Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Mr Skrunts on 14 January 2014, 09:58:56
-
Most of us by now have a flat screen TV of the 1080p spec, having a nosey around on the net i see the 4k spec TV screens are being offered by more retailers and keeping the 16:9 aspect ratio.
So where is it all heading as I am getting confused with it all (not difficult in my case ::) )
I have seen 4K and 8K TV mentioned but Phillips have also brought out a 21:9 TV which is probably what some of the films that's I have tried to watch recently are broadcast in (Sadly I couldn't read the credits on the left and right hand side of the screen )
But how long will it be before broadcasters catch up and will they try to charge us yet again for the higher spec just like they did with the HD.
ma@.confused.oof
-
Simply put its 4x1080p ish, at 4000p. Just more detail.
Pointless at the moment as there's no content available. Although Sky will start broadcasting this year. Apparently.
If it's taken on to its full extent, 4k is very impressive, in quality and cost. :)
-
21:9 TV which is probably what some of the films that's I have tried to watch recently are broadcast in (Sadly I couldn't read the credits on the left and right hand side of the screen )
21:9 is so-called 'cinema aspect' and is what films are (or at least almost always were) filmed in - if your TV is chopping off the left and the right side, turn off 'zoom' or whatever the mode is called. You should have black bands at the top and bottom of your screen, not be losing the left & right of the frame - unless of course the TV station has already (poorly) made that choice for you.
For some reason when widescreen TV came about 16:9 was chosen as the de-facto format.. which meant that at it's inception most TV content had black bars down the sides and half the films had black bars top & bottom ;D
While I do love my 1080p, I don't see me going for a 4K TV all that soon - at my viewing distance (~5m) and screen size (70") I can't see pixels with 1080p. 4K would just be bragging rights.
Unless someone wants to lend me £600,000: http://www.costco.co.uk/view/product/uk_catalog/cos_1,cos_1.1,cos_1.1.7/142976
-
What we know as 1080p is 1920 x 1080, 4k is 3840 × 2160 and 8K is 7680 × 4320.
I don't expect to see much broadcast TV in these formats as the TV broadcast bands have been squeezed recently to make way for more 4G phones. The "HD" they are currently broadcasting is pretty heavily compressed (compare the picture quality to blue-ray some time). Making a meaningful attempt at broadcasting 4k means they'd have to cut some of those fascinating shopping channels. ::) I doubt many "ordinary" consumers would appreciate the difference either.
As to blue ray and streaming delivery, then maybe. As I've said before, though, you're going to need a huuuge TV, and have your nose touching the screen to notice.
I guess the TV manufacturers are hoping this'll be the new HD Ready Full HD 3D Smart TV \ <insert latest sales buzzword here> that'll make everyone rush out and buy a new set they don't need.
-
That said, I do hope a lot of
mugs punters buy them as, once the panels are nice and cheap, I quite fancy one of them as a computer monitor. :-*
-
16:9 was chosen as the widescreen aspect ratio as at the time of concept, there were many different ratios and it was the best fit for all of them e.g. it was a compromise format. Now, its the standard aspect ratio for bradcast images.
As for 4k etc, this I suspect is being driven by ever larger panel sizes as if you look at HD on a 60 inch screen you can see the pixels like you used to on the older CRT units......plus of course the industry needs to keep coming up with new 'better' formats to drive demand for the 'latest thing'.
Probablem is that if you consider broadcast 'HD', you dont actualy today get 'HD', you only get 'HD'ish.....so the bandwidth for 4k will be challenging.....although TV is likely to move over to streaming based predominantly over the next ten years.
-
Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?
It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper. ;)
-
Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?
Anyone who's been to a cinema in the last 5 years or so probably has.
It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper. ;)
There's a difference between watching carefully prepared demo footage streamed locally with very low compression while you're standing 3 feet away from the TV in John Lewis, as opposed to in a real living-room environment. It's a moot point at the moment, as you can't get content. Until you can get physical media with 4k content, or are able to stream it, there's not much point.
-
Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?
Anyone who's been to a cinema in the last 5 years or so probably has.
It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper. ;)
There's a difference between watching carefully prepared demo footage streamed locally with very low compression while you're standing 3 feet away from the TV in John Lewis, as opposed to in a real living-room environment. It's a moot point at the moment, as you can't get content. Until you can get physical media with 4k content, or are able to stream it, there's not much point.
The point is willy-waving down the pub/ on forums isn't it?
-
Hmmm. I wonder, how many have actually seen 4k in action?
Anyone who's been to a cinema in the last 5 years or so probably has.
It is impressive. No, it really is. Although binoculars are obviously cheaper. ;)
There's a difference between watching carefully prepared demo footage streamed locally with very low compression while you're standing 3 feet away from the TV in John Lewis, as opposed to in a real living-room environment. It's a moot point at the moment, as you can't get content. Until you can get physical media with 4k content, or are able to stream it, there's not much point.
The point is willy-waving down the pub/ on forums isn't it?
Oh, yeah, that's right. Got to keep up with the Joneses, you know. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26795734/Smilies/kaffeetrinker_2.gif)
-
Thought not. ::)
-
Oh, yeah, that's right. Got to keep up with the Joneses, you know. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26795734/Smilies/kaffeetrinker_2.gif)
I have a friend who really is Mr Jones .. it's thanks to watching his setup that I now own the same TV and same Arcam decoder & amplifiers.
Keeping up with the Joneses really is expensive ;D
-
I've been to some 4k demo's it really is incredible, no other word. They filmed some of the 2012 Olympics in it, 100 meter final for one (which is what I saw) The detail is that good is even from the finish, they could easily spot that guy who threw a bottle in. Very, very impressive, but.
It won't happen, we simply don't have the broadcast capability yet, it would take up far to much bandwidth. It's several years off at least before investing IMHO :y
-
Agreed, until there is a media source which supports the resolution then its of little impact (similar to Full HD and Blue ray).
Of course 4K also makes sense for 3D applications to.
Streaming wise, rule of thumb you need four times the bandwidth, about 12-20Mbs.....which is do able on a fibre to the curb line
-
Agreed, until there is a media source which supports the resolution then its of little impact (similar to Full HD and Blue ray).
Of course 4K also makes sense for 3D applications to.
Streaming wise, rule of thumb you need four times the bandwidth, about 12-20Mbs.....which is do able on a fibre to the curb line
There is enough trouble delivering a 800 Kbs stream to customers ;D
Highest 'standard' at the moment is around 1.2 Mbs, so again it's way off on that too. :)
-
Depends how its routed, your ability to access the delivery network and the source servers ability.
You can stream that rate pretty reliably if the server set is man enough (or the user count small enough).
As said before, its on demand that gets hard, scheduled sending is a doddle and puts mcuh less starin on the network and servers thanks to the likes of E-tree
-
That said, I do hope a lot of mugs punters buy them as, once the panels are nice and cheap, I quite fancy one of them as a computer monitor. :-*
Highly recomended. ::) :y :y
-
Broadcast TV will largely disappear over the next 10 to 20 years as we all move over to fibre streaming. This is already starting to happen in a big way in the US with cable and satellite subscribers falling and people going direct to the content providers. The NFL and NBL leagues are now streaming direct and this shows where football and other sports are going in the future. This is why Uncle Rupert is rapidly expanding their range and portfolio of programs, to keep them ahead, where it will be directly streamed content that is king and the major income source. All major studios will go this route with only minor studios syndicating to get the volumes.
The TV broadcast market is going to get very interesting and I'm not sure how antiquated things like the BBC TV licence are going to be relevant and fit into this new ecosystem (Although their new iplayer subscription service for archived programs, may be the start of this transformation for them). Like all revolutions, the new, smart and nimble operators that will lead and go with the market flow will make vast fortunes and those that are left behind will disappear. The current TV companies need to be like uncle Rupert embracing the future now and be building their direct streaming systems and payment models. The Internet is going to do to the TV market, what is has already done to the big price box shifting market, book publishing, record industries etc.
-
Is streaming the TV going over the net structure or does it have a different level to support it as I once heard of www.normal-as-an-example.com and www2.as-the-future-is-the-way-to-go.com,
Over the years as speed has increased from 512kb to 1mb then 2mb adsl etc I have noticed that even loading a google page it has slowed as the net speed and demand have risen.
I now live in a rural village, my internet speed is less than where I moved from but even in the last 4 1/2 years since I moved I have seen the access speed of loading pages dwindle, is this because of the on demand TV services.
numpty@confused.oof ::) :y
-
The major challenges for on-demand lie at the source rather than the user, as you can imagine, if you have 10,000 user each wanting thier own specfic content at thier specific time you end up with a hell of a lot bandwidth and processing requirement at the source.
For scheduled viewing its easier, there are established features which support a single stream from the source all the way to an edge router where it is then sent down the required subsrcibers cable hence it does not load the core network (hence the 'tree' description).
Page speed is dependent on many things, not least 'the page' and its file size, the server, the loading on the local network etc, many variables.
-
The major challenges for on-demand lie at the source rather than the user, as you can imagine, if you have 10,000 user each wanting thier own specfic content at thier specific time you end up with a hell of a lot bandwidth and processing requirement at the source.
For scheduled viewing its easier, there are established features which support a single stream from the source all the way to an edge router where it is then sent down the required subsrcibers cable hence it does not load the core network (hence the 'tree' description).
Page speed is dependent on many things, not least 'the page' and its file size, the server, the loading on the local network etc, many variables.
This is not really a problem at present, at least for us Sky use Akamai and they have an extensive networks across the country. So the load is spread out across a geological area, so although it's say 10k of users they will be spread out for demand.
We push one item of content out, it's up to the 3rd party about how they deal with it.
There other complications is that single bit of content, often needs to be transcoded into various versions depending on device. You want once version for iPhones, another for Pads, another for Windows, xBox ect, so quite a lot of work to do there once an item is ingested.
Netflix have gone to cloud based setup with AWS, so they spin up a load of virtual boxes on demand, as their needs are very peaky.
-
Any on-demand delivery mechanism needs to scale to tens of millions of users quite rapidly if it takes off in a big way, though. Somewhere along that journey the "it's in the cloud, so it's not our problem" strategy will fall over, I reckon. ;)
-
There other complications is that single bit of content, often needs to be transcoded into various versions depending on device. You want once version for iPhones, another for Pads, another for Windows, xBox ect, so quite a lot of work to do there once an item is ingested.
But again, thats a server based load issue and not something that is network impacting and hence not a blocker to TV over broadband.
-
Google have had a fibre project in Kansas City for several years as a proving ground for a 1Gbit/s network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber)
-
Google have had a fibre project in Kansas City for several years as a proving ground for a 1Gbit/s network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber)
They're not the only ones - Singapore has country-wide Gb to the door, it's also easily available in Stockholm I believe and coming soon in Seattle..
All places it's relatively easy to install the infrastructure though - either due to dense population, small areas or masses of existing underground conduits.
Not so easy to string fibre across the whole of the UK..