Totally agree with you that it's not worth the $700 asking price and as for it only being compatible with those two Sony TVs, well yeah, of course. What else would you use it with?
with any other 4k display from other manufacturers.
[quote name="Palex19" url="/t/158531/rumor-apple-ramps-ios-device-chip-orders-in-talks-with-lg-over-4k-displays#post_2363448"]No content yet for 4K screen. [/QUOTE]
1. Totally wrong. 2. Doesn't matter. Of course there's "no 4K content"; there aren't any 4K screens! You need the screens before there's any reason to push out the content! My stars.
[quote name="copeland" url="/t/158531/rumor-apple-ramps-ios-device-chip-orders-in-talks-with-lg-over-4k-displays#post_2363464"]Compression is already awful on regular HD.[/QUOTE]
Uh... not really.
[QUOTE]What will compression be doing to 4K content?[/QUOTE]
A lot of people STILL don't have FIber going to the house and they have to use a dish, which SUCKS. A lot of remote areas in the US and other countries where it's too expensive to dig up the ground to run Fiber for just a few houses.
The cell carriers are kicking up the speeds because of smartphones and tablets. Yeah 4G/LTE is supposed to do 100Mbps, but how many people actually see that speed consistently. They are going to need LOTs of bandwidth for transmitting 4K video. No other way around it.
I still think 4K video is more going to be distributed via physical media and then digital downloads, but watching it from your local TV station or Cable network? Yeah right, that's years down the road.
I think TV is ultimately going to have to get transmitted over the internet as it's doing slowly but surely like what Hulu and others are doing, but you don't get the same experience with channel flipping as you do with cable or a dish system. People like to channel surf. It's what we live for. :-)
Actually, I don't think any major cable service in the U.S. has fibre going to the home. They only have fibre in the street. I use RCN, which is among the smaller MSOs, but they advertise an "all-fibre" network, but it's still coax into the home.
Base speeds are slowly getting faster, but the ISPs want to be compensated for higher speeds and that's quite expensive in many places in this country, especially the big cities.
IMO, there is most certainly NOT going to be another physical video format. I think Blu-ray is the last one. If 4K takes off, it will be a download. It will not be broadcast because the major traditional networks are not once again going to replace their plants as they had to for the analog to digital changeover. You'll see 4K for movies. If cable makes some technological breakthroughs, you might see 4K for movie networks on cable, but even that is doubtful.
TV is ultimately going to be broadcast over the internet, but you'll have both streaming channels (the equivalent of today's scheduled television) and VOD. So you would still be able to channel surf, although the response time might not be as fast, which can be frustrating. Besides, live streaming would be absolutely necessary for sports and news.
One of the dangers of 4K if cable does decide to make that transition is that you'll get the increased resolution on a pixel basis, but they'll compress the hell out of the signal to reduce bandwidth and the overall quality will suck anyway. But they'll still be able to market it as 4K and idiots will still play 480p DVDs or 1080p Blu-rays and think they're looking at 4K because the set has an "up-rez" mode. Until cable started offering HD without an upcharge (except for the box), the vast majority of HD set owners had no HD content and most were still watching converted analog SD, which looked far worse on a digital set than it did on the old analog CRTs.
If Congress intervenes and stops the cable networks from forcing the ISPs to accept "block booking" - where they have to take a lesser channel in order to take a channel that cable watchers actually want - the number of cable channels will decrease substantially. This could be a good thing because aside from getting rid of the junk that no one watches anyway, it would provide enough bandwidth to broadcast 4K.
But in any case, we're years away because 4K sets are going to be quite expensive for some time to come. The Sony 65" is $7K. The 84" is $25K. So this is still a market for the "1%" and for "nerds with trust funds".
Actually, I don't think any major cable service in the U.S. has fibre going to the home. They only have fibre in the street. I use RCN, which is among the smaller MSOs, but they advertise an "all-fibre" network, but it's still coax into the home..
Does Verizon FiOS count as a "major cable service" ? They have FTTH.
Does Verizon FiOS count as a "major cable service" ? They have FTTH.
Is that true everywhere? We tried to get them in our co-op. they haven't wired our street yet, but I thought I asked that question and was told that it's the usual coax in the hallways and into the apartments. If it were fibre, how would it connect to a 3rd party cable modem? Or do you have to use theirs.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Film becomes whatever resolution you scan it at.
Wait. Huh? If Aronofsky shot it at 16mm,hand-held, then that's what it was. Are we arguing that that what it was?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55
Totally agree with you that it's not worth the $700 asking price and as for it only being compatible with those two Sony TVs, well yeah, of course. What else would you use it with?
with any other 4k display from other manufacturers.
1. Totally wrong.
2. Doesn't matter. Of course there's "no 4K content"; there aren't any 4K screens! You need the screens before there's any reason to push out the content! My stars.
[quote name="copeland" url="/t/158531/rumor-apple-ramps-ios-device-chip-orders-in-talks-with-lg-over-4k-displays#post_2363464"]Compression is already awful on regular HD.[/QUOTE]
Uh... not really.
[QUOTE]What will compression be doing to 4K content?[/QUOTE]
Nothing meaningful. H.265!
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
A lot of people STILL don't have FIber going to the house and they have to use a dish, which SUCKS. A lot of remote areas in the US and other countries where it's too expensive to dig up the ground to run Fiber for just a few houses.
The cell carriers are kicking up the speeds because of smartphones and tablets. Yeah 4G/LTE is supposed to do 100Mbps, but how many people actually see that speed consistently. They are going to need LOTs of bandwidth for transmitting 4K video. No other way around it.
I still think 4K video is more going to be distributed via physical media and then digital downloads, but watching it from your local TV station or Cable network? Yeah right, that's years down the road.
I think TV is ultimately going to have to get transmitted over the internet as it's doing slowly but surely like what Hulu and others are doing, but you don't get the same experience with channel flipping as you do with cable or a dish system. People like to channel surf. It's what we live for. :-)
Actually, I don't think any major cable service in the U.S. has fibre going to the home. They only have fibre in the street. I use RCN, which is among the smaller MSOs, but they advertise an "all-fibre" network, but it's still coax into the home.
Base speeds are slowly getting faster, but the ISPs want to be compensated for higher speeds and that's quite expensive in many places in this country, especially the big cities.
IMO, there is most certainly NOT going to be another physical video format. I think Blu-ray is the last one. If 4K takes off, it will be a download. It will not be broadcast because the major traditional networks are not once again going to replace their plants as they had to for the analog to digital changeover. You'll see 4K for movies. If cable makes some technological breakthroughs, you might see 4K for movie networks on cable, but even that is doubtful.
TV is ultimately going to be broadcast over the internet, but you'll have both streaming channels (the equivalent of today's scheduled television) and VOD. So you would still be able to channel surf, although the response time might not be as fast, which can be frustrating. Besides, live streaming would be absolutely necessary for sports and news.
One of the dangers of 4K if cable does decide to make that transition is that you'll get the increased resolution on a pixel basis, but they'll compress the hell out of the signal to reduce bandwidth and the overall quality will suck anyway. But they'll still be able to market it as 4K and idiots will still play 480p DVDs or 1080p Blu-rays and think they're looking at 4K because the set has an "up-rez" mode. Until cable started offering HD without an upcharge (except for the box), the vast majority of HD set owners had no HD content and most were still watching converted analog SD, which looked far worse on a digital set than it did on the old analog CRTs.
If Congress intervenes and stops the cable networks from forcing the ISPs to accept "block booking" - where they have to take a lesser channel in order to take a channel that cable watchers actually want - the number of cable channels will decrease substantially. This could be a good thing because aside from getting rid of the junk that no one watches anyway, it would provide enough bandwidth to broadcast 4K.
But in any case, we're years away because 4K sets are going to be quite expensive for some time to come. The Sony 65" is $7K. The 84" is $25K. So this is still a market for the "1%" and for "nerds with trust funds".
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Actually, I don't think any major cable service in the U.S. has fibre going to the home. They only have fibre in the street. I use RCN, which is among the smaller MSOs, but they advertise an "all-fibre" network, but it's still coax into the home..
Does Verizon FiOS count as a "major cable service" ? They have FTTH.
Is that true everywhere? We tried to get them in our co-op. they haven't wired our street yet, but I thought I asked that question and was told that it's the usual coax in the hallways and into the apartments. If it were fibre, how would it connect to a 3rd party cable modem? Or do you have to use theirs.