Cable companies compress the hell out of HD to the point that it generally sucks and is pixelated with compression artifacts during fast motion. They do this to fit ever more channels on the simultaneous feed. Switching to a streaming model even for "broadcast" stations could provide better quality.

4K UHD with HDR is clearly superior to Blu-Ray. Not by a lot, and HDR is actually more important than 4K on an LCD screen. However, for OLED WRGB screens the pixels are smaller with more space between them than on LCD and 1080p can get the "screen door" effect at closer ranges, which 4K eliminates.

Of course a lot of 4K material is coming from sub-4K HD cameras, or from film, a lot of which really doesn't look any better in 4K than 1080p without digital enhancement. Of course now movies are shot in 4K digital and post processed to look like film with grain and all.

There is absolutely no need for 8K on anything less than 100+ inch screen at a viewing distance to close enough to simulate a real movie theater's overwhelming field of view. Even then it's a stretch.

To make 4K screens was simple. Once they could make a 32" 1080p screen, a 65" 4K screen is just 4x 32" 1080p "wafers" that are not separated. They did it because they could, and because it was a selling point. And now it's 8K because they can, and they need a selling point.

It's not that different than megapixel wars that focus on CCD chips and not picture quality, or lumen wars for flashlights that now provide max output for a few seconds before falling down to the mid level output that used to be the standard, and then down to 10% in an hour.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

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.

Yes, we are in agreement now; just my simplistic semantics is standing in the way.

"Reallocation" is corporate/government-speak for taking from one and selling it to another. "Packing their existing spectrum" was again my simplistic way of saying just what you did.

All of this won't give smshultz 4K sports now. Or 8K. I recommend holding out for OLED live broadcasts. They would be awesome.

Jesus Christ the human eye can only process certain amount of resolution. IMHO this a fucking sham.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
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.

I have a very different opinion than you or rogue.

I have a 75”, 55”, and two 49” 4k Sony panels. I can tell 4k content from 1080p even on the 49’s. I don’t have “magic” eyes either. Everything is sharper, crisper. I’ve also watched “some” 4k sports. Fox was doing 4k broadcasts on Thursday nights 2019 for NFL games. You had to use their got damn “app” but it worked for me for a few games, then they tried to push me into paying for it and that’s when I shut it down. I watched on my 55” in the bedroom and I was making out gold flake on GB’s helmets. Most stunning home sports I have ever seen. Could definitely tell it was a 4k broadcast. The field, the helmets, everything was absolutely stunning, and felt like you were on the field watching. So I don’t buy into those distances and panel size bullshit I see posted often. Couldn’t disagree more.

The panels upconvert 1080p content so 1080p Blu Rays look significantly better than on 1080p panels. I mean I’m really enjoying 1080p blu rays again. Then the 4k discs are just truly stunning. Better than the movie theater picture quality. And the sound (as long as it’s not a Disney disc, Disney hamstrings their discs on purpose) is mind blowing. Full Atmos. I was so impressed I redid my HT with 4k Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos to create my own Dolby Cinema with 11 speakers and 2 subs. I’m still amazed and it’s almost 2 years in. The 49’s were my test bed and I was very impressed so I moved forward.

To me 8k is the hype. I’d need a 100 inch screen for it. The problem is the broadcasters. NBC, Fox to cable/satellite channels. They don’t want to spend the $ to convert over. I don’t even need a 4k broadcast. If they’d just broadcast in 1080p, the panel would upcconvert and it’d be all I need. True 4k would be better obviously, but I’d take 1080p. My main sport broadcasts in 1080p, it’s an online membership. The picture on my panels is just remarkable. The races are phenomenal in PQ but still in stereo sound only. But it’s significantly better than American sports. American sports, still in got damn 720p or 1080i. It’s been 20 years too.

I’m finding that channels like HBO, well 1080i still on cable/satellite but their app has a lot of 4k content. But the sound is compressed and limited range like a Disney 4k blu ray disc. Netflix the same. I’ve only watched several 4k films on Netflix where the sound was decent. 90% the sound is trash. I have to crank my AVR up a good 10db over a disc and even then it’s limited range anyway. So I have to run all my shit hot and I don’t like that at all. Compressed sound is shit so I don’t like any apps or streaming service. I get HBO Max for free so I watch some stuff on there, limited stuff really. And I have Apple’s app whatever it’s called, and same thing, very limited use. So what I spend my $ on is Netflix’s traditional 1080p disc service, and I also subscribe to a small rental company that rents 4k discs. I get 5 of those a month for about $3 each. Problem is the whole industry is shut down so no new movies are coming out which means no new 4k discs. They are making plenty of 4k content but it’s just remastered shit. You can tell a really big difference between a remaster 4k disc and new films, recent.

The younger generations are driving everything now. And they watch content on their phone so that’s where broadcasters have put all their eggs into, online this and that, streaming bullshit this and that. I’ve talked to and dated younger women who watch movies on their phone and they say it suits them just fine. And this is the reality in this space. If the most marketed to people in the history of the Earth are content watching lower quality shit on a phone, well the broadcasters just aren’t going to spend the $ where we want, on 4k sports and broadcasts. So your only option as a customer is to shut it off and maybe write them an email or a letter. Until enough people do that nothing will change. “Internet” life is here to stay and I’m not a fan. The only way I get the quality I want is on a disc, a hard copy. We are already seeing data caps being imposed, higher cost internet for the newer speeds so hard copy is not going anywhere. 4k discs can max out at 100gb currently, iirc that’s a triple layer disc. The ISP’s don’t want you downloading shit like that 24/7, so if they have a hand in it, it’s going to get compressed. This is why I spend my $ on hard copy rentals. PQ and sound are important to me. If you ask your friends, colleagues, family, etc, you’ll find most don’t care about the sound. They don’t care if it’s compressed, because at best they have some cheap soundbar they got on sale for $199.

I’m heading into the HT now. Pandemic has me going back through all back catalogue 4k discs and I got the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes films. I’m getting desperate for content at this point. There are only about 5 more 4k discs for me to rent and I’m at the end until new releases come out. I may just keep paying this small place even when I’m not renting. If too many cut the service off they’ll go under and they are one of the few renting 4k discs. Netflix still won’t rent 4k discs because they want you on their app titty.

Yeah,

It would only be worse if you got it from Optics Planet.

Are you paying extra for 4k? If not, then you are not getting ripped off. My $2,000, 10 year old, 65", 1080p, Panasonic plasma is still going strong, but I'm fairly certain a same size 4k TV with similar picture quality would be half that! plus it would have all the latest streaming services built in.

My thoughts...

We have AT&T U-verse for TV and gigabit internet (fiber). The TV is crazy expensive. And AT&T is getting rid of the U-verse TV. You can’t sign up for it anymore. And I think I saw somewhere that they want to get rid of DirecTV too (but don’t quote me on that).

AT&T wants us to use their streaming service. Why? Because the DVR is in the cloud and they can make it harder or impossible to fast forward thru commercials. At least that’s what I think.

Will the streaming service eventually stream everything in 4K? Maybe. With 1 gig up and down we have plenty of bandwidth. But we will still need the broadcasters to do their part and provide that feed.

I have a curved TV. I think that’s a bad idea. I let my son talk me into it. If you have the perfect seat it’s great. My chair? Not so much.

I watch traditional tv via YouTube TV. Before you get all bent outta shape, YTTV is NOT the same as original YouTube. YTTV is a streaming subscription service in competition with cable TV. You do get 1080p everything. My 16 YO 54" Sharp Aquos never looked so good.

What I would like for content providers to disclose is the data or bit rate. The resolution just tells me that there are enough pixels to fill up a certain screen size at a certain number of dots per inch, but it tells me nothing of the picture quality.

4k video coming in at 100mbps is not the same as 10mbps.

Yes, it's a rip-off. But then again, my eyes will only go to about 720p anyway.