Is this a true 4k receiver?

[little wing]

There isn't any broadcast 4k content in the US and I'm not aware of any 4K cable yet. What there is are 4K and 4K w/HDR Blu-Rays, a little bit (and growing) of original Netflix 4K and 4K w/HDR content, and I'm under the impression that Amazon Prime has some 4K original content with more on the way. The problem is that not every media player supports 4K much less 4K w/HDR. At normal TV sizes and viewing distances 4K is a bit of an improvement over 1080P but not a huge one. It's when you are close to a display oe with a huge display where you see it the most. On the other hand High Dynamic Range (HDR) is, in my opinion, a big improvement in the picture - as long as the performance of your next TV is up to the task.

Would I replace a perfectly good 65" 1080P just to have a 65" 4K TV? Nope. But if you are replacing a dying TV, upgrading the size of your TV, recycling the old set into another room, or just have a hankering for a new TV then 4K w/HDR is the way to go.

Actually there is broadcast content with Direct TV. They have a whopping 3 channels. Channels 104, 105 and 106. One is for sports, one for documentaries and one for movies. Of course you have to have the correct box to get these. 4k is never likely to be widespread though, due to the cost of the camara equipment needed to broadcast 4k.

 

[sholling]

Actually there is broadcast content with Direct TV. They have a whopping 3 channels. Channels 104, 105 and 106. One is for sports, one for documentaries and one for movies. Of course you have to have the correct box to get these.

Are you talking about conventional mountain-top antenna broadcast or satellite TV? I would categorize satellite as a form of subscription TV like cable and fiber rather than conventional broadcast.

4k is never likely to be widespread though, due to the cost of the camara equipment needed to broadcast 4k.

Tuner compatibility and bandwidth are bigger worries than the cost of cameras. The size and price of professional grade 4K video cameras will keep dropping to until they are about the same size and price of 1080P cameras. Broadcasters have a limited amount of bandwidth and even if they switch to a more efficient bandwidth saving encoding standard to implement 4K what percentage of conventional customer owned digital tuners will be able to decode it? That's the broadcast TV tuner in your 4K or 720/1080 TV. I have no idea but I'm pretty sure that BSA knows and perhaps he and/or others will educate us.

The real massive business expense would be to satellite and cable companies that will need to either allocate a ton of bandwidth to new 4k channels or replace most of their cable/satellite boxes with ones that are 4K ready and deliver HD or 4k based on settings. Either way they'll need to do expensive upgrades to their systems.

In my opinion 4K will primarily be internet dependent for at least the next few years. So far HBO and other major cable players are refusing to go 4K on their internet channels

 

[little wing]

Are you talking about conventional mountain-top antenna broadcast or satellite TV? I would categorize satellite as a form of subscription TV like cable and fiber rather than conventional broadcast.


Tuner compatibility and bandwidth are bigger worries than the cost of cameras. The size and price of professional grade 4K video cameras will keep dropping to until they are about the same size and price of 1080P cameras. Broadcasters have a limited amount of bandwidth and even if they switch to a more efficient bandwidth saving encoding standard to implement 4K what percentage of conventional customer owned digital tuners will be able to decode it? That's the broadcast TV tuner in your 4K or 720/1080 TV. I have no idea but I'm pretty sure that BSA knows and perhaps he and/or others will educate us.

The real massive business expense would be to satellite and cable companies that will need to either allocate a ton of bandwidth to new 4k channels or replace most of their cable/satellite boxes with ones that are 4K ready and deliver HD or 4k based on settings. Either way they'll need to do expensive upgrades to their systems.

In my opinion 4K will primarily be internet dependent for at least the next few years. So far HBO and other major cable players are refusing to go 4K on their internet channels

Yes I'm talking about satilite TV. Perhaps I misunderstood your definition of broadcast TV. Either way, I don't hold much hope for widespread 4k programming. Shame to, because when you look at 4k video via YouTube, the picture actually is pretty stunning.

 

[sholling]

4K on Youtube can be beautiful when done well. Netflix also has some beautiful 4K with HDR and Atmos that my looks great and sounds really good on my smart TV

 

[little wing]

4K on Youtube can be beautiful when done well. Netflix also has some beautiful 4K with HDR and Atmos that my looks great and sounds really good on my smart TV

Yes very true, beautiful indeed. I forgot about Netflix. I just have to remember to use my 4k Tv to view those apps and not my beloved opp 105

 

[BoredSysAdmin]

Broadcasters have a limited amount of bandwidth and even if they switch to a more efficient bandwidth saving encoding standard to implement 4K what percentage of conventional customer owned digital tuners will be able to decode it? That's the broadcast TV tuner in your 4K or 720/1080 TV. I have no idea but I'm pretty sure that BSA knows and perhaps he and/or others will educate us.

Don't want to drag it too deeply, but a short version is next-gen OTA will support 4k transmission which you could pick up with "rabbit ears" antenna (well, nearly but same idea) using existing or nearby TV broadcasting radio frequencies. And they absolutely would need to switch to more efficient video compression than the currently widely used in the USA, ancient mpeg2 compression.

The real massive business expense would be to satellite and cable companies that will need to either allocate a ton of bandwidth to new 4k channels or replace most of their cable/satellite boxes with ones that are 4K ready and deliver HD or 4k based on settings. Either way, they'll need to do expensive upgrades to their systems.

Yes, for cable and sat operators replacing home boxes would be the biggest pain in the rear. It's not even the cost issue - god knows they charge through the nose for them in monthly rent, but it's more of chicken and egg situation - they need new 4k boxes in the field deployed to start to advertise 4k channels availability heavily, but who's going to get them in massive enough number with lack of content. I assume backward compatibility would also be a major concern.

In my opinion, 4K will primarily be internet dependent for at least the next few years. So far HBO and other major cable players are refusing to go 4K on their internet channels

100% agreed. However there are indicators that UHD/4k TV adoption rate is actually quite fast (faster than I'd expect) and faster than HD TV (I'm shocked here) - so who knows what future awaits. Between rapidly acceleration cord-cutters and cord-nevers - Big cable companies are not in a great position from TV content innovation (if you don't count "innovative" ways to jack up the price) to offer 4k sooner rather than later.
https://venturebeat.com/2016/09/19/4k-uhd-tvs-are-being-adopted-faster-than-hdtvs/
https://www.tellusventure.com/blog/4k-tv-will-be-in-half-of-u-s-homes-by-end-of-2019/

 

[sholling]

Don't want to drag it too deeply, but a short version is next-gen OTA will support 4k transmission which you could pick up with "rabbit ears" antenna (well, nearly but same idea) using existing or nearby TV broadcasting radio frequencies. And they absolutely would need to switch to more efficient video compression than the currently widely used in the USA, ancient mpeg2 compression.

Which would of course require external tuners for existing TVs.

Yes, for cable and sat operators replacing home boxes would be the biggest pain in the rear. It's not even the cost issue - god knows they charge through the nose for them in monthly rent, but it's more of chicken and egg situation - they need new 4k boxes in the field deployed to start to advertise 4k channels availability heavily, but who's going to get them in massive enough number with lack of content. I assume backward compatibility would also be a major concern.

Cable companies have a simple option. They can if they choose to save and optimise bandwidth usage by transmitting a single single standard signal to all STBs. Those STBs would then convert and forward the standard high bandwidth signal to SD, 720P, 1080/i/p, and 4K to customer TVs based on settings chosen within the STB. In other words CBS would not be on (LA Area) channel 2 (SD) plus 502 (HD), instead it would just be channel 02 and the STB would deliver the appropriate format to your TV. That way the cable company only needs to stock one generation of boxes which would then be software upgradeable to unlikely future standards (8K? 16k? super-duper HDR, etc.). They could begin by issuing the new STBs to everyone that sets up a new account or requests upgraded service. Once they've replaced 30-40% of existing boxes they could just roll out the rest to existing customers and turn on high bandwidth services.