Will Ultra HD be online first, will anyone care?

Discussion in 'Streaming and Digital Media' started by Kevin Collins, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. Kevin Collins

    Kevin Collins Owner, from The Other Washington

    Jan 14, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Seattle, WA
    Real Name:
    Kevin Collins
    Analysts believe that UltraHD will delivered via online mechanisms before the like of cable or satellite. This is probably due to MPEG-5 being easier to implement on a software based device with its GPU than a device that has a chip to do the decoding.

    Comcast did announce at the "Cable Show" that it was working on Ultra HD and did do some demonstrations using DOCSIS 3.0. However, like the 2gb transfer speeds that were also announced at the "Cable Show" it is hard to know what was smoke and mirrors. Like the early HD codecs, it was easy to show 1920x1080 resolution for a video that didn't have much moving in it.

    What is interesting is that Comcast said at the show that they would be ready for 4K "if the market develops". With the failure of 3D on broadcast providers like Comcast, the recent announcement from ESPN that they would be dropping their 3D channel brings up an interesting point on if anyone will have the appetite for 4K. Given that 4K really needs a display that is more than 60", will the majority of people even notice?

    One note is that Netflix announced that they would deliver "House of Cards" in 4K.

    To end, common wisdom is that it will take 5+ years for 4K to get mass market adoption. I think that term is overloaded as one could argue that 3D has mass market adoption based on the HDTV's that ship have 3D. However, that doesn't equate to consumers actually using 3D technology.

    While I couldn't wait for the current HD format, at the moment I am less than enthralled with 4K, or 3D for that matter.

    What do you think?
  2. Ejanss

    Ejanss Banned

    Mar 23, 2012
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Real Name:
    It's ONLY STUDIOS--and gullible ones at that--that care about 4K, because they don't know what it is. Interest in 3D may be mild, but at least the public knows what it is and what it isn't when they see it.
    I only have an average "basic essential" streaming connection, +/- 3mbps, for home and work, so hearing what miracles I can download doesn't really interest me that much, if I know I'll need some hi-bandwidth super-connection to access them. I can't even get 3D from Netflix, since it requires the provider itself to adopt an entirely new hi-speed delivery system, and mine being Comcast, they're not likely to go to anyone else to do it.

    I'm not a 3D hater, but I confess I'll be really happy when the first 4K sets flop, and we can all say We Told You So. The only ones who like it don't seem to be the ones who can afford it.
  3. Steve Tannehill

    Steve Tannehill Ambassador

    Jul 6, 1997
    Likes Received:
    Trophy Points:
    Real Name:
    Steve Tannehill
    I don't care about 4K. My 2011 investment in a 3D DLP set will hopefully last me a few years.

    Broadcast 3D has been mishandled from the start. Apart from VOD from HBO, the only channel I ever watched was the Olympics 3D coverage last year, and that was totally botched--time-delayed, early (early) morning broadcasts (nothing to interfere with prime time 2D coverage). I'm certainly not going to pay for a channel like ESPN (I would have tried it if it were included in my monthly cable bill).

Share This Page