Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Consumer Electronics > Audio/Video & Home Theater

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-09-2013, 04:36 AM   #1
brainhulk
Diamond Member
 
brainhulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,489
Default How long until we get native 4K content

via cable or streaming?
brainhulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 05:31 AM   #2
Railgun
Senior Member
 
Railgun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ORD-->LHR
Posts: 947
Default

If RED's claims are you can get 4K content at only 2.5MB, then it's simply a matter of content being available...and you buying their gear.

In all honesty...any "HD" streaming today generally sucks, so from my perspective, and those that actually want a decent picture, no one will want it if it's as crappy as today's content.
Railgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 05:52 AM   #3
brainhulk
Diamond Member
 
brainhulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railgun View Post
If RED's claims are you can get 4K content at only 2.5MB, then it's simply a matter of content being available...and you buying their gear.

In all honesty...any "HD" streaming today generally sucks, so from my perspective, and those that actually want a decent picture, no one will want it if it's as crappy as today's content.
is anything filmed in 4k yet? are the cameras that sports, TV shows, and movies using 4k?

Last edited by brainhulk; 01-09-2013 at 06:12 AM.
brainhulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:11 AM   #4
Railgun
Senior Member
 
Railgun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: ORD-->LHR
Posts: 947
Default

Filmed? Yes, albeit very limited. As far as the rest, again, it's a matter of when they start doing it.

I think 18-24 mo is when it will be more available.
Railgun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 06:36 AM   #5
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,498
Default

It took years for HD to become more common place. For the first couple of years there wasn't much more than nature shows, games and a few Movies. As time went by and more people bought them TV started to come in HD and now we are at the stage where a lot of channels run HD, but still not all. Movies can be found in Blue ray but DVD is still very popular as are standard definition channels.

So HD is established, but I would say 6 years ago when it was emerging like 4k is today there was basically nothing. It'll take a few years and it will have to show a compelling case compared to HD or its not going to take off.
__________________
i7 3930k @4.4, 2xMSI GTX 680, 16GB Corsair 2133 RAM, Crucial m4 500GB, Soundblaster Z
Custom watercooled by 2x MCR 320 and 1 MCR 480
Zowie Evo CL EC2, Corsair K70, Asus Rog Swift PG278Q
BrightCandle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 07:38 AM   #6
Kaido
Lifer
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 28,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Railgun View Post
If RED's claims are you can get 4K content at only 2.5MB, then it's simply a matter of content being available...and you buying their gear.

In all honesty...any "HD" streaming today generally sucks, so from my perspective, and those that actually want a decent picture, no one will want it if it's as crappy as today's content.
I'm interested to see who wins...RED said they have a 4K player and distribution system coming, but Sony also just make their own 4K distribution annoucement. So hopefully this doesn't turn into the Betamax/VHS or HD-DVD/Bluray deal again with digital format wars. RED seems to be king of 4K, but they still haven't released their 4K laser projector or 4K REDRAY distributed player, and Sony has a pretty good track record of actually coming out (not saying that RED is vaporware, just that they don't really commit to dates, so it's hard to pinpoint any kind of schedule).

I like stuff like HD Netflix streaming and VUDU better than actual Blu-ray discs. I've had a really bad experience with Blu-ray discs...problems playing discs, having to download updates over the Internet, waiting for the menu system & advertisements, just a really slow & lame experience all around...now I just say screw it and rent it on VUDU and it looks great! Or stream Netflix HDX or whatever. If they can really do the 2.5 MB/s thing, that would be really cool, but they'll also have to coordinate not only with movie studios, but also with iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc. if they really want to pull in all of the content. It will be interesting to see how all that plays out...I'd really like to see just a single box, and then you choose your vendor within that box (like a PC...you choose the software).

Film is still a higher resolution than almost every digital camera out there. A 70mm IMAX film is roughly equivalent to 8K (I think about 10K equivalent, but even old films like the Wizard of Oz are being scanned in at 8K since we have those scanners available), so we still have a ways to go before we burn out the old movie resolution. I think Jim at RED said that 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 3.2K, so a bit less than 4K UltraHD. A lot of modern movies have been mastered in 2K and I'm sure we'll be seeing more go into the 4K workflow ($$$!). Panavision just announced a 70mm-equivalent digital camera (the assumption is that this will be an 8K camera), so I think we'll start seeing a lot of 4K content in pretty short order, as long as a distribution system is available - either by disc, download, or streaming.
__________________
Dave Likes Food
Kaido is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:02 AM   #7
Anubis
No Lifer
 
Anubis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Anger is a gift!
Posts: 73,787
Default

we still dont have propper 1080p streaming/cable itll be decades before we see 4k
Anubis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:25 AM   #8
A5
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,713
Default

For cable/OTA, ~2018 at the earliest I think. H.265 has to be finished (the final spec is supposed to be out 1H 2013) to fit 4K content in the standard cable/OTA channel bandwidth, and H.265-capable STBs have to be rolled out. Remember that the vast majority of cable systems are still using MPEG-2 for compression - I think we'll see them skip MPEG-4 and go straight to H.265 once the boxes are ready. I think the earliest adopters will be live sports, but we'll see.

NHK (Japan's national broadcast/telco company) wants to start 4K broadcasts in 2015, and 8K in the early 2020s. As with most other things, add several years for it to come to the USA.

Streaming services will probably update to H.265 faster, but it'll still require a lot of bandwidth to get to the home. The people with fiber and/or good cable connections will be able to take advantage of it earlier (2015 or so if there's content), but there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be added to make it more accessible. I think the uptake on streaming will be a bit faster because it will be easier for the streaming companies to get H.265 capable HW into consumers' hands.

Digital Cinema is already shot in 4K, so it wouldn't surprise me if there's a new generation of Blu-Rays at some point in the near future to get that stuff out there.

Long story short, wait awhile to buy a 4K TV. They'll only get cheaper, and by the time there's enough stuff to watch they'll probably all be OLED

Last edited by A5; 01-09-2013 at 08:30 AM.
A5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:28 AM   #9
brainhulk
Diamond Member
 
brainhulk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A5 View Post
For cable/OTA, ~2018 at the earliest I think. H.265 has to be finished (the final spec is supposed to be out 1H 2013) to fit 4K content in the standard cable/OTA channel bandwidth, and H.265-capable STBs have to be rolled out. Remember that the vast majority of cable systems are still using MPEG-2 for compression - I think we'll see them skip MPEG-4 and go straight to H.265 once the boxes are ready. I think the earliest adopters will be live sports, but we'll see.

Streaming services will probably update to H.265 faster, but it'll still require a lot of bandwidth to get to the home. The people with fiber and/or good cable connections will be able to take advantage of it earlier (2015 or so if there's content), but there's a lot of infrastructure that needs to be added to make it more accessible.

Digital Cinema is already shot in 4K, so it wouldn't surprise me if there's a new generation of Blu-Rays at some point to get that stuff out there.
so for blu-ray, all they would need to do is use double layer or something?
brainhulk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:38 AM   #10
JackBurton
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anubis View Post
we still dont have propper 1080p streaming/cable itll be decades before we see 4k
Broadcasters are already testing the new high efficiency codec H.265 which should help bring 4K broadcasts to homes sooner rather than later.
__________________
No thank you. I don't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds

JackBurton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:47 AM   #11
A5
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brainhulk View Post
so for blu-ray, all they would need to do is use double layer or something?
Probably? Remember that a 4K movie would require roughly 4x the bitrate of a 1080p movie using the same codec, so a DL disk could still only hold half the runtime of current discs.

I'm also not sure if that would raise any compatibility issues with modern players. If it breaks compatibility anyway, we might see a move to BDXL 3/4 layer disks. Also, any player that didn't have an HDMI 1.4 or later connection wouldn't be able to drive a 4K display anyway.

Also, the Blu-Ray format specification technically does not allow for 4K content to be placed on the disk. They'll have to push an updated version of the BD-ROM AV spec to add that.

So, uh, don't expect any current Blu-Ray players to play 4K disks. I think we'll see a new generation of players that support H.265 and BDXL, probably rebranded as Super Blu-Ray or Blu-Ray 4K or something.

Last edited by A5; 01-09-2013 at 08:50 AM.
A5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:49 AM   #12
A5
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBurton View Post
Broadcasters are already testing the new high efficiency codec H.265 which should help bring 4K broadcasts to homes sooner rather than later.
I doubt Comcast is itching to spend billions of dollars on H.265-capable STBs anytime soon, though. Not to mention the ATSC spec for OTA broadcasts hasn't been updated to support it yet (and would require replacing all those "free" converter boxes from the mid-2000s).
A5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:55 AM   #13
Oyeve
Lifer
 
Oyeve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,677
Default

Hah! Cable barely does 1080i let alone P.
__________________
My Heat
Oyeve is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 08:56 AM   #14
JackBurton
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A5 View Post
I doubt Comcast is itching to spend billions of dollars on H.265-capable STBs anytime soon, though. Not to mention the ATSC spec for OTA broadcasts hasn't been updated to support it yet (and would require replacing all those "free" converter boxes from the mid-2000s).
I think it was DirecTV that's already begun testing. Don't quote me on it though. And it would be to their advantage to deliver 4K before the competition. I can just see it now, "NFL now available in 4K UltraHD, only on DirecTV!" Man, watching football on a 80"+ 4K screen would be a beautiful thing.
__________________
No thank you. I don't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds


Last edited by JackBurton; 01-09-2013 at 08:59 AM.
JackBurton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 02:56 PM   #15
Pacfanweb
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 12,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBurton View Post
Broadcasters are already testing the new high efficiency codec H.265 which should help bring 4K broadcasts to homes sooner rather than later.
And "sooner" is probably going to still be close to ten years.

If I were going to buy a new TV now, I certainly wouldn't wait for a 4k to become reasonably priced. 1080p is at its zenith right now. I'd roll with the best one of those I could afford, and let several generations of 4k come and go before I bought one.
__________________
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em. -
Jimmy V

"One of the reasons I left Sabbath is Van Halen was blowing us off the stage every night. It was embarrassing." Ozzy
Pacfanweb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 02:34 AM   #16
lamedude
Senior Member
 
lamedude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: ��
Posts: 929
Default

If you count bit torrent as streaming a week after Sony releases their 4K movies.
lamedude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 10:37 AM   #17
Spicedaddy
Platinum Member
 
Spicedaddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,091
Default

For broadcast stuff it'll be a while. For movies, it should be available soon after they start selling the TVs.

Most people watch 40-55" TVs from 8-10 feet away. In those cases, 4K won't make much difference. It'll be nice for larger screens and projectors, but for smaller TVs I'd rather have OLED 1080p than 4K LCD.
Spicedaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 10:44 AM   #18
NutBucket
Lifer
 
NutBucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: West SFV
Posts: 21,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBurton View Post
I think it was DirecTV that's already begun testing. Don't quote me on it though. And it would be to their advantage to deliver 4K before the competition. I can just see it now, "NFL now available in 4K UltraHD, only on DirecTV!" Man, watching football on a 80"+ 4K screen would be a beautiful thing.
What's the point? Most of their HD content is compressed to shit anyway. You know its bad when middle aged folks ask why the IQ at the store is better than what they see at home. IQ on OTA is definitely where its at but even the CBS NFL broadcasts look crappy sometimes. They'd better not muck up the Super Bowl....
NutBucket is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 10:44 AM   #19
JimKiler
Golden Member
 
JimKiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,992
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A5 View Post
I doubt Comcast is itching to spend billions of dollars on H.265-capable STBs anytime soon, though. Not to mention the ATSC spec for OTA broadcasts hasn't been updated to support it yet (and would require replacing all those "free" converter boxes from the mid-2000s).
exactly, plus when the cable companies do present 4K how do we know it will be any higher quality than the bit rate they give now for 1080 which is horrendous. Thank goodness i now have TV via my telco's fiber line and even that is not perfect, but definitely acceptable compared to Comcast's idea of HD.

Would we be happier if Comcast decided to convert down to 720p or even 480p compared to the pseudo 1080i we get today?
__________________
"this is Jim Kiler step away from the window" -Robert Culp as Jim Kiler in Outrage.
JimKiler is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 01:15 PM   #20
JackBurton
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NutBucket View Post
What's the point? Most of their HD content is compressed to shit anyway. You know its bad when middle aged folks ask why the IQ at the store is better than what they see at home. IQ on OTA is definitely where its at but even the CBS NFL broadcasts look crappy sometimes. They'd better not muck up the Super Bowl....
I don't know about you, but I'm completely satisfied with the HD stream from my provider (U-verse). Is it perfect? No, but that's why I have a Blu-ray player. And with them moving to a better and more efficient codec (H.265), you should definitely see an improvement over the standard HD broadcast. The quality improvement would most likely be lost on people that own a 50" or smaller display though.

I'd say by 2015 we should see some reasonably priced displays and most likely a standard for 4K, which I don't believe is too far off.
__________________
No thank you. I don't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds

JackBurton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 02:32 PM   #21
purbeast0
Lifer
 
purbeast0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 36,349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBurton View Post
I don't know about you, but I'm completely satisfied with the HD stream from my provider (U-verse). Is it perfect? No, but that's why I have a Blu-ray player. And with them moving to a better and more efficient codec (H.265), you should definitely see an improvement over the standard HD broadcast. The quality improvement would most likely be lost on people that own a 50" or smaller display though.

I'd say by 2015 we should see some reasonably priced displays and most likely a standard for 4K, which I don't believe is too far off.
there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between image quality on my projector screen with a HD cable feed from verizon fios vs a bluray. there is also a huge difference between the different channels and feeds as well. typically the primetime games looked better on my 120" screen than the day games. espn looks better than any of the other ones as well.

and that compared to a 1080p bluray is also night and day.

it was funny we were flipping to the NFL network during the games last weekend at commercials, and they had some football follies show on, and showed clips in standard definition and we were all talking about how shitty the quality of it was lol.

we are so spoiled now a days.
purbeast0 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 02:53 PM   #22
NutBucket
Lifer
 
NutBucket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: West SFV
Posts: 21,978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackBurton View Post
I don't know about you, but I'm completely satisfied with the HD stream from my provider (U-verse). Is it perfect? No, but that's why I have a Blu-ray player. And with them moving to a better and more efficient codec (H.265), you should definitely see an improvement over the standard HD broadcast. The quality improvement would most likely be lost on people that own a 50" or smaller display though.
Nope, I'm not satisfied. I expect more if I'm paying for it (hence I don't). I see it on my relatives' 55" Bravia and imagine it would be even more noticeable on our 65" DLP.
NutBucket is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:15 PM   #23
ImpulsE69
Diamond Member
 
ImpulsE69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,657
Default

I care more about the content and delivery than the picture quality. If you think 4k streaming (or anything involving 4k) is going to be adopted fast, you are mistaken. The majority were just forced to upgrade their TV's to 1080 (and many are just on 720) -- and while I don't expect todays TV's will last as long as the TV's of yesteryear, I don't see people replacing all their equipment at 2x the cost when the content and delivery isn't any better.

Blu-Ray is a slower and more complex medium than it needs to be (as an example of what I'm talking about).Blu-Ray's may look good, but honestly, I rarely watch them and just prefer to stream from local at a lower bit rate if that's whats necessary.

Again (as I've mentioned elsewhere) picture resolution is the least of the worries with today's tech. There are many other hurdles that need to be addressed.

Just like MP3's, people will be happy with lower quality video streaming if it's convenient.
__________________
I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion and if anyone thinks differently they will promptly be crushed.

The World Needs a Reset Button.
ImpulsE69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 03:15 PM   #24
JackBurton
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NutBucket View Post
Nope, I'm not satisfied. I expect more if I'm paying for it (hence I don't). I see it on my relatives' 55" Bravia and imagine it would be even more noticeable on our 65" DLP.
It's MUCH better than SD, and I have a greater selection than OTA, hence why i DO pay for it. Maybe it's just my TV, but some HD broadcast shots look just gorgeous. Obviously BD trumps it, but it's definitely pretty dang nice, and I'm a stickler for PQ.

4K will take up where FullHD left off. The only downside is, you'll need a bigger screen to really appreciate it.
__________________
No thank you. I don't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds

JackBurton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2013, 04:21 PM   #25
JackBurton
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 15,367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by purbeast0 View Post
there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between image quality on my projector screen with a HD cable feed from verizon fios vs a bluray. there is also a huge difference between the different channels and feeds as well. typically the primetime games looked better on my 120" screen than the day games. espn looks better than any of the other ones as well.

and that compared to a 1080p bluray is also night and day.

it was funny we were flipping to the NFL network during the games last weekend at commercials, and they had some football follies show on, and showed clips in standard definition and we were all talking about how shitty the quality of it was lol.

we are so spoiled now a days.
Yep, the bigger your screen, the more apparent the difference is (broadcast vs BD)....and BD (1080p) vs 4K.
__________________
No thank you. I don't believe in invisible magic people that live in the clouds

JackBurton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.