that the majority of the pop agrees that Samsung makes darn good TVs, as 60% or a very good majority of TVs I see are Samsungs. I hate Samsung as a company but the truth can't be denied.

This was my issue

http://www.instructables.com/id/Samsung-TV-OnOff-Issue-Repair/


----------



## patmurphey

P Smith said:


> Wouldn't reading the thread will give you the opinions and technical tidbits ?
> 
> Practically, there is just one opinion - *Do NOT BUY 4K TV NOW !*


Nonsense!!! A 4k TV will improve your DirecTV viewing, NOW, with upscaling. There is a fair amount of 4k content out there now for streaming - Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc. Samsung 4k TVs come with an upgrade path for future 4k interface requirements. The Samsung Smart Hub makes streaming easier than using a ROKU or similar device, using a mouse pointer remote for access to the apps.


----------



## peds48

patmurphey said:


> Nonsense!!! A 4k TV will improve your DirecTV viewing, NOW, with upscaling. There is a fair amount of 4k content out there now for streaming - Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, etc. Samsung 4k TVs come with an upgrade path for future 4k interface requirements. The Samsung Smart Hub makes streaming easier than using a ROKU or similar device, using a mouse pointer remote for access to the apps.


A "fair amount" does not necessarily means the content out there is the ONE I want to to watch. I am not watching content just because is 4K, I want to watch content that interests me AND is on 4K, and as of now we have not gotten to that point yet. When 4K goes main stream is the only time I will be buying a 4K TV, UNLESS of course one of my current TVs goes south and I am forced to buy a TV, and even then I may just go for a cheaply 1080p TV until is right time to go all 4K.


----------



## damondlt

Laxguy said:


> Can you be specific?


Which part? The more for your money part or the Issues I've had.

The issues was with my 55 inch 6030 models, only had 2 HDMI and one quit working, and at the 2 year mark almost right to the date it lost I'm guessing pixels since it developed a huge line right down the middle.
paid $850 for it at bestbuy.
http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN55FH6030FXZA

But we still have a 40 inch 5300 model 60 Hz in our bedroom, which I noticed it's developed a brighter area in the top right corner during the dark screen, and which is usually very common in cheaper LCD tvs.
That was $500 for that model. And still only comes with 2 HDMIs :down:

So we replaced our livingroom Sammy 55 6030 model with 2 HDMI and 120 Hz
For a 60 inch Vizio M6021-b3 Smart tv with 4 Hdmi 240 Hz Full array LED That cost $750 at Sam's club.
http://www.vizio.com/m602ib3.html

Talk about Night and day.
I will admit, I hated Vizios but once I've read the reviews and saw the prices I was sold.

So Sammy may be the best in the Business on $2000 plus tvs, But I'm not convinced they are tops in the lower end models.
I'LL say it again there is way better options out there for the money.
http://www.cnet.com/topics/tvs/best-tvs/


----------



## studechip

harsh said:


> You're suggesting that spending money makes things happen (as if their enormous commitment to 3D is paying big dividends today). It doesn't much matter how much money ESPN spends if there's nobody that can receive and decode the fruits of their investment.


Using 3D as a point of comparison is foolish, since 3D is/was a gimmick. It only serves to further your FUD position. UHD is a better quality picture, which is something to strive for.


----------



## SledgeHammer

I WANT MORE said:


> Your stated love for OLED is a bit misplaced IMO.
> "Not ready for prime time" Way too many issues.


What issues are those out of curiosity? Every review I've ever seen of an OLED TV pretty much calls them the best TV the reviewer has ever seen.

Personally, I think LCD isn't ready for primetime. I mean, it can't even do something basic like display the color black .


----------



## damondlt

SledgeHammer said:


> What issues are those out of curiosity? Every review I've ever seen of an OLED TV pretty much calls them the best TV the reviewer has ever seen.
> 
> Personally, I think LCD isn't ready for primetime. I mean, it can't even do something basic like display the color black .


It's not that easy to make something appear black, when using light sources. 
Full Array LED tvs look just as good if not better than some plasmas tvs but without the glare.


----------



## SledgeHammer

damondlt said:


> It's not that easy to make something appear black, when using light sources.
> Full Array LED tvs look just as good if not better than some plasmas tvs but without the glare.


Yes, FALD is a hacky fix to the edge-lit problem for displaying black. However, even the best FALD have "limited" dimming zones. The new Samsung 9500 can only get down to 0.051 cdm while OLED can get all the way down to 0.0004 cdm. Essentially a perfect black. Something that FALD can't do and will never be able to do. Then there's the problems of screen uniformity with LCD as well.

I know there are folks who sit in darkened rooms with content that they've blessed and do 20 point calibrations, etc. and do "critical watching"... I'm not that picky, but I am picky. I haven't really seen a LCD that has a "good enough" picture which is why I'm looking forward to the flat OLEDs coming out soon .

For someone to say OLED isn't ready for primetime is to say they haven't seen an OLED in person.

EDIT: Also, regarding FALD, the smaller the screen size, the less dimming zones. So a 55" FALD in the same product line as a 77" could have half the dimming zones.


----------



## damondlt

I have nothing against OLED, I'm thinking that's going to be my next TV.

But as far as Samsung goes, I'm not sure I would go with their version.


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> I switched to Samsung a few years back and am glad I did. I have a beautiful plasma, and if it died, I'd be buying a 4K Sammy TV tomorrow. As to worth, you'll find opinions abound! Good luck!


Might as well jump now, that plasma will probably be playing at your wake.

Rich


----------



## Rich

peds48 said:


> _*As much as I hate Samsung*_, I will admit they do make the best TVs


Just out of curiosity, not looking to argue, why? I used them last summer while on vacation and I was impressed.

Rich


----------



## Rich

P Smith said:


> Wouldn't reading the thread will give you the opinions and technical tidbits ?
> 
> Practically, there is just one opinion - _*Do NOT BUY 4K TV NOW !*_


Sage advice.

Rich


----------



## Rich

peds48 said:


> I did have some issues with a beautiful Plasma Sammy. After I gave it away to a friend I found out I could of fix it for less then $10! It seems that the majority of the pop agrees that Samsung makes darn good TVs, as 60% or a very good majority of TVs I see are Samsungs. I hate Samsung as a company but the truth can't be denied.
> 
> This was my issue
> 
> http://www.instructables.com/id/Samsung-TV-OnOff-Issue-Repair/


Ahh, you got caught up in the capacitor fiasco. That explains it. That was a terrible thing for them to do knowingly.

Rich


----------



## peds48

Rich said:


> Just out of curiosity, not looking to argue, why? I used them last summer while on vacation and I was impressed.
> 
> Rich


The reason I hate Samsung is because how the shamelessly they try to copy Apple every step on their Smartphones division, to be clear, this is not an Android vs Apple kind of thing, this is, for me, that Samsung will go sideways to try to imitate Apple, why at the same time is always failing!

As an example was TouchID. When Apple brought TouchID to their iPhones, Samsung knew it had to have one, instead of trying to innovate, they copied Apple and it was a failure. That is just one example, but I can think of many!


----------



## peds48

Rich said:


> Ahh, you got caught up in the capacitor fiasco. That explains it. That was a terrible thing for them to do knowingly.
> 
> Rich


But funny enough that was not the (major) reason for me not liking this company. See above.


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> The reason I hate Samsung is because how the shamelessly they try to copy Apple every step on their Smartphones division, to be clear, this is not an Android vs Apple kind of thing, this is, for me, that Samsung will go sideways to try to imitate Apple, why at the same time is always failing!
> 
> As an example was TouchID. When Apple brought TouchID to their iPhones, Samsung knew it had to have one, instead of trying to innovate, they copied Apple and it was a failure. That is just one example, but I can think of many!


*shrug*

I tend to usually go for the best in breed product. If I was in the market for a LCD TV, yeah, I'd probably go with the Samsung since they get the best reviews. I'm looking more at OLED, so Samsung isn't even on my radar for that.

I'm an iPhone guy, so Samsung has never been on my radar for phones either.

In fact, I can honestly say that Samsung has never been on my radar for *any* product. Not because of any hate towards Samsung, more because they usually aren't "best in breed" IMO.

Actually, that's not true. If I was in the market for a SSD, I'd probably go for the Samsung 850 PRO as that's the current best in breed SSD by far. That's really the only thing I can think of that Samsung would be on my radar for any time soon.


----------



## mexican-bum

peds48 said:


> The reason I hate Samsung is because how the shamelessly they try to copy Apple every step on their Smartphones division, to be clear, this is not an Android vs Apple kind of thing, this is, for me, that Samsung will go sideways to try to imitate Apple, why at the same time is always failing!
> 
> As an example was TouchID. When Apple brought TouchID to their iPhones, Samsung knew it had to have one, instead of trying to innovate, they copied Apple and it was a failure. That is just one example, but I can think of many!


While I do agree samsung does copy apple a lot, apple copies others a lot more... samsung was the one that really got the smart watch thing going again recently and now apple is coming out with one, apple publicly announced that they had no intention of launching a larger phone than 4,0 inches and that samsung was crazy with the super large NOTE, yet years later they followed, and apple pay is a big deal now yet google wallet was out years before.

Honestly apple rarely invents anything, rarely, apple is the master of execution, taking others innovation and execute it to perfection.


----------



## Laxguy

mexican-bum said:


> Honestly apple rarely invents anything, rarely, apple is the master of execution, taking others innovation and execute it to perfection.


They've "invented" a lot more than Microsloth. But it also depends on one's definition of "invent".


----------



## SledgeHammer

Hmm... I don't get the Smart Watch thing at all.

1) most people don't even wear watches anymore since you can't turn around anymore without seeing a clock somewhere. Phone, car, appliances, PCs, etc.
2) a few guys at work who we joke around with and I ask them why they still wear watches and NONE of them use it to tell time... they all say its just jewelry to "impress the chicks" with LOL...

Ok, so if you fall into category 2, I'd have to assume that chicks would find a smart watch kind of geeky, but I'm not a chick, so I couldn't say for sure. I think if I saw a girl texting on her watch or taking selfies with her watch, it would be an even bigger turn off then when she does it on her phone .


----------



## Laxguy

Hmmm. It appears you're not in the demographic that the Apple watch will sell to! 

For the last ten years, the only time I wore a watch was refereeing lacrosse, or occasionally at a performance I attended.


----------



## mexican-bum

Laxguy said:


> They've "invented" a lot more than Microsloth. But it also depends on one's definition of "invent".


I agree with that, I also used to have pocket PC phones before apple came out with the iphone, apple literally changed the entire smartphone market, just like the ipad, they didn't invent the tablet but they sure did make it relevant.


----------



## slice1900

Isn't there an OT forum for Apple v Samsung arguments?


----------



## mexican-bum

slice1900 said:


> Isn't there an OT forum for Apple v Samsung arguments?


Agreed, sorry, partially my fault.

Now back to topic.


----------



## peds48

And this is the exact same reason I did not want to go into specifics. I knew it would turn into a debate and that was not not my intention. But Rich asked and so I answered. 

But they is a big difference on straight up copying as on innovation on existing technologies. 


Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Some folks need to wake up and smell the roses.


Others need consider what happened with the substantial 3D commitment.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> Others need consider what happened with the substantial 3D commitment.


There was never a substantial 3D commitment. There was absolutely 0% chance that something like The Big Bang Theory would ever be shot in 3D. There's probably a 100% chance IMO that within 5 yrs max (probably closer to 2 or 3), you'll be able to get select shows in native 4K (from certain providers) -- don't assume that everybody is going to wait for OTA to catch up before delivering 4K. OTA 4K is probably like 10 yrs out at this point. Its DOA.

Think about it. 3D required zero infrastructure changes.

4K requires a ton of infrastructure changes and all the pieces are coming together rapidly:

HEVC compression
HDMI 2.0
HDCP 2.2
4K TVs
4K AVRs
UltraHD BluRay players
doubling of ISP speeds for streaming

On DirecTVs side, they launched 2 new birds for 4K usage. They never launched any 3D birds. They launched a few experimental 3D channels.

They already have more 4K content then they ever had 3D content.

The 4K train is probably ~2 yrs old where stuff was available for the masses. The 4K train is already way further down the tracks then the 3D train ever got. There was no 3D train. It was more like a 3D pinto.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> On DirecTVs side, they launched 2 new birds for 4K usage. They never launched any 3D birds. They launched a few experimental 3D channels.


They did not launch those satellites for 4K. They would have launched them if 4K was still 20 years out. They licensed the frequencies they're using nearly a decade ago, and in the FCC application they never mentioned 4K but they did mention 3D 

If 4K doesn't go anywhere they'd still put everything to use. None of the investment for D14 and D15 is 4K specific.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> They did not launch those satellites for 4K. They would have launched them if 4K was still 20 years out. They licensed the frequencies they're using nearly a decade ago, and in the FCC application they never mentioned 4K but they did mention 3D
> 
> If 4K doesn't go anywhere they'd still put everything to use. None of the investment for D14 and D15 is 4K specific.


Didn't they say during a recent investor call that D14 and D15 reverse band was going to be used specifically for 4K?


----------



## inkahauts

It sounded like that's the place pretty much all 4k would come from but didn't say that's all that would come from there. At least that's the way I interpret it.


----------



## James Long

The satellites will be used as DirecTV sees fit. They are *NOT* 4K only satellites. They were designed and built to add capacity to DirecTV's satellite system ... not specifically for 4K.


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> The satellites will be used as DirecTV sees fit. They are *NOT* 4K only satellites. They were designed and built to add capacity to DirecTV's satellite system ... not specifically for 4K.


Though DIRECTV's marketing the RDBS band payloads on D14 and 15 like it somehow makes the satellites "4K enabled" or something has been the cause of a lot of the confusion with the R-band as though it were actually a part of 4K technology.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## WestDC

More intent -http://informitv.com/2015/03/22/directv-predicts-over-50-uhd-channels/ 5 years out


----------



## P Smith

and then 8K will drain your pockets :smoking:


----------



## I WANT MORE

SledgeHammer said:


> What issues are those out of curiosity? Every review I've ever seen of an OLED TV pretty much calls them the best TV the reviewer has ever seen.
> 
> Personally, I think LCD isn't ready for primetime. I mean, it can't even do something basic like display the color black .


Not sure if you read AVS or not. If not, check it out. Motion issues, burn in, CMS issues, etc. 
I have seen one. No doubt the picture will grab you because of the blacks but IMO they have work to do in the other areas.


----------



## patmurphey

peds48 said:


> ...When 4K goes main stream is the only time I will be buying a 4K TV, UNLESS of course one of my current TVs goes south and I am forced to buy a TV, and even then I may just go for a cheaply 1080p TV until is right time to go all 4K.


Your loss, on upscaling alone. The 4k TV makes DirecTV's content better today...


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> There was never a substantial 3D commitment.


There certainly was on the parts of ESPN and DIRECTV.


> Think about it. 3D required zero infrastructure changes.


I do and that's why I hold it up as something to measure new format adoption against.


> On DirecTVs side, they launched 2 new birds for 4K usage. They never launched any 3D birds. They launched a few experimental 3D channels.
> 
> They already have more 4K content then they ever had 3D content.


Hogwash! DIRECTV has what, "at least two movies a week" that are delivered via download versus the 3 linear channels plus VoD that they once offered with 3D?


> The 4K train is already way further down the tracks then the 3D train ever got. There was no 3D train. It was more like a 3D pinto.


I can't imagine where you derived this twisted sense of where UHD is on DIRECTV. Downloading via Genie Recommends does not dwarf three linear channels and a VOD channel.

Capacity isn't worth much until they fill it with content and thus far, the capacity that many believe destined for UHD doesn't seem to have a suitable dish and DIRECTV hasn't announced a receiver that can decode it.

The UHD content train is barely undergoing trials at this stage and DIRECTV hasn't demonstrated how or when they'll start their effort (which must include sports, sports, sports) in earnest.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Didn't they say during a recent investor call that D14 and D15 reverse band was going to be used specifically for 4K?


They did, because that's the plan now. You seem to think the satellites were launched exclusively to support 4K when nothing could be further from the truth.

Whether RDBS is used only for 4K or also does something else like carrying a mirror of the international channels on 95* or even carries some limited specialty HD also remains to be seen. Directv certainly can't fill 36 transponders with 4K anytime soon, and maybe never. The fact that current subscribers don't have dishes that can receive them is the main limitation, so it makes sense to use them for something 'new' or something that changes how they do new installs.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> I can't imagine where you derived this twisted sense of where UHD is on DIRECTV. Downloading via Genie Recommends does not dwarf three linear channels and a VOD channel.


When I was talking about infrastructure changes & investment, I was not speaking of DirecTV specifically (only). It was more of a general comment.

In regards to DirecTVs 4K, let's be serious for a moment. As much as DirecTVs marketing department would like for you to believe, they aren't really supporting 4K yet in any usable sense.

When the Joey4K and the Genie4K are released, then lets talk.


----------



## inkahauts

patmurphey said:


> Your loss, on upscaling alone. The 4k TV makes DirecTV's content better today...


If you see that much difference on the upscaled picture I have to question the quality of your last tv to be honest unless you are watching 100" or above from really close.


----------



## peds48

patmurphey said:


> Your loss, on upscaling alone. The 4k TV makes DirecTV's content better today...


I am completely satisfied with the picture quality I am getting now. I see now reason to replace a good working 1080p TV for a very minor improvement. Once 4K goes mainstream I would not jump but dive into that pool.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Some people think enabling the 'motion smoothing' on their TVs that generates fake frames between the real ones is an improvement too. Both that and upscaling 720p/1080i to 4K are creating a lot of fake picture data. Whether it is seen as an improvement, nothing special, or even a detraction (I personally feel motion smoothing makes the picture actively worse) is a matter of personal preference, not a black and white right vs wrong thing.

Touting 4K TVs to people by claiming how they're "missing out" on improvements to current HD sounds like a sleazy Best Buy salesperson tactic. I don't see adding detail that does not exist as improving anything, and certainly doesn't justify buying a 4K TV today. Especially when you have to compromise on the specs due to manufacturers cutting corners in their HDMI implementation. Others have a different opinion, but it is just that, _opinion_, and people shouldn't be criticized for not sharing that opinion.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Some people think enabling the 'motion smoothing' on their TVs that generates fake frames between the real ones is an improvement too. Both that and upscaling 720p/1080i to 4K are creating a lot of fake picture data. Whether it is seen as an improvement, nothing special, or even a detraction (I personally feel motion smoothing makes the picture actively worse) is a matter of personal preference, not a black and white right vs wrong thing.
> 
> Touting 4K TVs to people by claiming how they're "missing out" on improvements to current HD sounds like a sleazy Best Buy salesperson tactic. I don't see adding detail that does not exist as improving anything, and certainly doesn't justify buying a 4K TV today. Especially when you have to compromise on the specs due to manufacturers cutting corners in their HDMI implementation. Others have a different opinion, but it is just that, _opinion_, and people shouldn't be criticized for not sharing that opinion.


Yup. I wouldn't buy a 4K TV unless it has HDMI 2.0 Level A (18Gbps) and HDCP 2.2 on the same port (and haven't yet -- the LG EF9500 is on my radar for purchase). None of this split port nonsense. All of the next in line display innovations coming down the pike are going to be done on 4K sets only, so... HDR, rec2020 or some other wide color gamut, 4:4:4, etc. Alot of the manafacturers this year released only (or mostly) 4K sets. So, if you need a new TV, I'm afraid 4K will be your only option soon.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> Some people think enabling the 'motion smoothing' on their TVs that generates fake frames between the real ones is an improvement too. Both that and upscaling 720p/1080i to 4K are creating a lot of fake picture data. Whether it is seen as an improvement, nothing special, or even a detraction (I personally feel motion smoothing makes the picture actively worse) is a matter of personal preference, not a black and white right vs wrong thing.
> 
> Touting 4K TVs to people by claiming how they're "missing out" on improvements to current HD sounds like a sleazy Best Buy salesperson tactic. I don't see adding detail that does not exist as improving anything, and certainly doesn't justify buying a 4K TV today. Especially when you have to compromise on the specs due to manufacturers cutting corners in their HDMI implementation. Others have a different opinion, but it is just that, _opinion_, and people shouldn't be criticized for not sharing that opinion.


It's also been argued that higher resolution aside, 4K's wider color gamut makes a substantial difference on current up-scaled source material now.

But I never really understood that either because unless the source material, broadcast, VOD, recorded media, or whatever, is sending out more data bits per pixel to signal those additional shades of color, I don't see how a 4K set can know to display any of them.

IOW, those increased colors of the 4K gamut should simply go as unused on up-scaled 720p/1080i/1080p sources.


----------



## Drucifer

peds48 said:


> A "fair amount" does not necessarily means the content out there is the ONE I want to to watch. I am not watching content just because is 4K, I want to watch content that interests me AND is on 4K, and as of now we have not gotten to that point yet. When 4K goes main stream is the only time I will be buying a 4K TV, UNLESS of course one of my current TVs goes south and I am forced to buy a TV, and even then I may just go for a cheaply 1080p TV until is right time to go all 4K.


I side with you, especially with the 4K Alliance only forming this past January in order to get all their conflicting specs in order.


----------



## slice1900

HoTat2 said:


> It's also been argued that higher resolution aside, 4K's wider color gamut makes a substantial difference on current up-scaled source material now.
> 
> But I never really understood that either because unless the source material, broadcast, VOD, recorded media, or whatever, is sending out more data bits per pixel to signal those additional shades of color, I don't see how a 4K set can know to display any of them.
> 
> IOW, those increased colors of the 4K gamut should simply go as unused on up-scaled 720p/1080i/1080p sources.


It is pure marketing hype. If it looks more colorful on HD content it is because it is changing the colors that are supposed to be displayed! I'm sure that makes for a more compelling comparison in stores and makes people think that 'upscaling' is improving their experience, but it is no different than the smartphones that are sold calibrated to inaccurate oversaturated colors.


----------



## Laxguy

There's another possibility: That current HD sets cannot display as wide a color gamut as the new ones. The color information is already there, but only those sets able to display the wider gamut can show them. This happens all the time in photography where displays (read: monitors) have varying gamut capabilities.


----------



## inkahauts

Chances are that's closer to reality. There's no way a entry level 4k display from vizo is doing amazing and proper color interpretation gradients in signals on the fly. Maybe on a 10k unit. I just don't by it otherwise.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Actually, the color gamut standard for HD is rec709 which is only about 35% of the colors your eye can see. Pretty low if you think about it. They are talking about going to rec2020 which is more like 75%.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Actually, the color gamut standard for HD is rec709 which is only about 35% of the colors your eye can see. Pretty low if you think about it. They are talking about going to rec2020 which is more like 75%.


The reason rec.709 specifies such a small percentage of all the colors we see is because it was developed with limitations of CRTs in mind since that was the display technology we had at the time. There are a lot of colors the phosphors in a CRT can't create.

Now that we're using different technologies for displays they developed rec.2020 to exploit the wider gamut this made possible, but it is a long road getting it to the TV. They can't suddenly start feeding more color information into older TVs that don't know what to do with it. Since rec.2020 is an optional capability of HDMI 2.0, it is negotiated between the source and the TV in a HDMI 2.0 link only. Only if the content was encoded with rec.2020 and the TV supports it will you get the enhanced color. Since few or no HDTVs that support rec.2020 will ever be produced, it is unlikely it will ever be supported for HD, leaving this a 4K only feature.


----------



## peds48

slice1900 said:


> Some people think enabling the 'motion smoothing' on their TVs that generates fake frames between the real ones is an improvement too. Both that and upscaling 720p/1080i to 4K are creating a lot of fake picture data. Whether it is seen as an improvement, nothing special, or even a detraction (I personally feel motion smoothing makes the picture actively worse) is a matter of personal preference, not a black and white right vs wrong thing.
> 
> Touting 4K TVs to people by claiming how they're "missing out" on improvements to current HD sounds like a sleazy Best Buy salesperson tactic. I don't see adding detail that does not exist as improving anything, and certainly doesn't justify buying a 4K TV today. Especially when you have to compromise on the specs due to manufacturers cutting corners in their HDMI implementation. Others have a different opinion, but it is just that, _opinion_, and people shouldn't be criticized for not sharing that opinion.


Yep, I will be laughing my way out of the the Best Buy door when I buy my 4K TV that is twice as better as the ones that are out there now and only half as expensive. Sometimes it is NOT a good idea to be an early adopter!


----------



## peds48

Drucifer said:


> I side with you, especially with the 4K Alliance only forming this past January in order to get all their conflicting specs in order.


Right on!


----------



## KyL416

It's really going to be fun when the 4K Genies and Joeys start hitting the market and installers have to explain to customers that their expensive 4K TV they already purchased won't work because it doesn't have HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2.


----------



## SledgeHammer

KyL416 said:


> It's really going to be fun when the 4K Genies and Joeys start hitting the market and installers have to explain to customers that their expensive 4K TV they already purchased won't work because it doesn't have HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2.


Yup. I guess they'll just have to put "Compatible 4K TV required" in really tiny print... oh... wait... !rolling

On a serious note, you know what's going to be even funner then that. When they have to explain to customers that their 4K TV won't work because its not HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 and the customer will go "Um.... yes it is!!! Say so right here on the box!!!" and then the installer has to go... well, you see sir (or madam), you have HDMI 2.0 level B (10.2Gbps) and the Genie 4K requires HDMI 2.0 level A (18Gbps).

I like HDMI and think its a great, but the level A / level B thing is a ginormous, confusing clusterf**k. There is really no way for a person to know what version there equipment has since its not a documented spec. You have to know by your equipment supporting other features. :blackeye: :blackeye: :blackeye:


----------



## Drew2k

I plan on buying a 4K TV this year and I will definitely be laughing and smiling as I walk out of Best Buy with my new toy, take it home, unbox it, set it up, and turn it on, because I will have done something that will make me happy. And that's all that counts.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Drew2k said:


> I plan on buying a 4K TV this year and I will definitely be laughing and smiling as I walk out of Best Buy with my new toy, take it home, unbox it, set it up, and turn it on, because I will have done something that will make me happy. And that's all that counts.


I think having a 4K TV that actually can get 4K content counts a little bit .


----------



## Drew2k

SledgeHammer said:


> I think having a 4K TV that actually can get 4K content counts a little bit .


Nope. I'm positive I will be happy with my new toy, and being happy is all that counts. 

If one were to live life with "what-ifs" and regrets, one is delaying living life. If I can afford a 4K TV and make the decision to purchase a new 4K TV, I'm not going to be unhappy that I purchased that new TV. Not the day I do nor a year later. It's just not in me to regret the pace of technology improvements against eventual price cuts. I would never disparage anyone else's decision as well, either to wait or to get a 4K TV when they want to. If it makes you happy, be happy.


----------



## mexican-bum

Drew2k said:


> Nope. I'm positive I will be happy with my new toy, and being happy is all that counts.
> 
> If one were to live life with "what-ifs" and regrets, one is delaying living life. If I can afford a 4K TV and make the decision to purchase a new 4K TV, I'm not going to be unhappy that I purchased that new TV. Not the day I do nor a year later. It's just not in me to regret the pace of technology improvements against eventual price cuts. I would never disparage anyone else's decision as well, either to wait or to get a 4K TV when they want to. If it makes you happy, be happy.


Well said, I know someone with that exact view, and like you said if it makes you happy that is fine, plus people like you are paving the way. I am not that way though, I am the kind of person that will be unhappy about not getting a good deal or my "money's worth" from something if that said something is obsolete to early or doesn't deliver what I had hoped.


----------



## peds48

Drew2k said:


> Nope. I'm positive I will be happy with my new toy, and being happy is all that counts.
> 
> If one were to live life with "what-ifs" and regrets, one is delaying living life. If I can afford a 4K TV and make the decision to purchase a new 4K TV, I'm not going to be unhappy that I purchased that new TV. Not the day I do nor a year later. It's just not in me to regret the pace of technology improvements against eventual price cuts. I would never disparage anyone else's decision as well, either to wait or to get a 4K TV when they want to. If it makes you happy, be happy.


Then don't say anything when I buy my brand new Apple Watch! !rolling


----------



## peds48

mexican-bum said:


> Well said, I know someone with that exact view, and like you said if it makes you happy that is fine, plus people like you are paving the way. I am not that way though, I am the kind of person that will be unhappy about not getting a good deal or my "money's worth" from something if that said something is obsolete to early or doesn't deliver what I had hoped.


Exactly my sentiment as well. While I be happy that I bought a 4K TV, my happiness is that I bought a new TV, it has nothing to do with 4K. The day I realized that I can't play 4K proper, disillusion would set in. I am sitting this one out until it goes mainstream.


----------



## Drew2k

peds48 said:


> Then don't say anything when I buy my brand new Apple Watch! !rolling


I haven't made any comments in the past here about Apple Watch and outside of this post, that will be my plan going forward.


----------



## peds48

Drew2k said:


> I haven't made any comments in the past here about Apple Watch and outside of this post, that will be my plan going forward.


Hope you took it as a joke, hence the smiling thingy.... :righton:


----------



## I WANT MORE

Schadenfreude :down:


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> None of this split port nonsense.


Because HDCP 2.2 does not incoprorate HDCP 1.x, it remains to be seen how they will implement it.


----------



## patmurphey

inkahauts said:


> If you see that much difference on the upscaled picture I have to question the quality of your last tv to be honest unless you are watching 100" or above from really close.


You're the expert? Do you have a 4k TV? I went from a premium 1080p set to a Samsung 4k, and I'm enjoying it. I repeat - your loss.


----------



## peds48

patmurphey said:


> You're the expert? Do you have a 4k TV? I went from a premium 1080p set to a Samsung 4k, and I'm enjoying it. I repeat - your loss.


I an glad you are enjoying it, but it duos not mean everyone who does not have one is loosing on anything. There are folks like myself who see taking the plunge to 4k right now is not a good idea and there is no need to bash them. It makes me think that what you are looking for is the Seal of approval but upon not getting it. Then you go on a defensive mode.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich

peds48 said:


> Yep, I will be laughing my way out of the the Best Buy door when I buy my 4K TV that is twice as better as the ones that are out there now and only half as expensive. _*Sometimes it is NOT a good idea to be an early adopter!*_


That applies to cars, too. Learned that early on.

Rich


----------



## Rich

peds48 said:


> Then don't say anything when I buy my brand new Apple Watch! !rolling


Really?

Rich


----------



## Rich

peds48 said:


> Hope you took it as a joke, hence the smiling thingy.... :righton:


I thought you were serious.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Because HDCP 2.2 does not incoprorate HDCP 1.x, it remains to be seen how they will implement it.


It does not incorporate it in the sense that HDMI 2.0 requires HDCP 2.2, but you can still connect a HDMI 1.x device to a HDMI 2.0 port and it will use HDCP 1.x. If you connect a HDMI 2.0 device to a HDMI 2.0 port that does not support HDCP 2.2, it will either use HDMI 2.0 without HDCP, or fall back to HDMI 1.x with HDCP 1.x.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> It does not incorporate it in the sense that HDMI 2.0 requires HDCP 2.2, but you can still connect a HDMI 1.x device to a HDMI 2.0 port and it will use HDCP 1.x. If you connect a HDMI 2.0 device to a HDMI 2.0 port that does not support HDCP 2.2, it will either use HDMI 2.0 without HDCP, or fall back to HDMI 1.x with HDCP 1.x.


HDCP doesn't fall back... per say.

The original source device (i.e. UltraHD BluRay player, 4K Genie, 4K Media Player, etc.) calls the shots. It says "I'm a HDCP 2.2 device". Let's say your source device goes into your AVR as most people have it. If the AVR does not support HDCP 2.2, it's game over. It does *not* try to negotiate for HDCP 1.4. If your AVR does HDCP 2.2, the AVR will now negotiate with the TV for HDCP 2.2. If the TV says no, its game over again. No fall back there either.

The HDCP version must be what the original source device called for through the entire chain to the TV.

"Fallback" can occur in the AVR and TV if the original source device calls for a lower version. For example, if your AVR supports HDCP 2.2, it can fall back to HDCP 1.4 for backwards compatibility with older devices. If it falls back to 1.4 for a BluRay player for example, it will try to negotiate 1.4 with the TV, not 2.2.

If you try to run a HDCP 2.2 device and have a HDCP 1.4 device in the chain, you'll get a HDCP error and your TV won't show anything.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> HDCP doesn't fall back... per say.
> 
> The original source device (i.e. UltraHD BluRay player, 4K Genie, 4K Media Player, etc.) calls the shots. It says "I'm a HDCP 2.2 device". Let's say your source device goes into your AVR as most people have it. If the AVR does not support HDCP 2.2, it's game over. It does *not* try to negotiate for HDCP 1.4. If your AVR does HDCP 2.2, the AVR will now negotiate with the TV for HDCP 2.2. If the TV says no, its game over again. No fall back there either.
> 
> The HDCP version must be what the original source device called for through the entire chain to the TV.
> 
> "Fallback" can occur in the AVR and TV if the original source device calls for a lower version. For example, if your AVR supports HDCP 2.2, it can fall back to HDCP 1.4 for backwards compatibility with older devices. If it falls back to 1.4 for a BluRay player for example, it will try to negotiate 1.4 with the TV, not 2.2.
> 
> If you try to run a HDCP 2.2 device and have a HDCP 1.4 device in the chain, you'll get a HDCP error and your TV won't show anything.


"Most people" don't have an AVR, that's a niche product that probably a single digit number of people own.

What you say doesn't make any sense. What happens if you plug a device playing 4K content into a HDTV? You're saying it just won't work, because it'll require HDCP 2.2 even when it has negotiated 1080p output since the TV can't display 4K? That would piss off millions of people who are assuming backwards compatibility - I may never upgrade to 4K if it means having to replace every TV at once! Because if it is anything like SD->HD was, the 4K broadcasts will be delayed by seconds compared to HD broadcasts, so you have to upgrade all receivers to allow the HDTVs to remain in sync with the 4K TVs by displaying a downscaled version of the 4K channel.


----------



## peds48

Rich said:


> I thought you were serious.
> 
> Rich


I was serious in regards to buying the Apple Watch, the joke was not to make fun of it... :rotfl:


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:
 

> "Most people" don't have an AVR, that's a niche product that probably a single digit number of people own.
> 
> What you say doesn't make any sense. What happens if you plug a device playing 4K content into a HDTV? You're saying it just won't work, because it'll require HDCP 2.2 even when it has negotiated 1080p output since the TV can't display 4K? That would piss off millions of people who are assuming backwards compatibility - I may never upgrade to 4K if it means having to replace every TV at once! Because if it is anything like SD->HD was, the 4K broadcasts will be delayed by seconds compared to HD broadcasts, so you have to upgrade all receivers to allow the HDTVs to remain in sync with the 4K TVs by displaying a downscaled version of the 4K channel.


Huh? It makes total sense.

a) 4K requires HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 (those are 4K features) -- disclaimer: 4K content from a PC is not HDCP protected
b ) a 1080P TV will not even accept a 4K signal so there is no worry of backwards compatibility
c) I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is even such a thing as a 1080P TV with HDMI 2.0 and/or HDCP 2.2
d) HDCP 2.2 doesn't work on HDMI 1.4, it's a HDMI 2.0+ feature only

Yes, if you plug in a HDCP 2.2 device into a TV that doesn't support HDCP 2.2, it simply will not play. End of story. That's the whole point . It doesn't downgrade it to 1080P / HDCP 1.4.

Think about what you are expecting. You bought a Ferrari with some super duper laser eyeball lock for high security. One day you misplaced your key (I mean eyeball LOL since this lock doesn't use regular keys), so you want the car to start the old fashioned way with a regular key as well. Ok, so what was the point of the super duper laser eyeball lock if you can drive the car with a regular key?

All HDCP versions (including 2.0 & 2.1) were cracked. 2.0 & 2.1 before they even hit the market. Thus the studios demanded 4K content be protected by HDCP 2.2.


----------



## slice1900

I know a 1080p TV won't accept a 4K signal. But I sure as heck will assume that a device capable of outputting 4K, like a future 4K Directv receiver or the new Roku that is expected to do 4K, etc. will be able to connect to a 1080p TV and be capable of outputting a 1080p signal to it. What the heck would be the point of using the same physical connector for HDMI 2.0 if there will never be any backwards compatibility? They could have redesigned the connector and fixed the issues the HDMI form factor suffers from (soldered connectors, very limiting length restrictions, no connector lock)

What you're suggesting is that if you buy a 4K device you should only ever use it with a 4K TV. That doesn't reflect the way people use these devices in the real world - people sometimes like to move things around from room to room, and aren't going to replace all the TVs in their house to do so. The same reasons why most devices that output HD still support SD output even today! I guess we'll see, but 4K may never take hold if 4K devices are incapable of working with HDTVs like you seem to believe.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> I know a 1080p TV won't accept a 4K signal. But I sure as heck will assume that a device capable of outputting 4K, like a future 4K Directv receiver or the new Roku that is expected to do 4K, etc. will be able to connect to a 1080p TV and be capable of outputting a 1080p signal to it. What the heck would be the point of using the same physical connector for HDMI 2.0 if there will never be any backwards compatibility? They could have redesigned the connector and fixed the issues the HDMI form factor suffers from (soldered connectors, very limiting length restrictions, no connector lock)
> 
> What you're suggesting is that if you buy a 4K device you should only ever use it with a 4K TV. That doesn't reflect the way people use these devices in the real world - people sometimes like to move things around from room to room, and aren't going to replace all the TVs in their house to do so. The same reasons why most devices that output HD still support SD output even today! I guess we'll see, but 4K may never take hold if 4K devices are incapable of working with HDTVs like you seem to believe.


It's not my theory . It's simply how HDCP works and it's requirements. HDCP is *forward* compatible. I.e. a 1.4 device can play on a 2.2 TV, but not the other way around.

C&P from Crutchfield illustrates this:

*4K Ultra-HD Media Player: *The Sony FMP-X10 4K Ultra-HD media player lets you enjoy true 4K Ultra-HD content on your new Sony *4K* Ultra-HD flat-panel television or other manufacturer Ultra high-definition TV *with HDCP 2.2 capability*.

More C&P:

the FMP-X10 can be connected to many other manufacturer 4K TVs (like Samsung, LG, Sharp) *which feature a HDCP 2.2 compatible HDMI input*.

The player's HDMI 1 output *needs to be connected to your 4K TV's HDCP 2.2 compatible *HDMI input (HDMI 2 or 4 input for Sony).

They state on the details page about 20 times that you can only connect to a 4K TV with HDCP 2.2.

Here is a link for further reading:

http://www.cnet.com/news/hdcp-2-2-what-you-need-to-know/

That is why I've been warning people to watch out for HDCP 2.2 . BTW, yes, I full expect that 4K devices will not be able to be hooked up to 1080P TVs (and that includes DirecTV equipment). There is really no reason to.


----------



## Laxguy

Well, no, you wouldn't use the 4K output on the device to input to your HD TV, but you'd use the standard HDMI port.


----------



## slice1900

Well if anyone was going to build a device that would be limited like that, I would expect Sony to do it. I don't think you can extrapolate that to an assumption that every device will work that way.

I sure hope you're wrong and 4K devices won't be restricted to only ever being able to be used on 4K TVs. If that's the case between the problems that will cause and all the problems the millions of 4K TVs sold so far and still being sold that have only one or zero HDCP 2.2 ports 4K is going to flop and flop hard. It is already a fairly marginal improvement compared to the SD->HD transition, screwing over the early adopters is not the way to help it succeed.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Well if anyone was going to build a device that would be limited like that, I would expect Sony to do it. I don't think you can extrapolate that to an assumption that every device will work that way.
> 
> I sure hope you're wrong and 4K devices won't be restricted to only ever being able to be used on 4K TVs. If that's the case between the problems that will cause and all the problems the millions of 4K TVs sold so far and still being sold that have only one or zero HDCP 2.2 ports 4K is going to flop and flop hard. It is already a fairly marginal improvement compared to the SD->HD transition, screwing over the early adopters is not the way to help it succeed.


Well, the only 4K devices out right now are the 4K media players and they require HDCP 2.2. There are no UltraHD BluRay players out yet, but the official spec calls for HDCP 2.2, so it'll be the same issue.

I'm not sure what you're upset about, to be honest . I can't imagine anybody buying a 4K device expecting it to be compatible on a 1080P TV. Even if you don't want a 4K TV, in a year or two, it'll be your only option.

There are probably very few 4K TVs with ZERO HDCP 2.2 ports. A lot of them have 10Gbps HDCP 2.2. That'll sorta / kinda work in a limited fashion... sorta / kinda. The Samsung TVs with the OneConnect box can be upgraded... sorta / kinda.

Yes. Early adopters are going to get screwed. Nothing new there. Early adopters *ALWAYS* get screwed. If you were an early adopter in HD you got screwed as well.

Personally, I kinda of like the idea. It simplifies things and will avoid consumer confusion in the long run.

With the ED/HD/digital transition, you have 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080p and every TV had a different resolution, i/p allowance, etc. With 4K, you just have 4K(p). No 7 different resolutions, progressive / interlaced, etc.

If you are an early adopter, that's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But you have to do your homework and understand how everything will fit together.

If somebody tells you on the forums that UltraHD BluRay and 4K will require a TV with HDCP 2.2 and you respond with "I don't care, I want a 4K TV now, not in a year, I'll worry about it then" and disregard advice they got, it's their own fault they bought useless stuff. I'm not saying that's you obviously. LOL... but I did get that response from a few folks when I warned them about HDCP 2.2.

BTW... as I have mentioned a few times... if you shop at a reputable place like Crutchfield for example, they have the decency to warn you that non HDCP 2.2 equipment will not be able to play back 4K . It's on the details page for ALL their HDMI 2.0 AVRs for example.

They are basically telling you "this won't work for you, but if you want to buy it anyways, go for it ".

Sleazy? Yeah. But at least they warn you. A best buy salesman wouldn't.


----------



## patmurphey

peds48 said:


> I an glad you are enjoying it, but it duos not mean everyone who does not have one is loosing on anything. There are folks like myself who see taking the plunge to 4k right now is not a good idea and there is no need to bash them. It makes me think that what you are looking for is the Seal of approval but upon not getting it. Then you go on a defensive mode.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


I don't care if you approve or not. My point is that there is value to a 4k TV now in spite of the critics that don't have one to judge. Most of my TV watching is from the satellites, and 4 times the pixels with upscaling makes every day viewing better. The 4k content available today over the Internet is gravy. I have confidence that if my TV interface needs an upgrade, Samsung will provide. They already have a record of doing so with 2013 sets to 2014 configuration.

How is it defensive to describe what non users are missing? I don't care if you don't buy one, or not, it's your choice, but please understand both sides of the decision.


----------



## SledgeHammer

patmurphey said:


> I don't care if you approve or not. My point is that there is value to a 4k TV now in spite of the critics that don't have one to judge. Most of my TV watching is from the satellites, and 4 times the pixels with upscaling makes every day viewing better. The 4k content available today over the Internet is gravy. I have confidence that if my TV interface needs an upgrade, Samsung will provide. They already have a record of doing so with 2013 sets to 2014 configuration.
> 
> How is it defensive to describe what non users are missing? I don't care if you don't buy one, or not, it's your choice, but please understand both sides of the decision.


On another forum, I pointed out that a 4K TV without HDCP 2.2 will just wind up in the trash since it'll be useless. Somebody responded saying it'll still do 4K streaming from the TV apps and that not being able to get 4K over HDMI is "not the end of the world". LOL. Really? I think it is.

Your Samsung TV with the OneConnect will *likely* be upgraded to accept a 4K signal over HDMI and HDCP 2.2. Will it be able to do everything its "supposed to"? Absolutely not. Some things are just not possible without upgrading the panel itself.

While I'd certainly feel better about being an early adopter with the OneConnect box, I have a Panasonic Plasma that has a similar concept (replaceable blades) and they delivered the promised blade upgrades for every model EXCEPT mine LOL. I'm able to work around the limitations, but from then on, I don't buy based on "promised" upgrades. I either wait for the real deal or for them to deliver said upgrade.


----------



## Rich

More confusion. Is this never gonna stop? :nono2:

Rich


----------



## slice1900

I emailed a videophile friend about the "4K devices will connect only to 4K TVs" question last night to see if he knew the scoop. He said HDCP 2.2 won't fall back to 1.x just as SledgeHammer said, but "nothing in the standard prevents a device from supporting both and managing the fall back within content restrictions". He expects use of HDCP 2.2 when connected to a 4K TV and HDCP 1.x for 1080p or lower when connected to a HDTV.

He pointed to the upcoming Roku 4 as an example - they would have to keep the Roku 3 around for a decade to support people who have HDTVs, so thinks it is obvious the Roku 4 will be able to connect to a HDTV. He isn't aware of any requirement to protect 1080p internally downscaled from 4K with HDCP 2.2. "Probably an implementation decision", as would the protection for 4K upscaled from 1080p. Maybe the Roku 4 and new Apple TV will shed some light on how it'll typically work.

He also mentioned that downscaled 4K will have better quality compared to native 1080p, because with the correct processing 4:2:0 4K converts to 4:4:4 1080p. I don't know how visible that difference would be to non-videophiles like me, however  He's excited to go 4K but has no plans to do so this year because "there's almost no content and standards are in flux". When a guy like him who has about $150K invested in his AV equipment is waiting, that's not a good sign for the way the industry is managing this rollout!


----------



## yosoyellobo

Rich said:


> More confusion. Is this never gonna stop? :nono2:
> 
> Rich


Yes it will clear up when we get 16k virtual reality.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> I emailed a videophile friend about the "4K devices will connect only to 4K TVs" question last night to see if he knew the scoop. He said HDCP 2.2 won't fall back to 1.x just as SledgeHammer said, but "nothing in the standard prevents a device from supporting both and managing the fall back within content restrictions". He expects use of HDCP 2.2 when connected to a 4K TV and HDCP 1.x for 1080p or lower when connected to a HDTV.
> 
> He pointed to the upcoming Roku 4 as an example - they would have to keep the Roku 3 around for a decade to support people who have HDTVs, so thinks it is obvious the Roku 4 will be able to connect to a HDTV. He isn't aware of any requirement to protect 1080p internally downscaled from 4K with HDCP 2.2. "Probably an implementation decision", as would the protection for 4K upscaled from 1080p. Maybe the Roku 4 and new Apple TV will shed some light on how it'll typically work.
> 
> He also mentioned that downscaled 4K will have better quality compared to native 1080p, because with the correct processing 4:2:0 4K converts to 4:4:4 1080p. I don't know how visible that difference would be to non-videophiles like me, however  He's excited to go 4K but has no plans to do so this year because "there's almost no content and standards are in flux". When a guy like him who has about $150K invested in his AV equipment is waiting, that's not a good sign for the way the industry is managing this rollout!


I agree with your friend that it is certainly "technically" possible for a device to implement fallback internally. I.e. a HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 AVR should certainly be able to connect to a HDCP 1.4 TV if all its source devices are HDCP 1.4. As your friend mentioned, the key word here is "content restrictions". I believe the content restriction on studio 4K is HDCP 2.2 . Regardless, the only native 4K sources we have available right now are 4K media players and one or two PC video cards. The PC video cards don't use HDCP, so that's a non-issue. The 4K media players will ONLY connect to 4K TVs. Due out next is the Joey 4K in the summer, so we'll see the specs on that device.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> I believe the content restriction on studio 4K is HDCP 2.2


I agree, the question comes down to whether 4K downscaled to 1080p must live by the original content restrictions, and if the answer is "yes" for the MPAA's content (i.e. 4K Blu Ray and HBO) whether it would also be yes for non-MPAA 4K sources like ESPN4K and CNN4K (if those require HDCP at all)


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> I agree, the question comes down to whether 4K downscaled to 1080p must live by the original content restrictions, and if the answer is "yes" for the MPAA's content (i.e. 4K Blu Ray and HBO) whether it would also be yes for non-MPAA 4K sources like ESPN4K and CNN4K (if those require HDCP at all)


Who knows? I do expect the Joey 4K and Genie 4K to be HDCP 2.2 because DirecTV is a big stickler for content protection and secure platforms. DirecTV also cuts costs and corners wherever they can... so... my guess is, if they *really, really* want to do something like backwards compatibility, they'll let you hook up the 4K Genie to a 1080P, but it won't down convert 4K, it'll just refuse to play it. It'll only let you play SD and HD channels. Just a guess though...

Like I said, only the 4K media players are out right now, so we'll have to see more 4K devices to see how this is handled, but I'm thinking the Wave1 4K devices at least will be go-forward only. Maybe they'll add a fallback mode later if people ***** about it enough.

I still believe in my original "theory" though , that you wouldn't buy a 4K device or subscribe to a 4K service if you don't have a 4K TV.

So if that theory is correct, the only people affected by HDCP 2.2 would be the people who bought the really early 4K TVs that aren't HDCP 2.2. 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 (which has been out for quite a while now, at least a year plus) is actually "good enough" for "most" use cases. Even UltraHD BluRay. You'll only need the full blown 18Gbps version if you want to do 60Fps @ 4:4:4 and that's still a hot debate to see if anything aside from PCs are going to do that. 60Fps @ 4:2:0 is actually whats in the UltraHD BluRay spec (as of now / wave 1).

I don't follow the streamer market, so when is the 4K Roku supposed to come out?


----------



## peds48

patmurphey said:


> I don't care if you approve or not. My point is that there is value to a 4k TV now in spite of the critics that don't have one to judge.


There may be value to you, but to most, the value isn't there. I don't have one personal, but have seen many, both in store's display and in people's homes. And what I have seen does not warrant throwing my excellent 1080p in the trash. Even with this in mind, I don't go around telling folks to not buy a 4K TV, I tell them I would NOT buy one personally right now.


----------



## slice1900

The Roku 4 was expected this spring, but since Apple is rumored to be announcing the new Apple TV at the WWDC in June, I've read that Roku is going to wait to introduce the Roku 4 until after so they can decide on pricing based on their competitive position.


----------



## Beerstalker

I can pretty much guarantee the newer boxes will still support being hooked up to older 1080, and probably even 720 TVs over HDMI. I mean Blu-Ray players didn't lock everything to 1080p, and only allow you to hook them up to 1080p TVs. Doing so would have probably cost them the format war, and possibly kept the format from living at all.

Instead you were perfectly fine hooking your Blu-ray player up to older 1080i and 720p (and even standard def TVs if you wanted) and the player would downscale the content to display on your TV.

The same will most likely happen with Ultra HD Blu-ray. That way people can buy Ultra HD Blu ray players for all of their TVs in their homes, and only buy Ultra HD Blu-Ray movies, and still be able to watch their movies on all their TVs without having to upgrade all their TVs to 4K.

Now all that said, I still agree with the others. Anyone looking at 4K now should really try to hold off just a few more months until they know the TV will come with high speed HDMI2.0/HDCP2.2. That's coming from a guy who still has two HD-DVD players and movies (I bought both, even though I was pretty sure Blu-Ray would win).


----------



## Laxguy

peds48 said:


> There may be value to you, but to most, the value isn't there. I don't have one personal, but have seen many, both in store's display and in people's homes. And what I have seen does not warrant throwing my excellent 1080p in the trash. Even with this in mind, I don't go around telling folks to not buy a 4K TV, I tell them I would buy one personally right now.


I think "not" is missing from the last sentence.

That's a good approach. Much better than spreading FUD!

I, too, have an excellent Sammy plasma, and I won't be tempted to give it away until it goes TU or there's real content available via HDMI.


----------



## MysteryMan

Crutchfield sells a host of 4K HD TVs (LG, Samsung, Sharp, Sony). Their product descriptions are very in depth and state if the sets are HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 capable.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Beerstalker said:


> I can pretty much guarantee the newer boxes will still support being hooked up to older 1080, and probably even 720 TVs over HDMI. I mean Blu-Ray players didn't lock everything to 1080p, and only allow you to hook them up to 1080p TVs. Doing so would have probably cost them the format war, and possibly kept the format from living at all.
> 
> Instead you were perfectly fine hooking your Blu-ray player up to older 1080i and 720p (and even standard def TVs if you wanted) and the player would downscale the content to display on your TV.
> 
> The same will most likely happen with Ultra HD Blu-ray. That way people can buy Ultra HD Blu ray players for all of their TVs in their homes, and only buy Ultra HD Blu-Ray movies, and still be able to watch their movies on all their TVs without having to upgrade all their TVs to 4K.


You are comparing apples and oranges here, I'm afraid. 720i/720p/1080i/1080p are all the "same thing". They are all "HD". "HD" has a content restriction of HDCP 1*.*0 as a minimum. In fact, HDCP 1.0 doesn't even support HDMI period. HDMI support was added in HDCP 1.1. 4K is not "HD", its "4K" and it has a different base content restriction of HDCP 2.1, possibly 2.0.

Interesting side note to both you and Slice... while confirming the version history above, I stumbled upon this juicy tidbit that I wasn't aware was a formal spec... C&P from Wikipedia:

2.1 IIA

Jul 18, 2011


*New mechanism to manage Type 1 content. Type 1 is a flag preventing content from going to v1.x HDCP. It is assumed that 4K content will require that.*
Resolves addition of devices to the HDMI tree without a full tree re-authentication by allowing ReceiverID_List to be asynchronous

So there you have it folks. It is "assumed" that 4K content will be classified as Type 1 content. If so, Type 1 content is SPECIFICALLY ***NOT** *allowed to fall back per the spec.


----------



## SledgeHammer

^^^ if some of you still are skeptical about the wording of the above bold section which I admit is semi ambiguous, you can get a clarification directly from the horses mouth regarding the type 1 flag (which I wanted to confirm myself even though I believe HDCP is required to work exactly as I described):

http://www.digital-cp.com/files/static_page_files/F3FDE47C-1A4B-B294-D0802DFEF646E602/HDCP%20on%20HDMI%20Specification%20Rev2_2_Final1.pdf

Check page 61. It confirms the wikipedia statement that Type 1 content cannot be transmitted to 1.x devices. Period. In fact, Type 1 can not even fall back to HDCP 2.0. It's 2.1+ only.

Now that that mystery is solved, it opens up another one. Is Type 1 going to be enforced on 4K content? .

That's 2 levels of protection. HDCP 2.2 in general and a flag specifically preventing retransmission to 1.x devices.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> They could have redesigned the connector and fixed the issues the HDMI form factor suffers from (soldered connectors, very limiting length restrictions, no connector lock)


They SHOULD have replaced the HDMI connector -- it is far too delicate and there is a least one connector, DisplayPort, that is in most ways superior.


> What you're suggesting is that if you buy a 4K device you should only ever use it with a 4K TV.


This doesn't seem unreasonable. Would you buy a UHD Blu-ray player to use with an HDTV?


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> He pointed to the upcoming Roku 4 as an example - they would have to keep the Roku 3 around for a decade to support people who have HDTVs, so thinks it is obvious the Roku 4 will be able to connect to a HDTV.


The fact that the Roku 1 remains in circulation mostly tosses that logic out the window.


----------



## peds48

Laxguy said:


> I think "not" is missing from the last sentence.


Thanks, fixed!


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> This doesn't seem unreasonable. Would you buy a UHD Blu-ray player to use with an HDTV?


Sure! Back in the days when I used to travel by the tons, I used to take my PS3 that had a Blue Ray player "built in" to watch movies in hotel from Netflix or the ones bought at the local Best Buy. Most hotels back then did not have a HD TV. It would not seem unreasonable to buy a PS5 and take it with me to a hotel to watch 4K movies on an HD TV since I am not expecting Holiday Inn to upgrade all of their TVs to 4K!


----------



## Christopher Gould

harsh said:


> The fact that the Roku 1 remains in circulation mostly tosses that logic out the window.


Roku 1 is not the original Roku. Their were 2 versions before the Roku 1,2,3. I believe the difference in the 1,2,3 are the wireless and gaming remote.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> Sure! Back in the days when I used to travel by the tons, I used to take my PS3 that had a Blue Ray player "built in" to watch movies in hotel from Netflix or the ones bought at the local Best Buy. Most hotels back then did not have a HD TV. It would not seem unreasonable to buy a PS5 and take it with me to a hotel to watch 4K movies on an HD TV since I am not expecting Holiday Inn to upgrade all of their TVs to 4K!


Good thing you aren't travelling anymore then . I was not able to find any 100% confirmation that 4K content specifies the Type 1 flag. Every link I found just says that's the assumption. Only thing we have to go by now is the 4K media players. If you expect to stay at a Holiday Inn, I wouldn't buy a travel UltraHD BluRay player .


----------



## harsh

Christopher Gould said:


> I believe the difference in the 1,2,3 are the wireless and gaming remote.


Another important difference is that the Roku 1 has RCA composite + stereo outputs, the Roku 2 has a funky AV combo jack and the Roku 3 is HDMI only and hence cannot be used with an SDTV.

Most modern Blu-ray players are HDMI for video with a coaxial audio output. No composite, component or optical outputs.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> Another important difference is that the Roku 1 has RCA composite + stereo outputs, the Roku 2 has a funky AV combo jack and the Roku 3 is HDMI only and hence cannot be used with an SDTV.
> 
> Most modern Blu-ray players are HDMI for video with a coaxial audio output. No composite, component or optical outputs.


Yup. Even the freaky high end $2000 BluRay players don't have other alternatives for video besides HDMI. In the case of audio, the BluRay audio codecs go out over HDMI only as well.

Also, don't Amazon and Netflix 4K streaming require HDCP 2.2 TVs?

The more and more I search, the more and more I find examples that say, if its 4K, it requires HDCP 2.2, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Down-rezzing of 4K is not allowed.

The rule on the upconverting BluRay players is that they can output at 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080p/4K. But obviously, the 4K can only be output to a 4K TV. Not sure if upconverted 1080P -> 4K gets protected by HDCP 2.2 though, I'd assume not.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> This doesn't seem unreasonable. Would you buy a UHD Blu-ray player to use with an HDTV?


What if I decide "I'm going to buy a 4K TV in the future when large OLED screens come down in price" but I don't want to keep buying Blu Rays and figure I should start buying 4K Blu Rays. I might therefore want to buy a 4K Blu Ray player to connect to my plasma until someone makes a 4K TV that exceeds my plasma in quality (i.e. not a LCD TV)


----------



## SledgeHammer

Saw this just now: http://www.residentialsystems.com/default.aspx?tabid=90&EntryId=936

While some manufacturers are hoping to dodge the HDCP 2.2 bullet by leaning on sources that will have dual outputs - one HDCP 2.2 for sending HDCP 2.2 protected video directly to the display, and another for sending non-HDCP 2.2 audio to the receiver - a la the Sony FMP-X10 server and the way some Blu-ray players handled 3D video, it's clear that this won't be the case for every source. *For example, the upcoming 4K Joey will only include a single HDCP 2.2 HDMI output.*


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> What if I decide "I'm going to buy a 4K TV in the future when large OLED screens come down in price" but I don't want to keep buying Blu Rays and figure I should start buying 4K Blu Rays. I might therefore want to buy a 4K Blu Ray player to connect to my plasma until someone makes a 4K TV that exceeds my plasma in quality (i.e. not a LCD TV)


Too bad. You can't . While its technically possible, its not allowed by the spec.

EDIT: what my final question mark is for your scenario since we now know that 4K is not allowed to be down-rezzed is if playing a BluRay on a UltraHD BluRay player will be output as HDCP 2.2 or not. HDCP is part of the device, not part of the content. *However*, the content type flag is part of the content. A BluRay is definitely type-0. So... maybe the players will output 4K content as 4K / HDCP 2.2 only and you won't be able to change the resolution, but for playing a 1080P BluRay that's type-0, you'll be allowed to output as HDCP 1.4 1080P.

But this goes back to our original theory: most people aren't going to buy an UltraHD BluRay player to connect to a 1080P TV. They'll just buy another BluRay player.

I get your scenario though. You want to start your upgrade path from the other end of things. Most people I think will start with the TV.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> ^^^ if some of you still are skeptical about the wording of the above bold section which I admit is semi ambiguous, you can get a clarification directly from the horses mouth regarding the type 1 flag (which I wanted to confirm myself even though I believe HDCP is required to work exactly as I described):
> 
> http://www.digital-cp.com/files/static_page_files/F3FDE47C-1A4B-B294-D0802DFEF646E602/HDCP%20on%20HDMI%20Specification%20Rev2_2_Final1.pdf
> 
> Check page 61. It confirms the wikipedia statement that Type 1 content cannot be transmitted to 1.x devices. Period. In fact, Type 1 can not even fall back to HDCP 2.0. It's 2.1+ only.
> 
> Now that that mystery is solved, it opens up another one. Is Type 1 going to be enforced on 4K content? .
> 
> That's 2 levels of protection. HDCP 2.2 in general and a flag specifically preventing retransmission to 1.x devices.


That's a nice find, but it still doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. This is just repeating what we already know - that any 4K "protected" content will require HDCP 2.2. It doesn't answer whether a device is allowed to downscale the content to HD and follow the HDCP 1.x spec since the content is no longer 4K. Or what 4K content will be protected and what will be unprotected like most of today's HD content.

Sure would be nice if someone cracked or leaked the HDCP 2.2 master key to put an end to this insanity. Hopefully someone has already done so and is just waiting for enough HDCP 2.2 devices to hit the market that there is no way the MPAA can push to obsolete HDCP 2.2 devices like they did with 2.0 and 2.1.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Saw this just now: http://www.residentialsystems.com/default.aspx?tabid=90&EntryId=936
> 
> While some manufacturers are hoping to dodge the HDCP 2.2 bullet by leaning on sources that will have dual outputs - one HDCP 2.2 for sending HDCP 2.2 protected video directly to the display, and another for sending non-HDCP 2.2 audio to the receiver - a la the Sony FMP-X10 server and the way some Blu-ray players handled 3D video, it's clear that this won't be the case for every source. *For example, the upcoming 4K Joey will only include a single HDCP 2.2 HDMI output.*


"The SiL9679 supports 4K resolutions that include 4K2K 24, 25, and 30 frames per second" ... "These are in addition to all of the standard 480/525/720/1080p resolutions that people have used for years". So that does both 4K and HD. Why support all those HD resolutions if it is designed to only be used for 4K?

The Joey having only a single 2.2 port doesn't necessarily mean that port doesn't also support 1.x for non 4K content.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> Most modern Blu-ray players are HDMI for video with a coaxial audio output. No composite, component or optical outputs.


It is expected that since we are on the last phase of HD, that folks buying a BR have an HDTV. Segregating folks to 4K only gear may be what kills this new trend.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> That's a nice find, but it still doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. This is just repeating what we already know - that any 4K "protected" content will require HDCP 2.2. It doesn't answer whether a device is allowed to downscale the content to HD and follow the HDCP 1.x spec since the content is no longer 4K. Or what 4K content will be protected and what will be unprotected like most of today's HD content.


What I posited a while ago. Seems insane not to.


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> Also, don't Amazon and Netflix 4K streaming require HDCP 2.2 TVs?


What devices other than UHD TVs are capable of streaming these services' UHD content? I'm thinking the media center plugins probably can't by design.


> Down-rezzing of 4K is not allowed.


This may be more a function of down-converting hardware not being economically feasible at this time but I don't really see much point.

My 4 year old Onkyo AVR also upscales to low-bandwidth 4K (30fps, low gamut).


----------



## Smuuth

SledgeHammer said:


> Also, don't Amazon and Netflix 4K streaming require HDCP 2.2 TVs?


The Latest 4K UHD Smart TVs featuring streaming service apps such as Netflix and Hulu would not require HDMI input with HDCP 2.2 support because the TV set itself is the source for the content.


----------



## Diana C

Many of the comments in this thread lately have been mixing up HDCP requirements with HDMI requirements. When it comes to UHD content, frame rate has NOTHING to do with HDCP, it is ONLY relevant to HDMI. 

You need HDMI 2.0 to be able to output UHD at more than 30 fps. However, having HDMI 2.0 does not guarantee that you can get 60 fps since there is a slower flavor of HDMI 2.0 that only goes up to 30 fps at UHD resolutions. HDMI has always featured a negotiation protocol, and I would not expect UHD to be different. HDMI will negotiate the highest quality signal possible depending on the highest common denominator between the source and the display.

HDCP 2.2 is an absolute requirement for UHD over HDMI. The content owners will not allow UHD to travel over anything less. As pointed out by SledgeHammer above, there is also a flag that prevents UHD based content, even if downrezzed to HD, from traveling over a HDMI connection that does not support HDCP 2.2.

So, if you have a UHD TV that supports HDMI 2.0 at full bit rate AND HDCP 2.2, then you can get any content displayed at the highest resolution of the source (and possibly upscaled, although I don't consider 1080p upscaled to UHD resolution to BE UHD content).

If you have a HDTV with low bit rate HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 then you can display anything up to UHD at 30 fps. If the source is 60 fps, HDMI will detect the limits of the TV and downconvert the content to 30 fps.

If you have a regular HD TV, you almost certainly have no more than a HDMI 1.4 interface. This CAN NOT support HDCP 2.2 since HDCP 2.2 depends upon features only found in HDMI 2.0. Since you can't do HDCP 2.2 over this connectuion, you can't get ANY UHD content that is flagged to prevent down-rezzing (i.e. has the Type 1 flag set). This is a DRM issue, NOT a technical limitation. Just like you can not download a "copy once" recording from your DVR to your PC or Tablet (even if down converted to a lower resolution), you will not be able to send UHD content to a HD TV if the Type 1 flag is set, even if your DVR or other device is capable of converting the UHD to HD - not because it can't be done, but rather because the content owner says you can't. If the Type 1 flag is NOT set, then conversion to HD and transmission over HDMI 1.4 will be allowed.

So, the only real question is how widely content providers will use the Type 1 flag. If it is anything like the CEC byte today, it will be WIDELY enforced.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> That's a nice find, but it still doesn't answer the question I posed earlier. This is just repeating what we already know - that any 4K "protected" content will require HDCP 2.2. It doesn't answer whether a device is allowed to downscale the content to HD and follow the HDCP 1.x spec since the content is no longer 4K. Or what 4K content will be protected and what will be unprotected like most of today's HD content.
> 
> Sure would be nice if someone cracked or leaked the HDCP 2.2 master key to put an end to this insanity. Hopefully someone has already done so and is just waiting for enough HDCP 2.2 devices to hit the market that there is no way the MPAA can push to obsolete HDCP 2.2 devices like they did with 2.0 and 2.1.


It does imho .

It says specifically type 1 content can NOT be retransmitted to < HDCP 2.1 devices. Down-rezzing it and retransmitting it is retransmitting it .

Basically there are multiple kinds of HDMI devices.

A source device such as a UltraHD BluRay player is HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 and is "locked" to that version. It requires HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 all the way through the chain and cannot fall back.

A hub device such as an AVR can handle multiple HDMI / HDCP versions, but it must respect the wishes of the source device. If the source device is HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2, the content stays HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 it can't down-rezz it or break any other rules such as giving it to HDCP 1.x devices.

A display device. Has the same rules as the hub device. It can accept different versions of HDMI and HDCP. If the source device wants HDCP 2.2, but the TV can only do HDCP 1.4, then you can't hook it up.

So, an UltraHD Bluray player can play DVDs, BluRays and UltraHD Blurays, but the output will be HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. However, you might have an option to output the content in its native resolution and let some other device handle the upconversion. But it'll still be HDCP 2.2.

So, yes... end result is... don't buy 4K *sources* and expect them to plug into non 4K AVRs or TVs because they won't.

A "4K capable AVR" is a different story. That is a hub device and can handle multiple versions as described above.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Smuuth said:


> The Latest 4K UHD Smart TVs featuring streaming service apps such as Netflix and Hulu would not require HDMI input with HDCP 2.2 support because the TV set itself is the source for the content.


Yes, I get that . I meant that from what I read, Netflix and Amazon "enforce" HDCP 2.2 by only licensing their apps to HDCP 2.2 capable TVs. From what I read, you can't stream Netflix & Amazon 4K onto a PC for example. Also, some 4K TVs can't stream from those services either.


----------



## Smuuth

SledgeHammer said:


> Yes, I get that . I meant that from what I read, Netflix and Amazon "enforce" HDCP 2.2 by only licensing their apps to HDCP 2.2 capable TVs. From what I read, you can't stream Netflix & Amazon 4K onto a PC for example. Also, some 4K TVs can't stream from those services either.


The resolution of Netflix content available for streaming is determined by the Netflix app itself and the app makes that determination based on the device capability as well as the level of subscription the user has and the speed of the user's network. For example, I can watch House Of Cards in 4K on my Vizio P Series because my subscription includes 4K content and the TV has HEVC decoding but if I watch it on my PC, the same program is displayed as 1080.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Smuuth said:


> The resolution of Netflix content available for streaming is determined by the Netflix app itself and the app makes that determination based on the device capability as well as the level of subscription the user has and the speed of the user's network. For example, I can watch House Of Cards in 4K on my Vizio P Series because my subscription includes 4K content and the TV has HEVC decoding but if I watch it on my PC, the same program is displayed as 1080.


That's what I was saying. The wrinkle I threw in was that if you have a really old 4K TV, it will still have HEVC, but not HDCP 2.2. Are you allowed to watch 4K Netflix on those TVs even though they have the Netflix streaming app? From what I read, the answer would be no. So, yeah, the Netflix app decides on it by checking the device capability, but, the key point is... they only allow HDCP 2.2 devices to stream 4K .

Think about why. If a theoretical 4K HDCP 1.4 playback device, for example, was allowed to stream 4K content, it would also be able to output 4K with HDCP 1.4 protection which is not allowed. By only allowing HDCP 2.2 devices to even *get* 4K, they ensure that HDCP 2.2 (and thus Type 1 content) is strictly enforced.


----------



## WestDC

And there is the RUB - Try to explain that to the General Public -LOL! when they cuss D* for having problem Downloading content from (1501) even though D* only provides the (APP) 1501 to get the content provided by the HBO server. 

Until it's all plug and play -it's just another way to pick the end users pocket


----------



## SledgeHammer

WestDC said:


> And there is the RUB - Try to explain that to the General Public -LOL! when they cuss D* for having problem Downloading content from (1501) even though D* only provides the (APP) 1501 to get the content provided by the HBO server.
> 
> Until it's all plug and play -it's just another way to pick the end users pocket


I agree.

4K crapped on itself a bit by having 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 1.4 and just now releasing 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. They should have called the 18Gbps version something different, SPECIFICALLY in the name. Like 2.0a / 2.0b or whatever and require the manafacturers to CLEARLY indicate which one they had. Right now its even more confusing because the 18Gbps version is called "Level A" and the 10.2Gbps version is called "Level B" which is backwards. One would expect 2.0b to be better then 2.0a. They should have just done 2.0 / 2.1 IMO and avoided a lot of confusion. However, then it would have been the same issue. A "2.0" device would be useless and wouldn't be able to get real 4K, you would need a "2.1" device.

Even worse is that the TV makers are flat out hiding this information. I'm in the LG OLED forum over on AVS and its a $5500 / 55" TV and you still can't get a straight answer as to which version of HDMI it is.

I know one guy who bought a 4K TV back in Oct/Nov I think. I tried to explain to him that it wouldn't be able to get native 4K and he thought I was an idiot / lying to him / didn't know what I was talking about / didn't care. So he went and bought a 65" 4K TV. *Shrug*.

I honestly wonder what a person who spent $5K on a 4K TV will feel when he goes to plug in his shiny new UltraHD BluRay player this Xmas and finds a blue screen on his TV instead of an actual picture. Yikes. I know I would be pissed.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> If the source is 60 fps, HDMI will detect the limits of the TV and downconvert the content to 30 fps.


I suspect that they will simply jettison half the frames and any extra color data that they can't use rather than "'tweening" pairs of frames.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> I honestly wonder what a person who spent $5K on a 4K TV will feel when he goes to plug in his shiny new UltraHD BluRay player this Xmas and finds a blue screen on his TV instead of an actual picture. Yikes. I know I would be pissed.


The Dolt across the street from me bought a plasma TV when they first came out. I think he told me he paid...I don't really remember but it was expensive, in the thousands of dollars, and had it wall mounted in his theater room. I never saw the TV off the wall, so I don't have any idea what model it was, but it would not show anything in HD. He spent several years in denial, watching stretched out balloon headed shows, then got a Panny plasma. He was furious when I told him he wasn't watching anything in HD. He's one of those people that never make mistakes. He got so angry he wouldn't even walk across the street to see what real HD looked like.

I've been waiting to see the 4K TV box next to his garbage can, I know he'll do it again.

He also bought a bathtub tricked out like a hot tub. Never considered that it wasn't plug and bathe, just bought it. I offered to put in an appropriate receptacle for it, but it still sits there with no power. Dolts never learn.

Rich


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> I suspect that they will simply jettison half the frames and any extra color data that they can't use rather than "'tweening" pairs of frames.


Woof.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Well, another interesting, confusing day on this thread. Right now, plug and play still sounds good to me. It's gotta come, right?

I really have to wonder, how do "normal" (whatever that is) people cope with all this? This stuff demands schooling. 

Rich


----------



## Beerstalker

I wouldn't be so certain that the Type 1 flag will be set, especially at the beginning.

Remember Blu-Ray has a pretty similar thing, the Image Constraint Toke (ICT). If that flag is set to on then Blu-Ray players are forced to downscale the content if the device is using any connection that isn't HDCP compatible (like component video). However the ICT flag has not been put into use by any company as far as I know (I believe it has only been set on accident in a couple cases like one of the Resident Evil movies, and the Studio apologized and gave people refunds/a new disc).

So while TYPE 1can limit the Ultra HD Blu Ray players to only output if HDCP 2.2 is present, my guess is they will not enforce Type 1 in the beginning. They will just make the players downscale if your only have earlier versions of HDCP.

Otherwise I think requiring this could kill the format before it starts. I personally buy a lot of movies, I typically spend $100-200 a month on Blu-Rays. If I can buy an Ultra HD Blu ray disc player and hook it up to my Panasonic 65VT60 plasma I will probably buy one at launch and stop buying Blu-Rays start buying Ultra HD Blu-rays instead. Once players come down in price I will replace my other 3 blu-ray disc players with Ultra HD versions. I most likely will not be replacing any of my TVs until one of them dies (especially the awesome 65VT60). If I can't hook up an Ultra HD blu-ray player to my 65VT60, then I won't be buying one or buying any Ultra HD movies for quite a while. I may even quit buying movies altogether (which would make my wife a lot happier).


----------



## WestDC

SledgeHammer said:


> I agree.
> 
> 4K crapped on itself a bit by having 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 1.4 and just now releasing 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. They should have called the 18Gbps version something different, SPECIFICALLY in the name. Like 2.0a / 2.0b or whatever and require the manafacturers to CLEARLY indicate which one they had. Right now its even more confusing because the 18Gbps version is called "Level A" and the 10.2Gbps version is called "Level B" which is backwards. One would expect 2.0b to be better then 2.0a. They should have just done 2.0 / 2.1 IMO and avoided a lot of confusion. However, then it would have been the same issue. A "2.0" device would be useless and wouldn't be able to get real 4K, you would need a "2.1" device.
> 
> Even worse is that the TV makers are flat out hiding this information. I'm in the LG OLED forum over on AVS and its a $5500 / 55" TV and you still can't get a straight answer as to which version of HDMI it is.
> 
> I know one guy who bought a 4K TV back in Oct/Nov I think. I tried to explain to him that it wouldn't be able to get native 4K and he thought I was an idiot / lying to him / didn't know what I was talking about / didn't care. So he went and bought a 65" 4K TV. *Shrug*.
> 
> I honestly wonder what a person who spent $5K on a 4K TV will feel when he goes to plug in his shiny new UltraHD BluRay player this Xmas and finds a blue screen on his TV instead of an actual picture. Yikes. I know I would be pissed.


I agree - I wonder what will happen when I connect my (2011) onkyo AVR that' says it will upscale 4k -LOL!! as well as my 2013 Sony 1040 will upscale it as well - What should I expect ---------------NOTHING except to get out my checkbook and replace my old junk for NEW JUNK LOL!


----------



## SledgeHammer

Beerstalker said:


> So while TYPE 1can limit the Ultra HD Blu Ray players to only output if HDCP 2.2 is present, my guess is they will not enforce Type 1 in the beginning. They will just make the players downscale if your only have earlier versions of HDCP.


Not impossible, but highly, highly unlikely. Content owners are not going to be too happy if 4K security is hacked. That is the #1 priority, not compatibility with 1080P sets that they don't even care about anymore to be honest with you. Its a 4K device, so they are worried about securing the 4K content. I'm sure it will be hacked at some point though.

Now, as you probably noticed, in 2015, most of the new TV models rolling out are 4K TVs. Today, Crutchfield lists 51 4K TV models and only 41 1080P TV models. You can't even really buy a DVD player anymore except maybe one or two $50 models at Walmart. BluRay... well, I'll be surprised if anybody continues to release high quality BluRay players. Maybe one of the boutique brands. But Denon? I think they'll keep producing the current BluRay players during the transition for another year or so, or perhaps release one more model. After that, if you want a new player, you'll have to buy a UltraHD BluRay and that means a 4K TV.

I don't know why you're surprised or think something different will happen. That's how it was with the SD -> HD transition.

People who wanted the coolest, newest sh**  had to buy a HD TV. If you wanted a new VCR to work on your CRT TV with RCA inputs, you had to go to Walmart & Target and buy the $50 ones. Sony stopped making the $2000 S-VHS type models the second DVD came out.


----------



## Beerstalker

This is not how it happend with SD-HD transition. Blu-ray players were and still are able to take blu-ray movies and downscale them to 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i. I have a blu-ray player hooked up to a 720p plasma right now. Before I had the plasma that blu-ray player was hooked up to a 27" SD CRT.

Blu ray players came with component video outputs for years until recently. Many still come with composite video outputs, and analog audio.

Many came with 5.1 or 7.1 analog outputs that were able to decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS HDMA for people that had older AV Receivers that did not have HDMI.

They did this so people can update their players and movies first, and then replace their TVs more slowly over time (since TVs are a much larger expenditure and get replaced less often).

Making Ultra HD Blu Ray movies/players completely incompatible with any older TV is a horrible idea and would probably kill the format, which is going to have a hard enough time surviving as it is since so many people are already transitioning to digital delivery/streaming.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Beerstalker said:


> This is not how it happend with SD-HD transition. Blu-ray players were and still are able to take blu-ray movies and downscale them to 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i. I have a blu-ray player hooked up to a 720p plasma right now. Before I had the plasma that blu-ray player was hooked up to a 27" SD CRT.
> 
> Blu ray players came with component video outputs for years until recently. Many still come with composite video outputs, and analog audio.
> 
> Many came with 5.1 or 7.1 analog outputs that were able to decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS HDMA for people that had older AV Receivers that did not have HDMI.
> 
> They did this so people can update their players and movies first, and then replace their TVs more slowly over time (since TVs are a much larger expenditure and get replaced less often).
> 
> Making Ultra HD Blu Ray movies/players completely incompatible with any older TV is a horrible idea and would probably kill the format, which is going to have a hard enough time surviving as it is since so many people are already transitioning to digital delivery/streaming.


Correct. 1080P doesn't have a content restriction and you can do whatever you want with it. 4K has a content restriction. 1080P was allowed to be down converted. 4K is not allowed the same luxury.

Don't get me wrong though, I have *not* found any link that says 100% that Type 1 will be enforced from day 1. That is just the common assumption.

The only piece of evidence we have right now is that 4K media players require HDCP 2.2. From a link I posted earlier, the Joey 4K has a single HDCP 2.2 output as well.

More evidence from some of the newer AVRs:

4K/60p and 3D video pass-through

_This receiver requires a free upgrade to the HDMI circuit board (see above) to be HDCP 2.2-compliant. Without it, it will not support copy-protected 4K video content._
_*4K/60Hz Pass-Through: *The receiver's HDMI inputs and HDMI outputs support 4K/60Hz Ultra-HD, 4:4:4 Pure Color, and 21:9 video pass-through, a feature of the latest HDMI 2.0 specification for Ultra-HD content. They also support 1080p (24 or 60Hz) for playback of high-definition content from Blu-ray, satellite/cable, and gaming devices._

_*Note:* The AV receiver's HDMI 2.0 jacks do not support the latest HDCP 2.2 copyright protection for 4K ultra-HD content, so it will not support 4K content from satellite/cable providers, online video services, and Blu-ray disc which are copyright protected with HDCP 2.2._

_*4K Video Upconversion: *The Denon AV receiver's sophisticated video processor provides upconversion from standard definition (480i/480p) and high definition (720p/1080i/1080p) sources to 4K Ultra HD (3840x2160 pixels), which lets you connect all your analog (composite/component) or digital (HDMI) video sources to the AVR-X7200W and then connect to your HDTV with just a single HDMI cable._

So I can appreciate and respect the use cases that you and Slice are presenting. I don't want you to think I'm calling them "dumb" or anything . I do however think they are corner cases and that the hardware and content restrictions will not allow for that to happen. Nor do I think the manafacturers have any interest in supporting legacy stuff. They want to sell new models .

If you think about it... there hasn't really been anything cool out in terms of features for like the last 10 yrs. Now 4K is here. Time to move on. 1080P has served us well. RIP buddy .


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> This may be more a function of down-converting hardware not being economically feasible at this time but I don't really see much point.


The iPhone 6 plus downconverts from its internal resolution (2304x1296 IIRC) to the display's native resolution of 1920x1080. For everything. Anything capable of handling 4K video will be able to downsample, it is a simple mathematical operation to average four pixels into one for 4K -> 1080p, much easier than what the 6 plus has to do.


----------



## Aridon

This has to do with copy protection and not about capability to make the content accessible. If you want 4k it's going to need entirely new hardware and if you think content producers care that your first gen TV is incompatible then you're crazy. They know you'll buy a new one because you're a first mover and that set that is junk will go in the bedroom for late night Archer before bed.

Content producers learned much from the hd conversion they aren't going to make the same mistakes with protecting their content. Especially when everything requires a fresh start.

It's a marathon, not a race. When you rush out and buy bleeding edge don't be surprised when you get cut.

4k+ is certainly the future. Just no reason to buy it today.


----------



## slice1900

I agree with SledgeHammer that the type 1 will probably be set and enforced from day one for 4K Blu Ray. The MPAA is ultra paranoid about copying. Really it would be better for consumers if it is enforced right away, because if they started enforcing it later it would piss a lot more people off. I agree this will probably kill the format, but 4K Blu Ray may not survive anyway - the market for 4K versions of movies that people already own in HD is minuscule. What's funny is that people pirating stuff don't care about high quality, given a choice between the HD and 4K version a pirate would probably prefer the HD version since it would download quicker and take up less space in their collection.

I hope that type 1 will not be set by default for cable/satellite programming. I see it as certain for movie channels like HBO - enforced by MPAA contracts - but is it going to be set for ESPN4K or CNN4K? I see no chance I will ever go 4K at my business if there is no way to downscale 4K to HDTVs. There's no way I'm doing a wholesale replacement of every TV all at once which is REQUIRED because Directv's 4K and HD channels will be out of sync, just like their HD and SD channels were.


----------



## harsh

Beerstalker said:


> Many still come with composite video outputs, and analog audio.


I dare you to find one that puts out video on other than HDMI. Even the insanely expensive Oppos only feature audio options -- including XLR!

The heinously expensive Marantz models feature a second coaxial audio output and some wired remote control magic.


----------



## harsh

Rich said:


> It's gotta come, right?


I heard the same thing about RCA's Capacitive Discharge Video disc titles, SACD and glasses-free 3D.

This is one wave you don't want to try to stay out in front of.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> I dare you to find one that puts out video on other than HDMI. Even the insanely expensive Oppos only feature audio options -- including XLR!
> 
> The heinously expensive Marantz models feature a second coaxial audio output and some wired remote control magic.


Yup. New models of pretty much everything today is HDMI only except for AVRs. They need to support legacy inputs.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> I heard the same thing about RCA's Capacitive Discharge Video disc titles, SACD and glasses-free 3D.
> 
> This is one wave you don't want to try to stay out in front of.


Yup. When people ask me, I tell them a 4K *BASELINE* is 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. Do not touch any 4K equipment below that baseline. The stuff coming down the pike "soon" is bells and whistles like HDR and wider color gamuts. They aren't show stoppers like 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 is.


----------



## Drew2k

peds48 said:


> Hope you took it as a joke, hence the smiling thingy.... :righton:


Yep. no worries!


----------



## Beerstalker

harsh said:


> I dare you to find one that puts out video on other than HDMI. Even the insanely expensive Oppos only feature audio options -- including XLR!
> 
> The heinously expensive Marantz models feature a second coaxial audio output and some wired remote control magic.


You are right they don't anymore. But, they just stopped offering them in late 2013 (early 2014) and they warned everyone about it before hand so it wasn't a surprise if you were paying attention. From 2006 thru late 2013 pretty much every Blu-Ray player had component video out. Those players all still work fine.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=230112

Allowing 4K content to be downscaled and output as 1080p over older versions of HDMI will not increase the likelihood of people breaking HDCP2.2, and it won't increase piracy any more than it already is. If a person knows how to break earlier versions of HDCP they can already create rips of blu-rays at 1080p, so why is it a big deal if they can create a 1080p rip from a Ultra HD blu-ray. They are going to end up with the same quality rip.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Beerstalker said:


> From 2006 thru late 2013 pretty much every Blu-Ray player had component video out. Those players all still work fine.


And? I have a VCR that still works fine using RCA out .

HDCP 1.x was flawed in many ways, so they want to get rid of it. That's really the bottom line. It was so broken that it required starting over. So yeah, sorry, no backwards compatibility for you .

Aside from the DRM side of things, they simply want to sell you new stuff. They don't care about your old stuff or the quality of your rips. They don't want you to be able to rip at all. They didn't even want you to "rip" VHS.

In fact, HDCP 2.2 has an additional layer of security called a locality check (a timeout) that is going to make it much harder to analyze the protocol.

I'm sure it'll be cracked at some point (maybe), but at some point getting around the security becomes much more of a hassle then just walking away and doing it some other way or just buying it legit. I.e. if ripping a UltraHD BluRay for example takes 36 hrs and ties up your computer 100%, would you bother? I'm sure some people would, but it seems easier to just go and buy it at that point.


----------



## doctor j

I thought I'd take this discussion to a new topic.

For those of you that don't check gct's weekly channel update, I'd like to bring to your attention a tidbit I saw in studying this week's data!

At the end of an obscure ,usually meaningless, data .bin there was a new seemingly active 4K Test channel!!

"33Ch4KTest 9800 40971 13 136 1010 1012 15 4K Linear Test Channel 4K Linear Test Channel."

Don't know if CH 9800 is available or just seen by a few "special" cards but it's out there.
It's listed as Directv 10 TPN 13 vpid 1010 (a usually active designation)
If you have a working Directv 4K ready setup, might see what's on CH 9800. I don't have a 4K TV yet, SAD but TRUE, so I can't investigate

Feedback welcome

Doctor j


----------



## Aridon

Caddyshack 4k ppv


----------



## slice1900

I wondered if 4K might not start on Ka for the first few channels, given that they don't seem to be in any hurry to get LNBs that can receive RDBS out there. Looks like at least the first linear test channel is Ka - true "test" channel since it isn't labeled as to what the content is as is usually the case (i.e. Sundance HD Test) but it is the first step.


----------



## GregLee

4K was last year. This year it's HDR (high dynamic range). Samsung has a model with 4K, HDR, and WCG (wide color gamut) that has gotten good early reviews. The 65" JS9000 ($5K) and JS9500 ($6K) are supposedly good at upconverting, and there is reason to hope that native HDR content will be available on UHD Blu-ray early next year. Also, Vizio will announce its 2015 line mid-April, and that might include HDR capable sets, presumably at a more reasonable price. LG promises HDR compatibility for some of its 2015 OLED 4K models, but they will be quite expensive.
HDR doesn't seem to be on DirecTV's radar, yet.


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> Chips implementing full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 are already available, so those shouldn't be holding up 4K receivers. *Directv may wait for DVB-S2X, if so you won't see any 4K hardware until the end of this year or into next.* I highly doubt there are networks all ready to flip the switch on a 4K channel but are holding off just because they don't have a provider on board. Directv and Dish will know who is where on delivering 4K and set their schedules accordingly. I am willing to bet there won't be any linear 4K channels in 2015.
> 
> Also, don't hold your breath waiting for primetime shows on 4K, especially for satellite customers. Those will take years, because there is no way to deliver them OTA, and Directv and Dish's current spot beam setup can't deliver them via satellite. You'll see crap reality shows like Honey Boo Boo in 4K before you see Big Bang Theory or the Super Bowl in 4K.


I wouldn't say for DTV, but Japan did some -S2X tests: http://www.digitaltvnews.net/?p=25604 with Newtec (who would expect that )


----------



## yosoyellobo

P Smith said:


> I wouldn't say for DTV, but Japan did some -S2X tests: http://www.digitaltvnews.net/?p=25604 with Newtec (who would expect that )


Translation please.


----------



## Diana C

I had a fairly heated discussion with someone on another forum about ATSC 3.0 (which CAN deliver UHD over the air). He maintained that broadcasters can't wait to move to 3.0 because it allows practical mobile reception by things like tablets and smartphones, as well as offering the ability to provide other services (his examples were data feeds or on-demand).

I am very skeptical of ATSC 3.0 simply because it is such a big change from the current standards. For one thing, to get the higher bandwidth you need to do channel bonding, which means every TV station would need twice as much radio spectrum. That is simply not going to be possible to allocate in places like Los Angeles without the FCC giving OTA TV more spectrum (after shrinking it steadily over the years). Secondly, ATSC 3.0 is NOT backwards compatible, so the broadcasters would need to keep their current transmissions going or else lose their (now growing again) base of OTA viewers. Of course, that would mean they need three times the spectrum. Finally, they would need additional transmitters, new encoders, and upgraded production facilities for locally originated UHD programs. All in pursuit of features that, by the time they are delivered, will already be met by cellular providers and IPTV services.

So, I agree with Slice - basic broadcast TV is unlikely to move to UHD in the foreseeable future. Since a LOT of the cable programming is syndicated network shows, there won't be a lot of UHD content there either. I honestly believe that UHD will be reserved for a small number of channels (movies, sports and perhaps nature/science oriented channels like NGC or Discovery) and for OTT delivery.

We may be headed into a perfect storm where the increasing demands for bandwidth meets the trend towards cord cutting and results in the end of almost all linear broadcasting as we know it. It may well be the only way UHD content will ever become as ubiquitous as HD is today.


----------



## P Smith

yosoyellobo said:


> Translation please.


Don't bother - you don't need to ...<waiving a hand sideways>


----------



## SledgeHammer

Diana C said:


> I had a fairly heated discussion with someone on another forum about ATSC 3.0 (which CAN deliver UHD over the air). He maintained that broadcasters can't wait to move to 3.0 because it allows practical mobile reception by things like tablets and smartphones, as well as offering the ability to provide other services (his examples were data feeds or on-demand).
> 
> I am very skeptical of ATSC 3.0 simply because it is such a big change from the current standards. For one thing, to get the higher bandwidth you need to do channel bonding, which means every TV station would need twice as much radio spectrum. That is simply not going to be possible to allocate in places like Los Angeles without the FCC giving OTA TV more spectrum (after shrinking it steadily over the years). Secondly, ATSC 3.0 is NOT backwards compatible, so the broadcasters would need to keep their current transmissions going or else lose their (now growing again) base of OTA viewers. Of course, that would mean they need three times the spectrum. Finally, they would need additional transmitters, new encoders, and upgraded production facilities for locally originated UHD programs. All in pursuit of features that, by the time they are delivered, will already be met by cellular providers and IPTV services.
> 
> So, I agree with Slice - basic broadcast TV is unlikely to move to UHD in the foreseeable future. Since a LOT of the cable programming is syndicated network shows, there won't be a lot of UHD content there either. I honestly believe that UHD will be reserved for a small number of channels (movies, sports and perhaps nature/science oriented channels like NGC or Discovery) and for OTT delivery.
> 
> We may be headed into a perfect storm where the increasing demands for bandwidth meets the trend towards cord cutting and results in the end of almost all linear broadcasting as we know it. It may well be the only way UHD content will ever become as ubiquitous as HD is today.


I think networks will move to UHD just like they did with HD. The big, highly rated primetime shows first and eventually down to the Viagra commercials. It just isn't going to happen on OTA. Too much cost and not enough gain. I'm not going to make up random percentages, but I'm going to assume the majority of people are either pay tv or streaming now. Very few people even know you can get channels with an antenna and even fewer have the equipment to do it.

You'll get people saying local affiliates are going to be pissed that they are "left behind"... well, they'll be able to deliver UHD to the local cable companies and to DirecTVs spot beams at some point, they just won't be able to deliver it via OTA and eventually OTA will shut down the FCC will repurpose the spectrum. Its just not really practical anymore.

I've never met a single person who even knew what OTA was, much less had it (besides me) .

Try call up DirecTV and ask about the AM21N. You'll be transferred around to like 7 people who don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about until they finally find a manager who vaguely remembers a 30 min training class he took on it 10 yrs ago .


----------



## Diana C

SledgeHammer said:


> I think networks will move to UHD just like they did with HD. The big, highly rated primetime shows first and eventually down to the Viagra commercials. It just isn't going to happen on OTA. Too much cost and not enough gain. I'm not going to make up random percentages, but I'm going to assume the majority of people are either pay tv or streaming now. Very few people even know you can get channels with an antenna and even fewer have the equipment to do it.
> 
> You'll get people saying local affiliates are going to be pissed that they are "left behind"... well, they'll be able to deliver UHD to the local cable companies and to DirecTVs spot beams at some point, they just won't be able to deliver it via OTA and eventually OTA will shut down the FCC will repurpose the spectrum. Its just not really practical anymore.
> 
> I've never met a single person who even knew what OTA was, much less had it (besides me) .
> 
> Try call up DirecTV and ask about the AM21N. You'll be transferred around to like 7 people who don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about until they finally find a manager who vaguely remembers a 30 min training class he took on it 10 yrs ago .


Well, I think a quick visit to the Tivo Community forum will change your thinking about OTA usage. The fastest growing market segment for TiVo right now is in their OTA models (they even came out with a low priced OTA only DVR a few months ago). Channel Master, Silicon Dust and Tablo are also in this market, selling a fair number of units (although SD and Tablo also, like Tivo, make cable capable units).

Another wrinkle in the "how will people get content in the future" picture is an effort that just got under way this week to build a new, universal, medium independent security system. This was started as a replacement for CableCards, but the FCC wants to apply it to satellite and IPTV as well. Combine this with the DVR manufacturers like Arris (formerly Motorola), DirecTV and Cisco/SA looking at developing tuner "servers" that have no local output, but instead only deliver streams to simpler output devices (like a DirecTV Genie Mini, an Arris IP1000 or a Tivo Mini) and you now have another contribution to the "perfect storm." The television delivery infrastructure may look VERY different in 5 years or so.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Diana C said:


> Well, I think a quick visit to the Tivo Community forum will change your thinking about OTA usage. The fastest growing market segment for TiVo right now is in their OTA models (they even came out with a low priced OTA only DVR a few months ago). Channel Master, Silicon Dust and Tablo are also in this market, selling a fair number of units (although SD and Tablo also, like Tivo, make cable capable units).
> 
> Another wrinkle in the "how will people get content in the future" picture is an effort that just got under way this week to build a new, universal, medium independent security system. This was started as a replacement for CableCards, but the FCC wants to apply it to satellite and IPTV as well. Combine this with the DVR manufacturers like Arris (formerly Motorola), DirecTV and Cisco/SA looking at developing tuner "servers" that have no local output, but instead only deliver streams to simply output devices (like a DirecTV Genie Mini, an Arris IP1000 or a Tivo Mini) and you now have another contribution to the "perfect storm." The television delivery infrastructure may look VERY different in 5 years or so.


Is Tivo still around?  Don't get me wrong, I loved my various DirecTivos. Everyone did. They were the coolest thing around. Everybody I showed it off to was jealous at the time. They got passed by though. Wasn't the new DirecTivo the THR22 or something like that a flop? Do you see DirecTV releasing a 4K DirecTivo to appease the remaining fans?

I rarely use my OTA except for This Old House and occasionally retro TV, but I still rather it be built in to the DVR. It puts out a lot of heat and takes up a lot of space and requires more bulky cables in my limited cabinet space.


----------



## P Smith

SledgeHammer said:


> I think networks will move to UHD just like they did with HD. ... .


You're thinking too fast ... and there is the issue with fast conclusions... it's different game then HD, you'll see it by yourself ... soon.
So. I'm quoting your words :contract:


----------



## James Long

Diana C said:


> For one thing, to get the higher bandwidth you need to do channel bonding, which means every TV station would need twice as much radio spectrum. That is simply not going to be possible to allocate in places like Los Angeles without the FCC giving OTA TV more spectrum (after shrinking it steadily over the years). Secondly, ATSC 3.0 is NOT backwards compatible, so the broadcasters would need to keep their current transmissions going or else lose their (now growing again) base of OTA viewers. Of course, that would mean they need three times the spectrum.


The FCC is working on taking bandwidth AWAY from OTA broadcasters. Multiple stations sharing the same physical channel is their plan ... required sharing in major markets and optional in rural markets.

An extra channel to keep permanently in a bonded setup is not going to happen.

Even a temporary channel for a transition would be a long shot as it would go against the FCC plans to reduce the number of physical channels, not increase the number of physical channels.

UHD production for streaming or delivery to cable/satellite/pay viewers? I can see that happening over time. But do not expect OTA.


----------



## Diana C

SledgeHammer said:


> Is Tivo still around?  Don't get me wrong, I loved my various DirecTivos. Everyone did. They were the coolest thing around. Everybody I showed it off to was jealous at the time. They got passed by though. Wasn't the new DirecTivo the THR22 or something like that a flop? Do you see DirecTV releasing a 4K DirecTivo to appease the remaining fans?
> 
> I rarely use my OTA except for This Old House and occasionally retro TV, but I still rather it be built in to the DVR. It puts out a lot of heat and takes up a lot of space and requires more bulky cables in my limited cabinet space.


Most satellite subscribers are not aware of what is going on in the cable and OTA TV worlds. There are 3 or 4 US, and about a half dozen foreign, cable companies that distribute Tivos as their only DVR. Comcast, while they offer their own competing DVRs, have gone to the trouble of making VOD and PPV available to TiVo users. Tivo spent a few years in the wilderness, where their subscriber base was shrinking and they lacked capital to do much development. However, they are using the big bucks that their patent licensees (and lawsuit victims) are paying them to enhance and expand the platform. The Premiere was highly competitive with any cable or satellite DVR at the time, and the Roamio line blows almost everything else out of the water, except perhaps DirecTV's Genie (though the Roamio Plus and Pro have six tuners to the Genie's five, the Pro has 3TB to Genie's 1TB, and the Roamios comes with Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, MLB TV, and more built in). The Roamio Plus and Pro models also have a Stream (like the GenieGo) built in. They are working on (and have demonstrated) a Roku client (turn any Roku into a Mini equivalent), an Android client and an HTML5 client. It is exciting days at TiVo, and their subscriber base is growing again...as I mentioned, particularly in the OTA DVR space. TiVo is not only still around, they are dong rather well. BTW, they are also on the "post Cablecard" committee, along with representatives from DirecTV, Dish, AT&T, Verizon and most every major cable company, Roku, Apple and some of the OTT providers.

The THR-22 was a product of DirecTV living up to the letter, but not the spirit, of their license deal with TiVo. The box took so long to deliver and is so crippled, only a die hard TiVo and DirecTV fan would put up with it. It is running a 5 year old version of the TiVo software and running on DirecTV's worst DVR hardware (the much maligned HR-22, where it still runs circles around DirecTV's software). The goal of the new security standard, and the FCC's stated plan, is to include satellite and IPTV vendors in the rules that require support of third party devices, like a REAL TiVo.

A very large portion (perhaps even the majority) of "cord cutters" are using OTA to obtain broadcast networks as well as a lot of sub-channel content, Between primary and non duplicate sub-channels in markets like New York (with around 30 distinct channels) and LA (with more than 40) OTA is looking a lot like a cable alternative. Now, take any OTA capable Roamio (like the $50 Roamio OTA) which provides 4 OTA tuners with a 500GB hard drive (drop in upgrade-able to 3TB) along with the OTT providers mentioned above, plus an HTML5 based app platform (where there are already dozens of app that provide access to web videos). and you have a pretty complete product for the user that wants to escape the ever increasing price spiral of multi-channel distribution. There is a LOT of activity in the OTA market around new antenna technologies and DVRs. To the extent cord-cutting is a trend, the use of OTA reception can only increase.

None of us that subscribe to DirecTV, Dish or cable fall into this category, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist...we just don't see those folks here.


----------



## Diana C

James Long said:


> The FCC is working on taking bandwidth AWAY from OTA broadcasters. Multiple stations sharing the same physical channel is their plan ... required sharing in major markets and optional in rural markets.
> 
> An extra channel to keep permanently in a bonded setup is not going to happen.
> 
> Even a temporary channel for a transition would be a long shot as it would go against the FCC plans to reduce the number of physical channels, not increase the number of physical channels.
> 
> UHD production for streaming or delivery to cable/satellite/pay viewers? I can see that happening over time. But do not expect OTA.


Exactly...that is why ATSC 3.0 is, IMHO, already DOA.

It may well end up with sports and news/weather being the only things delivered via linear broadcasting, and with fewer linear channels, there are fewer obstacles for them to support UHD. Everything else may end up in a more on-demand streaming sort of delivery methodology, though we will need a much more complete (and uncapped) broadband footprint in this country than we have today, simply because that is the only way the bandwidth required can be accommodated.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> Yup. When people ask me, I tell them a 4K *BASELINE* is 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2. Do not touch any 4K equipment below that baseline. The stuff coming down the pike "soon" is bells and whistles like HDR and wider color gamuts. They aren't show stoppers like 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 is.


Finally! A simple statement of what's needed by someone who knows. I gotta save this post. Thanx. Now I understand exactly what to look for.

Rich


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> Yup. New models of pretty much everything today is HDMI only except for AVRs. They need to support legacy inputs.


Whether the "need to" or not, options are disappearing. S-Video inputs disappeared a couple of years ago and component and composite are being replaced by even more HDMI inputs in the 2015 models.


----------



## SledgeHammer

P Smith said:


> You're thinking too fast ... and there is the issue with fast conclusions... it's different game then HD, you'll see it by yourself ... soon.
> So. I'm quoting your words :contract:


I don't mean to say that The Big Bang Theory is airing in UHD next week , but I fully expect networks to air UHD "soon".

Remember, HEVC "promises" 50% bandwidth cost vs. HD. Although its not there yet. So yeah, UltraHD is 4x HD, but HEVC 4K vs. MPEG4 HD is only 2x. So its not as bad as people make it out to be .


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> Whether the "need to" or not, options are disappearing. S-Video inputs disappeared a couple of years ago and component and composite are being replaced by even more HDMI inputs in the 2015 models.


The Denon X3100 which is $1000 MSRP still has everything back to RCA inputs. No S-video though . Just RCA and Component.


----------



## harsh

doctor j said:


> It's listed as Directv 10 TPN 13 vpid 1010 (a usually active designation)


Using DIRECTV 10 to test something that DIRECTV 14 was destined for???


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> The Denon X3100 which is $1000 MSRP still has everything back to RCA inputs. No S-video though . Just RCA and Component.


It is also a 2014 model that's very, very similar to the 2013 model.


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> Remember, HEVC "promises" 50% bandwidth cost vs. HD. Although its not there yet.


If they can't cleanly deliver two 720p stations in MPEG2, what makes you think they can do UHD that will produce a decidedly better picture?

My experiments with HEVC coding (not in real time) suggest that 50% is optimistic and I can't imagine that the compression will improve when forced into the realtime domain.


----------



## Beerstalker

harsh said:


> It is also a 2014 model that's very, very similar to the 2013 model.


Really? They added WiFi and Bluetooth, added another HDMI input. They added component video and 7.1 analog audio outputs. Most people considered the 3100 a pretty big upgrade from the 3000.

I personally just upgraded from the AVR-3808CI to the AVR-X4000 so I could gain 3D support and go back to using just one input on my TV. I don't care about 4K at this time so I wasn't worried about what version of HDMI/HDCP it had and have ethernet hookup available where it goes so I don't need WiFi. I was able to get it for a great price ($600 Amazon Warehouse deal because the box was ripped, the box had never been opened, receiver was never unwrapped). I am really happy with it so far. That said I wouldn't exactly say the 4100 isn't much of an upgrade from the 4000, it just wasn't upgrades that I needed so saving $600 was way more important to me.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Beerstalker said:


> Really? They added WiFi and Bluetooth, added another HDMI input. They added component video and 7.1 analog audio outputs. Most people considered the 3100 a pretty big upgrade from the 3000.
> 
> I personally just upgraded from the AVR-3808CI to the AVR-X4000 so I could gain 3D support and go back to using just one input on my TV. I don't care about 4K at this time so I wasn't worried about what version of HDMI/HDCP it had and have ethernet hookup available where it goes so I don't need WiFi. I was able to get it for a great price ($600 Amazon Warehouse deal because the box was ripped, the box had never been opened, receiver was never unwrapped). I am really happy with it so far. That said I wouldn't exactly say the 4100 isn't much of an upgrade from the 4000, it just wasn't upgrades that I needed so saving $600 was way more important to me.


I have the AVR-3808CI too. Waiting for the 4K ones which Denon said were coming out in the fall.


----------



## studechip

Diana C said:


> *I had a fairly heated discussion with someone on another forum* about ATSC 3.0 (which CAN deliver UHD over the air). He maintained that broadcasters can't wait to move to 3.0 because it allows practical mobile reception by things like tablets and smartphones, as well as offering the ability to provide other services (his examples were data feeds or on-demand).


I don't suppose it was Bob Miller was it?


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Whether the "need to" or not, options are disappearing. S-Video inputs disappeared a couple of years ago and component and composite are being replaced by even more HDMI inputs in the 2015 models.


Going the way of the floppy disks, serial ports, USB1, etc., etc..

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.


----------



## Beerstalker

SledgeHammer said:


> I have the AVR-3808CI too. Waiting for the 4K ones which Denon said were coming out in the fall.


Yeah, I thought about waiting, but $600 for the AVR-X4000 was too good of a deal to pass up. I'm trying to decide if I'm going to sell my 3808 or not, I could probably get around $500 for it so I almost come out even.

The 4000 works great with my 65VT60. I figure when I end up getting a 4K TV (or more likely projector) I can worry about upgrading the receiver then, and hopefully they have Dolby Atmos/DTS whatever figured out better. Then I will just move the 4000 into whatever room I put the 65VT60 in.


----------



## yosoyellobo

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't mean to say that The Big Bang Theory is airing in UHD next week , but I fully expect networks to air UHD "soon".
> 
> Remember, HEVC "promises" 50% bandwidth cost vs. HD. Although its not there yet. So yeah, UltraHD is 4x HD, but HEVC 4K vs. MPEG4 HD is only 2x. So its not as bad as people make it out to be .


Maybe we could put Sheldon on the problem of transmitting live 4K in realtime.


----------



## harsh

yosoyellobo said:


> Maybe we could put Sheldon on the problem of transmitting live 4K in realtime.


The real problem is realtime UHD _encoding_. Multiplexing and transmission are pretty well figured out.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> I honestly believe that UHD will be reserved for a small number of channels (movies, sports and perhaps nature/science oriented channels like NGC or Discovery) and for OTT delivery.


If only NGC and Discovery still were nature/science oriented. Don't know what is on NGC these days, but Discovery seems to be mainly gold mining related programming...I doubt camera guys want to heft 4K cameras while they follow miners through Alaska's rough terrain


----------



## VARTV

SledgeHammer said:


> Yup. Even the freaky high end $2000 BluRay players don't have other alternatives for video besides HDMI. In the case of audio, the BluRay audio codecs go out over HDMI only as well.
> 
> Also, don't Amazon and Netflix 4K streaming require HDCP 2.2 TVs?
> 
> The more and more I search, the more and more I find examples that say, if its 4K, it requires HDCP 2.2, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Down-rezzing of 4K is not allowed.
> 
> The rule on the upconverting BluRay players is that they can output at 480i/480p/720i/720p/1080i/1080p/4K. But obviously, the 4K can only be output to a 4K TV. Not sure if upconverted 1080P -> 4K gets protected by HDCP 2.2 though, I'd assume not.


Doing research on this too. Before I get a new 4K set (2016??) and a new UHD Blu-ray player, my AVR needs to be HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compliant. I read in Sound & Vision only newer Onkyo AVRs meet this spec...


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> Finally! A simple statement of what's needed by someone who knows. I gotta save this post. Thanx. Now I understand exactly what to look for.


Now you just have to figure out which TVs include 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 in the same port. As far as anyone can tell, that may total as few as zero 4K TVs so far! :hair:


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't mean to say that The Big Bang Theory is airing in UHD next week , but I fully expect networks to air UHD "soon".
> 
> Remember, HEVC "promises" 50% bandwidth cost vs. HD. Although its not there yet. So yeah, UltraHD is 4x HD, but HEVC 4K vs. MPEG4 HD is only 2x. So its not as bad as people make it out to be .


UHD is 9x 720p and 8x 1080i for 4Kp60. It is only 4x 1080i if you plan on 4Kp30 - which non sports network programming may do, since most of that is 30 fps now.

If they go 4:2:2 (4:4:4 is unlikely) or HDR, that will raise the bandwidth requirements further. Not to mention the figures I've seen are 30-50% bandwidth savings versus MPEG4, which probably means 30% today and 50% in a few years when the encoders are more mature.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> The real problem is realtime UHD _encoding_. Multiplexing and transmission are pretty well figured out.


You only need that for live events. TV & movies can be pre-encoded.


----------



## SledgeHammer

VARTV said:


> Doing research on this too. Before I get a new 4K set (2016??) and a new UHD Blu-ray player, my AVR needs to be HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 compliant. I read in Sound & Vision only newer Onkyo AVRs meet this spec...


If you want to run your stuff through the AVR it does. Don't fall for the current Onkyo ones. Those are only 10Gbps HDMI 2.0. Not 18Gbps. There is no 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 AVR out yet. I'm a Denon guy, so I'm just following that line mostly and I think those are rolling out in the fall. I know the x7200 which is out of my league LOL has a supposed upgrade board coming out "soon". I just know if you go to the store this weekend, they are all either 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 or 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 1.4.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Now you just have to figure out which TVs include 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 in the same port. As far as anyone can tell, that may total as few as zero 4K TVs so far! :hair:


I **think** the new Samsungs that just rolled out are and the new 4K LG OLEDs **seem** to be as well. I use **'s because I'm still not 100% convinced. I'm like only 75% convinced  and at *$100 AN INCH *for the 55" 4K OLED, I'm not convinced enough yet . I'm following the LG OLEDs and users have confirmed HDCP 2.2 on all 3 ports, and another user confirmed Ultra Deep Color on 2 of the inputs, but I'm not yet convinced that it can do full blown HDCP 2.2 @ 60Fps @ 4:4:4.


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> You only need that for live events. TV & movies can be pre-encoded.


This only works if you set aside the maximum bit rate for each channel going through a multiplexer.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> This only works if you set aside the maximum bit rate for each channel going through a multiplexer.


I'm putting all my eggs in the OAM basket for now . Unlimited bandwidth for everybody! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_multiplexing

It *does* work in the lab, but its still quite a ways away and I'd think we'd see it on cell before satellite, but you never know. It's pretty expensive to run the sats, so if they can get OAM going, they'd rush it out I'd think.


----------



## SledgeHammer

C&P from Crutchfield from one of the new Samsung pages:

*HDMI 2.0:* The Samsung UHD TV features four HDMI 2.0 inputs to connect to your Blu-ray/DVD player, Satellite/Cable receiver, or AV receiver. In addition, any HDMI input can be used to connect a PC to this TV. The television's HDMI inputs will accept 3,840 x 2,160 (24/60Hz), 1080p (24/60Hz), 1080i, 720p, 480p and 480i video signals.

*HDCP 2.2:* HDCP 2.2 is supported by all of the TV's HDMI inputs; HDCP is short for "High bandwidth Digital Content Protection" and is used for 4K video copyright protection for compatibility with 4K Blu-ray players and 4K Satellite/Cable providers.
*4:4:4 Color Subsampling:* All four HDMI inputs will support up to 4:4:4 chroma subsampling for full color data rendering of 4K video (30/60fps). 4:2:2 (30/60fps) and 4:2:0 (60fps) are also supported by all HDMI inputs. With 4:4:4 color, luminance (brightness) and chroma (color) are sampled at the same rate, resulting in an RGB color palette as big as the video sampling rate for a video image with more total colors, plus greater color accuracy and detail. You must enable 4:4:4 & 4:2:2 color subsampling by turning on the "UHD Color" setting within the TV's on-screen menu.
That would be a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 TV. They don't specifically say "18Gbps", but its inferred by 4:4:4 @ 60Fps and HDCP 2.2 on all ports.


----------



## slice1900

So basically if you buy now and choose the right TV you might be OK, but the 5 million or whatever 4K TVs that have been sold up until that so far are all going to screw people over if Directv requires or is forced to require HDCP 2.2 to display ESPN4K @60 fps. Hopefully it will not look too herky jerky if they drop every other frame to squeeze it into the TVs sold after September when they started requiring HDCP 2.2 on at least one port (the people who bought before September and ended up with a TV with zero HDCP 2.2 ports will be 100% SOL and be unable to watch any 4K content via HDMI!)

I have a hard time believing the early adopters will be screwed so badly because it greatly increases the odds that 4K fails, but the content owners can barely walk after shooting themselves in the foot so many times over the past couple decades so nothing would surprise me. Glad I'm watching from the sidelines and don't have anything invested in this fiasco!


----------



## P Smith

slice1900 said:


> So basically if you buy now and choose the right TV you might be OK, but the 5 million or whatever 4K TVs that have been sold up until that so far are all going to screw people over if Directv requires or is forced to require HDCP 2.2 to display ESPN4K @60 fps. Hopefully it will not look too herky jerky if they drop every other frame to squeeze it into the TVs sold after September when they started requiring HDCP 2.2 on at least one port (the people who bought before September and ended up with a TV with zero HDCP 2.2 ports will be 100% SOL and be unable to watch any 4K content via HDMI!)
> 
> I have a hard time believing the early adopters will be screwed so badly because it greatly increases the odds that 4K fails, but the content owners can barely walk after shooting themselves in the foot so many times over the past couple decades so nothing would surprise me. Glad I'm watching from the sidelines and don't have anything invested in this fiasco!


Me too


----------



## VARTV

SledgeHammer said:


> If you want to run your stuff through the AVR it does. Don't fall for the current Onkyo ones. Those are only 10Gbps HDMI 2.0. Not 18Gbps. There is no 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 AVR out yet. I'm a Denon guy, so I'm just following that line mostly and I think those are rolling out in the fall. I know the x7200 which is out of my league LOL has a supposed upgrade board coming out "soon". I just know if you go to the store this weekend, they are all either 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 or 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 1.4.


In 2011, went with a Yammy RX-A2000. I don't have a sophisticated setup but needed the flexibility the AVR offered/I wanted at the time (Net Radio, Sirius Internet Radio, HD Radio, and 3 zones of audio from 3 different sources of audio.) It has worked fine for me though the tuner (AM/FM/HD Radio) really blows. Good to know about the 10Gps on the current Onkyos. It "pays" to know EVERY spec on one's components!


----------



## Laxguy

Tuner problems? Go internet- add an iPhone, or other device to pull in your fav. Radio.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> Now you just have to figure out which TVs include 18 Gbps HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 in the same port. As far as anyone can tell, that may total as few as zero 4K TVs so far! :hair:


Yeah, but I know how to find and read specs, just wasn't sure what specs were most important. Don't think those specs will be on the boxes, don't want to confuse the unwashed masses or the kids selling TVs (or sitting in the Magnolia Room BSing as they do in the Bridgewater BB). Crutchfield ought to be a pretty good place to look for those specs. They've always treated me well.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> C&P from Crutchfield from one of the new Samsung pages:
> 
> *HDMI 2.0:* The Samsung UHD TV features four HDMI 2.0 inputs to connect to your Blu-ray/DVD player, Satellite/Cable receiver, or AV receiver. In addition, any HDMI input can be used to connect a PC to this TV. The television's HDMI inputs will accept 3,840 x 2,160 (24/60Hz), 1080p (24/60Hz), 1080i, 720p, 480p and 480i video signals.
> 
> *HDCP 2.2:* HDCP 2.2 is supported by all of the TV's HDMI inputs; HDCP is short for "High bandwidth Digital Content Protection" and is used for 4K video copyright protection for compatibility with 4K Blu-ray players and 4K Satellite/Cable providers.
> *4:4:4 Color Subsampling:* All four HDMI inputs will support up to 4:4:4 chroma subsampling for full color data rendering of 4K video (30/60fps). 4:2:2 (30/60fps) and 4:2:0 (60fps) are also supported by all HDMI inputs. With 4:4:4 color, luminance (brightness) and chroma (color) are sampled at the same rate, resulting in an RGB color palette as big as the video sampling rate for a video image with more total colors, plus greater color accuracy and detail. You must enable 4:4:4 & 4:2:2 color subsampling by turning on the "UHD Color" setting within the TV's on-screen menu.
> _*That would be a 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 TV. They don't specifically say "18Gbps", but its inferred by 4:4:4 @ 60Fps and HDCP 2.2 on all ports.*_


Is there a formula for determining that 18 Gbps (my spellchecker doesn't like 18Gbps)?

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> So basically if you buy now and choose the right TV you might be OK, but the 5 million or whatever 4K TVs that have been sold up until that so far are all going to screw people over if Directv requires or is forced to require HDCP 2.2 to display ESPN4K @60 fps. Hopefully it will not look too herky jerky if they drop every other frame to squeeze it into the TVs sold after September when they started requiring HDCP 2.2 on at least one port (the people who bought before September and ended up with a TV with zero HDCP 2.2 ports will be 100% SOL and be unable to watch any 4K content via HDMI!)
> 
> I have a hard time believing the early adopters will be screwed so badly because it greatly increases the odds that 4K fails, but the content owners can barely walk after shooting themselves in the foot so many times over the past couple decades so nothing would surprise me. Glad I'm watching from the sidelines and don't have anything invested in this fiasco!


If you buy an 18Gbps / HDCP 2.2 TV today, you'll be fine as far as "basic" 4K goes. The stuff imo that's coming next is HDR and wider color gamuts. Both are undefined right now so you don't know what the requirements for those will be. Some of the new TVs are claiming firmware updates for HDR. Panasonic just announced their 2015 lineups and the top 2 models are 98% DCI-P3 (one of the possible wider color gamuts). 98%?? LOL.. they really couldn't get that extra 2%?

If you have 10Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2, you'll still be able to watch 4K @ 60Fps, you'll just be limited to 4:2:0 instead of the higher chroma options.

Without HDCP 2.2 at all, you'll be up the creek without a paddle.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Is there a formula for determining that 18 Gbps (my spellchecker doesn't like 18Gbps)?
> 
> Rich


I doubt they'll say "18Gbps" on the box as well. Right now the only way to tell its 18Gbps is to look for 60Fps @ 4:4:4 subsampling. If you check Crutchfield, on last years TVs, you'll see them say that Port 1 does 60Fps @ 4:4:4, but HDCP 2.2 is only on port 2 and port 2 can only do 60Fps @ 4:2:0 or something like that. The so-called "split port" setup. Where they have one old port of each kind just to claim they have the feature, but they don't have a new port that can actually do them together.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> If you have 10Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2, you'll still be able to watch 4K @ 60Fps, you'll just be limited to 4:2:0 instead of the higher chroma options.


Are you sure that will fit in 10 Gbps? Even with the TDMS encoding and 4400 x 2250 frame overhead?


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Are you sure that will fit in 10 Gbps? Even with the TDMS encoding and 4400 x 2250 frame overhead?


10Gbps can do 60Fps @ 4:2:0 or 30Fps @ 4:4:4.


----------



## Smuuth

SledgeHammer said:


> 10Gbps can do 60Fps @ 4:2:0 or 30Fps @ 4:4:4.


AFAIK, the spec for 4K Bluray only requires 4:2:0 color @ 60Fps.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Smuuth said:


> AFAIK, the spec for 4K Bluray only requires 4:2:0 color @ 60Fps.


The spec hasn't been 100% finalized yet. HEVC 1 (the video decoder) only supports 4:2:0, but HEVC 2 (or whatever version number they slap on it) supports 4:4:4 and that was ratified last year. Nobody except for the committee knows what the plans are yet.

But yeah, 10.2Gbps will probably be good enough for UltraHD BluRay wave 1, but if you want to future proof, or hook up to PCs or consoles, you'd want 18Gbps.


----------



## Rich

So, in simple terms (please, I beg of you), if even the specs we find on then Net don't include the 18 Mbps specification how are we to determine that number? That would seem to be the last piece in this puzzle. Don't be hesitant about really dumbing it down, please.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> So, in simple terms (please, I beg of you), if even the specs we find on then Net don't include the 18 Mbps specification how are we to determine that number? That would seem to be the last piece in this puzzle. Don't be hesitant about really dumbing it down, please.
> 
> Rich


LOL 

Look for a HDMI input that can do chroma subsampling @ 4:4:4 @ 60Hz / 60fps *with* HDCP 2.2 on the *same* port and make sure there isn't any fine print about 4:4:4 making it drop down to 30Hz / 30fps or HDCP 2.2 making it drop down to 30Hz / 30fps.

The only place I've seen that actually has all this info is Crutchfield on the details page . TV manuals can be pretty spotty. LG's manuals for example barely even tell you the TV is 4K LOL .


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> LOL
> 
> Look for a HDMI input that can do chroma subsampling @ 4:4:4 @ 60Hz / 60fps *with* HDCP 2.2 on the *same* port and make sure there isn't any fine print about 4:4:4 making it drop down to 30Hz / 30fps or HDCP 2.2 making it drop down to 30Hz / 30fps.
> 
> The only place I've seen that actually has all this info is Crutchfield on the details page . TV manuals can be pretty spotty. LG's manuals for example barely even tell you the TV is 4K LOL .


Got it, thanx,

Rich


----------



## GregLee

SledgeHammer said:


> Look for a HDMI input that can do chroma subsampling @ 4:4:4 @ 60Hz / 60fps *with* HDCP 2.2 on the *same* port and make sure there isn't any fine print about 4:4:4 making it drop down to 30Hz / 30fps or HDCP 2.2 making it drop down to 30Hz / 30fps.


In his review at hdtvtest of the Samsung JS9000, Vincent Teoh says:


> We also managed to successfully obtain 4:4:4 chroma reproduction at 3840×[email protected] resolution from a Chillblast gaming tower PC fitted with Geforce GTX 970 graphics card, but only if the HDMI port was labelled [PC], and [HDMI UHD Color] was switched on.


The JS9000 has hdmi 2.0 and hdcp 2.2 for all four hdmi inputs.


----------



## P Smith

GregLee said:


> only if the HDMI port was *labelled* [PC]


what the heck is that ? when user assigned labels begin turn on/off FEATURES of TV ?!


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> what the heck is that ? when user assigned labels begin turn on/off FEATURES of TV ?!


The labeling in this case is physical (silk screened or cast in the casework), not user configured.

A point that some perhaps haven't contemplated: High speed may be enabled in a firmware update so what isn't available today may become available in the future.


----------



## P Smith

Ambiguous post - it could user assigned label or the label printed on backside of the TV ... got it now.

Perhaps the port has a serial number ? #1, #2, #3 or #4 ?


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Perhaps the port has a serial number ? #1, #2, #3 or #4 ?


You typically don't get to change the labeling on the box or its remocon.


----------



## P Smith

I had TV (Sony, Toshiba) what allowed to make your own label or change to predefined from a list.


----------



## GregLee

P Smith said:


> what the heck is that ? when user assigned labels begin turn on/off FEATURES of TV ?!


Amusing, isn't it. Sort of like searching for "30skip".


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> I had TV (Sony, Toshiba) what allowed to make your own label or change to predefined from a list.


Most televisions (and a few AVRs) do as well. That doesn't change the labeling on the remote or near the associated input on the TV.


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> Amusing, isn't it. Sort of like searching for "30skip".


On other platforms that might be considered an "Easter Egg" or a "Cheat Code".


----------



## Al K

With DirecTV making little or no progress with their 4k viewing problems (download movies, select play, only black screen) and few movie choices, I jumped at the chance to watch the Ultraflix 4k streaming of "Interstellar". The movie is beautiful but it switches between letterbox scenes and 16x9 imax scenes. The latter are the most interesting in 4k. I had a problem at first and contacted Ultraflix. They have a new version, 1.7.0 which made things better for me. I also stumbled across the fact they were simultaneously streaming the 3D version. It is interesting in 3D, but nowhere close to the 4k version.

I found myself getting closer to the tv to enjoy 4k.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Al K said:


> With DirecTV making little or no progress with their 4k viewing problems (download movies, select play, only black screen) and few movie choices, I jumped at the chance to watch the Ultraflix 4k streaming of "Interstellar". The movie is beautiful but it switches between letterbox scenes and 16x9 imax scenes. The latter are the most interesting in 4k. I had a problem at first and contacted Ultraflix. They have a new version, 1.7.0 which made things better for me. I also stumbled across the fact they were simultaneously streaming the 3D version. It is interesting in 3D, but nowhere close to the 4k version.
> 
> I found myself getting closer to the tv to enjoy 4k.


Wow. Interstellar. Probably the movie that killed itself harder then any movie before it in the last 15 minutes. And this is coming from a guy who was cool with Stargate, Mission To Mars and Contact. The Interstellar ending ruined the entire movie for me. I wouldn't even re-watch it now because the ending killed it so hard. Its like HIMYM.


----------



## Ed Campbell

gman0661 said:


> If someone would be kind of enough to offer me there opinion on 4K TV. I'm looking at TVs to buy now. I have always bought Sony tvs and never had problems. I have DIRECTV with the Genie. Sony doesn't real offer many 4K tvs in the size I'm looking for, around 50 to 55 inches. My two questions are if not a Sony TV with whom would you recommend and is 4K worth spending the extra money. Is there a really big difference in picture quality and sound.


Had Samsung for years. After needing to participate in 2 [successful] class action suits for lousy QC I gave up. Looking at available sets up-to-date to receive 4Kx60 I went with Vizio. Currently receive what little 4K available either via their built-in wifi 80211ac...best upscaling from AppleTV 1080p stream - and I expect their current price cut to $69 is to clear out inventory before ala carte package intro this autumn - which should include a hot enough cpu to handle the 4Kx60 stream.

Plus waiting for D*.

Meantime, upscaled SD. 720p, 1080i, 1080p already joyful. Rearranged LR furniture to move closer to same size set as prev., e.g., 55". If a sports event is near and dear to my heart - and I'm watching alone - I move a chair up to 5' from the screen. It is a gas. BTW, already compliant for HDCP 2.2.

I absolutely recommend going to the P-series crowd at the avsforum for color calibration suggestions. I've always done that for every prev set; but, it seems to make even more of a difference with the 4K sets. WAF is even stronger than the switch up to HD, BTW.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Tom Robertson

Playing some catch up here, so a grouping of my thoughts:

RE: OLED TVs: Samsung said they wouldn't support it until they could get at least 10 year life span out of the technology. I don't know where they are today with OLED, I presume they are still working on it.

RE: Samsung in general: They used to be very good in supporting their products. Now that they are feeling good about themselves, it seems they no longer support their customers as they once did. Bummer. 


Gonna put my 4k thoughts in another post.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

As for UHD and the infrastructure: The trucks are ready. As in today. As in they are already doing some 4k events.

Friend drives for the largest mobile television services company, basically in the world. Once the cable plants were upgraded to digital, the trucks were pretty much set for 4k as well as anything below.

His truck has been used at a recent 4k event; all they did was use new 4k camera bodies. The lenses, interface units (for the cameras), the cabling, switchers, etc. were all perfectly fine with the 4k video stream. He also mentioned the satellite uplinks were already capable.

He says he doesn't normally carry the 4k camera bodies in his truck, but his company has them (obviously since they are doing events already.)

So the content is coming.

DIRECTV has a great history of right timing new technologies by having capacity there when it is needed _and_ by working side by side with content creators to jump into the technologies.

As we know, 3D hasn't adopted as fast as some thought it might. Yet DIRECTV was there making sure they weren't the reason it failed. And DIRECTV is ready (and likely helping) to make 4k as successful as it will be.

My own personal thinking is 4k will work where 3D didn't, in that screens continue to get bigger, requiring greater resolutions to make the experience enjoyable. 3D will only arrive when it is glasses free, nearly cost free, and meaningful. The current gimmicky 3d content isn't worth the extra cost/hassle.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## SledgeHammer

Tom Robertson said:


> Playing some catch up here, so a grouping of my thoughts:
> 
> RE: OLED TVs: Samsung said they wouldn't support it until they could get at least 10 year life span out of the technology. I don't know where they are today with OLED, I presume they are still working on it.
> 
> RE: Samsung in general: They used to be very good in supporting their products. Now that they are feeling good about themselves, it seems they no longer support their customers as they once did. Bummer.


Samsung gave up on OLED last year. They couldn't make it viable. LG is the only OLED game in town and they own all the patents. They just released their 55" and 65" curved 4K models. The flat ones are coming out in about 3 or so months. Can't wait. I'm going for the 55EF9500.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Tom Robertson said:


> My own personal thinking is 4k will work where 3D didn't, in that screens continue to get bigger, requiring greater resolutions to make the experience enjoyable. 3D will only arrive when it is glasses free, nearly cost free, and meaningful. The current gimmicky 3d content isn't worth the extra cost/hassle.


Yup. 4K doesn't require you to do anything besides get a 4K camera. 3D requires a special camera setup and requires stupid, contrived "3D-able" scenes written into the movie.


----------



## Tom Robertson

SledgeHammer said:


> Samsung gave up on OLED last year. They couldn't make it viable. LG is the only OLED game in town and they own all the patents. They just released their 55" and 65" curved 4K models. The flat ones are coming out in about 3 or so months. Can't wait. I'm going for the 55EF9500.


I hadn't been following OLED lately, so I refreshed my knowledge.

According to OLED-info.com, LG didn't quite fully own the technology company, they own a majority share of the OLED licensing company. They are apparently starting the effort to wholly own Global OLED Technology, the license holder.

Also, they state that Samsung and LG have finally, truly settled their licensing disputes and Samsung is considering OLED displays again.

I don't know if the two events are related or not. I just find them interesting. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Laxguy

SledgeHammer said:


> Yup. 4K doesn't require you to do anything besides get a 4K camera. 3D requires a special camera setup and requires stupid, contrived "3D-able" scenes written into the movie.


Excellent point. Directors must have hated 3D if there was a real story to tell. (Not James Cameron, though).


----------



## inkahauts

But watch avatar on 3d and then watch just about any other 3d movie. He used 3d to make the picture quality better throughout the entire movie not simply to make something come at you. He had a different mindset on how to use it which is why I'll see the next three avatars in imax 3d without hesitation. Right now I really don't care for most things in 3d.


----------



## James Long

Nearly all of the recent 3D movies were also released in 2D. Yes, there have been corny 3D movies ... but recent ones have been blockbusters also released in 3D.

The studios continue to produce 3D movies ... so there must be some market for them. This discussion reminds me of the shopping networks that "nobody watches" - yet they survive because someone is watching and paying the premium price for the product.


----------



## Laxguy

Care to come up with a list of excellent 3D movies? That is, ones that are significantly enhanced because of the 3D?


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Care to come up with a list of excellent 3D movies? That is, ones that are significantly enhanced because of the 3D?


The 3D quality of the movies doesn't matter ... the profitability does. Smarter people than you or I believe it is worth the money to produce 3D films. Isn't that enough?


----------



## yosoyellobo

James Long said:


> The 3D quality of the movies doesn't matter ... the profitability does. Smarter people than you or I believe it is worth the money to produce 3D films. Isn't that enough?


People could be smarter, richer, better looking, ur never mind.


----------



## SledgeHammer

James Long said:


> Smarter people than you or I believe it is worth the money to produce 3D films. Isn't that enough?


Smarter? I'm not so sure about that. BoxOfficeMojo ranks 693 movies for 2014. You have to go all the way up to #215 to find a movie that sold just $1M in tickets. That's not $1M in profit, that's $1M in sales. So, I'm not in the industry or anything, but I'd have to believe that the huge majority of movies that are *released* are money losers. That's not even counting all the movies that ran out of money during filming or had the backers pull the plug, etc. I do realize that not all movies cost $100M to make, but surely "CinemaNovels (2014)" cost a lot more then $398 to make . Heck, you have to go all the way up to #368 to find a movie that sold just $100K in tickets. That's not very smart IMO. I mean, I don't think its very hard to say "Hey... people probably aren't going to watch a movie about a hermaphrodite gardener who talks to fish and has an imaginary robot best friend" even if it was in 3D, but yet, they keep making those types of movies LOL.


----------



## Tom Robertson

SledgeHammer said:


> Smarter? I'm not so sure about that. BoxOfficeMojo ranks 693 movies for 2014. You have to go all the way up to #215 to find a movie that sold just $1M in tickets. That's not $1M in profit, that's $1M in sales. So, I'm not in the industry or anything, but I'd have to believe that the huge majority of movies that are *released* are money losers. That's not even counting all the movies that ran out of money during filming or had the backers pull the plug, etc. I do realize that not all movies cost $100M to make, but surely "CinemaNovels (2014)" cost a lot more then $398 to make . Heck, you have to go all the way up to #368 to find a movie that sold just $100K in tickets. That's not very smart IMO. I mean, I don't think its very hard to say "Hey... people probably aren't going to watch a movie about a hermaphrodite gardener who talks to fish and has an imaginary robot best friend" even if it was in 3D, but yet, they keep making those types of movies LOL.


Don't forget overseas, OnDemand, Netflix, and disk sales...

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> The 3D quality of the movies doesn't matter ... the profitability does. Smarter people than you or I believe it is worth the money to produce 3D films. Isn't that enough?


James,

You should "know" me well enough to not divert the question! It was about quality of the films, not popularity as reflected in gross proceeds.

I am wondering if anyone can cite more than a handful of movies that 3D made way better.

Edit: _And, yes, there is merit in the fact that big money is spent on producing them, as people smarter than you- I mean, us,  wouldn't produce them if there wasn't a fair expectation of profits. But that's a different conversation. _


----------



## jimmie57

There have been thousands and thousands of "New / Great Ideas" that a few people really believed in and more money than I can count was thrown at them and they only went down.
People just did / do not like to have to wear those glasses. I am one of them.

The only 3d movie I ever saw was when I was a kid at the movie theater. It was called "The Charge at Feather River". It was a cowboy and Indian movie and sometimes those arrows seemed like they shot me and the horses jumping over the creek seemed to jump right over my head.
Of course it might have been since I was a kid but I was about 12 or so when I saw it.


----------



## yosoyellobo

jimmie57 said:


> There have been thousands and thousands of "New / Great Ideas" that a few people really believed in and more money than I can count was thrown at them and they only went down.
> People just did / do not like to have to wear those glasses. I am one of them.
> 
> The only movie I ever saw was when I was a kid at the movie theater. It was called "The Charge at Feather River". It was a cowboy and Indian movie and sometimes those arrows seemed like they shot me and the horses jumping over the creek seemed to jump right over my head.
> Of course it might have been since I was a kid but I was about 12 or so when I saw it.


The Charge At Feather River wow. That and The House of Wax are the only 3D film I ever seen.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> You should "know" me well enough to not divert the question!


It is you that diverted my point ... look at a list of movies released in 3D last year or in recent years. You will find the same movies that did well overall ... not just "experimental" films using a bunch of gimmick shots and no solid plot. Good films that were released in multiple formats (some in IMAX as well as other releases).

The same type of films that will be released in 4K/UHD so the studios can make another buck or two off of their investment. Which considering the way the theater industry is going is not difficult.


----------



## Drucifer

SledgeHammer said:


> Yup. When people ask me, I tell them a 4K *BASELINE* is *18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2*. Do not touch any 4K equipment below that baseline. The stuff coming down the pike "soon" is bells and whistles like HDR and wider color gamuts. They aren't show stoppers like 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 is.


Did that come UHD Alliance? Better yet, has any specs emerge from the UHD Alliance?


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> It is you that diverted my point ... look at a list of movies released in 3D last year or in recent years. You will find the same movies that did well overall ... not just "experimental" films using a bunch of gimmick shots and no solid plot. Good films that were released in multiple formats (some in IMAX as well as other releases).


I simply asked the forum, not you exclusively, to name a handful of good films in 3D where 3D made the quality difference. Avatar would be one, which was already mentioned. I did not ask for films that were good and released in multiple formats.


----------



## Drucifer

Laxguy said:


> I simply asked the forum, not you exclusively, to name a handful of good films in 3D where 3D made the quality difference. Avatar would be one, which was already mentioned. I did not ask for films that were good and released in multiple formats.


3D is a movie effect they been working on for decades. As far as I am concern, it will never completely work on a 2D screen,

OTOH, UHD is a better 2D screen.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Laxguy said:


> I simply asked the forum, not you exclusively, to name a handful of good films in 3D where 3D made the quality difference. Avatar would be one, which was already mentioned. I did not ask for films that were good and released in multiple formats.


These are oldies (but *goodies*, IMO):

1953 _House of Wax_, Jack Arnold's _Creature from the Black Lagoon_ and _It came from Outer Space_. I had the fortunate experience of seeing these at a 3D film fest 20 or more years ago. (There was a restored dual projector-version of _Kiss Me Kate_ that I arrived too late to see, but heard was visually stunning. Never having seen _Kate_ in either 2 or 3D, I can't comment on that one)

Add to the list from that festival Andy Warhol's _Frankenstein_ from the 1970s. This one is a must-see in 3D and derives much of its humor from it.

IMO all these films benefit greatly from the process, but surely all contain "gimmicks." It's part of the fun, as is sharing with an enthusiastic audience.


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> His truck has been used at a recent 4k event; all they did was use new 4k camera bodies.


The truck I work on uses 1080p cameras to shoot 720p video. Even if we had 4k cameras, we'd still be producing 720p.

Dropping well into seven (or possibly eight) figures can get you a truck like that but without an outlet, what's the point?


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Dropping well into seven (or possibly eight) figures can get you a truck like that but without an outlet, what's the point?


The point is building an outlet ... apparently DirecTV has plans to do so, in partnership with content providers (of course).


----------



## Tom Robertson

harsh said:


> The truck I work on uses 1080p cameras to shoot 720p video. Even if we had 4k cameras, we'd still be producing 720p.
> 
> Dropping well into seven (or possibly eight) figures can get you a truck like that but without an outlet, what's the point?


Sometimes the point seems so obvious I forget some might not be able to see the forest with the trees in the way.

TV takes goesintas, goesthroughas, and goesoutas. The goesoutas, the TVs, are available, some now in the second and third generation. And possibly finally really ready. 

The goesthroughas, the internet and DIRECTV, are building capacity. DIRECTV already has some capacity and with the latest satellites will have more.

In talking to my friend, I learned about the readiness of the goesintas. They are ready. Unlike the transition to HD where the trucks needed complete overhauls, the trucks are ready to make content whenever the content owners want.

So the pieces are growing nicely together.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## GregLee

I think we, and DirecTV, should be thinking more about HDR than 4K, now. Samsung, LG, and Sony premium sets all advertise HDR, the UHD Blu-ray players when they get here early next year will be HDR capable, an extension to HDMI 2.0 for HDR extensions was just approved a few days ago (http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=138) . The world keeps changing faster.

I have had a 2014 Samsung 4K set (50HU8550) for several months now, and I like it okay. But the change in picture quality going from 2K to 4K is rather subtle -- some people claim not to even notice it at normal viewing distances. I've had a 2015 Samsung 4K HDR-capable set (65JS9000) for just a few days, and the improvement in picture quality for DirecTV 1080i channels is dramatic, in my opinion. True HDR will have expanded brightness range in the video source as well as display devices, and I haven't seen that yet, but even just the faked HDR that I have seen so far is very good.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> The point is building an outlet ... apparently DirecTV has plans to do so, in partnership with content providers (of course).


Depends on who distributes the content harsh's truck produces. Based on delivering 720p, I'm guessing we're talking Fox or ABC/ESPN. For ESPN and FS1 there will be 4K channels within a year or two. For Fox or ABC's broadcast arms, they can produce all the 4K content they want but there is no way to get it to anyone in 4K until stations switch to ATSC 3.0.

Even if the stations bypassed that and delivered 4K directly to cable/satellite providers that would only benefit the cable subscribers. Neither Directv nor Dish has anywhere near the resources required to deliver 4K locals in spot beams. They'd need to have 2-3x their current spot beam capacity, and that's not cheap.


----------



## James Long

I do not expect 4K/UHD broadcast locals ... I do expect UHD/4K ESPN and possibly other live or special sports (PPV or networks). Perhaps 4K/UHD special events. It won't be coming from harsh's truck (output in 720p) ... they have to get a better truck.

Local broadcasters have already demonstrated that they value content over quality ... sacrificing HD so they can add SD subchannels and even second HD feeds. I would not count on OTA broadcasters for 4K/UHD.

Look for ESPN 4K/UHD. It will come, along with other programmers that will lead the industry. Carried by DirecTV, of course.


----------



## SledgeHammer

OTA is not going to deliver 4K any time soon. ATSC 3.0 is too far off. That's not going to stop the 4K train though. OTA will just peter out at 1080P like plasma did. 4K locals will be delivered via streaming, cable or sat.


----------



## Tom Robertson

One thing that I think few people realize is that while local stations own their trucks, the major channels/networks lease trucks. For local events the trucks are quite limited. Typically one or two cameras that uplink to the station for final production. 

Sports, concerts (that are recorded), specials, and other events rarely use a truck owned by the content distributor. They each might own a truck or two, but almost all professional sporting events in the US are covered by rental trucks. I saw that in the 80s as I'd drive north to watch Packers games--I'd often see the caravan of trucks that I'd then see the next day at the game. Usually a company called National Mobile Television.

Many of the smaller mobile television companies have merged in to a couple very large ones, such as NEP, my friend drives for. They do all the NBA games (he will be covering the playoffs again this year), MLB games, etc. Occasionally a channel or event sponsor such as Sprint/Nascar will lease a truck long enough for their logo to be put on the trailer, but its still leased. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## SledgeHammer

Tom Robertson said:


> One thing that I think few people realize is that while local stations own their trucks, the major channels/networks lease trucks. For local events the trucks are quite limited. Typically one or two cameras that uplink to the station for final production.
> 
> Sports, concerts (that are recorded), specials, and other events rarely use a truck owned by the content distributor. They each might own a truck or two, but almost all professional sporting events in the US are covered by rental trucks. I saw that in the 80s as I'd drive north to watch Packers games--I'd often see the caravan of trucks that I'd then see the next day at the game. Usually a company called National Mobile Television.
> 
> Many of the smaller mobile television companies have merged in to a couple very large ones, such as NEP, my friend drives for. They do all the NBA games (he will be covering the playoffs again this year), MLB games, etc. Occasionally a channel or event sponsor such as Sprint/Nascar will lease a truck long enough for their logo to be put on the trailer, but its still leased.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


I think I read somewhere that WWE owns all thier own production trucks and they do 2 - 3 live events per week, so they did it to save costs.

I'm surprised to hear that people are still shooting in 720p. Whats the point? How much money would you save on a 1 hr TV show in 720p vs. 1080p?


----------



## Laxguy

SledgeHammer said:


> I'm surprised to hear that people are still shooting in 720p. Whats the point? How much money would you save on a 1 hr TV show in 720p vs. 1080p?


If the folks you're shooting for are using only 720p it makes no sense to shoot higher, incurring conversion costs. (mostly sports, news, weather)

OTOH, if you're shooting a TV series that has legs and can go into reruns one day, shoot it as high as you can.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Diana C said:


> I had a fairly heated discussion with someone on another forum about ATSC 3.0 (which CAN deliver UHD over the air). He maintained that broadcasters can't wait to move to 3.0 because it allows practical mobile reception by things like tablets and smartphones, as well as offering the ability to provide other services (his examples were data feeds or on-demand).
> 
> I am very skeptical of ATSC 3.0 simply because it is such a big change from the current standards. For one thing, to get the higher bandwidth you need to do channel bonding, which means every TV station would need twice as much radio spectrum. That is simply not going to be possible to allocate in places like Los Angeles without the FCC giving OTA TV more spectrum (after shrinking it steadily over the years). Secondly, ATSC 3.0 is NOT backwards compatible, so the broadcasters would need to keep their current transmissions going or else lose their (now growing again) base of OTA viewers. Of course, that would mean they need three times the spectrum. Finally, they would need additional transmitters, new encoders, and upgraded production facilities for locally originated UHD programs. All in pursuit of features that, by the time they are delivered, will already be met by cellular providers and IPTV services.
> 
> So, I agree with Slice - basic broadcast TV is unlikely to move to UHD in the foreseeable future. Since a LOT of the cable programming is syndicated network shows, there won't be a lot of UHD content there either. I honestly believe that UHD will be reserved for a small number of channels (movies, sports and perhaps nature/science oriented channels like NGC or Discovery) and for OTT delivery.
> 
> We may be headed into a perfect storm where the increasing demands for bandwidth meets the trend towards cord cutting and results in the end of almost all linear broadcasting as we know it. It may well be the only way UHD content will ever become as ubiquitous as HD is today.





James Long said:


> I do not expect 4K/UHD broadcast locals ... I do expect UHD/4K ESPN and possibly other live or special sports (PPV or networks). Perhaps 4K/UHD special events. It won't be coming from harsh's truck (output in 720p) ... they have to get a better truck.
> 
> Local broadcasters have already demonstrated that they value content over quality ... sacrificing HD so they can add SD subchannels and even second HD feeds. I would not count on OTA broadcasters for 4K/UHD.
> 
> Look for ESPN 4K/UHD. It will come, along with other programmers that will lead the industry. Carried by DirecTV, of course.


Somethings never change....

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/technology/technicolor-sinclair-broadcast-ultrahd-hdr/139625

Also, Sinclair is the largest owner/operator of TV licenses in America - operating 154 Broadcast Stations in the USA.



GregLee said:


> I think we, and DirecTV, should be thinking more about HDR than 4K, now. Samsung, LG, and Sony premium sets all advertise HDR, the UHD Blu-ray players when they get here early next year will be HDR capable, an extension to HDMI 2.0 for HDR extensions was just approved a few days ago (http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=138) . The world keeps changing faster.
> 
> I have had a 2014 Samsung 4K set (50HU8550) for several months now, and I like it okay. But the change in picture quality going from 2K to 4K is rather subtle -- some people claim not to even notice it at normal viewing distances. I've had a 2015 Samsung 4K HDR-capable set (65JS9000) for just a few days, and the improvement in picture quality for DirecTV 1080i channels is dramatic, in my opinion. True HDR will have expanded brightness range in the video source as well as display devices, and I haven't seen that yet, but even just the faked HDR that I have seen so far is very good.


You should be happy with this news.


----------



## GregLee

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You should be happy with this news.


It's very interesting. I doubt it will ever affect me directly, since I can't receive any TV signal over the air, as it is now. I'm hoping that hdr-uhd blu-ray players become available in a year or two. However, in the meantime, I'm very pleased with the upconverted DirecTV HD I'm watching now on the JS9000 TV. It's really good.


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> I think I read somewhere that WWE owns all thier own production trucks and they do 2 - 3 live events per week, so they did it to save costs.


I read on the Lucas Oil website that Lucas Oil Productions does events for several major networks as well as MAV TV.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

GregLee said:


> It's very interesting. I doubt it will ever affect me directly, since I can't receive any TV signal over the air, as it is now. I'm hoping that hdr-uhd blu-ray players become available in a year or two. However, in the meantime, I'm very pleased with the upconverted DirecTV HD I'm watching now on the JS9000 TV. It's really good.


Well, this has the ability to affect you directly.

http://www.twice.com/news/video/hdr-coming-amazon-prime-video/56728


----------



## slice1900

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/technology/technicolor-sinclair-broadcast-ultrahd-hdr/139625
> 
> Also, Sinclair is the largest owner/operator of TV licenses in America - operating 154 Broadcast Stations in the USA.


That's nice, but being involved in testing doesn't mean they will deploy it, or that if they do it will be anytime soon or that it will be in all their markets instead of just a handful.

Right now their testing isn't costing much, and can be easily justified to management as being ready for 4K. When it comes time to actually do it, and they either need a second broadcast license and second transmitter in every market, or they must shut down their existing broadcasts and cut off any viewer who doesn't have ATSC 3.0 equipment. Management may not be so eager to green light either plan.

I have a feeling the broadcasters will lobby the FCC to give away ATSC 3.0 set tops, and we won't see any movement on 4K broadcasts while they try to make that happen. There will be further delays from lawsuits filed by people who have marginal reception today who will be unable to receive the ATSC 3.0 broadcasts due to the required 10 db greater SNR to provide the increased bit rate.


----------



## GregLee

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Well, this has the ability to affect you directly.
> 
> http://www.twice.com/news/video/hdr-coming-amazon-prime-video/56728


I don't know that it (HDR video from Amazon) does affect me. I've looked at supposedly uhd video from Amazon on both my Samsung hu8550 and js9000, and the problem is that it's just not uhd. It's not even as good as HD from DirecTV. It's possible that Amazon has decided my 16Mbps download bandwidth is not good enough to send me real uhd -- I don't know how to tell, except just looking at it. It doesn't look great. So I'm not looking forward to HDR from Amazon, since I don't expect it will really be HDR.

But really, what can you expect? The hdmi standard for uhd blu-ray will be 18Gbps, as I understand it, and my download speed is 16Mbps. I'm never, ever going to get good video from the Net.


----------



## Laxguy

Never say never! There may be better codecs about that can compress better, and your ISP might bump your speeds up unannounced.


----------



## mrknowitall526

Laxguy said:


> Never say never! There may be better codecs about that can compress better, and your ISP might bump your speeds up unannounced.


Just saw this today: 
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/New-Codec-Promises-4K-Streams-at-78-Mbps-133315


----------



## slice1900

GregLee said:


> But really, what can you expect? The hdmi standard for uhd blu-ray will be 18Gbps, as I understand it, and my download speed is 16Mbps. I'm never, ever going to get good video from the Net.


The bit rate for HDMI and the bit rate for your internet service have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with each other. I can promise you will not need 18 Gbps for 4K streaming unless you plan to somehow stream raw HDMI


----------



## slice1900

mrknowitall526 said:


> Just saw this today:
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/New-Codec-Promises-4K-Streams-at-78-Mbps-133315


If it sounds too good to be true...


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> If it sounds too good to be true...


Then, it is too good to be true. I draw your attention to this article at avsforum: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/286-latest-industry-news/1528750-comparing-mpeg-2-h-264-h-265-video-codecs-nab-2014-a.html. Here's the short version: more efficient codecs can get you substantial improvements at the low end of quality video. But at the high end of quality, there is very little improvement to be had. I am not looking for 4k video for my smart phone.


----------



## patmurphey

GregLee said:


> I don't know that it (HDR video from Amazon) does affect me. I've looked at supposedly uhd video from Amazon on both my Samsung hu8550 and js9000, and the problem is that it's just not uhd. It's not even as good as HD from DirecTV. It's possible that Amazon has decided my 16Mbps download bandwidth is not good enough to send me real uhd ...


Netflix recommends a minimum of 25mbps.


----------



## longrider

mrknowitall526 said:


> Just saw this today:
> http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/New-Codec-Promises-4K-Streams-at-78-Mbps-133315





slice1900 said:


> If it sounds too good to be true...


Did anybody notice the actual announcements were dated April 1st???


----------



## jimmie57

longrider said:


> Did anybody notice the actual announcements were dated April 1st???


Here is another article with much more detail about Perseus and the company that is producing it.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/04/prweb12622879.htm


----------



## studechip

longrider said:


> Did anybody notice the actual announcements were dated April 1st???


I noticed it said April 10th.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> I noticed it said April 10th.


The V-Nova press release is dated April 1st.


----------



## Diana C

It is certainly possible to get UHD that small, but I question the "higher picture quality" statement. Every compression technology advance since Lempel-Ziv has been lossy (i.e. when decompressed, some information is missing). The advances from MPEG-2 to AVC to HEVC have all been based on getting smarter about what can be lost without it hurting the *perceived* picture quality. However, any original video compressed with HEVC will have lost information compared to one compressed with AVC which will have lost more than one compressed with MPEG-2.

If we assume a color depth of 12 bits per pixel (the largest color depth support by 4:2:2) an uncompressed 2160p/60 stream consists of almost 6 gigabits per second (5,971,968,000 to be exact). Getting that down to 7 or 8 megabits per second is a compression ratio of roughly 700:1 or a compressed stream that is 0.14% of the original. I just don't see how you can get down to that without losing enormous amounts of information.

The only way I can see it being even remotely possible is to require a LOT more processing power at the decompression end of the process. So, it may be possible, but you'll need a dedicated, high power, CPU which would add several hundred dollars to the cost of display equipment and make its use in mobile devices impractical for many years (i.e. until Moore's law gets Atom processors upto the level of an i7).


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> If we assume a color depth of 12 bits per pixel (the largest color depth support by 4:2:2) an uncompressed 2160p/60 stream consists of almost 6 gigabits per second (5,971,968,000 to be exact). Getting that down to 7 or 8 megabits per second is a compression ratio of roughly 700:1 or a compressed stream that is 0.14% of the original. I just don't see how you can get down to that without losing enormous amounts of information.


You sure about that math? I calculate 17.9 Gbps for 12 bit 4:4:4 4Kp60, even dropping all the way to 4:2:0 only cuts that in half. So it is even worse than what you say 

I'm not _quite_ 100% ready to write these guys off since they've at least made it sound like they have some real players working with them, but if they're for real they should be able to provide a simple downloadable viewer app that can run on a smartphone and play some sample HD at a suitably tiny bit rate as a demonstration. Claims like this in the technology world come around several times a year, only once a decade are they for real. Put up or shut up. If they want to claim "but we're not trying to market this at consumers, we're selling it to the video providers" then why the press release? Lotta red flags so far.


----------



## Laxguy

Evaluating HD on a tiny screen? I don't think that'd tell us much at all.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> Evaluating HD on a tiny screen? I don't think that'd tell us much at all.


I was thinking in terms of an app to prove that it doesn't need much CPU (i.e. better run on older stuff like an iPhone 4 and Galaxy S2) I would assume if they did an app, they could do a version for a PC that would give you a full sized picture, but having it able to run the decoder on any PC made in the last decade plus isn't going to tell us whether it is suitable to be included in set tops.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> You sure about that math? I calculate 17.9 Gbps for 12 bit 4:4:4 4Kp60, even dropping all the way to 4:2:0 only cuts that in half. So it is even worse than what you say
> 
> I'm not _quite_ 100% ready to write these guys off since they've at least made it sound like they have some real players working with them, but if they're for real they should be able to provide a simple downloadable viewer app that can run on a smartphone and play some sample HD at a suitably tiny bit rate as a demonstration. Claims like this in the technology world come around several times a year, only once a decade are they for real. Put up or shut up. If they want to claim "but we're not trying to market this at consumers, we're selling it to the video providers" then why the press release? Lotta red flags so far.


I could be off (I did the multiplication pretty quickly using Windows Calculator...I may have forgotten one factor).

As far as the press release goes, that was probably designed to recruit investors. 

But, math aside, it IS possible to reach these compression levels IF you have some hefty CPU power at decompression. All the existing video compression technologies have been specifically designed to be very lightweight at display time (that's how a smartphone can decode a h.265 video stream). If you have sufficient processing power at the receiver you can embed hints in the data to allow it to be reconstructed. For example, you might take a gradually shaded surface and send just the code for the base color, along with a formula that describes the shading effect. That could reduce hundreds of thousands of bits in the source into a few dozen. But as I said, it would require so much processing power that the video processor in a DVR would be considerably more powerful than the CPU. Imagine adding the cost of a 3 GHz, 4 core, CPU and a couple of gigabytes of RAM to the exisiting build cost of a DVR or STB. It would be prohibitively expensive.

Something like this might be useful for back haul tasks, as it would certainly save on satellite space, but the real challenge is getting UHD the "last mile" to the viewer.


----------



## slice1900

Smartphones are pretty powerful now, especially if you dedicate DSP resources to a problem instead of trying to use a general purpose CPU. The iPhone 6/6S do real time HEVC video encoding for Facetime over cellular via a dedicated block on the SoC - I think only 720p but whether that is limited by the encoding complexity or the resolution of the front camera I'm not sure.

Not comparing that to real time 4K encoding of course, nor does it have to do the greatest job only be "better than h.264" to be a win for Apple and their customers. That it can do HEVC encoding at all shows that smartphones would be up to the task of decoding a stream that required more resources than HEVC decoding.

Of course, smartphone SoCs (at least in high end devices like iPhones, Galaxy S6 and so forth) cost quite a bit more than those in set tops, and that's unlikely to change as everyone goes to a client/server model and tries to further drive down the cost of the clients that will be saddled with the grunt work of decoding. Adding the block to do decoding of 'whatever' just costs silicon area and makes the SoC cost more so it becomes a cost/benefit decision. Dish might be more interested in making the Joeys more expensive if it made 4K delivery more efficient since they don't have the ample bandwidth set aside for 4K that Directv does.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> You sure about that math? I calculate 17.9 Gbps for 12 bit 4:4:4 4Kp60, even dropping all the way to 4:2:0 only cuts that in half. So it is even worse than what you say
> 
> I'm not _quite_ 100% ready to write these guys off since they've at least made it sound like they have some real players working with them, but if they're for real they should be able to provide a simple downloadable viewer app that can run on a smartphone and play some sample HD at a suitably tiny bit rate as a demonstration. Claims like this in the technology world come around several times a year, only once a decade are they for real. Put up or shut up. If they want to claim "but we're not trying to market this at consumers, we're selling it to the video providers" then why the press release? Lotta red flags so far.


They have put up. It was very well received at the NAB.

I was at their debut presentation at the Mandarin Oriental in Las Vegas on Saturday.

It was also demonstrated on the NAB Exhibt floor in 4 Booths including the Hitachi Booth where it is was used in an ultra HD ecosystem composed of Hitachi's 4K SK-UHD4000 camera and their Data Systems servers.

Sky Italia is now implementing the Perseus compression technology for commercial distribution of content.

They claim to be able to add 1 Mb/s -2 Mb/s on top of an existing MPEG-2 signal and achieve UHD with Perseus. Claims are for a greater than 50% compression improvement over existing techniques.

Clearly, one could not put test equipment on the demos, but considering Sky Italia and Hitachi are actually using/demoing them, it certainly has passed their internal tests.

As this adds on a layer to MPEG-2 to achieve 4K UHD, I am not exactly sure where this plays out with so many plans for HEVC in place.

But they claim they can achieve similar results with other techniques besides MPEG-2.

Again, very late to the game which may make them odd man out, but it is certainly NOT vaporware.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

slice1900 said:


> That's nice, but being involved in testing doesn't mean they will deploy it, or that if they do it will be anytime soon or that it will be in all their markets instead of just a handful.
> 
> Right now their testing isn't costing much, and can be easily justified to management as being ready for 4K. When it comes time to actually do it, and they either need a second broadcast license and second transmitter in every market, or they must shut down their existing broadcasts and cut off any viewer who doesn't have ATSC 3.0 equipment. Management may not be so eager to green light either plan.
> 
> I have a feeling the broadcasters will lobby the FCC to give away ATSC 3.0 set tops, and we won't see any movement on 4K broadcasts while they try to make that happen. There will be further delays from lawsuits filed by people who have marginal reception today who will be unable to receive the ATSC 3.0 broadcasts due to the required 10 db greater SNR to provide the increased bit rate.


You clearly are unaware of Sinclair's testing, probably the most advanced of ANY Television Group.

They fought and fought up through ~2005 not to go with 8VSB because of the issues we all know to well. Mobile HDTV and tiny indoor antennas would be mainstream today if the FCC had listened to them 10+ years ago.

Broadcasters and the FCC know this in retrospect.

Many might not like their Corporate Political stance, but Sinclair will be on the technological forefront and your dismissal of them is very naive, showing you out of the loop in that area.

EDIT: By the way, Broadcasters have no illusion of the FCC doing another ill fated ATSC 3.0 Set top giveaway. That, btw, was paid for the money the FCC made by taking back channels and selling off the frequencies. In the forthcoming auction, $1.8B is going to pay stations who remain on the air to move/repack the spectrum.

In all likelihood, the move to ATSC 3.0 will be done the day the stations move to their new "home".


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

GregLee said:


> I think we, and DirecTV, should be thinking more about HDR than 4K, now. Samsung, LG, and Sony premium sets all advertise HDR, the UHD Blu-ray players when they get here early next year will be HDR capable, an extension to HDMI 2.0 for HDR extensions was just approved a few days ago (http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=138) . The world keeps changing faster.
> 
> I have had a 2014 Samsung 4K set (50HU8550) for several months now, and I like it okay. But the change in picture quality going from 2K to 4K is rather subtle -- some people claim not to even notice it at normal viewing distances. I've had a 2015 Samsung 4K HDR-capable set (65JS9000) for just a few days, and the improvement in picture quality for DirecTV 1080i channels is dramatic, in my opinion. True HDR will have expanded brightness range in the video source as well as display devices, and I haven't seen that yet, but even just the faked HDR that I have seen so far is very good.


Where to start on this one....

As i said a long time ago, I have been a fan of Dolby Vision HDR since I first saw it in early 2009. I am amazed it has taken this long for it to be seriously considered.

That said, what you want will not happen for multiple reasons.

First, there are 4 different HDR formats (and several additional homebrewed systems TVs have put together) which the market is considering right now. BBC, Dolby Vision, Philips, Technicolor,

For the most part, these formats are INCOMPATIBLE (Think competing 3D Standards/Glasses).

Dolby Vision HDR may already be the winner though, as in the last 90 days, Netflix, Amazon, Vudu and Warner Brothers announced they will support Dolby Vision HDR. Brands supporting Dolby Vision are Hisen, Philips, Sharp, TCL and Vizio with their just announced Reference line 65" and 120" series. However, there are NO Dolby Vision HDR UHD actually available for purchase today in the USA. The Vizio will most likely be ther first.

Dolby Vision wants TVs to do 1000+ NITS (really at least to 1400-1600 NITS) and the format can actually do 4000 NITS (1 NIT = 0.29 FL / 100 NITS = 29.18 FL / 1000 NITS = 291.86). This would give Dolby Vision a Contrast Ratio of roughly 21 Million :1.

For comparison, most HDTV used to have roughly 100 NITS. Over the past several years, the normal HDTV has 400 NITS, although a few jumped to roughly 750 NITS over the past 9-12 months.

However, the Vizio Reference will only do 800 NIT - not even 1000 NIT, much less 1400-1600 (or even 4000 NIT). It appears the first generation, none of which are on the market, will probably not go past 1000 NIT either, meaning the full scope of Dolby Vision HDR will not be able to be seen in your home even in at least the next 12+ months.

Now, further confuse things, Netflix announced at CES that they would work with Sony and LG to stream HDR content. However, the LG UHD and Sony UHD (X930C/X940C) shown at CES that demonstrated "HDR" are not Dolby Vision HDR, but their homebrewed HDR scheme.

There has been no clarification if Netflix will support the homebrewed Sony and LG HDR, or if they will infact force Sony and LG to adopt Dolby Vision for HDR viewing, a change from their CES models just 100 days ago.

To confuse things even more, OLED cannot produce the brightness that LCDs can. In the LG OLED that was demo'd at a private suite at the Bellagio (not the CES floor), they were able to increase the OLED from 500 NITS to 800 NITS, but as explained above, Dolby Vision wants roughly twice that as a minimum.

Even though Philips says they are supporting Dolby Vision, they only demoed their "LCD Laser" HDR system at CES.

Panasonic was calling their homebrew system "Dynamic Range Remaster" in it's CX850 series.

And Samsung has put their homebrewed HDR into their SUHD series such as the JS9500 while not calling it HDR, although it has double the brightness of a typical LCD at around 1000 NIT (But of course cannot produce 0 NIT as an OLED can).

Sony's X940C has their homebrewed "X-tended Dynamic Rango Pro" while the X930C has their homebrewed "X-tended Dynamic Range".

And as for Sharp and real "Dolby Vision", Sharp is essentially in Bankruptcy -only announcing a $2 Billion Bailout 48 hours ago - and part of that involves shutting down a large portion of the North American Television Operation - so who knows if we EVER see a Sharp Dolby Vision set in the USA?

What's the word.....Clusterf.....

Think of the "homebrewed" HDR systems that Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, et al are using are basically the Samsung producing Quasi-3D on their sets from 2D programming several years ago.

So besides the real HDR formats being incompatible, they are not BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE - Dolby Vision encoded content is NOT viewable on non-Dolby Vision Systems. At the very least, it would look VERY flat and bland.

If you are still actually reading this, this leaves Samsung out alone on an island. HDR is supposed to be available through their M-GO secure locker system - and it most likely will.

So to review thus far....

There are NO Dolby Vision HDR Monitors actually available on the market in the USA today.

There IS a Samsung available (obviously), but it is off on its own with no support except for their own streaming.

Clearly, there are LESS HDR Monitors in Living Rooms today than UHD Sets. In fact, less than 1% than of the UHDs on the market today have "simulated" HDR and 0% have one of the 4 "real" HDR techniques.

And we have yet to talk the added payload. At minimum, HDR will add 10% to the payload - but in reality adds 25%-30% to the payload (bitrate/size).

As thus, a full UHD at 100/120fps and Dolby Vision HDR et al will need at MINIMUM 25Mbps.

And circling back around...

Between all that and incompatibility, DirecTV has no reason to do 1080 HDR. Only the newer UHD sets will have HDR - and Samsung, the only way to watch DirecTV UHD, is incompatible with the system that Netflix, Vudu, Amazon et al look to now behind.

If DirecTV is going to do it, they might as well go UHD with Dolby Vision when they have an actual IRD that can output the proper format.

While I agree that the homebrew systems that Samsung, Panasonic and Sony have put together in the interim look nice, there is no reason for DirecTV to enter a dead-end technology and further confuse consumers - especially with 1080 HDR.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Everyone should read this that has any interest in 4K.

http://www.residentialsystems.com/default.aspx?tabid=90&EntryId=970

And anyone who was critical of 3D clearly never saw the Masters in 3D.


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Everyone should read this that has any interest in 4K.
> 
> http://www.residentialsystems.com/default.aspx?tabid=90&EntryId=970
> 
> And anyone who was critical of 3D clearly never saw the Masters in 3D.


Read it and was happy to see that the writer saw the same thing I did when I was doing comparisons.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Where to start on this one....
> 
> As i said a long time ago, I have been a fan of Dolby Vision HDR since I first saw it in early 2009. I am amazed it has taken this long for it to be seriously considered.
> 
> That said, what you want will not happen for multiple reasons.
> 
> First, there are 4 different HDR formats (and several additional homebrewed systems TVs have put together) which the market is considering right now. BBC, Dolby Vision, Philips, Technicolor,
> 
> For the most part, these formats are INCOMPATIBLE (Think competing 3D Standards/Glasses).
> 
> Dolby Vision HDR may already be the winner though, as in the last 90 days, Netflix, Amazon, Vudu and Warner Brothers announced they will support Dolby Vision HDR. Brands supporting Dolby Vision are Hisen, Philips, Sharp, TCL and Vizio with their just announced Reference line 65" and 120" series. However, there are NO Dolby Vision HDR UHD actually available for purchase today in the USA. The Vizio will most likely be ther first.
> 
> Dolby Vision wants TVs to do 1000+ NITS (really at least to 1400-1600 NITS) and the format can actually do 4000 NITS (1 NIT = 0.29 FL / 100 NITS = 29.18 FL / 1000 NITS = 291.86). This would give Dolby Vision a Contrast Ratio of roughly 21 Million :1.
> 
> For comparison, most HDTV used to have roughly 100 NITS. Over the past several years, the normal HDTV has 400 NITS, although a few jumped to roughly 750 NITS over the past 9-12 months.
> 
> However, the Vizio Reference will only do 800 NIT - not even 1000 NIT, much less 1400-1600 (or even 4000 NIT). It appears the first generation, none of which are on the market, will probably not go past 1000 NIT either, meaning the full scope of Dolby Vision HDR will not be able to be seen in your home even in at least the next 12+ months.
> 
> Now, further confuse things, Netflix announced at CES that they would work with Sony and LG to stream HDR content. However, the LG UHD and Sony UHD (X930C/X940C) shown at CES that demonstrated "HDR" are not Dolby Vision HDR, but their homebrewed HDR scheme.
> 
> There has been no clarification if Netflix will support the homebrewed Sony and LG HDR, or if they will infact force Sony and LG to adopt Dolby Vision for HDR viewing, a change from their CES models just 100 days ago.
> 
> To confuse things even more, OLED cannot produce the brightness that LCDs can. In the LG OLED that was demo'd at a private suite at the Bellagio (not the CES floor), they were able to increase the OLED from 500 NITS to 800 NITS, but as explained above, Dolby Vision wants roughly twice that as a minimum.
> 
> Even though Philips says they are supporting Dolby Vision, they only demoed their "LCD Laser" HDR system at CES.
> 
> Panasonic was calling their homebrew system "Dynamic Range Remaster" in it's CX850 series.
> 
> And Samsung has put their homebrewed HDR into their SUHD series such as the JS9500 while not calling it HDR, although it has double the brightness of a typical LCD at around 1000 NIT (But of course cannot produce 0 NIT as an OLED can).
> 
> Sony's X940C has their homebrewed "X-tended Dynamic Rango Pro" while the X930C has their homebrewed "X-tended Dynamic Range".
> 
> And as for Sharp and real "Dolby Vision", Sharp is essentially in Bankruptcy -only announcing a $2 Billion Bailout 48 hours ago - and part of that involves shutting down a large portion of the North American Television Operation - so who knows if we EVER see a Sharp Dolby Vision set in the USA?
> 
> What's the word.....Clusterf.....
> 
> Think of the "homebrewed" HDR systems that Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, et al are using are basically the Samsung producing Quasi-3D on their sets from 2D programming several years ago.
> 
> So besides the real HDR formats being incompatible, they are not BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE - Dolby Vision encoded content is NOT viewable on non-Dolby Vision Systems. At the very least, it would look VERY flat and bland.
> 
> If you are still actually reading this, this leaves Samsung out alone on an island. HDR is supposed to be available through their M-GO secure locker system - and it most likely will.
> 
> So to review thus far....
> 
> There are NO Dolby Vision HDR Monitors actually available on the market in the USA today.
> 
> There IS a Samsung available (obviously), but it is off on its own with no support except for their own streaming.
> 
> Clearly, there are LESS HDR Monitors in Living Rooms today than UHD Sets. In fact, less than 1% than of the UHDs on the market today have "simulated" HDR and 0% have one of the 4 "real" HDR techniques.
> 
> And we have yet to talk the added payload. At minimum, HDR will add 10% to the payload - but in reality adds 25%-30% to the payload (bitrate/size).
> 
> As thus, a full UHD at 100/120fps and Dolby Vision HDR et al will need at MINIMUM 25Mbps.
> 
> And circling back around...
> 
> Between all that and incompatibility, DirecTV has no reason to do 1080 HDR. Only the newer UHD sets will have HDR - and Samsung, the only way to watch DirecTV UHD, is incompatible with the system that Netflix, Vudu, Amazon et al look to now behind.
> 
> If DirecTV is going to do it, they might as well go UHD with Dolby Vision when they have an actual IRD that can output the proper format.
> 
> While I agree that the homebrew systems that Samsung, Panasonic and Sony have put together in the interim look nice, there is no reason for DirecTV to enter a dead-end technology and further confuse consumers - especially with 1080 HDR.


So, for the sake of brevity (and my sanity), this is just like the fiasco with the BD operating systems? Did I boil that down correctly?

Rich


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Rich said:


> So, for the sake of brevity (and my sanity), this is just like the fiasco with the BD operating systems? Did I boil that down correctly?
> 
> Rich


In a nutshell, it is what every new format goes through.

The problem is EVERYONE is using or inferring the term HDR, when unlike Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, no one used one technology as a term (Xerox) for both of them, as is being done with HDR.

I original used the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray as the example in line 5, but the better is example is 3D, where Mitsubishi/Samsung 3D glasses would not work with Panasonic etc.


----------



## GregLee

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> However, the Vizio Reference will only do 800 NIT - not even 1000 NIT, much less 1400-1600 (or even 4000 NIT). It appears the first generation, none of which are on the market, will probably not go past 1000 NIT either, meaning the full scope of Dolby Vision HDR will not be able to be seen in your home even in at least the next 12+ months.


It's not all about the nits. A year or so ago, Dolby was saying that the limited brightness of current displays was not really a problem, and that Dolby Vision could do a good job on current devices. I think the bit depth of current display panels is a bigger difficulty. The current TVs that have some claim to be HDR capable have 10 bit panels, but Dolby has said they want at least 12 bit color depth.

I don't think we know that Samsung has foreclosed Dolby Vision for their current sets. Perhaps they've just chosen the SMPTE HDR system as an expedient to be first to market with TVs that can display some sort of HDR source. They might be able to do Dolby Vision on their current sets, with a system software update, or at worst a new $500 or so One Connect Box.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

harsh said:


> The V-Nova press release is dated April 1st.


V-Nova PERSEUS was award a NewBay Publishing / TV Technology's 2015 NAB Best of Show Award.

If you think it is an April Fool's joke, the joke is on you.


----------



## Diana C

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ...They claim to be able to add 1 Mb/s -2 Mb/s on top of an existing MPEG-2 signal and achieve UHD with Perseus. Claims are for a greater than 50% compression improvement over existing techniques...


Interesting...that would seem to indicate that it IS working outside of the standard raster processing that has been the basis of all video compression for decades. There were a bunch of proposals early in the MPEG-4 design about using differential and/or vector analysis to achieve better quality over comparable bandwidth, but they were rejected because of the radically greater decoding load (although "sprites" did make it into the spec, they were not really useful for general video use). Processing power has gotten a lot cheaper since then, obviously.

Maybe these guys should change their name to "Pied Piper."  (Kudos to those who get THAT reference!)


----------



## GregLee

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Everyone should read this that has any interest in 4K.
> 
> http://www.residentialsystems.com/default.aspx?tabid=90&EntryId=970


Yes, I watched several hours of the Masters on DirecTV, using my new Samsung JS9000. It looked great. Samsung has made strides in their upconversion to 4K -- the resolution looked to me like first rate 1080p, quite a bit better than I ever saw on DirecTV with my old 2013 plasma TV. Good brightness, too, of course, but also very good color. The next generation of TVs will have better resolution (4K), better brightness (HDR), and better colors (WCG+HDR). Probably better motion display, too.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

GregLee said:


> It's not all about the nits. A year or so ago, Dolby was saying that the limited brightness of current displays was not really a problem, and that Dolby Vision could do a good job on current devices. I think the bit depth of current display panels is a bigger difficulty. The current TVs that have some claim to be HDR capable have 10 bit panels, but Dolby has said they want at least 12 bit color depth.


Actually, it is about the NITS to get the contrast ratio.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Really too bad the Vizio Reference Series does not currently work within the DirecTV UHD framework

VIZIO Reference Series Redefines Picture and Audio Quality

http://www.residentialsystems.com/new-product/0027/vizio-reference-series-redefines-picture-and-audio-quality-/86961

Vizio HDR Display at NAB, Teamed with DolbyVision
http://www.avnetwork.com/digital-signage/0003/vizio-hdr-display-at-nab-teamed-with-dolbyvision/94889


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

The first Linear 4K/UHD channel....

Dutch media company Bravia launches world's first 4K/Ultra HD channel

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/dutch-media-company-bravia-launches-worlds-first-4kultra-hd-channel/2015-04-17


----------



## Drucifer

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Really *too bad the Vizio Reference Series does not currently work within the DirecTV UHD framework*
> 
> VIZIO Reference Series Redefines Picture and Audio Quality
> 
> http://www.residentialsystems.com/new-product/0027/vizio-reference-series-redefines-picture-and-audio-quality-/86961
> 
> Vizio HDR Display at NAB, Teamed with DolbyVision
> http://www.avnetwork.com/digital-signage/0003/vizio-hdr-display-at-nab-teamed-with-dolbyvision/94889


That's why everyone purchasing an UHD set should wait until every company gets their specs under the UHD Alliance umbrella.


----------



## Laxguy

Every company? That might be forever.....


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot

Drucifer said:


> That's why everyone purchasing an UHD set should wait until every company gets their specs under the UHD Alliance umbrella.


On the very first page I noted that the UHD in Best Buy was obviously better than anything else being shown from 1/2 a showroom away.

The first 30 pages of this thread are people telling me it was my imagination (even though I did not know it was a UHD set from 1/2 a store away).

Then for the next 40 pages, people who actually decided to look instead of read found that UHD does improve things and look better from a long distance away - despite what is said for how close one would need to be to see 4K.

I am not aware of any point in time in the past 20 years when specs are not constantly changing.

If you wait long enough, you can buy a 8k unit in 2020.

But then specs will be changing on those as well.......


----------



## Laxguy

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> On the very first page I noted that the UHD in Best Buy was obviously better than anything else being shown from 1/2 a showroom away.
> 
> The first 30 pages of this thread are people telling me it was my imagination (even though I did not know it was a UHD set from 1/2 a store away).
> 
> Then for the next 40 pages, people who actually decided to look instead of read found that UHD does improve things and look better from a long distance away - despite what is said for how close one would need to be to see 4K.


What is the purpose of this post? That you're right and every other Yahoo was wrong?


----------



## jimmie57

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> *On the very first page I noted that the UHD in Best Buy was obviously better than anything else being shown from 1/2 a showroom away.*
> 
> The first 30 pages of this thread are people telling me it was my imagination (even though I did not know it was a UHD set from 1/2 a store away).
> 
> Then for the next 40 pages, people who actually decided to look instead of read found that UHD does improve things and look better from a long distance away - despite what is said for how close one would need to be to see 4K.
> 
> I am not aware of any point in time in the past 20 years when specs are not constantly changing.
> 
> If you wait long enough, you can buy a 8k unit in 2020.
> 
> But then specs will be changing on those as well.......


Can you post the post number ? I can not find that on page 1 or 2.

My pen pal bought a Vizio P model 50" and says it is awesome and she is on Dish for her service. She said it looked much better than the Vizio HD next to it. Of course we all know that whoever adjusted the sets possibly has a lot to do with how they look in the stores.


----------



## Diana C

There is a difference between UHD TVs making regular HD look good and regular HD looking good simply because it is up-scaled to UHD resolution. There are the same number of pixels in the source data, with the same color depth and same compression artifacts. Using 4 physical pixels to display one logical pixel doesn't automatically make the PQ better.

We don't know how much the rest of the components add to the PQ. One can be pretty sure that manufacturers are not under the kind of margin pressure with UHD sets that they are under with HD sets. IOW, do UHD sets look better than the best HD sets displaying the same content or do they just stand out in comparison to the surrounding HD sets that cost a quarter as much? Would a set that has a 1080 panel attached to an otherwise identical set of electronics really look noticeably inferior to the UHD panel?


----------



## peds48

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> On the very first page I noted that the UHD in Best Buy was obviously better than anything else being shown from 1/2 a showroom away.


That it looks better form 2 blocks away, it is YOUR opinion, and does not makes a scientific fact. So from your post we can take *YOU* saw a TV with a nice picture from a great distance away. This does not proves or disproves anything.


----------



## slice1900

How is higher resolution going to make a difference when you are so far away that even with 20/5 vision you can't see the resolution difference? It could be an expanded color palette, but there were no HDR sets available when the claim was made - and HDR content is still quite rare today.

Studies have consistently shown people rate a brighter picture as better. The reason that 4K TV stood out was probably a brighter picture. Probably coupled with the TV being quite high end and having more LEDs for better local field dimming and therefore a higher contrast ratio. Neither are a property of 4K, but either would make the picture stand out from half a showroom away.


----------



## GregLee

Diana C said:


> Using 4 physical pixels to display one logical pixel doesn't automatically make the PQ better.


But It does. 4 pixels show 4 times as many brightness levels for each of the three RGB primaries.


----------



## GregLee

peds48 said:


> That it looks better form 2 blocks away, it is YOUR opinion, and does not makes a scientific fact. So from your post we can take *YOU* saw a TV with a nice picture from a great distance away. This does not proves or disproves anything.


There isn't any directly relevant science on either side of the question, so far as I know. I have enough interest in the issue that whenever I see people arguing on line about this, I read the discussion. The closest thing I've seen to an experiment testing whether people can distinguish 2k from 4k at ordinary viewing distances was at one of those "shootouts" in an electronics store; the setup was comparatively informal, and the people who did distinguish correctly outnumbered those who didn't. On the other side of the question, there is zero evidence that people cannot distinguish. All we have are some bogus arguments based on seeing individual pixels, and then other people repeating what they heard, and making charts and calculators. No relevant experiments.

There have been some results that might bear indirectly on the question, involving hyper-acuity, so-called, where people apparently have some ability to distinguish details smaller than the spacing of their retinal cells would seem to allow for. There are relevant articles in Wikipedia.


----------



## Drucifer

Laxguy said:


> Every company? That might be forever.....


Well, why join an alliance if you're going to do your own thing?


----------



## peds48

GregLee said:


> There isn't any directly relevant science on either side of the question,


Exactly, and as such ONE's OWN opinion should NOT be posted as FACTS. Saying "On the very first page I noted that the UHD in Best Buy was obviously better than anything else being shown from 1/2 a showroom away", does NOT qualifies as a fact, just an opinion!


----------



## yosoyellobo

Any chance next years Olympics be televised in 4K?


----------



## Laxguy

yosoyellobo said:


> Any chance next years Olympics be televised in 4K?


Yes.

I wish I could give an approximation of those odds beyond "more than .01% and less than 100%."

:eek2:

:rolling:


----------



## studechip

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> You clearly are unaware of Sinclair's testing, probably the most advanced of ANY Television Group.
> 
> They fought and fought up through ~2005 not to go with 8VSB because of the issues we all know to well. Mobile HDTV and tiny indoor antennas would be mainstream today if the FCC had listened to them 10+ years ago.
> 
> Broadcasters and the FCC know this in retrospect.
> 
> Many might not like their Corporate Political stance, but Sinclair will be on the technological forefront and your dismissal of them is very naive, showing you out of the loop in that area.
> 
> EDIT: By the way, Broadcasters have no illusion of the FCC doing another ill fated ATSC 3.0 Set top giveaway. That, btw, was paid for the money the FCC made by taking back channels and selling off the frequencies. In the forthcoming auction, $1.8B is going to pay stations who remain on the air to move/repack the spectrum.
> 
> In all likelihood, the move to ATSC 3.0 will be done the day the stations move to their new "home".


Are you Bob Miller? He's about the only one in this country that fought against the implementation of 8VSB.


----------



## Diana C

GregLee said:


> But It does. 4 pixels show 4 times as many brightness levels for each of the three RGB primaries.


How does it do that when there is only one RGB value in the data for all 4 physical pixels? It can only display as much data as it receives.


----------



## Tom Robertson

GregLee said:


> But It does. 4 pixels show 4 times as many brightness levels for each of the three RGB primaries.





Diana C said:


> How does it do that when there is only one RGB value in the data for all 4 physical pixels? It can only display as much data as it receives.


Diana beat me. I was going to say, huh? 4 times as many brightness levels? But each in 1/4th the surface area.

Now, if superfast (and super accurate) anti-aliasing or interpolation does on, it might help--when it gets it right. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## patmurphey

Diana C said:


> How does it do that when there is only one RGB value in the data for all 4 physical pixels? It can only display as much data as it receives.


Upscaling does not work that way. If it did, why bother?


----------



## harsh

Drucifer said:


> Well, why join an alliance if you're going to do your own thing?


I've often asked that question about DIRECTV and the RVU Alliance.


----------



## James Long

patmurphey said:


> Upscaling does not work that way. If it did, why bother?


Unless the device is capable of changing resolutions content must be scaled to fit the resolution of the display.

How it is upscaled depends on the alogarithm used.


----------



## GregLee

Tom Robertson said:


> Diana beat me. I was going to say, huh? 4 times as many brightness levels? But each in 1/4th the surface area.


That would be good reasoning if it were pixels we were observing. But it's not. We get far enough away so that we don't see individual pixels -- instead, we see colors and shapes. So what matters is how many colors the TV can send your way from a small area of the screen. To do the count, you can imagine that you're looking at a 2k picture with each 2k-size pixel made up of 4 4k-size pixels, and total up all the colors and brightnesses that are displayed in that 2 x 2 area.

Of course, if you pretend that each group of 4 pixels on the 4k screen all have exactly the same color as the corresponding single pixel on the 2k screen, in effect you'd have just a 2k screen, and you'd see no difference. But this pretense is unrealistic. Pixels are independently controllable.

Diana, this is also a reply to your post.


----------



## Drucifer

harsh said:


> I've often asked that question about DIRECTV and the RVU Alliance.


Yeah, the others STB companies - Dish, Optimum, TWC, don't seem to be interested in RVU, but I haven't notice any of them coming up with something of their own either.


----------



## slice1900

Drucifer said:


> Yeah, the others STB companies - Dish, Optimum, TWC, don't seem to be interested in RVU, but I haven't notice any of them coming up with something of their own either.


They don't need to, that's what CVP-2 is for. Though since that was created by the same company that created RVU (JetHead) and are made up of the same building blocks, they are probably pretty similar. If CVP-2 catches on, hopefully RVU will be updated to be fully compatible with it, even if Directv keeps calling it RVU for marketing purposes. Then every CVP-2 client would work as a RVU client.


----------



## James Long

GregLee said:


> So what matters is how many colors the TV can send your way from a small area of the screen. To do the count, you can imagine that you're looking at a 2k picture with each 2k-size pixel made up of 4 4k-size pixels, and total up all the colors and brightnesses that are displayed in that 2 x 2 area.


When the 2K image is calling for a specific color within the color palette allowed for 2K, how does the 4K monitor know which color to use? Theoretically there would be 4K color depth to the fourth power number of colors available in the two by two block of pixels ... but in reality the choices are limited to the color defined in the 2K information or a blend between adjacent 2K pixels. Not 4K depth squared.


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> ... how does the 4K monitor know which color to use? ...


It has to make a guess based on the values of nearby pixels. Interpolation is something that has been studied extensively for a long time, at least since Napier made his tables of logarithms. Though I've had to write some interpolation routines, it's not something I know a lot about. It's a subject in itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpolation


----------



## Diana C

GregLee said:


> That would be good reasoning if it were pixels we were observing. But it's not. We get far enough away so that we don't see individual pixels -- instead, we see colors and shapes. So what matters is how many colors the TV can send your way from a small area of the screen. To do the count, you can imagine that you're looking at a 2k picture with each 2k-size pixel made up of 4 4k-size pixels, and total up all the colors and brightnesses that are displayed in that 2 x 2 area.
> 
> Of course, if you pretend that each group of 4 pixels on the 4k screen all have exactly the same color as the corresponding single pixel on the 2k screen, in effect you'd have just a 2k screen, and you'd see no difference. But this pretense is unrealistic. Pixels are independently controllable.
> 
> Diana, this is also a reply to your post.


Let's take a VERY simple example...a smooth gradient from top to bottom with pure blue at the top and pure red at the bottom. The space in the middle will contain a range of RGB values that produce a blend of red and blue (e.g. purple, plum, eggplant, etc.).

Now pick a given pixel anywhere on the screen...say it has a RGB value of 851BA8. When this is up scaled to UHD, each data pixel has to illuminate 4 physical pixels on the screen (i.e. an extra pixel on the horizontal axis and one on the vertical axis) - that is how a 1080x1920 frame is displayed on a 2160x3840 panel.

Now, explain to me how 851BA8 gets changed to something else in an UHD TV? The data only has information for 1080x1920 fields each containing a bit more than 2 million pixels each with 8 color bits per pixel in 4:2:0 Chroma format. How does your version of upscaling invent different values for the OTHER 2 million physical pixels?


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> Pixels are independently controllable.


To be sure, but how many TVs do you think really have the marbles to do the kind of upscaling you're talking about?

My 2012 model Onkyo AVR has 4K upscaling capability but I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't go to the trouble of looking for edges and deciding whether to create an edge or pixel average.

The same surely goes for a $130 Blu-ray upscaling player. At best, most probably just "tween" and that can be either a blessing or a curse depending on the content.


----------



## Diana C

GregLee said:


> That would be good reasoning if it were pixels we were observing. But it's not. We get far enough away so that we don't see individual pixels -- instead, we see colors and shapes. So what matters is how many colors the TV can send your way from a small area of the screen. To do the count, you can imagine that you're looking at a 2k picture with each 2k-size pixel made up of 4 4k-size pixels, and total up all the colors and brightnesses that are displayed in that 2 x 2 area.
> 
> Of course, if you pretend that each group of 4 pixels on the 4k screen all have exactly the same color as the corresponding single pixel on the 2k screen, in effect you'd have just a 2k screen, and you'd see no difference. But this pretense is unrealistic. Pixels are independently controllable.
> 
> Diana, this is also a reply to your post.


Pixels are individually controllable but how does the TV know how to "control" some of them in a different manner than the data says?

The input has data for 2,073,600 pixels, but the output has 8,294,400 pixels...how does the TV create data for an additional 6,220,800 pixels except by copying and repeating the input pixels??

ETA: By the way, compression reduces the effective color depth by taking a block of pixels that are a similar color and making them all the SAME color, reducing the color gradient. So even if the TV were taking adjacent pixels and comparing the colors and then deriving the values of the "new" pixels in between, above and below, you'll STILL get 3 pixels of the same color much of the time. So it wouldn't help aliasing or macro-blocking, the two most common defects in HD digital video picture quality.

We have a Panasonic TH-65VX300U (a "professional" level plasma screen) and I honestly have never seen a UHD TV that looked any better displaying 1080p content. If UHD TVs look better with 1080 content, it is because you are looking at a higher QUALITY screen, not because it is higher resolution. A similar quality 1080 display would look just as good.


----------



## slice1900

I don't think the argument over upscaling really matters all that much. Sure, there are certain improvements that can be made, and compression technology could even be designed to take this into account by including 'hinting' information like fonts do to allow subpixel smoothing. It is still irrelevant beyond a certain distance because it is impossible for a given person to see the difference between 4K and HD on a given screen size beyond a given distance.

That's a fact of biology that cannot be disputed. The human eye is unfortunately not a particularly good design. If we had the eyes of a hawk 4K TVs would look as blocky as a 70s video game. If we had the eyes of an octopus we would need a much larger color space and be able to see perfectly in what we consider absolute darkness.

The idea that just because you can pick out the 4K TV from a distance means that 4K resolution matters at that distance is ludicrous. What people are seeing when they say they notice a 4K TV's picture as "better" from 30 or 40 feet away in the store as they approach the sales area is the brightness, contrast ratio or other characteristics of a higher quality panel.


----------



## patmurphey

Diana C said:


> Let's take a VERY simple example...a smooth gradient from top to bottom with pure blue at the top and pure red at the bottom. The space in the middle will contain a range of RGB values that produce a blend of red and blue (e.g. purple, plum, eggplant, etc.).
> 
> Now pick a given pixel anywhere on the screen...say it has a RGB value of 851BA8. When this is up scaled to UHD, each data pixel has to illuminate 4 physical pixels on the screen (i.e. an extra pixel on the horizontal axis and one on the vertical axis) - that is how a 1080x1920 frame is displayed on a 2160x3840 panel.
> 
> Now, explain to me how 851BA8 gets changed to something else in an UHD TV? The data only has information for 1080x1920 fields each containing a bit more than 2 million pixels each with 8 color bits per pixel in 4:2:0 Chroma format. How does your version of upscaling invent different values for the OTHER 2 million physical pixels?


Are you trying to claim that there is no such thing as upscaling, unless we can explain to you how it works? It's all fraud from the 4k TV manufacturers??


----------



## James Long

patmurphey said:


> Are you trying to claim that there is no such thing as upscaling, unless we can explain to you how it works? It's all fraud from the 4k TV manufacturers??


Diana is not questioning the existence of upscaling ... she is questioning the quality of upscaling.

Here is a word:
"s___r___i___g___s___e___a___o___u_"
Based on the length of the word you may be able to guess what the word is - but that is a human function.
I have removed three out of four characters to simulate transmitting a picture of that 4K word with a 2K camera.
How does upscaling fill in the blanks and create a 4K image? The best guess an upscaler can make is only a best guess.

Lets look at that word again, but this time I have broken it up onto two lines, since the difference between 4K and 2K is reduction in both vertical and horizontal resolution.
"s_p_r_a_i_r_g_l_s_i_"
"____________________"
The human mind may have an easier job with the first line as more characters are visible but the second line is lost.

If we were transmitting known words such as above an upscaler could use a dictionary to fill in the blanks. But the picture is not of known words. It is not even a picture of a thousand words. The image is more complicated than that.

Color 851BA8 has been assigned to a pixel ... how does the upscaler figure out what the adjacent pixels were when the photograph was taken? It is just a best guess.


----------



## GregLee

Diana C said:


> When this is up scaled to UHD, each data pixel has to illuminate 4 physical pixels on the screen (i.e. an extra pixel on the horizontal axis and one on the vertical axis) -...


That's not right. The data for the 4 UHD pixels doesn't have to come just from the single corresponding HD pixel. It can come from surrounding HD pixels, or other pixels, maybe even from different frames.


----------



## GregLee

harsh said:


> To be sure, but how many TVs do you think really have the marbles to do the kind of upscaling you're talking about?
> .


I think any upscaling TV can do better than just copying the values of neighboring pixels for the new upscaled picture. This is not a new technology. I think really good upscaling needs some costly processing. My Samsung JS9000 does really good upscaling, and it has an "octacore" processor.

I also think there is no real end point to how good upscaling can get in the future, for the pictures that we humans tend to watch. People's faces are important to us -- we can tell the TV more about the structure of faces, so the computation can be done better. One lawn resembles another. Mountains look a lot alike. ...


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> Diana is not questioning the existence of upscaling ... she is questioning the quality of upscaling.


There are lots of regular properties of English words that a guesser-of-missing-characters could exploit in order to make better guesses. I take your argument to be that upscaling is a difficult problem, and that good upscaling has to incorporate into the algorithm some knowledge of what video images are like. I accept that conclusion.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> That's a fact of biology that cannot be disputed.


I dispute it. There is no such fact of biology.


----------



## slice1900

GregLee said:


> I dispute it. There is no such fact of biology.


So you think the human eye can view resolution to infinity?


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> So you think the human eye can view resolution to infinity?


Nothing I said above has any reasonable connection with viewing "resolution to infinity". You said a fact of biology prevents us discriminating UHD, but you don't say what this "fact of biology" is. I say that's BS -- there is no such fact.

Is that clearer?


----------



## slice1900

GregLee said:


> Nothing I said above has any reasonable connection with viewing "resolution to infinity". You said a fact of biology prevents us discriminating UHD, but you don't say what this "fact of biology" is. I say that's BS -- there is no such fact.
> 
> Is that clearer?


I most certainly didn't say "a fact of biology prevents us discriminating UHD". Read what I wrote again, without your in-built bias towards any post that isn't drooling over 4K like it is the greatest thing in history.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> I most certainly didn't say "a fact of biology prevents us discriminating UHD". Read what I wrote again, without your in-built bias towards any post that isn't drooling over 4K like it is the greatest thing in history.


Looking back, here is what I see:


> It is still irrelevant beyond a certain distance because it is impossible for a given person to see the difference between 4K and HD on a given screen size beyond a given distance.
> 
> That's a fact of biology that cannot be disputed.


Supposing "a given person" is a human, "a given screen size" and "a given distance" are things the given person might encounter in the given person's media room, right there it is, in black and white.

Now, are you going to tell us what this "fact of biology" is?


----------



## James Long

GregLee said:


> Now, are you going to tell us what this "fact of biology" is?


The resolution of typical human eyesight. It is like using a 10 megapixel camera and expecting 40 megapixel results. Once you have exceeded the resolution and color depth of the camera in question (in this case, the human eye) adding resolution and color depth to the image being viewed does not help.

(BTW: I am not defining the limits of human eyesight in this post. I am noting that there are limits, and once those limits are exceeded additional visual information is useless.)


----------



## GregLee

James Long said:


> (BTW: I am not defining the limits of human eyesight in this post. I am noting that there are limits, and once those limits are exceeded additional visual information is useless.)


So if you try to see something that goes beyond the limit of what you can see, then you won't be able to see it. Yep, I guess I'd have to go along with that.


----------



## peds48

GregLee said:


> So if you try to see something that goes beyond the limit of what you can see, then you won't be able to see it. Yep, I guess I'd have to go along with that.


Pretty much, you stop discerning detail. Have you ever been to the eye doctor? At some point on that scale you start seeing dots, or just blotches on a white background instead of the actually letter.


----------



## patmurphey

James Long said:


> Diana is not questioning the existence of upscaling ... she is questioning the quality of upscaling...


Well, I see a sharper picture on my 4k TV's satellite programming. So what if it isn't native 4k. I can get that on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Youtube.


----------



## P Smith

Any news from DTV about 4k transmission ? Or plans of that ?

Perhaps someone have an access to hidden 4k channels ?


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Any news from DTV about 4k transmission ? Or plans of that ?


If DIRECTV was talking about live UHD, I'm pretty sure you would have seen it here.

This article suggests that live UHD isn't really on the RADAR:

http://advanced-television.com/2015/02/20/directv-outlines-4k-plans/

The key quote:


Mike White said:


> And to be honest with you, I don't expect to see linear streaming any time soon because of the cost, HD trucks and everything else that you'd have to - new cameras, you name it.


Ostensibly, "not any time soon" probably means not under Mike White's leadership.

From my perspective, they've got some distance to go toward reaching all the UHD TV owners before they get serious about linear UHD programming.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> If DIRECTV was talking about live UHD, I'm pretty sure you would have seen it here.
> 
> This article suggests that live UHD isn't really on the RADAR:
> 
> http://advanced-television.com/2015/02/20/directv-outlines-4k-plans/
> 
> The key quote:
> Ostensibly, "not any time soon" probably means not under Mike White's leadership.
> 
> From my perspective, they've got some distance to go toward reaching all the UHD TV owners before they get serious about linear UHD programming.


Weird. There's already a 4K channel announced  :

http://4k.com/news/dutch-media-company-brava-releases-first-real-4k-broadcast-channel-6594/

Yeah, dbstalk is a small sample size in the big picture, but its probably a larger sample size of DirecTV fan boys and videophiles and I don't see too many people yelling from the roof tops about how they just watched Ghostbusters 2 in 4K for $20, so... .


----------



## slice1900

GregLee said:


> So if you try to see something that goes beyond the limit of what you can see, then you won't be able to see it. Yep, I guess I'd have to go along with that.


Which is what I said in the post you took issue with. It was you who extrapolated that to you watching your TV in your media room.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Weird. There's already a 4K channel announced  :
> 
> http://4k.com/news/dutch-media-company-brava-releases-first-real-4k-broadcast-channel-6594/


Since it is a Dutch media company, it may only be available to European MVPDs, not US based ones like Directv. It also isn't live content, and repeats content fairly often.


----------



## Rich

patmurphey said:


> Are you trying to claim that there is no such thing as upscaling, unless we can explain to you how it works? It's all fraud from the 4k TV manufacturers??


Been meaning to ask you this: What kind of TV did you have before you got the 4K set? Just curious, I've been reading your posts with interest.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> Since it is a Dutch media company, it may only be available to European MVPDs, not US based ones like Directv. It also isn't live content, and repeats content fairly often.


Yeah, its a POC channel. You weren't expecting CBS to air TBBT in 4K next week, were you?  Still, it disproves the naysayers who still say "4K linear channels will never happen". The article that Harsh posted pretty much has Mr. White saying that he doesn't have the foggiest clue which direction things will go in, so DirecTV is prepped to go both ways. I do agree that VOD will happen first. But the truth is, 4K hardware isn't out yet. Only 4K TVs are available. And only the 2015 models are really full fledged 4K TVs. AVRs, UltraHD BluRay, STBs, etc. aren't out for another 6 months or so.

With all that being said, I still think the 2016 Olympics will be available in 4K in some form in some country .


----------



## SledgeHammer

patmurphey said:


> Well, I see a sharper picture on my 4k TV's satellite programming. So what if it isn't native 4k. I can get that on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Youtube.


Those aren't true "native 4K" sources. I'd call them more like "4K resolution".


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, its a POC channel. You weren't expecting CBS to air TBBT in 4K next week, were you?  Still, it disproves the naysayers who still say "4K linear channels will never happen".


I haven't heard anyone saying 4K linear channels will never happen. The dispute is over how quickly they'll come, and how many there will ultimately be.


----------



## GregLee

patmurphey said:


> Well, I see a sharper picture on my 4k TV's satellite programming. So what if it isn't native 4k. I can get that on Netflix, Amazon Prime and Youtube.


I am so impressed with the upscaling on my recently purchased Samsung, while watching good DirecTV 1080i channels, that I no longer have much appetite for acquiring 4k source material. The upscaled HD is good enough that I can tell, while watching a movie, where the camera was focused, and I can see when the focus changes (presumably when the director wants me to look elsewhere). And colors are very good. Who needs real 4k?

But there's a problem. Very few DirecTV HD channels have good enough pictures to look good when upscaled. When I start with a blurry washed out mess, I wind up with a blurry washed out mess. CNN, SciHD, MGMHD, a scattering of the premium channels are often good. But the great majority of channels are hardly improved at all by upscaling. I'm not saying that is DirecTV's fault -- I think that they're getting fed some pretty bad video from their sources.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> I haven't heard anyone saying 4K linear channels will never happen. The dispute is over how quickly they'll come, and how many there will ultimately be.


I've been following 4K pretty closely since I've been ready to upgrade all my stuff. There have been naysayers from day 1 on pretty much every step of the way and they've always been proven wrong:

* "4K is worthless and nobody will buy the TVs, its DOA" -- most TVs right now are 4K and all the new models and the new tech is on the 4K sets only -- in a few years you won't even be able to buy 1080P sets anymore
* "HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 is worthless" -- again, you have no choice. Native 4K content requires HDCP 2.2.
* "18Gbps HDMI 2.0 is worthless, the 10.2Gbps version is 'good enough'" -- some of the newer features require the 18Gbps, 4:4:4 @ 60Fps requires it -- irrelevant really since the 10.2Gbps version was a temporary stop gap and is being phased out
* "There will never be 4:4:4 content aside from PCs" -- TBD
* "There will never be rec2020 content" -- TBD
* "There will never be 4K OTA" -- OK, this one is probably true
* "There will never be 4K channels, just PPV and VOD" -- highly doubtful, 4K channels are all but guaranteed IMO
* "Physical media is dead, there will never be a 4K disc, everybody streams from Netflix, etc" -- completely false obviously

Regarding 4:4:4 @ 60Fps -- the naysayers said "You're an idiot -- the UHD spec doesn't even support it" -- true "Wave 1" does not since HEVC 1 doesn't. HEVC 2 is already finalized and it does (as does HDMI 2.0), so it goes to reason that the "Wave 2" UHD spec will. Will there be discs produced with it? TBD...

The next big push is obviously HDR and wider color gamut. They'll probably do a stop gap at DCI-P3 for a few years before going to full on rec2020. HDMI 2.0 18Gbps already supports it as well.


----------



## Aridon

I must be reading a different forum for the most part.


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> Those aren't true "native 4K" sources. I'd call them more like "4K resolution".


Is this a veiled attempt to point out the difference between Cinema 4K and UHD or are you assuming that everything UHD is being mastered from film?

If you do a little googling, _The Black List_, _Battle Creek_, _Masters of Sex_ and _Rake_ were shot on some manner of 4K video cameras.

_Breaking Bad_ was remastered.


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> Who needs real 4k?


Before anybody answers that, don't you think it would be useful to define what 4K you're talking about? There are at least four or five different versions.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> Is this a veiled attempt to point out the difference between Cinema 4K and UHD or are you assuming that everything UHD is being mastered from film?
> 
> If you do a little googling, _The Black List_, _Battle Creek_, _Masters of Sex_ and _Rake_ were shot on some manner of 4K video cameras.
> 
> _Breaking Bad_ was remastered.


No. It was not a veiled attempt at anything. It was pointing out that yeah, its 4K resolution, but its not 4K bitrate, that its overly compressed. This guy over at AVS was using Breaking Bad to test his 4K OLED and he was not impressed with the PQ at all.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> Regarding 4:4:4 @ 60Fps -- the naysayers said "You're an idiot -- the UHD spec doesn't even support it" -- true "Wave 1" does not since HEVC 1 doesn't. HEVC 2 is already finalized and it does (as does HDMI 2.0), so it goes to reason that the "Wave 2" UHD spec will. Will there be discs produced with it? TBD...


What content is there or will there be for 60 fps Blu Ray? Blu Ray is almost exclusively movies, and they are shot almost exclusively in 24 fps. Sure there are some experiments with 48 fps, but the reviews are mixed as to whether that's something consumers want so at best it will remain a niche for the foreseeable future. The arrival of a standard for 60 fps or 120 fps Blu Ray is mostly irrelevant unless there is content to take advantage of it.

Regarding 4K broadcast. I've been a big naysayer on ATSC 3.0 coming anytime soon because it is not a backwards compatible change and the FCC is very unlikely to support its adoption with converter boxes like they did for ATSC. They'd cut off millions of people watching OTA on TVs and other devices that only support ATSC 1.0. However, it occurs to me that this may be exactly what the networks and affiliates want to see happen! They don't want to make it easy for "freeloaders" to grab the signal for free, they'd rather people get it via cable/satellite providers who pay them for it, or via streaming which will also be paid (either directly or via ads you can't FF through)

So SomeRandomIdiot may be right that after next year's auction and the re-pack, we see ATSC 3.0 deployed quickly. Whether that gets us much in the way of 4K broadcasts remains to be seen - I think they may end up using it for transmitter sharing and two or three HD stations sharing one channel may become common, especially in large DMAs where cellular providers will pay tens or even hundreds of millions per 6 MHz RF channel. Hard to turn down that kind of cash.


----------



## GregLee

harsh said:


> Before anybody answers that, don't you think it would be useful to define what 4K you're talking about? There are at least four or five different versions.


No, I don't.


----------



## GregLee

SledgeHammer said:


> The next big push is obviously HDR and wider color gamut. They'll probably do a stop gap at DCI-P3 for a few years before going to full on rec2020.


The Samsung JS sets are claimed to cover 92% of the DCI-P3 gamut, and there is a Sony set that claims 98% of DCI-P3. I think I can see this on my Samsung JS, watching D* MGMHD. Some colors look very un-TV-like, and remind me of the movie theater experience, as best I recall. I wonder if some of those old movies ever had their original colors graded down to fit into the rec. 709 standard.


----------



## patmurphey

SledgeHammer said:


> Those aren't true "native 4K" sources. I'd call them more like "4K resolution".


It's what's out there and it looks good. Then don't get a 4k TV - your loss.



Rich said:


> Been meaning to ask you this: What kind of TV did you have before you got the 4K set? Just curious, I've been reading your posts with interest.
> 
> Rich


Top of the line Sharp Aquos 1080p Quad pixel same size as my Samsung 4k.


----------



## Rich

patmurphey said:


> Top of the line Sharp Aquos 1080p Quad pixel same size as my Samsung 4k.


Thanx, I had hoped it was a plasma.

Rich


----------



## patmurphey

SledgeHammer said:


> No. It was not a veiled attempt at anything. It was pointing out that yeah, its 4K resolution, but its not 4K bitrate, that its overly compressed. This guy over at AVS was using Breaking Bad to test his 4K OLED and he was not impressed with the PQ at all.


This is a satellite TV forum. If you read most of their posts, you'll see that the AVS crowd are Blu-Ray DVD Cinema snobs that wont be satisfied until they can watch Ultra UHD DVD Blu-Ray movies. They are not interested in whether your satellite TV watching might be improved and they denigrate streaming 4k because it isn't perfect. That's not real world. I'm happy as a clam with my $597 Samsung 4k TV, enjoying it every day.


----------



## patmurphey

Rich said:


> Thanx, I had hoped it was a plasma.
> 
> Rich


LED backlit LCD 1080p to LED backlit LCD 4k makes a fair comparison.


----------



## Rich

patmurphey said:


> LED backlit LCD 1080p to LED backlit LCD 4k makes a fair comparison.


Wasn't trying to start an argument, I was just wondering if you had compared it to a plasma at home.

Rich


----------



## Rich

patmurphey said:


> This is a satellite TV forum. If you read most of their posts, you'll see that the AVS crowd are Blu-Ray DVD Cinema snobs that wont be satisfied until they can watch Ultra UHD DVD Blu-Ray movies. They are not interested in whether your satellite TV watching might be improved and they denigrate streaming 4k because it isn't perfect. That's not real world. I'm happy as a clam with my $597 Samsung 4k TV, enjoying it every day.


I stopped going there, don't know the players, don't know who to believe. Gets too confusing.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

patmurphey said:


> LED backlit LCD 1080p to LED backlit LCD 4k makes a fair comparison.


The basic technology may be the same, but there are cheap LED backlit LCDs and expensive LED backlit LCDs. The differences between cheap and expensive include but aren't limited to the number of LEDs to improve local dimming and contrast ratio, the brightness of the LEDs that control overall picture brightness, the speed the LCDs can switch it, the type of processing that is done, whether processing is enabled or not by default, and the bias of the viewer as whether such processing improves or degrades the picture.

A 4K TV is going to use a more expensive panel than a HD TV, unless you compare the highest end 1080p LCD you can buy with a Seiki 4K. That's not likely to happen though since someone who owns a high end 1080p LCD isn't going to buy a Seiki, he'll buy a high end 4K that will be markedly improved over the panel in his 1080p TV.


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> No. It was not a veiled attempt at anything. It was pointing out that yeah, its 4K resolution, but its not 4K bitrate, that its overly compressed.


UHD doesn't prescribe a bitrate so your assertion that bitrate determines what is or isn't 4K is hogwash.


----------



## SledgeHammer

patmurphey said:


> It's what's out there and it looks good. Then don't get a 4k TV - your loss.
> 
> Top of the line Sharp Aquos 1080p Quad pixel same size as my Samsung 4k.


Well, for starters, I'm not going to get an LED TV. I'm waiting for the flat OLEDs to come out. Hopefully August! For finishers, I wouldn't use Amazon, Youtube and Netflix 4K streaming. I'll be using DirecTV and UHD and I guess torrents if people post 4K stuff there.


----------



## SledgeHammer

patmurphey said:


> This is a satellite TV forum. If you read most of their posts, you'll see that the AVS crowd are Blu-Ray DVD Cinema snobs that wont be satisfied until they can watch Ultra UHD DVD Blu-Ray movies. They are not interested in whether your satellite TV watching might be improved and they denigrate streaming 4k because it isn't perfect. That's not real world. I'm happy as a clam with my $597 Samsung 4k TV, enjoying it every day.


They do overly nitpick TVs over there. I'm not at that level LOL. But umm... yeah... I'd rather watch super high quality 1080P then marginal 4K. Who wouldn't??


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> UHD doesn't prescribe a bitrate so your assertion that bitrate determines what is or isn't 4K is hogwash.


Wow. That was Harsh (pun intended).

You missed the point. You can go and download a 1920x1080 2hr movie that was overly compressed down to 500MB all you want. You can also call it 1080P if it helps you sleep at night. Most others would call it unwatchable garbage .

Regardless, bit rate is *"implied"*. What exactly do you think happens when you take a 3840 x 2160 @ 60Hz @ rec709 and overly compress it to 700 x 340 @ 50% rec709? You aren't magically sprinkling the stream with ground up unicorn horns and pixie dust to make it smaller, you're -- yeah, you guessed it -- reducing the bit rate.

Yes, there is no standard that says "you must use bit rate x", but to say it doesn't matter would be your hogwash .


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> Regardless, bit rate is *"implied"*.


Nothing about the various flavors of 4K is implied. It either is or it isn't something between 3840-4096 pixels wide and 1716-2160 pixels high. It may be one of several frame rates and I'm betting there might even be an interlace option.

The only thing that seems to be implied is that DIRECTV is working on delivering some manner of compelling UHD within the next couple years or so.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> Nothing about the various flavors of 4K is implied. It either is or it isn't something between 3840-4096 pixels wide and 1716-2160 pixels high. It may be one of several frame rates and I'm betting there might even be an interlace option.
> 
> The only thing that seems to be implied is that DIRECTV is working on delivering some manner of compelling UHD within the next couple years or so.


Are you talking about 4K or UHD?

4K = 4096x2160 pixels
UHD = 3840×2160 pixels

While most consumers use the terms interchangeably, they really aren't. Everybody is using the wrong term except the fine folks @ the BluRay consortium who correctly named thier new product UltraHD BluRay.

Both the 4K and UHD standards are defined as progressive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high_definition_television#Resolution


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> Are you talking about 4K or UHD?
> 
> 4K = 4096x2160 pixels
> UHD = 3840×2160 pixels
> 
> While most consumers use the terms interchangeably, they really aren't. Everybody is using the wrong term except the fine folks @ the BluRay consortium who correctly named thier new product UltraHD BluRay.
> 
> Both the 4K and UHD standards are defined as progressive:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high_definition_television#Resolution


According to your linked article in the Wiki, is implied that 4K is part of UHD. Better yet, UHD is compromised of 4K UHD and 8K UHD. This is from the article you linked.


----------



## SledgeHammer

peds48 said:


> According to your linked article in the Wiki, is implied that 4K is part of UHD. Better yet, UHD is compromised of 4K UHD and 8K UHD. This is from the article you linked.


A 4K resolution, as defined by Digital Cinema Initiatives, is 4096 x 2160 pixels (256:135, approximately a 1.9:1 aspect ratio). This standard is widely respected by the film industry along with all other DCI standards.[2]
DCI 4K should not be confused with ultra-high-definition television (UHDTV) AKA "UHD-1", which has a resolution of 3840 x 2160 (16:9, or approximately a 1.78:1 aspect ratio). Many manufacturers may advertise their products as UHD 4K, or simply 4K, when the term 4K is traditionally reserved for the cinematic, DCI resolution.[3][4] This often causes great confusion among consumers.[5]


----------



## peds48

SledgeHammer said:


> A 4K resolution, as defined by Digital Cinema Initiatives, is 4096 x 2160 pixels (256:135, approximately a 1.9:1 aspect ratio). This standard is widely respected by the film industry along with all other DCI standards.[2]
> DCI 4K should not be confused with ultra-high-definition television (UHDTV) AKA "UHD-1", which has a resolution of 3840 x 2160 (16:9, or approximately a 1.78:1 aspect ratio). Many manufacturers may advertise their products as UHD 4K, or simply 4K, when the term 4K is traditionally reserved for the cinematic, DCI resolution.[3][4] This often causes great confusion among consumers.[5]


I am not disputing any of the "facts". You relied on an article to support your "facts", you even posted a link so such article, but the same article says otherwise. That is all I am saying. If you want to support your facts, make sure to post an article that supports your facts, not the one that contradicts them


----------



## harsh

SledgeHammer said:


> A 4K resolution, as defined by Digital Cinema Initiatives, is 4096 x 2160 pixels (256:135, approximately a 1.9:1 aspect ratio).


DCI also counts 4096x1716 (CinemaScope) and 3996x2160 among their 4K standards.

It is also notable that the Cinema 4K storage format is defined as being JPEG2000 format at up to 250Mbps.

If you're going to make claims about what 4K is or isn't, we need to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

I lament that the Consumer Electronics Association membership seems to have back-peddled on their decision to call 3840x2160 UltraHD so that consumers could clearly understand that 4K and what you see on a UHD TV are not the same thing.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> DCI also counts 4096x1716 (CinemaScope) and 3996x2160 among their 4K standards.
> 
> It is also notable that the Cinema 4K storage format is defined as being JPEG2000 format at up to 250Mbps.
> 
> If you're going to make claims about what 4K is or isn't, we need to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
> 
> I lament that the Consumer Electronics Association membership seems to have back-peddled on their decision to call 3840x2160 UltraHD so that consumers could clearly understand that 4K and what you see on a UHD TV are not the same thing.


Well, I call it 4K because nobody would know what I was talking about if I said UHD. Plus, 4K is easier to say and catchier. That doesn't change the fact that its not "4K". It's UltraHD or at best "4K UltraHD". Anyways, the whole point was that the 4K you see on Amazon, Netflix, YouTube, etc. vs. what you'll see on UHD BluRay isn't even in the same league.


----------



## patmurphey

SledgeHammer said:


> They do overly nitpick TVs over there. I'm not at that level LOL. But umm... yeah... I'd rather watch super high quality 1080P then marginal 4K. Who wouldn't??


Where are you getting every day TV from satellite that qualifies as "high quality 1080p"? The point is that I went from a quality Sharp 1080p LED/LCD TV to a quality Samsung 4k LED/LCD TV, and I am enjoying sharper satellite TV, not to mention 4k streaming. Blu-Ray 1080p movies are irrelevant to that point.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> They do overly nitpick TVs over there. I'm not at that level LOL. But umm... yeah... _*I'd rather watch super high quality 1080P then marginal 4K.*_ Who wouldn't??


And yet, you don't want to watch NF or Amazon? They both have superior PQ when compared to D*'s 1080i at this very moment.

Rich


----------



## GregLee

Rich said:


> And yet, you don't want to watch NF or Amazon? They both have superior PQ when compared to D*'s 1080i at this very moment.
> 
> Rich


That is not 100% true. I don't subscribe to NF, so I can't say about that. I do have Amazon Prime and have watched about 3 hours of their supposed UHD over my 16 Mbps net connection. It's not that great. It's not UHD, for one thing, only 1080p to me, and it is not as good as the best of D* HD channels. I do get 4k video from Youtube, and it's PQ is very good -- better than upscaled D* -- though there is not much 4k there that interests me.


----------



## Laxguy

Why not go for a 30 day freebie from 'Flix? Nothing to lose but time.


----------



## SledgeHammer

patmurphey said:


> Where are you getting every day TV from satellite that qualifies as "high quality 1080p"? The point is that I went from a quality Sharp 1080p LED/LCD TV to a quality Samsung 4k LED/LCD TV, and I am enjoying sharper satellite TV, not to mention 4k streaming. Blu-Ray 1080p movies are irrelevant to that point.


Didn't you say you paid like $600 for it? Maybe that was somebody else? What Samsung 4K TV can you get for $600 that would qualify as "quality"? LCD is fundamentally flawed as it is. Only now are they trying to "fix" the technology with stuff like FALD, etc. But those aren't available on the lower tier sets yet.


----------



## SledgeHammer

patmurphey said:


> Where are you getting every day TV from satellite that qualifies as "high quality 1080p"?


Who said anything about sat? I said on a conceptual level, I'd rather watch high quality 1080P video over marginal 4K. As in, the resolution itself doesn't make the quality. I don't do NF or Amazon, but would you say 1080i/p on NF/Amazon is better then DirecTV 1080i?


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> That is not 100% true. I don't subscribe to NF, so I can't say about that. I do have Amazon Prime and have watched about 3 hours of their supposed UHD over my 16 Mbps net connection.


Given your less than stellar Internet bandwidth (Both Amazon and Netflix recommend 25Mbps sustained), it may not be reasonable for you to pass judgement.


----------



## Smuuth

SledgeHammer said:


> Who said anything about sat? I said on a conceptual level, I'd rather watch high quality 1080P video over marginal 4K. As in, the resolution itself doesn't make the quality. I don't do NF or Amazon, but would you say 1080i/p on NF/Amazon is better then DirecTV 1080i?


 Since you admittedly don't watch Netflix or Amazon, and you do not as yet own a UHD TV, I would be interested to hear how you arrived at the conclusion that the 4K content on either is "marginal." Granted, I have an internet connection that is faster than most, so I do receive the highest possible bitrate from both Netflix and Amazon and IMO, the quality of the UHD content is very good. 
As for your last question, the quality of regular HD content I have watched on either of those streaming services is exceptional and is all 1080p, not 1080i.


----------



## P Smith

So, what's going on with DTV 4k channels, VOD, etc ?


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> So, what's going on with DTV 4k channels, VOD, etc ?


Nothing new. Thanks for asking.


----------



## peds48

James Long said:


> Nothing new. Thanks for asking.


That was funny and kind of mean...... !rolling


----------



## Laxguy

But not everyone will see any "meanness" in that reply. Terse, now, it was terse!


----------



## James Long

I understand Mr Smith's point ... most of this thread is not DirecTV specific and that information probably could be posted elsewhere on our site. But I also note that it is most of this thread - at this point the thread is what it is.

If there are any changes to DirecTV's offerings ... a linear 4K/UHD channel or more than PPV or an expansion in supported TVs I am sure someone will post the news. As for now "nothing new".


----------



## harsh

Understanding what UHD is and isn't, whether there may be multiple "levels" and how it relates to Cinema 4K and higher must be part of the process.


----------



## Rich

GregLee said:


> That is not 100% true. I don't subscribe to NF, so I can't say about that. I do have Amazon Prime and have watched about 3 hours of their supposed UHD over my 16 Mbps net connection. It's not that great. It's not UHD, for one thing, only 1080p to me, and it is not as good as the best of D* HD channels. I do get 4k video from Youtube, and it's PQ is very good -- better than upscaled D* -- though there is not much 4k there that interests me.


Huh. I know the Firebox TV delivers a better PQ than D* does and it uses both NF and Amazon content. Both providers put out similar PQ for most offerings but they are only in 1080p. I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe that Amazon puts out anything but 1080p. If I had to guess, I'd be looking at whatever you're using for Amazon content. But not even NF can put out a show made in 2004 (a _Trailer Park Boys_ movie I just watched) in 1080p and shine that up to the quality we see today on newer content. That 2004 movie I watched had a pretty poor picture on it.

Rich


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> Who said anything about sat? I said on a conceptual level, I'd rather watch high quality 1080P video over marginal 4K. As in, the resolution itself doesn't make the quality. I don't do NF or Amazon, but would you say 1080i/p on NF/Amazon is better then DirecTV 1080i?


Definitely better on NF and Amazon than on D*. Unless you're comparing the 1080p PPV movies. I did that once and D*'s PQ of _Australia _matched the BD of _Australia _nearly perfectly. So you don't do Amazon or NF. I don't do D* unless I absolutely have to because the PQ on D* 1080i comes nowhere close to either Amazon or NF. On a plasma 1080p set, you'd have to be blind or just plain too stubborn to admit D*'s 1080i is not as good as either Amazon or NF. There is no 1080i on either Amazon or NF using the streaming boxes I have.

Rich


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> Given your less than stellar Internet bandwidth (Both Amazon and Netflix recommend 25Mbps sustained), it may not be reasonable for you to pass judgement.


Yeah, if he's getting a better picture on D* than on Amazon something is wrong.

Rich


----------



## patmurphey

harsh said:


> Understanding what UHD is and isn't, whether there may be multiple "levels" and how it relates to Cinema 4K and higher must be part of the process.


But, a little irrelevant today based on today's available content...


----------



## peds48

James Long said:


> I understand Mr Smith's point ... most of this thread is not DirecTV specific and that information probably could be posted elsewhere on our site. But I also note that it is most of this thread - at this point the thread is what it is.
> 
> If there are any changes to DirecTV's offerings ... a linear 4K/UHD channel or more than PPV or an expansion in supported TVs I am sure someone will post the news. As for now "nothing new".


no harm was intended. Just trying to poke some fun.

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

patmurphey said:


> But, a little irrelevant today based on today's available content...


As long as TVs can display both it will remain irrelevant to anyone who is not a picky videophile.

Think about it ... HD is a marketing term. But is HD 720p, 1080i or 1080p? Or all three? We could have a heated thousand post thread about how 1080p is "true HD" and anything less isn't HD.

4K and UHD will be the same way ... marketing terms that people will fight over until nobody cares on either side of the argument.


----------



## harsh

patmurphey said:


> But, a little irrelevant today based on today's available content...


What available content? 

Clearly something other than UHD content available today is driving purchases of UHD equipment. People are buying based on what they hope is coming in this case. Part of this thread is helping to establish expectations for what that might be.


----------



## Diana C

Rich said:


> Definitely better on NF and Amazon than on D*. Unless you're comparing the 1080p PPV movies...


Excellent point...even h.264 at this point will still produce a much better result (better PQ and smaller sizes) if you can do multipass processing. This is going to be the challenge for the next several years for h.265. So far, ALL UHD content has been processed through a multi-pass process. You can't do multi-pass on live video. Yet another reason you are unlikely to see linear UHD anytime soon.


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> So far, ALL UHD content has been processed through a multi-pass process. You can't do multi-pass on live video. Yet another reason you are unlikely to see linear UHD anytime soon.


There are a couple of companies that offer what they call "real-time" H.265 systems. Surely the bandwidth required is going to be much more than a multi-pass encoding process but it is being done.

I think the more serious issue is that a lot of people are expecting that UHD will hit the ground at 60fps and that may be further out.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> There are a couple of companies that offer what they call "real-time" H.265 systems. Surely the bandwidth required is going to be much more than a multi-pass encoding process but it is being done.
> 
> I think the more serious issue is that a lot of people are expecting that UHD will hit the ground at 60fps and that may be further out.


I think the more I read, the more I appreciate the three 1080p sets I have. And BTW, I can see the difference in PQ on my five (my God, five of them I bought!) 720p sets when the feed is in 1080i or 720p. That's not aimed at you _*Harsh*_, don't start woofin' at me. :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> There are a couple of companies that offer what they call "real-time" H.265 systems. Surely the bandwidth required is going to be much more than a multi-pass encoding process but it is being done.
> 
> I think the more serious issue is that a lot of people are expecting that UHD will hit the ground at 60fps and that may be further out.


Oh sure...real-time h.265 encoders have existed for a year or so, but they are not used with UHD resolution content, nor do they reach the promised 50% bandwidth savings. I haven't been following this for the last couple of months, but as of Jan/Feb the available real-time h.265 encoders out there only produced an output that is 5% to 10% smaller than a h.264 encoder. That is still too big to be used for anything but private networks that can dedicate the required bandwidth. Even if they can get it to 25% smaller, that is still too large for even 30fps UHD over a cable QAM channel. You need to get it down to around 20 to 25 Mbit/sec or so (or about the Netflix recommended minimum bandwidth). AFAIK, only multi-pass can get down that small today.

Good point about 60fps...the "50% bandwidth savings" of h.265 is based on a comparison of 1080i/60 (which is the same as 1080p/30) to 2160p/30. In other words, 4 times the data in only double the space. 2160p/60 starts out 8 times larger than 1080i. So, at best, UHD at 60fps will be 2 times the size of 1080p/60 (or 4 times the size of 1080i, the largest format broadcast today). No one broadcasts linear 1080p/60 because it takes up too much bandwidth. How will they accommodate 2160p/60?

Does anybody watch "Silicon Valley" on HBO? The underlying plot thread is a developer that creates a *totally lossless* compression algorithm that reduces data rates to* less than 50% *of any competing method. Sometimes the promises I hear about h.265 sound like a similar claim.


----------



## harsh

[qu


Rich said:


> I think the more I read, the more I appreciate the three 1080p sets I have. And BTW, I can see the difference in PQ on my five (my God, five of them I bought!) 720p sets when the feed is in 1080i or 720p. That's not aimed at you _*Harsh*_, don't start woofin' at me. :rolling:


I can't really feel like you were going after me since your post didn't have anything to do with mine that you replied to.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Smuuth said:


> Since you admittedly don't watch Netflix or Amazon, and you do not as yet own a UHD TV, I would be interested to hear how you arrived at the conclusion that the 4K content on either is "marginal." Granted, I have an internet connection that is faster than most, so I do receive the highest possible bitrate from both Netflix and Amazon and IMO, the quality of the UHD content is very good.
> As for your last question, the quality of regular HD content I have watched on either of those streaming services is exceptional and is all 1080p, not 1080i.


Going off what I read on the forums and screenshots that people post and some common sense. The example posted over on AVS was Breaking Bad. The NF 4K streams are 15Mbps, right? How good can it be? The data rate for UltraHD BluRay is 108Mbps - 128Mbps.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Definitely better on NF and Amazon than on D*. Unless you're comparing the 1080p PPV movies. I did that once and D*'s PQ of _Australia _matched the BD of _Australia _nearly perfectly. So you don't do Amazon or NF. I don't do D* unless I absolutely have to because the PQ on D* 1080i comes nowhere close to either Amazon or NF. On a plasma 1080p set, you'd have to be blind or just plain too stubborn to admit D*'s 1080i is not as good as either Amazon or NF. There is no 1080i on either Amazon or NF using the streaming boxes I have.
> 
> Rich


I watch TV on DirecTV. Movies, I'll either do BluRay if its an FX movie or if I can find a good quality torrent.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Yeah, if he's getting a better picture on D* than on Amazon something is wrong.
> 
> Rich


I've got a 65Mbps connection. Haven't tried Amazon either. All those services are pretty pricey for what you get.


----------



## Diana C

SledgeHammer said:


> ...The NF 4K streams are 15Mbps, right? How good can it be? The data rate for UltraHD BluRay is 108Mbps - 128Mbps.


I think the NF streams are more like 18-20 Mbps (which is why they recommend a 25 Mbps broadband connection for best results). However, the real question facing UltraBluRay is will anybody care? The vast majority of consumers will just buy UHD Rokus...why pay for a UBD player and UBD movies, when you can get "the same thing" for a lot less via streaming. While you and I may understand the difference, consider how many people still watch DVDs. To most consumers "4K is 4K." I'm afraid that it will be the label that drives the market, not the actual audio and picture quality.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> I've got a 65Mbps connection. Haven't tried Amazon either. All those services are pretty pricey for what you get.


I would rate the content of NF over Amazon. Combined, they're just about perfect for my viewing needs. If they carried the Yankees, I'd be selling my D* equipment and cutting that particular cord. All their (D*) services are pretty pricey for what you get.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> I think the NF streams are more like 18-20 Mbps (which is why they recommend a 25 Mbps broadband connection for best results). However, the real question facing UltraBluRay is will anybody care? The vast majority of consumers will just buy UHD Rokus...why pay for a UBD player and UBD movies, when you can get "the same thing" for a lot less via streaming. While you and I may understand the difference, consider how many people still watch DVDs. To most consumers "4K is 4K." I'm afraid that it will be the label that drives the market, not the actual audio and _*picture quality.*_


Hence the proliferation of LCD TV sets?

Rich


----------



## harsh

Diana C said:


> However, the real question facing UltraBluRay is will anybody care?


This was a big issue in the early days of DVD and I believe that it is a significant issue for Blu-ray now. How much better can it be?


----------



## P Smith

Perhaps there's some news about DTV_plans_ for 4k content published or came from PR briefings ?


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> Oh sure...real-time h.265 encoders have existed for a year or so, but they are not used with UHD resolution content, nor do they reach the promised 50% bandwidth savings. I haven't been following this for the last couple of months, but as of Jan/Feb the available real-time h.265 encoders out there only produced an output that is 5% to 10% smaller than a h.264 encoder. That is still too big to be used for anything but private networks that can dedicate the required bandwidth. Even if they can get it to 25% smaller, that is still too large for even 30fps UHD over a cable QAM channel. You need to get it down to around 20 to 25 Mbit/sec or so (or about the Netflix recommended minimum bandwidth). AFAIK, only multi-pass can get down that small today.


While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think the bandwidth of a QAM channel really matters. Cable companies are moving to IP delivery using DOCSIS 3.x, and the timeline for that meshes so well with when true linear/live 4K channels will probably arrive that I'll bet they deploy 4K using IP only and never do it via QAM channels.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> I think the NF streams are more like 18-20 Mbps (which is why they recommend a 25 Mbps broadband connection for best results). However, the real question facing UltraBluRay is will anybody care? The vast majority of consumers will just buy UHD Rokus...why pay for a UBD player and UBD movies, when you can get "the same thing" for a lot less via streaming. While you and I may understand the difference, consider how many people still watch DVDs. To most consumers "4K is 4K." I'm afraid that it will be the label that drives the market, not the actual audio and picture quality.


As I've said before, given how many people bought HDTVs and believed they were watching HD when they didn't upgrade their cable box or kept tuning to the SD channel numbers, people are going to believe they're watching 4K if something is sold as 4K. Whether it has a bit rate of 15 Mbps or 120Mbps. We might notice/care, but a group of people who talk about TV technology online is not exactly a representative sample of the general populace !rolling


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> Perhaps there's some news about DTV_plans_ for 4k content published or came from PR briefings ?


Are you hinting that you have such news, or just hoping for something because you don't like the discussion going on? Directv is testing 4K but those involved can't post about it, so there's probably not any news for anyone to post/discuss until they publicly announce something.


----------



## Laxguy

P Smith said:


> Perhaps there's some news about DTV_plans_ for 4k content published or came from PR briefings ?


Haven't seen any. Perhaps you can find something?


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> Hence the proliferation of LCD TV sets?
> 
> Rich


No choice. Plasma doesn't scale to 4K. OLED would displace LCD if the price came down to be comparable.


----------



## GregLee

Rich said:


> Yeah, if he's getting a better picture on D* than on Amazon something is wrong.
> 
> Rich


I think "he" is me. Apparently Amazon has a problem delivering UHD, so that is one thing that's wrong. My internet connection is not great, but it doesn't keep me from getting 4k from Youtube. And I watch some user discussions on Amazon -- people with lots faster connections than me can't get UHD from Amazon, either. I'm using the Amazon app that came with my Samsung JS9000 TV.

The 1080p that I get from Amazon is not bad. When I compare it to D*, please bear in mind that I'm looking at D* upscaled to 4k on a premium 2015 TV which does a very good job of upscaling. With those qualifications, the best of the D* channels, upscaled to 4k, deliver better pictures than any 1080p I've seen from Amazon.

That's just the way it is.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> As I've said before, given how many people bought HDTVs and believed they were watching HD when they didn't upgrade their cable box or kept tuning to the SD channel numbers, people are going to believe they're watching 4K if something is sold as 4K. Whether it has a bit rate of 15 Mbps or 120Mbps. We might notice/care, but a group of people who talk about TV technology online is not exactly a representative sample of the general populace !rolling


I agree. The general population doesn't care. If the general population jumped off a bridge, would you too? 

My sisters husband (note my choice of words) is in the gen pop, he's fine with his $1500 LCD and 5Mbps internet service. He can't really complain since my sister pays for everything LOL.


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> Apparently Amazon has a problem delivering UHD, so that is one thing that's wrong.


Even if they weren't having a problem, you're setup doesn't meet their specifications for streaming UHD.


----------



## GregLee

harsh said:


> Even if they weren't having a problem, you're setup doesn't meet their specifications for streaming UHD.


I looked for a specification from Amazon, but I couldn't find one. Could you give me a reference?

PS: I just did find a spec. "You need a high-speed Internet connection of at least 15 Mbps to watch videos in UHD." it says at http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201648150
I don't know where you got that figure 25Mbps. But I have 16Mbps, as I said, and it doesn't work for UHD from Amazon Prime.


----------



## slice1900

SledgeHammer said:


> I agree. The general population doesn't care. If the general population jumped off a bridge, would you too?


The general population affects what you get. If they demanded Blu Ray quality HD, you would see that from providers, at least for a subset of the most popular channels. Because they don't care, we get 720p and 1080i that is compressed far below Blu Ray quality standards.

It sounds like you have standards equivalent to what an audiophile does for music. An audiophile doesn't think CD quality is good enough, hence the development of SACD and DVD-A. Unfortunately for audiophiles, those formats have gone almost nowhere, and MP3 and AAC are what have succeeded in the marketplace.


----------



## Diana C

slice1900 said:


> While I agree with what you're saying, I don't think the bandwidth of a QAM channel really matters. Cable companies are moving to IP delivery using DOCSIS 3.x, and the timeline for that meshes so well with when true linear/live 4K channels will probably arrive that I'll bet they deploy 4K using IP only and never do it via QAM channels.


No argument over the long term, but since most people still get their entertainment from cable TV, until the big "IP transition" happens there will be little demand for linear UHD since at least 2/3 of the country won't be able to get it. I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for QAM to be replaced with IP. While DOCSIS 3 is being deployed, it is being used more to provide more bandwidth through channel bonding. Converting all the cable systems in the country to be able to stream 200+ channels over IP will cost billions. This is not a near term development.


----------



## SledgeHammer

slice1900 said:


> It sounds like you have standards equivalent to what an audiophile does for music. An audiophile doesn't think CD quality is good enough, hence the development of SACD and DVD-A. Unfortunately for audiophiles, those formats have gone almost nowhere, and MP3 and AAC are what have succeeded in the marketplace.


Not at all. I think most audiophiles / videophiles are a joke. Really? That $15,000 / foot designer cable makes your $25,000 amp sound better? LMAO.

Aside from the car radio, I listen to pretty much strictly MP3s. I throw 'em away and find a better one if they don't sound good though. But generally you get a 2MB to 5MB one and they sound great.

Any audiophile would turn his nose up at my setup. I just have normal 5.1 speakers.

PQ wise, I like a good PQ obviously. But to me, that means no macro blocking and being able to make out dark scenes. When I hear a videophile talking about how he isn't happy with his TV cuz he was doing some "critical watching" last night and noticed a slight green tint in his $100 special edition Blu Ray of Avatar, I just roll my eyes.

That being said, if you take a 1.5 hr movie and compress it down to 500MB, its going to look like crap. Generally a 2GB to 4GB copy looks "good enough" for a throw away movie. If its a FX movie I really want to see, then yeah, I'll probably get a BR.

Re: 4K... if you take 128Mbps and compress it down to 20Mbps to 25Mbps, sorry, that's not going to look very good. You're just throwing away too much.


----------



## SledgeHammer

Rich said:


> All their (D*) services are pretty pricey for what you get.


I'm not unreasonable and don't expect them to give it out for free. I'm ok with the pricing on the new preferred xtra package. I get out of paying that stupid RSN fee! I don't need any of the movie channels because there's nothing every on them and I generally get movies way before they hit HBO. I wouldn't touch DirecTVs PPV with a 10ft pole though. Not to mention some of their other $15/hr "offerings". DirecTVs PPV pricing is absurd. $8 for a 24hr digital rental? Seriously?

But for the preferred xtra package / HD / DVR service? I'd say FMV is probably around $70. Not $110 like they charge sans discounts though.


----------



## Laxguy

SledgeHammer said:


> Re: 4K... if you take 128Mbps and compress it down to 20Mbps to 25Mbps, sorry, that's not going to look very good. You're just throwing away too much.


Don't mean to sound harsh, but you've experienced this first hand? What was original source, and who did the compression?


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> Don't mean to sound harsh, but you've experienced this first hand? What was original source, and who did the compression?


If you think about it, a 720p program is compressed to 6Mbps (give or take) when delivered to you by Directv was originally about 1.3 Gbps on SDI in the studio. Going from 128 Mbps to 25 Mbps is a loss, but you can't judge the size of the loss by the numbers involved.


----------



## slice1900

Diana C said:


> No argument over the long term, but since most people still get their entertainment from cable TV, until the big "IP transition" happens there will be little demand for linear UHD since at least 2/3 of the country won't be able to get it. I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for QAM to be replaced with IP. While DOCSIS 3 is being deployed, it is being used more to provide more bandwidth through channel bonding. Converting all the cable systems in the country to be able to stream 200+ channels over IP will cost billions. This is not a near term development.


Obviously the option is only available to those that have deployed DOCSIS 3. Some will lag, just as some have some analog channels while others have gone all digital.


----------



## Laxguy

slice1900 said:


> If you think about it, a 720p program is compressed to 6Mbps (give or take) when delivered to you by Directv was originally about 1.3 Gbps on SDI in the studio. Going from 128 Mbps to 25 Mbps is a loss, but you can't judge the size of the loss by the numbers involved.


 Exactly.

Moreover, the larger the file (assuming commensurate higher quality), the better the end results almost regardless of how much it's compressed. (With best compression methods, of course.)


----------



## SledgeHammer

Laxguy said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Moreover, the larger the file (assuming commensurate higher quality), the better the end results almost regardless of how much it's compressed. (With best compression methods, of course.)


Well, some people do complain about the NF 4K quality. I haven't seen it first hand since I don't have a 4K set yet. Just makes sense. I have seen it first hand on streaming... when people take a 2 hr movie and compress it down to 300MB to 500MB because they don't feel like uploading a huge file. A 2hr movie compressed down to 1GB depending on the codec is nothing more then "passable". Definitely would not call it good or great or awesome. Some codecs are better then others obviously. So, yeah... size isn't the end all / be all of quality judgement, but its still a fairly good indicator. I'll always pick the larger file unless it specifically says that the larger file was compressed with MPEG2 or something or is one of the known bloated codecs. Size is definitely the easiest and "generally" most accurate judge of PQ.


----------



## Laxguy

Not in my experience. Size matters, but it's not the be all and tell all in video quality (other matters, too.) 

You haven't experienced the crappy picture of 20-25 Mbps that you complained about? (The one compressed from over a Gig ps)


----------



## SledgeHammer

Laxguy said:


> Not in my experience. Size matters, but it's not the be all and tell all in video quality (other matters, too.)
> 
> You haven't experienced the crappy picture of 20-25 Mbps that you complained about? (The one compressed from over a Gig ps)


Just from the NF 4K reviews. And I didn't "complain" about it. I said, based on reviews, its not very good. At least thats what people are saying about Breaking Bad in the reviews that I've seen.


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> I looked for a specification from Amazon, but I couldn't find one. Could you give me a reference?


As it turns out, the 25Mbps number came from Amazon's UHD info page and was actually talking about Netflix's requirements, not that of Amazon Prime.

In any event, you're running dangerously close to the edge and that specification is for sustained throughput, not the "boost of speed" that you might get during a short speed test.

My ISP is selling me a service that claims "up to" 30Mbps and using a speed test tool, it shows up to 32Mbps but after a minute or so, the number drops to around 13Mbps and sticks there like glue.


----------



## SledgeHammer

harsh said:


> As it turns out, the 25Mbps number came from Amazon's UHD info page and was actually talking about Netflix's requirements, not that of Amazon Prime.
> 
> In any event, you're running dangerously close to the edge and that specification is for sustained throughput, not the "boost of speed" that you might get during a short speed test.
> 
> My ISP is selling me a service that claims "up to" 30Mbps and using a speed test tool, it shows up to 32Mbps but after a minute or so, the number drops to around 13Mbps and sticks there like glue.


Mine is the exact opposite. My tier is "up to" 50Mbps and I get a rock solid 65Mbps.


----------



## dennisj00

SledgeHammer said:


> Mine is the exact opposite. My tier is "up to" 50Mbps and I get a rock solid 65Mbps.


But that 'Rock Solid 65' can turn into mush to a different server.


----------



## Tom Robertson

dennisj00 said:


> But that 'Rock Solid 65' can turn into mush to a different server.


Doesn't matter. The speed we're measuring is the last mile (or so.) If you can get a rock solid, sustained 65Mbs from any server, you know the local link is good enough.

Granted, Amazon and Netflix might not have the best peering arrangements to your ISP--that's a different problem. (That the FCC is also adressing, in a manner of speaking.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Diana C

Laxguy said:


> ...Size matters...


It's not the size of the boat, it's the motion of the ocean.


----------



## Rich

SledgeHammer said:


> No choice. Plasma doesn't scale to 4K. OLED would displace LCD if the price came down to be comparable.


Yeah, I know. Permit me some bitterness about the death of the plasmas. And the Beta-Max. And all the other things that were simply the best but were phased out because something else was cheaper.

Rich


----------



## P Smith

DTV could vocalize their real plans for 4k distribution much clearly - D14 is alive and D15 coming soon


----------



## GregLee

P Smith said:


> DTV could vocalize their real plans for 4k distribution much clearly - D14 is alive and D15 coming soon


And this has what relevance to buying a new 4k TV?


----------



## James Long

GregLee said:


> And this has what relevance to buying a new 4k TV?


If one knew DirecTV's plans one could make a more informed decision on what TV to get.

For now "wait and see" seems to be the best option. Or one could end up with a vibrant screen that cannot display a DirecTV signal.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> If one knew DirecTV's plans one could make a more informed decision on what TV to get.
> 
> For now "wait and see" seems to be the best option. Or one could end up with a vibrant screen that cannot display a DirecTV signal.


I think you should be safe long run if you get a TV that works with the latest set of tech specs for hdmi Hi Definition please etc that they have been finalizing for bluray uhd players.


----------



## yosoyellobo

James Long said:


> If one knew DirecTV's plans one could make a more informed decision on what TV to get.For now "wait and see" seems to be the best option. Or one could end up with a vibrant screen that cannot display a DirecTV signal.


I am more interested in ESPN plan at this moment.


----------



## slice1900

P Smith said:


> DTV could vocalize their real plans for 4k distribution much clearly - D14 is alive and D15 coming soon


You assume Directv knows their plans well enough to be much more clear about them. Perhaps they could tell us more than they have so far (which is basically "it is coming") but what you get and when depends to a large extent on when 4K broadcast content becomes available. There are exactly zero 4K channels announced in the US (and only one announced in Europe) ESPN or whoever might give Directv a target date "we plan to initiate broadcasts by such-and-such" but they might not want or even allow Directv to make this information public because they aren't certain of the date - they probably have things they're waiting for like getting new encoders, upgrading studios to handle it, and so forth that may fall behind schedule or run into unanticipated issues.

I don't see what the big hurry is, even if Directv announced ESPN 4K is coming June 1st I would still tell anyone who asked to hold off on buying a 4K TV until the standards shake out a bit better. The first channels will have very little original content, most will either be repetitive or HD content that may or may not have been upconverted in the studio. Nothing you'd really miss out on by waiting a bit.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

"Hannah" mentioned 4K in her D* ad during the KY darby, yesterday. I don't recall if the horse agreed this time or not.


----------



## Tom Robertson

P Smith said:


> DTV could vocalize their real plans for 4k distribution much clearly - D14 is alive and D15 coming soon


Has DIRECTV ever announced their plans? Typically they announce there readies--not their plans. 

Basically unless something drastic happens, we who have watched how DIRECTV does things for awhile now know that DIRECTV is going to be ahead of the curve, helping the networks running with the new technologies. They likely have been working with TV makers, set top box makers, networks, and studios for months, years planning these transitions.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Steve

Delroy E Walleye said:


> "Hannah" mentioned 4K in her D* ad during the KY darby, yesterday. I don't recall if the horse agreed this time or not.


There was a horse in that ad?


----------



## Diana C

Tom Robertson said:


> Has DIRECTV ever announced their plans?...


Actually, you're correct: they haven't announce any plans. They have announced a _*possibility*_...maybe you could call it an _*intention*_...that DirecTV 14 and/or 15 will permit UHD content via satellite. Note that I said "will _permit_" not "will _support_." RDBS might be used for that, or it might not. UHD may be delivered via satellite, or it might not. All they have really said is that they will have the ability, with the new satellites, to deliver some new services, and UHD was on the list of possible new services.


----------



## slice1900

Yep, nothing is guaranteed just because they say it is their intention to do something. In their original application for RDBS they talked about how it would allow them to add a lot of 3D content! :rolling:


----------



## James Long

Plans were easier to make public before "social media". It once was that a company could say "we're thinking about doing X sometime later this year". Now the mere mention of "X" is treated like a carved in stone promise with dates that were never given added by random observers. "X later this year means a June release date - that is later this year."

Companies have learned to keep their mouths shut to avoid bad press. After all, "bad press" was once credentialed media. Now anyone with a blog is "press" and tools like Facebook and Twitter allow anyone who can create content to become a pundit harming the company's reputation. Regardless of what the company is or the qualifications of the insult artist.

Results are better than promises. Wait for results.


----------



## Rich

Delroy E Walleye said:


> "Hannah" mentioned 4K in her D* ad during the KY darby, yesterday. I don't recall if the horse agreed this time or not.


You can actually concentrate on what the announcer in the background is saying? :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Ed Campbell

inkahauts said:


> I think you should be safe long run if you get a TV that works with the latest set of tech specs for hdmi Hi Definition please etc that they have been finalizing for bluray uhd players.


I've run Amazon, Netflix, 4K & upscaled 1080p, AppleTV 1080p upscaled, D* 1080i upscaled -- WAF terrific, at least once a week I catch myself saying "boy, am I glad I made the change.".

And put my 2 yr old Sammy in the guesthouse for my father-in-law's visits.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Steve said:


> There was a horse in that ad?


----------



## Steve

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Hannah-4K.JPG


Still can't see it!

:righton:


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Rich said:


> You can actually concentrate on what the announcer in the background is saying? :rolling:
> 
> Rich


Apparently, the "horse" wasn't listening, either!
View attachment HannahKY-4K.mp3


----------



## Laxguy

Hah! Sounds like the voice of one of the guys on Flight of the Conchords. His style, too.


----------



## Rich

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Hannah-4K.JPG


I wanna be Derek Jeter when I grow up!!! :rolling:

Rich


----------



## Delroy E Walleye

Laxguy said:


> Hah! Sounds like the voice of one of the guys on Flight of the Conchords. His style, too.


I think it probably is. I suspected as soon as I saw the first "Hannah" commercial, and posted this last month:

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/217220-ad-board-recommends-directv-discontinue-rob-lowe-ads/page-3#entry3352262

Jemaine Clement, maybe?


----------



## GregLee

Comcast announced yesterday a UHD set-top box due later this year, and a HDR version due next year. http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-to-launch-4k-uhd-set-top-box


----------



## Laxguy

Delroy E Walleye said:


> I think it probably is. I suspected as soon as I saw the first "Hannah" commercial, and posted this last month:
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/217220-ad-board-recommends-directv-discontinue-rob-lowe-ads/page-3#entry3352262
> 
> Jemaine Clement, maybe?


I think you nailed it!


----------



## Laxguy

GregLee said:


> Comcast announced yesterday a UHD set-top box due later this year, and a HDR version due next year. http://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/news-feed/comcast-to-launch-4k-uhd-set-top-box


Huh. They announce that one can "create unlimited virtual UHD channels". Big deal! But what does that really mean? Custom playlists?


----------



## GregLee

Laxguy said:


> Huh. They announce that one can "create unlimited virtual UHD channels". Big deal! But what does that really mean? Custom playlists?


I'll guess it's some sort of VOD scheme.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Huh. They announce that one can "create unlimited virtual UHD channels".


It certainly screams non-linear programming.

Hundreds of choices is certainly better than two or three.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Huh. They announce that one can "create unlimited virtual UHD channels". Big deal! But what does that really mean? Custom playlists?


Yes - The subtitle of the article says that clearly:
"X1 to debut Xfinity in UHD with hundreds of titles added including hit series from Starz, Syfy, USA and films originally shown in IMAX®, enabling customers to create  unlimited virtual 4k linear channels *with customized playlist feature*."

The content base looks pretty good ... perhaps DirecTV will be able to provide something similar?

"Initially launched last year on 2014 Samsung UHD TVs, Xfinity in UHD offers one of the biggest and best 4K libraries available today, providing Xfinity TV customers with on demand access to full current seasons of some of the season's hottest shows, Giant Screen films and more at no additional cost."

I'd consider that "throwing down the gauntley". Beat that?


----------



## dennisj00

James Long said:


> Yes - The subtitle of the article says that clearly:
> "X1 to debut Xfinity in UHD with hundreds of titles added including hit series from Starz, Syfy, USA and films originally shown in IMAX®, enabling customers to create  unlimited virtual 4k linear channels *with customized playlist feature*."
> 
> The content base looks pretty good ... perhaps DirecTV will be able to provide something similar?
> 
> "Initially launched last year on 2014 Samsung UHD TVs, Xfinity in UHD offers one of the biggest and best 4K libraries available today, providing Xfinity TV customers with on demand access to full current seasons of some of the season's hottest shows, Giant Screen films and* more at no additional cost."*
> 
> I'd consider that "throwing down the gauntley". Beat that?


Pretty impressive!


----------



## Laxguy

I'd be happy with DIRECTV® just seeing the raise. Bumping would be all right, too......


----------



## harsh

Until the STBs show up, it is really kind of a token gesture but Comcast was obviously aiming to be much less token than DIRECTV.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> Until the STBs show up, it is really kind of a token gesture but Comcast was obviously aiming to be much less token than DIRECTV.


That's a harsh and baseless judgement: You don't know who's aiming for what except for what the marketing folks put out.

I'm a Missourian when it comes to this: Show me!


----------



## James Long

Comcast is delivering to Samsung TVs. The only "yet to be proven" promise is the same as DirecTV's, delivering to other brands.

If both providers can deliver to the same devices the difference comes back to the content and price. How robust is the list of 4K/UHD content available when comparing DirecTV against all competition?


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> That's a harsh and baseless judgement: You don't know who's aiming for what except for what the marketing folks put out.


It isn't about what they're aiming at but what they're delivering. Comcast is doing pretty much all the same things that DIRECTV is but with a larger library that includes a few current network TV shows.

It appears also that Comcast's version doesn't require a Whole Home DVR system to deliver.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> It appears also that Comcast's version doesn't require a Whole Home DVR system to deliver.


That part is pretty irrelevant since early adopters to 4K will very likely be early adopters to other technology like whole home DVRs. Down the road maybe it matters, but when you reach the point where people with a single TV or who don't even have/want a DVR subscribe to 4K both Comcast's and Directv's offerings will have changed and expanded quite a bit.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Down the road maybe it matters, but when you reach the point where people with a single TV or who don't even have/want a DVR subscribe to 4K both Comcast's and Directv's offerings will have changed and expanded quite a bit.


Think about how much money you could save by not having a DVR on a DIRECTV account versus the ARS fee required now. With the ARPU now up over $105, it is a consideration.

According to Patrick Doyle, there are still 5 million DIRECTV households that are SD only and 8 million without an HD DVR.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> Think about how much money you could save by not having a DVR on a DIRECTV account versus the ARS fee required now. With the ARPU now up over $105, it is a consideration.
> 
> According to Patrick Doyle, there are still 5 million DIRECTV households that are SD only and 8 million without an HD DVR.


I'm not sure that 5 million says what you think it does.

Regardless, people who are still SD only or don't have DVRs in 2015 are not going to be early adopters for 4K so why does the current restriction for a WHDVR matter there? Until there are linear 4K broadcasts there is no option for using a receiver to view 4K content on any provider.

Directv appears to be moving away from individual receivers, if the development of the H44 is indicative of their direction. That handful of future 4K receiver only customers could be served by an H44 or follow on versions of it, along with 4K capable clients and/or RVU TVs. No DVR fee.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> I'm not sure that 5 million says what you think it does.


I'm pretty sure that it means exactly what I think it does.


Patrick Doyle said:


> In fact, we surpassed the 12 million mark for customers HD DVRs and the 15 million mark for subscribers with HD equipment.


If they've passed 15 million with HD equipment, arithmetic tells us that the rest don't have HD equipment (not just lacking HD programming).


> Regardless, people who are still SD only or don't have DVRs in 2015 are not going to be early adopters for 4K so why does the current restriction for a WHDVR matter there? Until there are linear 4K broadcasts there is no option for using a receiver to view 4K content on any provider.


By year end, there certainly will be.


> Directv appears to be moving away from individual receivers, if the development of the H44 is indicative of their direction. That handful of future 4K receiver only customers could be served by an H44 or follow on versions of it, along with 4K capable clients and/or RVU TVs. No DVR fee.


The H44 seems to me to be an answer to the question of building non-residential distribution systems rather than a home user solution. The fee structure for new residential subscribers does not seem to provide for your vision.

Of course if DIRECTV continues to offer only DoD UHD titles by the teaspoon, your version of the future certainly works just fine for DIRECTV.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> That part is pretty irrelevant since early adopters to 4K will very likely be early adopters to other technology like whole home DVRs.


You can perfectly well be an early adopter with no interest in the whole home feature. I have two 4k TVs, no whole home.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> I'm pretty sure that it means exactly what I think it does.


Directv had a pie chart in their investor day presentation from Dec. 2013 that showed about 55% of their "20M+ total subs" with an HD DVR, about 15% HD, a bit less than 20% SD, a bit more than 5% SD DVR, and 5% "commercial". The total between the SD and SD DVR looked to be just under a quarter of the total pie chart. I believe that five million number in the quarterly call was subscribers with ANY SD equipment, not five million subscribers with ONLY SD equipment.

The reason I think he meant 15 million subscribers with ONLY HD equipment is because otherwise that would mean Directv did not churn out any SD only subscribers in over a year - despite not doing any SD only installs since July and statements that the higher APRU customers churn the least and the lower APRU customers (i.e. SD only no DVR) customers churn the most. Unless almost no SD customers have left since December, which seems pretty unlikely, they have to have dropped. Based on their churn rate and statements that SD customers churn at a higher rate, I'd expect them to be losing well over a million SD only subscribers in 2014 and a similar number in 2015.

By the time there are linear 4K channels, the H44 will be released and it won't matter. I don't know why you think it is targeted at non-residential installs, there is nothing in the specs known about it that suggests that at all. Since Directv doesn't permit two Genies on the same account because they don't play well together WRT to clients, the H44 is rather ill suited to the needs of commercial accounts. Three or four TVs is hardly enough for anyone aside from light commercial like a doctor's waiting room, to go beyond that will require regular receivers. It would be good for that minority of subscribers who don't want a DVR who do want 4K programming.

As for GregLee, you'll have to pony up that extra $3/month for whole home (plus whatever they eventually charge for 4K service once they have enough channels that they can justify it) if you want 4K on your TVs, because it doesn't look good for Directv producing any new model single tuner receivers or dual tuner DVRs with or without 4K support.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> As for GregLee, you'll have to pony up that extra $3/month for whole home (plus whatever they eventually charge for 4K service once they have enough channels that they can justify it) if you want 4K on your TVs, because it doesn't look good for Directv producing any new model single tuner receivers or dual tuner DVRs with or without 4K support.


Nope. I'll get 4k and HDR by streaming or, preferably, from UHD blu-ray around Christmas time. So far, DirecTV's 4k plans seem completely uninteresting, to me.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> As for GregLee, you'll have to pony up that extra $3/month for whole home (plus whatever they eventually charge for 4K service once they have enough channels that they can justify it) if you want 4K on your TVs, because it doesn't look good for Directv producing any new model single tuner receivers or dual tuner DVRs with or without 4K support.


Nope. I'll get 4k and HDR by streaming or, preferably, from UHD blu-ray around Christmas time. So far, DirecTV's 4k plans seem completely uninteresting, to me.


----------



## inkahauts

GregLee said:


> You can perfectly well be an early adopter with no interest in the whole home feature. I have two 4k TVs, no whole home.


Whole Home Service means nothing really unless you are an old subscriber. Harsh just likes to say you have to pay more for Whole Home Service which no one does. No one. If it's separated out on your bill then you are getting a discount against regular prices today for DVR service. End of story.

The real key is you need more than one TV in the house. And a genie. And the right second TV. That is true and Comcast seems to be the first to say they will have a system out where you won't need multiple tvs do to 4k.

Eventually in sure no one will require multiple tvs in a house.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Directv had a pie chart in their investor day presentation from Dec. 2013 that showed about 55% of their "20M+ total subs" with an HD DVR, about 15% HD, a bit less than 20% SD, a bit more than 5% SD DVR, and 5% "commercial". The total between the SD and SD DVR looked to be just under a quarter of the total pie chart. I believe that five million number in the quarterly call was subscribers with ANY SD equipment, not five million subscribers with ONLY SD equipment.


You can reason all you want but the message from Mr. Doyle stands on its own and isn't subject to the usual obfuscation of throwing SD DVRs into the "advanced equipment" class. If the customers are not "with HD equipment", they have all SD equipment.


----------



## harsh

GregLee said:


> So far, DirecTV's 4k plans seem completely uninteresting, to me.


The current token gesture is surely not something that they can compete with. They will have to do something considerably more appealing.

Of course if nobody releases compelling UHD content, none of this will matter. UHD may be the future, but that may be a surprisingly distant future. Archiving major events for posterity is one thing but sending out oldies, talking heads and cartoons in UHD is going to be a very hard sell.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> You can reason all you want but the message from Mr. Doyle stands on its own and isn't subject to the usual obfuscation of throwing SD DVRs into the "advanced equipment" class. *If the customers are not "with HD equipment", they have all SD equipment.*


Then again...that population is dwindling in rapid form and will become small enough to be a blip on the radar soon enough.

Anyone not on HD by this time...would seem to be so far behind the curve of TV in this day and age...that they will not garner any significant attention (as it should be).


----------



## studechip

GregLee said:


> You can perfectly well be an early adopter with no interest in the whole home feature. I have two 4k TVs, no whole home.


Then you don't have a Genie, yes?


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> Harsh just likes to say you have to pay more for Whole Home Service which no one does. No one.


So they're charging $15 for DVR service (unless you have a TiVo where they charge $20/month)? I'm betting WHDS is included in that fee.

I just ran an XTRA package with a free HD receiver and again with a *FREE* HD DVR and the monthly difference was the $15 ARS fee.

If DIRECTV is no longer charging for something, it is HD but that's surely where the TV fee comes in on the first receiver.


----------



## GregLee

studechip said:


> Then you don't have a Genie, yes?


That's right. 2 HR24s and no Genie.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> If DIRECTV is no longer charging for something, it is HD but that's surely where the TV fee comes in on the first receiver.


IF you were new to DIRECTV® you had no idea that they change for HD before. Knowing this, the $15 fee which is added once you get a DVR can be said that is for DVR service. You can't pick and choose what the fee is for based in older concepts.


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> You can't pick and choose what the fee is for based in older concepts.


That they don't charge extra for WHDS suggests that it is included in the MUCH higher DVR fee.


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> That they don't charge extra for WHDS suggests that it is included in the MUCH higher DVR fee.


"suggest" is the keyword. That is your OPINION and one that I dont agree with. Bottom line is that DIRECTV® does not charge for WHDS. you will never see aline item for WHDS, regardless of your spin.


----------



## James Long

peds48 said:


> "suggest" is the keyword. That is your OPINION and one that I dont agree with. Bottom line is that DIRECTV® does not charge for WHDS. you will never see aline item for WHDS, regardless of your spin.


Don't they charge every new customer with a DVR for the service whether they use it or not? Does anybody provide anything for free or are all non line itemed costs just bundled somewhere else in the price?


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> That they don't charge extra for WHDS suggests that it is included in the MUCH higher DVR fee.


Higher than what exactly? They haven't changed the price in over three years.... For anyone who paid for DVR and Whole Home Service separately vs the new fee it's a total of $2 difference. And it includes also pandora and on demand... Talk about somewhere they have had to expand big time in the last few years is on demand abilities....

It truly is an advanced abilities fee. And it's one time per account. But then you know this and just like to spin anything negative you can.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> Don't they charge every new customer with a DVR for the service whether they use it or not? Does anybody provide anything for free or are all non line itemed costs just bundled somewhere else in the price?


As I just pointed out... They have one fee for advanced services and it covers anything that your can do/get with a DVR in your system. It's a one price for any and all abilities.


----------



## peds48

James Long said:


> Don't they charge every new customer with a DVR for the service whether they use it or not?


Correct, if you get a DVR and/or Genie, you pay the Advanced Receiver Service" fee of $15. Whether you use the services that are "bundled" or "part of" a DVR.


----------



## Oli74

I want to get 4K in the future but why does DirecTv recommends me to get a Samsung 4K TV? Wouldn't it work say on a Sony 4K TV ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## longrider

Oli74 said:


> I want to get 4K in the future but why does DirecTv recommends me to get a Samsung 4K TV? Wouldn't it work say on a Sony 4K TV ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Samsung issue is because currently the only way you can get 4K from DirecTV is with a RVU TV and only Samsung makes a DirecTV compatible RVU TV. Once DirecTV releases a receiver or Genie client that can output 4K on HDMI you will be able to use any 4K TV.


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> Bottom line is that DIRECTV® does not charge for WHDS. you will never see aline item for WHDS, regardless of your spin.


Because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. How do you explain the substantial disparity in service fees?

Did you forget that WHDS is the first bullet point in DIRECTV's description of ARS?


DIRECTV ARS FAQ said:


> Advanced Receiver Service gives customers with any HD DVR receiver access to all of the cutting-edge features available from DIRECTV, including:
> 
> Whole-Home DVR: The ability to record and watch shows in any room, with one HD DVR. (Requires a Genie® HD DVR and one Genie Mini for each additional TV, or a DIRECTV Plus HD DVR and an HD receiver for each additional TV)
> Access to HD programming
> Thousands shows and movies On Demand
> Live TV on your tablet or mobile device anywhere in your home
> The new HD On-Screen Guide
> Pandora Internet radio on your TV
> Facebook and Twitter connection to share your favorite shows


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> Because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. How do you explain the substantial disparity in service fees?


or because it isn't there means it does not exits.


----------



## Rich

Pretty good sales going on now at PC Richards. Anyone interested might want to Google that site. Caught my attention this morning with a flyer in the Sunday papers. Decent prices for 4K sets, I think. 

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

longrider said:


> The Samsung issue is because currently the only way you can get 4K from DirecTV is with a RVU TV and only Samsung makes a DirecTV compatible RVU TV. Once DirecTV releases a receiver or Genie client that can output 4K on HDMI you will be able to use any 4K TV.


I would not say any 4k TV. He should read some of the other threads about the differences in compliance with Hdmi and hdcp specs before choosing a TV IMHO.


----------



## James Long

harsh said:


> Because you can't see something doesn't mean it isn't there. How do you explain the substantial disparity in service fees?


Give it a rest. Unless you are talking about service fees for 4K you are out of line in this thread.
(Service fees for 4K beyond the client fee for using the TV which is not specific for 4K.)

End service fee discussion and any commentary on said discussion.


----------



## damondlt

I had a question.
When directv will have live streaming of 4K program ,is it true it will require 2 tuners off the Genie to do so?
And if 4K is the next big thing according to Directv, why is the New HR54 still only a 5 tuner DVR?


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> I had a question.
> When directv will have live streaming of 4K program ,is it true it will require 2 tuners off the Genie to do so?
> And if 4K is the next big thing according to Directv, why is the New HR54 still only a 5 tuner DVR?


I think it will require two tuners because of the obviously advantages for multiplexing multiple channels across 2 or 3 transponders instead of just one. But if they go that way I think it may be down the road a bit, because they wouldn't really _need_ that capability until there are at least a couple dozen 4K channels.

As for the HR54, I don't think anything has been made public about the number of tuners, maybe the beta testers know something. It will probably either be the same 5, or maybe 7 (8 tuner chip with one dedicated to the guide)


----------



## kevinwmsn

I would think the next model HR54 could display 4K. I would be hoping for more tuners, or the possibility of having multiple Genies that would play nice together. I could see families of 4 or more needing more than 5 tuners easily, running 4 TVs on them doesn't leave much available for recordings.


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> I think it will require two tuners because of the obviously advantages for multiplexing multiple channels across 2 or 3 transponders instead of just one. But if they go that way I think it may be down the road a bit, because they wouldn't really _need_ that capability until there are at least a couple dozen 4K channels.
> 
> As for the HR54, I don't think anything has been made public about the number of tuners, maybe the beta testers know something. It will probably either be the same 5, or maybe 7 (8 tuner chip with one dedicated to the guide)


The" other "place, was stating it's a 5 tuner and will require 2 tuners for live 4K streaming.
I'm not welcome there but I still read over the forums.
Check it out, Read it over its the HR54 thread.


----------



## Tom Robertson

There isn't any need for DIRECTV to require two tuners for 4k. The transponders are easily able to handle 4k channels. How many per transponder? I don't know. Probably more than one and less than 6... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## damondlt

So, are you saying Scott is full of FUD?
Did you guys go check out the thread over there?
I mean if he's providing false info, that's not good IMO.


----------



## damondlt

Scotts, Quote

Well remember DIRECTV will be using transponder bonding for the live 4K channels meaning it will use two tuners to be able to watch one live 4K Channel. For that reason it would be good to have more tuners.


----------



## Tom Robertson

damondlt said:


> So, are you saying Scott is full of FUD?
> Did you guys go check out the thread over there?
> I mean if he's providing false info, that's not good IMO.


My understanding is he has been accused of such in the past... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## damondlt

Tom Robertson said:


> My understanding is he has been accused of such in the past...
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Here I posted his statement . It's above your last post.


----------



## Laxguy

So, for us uninitiated, who is Scott and where's the beef?


----------



## peds48

damondlt said:


> Check it out, Read it over its the HR54 thread.


As far as I can tell, no one on that thread has a 54 and all is our speculation.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> The" other "place, was stating it's a 5 tuner and will require 2 tuners for live 4K streaming.
> I'm not welcome there but I still read over the forums.
> Check it out, Read it over its the HR54 thread.


If I recall, he was the one who posted about the imminent release of the HR46 and HR54 Genies back in Dec. 2013. Yeah, there's an HR54 about to come out (they've linked FCC docs) but no sign of the HR46. And "HR54" was a pretty easy name to guess considering the HR34 and HR44 

I don't see anything in the linked drawing that suggests it is 5 tuners like they inferred. I see a reference to a "SWM5" which could mean a 5 LNB. I think it is more likely that drawing says it has 8 tuners (but like I said before, probably only 7 usable) but there's nothing conclusive.

As for doing transponder bonding and using two transponders per channel, I suggested that might be a possibly last fall after researching the DVB-S2X specs. Note that this does NOT mean that a single channel would require more than one transponder, just that multiple channels will fit better in two transponders than in one. Right now Directv has about 39.4 Mbps per transponder, though with DVB-S2X they could squeeze a little more out of it. With 4K channels suggested to require 25-30 Mbps (more for 60 fps and 120 fps) even two in a transponder might be a tight fit. Makes it a lot easier to do the statistical multiplexing that combines multiple channels into one transponder for SD & HD if they had two transponders worth of bandwidth to devote to it. That feature was added to DVB-S2X specifically due to the bandwidth demands of 4K channels.


----------



## slice1900

Should have looked at the last couple posts, they had a spec sheet for the HR54 that says it has 5 tuners. Also says it does DVB-S2 not DVB-S2X so it won't be able to handle bonded transponders.


----------



## mexican-bum

slice1900 said:


> I don't see anything in the linked drawing that suggests it is 5 tuners like they inferred. I see a reference to a "SWM5" which could mean a 5 LNB. I think it is more likely that drawing says it has 8 tuners (but like I said before, probably only 7 usable) but there's nothing conclusive.


Look at the post again, its been updated, I think you hit the nail on the head with the 7 usable tuners


----------



## slice1900

mexican-bum said:


> Look at the post again, its been updated, I think you hit the nail on the head with the 7 usable tuners


Well if the spec sheet is wrong on that, maybe it is also wrong on the DVB-S2X support. When I looking at the specs on the Broadcom chip it supposedly uses, it is only a dual tuner chip. So that spec info posted is probably not too reliable.


----------



## mexican-bum

slice1900 said:


> Well if the spec sheet is wrong on that, maybe it is also wrong on the DVB-S2X support. When I looking at the specs on the Broadcom chip it supposedly uses, it is only a dual tuner chip. So that spec info posted is probably not too reliable.


I am thinking that spec sheet is from an hr44 and somehow got into the hr54 fcc document.


----------



## damondlt

Yeah, the picture they have shows Swm 7. 
I'm going to assume that it has 7 usable tuners, which IMO is great news.

But there is so much conflicting information in that thread, I'm not sure what to make of it.


----------



## damondlt

Laxguy said:


> So, for us uninitiated, who is Scott and where's the beef?


Satellite guys


----------



## damondlt

peds48 said:


> As far as I can tell, no one on that thread has a 54 and all is our speculation.


Yep I see lots of BS in that thread.
Not just about the HR54 either!


----------



## Laxguy

Yes, Damon, I know he posts on Sat guys. I asked a different question!


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> Yeah, the picture they have shows Swm 7.
> I'm going to assume that it has 7 usable tuners, which IMO is great news.


It will probably be miserable news for all the people who schemed to get their HR34s replaced with HR44s, who will suddenly feel their HR44s are inferior and be very upset when Directv continues to claim all Genies are the same


----------



## damondlt

Laxguy said:


> Yes, Damon, I know he posts on Sat guys. I asked a different question!


Where's the beef?


----------



## Laxguy

If you can't answer the question as to who this Scott character is, and what's his POV, just say so!


----------



## Drew2k

Scott G. is the owner and operator of the other forum.


----------



## damondlt

Laxguy said:


> If you can't answer the question as to who this Scott character is, and what's his POV, just say so!


Ask the questions in English and I could answer them.
Damn!

Like who is Scott from SatelliteGuys?

I know exactly whom he is.
Long before Laxguy that's for sure.


----------



## damondlt

Anyways, It looks like they have a "First look".

Still showing 5 tuners.


----------



## Laxguy

Damon- You still dodged the question. What is this guy's shtick? I.e., what is he like? What's his beef? Not who he is. You are to whom I addressed the question!


----------



## Captain Spaulding

I just ordered a new Sony XBR-65X850C TV that is DirecTV 4K ready. This TV will be connected directly to the Genie DVR which is in the same room. Will I be able to watch DirecTV 4K content this way or would the new TV need to be in another room? From everything I've read on the DirceTV site, I can only watch 4K if the DirecTV 4K ready TV is in another room and, I assume, not directly connected to the Genie. Or could I watch 4K content from DirecTV if I don't connect it to the Genie and get content via the network connection? Is that how it works? Confusing!


----------



## damondlt

Laxguy said:


> Damon- You still dodged the question. What is this guy's shtick? I.e., what is he like? What's his beef? Not who he is. You are to whom I addressed the question!


Dude, I still don't know what your asking?
What is he like, Well he sold out to Dish Network, acted like nothing would change, it changed., He lied about it. Pissed off many people, and I called him out on it and got banned a long time ago.
He was a member here according to him , got banned himself among others ,didn't like the way dbstalk operated, so started satelliteguys.
He kisses Charlies ass, way worse then anyone at DBSTALK that I can tell you.

Any other questions I missed?
I didn't want to get all into that, because I don't feel like listening to his fanboys and defense squad.

So if we could now get back on topic that would be great.
He's posting info on the HR54, I figured I would get some input on his info from the best sources of direct at DBSTALK. 
Which for the most part we got.


----------



## peds48

Captain Spaulding said:


> I just ordered a new Sony XBR-65X850C TV that is DirecTV 4K ready.


The Sony maybe "DirecTV ready" but it wont work for 4K content, only Samsung does.


----------



## mexican-bum

peds48 said:


> The Sony maybe "DirecTV ready" but it wont work for 4K content, only Samsung does.


Looks like that Sony does, it's listed as directv 4k ready on the Sony website.


----------



## harsh

Captain Spaulding said:


> I just ordered a new Sony XBR-65X850C TV that is DirecTV 4K ready.


While Crutchfield states that this model is DIRECTV 4K Ready, the Sony site only claims DIRECTV Ready -- these terms are NOT interchangeable. For their part DIRECTV's 4K Ready page still lists only 2014 model Samsung UHD TVs with additional brands to be added "this Summer".

You'll have to go through DIRECTV to try and find someone to activate it for you but you need to be absolutely certain that they will activate it as a *DIRECTV 4K Ready* TV or you won't have access to the UHD content. Don't back down on this or you'll be paying a TV fee for a connection you indicated don't otherwise want to use.

The TV can be in the same room but it will need a LAN connection to the Genie as opposed to an HDMI connection for when you want to view UHD content.


----------



## harsh

mexican-bum said:


> Looks like that Sony does, it's listed as directv 4k ready on the Sony website.


My read of the table is that it is a UHD TV that is DIRECTV Ready. I wasn't able to find anywhere (other than the Crutchfield website) that specified DIRECTV 4K Ready.


----------



## Al K

Captain Spaulding said:


> I just ordered a new Sony XBR-65X850C TV that is DirecTV 4K ready. This TV will be connected directly to the Genie DVR which is in the same room. Will I be able to watch DirecTV 4K content this way or would the new TV need to be in another room? From everything I've read on the DirceTV site, I can only watch 4K if the DirecTV 4K ready TV is in another room and, I assume, not directly connected to the Genie. Or could I watch 4K content from DirecTV if I don't connect it to the Genie and get content via the network connection? Is that how it works? Confusing!


I have my HR44 and my RVU TV in the same room. The RVU function is much too slow for me to use all the time so I keep my primary receiver in my TV room. I have wired ethernet to the HR44 and the TV gets internet from the HR44 via a Deca. Works fine.


----------



## Captain Spaulding

The Sony web site does say this on the web page for this model:

So much to see in 4K
Hundreds of movies and TV shows are available from the top 4K service providers, including Netflix, Amazon Instant Video, YouTube, DirecTV video on demand and more.


----------



## mexican-bum

harsh said:


> My read of the table is that it is a UHD TV that is DIRECTV Ready. I wasn't able to find anywhere (other than the Crutchfield website) that specified DIRECTV 4K Ready.


I see what you are seeing, possibly you are correct, if what your saying is true that is very misleading.


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> He's posting info on the HR54, I figured I would get some input on his info from the best sources of direct at DBSTALK.
> Which for the most part we got.


I think it is kind of funny he posted a "first look" for the HR54 when he obviously doesn't have one in his hands or is even getting any info from someone who does. At least not judging by the blurry photos that were posted that look like downgraded versions of the FCC doc photos someone else posted there.

That would be like me posting a first look of the iPhone 6 last July based on leaked website photos of the case and rumors about details. Since the FCC photos show "SWM-7" on the input and he claims his blurry photos (I honestly can't tell) show "SWM-5" they can't even agree on details. A first look is supposed to mean the author personally has the device in their possession, and there are no unknowns like the number of tuners or size of the hard drive left at that point. But I guess this lets him claim his site had the "first" first look. :righton:

I am interesting in the media server he says he can added to the Genie for more tuners so I hope that part is true. That sounds like it might be the improved solution for commercial accounts I've been hoping for. Then I'd just need some sort of client device that can do both RVU and act as a client for one or two Silicon Dust tuners and I won't have to rely on Directv's crappy lack of support for OTA any longer.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> Then I'd just need some sort of client device that can do both RVU and act as a client for one or two Silicon Dust tuners and I won't have to rely on Directv's crappy lack of support for OTA any longer.


Are you looking to have the Genie both record and regurgitate MPEG2 HD over DECA or would this be a live TV solution where the client controls a networked OTA tuner independent of the Genie?

I suspect that DIRECTV offers the AM21 as a USB device to prevent this doubling up of DECA traffic and the only real solution is to convince DIRECTV to reverse their reversal about how the AM21 is used with Genies.


----------



## Captain Spaulding

Captain Spaulding said:


> I just ordered a new Sony XBR-65X850C TV that is DirecTV 4K ready. This TV will be connected directly to the Genie DVR which is in the same room. Will I be able to watch DirecTV 4K content this way or would the new TV need to be in another room? From everything I've read on the DirceTV site, I can only watch 4K if the DirecTV 4K ready TV is in another room and, I assume, not directly connected to the Genie. Or could I watch 4K content from DirecTV if I don't connect it to the Genie and get content via the network connection? Is that how it works? Confusing!


Well, I just got the TV today and it is indeed only DirecTV Ready, not 4K ready. Now I know!


----------



## harsh

Captain Spaulding said:


> Well, I just got the TV today and it is indeed only DirecTV Ready, not 4K ready. Now I know!


And thanks to your follow-up posting, we now have a definitive answer.

Hopefully UHD support will be added in the not-too-distant future as a firmware update.


----------



## damondlt

slice1900 said:


> I think it is kind of funny he posted a "first look" for the HR54 when he obviously doesn't have one in his hands or is even getting any info from someone who does. At least not judging by the blurry photos that were posted that look like downgraded versions of the FCC doc photos someone else posted there.
> 
> That would be like me posting a first look of the iPhone 6 last July based on leaked website photos of the case and rumors about details. Since the FCC photos show "SWM-7" on the input and he claims his blurry photos (I honestly can't tell) show "SWM-5" they can't even agree on details. A first look is supposed to mean the author personally has the device in their possession, and there are no unknowns like the number of tuners or size of the hard drive left at that point. But I guess this lets him claim his site had the "first" first look. :righton:
> 
> I am interesting in the media server he says he can added to the Genie for more tuners so I hope that part is true. That sounds like it might be the improved solution for commercial accounts I've been hoping for. Then I'd just need some sort of client device that can do both RVU and act as a client for one or two Silicon Dust tuners and I won't have to rely on Directv's crappy lack of support for OTA any longer.


He answered back to our comments .


----------



## slice1900

damondlt said:


> He answered back to our comments .


And a bit defensively too, lol!

If he's got access to a HR54, why do his pictures look like they were taken with circa 2003 cell phone camera? Take some decent pictures man - you can blur out the serial number if you need to protect someone! I googled his old post and he said the HR46 is the 4K Genie and the HR54 is a lower cost Genie. So maybe that 4K HR46 is yet to come, and if it does I'll eat my words and start following his posts over there. If it doesn't, all that Dec. 2013 mention of the HR54 proves is that he guessed the name of an obvious successor to the HR34/HR44. Guessing Directv's future technology direction is pretty easy to do - I do that myself all the time and without the contacts he has. You just have to google a bit and put two and two together.

I said well over a year ago that Directv have a LNB with 23 SWM tuners likely timed to when they added RDBS support. I based that on knowledge of Directv's test DSWM chip (that became the EN5400 used in the DSWM13 and SWM 13 LNB) and later Entropic, Maxlinear and Broadcom all announcing 24 channel stacking chips that support FSK which only Directv uses, beginning volume ramp by the end of 2014. A couple of the mods here were very skeptical when I suggested they'd have a DSWM based LNB for residential customers anytime soon, even when I laid out how little it would cost. The SWM 13 LNB was in limited release less than half a year later. When I suggested the SWM 13 LNB would never make to wide scale deployment because it didn't support RDBS and there was no reason to limit it to 13 tuners so it would clearly be replaced I was again met with skepticism. However, if the chatter in that site about a 22 tuner RDBS LNB is correct it looks like I was right all along (guess they dropped one SWM channel since it came too close to the top end of the tuner range on Directv's existing STBs) When was the other site's first mention of a 22 tuner SWM LNB? I speculated last fall Directv would probably use transponder bonding for 4K, when was his first mention of that?

If he's got a connection to Directv, he should be able to come up with this stuff way earlier than me since I'm just going by publicly available information and have zero connection with anyone. I don't get insider info from the mods/others on this site as to what Directv is doing or even what CE people might be testing, don't go to industry shows, don't even know a Directv installer. Hell, my newest receivers will be five years old this summer, most of them are H20s that you all consider junk so aside from the setup to support the number of receivers I have I'm way behind all of you guys in Directv technology


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> And a bit defensively too, lol!
> 
> If he's got access to a HR54, why do his pictures look like they were taken with circa 2003 cell phone camera? Take some decent pictures man - you can blur out the serial number if you need to protect someone! I googled his old post and he said the HR46 is the 4K Genie and the HR54 is a lower cost Genie. So maybe that 4K HR46 is yet to come, and if it does I'll eat my words and start following his posts over there. If it doesn't, all that Dec. 2013 mention of the HR54 proves is that he guessed the name of an obvious successor to the HR34/HR44. Guessing Directv's future technology direction is pretty easy to do - I do that myself all the time and without the contacts he has. You just have to google a bit and put two and two together.
> 
> I said well over a year ago that Directv have a LNB with 23 SWM tuners likely timed to when they added RDBS support. I based that on knowledge of Directv's test DSWM chip (that became the EN5400 used in the DSWM13 and SWM 13 LNB) and later Entropic, Maxlinear and Broadcom all announcing 24 channel stacking chips that support FSK which only Directv uses, beginning volume ramp by the end of 2014. A couple of the mods here were very skeptical when I suggested they'd have a DSWM based LNB for residential customers anytime soon, even when I laid out how little it would cost. The SWM 13 LNB was in limited release less than half a year later. When I suggested the SWM 13 LNB would never make to wide scale deployment because it didn't support RDBS and there was no reason to limit it to 13 tuners so it would clearly be replaced I was again met with skepticism. However, if the chatter in that site about a 22 tuner RDBS LNB is correct it looks like I was right all along (guess they dropped one SWM channel since it came too close to the top end of the tuner range on Directv's existing STBs) When was the other site's first mention of a 22 tuner SWM LNB? I speculated last fall Directv would probably use transponder bonding for 4K, when was his first mention of that?
> 
> If he's got a connection to Directv, he should be able to come up with this stuff way earlier than me since I'm just going by publicly available information and have zero connection with anyone. I don't get insider info from the mods/others on this site as to what Directv is doing or even what CE people might be testing, don't go to industry shows, don't even know a Directv installer. Hell, my newest receivers will be five years old this summer, most of them are H20s that you all consider junk so aside from the setup to support the number of receivers I have I'm way behind all of you guys in Directv technology


That site could be guessing about a 22 Tuner lnb because of your speculation about it six months ago.


----------



## damondlt

Never know lol.
Keep providing them with fuel Slice lol.

I read over their stuff, I read over lots of forums. 
But that site makes me laugh.
Last I heard , directv doesn't even want to work with them.
But there are lots of installers over there , claiming they're not, and just average Joe's, acting like they have huge connections, when they don't. 
There is too much BS.
Look at the "Moving" thread they posted about us.
Makes me sick
http://www.satelliteguys.us/xen/threads/i-notice-in-the-dbstalk-website-you-cant-talk-about-moving-but-you-can-here.350320/

And I'll agree that first look is sad at best.
Just wait until DBSTALK has our first look.
Scott will be patting himself on the back how his pathetic first look was seen at satellite guys first.


----------



## I WANT MORE

It was my understanding that personal attacks were not allowed here. 

Perhaps I misremembered. :nono2:


----------



## damondlt

I WANT MORE said:


> It was my understanding that personal attacks were not allowed here.
> 
> Perhaps I misremembered. :nono2:


Does it apply when it's not a member?

And also is talking about the owner of a company against the rules now too?


----------



## lparsons21

It may not be against the rules, but I find here and the 'other site' to be very valuable. But fair is fair, your opinion of them is offset by some of those over there's opinion of this site and what is seen by some of us as being overly friendly with one sat provider.

It is because of that 'closeness' that I take the first looks and reviews about Direct's equipment and software that are written here with a very huge grain of salt. Nice info at times, often just marketing fluff and descriptions like 'speed' and 'great new UI' that often are describing something that doesn't turn out to actually be that way.


----------



## Laxguy

That's a pretty damning statement! What fluff you talkin' about? Can you give examples?


----------



## lparsons21

I could, but the first looks are pretty much still available. IMO, most of the time they provide little good info unless pictures of ports and such is interesting.

The teasers about the HDGUI and the speed improvements of various models is all old news. The HDGUI was little more than a bit of gussying up a very old text UI with no actual real benefit and the downside of slowing down boxes that were already slow. I noted back in the day as the HR21 and later models all got reviews indicating they were better/faster, when in fact until the HR24 they were neither and the HR24 only stayed nice and quick until the advent of the HDGUI. The HR34 came out, just as slow as the HR24 but it has 5 tuners. '

It took the HR44 to break the speed barrier, but I figure it won't take too long to slow it down as the D* programmers work diligently to achieve that goal.


----------



## Laxguy

lparsons21 said:


> I could, but the first looks are pretty much still available. IMO, most of the time they provide little good info unless pictures of ports and such is interesting.


The statement you made was to the effect that there was much said that turned out to be untrue. I know they are available, so you should be able to back up your assertion readily.


----------



## lparsons21

Laxguy said:


> The statement you made was to the effect that there was much said that turned out to be untrue. I know they are available, so you should be able to back up your assertion readily.


Since as you say, they are still available you can go look as easy as I could. They are what they are and you trying to deflect to get me to quote them is about what I expected.


----------



## damondlt

Let's just get back on topic, sorry I helped steer it off track..


----------



## lparsons21

damondlt said:


> Let's just get back on topic, sorry I helped steer it off track..


Easy enough to see 'thread drift'!! 
While I'm not interested a whole lot in 4K video, I love reading about what/how the various providers are doing to address delivery of the content when it really becomes available.
I do have to wonder if 4K will catch on and get wide distribution. I'm not sure that I think it will.


----------



## Laxguy

lparsons21 said:


> Since as you say, they are still available you can go look as easy as I could. They are what they are and you trying to deflect to get me to quote them is about what I expected.


Surely you've been around long enough on the 'Net to know that when a person makes an assertion, it's incumbent on him to back it up with specifics, not say the equivalent of elfin' google it.

I am not sure of what's behind such intransigence- probably that you can't back it up, not that you're stubborn or trolling.


----------



## jimmie57

Laxguy said:


> Surely you've been around long enough on the 'Net to know that when a person makes an assertion, it's incumbent on him to back it up with specifics, not say the equivalent of elfin' google it.
> 
> I am not sure of what's behind such intransigence- probably that you can't back it up, not that you're stubborn or trolling.


There you go again, using those big words that I do not know. Going to the online Dictionary. LOL


----------



## damondlt

jimmie57 said:


> There you go again, using those big words that I do not know. Going to the online Dictionary. LOL


Lol.


----------



## Laxguy

jimmie57 said:


> There you go again, using those big words that I do not know. Going to the online Dictionary. LOL


I can't help myself at times!

And I quote: "Never use a gargantuan word when a diminutive one will suffice"!

:rotfl:


----------



## dpeters11

Laxguy said:


> I can't help myself at times!
> 
> And I quote: "Never use a gargantuan word when a diminutive one will suffice"!
> 
> :rotfl:


I've always preferred the variant "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice"


----------



## Tom Robertson

lparsons21 said:


> It may not be against the rules, but I find here and the 'other site' to be very valuable. But fair is fair, your opinion of them is offset by some of those over there's opinion of this site and what is seen by some of us as being overly friendly with one sat provider.
> 
> It is because of that 'closeness' that I take the first looks and reviews about Direct's equipment and software that are written here with a very huge grain of salt. Nice info at times, often just marketing fluff and descriptions like 'speed' and 'great new UI' that often are describing something that doesn't turn out to actually be that way.


Realize that you are maligning people here. Not paid staff, just fans and customers of DIRECTV who work hard to improve the DIRECTV experience. And try their best to give correct, honest representations of their experiences.

Also know there have been few real new features in the hardware since the HR21 came out. After 3 to 4 editions of each model, there ain't much to talk about excepting the HR21Pro and now the genies. What are they going to talk about? A few details on size, hard disk space, I/O ports, and does it work. Since DIRECTV makes them work before they ship, that is moot.

So I prefer to think of them as fan written first looks, not market fluff pieces. They don't write marketing-speak, just fan-speak.

You probably should also be aware that most sites try to get closeness. Some can, some can't. Some sensationalize themselves out of closeness, burning bridges. Outside of Consumer Reports, all the major sites review freely given/loaned equipment. Even automobiles.

As for 4k, UHD--DIRECTV has plans. DIRECTV has shown time and again excellent long-range strategic planning. First step is already out there, albeit limited to TVs that participate in RVU. Next step will be... followed by... resulting in 4k for everyone who has a 4k TV.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## loudo

lparsons21 said:


> I do have to wonder if 4K will catch on and get wide distribution. I'm not sure that I think it will.


I know after the lack of interest and basic failure of 3D, people are reluctant in looking at new technology. But once you see good quality 4K video, most are sold on it. Part of the failure of 3D was the fact that glasses have to be used, but no additional equipment is needed for 4K. I have seen it grow a lot since the end of last year. Last October I had to replace a TV and looked at 4K, I was impressed but skeptical because there was only a few in the store, so we stuck withe HDTV. In February my second TV died and we went back to get a replacement and there were many 4K sets on display. We decided to jump into 4K at that time, as we felt more confident seeing many more sets than they had in October. Glad we did, as our Sammy 4K set has a great picture and the 4K content is amazing.


----------



## harsh

loudo said:


> I know after the lack of interest and basic failure of 3D, people are reluctant in looking at new technology.


Especially now that Ultra HD Blu-ray will NOT support 3D.

More than a little of the excitement about UHD was that it would make 3D a lot better but if support for UHD 3D isn't happening, some of the shine has worn off.


----------



## Laxguy

Well, some of us derived no excitement from possible 3D enhancements as a benefit of UHD. None.

And while some may hold back due to impressions and/or experience with 3D, I doubt it's a significant percentage of potential buyers.


----------



## Diana C

harsh said:


> Especially now that Ultra HD Blu-ray will NOT support 3D.*More than a little of the excitement about UHD was that it would make 3D a lot better*but if support for UHD 3D isn't happening, some of the shine has worn off.


I think I recall one or two comments (out of the thousands on posts we have seen on UHD, just on this site) that mentioned 3D would be much better at UHD resolutions. I think saying that 3D was the source of "more than a little of the excitement" grossly overstates the facts. It is a technological truth that UHD 3D would be vastly superior to HD 3D, simply because 3D halves the resolution you would get otherwise. Half of 1080i doesn't look so hot (neither does 1080p cut in half), but 2160p, cut it half, is still quite impressive. However, I think HDR, expanded color space and greater resolution all generate WAY more excitement than 3D. I honestly believe we will need something akin to the Holodeck to make 3D (at ANY resolution) successful.


----------



## slice1900

The only people who were excited about 4K due to potential improvements in 3D were that tiny fraction of the population that was disappointed that 3D flopped and keeps something will bring it back.


----------



## GregLee

I have always loved 3D, but I never want to watch it, for some reason. When I was young, I taught myself how to draw in 3D with red and green pencils. I've saved about 15 3D shows on my DVR from when DirecTV had free 3D channels, and I'm promising myself to watch them. I did watch a couple of them on my new 4k Samsung TVs (using the active glasses), and they looked real nice -- better than the active 3D I've seen on my previous 2 plasma TVs. I guess the trouble I have in getting myself to go through the 3D watching experience is the hassle of using the special glasses (well, actually plastics).


----------



## raott

I don't see where he "maligned" anyone. The first looks read, feel and look exactly like marketing brochures and I'm not sure how anyone could honestly argue otherwise. There are no strengths and weaknesses, good and bad or the like. In the rare instances where a shortcoming is pointed out, there is typically some sort of spin that follows. Maybe they aren't intended to be "reviews" (i've been told before that first looks aren't intended to be reviews) but calling them out for what they are, isn't maligning anyone.

FWIW, IMO a true review of a product would do a much bigger service to the readership than the first looks as they are currently comprised.



Tom Robertson said:


> Realize that you are maligning people here. Not paid staff, just fans and customers of DIRECTV who work hard to improve the DIRECTV experience. And try their best to give correct, honest representations of their experiences.
> 
> Also know there have been few real new features in the hardware since the HR21 came out. After 3 to 4 editions of each model, there ain't much to talk about excepting the HR21Pro and now the genies. What are they going to talk about? A few details on size, hard disk space, I/O ports, and does it work. Since DIRECTV makes them work before they ship, that is moot.
> 
> So I prefer to think of them as fan written first looks, not market fluff pieces. They don't write marketing-speak, just fan-speak.
> 
> You probably should also be aware that most sites try to get closeness. Some can, some can't. Some sensationalize themselves out of closeness, burning bridges. Outside of Consumer Reports, all the major sites review freely given/loaned equipment. Even automobiles.
> 
> As for 4k, UHD--DIRECTV has plans. DIRECTV has shown time and again excellent long-range strategic planning. First step is already out there, albeit limited to TVs that participate in RVU. Next step will be... followed by... resulting in 4k for everyone who has a 4k TV.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


----------



## Laxguy

raott said:


> I don't see where he "maligned" anyone. The first looks read, feel and look exactly like marketing brochures and I'm not sure how anyone could honestly argue otherwise. There are no strengths and weaknesses, good and bad or the like. In the rare instances where a shortcoming is pointed out, there is typically some sort of spin that follows. Maybe they aren't intended to be "reviews" (i've been told before that first looks aren't intended to be reviews) but calling them out for what they are, isn't maligning anyone.
> 
> FWIW, IMO a true review of a product would do a much bigger service to the readership than the first looks as they are currently comprised.


Who has asserted they are reviews? That is, an assertion, not the casual use of the word as a synonym for First Look?

I think the FLs strive for what Jack Webb said, "Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts".


----------



## inkahauts

If they where reviews, what would they be up against? Just their predecessors? Well then they would be glowing usually because the genies and such have all gotten better with each iteration when they where first released at least. (time showed the hr21, 22 and 23 where not really better than an hr20) If against other dvrs in general, well they beat the life out of my cable companies dvr's and also Fios ones that I have used personally, so I would expect them to still be glowing. i think the only dvrs that people seem to truly believe stand out against everyone else is the latest Tivo. Not even the hoppers... Hoppers and Genies are probably a wash at best, since they both can do a few things the other can't, sort of...

I think many people are expecting them to be critical because they don't care for some of the user interface choices more than the hardware.And the first looks are about the hardware, not the user interface capabilities.


----------



## raott

If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that some have told me they are not intended to be reviews, which is fine, but when someone calls them out for what they are, they are not "maligning" anyone, which is what I was responding to in the first place. I'll stand by my opinion, that an actual review, would serve the readership much better than a marketing brochure.



Laxguy said:


> Who has asserted they are reviews? That is, an assertion, not the casual use of the word as a synonym for First Look?
> 
> I think the FLs strive for what Jack Webb said, "Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts".


----------



## inkahauts

raott said:


> If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that some have told me they are not intended to be reviews, which is fine, but when someone calls them out for what they are, they are not "maligning" anyone, which is what I was responding to in the first place. I'll stand by my opinion, that an actual review, would serve the readership much better than a marketing brochure.


A review against what though? How would any review actually be any different unless it was about the actual gui and its choices rather than the hardware, which is what the first looks are about.


----------



## damondlt

Word from the other site states the HR54 will not stream 4K out of the box.

[


----------



## damondlt




----------



## James Long

lparsons21 said:


> It is because of that 'closeness' that I take the first looks and reviews about Direct's equipment and software that are written here with a very huge grain of salt. Nice info at times, often just marketing fluff and descriptions like 'speed' and 'great new UI' that often are describing something that doesn't turn out to actually be that way.


The first looks are not written by DirecTV's marketing department ... they are written by members for members. The members contributing to First Looks come from many walks of life (just like the members reading them).

Seeing a new product release is usually a positive experience ... so unless the new product is total junk I expect the first looks to be generally positive. Here is what you can do that you could not do on prior devices - here is something that you can't do. Most of the documents are factual ... exactly what the writers saw during their first look. If you find something that "doesn't turn out to actually be that way" try reading the first look again and see what was stated and how it was stated.

The authors are human ... so there will be some opinion mixed with the facts - and that is what separates a First Look from a marketing piece. The opinions expressed are those of the members of this site writing the reviews - not DirecTV (or DISH for the First Looks I have been involved in).



raott said:


> The first looks read, feel and look exactly like marketing brochures and I'm not sure how anyone could honestly argue otherwise.


It is hard to argue with someone who calls you a liar at the beginning of the discussion. The authors of each First Look are writing about their experiences with a new product. If you believe they look too much like marketing brochures then thank you for sharing your opinion. Please don't condemn any opinion that does not agree with yours as not honest. Such terms are offensive.

Once you have a new device in your home and have some experience with it please feel free to comment in the First Look thread about your experience with the new device. A First Look is the beginning of the conversation - not the final word.


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> The first looks are not written by DirecTV's marketing department ... they are written by members for members. The members contributing to First Looks come from many walks of life (just like the members reading them).
> 
> Seeing a new product release is usually a positive experience ... so unless the new product is total junk I expect the first looks to be generally positive. Here is what you can do that you could not do on prior devices - here is something that you can't do. Most of the documents are factual ... exactly what the writers saw during their first look. If you find something that "doesn't turn out to actually be that way" try reading the first look again and see what was stated and how it was stated.
> 
> The authors are human ... so there will be some opinion mixed with the facts - and that is what separates a First Look from a marketing piece. The opinions expressed are those of the members of this site writing the reviews - not DirecTV (or DISH for the First Looks I have been involved in).
> 
> It is hard to argue with someone who calls you a liar at the beginning of the discussion. The authors of each First Look are writing about their experiences with a new product. If you believe they look too much like marketing brochures then thank you for sharing your opinion. Please don't condemn any opinion that does not agree with yours as not honest. Such terms are offensive.
> 
> Once you have a new device in your home and have some experience with it please feel free to comment in the First Look thread about your experience with the new device. A First Look is the beginning of the conversation - not the final word.


Agree, 
I feel any First look is welcome.
As long as you actually have the model you are reviewing sitting in front of you.
I welcome the reviews.
And the follow up posts usually give vital information that sometimes isn't caught in the first review.
Which is why we have a second look.

But the other site, with their First look is piss poor at best since everything in that thread has been unconfirmed multiple times.
I've not seen one solid fact other than its an HR54.

If they had an HR54 right in front of them, there wouldn't be speculation and changes in the specs of the product on a daily basis.
Maybe MR Scott should look at his track record instead of patting himself on the back over a 1st grade review/"FIRST LOOK!"

At least DBStalk acually has the receivers in hand during a review.


----------



## Barry in Conyers

A couple of sayings come to mind.

The first is "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

The second is "Perception is reality."


----------



## James Long

There is a saying that comes to my mind ...

This forum is for the discussion of DirecTV products, services and technology. Not for the discussion of people.
Let's talk about DirecTV's plans for 4K/UHD and leave the people out of the discussion.

BTW: A DBSTalk First Look will be available soon enough ... no rush. I am willing to wait for that document.


----------



## slice1900

Their "first look" is clearly unworthy of the name when they are still constantly correcting its information. BTW, I think what they are calling a CK-61 is actually the C61K. At least that's what the resume of someone who works at Jethead calls it, and they would know


----------



## damondlt

It's a C-64K now . 
Man that's one heck of a first look.


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> It's a C-64K now .
> Man that's one heck of a first look.


Wasn't that a Commodore Computer? Does it come with a cassette drive? Does it have a 64K video output?


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> Wasn't that a Commodore Computer? Does it come with a cassette drive? Does it have a 64K video output?


Might be an 8 track, but too early to tell.


----------



## lparsons21

Well now that the fanbois have all moved on to discussing the title's subject matter... 

The first looks are fine for fanbois wanting to feed other fanbois the information that is or will be in some marketing document from D*. As such it works fine. But you have to keep in mind it IS fanbois writing them. And I have no problem with that as I'm a fan of some things too, and that sometimes colors my opinions, as it does with the first looks.

The HDGUI is a little different. Lots of threads/comments before it showed up for everyone about how wonderful and fast it was. And those comments turned out to be mostly wishful thinking or seeing what you wanted to see. The HDGUI then and now is very minor update to the old text UI that slowed down virtually every machine it went on that had the text UI previously.

I'm not a fan of either services as I see all cable/sat companies as just some way to get TV services. That said, I prefer the Tivo Roamio Plus/Premium over either of the sat services hardware though Dish's is superb if all you are wanting to do is manage the satellite services.

As to the shots taken at the 'other site', well they take a few about here also so I suppose that's fair game. IMO, I find both of these forums to be interesting and valuable resources. I take the shots with a bigger grain of salt than the ones I use with first looks! 

NOW to the actual subject of the thread. I have to admit that I'm a bit confused as to how D* is going to deliver 4K. I've seen comments that it won't be from the satellite and others that seem to think it will. Does anyone actually know for sure at this time?


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> Wasn't that a Commodore Computer? Does it come with a cassette drive? Does it have a 64K video output?


It might have been a prototype bomber that never got built....

!rolling


----------



## Laxguy

Mr. Parsons:

You asserted that there were major errors in the First Looks. I challenged you to state what they were. You told me to elfin google it. I said it was up to you to come through with the goods since you made the original statement.


So? Are you still gonna duck it, or perhaps rethink what you said and retract?


----------



## damondlt

Mr Parsons, of course fanboys are writing reviews.
But it doesn't mean they shouldn't be researched with 100% accurite information.

A First Look again, shouldn't take place until you confirm atleast the specific functions and look of the machines.

When everything written is speculation and changed daily, that doesn't inform anyone of squat.
I see prototypes of all kinds that never make it to production as well as changes before the product is released to the general public.

There is only one HR54 I'm interested in, and that the one for Lease to the general public.

And I've yet seen one available!

All I've seen is guy running a Forum spouting off Fluff he found off Google.

Now I'm going to stop before I start to get mean.

But Mr. Parsons, I do agree with you that the First looks are geared toward Directv favoritism, But they are suppose to be.
That's kind of the point.

I've never seen them comparing a Genie or HR to any Dish equipment in the First looks, so IMO comparing their own equipment to their older models is a professional way to review an item.

We all seen your reviews and we welcome them , But IMO they are a little biased too.
And there is nothing wrong with that.
That's why a real review requires Input from Multiple people.


----------



## lparsons21

Laxguy said:


> Mr. Parsons:
> 
> You asserted that there were major errors in the First Looks. I challenged you to state what they were. You told me to elfin google it. I said it was up to you to come through with the goods since you made the original statement.
> 
> So? Are you still gonna duck it, or perhaps rethink what you said and retract?


Since I don't believe I said to 'google it', I'll stick with what I've said. The first looks are available right here in the very forum for all to peruse. And I also don't believe I said anything at all about 'major errors', I did say that they were mostly looks at the innards and outside of the units under 'first look' and possibly that the information wasn't very valuable to me. That holds true. They are, solely imo, fluff pieces for the most part.


----------



## lparsons21

damondlt said:


> We all seen your reviews and we welcome them , But IMO they are a little biased too.


Absolutely! I can't argue with that statement. My reviews/comments are generally based on actual experience with the various systems I've had and are strictly my opinion of what I've seen and interacted with. I don't think I've ever hidden that.

But now that we've all had our fun at taking jabs at each other in a totally OT way, isn't it time to go back to the original subject? I was ready a few days ago, but some here decided to take me to task a bit and being the kind of guy I am, I responded...


----------



## damondlt

No Jabs, I like reading everyone's reviews, 
And I will continue reading yours as well.
I wish we did have more reviews from Members.

But yes back to topic, So far I'm seeing mixed info on this HR54, and I'm not liking some of the speculation I'm seeing as far as the specs of the HR 54.


----------



## lparsons21

Yeah, there is a bit of conflicting suppositions being made. Will be nice when something is made available to actually test/review to see what will actually show up.

I personally would like to see a revamp of the software, but so far D* seems to be resistive to making any sea change in software though I think it is long overdue.


----------



## damondlt

I'm not sold on 4K, imo it's good , but not a must have.
But 5 tuners? Again?
Com'on!
I wonder if Dish has any plans for a 4K receiver with more than 3 tuners.


----------



## patmurphey

damondlt said:


> I'm not sold on 4K, imo it's good , but not a must have.
> But 5 tuners? Again?
> Com'on!
> I wonder if Dish has any plans for a 4K receiver with more than 3 tuners.


Not limited to one Hopper...


----------



## damondlt

patmurphey said:


> Not limited to one Hopper...


That is nice, but anymore then 2 hoppers is a Switch/Splitter/PI/nightmare. 
Sorry but the equipment required for a 3 or 4 hopper setup is ridiculous. 

Directv has that one nailed, and with now the Swm 13 LNB, yeah no excuses for all that dish switch mess.
But only my opinion.


----------



## lparsons21

damondlt said:


> That is nice, but anymore then 2 hoppers is a Switch/Splitter/PI/nightmare.
> Sorry but the equipment required for a 3 or 4 hopper setup is ridiculous.
> 
> Directv has that one nailed, and with now the Swm 13 LNB, yeah no excuses for all that dish switch mess.
> But only my opinion.


Frankly Directv is a better solution for larger installs, imo. Of course the downside is that each DVR is a separate entity and is only able to share the playlists.

A 2 Hopper install is not brain surgery and works quite well, and it not only shares the playlists, it will semi-automagically record from a setting in one Hopper to the other one if the requested one doesn't have the tuner available to allow the recording. Pretty slick. And with 2 Hoppers you have 6 tuners and IF broadcast is a fair part of your recording pleasure, effectively 9 tuners.

Beyond 2 Hoppers isn't quite a nightmare, it just isn't as slick as just using 2 or going with Directv instead. But once the installation is done, do you actually care what it took to get to that point? I know I wouldn't!!


----------



## je4755

Please forgive a series of basic questions from an individual who only now is contemplating the purchase of a 4k TV.
- DirecTV’s website solely notes the compatibility of 2014 Samsung 4k TVs. In 2015, are sets from more manufacturers deemed DirecTV-ready or, indeed, is this no longer an issue?
- Is there a way to “future proof” a 4k TV beyond purchasing one with HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0 and HDR? Are there other specs of concern in this regard?
- When ordering a new DVR – and a CSR (after conducting some research) just informed me the presumably 4k-optimized HR 54 is not vaporware but had no release date – can a 4k TV owner specify an HR54 when available or could DirecTV furnish the HR 44 Genie (or even an HR 34) instead? Is the only way to ensure receipt of an HR54 buying one rather than obtaining a free upgrade?


----------



## Tom Robertson

lparsons21 said:


> ...
> NOW to the actual subject of the thread. I have to admit that I'm a bit confused as to how D* is going to deliver 4K. I've seen comments that it won't be from the satellite and others that seem to think it will. Does anyone actually know for sure at this time?


DIRECTV will deliver 4k via every method possible. Yes, satellite will deliver 4k. (Probably already is in the background.)

I expect we'll see linear 4k via satellite as soon as there is a linear 4k channel of interest in the US. Movies and sports are my first guess. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## David Ortiz

What will be interesting is how network TV will be affected. Will there be UHD programming from the major broadcast networks? Will there be UHD "locals" or just East/West feeds? Will only O&O stations have access to such feeds as has been done in the past? Will local ad insertion play a huge part?



Tom Robertson said:


> DIRECTV will deliver 4k via every method possible. Yes, satellite will deliver 4k. (Probably already is in the background.)
> 
> I expect we'll see linear 4k via satellite as soon as there is a linear 4k channel of interest in the US. Movies and sports are my first guess.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

je4755 said:


> Please forgive a series of basic questions from an individual who only now is contemplating the purchase of a 4k TV.
> - DirecTV's website solely notes the compatibility of 2014 Samsung 4k TVs. In 2015, are sets from more manufacturers deemed DirecTV-ready or, indeed, is this no longer an issue?
> - Is there a way to "future proof" a 4k TV beyond purchasing one with HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0 and HDR? Are there other specs of concern in this regard?
> - When ordering a new DVR - and a CSR (after conducting some research) just informed me the presumably 4k-optimized HR 54 is not vaporware but had no release date - can a 4k TV owner specify an HR54 when available or could DirecTV furnish the HR 44 Genie (or even an HR 34) instead? Is the only way to ensure receipt of an HR54 buying one rather than obtaining a free upgrade?


Basic questions are just like all other questions. They get answers that help people.  (And this is a great list, by the way. Makes for a good summary post.)

Today DIRECTV only delivers 4k content to 4k TVs via an RVU connection. So far as I know, only Samsung has any 4k RVU TVs. There will be a time when non-RVU 4k TVs will connect to some device. In their quarterly announcements, they project something by the end of the year.

As for future proofing... Whew, that is tough at this stage. One strategy is to go small and less expensive now. Another is to find the TV with the baddest CPU and smart feature set and hope that the next releases of the smart apps will include anything you'll want in the future. My favorite strategy is to make lots of money and just buy the next round of TVs when you need to. 

Generally you can't order a specific model from DIRECTV.--unless it is a new generation of features. I wouldn't be surprised if DIRECTV created a new line of 4k Genie at some point, which could be ordered separately. But nothing has been announced nor have I seen any particular whispers of such, only that 4k will be supported.

Today, to take advantage of 4k, were I you, I'd buy something from Samsung, fitting into one of the above strategies. If you were willing to wait until DIRECTV had some device to support 4k, you could buy any 4k TV with HDCP 2.2 input(s) now.

You've done an awesome job identifying the keys to a purchase. One hint--some TVs only support HDCP 2.2 on one port or at full speed data rates on only one port. My experience has been one fully capable port TVs have always been a problem for me. I really want at least 2, preferably 4 full capability ports.  The corollary to this hint is sometimes one has to dig deep to verify the input port true capabilities. Even calls to support lines can be misleading. I like companies that list specifics by port in their manuals.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

David Ortiz said:


> What will be interesting is how network TV will be affected. Will there be UHD programming from the major broadcast networks? Will there be UHD "locals" or just East/West feeds? Will only O&O stations have access to such feeds as has been done in the past? Will local ad insertion play a huge part?


Yeah, there are some interesting logistics in this transition. Right now they look very messy because of some poor choices for HD. Thus leaving broadcasters with ugly choices for UHD.

Wonder if over the air broadcasts will freeze at HD while delivery to cable/satellite will be at UHD and higher.

Peace,
Tom


----------



## slice1900

je4755 said:


> Please forgive a series of basic questions from an individual who only now is contemplating the purchase of a 4k TV.
> - DirecTV's website solely notes the compatibility of 2014 Samsung 4k TVs. In 2015, are sets from more manufacturers deemed DirecTV-ready or, indeed, is this no longer an issue?
> - Is there a way to "future proof" a 4k TV beyond purchasing one with HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0 and HDR? Are there other specs of concern in this regard?
> - When ordering a new DVR - and a CSR (after conducting some research) just informed me the presumably 4k-optimized HR 54 is not vaporware but had no release date - can a 4k TV owner specify an HR54 when available or could DirecTV furnish the HR 44 Genie (or even an HR 34) instead? Is the only way to ensure receipt of an HR54 buying one rather than obtaining a free upgrade?


The only surefire advice is to buy a 4K TV with the expectation that will you get a HDTV that also does 4K but may have limitations with the 4K content that will be available within a few short years. That's the price you pay for being an early adopter. As was pointed out, getting "HDMI 2.0" and "HDCP 2.2" on the feature list aren't guarantees you won't run into issues, as they have really screwed the pooch on that one with some TVs having both but not on the same port, some TVs having HDMI 2.0 but without full speed, and so on. HDR is similar, there are no standards set there yet for that or for color space...will it be Rec 2020 or will it be P3. That's what happens when everyone rushes to market to fleece consumers without having the proper parts ready or standards set.


----------



## KyL416

Also beware of manufacturers that claim they'll provide an upgradable module. Depending on what happens between now and then, your manufacturer might not provide it, it might not be user installable and you'll have to ship your TV back to them to have it installed, or it will be so expensive you're better off just getting a new TV.


----------



## Tom Robertson

KyL416 said:


> Also beware of manufacturers that claim they'll provide an upgradable module. Depending on what happens between now and then, your manufacturer might not provide it, it might not be user installable and you'll have to ship your TV back to them to have it installed, or it will be so expensive you're better off just getting a new TV.


I still will not purchase anything from Mitsubishi after their failed "Promise". Too late in coming out and too expensive (price did include installation in the home).

Adding to your great list, the manufacturer might get it wrong as to what the module needs to do. (Though partly in Mitsubishi's defense on only that one point, the FCC did Order firewire on all set top boxes in 2003.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## GregLee

KyL416 said:


> Also beware of manufacturers that claim they'll provide an upgradable module. Depending on what happens between now and then, your manufacturer might not provide it, it might not be user installable and you'll have to ship your TV back to them to have it installed, or it will be so expensive you're better off just getting a new TV.


I have two Samsung TVs that are upgradeable with its "One Connect Box", and Samsung has been good about this, so far. It did sell upgrade boxes last year for certain 2013 models, and it has produced and is now selling an upgrade box for some 2014 models. I'm waiting for reviews before I buy one. With Samsung's plan, at least there is no question about user installability, since its just a matter of plugging in cables.


----------



## Tom Robertson

GregLee said:


> I have two Samsung TVs that are upgradeable with its "One Connect Box", and Samsung has been good about this, so far. It did sell upgrade boxes last year for certain 2013 models, and it has produced and is now selling an upgrade box for some 2014 models. I'm waiting for reviews before I buy one. With Samsung's plan, at least there is no question about user installability, since its just a matter of plugging in cables.


Great information to be aware of.


----------



## James Long

David Ortiz said:


> What will be interesting is how network TV will be affected. Will there be UHD programming from the major broadcast networks? Will there be UHD "locals" or just East/West feeds? Will only O&O stations have access to such feeds as has been done in the past? Will local ad insertion play a huge part?


The major networks live on the affiliate model. Perhaps that will change, but as long as the networks sell the right to first airing to geographical areas they must abide by that contract. The local affiliate's HD or SD feed becomes *the* feed for the market they serve.

Later airings on a national feed may be possible ... but the closer the repeat airing is to the OTA air date the more it would cut in to the OTA viewership. All of the major networks already have cable feeds - so if a network decided to leave the OTA market and go to the pay only market they could. But they are still making too much money from affiliates to walk away.

OTA stations themselves do not and will not have the bandwidth for 4K/UHD feeds. Dedicated feeds to satellite/cable could be done - but they would need enough content to make the cost worth spending. There may be a UHD national feed to markets owned by the network ... that happened with HD. But I would not expect "every local station in 4K/UHD" for a long time.


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> Today DIRECTV only delivers 4k content to 4k TVs via an RVU connection. So far as I know, only Samsung has any 4k RVU TVs.


This is misleading. The problem is that you're using "4K RVU" where you really mean DIRECTV 4K Ready.

There are many models of UHD TVs from a handful of manufacturers that are RVU capable (but only to the level of being DIRECTV Ready). This bit a forum member recently who misinterpreted a table on the Sony website. The table was for DIRECTV Ready TVs and all of the XBR models were listed as being of type "4K" but none of them go as far as being DIRECTV 4K Ready.


----------



## Tom Robertson

harsh said:


> This is misleading. The problem is that you're using "4K RVU" where you really mean DIRECTV 4K Ready.
> 
> There are many models of UHD TVs from a handful of manufacturers that are RVU capable (but only to the level of being DIRECTV Ready). This bit a forum member recently who misinterpreted a table on the Sony website. The table was for DIRECTV Ready TVs and all of the XBR models were listed as being of type "4K" but none of them go as far as being DIRECTV 4K Ready.


This is nitpicking...


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> This is nitpicking...


If 4K RVU was "a thing", it would be a matter of nitpicking but as it is, DIRECTV and the RVU Alliance both use the term DIRECTV 4K Ready in reference to TVs that are capable.


----------



## Tom Robertson

harsh said:


> If 4K RVU was "a thing", it would be a matter of nitpicking but as it is, DIRECTV and the RVU Alliance both use the term DIRECTV 4K Ready in reference to TVs that are capable.


Which does not bode well for the standard if only one manufacturer of sources exists. There should be a generic term.

Though your comment is still nitpicking. Nitpicking doesn't mean your comment was wrong, just nitpicking. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Laxguy

lparsons21 said:


> Since I don't believe I said to 'google it', I'll stick with what I've said. The first looks are available right here in the very forum for all to peruse. And I also don't believe I said anything at all about 'major errors', I did say that they were mostly looks at the innards and outside of the units under 'first look' and possibly that the information wasn't very valuable to me. That holds true. They are, solely imo, fluff pieces for the most part.


It was a figure of speech-surely you could have divined that; you told me to go search out First Look docs here for_* me to find the errors you bleated about.*_

Are you going to continue to shirk and shrink here? If so, we are done. Disappointing you couldn't put up on the one hand, great on the other as you have nothing to back up your snarky assertions.


----------



## lparsons21

Laxguy said:


> It was a figure of speech-surely you could have divined that; you told me to go search out First Look docs here for_* me to find the errors you bleated about.*_
> 
> Are you going to continue to shirk and shrink here? If so, we are done. Disappointing you couldn't put up on the one hand, great on the other as you have nothing to back up your snarky assertions.


If you cannot take the time to read the blasted first looks and comments tough. They are there to this day and exist for the perusal.

Now everyone else has decided to get back to the original discussion. IF you just cannot make yourself do that, then the problem is yours.

As for snarky comments, they weren't snarky, they were just facts. That they don't fit your particular version of fanboism isn't my problem.


----------



## Tom Robertson

lparsons21 said:


> If you cannot take the time to read the blasted first looks and comments tough. They are there to this day and exist for the perusal.
> 
> Now everyone else has decided to get back to the original discussion. IF you just cannot make yourself do that, then the problem is yours.
> 
> As for snarky comments, they weren't snarky, they were just facts. That they don't fit your particular version of fanboism isn't my problem.


Opinions are not facts, snarky or otherwise. 

DIRECTV has plans for 4k. That is a fact. DBSTalk will discuss them, speculate about them, and render options about them. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## lparsons21

It will be interesting to see if 4K does better than 3D did for D* and E*. D* made a pretty good run at it, E* not as much. But the end result was the same, 3D died yet again! 

I loved the idea of 3D, but the flickering glasses make me slightly nauseous and I don't find eating Tums nearly as fulfilling as eating popcorn.

An earlier comment was made that the poster thinks movies and sports will be the big thing. I would tend to agree on movies, but some of the best sports viewing is 720p so I have to wonder how well 4K will do with it.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> If so, we are done.


I thought we were done already. If he doesn't want to back up his accusations that is fine. Consider them unsubstantiated claims. If he chooses to support his accusations using Private Messages would be better at this point - since this thread has moved on.

As already stated ... the First Look threads are the beginning of the conversation on a new device. People are welcome to post their own opinions on devices in the First Look threads. If someone feels that something was missed in a First Look the appropriate thread is a good place to start. (Consider this the last word.)

Back to DirecTV's plans for 4K/UHD. Personally I am looking forward to a First Look at any equipment DirecTV may introduce that could support DirecTV's plans for 4K/UHD.


----------



## yosoyellobo

lparsons21 said:


> It will be interesting to see if 4K does better than 3D did for D* and E*. D* made a pretty good run at it, E* not as much. But the end result was the same, 3D died yet again!
> I loved the idea of 3D, but the flickering glasses make me slightly nauseous and I don't find eating Tums nearly as fulfilling as eating popcorn.
> An earlier comment was made that the poster thinks movies and sports will be the big thing. I would tend to agree on movies, but some of the best sports viewing is 720p so I have to wonder how well 4K will do with it.


As far as I am concerned sport is the killer app for 4K. No realtime sport no 4K for me.


----------



## Laxguy

yosoyellobo said:


> As far as I am concerned sport is the killer app for 4K. No realtime sport no 4K for me.


And, IIRC, you have to first see it at BB before you plunk down the cash..... Yes?


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> I thought we were done already. If he doesn't want to back up his accusations that is fine. Consider them unsubstantiated claims. If he chooses to support his accusations using Private Messages would be better at this point - since this thread has moved on.
> 
> As already stated ... the First Look threads are the beginning of the conversation on a new device. People are welcome to post their own opinions on devices in the First Look threads. If someone feels that something was missed in a First Look the appropriate thread is a good place to start. (Consider this the last word.)
> 
> Back to DirecTV's plans for 4K/UHD. Personally I am looking forward to a First Look at any equipment DirecTV may introduce that could support DirecTV's plans for 4K/UHD.


Same here. I follow UHD developments somewhat closely, and will spring for a set before too long.

I can't agree with those trying to parallel the 3D experiment with UHD's situation. Too many basic differences.

One thing I think is almost unassailable is that DIRECTV will have far more capacity to really bring it when the time comes.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> I can't agree with those trying to parallel the 3D experiment with UHD's situation. Too many basic differences.


I see basic similarities ... especially with ESPN's involvement. When HD came out ESPN started a HD channel - not a 24 hour simulcast but as much HD content as they could get. ESPN HD (and eventually ESPN2 HD) replayed HD content - one could expect to see sports in HD 24/7. Eventually the amount of HD content grew and both channels became simulcast with their SD channels.

ESPN 3D followed the same path. They released a channel similar to their initial HD channel ... all 3D all the time but obviously not a 24/7 simulcast (since not everything on ESPN was available in 3D). 3D eventually faded and so did ESPN 3D ... but the start was the same as the HD channels.

ESPN 4K/UHD will likely follow the same path as HD and 3D ... a showcase sports channel that plays 4K/UHD programming around the clock. Eventually when enough content is available in 4K/UHD it will become a simulcast with the HD channel - and a second ESPN 4K/UHD will be born. The path seems fairly clear.

As far as other channels ... the introduction of HD brought special HD only programming channels. Some that have survived past the "look at this, it is in HD" novelty phase and joined traditional channels that upgraded their programming to HD. The early days of HD had a handful of linear channels and PPV. The introduction of 3D also brought special 3D only channels ... including "look at this, it is in 3D" novelty channels and PPV. Unfortunately 3D faded before traditional channels such as HBO joined in.

With 4K/UHD on the horizon I expect the same type of "look at this, it is in 4K/UHD" novelty channels that we saw with 3D and HD. I expect to see ESPN 4K/UHD. We already see VOD and PPV. When traditional channels step up and introduce 4K/UHD channels (such as a HBO 4K/UHD channel) it will be a good thing for the 4K/UHD marketplace.

I believe DirecTV intends to support 4K/UHD and see where it goes ... just like the supported 3D (and still do). If there is content to carry they will offer it. DirecTV made the commitment to upgrade their receivers to handle 3D ... they are making a similar commitment to handle 4K/UHD.

The work DirecTV put in to 3D is a good thing ... it shows that they are willing to make a commitment without a guarantee of success. That they are willing to be a market leader even if what they offer eventually fades. If they were not willing to take the risk with 3D I wouldn't be so confident that they would push ahead with 4K/UHD.

The future of 4K/UHD has yet to be written ... but it seems safe to say that DirecTV is positioning itself to be a part of that future and give 4K/UHD the best chance of survival beyond the "novelty" phase. That is a good thing.


----------



## inkahauts

The difference is not how it will start to appear, but how thew studios will use it at their end and therefore it will become available. You had to spend more money to make 3d and where basically making two versions of things. UHD and hd can be made from one master that is simply converted. That's a whole lot different at that end which is why producers will make the content in 4k and 8k....


----------



## James Long

There is going to be a lot of recorded in HD, produced in UHD content.


----------



## slice1900

GregLee said:


> I have two Samsung TVs that are upgradeable with its "One Connect Box", and Samsung has been good about this, so far. It did sell upgrade boxes last year for certain 2013 models, and it has produced and is now selling an upgrade box for some 2014 models. I'm waiting for reviews before I buy one. With Samsung's plan, at least there is no question about user installability, since its just a matter of plugging in cables.


Having an external box makes the upgrade easy, but would be a logistical pain, especially if your TV is wall mounted. Most people want fewer boxes, not yet another one.


----------



## studechip

Tom Robertson said:


> This is nitpicking...


=pedant.


----------



## harsh

Tom Robertson said:


> Which does not bode well for the standard if only one manufacturer of sources exists.


I've been saying this about RVU since the first capable devices showed up. After all this time, the RVU Alliance still doesn't appear to have certified an RVU server (not even one of the Genies).

Back on April 19, 2014, the RVU Alliance announced support for 4K UHD and said that it was part of the new RVU 2.0 specification. If you look at the list of approved devices, ALL of the Genie Minis and a number of LG UHD TVs are RVU 2.0 certified so RVU 2.0 apparently doesn't equate to DIRECTV 4K ready capability.


----------



## harsh

studechip said:


> =pedant.


You say this as if truth and accuracy has no place in DIRECTV discussions.


----------



## Drew2k

slice1900 said:


> Having an external box makes the upgrade easy, but would be a logistical pain, especially if your TV is wall mounted. Most people want fewer boxes, not yet another one.


Not sure why you think that. There is one cable that runs from the One-Connect Box to the TV, and it would stay in the wall. When upgrading the customer simply swaps the prior-year One Connect Box with the new one.


----------



## NR4P

I have the one connect box and like the idea of one cable to the TV and all HDMI cables going to one box. With 4 large HDMI cables its easier to connect.


----------



## Rich

je4755 said:


> Please forgive a series of basic questions from an individual who only now is contemplating the purchase of a 4k TV.
> - DirecTV's website solely notes the compatibility of 2014 Samsung 4k TVs. In 2015, are sets from more manufacturers deemed DirecTV-ready or, indeed, is this no longer an issue?
> - Is there a way to "future proof" a 4k TV beyond purchasing one with HDCP 2.2, HDMI 2.0 and HDR? Are there other specs of concern in this regard?
> - When ordering a new DVR - and a CSR (after conducting some research) just informed me the presumably 4k-optimized HR 54 is not vaporware but had no release date - can a 4k TV owner specify an HR54 when available or could DirecTV furnish the HR 44 Genie (or even an HR 34) instead? Is the only way to ensure receipt of an HR54 buying one rather than obtaining a free upgrade?


As you read on, you'll see many speculations, but we really don't know what's gonna happen. Best to have patience, this will all work out over the next year or so. If you have to buy a TV right now...if I had to buy a TV right now (and I've read this whole thread) I'm not sure what I'd do.

If history teaches us anything (and it teaches us everything, but we ignore it), look at how D* treated 3D a couple years ago. If you had a 3D capable TV, and didn't have a 3D capable DVR on it, D* would swap the HR out for one that was 3D capable. I'd like to think that would be the case with 4K.

In any case, if you can wait for a year or so, you'll get a better feel for what's going on. If you just gotta have it, buy a good one (which right now would appear to be a Sammy) and enjoy it! I've been fighting off the urge for quite a while.

Rich


----------



## slice1900

I think things may get interesting for RVU with the imminent profusion of VidiPath devices due to the FCC requirement for IP output in new cable company devices beginning June 1. Comcast is reportedly going to enable VidiPath server support in their X1 devices next month. We'll start seeing TVs supporting VidiPath and small client devices (mini set top, HDMI sticks, etc.) to support older TVs. Cox's Contour has already been updated and TWC is reportedly do it as well - with all the majors on board everyone else is probably following suit.

Since VidiPath (aka CVP-2) and RVU were both developed by JetHead, and are both based on the same technologies such as DLNA, DTCP-IP, HTML5, etc. they are clearly very similar. It is even possible they are identical, and RVU 2.0 *is* CVP-2 with the remote UI, though I haven't been able to find out if this is true, or if they differ in what ways. Assuming they are different, given their common heritage and building blocks it would require little effort on Directv's part to support VidiPath clients with their RVU "server", i.e. Genie, and potential future true server devices that don't do direct video output.


----------



## Tom Robertson

For those who still doubt, the B-Roll film shown during DIRECTV-15's launch listed UHD as part of the mission. 

Launch is looking great, by the way. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## KyL416

Tom Robertson said:


> For those who still doubt, the B-Roll film shown during DIRECTV-15's launch listed UHD as part of the mission.


And in the press conference they flat out said RDBS will be used for live UHD channels.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Phil Goswitz, Sr. VP of satellites spoke at DIRECTV-15 and Sky Mexico-1 launch in Kourou today. He made it clear DIRECTV will be doing linear, live 4K UHD available to customers. He mentioned looking forward to sports in 4k. 

Can I hope for NFL Sunday Ticket in 4k this season? 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> Phil Goswitz, Sr. VP of satellites spoke at DIRECTV-15 and Sky Mexico-1 launch in Kourou today. He made it clear DIRECTV will be doing linear, live 4K UHD available to customers. He mentioned looking forward to sports in 4k.
> 
> Can I hope for NFL Sunday Ticket in 4k this season?
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Indeed. Now they have 2 big new birds up there to be able to both deliver much more capacity and leverage newer tech onboard.

Good news today for sure.


----------



## NR4P

Tom Robertson said:


> Phil Goswitz, Sr. VP of satellites spoke at DIRECTV-15 and Sky Mexico-1 launch in Kourou today. He made it clear DIRECTV will be doing linear, live 4K UHD available to customers. He mentioned looking forward to sports in 4k.
> 
> Can I hope for NFL Sunday Ticket in 4k this season?
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


I was at a conference recently and reps from Sony and LG said that sports in 4k will take a while. They mentioned the mobile infrastructure to do 4k sports has alot of work to do so tv shows and movies will lead the way first.

So maybe next year?


----------



## slice1900

Tom Robertson said:


> Can I hope for NFL Sunday Ticket in 4k this season?


You can hope for anything of course, but I'll bet NFLST isn't 4K for years yet, maybe in the 2020s. They use the network feeds, and the networks won't feed 4K until they have affiliates that deliver in 4K.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Tom Robertson said:


> Phil Goswitz, Sr. VP of satellites spoke at DIRECTV-15 and Sky Mexico-1 launch in Kourou today. He made it clear DIRECTV will be doing linear, live 4K UHD available to customers. He mentioned looking forward to sports in 4k.
> 
> Can I hope for NFL Sunday Ticket in 4k this season?
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


Boardcast can't relay do 4K right now some stations have week HD due the lot's of sub channels. Also there is the issue of being locked out of local game in 4K on ST that are only HD ota.


----------



## Drew2k

Tom Robertson said:


> Phil Goswitz, Sr. VP of satellites spoke at DIRECTV-15 and Sky Mexico-1 launch in Kourou today. He made it clear DIRECTV will be doing linear, live 4K UHD available to customers. He mentioned looking forward to sports in 4k.
> 
> Can I hope for NFL Sunday Ticket in 4k this season?
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


And on top of all that, he said this would be done in 2015. Looking forward to what's next.


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> I see basic similarities ... especially with ESPN's involvement. When HD came out ESPN started a HD channel - not a 24 hour simulcast but as much HD content as they could get. ESPN HD (and eventually ESPN2 HD) replayed HD content - one could expect to see sports in HD 24/7. Eventually the amount of HD content grew and both channels became simulcast with their SD channels.
> 
> << Snipped bits out >>
> 
> The future of 4K/UHD has yet to be written ... but it seems safe to say that DirecTV is positioning itself to be a part of that future and give 4K/UHD the best chance of survival beyond the "novelty" phase. That is a good thing.


Well written, thoughtful, and I couldn't agree more!

Not quite contradicting myself; I should have said the differences I was thinking of have to do with the production side and the consumer side, not the delivery.

UHD won't require extra effort to "have effects" as 3D did. Yes, more expensive cameras and processors, but it'll be like shooting any movie. Easy enough to condense down to lower resolutions.

And on the consumer side, importantly, no glasses. No gimmicks, just a better picture. I suspect the cost to produce UHD TVs in big runs isn't a whole lot more than comparable quality of HD sets.

The novelty will be there initially, and who'll be the first on the block -lookee this picture!!- etc., but UHD should have staying power if the delivery systems will handle it. I think that gives DIRECTV® an advantage, and reasons for competitors to bash UHD. I don't mean to be harsh in anyway in my assessment.


----------



## Tom Robertson

As to sporting events in 4k, that actually is easier than one might think. The trucks are already rolling to events. Some are already recorded and mastered in 4k. 

Unless 4k dies like 3d instead of flying (faster than) HD, I'm sure the NFL will have most games in 4k long before the 2020s. I could see a game this year if ESPN and DIRECTV could launch that soon. Ok, it might be in December rather than September. I get the logistics involved. 

Then again, roll a truck up to a stadium (already done today, of course), deploy cameras, handle commercials locally, send the data uplink to DIRECTV and broadcast the game. And take a feed from that, downrez to HD, send that to ESPN for the normal feed. I bet, with some drive by all the companies involved, ESPN or NBC could do a 4k game in September. 

The hardest part might be could DIRECTV arrange to receive the signal, transcode, and uplink by then. They might have the equipment on order or even test equipment in place. If so, this should be doable by September. 

Imagine the Samsung TV sales if DIRECTV announced in mid-August such a game... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

JoeTheDragon said:


> Boardcast can't relay do 4K right now some stations have week HD due the lot's of sub channels. Also there is the issue of being locked out of local game in 4K on ST that are only HD ota.


You and slice1900 are right that the networks would have to work with DIRECTV to make any games happen this year. Indeed, like the early days of HD, commercials would probably need to be inserted onsite at the game for uplink directly to cable and DIRECTV. At the same time, the HD feed split off to go via the normal distribution network to affiliates.

I don't see all the games in a weekend in 4k this season. I could see one game a week before the end of the season, though perhaps not via Sunday Ticket, rather through NBC or ESPN.

Or perhaps the playoffs? 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> I don't see all the games in a weekend in 4k this season. I could see one game a week before the end of the season, though perhaps not via Sunday Ticket, rather through NBC or ESPN.


I see ESPN having a better chance of making it happen than NBC. Being a cable/satellite delivered channel they are not losing viewership from one distribution channel by offering a second channel airing in higher quality. NBC would have trouble with affiliates if they offered Sunday Night Football with an end run around local broadcasters. (ESPN will be simulcasting their wild card NFL game on ABC. But that is more of a bonus for the broadcast stations than taking away revenue by providing a competitive feed.)

I'd be surprised if anyone other than ESPN was first to market with a live 4K football game. Can they get it done by September? Maybe.

From a January article about "Digital Center 2" ... ESPN's new studio:
"TV still matters at ESPN, and in every way DC-2 is wired for the future of TV. It's capable of broadcasting in 4K and 8K, and if by some miracle 3D actually takes off, ESPN will be ready for that, too. TV is still where the network makes most of its money, and it will be for the foreseeable future. But when - not if, but when - that changes, ESPN says it will be ready. It has moved staff, built buildings, and overhauled how the company operates to make sure of that."
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7878051/espn-sportscenter-studio-and-the-future-of-sports-tv


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Tom Robertson said:


> You and slice1900 are right that the networks would have to work with DIRECTV to make any games happen this year. Indeed, like the early days of HD, commercials would probably need to be inserted onsite at the game for uplink directly to cable and DIRECTV. At the same time, the HD feed split off to go via the normal distribution network to affiliates.
> 
> I don't see all the games in a weekend in 4k this season. I could see one game a week before the end of the season, though perhaps not via Sunday Ticket, rather through NBC or ESPN.
> 
> Or perhaps the playoffs?
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


SuperBowl in 4K can be done most commercials are national ones maybe even give a local stations some kind of a kickback from the 4K fee for the few lost local slots.

SuperBowl is on OTA tv right now and they can use an PPV4K slot for it and make open to any one who is paying the 4k / HD fee and make it part of the limited basic level. Local OTA can't do 4K right now even if they kill all sub channels for that one day.


----------



## slice1900

Laxguy said:


> I suspect the cost to produce UHD TVs in big runs isn't a whole lot more than comparable quality of HD sets.


The cost of the LCD matrix for larger sets (maybe 65" or so) is actually less for 4K, because it is more difficult to make defect free LCD crystals of the size required for a HDTV. Currently the electronics required for 4K more than make up that difference (plus they charge a much bigger markup for 4K TVs since it is "new" and consumers are willing to pay more) As those factors diminish the cost to make a 4K TV will be less, and larger HDTVs will disappear from the market overnight.


----------



## inkahauts

James Long said:


> I see ESPN having a better chance of making it happen than NBC. Being a cable/satellite delivered channel they are not losing viewership from one distribution channel by offering a second channel airing in higher quality. NBC would have trouble with affiliates if they offered Sunday Night Football with an end run around local broadcasters. (ESPN will be simulcasting their wild card NFL game on ABC. But that is more of a bonus for the broadcast stations than taking away revenue by providing a competitive feed.)
> 
> I'd be surprised if anyone other than ESPN was first to market with a live 4K football game. Can they get it done by September? Maybe.
> 
> From a January article about "Digital Center 2" ... ESPN's new studio:
> "TV still matters at ESPN, and in every way DC-2 is wired for the future of TV. It's capable of broadcasting in 4K and 8K, and if by some miracle 3D actually takes off, ESPN will be ready for that, too. TV is still where the network makes most of its money, and it will be for the foreseeable future. But when - not if, but when - that changes, ESPN says it will be ready. It has moved staff, built buildings, and overhauled how the company operates to make sure of that."
> http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/28/7878051/espn-sportscenter-studio-and-the-future-of-sports-tv


Don't forget that NBC is owned by Comcast and has NBC sports net. It's entirely possible they could be planning to go 4k on their sports network just as ESPN seems to be prepping to. And then let them produce the Sunday night games and simulcast them in 4k via their sports network on cable and sat channels. Comcast has announced 4k in their systems so not out of the question they won't want to be producing some, including sports to put up too. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't within a year have some 4k from some of their channels. Not sure where they want to start though.

I have a feeling it'll be sometime in 2016 before we see 4k sports though. But, with comcasts announcement and DIRECTV prepping for linear 4k maybe some deals are in place and we will see ten linear 4k channels this year, with a couple being sports driven... Who knows!


----------



## Tom Robertson

James, yeah ESPN was my first candidate. I only included NBC since they only carry one game. 

Great info from the article. Thanks!

Another thought is a Thursday night game simulcast on CBS and NFL Network. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## James Long

I mentioned NBC in my post and a good reason why they won't undercut their broadcast network. ESPN does not have that problem with MNF.

I see Comcast's commitment to 4K as a "will carry". NBC Sports Network needs to grow ... beyond the 81 million current subscribers. Fox Sports 1 has about 84 million subscribers, Fox Sports 2 about 45 million. Fox is making the effort to be the next ESPN and has the content and ability to complete that task.

ESPN has 94 million subscribers and multiple networks. The 8000 pound gorilla will be the one to watch.

Whomever launches a 4K channel will need content for the rest of the week. One can only loop the same game so many times. 

ESPN naturally has SportsCenter to fill the gaps between event content. Broadcast from "DC-2" as described in the story linked in my post.

Without other content the 4K channel is basically a demo loop.


----------



## damondlt

What price tag is Directv going to put on their 4K programming? 
That is what IMO is going to decide how 4K will pan out.
Not to mention Existing customers will be forced to upgrade if they want 4K, and Directv doesn't even have a receiver out yet that can do 4K.
What about the testing phase?
Who has any 4K content currently?

You may get a few PPV in 4K, that will be over priced I'm sure.
$6 for HD PPV is a rip off, and I refuse to pay that.
We have a Red box 1/4 mile up the road, For $1.99-2.49 I can rent a blu- ray for 2 days. 
And I'm not an HD snob, so I'll even rent a DVD.
Nothing wrong with DVD quality.
I think 4K is going to be a tough sale to the general public. 
It's going to have to be forced onto customers over time.

What's the capacity of 4K on these satellites?
If TP bonding is required in a receiver, then 4K must take up a lot of room.


----------



## Steve

I was at a Best Buy the other day looking at the latest Sharp Aquos 70" UHD 4k display. It was mounted right below an Aquos 70" 1080p display. I've got 20/20 vision, and standing 2 feet away, the UHD display was superior. At 6' away, I couldn't tell the difference. I normally sit about 10' away from my 65" 1080p display, so it would be very hard for me to justify paying more $$$ for 4k content.


----------



## damondlt

I did they same before Buying my Vizio 60 inch M series. 
The 4K wasn't much different to spend the extra $500 on it.


----------



## MysteryMan

Steve said:


> I was at a Best Buy the other day looking at the latest Sharp Aquos 70" UHD 4k display. It was mounted right below an Aquos 70" 1080p display. I've got 20/20 vision, and standing 2 feet away, the UHD display was superior. At 6' away, I couldn't tell the difference. I normally sit about 10' away from my 65" 1080p display, so it would be very hard for me to justify paying more $$$ for 4k content.


Three examples of recommended viewing distances to see all available detail per CarltonBale.com. 55" screen: 480p 16 feet or closer......720p 11 feet or closer......1080p 7 feet or closer......4k 3 feet or closer......8k 2 feet or closer. 65" screen: 480p 19 feet or closer......720p 13 feet or closer......1080p 8 feet or closer......4k 4 feet or closer......8k 2 feet or closer. 85" screen: 480p 25 feet or closer......720p 17 feet or closer......1080p 11 feet or closer......4k 5 feet or closer......8k 3 feet or closer. As you can see by these figures one has to be really close to their TV screen to see all the available detail of 4k and 8k.


----------



## Tom Robertson

damondlt said:


> What price tag is Directv going to put on their 4K programming?
> That is what IMO is going to decide how 4K will pan out.
> Not to mention Existing customers will be forced to upgrade if they want 4K, and Directv doesn't even have a receiver out yet that can do 4K.
> What about the testing phase?
> Who has any 4K content currently?
> 
> You may get a few PPV in 4K, that will be over priced I'm sure.
> $6 for HD PPV is a rip off, and I refuse to pay that.
> We have a Red box 1/4 mile up the road, For $1.99-2.49 I can rent a blu- ray for 2 days.
> And I'm not an HD snob, so I'll even rent a DVD.
> Nothing wrong with DVD quality.
> I think 4K is going to be a tough sale to the general public.
> It's going to have to be forced onto customers over time.
> 
> What's the capacity of 4K on these satellites?
> If TP bonding is required in a receiver, then 4K must take up a lot of room.


Clearly you aren't the target customer. 

And that's cool, nothing at all wrong with that, of course. At some point you might find programming you really want in UHD.

The good news is if history repeats, it won't be forced upon you for a long time. You still can get SD only with DIRECTV. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## damondlt

I'm fairly sure they are no longer offering SD equipment. 
But I could be wrong.


----------



## Tom Robertson

damondlt said:


> I'm fairly sure they are no longer offering SD equipment.
> But I could be wrong.


New customers is a different situation. What they require of new customers doesn't mean they are forcing HD upon existing customers--15 years after launching the first HD channels. 

So at this rate, if you were a DIRECTV customer today, you likely wouldn't be "forced" into UHD until 2040ish assuming they launch UHD this year. At some point the world moves beyond Black and White TV... 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Drew2k

Steve said:


> I was at a Best Buy the other day looking at the latest Sharp Aquos 70" UHD 4k display. It was mounted right below an Aquos 70" 1080p display. I've got 20/20 vision, and standing 2 feet away, the UHD display was superior. At 6' away, I couldn't tell the difference. I normally sit about 10' away from my 65" 1080p display, so it would be very hard for me to justify paying more $$$ for 4k content.


Steve, was the 4K TV actually outputting the same content as the 1080p, but in "4K" resolution?

I was a little concerned, like you are, that I wouldn't be able to notice any difference from my viewing distance of about 9 feet from my 65" TV, but I did a test at home and with the same content at two resolutions, there was a significant improvemtn in the 4K content from that distance.

For my test I launched a 4K YouTube video on my Roku 3 connected to the 4K TV, and it of course could only do 1080p resolution. Then I switched to the builti-in YouTube app on the TV and played the same 4K video, and it played in UHD resolution. The difference was immediate, and the 4K was stunning at 9 feet.

Here was the video I played as a test:


----------



## GregLee

Steve said:


> I was at a Best Buy the other day looking at the latest Sharp Aquos 70" UHD 4k display. It was mounted right below an Aquos 70" 1080p display. I've got 20/20 vision, and standing 2 feet away, the UHD display was superior. At 6' away, I couldn't tell the difference. I normally sit about 10' away from my 65" 1080p display, so it would be very hard for me to justify paying more $$$ for 4k content.


That's a good reason for thinking that 4k sources without HDR aren't destined to go any further than 3d did. However, 4k displays that do a good job of upscaling 2k sources are a different matter -- they really can offer a better picture than 2k displays. I haven't actually seen any HDR sources yet, but reviews are very positive. Simulated HDR from regular 2k source looks good to me. This is not lost on Comcast, which has promised a set top box with HDR for next year. I've been watching from some word from DirecTV about HDR, but have seen nothing yet.


----------



## James Long

damondlt said:


> Not to mention Existing customers will be forced to upgrade if they want 4K, and Directv doesn't even have a receiver out yet that can do 4K.


DirecTV has an RVU client.



damondlt said:


> If TP bonding is required in a receiver, then 4K must take up a lot of room.


Not so much more. The bonding will allow channels to be bridged between two transponders but the transponders are big enough to fit at least one 4K channel.


----------



## Steve

Drew2k said:


> Steve, was the 4K TV actually outputting the same content as the 1080p, but in "4K" resolution?


The UHD display was running a 4k demo. I could definitely see how the resolution was comparatively silky smooth standing a couple of feet away. Moving 3-4 feet back, the 1080p picture appeared equally smooth.

Are you sure the YouTube bit rate to the Roku is the same as the YouTube bit rate being sent to the TV? It seems wasteful from a bandwidth standpoint that the Roku would advertise to YouTube it's a 4k capable device when it can only output 1080p. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Drew2k

Steve said:


> The UHD display was running a 4k demo. I could definitely see how the resolution was comparatively silky smooth standing a couple of feet away. Moving 3-4 feet back, the 1080p picture appeared equally smooth.
> 
> Are you sure the YouTube bit rate to the Roku is the same as the YouTube bit rate being sent to the TV? It seems wasteful from a bandwidth standpoint that the Roku would advertise to YouTube it's a 4k capable device when it can only output 1080p. Just thinking out loud.


YouTube supports multiple resolutions for this video, so my understanding is it sends the maximum that the device can handle. In this case, YouTube played the 1080p stream, while the native TV app played the 2160p stream.


----------



## Steve

Drew2k said:


> YouTube supports multiple resolutions for this video, so my understanding is it sends the maximum that the device can handle. In this case, YouTube played the 1080p stream, while the native TV app played the 2160p stream.


Gotcha. I just played that YouTube video directly to my 2k 65" Panasonic ZT60 and the color and contrast were beautiful, but the image resolution wasn't nearly as crisp as I'm used to seeing. YouTube should have been sending 1080p, but it looked like somewhere between 480p and 720p to me. I've got 50mb internet and the TV is hardwired, so I should have been receiving max YouTube resolution for that device. :shrug:


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> You can hope for anything of course, but I'll bet NFLST isn't 4K for years yet, maybe in the 2020s. They use the network feeds, and the networks won't feed 4K until they have affiliates that deliver in 4K.


If the NFL makes it a condition of buying the rights to the games, it will likely move things along a lot faster. NBC would probably be left out but I'd bet that CBS and Fox would be all over it.

Whether you believe that ESPN is ready is up to you.


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> If the NFL makes it a condition of buying the rights to the games, it will likely move things along a lot faster. NBC would probably be left out but I'd bet that CBS and Fox would be all over it.
> 
> Whether you believe that ESPN is ready is up to you.


I don't know when the CBS & Fox contracts are up for renewal, but if it is in the next few years the NFL can't make that a condition as ATSC 3.0 isn't even standardized yet. It may be ratified sometime next year, then equipment that meets that standard has to be manufactured, purchased by affiliates, tested, etc. That ignores the issues of what to do about all the people who will no longer be able to watch since ATSC 3.0 is not backwards compatible. As Diana has mentioned the available real time HEVC encoders are currently less efficient than the MPEG4 encoders, so they have a ways to go on that front as well. ATSC 3.0 should increase the bit rate, but we're talking about maybe 25 or 26 Mbps. That's hardly enough for a decent 4K signal, does anyone think they're going to drop all those subchannels to insure they deliver quality 4K? They'll probably add more...

If the contracts are up in 2020, most of these obstacles are removed, but it puts us into the timeline I was suggesting. As stated a small number of games like the ones on ESPN or NFL Network could be done in 4K, but that's not what was discussed, which is getting NFLST in 4K. We're years from that. Look how long it took from the introduction of HD on Directv for NFLST to offer all the games in HD.

If the NFL pushed a requirement like that and CBS and Fox told their affiliates, "you have to be ready to broadcast 4K in 2018" they'll probably lose a lot of small market affiliates who couldn't afford such an upgrade. There may be clauses in the affiliate contracts that prevent the parent network from putting unfunded requirements on them, then it would be up to the network to pay for upgrading all the affiliates - leaving less money to bid for the NFL contract. If the NFL thinks they'll get less money with a 4K requirement in place, does anyone really believe they'd sacrifice the money? It isn't like fans will switch to Arena football if those games were carried in 4K and the NFL wasn't.


----------



## peds48

Drew2k said:


> Steve, was the 4K TV actually outputting the same content as the 1080p, but in "4K" resolution?
> 
> I was a little concerned, like you are, that I wouldn't be able to notice any difference from my viewing distance of about 9 feet from my 65" TV, but I did a test at home and with the same content at two resolutions, there was a significant improvemtn in the 4K content from that distance.
> 
> For my test I launched a 4K YouTube video on my Roku 3 connected to the 4K TV, and it of course could only do 1080p resolution. Then I switched to the builti-in YouTube app on the TV and played the same 4K video, and it played in UHD resolution. The difference was immediate, and the 4K was stunning at 9 feet.
> 
> Here was the video I played as a test:


Not sure what to make of it. I played the video on 1080p and 4K on the same 5K monitor and at two feet the difference was vey minimal

Tried to attach pics of both 1080p and 4K but for some reason I am not being able to


----------



## damondlt

James Long said:


> DirecTV has an RVU client.
> 
> Not so much more. The bonding will allow channels to be bridged between two transponders but the transponders are big enough to fit at least one 4K channel.


What model is the RVU client?
The 4K ready RVU tvs?


----------



## Drew2k

Steve said:


> Gotcha. I just played that YouTube video directly to my 2k 65" Panasonic ZT60 and the color and contrast were beautiful, but the image resolution wasn't nearly as crisp as I'm used to seeing. YouTube should have been sending 1080p, but it looked like somewhere between 480p and 720p to me. I've got 50mb internet and the TV is hardwired, so I should have been receiving max YouTube resolution for that device. :shrug:


I have no explanation for it. I shrug with you!


----------



## slice1900

Youtube uses different bit rates depending on demand so you won't get the same stream twice depending on how busy they are. It isn't useful as a comparison for anything, because the tests are not repeatable.


----------



## Steve

slice1900 said:


> Youtube uses different bit rates depending on demand so *you won't get the same stream twice depending on how busy they are.* It isn't useful as a comparison for anything, because the tests are not repeatable.


That could explain why Drew saw a noticeable difference between 1080p and 4k and Peds only saw a slight difference.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

No more personal comments. Discuss the topic and not each other. If you have an issue with a post, report it. Don't reply to it.

MIke


----------



## Drew2k

Steve said:


> That could explain why Drew saw a noticeable difference between 1080p and 4k and Peds only saw a slight difference.


It could but when I first got the TV I had people over all weekend and we we did multiple comparisons with multiple videos, and from then through today it's been consistent that from 9 feet back we could clearly distinguish a difference in picture quality and tell which video was played at 1080p and which was 4K. I know you couldn't see the difference in the store beyond 2 feet, but I'm happy to say that here we definitely can.


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> As stated a small number of games like the ones on ESPN or NFL Network could be done in 4K, but that's not what was discussed, which is getting NFLST in 4K. We're years from that. Look how long it took from the introduction of HD on Directv for NFLST to offer all the games in HD.


The fact that there won't be any 8K TVs out there for a good long time doesn't seem to be stopping at least one broadcaster from recording the next Olympics in 8K.

It doesn't really matter how long it takes for the OTA broadcasters to catch up -- someone is going to want the games recorded in the best available format.


----------



## Steve

Drew2k said:


> It could but when I first got the TV I had people over all weekend and we we did multiple comparisons with multiple videos, and from then through today it's been consistent that from 9 feet back we could clearly distinguish a difference in picture quality and tell which video was played at 1080p and which was 4K. I know you couldn't see the difference in the store beyond 2 feet, but I'm happy to say that here we definitely can.


FWIW, it was 6 feet.  Paced it out.


----------



## harsh

Drew2k said:


> It could but when I first got the TV I had people over all weekend and we we did multiple comparisons with multiple videos, and from then through today it's been consistent that from 9 feet back we could clearly distinguish a difference in picture quality and tell which video was played at 1080p and which was 4K. I know you couldn't see the difference in the store beyond 2 feet, but I'm happy to say that here we definitely can.


Do you know for certain that the source transfer for each trial was the same?

I'm hopeful that the 4K content won't be some sort of a digital "punch up" of the 1080 transfer intended solely to exploit HDR but I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## NR4P

Is there a way on a Samsung TV to determine the resolution from streamed content from the TV apps such as Youtube?


----------



## peds48

Here is a link to a screen shot of both formats. 1080p and 4K

https://www.flickr.com/gp/[email protected]/dJg104


----------



## slice1900

harsh said:


> It doesn't really matter how long it takes for the OTA broadcasters to catch up -- someone is going to want the games recorded in the best available format.


It makes sense for stuff to be filmed in better quality even if it can't be delivered in that quality. There were plenty of movies filmed in 70mm even though most people watched in theaters with 35mm projection equipment using 35mm prints of lower quality.

As far as sports goes, 99% of its commercial value is lost the next day. People want to watch live, the number of people willing to pay to watch the 2006 Super Bowl or 2008 Olympics today is pretty small, regardless of how much better quality it is than when it was live.


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> It could but when I first got the TV I had people over all weekend and we we did multiple comparisons with multiple videos, and from then through today it's been consistent that from 9 feet back we could clearly distinguish a difference in picture quality and tell which video was played at 1080p and which was 4K. I know you couldn't see the difference in the store beyond 2 feet, but I'm happy to say that here we definitely can.


I saw the difference in the stores too. But I also saw the same feed on a 1080p and a 4K set side by side and could see no difference in PQ no matter where I stood. Not sure what the feed was, the HDMI ports on each set were in use, but it was identical on both sets. That really confused me. It was at a local Costco, both were Sammy TVs, both the same size. The only difference I could see was the $1,000 price difference. That confused me and still does as I read thru these posts. Shouldn't the 4K set have been noticeably better? To top off the experience there was no one there to ask questions of. A bunch of us were watching and I said the 4K should be upscaling the feed to 4K. Nobody knew nothing.

Rich


----------



## Rich

NR4P said:


> Is there a way on a Samsung TV to determine the resolution from streamed content from the TV apps such as Youtube?


My dopey Panny smart TV has that feature as do all my TVs. Just hit the Info button on the remotes. I can't believe the Sammys don't have that feature.

Rich


----------



## harsh

slice1900 said:


> As far as sports goes, 99% of its commercial value is lost the next day. People want to watch live, the number of people willing to pay to watch the 2006 Super Bowl or 2008 Olympics today is pretty small, regardless of how much better quality it is than when it was live.


I don't disagree. Sports is one of those things that you pay a premium to get and you only get to use it once or twice.

That said, there's a reason that they're doing 8K for the Olympics. I wonder how the old timers feel about their highlights being on film and in really poor SD versus the HD highlights that they seem to favor doing some manner of image processing on so you know they are highlights.


----------



## slice1900

Rich said:


> I saw the difference in the stores too. But I also saw the same feed on a 1080p and a 4K set side by side and could see no difference in PQ no matter where I stood. Not sure what the feed was, the HDMI ports on each set were in use, but it was identical on both sets. That really confused me. It was at a local Costco, both were Sammy TVs, both the same size. The only difference I could see was the $1,000 price difference. That confused me and still does as I read thru these posts. Shouldn't the 4K set have been noticeably better? To top off the experience there was no one there to ask questions of. A bunch of us were watching and I said the 4K should be upscaling the feed to 4K. Nobody knew nothing.


IMHO, the people who claim upscaling makes a big difference are seeing what they want to see to justify the money they spent on their 4K TV. You can't create picture data that doesn't exist, while there may be some small improvements possible here and there you'd have to know what to look for to tell the difference. If upscaling mattered you should see a significantly better picture watching a DVD on a HDTV than you do on a EDTV (not a CRT, but a digital 480p TV) since that is exactly the same thing.

The people who claim upscaling matters will disagree with me, but you know what you saw, and should base your expectations of what you'd get from a 4K TV on what you see, not what someone else tells you they see.


----------



## Rich

slice1900 said:


> IMHO, the people who claim upscaling makes a big difference are seeing what they want to see to justify the money they spent on their 4K TV. You can't create picture data that doesn't exist, while there may be some small improvements possible here and there you'd have to know what to look for to tell the difference. If upscaling mattered you should see a significantly better picture watching a DVD on a HDTV than you do on a EDTV (not a CRT, but a digital 480p TV) since that is exactly the same thing.
> 
> The people who claim upscaling matters will disagree with me, but you know what you saw, and should base your expectations of what you'd get from a 4K TV on what you see, not what someone else tells you they see.


That was only one experience. The other experiences I've had with 4Ks all seem to be positive, as I've written. For all I know the two sets could have been identical, it was Costco after all. Just thought it was odd. I've been using upscalers on DVDs for years and I know I get a better picture using them than I would with just a DVD player. I believe all the people that have written about their own 4Ks, they agree with everything I've seen in the stores except for that one instance in Costco.

Rich


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> My dopey Panny smart TV has that feature as do all my TVs. Just hit the Info button on the remotes. I can't believe the Sammys don't have that feature.


Rich, Can't check ATM, but does your Panny show info for built-in apps like YouTube? Or just what's coming in to its external inputs. I was unable to get info on my YouTube stream yesterday, but I was using a soft remote on my iPhone, not the Panny remote.


----------



## Laxguy

Comparing PQ at a big box store is a total crap shoot. Half the staff haven't a clue what they're talking about, some who do will lie about the feed, and if you find someone both knowledgeable and honest, get his card and reward him with a sale. YMMV.


----------



## Drew2k

Rich said:


> Is there a way on a Samsung TV to determine the resolution from streamed content from the TV apps such as Youtube?
> 
> 
> 
> My dopey Panny smart TV has that feature as do all my TVs. Just hit the Info button on the remotes. I can't believe the Sammys don't have that feature.
> 
> Rich
Click to expand...

The Samsung will show resolution info only for HDMI and component inputs as well as the TV input when DISPLAY or SELECT is pressed on the remote, but it doesn't show resolution info for native streaming apps like YouTube, Vudu, Netflix, etc.



Steve said:


> Rich, Can't check ATM, but does your Panny show info for built-in apps like YouTube? Or just what's coming in to its external inputs. I was unable to get info on my YouTube stream yesterday, but I was using a soft remote on my iPhone, not the Panny remote.


On the Roku and Samsung YouTube apps I found detail as follows: YouTube > Settings > Show Video Info > Enabled.


----------



## Steve

Drew2k said:


> On the Roku and Samsung YouTube apps I found detail as follows: YouTube > Settings > Show Video Info > Enabled.


Boy was that option buried deep in the YouTube menu. Good find!

Here's a phone cam grab of what I'm getting on that video today. I assume it's 1080p, because that's my native res.


----------



## NR4P

Drew2k said:


> The Samsung will show resolution info only for HDMI and component inputs as well as the TV input when DISPLAY or SELECT is pressed on the remote, but it doesn't show resolution info for native streaming apps like YouTube, Vudu, Netflix, etc.
> 
> On the Roku and Samsung YouTube apps I found detail as follows: YouTube > Settings > Show Video Info > Enabled.


Don't see it on my Samsung TV.
When running the Youtube app, I have other choices but nothing labeled settings

When launching the app I can sign in, search, and select certain categories.

Nothing else


----------



## Steve

NR4P said:


> Don't see it on my Samsung TV.
> When running the Youtube app, I have other choices but nothing labeled settings
> 
> When launching the app I can sign in, search, and select certain categories.
> 
> Nothing else


Steve, I had a devil of a time finding settings myself. On my Panny, I go left and scroll through all the categories. Way down at the bottom, I finally found "settings". Once in settings, I had to go all the way to the right to find the "info" toggle.


----------



## GregLee

slice1900 said:


> The people who claim upscaling matters will disagree with me, but you know what you saw, and should base your expectations of what you'd get from a 4K TV on what you see, not what someone else tells you they see.


I wouldn't try to manage people's expectations; their expectations are their business, but you're wrong about upscaling. It can improve picture quality in the sense of making the picture look more like what you would see if you were looking at a scene in person. A more realistic picture is what interests me, and I want my TV to do the best it can to restore the picture detail, color gamut, and dynamic range that were taken away when the video was graded for video distribution.

There is a trivial, and in my opinion irrelevant, argument that any enhancement to a video that meets the rec. 709 standard is a distortion and degradation of the picture, because the the picture will no longer be standard. This is trivial, because it's just saying that only what is standard can be standard, and anything that changes what is standard is non-standard. And it's true. Nobody should ever disagree with a tautology.

However, it's not true that you can't restore detail from an actual scene that got lost somewhere in the recording and distribution channel. The only real issue is whether the detail that you try to restore is realistic enough to bring the enhanced picture closer to the look of the original scene, or whether, instead, the picture looks worse. It's not a straightforward issue, but not all changes from the standard are distortions. Changes from _reality _are distortions.

I watched Sharapova's French open match this morning on DirecTV's 70x channel, and the picture with exaggerated highlights, artificially widened color gamut, and uprezzed from 1080i to 4k was first rate.


----------



## harsh

Laxguy said:


> Comparing PQ at a big box store is a total crap shoot.


Beware any salesman that claims his employer has a certified calibration technician who regularly maintains their display models.

One press of the scene button and all that is out the window.


----------



## NR4P

Steve said:


> Steve, I had a devil of a time finding settings myself. On my Panny, I go left and scroll through all the categories. Way down at the bottom, I finally found "settings". Once in settings, I had to go all the way to the right to find the "info" toggle.


I looked yesterday and it wasnt there. Today its there. Turned it on and tried a few YouTube 4k videos. Odd that even though it shows 21mbps downloads not getting anything above 1080.

Did some online searches and even folks with higher speeds have same thing. So have to wonder whats going on.


----------



## patmurphey

slice1900 said:


> IMHO, the people who claim upscaling makes a big difference are seeing what they want to see to justify the money they spent on their 4K TV. You can't create picture data that doesn't exist....


You don't know what you are talking about. I see an improvement in sharpness every day on satellite 1080i to my 4k TV.


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Rich, Can't check ATM, but does your Panny show info for built-in apps like YouTube? Or just what's coming in to its external inputs. I was unable to get info on my YouTube stream yesterday, but I was using a soft remote on my iPhone, not the Panny remote.


No, it doesn't show anything that's on the "Smart" window when I press the Info button. Another thing that annoys me. It does show the res for whatever I put on the TV, such as the Fire TV boxes I'm using at the moment. I just checked my son's new LG LCD set and it does the same thing with the built in apps...nothing. First time I got to play with it. It upscales ABC and Fox to 1080p/60 and does a really nice job of it. I thought hitting his Info button might give me more info but it just gave me the res.

Makes me wonder if any TVs give an indication of the res on any built in apps.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Laxguy said:


> Comparing PQ at a big box store is a total crap shoot. Half the staff haven't a clue what they're talking about, some who do will lie about the feed, and if you find someone both knowledgeable and honest, get his card and reward him with a sale. YMMV.


Certainly lucky if you find anyone at any Costco who can steer you in the right direction. I have been assured by a Costco employee that D* only puts out 720p on all its channels. How's that for the straight scoop? I didn't argue, I just walked away shaking my head.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Drew2k said:


> The Samsung will show resolution info only for HDMI and component inputs as well as the TV input when DISPLAY or SELECT is pressed on the remote, but it doesn't show resolution info for native streaming apps like YouTube, Vudu, Netflix, etc.
> 
> On the Roku and Samsung YouTube apps I found detail as follows: YouTube > Settings > Show Video Info > Enabled.


Panny, LG and now Sammy. Is this an industry thing? At least you got something, when I press the Info button on the built in apps I get nothing. I got nothing on the LG either.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Boy was that option buried deep in the YouTube menu. Good find!
> 
> Here's a phone cam grab of what I'm getting on that video today. I assume it's 1080p, because that's my native res.


You get all that by hitting the Info button? Boy, is my TV dopey!

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> Steve, I had a devil of a time finding settings myself. On my Panny, I go left and scroll through all the categories. Way down at the bottom, I finally found "settings". Once in settings, I had to go all the way to the right to find the "info" toggle.


Ahh, gotta try that, wait one...This is disheartening. All I get in Settings is the opportunity to put a password in, or change the way the app screen looks. No res info at all. Dopey TV. I'm certainly glad I didn't buy it for its Smart features. I just reread your post and tried to "go all the way the right", can't go to the right. Dopey TV.

Rich


----------



## Smuuth

Pressing the info button on the Vizio P Series while in the Netflix app shows the display resolution, program running time, and audio information.


----------



## Steve

Rich said:


> You get all that by hitting the Info button? Boy, is my TV dopey!
> 
> Rich


It's not a Panny thing, Rich. Got that by firing up the YouTube app, per Drew's tip. Once the YouTube app is on-screen, you navigate downtown to YouTube settings, then all the way over to the right to select info. It's poorly implemented, IMHO, because You can't watch the video when it's enabled, since it blocks the screen.


----------



## Rich

Smuuth said:


> Pressing the info button on the Vizio P Series while in the Netflix app shows the display resolution, program running time, and audio information.


I've tried that. Did nothing. Glad to see some makers have the good sense to put info where you can easily access it.

Rich


----------



## Rich

Steve said:


> It's not a Panny thing, Rich. Got that by firing up the YouTube app, per Drew's tip. Once the YouTube app is on-screen, you navigate downtown to YouTube settings, then all the way over to the right to select info. It's poorly implemented, IMHO, because You can't watch the video when it's enabled, since it blocks the screen.


My YouTube app on the TV is disabled.

Rich


----------



## Oli74

Nick Jr possible in HD as early as tomorrow

http://tvpredictions.com/directv053115.htm

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KyL416

Oli74 said:


> Nick Jr possible in HD as early as tomorrow


It's launching tommorow at 6am ET, it's already being covered in the last few pages of HD anticipation thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/217264-directv-hd-channel-anticipation-official-q2-15-thread/page-10#entry3363630


----------



## Diana C

Swanni even cited DBSTalk as a source.


----------



## Rich

Diana C said:


> Swanni even cited DBSTalk as a source.


He does that on occasion. I get his newsletter. When D* wants to get news in the pipeline...

Rich


----------



## Oli74

Am I alone doing this? 
Each time theirs a storm I switch from HD to SD in the Display>Setting show all channels and I can that channel in SD because the HD channel is not working due to the weather. Now I wonder when 4K comes around and there's a storm would in work in HD? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57

Oli74 said:


> Am I alone doing this?
> Each time theirs a storm I switch from HD to SD in the Display>Setting show all channels and I can that channel in SD because the HD channel is not working due to the weather. Now I wonder when 4K comes around and there's a storm would in work in HD?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


NO, probably not and it is just a guess but I would expect 4k to go out quicker than HD does now.


----------



## inkahauts

How fast it goes out is entirely dependent on what freq they are using to beam it down from the sky and such and not what quality the picture rez is... If they put 4k on 101, then it'd go out after hd.. but where they will be putting it, I am not positive. I imagine it will be about the same time as HD is now...


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> How fast it goes out is entirely dependent on what freq they are using to beam it down from the sky and such and not what quality the picture rez is... If they put 4k on 101, then it'd go out after hd.. but where they will be putting it, I am not positive. I imagine it will be about the same time as HD is now...


It isn't just the frequency but what modulation and error correction they use reach a desired bit rate. The more bits you try to squeeze into each MHz, the less your signal margin and the less rain it will take to induce fade. Directv's 4K will use RDBS, which is more similar in frequency to the Ka frequency their HD uses than the Ku their SD uses, so it will fade more similarly to HD assuming they try to obtain a similar bit rate from it.

Directv's HD should improve in a few years when they finally discontinue MPEG2 SD and can use 101 for HD. Yeah theoretically when it is freed up they could use it for 4K, but I think there's little chance they will use that prime real estate for a minority of customers watching 4K rather than HD that 100% of their customers will watch.


----------



## slice1900

Oli74 said:


> Am I alone doing this?
> Each time theirs a storm I switch from HD to SD in the Display>Setting show all channels and I can that channel in SD because the HD channel is not working due to the weather. Now I wonder when 4K comes around and there's a storm would in work in HD?


That only works in places with relatively weak storms. Where you have stronger storms it doesn't matter, HD fades and SD follows quickly thereafter, so there would be no point in switching channels.

The resolution of the picture has nothing to do with how it reacts to rain, the satellite is sending down digital data and doesn't care whether it is SD, HD, 4K or your mother's meatloaf recipe. It is all about the frequency used and how much information you're trying to squeeze into a given amount of spectrum. Since 4K and HD will have similar frequencies and therefore likely similar fade characteristics what you suggest will not work, you'd have to switch to SD. Once SD goes away, then you might be able to switch to HD, since I think it is very likely HD will use the same Ku transponders SD uses today that are more resistant to rain fade.


----------



## inkahauts

slice1900 said:


> It isn't just the frequency but what modulation and error correction they use reach a desired bit rate. The more bits you try to squeeze into each MHz, the less your signal margin and the less rain it will take to induce fade. Directv's 4K will use RDBS, which is more similar in frequency to the Ka frequency their HD uses than the Ku their SD uses, so it will fade more similarly to HD assuming they try to obtain a similar bit rate from it.
> 
> Directv's HD should improve in a few years when they finally discontinue MPEG2 SD and can use 101 for HD. Yeah theoretically when it is freed up they could use it for 4K, but I think there's little chance they will use that prime real estate for a minority of customers watching 4K rather than HD that 100% of their customers will watch.


Yep!

I wish I had rain fade problems right now, our drought is really bad


----------



## exorr

jerrylove56 said:


> A couple of things: 1) How could DTV try to jump into another "trending" technology when it has yet to fully upgrade SD channels to HD? 2) At what point can DTV stop justifying fees for HD? 3) I am not employed by DTV or own stock, so exactly why should this company continue to expend monies on questionable fads? (i.e., 3D TV)
> 
> It just appears that management has lost its vision and ideals for the future. Yes making money is obvious for any for-profit entity, but DTV reminds me of Circuit City years ago. Big and profitable, but without a vision, drive or singular purpose. I still remember back in the 80's when DTV's cutting edge technology was announced. I just don't see the same company anymore. Just a corporation trying to squeeze its consumers.


DirecTV has constantly been the leader in providing there customers access to the best picture/services you can get. I had Time Warner for awhile and it paled in comparison to DirecTV. The hardware, picture quality, sports packages, everything was just so much worse. I'm curious if you even have DirecTV or if you do, have you used another service and seen the difference? Should they be charging for HD? I'm not sure on that, but to say they have lost their vision seems ludicrous to me. They are the first and only cable provider to currently offer 4k content of any kind. If you feel 4k is a fad, I ask you to watch 4k again. 4k is the future, not a fad. In terms of 3D, yes I see that as a fad also, but everyone was jumping on the bandwagon, not just DirecTV. So kind of silly to say that's a good example of losing their vision.


----------



## patmurphey

slice1900 said:


> That only works in places with relatively weak storms. Where you have stronger storms it doesn't matter, HD fades and SD follows quickly thereafter, so there would be no point in switching channels...


On Dish, the Hopper auto-switches to SD if rain blocks the HD signal and switches back when HD returns. You would be surprised to see how effective that is in all but the heaviest storms. It works well even where HD and SD are on the same satellite.


----------



## slice1900

patmurphey said:


> On Dish, the Hopper auto-switches to SD if rain blocks the HD signal and switches back when HD returns. You would be surprised to see how effective that is in all but the heaviest storms. It works well even where HD and SD are on the same satellite.


It worked because even though they are using Ku for both HD and SD, they were squeezing a lot more bits out of their HD transponders.

However, Dish has switched to the same 8PSK turbo encoding for their MPEG2 SD transponders that they are using for their HD transponders, so this strategy will no longer work (or soon won't, if they haven't fully transitioned yet) They might as well remove that feature from the receivers now, it is useless.

Assuming both dishes were peaked optimally, Directv's SD should be noticeably more resistant to rain fade than Dish's SD once they've converted those to 8PSK turbo. Not that anyone cares, since Directv's SD quality sucks because they're trying to cram too many channels into too few bits. Once they drop MPEG2 SD people will care, because all the HD channels Directv moves to 101 will be significantly more resistant to rain fade than Dish.


----------



## James Long

DISH has QPSK and 8PSK with QPSK Turbo on one satellite (77). They do not have "8PSK Turbo".
Eastern Arc subscribers (which is the experience patmurphey is referring to) have MPEG4 SD on 8PSK transponder (and have had that pairing for several years). Western Arc subscribers still have MPEG2 on QPSK. The encoding has not yet changed. MPEG2 SD on Western Arc is not scheduled to be replaced.


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> DISH has QPSK and 8PSK with QPSK Turbo on one satellite (77). They do not have "8PSK Turbo".
> Eastern Arc subscribers (which is the experience patmurphey is referring to) have MPEG4 SD on 8PSK transponder (and have had that pairing for several years). Western Arc subscribers still have MPEG2 on QPSK. The encoding has not yet changed. MPEG2 SD on Western Arc is not scheduled to be replaced.


I guess I'm unclear what Dish considers "turbo" to be since it isn't part of any DVB standard, so we'll ignore that. My point was that their 8PSK transponders are all running at 21.5 Ms/s which is a non-standard roll off factor. Doing that allows them to increase the data rate and fit more channels, but the trade off is a reduction in signal margin and an attendant increase in susceptibility to rain fade (though being Ku, should still be somewhat less than Directv's HD susceptibility due to their use of Ka)

If patmurphey is getting MPEG4 SD as well as MPEG4 HD and both are on 8PSK transponders using identical FEC, they'll fade at _exactly_ the same time since they'll have identical signal margins. I don't see how the receiver switching to SD can possibly be of any benefit.


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> ...
> 
> If patmurphey is getting MPEG4 SD as well as MPEG4 HD and both are on 8PSK transponders using identical FEC, they'll fade at _exactly_ the same time since they'll have identical signal margins. I don't see how the receiver switching to SD can possibly be of any benefit.


Of course a feature of the DVB-S2 standard is the ability to change modulation levels and FEC on a packet by packet basis within the same transport stream.

So could it be that Dish has both 8-PSK at a certain FEC for HD and QPSK at a certain FEC for the SD duplicate, packet streams multiplexed together on the same xpndr for the EA?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

There are few SD channels sharing transponders with HD channels. The channels are mostly segregated.


----------



## patmurphey

slice1900 said:


> ...If patmurphey is getting MPEG4 SD as well as MPEG4 HD and both are on 8PSK transponders using identical FEC, they'll fade at _exactly_ the same time since they'll have identical signal margins. I don't see how the receiver switching to SD can possibly be of any benefit.


Well, it is a benefit and it works well. SD works when HD doesn't on the Eastern arc. Some of the SD/HD combinations are on the same satellite. You don't see the benefit because you must not have a Hopper on Dish's Eastern arc. :evilgrin:


----------



## slice1900

James Long said:


> There are few SD channels sharing transponders with HD channels. The channels are mostly segregated.


According to Lyngsat's data for Echostar 16 (to pick one of the eastern satellites) they are using the same modulation/FEC on the transponders shown in green for MPEG4/HD that they're using on the others shown only as MPEG4. If patmurphey is seeing SD channels work when HD channels go out, either that information is out of date, or the person grabbing it doesn't have the proper setup to determine what is really going on with those transponders.

All Dish's transponders are shown as using DVB-S, not DVB-S2, but even if accurate that shouldn't stop them from using that feature from the DVB-S2 standard HoTat2 mentioned if it served their needs, since they're deviating from the standard in at least one other way already.


----------



## Smuuth

Not quite sure how a discussion of Dish network features relates to DIRECTV 4k UHD Plans. How about we try to stay on topic?


----------



## James Long

Smuuth said:


> Not quite sure how a discussion of Dish network features relates to DIRECTV 4k UHD Plans. How about we try to stay on topic?


Oli74 reported that on his DirecTV system he tunes to SD channels during bad weather and asked if, in the future, 4K signals would work in storms. From there the discussion went from speculation over how weather will affect reception to a discussion of the fallback feature which is apparently unique to DISH. That is how we got to where we are in the thread.

People asked questions - questions are answered. I call it "discussion".

If DirecTV makes any major announcements or plans I am sure the thread will snap back to attention ...


----------



## inkahauts

Ok, so I am going to go out on a limb and say we will finally get NASA channel in a higher res than sd. But that it will be in 4k. They have been doing a bunch of filming in 4k from the space station and such lately for their channel.


----------



## slice1900

The first 4K channel in North America is finally available. Don't get too excited, it is just demos, but better than nothing I guess.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/next-tv/ses-stands-new-ultra-hd-demo-channel/391442


----------



## HoTat2

slice1900 said:


> The first 4K channel in North America is finally available. Don't get too excited, it is just demos, but better than nothing I guess.
> 
> http://www.multichannel.com/news/next-tv/ses-stands-new-ultra-hd-demo-channel/391442


Can't get this web page to load so far on Google Chrome at least.

Just a blank page of horizontal reddish-black stripes


----------



## jimmie57

I am watching the preview of the US Open Golf tournament that is going to start tomorrow,
ON FS1. They were telling and showing all the new things they are going to use. One of them is a 4k camera.

I suppose one might get this by using the internet from their website. ??
I don't have a 4k TV so I will not be trying that.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Jimmie57,

Thanks for pointing that out. Woohoo!

For events that can't be watched live in 4k, they still originate in 4k to be able to include clips or segments in future 4k productions. 

So clearly FS1 is planning on 4k content being a part of their future--an excellent sign. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## jimmie57

Tom Robertson said:


> Jimmie57,
> 
> Thanks for pointing that out. Woohoo!
> 
> For events that can't be watched live in 4k, they still originate in 4k to be able to include clips or segments in future 4k productions.
> 
> So clearly FS1 is planning on 4k content being a part of their future--an excellent sign.
> 
> Peace,
> Tom


UH OO, I think they are talking about 4k frames per second for slo mo shots, not 4k resolution.


----------



## Crypter

Guys,

This thread is pretty massive, and I have not been back on dbstalk in years. I got 2 little ones at home that have consumed most of my spare time. However, we are moving and I am getting a new 4K tv and I am VERY interested in what DirecTV is doing, since iv'e been with DTV for many years and don't plan on dumping them any time soon. But as I understand it, the limited amount of 4K content out there right now is ALL streaming content that would use your data plan and NOT sent via satellite correct? What are DTV's plans for 4K via satellite? Any timelines that have been talked about? We should keep the OP of this thread up-to-date with some of this info for folks like me. 


Thanks in advance!


----------



## inkahauts

At the moment they don't stream anything over the Internet. Everything 4k from DIRECTV is sat based and they push it to your receiver after you tell it what you want. 

In the future they will have linear channels. 

It only works with a few specific tvs at this time. Everyone is sure that will change just not sure when exactly. 

Also careful buying a TV. You need to really check the specs because many 4k tvs don't have the right inputs for the future of 4k. They only can get 4k via built in streaming apps. And that's no good IMHO.


----------



## Crypter

inkahauts said:


> At the moment they don't stream anything over the Internet. Everything 4k from DIRECTV is sat based and they push it to your receiver after you tell it what you want.
> 
> In the future they will have linear channels.
> 
> It only works with a few specific tvs at this time. Everyone is sure that will change just not sure when exactly.
> 
> Also careful buying a TV. You need to really check the specs because many 4k tvs don't have the right inputs for the future of 4k. They only can get 4k via built in streaming apps. And that's no good IMHO.


Thank you for the reply, yea I am considering either the Samsung 65JS8500 or the Sony 65X850C both claim to be DirecTV RVU compatible, though I know only the Samsung claims DirecTV 4K ready. I am probably leaning more towards the Samsung but I love what I have seen from the Sony as well. Built-in android TV is a BIG plus for me as well.


----------



## peds48

Crypter said:


> Thank you for the reply, yea I am considering either the Samsung 65JS8500 or the Sony 65X850C both claim to be DirecTV RVU compatible, though I know only the Samsung claims DirecTV 4K ready. I am probably leaning more towards the Samsung but I love what I have seen from the Sony as well. Built-in android TV is a BIG plus for me as well.


As of this writing, 2015 Sony are not RVU ready. Perhaps a software update can enable the feature, just like it happened to 2015 Samsung


----------



## harsh

peds48 said:


> As of this writing, 2015 Sony are not RVU ready. Perhaps a software update can enable the feature, just like it happened to 2015 Samsung


I could have sworn that in a post you made last week, someone was enabling the Sonys in some fashion that night.


----------



## Rich

Crypter said:


> Guys,
> 
> This thread is pretty massive, and I have not been back on dbstalk in years. I got 2 little ones at home that have consumed most of my spare time. However, we are moving and I am getting a new 4K tv and I am VERY interested in what DirecTV is doing, since iv'e been with DTV for many years and don't plan on dumping them any time soon. But as I understand it, the limited amount of 4K content out there right now is ALL streaming content that would use your data plan and NOT sent via satellite correct? What are DTV's plans for 4K via satellite? Any timelines that have been talked about? We should keep the OP of this thread up-to-date with some of this info for folks like me.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I'd wait until the dust settles. Too many variables right now to make a big purchase, I think. I want a 4K too, almost made a huge mistake last year, but came to my senses and backed off. Until all 4Ks are plug and play, I'm waiting. If you just have to have one right now, the Sammy JS9000 seems to be a good choice.

Rich


----------



## peds48

harsh said:


> I could have sworn that in a post you made last week, someone was enabling the Sonys in some fashion that night.


Give your record lately, I wont be surprised that are you are mistaken, yet again!


----------



## Whiskey River

Laxguy said:


> Comparing PQ at a big box store is a total crap shoot. Half the staff haven't a clue what they're talking about, some who do will lie about the feed, and if you find someone both knowledgeable and honest, get his card and reward him with a sale. YMMV.


I was at a local bestbuy looking at a Sammy showing 4K, and I looked at the back to see what it was connected to, and I
only saw the power cord going to the unit, I kept looking, and finally I saw one of those short sticking out flash drives
and I asked the sales person what was being shown and they lied and said it was streaming through the internet.
I guess it could have been WiFi, but I don't think so.


----------



## ladannen

I was also at an electronics store this weekend. Most of the Samsung 4K sets were showing a video on a 4-5 minute loop with scenes from a city with traffic and other nature stuff. Looked really good.
I told the sales guy I'm not getting a 4K TV until there is actual 4K programming and a standard among manufactures, but I asked him where the demo video came from. He told me it is from a flash stick that Samsung provided.


----------



## vikefan

Whiskey River said:


> I was at a local bestbuy looking at a Sammy showing 4K, and I looked at the back to see what it was connected to, and I
> only saw the power cord going to the unit, I kept looking, and finally I saw one of those short sticking out flash drives
> and I asked the sales person what was being shown and they lied and said it was streaming through the internet.
> I guess it could have been WiFi, but I don't think so.


just bought a samsung 4k two weeks ago. It does have wifi. you tube has all kinds of 4k content. The tv has a quad 4 in it and streaming is super fast.


----------



## Rich

Whiskey River said:


> I was at a local bestbuy looking at a Sammy showing 4K, and I looked at the back to see what it was connected to, and I
> only saw the power cord going to the unit, I kept looking, and finally I saw one of those short sticking out flash drives
> and I asked the sales person what was being shown and they lied and said it was streaming through the internet.
> I guess it could have been WiFi, but I don't think so.


Yup, they just stick a flash drive in.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Found an interesting piece on the topic of the current state of 4K UHD TV here:

https://techrealist.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/will-4k-uhdtv-gain-adoption-as-a-viable-format-anytime-soon/

It's pretty high level, but contains a few points to ponder for those folks shopping for 4K UHD devices at this time.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Found an interesting piece on the topic of the current state of 4K UHD TV here:
> 
> https://techrealist.wordpress.com/2015/06/26/will-4k-uhdtv-gain-adoption-as-a-viable-format-anytime-soon/


The AVSForum article by Scott Wilkinson is more comprehensive.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/301-avs-articles/2028921-top-10-things-you-need-know-about-choosing-between-hd-uhd.html

In the end, the conclusions are pretty much the same of any scholarly research: We're not there yet.


----------



## Rich

harsh said:


> The AVSForum article by Scott Wilkinson is more comprehensive.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/301-avs-articles/2028921-top-10-things-you-need-know-about-choosing-between-hd-uhd.html
> 
> In the end, the conclusions are pretty much the same of any scholarly research: We're not there yet.


Yup, still too many variables. Industry standards need to be set. I think.

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Rich said:


> Yup, still too many variables. Industry standards need to be set. I think.
> 
> Rich


Pretty much...though HDCP v2.2 (p60) copy protection is set within HDMI 2...and more and more 4K UHD TVs are now supporting that standard. Some of the recent sets feature multiple ports with this format, while some of the earlier models may only have 1 such port.


----------



## Richard L Bray

Rich said:


> Yup, still too many variables. Industry standards need to be set. I think.
> 
> Rich


Industry standards are pretty much set for UHD and even the new UHD players. HDR is still in a state of flux; although shows lots of promise. Since Scott wrote his article a few weeks ago, Amazon has made available an original series "Mozart in the Jungle" in HDR. Netflix and Amazon both plan to use HDR in original programming starting next year. They have used UHD for original programming the last year. Between the two of them, I'm sure there is over a 100 hours of UHD programming currently available.

Bought my first UHD display (Samsung F9000) around 18 months ago. They make a new one connect box (OCB) available annually that upgrades connections and features. The current box SEK-3500 gives the F9000 the ability to receive input from the UHD players to be released later this year and also basic HDR. Annual upgrades on the OCB keep the Samsung current in everything but actual panel capabilities.

Bought a Samsung JS9500 a couple months ago that is a significant upgrade from the F9000. It is the only fully capable UHD HDR set currently sold. Video is amazing. Actually, HDR probably has more impact than UHD.

The UHD threads on AVS are filled with pleased owners.


----------



## Rich

Richard L Bray said:


> Industry standards are pretty much set for UHD and even the new UHD players. HDR is still in a state of flux; although shows lots of promise. Since Scott wrote his article a few weeks ago, Amazon has made available an original series "Mozart in the Jungle" in HDR. Netflix and Amazon both plan to use HDR in original programming starting next year. They have used UHD for original programming the last year. Between the two of them, I'm sure there is over a 100 hours of UHD programming currently available.
> 
> Bought my first UHD display (Samsung F9000) around 18 months ago. They make a new one connect box (OCB) available annually that upgrades connections and features. The current box SEK-3500 gives the F9000 the ability to receive input from the UHD players to be released later this year and also basic HDR. Annual upgrades on the OCB keep the Samsung current in everything but actual panel capabilities.
> 
> Bought a Samsung JS9500 a couple months ago that is a significant upgrade from the F9000. It is the only fully capable UHD HDR set currently sold. Video is amazing. Actually, HDR probably has more impact than UHD.
> 
> _*The UHD threads on AVS are filled with pleased owners.*_


I'd much rather see posts that list the pros and cons of the TV models. I realize that it's nice for people to be happy with their purchases, but I'd really like to see those cons right up there with their positive opinions. So far, I've seen one, _*Drew2K *_posted in that manner as soon as he got settled in with his Sammy 4K. I think that post is somewhere in this thread.

This board is filled with posts complaining about TV providers and their equipment. There have to be more people that can see things that are just wrong with the present crop of 4K sets. Just because someone pays a lot for something doesn't make it the best thing they've ever bought, but that seems to be the trend on this thread.

Rich


----------



## Steve

Richard L Bray said:


> Actually, HDR probably has more impact than UHD.


Agree. If folks think a particular 4k display looks better than a 2k display _at normal viewing distances_, it's likely due to improvements in color, contrast and brightness, not increased resolution.


----------



## GregLee

Rich said:


> This board is filled with posts complaining about TV providers and their equipment. There have to be more people that can see things that are just wrong with the present crop of 4K sets. Just because someone pays a lot for something doesn't make it the best thing they've ever bought, but that seems to be the trend on this thread.


I paid substantially more for my JS9000 set than I ever paid before. I certainly understand your suspicion that my appreciation of the seemingly great picture results from a need to justify my investment. When I can find some bad thing, I'll be sure to report back. Looking, looking, ...


----------



## Rich

GregLee said:


> I paid substantially more for my JS9000 set than I ever paid before. I certainly understand your suspicion that my appreciation of the seemingly great picture results from a need to justify my investment. When I can find some bad thing, I'll be sure to report back. Looking, looking, ...


I didn't have you in mind, I appreciated the comparison between the same plasma I have and the 4K. That's another thing I look for.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts

It could be any real downside to the ones that have all the tech specs to get 4k won't show their differences between each other till we see a lot of 4k programming to start comparing them that way. Or at least the differences stand out more.


----------



## Oli74

8K at Yankee Stadium

http://www.newsday.com/sports/media/mlb-previews-nhk-s-new-8k-super-hi-vision-telecast-at-yankee-stadium-1.10656463

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yosoyellobo

I did not get my invatations.


----------



## je4755

Just (literally!) brought home a JS8500, possibly as a transitional purchase until HDR and other standards are concretized over the next year or two. Particularly looking forward to viewing Netflix, Amazon and YouTube 4k offerings as well as possibly participating in a 4k-tier beta testing program for CuriosityStream. Also intend to upgrade my HR 24 to an HR 54 when available, while hoping the JS8500 proves compatible with any downstream DirecTV 4k linear programming (while noting in a few weeks some UK residents will enjoy access to a dedicated 4k channel, “BT Sport Ultra HD.”)

I had intended to buy a 4k computer system before acquiring a TV but in March was told by a CSR at a boutique manufacturer three 980 video cards (at that time Nvidia’s top-of-the-line product) would be required for 4k gaming. Thus, these items themselves would cost more than the JS8500, at least the 48” model now situated in my small “man cave.”


----------



## jclangston

I also just jumped into 4K. I purchased a 55" Samsung JS9000. I will say that the limited shows on Netflix that are in 4K look amazing, looks just like the tv's on display at Best Buy. Blu-ray disks do look slightly better than they did on my 8 year old plasma. Probably due to the 4K upscaling, but not sure, I just know the image is more crisp. As far as watching Directv it basically looks exactly the same as it did on my 1080P plasma. I'm very happy with my purchase but my conclusion is that you have to feed the tv a full 1080P signal before you will notice much difference. 

For those still nervous about 4K standards don't worry, as long as you buy a tv with HDMI 2.0 ports that is HDCP 2.2 compatible you are good to go. It has already been said that's what UHD Blu-ray players will be using when they hit the shelves hopefully by Christmas but early 2016 at the latest.


----------



## Richard L Bray

jclangston said:


> I also just jumped into 4K. I purchased a 55" Samsung JS9000. I will say that the limited shows on Netflix that are in 4K look amazing, looks just like the tv's on display at Best Buy. Blu-ray disks do look slightly better than they did on my 8 year old plasma. Probably due to the 4K upscaling, but not sure, I just know the image is more crisp. As far as watching Directv it basically looks exactly the same as it did on my 1080P plasma. I'm very happy with my purchase but my conclusion is that you have to feed the tv a full 1080P signal before you will notice much difference.
> 
> For those still nervous about 4K standards don't worry, as long as you buy a tv with HDMI 2.0 ports that is HDCP 2.2 compatible you are good to go. It has already been said that's what UHD Blu-ray players will be using when they hit the shelves hopefully by Christmas but early 2016 at the latest.
> 
> Small correction on the above. If you want UHD and HDR from the upcoming UHD players, you need HDMI 2.0a ports or HDMI 2.0 ports capable of receiving a firmware upgrade to HDMI 2.0a (not all of them are capable of the firmware upgrade). The "2.0a" supports HDR which actually has more impact than UHD itself.


----------



## Al K

DirecTV has introduced the HR54 4K Genie and the C61K 4K client. Interestingly, the C61K outputs 4K over HDMI, but the HR54 doesn't. So no matter how you receive 4K, you need two receivers. I currently have an HR44 and an RVU tv setup. The RVU tv counts as a second receiver. The RVU tv operation is so slow as to be almost worthless. So I guess I'll get a C61K and feed my tv with HDMI. 

All of this is moot until DirectATT :sure: finally provides 4K programming. Thank goodness for M-GO, Netflix, and Ultraflix.


----------



## peds48

Al K said:


> DirecTV has introduced the HR54 4K Genie


The HR54 is not 4K in any manner. The HR44 can do 4K same as its siblings the HR34/44, through RVU.


----------



## inkahauts

Al K said:


> DirecTV has introduced the HR54 4K Genie and the C61K 4K client. Interestingly, the C61K outputs 4K over HDMI, but the HR54 doesn't. So no matter how you receive 4K, you need two receivers. I currently have an HR44 and an RVU tv setup. The RVU tv counts as a second receiver. The RVU tv operation is so slow as to be almost worthless. So I guess I'll get a C61K and feed my tv with HDMI.
> 
> All of this is moot until DirectATT :sure: finally provides 4K programming. Thank goodness for M-GO, Netflix, and Ultraflix.


The hr54 is just a streamline hr44, its not a hr54 4k unit any more than the hr44 is right now.


----------



## patmurphey

inkahauts said:


> The hr54 is just a streamline hr44, its not a hr54 4k unit any more than the hr44 is right now.


I don't think that is entirely true. The HR54 includes the hardware to support 4k satellite broadcast to the C61. It can be a multi purpose "Genie" for both 4k and 1080 customers with the same box without the expense of 4k HDMI support. It's a very logical way to support 4k as it slowly becomes available, especially since the RVU model doesn't seem to be working very well with all of the different brand issues.


----------



## Al K

I thought the HR54 was capable of receiving 4k programming from sats with bonded transponders.

So if I want to use a C61, I need an HR54 to communicate with?


----------



## peds48

Al K said:


> I thought the HR54 was capable of receiving 4k programming from sats with bonded transponders.
> 
> So if I want to use a C61, I need an HR54 to communicate with?


that is what the rumor mill said. They also said the HR54 was HDCP 2.2... You can safely use a C61 with an HR34/44

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Saw a reference today to a UHD streaming sports channel launching in Europe. BT says it requires 44 Mbps for 50 fps...that indicates somewhere north of 50 Mbps for 60 fps sports in the US. Since it is streaming that's taking into the account the highest momentary rate. That 44/50+ Mbps contrasts with Netflix requiring 15.6 Mbps, since Netflix is pre-encoded so it can be compressed a lot better, isn't live streaming so it only needs an average rate versus a peak rate, is 24 fps for movies and 30 fps for the rest rather than 50/60 fps, and isn't fast action sports.

That indicates that 4K sports channels are going to have a pretty heavy footprint when displaying live 4K sports, taking up essentially an entire transponder per channel (possibly more, that's what bonding would allow) though the bit rate demand should drop as real time encoders slowly improve over the next few years. The bit rate of their 4K PPV and other non-live programming should be more comparable to Netflix's offering, and they may fit up to 3 per transponder (depending on the modulation they end up choosing)

I wonder if Directv might end up blocking a couple 4K PPV channels against them when they aren't live and have much lower bit rate demands, so they can drop them when live 4K sports are aired and they need much greater bandwidth. Similar to how they do now with the RSN alts.


----------



## inkahauts

patmurphey said:


> I don't think that is entirely true. The HR54 includes the hardware to support 4k satellite broadcast to the C61. It can be a multi purpose "Genie" for both 4k and 1080 customers with the same box without the expense of 4k HDMI support. It's a very logical way to support 4k as it slowly becomes available, especially since the RVU model doesn't seem to be working very well with all of the different brand issues.


'

You can use a c61k with any genie, a hr34, a hr44 a h44 and a hr54. Toady. We don't know if satellite bonding is in the plans, just that it could be. I personally don't think it'll get used anytime soon, if ever, but who knows... But as of today,. They all supply the same things.


----------



## slice1900

inkahauts said:


> '
> 
> You can use a c61k with any genie, a hr34, a hr44 a h44 and a hr54. Toady. We don't know if satellite bonding is in the plans, just that it could be. I personally don't think it'll get used anytime soon, if ever, but who knows... But as of today,. They all supply the same things.


Yes, we don't know for sure if the HR54 has a DVB-S2X chipset (required for bonded transponder support) if Directv will use them for 4K (I think it is virtually certain they will) and if they do whether they will do it from day one of 4K broadcasts or it won't be done until a few years down the road when the HR54 is getting long in the tooth anyway. Not worth worrying about, because if the HR54 is required to receive 4K broadcasts, anyone with an older Genie would have to be upgraded to it if they sign up for 4K service.

The chipsets that support DVB-S2X only became available this year, so unless the HR54 was designed fairly recently, or they changed that halfway through the testing cycle, I'm skeptical that it supports it. Doubly so because it seems a bit odd to have a receiver that can receive 4K broadcasts but not display them, but I suppose Directv could have legitimate financial/engineering reasons why they wanted that way.


----------



## Oli74

DirecTV expands 4K

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/techflash/2015/08/directv-expands-4k-capabilities-under.html?ana=yahoo

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

Oli74 said:


> DirecTV expands 4K
> 
> http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/techflash/2015/08/directv-expands-4k-capabilities-under.html?ana=yahoo


"Under AT&T's umbrella, DirecTV is releasing a new set-top box for 4K Ultra HD programming.

The box, called the 4K Genie Mini DVR, is about the size of a paperback book and will allow more customers to watch 4K movies on their 4K televisions. It also supports Dolby Digital Plus audio decoding."

No date given, nor new information. The author does seem to be giving credit to AT&T for something DirecTV has been working on pre-merger.


----------



## HoTat2

James Long said:


> "Under AT&T's umbrella, DirecTV is releasing a new set-top box for 4K Ultra HD programming.
> 
> The box, called the 4K Genie Mini DVR, is about the size of a paperback book and will allow more customers to watch 4K movies on their 4K televisions. It also supports Dolby Digital Plus audio decoding."
> 
> No date given, nor new information. The author does seem to be giving credit to AT&T for something DirecTV has been working on pre-merger.


I think this article and others are just referring (inaccurately so) to the C61K 4K Genie Mini client.

http://dbstalk.com/index.php?/topic/218833-First-Look:-DIRECTV-C61K-4K-Genie-Mini-Client

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900

Yes, Directv hasn't announced anything new for 4K other than now with the C61K you can get 4K without having a TV that does 4K RVU. The offering has been unchanged since November, there is still only a small selection of overpriced 4K PPV movies.


----------



## Oli74

4K coming to DirecTV in 2016

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/directv-launch-lineup-4k-channels-early-2016-034537939.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## toobs

Does anybody know which DVR/Receiver that we need to get 4k in 2016?


----------



## peds48

toobs said:


> Does anybody know which DVR/Receiver that we need to get 4k in 2016?


when DirecTV starts doing linear 4K and HR54 with a C61K would be required

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## toobs

Can HR54 output in 4k, or do you have to have the C61K to a 4k tv?


----------



## alnielsen

toobs said:


> Can HR54 output in 4k, or do you have to have the C61K to a 4k tv?


The HR54 can not output 4K on it's HDMI port. A C61 client is required.


----------



## ep1974

peds48 said:


> when DirecTV starts doing linear 4K and HR54 with a C61K would be required
> Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


Four or five months ago I e-mailed DT about compatable receivers for linear 4K and they said my HR44 would suffice. Now I'm really confused. Has DT actually released any public info about this?


----------



## slice1900

ep1974 said:


> Four or five months ago I e-mailed DT about compatable receivers for linear 4K and they said my HR44 would suffice. Now I'm really confused. Has DT actually released any public info about this?


When you emailed them they would only be talking about the 4K they offered at that time (or even today) which is merely a handful of overpriced VOD movies. HR44 is fine. When they begin broadcasting 4K channels early next year (with only two channels) a HR54 may be required, but there's also a chance it won't be required until sometime later, since their initial 4K broadcasts will be done using the "old" technology they use to deliver HD channels today.

So I'd just wait and see. If a HR54 is required, presumably Directv will upgrade those who sign up for 4K to that model. If it isn't required, by the time it is maybe something even better comes out. I don't really see the point of worrying about it now, unless you feel you must have everything ready for 4K the minute the channels go live.

In the long run you will not only need a newer receiver, but you'll also need the LNB in your dish replaced. Those new LNBs aren't even out yet.


----------



## ep1974

slice1900 said:


> When you emailed them they would only be talking about the 4K they offered at that time (or even today) which is merely a handful of overpriced VOD movies. HR44 is fine. When they begin broadcasting 4K channels early next year (with only two channels) a HR54 may be required, but there's also a chance it won't be required until sometime later, since their initial 4K broadcasts will be done using the "old" technology they use to deliver HD channels today.
> 
> So I'd just wait and see. If a HR54 is required, presumably Directv will upgrade those who sign up for 4K to that model. If it isn't required, by the time it is maybe something even better comes out. I don't really see the point of worrying about it now, unless you feel you must have everything ready for 4K the minute the channels go live.
> 
> In the long run you will not only need a newer receiver, but you'll also need the LNB in your dish replaced. Those new LNBs aren't even out yet.


Thank you. Will just wait and see how things play out.


----------



## LWW

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I happened to be in Best Buy today for the first time in a while and noticed this next to the Samsung UHD display. You will notice a familiar logo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4kDTV-MOD.JPG
> 
> Has DirecTV announced 4K / UHD plans? This is probably on display at every Best Buy as well as other Samsung retailers....who are all clueless about UHD sources.
> 
> As far as I knew, DirecTV does not even have a unit with a UHD output.
> 
> Anyone shed any light?


I was promised a 4K DVR and GENIE on 5 November if I would resign with them. I was promised that it wouldn't cost me a dime and no equipment changes would be required other than taking out my HR34 and hooking up my 4K GENIE DVR.

I bought a 4K TV and have had 2 techs come to my house with a 4K client that they would gladly install, increasing my bill by $6.50 each month, and relocating my HR34 to another room and losing my hookup with an expensive surround sound system. They told me the 4K GENIE DVR wouldn't be available until January in this market, but it certainly did exist.

I called DIRECTV customer no service and was told the tech was clueless. All they needed to do was install the client box and be out the door. It wouldn't cost me a dime and nothing else would change ... and the 4K GENIE DVR would be out soon and I would get one then "FREE." I was switched to voice verification and told my "FREE" 4K client would cost me $160.

Back to customer no service, and they assured me that voice verification was wrong and it wouldn't cost me a dime. This time voice verification told me it would only cost me $106.

Back to customer no service, and they assured me that voice verification was wrong and it wouldn't cost me a dime. This time VV agreed and they would send a tech back out.

This tech actually had a clue and we shared that he had been through such nonsense with a number of customers recently. He had the same 4K client and the story was identical ... $6.50 a month if I wanted it, my old DVR had to be moved to another room.

The bottom line is that the box doesn't exactly exist but DIRECTV will tell a customer anything to get them to sign up.


----------



## patmurphey

LWW said:


> ...The bottom line is that the box doesn't exactly exist but DIRECTV will tell a customer anything to get them to sign up.


There is a Genie for 4k, the HR54, but it will deliver 4k linear content only through a client, the C61. The HR54 is not yet in stock in all markets and there is no linear 4k content yet. The set up you were given is all that is necessary for the current 4k VOD content. All of this has been discussed thoroughly in the and other Satellite forums.


----------



## toobs

It's too early to say how linear 4k content will work. We just have to wait to see.


----------

