Devices > Video Cards, Monitors, Televisions, and Projectors
4K TV's
Sparks67:
--- Quote from: jmone on November 14, 2013, 03:11:39 am ---Sorry - I meant 4K commercial content for mainstream content such as Movies and TV.
--- End quote ---
The problem is that the Cable companies are refusing to upgrade to fiber optic to the home. Although, NHK has been developing the technology since the late 1990's. The link that I gave for the audio is just one article, but it NHK's magazine is called Broadcast Technology. Use this as a search term "http www nhk or jp strl publica bt en" in google. Remove the EN, and see on how many hits you get in Japanese. 4k is not new technology, because a USA company developed a 4k format back in early 2000. IBM sold the technology to those Taiwanese LCD manufacturers in 2005.
Vocalpoint:
--- Quote from: Sparks67 on November 14, 2013, 09:34:27 am --- The problem is that the Cable companies are refusing to upgrade to fiber optic to the home.
--- End quote ---
Exactly. Here in Calgary - Shaw Cable somehow has it in their head that I (and all other customers) should pay for this upgraded infrastructure (while they take their time to upgrade it) whilst continuing to serve up the same crap programming and sending us increase letters every two months.
People have simply had enough of the price increases and are dropping them in record numbers. Personally I am waiting to see if our government gives us the chance to cherry-pick our channels sometime next year and if that doesn't come to pass - I will be dropping them as well. There is no point in paying $200+ a month for a generally useless product...
VP
6233638:
--- Quote from: Vocalpoint on November 14, 2013, 06:56:48 am ---And since no one cares about "non-commercial" content - they will not care about 4K until there is LOTS of "commercial" content and at a price cheaper than HD is now.
--- End quote ---
Again, the key word is video. Anything you can do on a computer benefits from 4K. My HTPC is the only source I have hooked up to my TV - it just gets used as a giant monitor. I couldn't care less about broadcast. I would like to see a 4K disc format of course, but it's not essential for me to upgrade to 4K. Games, photo editing/viewing, and general computer use is enough.
glynor:
--- Quote from: jmone on November 14, 2013, 05:32:14 am ---Edit: One day we may even get "lossless" video so we can prattle on like the audiophiles! Bring on 4gbps media!
--- End quote ---
There's no such thing, since the sources are almost always captured in a lossy codec. But, for reference, 1080p60 @ 4:4:4, 10-bit is 3.73gbps uncompressed, not counting audio or alpha. The same quality, but scaled to 4K would require more than 15gbps. There's no non-flash hard drive that can push those kinds of data rates, much less a public network!
The problem with 4K displays (assuming they can work out the kinks using them as computer monitors anytime soon) is absolutely one of content delivery. Even assuming that content is filmed and edited at 4K (which is a pretty big jump, even for many major motion pictures, much less TV content), there is absolutely no way to deliver it at data rates where it makes sense.
Don't even get me started about whatever Netflix and YouTube are calling 4K. Their 1080p content is streamed at laughably bad data rates. Scaling it to 4K is just going to make it WORSE, not better.
Generally, though, I agree with you Nathan. But before we even get to full quality 4:4:4, or increase framerates, we really should get 1080p30 4:2:0 at higher data rates than 1.5mbps. Even BluRay is pretty terrible "quality" compared to the sources, but what they put online is a complete joke.
6233638:
--- Quote from: glynor on November 14, 2013, 02:37:45 pm ---There's no such thing, since the sources are almost always captured in a lossy codec.
--- End quote ---
Well that's not strictly true - Red shoots raw video, and I'm fairly sure DPX files are uncompressed.
That said, I know someone that does mastering for DVDs & Blu-rays, and honestly if it is properly encoded (40GB X.264 for the Blu-rays) you're approaching visually lossless.
It's not identical of course, but the situation is not as bad as people seem to make out. People make a big deal about chroma resolution, but if you're using madVR on a HTPC, you're generally not missing much. The bigger difference is probably the fact that we're still encoding 8-bit video, which looks worse and is less efficient to compress - but properly dithered 8-bit encodes should look pretty good.
I won't say no to improvements of course.
--- Quote from: glynor on November 14, 2013, 02:37:45 pm ---assuming they can work out the kinks using them as computer monitors anytime soon
--- End quote ---
This is not really a monitor problem, but a controller problem. The display itself is treating the panel as 2x 1920x2160, so it's up to the video card to keep two separate outputs perfectly in sync - something they've not really had to do until now.
--- Quote from: glynor on November 14, 2013, 02:37:45 pm ---Even assuming that content is filmed and edited at 4K (which is a pretty big jump, even for many major motion pictures, much less TV content), there is absolutely no way to deliver it at data rates where it makes sense.
--- End quote ---
Well CES is right around the corner, hopefully we will see something about it then. We already have the tech to build a good 4K distribution format though.
Quad layer BDXL gives you 128GB storage, and moving from H.264 to H.265 effectively halves your filesize requirements - so when compared to the current 50GB Blu-ray discs, where ~40GB of that can be video, you have better quality just looking at the raw numbers. With H.265 you only need about 80GB storage for comparable quality to the best Blu-rays.
In addition to that, 4x the resolution is generally not 4x the complexity, and if they moved from 8-bit to 10-bit encoding, it would be even more efficient. As resolution goes up, the size of compression artifacts should be smaller as well.
So using 80GB with H.265 is going to give you better quality than we currently have on Blu-ray. That would actually fit on a triple-layer BDXL disc. (100GB)
--- Quote from: glynor on November 14, 2013, 02:37:45 pm ---But before we even get to full quality 4:4:4, or increase framerates, we really should get 1080p30 4:2:0 at higher data rates than 1.5mbps. Even BluRay is pretty terrible "quality" compared to the sources, but what they put online is a complete joke.
--- End quote ---
Actually, it would be better to move to 4K than 1080p with 4:4:4 chroma. 4K 4:2:0 contains 1080p chroma.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version