Sony announces cloud based DVR and live TV

[wayner]

The thought is that it will use a newer codec called HEVC/H.265 which is more efficient so you should be able to get similar quality with only slightly larger filesizes. But the thought is that we are moving away from optical disks towards downloads/streaming.

Good thing that I just upgraded my home internet service to 250Mbps down/20Mbps up and 1TB/month!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Skybolt

Apparently us. JJ.

Hear is a good question though, what media is going to handle this new monster and does that mean new palyers as well. I mean, a full BD rip to MKV is ~25gb. Does that mean it will now be ~100gb. There goes ripping anything.

http://www.singulus.de/en/press-news...disc/1846.html

[pjpjpjpj]

I know I sound like a broken record, but (just as I espoused regarding the move to "all streaming and on-demand and the death of cable"), this forum has a skewed view of tech. As BobPhoenix pointed out above, there are still a lot of people who only have SD TV, and don't care. The idea that people replace TVs every couple of years now is a biased view of the young, wealthy, and/or technophile (one or more of those adjectives describes pretty much everyone here).

There are hundreds of millions of people who don't care about HD, don't want a DVR, and/or will never (before they die) adopt streaming/on-demand content. Why would they make the move to 4KTV? This isn't people leaving VHS to move to DVD, or cassette to CD. There is no improvement in functionality - this is a technology jump that is purely driven by looks and nothing more. A hard sell to the "average" public.

Really good article: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7...-still-stupid/

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by stanger89

http://www.singulus.de/en/press-news...disc/1846.html

Thanks, nice read. But that is was what I expected though. Good news really, that means my Oppo BD player will only need an update.

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

... The idea that people replace TVs every couple of years now is a biased view of the young, wealthy, and/or technophile (one or more of those adjectives describes pretty much everyone here).

There are hundreds of millions of people who don't care about HD, don't want a DVR, and/or will never (before they die) adopt streaming/on-demand content. Why would they make the move to 4KTV? This isn't people leaving VHS to move to DVD, or cassette to CD. There is no improvement in functionality - this is a technology jump that is purely driven by looks and nothing more. A hard sell to the "average" public.

I don't plan on updateing my TV anytime soon. I just spent ~$5K two years ago and plan on keeping it for a while. But thats not to say I won't at some point in time, just not anytime soon.

I believe streaming will be forced upon us whether we want it or not. I have two teenage boys and the only thing they care about is there phone. My youngest (14) never wates live Tv, doesn't even record anything. He only streams it. He doesn't understand why anyone would ever watch live or recorded tv except for sports. This is what and why things will always evolve. And I am not sure it will always be just for the rich either. At some point a service like NetFlix will be streaming 4K content for less than $10/month. I mean when the demand falls off enough things will change.

[wayner]

The idea that people replace TVs every couple of years now is a biased view of the young, wealthy, and/or technophile (one or more of those adjectives describes pretty much everyone here).

As Meat Loaf said "Two out of three ain't bad".

I spent $4.5K on an 80" Sharp a year ago but I would think that I will get a 4K TV in the next few years, especially if we get the sports content in 4K. But that raises two problems: (1) How much will I have to pay for an 80" or bigger 4K TV because you can't go down in size, and (2) where do I put the existing 80" TV?

My primary TVs in the last 12 years have been 50", 60" and 80". I haven't had a problem putting the 50 or 60 in the bedroom or kitchen, but it might be an issue with the 80, although the viewing distance in the bedroom is farther than in the TV room where the 80" is today.

And people are getting used to replacing a lot of their technology every two years - that is often the case with smartphones and they are as expensive as TVs. For me it is not a case of replacing - it is cascading the TV down and I am sure many others are the same as I have to believe that most households have more than one TV. Or you give it to your parents or siblings or whatever.

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by wayner

... And people are getting used to replacing a lot of their technology every two years - that is often the case with smartphones and they are as expensive as TVs. For me it is not a case of replacing - it is cascading the TV down and I am sure many others are the same as I have to believe that most households have more than one TV. Or you give it to your parents or siblings or whatever.

uhm, no there not and a smart phone is NOT a $4000 venture, more of a $400 one, big differance. We seem to have the same taste in TV's, and I am not going ot replace it in 2-3 years for no apparent reason. You simply can't move a TV of that size just anywhere, and certainly not to the bedroom, I wouldn't want it there.

I don't think 4K at this venture is worth thinking about, that may change as they firm up on things and a real standard comes about. I would consider moving up to 4K if I had a projector, there I could see the move be worth while and be very excited about it as well.

Have you our TV's next to a 4K one? you have to be right on to-po of it to see a differance. 10' away and they basically look the same, certainly not enough of a differance to justify the change. When the warrenty expires and the set dies, I will happily look into a 4k one.

[wayner]

On Smartphones I am thinking more of Apple - in Q3-2013 the ASP for an iPhone was $580. Sure there are $4000 TVs but that is the right tail of the distribution - the average is more like $1000.

I haven't looked at my TV compared to 4K but I will check it out the next time I am in BB. Even if it does look way better the thing that will hold be back will be the content.

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by wayner

... Even if it does look way better the thing that will hold be back will be the content.

No, it doesn't look way better. That was my point. Only when you are right on top of it, does it look better. Definetly check it out, you may change your imediate love for 4K.

[wayner]

I don't want to love because if I do this will potentially kill SageTV as I doubt we will be able to capture TV shows in 4K. I have a lot of time, money and effort invested in my whole house SageTV solution with a Sage server + WHS backup, 8 extenders, etc.

But the way, is it possible to play a video that has a resolution higher than 1080p in Sage Client (assuming your video card can handle the resolution) and if so will the resolution be downrezzed or will it play in the higher resolution?

Is there anyone out there with a 4K monitor that wants to give it a go?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

I know I sound like a broken record, but (just as I espoused regarding the move to "all streaming and on-demand and the death of cable"), this forum has a skewed view of tech. As BobPhoenix pointed out above, there are still a lot of people who only have SD TV, and don't care. The idea that people replace TVs every couple of years now is a biased view of the young, wealthy, and/or technophile (one or more of those adjectives describes pretty much everyone here).

There are hundreds of millions of people who don't care about HD, don't want a DVR, and/or will never (before they die) adopt streaming/on-demand content. Why would they make the move to 4KTV? This isn't people leaving VHS to move to DVD, or cassette to CD. There is no improvement in functionality - this is a technology jump that is purely driven by looks and nothing more. A hard sell to the "average" public.

That's all sort of irrelevant, the market isn't built on "average" people upgrading their TVs every couple of years, it's built on enthusiasts and the like who do like to keep up to date plus the fraction of "average" people who happen to need an upgrade. What I'm saying is UHD doesn't need to have everyone go out an replace their TVs to be successful.

On top of that though, UHD will happen, it's inevitable and not really "up to" the average public. The industry wants it, you have to look no further than CES to see that. Every TV manufacturer had UHD TVs at CES, Vizio announced their P-series that will start with a 50" UHD TV for $1000. I would be surprised if by next CES (2015) 1080p TVs haven't replaced 720p TVs on the low end replaced by UHD for everything above the cheapest.

Netflix is going to start providing UHD content this year. Sony already has a service. Red has Odemax (if it ever gets going). It's hard to tell but it sounds like there's a good chance Blu-ray 2.0/UHD Blu-ray will be out by the end of the year. HDMI 2.0 is formalized and in place. ITU Rec 2020 for UHD is defined.

The studios want it, the electronics companies want it, enthusiasts want it. It's really going to be a lot like 3D on the hardware side, everything will just be UHD, and on the software side it will probably do better than 3D since there's really nothing to "dislike" about UHD (it's not going to cause headaches or complaints about needing uncomfortable glasses).

[phelme]

Originally Posted by wayner

The thought is that it will use a newer codec called HEVC/H.265 which is more efficient so you should be able to get similar quality with only slightly larger filesizes. But the thought is that we are moving away from optical disks towards downloads/streaming.

something seems off there. the more we rely on the Internet to get content, the larger the data set gets?

people already bitch if their computer takes 3 seconds to boot (unrelated topic), not sure they are going to want to wait on their 4k Michael Bay artistic triumph to cache first. humans are rightly or wrongly addicted now to their instant streaming.

I'm old and nostalgic for the pace of LP's...

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by Wayneb

The demos I have seen look way better to my eyes

Yeah for me it gave out around 6' or so on a 65" that I was looking at. It depends on what they are showing as the 1080P referance and how they set it up as well.

also some of us do have bedrooms big enough for an 80" TV on the wall.

Yes, some of us do, but that wasn't my point. It was more of why would you want a tv that big in your master bedroom? To each his own I guess.

I myself prefer to use a projector for larger screen sizes.

See, thats where I see it making the biggest differance. I would think that would be night and day. Like I said before, if I had a projector in my HT I would be really excited about 4K.

[wayner]

Maybe it is a calibration issue but I have never seen a projector that impressed me as they always look washed out. Can you fix that with calibration and can you make them look good in a room with a fair amount of ambient light?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by wayner

Maybe it is a calibration issue but I have never seen a projector that impressed me as they always look washed out.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a demo of a projector that looked good. But projectors can look awesome.

Can you fix that with calibration and can you make them look good in a room with a fair amount of ambient light?

Not really. Remember projectors aren't TVs they're a part of a home theater systems and the room and screen are important parts of that system as well. Personally I would never recommend a projector to someone who wants a TV. But if you're looking for something for a home theater, they're the way to go.

As far as ambient lighting goes, it really depends on what you're going for. With "normal" screens you can get an acceptable picture with a good amount of ambient light for "non-critical" viewing, things like having the game on while people mingle. But you'll never get a reference image with the lights on.

That said, Screen Innovations has some pretty impressive looking screens for ambient light situations:
http://www.screeninnovations.com/

[wayner]

I am not sure that this is a good thing, but it may ensure the adoption of 4K
http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/11/52...porn-4K-videos

[hemicuda]

Here's a wrench in the streaming scene... Comcast just implemented a data "cap" of 250gb (or was it 350) on its customers. With each additional block of 50gb costing around $10. With policies like this in place it could virtually kill any chance they'll lose their hold on TV.

What I've seen from playon, an Amazon SD feature is about 1.3gb on average. No idea what HD runs yet. So, that's almost 200 vids a month. Fairly steep task for one person, but for a family it might not be unreasonable to hit that cap with multiple users and other data thrown in. The more resolution, the more gb per show.

I'm probably all wet on this, but that's my limited perception. I'll be sticking with my 100mbps service w/o caps as long as I can. That'll probably go the way of Verizon's unlimited data plans after the new wears off.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by stanger89

That's all sort of irrelevant, the market isn't built on "average" people upgrading their TVs every couple of years, it's built on enthusiasts and the like who do like to keep up to date plus the fraction of "average" people who happen to need an upgrade. What I'm saying is UHD doesn't need to have everyone go out an replace their TVs to be successful.

On top of that though, UHD will happen, it's inevitable and not really "up to" the average public. The industry wants it, you have to look no further than CES to see that. Every TV manufacturer had UHD TVs at CES, Vizio announced their P-series that will start with a 50" UHD TV for $1000. I would be surprised if by next CES (2015) 1080p TVs haven't replaced 720p TVs on the low end replaced by UHD for everything above the cheapest.

Netflix is going to start providing UHD content this year. Sony already has a service. Red has Odemax (if it ever gets going). It's hard to tell but it sounds like there's a good chance Blu-ray 2.0/UHD Blu-ray will be out by the end of the year. HDMI 2.0 is formalized and in place. ITU Rec 2020 for UHD is defined.

The studios want it, the electronics companies want it, enthusiasts want it. It's really going to be a lot like 3D on the hardware side, everything will just be UHD, and on the software side it will probably do better than 3D since there's really nothing to "dislike" about UHD (it's not going to cause headaches or complaints about needing uncomfortable glasses).

Just because the industry wants it doesn't mean it will succeed. The industry wanted 3D but apparently it was pretty much a no-show at CES this year. The industry wanted it but there were very few people who were buying.

I think the same thing is probably going to happen with 4K. The industry is going to want it for a few years and the uber enthusiasts will buy into it like they did 3D but then it will fade into a niche for the majority of people.

Like it or not 1080p is "good enough" for most people. My family, except for myself, had a hard time distinguishing or even caring about the difference between SD and HD in the beginning. It's just in the last year that my wife of 4 years has said that she sees the difference and likes HD more. My 20 year old daughter honestly couldn't care less. As long as it plays and is in English or subtitled English she's happy.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Wayneb

Once TV manufacturers start converting their lines to 4K it will be a done deal, it would cost more money to switch back to making 1080P panels again, you can resist upgrading your TV for as long as at lasts but then you will have no choice in the matter if you decide to buy a new TV. Technology marches on.

True, but the degree to which manufacturers replace 1080p lines with 4K lines will be determined by demand. If there is low demand then manufacturers will have little incentive to wholesale convert their lines. It would be foolish for manufacturers to sink all the money to convert lines only to have insufficient demand to keep production high.

1080p makes sense to consumers because broadcast TV is readily available in 1080i via antenna, cable, or satellite. 4K will only be available through streaming or UHD Blu-ray. This means that 4K will be a niche product from the get go. Even if 4K is added as an ATSC or QAM standard there will be little incentive for broadcasters to use it due to lack of UHD TV penetration. This has happened with H.264 on ATSC. It is part of the standard but nobody is going to use it because the majority of HDTV's in the market will not display it.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by Wayneb

I expect internet delivered services to lead the way followed by Satellite and Cable, OTA is the least likely to change in a timely manner, I also expect some sort of disk based content.

The price of 4K TVs is already falling fast to the point it will be a no brainer in a year or two for consumers to choose the 4K set. Why would you not buy the newer standard when the cost is not an issue?

It would be a no brainer if there is price parity. What will probably happen is that unless there is a compelling reason for people to upgrade 1080p tv's will just get cheaper and 4K tv's will still command a price premium. 4K tv's could also fit well in the market for extremely large tv's where the resolution actually makes a difference. 4K on the smaller tv's that most people buy doesn't make sense since you would have to be sitting only a couple feet away to actually notice the difference.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

True, but the degree to which manufacturers replace 1080p lines with 4K lines will be determined by demand.

Everybody has already switched pretty much. All the premium TVs this year are 4k and so are a lot of the lower priced models.

This means that 4K will be a niche product from the get go.

Samsung has announced partnerships with Netflix, Amazon, Comcast, DirecTV, M-Go, and Vudu for streaming UHD.

Even if 4K is added as an ATSC or QAM standard there will be little incentive for broadcasters to use it due to lack of UHD TV penetration.

Broadcast will probably be a while, I agree, but there seems to be a lot more "force" and "urgency" behind 4k than either 3D or even HD before.