Is 8K the reason why the US is reluctant to upgrade the infrastructure?

[lonewolf2koc@hotmail.com]

Ikegami has their 8K outside broadcast truck for NHK in time for the 2016 Olympics. Now who would be in their right mind going spend millions in 4K when 8K already in sight?

http://www.sportsvideo.org/2016/02/07/nhks-newest-8k-mobile-unit-brings-super-bowl-into-8k-era/

For the smaller pocket guys like us, if we spent $50K on a 4K rated lens this year, will it be good enough for 8K? Thanks but no thanks. This 4K game is costly and I'm standing back to get the big guys throw their money away first. I'm sensing that 4K will be like 720p and 8K will ultimately be the equivalent 1080p standards recently.

What so risky about this is that I have not seen any true 4K over the air broadcasts in the US. Are the broadcasters reluctant to upgrade to 4K and wait for 8K or just stick with 720p and 1080i for a very long time.

 

[Batutta]

I actually don't think broadcast will drive 8k adoption. More likely it will be VR headsets, which need to be around 8k resolution to make the screen door effect imperceptible. 4k is more than enough for home displays, and most theaters, save IMAX screens.

 

[egproductions]

If a 4K ENG lens is $50K then an 8K ENG lens is going to be $200K. Camera operators in the ENG/sports industry have to buy the lenses that are available to them now by the time they are required to buy an 8K lens pricing will come down accordingly (unless they are an early adopter.) On a seperate note, ENG lenses are redicliously expensive, most of my prime still photo lenses can ressolve 33MP (i.e. 8K)

 

[Barry_Green]

Are the broadcasters reluctant to upgrade to 4K and wait for 8K or just stick with 720p and 1080i for a very long time.

What possible incentive do broadcasters have to upgrade (again)? Will going 4K or 8K lead to even a penny's additional revenue to them?

Government mandates pushed them into going digital (which, while they were at it, they went ahead and went HD and 16x9). But what would incentivize them to change to 4K? Or 8K? Will more people watch the Super Bowl, or the Kardashians, if they're broadcast in 4K?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

What possible incentive do broadcasters have to upgrade (again)? Will going 4K or 8K lead to even a penny's additional revenue to them?

Government mandates pushed them into going digital (which, while they were at it, they went ahead and went HD and 16x9). But what would incentivize them to change to 4K? Or 8K? Will more people watch the Super Bowl, or the Kardashians, if they're broadcast in 4K?

VIZIO announced a 4k display, without an ATSC tuner... which means it can't be called a TV... and would require some external device to allow for reception of current US digital TV signals...

I think VIZIO is 'seeing' a need for 4K network connected displays... in the industry the phrase that is used is OverTheTop programming, such as Netflix, or some of the major networks, and HBO are moving to providing content via the internet and by consumer accessed services rather than relying on either broadcast TV or cable.

 

[adkimery]

What possible incentive do broadcasters have to upgrade (again)? Will going 4K or 8K lead to even a penny's additional revenue to them?

Government mandates pushed them into going digital (which, while they were at it, they went ahead and went HD and 16x9). But what would incentivize them to change to 4K? Or 8K? Will more people watch the Super Bowl, or the Kardashians, if they're broadcast in 4K?

To add to this, the proposed ATSC spec that would include UHD is *not* backwards compatible with the current ATSC spec which means everyone buying new TVs or getting new digital turner set top boxes in order to capture the OTA signals (which of course also require new broadcasting equipment). Not gonna happen when you can just stream UHD content on a dozen different devices already connected to your TV.

To be totally honest, I don't think OTA broadcast TV is ever going to go beyond HD. UHD, 4K, 8K, 16K, etc., is going to be distributed via streaming/IPTV because that delivery mechanism is inherent resolution independent. It's all bits flying across the Internet. I mean, YouTube went from 240p to 4K in less than a decade and on the consumer side each step was pretty much transparent. Compare that to the headache that was OTA broadcasts going from SD/analog to HD/digital.

 

[David Jimerson]

Pfff, my cable company's signal is so compressed that the 1080p feed's artifacts have their own artifacts. I can't imagine they're in ANY rush for any 4K, let alone 8K.

I imagine satellite companies will do it long before traditional braodcast or cable. As outrageously-priced as DirecTV got to be, the picture was always pristine (except in weather problems).

 

[Batutta]

Pfff, my cable company's signal is so compressed that the 1080p feed's artifacts have their own artifacts.

On the rare occasion I've had to bit torrent a show because my PVR didn't record it, I've been mystified as to why the visual quality of the torrent is vastly superior to the cable I pay good money for. I want whatever service the pirates are ripping from, because it's a pristine, nearly blu-ray quality rip every time.

 

[Greg_E]

The USA broadcast standards haven't been compatible with preexisting since the change from B/W to color. And there might be a good reason this time. ATSC was pushed through even though it was not a good choice (as far as modulation), completely incompatible with the rest of the world for a reason even the broadcasters don't know.

 

[David Jimerson]

On the rare occasion I've had to bit torrent a show because my PVR didn't record it, I've been mystified as to why the visual quality of the torrent is vastly superior to the cable I pay good money for. I want whatever service the pirates are ripping from, because it's a pristine, nearly blu-ray quality rip every time.

Very low bitrate, I imagine. (Cable.)

 

[Sam Scoggins]

"you certainly won’t be watching anything live in 4K. Not for years."
here's why:
http://www.wired.com/2015/02/live-4k-broadcasts/

 

[David Jimerson]

To add to this, the proposed ATSC spec that would include UHD is *not* backwards compatible with the current ATSC spec which means everyone buying new TVs or getting new digital turner set top boxes in order to capture the OTA signals (which of course also require new broadcasting equipment).

But how many people actually get their TV that way? I haven't looked into it, but I'd have to think it's a pretty low number, and mostly among a demographic which isn't going to be around that much longer (in terms of how long these things take).

 

[adkimery]

But how many people actually get their TV that way? I haven't looked into it, but I'd have to think it's a pretty low number, and mostly among a demographic which isn't going to be around that much longer (in terms of how long these things take).

How many people use an OTA signal? Numbers I quickly googled show about 84% of households in US use cable/sat but that number has been gradually declining for years and seems to be accelerating as more and more 'cord cutting' options become available. I think simulcasts of OTA signals via IPTV is where we are headed though so, to Barry's point, there is little incentive to up-end the b'cast infrastructure again because the growth is in IPTV/streaming.

 

[Batutta]

Very low bitrate, I imagine. (Cable.)

But where are the pirates ripping from? These shows are often posted within hours of the first airing. It has to be some cable or satellite service that isn't as compressed. Can't be over the air as they are cable only shows. Before my current IPTV service I had Satellite and certain networks/shows were better quality. From what I understand, its because Satellite uses the original MPEG-2 steam encoded by the network, where most IP and cable services recompress that to fit into their pipes. Still, if I could pay for a service that was as good a quality as these pirates are getting, I would.

 

[David Jimerson]

How many people use an OTA signal? Numbers I quickly googled show about 84% of households in US use cable/sat but that number has been gradually declining for years and seems to be accelerating as more and more 'cord cutting' options become available. I think simulcasts of OTA signals via IPTV is where we are headed though so, to Barry's point, there is little incentive to up-end the b'cast infrastructure again because the growth is in IPTV/streaming.

I don't disagree. I just think OTA backwards-compatibility isn't very much of a factor.

 

[David Jimerson]

But where are the pirates ripping from? These shows are often posted within hours of the first airing. It has to be some cable or satellite service that isn't as compressed. Can't be over the air as they are cable only shows. Before my current IPTV service I had Satellite and certain networks/shows were better quality. From what I understand, its because Satellite uses the original MPEG-2 steam encoded by the network, where most IP and cable services recompress that to fit into their pipes. Still, if I could pay for a service that was as good a quality as these pirates are getting, I would.

Must be satellite, then. Like I said, DirecTV's picture was always flawless unless weather got in the way.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

The USA broadcast standards haven't been compatible with preexisting since the change from B/W to color. And there might be a good reason this time. ATSC was pushed through even though it was not a good choice (as far as modulation), completely incompatible with the rest of the world for a reason even the broadcasters don't know.

It is my belief that it was due to the NIH principle.... Not Invented Here... DVB-T has not only definitions for 6 MHz bandwidth, which would work with NTSC based broadcast systems, but also 8 MHz for PAL lands. So 'one spec' could rule them all.

MPEG 2 TS streams work fine with DVB-T.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I don't disagree. I just think OTA backwards-compatibility isn't very much of a factor.

Actually if you listen to the NAB jungle drums... there's a rising beat of people cutting their cable TV service, keeping networking, and putting up an antenna for local TV programming, like weather/local news/events. The antennas are very interesting. I've seen them at several houses. Unlike the top of the roof aerial of yore... they look like little square plates and are often just placed in a window near the TV set.

For example this randomly chosen Amazon offering...

http://www.amazon.com/RCA-ANT1450BF-Multi-Directional-Amplified-Digital/dp/B001GE6T9A

 

[Razz16mm]

One of our local region cable providers has a package now that includes internet and a Roku stick instead of a set top box. Cable is just another digital pipeline these days and at least for us a pretty fat one. Base internet data rate is 60Mbps + cable TV + VOIP phone service. Encoding and decoding H.XXX streaming is very processor intensive, so there will be significant delays for live streaming, but that is only noticeable if you are watching the live event and a TV of it at the same time. For those kinds of venues, like sports arenas, there are uncompressed stream transport systems now that have IP network delays less than one frame, or about 30 milliseconds, over a 10Gb backbone.

 

[Bruce Watson]

I'm sensing that 4K will be like 720p and 8K will ultimately be the equivalent 1080p standards recently.

Just because you "sense" it doesn't mean you are correct. Read the Sony white paper on 4k.

What so risky about this is that I have not seen any true 4K over the air broadcasts in the US. Are the broadcasters reluctant to upgrade to 4K and wait for 8K or just stick with 720p and 1080i for a very long time.

If humans can't actually see the benefits of 4k except in the nearest few rows in the cinema, what's the point in 4k broadcast? If there's nothing to be gained, you can bet that people with a profit motive aren't going to do it. Don't expect 4k broadcasts in your lifetime.

That said, I can make a decent case for 4k capture, with HD delivery. There are some interesting benefits to the DP in doing this.

All that said, I can't make an argument for 8k at all. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. As long as I have a choice, I'm not going to be buying 8k anything.