I expect PPV will be the initial 4K they offer with the 4K Joey. I expect it to be a while before we get linear 4K offerings. In terms of free VOD in 4K, I couldn't guess.
Dish to unveil 4k?
- Thread starter lern4483
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 418
- Views 33K
It's his new or current obsession.... I don't remember which came first, more / all channels in HD or apps for the Hopper. Then it was the Carbon UI for the Hopper/Joey. Now his current one is 4K channels.
You forgot Tunein radio and Iheart radio. More music channels.It's his new or current obsession.... I don't remember which came first, more / all channels in HD or apps for the Hopper. Then it was the Carbon UI for the Hopper/Joey. Now his current one is 4K channels.
We've been "patienceing" Alan for many months, as Tom knows. Just repeated the same as the rest of us, obviously.It's his new or current obsession.... I don't remember which came first, more / all channels in HD or apps for the Hopper. Then it was the Carbon UI for the Hopper/Joey. Now his current one is 4K channels.
For all you that are pointing out SD to HD is much bigger than HD to UHD, let's remember a key part to this rumor.
We know a "Famous Connecticut Broadcaster" uses a 720p signal.
Let's remember the rather unremarkable difference 720p is from SD. (I know the SD we watch now is trash, but with S-Video, C-Band, you could get a very decent picture on a CRT.)
This jump to 4k, would be a huge boost to 720p networks. ESPN is a technology leader, and they can push this far. FOX would then be the last main sports broadcaster left on 720 only and the certainly have the resources to go 4k.
(I know the SD res here is better than DVD, but you get the idea.)
We know a "Famous Connecticut Broadcaster" uses a 720p signal.
Let's remember the rather unremarkable difference 720p is from SD. (I know the SD we watch now is trash, but with S-Video, C-Band, you could get a very decent picture on a CRT.)
This jump to 4k, would be a huge boost to 720p networks. ESPN is a technology leader, and they can push this far. FOX would then be the last main sports broadcaster left on 720 only and the certainly have the resources to go 4k.
(I know the SD res here is better than DVD, but you get the idea.)
Let me address some other points you 4K-naysayers love to bring up.
Consumer demand lacking. Yes, it will take years (a decade?) for 4k to gain a majority market share, butthis all tech is getting cheaper and faster everyday. 4k LCDs are barely more expensive to build than 1080 which is why almost all 2015 TVs are 4k. LCD panels are not expensive in 4k. There's simply not much reason for manufacturers to make a 1080p TV when 4k is "right there" in price. You're going to get 4k soon when buying a TV, it's simple. The differences in local dimming, and things like SUHD are what makes the difference for LCD prices/quality, but they don't restrict access to 4k and you can still get a big set with the needed resolution for rather cheap. 4k is waaayyyy cheaper at this point in the life-cycle than the 1080 panel roll-out was.
Compression technology is getting better and HEVC standard will improve any video stream bandwidth when it can be adopted (this is the real difficulty and the internet has a huge advantage with this). We don't need to think that 4k is going to take 4x the bandwidth to provide a channel. Many TV channels will need to wait a long time to have 4k content to distribute. We're not talking the Top 120 package going 4k in 2016 (4k Law & Order re-runs!!!). Almost EVERYTHING being recorded right now is in 4k. One reason for this is the options it gives in post-process, but also the future proofing of the material. Movies and major live sports are always filmed/recorded with 4k cameras, we just don't have access or distribution methods for this content yet. Those hit this winter. (Remember you can probably even record 4k video on your phone's camera right now, but you probably need YouTube do distribute/view it on another device. Think of how long it took 1080 to be recordable on a consumer product, not to mention your phone.)
We all know Dish has some crappy compression now, and there's many wants like, full-time RSNs (or even CSNNE). But there's nothing that states that Dish needs these 4K channels/content full-time. They could be provided via the internet to your 4k Joey directly or partime time much like RSNs run. Stations will still have a glut of HD content. In 2016 if satellite can simply provide whatever "big game" or "big event" (Walking Dead?) is on TV that night in 4k, most of us will be happy. 4k is going to be great for live events and you'll maybe need 3 concurrent 4k broadcasts to satisfy most of the public in 2016. Movies are obviously the second best thing for 4k, but VOD can take care of this and would provide you a better picture than whatever Dish would compress a 4k movie network into anyway. Not counting UHD Blu-ray's, there will be many alternatives way to watch 4k movies in 2016. Vudu, Netflix, Amazon already offer this, and once movies are regularly released in UHD (look at the first batch available on VUDU this month) this will be a hard area to compete in with dish. VOD is actually the more attractive option here. Satellite will still want to compete in movies, but it's not a competitive advantage. But, Monday Night Football on ESPN4k? That is a competitive advantage.
Every (tiny exaggeration) new TV today as a multi-core processor(s) in it that can easily decode and render 4k video. Dish and Direct will not want people relying on their televisions built in tech to get content, or they will want to be involved with their own app. Sat providers don't need consumers getting used to Netflix and Amazon anymore than they already are. Likewise, content creators that don't sell much to these services (LIVE SPORTS!) will want to make live 4k as big a deal as possible when it roles out. Look for networks and Sat to team-up big time in the push for 4k. It helps them both.
Don't be cable Rob Lowe, be 4k Rob Lowe.
Lastly, 4k will give dish & direct a huge advantage over cable. Think how long it will take these companies to get their Windows XP era STBs and cable systems upgraded to 4k? Satellite will have a huge market advantage for years.
Can you tell I have a 4k tv
Consumer demand lacking. Yes, it will take years (a decade?) for 4k to gain a majority market share, but
Compression technology is getting better and HEVC standard will improve any video stream bandwidth when it can be adopted (this is the real difficulty and the internet has a huge advantage with this). We don't need to think that 4k is going to take 4x the bandwidth to provide a channel. Many TV channels will need to wait a long time to have 4k content to distribute. We're not talking the Top 120 package going 4k in 2016 (4k Law & Order re-runs!!!). Almost EVERYTHING being recorded right now is in 4k. One reason for this is the options it gives in post-process, but also the future proofing of the material. Movies and major live sports are always filmed/recorded with 4k cameras, we just don't have access or distribution methods for this content yet. Those hit this winter. (Remember you can probably even record 4k video on your phone's camera right now, but you probably need YouTube do distribute/view it on another device. Think of how long it took 1080 to be recordable on a consumer product, not to mention your phone.)
We all know Dish has some crappy compression now, and there's many wants like, full-time RSNs (or even CSNNE). But there's nothing that states that Dish needs these 4K channels/content full-time. They could be provided via the internet to your 4k Joey directly or partime time much like RSNs run. Stations will still have a glut of HD content. In 2016 if satellite can simply provide whatever "big game" or "big event" (Walking Dead?) is on TV that night in 4k, most of us will be happy. 4k is going to be great for live events and you'll maybe need 3 concurrent 4k broadcasts to satisfy most of the public in 2016. Movies are obviously the second best thing for 4k, but VOD can take care of this and would provide you a better picture than whatever Dish would compress a 4k movie network into anyway. Not counting UHD Blu-ray's, there will be many alternatives way to watch 4k movies in 2016. Vudu, Netflix, Amazon already offer this, and once movies are regularly released in UHD (look at the first batch available on VUDU this month) this will be a hard area to compete in with dish. VOD is actually the more attractive option here. Satellite will still want to compete in movies, but it's not a competitive advantage. But, Monday Night Football on ESPN4k? That is a competitive advantage.
Every (tiny exaggeration) new TV today as a multi-core processor(s) in it that can easily decode and render 4k video. Dish and Direct will not want people relying on their televisions built in tech to get content, or they will want to be involved with their own app. Sat providers don't need consumers getting used to Netflix and Amazon anymore than they already are. Likewise, content creators that don't sell much to these services (LIVE SPORTS!) will want to make live 4k as big a deal as possible when it roles out. Look for networks and Sat to team-up big time in the push for 4k. It helps them both.
Don't be cable Rob Lowe, be 4k Rob Lowe.
Lastly, 4k will give dish & direct a huge advantage over cable. Think how long it will take these companies to get their Windows XP era STBs and cable systems upgraded to 4k? Satellite will have a huge market advantage for years.
Can you tell I have a 4k tv
Your slander against 720 only reveals your lack of understanding of frame rate and interlaced vs progressive scanning.
4k is Nice, But it's not Wow enough for me to prematurely buy a 4K tv and pay extra for programming, equipment, or anything else over HD.
If I need a new TV and there happens to be a deal on 4K vs 1080p, well sure as long as it's not a cheap crappy entry-level model, otherwise I'll buy another 1080p tv and not even think twice.
Everyone is constantly complaining about provider and Network costs forever increasing, not sure why some of yous don't think this will drive costs up even higher.
I for one am good where I am.
The content costs and provider costs already need a major overhaul IMO.
4K is just leverage for Higher prices.
If I need a new TV and there happens to be a deal on 4K vs 1080p, well sure as long as it's not a cheap crappy entry-level model, otherwise I'll buy another 1080p tv and not even think twice.
Everyone is constantly complaining about provider and Network costs forever increasing, not sure why some of yous don't think this will drive costs up even higher.
I for one am good where I am.
The content costs and provider costs already need a major overhaul IMO.
4K is just leverage for Higher prices.
I said it before and I 'll say it again that 4k will bring a new 4k FEE for DISH. They couldn't wait to add the $10.00 hd fee when hd became more the norm in the last decade. Then they came out with the HD Free for life for most older subs early in this decade. I can see another $10.00 4k fee coming, if 4k does indeed become the next progression. That and I imagine the 4k joey will have a $10.00 fee as well. DISH loves to create and add their DISH FEES where they can get away with it.
Naysayers, your loss, 4k TVs make Dish's 1080i much sharper, zoomed SD is actually watchable, and 4k content is here, online. Prices for the sets are in range already and now is the time for some Black Friday shopping. It's your loss if you buy a 1080 set now.
Until such time as a platform is available that can handle recording seven or more streams at once to storage, 12 is awfully pie-in-the-sky.
There are also some walls with respect to MoCA that would need to be torn down to avoid breaking out on the 16 node limit.
At the same time, waiting might get you into a class of TV that can deliver on the expanded capabilities (including HDR) that UHD may bring. A high percentage of the UHD TVs out there only bring higher resolution that may make the SD and HD pictures worse instead of better.
If you want the Black Friday 55 inch Hisence, Or TCL for $398 you can go right ahead and buy 10 of them.
I don't want garbage just because it says 4K .
I FULLY understand the difference. If p60 is so important, i'm sure there will be a ton of networks that refuse 4ki30 and instead push 1080p60
I regularly watch NFL and Soccer (EPL, MLS, National Teams) in both formats and prefer 1080i 100% of the time. I even set my hopper to output 720p when watching FOX or ESPN to make sure it's being passed through in the correct format to my television (will be watching MLS playoffs on ESPN and FS1 this evening). The picture of NBC, CBS, NBCSN is ALWAYS preferred to FOX, ESPN, FS1. Maybe i'm just much more of a resolution junky, than a frame-rate junky? Maybe your TV needs a newer image processor? The only time I see noticeably interlaced video anymore is on 720p networks when they force some sh!tty 480i commercial onto it.
Do you shun p24 blu-rays too?
1080p60 is not in the ATSC standard.
And IIRC, the UHD standard does not allow for interlacing, so there is no such thing as 4Ki anything.
And IIRC, the UHD standard does not allow for interlacing, so there is no such thing as 4Ki anything.
