# HR54 Upgrade to 4K and keeping 2 DVRs.



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

I have a HR44 on my LG OLED and a HR24 upstairs. I am looking to get the HR54 upgrade and have a few questions.
Seems like the HR54 will have to go on the second TV and a Mini or RVU on the main 4K TV. Now Can I keep my HR24 on the main TV as well? Would like the have the HR24 and RVU on the same TV.
or the 54 and 24 swapped.

Either way, prefer to keep 2 DVRs and go RVU on the 4K set.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> I have a HR44 on my LG OLED and a HR24 upstairs. I am looking to get the HR54 upgrade and have a few questions.
> Seems like the HR54 will have to go on the second TV and a Mini or RVU on the main 4K TV. Now Can I keep my HR24 on the main TV as well? Would like the have the HR24 and RVU on the same TV.
> or the 54 and 24 swapped.
> 
> Either way, prefer to keep 2 DVRs and go RVU on the 4K set.


I'd keep the 24s. You'll still have to have C61K or use the RVU function on the TV, so you can't avoid the equipment charge.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> I'd keep the 24s. You'll still have to have C61K or use the RVU function on the TV, so you can't avoid the equipment charge.
> 
> Rich


Rich,

I have one HR24 and one HR54. Basically want is a HR54, HR24 and a RVU or C61K setup.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Rich,
> 
> I have one HR24 and one HR54. Basically want is a HR54, HR24 and a RVU or C61K setup.


Yup, that will work. You just end up with another monthly equipment charge.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> Yup, that will work. You just end up with another monthly equipment charge.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, I get that nickel and dime crap. If I went RVU, dont know WHY I get the extra charge. Its one TV and MY equipment.

Oh, well. it will work and guess I have to explain this when placing the order with a CSR what I want to do? Or just tell the installer?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Yeah, I get that nickel and dime crap. If I went RVU, dont know WHY I get the extra charge. Its one TV and MY equipment.
> 
> Oh, well. it will work and guess I have to explain this when placing the order with a CSR what I want to do? Or just tell the installer?


Getting a CSR that understands what you want is a crapshoot, but you better try. That will ensure the installer has the proper equipment. Should be simple.

I've got two RVU enabled 4K sets and I...ahh, I just can't get past what you have to do to get D*'s very small 4K offerings.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You should just tell the csr you want to add a tv that is 4k. So you know that means swapping the hr44 for a hr54 and adding a c61k. You don't want to touch or swap the HR24. Should be enough to get the right equipment ordered and explain your actual plan to the installer.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Yeah, I get that nickel and dime crap. If I went RVU, dont know WHY I get the extra charge. Its one TV and MY equipment.


Yep, is your TV and your equipment but is DIRECTV programming that you are getting access to and being charged for.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> You should just tell the csr you want to add a tv that is 4k. So you know that means swapping the hr44 for a hr54 and adding a c61k. You don't want to touch or swap the HR24. Should be enough to get the right equipment ordered and explain your actual plan to the installer.


Actually the TS needs to decide whether he wants to use the RVU or get a C61K before placing the order. As the order will be built differently depending on which way he goes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Yep, is your TV and your equipment but is DIRECTV programming that you are getting access to and being charged for.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, but its on TV. So if the DVR or what ever is there, I need RVU or a Mini to access 4K. So if I use RVU, its my equipment and DIRECTV can put out 4K on their DVRs. get what I mean?
Its not like I am accessing for another TV. see what I mean?


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Actually the TS needs to decide whether he wants to use the RVU or get a C61K before placing the order. As the order will be built differently depending on which way he goes.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What advantage/disadvantage over each?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Yes, but its on TV. So if the DVR or what ever is there, I need RVU or a Mini to access 4K. So if I use RVU, its my equipment and DIRECTV can put out 4K on their DVRs. get what I mean?
> Its not like I am accessing for another TV. see what I mean?


No, you are choosing to keep both receivers on the same TV, you don't have to keep the 24 the as the RVU will give you the same programming as your 24 plus 4K.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

gio12 said:


> Yes, but its on TV. So if the DVR or what ever is there, I need RVU or a Mini to access 4K. So if I use RVU, its my equipment and DIRECTV can put out 4K on their DVRs. get what I mean?
> Its not like I am accessing for another TV. see what I mean?


Note that the terminology used on our bills changed a couple of years ago.
It no longer says anything about leasing a receiver.
This is what mine says now.
4. Watch DIRECTV on Multiple TVs 7.00
2 TVs at $7; Save $7 off 1st TV


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> No, you are choosing to keep both receivers on the same TV, you don't have to keep the 24 the as the RVU will give you the same programming as your 24 plus 4K.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


but then I loose the ability to record shows on 2 DVRs. Again its the same TV and its like charging an extra $7 for 4K content I guess.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> but then I loose the ability to record shows on 2 DVRs. Again its the same TV and its like charging an extra $7 for 4K content I guess.


Well, again you are choosing to keep two DVRs for added flexibility.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> but then I loose the ability to record shows on 2 DVRs. Again its the same TV and its like charging an extra $7 for 4K content I guess.


Kinda considering this a ripoff? I can wait until reason is restored and a better solution appears. If Dish can do it...

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Well, again you are choosing to keep two DVRs for added flexibility.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's still a DirecTV imposed limitation that, in order to get 4K, a customer can no longer have a DVR associated with every TV, unless they pay for an additional outlet (mini or RVU) as well.

This is not a limitation that they have ever imposed before. Customers either have to give up functionality or pay an additional receiver. Imagine how everyone would feel if every HD DVR required an additional receiver fee in order to watch HD content.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> It's still a DirecTV imposed limitation that, in order to get 4K, a customer can no longer have a DVR associated with every TV, unless they pay for an additional outlet (mini or RVU) as well.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


You don't have to give up DVR access as the C61K is a DVR as well. You make it sound as the customer would lose DVR access. What you propose and I agree as well is if a customer only has one TV and wants 4K.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> This is not a limitation that they have ever imposed before. Customers either have to give up functionality or pay an additional receiver. Imagine how everyone would feel if every HD DVR required an additional receiver fee in order to watch HD content.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Your analogy is kinda of flawed as DIRECTV is not charging for 4K but for the additional outlet itself. Your analogy will only make sense if the customer had one TV and wanted 4K.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> You don't have to give up DVR access as the C61K is a DVR as well. You make it sound as the customer would lose DVR access. What you propose and I agree as well is if a customer only has one TV and wants 4K.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I didn't say that you have to give up DVR access. I said that you can no longer have a DVR dedicated to each TV without giving up 4K or paying an additional fee.

In my case (before buying additional RVU TV's) , If I wanted to upgrade one of my existing TV's to 4K, I would either be required to give up 2 recordable tuners or pay an additional receiver fee for a mini.

Yes, it would be my choice to make. But, it would be a choice that DirecTV would be forcing upon me. That's a choice that they have ever required customers to make before.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> I didn't say that you have to give up DVR access. I said that you can no longer have a DVR dedicated to each TV without giving up 4K or paying an additional fee.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


But the C61K is a DVR. That you want (to keep) more tuners to expand your entertainment system is another matter, and options are not free.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

[QUOTE="Bill Brode

Yes, it would be my choice to make. But, it would be a choice that DirecTV would be forcing upon me. That's a choice that they have ever required customers to make before.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

The point is DIRECTV charges per outlet (locations). How is DIRECTV going to enforce how many TV you watch their services on?

So say you have one 4K TV now and say DIRECTV only charges you for one outlet, are you going to call DIRECTV if you ever get a second TV so that they can start charging you for that second TV?

And that is the rub.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Also, in the time that the C61K has been out, I have yet to see a one TV customer. 

Not saying that they don't exist, but the lack of their proliferation does say that there are not many of them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> But the C61K is a DVR. That you want (to keep) more tuners to expand your entertainment system is another matter, and options are not free.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think that you'll ever get me to agree with the concept of a client being a DVR.

I actually find it hard to believe that you are making that argument when you've spent years recommending to people that they should never give up a DVR for a client.

Once again, I'm not arguing that it's a choice of how to proceed is being left up to the customer. I'm arguing that's its the type of choice that DirecTV has never forced upon customers before. It's a choice that's being forced due to the fact that DirecTV doesn't have a single-box solution for watching 4K.

If they wanted to charge for 4K, that would be a different matter. But they aren't. They are forcing many people to make the choice of giving up functionality or paying more if they want 4K.

I have no doubt that they will eventually charge extra for 4K. There just isn't enough content for them to justify that charge yet.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

I would agree with the a. I don't know anyone with one TV. And in certainly don't know anyone who own a 4K tv that only has one TV. They all do the same as me. Stick the HR54 on some other tv Rhys would have had a client or DVR then stick the C61k on the 4k. Tv. Really is not a big issue or the end of the world. You want 4k on the main DVR. Call dish


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> I actually find it hard to believe that you are making that argument when you've spent years recommending to people that they should never give up a DVR for a client.
> 
> Once again, I'm not arguing that it's a choice of how to proceed is being left up to the customer. I'm arguing that's its the type of choice that DirecTV has never forced upon customers before. It's a choice that's being forced due to the fact that DirecTV doesn't have a single-box solution for watching 4K.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


And still do, I would never trade up a DVR for a client, that is why I don't have 4K myself (the fact that that I think 4K is a fad doesn't help either) but to argue that the extra charge is because you choose to add (or keep) another receiver that is not needed is what I have trouble agreeing with you.

Again, I am still waiting for the answer to my rhetorical question about being charged for one outlet while having one TV and two receivers but will later get that second TV, are you calling DIRECTV to have them correct your billing to include two outlets?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

compnurd said:


> IYou want 4k on the main DVR. Call dish


Agreed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

peds48 said:


> And still do, I would never trade up a DVR for a client, that is why I don't have 4K myself (the fact that that I think 4K is a fad doesn't help either) but to argue that the extra charge is because you choose to add (or keep) another receiver that is not needed is what I have trouble agreeing with you.
> 
> Again, I am still waiting for the answer to my rhetorical question about being charged for one outlet while having one TV and two receivers but will later get that second TV, are you calling DIRECTV to have them correct your billing to include two outlets?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


To me as indicated. It wasn't an issue I changed out a H25 for the C61 and moved the genie to my office where the H25 was


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Again, I am still waiting for the answer to my rhetorical question about being charged for one outlet while having one TV and two receivers but will later get that second TV, are you calling DIRECTV to have them correct your billing to include two outlets?


I'd like to think that I would, since I tend to be a pretty honest person. But, I would agree that a lot of people wouldn't. However, I fail to sympathize with DirecTV on this one because it's a situation that they brought upon themselves by not being able to provide a single box solution. Customers shouldn't be punished for DirecTV's lack of timely innovation.

IMO, people in this situation should not be getting charged for a client. If DirecTV is concerned that these people will take advantage of the extra receiver in the house, by connecting an additional TV, they can upgrade the people who have a "free" client to the HS17 when it is released.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> I'd like to think that I would, since I tend to be a pretty honest person. But, I would agree that a lot of people wouldn't. However, I fail to sympathize with DirecTV on this one because it's a situation that they brought upon themselves by not being able to provide a single box solution. Customers shouldn't be punished for DirecTV's lack of timely innovation.
> 
> IMO, people in this situation should not be getting charged for a client. If DirecTV is concerned that these people will take advantage of the extra receiver in the house, by connecting an additional TV, they can upgrade the people who have a "free" client to the HS17 when it is released.


I still fail to see how DIRECTV is cheating customers here. You have two TVs both with DVR service, you upgrade to 4K and still have both TVs with DVR service but in this case the customer wants to keep their old box to have more recording options, so they end up with three boxes but DIRECTV is supposed to not charge for that receiver.

As I said before the only time when your argument holds water is when the customer has only one TV and even there is a shady situation.

If someone wants a dedicated DVR as you refer to, then they should go to dish.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> And still do, I would never trade up a DVR for a client, that is why I don't have 4K myself (the fact that that I think 4K is a fad doesn't help either) but to argue that the extra charge is because you choose to add (or keep) another receiver that is not needed is what I have trouble agreeing with you.


4k is definitely not a fad. 4k has proven very successful so far in just 3 or 4 years, and remember that we're still in about 2003 for HD right now with 4k, and it's already far more successful. Whether linear 4k takes off is another story, and that's all about content. DirecTV is ready to beam it down if the content providers want to produce content to uplink.



peds48 said:


> As I said before the only time when your argument holds water is when the customer has only one TV and even there is a shady situation.


Clearly, the OP is making a decision to pay the extra outlet fee in order to have an HR24 and 4k capabilities on the same TV. That's fine. It is kind of sleazy on the one TV situation, but it's such an edge case to have one 4k TV and no other TVs and want DirecTV 4k programming that they figure they'll just charge the extra for it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> 4k is definitely not a fad. 4k has proven very successful so far in just 3 or 4 years, and remember that we're still in about 2003 for HD right now with 4k, and it's already far more successful. Whether linear 4k takes off is another story, and that's all about content. DirecTV is ready to beam it down if the content providers want to produce content to uplink.


Not sure what measuring stick you use to calculate success, But I sure do not use sales of 4K sets to calculate such. I, as a consumer, calculate success based on content and so far that is a big fail...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Clearly, the OP is making a decision to pay the extra outlet fee in order to have an HR24 and 4k capabilities on the same TV. That's fine.


Apparently is not fine for the TS, as he did complain about being charge extra for it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> *4k is definitely not a fad*. 4k has proven very successful so far in just 3 or 4 years, and remember that we're still in about 2003 for HD right now with 4k, and it's already far more successful. Whether linear 4k takes off is another story, and that's all about content. DirecTV is ready to beam it down if the content providers want to produce content to uplink.


Of course it's not. My 4K sets are simply the best TV sets (as far as PQ goes) I've ever had...I've had lots of TVs. You'll get arguments only from folks that don't have 4K sets. Spurious arguments to be sure. I have yet to see ONE negative post from a 4K set owner.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Of course it's not. My 4K sets are simply the best TV sets (as far as PQ goes) I've ever had...I've had lots of TVs. You'll get arguments only from folks that don't have 4K sets. Spurious arguments to be sure. I have yet to see ONE negative post from a 4K set owner.
> 
> Rich


I repeat again, success depends on what yard stick you use to measure "success". This comment was not if 4K is good or not, is wether 4K becomes a "thing".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> I repeat again, success depends on what yard stick you use to measure "success". This comment was not if 4K is good or not, is wether 4K becomes a "thing".
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I am going to say "yes, it is going to become a thing".


----------



## grittree (Jul 15, 2016)

Does DirecTV get charged by providers for each device I can watch on? So, if I can watch HBO on two TVs, that costs them more? (assuming the 2nd TV uses no DirecTV hardware)

Seems a disconnect in the pricing vs the cost here. Especially charging you for RVU, even though that is your hardware.

Does DirecTV incur any additional cost for my RVU set? They charge me for that. Why?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> I am going to say "yes, it is going to become a thing".


And that is where I disagree, but only time will tell.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Not sure what measuring stick you use to calculate success, But I sure do not use sales of 4K sets to calculate such. I, as a consumer, calculate success based on content and so far that is a big fail...


The rollout of 4k content has been much faster than it was back in 1999 for HD, mostly due to streaming, where it was basically available on day 1. I don't think 4k will ever become as ubiquitous as HD is today, just because a lot of content doesn't need 4k (who the heck wants CNN in 4k?), but it certainly will be a success. I'm not holding my breath on linear 4k though. I'm not sure the business models are there with only one provider able to scale up 4k distribution, but I think eventually there will be at least some linear 4k content.



Rich said:


> Of course it's not. My 4K sets are simply the best TV sets (as far as PQ goes) I've ever had...I've had lots of TVs. You'll get arguments only from folks that don't have 4K sets. Spurious arguments to be sure. I have yet to see ONE negative post from a 4K set owner.


Exactly. 4k TVs look amazing, and whether you're feeding it good quality HD or UHD, the results are really amazing.



peds48 said:


> I repeat again, success depends on what yard stick you use to measure "success". This comment was not if 4K is good or not, is wether 4K becomes a "thing".


4k is already a "thing". With streaming platforms, everything adapts to the hardware, and most/all Netflix and Amazon content moving forward will be 4k, so it's going to stream to a lot of people in 4k by default. Amongst AV and movie buffs, UHD BD is an incredible format, and is providing another method of 4k content delivery. We'll see on linear 4k. I've shown a few movies on my 4k TV, and people are stunned by the results.


----------



## grittree (Jul 15, 2016)

>Exactly. 4k TVs look amazing, and whether you're feeding it good quality HD or UHD, the results are really amazing.

OTOH, many review articles say that 4K looks worse using low quality video. And hordes of folks do just that.

Market will eventually go 4K since there is almost no alternative for new sets now. But, for those not having a good video source, there is no reason to replace the current TV while it still works.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> The rollout of 4k content has been much faster than it was back in 1999 for HD, .


Not sure I can't agree with that, 4K has been out for almost two years now and there are zero linear channels or one if you count DIRECTV speciality channel. This time back in the HD days there were at least 5 channels if not more.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. 4k TVs look amazing, and whether you're feeding it good quality HD or UHD, the results are really amazing.
> 
> .


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I and many folks fail to see those really amazing results.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> 4k is already a "thing". .


You can call something a "thing" when it doesn't have even come out of just being a niche.

If I cant watch MY favorite content on 4K, then is still a niche. Just because I can watch CERTAIN movies, documentaries or an sport event every now and then, is still consider a niche

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I and many folks fail to see those really amazing results.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Then they need glasses. My LG OLED upscales Star Wars Blue-ray so good, you can tell what a cardboard background and whats real. Even my kids see it and it ruined it for me, LOL.

This coming from a guy that say a C61K is a DVR, LOL.

Seriously. If you have not seen good 4K content on a good 4K set, you don't know what your missing.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

grittree said:


> OTOH, many review articles say that 4K looks worse using low quality video. And hordes of folks do just that.
> 
> Market will eventually go 4K since there is almost no alternative for new sets now. But, for those not having a good video source, there is no reason to replace the current TV while it still works.


House of Cards and Narcos alone are reason enough to get a 4k TV. Spectacular. That, and movies. There are a bunch of really good 4k movies out.

And yes, Comcast's MPEG-4 looks worse than ever on a 4k set.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Missed these earlier.



peds48 said:


> Not sure I can't agree with that, 4K has been out for almost two years now and there are zero linear channels or one if you count DIRECTV speciality channel. This time back in the HD days there were at least 5 channels if not more.


You're narrowly focused only on linear channels in a world that is moving away from linear channels. Netflix has an entire section of 4k content, and is putting more up every day. Amazon has a decent amount. Several services offer movies streaming in 4k. And UHD BD has quite a few amazing movies available, including several, like The Revenant, that are reference quality. Even YouTube has tons of 4k videos, some at 2160p60.



peds48 said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I and many folks fail to see those really amazing results.


Some people don't pay attention. That's why Comcast is using absurdly over-compressed 720p CBR that's sometimes sub-DVD quality and a lot of people can't tell the difference, even though to anyone paying attention, DirecTV looks a heck of a lot better. People still buy and rent DVDs and watch SD channels. For anyone who is actually paying attention, 4k is the new "wow" factor that we first saw with HD 15 years ago.



peds48 said:


> You can call something a "thing" when it doesn't have even come out of just being a niche.


Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Netflix, Amazon, and many others would beg to differ. 4k is not a "niche", it's here, and it's here to stay.



> If I cant watch MY favorite content on 4K, then is still a niche. Just because I can watch CERTAIN movies, documentaries or an sport event every now and then, is still consider a niche


If you watch much of anything, you're going to find some content in 4k. Sure, the majority is still not 4k, but good HD content looks great on a 4k screen, and actual 4k content- WOW. Netflix is the main source here, with several really popular must-see shows like White Rabbit Project, House of Cards, and Narcos. If you want to break from the mainstream, they have a ton of other stuff in 4k too to suit pretty much any taste.

My 4k viewing is very "lumpy" in that most of what I watch is 1080i, a little is 720p, and then when I binge on a 2160p show or go through a movie watching phase, my 4k viewing spikes way up.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Then they need glasses. My LG OLED upscales Star Wars Blue-ray so good, you can tell what a cardboard background and whats real. Even my kids see it and it ruined it for me, LOL.
> 
> This coming from a guy that say a C61K is a DVR, LOL.
> 
> Seriously. If you have not seen good 4K content on a good 4K set, you don't know what your missing.


Seen them all! With all kinds of content. Seen them at the store, homes, etc. nothing to make me trash my good HD sets over them. the same couldn't be said about my SD sets. I placed two good SD sets in the curb the day I got my HD sets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> This coming from a guy that say a C61K is a DVR, LOL.
> 
> .


Please define a DVR?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> House of Cards and Narcos alone are reason enough to get a 4k TV. Spectacular. That, and movies. There are a bunch of really good 4k movies out.
> 
> And yes, Comcast's MPEG-4 looks worse than ever on a 4k set.


I just don't watch movies just because they are in 4K.

and the question would be, are my favorite movies on 4K? When I looked, they weren't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Missed these earlier.
> 
> You're narrowly focused only on linear channels in a world that is moving away from linear channels. Netflix has an entire section of 4k content, and is putting more up every day. Amazon has a decent amount. Several services offer movies streaming in 4k. And UHD BD has quite a few amazing movies available, including several, like The Revenant, that are reference quality. Even YouTube has tons of 4k videos, some at 2160p60.


Nothing narrow about it, I don't sub to neither Netflix or Amazon. My tv viewing is strictly on DIRECTV.

Besides Narcos, there is nothing that they have that is of my interest. I just checked their list. The are about sixty titles.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Some people don't pay attention.


Or some people plainly don't care.



Bigg said:


> That's why Comcast is using absurdly over-compressed 720p CBR that's sometimes sub-DVD quality and a lot of people can't tell the difference, even though to anyone paying attention, DirecTV looks a heck of a lot better. People still buy and rent DVDs and watch SD channels. For anyone who is actually paying attention, 4k is the new "wow" factor that we first saw with HD 15 years ago.


Seen many folks with 4K sets be extremely happy with HD. not everyone is on this 4K fad. Lol



Bigg said:


> Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Netflix, Amazon, and many others would beg to differ. 4k is not a "niche", it's here, and it's here to stay.


Of course, neither would Samsung or Sony etc. a long as the folks like yourself believing in this they are extremely happy cashing their paychecks!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Or some people plainly don't care.
> 
> Seen many folks with 4K sets be extremely happy with HD. not everyone is on this 4K fad. Lol
> 
> ...


My previous TVs were, starting from long ago til now,
a 26" console RCA, a 30" Toshiba and then a 46" HD LCD Samsung. None of those cost less than $1,200.
My 55" Samsung KU7000 4k TV was on sale at Best Buy just before Thanksgiving for $749. Regular price today is $999.
If they were a lot more expensive than the 1080p it would be different. But they look much better than the 1080p TVs and they are cheaper.
4k is here to stay until they come up with something more.
Note that I have not seen anything except a couple of streamed You Tube videos in 4k. I am watching all 720p and 1080i from the satellite.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> My previous TVs were, starting from long ago til now,
> a 26" console RCA, a 30" Toshiba and then a 46" HD LCD Samsung. None of those cost less than $1,200.
> My 55" Samsung KU7000 4k TV was on sale at Best Buy just before Thanksgiving for $749. Regular price today is $999.
> If they were a lot more expensive than the 1080p it would be different. But they look much better than the 1080p TVs and they are cheaper.
> ...


And you felt into the trap as well. I am not saying 4K TVs will somehow stop being sold to go back to HD sets, that is just ridiculous whoever thinks that is even possible. My yard stick to measure 4K succeeding or failing are not 4K TV sales but rather how the industry adapts to the new technology, and seeing how we are progressing in this front is what makes me believe that 4K will stay as a niche thing.

How will I measure success? when I turn my TV on and most of choices to watch are on 4K.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

4k tvs are a thing, they are here, and going nowhere. They can provide a better picture. (individual tvs and brands and lines not withstanding) Those that say they do not offer this do not understand how it can make a picture better, and often think that its not possible because of some chart that doesn't even apply at all to 4k tvs. Add in they also do not have a 4k tv in their home. (and no, looking in stores does not provide a definitive answer)

4k tvs are a full success, and are here to stay. Soon enough you won't be able to buy a tv that isn't 4k above a 50" tv.

I can see how some wonder about actual original 4k content, but if they fail to see it becoming a thing, then they are missing that the industry will slowly move to that format, but it will happen via attrition of the equipment they use, not a forced update as the original digital conversion was.

Tvs have already moved there, and its far easier to do that in the manufacturing process. But there is always a big lag time between when all that's made is one type of product and when that prodcut is being fully taken advantage of and is spread out. The back end production will move along similar to how tvs are. As many 4k tvs that have been sold, there's still tons that are not 4k. It takes a long time to replace all the tvs. It will take a long time to get to the point where all the facility equipment for hollywood needs to upgrade all their equipment and that's when you will start to really see 4k content take over. but that will happen because eventually they wont make just hd only equipment anymore, it will not be cost effective.

I think It will take 12 to 15 years till its where hd is today, but that will still be so much faster than hd. Even if it only was used for 50% of programming, that would still be a massive success.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

A few years ago one could have argued that 3D was the future. ESPN had a 3D channel and DIRECTV carried it along with a couple of other channels. And 3D was becoming a popular feature on new HD TV sets. Yet 3D faded and now 4K is the new popular feature to have on HD TV sets. Perhaps 5T will be the next trendy feature.

3D had it's drawbacks ... the primary one either requiring glasses and/or sitting in just the right spot to get the right effect. 4K TVs can have the effect of making HD look like garbage. Which is fine if one can find their content in 4K.

The success of 4K can be measured in many ways. If one is looking at availability of TVs then 4K can be considered "successful" (but then so could 3D a couple of years ago). Content availability is limited but growing. Counting streaming and on demand content 3D is successful. Which is why I look at them the same way - something "special" but neither will be taking over the marketplace soon.

4K is still in its infancy. I want to see more before declaring 4K a success. More live sports. More regular content providers getting involved. Not just a small percentage of content but ubiquitous content. It will be a while until we turn on the TV and see 4K as more than a fraction of our viewing options.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

James Long said:


> A few years ago one could have argued that 3D was the future. ESPN had a 3D channel and DIRECTV carried it along with a couple of other channels. And 3D was becoming a popular feature on new HD TV sets. Yet 3D faded and now 4K is the new popular feature to have on HD TV sets. Perhaps 5T will be the next trendy feature.
> 
> 3D had it's drawbacks ... the primary one either requiring glasses and/or sitting in just the right spot to get the right effect. 4K TVs can have the effect of making HD look like garbage. Which is fine if one can find their content in 4K.
> 
> ...


If I remember correctly there is also the problem of how the 3D is created on the screen. From posts I read a few years ago there were at least 2 methods.
That helped make 3D a deal breaker for the industry.
The technology for the 4k TVs is cheap now and it is just a matter of the people creating the content to switch over to 4k cameras.
I never was impressed with 3D but this 4k is here to stay.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> *The success of 4K can be measured in many ways. *If one is looking at availability of TVs then 4K can be considered "successful" (but then so could 3D a couple of years ago). Content availability is limited but growing. Counting streaming and on demand content 3D is successful. Which is why I look at them the same way - something "special" but neither will be taking over the marketplace soon.
> 
> 4K is still in its infancy. *I want to see more before declaring 4K a success. *More live sports. More regular content providers getting involved. Not just a small percentage of content but ubiquitous content. It will be a while until we turn on the TV and see 4K as more than a fraction of our viewing options.


Nailed it! & nailed it!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> The rollout of 4k content has been much faster than it was back in 1999 for HD, mostly due to streaming, where it was basically available on day 1. I don't think 4k will ever become as ubiquitous as HD is today, just because a lot of content doesn't need 4k (*who the heck wants CNN in 4k?*), but it certainly will be a success. I'm not holding my breath on linear 4k though. I'm not sure the business models are there with only one provider able to scale up 4k distribution, but I think eventually there will be at least some linear 4k content.


CNN is one of the few channels that I watch live (actually use the DLBs for this) and I do want to see an upscaled picture. I watch in the MB on a plasma and when I go to a room with a 4K set the difference in PQ is so noticeable, the plasmas that I was so proud of...kinda suck now.. I'm perfectly happy with upscaled D* content on the 4K sets. Gonna take quite a while for linear programming but once one network has it the rest should follow suit quickly.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Exactly. 4k TVs look amazing, and whether you're feeding it good quality HD or UHD, the results are really amazing.


They are truly amazing. I had no idea how good they were until I got my Samsung JS8500 home and would run from room to room comparing the PQ to my plasmas. The plasmas didn't do well. You can argue with folks who don't own 4K sets all day and get nowhere. You really have to own one to appreciate one. Again, ever see a post from an owner of a 4K set that isn't happy? I should amend that last sentence...I went thru several 4K sets and returned them for various reasons, there is crap out there. I made many posts about them, but I've never seen a post from anyone else that was dissatisfied with them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> 4k is already a "thing". With streaming platforms, everything adapts to the hardware, and most/all Netflix and Amazon content moving forward will be 4k, so it's going to stream to a lot of people in 4k by default. Amongst AV and movie buffs, UHD BD is an incredible format, and is providing another method of 4k content delivery. We'll see on linear 4k. I've shown a few movies on my 4k TV, and people are stunned by the results.


I cannot imagine buying a set that isn't 4K. I think once 4K sinks in most people will buy them. The picture is just better, far better.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> And you felt into the trap as well. I am not saying 4K TVs will somehow stop being sold to go back to HD sets, that is just ridiculous whoever thinks that is even possible. My yard stick to measure 4K succeeding or failing are not 4K TV sales but rather how the industry adapts to the new technology, and seeing how we are progressing in this front is what makes me believe that 4K will stay as a niche thing.
> 
> How will I measure success? when I turn my TV on and most of choices to watch are on 4K.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A trap because you said so? I need a new TV and bought one for future proofing AND NOW!
So go back to your SD sets again a a flip phone. I would say MOST people that see quality HD and 1080P content on a GOOD 4K are surprised and love it.

But yeah, its a "trap" because you said so.

Oh, I DVR is a Digital Video Recorder. Thats means it records and stores content on itself and play back. The C61K is a client that can perform DVR functions of another DVR.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

grittree said:


> >Exactly. 4k TVs look amazing, and whether you're feeding it good quality HD or UHD, the results are really amazing.
> 
> OTOH, *many review articles say that 4K looks worse using low quality video*. And hordes of folks do just that.
> 
> Market will eventually go 4K since there is almost no alternative for new sets now. But, for those not having a good video source, there is no reason to replace the current TV while it still works.


I've gotten to the point where I don't trust reviews when it comes to 4K sets (or anything, when the reviewer admits he doesn't own the item). My newest 4K set, the Samsung KS8000, does a much better job of upscaling DVDs (both 4K sets upscale BDs really well) than the more expensive JS8500. If you read the specs for both sets you will see why. The 8000 upscales D* content (the worst provider I have for PQ) very well. I was amazed by the PQ during the World Baseball Classic. That was in 720p and it looked great.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> CNN is one of the few channels that I watch live (actually use the DLBs for this) and I do want to see an upscaled picture. I watch in the MB on a plasma and when I go to a room with a 4K set the difference in PQ is so noticeable, the plasmas that I was so proud of...kinda suck now.. I'm perfectly happy with upscaled D* content on the 4K sets. Gonna take quite a while for linear programming but once one network has it the rest should follow suit quickly.
> 
> Rich


Yeah, I use to think my Panasonic 720 plasmas were so great. They were calibrated and beat a lot of LCD and others TV I saw. Great blacks and on 42" TV at 10ft, 1080p looked the same.

Now my 65" LG B6 OLED TV blows it away. No even close and even blacks are as good. Colors are way better and 4K is just stunning and life like.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Nailed it! & nailed it!
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think *James Long* has a 4K set. If he doesn't, he's not seeing what folks who do have one are.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> A trap because you said so? I need a new TV and bought one for future proofing AND NOW!
> So go back to your SD sets again a a flip phone. I would say MOST people that see quality HD and 1080P content on a GOOD 4K are surprised and love it.
> 
> But yeah, its a "trap" because you said so.
> ...


Good post! You won't win this argument with folks that don't have 4K sets. This isn't like the switch from SD to HD, this is more subtle. Takes a bit for it to sink in. No matter how many thousands of times you watch a set for a couple minutes. You need one in your home to really appreciate it, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I and many folks fail to see those really amazing results.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Gotta factor in not WANTING to see the difference here. That and having to admit you're wrong again.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> You can call something a "thing" when it doesn't have even come out of just being a niche.
> 
> If I cant watch MY favorite content on 4K, then is still a niche. Just because I can watch CERTAIN movies, documentaries or an sport event every now and then, is still consider a niche
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


And you could watch all those shows upscaled to 4K. It's not a "niche".

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Then they need glasses. My LG OLED upscales Star Wars Blue-ray so good, you can tell what a cardboard background and whats real. Even my kids see it and it ruined it for me, LOL.
> 
> This coming from a guy that say a C61K is a DVR, LOL.
> 
> Seriously. If you have not seen good 4K content on a good 4K set, you don't know what your missing.


Resistance, unfortunately, is futile. Wait til he gets one, see if he holds that position.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> Resistance, unfortunately, is futile. Wait til he gets one, see if he holds that position.
> 
> Rich


My wife and cant tell PQ from comcast to D* or 720p to 1080 is shocked! Detail and it makes some 720p look like crap its so good. Yes I agree and sucks sometimes.

I am NO videophile or have the eyes many of you guys do. I was looking at a 60" Samsung 4K TV and its was great as well. But when the wife wanted the LG and I had a chance to get it and the money I did!

Best TV ever owned and love it.

Downside is 4K Porn at times, LOL


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Missed these earlier.You're narrowly focused only on linear channels in a world that is moving away from linear channels. Netflix has an entire section of 4k content, and is putting more up every day. Amazon has a decent amount. Several services offer movies streaming in 4k. And UHD BD has quite a few amazing movies available, including several, like The Revenant, that are reference quality. Even YouTube has tons of 4k videos, some at 2160p60.


I don't even look for 4K content on Amazon or NF. The upscaled 1080p offerings are so good I don't see that much difference when playing the same content in 4K or 1080p.

Yeah, I can see up the road where all our content is streamed. Think about that and the ease with which we get NF/Amazon/HBO streams. No calls to NF, no DVRs needed, just a few cheap streaming devices. Simplicity. Give me all the Yankees games, the Jets and Giants games and I'm out of D*.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Nothing narrow about it, I don't sub to neither Netflix or Amazon. *My tv viewing is strictly on DIRECTV*.
> 
> Besides Narcos, there is nothing that they have that is of my interest. I just checked their list. The are about sixty titles.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You should explain that. You don't pay for D* content, do you?

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

gio12 said:


> My wife and cant tell PQ from comcast to D* or 720p to 1080 is shocked! Detail and it makes some 720p look like crap its so good. Yes I agree and sucks sometimes.
> 
> I am NO videophile or have the eyes many of you guys do. I was looking at a 60" Samsung 4K TV and its was great as well. But when the wife wanted the LG and I had a chance to get it and the money I did!
> 
> ...


When my mother had SD Comcast and my sister called them to hook up HD she pitched a fit and did not want it.
The installer knew this when he went to her house. He told her he would hook it up and if she still did not like it that he would take it back out . He hooked it up and showed her the same programming in SD and HD.
Her comment was , "Wow, some of those ladies that are beautiful don't look so good anymore, they have brown spots like me". She kept it.

I am certain the ladies you refer to do not look so good in 4k for sure.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> My wife and cant tell PQ from comcast to D* or 720p to 1080 is shocked! Detail and it makes some 720p look like crap its so good. Yes I agree and sucks sometimes.
> 
> I am NO videophile or have the eyes many of you guys do. I was looking at a 60" Samsung 4K TV and its was great as well. But when the wife wanted the LG and I had a chance to get it and the money I did!
> 
> ...


My wife was the same way. Never said a good word about it. One day she was showing a friend the 4K sets and she was asked, "How are they?". I got a little closer, really wanted to hear what her opinion. She said, "It's like looking out a window, the picture is so real." Made me happy. This from someone who is content with an SD picture.

Anybody that watches these sets without a bias is gonna see a better picture than they expect.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

jimmie57 said:


> When my mother had SD Comcast and my sister called them to hook up HD she pitched a fit and did not want it.
> The installer knew this when he went to her house. He told her he would hook it up and if she still did not like it that he would take it back out . He hooked it up and showed her the same programming in SD and HD.
> Her comment was , "Wow, some of those ladies that are beautiful don't look so good anymore, they have brown spots like me". She kept it.
> 
> I am certain the ladies you refer to do not look so good in 4k for sure.


LMAO!! Thats funny and its true. On 4K you see make up on so many actors (regular tv), flaws in their skin, wrinkles, its crazy.

#1 reason why IMO, 4k has not taken off and I get it. Its very realistic. Sports will shine!

My wife said 11 years ago why do we need HD, then she saw a HD baseball game and said wow, I can see the blades of grass now.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Yeah, I use to think my Panasonic 720 plasmas were so great. They were calibrated and beat a lot of LCD and others TV I saw. Great blacks and on 42" TV at 10ft, 1080p looked the same.
> 
> Now my 65" LG B6 OLED TV blows it away. No even close and even blacks are as good. Colors are way better and 4K is just stunning and life like.


I've got a couple 1080p Panny smart TVs and they don't come close to my 4Ks. When I bought each plasma I compared them to LCD sets in my price range (I refuse to go over 2 grand for a TV) and still bought the plasmas. They just had better pictures.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> LMAO!! Thats funny and its true. On 4K you see make up on so many actors (regular tv), flaws in their skin, wrinkles, its crazy.
> 
> #1 reason why IMO, 4k has not taken off and I get it. Its very realistic. Sports will shine!
> 
> My wife said 11 years ago why do we need HD, then she saw a HD baseball game and said wow, I can see the blades of grass now.


The hairs on the women's chinny chin chins is what cracks me up. Never saw that on a plasma.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've got a couple 1080p Panny smart TVs and they don't come close to my 4Ks. When I bought each plasma I compared them to LCD sets in my price range (I refuse to go over 2 grand for a TV) and still bought the plasmas. They just had better pictures.
> 
> Rich


Yeah went in with a 2k budget, but I cracked at over over 8 months now. Well worth it


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> A few years ago one could have argued that 3D was the future. ESPN had a 3D channel and DIRECTV carried it along with a couple of other channels. And 3D was becoming a popular feature on new HD TV sets. Yet 3D faded and now 4K is the new popular feature to have on HD TV sets. Perhaps 5T will be the next trendy feature.
> 
> 3D had it's drawbacks ... the primary one either requiring glasses and/or sitting in just the right spot to get the right effect. 4K TVs can have the effect of making HD look like garbage. Which is fine if one can find their content in 4K.
> 
> ...


While the argument could be made it wasn't a good one. You had to create a second line of production for 3D. 4k will never require that kind of thing.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Yeah went in with a 2k budget, but I cracked at over over 8 months now. Well worth it


Reason I have that 2G limit is a $2400 58" 720p Panny plasma I bought without knowing what I was doing. I've had to look at that mistake for years. I should be getting rid of it any day now, the lady that wants it is thrilled. Thing weighs an awful lot and the heat from it is really annoying, but it still has a good picture. So, I get to watch yet another very expensive item go out the door, at least I don't have to watch it get crushed at the dump.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> While the argument could be made it wasn't a good one. You had to create a second line of production for 3D. 4k will never require that kind of thing.


That and the glasses...

Rich


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Rich said:


> I cannot imagine buying a set that isn't 4K. I think once 4K sinks in most people will buy them. The picture is just better, far better.
> 
> Rich


I agree. But, are you at a point where you are willing to buy a new 4K TV to replace a perfectly good HD TV? That's exactly what many people (including me) did for HD. However, I'm not about to replace my existing HDTV's with new 4K ones until I actually need a new TV in each of those locations.

IMO, until 4K is a driver of new sales (either at the TV or video disc level), rather than a reasonably priced upgrade to a purchase being driven by other factors (in my case, repurposing two rooms that now require TV's), I don't know that I would consider 4K to be a "success" from a hardware perspective. Unless someone figures out how to increase profits with 4K programming, I'm hard-pressed to seeing many outlets attempt to provide content in 4K. So, I don't know how that would be a success from a programming/software perspective.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Hear you! My first Panny 720p cost me $2600 in 2008. I died paying that much. 7 years later, the newer model cost me $550!!

My sister in law is now enjoying that original set. 

Sucks as my LG is now around $3000! Sucks being a early adopter sometimes. Still cant believe I spent over $4k on a TV. But best year of Football yet!!


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> I agree. But, are you at a point where you are willing to buy a new 4K TV to replace a perfectly good HD TV? That's exactly that many people (including me) did for HD. However, I'm not about to replace my existing HDTV's with new 4K ones until I actually need a new TV in each of those locations.
> 
> IMO, until 4K is a driver of new sales (either at the TV or video disc level), rather than a reasonably priced upgrade to a purchase being driven by other factors (in my case, repurposing two rooms that now require TV's), I don't know that I would consider 4K to be a "success" from a hardware perspective. Unless someone figures out how to increase profits with 4K programming, I'm hard-pressed to seeing many outlets attempt to provide content in 4K. So, I don't know how that would be a success from a programming/software perspective.


I agree. Only bought one as I wanted and needed a larger set than 42" as my main TV and it was only a 720p set. Why I jumped to OLED 4k. If I had a newer 1080p in 65", I still might be waiting.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

In the next few years, manufacturers will only be producing 4K sets.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Nothing narrow about it, I don't sub to neither Netflix or Amazon. My tv viewing is strictly on DIRECTV.
> 
> Besides Narcos, there is nothing that they have that is of my interest. I just checked their list. The are about sixty titles.


So the bottom line is that you have an extremely narrow set of content interests, and few, if any are available in 4k. So 4k probably isn't for you. That, however, has no bearing on the greater market for 4k, as there is a lot of really good and really popular content available in 4k. This is 2017, watching a majority of content from pay tv is a thing of the past. Most people today are cord stackers or cord trimmers.



peds48 said:


> Or some people plainly don't care.


Same difference.



> Seen many folks with 4K sets be extremely happy with HD. not everyone is on this 4K fad. Lol


4k isn't a fad. It's here to stay.



Rich said:


> CNN is one of the few channels that I watch live (actually use the DLBs for this) and I do want to see an upscaled picture.


I watch news sometimes, and it's usually in the background. TBH, the news channels are the few channels that I'd be perfectly OK with a low-bitrate 720p feed of. They are mostly just talking heads. Sure, you can make the graphics sharper, and those multi-talking-head segments display multiple feeds in HD, but for what purpose?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> A trap because you said so? I need a new TV and bought one for future proofing AND NOW!


Hold your horses and breath. "the "trap" I was referring to was how 4k is being measured by some folks here.

Of course of your need to buy a new TV your would want to buy a 4K set, but that is not what I am referring to on my post.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Oh, I DVR is a Digital Video Recorder. Thats means it records and stores content on itself and play back. The C61K is a client that can perform DVR functions of another DVR.


With cloud DVR, you may want to start using the DVR term more loosely.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> I don't think *James Mason* has a 4K set. If he doesn't, he's not seeing what folks who do have one are.
> 
> Rich


Still he nailed it. To the T.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Good post! You won't win this argument with folks that don't have 4K sets. This isn't like the switch from SD to HD, this is more subtle. Takes a bit for it to sink in. No matter how many thousands of times you watch a set for a couple minutes. You need one in your home to really appreciate it, I think.
> 
> Rich


Just because you think so doesn't make it so....haha.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Gotta factor in not WANTING to see the difference here. That and having to admit you're wrong again.
> 
> Rich


I just don't let a fad get me carry away. How can I be wrong when this is all about perception? And that is where your fail to understand.

This time I am not arguing about picture quality, that horse been beaten to death already, all I said that as of right now 4K is a fad and apparently that some folks' panties in a bunch.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> And you could watch all those shows upscaled to 4K. It's not a "niche".
> 
> Rich


But upscaled and native 4K are two different things. So according to your thinking folks should stop whining about their SD upscale content because they are watching it on HD.

As it sits right now and for the foreseeable future 4K is a niche.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Resistance, unfortunately, is futile. Wait til he gets one, see if he holds that position.
> 
> Rich


Don't need to wait, seem many of them, still not encouraged.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Downside is 4K Porn at times, LOL


There you go, I knew the was a reason all along.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> I don't even look for 4K content on Amazon or NF. The upscaled 1080p offerings are so good I don't see that much difference when playing the same content in 4K or 1080p.
> 
> That says a lot about 4K quality doesn't it? When fake (upscaled) 4K and native 4K all spear to be the same.
> 
> Rich


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> You should explain that. You don't pay for D* content, do you?
> 
> Rich


Yes I do.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> My wife said 11 years ago why do we need HD, then she saw a HD baseball game and said wow, I can see the blades of grass now.


That we can agree with, HD was a huge breakthrough when compared to SD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> I agree. But, are you at a point where you are willing to buy a new 4K TV to replace a perfectly good HD TV? That's exactly what many people (including me) did for HD. However, I'm not about to replace my existing HDTV's with new 4K ones until I actually need a new TV in each of those locations.
> 
> IMO, until 4K is a driver of new sales (either at the TV or video disc level), rather than a reasonably priced upgrade to a purchase being driven by other factors (in my case, repurposing two rooms that now require TV's), I don't know that I would consider 4K to be a "success" from a hardware perspective. Unless someone figures out how to increase profits with 4K programming, I'm hard-pressed to seeing many outlets attempt to provide content in 4K. So, I don't know how that would be a success from a programming/software perspective.


Here we have another winner! Nailed it bill.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> I agree. Only bought one as I wanted and needed a larger set than 42" as my main TV and it was only a 720p set. Why I jumped to OLED 4k. If I had a newer 1080p in 65", I still might be waiting.


So now we are on the same boat....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> In the next few years, manufacturers will only be producing 4K sets.


That is almost true right now. Hard to find non 4k sets anymore.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> So the bottom line is that you have an extremely narrow set of content interests, and few, if any are available in 4k. So 4k probably isn't for you. That, however, has no bearing on the greater market for 4k, as there is a lot of really good and really popular content available in 4k. This is 2017, watching a majority of content from pay tv is a thing of the past. Most people today are cord stackers or cord trimmers.


Most of the shows I watch are from the networks and none of that stuff is on 4k. I will repeat myself again, I just don't watch a show just because is on 4K, it must peak my interest.

Dating that most people are cited cutters or stackers is being very narrow minded.



Bigg said:


> Same difference.


No is not.



Bigg said:


> 4k isn't a fad. It's here to stay.


4K sets, sure. 4K service will we have to wait and see. As of now is a fad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

All caught up. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Rich said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think *James Mason* has a 4K set. If he doesn't, he's not seeing what folks who do have one are.
> ...


Who?

Rich seems to be trying to find someone to fight against even if that person doesn't exist. The proliferation of 4K televisions is impressive ... but the availability of 4K content is not. Some selections in a special section isn't ubiquitous. Counting HD content upconverted at the set is misleading ... one might as well say 100% of content is available in 4K since the TV upconverts SD. But one would be telling a lie.

Perhaps it needs to be said again in simpler language. 4K TVs are doing well, 4K content is showing improvement. "Success" depends on what one is measuring.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Most people today are cord stackers or cord trimmers.


Assumption or do you have a reference that supports such a claim?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> That and the glasses...
> 
> Rich


Eh I still think the cost to produce it was the biggest issue. They couldn't really charge more for it even though it require such a larger investment. 4k won't be requiring a larger investment beyond what Hi Definition already does in the long run. 3D always will...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Most of the shows I watch are from the networks and none of that stuff is on 4k. I will repeat myself again, I just don't watch a show just because is on 4K, it must peak my interest.
> 
> Dating that most people are cited cutters or stackers is being very narrow minded.
> 
> ...


It's not a fad today. There's not enough content yet to be a fad. It's a product in its early infancy. Just like hd once was. There's a big difference. Fads have mass appeal and use then get discarded. Calling content niche right now is far more accurate.

It's time and natural attrition that will bring the content. Heck all the little stations that are left in SD only have also still gone digital through the same natural attrition process. It's a very long and slow process but it's in that path. Imho the only thing that could derail it is something else like 8k coming along and taking hold faster than 4k.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> 4k won't be requiring a larger investment beyond what Hi Definition already does in the long run. 3D always will...


Storage space and rendering time come to mind. It also reminds me that what we see in "HD" is not always recorded in HD. Taking less than 4K footage and processing it to create a 4K production isn't a 100% 4K process. "In the long run" HD has become cheap and the equipment needed for end to end 4K will become cheaper. But better formats will also be available "in the long run". Some call that progress.

At this point 4K is being done for high end productions that need to be 4K for other targets than home viewing (similar to 3D production which continues for theatrical and special releases). I expect 4K production will become more mainstream than 3D ever will ... but we are not there yet.

So I suppose that while choosing a yard stick to measure the "success" of 4K one should also choose a time frame. The difference between "is successful" and "will be successful" is not trivial.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yep... Like I said it'll happen through attrition and that happens when it's costs to use the newer 4k equipment are close enough or equal to Hi Definition. And that's a few years away but costs and abilities drop so fast... back end production always takes more time than front end consumer products though. Which is why we have so many 4k tvs already. Once there's a ground swell it just might explode on the production side.

I also wouldn't be shocked if 8k starts taking over the production side for 4k content before 4k content is a major player in the next five years.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> Who?
> 
> Rich seems to be trying to find someone to fight against even if that person doesn't exist. The proliferation of 4K televisions is impressive ... but the availability of 4K content is not. Some selections in a special section isn't ubiquitous. Counting HD content upconverted at the set is misleading ... one might as well say 100% of content is available in 4K since the TV upconverts SD. But one would be telling a lie.
> 
> Perhaps it needs to be said again in simpler language. 4K TVs are doing well, 4K content is showing improvement. "Success" depends on what one is measuring.


Nothing short of impressive!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I also wouldn't be shocked if 8k starts taking over the production side for 4k content before 4k content is a major player in the next five years.


So at that point can we call 4K a failure?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> It's not a fad today. There's not enough content yet to be a fad. It's a product in its early infancy. Just like hd once was. There's a big difference. Fads have mass appeal and use then get discarded. Calling content niche right now is far more accurate.


And that is exactly what is happening right now, the mass appeal right now (for the sets) and will be discarded by the next fad which you admitted below which is 8K.

The only reason we have 4K right now is because TV making people needed a new thing to have folks upgrade their otherwise excellent TVs. With the TV upgrade cycle being about ten years they had to find something to make you upgrade earlier. The only difference this time is that the content making people are not on the same page as the TV making people.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> The only reason we have 4K right now is because TV making people needed a new thing to have folks upgrade their otherwise excellent TVs.


I agree ... Especially with the prices coming down manufacturers want to give consumers a reason to replace a perfectly good HD set so the manufacturers can keep making money. Having 4K also puts the equipment on par with other manufacturers.If it is only HD and the same price as a 4K set the set may not sell.

3D for the price of HD also sold sets. But 4K is a better bonus.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> I agree ... Especially with the prices coming down manufacturers want to give consumers a reason to replace a perfectly good HD set so the manufacturers can keep making money. Having 4K also puts the equipment on par with other manufacturers.If it is only HD and the same price as a 4K set the set may not sell.
> 
> 3D for the price of HD also sold sets. But 4K is a better bonus.


TV manufacturers would love to have the upgrade cycle that smartphones. The funny thing is that sometimes upgrading your TV can be a little bit cheaper than upgrading your premium smartphone, yet we can deal with upgrading our phone every one of two years while the TV set sits there for almost four times as long.

The thing with TV sets is that besides the display anything can be upgraded by buying an inexpensive STB.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

Not a funny thing at all! I can trade in my smartphone every two years by just unclipping it from the belt holder and walking into the store.

With a TV trade-ins are not the norm at all, so you have to figure out how to get rid of the old set. Selling is sometimes an option, throwing it away seldom is, heck, giving them away is sometimes hard to do.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> Not a funny thing at all! I can trade in my smartphone every two years by just unclipping it from the belt holder and walking into the store.
> 
> With a TV trade-ins are not the norm at all, so you have to figure out how to get rid of the old set. Selling is sometimes an option, throwing it away seldom is, heck, giving them away is sometimes hard to do.


Gave my 46" to my son. He loved it.
Of course he then found a 60" 4k on sale at Walmart for $598.00 and we got him that one. Now he uses the 46 for his surveillance camera system ( 8 cameras ).


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> And that is exactly what is happening right now, the mass appeal right now (for the sets) and will be discarded by the next fad which you admitted below which is 8K.
> 
> The only reason we have 4K right now is because TV making people needed a new thing to have folks upgrade their otherwise excellent TVs. With the TV upgrade cycle being about ten years they had to find something to make you upgrade earlier. The only difference this time is that the content making people are not on the same page as the TV making people.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The good thing about the 4k sets is that they play all feeds / resolutions. When they come out with 8k I hope they continue this trend.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> The good thing about the 4k sets is that they play all feeds / resolutions. When they come out with 8k I hope they continue this trend.


Nothing to hope, they have to, otherwise the TV would be useless.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Not a funny thing at all! I can trade in my smartphone every two years by just unclipping it from the belt holder and walking into the store.
> 
> .


And that is where the "funny" thing lies. A premium smartphone usually goes between $800 to $1000. You can get a decent 4K set on a good sale for $600 bucks. So we are willing to spend at least $800 once or twice a year on smartphone but not less on TVs and this is where TV making people have to figure out how to get you to spend money on them more often, so they have to come out with gimmickry ideas to get inside your pockets.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I would not be surprised if somewhere down the road big box stores comes up with a plan that let's you upgrade your TV more often in exchange for a monthly fee that also covers maintenance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> IHeck all the little stations that are left in SD only have also still gone digital through the same natural attrition process.


It wasn't a natural process, there was a government mandate to convert from NTSC to ATSC. They gave low power stations a few more years to do it because money is tighter for them. If it wasn't for that, no doubt there would still be many LPTV stations broadcasting in NTSC.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> It wasn't a natural process, there was a government mandate to convert from NTSC to ATSC. They gave low power stations a few more years to do it because money is tighter for them. If it wasn't for that, no doubt there would still be many LPTV stations broadcasting in NTSC.


I like that change. For me, I never could get a decent picture, even with a large antenna. Now I have a small antenna and get 100% signal from every station in my area. I have this on my TV in the bedroom and do not have DirecTV on it.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> And that is where the "funny" thing lies. A premium smartphone usually goes between $800 to $1000. You can get a decent 4K set on a good sale for $600 bucks. So we are willing to spend at least $800 once or twice a year on smartphone but not less on TVs and this is where TV making people have to figure out how to get you to spend money on them more often, so they have to come out with gimmickry ideas to get inside your pockets.


There are (or at least were, it is pretty debatable the last couple years) big enough jumps in performance and features to make a smartphone upgrade worthwhile if yours is a couple years old. There's also some element of "wearing out", as built in batteries don't hold a charge as well after 2-3 years as they did when they were new. Sure, it is easy to get that replaced but many people use that as a trigger for buying a new phone.

Most people don't care about features on a TV, or even about getting 4K instead of HD. They aren't going out to buy a 4K TV when they replace a working one, they are going out to buy a bigger TV and finding 4K is all there is at Best Buy in that size. Most won't change what they consume or demand 4K content. Heck just consider how many people have had their HDTVs displaying SD content, sometimes for years, because they had it connected wrong (i.e. leaving the composite or channel 3/4 RF in place when they replaced their SDTV) or even if they get an HDMI cable don't change the resolution in their set top) If image quality was something most people cared about that wouldn't happen so often, and the jump from HD to 4K is a lot smaller than the jump from SD to HD was.

Plus consider that phones are a very personal device. You carry it with you pretty much everywhere you go. You are holding it in your hand, touching it. It is an interactive device, while your TV is a passive device. Just because a phone upgrade and TV upgrade might cost similar money doesn't mean people will think it is reasonable to do them equally often. I'm willing to bet when self driving cars are available and driving goes from interactive to passive, people will be keeping their cars MUCH longer than they do now.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

jimmie57 said:


> I like that change. For me, I never could get a decent picture, even with a large antenna. Now I have a small antenna and get 100% signal from every station in my area. I have this on my TV in the bedroom and do not have DirecTV on it.


Not saying it was a bad change, just that it wasn't natural. Some LPTV stations couldn't afford it and were forced to shut down.

Probably part of the reason for the improvement you noticed was stations switching from VHF to UHF...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jimmie57 said:


> I like that change. For me, I never could get a decent picture, even with a large antenna. Now I have a small antenna and get 100% signal from every station in my area. I have this on my TV in the bedroom and do not have DirecTV on it.


And yet others went from snow signal to no signal. Analog was more forgiving on the fringes (or when over powered).


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> There are (or at least were, it is pretty debatable the last couple years) big enough jumps in performance and features to make a smartphone upgrade worthwhile if yours is a couple years old. There's also some element of "wearing out", as built in batteries don't hold a charge as well after 2-3 years as they did when they were new. Sure, it is easy to get that replaced but many people use that as a trigger for buying a new phone.
> 
> Most people don't care about features on a TV, or even about getting 4K instead of HD. They aren't going out to buy a 4K TV when they replace a working one, they are going out to buy a bigger TV and finding 4K is all there is at Best Buy in that size. Most won't change what they consume or demand 4K content. Heck just consider how many people have had their HDTVs displaying SD content, sometimes for years, because they had it connected wrong (i.e. leaving the composite or channel 3/4 RF in place when they replaced their SDTV) or even if they get an HDMI cable don't change the resolution in their set top) If image quality was something most people cared about that wouldn't happen so often, and the jump from HD to 4K is a lot smaller than the jump from SD to HD was.
> 
> Plus consider that phones are a very personal device. You carry it with you pretty much everywhere you go. You are holding it in your hand, touching it. It is an interactive device, while your TV is a passive device. Just because a phone upgrade and TV upgrade might cost similar money doesn't mean people will think it is reasonable to do them equally often. I'm willing to bet when self driving cars are available and driving goes from interactive to passive, people will be keeping their cars MUCH longer than they do now.


And this is exactly my point, TV making people needed to find something that was enough to make folks upgrade their TVs, since features can be had by buying a streamer box, they came out with the gimmick of 4K, which is basically the only thing they can improve that cant be improved by adding an inexpensive streamer box. And this is prove why 4K is a fad. TV making people will find (spoiler alert, they already did) something "better" to get you to upgrade. They are just waiting for this fad to wear out to start the next fad.

I will admit tho, I may get on the next fad as by that time my current set may need replacing.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> And that is exactly what is happening right now, the mass appeal right now (for the sets) and will be discarded by the next fad which you admitted below which is 8K.
> 
> The only reason we have 4K right now is because TV making people needed a new thing to have folks upgrade their otherwise excellent TVs. With the TV upgrade cycle being about ten years they had to find something to make you upgrade earlier. The only difference this time is that the content making people are not on the same page as the TV making people.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You need to stop jumping between tvs and content. We all agree 4k tvs are here and that's it. I'm discussing content. You are saying content is a fad I'm saying that's what can't be called a fad.

However No matter how you slice it nothing about 4k a fad though.

If you tried to argue the tvs where the fad your argument would fail when you realized that fads are something purchased by choosing one thing over the other by people for a while and then disappear. That won't happen for tvs because that's just what manufacturers make and that's the end of it. You can't stop buying 4k tvs if that's all there is to buy and you need a tv.

And I never suggested 8k tvs will take over. I said I believe it's possible 8k hardware may become more dominant on the production end and bypass over 4k produced content, but that they would still likely convert that to 4k rather than try and broadcast it to people's home as 8k. That would be cheaper and give them amazing originals.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> So at that point can we call 4K a failure?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If we don't see any real channels (more than 10 to 15) and more than a couple sports events a week in about five to seven years then you can call it failure. You do recall how long it took hd to get going right? More than a decade before we had a lot of regular 4k content. And we just started getting content this past summer.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> It wasn't a natural process, there was a government mandate to convert from NTSC to ATSC. They gave low power stations a few more years to do it because money is tighter for them. If it wasn't for that, no doubt there would still be many LPTV stations broadcasting in NTSC.


Yes but how much of their equipment on the back end for all production has moved to digital vs just converting what they where creating in analogue to digital for broadcast? That's what I'm talking about because we know that almost everyone just converted their old signals at the beginning.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> I agree. *But, are you at a point where you are willing to buy a new 4K TV to replace a perfectly good HD TV*? That's exactly what many people (including me) did for HD. However, I'm not about to replace my existing HDTV's with new 4K ones until I actually need a new TV in each of those locations.
> 
> IMO, until 4K is a driver of new sales (either at the TV or video disc level), rather than a reasonably priced upgrade to a purchase being driven by other factors (in my case, repurposing two rooms that now require TV's), I don't know that I would consider 4K to be a "success" from a hardware perspective. Unless someone figures out how to increase profits with 4K programming, I'm hard-pressed to seeing many outlets attempt to provide content in 4K. So, I don't know how that would be a success from a programming/software perspective.


I had a 50" plasma go south. I needed a new set for the MB. I bought a 4K set with little knowledge of what I was doing. I had problems with the first four or five I bought. I finally settled on the top of the line flat screen Samsung had at the time. That worked out very well and when we had our home renovated last year I certainly didn't want a plasma in the living room. This time I had some idea what to buy and I'm satisfied with the 60" KS8000. So satisfied I'm looking for local folks to give my plasmas to. After watching 4K sets, the plasmas are just...unwatchable in my opinion. The 4K are so good they just blow the plasmas away. As I get rid of the plasmas I will be replacing them with 4K sets. I've learned...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Hear you! My first Panny 720p cost me $2600 in 2008. I died paying that much. 7 years later, the newer model cost me $550!!
> 
> My sister in law is now enjoying that original set.
> 
> Sucks as my LG is now around $3000! Sucks being a early adopter sometimes. Still cant believe I spent over $4k on a TV. But best year of Football yet!!


Gotta try not to look back. I should be getting rid of the 58" plasma this weekend. No more staring at that mistake.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> I agree. Only bought one as I wanted and needed a larger set than 42" as my main TV and it was only a 720p set. Why I jumped to OLED 4k. *If I had a newer 1080p in 65", I still might be waiting*.


And look what you'd be missing.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

btedford said:


> In the next few years, manufacturers will only be producing 4K sets.


That's pretty much what I see in stores now.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I watch news sometimes, and it's usually in the background. TBH, the news channels are the few channels that I'd be perfectly OK with a low-bitrate 720p feed of. They are mostly just talking heads. Sure, you can make the graphics sharper, and those multi-talking-head segments display multiple feeds in HD, but for what purpose?


Gotten to the point where I just can't stand the plasmas no matter what I watch. 4K sets kinda spoil...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Still he nailed it. To the T.....
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In your opinion, which is a bit skewed.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> But upscaled and native 4K are two different things. So according to your thinking folks should stop whining about their SD upscale content because they are watching it on HD.
> 
> As it sits right now and for the foreseeable future 4K is a niche.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I really don't understand why anyone would watch anything in SD. If you think 4K is a niche, well that's just your opinion, nobody should view your posts on 4K as anything but an opinion.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





peds48 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





peds48 said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Now I can't quote you. Might not a bad thing.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Who?
> 
> Rich seems to be trying to find someone to fight against even if that person doesn't exist. The proliferation of 4K televisions is impressive ... but the availability of 4K content is not. Some selections in a special section isn't ubiquitous. Counting HD content upconverted at the set is misleading ... one might as well say 100% of content is available in 4K since the TV upconverts SD. But one would be telling a lie.
> 
> Perhaps it needs to be said again in simpler language. 4K TVs are doing well, 4K content is showing improvement. "Success" depends on what one is measuring.


Wasn't trying to fight with anyone. Just wondered if you bought one.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Yes I do.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Didn't you post a copy of your bill? Didn't that bill show you got everything free?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Who?
> 
> Rich seems to be trying to find someone to fight against even if that person doesn't exist. The proliferation of 4K televisions is impressive ... but the availability of 4K content is not. Some selections in a special section isn't ubiquitous. Counting HD content upconverted at the set is misleading ... one might as well say 100% of content is available in 4K since the TV upconverts SD. But one would be telling a lie.
> 
> Perhaps it needs to be said again in simpler language. 4K TVs are doing well, 4K content is showing improvement. "Success" depends on what one is measuring.


I fixed that error. Sorry.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Not a funny thing at all! I can trade in my smartphone every two years by just unclipping it from the belt holder and walking into the store.
> 
> With a TV trade-ins are not the norm at all, so you have to figure out how to get rid of the old set. Selling is sometimes an option, throwing it away seldom is, heck, *giving them away is sometimes hard to do*.


Seems impossible at times. I suppose I could put them on the Central NJ Craigslist, but then I'd have to deal with folks I don't know. I guess I'll end up taking the plasmas to the dump eventually. Or just keep them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> And this is exactly my point, TV making people needed to find something that was enough to make folks upgrade their TVs, since features can be had by buying a streamer box, they came out with the gimmick of 4K, which is basically the only thing they can improve that cant be improved by adding an inexpensive streamer box. And this is prove why 4K is a fad. TV making people will find (spoiler alert, they already did) something "better" to get you to upgrade. They are just waiting for this fad to wear out to start the next fad.
> 
> *I will admit tho, I may get on the next fad as by that time my current set may need replacing. *
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Makes me think there's hope for other naysayers.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> You need to stop jumping between tvs and content. We all agree 4k tvs are here and that's it. I'm discussing content. You are saying content is a fad I'm saying that's what can't be called a fad.
> 
> However No matter how you slice it nothing about 4k a fad though.
> 
> ...


FAD:
fad/
_noun_

an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.
"prairie restoration is the latest gardening fad in the Midwest"
synonyms: craze, vogue, trend, fashion, mode, enthusiasm, passion, obsession, mania, rage, compulsion, fixation, fetish, fancy, whim, fascination; 
_informal_thing
"when I was a kid, no fad was more apparent than the coonskin cap"
I don't see this definition fitting in a conversation about 4K sets.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> That's pretty much what I see in stores now.


There's a good why 4K is all you see in stores now, and it has nothing to do with everyone wanting 4K. I predicted this a couple years ago, because already at that time LCD panel fabs were reporting that it was cheaper to make sets larger than 65" in 4K than HD because of the size of the crystals. As they refine the process, each generation that crossover where it is more expensive to produce bigger pixels drops down. I don't know exactly where we're at, but pretty sure everything 50" or larger is cheaper to do in 4K.

It didn't hurt that people saw 4K as a premium feature (or did for a year or two, until everything was 4K) which let them charge more.

Plasma had the opposite problem, the cost of production is roughly proportional to the number of pixels, so making 4x as many would make them cost a lot more at the exact time that LCDs were getting cheaper. Hence, the end of plasma.

OLEDs don't have the same economics as LCDs, they don't get more expensive with bigger pixels, but the cost isn't proportional to the number of pixels either since they are produced in a manner more like how LCDs than how plasma was. But since OLED is more expensive but provides a far superior picture to LCD, there is no reason to produce HD OLED, so they have been 4K only since the first 4K TVs appeared.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> *There's a good why 4K is all you see in stores now, and it has nothing to do with everyone wanting 4K*. I predicted this a couple years ago, because already at that time LCD panel fabs were reporting that it was cheaper to make sets larger than 65" in 4K than HD because of the size of the crystals. As they refine the process, each generation that crossover where it is more expensive to produce bigger pixels drops down. I don't know exactly where we're at, but pretty sure everything 50" or larger is cheaper to do in 4K.


Just standing in the TV section of our Costco I hear many folks who have no idea what 4K is or can do. Gotta agree with you. I do hope they get cheaper soon. I need a couple.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> You need to stop jumping between tvs and content. .


No I don't. This is what my argument is all about. I can't change my argument just to fit your agenda.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> And I never suggested 8k tvs will take over. I


Now your are doing a 360. Let me remind you



inkahauts said:


> I also wouldn't be shocked if 8k starts taking over the production side for 4k content before 4k content is a major player in the next five years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> However No matter how you slice it nothing about 4k a fad though.


Is a fad right now. What remains to be proven is if will remain a fad down the road. My vote is that it will.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> If we don't see any real channels (more than 10 to 15) and more than a couple sports events a week in about five to seven years then you can call it failure. You do recall how long it took hd to get going right? More than a decade before we had a lot of regular 4k content. And we just started getting content this past summer.


Seven years to get 15 channels??? You must have a very low bar. The were way much more than that in the HD era. My bar is set at fifty at a minimum. Acting short than that and 4K had failed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Yes but how much of their equipment on the back end for all production has moved to digital vs just converting what they where creating in analogue to digital for broadcast? That's what I'm talking about because we know that almost everyone just converted their old signals at the beginning.


Even those very minor stations went all digital before the mandate? Got any proof of that? Or should we just take your word for such a claim?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> In your opinion, which is a bit skewed.
> 
> Rich


In your opinion, which is a bit skewed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> I really don't understand why anyone would watch anything in SD. If you think 4K is a niche, well that's just your opinion, nobody should view your posts on 4K as anything but an opinion.
> 
> Rich


So are you opinions facts? Remember you have the right you own opinions but not your own facts.

Opinions are just that, a way of thinking, including yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Now I can't quote you. Might not *be* a bad thing.


Actually a good thing. Also fixed that for you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

IMO, 4K content isn't a fad and neither are 4K TVs. I know peds48 believes that it is but I respectfully disagree. I think for a long time we will have a mixture of content between SD/HD/4K. I remember when my family got our first HDTV back in 2006 and we had cable and only had 12 channels in HD. It took a few years before a lot of channels and content was available in HD. A lot of shows that were constantly in production..took quite a few years before the switch to HD. Currently a lot of shows, shoot in 1080p which is just fine but newer shows are taking advantage of shooting in 4K. When HD was newer, a lot of shows did an SD master and an HD master and made sure that everything looked as good as they could for both, eventually they stopped doing SD masters and only did HD. Hell, I still watch some shows in SD like Star Trek: Voyager or reruns of M*A*S*H. (even though MASH could use a remaster).


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Didn't you post a copy of your bill? Didn't that bill show you got everything free?
> 
> Rich


Got proof? Don't make claims without proof.

Or is that your opinion?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> I fixed that error. Sorry.
> 
> Rich


This was hilarious!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Makes me think there's hope for other naysayers.
> 
> Rich


Of course when you got no other choice. At least I can say I wasn't taken by the first fad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Got proof? Don't make claims without proof.
> 
> Or is that your opinion?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I seem to remember you posting it or just saying that all your stuff was free. It was a couple of years or more ago.

I also remember you saying you would quit if ATT bought DirecTV.
See the second post of this thread.
AT&T Agrees to Purchase DirecTV (Was: ATT looking to buy Direct TV)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> FAD:
> fad/
> _noun_
> 
> ...





Number # 1 seems to fit right in.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> IMO, 4K content isn't a fad and neither are 4K TVs. I know peds48 believes that it is but I respectfully disagree. I think for a long time we will have a mixture of content between SD/HD/4K. I remember when my family got our first HDTV back in 2006 and we had cable and only had 12 channels in HD. It took a few years before a lot of channels and content was available in HD. A lot of shows that were constantly in production..took quite a few years before the switch to HD. Currently a lot of shows, shoot in 1080p which is just fine but newer shows are taking advantage of shooting in 4K. When HD was newer, a lot of shows did an SD master and an HD master and made sure that everything looked as good as they could for both, eventually they stopped doing SD masters and only did HD. Hell, I still watch some shows in SD like Star Trek: Voyager or reruns of M*A*S*H. (even though MASH could use a remaster).


The difference back then was that there was force that help the push to go HD. While the mandate to go digital wasn't necessarily a mandate to go HD, it came with benefits for the broadcasters. The is none of this now just the benefit of a better image quality that can be contested at any time any no benefit for the broadcasters besides pleasing its viewing audience with little gain to them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Just standing in the TV section of our Costco I hear many folks who have no idea what 4K is or can do. Gotta agree with you. I do hope they get cheaper soon. I need a couple.
> 
> Rich


And you just proof my point. If they can't see it with their own eyes then what is all this craze about?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> I seem to remember you posting it or just saying that all your stuff was free. It was a couple of years or more ago.
> 
> I also remember you saying you would quit if ATT bought DirecTV.
> See the second post of this thread.
> AT&T Agrees to Purchase DirecTV (Was: ATT looking to buy Direct TV)


And I did, as it turns out I never worked for them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

Actually, it just sounds like a lot of consumers aren't familiar with 4K and they just need to be educated just like the the switch from analog to digital, which for a long time people didn't know what that was or what it meant. So really, your point hasn't been proven. He said in his original post "...I hear many folks who have no idea what 4K is or can do." I work for a large company and when new software or hardware rolls out, not everyone knows how to use it or why it's better or what it means for them so it's up to us in the IT Department to educate them.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> I seem to remember you posting it or just saying that all your stuff was free. It was a couple of years or more ago.
> 
> I also remember you saying you would quit if ATT bought DirecTV.
> See the second post of this thread.
> AT&T Agrees to Purchase DirecTV (Was: ATT looking to buy Direct TV)


He posted that bill more recently than that.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

btedford said:


> Actually, it just sounds like a lot of consumers aren't familiar with 4K and they just need to be educated just like the the switch from analog to digital, which for a long time people didn't know what that was or what it meant. So really, your point hasn't been proven. He said in his original post "...I hear many folks who have no idea what 4K is or can do." I work for a large company and when new software or hardware rolls out, not everyone knows how to use it or why it's better or what it means for them so it's up to us in the IT Department to educate them.


That's not the same thing. If you roll out new software people need to do their job, you need to train them on how to use it if it works differently.

When the ATSC transition happened, consumers needed to be educated about it because it affected them - their TV stations would be changing from VHF to UHF in many cases, meaning they'd need a new antenna, and older TVs that were NTSC only would need a converter box or to be replaced.

4K doesn't affect anyone in that sort of manner, HD still works just as it used to, so there is no need to "educate" them unless by that you mean brainwashing them into wanting 4K. If they care they can find out about 4K themselves and see if it is something they care about. A lot of people do know about it but don't really care. Even guys like Rich who really likes his 4K TVs doesn't care all that much about 4K content since HD content is upscaled. Unless someday there's enough difference between native 4K content and upscaled content for him to care, he'll be a 4K TV owner who isn't going to demand 4K content or consume it if available. Maybe HDR and WCG will provide more impetus for people like him, who know all about 4K but just don't care that much about getting content in 4K, since that's something upscaling can't deliver.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> Actually, it just sounds like a lot of consumers aren't familiar with 4K and they just need to be educated just like the the switch from analog to digital, which for a long time people didn't know what that was or what it meant. So really, your point hasn't been proven. He said in his original post "...I hear many folks who have no idea what 4K is or can do." I work for a large company and when new software or hardware rolls out, not everyone knows how to use it or why it's better or what it means for them so it's up to us in the IT Department to educate them.


But 4K shouldn't need to be explained, this is something that according to some folks (which I strongly disagree) should be able to WOW them upon first look.

4K is not something that you turn on or have to look for, it should be right there in your face when you walk in to the store, if your are not WOW  then that proofs my point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Rich said:


> I've gotten to the point where I don't trust reviews when it comes to 4K sets (or anything, when the reviewer admits he doesn't own the item). My newest 4K set, the Samsung KS8000, does a much better job of upscaling DVDs (both 4K sets upscale BDs really well) than the more expensive JS8500. If you read the specs for both sets you will see why. The 8000 upscales D* content (the worst provider I have for PQ) very well. I was amazed by the PQ during the World Baseball Classic. That was in 720p and it looked great.


What's the difference in upscaling, and what spec shows that? I have a JS850D, and it's amazing with really good content, but it doesn't seem to do that great of a job with lower quality content. It's hard to tell though, as I don't know how good 4k upscaling can be.



Rich said:


> No matter how many thousands of times you watch a set for a couple minutes. You need one in your home to really appreciate it, I think.


I'd love for the naysayers to sit down and watch The Revenant on a good 4k TV and then tell me that 4k isn't worth it.



Bill Broderick said:


> I agree. But, are you at a point where you are willing to buy a new 4K TV to replace a perfectly good HD TV? That's exactly what many people (including me) did for HD. However, I'm not about to replace my existing HDTV's with new 4K ones until I actually need a new TV in each of those locations.


I did, and gave my 60" Sharp 1080p set to my dad, and he loves it, but if I had more than one large TV, I would have trickled them down for sure. My other two TVs are for non-critical viewing, and they are tiny.



peds48 said:


> Most of the shows I watch are from the networks and none of that stuff is on 4k. I will repeat myself again, I just don't watch a show just because is on 4K, it must peak my interest.


Nor do I. But you have extremely narrow interests, as there is quite a wide variety of 4k content out there, and it's growing basically exponentially at this point. I still watch mostly 1080i/p content, and some 720p, but I have run accross a number of things that I would have watched whether they were 4k or not. In fact, when I got a 4k last spring, I had a backlog that I haven't gotten through yet of 4k content that I delayed watching until I got a 4k set.



> Dating that most people are cited cutters or stackers is being very narrow minded.


That's literally the exactly opposite. Your view of content is extremely narrow, since you're only using one source for all of it. Looking at cord stacking is a much wider view of the content landscape, and is today indicative of what the average user is doing.



> 4K sets, sure. 4K service will we have to wait and see. As of now is a fad.


It's not a fad at all. There is a ton of 4k content out there already.



James Long said:


> Assumption or do you have a reference that supports such a claim?


DSLR has done a bunch of reports that show the number of Netflix subscriptions (doesn't count account sharing) and a bunch of other metrics. Cord cutting is huge in terms of a trend, but most households are still subscribing to a traditional pay tv service.



inkahauts said:


> It's not a fad today. There's not enough content yet to be a fad. It's a product in its early infancy. Just like hd once was. There's a big difference. Fads have mass appeal and use then get discarded. Calling content niche right now is far more accurate.


If you look at the amount and types of content available, you will see that it's not a niche or a fad. It's here, and it's here to stay. Sure, the market penetration isn't that big yet, but it's growing much faster than HD was in 2003.



James Long said:


> At this point 4K is being done for high end productions that need to be 4K for other targets than home viewing (similar to 3D production which continues for theatrical and special releases). I expect 4K production will become more mainstream than 3D ever will ... but we are not there yet.


I believe Netflix and Amazon are doing all or most of their new content in 4k, and they are paying big bucks to get more 4k content more quickly than anyone else.



inkahauts said:


> If we don't see any real channels (more than 10 to 15) and more than a couple sports events a week in about five to seven years then you can call it failure. You do recall how long it took hd to get going right? More than a decade before we had a lot of regular 4k content. And we just started getting content this past summer.


We don't need linear to call 4k a success. 4k is already a success just looking at Netflix, Amazon, and UHD BD. Linear would be great, but it's not critical to the success of 4k as a format, since Americans love to watch TV, and are going to keep watching TV, but that TV is being consumed more and more via streaming.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> But 4K shouldn't need to be explained, this is something that according to some folks (which I strongly disagree) should be able to WOW them upon first look.
> 
> 4K is not something that you turn on or have to look for, it should be right there in your face when you walk in to the store, if your are not WOW  then that proofs my point.


The WOW factor is just like HD all over again. It's *THAT* good.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

btedford said:


> Actually, it just sounds like a lot of consumers aren't familiar with 4K and *they just need to be educated* just like the the switch from analog to digital, which for a long time people didn't know what that was or what it meant. So really, your point hasn't been proven. He said in his original post "...I hear many folks who have no idea what 4K is or can do." I work for a large company and when new software or hardware rolls out, not everyone knows how to use it or why it's better or what it means for them so it's up to us in the IT Department to educate them.


Right. What they don't need is biased opinions from people that don't own one. Change is difficult, it's difficult to make a major switch like this. Again, anybody have a 4K set and is unhappy with it? Anybody?

Rich


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> That's not the same thing. If you roll out new software people need to do their job, you need to train them on how to use it if it works differently.
> 
> When the ATSC transition happened, consumers needed to be educated about it because it affected them - their TV stations would be changing from VHF to UHF in many cases, meaning they'd need a new antenna, and older TVs that were NTSC only would need a converter box or to be replaced.
> 
> 4K doesn't affect anyone in that sort of manner, HD still works just as it used to, so there is no need to "educate" them unless by that you mean brainwashing them into wanting 4K. If they care they can find out about 4K themselves and see if it is something they care about. A lot of people do know about it but don't really care. Even guys like Rich who really likes his 4K TVs doesn't care all that much about 4K content since HD content is upscaled. Unless someday there's enough difference between native 4K content and upscaled content for him to care, he'll be a 4K TV owner who isn't going to demand 4K content or consume it if available. Maybe HDR and WCG will provide more impetus for people like him, who know all about 4K but just don't care that much about getting content in 4K, since that's something upscaling can't deliver.


You are right that 4K doesn't affect anyone in that manner but my point is with education is that when new technology comes out...people may not be fully aware of what it is or how it could benefit them...but really the biggest benefit with 4K has been WCG and HDR, which places like Costco may not be setup with the right content to demo their TVs. When I go into a Best Buy and look at an OLED for example or another 4K TV with HDR, WCG...I definitely notice a difference because they are showing content that demonstrates what it can do and how it can look better.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> That's not the same thing. If you roll out new software people need to do their job, you need to train them on how to use it if it works differently.
> 
> When the ATSC transition happened, consumers needed to be educated about it because it affected them - their TV stations would be changing from VHF to UHF in many cases, meaning they'd need a new antenna, and older TVs that were NTSC only would need a converter box or to be replaced.
> 
> 4K doesn't affect anyone in that sort of manner, HD still works just as it used to, so there is no need to "educate" them unless by that you mean brainwashing them into wanting 4K. If they care they can find out about 4K themselves and see if it is something they care about. A lot of people do know about it but don't really care.* Even guys like Rich who really likes his 4K TVs doesn't care all that much about 4K content since HD content is upscaled. Unless someday there's enough difference between native 4K content and upscaled content for him to care, he'll be a 4K TV owner who isn't going to demand 4K content or consume it if available.* Maybe HDR and WCG will provide more impetus for people like him, who know all about 4K but just don't care that much about getting content in 4K, since that's something upscaling can't deliver.


I can't disagree with any of that. Watch enough NF or Amazon content and then go back to having to deal with commercials on a platform that needs commercials to exist and it gets to be a bit much. Especially when I know the same content will make its way to a streamer in a bit of time and have a much better picture. Add in all the extras we're expected to pay for practically no 4K content and I really think I could live without D* if not for sports. HDR TVs and HDR content I've got, don't see all that much to it. I have no idea what WCG is, can you enlighten me? I ran a Google search for the acronym and got World Cyber Games, is that it?

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Now your are doing a 360.


A 360 leaves one facing in the same direction ... but does involve spin (one spin).


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

Rich said:


> I can't disagree with any of that. Watch enough NF or Amazon content and then go back to having to deal with commercials on a platform that needs commercials to exist and it gets to be a bit much. Especially when I know the same content will make its way to a streamer in a bit of time and have a much better picture. Add in all the extras we're expected to pay for practically no 4K content and I really think I could live without D* if not for sports. HDR TVs and HDR content I've got, don't see all that much to it. I have no idea what WCG is, can you enlighten me? I ran a Google search for the acronym and got World Cyber Games, is that it?
> 
> Rich


Wide Colour Gamut - What is Wide Colour Gamut (WCG)?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> What's the difference in upscaling, and what spec shows that? I have a JS850D, and it's amazing with really good content, but it doesn't seem to do that great of a job with lower quality content. It's hard to tell though, as I don't know how good 4k upscaling can be.


That set is the same as my JS8500. No, it doesn't do a good job of upscaling low quality content such as DVDs. They apparently fixed that in the next year's sets. I was really surprised when I tried a DVD on my newer 4K KS8000. The picture has been fine on every DVD I've tried, haven't tried very many, tho.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Nor do I. But you have extremely narrow interests, as there is quite a wide variety of 4k content out there, and it's growing basically exponentially at this point. I still watch mostly 1080i/p content, and some 720p, but I have run accross a number of things that I would have watched whether they were 4k or not. In fact, when I got a 4k last spring, I had a backlog that I haven't gotten through yet of 4k content that I delayed watching until I got a 4k set.


And those are my interests. Just checked Netflix again, same titles as a few day ago, so extremely hard to say that is growing exponentially.

And you just proof my point, you were saving that content just because it was 4K. I would watch it regardless if it was of my interest.



Bigg said:


> That's literally the exactly opposite. Your view of content is extremely narrow, since you're only using one source for all of it. Looking at cord stacking is a much wider view of the content landscape, *and is today indicative of what the average user is doing.*


As James called out on, got any proof to back that claim?



Bigg said:


> It's not a fad at all. There is a ton of 4k content out there already.


got any proof to back that claim?

But I guess we must first define what a "ton" means. Thousands, hundreds thousands? If so, you are coming way short.



Bigg said:


> but most households are still subscribing to a traditional pay tv service.


So this contradicts your other claim....



Bigg said:


> If you look at the amount and types of content available, you will see that it's not a niche or a fad. It's here, and it's here to stay. Sure, the market penetration isn't that big yet, but it's growing much faster than HD was in 2003.


So you are predicting the future. My opinion is based on today's facts.



Bigg said:


> I believe Netflix and Amazon are doing all or most of their new content in 4k, and they are paying big bucks to get more 4k content more quickly than anyone else.


Since you believe, I then must ask you for proof.



Bigg said:


> We don't need linear to call 4k a success. 4k is already a success just looking at Netflix, Amazon, and UHD BD. Linear would be great, but it's not critical to the success of 4k as a format, since Americans love to watch TV, and are going to keep watching TV, but that TV is being consumed more and more via streaming.


And where that streaming is being consumed on? That is a big question to ask. Mobile devices where 4K is useless....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> The WOW factor is just like HD all over again. It's *THAT* good.


Mmm. Not sure I totally agree with that. SD to HD...made me stop watching SD content. I still watch everything I did before I got the 4K sets. Don't know how good an argument that is.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> A 360 leaves one facing in the same direction ... but does involve spin (one spin).


Exactly what I meant, a spin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> The WOW factor is just like HD all over again. It's *THAT* good.


Well Rich post seems to imply otherwise.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

btedford said:


> Wide Colour Gamut - What is Wide Colour Gamut (WCG)?


Thanx, probably something I'm not gonna care about or notice. Like HDR.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Well Rich post seems to imply otherwise.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Read post #174. I posted that before I read your post.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Exactly what I meant, a spin.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


But with the spin you get 2 looks at it.
I would not trade mine for a 1080p if you bought my 4k TV from me and paid me to take the 1080p back.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> But 4K shouldn't need to be explained, this is something that according to some folks (which I strongly disagree) should be able to WOW them upon first look.
> 
> 4K is not something that you turn on or have to look for, it should be right there in your face when you walk in to the store, if your are not WOW  then that proofs my point.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sure it needs to be explained. Anything new needs to be explained.
Why do they say 4k when it is 2160p in comparison to the 1080p we talk about all the time ?
People want to know what is making it look Sooooooo Good.
I was hooked the minute I got in front of one.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> *Yes I do*.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And yet in a post from 2014 you said, "I never said there was no HD for life for new DIRECTV® subs, I myself have free HD for life, free HBO for life, free NFL, for life, free all movies channels for life, etc at least as long as I remain working for this numb nuts..."


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Got proof? Don't make claims without proof.
> 
> Or is that your opinion?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again, "I never said there was no HD for life for new DIRECTV® subs, I myself have free HD for life, free HBO for life, free NFL, for life, free all movies channels for life, etc at least as long as I remain working for this numb nuts..."

Was that just hyperbole?


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

Rich said:


> Thanx, probably something I'm not gonna care about or notice. Like HDR.
> 
> Rich


The difference between 4K and 1080p isn't as big as 480i and 1080p. What I believe 4K is all about, is the details. HDR, WCG is important because it allows for way more colors than anything before it with TV. There are many colors that are used in the DCI P3 color space (Movie Theater Projectors) that non-HDR TVs can't display. For example, when you watch Deadpool in 4K with HDR, you are getting an experience similar to what was shown in theaters but even the Deadpool director said he saw more information/detail during the HDR pass than any other.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

btedford said:


> The difference between 4K and 1080p isn't as big as 480i and 1080p. What I believe 4K is all about, is the details. HDR, WCG is important because it allows for way more colors than anything before it with TV. There are many colors that are used in the DCI P3 color space (Movie Theater Projectors) that non-HDR TVs can't display. For example, when you watch Deadpool in 4K with HDR, you are getting an experience similar to what was shown in theaters but even the Deadpool director said he saw more information/detail during the HDR pass than any other.


Still, not sure I'd notice either. My new 4K set notifies me when HDR content is being displayed. I don't see much difference. But I don't see much difference between actual 4K content and 1080p upscaled content. Just me maybe?

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Most people today are cord stackers or cord trimmers.





Bigg said:


> DSLR has done a bunch of reports that show the number of Netflix subscriptions (doesn't count account sharing) and a bunch of other metrics. Cord cutting is huge in terms of a trend, but most households are still subscribing to a traditional pay tv service.


I thought the second statement might be closer to reality than the first.

I believe you have illustrated a large portion of the contention in this thread ... 4K is trending but it is not ubiquitous. It is the difference between "will be" and "is".



Rich said:


> What they don't need is biased opinions from people that don't own one.


So your preference is the biased opinions of people who own a 4K set. People who may be seeing something as better than it actually is. And yes, I have seen it before with people swearing that their 3D TVs sets displayed HD better than their former HD sets. And there have been thousands of posts on this site arguing over perception and viewing distances with people arguing what they could see vs people who argued that no human could possibly see what they claimed due to limitations of human eyesight.

I have tried to keep my opinion divided in this thread ... separating my opinion about sets from my opinion about content. I have nothing against 4K TV sets and do not disagree with your perception that your 4K set has a better picture than your previous HD sets. But you have stated yourself that HD content looks better on your 4K set ... which I read as you have purchased a better HD TV set than your old HD TV set - it just happens to be able to display 4K content (if available).

The other half is the content availability. The trend is good ... but there is still a long way to go. I won't call it a "fad" until it passes. It will be a few years before 4K content becomes more common than HD.

I hope you enjoy your 4K set ... even if you are stuck enjoying mostly HD content on your 4K set for the next few years.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Mmm. Not sure I totally agree with that. SD to HD...made me stop watching SD content. I still watch everything I did before I got the 4K sets. Don't know how good an argument that is.
> 
> Rich


This we can agree on.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Read post #174. I posted that before I read your post.


Still posted nevertheless, so there was some implying there....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> But with the spin you get 2 looks at it.
> I would not trade mine for a 1080p if you bought my 4k TV from me and paid me to take the 1080p back.


Why would you, new is newer....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Sure it needs to be explained. Anything new needs to be explained.
> Why do they say 4k when it is 2160p in comparison to the 1080p we talk about all the time ?
> People want to know what is making it look Sooooooo Good.
> I was hooked the minute I got in front of one.


The technology behind it, sure. But not seeing the difference at front, which is to be expected unless you walk right to it. It says a lot about this new fad

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> And yet in a post from 2014 you said, "I never said there was no HD for life for new DIRECTV subs, I myself have free HD for life, free HBO for life, free NFL, for life, free all movies channels for life, etc at least as long as I remain working for this numb nuts..."


And that is still true to this date, HOWEVER is does not mean that I dont pay for the service.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Again, "I never said there was no HD for life for new DIRECTV subs, I myself have free HD for life, free HBO for life, free NFL, for life, free all movies channels for life, etc at least as long as I remain working for this numb nuts..."
> 
> Was that just hyperbole?


Nope is not, but why are you deviating from the subject at hand, let's keep the tread on topic. Any further questions like such needs to be taken to PM.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> So your preference is the biased opinions of people who own a 4K set. People who may be seeing something as better than it actually is. .


And this right here is the meat and potatoes. I said that before, folks with 4K sets tend to be more biased because they want to feel good about their investment. Those on the other hand who have experienced 4K but dont own one have no bias either way...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Rich said:


> That set is the same as my JS8500. No, it doesn't do a good job of upscaling low quality content such as DVDs. They apparently fixed that in the next year's sets. I was really surprised when I tried a DVD on my newer 4K KS8000. The picture has been fine on every DVD I've tried, haven't tried very many, tho.


Ooooooh. I missed the JS versus KS part. Too bad, although I'm glad I nabbed the JS850D, as the KS8500 doesn't have 3D.



peds48 said:


> And you just proof my point, you were saving that content just because it was 4K. I would watch it regardless if it was of my interest.


I saved it for when I had a 4k TV, but it wasn't like I was watching stuff just because it is 4k. If 4k didn't exist, I still would watch the same stuff, maybe just in a different order, since I wouldn't have had to wait to watch certain things, like House of Cards, until I got a 4k set.



> As James called out on, got any proof to back that claim?


Go do some research. Cord stacking is the norm now, cord cutting is where the trends are going.



> got any proof to back that claim?


If you had a 4k TV, you could open up Netflix or Amazon and look. Or go on Amazon's site and look at UHD BD discs.



> So this contradicts your other claim....


You should try reading. I said most people were cord stackers or cord shavers, not cord cutters. Cord cutting is happening at over 1% per year based on raw year-over-year subscriber numbers, although it's actually double that because of new housing units that are dropping the pay tv percentage more quickly. However, we're still at least a decade or more off from pay tv users being the minority.



> So you are predicting the future. My opinion is based on today's facts.


It's not rocket science to predict when movie studios say "we're releasing xyz movies in 4k" and Netflix says "we will have x amount of 4k programming at x time".



> Since you believe, I then must ask you for proof.


I don't believe, I know. Go do your research. This is a well known fact.



> And where that streaming is being consumed on? That is a big question to ask. Mobile devices where 4K is useless....


The majority is consumed on a TV. Why are you suggesting that most streaming is on mobile devices? TVs dominate TV watching, even if TV is streaming in this case. Also, some linear TV content is watched on mobile devices, so does that mean we shouldn't try for linear 4k because some people might watch it on a 5" screen? So the rest of us watching on 65" screens shouldn't be able to get 4k? That's complete nonsense.



Rich said:


> Mmm. Not sure I totally agree with that. SD to HD...made me stop watching SD content. I still watch everything I did before I got the 4K sets. Don't know how good an argument that is.


If 95% of what I wanted to watch was available in 4k, I'd be less likely to watch stuff in HD. That being said, I still watch SD occasionally if there's something really compelling, and it's not available in HD.



James Long said:


> I believe you have illustrated a large portion of the contention in this thread ... 4K is trending but it is not ubiquitous. It is the difference between "will be" and "is".


I didn't say it was ubiquitous (although you can see that it's quickly going there with 4k TVs and Netflix pushing a lot of 4k content), but it doesn't have to be ubiquitous to be more than a "fad" or a "niche". I'd consider it to be mainstream but certainly not ubiquitous. This stuff has a really long tail. People still buy DVDs, as shocking as that is.



> I have tried to keep my opinion divided in this thread ... separating my opinion about sets from my opinion about content. I have nothing against 4K TV sets and do not disagree with your perception that your 4K set has a better picture than your previous HD sets. But you have stated yourself that HD content looks better on your 4K set ... which I read as you have purchased a better HD TV set than your old HD TV set - it just happens to be able to display 4K content (if available).


Well, I'm not sure that it really matters if 4k TVs are just better HDTVs than anything that was available at 1080p, or how the content is being scaled up in the process. My NBC affiliate is STUNNING on my SUHD TV, as is 1080p streaming from HBO and Netflix, amongst other sources like BD or Amazon.



> The other half is the content availability. The trend is good ... but there is still a long way to go. I won't call it a "fad" until it passes. It will be a few years before 4K content becomes more common than HD.


Yeah, it's going to be a while before the majority of content is 4k. But that's OK, as 1080i/p looks amazing, 720p is OK, and 2160p, when available, is STUNNING.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> (1) *So your preference is the biased opinions of people who own a 4K set*. People who may be seeing something as better than it actually is. And yes, I have seen it before with people swearing that their 3D TVs sets displayed HD better than their former HD sets. And there have been thousands of posts on this site arguing over perception and (2) *viewing distances* with people arguing what they could see vs people who argued that no human could possibly see what they claimed due to limitations of human eyesight.
> 
> I have tried to keep my opinion divided in this thread ... separating my opinion about sets from my opinion about content. I have nothing against 4K TV sets and do not disagree with your perception that your 4K set has a better picture than your previous HD sets. But you have stated yourself that HD content looks better on your 4K set ...(3) *which I read as you have purchased a better HD TV set than your old HD TV set* - it just happens to be able to display 4K content (if available).
> 
> (4) I hope you enjoy your 4K set ... even if you are stuck enjoying mostly HD content on your 4K set for the next few years.


(1) My views on my 4K set are based on what I've seen from my 4K sets, not on anybody's opinions. I did not know what I was doing when I bought the 4Ks, just hoped they would be better than my plasmas. And they are. I see no bias on my part.

(2) I keep hoping we get past the distance thing, but here it is again. Let me say it again: There is no distance problem. You do not have to sit on top of the 4Ks to get the full impact of them, it should be obvious if you put a 1080p set next to a 4K set at any distance. Simply put, you'll see a better picture on the 4K sets. I do have the ability to put sets next to each other and I've done it (once, once was more than enough) with a 4K and a 1080p plasma. The content does not matter, the 4Ks just put out a better picture.

(3) That statement I highlighted is true. I don't really bother with 4K content. Even with NF, I use an ATV4 most of the time. No 4K content there. I do plan on buying the ATV5 this year with 4K enabled. Right now, I think the ATV4 is superior to the FTV2 or the Roku Ultra in PQ.

(4) Thanx for your good wishes. I really enjoy watching upscaled content. Buy one, you'll surely enjoy it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Still posted nevertheless, so there was some implying there....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I have no idea what that means.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> And that is still true to this date, HOWEVER is does not mean that I dont pay for the service.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I have no idea what that means.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Nope is not, but why are you deviating from the subject at hand, let's keep the tread on topic. Any further questions like such needs to be taken to PM.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Don't want to talk about it? You made the statement on the open forum.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Ooooooh. I missed the JS versus KS part. Too bad, although I'm glad I nabbed the JS850D, as the KS8500 doesn't have 3D.


The difference in the two sets (JS8500 and KS8000) is...well, the 8000 is better. I tried to find a KS8500 in flat screen configuration last Black Friday but had to settle on the 8000. All the KS8500s I saw at that time had curved screens. I gotta admit, I did not expect to see such a difference in PQ. I read the specs (kinda stumbled thru them) and if what I read is correct the 8000 does have better specifications. The 8500 cost me nearly $2000, the 8000 was about $1200 and I used up ~ $600 worth of Amex Rewards points so the 8000 cost me about $600 in cash. I did have to buy a soundbar, the audio is far worse than the 8500's, which isn't really very good (best sound I've heard from a flat screen TV, tho. The audio on my plasmas is dreadful.

Rich


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> Don't want to talk about it? You made the statement on the open forum.


It is irrelevant to the discussion in this thread. Just another side issue that distracts from the real topics.

As far as the appropriate topics for this thread (4K TV availability and acceptance, 4K content availability) I believe you and I are close to agreement.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> 3D had it's drawbacks ... the primary one either requiring glasses and/or sitting in just the right spot to get the right effect. 4K TVs can have the effect of making HD look like garbage. Which is fine if one can find their content in 4K.


Real HD does not look "like garbage"; it is enhanced. Sure, there may be stuff out there labelled HD, but isn't; that'd look bad in both HD and UHD.

["Its", a possessive, does not take an apostrophe. One way to get it right is to pronounce "it's" as "it is"- then you'll see quickly whether it's correct or not.]


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> If you had a 4k TV, you could open up Netflix or Amazon and look. Or go on Amazon's site and look at UHD BD discs.


It turns out you dont need to subscribe to find out. And I have already posted this, but here is the link for you amusement.

List of 4K Titles on Netflix - Whats On Netflix

A complete list of 600 new 4K UHD titles and 27 new HDR 4K titles being released by Amazon Prime -



Bigg said:


> You should try reading. I said most people were cord stackers or cord shavers, not cord cutters. Cord cutting is happening at over 1% per year based on raw year-over-year subscriber numbers, although it's actually double that because of new housing units that are dropping the pay tv percentage more quickly. However, we're still at least a decade or more off from pay tv users being the minority.


Another spin.....



Bigg said:


> It's not rocket science to predict when movie studios say "we're releasing xyz movies in 4k" and Netflix says "we will have x amount of 4k programming at x time".


Don't count your chickens before they hatch.



Bigg said:


> I don't believe, I know. Go do your research. This is a well known fact.


You started with "I believe" you made the claim, you provide the facts, otherwise is just your opinion.



Bigg said:


> The majority is consumed on a TV. Why are you suggesting that most streaming is on mobile devices? TVs dominate TV watching, even if TV is streaming in this case. Also, some linear TV content is watched on mobile devices, so does that mean we shouldn't try for linear 4k because some people might watch it on a 5" screen? So the rest of us watching on 65" screens shouldn't be able to get 4k? That's complete nonsense.


Well, this article disagree with you

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...ications/in-tmt-rise-of-on-demand-content.pdf



Bigg said:


> I didn't say it was ubiquitous (although you can see that it's quickly going there with 4k TVs and Netflix pushing a lot of 4k content), but it doesn't have to be ubiquitous to be more than a "fad" or a "niche". I'd consider it to be mainstream but certainly not ubiquitous. This stuff has a really long tail. People still buy DVDs, as shocking as that is.


Netflix having only less than 100 titles is not helping making the case for you.



Bigg said:


> Yeah, it's going to be a while before the majority of content is 4k.


And that is what remains to be seen, until then, is a fad

Peace out!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> (1)
> 
> (2) I keep hoping we get past the distance thing, but here it is again. Let me say it again: There is no distance problem. You do not have to sit on top of the 4Ks to get the full impact of them, it should be obvious if you put a 1080p set next to a 4K set at any distance. Simply put, you'll see a better picture on the 4K sets. I do have the ability to put sets next to each other and I've done it (once, once was more than enough) with a 4K and a 1080p plasma. The content does not matter, the 4Ks just put out a better picture.


If you tested the TVs side by side at the same distance, then your test was flawed, it you dont understand why then you have no base on opining on the distance issue

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Don't want to talk about it? You made the statement on the open forum.


As I said, and will say it for the last time, this is NOT the topic at hand, any questions that falls outside of this topic should be taken to PM. Let's keep the thread relevant.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> The technology behind it, sure. But not seeing the difference at front, which is to be expected unless you walk right to it. It says a lot about this new fad
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It will take time but time will prove this is not a fad. You have one and you like it. If you think it is a fad then why did you buy one ?

I sit 12 feet from my 55" and can still see the crispness of the picture, smooth edges of lines, clothes, etc. It makes a big difference even when it is upconverting 720p or 1080i signals.
I was one of the ones arguing that distance makes a huge difference based on math and sizes of the pixels, etc. That was until I actually saw one and ultimately purchased one.
I love it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Now your are doing a 360. Let me remind you
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you can't understand what I said there's no hope for you. I did no 360. You just don't seem to understand what I said there. Oh well.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Seven years to get 15 channels??? You must have a very low bar. The were way much more than that in the HD era. My bar is set at fifty at a minimum. Acting short than that and 4K had failed.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So Hi Definition failed too for a long time huh?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Even those very minor stations went all digital before the mandate? Got any proof of that? Or should we just take your word for such a claim?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What? What are you reading? I said they didn't. That they simply used a converter and it took attrition to move them to actual digital production years after the switch over.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> So are you opinions facts? Remember you have the right you own opinions but not your own facts.
> 
> Opinions are just that, a way of thinking, including yours.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Opinions are fine. But when you use words to describe something that by definition that word can't possibly mean for a situation.... choosing a better word is the right path.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

btedford said:


> You are right that 4K doesn't affect anyone in that manner but my point is with education is that when new technology comes out...people may not be fully aware of what it is or how it could benefit them...but really the biggest benefit with 4K has been WCG and HDR, which places like Costco may not be setup with the right content to demo their TVs. When I go into a Best Buy and look at an OLED for example or another 4K TV with HDR, WCG...I definitely notice a difference because they are showing content that demonstrates what it can do and how it can look better.


And if people mostly watch cable/satellite that benefits them how? Maybe in a few years when 4K channels that exploit those features come around, otherwise if people aren't wowed enough those calling for 'education' will be telling them "you're not watching the right content". Normal people don't choose their content based on what looks good. The HD snobs on dbstalk who proudly proclaim "I never watch any SD channels" might, but average people choose their content based on the content, not picture quality. If they watch cable news or NFL or soap operas or whatever average people watch, HDR and WCG doesn't matter one whit to them. Maybe it will someday, but not today.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

peds48 said:


> If you tested the TVs side by side at the same distance, then your test was flawed, it you dont understand why then you have no base on opining on the distance issue
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Uh, yeah, you are right. The 'distance thing' is important IF you like counting pixels and/or getting the full experience of 4K. But since for the vast majority of viewers, the goal is a better viewing experience, then the 'distance thing' is of much less value.

The fact is that at any reasonable viewing distance 4K TVs will look better than 720p/1080p TVs. And frankly that IS what counts. All the rest is for videophiles and geeks.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> And if people mostly watch cable/satellite that benefits them how? Maybe in a few years when 4K channels that exploit those features come around, otherwise if people aren't wowed enough those calling for 'education' will be telling them "you're not watching the right content". Normal people don't choose their content based on what looks good. The HD snobs on dbstalk who proudly proclaim "I never watch any SD channels" might, but average people choose their content based on the content, not picture quality. If they watch cable news or NFL or soap operas or whatever average people watch, HDR and WCG doesn't matter one whit to them. Maybe it will someday, but not today.


You can allow the TV to do an HDR conversion...Channels with HDR are probably going to be around sooner than you think. I recently answered a DirecTV survey where they asked if they created a 4k channel with HDR would I watch. I don't watch SD channels really and that's only because all the content I watch is on an HD channel that DirecTV carries. I still watch some DVDs. It just seems like that no matter what is said in this thread...that it's not going to change anyone's opinion.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> And if people mostly watch cable/satellite that benefits them how? Maybe in a few years when 4K channels that exploit those features come around, otherwise if people aren't wowed enough those calling for 'education' will be telling them "you're not watching the right content". Normal people don't choose their content based on what looks good. *The HD snobs on dbstalk who proudly proclaim "I never watch any SD channels" *might, but average people choose their content based on the content, not picture quality. If they watch cable news or NFL or soap operas or whatever average people watch, HDR and WCG doesn't matter one whit to them. Maybe it will someday, but not today.


I don't consider myself a snob. I watch the HD channels only because of the clarity and sharpness on them compared to the blurred look of the SD channels. My 73 year old eyes likes the improvement.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> It will take time but time will prove this is not a fad. You have one and you like it. If you think it is a fad then why did you buy one ?
> 
> I sit 12 feet from my 55" and can still see the crispness of the picture, smooth edges of lines, clothes, etc. It makes a big difference even when it is upconverting 720p or 1080i signals.
> I was one of the ones arguing that distance makes a huge difference based on math and sizes of the pixels, etc. That was until I actually saw one and ultimately purchased one.
> I love it.


Of course only time will tell, but we can also judge by previous similar trends, and so far is not looking too good for 4K. I dont have a 4K set, I am not not throwing away my excellent HD set for this fad just because. When my set dies then sure I ain't got no other options.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> So Hi Definition failed too for a long time huh?


If it failed, why is HD the de facto TV standard now a days? HD was born to succeed, 4K has an very steep up hill battle to climb if it ever wants to be where HD is today. But I am even cutting some slack but very dubious it will ever get there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Opinions are fine. But when you use words to describe something that by definition that word can't possibly mean for a situation.... choosing a better word is the right path.


Don't let a single word tickle your fancy.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> And if people mostly watch cable/satellite that benefits them how? Maybe in a few years when 4K channels that exploit those features come around, otherwise if people aren't wowed enough those calling for 'education' will be telling them "you're not watching the right content". Normal people don't choose their content based on what looks good. The HD snobs on dbstalk who proudly proclaim "I never watch any SD channels" might, but average people choose their content based on the content, not picture quality. If they watch cable news or NFL or soap operas or whatever average people watch, HDR and WCG doesn't matter one whit to them. Maybe it will someday, but not today.


Words of wisdom folks, words of wisdom..... pay attention.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

Ill say it again, 4k in my opinion is not a fad and for a long time we will see a mixture of content in HD and 4K and you know what? I'm okay with that and if there's a 4k version of that show or movie then that's how I will watch it. This debate is honestly going nowhere.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> *Uh, yeah, you are right.* The 'distance thing' is important IF you like counting pixels and/or getting the full experience of 4K. But since for the vast majority of viewers, the goal is a better viewing experience, then the 'distance thing' is of much less value.
> 
> The fact is that at any reasonable viewing distance 4K TVs will look better than 720p/1080p TVs. And frankly that IS what counts. All the rest is for videophiles and geeks.


Never thought I would hear those words, perhaps Rich can take note. Sure, 4K is a good replacement if you want a bigger TV for the same space where you currently have you HD set. But if you replace 50" HD with a 50" 4K quality improvement is very minimal, but if yo go with a 65" then some improvement in quality is expected. Numbers dont lie, that chart should be plastered all over the box stores so folks could understand their buying options such as what is a benefit and what is a waste.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/b]


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> You can allow the TV to do an HDR conversion...Channels with HDR are probably going to be around sooner than you think. I recently answered a DirecTV survey where *they asked if they created a 4k channel with HDR would I watch.* I don't watch SD channels really and that's only because all the content I watch is on an HD channel that DirecTV carries. I still watch some DVDs. It just seems like that no matter what is said in this thread...that it's not going to change anyone's opinion.


That seems like a wrong question to ask, wonder who would answer no.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> I don't consider myself a snob. I watch the HD channels only because of the clarity and sharpness on them compared to the blurred look of the SD channels. My 73 year old eyes likes the improvement.


We have decades upon decades or archived SD footage, not watching because of pixel count seems to me like erasing history.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> Ill say it again, 4k in my opinion is not a fad and for a long time we will see a mixture of content in HD and 4K and you know what? I'm okay with that and if there's a 4k version of that show or movie then that's how I will watch it. This debate is honestly going nowhere.


And I since you have the right to your opinion I respect that, however that doesnt mean I agree with those sentiments.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> And I since you have the right to your opinion I respect that, *however that doesnt mean I agree with those sentiments. *
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Oh, Im very aware of that


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Never thought I would hear those words, perhaps Rich can take note. Sure, 4K is a good replacement if you want a bigger TV for the same space where you currently have you HD set. But if you replace 50" HD with a 50" 4K quality improvement is very minimal, but if yo go with a 65" then some improvement in quality is expected. Numbers dont lie, that chart should be plastered all over the box stores so folks could understand their buying options such as what is a benefit and what is a waste.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/b]


Uh, the improvement is certainly not minimal. I sit about 9' from my 65" 4K now, and was sitting about 11' from my 70" 4K at the old house and noticed quite a bit of improvement when I went to 4K. At those distances I probably don't get the full effect of 4K, but so what? It is much better any way you slice it!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> If it failed, why is HD the de facto TV standard now a days? HD was born to succeed, 4K has an very steep up hill battle to climb if it ever wants to be where HD is today. But I am even cutting some slack but very dubious it will ever get there.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


My point was that was the path of hd. If it follows the same path I think it will do amazing.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, the improvement is certainly not minimal. I sit about 9' from my 65" 4K now, and was sitting about 11' from my 70" 4K at the old house and noticed quite a bit of improvement when I went to 4K. At those distances I probably don't get the full effect of 4K, but so what? It is much better any way you slice it!


Yeah I don't think he understood the persons point as usual. It's not about pixel count on a still picture. But he doesn't own a 4k tv and doesn't get it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> As far as the appropriate topics for this thread (4K TV availability and acceptance, 4K content availability) I believe you and I are close to agreement.


From my experience with the 4K sets: You can't buy one at this time and expect much 4K content from anybody. What you get is a better set than you'd expect. I tried a Samsung 1080p when I was buying 4K sets and the PQ and stability were not nearly as good as the 4K sets. The sets I have just give me a far better picture than I had hoped for (I hoped for a better picture than my big Panny plasma), using any platform for content. I didn't expect that. Frankly, I couldn't care less about the whole 4K content thing, it just doesn't matter the upscaling is amazing. Both 4K sets were good right out of the box. No need for adjustments. I like that. What more could anyone ask for?

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> Of course only time will tell, but we can also judge by previous similar trends, and so far is not looking too good for 4K. I dont have a 4K set, I am not not throwing away my excellent HD set for this fad just because. When my set dies then sure I ain't got no other options.


I currently have a 1080p plasma that's got a better picture than any HDTV (well, other than higher spec plasmas I guess) and IMHO better than any 4K LCD TV. I hate my blacks being anything but absolutely black - I don't want that halo effect you get from anything that requires a backlight. I'm also very sensitive to how poorly all but the very highest end LCDs handle fast motion due to the gray to gray state transition time of LCD crystals. I realize some people are less sensitive to black levels and motion blur and find their 4K LCDs better than plasmas because the improved resolution and HDR translates into better quality for them. Not everyone judges better picture quality by the same set of criteria / in the same order, obviously I can see the more detailed picture but I don't watch TV to see a static picture.

The 4K OLEDs are another story, they don't suffer from LCD's inbuilt limitations on black levels or motion. I've got a couple friends with them and they are definitely an improvement over my plasma, as well as of course over all 4K LCDs. But I'm not looking to replace my plasma yet, because my cable company (I can't get satellite due to massive oaks covering my whole yard) doesn't offer 4K and isn't likely to anytime soon so I'd have to rely on upscaling.

The main reason I will end up replacing it is to get a bigger TV. Mine is 50", and I watch it from about 8' away, so I think I could probably do a 65" TV there. I'm holding off until next year's LG OLEDs that will do 4Kp120, and I imagine will finally cover the entire DCI-P3 space (it will still be miles away from BT.2020, but content that exploits that may never come unless Hollywood goes beyond P3) I don't want to buy something that will be prematurely obsoleted if we start seeing 4Kp120 sports in a few years like I expect/hope.

So maybe a year from now, but likely no later than Black Friday 2018...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, the improvement is certainly not minimal. I sit about 9' from my 65" 4K now, and was sitting about 11' from my 70" 4K at the old house and noticed quite a bit of improvement when I went to 4K. At those distances I probably don't get the full effect of 4K, but so what? It is much better any way you slice it!


As I said, with bigger sets, some improvement is expected. With HD if you blew up a picture to say 120ft you start seeing pixels, with 4K pixels being more "compressed" the pixels start to disappear producing in fact an improvement. But that is the rub, I can't fit a 120 screen in my Living Room. So the benefit to me since all I may be able to go is probably no more than 60 would be very minimal.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, yeah, you are right. The 'distance thing' is important IF you like counting pixels and/or getting the full experience of 4K. But since for the vast majority of viewers, the goal is a better viewing experience, then the 'distance thing' is of much less value.
> 
> *The fact is that at any reasonable viewing distance 4K TVs will look better than 720p/1080p TVs. And frankly that IS what counts. All the rest is for videophiles and geeks.*


Yup. Gotta admit those articles about distance seemed convincing, what with all the graphs and things, but when you do a side by side with a decent 1080p set it's easy to see that's all BS, I think. Those guys that write that stuff aren't doing anybody any favors.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> My point was that was the path of hd. If it follows the same path I think it will do amazing.


But 4K was born crippled from the start, that is what you are missing. So it has more resistance to get there. And we are seeing that right now.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Never thought I would hear those words, perhaps Rich can take note. Sure, 4K is a good replacement if you want a bigger TV for the same space where you currently have you HD set. But if you replace 50" HD with a 50" 4K quality improvement is very minimal, but if yo go with a 65" then some improvement in quality is expected. Numbers dont lie, that chart should be plastered all over the box stores so folks could understand their buying options such as what is a benefit and what is a waste.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/b]


I have replaced a 60" 1080p plasma with a 60" 4K set. The PQ is simply better on the 4K set. Those graphs are misleading.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah I don't think he understood the persons point as usual. It's not about pixel count on a still picture. But he doesn't own a 4k tv and doesn't get it.


Dont need to own a 4K set to understand, I just need a good pair of eyes and some good unbiased judgment to make a call and of course access to 4K sets. I met those qualifications, and I made the call.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> From my experience with the 4K sets: You can't buy one at this time and expect much 4K content from anybody. *What you get is a better set than you'd expect. *
> 
> Rich


That we can agree on, whew...

But that is just typical with newer tech. Also good if that is what you are after, I personally could careless for Netflix or Amazon being embedded in the TV's OS as I rarely use y those services, but understand for those who do. Don't see a need for a browser on a TV either. But I get your point, today's TVs do have better tech than yesterday's tech.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> Uh, yeah, you are right. The 'distance thing' is important IF you like counting pixels and/or getting the full experience of 4K. But since for the vast majority of viewers, the goal is a better viewing experience, then the 'distance thing' is of much less value.
> 
> The fact is that at any reasonable viewing distance 4K TVs will look better than 720p/1080p TVs. And frankly that IS what counts. All the rest is for videophiles and geeks.


That is my experience as well. _It ain't just about number of pixels._



peds48 said:


> But if you replace 50" HD with a 50" 4K quality improvement is very minimal, but if yo go with a 65" then some improvement in quality is expected. Numbers dont lie, that chart should be plastered all over the box stores so folks could understand their buying options such as what is a benefit and what is a waste.


False reasoning. The improvement is big on sets the same size. I have two Sammy's, 43". The picture on the UHD one is better at every distance. Wider gamut and better delineation count! Watching the same content in HD on each set. But please continue to argue out of false assumptions!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I also agree with slice- I have a 58" Sammy plasma that they'll have to pry from my cold dead hands if it doesn't pre-decease me!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Yup. Gotta admit those articles about distance seemed convincing, what with all the graphs and things, but when you do a side by side with a decent 1080p set it's easy to see that's all BS, I think. Those guys that write that stuff aren't doing anybody any favors.
> 
> Rich


Again, your test is flawed, you can't compare side by side at the same distance. The reason you dont like the chart is because you don't understand them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> I have replaced a 60" 1080p plasma with a 60" 4K set. The PQ is simply better on the 4K set. Those graphs are misleading.


As I said a thousand times already, there is an inherent improvement when you get to bigger screens, is all about the math, or the charts I should say. By the way, you can't blame the charts if you don't know how ro read them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> I also agree with slice- I have a 58" Sammy plasma that they'll have to pry from my cold dead hands if it doesn't pre-decease me!


Same here, 55" Samsung Plasma, great picture.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Same here, 55" Samsung Plasma, great picture.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You truly are your signature.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> You truly are your signature.


Of course.

Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes... the ones who see things differently -- they're not fond of rules... You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can't do is ignore them because they change things... they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do

---Steve Jobs

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I knew Steve Jobs, I talked with him, and you're no Steve Jobs!!  (Reference to Lloyd Bentsen's quote re JFK.)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> As I said a thousand times already, there is an inherent improvement when you get to bigger screens, is all about the math, or the charts I should say. By the way, you can't blame the charts if you don't know how ro read them. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That's also a fallacy. And, again, it's not just math/pixel count


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> I knew Steve Jobs, I talked with him, and you're no Steve Jobs!!  (Reference to Lloyd Bentsen's quote re JFK.)


Never claimed I was him, But I do like his way of thinking. It fits right in with mine!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

It was referential; i.e., a way of thinking. And I don't think it fits the peds48 I see posting!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I am a rebel, dont fit in the norm, I can be quoted, called crazy, agree or disagree with me, but you can't ignore me...fit right in bud....

Returning to your regular evening news.....back to topic......


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> That's also a fallacy. And, again, it's not just math/pixel count


Yeah. Anyone who has been told a lot of times but continues to point to a chart that is totally irrelevant to the discussion doesn't get it. That chart is all about still images. Plus if you are really reading that chart it still says anything above 1080 can and will get you a higher value. It the chart is useless for 4k. Totally irrelevant.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And I thought the global warming debate was contentious.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> That's also a fallacy. And, again, it's not just math/pixel count


At the very basics, is all about pixel density. Yes you can add WCG, and all that crap, but at the end of the day, human eyes can only see so much detail, go beyond that point and all that screen beauty is wasted, UNLESS you go for bigger sets

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah. Anyone who has been told a lot of times but continues to point to a chart that is totally irrelevant to the discussion doesn't get it. That chart is all about still images. Plus if you are really reading that chart it still says anything above 1080 can and will get you a higher value. It the chart is useless for 4k. Totally irrelevant.


So the chart useful for 1080 but not for 4K. Sorry but that chart is not Burger King, you can't have it your way.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> And I thought the global warming debate was contentious.


Global Warming is just like 4K, a hoax, otherwise why did I get almost 2 feet of snow just two weeks ago..... 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Global Warming is just like 4K, a hoax, otherwise why did I get almost 2 feet of snow just two weeks ago.....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


That's simple. It got cold on Long Island in late February/early March because all of my attic insulation was removed from my house as part of my current renovation.

The installation of the new insulation last Friday is why it has become warm ever since then.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> That's simple. It got cold on Long Island in late February/early March because all of my attic insulation was removed from my house as part of my current renovation.
> 
> The installation of the new insulation last Friday is why it has become warm ever since then.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Now that makes sense. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> At the very basics, is all about pixel density. Yes you can add WCG, and all that crap, but at the end of the day, human eyes can only see so much detail, go beyond that point and all that screen beauty is wasted, UNLESS you go for bigger sets.


A.) It is not "all about" pixel density. Luminance, gamut, contrast are equally important, as is screen refreshment and how it handles frames, etc. 
B.) Bigger sets have bigger pixels; smaller pixels make for a sharper image, other things being equal.

It's not always good to think differently when you're wrong!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> A.) It is not "all about" pixel density. Luminance, gamut, contrast are equally important, as is screen refreshment and how it handles frames, etc.


And that is part of the problem when you compare HD and 4K sets "side by side" from the same distance. Put all of the other improvements on both sets and it would be harder to see the difference. At a distance the extra pixels are not making as much of a difference.



Laxguy said:


> B.) Bigger sets have bigger pixels; smaller pixels make for a sharper image, other things being equal.


Are you cherry picking what other things are equal?

The problem I have with "the chart" (based on their description) is that it defines a line where a higher resolution does not matter as the exact distance where the pixels are less than 1/60th of a degree wide from the viewer's perspective. Based on the assumption that a person with 20/20 vision does not get a benefit from pixels smaller than 1/60th of a degree they declare the 2160x3840 pixels of 4K/UHD useless when the TV is less than 64 degrees wide. 1080x1920 is declared useless at 32 degrees wide. Yet they ignore the fact that even by their math, their theoretical 20/20 vision viewer sees more pixels from a 4K set than they do from a 1080p set until they reach the 32 degree mark. The viewer may not be able to see all 3840 horizontal pixels when the TV is less than 64 degrees wide - but they can see more than 1920 horizontal pixels.

So if one accepts the science behind the math the "does not matter" line should be moved back to 32 degrees for seeing the difference between 4K and 1080p. Or 21 degrees for seeing the difference between 4K and 720p. Or 10 degrees for seeing the difference between 4K and SD (all other things being "equal").

That helps explain some of the difference between the prediction of the chart and the perception of those who don't believe the science. An error in where the creator of the chart drew the "does not matter" line. I recommend looking at the "1080p" line on the chart as the point where (all other things being equal) 4K pixels would not matter. And then understand that other things are not equal and that distance should be considered an estimate not an absolute.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> At the very basics, is all about pixel density. Yes you can add WCG, and all that crap, but at the end of the day, human eyes can only see so much detail, go beyond that point and all that screen beauty is wasted, UNLESS you go for bigger sets
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Not true at all because the chart doesn't account for moving images and how a 4k set can move a picture in ways a 1080 can't.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> So the chart useful for 1080 but not for 4K. Sorry but that chart is not Burger King, you can't have it your way.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


No I said it's irrelevant to a moving picture but if you are going to use it even for a static moment on screen you should realize it still proves 1080 isn't the best you can see anyway so having something better than what you can see is better than something that is lower than what you can see. For a static image. That principal helps 4k tvs while in motion but isn't the big reason they are so much better. But it's principal is in the same realm.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Not true at all because the chart doesn't account for moving images and how a 4k set can move a picture in ways a 1080 can't.


Movement is a perception of the brain triggered by the display changing the color and/or brightness level of stationary pixels. How does a 4K set change pixels differently than a 1080 set?

(The brain is easily tricked by images. At the most basic level we see a black screen with a white pixel. That pixel is extinguished and another is lit. The brain says "that pixel moved" when the reality is that the pixel did not move - we are seeing a completely different pixel. The same trick applies to more complex images. the pattern of the pixel changes and the viewer sees that as motion. Regardless of how many pixels there are on a display, the pixels do not move.)


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> At the very basics, is all about pixel density. Yes you can add WCG, and all that crap, but at the end of the day, human eyes can only see so much detail, go beyond that point and all that screen beauty is wasted, UNLESS you go for bigger sets
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Agree with you here. Like 4K on a Samsung phone. Its looks no better picture wise than my Apple 7 Plus on a Galaxy S7 or the Note. Too small of a screen. 
Now have seen smaller 4K sets and they still look better than comparable 1080 sets. But 4K REALLY shine when over 60". Same reason I use to hate a laugh at my HT friends the had 100" projectors with 720p. Looked like crap blown up.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

peds48 said:


> Global Warming is just like 4K, a hoax, otherwise why did I get almost 2 feet of snow just two weeks ago.....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You just might want to look that up just a little more?
The earth is warming over all....And the term climate change fits a bit better.
But this isnt simple, hey look its July its 50 out....Its about wild changes in weather.....More like one day its 50, the next 90.....Same with rain, snow, or any other natural effect....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Try to read the smiley and discuss 4K.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> And that is part of the problem when you compare HD and 4K sets "side by side" from the same distance. Put all of the other improvements on both sets and it would be harder to see the difference. At a distance the extra pixels are not making as much of a difference.


Agree. Then the question becomes: Could all the other improvements now in most UHD sets have been incorporated in HD sets? Pretty sure the answer is not all of them. But it's also, perhaps, a moot point. There is a major difference outside of pixel count.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

gio12 said:


> Agree with you here. Like 4K on a Samsung phone. Its looks no better picture wise than my Apple 7 Plus on a Galaxy S7 or the Note. Too small of a screen.
> Now have seen smaller 4K sets and they still look better than comparable 1080 sets. But 4K REALLY shine when over 60". Same reason I use to hate a laugh at my HT friends the had 100" projectors with 720p. Looked like crap blown up.


Samsung phones are not 4K. The ones with the highest resolution are 1440p (4K is 2160p) and since they use AMOLED with a Pentile pixel arrangement, the true resolution is more comparable to the 1080p the 'Plus' iPhones use.

That's plenty of resolution for a 5-6" screen even considering that you are holding it in your hand. Adding more would needlessly slow things down / waste power by requiring the GPU to push more pixels around that you can't see anyway.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> Agree. Then the question becomes: Could all the other improvements now in most UHD sets have been incorporated in HD sets? Pretty sure the answer is not all of them. But it's also, perhaps, a moot point. There is a major difference outside of pixel count.


People forget that when 4K appeared, it was a 'high end' only feature. The high end HDTVs disappeared and were replaced by high end TVs with 4K resolution, while the low/mid range HDTVs remained. Naturally 4K TVs will look better in side by side comparison in a store, just like high end HDTVs looked better than low/mid range HDTVs in that same side-by-side comparison.

The higher end 4K TVs sold today have had another few years of improvements compared to higher end HDTVs, since none of those have been made since probably 2013. Likewise for low/mid range HDTV vs 4K. So people bringing a 4K TV home will be getting the years of incremental improvement from when they bought their HDTV to when they bought their 4K TV in their comparison, beyond the resolution and HDR/WCG. The exception would be people who had a high end HDTV but buy a lower end 4K TV, who may not see any improvement at all.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Samsung phones are not 4K. The ones with the highest resolution are 1440p (4K is 2160p) and since they use AMOLED with a Pentile pixel arrangement, the true resolution is more comparable to the 1080p the 'Plus' iPhones use.
> 
> That's plenty of resolution for a 5-6" screen even considering that you are holding it in your hand. Adding more would needlessly slow things down / waste power by requiring the GPU to push more pixels around that you can't see anyway.


New S8 and whoops, quad HD for the S7. Damn close and still explains my point.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> A.) It is not "all about" pixel density. Luminance, gamut, contrast are equally important, as is screen refreshment and how it handles frames, etc.


Are arguing for the sake of arguing? Did you even bother to read the post you replied to? I mentioned all of those things

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> the pixels do not move.)


Oh snap! Inkahauts just got schooled!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> ow it handles frames, etc.
> B.) Bigger sets have bigger pixels; smaller pixels make for a sharper image, other things being equal.
> 
> It's not always good to think differently when you're wrong!


Cherry picking to for your agenda huh? That is the issue not everything is equal.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Agree with you here. Like 4K on a Samsung phone. Its looks no better picture wise than my Apple 7 Plus on a Galaxy S7 or the Note. Too small of a screen.
> Now have seen smaller 4K sets and they still look better than comparable 1080 sets. But 4K REALLY shine when over 60". Same reason I use to hate a laugh at my HT friends the had 100" projectors with 720p. Looked like crap blown up.


Exactly. How we are getting somewhere.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

AZ. said:


> You just might want to look that up just a little more?
> The earth is warming over all....And the term climate change fits a bit better.
> But this isnt simple, hey look its July its 50 out....Its about wild changes in weather.....More like one day its 50, the next 90.....Same with rain, snow, or any other natural effect....


I knew someone will fall for it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Samsung phones are not 4K. The ones with the highest resolution are 1440p (4K is 2160p) and since they use AMOLED with a Pentile pixel arrangement, the true resolution is more comparable to the 1080p the 'Plus' iPhones use.
> 
> That's plenty of resolution for a 5-6" screen even considering that you are holding it in your hand. Adding more would needlessly slow things down / waste power by requiring the GPU to push more pixels around that you can't see anyway.


But the point was to showcase that at some point in time higher res goes wasted. Point well made.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Agree. Then the question becomes: Could all the other improvements now in most UHD sets have been incorporated in HD sets? Pretty sure the answer is not all of them. But it's also, perhaps, a moot point. There is a major difference outside of pixel count.


Without the details that pixel count creates all of the other bluff goes wasted. So pixel count is imperative to add the other bluff. But then the issue arises that pass a point in distance pixel count no longer matters.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Movement is a perception of the brain triggered by the display changing the color and/or brightness level of stationary pixels. How does a 4K set change pixels differently than a 1080 set?
> 
> (The brain is easily tricked by images. At the most basic level we see a black screen with a white pixel. That pixel is extinguished and another is lit. The brain says "that pixel moved" when the reality is that the pixel did not move - we are seeing a completely different pixel. The same trick applies to more complex images. the pattern of the pixel changes and the viewer sees that as motion. Regardless of how many pixels there are on a display, the pixels do not move.)


It changes them smaller distances at a time. A line can travel to many more spots as it moves across the screen and eliminate the jittery edge you can see with a 1080 set. And with the higher refresh rates it's much cleaner.

Simple example, in the course of one second a pixel can jump left one inch on a 1080 set but on a 4k it can jump 1/4 inch four times over that same second and you see a much smoother movement. You can also keep much sharper lines across angles as things move across the screen as well.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> But the point was to showcase that at some point in time higher res goes wasted. Point well made.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Oh so now you admit higher res than 1080 on a tv can be seen it's just a matter of how much higher? Maybe you'll get this someday... but I'm guessing you'll need a 4k in your home before you really understand it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I also agree with slice- I have a 58" Sammy plasma that they'll have to pry from my cold dead hands if it doesn't pre-decease me!


That set isn't very old, it will outlive you, they just don't seem to die. I just gave a 58" Panny plasma to a friend this morning. She has a studio apartment, wait until she sees how that monster heats her place up.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> I am a rebel, dont fit in the norm, I can be quoted, called crazy, agree or disagree with me, but you can't ignore me...fit right in bud....
> 
> Returning to your regular evening news.....*back to topic*......
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You keep saying "back to topic". Did you even read the OP? Here it is:

_I have a HR44 on my LG OLED and a HR24 upstairs. I am looking to get the HR54 upgrade and have a few questions.
Seems like the HR54 will have to go on the second TV and a Mini or RVU on the main 4K TV. Now Can I keep my HR24 on the main TV as well? Would like the have the HR24 and RVU on the same TV.
or the 54 and 24 swapped.
_
What do your...Anti-4K rants have to do with the original post?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> And I thought the global warming debate was contentious.


Another argument that defies logic, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> And that is part of the problem when you compare HD and 4K sets "side by side" from the same distance. Put all of the other improvements on both sets and it would be harder to see the difference. At a distance the extra pixels are not making as much of a difference.


When I put the 42" plasma in the room with the 65" 4K set I had them side by side and as much as 15' apart. It simply doesn't matter. The PQ is better on the 4K set.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Agree. Then the question becomes: Could all the other improvements now in most UHD sets have been incorporated in HD sets? Pretty sure the answer is not all of them. But it's also, perhaps, a moot point. There is a major difference outside of pixel count.


I did try a 1080p Sammy when I was searching for a new TV. Not as good as the 4K Sammy sets that I returned.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Not even close! You keep bringing up distance, but that's not always a factor, though you use it to deflect real points.
> 
> If what you say were true, there would be no difference in an HD feed on a good UHD set vs. same feed on a good HD set. *I've yet to see anyone say that the UHD set doesn't give a better picture with a good feed*. (HD feed, same size, same distance.)


You probably will now .

Rich


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Rich said:


> The difference in the two sets (JS8500 and KS8000) is...well, the 8000 is better.


Yeah, since it's a KS set, that's a year over year improvement in the processing that they are using. I love my JS8500, but it does look kind of bad with low quality source material. It seems to do better sending it 1080p material that's already been processed or was originally 1080p. What is really strange is that for ESPN, using my video processor to from from 720p>1080p>2160p yields better results than outputting 720p from the video processor and going straight to 2160p in the TV. Who would have guessed....


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> It turns out you dont need to subscribe to find out. And I have already posted this, but here is the link for you amusement.


Yup. And there's a LOT of good content there! Compared that to HD, and you can see the technology's pace of advancement has accelerated quite a bit since the early 2000's.



> Another spin.....


No. There's no spin there at all. I never said most people cut the cord. I said most people are cord stackers or shavers, so quite literally the opposite of cord cutting.



> Don't count your chickens before they hatch.


You think they are just going to stop making 4k content tomorrow? Even if 4k TV uptake slows, they still have plenty of sets out there, plus mastering everything at 4k has some marginal benefit to making 2k encodes for streaming or Blu-Ray.



> You started with "I believe" you made the claim, you provide the facts, otherwise is just your opinion.


Go do your research.



> Well, this article disagree with you
> 
> https://www2.deloitte.com/content/d...ications/in-tmt-rise-of-on-demand-content.pdf


That's all about ad dollars and minutes spent on certain sources, not who is a cord cutter versus stacker versus just has pay tv.



> Netflix having only less than 100 titles is not helping making the case for you.


And what do those titles include? House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, White Rabbit Project, a bunch of the Marvel comics shows. They have some pretty heavy hitting stuff in there. You're comparing HD and UHD, even though in HD years, we're currently in 2003 with 4k. If you look at it the other way around, 4k has until 2031 to be where HD is today.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Never claimed I was him, But I do like his way of thinking. It fits right in with mine!


ROFL. If you were in Steve Jobs' position poo-pooing all the new technology, then we'd still have flip phones with VCast loaded on them and, if we were lucky, Rio digital MP3 players and Palm Pilots. If we weren't lucky, we'd still have the Discman.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> Agree. Then the question becomes: Could all the other improvements now in most UHD sets have been incorporated in HD sets? Pretty sure the answer is not all of them. But it's also, perhaps, a moot point. There is a major difference outside of pixel count.


Yes, the HDR and other picture quality improvements could be, but based on my own experience, the pixel count alone is a huge advantage. Just watching certain scenes from a show like Narcos, the detail is incredible. It is very content dependent, however. Orange is the new Black offers little, if any benefit from 4k because of the relatively plain set (it's a prison after all) and a lot of close-ups.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Not even close! You keep bringing up distance, but that's not always a factor, though you use it to deflect real points.
> 
> If what you say were true, there would be no difference in an HD feed on a good UHD set vs. same feed on a good HD set. I've yet to see anyone say that the UHD set doesn't give a better picture with a good feed. (HD feed, same size, same distance.)


Upscaling has nothing to do with distance. Upscaling can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the scaler. Once you understand the technology I can take your observations seriously.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> It changes them smaller distances at a time. A line can travel to many more spots as it moves across the screen and eliminate the jittery edge you can see with a 1080 set. And with the higher refresh rates it's much cleaner.
> 
> Simple example, in the course of one second a pixel can jump left one inch on a 1080 set but on a 4k it can jump 1/4 inch four times over that same second and you see a much smoother movement. You can also keep much sharper lines across angles as things move across the screen as well.


Again, missing the elephant in the room, pixels dont move. Images do

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Oh so now you admit higher res than 1080 on a tv can be seen it's just a matter of how much higher? Maybe you'll get this someday... but I'm guessing you'll need a 4k in your home before you really understand it.


Never said otherwise. As I have said multiple times, there is an inherent picture improvement on 4K sets, that improvement starts to fade once you move away from the TV. In order to get much benefit out of the technology is to get much bigger sets or sit really close, but this is after we get over the hump of getting native 4K content, where I still sit and call it a fad until otherwise I see much improvement.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> That set isn't very old, it will outlive you, they just don't seem to die. I
> Rich


And this is exactly the crux of 4K, folks still have excellent sets and not everyone is falling for this new fad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> You keep saying "back to topic". Did you even read the OP? Here it is:
> 
> _I have a HR44 on my LG OLED and a HR24 upstairs. I am looking to get the HR54 upgrade and have a few questions.
> Seems like the HR54 will have to go on the second TV and a Mini or RVU on the main 4K TV. Now Can I keep my HR24 on the main TV as well? Would like the have the HR24 and RVU on the same TV.
> ...


The topic involves 4K tech, which the readers may find interest before deciding to take the jump to 4K.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> When I put the 42" plasma in the room with the 65" 4K set I had them side by side and as much as 15' apart. It simply doesn't matter. The PQ is better on the 4K set.
> 
> Rich


Again, your test is flawed. You cant test side by side, is not a fair comparison. So you cant get true results from a fake test.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

You might as well not bother trying to convince peds48 of anything, he's clearly made up his mind and nothing anyone here says, is going to change his belief that 4k is a "fad".


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Yup. And there's a LOT of good content there! Compared that to HD, and you can see the technology's pace of advancement has accelerated quite a bit since the early 2000's.


Who decides what is good content?, it may be good for you, but not for everyone else. Content fort the sake of content doesnt make it good.



Bigg said:


> No. There's no spin there at all. I never said most people cut the cord. I said most people are cord stackers or shavers, so quite literally the opposite of cord cutting.


So linear content is still king? Thanks where the lack of 4K is tremendous. So a fad?



Bigg said:


> You think they are just going to stop making 4k content tomorrow? Even if 4k TV uptake slows, they still have plenty of sets out there, plus mastering everything at 4k has some marginal benefit to making 2k encodes for streaming or Blu-Ray.


Sure, why not. If sticky rate is terrible, why make 1 million copies of 4K if only 100,000 are being sold. Studios dont care how it looks, they care about what sells. Just like 3D. While there are some 3D movies out there, is hard to find your new favorite release on 3D



Bigg said:


> Go do your research.


Your claim, not mine



Bigg said:


> That's all about ad dollars and minutes spent on certain sources, not who is a cord cutter versus stacker versus just has pay tv.


Is where most time watching (streaming) is being done, which is on mobile devices. If you dont like the facts you dont get to change them to fit your agenda.



Bigg said:


> And what do those titles include? House of Cards, Orange is the New Black, Breaking Bad, White Rabbit Project, a bunch of the Marvel comics shows. They have some pretty heavy hitting stuff in there. You're comparing HD and UHD, even though in HD years, we're currently in 2003 with 4k. If you look at it the other way around, 4k has until 2031 to be where HD is today.


[/QUOTE]

And by that time there would be a new fad and 4K will be in the graveyard.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> ROFL. If you were in Steve Jobs' position poo-pooing all the new technology, then we'd still have flip phones with VCast loaded on them and, if we were lucky, Rio digital MP3 players and Palm Pilots. If we weren't lucky, we'd still have the Discman.


Again, never said or pretend to be him, but I do admired him as someone who was very special and thought and saw things very different that most.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> Yes, the HDR and other picture quality improvements could be, but based on my own experience, the pixel count alone is a huge advantage. Just watching certain scenes from a show like Narcos, the detail is incredible. It is very content dependent, however. Orange is the new Black offers little, if any benefit from 4k because of the relatively plain set (it's a prison after all) and a lot of close-ups.


So pixel count it is, but 4K quality is dependent on content, bummer. Smells like a fad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> You might as well not bother trying to convince peds48 of anything, he's clearly made up his mind and nothing anyone here says, is going to change his belief that 4k is a "fad".


Hard to argue with the facts, isn't .....










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Rich said:


> When I put the 42" plasma in the room with the 65" 4K set I had them side by side and as much as 15' apart. It simply doesn't matter. The PQ is better on the 4K set.


That is certainly not an "all other things being equal" comparison.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Hard to argue with the facts, isn't .....


"Worth it" is an opinion.

Consider a person who goes to a live sporting event and sits in the nosebleed section where they can't see the detail of the action except on the Jumbotrons. Paying stadium prices to sit in the crowd and watch an event that they are at on a TV. Worth the price of a ticket or not? The answer is opinion, not fact.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> "Worth it" is an opinion.
> 
> Consider a person who goes to a live sporting event and sits in the nosebleed section where they can't see the detail of the action except on the Jumbotrons. Paying stadium prices to sit in the crowd and watch an event that they are at on a TV. Worth the price of a ticket or not? The answer is opinion, not fact.


Facts meant to describe the chart, not my opinion of course.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

MOD NOTE: Please discuss 4K and don't make comments about fellow posters. If you can't post about the technology without personal comments please don't post.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Facts meant to describe the chart, not my opinion of course.


The chart expresses an opinion. Please read my previous post describing the errors introduced by the creator of that chart.

Even if one is to assume all the science is fact (not a good idea) the creator of that chart is expressing their opinion as to whether the extra pixels are worth the price.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Hard to argue with the facts, isn't .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing with the facts but what you just displayed, isn't fact. 4K Content is growing, slowly, but there's more content than there was a year ago. HD content was limited at first...even when I adopted blu-ray back in 2008, there weren't many titles available but now there is way more HD content out there. (Side Note: UHD Blu-ray is selling better in it's first year than Blu-ray did when it first came out). I have a 65'' Sony 4K HDR TV, I do see a difference between 1080p content and 4K content and I'm sitting about 9 feet from the TV. It's just not as drastic as the jump to 1080p from 480i. While there is plenty of HD content now, it took years for it to happen. Only recently, did I get a hold of The Marx Brothers Silver Screen Collection on Blu-ray in 1080p which they released at the end of 2016 and that was after years of watching the DVDs. I have seen quite a few HD transfers that don't look very good because a lot of studios didn't do proper remasters - they just recycled the DVD transfer they created years earlier before their remastering/authoring techniques got better. So yeah it can depend on the content but only by how it was produced/created. Another Example, Batman v Superman was finished in 4K but it doesn't look as good as other 4K content due to how the movie was shot and what filters were used. 4K content will only continue to grow as more shows shoot in 4K, new films get finished in 4K and older movies/TV (shot on film) get remastered. Part of the reason why 4K content is limited is due to the technical requirements, whether it is being streamed on Netflix or it's being mastered/created by a studio in 4K. A lot of VFX shops render CGI in 2K due to not having the resources necessary to render in 4K. nVidia recently released a video card, capable of running games at 4K, it's an expensive piece of technology but that is because it is one of the first to do it without the need for a 2nd video card. Even the recently (back in 2012) remastered episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation...the producers were asked why the original negatives weren't being scanned in at 4K and the response was again, not having the resources available to do it. ESPN for the longest time was only broadcasting in 720p, less than 2 years ago they started broadcasting in 1080p, even though none of the providers were going to send it to their customers that way. ESPN's current building was setup with the eventual upgrade to 4K in mind.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> The chart expresses an opinion. Please read my previous post describing the errors introduced by the creator of that chart.
> 
> Even if one is to assume all the science is fact (not a good idea) the creator of that chart is expressing their opinion as to whether the extra pixels are worth the price.


I ca't agree with you James. You may based na opinion BASED off the chart, but the chart itself contains "evidence" or a result of a study and as such is not biased.

I if go outside and say, gee feels like is 40 degrees outside, that would be my opinion, but if I take a look at the "evidence" or data then I can be certain then is in fact 54 degrees as someone had to actually take some form of measurement to come out with those facts, in this case is of course a thermometer or some computer form of it.










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Who decides what is good content?, it may be good for you, but not for everyone else. Content fort the sake of content doesnt make it good.


It's popular and critically acclaimed in many cases. I was never arguing that 4k is ubiquitous, but rather that it's not a fad. We're way beyond the point of just nature documentaries (although Planet Earth II is supposed to be incredible. I got my copy the other day).



> So linear content is still king? Thanks where the lack of 4K is tremendous. So a fad?


Live content is king for pay tv. Pay tv is only one part of the tv universe these days. Is streaming a fad too? Netflix is a fad? On demand is a fad? Get real.



> Is where most time watching (streaming) is being done, which is on mobile devices. If you dont like the facts you dont get to change them to fit your agenda.


I use the real facts, not alternative facts. The fact is that more streaming is watched on TVs than mobile devices.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Using the phrase "worth it" in the chart is an expression of opinion. Using your temperature example, it would be like saying that 40 degrees is "coat weather". It might be "coat weather" for some people, but not others, just like 4k screen size at given distances might be "worth it" to some people, but not others. 

The author of the chart could have used the phrase "visible to the average human eye" or something similar. But, that would probably require the results of some scientific study or another to validate that statement. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Let's unpack this.



btedford said:


> I'm not arguing with the facts but what you just displayed, isn't fact


So explain why not.



btedford said:


> . 4K Content is growing, slowly, but there's more content than there was a year ago. HD content was limited at first...even when I adopted blu-ray back in 2008, there weren't many titles available but now there is way more HD content out there.


Blue color cars are growing, slowly, but there are more blue colored cars then a year ago. What does this tells you, nothing. Or got one even better, My Space was not popular when it came out, it became popular a few years after, then it died. Being popular now does not guarantee being popular tomorrow, hence why I call this a fad.



btedford said:


> (Side Note: UHD Blu-ray is selling better in it's first year than Blu-ray did when it first came out).


Can you back this up with a link, an article or should we just take your word for it.



btedford said:


> I have a 65'' Sony 4K HDR TV, I do see a difference between 1080p content and 4K content and I'm sitting about 9 feet from the TV. It's just not as drastic as the jump to 1080p from 480i.


One of the cruxes 4K has to battle with, among many others, paving its way to the graveyard.



btedford said:


> While there is plenty of HD content now, it took years for it to happen.


Add this to above, on top of there is not much of benefit to the studios when what is selling most right now is HD.



btedford said:


> 4K content will only continue to grow as more shows shoot in 4K,


If you think movies are shot in 4K, I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap, too



btedford said:


> Part of the reason why 4K content is limited is due to the technical requirements, whether it is being streamed on Netflix


So the so much benefit you claim is also a crutch, cant be both.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> It's popular and critically acclaimed in many cases. I was never arguing that 4k is ubiquitous, but rather that it's not a fad. We're way beyond the point of just nature documentaries (although Planet Earth II is supposed to be incredible. I got my copy the other day).


Is either one or the other, it cant be both. When I can go to the store and get the my I want (not the one choosen for me) in 4K, then we can say 4K is something, until then, is a fad



btedford said:


> Live content is king for pay tv. Pay tv is only one part of the tv universe these days. Is streaming a fad too? Netflix is a fad? On demand is a fad? Get real.


Live TV is where the majority of folks watch TV today, it may be one part, but is the "HUGEST" (made that word to express how big it is) part of the pie.

Never said Netflix or steaming we are a fad, dont make up false statements to fit your narrative.



btedford said:


> I use the real facts, not alternative facts. The fact is that more streaming is watched on TVs than mobile devices.


I produced a doc that shows exactly the opposite, but yet you keep arguing without producing any proof, or should we just take your word for it.

Until you can proof otherwise we can take for a fact that streaming is done for the most part on mobile devices.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> Using the phrase "worth it" in the chart is an expression of opinion. Using your temperature example, it would be like saying that 40 degrees is "coat weather". It might be "coat weather" for some people, but not others, just like 4k screen size at given distances might be "worth it" to some people, but not others.
> 
> The author of the chart could have used the phrase "visible to the average human eye" or something similar. But, that would probably require the results of some scientific study or another to validate that statement.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


I agree that use of that phrase is an opinion, but that is just to help those that dont know how to interpret the data, for those that do know how to read the data, ignore the word and follow the lines.

Also, you guys are assuming that this data is just taken out someone's rear end, but the fact is the one a some awhile ago was done using profesional equipment, i.e. Not an option but how the equipment used was able to detect the changes in res vs distance

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

Blue color cars are growing, slowly, but there are more blue colored cars then a year ago. What does this tells you, nothing. Or got one even better, My Space was not popular when it came out, it became popular a few years after, then it died. Being popular now does not guarantee being popular tomorrow, hence why I call this a fad.

Response: Facebook was not popular at first and it's still huge. So...yeah.

Can you back this up with a link, an article or should we just take your word for it.

http://degonline.org/news-releases/deg-news/deg-year-end-2016-home-entertainment-report/
Doctor Strange, Shout!'s Pink Panther set & 2016 Home Entertainment Report from DEG & BDA @ CES - You have to scroll a bit - he has all the references listed

If you think movies are shot in 4K, I have a bridge to sell you. Cheap, too

Response: There are actually quite a few movies shot at higher resolutions than 4K and then down converted to be finished at 2k and the amount is growing for those finished at 4K. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them was shot at 3.4k and finished at 4K. There are quite a lot of films shot in the last few years that are shot in resolutions higher than 2k. The Martian for example was shot at the 5K resolution then down converted for the 4K DI. There are some that still shoot on Film but a majority of releases have been shot using digital cameras. Passengers was shot at 6.5k and then down converted to 4K.

All technology starts at a disadvantage but as it gains more adoption those "crutches" Start to disappear


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

I don't think that people think that it was pulled out of thin air. But, people appear to be objecting to using the measurements of a single criteria as the sole reason for accepting or rejecting 4K as a positive step in TV technology. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> Blue color cars are growing, slowly, but there are more blue colored cars then a year ago. What does this tells you, nothing. Or got one even better, My Space was not popular when it came out, it became popular a few years after, then it died. Being popular now does not guarantee being popular tomorrow, hence why I call this a fad.
> 
> Response: Facebook was not popular at first and it's still huge. So...yeah.


Funny how you dont mentioned its decline.

Have You Been Sharing Less on Facebook?



btedford said:


> Can you back this up with a link, an article or should we just take your word for it.
> 
> http://degonline.org/news-releases/deg-news/deg-year-end-2016-home-entertainment-report/
> Doctor Strange, Shout!'s Pink Panther set & 2016 Home Entertainment Report from DEG & BDA @ CES - You have to scroll a bit - he has all the references listed


While those are some impressive numbers for 4K TVs being sold, I never disputed that 4K TVs are being sold is mass quantities. Thus supporting my argument.

Funny tho is how that article only mentions on 250 titles available on UHD, but I was giving you way more than that, like 1000, IIRC

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

I didn't mention its decline because I wasn't aware of it...




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> I don't think that people think that it was pulled out of thin air. But, people appear to be objecting to using the measurements of a single criteria as the sole reason for accepting or rejecting 4K as a positive step in TV technology.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Well so shame on them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> I ca't agree with you James. You may based na opinion BASED off the chart, but the chart itself contains "evidence" or a result of a study and as such is not biased.


You are ignoring the point. "Worth it" or "not worth it" is always an opinion. The chart isn't labeled factually and cannot be taken as fact.

If they labeled the lines as "cannot see every pixel" that would be the result of their math. Still not a fact until everything that they based their math on was proven to be true but at least a label that reflects the science and not an opinion. The chart labels very clearly show the bias of the chart's creator - that unless one can see (in their estimation) every pixel of a higher resolution there is no benefit to the higher resolution. Where the truth lies is at the next line up ... 1080 and UHD resolution look the same at the line where one cannot see any more pixels than there are on a 1080 screen. It is at THAT point where UHD resolution offers no additional benefit.

But "worth it"/"not worth it" is clearly an opinion.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> I didn't mention its decline because I wasn't aware of it...
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Just like you are not ware of the 4K fad, huh.......

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Just like you are not ware of the 4K fad, huh.......


It isn't a fad until it fades.

As far as I can see both sides are guilty of projecting the future as being a matter of fact. Those declaring the 4K format a success based on growth long before it reaches the point of being commonplace as well as those declaring it a failure while it is still growing. Perhaps both sides should say "I predict it will be ..." a success or fad and not make the final decision until the format is ubiquitous or fades away.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Is 4K a Fad or a Trend ?

*Difference between fads and trends*
Sometimes people use the words "fad" and "trend" interchangeably. Fads can be distinguished from trends in three ways: their reason for rise, their incubation period and life span, and their scope. Trends have explainable rises, and are driven by functional needs. They reflect deep-rooted human desires and needs, while fads are generally driven by the emotional need to purchase. This emotional need can come from the hype that surrounds the product. Trends rise slowly over time, but fads' popularity spike quickly and they end up dying out just as quickly. Fads might last for just weeks or months. Scope is also a factor.

A trend encompasses several brands and products which can reach a large variety of people.A fad typically encompasses just one brand, or product, with limited appeal and a narrow scope.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Just like you are not ware of the 4K fad, huh.......
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Again, in my opinion it's not a fad....just like it's your opinion that it is a fad. Unfortunately this thread just keeps going in circles...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

jimmie57 said:


> Is 4K a Fad or a Trend ?


In the current world "what is trending" seems to be an indication of a fad. What is popular right now. Rick Rolling, the Ice Bucket Challenge, the Mannequin Challenge, so many "things that are trending" that could be easily be considered a fad. In that way "trending" has ruined the meaning of the word "trend". Trends don't last long.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> Again, in my opinion it's not a fad....just like it's your opinion that it is a fad. Unfortunately this thread just keeps going in circles...
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You seem to mix opinions and content. As I said before your have the right to your opinion as I have the right to mine. I didn't called your opinion a fad, I called 4K a fad. By the way, opinions can't be fads.... Lol

At least I am smart enough not to be taken for a ride on this one, at least not by choice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Is 4K a Fad or a Trend ?
> 
> *Difference between fads and trends*
> Sometimes people use the words "fad" and "trend" interchangeably. Fads can be distinguished from trends in three ways: their reason for rise, their incubation period and life span, and their scope. Trends have explainable rises, and are driven by functional needs. They reflect deep-rooted human desires and needs, while fads are generally driven by the emotional need to purchase. This emotional need can come from the hype that surrounds the product. Trends rise slowly over time, but fads' popularity spike quickly and they end up dying out just as quickly. Fads might last for just weeks or months. Scope is also a factor.
> ...


Fits 4K fad to a T, or to the K..... HMMM

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> It isn't a fad until it fades.


Right, but if the sky is grey and dripping chances are is going to rain.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> You seem to mix opinions and content. As I said before your have the right to your opinion as I have the right to mine. I didn't called your opinion a fad, I called 4K a fad. By the way, opinions can't be fads.... Lol
> 
> At least I am smart enough not to be taken for a ride on this one, at least not by choice.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yeah I never said my opinion is a fad...I meant 4K and you know that....


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> Yeah I never said my opinion is a fad...I meant 4K and you know that....


A spin. See post 318. I guess we will have to wait and see. But so far not looking good for your case.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Fits 4K fad to a T, or to the K..... HMMM
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


IS
A trend encompasses several brands and products which can reach a large variety of people.


*NOT*
*A fad typically encompasses just one brand, or product, with limited appeal and a narrow scope.*


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Hard to argue with the facts, isn't .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is from Samsung Support site.

*Screen Size and Resolution*
The larger an HDTV screen, the more important screen resolution becomes. For an HDTV that is 40 inches or smaller, a 720p resolution may be sufficient, however once you get to a 50-inch screen or larger, you will see a definite difference between 720p and 1080p. Depending on the model, a 720p HDTV gives you 1024 by 768 pixels, 1280 by 720 pixels, or 1366 by 768 pixels. An HDTV with 1080p resolution, sometimes known as full HD, offers 1920 by 1080 pixels. Full HD becomes more noticeable on video game consoles, Blu-ray discs and true HD cable or satellite channels.

UHD/4K resolutions allow you to sit closer to the larger screens and still get a beautiful, crisp picture. UHD/4K is generally 3840 by 2160 pixels, which is 4 times the pixels than full HD. These SUHD and UHD TVs are great for a smaller crowded room where you still want the best picture possible from all seats.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Upscaling has nothing to do with distance. Upscaling can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the scaler. Once you understand the technology I can take your observations seriously.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


From the Samsung site.

*UHD Upscaling Picture Engine*
Upscaling Picture Engine upgrades lower resolution movies and TV shows to a stunning near ultra high-definition experience with enhanced detail and optimized picture quality.

From me and my son that now has a 60" Samsung 4k. It works, it's awesome.
To quote him, "It is the best picture on a TV that I have ever seen".
Drop the Mike Steve.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Upscaling has nothing to do with distance. Upscaling can be a blessing or a curse, depending on the scaler. Once you understand the technology I can take your observations seriously.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


From the Samsung site.

*4K UHD Picture Quality*
Enjoy incredible picture and dramatic detail with UHD. Its 4K resolution means everything you watch looks 4x sharper than Full HD.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Facts meant to describe the chart, not my opinion of course.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


From the Samsung site.

*UHD Dimming*
Put yourself on the forefront of advancements in color, contrast, and sharpness with UHD Dimming. It uses new technology to create a more vibrant viewing experience than you've ever seen.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I haven't gone through the whole threads but for the OP, what OLED set do you have? For at least one model, RVU compatibility depends on the revision.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> IS
> A trend encompasses several brands and products which can reach a large variety of people.
> 
> 
> ...


Trends fits more to fashion...fads fits right in there with 4K

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> This is from Samsung Support site.
> 
> UHD/4K resolutions allow you to sit closer to the larger screens and still get a beautiful, crisp picture. .


Isnt that what I have been saying all alone???

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> From the Samsung site.
> 
> *UHD Upscaling Picture Engine*
> Upscaling Picture Engine upgrades lower resolution movies and TV shows to a stunning near ultra high-definition experience with enhanced detail and optimized picture quality.
> ...


Not sure what your point here is. Upscaling uses algorithms to try to fill in the missing pixels to fit the native resolution of the display. So cheap scalers may actually degrade an otherwise excellent HD picture.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> From the Samsung site.
> 
> *4K UHD Picture Quality*
> Enjoy incredible picture and dramatic detail with UHD. Its 4K resolution means everything you watch looks 4x sharper than Full HD.


And you expect Samsung to say otherwise? Be real.....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, since it's a KS set, that's a year over year improvement in the processing that they are using. I love my JS8500, but it does look kind of bad with low quality source material. It seems to do better sending it 1080p material that's already been processed or was originally 1080p. What is really strange is that for ESPN, using my video processor to from from 720p>1080p>2160p yields better results than outputting 720p from the video processor and going straight to 2160p in the TV. Who would have guessed....


One of my favorite movies is _Open Range_ with Kevin Costner. I try to watch it at least once a year. For some reason it's not on a BD. I tried to find it on a streamer but couldn't. Finally gave up and ordered it on a DVD from NF, figured I could suffer with a poor picture once in awhile. Played it on the new set and the PQ was great. I haven't watched the 8500 in weeks. I have a feeling that set is gonna end up in the MB. Might buy a Series 8 LS 65" set next Black Friday. Really gotta wonder if the jump from KS to LS will be as noticeable as the jump from JS to KS.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> From the Samsung site.
> 
> *UHD Dimming*
> Put yourself on the forefront of advancements in color, contrast, and sharpness with UHD Dimming. It uses new technology to create a more vibrant viewing experience than you've ever seen.


Those are proprietary features or gimmicks... nothing to do with 4K.... again they did some work on you didn't they.... lol

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

btedford said:


> You might as well not bother trying to convince peds48 of anything, he's clearly made up his mind and nothing anyone here says, is going to change his belief that 4k is a "fad".


Yeah, you're right.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Those are proprietary features or gimmicks... nothing to do with 4K.... again they did some work on you didn't they.... lol
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


My Sharp has Local Area Dimming.
Not proprietary, not a gimmick. It works.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> And you expect Samsung to say otherwise? Be real.....
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Seeing it on my 4k Samsung is Believing.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Not sure what your point here is. Upscaling uses algorithms to try to fill in the missing pixels to fit the native resolution of the display. So cheap scalers may actually degrade an otherwise excellent HD picture.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


And it does an excellent job of improving the supplied content to a better picture.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> This is from Samsung Support site.
> 
> *Screen Size and Resolution*
> The larger an HDTV screen, the more important screen resolution becomes. *For an HDTV that is 40 inches or smaller, a 720p resolution may be sufficient*, however once you get to a 50-inch screen or larger, you will see a definite difference between 720p and 1080p. Depending on the model, a 720p HDTV gives you 1024 by 768 pixels, 1280 by 720 pixels, or 1366 by 768 pixels. An HDTV with 1080p resolution, sometimes known as full HD, offers 1920 by 1080 pixels. Full HD becomes more noticeable on video game consoles, Blu-ray discs and true HD cable or satellite channels.
> ...


When I had the 42" plasma in the same room as the 65" 4K set I didn't expect to see much difference in PQ when I had the smaller set placed as far away (about 15') as I could. Surprised me, the difference was as clear as it was when the two sets were side by side. I wrote about this when I did the test sometime in February of this year. I was by myself and didn't want to try to lift the heavier larger sets.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Yeah, you're right.
> 
> Rich


Yep, he is. I don't let myself get carried away by marketing hypes, trends and/or fads. I and millions of other folks see this for what is it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Isnt that what I have been saying all alone???
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


No, to the Contrary. You are saying you MUST sit closer which in fact False.
If you sit close to a TV you can see the individual pixels. The larger the pixels the further you need to sit to make the pixels all blend together and not look like you are viewing a picture thru a screen on a window.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Trends fits more to fashion...fads fits right in there with 4K
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Trends fit to anything.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> My Sharp has Local Area Dimming.
> Not proprietary, not a gimmick. It works.


Again proprietary, and gimmicky at best. "it works" is your opinion and you have the right to have one. Doesn't make it a fact or one that I agree with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Seeing it on my 4k Samsung is Believing.


Glad that you are happy with your set, I also believe I have the best car in the world....so...lol...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Again proprietary, and gimmicky at best. "it works" is your opinion and you have the right to have one. Doesn't make it a fact or one that I agree with.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I hope you don't play the stock market.
Your attitude could cost you dearly if you did. One of the hardest lessons to learn is that you were wrong when you purchased a stock and tend to hold onto the belief that you were right in buying it. All the while it keeps sinking in price and losing money for you. It is better to just admit to the mistake and take your licking and move on.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> And it does an excellent job of improving the supplied content to a better picture.


And you may be right, to quote from my own words "an upscaler may be a blessing or a crux"

Even some folks here may not agree with your all the time. Biggs (I believe) even said that a movie didn't look good upscaled. So take your pick.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> When I had the 42" plasma in the same room as the 65" 4K set I didn't expect to see much difference in PQ when I had the smaller set placed as far away (about 15') as I could. Surprised me, the difference was as clear as it was when the two sets were side by side. I wrote about this when I did the test sometime in February of this year. I was by myself and didn't want to try to lift the heavier larger sets.
> 
> Rich


So now the sets were placed at different distances and not side by side as initially posted. Changing the story to fit narrative? Or a new test was performed?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> No, to the Contrary. You are saying you MUST sit closer which in fact False.
> If you sit close to a TV you can see the individual pixels. The larger the pixels the further you need to sit to make the pixels all blend together and not look like you are viewing a picture thru a screen on a window.


Wow! Once you understand how this technology works then we can have a conversation, not about to start from scratch again.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> I hope you don't play the stock market.
> Your attitude could cost you dearly if you did. One of the hardest lessons to learn is that you were wrong when you purchased a stock and tend to hold onto the belief that you were right in buying it. All the while it keeps sinking in price and losing money for you. It is better to just admit to the mistake and take your licking and move on.


Only if I was wrong and now you want to be my financial advisor? Lol... From someone that gets taken by marketing hypes.....

I'll keep my financials to myself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Trends fit to anything.


Maybe, that eventually dies and gets replaced by the next. Seeing a pattern.....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Wow! Once you understand how this technology works then we can have a conversation, not about to start from scratch again.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Try sitting 2 feet away from an old CRT and you will see what I am talking about.
Then move to a 720p and then 1080p and then 4k if you have them.
The smaller the pixels the closer you CAN sit without seeing the mesh effect.
Has nothing to do with technology it has to do with size and distance.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Only if I was wrong and now you want to be my financial advisor? Lol... From someone that gets taken by marketing hypes.....
> 
> I'll keep my financials to myself.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How much did you make last year in stocks ? I posted my chart for 2015 of my profits in stocks.
What my chart does not show is that I only get about 60% of my choices correct. But that is enough to make decent money sitting on my butt in my pajamas.
Oh and last year was almost 3 times better than the chart I posted.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Has nothing to do with technology it has to do with size and distance.


Which is what the chart explains. So now we agree. I knew you will eventually get it. One down, a few more to go.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> How much did you make last year in stocks ? I posted my chart for 2015 of my profits in stocks.
> What my chart does not show is that I only get about 60% of my choices correct. But that is enough to make decent money sitting on my butt in my pajamas.
> Oh and last year was almost 3 times better than the chart I posted.


Finances have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. If you want to talk about stocks perhaps your may want to start a new thread.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Which is what the chart explains. So now we agree. I knew you will eventually get it. One down, a few more to go.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


We definitely do NOT agree.
You will give in, even if you never admit it, that 4k is here to stay just like the HD that we enjoy today.
I resisted HD for a couple of years. Was not going to get HD because I had a good TV and the HD TVs were expensive, like $3,000 for a small one. Then in March of 2009 my SD TV died. I went looking and found a 46" HD, 1080p Samsung on sale for $1,2xx.00 and bought it. Hooked it up to DirecTV and my son said it looked awful. I then hooked up an OTA set of rabbit ears and got HD. Wow, what a difference.
My son got him one the next week and then we had DirecTV changed to HD the next week.
Get a 4k and smile.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So now the sets were placed at different distances and not side by side as initially posted. Changing the story to fit narrative? Or a new test was performed?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


As I said...ahh, what's the use.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Finances have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. If you want to talk about stocks perhaps your may want to start a new thread.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Neither does cars that you brought up.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> We definitely do NOT agree.


Your post definitely says otherwise. "is about size and distance" have you looked at the chart lately?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> We definitely do NOT agree.
> You will give in, even if you never admit it, that 4k is here to stay just like the HD that we enjoy today.


I already admitted that one day I will, but not but by choice but rather because one day my otherwise excellent HD sets will pass to a better life.

I am not just jumping head first because there is nothing to see "there" today.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> My son got him one the next week and then we had DirecTV changed to HD the next week.
> Get a 4k and smile.


Of course, HD was the shizzle back then. I jumped on that bad boy sooner rather than later because I saw a future in that new tech. Not so much with 4K. I even threw out my otherwise working CRT sets, something that me and millions of other folks are not willing to do for this fad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Neither does cars that you brought up.


That was an analogy to your reply saying that what we believe is not always actually true.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> I already admitted that one day I will, but not but by choice but rather because one day my otherwise excellent HD sets will pass to a better life.
> 
> I am not just jumping head first because there is nothing to see "there" today.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Now I am going to play Swami.
I predict that 4k will progress faster than HD has.
There is stuff on YouTube and DirecTV already has dedicated channels for it and receivers to show it.
Having said that,
I have not subscribed to the 4k on DirecTV because I do not like the mickey mouse set up they have now with the receivers. And because the Upscaling is so good on my TV.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> I already admitted that one day I will, but not but by choice but rather because one day my otherwise excellent HD sets will pass to a better life.
> 
> I am not just jumping head first because there is nothing to see "there" today.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My 46" was an LCD. One of the things I noticed right off the bat was the view from the side angles was almost or as good as it is watching a Plasma TV. You can still see a clean clear picture at what would be unviewable ( made up a word ) on the LCD.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Research released yesterday by Parks Associates projects that 4K televisions will trace a popularity/price trajectory similar to that of HDTVs over the last 15-year period. However, the data also points to a quicker rate of progression for 4K TVs: the new technology is predicted to reach the HDTV's level of affordability and ubiquity - which took 15 years to fully blossom - in a leaner 10-12 years.

The study, "4K Today: Bringing Ultra HD to Market" delves into a handful of aspects of the current HD landscape. The research looks at 4K's importance to consumer electronics manufacturers, analyzes over-the-top (OTT) and pay-TV content delivery issues, and gives a detailed comparison of 4K to previous rollouts of 3D and HD technologies. Perhaps most importantly, at the core of the research, is this prediction: 4K TVs will reach mass-market pricing in the next two to three years and surpass 80 percent of households in the aforementioned 10-12 years.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/4k-will-follow-path-similar-to-hd-growth-pattern-but-faster/#ixzz4d6rcBgrq 
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | DigitalTrends on Facebook


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Several posts ...


jimmie57 said:


> This is from Samsung Support site.


At least one knows that the writer is trying to sell TVs and is being paid to promote the product.

Visiting the website with "the chart" I get the same feeling. And advertisements for TV sets.



jimmie57 said:


> UHD/4K resolutions allow you to sit closer to the larger screens and still get a beautiful, crisp picture. UHD/4K is generally 3840 by 2160 pixels, which is 4 times the pixels than full HD. These SUHD and UHD TVs are great for a smaller crowded room where you still want the best picture possible from all seats.


It seems that Samsung is taking the opposite approach to calculations similar to "the chart". But instead of recommending a larger screen TV based on increased viewing distance, Samsung is recommending a higher pixel display based on viewing closeness. The "if you are close enough to the display to see the individual pixels you should increase the number of pixels" approach to the math.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

4K TV and UHD: Everything you need to know about Ultra HD | TechRadar


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Global 4K2K TV Market to Grow 33.81% by 2020 - Rising Popularity of 4K UHD Content - Research and Markets


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

OK,
I am done for this subject for now. My NASCAR racing is coming on in a little while.
Buy, Buy, Buy, Bye.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Now I am going to play Swami.
> I predict that 4k will progress faster than HD has.
> There is stuff on YouTube and DirecTV already has dedicated channels for it and receivers to show it.
> Having said that,
> I have not subscribed to the 4k on DirecTV because I do not like the mickey mouse set up they have now with the receivers. And because the Upscaling is so good on my TV.


You predict, yet you don't support.

DIRECTV doesnt have anything dedicated for 4K, they got space, which can be use for anything, wether it is more HD, 4K, 8K, 3D, etc. Whatever may be the next fad

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> My 46" was an LCD. One of the things I noticed right off the bat was the view from the side angles was almost or as good as it is watching a Plasma TV. You can still see a clean clear picture at what would be unviewable ( made up a word ) on the LCD.


Well, I always watch my TV dead center, no need to peak a boo....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Research released yesterday by Parks Associates projects that 4K televisions will trace a popularity/price trajectory similar to that of HDTVs over the last 15-year period. However, the data also points to a quicker rate of progression for 4K TVs: the new technology is predicted to reach the HDTV's level of affordability and ubiquity - which took 15 years to fully blossom - in a leaner 10-12 years.
> 
> The study, "4K Today: Bringing Ultra HD to Market" delves into a handful of aspects of the current HD landscape. The research looks at 4K's importance to consumer electronics manufacturers, analyzes over-the-top (OTT) and pay-TV content delivery issues, and gives a detailed comparison of 4K to previous rollouts of 3D and HD technologies. Perhaps most importantly, at the core of the research, is this prediction: 4K TVs will reach mass-market pricing in the next two to three years and surpass 80 percent of households in the aforementioned 10-12 years.
> 
> ...


Wonderful article predicating what is known, 4K TVs are selling, that is no mystery, and is also not part of my discussion that has already been argued.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> 4K TV and UHD: Everything you need to know about Ultra HD | TechRadar


From this article a few things jump to your face.



> So I'll see a huge difference?
> 
> That's where it gets sticky. We're talking about a similar jump in resolution as the one from SD (480 lines high) to HD (1080 lines high). And 4K screens are noticeably sharper than 1080p screens. But there are a few reasons you might not feel the same thrill you did when you upgraded your old CRT to a flatscreen.
> 
> ...


Yep, is not only me

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> OK,
> I am done for this subject. My NASCAR racing is coming on in a little while.
> Buy, Buy, Buy, Bye.


Yep, I was catching up on Shades of Blue, 24:Legacy, Designated Survivor, etc...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Is either one or the other, it cant be both. When I can go to the store and get the my I want (not the one choosen for me) in 4K, then we can say 4K is something, until then, is a fad


That's a completely arbitrary standard. You're not the sole driver of the market, and nor am I. If I was, there would be a lot more 4k, and no one would sell DVDs anymore. But the market is a lot more diverse than that in reality. By your standard, if there's some old movie that *you* want, and it's only available on DVD, then Blu-Ray and HD are "just a fad", because the content *you* want is in SD. That's a ridiculous standard to use.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Rich said:


> One of my favorite movies is _Open Range_ with Kevin Costner. I try to watch it at least once a year. For some reason it's not on a BD. I tried to find it on a streamer but couldn't. Finally gave up and ordered it on a DVD from NF, figured I could suffer with a poor picture once in awhile. Played it on the new set and the PQ was great. I haven't watched the 8500 in weeks. I have a feeling that set is gonna end up in the MB. Might buy a Series 8 LS 65" set next Black Friday. Really gotta wonder if the jump from KS to LS will be as noticeable as the jump from JS to KS.


I wonder what various video processors are like, and how they compare. No one seems to have a good criteria or test methodology for testing the video processing and upscaling. I know a lot of mid- to high-end AVRs have 4k upscaling, but it's virtually impossible to know if one of those would improve the PQ that I have for upscaling over what I can do now with my DVDO EDGE outputting 1080p to my Samsung JS850D.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Even some folks here may not agree with your all the time. Biggs (I believe) even said that a movie didn't look good upscaled. So take your pick.


I was referring to low-quality HD sources like Comcast MPEG-4, or SD sources. A good HD source looks amazing on my JS850D.



peds48 said:


> DIRECTV doesnt have anything dedicated for 4K, they got space, which can be use for anything, wether it is more HD, 4K, 8K, 3D, etc. Whatever may be the next fad


The HD tonnage wars are over. The number of HD channels is going to go down as cord cutting accelerates, and the economics of running niche TV channels catches up with them. There have already been some TV channels get culled, and this trend will continue. The fact of the matter is that there are only a few dozen popular channels at most, not 200 HD channels and 400+ SDs. DirecTV is very strategic with the HD channels that they carry, and are skewed towards sports.

English languages HD channels will not be put on the RB, as the cost to replace the LNBs is far too high. With the MPEG-2 shutdown coming, and 4k eventually moving off to RB, DirecTV has more space than they know what to do with. If 4k linear TV takes off, they are ready for it in the RB, if not, that extra space isn't really hurting them.

4k is definitely not a fad. But whether linear content producers want to get into 4k remains to be seen. We're seeing this huge transition to streaming content, so it remains to be seen if channels will balk at the upgrade costs to produce 4k content, or will look to 4k as a way to keep people on pay tv.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> That's a completely arbitrary standard. You're not the sole driver of the market, and nor am I. If I was, there would be a lot more 4k, and no one would sell DVDs anymore. But the market is a lot more diverse than that in reality. By your standard, if there's some old movie that *you* want, and it's only available on DVD, then Blu-Ray and HD are "just a fad", because the content *you* want is in SD. That's a ridiculous standard to use.


The fact that DVDs are still the most sold video disc product leaves a lot to say.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> The fact that DVDs are still the most sold video disc product leaves a lot to say.


And just because people buy a lot of crappy DVDs doesn't mean that there is no space in the market for Blu-Ray and Ultra HD Blu-Ray.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> I was referring to low-quality HD sources like Comcast MPEG-4, or SD sources. A good HD source looks amazing on my JS850D.


So does my HD on my 1080p set.



Bigg said:


> The HD tonnage wars are over. The number of HD channels is going to go down as cord cutting accelerates, and the economics of running niche TV channels catches up with them. There have already been some TV channels get culled, and this trend will continue. The fact of the matter is that there are only a few dozen popular channels at most, not 200 HD channels and 400+ SDs. DirecTV is very strategic with the HD channels that they carry, and are skewed towards sports.


You keep mentioning streaming as a portal for 4K success, while the reality points to the opposite. Not everyone has access to quality broadband that is required for 4K on top that most streaming is being done on mobile devices to which 4K is useless.



Bigg said:


> English languages HD channels will not be put on the RB, as the cost to replace the LNBs is far too high.


Meaning not everyone will have access to 4K, diminishing any little chance it may have to get off the ground.



Bigg said:


> With the MPEG-2 shutdown coming, and 4k eventually moving off to RB, DirecTV has more space than they know what to do with. If 4k linear TV takes off, they are ready for it in the RB, if not, that extra space isn't really hurting them.


Those are the plans for now, but is not written in stone, satellite space is very flexible and one thing we can agree on is that whatever next fad is DIRECTV would be ready for it.



Bigg said:


> 4k is definitely not a fad. But whether linear content producers want to get into 4k remains to be seen. We're seeing this huge transition to streaming content, so it remains to be seen if channels will balk at the upgrade costs to produce 4k content, or will look to 4k as a way to keep people on pay tv.


The path for 4K is looking very grim, until I see changes that will point otherwise 4K is a fad on my books.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> And just because people buy a lot of crappy DVDs doesn't mean that there is no space in the market for Blu-Ray and Ultra HD Blu-Ray.


There is space, but shelves are usually stocked with what sells and what sells dictates what consumers want, and that is what the retailers will offer.

So if DVDs are still in hot demand over Blue Rays that have been out for a long time now, this will indicate that folks are happy with what they have and are not looking for any improvement no matter how hard the industry pushes this 4K fad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> There is space, but shelves are usually stocked with what sells and what sells dictates what consumers want, and that is what the retailers will offer.
> 
> So if DVDs are still in hot demand over Blue Rays that have been out for a long time now, this will indicate that folks are happy with what they have and are not looking for any improvement no matter how hard the industry pushes this 4K fad.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


By that logic, aren't you now really arguing that HD is a fad because DVD's (SD) outsell Blu-ray's (HD)?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> There is space, but shelves are usually stocked with what sells and what sells dictates what consumers want, and that is what the retailers will offer.
> 
> So if DVDs are still in hot demand over Blue Rays that have been out for a long time now, this will indicate that folks are happy with what they have and are not looking for any improvement no matter how hard the industry pushes this 4K fad.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Here's the thing, Home Media revenue from DVDs, Blurays and UHD Blurays are on the decline and have been for a few years now...2016 revenue for discs was down 10% from 2015 due to SVOD services like Netflix, amazon and Hulu which are all investing in 4K options. None of the online services fully embraced 3D which is a dying fad except for Netflix and they had more 3d titles than amazon did but now they both have a growing selection of 4K content.

....and just before you ask for a source...Home Entertainment 2016 Figures: Streaming Eclipses Disc Sales for the First Time

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> There is space, but shelves are usually stocked with what sells and what sells dictates what consumers want, and that is what the retailers will offer.
> 
> So if DVDs are still in hot demand over Blue Rays that have been out for a long time now, this will indicate that folks are happy with what they have and are not looking for any improvement no matter how hard the industry pushes this 4K fad.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


More like not wanting to pay multiples to pricing vs a DVD.
This is not the case with the 4k TVs Trend.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> By that logic, aren't you now really arguing that HD is a fad because DVD's (SD) outsell Blu-ray's (HD)?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


No, HD is now ubiquitous, is the standard for much of what we watch. The point with DVDs is that folks are happy with the picture they get now. Most TVs HD TV now make DVD look good to the point that folks dont want to pay the premium for Blue Rays. Also is it was a response to Biggs that he seem to think that while linear 4K future seems grim, sales of 4K discs would bring this fad to the masses when sales proof that folks are not looking for any improvement.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> Here's the thing, Home Media revenue from DVDs, Blurays and UHD Blurays are on the decline and have been for a few years now...2016 revenue for discs was down 10% from 2015 due to SVOD services like Netflix, amazon and Hulu which are all investing in 4K options. None of the online services fully embraced 3D which is a dying fad except for Netflix and they had more 3d titles than amazon did but now they both have a growing selection of 4K content.
> 
> ....and just before you ask for a source...Home Entertainment 2016 Figures: Streaming Eclipses Disc Sales for the First Time
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Again, see my previous post, you are betting on streaming when that medium is not feasible for the majority of folks in this country. So if the only shot 4K has to survive is streaming, then 4K is DOA. Making it a fad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> More like not wanting to pay multiples to pricing vs a DVD.
> This is not the case with the 4k TVs Trend.


Not sure I understand you post. You are saying that folks dont want to buy DVDs, BRs of the same tittle? If that is the case, I dont blame them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Again, see my previous post, you are betting on streaming when that medium is not feasible for the majority of folks in this country. So if the only shot 4K has to survive is streaming, then 4K is DOA. Making it a fad.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I never said that that's the only way for 4K to survive is via streaming. I was just making a point that overall sales for physical media is dropping. UHD bluray is selling better than originally expected and it is evident since more manufacturers are producing UHD bluray players and studios are more committed to releasing movies in that format.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> I never said that that's the only way for 4K to survive is via streaming. I was just making a point that overall sales for physical media is dropping. UHD bluray is selling better than originally expected and it is evident since more manufacturers are producing UHD bluray players and studios are more committed to releasing movies in that format.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


You sure seem to imply as such, since most of your posts are based on streaming, with little reference to linear because that is the only thing you have right now to hang on, as there is very little content in linear but somewhat on streaming and that is the only place any growth is showing, but one must ask the question,how much of that content is native 4K as compared to being upscaled & delivered on 4K. There is a difference between those two.

But if any chances of 4K surviving are based on streaming, then is DOA. As I said before, broadband access in this country is pathetic. And just before you know it, this 4K fad would be over and will be focusing on the next one and we would be discussing that when the time comes..

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> You sure seem to imply as such, since most of your posts are based on streaming, with little reference to linear because that is the only thing you have right now to hang on, as there is very little content in linear but somewhat on streaming and that is the only place any growth is showing, but one must ask the question,how much of that content is native 4K as compared to being upscaled & delivered on 4K. There is a difference between those two.
> 
> But if any chances of 4K surviving are based on streaming, then is DOA. As I said before, broadband access in this country is pathetic. And just before you know it, this 4K fad would be over and will be focusing on the next one and we would be discussing that when the time comes..
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


the 4K options on Netflix are not upscaled, it's mainly a majority of Netflix original content which was all shot and finished in 4K and sometimes shot at a higher resolution than 4K and even some 4K options with HDR. Same for amazon and their original content.

You are right about broadband access in this country for now....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Again, see my previous post, you are betting on streaming when that medium is not feasible for the majority of folks in this country. So if the only shot 4K has to survive is streaming, then 4K is DOA. Making it a fad.


You should note that the source article compares actual revenue. While room for growth may be limited by the lack of broadband in rural areas, dismissing actual results is a departure from the facts.

"Streaming Eclipses Disc Sales for the First Time" ... regardless of anyone's belief about the limitations of broadband availability.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> You should note that the source article compares actual revenue. While room for growth may be limited by the lack of broadband in rural areas, dismissing actual results is a departure from the facts.
> 
> "Streaming Eclipses Disc Sales for the First Time" ... regardless of anyone's belief about the limitations of broadband availability.


Right, we can agree what discs are on the decline, we can also agree that streaming is on the incline, what the article does not mention (clearly) is what type of content the user is consuming on that platform. Since we can agree that the majority of streaming content is HD, we can (safely) assume that most stream content is of the HD variety. It would be obtuse for Netflix not to offer any 4K content as they, along with Amazon Prime and YouTube are the sole provider of such content.

But at some point, when folks realize that 4K is only found online and as more folks realize they cant access such content because their connection sucks they will start to move on and 4K will start to fade away.

You have to realize that the majority of folks that have 4K TVs now are those that are normally well off, that can afford decent broadband connection if available. The rest of the country while they may want to get for 4K because they are being push by the hype, cant afford to either get a 4K set much less have access or afford a good connection that allow them to access 4K content online.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Right, we can agree what discs are on the decline, we can also agree that streaming is on the incline, what the article does not mention (clearly) is what type of content the user is consuming on that platform. Since we can agree that the majority of streaming content is HD, we can (safely) assume that most stream content is of the HD variety. It would be obtuse for Netflix not to offer any 4K content as they, along with Amazon Prime and YouTube are the sole provider of such content.
> 
> *But at some point, when folks realize that 4K is only found online* and as more folks realize they cant access such content because their connection sucks they will start to move on and 4K will start to fade away.
> 
> ...


Rich states and so do others that Netflix and Amazon have the best 4k content. I have watched several items from You Tube that is 4k.
I doubt the red text very seriously. DirecTV is getting into it. They have just put out a server that is going to output 4k to 2 TVs at once.
The same , (edit ) purple text above, can be said about HD. Many are happy with looking at a picture thru a screen mesh.
The Trend is your friend, Hop IN, get one.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> Rich states and so do others that Netflix and Amazon have the best 4k content. I have watched several items from You Tube that is 4k.
> I doubt the red text very seriously. DirecTV is getting into it. They have just put out a server that is going to output 4k to 2 TVs at once.
> The same , blue text above, can be said about HD. Many are happy with looking at a picture thru a screen mesh.
> The Trend is your friend, Hop IN, get one.


First keep in mind that there are not colors on Tapatalk, so when you mention color I have no idea what you are referring to. Again, not your fault neither mine but though to bring it up.

To your points Yes, DIRECTV is ready, but are the content creators (linear) ready, for the looks of it, they are holding out to see where this goes and that is a huge problem because then it becomes "the chicken or the egg" kind of thing, folks stop buying 4K because there is no content and no content is made because there is demand"

Don't let the hype drive your emotions, (impulse buying is not a good thing) as you may end up getting the short end of the stick.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> First keep in mind that there are not colors on Tapatalk, so when you mention color I have no idea what you are referring to. Again, not your fault neither mine but though to bring it up.
> 
> To your points Yes, DIRECTV is ready, but are the content creators (linear) ready, for the looks of it, they are holding out to see where this goes and that is a huge problem because then it becomes "the chicken or the egg" kind of thing, folks stop buying 4K because there is no content and no content is made because there is demand"
> 
> ...


That's surprising. The Android version of Tapatalk has colors.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> That's surprising. The Android version of Tapatalk has colors.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


The only color shown is blue for links, for regular text like this that can be colored on the desktop version wont show on Tapatalk.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> .... folks stop buying 4K because there is no content and no content is made because there is demand"


Folks won't stop buying 4K TVs unless the manufactures stop making them. I believe that ship has sailed. I would consider 4K ubiquitous when it comes to new TVs on the market. Especially for larger sets where it is cheaper to produce a set with more pixels per screen than larger pixels per screen.

The next step back from the TV is the set top box (for lack of a better word). Some 4K content will be available through apps built in to the TV ... but pay TV providers have recognized that 4K TVs exist and they have been working for years on plans to use those new TVs. The HR54 or HS17 plus clients is AT&T|DIRECTV's way of leveraging the sets that are becoming more common in people's homes. DIRECTV is ready for content when it becomes available.

(Perhaps some day DIRECTV will leverage NETFLIX, AMAZON and/or YOUTUBE to get more content on their service. Or perhaps there are plans to add 4K to their own on demand services. The more 4K content that can be provided the better.)

Some people would recommend dumping a perfectly good HD TV for a 4K set ... I do not believe that should be done. But that is my opinion. There are people who have traded out their HD TV sets for new HD TV sets every couple of years. Their next purchase might as well be 4K. I am still waiting for my primary HDTV to die. (It took three months of high pitched whining from my kitchen SD TV to convince my wife that it needed replacement.)


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> I haven't gone through the whole threads but for the OP, what OLED set do you have? For at least one model, RVU compatibility depends on the revision.


LG B6 and it was RVU working.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Of course, HD was the shizzle back then. I jumped on that bad boy sooner rather than later because I saw a future in that new tech. Not so much with 4K. I even threw out my otherwise working CRT sets, something that me and millions of other folks are not willing to do for this fad.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yet millions are throwing out HD acts for 4K. Sales shows it. I know folks that can't give away their 720p and 1080 sets anymore. Go buy a used electronic store. Goodwill etc and look at the stock pile of TVs.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

What in the Hell has happened to this thread?


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> The only color shown is blue for links, for regular text like this that can be colored on the desktop version wont show on Tapatalk.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


On Tapatalk for iPhone. I can see the blue and bold red text that was added to your earlier reply on my Samsung Android phone.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> On Tapatalk for iPhone. I can see the blue and bold red text that was added to your earlier reply on my Samsung Android phone.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Weird. Gotta look into in.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I wouldn't buy a 4K TV just to have one. If my main TV broke I'd get 4K because why not. Not sure about my smaller TV's but might depending upon cost difference.
I don't know what the type of show the "typical" or total use is - traditional network (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS) vs. sports, vs all the other stuff (SCIFI, TLC, HGTV, etc) vs movies and other 1 time shows. I suspect and we have seen that sports will be the first to go 4K because they are all "new" as much of the other stuff is old. The network stuff, unless there are legal changes, will probably be last since it takes your local stations to go 4K and until a lot of those local stations are 4K is it worth the networks to produce 4K shows. 10-12 years vs. 15 for HD isn't a great deal of difference particularly in this age of rapid changes in everything. 
It isn't just the rich who have higher speed internet - there are plenty of areas in the country that can't get high speed internet.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> I wonder what various video processors are like, and how they compare. No one seems to have a good criteria or test methodology for testing the video processing and upscaling. I know a lot of mid- to high-end AVRs have 4k upscaling, but it's virtually impossible to know if one of those would improve the PQ that I have for upscaling over what I can do now with my DVDO EDGE outputting 1080p to my Samsung JS850D.


Not sure how to answer that. I do get a really good picture from my two Samsung 2160p BD upscalers, but any 1080p streamer seems to be nearly the same, PQ-wise. Problem with the upscaling BD players when using NF or Amazon is how slowly they load content. And the UIs on them aren't as good as streaming boxes. I would think the way you're doing it now is as good as it gets, at this time.

I see the DVDO EDGE on Amazon for ~ $180. But only one HDMI input? How do you have that (assuming you have the cheaper model) hooked up to the 850D? My 8000 has the same HDMI configuration as your 850D. I can only see one input being used with that cheaper model.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

James Long said:


> Folks won't stop buying 4K TVs unless the manufactures stop making them. I believe that ship has sailed. I would consider 4K ubiquitous when it comes to new TVs on the market. Especially for larger sets where it is cheaper to produce a set with more pixels per screen than larger pixels per screen.
> 
> The next step back from the TV is the set top box (for lack of a better word). Some 4K content will be available through apps built in to the TV ... but pay TV providers have recognized that 4K TVs exist and they have been working for years on plans to use those new TVs. The HR54 or HS17 plus clients is AT&T|DIRECTV's way of leveraging the sets that are becoming more common in people's homes. DIRECTV is ready for content when it becomes available.
> 
> ...


Don't think I've seen many/any recommendations for that. At least for a 1080p set. I can certainly see getting rid of a 8-10 year old 720p set. We do have a new 1080p LG LCD set in the house, certainly wouldn't consider dumping that.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CTJon said:


> *I wouldn't buy a 4K TV just to have one. If my main TV broke I'd get 4K because why not.* Not sure about my smaller TV's but might depending upon cost difference.
> I don't know what the type of show the "typical" or total use is - traditional network (CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS) vs. sports, vs all the other stuff (SCIFI, TLC, HGTV, etc) vs movies and other 1 time shows. I suspect and we have seen that sports will be the first to go 4K because they are all "new" as much of the other stuff is old. The network stuff, unless there are legal changes, will probably be last since it takes your local stations to go 4K and until a lot of those local stations are 4K is it worth the networks to produce 4K shows. 10-12 years vs. 15 for HD isn't a great deal of difference particularly in this age of rapid changes in everything.
> It isn't just the rich who have higher speed internet - there are plenty of areas in the country that can't get high speed internet.


That's why I bought my first 4K set. One of my plasmas failed. I could have fixed it, I think, but I was curious about the new sets.

Sports on the new sets are very good, much better than any of my plasmas. Even the 720p ESPN and Fox stations.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

gio12 said:


> Yet millions are throwing out HD acts for 4K. Sales shows it. I know folks that can't give away their 720p and 1080 sets anymore. Go buy a used electronic store. Goodwill etc and look at the stock pile of TVs.


I doubt many are buying new TVs specifically because of 4K. They are buying because want a bigger TV - larger sizes are a lot less expensive than they were when they bought their HDTV. A lot of people bought 37" - 50" TVs back when that was the sweet spot for pricing, now 55" - 65" is the sweet spot.

The only reason I'm probably going to buy new TV next year is because my plasma is 50", and I have room for a 65" in the location / viewing distance I use. It will be a 4K because that's all there is, but I won't be buying because I want a 4K TV, I'll be buying because I want a 65" TV. But as long as I am buying a 4K TV, I'm going to make sure it does HDMI 2.1 and is capable of 4Kp120 input/display so it's future proofed.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I doubt that many are throwing out perfectly good HD TVs just because they want 4K. I certainly have not, though I added a smallish 4K set to go in my small rented cottage.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I doubt that many are throwing out perfectly good HD TVs just because they want 4K. I certainly have not, though I added a smallish 4K set to go in my small rented cottage.


Agree, I do. I have 7 plasmas left all but 2 are 8-9 years old. Still have decent pictures. I only need one more new set. I have one 42" 1080p unsmart set which still looks pretty good and one 1080p smart 60" set that I have on the PP and I'm planning on making a claim on it. The picture went from good to not good after I bought the first 4K set. I have no idea what happened. It's in front of my wife's treadmill and hardly gets used, much like the treadmill (told her she wouldn't use it, we go thru this every three or four years, last time it was an elliptical trainer, gave it away to a heavy friend of hers and it now sits idle in front of her exercise equipment. Someday my wife will learn...or not.

Rich


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> So does my HD on my 1080p set.


A good 4k set will make the flaws on a low quality source much more obvious.



> Those are the plans for now, but is not written in stone, satellite space is very flexible and one thing we can agree on is that whatever next fad is DIRECTV would be ready for it.


4k is not a fad. Whether linear 4k becomes a thing, we'll have to see. If it doesn't, then the RB will stay mostly or totally empty, but that doesn't really hurt DirecTV. They have a huge bandwidth advantage over virtually every other provider. I suppose they could start pumping up bitrates after they get rid of SD to use up the space, but they can only go so far before they start shrinking people's DVRs quite a bit.



> The path for 4K is looking very grim, until I see changes that will point otherwise 4K is a fad on my books.


It's not grim at all. It's the brightest for any new major display format yet.



peds48 said:


> So if DVDs are still in hot demand over Blue Rays that have been out for a long time now, this will indicate that folks are happy with what they have and are not looking for any improvement no matter how hard the industry pushes this 4K fad.


That's completely nonsensical. Just because people still buy DVDs doesn't rule out the possibility of a thriving UHD BD market. If anything, it points to there still being strong demand for physical media, even though streaming has taken a bite out of it.



peds48 said:


> But at some point, when folks realize that 4K is only found online and as more folks realize they cant access such content because their connection sucks they will start to move on and 4K will start to fade away.


This is a complete lie in the United States. If you look at cable coverage, which largely approximates the availability of broadband, about 90% of homes have access to cable, and thus broadband. When you subtract out a few oddball cable systems without broadband, and add in some rural fiber coops, you're still right around 90%.



> You have to realize that the majority of folks that have 4K TVs now are those that are normally well off, that can afford decent broadband connection if available. The rest of the country while they may want to get for 4K because they are being push by the hype, cant afford to either get a 4K set much less have access or afford a good connection that allow them to access 4K content online.


The people who can't afford broadband probably can't afford a 4k tv either, and the middle and higher income areas where people are going to buy them have widespread broadband availability.



peds48 said:


> To your points Yes, DIRECTV is ready, but are the content creators (linear) ready, for the looks of it, they are holding out to see where this goes and that is a huge problem because then it becomes "the chicken or the egg" kind of thing, folks stop buying 4K because there is no content and no content is made because there is demand"
> 
> Don't let the hype drive your emotions, (impulse buying is not a good thing) as you may end up getting the short end of the stick.


There is no chicken and egg here. 4k TVs are here, and 4k content is here. Whether linear TV gets on board is an unknown as of right now. Linear 4k could fizzle, it could totally take off, or we could end up with all of MLB doing 4k, and no one else doing it, or something like that. That's irrelevant to the success of 4k, as 4k can succeed on UHD BD and streaming alone. Linear would be nice, but 4k is not dependent on it.

There is no short end of the stick here. I'm already massively enjoying my 4k TV, I have watched a couple of series in 4k, in addition to several movies, and I have a pile of UHD BDs yet to watch, and my Netflix and Amazon lists both have quite a bit more 4k content that I have yet to watch. And with everything else that's not 4k, it looks awesome on my 4k TV.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Rich said:


> Not sure how to answer that. I do get a really good picture from my two Samsung 2160p BD upscalers, but any 1080p streamer seems to be nearly the same, PQ-wise. Problem with the upscaling BD players when using NF or Amazon is how slowly they load content. And the UIs on them aren't as good as streaming boxes. I would think the way you're doing it now is as good as it gets, at this time.
> 
> I see the DVDO EDGE on Amazon for ~ $180. But only one HDMI input? How do you have that (assuming you have the cheaper model) hooked up to the 850D? My 8000 has the same HDMI configuration as your 850D. I can only see one input being used with that cheaper model.


Yeah, it's hard to know. I stream using my Roku, which is scaling internally, since it's outputting 2160p60. 1080p streaming looks incredible on it, but it's starting out with a higher quality source than cable TV. Some people are all up in arms about the 60p/24p thing, but while I am a real stickler on image quality, the frame rate stuff just doesn't bother me. I can tell the difference between material produced at 24p versus 60p, but beyond that, it's not something I'm terribly concerned about.

The DVDO EDGE GREEN has 5 HDMI inputs, the old DVDO EDGE has either 5 or 6, one on the front. I have my two TiVos, Wii U, Wii, and HTPC hooked up to my DVDO EDGE GREEN (I could hook up a VCR, N64, GCN, but I don't have them hooked up at the moment), which feeds HDMI 1 on the TV with HDMI 1.4 at 1080p. My HTPC has integrated graphics, so it maxes out at 1080p, which is more than enough for what I use it for. At various points in time I've had a BD player and ATV also connected to the DVDO EDGE GREEN. The ATV is redundant to the Chromecast now, as all I used it for was casting YouTube to the big screen, and Chromecast is much more versatile for people to use their own Android phones versus the ATV being limited basically to my iPad.

My Roku, UBD-K8500, and Chromecast Ultra are connected to the OneConnect Mini on the JS850D using HDMI 2.0 with HDCP 2.2.

With my old 1080p Sharp, everything went through the DVDO EDGE, so it send video to the TV and audio to the AVR. With the JS850D, I originally had audio going directly from the Roku, UBD-K8500, and DVDO EDGE to my AVR, but it was a royal PITA switching inputs, and there was nothing to be gained from this setup (there was with bitstreaming with the Sharp 1080p, as I had a BD player behind the DVDO EDGE), so I configured everything except the UBD-K8500 to send audio to the JS850D, which has the volume set to 0, and sends the audio via optical to the AVR, so I only have to switch inputs once on the JS850D unless I'm watching a UHD BD, in which case its worth it to switch two inputs. The UBD-K8500 then bitstreams via HDMI 1.4 to my AVR, which can handle HDMI 1.4 with DTS-HD MA 7.1, but not Atmos, DTS:X or HDMI 2.0.

If I keep traditional pay TV in the long run, it's going to be D*, either way I'm keeping the TiVo Roamio OTA for locals. If I do keep pay TV, I'll cross the bridge as to whether to use RVU, or a C61k (requiring an HDMI 2.0 switch), or possibly for now hook up an HR54 to the DVDO EDGE until there is something I want to watch on linear 4k. I currently have a local cable company that has a somewhat limited HD lineup, but very good PQ on the channels that they do have.

When I move, I won't be in the same area, so I will have to either cut the cord or go with D*, which will depend on roommates and what they want, and if I have an uncapped broadband provider available or if I'm looking at a 1TB cap, as I'm not footing a $120/mo bill myself to watch sports and cable news. I'm already paying about $90/mo, but I own my own TiVos, so I'm only paying $5/mo for a CableCard. The XL4 will get retired when I move, the Minis will be connected to the Roamio OTA, and the Roamio OTA will continue on, hopefully with more channels, as the area I'm in now is lousy for OTA reception.

I've played around with the HR44 quite a bit, and it's no TiVo, but it's good enough for pay TV content, as my PBS addiction and various network programming would still be handled by the TiVo. I've also used an XG1 running X1 on Comcast, which IMO is a step down from the HR44, which is a step down from TiVo. The XG1 has more features, a few really cool UI touches like T9-esque text entry and intelligent searching, and a better looking menu/UI than the HR44, but it's way too laggy in comparison, and gets frustrating pretty quickly. Their old iGuide boxes on Motorola systems were very responsive, but rather basic in functionality and UI. However, the bottom line with Comcast is that their picture quality is horrendous, so they are not an option. I switched from them when they went to MPEG-4 and their picture quality took a nosedive. When I move, depending on what town I'm in, I'll either be on Cox or Comcast.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Yeah, it's hard to know. I stream using my Roku, which is scaling internally, since it's outputting 2160p60. 1080p streaming looks incredible on it, but it's starting out with a higher quality source than cable TV. Some people are all up in arms about the 60p/24p thing, but while I am a real stickler on image quality, the frame rate stuff just doesn't bother me. I can tell the difference between material produced at 24p versus 60p, but beyond that, it's not something I'm terribly concerned about.
> 
> The DVDO EDGE GREEN has 5 HDMI inputs, the old DVDO EDGE has either 5 or 6, one on the front. I have my two TiVos, Wii U, Wii, and HTPC hooked up to my DVDO EDGE GREEN (I could hook up a VCR, N64, GCN, but I don't have them hooked up at the moment), which feeds HDMI 1 on the TV with HDMI 1.4 at 1080p. My HTPC has integrated graphics, so it maxes out at 1080p, which is more than enough for what I use it for. At various points in time I've had a BD player and ATV also connected to the DVDO EDGE GREEN. The ATV is redundant to the Chromecast now, as all I used it for was casting YouTube to the big screen, and Chromecast is much more versatile for people to use their own Android phones versus the ATV being limited basically to my iPad.


Have not had any luck with Rokus on either new set. My luck...

So you have the expensive version of the DVDO, interesting. I know how to hook that up, I just won't spend that much on a streaming box...or I might. I do find that model intriguing.

Rich


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Rich said:


> Have not had any luck with Rokus on either new set. My luck...
> 
> So you have the expensive version of the DVDO, interesting. I know how to hook that up, I just won't spend that much on a streaming box...or I might. I do find that model intriguing.


I think you've got the models confused. The DVDO EDGE GREEN is basically the same as the DVDO EDGE, just a newer model, minus the front HDMI, with some power saving features, and lacking the ability to handle 240p on composite (N64 which I subsequently found a composite to HDMI converter for). The EDGE GREEN is a $500 box, but it is obsolete, as it can only output 1080p. I bought it when I had a 1080p TV. The DVDO iScan DUO was the expensive model. Both have a bunch of inputs, several outputs, various conversions up in terms of video, and HDMI or optical out to the AVR. They are supposed to be the center of the whole system, which they can no longer be in a 4k world, since they can only handle the 1080p side of the system, not the 4k side.

The small 4k upscaler is a newer product, and doesn't have all the various inputs and outputs, and does some 4k processing/upscaling. I don't know a whole lot about it, but I know some people are running those and/or Darbee Darblets in order to get better quality.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> A good 4k set will make the flaws on a low quality source much more obvious.


So an otherwise good source on an HDTV that looks good, it will look like crap an a 4K set, so this should be a feature of 4K or a drawback....

So going back to linear is the key here, no linear big failure...



Bigg said:


> 4k is not a fad. Whether linear 4k becomes a thing, we'll have to see. If it doesn't, then the RB will stay mostly or totally empty, but that doesn't really hurt DirecTV. They have a huge bandwidth advantage over virtually every other provider. I suppose they could start pumping up bitrates after they get rid of SD to use up the space, but they can only go so far before they start shrinking people's DVRs quite a bit.


RB has nothing to do with 4K. This is not a factor on my books wether 4K takes a nose dive or a tiny jump, either way as of now it has all the sign of a fad.



Bigg said:


> It's not grim at all. It's the brightest for any new major display format yet.


Google just put another nail on 4K's coffin. First it released mobile only proving that streaming is most profitable on mobile devices and as such that where resources are being spent, an 4K is useless in mobile devices.



Bigg said:


> That's completely nonsensical. Just because people still buy DVDs doesn't rule out the possibility of a thriving UHD BD market. If anything, it points to there still being strong demand for physical media, even though streaming has taken a bite out of it.


again, profit determines what gets sold, if UHD becomes a loss, it wont get stocked on shelves. Since most folks seems to be confortable with DVDs it looks to me that UHDs will sit right besides the 3D DVDs.



Bigg said:


> This is a complete lie in the United States. If you look at cable coverage, which largely approximates the availability of broadband, about 90% of homes have access to cable, and thus broadband. When you subtract out a few oddball cable systems without broadband, and add in some rural fiber coops, you're still right around 90%.


Wow, where have you been the last 10 years? It isn't hard to find out why USA is ranked like 17 in broadband availability (and reliability) in the world with countries like Israel, Romania, Japan, Latvia, Uruguay coming on top.

39% of rural areas lack access to the FCC determined Broadband speeds and 10% of the USA lack access as well. Also being available does not mean folks can get Broadband, as we know getting a decent connection in the USA can cost an arm and a leg some folks tend to get what ever lowest package is available.



Bigg said:


> The people who can't afford broadband probably can't afford a 4k tv either, and the middle and higher income areas where people are going to buy them have widespread broadband availability.


And that is a whole lot of folks, again 4K is only for the enthusiast which is a niche market, one of the features of a fad.



Bigg said:


> There is no chicken and egg here. 4k TVs are here, and 4k content is here. Whether linear TV gets on board is an unknown as of right now. Linear 4k could fizzle, it could totally take off, or we could end up with all of MLB doing 4k, and no one else doing it, or something like that. That's irrelevant to the success of 4k, as 4k can succeed on UHD BD and streaming alone. Linear would be nice, but 4k is not dependent on it.


Content is key for 4K, and linear is where the market is. You keep mentioning streaming as a pillar for 4K success but when faced with the facts that streaming is one of the 4K pitfalls you do a spin. Google just launched their storming products with focused on mobile, while TVs app are plan for the future, bringing out mobile first lets you see where the giants of TV see the state of strewing. Without linear 4K, it will eventually disappear. A feature of a fad.



Bigg said:


> There is no short end of the stick here. I'm already massively enjoying my 4k TV, I have watched a couple of series in 4k, in addition to several movies, and I have a pile of UHD BDs yet to watch, and my Netflix and Amazon lists both have quite a bit more 4k content that I have yet to watch. And with everything else that's not 4k, it looks awesome on my 4k TV.


So the majority of folks and I as well, we are enjoying our HDTV which there are tons of it, way much more than 4K. And I know that at the end I can say I wasn't taken for a ride on this 4K fad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> So an otherwise good source on an HDTV that looks good, it will look like crap an a 4K set, so this should be a feature of 4K or a drawback....
> 
> So going back to linear is the key here, no linear big failure...
> 
> ...


Yeah, its a fad, you win! Happy? Same old cranky people said HD was a fad too!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

It is silly to keep arguing over whether 4K is a fad, or will sweep through over time like HD did. It will either happen, or not, just wait a few years to see.

The '90% have access to cable/telco broadband' is a stat based on population. It is far lower if you measure by area. That may be addressed eventually in large part by fixed wireless broadband, though I doubt it will be offered at caps high enough to make 4K OTT streaming practical as a replacement for satellite for those customers.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Yeah, its a fad, you win! Happy? Same old cranky people said HD was a fad too!


I am not neither old, cranky...lol. Neither did a call HD a fad. As a matter of fact, I saw HD as the next standard to replace SD since the day it was born as it had everything going for it, unlike for 4K that has an uphill battle if it wants to be in the same place as HD is today.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> It is silly to keep arguing over whether 4K is a fad, or will sweep through over time like HD did. It will either happen, or not, just wait a few years to see.
> 
> The '90% have access to cable/telco broadband' is a stat based on population. It is far lower if you measure by area. That may be addressed eventually in large part by fixed wireless broadband, though I doubt it will be offered at caps high enough to make 4K OTT streaming practical as a replacement for satellite for those customers.


Well, not sure arguing is the word to use, at least I am not arguing, more like sharing my opinion based on past experiences.

And I agree on the 90% metric. As I said on my earlier post, rural folks don't have the luxury to call broadband a "thing".

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> I am not neither old, cranky...lol. Neither did a call HD a fad. As a matter of fact, I saw HD as the next standard to replace SD since the day it was born as it had everything going for it, unlike for 4K that has an uphill battle if it wants to be in the same place as HD is today.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Never said you called HD a fad. Others did. But your "acting" like a cranky old man with he fad thing. We GET IT. You win the gold star!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Never said you called HD a fad. Others did. But your "acting" like a cranky old man with he fad thing. We GET IT. You win the gold star!


Not about winning a star or anything of the like, just presenting opinions.

But to your point, If I am acting like a cranky old man for discussing this topic, so are the others on the other side posting their opinions not acting the same? Why? Is it because you agree with them and as such an oposite opinion is viewed negatively? Or is it because calling someone names that you disagree with makes you feel better....

We have to learn to that we can't agree with everyone all the time, and this is what this topic is about. Obviously none of us can predict the future so we make opinions based of past experiences. To some 4K will be as popular ass HD is today, to others, including myself we see 4K for what it is currently ,a fad.

You can agree or disagree and that is fine, no one is going to win a star. If you dont like participating and then you can sit on the sidelines while others express their opinions.

[mic drop]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

Nope.....I will second the cranky old man part.....Be the observer?
Gotta see how it looks from a neutral eye.
I see it more as continually beating a dead horse..IMHO


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Not about winning a star or anything of the like, just presenting opinions.
> 
> But to your point, If I am acting like a cranky old man for discussing this topic, so are the others on the other side posting their opinions not acting the same? Why? Is it because you agree with them and as such an oposite opinion is viewed negatively? Or is it because calling someone names that you disagree with makes you feel better....
> 
> ...


All in fun! Enjoy your low-rez HD ;-)


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> So an otherwise good source on an HDTV that looks good, it will look like crap an a 4K set, so this should be a feature of 4K or a drawback....


It will look crappier on a 4k set. This is really a Comcast problem, as DirecTV is a lot better.



> again, profit determines what gets sold, if UHD becomes a loss, it wont get stocked on shelves. Since most folks seems to be confortable with DVDs it looks to me that UHDs will sit right besides the 3D DVDs.


Sales are doing well so far. People like movies and collecting them, so UHD BD will survive. Whether it survives in Wal-Mart is anybody's guess. It will survive in Best Buy and online.



> 39% of rural areas lack access to the FCC determined Broadband speeds and 10% of the USA lack access as well. Also being available does not mean folks can get Broadband, as we know getting a decent connection in the USA can cost an arm and a leg some folks tend to get what ever lowest package is available.


About 10% of the population overall can't get good broadband for 4k streaming. That's a problem for a lot of reasons, but 10% isn't going to kill 4k, even if those people had the same incomes and interest in technology as the population as a whole (they don't).



> So the majority of folks and I as well, we are enjoying our HDTV which there are tons of it, way much more than 4K. And I know that at the end I can say I wasn't taken for a ride on this 4K fad.


Yeah, I'm enjoying my 4k viewing as part of the 4k trend. It looks amazing! If no one ever does any significant linear 4k, I'd still be 100% happy with my 4k TV.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> The '90% have access to cable/telco broadband' is a stat based on population. It is far lower if you measure by area.


No argument there. But cows don't watch 4k, people do. There are a lot of restaurants and services and other things only available in suburban/urban or sometimes just urban areas, and they do just fine.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> It will look crappier on a 4k set. This is really a Comcast problem, as DirecTV is a lot better.


So 4K will lock you down to a provider, at least until 4K gets past the fad phase, which may never come.



Bigg said:


> Sales are doing well so far. People like movies and collecting them, so UHD BD will survive. Whether it survives in Wal-Mart is anybody's guess. It will survive in Best Buy and online.


Ain't Walmart the people's Mall? Lol

But went to Worse Buy the other day, not too long ago, UHD selection was rather limited.



Bigg said:


> About 10% of the population overall can't get good broadband for 4k streaming. That's a problem for a lot of reasons, but 10% isn't going to kill 4k, even if those people had the same incomes and interest in technology as the population as a whole (they don't).


That we can agree on, that 10% wont kill 4K, not for the reason you think, is because streaming is not going to 4K door to success.



Bigg said:


> Yeah, I'm enjoying my 4k viewing as part of the 4k trend. It looks amazing! If no one ever does any significant linear 4k, I'd still be 100% happy with my 4k TV.


And that is the issue with 4K, you are happy with it even when content is scarce so no reason to push, create new 4K content in masse. You just proof the point why 4K will fail and be nothing more than a fad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

AZ. said:


> Nope.....I will second the cranky old man part.....Be the observer?
> Gotta see how it looks from a neutral eye.
> I see it more as continually beating a dead horse..IMHO


What is neutral? You opinion? Again, you have the right to your opinion but not your own facts.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> So 4K will lock you down to a provider, at least until 4K gets past the fad phase, which may never come.


Then your definition of a "fad" is quite different from most folks'. Just how do you define a fad??


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities, a craze......That said, does the subject of conversation fit that definition?......My "opinion" of 4K is that it is not a fad but rather a phase (phase: A distinct period or stage in a process of change or forming of something's development.).


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Then your definition of a "fad" is quite different from most folks'. Just how do you define a fad??


Seems to fit 4K, like a glove...



MysteryMan said:


> fad: An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You are predicting that it will be a fad. It won't be a fad until it fades. You do not have a consensus that it will fade.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

What could kill 4K is if providers like Directv and cable companies decide to charge a lot for 4K.
Personally, I don't have a 4K tv so all I've seen is at stores. It sure looks great for the stuff they show but I'm not running there. If I need to get new equipment from Directv and pay a fee and the new TV cost - I'd have to be convinced that what I will see is much better than what I get with HD. HD is much better than SD but will 4K look that much better than HD - not sure yet.

I don't think it is a fad but might be a slow grower for a while


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

CTJon said:


> What could kill 4K is if providers like Directv and cable companies decide to charge a lot for 4K.
> Personally, I don't have a 4K tv so all I've seen is at stores. It sure looks great for the stuff they show but I'm not running there. If I need to get new equipment from Directv and pay a fee and the new TV cost - I'd have to be convinced that what I will see is much better than what I get with HD. HD is much better than SD but will 4K look that much better than HD - not sure yet.
> 
> I don't think it is a fad but might be a slow grower for a while


Upscaling is the selling point for investing in a 4K Ultra HDTV. The high end sets do a superb job. Granted, the garbage in garbage out rule applies but as long as the content is high quality the upscaling ability is very noticeable.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> Upscaling is the selling point for investing in a 4K Ultra HDTV. The high end sets do a superb job. Granted, the garbage in garbage out rule applies but as long as the content is high quality the upscaling ability is very noticeable.


True, true and true. The odds of 4K just disappearing, dying, "being a fad" get smaller every day. Unless, of course, some genius will tell us something can last a decade and still be called a fad.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

CTJon said:


> What could kill 4K is if providers like Directv and cable companies decide to charge a lot for 4K.
> Personally, I don't have a 4K tv so all I've seen is at stores. It sure looks great for the stuff they show but I'm not running there. If I need to get new equipment from Directv and pay a fee and the new TV cost - I'd have to be convinced that what I will see is much better than what I get with HD. HD is much better than SD but will 4K look that much better than HD - not sure yet.
> 
> I don't think it is a fad but might be a slow grower for a while


Yes, 4K is as good as HD was to SD. Now 1080p and 720p scaled look great. 480p looks , ok.

This is on my LG B6 OLED


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> You are predicting that it will be a fad. It won't be a fad until it fades. You do not have a consensus that it will fade.


And that is exactly the point. Where are in the MIDDLE of the fad phase. I can be proven right or wrong shortly after.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

CTJon said:


> What could kill 4K is if providers like Directv and cable companies decide to charge a lot for 4K.
> Personally, I don't have a 4K tv so all I've seen is at stores. It sure looks great for the stuff they show but I'm not running there. If I need to get new equipment from Directv and pay a fee and the new TV cost - I'd have to be convinced that what I will see is much better than what I get with HD. HD is much better than SD but will 4K look that much better than HD - not sure yet.
> 
> I don't think it is a fad but might be a slow grower for a while


And because millions of folks think alike, 4K will die an early death. There is just not enough gain as it was with HD for folks to get on this train. As such 4K would be what 3D was a fad.

When 4K fails I can see TV manufacturers bringing something new to entice new TV upgrades. Perhaps the new "fad" (not sure yet) might be VR.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> True, true and true. The odds of 4K just disappearing, dying, "being a fad" get smaller every day. Unless, of course, some genius will tell us something can last a decade and still be called a fad.


You have to make a difference on my points. I am calling 4K as a whole a fad, 4K TVs are here to stay until something new comes up.

Just like the early days is HD folks couldn't grasp the concept of what was required to get HD, that is source, programming, STB, interconnect, TV all had to be HD. Many folks thought that just by getting an HD TV they were going to get HD with their old equipment.

So that whole concept is what I don't see happening with 4K

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

gio12 said:


> Yes, 4K is as good as HD was to SD. Now 1080p and 720p scaled look great. 480p looks , ok.
> 
> This is on my LG B6 OLED


So are you implying that the jump from HD to 4K is the same as the jump from SD to HD? I don't think that even the most hard core 4K fans can defend that claim.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

The only thing I can say to this very tedious thread is that I feel bad for the dead horse that's getting beat on so badly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> And that is exactly the point. Where are in the MIDDLE of the fad phase. I can be proven right or wrong shortly after.


And my point is that it is not a fad until it is a fad. Calling it a fad now is premature.

I am not sure how well 4K content will catch on. 1080p and 3D content has survived in a world where "HD" is common and SD is still used. I expect 4K will at least reach the level of 1080p and 3D. Some people consider one or both of those formats a fad. Perhaps not destined to leave all prior formats in the dust, but I do not consider any of those three formats fads.

As for 4K televisions - I can easily say that they are the next step in the evolution of TV. Considering that 4K is replacing HD in the marketplace, saying that 4K televisions are a fad because they will be replaced by 8K or some other format instantly labels HD television as a fad. That is the logic of the statement. So I will not call 4K televisions a fad since they are overwhelming the marketplace. And they will only be replaced by the next step forward ... not a step back to HD televisions.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> So 4K will lock you down to a provider, at least until 4K gets past the fad phase, which may never come.


To be fair, Comcast looks crappy on a 1080p TV too, just not quite as crappy.



> That we can agree on, that 10% wont kill 4K, not for the reason you think, is because streaming is not going to 4K door to success.


Streaming is a huge part of TV's future, both in 4k and lower resolutions.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> As for 4K televisions - I can easily say that they are the next step in the evolution of TV. Considering that 4K is replacing HD in the marketplace, saying that 4K televisions are a fad because they will be replaced by 8K or some other format instantly labels HD television as a fad. That is the logic of the statement. So I will not call 4K televisions a fad since they are overwhelming the marketplace. And they will only be replaced by the next step forward ... not a step back to HD televisions.


I have never, ever call 4K sets a fad, I set from the get go, they are here to stay, but that is not my point.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> I am not sure how well 4K content will catch on. 1080p and 3D content has survived in a world where "HD" is common and SD is still used. I expect 4K will at least reach the level of 1080p and 3D. Some people consider one or both of those formats a fad. Perhaps not destined to leave all prior formats in the dust, but I do not consider any of those three formats fads.
> 
> .


It seems you an I share (almost) the same train of thought, with the deference being me calling a fad and you just deciding to not call it any names.

And I agree wholeheartedly 1080p and 3D are two examples of a fad in the TV industry with 4K joining them in a very short minute.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> And my point is that it is not a fad until it is a fad. Calling it a fad now is premature.
> 
> .


SO you dont drive a car until you get to your destination? Hmm

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lparsons21 said:


> The only thing I can say to this very tedious thread is that I feel bad for the dead horse that's getting beat on so badly.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Horse is dead, so it has no more feelings, a few more taps wont hurt any more then right after it died. Hahahahaha

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> To be fair, Comcast looks crappy on a 1080p TV too, just not quite as crappy.


Thus my HD TV is staying put.



Bigg said:


> Streaming is a huge part of TV's future, both in 4k and lower resolutions.


May you want to ask Google where they seem streaming future...

By not supporting TV sets natively from the get go, they left a huge statement for those not listening.

But I do agree, streaming is the new "thing" or the new HD, here to stay, but cant say the same for 4K.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> It seems you an I share (almost) the same train of thought, with the deference being me calling a fad and you just deciding to not call it any names.
> 
> And I agree wholeheartedly 1080p and 3D are two examples of a fad in the TV industry with 4K joining them in a very short minute.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Please explain why you believe 1080p is a fad.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> Please explain why you believe 1080p is a fad.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Really??? You want to go there??? Hahaha....

Give me a single channel (linear), that everyone gets or at the very least has a chance to get regardless of what provider they choose that broadcast in 1080p in the USA.

1080p was hyped up as the next big thing after HD, but it could not even see the light of day, DOA.

Also, for those that think that Video on Demand 1080p/24 is better then 1080i, I have a bridge to sell, real cheap......

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Really??? You want to go there??? Hahaha....
> 
> Give me a single channel (linear), that everyone gets or at the very least has a chance to get regardless of what provider they choose that broadcast in 1080p in the USA.
> 
> ...


DIRECTV channel 125 "DIRECTV Cinema The Screening Room" broadcasts in 1080p.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> DIRECTV channel 125 "DIRECTV Cinema The Screening Room" broadcasts in 1080p.


Can you get that on Comcast, Verizon, etc?

Perhaps I did not make my post clear enough, when I said regardless of provider I meant a channel NOT linked to a provider.

But if you want to subscribe to DIRECTV to get the Screening Room on 1080p, go right ahead, hahahahaha

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Really??? You want to go there??? Hahaha....
> 
> Give me a single channel (linear), that everyone gets or at the very least has a chance to get regardless of what provider they choose that broadcast in 1080p in the USA.
> 
> ...


So your belief that 1080p is a fad is based only on what's available on linear TV. 1080p content is widely available via bluray disc, video games, streaming is another option. ESPN broadcasts in 1080p even though no one sends it to the customer in that way.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

btedford said:


> So your belief that 1080p is based only on the fact of what's available on linear TV. 1080p content is widely available via bluray disc, video games, streaming is another option. ESPN broadcasts in 1080p even though no one sends it to the customer in that way.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


What good is ESPN broadcasting in 1080p if no one can watch it..... good one..... hahaha

Just because it may be available it doesn't necessarily means is being consumed or otherwise desired. For every copy of BRD, there are 10 of DVDs, but discs on this case is different as they are no HD discs, so if you want to watch a movie on HD you must get a BR.

Also, regarding streaming, you want buy a bridge....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> SO you dont drive a car until you get to your destination? Hmm


What the hell are your talking about? The sane ones in the thread are discussing 4K.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> What does that have to do with the discussion, troll?


Huh? That was an analogy that you can't call something that is CURRENTLY happening just because is CURRENTLY happening.

The fact that I believe 4K will die and early death leads me to calling a fad as IT HAPPENS.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, this is getting more obtuse by the post! 

Airplanes were thought to be a fad; computers; the internet; smart phones; laptops; etc., etc., etc. Let's come back to this in five years!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Huh? That was an analogy that you can't call something that is CURRENTLY happening just because is CURRENTLY happening.


You can't be serious.



peds48 said:


> The fact that I believe 4K will die and early death leads me to calling a fad as IT HAPPENS.


That is one vote for "fad". Just one. How many months does the 4K format need to last before you accept that it hasn't died?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Thanks guys. I need a good laugh tonight!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> You can't be serious.
> 
> That is one vote for "fad". Just one. How many months does the 4K format need to last before you accept that it hasn't died?


Should we count just the "votes" on this forum as official, or perhaps we should count the "votes" of the contents creators or the population or their wallets as official?

The 20 or so folks on this thread do not represent the view of the rest of the population.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Thanks guys. I need a good laugh tonight!


Glad to hear some folks are enjoying this discussion, if we are not having fun then it gets boring, and no one likes to post to boring threads.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Well, this is getting more obtuse by the post!
> 
> Airplanes were thought to be a fad; computers; the internet; smart phones; laptops; etc., etc., etc. Let's come back to this in five years!


Well not sure who would be so disingenuous to believe those great innovations were fads!

But I do agree, only time will tell. If I am wrong I will proudly raise my hand first.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

James Long said:


> That is one vote for "fad". Just one. How many months does the 4K format need to last before you accept that it hasn't died?


Let's see. 3D TVS came out in 2010. The last two manufacturers have/will stop this year.

So if you believe 3D was a fad, then that is 84 months?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

trh said:


> Let's see. 3D TVS came out in 2010. The last two manufacturers have/will stop this year.
> 
> So if you believe 3D was a fad, then that is 84 months?


The stereoscopic era of motion pictures began in the late 1890s. Since then it has came and went many times leading up to today. Given that 3D can be described as either a recurring fad or a long developing phase.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

trh said:


> Let's see. 3D TVS came out in 2010. The last two manufacturers have/will stop this year.
> 
> So if you believe 3D was a fad, then that is 84 months?


Did 3D television manufacture surpass HD manufacture at any point? That would be a good benchmark for "success".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Did 3D television manufacture surpass HD manufacture at any point? That would be a good benchmark for "success".


If they built 3D in to every TV because adding it was essentially free, but demand for 3D content remained low, would you consider it a success?

Calling 4K a success because (almost) all the TVs on the market are 4K is silly, given that the main reason that's true is because there's essentially no cost difference. Mainly patent licensing, and LCD panels are actually cheaper to make at a 4K resolution than HD resolution above a certain size (65" was the crossover a couple generations ago, it is probably 50 or 55 inches now) so a 65" LCD/LED TV would undoubtedly cost more to make in 1080p today than at 2160p.

To put it another way, was the reason so many black cars were on the road in the 1920s because everyone wanted a black car, or because Ford only offered the model T in black?


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

btedford said:


> ESPN broadcasts in 1080p even though no one sends it to the customer in that way.


Seriously? If that's the case, it's very unfortunate that they make the pay TV providers send it to us in 720p, as it would look much better in 1080i.



slice1900 said:


> If they built 3D in to every TV because adding it was essentially free, but demand for 3D content remained low, would you consider it a success?


There's a fundamental difference between 4k and 3D. With 3D you have to put goofy glasses on that have to be recharged, and they're weird and kind of uncomfortable. With 4k, if you have a 4k TV with Wi-Fi, and you connect it to the default router contraption that basically any MSO rents out, and you have the 4-stream Netflix account and you watch a show that just happens to be available in 4k- you will get 4k automatically without doing one single thing that you wouldn't have done for 1080p viewing except possibly getting the 4-stream account for a smaller household.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Seriously? If that's the case, it's very unfortunate that they make the pay TV providers send it to us in 720p, as it would look much better in 1080i.


I've yet to see a source for the claim that ESPN broadcasts in 1080p. They may do back end production in 1080p, but that's very different than uplinking to providers in that form.

Also, while YOU may think ESPN would look better in 1080i, others like me heartily disagree. Frame rate is much more important than resolution for sports. ESPN happens to agree, which is why they made the decision long ago to distribute in 720p60 rather than inferior 1080i30.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> I've yet to see a source for the claim that ESPN broadcasts in 1080p. They may do back end production in 1080p, but that's very different than uplinking to providers in that form.
> 
> Also, while YOU may think ESPN would look better in 1080i, others like me heartily disagree. Frame rate is much more important than resolution for sports. ESPN happens to agree, which is why they made the decision long ago to distribute in 720p60 rather than inferior 1080i30.


ESPN's MPEG-4 switch provides a path to 1080p60 broadcasts

I could have sworn I saw another article that said they had already done the switch but this article from a few years ago says that they haven't flipped the switch yet but that may have changed since then. My bad


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Calling 4K a success because (almost) all the TVs on the market are 4K is silly, given that the main reason that's true is because there's essentially no cost difference.


So HD is not a success since the main reason that they have (past tense) dominated the market is due to the lack of less than HD sets. Widespread industry acceptance has made 4K a success.



slice1900 said:


> To put it another way, was the reason so many black cars were on the road in the 1920s because everyone wanted a black car, or because Ford only offered the model T in black?


You could have any color you wanted as long as it was black. But that example does not apply. The industry didn't change over from purple cars to black cars because black was better. They eventually changed from black cars to a variety of colors because a choice of colors was better.

Or to put it another way, black and white TV was the beginning of mass market television production. Color TV using a black and white compatible system was the improvement. There was nothing special about the first mass produced cars being black - nor the first mass produced TVs being black and white. The innovation of colors came later.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

Talking motion pictures were expected to be a fad.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> Talking motion pictures were expected to be a fad.


 Indeed. As were automobiles, electric refrigerators, even electricity! The list could go on and on and .... I know I am not a genius, but it doesn't take one to see that 4K is not a fad by most definitions.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

btedford said:


> ESPN's MPEG-4 switch provides a path to 1080p60 broadcasts
> 
> I could have sworn I saw another article that said they had already done the switch but this article from a few years ago says that they haven't flipped the switch yet but that may have changed since then. My bad


As I've pointed out before, the problem with broadcasting 1080p60 is that hardly any means to display it exists. Many older HDTVs cannot accept 1080p60. Even if you have a TV that can, few HD cables/satellite set top boxes are capable of outputting it (i.e. Directv's HD boxes can only output 1080p24)

Yeah, in theory if Directv broadcast 1080p60 and the boxes were capable of downscaling it, you could tell it whether you want 720p60 like me or 1080p30 (i.e. 1080i) like those who care primarily about resolution. But they would be wasting a lot of bandwidth for almost no gain.

Like I keep saying, we will NEVER see 1080p60 broadcasts. Networks that want better quality than they get from 720p/1080i will go 4K. Even overcompressed 4K would probably make for fairly decent 1080p60 given a 4K set top that downscales for output to an HDTV...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I am surprised that no one went 1080p24 on a movie channel (other than PPV).

ESPNs plans from 2011 certainly have changed. Since that announcement they launched and terminated their 3D service. I thought there was a later announcement that said they could reuse that investment for 4K and expected an ESPN 4K linear channel would be launched by now but ESPN is not taking the bleeding edge approach this time.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

James Long said:


> I am surprised that no one went 1080p24 on a movie channel (other than PPV).
> 
> ESPNs plans from 2011 certainly have changed. Since that announcement they launched and terminated their 3D service. I thought there was a later announcement that said they could reuse that investment for 4K and expected an ESPN 4K linear channel would be launched by now but ESPN is not taking the bleeding edge approach this time.


 www.lightreading.com/video/4k-8k-video/sports-in-4k-its-coming/a/d-id/718640

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

btedford said:


> www.lightreading.com/video/4k-8k-video/sports-in-4k-its-coming/a/d-id/718640
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Interesting article and more proof it's not a fad.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Interesting article and more proof it's not a fad.


All it will take is one major network to go 4K and the rest will follow. Happened with stereo, it will happen again. I think.

Rich


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Rich said:


> All it will take is one major network to go 4K and the rest will follow. Happened with stereo, it will happen again. I think.
> 
> Rich


The networks have taken the cautious approach of wait and see. Sports broadcasts will be the deciding factor for them. After that entertainment broadcasting will follow.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> The networks have taken the cautious approach of wait and see. Sports broadcasts will be the deciding factor for them. After that entertainment broadcasting will follow.


The sports might be enough to make me think about sticking around. I really don't care about D* anymore. I'm ready for a different approach.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> I am surprised that no one went 1080p24 on a movie channel (other than PPV).
> 
> ESPNs plans from 2011 certainly have changed. Since that announcement they launched and terminated their 3D service. I thought there was a later announcement that said they could reuse that investment for 4K and expected an ESPN 4K linear channel would be launched by now but ESPN is not taking the bleeding edge approach this time.


I think the networks decided long ago to stick to ATSC broadcast standards for HD, which spec only 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i, even when delivering non-broadcast cable/satellite channels.

A couple years ago I would have thought having an ESPN 4K channel by now was a forgone conclusion, but their revenue has been declining and they've been laying people off, so when their bean counters look at the many millions they sunk into their failed 3D channel they probably are waiting for someone else to go 4K first and see how it goes before making the investment. Maybe HBO will take the leap?

I was told Directv doesn't plan to start using reverse band until fall of _next_ year. Obviously they can deliver 4K without it, and that may be tied to something else, but they will know the networks' plans for bringing up a 4K channel far in advance. Maybe they already know there's nothing coming this year, and took that into account with their planning?


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> I think the networks decided long ago to stick to ATSC broadcast standards for HD, which spec only 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i, even when delivering non-broadcast cable/satellite channels.
> 
> A couple years ago I would have thought having an ESPN 4K channel by now was a forgone conclusion, but their revenue has been declining and they've been laying people off, so when their bean counters look at the many millions they sunk into their failed 3D channel they probably are waiting for someone else to go 4K first and see how it goes before making the investment. Maybe HBO will take the leap?
> 
> I was told Directv doesn't plan to start using reverse band until fall of _next_ year. Obviously they can deliver 4K without it, and that may be tied to something else, but they will know the networks' plans for bringing up a 4K channel far in advance. Maybe they already know there's nothing coming this year, and took that into account with their planning?


FS1 has taken a lot of material from ESPN.
I will guess that they might be the first mover on the 4k material.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I think the networks decided long ago to stick to ATSC broadcast standards for HD, which spec only 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i, even when delivering non-broadcast cable/satellite channels.


The 18 formats approved by the FCC (and required to be able to be handled by every ATSC tuner) include the 1080p format.
What exactly is ATSC

(A TV with an ATSC tuner is not required to display all formats in their native form, but if a broadcaster sends 1080p the tuner must be able to receive that format.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting, even the interlace interfaces have p30 and p24 progressive formats as subtypes. Wonder if any stations use those? Too bad rabbitears doesn't list frame rates.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

Here's the info for ATSC 3.0: 4K TV broadcasts are coming: here's what you need to know


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

ATSC 3.0 is coming, but that doesn't necessarily imply stations using ATSC 3.0 will be broadcasting in 4K.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> ATSC 3.0 is coming, but that doesn't necessarily imply stations using ATSC 3.0 will be broadcasting in 4K.


That's true. I think until the HDR format wars die down a bit...I'm not sure we will see much broadcast 4K. However, I think we will continue to get special events in 4K like Live Sports or documentaries like Planet Earth II up until that point.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

btedford said:


> That's true. I think until the HDR format wars die down a bit...I'm not sure we will see much broadcast 4K. However, I think we will continue to get special events in 4K like Live Sports or documentaries like Planet Earth II up until that point.


And unfortunately we'll never see broadcast networks in 4K on Directv, if you want to watch/record in 4K you'll need OTA. So no 4K Super Bowl, ever.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

There is the possibility that the networks could provide a blanket waiver for DMA's where the affiliates are network O&O's, like they did in the early days of HD. That would allow DirecTV to just air east & west coast network feeds in 4K (when they exiat). 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> ATSC 3.0 is coming, but that doesn't necessarily imply stations using ATSC 3.0 will be broadcasting in 4K.


Unless the broadcasters cooperate I doubt we will be seeing ATSC 3.0 OTA ... perhaps in places where stations already have multiple ownerships or LMAs.

Give up all of your OTA viewers in exchange for how many who will have an ATSC 3.0 tuner? Or cram your HD signal on to a cooperating station's transmission (possibly in exchange for putting their OTA on the 3.0 feed. Remove any subchannels that would be in the way of such a scheme. (Perhaps the subchannels become ATSC 3.0 only.) In a marketplace where the FCC wants stations to combine to free up space for more wireless.



Bill Broderick said:


> There is the possibility that the networks could provide a blanket waiver for DMA's where the affiliates are network O&O's, like they did in the early days of HD. That would allow DirecTV to just air east & west coast network feeds in 4K (when they exiat).


If networks want their 4K content on DIRECTV they can deliver it directly to DIRECTV. It does not need to be OTA to be carried on DIRECTV. The caveat would be the network's affiliation agreement and a desire not to destroy the "right to first airing" that each station has within their own market. (First air in any format, including SD.)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> If networks want their 4K content on DIRECTV they can deliver it directly to DIRECTV. It does not need to be OTA to be carried on DIRECTV. The caveat would be the network's affiliation agreement and a desire not to destroy the "right to first airing" that each station has within their own market. (First air in any format, including SD.)


Sure, if the networks would be willing to let all Directv subscribers get the network feeds instead of their local stations...

Given that the reason we have all these disputes over locals is because the locals are asking for more and more money because the networks are _charging them_ more and more money for the privilege of being an affiliate, that seems _extremely_ unlikely! The local affiliates would scream bloody murder, unless it was built into their contracts which would limit the times it could happen (i.e. probably not the Super Bowl, since that's when they make the most money from local commercials)


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Also, while YOU may think ESPN would look better in 1080i, others like me heartily disagree. Frame rate is much more important than resolution for sports. ESPN happens to agree, which is why they made the decision long ago to distribute in 720p60 rather than inferior 1080i30.


1080i looks better than 720p. I've watched both, and the winner is clear.



slice1900 said:


> Like I keep saying, we will NEVER see 1080p60 broadcasts. Networks that want better quality than they get from 720p/1080i will go 4K. Even overcompressed 4K would probably make for fairly decent 1080p60 given a 4K set top that downscales for output to an HDTV...


Also, there really is no point to 1080p60 over 1080i60. 1080i60 looks just about as good. I've seen some stunning 1080i60 feeds, you just need to give them enough bitrate.



slice1900 said:


> I was told Directv doesn't plan to start using reverse band until fall of _next_ year. Obviously they can deliver 4K without it, and that may be tied to something else, but they will know the networks' plans for bringing up a 4K channel far in advance. Maybe they already know there's nothing coming this year, and took that into account with their planning?


How many more 4k channels do they have capacity for on Ka through Q4 '17? What about Q1 and Q2 of 2018 when NFLST isn't up? It sounds like they plan to launch some stuff Q1 of '18, and then move it out of the way for NFLST in fall '18.



slice1900 said:


> Given that the reason we have all these disputes over locals is because the locals are asking for more and more money because the networks are _charging them_ more and more money for the privilege of being an affiliate, that seems _extremely_ unlikely! The local affiliates would scream bloody murder, unless it was built into their contracts which would limit the times it could happen (i.e. probably not the Super Bowl, since that's when they make the most money from local commercials)


What would happen for SV locals, where the SVs are O&O and the DMA's own channels are not? That would be such a mess of a solution compared to just making a 4k version of one of their cable networks.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bigg said:


> 1080i looks better than 720p. I've watched both, and the winner is clear.
> 
> Also, there really is no point to 1080p60 over 1080i60. 1080i60 looks just about as good. I've seen some stunning 1080i60 feeds, you just need to give them enough bitrate.


YOUR OPINION. I think 720p looks better for fast action like sports. The people at ABC/ESPN and Fox who made the decision years ago to use 720p instead of 1080i believed that as well. You feel resolution is the most important factor, I and others who prefer 720p feel smoother motion is the most important factor.

There is most certainly a point behind 1080p60 over 1080i - it has twice as many unique frames per second. You need to educate yourself about what 1080i is and how it is created and displayed. You have 60 1920x540 fields per second, which are combined to form 30 1920x1080 frames per second - and originated at the broadcaster as that same 1080p30. Your TV is not displaying 60 unique "pictures" per second, it is displaying 30.

Since you seem to care only about resolution, it is obvious why you believe 1080p60 is no better than 1080p30. But again, that's your opinion, and you say "I've watched both, and the winner is clear" does not make your opinion a fact. I agree that 1080i - and 720p even though you would disagree - can look a lot better than what we get from any provider if given enough bandwidth.



Bigg said:


> How many more 4k channels do they have capacity for on Ka through Q4 '17? What about Q1 and Q2 of 2018 when NFLST isn't up? It sounds like they plan to launch some stuff Q1 of '18, and then move it out of the way for NFLST in fall '18.


Now that they've finally turned on D14's unused transponders, they have room for five more than they had a week ago. NFLST isn't a factor in their allocation of Ka transponders, because part time programming like NFLST, MLBEI, and so forth. Directv simply reduces the number of PPV channels for a few hours to support those.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> YOUR OPINION. I think 720p looks better for fast action like sports. The people at ABC/ESPN and Fox who made the decision years ago to use 720p instead of 1080i believed that as well. You feel resolution is the most important factor, I and others who prefer 720p feel smoother motion is the most important factor.


Back then, there were 720p TVs and 1080i TVs, so there was a legitimate format war. Today, every TV bought within the last few years is at least 1080p, and 1080i simply looks better on a 1080p TV. The only possible exception is if you have a really crappy de-interlacer and are seeing a lot of de-interlacing jaggies from 1080i. 720p looks much softer for everyone, since there's just less resolution there. I've watched quite a bit of basketball on both 1080i and 720p, and it is clear that the winner is 1080i. ESPN is the pinnacle of what 720p can do, but even a mediocre 1080i feed will look better than ESPN.



> There is most certainly a point behind 1080p60 over 1080i - it has twice as many unique frames per second. You need to educate yourself about what 1080i is and how it is created and displayed. You have 60 1920x540 fields per second, which are combined to form 30 1920x1080 frames per second - and originated at the broadcaster as that same 1080p30. Your TV is not displaying 60 unique "pictures" per second, it is displaying 30.


I understand how 1080i works, it's refreshing half the picture 60 times a second, so it looks like 1080p60 to the end user 99% of the time if it is deinterlaced properly, minus an occasional motion jaggie in extreme circumstances like a fast cross-court pass in basketball, versus 720p being soft the entire time compared to 1080i. A few second of jaggies versus the entire game soft? That's a pretty obvious decision. The few seconds of jaggies is far preferable to have much better detail the rest of the time.



> Since you seem to care only about resolution, it is obvious why you believe 1080p60 is no better than 1080p30. But again, that's your opinion, and you say "I've watched both, and the winner is clear" does not make your opinion a fact. I agree that 1080i - and 720p even though you would disagree - can look a lot better than what we get from any provider if given enough bandwidth.


60 vs. 30/24 is a big deal for certain types of content. But 1080i60 deinterlaced properly looks pretty much like 1080p60 99% of the time.



> Now that they've finally turned on D14's unused transponders, they have room for five more than they had a week ago. NFLST isn't a factor in their allocation of Ka transponders, because part time programming like NFLST, MLBEI, and so forth. Directv simply reduces the number of PPV channels for a few hours to support those.


Interesting.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Back then, there were 720p TVs and 1080i TVs, so there was a legitimate format war. Today, every TV bought within the last few years is at least 1080p, and 1080i simply looks better on a 1080p TV. The only possible exception is if you have a really crappy de-interlacer and are seeing a lot of de-interlacing jaggies from 1080i. 720p looks much softer for everyone, since there's just less resolution there. I've watched quite a bit of basketball on both 1080i and 720p, and it is clear that the winner is 1080i. ESPN is the pinnacle of what 720p can do, but even a mediocre 1080i feed will look better than ESPN.
> 
> I understand how 1080i works, it's refreshing half the picture 60 times a second, so it looks like 1080p60 to the end user 99% of the time if it is deinterlaced properly, minus an occasional motion jaggie in extreme circumstances like a fast cross-court pass in basketball, versus 720p being soft the entire time compared to 1080i. A few second of jaggies versus the entire game soft? That's a pretty obvious decision. The few seconds of jaggies is far preferable to have much better detail the rest of the time.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but you are wrong. You are wrong that 1080i "looks better" because again that is YOUR OPINION and your excuse that I must be using some obsolete TV is because you think that YOUR OPINION is a fact which it is not.

You are also wrong about 1080i having 60 unique fields per second. In all modern cameras it is created from 1080p30, and the two fields both originate from the same 1080p30 frame. Your TV recombines the two and displays 1080i as 30 unique frames per second at 1080p. If you doubt that, use a modern smartphone that can record at 240 fps and record a 1080i basketball game off your TV. If it was doing as you say you would see 60 unique frames per second, with every other line of the basketball moving in one frame, then the other half of the lines moving in the next. Which would look even worse than having only 30 frames per second!

I don't care about a "soft" picture. I don't need to see beads of sweat on a player's face or every face in the crowd in the background. I do care about inferior motion display, which I find far more objectionable. Which is MY OPINION. I think your opinion is every bit as wrong as you think mine is, but that's the thing about opinions - we can disagree, because they aren't facts!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

They still sell 720p sets.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I've seen some sports @ 720p that were awesome, much better than 1080i. BUT, a lot of that had to do with the quality of the original filming, how it's processed, how many and what quality bits are sent out, and finally, on what set it's watched. For my money, there's not enough difference to be upset about.


----------



## btedford (Mar 10, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> They still sell 720p sets.


That's true but there are very few being manufactured. It's primarily 1080p and 4K. I've seen some sports in 4K and it looked fantastic.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> YOUR OPINION. I think 720p looks better for fast action like sports. The people at ABC/ESPN and Fox who made the decision years ago to use 720p instead of 1080i believed that as well. You feel resolution is the most important factor, I and others who prefer 720p feel smoother motion is the most important factor.





slice1900 said:


> Sorry, but you are wrong. You are wrong that 1080i "looks better" because again that is YOUR OPINION and your excuse that I must be using some obsolete TV is because you think that YOUR OPINION is a fact which it is not.


And this is the issue with 4K, some folks think is the best thing since sliced bread and some folks just think it's mehh. Which is very different story when HD took over SD.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> And this is the issue with 4K, some folks think is the best thing since sliced bread and some folks just think it's mehh. Which is very different story when HD took over SD.


The back and forth between Bigg and I is about 720p vs 1080i, not 4K.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I just got a new 4k set and I think 4k is awesome after watching the 4k demos on YouTube. I know it wont be for awhile but I can only imagine how prime time network TV shows like Supergirl and The Flash would be in 4k!


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Bigg said:


> Back then, there were 720p TVs and 1080i TVs, so there was a legitimate format war. Today, every TV bought within the last few years is at least 1080p, and 1080i simply looks better on a 1080p TV. The only possible exception is if you have a really crappy de-interlacer and are seeing a lot of de-interlacing jaggies from 1080i. 720p looks much softer for everyone, since there's just less resolution there. I've watched quite a bit of basketball on both 1080i and 720p, and it is clear that the winner is 1080i. ESPN is the pinnacle of what 720p can do, but even a mediocre 1080i feed will look better than ESPN.
> 
> I understand how 1080i works, it's refreshing half the picture 60 times a second, so it looks like 1080p60 to the end user 99% of the time if it is deinterlaced properly, minus an occasional motion jaggie in extreme circumstances like a fast cross-court pass in basketball, versus 720p being soft the entire time compared to 1080i. A few second of jaggies versus the entire game soft? That's a pretty obvious decision. The few seconds of jaggies is far preferable to have much better detail the rest of the time.
> 
> ...


I think 99.9% of humans cant see the difference between 720p and 1080i.

From everything I have read, its basically the same thing. Bet 9 out 10 here cant tell the difference.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Sorry, but you are wrong. You are wrong that 1080i "looks better" because again that is YOUR OPINION and your excuse that I must be using some obsolete TV is because you think that YOUR OPINION is a fact which it is not.


I've watched a lot of basketball, and I can tell you that 1080i just looks better than 720p. It's so much clearer and sharper, with little, if any trade-off on the motion side of things.



inkahauts said:


> They still sell 720p sets.


They're like 20". At that point, who cares. I have a 720p 19" one in my bedroom. It's not exactly the champion of picture quality, but it does the job.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The back and forth between Bigg and I is about 720p vs 1080i, not 4K.


Yeah, but it ties real nice to 4K which is the topic of this thread.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> They still sell 720p sets.


My local Best Buy has the following for Smart TVs for Pick up Today:

2160p (4k ) = 54 -- these run from 40" to over 70"
1080p = 19 -- these run from 32" to 60"
720p = 7 -- The largest 1 is a 39"


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Yeah, but it ties real nice to 4K which is the topic of this thread.


No, it doesn't, the discussion is 1080i vs. 720p. Of course 1080p and 2160p are better formats, as you don't have to debate whether to give up the interlacing or the resolution.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Laxguy said:


> I've seen some sports @ 720p that were awesome, much better than 1080i. BUT, a lot of that had to do with the quality of the original filming, how it's processed, how many and what quality bits are sent out, and finally, on what set it's watched. For my money, there's not enough difference to be upset about.


I believe the quality of the original feed has a lot to do with what we see on our TVs.
I have seen some movies on HBO, SHO, etc. and the same movie on SyFy, TNT, TBS, etc and there is a huge difference. Heck, even a difference in the sound when you use your surround sound system.

I think one of the reasons that the 2 formats appear so similar to us is the fact that our TVs change them to the TVs Native mode before they are put on the screen.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bigg said:


> No, it doesn't, the discussion is 1080i vs. 720p. Of course 1080p and 2160p are better formats, as you don't have to debate whether to give up the interlacing or the resolution.


I guess it went over your head....woosh....

Saying that 1080p is better over 1080i is your opinion not a fact, specially broadcast 1080p. And I said it before, anyone who believes that can buy the bridge that I have for sale on the cheap.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> I think 99.9% of humans cant see the difference between 720p and 1080i.
> 
> From everything I have read, its basically the same thing. _*Bet 9 out 10 here cant tell the difference*_.


I can, and no amount of technobabble will fix the long shots, those are the most noticeable. The closeups seem to be as good as 1080i content.

Rich


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

jimmie57 said:


> I believe the quality of the original feed has a lot to do with what we see on our TVs.
> I have seen some movies on HBO, SHO, etc. and the same movie on SyFy, TNT, TBS, etc and there is a huge difference. Heck, even a difference in the sound when you use your surround sound system.


Definitely. ESPN's master feed is much better than some other channels, so they get the most out of 720p that they can. A good 1080i feed will still look better, however. Even though cable and OTA have similar bitrates for locals, I have still found that the OTA ones look and sound a lot better, so I'm not sure what's going on there. NBC OTA is so much crisper and clearer than anything I've seen on cable.



Rich said:


> I can, and no amount of technobabble will fix the long shots, those are the most noticeable. The closeups seem to be as good as 1080i content.


Agreed. The long shots are definitely more impacted by resolution. I watched a few of the swimming competitions from Rio at 2160p with HDR, and that was incredible- the amount of detail was amazing. Yet some content, like Orange is the New Black, barely gets any benefit from higher resolution.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bigg said:


> Even though cable and OTA have similar bitrates for locals, I have still found that the OTA ones look and sound a lot better, so I'm not sure what's going on there. NBC OTA is so much crisper and clearer than anything I've seen on cable.


How do you know cable and OTA have similar bit rates? I guess you can sort of tell by the size of recordings, but that doesn't tell you how well the bit rate is being dynamically managed.

OTA used to be so much better than anything you'd see on cable/Directv, but at least where I live that's no longer true. Not since all the major network affiliates around here now have two subchannels. Some used to have zero and the quality difference between Directv/cable and OTA was huge. Not anymore.

My NBC affiliate not only has two subchannels, but one is HD (CW) and they've apparently converted NBC's standard 1080i feed to 720p. So basically it is a 720p30 feed, the worst of both worlds whether you prefer better resolution or better motion!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Definitely. ESPN's master feed is much better than some other channels, so they get the most out of 720p that they can. A good 1080i feed will still look better, however. Even though cable and OTA have similar bitrates for locals, I have still found that the OTA ones look and sound a lot better, so I'm not sure what's going on there. NBC OTA is so much crisper and clearer than anything I've seen on cable.


Hasn't OTA always been better? I had an engineer with a truckload of equipment come to my home years ago. I had been complaining to the cable provider (can't remember what the name was, it eventually morphed into Cablevision which is now Optimum) about the PQ. The engineer checked both my antenna feed and the cable feed and found nothing wrong with them. I kept asking why the pictures were so good on both a Sony CRT and an RCA CRT using the antenna. He finally gave up and admitted the cable picture was never gonna be as good as OTA. Since then, everything I've read supported that.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Bigg said:


> Agreed. The long shots are definitely more impacted by resolution. I watched a few of the swimming competitions from Rio at 2160p with HDR, and that was incredible- the amount of detail was amazing. Yet some content, like Orange is the New Black, barely gets any benefit from higher resolution.


Yup, I don't see much difference, if any, between a 4K feed of _Orange Is the New Black_ and the PQ I get on my ATV. I'm not able to get a 2160 feed from the locals, but I thought the games from RIO looked good upscaled on both sets. I have no idea what the resolutions were.

Rich


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> How do you know cable and OTA have similar bit rates? I guess you can sort of tell by the size of recordings, but that doesn't tell you how well the bit rate is being dynamically managed.


That's true you can't tell if it's CBR or VBR, but I can tell based on the file sizes on TiVo.



> OTA used to be so much better than anything you'd see on cable/Directv, but at least where I live that's no longer true. Not since all the major network affiliates around here now have two subchannels. Some used to have zero and the quality difference between Directv/cable and OTA was huge. Not anymore.


The cable companies seem to pass some channels straight through, and compress others a bit around here. If DirecTV is getting OTA feeds and then re-compressing them, they will not be as good as the OTA signals, but if they are taking a fiber feed at a higher bitrate, then they might be as good or better than OTA.



> My NBC affiliate not only has two subchannels, but one is HD (CW) and they've apparently converted NBC's standard 1080i feed to 720p. So basically it is a 720p30 feed, the worst of both worlds whether you prefer better resolution or better motion!


That's unfortunate. My NBC and FOX are very good, CBS and PBS are OK, but have lower bitrates. SNL on NBC is gorgeous OTA, and that's with a couple of SD subchannels, with about ~12mbps VBR for the main 1080i feed.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

Rich said:


> Yup, I don't see much difference, if any, between a 4K feed of _Orange Is the New Black_ and the PQ I get on my ATV. I'm not able to get a 2160 feed from the locals, but I thought the games from RIO looked good upscaled on both sets. I have no idea what the resolutions were.


Yeah, OiTNB is not a good showcase of 4k. I mean, I'd rather have it in 4k than not, but it really doesn't make much difference. Narcos, on the other hand, was spectacular in 4k, as is House of Cards. The only 2160p feed from a local channel is WRAL-EX, which is a 2160p demo loop. The Olympics were available if you could get a Comcast login and you had a Samsung TV that could load the app. It was a very, very limited test run, but they did 2160p with HDR at about 35mbps. It was pretty impressive for the few events that they put up. I believe it was done off of the NHK 8k masters and downscaled for Comcast.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Bigg said:


> The cable companies seem to pass some channels straight through, and compress others a bit around here. If DirecTV is getting OTA feeds and then re-compressing them, they will not be as good as the OTA signals, but if they are taking a fiber feed at a higher bitrate, then they might be as good or better than OTA.


I haven't checked lately, but back when OTA was significantly better than Directv, it was also significantly better than Mediacom. I know that Directv's LRF is at the Fox/CBS broadcast center, so they get those feeds direct, and I'm not sure if the rest are OTA or fiber, but judging by their quality they aren't getting any of them before they've been muxed with the subchannels.

I suppose it is up to the local channel what they deliver to cable/satellite companies, and some DMAs are luckier than others.


----------



## I WANT MORE (Oct 3, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Yeah, but it ties real nice to 4K which is the topic of this thread.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually, The past several pages don't have a damn thing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich said:


> I can, and no amount of technobabble will fix the long shots, those are the most noticeable. The closeups seem to be as good as 1080i content.
> 
> Rich


Not saying you can't and you might be in the less than 1% but can. But i would love to put money up on most people and some who claim they can and watch them loose.
Now I am talking about to quality feeds. Because everything I have read, 720p and 1080i are basically the same, with 720p being better for motion and 1080i for stills and most viewing.

As a former bartender, I have won many a bets and only lost one to someone who can tell good whiskey or vodka when mixed. The one guy out of at least 50 who one was a whiskey taster.

Same with audiophiles that can tell vinyl form a good CD recording. I read an article once where the top audiophiles thought they were listening to some top $500 speaker wire and thought it was great and in reality were listing with coat hanger wire and some mediocre wires.

Now my OTA on FOX and NBC look better than DIRECTVs broadcast. But nothing to do with 720/1080 stuff.


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

720p vs. 1080i is MUCH more noticeable than compressed vs. CD vs. Vinyl audio.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Bigg said:


> 720p vs. 1080i is MUCH more noticeable than compressed vs. CD vs. Vinyl audio.


Not only is that entirely subjective, it's so vague as to be meaningless.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Bigg said:


> 720p vs. 1080i is MUCH more noticeable than compressed vs. CD vs. Vinyl audio.


The problem with that statement is it's inherently forgetting something. I could make 720p look a thousand times better than 1080i. Massively over compressed 1080i and keep 720p as uncompressed as possible with as high a bit rate as possible, holding everything else the same.

And cd vs MP3 isn't even close, depending on the compression used of course!. And a well done cd can be pretty close to vynal although most cds aren't that well done.

My point is at its best you'd have a hard time between 720p and 1080i. Your real complaint is with the people who compress the formats to much. And I don't mean DIRECTV. I mean on the production side before dtv even gets their hands on the program.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Not saying you can't and you might be in the less than 1% but can. But i would love to put money up on most people and some who claim they can and watch them loose.
> Now I am talking about to quality feeds. Because everything I have read, 720p and 1080i are basically the same, with 720p being better for motion and 1080i for stills and most viewing.
> 
> As a former bartender, I have won many a bets and only lost one to someone who can tell good whiskey or vodka when mixed. The one guy out of at least 50 who one was a whiskey taster.


I've written many posts about 720p vs 1080i since 2006. I've clearly seen the difference on plasmas and LCDs. I've seen the difference in feeds on the plasmas, most of mine are 720p sets and when they get a 1080i feed I see a slightly better picture, slight but noticeable. And over those years I've incensed many folks. Can't help it, it's what I see. I watched the Yankee game on ESPN Monday night and after the game it dawned on me that the picture quality didn't bother me. I don't pay much attention to the channels my recordings are on and I always expect a good picture. When I can't clearly see Chase Headley's head in a long shot (he's at third, not in the outfield) it disturbs me. I wasn't disturbed once during Monday night's game. Good for ESPN.

As a former lush, I wandered into a bar near the old Brooklyn Shipyard one afternoon and ordered a Schaefer draft (I was in the Navy and at that time I thought Schaefer was the best tasting beer...anywhere my ship tied up in the world). I got something awful. Asked the barkeep what happened and he admitted he slipped me a Pabst (the bar was empty and he was bored and it was Brooklyn). We got into a discussion about beers and he told me he'd keep pouring, at no cost, until I couldn't tell the difference. I got drunk without spending a cent. He fed me bottled beer, drafts whatever he could find and I got them all right. It did get harder the more I had to drink. True story, no embellishments, I swear by my tattoo... Fun post! Thanx, hadn't thought about that day in some time.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Not only is that entirely subjective, it's so vague as to be meaningless.


Ahh, you do crack me up at times, thanx for the chuckle.

Rich


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

gio12 said:


> Not saying you can't and you might be in the less than 1% but can. But i would love to put money up on most people and some who claim they can and watch them loose.
> Now I am talking about to quality feeds. Because everything I have read, 720p and 1080i are basically the same, with 720p being better for motion and 1080i for stills and most viewing.
> 
> As a former bartender, I have won many a bets and only lost one to someone who can tell good whiskey or vodka when mixed. The one guy out of at least 50 who one was a whiskey taster.
> ...


I just noticed that when my 4k Samsung first starts up that the info in the top right of the screen says 1920 x 1080 /60i.
I had never noticed that before.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jimmie57 said:


> I just noticed that when my 4k Samsung first starts up that the info in the top right of the screen says 1920 x 1080 /60i.
> I had never noticed that before.


My 8000 does that too, but the device on that source has to on. Don't know if the 8500 does that. On the 8000 I think it started doing that after one of the updates.

Rich


----------



## gio12 (Jul 31, 2006)

Rich,

Thats funny!! Guess you have great eyes. You know what I mean I think. Hey, I am the princess and the pea on so many things, very visual. But TV I can tell what look better say between channels at times or D* vs Comcast vs U-Verse buy cant say thats 720 or 1080i. 

But I can tell when the TV was moved by the house keep 1/8"


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

gio12 said:


> Rich,
> 
> Thats funny!! Guess you have great eyes. You know what I mean I think. Hey, I am the princess and the pea on so many things, very visual. But TV I can tell what look better say between channels at times or D* vs Comcast vs U-Verse buy cant say thats 720 or 1080i.
> 
> But I can tell when the TV was moved by the house keep 1/8"


Been wearing glasses since I was in the third grade. Yup, I know what you mean...I hope.

Rich


----------



## Bigg (Feb 27, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> The problem with that statement is it's inherently forgetting something. I could make 720p look a thousand times better than 1080i. Massively over compressed 1080i and keep 720p as uncompressed as possible with as high a bit rate as possible, holding everything else the same.


Correct. You have to hold everything else constant. Decent 1080i will look better than good 720p. But if you stack everything against 1080i, and for 720p, then 720p will look better.



> My point is at its best you'd have a hard time between 720p and 1080i. Your real complaint is with the people who compress the formats to much. And I don't mean DIRECTV. I mean on the production side before dtv even gets their hands on the program.


DirecTV isn't too bad with compression, many cable and IPTV providers are horrendous with the amount of compression they put on.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Rich said:


> My 8000 does that too, but the device on that source has to on. Don't know if the 8500 does that. On the 8000 I think it started doing that after one of the updates.
> 
> Rich


My main reason for posting that was to show that it says 1920 x 1080 / *60i *and not just 1080i or 30i.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

jimmie57 said:


> My main reason for posting that was to show that it says 1920 x 1080 / *60i *and not just 1080i or 30i.


It can call it whatever it wants, but 1080i is 30 frames per second, which two fields per frame. There is no such thing as a 1080i format with 60 unique frames per second, at least not anymore (back in the 90s some cameras probably did actually shoot 60 1920x540 frames)


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

My TV is a little bit different...

If I put up its info bar it displays the reading in Hz for whatever the incoming signal it's getting on a given input (interlaced or progressive). The reading is _always_ 60Hz, except in the case of 1080p/24 (24Hz).

On the other hand, files from the capture box (in computer OS) are indicated in their "proper" frames/second. (Interestingly enough, sometimes the capturing software will indicate incoming signals in Hz as well.)

Neither here nor there, really. But certainly nothing to get bent out of shape over.

On a side note, it looks like DirecTV's channel 125 has finally done a little bit better job of "reconciling" their trailers and commentary to the 24fps format. (The last time I looked - maybe more than a year ago - much of it was still pretty herky-jerky.)

And to stray partly back on topic, I wonder if DirecTV will have a 4k preview channel for 4k movies. (Will that be 24Hz?)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I WANT MORE said:


> Actually, The past several pages don't have a damn thing to do with the topic of this thread.


Actually they do, is about making an informed decision when getting 4K

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Delroy E Walleye said:


> My TV is a little bit different...
> 
> If I put up its info bar it displays the reading in Hz for whatever the incoming signal it's getting on a given input (interlaced or progressive). The reading is _always_ 60Hz, except in the case of 1080p/24 (24Hz).
> 
> ...


I just checked my 1080p Sharp TV and it shows HZ instead of the i or p.


----------

