[thyname]

Wait until Sunday Night Football or Monday Night Football (and NFL in general) becomes available in 4K. Then you will see. Key to success is Live popular sports


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[inkahauts]

And that is why I had two 3D TVs (one of those has since died, and its replacement is 4K, but not 3D). At the time I purchased them, all of the large Panasonic plasma TVs included 3D. Even though most large TVs sold at the time were 3D, that was not enough to make 3D catch on.

I think the bandwidth overhead required for 4K might be what prevents 4K from becoming mainstream. There might be 10 to 20 4K channels at some point, but I do not see the broadcast networks moving to 4K, nor do I see mainstream channels such as USA, TNT, TBS, Food Network, HGTV, TLC, Discovery, et. al. moving to 4K. Some of the sports channels, some of the movie channels, and a few niche channels (possibly Smithsonian and a few others) will be in 4K, but there will not be much more than that.

Don't ever confuse anything to do with 3D as being like 4K. That's two different worlds.

And after I read something the other day I think there's still a chance for 3D... in about a decade. James Cameron hopes to film some of the next four avatars in 3D that doesn't require glasses. That's the gateway to 3D if there ever was one. And if anyone can make it happen it's James Cameron.

But still 4K adoption with tvs and such is completely different in every way than 3D. Everyone will only be making 4K panels on a few years because there won't be a point in making 1080 ones. 3D was never going to give anyone the kind of synergy from a manufacturing standpoint to make it sensible to make every tv 3D.

And in the next five years I don't see bandwidth being a problem for anyone except over the air channels and dish. Everyone else will have the room. DIRECTV just happens to be ready firstish with a large amount of room today. Cable can offer it via ip.

As for content, in time Hollywood will slowly work all their equipment to 4K via attrition. So it won't be overnight but they will have it happen slowly.

 

[sangs]

Wait until Sunday Night Football or Monday Night Football (and NFL in general) becomes available in 4K. Then you will see. Key to success is Live popular sports

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You should take a look at the NFL's plummeting ratings this season before hitching your star to that wagon.

 

[fleckrj]

You should take a look at the NFL's plummeting ratings this season before hitching your star to that wagon.

Plummeting is a relative term. Yes, viewership is down in double digit percentages, but it is still huge compared to most things that are on television.

 

[Rich]

Don't ever confuse anything to do with 3D as being like 4K. That's two different worlds.

And after I read something the other day I think there's still a chance for 3D... in about a decade. James Cameron hopes to film some of the next four avatars in 3D that doesn't require glasses. That's the gateway to 3D if there ever was one. And if anyone can make it happen it's James Cameron.

But still 4K adoption with tvs and such is completely different in every way than 3D. Everyone will only be making 4K panels on a few years because there won't be a point in making 1080 ones. 3D was never going to give anyone the kind of synergy from a manufacturing standpoint to make it sensible to make every tv 3D.

And in the next five years I don't see bandwidth being a problem for anyone except over the air channels and dish. Everyone else will have the room. DIRECTV just happens to be ready firstish with a large amount of room today. Cable can offer it via ip.

As for content, in time Hollywood will slowly work all their equipment to 4K via attrition. So it won't be overnight but they will have it happen slowly.

Can you remember where you read that? Being able to discard the glasses would be huge, I think.

Rich

 

[slice1900]

Plummeting is a relative term. Yes, viewership is down in double digit percentages, but it is still huge compared to most things that are on television.

The same drop happened in 2000 when there was a similar amount of political drama - FNC, CNN and MSNBC saw record ratings in Q3. Once the election sideshow is over news viewership will drop back to normal. If the NFL doesn't pick back up later this season / the next, then they might start to worry.

 

[trh]

Can you remember where you read that? Being able to discard the glasses would be huge, I think.

Rich

Google "Ultra-D" . It was demo'd at CES this past year.

 

[inkahauts]

Plummeting is a relative term. Yes, viewership is down in double digit percentages, but it is still huge compared to most things that are on television.

Politics is the first and biggest issue. Add that to a record viewership last year. Then add to that recently the cubs in the playoffs especially this week. And a slight lull from Brady being out four games.

It's not a trend by any strech.. let's see what the ratings look like if Clinton wins in about a month. It'll be back up. Especially with these crazy rookie qb's. If trump wins the political stuff may continue for another month.

 

[inkahauts]

Can you remember where you read that? Being able to discard the glasses would be huge, I think.

Rich

Dark horizons. It's a great place for Hollywood headlines... here's the link to the specific story.

Of course it's fears towards movie theaters and also being brighter but if you figure it out there... you will see it everywhere eventually.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/cameron-aims-for-glasses-free-3d-avatar-2/

 

[Mark Holtz]

Add me to the "meh" category. I picked up a 50" 4K television because it was on sale. Picture is VERY nice. However, there is no rush for me to get a 4K player (maybe next year). 1080p is good enough.

Of course, you are looking at the guy who, at the end of September, put his foot down, ripped out a "perfectly good" 32" SD CRT-based television purchased in 1999, and put in a 47" 1080p LED television in his mother's living room. There were several compelling reasons, including better resolution, lower heat generation, and lower power cost. It is something that I been wanting to do for at least four years. Why end of September? Neighborhood recycling was on October 1st, so it was a good date to leave it outside for pickup.

To me, upgrading from 1080p to 4K goes under the category of "gee, it's nice to have". I see no compelling reason to upgrade. Broadcasters aren't broadcasting in 4K. There are only 2-3 4K channels on DirecTV.

 

[thyname]

You should take a look at the NFL's plummeting ratings this season before hitching your star to that wagon.

The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CTJon]

Wait until Sunday Night Football or Monday Night Football (and NFL in general) becomes available in 4K. Then you will see. Key to success is Live popular sports

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Many of the NFL games are on over the air stations like NBC, FOX, CBS whose rights are owned by your local TV station. So even though the NBC station in NY might have HD and the national feed to the locals might be HD you won't get HD until your local station has it - subject to changed laws, etc.

 

[slice1900]

Many of the NFL games are on over the air stations like NBC, FOX, CBS whose rights are owned by your local TV station. So even though the NBC station in NY might have HD and the national feed to the locals might be HD you won't get HD until your local station has it - subject to changed laws, etc.

That won't matter for Sunday/Monday night games on ESPN. When there's a ESPN4K presumably they'd get those games in 4K right away or at least fairly soon. The Sunday afternoon ones will takes years to go 4K, if ever....it all depends on whether networks and their affiliates think it is worthwhile. They have bigger fish to fry right now with the spectrum auction and repack over the next few years, so even if locals go 4K it won't be until after 2020 when that's all settled. And you won't get 4K locals via Directv, unless they do some MAJOR additional investment in new spot beam satellites. Doubt they'd think the return is worth it.

 

[Rich]

That won't matter for Sunday/Monday night games on ESPN. When there's a ESPN4K presumably they'd get those games in 4K right away or at least fairly soon. The Sunday afternoon ones will takes years to go 4K, if ever....it all depends on whether networks and their affiliates think it is worthwhile. They have bigger fish to fry right now with the spectrum auction and repack over the next few years, so even if locals go 4K it won't be until after 2020 when that's all settled. And you won't get 4K locals via Directv, unless they do some MAJOR additional investment in new spot beam satellites. Doubt they'd think the return is worth it.

You do get a better picture with a 4K set right now. I really wouldn't have gone to 4K if the plasma hadn't had problems, but I'm glad I did.

Rich

 

[slice1900]

You do get a better picture with a 4K set right now. I really wouldn't have gone to 4K if the plasma hadn't had problems, but I'm glad I did.

I think that fact lowers the changes of seeing wide availability of 4K channels. If your 4K TV gives you a better picture on 720p/1080i channels that an HDTV, then the relative improvement of a true 4K source is reduced.

Some people assume that because every TV sold will be a 4K TV within a few years that 4K programming will naturally follow. It worked that way for color, and worked that way for HD, after all. However, if most consumers think of the 4K TV as just an improvement in quality, like going from a cheap LCD to a quality plasma was for HD, and they don't consider the additional gain from viewing native 4K sources to be worth all that much, where's the incentive for networks to invest in 4K delivery?

Probably the biggest reason most people didn't consider watching scaled SD on their HDTV to be "good enough" is because of the aspect ratio. Those 4:3 SD programs are either all stretched out or have black bars on the sides when viewed on an HDTV, so the HD version was a major improvement in that respect alone. Furthermore, with SD most people also went from analog to digital, which was a significant gain in itself. There's also diminishing returns as resolution increases - going from 16:9 SD to HD is a lot easier to notice than going from HD to 4K, and that's a lot easier to notice than going from 4K to 8K would be.

 

[Mark Holtz]

There are folks who also upgraded to HDTV and still watch DVDs (480i resolution) and have SD service through their pay TV provider. :shrug:

My home has a 32" 1080p (2012, Office-formerly Bedroom), a 42" 1080p (2009, Bedroom), a 47" 1080p (2016, Living Room), and a 50" 4K (2016, Bedroom :heybaby: ). And, unless there is a spectacular deal on Black Friday for a "Ultra HD" (4K) player and titles, I'm going to use a BluRay player for the 4K television this upcoming year.

 

[jwbeeler]

So for some, maybe the difference is not perceivable due to the distance from the screen or other factors. However, I have a 75" Sony FALD set and my seating distance is about 6 feet. While I would not (and didn't) "throw away" my Panasonic plasma, I'm certainly thrilled with the upscaling ability on HD material, but the UHD and UHD/HDR material is on another level.

 

[Rich]

I think that fact lowers the changes of seeing wide availability of 4K channels. If your 4K TV gives you a better picture on 720p/1080i channels that an HDTV, then the relative improvement of a true 4K source is reduced.

Some people assume that because every TV sold will be a 4K TV within a few years that 4K programming will naturally follow. It worked that way for color, and worked that way for HD, after all. However, if most consumers think of the 4K TV as just an improvement in quality, like going from a cheap LCD to a quality plasma was for HD, and they don't consider the additional gain from viewing native 4K sources to be worth all that much, where's the incentive for networks to invest in 4K delivery?

Probably the biggest reason most people didn't consider watching scaled SD on their HDTV to be "good enough" is because of the aspect ratio. Those 4:3 SD programs are either all stretched out or have black bars on the sides when viewed on an HDTV, so the HD version was a major improvement in that respect alone. Furthermore, with SD most people also went from analog to digital, which was a significant gain in itself. There's also diminishing returns as resolution increases - going from 16:9 SD to HD is a lot easier to notice than going from HD to 4K, and that's a lot easier to notice than going from 4K to 8K would be.

That's why I'm not going to 4K from D* unless something huge happens. The scaling is really impressive, tho not as good as with a 1080p feed.

Who watches SD these days?

Rich

 

[Rich]

There are folks who also upgraded to HDTV and still watch DVDs (480i resolution) and have SD service through their pay TV provider. :shrug:

My home has a 32" 1080p (2012, Office-formerly Bedroom), a 42" 1080p (2009, Bedroom), a 47" 1080p (2016, Living Room), and a 50" 4K (2016, Bedroom :heybaby: ). And, unless there is a spectacular deal on Black Friday for a "Ultra HD" (4K) player and titles, I'm going to use a BluRay player for the 4K television this upcoming year.

I think Samsung or Panasonic has a Panny 4K player on sale for $249 (down from ~ $500). I looked at it but I've got the 4K upscaling BD player and don't see the need.

Rich

 

[Rich]

So for some, maybe the difference is not perceivable due to the distance from the screen or other factors. However, I have a 75" Sony FALD set and my seating distance is about 6 feet. While I would not (and didn't) "throw away" my Panasonic plasma, I'm certainly thrilled with the upscaling ability on HD material, but the UHD and UHD/HDR material is on another level.

The distance doesn't matter. We've stopped worrying about that.

Rich