World's First 4K TV Channel Goes Live

[SRW1000]

I don't know how many sporting events are actually at a native 60 FPS; however of the various ESPN and Fox feeds I've viewed, CBS, SportsNet, Pac-12, NBC, etc. always blow them away in the quality department. It's no contest. I don't really notice a temporal difference between 720p60 and 1080i60 content, but the resolution difference is abundantly clear.

And this is coming from a hardcore PC gamer that can spot 30 FPS console garbage and a video game running at 60 FPS from a mile away.

Yes, sports are shot at 60 frames per second, as are many live events.  With a 720p picture, you're seeing an entirely new frame every 60th of a second, providing better motion detail.  At 1080i, you're only seeing every other line refreshed at each 60th of a second.  At that point, either your TV, cable, or satellite box is doing some kind of  interpolation (guessing) to create a full frame.  So, you're not getting 30 frames per second with 1080i, you're getting 60 half-frames per seconds, with the missing content being artificially created on the fly.  The gaming analogy doesn't really fit.

The crisp screen shot you posted here of the American Music Awards was likely captured at native 720p.  

And it looks pretty good.

By the way, we still do have one local that broadcasts 1080i without any subchannels, and that would be the WB on WVTV.  :award

[jjallou]

By the way, we still do have one local that broadcasts 1080i without any subchannels, and that would be the WB on WVTV.  :award

It's been The CW since 2006. :huh?:

[SRW1000]

It's been The CW since 2006. :huh?:

You're right, and I stand corrected.  :blush:

[gparris]

Visit cnet.com and there is a feature on this subject, "4K TVs are stupid".
While 4K is inevitable, marketing-wise, the average TV set owner will have to either sit up close to get the benefits of the 4K picture on a smaller set (under 84") or find the room to place a bigger one to get them. Up-conversion will mostly be better for 2K Blu-ray material, but until broadcasts like this are commonplace, I would suggest getting the biggest HDTV now your budget (and spouse) will allow.
I sit at 9.5 feet from my 70" Sharp Aquos and find it good enough, especially with Blu-ray material, I don't plan on getting  bigger or "better" (4K) anytime soon.

[PONIES]

4K TVs aren't stupid just because they aren't catering to the lowest common denominator.

In fact, that makes them the opposite of stupid. Not every product has to be designed to extract money from idiots in the most efficient manner. Sometimes it's good enough to just put out a nice product for a select group of people that turns a reasonable profit.

The unwashed masses can have their garbage 720p Walmart TVs and Netflix streaming and we can be the Ferrari owners of the TV world.

4K TVs are intelligent products designed for competent people. It would be nice if we could bring the idiots on board, as it would increase the amount of 4K content available, but at least we'll always have PC gaming and emulators to provide a variety of 4K content.

[gparris]

4K TVs aren't stupid just because they aren't catering to the lowest common denominator.

In fact, that makes them the opposite of stupid. Not every product has to be designed to extract money from idiots in the most efficient manner. Sometimes it's good enough to just put out a nice product for a select group of people that turns a reasonable profit.

The unwashed masses can have their garbage 720p Walmart TVs and Netflix streaming and we can be the Ferrari owners of the TV world.

4K TVs are intelligent products designed for competent people. It would be nice if we could bring the idiots on board, as it would increase the amount of 4K content available, but at least we'll always have PC gaming and emulators to provide a variety of 4K content.

Let me know when you actually read the articles from cnet on this subject, it explains it well.
The articles regarding 4K are intelligent, the title is bad, the thoughts on it are good and thought provoking. If I could have a 4K set it would probable not BE a set, rather a projection screen in a real home theatre setup, then it would make more sense.

[PONIES]

Oh, I've read articles on the subject. And as I suspected: they're stupid.

These articles which claim you can't see a difference between 1080p and 4K at current TV sizes are written by the same mouthbreathers who have their devices hooked up to their HDTVs with composite cables. They are the same people who think Netflix is just as good as Blu-ray and that console gaming delivers graphics almost as good as PC gaming.

As I type this I can literally count the pixels on my 1080p TV, and it's only 46".

4K TVs are long overdue. The ideal resolution is one in which you can type text and not be able to see any edges at all. I think it is going to take 8K before we saturate the limits of human vision.

[gparris]

The cnet staff do not hook up HDTV and UHDTV sets with composite cables, I am certain, but you are entitled to your opinion.:bang:
Actually, 4K (possibly without glasses) at full resolution in 3D for both eyes would probably be the best application, but the HDMI spec would have to be upgraded and the current batch of 4K sets do not have this capability.

[budda]

I have been following this subject on many sites and forums. Those for and against. While I agree 4k may someday be awesome. I believe it will be as main stream as 3D. Which if you are honest is barely taking hold. The reason for 4k is not to be ground breaking. Or part of the few, but for those developing it to make money. There will be a market for it. But it will be small IMO. Ponies on the mouth breathing stupid people I have met a few. Hell my dad has a tube and he thinks the picture is just fine. When discussing new technology. The goal I believe should not be to say mine is bigger than yours, but to help people learn from what you have learned or wish to learn. On that note Ponies. You seem to have a lot to offer in the information department. But even if EVERYTHING you state is true and correct. As a communicator you come off as a narcissistic ***.:rolleyes: But hey, that's just my option.   Peace brother.

[Nels Harvey]

I do not really think 4K will become a hot selling product for a long time.  Most people do not have giant TV screens, and many of those do not have sufficient eyesight to even care, even if they know what to look for.

Material won't be produced in any quantity soon because most production houses are still trying to amortize their investments in HDTV cameras and production switchers, routers and recording equipment.

If it wasn't for the FCC canning the NTSC format, a lot of people would still be using their old TV's (Many probably are even now with a converter box).

I think 4K will end up with Quadrophonic FM, Stereo AM, and 3D TV as good ideas that never gained great market share.

Years ago, when I told my boss how I was able to hear our radio station all the way into Ohio, he said "So what? I can't sell a thing there!"

It's the market that drives the development engine.  Without a real need, I think 4K will have a huge struggle to succeed.

[KryptoNyte]

... oh heck with it.  What's the point.

[PONIES]

... oh heck with it.  What's the point.

That was a wise decision. You really don't need to make yourself look stupid in this thread once again.

[KryptoNyte]

Wow, you are a real gem Ponies.  We're real fortunate to have you around here.

[KryptoNyte]

Ponies, you mentioned that you have the equipment to receive these feeds directly - post up a screenshot from TSReader for the national ABC feed.  I think it would be good to have a look at it ... and maybe it would help me pull myself up from the squander of my personal ignorance and stupidity.

[gparris]

DirecTV has looked into 4K trademarks as a sign that would be a step that direction. Maybe they will use satellite directly or HDD via Internet is not known for 4K distribution.