• Welcome to The Audio Annex! If you have any trouble logging in or signing up, please contact 'admin - at - theaudioannex.com'. Enjoy!
  • HTTPS (secure web browser connection) has been enabled - just add "https://" to the start of the URL in your address bar, e.g. "https://theaudioannex.com/forum/"
  • Congratulations! If you're seeing this notice, it means you're connected to the new server. Go ahead and post as usual, enjoy!
  • I've just upgraded the forum software to Xenforo 2.0. Please let me know if you have any problems with it. I'm still working on installing styles... coming soon.

4K TV is real... who's getting one first?

Flint said:
Yes, IPTV is very real and used today by nearly all for pay service providers. AT&T Uvers has been based on IPTV since day one and to introduce HDTV on their services Time Warner and Comcast use IPTV on the demand switched channels to free bandwidth on their networks.

Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, Hulu anr all of the internet delivered video services are based on IPTV.
Click to expand...

Cool!

So when do you think 4K could become the standard?
 
I don't know if it will ever become the "standard".

If you look at HDTV, there are stil 20x more SDTV channels then HDTV. Could you declare HDTV the "standard?"
 
Flint said:
I don't know if it will ever become the "standard".

If you look at HDTV, there are stil 20x more SDTV channels then HDTV. Could you declare HDTV the "standard?"
Click to expand...

Where do you get that 20X from? Every major network and cable channel I know of is HD.
 
Flint said:
I don't know if it will ever become the "standard".

If you look at HDTV, there are stil 20x more SDTV channels then HDTV. Could you declare HDTV the "standard?"
Click to expand...

Just trying to understand when 4K will become generally available through a majority of providers.
If bandwith as an issue has been removed, how long will it be before it is readily available just as HD is.

And there are not 20x more standard def channels than HD channels.
 
If the human eye cannot see the pixels of a 77-inch 1920x1080 screen at 10 feet, why would 4k much difference for anything short a projector? I realize that you can buy 80-inch sets, but most people don't have that kind of space and those that do are usually at least ten feet away.
 
I based the 20x statement on an estimation of the number of Time Warner channels which are not HD vrrsus the number that are HD. If HD were standard, why bother offering any channel in both SD and HD? I am not saying there aren't a ton of HD channels, but when it comes to consumed bandwidth there are far more SD offerings from the service providers.

Bandwidth is a huge limiting factor for satellite. Cable can utikize switched channel tech to reduce bandwidth issues. IPTV provider s don't have any bandwidth issues.

I believe we will see several 4K services within a year. The first will likely be Sony's on demand internet service, but Amazon and Netflix won't be far behind. I know Disney wants it today for their premium channels like ESPN and the Disney chanel.
 
At least with Comcast, the vast majority of SD channels are duplicates of HD channels. They do this, so they can continue to charge and extra $10/month premium for access to the HD feeds, which I think is total horseshit at this point. I have also found that they put the same channels in their line-up multiple times. When I set up my DVR, I had to get rid of a ton of duplicates. I'm not sure why.

It will be interesting to see what the 4k implications are for UltraViolet in terms of whether it will be possible to upgrade and how much it will cost.
 
Haywood said:
I have also found that they put the same channels in their line-up multiple times. When I set up my DVR, I had to get rid of a ton of duplicates. I'm not sure why.
Click to expand...

Probably because they are migrating channels to their IP tier.
 
Flint on my Directv I notice five channels of HD for every one in SD (of the major channels most people watch).

I've seen 4K TV's at Magnolia showing 4K content the PQ was quite stunning but not at 7.5k stunning. I looked at some very nice 1080p TV's that looked almost as good for 2k. Sure if I were the 1% yeah I'd buy one but on my limited budget I'd rather go for 1.5k Samsung plasma.
 
Matt, according to the source below there are about 5x more SD channels than HD channels on DirecTV.

http://annex.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_Dir ... ted_States)

I am counting all the channels being used by the broadcast signal. If CBS is available as both HD and SD on separate channels, then that is two channels, one for one HD to SD.

That is my point about "HD being standard". If it were the standard there would be more channels in HD than in SD.
 
I you look at the channels offered by Time Warner, below, there are nearly 20x more SD channels than HD channels:

http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/resid ... ineup.html

Just because you don't give a crap about 90% of those other SD channels doesn't make my point invalid. The point is that the providers are still offering massively more SD channels than HD channels which suggests that while most of us are truly enjoying HD entertainment, it is far from the "standard".

If we get ten 4K channels in 18 months, that would count as a great improvement. You can still enjoy the 40 HD channels you already enjoy and add a dozen 4K channels which should, according to the laws of the free market, have the most popular content on them.
 
Reading through this thread makes me laugh. It is starting out like all the other tech stuff i've seen here. The naysayers and doubting Thomases are saying nahhhhh not me no way I wont do it. Writeing just how they will avoid it.

Pretty soon I will come back to this thread and someone will adopt early there will be a get together and many will see this and salivate. One by one you will fall just like in the Seinfeld episode 'Master of there own Domein." Like flies to a cow patty. Like a bug to a light you will succumb. You know you will give in. Resistance is futile.
 
If 4k technology is affordable by the time I'm in the market to replace my 1080p set, I will likely buy it. I just don't think the improvement is sufficient at normal viewing distances and direct-view TV sizes to make a huge difference and do not feel compelled to replace a set that still has fantastic picture quality. My TV should have another ten years of useful life. If I buy a house that has more than one viewing room, I may consider moving my current TV to the secondary location in favor of a larger screen. If 4k sets are affordable by then, sure. Why not. I certainly won't bother going 4k on bedroom sets.
 
So, if in two years your tv fails and you are I in the market for a new tv and the perfect 1080p tv for your needs is $1,500 and the most ideal 4k tv for you costs $2, 250, which on would you buy?

This is how it happens. We are asking who will toss out their perfectly fine tv, we are wuo is ready to move to 4k when the time is right to upgrade.
 
It'll be a very sad day when the ol' 720p KURO kicks the can. Until then, I'm happy as a pig in poop.

Rope

BTW, To this day I still have people who rave about the PQ on the KURO.
 
Flint said:
So, if in two years your tv fails and you are I in the market for a new tv and the perfect 1080p tv for your needs is $1,500 and the most ideal 4k tv for you costs $2, 250, which on would you buy?

This is how it happens. We are asking who will toss out their perfectly fine tv, we are wuo is ready to move to 4k when the time is right to upgrade.
Click to expand...

If 4k looks like it is catching on and there's a growing body of content, I'd spring for the extra. If it looks like 3D does today, I would not. It would also depend on how big the screen was. It would be pretty stupid to pay extra for a 32" 4k set.
 
I'm with Haywood's line of thought on this. For a "normal" living room screen size (up to ~60") I don't think the price premium for 4k is worth it. However, in my theater (102") I think 4k will one day be something I consider. For now, it's not on the radar due to lack of native content (upconverted stuff doesn't count) and price.

As for "how will the manufacturers stay in business?" part. Well let's think about TVs from the 1960s through the 1990s. What changed? Once color TV hit nothing as far as the picture goes for nearly 40 years. The resolution was stuck at 480i (640x480) and the display technology was CRT only. With the exception of remote control, "cable-ready", and stereo, the basic TVs from the 70s and 90s were virtually identical.

I'm just glad to see that display technology is progressing so someday I can have the "magic" plates in my floor and ceiling that project holographic 3D images in front of me as I read about in a magazine in 1987 or so.

John
 
I saw a couple of 4k displays at Best Buy the other day and I thought the picture was pretty incredible. So much detail that it almost looked real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top