At one point, it seemed a Series 6 TiVo might be off the table. Yet, given my perception of minimal MSO interest in their network DVR and often anemic specs from hardware set-top partners, TiVo regrouped to begin developing a 4k reference design … that was initially unveiled (behind closed doors) back in September at IBC. Indeed, TiVo’s go-to chip supplier Broadcom announced that they’d selected the high-end, quad-core BCM7445 to power an Ultra HD STB. And, just last week at CES 2015, once again privately demoed at least one 4k solution – where TiVo Vice President Jim Denney provided Fierice Wireless a glimpse into the company’s thought process:
I can speak to it philosophically. When we look at 4K, we look at what 3D TVs did, and what HDTV did. Those are kind of the three major pushes that the CE has made in the last 10 years. I definitely think 4K is closer to HD than it is to 3D in terms of consumer value and eventual consumer demand. I think it’s still early in the curve, so you’ll see some people who are early adopters, and you’ll see some people who are going to kind of hang back. It’s one of those things that in order to really take advantage of it, you’re going to have to notch up the content space, the distribution technologies and the end points, at the same time. So it’s going to take a lot of coordination to make 4K really take off.
Along those lines, the current crop of 4k gear is pricey and TiVo in general may have some difficulty pitching their solution given the comparative costs. Yeah, MSO churn is lower with TiVo but that has to be balanced against the upfront and ongoing costs (perhaps reinforced by those who believe KDG chose Cisco over TiVo in Germany for that very reason). With that in mind, we expect TiVo would also be evaluating the dual-core Broadcom BCM7449 and BCM7252S which likewise provides transcoding and 4k, but clocks in at a lower price point than the BCM7445. As to when a UHD TiVo Series 6 might hit, we can’t predict MSO interest or retail availability – but given possibly slow MSO Roamio uptake (again, due to price), a dearth of 4k content, along with ongoing CableCARD replacement uncertainty and negotiation, it could be awhile. But I do think it’s quite possible we’ll ultimately see a smaller, cheaper (to produce) Roamio OTA in 2015 as TiVo simultaneously goes after the cord cutting crowd.
I’m not holding my breath. Consumers who just purchased HDTVs will be reluctant to scrap them for 4K.
“I’m not holding my breath. Consumers who just purchased HDTVs will be reluctant to scrap them for 4K.”
All sensible folks are wary on the speed of the 4K rollout. But here’s the thing:
It’s coming. And given infrastructure constraints, won’t it almost definitely come first, in mass deployment form, to the multicast rather than IPTV?
So with that thing in mind, good to see TiVo is planning for the inevitable future that should be right up their alley.
(And, like almost everyone, when I think 4K, I think Mexico. It’s the tequila of video resolutions.)
I didnt buy the tivo roamio model because i’m waiting for a 4k tivo,if takes a couple of years ,oh wel it just gives me more time to save up the money!!
Yeah, unlike 3DTV, I feel 4k is inevitable. But it’ll be a long transition and may remain a higher, optional tier of video in the foreseeable future. TiVo’s unique in that a partner like RCN would benefit from offering 4k YouTube and Netflix streaming via a UHD TiVo even if say they only start by offering a few hours of linear UHD ESPN content. Set-top boxes and the associated infrastructure don’t iterate at the speed of say a smartphone, so again it’s gonna be awhile (and for context, Roamio was only released about a year and a half ago). Also, beyond the gear, cablebos are going to need to free up bandwidth.
In 2015, the priority is probably software – getting behind (or driving) whatever the successor to CableCARD is as their MSO partners will want to move on and a digital solution will give TiVo a much stronger, smoother retail play. Will be interesting to see if the various players come to consensus this year and how long it’ll take to roll out once they do.
(Couldn’t think of a better picture, Chucky. No one’s yet fed me a prototype photo and I didn’t want to run a Broadcom logo. So I went back to the hat well.)
“Couldn’t think of a better picture, Chucky. No one’s yet fed me a prototype photo and I didn’t want to run a Broadcom logo. So I went back to the hat well.”
With the limited color palette, I’d have gone John Deere. All ’bout the multicast infrastructure.
Beyond the initial small audience demos, this first hits the masses with 12 or 24 channels in your multicast package…
Changed it up with some TiVo cookies. Although I reserve the right to swap for TiVo Moneybags.
Well, it certainly makes sense to be working on a prototype, but as others mentioned, its still at least a few years away. What 4k content is out there? I mean, I’m in Boston where Comcast has some of their higher bandwidth networks and we still have quite a few channels that are not in HD – for example, we only have one HD channel for NHL Center Ice and one for whatever NBA’s equivalent. How many channels would they be able to support at 4k?
“What 4k content is out there? … How many channels would they be able to support at 4k?”
Almost none right now. Few channels at first.
My only (repeated) point is that infrastructure constraints say this first comes to the masses via the multicast rather than IPTV. And, thus, TiVo should be there when it happens.
I think we can now see the (surprisingly long) endgame for the DVR. 4K will necessitate local caching for a while, and thus DVR’s. So the death throes of the DVR are still 5 to 10 years away, IMHO…
(Dave needs to photoshop a TiVo mascot with a halo over its head.)
@Chucky – when I said bandwidth – I was referring to the bandwidth for multicast channels – I wasn’t even thinking about IPTV
“@Chucky – when I said bandwidth – I was referring to the bandwidth for multicast channels”
So, let’s say the 4K multicast transition comes along with a better codec than MPEG2.
So, let’s say a 4K channel will occupy 3X the bandwidth of a current higher end bit-rate HDTV channel.
So, let’s say that an MSO will be able to easily carve out a minimum of 12 to 24 4K channels at very first blush without breaking a sweat…
Does my math parse?
Ahh, yes, I wasn’t thinking about the fact that current HD is probably MPEG2 rather than something more efficient.
My gut feeling is that if consumers really do go “4K,” it will be for reasons other than resolution: namely, deep color and fewer compression artifacts with H.265. Although on the latter front a lot of it is MSO laziness coupled with bandwidth-starvation; after all, it’s 2015 and NBC still can’t do a full screen animation overlay during its NFL broadcasts without nearly a second of heavy pixelation before enough B frames kick in to fix it? I’m not sure consumers would really want 4K all that much if they were getting what HD at 1080p is already capable of doing with quality encoding at appropriate bitrates.
Meh on 4K. It sounds to me 8K is where NHK says things become window-like. I’d sure like my next set to be an OLED 8K at rec 20/20. That would make me a happy camper, in oh 5+ years.
You forget that, prior to the digital transition, most TV stations probably had the same transmitter since their original sign-on date. Going through a major expense like that for a second time in less than 20 years is going to cause a lot of them to blanch at the thought.
I can see a push back from broadcasters AND consumers holding back the 4K rollout for DECADES.
Chucky, how ’bout some angel’s wings?
This feels an awful lot like 10 years ago, when there was precious little HD content, many channels hadn’t fully embraced the format and many were asking if it was a boondoggle or how long it would take. Unlike 3D, which is a fad that I just don’t ever see having the same wide-spread acceptance, 4K feels like something that will eventually become the standard, just as HDTV surpassed standard definition.
I also think it will be a several year rollout, for many of the same reasons. The delivery mechanisms and broadcaster equipment will still require upgrades, which is costly and time-consuming.
If history is a guide then Directv will have 4K for 2 years before MSO’s think about adopting it.
Dave- How does Tivo reconcile their MSO business with a Tivo OTA device that is designed to make leaving cable more palatable to cord cutters? It seems you are trying to sell Cable companies on the advantages of the Tivo settop box while also encouraging/courting customers leaving cable. Can Tivo balance those two interests?
“This feels an awful lot like 10 years ago, when there was precious little HD content, many channels hadn’t fully embraced the format and many were asking if it was a boondoggle or how long it would take.”
No doubt.
“I also think it will be a several year rollout, for many of the same reasons. The delivery mechanisms and broadcaster equipment will still require upgrades, which is costly and time-consuming.”
Agree that it will be a slow rollout. However, I think it will slightly differ from the HD rollout in this respect:
– I don’t think the MSO’s will face tremendous obstacles in getting a sampling of 4K channels into their lineups. And as far as content goes, lot of stuff is already remastered or being shot in 4K, plus the sports side will jump on the bandwagon with great alacrity.
– The holdup, compared to HD, seems to me to be more likely on the end of consumers. HD had tremendous and obvious value to consumers, many of whom seemed more entranced by the aspect ratio than the PQ, and thus were eager to upgrade their teevees. 4K will likely seem a more incremental update to consumers, and mass teevee upgrades will be highly dependent on reasonably large and reasonably priced models hitting the market.
In short, my guess is that we’ll see 4K programming from the MSO’s in decently short order for the bleeding edge folks, but slower uptake on the mass consumer end compared to the HD rollout.
(For example, I jumped in semi-late on the HD rollout with a cheap 32″ set, but I’ll wait on 4K until much larger sets get cheap…)
“Chucky, how ’bout some angel’s wings?”
Now that’s some good stuff. Kudos.
My next non-negotiable demand is that you provide a fresh graphic for the post every 8 hours. It’d make for better clickbait than Buzzfeed. Millions would be constantly refreshing the page eagerly awaiting the new graphic…
The chips Dave listed do support h.265.
Problem is that much like 3D, 4k TV really doesn’t matter– it is not noticeably better than 1080p for moving content at commonly available TV sizes at common couch distances.
H.265 is several orders of magnitude more efficient than mpeg2; it’s much better than mpeg4/h.264 also. God willing. h.265 _will_ happen. And I’m sure 4k will happen too. It just won’t matter very much for TV/movies.
Higher density pictures matter a great deal on mobile devices and computer monitors, because you sit much closer and are looking at text, not constantly changing video. 4k will quickly take over there, and that will translate to TVs, too. And people will pay the premium, even though it won’t actually do a whole heck of a lot for them.
Brandon, Tivo is pitching the Roamio OTA as an upsell opportunity to MSOs. Since OTA customers are still buying internet, upselling them a DVR with the apps they use most (and possibly the MSO’s VOD) may further monetize OTA peeps. Whether this idea sticks or not, who knows.
“(4K) is not noticeably better than 1080p for moving content at commonly available TV sizes at common couch distances.”
Pretty much everyone with first hand experience vehemently disagrees with you. Which is why it is indeed coming to the mainstream, however slowly it deploys.
“H.265 is several orders of magnitude more efficient than mpeg2”
Methinks you have a mighty weak grasp on the meaning of the phrase “order of magnitude”.
But don’t ever stop the constant flow of nescience, Rodalpho. It’d confuse me if you did…
Well, the early TiVo boxes came with MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 support. MPEG-4 was used for IP services although it seems like cable decided to stick with MPEG-2 for most of their HD content. Their solution to bandwidth issues was not MPEG-4, but rather tuning resolvers.
Contrast that with DirecTV which started HD deployment with MPEG-2, only to halt it and wait for MPEG-4 hardware to come out before adding more channels. At his point, I think most of their HD channels are in MPEG-4.
MPEG-5 provides the same resolution at half the bandwidth. So you could either deploy 1080p at half the bandwidth of the atypical MPEG-4 HD channel or 4K channel at about twice the bitrate of 1080 MPEG-4 channel… or… same bandwidth at 1080p MPEG-2 channel.
There’s plenty of 4K content that consumers would watch from YouTube to Amazon to Netflix, but a big limitation for cable is lack of encryption standards. While the online streaming DRM has support for 4K, the DRM standards for broadcast content are not settled yet. I believe the 4K standards for Blue-Ray was only just now announced at CES. Has anyone heard a peep from cablelabs yet on 4K and CableCARDs?
All the reports I’ve seen, charts with distance, etc, supports what I’ve said. Easily google-able. And in a sample size of 1, I couldn’t tell the difference myself on a 60″ set 10 feet away.
I didn’t literally mean an order of magnitude, I meant it a huge difference. You knew that, but decided to be a dick anyway.
Good use of “nescience” though. Don’t see that word used much.
Martin, cable’s lobbying group has always told me CableCARD is only used for authentication… ;)
heh – I just at end of 2014 went HD when the roamio came out and had good features that made me jump into digital finally. I still record analog channels so I can more easily move the shows to my phone for casual viewing though Netflix on my phone and tablet get more of the workload these days.
so I do agree that 4K is in the HD line and inevitable, but it is just TV so folks are not clamoring for 4K — but then neither did folks “clamor” for HD. I predict a good 5 or 6 year run on my Roamio and likely I will get another one to replace the TiVo HD that is getting long in the tooth but still delivers TV and Netflix adequatelly enough for my bedroom
HD was a huge and immediately noticeable improvement from SD. I remember it being a revelatory change. I bought a HDTV immediately after the tivo S3 came out and was super happy with my purchases.
4k, on the other hand, is noticeable in the showroom when you stand close 2-3 feet away from large screens, but not so much at normal viewing distances and TV sizes at home.
“Contrast that with DirecTV which started HD deployment with MPEG-2, only to halt it and wait for MPEG-4 hardware to come out before adding more channels. At his point, I think most of their HD channels are in MPEG-4.”
Well, that’s not so much advanced-thinking on the part of DirecTV, as it is a matter of necessity due to their constrained bandwidth vis-a-vis the wireline providers, no?
—–
I’m expecting the wireline providers to shift to MPEG5 in the same rollout as 4K out of a similar necessity. Plus, they’ll have to ship out new STB’s / DVR’s at the same time, so it’s a perfect time for the codec transition, cost-wise. (I’d strongly assume the non-4K channels will remain MPEG2 for a while afterwards, so they don’t have to replace legacy equipment for the rest of their customers until 4K achieves mass penetration.)
“a big limitation for cable is lack of encryption standards … the DRM standards for broadcast content are not settled yet.”
Hard to believe that can’t be quickly dealt with, given the economic forces that’ll be behind the rollout, no?
Speak of the devil, Martin and others – Arris just fired off an email as a follow up to the Fierce Cable CES panel (that I missed due to knee injury) and this encoder. They put together a whitepaper covering some of these topics, including better picture (at perhaps any distance) and “monetization” possibilities:
4K resolution is a subset of Ultra High Definition (UHD) television, which includes higher frame rates, enhanced & more precise color, and better use of the luminance range of modern flat-panel TV displays. Each of those UHD enhancements can create a rich visual reality for consumers. This paper explores the phases described from a human visual acuity perspective and explains the complex relationship between 4K, HEVC, and monetization opportunities.
“I didn’t literally mean an order of magnitude, I meant it a huge difference. You knew that, but decided to be a dick anyway.”
Well, no. I didn’t know that. Given the generally benighted nature of your commentary, I had no problem believing those particular words you wrote corresponded with what you meant.
But then again, I’ve always taken Alice’s side over Humpty Dumpty’s on the topic…
Thought perhaps it was a misunderstanding. But you really are an unapologetic dick. Will know better next time.
Now that it’s out of our system can we move on? I’d rather not lock the comments down.
Well picture “quality” is somewhat subjective. But last year Cnet rated a 55″ OLED 1080p TV as having the best picture they had ever seen (meaning better than the 4K LCDs they reviewed) and rated the top Samsung 1080p plasma as also having a “better” looking picture than the 4K LCDs. So yes resolution isn’t all that matters.
So perhaps it is safer to say 4K LCDs look “better” than 1080p LCDs.
You really can’t tell the difference in resolution 10 feet away from a 60″ TV. You’d need to sit much closer, or use a much larger screen.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html
There are various ways to calculate this, THX has their own, as do a bunch of others, but this link is representative of all of ’em. Sitting 10 feet back, you can start to tell the difference with 4k at around an 80″ screen.
There have been various studies where people could tell the difference further away, but they were using scrolling text not moving video. It’s definitely more noticeable with text; if you use your giant TV as a computer monitor I guess 4k is a good bet.
“You really can’t tell the difference in resolution 10 feet away from a 60″ TV … Sitting 10 feet back, you can start to tell the difference with 4k at around an 80″ screen.”
1) That’s a rather unusual chart.
2) Your interpretation of that chart is more than a bit odd, even should we give the chart any credit.
Your chart says that for a 60″ screen, full benefit of 4K comes in around 4′ away. Your chart says that for a 80″ screen, full benefit of 4K comes in around 5′ away.
Nescient chart interpretation, as one would expect, even if the chart itself is dubious.
But more to the point, more sane charts don’t accord with multiple eyewitness testimonies, where for one example, 4K is superior at very far viewing distances, and for another example of multiple eyewitness testimonies, 4K is superior at very short viewing distances. (That bizarre chart actually accords with the second point.)
It seems, back here in reality, that not being able to see the individual pixels, along with the intensified picture density that goes along with the increased bit-rate, actually matters in a wide range of conditions. Who woulda thunk it?
(And FWIW, back before reading multiple eyewitness testimonies of folks I trust, I used to put a good amount of stock in more sane versions of those kinds of charts that you do, even if I, unlike you, could read them correctly. But as the evidence changed, so did my mind.)
—–
“Thought perhaps it was a misunderstanding. But you really are an unapologetic dick.”
No misunderstanding. Not being a dick. Just calling out repeated willful ignorance and misinformation.
“When I use a word,” Rodalpho said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
I agree with Evan Adams and have never had a great interest in 4K with 8K on the horizon. I’ve seen 4K, and it is just not significant enough of an enhancement to motivate me to even consider upgrading down the line, let along today compared to how truly dramatic the difference was between SD and HDTV. I was sold on HD at first viewing some 7 years before I bought my first HDTV.
The sad thing that is likely to happen is that by the time it takes to get the needed momentum for things to align for 4K to BEGIN to be truly accepted (price, content, etc.), we will have achieved the full technology to support 8K efficiently, likely even MORE efficiently, and with a far greater improvement in PQ, just as folks are investing in their 4K equipment including upgrading to new AVR’s or other devices to pass along 4K in concert with their AVR using the loss-less codecs via HDMI (people aren’t going to settle for optical and coax after investing in a 4K TV) when 8K becomes completely feasible at all points. The technology advances far faster than ever, and this may produce a situation where the 8K solution can be handled in a few years, but far too many consumers will have invested far too much money and refuse to upgrade to 8K because it has arrived to soon–a mere day before, in a proverbial sense–and meet the fate of Quadrophonic sound, a quick death. Think of it, We had true 4 channel sound back in the 1970’s not much unlike our 5.1 of today, but because it came TOO SOON after millions of consumers had invested in STEREO, we would not see wide acceptance of multi-channel or surround sound until DECADES later. This is why I have always felt we should just skip the 4K nonsense and wait just a few years, probably only 2 years at the most–8K to really bring us a real bang for our buck and TRULY eyeopening, jaw-dropping images. We also have to remember that studios, and MVPD’s are likely to refuse to upgrade to 8K when they have literally just finished their somewhat begrudging upgrade to 4K. That will certainly Super Glue the the lid on the coffin of 8K for years to come, all because technology changes so fast (too fast?) in our modern era.
As for current implementation of 4K, Dish’s solution, at least for the short term, is to make the CLIENT 4K capable, not the main DVR hub, The Hopper. Dish demoed at CES a Joey capable of 4K as well as being the first client to offer PIP. This is an interesting strategy for the short term:
1. Clients are lower cost to produce meeting the demands of the VERY few 4K TV owners today and the next few years at reasonable economies for the company.
2.Not necessary to change out the main DVR hub unit–The Hopper–causing some to unnecessarily lose their voluminous recordings (yes, with Dish one can move all the recordings to an external HDD, and then move them back onto a new Hopper or Hopper 4K, but the masses will find this SIMPLE task overwhelming and out of their very limited depth. Also, timers and settings can be saved and then loaded onto a new Hopper. The Dish remote saves these automatically without customers knowing, so, often, the tech just loads all the info onto the new DVR hub, but also can be done by the masses). Replacing a main DVR hub is always taken as traumatic by Joe Blow, Joe Sixpack, and Suzie Q.
3. A good short-term solution to provide more time to develop a next gen Hopper that may will capable of 4K with all necessary chips and hardware to support 4K along with more enhancements, perhaps including, even larger HDD capacity, that would be ready when 4K really takes off, and at a lower cost than it would take to build a 4K Hopper today.
Unfortunately, it isn’t easy for TiVo to do the client route to support 4K because Mini’s just are as vital a part of the system as it is for Genies and Hoppers. Also, 4K TiVo is liekly to be a feature requiring 4K from MSO’s only because the OTA broadcasters are stuck with legacy built-in to the HDTV’s of today: MPEG2. and I just can’t see the FCC willing to make all those HDTV’s now at the heart of the “cord-cutters” experience, obsolete and so soon after having made all those analog TV’s obsolete. Further, I think those of us who depend upon TiVo for OTA will have quite a LONG wait for a TiVo 4K OTA product, if it EVER appears compared to the MSO subscribers who will get on their TiVo’s far sooner. It is going to a few years for the broadcaster to agree to a system to make the change. Of course, the broadcasters may NEVER bother to spend for such an upgrade for their OTA stations and just refer us OTA people to their on-line streaming 4K sites or tell us to get pay TV via cable, sat, or Dish’s new SlingTV product, which is likely to carry a few big OTA channels a year or so from launch.
The only way I can see broadcasters providing 4K is by the FCC allowing combo HD and 4K HDTV’s capable of receiving via OTA both MPEG2 for legacy and, presumably, H.265 for 4K AND broadcasters cooperating to use existing and new RF broadcast frequencies (channels) to create an agreed upon system of real channel assignments that would allow the broadcaster in a market to re-map the virtual channels to support legacy HDTV as it is today, and the new 4K streams. This would require oversight by the FCC and broadcasters willing to accept FCC decisions regarding disputes, but it IS technically possible. Remember, digital is COMMON CARRIER, so only we can only encode using ONE code, not a combination. In other worlds only MPEG2 or only MPEG4 or only H.265 the entire frequency including so called sub-channels.
On the other hand I understand that HDTV’s are NOT as profitable as they once were with Sony showing massive losses, as one example. So, the HDTV makers NEED something to get consumers to buy new sets, today and in the very near future, and 4K seems just the hype TV makers need RIGHT NOW!!
Let’s skip the 4K TV headache and let those who STILL don’t have HDTV’s catch up and instead invest in a far richer and more substantial upgrade: 8K TV.
No, you’re clearly still being a dick. Tell you what, how about respecting Dave’s wishes and just not engaging with me, OK? Thanks, cupcake.
(Yes. I literally think you are a cupcake.)
“So perhaps it is safer to say 4K LCDs look ‘better’ than 1080p LCDs.”
This.
From what I’ve read even early 4K sets do a very good job at up-scaling 720p/1080i content to “pseudo-4K.” (& black levels are better than on current LCD HDTVs)
I suspect that’s what Chucky’s friends are seeing, not that they are sitting close enough (4′-5′) from a 60″ 4K HDTV.
But if you can’t tell the difference from true 4k, why would upscaling lower-res content look better?
They could just be higher quality displays period, with better black levels, certainly. Nothing to do with being 4k specifically though.
Great conversation, so let me weigh in with some nescient predictions (thanks Chucky for the word up!): The average unmarried technophile will gladly open their wallets for 4K and a reasonable market will underwhelmingly develop to support 4K using H.265 on premium internet streaming outlets (NOT your MSOs). But it will not become mainstream.
Lonely geeks living in Mom’s basements, while driving technology forward as they have done with online porn since the day of Quicktime videos, do not drive widespread market acceptance. Wives do. This is the greatest economic power the world over, and unless you convince, wives, it remains forever a TOY. 4K is a nice toy and an interim format that will be forever supported, just not embraced by its lonesome.
So if I hold up a blank sheet of paper to my sloping forehead, what other nescient predictions would I make? In addition to concluding that 2+2=5, I would unjustifiably predict that 4K will suffer the fate of “480p” (upscaled DVD) when compared to the glory of early Blu-rays, poor “1080p”transfers that were marginally better than 720p. The difference between a good 480p (glorified progressive SD, if you recall) and a badly done Blu-ray, ostensibly running at 1080p, is 2 or 3 steps backwards away from the TV. To the wife, this is a resounding, MEH. I have this on tape. Come back, she says, when the HDTV is half the price, the picture significantly better, and don’t ever show me 4:3 aspect ratio 480i content at 16:9 aspect ratio or I will continue to tell you, “boy, HD really looks like crap doesn’t it?” (Yes, she used those exact words: she is very very smart.) So: 4K compared to HD will fall prey to the same market forces as EARLY HD when compared to 480p on early HD sets thanks to the miracle of upscaling.
What most consumers require, wives especially, is a couple of JNDs before they pry open the wallet. If you didn’t major in psychophysics, this means “Just Noticeable Difference”, and shockingly, this is actually a measurable thing in a laboratory or clinical setting. This is how most eye glasses prescriptions are made today by determining whether there is a JND change in your prescription and the optometrist seeks to find the proper thresholds. (I have some interesting hobbies).
Going from SD (480i) on a CRT to 480p on HD was at least a JND and sold many terrible early “HD” TVs, complicated by the fact that so much content was still 480i and stretched in bizzarre, unnatural aspect ratios. But going to 1080p FROM 480p was a much smaller JND, and many a wife dug their heels in. On the other hand, it was much easier for LATE adopters: jumping from 480i to 1080p being an easy sale as long as the TV itself was also on sale, and as long as the sabotage to the old CRT was hard to detect or to prove.
After this long, ill informed ramble, we should circle back to the prediction part. I predict (blank card to forehead) that 4K will become just another format that will be supported along with all of the other interim formats, but never mainstream all by its lonesome except among unmarried men with poor hygiene (note: not “mainstream”; sorry fellas), and that the next JND will be…8K. I know, amazing, right?
This is a nescient prediction because I have never seen 4K or 8K, but I have noticed (kudos to me! yay public education!) that 8K is a much bigger number than 4K, and having lived in the “is it better than 480p?” era predict we need a massive increase in pixels before we get to the next wife-worthy JND that will be successful in prying open wallets that would be better spent on dinners and cruises—and shudder– CHILDREN.
In sum, enjoy the 4K, but me and the missus will see you at 8K in 5 years or so after those sets yet to be built drop in prices and my current 1080p HDTV suffers a mysterious circuit board failure. Cheaper to get a new set than repair.
Small correction: The analogy was meant to be:
4K will be like 1080p when people had to justify moving from 480p on EDTVs (or early HDTVs). I set the analogy up wrong.
In contrast, 8K will get us closer to that same level of JND we experienced when we went to 1080p from a much lower base, such as 480i.
Yeah, for me 480i at 4:3 to 480p at 16:9 was the more substantial and meaningful jump. Or maybe it’s a revisionist memory. The question is how much of a difference is required, irrespective of the viewing distance debate, to get a sufficient number of folks to upgrade. I assume the rapidly descending prices of 4k for the masses will accelerate adoptioner – if it’s time for a new set and 4k is only a bit more, many will say let’s splurge for the future. On the MSO side, they’ll experiment with a few channels or hours, as they did with 3D, is my hunch. It’s Netflix, Youtube, Amazon, and other OTT video services that’ll push more up front. But at what cost to and of course what will happen to our broadband pricing as many shift revenue away from the entrenched cable company and increase network usage.
@Dave – if its Netflix/Amazon, etc that make the push happen. Even with better codecs, will 4k at low bandwidth compete with BluRay at 1080p at 25ish MB/s?
I don’t know that I would buy a 4k set — other than the price fall for 4k making the price for the upgrade worthwhile — I could see buying one if the price difference for lets say a 55 inch TV were $800 for 1080 vs $1100 for 4k. I probably wouldn’t watch anything in 4k – at least, not until 4kBluRay comes about.
I’m wondering how long it will really be until we hit 8k. If its <5 years, I'm guessing most will skip 4k unless they need to buy a new TV.
Since there you go, Dave, you chose to go off and say it more succinctly. Honestly, moving from 480i (4:3) to anything 480p or above was a wife-pleasing JND above SD, though the market forces didn’t really align around this until true HD sets dropped in price and HD content wasn’t something you paid extra for.
My very non-succinct comparison to 4K was to compare it to the transition of a comparative few people, going from 480p on EDTV or early HDTV sets to anything better. Honestly, just not a JND with most wives.
As I said in my last post just because a TV is 4K doesn’t mean it automatically is going to have a better picture or have acceptable performance. There are already some lower priced 4K TVs with issues – read Cnet’s review of Vizio’s 4K TV.
That said this maybe the year where all the top TVs are 4K so if you want a top TV it will be 4K by default – kind of like what happen with 3d. The lack of native content while an issue for people here or over at the AVI forums isn’t that big a deal for the general public – just look at how many people basically used HD TVs (and still do) to view SD content.
I also don’t think the movement from HD to UHD compares to what happen it the past. For many people they went from a 4:3 SD CRT to a 16:9 HD flat screen – which is a much bigger deal than going from a 1080p flat screen to a 4K flat screen. Perhaps going from a older smaller LCD to a bigger OLED 4K will help with the WOW factor (I am sure they are making curved screens to try and up the WOW factor also) but right now the price is to high.
Funny stuff, Jon!
You were speaking in jest, but I don’t see 8k as a likely JND either, unless TV sizes continue to balloon upwards and 100″+ displays become common. But at some point soon we’ll need to build larger houses!
Science-fiction glasses on, I can imagine painting walls with “smart paint” so an entire wall is your display. That would certainly benefit from higher density content, and it would enable other ways of consuming media than sitting on the couch. My kitchen table is up against a wall, I can imagine using a ~30″ rectangle of that wall to read the news in the morning rather than my iPad. It would revolutionize pooping, too. Really it could push the iPad out of most common use cases.
Back to reality, higher DPI screens are here to stay, because their development is driven by mobile devices (and very soon, desktop computer monitors) where they truly do make a difference because you’re much closer and they often display text. So we will see 4k TVs be the default, probably this year, and everybody will buy them. They just won’t see much difference, but that’s fine if they’re not paying extra. It is an issue when it comes to streaming, though, as the bandwidth requirements are much higher.
atmusky, my first HD “television” was a projector. My second was still a tube. But, yeah, I agree the form factor change has been a huge motivator.
“From what I’ve read even early 4K sets do a very good job at up-scaling 720p/1080i content to “pseudo-4K.” (& black levels are better than on current LCD HDTVs) I suspect that’s what Chucky’s friends are seeing, not that they are sitting close enough (4′-5′) from a 60″ 4K HDTV.”
Nah. This may well be true. But it’s not what I’m talkin’ ’bout. I’m talkin’ ’bout 4K native content.
First, I don’t have any personal friends with 4K sets. The bleeding edge is to be avoided, unless you like burning up Ben Franklins for fun. My reports are from writers who have seen native 4K content at various shows, whom I trust because they have long track records of being utterly correct on such issues.
Second, until a year or so ago, I was wholeheartedly in the camp of those relying on the (useful) “720 vs 1080?” charts to conclude that 4K in the home was utterly useless until we all had 127″ wall screens. What changed my mind was the trustworthy eyewitness reporting, which caused me to re-examine my assumptions, and find fault with them.
The repeated points from the eyewitness I found most noteworthy were:
– The disappearance of pixel visibility matters at medium ranges with medium sized screens in a way those “720 vs 1080?” charts would not indicate is possible. (It seems the practical disappearance of pixel interpolation is a real-world advance in PQ.)
– PQ at long distances is dramatically improved in a way those “720 vs 1080?” charts would not indicate is possible.
So, when I find new evidence, I re-evaluate my thinking. Why would 4K in the home matter so much without 127″ wall screens? Here are the reasons:
1) Unlike the 720 vs 1080 game, where the bit-rate was identical, 4K comes with an effective bit-rate, (combining actual increased bit-rate with a more efficient codec), of around an order of magnitude greater than HD. This is really important. It’s just about the same level of increase in Picture Information we experienced in the SD -> HD transition. More Picture Information is really important in terms of PQ, no matter what your distance and screen-size. (As a thought experiment, is there any viewing distance in a cinema where it doesn’t matter if the film being projected is 8mm or 70mm? Of course not.)
2) Pixel density is increased by around half an order of magnitude, again around the same level of increase as the SD to HD transition. And according to the multiple eyewitnesses, the practical disappearance of pixel interpolation affects PQ at distances where the 720 vs 1080 charts say pixel count shouldn’t matter. (Plus, the increased pixel density helps make the increased Picture Information more fully real-world apparent.)
On both fronts, we’re looking at an advance in PQ almost identical to the SD -> HD transition. And this applies to ‘normal’ sized sets at ‘normal’ distances.
Now, for the umpteenth time, I still expect consumer pickup of 4K to be slow. Many folks don’t seem to care much about PQ. (I still think HD adoption was driven as much by the aspect ratio as it was by PQ.) And 4K is still firmly in bleeding edge territory at the moment. In the unlikely event that 1080 OLED panels magically got cheap tomorrow, I’d buy one as a stop-gap for a year or three until 4K gear gets cheaper and more settled.
But 4K is coming. It will eventually become the standard. And the upshot for folks who do care about PQ is that the 4K transition really is as dramatic as the SD -> HD transition. Without 127″ wall screens. In normal household settings.
If you show your average consumer a TV and content with true 1080P and one with 4K in isolation, not side by side, could they tell the difference? I’m not sure I could. I think 4K is still years away because some of the networks broadcast 720p. Some 1080i. But the compression we get from cable and satellite is so high that the programming isn’t even tat good. I just don’t see 4K being that compelling unless you have a VERY LARGE screen. Like 80 inches or bigger.
“If you show your average consumer a TV and content with true 1080P and one with 4K in isolation, not side by side, could they tell the difference?”
Back to back with a pause? The median consumer? Dunno. But the same goes for SD and HD.
But for either, if you showed them side-by-side, pretty much every civilian could easily tell the difference.
(And if you did it like eye tests, one immediately after the other, with switching immediately back and forth as necessary, again, I think pretty much every civilian could tell the difference.)
“I think 4K is still years away because some of the networks broadcast 720p. Some 1080i.”
Yeah. Slow and staggered rollout. My wild guess is 12 to 24 4K channels to begin with. But even HD is only a subset of the multicast after all these years.
“But the compression we get from cable and satellite is so high that the programming isn’t even tat good.”
Depends on your wireline provider, of course. For FIOS at least, which doesn’t further compress channels from the source, a not insignificant subset of HD channels transmit a very high bit-rate. The good channels are 16 – 18 Mbps. In practice, that’s noticeably better PQ than any OTT service, despite the archaic codec.
I think FIOS could transmit a dozen or two 4K channels at 40Mbps without really upgrading thier infrastructure, which if paired with MPEG5 at the endpoint, would produce an order of magnitude gain over current HD.
Of course, if your wireline provider can’t even handle current HD bit-rates without further compression, YMMV.
“I just don’t see 4K being that compelling unless you have a VERY LARGE screen. Like 80 inches or bigger.”
I used to completely agree. But after reading further into the topic, I’ve come to the very opposite conclusion. (And, of course, if you’re one of the not small group of folks who don’t really care about the difference between SD and HD, your mileage will vary.)
Well, I suspect it won’t be 4K vs. 8K that drives my next HDTV purchase, but whether or not I can get an OLED panel instead of a conventional LCD panel.
For small sets (32″) I have no problem with LCD HDTVs.
But my large (50″ & up) HDTVs have been mid-priced plasmas, & I am still surprised by how much better they look vs. the mid-range LCD HDTVs I’ve seen.
“Well, I suspect it won’t be 4K vs. 8K that drives my next HDTV purchase, but whether or not I can get an OLED panel instead of a conventional LCD panel.”
You can! They’re for sale now! (Though, unfortunately, the $119,000 model is currently out of stock at Amazon. Worth it for the comments, even if temporarily out of stock. However, if you do pre-order it, use Dave’s affiliate link.)
OLED is as much ‘bleeding edge’ as 4K at the moment. Though I fully agree with you, that for present-tense at least, I’d much rather have a 1080 OLED panel than a 4K LED panel.
I still think HD adoption was driven as much by the aspect ratio as it was by PQ
Let’s be real here and get back to the WAF (wife acceptance factor) point, I think TRUE HD adoption occurred when our spouses said, “wait, so what you’re telling me… is we can get rid of that big RP, or giant/heavy tube tv AND media cabinet, and just hang this thing on the wall like a picture?” “Okay, you can buy it.”
I would love to be able to get a 4K or even 8K display. But I can’t go smaller than what I have now. Which is an 82″ RP DLP set. So I would need at least an 84″ 4K set. Which unfortunately is just too expensive. After I spent $4k on a 1080P set in 2005 I swore I would never spend anywhere near that much on a Tv again. And so far I’ve stuck to that.
“I would love to be able to get a 4K or even 8K display.”
As repeatedly stated, I think 4K is going to be a massive advance in PQ, but even I don’t want a 4K set now. There’s no damn content yet.
“After I spent $4k on a 1080P set in 2005 I swore I would never spend anywhere near that much on a Tv again.”
Wise decision. I’ve always stayed a year or so behind the curve, and bought year-old models when I did jump. So my first HD set was a 32″ 720p, but it was cheap enough that I was able to upgrade it in 24 months and still keep total costs low. I’ve now gone through four upgrades in this manner, and my cumulative budget has been less than 4 grand…
“After I spent $4k on a 1080P set in 2005 I swore I would never spend anywhere near that much on a Tv again.”
Happily for you, the snazzy $119,000 model is indeed nowhere near $4k, so you can pre-order today and keep your pledge!
“As repeatedly stated, I think 4K is going to be a massive advance in PQ, but even I don’t want a 4K set now. There’s no damn content yet.”
For me its the concern about the standards, by which I mean both the codecs to be used (presumably everything up thru H.265) and the HDMI specs. Horizontal x Vertical plus color depth plus refresh rate etc. I wouldn’t want to buy an early TV that later requires an external box to upgrade the typical signal output by a 4K STB. For now its WAIT. Otherwise I’d be happy to buy a 4K if the current TV broke. From what I’ve heard even upscaling the new TVs look quite a bit better–hey, I bought a line doubler at the tail end of the 480p revolution so at least I’m consistent.
“Well, it certainly makes sense to be working on a prototype, but as others mentioned, its still at least a few years away. What 4k content is out there? I mean, I’m in Boston where Comcast has some of their higher bandwidth networks and we still have quite a few channels that are not in HD – for example, we only have one HD channel for NHL Center Ice and one for whatever NBA’s equivalent. How many channels would they be able to support at 4k?”
A single analog 6MHz slot on cable has 38.8Mbps of bandwidth on a modern system. It can display that one analog CBS/ABC/NBC/PBS/city hall channel OR 10 SD channels using 3.75Mbps and MPEG-2 OR 2.5ish HD MPEG-2 channels at 15Mbps (or 3 if they just squish it a little more). Or 5-6 H.264 HD channels at 7.5 or so Mbps (example from AT&T U-Verse, a bit aggressive). Or maybe double that with H.265, TBD.
Given that none of the cable companies have really used H.264 yet, let alone H.265, there’s lots of room for more efficient encoding of something like 4K if they force customers who want those channels to get new STBs. Easy enough in the near term–the vast majority of people would continue using their existing boxes and thus the cost to cableco would be low. Which is of course exactly what they did with 3D. They added a few channels using H.264, and required their customers to upgrade to a different STB if they wanted to add those channels.
Easy peasy. Will they do that? No idea. Seems like a good bet though. Before anybody gets too used to watching 4K Netflix or 4K Youtube or anything.
“For me its the concern about the standards, by which I mean both the codecs to be used (presumably everything up thru H.265) and the HDMI specs. Horizontal x Vertical plus color depth plus refresh rate etc. I wouldn’t want to buy an early TV that later requires an external box to upgrade the typical signal output by a 4K STB. For now its WAIT.”
Yuperoo.
Bleeding edge.
“Will they do that? No idea. Seems like a good bet though. Before anybody gets too used to watching 4K Netflix or 4K Youtube or anything.”
Yuperoo, again.
It just makes sense in sooooo many ways for this to come to a mass audience first via the multicast.
—–
“there’s lots of room for more efficient encoding of something like 4K if they force customers who want those channels to get new STBs. Easy enough in the near term–the vast majority of people would continue using their existing boxes and thus the cost to cableco would be low. Which is of course exactly what they did with 3D. They added a few channels using H.264, and required their customers to upgrade to a different STB if they wanted to add those channels.”
Exactamundo.
And the fun thing is that over time, as more of the base goes 4K, this is the event that will drive the MSO’s to start to force out more MPEG5-capable endpoint boxes, as they want to covert more channels to MPEG5, (including non-4K channels), and thus increase overall effective bit-rate capacity as the whole multicast finally shits from MPEG2 to MPEG5…