As a development lead for one of the biggest broadcaster in the country I would strongly suggest you don’t waste your money on a 4k UHD tv. It’ll be a paper weight before you know it, similar to those early “HD ready” TVs at the early adoption of HD.

Snob. I’ve just bought one of these: http://www.tesco.com/direct/blaupunkt-40148-40-inch-full-hd-1080p-led-tv-with-freeview-hd/372-5799.prd?pageLevel=&skuId=372-5799 Worried by all this talk of TVs lasting at least 5 years though, as it’s replacing a 17yo 25″ Sony narrow screen CRT (for about half what that cost IIRC).

This is getting interesting, so I have always thought the ‘smart’ TVs thing was a bit gimmicky but I do love the idea of having the tv connected to the rest of the devices in the house. We currently have a 6 month old iMac, and iPad, various windows laptops and kindle fires. Bearing in mind all these have Bluetooth and wireless capability I s there a simple way of connecting the whole lot? I don’t know why I would want to do this yet, it was a comment by someone earlier that started me thinking.

My guesses…

It will cost broadcasters a metric f*ckton to upgrade the satellite networks (studio headend kit, the satellites above earth, and your set top box) before 4k starts happening much of any at all beyond the odd demo channel. 4k needs bandwidth, lots of it, unless you’re happy with it looking like a turd. And network upgrade is not even on their radar AFAIK.

Upscaling is a complete fraud. Cougar has it, you can’t invent information. TVs just take a best guess at the bits it is missing – detail doesn’t magically appear.

“Smart” features for local network playback (etc) look very likely to stick and expand, improve on connectivity with popular devices (ipad/phone/android), perhaps standardise on a few media server types. More internet capabilities also likely. Exactly what this collection of smart features will all look like, I haven’t a clue, but networks are (generally) starting to move toward multiple content sources (satellite + internet + cable all-in-one), so expect the TVs to do the same.

mf
(ex-set top box SW eng)

Fortunately the majority of people now have (or will be getting in the very near future) lots of bandwidth. I don’t think it’s broadcasting which is likely to be the hold up. I just downloaded a 60 minute programme in HD, which was just under 1GB. If 4k is 4 times the bandwidth, then that’s 4GB per hour, or about 9Mbps. Even on my old fashioned cheap copper connection here I’m getting 15Mbps – maybe not quite enough to stream that reliably, but I’d assume anybody buying a 4k telly would happily pay for fibre. The way we get content is changing.

It will cost broadcasters a metric f*ckton to upgrade the satellite networks (studio headend kit, the satellites above earth, and your set top box) before 4k starts happening much of any at all beyond the odd demo channel. 4k needs bandwidth, lots of it, unless you’re happy with it looking like a turd. And network upgrade is not even on their radar AFAIK.

Not entirely sure they will upgrade while such big performance jumps for home broadband keep being made. Average UK broadband speed is now over 18Mbps, which is capable of 4K. Do some cleverer caching during quiet times and it could be workable on slower. Makes no sense to do the huge upgrades needed to broadcast it when more and more TV watching is streamed (inc catchup services) anyway.

The futureproofing thing reminded me of my parents who buy a new TV once in a blue moon and spent a fortune on a 1080p Panasonic when it was a new thing, back before any HD broadcasts. It was used purely for SD Sky broadcasts and DVDs until last year when they finally caved and got Sky+ and a blu-ray player.

Buy for what you can watch on it now, not for what you think you might maybe want to watch in 5+ years time. Keep the money you saved in the bank for your next TV.

It may take some time for the broadcast and internet infrastructure to catch up with 4k but 4k Blu-ray will be coming along soonish.

Not entirely sure they will upgrade while such big performance jumps for home broadband keep being made.

You’re probably right. I’d expect stuff like NetFlix 4k to expand, a lot.

Average UK broadband speed is now over 18Mbps, which is capable of 4K

Out in the sticks we can’t stream HD, and at busy times even SD is way below real time… But technically, sure, web based streaming makes 4k possible.

Bandwidth won’t quite be 4x 1080pHD levels, the compression has been improved a notch. But the improvements to video compression are down to fractional levels with new codecs, so it won’t be far off 4x… Especially if you actually want a decent picture that doesn’t have lots of codec artifacts…

As for my previous bandwidth comment – I meant on the existing broadcast networks – the odd flagship channel on satellite will end up in UHD (sky sports 1, etc) but the existing HD channels were a squeeze. So any UHD will come at the expense of something else (check the BBC News HD compression, for instance)

My guesses…

It will cost broadcasters a metric f*ckton to upgrade the satellite networks (studio headend kit, the satellites above earth, and your set top box) before 4k starts happening much of any at all beyond the odd demo channel. 4k needs bandwidth, lots of it, unless you’re happy with it looking like a turd. And network upgrade is not even on their radar AFAIK.

Itll cost a bit but not as much as your guessing, the biggest problem for us is getting the content to the customers. The Satellite “networks” will not need upgrading, just the compression used and with HEVC compression its possible to put a UHD channel within a current Satellite transponder (there is a test channel up there now by Eutelsat). The Studios will also just need tweaking, we have proved and tested this, its just the current solution (quad 3G SDI) is a real pain in the ass to do.

The bandwidth is a problem but the situation is getting better. I’ve tested contribution delivery bit rates of UHD content over satellite and fibre, our bit rates are up to 300mbps and we can do this fine. Its again getting it back to the customer, Netfliks 18Mbps UHD content is shocking and makes me laugh. To stream over the net you will need rates up to 30mbps for it to look half decent.

The reason broadcasters are not jumping on it is because the future is uncertain. UHD-1 in its first phase is not a game changer, ive watched Football, Golf, Tennis and Formula 1 and come away unimpressed as do alot of my colleagues. UHD Phase 1.5 is what is really needed, this brings HDR, frames rates up to 120fps (really needed imo) and higher colour gamut. The UHD content will be much more of an immersive expereince then. We also have the big issue of viewing distance, viewing distance is critical. We are on the edge of what are eyes can see, its a fine line between being able to see the detail and missing it completely. You need to sit closer to the screen than you would a normal HD tv or you need to buy a larger tv. Most people are not going to move their sofas, most European homes don’t have the room to accommodate a 60″ plus tv in the living room.

The Satellite “networks” will not need upgrading, just the compression used and with HEVC compression its possible to put a UHD channel within a current Satellite transponder (there is a test channel up there now by Eutelsat)

I thought bandwidth was already tight on the satellites. Is there another one being put up or are the channels being shuffled (with SD getting a bit of a downgrade)?

Netfliks 18Mbps UHD content is shocking and makes me laugh. To stream over the net you will need rates up to 30mbps for it to look half decent.

Yeah, 18mbps is crap. Less than SkySports HD if memory serves me. I’ve been out of the broadcast business for a little while now but I remember 60-80mpbs being the guess for 4k, is that still about right?

There is free transponder space, things will no doubt get shuffled around and decommissioned if a UHD channel was launched.

UHD-1 Phase 1 HEVC compression is coming up at about 45mbps. Phase 1.5 is unknown as the technology isnt here yet but it will be more granted.

HEVC contribution technology also isnt here yet, to get the content back from stadium to studio we are having to do synchronised quad MPEG 4 encodes at about 200mbps which is a really ropey way to do it. We then decode and distribute this around the studios as 4 separate video feeds, again a ropey way of doing it.

I personally think its going to be atleast 4 years before you see decent quality UHD at home. Sure some broadcasters may jump on it and launch a UHD phase 1 channel but it will leave alot of people unimpressed (a bit like netflixs attempt).

Sod the details. There’s only one way to engage in the audio-visual buying process these days

Futureproof…?

Our 32″ Sony CRT still works well with a HUMAX freeview box plugged in.

🙂

TBH I’d worry primarily about the quality of the panel, just say bollocks to all the on board features they sell it with, and start looking at connectivity…

More important than integrated crap they’re going to stop supporting within 36 months of you buying, is whether you can plug in something genuinely useful like streaming devices say a chromecast/FireTV/AppleTV/NowTV/etc, a games console or a blueray player, a PC perhaps?
and What the external audio connectivity is like…
Number of USB/HDMI ports, audio out channels? it’s dull but more useful in the long term.

The “Future” IMO is all about kit that allows you to lay your hands on non-broadcast, online media, TV manufacturer’s wanting to sell you something you think will do this for the next decade or so, when in reality you won’t be able to watch netflix inside of five when the firmware fails to keep up, it all means they can flog you telly’s more frequently…

Fine if it comes with “Smart” features, I’d be more interested to know what I can plug into it when the “Smart” bit’s are superseded…

Some people say the 4k sets upscale better, but without that consideration I would just get a decent quality 1080P set that has good colors, or get it calibrated to have.

Then spend any money that you would have been tempted to spend on a 4K set on ensuring that you have decent quality HD feeds into it, like a decent and reliable internet connection for catchup and netflix.

Also a good number of HD TV channels (Virgin XL for example)and a decent PVR – as what is the point of having a HD set and then watching poor quality SD catchup?

Any more spend should go on ensuring that you have as good an audio setup as you can get as audio is a large part of the viewing experience.

By the time 4K becomes standard then 4k sets will have moved on a lot, so they only reason to buy one now is the possibly better upscaling performance – although this is a moot point if you are receiving good quality 1080P anyway – a 1080P tv won’t have to upscale a 1080P signal, whereas a 4K tv will (and possibly screw-up/add artifacts).

You can get a half decent TV for £300-£400.

A work colleague bought a SMART/3D TV about 2 years ago, and paid a fortune for it as 3D was the latest invovation then. You can now buy similar TV’s for a fraction of what they paid.

I would wait until they start broadcasting in 4k, then the prices will drop.

£300 to £400 will get a TV that does all you need with a good picture.

Ok so I am looking at as big as I can afford at 1080 with as many output points as possible. What sort of additional fun stuff for a fully connected house can I get using a Mac as the main device? Or do. Need to buy some kind of server gizmo for that?

Chromecast?

The other issue with 4K, infrastructure and delivery aside, is source. Your programmes have to be shot in 4K or it’s all moot.

And IMHO we should be getting HD right first. I still have to hop between HD and SD channels whenever they switch to regional broadcasts, which is dim.

Your programmes have to be shot in 4K or it’s all moot.

some people say that 4K sets can scale up to 1080P better than a 1080P set.

4K gives a noticeably better picture

Surely only if you have a gigantic screen or a small room, or both?

Upscaling – you can’t get detail that’s not there, but you can smooth out lines, so things will still look better upscaled. However it’s a necessity when you have more pixels on your display than your source so not some fancy feature – all tellies will do it to some extent.

Ok so I am looking at as big as I can afford at 1080

I woudl say get the one that suits your room. Too big is as bad as too small. Or possibly worse.

I bought one of these 90″ Sony TVs about two years ago. I certainly wouldn’t consider getting 4k for at least three years

Holy cow! That is a huge TV bigblack! Now please tell me you put it in the front room of a small one bed apartment.