Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

DIRECTV 4k Ultra HD Channel Anticipation


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 826 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 16 December 2012 - 03:25 AM

My PPV-for-everything comment said "ultimately". Far far down the road. If the overall model is adopted - transmit a single program once or twice (as "backup") to DVRs then PPV across the board would at least be possible.

The model (not PPV) should not change the revenue situation. Advertisers are paying for eyeballs. If a 30 second ad costs XYZ and is rebroadcast 20 times for a given program then the cost of that 30 seconds becomes 20 * XYZ for a single broadcast to DVRs. (Or less - the efficiency should actually reduce the costs to everyone.)

The real question is which costs more - massive retransmission and dealing with technology upgrades or getting smarter devices (HD DVRs) to all consumers?

4K won't be the end. 8K will be right behind. All the equipment vendors have to rev technology to sell more product. 3D kinda flopped so now they are heading for 4K.

Reminds me of PPVs going to 1080p. I'm not aware of any channels that are progressive. 4K will come in PPV first.

If they don't change the trajectory there will be a lot more sats going up and everybody will need new dishes - again.


With all due respect you are making the same arguement that businesses made 15 years ago as they put in all that "dark fiber" that will never be used - ever.

Technology advanced and all that fiber was never needed.

Regardless of the bandwidth grab by telcos, the same is happening with mobile data.

4k will most likely use h.265 that cuts h.264 bandwidth needs in half.

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 ONLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,716 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:04 AM

The Sony booth had their 4K SXRD front projector with original 4K content. I wouldn't be shocked if there is a test 4K channel from DIRECTV for CES 2013.

Yeah that one too... :D

Regardless of the bandwidth grab by telcos, the same is happening with mobile data.

4k will most likely use h.265 that cuts h.264 bandwidth needs in half.

Unfortunately...that's only a partial solution to the end-to-end transmission activities. Still...that helps cure some of the obstacles.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#23 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 579 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:08 PM

With all due respect you are making the same arguement that businesses made 15 years ago as they put in all that "dark fiber" that will never be used - ever.

Technology advanced and all that fiber was never needed.

Regardless of the bandwidth grab by telcos, the same is happening with mobile data.

4k will most likely use h.265 that cuts h.264 bandwidth needs in half.


Sure didn't bother to run fiber to my house. That "last mile" is a huge bottleneck for many of us. Too bad as it would be interesting to see what would happen if lots of people had fiber.

Wikipedia says technology advances gave 100-fold capacity increase in fiber. Not going to see that kind of magic from RF/satellite. Or from fiber again.

Coax isn't progressing very fast either. Same RF limitations.

#24 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 826 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 16 December 2012 - 06:30 PM

Sure didn't bother to run fiber to my house. That "last mile" is a huge bottleneck for many of us. Too bad as it would be interesting to see what would happen if lots of people had fiber.

Wikipedia says technology advances gave 100-fold capacity increase in fiber. Not going to see that kind of magic from RF/satellite. Or from fiber again.

Coax isn't progressing very fast either. Same RF limitations.


Biggest issues are plants not equipped for that bandwidth.

Coax is getting better and better by running fiber to the neighborhood and then coax to the home. Easier to get better bandwidth out of coax if the run is very short.

And as most cable systems are still MPEG2, moving the h.264 or h.265 will give them an incredible amount of new bandwidth even on MVPD.

#25 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,214 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 16 December 2012 - 07:44 PM

That's if you wanted to watch all the HBO lineup. If you're just storing stuff you've selected then the requirements are no different than today.

In my household we don't watch anything live but news.

If you've noticed, DTV is already doing this with the PPVs. The major new ones are preloaded on the DVR. I can't remember the last time I watched a PPV that wasn't. Probably cutting down on the number of transmissions already.

they need all the ppv Hd slots for part time sports / other over flow needs.
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#26 OFFLINE   Araxen

Araxen

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 783 posts
Joined: Dec 17, 2005

Posted 16 December 2012 - 09:32 PM

They'll have to launch a separate Sat for 4k if they ever get serious about it. It'll need too much bandwidth to try and squeeze it onto the current Sats. I doubt they'll get serious about it anytime soon. It's still very expensive and doesn't have any market penetration at all. I think 48FPS may be where the focus will go in the meantime. We'll see if Blu-Ray changes the spec to support 48FPS after all The Hobbit movies hit the theater.
If it ain't in HD, it ain't worth watching!
PSN: Araxen - Xbox: Gamertag: Araxen II - Steam: Araxen - WiiU: Araxen

#27 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 826 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 16 December 2012 - 11:35 PM

Someone stated on this forum that the 110/119 Ku satellites would be used for 4k but I have no idea where that information came from or if it is really correct. Quite frankly, I doubt D* knows for sure.

#28 ONLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,716 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:41 AM

They'll have to launch a separate Sat for 4k if they ever get serious about it. It'll need too much bandwidth to try and squeeze it onto the current Sats. I doubt they'll get serious about it anytime soon. It's still very expensive and doesn't have any market penetration at all. I think 48FPS may be where the focus will go in the meantime. We'll see if Blu-Ray changes the spec to support 48FPS after all The Hobbit movies hit the theater.

I suspect you're right on most of those counts.

Someone stated on this forum that the 110/119 Ku satellites would be used for 4k but I have no idea where that information came from or if it is really correct. Quite frankly, I doubt D* knows for sure.

I suspect DirecTV is ahead of the game in terms of internally discussing what they plan to do about 4K, realizing they have years to address it. With 2 new sats going up in the next couple of years, and payloads having some flexibility...there are options.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#29 OFFLINE   Paul Secic

Paul Secic

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,129 posts
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:11 PM

So when is Direct TV going to have some 4k programming....When they launch their new bird up in the sky?


Look what happened to 3D. Nada!

Enjoying AT 250 HBO, 

 

Equipment: VIP 722 reciever


#30 ONLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,716 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:30 PM

Look what happened to 3D. Nada!

Not exactly <in the Hertz commercial voice>.

There are 2 DirecTV channels currently designed to deliver 3D content, and the market demand (as well as the actual available content) seems to be met at this point. There is no doubt that 3D is still a "niche market" for folks who enjoy/like/prefer this kind of media viewing.

In contrast, 4K delivery will likely impact the entire mass spectrum of HD channels when the time comes. There is even 3D 4K HDTV - a mouthful. While similar to 3D in terms of requiring special HDTV sets and other related technology to present that kind of content. Blu Ray 3Ds seem to be the most popular and growing segment of distributing content at this time.

But 4K HDTV will require even more of a system-wide infrastructure change/update. That takes time and money, both of which are underway in terms of various tech advances and investment.

A year ago, 4K HDTV was seen at CES and the general consensus from manufacturers was that it's probably 2,3, 4 or more years away in terms of North American. CES 2013 is about 3 weeks away, and more 4K HDTV is expected to be promoted/seen there.

Because of the scope and scale of the infrastructure changes needed to deliver it for broadcasting content, it's fair to assume it'll be 2015 or later before more mainstream availability is out there.

Ironically, I just visited my neighborhood commercial Theater, and they just installed a 4K projector. The imagery on the large theater screens was nothing short of stunning - so the added resolution 4K brings will certainly be popular once it arrives.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#31 OFFLINE   HoTat2

HoTat2

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 5,075 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles, CA.
Joined: Nov 16, 2005

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:57 PM

Someone stated on this forum that the 110/119 Ku satellites would be used for 4k but I have no idea where that information came from or if it is really correct. Quite frankly, I doubt D* knows for sure.


Well it came from statements made by Philip Goswitz, SVP of Space and Communications for DIRECTV.

But there's some confusion. Back in March he stated that as all channels were eventually carried in HD on the Ka band and all subscribers were converted to Ka band equipment, Ku transmissions will cease in about four years, and the Ka band with its greater bandwidth would be used to launch Ultra HD along with all other conventional HD channels.

http://www.pcmag.com...,2401711,00.asp

Now more recently here in an October 1st article by Swanni he quotes Goswitz again from AdvancedTelevision.com that as the Ku band is emptied, it (the Ku band) will be used for Ultra HD channels.

http://www.tvpredict...m/dhd100112.htm

:confused:

There's also an additional confusing statement in the October article that has Goswitz claiming to the Euroconsult conference the prior month that the conversion of all the remaining SD channels to HD by 2016 will be accomplished by means of "LiL Ka band capacity."

:confused::confused:

#32 OFFLINE   JoeTheDragon

JoeTheDragon

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,214 posts
Joined: Jul 21, 2008

Posted 17 December 2012 - 03:35 PM

Well it came from statements made by Philip Goswitz, SVP of Space and Communications for DIRECTV.

But there's some confusion. Back in March he stated that as all channels were eventually carried in HD on the Ka band and all subscribers were converted to Ka band equipment, Ku transmissions will cease in about four years, and the Ka band with its greater bandwidth would be used to launch Ultra HD along with all other conventional HD channels.

http://www.pcmag.com...,2401711,00.asp

Now more recently here in an October 1st article by Swanni he quotes Goswitz again from AdvancedTelevision.com that as the Ku band is emptied, it (the Ku band) will be used for Ultra HD channels.

http://www.tvpredict...m/dhd100112.htm

:confused:

There's also an additional confusing statement in the October article that has Goswitz claiming to the Euroconsult conference the prior month that the conversion of all the remaining SD channels to HD by 2016 will be accomplished by means of "LiL Ka band capacity."

:confused::confused:

full HD or MPEG 4 SD???
I want CLTV / CLTV HD on direct tv.

#33 OFFLINE   SomeRandomIdiot

SomeRandomIdiot

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 826 posts
Joined: Jan 06, 2009

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:03 PM

Well it came from statements made by Philip Goswitz, SVP of Space and Communications for DIRECTV.

But there's some confusion. Back in March he stated that as all channels were eventually carried in HD on the Ka band and all subscribers were converted to Ka band equipment, Ku transmissions will cease in about four years, and the Ka band with its greater bandwidth would be used to launch Ultra HD along with all other conventional HD channels.

http://www.pcmag.com...,2401711,00.asp

Now more recently here in an October 1st article by Swanni he quotes Goswitz again from AdvancedTelevision.com that as the Ku band is emptied, it (the Ku band) will be used for Ultra HD channels.

http://www.tvpredict...m/dhd100112.htm

:confused:

There's also an additional confusing statement in the October article that has Goswitz claiming to the Euroconsult conference the prior month that the conversion of all the remaining SD channels to HD by 2016 will be accomplished by means of "LiL Ka band capacity."

:confused::confused:


NHK wants to move up 8K to 2016

http://advanced-tele...016-for-u-hdtv/

#34 OFFLINE   Al K

Al K

    New Member

  • Registered
  • 10 posts
Joined: Jan 23, 2004

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:37 AM

I attended a broadcasters convention in 1992 where all sorts of HD televisions, cameras, and equipment were on display. I bought my first HDTV in 1999.

Yet today, most people have never seen an HDTV picture with full 1920 X 1080i resolution with a 19Mbs data rate. The stations add sub-channels, the satellite providers lower the bit rate or resolution, or both. PBS sends a 1920 X 1080i satellite feed which the stations convert to 720, then add two or more subchannels, resulting in a picture that looks nothing like the feed.

In Phoenix I can receive about 35 or 40 OTA channels and I can get only one in true HD, the NBC affiliate in Tucson.

How can people think of 4K when the existing system is not being used to it's maximum, and no one complains?

#35 OFFLINE   dpeters11

dpeters11

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,997 posts
  • LocationCincinnati
Joined: May 30, 2007

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:54 AM

I also can't help but think, if the vast majority of people have 60" or under sizes in their living room, would they really see the increased detail of 4k?

#36 ONLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,716 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

I also can't help but think, if the vast majority of people have 60" or under sizes in their living room, would they really see the increased detail of 4k?

Actually that's a very good question.

We saw 42", 55", 60", and 84" 4K HDTVs last year. While most of those used 1080p content...you could indeed see a difference over today's 1080p HDTVs - albeit a nominal difference.

Where 4k content was shown on 4K HDTVs...yes...the difference was profound, regardless of screen size.

In 3 weeks we'll be at CES again...and see what the last year of progress in 4K has brought, both in terms of the technology as well as content/results.
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#37 OFFLINE   Stuart Sweet

Stuart Sweet

    The Shadow Knows!

  • Super Moderators
  • 36,870 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 19 December 2012 - 11:59 AM

Al K, I agree with you in general but not in specific. If you are arguing that no one has seen a 1080i picture broadcast over an MPEG-2 channel using the full bandwidth... several stations do this in some markets. More to the point though, walk into any Best Buy and you'll see 38Mbps MPEG-4 Blu-ray being demonstrated, and that's presuming you don't have the technology in your home; it's under $100 now.

Where I do agree with you is that most people seem utterly content to watch the 6Mbps so-called HD streams from Netflix. Others sit happily in front of 1366x768 panels and think they are getting the HD experience. Then there are the millions of cable subscribers whose HD channels aren't numbered the same as their SD counterparts; they watch channel 2 out of habit, not realizing they could be watching 502 in HD instead. None of these folks is going to shell out $20,000 for a 4K TV in the near future.

By 2016, there should be a fair number of people who want 4K, plus I expect TV prices to be about $3,000, and maybe, just maybe, we'll have more than one decent option for distribution. I doubt home internet will be one of them.

HDTVfan0001, I have to disagree with you on one thing. The demos I've seen of 4k... once you get back to normal viewing distance if the TV isn't 60" or larger I couldn't tell the difference. And I'm picky. I have old eyes, but I'm picky.
Opinions expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily reflect
those of DBSTalk.com, DIRECTV, DISH, The Signal Group, or any other company.

#38 ONLINE   hdtvfan0001

hdtvfan0001

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 31,716 posts
Joined: Jul 28, 2004

Posted 19 December 2012 - 12:04 PM

HDTVfan0001, I have to disagree with you on one thing. The demos I've seen of 4k... once you get back to normal viewing distance if the TV isn't 60" or larger I couldn't tell the difference. And I'm picky. I have old eyes, but I'm picky.

My eyes must be better... :lol:

Agree the difference is nominal though on those smaller sets < 55". Part of the problem last year was that very few locations showed 4K content on 4K HDTVs. I suspect this year...we'll do better.

A good time to bring the bifocals. :D
DBSTalk CHAT ROOM MODERATOR
DirecTV Customer Since 1996

#39 OFFLINE   unixguru

unixguru

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 579 posts
Joined: Jul 09, 2007

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:03 AM

Correct to say that few broadcast sources come close to max HD quality possible today. Too many channels of near-worthless content stuffed with ads.

3D and 4K are mostly dazzle for the masses. Marketeers love dazzle. It's a good way to hide shortcomings. Let's say we did get max HD resolution and bit rate on a regular basis. Is everything all good and time to move on to the next big thing? Not a chance. The picture technology has come a long way but is still FAR from perfect. Even at the top-of-the-market there are still weaknesses.

About a year ago I spent a lot of time researching 60"+ for best picture quality. At the time, and nothing really has changed even now, the best was either Elite 60"/70" or Sony 65" (XBR-65HX929). I ended up with the Sony.

Both the Elite and Sony are amazing but have their issues. The Elite has the damn 4th Yellow pixel that screws up color calibration. The Sony's, and to a lesser extent the Elites, suffer from "banding". All LED-lit, even high-end ones like this with their local dimming and more zones, have backlighting artifacts like clouding.

I'm more interested in OLED and Sony's Crystal LED than 4K.

3D and 4K are actually much easier for the TV manufacturers. 3D requires nothing new in the display itself. 4K is simple scaling and mostly just a manufacturing challenge. That's one reason why their marketeers like them. Plus Sony gets to benefit from the rest of the chain from cameras on up.

#40 OFFLINE   YakeVlad

YakeVlad

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 103 posts
Joined: Aug 12, 2011

Posted 20 December 2012 - 09:50 AM

IMHO 4K tv won't ever see the light of day as a broadcast medium. I'm sure there will be some products like Blu-ray players and streaming content, but I seriously doubt it will be used for tv broadcasts because 8K UHDTV is already in the works and companies like NHK may be accelerating its schedule to 2016 instead of 2020 for the tech.

Even if it remained at 2020 as originally planned, that would be so close to 4K's readiness that 4K will be obsolete before it even has a chance to gain any retail traction. Others here and in other threads have already brought up the specter of consumer fatigue when it comes to major tv purchases. The manufacturers are well aware of this too and so 4K will be treated as a temporary, niche product until they start rolling out the 8K units.

Case and point, does anyone remember the EDTV's sold by retailers the first 3-4 years that HDTV's hit the retail shelves? They were a step up in resolution and PQ from SDTV's, but inferior to the HDTV's. Ultimately retailers sold some to a few unwitting consumers, but HDTV won the day. This I predict is the fate of 4K tv's. A step up from HDTV, but inferior to the 8K tv's which will hit the store shelves near enough in time as the 4K's to relegate them to the bargain bins.

Or another possibility could be what happened amongst HDTV's. The first ones on the market were 720P or 1080i units. A couple of years later the 1080P units hit the store shelves and now with the exception of a few cheapo models everything is 1080p. I could foresee a similar type of product timeline with 4K and 8K tv's. But in the end, it's the same story, 4K won't be the focus of the industry.

Anyway you spin it, I just don't see how the media industry would invest the amount of resource it would require to broadcast 4K content when 8K is so close behind it.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...