Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Top HBO Exec Disses 4K TV

M

Marc Wielage

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
6,541
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Location
Hollywood, USA
I found this a little alarming:

In a recent interview with PC World HBO Chief Technical Officer Robert Zitter says he's very negative about the idea of 4K TV broadcasting, citing the expense needed to completely change out their infrastructure, the need for more bandwidth, and the lack of an existing market for 4K viewers.

"That makes us look at 4K somewhat skeptically," Zitter said. "From my perspective, I have looked at 4K and we are prepared to, if it really comes to pass, maybe offer it on an on-demand basis."

Zitter also echoed CNET's claim that a large screen is required to see any difference between a 4K TV and a 1080p HDTV.

"They need a screen size that is greater than 60 or 70 inches," he said. "You can't see the difference on a screen that is smaller than 60 inches. But how many people in the United States or anywhere are going to have TV sets that are bigger than 60 or 70 inches? 20 or 25 percent?"

Very thoughtful comments. I think he's unduly negative, but he brings up some good issues. (Note that this is about the potential for 4K TV, not for 4K in theaters or used for production.) Full article at this link:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/261795/hbos_cto_skeptical_over_potential_for_4k_tv.html
 
This reminds me of the engineers who've been telling me it's almost impossible to distinguish between 720p and 1080p on "regular" HD tv sets that not unusually large. I guess you really need a big canvass to start feeling the difference.
 
Nick Morrison said:
This reminds me of the engineers who've been telling me it's almost impossible to distinguish between 720p and 1080p on "regular" HD tv sets that not unusually large. I guess you really need a big canvass to start feeling the difference.
Click to expand...
I've said before that the sad reality is, most of the stations that are stuck in 720P (Fox and ABC) are throwing away half their bandwidth on sub-channels, so we're not only losing resolution, we're seeing more compression artifacts. At least here in LA, CBS is one of the few stations using lots of bandwidth for HD, so we're seeing a pretty decent over-the-air picture.

To me, there are a lot of qualitative factors beyond just the K. On the plus side, at least cable execs are talking about 4K, which means eventually, we'll probably have enough bandwidth for this to become a reality. And I agree that 4K is a good choice as a long-term archival format, provided you have a reliable backup medium.
 
I've always thought that theaters, special venues, computer media, public video displays, home theater, etc. are a lot more suited for 4k than over-the-air/cable broadcast. Broadcast will be the last to switch, but IMHO, much of the content will be available in 4K to those who want it.
 
There is also a big difference between acquisition and delivery formats. Shooting in 4+k has a future, shooting HD doesn't
 
There is no escaping the fundamental logic of: "why would HBO spend oodles of money to move to 4K absent meaningful demand levels for it?"

Even as an avowed 4K zealot, I recognize that until people see 4K for themselves its impossible to expect them to seek it. Reminiscent of how software and hardware have taken turns leading users down the ever profitable upgrade path, it may require a ready population of 4K displays to drive 4K demand. If rumors are accurate, it may actually be the next generation of computer monitors that establishes that beach head.

Moreover, from the perspective of a guy in Zitter's shoes the ability to reduce bit rates without noticeable IQ degradation is of far greater value to the people who write his checks than 4K. As discussed in other threads, significant amounts of 4K via OTT delivery has the potential to spur someone like HBO to join an arms race they would rather avoid. Of course the days of feature films being the true bread and butter of HBO have passed as they have shifted to a strategy of retaining subscribers through high profile branded content like The Sopranos that you can't get anywhere else (on disc is still revenue to HBO). If alternative distribution channels offering 4K content begin to erode HBOs (Showtime, TMC, etc) share of the high end market enough then its a different discussion, but that seems likely to take a while.

The more powerful dynamic I see is the crumbling of the boundaries between delivery modalities as IP distribution combined with evolving media consumption patterns makes the linear legacy of traditional TV programming an anachronism. As various players in this new landscape seek ways to differentiate themselves I do think some will use 4K as a banner to wave in the marketplace. As this inevitable battle for market share heats up, 4K aficianados just might be the collateral beneficiaries.

Cheers - #19
 
It's not just the television companies who would have to throw out recent expensive HD infrastructure. Most consumers have only just bought new HDTVs, and would have to be convinced to spend money again to upgrade to 4K, especially in today's financial downturn which looks likely to last quite some time. But acquisition in 4K makes total sense.
 
Sadly he's correct...

I did a test on a HD and 4k monitors with hd and 4k footage, swapping between them both... Both monitors were 50inche... Could not really tell the difference unless I was 12 inches from the screen...
But when you see 4k footage on 4 projector and a 2k footage on a 4k projector, its like chalk and cheese ! ..
Normal size monitors I feel also feel 4k is a waste.

But that will never stop me shooting 5k. :)
 
LOL... Way back when, circa 1996, HBO was very vocal against and totally dissed HDTV. 4 years later, they had their first HD channel. Watching the whole 4K (QFHD as it applies to consumers) drama unfold is like watching the adoption of HD all over again. Nearly the same parties opposed to it as the last time around. And they all have the same lame-ass excuses or arguments against. It's like they all dusted off the old playbooks and anti-HD propaganda pamphlets to recycle them. Only thing different is this time, the evolution and adoption seem to be moving at a faster pace.

The fact of the matter is 4K is an eventuality. It's not a question of if or why, but a question of when. That when is happening right now... To add to that, a person would be a complete fool to think 4K, or even the upcoming 7.5K (faux 8K) SuperHiVision format, are the final word on the matter.
 
It's funny we hear the very same arguments about 4k adoption from those who have now adopted HD that they used when they were SD and procrastinating on the move to HD.

It's also very wrong to talk about screen size - it should be angle of view that is talked about. 4k is not for those that have a 14" portable TV in the corner of their living room, and HD offers them no benefit either. I doubt such a viewer could respond to the best that SD had to offer either. But if you want a more immersive TV experience it does mean sitting close to, or getting a larger screen so that your peripheral vision starts to get filled with imagery. And if you don't think that such imagery would be powerful, you really must go see the best that IMAX offers.

Also as pointed out, no argument against 4k TV in any way avoids the reality of 4k+ acquisition being the new norm.

4K TV is not if, but when.

Graeme
 
It will take some time (+10 years in my opinion) before 4K TV becomes the norm.

Most content providers in the world are just getting comfortable with producing and post-producing 1080p content. Very few will be able to do a new jump again to 4k so soon when even Hollywood's output is still mainly 2k.
 
I think 4k right now is more suited for home use, projectors, TV digital files. I must say that broadcasters can't get HD right here in Canada. I have Rogers, one of the largest companies and my signal is CRAP!!! I was watching the Tour of spain cycling race the other day, and the image was barely equal to the live stream SD signal I was getting on my computer. Not sure if Europe or the USA is any better, but here they will need a huge bandwidth upgrade.

I'm looking forward to buying films in 4k providing the price is right. 100$ is not that price.
 
I remember going to NAB in the early 80's and it was the first time I had seen HD, which was being touted as the wave of the future. It took about twenty years for it to catch on. Indeed, 2012 was the first time I purchased an HD television and that was only so I could view the work I was producing for my client! In the J school at UGA, one of my professors talked of "sedentary narcosis" and was referring to the penchant of people being so lazy as to not get up and change the channel, but rather watch whatever came on the boob tube after the current program.

Same thing can be applied to technology. We get so set in our ways it takes heaven and earth to move towards any new thing, and that is certainly not news. Graeme is right, it's not if, but when.
 
The poor quality of broadcast HD is almost the self-fulfulling prophecy for those that said nobody would be able to see the benefit anyway. Of course, the whole broadcast model with fixed broadcast standards of frame-rate and resolutions is not something that is actually necessary any more, and to me, that's actually the key point.

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
The poor quality of broadcast HD is almost the self-fulfulling prophecy for those that said nobody would be able to see the benefit anyway. Of course, the whole broadcast model with fixed broadcast standards of frame-rate and resolutions is not something that is actually necessary any more, and to me, that's actually the key point.
Click to expand...


Unless very high speed broadband service is available to everyone for free, I would say that it actually is necessary. It's easy for those who live in major cities to say such things. It's a lot less believable and practical if you don't. I find that a number of people on RedUser seem to live in an imaginary future world in which everyone on the planet has 100Mb Internet service that's available all the time and free, and in which everyone lives in a house that has a 20x30 room that is devoted solely to entertainment on 85" and larger viewing screens. I don't iive in that world yet. and neither do 100% of the people I know.

The last time I looked, broadcast HD is available over the air, for free, as long as one has an antenna and lives in an area served by broadcast television stations. That is an infrastructure that is already in place, has defined standards, serves the masses, and works pretty darned well, all things considered. And it informs as well as entertains, something often overlooked here.
 
Mike, you miss my point (which admittedly I didn't explain) on broadcast standards. With TV as it started as an analogue system it was necessary for the image to be of a specific format at a specific frame rate. But now, there's the technology in place that a "TV" (whatever that will actually mean in the future) should be able to cope with any resolution or frame rate source thrown at it. Just like that home cinema projector - it has scaling in it so that PAL or NTSC SD, or HD all just plays. My multi-media PC just scales all content it plays up to HD, no matter what it's source resolution. Frame rates can be similarly handled (although that's not always done properly).

My point therefore is - that once there was a technological need for fixed formats, and now there is no longer that strict technological need.

Graeme
 
As M Most points out, there are a lot of idealists on these forums.... I'm not ashamed to say that I'm often one of them. But let's look at it this way... 65" and 70-72" HDTV screen sizes are quite popular. In fact, now with prices falling sub $2K for 70"+ display sizes, they're starting to out-sell the 55-60" models. I guess on reason is that most people who have room for a 60~65" can probably fit a 72" just fine and price-wise they're about the same.

As for delivery of 4K content, it's the transmission and receiver technology that is the hurdle. The data medium in between is already of sufficient capacity when modern compression algorithms are taken into account. Current "HD-Lite" 1280x1080i broadcasts on most North American cable networks as well as via DirecTV / Dish are allocated 25Mbps. 4K with 8 channel audio via REDRAY fits in less bandwidth than that. ...Just sayin'

IP delivery is undoubtedly the future, but yes it will indeed take time. The majority of people in the USA still don't have fast internet. Even those with so-called high-speed access via DSL find their connections to be overloaded, throttled back, etc.. And such connections are often completely unavailable in many suburban and rural areas. The situation is even more dire in other countries. And there's also the current economic slump and many people can't afford the luxury of 5~7Mbps DSL or cable service at a going rate of $35-$50 per month plus additional taxes.

The technology will get here. It's inevitable and it will eventually be commonplace and affordable. I think the real message here is that it's only a matter of "when".

And I totally agree with Graeme. There is no need for frame rate restrictions, different formats for different regions, interlacing and all the other barriers that have been imposed throughout the past history of television. I find it curious that equipment manufacturers, standards committees and broadcasters all feel the need to perpetuate these unnecessary roadblocks.
 
Think of them as toll-booths rather than roadblocks and you'll see motivation for their continuation. Ooh, I'm wearing my cynical hat today.

Graeme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top