# Whats the point of Directv 4K?



## DSB (Aug 10, 2006)

3 weeks back I got 4K installed - free receiver, free install, they changed the dish but I did have to sign up for another 2 years at their mercy. Was excited but the only channel broadcasting is 104 and the other couple of them are pay per view. And the channel 104 which has 30 minutes boring episodes on various subjects does not look noticeably superior to what picture quality I am seeing on my Samsung 4K tv regular channels. Do you all 4K directv subscribers feel its worth all the trouble of getting the install when there is hardly any content. When you visit the Directv website, they have heavy promotion of 4K going on and they want you to subscribe to it. But whats the point?
Am I missing something here? Is there something else available in 4K from Directv? Thanks for your input.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Sports. I see the next two Thursday night football games will be in 4K on channel 105.

Personally even with three 4K TVs I don't see enough programming to upgrade my equipment.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DSB said:


> 3 weeks back I got 4K installed - free receiver, free install, they changed the dish but I did have to sign up for another 2 years at their mercy. Was excited but the only channel broadcasting is 104 and the other couple of them are pay per view. And the channel 104 which has 30 minutes boring episodes on various subjects does not look noticeably superior to what picture quality I am seeing on my Samsung 4K tv regular channels. Do you all 4K directv subscribers feel its worth all the trouble of getting the install when there is hardly any content. When you visit the Directv website, they have heavy promotion of 4K going on and they want you to subscribe to it. But whats the point?
> Am I missing something here? Is there something else available in 4K from Directv? Thanks for your input.


Yeh as mentioned no one is getting 4K for channel 104. It is all about the sports which has ramped up a lot over the last 2-3 months


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I can tell a small but noticeable improvement with 4K on my Samsung 82NU8000 from 18 ft. It's not dramatic and some 4K is better than others. This years Masters was in 4K and it was sweet. Most of the stuff on 104 is nature documentaries from around the world. These shows lend themselves well to 4K. A lot of under water and jungle shows. Also A Rolling Stones concert, a Garth Brooks concert and half a dozen more concerts. The TV show Mr.Mercedes. Space shows like Hidden Universe. Car shows like Find Me A Classic and Wheeler Dealer.Caribbean Life. Granted these shows repeat themselves during the month. As long as you upgraded for free why not upgrade just to show people what 4K looks like. Especially if you want to invite friends over to watch a NFL game in 4K.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

I used the HS17 and 2 C61K's for over a year for 4K. The promise was always there for more 4K programming. Even upgraded my LNB for reverse band. Gave up after a year with the terrible customer service and billing issues. IMO, no not worth it!


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I can see why you gave up on DirecTV but would you have stopped watching 4K? There are some sports being shown live. Big Ten Game coming up and at least two NFL games on Thursdays.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

DSB said:


> 3 weeks back I got 4K installed - free receiver, free install, they changed the dish but I did have to sign up for another 2 years at their mercy. Was excited but the only channel broadcasting is 104 and the other couple of them are pay per view. And the channel 104 which has 30 minutes boring episodes on various subjects does not look noticeably superior to what picture quality I am seeing on my Samsung 4K tv regular channels. Do you all 4K directv subscribers feel its worth all the trouble of getting the install when there is hardly any content. When you visit the Directv website, they have heavy promotion of 4K going on and they want you to subscribe to it. But whats the point?
> Am I missing something here? Is there something else available in 4K from Directv? Thanks for your input.


Nope. You nailed it. There is no point to 4K on DirecTV. If you like sports as others said, there's another few channels. If you don't, don't waste your time now. Get an Oppo 203 instead and live the 4K dream in all its glorious Dolby Vision and 108Mbps data rate .


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Directv can only show what networks are broadcasting. That's like blaming your local theater if you think the Star Wars sequels are boring and derivative.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I don't think that any non sports shown on DirecTV channel 104 is what we consider network broadcast. It's pretty much canned and played on 104 or 105 for sports.


----------



## maonstad (Jul 13, 2007)

Read this info about the NFL 4k on Thursdays. README this explains alot about the current 4K upconverted 1080p HDR...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

the site is full of info to answer the questions asked so many times before...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

If you enjoy the sports offerings, and you have both a good TV and viewing environment (properly placed, set up etc.) then, yes, it's worth the upgrade. If you do not have both the proper setup or do not enjoy sports, then, no, it would not be worth it to you.

For example, I got a chuckle reading a post above saying his TV is 18' away and he sees a difference between HD and 4k, but it's not dramatic. 

When someone says they don't notice much of a difference it has to be their setup or their eyes. I've been to friends houses and they have their TV on 'torch' mode (set up like it is in the store) and they wonder why there isn't much of a difference when they stream 4k on Netflix. 

Or they have poor WiFi and wonder why they don't see much of a difference. Or they are watching their LED TV a little off to the side and wonder why the colors are muted and the picture looks a little dark and they don't see much of a difference when watching 4k.

Etc, etc. etc.

For me, the difference is stunning especially when the source is HDR or Dolby - whether from D* or any other 4k source I have. Yes - even the well documented FS1 upscaled content looks better than the same thing in HD. And yes, I wish it was 4k all the way through the chain - but it looks damn good.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

There's a myth that all HD and 4K content should be razor sharp. In reality the Director's intent, photography, lighting and source material determine the look of the content.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> There's a myth that all HD and 4K content should be razor sharp. In reality the Director's intent, photography, lighting and source material determine the look of the content.


It's funny you should say that. I've noticed lately that with very good 4k content some shots look a little soft. I can actually see slightly 'out of focus' shots. Or maybe some cameras are not 4k. I have no way to know which it is, of course.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

As mentioned above sports . And 4k is finally getting some good expansion.. still slow but its growing . 

I think earlier this month there were 4 LIVE 4k events at the same time . !! 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> There's a myth that all HD and 4K content should be razor sharp. In reality the Director's intent, photography, lighting and source material determine the look of the content.


Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a UHD disc is 108Mbps and streaming 4K content is bastardized down to about 15Mbps or less? .

If you want real, razor sharp 4K, UHD is going to be the only way to get it -- EVER. Streaming will never get to 108Mbps. Plus, you have a much bigger selection.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that a UHD disc is 108Mbps and streaming 4K content is bastardized down to about 15Mbps or less? .
> 
> If you want real, razor sharp 4K, UHD is going to be the only way to get it -- EVER. Streaming will never get to 108Mbps. Plus, you have a much bigger selection.


While I totally agree that the best 4K viewing is via 4K Ultra HD disc what I said in post #13 still holds true. Lets look at Director's intent... The Director determines how the video is going to look and whether he wants a soft, sharp or grainy effect it's going to look that way even on a 4K Ultra HD disc...Photography... Film (if so, what film stock is used will have a effect on the look of the video) or Digital...Lighting (vivid, dark, ect.)...Source Material...If the source material is poor it's going to look poor even on a 4K Ultra HD disc. A good example of this is the 1951 sci-fi classic "The Thing from Another World". For decades the source material for broadcast was low quality, even on DVD. Only until the recent Blu-ray release was quality source material and restoration used but even with that there are some scenes that have noticeably lower quality source material than others. Hence the garbage in/garbage out rule.


----------



## Phil T (Mar 25, 2002)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I can see why you gave up on DirecTV but would you have stopped watching 4K? There are some sports being shown live. Big Ten Game coming up and at least two NFL games on Thursdays.


I actually enjoyed some of the 4K programming on 104. 4k sports/NFL not so much. The difference in picture quality is just not worth it IMO. I pick up a Blue Ray DVD every once in a while on Redbox to get my picture quality fix. The stuff I watched on 104 is pretty much the same I can access in 4K on You Tube directly through my TV with out other equipment. I do have Apple TV, Roku, and a 4K Tivo so plenty of things to play with and I don't miss DirecTV at all.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

I have watched a few of the NFL TNF games in 4k using the Fox Sports app (authorized using PSVue as my provider) on my ATV 4K and on the FireTV Stick 4k. You can definitely tell the difference but I would not classify it as “knock your socks off” different. Honestly the 4k action is really on NetFlix/Prime originals, and first run movies. It was one of the reasons we decided to get rid of D in the first place. While D does have some first run movies available to rent in 4k I find the fact that they want to charge $10.99 while pretty much everybody else (VUDU, Prime, iTunes) charges $5.99 a bit insulting. I guess they do it because they can get away with it...


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

IMO, the only time 4K looks really really good is outdoor shots with lots of lighting. Indoor shots especially scenes without bright lighting don't make 4K look like people expect. It's clarity and colors that make 4K look very good.

Doesn't matter whether it is Netflix or Ch. 104-106. Light matters


----------



## daniloni (Jul 31, 2013)

The sports are night and day different IMO. I was watching Thursday night football in “4K” the other night and then switched to a college football game on ESPN (granted 720p) after the NFL game was over and for a second I thought ESPN was in SD. Also a very clear difference watching the 4K broadcast of Manchester United-Liverpool last Sunday v the normal NBCSN broadcast. I think the difference is almost as noticeable as SD v HD. I watch on a 55 inch LG OLED from about 9-10 feet away.

The difference (between 1080p and 4K) for shows on Netflix/Amazon prime is noticeable but definitely not night and day, and wouldn’t be worth the upgrade in my opinion.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

mjwagner said:


> While D does have some first run movies available to rent in 4k I find the fact that they want to charge $10.99 while pretty much everybody else (VUDU, Prime, iTunes) charges $5.99 a bit insulting.


Those $10.99 4K first run movie rentals usually come with a 3 day viewing period. The $5.99 4K first run movie rentals usually come with 2 day viewing period.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trh said:


> Sports. I see the next two Thursday night football games will be in 4K on channel 105.
> 
> Personally even with three 4K TVs I don't see enough programming to upgrade my equipment.


One of these days they are gonna stop issuing 54s. I want to get one before that happens. Don't see any other reason to get D* 4K. I would like to see those Thursday night games.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> There's a myth that all HD and 4K content should be razor sharp. In reality the Director's intent, photography, lighting and source material determine the look of the content.


Yeah, no matter where or how I view _The Godfather_ it looks odd.

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Rich said:


> One of these days they are gonna stop issuing 54s.


They still have enough for the foreseeable future.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Hence the garbage in/garbage out rule.


Yes. That's a good rule. Streaming & DirecTV & Cable, etc. is more like great in/garbage out. You'll never see the directors intent when you compress video down to 10%. No matter how good the codec is.

Besides it's a lot cheaper to go UHD anyways.

DirecTV: $10.99 / 3 day rental

UHD: $20 -$30 to OWN, then you sell off the BluRay copy -$10 and sell off the digital copy -$10 and you basically end up paying $5 or so for much better PQ and AQ and you own it. If you wait a few months after release, you can buy them for almost nothing on eBay NIB.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> UHD: $20 -$30 to OWN


Not always. I've picked up a few UHD late releases at Walmart and Best Buy for $14.95.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> I find the fact that they want to charge $10.99 while pretty much everybody else (VUDU, Prime, iTunes) charges $5.99 a bit insulting. I guess they do it because they can get away with it...


These are the same folks who charge $15/hr for porn. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why anybody would buy porn. Although, I'll give the guy who writes the movie description blurbs props. Funny stuff!


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

The point of D* 4k TV -- I have have it and Many Don't


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

WestDC said:


> The point of D* 4k TV -- I have have it and Many Don't


Yes !!

I love 4k

Cox and spectrum dont offer 4k yet

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> Those $10.99 4K first run movie rentals usually come with a 3 day viewing period. The $5.99 4K first run movie rentals usually come with 2 day viewing period.


Yes, that is the way they try to justify the ridiculous price...


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> Not always. I've picked up a few UHD late releases at Walmart and Best Buy for $14.95.


And 2 years from NOW --they will be in $5 Bin at wal-mart


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

What is holding me back simply is the hardware. I am not a fan of the HS-17 simply because it will make me lose both the ability to record off-air and my other DVR's. The HR-54 only outputs 4K to one TV, which would limit my viewing options. There is simply not enough compelling content that would make me drop the redundancy and reliability I have with my system right now.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

WestDC said:


> And 2 years from NOW --they will be in $5 Bin at wal-mart


Maybe not. Our area Walmart removed the DVD and Blu-ray discount bins months ago.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

The point of having 4K through DirecTV is pretty simple. The picture is better and the up grade is free. No real reason not to upgrade for most unless you will need to start a new 2 year contract.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> The point of having 4K through DirecTV is pretty simple. The picture is better and the up grade is free. No real reason not to upgrade for most unless you will need to start a new 2 year contract.


I upgraded in 2017 to genie 2 with 4k . Worth it for me 
Have seen a huge increase in 4k

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

glrush said:


> What is holding me back simply is the hardware. I am not a fan of the HS-17 simply because it will make me lose both the ability to record off-air and my other DVR's. The HR-54 only outputs 4K to one TV, which would limit my viewing options. There is simply not enough compelling content that would make me drop the redundancy and reliability I have with my system right now.


I agree. Never liked the idea behind the 17s. And don't see enough 4K content to make the leap. Add to that the last call I made to these nitwits. That was frustrating. Still might do it. Wavering.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Any content is better than no content. And there is a fair amount of content. Several concerts, sports. It's not a ton but at least it's there. How much 4K content do you need to make the leap? What programming they do have is stunning and enough variety to please most people at least some of the time. Curious, if you are no longer under contract will you be required to sign a new two year contract for the C61K and the needed upgrade to your Dish (reverse band)?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Any content is better than no content. And there is a fair amount of content. Several concerts, sports. It's not a ton but at least it's there. How much 4K content do you need to make the leap? What programming they do have is stunning and enough variety to please most people at least some of the time. Curious, if you are no longer under contract will you be required to sign a new two year contract for the C61K and the needed upgrade to your Dish (reverse band)?


Yes, I would have to reup. That has no bearing on my decision. I'm not a newcomer to 4K, there's plenty of 4K content online. To be honest, I don't search for 4K content. What I care about when it comes to 4K sets is the upscaling. 1080p upscales very well. 1080i and 720p upscaled I find rather annoying. Especially when it comes to sports, which is the only reason I have D*. What I'd like to see is every MLB and NFL game in 2160p. Recorded in 2160p and broadcast in 2160p. I would jump on that in a second.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I agree about the NFL and MLB. Unfortunately the NFL has so many different broadcast contracts with various networks and MLB with so many Regional Network broadcast contracts our 4K desire is impossible. Nobody in this group would spend the money to record and broadcast in 2160p. They won't even do it in 1080p. FYI, I would not sign a new 2 year contract with "D" just to watch the weak amount of 4K they offer. Only if it was a free upgrade.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I agree about the NFL and MLB. Unfortunately the NFL has so many different broadcast contracts with various networks and MLB with so many Regional Network broadcast contracts our 4K desire is impossible. Nobody in this group would spend the money to record and broadcast in 2160p. They won't even do it in 1080p. FYI, I would not sign a new 2 year contract with "D" just to watch the weak amount of 4K they offer. Only if it was a free upgrade.


The upgrade would be free of cost. But it's not about money. It's about something new. Right now, every piece of D* equipment I have has been in my home for years.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

That's not a response I was expecting from you. If your TV was a 60 inch Mitsubishi DLP would you shy away from replacing it because it had been in your home for years. Perhaps a unnecessarily bold comparison but it works.


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Any content is better than no content. And there is a fair amount of content. Several concerts, sports. It's not a ton but at least it's there. How much 4K content do you need to make the leap? What programming they do have is stunning and enough variety to please most people at least some of the time. Curious, if you are no longer under contract will you be required to sign a new two year contract for the C61K and the needed upgrade to your Dish (reverse band)?


When HD first became a "thing" on DirecTV, I held off getting a HDTV and a HD-TIVO until ESPN announced that they were going to start broadcasting a channel in HD. That was the tipping point for me. But, streaming didn't exist then (other than Real Video and the like) and neither did Blu-Ray. Like Rich, another commitment doesn't bother me; I've been with DirecTV since 1994. What is holding me back is the compromises I would have to make with my current system to get what seems to be a fairly marginal (for me) upgrade.

Another concern that I have, and please let me know if I am out to lunch, is that I understood that the HS17 cannot have an external drive and some of the HR54's can't either. Another deal breaker for me.


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

MysteryMan said:


> Maybe not. Our area Walmart removed the DVD and Blu-ray discount bins months ago.


Still got them in my area. In fact they are VERY popular around here along with Dollar Tree $1 DVDs and Blu-Rays.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

The easy solution would be to make sure you get a HR54 that you can ad a external hard drive. Also, the HS17 can record more items than the HR54. Now that still might be enough to meet your needs. Naturally I have no idea what your configuration is but it sounds like everything is pre HR54 nor do I know how many DVR's you have. Other than getting one new DVR and upgrading your Dish, what compromises are you contemplating?


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

With the HS17, no way to record off-air, no external drive, and lose both my other DVR's and receiver.
With the HR54, only output (in 4K) to one TV, and depending on the model, no external drive. 
As for specifying which model of HR54 I'd get, I am extremely dubious that AT&T would be able to make this happen without dorking it up. Me on the phone telling some CSR to please give me the correct model of a DVR that supports an external drive, then having it loaded onto the truck, then having it delivered and installed to my house likely weeks after the order was placed seems like pretty long odds.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

glrush said:


> With the HS17, no way to record off-air, no external drive, and lose both my other DVR's and receiver.
> With the *HR54, only output (in 4K) to one TV*, and depending on the model, no external drive.
> As for specifying which model of HR54 I'd get, I am extremely dubious that AT&T would be able to make this happen without dorking it up. Me on the phone telling some CSR to please give me the correct model of a DVR that supports an external drive, then having it loaded onto the truck, then having it delivered and installed to my house likely weeks after the order was placed seems like pretty long odds.


Just to clarify one thing - with the HR54 it's one 4k TV _*at a time*_ (you could have more than one C61K in your setup).


----------



## glrush (Jun 29, 2002)

Thanks for the clarification. you said it better than my reply did.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I will watch the NFL game tonight on channel 105 in 4K HDR with great interest in picture quality. I am normally not easily impressed so it will have to knock my socks off. My wife will be watching and I'll see if she comments without my prompt.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I have been switching back and forth between channels 105 and 212. The PQ is noticeably better in 4K. That being said, even though my wife also can see a difference it really isn't enough to get a wow from either of us. I would rather watch it in 4K over 1080i or 720p but overall I am underwhelmed.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I have been switching back and forth between channels 105 and 212. The PQ is noticeably better in 4K. That being said, even though my wife also can see a difference it really isn't enough to get a wow from either of us. I would rather watch it in 4K over 1080i or 720p but overall I am underwhelmed.


Bear in mind that this is an upscaled 1080p broadcast. That might contribute to you being underwhelmed.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

I'm watching on my Roku. I think the Roku looks better than 212, my Fox Channel or my Fire TV. But time lag significant. My son is getting text updates on scores about 1 minute sooner than shown on the Roku.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

How do you know that it's an upscale 1080p broadcast? It says it's in HDR.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> How do you know that it's an upscale 1080p broadcast? It says it's in HDR.


That doesn't mean it isn't HDR. And it has been widely reported these are upscaled 1080p broadcasts, there is no doubt about that part.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

How do they upscale a 1080p broadcast and how can you tell?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I have been switching back and forth between channels 105 and 212. The PQ is noticeably better in 4K. That being said, even though my wife also can see a difference it really isn't enough to get a wow from either of us. I would rather watch it in 4K over 1080i or 720p but overall I am underwhelmed.


Please tell us more about your TV, and how it is positioned in relation to where you sit while watching.

As for how you can tell it's upscaled, an engineer did an interview about a month ago and told us. The article was linked to in another thread here. Also, some 4k looks better than other 4k (but all of it looks better than HD, IMHO).

As for how, well, that would take paragraphs here. The short version - it works very much like the upscaler you likely have in your TV.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I have been switching back and forth between channels 105 and 212. The PQ is noticeably better in 4K. That being said, even though my wife also can see a difference it really isn't enough to get a wow from either of us. I would rather watch it in 4K over 1080i or 720p but overall I am underwhelmed.


The best way to view 4K content is via 4K Ultra HD disc. The same applies to 1080p content, via Blu-ray disc. But not all 4K and 1080p discs are razor sharp. The Director's intent, photography, lighting and source material determine how the video will look whether on a disc or TV broadcast. Add to that cable and satellite providers compress their signals which have a effect on how the video will look.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> How do they upscale a 1080p broadcast and how can you tell?


Same way a 4K TV takes an HD input and displays it on a 3840x2160 screen. As for how you can tell, I don't think you really can which is sort of the point. The marginal benefit provided by giving a "real" 4K broadcast vs upscaled 1080p is too small to be noticeable, unless maybe you get up close to the screen and really go looking hard to find clues to the difference.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> That's not a response I was expecting from you. If your TV was a 60 inch Mitsubishi DLP would you shy away from replacing it because it had been in your home for years. Perhaps a unnecessarily bold comparison but it works.


Actually considered buying one of those sets. Don't know what you expected, what I wrote was the truth. I don't need a 54, not even sure I want to go 4K. Be interesting playing with a DVR I've never had, that's where I was going.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

glrush said:


> When HD first became a "thing" on DirecTV, I held off getting a HDTV and a HD-TIVO until ESPN announced that they were going to start broadcasting a channel in HD. That was the tipping point for me. But, streaming didn't exist then (other than Real Video and the like) and neither did Blu-Ray. Like Rich, another commitment doesn't bother me; I've been with DirecTV since 1994. What is holding me back is the compromises I would have to make with my current system to get what seems to be a fairly marginal (for me) upgrade.
> 
> Another concern that I have, and please let me know if I am out to lunch, is that I understood that the HS17 cannot have an external drive and some of the HR54's can't either. Another deal breaker for me.


SOME of the 17s, not all of them. This is something new, apparently some nitwit thought it would save them some money by excluding an eSATA port. If I re-upped and the installer showed up with 54s that don't have the eSATA port I'd nix the install.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> The easy solution would be to make sure you get a HR54 that you can ad a external hard drive. Also, the HS17 can record more items than the HR54. Now that still might be enough to meet your needs. Naturally I have no idea what your configuration is but it sounds like everything is pre HR54 nor do I know how many DVR's you have. Other than getting one new DVR and upgrading your Dish, what compromises are you contemplating?


You really have to reference the post you're addressing.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I have been switching back and forth between channels 105 and 212. The PQ is noticeably better in 4K. That being said, even though my wife also can see a difference it really isn't enough to get a wow from either of us. I would rather watch it in 4K over 1080i or 720p but overall I am underwhelmed.


Good post, good opinions. Thank you.

Rich


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

To follow up a bit after watching the entire game last night. On a scale of 1-10 for PQ, I give channel 212 a 6.5 and channel 105 a rating of 7.5. Keep in mind I am watching on a Samsung 82NU8000 which is big but not even Samsungs cheapest QLED technology. Also I am 18 ft from the screen. I'm certain that at say 12 feet you would see a bigger difference. Also switching on HDR took away from the overall PQ, no matter how I adjusted it. As to the desire to move up to 4K. Let content quantity and content type (sports etc.) Be the determining factor. The PQ is better for sure, but will you want to watch the programming? For me. YES.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> To follow up a bit after watching the entire game last night. On a scale of 1-10 for PQ, I give channel 212 a 6.5 and channel 105 a rating of 7.5. Keep in mind I am watching on a Samsung 82NU8000 which is big but not even Samsungs cheapest QLED technology. Also I am 18 ft from the screen. I'm certain that at say 12 feet you would see a bigger difference. Also switching on HDR took away from the overall PQ, no matter how I adjusted it. As to the desire to move up to 4K. Let content quantity and content type (sports etc.) Be the determining factor. The PQ is better for sure, but will you want to watch the programming? For me. YES.


Thanks for the info.

That's a very good TV. 18' though - wow. I'm not sure at even 12' you would see a huge difference - that's still pretty far away.

Also - unless your eyes are dead on center with that TV, the colors become muted quickly. It's the nature of an LED screen. That would also reduce the difference you would be able to see.

For example, if it's flat on the wall (with no tilt), but up higher than your chair, then you are off center just as you would be side to side.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

@Andrew Sullivan - I just read about your TV a little - some common suggestions for HDR include:

"The issue with HDR+ (and something you'll want to immediately correct in the settings) is that it automatically changes the color tone to warm - adding a sepia-like filter to the content. If you want to remove the warm hue, you'll need to go into the settings and set the Color Tone back to standard."

Also - try "_go into Settings->Picture->Advanced Settings->Auto Motion Plus and then turn Blur Reduction up to 10, while cranking the Judder down to 0._"

Be sure to write down your settings there before trying that in case you don't like the result and want to put it back.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Athlon646464 said:


> Thanks for the info.
> 
> That's a very good TV. 18' though - wow. I'm not sure at even 12' you would see a huge difference - that's still pretty far away.
> 
> ...


The Samsung 82NU8000 is a good TV for mixed usage but reviews state colors wash out at an angle and local dimming doesn't work well.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> The Samsung 82NU8000 is a good TV for mixed usage but reviews state colors wash out at an angle and local dimming doesn't work well.


Yup - that's why I mentioned unless he's dead on - he's not going to see everything that TV can do.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

We have two recliners that are setup close to dead center. Closer than 18 ft may be what is recommended by professionals but for most folks whatever that distance is for their specific screen size in unrealistic. I've set up dozens of new TV's for people, going back to Pioneer plasmas and Sony LCOS and Mitsubishi DLP's. Not one single person wanted to sit at the viewing distance the various charts recommend. The Samsung 82NU8000 does not use a anti glare or Matt screen.


----------



## ctide21 (Sep 4, 2011)

I sit 10 feet away from a 77 inch oled and there is a very noticeable difference between the 720p fox broadcast and the "4k" version. If you sit 8 feet from a 55 inch tv there will not be as big of a difference.


----------



## DSB (Aug 10, 2006)

Very interesting responses from all you here - it is educational for me. Last night, I and my wife were switching between Fox and 104 for the Redskins game. 
Found it extremely difficult to see any difference in PQ. I have a SUHD Samsung 65" tv and both PQs were good but was the 4K better - for me no!
And the other 2 channels where Directv promotes 4K movies for upto $10.99 each with a carrot of 3 days - who watches a movie for 3 days? I watch a movie for 2 hours and I am done with it in a day. Or maybe they expect you to call people living on your block and charge them $1 each to watch the movie over the 3 days and recover the $10.99?
I hope Directv puts up many more channels under 4K soon otherwise I have been conned into staying with them for the next 2 years.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

I have 2 4Ks in the same room 

During the ALCS had one on local fox and the other on fox 4K 

Huge difference 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I'm sorry to say this but there is zero chance that DirecTV will put up any new 4K channels much less many new 4K channels. Nobody can provide 4K material for Directv to send to you. That's why you see only channel 104 with continuous content and even that is repeated very often. No network show, like NCIS or SWAT for instance, is shot with 4K cameras. Actually it might be but no broadcaster wants to spend the money to broadcast it in 4K. I believe several episodes of River Monsters was shot with 4K equipment.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I'm sorry to say this but there is zero chance that DirecTV will put up any new 4K channels much less many new 4K channels. Nobody can provide 4K material for Directv to send to you. That's why you see only channel 104 with continuous content and even that is repeated very often. No network show, like NCIS or SWAT for instance, is shot with 4K cameras. Actually it might be but no broadcaster wants to spend the money to broadcast it in 4K. I believe several episodes of River Monsters was shot with 4K equipment.


Except for some sports, broadcast tv is not where you will see 4k content.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I think FOX broadcasts in 720P but I don't know if 1080i would have been any better. I'm surprised none of the World Series games are not in 4K. The infrastructure is obviously there.


----------



## TV_Guy (Nov 16, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I think FOX broadcasts in 720P but I don't know if 1080i would have been any better. I'm surprised none of the World Series games are not in 4K. The infrastructure is obviously there.


Fox broadcast the ALCS in 4K without commercials on the Fox Sports App. All but one game was on FS1. It's one thing for the network to lose ad revenue but then you have the affiliates losing their ads. In this case it was limited to a single game on Big Fox. If overriding local coverage is an issue for Sunday Ticket it must also factor into World Series coverage. Could be a major holdup in Sunday NFL 4K coverage until affiliates have 4K capability.


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

TV_Guy said:


> Fox broadcast the ALCS in 4K without commercials on the Fox Sports App. All but one game was on FS1. It's one thing for the network to lose ad revenue but then you have the affiliates losing their ads. In this case it was limited to a single game on Big Fox. If overriding local coverage is an issue for Sunday Ticket it must also factor into World Series coverage. Could be a major holdup in Sunday NFL 4K coverage until affiliates have 4K capability.


Good post

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## dtv757 (Jun 4, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I think FOX broadcasts in 720P but I don't know if 1080i would have been any better. I'm surprised none of the World Series games are not in 4K. The infrastructure is obviously there.


Pretty much was was just said above by @TV_Guy

Also this post talks about some of the details why we won't see the "big game" (world series/ super bowl) in 4K ... at least not for a while lol

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58720660

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

A couple of buddies of mine told me they were getting 4K from DIRECTV before the start of the NFL Season. They said they were going to get football in 4K this year. I told them it isn’t worth it. They didn’t listen at all to me. I told them that there is not even that much 4K content yet. I told them it is going to cost them more money a month towards their bill. They didn’t listen to me. They are locked in to 2 more years and paying for 4K content they thought they’d be getting every week that they aren’t. Not every game is in 4K as a matter of fact I think only the Thursday Night Games are in 4K. Not any of the Sunday Ticket Games. 4K right now even on DIRECTV to me is just not worth the extra money you have to shell out.


----------



## Rob37 (Jul 11, 2013)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I think FOX broadcasts in 720P but I don't know if 1080i would have been any better. I'm surprised none of the World Series games are not in 4K. The infrastructure is obviously there.


I think Local FOX channels are a BIG reason why. Your Local FOX Channel wants you watching on their channel. BIG holdup as to why not all the games are in 4K yet.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Rob, there is absolutely no extra charge for the 4K channels. It is included with every DirecTV package. If you are a new customer the equipment is free along with a 2 year contract.. When anybody upgrades the 2 year contract comes along with the upgrade. Dish Network is exactly the same.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Anyone stating that they can not see a difference in PQ between the HD channel and the 4k channel either needs to purchase a new display or have the one that they own calibrated.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

I WANT MORE said:


> Anyone stating that they can not see a difference in PQ between the HD channel and the 4k channel either needs to purchase a new display or have the one that they own calibrated.


This.

There _is_ a difference. If you cannot see the difference, there is something wrong with your equipment or the way in which you watch it.

I wonder if some folks who claim they cannot see a difference are upconverting their regular HD with an external processor or their TV, making their normal HD look really good and closer to a 4k picture?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm wearing glasses and have three of them - for computer's work , for watching TV and for driving … could be the case ?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

P Smith said:


> I'm wearing glasses and have three of them - for computer's work , for watching TV and for driving &#8230; could be the case ?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Rob, there is absolutely no extra charge for the 4K channels.* It is included with every DirecTV package*.


I thought you had to have the Select (or higher) package?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I WANT MORE said:


> Anyone stating that they can not see a difference in PQ between the HD channel and the 4k channel either needs to purchase a new display or have the one that they own calibrated.


I agree. There's a noticeable difference in PQ between 4K and HD with the naked eye. Those claiming they cannot see a difference either have a vision issue, equipment issue or both.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I WANT MORE said:


> Anyone stating that they can not see a difference in PQ between the HD channel and the 4k channel either needs to purchase a new display or have the one that they own calibrated.


That includes buying a TV that does a worse job of converting HD to 4K. The additional bandwidth allocated to 4K would help any channel look better ... bit starved 720p and 1080i compared to a less compressed 4K or especially 4K HDR passing the additional color information. But one needs to look at the source of the "4K" programming. If it is produced in 1080 then the benefit of 4K comes from moving the conversion closer to the source, maintaining HDR colors and not starving the bandwidth between source and receiver (including taking a 1080p production and converting it to the lesser 720p format for transmission via ABC or Fox). The further away from being a pure 4K HDR production (camera to viewer's screen) the less difference 4K will make.

Unfortunately there are many ways to mess up signal quality. And there are many people who "see the difference" between HD and 4K with their eyes closed. Their minds tell them that 4K is better and that is the end of the discussion - they don't need to do an actual comparison. I agree that there should be a visible difference ... but no one can dictate what another person's eyes can perceive.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

trh said:


> I thought you had to have the Select (or higher) package?


At one time that was true but not for several years. All packages include the 4K channels. So any new customer would simply need to own a 4K TV and request the proper equipment. An existing customer would probably be required to start a new 2 year commitment. A no brainer for a new customer.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> no one can dictate what another person's eyes can perceive.


cool


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

That's true but any answer to a question is naturally based on that person's personal opinion. I have tried many different options suggested here and sometimes find an improvement to my original perception.


----------



## DSB (Aug 10, 2006)

I can summarize from above that I have a tv with excellent PQ and the 4K channels do not show much improvement, as far as I am concerned.
But why are the content providers so way behind the TV manufacturers who are now offering 4K Tvs in all sizes at very good prices and they are now even talking of 8K TVs. Its no use having all these advanced TVs if the content is not there or the content providers are not willing to keep up?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> At one time that was true but not for several years. All packages include the 4K channels. So any new customer would simply need to own a 4K TV and request the proper equipment. An existing customer would probably be required to start a new 2 year commitment. A no brainer for a new customer.


You sure? According to this page 4K TV | Enjoy 4K Resolution & Ultra HD - Only with DIRECTV 
Select or above required.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

The reason for the 4K explosion is because from a mass production standpoint there is now little or no added cost to produce 4K sets as opposed to 1080p sets. For instance, Sony produces zero percent of the panels you find in a Sony TV. There are really only a handful of panel producerss in the world. Samsung and LG are two of the more recognizable brands and even Samsung doesn't make all of the panels that they use. Many panels are now coming from huge panel manufacturing facilities in China. The second part of this scenario is that 4K is really a marketing ploy to get us to buy new TV's. Why buy a new 4K or 8K or 16K TV if there is no content? Because they want you to think you need one, even though no Network is even broadcasting any programming in 1080p. The networks will probably never increase broadcast resolution to 1080p or 4K or 8K or 16K because upgrading the equipment to do so is astronomical. Add to that the fact that almost 100 percent of viewers are quite happy with 720p and 1080i. Keep in mind that the sweet spot for TV size is 55-65. How close would you have to sit to recognize a PQ improvement? Remenber, I dont mean you, I mean your neighbors, golfing buddies, their wife's. Quite content with the status quo.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

trh said:


> You sure? According to this page 4K TV | Enjoy 4K Resolution & Ultra HD - Only with DIRECTV
> Select or above required.


You may be correct. It's been several years since I went with 4K so I really haven't looked at DirecTV 's package offerings. When I took the plunge it was right after DirecTV announced 4K was available with all packages. May certainly be different now. I just checked the website and they show 5 packages with the lowest being Select at $59.99 mo.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Here is a list of the 4K HDR Concerts listed on channel 104 during the next 3 weeks. Bad Company, Queen, Culture Club, Foreigner, Dickey Betts, The Libertines, Jack Johnson, Liam Gallagher, Sheryl Crow, Leonard Cohen, Jane's Addiction, Gary Clark Jr. 
I'm too old to know some of these but they should look good.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Alphabetical list view 



Andrew Sullivan said:


> Here is a list of the 4K HDR Concerts listed on channel 104 during the next 3 weeks.
> Bad Company
> Culture Club
> Dickey Betts
> ...


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Alphabetical list view


I listed the concerts in the order in which they are being shown.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Here is a list of the 4K HDR Concerts listed on channel 104 during the next 3 weeks. Bad Company, Queen, Culture Club, Foreigner, Dickey Betts, The Libertines, Jack Johnson, Liam Gallagher, Sheryl Crow, Leonard Cohen, Jane's Addiction, Gary Clark Jr.
> I'm too old to know some of these but they should look good.


I'm not far behind you in years and have seen most of those concerts. They're damn good!


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I listed the concerts in the order in which they are being shown.


You didn't mention that, thanks.


----------



## mgtr (Apr 11, 2008)

TheRatPatrol said:


> You didn't mention that, thanks.


I just had my Directv equipment upgraded so that I could see their 4K offerings. It reminds me very much of the early, early days of HD - we would watch programs of HDTV Theater, I think it was called then, just because they were in HD. We have come a long way, and will go a long way further.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

mgtr said:


> I just had my Directv equipment upgraded so that I could see their 4K offerings. It reminds me very much of the early, early days of HD - we would watch programs of HDTV Theater, I think it was called then, just because they were in HD. We have come a long way, and will go a long way further.


I think you will enjoy the 4K limited though it is. We like nature stuff and there is plenty of that. I don't think you will see 4K follow the same path that HD did. Heavy pressure for HD but very little pressure for 4K. Everyone could see a "slap in the face" difference between SD and HD. Not so much with 4K over HD unless your sitting closer than most will feel comfortable sitting. Maybe you or me but not a family of 4 or more. Especially if your considering the average TV size of 55-65 inch.


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

Since Fox does 720p, I do notice a much nicer picture on 4k broadcasts that Fox does (the ALCS and the NFL game last Thurs.). Would be nice to see more NFL and some NHL games in 4k. Apparently Rogers does some 4k games in Canada but D* has yet, apparently, to provide any of these feeds to the US. Not sure how they'd do it on 104 or 105 since these aren't NHL CI channels, though.

The Tiger-Phil golf match last year looked good in 4k (when the channel wasn't repeatedly cutting in and out).


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

One thing that watching the NFL game on channel 105 drives home. The absurdly ridiculous amount of commercial breaks they take during a game.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I think you will enjoy the 4K limited though it is. We like nature stuff and there is plenty of that. I don't think you will see 4K follow the same path that HD did. Heavy pressure for HD but very little pressure for 4K. Everyone could see a "slap in the face" difference between SD and HD. Not so much with 4K over HD unless your sitting closer than most will feel comfortable sitting. Maybe you or me but not a family of 4 or more. Especially if your considering the average TV size of 55-65 inch.


DirecTV "4K" and streaming "4K" isn't 4K. It's night and day difference if you are watching ACTUAL 4K (UHD), even on my 55" TV sitting at a real world distance.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

SledgeHammer said:


> DirecTV "4K" and streaming "4K" isn't 4K. It's night and day difference if you are watching ACTUAL 4K (UHD), even on my 55" TV sitting at a real world distance.


Ok, I'll bite. If DirecTV 4K and streaming 4K isn't 4K, what is it? Is there a designated difference between 4K and 4K (UHD, Ultra High Definition)?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

BluRay UHD !


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

P Smith said:


> BluRay UHD !


Doesn't bluray essentially mean 1080p? Since BluRay was around long before 4K hit the scene..


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Ok, I'll bite. If DirecTV 4K and streaming 4K isn't 4K, what is it? Is there a designated difference between 4K and 4K (UHD, Ultra High Definition)?


Nothing to bite on. True facts . It's 4K Lite. A UHD 4K disc is 108Mbps. The bit rate on 4K streaming & DirecTV is typically 30Mbps or less (by the way that's LESS then the bitrate of 1080P Bluray!! -- obviously compression technology has improved, but streaming & DirecTV is heavily compressed). That's a huge difference! Also UHD discs have other goodies like lossless higher bitrate audio, Dolby Vision, etc.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying 4K DirecTV & streaming is garbage, its good PQ. But to base your "4K" judgement on it isn't exactly kosher. Compare HD to a properly calibrated high quality TV like an OLED showing 4K off a high quality player like an Oppo 203 and you'll get your slap in the face experience .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Doesn't bluray essentially mean 1080p? Since BluRay was around long before 4K hit the scene..


Bluray is 1080P.
UHD Bluray is legit 4K content.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

SledgeHammer said:


> Bluray is 1080P.
> UHD Bluray is legit 4K content.


You're just dancing around the question by giving answers with no content. Who coined the phrase "legit" in this context? I havent seen it used in any professional description by manufactures or reviewers. So you're saying the the letters UHD really mean 4K? So why not just say 4K BluRay?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> You're just dancing around the question by giving answers with no content. Who coined the phrase "legit" in this context? I havent seen it used in any professional description by manufactures or reviewers. So you're saying the the letters UHD really mean 4K? So why not just say 4K BluRay?


Dancing? Where have you been for the past 4 or 5 yrs lol? The OFFICIAL industry term is 4K UHD (Ultra-high-definition television - Wikipedia). It was coined by the OFFICIAL industry consortium The UHD Alliance. UHD Bluray is also an OFFICIAL industry term (Ultra HD Blu-ray - Wikipedia).

Streaming and DirecTV 4K has 2160p *resolution*, it does NOT have full spec video or audio *bitrates*. You can only get that via a UHD player.

I did correct my post above about the DirecTV bitrate, its 30Mbps according to google. Still less then a 1080p bluray. Netflix 4K is apparently half that at around 16Mbps which is less then half of a Bluray.

Now again, UHD uses a much better video codec, but given reasonably equivalent codecs... 2160p @ 30Mbps is NOT equal to 2160p @ 108Mbps.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> A UHD 4K disc is 108Mbps


So how much bandwidth would it take to broadcast a true 4K picture?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So how much bandwidth would it take to broadcast a true 4K picture?


That's a Slice level technical question . I couldn't tell you if UHD 4K bitrates over HDMI are equivalent (proportional) to DirecTV bitrates given the same bitrate. Depends if they use the same codec. UHD Blu-rays are HEVC.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Adding to that:
- "4K" term widely using here is not correct per se, video format for the 4K definition is 4096x2160, while TVs/DTV/stream/cable/etc UHD is 3840x2160 !


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> That's a Slice level technical question . I couldn't tell you if UHD 4K bitrates over HDMI are equivalent (proportional) to DirecTV bitrates given the same bitrate. Depends if they use the same codec. UHD Blu-rays are HEVC.


No, it is purely a subjective question. You are wanting to push Bluray UHD as the only "true" 4K, and cable/satellite delivered 4K and streaming delivered 4K as "4K lite". YOU have made the decision that 30 Mbps is too little, and 108 Mbps is enough, so YOU have chosen a line somewhere between 30 and 108 Mbps. Your line doesn't get to apply to others, nor theirs to you. Even if I had a belief about a particular bit rate that I personally thought was "enough", that answer would only matter for me.

Also remember there is a difference between bandwidth of "live" content and prepackaged content. Where "live" doesn't necessarily mean a live event, just that it is compressed in real time, which is the case with the overwhelming majority of cable/satellite channels. A streaming service like Netflix or Apple sending out a 4K movie at 15 Mbps may be equivalent to a "live" stream at 30 Mbps (not saying there is a 2:1 relationship, just that real time compression is less efficient so you are comparing apples and oranges)

To get the same PQ as Bluray UHD gets from 108 Mbps might require 200 Mbps or more when compressed on the fly. If that's your bar, you might as well cancel your TV and streaming subscriptions and just watch Bluray UHD exclusively, because you will never get 200 Mbps or anything like it, from anyone.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> No, it is purely a subjective question. You are wanting to push Bluray UHD as the only "true" 4K, and cable/satellite delivered 4K and streaming delivered 4K as "4K lite". YOU have made the decision that 30 Mbps is too little, and 108 Mbps is enough, so YOU have chosen a line somewhere between 30 and 108 Mbps. Your line doesn't get to apply to others, nor theirs to you. Even if I had a belief about a particular bit rate that I personally thought was "enough", that answer would only matter for me.
> 
> Also remember there is a difference between bandwidth of "live" content and prepackaged content. Where "live" doesn't necessarily mean a live event, just that it is compressed in real time, which is the case with the overwhelming majority of cable/satellite channels. A streaming service like Netflix or Apple sending out a 4K movie at 15 Mbps may be equivalent to a "live" stream at 30 Mbps (not saying there is a 2:1 relationship, just that real time compression is less efficient so you are comparing apples and oranges)
> 
> To get the same PQ as Bluray UHD gets from 108 Mbps might require 200 Mbps or more when compressed on the fly. If that's your bar, you might as well cancel your TV and streaming subscriptions and just watch Bluray UHD exclusively, because you will never get 200 Mbps or anything like it, from anyone.


I was simply responding to the guy who said DirecTV 4K isn't a slap in the face difference and I pointed out its "4K Lite" or whatever you want to call it and that if he wants a slap in the face difference, he should look at UHD as that's the best AQ & PQ available at home today and its certainly a slap in the face difference.

I'll also concede that most people are fine with streaming PQ, but those people also refuse to even look at UHD players (according to their own words) as they deem physical media archaic.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

So here is a interesting thought. If the major broadcasting companies, NBC, CBS, FOX. ABC, ESPN, DISNEY etc. decided they wanted to broadcast in 4K, what would they need to do to deliver that product to our TV's? What resolution could we expect and would it differ between current 720p and 1080i broadcasters?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> So here is a interesting thought. If the major broadcasting companies, NBC, CBS, FOX. ABC, ESPN, DISNEY etc. decided they wanted to broadcast in 4K, what would they need to do to deliver that product to our TV's? What resolution could we expect and would it differ between current 720p and 1080i broadcasters?


You won't be seeing that for at least 5 years from the OTA networks you listed. Testing that has barely begun, and there is little financial incentive for locals to do that. The best financial incentive they have (among a few others) is targeted advertising available available with ATSC 3.0 (needed for 4k OTA).

As for the other networks you listed - we are already beginning to see some movement, although very slowly.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I am aware of and agree with everything you mention. I honestly don't think we will ever see 4K delivered to our homes via traditional methods from any major broadcasters. My question remains though. How would they accomplish it if they chose to do it and what would we end up getting?


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> How do they upscale a 1080p broadcast and how can you tell?





Andrew Sullivan said:


> How do you know that it's an upscale 1080p broadcast? It says it's in HDR.


The FOX and NBC sports telecasts on channels 105, 106 or 107 are in 1080p HDR and upconverted to 4K. ESPN is doing true 4K BUT no HDR...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I am aware of and agree with everything you mention. I honestly don't think we will ever see 4K delivered to our homes via traditional methods from any major broadcasters. My question remains though. How would they accomplish it if they chose to do it and what would we end up getting?


Your OTA locals would have to upgrade most of their equipment, and you would have to buy (at the very least) a new TV. It would be a little like when we all went from analog to digital.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

VARTV said:


> 1080p HDR


perhaps HDR/HLG used when UHD/4k signal created/compressed by H.265 algos, not while video exist in 1080i/p format with H.264


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Athlon646464 said:


> Your OTA locals would have to upgrade most of their equipment, and you would have to buy (at the very least) a new TV. It would be a little like when we all went from analog to digital.


I dont necessarily consider the buying of a new TV into the equation because so many people now own at least one 4K/Smart TV now or certainly will by the time we could expect 4K to take the place of today's HD. How about the studios that actually shoot the shows we watch. Would they want to upgrade too 4K cameras? Could they (broadcasters) deliver 4K with current bandwidth restrictions?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I dont necessarily consider the buying of a new TV into the equation because so many people now own at least one 4K/Smart TV now or certainly will by the time we could expect 4K to take the place of today's HD. How about the studios that actually shoot the shows we watch. Would they want to upgrade too 4K cameras? Could they (broadcasters) deliver 4K with current bandwidth restrictions?


Your're not understanding what I said earlier. OTA 4k requires ATSC 3.0 transmitters, and tuners to receive those transmissions. You do not have a tuner like that - there are none available commercially that I know of yet. Only a very few OTA stations across the country have an ATSC 3.0 transmitter today.

Even though you have a 4k TV - you don't have a tuner able to receive 4k OTA. Maybe you'll be able to buy a separate tuner for your TV someday, but who knows if that will make sense until we get there.

As for broadcasters transmitting 4k and 'restrictions' - they could do it today by upgrading their transmitter to ATSC 3.0 if they wanted to. But they don't want to yet for reasons I stated earlier.

As for the studios and their equipment - most of them are producing their stuff in 4k already (for streaming and non-OTA delivery).


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Also - I don't expect many OTA stations to use their full bandwidth allowed for their 4k channel. This is just speculation on my part, but with the increased bandwidth allowed by ATSC 3.0, they'll be dividing it up among even more sub channels.


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> Even thought you have a 4k TV - you don't have a tuner able to receive 4k OTA. Maybe you'll be able to buy a separate tuner for your TV someday, but who knows if that will make sense until we get there.


In the near future, it could just be a 4K app from each of the networks (stations) on your ATV or Roku player... who knows...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

VARTV said:


> In the near future, it could just be a 4K app from each of the networks (stations) on your ATV or Roku player... who knows...


Anything could happen - I was addressing OTA specifically.


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> Also - I don't expect many OTA stations to use their full bandwidth allowed for their 4k channel. This is just speculation on my part, but with the increased bandwidth allowed by ATSC 3.0, they'll be dividing it up among even more sub channels.


I agree. It'll be bit starved UHD. It will be the extra channels and other services (wireless, etc) that these stations are interested in making the most money off of...


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

VARTV said:


> I agree. It'll be bit starved UHD. It will be the extra channels and other services (wireless, etc) that these stations are interested in making the most money off of...


Yup - follow the money - as always. The FCC, so far, has a very hands off approach to this 'upgrade' compared to the 'upgrade' to HD.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

What is a ATSC 3.0 Tuner? Referring to OTA, does that not refer to "over the air"? How does OTA correlate to a local broadcast (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) via cable or satellite? If ATSC isn't being used right now and my TV doesnt have a 3.0 tuner how are we seeing 4K on DirecTV channels 104,5,6 now?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> What is a ATSC 3.0 Tuner? Referring to OTA, does that not refer to "over the air"? How does OTA correlate to a local broadcast (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) via cable or satellite? If ATSC isn't being used right now and my TV doesnt have a 3.0 tuner how are we seeing 4K on DirecTV channels 104,5,6 now?


Because you're not using your TVs tuner. If you use a cable/sat box your TV is just a big monitor. And cable/sat 4K isn't using broadcast technologies at all.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> What is a ATSC 3.0 Tuner? Referring to OTA, does that not refer to "over the air"? How does OTA correlate to a local broadcast (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) via cable or satellite? If ATSC isn't being used right now and my TV doesnt have a 3.0 tuner how are we seeing 4K on DirecTV channels 104,5,6 now?


If the OTA channels do not transmit 4k, then D* won't have 4k to show from them - capisce?

An ATSC 3.0 tuner is one that can receive the newer broadcast standard coming someday (4k) (see my previous posts here).

Yes, OTA is Over The Air.

You don't need an ATSC 3.0 OTA tuner to see 4k unless you want 4k OTA. Streaming boxes and D* can handle that for you instead.

But - if your locals aren't doing it, then all the tech in the world can't make it happen. It's the old 'chicken and egg' thing.


----------



## VARTV (Dec 14, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> What is a ATSC 3.0 Tuner? Referring to OTA, does that not refer to "over the air"? How does OTA correlate to a local broadcast (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX) via cable or satellite? If ATSC isn't being used right now and my TV doesnt have a 3.0 tuner how are we seeing 4K on DirecTV channels 104,5,6 now?


An ATSC 3.0 (now officially called NextGenTV) tuner would use an antenna on your rooftop/attic/window to receive local broadcast stations. The current standard is ATSC 1.0. This is completely different how 4K (UHD) is delivered to your STB on channels 105, 106 and 107...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> So here is a interesting thought. If the major broadcasting companies, NBC, CBS, FOX. ABC, ESPN, DISNEY etc. decided they wanted to broadcast in 4K, what would they need to do to deliver that product to our TV's? What resolution could we expect and would it differ between current 720p and 1080i broadcasters?


Won't happen until ATSC 3.0 is rolled out to the majority of the country. The affiliates would throw a hissy fit if the parent channel could broadcast something they couldn't. It would be in 2160i/p. Not sure there is any financial incentive for them though. I wonder what percentage of people use OTA? Can't be that large. I don't think I've ever met anybody that does OTA besides me and I'll mainly use the DirecTV versions except for when they don't carry the sub channel like Cozi or the NBC version of Cozi, forget what its called.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Athlon646464 said:


> If the OTA channels do not transmit 4k, then D* won't have 4k to show from them - capisce?


OTAs, in general, don't produce content. Content comes from the network. And not via OTA, it comes via satellite uplink stations. They could uplink 4K now if they wanted to, but since the majority of people can't watch it, not much point. Also, network TV is in a bit of a dry spell now that all the mega shows are ended.

I'd honestly be surprised if they ever broadcast 4K the traditional way lol. It'll be IP in some form.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

P Smith said:


> perhaps HDR/HLG used when UHD/4k signal created/compressed by H.265 algos, not while video exist in 1080i/p format with H.264


Supposedly HLG is going to be the format for broadcast 4K HDR.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> OTAs, in general, don't produce content. Content comes from the network. And not via OTA, it comes via satellite uplink stations. They could uplink 4K now if they wanted to, but since the majority of people can't watch it, not much point. Also, network TV is in a bit of a dry spell now that all the mega shows are ended.
> 
> I'd honestly be surprised if they ever broadcast 4K the traditional way lol. It'll be IP in some form.


Never said they produce content - although I suppose you could count local content, but I didn't say that either.

All I said was it will be years (5 at least) before we see them _transmit_ 4k.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

SledgeHammer said:


> Supposedly HLG is going to be the format for broadcast 4K HDR.


Probably I got it too technically, anyway HLG is worldwide adopted format for live UHD TV. Include DTV in US.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

To the point of the original question. The reason to get 4K from DirecTV is the picture is better. Regardless of the content amount, regardless if you have to order new equipment and agree to a new two year commitment. Your bill will not go up because you now get the various 4K channels. For many the new commitment is no big deal because they never see themselves leaving DirecTV anyway. For others the choice is simple. Is the commitment worth it to you. The 4K content has increased over the years. It will continue to grow. Get on board now or wait and see how it shakes out.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> To the point of the original question. The reason to get 4K from DirecTV is the picture is better. Regardless of the content amount, regardless if you have to order new equipment and agree to a new two year commitment. Your bill will not go up because you now get the various 4K channels. For many the new commitment is no big deal because they never see themselves leaving DirecTV anyway. For others the choice is simple. Is the commitment worth it to you. The 4K content has increased over the years. It will continue to grow. Get on board now or wait and see how it shakes out.


* If you don't watch sports or documentaries, there really isn't any content
* The 4K PPVs are more expensive then a UHD disc which would be better PQ and you'd be able to re-watch the movie forever
* Your bill CAN go up and you'll have to pay for an equipment upgrade and a service call and you may have to upgrade other equipment in your house as well
* I'd go to a streaming service that actually has 4K content vs. DirecTV today
* DirecTV isn't going to get any 4K content besides PPV and sports any time soon simply because there won't be any. They aren't going to become the next Netflix.

Check back in 5 yrs and there probably still won't be any broadcast 4K content


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

SledgeHammer said:


> * If you don't watch sports or documentaries, there really isn't any content
> * The 4K PPVs are more expensive then a UHD disc which would be better PQ and you'd be able to re-watch the movie forever
> * Your bill CAN go up and you'll have to pay for an equipment upgrade and a service call and you may have to upgrade other equipment in your house as well
> * I'd go to a streaming service that actually has 4K content vs. DirecTV today
> ...


And you are exactly the person that will not appreciate the up side of 4K on DirecTV. If you don't like sports or documentaries ( you failed to mention quite a few concerts) or music and if the moving to a HR54 or a HS17 along with a C61K is cost prohibitive then Dirctv 4K is not for you. The original question was "What's the point of Dirctv 4K". I simply illuminated that point. One other good reason is to show off your 4K TV. And most of us like to show off our toys.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> And you are exactly the person that will not appreciate the up side of 4K on DirecTV. If you don't like sports or documentaries ( you failed to mention quite a few concerts) or music and if the moving to a HR54 or a HS17 along with a C61K is cost prohibitive then Dirctv 4K is not for you. The original question was "What's the point of Dirctv 4K". I simply illuminated that point. One other good reason is to show off your 4K TV. And most of us like to show off our toys.


I upgraded my HR24 to a HR54 earlier this year because my HR24 was taking 30 seconds to respond to a button press and I was this close to smashing it with a, you guessed it, Sledge Hammer . I did get it comp'ed as part of a deal I made with DirecTV (minus the $20 S&H) and did a self install with a SWiM8. My bill went up $3/mo because they force you to take WHDVR on the Genies and I'm on legacy billing.

If you like to show off your 4K TV, why would you not do it with UHD as we discussed earlier lol? Not only do you get the better AQ & PQ, but you also get Dolby Vision. There a few DV on streaming. Not sure if they are on DirecTV. Also assuming you CalMan'ed your 4K TV? .

But yeah, I watch < 0 sports. I like documentaries depending on the subject. Not going to watch a concert on TV most likely. I'm a TV & Movie guy. Seems like most of the 4K PPV movies on DirecTV are $6+ for a 24 hr rental. As the OP asked "What's the point"? You can buy a DV UHD movie for $5 or so and watch it as many times as you like whenever you like and there's a million times more movies on UHD vs. DirecTV.

The point is there is no point when you can get a better solution for less money and that includes BOTH UHD and Streaming.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Especially if you want to invite friends over to watch a NFL game in 4K.


The Thursday night football games look worse than the regular FOX broadcast.

The color is really faded.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Blitz68 said:


> The Thursday night football games look worse than the regular FOX broadcast.
> 
> The color is really faded.


I can only guess that some setting is off. Last night I could see a noticeable PQ increase in the 4K broadcast.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Since we were discussing bandwidth here recently, I thought I'd mention that apparently Apple TV+ is streaming its 4K content at 30 to 40 Mbps. Not up there with a 4K BluRay, but easily the best PQ you can get streaming. Of course it doesn't have much content yet.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

It will be interesting on Tuesday to see what Disney + is sending us.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> It will be interesting on Tuesday to see what Disney + is sending us.


Chipmunks and a mouse for sure.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I'm anxious to see their 4K content and 4K quality. They certainly should have plenty of content.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Since we were discussing bandwidth here recently, I thought I'd mention that apparently Apple TV+ is streaming its 4K content at 30 to 40 Mbps. Not up there with a 4K BluRay, but easily the best PQ you can get streaming. Of course it doesn't have much content yet.


Isn't DirecTV 4K in the 30Mbps range?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Isn't DirecTV 4K in the 30Mbps range?


That's what they said they would be using a few years ago. Not sure if anyone has measured it - what they actually use depends mostly on what bit rate the networks are providing. Might be 30, might be 20, might be 40. Not really any way of knowing unless someone measures it (would be relatively easy to do, if you insert a router as "bridge" between a Genie and C61K you can see the bit rate with the right software)

The bit rate for cable/satellite/vMVPD programming that's compressed 'on the fly' isn't really comparable to on demand streams. Netflix/Apple/Disney/etc. can compress their content a lot better. Not sure exactly what the ratio is, but because of that 30 Mbps on Directv would get you noticeably reduced PQ versus 30 Mbps from an on demand stream like Apple's.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> Not really any way of knowing unless someone measures it (would be relatively easy to do, if you insert a router as "bridge" between a Genie and C61K you can see the bit rate with the right software)


The method would be acceptable only if someone will defend a thesis: the bitrate between the server and the client is equal (or have a fixed ratio) to transponder's rate(s).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> The method would be acceptable only if someone will defend a thesis: the bitrate between the server and the client is equal (or have a fixed ratio) to transponder's rate(s).


The Genie passes the MPEG2/MPEG4/HEVC stream from the channel you select to the client. If you know the bit rate between the two you know the bit rate for the channel.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I got it already and I thought about s-c exchange as TS passing long time ago... BTW, no one get into real measuring or interception of the channel so far;
the point is the bitrate of transmission between server and client; if you did play TS file by PC programs like TSreader [it's a server], you should know the speed of playing/sending out the TS could be any (!);
so, DTV DVR could send the particular program's partial stream with different bitrate for,say, better buffering, etc
see above my thesis


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It can't "send it at a different speed for better buffering" when you are watching live.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> It can't "send it at a different speed for better buffering" when you are watching live.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Duh ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> so, DTV DVR could send the particular program's partial stream with different bitrate for,say, better buffering, etc


So, are you claiming that the receiver is reencoding the content at a different bitrate depending on the connection between the receiver and the client? And that the bitrate can vary based on the quality of the connection?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

sure
what is different way to adapt the variations


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> So, are you claiming that the receiver is reencoding the content at a different bitrate depending on the connection between the receiver and the client? And that the bitrate can vary based on the quality of the connection?


He can claim that, but that's not how Directv's clients work. It is sending the unaltered video stream received from the satellite.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

To upgrade to 4K I would have to agree to a two year commitment, upgrade my Panny plasma to a 4K tv, upgrade my Marantz AV7005 prepro to a processor that can handle 4K, and upgrade my Marantz Bluray player to one that can process 4K discs. I don't watch stick and ball sports, Formula 1 isn't televised in 4K, and I'm fine with documentaries in regular HD. Why would I spend a ton of money to be able to watch what little content that I would possibly be interested in? Just doesn't make sense to me personally. Now we've got 8K coming with almost zero content available?


----------



## longhorn23 (Jan 19, 2019)

Well obviously if you don't have a 4k tv, then there would be no reason to upgrade to 4k on Directv. 4k isn't for everyone and most people are fine with HD. But I personally love 4k on Directv and it's the only reason I switched to Directv in 2016.



slovell said:


> To upgrade to 4K I would have to agree to a two year commitment, upgrade my Panny plasma to a 4K tv, upgrade my Marantz AV7005 prepro to a processor that can handle 4K, and upgrade my Marantz Bluray player to one that can process 4K discs. I don't watch stick and ball sports, Formula 1 isn't televised in 4K, and I'm fine with documentaries in regular HD. Why would I spend a ton of money to be able to watch what little content that I would possibly be interested in? Just doesn't make sense to me personally. Now we've got 8K coming with almost zero content available?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slovell said:


> To upgrade to 4K I would have to agree to a two year commitment, upgrade my Panny plasma to a 4K tv, upgrade my Marantz AV7005 prepro to a processor that can handle 4K, and upgrade my Marantz Bluray player to one that can process 4K discs. I don't watch stick and ball sports, Formula 1 isn't televised in 4K, and I'm fine with documentaries in regular HD. Why would I spend a ton of money to be able to watch what little content that I would possibly be interested in? Just doesn't make sense to me personally. Now we've got 8K coming with almost zero content available?


You'd gain plenty by simply upgrading your tv to a good to top end 4K tv with your system and stopping there. Even leaving alone the rest of your equipment would be a large improvement. I'd maybe add an Apple TV directly to the tv and be done. I wouldn't swap your audio equipment at this time and except for a few things doesn't seem DIRECTV carriers any 4K original content you couldn't get off an appletv. A 4K Blu-ray would be great but it's not necessary either. But I will say I won't by any media unless it's a 4K copy anymore with the blue ray and streaming version too.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You'd gain plenty by simply upgrading your tv to a good to top end 4K tv with your system and stopping there. Even leaving alone the rest of your equipment would be a large improvement. I'd maybe add an Apple TV directly to the tv and be done. I wouldn't swap your audio equipment at this time and except for a few things doesn't seem DIRECTV carriers any 4K original content you couldn't get off an appletv. A 4K Blu-ray would be great but it's not necessary either. But I will say I won't by any media unless it's a 4K copy anymore with the blue ray and streaming version too.


Yup. A Panny plasma was great in its day. It's ancient tech now. You wouldn't even be able to sell it.

Definitely not worth upgrading all your stuff if you are just looking at DirecTV as a source. Tons of 4K content is everywhere EXCEPT DirecTV. Streaming, UHD, etc.

You missed the boat on 4K players though... you'll be paying a small fortune for a NIB Oppo 203 now.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yup. A Panny plasma was great in its day. It's ancient tech now. You wouldn't even be able to sell it.
> 
> Definitely not worth upgrading all your stuff if you are just looking at DirecTV as a source. Tons of 4K content is everywhere EXCEPT DirecTV. Streaming, UHD, etc.
> 
> You missed the boat on 4K players though... you'll be paying a small fortune for a NIB Oppo 203 now.


Oppo is not the only game in town when it comes to 4k players. Pioneer has a very good one for less than $500.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yup. A Panny plasma was great in its day. It's ancient tech now. You wouldn't even be able to sell it.


Yeah I retired my Panny plasma to my office/work out room. Still works great though.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slovell said:


> Oppo is not the only game in town when it comes to 4k players. Pioneer has a very good one for less than $500.


Not if you want the best PQ & AQ. Granted, I wouldn't pay $2K for it, but I got mine when they in production, so I only pay the normal price. AVS Forums for the Pioneer still put the 203 as better and report bugs.


----------



## slovell (Nov 22, 2011)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not if you want the best PQ & AQ. Granted, I wouldn't pay $2K for it, but I got mine when they in production, so I only pay the normal price. AVS Forums for the Pioneer still put the 203 as better and report bugs.


The 203 is a fine player but there's no way I'd pay the inflated prices that people are asking for it. I've seen them advertised for over $2500 and with Oppo out of business, meaning questionable warranty coverage, It's just a no go for me.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slovell said:


> The 203 is a fine player but there's no way I'd pay the inflated prices that people are asking for it. I've seen them advertised for over $2500 and with Oppo out of business, meaning questionable warranty coverage, It's just a no go for me.


True dat. I wouldn't pay $2500 for it. If I was buying today, I'd probably go Panasonic DP-UB9000. Pioneer I'd probably go with the UDP-LX500. Between the two, I'd go for the Panny just based on looks since they're the same price. The Pioneer is a little bit more obnoxious with all the yellow/gold. If we're talking features, I'd still go Panny since it supports all 4 HDR formats vs the Pioneer only doing 2. And the Panny is THX if people still care about that lol. Plus AC wireless.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

The 4K PQ broadcast on the Thursday Browns and Steelers game was excellent. Today (Saturday) college games include Navy and Notre Dame as well as Texas and Iowa State, and LSU and Ole Miss. I assume they will have a similar trio of games next Saturday as well as next Thursday's Colts at Texans.
I'm not suggesting you jump to 4K just for sports but if you are contemplating a upgrade anyway now is a good time. Last night INXS: Concert, today, Culture Club.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

Great program on channel 104 this evening about Volcanoes. Spectacular scenery.


----------



## longhorn23 (Jan 19, 2019)

b4pjoe said:


> Great program on channel 104 this evening about Volcanoes. Spectacular scenery.


Agreed! I posted about this documentary a few months ago as well. I believe it says it was filmed with 8 cameras. Amazing 4k resolution and HDR! One of the best programs I've seen on the channel.


----------

