DirecTV Announces 4K VOD This Year - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 34Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 11:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,892
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
No, all video to the home today is compressed. You have provided a basic description of MPEG technology. But in the mastering industry un-compressed video is the norm. Yes we store full movies as uncompressed video up up 4K. That why we have at my location 4.2 petabytes of spinning storage with throughput of 10 or more 2K streams at 24fps.

TV shows are also largely uncompressed in the production phase. Some shows have recently gone to mild compression such as DNX. But any production compression is always inTRAframe based. Not like MPEG which is inTERframe. You can't edit B or P frames and with I frames at 2fps or longer, precise editing is not possible.

Now all HD videotape is compressed within the VTR as putting uncompressed video on tape is still an engineering challange though there was a format that did. the D6 format. The input and output of these VTRs was always uncompressed HD. But videotape is becoming obsolete yet as the industry accepted it's needed compression, intraframe file based compression is acceptable. But most feature film editing, VFX, and post production is all done uncompressed

My bad. I meant to say All video formats start out as a series of uncompressed bitmaps. Bitmaps are, by definition, uncompressed.
KidHorn is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidHorn View Post
But just because something is compressed doesn't mean it loses content.
True, but not relevant here. It's possible for compression to be lossless, but the video compression under discussion is not lossless.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #33 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 11:38 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,990
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 1093
Quote:
Originally Posted by bac522 View Post
Go OTA and you'll notice even better PQ! Most OTA signals are not compressed very much.
You didn't read what I wrote. I did do an A/B between my D* picture and the same channel with an OTA antenna. I could not tell the difference in this test I conducted about a year ago. This was not the case with D* 10 years ago.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #34 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wilkinson View Post


Satellite provider also expects to provide 4K live streaming once two more birds are in orbit, but many questions remain.

While UHD/4K TVs seem to be selling quite well, the lack of native UHD/4K content is a big stumbling block on the road to widespread adoption. But according to a recent article on the Multichannel News site and elsewhere, that obstacle may soon be removed—or at least diminished—now that DirecTV has announced it will be ready to deliver UHD/4K video-on-demand (VOD) titles by the end of the year, with live streaming to follow next year or early 2016.

The announcement was made by DirecTV president and CEO Mike White during a conference call to discuss the company's second-quarter earnings. "We're working to secure some [4K] content," White is quoted as saying in the Multichannel News article. "We expect certainly in 2015 or early 2016 to be able to stream live content." That live content will depend on two new satellites that are scheduled to be deployed in the next 18 months, but the VOD content can apparently be delivered before then.

Of course, many questions remain. I can only assume that the initial content will use the BT.709 color gamut, 4:2:0 color subsampling, and 8-bit dynamic range. Also, I assume it will be encoded with HEVC/H.265, though that will require a new receiver in the home. What content will be available? How much will it cost subscribers? And assuming a very high level of compression, will it look that much better than current HD content? As the Lord Marshall says in The Chronicles of Riddick, "These are the things I need to know."

Time to turn on the speculator. What are your thoughts about this news?

Like AVS Forum on Facebook
Follow AVS Forum on Twitter
+1 AVS Forum on Google+
I read that article last week, the thing that gets me they only 1080p on Pay per view movies, and I'm not in no rush to buy 4k television.
Chise is offline  
post #35 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 11:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 243
Unfortunately with AT&T involved, the money will not be spent to do it right.
wxman is offline  
post #36 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 12:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
Unfortunately with AT&T involved, the money will not be spent to do it right.
I'm curious, what does "doing it right" mean to you?

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #37 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
repete66211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 1,568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 209
And here we see the real reason for the 4k upgrade--another revenue stream for producers, manufacturers, etc. The cost to produce, post-produce, distribute and display 4k content requires upgrades. Guess who'll be paying for those upgrades, whether you like it or not. Hopefully the lack of demand will result in the same thing for 4k VOD as it did for ESPN 3D.

repete66211 is offline  
post #38 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 12:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,990
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 1093
Any advancement in technology potentially represents 'another revenue stream', but that's not a reason to hope that technological advancements cease.

I continue to be amazed by the resistance of some to advancements in our display devices. I sure hope this resistance to change is not widespread.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #39 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
I'm curious, what does "doing it right" mean to you?
Uncompressed, not ridiculously priced and not tied to going to a higher tiered package.
wxman is offline  
post #40 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by wxman View Post
Uncompressed, not ridiculously priced and not tied to going to a higher tiered package.
So you want them to send a separate SUBSTAINED 6 gigabit stream to every subscriber for $50 per month?

Because that what uncompressed 4K VOD would require!

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!

Glimmie is offline  
post #41 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 12:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
repete66211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 1,568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 209
Ken, your argument as it's presented here hinges on the premise that any change equals improvement. That premise is invalid. My position rests on the idea that there is such a thing as "good enough"--that changing for sake of change isn't always the best thing to do--and that before you move on creating solutions to problems that don't exist you should fix the ones that already do. I realize this is idealistic, but where do we stop? What is your reasoning for not rolling out 16k in March of 2015?


Last edited by repete66211; 08-06-2014 at 01:00 PM.
repete66211 is offline  
post #42 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Any advancement in technology potentially represents 'another revenue stream', but that's not a reason to hope that technological advancements cease.

I continue to be amazed by the resistance of some to advancements in our display devices. I sure hope this resistance to change is not widespread.
And last week there was a major water main break in Los Angeles that flooded part of UCLA and closed Sunset Blvd in the area. It was national news!

I was amazed at the number of talk radio hosts and internet blogs that had "expert" opinions of why it shouldn't take three days to repair. I was especially amused at the those who though it was ridiculous that it took over three hours to turn the water off. Some vaguely explained the reason as best they could but nobody I heard used the correct term - "water hammer" - just ask any engineer of any discipline what that means and why it took three hours.

The point is there are many "experts" that comment on advaced technology and how those currently working in it are incompetent and short sighted. But these people have absolutely no clue how it works or is implemented with current technologies.

My last post above is an excellent example.
dsinger and tenthplanet like this.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!


Last edited by Glimmie; 08-06-2014 at 01:10 PM.
Glimmie is offline  
post #43 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 01:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jfischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Littleton, CO
Posts: 1,932
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by bac522 View Post
Go OTA and you'll notice even better PQ! Most OTA signals are not compressed very much.
OTA HD can look pretty terrible. Isn't it 18Mbps max/MPEG2 compression? Plus most stations are running multiple SD channels in that same bandwidth, meaning the HD has to be compressed even more.
Dan Hitchman and StinDaWg like this.
jfischer is offline  
post #44 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 01:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,846
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
So you want them to send a separate SUBSTAINED 6 gigabit stream to every subscriber for $50 per month?

Because that what uncompressed 4K VOD would require!
To get true 4K, I would pay the extra $50.
wxman is offline  
post #45 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 01:21 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,990
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 1093
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post
Ken, your argument as it's presented here hinges on the premise that any change equals improvement. That premise is invalid. My position rests on the idea that there is such a thing as "good enough"--that changing for sake of change isn't always the best thing to do--and that before you move on creating solutions to problems that don't exist you should fix the ones that already do. I realize this is idealistic, but where do we stop? What is your reasoning for not rolling out 16k in March of 2015?
Because beyond 4K is, IMO, truly reaching a point of diminishing returns. I do not feel that way about 2K>4K, although you might feel differently.

I've shot lots of content in 4K, and the gain in overall PQ is unmistakeable to my eyes. Even my wife, who tends to be blasé about PQ, can see the 4K difference (although to be honest, she thinks what we have now is 'good enough'). This is not change for the sake of change as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, we can 'wish' for all of the other 4K goodies, but I'll take what I can get and what I can get now, looks pretty good...especially 4K OLED.
dsinger likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #46 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 01:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 7,955
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 153 Post(s)
Liked: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfischer View Post
OTA HD can look pretty terrible. Isn't it 18Mbps max/MPEG2 compression? Plus most stations are running multiple SD channels in that same bandwidth, meaning the HD has to be compressed even more.
That's correct. ATSC specifies a 19.3mbs stream. Some of that first goes to error correction and other house keeping so about 17mbs is left for actual video content. Then they are allowed to cut that up anyway they want. So it's rare if not impossible to ever get a 17mbs HD stream OTA. Extra SD channels and datacasting. Plus DirecTV and Dish as well as many cable systems use MPEG4 whereas OTA is locked into MPEG2 by the FCC. So in many cases cable and satellite may actually have better quality than OTA even with lower per channel bit rates.

FYI, uncompressed 4:2:2 sampled 1920x1080i/30 or 1280x720p/60 both require 1.5Gbs. So a drop even to 17mbs is rather severe.

Glimmie's HT Page
Being redone - comming soon!


Last edited by Glimmie; 08-06-2014 at 01:53 PM.
Glimmie is offline  
post #47 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 01:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
repete66211's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 1,568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Because beyond 4K is, IMO, truly reaching a point of diminishing returns. I do not feel that way about 2K>4K, although you might feel differently.

I've shot lots of content in 4K, and the gain in overall PQ is unmistakeable to my eyes. Even my wife, who tends to be blasé about PQ, can see the 4K difference (although to be honest, she thinks what we have now is 'good enough'). This is not change for the sake of change as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, we can 'wish' for all of the other 4K goodies, but I'll take what I can get and what I can get now, looks pretty good...especially 4K OLED.
I appreciate that in an ideal situation--bandwidth/content, display, etc.--4k is objectively better than 1080. Or rather, it's at least as good. However, in my opinion, the cost of yet another round of industry- and consumer-wide upgrades is not justified by the perceived benefit of 4k over 1080 for nearly all consumers in most viewing conditions (namely screen size & seating distance).

This doesn't mean I'm against R&D, tech advances, etc. I'm not, I just that I don't think we consumers should be forced to absorb the cost of advances we never asked for and don't want just so some company can get a slight market edge over its competitor. If a company is going to upgrade to accommodate 4k there is a cost involved. And to cover that cost either prices go up or quality goes down, right?


Last edited by repete66211; 08-06-2014 at 01:48 PM.
repete66211 is offline  
post #48 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 02:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
bac522's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfischer View Post
OTA HD can look pretty terrible. Isn't it 18Mbps max/MPEG2 compression? Plus most stations are running multiple SD channels in that same bandwidth, meaning the HD has to be compressed even more.
Prime times shows are generally sent with the least amount of compression by broadcasters...I just checked a few of shows I've recorded OTA and I'm seeing 15-17 Mbps for data rates on those shows. It varies I'm sure for each market as well as what show a broadcaster is sending, but for me I did see a big difference between D* and OTA..not to mention the wallet which the money I've been saving has gone towards more HTPC equipment !

Last edited by bac522; 08-06-2014 at 02:55 PM.
bac522 is offline  
post #49 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 05:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kluken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,040
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 103
My god, all the marketing hype BS. 4K, they don't even transmit HD without down-Rez. People are so stupid buying into all this hype. Give me real BD quality picture and then I will be happy, how much down razzing and compression are they going to crush these streams with.
kluken is offline  
post #50 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 07:24 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,990
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 1093
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete66211 View Post
This doesn't mean I'm against R&D, tech advances, etc. I'm not, I just that I don't think we consumers should be forced to absorb the cost of advances we never asked for and don't want just so some company can get a slight market edge over its competitor. If a company is going to upgrade to accommodate 4k there is a cost involved. And to cover that cost either prices go up or quality goes down, right?
Nobody has a gun to your head to buy extra cost UHD Programming. If you don't want a 4K STB, don't buy one.

Believe me, there were people who felt like you about HD programming. Yes, technology marches on and we all eventually pay for it in some way. That's the way it's always worked.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #51 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 09:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Dave Moritz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Whittier, California
Posts: 556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I want to know how they are going to offer 4K UHD content and what they are going to offer customers to upgrade there equipment and how much the 4K content is going to cost. I currently have Direct TV service and there needs to be a decent amount of 4K content if they are going to pull the trigger on UHD content! I honestly feel that 4K UHD is going to be a game changer and finally give us full theater quality video in the home. But if the resolution comes and goes or doesn't really look 4k or if we have compression artifact issues constantly then what is the point. They need to do a good job to educate us on what they are doing, what it will cost and what equipment we will need.

Supporter of 1080p & 4K video / Supporter of Lossless PCM, Dolby True HD and DTS HD Master Audio / Say No To MP3 & WMA / Say no to Bose & LG!

Last edited by Dave Moritz; 08-06-2014 at 09:16 PM.
Dave Moritz is offline  
post #52 of 96 Old 08-06-2014, 10:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,848
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfischer View Post
OTA HD can look pretty terrible. Isn't it 18Mbps max/MPEG2 compression? Plus most stations are running multiple SD channels in that same bandwidth, meaning the HD has to be compressed even more.
Correct you are! "HD" OTA broadcasts in Colorado are hideously bad. Try watching live sports... the image turns to blocky mush.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
post #53 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 01:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Janibrewski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 40
As DirecTV customer who just ordered a 4K TV, I say Yippie, let's go.
Janibrewski is offline  
post #54 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 05:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
KidHorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Derwood, Maryland
Posts: 2,892
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glimmie View Post
So you want them to send a separate SUBSTAINED 6 gigabit stream to every subscriber for $50 per month?

Because that what uncompressed 4K VOD would require!

I honestly hate the term compression when referring to losing come content in exchange for portability. Compression isn't the right term. They should call it palette reduction, because that's essentially what is done to make the files/streams smaller. The compression algorithm in of itself doesn't degrade the image quality, it's what done to the image prior to compression that degrades the quality.


I think what people want is the original palette shown to them regardless if it's compressed or not. No one wants an uncompressed feed since, as you stated above, it would require an insane amount of bandwidth.
KidHorn is online now  
post #55 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 07:39 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,990
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 1093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Moritz View Post
I want to know how they are going to offer 4K UHD content and what they are going to offer customers to upgrade there equipment and how much the 4K content is going to cost. I currently have Direct TV service and there needs to be a decent amount of 4K content if they are going to pull the trigger on UHD content! I honestly feel that 4K UHD is going to be a game changer and finally give us full theater quality video in the home. But if the resolution comes and goes or doesn't really look 4k or if we have compression artifact issues constantly then what is the point. They need to do a good job to educate us on what they are doing, what it will cost and what equipment we will need.
Dave, there's lots of 4K content out there right now. There are movies, documentaries, nature material etc. it's just a question of getting the rights to air it.

As for your other questions, I don't think we'll know the answers until D*'s 4K service actually begins.

But I'll bet it will look better than Netflix 4K.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #56 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 08:44 AM
Advanced Member
 
HockeyoAJB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 684
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Dave, there's lots of 4K content out there right now. There are movies, documentaries, nature material etc. it's just a question of getting the rights to air it.

As for your other questions, I don't think we'll know the answers until D*'s 4K service actually begins.

But I'll bet it will look better than Netflix 4K.
If they are limited to the same ~17 Mbps bandwidth restriction as current HD channels (see Glimmie's post above), but they switch to HEVC compression rather than MPEG-4, then it will likely be very similar to Netflix 4K (15.6 Mbps). From what I have heard, House of Cards streamed in 4K from Netflix can actually look quite good. Some of the other stuff is not so great, though.
HockeyoAJB is online now  
post #57 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,248
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Moritz View Post
I want to know how they are going to offer 4K UHD content and what they are going to offer customers to upgrade there equipment and how much the 4K content is going to cost.
For the short term, I can offer some guesses: (1) You'll need a Genie model satellite receiver. (2) You'll need a Samsung Smart TV. (3) Some 4K content won't cost any extra.

(1)-(2) are based on the guess that 4K video will be sent from satellite receiver to TV over the net, rather than by HDMI cable, as I mentioned previously. (3) is based on the 3D precedent -- of the two remaining 3D channels on DirecTV, one is pay-per-view and the other is still free. Originally, DirecTV had 3 free (in the sense "no extra charge") 3D channels. If 3D had been more successful, I suppose DirecTV would have found ways to charge more for it.

In the longer term, of course 4K from DirecTV will cost you money. It will cost DirecTV money to carry 4K and there isn't anyone around to pay those costs other than its subscribers.

Greg Lee

Last edited by GregLee; 08-07-2014 at 09:07 AM.
GregLee is offline  
post #58 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 09:09 AM
Member
 
6311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
limited to 8 bit color
Joke, you get HD quality and not UHD
6311 is offline  
post #59 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 10:05 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 23,990
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1008 Post(s)
Liked: 1093
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
For the short term, I can offer some guesses: (1) You'll need a Genie model satellite receiver. (2) You'll need a Samsung Smart TV. (3) Some 4K content won't cost any extra.

(1)-(2) are based on the guess that 4K video will be sent from satellite receiver to TV over the net, rather than by HDMI cable, as I mentioned previously. (3) is based on the 3D precedent -- of the two remaining 3D channels on DirecTV, one is pay-per-view and the other is still free. Originally, DirecTV had 3 free (in the sense "no extra charge") 3D channels. If 3D had been more successful, I suppose DirecTV would have found ways to charge more for it.

In the longer term, of course 4K from DirecTV will cost you money. It will cost DirecTV money to carry 4K and there isn't anyone around to pay those costs other than its subscribers.
If your #2 is accurate (and it may be), it points to one of the issues with the 4K transition:

* Do you want the largest access to 4K movies? You need a Sony UHD TV
* Do you want access to 4K material via Directv? You need a Samsung UHD TV
* Do you want what might be the best 4K PQ, but doing that will garner you the least 4K content? You need an LG UHD OLED TV

I'm sure this will change over time, but in the interim, from the standpoint of content, it's a bit of a mess.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #60 of 96 Old 08-07-2014, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dan Hitchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern Colorado
Posts: 8,848
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 731 Post(s)
Liked: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
If your #2 is accurate (and it may be), it points to one of the issues with the 4K transition:

* Do you want the largest access to 4K movies? You need a Sony UHD TV
* Do you want access to 4K material via Directv? You need a Samsung UHD TV
* Do you want what might be the best 4K PQ, but doing that will garner you the least 4K content? You need an LG UHD OLED TV

I'm sure this will change over time, but in the interim, from the standpoint of content, it's a bit of a mess.
It's a complete **** up. They all want a slice of that ever shrinking pie and so they end up screwing everyone.
repete66211 likes this.

Listen up, studios! Just say "NO" to DNR and EE!!
Dan Hitchman is offline  
Reply Latest Industry News

Tags
frontpage

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off