Sign in / up

back to article 4K-ing hell! Will your shiny new Ultra HD TV actually display HD telly?

With just about every TV maker showing off 4K sets at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) earlier this month, and companies like Netflix promising to have content available in the format, it’s tempting to think that if you’re buying a new TV, 4K may be worth a look. Or, at least, worth hanging on for until it’s more sensibly …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

        1. Cryo
          Reply Icon

          Re: These are not the pixels you are looking for.

          "Try quantifying bitrate and encoding system in a manner as easy as 'More Pixels' - it's hard to explain to someone nontechnical (almost all 4k TV buyers will be nontechnical) why their current HD picture looks so bloody awful."

          For transmission quality, they could simply use the bitrate in megabits per second, such as 5 Meg, 10 Meg, etc, much like how the quality of downloadable music is advertised, in terms similar to what's used for broadband. Perhaps if someone wants to pay extra for their streaming video service to use a 30 Meg transmission, they can have that option.

          Of course, this isn't really all that useful to TV manufacturers, as it's related to transmission quality rather than display hardware. For them, telling people they get "FOUR TIMES THE PIXELS!" is what they're trying to market 4k on, whether or not people will ever see those pixels. Netflix might be planning on offering a 4K stream at 15 Mbps, but compressed Blu-Rays at 1080p already offer twice that amount of bandwidth. The increased resolution might provide a slightly sharper image, but that will only really be noticeable if you sit very close to a large screen. At typical television viewing distances you would need a massive wall-sized display to notice a significant difference, and that's not something everyone needs. The move to HD was a significant upgrade that provided a noticeable boost in quality on even average-sized screens, but 4k's potential benefits mostly just apply to the high end, making widespread adoption unlikely in the near-future.

          1 0
      2. Lamont Cranston
        Reply Icon

        Re: "It's worked as a marketing gimmick for years..." @ Boothy

        I think TV is different. People buying digital cameras don't look past the Megapixel count, and this is probably true for phones (if they look at the camera specs at all) but, when it comes to TV, most people (in my experience) are quite happy with an HD Ready (720p) set and a DVD player hooked up over SCART.

        4K looks lovely, but I can see it having the same problem that Blu-ray does - the technology that it's replacing is already good enough for most people, and so there's no motivation to replace the existing kit (unless it breaks, and even then a like-for-like replacement will be easier on the wallet).

        8 0
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "It's worked as a marketing gimmick for years..." @ Boothy

          I am in the "dire" position of needing a new telly. The previous one expired.

          After months of research I am now convinced whatever I buy, it will be wrong. I rather like the Samsung 8505 plasma, mainly because it just has better colour rendition than the LCD/LED variety. But will it decode H.265? Will 4K down scale in any useful fashion, should I care?

          Questions, questions, questions. And the money is still in my pocket at this stage.

          1 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: These are not the pixels you are looking for.

      As an analogue person, there ain't no alternative to bandwidth. The effect of digitisation and compression/decompression + HDMI encoding/decoding in minimal bandwidth is to totally destroy the picture quality before it reaches the screen. I've yet to see a good moving digital picture even at 720. Why would anyone want 4K except as a static display screen?

      1 4
      1. Steven Jones
        Reply Icon

        Re: These are not the pixels you are looking for.

        "HDMI encoding/decoding in minimal bandwidth"

        What one earth are you talking about? HDMI does not have bandwidth issues (provided the cable meets the required specification, in which case you'll probably get no picture at all or, less likely, some very obvious picture breakup and/or sparklies). It's a digital transmission system which passes through the full video frame data rate. It has absolutely whatsoever to do with the lossy compression and encoding of video data. All that decoding is done before it gets to the HDMI cable.

        Incidentally, for what it's worth, as you are an analogue person, analogue colour signal transmissions were also heavily compressed using PAL, Secam or NTSC due to the way colour was encoded into the video signal. It's one of the myths of analogue folk that somehow their preferred method of transmission somehow contains more information when, in practice it's the reverse. Just Try squeezing an HD analogue video stream into the bandwidth used by a digital HD stream...

        4 0
        1. Charles 9
          Reply Icon

          Re: These are not the pixels you are looking for.

          "Incidentally, for what it's worth, as you are an analogue person, analogue colour signal transmissions were also heavily compressed using PAL, Secam or NTSC due to the way colour was encoded into the video signal. It's one of the myths of analogue folk that somehow their preferred method of transmission somehow contains more information when, in practice it's the reverse. Just Try squeezing an HD analogue video stream into the bandwidth used by a digital HD stream..."

          NTSC and PAL both work IIRC by emphasizing the luma quality over the chroma quality, and that's due to experiments that show we're more sensitive to luma detail than chroma detail. That's also why MPEG-based codecs also emphasize the luma over the chroma (thus YUV ratios like 4:2:2 and 4:2:0). To transmit 30 frames of raw 24-bit RGB video and 1 second og 16-bit 48kHz 2.0 Stereo audio, both uncompressed, requires, at a minimum, 249.6MB of storage and bandwidth. And that's PER SECOND. I would be curious to know, for the record, just how much digital information one could've crammed in the frequency allocations provided for one analog PAL or NTSC channel, to see whether or not it would've been enough to carry that much data at a time.

          As for the analog insistence of audiophiles, I believe the issue is not so much bandwidth as it is tonal idisyncracies. Some people DO have a very sensitive ear, I understand. Has anyone conducted a scientifically-significant study to see if audiophiles really can tell the difference between a good analog audio setup and a good digital one.

          1 0
          1. Vic
            Reply Icon

            Re: These are not the pixels you are looking for.

            NTSC and PAL both work IIRC by emphasizing the luma quality over the chroma quality

            No, not really.

            Analogue TV puts the chroma oonto a separate sub-carrier, but that's more about history than technology - it needed to be backwards-compatible, so that if you lose the colour info, it reverts to monochrome.

            Digital TV, on the other hand, has always separated luma and chroma, and compressed them separately. This is because the human eye is *very* much more sensitive to luma noise than chroma noise, so you can dial down the chroma quality with little or no perceived image degradation. Try the same on the luma and it looks *terrible*..

            I would be curious to know, for the record, just how much digital information one could've crammed in the frequency allocations provided for one analog PAL or NTSC channel

            With the level of compression artefacts current punters generally deem acceptable[1], it's about digital channels to one analogue one. Which sounds great until you realise that they're not creating six times more content - they're just spreading it more thinly. When Dave is showing newer episodes of HIGNFY than BBC2, you know you're in trouble...

            Has anyone conducted a scientifically-significant study to see if audiophiles really can tell the difference between a good analog audio setup and a good digital one.

            Yes, many times. There is plenty of research in this area.

            Sadly, many audiophiles simply will not trust the results of a double-bllind test; they firmly believe they can hear differences which are demonstrably not there.

            Vic.

            [1] I have no idea why people are so tolerant; most broadcast digital TV looks just *awful*. But people lap it up as long as it has a big enough frame size.

            1 0
            1. Vic
              Reply Icon

              Bah.

              > it's about digital channels to one analogue one

              That should, of course have read "it's about six digital channels to one analogue one"./

              One day, I'll learn to type...

              Vic.

              1 0
  2. Gene Cash Silver badge

    I don't give a **** about the TVs

    What I want is some of that 4K monitor goodness.

    Bastards owe it to me after all the 1920×1080 shit they shoveled at us.

    19 0
    1. JDX Gold badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: I don't give a **** about the TVs

      It's not hard to buy a hi-res monitor. iMac have them and you can buy the same basic monitor for your PC if you have the cash.

      1 0
      1. phil dude
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: I don't give a **** about the TVs

        My nice HP 30' is quite nice (2560x1600) . I had a samsung in oxford last year 27" 2500x1550?

        Thing is I *already* need a DVI-D port to drive this at 60Hz (there is an undocumented 1280x800 mode that I found by accident for HDMI 1.4 and regular DVI...). My dinky 1920x1200@120Hz 3D monitor for molecule wobbling requires DVD-I x2 , HDMI 1.4 x2.

        So it would seem we can have high res or high speed, or whatever the cable will deliver... Surely a screen is sold with "$SPECS" can be mapped to whatever service by known $REQUIREMENTS? I would think decoder boxes are already quite prominent in the average household.

        I get the feeling the really difficult challenges have been solved and now there is haggling over how to market it..?

        P.

        0 0
    2. Marcelo Rodrigues
      Reply Icon

      Re: I don't give a **** about the TVs

      Tell me about it. I could live with 1920, but 1080 is quite small. 1200 would be a world better.

      Of course, 2560 on my monitor is better, even so 4k.

      3 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I don't give a **** about the TVs

        1080? you do know that 1080 HD is 1920x1080?

        1 1
        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: I don't give a **** about the TVs

          Presumably not, and presumably that's why the marketing people reckon they can sell 2160p as 4K.

          0 0
  3. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

    Broadcasters penny pinching

    The problem I have is with the broadcasters: They compress the hell out of the picture to be able to cram more channels in.

    The "big" channels, are OK. But as soon as you start to hit the lesser viewed channels, or the +1 channels, the bit rate (& hence quality) drops like a stone.

    12 0
    1. Nigel Whitfield.
      Reply Icon

      Re: Broadcasters penny pinching

      Some of that is the broadcasters, but it's also down to the evils of capitalism ;-)

      Once spectrum became an "asset" or "resource" and was something that people had to pay for rights to, the end result was inevitable.

      Commercial broadcasters want to get as much cheap cheerful schlock in front of the eyeballs of the viewers as possible, and so they'll squeeze in extra channels, regardless of the shocking effect on picture quality.

      The BBC will want to justify their position by being seen to be broadly competitive, and so have their extra channels too.

      The PSB services have at least some technical constraints imposed upon them, but beyond that everything is up for grabs, sadly.

      And all this will be made worse by the intention to squeeze broadcasting into an ever smaller chunk of spectrum, so that the rest can be "monetised" more effectively; expect to see muxes switch to DVB-T2 and H.264 in future, even for SD, so that as the space shrinks, we can maintain roughly a similar level of service.

      And one of the sad things about this is that, frankly, a lot of people don't even care that much about picture quality; they're quite happy to watch 4:3 stuff zoomed in weird ways, for example, or have their TVs lined up with the most lurid colours imaginable. The conditions in which many people choose their TV don't exactly help them realise what they're missing out on, either.

      9 1
    2. Pugwash69
      Reply Icon

      Re: Broadcasters penny pinching

      For example: The remastered Star Trek original series. They broadcast the episodes on one of the cheap channels with compression artifacts obliterating them.

      0 0
    3. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Broadcasters penny pinching

      It's nothing to do with the broadcasters, it is the transmission network.

      A TV company that wants a channel pays for it. Therefore to make as much money as possible the Freeview people cram in as much as possible.

      0 0
  4. dogknees

    For me, none of this matters, it's a monitor and will go on the pc which does everything media related in my lounge.

    2 0
  5. codejunky Silver badge

    But first

    Shouldnt we sort out the bandwidth limits? I watch my TV shows online with my superfast 3mb at best in a city. I cant get any better than that because there is no virgin nor any fibre in my area (again in a major city).

    0 0
    1. Nigel Whitfield.
      Reply Icon

      Re: But first

      And that's why, even with multicast, which is only really going to make a difference with live TV, IP distribution will be a pipedream for huge areas of the country, for quite some time yet.

      You might get HEVC to squeeze UltraHD down to 11Mbps (which is the point at which Netflix will fall back to 1080), but even that is way more than a lot of people can get.

      And that's one reason why, for live stuff at least, there's still a need for broadcast services. Unless you're going to say to a large chunk of the population (including those, like you, in cities), "Sorry; you're never going to get 4K"

      0 0
      1. Piro Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: But first

        3840x2160 @ 11Mbps? Say it isn't true! I don't care how good H.265 is supposed to be (and from early testing, I haven't seen anything that's dramatically better than x264, and x264 is so polished and versatile, that it really makes the best of those bits for human eyesight).

        11Mbps average is perfectly good for 1920x1080 x264 video at 23.976, 24, 25 or 30 fps, but even then, Blu-ray bitrates often average double that (also, many commercial encoders perform worse than x264). But OK even with H.265 (HEVC) for FOUR TIMES THE AREA?

        I don't think so!

        Digital Cinema itself (for presentation in cinemas) has bitrates far beyond this, but also uses a "dumb" scheme - JPEG-2000 independently encoded frames, at 250Mbps, up to 4096x2160.

        Two hundred and fifty megabits per second. 11Mbps seems like an appalling joke in comparison for 3840x2160 content! (I refuse to get sucked in by these stupid monikers for resolutions, let's just always type the resolution).

        0 0
        1. Nigel Whitfield.
          Reply Icon

          Re: But first

          That's the switchover point, according to an interview with Netflix.

          The general aim will be 15.6Mbps, from memory, and 11Mbps is the point at which their adaptive streaming will fall back from UHD to standard HD, using HEVC (H.265). They'll also, where possible, be using HEVC for lower resolutions, to save on bandwidth, though it'll obviously take a while before there's a substantial chunk of kit out there able to decode it.

          The paper we linked to in the article really is well worth reading.

          1 0
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Next time you talk to Netflix

            Please ask them WTF is going on with their streaming rates!

            I live in the Bay Area in CA, have a 50Mbit/sec connection and Netflix tops out at ~6Mb/sec, the vast majority of the time it's around 2-4Mb/sec and on Friday and Saturday evenings it struggles to get about 1Mb/sec so them promoting that they're going to start 4K streaming is just a marketing joke!

            I've just started using Amazon instant video whenever possible as it will stream the same content as Netflix at 11-12Mb/sec whilst Netflix is buffering on me as it can't maintain >0.5Mb/sec.

            0 0
        2. Richard 12 Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: But first

          It might. In most cases large areas of the screen don't change much (if at all) from frame to frame, they simply shift in one direction or another.

          So you can do a lot of frames with very little data, and by choosing the key frames very carefully you get quite astounding compression.

          You can't do the latter very well on a live stream though, as you can't predict when the director is going to cut away.

          0 0
          1. James Hughes 1
            Reply Icon

            Re: But first

            H265 can get about twice the pixels in the same bitrate at best. The main difference is the variable macroblock sizes IIRC . H264 is 64x64 pixels, H265 can be much larger, with the associated improvement in compression when large areas are fairly constant. This plays in to the hand of higher resolution of course, where you have more pixels in the same image area.

            0 0
        3. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: But first

          "Digital Cinema itself (for presentation in cinemas) has bitrates far beyond this, but also uses a "dumb" scheme - JPEG-2000 independently encoded frames, at 250Mbps, up to 4096x2160."

          Really? That is an interesting factoid.

          1 0
        4. Vic
          Reply Icon

          Re: But first

          > a "dumb" scheme - JPEG-2000 independently encoded frames

          It has a major advantage for something like a cinema - bit errors do not propagate between frames. That's important unless you can guarantee zero errors - and you can't.

          Cinemas aren't bandwidth-constrained, so this is the right choice for them. Broadcast TV is rather different, especially when you expect unicast IP delivery...

          Vic.

          3 0
      2. Vic
        Reply Icon

        Re: But first

        > multicast, which is only really going to make a difference with live TV

        Internally, all the broadcasters carry their traffic as multicasts.

        It would be entirely possible for their output to go to customers as multicast - indeed, the company I now work for makes kit that does exactly that. Sadly, most punters cannot yet subscribe to multicast traffic, because most ISPs don't carry it.

        My pet idea is for broadcasters to ship traffic as multicast on a sort of NVOD-basis, which is buffered in the STB, and a unicast stream alongside to transmit the data between the start of the programme and the first chuink of multicast received. This would give the appearance of a VOD system, but with gratly reduced bandwidth.

        Never going to happen, though. Store all that valuable Intellectual Property on a hard disk? How very dare you[1]!

        Vic.

        [1] Yes, I know it happens already. But try talking to any of the copyright owners and watch the reaction...

        2 0
  6. John 172

    Broadcasting Linear TV Should End

    Why is it that the old fashioned concept of broadcasting linear channels is being applied to the internet and being kept alive? Netflix have it right, a true on demand service with no adverts. It's a liberation not having adverts being forced down your throat all the time and having an on demand only service forces you to think a little and often the choice is to switch the TV off (or put the fireplace on since Netflix added that). If network bandwidth needs to increase for this to apply widely then so be it, let that happen!

    3 7
    1. Lamont Cranston
      Reply Icon

      Re: Broadcasting Linear TV Should End

      You can keep your Netflix - I like my advert/license fee funded background noise!

      No joke icon, as I'm serious. I tried Netflix, but didn't like it - TV should be a passive experience (never mind that I am one of the many people doomed to never have the audio/visual be in sync).

      1 3
      1. JEDIDIAH
        Reply Icon
        Linux

        Re: Broadcasting Linear TV Should End

        Netflix can be as passive as you want it to be. Just start it up and it will keep itself going.

        0 0
    2. MrXavia
      Reply Icon

      Re: Broadcasting Linear TV Should End

      I'll keep my license funded TV thanks, until services start providing DRM free downloads I will stick to Broadcast TV and Blu-Rays.

      5 0
  7. This Side Up
    Stop

    "Ready" = NOT

    "an “HD Ready” TV isn't necessarily capable of receiving HD broadcasts."

    Isn't it about time this misleading description was banned by the ASA?

    6 0
    1. Nigel Whitfield.
      Reply Icon

      Re: "Ready" = NOT

      Technically, I'm sure that they would say it's not a misleading description.

      The HD Ready symbol has a clear definition, one which distinct from the HD TV symbol, and it has never been claimed by those who came up with the label that it meant anything other than being able to display from a different source.

      They are aided and abetted in that by the fact that a logo or symbol is usually treated quite differently to the actual words themselves.

      I think, in the UK at least, you could make a much better argument for the "HD TV" symbol being misleading, where it's applied to kit that doesn't have DVB-T2 and H.264, because it won't receive the UK HD broadcasts.

      I'm not excusing the massive confusion caused by the HD Ready symbol - just explaining that I'm pretty sure that, as far as the ASA would be concerned, the symbol itself has a clear meaning, which is explained on the website, and so is unlikely to actually be considered a misleading description.

      Of course, a lot may also depend on the context too; just putting the "HD Ready" logo in a corner of the ad is one thing, but saying something like "Watch Freeview programmes in high definition on this HD Ready TV" is a different matter entirely and would very probably be misleading, if it wasn't made clear additional equipment was necessary.

      Part of the problem, of course, is the poorly trained sales staff who didn't make things clear, too. And while the ASA can regulate ads, it has no power over the sticky labels granted to TV makers and printed on their boxes, or what salesmen say.

      To be absolutely clear, I do think the HD Ready/HD TV labelling turned out to be a monstrous balls up. I'm just not convinced you'd actually have any joy with the ASA.

      1 2
      1. Ken Hagan Gold badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: "Ready" = NOT

        You may be right about the ASA, but I'd like to think you'd see a different outcome if you went to court.

        It strikes me a clearly dishonest to say "cures cancer" on the label and then weasel out by saying that the curvy lines on your logo are merely a pattern designed to remind you of text and that it is explained clearly on your website that no medicinal properties are claimed for the product.

        Given the furore, it would appear that 99% of the population agree so I'd have no problem finding 12 like-minded ordinary folk for my jury.

        2 0
  8. Blacklight
    Alert

    Uppengraden...

    What about kit that "upscales"? It's not entirely clear if they just upscale, or can actually handle 4K content too (and just relay it).

    I recently swapped out my Onkyo TX-SR609 for a TX-NR609 - basically the same model A/V, but with (and the reason I bought it) a shiny CAT5 port and DLNA etc, and also 4K upscaling. Most of the docs only say "upscaling", although one says "Upscaling and processing" - so it's not clear if it could actually cope with 4k content natively. They do say it will upscale to 4K2K (3840 x 2160) - so if it can output, I'd assume it could relay it?

    Still ,anyone who buys this beasty : http://www.costco.co.uk/view/product/uk_catalog/cos_1,cos_1.1,cos_1.1.7/142976

    will be a bit narked if it doesn't work, won't they? :)

    1 0
  9. psychonaut

    jerky crappy crap

    i used to have a 32" 100Hz tv. it was awesome. picture was fab

    when i bought a new panasonic vierra 50 something inch a few years ago, i couldnt believe how jerky it was.

    the colour is great though.

    i though it was me at first, i couldnt read any scrolling text without "tracking" it with my eyes and i kept thinking that i just couldnt keep up with the action on the tele. it was like i was missing bits in a blur.

    sort that shit out first then lets talk about more pixels than i cant see properly anyway.

    or would you like a 3d screen sir? no? curved screen sir? no? no?

    just make what we have already work you dicks!

    just make a hd screen at 100hz or something. ffs.

    6 1
    1. Blacklight
      Reply Icon

      Re: jerky crappy crap

      Check all your in-path devices.

      I had "sideways" jerk (particularly with horizontal panning) on some films - being played by a PS3. It had 24Hz enabled automatically (depending on content), my A/V receiver passes through 24 Hz and the TV is 24Hz capable.

      And the "capable" word was the problem - as I was blaming the telly. I had to enable "movie mode" on the TV to get 24Hz behaving, which has now eliminated the stutter. This differs from the 100Mhz "Trumotion" stuff, which makes everything slide around sickeningly :\

      The stupid thing is the TV was telling me it was a 24Hz signal, but it didn't deal with it "properly" until an option was enabled. Le sigh.

      2 0
  10. Refugee from Windows
    Boffin

    Receiving equipment

    Alas the meatbag end of the system wouldn't notice any difference at this end. My peepers just about make standard HD not beyond.

    However with silly bandwidth required for possible transmissions, we could just go back to having 5 terrestrial channels again.

    2 0
  11. pear

    Grumble?

    I'm all for high res content but for broadcast they really need to sort out the quality of "HD" before they start broadcasting 4k. I'm glad, at least, that pretty much everything BBC is now broadcast in 'HD' and it's not bad.

    Compare itv hd to NHK and you'll wonder why itv are allowed to call it "HD".

    As for content distribution the failure of Sony et al to produce an optical disc format will make it hard for it to take off.

    0 0
  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It does look like another mis-labelling/mis-selling balls up coming down the line to flog sets to foolish punters before the standards have been established.

    Higher frame rates and colour depth have potential to make a difference to home viewers but those are the standards that are not yet locked down. All the evidence I've seen suggests that at normal viewing distances it's impossible to resolve the detail on an HD set (in most cases impossible to tell the difference between 720 and 1080) so the resolution is the least impactful of the changes UHDTV could offer.

    Ho hum.

    It's not exactly easy to watch HD at the moment. The EPGs are a mess - where a channel is available in both HD and SD there should be a single EPG entry with your box delivering the right resolution.

    And, as others have pointed out, a lot of HD broadcast looks terrible as the bitrate is just too low. HD can look fabulous but so much broadcast is so far below what the format is capable of it's a joke.

    1 0
  13. John Sanders
    Megaphone

    Meh!

    Meh!

    1 1
  14. NBCanuck

    HD Ready.....really??

    Will "HD Ready" for a TV turn to be what "Vista Capable" was for computers?

    1 0
  15. Philip Lewis

    Excellent headline Mr Sub-editor

    Heading says it all

    0 0
  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great headline , worth an exclamation mark

    "4k-ing hell!" must be a Reg Classic.

    4 0
  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Here in the US

    Directv has announced they'll be doing 4K programming, and rumor is that they're already testing it.

    I doubt there will be all that much demand for it, other than PPV channels and the main HBO/Showtime type channels. The difference between SD (which was analog for most people) and HD was dramatic. The difference with 4K is minimal, if even noticeable at all, from normal viewing distances.

    I had a few friends buy HDTVs and I found they weren't even set up to properly view in HD - i.e., their receivers that had been configured for their SDTV were never reconfigured so they were still displaying SD, or they were tuning to the SD channel numbers not the HD channels. If someone had a 4K TV that was only using an HD source, I doubt I'd notice visually. There will probably be a lot of people bragging about their new 4K TV even if they never watch a single true 4K source on it...

    1 0
  18. eldakka

    15Mbps streaming over the internet?

    Hmm, I pay $60/month for 150GB month quota.

    hours/month = (quota (MB) / rate (MB/s))/ seconds in an hour

    = (150GB*1000) / (15Mbps/8) / 3600

    = 22.22 hours

    So I can get 22.22 hours of 4K TV for my $60/month.

    Of course, I ALREADY use up all my quota each month on SD TV shows and the odd 720p/1080p movie plus game downloads/patches.

    Yeah not gonna happen.

    1 0
  19. system11

    So, buy a new TV on which my existing HD content will look ... awful? At a time where world & dog are finally embracing Blu-Ray?

    I despair with the TV manufacturing industry. 4k should be 4x1080, then you could scale without artifacts.

    0 0
    1. Vic
      Reply Icon

      > I despair with the TV manufacturing industry. 4k should be 4x1080

      It is...

      The unit I was playing with at work the other week actually has 4 video feeds[1] - each one a 1080 feed. The 4 are quadranted to make the 4K display.

      Vic.

      [1] I believe this is fairly standard, but as I'm not really on the 4K project, I can't be sure...

      0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like