How long until we get native 4K content

[brainhulk]

via cable or streaming?

 

[Railgun]

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.

 

[brainhulk]

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?

 

[Railgun]

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.

 

[BrightCandle]

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.

 

[Kaido]

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.

 

[Anubis]

we still dont have propper 1080p streaming/cable itll be decades before we see 4k

 

[A5]

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

 

[brainhulk]

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?

 

[JackBurton]

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.

 

[A5]

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.

 

[A5]

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).

 

[Oyeve]

Hah! Cable barely does 1080i let alone P.

 

[JackBurton]

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.

 

[Pacfanweb]

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.

 

[lamedude]

If you count bit torrent as streaming a week after Sony releases their 4K movies.

 

[Spicedaddy]

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.

 

[NutBucket]

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....

 

[JimKiler]

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?

 

[JackBurton]

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.

 

[cheez]

via cable or streaming?

This will take good 100 years. Won't happen in my life time.

With very high bitrates I mean.

cheez

 

[purbeast0]

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.

 

[NutBucket]

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.

 

[ImpulsE69]

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.

 

[JackBurton]

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.