# Directv 4K quality



## captaink5217 (Sep 20, 2011)

In looking through all the topics I haven't seen any from people that already watched directv in 4K comment if the picture is really good or does it look just like a good 1080 channel? I know it's just VOD now but how does that look??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sat4r (Aug 27, 2006)

It is VOD now but it is a step above 1080 picture


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Without seeing it (in person) for yourself -there is no real way to "SEE" the difference in any internet forum.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

definitely you didn't read enough if did that at all 

a lot of people expressed they experience with DTV 4k clips,events, VODs, etc


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

sat4r said:


> It is VOD now but it is a step above 1080 picture
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is it any better than watching a 4-K TV - UP-Scaling from a 1080 feed ?


----------



## camo (Apr 15, 2010)

Downloading 4k isn't for everyone. Data caps, internet speeds all play into it. I really don't see why all the hoopla about 4k until its being broadcast live. A tip from Solid Signal a 45-minute sample movie took almost two hours on a 60 megabit line in the lab and the file size was a whopping 50 GB. This isn't even a full length movie.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

sat4r said:


> It is VOD now _*but it is a step above 1080 picture*_
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So is the upscaled D* content, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WestDC said:


> Without seeing it (in person) for yourself -there is no real way to "SEE" the difference in any internet forum.


Right, we do see a lot of negative comments from folks who don't have 4K sets. You really have to have one to appreciate the PQ.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ragweed10 said:


> Is it any better than watching a 4-K TV - UP-Scaling from a 1080 feed ?


Did you mean 1080p or 1080i, makes a big difference.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

camo said:


> Downloading 4k isn't for everyone. Data caps, internet speeds all play into it. I really don't see why all the hoopla about 4k until its being broadcast live. A tip from Solid Signal a 45-minute sample movie took almost two hours on a 60 megabit line in the lab and the file size was a whopping 50 GB. This isn't even a full length movie.


Directv is using a 30 Mbps bit rate for their 4K, which equates to 13.5 GB per hour. That 45 minute sample would have to have been encoded at 150 Mbps for 45 minutes to require 50 GB - that's higher than 4K Blu Ray bit rate so I think they probably had a math error somewhere in their calculations.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

There is a notable quality improvement from the videos I have watched. They all seem to be 70mm IMAX films that were transferred at 4K.


----------



## camo (Apr 15, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Directv is using a 30 Mbps bit rate for their 4K, which equates to 13.5 GB per hour. That 45 minute sample would have to have been encoded at 150 Mbps for 45 minutes to require 50 GB - that's higher than 4K Blu Ray bit rate so I think they probably had a math error somewhere in their calculations.


They must have something crossed then. I looked at their numbers and said no way I could do that. I watch MLBTV games also, this year we have the option of following just a single team which is very nice. Thank goodness for the class action law suit.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I streamed some 4k off Amazon and it may have been a bit better than upscaled 1080 but didn't blow me away. I just wanted to check to see what it looked like and how much cap it would use. Was about 1.7 gigs for 20 minutes.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inhd40 said:


> I streamed some 4k off Amazon and it may have been a bit better than upscaled 1080 but didn't blow me away. I just wanted to check to see what it looked like and how much cap it would use. Was about 1.7 gigs for 20 minutes.


Streaming movies or VOD will always be lower bit rate than streaming live TV. Encoders are simply a lot more efficient when they can 'take their time' to compress, instead of having to do it in real time.

And as with anything, there are varying levels of quality. Just as with HD, there will be different levels of 4K quality. I'm sure at first providers will be delivering pretty high quality 4K, just like they did at first with HD. If 4K is successful and providers are trying to figure out how to deliver 100 4K channels, quality will inevitably suffer. If there are a lot fewer, Directv will have so much excess bandwidth they'd be able to deliver some high quality 4K indeed


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

What about upconverting current HD to 4k? Is their that much of a difference?


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

CraigerM said:


> What about upconverting current HD to 4k? Is their that much of a difference?


I definitely notice a difference from watching some VOD stuff as well as channel 104. Much better detail and less macroblocking.



inhd40 said:


> I streamed some 4k off Amazon and it may have been a bit better than upscaled 1080 but didn't blow me away. I just wanted to check to see what it looked like and how much cap it would use. Was about 1.7 gigs for 20 minutes.


I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Amazon's 4K streaming but a lot of it boils down to the source. That said, I recently revisited an episode of Better Call Saul that I purchased through them and the quality seemed improved since last time I watched. In general I have noticed that Netflix's quality seems better but that is hit or miss because they have stuff like Groundhog's Day which is full of grain and looks flat due to the old and probably not very high quality film stock. (Or a poor transfer.)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

camo said:


> Downloading 4k isn't for everyone. Data caps, internet speeds all play into it. I really don't see why all the hoopla about 4k until its being broadcast live. A tip from Solid Signal a 45-minute sample movie took almost two hours on a 60 megabit line in the lab and the file size was a whopping 50 GB. This isn't even a full length movie.


While true it's important to note non of DIRECTVs 4K comes over the Internet. All their Video On Demand is pushed via sat. So no data caps to worry about.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ragweed10 said:


> Is it any better than watching a 4-K TV - UP-Scaling from a 1080 feed ?


To me yes. Easy to tell.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> While true it's important to note non of DIRECTVs 4K comes over the Internet. All their Video On Demand is pushed via sat. So no data caps to worry about.


Oh wow, I didn't realize that it actually downloaded it via satellite, thanks! I just queued up a couple 4K VODs and looking at my router traffic it isn't pulling anything through my connection. No wonder it is so slow and this whole time I thought it was barely using my 240mbps connection.

Lear something new every day!


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

mutelight said:


> Oh wow, I didn't realize that it actually downloaded it via satellite, thanks! I just queued up a couple 4K VODs and looking at my router traffic it isn't pulling anything through my connection. No wonder it is so slow and this whole time I thought it was barely using my 240mbps connection.
> 
> Lear something new every day!


What is so slow ? The Internet or the VOD feed ?
What carrier do you have for 240 MPBS ??


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

ragweed10 said:


> What is so slow ? The Internet or the VOD feed ?
> What carrier do you have for 240 MPBS ??


When I queue a 4K video to record.

My carrier is Comcast. I pay for 200mbps but it peaks at 240 and I have yet to see it go below 230mbps unless it is host side.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

mutelight said:


> When I queue a 4K video to record.
> 
> My carrier is Comcast. I pay for 200mbps but it peaks at 240 and I have yet to see it go below 230mbps unless it is host side.


I am confused. 
I heard you can't record 4-K, only View a VOD on a C-61 mini Genie ?
What do you record the VOD on ?
What does Comcast charge for that speed ?


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

ragweed10 said:


> I am confused.
> I heard you can't record 4-K, only View a VOD on a C-61 mini Genie ?
> What do you record the VOD on ?
> What does Comcast charge for that speed ?


When you go to the 4K UHD section and select a movie, the only option you have is to "Record" and then it is downloaded to the HR54 (as this is required for 4K and the C61) but can only be viewed through the C61.

I pay $70 a month and it comes with basic cable and HBO since it is actually cheaper.


----------



## ragweed10 (Jul 10, 2013)

mutelight said:


> When you go to the 4K UHD section and select a movie, the only option you have is to "Record" and then it is downloaded to the HR54 (as this is required for 4K and the C61) but can only be viewed through the C61.
> 
> I pay $70 a month and it comes with basic cable and HBO since it is actually cheaper.


OK, Does the HR-54 record in 4-K ?
That is some deal, especially from Comcast.
Here we pay $ 70.00 a month JUST for internet @ about 18 MBPS


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

ragweed10 said:


> OK, Does the HR-54 record in 4-K ?
> That is some deal, especially from Comcast.
> Here we pay $ 70.00 a month JUST for internet @ about 18 MBPS


Correct, it does record 4K.

Yeah, I haven't been a big fan of Comcast in the past but with the competition of ISPs in my area, they have pretty good deals and all my calls with them, the CS reps have been very pleasant. (Same with DirecTV for that matter.)


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> While true it's important to note non of DIRECTVs 4K comes over the Internet. All their Video On Demand is pushed via sat. So no data caps to worry about.





mutelight said:


> Oh wow, I didn't realize that it actually downloaded it via satellite, thanks! I just queued up a couple 4K VODs and looking at my router traffic it isn't pulling anything through my connection. No wonder it is so slow and this whole time I thought it was barely using my 240mbps connection.
> 
> Lear something new every day!


So while I wasn't seeing the HR54 show up in my QoS screen of my router I do see that it has done 95GB worth of traffic since it was installed a couple weeks ago and have only downloaded about 6 HD On Demand shows since then.

I currently don't have a cap but it may be only certain content that is records from the satellite?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> What about upconverting current HD to 4k? Is their that much of a difference?


Yup, pretty noticeable. As I've said so many times, better than my 1080p plasma.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mutelight said:


> I definitely notice a difference from watching some VOD stuff as well as channel 104. Much better detail and less macroblocking.
> 
> I have always been somewhat underwhelmed by Amazon's 4K streaming but a lot of it boils down to the source. That said, I recently revisited an episode of Better Call Saul that I purchased through them and the quality seemed improved since last time I watched. In general I have noticed that Netflix's quality seems better but that is hit or miss because they have stuff like Groundhog's Day which is full of grain and looks flat due to the old and probably not very high quality film stock. (Or a poor transfer.)


Everything on Amazon and NF seems to depend on the content. I watched 3 seasons of _Vikings _on Amazon and got a superb upscaled picture, then switched to NF for _The Walking Dead_ and it wasn't even close to what I saw when watching _Vikings_. Then, I found out that my son had purchased _The Walking Dead's_ most recent season on Amazon and that wasn't as good as _Vikings_, picture-wise. Both programs look pretty good on D*, but just pretty good. Again, GIGO seems to be the rule.

Rich


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Although this comment not to do so much with 4K, my observation of _Walking Dead_ as shown on AMC is fuzzy, fuzzy, blurry-fuzzy. It's just not a very clear picture to start with.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I have hell on wheels on my DVR but have also been watching it some on my appletv via Netflix. I almost think the appletv is better. Incredible picture quality.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

mutelight said:


> Oh wow, I didn't realize that it actually downloaded it via satellite, thanks! I just queued up a couple 4K VODs and looking at my router traffic it isn't pulling anything through my connection. No wonder it is so slow and this whole time I thought it was barely using my 240mbps connection.
> 
> Lear something new every day!


It's not really slow because it's coming via satellite. It's more so because it's on a carousel so to speak and it downloads shows when it they are up and therefor a show may not be up to even download for hours... I'm not sure if they are even sending them in real time either to be honest. I kind of think they are not at the moment.

Think of it kind of like having a channel and it can't record it till the episode you have chosen is actually on.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Although this comment not to do so much with 4K, my observation of _Walking Dead_ as shown on AMC is fuzzy, fuzzy, blurry-fuzzy. It's just not a very clear picture to start with.


Maybe that's deliberate, since you don't want sharp pictures to show off problems with the makeup during zombie close ups !rolling


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Although this comment not to do so much with 4K, my observation of _Walking Dead_ as shown on AMC is fuzzy, fuzzy, blurry-fuzzy. It's just not a very clear picture to start with.


That is due to all of the film grain wreaking havoc on the compression.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Although this comment not to do so much with 4K, my observation of _Walking Dead_ as shown on AMC is fuzzy, fuzzy, blurry-fuzzy. It's just not a very clear picture to start with.


Hence my comments about content ruling the roost.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I have hell on wheels on my DVR but have also been watching it some on my appletv via Netflix. I almost think the appletv is better. Incredible picture quality.


I do believe you're correct. Apple does do some wonderful things.

Rich


----------



## OlderNDirt (Mar 17, 2007)

I am pretty new to the party with my 48" Sammy JS8500, so just commenting with limited testing.

The up-converting of D* HD picture seems to be a substantial improvement that I am quite happy with.

Was able to test my first (and only so far) 4K program with Amazon, a "coral reef" (I think IMAX) documentary. Very amazing picture, but I am not convinced yet that it was that much better then the up-converted picture to be worth the cost of getting the D* 4K upgrade. But I will reserve final judgment until I can view more Amazon 4K programming, limited as the "free" programming is (might have to do a rental or two as well).

It would also seem reasonable that the picture improvement on a 48" set would fall well short of that improvement on a 65" or 75" tv, so take my opinion for what it is worth, probably not a whole lot if you have one of those "giant" TV's :biggrin: .


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Although this comment not to do so much with 4K, my observation of _Walking Dead_ as shown on AMC is fuzzy, fuzzy, blurry-fuzzy. It's just not a very clear picture to start with.


That's "as designed" to give it a gritty horror feel. It's always been that way.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I wonder how NCIS would look upconverted to 4k since that show also looks grainier than NCIS LA?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> I wonder how NCIS would look upconverted to 4k since that show also looks grainier than NCIS LA?


Looks good upscaled.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

OlderNDirt said:


> I am pretty new to the party with my 48" Sammy JS8500, so just commenting with limited testing.
> 
> The up-converting of D* HD picture seems to be a substantial improvement that I am quite happy with.
> 
> ...


NF and Amazon have a lot of 4K content.  You need to be a Prime customer to take advantage of the free 4K content on Amazon. I agree with you (and I do have a 65" JS8500) on not really having a need for linear programming on D* content, the upscaled PQ is good enough for me, at the moment.

Rich


----------



## OlderNDirt (Mar 17, 2007)

Rich said:


> NF and Amazon have a lot of 4K content. You need to be a Prime customer to take advantage of the free 4K content on Amazon. I agree with you (and I do have a 65" JS8500) on not really having a need for linear programming on D* content, the upscaled PQ is good enough for me, at the moment.
> 
> Rich


I have Amazon Prime, so have a lot more to check out. Currently watching some of the Masters in 4K right now and may have to amend my previous comments as it is quite amazing. Will get a better idea of how much so when I tune to the ESPN broadcast when it starts. I will definitely have to give strong consideration to upgrading by football season if they will be doing football, or a fair part of it in 4K.


----------



## Orgone1 (Aug 9, 2014)

OlderNDirt said:


> I have Amazon Prime, so have a lot more to check out. Currently watching some of the Masters in 4K right now and may have to amend my previous comments as it is quite amazing. Will get a better idea of how much so when I tune to the ESPN broadcast when it starts. I will definitely have to give strong consideration to upgrading by football season if they will be doing football, or a fair part of it in 4K.


Yup 106 was terrific!


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Meh.....


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I WANT MORE said:


> Meh.....


Is that for the picture quality or the content?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

OlderNDirt said:


> I have Amazon Prime, so have a lot more to check out. Currently watching some of the Masters in 4K right now and may have to amend my previous comments as it is quite amazing. Will get a better idea of how much so when I tune to the ESPN broadcast when it starts. I will definitely have to give strong consideration to upgrading by football season if they will be doing football, or a fair part of it in 4K.


I was thinking about this while watching yesterday's Yankees game. The PQ on my 4K set is so good on sports that I really don't care about the 4K setup.

Rich


----------



## OlderNDirt (Mar 17, 2007)

Rich said:


> I was thinking about this while watching yesterday's Yankees game. The PQ on my 4K set is so good on sports that I really don't care about the 4K setup.
> 
> Rich


I'm going to have to agree. When I switched from some news channel to the Amen Corner 4K, of course my jaw dropped in amazement. That's when I made my last post about hoping for football in 4K. But then I switched directly from the 4K to the regular telecast on ESPN, again almost making my jaw drop. Not at the difference, but what littler I could tell between 4K and up-converted. I'm not saying I am done and will never convert to true 4K, But I am very happy with up-convert and my patience level is on high mode.

Disclaimer: This is the sole opinion of one old fart with less then stellar eyesight viewing a picture on a 48" Sammy. Any dependence on provided opinion is in the sole discretion of the reader and said opinion carries no warranties, implied, intended or otherwise. :righton:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

OlderNDirt said:


> I'm going to have to agree. When I switched from some news channel to the Amen Corner 4K, of course my jaw dropped in amazement. That's when I made my last post about hoping for football in 4K. But then I switched directly from the 4K to the regular telecast on ESPN, again almost making my jaw drop. Not at the difference, but what littler I could tell between 4K and up-converted. I'm not saying I am done and will never convert to true 4K, But I am very happy with up-convert and my patience level is on high mode.
> 
> Disclaimer: _*This is the sole opinion of one old fart with less then stellar eyesight viewing a picture on a 48" Sammy. *_ Any dependence on provided opinion is in the sole discretion of the reader and said opinion carries no warranties, implied, intended or otherwise. :righton:


I think your opinion has a great deal of merit. I have a hard time believing the 4K version of the Yankees game would be better enough to make me spend money on the 4K upgrade. I just got thru watching today's game and the PQ was superb. So much better than my 1080p 60" plasma that sits in my bedroom unused. Kinda sad, that makes me. :nono2:

Rich


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

On a 65 inch or larger TV, I can see where 4K might be better, but at normal viewing distances with a 55 inch or smaller TV, I do not think the difference could be great enough to justify the expense. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

I cant see paying extra for 4K anytime soon. The difference between the up converting and actual 4K looks to be very small, at least to me.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

So I guess the size of a 4k TV isn't a problem anymore to notice a difference? Before they said you needed at least a 65" 4k to notice any difference and sit really close to it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> So I guess the size of a 4k TV isn't a problem anymore to notice a difference? Before they said you needed at least a 65" 4k to notice any difference and sit really close to it.


I noticed a difference right away on my 55", going from a Panny Plasma.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

But of course the big mystery for those really interested in the technical side of this aspect of 4K TV continues to be, ... why?

Theoretically, upscaling should make no difference in PQ. You simply can't invent quality through scaling or anything else in a picture which was not there originally in the image to begin with. Read "GIGO"

So if DIRECTV HD feeds really look better upscaled on a 4K set than on a 1080P model, there is really no technical explanation for it unless the scalers in 1080P sets are inferior to 4K ones. And why would that be?

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

inhd40 said:


> I cant see paying extra for 4K anytime soon. The difference between the up converting and actual 4K looks to be very small, at least to me.


Having watched an actual 4K broadcast today with a chance to compare upconverted HD coverage of the same event being broadcast at the same time, I can tell you I could see the difference! At one point, there was a closeup of a golf ball rolling to a stop on the green and I could literally read the label on the ball. Virtually the same shot on the upconverted HD on ESPN yielded an unreadable black line.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

CraigerM said:


> So I guess the size of a 4k TV isn't a problem anymore to notice a difference? ....


what reliable facts brought you to the conclusions ?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

P Smith said:


> what reliable facts brought you to the conclusions ?


Think it was the earlier testimony by OlderNDirt of the "jaw-dropping" difference in 4K he could see from just a 48" version of the 4K Samsung JS8500 (specifically the UN48JS8500).

Though before anyone is quick to dispute him, in fairness OlderNDirt did qualify his opinion before with a disclaimer ...



> Disclaimer: This is the sole opinion of one old fart with less then stellar eyesight viewing a picture on a 48" Sammy. Any dependence on provided opinion is in the sole discretion of the reader and said opinion carries no warranties, implied, intended or otherwise.


Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Is that for the picture quality or the content?


Quality. 
I will say that I thought that Friday looked a little better than Thursday.
There is without doubt a difference it just isn't enough difference to WOW me. 
To be fair I am not WOWed by 4K UHD Bluray either. Is it an improvement, Yes. Does it blow me away, No.


----------



## inhd40 (Jan 26, 2013)

Smuuth said:


> Having watched an actual 4K broadcast today with a chance to compare upconverted HD coverage of the same event being broadcast at the same time, I can tell you I could see the difference! At one point, there was a closeup of a golf ball rolling to a stop on the green and I could literally read the label on the ball. Virtually the same shot on the upconverted HD on ESPN yielded an unreadable black line.


Thanks, that's good to know. I don't have dtv 4k equipment yet. Could be better getting it over satellite as opposed to streaming.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

P Smith said:


> what reliable facts brought you to the conclusions ?


It was in the reviews of the 4k TV's when they first came out. They were saying you wouldn't see that much of a difference with 4k unless you got a 65" and sat really close to it. I forgot if they meant between a 4k 55" and a 65" 4k or a regular HD 55" and a 65" 4k.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

CraigerM said:


> It was in the reviews of the 4k TV's when they first came out. They were saying you wouldn't see that much of a difference with 4k unless you got a 65" and sat really close to it. I forgot if they meant between a 4k 55" and a 65" 4k or a regular HD 55" and a 65" 4k.


That what I keep in my mind, it came from first days of 4K TV ... 60"+ diagonal size is necessary to view 4k at certain distance


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But of course the big mystery for those really interested in the technical side of this aspect of 4K TV continues to be, ... why?
> 
> Theoretically, upscaling should make no difference in PQ. You simply can't invent quality through scaling or anything else in a picture which was not there originally in the image to begin with. Read "GIGO"
> 
> ...


You really need to do some research on upscaling and how pixels are interpolated and also how compression and decompression works. Your point is in error.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

patmurphey said:


> You really need to do some research on upscaling and how pixels are interpolated and also how compression and decompression works. Your point is in error.


Well I'd certainly appreciate what research to look at that really proves the opposite. Because from everything I've read or seen (in fact even common logic) upscaling cannot improve PQ.

And the interpolation of pixels you speak of and compression-decompression processes can actually make things worse if not done properly. But whatever the case they can never make for better quality than what was originally in the image to start with no matter how well they're done.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> On a 65 inch or larger TV, I can see where 4K might be better, but at normal viewing distances with a 55 inch or smaller TV, I do not think the difference could be great enough to justify the expense.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Well, unless you've seen the smaller 4K sets side by side with 1080p sets I don't see how you can say that. I'd think (and I'm correcting a statement I made in a post a month or so ago) you'd see the difference and the difference would be a better picture on the 4K set. You really have to see this to believe it. And all that stuff about not seeing any difference if you sit a lot farther back is just pure BS. My TV room is about 17' deep and if I stand all the way back the picture still looks the same. Just better than my 1080p plasmas. I have to admit I didn't expect this after reading so many reviews about distance viewing.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inhd40 said:


> I cant see paying extra for 4K anytime soon. The difference between the up converting and actual 4K looks to be very small, at least to me.


Me too. We were watching the new _Criminal Minds_ spin-off last night on CBS and the PQ was really good. I really gotta doubt that a "true 4K" picture is gonna be much better.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CraigerM said:


> So I guess the size of a 4k TV isn't a problem anymore to notice a difference? Before they said you needed at least a 65" 4k to notice any difference and sit really close to it.


Nope, all that was just the opinions of...I don't know what to call those people that came out with all that crap about distances and sizes. They were wrong. I don't sit really close to my 65" set, same place I watched my 60" plasma and the PQ is so much better...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I noticed a difference right away on my 55", going from a Panny Plasma.


I don't even watch my plasma. I might spring for another Sammy 65" for the bedroom and put the plasma in our living room, which would make my granddaughter really happy.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Well I'd certainly appreciate what research to look at that really proves the opposite. Because from everything I've read or seen (in fact even common logic) upscaling cannot improve PQ.
> 
> And the interpolation of pixels you speak of and compression-decompression processes can actually make things worse if not done properly. But whatever the case they can never make for better quality than what was originally in the image to start with no matter how well they're done.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Actually upscaling can give you a better picture. It in essence on a 4K TV can fill in the gap's left by larger pixels on a 1080 P TV. This would give you a smoother image. Of course how good it does depend a lot on how it upscales the images in the first place and the quality of the image in the first place.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> But of course the big mystery for those really interested in the technical side of this aspect of 4K TV continues to be, ... why?
> 
> Theoretically, upscaling should make no difference in PQ. You simply can't invent quality through scaling or anything else in a picture which was not there originally in the image to begin with. Read "GIGO"
> 
> ...


A few years ago on another forum I had a two or three week long argument with a couple guys about upscaling DVD players. Both of them quoted chapter and verse from the bible of advanced technology in order to prove to me what I was seeing was (and had to be) exactly the same PQ that a normal DVD player would put out. Finally, I asked them what brand and model DVD upscalers they had. Turns out neither of them had upscalers and neither of them had ever tried one out. This appears to be the same thing. All I know and all I can say is the 4K set definitely puts out a much better picture than my 1080p Panny plasma does when viewing _*any *_content.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Smuuth said:


> Having watched an actual 4K broadcast today with a chance to compare upconverted HD coverage of the same event being broadcast at the same time, I can tell you I could see the difference! At one point, there was a closeup of a golf ball rolling to a stop on the green and I could literally read the label on the ball. Virtually the same shot on the upconverted HD on ESPN yielded an unreadable black line.


Which 4K TV do you have?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I WANT MORE said:


> Quality.
> I will say that I thought that Friday looked a little better than Thursday.
> There is without doubt a difference it just isn't enough difference to WOW me.
> To be fair I am not WOWed by 4K UHD Bluray either. Is it an improvement, Yes. Does it blow me away, No.


4K vs 1080p isn't the same as SD vs HD. That was a real WOW. This (4K) is just better than 1080p.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Maybe the best way to say it is that while you can not increase the detail of the original you can increase the quality of how it looks when displayed on something larger than a postcard.


----------



## Smuuth (Oct 4, 2005)

Rich said:


> Which 4K TV do you have?
> 
> Rich


Vizio p702ui


----------



## OlderNDirt (Mar 17, 2007)

Simple and only fact is, I am sitting here in my man cave watching up-converted programming on my new Sammy UN-48JS8500 tv. The only thing I have to compare the picture quality to is 7 years sitting in the exact same spot with all the same "other" equipment and provider watching on a Sony KDR-40V5100. That and my older Sammy UN-55D8000 in the other room that I will leave out of this dissertation. I really don't care if it is the up-conversion, newer technology in the tv, better color capabilities, coincidental improvements in cameras used or the transmission of the signal, one or more of a multitude of other variables that go into me receiving a signal, or just a change in the alignment of the planets and stars. Maybe I just did a much better job calibrating the Sammy over the Sony? No matter the reason, I see a considerable improvement in picture quality in the 4K up-converted HD picture over what I was watching. Why attempt to dispute this?

As far as true 4K viewing, the only thing I have commented on that so far is that I don't see enough, if any difference to warrant upgrading to receive 4K programming. It would seem to me that is in agreement with those proclaiming there is an inherent inability to detect a difference on a 48" set, so no argument from me on that.


----------



## dels28 (Apr 30, 2009)

I just got my hr 54-200 and C61 client yesterday for a 58 inch Vizio and watching the Masters right now on 106, there is a noticeable difference, smiling producing picture. Now a person like my wife would not say lets run out and get one of these along with the 4K programming, but for early adopters of the technology, it makes no sense to not get all the available programming being offered.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

OlderNDirt said:


> Why attempt to dispute this?


Because it's what they do. lol


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

I did an A/B comparison between The Masters being broadcast live on DirecTV and the Masters 4K app on my TVs and there is a notable improvement in detail retention in the broadcast. The app looks like the middle ground between Netflix 1080p and 4K.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Well I'd certainly appreciate what research to look at that really proves the opposite. Because from everything I've read or seen (in fact even common logic) upscaling cannot improve PQ.
> 
> And the interpolation of pixels you speak of and compression-decompression processes can actually make things worse if not done properly. But whatever the case they can never make for better quality than what was originally in the image to start with no matter how well they're done.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Geez!!!! Do you have a 4k TV? You would have to be blind not to see that upscaling works.


----------



## Scott MS (Oct 21, 2009)

DirecTV 4K picture quality is fantastic. I have noticed a huge difference. But I am also watching on a 123" screen. The larger the screen, the more noticeable the improvement will be.

In comparison to other 4K sources I have, like Netflix and YouTube, DirecTV is the best. The DTV broadcast is also the only 4K/60p I have received to date. Most of the other sources are 4K/30p or 4K/24p.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

patmurphey said:


> Geez!!!! Do you have a 4k TV? You would have to be blind not to see that upscaling works.


Nah, ... no interest by anyone here in 4K yet. Everything is 1080P here except for one 1200P and a budget 720P model. (6 TVs total)

But on the later set for instance, watching 480i upscaled to 1366 x 768.... no change in image quality that anyone here can detect.

From 480i upscaled to any 1920 x 1080 set... again no change in image quality. Also, to be honest, no one can really see the difference between the 720P set vs. the 1080P ones.

From 480i upscaled to the one 1920 x 1200 set in the kitchen (a 16:10 AR set). No change again.

So in the same vein, why should upscaling 720p or 1080i to 4K be expected to look any better?

Household populace = Currently 6 adults and 1 teenager.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## pm83a (Apr 7, 2016)

I have the 4K golf on, the quality is nice, the speed seems a bit slow choppy, but the installer is adjusting the dish now. 

Anyone else have similar experience with 4K?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

patmurphey said:


> Geez!!!! Do you have a 4k TV? You would have to be blind not to see that upscaling works.


Yup, this is getting like a discussion on the Apple watches, which I wouldn't comment on because I don't have one. That approach would be more appropriate to the 4K conversation than listening to folks that don't have 4K sets tell us we're not seeing what we definitely are seeing. I don't care much about why we see it, just that we see it and it is superior to what I see on my 1080p sets.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Nah, ... no interest by anyone here in 4K yet. Everything is 1080P here except for one 1200P and a budget 720P model. (6 TVs total)
> 
> But on the later set for instance, watching 480i upscaled to 1366 x 768.... no change in image quality that anyone here can detect.
> 
> ...


I've got 720p plasmas and 1080p plasmas and I can clearly see the difference in PQ in them. I can also walk very quickly from our TV room to the room with my 1080p 60" Panny plasma and see the difference between the 4K set and the plasma.

Rich


----------



## Scott MS (Oct 21, 2009)

Rich said:


> Yup, this is getting like a discussion on the Apple watches, which I wouldn't comment on because I don't have one. That approach would be more appropriate to the 4K conversation than listening to folks that don't have 4K sets tell us we're not seeing what we definitely are seeing. I don't care much about why we see it, just that we see it and it is superior to what I see on my 1080p sets.
> 
> Rich


Exactly. I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought going from 640x480 (SD) to 1280x720 (HD) wasn't much of a difference either. It's resolution and if have you have a monitor large enough and detailed enough to see the difference, it is incredible. I have two 4K TVs, and 4K monitor, and record family videos in 4K. Never going back to 1080p.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Scott MS said:


> Exactly. I'm sure there were a lot of people who thought going from 640x480 (SD) to 1280x720 (HD) wasn't much of a difference either. It's resolution and if have you have a monitor large enough and detailed enough to see the difference, it is incredible. I have two 4K TVs, and 4K monitor, and record family videos in 4K. Never going back to 1080p.


No I can see the difference between a 640 x 480 native SD image and a 1280 x 720 HD one.

But to use this example, the issue related to what's being discussed here is would a 640 x 480 SD native image look any better upscaled to 1280 x 720?

And I'd have to say that it shouldn't. Or perhaps there's no real technical explanation for why it should that I'm aware of.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> No I can see the difference between a 640 x 480 native SD image and a 1280 x 720 HD one.
> 
> But to use this example, the issue related to what's being discussed here is would a 640 x 480 SD native image look any better upscaled to 1280 x 720?
> 
> ...


I'm going to take a guess here that the upscaling ability probably has improved on today's tv sets compared to the ones you currently own. I own a samsung hu8550 (2014) and adding the one connect upgrade box (2015) has improved it's ability to upscale. Newer software and faster processor.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Nah, ... no interest by anyone here in 4K yet. Everything is 1080P here except for one 1200P and a budget 720P model. (6 TVs total)
> 
> But on the later set for instance, watching 480i upscaled to 1366 x 768.... no change in image quality that anyone here can detect.
> 
> ...


If you came to my house you would see something interesting

ABC network shows are available to me over two different markets/stations.
Take the evening news
I can watch one station in 720p as ABC has designed recommended (like on ESPN too)
I can watch the other station who decided to show all ABC content at 1080i

The detail on the 1080i broadcast is superior.
I can flip back and forth and the same TV and see the same content in different resolution.

So for those who claim the little difference from 720 to 1080 is not perceptible hasn't had a good way to judge.

Now with 4K, the new TV technology and upscaling does wonders to some 1080i content.

Nothing like SD to HD, but noticeable.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NR4P said:


> The detail on the 1080i broadcast is superior.


Considering that the ABC network content is all upscaled from 720p more information is needed. How much bandwidth does the 720p ABC devote to their ABC feed and how much is spent on subchannels? How about the 1080i ABC station?

The source of both stations (the ABC network feed) is less than 1 megapixel frames. Upconverting to nearly 2.5 megapixels doesn't add more information than was originally there. There must be some other explanation.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

James Long said:


> ... The source of both stations (the ABC network feed) is less than 1 megapixel frames. Upconverting to nearly 2.5 megapixels doesn't add more information than was originally there. There must be some other explanation.


Correct!

And by the same token for 4K, shouldn't upconverting an ~2 megapixel (1080i) HD frame by 4 times as many megapixels or even 9 times as many megapixels for the less than 1 megapixel HD frames (720p) not add more information than was originally there?

I agree, something else has to be at work here for the perceived increase in PQ. Not mere upscaling.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## terryfoster (Nov 15, 2006)

Rich said:


> Nope, all that was just the opinions of...I don't know what to call those people that came out with all that crap about distances and sizes. They were wrong. I don't sit really close to my 65" set, same place I watched my 60" plasma and the PQ is so much better...
> 
> Rich


Dismissing the actual science of visual acuity makes me LOL.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

James Long said:


> Considering that the ABC network content is all upscaled from 720p more information is needed. How much bandwidth does the 720p ABC devote to their ABC feed and how much is spent on subchannels? How about the 1080i ABC station?
> 
> The source of both stations (the ABC network feed) is less than 1 megapixel frames. Upconverting to nearly 2.5 megapixels doesn't add more information than was originally there. There must be some other explanation.


The elephant in the living room is whatever the 1080i ABC station is using to convert, too. This isn't taking a downconverted sporting event and comparing 2 resolutions. Apples and Oranges.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NR4P said:


> If you came to my house you would see something interesting
> 
> ABC network shows are available to me over two different markets/stations.
> Take the evening news
> ...


It's never been imperceptible to me on my plasmas. I can even see a better picture on my 720p plasmas when they get a 1080i feed. What the upscaler on my 4K set does to 1080p feeds is really something worthwhile.

Rich


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Correct!
> 
> And by the same token for 4K, shouldn't upconverting an ~2 megapixel (1080i) HD frame by 4 times as many megapixels or even 9 times as many megapixels for the less than 1 megapixel HD frames (720p) not add more information than was originally there?
> 
> ...


I guess it must be magic, since you don't seem to understand the technical science of upscaling...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

patmurphey said:


> I guess it must be magic, since you don't seem to understand the technical science of upscaling...


Well can you explain some of these scientific principles of upscaling we're not understanding for how that process can create additional PQ that the source material never had?

I'd love to be enlightened on this if I'm indeed mired in such error as you claim I am ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Well can you explain some of these scientific principles of upscaling we're not understanding for how that process can create additional PQ that the source material never had?
> 
> I'd love to be enlightened on this if I'm indeed mired in such error as you claim I am ...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


http://lmgtfy.com/?q=video+upscaling


----------



## Scott MS (Oct 21, 2009)

HoTat2 said:


> No I can see the difference between a 640 x 480 native SD image and a 1280 x 720 HD one.
> 
> But to use this example, the issue related to what's being discussed here is would a 640 x 480 SD native image look any better upscaled to 1280 x 720?
> 
> ...


Got it. Upscaling really doesn't "improve" the picture quality. You can't add detail into the image that doesn't exist by simply interpolating pixels.

What it does do, however, is smooth out the picture on larger sets. As TVs get bigger and bigger, you start to see the pixels structure. I remember looking at the 90" Sharp TV and if you sat about 5 feet away, you could literally make out the block structure of the 1920x1080 pixel display. Bring in a 4K display and the pixel structure is no longer noticeable and the picture is smoother.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

NR4P said:


> If you came to my house you would see something interesting
> 
> ABC network shows are available to me over two different markets/stations.
> Take the evening news
> ...





James Long said:


> Considering that the ABC network content is all upscaled from 720p more information is needed. How much bandwidth does the 720p ABC devote to their ABC feed and how much is spent on subchannels? How about the 1080i ABC station?
> 
> The source of both stations (the ABC network feed) is less than 1 megapixel frames. Upconverting to nearly 2.5 megapixels doesn't add more information than was originally there. There must be some other explanation.


It is at least possible that by now, a significant amount of ABC programming is 1080p/24 and only converted to 1080i or 720p by the affiliate upon broadcast. So conversion from 1080p/24 to 1080i would have more detail than conversion from 1080p/24 to 720p.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

David Ortiz said:


> It is at least possible that by now, a significant amount of ABC programming is 1080p/24 and only converted to 1080i or 720p by the affiliate upon broadcast. So conversion from 1080p/24 to 1080i would have more detail than conversion from 1080p/24 to 720p.


Only movies are produced at 24 fps, TV is always produced at 30 fps (or 60 for sports and maybe some action shows) 1080p30 is trivially converted to 1080i, and your TV can exactly recreate the 1080p30. If it is converted to 720p you lose resolution information, and no scaler, no matter how good, can exactly recreate the original 1080p picture from a compressed 720p source the way it could from a 1080i source. The only way it could is if it hid the "lost" information in the intervening frames (since it would convert 1080p30 to 720p30, you either repeat each frame or use it somehow. I have no idea if there's some way to hide the extra resolution information in those otherwise unused frames, but if they did it would have to be something that wouldn't affect the picture when no scaler was in use.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Only movies are produced at 24 fps, TV is always produced at 30 fps (or 60 for sports and maybe some action shows)


The master format for Lost was 1080p/24 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0411008/technical and that was the Blu-ray format as well.

As of 2012, ABC Network was requesting 1080p/24 for files meant for broadcast. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:W--aHkYYpLgJ:https://mediamonorail.disney.com/techspecs/ABC%2520Network%2520ProRes%2520Delivery%2520Spec.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting, I didn't know they changed. Seems odd, since it requires 3:2 pull down when displayed. While some TVs will recognize that and correct it, by no means will all of them - even some recent expensive 4K TVs can't recognize and correct that automatically.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

David Ortiz said:


> It is at least possible that by now, a significant amount of ABC programming is 1080p/24 and only converted to 1080i or 720p by the affiliate upon broadcast.


ABC's master satellite feeds that the affiliates get are 720p

What's likely happening in NR4P's case is the 1080i affiliate is devoting more bandwidth to the ABC HD feed compared to what the 720p affiliate is devoting to it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

patmurphey said:


> I guess it must be magic, since you don't seem to understand the technical science of upscaling...


Thing is, you don't have to understand the technology, the result is right before our eyes. Let them get a 4K set and then let's see if the same folks can argue against what we see...so very clearly.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Well can you explain some of these scientific principles of upscaling we're not understanding for how that process can create additional PQ that the source material never had?
> 
> _*I'd love to be enlightened*_ on this if I'm indeed mired in such error as you claim I am ...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


You don't need enlightenment, you need to sit down and watch a good 4K set.

Rich


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Scott MS said:


> Got it. Upscaling really doesn't "improve" the picture quality. You can't add detail into the image that doesn't exist by simply interpolating pixels.
> 
> What it does do, however, is smooth out the picture on larger sets. As TVs get bigger and bigger, you start to see the pixels structure. I remember looking at the 90" Sharp TV and if you sat about 5 feet away, you could literally make out the block structure of the 1920x1080 pixel display. Bring in a 4K display and the pixel structure is no longer noticeable and the picture is smoother.


Now this seems sensible;

So it is not that upscaling really increases PQ per se. But what it does is allow a lower native resolution image to have a better display over larger sceen dimensions.

For instance a 720p or 1080p native image on a 4K set at 55 in. or greater would be larger of course, and look just as good as on a 1080P TV at maybe 32 in. diagonal.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

terryfoster said:


> Dismissing the actual science of visual acuity makes me LOL.


The problem is all that science being quoted is for still images and doesn't mean squat on a moving picture....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Thing is, you don't have to understand the technology, the result is right before our eyes. Let them get a 4K set and then let's see if the same folks can argue against what we see...so very clearly.
> 
> Rich


I always find it funny everyone says you can't see 4K but they never seem to think you could see better than 1080 or 720 so that a 4K may be better just because you can see somewhere in between even.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Now this seems sensible;
> 
> So it is not that upscaling really increases PQ per se. But what it does is allow a lower native resolution image to have a better display over larger sceen dimensions.
> 
> ...


That's part of it... But still not all of it. You need to go a little deeper and not consider different sizes of tvs in your thought process.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I always find it funny everyone says you can't see 4K but they never seem to think you could see better than 1080 or 720 so that a 4K may be better just because you can see somewhere in between even.


Watching a bit of The Masters yesterday I could definitely see the difference. I could not only tell there were dimples on the ball but I could read the brand name on the ball. Had it on a 1080p set for comparison and I didn't get that detail with 1080p.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Watching a bit of The Masters yesterday I could definitely see the difference. I could not only tell there were dimples on the ball but I could read the brand name on the ball. Had it on a 1080p set for comparison and I didn't get that detail with 1080p.


1080i/30 to 2160p/60 is 8x the data. It should be absolutely incredible for sports. I'm sorry I missed it.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

David Ortiz said:


> 1080i/30 to 2160p/60 is 8x the data. It should be absolutely incredible for sports. I'm sorry I missed it.


I don't like golf but watched for quite some time. That should tell you how incredible it looked. lol


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

A 4K broadcast would look better than an HD broadcast even if it was downscaled to 720p, simply due to the huge difference in data rate. 30 Mbps HEVC is equivalent to about 40 - 45 Mbps MPEG4 or 75-80 Mbps MPEG2 for live content, far more bandwidth than what the channels originate it from the network (probably 15-18 Mbps MPEG2)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Something else people need o remember is the cameras will be able to zoom in and give you detail non 4K cameras can't give you in the first place. There's a lot to be said about how much clearer a zoomed in 4K picture could be as well.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Rich said:


> Thing is, you don't have to understand the technology, the result is right before our eyes. Let them get a 4K set and then let's see if the same folks can argue against what we see...so very clearly.
> 
> Rich


Yes, and there are some here that don't understand that the same technology is used when the pixel information is removed and reconstructed with compression algorithms of DTV's 1080i streams.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

patmurphey said:


> Yes, and there are some here that don't understand that the same technology is used when the pixel information is removed and reconstructed with compression algorithms of DTV's 1080i streams.


What do you mean? A 1080i broadcast is made from 1080p30 content via splitting each frame into two interleaved 1920x540 fields. The TV reassembles them and displays the original 1080p picture. Upscaling a 720p or 1080i picture isn't the same thing, it can interpolate between pixels to smooth edges etc. but it can't reconstruct the original image the way 1080i can recover the original 1080p30 content.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Is there anyone here with a 4K TV and will step up and state that they are sorry they purchased the TV because they were disappointed in the PQ and see no difference vs a 1080p TV?

That's the defining question on the quality.

If so, please let us know and what TV and provider you have.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NR4P said:


> Is there anyone here with a 4K TV and will step up and state that they are sorry they purchased the TV because they were disappointed in the PQ and see no difference vs a 1080p TV?
> 
> That's the defining question on the quality.
> 
> If so, please let us know and what TV provider you have.


Excellent question.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Something else people need o remember is the cameras will be able to zoom in and give you detail non 4K cameras can't give you in the first place. There's a lot to be said about how much clearer a zoomed in 4K picture could be as well.


This reminds me of the 4K followup to Planet Earth that's going to be coming out. Can't wait for some of those shots from far away.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

NR4P said:


> Is there anyone here with a 4K TV and will step up and state that they are sorry they purchased the TV because they were disappointed in the PQ and see no difference vs a 1080p TV?


Sorry ... but there is too much of an investment in 4K for anyone to admit that it isn't perfect. 
There are people who swear by "Monster" cables as well and can see the difference in PQ.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

patmurphey said:


> Yes, and there are some here that don't understand that the same technology is used when the pixel information is removed and reconstructed with compression algorithms of DTV's 1080i streams.





slice1900 said:


> What do you mean? A 1080i broadcast is made from 1080p30 content via splitting each frame into two interleaved 1920x540 fields. The TV reassembles them and displays the original 1080p picture. Upscaling a 720p or 1080i picture isn't the same thing, it can interpolate between pixels to smooth edges etc. but it can't reconstruct the original image the way 1080i can recover the original 1080p30 content.


Yes ...

Also isn't MPEG and HEVC a "lossy" compression algorithm which means the information originally removed in the compression process is not recovered in the decompression?

That's why such unrecoverable information that was removed must be imperceptible.to the human eye ...

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

HoTat2 said:


> Yes ...
> 
> Also isn't MPEG and HEVC a "lossy" compression algorithm which means the information originally removed in the compression process is not recovered in the decompression?
> 
> That's why such unrecoverable information that was removed must be imperceptible.to the human eye ...


Yes, all video compression methods in consumer gear are lossy, the only lossless compression is supported in broadcast gear and requires hundreds of megabits per second for HD, even more for 4K.

Now while the _goal_ is that removed information is imperceptible to the human eye, we all know that's not the case - you realize that every time you see macroblocking etc. while watching video...

The information that's lost in the compression can never be recovered, but that doesn't mean there isn't some room to guess what the lost information might have been. You can guess right for something like an edge of a straight line (think markers on a football field) but in a more complex image (think a wide shot of the crowd in the stands) there is no way to guess right - but you can still "guess" - and having more detail might make the image look better even if you guess wrong. How are you going to know when pixels are out of place in some guy's shirt in the crowd? The image is sharper, so it must be "better", right?


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

James Long said:


> Sorry ... but there is too much of an investment in 4K for anyone to admit that it isn't perfect.
> There are people who swear by "Monster" cables as well and can see the difference in PQ.


Thus far no one with 4k has been unhappy with their decision.

Anyone here with Mobster cables and will swear they know they are better than lower cost cables?

And for the record I purchased Monster cables about 15 years ago and learned it was a waste of money.

It amazes me how people don't have first hand experience with a product and then seem to be experts on it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

NR4P said:


> Is there anyone here with a 4K TV and will step up and state that they are sorry they purchased the TV because they were disappointed in the PQ and see no difference vs a 1080p TV?
> 
> That's the defining question on the quality.
> 
> If so, please let us know and what TV and provider you have.


I have to say I was disappointed with the Sony 4K I bought and appalled by the LG 4K set I bought. But I didn't "settle" on them and quickly returned them. There are some real stinkers out there.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I think the fact that Rich had to go through three 4K TVs (and spend quite a bit more than he was originally planning) until he had one he felt was clearly superior to his 1080p plasmas demonstrates that an upgrade in image quality isn't automatic from the purchase of a 4K TV.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> I think the fact that Rich had to go through three 4K TVs (and spend quite a bit more than he was originally planning) until he had one he felt was clearly superior to his 1080p plasmas demonstrates that an upgrade in image quality isn't automatic from the purchase of a 4K TV.


Nor was it going from 720p to 1080p years back.

A bad panel is a bad panel. There were plenty of 720p plasmas that decimated lower end 1080p plasmas and LCDs back then.

Resolution has always only been one piece of the puzzle.

I own 3 4K sets myself but did a lot of research before pulling the trigger and I can absolutely tell the difference with native 4K content even an improvement with upscaled content, although it is far more subtle.


----------



## Scott MS (Oct 21, 2009)

4K is great. I can see the improved picture detail instantly, but I'm also watching a 123" screen.

If you want to talk about quality, ATSC broadcasts in MPEG-2. DTV then converts this to MPEG-4 and broadcasts over the satellite.

I have the DTV AM21N over-the-air tuner. All my local channels look much better through the AM21N via OTA than from the satellite.

And, on the other topic of this thread . . . I hate watching sports on FOX and ABC. 720p is crap. I love NBC football and CBS football. You can certainly tell a difference between 720p of ABC/FOX and the 1080i of NBC/CBS. 1080i rules.

The best picture I can get (besides DTV 4K) is watching CBS or NBC over the antenna using the AM21N.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

That just shows everyone is different. I prefer 720p sports due to the higher frame rate. IMHO 720p is much better because it is 60 fps versus the 30 fps of 1080i (don't be fooled by the "60 fields per second", they are producing those games in 1080p30 and splitting each frame into two fields when broadcasting 1080i)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The main thing I'm interested in 4K for in the future is if/when they start 120 fps broadcasts. I'd love to see sports in 4Kp120 - now THAT might make me start upgrading my two dozen plus plasmas down the road!


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> That just shows everyone is different. I prefer 720p sports due to the higher frame rate. IMHO 720p is much better because it is 60 fps versus the 30 fps of 1080i (don't be fooled by the "60 fields per second", they are producing those games in 1080p30 and splitting each frame into two fields when broadcasting 1080i)


Do you mean 60hz and not fps? Both the 720p feeds and 1080i feeds you are seeing 30fps unless I am missing some special broadcasts. Yes the signal itself has a refresh rate of 60hz but the content is 30fps.

I am with the others 720p broadcasts suffer a lot of extra compression artifacts.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

ESPN is producing everything at 60 fps - actually in 1080p60, downscaled to 720p60 for broadcast.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> ESPN is producing everything at 60 fps - actually in 1080p60, downscaled to 720p60 for broadcast.


Ah alright that would definitely explain the macroblocking.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> I think the fact that Rich had to go through three 4K TVs (and spend quite a bit more than he was originally planning) until he had one he felt was clearly superior to his 1080p plasmas demonstrates that an upgrade in image quality isn't automatic from the purchase of a 4K TV.


Yeah, sadly that's true. I really didn't want to go thru all that (and it was right in the middle of two nasty operations) and never expected to spend as much as I did, but what are you gonna do if you're really picky about PQ? And isn't PQ the main thing we look for in TV sets? BTW, the awful LG 4K set was not an OLED. The Sony was probably the most disappointing set, I wasn't surprised that the LG was...junk. I've had so many Sonys over the years and the 4K was the first one I had to return. Anyhow, it all turned out OK.

Rich


----------



## Scott MS (Oct 21, 2009)

Fox and ABC are 1280x720/60p, NBC and CBS are 1920x1080/60i, with "i" being interlaced and updating 1/2 the frame every 1/60 of a second equivalent to a new frame every 1/30th of a second.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mutelight said:


> Ah alright that would definitely explain the macroblocking.


Huh?

Higher frame rates should make for less macroblocking as it allows for more rapid data changes between frames due to faster movements in the picture to be transmitted.

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> Huh?
> 
> Higher frame rates should make for less macroblocking as it allows for more rapid data changes between frames due to faster movements in the picture to be transmitted.
> 
> Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


Not if the bitrate is the same for 30fps broadcasts.

To be clear, not saying it is and ESPN isn't terrible looking, I have just always found the 720p stations lacking.


----------



## Mauiguy (Jul 14, 2007)

One thing for sure, you will seldom see an early adopter say that the thng he just adopted is less than stellar. I watched the great 3D caper and even bought into one. Was it great? No. Was it ok? Yes I guess. Maybe it would have really grown if there had been more source material instead of an incessant replay of guitar sessions for a couple of years.

Is 4K great? I do not know. I do know that if i have to pay for two receivers in order to watch one TV it is not worth it. If DTV does not come out with a set top box that can show more than one 4K broadcast at a time, it is not worth very much to me. Further they will need to provide more than one channel of 4k for it to survive. So far I am on the side lines until the technology matures.

I hope that it works, and I hope that it is absolutely perfect, but i used to watch the master broadcasts of HD when it was on Discovery Channel on a big dish, and to this day, HD on Directv or Dish does not match that quality. It is good, but not great.

I have some doubts about the 4K stuff, sorry.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mutelight said:


> Not if the bitrate is the same for 30fps broadcasts.
> 
> To be clear, not saying it is and ESPN isn't terrible looking, _*I have just always found the 720p stations lacking.*_


I have too, especially on my 1080p plasmas. For some reason, I get a bit of jittering on ABC content. Not really annoying, but it's there (on my 4K set, I mean).

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Mauiguy said:


> One thing for sure, you will seldom see an early adopter say that the thng he just adopted is less than stellar. I watched the great 3D caper and even bought into one. Was it great? No. Was it ok? Yes I guess. Maybe it would have really grown if there had been more source material instead of an incessant replay of guitar sessions for a couple of years.
> 
> Is 4K great? I do not know. I do know that if i have to pay for two receivers in order to watch one TV it is not worth it. If DTV does not come out with a set top box that can show more than one 4K broadcast at a time, it is not worth very much to me. Further they will need to provide more than one channel of 4k for it to survive. So far I am on the side lines until the technology matures.
> 
> ...


Your doubts are well founded. I have absolutely no intention of adding extra equipment to get D* content that I really have no interest in. I do enjoy the upscaling and the 4K content on Amazon and NF is really good but there's not all that much out there at this time. If I hadn't needed a new TV set, I wouldn't have made the jump when I did. I also agree with your comment about the early adopters never saying they made a mistake. My father was like that. Every car he bought (he bought a new car every 3 years) was simply the best one out there and what he traded in was junk. After watching this happen a couple times it dawned on me that what he was saying simply wasn't rational.

Rich


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Rich said:


> I also agree with your comment about the early adopters never saying they made a mistake. My father was like that. Every car he bought (he bought a new car every 3 years) was simply the best one out there and what he traded in was junk. After watching this happen a couple times it dawned on me that what he was saying simply wasn't rational.


To this day, even years into their life cycle you can see people defending their Xbox One or PS4 purchase, so certainly not limited to early adopters by any means. People like to convince themselves that they made the right decision.

Personally when people ask me about 4K, I tell them how it is. Content is limited, viewing distance and screen size is paramount but if a good panel is purchased, they know there is content they want to watch, then they can potentially future-proof their purchase. (Much like I assume you did.)

The current state of 4K on DirecTV, I would not recommend it to anyone. If I wasn't due for a hardware upgrade and didn't already have the Premiere package, I may have waited myself.

Another aspect is peoples' tolerance to quality differences. I spent hours calibrating my main TV and can tell the difference between a 4K stream and broadcast UHD and UHD Blu-ray vs. upscaled. I am very sensitive to it so I can see it but that is because I know my system very well and can pick it out. I would be hard pressed to find anyone I know that could tell the difference which is why 4K in its current state, I would only recommend for enthusiasts.

Then there is the whole upgrade bug that bites me which is why I moved away from an AVR and to seperates. I can absolutely tell the difference in audio performance while others, "it sounds great" but they can only really tell at higher volumes due to it having more power.

Like any tech you hit the point of diminishing returns but between my HT gear, PC, etc. with it all being my hobby I enjoy stretching into that area but wouldn't recommend it to friends and family.

All that said, I was watching one of the 4K channels this morning and the quality was stunning.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

mutelight said:


> Not if the bitrate is the same for 30fps broadcasts.
> 
> To be clear, not saying it is and ESPN isn't terrible looking, I have just always found the 720p stations lacking.


But you can have the same overall bit rate and still have one format better suited to certain areas than others.

Theoretically at least, 1080i uses a greater spatial resolution of 1920 x 1080 vs. 720p's 1280 x 720. But uses greater temporal compression of only 30 fps vs. 720p's 60 fps.

Thus making 1080i a better picture with still or slower changing content. And 720p better for images with faster moving content.

Again, "in theory." 

Sent from my SGH-M819N using Tapatalk


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> But you can have the same overall bit rate and still have one format better suited to certain areas than others.
> 
> Theoretically at least, 1080i uses a greater spatial resolution of 1920 x 1080 vs. 720p's 1280 x 720. But uses greater temporal compression of only 30 fps vs. 720p's.
> 
> ...


You're totally right and I get what you are saying, I guess I have never actually sat down and really scrutinized the image quality during high motion because I am typically entertaining and not paying that much attention to the quality.

My comment was specifically around two 720p broadcasts, one running at 30fps and the other at 60fps and if they both used the same bitrate theoretically the 30fps would look better because the codec is only updating the frame at half the rate.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Sorry ... but there is too much of an investment in 4K for anyone to admit that it isn't perfect.
> There are people who swear by "Monster" cables as well and can see the difference in PQ.


Please. People would absolutely say if they wherent happy. Ask Rich!

I own a ton of monster cable myself. Although only one HDMI. It's almost all analogue and a couple optical cables. And I got it at less than the price of cheap cables people buy today. And I can say with my own certainty that the digital stuff isn't any different than any other cable except maybe if it will withstand being plugged in and unplugged more often because of heavier duty construction for me personally. That's about the only difference in some of their digital stuff.

As for analogue. There's differences for sure. Especially sound with speaker wire and interconnects. But you also have to have a system that can take advantage of that quality in the first place to get the difference from it. Something people seem to always forget. And I have yet to meet a person I can't prove that too. But the key is everything in the system not just one piece. Just like with tvs...

Which is another way of saying as with anything there are some 4K tvs that aren't nearly as good as others. Some 1080p may be as good as the worst 4K even. But a good 4K vs a good 1080 will show differences. That is why he asked the question and is why not one person says they are not happy with the 4K tv they ended up with. Just took Rich (and maybe others) a few to get there.

But thanks for your decision to label all people who buy a 4K tv as liars if they don't say the can't tell a difference.

Remember the question wasn't about 4K sources looking awesome. It was about a 4K tv looking better than their last tv and if they regretted their purchase.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> But thanks for your decision to label all people who buy a 4K tv as liars if they don't say the can't tell a difference.


I did not say that and I consider it an insult for you to twist my words in such a way.
Please be careful with your insults and leave them off of our forums.


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)




----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Please. People would absolutely say if they wherent happy. Ask Rich!
> 
> I own a ton of monster cable myself. Although only one HDMI. It's almost all analogue and a couple optical cables. And I got it at less than the price of cheap cables people buy today. And I can say with my own certainty that the digital stuff isn't any different than any other cable except maybe if it will withstand being plugged in and unplugged more often because of heavier duty construction for me personally. That's about the only difference in some of their digital stuff.
> 
> ...


I do use Monster speaker wires. I like their flexibility. I think I've bought two rolls over the years. Not a bad investment. But, only because of the flexibility.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> I do use Monster speaker wires. I like their flexibility. I think I've bought two rolls over the years. Not a bad investment. But, only because of the flexibility.
> 
> Rich


You'd die if you saw the speaker wire I procured for my main speakers.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

oh no, please !

:backtotop:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You'd die if you saw the speaker wire I procured for my main speakers.


Aww, now you have to tell us about the wires. You can't just do that, it's cruel. :rolling:

Rich


----------



## alnielsen (Dec 31, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> You'd die if you saw the speaker wire I procured for my main speakers.


I use AC Lamp cord.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

alnielsen said:


> I use AC Lamp cord.


Me too (it must be a Nielsen thing).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

it wasn't nice attempt to return sidetracking to the topic ...  perhaps AC cord would help increase PQ of 4K channels, duh !


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

alnielsen said:


> I use AC Lamp cord.


I used to use that for speakers too, but I really like the flexibility and AWG rating of the ridiculously priced Monster wire. For something that your're rarely gonna change, the Monster wire seemed like a good choice to me.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:
 

> it wasn't nice attempt to return sidetracking to the topic ...  perhaps AC cord would help increase PQ of 4K channels, duh !


Enough to drive you nuts, isn't it Pete? :rolling:

Rich


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

sure ..
perhaps all real participants of the topic !


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

camo said:


> Downloading 4k isn't for everyone. Data caps, internet speeds all play into it. I really don't see why all the hoopla about 4k until its being broadcast live. A tip from Solid Signal a 45-minute sample movie took almost two hours on a 60 megabit line in the lab and the file size was a whopping 50 GB. This isn't even a full length movie.


What the **** are they doing with the 4k video? I've been streaming Netflix like crazy, and that's ~7GB/hour in 4k, and it looks absolutely stunning. They're running at 80GB/hour?!? That's like 150mbps?!?



slice1900 said:


> Directv is using a 30 Mbps bit rate for their 4K, which equates to 13.5 GB per hour. That 45 minute sample would have to have been encoded at 150 Mbps for 45 minutes to require 50 GB - that's higher than 4K Blu Ray bit rate so I think they probably had a math error somewhere in their calculations.


I could believe that. If that's the case, either they are just throwing bitrate at it to make it look amazing, or their encoding is a little bit behind where Netflix is encoding wise. Still, not bad.


----------



## Gary Riggs (Aug 31, 2017)

This thread is old but I thought I'd add my opinion.

The higher bitrate should give us better general 4K viewing and I think I see evidence off that when I'm watching a 4K video that's not in HDR. The thing is, I'm not seeing any DirecTv videos so far in HDR. I hope this is just a lack of observation on my part. I believe the 4K HDR videos from Amazon and Netflix look better than the 4K non-HDR videos I see on DirecTv even though they are at a lower bitrate.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Gary Riggs said:


> This thread is old but I thought I'd add my opinion.
> 
> The higher bitrate should give us better general 4K viewing and I think I see evidence off that when I'm watching a 4K video that's not in HDR. The thing is, I'm not seeing any DirecTv videos so far in HDR. I hope this is just a lack of observation on my part. I believe the 4K HDR videos from Amazon and Netflix look better than the 4K non-HDR videos I see on DirecTv even though they are at a lower bitrate.


There is currently no HDR broadcasts on DirecTV. They have made mention that they plan to bring HDR at the beginning of live broadcasts and their current plan is to start supporting it in 2018.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

FWIW, I'm watching the Yankees/Sox game on 106 right now. STUNNING picture. Absolutely freaking STUNNING!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> FWIW, I'm watching the Yankees/Sox game on 106 right now. STUNNING picture. Absolutely freaking STUNNING!


Is it has HDR ?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Is it has HDR ?


No. HDR will get enabled in the new UI


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

And yesterday's Maryland/Texas game. WOW, WOW, WOW!!!!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

compnurd said:


> No. HDR will get enabled in the new UI


when they will begin spooling it ? 
to HR54 and HS17 I hope ?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

What does the new UI have to do with HDR support?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> What does the new UI have to do with HDR support?


The new UI adds a test hdr option to the C61k. You can't access it though yet


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

P Smith said:


> when they will begin spooling it ?
> to HR54 and HS17 I hope ?


Yes to both and I would say at least another 3-4 months


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

compnurd said:


> The new UI adds a test hdr option to the C61k. You can't access it though yet


What I'm saying is that the new UI itself has nothing to do with HDR support. They may have chosen to delay introducing HDR support until they get the new UI out, but that's a choice.

Anyone know what HDR standard (or standards?) they're planning on using? Dolby? HLG? HDR10?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Dolby Vision ?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> What I'm saying is that the new UI itself has nothing to do with HDR support. They may have chosen to delay introducing HDR support until they get the new UI out, but that's a choice.
> 
> Anyone know what HDR standard (or standards?) they're planning on using? Dolby? HLG? HDR10?


I am not saying it does either. I am simply stating it is an option in the new Ui

HDR10. That was revealed in a survey a few months back they did


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

IMO, new UI could have feature to set on/off HDR10 support in new version FW

new UI by itself have nothing to do with HDR10 support


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

So the current hardware can support HDR/HDR10 and Dolby Vision, or are they both more of a software then a hardware thing?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So the current hardware can support HDR/HDR10 and Dolby Vision, or are they both more of a software then a hardware thing?


The C61k can support HDR10 and probably Dolby vision since it is just passing it through. It would be on your TV to decode the DV since that is hardware based. I don't see them supporting both at the onset. Just HDR10 since that is the mostly widely supported and implemented over the last 2-3 years. DV support is growing but is still very limited


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Well there are two varieties of HDR10, one that is "pass thru" and one that depends on some support from the source HDMI port (probably just a firmware upgrade, but still)

HLG is supposedly going to be mostly a European thing though it supported as an option under ATSC 3.0 so who knows. The whole HDR picture is very complicated and will probably take a few years to shake out. I'd just make sure any TV you buy includes Dolby Vision support because that's licensed technology - so not something that will be added to a TV after sale. Dolby has enough clout in the industry that they might be able to force DV to be the winning HDR format in the end even though it is more costly than the rest due to that licensing.


----------



## Hi Deaf (Jul 5, 2003)

I've had the Genie 2 for several days and am loving the pic. I have a Sony 75" 940E and 4K is stunning, although my wife say's "yeah, it looks a little better" I had problems running it through my 4k capable Denon. When I tried to go back to the list after watching 4K, it would freeze and I would have to restart it. So I'm running directly to the Sony and using the digital coax. 

One thing I notice is that if I'm watching a recorded program, and pause it, when I resume it, there like a one second delay before it starts. Is that normal for the G2? I apologize if this has been covered already.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

[your wife, on avatar, looks too young to appreciate 4k/UHD picture  ]
one second delay is OK
[just avoid name new DVR as "g2", it is HS17-x00, G2 is reminiscent to secondary G-thing ]


----------



## DrA (Oct 25, 2006)

All you guys! What is your signal strength of 4K channel 104? Mine is 82. I am also very excited about HDR on DirecTV. I have a Sony 900e and HDR -10 is amazing.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

DrA said:


> I am also very excited about HDR on DirecTV.


you mean *future* possible implementation of HDR by DTV ?


----------



## DrA (Oct 25, 2006)

P Smith said:


> you mean *future* possible implementation of HDR by DTV ?


Yes, right now only on Netflix, Amazon and Sony movie service. I am refusing to get involved in 4K disc nonsense again. I have 4 versions of the same movie: HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, SD dvd, laser disk, VHS.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

that's how we live ... everyone must have a salary: R&D engineer, markteing people and retailers ...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

DrA said:


> All you guys! What is your signal strength of 4K channel 104? Mine is 82. I am also very excited about HDR on DirecTV. I have a Sony 900e and HDR -10 is amazing.


Channel 104 still comes off then main birds. The reverse bands are not used yet


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

compnurd said:


> Channel 104 still comes off then main birds. The reverse bands are not used yet


see Gary Toma's spreadsheet - all channels/tpns/sats are there!


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Yup and what i stated was true.. There is nothing on the CR Sats yet


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

compnurd said:


> There is nothing on the CR Sats yet


well, technically there are some RB tpns carry muxes, but APG have nothing about its content; perhaps some RB testing does ongoing now


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

P Smith said:


> well, technically there are some RB tpns carry muxes, but APG have nothing about its content; perhaps some RB testing does ongoing now


Sure, they probably have some test channels that only employees or possibly some CE participants can see, but as far as anyone asking here goes there is nothing on reverse band yet.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

for sake of RB tpns status, we have info about its activity now


----------



## DrA (Oct 25, 2006)

I took a screenshot for you with high megapixels camera but this site has a file size limitation. On my 4K TV I can see all 8 million pixels of this picture and it is not that different from the live program I paused. Incredible picture compared to Netflix or Amazon 4K because it uses 30 Mbits per second instead of 15Mbits per second.


captaink5217 said:


> In looking through all the topics I haven't seen any from people that already watched directv in 4K comment if the picture is really good or does it look just like a good 1080 channel? I know it's just VOD now but how does that look??
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


ooo


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

DrA said:


> but this site has a file size limitation


you can upload it to any free host and provide URL here


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

For what it's worth, last nights MN/OR St game had lots of pixelization and handshake issues.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> For what it's worth, last nights MN/OR St game had lots of pixelization and handshake issues.


I haven't watched it yet, do you have any times in the game where you saw this so I can check my recording?


----------



## Hi Deaf (Jul 5, 2003)

So, just to confirm, every Genie 2 has this delay issue? If so, why? Isn't this suppose to be the best of the best?


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Hi Deaf said:


> So, just to confirm, every Genie 2 has this delay issue? If so, why? Isn't this suppose to be the best of the best?


Delay issue?


----------



## Hi Deaf (Jul 5, 2003)

I guess you didn't see my earlier post, but if I'm watching a recorded program, and pause it, when I resume it, there's like a one to one and a half second delay before it starts. It also does it when use the 30 second skip forward.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Are you using rvu or a C61k


----------



## tenflyers (Sep 10, 2017)

DrA said:


> Incredible picture compared to Netflix or Amazon 4K because it uses 30 Mbits per second instead of 15Mbits per second.
> ooo


I agree 100% the live 4K feeds I've watched so far are completely stunning. It makes going back to a crap 720 Fox NFL game brutal.


----------



## Hi Deaf (Jul 5, 2003)

compnurd said:


> Are you using rvu or a C61k


I'm not sure what rvu is but I have the tower in the office and the mini client in the living room. Also what I meant was that when I fast forward a paused or recorded program and push play, there is a one second delay before it starts. Very annoying.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Hi Deaf said:


> I'm not sure what rvu is but I have the tower in the office and the mini client in the living room. Also what I meant was that when I fast forward a paused or recorded program and push play, there is a one second delay before it starts. Very annoying.


RVU is a DIRECTV ready 4K Ultra HDTV. Simply put, these TV's are equipped with software that enables them to receive DIRECTV without the need for a external client (C61K-700).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

MysteryMan said:


> RVU is a DIRECTV ready 4K Ultra HDTV


actually, there are many RVU capable HDTV/UHDTV[4k] but only a very few of them DTV compatible !


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tenflyers said:


> I agree 100% the live 4K feeds I've watched so far are completely stunning. It makes going back to a crap 720 Fox NFL game brutal.


Fox does seem to have the worst 720p PQ. Got a Yankees game on Fox the other day, not a good picture. ESPN does 720p so much better, I think.

Rich


----------



## Hi Deaf (Jul 5, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> RVU is a DIRECTV ready 4K Ultra HDTV. Simply put, these TV's are equipped with software that enables them to receive DIRECTV without the need for a external client (C61K-700).


I have a 2017 Sony 940E. When I select inputs, there is one that says Direct TV ready. When I select that one is says I need a wired LAN. I'm looking it up now, thanks for that info.

Ok, it looks like I need a wired LAN or a deca. My DTV installer never even mentioned DTV ready or RVU. Anyway, will going RVU be the only way to fix the delay problem?


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

There's a slight delay on the HS17 Client/Server. Think of the architecture - you're going from a DVR sitting under your TV to a single remote server. To me, it's not a big deal, given all the other big advantages.


----------



## tenflyers (Sep 10, 2017)

Rich said:


> Fox does seem to have the worst 720p PQ. Got a Yankees game on Fox the other day, not a good picture. ESPN does 720p so much better, I think.
> 
> Rich


The 4pm Fox game yesterday was better than the 1pm by a noticeable amount. The 1pm Eagles/Redskins game was horrid it was like they used 20 year old cameras I swear some were not HD at all. At a minimum use your best stuff on the play action (wide angle) camera, jeez.

But agreed, ESPN does 720p much better. That said, I really really wish we could see an NFL game on Directv 4k this year. I at least hope the Super Bowl will be. I 'almost' wish I didn't see how amazing the 4k college FB and soccer match looked this weekend, it floored me (and I thought Amazon and Netflix 4k looked almost perfect).


----------



## tenflyers (Sep 10, 2017)

DrA said:


> Incredible picture compared to Netflix or Amazon 4K because it uses 30 Mbits per second instead of 15Mbits per second.
> 
> ooo


DrA - how do you measure this by the way? I know my receiver doesn't capture that anywhere I can find. At some point I think I had a BluRay player that would have it but that doesn't help here. I had Layer3 TV until this week (great PQ but other issues) and I read where they were putting out ~ 10-12+ Mbps on some HD feeds but I could never figure out a way to calculate that. And I would have loved to compare it to when I had horrible Xfinity (worst PQ ever) as I'm guessing they use a fraction of that. Just curious.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tenflyers said:


> But agreed, ESPN does 720p much better. That said, I really really wish we could see an NFL game on Directv 4k this year. I at least hope the Super Bowl will be. I 'almost' wish I didn't see how amazing the 4k college FB and soccer match looked this weekend, it floored me (and I thought Amazon and Netflix 4k looked almost perfect).


The only way you'll see the Super Bowl in 4K anytime soon is if they do a 4K replay the next day. Since it is on network TV and the local affiliates count on the money from the local commercials they can add, they'd never agree to a network making it available on cable/satellite in 4K since that would cost them viewers.

Assuming local stations start broadcasting in 4K in a few years then you'll be able to watch it in 4K if your local station is one of the ones doing 4K. But you won't see it on Directv - they don't have any way of broadcasting 4K locals without investing a LOT of money. You'd have to go with cable or pick it up with an antenna.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I used to use that for speakers too, but I really like the flexibility and AWG rating of the ridiculously priced Monster wire. For something that your're rarely gonna change, the Monster wire seemed like a good choice to me.
> 
> Rich


Do you hear the improvement from the patented diamond plated, cross-polymorphed, anti-coagulated, bi-tonal transducing extrusion process that Monster uses?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Well there are two varieties of HDR10, one that is "pass thru" and one that depends on some support from the source HDMI port (probably just a firmware upgrade, but still)
> 
> HLG is supposedly going to be mostly a European thing though it supported as an option under ATSC 3.0 so who knows. The whole HDR picture is very complicated and will probably take a few years to shake out. I'd just make sure any TV you buy includes Dolby Vision support because that's licensed technology - so not something that will be added to a TV after sale. Dolby has enough clout in the industry that they might be able to force DV to be the winning HDR format in the end even though it is more costly than the rest due to that licensing.


Static HDR10 is part of the HDMI 2.0 spec. Dynamic HDR10 it is part of the HDMI 2.1 spec. Static HLG is part of the 2.0b spec. DolbyVision is the one that is HDMI agnostic. Yeah, feeling I get is that HLG is going to be the euro standard.


----------



## Hi Deaf (Jul 5, 2003)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> There's a slight delay on the HS17 Client/Server. Think of the architecture - you're going from a DVR sitting under your TV to a single remote server. To me, it's not a big deal, given all the other big advantages.


Ok, so everyone has the delay, that's what I needed to know, thanks.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you hear the improvement from the patented diamond plated, cross-polymorphed, anti-coagulated, bi-tonal transducing extrusion process that Monster uses?


Monster cable is better than the cheap stuff for speakers, no question. Digital cables no, but speaker wire and analogue world, they can absolutely make a big difference. But it also depends on your other equipment. Bose speakers, nah not much, my power hungry enegery speakers, oh heck yeah. With that said, it is also ridiculous expensive for most. But their ul rated in wall wire is reasonable.

What makes me laugh the most is, monster has such a bad rap from some and yet they are the cheap high end cable company....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tenflyers said:


> The 4pm Fox game yesterday was better than the 1pm by a noticeable amount. The 1pm Eagles/Redskins game was horrid it was like they used 20 year old cameras I swear some were not HD at all. At a minimum use your best stuff on the play action (wide angle) camera, jeez.
> 
> But agreed, ESPN does 720p much better. That said, I really really wish we could see an NFL game on Directv 4k this year. I at least hope the Super Bowl will be. I 'almost' wish I didn't see how amazing the 4k college FB and soccer match looked this weekend, it floored me (and I thought Amazon and Netflix 4k looked almost perfect).


Gotta ask: What brand and model TV? I have no D* 4K equipment and I'm happy with the upscaled PQ, but I can be swayed...I like "being floored" by PQ.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Do you hear the improvement from the patented diamond plated, cross-polymorphed, anti-coagulated, bi-tonal transducing extrusion process that Monster uses?


Oh yeah, I got my BS meter recalibrated the other day and it says...

In all seriousness, I really do like the flexibility of the Monster wires.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Monster cable is better than the cheap stuff for speakers, no question. Digital cables no, but speaker wire and analogue world, they can absolutely make a big difference. But it also depends on your other equipment. Bose speakers, nah not much, my power hungry enegery speakers, oh heck yeah. With that said, it is also ridiculous expensive for most. But their ul rated in wall wire is reasonable.
> 
> What makes me laugh the most is, monster has such a bad rap from some and yet they are the cheap high end cable company....


Aside from the wonderful flexibility of the wires, which Monster offerings do you like or recommend?

Rich


----------



## tenflyers (Sep 10, 2017)

Rich said:


> Gotta ask: What brand and model TV? I have no D* 4K equipment and I'm happy with the upscaled PQ, but I can be swayed...I like "being floored" by PQ.
> 
> Rich


I have a new 65" LG OLED. Often referred to as one of if not the best picture. So just like with regular HD there are levels of 4K especially depending on HDR/Dolby Vision being part of it. A TV like this, when you have a great source is significantly better than HD (4K BluRay, some of Amazon's 4K/HDR shows are amazing too) . However, I find that it definitely shows the flaws of a poor feed vs my other cheaper TVs. I've become very picky when it comes to PQ and that isn't always a good thing.

Like I was saying in my other post I find Fox Sports NFL games to be some of the worst. Last nights ESPN NFL games looked great thankfully. But put in say Planet Earth II in 4K/HDR in front of this set and you'd definitely get floored.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

tenflyers said:


> However, I find that it definitely shows the flaws of a poor feed vs my other cheaper TVs. I've become very picky when it comes to PQ and that isn't always a good thing.


I agree. The garbage in/garbage out rule takes on a whole new meaning with high end 4K Ultra HDTVs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tenflyers said:


> I have a new 65" LG OLED. Often referred to as one of if not the best picture. So just like with regular HD there are levels of 4K especially depending on HDR/Dolby Vision being part of it. A TV like this, when you have a great source is significantly better than HD (4K BluRay, some of Amazon's 4K/HDR shows are amazing too) . However, I find that it definitely shows the flaws of a poor feed vs my other cheaper TVs. *I've become very picky when it comes to PQ and that isn't always a good thing.*
> 
> Like I was saying in my other post I find Fox Sports NFL games to be some of the worst. Last nights ESPN NFL games looked great thankfully. But put in say Planet Earth II in 4K/HDR in front of this set and you'd definitely get floored.


Not a bad way to be, that's my way of thinking too. Can't shine...you know.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> I agree. The garbage in/garbage out rule takes on a whole new meaning with high end 4K Ultra HDTVs.


True, watching a DVD is not a good experience most of the time. Can't imagine what an SD show would look like.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> Aside from the wonderful flexibility of the wires, which Monster offerings do you like or recommend?
> 
> Rich


That depends on the speakers. I like their in wall wire, as you say extremely flexible. 14 and 16 ga for small speakers, 12 ga for others. Unless you have expensive stuff ($1000 and up floor standings etc.. ) then you can make an argument for some of their z stuff. And like you said, the flexibility is really nice. But really the 12 ga speaker wire for decent floor standing speakers is actually not expensive compared to their other cables...

It's the price of their hdmi cables and optical cables that's truly insane.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> What makes me laugh the most is, monster has such a bad rap from some and yet they are the cheap high end cable company....


They get a bad rap because they market expensive cables using random, made up terms like I did . High-end cables of all kinds have been debunked in labs over and over, but people buy them for many reasons. Asthetics, etc. When I first went to 1080P, I bought some $40 HDMI from a company, I forget which one, but they've since jacked up their prices a LOT. Mostly for asthetics. I ended up hating them. 1) They were thick and not very flexible, so they were hard to route asthetically and they took up a lot of room because you couldn't run "tight curves" 2) They weren't even that good. they introduced sparkles into the picture when running my BluRay @ 1080p.

When I went 4K, I went with the $5 18Gbps MonoPrice passive ones. Thin, flexible, easier to route and no sparkles or HDMI issues and much easier on my wallet.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Gotta ask: What brand and model TV? I have no D* 4K equipment and I'm happy with the upscaled PQ, but I can be swayed...I like "being floored" by PQ.
> 
> Rich


Best TV tech available right now is still a calibrated OLED. LCD/LED use a lot of gimmicks to try to close the gap like more local dimming areas, but the higher end LCDs are more $$$ then OLED, so why would you get the inferior tech? If you were on plasma in the HD days, then you should go with OLED. LCDs haven't solved all the problems inherent in the tech. OLED wins all the shootouts as well as professional reviews like Consumer Reports, etc.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

MysteryMan said:


> I agree. The garbage in/garbage out rule takes on a whole new meaning with high end 4K Ultra HDTVs.


Yup. Very first thing I noticed on the 4k set. Much of HD looks crappy. Many 1080 channels are like looking at the picture through a screen door. However, *good* HD _does_ look better (& esp. 1080p).

Fox's 720 just fuzzy-looking all the way around.

And yes, for years I've been pretty sure they're still using those SD widescreen cameras they invested so heavily in at the beginning of the HD broadcast era. (Could tell this even on the old CRTs!)


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> It's the price of their hdmi cables and optical cables that's truly insane.


Better then Audio Quest Vodka. $460 for 10 ft.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> They get a bad rap because they market expensive cables using random, made up terms like I did . High-end cables of all kinds have been debunked in labs over and over, but people buy them for many reasons. Asthetics, etc. When I first went to 1080P, I bought some $40 HDMI from a company, I forget which one, but they've since jacked up their prices a LOT. Mostly for asthetics. I ended up hating them. 1) They were thick and not very flexible, so they were hard to route asthetically and they took up a lot of room because you couldn't run "tight curves" 2) They weren't even that good. they introduced sparkles into the picture when running my BluRay @ 1080p.
> 
> When I went 4K, I went with the $5 18Gbps MonoPrice passive ones. Thin, flexible, easier to route and no sparkles or HDMI issues and much easier on my wallet.


And you are talking about digital cables, which as I said is a lot bs with a little truth.

But no labs have ever not proven that a higher gauge speaker cable and certain types of shielding in analogue cables is not better than a small gauge and no shielding when dealing with larger speakers and analogue world. Bass requires more area to travel and produce larger sound waves and such. Their bad rap is half earned half no right. That's all I am pointing out. People make fun of them entirely when they should only for half the stuff they say.

Funny you mention flexibility. It is awful in many companies for hdmi cables... one of the nicer parts about most of monster speaker wires. They also used to make some really ridiculously tiny and flexible coax for special situations. Was expensive but the size and ascetics made it nice for particular kinds for locations.

Every company on the planet makes up names for how they do things. It's marketing... Dinging monster for it like they are the only ones is Weird to me.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Every company on the planet makes up names for how they do things. It's marketing... Dinging monster for it like they are the only ones is Weird to me.


Most cable manafacturers get the same thing. Nothing against marketing, they all do the snake oil thing. Reminds me of the most hillarious story ever. Have you ever heard of a high end audio brand Lexicon? In 2010 they launched a $3000 BluRay player. Obviously, any sane reviewer is going to open it up and check out the electronics, right? Well, what did they find inside? Why, it was a $400 Oppo BDP-83 player! And I don't mean they reused some of the components, I mean they stuck the WHOLE FREAKIN' PLAYER inside. CASE AND ALL: Oppo on the Inside, Lexicon on the Outside

They became a laughing stock after that. How they are still in business is amazing. Still a hillarious story of marketing BS taken to the extreme. Like they couldn't even unscrew the components out of the Oppo chasis. LOL.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> I'd just make sure any TV you buy includes Dolby Vision support because that's licensed technology - so not something that will be added to a TV after sale.


My Sony Z I bought a year ago will be getting Dolby Vision via an update at the end of this year, so it is possible. Same goes for the 930E/940E and A1E from this year. Not saying it will be a common thing though.



DrA said:


> Yes, right now only on Netflix, Amazon and Sony movie service. I am refusing to get involved in 4K disc nonsense again. I have 4 versions of the same movie: HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, SD dvd, laser disk, VHS.


Vudu supports HDR as well and Apple just announced their new Apple TV today which will support HDR10 and Dolby Vision. The 4K versions of their movies will be the same price as HD which is great to drive competition.



SledgeHammer said:


> Best TV tech available right now is still a calibrated OLED. LCD/LED use a lot of gimmicks to try to close the gap like more local dimming areas, but the higher end LCDs are more $$$ then OLED, so why would you get the inferior tech? If you were on plasma in the HD days, then you should go with OLED. LCDs haven't solved all the problems inherent in the tech. OLED wins all the shootouts as well as professional reviews like Consumer Reports, etc.


Hmm, no my 75" Sony Z9D was $8k+ cheaper than the OLED equivalent. The Sony also has lower input lag, less banding, significantly better image processing for non native sources, and better HDR performance.

I do really like my OLED as well though, for complex scenes like starfields, it really shines, it also has much better viewing angles, 3D, and true blacks, and the OS.

With OLED there is still a panel lottery as far as panel uniformity which I happened to luck out on with mine. Image retention is still an issue that I have seen being reported but fortunately I only do light gaming on mine.

Anyway, my point is, there isn't one definitive "best" it is down to what the consumer prioritizes as most important and for my, my Sony Z wins but I still appreciate the strengths of the LG.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mutelight said:


> Hmm, no my 75" Sony Z9D was $8k+ cheaper than the OLED equivalent. The Sony also has lower input lag, less banding, significantly better image processing for non native sources, and better HDR performance.


Fair enough. The bread & butter models are the 55" and 65", LG haven't released a consumer grade 75"+ model yet.



mutelight said:


> With OLED there is still a panel lottery as far as panel uniformity which I happened to luck out on with mine. Image retention is still an issue that I have seen being reported but fortunately I only do light gaming on mine.


Which model do you have? The 1st one, the EF9500 definitely had a vignetting and pink/yellow staining issue and people were swapping panels out like 6+ times, but they ironed those out with the B6.

The B6/B7 also have a gaming mode which reduces the input lag significantly. I used to have the EF9500 and now I have the B6 and I never had image retention on either one, but I don't watch sports and rarely put on CNN, so not much static content.

With all the promotions I double/triple stacked, I ended up paying like $1500 for my 55" OLED which is significantly cheaper then the highest end LCD's which are > $5000.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Most cable manafacturers get the same thing. Nothing against marketing, they all do the snake oil thing. Reminds me of the most hillarious story ever. Have you ever heard of a high end audio brand Lexicon? In 2010 they launched a $3000 BluRay player. Obviously, any sane reviewer is going to open it up and check out the electronics, right? Well, what did they find inside? Why, it was a $400 Oppo BDP-83 player! And I don't mean they reused some of the components, I mean they stuck the WHOLE FREAKIN' PLAYER inside. CASE AND ALL: Oppo on the Inside, Lexicon on the Outside
> 
> They became a laughing stock after that. How they are still in business is amazing. Still a hillarious story of marketing BS taken to the extreme. Like they couldn't even unscrew the components out of the Oppo chasis. LOL.


Yeah I recall that. The key is knowing where the snake oil starts... with every product.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Fair enough. The bread & butter models are the 55" and 65", LG haven't released a consumer grade 75"+ model yet.


They have released two 77" consumer models but at the time I purchased my 75" it was basically double the price. Now they have dropped a fair amount in price with G6 being $11k and G7 is $13k, still more than what I paid a year ago though for my Z.



SledgeHammer said:


> Which model do you have? The 1st one, the EF9500 definitely had a vignetting and pink/yellow staining issue and people were swapping panels out like 6+ times, but they ironed those out with the B6.


I have the 65" E6 which is the same year as yours. While it is better in the 2016 models, you are still rolling the dice since the technology of panels this large is still relatively new and people are still swapping out panels.



SledgeHammer said:


> The B6/B7 also have a gaming mode which reduces the input lag significantly. I used to have the EF9500 and now I have the B6 and I never had image retention on either one, but I don't watch sports and rarely put on CNN, so not much static content.


Yes, with gaming mode enabled on both, the LCD is faster with better motion resolution. Not by much but it is there. Also LG recently screwed up HDR gaming mode with their latest update which is frustrating.



SledgeHammer said:


> With all the promotions I double/triple stacked, I ended up paying like $1500 for my 55" OLED which is significantly cheaper then the highest end LCD's which are > $5000.


It is not a fair comparison to compare the price you paid with a ton of discounts for the lower tier OLED to a flagship LCD that has a 10" larger panel.

Anyway, really my point is that LCD has come a far way and it beats my OLED in multiple different areas whereas the OLED has its strengths as well. The black levels on my Z are nothing short of amazing. Until you start moving off-axis, you'd be hard pressed to think it wasn't OLED but my OLED still edges it out in pure black levels for sure.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mutelight said:


> Vudu supports HDR as well and Apple just announced their new Apple TV today which will support HDR10 and Dolby Vision. The 4K versions of their movies will be the same price as HD which is great to drive competition.


The rumor mill said this was a bitter fight between Apple and the studios, who wanted to charge more for 4K versions. Likely not all studios will be on board with Apple, and most companies aren't willing do a 'take it or leave it' thing like Apple so I wouldn't consider the HD price = 4K price to be something you should expect to see from others anytime soon.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Best TV tech available right now is still a calibrated OLED. LCD/LED use a lot of gimmicks to try to close the gap like more local dimming areas, but the higher end LCDs are more $$$ then OLED, *so why would you get the inferior tech*? If you were on plasma in the HD days, then you should go with OLED. LCDs haven't solved all the problems inherent in the tech. OLED wins all the shootouts as well as professional reviews like Consumer Reports, etc.


I have a self-imposed $2,000 limit on TV sets. I'm still trying to get over giving away a $2400 720p set that I bought without knowing what I was doing. Black Friday can't come soon enough. Also, I had a bad experience with an LG 4K (not OLED) set and I'm not over that.

Rich


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The rumor mill said this was a bitter fight between Apple and the studios, who wanted to charge more for 4K versions. Likely not all studios will be on board with Apple, and most companies aren't willing do a 'take it or leave it' thing like Apple so I wouldn't consider the HD price = 4K price to be something you should expect to see from others anytime soon.


Yeah I had seen a few articles on that. Hopefully Apple keeps applying pressure to the studios and I would also like to see the early release movies plan come to fruition as I would be willing to pay $30 or so to rent a movie that hit the theaters a few weeks ago and have a bunch of people over for a movie night.

As far as current 4K HDR digital purchases, the price is too high, especially since they are so close to physical disc prices where I tend to get a digital copy of the movie with it anyway. If there is a $5 difference between a disc and digital, I will gladly pay the extra $5 for lossless audio and significantly higher bitrate. Now if the gap widens to $10 - $15 where digital is cheaper, depending on the movie, I could see part of my collection going digital.

*EDIT* Looks like Disney is one of the only major studios that isn't OK with the pricing. Disney Is the Only Major Hollywood Studio Not Backing Apple's Plan to Sell 4K Films at $20


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

mutelight said:


> *EDIT* Looks like Disney is one of the only major studios that isn't OK with the pricing. Disney Is the Only Major Hollywood Studio Not Backing Apple's Plan to Sell 4K Films at $20


That's funny because Steve Jobs was on Disney's board (due to his ownership of Pixar when Disney bought them) so if he was still around I'm sure they would have been on board with this. His widow still holds billions in Disney stock but she never got involved in either Apple's or Disney's business.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Hollywood likes to be difficult. They never understand the idea of offering things for less drives more business, and that having something coming out in theaters and disc within a couple months of each other undercuts mid marketed movies box office returns by a wide margin...

No discs should cost more than 15. And that should always include digital copies. I know almost everyone I know waits till a price is dropped to about that before they consider buying a movie anymore. Even if it means waiting a year or two.


----------



## millercentral (Oct 25, 2007)

So here is the thing on high quality cables and 4K. In general I completely agree that all the marketing tech-speak that cable makers like Monster Cable promote is useless. However, 4K video content (especially HDR and 60Hz) drive a lot more data through the cable then standard 1080p, and it IS important when dealing with 4K sources to ensure the cable is built to support that bandwidth.

Does that mean you should go buy that expensive Monster Cable? Nope. For "normal length" cable runs of 6ft - 15ft, so far it seems the "Certified Premium" certification program by the HDMI trade association seems to be the most reliable way to tell if an HDMI cable can carry the full 18Ghz of a 4K 4:4:4 60Hz signal. Monoprice has cables with this spec for around $4.50 -- I've been using these for my 4K sources and they work great. Interestingly, Monster Cable "UltraHD" cables don't carry the Certified Premium tag.

If you need a cable longer than 15', the problem gets much harder. AVSForum has a good thread with technical testing of cables that work, but it tends to be fiber-optic-based cables that win the day here.

Today, DirecTVs 4K signal is 4K60, 8-bit, SDR BT.709. This format does not tax HDMI cables as much as some other formats (it fits within the 9Ghz HDMI 2.0 spec, rather than the 18Ghz HDMI 2.0a spec), so you may get away without needing a higher-quality Certified Premium cable, but as DirecTV 4K plans evolve, they could move to a HDR-based signal that does need the additional bandwidth, so planning for better cables is probably wise.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There is no "9 GHz HDMI" or "18 GHz HDMI" spec. HDMI may use 9 Gbps or 18 Gbps depending on the content, however they both use the exact same 600 MHz TDMS clock over the cable. A cable that works for 9 Gbps will always work for 18 Gbps.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> There is no "9 GHz HDMI" or "18 GHz HDMI" spec. HDMI may use 9 Gbps or 18 Gbps depending on the content, however they both use the exact same 600 MHz TDMS clock over the cable. A cable that works for 9 Gbps will always work for 18 Gbps.


Yeah I think they meant Gbps rather than Ghz. That said, I had to replace numerous HDMI cables that were high rated years back once I started going through and updating all my systems to HDR.

My latest example was when I replaced the TV in the office, I have a 25ft HDMI running from my PC to my AVR then another 25ft up to the TV. Whenever I used a HDMI 2.0a HDCP 2.2, nothing would show up but going to an older HDMI port, when chroma subsampling was utilized the cable was fine. I replaced that one cable (after process of elimination determining which one wasn't high speed enough) and now am running 4:2:2 10-bit for HDR games from my PC. The time before that, it was with one of my Nvidia Shields using a cable from a few years back but now almost all my cables are Amazon or Media bridge and each system has multiple HDR devices connected to them.


----------



## FarNorth (Nov 27, 2003)

Rich said:


> I have a self-imposed $2,000 limit on TV sets. I'm still trying to get over giving away a $2400 720p set that I bought without knowing what I was doing. Black Friday can't come soon enough. Also, I had a bad experience with an LG 4K (not OLED) set and I'm not over that.
> 
> Rich


Sony. No baloney. I have an XBR-75X940C and it is spectacular.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

FarNorth said:


> Sony. No baloney. I have an XBR-75X940C and it is spectacular.


I am a fan of Sony, which is why I have two now but have had TVs from LG (one I currently have), Sharp, Samsung, JVC back in the day. There is something about how Sony handles colors out of the box that I prefer over any other brand.

Currently watching my 4K Blu-ray copy of Blade Runner that I received today on my Z and my jaw is on the floor. It is easily one of my best looking 4K Blu-rays, it is like it was shot yesterday.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

mutelight said:


> I am a fan of Sony


Same here. Been using Sony TVs for decades.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> There is no "9 GHz HDMI" or "18 GHz HDMI" spec. HDMI may use 9 Gbps or 18 Gbps depending on the content, however they both use the exact same 600 MHz TDMS clock over the cable. A cable that works for 9 Gbps will always work for 18 Gbps.


Actually, 10.2Gbps (HDMI 1.3 - 1.4b) and 18Gbps (2.0 - 2.0b) and 48Gbps (HDMI 2.1). 10.2Gbps uses a 340Mhz TDMS and 18Gbps uses a 600Mhz TDMS and 48Gbps uses a 1200Mhz TDMS. HDMI 1.0 to 1.2a was only 4.95Gbps.

Of course, not all cables are compatible with all speeds and feature sets. Older cables that didn't have the Ethernet channel can't pass Ethernet.

HDMI 1.3 cables work with everything in the HDMI 1.4 spec except Ethernet since they don't have the Ethernet channel. HDMI 2.1, of course, requires new cables.

Many older HDMI 1.4 cables (and some newer) have issues passing 4K @ 60Hz 4:4:4.

If an HDMI cable can only reliably pass 4K @ 60Hz @ 4:2:0 in the woods and no one is around to complain about all that missing color information, that doesn't mean its a 18Gbps capable cable .

Many of the more honest manufacturers will admit that certain cables can only reliably pass 60Hz 4:2:0. You certainly don't need to spend a fortune to get 60Hz 4:4:4, I run the $4 Monoprice 18Gbps passives and they pass 4K @ 60Hz @ 4:4:4 just fine.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

What does the choice of TV or HDMI cable have to do with the quality of D*'s 4k service?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> What does the choice of TV or HDMI cable have to do with the quality of D*'s 4k service?


not much
it could be low quality and DVR would finish HDCP negotiation with lower spec, perhaps HD PQ instead of UHD 60 fps 4:2:2 HDR10


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> What does the choice of TV or HDMI cable have to do with the quality of D*'s 4k service?


Actually quite a bit. A better TV will allow you to enjoy DirecTV 4K at higher quality and if you use an older cable it may not pass 4K without issues. 

Let's be honest here though, I've had 4K service since the beginning and there isn't very much content or things to discuss strictly tied to the topic.

I also haven't seen any questions gone unanswered so I don't see any harm with going a little wider on the topic.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Hollywood likes to be difficult. They never understand the idea of offering things for less drives more business, and that having something coming out in theaters and disc within a couple months of each other undercuts mid marketed movies box office returns by a wide margin...
> 
> No discs should cost more than 15. And that should always include digital copies. I know almost everyone I know waits till a price is dropped to about that before they consider buying a movie anymore. Even if it means waiting a year or two.


Can't even imagine having a disc collection anymore, what with all the movies available on streaming services. I get people like collecting things, I see nothing wrong with that. I just can't see a reason to buy discs at this point.

Rich


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Rich said:


> Can't even imagine having a disc collection anymore, what with all the movies available on streaming services. I get people like collecting things, I see nothing wrong with that. I just can't see a reason to buy discs at this point.
> 
> Rich


Higher quality with physical with significantly higher bitrates that helps in complex scenes and lossless audio. Plus you get the best of both worlds because you get the digital version for flexibility and the pricing is about the same between physical with digital vs. digital only.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mutelight said:


> Higher quality with physical with significantly higher bitrates that helps in complex scenes and lossless audio. Plus you get the best of both worlds because you get the digital version for flexibility and the pricing is about the same between physical with digital vs. digital only.


I've never seen a Series 9 Sony side by side with a Samsung Series 8 set. Makes me wonder how lacking my Sammys are, everybody that has one of the Sony 9s raves about them. I haven't bought a UHD player, I'm waiting for NF to start renting the UHD discs. I gotta see it to believe it and I have been swayed by the folks that have the 9s into believing they are better than the Sammy Series 8 sets. I have been told by folks that have Sammy 4Ks that they do see a large difference in the UHD discs when compared to an upscaled BD. I gotta see it.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

mutelight said:


> Higher quality with physical with significantly higher bitrates that helps in complex scenes and lossless audio. Plus you get the best of both worlds because you get the digital version for flexibility and the pricing is about the same between physical with digital vs. digital only.


Ya... it amazes me that people think 15Mbps - 30Mbps 4K from a streaming service or DirecTV looks the same as UltraHD BluRay @ 100Mbs (there are 3 bitrates depending on the kind of disc, but that's the average of the 3) with DolbyVision on a nice TV. Not even in the same ballpark! And that's just on the video side, if we are talking audio side, that's not even a comparison either since none of the services use the full quality audio that UHD BluRay has.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> What does the choice of TV or HDMI cable have to do with the quality of D*'s 4k service?


I guess you said it more politically correct than I did.
When did they start deleting posts without notifying the poster as to the reason?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Ya... it amazes me that people think 15Mbps - 30Mbps 4K from a streaming service or DirecTV looks the same as UltraHD BluRay @ 100Mbs (there are 3 bitrates depending on the kind of disc, but that's the average of the 3) with DolbyVision on a nice TV. Not even in the same ballpark! And that's just on the video side, if we are talking audio side, that's not even a comparison either since none of the services use the full quality audio that UHD BluRay has.


Well, let NF start renting UHD discs, I'm ready to be amazed. I'm not gonna spend another small fortune on discs ever again.

Then, and only then, I will be happy to say the discs are better. I simply have to see it to believe it. I know far too many folks who think every single thing they buy is just the very best to take anybody's word for something so subjective. I'll also be very happy to say what I've been told is just BS. It all depends on what I see. Again, I absolutely have not seen one UHD disc.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Same here. Been using Sony TVs for decades.


So have I. I was shocked by the Sony 4K set I bought two years ago. I knew the 850 wasn't the best Sony had to offer but I expected the usual Sony experience and I didn't get it. For around 2 grand it was...terrible.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Actually, 10.2Gbps (HDMI 1.3 - 1.4b) and 18Gbps (2.0 - 2.0b) and 48Gbps (HDMI 2.1). 10.2Gbps uses a 340Mhz TDMS and 18Gbps uses a 600Mhz TDMS and 48Gbps uses a 1200Mhz TDMS. HDMI 1.0 to 1.2a was only 4.95Gbps.
> 
> Of course, not all cables are compatible with all speeds and feature sets. Older cables that didn't have the *Ethernet channel* can't pass Ethernet.
> 
> ...


What is that? I really have no idea.

Rich


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Well, let NF start renting UHD discs, I'm ready to be amazed. I'm not gonna spend another small fortune on discs ever again.
> 
> Then, and only then, I will be happy to say the discs are better. I simply have to see it to believe it. I know far too many folks who think every single thing they buy is just the very best to take anybody's word for something so subjective. I'll also be very happy to say what I've been told is just BS. It all depends on what I see. Again, I absolutely have not seen one UHD disc.
> 
> Rich


Well, the way you play the game (for now) is you buy the 4K disc and then sell the BluRay and digital copy that comes with it and it ends up being pretty cheap.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> What is that? I really have no idea.
> 
> Rich


Kind of obsolete now, sort of, but it lets you share a network connection over the HDMI cable. They were trying to get to a single cable solution to interconnect devices.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

I WANT MORE said:


> I guess you said it more politically correct than I did.
> When did they start deleting posts without notifying the poster as to the reason?


I received your post in my email and it was pretty clear why they deleted it without them explaining the reason...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Well, let NF start renting UHD discs, I'm ready to be amazed. I'm not gonna spend another small fortune on discs ever again.
> 
> Then, and only then, I will be happy to say the discs are better. I simply have to see it to believe it. I know far too many folks who think every single thing they buy is just the very best to take anybody's word for something so subjective. I'll also be very happy to say what I've been told is just BS. It all depends on what I see. Again, I absolutely have not seen one UHD disc.
> 
> Rich


It's impossible to NOT see a difference between 15MBps - 30Mbps 4K and 100+Mbps 4K. As good as compression is, you can't have lossless compression at 85% and call it the same . Granted, all that compression is not just from the video, but from the higher quality audio. Don't take my word for it, next time you're in Best Buy, ask one of the guys which TV is playing the UHD 4K BluRay and you can see it for yourself.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

I've had several "spooky" experiences of the FTV box popping up adds or suggestions seemingly based on things listed in the HR44. Or even spookier, the channel the HR44 was tuned to at the time for the "app" of that channel! (One I hadn't tuned to in months, but had left the DVR on it.)

I can only imagine it's because of some sort of "backchannel" connection through HDMI (recent cables and TV). There hasn't been any internet connection to the HRs for over 20 months, and the content-type viewed by device is different.

Severed that connection, and no more spookiness.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Rich said:


> Well, let NF start renting UHD discs, I'm ready to be amazed. I'm not gonna spend another small fortune on discs ever again.
> 
> *Then, and only then*, I will be happy to say the discs are better. I simply have to see it to believe it. I know far too many folks who think every single thing they buy is just the very best to take anybody's word for something so subjective. I'll also be very happy to say what I've been told is just BS. It all depends on what I see. Again, I absolutely have not seen one UHD disc.
> 
> Rich


You may be waiting a long time.

Last I heard, NF have no plans for UHD disc rental. (Given your posted experiences of their problematic BD rentals, I can't say that I would blame them.)

I tend to agree with Sledge (1, you can sell the other copies to help finance, 2, impossible not to see the difference of the higher bitrates, and 3, try to see it for yourself in a BB store.

Maybe there's some other way you could "try it out."

In my experience (as I've stated before) streaming 4k doesn't look much better to me than 1080p. There's just no comparison to UHD on disc for PQ.

Don't get me wrong. I've absolutely _do_ understand not wanting to re-purchase content all over again. It's just that I don't think one should _completely_ deny themselves the experience of true UHD for a day that may never arrive.

I have no plans to replace my own BD collection (which I'm mostly happy with) anytime soon. So far my UHD purchases (a small handfull) are mainly titles I've never owned.

I only wish that some of my DVD collection would've entitled me to enjoy the streaming HD versions of those programs w/o having to repurchase those (which I refuse to do).

Back to topic: No experience here yet, of D* 4k, but I would certainly hope it's better than the "streamers." As long as there's such little content, there's just no incentive for me to "upgrade."

Believe me, that's the very first thing I wanted after I saw my first UHD disc. UHD TV channels!! (Talk about waiting for a day that may never arrive...)


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> No experience here yet, of D* 4k, but I would certainly hope it's better than the "streamers." As long as there's such little content, there's just no incentive for me to "upgrade."
> 
> Believe me, that's the very first thing I wanted after I saw my first UHD disc. UHD TV channels!! (Talk about waiting for a day that may never arrive...)


From my experience, DTV and streaming 4K is roughly the same. I have watched a decent amount of DTV 4K and it is a *huge* boost over the 1080i brodcasts but I still do occasionally see macro-blocking which I don't see as much with streaming. *However*, I haven't viewed the same content on both so it is a bit apples to oranges.

I have always found the jump from 1080p to 4K nice but nowhere near the impact SDR to HDR has, even with streaming content. Once DTV starts broadcasting HDR content, it will be a glorious day.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

These 4k college football games from Fox are nothing short of spectacular.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, the way you play the game (for now) is you buy the 4K disc and then sell the BluRay and digital copy that comes with it and it ends up being pretty cheap.


The cost isn't a factor for me, having to store discs that just sit for years isn't gonna happen again. That's my point. I just got thru giving away a couple big bins full of BDs and DVDs we bought over the years...not gonna happen again. I'm perfectly happy to use NF for discs.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Kind of obsolete now, sort of, but it lets you share a network connection over the HDMI cable. They were trying to get to a single cable solution to interconnect devices.


Glad it's obsolete, don't even want to think about how that could have worked.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> It's impossible to NOT see a difference between 15MBps - 30Mbps 4K and 100+Mbps 4K. As good as compression is, you can't have lossless compression at 85% and call it the same . Granted, all that compression is not just from the video, but from the higher quality audio. Don't take my word for it, next time you're in Best Buy, ask one of the guys which TV is playing the UHD 4K BluRay and you can see it for yourself.


I don't think I've ever seen a UHD disc played at a store (Costco is the only place I'd see it) but I have seen the sets playing a 4K loop with the same content on all the sets. Didn't see much difference between a KS8000 and a QLED set. I dunno, I can't keep arguing about something I've never seen...what would that prove? Let NF start renting the 4K discs, I'll come back and either admit everyone's right or not. You can be sure I'll tell the truth, at least what I think is the truth...and isn't that what everyone does with subjective arguments?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> You may be waiting a long time.
> 
> Last I heard, NF have no plans for UHD disc rental. (Given your posted experiences of their problematic BD rentals, I can't say that I would blame them.)
> 
> ...


What I meant was an _*upscaled *_1080p picture looks pretty much the same as the 4K content on NF and Amazon.

I don't go to our BBs anymore. Don't like them.

But, you have to understand, I'm satisfied with what I see on mys sets at the moment. I don't see any reason to change anything right now.

Rich


----------



## Hi Deaf (Jul 5, 2003)

I rent my UHD Blue Rays from http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Hi Deaf said:


> I rent my UHD Blue Rays from http://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com


I don't remember what my NF cost is, I have the two at a time plan without a monthly limit and that would cost $28 a month on the link you supplied. Don't think I pay NF nearly that much...let me check...I'm paying $15 a month for NF rentals. I don't quite understand why NF doesn't rent UHD discs, I was told there wasn't enough content on discs but it seems like there's quite a few titles out now and I still see no UHDs being rented by them. I can wait.

Rich


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Rich said:


> I don't remember what my NF cost is, I have the two at a time plan without a monthly limit and that would cost $28 a month on the link you supplied. Don't think I pay NF nearly that much...let me check...I'm paying $15 a month for NF rentals. I don't quite understand why NF doesn't rent UHD discs, I was told there wasn't enough content on discs but it seems like there's quite a few titles out now and I still see no UHDs being rented by them. I can wait.
> 
> Rich


Think it is pretty clear they are trying to get out of the disc business. Your best shot might be if redbox starts carrying them


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

mutelight said:


> There is currently no HDR broadcasts on DirecTV. They have made mention that they plan to bring HDR at the beginning of live broadcasts and their current plan is to start supporting it in 2018.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941428922054561792


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Drucifer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941428922054561792


can you please do simple quoting that info, my browser show nothing for the your posts in different threads


----------



## AngryManMLS (Jan 30, 2014)

P Smith said:


> can you please do simple quoting that info, my browser show nothing for the your posts in different threads





> We are excited to be on the slate of live #4KHDR programming on @DIRECTV when @uconnwbb takes on Duquense on @SNYtv on Dec. 22nd!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

thanks
so, people reporting HDR or HLG for DTV programs ...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

P Smith said:


> thanks
> so, people reporting HDR or HLG for DTV programs ...


You mean reporting directv is using HLG HDR for programs


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

some of them - HDR, while other - HLG HDR (what is looks like a bug of TV's FW), to be precise


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

Watched part of Mountain Express or whatever it was called (some train show) on 104 and it looked fantastic.
Definitely HDR.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

Drucifer said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941428922054561792


Oh nice! Looks like they're early on their timeline. Will have to check it out.



I WANT MORE said:


> Watched part of Mountain Express or whatever it was called (some train show) on 104 and it looked fantastic.
> Definitely HDR.


Your TV indicated it was receiving a HDR signal?


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

mutelight said:


> Oh nice! Looks like they're early on their timeline. Will have to check it out.
> 
> Your TV indicated it was receiving a HDR signal?


Sure did. HDR HLG.


----------



## Duke Sweden (Dec 5, 2017)

Ever since the latest firmware update (1151 for the Samsung MU9000 series) I've noticed that the tv does, in fact, switch to HDR automatically. It always does it when I'm on the 4K channel but I don't know if that particular show is being broadcast in HDR. It doesn't always look so great. Also, it doesn't matter if I have the picture profile set to HDR or not. Not sure if I should leave HDR unchecked in the picture profile menu.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I would get test files from Internet with HDR/HLG/DV/Advanced Technicolor/WGC/etc and play them on the TV (does it had USB to play ?)


----------

