New Streaming Tech Deal Means Your 4K TV Isn’t A Dead Duck

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The HEVC Advance group expected everyone to pay up for the H.265 codec (which 4K streaming is largely built on), but they have backed down on their pricing demands.

…sets that support 4K streaming have been equipped with HEVC H.265 decoders to handle the streams of Netflix, Amazon’s and others. So if those key video streaming platforms decided to switch their compression systems to a rival format like VP9 in response to the HEVC Advance demands, owners of the current crop of 4K TVs could well find themselves no longer able to play 4K streams from the world’s biggest streaming services. Not a pleasant thought given that these streaming services are still pretty much the only source of native 4K content right now.
 
Considering how small of a user base 4K has, right now would be the best time to switch up codecs.
 
Even if the change was made. it wouldn't make your 4kTV worthless. It just means that you would have to buy a separate streaming box. If you can afford a 4k TV, you can afford to buy a separate streaming box if the built in one stops working. Zero fucks given by me on this issue. The industry should find the cheapest solution, whatever it happens to be.
 
For the uneducated, which boxes support 4k streaming? Or can i get just about any old clone $50 android box?
 
[21CW]killerofall;1042043037 said:
Even if the change was made. it wouldn't make your 4kTV worthless. It just means that you would have to buy a separate streaming box. If you can afford a 4k TV, you can afford to buy a separate streaming box if the built in one stops working. Zero fucks given by me on this issue. The industry should find the cheapest solution, whatever it happens to be.
Click to expand...

4K is cheap man....if you are in the market for a television, going 4K is not a big step from standard 1080P sets. Like $200 upsale can get you into the 4K market.

I still have a Home Theater magazine that has a headline "First Plasma Under $10K MSRP". And this was several years after Plasma was on the market. 4K never ever, had that problem.
 
westrock2000 said:
4K is cheap man....if you are in the market for a television, going 4K is not a big step from standard 1080P sets. Like $200 upsale can get you into the 4K market.

I still have a Home Theater magazine that has a headline "First Plasma Under $10K MSRP". And this was several years after Plasma was on the market. 4K never ever, had that problem.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I bought my current 34in 1080p tv for $1300 back in 2006 time frame. Today for that much I can get a 60+in 4k tv. For about $500 there are pretty decent 42-48in 4k tvs.

4k came down in price a lot faster than 1080p did.
 
nightanole said:
For the uneducated, which boxes support 4k streaming? Or can i get just about any old clone $50 android box?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are wanting to stream. Netflix and Vudu only support Roku 4 and a very few select tv units. Nothing PC or console is supported. Sony had a 4K digital store but they requires a Sony tv with a device connected. So for the most part you need to get a roku 4 as of current if you want to bring your own 4k monitor for streaming. Don't expect that to change much yet.
 
4K is cheap but it's also pretty pointless. From normal viewing distances it really only makes a noticeable difference on very large TVs. There's also next to no 4k content now or in the foreseeable future. 4K TVs tend to make 1080p and 720p content look crappy. About the only use I see for 4K TVs is buying a 42ish inch 4K TV and using it as a PC monitor.
 
Most 4K tv's I've seen are Smart TV's and should be able to download appropriate updates.
 
I find it funny that people pay a premium for a 4k display when the only source material is low bitrate streaming.
 
They backed off mainly because places like Netflix have been developing their own codecs that are more specialized or versatile for their needs. It's surprisingly easy to work around codec copyrights, it's mostly a matter of "is it worth the cost of working around it, or just paying the license."
 
For the consumer, it doesn't mean much of anything. If you buy a cheaper or early model "4K" TV that doesn't have the UHD standard, but instead just some apps for "4K", you might need to buy a UHD Blu-Ray player or a set-top box in the future to work with UHD content or you might have to buy a new set if it isn't compatible depending on how cheap you went or how early you bought into the "4K" hype

Many companies tried to jump on the "4K" bandwagon just to sell you new hardware and services and they hopped they could license HEVC H. 265 cheap from MPEG LA without having to plan for the HEVC Group being the ones that own HEVC or worrying about having all the current requirements that the UHD standard needs like HDMI 2.0a and HDCP along with the larger color gamut and HDR support.

The HEVC group did plan on making a big stink and that might of hurt some of the companies, but the industry as a whole always was moving to make UHD more than just being 4K and now that the standards are pretty much ready and CES 2016 right around the corner, they HEVC group knows it has less to worry about and the companies that are offering only "4K" hardware or services without being ready for UHD will either have to move to support UHD and update their offerings, or not and have to fight for the low end of the market.

Either way the HEVC group will get paid and the consumer going forward will get options that are adhering to the UHD standard. Th HEVC group realized that it didn't have to fight hard to get the licensing deals it wanted and the money it wants from the majority of the industry.

For them to keep fighting at this point wouldn't have made them as much and both sides realized it.

This would only have been a larger issue if many more companies were selling services or products for "4K" and the UHD standards were going to be finalized much later so as to make them a threat to the HEVC group.

As it stands now only a few early adopters will be truly left out of a way to get UHD and the rest of the market will have offerings that use the UHD standard and the HEVC group will get it's licensing deals from all of them so they don't have to fight like they might have thought.

Still gonna be ton of people watching 1080i/p content on their "4K' sets and thinking it is UHD.
 
Exavior said:
Exactly, I bought my current 34in 1080p tv for $1300 back in 2006 time frame. Today for that much I can get a 60+in 4k tv. For about $500 there are pretty decent 42-48in 4k tvs.

4k came down in price a lot faster than 1080p did.
Click to expand...

Cmdrmonkey said:
4K is cheap but it's also pretty pointless. From normal viewing distances it really only makes a noticeable difference on very large TVs. There's also next to no 4k content now or in the foreseeable future. 4K TVs tend to make 1080p and 720p content look crappy. About the only use I see for 4K TVs is buying a 42ish inch 4K TV and using it as a PC monitor.
Click to expand...

Anecdotally, I bought a Samsung 55" 4k TV/Xbox One package on Black Friday weekend from Best Buy for $1,000. The TV went in my living room to replace a six year old 46" Samsung that cost somewhere around $2-$3,000. It's possible the existing Sammy I had has reached it's half-life but the new 4K, even with 1080 content is a MASSIVE improvement in both vibrance and detail...and no, I don't use the standard shitty picture modes that blow out colors and crush detail. If you don't spend time to calibrate your new TV, your losing out on a ton of capability. When I asked the guy at the counter how much the TV goes for by itself, he said $1,300 but when I looked online about a week later, it goes for about $750-$800. I'd never buy a TV by itself at that price point because it's basically entry point but, I got a higher quality TV that's larger than the one it replaced and was roughly 1/3 the cost of the set it replaced.
 
Wrecked Em said:
I find it funny that people pay a premium for a 4k display when the only source material is low bitrate streaming.
Click to expand...

Yes but a completely different codec.

Bluray file size is huge if you use dvd compression codec.

Ive seen file sizes drop by half when switching from h264 to h10 h265. On the other hand cpu usage goes through the roof.

File size for movies could drop even further if producers would stop intentionally introducing film grain noise into digital movies "for artistic affect and realism".

I should make a mp3 plugin so people can experience wow/flutter...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top