http://www.v-net.tv/ericsson-hdr-is-the ... positioned
This is what I've been trying to say all along.
This is what I've been trying to say all along.
HDR and high refresh rate more immerssive than 4K
- Thread starter Flint
- Start date
This is one reason why I feel like this is a dangerous time to buy a new display. I'm holding out for either OLED or quantum dot to become affordable at large sizes, for HDMI 2 to take hold, for HDR to mature and for things to settle out on refresh rates. I figure it will take one to two years for things to fully settle out.
Barney said:
When I was in Geneva meeting with leaders from the biggest standards orgs, like ITU, ETSI, ARIB, ATIS, TIA, IEC and IEEE we discussed the timeline for both 4K and 8K as well as HDR and higher refresh rates.
UHD is likely to be widely adopted by 2016-17 with lots of content online and a new BluRay format upgrade. Then we expect to see HDR and higher refresh rates come with a new HDMI spec or a switch to DisplayPort tech. Then 8K should be widely adopted by 2020-21, mostly on tablets and phones before TVs. The 5G wireless broadband is being designed to support these formats, in addition to other important new technologies.
As much as I'm chomping at the bit for an upgrade, I think 2016 is going to be the year to do it. The GTG and some other bad influences have me thinking about speakers, but I just cannot see doing that either in the room I'm in right now. I may just put the whole damned thing on hold until I buy a house in a couple years and continue to focus on content acquisition.
Towen7 said:
This. I don't really even care anymore. 1080p looks pretty dang good. 4K looks spectacular. Even if I did a full HT upgrade for 4K in my main theater room and 8K came out the next day, I can't really say I'd feel slighted. We're well past the point of diminishing returns here. It's taking a ton more money and effort to just eke out a slight bit more. Moreover, we've been told by the industry that 3D was the thing, but we're now just standing there next to the smoking crater of ruin that spec ended up being. Staying on the bleeding edge will sometimes leave you out on a limb that gets nicely sawn off. I no longer see any point in even trying to keep up like that. Better to just be pleased with what there is, build it out, and kick back for a decade until you decide to toss another few thousand at it.
In the metro are, where the vast majority of Americans live, there is plenty of high speed internet. It sucks if one doesn't live where there's 100Mbps or faster connectivity, but most Americans can get it.
4K video only needs about 10Mbps sustained, which about 80% of all Americans have access to.
The deal AT&T made was to build the infrastructure for those who would otherwise never get high speed internet. The don't get to go into the Austin Metro area and claim they are being altruistic with 1Gbps fiber.
4K video only needs about 10Mbps sustained, which about 80% of all Americans have access to.
The deal AT&T made was to build the infrastructure for those who would otherwise never get high speed internet. The don't get to go into the Austin Metro area and claim they are being altruistic with 1Gbps fiber.
Flint my area is limited to only 20Mbps which is fine for almost 100% of what I do. You would think a suburb of Phoenix would get at least 50Mbos but that seems about five or more years away.
Read your link on Facebook about the new laser TV's coming out and that also seems promising.
Read your link on Facebook about the new laser TV's coming out and that also seems promising.
The FCC redefined what the industry can market as "broadband" to be 25Mbps guaranteed (not a 100Mbps connection which never performs better than 10Mbps).
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/79326 ... and-25mbps
So, I would imagine your provider will be improving the performance as soon as it is feasible as they cannot claim to the all powerful moneybags and regulation happy US government that they are providing broadband to as many people as before. That is super-critical in a regulated industry, like this. They have to continually tell the evil overlords that they are increasing service to the "stupid voters" on a regular basis.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/79326 ... and-25mbps
So, I would imagine your provider will be improving the performance as soon as it is feasible as they cannot claim to the all powerful moneybags and regulation happy US government that they are providing broadband to as many people as before. That is super-critical in a regulated industry, like this. They have to continually tell the evil overlords that they are increasing service to the "stupid voters" on a regular basis.
Flint said:
I currently have symmetrical 75Mbps FiOS. I can get faster service if I want it, but 75 is the sweet spot before vastly diminishing returns right now (prices go up SHARPLY past 75). I stream almost everything and can easily support multiple 1080p streams with no issues. I suspect that the cost structure will change over time as these new technologies with higher bandwidth requirements emerge.