How long until we get native 4K content

[JackBurton]

Originally Posted by purbeast0

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.

[NutBucket]

One must specify compressed broadcast (cable, fiber, dish) vs OTA. OTA is noticeably better.

[Fallen Kell]

Originally Posted by brainhulk

How long until we get native 4k content?

When we have 10+ gigbit fiber to each home. True full 4k resolution is 4096x2160 (even though many TV's will probably only be 3840x2048). So that means you need bandwidth for 4096x2160x24(frames per second)x30bits (size of the color information for a pixel supporting "deep color" HD) = 759.375 megabytes per second for uncompressed content, that is only for film. If you want 30 frames/second, or 60 frames/second, obviously you need even higher bandwidth.

Grant it, compression can do a great deal to decrease the bandwidth required, but compressing much more than 1/2 the size and you start to have noticeable signal/quality degradation. Today's current "HD" broadcasts are horribly compressed over cable and satellite. FIOS seems to do a better job, but even they are subject to the source material from the upstream network providers.

[Railgun]

Hence my comment on RED's tech. I'd like to see 4k at 2.5MBps and go from there.

You will never get newer video tech in an uncompressed stream as Internet connectivity will nearly always lag behind...at least for the foreseeable future.

[A5]

Originally Posted by Fallen Kell

When we have 10+ gigbit fiber to each home. True full 4k resolution is 4096x2160 (even though many TV's will probably only be 3840x2048). So that means you need bandwidth for 4096x2160x24(frames per second)x30bits (size of the color information for a pixel supporting "deep color" HD) = 759.375 megabytes per second for uncompressed content, that is only for film. If you want 30 frames/second, or 60 frames/second, obviously you need even higher bandwidth.

Grant it, compression can do a great deal to decrease the bandwidth required, but compressing much more than 1/2 the size and you start to have noticeable signal/quality degradation. Today's current "HD" broadcasts are horribly compressed over cable and satellite. FIOS seems to do a better job, but even they are subject to the source material from the upstream network providers.

You don't need 10 Gbps Fiber to do 4K. I agree that most stuff on cable (8-12 Mbps MPEG-2) looks like garbage compared to Blu-Ray (30-50 Mbps MPEG-4), but you can easily get a 4K broadcast inside the current channel bandwidth (~18 Mbps with overhead) if you go straight to H.265 from the current MPEG-2 compression.

8K is where we start talking about requiring FTTH or a radical change to the cable infrastructure, though. At a minimum, you're talking about going all-IP Video and using something like DOCSIS 3.0 channel-bonding to guarantee the required bandwidth.

[dagamer34]

We need to completely ditch MPEG-2 for OTA and cable content distribution. At this point, H.264 isn't going to be enough for 4K and we need to push for H.265 for distribution throughout the chain.

[A5]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

We need to completely ditch MPEG-2 for OTA and cable content distribution. At this point, H.264 isn't going to be enough for 4K and we need to push for H.265 for distribution throughout the chain.

True, but that's not free. ATSC (the standard for OTA broadcasts in the US) was updated to support H.264 (and up to 1080p60 video) in 2008, but the implementation rate on that AFAIK is 0% due to the fact that all of those "free" converter boxes and tons of HDTVs only have the hardware to decode an MPEG-2 stream.

Work has started on ATSC 3.0, which is to be a ground-up rewrite for post-HD content. I assume they will go with H.265 as the baseline, but I wouldn't expect that to be done for several years at a minimum.

[dagamer34]

We're still using freaking MPEG-2 from 1992 for HD stuff. I have ZERO expectations of 4K from cable/satellite, even if content were readily available.

[NutBucket]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

We need to completely ditch MPEG-2 for OTA and cable content distribution. At this point, H.264 isn't going to be enough for 4K and we need to push for H.265 for distribution throughout the chain.

And who is going to pay for that? The government has nothing to gain financially as they did when we moved from NTSC to ATSC so there won't be any "free" converter boxes.

Besides, with OTA only responsible for some small percentage of TV distribution the motivation to overhaul it again is quite low. Sad for me as an OTA advocate but its simply the reality of the situation.

[JackBurton]

First UltraHD Channel Goes Live in Europe

[Fallen Kell]

Originally Posted by JackBurton

First UltraHD Channel Goes Live in Europe

Glad to see it is the fake 4K resolution (the 4K without the 4k (4096))

[JackBurton]

Originally Posted by Fallen Kell

Glad to see it is the fake 4K resolution (the 4K without the 4k (4096))

I think the "fake" 4K fits better with today's standards than "true" 4K (4096). With a 3,840 x 2,160 resolution you can do a nice clean passive 3D (1080p per eye), whereas 4096 would throw things off. And quite honestly, no one is going to be able to tell the difference between 4096 and 3840. Technically 3840 is not 4K, but for all practical purposes it is.