SagetTV 4k - Extenders

[nycjoe]

I'm sure this has been discussed on the forum before but I wasn't to find a thread about it (apologies if this is a /2) - is there any hope of being able to play 4k videos on HD200/HD300?

I just got my first 4k camera smartphone (I don't even have a 4k TV yet) and videos aren't really watchable. Bummer! I just know that once I get a 4k TV, all my older, low res videos are going to automatically become unwatchable. That's exactly what happened when I first got an HDTV.

Thanks!

[reggie14]

No, the HD300 isn't going to play back 4k video.

HD video isn't going to become unwatchable. For example, I really don't think I'd be able to tell the difference between Netflix 4k and a blu-ray rip. Practically speaking, compression artifacts seem to be a bigger issue than raw resolution.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by nycjoe

I'm sure this has been discussed on the forum before but I wasn't to find a thread about it (apologies if this is a /2) - is there any hope of being able to play 4k videos on HD200/HD300?

I just got my first 4k camera smartphone (I don't even have a 4k TV yet) and videos aren't really watchable. Bummer! I just know that once I get a 4k TV, all my older, low res videos are going to automatically become unwatchable. That's exactly what happened when I first got an HDTV.

Thanks!

The HD200/HD300 don't support 4k output. With the right codecs and server-side transcoding, you may be able to play back 4k files, but they would be downscaled to regular HD.

[valnar]

Originally Posted by reggie14

HD video isn't going to become unwatchable. For example, I really don't think I'd be able to tell the difference between Netflix 4k and a blu-ray rip. Practically speaking, compression artifacts seem to be a bigger issue than raw resolution.

Agreed.

I know this isn't the question the OP asked, but at the moment I think high-bitrate 1080p will look better than current 4K video. Artifacts in shadow detail, panning and transition fades are apparent in almost everything I watch these days due to a low bitrate. Bump that up to the near max and I'd take that any day over highly compressed 4K video.

[stanger89]

Ultra HD Blu-ray looks pretty nice, but you need more than just a "4K" display to get the most out of it, you need an Ultra HD Premium set for that.

So far the Ultra HD I've seen isn't in your face better, while 4K steaming might be noticeably better than 2K streaming (I unintentionally demo'd this with UHD vs HDX Vudu and the difference there was noticeable), but I'm not so sure if you're talking premium "2K" sources (Blu-ray).

I think Salt is the only native 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray I've got but I haven't take the time to compare it to the Blu-ray, but it didn't knock me on the floor. The Martian was pretty good but that was more the colors, and I don't know there if my UHD Blu-ray player was doing the HDR/WCG-> Rec.709 conversion correctly or not.

All that said, I am quite excited about UHD Blu-ray, HDR and WCG should be a nice improvement over Rec.709, but from what I've seen I'm not going to be running out to replace all my Blu-rays. This definitely isn't like the SD to HD transition where the former can look quite terrible on anything larger than a very modest screen size.

[jchiso]

Originally Posted by nycjoe

... I just know that once I get a 4k TV, all my older, low res videos are going to automatically become unwatchable. That's exactly what happened when I first got an HDTV ...

I spent a good part of this past weekend watching Masters coverage in 4K, and while the quality was better than the 1080i broadcast it was not a real "order of magnitude". What was more noticeable was the scaling of 1080i sourced broadcasts on the 4K set. That made me want to chuck my 1080p sets ...

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by jchiso

I spent a good part of this past weekend watching Masters coverage in 4K, and while the quality was better than the 1080i broadcast it was not a real "order of magnitude".

I wonder how much of the improvement is the 4K and how much is them dedicating a disproportionate amount of bandwidth to their new flagship product.

HD broadcast quality has degraded considerably since it went from flagship product to commodity.

FWIW, I'm not anti-4K, far from it, I'm rather excited about UltraHD Blu-ray (already got a player and a number of movies), I'm just pragmatic and not that excited about broadcast/streaming 4K.

[nycjoe]

Thanks, guys, I appreciate all the input. I'm not super focused on high quality video (my largest set is an old 46" I recently was handed down) and was turned off 4K a while ago due to the soap opera effect (not sure if that's a 4K think, but yikes!).

Originally Posted by Tiki

The HD200/HD300 don't support 4k output. With the right codecs and server-side transcoding, you may be able to play back 4k files, but they would be downscaled to regular HD.

Sorry to re-hijack the thread, but is there a way to force transcoding for particular videos? Would I need to put my MOV videos in a certain container?

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by nycjoe

...and was turned off 4K a while ago due to the soap opera effect (not sure if that's a 4K think, but yikes!).

It is not.

[cat6man]

not sure is this is applicable here but a recent HD view at a friends house brings this to mind.

if you have a modern HDTV (less than a couple of years old), you should never use the video processing in your cable box or hd200/300 extender as they are severely limiting compared with modern video processing standards.

for the former, set the STB/cable box to output at native resolution (in the case of FiOS, go into the secret menu - google for instructions).
for the latter, set the hd200/300 to output native resolution in the detailed setup menu.....also turn of motion processing.

i was at a friends house for the superbowl and he was proudly showing off his new 65" hdtv and i was appalled at how bad the motion video was.........the grass would be in sharp focus, then blur as soon as the camera moved, then snap into focus again when the camera stopped moving. the next day, i gently suggested he check his settings in the secret menu and he and his wife are now amazed at how much better their TV looks........something i hadn't thought about in years since i stumbled upon it a long time ago.

pass the word!!!

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by cat6man

not sure is this is applicable here but a recent HD view at a friends house brings this to mind.

if you have a modern HDTV (less than a couple of years old), you should never use the video processing in your cable box or hd200/300 extender as they are severely limiting compared with modern video processing standards.

Too bad that option is disappearing from boxes.

[cat6man]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Too bad that option is disappearing from boxes.

that also makes it a good thing the FCC is trying to open up the market for boxes

[stanger89]

I don't mean just cable boxes, I mean everything, Blu-ray players, streamers, consoles. I think my HDx00's are the only boxes I have in use that offer native resolution output.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by cat6man

if you have a modern HDTV (less than a couple of years old), you should never use the video processing in your cable box or hd200/300 extender as they are severely limiting compared with modern video processing standards.

While this is undoubtedly true, I find the time it takes to change resolutions extremely annoying. The scaler and deinterlacer in the HD300 is good enough that I'd rather deal with its imperfections than deal with the delays.

I had it set to native output for a while and I haven't particularly noticed a difference (but I don't have nearly as nice of equipment as stanger, for instance). This might be a case where I just don't know what to look for. Maybe if I found it, it would bother me a lot more. I've ruined XM radio for people by pointing out what it sounds like...

And as I've pointed out in other threads, it's really the compression artifacts that bug me- I definitely see macroblocking on many channels, and that does bother me.