# 4K and Directv



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

I recently had my equipment upgraded with a C61 client. When I try to set my resolution to 4K, I can't get to the box to check it. I've downloaded a 4K movie but it says by TV doesn't support 4k, but it does. I had this trouble before with Directv on 1080p when trying set the resolution and getting the message back the TV doesn't support 1080p. My current TV supports 4K meeting the 2.2 HDCP standard. Any one else having this same kind of issue?


----------



## stvcmty (Oct 24, 2014)

Did you get a C61k from a 3rd party and hook it up yourself, or was there a truck roll for directv?


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

The C61k came from a Directv installer.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Remove the the coax from the C61k, do a red button reset. The screen that pops up when it reboots will tell you if you TV supports 4K. If it doesn't then time to get a new TV. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Remove the the coax from the C61k, do a red button reset. The screen that pops up when it reboots will tell you if you TV supports 4K. If it doesn't then time to get a new TV.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It says it doesn't but it does. My TV, which is less than a year old, supports a source 2160 resolution. It's a Directv thing as again, I had this happen with a 1080p samsung that Directv said it wasn't 1080p (in the settings) but it was.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

Maybe bad hdmi cable? Maybe check to see if you are using the right hdmi port on your tv that supports 2.2 hdcp?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tadam said:


> It says it doesn't but it does. My TV, which is less than a year old, supports a source 2160 resolution. It's a Directv thing as again, I had this happen with a 1080p samsung that Directv said it wasn't 1080p (in the settings) but it was.


resolution is. Least of your concerns right now. It needs to support the right protocols.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

toobs said:


> Maybe bad hdmi cable? Maybe check to see if you are using the right hdmi port on your tv that supports 2.2 hdcp?


Tried all that. I am using the correct port on the TV. The tech even tried it with a direct connection from the C61 box to my HDCP supported port with their HDMI cable that supports 4K....still getting the TV does not support 4K message.....frustrating. I have this issue escalated with Directv currently.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Perhaps posting TV make and model can help someone look up the specs. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

peds48 said:


> resolution is. Least of your concerns right now. It needs to support the right protocols.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are there protocols required other than supporting 2160 resolution and 2.2 HDCP because those two my TV supports?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tadam said:


> Tried all that. I am using the correct port on the TV. The tech even tried it with a direct connection from the C61 box to my HDCP supported port with their HDMI cable that supports 4K....still getting the TV does not support 4K message.....frustrating. I have this issue escalated with Directv currently.


until you don't get this simple test to pass You aren't going anywhere. There's nothing Directv can do to provide 4K if you don't pass this test. I would rely on your tv update process most than Directv.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tadam said:


> Are there protocols required other than supporting 2160 resolution and 2.2 HDCP because those two my TV supports?


 HDMI 2.0

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Perhaps posting TV make and model can help someone look up the specs.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sharp Aquos LC-80UQ17U


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

peds48 said:


> HDMI 2.0
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It does support HDMI 2.0.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tadam said:


> It does support HDMI 2.0.


I did not see it mentioned on the spec sheet, but if it supports HDCP 2.2 then it must be HDMI 2.0. As I said, I would be looking at software updates on your TV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

Thanks for all the help but I just found a small bit of information in my manual that the TV does not support 4K60P. I believe the 60P means 60 frames per second, so I guess I am stuck.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well a couple things. First there is only one HDMI input on that tv that might accept a 4K signal. So try all the inputs and see. There is also only one arc HDMI and it may not be the same input it's not clear. 

Also it may not be a full hdmi2.0 port. It look like it only will go to 30fps and that may cause it to not say it's the proper res for the c61k. 

With all that said I hate to be the bearer of bad news but a little research tells me this isn't a real 4K tv. It's a 1080p tv that says it might be able to accept a 4K res coming in via HDMI and it uses its own internal stuff to make it close to a 4K res looking tv. 

So technically it's not a 4K tv anyway and that may be why it's not accepting the signal too.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Well a couple things. First there is only one HDMI input on that tv that might accept a 4K signal. So try all the inputs and see. There is also only one arc HDMI and it may not be the same input it's not clear.
> 
> Also it may not be a full hdmi2.0 port. It look like it only will go to 30fps and that may cause it to not say it's the proper res for the c61k.
> 
> ...


I have a ticket into Sharp and they are looking into from that end. The biggest show stopper is for the tv to go to 60 fps, which I think is the core issue.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

tadam said:


> I have a ticket into Sharp and they are looking into from that end. The biggest show stopper is for the tv to go to 60 fps, which I think is the core issue.


I believe you have found the answer ...
4K Input: Yes (4K/30fps)
HDCP 2.2: Yes (HDMI 1)

http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/Models/LC80UQ17U.aspx (under Tech Specs at the bottom)


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Well a couple things. First there is only one HDMI input on that tv that might accept a 4K signal. So try all the inputs and see. There is also only one arc HDMI and it may not be the same input it's not clear.
> 
> Also it may not be a full hdmi2.0 port. It look like it only will go to 30fps and that may cause it to not say it's the proper res for the c61k.
> 
> ...


I have to agree with your assessment. Sharp played games with the spec on this TV

This is what is on their web page
Effective Resolution: 3840x2160
Native Resolution: 1920 x 1080

And then there's this

Refresh rate: 240 Hz
I haven't seen any 4K panels above 120 Hz native.

and the title of the TV is 80" LED Smart TV
No mention of 4K or UHD in the title

Shame on Sharp for such misleading information.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

This is why I recommended right off the bat that if the C61K does not pass the simple 4K test, next step is to get a "real" 4K TV. 

This reminds me of a post back then, not long ago where it was discussed early 4K adopters will get screwed by the games played by the TV manufactures, I believe we found the first victim. Sad, but true.....


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tadam said:


> Thanks for all the help but I just found a small bit of information in my manual that the TV does not support 4K60P. I believe the 60P means 60 frames per second, *so I guess I am stuck.*


It looks like you are. This is from DIRECTV documentation


C61Ks should _only_ be installed on 4K-capable TVs that are not DIRECTV 4K Ready-certified. Use the "TV Info" tool to check TVs for DIRECTV Ready and 4K capability, and then modify the work order to accurately reflect the installation.
Before an installation can proceed, the C61K performs a 4K compatibility test to ensure that the TV complies with the HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 standards, *and that the TV is able to refresh the picture at a minimum of 60 frames per second.* If the compatibility test fails on all HDMI ports on the customer's TV, *do not install the C61K*.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Well there you have it, it won't ever work at 4k for that tv.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

This is why I am glad Directv built this simple test on the STB. It takes the guess work out of it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## larcar (Sep 22, 2006)

I have the same tv and was misled that it can play 4k content. I had directv come out and install a c61 4k client and the installers said it should work? First one they did and did not have a clue why it will not work. They left and said they would get back to me with an answer. Been a month still waiting. It plays the 4k demos in 1080p, very nice picture. I do agree the issue is directtvs 4k is at 60 fps, this tv only handles 30 fps. I just preordered a Amazon fire tv that is supposed to play 4 k at up to 30 fps. It will ship on Oct. 5. I have netflix account with 4k. also Amazon Prime that has some 4k material Will see what happens when it gets here, I will report back.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

The problem is the tv was made before the real final standards came out and is not really a 4K tv. I don't mean to be rude about it, but that's really the issue here. And you won't be alone. Thousands of people bought a lot of "4K" tvs that either aren't really 4K and or don't have the proper HDMI inputs to actually get 4K from anyone, except for something like Amazon that will down convert to make it work. I hate that they did that with those tvs. Hate it...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tadam said:


> It says it doesn't but it does. My TV, which is less than a year old, supports a source 2160 resolution. It's a Directv thing as again, I had this happen with a 1080p samsung that Directv said it wasn't 1080p (in the settings) but it was.


I really don't understand why you think a TV with a resolution of 2160 would be a 4K set. Did the box it came in say it was or were you misled by a salesperson? I also ordered the new Fire TV box and am expecting deliver ~ early October too. I don't think it's gonna do you any good. When you hit the Info button on the remote it should tell you what resolution is being delivered and if it's 2016, I kinda doubt that NF or AP is gonna give you a 4K picture.

I know when you do a voice search for "4k" on the older boxes in AP, you only get a 1080P input. I really doubt the box is gonna help you. I don't see anything D* is doing wrong.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NR4P said:


> I have to agree with your assessment. Sharp played games with the spec on this TV
> 
> This is what is on their web page
> Effective Resolution: 3840x2160
> ...


When I use my Sammy BD/upscaler that's what I get. Sure looks like Sharp is playing games.

Rich


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

larcar said:


> I have the same tv and was misled that it can play 4k content. I had directv come out and install a c61 4k client and the installers said it should work? First one they did and did not have a clue why it will not work. They left and said they would get back to me with an answer. Been a month still waiting. It plays the 4k demos in 1080p, very nice picture. I do agree the issue is directtvs 4k is at 60 fps, this tv only handles 30 fps. I just preordered a Amazon fire tv that is supposed to play 4 k at up to 30 fps. It will ship on Oct. 5. I have netflix account with 4k. also Amazon Prime that has some 4k material Will see what happens when it gets here, I will report back.wThat would be very interesting to know. Unfortunately I do not have an internet connection that is fast enough for 4K


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Sure looks like Sharp is playing games.


The "plays 4K content" certainly is not true when it comes to DirecTV delivered content.

Looking at Sharp's website - selecting 2160p resolution lists 12 models -
http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/Models.aspx

The 80" models are the 80" Class AQUOS Ultra HD LED Smart TV (LC-80UH30U) and 80" Class AQUOS Ultra HD LED Smart TV (LC-80UE30U). The native panel resolution for these sets is "3840 x 2160, Ultra HD" and "4K Playback (Up to 60 fps)" is listed. (The first model listed has speakers.)

It looks like Sharp is correctly describing the 80UQ17U as a 1080p TV - it is NOT a 4K set - but the "plays 4K content" would be misleading.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

Rich said:


> When I use my Sammy BD/upscaler that's what I get. Sure looks like Sharp is playing games.
> 
> Rich





tadam said:


> > I have the same tv and was misled that it can play 4k content. I had directv come out and install a c61 4k client and the installers said it should work? First one they did and did not have a clue why it will not work. They left and said they would get back to me with an answer. Been a month still waiting. It plays the 4k demos in 1080p, very nice picture. I do agree the issue is directtvs 4k is at 60 fps, this tv only handles 30 fps. I just preordered a Amazon fire tv that is supposed to play 4 k at up to 30 fps. It will ship on Oct. 5. I have netflix account with 4k. also Amazon Prime that has some 4k material Will see what happens when it gets here, I will report back.wThat would be very interesting to know. Unfortunately I do not have an internet connection that is fast enough for 4K


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

James Long said:


> The "plays 4K content" certainly is not true when it comes to DirecTV delivered content.
> 
> Looking at Sharp's website - selecting 2160p resolution lists 12 models -
> http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/Models.aspx
> ...


That sucks because I just bought this TV less that a year ago and I know my wife would skin my if I tried to get another......


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> The "plays 4K content" certainly is not true when it comes to DirecTV delivered content.
> 
> Looking at Sharp's website - selecting 2160p resolution lists 12 models -
> http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHome/HomeEntertainment/LCDTV/Models.aspx
> ...


Well it will accept a 4K signal of its at 30fps and then convert it to 1080p then displays it with its funky tech that they claim makes it look like 4K because of how its using the pixels or some such thing.

But DIRECTV isn't 30fps evidently. It's 60.

Thy actually don't say it's a 4K tv anywhere.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> I really don't understand why you think a TV with a resolution of 2160 would be a 4K set. Did the box it came in say it was or were you misled by a salesperson? I also ordered the new Fire TV box and am expecting deliver ~ early October too. I don't think it's gonna do you any good. When you hit the Info button on the remote it should tell you what resolution is being delivered and if it's 2016, I kinda doubt that NF or AP is gonna give you a 4K picture.
> 
> I know when you do a voice search for "4k" on the older boxes in AP, you only get a 1080P input. I really doubt the box is gonna help you. I don't see anything D* is doing wrong.
> 
> Rich


2160 is what 4K set are. It's double a 1080.

The problem with his set is what you listed in your next post about what the panels native resolution actually is versus what it will accept. They also played tech tricks with the pixels so they could use the 4K terms on the set since it was a talking point.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Thy actually don't say it's a 4K tv anywhere.


Perhaps you should have read that in my post. The point is that they claim that it plays 4K content. And it does play 4K content, but does not play the level of content DirecTV provides via a C61.

Think of it this way: By FCC rule every ATSC tuner and ATSC television can receive and display HD content. They could all say that they "play HD content" if they desired and it would be true - even if the native screen resolution was not 1280x720 or larger. The requirement is not for the content to be shown in HD at a resolution of 1280x720 or higher - the requirement is to receive all standard ATSC formats and display them.

Perhaps the "native resolution" should have been noted in the product description or a better comparison been made against other sets (although the Ultra HD set may not have been available at the time of purchase). The "plays 4K content" statement is still a fail. But how would Sharp know that DirecTV would limit their output to 60fps?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Perhaps you should have read that in my post. The point is that they claim that it plays 4K content. And it does play 4K content, but does not play the level of content DirecTV provides via a C61.
> 
> Think of it this way: By FCC rule every ATSC tuner and ATSC television can receive and display HD content. They could all say that they "play HD content" if they desired and it would be true - even if the native screen resolution was not 1280x720 or larger. The requirement is not for the content to be shown in HD at a resolution of 1280x720 or higher - the requirement is to receive all standard ATSC formats and display them.
> 
> Perhaps the "native resolution" should have been noted in the product description or a better comparison been made against other sets (although the Ultra HD set may not have been available at the time of purchase). The "plays 4K content" statement is still a fail. But how would Sharp know that DirecTV would limit their output to 60fps?


I read your post and that was my point as well.

And how could sharp no anything since no standard was set when they built that tv!?!?! That's what's so ridiculous.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

The title on the Sharp webpage makes no mention of 4K.
But they claim it plays 4K content, which it does.

But they could be much clearer that it didn't play 4K 60fps

Not sure how long ago the OP purchased it but I'd be raising heck with Sharp.

What's interesting is that when I play content from the Directv demos on the C61K, my TV shows 2160/24.
I wonder if Sharp would display that?

I don't know if any of the $12.99 movies are 2160/60. For that price, I think Netflix is a better deal. Get a whole month of stuff, lots of 4K and 4 devices. So I don't know if there's any 2160/60 even offered now. Maybe someone else will chime in.


On the other hand, imagine when 4K gets moving with a faster following and if you had 2160/30 working and then you rent a movie or there's content at 2160/60 and just that one won't play? That could be customer service nightmare for Directv so I do see their point.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

NR4P said:


> The title on the Sharp webpage makes no mention of 4K.
> But they claim it plays 4K content, which it does.
> 
> But they could be much clearer that it didn't play 4K 60fps
> ...


I just found out from Sharp that the #1 HDMI port is both 2.2 HDCP compliant and 2.0 HDMI capable, so I'm thinking the only shortfall is again the fps issue. I did download a 4K documentary from Directv's 4K offerings and my TV flashed to display 1080p/24 ghrtz and also got the message that the TV doesn't support 4K playback but the picture was better than any bluray that I have played on it. I'm hoping that when the true 4K bluray players come out, this TV will be able to play it with 2160 resolution.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

That will depend on what res the blu Ray player will output.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tadam said:


> I just found out from Sharp that the #1 HDMI port is both 2.2 HDCP compliant and 2.0 HDMI capable, so I'm thinking the only shortfall is again the fps issue. I did download a 4K documentary from Directv's 4K offerings and my TV flashed to display 1080p/24 ghrtz and also got the message that the TV doesn't support 4K playback but the picture was better than any bluray that I have played on it. I'm hoping that when the true 4K bluray players come out, this TV will be able to play it with 2160 resolution.


It won't play ANYTHING with 2160 resolution because that TV has a 1920x1080 panel. Sure, maybe it will accept 4K programming as input, but it must downscale it since doesn't have a 4K display. You got taken.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> It won't play ANYTHING with 2160 resolution because that TV has a 1920x1080 panel. Sure, maybe it will accept 4K programming as input, but it must downscale it since doesn't have a 4K display. You got taken.


I get that. I know it's not 4K but I think if it will accept the 4K signal, the TV will produce a picture better than 1080p through the enhanced resolution capabilities.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tadam said:


> I get that. I know it's not 4K but I think if it will accept the 4K signal*, the TV will produce a picture better than 1080p through the enhanced resolution capabilities. *


That is what they want you to belief. It seems the marketing team did an awesome job there.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> That is what they want you to belief. It seems the marketing team did an awesome job there.


It certainly would be easier to provide a higher quality 1080p picture with 4K data than provide a 4K picture with 1080p data. Yes, native resolution is exactly what Sharp states for that set. No lie, no deception. But the picture quality is more than just the number of dots on the screen.


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

peds48 said:


> That is what they want you to belief. It seems the marketing team did an awesome job there.


They did. All I can say is the 4K documentary that I recorded from Directv's 4K library has better picture quality than any 1080p bluray movie that I have watched, including Avatar.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tadam said:


> They did. All I can say is the 4K documentary that I recorded from Directv's 4K library has better picture quality than any 1080p bluray movie that I have watched, including Avatar.


not to bust your jingles, but sometimes our minds play tricks on us. I truly believe my iPhone 6s is better that the one it replaced, an iPhone 6. Although reality says the are both the same.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> not to bust your jingles, but sometimes our minds play tricks on us. I truly believe my iPhone 6s is better that the one it replaced, an iPhone 6. Although reality says the are both the same.


The iPhone 6s has features and specifications that the iPhone 6 does not have. If those features are desired and used the iPhone 6s is better.

You might as well be arguing that the HR54 is no better than the HR34. There are areas where they are equal. But there certainly are areas where they are not the same and the new model is better.

A Sharp TV that can display (most) 4K content is better than one that is limited to 1080p or less inputs. It has a feature that lesser sets do not have. And if one uses that feature it can make having the feature better than not having it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> The iPhone 6s has features and specifications that the iPhone 6 does not have. If those features are desired and used the iPhone 6s is better.


The benchmarks I've seen indicates it is significantly faster - Apple's claims of 70% faster CPU and 90% faster GPU were not without justification. Whether that's actually noticeable in normal use (i.e. aside from games that would really push those capabilities) is another matter.

But people do tend to see what they want to see, especially if they've spent money on it. There's a psychological term for this that I'm forgetting the name of right now - it is similar to confirmation bias but not quit the same thing.

I could believe that Directv's 4K demos could be as good as Blu Ray though - they probably use an extremely high bit rate for them to maximize the impact on viewers. Remember all the great HD demos we used to see 15 or 20 years ago? The HD we get on TV today is nothing remotely like that. Such a bit rate will never be used for broadcast 4K, just like HD broadcasts do not use the bit rate of Blu Ray. That's why Blu Ray looks so much better than cable/satellite HD even though 1080i channels are effectively the same thing as 1080p30, while Blu Ray is "only" 1080p24.

If tadam is happy with his purchase, that's great and all that really matters, but it isn't a Directv problem that a receiver designed for 4K TVs does not work with a HDTV that used shady marketing tactics to claim some partial 4K support. It isn't a 4K TV, so there's no reason a receiver designed for 4K should work on it. Directv requires 4Kp60 support for it to work, that TV can't accept that as an input, end of story.

Unfortunately once Directv starts offering 4K "for real" these sorts of posts are going to become a regular occurrence because millions and millions of 4K TVs that offer 3840x2160 as a native resolution will not meet the tests of HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2 and 4Kp60 all on the same port. I wasn't even aware there was a further category of HDTVs that were sold as "native resolution 1920x1080" but allowed limited 4K input, marketed to fool unaware buyers. That's even sleazier than I thought they'd be - especially on something as expensive as an 80" TV. No wonder I hear that Sharp is considering selling out their LCD panel business to Apple and Foxconn - who would ever be a repeat customer of Sharp with tactics like that?


----------



## Blackloz (Aug 23, 2011)

I know friends that purchased supposed 4K sets back in 13. I tried telling them to hold off. Even back in Aug of 14 when I needed a new main set. The salesmen where trying to get me into a 4K set. I declined and went with the highest 1080P model Sony had as I wasn't going to left hanging so to speak when 4K actually hits the market with viable content. All I want 4K for is UHD-BD anyway and not linear TV channels. My HR44 will have to do me for many more years to come.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> The iPhone 6s has features and specifications that the iPhone 6 does not have. If those features are desired and used the iPhone 6s is better.


While it was an analogy, I mostly poking some "fun"into it, since that it was I was holding in my hand when posting. But since you bring the point, the iPhone 6s is def better than its predecessor, the question is it enough better to fork out at least 6 bejamins for it .... for me it was...

Now its not make this thread an Apple one.....


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> But people do tend to see what they want to see, especially if they've spent money on it. There's a psychological term for this that I'm forgetting the name of right now - it is similar to confirmation bias but not quit the same thing.


EXACTLY my point. Nailed IT!

*Confirmation bias*, also called *myside bias*, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias


----------



## rcodey (May 28, 2007)

The show Brain Games in the last year had a segment on confirmation bias.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Blackloz said:


> I know friends that purchased supposed 4K sets back in 13. I tried telling them to hold off. Even back in Aug of 14 when I needed a new main set. The salesmen where trying to get me into a 4K set. I declined and went with the highest 1080P model Sony had as I wasn't going to left hanging so to speak when 4K actually hits the market with viable content. All I want 4K for is UHD-BD anyway and not linear TV channels. My HR44 will have to do me for many more years to come.


2014 Black Friday deals for 4k Samsungs were spectacular. Mine was $597. 2014 4k Samsungs display notably better resolution of 1080i satellite programming through upscaling, and they have the 4k streaming apps built in. There is also an upgrade path with the Evolution boxes. I'm enjoying 4k Netflix, 4k Amazon Prime and 4k YouTube streaming AND better satellite TV. Worth every penny!

DirecTV's current 4k offering isn't worth messing with today.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> *Confirmation bias*, also called *myside bias*, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses while giving disproportionately less attention to information that contradicts it.


So you are so sure that his picture is not better on his TV set that you have searched out some psychological term to support your claim while downplaying the specifications and capability of the TV.

Thanks!


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Well hey, can't Sharp argue ....

While it may not have the larger color gamut of actual 4K, much as its been successfully demonstrated with regular HD for many years now that you get about the same pixel information rate with 720p at 60 fps vs. 1080i at 30 fps.

If my artificial frame interpolation process is good enough, then my 1080p at 240 fps is the same as actual 4K at 60 fps? ... 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:



> So you are so sure that his picture is not better on his TV set that you have searched out some psychological term to support your claim while downplaying the specifications and capability of the TV.
> 
> Thanks!


So then you agree that this HDMI will give you better picture quality than any other "regular" HDMI cable.

Thanks


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> So then you agree that this HDMI will give you better picture quality than any other "regular" HDMI cable.


Now you are comparing Apples and Galaxies.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

peds48 said:


> So then you agree that this HDMI will give you better picture quality than any other "regular" HDMI cable.
> 
> Thanks


The Air Force has no problem with them.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> Now you are comparing Apples and Galaxies.


not really. The tv claims it gives you a better picture by doing some kind of magic trick. Well, this cable claims are the same. If you look at the reviews you will see how magic the cable is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> not really. The tv claims it gives you a better picture by doing some kind of magic trick. Well, this cable claims are the same. If you look at the reviews you will see how magic the cable is.


The TV does give a better than 1080P picture when presented with a compatible 4K signal.

The cable will not output a better signal than what was input. The goal of the cable is to have no loss over the length of the cable. Their comparison should be against lesser quality cables of the same or shorter lengths or the same quality of cable regardless of length.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Look the signal of 4K is likely much better than a 1080 signal in the first place so it's easy to expect it to look better even down converted. 

Also it does do something with the color I believe to make it better the sharp way. And I'm sure for some it is better.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> The TV does give a better than 1080P picture when presented with a compatible 4K signal.
> 
> .


I presumed you sat down next to the poster to post those comments as facts.

While I did not tested the aforementioned cable myself, I am relying on all the wonderful reviews which apparently this cable with feed and take care of my dog as well. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> I presumed you sat down next to the poster to post those comments as facts.


Have you sat next to this poster? No. You are simply dismissing his opinion and redirecting the thread away to psychobabble, iPhones and now cables to DISTRACT from the truth of his argument. And now you distract even more. Downplaying the facts presented and introducing distractions does not win your side of the argument.

It appears that you are saying the guy who owns the set and anyone who defends his opinion MUST be wrong, because you are right. There is probably a psychobabble name for that as well. I'd rather discuss the poster's TV.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> peds48, on 29 Sept 2015 - 7:26 PM, said:
> 
> So then you agree that this HDMI will give you better picture quality than any other "regular" HDMI cable.
> 
> Thanks


That cable is 65' long. That's why its so pricey. The 2M version is only ~$130 on eBay. So, its only about 5x more expensive then their cheaper version. The diamond model is the one that's crazy. $1000 for a 1.5M HDMI cable???


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> That cable is 65' long. That's why its so pricey. The 2M version is only ~$130 on eBay. So, its only about 5x more expensive then their cheaper version. The diamond model is the one that's crazy. $1000 for a 1.5M HDMI cable???


So $130 is OK too pay for that cable? Even Apple does not have the balls to charge that much.... :rotfl:


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Does anyone know the full specs of the 4k content Directv has? Since a hdmi 1.4 cable will only do up to 30hz I was curious if people have upgraded there cables. It looks like the c61 will support 4K at 60 hz but comparison the new fire tv will only go up to 30hz at 4K 

But I am not sure if there are any plans for "tv" content above 4K30


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> peds48, on 01 Oct 2015 - 12:19 PM, said:
> 
> So $130 is OK too pay for that cable? Even Apple does not have the balls to charge that much.... :rotfl:


Well, no, I wouldn't. I meant, its relatively cheap compared to the Diamond lol.

That being said, no, not all HDMI cables are the same. Not all HDMI cables support full bandwidth for example and are just good up to 10.2Gbps, but will not pass 18Gbps. Do you need 18Gbps for regular 4K/60Hz @ 4:2:0? No, you don't. But you'd need it if you want to do 4K/60Hz @ 4:4:4 or 21:9 or Atmos (or other higher channel count audio).

Also, if you have a long run, a passive cable wouldn't even pass 1080P.

That being said #2, you can still get an active 18Gbps HDMI cable for a lot less then $60/ft .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

compnurd said:


> Does anyone know the full specs of the 4k content Directv has? Since a hdmi 1.4 cable will only do up to 30hz I was curious if people have upgraded there cables. It looks like the c61 will support 4K at 60 hz but comparison the new fire tv will only go up to 30hz at 4K
> 
> But I am not sure if there are any plans for "tv" content above 4K30


There's no such thing as a "HDMI 2.0(a) cable". You just need an 18Gbps cable if you want to future proof. 4K @ 60fps probably won't happen on TV. 4:4:4 sure as hell won't happen on TV. UltraHD BluRay is another story.

My current HDMI cables are circa 2005/2006, so I'm just replacing them with 18Gbps passive cables from Monoprice since I'm upgrading my TV now... god I can't wait for my flat LG OLED to arrive .


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

compnurd said:


> Does anyone know the full specs of the 4k content Directv has? Since a hdmi 1.4 cable will only do up to 30hz I was curious if people have upgraded there cables. It looks like the c61 will support 4K at 60 hz but comparison the new fire tv will only go up to 30hz at 4K
> 
> But I am not sure if there are any plans for "tv" content above 4K30


There is no such of a thing as a 1.x, or 2.0 HDMI cable. That is just a marketing ploy by manufacturers get you to buy more expensive cables. The version of HDMI supported is determined by the circuitry and firmware inside the equipment being connected by the cable.

HDMI cable simply comes in two types. Hi and lo bandwidth types. All HDMI cables commonly sold today are the hi bandwidth types, so any one with at least an 18 gps data rate will do for SD, HD or 4K.

As far as specifications of DIRECTV's 4K content, it really doesn't matter. The TV set still must meet the standard they set before viewing any of their programs even if the frame rate of the program being viewed fall short of it.

4K resolution, 2.0 HDMI, 2.2 HDCP, and 60 fps.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> There is no such of a thing as a 1.x, or 2.0 HDMI cable. That is just a marketing ploy by manufacturers get you to buy more expensive cables. The version of HDMI supported is determined by the circuitry and firmware inside the equipment being connected by the cable.
> 
> HDMI cable simply comes in two types. Hi and lo bandwidth types. All HDMI cables commonly sold today are the hi bandwidth types, so any one with at least an 18 gps data rate will do for SD, HD or 4K.
> 
> ...


Marketing or not.. There seems to be a difference. It seems the ones rated for HDMI 1.4 at 10.2gbps will support 4K up to 30HZ.. if you want beyond that you need a 18gbps one.. And even on Monoprice or Amazon, High Speed does not dictate 18gbps.. Hi Speed can reference one that does 10gbps


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> There's no such thing as a "HDMI 2.0(a) cable". You just need an 18Gbps cable if you want to future proof. 4K @ 60fps probably won't happen on TV. 4:4:4 sure as hell won't happen on TV. UltraHD BluRay is another story.


I think it is a given that 4K @ 60fps will happen on TV. ESPN will use that from day one. Heck, I think there's a decent chance they'll do 4K @ 120fps eventually.

4:4:4 I agree, at 4K resolution the difference between that and 4:2:0 is so tiny almost no one could tell the difference. 4:2:0 at 4K contains the same amount of color information as 4:4:4 at 1080p, so unless you're so close to the TV you can see the individual pixels, you aren't going to be able to see the what 4:4:4 at 4K would add to that.


----------



## tkevinb (Feb 22, 2016)

I have a Sharp Aquos LC-70UQ17U TV and had the exact same issue with the DirecTV 4K Genie Mini not allowing for 4K to be displayed. I had a DirecTV technician out and they could not figure out the issue. I have a Roku 4K that displays 4K content, but the Genie will not. The tech believed that the TV did not have the most up-to-date HDCP 2.2 firmware, but from the other posts I've read here, it appears that the limitation of 30 FPS on this TV is the culprit keeping the DirecTV 4k Mini Genie from allowing the 4K resolution box to be checked. I'm not sure the limited 4K content currently availability is enough to justify a new TV.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

The 30FPS on the TV is not the issue. My 61K is connected to a HDMI 1.4 Port that Supports HDCP 2.2 It works fine with 4K content. The problem probably is the port does not support HDCP 2.2


----------



## tadam (Dec 8, 2006)

It is indeed the limitation of 30 FPS as Directv required 60. Honestly, I don't have any idea why Directv would have more than 30 as it is humanly impossible to see anything beyond 24 FPS.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

As I said, I have a C61 Connected to a Port that only works on 4K at 30FPS and it works fine


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tadam said:


> It is indeed the limitation of 30 FPS as Directv required 60. Honestly, I don't have any idea why Directv would have more than 30 as it is humanly impossible to see anything beyond 24 FPS.


Actually...those are myths....it depends on the person...some people can see beyond 60 FPS depending on the content and the display...

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/1572225-Mythbusting-quot-Human-eye-cannot-see-beyond-60-FPS-quot


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm very skeptical of knowledge the person; he don't know CRT interlacing nor analog standard TV freqs ...


----------



## diginewb (Jun 4, 2016)

I just had DTV install the HR54 and put the C61 client in a different room. The client is attached via HDMI to a Denon 3313CI receiver which is then connected to a Samsung UN65HU8550FXZA television via high speed active redmere hdmi cable which is plugged into the t.v.'s MHL port. The C61 client is saying the TV does not support 4K. Does anyone have any ideas/fixes for what the issue might be? Thanks.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Your 3313CI doesn't have the current level of HDCP and HDMI and won't work with 4K video. Like me and others there are only 2 solutions:

1. Break out the plastic and buy a new AVR that will work with it. Like the Denon S920

2. Connect the C61 via HDMI directly to the TV and get the audio via optical.

I have done #2 because my Harman Kardon 3700 has the same issue. #2 works fine since the audio for the most part, is DD and optical can deal with it just fine.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## diginewb (Jun 4, 2016)

Ugh...that sucks. Thanks for breaking the bad news. Makes one wonder how long a new HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0a receiver will be good. Anyone know if such a receiver would be fairly 4k future proof or whether I would get hosed again after having it for three years?


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

diginewb said:


> Ugh...that sucks. Thanks for breaking the bad news. Makes one wonder how long a new HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0a receiver will be good. Anyone know if such a receiver would be fairly 4k future proof or whether I would get hosed again after having it for three years?


Who knows? As the industry keeps trying to help us reduce the weight of our wallets as fast as they can there is just no telling. But then again, why worry about it? As with all tech you get onboard and ride it for awhile until something else tickles our fancy.

In the meantime I'm finding that if 4K BluRay isn't part of the picture, and with me it isn't, then workarounds aren't all that difficult and you don't actually lose anything.

My #2 works fine for good 4K and audio just fine and requires only a 4K TV. If you have to add 4K BluRay into the mix it isn't all that difficult again without changing the AVR.

Just ensure the 4K BluRay box has 2 HDMI outputs. Hook one to the TV for the video, the other to the AVR for the hires audio.

Getting an AVR for 4K only accomplishes some simplification of the connections and controls, you can get all the correct audio and video without getting a new one. This is a lesson I've been learning the hard way! Of course a universal remote comes in real handy when you are twiddling things.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

diginewb said:


> Ugh...that sucks. Thanks for breaking the bad news. Makes one wonder how long a new HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0a receiver will be good. Anyone know if such a receiver would be fairly 4k future proof or whether I would get hosed again after having it for three years?


Well, here's the thing as I see it. HDCP is hardware reliant, so if the industry decided that HDCP 2.2 wasn't good enough, then that would obsolete all aspects of it, including the TV. They can't move away from it lightly. I can't say for sure, but personally I don't see them moving away from it until the next jump, like for 8K content.

And as Lloyd says, HDCP is all about the video, not audio.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The good part for all of us is that there is a paucity of 4K content that really takes advantage of what it offers. Most of the movies/shows I've seen in 4K are just marginally better than what I see with upscaling to 4K by my TV.

Of course that will change over time, or at least we hope so. As I twiddle with things I've given thought to just keeping the FireTV Box directly hooked to the TV as my primary 4K device with the 'smart' apps on the TV itself filling in the spots the FireTV doesn't have. Like UltraFlix for instance.

I actually don't watch as much 4K as I thought I would because there isn't much that is all that better in 4K as I said, and since it is all streaming for me, there is a concern with data caps. I hit about 800Gb last month streaming a bunch of 4K stuff and I have a 1TB cap.

Sent from my App Runtime for Chrome using Tapatalk


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I've picked up two 4k movies so far. Now I just need a 4K player. Maybe a Playstation 4K when they come out. At least they come with the blu-ray.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> The good part for all of us is that there is a paucity of 4K content that really takes advantage of what it offers. Most of the movies/shows I've seen in 4K are just marginally better than what I see with upscaling to 4K by my TV.
> 
> Of course that will change over time, or at least we hope so. As I twiddle with things I've given thought to just keeping the FireTV Box directly hooked to the TV as my primary 4K device with the 'smart' apps on the TV itself filling in the spots the FireTV doesn't have. Like UltraFlix for instance.
> 
> ...


We started watching the new season of _Bloodline _on NF the other day. We were using our ATV4 at the time and I just switched from HBO NOW to NF and forgot about the show being in 4K on my TV's apps. We switched to the TV's app and after a couple minutes I began switching back a forth between the TV app and the 1080p ATV4 box. Really not much different as far as PQ goes, so we stayed with the ATV4 which has a much easier to use OS. Kinda surprised me, not seeing much difference between the TV's 4K and the upscaled to 2160p of the ATV4. Made me happy.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I've picked up two 4k movies so far. Now I just need a 4K player. Maybe a Playstation 4K when they come out. At least they come with the blu-ray.


I had expected to see the prices for the 4K disc players to drop by now. Perhaps for Xmas?

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

There aren't many actual 4K players out there yet and the selection and pricing on 4K discs leaves a bit to be desired. 

Sent from my App Runtime for Chrome using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dpeters11 said:


> Well, here's the thing as I see it. HDCP is hardware reliant, so if the industry decided that HDCP 2.2 wasn't good enough, then that would obsolete all aspects of it, including the TV. They can't move away from it lightly. I can't say for sure, but personally I don't see them moving away from it until the next jump, like for 8K content.
> 
> And as Lloyd says, HDCP is all about the video, not audio.


Actually HDCP protects audio as well, but there is setting that permits unprotected audio to be output via a digital audio port or a separate audio only non-HDCP HDMI port.

I agree that there is little chance of the industry moving beyond the requirement for HDCP 2.2 at this time. There are too many devices sold that support it, too much invested in it. There are rumors it has been broken, since full quality 4K video has been appearing on pirate sites since last fall, but this could be due to a compromised HDCP key rather than a full crack. The reason they moved from HDCP 1.4 used in HDMI 1.x is that it was fully cracked five or six years ago. The reason we use HDCP 2.2 is that HDCP 2.0 and 2.1 were cracked before it could even be built into the hardware - that's also probably why it took a while for HDMI 2.0 devices to support HDCP 2.2; some may have been built for HDCP 2.0 or 2.1 which become obsolete before they were able to hit the market. That's why you see older 4K TVs and AVRs that support HDMI 2.0 but not HDCP 2.2.

If it turns out to be true that HDCP 2.2 has been fully cracked, they will likely introduce a newer version, but they will have to support falling back to HDCP 2.2 due to all the 4K TVs out there now. As usual, DRM inconveniences consumers while doing little or nothing to stop piracy...


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

While it is nice to think that 'they' wouldn't make a change that would obsolete all existing equipment, history shows us that they don't mind doing that at all.

About 2 years ago we saw all tne new 4K AVRs, of course there wasn't any 4K source material readily available at the time, and as it turns out, all those AVRs couldn't actually deal with 4K source material because they brought out HDCP 2.0a/HDMI 2.2 to ensure it wouldn't. That's just one bit of evidence.

Here's another. Remember early on with BluRay when they made so many software changes that only the PS3 could keep up? All the other boxes fell behind as it took them longer to get fixes out for yet another change. Meanwhile people were buying/renting BluRay discs that wouldn't play on their new gear.

The industry has shown time and again that the effect on the consumer is not a priority to their plans and changes. The saving grace with 4K TVs is that if you get a brand that is excellent at upscaling, the differences to the naked eye at normal viewing distances are small enough to maybe not matter much.

The funny part of it is that the hacker/pirate community has shown time and again that whatever the industry comes up with, the hacker/pirate community will break it. And they will do it even if the content isn't of interest at all, just because they can!

For me, I'm nearly at the point where I'm about to take my 4K source boxes to my AVR since my TV is one of the best at upscaling. 4K, just like 3D, won't make a bad movie/show good and won't make a good one enough better at this point in time. It is a bit of a quandry for me as I"ve yet to find an AVR that sounds and looks as good as the one Harman Kardon produced, but alas, they are out of that business now. 

Sent from my App Runtime for Chrome using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> There aren't many actual 4K players out there yet and the selection and pricing on 4K discs leaves a bit to be desired.
> 
> Sent from my App Runtime for Chrome using Tapatalk


Right and I'm still not sure if the PQ of the players/4K discs is gonna be a huge step up from upscaling a 1080p BD. I realize we're at the beginning of the 4K disc thing and I know the prices will eventually drop. I doubt if I'll ever buy another disc, I'll wait until NF starts putting the 4K discs out and then I might spring for a 4K player. I've given away or donated enough hard copies of various formats to have arrived at the conclusion that renting is the way to go. Just my opinion.

Rich


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

That's where I'm at. I have seen some demos with 4K that does HDR and what I saw was really eye-popping but my set doesn't support that and since it is just a few months old it will be quite awhile before I consider moving up again. My wallet has already sent me a thank you note!! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Netflix has contemplated shutting down/splitting off/selling their disc rental business in the past. I would not be surprised if they never offer 4K Ultra HD Blu-Rays as mail to home, and only do 4K streaming.

As far as electronics companies moving past HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 they will not change anything on current generation hardware unless it can be done as a firmware update to the existing hardware. So they may update to HDCP 2.3 if they can do so as a firmware update, but they won't do it if it will require new hardware. They know that doing so would cause too much of a backlash. Just like they never really started using the image constraint token to keep people from being able to get HD material over component video, etc.

The next generation of encryption hardware requirements won't come around until they have a completely new spec like 8K TV, Ultraviolet ray discs, etc.


----------

