3D Is Dead. Will 4k And 8k TV Make It?

I think most people sit too far away from their TVs to benefit from 4k.

I think 4k is fine for now, we dont need 8k for at least 10 years. We need great passive 3d, excellent picture quality, energy effificency, interface improvements, content delivery systems, paper thin, etc
 
pigwalk said:
DSL providers here use SDV video because they're limited to a 25-40mb (or less) copper pair (depending if plain pots or VDSL2). Switched digital is a necessity because of bandwidth limitations, whatever is leftover from TV is your internet. Also there's a nasty little delay switching channels. When you have hundreds of qams pushing 36mb'ish each SDV isn't really necessary.
Click to expand...

That is used by more than just DSL. That is used by fiber and DSL. People seem to think that fiber gives you something magic. But it doesn't you have just as many limits in both cases. The reason for SDV isn't due to your connection at the home. It is due to the limit of the backbone. Lets say you have 300 stations, If you need around 13 Mbps per HD station that is 3900Mb just for video. Most are going to have a 10Gbps backbone (unless they are doing some type of LAG). So that is 40% of your backbone being used just for video, in a lot of cases for stations that nobody is ever going to watch. So instead you go with SDV and look to see if somebody is wanting to watch a station, if they are then you start putting the data on the network only for the stations that your customers are watching.

Cable networks were made to handle video content, Telco / ISP networks were not. So they have to come up with ways around that.
 
Our Fiber ONT's still feed out an RF qam over coax to the boxes but I can definitely see the benefit qualitywise of going SDV. I'd imagine that rewiring existing customers to ethernet is a huge reason why they don't.
 
Godmachine said:
You'll have a really hard time finding a 1080p TV that isn't a total piece of junk that's new in 2-3 years. So it would be smart now to actually buy the best one you can afford because otherwise you'll get the pleasure of upscaling all of your 1080p content to 4K and trust me it doesn't look nearly as sharp doing so. 720p looks butt fucking ugly at upscaled 4K.
Click to expand...
The difference between 480p and 1080p is noticeable. The difference between 1080p and 4K is not, unless you have a ridiculous monitor, which most consumers don't. Cablecos/Telcos also don't have the bandwidth to push it either and they won't, because most consumers won't demand it. I'd like to see it, but it's going to wither faster than 3D. At least 3D can already be taken advantage of - it will hang around.

Ryokurin said:
First of all Uverse isn't coax. and coax can handle 1080p just fine, it's more on how your cable company compresses everything on their end. The quote alone tells me the author really has no clue on what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
The author is still right about 4 streams. They can only fit so much through the pipe, unless things have changed. My dad brokered the U-Verse compression technology with the engineering firm that designed it.
 
I have a 3D TV that came with 3D glasses and I barely watch 3D. I think 4K will take 5 years to get mainstream. There is hardly any content yet. Upscaled jazz is not worthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top