4k may be sooner than you think, at least DirecTV thinks so. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-16-2012, 05:10 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
From PC Mag.com

Quote:


DirecTV Preps for Ultra HDTV Signals

By Mark Hachman

DirecTV has begun the groundwork for a rollout of ultra HDTV (UHDTV), according to a report.

Advanced Television.com said that Philip Goswitz, senior vice president of space and communications and technology development for DirecTV, is preparing for 4,000- and 8,000-line services, although Goswitz did not say when.

Reports have indicated, however, that the format could be ready by as early as 2016, with 2018 to 2020 seen as a more likely timeframe. In any event, DirecTV is looking toward the future.

"4,000- and 8,000-line services are great for the satellite industry, and will ensure that satellite broadcasting continues to distinguish itself for image quality of service," Goswitz reportedly said, according to Advanced Television.com "We see this as a key strategic advantage for us."

DirecTV representatives could not be reached Friday for comment.

Current 1080p signals use 1080 horizontal lines of resolution. The so-called "4K" format is used by the digital cinema industry, but those refer to horizontal lines of resolution. Digital cinema resolution, for example, is commonly 4096-by-1714 pixels.

It's possible that Goswitz referred to so-called QFHD, which basically doubles the 1080p HDTV standard in the vertical and horizontal dimensions: 3,840-by-2,160. But those still don't come close to 4,000 lines of vertical resolution.

True ultra HD or UHDTV, however, has been proposed by NHK, also known as Super Hi-Vision. At 7,680-by-4,320, or 4320p HDTV, the resolution far exceeds conventional HDTVs and digital cinema. Uncompressed, the video would require massive bandwidth and storage space; in 2006, however, NHK demonstrated a compressed version, using an NHK codec that compressed the video signal from approximately 24 Gbits/s down to 180-600 Mbits/s and the audio from 28 Mbit/s to 7-28 Mbits/s. Prototype TVs from LG (pictured) have also been shown.

To enable the transition, DirecTV sees itself migrating from Ku-band to Ka-band satellites. Ka-band satellites offer higher bandwidth than Ku-band satellites, but reportedly are more susceptible to so-called "rain fade," or a degradation of performance during rainy conditions.

"At DirecTV we see a couple of things happening," Goswitz said. "First, our subscribers are migrating away from Ku-band, and upgrading themselves to Ka-band and its HDTV services. In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end. We are also developing the so-called Reverse Band for DBS services, and these are on our Road Map for future international services. 4000-line is exciting to us because of its image quality, and the potential for glasses-free 3D."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2401711,00.asp

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-16-2012, 05:15 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
From Advanced Television.com

Quote:


DirecTV planning for Ultra HDTV

By Chris Forrester in Washington, DC

US pay-TV giant DirecTV will adopt Ultra-HDTV. DirecTV is already planning its future spectrum needs in readiness for U-HDTV. Philip Goswitz, DirecTV’s SVP/Space and Communications/R&D, speaking at the Satellite 2012 event in Washington, said “4,000 and 8,000-line services are great for the satellite industry, and will ensure that satellite broadcasting continues to distinguish itself for image quality of service. We see this as a key strategic advantage for us.”

Goswitz continued: “At DirecTV we see a couple of things happening. First, our subscribers are migrating away from Ku-band, and upgrading themselves to Ka-band and its HDTV services. In four or five years, our Ku-band [transmissions] could end. We are also developing the so-called Reverse Band for DBS services, and these are on our Road Map for future international services. 4000-line is exciting to us because of its image quality, and the potential for glasses-free 3D.”

While Goswitz did not say when 4,000-line services would start, and it is fair to say that there is still a great deal to be done on compression and other enabling technologies in order to bring these super high-resolution images into viewers’ homes, it is nevertheless clear that DirecTV wants to see its lead maintained over terrestrial TV, cable and DSL-type delivery services, and Goswitz sees satellite as maintaining that technological edge.

Japan’s planned introduction of Ultra-HDTV is scheduled for 2020, and will use Ka-band, a largely unused set of frequencies. In February, the ITU’s World Radiocommunications Conference in Geneva also agreed that Ka-band would be used as the future carrier of U-HDTV signals.

DirecTV is already transmitting very successfully in the Ka-band to its North American customers. Indeed, DirecTV could successfully argue that its Spaceway Ka-band satellites are the most profitable satellites being used anywhere as they are helping generate some $20 billion a year in revenues for DirecTV because of their spot-beam and ‘local into local’ HDTV services over North America.

Goswitz admits that few people even know that Ka-band is being used, such is its seamless integration into DirecTV’s overall portfolio of satellite assets. “I am not even sure our own executives know! They don’t know the difference between Ka and Ku-band, and why should they?”

“But Ka-band doesn’t just mean broadband. To us it means broadcasting. The truth is that as our Ku-band transmissions end, then increasingly every dollar in revenue is attributable to Ka-band. We’ll be entirely Ka-band in about five years. Currently, of our total $27 billion in annual revenues, about $20 billion comes from Ka-band,” said Goswitz.

http://advanced-television.com/index...ng-for-u-hdtv/

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 05:44 PM
 
scorpiontail60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Yeah right.

DirecTV isn't even competent enough to deliver half the current number of national HD networks in HD. They carry far less HD channels than most of their competition. And the ones they do carry, they aren't competent enough to carry at proper bitrates so they look like **** anyway.

This is a pipe dream. DirecTV should get their current HD house of cards in order first: I want Blu-ray quality and I want at least 90% of the 204 national HD networks.
scorpiontail60 is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 06:35 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiontail60 View Post

Yeah right.

DirecTV isn't even competent enough to deliver half the current number of national HD networks in HD. They carry far less HD channels than most of their competition. And the ones they do carry, they aren't competent enough to carry at proper bitrates so they look like **** anyway.

No provider can have both high quality HD and all the HD available. All providers are constrained by bandwidth, and have to decide if they want more channels or better image quality. As far as DirecTV specifically, see today's comments about HD quality. It seems most viewers, including long term AVS members, feel current HD quality is very good and some think they are on par with FiOS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...14047&page=419

Quote:


DirecTV should get their current HD house of cards in order first: I want Blu-ray quality and I want at least 90% of the 204 national HD networks.

Broadcasters can't deliver Blu-ray quality with the system they currently use, you know this.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 07:14 PM
 
scorpiontail60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

No provider can have both high quality HD and all the HD available. All providers are constrained by bandwidth, and have to decide if they want more channels or better image quality. As far as DirecTV specifically, see today's comments about HD quality. It seems most viewers, including long term AVS members, feel current HD quality is very good and some think they are on par with FiOS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...14047&page=419

Broadcasters can't deliver Blu-ray quality with the system they currently use, you know this.

And? What's your point? It's time for them to get their asses in gear. If they need more capacity, it's time to launch some more satellites. DirecTV sure as hell can't deliver 4k TV with their current system either.

It's time for everyone to switch to IPTV and MPEG-4. The technology is there. They can all deliver Blu-ray quality and every HD channel. It's a matter of getting them to spend the money to do it. Right now consumers are giving them a pass and that's why we're all stuck with crappy QAM systems and a 15 year old video codec not suited for high definition.
scorpiontail60 is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 08:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiontail60 View Post

And? What's your point? It's time for them to get their asses in gear. If they need more capacity, it's time to launch some more satellites. DirecTV sure as hell can't deliver 4k TV with their current system either.

It's time for everyone to switch to IPTV and MPEG-4. The technology is there. They can all deliver Blu-ray quality and every HD channel. It's a matter of getting them to spend the money to do it. Right now consumers are giving them a pass and that's why we're all stuck with crappy QAM systems and a 15 year old video codec not suited for high definition.

And? What's your point? You (should?) know it's all about making money and if it was so easy and affordable for providers to do it, why isn't someone, why isn't anyone? Why are all of them in the exact same boat what it comes to bandwidth? Are they all that stupid or are you just that smart?

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 08:17 PM
 
scorpiontail60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
No, they're not all stupid. That's the problem. They're all smart.

There is a corporate philosophy that is pervasive in the United States. The goal of every corporation is to provide the customer with as little product as they can get away with whilst extracting as much money for that product as possible.

The multichannel video providers have not taken the initiative to upgrade because there has not been an incentive to do so. There are few markets in the United States where competition in the communications sector is actually intense. They do not upgrade because it would be expensive to do so in the short term. It's all about the short term profits, not preparing for the long term these days. This is why FiOS deployment has been halted.

We, as the consumers, have been letting them get away with it. They will continue to get away with providing us this mediocre product as long as we all continue to sit on our laurels and pay our cable bills every month.
scorpiontail60 is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 08:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
allargon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 3,335
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

No provider can have both high quality HD and all the HD available. All providers are constrained by bandwidth, and have to decide if they want more channels or better image quality. As far as DirecTV specifically, see today's comments about HD quality. It seems most viewers, including long term AVS members, feel current HD quality is very good and some think they are on par with FiOS: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...14047&page=419

Broadcasters can't deliver Blu-ray quality with the system they currently use, you know this.

It's not just bandwidth. Even Verizon which arguably has the bandwidth won't broadcast every HD channel because the licensing costs would be astronomical. They would need each customer to pay an average bill of $175/mo. Yes, many on AVS would pay that much but most subscribers would not.
allargon is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 09:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiontail60 View Post

No, they're not all stupid. That's the problem. They're all smart.

There is a corporate philosophy that is pervasive in the United States. The goal of every corporation is to provide the customer with as little product as they can get away with whilst extracting as much money for that product as possible.

Really? Then why are most providers straining to add capacity? Why are cablecos all going DOCSIS 3? Why did DirecTV just order two more satellites? Why does Dish Network have two new satellites scheduled to launch this year? Why did Verizon & AT&T invest billions in new advanced technology systems?

Why? I'll tell you why. They are doing the exact opposite of what you say they are, but they are doing it in a way that allows them to grow and innovate and still keep stakeholders happy.

Quote:


The multichannel video providers have not taken the initiative to upgrade because there has not been an incentive to do so. There are few markets in the United States where competition in the communications sector is actually intense.

Really? Most areas in this country have at least three pay TV provider options; cable, DirecTV, and Dish Network. You don't consider that 'intense competition'? I bet they do. In addition many, many areas have other options provided by IPTV, Fiber, and cable overbuilders. In a neighboring middle class suburban community from where I live, residents have the choice of Comcast, AT&T U-verse, WOW Cable, Dish Network, and DirecTV. If I ran one of these companies it would seem intense enough for me.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 03-16-2012, 09:11 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by allargon View Post

It's not just bandwidth. Even Verizon which arguably has the bandwidth....

No, Verizon FiOS doesn't have the bandwidth. The fiber itself, yes, but they have other technical restraints that are preventing them from adding more HD now, until system upgrades are made.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 03-17-2012, 08:20 AM
Senior Member
 
cgmv123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 401
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

No, Verizon FiOS doesn't have the bandwidth. The fiber itself, yes, but they have other technical restraints that are preventing them from adding more HD now, until system upgrades are made.

To add on to this, Verizon uses QAM just like all the cable companies. The only difference is that they send it over fiber and the modulator is at your house, instead of the central office. They only have 870 MHz available. For comparison, Charter here in Madison has a 1 GHz system, with SDV. Not sure if FiOS uses SDV or not, as it isn't available here.

Max Vrany
All opinions are my own unless otherwise specified.
I make no guarantees as to the accuracy of any information given.
GO Pack GO! On Wisconsin! Go Brewers!
cgmv123 is offline  
Old 03-17-2012, 09:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rezzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Matrix
Posts: 7,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Where are the "tuner-less" 4K displays for this "coming-soon" service?

"I knew you'd say that"...*BLAM!*
rezzy is offline  
Old 03-17-2012, 09:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Where are the "tuner-less" 4K displays for this "coming-soon" service?

I assume mainstream devices will come about the time there is something to actually watch with them. Right now, there are some out there from companies like Barco, but you'll lay out a lot of cash. Sony and Toshiba make displays for under $25,000.

My guess, this will potentially be an upgrade to the 1080p and 3D VOD offerings D* currently has. At some point, a demo loop channel will launch, probably with some sexy IMAX or Red eye candy.

Later, you'll get actual licensed movies, almost certainly involving PPV pricing.

The question is, whether the commercial movies will be sourced from an actual 4K workflow or just uprezzed 2K DI's. Most studio workflow is currently 2K, meaning it might not show any real benefit over the current Blu-ray standard.
NetworkTV is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 09:48 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Where are the "tuner-less" 4K displays for this "coming-soon" service?

From The LA Times
Quote:


CES 2012: 4K TV sets make their debut, minus the hoopla

January 11, 2012 by Jon Healey



With surprisingly little fanfare, the major consumer electronics manufacturers introduced a new category of television at the Consumer Electronics Show this year: 4K TV sets, which cram four times as much picture information onto the screen as the best of the current high-definition models. That's a little over 8 million pixels, compared to about 2 million in a 1080P HDTV set.

LG showed off an 84-inch "ultra definition" LCD set (pictured above). Sony, which already has a 4K projector on the market, said it would continue to develop 4K TVs and promised Blu-ray disc players that upconvert HDTV to 4K. And Sharp took the wraps off not only a 4K LCD TV, but also an 8K prototype. No details were available on prices or release dates, although most manufacturers said they'd have 4K sets in stores this year.

The LG and Sharp sets offered stunningly good pictures, presenting a precisely defined yet silky smooth canvas of images. Yet with so many consumers more than happy with 1080P (and 720P, a less intensive level of high definition), why bother? 4K TV doesn't change the viewing experience as fundamentally as the shift from analog to HDTV, or from 2D to 3D. And although 3D sets are selling well, it's not clear that consumers are buying them because they want something better than HDTV -- they may just see it as a way to future-proof their sizable investment in a flat-panel set.

To some degree, 4K is a natural reaction to the rapid decline in TV prices. Manufacturers are under pressure to offer new capabilities every year in order to push prices back up, at least at the high end of the market. LG spokesman John Taylor added a more practical consideration: On a very big screen, 1080P doesn't provide enough resolution.

4K probably won't come to 42-inch sets because it's not needed in that size, Taylor said. But over time, U.S. consumers have gravitated toward ever-larger sets, attracted by thinner and lighter designs and plunging prices. So while 42 inches may be the sweet spot now for many buyers, especially those who grew up on 25-inch analog sets, the demand for bigger displays is likely to grow.

The nontrivial problem for 4K, though, is that there's nothing to watch in that format. As bad as the shortage of 3D programming has been for home viewers, the supply of 3D dwarfs the availability of 4K material. That helps explain why the new 4K sets received so little attention during the manufacturers' press blitz Monday, even though they will be making their debut in 2012.

"There is no 4K broadcasting," noted Panasonic's chief technology officer, Eisuke Tsuyuzaki. And given that the quality of 4K is equivalent to a pristine copy of a 35mm film print, piracy-conscious studios may think twice before agreeing to let any truly valuable content be broadcast in that format, Tsuyuzaki said.

He envisioned a demand for a few thousand 4K displays for medical use (for example, assisting surgeons) and in computer graphics and design. But for the living room? "It's going to be a while," he said. "It's not a technical issue.... The biggest issue is the content."

Then again, TV stations don't broadcast in 1080P, either. That format is limited mainly to Blu-ray discs and video-on-demand services. So if upconverted broadcasts have been good enough for 1080P, perhaps that will be enough to justify the purchase of a 4K set -- for those whose homes are big enough to fit one in.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...he-hoopla.html

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,938
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 29
That is a stupid development. They broadcast recompressed 1080i at bitrate less than 10 Mbit/s and they want to go 4K and even 8K? They are as crazy as YouTube. I am onboard with scorpiontail60: their goal is "to provide the customer with as little product as they can get away with whilst extracting as much money for that product as possible." Yes, they launch new satellites, but not to deliver the best service possible, but to deliver hundreds of channels to satisfy as many customers as they can, which mean to increase their bottom line. Never mind that most of these channels broadcast crap.

If they can add capacity, they should raise bitrate and switch from 1080i to 1080p60 because satellite customers need a box anyway, they do not use receiver and MPEG-2 decoder built into their TVs (another useless requirement by FCC).

I repeat:

* increase bitrate
* switch to 1080p60

YouTube, listen to this too. Who cares about 4K at 30 fps? How am I supposed to watch Formula One or football in 30p? I mean, I can and I do, but it sucks. I want "live" look, and I want progressive. I care much less about tiny pixels that I cannot see from where I sit, which is usually on my couch.
Ungermann is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 45,876
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

That is a stupid development. They broadcast recompressed 1080i at bitrate less than 10 Mbit/s and they want to go 4K and even 8K? They are as crazy as YouTube. I am onboard with scorpiontail60: their goal is "to provide the customer with as little product as they can get away with whilst extracting as much money for that product as possible." Yes, they launch new satellites, but not to deliver the best service possible, but to deliver hundreds of channels to satisfy as many customers as they can, which mean to increase their bottom line. Never mind that most of these channels broadcast crap.

If they can add capacity, they should raise bitrate and switch from 1080i to 1080p60 because satellite customers need a box anyway, they do not use receiver and MPEG-2 decoder built into their TVs (another useless requirement by FCC).

I repeat:

* increase bitrate
* switch to 1080p60

YouTube, listen to this too. Who cares about 4K at 30 fps? How am I supposed to watch Formula One or football in 30p? I mean, I can and I do, but it sucks. I want "live" look, and I want progressive. I care much less about tiny pixels that I cannot see from where I sit, which is usually on my couch.

In a perfect world, yes.
In the real world, dream on.

'Better Living Through Modern, Expensive, Electronic Devices'

Ken H is offline  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:17 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

If they can add capacity, they should raise bitrate and switch from 1080i to 1080p60 because satellite customers need a box anyway, they do not use receiver and MPEG-2 decoder built into their TVs (another useless requirement by FCC).

Why would they do that? Your TV has a perfectly good de-interlacer in it to convert from 1080i to its native 1080p and going to 60fps would be useless since it would only be frame doubling. The extra frames don't exist. You can't improve what isn't there to begin with.

Further, most TVs wouldn't even have the ability to display a 1080p60 signal. They would either convert it to 1080p30 or show you a blank screen.

Quote:
I repeat:

* increase bitrate
* switch to 1080p60

Most here who actually have the service would agree that when you actually look at the image instead of looking at numbers that mean nothing when various codecs come into play, it looks quite good. They aren't using MPEG2 anymore for their compression.

So, while a little bump in bit rate might take it to the point where it matches or even beats FIOS, it still beats a lot of other providers just as it is.

Quote:
YouTube, listen to this too. Who cares about 4K at 30 fps? How am I supposed to watch Formula One or football in 30p? I mean, I can and I do, but it sucks. I want "live" look, and I want progressive. I care much less about tiny pixels that I cannot see from where I sit, which is usually on my couch.

Aside from the fact that YouTube is completely irrelevant, you aren't going to get what you want unless formula one and football broadcasters stop using standard broadcast equipment to shoot their productions (you know, so people can watch on their TVs and all that).

You aren't going to watch the Super Bowl in 4K.

What you'll likely get are VOD or PPV movies in 4K.
NetworkTV is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,938
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Why would they do that? Your TV has a perfectly good de-interlacer in it to convert from 1080i to its native 1080p and going to 60fps would be useless since it would only be frame doubling. The extra frames don't exist. You can't improve what isn't there to begin with.

Further, most TVs wouldn't even have the ability to display a 1080p60 signal. They would either convert it to 1080p30 or show you a blank screen.

I wonder did you choose your nickname because you are indeed a TV professional or just because it sounds cool.

First, you don't know whether my TV has a good deinterlacer or a bad one. I can tell you: it is not completely useless, but it is not perfect either. It passes about half of the HQV tests. And my TV is not the worst ever. Accepting interlaced format for HD was a stupid idea to begin with, but certain companies that already had the equipment wanted to reuse it.

Second, native 1080i60 (I am not talking about various movie-related pulldown schemes now) is a series of 1920x540 fields. Deinterlacing them into 1080p60 means line doubling. Native 1080p60 has 1080-line frames. Twice more resolution.

Third, I agree that currently satcos get most stuff in either 720p or 1080i, so switching to 1080p60 will not deliver immediate effect. But switching to 4K will not make immediate effect either. On another hand, 1080p60 camcorders are available for more than two years on consumer market, they are making their way into professional market, and EBU (not sure about the American standards) has it in their sights as the format for hi-end origination and archival.

Fourth, you either contradict to yourself or you don't know how deinterlacing works if you think that modern TVs cannot display 60p. In fact, this is what they were able to do from the beginning. This is how deinterlacing works, because you want to retain 60 images per second from interlaced sources. So everything is converted to 60p to be displayed on a TV screen. Modern TVs convert input signal to even higher frame rates, inserting fake frames into movies and making everything smoother.

Feeding 1080p60 to a TV set is another matter, but my 2007 TV accepts 1080p60 from BD player over HDMI perfectly fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

You aren't going to watch the Super Bowl in 4K. What you'll likely get are VOD or PPV movies in 4K.

You mean that they will re-scan the movies once again, now in 4K? Well, for many movies even 2K is close to their native resolution. I am skeptical that 4K will improve picture massively. I have "Back to the future" on Blu-ray, and the first movie is waaaaay oversharpened to the point that I prefer the DVD version. And this is just 1080p.

I am all for using 4K and 8K in digital movie theaters, but I think it is pointless for watching at home. There are other things that can be improved.
Ungermann is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

I wonder did you choose your nickname because you are indeed a TV professional or just because it sounds cool.

First, you don't know whether my TV has a good deinterlacer or a bad one. I can tell you: it is not completely useless, but it is not perfect either. It passes about half of the HQV tests. And my TV is not the worst ever. Accepting interlaced format for HD was a stupid idea to begin with, but certain companies that already had the equipment wanted to reuse it.

Second, native 1080i60 (I am not talking about various movie-related pulldown schemes now) is a series of 1920x540 fields. Deinterlacing them into 1080p60 means line doubling. Native 1080p60 has 1080-line frames. Twice more resolution.

Third, I agree that currently satcos get most stuff in either 720p or 1080i, so switching to 1080p60 will not deliver immediate effect. But switching to 4K will not make immediate effect either. On another hand, 1080p60 camcorders are available for more than two years on consumer market, they are making their way into professional market, and EBU (not sure about the American standards) has it in their sights as the format for hi-end origination and archival.

Fourth, you either contradict to yourself or you don't know how deinterlacing works if you think that modern TVs cannot display 60p. In fact, this is what they were able to do from the beginning. This is how deinterlacing works, because you want to retain 60 images per second from interlaced sources. So everything is converted to 60p to be displayed on a TV screen. Modern TVs convert input signal to even higher frame rates, inserting fake frames into movies and making everything smoother.

Feeding 1080p60 to a TV set is another matter, but my 2007 TV accepts 1080p60 from BD player over HDMI perfectly fine.

1080p60 isn't in the HD spec. 1080p30 and 1080p24 are.

You're confusing frame rates with monitor scan rates.

Your TV scans at 60, 120 or 240Hz in order to display as many frame rates as possible without jitter.

Just because your TV has a 60p at the end, doesn't mean it's displaying a full 1080 frames 60 times a second. It's all interpolating. It's not real.

Quote:
You mean that they will re-scan the movies once again, now in 4K? Well, for many movies even 2K is close to their native resolution. I am skeptical that 4K will improve picture massively. I have "Back to the future" on Blu-ray, and the first movie is waaaaay oversharpened to the point that I prefer the DVD version. And this is just 1080p.

I clearly posted earlier that they would have to go to a 4k DI workflow for this to work.

Quote:
I am all for using 4K and 8K in digital movie theaters, but I think it is pointless for watching at home. There are other things that can be improved.

Like converting video to a non-native format?
NetworkTV is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 11:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,938
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Just because your TV has a 60p at the end, doesn't mean it's displaying a full 1080 frames 60 times a second. It's all interpolating. It's not real.

It does display 60 frames per second. For interlaced sources each frame is derived from a field, hence "live" look is preserved. What about watching 720p60 on a 1080p60?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Like converting video to a non-native format?

60p is native for HDTV sets. Although I do agree that some earlier models cannot accept 1080p from HDMI. This is yet another sign of corporations wanting to sell stuff as quick as possible without bothering to refine it. Why a 60p TV set cannot accept 60p signal? Pure madness. But my proletarian 2007 Panasonic can. At worst the box will employ a converter to either 1080i or to 720p60.
Ungermann is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 12:51 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
NetworkTV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 15,623
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 172 Post(s)
Liked: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ungermann View Post

It does display 60 frames per second. For interlaced sources each frame is derived from a field, hence "live" look is preserved. What about watching 720p60 on a 1080p60?

With 720p60, it's showing 60 frames per second if your TV is 60 Hz. With 1080i, it's showing 30 frames per second, which each frame duplicated to match the 60hz refresh rate. The frame rate of the video is not changing. It never had 60 frames per second except when the source is 720p60.

A 120hz would show each frame 4 times.

It doesn't make the video smoother, sharper or better in any way. In fact, the more times you show the same frame, the more chance for jitter.

The reason why better TVs have 120 or 240hz refresh rates is to easily display the various video sources without downrezzing or using 3:2 pulldown. TV screens are only capable of displaying with one refresh rate. The video frames are merely repeated the necessary number of times to meet that refresh rate.

120hz is a direct multiple of 24, 30 and 60 fps. 240hz allows 3D to be displayed without halving the resolution for each eye.

Quote:
60p is native for HDTV sets. Although I do agree that some earlier models cannot accept 1080p from HDMI. This is yet another sign of corporations wanting to sell stuff as quick as possible without bothering to refine it. Why a 60p TV set cannot accept 60p signal? Pure madness. But my proletarian 2007 Panasonic can. At worst the box will employ a converter to either 1080i or to 720p60.

60hz is native to some TVs. What they accept as inputs is normally limited to 480i30, 480p30, 720p24, 720p30, 720p60, 1080p24 and 1080p30. Some models won't accept a 24p signal. Many won't accept 1080p60 without some conversion before it reaches the TV. They don't accept it because it's not in the HD spec. 720p60 is, not 1080p60.

It's not a limitation of HDMI, it's a limitation of the scaler.

Finally, where exactly are you getting 1080p60 video?
NetworkTV is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Ungermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 3,938
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

With 1080i, it's showing 30 frames per second, which each frame duplicated to match the 60hz refresh rate.

You need to educate yourself. Go read about deinterlacing schemes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

They don't accept it because it's not in the HD spec. 720p60 is, not 1080p60.

1080p60 has been in SMPTE 274M for quite a while. AVC and 1080p60 have been added to ATSC spec in 2008.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Finally, where exactly are you getting 1080p60 video?

I am getting it from my camcorder and I watch them on my Blu-Ray Disc player, and I hope I will be able to get it from broadcast soon.

"The EBU, at IBC2011 (stand 10.F20) is showing an unprecedented live 1080p/50 end-to-end signal chain from camera, contribution and final distribution to set-top boxes and display. Quality has become a key commercial factor for broadcasters since home displays have grown larger and consumer expectations higher. While 4k and 8k formats may still be some years off, an economically feasible answer for now is to migrate high quality productions to a FULL-HD 1080p/50 master format." - http://tech.ebu.ch/Jahia/site/tech/c...l-chai-12sep11

Ungermann is online now  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiontail60 View Post

i want blu-ray quality and i want at least 90% of the 204 national hd networks.

+1

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
Old 03-17-2012, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
c.kingsley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,664
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

Many won't accept 1080p60 without some conversion before it reaches the TV. They don't accept it because it's not in the HD spec. 720p60 is, not 1080p60.

I wish you'd stop listing your uneducated opinion as fact and then browbeating everyone with it.

In regard to this 4k business, I'm in the camp that would like to see 1080 done properly by broadcasters before they try to conquer some bold new frontier.
c.kingsley is offline  
Old 03-17-2012, 05:46 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 436 Post(s)
Liked: 442
From Wikipedia,

Quote:


ATSC
In the United States, the original ATSC standards for HDTV supported 1080p video, but only at the frame rates of 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97 and 30 frames per second (colloquially known as 1080p24, 1080p25, and 1080p30).

In July 2008, the ATSC standards were amended to include H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression and 1080p at 50, 59.94, and 60 frames per second (1080p50 and 1080p60). Such frame rates require H.264/AVC High Profile Level 4.2, while standard HDTV frame rates only require Level 4.0.

This update is not expected to result in widespread availability of 1080p60 programming, since most of the existing digital receivers in use would only be capable of decoding the older, less-efficient MPEG-2 codec, and because there is a limited amount of bandwidth for subchannels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p

Keenan is online now  
Old 03-18-2012, 02:07 AM
Advanced Member
 
Desert Hawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bakersfield California
Posts: 982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
4000p or 4320p or 8000p can't be delivered using either MPEG2 or MPEG4 in a 6 MHz channel. A new codec much much more efficient than MPEG4 will have to be invented before OTA 8VSB or cable QAM can carry 4K. Last year someone posted an April Fool's joke about a proposed system using polygons instead of bitmapping. Maybe someday that will be reality instead of a joke. Polygons revolutionized video games and they could do the same for tv. Maybe in another 20-30 years we will have a new tv system that carries a main channel in 4320p 3D UltraHD and 5 subchannels in 1080i 2D HD per 6 MHz RF channel OTA using 8VSB, double that on cable using QAM. I don't see it happening anywhere near 2016.

How can we say "the digital transition is complete" when thousands of low power stations are still broadcasting in analog?
LOW POWER ANALOG NEEDS TO DIE NOW!!!
Desert Hawk is offline  
Old 03-18-2012, 04:46 AM
 
scorpiontail60's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The QAM system will die long before 4k HDTV channels are rolled out. IPTV is obviously the future; offering vast flexibility as long as it's not constrained to horrible infrastructure (like AT&T Crapverse trying to push HDTV over centuries-old telephone lines... ridiculous). I believe IPTV has great potential over true fiber optics like FiOS and the cable companies' lines.

Now back to 4k... quite frankly, I don't see what the big deal about 4k is anyway. Talk about jumping the gun. It's only four times the resolution of 1080p. Do we really need this temporary distraction to further segment the market between SD, HD, and the upcoming UHDTV?

I'd rather skip the baby steps and just wait for Ultra High Definition Television to become feasible. Now here's a technology which will truly approach the limits of human vision. 8k is 16 times the resolution of 1080p; 4k is only 4 times. 4k is like the leap to 720p from 480p; 8k will be more like the leap from 480p to 1080p.

I believe UHDTV will be the final resolution leap before we move onto a different form of video, one without a set resolution... holographics, perhaps. Something similar to the holodeck in Star Trek.
scorpiontail60 is offline  
Old 03-18-2012, 06:27 AM
Senior Member
 
skylab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Washington Township, Montgomery County, Ohio
Posts: 299
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiontail60 View Post

I believe UHDTV will be the final resolution leap before we move onto a different form of video, one without a set resolution... holographics, perhaps. Something similar to the holodeck in Star Trek.

Just called DirecTV about when I would be able to get holographic programming. Good news, the answer is "soon."
skylab is offline  
Old 03-18-2012, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Brian Conrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Martinez, CA, USA
Posts: 4,204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 214 Post(s)
Liked: 161
In corporate driven America ("Corprica") it is all about convincing you that what you have is obsolete and you MUST have the latest thing. Look at all the people who already had iPads line up for the latest one even though the one they had works fine. And of course many home theater owners are more about bragging rights than anything else.
Brian Conrad is offline  
Old 03-18-2012, 01:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

Broadcasters can't deliver Blu-ray quality with the system they currently use, you know this.

Then the question should be, "Why would a provider discuss delivering higher resolution when they can't deliver the existing resolution well enough?" I'd expect them to do an even worse job.

It's like when AT&T was talking about video phones connected to fiber optic networks back in the 70's when most people didn't yet have touch tone phones.


NOW: my post on AVS Forum.
NEXT: someone else's post on AVS Forum.
scowl is online now  
 
Thread Tools


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