Is 4K playback in Sage a possibility?

[wayner]

What would need to be changed in order for Sage to playback 4K video files?

There isn't a lot of content today, other than home movies from phones, drones and Go Pros but 4K Blu Rays are coming soon so there will likely be 4K movie files available soon. (Isn't that a bit strange that we can generate higher resolution from our home retail devices than we can get from professional media distribution)

And my cable company is starting to offer sports content in 4K.

And what hardware would we need to send 4K to a TV/monitor? Certainly a PC can do it? When we are thinking of extenders/clients for the Open Source version of SageTV shouldn't we be considering 4K?

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by wayner

What would need to be changed in order for Sage to playback 4K video files?

There isn't a lot of content today, other than home movies from phones, drones and Go Pros but 4K Blu Rays are coming soon so there will likely be 4K movie files available soon. (Isn't that a bit strange that we can generate higher resolution from our home retail devices than we can get from professional media distribution)

And my cable company is starting to offer sports content in 4K.

And what hardware would we need to send 4K to a TV/monitor? Certainly a PC can do it? When we are thinking of extenders/clients for the Open Source version of SageTV shouldn't we be considering 4K?

Personally, I don't think we'll be on the bleeding edge of 4k. I recall that I moved from Xbmc to SageTV because my Xbox, running XBMC couldn't play 720p videos. I have 1080p TVs, but I really don't see myself going out to buy a 4k TV anytime soon. I still have 1 TV that's only 720p... and I only record in 1080i, and, while my eyesight isn't bad (I need an eye perscription), I can't say that I'm unhappy with my tv recording quality. I personally think that 4k is really just a way obsoleting hardware to make more money on electronics, etc. (I think it's a solution to a problem that didn't exist)

That being said, some of the Android TV clients do support hardware decoding of HEVC, which is what I think 4k will use for encoding. ExoPlayer supports 4k, if the device can decode it. I think there may need to be some minor changes to sagetv core to pass HEVC to the device, unaltered (today it would likely try to transcode it).

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by wayner

What would need to be changed in order for Sage to playback 4K video files?

Nothing really*. Directshow filters already exist that can play 4k files just fine on a PC. LAV Video decoders can decode it fine, and madVR can render it (HDR or not).

And what hardware would we need to send 4K to a TV/monitor? Certainly a PC can do it?

*The problem is going to be DRM. All the streaming services (Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, Ultraflix) require HDCP 2.2 and don't allow 4K playback on PCs at all, and they probably won't.

You can be sure than any PC playback of UHD Blu-ray (if it's even possible) will require a protected path and HDCP 2.2 graphics card. Ironically the best hope we may have, PC side, is if AACS 2.0 is circumvented and UHD Blu-ray can be ripped.

When we are thinking of extenders/clients for the Open Source version of SageTV shouldn't we be considering 4K?

There's really nothing to do, either the content will be clear and "just work", or it will be protected and you'll never be able to play it in Sage anyway.

[Skirge01]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I still have 1 TV that's only 720p... and I only record in 1080i, and, while my eyesight isn't bad (I need an eye perscription), I can't say that I'm unhappy with my tv recording quality. I personally think that 4k is really just a way obsoleting hardware to make more money on electronics, etc. (I think it's a solution to a problem that didn't exist)

That's essentially what our parents and (for some of us) our grandparents told us about HDTV.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

That's essentially what our parents and (for some of us) our grandparents told us about HDTV.

Or colour TV for those of us even older!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I personally think that 4k is really just a way obsoleting hardware to make more money on electronics, etc. (I think it's a solution to a problem that didn't exist)

There's a lot more to 4K than resolution. IMO resolution is the smallest of the forthcoming benefits. We also get higher bit depths, at least 10 bit, wider color gamut (WCG) and high dynamic range (HDR, not to be confused with Tone Mapping in photography). 4K is about "better pixels" as much (or more) than "more pixels". While the extra resolution will be valuable to those of us with large projection setups, more bits, WCG, and HDR will be valuable to everyone.

[wayner]

Originally Posted by stanger89

The problem is going to be DRM. All the streaming services (Netflix, Vudu, Amazon, Ultraflix) require HDCP 2.2 and don't allow 4K playback on PCs at all, and they probably won't.

That would be strange that Netflix on PCs is severely crippled, although I don't know that they support audio any better than stereo today.

But 4K TV is coming although it isn't clear when it will make it to OTA through something like ATSC 3.0. It looks like that may take much longer, unlike the transition to HD where OTA was one of the first and easiest places to get HD content. For 4K we started with streaming, next came cable, soon we will have optical discs and OTA will be last.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

That's essentially what our parents and (for some of us) our grandparents told us about HDTV.

Originally Posted by wayner

Or colour TV for those of us even older!

Being old enough, to actually start out with an analogue color tv, when I moved to a 720p HDTV, you could see the difference. Even my BellTV setup from many years ago, when they moved to "HD", it was very noticeable. TVs got bigger, and 1080p was essentially required to have a TV look good at those dimensions. Although, I'll be honest, I own a 55in 1080p TV and 75in 1080p, and while I can tell the difference when it's showing a static image, for video, I can't really tell the difference (I'm sure I could if I really, really tried). Likewise, I have 50" 720p TV and I can't see much difference between the 55in TV

I think "some" people can tell the difference. Just like "some" people can tell the difference between a high quality MP3 and an uncompressed audio track. I'm not one of those people.

I don't doubt that someday, I'll own a number of 4K tvs... Likely the disposable TVs that I have today will break, and the price point for 4K will be low enough that I'll get it, not because I need it, but because it'll be affordable. Sort of like why I have 1080p TVs.

So, I don't disagree that at some point SageTV will need to support it (if it doesn't already), but I just don't buy into the marketing hype that I "need" it because my viewing experience will be so great that I'll never want to look away from the TV again. There's marketing, and then reality.

I'm also skeptical that the uncomming generation of people will even need it or want it In the same room that I have 75in TV, I have 2 teenage kids that are watching netflix on their 22" computer screens I don't imagine they'll ever have cable... and they may never buy a TV... By the time they get married with kids, each person having their own "device" will be the norm. So maybe 4k is aimed at the aging population that still wants a bigger and better TV

[wayner]

I think the driver of this will be sports. I bought an 80" 1080p Sharp TV a few years ago and it is fine for most stuff but for sports you notice the higher detail. You also notice the shortcomings of lossy compression so hopefully that doesn't get worse with 4K and HEVC.

That's why Rogers Cable is launching 4K with primarily sports content - a Leafs-Habs game in a couple of weeks plus a few more hockey games this season, plus Blue Jays baseball. And sports is really the main thing keeping me tied to a cable sub.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by wayner

I think the driver of this will be sports. I bought an 80" 1080p Sharp TV a few years ago and it is fine for most stuff but for sports you notice the higher detail. You also notice the shortcomings of lossy compression so hopefully that doesn't get worse with 4K and HEVC.

That's why Rogers Cable is launching 4K with primarily sports content - a Leafs-Habs game in a couple of weeks plus a few more hockey games this season, plus Blue Jays baseball. And sports is really the main thing keeping me tied to a cable sub.

To be honest, I never considered sports, since I don't watch any But I agree, for sports fans, the 4k revolution will good.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by wayner

That would be strange that Netflix on PCs is severely crippled, although I don't know that they support audio any better than stereo today.

Then you've been living under a rock Netflix is crippled on PCs*, it's limited to stereo audio and 720p. I believe there are similar limitations for Amazon, Vudu, etc.

*The exception is the Netflix Windows App ("Metro"/Win8/Win10). Be it copy protection, licensing or contractual (exclusivity) agreements, top quality digital content is pretty much limited to hardware devices.

Originally Posted by stuckless

So, I don't disagree that at some point SageTV will need to support it (if it doesn't already), but I just don't buy into the marketing hype that I "need" it because my viewing experience will be so great that I'll never want to look away from the TV again. There's marketing, and then reality.

You should research a bit more. HDR and WCG should bring a large improvement to everyone, regardless of size.

I'm also skeptical that the uncomming generation of people will even need it or want it In the same room that I have 75in TV, I have 2 teenage kids that are watching netflix on their 22" computer screens I don't imagine they'll ever have cable... and they may never buy a TV... By the time they get married with kids, each person having their own "device" will be the norm. So maybe 4k is aimed at the aging population that still wants a bigger and better TV

But, is that because they don't care, or because the bigger display is already in use?

[KarylFStein]

I wish OLED was as big a thing as 4K.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

You should research a bit more. HDR and WCG should bring a large improvement to everyone, regardless of size.

To be fair, HDR and WCG don't require a 4k display. My 7 year old DLP offers a wide color gamut and xvYCC signaling, for sources that could feed it. These are features that were primarily introduced with HDMI 1.3 in 2006 I think.

[tmiranda]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I'm also skeptical that the uncomming generation of people will even need it or want it In the same room that I have 75in TV, I have 2 teenage kids that are watching netflix on their 22" computer screens I don't imagine they'll ever have cable... and they may never buy a TV... By the time they get married with kids, each person having their own "device" will be the norm. So maybe 4k is aimed at the aging population that still wants a bigger and better TV

My teens are happy to watch YouTube and NetFlix on a 6" phone while they sit in the same room as a 50" TV. I don't get it, but it is what it is

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

To be fair, HDR and WCG don't require a 4k display. My 7 year old DLP offers a wide color gamut and xvYCC signaling, for sources that could feed it. These are features that were primarily introduced with HDMI 1.3 in 2006 I think.

WCG that comes with 4K is different. It uses SMPTE Rec.2020 primaries not xvYCC, and most content is expected to "use" a gamut the size of DCI P3, which is wider than xvYCC.

Further I have yet to see a DLP that can exceed the Rec.709 gamut, most struggle to hit that (usually a bit undersaturated in green). Even projectors which have a pretty wide native gamut (like JVC and Sony) fall rather far short of P3, unless they have explicit P3 support. The new RS500/600 offer P3 support, the RS400 hit's about 80-85% of P3, I think the Sony VW365/665 are in that same ballpark.

[tmiranda]

I personally have zero interest in 4K. I'll get one when my current TV dies and the price of a 4K TV is about the same as an HDTV. I suspect the vast majority of the "general public" will do the same.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by stanger89

You should research a bit more. HDR and WCG should bring a large improvement to everyone, regardless of size.

I never said that 4k wouldn't be better. It would rather silly to create a new media format that was inferior to the formats it is intended to replace. But, I really do question whether a "regular" person, such as myself, would see the difference, much like I question whether or not a regular person will "hear" the difference befween a Pono and an iPod. My other point is that there are really two reasons why technology advances. Either you are solving a technical problem or you are solving an economic problem. I think this case with 4K is more about economics. ie, creating new patentable formats, creating new DRM, creating new TVs, new Players, etc. 4K will succeed, mainly because at some point, you won't be able to buy a new TV that is 1080p, etc... Much like how it's getting harder to find a TV that is 720p. TVs and all electronics are disposable (which is why buying extended warranties is pointless).

Originally Posted by stanger89

But, is that because they don't care, or because the bigger display is already in use?

It's the first. It's the best TV in the house, and it gets used the least. It's in the "media room" which is also where the kids computers are setup, but I watch 90% of my tv on the main floor. Sometimes I'll go the media room to watch a movie, but for TV, I use the main tv. For the kids, it's just a matter of how technology has changed how they consume media. They's rather sit at their computers and watch a show, so that they can multi-task, whether it's browing the web, or playing a game. The kids have gaming computers, and as such, they haven't used a PS3 in a couple years, and they didn't even want the PS4, because they play all the same games on their computer. I often wonder if the big screen tv in the living room will be a thing of past... but at least we'll have 4k screens for our 5" phones

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by stuckless

I never said that 4k wouldn't be better. It would rather silly to create a new media format that was inferior to the formats it is intended to replace. But, I really do question whether a "regular" person, such as myself, would see the difference, much like I question whether or not a regular person will "hear" the difference befween a Pono and an iPod.

That's my point, HDR and WCG improvements will be visible, dare I say "obvious" to the average person. 3840x2160 vs 1920x1080, probably not so much at most people's seating distances. Again, at least 75% of "Ultra HD" is not related to resolution, it's about brighter highlights, better detail in highlights and shadows, more vivid colors. This isn't going to be like SACD or DVD-A or lossless vs mp3, where it's the same but subtly better.

[Dargason]

I'm not really interested in 4K. Maybe a few years from now, but I'd rather see the focus of Sage development be in creating a rock solid, stable, easy-to-use platform rather than chasing the bleeding edge.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stanger89

WCG that comes with 4K is different. It uses SMPTE Rec.2020 primaries not xvYCC, and most content is expected to "use" a gamut the size of DCI P3, which is wider than xvYCC.

Further I have yet to see a DLP that can exceed the Rec.709 gamut, most struggle to hit that (usually a bit undersaturated in green). Even projectors which have a pretty wide native gamut (like JVC and Sony) fall rather far short of P3, unless they have explicit P3 support. The new RS500/600 offer P3 support, the RS400 hit's about 80-85% of P3, I think the Sony VW365/665 are in that same ballpark.

The late generation LED rear projection DLP's (like my HL-T6189S) have a ridiculously large gamut - something that usually takes a ton of calibration to get under control with standard sources it seems - they were quite an improvement from the limited color capabilities of a halogen lit screen. Of course, these tv's were made about the same time DLP stopped being popular, and the market shifted to smaller form factor flat panels (which an associated drop in quality). It took another 5-6 years after the market left DLP's for the quality on plasma's and lcd's to get anywhere near where the DLP's were.