I'd guess national cable channels because of the issues created by OTA transmission and affiliates model of distribution related to locals. Specifically, I see ESPN as a first mover here. Locals via on demand, but linearly, national cable channels.
Dish to unveil 4k?
- Thread starter lern4483
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 418
- Views 31K
ESPN is a good bet. To kind of go out there, if I were to choose a national channel that is not owned by Disney, it would be a Discovery Networks channel. Obviously the preference for me would be Science channel, with the caveat that they air original content more often instead of weeks of How Its Made.
Yes them 4K tvs turned your SD Picture into a watchable HD wonder.
Wow!
Again my SD is watchable without a 4K upconvert.
And my SD PQ is most definitely better then yours on my 1080p set.
But congratulations on watching SD on your 4K tv.
Which is exactly the reason people shouldn't waste their money and spend more then what the 1080p version would cost them.
Here maybe you should read this , but I'm sure you won't because it makes logical sense.
http://www.cnet.com/news/can-4k-tvs-make-1080p-look-better/
It's definitely hard to compare your vision with someone else's vision because everyone's eyes are not the same.I have read plenty of articles trying to justify their opinion.
Are they wrong? No,because I can't see what they see and vice versa
Then you must have had a Crappy 1080p tv.
You can't pull details out of thin air when they don't exist.
Upconverted content is taking a smaller picture it stretching it to fit a bigger one.
And then you see more details of a stretched picture beyond its native resolution is not better PQ.
In fact you see things you shouldn't see.
It's not rocket science.
If it was you wouldn't be able to buy it for $348 at Walmart.
Now some of you guys got me wondering If you even know what good HD is.
Sounds to me you think stretch o vision, grainy picture, over contrasting, over Sharpness and bright color is good HD.
And taking 540 or 720 depending on your tv, and stretching it to fit 1920 is the same as taking 1920 and stretching it to 3800.
It's taking something that's not there and spreading it over a larger area.
Acually in fact Dish's HD is 1440x1080 and now your stretching that to over 3800.
Yikes.
Only the 720p content is full res.
Now I know why my 720p screen resolution setting looks better than the 1080i screen resolution when it's unconverted to 4K.Thanks!
My SD screen resolution looks better too in 720p upconverted to 4K.
It is kind of the CW question all over again: Does two or three hours of programming per day make a full-time network?
I think it likely that they're interested in distribution forms other than live broadcast.
Tv is going towards the "on demand" business model especially with services like Netflix and Amazon. Content can be made available the quickest on demand and this could help on demand to increase its momentum.
History and Science would be the two natural picks if they weren't showing programs about finding bigfoot and how stories of the bible actually happened.
I ponder how much more juice it'd take to make render cartoons UHD. TCM has been doing the 4K blu-ray thing for a bit, so they may be there as well with some content. The other obvious one would be Fearnet.
On demand is far and away the most inefficient distribution method. It makes very little sense to build a model for serving everyone around it.
On demand has pros and cons. The pro is that you don't have to buy anything else. Just stream the content to your television. It may be easier distribution wise to offer 4K data for streaming than selling right now. You just need the 1's and 0's, don't need to produce a physical product. Honestly, I'd think Hollywood would want 4K immediately to make piracy a much bigger pain, not that it would stop, but having to download 50 to 60 Gigs (?) for a single movie? That has to hurt, both in time and in hard drive storage.
The obvious con is the bandwidth usage. Unless you have a really thick pipeline, you may be most likely only streaming a 4K stream and not able to use the Internet for anything else at that time. Forget about multiple 4K streams... a home with two 4K tv's, but only able to watch streamed content on one (and I'd feel for the family with 2 4k's in their home
). Then we have the Netflix problem. Remember IPs saying they were getting crushed by Netflix streaming (or at least pretended to)? Does 4K start causing issues with bandwidth in neighborhoods with Cable?
It's not about building building a model for this but using what is already there just like the Dish Sling service does. This is why more 4k will be available this way at first until 4k takes off. It will probably only be available on the most popular channels for quite a while. Dish or another provider could come out with a VoOm like service being in 4k with an iptv box. Sling 4k. They could add the other online services that offer 4k as well.
My Vizio M55-C2 4K UHDTV already has 2 4K apps.Ultraflix and Toon Goggles,both have some free programs and rental programs in 4K,but you must have enough bandwith to stream the programs.
Oh and my apps on my 4K UHDTV also includes all the apps that Bluegrass wants too.
The more expensive 4K UHDTVs have even more apps included than my TV has.
And you think the bandwidth people appreciate SlingTV? Once the number of people using it reaches a critical mass, there's going to be hell to pay. Critical mass comes a lot faster with UHD content.
Imagine someone leaving Palladia UHD on just to listen to the music all day long? End users don't subscribe to reason.
4K OTA tested successfully. Looks like new receivers for everyone! (Yes, I know this is many years away).
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/sinclair-demos-hdr-4ktv-over-atsc-30-in-vegas/277546
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/sinclair-demos-hdr-4ktv-over-atsc-30-in-vegas/277546
This is not going to be the majority of the population that will be streaming 4k. Look at all the bandwidth being made available to subscribers these days. 1 gb even 10 gb download speefs these days in some areas. Eventually they will have to upgrade the networks to support more data as 4k would eventually over time may become the norm. You have to start somewhere and it did, with streaming online. Compression technology will also improve reducing bandwidth requirements.
Compression technology may be reaching the limit without insane amounts of resources (especially for on-the-fly compressed programming). At best, I would imagine that UHD will need to be at least triple the bandwidth to be worth sending as HD rather than 1080p. It was one thing when we were talking about larger versions of what we have now but when you introduce HDR and WCG, there's a whole lot more data to cram. Alternatively, they don't offer HDR and WCG and it mostly academic for those not sitting within 7' of their panel.
It was mentioned on the forums that with the new h.265 compression techniques that it would only take twice the compression of the current HD streams with h.264 Does HDR and WCG make it three times the compression instead of two?
On UHD Blu-rays it's a minute amount of metadata that allows the disc player to determine the colors to send to the TV. If the TV isn't HDR capable, the players plays the disc using the current color standards. I would assume it could be the same with an STB. It all depends on the HDMI 2.0a link and how they talk to eachother.
However, that h.265 4k compression ratio is vs current 1080 mpeg4, but I believe considering identical (current) color gamuts. I'm not sure of any existing comparison of HDR vs non HDR amounts with identical compression types and resolutions.
I do. I think it looks like trash. I don't believe a higher res panel can make a lower res content better, no matter what the image processor does.
I do believe the image processor can do all sorts of tricks to display the 1080i or 720p content better, but that's not the panel res.
