[Ed Campbell]

Just back from our once/month adventure to Walmart and they have Samsung UHD/4K 50" on their wall of eyes - Samsung and Vizio in the box on pallets - waiting for LG to arrive.

Running a demo on the Samsung [obviously provided by Samsung] - and our local Wallymart actually has a geek working there so he knows what he's selling. The Sammy is 60hz but he said it has a new enough spec for a least 1 HDMI input to allow for firmware upgrades. The Vizio in boxes is 120hz and I believe LG doesn't do anything slower than 120hz either.

$1300 for the 50" Samsung. Doesn't beat the current 55" LG price at BBY and AMZN; but, it's all good news AFAIC.

Looking forward to uprezzed "proper football" from NBCSN feed from the UK.

When the price gets to where drops are less frequent than this holiday season.

 

[yosoyellobo]

When can we expect the uprezzed TV fromNBCSN?

 

[Ed Campbell]

When can we expect the uprezzed TV fromNBCSN?

Don't expect them to uprezz - when a 4K set can do it for you.

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk

 

[harsh]

I'm not sure there's a connection between updating the firmware and being able to avail oneself of future UHD offerings.

Compression and encryption schemes required for real-time high-color UHD is not something that is done in software.

 

[slice1900]

I think what he's calling a "firmware upgrade" for one of the HDMI ports is actually swapping out the entire port along with its electronics. Something the customer pays for it, so it isn't as easy as a firmware upgrade nor it is as free.

Presumably that port swap would allow taking that single HDMI port to a full 18.2 Gbps to allow doing 4Kp60.

Whether a TV is marketed as "120 Hz" or not is irrelevant as far as someday hoping to do 120 fps 4K. It will not. The higher frame rates on LCDs are not used for higher frame rates inputs (there are no 60 fps 1080p sources aside from upconverting AVRs, let alone 120 or 240 so that is pointless) but to interpolate frames between the real frames to fake a higher frame rate. I guess some people must like that, but I think it looks terrible, especially with movies that are filmed at 24 fps and have resulting motion blur that doesn't allow for that sort of interpolation.

 

[Ed Campbell]

I think what he's calling a "firmware upgrade" for one of the HDMI ports is actually swapping out the entire port along with its electronics. Something the customer pays for it, so it isn't as easy as a firmware upgrade nor it is as free.

If you have an HDMI 2.0 port you don't need to change any hardware. Firmware can be updated sev'l ways - and comes from TV set mfg. See this:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/hdmi-2-0-explained/

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk

 

[slice1900]

If you have an HDMI 2.0 port you don't need to change any hardware. Firmware can be updated sev'l ways - and comes from TV set mfg. See this:

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/hdmi-2-0-explained/

Except that's not true, because many if not all of the 4K TVs available today with a HDMI 2.0 port only support 10.8 Gbps, not the 18.2 Gbps that is required for 60fps 4K. You can't upgrade port speed through firmware.

 

[harsh]

If you have an HDMI 2.0 port you don't need to change any hardware.

There are many things in a world of DRM that can't effectively be done in software. CODECs and encryption are very high on the list of must-haves.

 

[harsh]

Except that's not true, because many if not all of the 4K TVs available today with a HDMI 2.0 port only support 10.8 Gbps, not the 18.2 Gbps that is required for 60fps 4K.

You're making a arguably big assumption that what will be delivered by DIRECTV (or anyone else who is live or streaming) is more than [email protected]

 

[slice1900]

You're making a arguably big assumption that what will be delivered by DIRECTV (or anyone else who is live or streaming) is more than [email protected]

The UHD roadmap shows not only 60 fps, but 120 fps 4K down the road (which will require a new HDMI standard)

There's no telling when it will come, but it will definitely come. I would consider it a downgrade to go from 720p to 4Kp30 for sports, so if ESPN hopes to start 4K broadcasts someday they won't be well served doing it at 30 fps.

 

[harsh]

The UHD roadmap shows not only 60 fps, but 120 fps 4K down the road (which will require a new HDMI standard)

Do you really think DIRECTV or anyone else with finite bandwidth will devote one or more transponders worth of bandwidth to a single channel?

Display capability and what can reasonably be broadcast have rarely been on the same plane.

 

[hdtvfan0001]

Do you really think DIRECTV or anyone else with finite bandwidth will devote one or more transponders worth of bandwidth to a single channel?

Display capability and what can reasonably be broadcast have rarely been on the same plane.

You are making the false assumption that one transponder for each channel is necessary.

Getting back to the thread topic...

Saw a new display at the local Best Buy yesterday with a DirecTV DVR connected to a Samsung RVU-compatible 4K UHD TV showing a demo of 4K content. The 4K content itself (streaming) was verified by the store manager as 4K, not 1080p. Quite impressive.

 

[harsh]

You are making the false assumption that one transponder for each channel is necessary.

You ignored that we were talking about 4K at 120fps that would consume the better part (or more) of one transponder.

 

[harsh]

Saw a new display at the local Best Buy yesterday with a DirecTV DVR connected to a Samsung RVU-compatible 4K UHD TV showing a demo of 4K content. The 4K content itself (streaming) was verified by the store manager as 4K, not 1080p. Quite impressive.

Did said store manager let on what the source of the streaming content was?

 

[slice1900]

Do you really think DIRECTV or anyone else with finite bandwidth will devote one or more transponders worth of bandwidth to a single channel?

Display capability and what can reasonably be broadcast have rarely been on the same plane.

120 fps 4K may be like 1080p, and live content will never be produced in it so it won't matter. One of the reasons why live content isn't delivered in 1080p is because when broadcast studios upgraded to HD they went to HD-SDI, and the 1.5 Gbps that provided was enough for 720p/1080i but not 1080p. If they end up upgrading to 6G-SDI or 12G-SDI (enough for 4Kp30 / 4Kp60 respectively...pre-standard equipment for each has recently hit the market) they'll have the same issue. If they replace that coax with fiber it won't be an issue, but it remains to be seen when/how 4K upgrades in broadcast studios will occur. 4Kp120 would be many years away in any case since a newer version of HDMI beyond 2.0 that would be required for it isn't even being worked on yet AFAIK. Until something exists that can display it obviously no one will care about trying to deliver it.

It is far enough out that bandwidth would not be a problem for Directv. Not only would MPEG2 be retired by then freeing up all that bandwidth, but Directv will be needing to replace the D8 & D9S satellites at 101, so they could get a ton of additional bandwidth by using their existing Ka license from 101 for customer content. That Ka is being used little if at all for internal use since half the spot beams point somewhere Directv has no broadcast centers, so it isn't much of a stretch to think they'd equip new satellites built for 101 with a full set of Ka transponders "just in case" (and to allow them to move to 99/103 if needed in the future, much like D15 has Ku transponders that would allow it to move to 101 in the future if needed)

DVB-S2X also allows ways to squeeze a lot more bandwidth out of a transponder, at the expense of a reduced SNR margin. Between using smaller roll off and more advanced modulation, it would be possible to nearly triple the bit rate per transponder if you're willing to accept rain fade in even a sprinkle - which might make sense if the receivers implement automatic fall back to HD. There are plenty of options to deliver 4Kp120, if it ever comes.

 

[veryoldschool]

You ignored that we were talking about 4K at 120fps that would consume the better part (or more) of one transponder.

Don't mix up MHz with Mb/s.
MPEG-4 4K 120fps should fit "nicely" on a TP with room to spare.

 

[slice1900]

Don't mix up MHz with Mb/s.
MPEG-4 4K 120fps should fit "nicely" on a TP with room to spare.

I doubt that. 4Kp120 has 18x more pixels/second than 720p60, and Directv is just able to cram 6 HD channels on a transponder, which is an average of only 6.5 Mbps each. Of those six, some are more bit starved along with others of better quality. If compressing 18x more pixels resulted in 18x more compressed data, that would be 3 full transponders with MPEG4. I assume you meant HEVC, but even then it is 1.5 to 2 transponders. Average, not peak.

Of course, you don't really get 18x more data compressing 18x more pixels, as HEVC has variable sized blocks so large areas where the color is the same/similar will compress better, and the static parts of an image require little additional bandwidth when the frame rate rises. Still, for equivalent quality to the best HD Directv currently delivers you'd need to be able to peak at more than one transponder even for HEVC encoded 4Kp120. Probably even for 4Kp60. Hence the ability of DVB-S2X to allow bonding up to 3 transponders.

 

[veryoldschool]

I doubt that.....

Of course, you don't really.....

You lost me at pixels/second since I look at Mb/s

 

[slice1900]

You lost me at pixels/second since I look at Mb/s

I was using pixels/second to represent the data rate of the uncompressed video to (over?)simply things a bit. 720p60 = 1280 * 720 * 60 pixels/second; 4Kp120 = 3840 * 2160 * 120 pixels/second, or 18x higher. Assuming 8 bits per color for both (4Kp120 may use more) the actual uncompressed data rates are 1.327 Gbps for 720p60 and 23.888 Gbps for 4Kp120.

With up to 6 HD channels per transponder on Directv, the 'typical' HD channel on that transponder averages 6.5 Mbps with MPEG4 compression. Pretty darn good from the original 1.327 Gbps! However, even using HEVC and getting 30-50% better compression efficiency, when you are compressing 23.888 Gbps versus 1.327 Gbps (18x more) you are going to require a significantly higher compressed data rate in Mbps.

Keep in mind too, that 4Kp120 would be targeted at sports, which already demands a higher than average bit rate due to the fast motion and panning.

 

[hdtvfan0001]

You ignored that we were talking about 4K at 120fps that would consume the better part (or more) of one transponder.

Since that has little to do with the topic...ignoring seemed quite was appropriate, especially in the context of the misleading information first posted..

Did said store manager let on what the source of the streaming content was?

Yes.