As a technology guy I appreciate technological advances.
I am usually one of the those who buy on the leading edge in many cases.
However, the lack of content in 4K or HDR is ridiculous.
There IS the technology that supports it but those creating the content refuse to up their game.

Example: Super Bowl 2021 won’t stream in 4K or HDR this year

Yeah, you can't reshoot all the old movies but real time sports broadcasting there is NO EXCUSE ~ NONE!

Unfortunately what you get today is the CGI remakes into woke crap films.
Then the only true way to get the sound + vision is on 4K Blu Ray.

Every TV gets sold as the greatest 4K invention ever with little to play through it properly.

{sigh}

4K is yesterday’s news. 8K is on the shelves now!

Content? Who needs content? It’s an investment in the future.

-Rob

4K, 5G, 8K....It's all the same! If you can't 'really' use the technology and/or realize the benefits, it's essentially vaporware!

There's plenty of 4K content. You're just not going to get it from broadcast TV, or on TV network-provided streaming.

The bigger streaming video providers (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, HBO, etc.) are full of 4K streaming content. Heck, you can even stream some Youtube videos in 4K.

And there are lots of 4K films available on UHD disc.

So this isn't a matter of "4K content availability sucks"... Instead, it's more that "traditional TV networks like CBS suck at providing 4K content".


The only real "ripoff" about 4K is all the TV manufacturers convincing consumers that they need 4K-compatibility on their small-to-medium-sized TVs. At normal viewing distances (8-10 feet), on TVs sized smaller than ~60 inches, the human eye can't distinguish between standard 1080P HD and 4K UHD resolutions.

So 4K is wasted on 30/40/50-something inch TVs, unless you're planning to watch it with your nose pressed to the screen.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
There's plenty of 4K content.

You're just not going to get it from broadcast TV, or on TV network-provided streaming.


So this isn't a matter of "4K content availability sucks"...

Instead, it's more that "traditional TV networks like CBS suck at providing 4K content".

There is some truth to what you say.

However, EVERY TV manufacturer is touting 4K as any everyday, everywhere thing.
To HAVE to go out and buy or rent disks to get it is disingenuous.
YES you can get it on disk (as I mentioned in the OP) but there is no reason that ALL content providers moving forward shouldn't make this a standard.
ESPECIALLY for broadcast sports!!!!!

Yup RogueJSK nails the truth here.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
To HAVE to go out and buy or rent disks to get it is disingenuous.

You don't have to. As stated, there's tons of 4K streaming content from the main streaming providers.

Just not from the networks.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
To HAVE to go out and buy or rent disks to get it is disingenuous.

You don't have to. As stated, there's tons of 4K streaming content from the main streaming providers.

Just not from the networks.

Again, my point of anger is LIVE SPORTS.
Yes, there are exceptions and Yes you can get some streaming and on occasion from cable but nothing really from the broadcast networks including sports.
My point is that 4K has been here long enough to not be a luxury occurrence.
The networks deliberately resist because they can and yes it does cost money and no it is not feasible to redo old content.
SPORTS though is no excuse.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Again, my point of anger is LIVE SPORTS.
Yes, there are exceptions and Yes you can get some streaming and on occasion from cable but nothing really from the broadcast networks including sports.

That's because ATSC 1.x, the current North American digital broadcast standard, doesn't support 4K. It doesn't have enough bandwidth.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
The networks deliberately resist because they can and yes it does cost money ...

In fact: They are not resisting and they are spending money. Have you heard of "NextGen TV?" That's ATSC 3.0. It will support 4K, and 4K is one reason they're moving to it. At least one broadcast station in the Detroit market has launched it. They all plan to do so.

But be careful what you wish for. ATSC 3.0 will also enable them to add "Internet enhancement" (tracking, targeted adverts, anyone?) and DRM (Digital Rights Management).

Nobody wants to talk about DRM and broadcast TV, but the networks have been out to kill consumer recording ever since the advent of the VCR. DRM will allow them to finally accomplish their goal. So I predict that, once ATSC 1.x is phased out, DRM won't be far off. Then you can kiss time-shifting and commercial skip buh-bye, because, even if you'll still be able to DVR, it will be on their terms, not yours.

Oh, and the hill to climb to get DRM certification is so high, we'll also be kissing affordable DVRs goodbye.

ETA: When ATSC 1.x is phased-out you will, of course, have to buy either a TV with an ATSC 3.0 tuner or purchase an outboard ATSC 3.0 tuner to hook to your current TV (just like during the NTSC -> ATSC [analog -> digital] transition) to continue to watch OTA TV.

But we'll have 4K TV.

Enjoy. I plan to go back to reading books.

quote:

That's because ATSC 1.x, the current North American digital broadcast standard, doesn't support 4K.

They need to up their game.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

That's because ATSC 1.x, the current North American digital broadcast standard, doesn't support 4K.

They need to up their game.

Did you not read the rest of my comments?

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

That's because ATSC 1.x, the current North American digital broadcast standard, doesn't support 4K.

They need to up their game.

Did you not read the rest of my comments?

yes I read them

I suppose since you listed it as the "standard" that is the end of it?

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
yes I read them

I suppose since you listed it as the "standard" that is the end of it?

You're a really sharp guy, tech-wise, so I'm entirely at a loss to understand what you're missing. I must be explaining it poorly.

ATSC 1.x, the current digital broadcast standard, simply will not support 4K TV. The bandwidth isn't there. (I added the bandwidth explanation to my prior post.)

ATSC 3.0, the new digital broadcast standard, does support 4K TV.

I neglected to mention: You will, of course, have to buy either a TV with an ATSC 3.0 tuner or purchase an outboard ATSC 3.0 tuner to hook to your current TV--just like during the NTSC -> ATSC (analog -> digital) transition. (I added this to my prior post, too.)

I got it ensigmatic, thanks.
I was dwelling more on my disgust for lack of sports 4K.
Although I wasn't aware of the details you mentioned I do under stand what you are saying and don't disagree.
However, it seems the move to 4K is hyped more as a sales tool than as a reality even though technically you can get it but not universally.
It's getting better but it seems at a snail's pace.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
I got it ensigmatic, thanks.

You're welcome.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
However, it seems the move to 4K is hyped more as a sales tool than as a reality even though technically you can get it but not universally.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Few are aware of it, but HDTV displays were available long before the broadcasters switched to digital, too. They were expensive as hell and weighed a ton (one I'd been idly considering weighed 700 lbs!), but they were available.

In this case the manufacturers' capabilities way outstripped the broadcasters' ability to change. (More on this below.) But 4K material is, and has been, fairly widely available from other sources for quite some time on Blue-ray disc and streaming.

I guarantee you part of the delay in 4K OTA TV was the TV broadcast industry figuring out how best to leverage ATSC 3.0 to their advantage. It's a long and sordid story, but the bottom line is broadcast TV is more-or-less on life support. The only thing keeping it afloat is retransmission fees paid by the subscription TV services (cable, satellite, streaming bundles). If that oxygen supply was removed they'd all tank overnight.

The problem they have is people are increasingly dumping the cable and satellite providers and many are looking at the streaming landscape and thinking "Waitaminute! If we subscribe to all this stuff we'll be right back where we were" and are balking. Bundling services are increasingly reluctant to pay the retransmission fees to supply a shrinking customer base.

Solution? OTA TV over which they have the control they've long sought. I'm nearly certain, so certain I'd almost bet a mortgage payment on it, that they will eventually DRM their content. As I wrote, earlier: Once they do that you can all but kiss DVR'ing goodbye. Oh, I'm sure operations like TiVo will cut a deal. And TiVo probably has the finances to jump the DRM licensing hurdles. But one of the things they'll certainly be obliged to eliminate is commercial skipping.

In fact: Because NextGen TV integrates broadcast TV with the Internet, I won't be surprised if eventually you'll be required to hook your smart TV to the Internet to even watch it in real time. After all: How else will they track and target w/o closing the two-way loop? (This, btw, is the point at which my wife and I will no longer watch broadcast TV. I will not have a smart TV watching me. Period.)

Make no mistake: The TV broadcast industry has seen how Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the rest of them have made money hand-over-fist by tracking and targeting, by harvesting visitor data and selling it. They plan to reinvent themselves on that model.

So, like I wrote, earlier: You'll get your 4K OTA TV. Enjoy

There was an article a while back explaining how TV resolution and room size are the big factors in how your TV looks. There was some example like if you have an 80" tv and sat 10 ft away you would notice 4k vs 1080. If you have a 42" tv and sit 15ft away your eye could not tell the difference.

My 2 cents: I was an early adopter of HDTV; a 36" Sony CRT, converter box, and antenna. BUT: I watched the Masters in all its green glory! I learned a few things: It took cable a few years before they offered HD even though the local broadcasts were, well, broadcasting it. This all came about because the FCC GAVE broadcasters more bandwidth to carry HDTV. Once they had it, the greedy stations used some of the extra bandwidth for HDTV and the rest to broadcast cheapo reruns on subsidiary channels. IMO, they have no extra bandwidth available for 4K because they are misusing what they were given.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
... It took cable a few years before they offered HD even though the local broadcasts were, well, broadcasting it.

Because it required equipment and infrastructure upgrades.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
This all came about because the FCC GAVE broadcasters more bandwidth to carry HDTV.

No, it didn't, because, no, they didn't.

OTA (Over The Air) HDTV came about purely as a result of the move from NTSC (analog) to ATSC (digital) broadcasting. Each real channel has the same bandwidth it did before.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
Once they had it, the greedy stations used some of the extra bandwidth for HDTV and the rest to broadcast cheapo reruns on subsidiary channels.

This part is accurate. Few broadcast stations transmit the max they can (1080P) anymore. Most are down to 720P. Why? Because they found most people don't care. Yes, that's right: While smschulz is bemoaning the lack of 4K broadcast TV, most consumers don't even care about 1080P. So the broadcasters cut their resolution down and sell the "excess" bandwidth to others.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
IMO, they have no extra bandwidth available for 4K because they are misusing what they were given.

No, they have no bandwidth for 4K because the ATSC 1.x standard does not provide for an encoding that will support 4K TV.

And when they finally start deploying ATSC 3.0 (as noted above: That's already happening), they'll still be using the same bandwidth they did before. Just a different, more efficient digital encoding.

ensigmatic; you are mostly correct and I was mostly wrong. The switch to digital freed up TV spectrum, BUT: the FCC sold it to the cell carriers in 2009 for $19.8 billon: $10 billon went to the TV stations and the rest went to Uncle Sugar's Mastercard balance. ATSC 3.0 will give them the ability to pack their existing spectrum tighter, as you said.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
ensigmatic; you are mostly correct and I was mostly wrong. The switch to digital freed up TV spectrum,

It did, because it allowed for lower transmit power, thus allowing more stations to be on the same or nearby frequencies w/o interference. But each individual station had the same bandwidth they did with analog.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
BUT: the FCC sold it to the cell carriers in 2009 for $19.8 billon...

There were two repacks and reallocations: One in 2008 and another in 2016, re-allocating the 700MHz and 600MHz spectrums (real channels 52-69 and real channels 37-51), respectively.

The second repack was just completed in July (?) 2020.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
ATSC 3.0 will give them the ability to pack their existing spectrum tighter, as you said.

I didn't say that. What I said was ATSC 3.0 will allow each broadcaster to get more data in the same bandwidth.