ATSC2.0 (H.265) & ATSC3.0 (UHDTV 4K) Discussion - Page 2 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

 4Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #16 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-16, 06:32 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,724
Phones appear cheap because they are subsidized by the phone companies... if TVs became subsidized there would be way more turnover.

CM4228, CM4220HD, Samsung LNT3242H, AccessHD DTA1080D, RCA DTA800, CM7775, Samsung DTB-H260F, Samsung LN40B750
alebowgm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-16, 06:59 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,777
Well, I have to agree with reidw , 4K is years away especially that we do not have even full HD implemented yet . All we are getting is lowest HD quality possible 720p.We are probably years away before we get full 1080p if ever.
bev fan is online now  
post #18 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-16, 07:15 PM Thread Starter
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Scarboro
Posts: 6,328
I disagree - 4K is here in a few months - at least on Netflix. The World Cup Final will be produced in 4K, as will other major sporting events. Unlike 3D, 4K is not going away. It is more like HD in 2001 - major events like the Superbowl, Masters, Final Four, etc will be in 4K every year from now on. That will push people to get the sets and the other hardware.

For those that want they can get 4K by getting a better video card for their PC and hooking that up to their TV or running the native Netflix app on their PC. Youtube currently has some 4K content.

From http://www.sony.com/SCA/company-news...t-experi.shtml

Quote:
Collaboration with Netflix: Sony's 2014 4K Ultra HD TVs have been optimized to support 4K Ultra HD content streaming from Netflix, which is expected to launch on compatible televisions in the first half of this year. By incorporating a decoder compatible with the latest HEVC video compression format, Sony 4K Ultra HD TVs are capable of displaying 4K streaming video at 60 frames per second (60p) from Internet streams and other sources without the need for additional devices.
Quote:
This summer, Sony will provide technical support to enable 4K production of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Final.
It would be nice if you could just plug a digital stream into your TV from wherever (Video Cam, PC, etc) and it would take care of the rest - kind of like what happened in the early HD days with Firewire ports on some TVs from Mitsubishi.
Wayne is offline  
 
post #19 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-16, 07:27 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by reidw
The Netflix 4K programming that is supposed to start in Feb. (or is it Q2?) is an experiment.
I find this statement amusing. How would you define the difference between a experiment and a in-production service?

Quote:
Originally Posted by reidw
I'd also like to point out that 4K is not the end. The end if there is one is 8K. It will blow your socks off as it is beyond the range of the best 35 mm film. What 4K is in fact a kind of intermediate step towards 8K.
I think any reasonable person will acknowledge that given the limits of human visual acuity that there are diminishing returns as display resolutions increase. That is, the perceived quality delta between "2k" and "4k" will be far greater than the delta between "4k" and "8k". This may seem obvious, but your above statement suggests to me that you don't understand it, so I'm stating it here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reidw
But when it comes to bona fide 4K channels I think they're a long way off especially here in Canada. The major players here both cable/sat. and OTA have just "completed their transition to DTV/HDTV.
This may be true for legacy TV delivery mechanisms (cable/sat/ota) but it is certainly not true for streaming video. I think that in two years a large percentage of new TVs sold will have a 4k resolution. Those TV manufacturers will highlight the services that will provide 4k video, meaning internet streaming services will get a lot of "free advertising", and will increase their market share of "total TV hours watched". That is, legacy TV services will be getting a smaller and smaller share of the total hours people spend watching TV.
audacity is offline  
post #20 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-16, 08:12 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Stratford, PE.
Posts: 3,570
@audacity: I could argue every one of your points back like doesn't the plethora of announcements about upcoming 4K programming sound remarkably like similar announcements about 3D plans just a few years ago? But I won't. In the case of 3D I questioned whether in its current form (glasses) it would take off, it didn't and I was loudly flamed at fanboy sites for my scepticism at the time. In the case of 4K, I'm on the fence. My main concern is whether it will really do anything on screens below x inches? Also is Joe Six Pack is ready to invest in yet another TV format? As for streaming, not all of us are lucky enough to have access to even a moderately fast internet service and until that changes streaming as a viable option sat./cable/OTA remains just a dream except perhaps in the big cities.
reidw is offline  
post #21 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-16, 08:15 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Stratford, PE.
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by alebowgm View Post
Phones appear cheap because they are subsidized by the phone companies... if TVs became subsidized there would be way more turnover.
We both know that given the current North American model of TV OWNERSHIP that a TV rental/lease model will never be widely accepted here. Now if this were Britain where a rental TV company called Granada built an empire .....
reidw is offline  
post #22 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 07:45 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,777
Streaming 4K content over Internet could get really expensive. Netflix recommends 50 mbps Internet speed and with unlimited bandwidth it could get costly even in the big city.

I just do not think that many people will run out and start buying new TV sets and then pay well over $100 for the Internet just to be able to watch some 4k content on netflix.
bev fan is online now  
post #23 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 09:39 AM Thread Starter
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Scarboro
Posts: 6,328
I think the big issue here will be data caps, not speed, at least in Canada. I don't know why you would need 50 Mbps as the 4K Netflix stream has a bitrate of 15Mbps. With Rogers cable only their Lite service ($45) can't handle that, their Express service ($55) is 25Mbps. But it only gives you 80GB per month which is 11 hours of content.

But the early adopters, like myself, are likely to have fast internet - my internet download speed is 250Mbps and my monthly cap is 1TB.
Wayne is offline  
post #24 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 10:09 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,777
People do not get Internet just to watch netflix , usually there are other members of a household that want to use Internet doing their stuff so netflix recommends to have 50 Mbps .
So the cost-of Internet itself would stop people from trying 4K content.
I am one of the early adopters also but I would not pay over $100 just for the Internet.
bev fan is online now  
post #25 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 10:48 AM Thread Starter
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Scarboro
Posts: 6,328
People who have Netflix realize that they need a decent internet connection. Perhaps Netflix is judging this on people running at least two simultaneous streams. But even then that leaves 20Mbps of overhead for everything else.

By the way, where do you get the 50Mbps suggested speed from? I see articles from Sep 2013 mentioning Netflix 4K requiring 50Mbps, but everything from CES 2014 talked about 15.6 Mbps. Maybe they have changed their mind on what bandwidth they will be using since last fall. The stories from CES say:
Quote:
The picture was crisp on a large Sony Bravia screen when running off hotel Internet that was boosted to 50 Mbps, and didn't seem to take any longer than standard Netflix video to load.
So maybe that is where the 50 came from.

You don't have to pay $100 for internet - given the right bundles I believe both Bell and Rogers give you unlimited internet for $10/month. So Rogers Express + Unlimited is $65/month and should be good for one Netflix 4K stream plus 9.4 Mbps left over for a whole lot of other stuff.
Wayne is offline  
post #26 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 11:20 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,777
25 Mbps is not enough if I want to watch netflix in 4 K and one of my kids wants to watch something else at the same time so 50 Mbps would be a better option.

I do not have any services wit bell so if I wanted their internet it would cost me over $100 for unlimited or over $200 with phone and tv bundle and that is not even 50 Mbps.
This is the link where netflix recommends to get 50mbps Internet
bgr.com/2013/09/26/netflix-4k-streaming

It is easy for Netflix to provide this service since they don't have to worry about getting new hardware or proper internet speeds for customers.
bev fan is online now  
post #27 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 11:50 AM Thread Starter
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Scarboro
Posts: 6,328
That link is from Sep 26 of last year - last Sep/Oct they were talking 50, they are now talking 15.

If you are watching a 4K stream and your kids are watching an HD or SD stream then you will be using up about 19 Mbps.

Teksavvy offers unlimited internet for less than $100/month depending on speed. Their Cable 45 service is $100 - if you can live with 300GB month then that is $57.
Wayne is offline  
post #28 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 01:22 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by reidw
I could argue every one of your points back like doesn't the plethora of announcements about upcoming 4K programming sound remarkably like similar announcements about 3D plans just a few years ago? But I won't.
Oh, I have no doubt you could argue the points, but I'm pretty sure you couldn't effectively argue the points. My points about human visual acuity limits and the ability for streaming media companies to adapt to new resolutions/codecs/etc are pretty air-tight arguments.

You likening 3D adoption to 4K adoption just shows that you're uninformed about why 3D failed: nobody wanted to buy or wear expensive glasses, and/or watch in a lower resolution.

Nobody will need to put stupid-looking $250 glasses on in order to watch 4K content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reidw
Also is Joe Six Pack is ready to invest in yet another TV format?
I see no reason not to. Again, my prediction is that Christmas 2015 will sell a lot of 4K TVs, and practically all TVs over a certain price point (~$2,000) will be 4K. Most TVs will have 4K "built in" to them, along with built in apps for streaming video providers that provide 4K content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bev fan
I am one of the early adopters also but I would not pay over $100 just for the Internet.
I think the point is that "early adopters" like Wayne are more interesting when it comes to looking at their habits and trying to determine what people will be doing in the future. "Laggards" like yourself, people who change last, are less likely to be able to predict future trends by looking at your behaviour. When people buy 4K TVs (and lots will, soon), they'll want to get 4K content - and that's where streaming video comes in.

Available bandwidth and data caps will continue to rise at a pretty good rate. The Rogers "ultimate" plan went from 200GB to 1TB in a couple years. I'm sure these trends will only continue. Incidentally, in my case I got fiber-to-the-home a couple weeks ago and it's great. While my ISP caps my bandwidth at 72mbps down and ~17mbps up, I get those speeds all the time, even at peak hours. And the line/modem is capable of providing 1Gbps up/down.
audacity is offline  
post #29 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-17, 03:34 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montreal QC
Posts: 416
I believe that people will buy 4k but no one will pay a premium for it as a feature, nor get rid of / upgrade a perfectly good OLED HDTV for one. For example, I don't consider myself a laggard but I'm not even using my current TV to its full 1080p potential most of the time due to the programming not being available besides BluRay and odd download ... so I don't see myself upgrading to 4k anytime soon. I just can't justify it. Dude, where's my content?

I am interested in some of the ancillary benefits of a 4K TV: the true black and sharper contrasts. That translates right down to 720p programming, so that gets me pondering an early upgrade but that's about it. There' also the wife factor too (justifying the cost when the current TV is still brand new and looks great)


I'm still surprised by how many SD cable/sat boxes are still around ... and that was for HD which is a huge leap step and bound in terms of image quality. If that's any indication then I believe a slow 4k migration will occur but I doubt a 4K "craze" will be here anytime soon. With that being said, OTA broadcasting going to 4K (ATSC 3.0) may be more in line with this evolution than we think
interdit_450 is offline  
post #30 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-18, 01:21 PM
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 559
I don't think 4K will take off too quickly either. Broadcasters and consumers don't want to have to upgrade everything. I can see it being used more in sports production, like FOX does, so they can zoom in on images and maintain a high resolution. But 4K (and 8K) only benefits people with large TV's that sit a certain distance away from their TV.

And delivering content down the pipe will strain BDU's capacities even more - look how much compression is already being done. Even via OTA, I think there will be limits.
Simonizer is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome