# DirecTV sees 4K TV having 'material impact' by 2016



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

*DirecTV sees 4K TV having 'material impact' by 2016*

DirecTV hopes to be the first pay TV provider to sell 4K Ultra HD programming and expects 4K will have a material impact on its balance sheet within three years, CEO Mike White said Tuesday.

But White said DirecTV, which failed to make a business out of 24-hour 3D network 3net, is taking a more conservative approach with 4K programming.

"From all those I talked to, both on the content side and on the distributor side, after the experience with 3D, I think there's a level of&#8230; 'protect your options,' because it's a very complex rollout that would be required," White said, noting that 4K requires investments in compression technology and consumers would have to purchase new TVs. "You will see a little bit more of it next year. But gosh, you're still talking very, very few homes in America that would have a TV capable of that," he added.

Full Story Here


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

we have a few adepts of the new technology (not the new compression algo) here, handful of ppl have new 4k UHD sets


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Does it cost more to produce 4K HD programing? Because that will dictate how fast everything become 4K.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

A few things are shot with RED cameras, which are 4K or 5K (can't remember) I'm sure there are some other digital cameras that are 4K. Filming the content in 4K is likely to be the easier part of the whole package. There is a lot more to the story than how much capacity Directv has to broadcast 4K content to their customers. Directv must _uplink_ those channels to its satellites, broadcasters must uplink to Directv, and for live events broadcasters may have another uplink from the event to their studios. All that satellite bandwidth is expensive, and someone is going to have to pay for it if they want 4K.

Even with AVC doubling the compression ratio of h.264 it'll still require twice the bandwidth. Since they'll have to send a 4K and HD copy separately (because not everyone receiving it will be able to receive and downconvert from 4K, at least not for some time) that _triples_ the bandwidth requirement for the foreseeable future!

Directv currently has about 4500 Mhz of bandwidth received by a 3LNB dish (its a bit less since not all transponders are active due to spotbeams, but let's call it that) Directv is currently licensed for 4600 MHz of bandwidth they aren't using yet (500MHz x2 Ka hi on 99, 400 Mhz x2 RDBS on each of 99 and 103, and 1000MHz x2 Ka on 101) They'll be able to pretty much double what they have now! The upcoming launches of D14 and D15 will probably fill out at least half that, and one assumes they're building more satellites they haven't yet announced.

I'm sure they already have plans for some of this new bandwidth, for stuff like moving people who still have locals on 119 to 99/101/103, getting just about every channel anyone cares about in HD, and if I had to guess, probably duplicating the content on 119 and 95 so they'll be able to have one single dish/LNB model that will cover everyone's needs for future installs (so that at some point new SD only, international only, ordinary HD installs and even 4K installs would all get the same equipment on their roof)

Even with all that they'll still have a ton of room for 4K, so Directv can obviously pursue it to whatever amount the supply (from broadcasters) and demand (from consumers) will allow. If it flops like 3D, they can always use the excess to add more movie channels...


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

4k, will have more staying power than 3d. While broadcast TV will not adopt 4k technology, because of the cost, some premium movie providers,and provider pay-per-view, will be able to find a market. as will companies like NetFlix. Cinema quality HD in your home.

But, many homes have no where near the internet bandwidth required for 4k. So, for a while, satellite and cable will have a good market share.

4k TVs will eventually drop in price, just like 1k HD did, over time. Also, internet bandwidth will get better.. The failure of 3d resulted, is special glasses, limited content and an extra expense for little gain. Like previous attempts, 3d has become a passing fad. 4k TV will get the same "wow" factor that 1k did when it first went mainstream. But, I agree with the idea that content [providers, and satellite/cable providers are approcahing 4k with caution. Right now, 4k availability, TV set wise, is at the same level of color TV sets were in the mid 1950s or television, in general, in the mid 1940s; very few and far between with a 4k price tag to match the resolution.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

I can see them running some 4K PPV, 4K sporting events, and some of the premiums in 4K. 

Some things to overcome, though, are obviously there are no 4K capable receivers in the wild right now. Secondly they will need to come up with some better encoding techniques, such as moving to AVC, and thirdly there just isn't any content out there. Most stuff is probably being filmed in 4K these days but I doubt very many TV shows are. This is a marginal (to most people) improvement. it's not the same as going from black and white to color or from SD/analog to HD/digital. I would expect aside from the PPV and sporting events for this to be more organic and just over time happen. 

Something that would make a lot of sense would be for DirecTV to start releasing boxes that can decode everything and downconvert everything, those becoming what they install to new customers, and then eventually over time start replacing old boxes. Then they can drop SD channels, and then carry ONE copy of each channel, in the highest resolution available, and save a ton of bandwidth.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

D* needs to get everything in HD first, then worry about 4K.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

TheRatPatrol said:


> D* needs to get everything in HD first, then worry about 4K.


THANK YOU!!!!!!

enough said....


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

nmetro said:


> 4k, will have more staying power than 3d. While broadcast TV will not adopt 4k technology, because of the cost, some premium movie providers,and provider pay-per-view, will be able to find a market. as will companies like NetFlix. Cinema quality HD in your home.
> 
> But, many homes have no where near the internet bandwidth required for 4k. So, for a while, satellite and cable will have a good market share.
> 
> 4k TVs will eventually drop in price, just like 1k HD did, over time. Also, internet bandwidth will get better.. The failure of 3d resulted, is special glasses, limited content and an extra expense for little gain. Like previous attempts, 3d has become a passing fad. 4k TV will get the same "wow" factor that 1k did when it first went mainstream. But, I agree with the idea that content [providers, and satellite/cable providers are approcahing 4k with caution. Right now, 4k availability, TV set wise, is at the same level of color TV sets were in the mid 1950s or television, in general, in the mid 1940s; very few and far between with a 4k price tag to match the resolution.


Why do you think 4K will get the same wow factor? It obviously won't. And I hope you know that calling HD "1K" is pretty silly, as it would be called 2K if you're using the same way of describing its resolution as is used for 4K.

First, most people going to HD were coming from analog SD. Almost everyone previously owned analog CRT TVs, and unless they were on satellite, the major channels they watched were generally still analog, since the typical cable "expanded basic" lineup that included stuff like ESPN only moved to digital fairly recently. If their cable system had moved to digital, they were probably overcompressing the digital SD channels badly to make room for HD channels. The HD upgrade got the triple benefit of analog TV to digital TV, analog broadcast to digital broadcast, and HD resolution. If everyone was coming from a 640x480 digital flat screen viewing high quality MPEG2 encoded SD broadcasts, HD wouldn't have been nearly as big of a jump as it was.

Second, even if one can see the difference with 4K (which is questionable) it is obvious that there are diminishing returns on increases in resolution. Just because HD was better than SD, doesn't mean 4K is better than HD by the same amount, even for those able to see the difference. Otherwise you could make the argument that 64K TV would be better than 32K TV, when no one could ever see the difference even from inches away. I've seen 4K in a demo which included an interesting bit where it displayed the same content downscaled to 1080p on half the screen and while the difference was quite noticeable up close, when you move back it quickly becomes invisible, or at best something you can see if you make the effort of looking for it rather than watching the content.

I think your "extra expense for little gain" pretty much summarizes 4K, but when there's no extra expense everyone will buy a 4K TV. That was true for 3D as well, but as you say it didn't take off due to other issues, one of them being content availability. Not everything is filmed in 3D, but everything is filmed in resolutions higher than HD, so there will be 4K content, at least as far as movies go. The question is, how much extra will people be willing to pay for 4K content, since the bandwidth to provide it won't be free, at least not to satellite and cable providers. Just like they charge you more for HD, they'll charge even more than that for 4K. How many people will be willing to pay the upcharge, even if they have a 4K TV? How many will try it out, then decide it isn't worth the extra money from where they sit and go back to HD?

If you think 4K has got a real wow factor, you've never actually seen a 4K TV, or when you did you stood right next to it and didn't bother to see what it looks like from your normal viewing distance (or maybe saw a rigged demo that places a crappy TV with low quality content next to a high end 4K TV playing top quality content)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I've seen a number of 4K sets and one can easily tell the difference. But your other points are valid. It's better, but not by any factor that relates to the multiple of pixels!


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

And after they get all the bandwidth, uplinks, production and mastering, satellites, receivers and displays all tickey boo on 4K, somebody, somewhere is going to want 4K3D . . . 


!rolling


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

nmetro said:


> 4k, will have more staying power than 3d. While broadcast TV will not adopt 4k technology, because of the cost, some premium movie providers,and provider pay-per-view, will be able to find a market. as will companies like NetFlix. Cinema quality HD in your home.
> 
> Snipped


As I understand it, For broadcast TV to go to 4K the FCC would have to come up with a standard for them to meet, And then knowing the FCC Maybe want new licenses.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Broadcast will never go 4K. ATSC will last the rest of all of our lifetimes, and the broadcasters aren't going to invest in either additional licenses or additional transmitting equipment. 

I honestly don't see how 4K has any more of a draw than 3D. If you take a census of TV sets installed. Per the CEA, HD sets only have a 68% penetration, 32% of the TVs out there are analog/SD sets. Now that is considering that those TVs can't even tune OTA and within another year or two won't be able to tune anything on cable without a converter. On top of that, how many people are watching stretched SD thinking that they're watching HD? How many of the HD sets out there are 40 or less inches? (more than you think). 4K is only marginally better and that is if you have a gigantic screen and sit too close. At least 3D had a major, dramatic difference to exploit, like going from B&W to color or SD to HD. It's failure was because it just wasn't any good and no one cared. 4K is even less dramatic of a difference to most people.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

TBoneit said:


> As I understand it, For broadcast TV to go to 4K the FCC would have to come up with a standard for them to meet, And then knowing the FCC Maybe want new licenses.


ATSC 3.0, which is already in development, supports 4Kp60. But it isn't clear how it would be deployed, since it isn't backwards compatible. Stations would either need to operate on a second RF channel, or badly degrade their HD signal to make room for a 4K signal. The OTA broadcast model will probably die before ATSC 3.0 ever gets a chance to take over.

Hypothetically, if stations got 4K content from the networks (a big if) they could uplink that to cable and satellite providers, even if they weren't broadcasting 4K.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> D* needs to get everything in HD first, then worry about 4K.


Nah, I actually think it'd make more channels go for hd on directv if they suddenly had ultra to fight for too. And most that aren't are probably because they want more money to go hd. Stupid IMHO.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Athlon646464 said:


> *DirecTV sees 4K TV having 'material impact' by 2016*
> 
> DirecTV hopes to be the first pay TV provider to sell 4K Ultra HD programming and expects 4K will have a material impact on its balance sheet within three years, CEO Mike White said Tuesday.


This might be.
It would come through another monthly fee like HD service is.

"I think" 4K is just an evolution of screen size.
Every time I replace my main TV, it gets larger.
What I paid for my 2006 HDTV would now get me a larger 4K today.
What I got in 2006 can now be had for a quarter of the price.

4K content may lag behind market penetration of 4K sets, but these TVs seem to also focus on image processing.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

How many years will it be when you go to Walmart, for a cheap TV, and you'll be looking at something like:


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> How many years will it be when you go to Walmart, for a cheap TV, and you'll be looking at something like:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When they perfect paper display.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Actually, most cinemas, in the US today, are using 4k technology for projection. So, considering the crispness in a cinema, I suspect it would be much better in the home. Yes, I have seen a 4k set next to a 1k set, but in a showroom setting and noticed a improvment in picture. Granted, it will not be a big jump from CRT, to LCD and LCD to HD, but on larger sets people will notice the difference. Though, as other had said here, the cost of delivery may hinder wide distribution. Compression technology and receivers have to be improved. Also, most carriers have not fully converted to 1k HD, let alone a mass conversion to 4k HD. And, for provdiers like Netflix, again, most homes do not have the bandwidth for 4k, they barely have enough for 1k. In the end, it may be that we see a few premium, sport, and PPV chnnales at 4k. Mainly because consumers have recently spent money to upgrade to 1k and probably wait for their current set die before making a purchse of a 4k set. When you think about it, many homes had CRT sets which lasted 15 to 20 years, and many consumers think the same about the new HD sets.



slice1900 said:


> Why do you think 4K will get the same wow factor? It obviously won't. And I hope you know that calling HD "1K" is pretty silly, as it would be called 2K if you're using the same way of describing its resolution as is used for 4K.
> 
> First, most people going to HD were coming from analog SD. Almost everyone previously owned analog CRT TVs, and unless they were on satellite, the major channels they watched were generally still analog, since the typical cable "expanded basic" lineup that included stuff like ESPN only moved to digital fairly recently. If their cable system had moved to digital, they were probably overcompressing the digital SD channels badly to make room for HD channels. The HD upgrade got the triple benefit of analog TV to digital TV, analog broadcast to digital broadcast, and HD resolution. If everyone was coming from a 640x480 digital flat screen viewing high quality MPEG2 encoded SD broadcasts, HD wouldn't have been nearly as big of a jump as it was.
> 
> ...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I wish you'd stop calling HD "1K", that's just being silly. HD is 1920x1080, 4K is 3840x2160 - double the width, not 4x the width.

I don't think compression will be a problem, 4K will use HEVC, which is the next generation after MPEG4/h.264 and requires roughly half the bandwidth for equivalent picture quality. Since 4K has 4x as many pixels, a 4K stream will require roughly double the bandwidth.

The problem for Directv and cable providers is that it actually triples their bandwidth requirements for each 4K channel, since they can't drop the HD version of the channel unless they replaced every HD receiver with one capable of downconverting 4K to HD.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> I wish you'd stop calling HD "1K", that's just being silly. HD is 1920x1080, 4K is 3840x2160 - double the width, not 4x the width.
> 
> I don't think compression will be a problem, 4K will use HEVC, which is the next generation after MPEG4/h.264 and requires roughly half the bandwidth for equivalent picture quality. Since 4K has 4x as many pixels, a 4K stream will require roughly double the bandwidth.
> 
> The problem for Directv and cable providers is that it actually triples their bandwidth requirements for each 4K channel, since they can't drop the HD version of the channel unless they replaced every HD receiver with one capable of downconverting 4K to HD.


With the new satellite coming, and the obvious eventual dropping of SD feeds for HD only, it's a prime time for DirecTV to do that. I don't know the state of HEVC or of HEVC capable decoding hardware, but as soon as it's to the point that they can put it in boxes, they need to standardize every single customer on an HD/4K/3D capable box and dish. Cable is in a similar situation with most companies beginning to move *all* of their systems to 100% digital and SDV, with IP video being the next logical step.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> I wish you'd stop calling HD "1K", that's just being silly. HD is 1920x1080, 4K is 3840x2160 - double the width, not 4x the width.


Double the number of pixels in both directions= 4x the number of pixels. So 4K vs. 1K doesn't seem in any way 'silly'. I get you don't like that designation.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

With the new satellite coming, and the obvious eventual dropping of SD feeds for HD only, it's a prime time for DirecTV to do that. I don't know the state of HEVC or of HEVC capable decoding hardware, but as soon as it's to the point that they can put it in boxes, they need to standardize every single customer on an HD/4K/3D capable box and dish. Cable is in a similar situation with most companies beginning to move *all* of their systems to 100% digital and SDV, with IP video being the next logical step.


If the timing is right with Dswim and 4k decoding we may see a next generation of hardware that does several new things all at once in a couple years.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't think they'll need new receiver hardware for DSWM, all or certainly most of the current SWM-capable receivers should work fine. HEVC decoder chips run hot and expensive today, but there are so few people with 4K TVs yet there isn't any rush to push out a 4K receiver. I wouldn't look for it until D15 is launched and in position.

There's no way they'll "standardize" on 4K capable hardware for a long time. They don't even standardize on HD capable hardware today! HD capable hardware is far more useful because almost all the channels anyone watches are available in HD. That may never be true for 4K, or at least not for a very very very long time.

4K will be a Directv advantage over cable, since it'll be difficult for cable to offer more than a few token channels unless they really go heavily in SDV. But the early adopters of 4K will have to be willing to pay for it, they aren't going to get it as a freebie offer like Genies and lifetime HD are handed out today. Why should Directv do that, when they'll be the only option to get 4K for a lot of people aside from Blu Ray?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> Double the number of pixels in both directions= 4x the number of pixels. So 4K vs. 1K doesn't seem in any way 'silly'. I get you don't like that designation.


So I guess you'll be calling 8K "16K", since it'll be doubling them again in both directions? The reason it is called 4K is because it has almost 4,000 pixels across. HD has almost 2,000 pixels across, so...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I don't think they'll need new receiver hardware for DSWM, all or certainly most of the current SWM-capable receivers should work fine. HEVC decoder chips run hot and expensive today, but there are so few people with 4K TVs yet there isn't any rush to push out a 4K receiver. I wouldn't look for it until D15 is launched and in position.
> 
> There's no way they'll "standardize" on 4K capable hardware for a long time. They don't even standardize on HD capable hardware today! HD capable hardware is far more useful because almost all the channels anyone watches are available in HD. That may never be true for 4K, or at least not for a very very very long time.
> 
> 4K will be a Directv advantage over cable, since it'll be difficult for cable to offer more than a few token channels unless they really go heavily in SDV. But the early adopters of 4K will have to be willing to pay for it, they aren't going to get it as a freebie offer like Genies and lifetime HD are handed out today. Why should Directv do that, when they'll be the only option to get 4K for a lot of people aside from Blu Ray?


The third generation in the patents might require new hardware for the dswim system should they go that far. And really, at this point, any hardware they put in a next generation of receivers should be strong enough to be able to decode anything of high res, so that they can tweak it to work with whatever schemes come along for the foreseeable future.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> The third generation in the patents might require new hardware for the dswim system should they go that far. And really, at this point, any hardware they put in a next generation of receivers should be strong enough to be able to decode anything of high res, so that they can tweak it to work with whatever schemes come along for the foreseeable future.


The more I've studied that patent and the original SWM patents to learn more about how it works, the more I think that current receivers will probably be compatible even with a third generation DSWM able to do perhaps 100+ channels. I can explain why if you want, but that probably belongs in the DSWM thread. Obviously the variations of the third generation DSWM which output IP would require a totally new receiver, but I think if they went that direction it would be because it allows them to eliminate receivers entirely, via some future RVU like protocol that sends compressed video directly to a TV. Directv may not even know what direction they'll be going with that. A second generation DSWM will provide enough channels for almost every residential scenario, so there's not going to be any reason to push beyond that in residential accounts - unless they can eliminate receivers, which would really help their customer acquisition costs.

Keep in mind they still make the D12, which can't even do MPEG4, so they'll be making receivers that only do HD/MPEG4 for many years after HEVC decoders are available. You can't make hardware that you can just "tweak" for different decoders. Well, you can, but it costs more and involves more power/heat than dedicated hardware. You also end up paying licensing costs for capability you aren't using, which adds up to real money when you're talking millions of receivers. My guess is they'll add a 'U' line of receivers/DVRs ('U' for UltraHD) similar to the 'H' line they added for HD. The H line won't go away...heck the D line shows no signs of going away anytime soon!

I agree it appears to us casual observers that it might be a good idea to future proof better than they do, but Directv doesn't seem to think that way, or maybe something about their future plans they haven't told anyone means they have a different idea about what future proofing involves.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

From all the evidence at retail stores and also at CES (manufacturer visibility and promotion), it appears 4K HDTV and corresponding Blu Ray, video cameras, and other equipment is already gaining more traction in a short time than 3D did over several years.

This appears to be real and coming. 2016 is a realistic expectation as costs come down in the interim. Another few years of aging of current generation HDTVs will help folks consider "upgrading".

Having seen _*stunning*_ 4K content on 4K displays at CES this past January...it is a real leap in image enhancement (although most content shown at this past CES was 1080p on 4K demo units - only a few places used 4k content for demos)..

We'll see what gives this coming January at CES - I suspect 4K will be nearly commonplace in terms of presentations this time around.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> *The reason it is called 4K is because it has almost 4,000 pixels across.* HD has almost 2,000 pixels across, so...


Yup. It's a "K", not an "x" after the 4.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

gov said:


> And after they get all the bandwidth, uplinks, production and mastering, satellites, receivers and displays all tickey boo on 4K, somebody, somewhere is going to want 4K3D . . .
> 
> !rolling


Saw it last year at CES, no glasses.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

* 4K > 3D because you don't need glasses. Who the heck wants to watch TV / movies with glasses? Especially in the home. Wake me when HgTV (or whatever HolographicTV ends up being called) is ready .

* Good point on needing an SD, HD and 4K stream. Does anybody know what % of customers are still SD only? If its a small enough amount, put a crawler on the SD channels saying its going away and you MUST upgrade your equipment. DirecTV has shown they are not afraid of "upgrade or else" directives... they did that when they shut off MPEG2.

* If you are upgrading all equipment to support 4K, you only need a 4K stream and the box can down rez to 1080p to save on bandwidth. Down rezzing is a lot easier then up rezzing where you pretty much have to make up the missing info.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Double the number of pixels in both directions= 4x the number of pixels. So 4K vs. 1K doesn't seem in any way 'silly'. I get you don't like that designation.


As pointed out in other posts, the 4K refers to a linear number. If it were truly based upon both directions, then the 4K designation is incorrect. And 1K would be even more incorrect. if you were to use the two directions (x and y), then 4K should be more like 8M and HD should be 2M (for 1080, that is).

Edit to add: BTW, I have seen plenty of 4K. Typically near HD sets. The demo loops of cities and other landscapes are pretty amazing but do I really need to see individual taxi cab lights taken from the top of a NYC bridge in the distance? The PQ looks amazing compared to the HDs running near by in the Best Buy Magnolia area until you find out that the HD sets are running 480p rather than any real HD. Then you watch a "regular" program on 4K (like a concert) and say "Yes, that is nice but 4 times as nice? Not really."

I will be happy when the sets run the same prices as HD today, but paying even 50% more is not worth it to me. BluRay looks stunning on my 1080p set and can't really look that much better and broadcast will never get to 4K anyway.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> * 4K > 3D because you don't need glasses. Who the heck wants to watch TV / movies with glasses? Especially in the home. Wake me when HgTV (or whatever HolographicTV ends up being called) is ready .
> 
> * Good point on needing an SD, HD and 4K stream. Does anybody know what % of customers are still SD only? If its a small enough amount, put a crawler on the SD channels saying its going away and you MUST upgrade your equipment. DirecTV has shown they are not afraid of "upgrade or else" directives... they did that when they shut off MPEG2.
> 
> * If you are upgrading all equipment to support 4K, you only need a 4K stream and the box can down rez to 1080p to save on bandwidth. Down rezzing is a lot easier then up rezzing where you pretty much have to make up the missing info.


MPEG 2 HD was much, much, MUCH smaller when they shut it down than SD is now. I'm a firm proponent of forcing everyone to MPEG-4 capable boxes and dumping all SD feeds for networks that offer HD, however doing so is immensely complex and there are several things to consider:

*Number of SD boxes out there: given how long and the gnashing of teeth that resulted from requiring the EPG/APG swapout, it stands to reason that there are a LOT of old boxes out there, and a LOT of SD boxes

*cost of an HD box vs. and SD box. Obviously an SD-only box is still much cheaper than an HD box, or they would have at least gone ahead and started installing them for new customers. Even without requiring swapouts and shutting down SD/MPEG2, the day that an H25 or equivalent is the same price as a D12, they will start doing this. They're not just still recycling used D12, but they're still pushing out new ones. This fact alone means that it's not on the horizon for quite a while, at least 4-5 years.

*Most SD only customers will need new dishes. This swapout will be even more complex and costlier, since it will require someone to come out and touch each house.

one day all of those factors will shift and it'll be worth it for DirecTV to shut down SD and swap everyone out, but, don't hold your breath.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The first step will be to stop installing SD dishes for new SD only installs. When there's a new DSWM LNB they _might_ stop installing SD dishes and have one dish for all new installs. The D12 does SWM so they'd still be able to use less costly receivers for those customers, but no longer be adding more dishes that would need to be replaced someday.

The next step after that would be to no longer provide customers with SD receivers, but instead HD receivers that only provide SD output if you don't have HD enabled on your account.

At that point they'd still be many many years away from getting rid of SD, because of the huge installed base of SD only dishes and SD receivers. But at least they would no longer be making that job bigger every day that goes by, which they are still doing today.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> The more I've studied that patent and the original SWM patents to learn more about how it works, the more I think that current receivers will probably be compatible even with a third generation DSWM able to do perhaps 100+ channels. I can explain why if you want, but that probably belongs in the DSWM thread. Obviously the variations of the third generation DSWM which output IP would require a totally new receiver, but I think if they went that direction it would be because it allows them to eliminate receivers entirely, via some future RVU like protocol that sends compressed video directly to a TV. Directv may not even know what direction they'll be going with that. A second generation DSWM will provide enough channels for almost every residential scenario, so there's not going to be any reason to push beyond that in residential accounts - unless they can eliminate receivers, which would really help their customer acquisition costs.
> 
> Keep in mind they still make the D12, which can't even do MPEG4, so they'll be making receivers that only do HD/MPEG4 for many years after HEVC decoders are available. You can't make hardware that you can just "tweak" for different decoders. Well, you can, but it costs more and involves more power/heat than dedicated hardware. You also end up paying licensing costs for capability you aren't using, which adds up to real money when you're talking millions of receivers. My guess is they'll add a 'U' line of receivers/DVRs ('U' for UltraHD) similar to the 'H' line they added for HD. The H line won't go away...heck the D line shows no signs of going away anytime soon!
> 
> I agree it appears to us casual observers that it might be a good idea to future proof better than they do, but Directv doesn't seem to think that way, or maybe something about their future plans they haven't told anyone means they have a different idea about what future proofing involves.


My point is they will make sure tis all good to work with ultra, as well as dswim, and anything else coming in the next ten years, and i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't do mpeg2 at all.. an hd and ultra machine only.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> My point is they will make sure tis all good to work with ultra, as well as dswim, and anything else coming in the next ten years, and i wouldn't be surprised if it didn't do mpeg2 at all.. an hd and ultra machine only.


So you're suggesting Directv's top of the line receiver would be unable to tune any SD channels? Even those which are only offered in SD? That hardly seems likely. It will have to support MPEG2.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> So you're suggesting Directv's top of the line receiver would be unable to tune any SD channels? Even those which are only offered in SD? That hardly seems likely. It will have to support MPEG2.


they can move sd to mpeg 4


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JoeTheDragon said:


> they can move sd to mpeg 4


Sure, if they replace every single SD receiver currently in service. There are what, 10 million SD only subscribers, with an average of what, probably two receivers each? More? Not to mention HD subscribers who might have an old SD receiver in a spare room or workout area. And all the businesses that have them - most hotels are still using SD only because HD distribution costs so much more.

Look how long it has taken them to replace the pre-2004 MPG receivers, and that isn't even complete yet! The savings in not having MPEG2 decoding in a receiver would be quite minimal. Maybe zero, if the patents have or soon will expire.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> they can move sd to mpeg 4


They will never move SD to MPEG-4, unless it's a channel that doesn't offer an HD feed. By the time they get ready to move to all MPEG-4 distribution, they'll just give everyone a box capable of receiving HD and downconverting it to SD for an analog set.



slice1900 said:


> Sure, if they replace every single SD receiver currently in service. There are what, 10 million SD only subscribers, with an average of what, probably two receivers each? More? Not to mention HD subscribers who might have an old SD receiver in a spare room or workout area. And all the businesses that have them - most hotels are still using SD only because HD distribution costs so much more.
> 
> Look how long it has taken them to replace the pre-2004 MPG receivers, and that isn't even complete yet! The savings in not having MPEG2 decoding in a receiver would be quite minimal. Maybe zero, if the patents have or soon will expire.


Yeah, it will be a very long time. If they move to MPEG-4 only, it will be for bandwidth on the satellites, not to save money on the boxes. The MPEG-4 hardware will always be at least as much if not more than the MPEG-2 hardware, so that's not where the cost is in the box.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

At some point mpeg2 will go away. 

I suspect that By the time the first 4k receiver hits they will have all channels available in hd or moeg4 sd mirrors of moeg2sd (or could have, I doubt there will be more than a small small handful of channels by then without a hd version) So why wouldn't they begin preparing for that process when they launch an ultra Hi Definition box for the front line users of DIRECTV. They won't care about mpeg2 boxes and by then all channels in sd should also be available in Hi Definition or at least moeg4 sd. Heck, they may use bss space to launch the few sd mpeg4 mirros of channels they can't show in moeg4 Hi Definition. That would allow them to easy begin a very very long process (I suspect seven years to ten years) to get rid of all moeg2 broadcast. Natural attrition will help complete this process in general.

And mpeg2 will cost more than MPEG 4 when mpeg4 is used more than mpeg2 but the real point was if you don't need to have any ability to do mpeg2 then its cheaper than having to have it in there too.

Remember, 4k units will not be flying off the block and are going to be hooked up to tvs that can do Hi Definition. There's no reason to concern yourself with native sd on them if you have a Hi Definition signal or mpeg4 signal of a channel that can be converted to Hi Definition.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> There's no reason to concern yourself with native sd on them if you have a Hi Definition signal or mpeg4 signal of a channel that can be converted to Hi Definition.


I'm not ready to "buy this" yet.
The 4k TVs have a lot of video processing in them, and my experience has been even my old 2006 1080p did a better job with SD than any of the receivers I've had.
The 4ks also have internet functions and handle a lot more codex, so I suspect they will be superior for scaling/processing SD than anything DirecTV will be doing.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I should have said that a little better I think... I'm simply suggesting that they will have an MPEG 4 version of every channel they have an mpeg2 version for. So if the channel isn't in Hi Definition then itd be a sd version in MPEG 4 similar to how a couple channels are now. I think nasa is mpeg4 sd as I recall.

They key IMHO is to be able to truly start removing duplicates of mpeg2 and mpeg4. Of course the first step IMHO for that is getting both versions of all channels regardless of the resolution. Once that's happened they can stop worrying about mpeg2 in boxes. .....

Maybe.... I did realize one thing. Over the air. If they can't build an atsc tuner that decodes mpeg2 in a AMxx then they won't be getting rid if mpeg2 for 30 years. 

Eventually they want to get rid of sat mpeg2 though im sure. So my idea of getting rid of mpeg2 decoding in boxes may hinge on over the air support.

Either way vos, I'm simply speculating about a next gen box that won't be widely used for maybe four or five years and will be a niche product if it hits in maybe two. I am not suggesting that mpeg2 is going anytime soon but that it's days may be numbered for boxes. But by the time a next gen box is really widely used I think mpeg2 will finally be truly heading towards an end where we no longer see DIRECTV offering sd systems to new people in the first place.

So don't worry about "buying it" yet, I'm suggest we are a couple years or more away anyway...


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not ready to "buy this" yet.
> The 4k TVs have a lot of video processing in them, and my experience has been even my old 2006 1080p did a better job with SD than any of the receivers I've had.
> The 4ks also have internet functions and handle a lot more codex, so I suspect they will be superior for scaling/processing SD than anything DirecTV will be doing.


I completely agree. Directv receivers aren't exactly known for having powerful processors, so they're the last thing I'd want to have do the scaling for me!


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Except I'm simply suggesting that they will have an MPEG 4 version of every channel they have an mpeg2 version for. So if the channel isn't in Hi Definition then itd be a sd version in MPEG 4 similar to how a couple channels are now.
> 
> They key is to be able to truly start removing duplicates of moeg2 and moeg4. Of course the first step IMHO is getting both versions of all channels regardless of the resolution. Once that's happened they can stop worrying about mpeg2 in boxes. .....
> 
> ...


I just don't understand why you think replicating all the SD channels in MPEG4 is a good idea. What's the end game here? It seems to extend the life of SD, which is the last thing Directv should want, and in the many years before they can drop MPEG2 SD it means they're spending an extra 50% bandwidth on SD channels!

Directv shouldn't care about getting rid of MPEG2, they should care about getting rid of SD duplicates of HD channels. There will always be some SD, because some subchannels will be in SD only, and a few networks that broadcast only old TV shows would have no incentive to upgrade to HD when the shows are SD, plus maybe some foreign channels that might only be available in SD. Once all MPEG2 only receivers are gone (_every_ single D1x and R1x!) they could convert them to MPEG4, but the bandwidth savings by that point would be minor.

The problem with SD is not MPEG2, it is the 4:3 aspect ratio. When the day comes they can drop SD, they will also be able to drop MPEG2 (they care about it only for the bandwidth it uses, not for the decoder - by 2015 over 90% of the MPEG2 patents will have expired) So having MPEG2 reception via AM21 is not an issue. When they can drop SD life will be much simpler. If by let's say 2020 they decide they want to get rid of HD duplicates of 4K channels, all they'll have to do is phase out receivers that aren't capable of decoding HEVC and they can do that. The HEVC receivers will be able to receive 4K and downscale/output HD. Same aspect ratio, so no problem. They can't do this with HD unless they want to give all SD subscribers letterboxes of HD channels. Maybe someday, when the number of SD subscribers becomes so low they aren't worried about losing them (because every other provider will offer a similarly crappy SD experience)


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You missed what I was saying. I am saying that for every sd mpeg2 channel they need some sort of mpeg4 version. Hi Definition if its possible, for ones that it isn't, give us an mpeg4 sd feed. So you have an mpeg4 version of every mpeg2 channel. Then you can get rid of moeg2 versions as you upgrade peoples equipment. You can't get a market to all mpeg4 if you don't offer all channels in mpeg4. This is going to be very important for lil. You can't have everyone change out all their equipment in one day and flip sd stations from moeg2 to mpeg4 also that same day. But since all moeg4 boxes can decode and display mpeg4 in any resolution from sd to Hi Definition, you only need one copy of every channel in mpeg4, either Hi Definition or if not possible then sd. Im Not suggesting simply duplicating all sd channels in mpeg4 at all.


There is a reason DIRECTV stopped adding any lil markets in moeg2 years ago, and have only added new lil markets in moeg4 for several years now.

I suspect we will see them turn off mpeg2 support to sports packages first, like nhl and NBA, etc, working their way up to MLs. Yes, I think that would be the last one to change. I'm sure they have the numbers, but I'd suspect they'd chose to change packages that have the fewest sd only customers first, working towards the ones with the most. Then they could start changing people, market by market.

Remember, that's basically what they did with the move from mpeg2 Hi Definition to mpeg4 Hi Definition. Get it running in both version, then kill off the old version segment by segment, smallest to largest, then shut off the old segment.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Killing off MPEG2 HD was easy, because it was around for such a short time before MPEG4 HD came out, so there weren't many subscribers. More importantly, those subscribers were were all early adopters, who would be much easier to migrate than the laggards subscribing to SD only in late 2013.

I think understand what you're saying now, you would introduce MPEG4 versions of channels that are only available in SD. Those available in HD wouldn't get a MPEG4 version. I'm not sure so about that. Watching a 16:9 signal letterboxed or vertically stretched on a 4:3 TV is just as objectionable as watching a 4:3 signal on a 16:9 set with the same compromises in the other direction. They'd risk losing subscribers to other providers who provide proper 4:3 versions of the channels. As more providers offer only an HD signal (I think ESPN is already there?) this won't matter, but until then it will.

It seems you're suggesting that providing a MPEG4 version of a SD only channel should be done in advance of dropping the MPEG2 version. If so, I fail to see the point. All MPEG4 receivers can receive MPEG2, so as you upgrade people to MPEG4 capable equipment they can still watch the MPEG2 version. Only when you switch off the MPEG2 channel would you turn on the MPEG4 channel. What's the point of doing it earlier, except to waste bandwidth?

You say "You can't have everyone change out all their equipment in one day and flip sd stations from moeg2 to mpeg4 also that same day." That's a red herring, because you don't need to change out equipment in one day. Unless you are suggesting Directv should build equipment that cannot decode MPEG2 at all, which makes no sense, you can take years to switch out all the equipment in an area, then flip the switch on their locals in one day. When it has been done everywhere, the switch can be flipped for all the remaining MPEG2 SD only channels in one day.

Given how far Directv is from doing this, by the time they think about dumping MPEG2, the migration may happen not to MPEG4, but to HEVC


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

The conversion to all-MPEG 4 won't result in an SD and HD feed of each channel. By the time they are ready to shut off all MPEG-2 channels, they'll just use HD equipment and downconvert. Putting up an SD duplicate in MPEG-4 would be wasteful, and there's no good reason to do it. 

The transition, whenever it happens, will be to simply stop producing and installing hardware incapable of receiving MPEG-4. As it stands now there are still receivers being built that are MPEG-2 only. First step will be for every box to be MPEG-4/HD capable. Then, they'll at whatever pace they deem necessary, start replacing SD/MPEG-2 only boxes with the HD/MPEG-4 capable boxes. All of the boxes would be capable of both MPEG 2 and MPEG 4. Making an MPEG 4-only box would not save any money over adding in the MPEG-2 hardware (if it's even a separate chip, which I doubt it is).

Moving to all-MPEG 4/HD will also require new dishes for people who have 101 only. Given the amount of bandwidth they're about to have when they launch their new satellites, and the pressure on new channels now being cost instead of bandwidth, I suspect they won't go down this road until MPEG-4 boxes cost at least exactly the same as the MPEG-2 only boxes.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Killing off MPEG2 HD was easy, because it was around for such a short time before MPEG4 HD came out, so there weren't many subscribers. More importantly, those subscribers were were all early adopters, who would be much easier to migrate than the laggards subscribing to SD only in late 2013.

I think understand what you're saying now, you would introduce MPEG4 versions of channels that are only available in SD. Those available in HD wouldn't get a MPEG4 version. I'm not sure so about that. Watching a 16:9 signal letterboxed or vertically stretched on a 4:3 TV is just as objectionable as watching a 4:3 signal on a 16:9 set with the same compromises in the other direction. They'd risk losing subscribers to other providers who provide proper 4:3 versions of the channels. As more providers offer only an HD signal (I think ESPN is already there?) this won't matter, but until then it will.

It seems you're suggesting that providing a MPEG4 version of a SD only channel should be done in advance of dropping the MPEG2 version. If so, I fail to see the point. All MPEG4 receivers can receive MPEG2, so as you upgrade people to MPEG4 capable equipment they can still watch the MPEG2 version. Only when you switch off the MPEG2 channel would you turn on the MPEG4 channel. What's the point of doing it earlier, except to waste bandwidth?

You say "You can't have everyone change out all their equipment in one day and flip sd stations from moeg2 to mpeg4 also that same day." That's a red herring, because you don't need to change out equipment in one day. Unless you are suggesting Directv should build equipment that cannot decode MPEG2 at all, which makes no sense, you can take years to switch out all the equipment in an area, then flip the switch on their locals in one day. When it has been done everywhere, the switch can be flipped for all the remaining MPEG2 SD only channels in one day.

Given how far Directv is from doing this, by the time they think about dumping MPEG2, the migration may happen not to MPEG4, but to HEVC 


My point is they will need an mpeg4 version running before they shut off the moeg2 version. And they will want them simultaneous for a little while for sure. I suspect they will slowly kill conus channels to force stragglers along before they kill lil mpeg2 and then just do a market or two at a time. 

No reason an sd only channel can't be shown in mpeg4 native as that's what thy do with some now. 

I fully expect the next ten boxes to do hvec and them not stopping new sd installs till that equipment is out. And I dont see any reason other than maybe over the air reception as to why DIRECTV would need to include mpeg2 decoding in their next gen boxes if they can get mpeg2 decoding for over the air into a new AM5x type box. That might save them lots if money per box so I would think they'd at least consider that.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> My point is they will need an mpeg4 version running before they shut off the moeg2 version. And they will want them simultaneous for a little while for sure. I suspect they will slowly kill conus channels to force stragglers along before they kill lil mpeg2 and then just do a market or two at a time.
> 
> No reason an sd only channel can't be shown in mpeg4 native as that's what thy do with some now.
> 
> I fully expect the next ten boxes to do hvec and them not stopping new sd installs till that equipment is out. And I dont see any reason other than maybe over the air reception as to why DIRECTV would need to include mpeg2 decoding in their next gen boxes if they can get mpeg2 decoding for over the air into a new AM5x type box. That might save them lots if money per box so I would think they'd at least consider that.


They won't have MPEG-4 versions of SD channels if those channels are available in HD. If and when they go to all MPEG-4, they'll simply go with the HD versions for all subscribers.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I'll just point out that DirecTV thought 3D would have a material impact on their business too. We saw how that worked out.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JosephB said:


> They won't have MPEG-4 versions of SD channels if those channels are available in HD. If and when they go to all MPEG-4, they'll simply go with the HD versions for all subscribers.


If there is no hd version, then you'll have mpeg4 version in sd, which WILL happen. There's tons of LIL channels that will never be anything other than sd. No point in wasting time upconverting a sd only and forever channel to hd just for mpeg4 when you can send it sd mpeg4 and let the box convert it and not waste the bandwidth


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Diana C said:


> I'll just point out that DirecTV thought 3D would have a material impact on their business too. We saw how that worked out.


True, although I don't think they thought it would ever have an impact as great as 4k will.. 4k is the evolution of today's hd, 3d was a whole other market trying to coexsist. Very different worlds. And 3d has a chance still, if they can ever make 3d sets that don't require glasses.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

inkahauts said:


> If there is no hd version, then you'll have mpeg4 version in sd, which WILL happen. There's tons of LIL channels that will never be anything other than sd. No point in wasting time upconverting a sd only and forever channel to hd just for mpeg4 when you can send it sd mpeg4 and let the box convert it and not waste the bandwidth


No kidding. I'm referring to the overwhelming majority of channels that have HD feeds available. When DirecTV gets ready to shut down SD/MPEG-2, they will not duplicate those channels that have HD available in an MPEG-4 SD feed.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Diana C said:


> I'll just point out that DirecTV thought 3D would have a material impact on their business too. We saw how that worked out.


No one said whether it would be a positive or negative material impact


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> My point is they will need an mpeg4 version running before they shut off the moeg2 version. And they will want them simultaneous for a little while for sure. I suspect they will slowly kill conus channels to force stragglers along before they kill lil mpeg2 and then just do a market or two at a time.
> 
> No reason an sd only channel can't be shown in mpeg4 native as that's what thy do with some now.
> 
> I fully expect the next ten boxes to do hvec and them not stopping new sd installs till that equipment is out. And I dont see any reason other than maybe over the air reception as to why DIRECTV would need to include mpeg2 decoding in their next gen boxes if they can get mpeg2 decoding for over the air into a new AM5x type box. That might save them lots if money per box so I would think they'd at least consider that.


Taking out MPEG2 would save almost nothing. 90% of the MPEG2 patent pool will have expired by 2015 - that's barely a year away. The rest won't last much longer than another year or two after that - completely expired before Directv ever has a chance to dump MPEG2.

I doubt you could buy an MPEG4 decoder that doesn't also do MPEG2, so you probably can't avoid it even if you don't want it.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> Taking out MPEG2 would save almost nothing. 90% of the MPEG2 patent pool will have expired by 2015 - that's barely a year away. The rest won't last much longer than another year or two after that - completely expired before Directv ever has a chance to dump MPEG2.
> 
> I doubt you could buy an MPEG4 decoder that doesn't also do MPEG2, so you probably can't avoid it even if you don't want it.


Dropping MPEG 2 has nothing to do with license fees, and you're also right about MPEG 4 hardware also being MPEG 2 capable. It's not about saving money in the boxes either. It's all about saving bandwidth on the satellites (and, to a lesser extent, reducing the amount of hardware required at the broadcast centers. Encoders don't last forever)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Dropping MPEG 2 has nothing to do with license fees, and you're also right about MPEG 4 hardware also being MPEG 2 capable. It's not about saving money in the boxes either. It's all about saving bandwidth on the satellites (and, to a lesser extent, reducing the amount of hardware required at the broadcast centers. Encoders don't last forever)


I was responding specifically to inkahauts suggestion that the next generation of boxes could have the ability to decode MPEG2 removed if there were MPEG4 versions of all the SD only channels. He said they "might save lots of money" by doing so. I don't agree.

I still think his idea of adding MPEG4 versions of all the MPEG2 SD only channels today/soon makes no sense. There's no point in adding them up front, it just wastes bandwidth. You only do so as you remove the MPEG2 versions. The only reason you'd need the MPEG4 version for a long time in advance would be if there were receivers that could decode MPEG4 but were incapable of decoding MPEG2.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Any MPEG-4 capable receiver will be capable of downconverting HD, so there will never be a reason for putting up SD duplicates in MPEG 4. The only SD channels that would EVER be in MPEG 4 would be channels that do not have an HD feed available.


----------



## HDTVFreak07 (Sep 12, 2007)

Was just at Best Buy yesterday. I walked past the new 4K (UHDTV) and had to pull out my handkerchief to wipe off my drooling. I stood up close, like inches, and could not find a single pixilation. Wow, such amazing picture on it!


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

IMHO, the biggest obstacle to 4K adoption is the huge success regular HD has been. With so many HD sets out there, many (most?) of which are under 5 to 7 years old, it will be a decade before we will again see the sort of turnover in TVs that we have seen in the past 10 years (indeed, the manufacturers have been pushing 3D, "smart" TVs and now 4K to try and keep sales volumes and prices high). The message was sent to the consumers (rightly or wrongly) that they needed to replace their analog sets with digital ones to be able to watch TV. Watching a HD broadcast downconverted to SD on an analog set was, to put it mildly, an unpleasant viewing experience (letterboxed 16x9 on an analog 4x3 screen). This factor does not exist in 4K. There will be no 4K broadcasting for a long time. 4K will be mostly a Blu-ray, and perhaps PPV, format for the forseeable future. This will slow upgrades. Sure, people with the room and desire for 80" and larger screens will buy 4K sets (these folks bought the first generation 1080p sets as well, so they are a lot closer to replacing them than most). But I'd be amazed to see 4K reach 30% market penetration before the next decade, and widely available 4K content will follow even later.

Both DirecTV and Netflix's announcements about 4K are far less about technical direction than they are marketing ploys to attract the higher end consumer that will be willing to pay a premium price for 4K content (and are more likely to spend more money on the 1080p content offered today than the average viewer).


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I wonder if more 4k sets will be sold in the next few years than those HiFi buffs that have and use tube amps?!

I am hoping ESPN will jump on the bandwagon, and HBO and Showtime. If so, I am in.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

Diana C said:


> IMHO, the biggest obstacle to 4K adoption is the huge success regular HD has been. With so many HD sets out there, many (most?) of which are under 5 to 7 years old, it will be a decade before we will again see the sort of turnover in TVs that we have seen in the past 10 years (indeed, the manufacturers have been pushing 3D, "smart" TVs and now 4K to try and keep sales volumes and prices high). The message was sent to the consumers (rightly or wrongly) that they needed to replace their analog sets with digital ones to be able to watch TV. Watching a HD broadcast downconverted to SD on an analog set was, to put it mildly, an unpleasant viewing experience (letterboxed 16x9 on an analog 4x3 screen). This factor does not exist in 4K. There will be no 4K broadcasting for a long time. 4K will be mostly a Blu-ray, and perhaps PPV, format for the forseeable future. This will slow upgrades. Sure, people with the room and desire for 80" and larger screens will buy 4K sets (these folks bought the first generation 1080p sets as well, so they are a lot closer to replacing them than most). But I'd be amazed to see 4K reach 30% market penetration before the next decade, and widely available 4K content will follow even later.
> 
> Both DirecTV and Netflix's announcements about 4K are far less about technical direction than they are marketing ploys to attract the higher end consumer that will be willing to pay a premium price for 4K content (and are more likely to spend more money on the 1080p content offered today than the average viewer).


This, 100%. Completely agree.

Additionally, for the TVs that do get upgraded to 4K through attrition and that being the default, people are not necessarily going to pay extra for 4K just like there are millions of 3D TVs out there an obviously no one is paying extra for 3D content.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

All the talk about how DirecTV will move satellites, services, dishes and receivers around to support 4K is pretty wild speculation. Given that they are STILL installing new SD customers it is highly unlikely that they have any plans to discontinue this service in the forseeable future. Likewise, speculation that HBO or some other premium movie channel will broadcast in 4K would seem a lot more plausible were someone to start broadcasting in 1080p (it has been nearly 5 years since DirecTV HD receivers were upgraded to support 1080p). The FAR more likely scenario is that 4K will be offered the same way 1080p is today - as PPV only.

Let's get real. DirecTV has been selling HD capable equipment and offering HD content for almost 10 years, yet are still selling and supporting SD installations, with NO indication that policy is about to change. It will likely be 2024 or (much) later before DirecTV starts shutting down MPEG2 SD broadcasts. If and when MPEG2 is finally turned off, making the 32 Ku transponders at 101 available, it is most likely that traditional HD will be moved from Ka at 99 and 103 onto those transponders (since ALL HD receivers can already receive those frequencies) and any new broadcast formats will use the liberated capacity in Ka and perhaps the newer RDBS capacity. That way, those that want 4K linear broadcasting (if anyone does), or whatever new services are offered by then, will pay for any required equipment upgrades themselves.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> I wonder if more 4k sets will be sold in the next few years than those HiFi buffs that have and use tube amps?!
> 
> I am hoping ESPN will jump on the bandwagon, and HBO and Showtime. If so, I am in.


If ESPN jumps on the bandwagon, I'll bet they have a 4K channel, but with few events actually produced in 4K. So it will be HD only 95% of the time, and only 4K for short periods of time. Nonetheless, people who bought 4K sets will be bragging about how great it looks, even when they have Sportscenter on.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Heh. Well, I'll need more than crumbs, but not a lot more.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Like any other market driver to date....content and its availability will drive the 4K HDTV momentum.

It was a heavily promoted technology at this past January's CES, and I anticipate it will be even more visible < 60 days from now at CES 2014.

Things like 4K HDTV cameras, blu ray players that support 4K native content, as well as content producer/programming (and delivery) support will determine if this mainstream in the future.

Realistically, it's several years away from being commonplace, but that said....during my visit this past weekend - the 4K HDTV displays, demos, and displays were quite significant at the nearby Best Buy location. The demos seem to be driven with 4K content from 4K enabled Blu Ray players - and the presentations were quite significant and impressive. Still...the price-tags were equally "significant".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Of course places like CES and Best Buy will be promoting 4K. HDTVs are getting so cheap there's little profit to be made there now, and they're worried about Chinese companies taking over that market and driving prices so low the companies in Japan and Korea can't compete.

So they're pushing some new technology with high profit margins, until the profit gets squeezed out of 4K and they go onto the next thing to push, like gesture control, smartER TVs, 3D4K, 8K, or whatever


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> Of course places like CES and Best Buy will be promoting 4K. HDTVs are getting so cheap there's little profit to be made there now, and they're worried about Chinese companies taking over that market and driving prices so low the companies in Japan and Korea can't compete.
> 
> So they're pushing some new technology with high profit margins, until the profit gets squeezed out of 4K and they go onto the next thing to push, like gesture control, smartER TVs, 3D4K, 8K, or whatever


Unfortunately...that's only 1/2 real.

Nearly all of the best-selling HDTV's are manufactured by non-Chinese companies, so that part isn't really in play.

In terms of larger margins...there is some substance to that view...although the manufacturing costs of newer technology is also exponentially higher earlier in the life cycle of those products...so the margins aren't actually as high as some would think.

Mass production and more sales brings down prices and costs - ultimately achieving sales through volume.

Fact is we're simply seeing more manufacturers adopt the 4K HDTV standard in terms of offering products. We'll have to wait and see how the adoption rate unfolds...


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

HDTVFreak07 said:


> Was just at Best Buy yesterday. I walked past the new 4K (UHDTV) and had to pull out my handkerchief to wipe off my drooling. I stood up close, like inches, and could not find a single pixilation. Wow, such amazing picture on it!


I'm afraid I went beyond drooling. I bought one yesterday.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

I just ran across this sale for 4k TV. Wow, what a drop in price.
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05771550000P


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Could you post the model/mfg or SKU? The link not reveal the TV, perhaps found me overseas.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

P Smith said:


> Could you post the model/mfg or SKU? The link not reveal the TV, perhaps found me overseas.


Seiki 50" Class 4K 120Hz LED Ultra HDTV - SE50UY04


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

> If you've never heard of Seiki, you're not the only one. The China-based company made its first push into the US TV market in early 2013 by selling 4K-resolution TVs for thousands less than traditional TV brands.


What was that comment about Chinese manufacturing??

The overall review was not very complimentary: http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/seiki-se39uy04-4k-uhd/4505-6482_7-35828367.html


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Can't wait to be invited to somebody house and see somebody watching a 4k tv in SD.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

It will be years if ever that I move on from my 1080p sets.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Well, when I get one, you can come and watch upscaled HD!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> Well, when I get one, you can come and watch upscaled HD!


Let's just go and check them all out in person in 48-49 days... :righton:


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

jimmie57 said:


> I just ran across this sale for 4k TV. Wow, what a drop in price.
> http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_05771550000P


At least we now know what is going to be "hot" on this Black Friday.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

peds48 said:


> At least we now know what is going to be "hot" on this Black Friday.


True;

Even if its tempered by whats "not" going to be on black Friday or likely for most if any programming outlets in the foreseeable future.

No native 4K content to watch on it ...

:nono2:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HoTat2 said:


> True;
> 
> Even if its tempered by whats "not" going to be on black Friday or likely for most if any programming outlets in the foreseeable future.
> 
> ...


There are several blu ray players that support 4K content playback.
That's what they use in Best Buy stores to demo 4k HDTV's.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are several blu ray players that support 4K content playback.
> That's what they use in Best Buy stores to demo 4k HDTV's.


OK;

How about "*not much* native 4K content to play on it?"


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There are several blu ray players that support 4K content playback.
> That's what they use in Best Buy stores to demo 4k HDTV's.


as a former BB employee, I can tell you that they are not supposed to use any type of disc material as the FCC really frowns upon it. They use outer kinds of distribution equipment.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Hmmm. Was just in a Magnolia section of a BB and they were using a Sony large disk player for their 4K....(not a normal HDD, and not a blu-ray player)


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Hmmm. Was just in a Magnolia section of a BB and they were using a Sony large disk player for their 4K....(not a normal HDD, and not a blu-ray player)


Was it this one ?
http://store.sony.com/4k-ultra-hd-media-player-zid27-FMPX1/cat-27-catid-All-Internet-Players


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

peds48 said:


> as a former BB employee, I can tell you that they are not supposed to use any type of disc material as the FCC really frowns upon it. They use outer kinds of distribution equipment.


There would be no reason for that - there are no restrictions in using publicly-available blu ray players that support 4K content (for demos).



Laxguy said:


> Hmmm. Was just in a Magnolia section of a BB and they were using a Sony large disk player for their 4K....(not a normal HDD, and not a blu-ray player)


I have no doubt of that.....

But in this case...I got them to show me the unit they were using, and it was a Sony BDPS790 3D Blu-ray Player that you could buy at Amazon, BB, or numerous other places. It supports both 3D and 4K upscaling.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

I'm supposed to pick up my set today at HHgregg. I will ask them what they are feeding the demo off of. I had just assumed it was the 4k media player. Snce I had asked them about the 4k upconverting BD palyer and they didn't know it existed.. I know for a 3d demo the kid used a thumb drive.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Rockaway1836 said:


> I'm supposed to pick up my set today at HHgregg. I will ask them what they are feeding the demo off of. I had just assumed it was the 4k media player. Snce I had asked them about the 4k upconverting BD palyer and they had didn't know it existed.. I know for a 3d demo the kid used a thumb drive.


Yeah....there are actually several ways to execute the 4K demo on several devices...

Honestly...HHGregg is generally not exactly known for being on the cutting edge of technology. They do have some good deals on things from time to time though....enjoy!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rockaway1836 said:


> Was it this one ?
> http://store.sony.com/4k-ultra-hd-media-player-zid27-FMPX1/cat-27-catid-All-Internet-Players


Yes, it was that very one. 
From the website, this kills it for me:



> The Sony 4K Ultra HD Media Player (FMP-X1) is only compatible with Sony 4K Ultra HD TVs. It is not compatible with 4K Ultra HD TVs from any other brand. A solution to ensure compatibility of Video Unlimited 4K with the VPL-VW1000ES 4K Projector will be available in the coming months.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> But in this case...I got them to show me the unit they were using, and it was a Sony BDPS790 3D Blu-ray Player that you could buy at Amazon, BB, or numerous other places. It supports both 3D and 4K upscaling.


Nice, and yes, pretty sure it's the same as I just posted, though didn't see the model number readily at the site. When I found it's matched to Sony only, I said goom-byeeee! 
I do wonder if it will downscale for mere HD TVs....? And will Sammy match the deal.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

This week they began thowing the 4k media player for free, with purchase of the xbr65-900a. The Blu-ray player will only upscale to a 4k TV and works with any brand.It Remember it's just upconverting, it's not playing 4k Blu-rays,as none exist.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Understood. Curious, though, to know whether the Sony media thingie can play via a regular (Sony) HD TV.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

No it can't.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Rockaway1836 said:


> No it can't.


There is at least one model that can and one that can in the Sony line...the one that can also supports 3D HD.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There is at least one model that can and one that can in the Sony line...the one that can also supports 3D HD.


That would suprise me to no end. As even the earlier Sony 4k models had to have a Sony Tech visit the owners home to upgrade the HDMI board. And it's my understanding that it only plays on HDMI #4 on the Sony sets.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Rockaway1836 said:


> This week they began thowing the 4k media player for free, with purchase of the xbr65-900a. The Blu-ray player will only upscale to a 4k TV and works with any brand.It Remember it's just upconverting, it's not playing 4k Blu-rays,as none exist.


So again, trying to clarify;

There is no actual *native* 4K content available yet on the market?

The best that can be done at present is only an up-scaled 1080p/24 or 1080p/24-3D BD from a 4K up-converting capable BD player?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

No. Sony, and possibly others, have a 2 TB disk drive that comes pre-loaded with 10 4k movies. It will be able to d/l others in time. (A long time for my connection!)


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Rockaway1836 said:


> That would suprise me to no end. As even the earlier Sony 4k models had to have a Sony Tech visit the owners home to upgrade the HDMI board. And it's my understanding that it only plays on HDMI #4 on the Sony sets.





HoTat2 said:


> So again, trying to clarify;
> 
> There is no actual *native* 4K content available yet on the market?
> 
> The best that can be done at present is only an up-scaled 1080p/24 or 1080p/24-3D BD from a 4K up-converting capable BD player?


Native 4K blue ray players are narrowed down to only 2-3 units in production...early production.

There are a couple of 4K Ultra HDTV video cameras out there also in early production.

For the time being...demos are mostly done with upconverted 4K content....which is quite good to show off the higher resolution of 4K. But the stores will get 4K blu ray player units at different times over the next 90 days or so - some are restricted to certain corresponding manufacturer HDTVs (Sony does this) while others will not come with that limitation. These units are very new.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> So again, trying to clarify;
> 
> There is no actual *native* 4K content available yet on the market?
> 
> The best that can be done at present is only an up-scaled 1080p/24 or 1080p/24-3D BD from a 4K up-converting capable BD player?


Yes there is 4k content available. The media player comes with 10 4k movies already in it. There is also a buy or rent service done through the media player. I think I read there are 60 titles or so available now, and shooting for 100 by the end of the year. There is also some content on Youtube, and Netflix. I understand the Sony won't be able to take advantage of those til the HDMI 2.0 upgrade comes by the end of the year. Right now the only TV with HDMI 2.0 is the Panasonic.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Here are a couple of short articles (quick reading) in terms of 4K Ultra HDTV, 4K blue ray players, and other related information.

http://www.techradar.com/us/news/home-cinema/high-definition/ultra-hd-everything-you-need-to-know-about-4k-tv-1048954

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57602583-221/100gb-discs-point-to-4k-blu-ray/

http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/11/4k-cameras-whats-the-state-of-the-art-in-2013/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/07/sony-launches-fmp-x1-4k-ultra-hd-media-player-with-4k-service-to-follow/index.htm


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> No. Sony, and possibly others, have a 2 TB disk drive that comes pre-loaded with 10 4k movies. It will be able to d/l others in time. (A long time for my connection!)


Here's what Samsung is bringing to the plate.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/04/samsung-uhd-tv-buyers-get-free-4k-hd-content/


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Thanks, I hope they'll have come a lot further when I attend CES in two months.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Here are a couple of short articles (quick reading) in terms of 4K Ultra HDTV, 4K blue ray players, and other related information.
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/us/news/home-cinema/high-definition/ultra-hd-everything-you-need-to-know-about-4k-tv-1048954
> 
> ...


I think the techradar article got the wrong model # for the Sony BD player The S5100 does not upconvert to 4k. There's a review of it on CNET and no mention of 4K. It also happens to be one of the players I had them throw in to complete the deal. No mention of it on the box or the menues.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Thanks, I hope they'll have come a lot further when I attend CES in two months.


 I'm pretty sure 4k is going to play a big role at CES this year, with lots of cool stuff coming down the pike. . I wish I could go along with you guys. It's at the top of my bucket list !!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Rockaway1836 said:


> I'm pretty sure 4k is going to play a big role at CES this year, with lots of cool stuff coming down the pike. . I wish I could go along with you guys. It's at the top of my bucket list !!


It is indeed something everyone should get to experience at least once. Of course...its not open to the general public...but many folks manage to get credentials to attend. There were more than 154,000 people there last year.

Only 46 days til this guy hops on a plane to Vegas....but who's counting.

I suspect there will be tons of 4K Ultra HD stuff there.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> There would be no reason for that - there are no restrictions in using publicly-available blu ray players that support 4K content (for demos).


There certainly are if you're playing a movie in public. Fair use would cover using a movie trailer, but not playing a whole movie.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> There certainly are if you're playing a movie in public. Fair use would cover using a movie trailer, but not playing a whole movie.


Clips are all that are used for demos...


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> For the time being...*demos are mostly done with upconverted 4K content....which is quite good to show off the higher resolution of 4K. *But the stores will get 4K blu ray player units at different times over the next 90 days or so - some are restricted to certain corresponding manufacturer HDTVs (Sony does this) while others will not come with that limitation. These units are very new.


Sorry, but a 1080p BD disk only has 1080p resolution. You can upscale it all you want, but you can't manufacture more detail than what you started with. If people are "drooling" over up converted 1080p BD disks then I think there is some magical thinking going on here.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

No, you can't add detail that's not in the original, but you sure can make it look better. After all, our eyes can be deceived quite easily! 

I know the 'fan, and he doesn't drool a lot! The drooling happens when original 4k content is shown on a 4k display (speaking of the slobbering only for myself.)


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> No, you can't add detail that's not in the original, but you sure can make it look better. After all, our eyes can be deceived quite easily!
> 
> I know the 'fan, and he doesn't drool a lot! The drooling happens when original 4k content is shown on a 4k display (speaking of the slobbering only for myself.)


Correct and correct (wiping my chin....).


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Rockaway1836 said:


> I think the techradar article got the wrong model # for the Sony BD player The S5100 does not upconvert to 4k. There's a review of it on CNET and no mention of 4K. It also happens to be one of the players I had them throw in to complete the deal. No mention of it on the box or the menues.


Again, pardon any ignorance here;

But is 4K up-scaling capability on the BD player that important?

That is to say, is there something found to be typically inferior about the internal scaling capability of the 4K sets themselves?

Or is it just to have the flexibility of an additional option for 4K up-scaling in case you may be dissatisfied with the quality of the TV set's internal one?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Some people are very picky about their upscaling, and rather than relying on the HD upscaling their TV or Blu Ray player does, they buy a separate box to put in between their TV and all their devices to do the scaling for them.

Maybe there's a difference, but it would be fairly difficult to see. With 4K, it will be that much more difficult to see, but I'm sure the market for $1000 boxes to do something that both players and TVs already do will continue unabated in the 4K world


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rockaway1836 said:


> I'm pretty sure 4k is going to play a big role at CES this year, with lots of cool stuff coming down the pike. . I wish I could go along with you guys. It's at the top of my bucket list !!


I'd like to see you open a thread devoted to your experiences with the 4K set.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Again, pardon any ignorance here;
> 
> But is 4K up-scaling capability on the BD player that important?
> 
> ...


I bought both the Sony 5100 and the Sammy F7500 (which does 4K up-scaling). Just my opinion, but I think that 5100 was a waste of money. Still waiting for the prices to drop on the 4K sets so the 7500's up-scaling features don't matter at the moment. Today's price on the 65" Sony is $4,999 on Crutchfield's site. Hopefully, I'll be able to get one after or just before Xmas at a decent price.

Oh, BTW, I think the Sammy BD-F7500 is superb! They even improved the remote.

Rich


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> as a former BB employee, I can tell you that they are not supposed to use any type of disc material as the FCC really frowns upon it. They use outer kinds of distribution equipment.


What on Earth would the FCC have to say about the source of demo material at Best Buy? This makes absolutely no sense at all in any conceivable universe.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> What on Earth would the FCC have to say about the source of demo material at Best Buy? This makes absolutely no sense at all in any conceivable universe.


It is illegal to play a full motion picture on a public place. I guess you always fast forward when that is shown when you play a DVD?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

peds48 said:


> It is illegal to play a full motion picture on a public place. I guess you always fast forward when that is shown when you play a DVD?


True.

Then again...the studios regularly produce demo clips for retailers to use...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> True.
> 
> Then again...the studios regularly produce demo clips for retailers to use...


Correct, and those are the one BBY uses, but they don't necessarily use disc players


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

peds48 said:


> It is illegal to play a full motion picture on a public place. I guess you always fast forward when that is shown when you play a DVD?


That's not an FCC warning, though -- it's the FBI. (It's a copyright situation, nothing to do with broadcasting.)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

trainman said:


> That's not an FCC warning, though -- it's the FBI. (It's a copyright situation, nothing to do with broadcasting.)


Well, I messed up on the agency, is that a big deal...


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Again, pardon any ignorance here;
> 
> But is 4K up-scaling capability on the BD player that important?
> 
> ...


Honestly, I can't answer that yet. My set was late arriving to the store last night. So I did not pick it up until this afernoon. I also don't have one of the 4k upconvert players yet. ( got to wait for my lovely bride to calm down a bit) I can tell you that at least on this set Directv looks outstanding !! Colors just pop off the screen, and the 3D is far better than my LG (passive) and Samsung (active). I hope to get a chance to watch some Blu-ray titles over the weekend.


----------



## Rockaway1836 (Sep 26, 2007)

Rich said:


> I'd like to see you open a thread devoted to your experiences with the 4K set.
> 
> Rich


Will do. As soon as I get the media player up and running, and get a chance to view 4k material. Had no time today. Too many people in the way, just wanting to see my new set.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Well, I messed up on the agency, is that a big deal...


Guessing you've never run into an FBI agent? Kinda scary folks. The FCC, not so much.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rockaway1836 said:


> Will do. As soon as I get the media player up and running, and get a chance to view 4k material. Had no time today. Too many people in the way, just wanting to see my new set.


Thanx, be good to see a 4K dedicated thread.

Rich


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Guessing you've never run into an FBI agent? Kinda scary folks. The FCC, not so much.
> 
> Rich


Yup, not that kind of person!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Sorry, but a 1080p BD disk only has 1080p resolution. You can upscale it all you want, but you can't manufacture more detail than what you started with. If people are "drooling" over up converted 1080p BD disks then I think there is some magical thinking going on here.


I wonder if the "drooling affect" could be quantified/qualified?

The factors "as I see it":
1) a 4k panel will have a fine dot pitch
2) image/video processing
Darbee makes one with interactive images here: http://darbeevision.com/images
3) having impressive content

#1 would seem to be limited to screen size & viewing distance.
#2 wouldn't be limited to 4K
#3 is just good marketing

"I would guess" #2 & 3 would have more "drooling" than #1 without 2 & 3.

It may not be "magical thinking", but merely the wizard behind the curtain.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Double the number of pixels in both directions= 4x the number of pixels. So 4K vs. 1K doesn't seem in any way 'silly'. I get you don't like that designation.


Shouldn't it then be 4X?

I do agree that is should not be 4K vs. 1K because 1K is really 2K. Maybe it should be 8K vs 2K.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Shouldn't it then be 4X?
> 
> I do agree that is should not be 4K vs. 1K because 1K is really 2K. Maybe it should be 8K vs 2K.


Fact is...it *is* 4K.

From WIKI:
*4K resolution* is a generic term for display devices or content having horizontal resolution on the order of 4,000 pixels.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I suppose, bottom line is, I don't care much about the accuracy of the designations. I piped up only because the meaning was clear in context and the poster was told he was silly. Which itself was "silly".


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> I suppose, bottom line is, I don't care much about the accuracy of the designations. I piped up only because the meaning was clear in context and the poster was told he was silly. Which itself was "silly".


Yup.

Then again...we enjoy silly from time to time though... :rotfl:


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

slice1900 said:


> A Ku transponder certainly could carry 4K, but why would it do so in MPEG2? A transponder can carry any type of compression, but since there is absolutely no chance whatsoever any provider will ever deliver 4K using MPEG2 compression, the question is moot. Preferably they'd use HEVC, but if decoders for that aren't ready yet (or are too expensive or run too hot) Directv might initially deliver 4K using MPEG4, similar to how they initially delivered HD using MPEG2.
> 
> One thing I'm unsure of is whether there is any correlation between transponder type and modulation scheme used. I know there's no technical restriction per se, but I'm not sure if you can "upgrade" a satellite to use a newer modulation after it has been launched. So older satellites used for Ku like D4, D8 and D9S may not be able to use newer more efficient modulation schemes that D12 or D14/D15, when launched, might be able to use.
> 
> Does anyone have a list of different modulations Directv uses and what satellite(s) use them? Or do they use the same modulation everywhere? Could a satellite be software upgraded to use a modulation that didn't exist at the time it was launched?


It was just a question of curiosity. I know that they would never push 4K down in MPEG-2, but I'm just curious how many bits, at their current encoding on Ku/MPEG-2 transponders, DirecTV can push down per Ku transponder, and then what a corresponding average bitrate of a 4K MPEG-2 channel would be. We've got to be getting close to the point that resolution and picture quality won't fit in the original DSS system. Just a demonstration of how far things have progressed.


----------



## JosephB (Nov 14, 2005)

peds48 said:


> It is illegal to play a full motion picture on a public place. I guess you always fast forward when that is shown when you play a DVD?


No it's not. It's illegal to do it without the permission of the copyright holder. If Best Buy has the permission of the copyright holder, they can do whatever they want.

At any rate, they have demo discs they can use and they also have their internal satellite-distributed TV network. Either way, they have the permission to show both of those in public. There's no law against using a disc-based medium to display content in public. Good grief.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

JosephB said:


> No it's not. It's illegal to do it without the permission of the copyright holder. If Best Buy has the permission of the copyright holder, they can do whatever they want. But they don't
> 
> At any rate, they have demo discs they can use and they also have their internal satellite-distributed TV network. Either way, they have the permission to show both of those in public. There's no law against using a disc-based medium to display content in public. Nobody is disputing the "medium". the point I made was that they do not use disc for various reasons, first to stop "shrink" and because employees would not know what BBY has the right to show. Their content is deliver via sat to a "computer" which is then distributed through the store using various "proprietary" equipment. and this is the only approved method to show content on their stores.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

So....circling back to the actual topic of this thread...

With DirecTV scheduled to launch 2 more satellites in the next few years (including one in 2014), I'm just wondering out loud how both the current and new sats could support 4K content???

I suspect that with some of the newer compression technology...it could be done.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

There's nothing stopping them from putting up 4K content today if they really wanted, except for that fact that there are still places that don't have their locals in HD yet, and some SD only channels people would like to see in HD. I think you'll agree both are much more pressing needs than 4K. The first of the new satellites should be in place and start broadcasting sometime next summer, so once all that stuff is taken care of, maybe they'll start worrying about 4K.

Right now there is nothing to add, so even if they had a ton of free bandwidth they couldn't have any 4K channels. There is no network anywhere broadcasting a single thing in 4K. Until you see some sort of announcement about HBO offering 4K movies or something like that, you won't see anything from Directv other than vague promises about it being the future, just like what they claimed for 3D.

Even then, I just don't see that much content being offered because it'll be hard to justify the added expense. A couple hundred networks/channels just upgraded their production facilities to HD a decade ago. In order to do it all over again for 4K, they need to see some return. Advertisers won't pay more to advertise on a network because they can produce ads in 4K, so it'll have to come from cable and satellite companies like Directv. If only a few percent of people are willing to pay for the upgrade, the return won't be there for the networks. It'll need an uptake similar to that of HD (which I highly doubt) to make it feasible for wide adoption by networks. If it is more like 3D's uptake, there will be a tiny number of 4K channels like there was for 3D during its heyday. There will probably be more channels than that, but not much more. Don't hold your breath waiting for 4K episodes of Walking Dead or 4K games on FS1.

BTW, if you upgrade, will you change your handle to "4ktvfan0001"? :rotfl:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> BTW, if you upgrade, will you change your handle to "4ktvfan0001"? :rotfl:


Now that's just plain..... FUNNY!!! :rotfl:

Perhaps hdtv4Kfan would also work... :righton:

Agree with your comments...content and bandwidth allocation are the only 2 things needed to make 4K delivery happen. Newer compression technology also helps on the bandwidth limits (somewhat). It's at least good to hear DirecTV is giving it some attention and thought. Likely, we won't see content delivery for a minimum of 1-2 years IMHO.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Does anyone know what FEC Directv uses on its 4PSK and 8PSK? Maybe more FEC is used for Ka band? If we know the specs, we can plug the numbers into a calculator and figure out the available bit rate.

4K has 4x the pixels, so on the order of 4x the bps required if you encoded it in MPEG4 (it should be somewhat less, depending on the number of edges and amount of motion) If you used HEVC, it would be more like 2x since that's supposed to be twice as efficient.

So if Directv is able to fit 6 HD channels in a Ka transponder now, there should be room for 3 4K channels encoded with HEVC, or one MPEG4 encoded 4K channel plus a couple HD channels (if 4K started out using MPEG4 and later switched to HEVC similar to the HD transition)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

All righty then! I was in a Magnolia (inside of a BB) listening to some speakers, and chatted a bit with the sales guy about the Sammy 4k 65' set- only $5,500 IIRC. What shocked me was Samsung's approach- apparently they will send you one flash drive with one 4k movie on it. BFD! 
I didn't drool, but felt the saliva rising a bit....... 

!rolling

NOTE: He was also quite sure that the Sony media player would work on other brands, even though the Sony website said no.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> All righty then! I was in a Magnolia (inside of a BB) listening to some speakers, and chatted a bit with the sales guy about the Sammy 4k 65' set- only $5,500 IIRC. What shocked me was Samsung's approach- apparently they will send you one flash drive with one 4k movie on it. BFD!
> I didn't drool, but felt the saliva rising a bit.......
> 
> !rolling
> ...


Ahhhh...the joys of being a Guinea Pig... :hurah:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Sony use Internet for distribute movies to their 4K media box, DTV has push technology using sat bandwidth - I see no issue to join them and drive 4K sales up.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You know that is a thought. They could offer their first stuff all Video On Demand to start off rather than linear channels.

I wonder what kind of hardware would be needed inside a DIRECTV box to make that happen. Anyone think there is any chance the hr44 has the ability to output 4k with a software upgrade, just as the hr20 could do 1080p or the HR21 could do 3d well after they where released?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

doesn't look its chip-set allow to output 4k to HDMI ... push and store the movies to HDD is not an issue for any format include 8k


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> You know that is a thought. They could offer their first stuff all Video On Demand to start off rather than linear channels. I wonder what kind of hardware would be needed inside a DIRECTV box to make that happen. Anyone think there is any chance the hr44 has the ability to output 4k with a software upgrade, just as the hr20 could do 1080p or the HR21 could do 3d well after they where released?


I suspect 4K support will take more than a firmware upgrade.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

just a few minutes of reading specs of Broadcom chips will give full confidence - no support of 4k in current models


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> 4K has 4x the pixels, so on the order of 4x the bps required if you encoded it in MPEG4 (it should be somewhat less, depending on the number of edges and amount of motion) If you used HEVC, it would be more like 2x since that's supposed to be twice as efficient.


Going forward, it may be useful to distinguish between 4K and Ultra HD. 4K started life as 4096x2160 (four kilopixels wide) but Ultra HD need only be 3840x2160 (eight megapixels). When you multiply the additional 256 pixels by 2160, it turns into about the same amount of pixel data as DIRECTV presents on six or so SD channels.

Then again, while the CE industry proclaimed the official buzz-phrase as "Ultra HD" last year, they seem to all be throwing in on calling 3840x2160 "4K".

That silly little 10%+ is significant.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> All righty then! I was in a Magnolia (inside of a BB) listening to some speakers, and chatted a bit with the sales guy about the Sammy 4k 65' set- only $5,500 IIRC. What shocked me was Samsung's approach- apparently they will send you one flash drive with one 4k movie on it. BFD!
> I didn't drool, but felt the saliva rising a bit.......
> 
> !rolling
> ...


Did it look like you expected? Was there a very discernible difference? I gotta get to one of the stores to see one.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich said:


> Did it look like you expected? Was there a very discernible difference? I gotta get to one of the stores to see one.


Yes, but I'd seen many at CES, as well as others in retail stores. There's a huge difference in PQ, but no where near four times, which is what the pixel count increase is.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, but I'd seen many at CES, as well as others in retail stores. There's a huge difference in PQ, _*but no where near four times*_, which is what the pixel count increase is.


I'm not sure I could objectively make that comment without some sort of measuring device. But, I like the "huge difference in PQ" statement. BTW, did you get to see the NF "Super HD" the other night?

Rich


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I suspect 4K support will take more than a firmware upgrade.


Yep. You will have to have one of these. !rolling


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> Going forward, it may be useful to distinguish between 4K and Ultra HD. 4K started life as 4096x2160 (four kilopixels wide) but Ultra HD need only be 3840x2160 (eight megapixels). When you multiply the additional 256 pixels by 2160, it turns into about the same amount of pixel data as DIRECTV presents on six or so SD channels.
> 
> Then again, while the CE industry proclaimed the official buzz-phrase as "Ultra HD" last year, they seem to all be throwing in on calling 3840x2160 "4K".
> 
> That silly little 10%+ is significant.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Resolutions


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Heh. The cost of your connections should always be at least 10% of the purchase price of a new TV....  Now, there was some validity to paying attention to quality of cables with analog, not so with digital.....


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich said:


> I'm not sure I could objectively make that comment without some sort of measuring device. But, I like the "huge difference in PQ" statement. BTW, did you get to see the NF "Super HD" the other night?


Nothing more to measure; it's simply the number of pixels- four times that of an HD set. But the PQ boost is totally subjective.

I did watch some stuff on NF off my AppleTV. It was stunning, but I had no way of knowing if it was 1080p or i.... my set showed only the pixel dimensions.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Yep. You will have to have one of these. !rolling


HECK NO....!!! :eek2: :rotfl:


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Ultra HD technically covers both 4K (3840x2160) and 8K (7680x4320) though no one is talking about making consumer 8K TVs or producing 8K content. Similar to how HD has multiple resolutions defined, such as 720p, 1080i and 1080p.

There won't be any 4096x2160 broadcasts, so the difference between that and 3840x2160 is irrelevant when discussing 4K in relation to satellite or cable TV.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

You should check out the reviews:



> No joke the best HDMI cable available currently.
> 
> I'm an experienced user, tested all the best names in the industry bar none and quite surprisingly this one offered the best picture hands down.
> 
> You might find a better HDMI cable for audio-only (maybe solid core conductors, I don't know) but for picture this was it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Heh. The cost of your connections should always be at least 10% of the purchase price of a new TV....  Now, there was some validity to paying attention to quality of cables with analog, not so with digital.....


That's not true. They need to be strong enough that the cat walking over them doesn't break them.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

longrider said:


> You should check out the reviews:


No doubt you'd find similar reviews for overpriced oxygen free power cables as well:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1-5M-Oxygen-Free-Copper-AC-Mains-Power-OFC-Cable-Cord-IEC-EURO-US-Plug-/321185124877?pt=US_Amplifier_Parts_Components&hash=item4ac820120d


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

More reviews:

I'm an experienced user, and I have tested all the best names in the industry as well as $5.00 cables from Monoprice. You can pay $200.00 for a gold plated oxygen and boron free 99.9865% pure copper wire but won't see any difference between that and the cheap-o wire from Monoprice.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

This cable will change your life....literally

http://consumerist.com/2011/01/10/how-this-2000-hdmi-cable-will-change-your-life/


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> More reviews:
> 
> I'm an experienced user, and I have tested all the best names in the industry as well as $5.00 cables from Monoprice. You can pay $200.00 for a gold plated oxygen and boron free 99.9865% pure copper wire but won't see any difference between that and the cheap-o wire from Monoprice.


That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> There won't be any 4096x2160 broadcasts, so the difference between that and 3840x2160 is irrelevant when discussing 4K in relation to satellite or cable TV.


DCI 4K (4096x2160) projectors are used in many movie theaters. How is this to be reconciled?

As it is, there's so little Ultra HD content as to suggest that nothing has been decided in terms of what it will ultimately end up being.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

studechip said:


> Do movie theaters claim hd content now?


Yes, as a matter of fact some do.


> Why do you think they will claim 4k in the future?


Because it differentiates old school 2K Digital cinema from 4K Digital cinema.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

studechip said:


> Do movie theaters claim hd content now? Why do you think they will claim 4k in the future? Meaningless.





harsh said:


> Yes, as a matter of fact some do.Because it differentiates old school 2K Digital cinema from 4K Digital cinema.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema


The wikipedia link you posted even says that digital cinema is distinct from high definition television, so now tell us what theaters claim to be showing hd.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

This should probably be moved to the 4K thread, there's no reason to be discussing 4K in the D14 thread, especially when the discussion has moved on to movie theatres...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> This should probably be moved to the 4K thread, there's no reason to be discussing 4K in the D14 thread, especially when the discussion has moved on to movie theatres...


This is a thread talking about 4K HDTV on DirecTV...it would seem to be in the right place...although some of the posts (especially from one poster in particular) are going down a different path at times.

Perhaps we can resume on topic.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

studechip said:


> The wikipedia link you posted even says that digital cinema is distinct from high definition television, so now tell us what theaters claim to be showing hd.


The theaters are claiming 4K.

https://www.amctheatres.com/sony4k

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=222211&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1378149&highlight=

http://www.geekwire.com/2013/paul-allens-cinerama-theater-install-worlds-laser-projector/

http://www.astortheatre.net.au/about-the-astor/4k

http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/digital-cinematography/news/landmark-banks-4k-projection/11880

http://digitalmediaservices.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/tampas-channelside-cinemas-go-all-4k/

It is also notable that Sony's projection entry into the home 4K market is indeed a 4K model as opposed to 3840x2160.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

So here we go again...off topic... :nono2:

The thread pertains to DirecTV's potential implementation of 4K...not movie theaters.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

This is a thread talking about 4K HDTV on DirecTV...it would seem to be in the right place...although some of the posts (especially from one poster in particular) are going down a different path at times.

Perhaps we can resume on topic.


just an FYI that post was made when this stuff was in a different thread about d14 and got moved here where it's more appropriate.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

harsh said:


> The theaters are claiming 4K.
> 
> https://www.amctheatres.com/sony4k
> 
> ...


Again, who cares what the theaters are claiming, they aren't televsion.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> just an FYI that post was made when this stuff was in a different thread about d14 and got moved here where it's more appropriate.


Understood.

Still...this is about 4K and DirecTV (television) in contrast to the posts about theaters.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

For some reason, Harsh thinks it's important what theaters are calling 4k, even though it has nothing to do with television.


----------

