# DirecTV planning for Ultra-HD



## espnjason (Sep 30, 2008)

Courtesy of advanced-television.com via Google Alerts.

Original article here



> DirecTV will adopt Ultra-HDTV. DirecTV is already planning its future spectrum needs in readiness for U-HDTV. Philip Goswitz, DirecTV's SVP/Space and Communications/R&D, speaking at the Satellite 2012 event in Washington, said "4,000 and 8,000-line services are great for the satellite industry, and will ensure that satellite broadcasting continues to distinguish itself for image quality of service" .....
> 
> .... "At DirecTV we see a couple of things happening. First, our subscribers are migrating away from Ku-band, and upgrading themselves to Ka-band and its HDTV services. In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end. We are also developing the so-called Reverse Band for DBS services, and these are on our Road Map for future international services. 4000-line is exciting to us because of its image quality, and the potential for glasses-free 3D."


----------



## AquiringSat (Jan 7, 2012)

That's pretty Cool! Glad to see DirecTV leading the way! Of course, I wouldn't expect anything else


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Cue quarterly Ultra HD Channel Anticipation Threads in 3... 2... 1...


:hurah:


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Just read this.. Holy cow.

Capturing video in UHDTV format needs a lot of bandwidth. A 20 minute video could take up to 4 Terabytes of data. There are only 3 known cameras as of today that can capture and store that amount of data. Needless to say, our current broadcasting infrastructure is still incapable of meeting the requirements of UHDTV.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

fireponcoal said:


> Just read this.. Holy cow.
> 
> Capturing video in UHDTV format needs a lot of bandwidth. A 20 minute video could take up to 4 Terabytes of data. There are only 3 known cameras as of today that can capture and store that amount of data. Needless to say, our current broadcasting infrastructure is still incapable of meeting the requirements of UHDTV.


I have filmmaker friends already shooting in 4K and 5X formats, downsampling as needed for final delivery.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Cue the "Ultra-HD Anticipation Thread" ...


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I KNEW they'd do this eventually. Some FUN questions though. How much horsepower is it going to take for a receiver to be able to record 5 (Or maybe even 8) UHD channels at once, play back something already recorded, download something from on demand, and stream content to RVU clients?! Also, are large enough hard drives going to be available? 4k takes up 4 times as much space as 1080p, so we'll need at LEAST a 4TB drive to match the hours the HR34 can deliver. 8TBs would be even better! And how much is this beast going to cost? lol


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> I KNEW they'd do this eventually. Some FUN questions though. How much horsepower is it going to take for a receiver to be able to record 5 (Or maybe even 8) UHD channels at once, play back something already recorded, download something from on demand, and stream content to RVU clients?! Also, are large enough hard drives going to be available? 4k takes up 4 times as much space as 1080p, so we'll need at LEAST a 4TB drive to match the hours the HR34 can deliver. 8TBs would be even better! And how much is this beast going to cost? lol


Ask all these questions again in 3 - 5 years when the plans are more solid than vague announcements at industry conferences.


----------



## zeus (May 18, 2011)

This is great news! I'm guessing with an expedited launch schedule DirecTV should have Ultra-HD in place just in time for the ribbon cutting on our glorious moon colony - which coincidentally enough will be open to great fanfare a mere days after we are finally able to watch Doctor Who - Day of the Moon in HD on BBCA.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

fireponcoal said:


> Capturing video in UHDTV format needs a lot of bandwidth. A 20 minute video could take up to 4 Terabytes of data. There are only 3 known cameras as of today that can capture and store that amount of data. Needless to say, our current broadcasting infrastructure is still incapable of meeting the requirements of UHDTV.


A Hollywood insider has been speaking about this on a thread on Blu-ray.com.

It seems like the future is coming! 

~Alan


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

You have to wonder if DIRECTV is really committed to getting rid of Ku long-term. This part of the statement makes me suspicious of other information offered.

The fact that nobody ever seems to pin down what flavor of 4K they're talking about leaves me wondering if they're even on the same page.

I think it is more likely that DIRECTV will ultimately drop Ka in favor of Ku and RDBS that would seem to bring lower power requirements and better atmospheric penetration. They may want to keep Ka for LIL, but Ka doesn't seem like the right tool for CONUS.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Cue the "Ultra-HD Lite Anticipation Thread.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Now maybe I just don't understand the concept, but can our eyes even resolve that kind of detail? I mean unless you are looking at 100"+ screens, I'm not sure we would even notice.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Now maybe I just don't understand the concept, but can our eyes even resolve that kind of detail? I mean unless you are looking at 100"+ screens, I'm not sure we would even notice.


+1. I've got 20/20 vision, and I can't tell the difference between a well-calibrated 480p ED display and a calibrated 1080p HD display from normal viewing distances, sitting 8'-10' away.

I believe these "advancements" are driven by hardware manufacturers and the movie studios, simply to get folks to buy new TV's and repurchase movies every few years..

The only advantage I can see to upping resolution like this is for specialized use, like medical and scientific imaging, where users will be looking for superb visual detail while seated a foot or two away from the display. Just my .02.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> Now maybe I just don't understand the concept, but can our eyes even resolve that kind of detail? I mean unless you are looking at 100"+ screens, I'm not sure we would even notice.


Yes, they can. The difference wasn't night and day when I saw 4K, but it was distinguishable from 1080p.

And screen size doesn't matter, it's the screen size vs seating distance ratio that matters.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

As I understand the "*and 8,000-line*" is totally fictional reference.

So far NHK has this:


> UHDTV's main tentative specifications:[3]
> 
> Number of pixels: 7,680 × 4,320


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Steve said:


> +1. I've got 20/20 vision, and I can't tell the difference between a well-calibrated 480p ED display and a calibrated 1080p HD display from normal viewing distances, sitting 8'-10' away.


I have very good vision, and I can tell the difference between a 720p TV and a 1080p TV from 30 feet away.



Steve said:


> I believe these "advancements" are driven by hardware manufacturers and the movie studios, simply to get folks to buy new TV's and repurchase movies every few years..


The CE industry is rarely driven by the companies fulfilling a need...

However, just because they're motives aren't selfless doesn't mean that there is not a benefit to the consumers.

~Alan


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> +1. I've got 20/20 vision, and I can't tell the difference between a well-calibrated 480p ED display and a calibrated 1080p HD display from normal viewing distances, sitting 8'-10' away.
> 
> I believe these "advancements" are driven by hardware manufacturers and the movie studios, simply to get folks to buy new TV's and repurchase movies every few years..
> 
> The only advantage I can see to upping resolution like this is for specialized use, like medical and scientific imaging, where users will be looking for superb visual detail while seated a foot or two away from the display. Just my .02.


Not sure what my glasses bring my eye sight up to, but I can tell the difference between 480p and 720p from about 10 feet away. Haven't really looked up close at 1080p yet, but will probably try it now.


----------



## dah_sab (Jul 12, 2006)

"zeus" said:


> This is great news! I'm guessing with an expedited launch schedule DirecTV should have Ultra-HD in place just in time for the ribbon cutting on our glorious moon colony - which coincidentally enough will be open to great fanfare a mere days after we are finally able to watch Doctor Who - Day of the Moon in HD on BBCA.


This is the more likely scenario. It took an age to switch to HDTV, & it's still not done.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

dah_sab said:


> This is the more likely scenario. It took an age to switch to HDTV, & it's still not done.


It's a different point - TV/players' manufacturers don't want to stagnate with 1080p equipment; they need new idea to spiraling out... money, money.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> Not sure what my glasses bring my eye sight up to, but I can tell the difference between 480p and 720p from about 10 feet away. Haven't really looked up close at 1080p yet, but will probably try it now.


Just to be clear (no pun intended ), I was referring to the same HD source content viewed from 10' away on a calibrated 42" 1080p display sitting next to a calibrated 42" 480p display, as opposed to, e.g., viewing the same DirecTV HD vs. SD channel on the same 1080 display.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Yes, they can. The difference wasn't night and day when I saw 4K, but it was distinguishable from 1080p.
> 
> And screen size doesn't matter, it's the screen size vs seating distance ratio that matters.


I understand the viewing distance part. But in my media room at 10-12', would someone be able to tell the difference on my 70" display?

PS. Size always matters.  :lol:


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

"harsh" said:


> You have to wonder if DIRECTV is really committed to getting rid of Ku long-term. This part of the statement makes me suspicious of other information offered.
> 
> The fact that nobody ever seems to pin down what flavor of 4K they're talking about leaves me wondering if they're even on the same page.
> 
> I think it is more likely that DIRECTV will ultimately drop Ka in favor of Ku and RDBS that would seem to bring lower power requirements and better atmospheric penetration. They may want to keep Ka for LIL, but Ka doesn't seem like the right tool for CONUS.


I agree with you. Ku or Ka really doesn't determine if UHD is possible. It's more like transponder bandwidth and most importantly, the encoding / compression used. If anything Ku would allow them to use higher order modulation like 8PSK and lower error correction.

As far as DVRing it, maybe in 5 years the price of SSD's will be more consumer friendly along with a higher storage capacity.


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

Embracing new technology is great, but when D14 shows up and most of it's bandwidth gets chewed up by the huge data streams to support UHD, it'll be really frustrating to still be stuck with dozens of sucky SD channels. 

But, yeah, it sounds cool


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Herdfan said:


> I understand the viewing distance part. But in my media room at 10-12', would someone be able to tell the difference on my 70" display?


Probably not. At 10' away on a 70" screen, you're not even getting the full benefit of 1080p.

If you moved up to 7.5', then yes, you'd start to see the benefit of 4K.

I wouldn't see the benefit of 4K in my living room either, but in my theater where I sit 12.5' away from my 126" display, 4K would be very noticeable.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

How about they concentrate on going from 480 lines to 1080 before making the leap to 4000?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cypherx said:


> I agree with you. Ku or Ka really doesn't determine if UHD is possible. It's more like transponder bandwidth and most importantly, the encoding / compression used. If anything Ku would allow them to use higher order modulation like 8PSK and lower error correction.


DIRECTV is running fewer and wider transponders with Ka but the yield is relatively low if they can only fit 5-6 channels in 36MHz. Looking at what they're doing on 119W, they have seven HD channels set up (only two are active) on transponder 23 which is only 24MHz wide.


> As far as DVRing it, maybe in 5 years the price of SSD's will be more consumer friendly along with a higher storage capacity.


The larger the files, the more grass that will be trampled on the SSD by each one. I don't think SSD is going to replace magnetic storage for DVR use.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Steve said:


> Just to be clear (no pun intended ), I was referring to the same HD source content viewed from 10' away on a calibrated 42" 1080p display sitting next to a calibrated 42" 480p display, as opposed to, e.g., viewing the same DirecTV HD vs. SD channel on the same 1080 display.


I wasn't planning on letting you live down your earlier statement, but I'll give you a little slack based on your clarification above, even though I could still see the difference.

I have an HR24-100 connected to a 20-inch SDTV. Not a great comparison, but I used to have an HR24-100 and TiVo Series 3 connected to a 50-inch SDTV, as well as an Hughes HTL-HD receiver and HR10-250 connected to a 30-inch FP widescreen SDTV. When connected to high quality sources, the picture was impressive. However, any focusing on the differences would reveal the massive differences... particularly in the areas of depth and color reproductions.

However, the fact that the differences are even comparable is due to the fact that they both started with a GREAT source. Good quality DirecTV HD or OTA was far superior to HD-LITE, and Blu-ray was far superior to DirecTV HD and OTA. I strongly suspect that Ultra-HD sources downconverted to HDTVs will look superior to the current 1920x1080 feeds.

On the other hand, it has been said that current 1920x1080 feeds will look far superior when viewed on Ultra-HDTVs.



Herdfan said:


> I understand the viewing distance part. But in my media room at 10-12', would someone be able to tell the difference on my 70" display?


Depends on the person. Some people can't tell the difference between DVDs and Blu-ray. Some can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080i/p. The technology will be there, but it will be dependent upon the abilities of the person viewing it.

~Alan


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Yes, they can. The difference wasn't night and day when I saw 4K, but it was distinguishable from 1080p.
> 
> And screen size doesn't matter, it's the screen size vs seating distance ratio that matters.


If you have a 150" screen, the image is going to look a lot better if the source is 4K. There is only so much enlargement 1920x1080 can take before it falls apart.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I have an HR24-100 connected to a 20-inch SDTV. Not a great comparison, but I used to have an HR24-100 and TiVo Series 3 connected to a 50-inch SDTV, as well as an Hughes HTL-HD receiver and HR10-250 connected to a 30-inch FP widescreen SDTV. When connected to high quality sources, the picture was impressive. *However, any focusing on the differences would reveal the massive differences... particularly in the areas of depth and color reproductions.*


It may have to do with the type of display as well, because what you're describing above is not the case with my calibrated Panny 480p ED plasma. With HD source material, the differences were subtle, at best, from ~ 10 feet away.

FWIW, I think this is a pretty good take on when 1080p resolution matters. It includes a nifty chart that's helpful (IMHO) calculating what screen sizes and resolutions are optimal for given viewing distances.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"Steve" said:


> +1. I've got 20/20 vision, and I can't tell the difference between a well-calibrated 480p ED display and a calibrated 1080p HD display from normal viewing distances, sitting 8'-10' away.


Haha...now that is some funny BS!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Really don't understand this:


> In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end.


Why would they want to give up 32 transponders in prime real estate?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Steve said:


> FWIW, I think this is a pretty good take on when 1080p resolution matters. It includes a nifty chart that's helpful (IMHO) calculating what screen sizes and resolutions are optimal for given viewing distances.


You used the word optimal... I can't argue either way with that.

However, they are not "equivalent."

~Alan


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

RAD said:


> Really don't understand this:
> 
> Why would they want to give up 32 transponders in prime real estate?


I don't think FCC allocations expire unless a broadcaster cease using them. So maybe they are considering bargaining, trading or leasing to other providers in exchange for more bandwidth in another segment of spectrum?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

RAD said:


> Really don't understand this:
> 
> Why would they want to give up 32 transponders in prime real estate?


can they use the KU band for mpeg 4? or is it cheapter to just put a new KA sat in the KU place?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> can they use the KU band for mpeg 4? or is it cheapter to just put a new KA sat in the KU place?


The compression used has nothing to do with the band used. There is mpeg4 currently on C band, KU band, and KA band from various companies.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

"JoeTheDragon" said:


> can they use the KU band for mpeg 4? or is it cheapter to just put a new KA sat in the KU place?


The satellites don't care what it is, it's just 0's and 1's to them.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> can they use the KU band for mpeg 4? or is it cheapter to just put a new KA sat in the KU place?





Davenlr said:


> The compression used has nothing to do with the band used. There is mpeg4 currently on C band, KU band, and KA band from various companies.





RAD said:


> The satellites don't care what it is, it's just 0's and 1's to them.


Yep.

And furthermore, Directv has to have a direct-to-home license for whatever bandwidth they use. For instance, right now they broadcast Ku from 101. The _also_ broadcast Ka from 101, but only to and from their own uplink facilities, as "backhaul" feeds. So far as I know (but I haven't looked lately), they do not have a license for Ka to the home from 101.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

It's just a PR buzz to raise attention to the company ...


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

David Ortiz said:


> If you have a 150" screen, the image is going to look a lot better if the source is 4K. There is only so much enlargement 1920x1080 can take before it falls apart.


Your missing the point. 4K on a 150" screen from 20' away is not going to look better than 1080p, because at that distance the "eye" isn't even getting the full benefit of 1080p.

4K on a 46" display from 3', however, will look a lot better.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> It's just a PR buzz to raise attention to the company ...






spartanstew said:


> Your missing the point. 4K on a 150" screen from 20' away is not going to look better than 1080p, because at that distance the "eye" isn't even getting the full benefit of 1080p.
> 
> 4K on a 46" display from 3', however, will look a lot better.


Real life from 30' feet away looks far superior to 1080p 3' feet away. 

~Alan


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> Real life from 30' feet away looks far superior to 1080p 3' feet away.
> 
> ~Alan


Lol, depends on what you're looking at eh?


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Your missing the point. 4K on a 150" screen from 20' away is not going to look better than 1080p, because at that distance the "eye" isn't even getting the full benefit of 1080p.
> 
> 4K on a 46" display from 3', however, will look a lot better.


Well, if I'm evaluating a TV, I have a viewing distance in mind. I chose a 55" model because I thought that the 60" picture looked a little too blocky to me.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> Lol, depends on what you're looking at eh?


LOL!!! Fair enough... I'll give you that one! :lol:

Seriously though... the farther one's distance might indeed influence how many pixels one's eye can decipher, but that doesn't mean that the viewer is unable to benefit from a higher resolution source and display.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

David Ortiz said:


> Well, if I'm evaluating a TV, I have a viewing distance in mind. I chose a 55" model because I thought that the 60" picture looked a little too blocky to me.


I view it as bigger is always bigger when it comes to TVs... though money has kept me from fully embracing that belief... hence why I only have a 46" model. However, that's a fair point as well... when I get too close to my 46", it becomes too blocky for me, and I start losing the detail... the whole point of HDTV.

Granted, some sources like Blu-ray is better about it, and I believe that LED's are superior when it comes to that issue over LCDs, but I'm not lucky enough to have an LED.

~Alan


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> ~Alan


I don't know how old are you, but some people wouldn't see it. :nono2:


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> I don't know how old are you, but some people wouldn't see it. :nono2:


So... you're seriously suggesting that just because not everyone would benefit from something, they shouldn't bother?! :eek2:

P.S.: I turned 31 last month! 

~Alan


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The discussion is revolving around PR statement without real base. Especially if you will pay attention to fake "8000-lines" part.
"Fata Morgana".


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> The discussion is revolving around PR statement without real base. Especially if you will pay attention to fake "8000-lines" part.
> "Fata Morgana".


He simply stated that "4,000 and 8,000-line services are great for the satellite industry." Everywhere else in the article it simply refers to the 4,000-line services.

The discussion is Ultra-HD... which appears to be both 4,000 and 8,000-line services.

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't understand what you're getting at... 

~Alan


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> So... you're seriously suggesting that just because not everyone would benefit from something, they shouldn't bother?! :eek2:
> 
> ~Alan


My personal opinion on the matter is, until they finish the HD rollout, with 100% HD for all channels, they should not waste money on it, unless they plan to use their 3 transponders on 110 for a 4K ESPN3D with Smell-o-vision. I would be highly put off if they expanded their niche formats further before at least matching the rest of the providers on basic HD.

I would actually prefer, for a format that is so bandwidth intensive, they just start a new company, launch its own satellite (how about 101 KA?) and put all the niche format (4K etc) on it, so those that have the money to buy 4K monitors can support the effort to broadcast it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

RAD said:


> Really don't understand this:
> 
> Why would they want to give up 32 transponders in prime real estate?


I think it's interesting that he uses the word "transmissions." If it wasn't for the "We'll be entirely Ka-band in about five years." statement, I would assume they were planning on phasing out SD on the KU satellites, and using KA for Ultra-HD...

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Davenlr said:


> My personal opinion on the matter is, until they finish the HD rollout, with 100% HD for all channels, they should not waste money on it, unless they plan to use their 3 transponders on 110 for a 4K ESPN3D with Smell-o-vision. I would be highly put off if they expanded their niche formats further before at least matching the rest of the providers on basic HD.


I respect DirecTV for forward thinking!

That being said, I would be ticked if they start focusing on it prior to offering us some of the missing HD channels... then again, I doubt I'll be with DirecTV then, so big whoop I guess... 

~Alan


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> He simply stated that "4,000 and 8,000-line services are great for the satellite industry." Everywhere else in the article it simply refers to the 4,000-line services.
> 
> The discussion is Ultra-HD... which appears to be both 4,000 and 8,000-line services.
> 
> ...


I'm getting nowhere with the original statement, and you ... Be honest.

Also, how you could not just discuss but mentioning the non-exiting FICTIONAL format, the "8000-line" ? Do you know something about it ? Then, please share your source.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Davenlr said:


> My personal opinion on the matter is, until they finish the HD rollout, with 100% HD for all channels, they should not waste money on it.


+1. Get the rest of the channels in HD first, then worry about UHD.


----------



## zhezhang (May 8, 2010)

kevinturcotte said:


> I KNEW they'd do this eventually. Some FUN questions though. How much horsepower is it going to take for a receiver to be able to record 5 (Or maybe even 8) UHD channels at once, play back something already recorded, download something from on demand, and stream content to RVU clients?! Also, are large enough hard drives going to be available? 4k takes up 4 times as much space as 1080p, so we'll need at LEAST a 4TB drive to match the hours the HR34 can deliver. 8TBs would be even better! And how much is this beast going to cost? lol


I bought my 1st computer in 1985, it was a Compaq portable. I paid $500 (1985 $$) to add a 20M byte (M, not G) hard disk.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> My personal opinion on the matter is, until they finish the HD rollout, with 100% HD for all channels, they should not waste money on it,


I'm sure D* will be 100% HD before we see any 4K.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

As prices drop, (Sony's 4K front projector is $25,000...) it's likely we'll see a "demo" channel or two, and possibly a PPV channel. Content drives sales.


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

_First, our subscribers are migrating away from Ku-band, and upgrading themselves to Ka-band and its HDTV services. In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end._

Love hearing this! Talk about freeing up bandwidth.


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

RAD said:


> Really don't understand this:
> 
> Why would they want to give up 32 transponders in prime real estate?


I think the issue is more the KU sats will reach the end of their useful life. Without a replacement KU bird, you can't really do much. I think they'd have to be ordering a KU bird pretty quickly to make 5 years no?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> I'm getting nowhere with the original statement, and you ... Be honest.
> 
> Also, how you could not just discuss but mentioning the non-exiting FICTIONAL format, the "8000-line" ? Do you know something about it ? Then, please share your source.


You are correct... I still don't understand your point...

Perhaps DirecTV is going to start with 4K, and perhaps move to 8K down the road. Are you having issues with the fact that 7680 isn't actually 8,000?! 



David Ortiz said:


> As prices drop, (Sony's 4K front projector is $25,000...) it's likely we'll see a "demo" channel or two, and possibly a PPV channel. Content drives sales.


Yeah... I expect a PPV channel or two, and perhaps an IMAX channel?!

~Alan


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

Skyboss said:


> I think the issue is more the KU sats will reach the end of their useful life. Without a replacement KU bird, you can't really do much. I think they'd have to be ordering a KU bird pretty quickly to make 5 years no?


D15 will have a Ku payload. http://www.spacenews.com/satellite_telecom/111104-astrium-build-directv15.html



Alan Gordon said:


> Are you having issues with the fact that 7680 isn't actually 8,000?!


Sharp doesn't have a problem with it!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

David Ortiz said:


> Sharp doesn't have a problem with it!


1,920 isn't exactly 2,000 either... 

I haven't ruled out the possibility that I'm too dense to understand what he's getting at, so if anyone else wants to help explain it to me, I'd love to understand. 

~Alan


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> You are correct... I still don't understand your point...
> 
> Perhaps DirecTV is going to start with 4K, and perhaps move to 8K down the road. Are you having issues with the fact that 7680 isn't actually 8,000?!
> 
> ...


Why you still posting the meaningless numbers ?

I did ask you, and asking again - what is a source of your knowledge about 8K format. Just post an URL please.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

I doubt they would give up their ku tps at 101. Sure they've got a fair amount of bandwidth at 99 and 103 with ka and are pursuing 97 for ka but ku does have some advantages and it is easier and cheaper to keep existing bandwidth than it is to get new bandwidth. I'd expect them to get rid of 110/119 ku long before they got rid of 101 ku.

Phasing out SD mpeg 2 transmissions will happen eventually I'm sure but for that even 5 years seems optimistic since I haven't heard of any signs of them moving that direction lately. The last thing I heard point that way was they stopped activating really old receivers with out RID on new accounts but they still offer sd receivers and dvrs on their website. A while back they seemed to be moving that way with the r22 and some of their plans in their investor calls but that seems to have been on hold since the economy went down. They have a lot of legacy hardware out there that would need to be replaced before they could phase mpeg 2 sd out completely and only provide mpeg 4 channels. With the bandwidth they have available in KA at 99 and 103 it just doesn't seem like they really need to spend the money to push the transition. They can do it a lot cheaper if they let things remove the old receivers naturally lowering the number they need to replace.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> I did ask you, and asking again - what is a source of your knowledge about 8K format. Just post an URL please.


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


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television


and ... http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2012/01/10/ces-sharp-shows-off-8k-lcd-16x-hd-resolution/


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Why should any of this matter? It'll be all sports, except for BBC America which will still be in 480. :shrug:


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

http://www.gizmowatch.com/sharps-8k-7680x4320-ultra-hd-lcd-heads-turn-ces.html

7680 rounded up equals 8k
rounding up is pretty common


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

mnassour said:


> Why should any of this matter? It'll be all sports, except for BBC America which will still be in 480. :shrug:


Believe it or not, some people watch sports.

And some people don't watch BBC.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Why you still posting the meaningless numbers ?


... because I don't understand your point, so apparently I misjudged numbers as meaningful... I don't know.



P Smith said:


> I did ask you, and asking again - what is a source of your knowledge about 8K format. Just post an URL please.


I've been reading about 8K for some time now, so I can't really post some links, but apparently fellow posters managed to find some links. I imagine Google would have quite a few links regarding the topic. I can't remember for sure, but I would believe the link I provided on page #1 about 4K probably has some mention of 8K format.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> mnassour said:
> 
> 
> > Why should any of this matter? It'll be all sports, except for BBC America which will still be in 480. :shrug:
> ...


Though I'm in the camp that watches BBC and has no interest in sports, I think spartanstew has a very good point. Personally, I think 4K ESPN would be pretty awesome... regardless of whether or not I'd watch it or have access to it.

However, I suspect channels with prerecorded content (PPV, HBO, Cinemax, Discovery, etc.) would go first prior to sports.

I'd also hope for the sake of DirecTV subscribers in the future that BBCA-HD would be in HD by then... 

~Alan


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> ... because I don't understand your point, so apparently I misjudged numbers as meaningful... I don't know.
> 
> I've been reading about 8K for some time now, so I can't really post some links, but apparently fellow posters managed to find some links. I imagine Google would have quite a few links regarding the topic. I can't remember for sure, but I would believe the link I provided on page #1 about 4K probably has some mention of 8K format.
> 
> ~Alan


If you take same amount of time Googling, reading Wiki as did last day, you'll find 4K type, not 8k.
Perhaps you can't distinguish lines from horizontal resolution ?
Sorry, you are not qualified as valuable source, can't provide any reference, have no minimal understanding and just using the number "8000-line" without meaning as that DTV VP.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

spartanstew said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Television


Then look at post#16.

Remember : lines is not horizontal resolution.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

wahooq said:


> http://www.gizmowatch.com/sharps-8k-7680x4320-ultra-hd-lcd-heads-turn-ces.html
> 
> 7680 rounded up equals 8k
> rounding up is pretty common


Same mistake.

We are talking about LINES.


----------



## MrWindows (Oct 12, 2010)

I went to the NAB show in Las Vegas last year, 3D was everywhere but already the manufacturers were saying in private that it was dead and wasn't going anywhere. Most were talking up 4K and a few were talking about CinemaWide 1080p. With most filmmakers shooting action-type films on RED or equivalent 4K cameras, it's a natural evolution to bring that down to the consumer level. It's already been in use in government applications (NASA, NSA, other TLO's). There were a few displays, and the depth of the picture was very impressive. If I remember correctly it was in Acer's booth that I saw my first 4K display, and it was across from Panasonic showing off their massive 16' 1080p screen. The specs from the HD working group already have 8K laid out and beyond. When talking about 4K and 8K, you have to take into account the RAW image specifications, which may include visual timing details. The RED ONE maximum RAW image size is 4480x2304. If you look closely at a live shoot for almost any television show or movie, on the director's screen you'll see several sets of white box outlines, which cues the director to what will show in 4x3, in 16x9, 21x9 and full frame formats. When people in the industry talk about 4K and 8K they are simply carrying through the lingo from the RAW formats that the material actually gets shot in, not the broadcast standards they will be displayed in, two different things entirely. UHD 4K exists, although broadcast standards have yet to be worked out. We are 4-8 years from 4K being ubiquitous. UHD 8K is being worked on, but anything beyond the experimental (or TLO usage) is probably 20 years away. Today I'd be much more interested in CinemaWideHD, which better captures the cinemawide frame movies, and is fairly compatible with existing production and broadcast standards. Alas, it appears to have been left as a niche product.


----------



## wahooq (Oct 19, 2011)

@psmith....i kind of get your point but when lines become pixels and are discussed as resolution you have to leave that behind. Introducing interlaced and progressive scanning takes us into a different realm of terminology. You started this tangent by saying that whomever the DTV dude was... was referring to a fictional 8K resolution ...this is not fictional and from articles I have seen could be around by 2017. In my way of thinking, harping about lines in reference to a 7,680×4,320 frame size or resolution is like arguing that a 100 story skyscraper is just 40,000 I-beams...ya know?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Perhaps you can't distinguish lines from horizontal resolution ?


In my defense, I did state that maybe I was being dense, and wasn't understanding what you were saying and asked you to explain it. The simple line above made me understand what you were getting at... and you are correct... either Philip Goswitz spoke incorrectly, or Chris Forrester quoted him wrong. Considering what Philip's job is, and the fact that he called out DirecTV executives for their lack of technical know-how, I hope it's the latter. Either way, I had a brain-fart and didn't catch it.

However, I still don't think...



P Smith said:


> It's just a PR buzz to raise attention to the company ...


... is an accurate statement. Sure, it's good PR, but we know 4K is coming. The manufacturers, studios, and broadcasters are working on it. 8K is farther off, but it's good to know DirecTV is thinking about it.

The HEVC codec is supposed to be finalized early next year, and the hope is that it will hit CE products late next year.

I'm not sure DirecTV will rush out with 4K content right away given the costs of TV sets and monitors, but as I said, it's coming. 

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

David Ortiz said:


> If you have a 150" screen, the image is going to look a lot better if the source is 4K. There is only so much enlargement 1920x1080 can take before it falls apart.


Since we both actually saw multiple 4K and 1 8K HDTVs at CES this year in person...and despite using 1080p content for all but 1 of those (there was one that used 4K original content for their demo)...I'd have to agree with you that the viewing experience on a huge screen in comparison to a 1080p HDTV was indeed obvious on a larger screen at times as you pointed out.

This is one of those things that a person would need a side-by-side comparison to appreciate. At one manufacturer booth (not the one in the photo), they did that...and honestly....even with 1080p original content...1080p looked significantly less crisp. In several others, the difference was less.

Overall, it was pretty apparent that once 4K original content becomes widespread...it has the potential to be more of an impact to the HDTV industry than 3D.

It's interesting to hear about how DirecTV is planning ahead for this next generation technology...even if it is 3+ years away to mainstream users.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> Well, if I'm evaluating a TV, I have a viewing distance in mind. I chose a 55" model because I thought that the 60" picture looked a little too blocky to me.


I just bought a 60" Panny plasma and you need to be about 11-12' from the TV to get the really good PQ. Not a problem in my home, but anyone who thinks viewing a TV that size or larger is gonna be great at six feet is gonna be disappointed. The Panny manuals do tell you what the minimum distance should be.

Rich


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> My personal opinion on the matter is, until they finish the HD rollout, with 100% HD for all channels, they should not waste money on it...


Although Ultra HD sounds interesting, that was my first thought.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RACJ2 said:


> Although Ultra HD sounds interesting, that was my first thought.


Not to worry...the information publically communicated is simply tell folks that its on the DirecTV roadmap. I suspect we won't see tangible content and/or corresponding hardware for quite some time.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> In my defense, I did state that maybe I was being dense, and wasn't understanding what you were saying and asked you to explain it. The simple line above made me understand what you were getting at... and you are correct... either Philip Goswitz spoke incorrectly, or Chris Forrester quoted him wrong. Considering what Philip's job is, and the fact that he called out DirecTV executives for their lack of technical know-how, I hope it's the latter. Either way, I had a brain-fart and didn't catch it.
> 
> However, I still don't think...
> 
> ...


I'm glad we settle this.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

wahooq said:


> @psmith....i kind of get your point but when lines become pixels and are discussed as resolution you have to leave that behind. Introducing interlaced and progressive scanning takes us into a different realm of terminology. You started this tangent by saying that whomever the DTV dude was... was referring to a fictional 8K resolution ...this is not fictional and from articles I have seen could be around by 2017. In my way of thinking, harping about lines in reference to a 7,680×4,320 frame size or resolution is like arguing that a 100 story skyscraper is just 40,000 I-beams...ya know?


Sorry, but your point made wrong again. No need fuzzy analogies if you talking about technical parameters. Next time please provide links to source of your inspiration. Sometimes our brain tend to keep our impression rather facts.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith, nobody knows what you're talking about.

Are you saying 8K doesn't exist? Are you saying the term 8K is incorrect?

You can't just keep posting sentences asking people to provide links. 

Links to what?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> In my defense, I did state that maybe I was being dense, and wasn't understanding what you were saying and asked you to explain it. The simple line above made me understand what you were getting at... and you are correct... either Philip Goswitz spoke incorrectly, or Chris Forrester quoted him wrong. Considering what Philip's job is, and the fact that he called out DirecTV executives for their lack of technical know-how, I hope it's the latter. Either way, I had a brain-fart and didn't catch it. ...


Well ... if you wish to concede to an error on your part Alan, that's your choice. But I have to admit that after repeatedly reading yours and Gowitz's comments in the article, I honestly don't see P Smith's complaint of an error here or otherwise nonsense corporate hype.

Goswitz is clearly (to me anyhow) making reference to the 4K and 8K line U-HDTV formats. Not to any future broadcast format with 4000 or 8000 lines of horizontal resolution. Surely as a technical senior VP he's knows that would be absurd.

Now if he had categorized these TV "lines" as "TV lines per picture height" ("TVL/ph") or something then maybe so, but he didn't.

And BTW, since TVL/ph is a traditional resolution measurement for analog TV using a continuos sweep of an electron beam across a phosphor coated screen. I've always had some trouble relating this form of measure to that of today's discrete fixed pixel panel displays who's resolutions are customarily quoted in a fixed number of horizontal and vertical pixels. :sure:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

spartanstew said:


> P Smith, nobody knows what you're talking about.


Who want to understand me, they did, they do, they will.
Stop stalking me and pretend you're delegated by everyone to push me out of the site. I'm already got your technical level (reading your posts on the site). Don't bother to read my posts. Go alone.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> I'm glad we settle this.


Me too! 



HoTat2 said:


> Well ... if you wish to concede to an error on your part Alan, that's your choice. But I have to admit that after repeatedly reading yours and Gowitz's comments in the article, I honestly don't see P Smith's complaint of an error here or otherwise nonsense corporate hype.


I too feel that referring to 4,096 or 7,680 pixels as lines is somewhat misleading. Now the good thing is, I'm assuming this is a paper/blog that is techie enough to understand the difference, but it's still a mistake.

I have already stated that I'm standing firm in my belief that this is not nonsense corporate hype though. 

~Alan


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

One warning. Stop discussing each other and discuss the topic.

Take it to PM or let it go.

Mike


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Also from the article:



> ... DirecTV is already transmitting very successfully in the Ka-band to its North American customers. Indeed, DirecTV could successfully argue that its Spaceway Ka-band satellites are the most profitable satellites being used anywhere as they are helping generate some $20 billion a year in revenues for DirecTV because of their spot-beam and 'local into local' HDTV services over North America.


Wow! some $20 billion in revenue just from the HD-LiL carriage? :eek2:

And I always thought LiL carriage was more a burden for MSOs like DIRECTV than anything else, what with the constant squabbling and service interruptions with local TV stations over their ever increasing retransmission fees.

Oh, and BTW most LiLs today are relayed by D10, 11, and 12, not the Spaceways. 

And:



> ... Goswitz admits that few people even know that Ka-band is being used, such is its seamless integration into DirecTV's overall portfolio of satellite assets. "I am not even sure our own executives know! They don't know the difference between Ka and Ku-band, and why should they?"


While maybe a trivial point , since it is possibly just a technically inaccurate reference used by DIRECTV of what really is the Ka band. I've always been a bit confused on labeling their use as the "Ka band" myself.

Considering that, at least according to the Wikipedia anyhow, the "K" band" is listed from 18-27 GHz and "Ka" ("K above") band is from 26.5-40 GHz. The uplink frequencies are indeed the Ka band, but the downs actually fall below well below it into the middle of the K band.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> ...
> I have already stated that I'm standing firm in my belief that this is not nonsense corporate hype though.
> 
> ~Alan


Why I got it that way ? I did explain a couple times ... 
My beef is in the "8000-line" part of the pitch.
If it come so lousy in a official statement, the whole statement become fuzzy for me. I can't trust it, I can accept as PR move to attract to the company. That's well know tactics - why you surprised ? I would return back to thread with you in 3 years ... Then we will see who is right.
That's my point of view, no need to make it as a drama in Internet.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Why I got it that way ? I did explain a couple times ...
> My beef is in the "8000-line" part of the pitch.
> If it come so lousy in a official statement, the whole statement become fuzzy for me. I can't trust it, I can accept as PR move to attract to the company. That's well know tactics - why you surprised ? I would return back to thread with you in 3 years ... Then we will see who is right.
> That's my point of view, no need to make as a drama in Internet.


Sure hope it's more than three years in coming. I'm not laying out a small fortune for one of those sets until I know they are not a passing fad.

Rich


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> I would return back to thread with you in 3 years ... Then we will see who is right.


I could see us know more about DirecTV's 4K plans in 3 years, but I doubt we will know much more about 8K by that time.

Personally, I felt the article was FAR from "official." If DirecTV posted a PR announcement about 4K or 8K, I'd agree with you, but I just don't see this interview as "official."

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Rich said:


> Sure hope it's more than three years in coming. I'm not laying out a small fortune for one of those sets until I know they are not a passing fad.


Even if they come out in three years (and I suspect we'll see some consumer sets for 4K in three years), you do know you won't be forced to pay them a small fortune for one, right?   You could simply enjoy what you have... 

~Alan


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> I could see us know more about DirecTV's 4K plans in 3 years, but I doubt *we will know much more about 8K by that time*.
> 
> Personally, I felt the article was FAR from "official." If DirecTV posted a PR announcement about 4K or 8K, I'd agree with you, but I just don't see this interview as "official."
> 
> ~Alan


If it done by VP of a company and posted publicly, it is official. As you aware it's affecting stock market too.

Bold - YEAH ! See ? You got it too.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

P Smith said:


> If it done by VP of a company and posted publicly, it is official. As you aware it's affecting stock market too.


I forgot he spoke at an event in Washington... YIKES!! :eek2:

No, I was not aware of the stock market... while I used to have a widget on my phone with a stock thing (and I put DirecTV on there simply due to the time I spend discussing them), I took it off due to battery drainage... it's not like I have any stocks to keep track of...



P Smith said:


> Bold - YEAH ! See ? You got it too.


According to the article, he spoke mainly of 4K coming as well as the KA-band. In the article, he spoke of 8K only once... I think it was just a forward thinking comment... nothing more than to state that DirecTV is thinking of it.

~Alan


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Even if they come out in three years (and I suspect we'll see some consumer sets for 4K in three years),* you do know you won't be forced to pay them a small fortune for one, right?*   You could simply enjoy what you have...
> 
> ~Alan


I understand that but if it's gonna be something earth shattering, you can bet I'll buy one. As long as the price isn't too ridiculous.

Rich


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Rich said:


> I understand that but if it's gonna be something earth shattering, you can bet I'll buy one. As long as the price isn't too ridiculous.


I'm the opposite. I hope it comes out as soon as possible... that way it can go ahead and start going down in price, and allow me to possibly be able to afford one before I die.  :lol:

I still want a 3DTV one of these days... 

~Alan


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

P Smith said:


> The discussion is revolving around PR statement without real base. Especially if you will pay attention to fake "8000-lines" part.
> "Fata Morgana".


I think its kind of hard to bring real facts into a discussion based around a PR statement. That seems to be where this thread got de-railed. We all know that Marketing speak is there to make a company look good, it has little to no real bearing on facts beyond that D* is looking to move to Ultra HD down the road....


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

cypherx said:


> I agree with you. Ku or Ka really doesn't determine if UHD is possible. It's more like transponder bandwidth and most importantly, the encoding / compression used. If anything Ku would allow them to use higher order modulation like 8PSK and lower error correction.
> 
> As far as DVRing it, maybe in 5 years the price of SSD's will be more consumer friendly along with a higher storage capacity.


For a SSD to be viable in a DVR they would have to figure out a way to keep the memory in it from wearing out due to constant writes.

When Intel gives a 5 year warranty on a couple of their SSD models they are not selling them for DVR use where there is 24 hour a day writes.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

CCarncross said:


> I think its kind of hard to bring real facts into a discussion based around a PR statement. That seems to be where this thread got de-railed. We all know that Marketing speak is there to make a company look good, it has little to no real bearing on facts beyond that D* is looking to move to Ultra HD down the road....


You got it more politely then me...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> I'm the opposite. I hope it comes out as soon as possible... that way it can go ahead and start going down in price, and allow me to possibly be able to afford one before I die.  :lol:


Or, you could do that, too. However it happens, my days of spending a fortune on TVs is over.



> I still want a 3DTV one of these days...
> 
> ~Alan


I just got one. You're not missing anything in 3D, there just isn't much 3D content out there.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> For a SSD to be viable in a DVR they would have to figure out a way to *keep the memory in it from wearing* out due to constant writes.
> 
> When Intel gives a 5 year warranty on a couple of their SSD models they are not selling them for DVR use where there is 24 hour a day writes.


What does that mean? Seriously, I had no idea you could wear out memory. I know there are gonna be shortcomings in the SSD that won't fit into the present scheme of things, but I didn't realize there was that much difference.

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That's how SSD memory 'cells' going to 'die' ... they has short life - 100,000 times to change, after that - fail.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> That's how SSD memory 'cells' going to 'die' ... they has short life - *100,000 times to change*, after that - fail.


Would you explain that?

Rich


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Rich said:


> Would you explain that?
> 
> Rich


I would assume he means that as with other flash memory devices (cards, USB memory keys, etc.) SSD storage cells are only good for a certain "very limited" (compared to HDDs) number of read/write cycles before failure which makes them unsuitable for DVRs.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Rich said:


> Would you explain that?
> 
> Rich


It's not that hard. 

If you'll look inside of SSD, you will find a couple (or more chips), one is a controller (who is responsible for wearing) and [NAND] memory chips.

Now, lets try [far] analogy: if you need bend a wire (copper or aluminum) to 90 degree and back. How many time you would able to do that at one particular spot? not to many, right ?
Then try bend once in one place, return it in straight position, shift your fingers to 1" and bend there. Do that N-2 times, then shift to next new position.
So total number of bends would be much bigger.

Back to SSD/NAND memory's cells - they have a limited number of changing status(1->0, 0->1). It's technological limit and companies working on extend it.
For now the limit could be reached pretty fast as file system (FAT, NTFS, EXTx, etc) using storage: changing static system meta data faster then new data creating/modifying.
If the SSD controller will blindly follow these commands, it will changes same calls with the high frequency and will 'wear' these cells.

To prevent it (increase life of a SSD, not a cells), the controller writing updated sector/cluster to relatively new positions. Dynamically spreading changes, avoid writing to same place often.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I fix computers all the time. Besides the power supply, what is the most common failure? The Hard Drive. So how does that change with SSD? A rotating disk with all those moving parts fails just as bad, I'm sure.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> ... To prevent it (increase life of a SSD, not a cells), the controller writing updated sector/cluster to relatively new positions. Dynamically spreading changes, avoid writing to same place often.


With a necessity for such dynamic distribution of data changes to preserve memory cell life, its good thing slow downs due to file fragmentation are not an issue with SSDs since like RAM its has a true random access capability.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

cypherx said:


> I fix computers all the time. Besides the power supply, what is the most common failure? The Hard Drive. So how does that change with SSD? A rotating disk with all those moving parts fails just as bad, I'm sure.


I suppose one would need a way to calculate just how many read/write cycles are actually perfomed on a daily regular use basis, to try to calculate if the drive would hold up for ones use before the memory cells "wear out".

Personally, I have only had one off brand hard drive failure since I first started using computers back in the days when you paid $1000 for a 100MB full height drive. I have almost always replaced the drives with larger/cheaper drives long before the drives ever wore out.

While an SSD would be great for boot up speed, I havent tried one yet, just because I have no idea how fast it would wear out, and if so, does it fail instantly, or does it fail slow enough that its controller could remap a bad cell prior to losing data.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cypherx said:


> A rotating disk with all those moving parts fails just as bad, I'm sure.


There's no known limit to the number of times you can change the magnetic state of a spot on a hard drive. SSD can't say that; they just keep moving the spots to even out the wear.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> With a necessity for such dynamic distribution of data changes to preserve memory cell life, its good thing slow downs due to file fragmentation are not an issue with SSDs since like RAM its has a true random access capability.


NAND memory doesn't qualify as RAM. NAND memory must be "burned" in blocks.

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


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> NAND memory doesn't qualify as RAM. NAND memory must be "burned" in blocks.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory


That's why there is exist a controller and the SSD utilize an interface as SATA.
Other example of NAND - USB [thumb] flash drives.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> NAND memory doesn't qualify as RAM. NAND memory must be "burned" in blocks.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory


I never meant to say it did, but was only claiming that a SSD is "like RAM" in that it shares the same capability of having a true random access capability.

Thus data access slow downs due to file fragmentation on a HDD are not applicable to SSDs.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Rich said:


> Would you explain that?
> 
> Rich


Rich in simple terms, SSD technology only has so many write cycles. They have a finite life, not like current spinning drive technology where a drive can last for years and years virtually independent of how many times a particular sector gets written to. Think of it similar to a re-writeable cd or dvd. Another loose analogy would be to a WORM drive(disk), (Write once read many), but in the case of SSD its write say 100,000 times(don't know the exact number). Does that make sense?


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I have 2 bad drives this week. One did the click of death (click click click click click). The one I'm working on now isn't completely dead, but SpinRite is guessing at least 40 hrs to recover the data.

I guess time will tell!

I was really thinking SSD for recording U HD because of the super fast access times. That's something you need in a multi-tuner DVR with a live TV buffer. Or maybe they will do a hybrid 64GB cache + disk drive


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"CCarncross" said:


> Rich in simple terms, SSD technology only has so many write cycles. They have a finite life, not like current spinning drive technology where a drive can last for years and years virtually independent of how many times a particular sector gets written to. Think of it similar to a re-writeable cd or dvd. Another loose analogy would be to a WORM drive(disk), (Write once read many), but in the case of SSD its write say 100,000 times(don't know the exact number). Does that make sense?


Keep in mind, if it is rated for 100,000 writes, that's not per drive. That's per cell.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Keep in mind, if it is rated for 100,000 writes, that's not per drive. That's per cell.


That equates to 4166 writes per minute if the drive were to last a year.
2083 writes per minute for two years, 1041 writes per minute for 4 yrs....

If that is accurate, it sure doesnt sound like its going to wear out anytime soon, unless you have some screwed up program that writes to the same sector over and over and over.


----------



## HGuardian (Aug 10, 2010)

Something I think some you are missing on the differentiating between Ultra-HD and 1080p picture is just the bandwidth.

a 50 inch screen with a full HD 1080p uncompressed Blu-Ray vs a 50 inch Ultra-HD "ultradisc" will probably be very similar. Move to a 150 inch screen and you will notice differences.

But on the smaller sets as it relates to satellite your bandwidth for actual channels in "Ultra-HD" will be much much higher therefore on the smaller screens the macroblocking should be much less noticeable besides the obvious increase in resolution.

Just my take, I really like hearing about what's coming next. Appreciate this thread...


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

HGuardian said:


> But on the smaller sets as it relates to satellite your bandwidth for actual channels in "Ultra-HD" will be much much higher therefore on the smaller screens the macroblocking should be much less noticeable besides the obvious increase in resolution.
> 
> Just my take, I really like hearing about what's coming next. Appreciate this thread...


I agree, but there should not be any macroblocking on 1080i/p to begin with. If the content providers cannot deliver 1080 without macroblocking due to encoders not being able to keep up with the raw bitstream, increasing the resolution isnt going to help.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It will be interesting to see where the world is at in 6 to 7 years with 4k....

I would not be surprised if we don;t have hard drives that are 30 TB at about the same prices we have today for a 3tb drive... I think that is something that has to happen before anything else.

I expect movie theaters to jump all over this tech much faster than consumers.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

"Davenlr" said:


> That equates to 4166 writes per minute if the drive were to last a year.
> 2083 writes per minute for two years, 1041 writes per minute for 4 yrs....
> 
> If that is accurate, it sure doesnt sound like its going to wear out anytime soon, unless you have some screwed up program that writes to the same sector over and over and over.


And I'm sure there are extra cells. Normal hard drives have extra sectors. It's just not an issue really. Some people get nervous about keeping data on a 5 year old standard drive.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

They could easily make hard drives that size now, if they were to increase the platters/heads in them from the current drives and just put them in a full height or half height form factor with really robust drive motors. 

I would think by the time 4K comes out, the solid state drives will have been perfected enough to be usable tho.


----------



## HGuardian (Aug 10, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> I agree, but there should not be any macroblocking on 1080i/p to begin with. If the content providers cannot deliver 1080 without macroblocking due to encoders not being able to keep up with the raw bitstream, increasing the resolution isnt going to help.


Directv is looking at increasing it's bandwidth (in a huge way) for this new format so that's good news. I'll just try to take the good from it.

They could just say "well we are just gonna go with what we got, compress even more, and hope nothing better comes along". :grin:


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I wasnt referring to DirecTv, they obviously give more bandwidth to each channel now than they even need to. I was referring to the source of the programming. Now if they went 4K, then that would mean DirecTv would have a better feed to give us, even on standard HD channels, so Id be happy just being able to watch a football game without every running play turn into a bunch of colored blocks. That would be an improvement for me, even watching a 4K broadcast on my standard TV.


----------



## HGuardian (Aug 10, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> I wasnt referring to DirecTv, they obviously give more bandwidth to each channel now than they even need to. I was referring to the source of the programming. Now if they went 4K, then that would mean DirecTv would have a better feed to give us, even on standard HD channels, so Id be happy just being able to watch a football game without every running play turn into a bunch of colored blocks. That would be an improvement for me, even watching a 4K broadcast on my standard TV.


Exactly. I think that's one of the best things in the better format. I'm not gonna say Directv gives more bandwidth than I want, but you put "need" which I agree with from a business standpoint.

Now if everything moves to some weird pseudo-pop-up-book-looking-"3D" for "Ultra-HD" then I'll complain.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> It will be interesting to see where the world is at in 6 to 7 years with 4k....
> 
> I would not be surprised if we don;t have hard drives that are 30 TB at about the same prices we have today for a 3tb drive... I think that is something that has to happen before anything else.
> 
> I expect movie theaters to jump all over this tech much faster than consumers.


The 4K movie theater I frequent when in Chicago is amazing.......

http://www.rosemont.com/muvico.php

https://www.muvico.com/Default.asp?


----------



## mreposter (Jul 29, 2006)

cypherx said:


> I have 2 bad drives this week. One did the click of death (click click click click click).


Doncha just hate the click of death?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> I would assume he means that as with other flash memory devices (cards, USB memory keys, etc.) SSD storage cells are only good for a certain "very limited" (compared to HDDs) number of read/write cycles before failure which makes them unsuitable for DVRs.


Thanx, so much for waiting for SSDs for my DVRs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> It's not that hard.
> 
> If you'll look inside of SSD, you will find a couple (or more chips), one is a controller (who is responsible for wearing) and [NAND] memory chips.
> 
> ...


So, do you think we'll ever see SSDs that are DVR friendly?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Personally, I have only had one off brand hard drive failure since I first started using computers back in the days when you paid $1000 for a 100MB full height drive. I have almost always replaced the drives with larger/cheaper drives long before the drives ever wore out.


I don't remember exactly when I started using PCs, middle to late 80's? Anyhow, I've never had an HDD fail on a computer.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> Rich in simple terms, SSD technology only has so many write cycles. They have a finite life, not like current spinning drive technology where a drive can last for years and years virtually independent of how many times a particular sector gets written to. Think of it similar to a re-writeable cd or dvd. Another loose analogy would be to a WORM drive(disk), (Write once read many), but in the case of SSD its write say 100,000 times(don't know the exact number). Does that make sense?


Yeah, kinda. I get the "so many cycles" part, but I had assumed the SSDs would work better than the present HDDs. Kinda disappointed. It's difficult for me to wrap my mind around these various technologies, not having a technological computer background. Still learning....:lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Keep in mind, if it is rated for 100,000 writes, that's not per drive. That's per cell.


Well, that sounds better. Now, how many cells are in these things?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I wasnt referring to DirecTv, they obviously give more bandwidth to each channel now than they even need to. I was referring to the source of the programming. Now if they went 4K, then that would mean DirecTv would have a better feed to give us, even on standard HD channels, so *Id be happy just being able to watch a football game without every running play turn into a bunch of colored blocks*. That would be an improvement for me, even watching a 4K broadcast on my standard TV.


You see that on your Aquos?

Rich


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

CCarncross said:


> The 4K movie theater I frequent when in Chicago is amazing.......
> 
> http://www.rosemont.com/muvico.php
> 
> https://www.muvico.com/Default.asp?


Impressive! I have a similar one here nearby as well.

Just to be clear (pun intended)...having seen several 4K HDTVs at CES this year firsthand - yes - the image quality is *stunning*...even from only 6 feet away. An 1080p image in comparison (even with 1080p content feeding both sets) is noticeably below that of a 4K screen presentation. That should come as no surprise really.

But we won't be seeing 4K content delivered in any significant quality nor 4K HDTVs in the mainstream market for 1-2 years most likely. Form a content perspective, the leading first candidate would be the new 50GB technology Blu ray disks and new corresponding 4K players coming to the market some time within the next year or so.

It is refreshing, however, that DirecTV is at least thinking about 4K HDTV in their roadmap plans. The bandwidth required to deliver it will be staggering compared to a 1080p signal...but technology always advances....so something new could help bridge at least some of the bandwidth gap.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Rich said:


> So, do you think we'll ever see SSDs that are DVR friendly?
> 
> Rich


*We should stop the off-topic track.*

[OK, last answers - there are more other better technologies what will allow create better storage, R&D is working day and night to bring it to customer's level. I hope we will see these before end of our life . 
Number of cells is practically same(with some reserve) as capacity of the SSD multiply by 10, say 250 GB equal to 2,500,000,000,000 cells]


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> With a necessity for such dynamic distribution of data changes to preserve memory cell life, its good thing slow downs due to file fragmentation are not an issue with SSDs since like RAM its has a true random access capability.





HoTat2 said:


> I never meant to say it did, but was only claiming that a SSD is "like RAM" in that it shares the same capability of having a true random access capability.
> 
> Thus data access slow downs due to file fragmentation on a HDD are not applicable to SSDs.


Repeating that SSDs are random access doesn't change the fact that NAND memory, that makes up the lion's share of SSD devices, is NOT random access. SSDs are not like RAM in that they are not truly random access devices. That there is no head traveling and no sectors waiting to come around is a decided advantage to be certain but you can't just ask for a byte without getting an entire block.

The other downside that the SSD life expectancy proponents don't seem to realize is that a single byte change in a NAND block requires the entire block to be rewritten and that counts against the ultimate lifetime of the entire block, not just the byte or the bit.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> Repeating that SSDs are random access doesn't change the fact that NAND memory, that makes up the lion's share of SSD devices, is NOT random access. SSDs are not like RAM in that they are not truly random access devices. That there is no head traveling and no sectors waiting to come around is a decided advantage to be certain but you can't just ask for a byte without getting an entire block.
> 
> *The other downside that the SSD life expectancy proponents don't seem to realize is that a single byte change in a NAND block requires the entire block to be rewritten and that counts against the ultimate lifetime of the entire block, not just the byte or the bit.*


That's very important point !

Adding to that - the sector [block] size is *2048 bytes*.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Ok, lets get back to topic. If you want to discuss SSDs, start a new thread in the tech forum.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## cjaredscott (Dec 21, 2011)

This would be cool!


----------



## cjaredscott (Dec 21, 2011)

I found another article -- Click Here!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

cjaredscott said:


> I found another article -- Click Here!


That's followup, nothing new, quoting the same pitch :down: with same "8000-line" fake up.


----------

