Top HBO Exec Disses 4K TV

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Overplaying their hand

Overplaying their hand

(snip) 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' (snip)

I wish your note about bit rate allocation was accurate but I fear the reality is much less. Allow me to cite a snippet from Zitter's article:

"We have just improved our encoding to where we have been able to lower the date rates for HD from 3.4M bps and do the same quality to about 2.9M bps. That's good for everyone in the food chain, because streaming costs are lower and you get a higher quality without using as much data," said Zitter.

As I noted in another thread and as Graeme suggested in an earlier post, the cable/DBS industry made a choice to maximize short term revenue by over compressing HD programming rather than adding capacity (more birds, more miles of fiber, etc). Because of this choice, they essentially "drained the quality moat" that would have suppressed uptake of OTT streaming services like Hulu. Yes, some people wouldn't notice or care about the quality differential - especially if they consume the content on a laptop - but IP distribution @ 1 or 2mb/s to the 40" plus screen in the living room would have looked pretty awful if you were conditioned to seeing 25mb/s HD pictures.

IMO the big cable operators and satellite folks put their own viability at risk. If streaming access to content is cheaper, carries less or no advertising, you can watch what you want when you want, are able to find desired content efficiently via familiar browser type searches with similar quality the OTT value proposition will win over significant market share very quickly. It is my supposition that the big distributors are busily reworking the user interface and figuring out ways to lock up high value programming like major sports to stay relevant.

Sadly I share Graeme's cynicism about how and why the established players are manipulating access rather than offering better image quality. I guess its cheaper to hire lawyers and grease legislators/FCC commissioners the it is to just add bandwidth. Sad days indeed.

Cheers - #19

 

[Christopher Mills]

It's their duty as employees of their corporations to offer their product at the highest rate of profitablity.. if they dont do this, they are replaced.

 

[Marc Wielage]

On the other hand, here's a very positive essay on the virtues of 4K for the home from The Verge:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/4/3289567/4k-tv-future/in/3040349

The author concludes:

It's difficult to witness one of these 84-inch 4K TVs in person and not think that that's where the next great leap in home entertainment will be happening. They may look outlandish and present logistical nightmares, but these large-panel displays are the closest thing to realizing the long-held dream of a home cinema I've yet seen. If this isn't the future of TV, then TV has no future.

So that's a much more rosy outlook on the future of 4K for home video. Me, I observe the same things that Mike Most says: that the bandwidth of most internet companies is not quite there yet. I know of only a handful of companies that can routinely screen 4K at their facilities, and no ordinary mortals who can do it... yet. But I do think the road to 4K is clear, and it's eventually gonna happen. But not overnight.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

4K beach head

4K beach head

I see the 4K beach head coming with computer graphics cards that support QFHD (3,840 by 2,160) resolutions, followed by monitors that natively display it. Because of the hot tablet market and desire to put high resolution images on small smart phone screens high PPI (pixel per inch) display tech has been getting a lot of R & D attention. I expect to see those CE companies leveraging high density display acumen by making 24 - 40" display sizes with QFHD resolutions for close viewing uses.

Whether its gaming, still photography, multi-tasking or any of the many reasons people often set up dual monitors; I think there are plenty of people who would love to have lots of screen real estate on their desktop. If you mostly watch motion content via IP delivery (OTT) then its even more enticing, even if it's just pixel binning 1080 its still nice to have a bigger screen when you want to "lean back".

IF your normal seating for "living room" style viewing puts you 8 to 12 feet away then limitations of human visual acuity do require at the very least a 65" screen to discern the 4K advantage over 1080. OTOH if you are 2 to 4 feet away then even a 32" monitor will offer easily seen and understood benefits. For those of us looking to display our work at its best the typical computer monitor is hardly our friend (too contrasty, wonky color gamut/balance, 6 bit panels, etc) but its a start.

Someday the price of large 4K displays will come to earth, in the meantime cost will severely limit the installed base of 4K devices and by extension limit the number of players interested in serving the market, no matter how juicy the demographic. First we take the desktop, then the living room! Viva la Rebellion!

Cheers - #19

 

[Mark Phelan]

As in all things, the networks are not going to be the ones who determine what resolution is appropriate, the consumer will. More and more those consumers are opting to bypass traditional television in favor of their own medium of choice. As the options continue to grow, less influence will be made by HBO, NBC, DirecTV, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/b...hing-but-less-often-on-tv.html?pagewanted=all

My granddaughter has her own iPad. She's four. FOUR! And she doesn't even think about how to use it, she just does, intuitively. That's to Apple's credit. Steve Jobs got it. The next generations don't care at all about network television, or watching television as my generation did. So why would they care about some suit telling them that 1080 is good enough? They're not even listening. But they are in charge of the future and we better catch up to it because they're not waiting around.

 

[shashbugu]

As in all things, the networks are not going to be the ones who determine what resolution is appropriate, the consumer will. More and more those consumers are opting to bypass traditional television in favor of their own medium of choice. As the options continue to grow, less influence will be made by HBO, NBC, DirecTV, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/b...hing-but-less-often-on-tv.html?pagewanted=all

My granddaughter has her own iPad. She's four. FOUR! And she doesn't even think about how to use it, she just does, intuitively. That's to Apple's credit. Steve Jobs got it. The next generations don't care at all about network television, or watching television as my generation did. So why would they care about some suit telling them that 1080 is good enough? They're not even listening. But they are in charge of the future and we better catch up to it because they're not waiting around.

This is very true. TV execs will not determine the evolution of broadcast specs anymore. Nerds will.