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 sees 4K TV having 'material impact' by 2016


  • Please log in to reply
169 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Athlon646464

Athlon646464

    Hall Of Fame

  • News Hound
  • 2,480 posts
  • LocationUxbridge, MA
Joined: Feb 23, 2007

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:32 PM

DirecTV sees 4K TV having 'material impact' by 2016
 
DirecTV hopes to be the first pay TV provider to sell 4K Ultra HD programming and expects 4K will have a material impact on its balance sheet within three years, CEO Mike White said Tuesday.
 
But White said DirecTV, which failed to make a business out of 24-hour 3D network 3net, is taking a more conservative approach with 4K programming.
 
"From all those I talked to, both on the content side and on the distributor side, after the experience with 3D, I think there's a level of… 'protect your options,' because it's a very complex rollout that would be required," White said, noting that 4K requires investments in compression technology and consumers would have to purchase new TVs. "You will see a little bit more of it next year. But gosh, you're still talking very, very few homes in America that would have a TV capable of that," he added.
 

1 HR34-700, 1 C31-700, 1 HR24-500
Original install on April 20, 2008 - HR34 & C31 installed on August 24, 2013 - HR24 installed on July 23, 2010

Press any key to continue, or any other key to cancel.


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

#2 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,727 posts
  • LocationBay Area
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 08 November 2013 - 01:35 PM

we have a few adepts of the new technology (not the new compression algo) here, handful of ppl have new 4k UHD sets :)



#3 OFFLINE   Drucifer

Drucifer

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 7,735 posts
  • LocationNY Hudson Valley
Joined: Feb 12, 2009

Posted 08 November 2013 - 02:14 PM

Does it cost more to produce 4K HD programing? Because that will dictate how fast everything become 4K.


DREW

Do it Right, Do it Once
LR: HR34-7, Den: HR24-1, MB: HR24-5, Bsm: HR21-2, Kit: H25-5
PrimeStar '95, DirecTV  '00


#4 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,048 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 08 November 2013 - 03:08 PM

A few things are shot with RED cameras, which are 4K or 5K (can't remember) I'm sure there are some other digital cameras that are 4K. Filming the content in 4K is likely to be the easier part of the whole package. There is a lot more to the story than how much capacity Directv has to broadcast 4K content to their customers. Directv must uplink those channels to its satellites, broadcasters must uplink to Directv, and for live events broadcasters may have another uplink from the event to their studios. All that satellite bandwidth is expensive, and someone is going to have to pay for it if they want 4K.

 

Even with AVC doubling the compression ratio of h.264 it'll still require twice the bandwidth. Since they'll have to send a 4K and HD copy separately (because not everyone receiving it will be able to receive and downconvert from 4K, at least not for some time) that triples the bandwidth requirement for the foreseeable future!

 

Directv currently has about 4500 Mhz of bandwidth received by a 3LNB dish (its a bit less since not all transponders are active due to spotbeams, but let's call it that) Directv is currently licensed for 4600 MHz of bandwidth they aren't using yet (500MHz x2 Ka hi on 99, 400 Mhz x2 RDBS on each of 99 and 103, and 1000MHz x2 Ka on 101) They'll be able to pretty much double what they have now! The upcoming launches of D14 and D15 will probably fill out at least half that, and one assumes they're building more satellites they haven't yet announced.

 

I'm sure they already have plans for some of this new bandwidth, for stuff like moving people who still have locals on 119 to 99/101/103, getting just about every channel anyone cares about in HD, and if I had to guess, probably duplicating the content on 119 and 95 so they'll be able to have one single dish/LNB model that will cover everyone's needs for future installs (so that at some point new SD only, international only, ordinary HD installs and even 4K installs would all get the same equipment on their roof)

 

Even with all that they'll still have a ton of room for 4K, so Directv can obviously pursue it to whatever amount the supply (from broadcasters) and demand (from consumers) will allow. If it flops like 3D, they can always use the excess to add more movie channels...


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#5 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 585 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 09 November 2013 - 01:00 PM

4k, will have more staying power than 3d. While broadcast TV will not adopt 4k technology, because of the cost, some premium movie providers,and provider pay-per-view, will be able to find a market. as will companies like NetFlix. Cinema quality HD in your home.

 

But, many homes have no where near the internet bandwidth required for 4k. So, for a while, satellite and cable will have a good market share.

 

4k TVs will eventually drop in price, just like 1k HD did, over time. Also, internet bandwidth will get better.. The failure of 3d resulted, is special glasses, limited  content and an extra expense for little gain. Like previous attempts, 3d has become a passing fad. 4k TV will get the same "wow" factor that 1k did when it first went mainstream. But, I agree with the idea that content [providers, and satellite/cable providers are approcahing 4k with caution. Right now, 4k availability, TV set wise, is at the same level of color TV sets were in the mid 1950s or television, in general, in the mid 1940s; very few and far between with a 4k price tag to match the resolution.



#6 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, AL
Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted 09 November 2013 - 01:20 PM

I can see them running some 4K PPV, 4K sporting events, and some of the premiums in 4K. 

 

Some things to overcome, though, are obviously there are no 4K capable receivers in the wild right now. Secondly they will need to come up with some better encoding techniques, such as moving to AVC, and thirdly there just isn't any content out there. Most stuff is probably being filmed in 4K these days but I doubt very many TV shows are. This is a marginal (to most people) improvement. it's not the same as going from black and white to color or from SD/analog to HD/digital. I would expect aside from the PPV and sporting events for this to be more organic and just over time happen. 

 

Something that would make a lot of sense would be for DirecTV to start releasing boxes that can decode everything and downconvert everything, those becoming what they install to new customers, and then eventually over time start replacing old boxes. Then they can drop SD channels, and then carry ONE copy of each channel, in the highest resolution available, and save a ton of bandwidth.



#7 OFFLINE   TheRatPatrol

TheRatPatrol

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 6,695 posts
  • LocationPhoenix, AZ
Joined: Oct 01, 2003

Posted 09 November 2013 - 02:21 PM

D* needs to get everything in HD first, then worry about 4K.
  • mnassour, Herdfan and PCampbell like this

#8 OFFLINE   peds48

peds48

    🙈🙉🙊📡

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 9,526 posts
  • LocationLong Island, NY
Joined: Jan 10, 2008

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:57 PM

D* needs to get everything in HD first, then worry about 4K.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

 

enough said....


Here’s to the crazy ones.
The misfits. The rebels.
The the troublemakers.
The round pegs in the square holes.

The ones who see things different.
They’re not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo.


Think Differently 

#9 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,048 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 09 November 2013 - 05:16 PM

4k, will have more staying power than 3d. While broadcast TV will not adopt 4k technology, because of the cost, some premium movie providers,and provider pay-per-view, will be able to find a market. as will companies like NetFlix. Cinema quality HD in your home.

 

But, many homes have no where near the internet bandwidth required for 4k. So, for a while, satellite and cable will have a good market share.

 

4k TVs will eventually drop in price, just like 1k HD did, over time. Also, internet bandwidth will get better.. The failure of 3d resulted, is special glasses, limited  content and an extra expense for little gain. Like previous attempts, 3d has become a passing fad. 4k TV will get the same "wow" factor that 1k did when it first went mainstream. But, I agree with the idea that content [providers, and satellite/cable providers are approcahing 4k with caution. Right now, 4k availability, TV set wise, is at the same level of color TV sets were in the mid 1950s or television, in general, in the mid 1940s; very few and far between with a 4k price tag to match the resolution.

 

 

Why do you think 4K will get the same wow factor? It obviously won't. And I hope you know that calling HD "1K" is pretty silly, as it would be called 2K if you're using the same way of describing its resolution as is used for 4K.

 

First, most people going to HD were coming from analog SD. Almost everyone previously owned analog CRT TVs, and unless they were on satellite, the major channels they watched were generally still analog, since the typical cable "expanded basic" lineup that included stuff like ESPN only moved to digital fairly recently. If their cable system had moved to digital, they were probably overcompressing the digital SD channels badly to make room for HD channels. The HD upgrade got the triple benefit of analog TV to digital TV, analog broadcast to digital broadcast, and HD resolution. If everyone was coming from a 640x480 digital flat screen viewing high quality MPEG2 encoded SD broadcasts, HD wouldn't have been nearly as big of a jump as it was.

 

Second, even if one can see the difference with 4K (which is questionable) it is obvious that there are diminishing returns on increases in resolution. Just because HD was better than SD, doesn't mean 4K is better than HD by the same amount, even for those able to see the difference. Otherwise you could make the argument that 64K TV would be better than 32K TV, when no one could ever see the difference even from inches away. I've seen 4K in a demo which included an interesting bit where it displayed the same content downscaled to 1080p on half the screen and while the difference was quite noticeable up close, when you move back it quickly becomes invisible, or at best something you can see if you make the effort of looking for it rather than watching the content.

 

I think your "extra expense for little gain" pretty much summarizes 4K, but when there's no extra expense everyone will buy a 4K TV. That was true for 3D as well, but as you say it didn't take off due to other issues, one of them being content availability. Not everything is filmed in 3D, but everything is filmed in resolutions higher than HD, so there will be 4K content, at least as far as movies go. The question is, how much extra will people be willing to pay for 4K content, since the bandwidth to provide it won't be free, at least not to satellite and cable providers. Just like they charge you more for HD, they'll charge even more than that for 4K. How many people will be willing to pay the upcharge, even if they have a 4K TV? How many will try it out, then decide it isn't worth the extra money from where they sit and go back to HD?

 

If you think 4K has got a real wow factor, you've never actually seen a 4K TV, or when you did you stood right next to it and didn't bother to see what it looks like from your normal viewing distance (or maybe saw a rigged demo that places a crappy TV with low quality content next to a high end 4K TV playing top quality content)


Edited by slice1900, 09 November 2013 - 05:17 PM.

SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#10 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 11,582 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 09 November 2013 - 07:51 PM

I've seen a number of 4K sets and one can easily tell the difference. But your other points are valid. It's better, but not by any factor that relates to the multiple of pixels! 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#11 OFFLINE   gov

gov

    Legend

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,084 posts
Joined: Jan 10, 2013

Posted 09 November 2013 - 08:12 PM

And after they get all the bandwidth, uplinks, production and mastering, satellites, receivers and displays all tickey boo on 4K, somebody, somewhere is going to want 4K3D . . . 

 

 

!rolling



#12 OFFLINE   TBoneit

TBoneit

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,267 posts
Joined: Jul 27, 2006

Posted 09 November 2013 - 08:57 PM

4k, will have more staying power than 3d. While broadcast TV will not adopt 4k technology, because of the cost, some premium movie providers,and provider pay-per-view, will be able to find a market. as will companies like NetFlix. Cinema quality HD in your home.

 

Snipped

 

As I understand it, For broadcast TV to go to 4K the FCC would have to come up with a standard for them to meet, And then knowing the FCC Maybe want new licenses.
 


Remember when your kids were the TV set's remote control?

#13 OFFLINE   JosephB

JosephB

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,122 posts
  • LocationBirmingham, AL
Joined: Nov 14, 2005

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:02 PM

Broadcast will never go 4K. ATSC will last the rest of all of our lifetimes, and the broadcasters aren't going to invest in either additional licenses or additional transmitting equipment. 

 

I honestly don't see how 4K has any more of a draw than 3D. If you take a census of TV sets installed. Per the CEA, HD sets only have a 68% penetration, 32% of the TVs out there are analog/SD sets. Now that is considering that those TVs can't even tune OTA and within another year or two won't be able to tune anything on cable without a converter. On top of that, how many people are watching stretched SD thinking that they're watching HD? How many of the HD sets out there are 40 or less inches? (more than you think). 4K is only marginally better and that is if you have a gigantic screen and sit too close. At least 3D had a major, dramatic difference to exploit, like going from B&W to color or SD to HD. It's failure was because it just wasn't any good and no one cared. 4K is even less dramatic of a difference to most people.



#14 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,048 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 09 November 2013 - 10:04 PM

As I understand it, For broadcast TV to go to 4K the FCC would have to come up with a standard for them to meet, And then knowing the FCC Maybe want new licenses.
 

 

 

ATSC 3.0, which is already in development, supports 4Kp60. But it isn't clear how it would be deployed, since it isn't backwards compatible. Stations would either need to operate on a second RF channel, or badly degrade their HD signal to make room for a 4K signal. The OTA broadcast model will probably die before ATSC 3.0 ever gets a chance to take over.

 

Hypothetically, if stations got 4K content from the networks (a big if) they could uplink that to cable and satellite providers, even if they weren't broadcasting 4K.


  • Diana C likes this

SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21


#15 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,744 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 10 November 2013 - 02:17 AM

D* needs to get everything in HD first, then worry about 4K.

 

Nah, I actually think it'd make more channels go for hd on directv if they suddenly had ultra to fight for too.  And most that aren't are probably because they want more money to go hd.  Stupid IMHO.



#16 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,642 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 10 November 2013 - 08:57 AM

 

DirecTV sees 4K TV having 'material impact' by 2016
 
DirecTV hopes to be the first pay TV provider to sell 4K Ultra HD programming and expects 4K will have a material impact on its balance sheet within three years, CEO Mike White said Tuesday.

This might be.

It would come through another monthly fee like HD service is.

 

"I think" 4K is just an evolution of screen size.

Every time I replace my main TV, it gets larger.

What I paid for my 2006 HDTV would now get me a larger 4K today.

What I got in 2006 can now be had for a quarter of the price.

 

4K content may lag behind market penetration of 4K sets, but these TVs seem to also focus on image processing.


  • HerntDawg likes this
A.K.A VOS

#17 OFFLINE   veryoldschool

veryoldschool

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Moderators
  • 41,642 posts
Joined: Dec 09, 2006

Posted 10 November 2013 - 11:43 AM

How many years will it be when you go to Walmart, for a cheap TV, and you'll be looking at something like:

 

4kCapture.png


A.K.A VOS

#18 OFFLINE   yosoyellobo

yosoyellobo

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,720 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2006

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:32 PM

How many years will it be when you go to Walmart, for a cheap TV, and you'll be looking at something like:
 

attachicon.gif4kCapture.png


When they perfect paper display.

#19 OFFLINE   nmetro

nmetro

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 585 posts
Joined: Jul 11, 2006

Posted 10 November 2013 - 12:53 PM

Actually, most cinemas, in the US today, are using 4k technology for projection. So, considering the crispness in a cinema, I suspect it would be much better in the home. Yes, I have seen a 4k set next to a 1k set, but in a showroom setting and noticed a improvment in picture. Granted, it will not be a big jump from CRT, to LCD and LCD to HD, but on larger sets people will notice the difference. Though, as other had said here, the cost of delivery may hinder wide distribution. Compression technology and receivers have to be improved. Also, most carriers have not fully converted to 1k HD, let alone a mass conversion to 4k HD. And, for provdiers like Netflix, again, most homes do not have the bandwidth for 4k, they barely have enough for 1k. In the end, it may be that we see a few premium, sport, and PPV chnnales at 4k. Mainly because consumers have recently spent money to upgrade to 1k and probably wait for their current set die before making a purchse of a 4k set. When you think about it, many homes had CRT sets which lasted 15 to 20 years, and many consumers think the same about the new HD sets.

 

 

Why do you think 4K will get the same wow factor? It obviously won't. And I hope you know that calling HD "1K" is pretty silly, as it would be called 2K if you're using the same way of describing its resolution as is used for 4K.

 

First, most people going to HD were coming from analog SD. Almost everyone previously owned analog CRT TVs, and unless they were on satellite, the major channels they watched were generally still analog, since the typical cable "expanded basic" lineup that included stuff like ESPN only moved to digital fairly recently. If their cable system had moved to digital, they were probably overcompressing the digital SD channels badly to make room for HD channels. The HD upgrade got the triple benefit of analog TV to digital TV, analog broadcast to digital broadcast, and HD resolution. If everyone was coming from a 640x480 digital flat screen viewing high quality MPEG2 encoded SD broadcasts, HD wouldn't have been nearly as big of a jump as it was.

 

Second, even if one can see the difference with 4K (which is questionable) it is obvious that there are diminishing returns on increases in resolution. Just because HD was better than SD, doesn't mean 4K is better than HD by the same amount, even for those able to see the difference. Otherwise you could make the argument that 64K TV would be better than 32K TV, when no one could ever see the difference even from inches away. I've seen 4K in a demo which included an interesting bit where it displayed the same content downscaled to 1080p on half the screen and while the difference was quite noticeable up close, when you move back it quickly becomes invisible, or at best something you can see if you make the effort of looking for it rather than watching the content.

 

I think your "extra expense for little gain" pretty much summarizes 4K, but when there's no extra expense everyone will buy a 4K TV. That was true for 3D as well, but as you say it didn't take off due to other issues, one of them being content availability. Not everything is filmed in 3D, but everything is filmed in resolutions higher than HD, so there will be 4K content, at least as far as movies go. The question is, how much extra will people be willing to pay for 4K content, since the bandwidth to provide it won't be free, at least not to satellite and cable providers. Just like they charge you more for HD, they'll charge even more than that for 4K. How many people will be willing to pay the upcharge, even if they have a 4K TV? How many will try it out, then decide it isn't worth the extra money from where they sit and go back to HD?

 

If you think 4K has got a real wow factor, you've never actually seen a 4K TV, or when you did you stood right next to it and didn't bother to see what it looks like from your normal viewing distance (or maybe saw a rigged demo that places a crappy TV with low quality content next to a high end 4K TV playing top quality content)



#20 OFFLINE   slice1900

slice1900

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 2,048 posts
  • LocationIowa
Joined: Feb 14, 2013

Posted 10 November 2013 - 01:23 PM

I wish you'd stop calling HD "1K", that's just being silly. HD is 1920x1080, 4K is 3840x2160 - double the width, not 4x the width.

 

I don't think compression will be a problem, 4K will use HEVC, which is the next generation after MPEG4/h.264 and requires roughly half the bandwidth for equivalent picture quality. Since 4K has 4x as many pixels, a 4K stream will require roughly double the bandwidth.

 

The problem for Directv and cable providers is that it actually triples their bandwidth requirements for each 4K channel, since they can't drop the HD version of the channel unless they replaced every HD receiver with one capable of downconverting 4K to HD.


SL5, PI-6S, SA-6AL 3xSWM16, 21 H20-100, 1 H20-600, 7 H24-700/AM21





spam firewall