Is 4K playback in Sage a possibility?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

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.

True, there are those, unfortunately they don't "speak" Rec.2020 to be able to use it with UHD Blu-ray, not without some intermediate video processor.

[jchiso]

Originally Posted by wayner

...
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.

I'd be willing to move to Canada and buy UHD TVs and a front projector if a provider there offered a comprehensive 4K sports package ...

[wayner]

Originally Posted by jchiso

I'd be willing to move to Canada and buy UHD TVs and a front projector if a provider there offered a comprehensive 4K sports package ...

In this instance it is helped by the extreme vertical integration of Canadian media/Telco companies.

Roger Cable is the leading cable TV company for Ontario (and other places).
Rogers wireless is the country's leading cell phone provider.
Rogers owns Rogers Sportsnet which is a cable sports channel like ESPN or FOX sports.
Rogers also owns OTA channels including CITY-TV.
Rogers owns 100% of the Toronto Blue Jays and Rogers Centre (FKA SkyDome)
Rogers owns 50% of Dome productions which is one of the leading companies for producing high def TV especially for stuff like live sporting events.
Rogers owns 50% of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) which owns the Toronto Maple Leafs NHL team, Toronto Raptors NBA team and Toronto FC MLS team.

So when it comes to doing something like producing 4K sports TV content they own the whole value chain from the team down to the wires to your home so they don't really need to get anyone else onside.

Bell Canada is the incumbent phone company (think AT&T for Canada) and they own the other 50% of MLSE and many of the other TV channels plus the leading satellite TV provider.

Note that the US is going this way with Comcast buying NBC (Comcast also owns sports teams) and the AT&T purchase of DirecTV.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by wayner

In this instance it is helped by the extreme vertical integration of Canadian media/Telco companies.

Roger Cable is the leading cable TV company for Ontario (and other places).
Rogers wireless is the country's leading cell phone provider.
Rogers owns Rogers Sportsnet which is a cable sports channel like ESPN or FOX sports.
Rogers also owns OTA channels including CITY-TV.
Rogers owns 100% of the Toronto Blue Jays and Rogers Centre (FKA SkyDome)
Rogers owns 50% of Dome productions which is one of the leading companies for producing high def TV especially for stuff like live sporting events.
Rogers owns 50% of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) which owns the Toronto Maple Leafs NHL team, Toronto Raptors NBA team and Toronto FC MLS team.

So when it comes to doing something like producing 4K sports TV content they own the whole value chain from the team down to the wires to your home so they don't really need to get anyone else onside.

Bell Canada is the incumbent phone company (think AT&T for Canada) and they own the other 50% of MLSE and many of the other TV channels plus the leading satellite TV provider.

Note that the US is going this way with Comcast buying NBC (Comcast also owns sports teams) and the AT&T purchase of DirecTV.

So you're saying that monopolies aid innovation? Canada is weird...

[wayner]

No, I generally don't like this concentration of power in one entity but it can, in rare instances, facilitate the adoption of new technology.

And as I said the US is moving in this direction despite the blockage of the TW Comcast merger. The Rogers situation isn't all that different from Comcast showing a Philly Flyers game on NBCSN to Comcast cable customers.

Although our prices are high for basic internet services the high end services that are available are pretty good. I pay C$95 (US$70) for 250/20 cable internet with no data caps (and I get speedtest results at 320/21).

By the end of 2016 I should be able to get gigabit internet from either Rogers or Bell Canada.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by wayner

In this instance it is helped by the extreme vertical integration of Canadian media/Telco companies.

Roger Cable is the leading cable TV company for Ontario (and other places).
Rogers wireless is the country's leading cell phone provider.
Rogers owns Rogers Sportsnet which is a cable sports channel like ESPN or FOX sports.
Rogers also owns OTA channels including CITY-TV.
Rogers owns 100% of the Toronto Blue Jays and Rogers Centre (FKA SkyDome)
Rogers owns 50% of Dome productions which is one of the leading companies for producing high def TV especially for stuff like live sporting events.
Rogers owns 50% of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment (MLSE) which owns the Toronto Maple Leafs NHL team, Toronto Raptors NBA team and Toronto FC MLS team.

So when it comes to doing something like producing 4K sports TV content they own the whole value chain from the team down to the wires to your home so they don't really need to get anyone else onside.

Bell Canada is the incumbent phone company (think AT&T for Canada) and they own the other 50% of MLSE and many of the other TV channels plus the leading satellite TV provider.

Note that the US is going this way with Comcast buying NBC (Comcast also owns sports teams) and the AT&T purchase of DirecTV.

Having one large company own everything means that they have the power to force all their subsidiaries to play ball and work together - that's true.

However, I wonder, what's their incentive? Does Rogers have a lot of competition in Canada (will investing in 4K bring them more subscribers?)? Or maybe their competition is the internet (Netflix, etc.), so they see 4k as a way to keep people from cutting the cord?

Also, with very large companies, the individual divisions are often not well integrated. This tends to be true especially when a company has grown primarily through M&A - when you buy up a bunch of small companies, they often remain like separate entities each doing their own thing with no idea what the others are doing. It's often difficult to get them all working together without destroying them.

[wayner]

What their incentive is - that is a good question. They have been losing subscribers to Bell which has ramped up their IPTV service that they call FibeTV - but it is really FTTN not FTTH, at least not yet. They are also losing subscribers to cord cutting and they probably figure this is a good way to try to retain subscribers.

You are right about large organizations having divisions that don't play nicely together.

[Malfunction]

Originally Posted by Skirge01

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

It mainly depends on the size of your screen and how close you are to it.

[DarkWolf77]

Honestly, I recently upgraded my main TV to 4k and going between 4k and HD content on the same screen... don't really see a difference, even if I sit right in front of it. HDR? Well... Only way I can tell if HDR is playing on my TV is if I hit the input button on the remote and see the little HDR badge on the resulting info screen. I mean yes, the new tv looks better, but only because it's newer display tech replacing a 15 year old TV that was slightly smaller and a ton heavier.

[wayner]

What content are you using to do your comparisons? TV shows? And what size TV? I wonder if part of the lack of difference may be due to some of the benefit gained by upconverting to 4K.

[Thomas Wischgol]

I switched one of my clients to 4K a while back. I only use 1080p or less for content though. I like the upscaling, though, as playback seems smoother this way. The only thing I noticed is that some things like the weather radar and some icons do not scale properly so that they show up too small.

[tvmaster2]

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)

yeah, the more I realize how much has to be spent on ancillary equipment upgrades, and how little material exists beyond DVD’s at the highest quality, I tend to agree. Also, when you move eight feet away from the screen, my old eyes really have a hard time seeing the benefit. Maybe in five years, but for now, I’m fine with 1080 and 720

[KryptoNyte]

I understand this is an old thread, but I've been using the 4k video from the Mavic Drone for testing. The HD300 will play the content, but it stutters quite a bit - not really watchable. The MiBox will play the 4k content (3840x2160@30 fps) respectably (using the miniclient), but I haven't found a way to get 5.1 channel audio from that solution. The drone video doesn't have any audio, so no problem there, but moving forward, not sure how that would work.

I can say that the only reason I record in 4k from the drone (rather than 1080p@60fps) is;

- I can take screenshots after the flight, from the video
- DJI's Mavic 1080p@60fps is not good

Regarding 4k television, I can't really see a need for it until your TV hits 60 to 70 inches. Even then, at 15 feet away, it's just not a dramatic improvement.

[DarkWolf77]

Originally Posted by wayner

What content are you using to do your comparisons? TV shows? And what size TV? I wonder if part of the lack of difference may be due to some of the benefit gained by upconverting to 4K.

50" TV, and the (very) few things available in Amazon Prime HDR/4k and Netflix. Vudu was even better for comparison though: since they added HDR10, I've been doing some side by side since Vudu lets you pick the quality you want to watch. HD and UHD,... no difference. But can definitely see the difference between SD and HD, so there's that.

I might add that my younger eyes are pretty good, I don't even use reading glasses.

[Tiki]

There have been many articles published on this. From what I've read the consensus seems to be that for a person with "perfect" 20/20 vision sitting at 10 feet away from the screen, you need a screen that is about 80" or larger to tell the difference between 4K and 1080p. This is only considering the difference in resolution.

4K content and displays also usually include HDR, which may be noticeable even on smaller displays. Also, 4K is usually encoded with different codecs so there could be some slight differences due to the quality and efficiency of the encoders and decoders used.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by DarkWolf77

Honestly, I recently upgraded my main TV to 4k and going between 4k and HD content on the same screen... don't really see a difference, even if I sit right in front of it.

Tiki's got it right, at normal seating distances, the resolution increase for 4K is not significant. You really need to get into projection for the resolution difference to be meaningful.

HDR? Well... Only way I can tell if HDR is playing on my TV is if I hit the input button on the remote and see the little HDR badge on the resulting info screen.

Really? That's very surprising, HDR and WCG are the primary benefits of UHD, and while not always smack you in the face different, they're definitely noticeable. Unless maybe you've got one of those early TVs that didn't really do HDR.

Originally Posted by tvmaster2

...and how little material exists beyond DVD’s at the highest quality, I tend to agree.

Seriously? DVD looks terrible, I haven't watched a DVD in years probably.

[DarkWolf77]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Seriously? DVD looks terrible, I haven't watched a DVD in years probably.

Maybe he meant blu-ray...? I mean, even on an old 20" tv I could see the difference between 480 and 1080i/p.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Really? That's very surprising, HDR and WCG are the primary benefits of UHD, and while not always smack you in the face different, they're definitely noticeable. Unless maybe you've got one of those early TVs that didn't really do HDR.

Well it's a 2017 model Samsung and while it's not the bleeding edge one, it supposedly supports up to 4:4:4 12-bit (I really couldn't stomach spending that much more for a difference I couldn't even make out with both sets sitting next to each other). On the other hand, it could very well be that I just don't have good source material - all my UHD content is streamed as I don't have a UHD blu-ray player.

[wnjj]

I must be the geezer in the room. I have 2 TV's: A 52" DLP and 32" Visio LCD. Both are 720p and at least 10 years old. I don't have a blu-ray player nor any content beyond OTA and DVD rips.

I really couldn't care less if TV gets better and hope I don't have to invest too much just to keep up. If the movie has a good enough plot, the picture quality matters little to me.

My first TV was a 13" black & white so I know how much better color, then DVD, then HD ATSC can be but I really consider further advancement to have diminishing returns for household use.

[Wirenut]

I'm with you. It's hard to find good content these days. But technology is my career, so when I get home, I just wanna sit down and watch a good "flick." Ya know?

[Malfunction]

I'm more interested in HDR than 4K, but it looks like the 2 technologies are intertwined. I don't even have room for a 50" TV, so 4K would be kind of difficult to notice.