# 4k - what is it?



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

OK, I'm sure to most of you this is a stupid question but I am going to ask it anyways. In SIMPLE EASY terms what is 4k, is it just a better picture quality than HD??? Will this 4K become the standard over HD in the future? Do you have to have a 4K t.v. and 4K signal to watch 4K?? Will the term "shown in HD" go the way of the dinosaurs and it is going to be "THIS SHOW SHOWN IN 4K"??? When approximately will this "4K" thing happen?? I would appreciate a very simple easy to understand answer if possible, I have been completely ignoring this whole 4K crap and I just want to see what is going on here, thanks!


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Give it a couple of years to see what develops and then take a look.
It might go the way of 3D TVs and programming.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Simply put 1080p gives you 1,080 lines on you screen. 4K gives you 4,320 lines on your screen.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

All your questions were answered if you were paying attention when we switch from SD to HD. this is exactly the same. about the only thing you should know is that while 4K provides a better picture quality its benefits can only be appreciated by either getting closer to your TV set or buying a bigger one to have it in the same place.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

*In SIMPLE EASY terms what is 4k, is it just a better picture quality than HD???*
Yes

*Will this 4K become the standard over HD in the future?*
This remains to be seen. TV manufacturers hope so.

*Do you have to have a 4K t.v. and 4K signal to watch 4K??*
For the best picture possible, yes.

*Will the term "shown in HD" go the way of the dinosaurs and it is going to be "THIS SHOW SHOWN IN 4K"???*
TV manufacturers hope so.

*When approximately will this "4K" thing happen??*
Who knows? The US government mandated a conversion to digital, which forced TV stations to upgrade their equipment. This was a major influence on HD growing as quickly as it did. It remains to be seen whether there is any money to be made by TV stations to upgrade to 4K. IMO, until someone other than equipment manufacturers find a way to make money from 4K, our current HD systems will continue to be the standard.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Simply put 1080p gives you 1,080 lines on you screen. 4K gives you 4,320 lines on your screen.


Where did this come from?? TV/video 4K is 3840x2160 while movie 4K is 4096x2160. 8K might go up to 4320 lines but I am not sure. For the OP, 8K is the next step in video image resolution but it is only in a prototype stage and probably wont go much farther until we see if 4K catches on or goes the way of 3D


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> *Do you have to have a 4K t.v. and 4K signal to watch 4K??*
> For the best picture possible, yes.


This answer is kind of misleading and you left out a ton of important information.

You need a 4K TV to watch a 4K source *period*. You'll likely never (never say never though) be able to watch a 4K source on a HD (720p or 1080p) TV.

Also, you need to differentiate between 4K TV broadcasts, 4K devices (4K media players, UltraHD BluRay, PCs, consoles, etc.), 4K streaming (Netflix, Amazon, etc) because those are all different scenarios and have different requirements.

* 4K TV broadcasts are a big unknown to the general population right now. Nobody knows how they'll work, if we're even going to have them, etc. I personally (and this is my own opinion) think that OTA will get left behind because they're moving too slow. There is ATSC 3.0 for broadcasting 4K over-the-air, but from the sound of things, its like 5 - 10 yrs away. My personal belief is that we'll only see 4K channels on cable, sat, fiber, etc. any time soon unless the ATSC group steps on the gas big time.

* 4K devices... there are two categories here... media players (out already) & UltraHD BluRay (coming XMas 2015) and PCs / consoles. The media players & UltraHD BluRay are protected with HDCP 2.2 and thus would require an HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 TV set. PCs and consoles might not be protected with HDCP 2.2 and thus might work with HDMI 1.4, but would likely require HDMI 2.0.

* 4K streaming... well, this would all happen with-in your TV set, so there is no HDMI & HDCP involved.

And you can, of course, watch SD & HD on your 4K TV, but it will be up-converted and not native content, so it obviously won't look as good as native 4K content.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

longrider said:


> Where did this come from?? TV/video 4K is 3840x2160 while movie 4K is 4096x2160. 8K might go up to 4320 lines but I am not sure. For the OP, 8K is the next step in video image resolution but it is only in a prototype stage and probably wont go much farther until we see if 4K catches on or goes the way of 3D


Yup. 4K is only 2160. 4320 is 8K.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> All your questions were answered if you were paying attention when we switch from SD to HD. this is exactly the same. about the only thing you should know is that while 4K provides a better picture quality its benefits can only be appreciated by either getting closer to your TV set or buying a bigger one to have it in the same place.


If you're simply measuring pixel size and separation and doing math, maybe. But UHD is a lot more than sheer number of pixels or ppi.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> If you're simply measuring pixel size and separation and doing math, maybe. But UHD is a lot more than sheer number of pixels or ppi.


Care to explain or expand?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Several people including myself have already explained this to death.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Welcome DirecTV Newb!

Nearly everything you want to know about 4K UHD is available with a simple search to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television


----------



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

Bill Broderick said:


> *In SIMPLE EASY terms what is 4k, is it just a better picture quality than HD???*
> Yes
> 
> *Will this 4K become the standard over HD in the future?*
> ...


Thanks this gave me a good idea of what is happening with 4K. I guess then there is a chance this may not even materialize fully and as someone said, it could go the way of 3D TV. 
Thanks for all the good responses.


----------



## twizt3dkitty (Aug 29, 2009)

The better question for OP is what is UHD vs 4k. Because as of now most tvs will only display UHD content.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

directv newb said:


> Thanks this gave me a good idea of what is happening with 4K. I guess then there is a chance this may not even materialize fully and as someone said, it could go the way of 3D TV.
> Thanks for all the good responses.


Doubtful that 4K will fail IMO. Any reasonable person could see that 3D was DOA. Sorry, people just don't want to sit at home and watch TV with glasses for 2 hrs no matter how "cool" it is. 4K already has a ton more momentum out the gate. 3D @ home has a long history of failure. Its been tried many times. DirecTV gave 3D one part time channel for a while before shutting it down. They've spent billions launching two 4K only satellites just recently. Well, D14 was recently launched and is now settling into its final home. D15 is on its way soon.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

directv newb said:


> Thanks this gave me a good idea of what is happening with 4K. I guess then there is a chance this may not even materialize fully and as someone said, it could go the way of 3D TV.
> Thanks for all the good responses.


Actually....4K UHD is much further along in its brief history than 3D was after 5 years...and there are major investments by a number of players toward it's delivery.

DirecTV already has 4K UHD Video On Demand content, and announced it plans to provide broadcast content within the next 9-12 months. There is a new satellite just launched (and another later this year) intended to support 4K content broadcasting....major investments.

ESPN purchased a number of 4K cameras already (and uses them), and intends to broadcast 4K content.

So there is plenty of evidence it's coming...now the debate is when.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually....4K UHD is much further along in its brief history than 3D was after 5 years...and there are major investments by a number of players toward it's delivery.
> 
> DirecTV already has 4K UHD Video On Demand content, and announced it plans to provide broadcast content within the next 9-12 months. There is a new satellite just launched (and another later this year) intended to support 4K content broadcasting....major investments.
> 
> ...


Also, Dish has the Joey 4K (their version of the Genie / Client setup) coming this summer. DirecTV is yet to announce any 4K hardware, although, its obvious that its coming as current equipment can't pull from the new 4K birds.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

4K is just the next step in the journey. It too will become old news at some point.


----------



## mkdtv21 (May 27, 2007)

When are we going to get channels broadcasting in 1080p? Are they just gonna go straight to 4k and skip 1080p.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

mkdtv21 said:


> When are we going to get channels broadcasting in 1080p? Are they just gonna go straight to 4k and skip 1080p.


My guess is there'll be some broadcasts in 1080p that are now 1080i or 720p, and some will jump to UHD. But it will be a several-year transition.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually....4K UHD is much further along in its brief history than 3D was after 5 years...and there are major investments by a number of players toward it's delivery.


Wasn't there a 3D disc format at the time that 3D became available? UHD doesn't yet have a ratified disc format (2D or 3D).


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

mkdtv21 said:


> When are we going to get channels broadcasting in 1080p? Are they just gonna go straight to 4k and skip 1080p.





Laxguy said:


> My guess is there'll be some broadcasts in 1080p that are now 1080i or 720p, and some will jump to UHD. But it will be a several-year transition.


There has always been very little motivation among broadcaster to move to 1080p, mainly because it requires a bump up in bandwidth. In terms of bandwidth 720p and 1080i are almost the same size, but 1080p is double the size of 1080i. The gain of better fast image tracking is simply not worth the cost when most viewers don't notice it.

So if the content providers bump up resolution, it will likely be to go straight to UHD.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually....4K UHD is much further along in its brief history than 3D was after 5 years....


Ironically, UHD could actually make 3D work much better. One of the problems with 3D was trying to fit left and right images into the same data stream as 2D, which resulted in either lower resolution or lower frame rate (depending on the 3D method used) or both.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There's only a significant bump in bandwidth if you go to 1080p60. 1080p24 may actually be a step down.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> My guess is there'll be some broadcasts in 1080p that are now 1080i or 720p, and some will jump to UHD. But it will be a several-year transition.


I'm willing to bet we never see 1080p60 channels, they'll jump straight to 4K. The way to get 1080p on your HDTVs will be to connect them to a 4K receiver and let it downscale to 1080p, just like you can connect a HD receiver to a SDTV and output 480i.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> There's only a significant bump in bandwidth if you go to 1080p60. 1080p24 may actually be a step down.


Sure, but but too many TV shows are shot at 1080p60 (or these days in UHD) for a broadcaster to use 1080p24. HBO/Showtime/Starz/Epix, etc. have more of a mixed bag, with a much larger collection of 24fps source material, but again, the small image improvement is simply not worth the trouble.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> Wasn't there a 3D disc format at the time that 3D became available? UHD doesn't yet have a ratified disc format (2D or 3D).


Actually....more than 20 4K UHD Blu Ray players were seen at CES for production release later this year...so there clearly must be a "standard" format after all.



Diana C said:


> Ironically, UHD could actually make 3D work much better. One of the problems with 3D was trying to fit left and right images into the same data stream as 2D, which resulted in either lower resolution or lower frame rate (depending on the 3D method used) or both.


Agree. it appears this wall fall under a "too little to late" scenario as far as 3D....although a few 3D / 4K units were seen at CES. We all realize that it doesn't mean they'll make it into production. One unit was 4K UHD and also supported 1080p 3D.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually....more than 20 4K UHD Blu Ray players were seen at CES for production release later this year...so there clearly must be a "standard" format after all.
> 
> Agree. it appears this wall fall under a "too little to late" scenario as far as 3D....although a few 3D / 4K units were seen at CES. We all realize that it doesn't mean they'll make it into production. One unit was 4K UHD and also supported 1080p 3D.


Yup. 3D is dead. Along with Dolby Atmos and Auro 3D. Can't defeat the low WAF .


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually....more than 20 4K UHD Blu Ray players were seen at CES for production release later this year...so there clearly must be a "standard" format after all...


Well, to be fair, the UHD BD players at CES were all prototypes. The UHD BD format is close to ratification, but is not there yet (http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/uhd-blu-ray-specification). It is expected to be ratified in the spring, at which point the manufacturers will have to make any tweaks required to the hardware in order to start production in the summer. I wouldn't expect final firmware until later (IOW, expect that the first thing your new UHD BluRay player will do is download a firmware update).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Ironically, UHD could actually make 3D work much better. One of the problems with 3D was trying to fit left and right images into the same data stream as 2D, which resulted in either lower resolution or lower frame rate (depending on the 3D method used) or both.


I have seen a true 4k 3d demo and it was beyond amazing. It's in an entirely different class that hd 3d. It has a shot imho. Although the shot was also hurt imho by this last round of 3d attempts that where ok, and sometimes really neat, but just not spectacular enough to make you want to have that experience very often.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Diana C said:


> Well, to be fair, the UHD BD players at CES were all prototypes.


According to the manufacturers who were directly approached at CES...most of the units had UL certification, production model numbers, and were scheduled for release within the April - November 2015 timeframe, depending on each specific unit referenced. One very well-known manufacturer even disclosed which retail sources would be carrying the 2 models shown and approximately what month.They were said to be well beyond what most would define as "prototype".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually....more than 20 4K UHD Blu Ray players were seen at CES for production release later this year...so there clearly must be a "standard" format after all.


If a standard existed, wouldn't they be shipping those Blu-ray players?

http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/uhd-blu-ray-specification



Audioholics said:


> If all goes according to their roadmap, the final spec will be finished in the spring. If that happens, licensing and production could happen as early as the summer. Conceivably, then, we could see UHD Blu-rays and players launched just in time for Christmas.


----------



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

Well, after reading all this info and doing more online research this is what I think I have figured out. 4K or UHD is the doubling of pixels on the tv screen. So, it is all about a better picture quality, yet some argue that there comes a point that the human eye can only "see" so much, so you have to decide for yourself. 4K or UHD is undoubtedly the future, BUT the tv manufacturers are racing far ahead of the ones that make the programming. 4K is being adopted in small part by "streaming" services (netflix,ect..) but major broadcasters and cable companies don't seem in any rush at all, and may even be against it (cost,ect..). The 4k will not go away as did the 3D tv, it is here to stay BUT the speed at which it manifests itself is to major programming ect.. is completely unknown. Is this the time to run out and buy a 4K tv, honestly from what I have learned, no this not the time. Give it a couple years to see what evolves and develops, and where things come out in the wash. If you need a new tv and must buy one then of course you would want to price shop and see if you could get a 4K tv for a decent price, but it is not something you need to run out and buy right now. Even if you use a Roku box or Apple tv box you will have to replace it with a 4K one because the boxes are not compatible. So, this is just what I think I have learned in my quest for 4K knowledge, I don't know every thing but I feel I am a little more informed. I will not be going tomorrow and getting a new 4K tv, my 1080p tv is absolutely perfect and I will wait until the waters have cleared on this and I see where exactly this is going. I am not interested in just streaming options for 4K, I would want full broadcast tv/cable/satellite,ect.. so for me I will wait and see. Thanks!


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

TDK1044 said:


> 4K is just the next step in the journey. It too will become old news at some point.


Wasn't NHK going to start to do 8k in the next year or two in Japan?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> According to the manufacturers who were directly approached at CES...most of the units had UL certification, production model numbers, and were scheduled for release within the April - November 2015 timeframe, depending on each specific unit referenced. One very well-known manufacturer even disclosed which retail sources would be carrying the 2 models shown and approximately what month.They were said to be well beyond what most would define as "prototype".


Okay, call them pre-production samples. The point is that, as least as of CES, the UHD BluRay format was not finalized. Outside of this thread I see no one that thinks you'll be able to buy a UHD BD Player before Q4 (IOW, in time for Christmas 2015). For the most part, the hardware is probably good to go (and was on display), But at this point, any firmware on the boxes has to be considered a "prototype" based on some pre-ratification version of the standard. While any need for hardware updates is unlikely at this point, I can't imagine a manufacturer releasing the design to production until they know that a user will be able to at least play a UHD disc out of the box. They can always update the firmware, but unless they want to inundated by support calls on 12/26/2015 they'll want to at least know how close they are to the final spec.

I jump on harsh as much as anyone when he starts sowing FUD, but when he's right, he's right.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

directv newb said:


> The 4k will not go away as did the 3D tv, it is here to stay BUT the speed at which it manifests itself is to major programming ect.. is completely unknown.


More likely than not but to state this as absolute fact is not accurate. "Superior" devices have gone away in the past and this one may as well. If the market does not get settled on standards and enough programming does not arrive, 4K could disappear or remain a niche. Until you get linear channels to do 4K, you have trouble making it mainstream in the next 5 to 10 years.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Diana C said:


> Okay, call them pre-production samples. The point is that, as least as of CES, the UHD BluRay format was not finalized. Outside of this thread I see no one that thinks you'll be able to buy a UHD BD Player before Q4 (IOW, in time for Christmas 2015). For the most part, the hardware is probably good to go (and was on display), But at this point, any firmware on the boxes has to be considered a "prototype" based on some pre-ratification version of the standard. While any need for hardware updates is unlikely at this point, I can't imagine a manufacturer releasing the design to production until they know that a user will be able to at least play a UHD disc out of the box.


I'm with ya on those comments. By May 1st, we'll have a better idea on specific release dates for 2015...but I anticipate seeing several models out before year end as you mention.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> More likely than not but to state this as absolute fact is not accurate. "Superior" devices have gone away in the past and this one may as well. If the market does not get settled on standards and enough programming does not arrive, 4K could disappear or remain a niche. Until you get linear channels to do 4K, you have trouble making it mainstream in the next 5 to 10 years.


I agree. I do not see 4K becoming mainstream anytime soon. There will be UHD BluRay and a few niche channels, like there was with 3D, but I do not see broadcast channels going to 4K, nor do I see many linear channels adopting 4K. We are still waiting for true HD content from many of the providers. ESPN and a few PPV movies I can see, but that is about all.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> More likely than not but to state this as absolute fact is not accurate. "Superior" devices have gone away in the past and this one may as well. If the market does not get settled on standards and enough programming does not arrive, 4K could disappear or remain a niche. Until you get linear channels to do 4K, you have trouble making it mainstream in the next 5 to 10 years.


Anybody who thinks 4K is going away, will fail, or will be a niche product isn't looking very closely . 4K is already well ahead of 3D in terms of adoption rate, support, momentum, etc.

Go into any electronics store. TVs are almost all 4K now. UHD BluRay coming soon. HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 are here. Netflix and Amazon have 4K content. Major channels like ESPN have invested heavily in 4K already. DirecTV has invested billions to launch D14 and D15 which they stated are going to be used almost exclusively for 4K (since current equipment can't pull from them). Dish has announced the Joey 4K for summer as well.

If the 2016 Superbowl isn't available in 4K in some form, I'd be surprised.

Don't assume everybody will wait for OTA to catch up.

4K is all around us, hell people are even starting to talk about bring 4K to smart phones!


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> If a standard existed, wouldn't they be shipping those Blu-ray players?
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/uhd-blu-ray-specification


I'm not sure it's logical to say that the fact they aren't shipping yet means a standard doesn't exist. Sounds a little bit like a straw man...just sayin' :grin:

At any rate, the Blu-Ray Disc Association released details of the 4K UHD spec last September and announced they're supposed to start licensing this spring/summer at CES. One would think the spec has to finished for players to hit the market in time for the holidays. Heck, they've been working on it since 2013 so you'd think they'd have it done by now and are probably debating the final details and licensing requirements.

If they're not that far along after two years, they should probably give up...

Mike


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

The same was true for 3D a few years ago. By the time plasma TVs were phased out, nearly every plasma TV was 3D and nearly every BluRay supports 3D. ESPN had a 3D channel for several years, and I believe there were a few Superbowls broadcast on that channel. Before the 4K capabilities of D14 and D15 can be utilized, every DirecTV receiver must be replaced. They have not even done that yet for the MPEG2 only receivers. Other than ESPN, who was also an early adopter of 3D, which channels have invested heavily in 4K?

For the next 10 years or longer, 4K will be a few movie channels and a separate ESPN-UHD channel, but not all of the ESPN channels.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

fleckrj said:


> Before the 4K capabilities of D14 and D15 can be utilized, *every DirecTV receiver must be replaced*.


That's not quite as absolute as stated..

Adoption will happen over time, and equipment has always been updated over time as well. There are ways to view 4K UHD (albeit VOD) without obtaining a replacement for some of the equipment in homes today.

The RVU client platform is just one example, and allows some of the current hardware to essentially be a "pass through" mechanism to an RVU--enabled 4K UHD display/TV. If that continues to be a delivery strategy, there would not necessarily have to be wholesale replacement program in effect.

The last reality is that (just like HD) not everyone will adopt the new 4K UHD delivery until they absolutely have to - nearly 80% of people have adopted HD now after nearly 8 years of rollout. There is a highly-limited quantity of content for delivery at this time. That all points to no immediate urgency to mitigate the migration to 4K UHD in terms of hardware replacement. It's reasonable to assume DirecTV will provide a means to view 4K UHD based on how/when it is delivered through their service.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Anybody who thinks 4K is going away, will fail, or will be a niche product isn't looking very closely . 4K is already well ahead of 3D in terms of adoption rate, support, momentum, etc.
> 
> Go into any electronics store. TVs are almost all 4K now. UHD BluRay coming soon. HDMI 2.0 & HDCP 2.2 are here. Netflix and Amazon have 4K content. Major channels like ESPN have invested heavily in 4K already. DirecTV has invested billions to launch D14 and D15 which they stated are going to be used almost exclusively for 4K (since current equipment can't pull from them). Dish has announced the Joey 4K for summer as well.
> 
> ...


All of which was said about 3D at one point.

BTW, I was in an electronics store recently and there were far more HD sets than 4K. Where are you shopping?

And OTA DROVE HD. Nothing else did. The digital conversion and switch to HD OTA drove HD. The majority of TV watching is still from OTA stations.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> If the 2016 Superbowl isn't available in 4K in some form, I'd be surprised.


How exactly would that work? If Directv had a channel that carried the Super Bowl in 4K, wouldn't all the local affiliates be incredibly pissed off at NBC (or whatever network has the rights in 2016) for depriving them of ratings points and fewer people watching the very lucrative local ads they get to insert?

Maybe the contract with the affiliates allows for this sort of thing, but if not I don't see how it'll happen. Maybe it'll be broadcast in 4K in Europe


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> All of which was said about 3D at one point.


*NOBODY* said that about 3D. 3D was a DOA technology like Dolby Atmos and Auro3D. Yes, all the TVs and BluRay players adopted it, but they did that because they had to. Why would you buy a non-3D bluRay player when you can buy a 3d bluRay player? Even if you have no intention of ever watching a 3D movie. There were never even a whole lot of "legit" 3D movies. Nobody was upgrading equipment just to get 3D.

I forget who said it, maybe Rich or somebody along those lines, but somebody pointed out that 3D after 5 yrs was nowhere close to where 4K is already.

DirecTV barely invested in one part time 3D channel and shut it down in what, 6 months? They've already invested *BILLIONS* in *TWO* 4K satellites. You realize that if 4K flops, D14 and D15 can NOT be repuposed for HD, right? Current equipment can't pull from the reverse band. DirecTV has certainly gambled on 4K in a big, big, big way.

Yeah, I work for a company that invests 6 months to a year in a project only to kill it because they "changed thier minds", but this is two very expensive satellites that can't be repurposed that we're talking about.

And sorry, nobody is waiting for ATSC 3.0 as much as you want to believe that they are. They'll use alternatives. ATSC 3.0 is like 10 yrs away if not more based on the current progress.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

fleckrj said:


> Before the 4K capabilities of D14 and D15 can be utilized, every DirecTV receiver must be replaced. They have not even done that yet for the MPEG2 only receivers.


Why do they have to replace every receiver? Directv didn't have to replace every SD receiver to start HD broadcasts. They will need to do so to drop MPEG2 SD (there will still be some SD channels, but they'll be MPEG4) at some future date.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> How exactly would that work? If Directv had a channel that carried the Super Bowl in 4K, wouldn't all the local affiliates be incredibly pissed off at NBC (or whatever network has the rights in 2016) for depriving them of ratings points and fewer people watching the very lucrative local ads they get to insert?
> 
> Maybe the contract with the affiliates allows for this sort of thing, but if not I don't see how it'll happen. Maybe it'll be broadcast in 4K in Europe


4K PPV, internet only, netflix or amazon streaming, etc. I bet Netflix or Amazon or Google would pay a FORTUNE to have exclusive 4K streaming rights for the Superbowl for even 1 yr. WWE moved to an internet only model for PPVs, so its not unheard of.

I didn't say everybody would have access to the 4K Super Bowl in 2016, I just said I'd be surprised if it wasn't available in some form.

As I said in my previous reply, ATSC 3.0 is a long way away as I type this. Unless they ramp it up big time, they'll become a dinosaur.

Besides, even if ATSC 3.0 was finalized and ratified today, it'd still be years before any stations go live.

DirecTV and Dish and Fios are planning to air 4K much sooner then that .


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> They've already invested *BILLIONS* in *TWO* 4K satellites. You realize that if 4K flops, D14 and D15 can NOT be repuposed for HD, right? Current equipment can't pull from the reverse band. DirecTV has certainly gambled on 4K in a big, big, big way.


Wrong! There is absolutely NOTHING preventing the use of RDBS for HD. You keep repeating this line about "current equipment can't pull from the reverse band" but that is WRONG WRONG WRONG! If you replaced your LNB with one that can receive RDBS, your HD receivers would be able to view HD channels on it.

Directv will not lose any money on these satellites if 4K flops, they'll just have additional bandwidth to play with for HD.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> Before the 4K capabilities of D14 and D15 can be utilized, every DirecTV receiver must be replaced.


Uhh... no they don't. D14 and D15 works just fine side by side with the rest of the fleet and all MPEG2 and MPEG4 equipment.

Only people who want 4K need 4K equipment.

Besides, a 4K box wouldn't even work on your 1080P TV... you know, HDCP 2.2 and all .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Wrong! There is absolutely NOTHING preventing the use of RDBS for HD. You keep repeating this line about "current equipment can't pull from the reverse band" but that is WRONG WRONG WRONG! If you replaced your LNB with one that can receive RDBS, your HD receivers would be able to view HD channels on it.
> 
> Directv will not lose any money on these satellites if 4K flops, they'll just have additional bandwidth to play with for HD.


Ok, so they're going to replace all HD LNBs just so they can show HD on those birds? You also realize there aren't really any HD channels left to add, right? There's some low viewer obscure ones like the Knitting Channel HD and Al Jazeera HD, but what popular / mainstream HD channel are we missing?

Ok, lets say 4K flops and they add HD channels to D14 and D15. What are they going to do with the other 95% of the capacity?

We all know DirecTV has no intention of lowering the compression rate or improving SD picture quality.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

There were several 3D channels, and they ran for far longer than 6 months.

3net February 13, 2011 - August 12, 2014
ESPN 3D June 11, 2010 - September 30, 2013
N3D July 1 2010 - June 25, 2012

All three died because of lack of content for 3D. At this point, the same is true for 4K. There will be a few 4K channels, but it will not be mainstream for a long time.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ok, so they're going to replace all HD LNBs just so they can show HD on those birds? You also realize there aren't really any HD channels left to add, right? There's some low viewer obscure ones like the Knitting Channel HD and Al Jazeera HD, but what popular / mainstream HD channel are we missing?
> 
> Ok, lets say 4K flops and they add HD channels to D14 and D15. What are they going to do with the other 95% of the capacity?
> 
> We all know DirecTV has no intention of lowering the compression rate or improving SD picture quality.


They would have some uses they could put that extra bandwidth to that wouldn't require replacing any existing LNBs.

1) replicate everything on 95 and 119 there so a single LNB (that received RDBS) could be used for all new installs
2) maybe as part of that replication, offer as much of that Spanish/international programming in HD as possible
3) offer extra high quality versions of popular channels - who wouldn't want to get ESPN, HBO, AMC and other popular channels without any additional compression beyond how it is received from the network? Existing customers would receive the existing versions of those channels, the customers with the new LNB would receive the improved version. Even if customers had to pay for the install of the new LNB they'd probably get a lot of uptake. Directv could call it "Premium HD" or something 

I'm sure there are other ideas for using that capacity if they didn't use it for 4K, it would not go to waste. If nothing else they could find some internal use for it. Directv has licenses for the Ka band at 101, but all 2000 MHz worth is used internally, so that would not be without precedent.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

I'm just stating my opinion from everything I see around me. YMMV. 3D required special cameras to shoot, required contrived scenes to be written into scripts and most of all, required annoying 3D glasses to watch. I know about 10 people who are fully 3D capable and all 10 pretty much said "yeah, we watched one or two movies and then the glasses got lost / broken / etc., nothing to watch, etc.". Moving to 4K is certainly easier then moving to 3D from a production point of view. If there is no interest in buying 3D content they aren't going to make it. The same MAY hold true for 4K, but I'm assuming DirecTV did thier homework and found people are interested.

If 4K was "just a niche / fad", they could have tested it out on VOD (which they are doing) or 1 part time PPV channel and guage interest. Thats not what they did. They went whole hog and launched 2 birds. They couldn't utilize all that capacity today if they tried.

Don't get me wrong, I'm assuming DirecTV has a "plan B" ... but right now, the magic 8 ball points to 4K.


----------



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

tonyd79 said:


> More likely than not but to state this as absolute fact is not accurate. "Superior" devices have gone away in the past and this one may as well. If the market does not get settled on standards and enough programming does not arrive, 4K could disappear or remain a niche. Until you get linear channels to do 4K, you have trouble making it mainstream in the next 5 to 10 years.


I ABSOLUTELY agree with your point on this. If mainstream programming does not get on board with this you could very easily see this slowly turn into a niche market. I don't believe it is possible at this point in the "technology train" for it to just go away. I don't believe one should ever use the analogy of 4K vs. 3D television. They are so totally unrelated that it is not even funny, 3D tv NEVER had a chance, it was a joke. 4K or UHD is not a joke, it will be a strong reality, it will just depend on the main stream tv producers as to how and when and if it takes off.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> If 4K was "just a niche / fad", they could have tested it out on VOD (which they are doing) or 1 part time PPV channel and guage interest. Thats not what they did. They went whole hog and launched 2 birds. They couldn't utilize all that capacity today if they tried.


They didn't "go whole hog and launch two birds" based on the interest level for 4K. The construction contract for building D14 was announced in June 2010, and the applications for the RDBS bands was back in 2007 or so. They weren't even thinking about 4K back then, that initial announcement (linked below) didn't mention 4K at all but it did mention 3D. 

http://sslmda.com/html/pressreleases/pr20100611.html


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> They didn't "go whole hog and launch two birds" based on the interest level for 4K. The construction contract for building D14 was announced in June 2010, and the applications for the RDBS bands was back in 2007 or so. They weren't even thinking about 4K back then, that initial announcement (linked below) didn't mention 4K at all but it did mention 3D.
> 
> http://sslmda.com/html/pressreleases/pr20100611.html


Ok , well, I have 11 months for my prediction to come true .


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

directv newb said:


> I ABSOLUTELY agree with your point on this. If mainstream programming does not get on board with this you could very easily see this slowly turn into a niche market. I don't believe it is possible at this point in the "technology train" for it to just go away. I don't believe one should ever use the analogy of 4K vs. 3D television. They are so totally unrelated that it is not even funny, 3D tv NEVER had a chance, it was a joke. 4K or UHD is not a joke, it will be a strong reality, it will just depend on the main stream tv producers as to how and when and if it takes off.


I was never a fan of 3D and thought it would die...and it did. However, 4k seems to be a different animal. The streaming services, Netflix and Amazon to name a couple, are using it now. There's even a new streaming service dedicated to UHD call Ultraflix.

Broadcast/cable channels see streaming services as a huge threat. The Ultraflix is already built into Sony, Samsung, Vizio and other UHD TVs manufacturers with more coming soon. If streaming services are providing 4k UHD then the Broadcast/cable channels will have to keep. They're already battling with streaming services for eyeballs so they can't be caught in a position of playing catchup.

Tonyd79 makes an excellent point. OTA and the digital conversion drove the switch to HD. It wasn't the only driver but it was the one that forced everyone's hand. I see the streaming services filling the same role here. If the streaming services are carrying and maintaining UHD delivery, the broadcast and cable content providers will be forced to into it just like they had to with the digital conversion. They can't be caught playing catch up the streaming services.

This time it won't be a mandate from the FCC that forces their hands but something with whole lot more pull...the bottom line. :grin:

My 3.32¢ FWIW.

Mike


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> ...As I said in my previous reply, ATSC 3.0 is a long way away as I type this. Unless they ramp it up big time, they'll become a dinosaur.
> 
> Besides, even if ATSC 3.0 was finalized and ratified today, it'd still be years before any stations go live...


The obstacle is that ATSC 3.0 is not backwards compatible, meaning that the broadcasters need an additional channel for the 3.0 version of their feed. ATSC uses h.265 compression and CODFM instead of 8VSB, requiring entirely new tuner circuitry, but yields the ability to fit 28 Mbps into a single 6 MHz broadcast channel.. This also means 2 transmitters.

The challenges facing OTA broadcast of UHD are significant, and not likely to be addressed within the decade. Capacity problems will also make UHD very difficult for cable operators, who have already more than maxed out even the most modern cable plant. The only way to do UHD on cable is to drop current SD and HD channels to make room or start using an entirely different frequency (which is itself difficult, since they would have to go WAY up the band to clear the MOCA frequencies).

So, for the foreseeable future, UHD will be restricted to satellite, BD and OTT delivery. But with linear broadcasting seemingly on the way out, perhaps it doesn't matter that OTA won't be viable for UHD. The cable operators could get out of linear TV and switch over their entire cable infrastructure to DOCSIS 3.0. I have read a number of articles that suggest that there will NEVER be much UHD linear content (sports being the only thing that needs to be 'live').

So, the satellite operators win the short term UHD contest, but cable operators may win in the end.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think you're right on the mark about cable switching to IP delivery via DOCSIS 3.x. That's probably why they have mostly sat on their hands rather than trying to convert from MPEG2 to MPEG4. They know they'll need to replace cable boxes for this IP transition anyway, so they're going to wait for that and probably jump straight to HEVC when they do it. They won't have any trouble delivering 4K, though it will take them a couple more years to get there.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Right now, seems like DirecTV is the best positioned to deliver "oodles" of 4K content. They are the only ones with the capacity. Not sure what Dish's situation is since I don't follow them much, but it does seem like the Joey 4K will beat the Genie 4K out the door unless DirecTV pulls a "we're starting shipping next week" move... Does FIOS have any official 4K plans? They should have tons of bandwidth lying around gathering dust.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> ... Does FIOS have any official 4K plans? They should have tons of bandwidth lying around gathering dust.


Verizon has to show some interest in FiOS before we can expect them to do anything about new services. The current management are all from the wireless side of the business, and they are devoting all of their efforts there. Just look at how they just sold off FiOS and POTS customers in 3 states to Frontier. The sale included around 2 million FiOS customers.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I was never a fan of 3D and thought it would die...and it did. However, 4k seems to be a different animal. The streaming services, Netflix and Amazon to name a couple, are using it now.


Do either of the streaming services carry more UHD than they do 3D?


----------



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

Well, after all my investigation and research I ordered a new tv. I decided NOT to get 4K, I just felt the extra cost was not a smart decision for me. I ordered a Vizio M-series 70" LED 1080p
smart tv. I bought it from Best Buy for $1599.00 with free delivery, BUT I saw it on Costco for $1499.00 and I knew Best Buy did price matching so I ended up paying $1499.00 with free delivery. One other thing I really like about Best Buy is that they will haul away my old tv. I have a 73" mitsubishi DLP rear projection HD tv. I just put it on Craigslist for a good/fair price so if it sells that is fine if it does not they can take it with them. It has been a flawless tv, I just have to change the bulb every now and then, and it is HEAVY. So, in closing I guess my post here helped me make my decision and I truly believe I saved about $900 - $1,000 that I would have spent on the "same" tv but in 4K. I will think about 4K a couple of years down the road when it becomes more clear how pervasive this technology will be.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

directv newb said:


> Well, after all my investigation and research I ordered a new tv. I decided NOT to get 4K, I just felt the extra cost was not a smart decision for me. I ordered a Vizio M-series 70" LED 1080p
> smart tv. I bought it from Best Buy for $1599.00 with free delivery, BUT I saw it on Costco for $1499.00 and I knew Best Buy did price matching so I ended up paying $1499.00 with free delivery. One other thing I really like about Best Buy is that they will haul away my old tv. I have a 73" mitsubishi DLP rear projection HD tv. I just put it on Craigslist for a good/fair price so if it sells that is fine if it does not they can take it with them. It has been a flawless tv, I just have to change the bulb every now and then, and it is HEAVY. So, in closing I guess my post here helped me make my decision and I truly believe I saved about $900 - $1,000 that I would have spent on the "same" tv but in 4K. I will think about 4K a couple of years down the road when it becomes more clear how pervasive this technology will be.


Did you tell them how big your old TV is ?
The reason I ask is that when I upgraded the 36" Toshiba CRT to a 52" Mitsubishi they told me that the largest set was a 32". I had a 32" Toshiba CRT that I replaced with a 46" Samsung and they did haul it off.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

directv newb said:


> One other thing I really like about Best Buy is that they will haul away my old tv. I have a 73" mitsubishi DLP rear projection HD tv. I just put it on Craigslist for a good/fair price so if it sells that is fine if it does not they can take it with them. It has been a flawless tv, I just have to change the bulb every now and then, and it is HEAVY.


If it doesn't sell, how about donating it to a charity, like Goodwill or giving it to a friend or co-worker who can use it? In both cases, someone else will pick it up and it will go to good use rather then getting scrapped.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> Do either of the streaming services carry more UHD than they do 3D?


Don't know. Didn't count them. Doesn't really matter though as it wasn't the point of my post.


----------



## directv newb (Jun 25, 2012)

Just thought I would post an update, just for the heck of it. I had went ahead an placed an order for a new Vizio 70" tv (not 4k). I was going to get rid of my Mitsubishi 73" hd 1080 dlp tv. The Mitsubishi has NEVER caused me one issue, but I just had a itch and thought maybe I would get a better picture. Well, the whole reason I bought the Mitsubishi years ago was because of my neighbor, he had bought a 73" and when I went over to his house I was blown away!!!! Ok, so I bought one and it has been awesome. So, I was in the garage and my neighbor popped in and I told him of my plans to get rid of my Mitsubishi and get the new Vizio, ect....... Now he had done the same thing I was doing about a year to a year and a half ago. Well, he starts telling me that he wishes he did not get rid of his Mitsubishi and he was just going through a (I want new ****) phase. He said you already have the Roku 3, so no gain in the smart tv department, and then he said "hey, I have 2 brand new OEM Mitsubishi bulbs in the basement" and he he just gave them to me. It had been about 2 1/2 years since I change the bulb so I immediately put in a new bulb, OMG, it was the MOST beautiful picture ever. I had just become used to the duller picture after 2 1/2 years, but now it is magnificent!! So, I called Best Buy and cancelled my order and I am going to use this Mitsubishi until she BLOWS UP!!!!!! I just saved my self a load of money.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Don't know. Didn't count them. Doesn't really matter though as it wasn't the point of my post.


If you're using the availability of streaming titles to measure the vitality of a format, the comparison would seem to be of considerable importance.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Don't know. Didn't count them. Doesn't really matter though as it wasn't the point of my post.


Yeah....at least most of the rest of us understood your point...a valid one at that.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> If you're using the availability of streaming titles to measure the vitality of a format, the comparison would seem to be of considerable importance.


Ummm...No. It's of little value. UHD doesn't require me to wear glasses to watch it. Since that was the major down fall of 3D, the availability of 3D vs UHD becomes an unimportant metric.

IMHO, 3D was doomed no matter how much content is available and thus not really an accurate comparison to UHD.

Mike


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Another difference is that 3D took special camera setups, camera angles and depth changes to make it look "3D-y". For UHD, you don't change anything a normal filmmaker does except the camera, but it acts the same way as one with lesser detail.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> For UHD, you don't change anything a normal filmmaker does except the camera, but it acts the same way as one with lesser detail.


Perhaps it is the need to convert from 4K to UHD that is keeping UHD streaming titles at bay?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Perhaps it is the need to convert from 4K to UHD that is keeping UHD streaming titles at bay?


Why do you keep harping on the distinction as if it is a big deal?

It is incredibly simple to do this conversion, whether they simply use a 5% crop or they rescale. You couldn't tell the difference between the original 4096x2160 source material and rescaled 3840x2160 unless you practically pressed your face up against the TV.

Check out an iPhone 6 Plus, the image is rendered at 2208x1242 and scaled to the 1920x1080 display. Even Apple haters don't complain about that, since it is nearly impossible to see the difference. Pretty sure if a smartphone can rescale in _real time_ this is not a problem holding back streaming 4K movies!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Sometimes the discomfort of thought is just too much to bear......


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> It is incredibly simple to do this conversion, whether they simply use a 5% crop or they rescale.


I don't think either of those options is trivial. Cropping would have a noticeable impact on the aspect ratio; especially with movies that are shot at 64:27.

I haven't taken the time to figure out what a center cut would be but I'm guessing that even that would require scaling up horizontally to look right.

I'm not suggesting that it can't be done. I'm simply reasoning why it isn't being done more actively.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> Sometimes the discomfort of thought is just too much to bear......


Not nearly as uncomfortable as contributing to the discussion.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

harsh said:


> I don't think either of those options is trivial. Cropping would have a noticeable impact on the aspect ratio; especially with movies that are shot at 64:27.
> 
> I haven't taken the time to figure out what a center cut would be but I'm guessing that even that would require scaling up horizontally to look right.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that it can't be done. I'm simply reasoning why it isn't being done more actively.


Watch Marco Polo on Netflix. The vertical size is reduced a small amount to display the full width.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doing some simple math suggests that to fit the full cinema width into UHD you're scaling to 15/16ths that isn't a nice round number and probably recognizable as a funky aspect ratio if you center cut without scaling. Imagine the matrix of pixels that have to be interpolated to make the transition.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Doing some simple math suggests that to fit the full cinema width into UHD you're scaling to 15/16ths that isn't a nice round number and probably recognizable as a funky aspect ratio if you center cut without scaling. Imagine the matrix of pixels that have to be interpolated to make the transition.


Look at the math for the iPhone 6 plus, it isn't a nice round number either and it is almost impossible to tell it is scaled. It isn't the problem you seem to wish it was.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Y'all aren't getting the point that hardware mfg figured out. The chipsets in all the 4K sets do a terrific job of uprezzing HD signals. At least double the PQ IMHO. 

Had my 4K set a month, now. WAF phenomenal. Bought the same size as previous HD set. Now she says the next set we buy should be bigger. 95% of what we watch - of course - is uprezzed HD. Still, we rearranged LR furniture to move closer to expand viewing experience.

Working with the crew at AVSForum.com I calibrated typical range of 3 categories of viewing context/setting: standard room lighting, brightly lit room, totally dark room. In practice, the picture is so "dense" we end up leaving the set on standard regardless of room lighting. One of the biggest surprises to me.

We're in a valley at 6300' in NM sited for passive solar - the afternoon sun roars into the LR - never directly on the set, though. Watching a proper football match on BEin Sports from France or Spain uprezzed, mid-afternoon, is so great I sometimes slide the ottoman in front of the set and watch from 5' away. And regardless of distance, I no longer use the calibrated "vivid" setting. Don't need it.

We add true 4K as available and suits our eclectic taste. Twice as much fun as uprezzed 1080p. One of the best early hardware upgrades I ever made.


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

I think 4K will be more "Evolutionary" vs HD which was more "Revolutionary". Anybody, well most anybody, could see a huge difference between SD and HD. 4K is more subtle to me from the displays I have seen. I will not rush out to buy a 4K TV when I have a perfectly good HDTV. With HD, when D10 launched, I had every TV in the house replaced with an HD one within 6 months. Won't do that with 4K even though the prices will most likely be cheaper.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

If uprezzing really did double PQ, there would have been no need for broadcasters to move to HD. Everyone could have uprezzed SD broadcasts on a 1080p TV


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Heck, I uprezzed my 15 year old videos @ 240 x 180 to 7680 x 4320 pixels (8K)

Some care should be taken to not confuse uprezzing with upscaling, and PQ with sheer number of pixels. But the trend is good!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> I think 4K will be more "Evolutionary" vs HD which was more "Revolutionary". Anybody, well most anybody, could see a huge difference between SD and HD. 4K is more subtle to me from the displays I have seen. I will not rush out to buy a 4K TV when I have a perfectly good HDTV. With HD, when D10 launched, I had every TV in the house replaced with an HD one within 6 months. Won't do that with 4K even though the prices will most likely be cheaper.


How would you know? Its unlikely any 4K display you've ever seen was actually playing 4K content. An upconverted BluRay isn't the same thing as native 4K.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> How would you know? Its unlikely any 4K display you've ever seen was actually playing 4K content. An upconverted BluRay isn't the same thing as native 4K.


I've seen native 4K, and I agree with what he said. I think a lot of people here are massively overhyping what an improvement 4K is. It is hardly revolutionary, and isn't something a lot of people will feel they are missing out on by not upgrading. There are some people who are still fine with SD, and a larger number will be fine with HD. If 8K ever comes an even larger number will be fine with 4K. There are obvious diminishing returns as resolution increases, that is simple math and cannot be disputed.

Your opinion of how important 4K is obviously differs, but claiming the only explanation for someone to disagree with you is because they haven't seen native 4K is pretty silly.


----------



## Al K (Jan 23, 2004)

One thing 4K does is make HD better.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Your opinion of how important 4K is obviously differs, but claiming the only explanation for someone to disagree with you is because they haven't seen native 4K is pretty silly.


I said that because its true, seeing as there is almost no legit native 4K content and there are even fewer ways available to actually get it into the TV while keeping it legit 4K. What was your source for native 4K?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> I've seen native 4K, and I agree with what he said. I think a lot of people here are massively overhyping what an improvement 4K is.


A dozen? A hundred? Four or five? To counter that, a couple of folks are massively under-hyping 4K!

I've seen 4K on about 15 sets. A dozen at CES a year ago, and a few since then in big box stores. Native 4K can be awesome, but you're right in that a lot of people will shun it, just as some have eschewed HD.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

PS. BTW, OMG! FWIW, My post above was written and posted before I saw SH's post.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> How would you know? Its unlikely any 4K display you've ever seen was actually playing 4K content. An upconverted BluRay isn't the same thing as native 4K.


It was true 4K. It was a Sony 4K display at a local (not big box) retailer. It was playing a 4K loop provided by Sony.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Native 4K can be awesome, but you're right in that a lot of people will shun it, just as some have eschewed HD.


I am not shunning it. I just personally don't think it is as big of visual leap as SD to HD was. It is more incremental.

That said, I bought a cheap Epson projector to go in my theater. So instead of spending $2500-3000 on a top of line HD projector, I spent <$1000. Saved that money for when $4K is more mainstream and will get a new projector then.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Herdfan said:


> I am not shunning it. I just personally don't think it is as big of visual leap as SD to HD was. It is more incremental.


 Couldn't agree more!

I just hope my eyesight holds up and so when I do hook up that future UHD set, I can really appreciate the differences!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I've seen native 4K, and I agree with what he said. I think a lot of people here are massively overhyping what an improvement 4K is. It is hardly revolutionary, and isn't something a lot of people will feel they are missing out on by not upgrading. There are some people who are still fine with SD, and a larger number will be fine with HD. If 8K ever comes an even larger number will be fine with 4K. There are obvious diminishing returns as resolution increases, that is simple math and cannot be disputed.
> 
> Your opinion of how important 4K is obviously differs, but claiming the only explanation for someone to disagree with you is because they haven't seen native 4K is pretty silly.


To me it's a catch 22.

The true 4k 3d demo I saw (and I don't really like 3d) on an lg was massively better and a bigger jump up from Hi Definition than Hi Definition was from sd. It was truly revolutionary. I was genuinely surprised I never would have guessed it had the potential to be that good.

The problem is how much content will ever be produced at that quality? Heck most Hi Definition isn't produced anywhere near its full potential now!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> The true 4k 3d demo I saw (and I don't really like 3d) on an lg


Are you talking about the LG OLEDs? If so, you can't compare a LCD or even a plasma to OLED. OLED is just in a totally different league on every factor. Well, except price LOL.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You know, as much of as a techie as I am, I don't recall! I think it was led.. Which of course is led... But it could have been oled. It was not cheap...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> I said that because its true, seeing as there is almost no legit native 4K content and there are even fewer ways available to actually get it into the TV while keeping it legit 4K. What was your source for native 4K?


This was fall 2012 in Vegas, some demo they had at Fashion Show. There was a PC with an external RAID array and high end graphics card chugging away under the table connected to an 80" LG that cost like $20,000. I asked about the RAID array and was told it was pulling around a half gigabyte per second to run the demo. Even assuming it was using MPEG4 (he couldn't/wouldn't say) that's vastly higher quality than anything you'll ever see from Directv - basically 4K Blu Ray quality.

I don't think I ever asked/looked how it was connected, but either HDMI 1.4 or Displayport would have been fine for 4Kp24, so I assume one of those. There weren't any fast action sports, it was a 7-8 minute loop with clips/trailers from a couple random movies and slow pans over fields of flowers, underwater scenes, that sort of thing. The most interesting part was a split screen where half the screen was 4K and half was 1080p - the text explained it used four identical pixels so the "HD" half looked the same as a 1080p picture would look.

The difference between the 4K and 1080p halves was quite obvious up close, but about 12' away or so and it became really hard to tell which half of the screen was which. There was a HDTV next to it running the "same" content that didn't look nearly as good as the "four pixels on the 4K TV" demo, but then that HDTV probably didn't cost as much as an entry level car like the giant 4K TV did! They probably don't run that split screen demo anymore, because I think it would hurt the sales of 4K TVs to allow an honest comparison of 4K vs HD - much better to have a 4K TV next to an inferior HDTV (probably with bad settings) to make the comparison as dramatic as possible.


----------



## stvcmty (Oct 24, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> [...] an 80" LG that cost like $20,000.[...]


Bigger displays will always benefit from higher pixel density.

In the 90's, 40"+ "big screen" CRT-based TV's looked bad unless you were 10' or more away. It was SD, and the pixels got blown up to make the screen big.
Then HD came around, and 720/1080 look great on a 40" display. (I know the area's are different because SD big screens were 4:3 and most LCDs are wide screen).
The need for UHD displays probably depends on how big of a screen someone wants to put in their space and how far the closest seating is from the screen.

A 32" HDTV with people watching it from 15' away will not benefit much by being replaced with a same sized UHD set. At that distance it is not possible to distinguish individual pixels.
On the other hand, a 55" TV with people sitting 8' from it will benefit from UHD. A 55" HDTV with people close to it looks grainy, even with 1080i/p source material.

So for the trend of ever larger TV's taking up the living room, UHD is a good thing. That being said, there has been a cycle to TV furniture. TV's were first built in well-crafted wood cabinets to be shown off as a "look at our TV, don't you wish you had one". Then TV's became mass market and TV cabinets were made to hide the TV when it was not in use, possibly to preserve some illusion that life did not need to revolve around the TV. Then HDTV's got big, and the furniture had to support them and it was not practical to put them in cabinets anymore, so the TV became a focal point of the room. Now, it is common to drive along and see what the neighbors are watching on their 55" HDTV as you drive through the neighborhood.

If UHD ever makes it to OTA broadcasts, the early adopters will be stuck with TV's that are not as useful as they could be. Right now, there is not a way for a TV station to send out UHD OTA, receive it with an antenna, and have an off the shelf UHD TV display UHD content. For some people that may be a non-issue but without that sort of standardization, UHD as it is now may just be a stop gap solution on the way to the next generation of TV's.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I said that because its true, seeing as there is almost no legit native 4K content and there are even fewer ways available to actually get it into the TV while keeping it legit 4K. What was your source for native 4K?


Where do you get that? 4k content is available from Netflix, Amazon and Youtube. (And, streaming starts in seconds from the TVs native Apps.) The resolution is there. The fact that improved frame rates and color depth are coming does not mean current content is not "legit".

Those of us that have bought the sets are enjoying it, along with improved satellite viewing. Don't badmouth something you haven't experienced.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

stvcmty said:


> If UHD ever makes it to OTA broadcasts, the early adopters will be stuck with TV's that are not as useful as they could be. Right now, there is not a way for a TV station to send out UHD OTA, receive it with an antenna, and have an off the shelf UHD TV display UHD content. For some people that may be a non-issue but without that sort of standardization, UHD as it is now may just be a stop gap solution on the way to the next generation of TV's.


All that means is that if stations ever start broadcasting ATSC 3.0 (whether they use it to broadcast 4K, or to have multiple HD subchannels) you'll need a converter box. Not sure I'd call such a TV 'less useful', it may be a slight inconvenience but that's a lot less of a shortcoming than a missing capability that cannot be added via an external box like higher frame rates or wider color space.

I think the early adopters should be a lot more worried about the possibility of owning a TV incompatible with 4Kp60 broadcasts than needing a converter box the size of a cigarette pack to tune ATSC 3.0.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> All that means is that if stations ever start broadcasting ATSC 3.0 (whether they use it to broadcast 4K, or to have multiple HD subchannels) you'll need a converter box. Not sure I'd call such a TV 'less useful', it may be a slight inconvenience but that's a lot less of a shortcoming than a missing capability that cannot be added via an external box like higher frame rates or wider color space.
> 
> I think the early adopters should be a lot more worried about the possibility of owning a TV incompatible with 4Kp60 broadcasts than needing a converter box the size of a cigarette pack to tune ATSC 3.0.


That is the real problem though, many of these early UHDTVs do not have a HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 input so you won't be able to hook up Ultra High Def Blu Ray players or ATSC 3 converter boxes to them and get the full resolution/framerate/colorspace.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Beerstalker said:


> That is the real problem though, many of these early UHDTVs do not have a HDMI 2.0/HDCP2.2 input so you won't be able to hook up Ultra High Def Blu Ray players or ATSC 3 converter boxes to them and get the full resolution/framerate/colorspace.


They'll be fine for 4K Blu Ray. Movies are 24 fps (other than the Hobbit and maybe a few other titles experimenting with 48 fps)


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Nope, from everything I have read Ultra High Def Blu Ray is going to require HDMI2.0/HDCP2.2, even if it doesn't need it to send 3840x2160/24p. They want that copy protection.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah don't expect them to not require it. These are the same people who have killed Hi Definition output on component outputs of most bluray players. They are crazy.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

Beerstalker said:


> Nope, from everything I have read Ultra High Def Blu Ray is going to require HDMI2.0/HDCP2.2, even if it doesn't need it to send 3840x2160/24p. They want that copy protection.


You are correct that UHD Blu Ray will likely require HDCP 2.2, however HDCP 2.2 at 24 and/or 30 frames per second can be utilized over HDMI 1.4.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Smuuth said:


> You are correct that UHD Blu Ray will likely require HDCP 2.2, however HDCP 2.2 at 24 and/or 30 frames per second can be utilized over HDMI 1.4.


False.

HDCP 2.2 lives on HDMI 2.0 only.

Now theoretically, yes, HDMI 1.4 has the bandwidth to do it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Beerstalker said:


> Nope, from everything I have read Ultra High Def Blu Ray is going to require HDMI2.0/HDCP2.2, even if it doesn't need it to send 3840x2160/24p. They want that copy protection.


Yeah forgot about HDCP 2.2. Not sure why they would care though, the MPAA seems to have no trouble allowing Netflix et al to stream their valuable content. I'm sure it would be a lot easier for a hacker to find a weakness in the security used by Netflix, Amazon, various VOD offerings etc. They only need to break one.

Of course, the reason why HDCP is on version 2.2 is that version 2.0 and 2.1 had flaws discovered before they were even released


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Samsung has an upgrade path for any new input requirements. They have already demonstrated that it is a real commitment with the add on for upgrading 2013 sets to 2014. It was too easy to buy a 4k TV back in November, when Samsung had a factory instant rebate Black Friday deal. Mine was $400 off to $597 for the 40" model.

Streaming from Netflix, etc., has no HDMI issues because it comes directly from broadband, and not any of the HDMI ports. It is completely trouble free with my 25mbps DSL service.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

As far as I know the Samsung Smart Evolution kit (if that is what you are talking about) only upgrades the smart TV features with upgraded processors, more memory, newer apps etc. It does not replace inputs with newer versions, or add new ones. I don't think they have a way to add HDMI 2.0 ports to TVs that didn't come with them.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Beerstalker said:


> As far as I know the Samsung Smart Evolution kit (if that is what you are talking about) only upgrades the smart TV features with upgraded processors, more memory, newer apps etc. It does not replace inputs with newer versions, or add new ones. I don't think they have a way to add HDMI 2.0 ports to TVs that didn't come with them.


Actually the Samsung One Connect Box can upgrade inputs

http://www.laselectadigital.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Samsung-One-Connect-1024x576-e5475bfb166d7df5.jpg


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

The Samsung Evolution Kit *can* upgrade to 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 input ports. Can it use them properly? Maybe. Maybe not. If the link from the connect box to the TV doesn't have 18Gbps of bandwidth (or more), then, no it can't and you'd only have HDMI 2.0 "in theory". I've always said that model is flawed.

a ) the box costs $500
b ) all the tech improvements are going to be in the screen itself which the box can't upgrade obviously

Aside from getting compatibility with UltraHD BluRay, the box isn't going to be able to take advantage of the new data since b ) applies. 4K @ 60fps @ 4:4:4 needs screen support (if it comes), HDR needs screen support, rec2020 needs screen support, quantum dot needs screen support, etc.

Total waste of $$$ in my opinion. Throw the TV in the trash and get a new one before you spend the $500 to "upgrade" it since most of the upgrades you'd want aren't possible.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Actually the Samsung One Connect Box can upgrade inputs
> 
> http://www.laselectadigital.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Samsung-One-Connect-1024x576-e5475bfb166d7df5.jpg


Is that a standard USB port to connect the box to the TV? If thats a USB 3.0 port, those are only 5Gbps max. How do they even pass HDMI 1.4 data at the speed? HDMI 1.4 is 10Gbps.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Is that a standard USB port to connect the box to the TV? If thats a USB 3.0 port, those are only 5Gbps max. How do they even pass HDMI 1.4 data at the speed? HDMI 1.4 is 10Gbps.


No, they use their own proprietary cable from the One Connect to the TV.


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

A major driving force in my upgrade to HD was that sports broadcasts changed the picture format to widescreen, so I was missing parts of games by only having SD. I think it would take something similar to drive the masses to the next big technology. HD had higher resolution, picture format, and government mandates behind it which is why so many people made the jump. I don't think 4k will be as popular. Plus, IMO, I don't think movies look as good in 4k. It's almost too detailed and doesn't look real.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> If uprezzing really did double PQ, there would have been no need for broadcasters to move to HD. Everyone could have uprezzed SD broadcasts on a 1080p TV


Keep forgetting folks still watch SD. I referred to uprezzing HD, especially 1080p.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

anex80 said:


> ...I don't think 4k will be as popular. Plus, IMO, I don't think movies look as good in 4k. It's almost too detailed and doesn't look real.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Save this post for yourself - look at it after Holiday sales season 2015, 2016.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Ed Campbell said:


> Keep forgetting folks still watch SD. I referred to uprezzing HD, especially 1080p.


But my point was, if uprezzing 1080p on a 4K TV really did make the dramatic improvements you claim, you'd get improvements at least as dramatic if not more uprezzing SD on a HD TV. Back when HDTVs cost $5000 I remember some early adopters claiming how it improved their regular TV watching and made their DVDs look amazing, but you can't add detail that isn't there. Whether you are scaling SD to HD or HD to 4K.

Its like all the stupid TV shows and movies that have a security camera footage where they zoom in and see large pixels, and then some magic software is able to turn those large pixels into a recognizable face or license plate number. Isn't possible, no matter how many Hollywood screenwriters seem to think it is.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> The Samsung Evolution Kit *can* upgrade to 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 input ports. Can it use them properly? Maybe. Maybe not. If the link from the connect box to the TV doesn't have 18Gbps of bandwidth (or more), then, no it can't and you'd only have HDMI 2.0 "in theory". I've always said that model is flawed.
> 
> a ) the box costs $500
> b ) all the tech improvements are going to be in the screen itself which the box can't upgrade obviously
> ...


Last years box cost $300 and I have heard people got them cheaper.

The screen on my tv is fine. Already does 4k @ 60fps @ 444 thru a PC. Will it have the 2015 bells and whistles no but if u buy a 2015 tv it won't have the 2016 bells and whistles either.

If the link between the box and the tv didn't support the hdmi2.0/hdcp2.2 then none of the 2015 curve TVs would work because the tv comes with a box no ports on the tv and I don't think they could say 2.0/2.2 if it didn't support it .

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

I am sure that an enormous number of 4k TV's will be sold even if most people will never see the total benefits of it. There are those that are watching SD Directv on HD sets. As TV's get bigger and more affordable 4k will be a must. I fear to see what Directv is going to charge for 4k programming. We are paying $10.00 for HD. Maybe $20 for HD and mostly PPV 4k. I will never have a TV that is big enough to need 4k.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Back when HDTVs cost $5000 I remember some early adopters claiming how it improved their regular TV watching and made their DVDs look amazing, but you can't add detail that isn't there. Whether you are scaling SD to HD or HD to 4K.


Sometimes a better TV is just a better TV. SD is not going to become HD through a quality upconversion, but it can look better than one of those old large screen SD sets that people used to fawn over. SD on a better TV should look better.

(Perhaps in a couple of years people will say that they cannot believe people paid thousands of dollars for a 1080i or 720p HD set the same way some might believe people would pay thousands for a large SD set or SD projector.)



lwilli201 said:


> I fear to see what Directv is going to charge for 4k programming. We are paying $10.00 for HD. Maybe $20 for HD and mostly PPV 4k. I will never have a TV that is big enough to need 4k.


They will charge what the market will bear ... the "technology fee" to have HD is gone for new customers. Hopefully there will not be a new level when 4K receivers are introduced.

The cost of content will probably become closer to HD or 3D down over time ... the price the market will bear will be found. If the content is mostlt special programming that would have a higher cost in HD or SD a higher cost for UHD makse sense.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Ok, here is a question.

Would you rather have Full-bandwidth HD or 4K?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Ok, here is a question.
> 
> Would you rather have Full-bandwidth HD or 4K?


That's like asking if you want $100 or $102.
OR would you rather it be -35 or -25 degrees outside

Of course you're going to pick something that's better or more.
But that doesn't always mean it is way more valuable .

Right now 4K content to me is not worth paying anything extra for Over the HD we have now.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> But my point was, if uprezzing 1080p on a 4K TV really did make the dramatic improvements you claim, you'd get improvements at least as dramatic if not more uprezzing SD on a HD TV. Back when HDTVs cost $5000 I remember some early adopters claiming how it improved their regular TV watching and made their DVDs look amazing, but you can't add detail that isn't there. Whether you are scaling SD to HD or HD to 4K.
> 
> Its like all the stupid TV shows and movies that have a security camera footage where they zoom in and see large pixels, and then some magic software is able to turn those large pixels into a recognizable face or license plate number. Isn't possible, no matter how many Hollywood screenwriters seem to think it is.


Do you have a 4k set? If not, how can you claim to speak with such authority about what we are seeing? Upscaling algorithms interpolate between the pixels on the lower res image. It works quite well, and of course it doesn't match native 4k, but every day watching of satellite HD is substantially improved. And, there is software that can improve license plate and facial images, but not as dramatically as sometimes seen on TV.

Who cares about whether or not upscaling SD is programmed into any TV or satellite box.


----------



## Al K (Jan 23, 2004)

In the early days of HD, I received HD programming from network feeds on a C-band satillite receiver. CBS transmitted their 1080i signal at roughly twice the bandwidth used by the local stations transmissions. This was before all of the stations added the extra channels. The improvement in picture of the CBS feed was clearly visible on my HDTV. Some of the improvement in picture quality when HD is viewed on a 4KTV may be the TV bandwidth along with the improved screen screen resolution. Regardless of the reason, there is a noticeable improvement of HD material when viewed on my 4KTV over my HDTVs.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Al K said:


> In the early days of HD, I received HD programming from network feeds on a C-band satillite receiver. CBS transmitted their 1080i signal at roughly twice the bandwidth used by the local stations transmissions. This was before all of the stations added the extra channels. The improvement in picture of the CBS feed was clearly visible on my HDTV. Some of the improvement in picture quality when HD is viewed on a 4KTV may be the TV bandwidth along with the improved screen screen resolution. Regardless of the reason, there is a noticeable improvement of HD material when viewed on my 4KTV over my HDTVs.


It isn't to do with bandwidth. You can't make a signal have more bandwidth once it lost some. In the path somewhere.

Most likely it's just a better tv and does a great conversion for you.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

I was watching the Comcast version of Velocity yesterday on a curved UHD TV and the picture made me feel a little urpy. Kind of like watching VHS on an early HDTV.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

"But my point was, if uprezzing 1080p on a 4K TV really did make the dramatic improvements you claim, you'd get improvements at least as dramatic if not more uprezzing SD on a HD TV. "

It's dramatic enough that I had to check and see if CCTV had started offering 720p. They haven't; but, for much of their programming, the improvement is that noticeable. 

Being a news junkie, I'd increase views of AJAM if they made the same move to 16x9 SD as CCTV. More common in Europe, I believe.

ps: I'll place a reminder in my calendar to find this thread Jan '16 and '17. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> "But my point was, if uprezzing 1080p on a 4K TV really did make the dramatic improvements you claim, you'd get improvements at least as dramatic if not more uprezzing SD on a HD TV. "...


Not if the TV isn't programmed to do that...

If you haven't seen for yourself, how can you be so sure about it?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I think Ed was quoting someone else and refuting it.


----------

