# DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year*

(satellitetoday.com) - United States pay-TV giant DirecTV is actively looking into supporting Ultra-HD content in 2014, Michael White, chairman, president and CEO told investors at Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference. Despite being critical of the market potential of Ultra-HD in the past, he said it is a service DirecTV still intends to be ready for in order to hold a leading position.

"This year is probably the first year you will start to see some critical mass of television sets in the home - still tiny but more than prior years &#8230; our plan is to have an Ultra-HD [Video on Demand] VOD capability by the end of this year," he said....

Full Story Here









An LG IPS curved Ultra HD TV. Photo: Maurizio Pesce (Flickr)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"our plan is *to have* an Ultra-HD [Video on Demand] *VOD capabilit*y by the end of this year,"

foggy as muddy


----------



## Mike_TV (Jan 17, 2006)

Broadcasting and VOD are two different things. Title is a bit misleading.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Starting with VOD seems a good way to start off and judge demand before running out and building up a live 4k content delivery network.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I was wondering just exactly what they'd be broadcasting as there are no channels currently broadcasting in 4K at this point right? But having some VOD in VK, just like some of the VOD is in 1080P.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I like how White says that the success of 4K depends on purchase of 4K TVs. All those 3D capable TVs that were sold certainly didn't help it succeed. The purchase of 4K TVs is a necessary precondition, but doesn't guarantee success of 4K any more than it did success of 3D.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Mike_TV said:


> Broadcasting and VOD are two different things. Title is a bit misleading.


VOD is the only type that DirecTV has any control over, except for Audience Network.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> I like how White says that the success of 4K depends on purchase of 4K TVs. All those 3D capable TVs that were sold certainly didn't help it succeed. The purchase of 4K TVs is a necessary precondition, but doesn't guarantee success of 4K any more than it did success of 3D.


True, but, I think that No Glasses Required = higher adoption rate. There's much less of a PITA factor with 4k.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I like how White says that the success of 4K depends on purchase of 4K TVs. All those 3D capable TVs that were sold certainly didn't help it succeed. The purchase of 4K TVs is a necessary precondition, but doesn't guarantee success of 4K any more than it did success of 3D.


I see the two as being very different. 3D had a higher requirement for acceptance. It wasn't enough that someone had a 3D TV, there were other requirements in using the glasses. 4K has as high of a requirement as HD. Just have compatible equipment. I'm not saying 4K will be successful, but it has a much greater chance of adoption.

It will take a while though. I have no interest in getting rid of my Panny plasma and am probably several years at least away from moving to 4k.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Visio starting at $999 for a 50" just got my attention. http://hd-report.com/2014/09/23/vizio-p-series-ultra-hd-4k-tvs-prices-999/
I could see myself getting one or an equivalent in a few years.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

So, where are the 120-160" TVs we need to watch 4K so our feet don't touch the screen when we recline in our Lazy Boys ??


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

Athlon646464 said:


> *DirecTV to Begin 4K Broadcasts this Year*
> 
> (satellitetoday.com) - United States pay-TV giant DirecTV is actively looking into supporting Ultra-HD content in 2014, Michael White, chairman, president and CEO told investors at Goldman Sachs Communacopia Conference. Despite being critical of the market potential of Ultra-HD in the past, he said it is a service DirecTV still intends to be ready for in order to hold a leading position.
> 
> ...


----------



## mrsdrgn (Jan 20, 2010)

How about getting everything in HD before 4K!!!


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

gov said:


> So, where are the 120-160" TVs we need to watch 4K so our feet don't touch the screen when we recline in our Lazy Boys ??


I might get one in my next life.


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I see the two as being very different. 3D had a higher requirement for acceptance. It wasn't enough that someone had a 3D TV, there were other requirements in using the glasses. 4K has as high of a requirement as HD. Just have compatible equipment. I'm not saying 4K will be successful, but it has a much greater chance of adoption.
> 
> It will take a while though. I have no interest in getting rid of my Panny plasma and am probably several years at least away from moving to 4k.


See I am seeing the opposite, when I mention 3D is dieing to a non techie person they are like that's to bad I love it at the IMAX, then I mention 4K, they are like whats that, I tell them its like super HD, really clear and better picture..... they are like...... seriously,,,, HD looks lifelike already... sounds like a waste...

4K to me is like SACD or DVD-A vs standard CD/MP3, its going to sort of make it but is always going to be a niche market for the techie/picky... common joe blow won't care, I know people that have purchased a 1080P TV saying I got it because the guy at best buy said it was the best, then they proceed to watch a standard DVD with their VCR/DVD combo with a yellow/white/red composite cables never realizing the bad picture, I point it out of course but they say leave it alone I just got it where I know how to do it....

On the other end of the spectrum kids now days are perfectly fine watching everything on a freakin ipad. I am always like kids you can watch that on you 40" TV in your playroom, they are like I rather watch "Frozen" on this....


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I don't see service providers rushing into 4K for several reasons. Display experts say you need a 60 inch set or larger to see any difference between 4k and 1080p and that the difference is incremental. Add to that the price of a 60 inch 4K TV is more than $2,000.00. Lack of 4K content is another factor. There's barely any 4K viewing material out there. Add to that millions of Americans own perfectly good HDTVs that are less than six years old.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gov said:


> So, where are the 120-160" TVs we need to watch 4K so our feet don't touch the screen when we recline in our Lazy Boys ??


I was at a Costco the other day and they had two Samsung sets side by side. One was 1080p, the other 4K. Both had the same HDMI feeds and both looked identical, PQ-wise. About $1500 difference in price. I had been looking for a demo like that and I'm satisfied now that a 4K will still be viable (both had great PQ) should I buy one and not have much 4K content.

As for having to be next to one to see the difference, I've only seen 4K demos with flash drives supplying the content, but I walked back and back and no matter how far I went, I could still see an amazing picture. I realize that what I was looking at wasn't what we'll probably get from streaming or broadcast, but it was still impressive.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

mexican-bum said:


> 4K to me is like SACD or DVD-A vs standard CD/MP3, its going to sort of make it but is always going to be a niche market for the techie/picky... common joe blow won't care, I know people that have purchased a 1080P TV saying I got it because the guy at best buy said it was the best, then they proceed to watch a standard DVD with their VCR/DVD combo with a yellow/white/red composite cables never realizing the bad picture, I point it out of course but they say leave it alone I just got it where I know how to do it....


I've seen the same with some that use Time Warner, they get the HD service and have an HD TV, but don't switch to the HD lineup, they still use the SD channels.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

I have always believe that sports will the killer app on 4k television. Not so much the regular play but those dam instant replays.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

And as noted above, let' push for more HD.

Also, HD sets need to be consistently excellent for viewing angle, contrast, easy of use, color accuracy, tuner sensitivity for those of us still using OTA and screen brightness uniformity among other design standards.

I live in a top 100 market and one of main affiliates doesn't even have HD newscasts yet. (I know their rationale for the delay, but it is still annoying)


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

I can see some providers slapping 4K label on shows, and then compressing the snot out of data stream and negating what little benefit might be apparent on a 50" TV.

What happened to "deep color" ??


----------



## crazy4dss (Sep 10, 2006)

All of you make great points, how ever unless i missed just like everything else in todays economy the prices for this TV are still to high. Until the price drops in the 2500 or less the adaptation of 4k will stall. The only thing i can that will drive that sooner than later is the release of mainstream movies that are out in theaters being released in 4k only. At least thats what i would do or try to lobby for. Being in this industry i see more and more home theaters rising than ever before. People are tired of paying 200 for a family of 6 to enjoy a 3d or imax movie for tickets, drinks, and food.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

How about those 1080P Downloads you can have with the extra HD Package (MGM) in order to download them for "FREE" after paying extra $5 month of course you can buy PPV 1080P/24 NOW I wonder how that pay day is going?

Just wait for the pricing of 4k and then watch your internet caps


----------



## Jasqid (Oct 26, 2008)

Kinda hard to keep that $10 HD fee with HD the going standard now. It will now be converted to 4K or UHD fee so they keep raking it in.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Isn't this going to require a new receivers? I'm pretty sure you need a chipset powerful enough to decode HEVC and an HDMI chipset that can also push 4K resolution.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

mrsdrgn said:


> How about getting everything in HD before 4K!!!


They can only carry it in HD if it's offered to them in HD.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

And in a somewhat related story.......

*Vizio's affordable 4K TVs finally arrive*

(engadget.com) - It feels like forever since Vizio introduced the world to its P-Series of Ultra HD televisions, but today is finally the day that the company is bringing them to market. For starters, what caught most everyone's attention back at CES was Vizio's asking price for these 4K TV sets, starting at $1,000 for the 50-inch model and going all the way up to $2,500 for 70 inches of high-resolution goodness. Aside from the low cost and UHD features, the P-Series also sport LED backlighting and Smart TV capabilities, making these a well-rounded package overall....

Full Story Here


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mrsdrgn said:


> How about getting everything in HD before 4K!!!


And this is the reason why 4K will be a flop, at least for the forceable future


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

RunnerFL said:


> They can only carry it in HD if it's offered to them in HD.


He wasn't pointing fingers at DirecTV®. But if were ready to move to 4K, everything should be in HD at the very least, regardless who it has to come from


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

peds48 said:


> He wasn't pointing fingers at DirecTV®.


Sure read that way...


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

cypherx said:


> Isn't this going to require a new receivers? I'm pretty sure you need a chipset powerful enough to decode HEVC and an HDMI chipset that can also push 4K resolution.


No new receiver/dvr is needed.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

studechip said:


> No new receiver/dvr is needed.


are you implying that older DVRs like the HR23 and below are capable of doing 4K?

Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

VOD is the only thing that can be done in 4K...there are no real time h.265 encoders yet. Also, anything delivered through a DirecTV box will be at best 3840x2160 at 30 fps since none of them have HDMI 2.0 support, which is needed for 60 fps. Of course, many TVs that claim to be "UHD" only have HDMI 1.4 interfaces and so can't display 3840x2160 at 60 fps even if you had a source at that resolution.

They will pass through the data without decoding (just decrypting) so the TV will do the h.265 decoding.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

mrsdrgn said:


> How about getting everything in HD before 4K!!!


Back in October, 2012 Philip J. Goswitz, DirecTV's vice president for space and communications stated standard-def channels will be converted to HD by 2016 using local-into-local Ka-Band capacity. He added converting standard-def channels to high-def would free up 1 gigahertz of satellite spectrum for Ultra HD (4K) signals.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

peds48 said:


> are you implying that older DVRs like the HR23 and below are capable of doing 4K?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk


Yes. At the last CES Directv was showing 4k through an HR21. It could have been an altered model though.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

4k will definitely happen, it's just a matter of when. Somebody will be first so they can have bragging rights and use that as a marketing ploy. Once that happens the others will be forced to offer 4k too. Then they can have a $20/month 4k fee in addition to the $10/month HD fee. :grin:


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

So it's not going to be like the whole industry MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 conversion?

It would be smart to put the decoding in the TV so you don't have to alter or obsolete billions of cable and satellite set tops.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

cypherx said:


> So it's not going to be like the whole industry MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 conversion?
> 
> It would be smart to put the decoding in the TV so you don't have to alter or obsolete billions of cable and satellite set tops.


It's happened in Europe with MPEG-2, now all owners of 4 years old HDTV sets are pissed off of its obsolete - they're recently changed to MPEG-4 OTA/cable video compression.
Now what ? Change TV sets to support "MPEG-5" ?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cypherx said:


> It would be smart to put the decoding in the TV so you don't have to alter or obsolete billions of cable and satellite set tops.


Whatever device is upgradable or more cheaply replaceable.

The industry standard "TVs" (monitors) with ATSC tuners that were only required to tune a handful of MEG2 OTA formats work with MPEG4 and other formats because of "set top" boxes. I would hate to be stuck with the decoding in the TV as the best format I could ever receive.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

Why would you need more decoding than 4K if the display itself is only 4K? When your ready to decode 8K, why bother decoding it unless the display is 8K?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

In Europe new TV sets using different tuners (what recently upgraded to DVB-T2 standard) not ATSC eventually, but the problem what I did describe above is in video decompressing algos/chips of other part of TV sets then OTA tuners, as some countries still use station's equipment supporting DVB-T standard, but changed encoders to MPEG-4.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

cypherx said:


> Why would you need more decoding than 4K if the display itself is only 4K? When your ready to decode 8K, why bother decoding it unless the display is 8K?


If the feed is in 8K and the set is limited to 4K it may be the only way to receive the content. The same would apply to a feed in 4K and sets limited to HD ... or feeds in HD and sets limited to less than HD. Content providers and carriers are not going to support multiple feeds of the same content indefinitely. Many of the source feeds from the content providers to the carriers have already gone HD only with the satellite or cable system doing the downconvert to what they need for retransmission.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

Do you think the reason Directv hasn't added much for hd channel's lately is because they were saving the bandwidth for 4k channel's?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cypherx said:


> Isn't this going to require a new receivers? I'm pretty sure you need a chipset powerful enough to decode HEVC and an HDMI chipset that can also push 4K resolution.


Directv will not be using HEVC for this early 4K VOD offering, they'll use MPEG4. Otherwise no one could receive it, as the HEVC standard wasn't even finalized when the HR44 was introduced.

HDMI 1.4 supported 4K up to 30 fps, so it would be fine for VOD which will be 24fps movies. HDMI 1.4 is almost five years old, so _at a minimum_ I'd imagine all models of Genie and client are capable of outputting 4K. Stuff like H25, HR24....possibly, though even if they're HDMI 1.4 it doesn't mean they necessarily can output 4K (4K is the max output resolution, but not required by the standard)

When Directv starts broadcasting 4K, its possible they might do it at first using MPEG4 just like they started out HD with MPEG2. Though more likely I think they'll just come out with a new Genie for 4K support. Charge people more for it if they want it, since they'll know people with 4K TVs have money to spend! They might not need to change the client, they're probably all HDMI 2.0 which outputs 4K up to 60 fps (assuming anyone ever delivers any 4Kp60 content, which is probably not likely given there is no 1080p60 broadcast content...)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> VOD is the only thing that can be done in 4K...there are no real time h.265 encoders yet. Also, anything delivered through a DirecTV box will be at best 3840x2160 at 30 fps since none of them have HDMI 2.0 support, which is needed for 60 fps. Of course, many TVs that claim to be "UHD" only have HDMI 1.4 interfaces and so can't display 3840x2160 at 60 fps even if you had a source at that resolution.
> 
> They will pass through the data without decoding (just decrypting) so the TV will do the h.265 decoding.


What's your source for "there are no real time h.265 encoders yet"? You can go to your local Apple Store and buy one, the iPhone 6 does real time h.265 encoding for FaceTime. Not in 4K, of course, but given that is just one little functional block on the A8 SoC, I'm sure that with the money broadcasters like Directv have to spend real time h.265 encoding of 4K is quite doable.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mkdtv21 said:


> Do you think the reason Directv hasn't added much for hd channel's lately is because they were saving the bandwidth for 4k channel's?


They don't have much spare bandwidth at this time. The two new satellites they're launching soon that will be in service the first half of next year will add a minimum of 30% more HD channel capacity, as well as the equivalent of almost as much capacity as they currently devote to HD in new bands that they'll probably be using for 4K. Most likely all you'd need is the LNB in your dish replaced and a 4K capable receiver, and you'd be in business to receive 4K off those new bands.

It isn't certain what they'll be using for what, so don't take what I said above as gospel, but Directv isn't hoarding a bunch of unused capacity today waiting for 4K, that much you can count on.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Unlike 3D I expect 4K to take hold.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> What's your source for "there are no real time h.265 encoders yet"? You can go to your local Apple Store and buy one, the iPhone 6 does real time h.265 encoding for FaceTime. Not in 4K, of course, but given that is just one little functional block on the A8 SoC, I'm sure that with the money broadcasters like Directv have to spend real time h.265 encoding of 4K is quite doable.


Ok, I amend the statement to "there are no realtime h.265 encoders that can handle 3840x2160 and actually produce a data stream half the size of h.264" (in other words, a practical encoder for linear delivery). It is one thing to encode a FaceTime session, something else altogether to encode "Gravity" in h.265 and have it come out the other end with a resolution and color depth that looks remotely like the 4K Demo content you see at the retailers. At the moment ALL UHD content is preprocessed. If they use MPEG-4 then the data volume will be 4x what the same content consumes at 1080p (all at 30 fps) - figure about 30GB for the average movie, or a minimum streaming rate of between 15 and 20 Mbps. And people complain that they can't stream VOD now! For a lot of people, downloading a UHD movie will take a day (if it even completes at all).

I'm not so sure about the "30 fps is okay for films" sentiment...a lot of movies are being shot in 4K (if not 8K). I don't know for a fact what frame rate they are using, but I'm told all the content Sony has available on their 4K media player is 60 fps. A lot of the "ooooh" factor in UHD is the color depth and frame rate. Given the way all cable and satellite operators treat 1080p, I don't hold out much hope that UHD (especially using MPEG-4) is going to retain much of that.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Unlike 3D I expect 4K to take hold.


At least until the TV manufacturers decide to start pushing 8K.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

crazy4dss said:


> All of you make great points, how ever unless i missed just like everything else in todays economy the prices for this TV are still to high. Until the price drops in the 2500 or less the adaptation of 4k will stall. The only thing i can that will drive that sooner than later is the release of mainstream movies that are out in theaters being released in 4k only. At least thats what i would do or try to lobby for. Being in this industry i see more and more home theaters rising than ever before. People are tired of paying 200 for a family of 6 to enjoy a 3d or imax movie for tickets, drinks, and food.


We just bought four tickets to Radio City's Christmas show. I used to go with my grandmother every year when I was a kid. Back then they had a movie with the show. I think it cost less than $10 to get a decent seat. Cost us $607 for four tickets for this year's performance. Geez.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> Ok, I amend the statement to "there are no realtime h.265 encoders that can handle 3840x2160 and actually produce a data stream half the size of h.264" (in other words, a practical encoder for linear delivery). It is one thing to encode a FaceTime session, something else altogether to encode "Gravity" in h.265 and have it come out the other end with a resolution and color depth that looks remotely like the 4K Demo content you see at the retailers. At the moment ALL UHD content is preprocessed. If they use MPEG-4 then the data volume will be 4x what the same content consumes at 1080p (all at 30 fps) - figure about 30GB for the average movie, or a minimum streaming rate of between 15 and 20 Mbps. And people complain that they can't stream VOD now! For a lot of people, downloading a UHD movie will take a day (if it even completes at all).
> 
> I'm not so sure about the "30 fps is okay for films" sentiment...a lot of movies are being shot in 4K (if not 8K). I don't know for a fact what frame rate they are using, but I'm told all the content Sony has available on their 4K media player is 60 fps. A lot of the "ooooh" factor in UHD is the color depth and frame rate. Given the way all cable and satellite operators treat 1080p, I don't hold out much hope that UHD (especially using MPEG-4) is going to retain much of that.


Why would you need a realtime encoder for "Gravity"? That is only necessary for live content like sports. Nothing else requires realtime encoding. You might need a realtime MPEG4 encoder/transcoder today for non-live content if the network provides you MPEG2, but that's unlikely to be an issue for 4K which would likely be uplinked to broadcasters like Directv in h.265 format. Or so one would hope. If 4K ever happens for live content, it will follow well behind films and other content that has ample time for any necessary preprocessing.

Films are shot in 24 fps, or 25 fps for some international productions. 99.99% of them, at least, since the advent of talkies. Aside from a few failed experiments in the 50s and 60s with rates from 26 fps to 60 fps, the only exception is the recent Hobbit movies which were shot in 48 fps, though few theaters are equipped to project 48 fps so most people saw a 24 fps version. Aside from the Hobbit, every single 4K film has been shot in 24 fps, though there is talk that a few others (like the Avatar sequels) may also experiment with filming in 48 fps.

I hope people who are aching for 4K don't think that the pristine material being shown in demos is what they're going to get from cable or satellite providers. They won't, anymore than anyone gets the same pristine quality HD from early demos that you (mostly) get from Blu Ray today. At least not if there is going to be more than a handful of 4K channels with limited content, similar to how it was for 3D.


----------



## bluegras (Jan 31, 2008)

everything should be in HD before i will talk about 4k?


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I think you need a realtime encoder for broadcast content. Maybe not so for VOD as they are already encoded and they are files. But a live TV channel needs to encode the stream in real time for commercials, overlays, channel bugs in the corner, tickers, or whatever other on screen graphics they like to bugger up our viewing "experience".

Can't even watch a movie on a premium like Starz, without the Starz logo fading in and out in the lower right corner periodically.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

bluegras said:


> everything should be in HD before i will talk about 4k?


No we really don't and never will have. Sub channels will never be all Hi Definition and neither will some cable and sat channels.

And heck which has happened faster, SD to HD or black and white to color?


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

And really, I hope channels like Boomerang never go HD. I don't want to see Turner's distorting applied to all those old Hanna-Barbera cartoons like TBS does with Married with Children. Stretching is one thing, at least I can correct that myself to see it in the proper 4:3 aspect ratio, but Turner does a mix of cropping, warping and stretching the edges of the picture.



inkahauts said:


> And heck which has happened faster, SD to HD or black and white to color?


It depends, some of it was similar like the network was available in color but the individual affiliates took longer to complete their upgrades. Being pre satellite was also hard as some affiliates not hooked up to the network had to rely on black and white kinescopes delivered by tape well into the late 60s/early 70s for some things like soap operas if they couldn't relay the OTA signal of a neighboring affiliate connected to the network.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cypherx said:


> I think you need a realtime encoder for broadcast content. Maybe not so for VOD as they are already encoded and they are files. But a live TV channel needs to encode the stream in real time for commercials, overlays, channel bugs in the corner, tickers, or whatever other on screen graphics they like to bugger up our viewing "experience".
> 
> Can't even watch a movie on a premium like Starz, without the Starz logo fading in and out in the lower right corner periodically.


Pretty sure they don't integrate the commercials into the stream, but switch sources for them. So you have your broadcast stream, and when it hits the commercial marker it switches to another stream for that commercial, then another and so on until the commercial break is over when it rejoins the broadcast stream. Interrupting a stream is not a problem, when you rejoin an ongoing stream you can't display anything until a key frame is received, but those are sent out often except in badly overcompressed content.

I believe that overlays like station IDs, weather bugs, etc. are done with alpha channel overlays, rather than re-encoding the stream, though I'm less sure about that.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

bluegras said:


> everything should be in HD before i will talk about 4k?


No problem. Feel free not to talk about 4K or UHD. Others will carry the conversation.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Even if the provider sends the content to DirecTV in h.265, DirecTV will still decode it. They have to unless they dedicate an entire transponder to a single stream. They need to feed the data through a stat-mux so that the aggregate data flow stays under the limit of the transponder. In order to manipulate the aggregate throughput, they need to re-encode the content. In reality, they decode the incoming content, do whatever insertions or other manipulation they want, then feed all the channels on a given transponder through stat-mux and re-compression and then to the uplink.

Speaking of streams...they would still need an encoder to encode the "insertion" stream even if they weren't touching the content.

Buying new encoders is very expensive...cable operators are now converting to MPEG-4 and are spending tens of millions of dollars, and that's for h.264, which is now almost a "legacy" technology.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Good point, I forgot about the stat-muxes. Cable would use something similar to place multiple channels inside a single 6 MHz RF channel.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Yup...in fact, HBO sends out their content in MPEG-4. Verizon (like most cable operators) still uses MPEG-2 and has many STBs that can't decode MPEG-4. So, they decode the MPEG-4, then re-compress it with MPEG-2. Until recently, they were not using stat-mux, instead allocating each HD channel a fixed 17Mbps. Now they are in the process of muxing 3 HD channels per QAM. That has freed up a QAM channel already, and should yield them another couple when they are done. They are also in the process of converting to MPEG-4 (very) slowly.


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

so frustrating when so many shows I watch in supposed HD are _below _dvd quality (I'm looking at you SHO and FX..)


----------



## Yakuman (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm confused at how 4K is going to fly. 

There's several million people who are perfectly happy connecting their SD box up to HDTV sets or still using CRTs. So D*, sometime this decade, must tell these folks to pry lose those SD boxes for HD. Then they're going to turn around and up-sell them to 4K?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

yeah, they are all dreaming to sell new equipment to us...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

There'll always be three sets of consumers for televisions. The cutting-edge people who buy the new stuff as soon as it's out, the mainstream which is about 90% of the people that have whatever's out about 5 to 10 years after it really hits, and the people that will wait until the very last minute before they upgrade something. 

3d doesn't fit into any of those categories by the way.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> There'll always be three sets of consumers for televisions. The cutting-edge people who buy the new stuff as soon as it's out, the mainstream which is about 90% of the people that have whatever's out about 5 to 10 years after it really hits, and the people that will wait until the very last minute before they upgrade something.


Yup.

The 4K crowd has already started...and likely will grow in 2015 as prices come down...


----------



## Special Ed (Oct 26, 2007)

I am holding out for 4K 3D! :smoking:


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Not me...I'm waiting for 16K holographic 3D with smellovision and a DVR that lets me record yesterday's show that I missed. :rolling:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> ... and a DVR that lets me record yesterday's show that I missed. :rolling:


You don't have one of those?

With improvements in on demand programming there is a lot of content that one can get after they miss a recording. Hopefully we will get to the point where "everything" available on the linear channels will also be available on demand at air time or shortly after it airs on the linear channel.


----------



## b52pooh (Mar 10, 2011)

I'm waiting for the DVR that will record shows before they are even produced.... :rolling:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Special Ed said:


> I am holding out for 4K 3D! :smoking:


I'm not holding out for it, but a 360º screen that surrounds a whole room would be great for sports.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

b52pooh said:


> I'm waiting for the DVR that will record shows before they are even produced.... :rolling:


As incredible as it may seem, there was a tech. on this forum a few years ago who related a DVR installation horror story like that with a supreme JSP.

He actually thought a DVR could let him watch and record upcoming shows before they were first broadcast. In particular he wanted to watch the scheduled Sunday NFL football games prior to Sunday!

So when the tech. explained that he couldn't and what he wanted was impossible., the customer got angry and demanded the tech. remove the entire installation.

Needless to say we hands-down nominated him as the "ultimate moron."


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Ah, he was just before his time!


:rotfl:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drucifer said:


> I'm not holding out for it, but a 360º screen that surrounds a whole room would be great for sports.


I think they have those...they're called stadiums. :listening

But to your point...and being serious...things like curved screen 4K UltraHD units and other advances show the boundaries continue to be pursued.

If we've learned anything the past 10 years...it's that adoption rates drive advancement. People didn't embrace 3D because of the glasses, the questionable value seen when compared to the cost, limited content, and other reasons.

The launch of 4k UltraHD is well underway...and perhaps as prices continue to drop...we'll see more market adoption. If that happens...it will eventually become "the new normal".

In taking a step back for a moment...I've come to realize the viewing experiences in many homes today can be and often are quite amazing. It's no accident that movie theaters are hurting for business, and recently investing in new technology (including 4K projectors) to try to rebound. In some cases, the home experience trumps the nearby commercial theater.

It appears that 4K UltraHD in 2015 may be a tipping point in terms for either major adoption or apathy. The anticipated availability of new 4K content from DirecTV and other sources, along with lower priced devices to view the content could prove to be a positive motivator.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Not me...I'm waiting for 16K holographic 3D with smellovision and a DVR that lets me record yesterday's show that I missed. :rolling:


Aww, now you're gonna have all the lemmings waiting for Smellovision.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Diana C said:


> Not me...I'm waiting for 16K holographic 3D with smellovision and a DVR that lets me record yesterday's show that I missed. :rolling:


Mine will have those features, and a psychic "You'd also like" feature that'll record just the things that I'll *really *like.....  May also have an espresso component, and a FLAC player.....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Drucifer said:


> I'm not holding out for it, but a 360º screen that surrounds a whole room would be great for sports.


No thank you. I would not mind a wider field of view but not 360º. It would be hard track the action if it could occur behind you. One of the major benefits of television (besides the obvious ability to see things far away) is the ability to focus the viewer's attention on a part of the scene being portrayed.

If one goes to live theater one gets one view from whatever seat they can afford or choose. One does not get to move around or go up on stage to get a different angle or different view. The best one can do is take theater glasses or a binoculars to get the ability to zoom in on what one wants to get a closer look at. The same would apply to sporting events ... although the distances are much greater. Large monitors are available at some stadiums and concert events to give people a closer, focused look at the action.

If a theatrical production or sports game were televised from a single camera, even from the best seat in the house, one would lose the benefit of having multiple cameras. If one kept changing the view from one perspective to another it would be as if one was being teleported to different locations around the theater or playing field. Which would be confusing to most viewers.

Keeping the attention focused on the center of the screen and adding more to the sides works. But widening the screen can go too far. A 90º or 110º would likely be too much for most viewers. 360º sounds cool, but it is unworkable and most of the viewing surface would go unused.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> . . . .
> 
> In taking a step back for a moment...I've come to realize the viewing experiences in many homes today can be and often are quite amazing. *It's no accident that movie theaters are hurting for business*, and recently investing in new technology (including 4K projectors) to try to rebound. In some cases, the home experience trumps the nearby commercial theater.


Generally, it's the theater environment that will doom most of 'em -- uncomfortable seats, overly expensive food stuffs, annoying audiences. And now with the chance of bringing home an unwanted guest. Be it an insect or a virus.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Drucifer said:


> Generally, it's the theater environment that will doom most of 'em -- uncomfortable seats, overly expensive food stuffs, annoying audiences. And now with the chance of bringing home an unwanted guest. Be it an insect or a virus.


I think watching movies in 1080p at home is cool on my 55" but I wonder if I would miss the audience reactions at the theater? Especially when a first run movie at the theater is out on VOD/BluRay in 3 to 5 months.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

Rich said:


> Aww, now you're gonna have all the lemmings waiting for Smellovision.












Personally, I'm waiting until they have the technology to teleport the actress(es) of my choice into my living room to act out scenes for me personally.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

CraigerM said:


> I think watching movies in 1080p at home is cool on my 55" but *I wonder if I would miss the audience reactions* at the theater? Especially when a first run movie at the theater is out on VOD/BluRay in 3 to 5 months.


But is that enough to offset the theater weaknesses.


----------



## MarkN (Jul 13, 2007)

This thread is officially worthless


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

There are very few official threads here! 

Feel free to not post!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

CraigerM said:


> I think watching movies in 1080p at home is cool on my 55" but I wonder if I would miss the audience reactions at the theater?


Perhaps there can be a social media app that can be added so one can go to the movies with friends and/or strangers. Something similar to the video games that allow one to use a headset and mic to talk to other players in a multi-player environment - but connected through the TV speakers and a room microphone.

Second most important feature: An off switch.
Most important feature: A mute switch to exclude specific others (such as someone who causes an interruption not related to the movie).


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

MarkN said:


> This thread is officially worthless


That's how I feel about 4K.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Drucifer said:


> Generally, it's the theater environment that will doom most of 'em -- uncomfortable seats, overly expensive food stuffs, annoying audiences. And now with the chance of bringing home an unwanted guest. Be it an insect or a virus.


Even the subways in NYC have bedbugs. I'm getting to the point where I really don't want to go to the City.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

trainman said:


> Personally, I'm waiting until they have the technology to teleport the actress(es) of my choice into my living room to act out scenes for me personally.


I really thought they tried that in movie houses.

Rich


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Rich said:


> I really thought they tried that in movie houses.
> 
> Rich


The smell of month old corpse would be remembered.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I remember reading about "Smell-O-Vision", even how emitters were placed under the seats. Very short lived. Wouldn't work well for many many movies.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

The last few times I've been to a movie, the glow and sound of cell phones has really enhanced the experience. Not counting the people talking.


----------



## txfeinbergs (Nov 16, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> The smell of month old corpse would be remembered.


The month old ones aren't that bad. Now one week in a warm environment, need to avoid that.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Drucifer said:


> The smell of month old corpse would be remembered.


Boy has this thread gone off topic... :eek2:  :ewww:


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Boy has this thread gone off topic... :eek2:  :ewww:


Well movie theater to stay in business need to add more to their environment that can't be done in a home.

So smell-a-vision is probably still on their drawing board. I wonder if they ever consider reproducing the feel of the screen weather?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, _*Fog-O-Vision®*_ is coming to a screen near you. Beyond that, it'd be like a Gallagher 'show'....


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Boy has this thread gone off topic... :eek2:  :ewww:


Wait, wait, don't tell me: _*This thread has a topic!?! *_

_*I do look forward to 4K content in any way, shape or form.*_


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

4K UltraHD is a new technology and presentation of video content in the home (the thread topic).

Anyone who has the pleasure of viewing 4k original content on a 4K UltraHD TV can testify that the experience is quite stunning. For the short term, most content is still 1080p, and the increase in resolution of that format is only slightly enhanced on a 4K HDTV unit.

Some DBS Talkers had the good fortune to see both experiences side by side earlier this year - which definitely presents the comparison.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

This is what I see 4K as.
$$$$$$
Just another excuse to get more of it.

And you're smoking something if you think this is going to be the standard anywhere in the next decade.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

damondlt said:


> This is what I see 4K as.
> $$$$$$
> Just another excuse to get more of it.
> 
> And you're smoking something if you think this is going to be the standard anywhere in the next decade.


I think it really is all about price. If the price comes down and a 60" 4K of some quality (like a Samsung), say in the < 1500 buck range, it will sell. Upconversion and high refresh rates could make even a 1080p source look pretty darn good at 10 or 12 feet. So even without 4K sources, the difference might be enticing, especially if it is perceived as "free" or "for no premium". That's exactly what happened with 1080p. At first it had a premium and a lot of folks didn't want to spend the money for such an incremental improvement. When 1080p became the norm, and no price premium was evident, people started insisting on it. 4K will most likely follow the same path, if the price premium disappears.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

hasan said:


> I think it really is all about price. If the price comes down and a 60" 4K of some quality (like a Samsung), say in the < 1500 buck range, it will sell. Upconversion and high refresh rates could make even a 1080p source look pretty darn good at 10 or 12 feet. So even without 4K sources, the difference might be enticing, especially if it is perceived as "free" or "for no premium". That's exactly what happened with 1080p. At first it had a premium and a lot of folks didn't want to spend the money for such an incremental improvement. When 1080p became the norm, and no price premium was evident, people started insisting on it. 4K will most likely follow the same path, if the price premium disappears.


Well said...and your forecast is likely on target - not a matter of if, just a matter of when.

Over just the past 3-4 months...I've seen 3 different retailers in my area completely transform their TV departments to promote this new format. There have also been several chain movie theaters in the area that have upgraded their projectors and promoted the fact that they now show all movies in 4K. Despite current prices, several early adopters known here already have their 4K units in their homes.

They even make phones now with "4K resolution", and tablets are forthcoming.

If prices continue to drop over the next 18 months as industry experts anticipate, and content grows in availability...it's possible 4K UltraHD could become the new normal within about 2 years. Unlike 3D...the writing's on the wall for 4K.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Well said...and your forecast is likely on target - not a matter of if, just a matter of when.
> 
> Over just the past 3-4 months...I've seen 3 different retailers in my area completely transform their TV departments to promote this new format. There have also been several chain movie theaters in the area that have upgraded their projectors and promoted the fact that they now show all movies in 4K. Despite current prices, several early adopters known here already have their 4K units in their homes.
> 
> ...


So in 2 years , all the networks will be broadcasting in 4K and putting out 4K. 
Yeah okay.

No way ! HD TV has been out over 10 years, an still no one even broadcast in 1080p.

You think all tvs will be 4K in 2 years and that 4K will be the Norm, just because Directv announced they may have a couple 4K ppvs?

You really love directv I can tell.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hasan said:


> I think it really is all about price. If the price comes down and a 60" 4K of some quality (like a Samsung), say in the < 1500 buck range, it will sell. Upconversion and high refresh rates could make even a 1080p source look pretty darn good at 10 or 12 feet. So even without 4K sources, the difference might be enticing, especially if it is perceived as "free" or "for no premium". That's exactly what happened with 1080p. At first it had a premium and a lot of folks didn't want to spend the money for such an incremental improvement. When 1080p became the norm, and no price premium was evident, people started insisting on it. 4K will most likely follow the same path, if the price premium disappears.


The tvs prices are not the issues.
It's the fact no one has 4K broadcasting.
Prices of 4K Tvs are the least of the issues of it Becoming the norm.


----------



## MarkN (Jul 13, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> There are very few official threads here!
> 
> Feel free to not post!


Thank you for your permission! Keep up the good work


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> So in 2 years , *all the networks will be broadcasting in 4K and putting out 4K*.
> Yeah okay.
> 
> No way ! HD TV has been out over 10 years, an still no one even broadcast in 1080p.
> ...


No one made your posted _*re-statements*_...you changed/exaggerated what was originally said.

The "new normal" does not mean "all the networks" or "all TVs". It means commonplace/mainstream (in 2 years).

There are plenty of things that point to 4K's success / momentum for adoption, especially based on prices coming down in late 2014 and early 2015...and others share this view regarding the momentum and trends as well - here are just a few:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2014/09/29/4k-utlra-hd-inches-closer-to-mainstream-adoption/

http://techrealist.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/2015-will-be-the-big-year-for-4k-ultra-hdtv/

http://www.cepro.com/article/4k_ready_for_mass_adoption_experts_weigh_in/


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> No one made your posted _*re-statements*_...you changed/exaggerated what was originally said.
> 
> The "new normal" does not mean "all the networks" or "all TVs". It means commonplace/mainstream (in 2 years).
> 
> ...


Again see you in 2 years. :sleeping:
And when retailers start charging $500 for a 4K bluray player in 2015, it will be the demise!
Let alone the price of a Disk.
Even Blu Rays arent hardly a premium anymore. And DVDs are still the Norm, Not blu rays!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Blu Rays are still a Small section in every store compared to DVDs.
Why? Because DVD quality isn't that bad compared to even Blu Rays.
I have 4 Blu Rays.
And I love movies.

So that wasn't a huge hit by any means.
Only thing 4K is going to boost is more Standard Blu Rays sales.
People just want to watch a movie that looks presentable, doesnt have to be IMAX!

And really 4 K on your cell? who gives a crap on a 5 inch screen.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> So in 2 years , all the networks will be broadcasting in 4K and putting out 4K.
> Yeah okay.
> 
> No way ! HD TV has been out over 10 years, an still no one even broadcast in 1080p.
> ...


I didn't read anything close to that in the post to which you replied.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Will 4K TVs be "the norm" in 2 years? Maybe...personally, I think more like 3 or 4, but that's a detail. However, you'll still have a lot of people watching 480 content on them. Almost everyone else will be watching upscaled 1080p content.

Will 4K content be widely broadcast in 2 years? No way. IF you have a high speed internet connection you MAY be able to download/stream (though streaming will require broadband speeds that are available in only about 20% of the country) some 4K content. Some 4K BluRays may be available, But linear broadcast of 4K in any kind of quantity (beyond one or two channels) is unlikely within the next 5 years.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The price and availability of 4K TVs doesn't really mean much as far as 4K adoption, unless you believe "build it and they will come" will win the day. There was a major driver for HD adoption that doesn't apply for 4K. Customers demanded HD content to the point that they were willing to switch providers to get access to more of it, and ratings for HD content were better than SD content (i.e. people would choose to watch football games or TV shows because they were in HD)

There's no way that happens for 4K. Sure, people who care about video quality enough to choose the handle "hdtvfan" would probably switch providers to get access to more 4K, but the average person doesn't think HD quality is bad. Ask a person what is wrong with movies today, and not one will say "resolution". Even if they notice a difference with 4K, it isn't going to be enough for them to switch providers to get more 4K channels, or decide "I'd rather watch the game on ESPN 4K than those crappy HD games on ESPN2 and ESPNU" like they did with HD vs SD.

For most people the upgrade from SD to HD was massive. Most popular channels were on the analog SD cable tier. If they were upgrading from DVD quality the HD adoption would have been a lot slower, because it would have made a lot less difference. The numbers bear that out - that's why DVD sales still account for 75% of sales over Blu Ray, and a lot of people won't pay that one dollar more to Netflix for HD! The upgrade from HD to 4K isn't anywhere near as big as the upgrade from DVD to HD, let alone the size of the HD upgrade most people actually experienced from analog SD all the way to digital HD!

If there aren't very many people who are willing to switch providers to get more 4K channels, there won't be a big drive to upgrade infrastructure to provide it. More importantly, if there aren't a lot of people complaining about low quality HD broadcasts and watching 4K broadcasts in preference, there is little incentive for broadcasters to upgrade their infrastructure to be able to deliver a lot of 4K content. If it doesn't cost them viewers, or win them more advertising dollars, why spend all that money?

This is the same problem 3D had. Yeah, it had other problems like TV makers thinking they could get people to pay more for the feature when it didn't cost much to deliver, and having to wear glasses. But no one was switching to Directv from their cable provider because Directv offered ESPN 3D. No one was refusing to watch AMC because they didn't broadcast Mad Men in 3D.

It all comes down to dollars. There has to be money in it for broadcasters to deliver 4K content. Either because they make more advertising dollars, or because they'll lose viewers if they don't have it. 4K isn't a big enough difference to make those happen beyond the videophile niche. There aren't enough of them to make 4K happen for broadcast beyond a handful of channels. For Netflix, sure, 4K will become the norm, at least for those with 4K TVs and fast internet connections. But 4K for cable/satellite will be a lot closer to 3D than HD in its impact. It won't be the complete flop 3D was, but you won't see even 5% of the channels in 4K by 2020.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Price is almost always king.

Decades of consumer electronics history prove it - in HDTVs, game consoles, audio equipment, and even mobile phones.

Every Time there is a significant downshift in price...adoption grows in leaps and bounds. But as others have correctly pointed out...when it comes to TV platforms...new technology without the corresponding content slows the pace. We all saw that with 3D. The prices didn't drop much and the content was limited/stagnated.

However 4K UltraHD is different. Every manufacturer is not only on the bandwagon in terms of manufacturing...but retailers are migrating in large numbers, and even more important...studios are rolling out the red carpet for this format.

The TV and movie industry are all in sync this time around in terms of their direction - much like the HDTV migration was away from SD.

*From Forbes Magazine:*



> HDTV is yesterday's news. The measly 1920×1080 pixel counts that HD screens deliver are rapidly being surpassed by a new generation of 4K (also known as UHD or UltraHD) TVs delivering 3840×2160 pixel counts or, essentially, four times the resolution of HD TVs. This is great news for anyone who cares about picture quality. While 4K does have its detractors, the many displays I've tested entirely convinced me of the quality improvement the technology can deliver...





> ...There's no doubt that 4K is going to happen. In fact, it's already here; even relatively conservative technology analysts like Morgan Stanley predict that 25 percent of TVs sold in 2015 will be 4K, rising to 40 percent in 2016. And these percentages will be much higher in the large-screen market.


So coming back full circle to the main topic...if DirecTV is investing to become a 4K content provider (and that investment comes at a pretty hefty price tag I'm sure), and other players like Netflix is banking on 4K making a major splash in consumer expectations going forward...there's plenty of evidence that the momentum points to 4K Ultra HD having a higher probability of success despite any skeptics giving it their "poo poo" treatment.

Couple that with consumers nearly always being enticed by lower prices...and the timing could be ripe for a 2015 tipping point toward even more mainstream adoption in 2016. At this point, it's all speculation on either side of the topic...but the direction is _*very clear*_ as to where the industry intends to be 2 years from now.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Directv also invested to become a 3D content provider, and talked that up the same way they're talking up 4K now, so I don't take Directv pushing 4K as any sort of indication it will succeed. Remember, Directv doesn't really compete by offering lower prices, they try to differentiate themselves from the competition by offering stuff they don't have, like NFLST, 3D and now 4K.

Dish and most cable providers (aside from FIOS) have no way to add more than a handful of 4K channels. Those cable companies have barely dropped analog, and most have a long way to go before they can drop MPEG2. Any bandwidth they can free up needs to go toward the ever increasing demand for faster broadband - it is worth more revenue to them there where it serves many customers than it is for 4K channels that would only be watched by a few.

The fact most cable companies can't add many 4K channels is another reason the content won't be out there aside from a small niche. Why should broadcasters invest all that money when it would pretty much only be deliverable to Directv and FIOS customers, and only that fraction of each customer base willing to pay whatever "4K fee" they add on, plus other fees (up front lease fee for Directv 4K equipment, higher monthly charges for Verizon 4K equipment vs their HD equipment)


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

As I said, 4K TVs will become the norm. I don't seriously question Morgan Stanley's prediction that 4K TVs will account for 25% of the market in 2015 and 40% by 2016. However, unlike the SD to HD conversion last decade, there is no massive infrastructure shift happening. The move to HD coincided with the shift from analog broadcasting to digital broadcasting. Significant numbers of viewers replaced perfectly good analog sets with digital ones. This isn't going to happen this time. In our house we already have 6 HD TVs, the oldest of which is 8 years old. We won't be replacing any of them until one fails. At that point, we may buy a 4K set, but far more likely we will buy a 1080p OLED set (unless 4K OLEDs are competitively priced). You see, in my opinion, having a good solid black is more important than 4x the resolution, at least at the distances at which we watch TV. That's why, despite having a 70" 1080p LCD set in the basement, we prefer the PQ on the 720p plasma TV in the family room.

But until they get h.265 encoders running in real-time with the same efficiency they get from multi-pass processing, broadcasting 4K is a non-starter, and until we get something beyond h.265 you won't see 4K OTA broadcasts. The vast majority of the available content will be 1080p, at best, for quite a while.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> At this point, it's all speculation on either side of the topic...but the direction is _*very clear*_ as to where the industry intends to be 2 years from now.


Where the CE industry is or is heading ultimately has little impact on where the viewers or broadcasters are going. Even when the product produces essentially the same output, the marketplace will opt for a different criteria than the engineers had anticipated (VHS .vs. Beta and HD-DVD .vs. Blu-ray).

Much of this is driven by a failure to produce a single standard that everyone gets behind. For all of the efforts by both industries and consumers thus far, many are still concerned that 4K remains incomplete.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> Directv also invested to become a 3D content provider, and talked that up the same way they're talking up 4K now, so I don't take Directv pushing 4K as any sort of indication it will succeed. Remember, Directv doesn't really compete by offering lower prices, they try to differentiate themselves from the competition by offering stuff they don't have, like NFLST, 3D and now 4K.


Then again...3D and 4K technology, market dynamics, industry adopters, and content provider adopters are apples and oranges in comparison.

No special glasses required either.

Even Samsung and Panasonic are leading the charge on tablets with 4K resolution in anticipation of the consumer market adoption, especially for streamed content. Perhaps special glasses are required to see the future sometimes.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Where the CE industry is or is heading ultimately has little impact on where the viewers or broadcasters are going.


Interesting observation...."they" said the same thing about Satellite TV.

Nearly 20 years later..."they" have been wrong a long time now.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I didn't read anything close to that in the post to which you replied.


Read it.

If prices continue to drop over the next 18 months as industry experts anticipate, and content grows in availability...it's possible *4K UltraHD could become the new normal within about 2 years*. Unlike 3D...the writing's on the wall for 4K.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)




----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> The move to HD coincided with the shift from analog broadcasting to digital broadcasting. Significant numbers of viewers replaced perfectly good analog sets with digital ones. This isn't going to happen this time.


This is the key.

Without another paradigm shift (the closest thing will be the transition to H.26x in the cable industry and it won't impact many), the transition will be glacial.

The fact that different industries still have different ideas about what 4K represents doesn't help.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Interesting observation...."they" said the same thing about Satellite TV.
> 
> Nearly 20 years later..."they" have been wrong a long time now.


And you believe them when it comes to 4K?

I understand you're excited about 4K tv,and TVs in general. But your letting "Experts" tell you what the consumers want?

Consumers want affordable options, I don't care if all TVs are 4K next in 2016 that means nothing interms of what the consumer wants.
Might be the next big thing, But honestly most people dont care.

Blu Rays were the Next big thing, and they are currently Ho Hum, and even their peak, wasn't even a peak.
And now you think consumers and Networks are going to just jump all over and even Higher premium example in 2016?

See you in 2026.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


>


Exactly, remove the sand from your eyes. !rolling


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again...3D and 4K technology, market dynamics, industry adopters, and content provider adopters are apples and oranges in comparison.
> 
> No special glasses required either.
> 
> Even Samsung and Panasonic are leading the charge on tablets with 4K resolution in anticipation of the consumer market adoption, especially for streamed content. Perhaps special glasses are required to see the future sometimes.


Again, you seem to be only talking about the hardware. Where is the content coming from? Netflix? Only if you have *at least* a 20Mbit/sec internet connection. Cable or satellite? Via VOD, sure, but broadcast is unlikely to be more than 1 or 2 channels. Also, these same cable and satellite providers are compressing the life out of 1080p content. What do you think they will do to 4K content? I can promise you that any broadcast 4K content will look NOTHING like the 4K demo material in the showroom.

What does that leave? BluRay? Maybe it will help drive BluRay adoption, but that's an expensive source to be your main outlet for content that actually shows off your 4K set.

To be clear - 4K sets will ubiquitous, just like 3D and Smart TVs are today. But the vast majority of what will be watched on those 4K sets will continue to be 1080p (and below) content.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> And you believe them when it comes to 4K?


You've got my comment backwards (yet again) - the skeptics believe what _*they*_ want to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary...but rarely are they right. The references listed above pointed to many people seeing the writing on the wall. Of course skeptics will disagree. That's OK.

Those were the same skeptics that said about Sat TV: " it wouldn't make it even if they "build it", That same mindset of skepticism led to some folks believing color TV - "there was no need for it, it was too expensive, and it would never make it". Then it was and HDTV - there was no need for it, it was too expensive, and it would never make it, Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

There are always skeptics. No harm no foul.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Diana C said:


> Again, you seem to be only talking about the hardware............To be clear - 4K sets will ubiquitous, just like 3D and Smart TVs are today. But the vast majority of what will be watched on those 4K sets will continue to be 1080p (and below) content.


I've been commenting about the platform of 4K (including content), of which you correctly state the hardware is just _*part *_of the equation. Totally agree.

I also agree with you that even once 4K Ultra HDTVs are all over the place...there will still be plenty of people who watch 1080p (and perhaps even older content) . While I know of 4 people with 4K UltraHD TVs already, I also know of at least 2 people who still watch SD only on older TVs. That's just the way evolution happens.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I've been commenting about the platform of 4K (including content), of which you correctly state the hardware is just _*part *_of the equation. Totally agree.
> 
> I also agree with you that even once 4K Ultra HDTVs are all over the place...there will still be plenty of people who watch 1080p (and perhaps even older content) . While I know of 4 people with 4K UltraHD TVs already, I also know of at least 2 people who still watch SD only on older TVs. That's just the way evolution happens.


So from a Retailers standpoint will 4K only be the Norm.
But not from the Networks, Providers or even consumers in 2 years.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Getting back to the real topic (thread heading)...it would seem DirecTV is not alone with their intent to provide 4K delivery.

This was published about 9 months ago by CEA:



> Netflix has been working with its content suppliers such as Sony to make their 4K content available to subscribers this year as well. Rivals such as Amazon and Hulu have followed suit by saying they are filming their original series in 4K now too. Meanwhile Samsung, the world's largest TV maker, said it was teaming up with major content providers in the US, such as Netflix and Comcast, to dovetail its connected TVs with the respective streaming services to receive 4K content via appropriate apps.


This information came from Reviewed.com Television 6 weeks ago:



> Amazon Instant Video will soon begin streaming in 4K resolution on all Samsung ultra-high-definition TVs, bringing the next evolution in TV tech one step closer to the mainstream.
> Samsung announced this week that all Amazon UHD content will be "globally" available for 4K streaming starting this October, exclusively through the Amazon Instant Video app on Samsung UHD TVs.
> Amazon hasn't yet disclosed plans to stream 4K content on other manufacturers' sets, but it's safe to assume that the exclusivity is only temporary. If Korean and Japanese manufacturers have their way, 4K will soon supplant 720p and 1080p HD content as the de facto standard, and that means Amazon will want its content on as many TVs as possible.


And this came from Multichannel.com a few months ago:



> "The real killer selling point for 4K is seeing native 4K," Cosgrove added. For that reason, it's important for programmers to produce shows and movies in 4K so those titles can be delivered in that format down the road, said Chris Cookson, president of Sony Pictures Technologies. As a point of emphasis, he said Sony Pictures shot AMC hit series Breaking Bad on 35 millimeter film and originally scanned it for standard HD. It has since been rescanned and post-produced in 4K. Netflix announced here this week that it will be offering Breaking Bad in 4K sometime later this year.





> "The difference between HD and the 4K version was substantial," Cookson said, adding later that "future-proofing" content for later distribution in windows such as syndication offers studios a strong incentive to produce most of their content in 4K today. Despite some concerns, Werner believes upconverted HD on 4K will provide a "more seamless migration" than what was witnessed during the move to standard-def to HD. SD video on HD sets looks horrible, he said. Werner said the ingredients for 4K to take off are coming together. Comcast, he said, has the distribution network to deliver 4K and will soon have access to more end-points that can decode 4K. What's still lacking is lots of 4K content. Comcast, he said, has some 4K plans in store for NBCUniversal's coverage of the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I do see 4k TV's coming down in price quicker than I thought, however I would be wary of how SD & HD would look on them since that is basically everything we would watch at the moment. I know SD looks horrible on HD TV's because it's not the panel's native resolution. Just like a computer LCD monitor, if you don't run at the native resolution, its blurry. I guess I would have to see some of these in person.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cypherx said:


> I guess I would have to see some of these in person.


A good idea...they are pretty common at retailers.

1080p content looks only slightly better on a 4K UltraHD unit...the different is nominal for sure.

*Original 4K content is the real *_*shazzam*_ *difference*. Ask the retailer show 4K content if they can...you'll see the difference.

It's for that reason that having DirecTV provide content would be interesting and likely welcome for those adopters of 4K out there already.

I have only seen SD on two 4K UltraHD TVs so far...and they were similar to what the 1080P sets present. I really struggle watching any SD anymore...to punishing on the eyes...and otherwise (of course) I'd have to change my name. :biggrin:


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

When Espn, Fox Sport , CBS and NBC start broadcasting in 4k I will get a 4k TV.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

yosoyellobo said:


> When Espn, Fox Sport , CBS and NBC start broadcasting in 4k I will get a 4k TV.


Then you might just want to read all this...

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/68238/pagano-espn-plans-to-be-the-4k-leader

http://www.legitreviews.com/4k-cameras-coming-to-nbc-sunday-night-football-nfl-fans-now-need-4k-tvs_15838

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/nbcs-saturday-night-live-eyes-559926

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/2/3943312/super-bowl-4k-is-a-game-changer


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You've got my comment backwards (yet again) - the skeptics believe what _*they*_ want to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary...but rarely are they right. The references listed above pointed to many people seeing the writing on the wall. Of course skeptics will disagree. That's OK.
> 
> Those were the same skeptics that said about Sat TV: " it wouldn't make it even if they "build it", That same mindset of skepticism led to some folks believing color TV - "there was no need for it, it was too expensive, and it would never make it". Then it was and HDTV - there was no need for it, it was too expensive, and it would never make it, Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
> 
> There are always skeptics. No harm no foul.


Oh please, comparing the skepticism around 4K to some supposed skepticism around color TV is ludicrous.

The difference between SD and HD was far greater than the difference between HD and 4K. To claim otherwise is to be sticking _your_ head in the sand. I've seen 4K and HD up close, and at normal viewing distances. The difference is maybe 10% as dramatic as the difference between analog SD on the typical cable company and the digital HD they started delivering. Thus the drive for the average person to want to upgrade will be a greatly diminished compared to how much they wanted to upgrade to HD.

Why you think 4K is such a big deal isn't a mystery, with a handle like "hdtvfan0001" you're obviously a videophile. What you want isn't necessarily what the masses will want, and if/when they don't you won't understand why any more than the audiophiles could never understand why SACD and DVD-A flopped, or why people have been willing to trade CD quality for MP3 quality - even when CD quality or better lossless formats like FLAC and ALAC are available.

I hate watching SD content. There's no way I'll ever feel the same about HD content, because 4K just isn't much of an upgrade beyond it. Would it be nice to have the choice? Sure. Am I going to upgrade my TV before it dies of natural causes to get it? No. Even if I had a 4K TV and equipment, and half of all content I could watch was 4K, I'd watch the 4K, but I wouldn't care if channels I watched were "only" HD in the same way I care about them being only SD today.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Oh please, comparing the skepticism around 4K to some supposed skepticism around color TV is ludicrous.
> 
> The difference between SD and HD was far greater than the difference between HD and 4K. To claim otherwise is to be sticking _your_ head in the sand. I've seen 4K and HD up close, and at normal viewing distances. The difference is maybe 10% as dramatic as the difference between analog SD on the typical cable company and the digital HD they started delivering. Thus the drive for the average person to want to upgrade will be a greatly diminished compared to how much they wanted to upgrade to HD.
> 
> ...


Yeah, 100 % agree and feel exactly the same.
Well said.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> And this is the reason why 4K will be a flop, at least for the forceable future


4K is not going to be a flop. Its not even really out yet and it already has a ton more interest and support and implementation then 3D ever did.

That being said, it does require new hardware: HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 AVR (from 4K BluRay at least) / 4K TV / new STB. I say new STB because I don't really see how 4K is broadcastable without switching to H.265. You can do 1 or 2 POC channels with MPEG4, but beyond that... H.265 is needed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> Oh please, comparing the skepticism around 4K to some supposed skepticism around color TV is ludicrous.


Actually...it's spot on....the same kind of "don't need it, costs too much, and it'll never happen" skepticism. "They" were wrong of course.

More important...I've already posted a number of threads that substantiate the industry momentum.

So disbelievers are always welcome to have their own perspective, but seem to ignore a lot of supporting information toward the direction of the industry and technology adoption. The goal is not change any minds...rather to inform and make up one own's mind. You'll never get total agreement about the future.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I've been commenting about the platform of 4K (including content), of which you correctly state the hardware is just _*part *_of the equation. Totally agree.
> 
> I also agree with you that even once 4K Ultra HDTVs are all over the place...there will still be plenty of people who watch 1080p (and perhaps even older content) . While I know of 4 people with 4K UltraHD TVs already, I also know of at least 2 people who still watch SD only on older TVs. That's just the way evolution happens.


I consider myself to be an early adopter, not a beta tester. There isn't a full bandwidth 4K / HDCP 2.2 chipset out yet (its either full bandwidth / 2.0 or partial bandwidth / 2.2), so until there is (probably 2015), I'm not cracking open my wallet.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

SledgeHammer said:


> I consider myself to be an early adopter, not a beta tester. There isn't a full bandwidth 4K / HDCP 2.2 chipset out yet (its either full bandwidth / 2.0 or partial bandwidth / 2.2), so until there is (probably 2015), I'm not cracking open my wallet.


Makes perfect sense. Establishing viable HDMI standards have also been an obstacle during the infancy of 4K.

Bandwidth is indeed another challenge, but not necessarily an obstacle. Your points are all very well taken and valid.

Most information points to 2015 being the transition year into overcoming remaining challenges. Those of us attending CES in January may get to see and learn some additional information on that topic.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually...it's spot on....the same kind of "don't need it, costs too much, and it'll never happen" skepticism. "They" were wrong of course.
> 
> More important...I've already posted a number of threads that substantiate the industry momentum.
> 
> So disbelievers are always welcome to have their own perspective, but seem to ignore a lot of supporting information toward the direction of the industry and technology adoption. The goal is not change any minds...rather to inform and make up one own's mind. You'll never get total agreement about the future.


Where are the people who said color TV will never happen? This sounds like a strawman you're just pulling out of thin air. The difference between color and B&W is pretty obvious, far larger than even the improvement from SD to HD. There would have been disagreements over how fast the transition happened, but I'll bet you can't find any newspaper articles or whatever claiming color TV will never catch on. At least not the modern NTSC version (the ones in the 50s using color wheels looked awful, good thing they didn't catch on)

You really don't understand the concept of degrees, do you? You think if something is "better", no matter by how little, the market will rush to it. That doesn't always happen, if the improvement is small then there isn't as much demand for it, no matter how much demand marketers will attempt to create.

You confuse industry hype, which is clearly based on the "problem" that the bulk of the SD->HD TV upgrade cycle is over, with consumer momentum. The masses aren't going to rush out and replace their perfectly operational HDTVs with 4K TVs, so the transition will happen slowly only as TVs die, and even once they own a 4K TV it doesn't mean people are willing to further increase their already high cable/satellite bill with a "4K access" fee they'll surely charge. They might use their 4K TV for Netflix, but most won't be willing to pay higher monthly fees for such a minor improvement.

As it is, Netflix has a lot high percentage of SD subscribers than there are percentage of people who only have SD TVs - some people with HDTVs aren't willing to pay ONE DOLLAR more to get their Netflix in HD!


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

damondlt said:


> The tvs prices are not the issues.
> It's the fact no one has 4K broadcasting.
> Prices of 4K Tvs are the least of the issues of it Becoming the norm.


No one was broadcasting in 1080p when it took off. The only available thing was very expensive blue rays...at 30 bucks a pop, and the players were > $200 (I know, I got one as a birthday present).. 1080p still took off as the prices came down. Then blu rays dropped, bargain bin $7.00 and new releases $15 to $20, instead of $30 and then blu ray players took a dive in price. Now they are $59 with Smarts.

4K sources may be slow to come (and certainly not broadcast tv and only limited satellite. But, the new 4K TV's will upconvert 1080 broadcasts. If the improvement is anything like 480P > 1080P quality, it will be a nice improvement....and when it is perceived as "free", i.e.. no premium for 4K, then sales will take off. 4K sources are a plus, but once the prices come way down, the upconversion and downloadable material will make them worth it.

At least, that's my bet. 3D is a lost cause, for one main reason: it is a specialty format. One cannot watch it for hours on end, without experiencing side effects. (tired eyes, headaches, etc). It is very un-natural in its presentation and thus makes the brain and eyes work too hard. Nice for a single movie, terrible for constant viewing. If 3D comes "free" with 4K, it will gain a bit of market share. Glassless or otherwise, it is not "comfortable" for full time viewing. If it's free, it will get some use. If not, it will struggle as it presently is doing. Some major box stores stopped carrying 3D tvs over a year ago...not a good sign.

For 4K, price is the issue. When it gets low it will grow. Then again, this is all speculation.(except for 3D, as it has flopped at least twice)


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> You confuse industry hype, which is clearly based on the "problem" that the bulk of the SD->HD TV upgrade cycle is over, with consumer momentum. The masses aren't going to rush out and replace their perfectly operational HDTVs with 4K TVs, so the transition will happen slowly only as TVs die, and even once they own a 4K TV it doesn't mean people are willing to further increase their already high cable/satellite bill with a "4K access" fee they'll surely charge. They might use their 4K TV for Netflix, but most won't be willing to pay higher monthly fees for such a minor improvement.


Industry "HYPE"
That's exactly what all of those links are.
Journalism at its best.
Even ESPN in those links already stated a channel is no where in the near future.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

hasan said:


> No one was broadcasting in 1080p when it took off. The only available thing was very expensive blue rays...at 30 bucks a pop, and the players were > $200 (I know, I got one as a birthday present).. 1080p still took off as the prices came down. Then blu rays dropped, bargain bin $7.00 and new releases $15 to $20, instead of $30 and then blu ray players took a dive in price. Now they are $59 with Smarts.
> 
> 4K sources may be slow to come (and certainly not broadcast tv and only limited satellite. But, the new 4K TV's will upconvert 1080 broadcasts. If the improvement is anything like 480P > 1080P quality, it will be a nice improvement....and when it is perceived as "free", i.e.. no premium for 4K, then sales will take off. 4K sources are a plus, but once the prices come way down, the upconversion and downloadable material will make them worth it.
> 
> ...


The 4K BluRay standard was rushed through the approval process and players are expected to hit the market by Xmas 2015 last I read.

I think you'd see a better improvment if they move to H.265 rather then just the resolution bump because they could stop compressing the pic so much.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hasan said:


> No one was broadcasting in 1080p when it took off. )


And nobody still is, and 1080p never really "took off".
Just because retailers force customers into 1080p tvs and Blu Ray players because that's all they carry, that's doesn't make it an industry demand.

I bet more people bought Blu Ray players for watching DVD and streaming Netflix and Hulu than Buying Blu Ray disks.

If a Manufacturer only makes 4K tvs, well then we are forced to buy them, doesn't mean that's the demand.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

damondlt said:


> The tvs prices are not the issues.
> It's the fact no one has 4K broadcasting.
> Prices of 4K Tvs are the least of the issues of it Becoming the norm.


Local affiliates dragged and are still dragging their feet getting into the HD age and they are not going to be overjoyed to pay for 4k equipment. Seeing as how there are a lot fewer station owners now than 10-15 years ago with increased consolidation endorsed by a do-nothing FCC, there will be less competitive pressure for anyone to go 4k. I predict OTA TV will die out before any broadcasting standard takes hold.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> You confuse industry hype, which is clearly based on the "problem" that the bulk of the SD->HD TV upgrade cycle is over, with consumer momentum.


Perhaps skeptical people should take the time to read and research this subject - they might just learn something new on this topic.

The comments about 1080p not taking off are downright hilarious.

There were a number of links provided just to make it easy for those unmotivated to really learn the facts. This included *on-topic* information regarding what the industry overall and also specific content delivery servers (besides DirecTV) are actually investing in for 4k UltraHD technology. Enjoy.



damondlt said:


> I bet more people bought Blu Ray players for watching DVD and streaming Netflix and Hulu than Buying Blu Ray disks.


One of the funniest (and ironic) parts of that information is that those specific providers are investing and in the process of delivering 4K. Had the linked information in a previous post actually been read...that would have been known.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

4k TVs will sell, simply because there will be few alternatives. The best electronics and sound systems will be built into 4k sets. The 1080p sets will be crap. If you want a TV with decent blacks, a reasonably good scaler, a high quality panel and cabinet, you'll have no choice but a 4k set.

As I said earlier, give me a choice between a $2500 HD OLED and a $2500 UHD LCD and I'll take the HD OLED every time.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Diana C said:


> 4k TVs will sell, simply because there will be few alternatives. The best electronics and sound systems will be built into 4k sets. The 1080p sets will be crap. If you want a TV with decent blacks, a reasonably good scaler, a high quality panel and cabinet, you'll have no choice but a 4k set.
> s
> As I said earlier, give me a choice between a $2500 HD OLED and a $2500 UHD LCD and I'll take the HD OLED every time.


Bingo! And when the 60" 4K TVs are $1300 and all over the place, they will sell. So will the 42, 47, 55 and above. It's not necessarily what is better, as you have noted, but what becomes marketable and ubiquitous. If 4K is mass produced such that a 60 can be bought at under $1500 (from a good company like Samsung)...not that every TV they make is great, but several are quite good from my experience, then the 4Ks will get purchased. Above 40" you have to look very hard to find a 720p TV. I think the time will come when you have to look hard to find a 1080p TV, if and only if the prices come down to the point that there is no perceived premium being paid for 4k.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The comments about 1080p not taking off are downright hilarious.


You think comments about 1080p broadcasts not taking off are hilarious? Who is broadcasting in 1080p? Directv has one channel doing so, I believe. Most cable providers have none. 1080p broadcast never took off, if you think it did I don't know what planet you're posting from.

You seem to be reading these articles you linked in a strange way if you think they mean that 4K is imminent. SNL talking about shooting some of their off-air content in 4K to future proof themselves sounds more like hedging one's bets than laying themselves on the line that 4K is the future. Given that SNL is network broadcast on OTA, you better be prepared to wait a LONG time before you see SNL in 4K, especially since the FCC is auctioning off channels 31-51 next year and the existing stations will have to crowd into what is left.

Furthermore, I hope you aren't expecting to see 4Kp60 at high quality for all this content you imagine is coming. Given that we never got 1080p, I don't know why you'd think you'll get the best 4K has to offer at a full 60 fps. If it takes off they'll be compressing the hell out of it, running at 30 fps or interlaced, or downrezzing/rescaling like Dish's 1440x1080 "HD lite".

You like what you see in the demos with pristine video, but that's at a bit rate 50-100% higher than it would be _physically possible_ for cable/satellite providers to deliver (too large to fit in a whole transponder/RF channel) and that form of delivery would only allow for a few channels on most providers, even on Directv it would be only three dozen if they devote the entire RDBS band to 4K. Compare what providers give you for HD to what you get on Blu Ray; that's at least the level of quality drop they're going to give you for 4K if it takes off. You'd be better off if it remains a niche, at least then they can devote a transponder per channel to deliver it in something approaching the quality you've seen in demos.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

hasan said:


> Bingo! And when the 60" 4K TVs are $1300 and all over the place, they will sell. So will the 42, 47, 55 and above. It's not necessarily what is better, as you have noted, but what becomes marketable and ubiquitous. If 4K is mass produced such that a 60 can be bought at under $1500 (from a good company like Samsung)...not that every TV they make is great, but several are quite good from my experience, then the 4Ks will get purchased. Above 40" you have to look very hard to find a 720p TV. I think the time will come when you have to look hard to find a 1080p TV, if and only if the prices come down to the point that there is no perceived premium being paid for 4k.


Somebody's on the right track. Nice.

The good news is we won't have to wait long to see how things turn out. No hype required.

Enjoy the ride.


----------



## gman0661 (Apr 22, 2014)

I have been looking at 4K TVs.I have always bought Sony and the Pic n Sound was looked n sound good, does anyone out there have a Sony4K or any other brand that you would notice a difference in pic quality and is Ultra HD the same as 4K


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

I don't see 4K being a total flop but I don't see it going main stream for a really long long time, it looks to me to be like the laserdisc, better than VHS but 99% of the population didn't care, or like the mighty DVD-A or SACD, audio sooo much better than a mp3 but again, very few cared.... and 15 years later crappy lossy MP3 is still king, 4K will be the same for the foreseeable future, even current blu-ray sales pale in comparison to current DVD sales......sadly half the country has their 1080P TV hooked up with composite yellow, white and red cables......

As they say in the gaming world, content *always* trumps picture quality....... 4K is going to need some serious content for it to be mainstream


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Shills gonna shill some 4K DirecTV! Dem' premium customers need a premium PQ.. Go team!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> You think comments about 1080p broadcasts not taking off are hilarious? Who is broadcasting in 1080p? Directv has one channel doing so, I believe. Most cable providers have none. 1080p broadcast never took off, if you think it did I don't know what planet you're posting from.
> 
> You seem to be reading these articles you linked in a strange way if you think they mean that 4K is imminent. SNL talking about shooting some of their off-air content in 4K to future proof themselves sounds more like hedging one's bets than laying themselves on the line that 4K is the future. Given that SNL is network broadcast on OTA, you better be prepared to wait a LONG time before you see SNL in 4K, especially since the FCC is auctioning off channels 31-51 next year and the existing stations will have to crowd into what is left.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I guess if they stick with MPEG4. H.265 can handle 4K easily. Roughly the same quality at 35% to 50% of the size of MPEG4. It would be a painful / costly transition I suppose, but DirecTV needs to move to a better compression and they did it before with MPEG2 -> MPEG4.

They should honestly just drop SD to free up more bandwidth. Who still has a 480i TV?

I think they keep SD around more so they can charge a $10/mo HD fee rather then to support the 17 customers who still watch SD.


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> They should honestly just drop SD to free up more bandwidth. Who still has a 480i TV?
> 
> I think they keep SD around more so they can charge a $10/mo HD fee rather then to support the 17 customers who still watch SD.


LOL! Most of my family still have SDTV's or old SD boxes connected to HDTV's, My grandparents have an old 18" dish with two old hughes receivers connected to it. Was just their last week, and even commented on it. I suppose soon directv will have to upgrade them but they have a lot of work to do here in oklahoma as thousands families around here are like my grandparents and have had their directv systems self installed since the 90's since satellite is the only option out in the country. Most of these country folk don't even have broadband internet. I know customers like this may only makeup a small percentage of the customer base when looking at the big picture but most are some of the oldest directv customers and will be needing everything upgraded, I am serious when I say some of my family if given a HD Receiver would need a RF modulator to get it to work with there old CRT TV.... These country folk live by if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality....


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

4K is progressive scan right? What about 8K? Is that interlaced or progressive? Did we finally do away with that interlaced bull sh!#? Not sure why 1080 was ever interlaced in the first place. The panels buffer and draw the image on the screen frame at a time anyway.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cypherx said:


> 4K is progressive scan right? What about 8K? Is that interlaced or progressive? Did we finally do away with that interlaced bull sh!#? Not sure why 1080 was ever interlaced in the first place. The panels buffer and draw the image on the screen frame at a time anyway.


All the 4K UltraHD sets I've seen have been progressive scan -and at a minimum of 120Hz refresh rates. You raise a good point...there have been a couple of 8K HDTV units already seen at CES, but only as "future" offerings (4-6 years from now).

In contrast, virtually every manufacturer has 4K UltraHD units on the market and in retail locations, and more models are on the way. The 4K Blu Ray units are also in roll-out mode. The fact is the U.S. is actually behind other parts of the world when it comes to adoption and availability of 4K.

Here's an interesting article regarding one writer's view on the trend to 4K and even 8K:

http://www.onlinereporter.com/2014/06/19/the-road-to-uhd-adoption-doesnt-stop-at-4k/

All this points to adoption being another "chicken & the egg" scenario. if 4K UltraHD TVs show signs of consumer purchase acceptance, content providers will be poised to provide more 4K content. Likewise, those consumers looking to buy a 4K UltraHD TV will look to find out what content is and will be available, sometime waiting to make the decision. It's important to note that nearly every article referencing both 3D adoption and 4K adoption for comparison states the 4K UltraHD scenario being "significantly different".

So news that DirecTV is committed to delivering 4K content (as well as Netflix, Comcast, and several others)...even if it is gradual...helps entice the value proposition to consumers to get on board the purchase train. Since 4K UltraHD TV presents today's 1080p content as well as (if not _a tiny bit_ better) than today''s 1080p units, there is really next to no risk in making the transition to a 4K TV.

There are also some technical issues in play (as others have mentioned)...which include HDMI standards for example. Those are expected to get ironed out in the months (not years) ahead. Manufacturers exhibiting at CES 2015 might reveal much more on that front.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I can tell you in my daily Amazon e-mail that starts off with "Customers who have shown an interest in electronics might like to check out the newest releases in televisions, laptop computers, and more." in the middle section there are two 4K TV's. This is every single day. They are pushing hard.


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I just took Amazon's click bait and there are 38 4K TV's in the 50-59 inch range alone already. Not too unreasonable prices either. For instance an LG 55" is $1499. I paid that for my 42" Samsung 720p Plasma in 2007. If I was willing to pay that then, then this price point is not too far off from paying that in the future.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cypherx said:


> I just took Amazon's click bait and there are 38 4K TV's in the 50-59 inch range alone already. Not too unreasonable prices either. For instance an LG 55" is $1499. I paid that for my 42" Samsung 720p Plasma in 2007. If I was willing to pay that then, then this price point is not too far off from paying that in the future.


And that's just the first wave of price reductions. Black Friday is not far off anymore, and after Jan 1, there is expected to be further drops...as new models appear on the market. Despite a few claims to the contrary...as HDTVs age, new customers come to market, and prices dropping even further...4K UltraHD TVs will become more commonplace.

Over the next year or two, 1080p HDTV's will become like 720p HDTV's are today - low market. Connected technology (like 4K Blu Ray and other devices) will further drive the momentum. There is also a flurry of new 4K UltraHD video camera models being released.

Since both content creators and content delivery providers (like DirecTV) have to plan ahead...by having them announce publicly their commitment to deliver 4K, it's pretty clear where they plan to be going forward.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Too bad about the lack of full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 chipsets. I would have rather seen a 6 month delay then release half assed implementations. That hurts adoption a bit. Remember when HD / 720i/p / 1080i/p first came out? Lots of half assed implementations / buggy stuff / stuff that didn't even work at all.

Why the manufacturers are releasing stuff that's going to not work with 4K bluray in a *year* is mind boggling.

Denon went with the full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.0 chipset. Unless the 4K blurays don't enforce HDCP 2.2 (which is unlikely, but possible), that shiny new HDMI 2.0 AVR you bought this year is going to be ready for the trash heap next year.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

The Samsung UHD TVs offer an upgrade path with interface upgrade modules. That makes them more likely to function correctly as the standards are finalized. I have a cabinet issue that limits me to 40" sets, so I'm tempted by Samsung 40" almost full featured model, since most brands seem to be ignoring that size. Integration with my Samsung phone is anther plus, but there are still a few negative issues showing up in customer reviews. I hope they are sorted out in a few months.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I don't doubt that there'll be 4K TV's in many households before too long. What I do doubt is there'll be a whole lot of actual 4K content available to watch on them, the good news is most people won't know the difference anyway. After all how many people think just because they have an HD tv means everything they watch on it is automatically HD? Even people who think they're a little tech savy will try to tell you how they think they're watching 1080P HD on their tv even though it's being broadcast in either 720P or 1080i.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tsmacro said:


> Even people who think they're a little tech savy will try to tell you how they think they're watching 1080P HD on their tv even though it's being broadcast in either 720P or 1080i.


That comparison pales when contrasting 1080p to 4k - with 4K content that is. But your point is well taken that content is the key. Now we can all sit back for a bit and see when it shows up (which it will in multiple ways and via multiple providers). That part is probably 1-2 years away, which is why 2015 will start the migration and 2016 will be even more substantial. In 2 years (late 2016), if 4K flies...we'll all know it by then.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That comparison pales when contrasting 1080p to 4k - with 4K content that is. But your point is well taken that content is the key. Now we can all sit back for a bit and see when it shows up (which it will in multiple ways and via multiple providers). That part is probably 1-2 years away, which is why 2015 will start the migration and 2016 will be even more substantial. In 2 years (late 2016), if 4K flies...we'll all know it by then.


You are still dreaming 4K is not going to be the normal standard. 
For TV sales that's it.

What channel can I find 1080p Full HD, besides PPV, that quite frankly isn't that all impressive.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> You are still dreaming 4K is not going to be the normal standard.
> For TV sales that's it.
> 
> What channel can I find 1080p Full HD, besides PPV, that quite frankly isn't that all impressive.


OK....we get it..you won't be getting 4K during the next 5-10 years.

Despite plenty of information made available through convenient links already posted, the same naysayer comments are being repeated. From the looks of other posters on this topic...there are plenty of alternative views.

So as far as *DirecTV announcing they will offer 4K content*...we return this thread to its regularly-scheduled programming....


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

damondlt said:


> You are still dreaming 4K is not going to be the normal standard.
> For TV sales that's it.
> What channel can I find 1080p Full HD, besides PPV, that quite frankly isn't that all impressive.


I could see directv skipping 1080p altogether and going with 4K at lease with sports. I have no trouble with current HD TV but would jump at chance to watch soccer in 4K.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

yosoyellobo said:


> I could see directv skipping 1080p altogether and going with 4K at lease with sports. I have no trouble with current HD TV but would jump at chance to watch soccer in 4K.


That's not Directv's decision, directv can't make something 4K if it's not.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> OK....we get it..you won't be getting 4K during the next 5-10 years.
> 
> Despite plenty of information made available through convenient links already posted, the same naysayer comments are being repeated. From the looks of other posters on this topic...there are plenty of alternative views.
> 
> So as far as *DirecTV announcing they will offer 4K content*...we return this thread to its regularly-scheduled programming....


Yep they will most likely one or 2 PPVs, or VOD that will take a huge amount of data, and knowing directv it will take an eternity to download. 
And cost $14.99. LMAO!

Can't wait!


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

damondlt said:


> That's not Directv's decision, directv can't make something 4K if it's not.


If you build it they will come. The day directv has available the capacity to offer 4K it will not be on a limited basis. If the content providers choose not to use it is another story.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

yosoyellobo said:


> If you build it they will come. The day directv has available the capacity to offer 4K it will not be on a limited basis. If the content providers choose not to use it is another story.


But it's not 2 years, it's about 10.
Think about the steps that aren't even complete in the HD world now.

4K is the next step, for retail stores, it's barely a step among providers or networks.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

damondlt said:


> But it's not 2 years, it's about 10.
> Think about the steps that aren't even complete in the HD world now.
> 
> 4K is the next step, for retail stores, it's barely a step among providers or networks.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

yosoyellobo said:


> If you build it they will come. The day directv has available the capacity to offer 4K it will not be on a limited basis. If the content providers choose not to use it is another story.


A key player in all of this has got to be Disney/ESPN. If they go 4K in a substantial way, that'll be a big boost to the whole effort.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Well, it's true that as far as DirecTV goes, your only option for 1080p is PPV and VOD. How long it takes to download all depends on your setup. If you have a 5Mb down internet connection and a wireless G bridge, then yeah, might as well not even try to get VOD. If you have 50Mb+ and an AC bridge, it shouldn't be that long before your buffer bar turns green.

As I've mentioned before, 1080p broadcasts & 4Kp broadcasts are feasible, just not using MPEG4.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> A key player in all of this has got to be Disney/ESPN. If they go 4K in a substantial way, that'll be a big boost to the whole effort.


Good point...they carry A LOT of clout.

As indicated in the link I provided earlier...ESPN has already introduced 4K cameras in a number of places already in anticipation of their plans...ESPN has 4K UltraHD on their roadmap.

Here's the piece just to make it easy to find:

http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/68238/pagano-espn-plans-to-be-the-4k-leader


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Interesting read. Outlines some of the hurdles, and I had missed the part where they already have cameras in the field.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, I guess if they stick with MPEG4. H.265 can handle 4K easily. Roughly the same quality at 35% to 50% of the size of MPEG4. It would be a painful / costly transition I suppose, but DirecTV needs to move to a better compression and they did it before with MPEG2 -> MPEG4.
> 
> They should honestly just drop SD to free up more bandwidth. Who still has a 480i TV?
> 
> I think they keep SD around more so they can charge a $10/mo HD fee rather then to support the 17 customers who still watch SD.


At the moment, h.265 only achieves that level of compression (and it is a 35% to 50% REDUCTION, or 50% to 65% of the size, not "35% to 50% of the size of MPEG4") by doing multiple passes of the data, which takes anywhere from 2x to 5x the running time (IOW, a 2 hour movie can take up to 10 hours to compress). That is okay for PPV, VOD and BluRay, but it it won't work for live broadcasting. The same thing happened with h.264 (MPEG4) - it took years after the standard ratified before the first real-time encoders came out, and they didn't produce as small or as high quality output as the multi-pass encoders (they still don't). The currently available real time h.265 encoders either don't compress much at all and/or are starting out with content that has a much lower resolution, and therefore a much lower data rate (like the ones in smartphones).

I'd actually be surprised if the currently available real time h.265 encoders could compress a 4K stream to anything appreciably smaller than MPEG4 would. Even when h.265 is doing it's best, it still only gets a 4K stream down to double a 1080P stream. This means that to support a 3840x2160 video stream at 30 frames per second requires up to 25Mbps and at 60fps can take as much as 40Mbps (which is why 60fps UHD requires HDMI 2.0 equipment). By comparison, an OTA broadcast channel maxes out below 20Mbps, and cable TV QAM channels aren't much higher, so none of them are capable of carrying UHD at 60fps, and can only barely manage 30fps,once high efficiency real time encoders become available. As was mentioned earlier, DirecTV COULD carry 60fps UHD by dedicating a transponder to it, and you need 60fps for sports.

The TVs may become the standard, simply because once the prices come down they will be all you can buy. But I seriously doubt anyone will be clamoring for them because they want to see all the cool content. The only decent source will BluRay, and maybe VOD/PPV if you have a really fast internet connection.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Yeah, I guess if they stick with MPEG4. H.265 can handle 4K easily. Roughly the same quality at 35% to 50% of the size of MPEG4. It would be a painful / costly transition I suppose, but DirecTV needs to move to a better compression and they did it before with MPEG2 -> MPEG4.
> 
> They should honestly just drop SD to free up more bandwidth. Who still has a 480i TV?
> 
> I think they keep SD around more so they can charge a $10/mo HD fee rather then to support the 17 customers who still watch SD.


You grossly underestimate the increase in data size. There are hard limits as to the maximum data rate that can be used: for Directv a single 24/36 MHz transponder, for cable TV a single 6 MHz QAM channel, for OTA a 6 MHz ATSC channel. Directv/CATV each provide around 40 Mbps, ATSC around 20 Mbps.

However, those are maximums, no one devotes a whole transponder or whole QAM channel to a single HD channel. In order to deliver all the HD channels customers expect, Directv fits 5 or 6 HD channels into a single transponder! Thus, the bit rates permitted per channel are generally less than 10 Mbps. The bit rate allocated to individual channels in a transponder can vary depending on need, but when you have that many channels sharing the same 40 Mbps, peaks will rarely exceed 10 Mbps, and not by much.

Those bit rates support either 720p or 1080i MPEG4 HD on Directv. 4Kp60 has 9x more pixels than 720p (and even more data if using a higher bpp to get a larger color space) and 4x more pixels and 2.5x more frames than Blu Ray movies, which are 1080p24. Sure, HEVC only uses 35-50% of the bit rate for equivalent quality (the graphs I've seen all show around 50%, 35% sounds pretty optimistic) but HEVC needs to do a lot better to make up for all those extra pixels and extra frames if you hope to reach 4Kp60.

Blu Ray movies have a data rate of up to 48 Mbps - more than Directv could possibly provide. Directv can't even deliver a 1080p24 picture at full Blu Ray quality if they used a whole transponder, though they could come close, as could cable. OTA broadcast would have to cut down the quality in a major way to fit. The 4K Blu Ray standard will allow data rates in excess of 100 Mbps for HEVC encoded 4Kp24 movies! That's pretty similar to the demos that are being shown (the one I saw I asked the tech guy what the bit rate was, and he said it was VBR from 80 to 112 Mbps) Directv simply can't touch that, not even close, not even if they devoted a whole transponder to a 4K channel - and that's for only 24 fps, let alone the 60 fps people would like for live action like sports.

The quality is going to have to be cut down to fit into a single transponder, and since Directv will have only 36 transponders available in the RDBS bands that it is assumed they'll use for 4K, there would be a maximum of 36 4K channels with a quality well below that of the 4K demos people are seeing in stores. If you want more than 36 channels, then they'll have to start sharing those transponders, and the quality is going to take another big hit.

So please, stop dreaming that HEVC is somehow going to make 4Kp60 possible at Blu Ray quality. If you get 4Kp60 at all, it will be nothing like the quality of the demos you're seeing, even if 4K is a niche and Directv can devote whole transponders to no more than 36 channels.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

I recently went to Best Buy with the intention of buying a 4K TV. After taking a good look at the cost versus availability of programing, I decided to wait until my next purchase to take another look at 4K. I ended up with a Sony 60" Smart TV, instead.

I think what ever 4K programing comes out within the next year or so, it is going to be on a pay or PPV basis. We could get lucky and see a channel devoted to 4K, but the content will be limited to start out with. Back when HD first came out, PBS was one of the first to provide it, but it was the same shows looped over and over.

I do look forward to 4K, because the PQ is so much more detailed, but I felt if I purchased one now, I would be ready for my next set by the time 4K started to go big time.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Both Diana and Slice nailed it. Facts.

Thanks for the posts. Great summaries.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Perhaps the new sats come into play over time....as well as new tools for compressed but clean transmission for reduced bandwidth per channel.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

loudo said:


> I recently went to Best Buy with the intention of buying a 4K TV. After taking a good look at the cost versus availability of programing, I decided to wait until my next purchase to take another look at 4K. I ended up with a Sony 60" Smart TV, instead.
> 
> I think what ever 4K programing comes out within the next year or so, it is going to be on a pay or PPV basis. We could get lucky and see a channel devoted to 4K, but the content will be limited to start out with. Back when HD first came out, PBS was one of the first to provide it, but it was the same shows looped over and over.
> 
> I do look forward to 4K, because the PQ is so much more detailed, but I felt if I purchased one now, I would be ready for my next set by the time 4K started to go big time.


Makes sense.

On Sat...all channels are pay per view...but I know what you meant. With ESPN and others committed...we'll see it. It appears the only "debate" is when.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Good point...they carry A LOT of clout.


We're talking about the same Disney that is currently all in for 720p?


> As indicated in the link I provided earlier...ESPN has already introduced 4K cameras in a number of places already in anticipation of their plans...ESPN has 4K UltraHD on their roadmap.


3D was firmly on ESPN's road map and they made a committed effort towards delivering it. Now it is gone. 3D suffered similar issues that I suspect 4K will also fall prey to: there were multiple standards and it was introduced to a market that ultimately didn't value the additional effort.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Makes sense.
> 
> On Sat...all channels are pay per view...but I know what you meant. With ESPN and others committed...we'll see it. It appears the only "debate" is when.


You'll see live broadcast in 4K when IPTV becomes a reality, and most people have 100Mbit/second broadband. I wouldn't hold my breath. The first point is inevitable, and will happen way before the second. Given that the average broadband speed in the US is only 10 Mbps (and we just hit that this year, it was only 8 Mbps last year) we have a long way to go. At the current rate of 25% improvement each year, it will take 36 years to reach 100Mbps. While I recognize it won't take that long, it is also not happening anytime soon. Until then, access to true 4k live broadcasts (such as what ESPN might deliver) will be restricted to those with FiOS or DOCSIS 3.0 (and those than can afford such a connection).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Perhaps the new sats come into play over time....as well as new tools for compressed but clean transmission for reduced bandwidth per channel.


We're already assuming the impact of the new satellites - they will provide the new RDBS bands everyone is assuming will be used for 4K. HEVC is the "new tool for compressed but clean transmission for reduced bandwidth per channel". The MPEG aren't likely to come up with anything better that makes a significant impact for a long time, and if they do, Directv will keep using HEVC for 4K anyway, for the same reason they still use MPEG2 for SD.

Theoretically Directv could use 8PSK modulation for 4K transponders like they do with the HD locals spotbeams. That would bump the bit rate up from around 40 Mbps to around 60 Mbps per transponder, at the cost of reduced margin for rain fade. It works well for locals because spot beams are broadcast at higher power, and they really had no choice as they needed the additional bandwidth to deliver all the locals in larger markets. There would be no reason to use 8PSK for 4K at first so long as there aren't that many channels, but eventually there might be no choice if 4K becomes as popular as you think, and they need to maximize the bandwidth for it.

In a few years, when MPEG2 SD channels are discontinued, that will free up more bandwidth. I think it is pretty likely they'll move a lot of the HD channels to 101 at that time, but doing so would fre up bandwidth currently used for HD on 99/103. However, there's no guarantee it would be used for 4K, rather than allocating more to HD to improve its quality since that's where the bulk of their customer base will be regardless of how successful 4K is.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I can tell you in my area, and I'm sure many others, a 50 mbps service cost $120 a month. 
And we can't even get 100 mbps.
Not everyone lives in HDTVfan world, where Comcast , Verizon, and Time Warner off 100 mbps services for less than $100.
It cost me already $58 per month for 10 mbps.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> We're talking about the same Disney that is currently all in for 720p?
> 3D was firmly on ESPN's road map and they made a committed effort towards delivering it. Now it is gone. 3D suffered similar issues that I suspect 4K will also fall prey to: there were multiple standards and it was introduced to a market that ultimately didn't value the additional effort.


What are the "multiple standards" for 4K? Yeah, there are slightly different resolutions (4096x2160 for movies instead of 3840x2160, and a few others) but that can be handled by cutting off the edges or scaling (the iPhone 6 Plus demonstrates that the impact of scaling between two extremely high resolutions is almost impossible to see - it renders at 2208x1242 and downsamples to a 1920x1080 display)

HD succeeded despite multiple standards - 720p, 1080i, 1080p, and those were a lot more different than the 4K resolutions. I think your second point is valid though, the market won't sufficiently value the additional quality of 4K. It just isn't that big of a jump, nowhere near the massive improvement HD offered.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

It is not 4k so much as it is HEVC. Version 1.0 of h.265 only supports 8 or 10 bpp sample size (DirecTV sends HD with an 8 bpp sample size). Version 2 (ratified in the middle of this year) adds support for deeper color depth (which would increase the data rate). I'll bet that most UHD samples are using 16 bpp.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> What are the "multiple standards" for 4K? Yeah, there are slightly different resolutions (4096x2160 for movies instead of 3840x2160, and a few others) but that can be handled by cutting off the edges or scaling (the iPhone 6 Plus demonstrates that the impact of scaling between two extremely high resolutions is almost impossible to see - it renders at 2208x1242 and downsamples to a 1920x1080 display)


As with 3D, it wasn't just about the resolution but the delivery standards. If you'll recall, they all used MPEG but some were coded top-and-bottom or side-by-side while SENSIO Hi-Fi and Blu-ray used full frames and there were issues with some of the earliest 3DTVs because of it.

4K has different issues related to making it not chomp bandwidth so there are likely still several standardization issues that still need to be ironed out.

My biggest fear is that all 4K content will be 24fps and that's going to go over like a lead balloon with the seared retina plasma fans when it comes to action sequences. I've observed that a lot of the 4K imagery currently being demonstrated is relatively static.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> As with 3D, it wasn't just about the resolution but the delivery standards. If you'll recall, they all used MPEG but some were coded top-and-bottom or side-by-side while SENSIO Hi-Fi and Blu-ray used full frames and there were issues with some of the earliest 3DTVs because of it.
> 
> 4K has different issues related to making it not chomp bandwidth so there are likely still several standardization issues that still need to be ironed out.
> 
> My biggest fear is that all 4K content will be 24fps and that's going to go over like a lead balloon with the seared retina plasma fans when it comes to action sequences. I've observed that a lot of the 4K imagery currently being demonstrated is relatively static.


Well, I hope you are wrong, but think you are right except for the last paragraph. If it doesn't handle action (sports at the forefront), it won't fly. Well, you are saying that, but I think it'll be put out in a format that does handle action.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> The last few times I've been to a movie, the glow and sound of cell phones has really enhanced the experience. Not counting the people talking.


Don't forget the sticky feet.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Wait, wait, don't tell me: _*This thread has a topic!?! *_
> 
> _*I do look forward to 4K content in any way, shape or form.*_


I'm gonna buy one. Just can't decide between the Samsung and the Sony. And I'm waiting for the price to come down, of course.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

damondlt said:


> So in 2 years , all the networks will be broadcasting in 4K and putting out 4K.
> Yeah okay.
> 
> No way ! HD TV has been out over 10 years, an still no one even broadcast in 1080p.
> ...


Ah, but NF does 1080p in a lot of their content. Don't overlook them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> No one made your posted _*re-statements*_...you changed/exaggerated what was originally said.
> 
> The "new normal" does not mean "all the networks" or "all TVs". It means commonplace/mainstream (in 2 years).
> 
> ...


I've got two 4K upscalers just waiting...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

cypherx said:


> I do see 4k TV's coming down in price quicker than I thought, however I would be wary of how SD & HD would look on them since that is basically everything we would watch at the moment. I know SD looks horrible on HD TV's because it's not the panel's native resolution. Just like a computer LCD monitor, if you don't run at the native resolution, its blurry. I guess I would have to see some of these in person.


I just saw a side by side comparison of Samsung TVs, one 1080p and one 4K. Absolutely no difference in 1080p. The 1080p set cost just over $1500 and the 4K was just over $3100. I was worried about that, now I'm satisfied. Just let the prices drop and I'm in.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Somebody's on the right track. Nice.
> 
> The good news is we won't have to wait long to see how things turn out. No hype required.
> 
> Enjoy the ride.


_*Hasan*_ is usually (always?) right. I'll stick with his opinions and what I've seen.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Ah, but NF does 1080p in a lot of their content. Don't overlook them.


Netflix isn't broadcast though, we were talking about the utter lack of broadcast 1080p - i.e. cable, satellite and OTA. Netflix will probably be the major 4K source, since many people already go to them for movies, and a few TV shows that want to gain some early buzz will jump on board (before "produced in 4K" makes people yawn)

Is 4K a success if it catches on for Netflix movies and a few TV series, at least for those with sufficient internet speeds, and Directv carries 4K VOD, 4K PPV, a 4K HBO channel, a 4K Showtime channel, a 4K ESPN that mostly plays reruns and may end up dying like ESPN 3D, along with a dozen or so other random 4K channels with mostly repeats or upscaled HD due to lack of content? That's how I think it'll end up.

While Netflix and the movie studios will consider 4K a success, I think cable/satellite providers and the networks will have a different opinion. TV makers will consider it a mixed success, because prices will drop to the point where there's almost no difference between a 4K and 1080p TV in a couple years, so they'll sell millions of them but won't get the big profit windfall they were hoping for trying to sell it as a premium feature people will be willing to pay a lot more to get.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

damondlt said:


> But it's not 2 years, it's about 10.Think about the steps that aren't even complete in the HD world now.4K is the next step, for retail stores, it's barely a step among providers or networks.


If I buy a 4K TV and in 10 years there is still no no content on tv I am pretty sure that I will recover at least the cost through some class action suit.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> ...TV makers will consider it a mixed success, because prices will drop to the point where there's almost no difference between a 4K and 1080p TV in a couple years, so they'll sell millions of them but won't get the big profit windfall they were hoping for trying to sell it as a premium feature people will be willing to pay a lot more to get.


The TV manufacturers are getting their windfall profits now from the early adopters. Next year will probably be the peak, profit wise. After that, volume and revenue will grow, but profits will be flat for a year or two, and then start to decline. That's when they will start talking about 8K or 4K OLED, depending on which falls below the cost of a new car first.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Not that you could sue for that, but if there was a class action, based on all the class actions I've ever been a part of you'd get either get a check for $11.68 or a certificate for $50 off the price of your next 4K TV, and the lawyers running the class action would collect $120 million. :righton:


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

The pros and cons of 4K sound so familiar to discussions when HDTVs first came out. They did catch on, but look how many years it took, and how many times they had to move the digital deadline. I remember buying my first HDTV, a NEC rear projection. I had it for a long time before I got to see anything in HD. The first thing I saw was the PBS HD loop that lasted for a while. Then about a year later I got HBO in HD, via my 12 ft dish, on C-Band.

I am sure that we will begin to see some 4K content soon, but with the amount of bandwidth a 4K channel requires, it will take some kind of new delivery technology before it goes big time.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

yosoyellobo said:


> If I buy a 4K TV and in 10 years there is still no no content on tv I am pretty sure that I will recover at least the cost through some class action suit.


On what grounds?
You don't have a legal leg to stand on.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mexican-bum said:


> LOL! Most of my family still have SDTV's or old SD boxes connected to HDTV's, My grandparents have an old 18" dish with two old hughes receivers connected to it. Was just their last week, and even commented on it. I suppose soon directv will have to upgrade them but they have a lot of work to do here in oklahoma as thousands families around here are like my grandparents and have had their directv systems self installed since the 90's since satellite is the only option out in the country. Most of these country folk don't even have broadband internet. I know customers like this may only makeup a small percentage of the customer base when looking at the big picture but most are some of the oldest directv customers and will be needing everything upgraded, I am serious when I say some of my family if given a HD Receiver would need a RF modulator to get it to work with there old CRT TV.... These country folk live by if it ain't broke don't fix it mentality....


Yeah perhaps so ....

But I guess I'll have to tip my hat to Dish Network for their gutsy decision on this issue. Dam the torpedoes, they appear to be going all out to eliminate all remaining MPEG-2 only receivers on there network by the end of 2015.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/214566-satellite-changes-coming-may-31st-2015/?p=3297553

Wish DIRECTV could do a crash program like that.

In fairness though, it probably wouldn't be practical since Dish only needs to do this on their western arc and thus a much smaller scale is involved than what DIRECTV would require to crash convert their SD subscriber/receiver base ...


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Diana C said:


> *4k TVs will sell, simply because there will be few alternatives.* The best electronics and sound systems will be built into 4k sets. The 1080p sets will be crap. If you want a TV with decent blacks, a reasonably good scaler, a high quality panel and cabinet, you'll have no choice but a 4k set.
> 
> As I said earlier, give me a choice between a $2500 HD OLED and a $2500 UHD LCD and I'll take the HD OLED every time.


Yep, manufacturers like the KISS principle. They like to keep their model selection small and not filled with old technologies.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

damondlt said:


> On what grounds?
> You don't have a legal leg to stand on.


I will not be suing especially as I would only get a 4K TV if the sports channels sign on to provide content. Those who do buy 4K TV migth think differently. As for having a legal to stand on since when do lawyers need to have one.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah perhaps so ....
> 
> But I guess I'll have to tip my hat to Dish Network for their gutsy decision on this issue. Dam the torpedoes, they appear to be going all out to eliminate all remaining MPEG-2 only receivers on there network by the end of 2015.
> 
> ...


It isn't clear from what tsmacro posted in that thread that Dish will have them all migrated by the end of 2015. At least I don't think so, based on "Additional DMAs are being migrated on a reactive basis only, but these customers will not be receiving migration letters at this time". It sounds like there will be more to come, and one would think if the letter comes later the deadline will come later, out until sometime in 2016.

Dish appears to be a bit further along than Directv, but Directv has a lot of new bandwidth coming online so recovering the bandwidth "wasted" on MPEG2 isn't as pressing a concern.

Do you know of a post in the Dish forums or link somewhere else that explains exactly what satellites they have, what they're used for, and if they have any new ones coming online in the next couple years? From what I've ever seen, things are a lot more complicated over there with way more satellite positions, but I'm curious to understand it better.


----------



## mexican-bum (Feb 26, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah perhaps so ....
> 
> But I guess I'll have to tip my hat to Dish Network for their gutsy decision on this issue. Dam the torpedoes, they appear to be going all out to eliminate all remaining MPEG-2 only receivers on there network by the end of 2015.
> 
> ...


I thought they were only eliminating QPSK receivers, 8PSK mpeg2 receivers will remain for the time being.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Do you know of a post in the Dish forums or link somewhere else that explains exactly what satellites they have, what they're used for, and if they have any new ones coming online in the next couple years? From what I've ever seen, things are a lot more complicated over there with way more satellite positions, but I'm curious to understand it better.


There has not been a launch for a while so it has been mostly quiet on the DISH side for satellites. The next satellite launches next year and will be a "spare" for an existing satellite. No increase of bandwidth is planned. There have been a few ideas floated over the past couple of years, but status quo as far as satellite locations and bandwidth seems to be the future.

DISH has two arcs ... Eastern Arc is generally for the east and central part of the country, Western Arc is for most of the country. There are overlaps. Eastern Arc is all modern receivers that can handle 8PSK and MPEG4 - so that is "done" as far as conversion goes. Western Arc still has all the QPSK MPEG2 channels needed to serve older receivers and not a lot of space for anything new. What space is available is being used. Internationals are on a different satellite.

It could be said that DISH is ahead of DirecTV on conversion because they have Eastern Arc fully converted. But they are also behind because of the issues on Western Arc. It appears the next move is changing to 8PSK transponders instead of QPSK which will give DISH ~50% more space on each of the current SD transponders ... three SD transponders become two and one transponder is freed up for new HD. Do that enough times and DISH will have plenty of space ... but the cost is getting rid of QPSK equipment.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Given that the notice is addressed to DMAs in the east, I guess the customers getting them have old installs that are pointed at the western arc and/or still have MPEG2/QPSK hardware. This will get them upgraded to the eastern arc "standard". It doesn't sound like they're addressing the MPEG2/QPSK receivers in the western arc at all, and may not even be addressing everyone in the east, so there will be a long way yet to go.

Having begun the process puts them ahead of Directv at this juncture, but it doesn't sound nearly so aggressive as HoTat2 was suggesting. I read his post as saying that Dish would have their MPEG2/SD conversion completed by the end of next year.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Given that the notice is addressed to DMAs in the east, I guess the customers getting them have old installs that are pointed at the western arc and/or still have MPEG2/QPSK hardware. This will get them upgraded to the eastern arc "standard". It doesn't sound like they're addressing the MPEG2/QPSK receivers in the western arc at all, and may not even be addressing everyone in the east, so there will be a long way yet to go.
> 
> Having begun the process puts them ahead of Directv at this juncture, but it doesn't sound nearly so aggressive as HoTat2 was suggesting. I read his post as saying that Dish would have their MPEG2/SD conversion completed by the end of next year.


No, read the notice carefully again;

The process is stated to involve *two* types of migration needed due to their western arc going all MPEG-4;

The "QPSK Migration" category appears to be for all SD MPEG-2/QPSK receivers, whether you are in an EA locals market or not. This is to be completed by May of 2015

Then there's the "Eastern Migration" category which involves SD only subscribers in certain local DMAs that are "officially EA," yet are pointed at the WA as their locals are duplicated their. These not only need to upgrade equipment, but have their "antenna flipped" (and likely upgraded too) to the EA as well since their locals will only be located there now and no longer duplicated in QPSK/MPEG-2 on the WA.

These are given more time to complete their upgrade though, until the end of 2015, because of the necessary additional "antenna flip."


----------



## cypherx (Aug 27, 2010)

I know that I cannot see Dish's "Eastern Arc" due to a dense tree line on my property. I could see the "Western Arc" but not have access to HD Locals. Thus I went with DirecTV in the first place.

To wrap around pertaining to the topic, anyone know Dish's position for 4K broadcasts? How is their bandwidth aligned to support such a package in comparison to DirecTV? With DirecTV we know of D14 and D15 on the schedule. We know also that at some point if they ever would convert MPEG2 to MPEG4 (or eliminate SD entirely and just downconvert HD)... DirecTV is in a good position bandwidth wise. Is Dish in such a good position?

Granted that both providers could use the internet to deliver 4k files, but what receivers can play them back? I know Broadcom's new BCM7252 SoC is powering the HEVC 4K movement for other providers in the world, but I don't recall DirecTV having this processor in any of its lineups. Unless that is in the new H44-500 that appeared in redh.com/dtv firmware watcher.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Dam the torpedoes, they appear to be going all out to eliminate all remaining MPEG-2 only receivers on there network by the end of 2015.


You give them a little too much credit. What they are eliminating is receivers that can't do 8PSK as opposed to the ones that are limited to MPEG-2.

The other guys aren't afraid to differentiate models and there are still a full complement of MPEG-2 boxes that aren't going away (311, 512 DVR and 625 Duo DVR) as part of this campaign.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cypherx said:


> To wrap around pertaining to the topic, anyone know Dish's position for 4K broadcasts?


They have been relatively silent on the issue.


> How is their bandwidth aligned to support such a package in comparison to DirecTV?


Dish has narrower transponders but they are committed to 8PSK (which may be an advantage of using Ku). I'm guessing that they've figured out how to make up for not having 50% wider transponders at least.


> Granted that both providers could use the internet to deliver 4k files, but what receivers can play them back?


This shouldn't be a big deal as the number of 4K users that need to be upgraded should be relatively small compared to what it will take to rid the subscriber base of SD-only equipment.

It seems likely to me that while they'll offer some content for satellite download (versus real-time) I don't think there will be enough uptake for a while to justify carving out half a transponder for pre-recorded content.

HEVC is great at compression efficiency but it is computationally intensive to play and twice as expensive as h.264 to encode for the same content. I was reading last night where the theory is that software decoding on a computer will require at least a 4 core i7 CPU. One person was conjecturing that playing an entire movie on a gonzo laptop won't happen without being plugged in to shore power. So much for maintaining Energy Star ratings.

This brings up another issue that has been bothering me:

Much has been said about how awesome h.265 is vs h.264 is on the same content (typically 35-50% better) many seem to have forgotten that the content it will be operating on is at least (when compared against 720p) four times as large. If DIRECTV can get six HD channels on a single transponder will they get even two 4K channels? The economies of multiplexing start getting thin I would imagine.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I actually made that point a page or two back. Actually, since nearly all broadcast HD is 720p/60 or 1080i/60 (which is the equivalent of 1080p/30), the UHD streams are 4 times as large only if we are talking about 2160p/30. If we assume that some channels at least will use 2160p/60, those streams will be 8 times as large as 1080i/60. So, even at the optimum level of h.265 compression, a 2160p/60 stream will be 4 times the size of 1080i/60 or 720p/60.

So, you can fit 3 2160p/30 streams on a DirecTV Ka transponder, but only 1 2160p/60 stream (with enough space left over for 2 HD channels, or perhaps more since you would also be compressing the HD streams with h.265). The fewer channels that are being multiplexed together, the less advantage you get (statistically, the more channels you have, the greater the odds that when one hits a bit rate peak another will be in a trough). 

As a rule of thumb, and again assuming you can really hit the 50% reduction over MPEG4 promised by h.265, a 2160p/30 stream will require between 10 and 20 Mbits/sec and 2160p/60 double that. For movies shot at 24fps, yielding a 2160p/24 stream, you would need about 8 to 16 Mbits/sec. However, some films are shot digitally at 48fps. When distributed for TV they will probably be down-converted to 24fps, but one would assume that the film maker chose to use 48fps for a reason, and altering the frame rate may be perceived as similar to changing the aspect ratio - it is not what the film maker envisioned.

One other thing to keep in mind - h.265's advantage over h.264 (MPEG4) is greatest with higher resolution images. That's where the 35% to 50% ranges comes from. It is 35% better when the source in 480p, and about 50% better with UHD. 1080p comes out about 45% smaller and 720p about 40% less.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

So bottom line, 4K won't be the Norm come 2016?

Except in terms of TV sales.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> So bottom line, 4K won't be the Norm come 2016?
> 
> Except in terms of TV sales.


I think you've answered that question a dozen times yourself! Without defining "the norm"! No, it won't be the broadcast norm for almost all definitions of "norm".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> I actually made that point a page or two back. Actually, since nearly all broadcast HD is 720p/60 or 1080i/60 (which is the equivalent of 1080p/30), the UHD streams are 4 times as large only if we are talking about 2160p/30. If we assume that some channels at least will use 2160p/60, those streams will be 8 times as large as 1080i/60. So, even at the optimum level of h.265 compression, a 2160p/60 stream will be 4 times the size of 1080i/60 or 720p/60.
> 
> So, you can fit 3 2160p/30 streams on a DirecTV Ka transponder, but only 1 2160p/60 stream (with enough space left over for 2 HD channels, or perhaps more since you would also be compressing the HD streams with h.265). The fewer channels that are being multiplexed together, the less advantage you get (statistically, the more channels you have, the greater the odds that when one hits a bit rate peak another will be in a trough).
> 
> ...


When you compare those 4K bit rates to 720p/1080i bit rates for existing Directv channels, that implies the 4K channels have a similar quality loss due to compression. They'd be higher resolution, but not even remotely like what a 4K Blu Ray (or the 4K demos used to sell 4K TVs) looks like. Obviously Directv will initially devote whole transponders to 4K channels, because there won't be very many of them. It would only be if they have more channels than RDBS transponders (assuming all 36 are devoted to 4K) that they would need to start trying to crowd two 4K channels per transponder. Essentially, the more successful 4K is in terms of causing networks to provide 4K versions of their channels, the worse they'll look on Directv and every other provider (except perhaps FIOS and other FTTH providers)

I think it is unlikely they'd pad the transponders with HD channels, because with D14 adding Ka hi from 99 they won't have any shortage of HD bandwidth. Heck, I don't expect there are enough channels they can add to fill it, so they'll increase quality for some HD channels by going to fewer HD channels on some transponders.

Question regarding your comment about compressing HD channels using h.265. Do they have to use the same compression for all channels? I know the all the data in the transponder is modulated into a 36 MHz wide signal, but couldn't the compression be applied per stream/channel within the transponder? So hypothetically, if they wanted to have a transponder carry 1 4K channel and 1 HD channel, they could compress the 4K channel using h.265, and the HD channel using MPEG4. Or does the stat mux not permit that?

They really do not want to be compressing HD channels using h.265, because only those with yet-to-be-announced 4K capable receivers could view them. Maybe down the road, similar to how they add some SD channels in MPEG4 instead of MPEG2, but they'd need a critical mass of customers with receivers capable of decoding h.265 which will take years at best and may never happen at all.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

cypherx said:


> Granted that both providers could use the internet to deliver 4k files, but what receivers can play them back? I know Broadcom's new BCM7252 SoC is powering the HEVC 4K movement for other providers in the world, but I don't recall DirecTV having this processor in any of its lineups. Unless that is in the new H44-500 that appeared in redh.com/dtv firmware watcher.


AFAIK, they never upgrade the capability of different OEM versions of the same receiver model. At least I'm not aware of them having done so in the past.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I can tell you in my area, and I'm sure many others, a 50 mbps service cost $120 a month.
> And we can't even get 100 mbps.
> Not everyone lives in HDTVfan world, where Comcast , Verizon, and Time Warner off 100 mbps services for less than $100.
> It cost me already $58 per month for 10 mbps.


Things are changing in places though. In my area, charter,m with no warning, just bumped everyone from 30 to 60 and double the upload speed too, and no change in price. I think everyone will see that in time, its just the time issue that matters.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> "QPSK receivers" in Dish's technical parlance refers to MPEG-2 SD receivers and "8-PSK" ones refer to MPEG-4 HD capable models.


No.

There are three models (311, 512 and 625) that do 8PSK but cannot do MPEG-4. You assumption about DISH misusing the terminology is false.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> No.
> 
> There are three models (311, 512 and 625) that do 8PSK but cannot do MPEG-4. You assumption about DISH misusing the terminology is false.


Your perception about what I allegedly "assume" here is incorrect.

I do not assume Dish misuses terminology or anything else about them on this issue for that matter. But merely stated this was Dish's way of referring to their SD and HD receivers which I honestly thought at the time.

And if I misspoke, I will happily retract it and further investigate what this latest program Dish is implementing closer.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I'm assuming is for PPV or VOD only since no channel's are broadcasting 4k yet. Let alone no 1080p yet either


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Anything that I buy going forward will most likely be UHD/4K, unless the $ are ridiculous, just to stay somewhat current, despite the lack of content possibly for a long time. I do wonder about HDMI 2.0, wondering if the latest units really will be able to handle true UHD or maybe it's best to wait.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> ...Question regarding your comment about compressing HD channels using h.265. Do they have to use the same compression for all channels? I know the all the data in the transponder is modulated into a 36 MHz wide signal, but couldn't the compression be applied per stream/channel within the transponder? So hypothetically, if they wanted to have a transponder carry 1 4K channel and 1 HD channel, they could compress the 4K channel using h.265, and the HD channel using MPEG4. Or does the stat mux not permit that?


The way statistical multiplexing works is that the multiplexer monitors the bit rate of each channel being muxed and the output to the transponder is kept to a steady feed that is close to the total transponder capacity. When all the channels have low video activity each one gets a generous amount of bandwidth. When a given channel starts to require more bandwidth (due to rapidly changing images) the multiplexer feeds back data to the encoder to decrease the bit rate of any channels that can afford it. So it is constantly tweaking the compression ratios of all incoming channels to make them all fit within, and maximize the use of, a given transponder. In order to do that it has to feed parameters to the encoder being controlled. I know of no stat-mux that can control two different encoders at once. When DirecTV first moved to MPEG4 the associated stat-mux equipment couldn't even mux HD and SD together (that waited for the second generation encoders).


----------



## rakstr (Aug 23, 2007)

Sorry for the lengthy post, it just took on a life of it's own 

I always love following these threads. I'm a tech-head but y'all amaze me with your knowledge of these topics. I guess as my brain ages, it becomes focused on the things i deal with daily in my specific area of tech  So here's my take as an aging "early adopter" .........

For me, I wonder if there's a practical limit fast approaching (or already reached for the masses). I did the adoption and transition through the 720P phase and am on my 2nd/3rd replacement cycle of "flat panels" in the main viewing areas. The replaced sets found homes with nieces/nephews.

We already have a 65" TV in the family room, 70" in the game room, a 55" in our bedroom, and various 40"+ in the bedrooms/hobby rooms/office/garage/..., ...all 1080P 120Hz or better, some 3D (passive), and ALL <2 years old. We do have the 120" screen w/PJ in the theater. I've got HDBaseT HDMI distribution setup through out the house (1080P). This is a substantial investment I don't see replacing anytime soon and I've waited to this point until it became "affordable". I'll grant the fact that about half this equipment is new because of a lightning strike last November. One TV I had just hung on the wall the day before the strike 

From a practical stance, I don't know that I can get far enough away from any of my TVs (leave the theater out) to see a difference in higher resolution than 1080P. I also don't know if there is any programming that I'd ever care to see given most content broadcast is cheaply produced and/or 60's/70's re-runs 

_NUISANCE STATEMENT _- Also, I don't like the fact that DTV, and I presume others, use MY internet bandwidth to "pre-load" their content and/or stream content I don't want and 4K will only make it worse. There is a secondary effect that impacts internet pricing structures, ...

_SIDE STORY BUT WHAT I BELIEVE IS TODAY'S LANDSCAPE - _ A friend of mine recently replaced a TV wo/talking to me first, went to Best Buy, got the 4K used car pitch and dropped $2400+tax on a 55" and addomg insult to injury, 2 $75 ea. HDMI cables. Fortunately (or maybe not), he called me to help him install it (lift it to the wall). He's got FIOS TV and sits 10-12 feet from the TV. He also has no surround sound, ... in his Family room. I brought him over to sit the same distance from my 55 and I tossed in a Blu-ray then a DTV HD channel. We took everything back to BB, stopped at Costco, got him a 60" Vizio M-Series, I gave him a couple Monoprice HDMI cables, we ordered him a reasonable and small surround system (WAF factor), and he put $1200 back into his pocket.

This is why I don't see 4K taking off for a while. Didn't we begin the move from SD to HD in like the late 90's, DTV had a very small number of HD stations beginning in the early 2000's that were mostly upscaled content, the equipment was outrageously expensive. I believe I paid $7K for a Toshiba TW65H80 (1996?) and $1K for a Toshiba DTS3000 (2000?, wanted the ATSC tuner) that I NEVER activated on DTV even though I paid for the "HD Dish" upgrade. I bought a DVD player (96?), then another grand for the progressive DVD (2000?), then the blu-ray (whenever the PS3 came out, $800), ... but the content seriously lagged. I think I finally moved to a DTV HD package in 2007/8 (HR21 intro timeframe) and that was more for the DVR than the HD. Honestly, there are still DVDs that are not distinguishable from Blu-rays to me on the 120" theater screen (PS3/Epson 8350).

The switch to ATSC gave the HD conversion a boot in the rear end to accelerate TV replacements and things moved along but we're approaching 15-20 years later and the full affect of 1080P HD isn't even realized today (IMO, BW-Color and Mono to Dolby broadcast sound BOTH happened much more rapidly).

Again, not trying to be a wet blanket and I may have my timeline above a bit skewed but I don't see any driving force such as the ATSC TV refresh for this change to 4K happening any faster than HD and probably much more slowly.

I'm all for technology but come on, it's TV  I've always considered myself to be a good baseline as a "typical consumer litmus test" but maybe I'm becoming my father!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Do they have to use the same compression for all channels? I know the all the data in the transponder is modulated into a 36 MHz wide signal, but couldn't the compression be applied per stream/channel within the transponder? So hypothetically, if they wanted to have a transponder carry 1 4K channel and 1 HD channel, they could compress the 4K channel using h.265, and the HD channel using MPEG4. Or does the stat mux not permit that?


The type of content isn't important other than it needs to be coordinated for collective bandwidth volume. The multiplexer takes bitstreams, regardless of what they represent, and weaves them together.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> The type of content isn't important other than it needs to be coordinated for collective bandwidth volume. The multiplexer takes bitstreams, regardless of what they represent, and weaves them together.


Actually what slice was asking is not about the transparency of the multiplxer to the content of the data, but whether or not different compression formats could be stat-mux'ed together into one transport stream.

Such as HEVC packets (h.265) with MPEG-4 (h.264) ones, etc.

To my knowledge this is not done overall for whatever reasons, however there appears to be at least one exception to this I notice for DIRECTV where Puerto Rico has two SD MPEG-2 PPV channels carried on SW1 tp. 3 along with all other MPEG-4 HD and SD programs there.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Sixto said:


> Anything that I buy going forward will most likely be UHD/4K, unless the $ are ridiculous, just to stay somewhat current, despite the lack of content possibly for a long time. I do wonder about HDMI 2.0, wondering if the latest units really will be able to handle true UHD or maybe it's best to wait.


I think waiting until late next year is what I'm gonna do. Give them a chance to get everything up to speed. I know how to read the Sony model numbers but I have no idea how to read the Samsung model numbers. Any help in this would be appreciated.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rakstr said:


> Sorry for the lengthy post, it just took on a life of it's own


I usually just skip over lengthy posts like yours, but I was curious and found it interesting. I went berserk with plasmas and have regretted buying so many 720p sets. I have 3 1080p sets that I watch and as long as no one else complains about the 720ps, I guess they'll be with me for the rest of my life. The only one that bothers me is the 58" 720p set that I bought in a fit of stupidity. Every time I look at it I think of how much I spent on it and it sickens me. But it still has an amazingly good picture on it and nothing has been said about replacing it.

That was really nice what you did for your friend. That alone was worth the long post. :hi:

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> Actually what slice was asking is not about the transparency of the multiplxer to the content of the data, but whether or not different compression formats could be stat-mux'ed together into one transport stream.


A multiplexer in and of itself is content agnostic. It doesn't care what you feed it as long as it doesn't choke on the volume of data. Whether or not the combination of equipment they use is somehow restricted to what it can do, we probably can't know.

We know that DIRECTV mixes video and audio channels on the same transponders. I'm guessing that they're not using MPEG2 to send the music and title data as the title information can pop up if you tune in to the middle of a song. I suspect it is something more like what digital radio does where the title information updates periodically through the song.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> A multiplexer in and of itself is content agnostic. It doesn't care what you feed it as long as it doesn't choke on the volume of data. Whether or not the combination of equipment they use is somehow restricted to what it can do, we probably can't know.
> 
> We know that DIRECTV mixes video and audio channels on the same transponders. I'm guessing that they're not using MPEG2 to send the music and title data as the title information can pop up if you tune in to the middle of a song. I suspect it is something more like what digital radio does where the title information updates periodically through the song.


From everything I can see on this end, yes, the multiplexer should be transparent to the content of the input data streams. Be it video, audio, data or the compression formats they use.

That being said though, for whatever reasons, technical or other, rarely are streams of different compression formats mixed together in a transport stream in practice. The constituent packets customarily all have the same compression format.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

Sixto said:


> Anything that I buy going forward will most likely be UHD/4K, unless the $ are ridiculous, just to stay somewhat current, despite the lack of content possibly for a long time. I do wonder about HDMI 2.0, wondering if the latest units really will be able to handle true UHD or maybe it's best to wait.


I was wondering about the HDMI 2.0 working with the current boxes myself. As I see Amazon has a Samsung 40" 4K TV for under 1K..pretty sweet price. Might look into that for Christmas if that price holds


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

DCSholtis said:


> I was wondering about the HDMI 2.0 working with the current boxes myself. As I see Amazon has a Samsung 40" 4K TV for under 1K..pretty sweet price. Might look into that for Christmas if that price holds


There could be some "Black Friday" deals on 4K Ultra HD units as well.

The next round of broader price drops are anticipated in early 2015.

With the launch of the D14 sat in December...the timing of 4K availability will be interesting when reading the original announcement. It infers that the D14 launch is not necessarily a prerequisite to seeing the first signs of 4K.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DCSholtis said:


> I was wondering about the HDMI 2.0 working with the current boxes myself. As I see Amazon has a Samsung 40" 4K TV for under 1K..pretty sweet price. Might look into that for Christmas if that price holds


The problem that I see thus far is that the small TVs are relatively inexpensive while the larger TVs jump up exponentially in price. I'm not sure what the sweet spot is for a 40" TV but it would have to be a pretty small room or office and I wonder if such detail is appreciable on such a small screen without placing it at arm's length.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HoTat2 said:


> That being said though, for whatever reasons, technical or other, rarely are streams of different compression formats mixed together in a transport stream in practice. The constituent packets customarily all have the same compression format.


The way DIRECTV is set up, there's not much reason to send more than two or three types of data stream from any one orbital slot. TV compression in one format or the other, guide data and possibly firmware if it doesn't come down in the same format as guide data.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> The problem that I see thus far is that the *small TVs are relatively inexpensive while the larger TVs jump up exponentially in price*. I'm not sure what the sweet spot is for a 40" TV but it would have to be a pretty small room or office and I wonder if such detail is appreciable on such a small screen without placing it at arm's length.


I guess it depends where you shop....because that certainly is not the case everywhere.

Getting a 55" HDTV now is hardly different in price than a 42" anymore. It's no accident that 50+ inch HTDVs make up the bulk of retail sales now.

Likely that pattern will continue for 4K UltraHD TVs once a bit more time passes (in 2015).


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

DCSholtis said:


> I was wondering about the HDMI 2.0 working with the current boxes myself. As I see Amazon has a Samsung 40" 4K TV for under 1K..pretty sweet price. Might look into that for Christmas if that price holds


Samsungs are built to accept interface upgrade modules as standards are finalized.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> With the launch of the D14 sat in December...the timing of 4K availability will be interesting when reading the original announcement. It infers that the D14 launch is not necessarily a prerequisite to seeing the first signs of 4K.


The announcement is only for 4K VOD. That's delivered via internet, not satellite.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> The announcement is only for 4K VOD. That's delivered via internet, not satellite.


Of course...but it's just the beginning stages of 4K into the real world.

New sats will play a role in further rollout.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Of course...but it's just the beginning stages of 4K into the real world.
> 
> New sats will play a role in further rollout.


And where would they be getting this content from?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Getting a 55" HDTV now is hardly different in price than a 42" anymore. It's no accident that 50+ inch HTDVs make up the bulk of retail sales now.


I was limiting my discussion to UHD TVs as that's what we're talking about.

I would guess that the size dynamics of UHD will be noticeably larger than the mainstream HDTVs because there's little point to making an UHD TV at much under 50" except for use as a computer display.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The announcement is only for 4K VOD. That's delivered via internet, not satellite.


4K could also be downloaded from satellite for _eventual_ viewing until it can be streamed in real time.

I see three mechanisms:
Download the whole movie via broadband Internet and view after completion (this may be necessary for many who have slow or no broadband)
Stream on broadband Internet (expensive for all parties)
Download from satellite and view after completion
I see downloading via satellite as the most cost effective option that independently meets everyone's needs.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

damondlt said:


> And where would they be getting this content from?


Movies, ESPN. Later a Network that wants to be bold.

Believe.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

harsh said:


> 4K could also be downloaded from satellite for _eventual_ viewing until it can be streamed in real time.
> 
> I see three mechanisms:
> 
> ...


Good call!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> I was limiting my discussion to UHD TVs as that's what we're talking about.
> 
> I would guess that the size dynamics of UHD will be noticeably larger than the mainstream HDTVs because there's little point to making an UHD TV at much under 50" except for use as a computer display.


When you have 4K TVs in larger sizes pushing down, and 4K monitors in smaller sizes pushing up, they will meet in the middle. It wouldn't make much sense if screens under 30" and over 50" were 4K, and 30-50" were 1080p, so they'll eventually be 4K everywhere. The economics for larger LCD screens have always favored smaller pixels, making pixels of the size required for a display that's "only" 1080p costs more.

The added expense for electronics required to handle 4x more pixels, and waiting for standardization of HEVC and HDMI 2.0 and the higher cost of implementing them are what held back all large LCDs from being 4K from day one. Luckily we're still in a trajectory where we can get double the transistors for the same price every two years, so we're pretty close to the point where the added cost for the electronics makes up for the savings in using smaller pixels. Past that point, every LCD is 4K, because it would cost more to make them 1080p.

These economics won't push monitors to 4K, but people will want 4K monitors simply because they're used to better quality text on their smartphones and will want the same on their desktop and laptop. If Microsoft didn't have such terrible support for high resolution displays, we probably would have had 4K monitors for a few years now (since HEVC isn't needed and HDMI 1.4a is enough to drive 4K at 30 fps)

It isn't like common sense has anything to do with any of this. If it did, you wouldn't see phones pushing beyond 1080p and looking to probably hit 4K before long. Only the very near sighted will be able to tell the difference, and it will impose a significant performance cost having to push around 4x more pixels, but idiots will still claim phones that are "only" 1080p are outdated and a QHD or 4K phone is better, just because.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> 4K could also be downloaded from satellite for _eventual_ viewing until it can be streamed in real time.
> 
> I see three mechanisms:
> 
> ...


Directv already has downloading via satellite - it is called PPV. When they get 4K up and running from their new satellite it will all be PPV - until someone like HBO offers broadcast content in 4K that's all they can possibly offer! Well, they might have some "explore the wonders of 4K" channel that just loops the same content all the time, similar to the 4K demos you see in stores.

PPV already provides the "download from the satellite" you're talking about, though you can watch it live if you want. Not sure what you're talking about otherwise, like suggesting some weird scheme where the satellite provides video slower than real time. Until they have the new satellites, the only 4K they'll deliver is via VOD over the internet. Since they have no HEVC capable receivers, they'll have to deliver it via MPEG4, so most people probably won't be able to stream it. Customers will have to let it download and watch it later. If they have bandwidth caps that's their problem, not Directv's.

Genies and clients would support a new enough HDMI standard to display 4Kp24 required for movies. Maybe a few older devices have HDMI 1.4 which could handle it, but they probably lack a frame buffer capable of 4K since it would have added cost and Directv never future proofs when they can save a buck. Once Directv starts delivering 4K in earnest via satellite, it'll be delivered using HEVC and require new hardware. They'll also switch 4K VOD over to HEVC to save themselves on bandwidth delivery cost - though that may be a non-issue if they're owned by AT&T by then. They'd probably support MPEG4 VOD for older hardware for a little while, but eventually current Genies will no longer work for 4K. From the standpoint of 4K, today's Genie is probably the equivalent of the HR10 that supported MPEG2 HD but became SD only when they flipped over to MPEG4 HD.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> When you have 4K TVs in larger sizes pushing down, and 4K monitors in smaller sizes pushing up, they will meet in the middle. It wouldn't make much sense if screens under 30" and over 50" were 4K, and 30-50" were 1080p, so they'll eventually be 4K everywhere. The economics for larger LCD screens have always favored smaller pixels, making pixels of the size required for a display that's "only" 1080p costs more.


I can't dispute this last sentence, but it sure seems counter intuitive.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> I can't dispute this last sentence, but it sure seems counter intuitive.


Of course many of the 4K Ultra HD units are LED, not LCD...and mass production will bring down prices anyway.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Of course many of the 4K Ultra HD units are LED, not LCD...and mass production will bring down prices anyway.


LED is still LCD. LED is only the backlighting technology. Right?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yes, there is no such thing as a "LED TV", it is a marketing term for a LCD screen that uses LEDs instead of CFLs for the backlight.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Which while still better than fluorescent aren't as good as plasma and crts could be. The next great hope is really oled though.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It has proven very difficult to produce large OLEDs cost effectively - and that affordability thing gets harder the cheaper LCDs get since plasma proved once again that 98% of people won't pay more for better quality.

Personally I'd rather see them devote more resources to quantum dot displays. QD avoids some of the pitfalls of OLED like reduced color accuracy and premature pixel failure, and can be up to 100x brighter so unlike LCD and OLED displays wouldn't be washed out in sunlight. If greater investment helped overcome the remaining issues it could be produced extraordinarily inexpensively. Basically with what would amount to giant inkjet roll to roll printers on flexible plastic. You could glue a screen onto a wall - even around a corner. Heck, use it to line your shower so you could shower surrounded by rain forest or beach babes or whatever.

I'd love to be able to put a "window" on my basement wall that looks like a sunny day outside to beat the winter blahs - including the full brightness of the summer sun. I could live on the beach in Hawaii one day, overlook the 12th green at Augusta National the next, have a view from Central Park West on the next. Now THAT'S something worthy of 4K


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Nice! I'll take a few, please! 

Are these in production anywhere? Demo prototypes?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, there is no such thing as a "LED TV", it is a marketing term for a LCD screen that uses LEDs instead of CFLs for the backlight.





Go Beavs said:


> LED is still LCD. LED is only the backlighting technology. Right?


Of course....just using the manufacturer nomenclature that they use on the devices. There are also OLEDs.

Nonetheless the original point was that prices are coming down already and will continue to do so after the first of the year into 2015. That factor, as well as a growing number of models and manufacturers on display at retailers and online will encourage adoption. IN turn, that adoption will encourage content providers to supply content.

It's no accident DirecTV is planning for the "next thing".


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

slice1900 said:


> It has proven very difficult to produce large OLEDs cost effectively - and that affordability thing gets harder the cheaper LCDs get since plasma proved once again that 98% of people won't pay more for better quality.
> 
> Personally I'd rather see them devote more resources to quantum dot displays. QD avoids some of the pitfalls of OLED like reduced color accuracy and premature pixel failure, and can be up to 100x brighter so unlike LCD and OLED displays wouldn't be washed out in sunlight. If greater investment helped overcome the remaining issues it could be produced extraordinarily inexpensively. Basically with what would amount to giant inkjet roll to roll printers on flexible plastic. You could glue a screen onto a wall - even around a corner. Heck, use it to line your shower so you could shower surrounded by rain forest or beach babes or whatever.
> 
> I'd love to be able to put a "window" on my basement wall that looks like a sunny day outside to beat the winter blahs - including the full brightness of the summer sun. I could live on the beach in Hawaii one day, overlook the 12th green at Augusta National the next, have a view from Central Park West on the next. Now THAT'S something worthy of 4K


I think was called SED (Surface Electron, or something) and shelved a number of years ago because of a patent dispute. Too bad.. Was supposed to be CRT-like phosphors on a flexible, flat film-type surface and lit by electronic grid instead of CR gun. Would've been nice, bright, _and_ with CRT black levels.

*No* liquid crystals, light emitting diodes, plasma tubes or glass panes needed at all!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SED/FED was something different, and did sound promising. They gave up on it when it became clear the manufacturing cost they projected couldn't compete with the cost trajectory of plasma and LCD.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

I can only _try_ to imagine where we might be by now if that SED technology had proceeded (and prevailed). We might *all* be watching 4K or better "wallpaper" in our rooms for many years already!

Another "flat film" - type tech I remember reading about years back was a monochrome "disposable" film that could be made to electronically display photos or text (like a high-quality newspaper), non-light-emitting (viewed with existing light like newspaper [or kindle]).

Just another display technology that never took off. There are probably many more out there we never heard of.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> ...Another "flat film" - type tech I remember reading about years back was a monochrome "disposable" film that could be made to electronically display photos or text (like a high-quality newspaper), non-light-emitting (viewed with existing light like newspaper [or kindle]).
> 
> Just another display technology that never took off. There are probably many more out there we never heard of.


Isn't that the technology in the "paper white" versions of the Kindle e-readers?


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Paper whites are backlit. The original Kindle would be similar to that technology.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

They are actually side lit. At any rate, I was really thinking of the original, unlit, Kindle. We have a gen 2, and it had no light at all and displays text when off.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

it's E-ink technology, no light at all - just micro-spheres moving up/own by special patterns of voltage during changing a picture; after that no power require
later on was added external LED in a cover to create ambient light to read in dark areas


----------

