Thank you for watching! Emails take a longer time to go through than you’d expect sometimes. Make sure you’re prepared with an all-in-one writing tool like Grammarly! It’s FREE, why not? Sign up for a FREE account and get 20% off Grammarly Premium: grammarly.com/TechQuickie
I am an IT guy. I have to agree with the TV people. 2 of 3 of my tv's are 4k. I had to play the same movie side by side to see the difference between the two. Even then, it was not a big difference. Not big enough to matter.
Working in cable TV industry, majority of customers will just say "what's 4k" when you mention UHD or 4k tv package add ons it so its really not a focus, would be nice if It was though :(
@@DxBlack hardly, they're profit based organisations. More likely that people just don't care, or want to save money, or aren't as tech literate or would be using streaming services for 4k content
@@DxBlack you can try and inform them, comes down to a, do you have a UHD or 4k tv? "I don't know" etc trying to get someone to check what TV they have, them then asking what the difference between even SD and HD is let alone HD to UHD, if it was easy to explain or a noticable enough difference for people still using cable (middle aged and elderly generally) cable companies would support it more, the lack of uptake even after upselling to customers makes it redundant for most shows or channels to also be done in 4K :=
I would say it would be a good marketing tool “look we are the only one who does 4K cable” and work with other shows or tv makers. It would be a way to get things to watch in 4K away from Netflix and stuff .
"Who cares" is surprisingly solid argument here. Especially considering that the demographic who watches a lot of traditional TV isn't the most tech savvy. My dad always insisted that he didn't see a difference between SD and HD, even (though I'm European, so SD = 576i here, rather than 480i). And when I tried really hard to point out the difference, he always said he actually preferred SD, insisting that too much sharpness caused him eyestrain. So, yeah. Good luck profiting from 4K off such a demographic. That being said, 4K broadcasts are somewhat common in Europe, and there is enough sports in 4K to fill a round-the-clock schedule for a channel or two.
Yeah it must be quite different over here compared to North America because in the UK all the euro games were shown like in UHD HDR, and most popular sports like football, rugby, golf and F1 are shown in UHD on satellite TV
It's weird how it's like that because even when I was really young watching TV, I always looked for the HD version of the channels because they looked so clean and high quality. I didn't even know what display resolutions were
Considering I’m like 1 of two people in my family with a decent hdr 4K tv, I actually see the arguments as valid proposed by service providers. I think for the general purposes, 1080p normalization with HDR and 60+fps should definitely be the first goal to hit. 4K, much like in gaming, is niche and there are far more impactful goals to be hit first.
1080P TVs will be phased out of mainstream retail by 2025. A mediocre, "good enough" 4k TV can be had for a few hundred bucks now, and even less on discount.
As somebody who works in the live event industry I can tell you that 4K is astronomically more expensive and typically doesn’t even fix the image quality issues viewers typically complain about. In live events, each camera feed goes through several production and DVE equipment, up to hundreds if it’s a really intense broadcast. Each link in the chain must be upgraded to 4K (6G-SDI or 12G-SDI) which means an astronomical cost. Every switcher, every router, every cable channel under the venue, literally EVERYTHING has to be upgraded. If you built your broadcasting room in a lazy way, even your monitoring equipment has to be upgraded! It’s incredibly expensive.
I work for a local news station in Argentina, and despite the fact that we produce everything in HD internally, the cable operators in this zone still work in Standard Definition 576p, so we have to downsample our signal to send them that, which is crazy considering HD has been around for like 20 years. I understand that our problems aren't equal as those in other richer countries, but it appears that you are in a similar situation regarding 4k. However, the number of individuals who still watch cable may be zero in the future.
In Trinidad and Tobago, HD only became a regular thing for general cable in 2016 and local channels only upgraded as late as 2018. Some of them still operate in 480i.
i dont think cable will DIE anytime soon...in rural towns, villages and other lower-middle class lifestyle. Most people have only SD or HD ready content. As long as there are poor & lower-middle class people CABLE will prevail.
The last part, cable companies having the bandwidth, is the real key to this. Going digital, they were able to squeeze 4-6 480p channels per 6 MHz band (physical cable channel), and 1 - 1080p or 2 720p channels per 6 MHz band. And even at the max usable range 54 MHz - 1000 MHz that's only 158 physical channels, now if they did 4K TV, they'd need to consume 2-4 of those physical channels for one based on the QAM they use for cable digital broadcast. And a number of those physical channels actually have to be used to support Cable Modem and Streaming services on top. W/o a change away from the traditional QAM (modulation technique) they will never realistically be able to support 4K content w/o wiping over half their other channels. And FWIW, I would say that most people are more than satisfied with 1080p feeds at their sitting distance and it looks pretty darn good. Especially if you get rid of the Soap Opera Effect of most new TVs by killing the 'True Motion' and dropping the 'Sharpness' setting down to normal. Which to be honest really screws up good content.
on another level, if they switch to TVoIP completely instead of the current QAM standard, they could theoretically support many more channels then they currently do, streaming what ever content they actually want.
before I finally cut my cord, I could tell they were cramming in even more HD networks into a frequency, probably so they could make room to roll out their gigabit internet service. Proof is I have a clear-QAM TV that can "pick up" (but not decode) the channels, and there would be over 12 subchannels on many frequencies. (And this was after they canned separate channel numbers for SD-only channels.) It used to be no more than 4 per channel "back in the day". The video compression got so bad that any scenes with any full-screen motion were almost an indiscernable mess of blocky colors for a second or so. _edit:_ but I bet they didn't do this as extreme on premium channels, or sports events, because reasons
There's another problem, most of the cable TV hardware out there is still only capable of decoding MPEG2 video. Yes, most cable companies are still only using MPEG2 to compress their video feeds, they've not even began to use even MPEG4 h.264.
@@ericlaska4748 Exactly. The problem we're running into is the lack of bandwidth on the cable. You need at least h.264, really h.265, to compress 4K to a stream size that's even close to being manageable. And since the hardware can't do anything but MPEG2, there you have the issue.
@@trparky you know I wanted to watch old hbo shows downloaded via torrent long time ago I had to switch with blu-ray versions for Westworld because season 1 in hdtv quality sucks so much, same for game of thrones if I remember correctly 720p looks like old 576i dvds super compressed shitty colors and bad blacks, no details, how do you bear it? Thankfully rips are nowadays web-dl
You think that's insane here in Australia our free-to-air stations still broadcast a 576i for practically all channels. Some do have a 1080i simulcast, and there's 3 1080i only channels, while at least half are only at 576i. Our subscription TV still has a 576i feed for practically all their channels though most are also available in 1080i while a few are only available at 576i, and they actually also have a 24 hour 4K movie channel and funnily one for sports which is only active for certain events.
Why is it "insane"? The vast majority of viewers will only have 1080 TV sets. And plenty of those viewers will be mostly watching upscaled SD channels anyway.
@@dunebasher1971 1080p has been the standard for over a decade, so paying 50-100 dollars a month for 480i/720p/1080i content seems bizarrely out of date. Nothing I watch is below 1080p.
In Europe cable and satellite companies have 4K channels and not only for presentations but do have entertainment, movies, sports (Eurosport 4K) . If you have a 4K TV you only need a CI+ module to watch the scrambled channels from your subscription. They also give you a 4K cable box if you don't want the CI+ Module.
Most of us in North America have already cut the cord so the cable companies don't care. They will just keep making there lines faster for internet streaming.
@@xenyon I'm not from Germany but I agree wth you , you have many free TV channels on Astra 19.2 East but there are some free HD channels from ARD, ARTE, ZDF, 3 SAT, QVC, german regional channels.
@@Nicholas_Chris HD is sometimes 1080p interlaced with crap colours and lines and artifacts to the moon or 720 p with even worse colours It's the same experience as if you turn the playback resolution to 420p The only good one is the Das Erste all the other are really bad, even the online streams are better
@@xenyon satellite free TV is 576i in Germany, and most public service broadcasters are 720p, a few are 1080i and UHD1 is 4k HDR, but it's only free Monday through Friday from 8am to 8pm. QVC is also available in UHD, but who wants to watch shopping channels in 4k? If you pay for HD+ you're allowed to watch all UHD1 content as well as RTL UHD and Pro7Sat1 UHD but they don't show much. The quality of the shown program is heavy influenced by it's age, when an old show airs it looks often really bad. Then it depends on your TV the picture of a high quality Panasonic looks A LOT better than hat of a dirt cheap Hisense, also the quality of the used cable seems to influence picture quality as well, a few months ago I replaced an old 1 or 2 times shielded wire for a 4 times shielded and the person I did that for said to me, that the picture looked a lot clearer. Also if you have artifacts there is something wrong with your satellite dish, cable or you have oxidation on some F-Plugs/Connectors, if you have cable there is either a damper that is too strong, the damping of your cable socket is too strong or there is a problem with your house connection amplifier. In some rare cases the cable is degrading outside, good luck asking Vodafone to fix that.
In the US Comcast and Spectrum are focusing on multi gig internet over cable which is going to require them to switch to IP video anyway. They also just announced a joint venture to develop a "next gen" streaming platform. That's probably where their 4K focus will be.
Video over IP right now from the headend (main hub where video comes into) to the customer equipment. Meaning it’s still the same cable feed for most services. While some are doing fully video over IP. It offers far less channels at this time till them channels convert over. To offer fully Ip base video. Most channels do offer this some still lagging behind. 16 years working this environment. If you wanting to know
mediacom still offers 720P digintal HD Cabel but they still got data caps too we ditch them cause they internet speed was all over there service sucked here I also hard tv goses out on windy day I got fiber
Honestly, it isn't going to matter considering that traditional 'TV' watching is on the decline and more people are just streaming 4K media and getting their news online as well. I'm pretty sure that we're going to see a future where more bandwidth will be reserved for Internet and less and less (til there is none) for TV broadcasts.
That ain't gonna happen, unless Amazon, Google, Microsoft or ISPs lobby for it. Antennas will need to get bigger and the bandwidth gains will keep diminishing. If you pull the plug on broadcast signals, you also suddenly have huge bandwidth requirements. The Сhinа virus caused enough demand that Netflix and RUclips had to reduce stream quality. Terrestrial TV can serve an infinite number of users without bandwidth constraints. If you have a 50 Mbps mux (maximum DVB-T2 capacity per channel), and 30 Mbps is dedicated to a UHD channel, you won't need reducing the quality with high demand.
Our 'cable' over here in the UK (Virgin Media) is 4K, all their Settop boxes support 4K and HDR! They even have dedicated channels for UHD/4K content, as well as 4K content from other providers.
Yeah still hardly any channels though only bt sport and sky cinema store and that virgin uhd channel. No sky sports 4k still sucks though but nothing virgin can do to force them to give it maybe ofcom will eventually make them legally required to stop the monopoly
Sky sports without hd looks shocking on virgin media. I won’t pay £7 a month extra for hd in 2022.
2 года назад+159
Maybe the UK is ahead of the curve, but I get satellite TV (via Sky) with a HUGE selection of 4K/UHD content available. I will say some of this is delivered on demand via download over your internet connection to the Sky box, but a lot of sport/new drama etc is live broadcast in 4K/UHD over satellite. And the fact so much more is offered on demand as well suggests studios here are creating a lot of 4K/UHD content. As a result of this (and Netflix/RUclips making up a reasonable proportion of my viewing) I’d say at least 90% of what I watch is in 4K/UHD. If I’m watching HD content I can definitely tell (but maybe a 75 inch TV makes it more obvious than on an average TV size).
Europe is actually pulling ahead of the US in TV technology, as Czechia has already tested UHD on DVB-T2, and Italy has been broadcasting RAI 4K for a while now via satellite.
Poland gets 4K/UHD on "Cyforwy Polsat", Germany gets it with Sky too, addition in Germany is HD+ by Astra with UHD Channels. Everything is Sat. In Germany and Poland there are possible Downloadspeed pf 1GBit/s over DOCSYS3.1 on cable, so UHD shouldn't be a problem there. They can go on streaming IPTV over cable, Vodafone is doing this already with their GigaTV Premium with an AppleTV in it. Normal gets a decent receiver, with streaming features, but it uses normal cable for TV.
I think the quality of the cameras and lenses makes more of a difference than pixel count. (For starters; Compare the footage of your smartphone to that of a decent DSLR with a good lens). Also, for live events, it would probably require a wired connection to broadcast in 4K, right? I'm guessing they're pushing the limits as is, with 60fps. Until very recently, one of the biggest tv providers in the Netherlands (KPN) had issues when ESPN switched to 60fps at Full HD. Not too sure why, but the problems came when you would pause a live broadcast, and then start it again (or try to watch a live broadcast from the start..) It would hang / crap out every few minutes. Consistently. They fixed it by now.. Still wondering what the problem was.. Judging by the problem - (plus the fact that it took like 15 mins after the programme had finished to unlock the ability to watch it after the airing time) - I'm guessing they were simultaneously encoding the footage in different qualities...? Seriously wondering how this works with digital TV nowadays. So if anyone knows; I would love to learn about it :)
@@ericlaska4748 Should just buy a good mirrorless camera (you can get some pretty nice ones for not that much money) and either some vintage glass if you want good optics with a low price (but is all manual) or buy some decent lenses with autofocus. You have full control over almost every aspect then :) and it's less money than some might think.
yes, cameras and lenses, especially those cameras that film in 10../..14bit colors give astounding image clarity, tho an adequate output screen is also massive quality measure
Wired connections are easy for most sports. Because they're at fixed venues and have fixed locations where the broadcast equipment is. The issue is when companies don't do on site production (ie NASCAR is all remotely produced)
@@agentcrm Exactly what I thought too :) But I think at one point I had problems with both - it was during the World Cup (soccer) qualifiers, where a bunch of 'new' countries were playing (i.e. Not ones that are usually televised). I was thinking of the logistics of getting live uncompressed footage from multiple cameras to the viewer at home; it would be logical to cut / edit the footage on site, right? (Be it a mobile editing rig, or one that's on site with a wired connection) . Because that would result in only 1 uncompressed stream to be processed.. I looked up the necessary bandwidth for 4K uncompressed, and that's 12 Gbps... :o (As opposed to 3 Gbps for Full HD) That stream would have to be processed (somewhere), as in: compressed. (I'm guessing in a well cooled server farm somewhere) . Because I'm pretty sure that would max out the distribution thingie in my neighborhood fairly quickly (I live in a densely populated area).. Logically, I would think that it goes from live footage from multiple cams, to 1 edited stream. That stream would be uploaded 'live' to a server. Server encodes the stream 'on the fly'. Encoded stream at 60fps is broadcast through digital TV. It would be logical that this introduces some lag (the uploading > encoding > broadcasting). If you want to keep the stream as 'live' as possible (i.e. Only a couple seconds behind real life)... It would seem to me that jumping this process to 4K would require not only a ridiculous bandwidth (because you need 12 Gbps consistently at both, so the bandwidth needs to be way more than that, to account for dips / other things hogging the line)... ...but mainly; It would require some massive upgrade to basically -instantly- encode that 4K 60fps stream, right? I think the problem with ESPN over here started when they switched from 30 to 60 fps on Full HD.. (It felt like eh.. I was catching up to the encoding process, if that makes any sense. Also because when the live match had finished, it took a while to become available to eh.. 'watch back' (I know my English is failing me here ;))... Like it was rounding up the encoding process, saving to disk, moving it to a server of 'past broadcasts'.. That sort of thing ESPN (Netherlands) never disclosed how they ultimately solved the issue, but I'm guessing - (IF I'm correct about all of the above) - they had to seriously upgrade their encoding setup. If they were to do 4K, 60 fps live streams... It would require... Well... Starting over, I guess (: Because - in my simple thought process (can anyone verify...? Seriously interested!) - if they were redlining their gear by doubling the framerate... It would take 'replacing EVERYthing' to do that in 4K :) - Anyways, sorry for the long story. My brain doesn't shut up ;) Thanks for your super on topic reply :) Also qualify replies from the other folks (issues with smartphone / mirrorless cameras / proper lenses / 10-14 bit color, etc) I'm very pleasantly surprised by the amount of useful additional information on the topic :D . (Because I am by no means an expert.. . Also, I have yet to experience a smartphone with multiple cameras. Currently on an iPhone 8, which is still running stable and smooth. But I really love to learn about the workings of... well, basically anything :)) Thank you
Funny how my DVB-T2 set top box handles 1080p50 HEVC video perfectly fine! If it's a FTA channel you can just record the live broadcast and watch it later. Besides, that's not cable you're talking about, it's IPTV. The set top box is the issue here.
4:15 Unfortunately, broadcasters requested a DRM implementation into ATSC 3.0, meaning early adopter devices will not support broadcasts for most of 3.0's lifespan
@@will3641 Yes, but not many stations across the US. In my location, only one OTA station is up last I checked. You can look up active stations and see if there is one in your area
RAI, the Italian public broadcaster, has been actually broadcasting a 4K channel on satellite for some time now, and will probably start on terrestrial once Italy switches to DVB-T2. One 4K60 channel can fit inside about 35 Mbps with HEVC encoding and look pretty good. This will easily fit on one 8PSK 27 MHz satellite channel.
Yeah. They're even broadcasting Eurovision in 4K tomorrow for the first time ever. I thought that Eurovision would be one of the first TV programs to be broadcasted in 4K since they did 1080p HD all the way back in 2007, and colour back in 1968.
@@MarkkG Quella si può vedere anche sul DTT, se hai una TV di cca 12 anni fa o più nuova (la mia TV è del 2008 e ha supporto per trasmissioni H264 HD). Ma 4K solo via satellite, tranne in Valle d'Aosta dove c'è anche sul DTT.
In the UK we can get live football, f1 and other sports in 4K UHD HDR over satellite and cable. Films in 4k, most new dramas in 4k so to far you are just behind the curve! 😊
I find Sky are still struggling to get most content in 4K even on their own channels though. When everything is 4K HDR I'd consider adding that package, until then I'll use the base package for TV
As someone who works for a UK ISP, we offer 4k as UHD, and I believe there is a UHD satellite channel that gets rolled out for the Olympics and stuff. The vast majority of the uhd stuff in the package comes through the on demand stuff or Netflix if you have that on it too
As a video producer I'm always surprised by how little customers care about "stats" like that. Most people won't care if it's 1k or 6k as long as it's "seems" good quality
Here in Austria, most of the channels we recieve over sattelite (main broadcasting) are STILL 480p AND YOU HAVE TO PAY A PREMIUM FOR 720p. Sky on the other hand manages to broadcast 1080p over satellite with no issues. Maybe we should increase the standard by 1 or 2 steps. Clearing up the legacy changes gives space for higher quality.
Ja hier in Deutschland auch. Der Großteil an Sendern ist immer noch 720p und man muss unverschämte Preise zahlen allein für HD und dann hat gefühlt fast jeder Sender ein eigenes Abo das man abschliessen kann. Schade dass es in 2022 immer noch nicht HD fernsehen Standard ist! Und dabei kosten 4K Fernseher mittlerweile weniger als 500€ oder sogar 300€.
In Romania, an eastern european country, popular isp DIGI already provides a small amount of 4k channels for really cheap, just like everything else in their offer ($10/month reliable gigabit with wifi 6 router)
Ive talked to 2 of the local broadcast channels here, and they have no plans to ever implement ATSC 3.0, or anything above 720p/1080p content. They likely wouldnt have done the digital switchover of the 2000s if the government hadnt forced them to
Always thought it was a technical limitation because of the way that cable is set up. Because all the streams are broadcasting at the same time, would 4K eat up the bandwidth that's available?
It's more about the bit rate than the resolution but 4k implies a higher bit rate, although doesn't require it, just a bit pointless without. The signals are then multiplexed together using various types of multiplexing, but if you e.g. multiplex by frequency, you can send multiple signals, but the receiver (tuner) has to choose which to receive at any given time. Different types of broadcast use different technologies though.
In Europe, many TV networks still see regular HD as a premium option they're entitled to charge extra for. Most cable providers realized that by now tho so they just have the HD option as standard and the SD option only as a super low cost alternative
The answer is basically, "Infrastructure costs money." And since they've been able to get away with outdated technology for so long, saving themselves tons of money, their plan is to ... keep ignoring technology. Meanwhile technology keeps getting better, smaller, cheaper, and more common, making the lame excuse, well, even lamer. Of course the fact that more and more people are tired of the "traditional" cable TV experience not keeping up with the times, moving consumers to slim down (or entirely drop) traditional cable TV in favor of internet-based platforms that serve content they want, with an experience they want, with the advancements one would expect, for less money than a cable TV package, well, dinosaur says, "Oopsie!"
Never forget that the US government gave these companies billions in the 90's to expand their infrastructure, specifically with fiber internet. The companies took the money and didn't follow through with the upgrades promised.
The lack of modern relevant regulations to guarantee a certain level of service is the problem. That's how it got done in the old days and that's the only way it's going to get done now. An unusual exception of that today is that the land line phone network in the old days had to be guaranteed to work even if the electricity went out. So the phone companies had giant banks of batteries to power land line phone networks during power outages. Now, even today those land line phone companies use backup power on their VRADs (a fiber junction box for a neighborhood). This old regulation means that today in 2022 a VDSL modem with backup power at your home will continue to work while your Cable modem will drop out since cable operators never had to comply with that regulation. Phone companies are even supposed to give customers with VDSL phone service a UPS battery to run the VDSL modem when the power goes out, so the phone still works.
@@Mr.Morden Supposed to? In the multiple decades that I've had DSL I've never received a UPS battery from my phone/internet provider and neither has anyone else I've ever met.
when i still had cable tv not all that long ago all they ever offered was 720p upscaled to 1080p, it was VERY noticeable even from a distance. finally dropped it entirely when the cable company kept using the tv service to jack up the price always claiming some promotional price had just expired... 5 years in.
Meanwhile here in Australia our TV is broadcast at 540i it's horrible, we do have some "HD" channels at 1080i but not all of them are available at 1080i
In Germany, there is 4K on cable and satellite. Not for major channels (only 720p50 or 1080i25), but some sports channels and special interest programmes.
Last time I had cable even getting 1080p meant spending extra. Their standard was 720p or 576i. Even though they launched a 4k sports channel first, so it was doable. They just didn't want to spend the dollars up-scaling all the old shows to 720p.
Answer: because Internet is cheaper than providing people with cable. Cable stations require a ton of money for regular programming compared to streaming stations. It’s more profitable to sell people Internet then it is cable. So if it’s more profitable to sell them Internet… There’s no real reason to upgrade the cable for the band needed for 4K.
In Australia we have a few 4k channels in free to air one of each station, but uhh yeah no one really watches normal tv anymore and everyone just streams it online as there's less ads
My household still doesn't have any Panel with more than FHD+ and I don't know anyone in my family nor my friends group nor their parents to have a 4K device. I will step up to 1440p 240hz in the future for my monitor, but for TV? Heck, my family would be too close for 4k, with our Living room only beeing 4m wide. Also, up until 2 years ago, our TV was still 720p!
65" is the new 55", when most people have those size screens they'll begrudgingly finally give their customers 4k, if they haven't already gone the way of record labels at that point
If you had grown up in the 70 -90 s even 20000s the difference was like night and day. But not things are all gimmicks. It's a sign of market Saturation.
Also with so many ISPs putting data caps on their monthly plans (Mediacom currently has a 1000 GB monthly cap on my internet) we tend to shy away from 4K because it simply uses too much data.
@@SheepFucker-Terry But 4K RUclips videos and streaming video from Netflix and other online streaming services do. I'm sure that the data from that is scrutinized closely and reported to the appropriate people.
In Australia there is some 4k content on pay TV (foxtel) mostly sport. but none on free TV. This is mostly delivered via online or satelite though - TV delivery via cable is being retired
1:10 not sure what you've been smoking, but cable providers in the US hardly even offer 1080p @ 60fps. Most of their content is at 1080p or 1080i at 24 or 30 fps. The moment our older generation starts to dissipate, subscription numbers will plummet for cable providers, and it'll be too late for them to upgrade their infrastructure to compete with streaming services. We're already seeing this happen in fact, and it feels so justified to see these cable providers losing money because of their inferior services after resting on their laurels for so long.
Even Blu-Ray isn't capable of 1080p 60fps, just 1080i30 or 1080p24. To get progressive scan 60fps on an optical disc, you need UHD Blu-Ray, which also offers 4K and dynamic HDR. Also, no one uses 2160i
In Serbia, while we switched to Digital TV 10 years ago, many small stations transmit 576i image at 25fps. Because their production is still analog. Many cable companies in regular package offer only 576i, even for channels that are mastered at 1080p, because many still have old analog TVs connected to TV boxes.
Over here in Germany 4K and HDR seem to be only available together due to HD+ (uses Sattelite though). Still "only" 50Hz though. And interestingly almost all UHD TV I've seen is actually the Olympics, even though it's live.
I'm sure my blind grandma would love to watch her tv shows in 4K :D That's probably a lot of the TV watching people if you get what I meant with the first part of my comment. Also also, we got a ton of 4K content on TV here, in Europe. I literally pay $12 for 45 4K channels. It used to be $25, but the price keeps getting lower, and they keep adding more channels over time.
Even though I am a tech enthusiast I do not see much point in 4k for TVs. If you sit more then 6 feet away there is very little difference. Now I am glad that they make so many 4k tvs as they make great computer monitors. A 42 inch 4K tv has so much screen real-estate, it is incredible for work. It has similar pixel density to 22 inch 1080p monitors and I do not get near the neck strain that I used to get from my old 3 monitor setup.
Current US digital tv uses h.264, the next gen digital tv (ATSC 3.0) in the US will use h.265 (aka HEVC), which has been used in Europe for years. The newer codec can handle higher quality streams while using less bandwidth.
The incremental benefit makes sense. When I worked at Future Shop (Canadian Best buy) customers didn't know or care about 1080p FHD. Some people who had cable boxes also had old cheap TVs or even old CRT TVs with digital converters. They don't usually care
Doesn't Canada actually have Best Buys? We used to have Future Shop here in the US but they closed. I went to a Future Shop in Vancouver around 2001-2003, I know the Future Shops here closed before that.
BTW, I went with my friend... He was using the single occupancy restroom and was taking a while cause something he ate didn't agree with him. A customer tried to use it and I told him it was occupied. The customer apparently didn't believe me as he went and got an employee. I told the employee there was someone using it. Apparently he didn't believe me, so he knocked quietly. My friend didn't respond, so he unlocked the door to see my friend sitting there taking a shit. So that's my Future Shop memory.
@@zeruty Future Shop was the big electronic store in Canada, then Best Buy came later and bought Future Shop out. Then shut them down. So now we just have Best Buys
@@Googaliemoogalie ahh, OK thanks. Interesting how that stuff happens. We had Computer City, CompUSA in the past too, and even an Incredible Universe. Now we only have Best Buy and one Fry's Electronics in the region, and last several times I went there, the shelves looked bare
Maybe if the 3 4k channels some providers wouldn't cost as much as the standard package put together, people would adopt it. Extra costs will reduce adoption
In Canada all cable providers are pushing people onto their IPTV platforms so they can re-purpose the old cable TV frequencies for internet bandwidth. Nearly all the providers that own their own cable network use the Comcast X1 TV platform (except Bell, Telus, Cogeco and a few other niche providers) in a desperate attempt to keep cable TV alive and relevant for the next generation, and because they didn't want to reinvent the wheel. I predict that cable TV will be obsolete within the next few generations as providers keep on increasing the price of cable TV in an attempt to keep it financially viable.
I came here to learn how to trade after listening to a guy on radio talk about the importance of investing and how he made $460,000 in 4 months from $160k. Somehow this video has helped shed light on some things, but I'm confused, I'm a newbie and I'm open to ideas.
@Martinez It is possible to produce superior performance provided you do something different from the majority. However, most of us tend to pay more attention to the shiniest position in the market to the cost of proper diversification.
Bitcoin is bringing a different revolution in the world economy. People who are optimistic investors earn consistently....... Others will just sit and watch.
Maybe part a to blame is in the marketing? I dont know how it was marketed in america at the time but here in germany, 720p TVs were branded as "HD Ready" when they came out. 1080p was branded as "Full HD" after TVs hit the shelves a while later. 4K is commonly known as "Ultra HD" now. So people who dont have any clue about tech likely were like "its HD ready but its not full HD so this is a huge gap" and are like "I already have a full HD TV, the Ultra HD is probably only some fancy eyecandy filter stuff going on to make it look better. No one needs this stuff." This is my personal take on one of the reasons why people are not massively buying into 4k. At least in germany.
We have had UHD sports in the UK for the last few years. Sky have pioneered improved picture quality at all the sports events it covers. All Premier league games are Even the 3rd tier football was in UHD/HDR last week. The US really does seem to lag behind the curve and for such a big market, the providers seem to be dragging their heels over money.
@@blindguardian8599 It seems I can't post any links to screenshots but it's easy to prove this isn't the case. Whether RUclips downscales it from 4k or your browser/app does, the result is the same. Make some screenshots of this video yourself if you don't believe it's true.
@@flameshana9 Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing, the thing I'm refering to is this: '' When you downscale from 4K to full HD, you're essentially oversampling the image to have 4x the data for every pixel. Therefore, when you have 4K footage and downscale it to 1080p (Full HD), the image is going to look better than it would at native 1080p''
In Germany all private TV Stations broadcast in 480p - acutally massively downscaled Getting 720p comes at a monthy premium for a "TV+" subscription. and 720p is the maximum.
Dorna (MotoGP owners) not only transmits in 4K with high speed cameras, but also sells the live footage to any company that wants to transmit it. And you can watch MotoGP live in DAZN which is a streaming service. It's not that hard but I supose here in Europe people cares more about resolution.
Here in tiny Slovenia, we get to watch a few channels in 4k on cable, including F1 and I can definitely tell a difference even from couch distance on our 40inch 4k TV
I considered buying a 4k TV but haven't for the lack of 4k TV content, I know I can get 4k via streaming providers , I recently removed my satellite box from my av set up and plugged my firestick into my av amp, I was very pleased to see the available audio choices even using an older av amp, the sound quality is great and makes wat hing content more more enjoyable
8k is just useless. Even 4k is overkill at usual viewing angles covered by a tv. It's useful on a monitor because you keep it up close, but a tv is usually kept a bit far too away. I'm pretty sure that if there were qHD TVs, there would be zero perceivable difference between those and 4k TVs. Even full HD vs 4k if will be noticed is marginal as a difference...
@@NeverlandSystemZor The first time I came across it was in a tech demo room without warning, it was playing a video of the street outside and I had to take a moment to establish that I wasn't looking through a pane of glass. It's definitely noticeable to me.
8K is a lot more bandwidth hungry than say 4K. Especially when you take in mind TV's low margins which is why Apple won't give us something like an Apple TV XDR. And 8K gaming is extremely demanding where you'll need like a Quadro GH100 with 64GB HBM3 and a 32-core i9. You have to overcome how RAM hungry 8K gaming can be.
@@NeverlandSystemZor That is complete nonsense, and doesn't even take into account screen size, viewing distance and PPI. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about
In Romania we get a few 4k channels from two cable providers : the first one has an exclusive 4k Channel that broadcasts live international sport events , movies and documentaries and another channel that broadcasts only sports named Eurosport 4k . The other provider offers Eurosport 4K just like the other one, but also another 4k channel dedicated only to sport and another channel that broadcasts some sort of life style documentaries . So there is 4k cable tv in Romania plus a lot of free 4k channels on satelite
Yet another reason why Cable TV is dying. Literally the only reason I keep mine is for sports. As soon as a good 4k streaming service is available for watching the games I want, I'm pulling the plug.
I had a lady come into my store to buy a t.v once. She declared she only needed a t.v to watch basic cable. She didn't need or care about streaming or any of that pointless garbage as she called it. She then proceeded to get mad at me because I "didn't know what I was talking about" and couldn't explain why one tv would be better then the other. Of course When you only watch basic cable that gets 720p-1080i the picture quality doesn't matter when we only sell 4k televisions The smart operating systems are pointless when you only want basic cable You don't need HDR for judge Judy You don't want a sound bar so HDMI ARC is pointless Literally every tv would suffice but she wouldn't take that as an answer.
Dude, the lack of 4k content is actually insane when literally every TV now days is definitely 4k. Sure "it doesn't matter" is kinda meh, anything that isn't 4k on a 4k display definitely looks meh and blurry in comparison to 4k. I honestly prefer watching RUclips because of the more high resolution content on here vs anything else. Netflix lost me as a subscriber because they simply charge more for a 4k tier when D+ has 4k content available regardless.
Well it depends on Bitrate,the distance from TV and the post-processing of the TV. There's a reason why lots of people buys Sony and Panasonic TV even if they have the same LG/Samsung panel.
@@flameshana9 not everything is true 4k. LG for example sold lots of 3k TVs at low prices until some years ago, saying that they are 4k. Still they look good (decent, still it's better to have a better picture quality and source than an high resolution) and very bright, but that shows that 4k below 50" is nearly unuseful at a right distance.
ESPN requests 720p 60i ProRes from the studio I manage that works on some of their produced documentaries that are shot on 4K-8K RED cameras. There is a 4K digital copy long after it airs on TV but platforms for that are limited and not wide reaching.
You kinda need both, seeing as higher frame rates and higher resolution are both particularly useful for sporting events where zoomed out fast panning shots are common.
@@alexatkin That would be great too! But I do most of my TV watching on a 42" screen in my workshop and 4k doesn't really help much at that size but the reduction of motion blur from 60fps makes a huge difference!
Working in the CATV industry I can say, dedicated 4K channels will never exsist under current standards. However, once everything is IP based, and your cablebox is basically a streaming device, then it will be 100% possible. Sat TV sufferes from the same bandwith limitations as well
We do have a few channels broadcasted in 4K in Romania. It doesn't cost much, like a few $ extra a month. Also, bandwidth isn't a problem, have had 1gbps fiber optics for almost 10 years and just switching to 10gbps now. We would love to have many 4K channels, since we got 2 4K TVs around the house, but most TV channels don't even broadcast in 1080p, rather 720p. I guess, the adoption process is slow..
Also consider that most people who do not where glasses also do not have perfect eye sight. So sharpness is only seen if it is at the perfect distance. Even color is some what degraded. So I do agree with the who cares group. Its just not worth the price or extra bandwidth to me.
Bottom line: drop your cable service. It's expensive and obsolete. Using standard cable in 2022 is the equivalent of using a 28.8k modem. Don't get me wrong, I loved my 28.8k baud modem back in the early 1990's, but this isn't the early 1990's.
TV is miles back compared to videos. I remember until 2006, our TV channels were still analogue. In 2006, they switched to digital, but it's still MPEG-2 an old ass standard. I think around 2010, some channels started the switch to MPEG-4 in 2022, I think about 80% of the channels here are using MPEG-4, but rest still MPEG-2 even for FHD channels, one HD channel takes almost 3 times as much space as a SD channel, which is why most channels are still at SD. Unless HEVC makes it to broadcast, there's no way we're getting any 4K channels...
HDR 1080p does the job more than enough for me. I had a 4K display for my PC which died recently. I got a 1080p HDR after this and I didn't notice any difference. Unless you are some kind of alien, 1080p is more than enough for everything. 4K is overrated for 95 % of people. Same as having games rendering @ 340 fps while nobody is able to guess the difference past 120~144 fps...
The problem I see with cable and satellite is not the HD signal they use (720p), it's the amount of compression they use on that signal, the more compression the worst the picture quality will look. I ditched cable a few years ago since I realized all the shows my wife watched were on local stations (in Canada, so CTV, Global, City TV and CBC), using a decent quality antenna, I get 3 of those channel in 1080i and CBC in 720p BUT all are a uncompressed signal so they look a LOT better on my 4k TV than they ever did with Cable. :)
4:39 Germany actually managed to kill digital TV over air, by requiring a subscription and an active internet connection for version 2.0 (1.0 was popular, but was replaced by 2.0). Many that were using TV over air before also had no internet connection. (Not by choice, tho) Which did cut them off forcefully, even if they wanted to.
Isn’t satellite free to air in Germany, I remember Germany used to have free analog satellite but they shutdown in may 2012 and replaced with digital satellite, I’m not sure if it still fta now
@@Annyumi_ Dunno. Seems they transitioned to digital anyway, and I think they are also encrypted by now. Which doesn't help if you are living in a city, since it is basically illegal to install an antenna there. Also often if you are renting your property*. *= if you want to mount it on the house itself, you can set up a small mast next to it, but run into problems as the line of sight to the satellite often is blocked, and you can't get a licence, you then need, if the mast / tower exceeds a certain height.
Honestly, my grandparents still pay for cable and they couldn’t tell you the difference between 1080p and 720p. The demographic for cable is slowly dying out, being generally for the older generation and hospital/nursing home/hotel settings. The majority of the market has moved towards streaming content which is far more doable. Even sporting events, most of them can be streamed these days at a higher resolution rather than tuning into local channels, or ESPN over cable television.
I hate to agree with anything that the CEO of Sinclair broadcasting group says, but the TV that I still have sitting in my living room which is a nearly 10-year-old Panasonic plasma kind of agrees with him. I just don't use it enough to warrant replacing it, but I also don't want anything with an inbuilt spying device
You are welcome to move to the Netherlands where we do have 4k on cable or over IPTV. And where a lot of homes have a fiber connection with 1000mbps up and download speed 😁
Another reason is a lot of cable content is mastered in either standard definition or 1080 (reruns of old shows). Unless a show was shot on 35mm (or whatever the film equivalent of 4k is), all you're ever getting is upscaled content and your tv can do that itself if given a 1080 feed.
Laser James and Riley are the best at communicating the core of the information, with Linus, Alex Clarke & Lois, and David bringing up the rear, altho' to be fair, we've only really seen David run around like shirtless monster (ooo-baby) and unboxing things on Short Circuit and ye olden Carpool Critics...which is much better than They're Just Movies.
In this major metropolitan area it's not even true 1K. They've cut the bit rate down to the point that it causes problems on shows with a lot of flashing lights. One thing they do need to do is get rid of the duplicate SD/HD channels. While the SD channels don't use nearly the bandwidth, they still use some. For those who don't have an HD TV, the cable box is capable of outputting an SD picture from an HD channel. Since they've gone full digital, the analog cable tuners on the SD TV are useless, so the user has to have some sort of box, whether from the cable company or a 3rd party with a Cable Card and Tuning Adapter.
Also, here's another fact about sports channels on TV that I was surprised not to see mentioned. Most Cable TV today (as far as I know) has the options of 720p (progressive) and 1080i (interlaced). The reason for this is because with 1080 interlaced, you only need to use half the bandwidth as you would with progressive, so they use it to save bandwidth. The issue is though, obviously, that interlaced creates combing and banding on modern displays. Technology has advanced a lot to the point where this can be made very hard to notice, but with sports there is A LOT of fast motion, which means this can become very apparent. Because of this, a lot of sports channels still opt to use 720p since it is progressive scan and they can ensure that the picture remains clear with all of this motion. TL;DR Lots of sports channels still use 720p, since it is progressive scan vs 1080i since it is interlaced and all of the motion can create lots of combing and banding.
My point is... Most of us have experienced worsened and worsening vision since entering adulthood. Now that we don't see things around us the same way it used to be, a 4K content might not only create far less impact than is expected, but also come out rather strange or even other-worldish to people's brain which is already accustomed to a fuzzier reality. So, I would definitely go for higher framerates or contrast too, just like most content providers have thought.
I don't get why networks and local stations don't just live stream their broadcast themselves for free anyway? Basically same monetization practice as over the air. Include commercials and such within the stream, just like regular TV so they'll still make money and can't be blocked by browser based ad-blockers. Its all about getting eyes onto the ads and contents, I know licensing shows has their issues, but since it won't be on-demand, can't they just negotiate contracts just like how they do with regular shows and syndication?
I've had a 4K monitor for 6.5 years and I still have trouble getting 4K content outside of RUclips. I'm not too surprised cable is still limited to 1080p, especially since most subscribers don't really care about resolution
That's definitely the key to this whole thing. Yes, we know that 4K isn't cheap, but it's not exactly new. Who has a cable subscription? old people, with bad eyes, who hate change. And younger people aren't going to go out and get a cable subscription just because they went 4K. Streaming has most new content in 4k, and young people stream shows. I don't buy the whole "Live is expensive, so they aren't doing it." They would just need a large amount of viewers to actually care, and they would fork over the money right away.
TV manufacturers pushed 4k hard before there were even many 1080p broadcast or streaming video. It's all about selling people a new TV they don't want or need
Yeah, phones can record 4k, but the storage space used by it is so much more. Part of the reason I got my Galaxy S20 FE was that it was one of the newer phones with reasonable specs, and also had an SD card slot. I got the 256gb model, but I have had to rely on the SD card I have. I record a ton of 4k videos of my dog. I have Aphantasia, so keeping these memories is really important to me. Once he(my dog) is gone, I won't have any way of truly remembering him visually without the videos and pictures. When we go hiking I can record like 150gb+ in a single trip. I do sort through later and keep the good stuff, but initially I use a TON of storage space for that 4k footage.
@@kahuna1247 yes I am sure. I bought it right from the Samsung website. It is a dual sim/sd card slot. The SD card goes on the other side of the SIM tray, or you can use 2 SIM cards. Multi-purpose slot. Unless you're being pernickety and want me to specifically say "micro sd". The S21 FE does NOT have an SD slot, the S20 FE does
![Run Away - Tzuyu(TWICE) ツウィ 쯔위 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240906](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KnHNNyAYiu0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for watching! Emails take a longer time to go through than you’d expect sometimes. Make sure you’re prepared with an all-in-one writing tool like Grammarly! It’s FREE, why not? Sign up for a FREE account and get 20% off Grammarly Premium: grammarly.com/TechQuickie
I am an IT guy. I have to agree with the TV people. 2 of 3 of my tv's are 4k. I had to play the same movie side by side to see the difference between the two. Even then, it was not a big difference. Not big enough to matter.
So greed? That’s why? It’s not like they don’t charge enough every month for reruns!
They don't want to give 1080p hdr streams on streaming platforms
Grammarly sponsors? this is godamn worse than raid shadow legends
Working in cable TV industry, majority of customers will just say "what's 4k" when you mention UHD or 4k tv package add ons it so its really not a focus, would be nice if It was though :(
So instead of informing and selling it to them, cable companies are being as lazy as they've always been. I'm not surprised.
@@DxBlack hardly, they're profit based organisations. More likely that people just don't care, or want to save money, or aren't as tech literate or would be using streaming services for 4k content
@@DxBlack you can try and inform them, comes down to a, do you have a UHD or 4k tv? "I don't know" etc trying to get someone to check what TV they have, them then asking what the difference between even SD and HD is let alone HD to UHD, if it was easy to explain or a noticable enough difference for people still using cable (middle aged and elderly generally) cable companies would support it more, the lack of uptake even after upselling to customers makes it redundant for most shows or channels to also be done in 4K :=
Cable TV subscribers are an aging demographic.
I would say it would be a good marketing tool “look we are the only one who does 4K cable” and work with other shows or tv makers. It would be a way to get things to watch in 4K away from Netflix and stuff .
"Who cares" is surprisingly solid argument here. Especially considering that the demographic who watches a lot of traditional TV isn't the most tech savvy. My dad always insisted that he didn't see a difference between SD and HD, even (though I'm European, so SD = 576i here, rather than 480i). And when I tried really hard to point out the difference, he always said he actually preferred SD, insisting that too much sharpness caused him eyestrain.
So, yeah. Good luck profiting from 4K off such a demographic.
That being said, 4K broadcasts are somewhat common in Europe, and there is enough sports in 4K to fill a round-the-clock schedule for a channel or two.
Yeah it must be quite different over here compared to North America because in the UK all the euro games were shown like in UHD HDR, and most popular sports like football, rugby, golf and F1 are shown in UHD on satellite TV
The only way a person can't notice the difference between SD and HD is that they have closed their eyes!!!!
When content is mainly talking heads, I don't care.
Why would 576i to 1080p be easier to see a difference than 480i to 1080p?
It's weird how it's like that because even when I was really young watching TV, I always looked for the HD version of the channels because they looked so clean and high quality. I didn't even know what display resolutions were
Considering I’m like 1 of two people in my family with a decent hdr 4K tv, I actually see the arguments as valid proposed by service providers. I think for the general purposes, 1080p normalization with HDR and 60+fps should definitely be the first goal to hit. 4K, much like in gaming, is niche and there are far more impactful goals to be hit first.
100% agree, I, for example, rather have 1080p@120+ over 4K_RTX@60
in australia most channels are 576i
not even 1080
1080P TVs will be phased out of mainstream retail by 2025. A mediocre, "good enough" 4k TV can be had for a few hundred bucks now, and even less on discount.
Damn, people must not upgrade much in your family, you have to go out of your way to get a 1080p TV these days, almost everything is 4K.
@@kaldo_kaldo most people don’t upgrade much, change is hard and costs money
As somebody who works in the live event industry I can tell you that 4K is astronomically more expensive and typically doesn’t even fix the image quality issues viewers typically complain about. In live events, each camera feed goes through several production and DVE equipment, up to hundreds if it’s a really intense broadcast. Each link in the chain must be upgraded to 4K (6G-SDI or 12G-SDI) which means an astronomical cost. Every switcher, every router, every cable channel under the venue, literally EVERYTHING has to be upgraded. If you built your broadcasting room in a lazy way, even your monitoring equipment has to be upgraded! It’s incredibly expensive.
I work for a local news station in Argentina, and despite the fact that we produce everything in HD internally, the cable operators in this zone still work in Standard Definition 576p, so we have to downsample our signal to send them that, which is crazy considering HD has been around for like 20 years. I understand that our problems aren't equal as those in other richer countries, but it appears that you are in a similar situation regarding 4k. However, the number of individuals who still watch cable may be zero in the future.
In Trinidad and Tobago, HD only became a regular thing for general cable in 2016 and local channels only upgraded as late as 2018. Some of them still operate in 480i.
i dont think cable will DIE anytime soon...in rural towns, villages and other lower-middle class lifestyle. Most people have only SD or HD ready content.
As long as there are poor & lower-middle class people CABLE will prevail.
The last part, cable companies having the bandwidth, is the real key to this. Going digital, they were able to squeeze 4-6 480p channels per 6 MHz band (physical cable channel), and 1 - 1080p or 2 720p channels per 6 MHz band. And even at the max usable range 54 MHz - 1000 MHz that's only 158 physical channels, now if they did 4K TV, they'd need to consume 2-4 of those physical channels for one based on the QAM they use for cable digital broadcast. And a number of those physical channels actually have to be used to support Cable Modem and Streaming services on top. W/o a change away from the traditional QAM (modulation technique) they will never realistically be able to support 4K content w/o wiping over half their other channels. And FWIW, I would say that most people are more than satisfied with 1080p feeds at their sitting distance and it looks pretty darn good. Especially if you get rid of the Soap Opera Effect of most new TVs by killing the 'True Motion' and dropping the 'Sharpness' setting down to normal. Which to be honest really screws up good content.
on another level, if they switch to TVoIP completely instead of the current QAM standard, they could theoretically support many more channels then they currently do, streaming what ever content they actually want.
before I finally cut my cord, I could tell they were cramming in even more HD networks into a frequency, probably so they could make room to roll out their gigabit internet service. Proof is I have a clear-QAM TV that can "pick up" (but not decode) the channels, and there would be over 12 subchannels on many frequencies. (And this was after they canned separate channel numbers for SD-only channels.) It used to be no more than 4 per channel "back in the day". The video compression got so bad that any scenes with any full-screen motion were almost an indiscernable mess of blocky colors for a second or so.
_edit:_ but I bet they didn't do this as extreme on premium channels, or sports events, because reasons
There's another problem, most of the cable TV hardware out there is still only capable of decoding MPEG2 video. Yes, most cable companies are still only using MPEG2 to compress their video feeds, they've not even began to use even MPEG4 h.264.
@@ericlaska4748 Exactly. The problem we're running into is the lack of bandwidth on the cable. You need at least h.264, really h.265, to compress 4K to a stream size that's even close to being manageable. And since the hardware can't do anything but MPEG2, there you have the issue.
@@trparky you know I wanted to watch old hbo shows downloaded via torrent long time ago I had to switch with blu-ray versions for Westworld because season 1 in hdtv quality sucks so much, same for game of thrones if I remember correctly 720p looks like old 576i dvds super compressed shitty colors and bad blacks, no details, how do you bear it? Thankfully rips are nowadays web-dl
Its actually insane that modern cable STILL broadcasts in 1080i/720p as a standard. Havent had a cable subscription in over 5 years. Crazy
You think that's insane here in Australia our free-to-air stations still broadcast a 576i for practically all channels. Some do have a 1080i simulcast, and there's 3 1080i only channels, while at least half are only at 576i. Our subscription TV still has a 576i feed for practically all their channels though most are also available in 1080i while a few are only available at 576i, and they actually also have a 24 hour 4K movie channel and funnily one for sports which is only active for certain events.
Why is it "insane"? The vast majority of viewers will only have 1080 TV sets. And plenty of those viewers will be mostly watching upscaled SD channels anyway.
@@Sevicify why is it so bad there?
@@dunebasher1971 1080p has been the standard for over a decade, so paying 50-100 dollars a month for 480i/720p/1080i content seems bizarrely out of date. Nothing I watch is below 1080p.
480 is the standard in my country 😂
In Europe cable and satellite companies have 4K channels and not only for presentations but do have entertainment, movies, sports (Eurosport 4K) . If you have a 4K TV you only need a CI+ module to watch the scrambled channels from your subscription. They also give you a 4K cable box if you don't want the CI+ Module.
Free tv is mostly 480p in germany
Most of us in North America have already cut the cord so the cable companies don't care. They will just keep making there lines faster for internet streaming.
@@xenyon I'm not from Germany but I agree wth you , you have many free TV channels on Astra 19.2 East but there are some free HD channels from ARD, ARTE, ZDF, 3 SAT, QVC, german regional channels.
@@Nicholas_Chris HD is sometimes 1080p interlaced with crap colours and lines and artifacts to the moon or 720 p with even worse colours
It's the same experience as if you turn the playback resolution to 420p
The only good one is the Das Erste all the other are really bad, even the online streams are better
@@xenyon satellite free TV is 576i in Germany, and most public service broadcasters are 720p, a few are 1080i and UHD1 is 4k HDR, but it's only free Monday through Friday from 8am to 8pm. QVC is also available in UHD, but who wants to watch shopping channels in 4k? If you pay for HD+ you're allowed to watch all UHD1 content as well as RTL UHD and Pro7Sat1 UHD but they don't show much. The quality of the shown program is heavy influenced by it's age, when an old show airs it looks often really bad. Then it depends on your TV the picture of a high quality Panasonic looks A LOT better than hat of a dirt cheap Hisense, also the quality of the used cable seems to influence picture quality as well, a few months ago I replaced an old 1 or 2 times shielded wire for a 4 times shielded and the person I did that for said to me, that the picture looked a lot clearer. Also if you have artifacts there is something wrong with your satellite dish, cable or you have oxidation on some F-Plugs/Connectors, if you have cable there is either a damper that is too strong, the damping of your cable socket is too strong or there is a problem with your house connection amplifier. In some rare cases the cable is degrading outside, good luck asking Vodafone to fix that.
In the US Comcast and Spectrum are focusing on multi gig internet over cable which is going to require them to switch to IP video anyway. They also just announced a joint venture to develop a "next gen" streaming platform. That's probably where their 4K focus will be.
I think most of comcast in my area has already done that. I think only the basics are still traditional cable feeds and all the rest are IP.
Video over IP right now from the headend (main hub where video comes into) to the customer equipment.
Meaning it’s still the same cable feed for most services. While some are doing fully video over IP. It offers far less channels at this time till them channels convert over. To offer fully Ip base video. Most channels do offer this some still lagging behind.
16 years working this environment. If you wanting to know
mediacom still offers 720P digintal HD Cabel but they still got data caps too we ditch them cause they internet speed was all over there service sucked here I also hard tv goses out on windy day I got fiber
Honestly, it isn't going to matter considering that traditional 'TV' watching is on the decline and more people are just streaming 4K media and getting their news online as well.
I'm pretty sure that we're going to see a future where more bandwidth will be reserved for Internet and less and less (til there is none) for TV broadcasts.
That ain't gonna happen, unless Amazon, Google, Microsoft or ISPs lobby for it. Antennas will need to get bigger and the bandwidth gains will keep diminishing. If you pull the plug on broadcast signals, you also suddenly have huge bandwidth requirements. The Сhinа virus caused enough demand that Netflix and RUclips had to reduce stream quality. Terrestrial TV can serve an infinite number of users without bandwidth constraints. If you have a 50 Mbps mux (maximum DVB-T2 capacity per channel), and 30 Mbps is dedicated to a UHD channel, you won't need reducing the quality with high demand.
Our 'cable' over here in the UK (Virgin Media) is 4K, all their Settop boxes support 4K and HDR!
They even have dedicated channels for UHD/4K content, as well as 4K content from other providers.
Yeah still hardly any channels though only bt sport and sky cinema store and that virgin uhd channel. No sky sports 4k still sucks though but nothing virgin can do to force them to give it maybe ofcom will eventually make them legally required to stop the monopoly
Sky sports without hd looks shocking on virgin media. I won’t pay £7 a month extra for hd in 2022.
Maybe the UK is ahead of the curve, but I get satellite TV (via Sky) with a HUGE selection of 4K/UHD content available.
I will say some of this is delivered on demand via download over your internet connection to the Sky box, but a lot of sport/new drama etc is live broadcast in 4K/UHD over satellite. And the fact so much more is offered on demand as well suggests studios here are creating a lot of 4K/UHD content.
As a result of this (and Netflix/RUclips making up a reasonable proportion of my viewing) I’d say at least 90% of what I watch is in 4K/UHD.
If I’m watching HD content I can definitely tell (but maybe a 75 inch TV makes it more obvious than on an average TV size).
Europe is actually pulling ahead of the US in TV technology, as Czechia has already tested UHD on DVB-T2, and Italy has been broadcasting RAI 4K for a while now via satellite.
I watch iPlayer on desktop, so I'm stuck with 720p at a low bitrate for the "subscription" service that costs me the most. Bloody BBC!
Poland gets 4K/UHD on "Cyforwy Polsat", Germany gets it with Sky too, addition in Germany is HD+ by Astra with UHD Channels. Everything is Sat.
In Germany and Poland there are possible Downloadspeed pf 1GBit/s over DOCSYS3.1 on cable, so UHD shouldn't be a problem there. They can go on streaming IPTV over cable, Vodafone is doing this already with their GigaTV Premium with an AppleTV in it. Normal gets a decent receiver, with streaming features, but it uses normal cable for TV.
Sky Sports broadcasts EPL games live in UHD (received via digital satellite dishes). North America behind the times.
I wholeheartedly agree. Not to mention how they still charge you premium prices for what's essentially 2008 TV cable box 'HD' content. Rediculous.
I think the quality of the cameras and lenses makes more of a difference than pixel count.
(For starters;
Compare the footage of your smartphone to that of a decent DSLR with a good lens).
Also, for live events, it would probably require a wired connection to broadcast in 4K, right?
I'm guessing they're pushing the limits as is, with 60fps.
Until very recently, one of the biggest tv providers in the Netherlands (KPN) had issues when ESPN switched to 60fps at Full HD.
Not too sure why, but the problems came when you would pause a live broadcast, and then start it again (or try to watch a live broadcast from the start..)
It would hang / crap out every few minutes. Consistently.
They fixed it by now..
Still wondering what the problem was..
Judging by the problem - (plus the fact that it took like 15 mins after the programme had finished to unlock the ability to watch it after the airing time) - I'm guessing they were simultaneously encoding the footage in different qualities...?
Seriously wondering how this works with digital TV nowadays.
So if anyone knows; I would love to learn about it :)
@@ericlaska4748 Should just buy a good mirrorless camera (you can get some pretty nice ones for not that much money) and either some vintage glass if you want good optics with a low price (but is all manual) or buy some decent lenses with autofocus. You have full control over almost every aspect then :) and it's less money than some might think.
yes, cameras and lenses, especially
those cameras that film in 10../..14bit colors give astounding image clarity, tho an adequate output screen is also massive quality measure
Wired connections are easy for most sports. Because they're at fixed venues and have fixed locations where the broadcast equipment is.
The issue is when companies don't do on site production (ie NASCAR is all remotely produced)
@@agentcrm Exactly what I thought too :) But I think at one point I had problems with both - it was during the World Cup (soccer) qualifiers, where a bunch of 'new' countries were playing (i.e. Not ones that are usually televised).
I was thinking of the logistics of getting live uncompressed footage from multiple cameras to the viewer at home;
it would be logical to cut / edit the footage on site, right? (Be it a mobile editing rig, or one that's on site with a wired connection)
. Because that would result in only 1 uncompressed stream to be processed..
I looked up the necessary bandwidth for 4K uncompressed, and that's 12 Gbps... :o
(As opposed to 3 Gbps for Full HD)
That stream would have to be processed (somewhere), as in: compressed.
(I'm guessing in a well cooled server farm somewhere)
. Because I'm pretty sure that would max out the distribution thingie in my neighborhood fairly quickly (I live in a densely populated area)..
Logically, I would think that it goes from live footage from multiple cams, to 1 edited stream.
That stream would be uploaded 'live' to a server.
Server encodes the stream 'on the fly'.
Encoded stream at 60fps is broadcast through digital TV.
It would be logical that this introduces some lag (the uploading > encoding > broadcasting). If you want to keep the stream as 'live' as possible (i.e. Only a couple seconds behind real life)...
It would seem to me that jumping this process to 4K would require not only a ridiculous bandwidth (because you need 12 Gbps consistently at both, so the bandwidth needs to be way more than that, to account for dips / other things hogging the line)...
...but mainly;
It would require some massive upgrade to basically -instantly- encode that 4K 60fps stream, right?
I think the problem with ESPN over here started when they switched from 30 to 60 fps on Full HD..
(It felt like eh.. I was catching up to the encoding process, if that makes any sense.
Also because when the live match had finished, it took a while to become available to eh.. 'watch back' (I know my English is failing me here ;))... Like it was rounding up the encoding process, saving to disk, moving it to a server of 'past broadcasts'.. That sort of thing
ESPN (Netherlands) never disclosed how they ultimately solved the issue, but I'm guessing - (IF I'm correct about all of the above) - they had to seriously upgrade their encoding setup.
If they were to do 4K, 60 fps live streams... It would require... Well... Starting over, I guess (:
Because - in my simple thought process (can anyone verify...? Seriously interested!) - if they were redlining their gear by doubling the framerate... It would take 'replacing EVERYthing' to do that in 4K :)
-
Anyways, sorry for the long story. My brain doesn't shut up ;)
Thanks for your super on topic reply :)
Also qualify replies from the other folks (issues with smartphone / mirrorless cameras / proper lenses / 10-14 bit color, etc)
I'm very pleasantly surprised by the amount of useful additional information on the topic :D
. (Because I am by no means an expert.. . Also, I have yet to experience a smartphone with multiple cameras. Currently on an iPhone 8, which is still running stable and smooth. But I really love to learn about the workings of... well, basically anything :))
Thank you
Funny how my DVB-T2 set top box handles 1080p50 HEVC video perfectly fine! If it's a FTA channel you can just record the live broadcast and watch it later. Besides, that's not cable you're talking about, it's IPTV.
The set top box is the issue here.
Techquickie: Why Isn't Cable TV In 4K?
Everybody: Because Cable TV is already 4gotten!
4:15 Unfortunately, broadcasters requested a DRM implementation into ATSC 3.0, meaning early adopter devices will not support broadcasts for most of 3.0's lifespan
Is ATSC 3.0 even up on air now?
@@will3641 Yes, but not many stations across the US. In my location, only one OTA station is up last I checked. You can look up active stations and see if there is one in your area
@@doctordothraki4378 Finally, I will get a 3.0 tuner in a few years. Thanks.
@@will3641 Yeah. The release of Tablo's ATSC 3.0 DVR was delayed due to the change. It will come with support for the updated 3.0 standard
RAI, the Italian public broadcaster, has been actually broadcasting a 4K channel on satellite for some time now, and will probably start on terrestrial once Italy switches to DVB-T2. One 4K60 channel can fit inside about 35 Mbps with HEVC encoding and look pretty good. This will easily fit on one 8PSK 27 MHz satellite channel.
Yeah. They're even broadcasting Eurovision in 4K tomorrow for the first time ever. I thought that Eurovision would be one of the first TV programs to be broadcasted in 4K since they did 1080p HD all the way back in 2007, and colour back in 1968.
Can vouch for that, I'm Italian and yeah, if you got satellite TV you can see RAI channels in 4K.
@@ThinkAboutVic But Eurovision was broadcast in color not by RAI, but by TV Capodistria if I am not mistaken.
Quindi si può vedere la merda della rai in alta definizione? Che culo..
@@MarkkG Quella si può vedere anche sul DTT, se hai una TV di cca 12 anni fa o più nuova (la mia TV è del 2008 e ha supporto per trasmissioni H264 HD). Ma 4K solo via satellite, tranne in Valle d'Aosta dove c'è anche sul DTT.
In the UK we can get live football, f1 and other sports in 4K UHD HDR over satellite and cable. Films in 4k, most new dramas in 4k so to far you are just behind the curve! 😊
Imagine being British
Here in the Netherlands to.
@@dyslectische where do you get 4k? The only channel I get legally is love nature 4k
I find Sky are still struggling to get most content in 4K even on their own channels though. When everything is 4K HDR I'd consider adding that package, until then I'll use the base package for TV
@@LukaCuturic youtube is 4k as well u need aa 4k monitor to get the option 2 alsothe content needs to be recorded with 4kcam,
Imagine LTT Cable. Multi gigabit internet, floatplane, and TV shows all in one package.... Was this the goal all along?
As someone who works for a UK ISP, we offer 4k as UHD, and I believe there is a UHD satellite channel that gets rolled out for the Olympics and stuff.
The vast majority of the uhd stuff in the package comes through the on demand stuff or Netflix if you have that on it too
As a video producer I'm always surprised by how little customers care about "stats" like that. Most people won't care if it's 1k or 6k as long as it's "seems" good quality
Here in Austria, most of the channels we recieve over sattelite (main broadcasting) are STILL 480p AND YOU HAVE TO PAY A PREMIUM FOR 720p.
Sky on the other hand manages to broadcast 1080p over satellite with no issues. Maybe we should increase the standard by 1 or 2 steps. Clearing up the legacy changes gives space for higher quality.
Ja hier in Deutschland auch. Der Großteil an Sendern ist immer noch 720p und man muss unverschämte Preise zahlen allein für HD und dann hat gefühlt fast jeder Sender ein eigenes Abo das man abschliessen kann. Schade dass es in 2022 immer noch nicht HD fernsehen Standard ist! Und dabei kosten 4K Fernseher mittlerweile weniger als 500€ oder sogar 300€.
480p? Didn't you mean 576i? 480p is not even common standard for these things, especially not in Europe.
Why is it so bad?
In Romania, an eastern european country, popular isp DIGI already provides a small amount of 4k channels for really cheap, just like everything else in their offer ($10/month reliable gigabit with wifi 6 router)
Ive talked to 2 of the local broadcast channels here, and they have no plans to ever implement ATSC 3.0, or anything above 720p/1080p content. They likely wouldnt have done the digital switchover of the 2000s if the government hadnt forced them to
There are already some satellite TV stations that also have a UHD version.
Frequently transmitters broadcast sporting events
Always thought it was a technical limitation because of the way that cable is set up. Because all the streams are broadcasting at the same time, would 4K eat up the bandwidth that's available?
It's more about the bit rate than the resolution but 4k implies a higher bit rate, although doesn't require it, just a bit pointless without.
The signals are then multiplexed together using various types of multiplexing, but if you e.g. multiplex by frequency, you can send multiple signals, but the receiver (tuner) has to choose which to receive at any given time.
Different types of broadcast use different technologies though.
Sure, but more modern compression algorithms should make up for that.
In Europe, many TV networks still see regular HD as a premium option they're entitled to charge extra for. Most cable providers realized that by now tho so they just have the HD option as standard and the SD option only as a super low cost alternative
The answer is basically, "Infrastructure costs money." And since they've been able to get away with outdated technology for so long, saving themselves tons of money, their plan is to ... keep ignoring technology. Meanwhile technology keeps getting better, smaller, cheaper, and more common, making the lame excuse, well, even lamer. Of course the fact that more and more people are tired of the "traditional" cable TV experience not keeping up with the times, moving consumers to slim down (or entirely drop) traditional cable TV in favor of internet-based platforms that serve content they want, with an experience they want, with the advancements one would expect, for less money than a cable TV package, well, dinosaur says, "Oopsie!"
theres many reasons to switch from cable tv to internet platforms but 4k video isnt one of them
Never forget that the US government gave these companies billions in the 90's to expand their infrastructure, specifically with fiber internet. The companies took the money and didn't follow through with the upgrades promised.
The lack of modern relevant regulations to guarantee a certain level of service is the problem. That's how it got done in the old days and that's the only way it's going to get done now. An unusual exception of that today is that the land line phone network in the old days had to be guaranteed to work even if the electricity went out. So the phone companies had giant banks of batteries to power land line phone networks during power outages. Now, even today those land line phone companies use backup power on their VRADs (a fiber junction box for a neighborhood). This old regulation means that today in 2022 a VDSL modem with backup power at your home will continue to work while your Cable modem will drop out since cable operators never had to comply with that regulation. Phone companies are even supposed to give customers with VDSL phone service a UPS battery to run the VDSL modem when the power goes out, so the phone still works.
@@Mr.Morden Supposed to? In the multiple decades that I've had DSL I've never received a UPS battery from my phone/internet provider and neither has anyone else I've ever met.
Exactly. Take a look at your average cable box. You'd probably be shocked to see that it was made more than ten years ago.
when i still had cable tv not all that long ago all they ever offered was 720p upscaled to 1080p, it was VERY noticeable even from a distance. finally dropped it entirely when the cable company kept using the tv service to jack up the price always claiming some promotional price had just expired... 5 years in.
Meanwhile here in Australia our TV is broadcast at 540i it's horrible, we do have some "HD" channels at 1080i but not all of them are available at 1080i
@@DingDingTheRUclipsBuddy no but our broadband is about as reliable as dialup
In Germany, there is 4K on cable and satellite.
Not for major channels (only 720p50 or 1080i25), but some sports channels and special interest programmes.
Live sport event covering in 4K is to costly
meanwhile Japan: Let's cover Parts of the 2020 (2021) Olympics in 8K
Last time I had cable even getting 1080p meant spending extra.
Their standard was 720p or 576i.
Even though they launched a 4k sports channel first, so it was doable.
They just didn't want to spend the dollars up-scaling all the old shows to 720p.
Answer: because Internet is cheaper than providing people with cable. Cable stations require a ton of money for regular programming compared to streaming stations. It’s more profitable to sell people Internet then it is cable. So if it’s more profitable to sell them Internet… There’s no real reason to upgrade the cable for the band needed for 4K.
In Australia we have a few 4k channels in free to air one of each station, but uhh yeah no one really watches normal tv anymore and everyone just streams it online as there's less ads
My household still doesn't have any Panel with more than FHD+ and I don't know anyone in my family nor my friends group nor their parents to have a 4K device.
I will step up to 1440p 240hz in the future for my monitor, but for TV? Heck, my family would be too close for 4k, with our Living room only beeing 4m wide. Also, up until 2 years ago, our TV was still 720p!
2 and a half meters of distance is actually perfect for 4K,I mean to really see the change compared to 1080p
65" is the new 55", when most people have those size screens they'll begrudgingly finally give their customers 4k, if they haven't already gone the way of record labels at that point
You really want at least 2k, its a definite upgrade over 1080p, alot more clear, its noticeable.
If you had grown up in the 70 -90 s even 20000s the difference was like night and day. But not things are all gimmicks. It's a sign of market Saturation.
@@thiswas6229 1080P is already as much "2K" as 3840x2160 is "4K".
I'm surprised compression wasn't talked about. Like how 4k netflix often doesn't look as good as a 1080p bluray
Also with so many ISPs putting data caps on their monthly plans (Mediacom currently has a 1000 GB monthly cap on my internet) we tend to shy away from 4K because it simply uses too much data.
TV subscriptions mostly don't count to your internet data cap.
@@SheepFucker-Terry But 4K RUclips videos and streaming video from Netflix and other online streaming services do. I'm sure that the data from that is scrutinized closely and reported to the appropriate people.
That's so sad. Data caps for home internet are awful.
In Australia there is some 4k content on pay TV (foxtel) mostly sport. but none on free TV. This is mostly delivered via online or satelite though - TV delivery via cable is being retired
1:10 not sure what you've been smoking, but cable providers in the US hardly even offer 1080p @ 60fps. Most of their content is at 1080p or 1080i at 24 or 30 fps. The moment our older generation starts to dissipate, subscription numbers will plummet for cable providers, and it'll be too late for them to upgrade their infrastructure to compete with streaming services. We're already seeing this happen in fact, and it feels so justified to see these cable providers losing money because of their inferior services after resting on their laurels for so long.
And your ISP is the cable company so your cable rebellion amounts to about as much as your college diploma will.
Even Blu-Ray isn't capable of 1080p 60fps, just 1080i30 or 1080p24. To get progressive scan 60fps on an optical disc, you need UHD Blu-Ray, which also offers 4K and dynamic HDR. Also, no one uses 2160i
In Serbia, while we switched to Digital TV 10 years ago, many small stations transmit 576i image at 25fps. Because their production is still analog.
Many cable companies in regular package offer only 576i, even for channels that are mastered at 1080p, because many still have old analog TVs connected to TV boxes.
Over here in Germany 4K and HDR seem to be only available together due to HD+ (uses Sattelite though). Still "only" 50Hz though. And interestingly almost all UHD TV I've seen is actually the Olympics, even though it's live.
I'm sure my blind grandma would love to watch her tv shows in 4K :D
That's probably a lot of the TV watching people if you get what I meant with the first part of my comment.
Also also, we got a ton of 4K content on TV here, in Europe. I literally pay $12 for 45 4K channels. It used to be $25, but the price keeps getting lower, and they keep adding more channels over time.
Even though I am a tech enthusiast I do not see much point in 4k for TVs. If you sit more then 6 feet away there is very little difference. Now I am glad that they make so many 4k tvs as they make great computer monitors. A 42 inch 4K tv has so much screen real-estate, it is incredible for work. It has similar pixel density to 22 inch 1080p monitors and I do not get near the neck strain that I used to get from my old 3 monitor setup.
Current US digital tv uses h.264, the next gen digital tv (ATSC 3.0) in the US will use h.265 (aka HEVC), which has been used in Europe for years. The newer codec can handle higher quality streams while using less bandwidth.
Maybe if they pushed 4k like they did HD, it's noticeable on a large enough display, heck like there isn't signal loss even hd channels
Most people don't have large enough displays. That's part of the issue.
The incremental benefit makes sense. When I worked at Future Shop (Canadian Best buy) customers didn't know or care about 1080p FHD. Some people who had cable boxes also had old cheap TVs or even old CRT TVs with digital converters. They don't usually care
Doesn't Canada actually have Best Buys?
We used to have Future Shop here in the US but they closed.
I went to a Future Shop in Vancouver around 2001-2003, I know the Future Shops here closed before that.
BTW, I went with my friend... He was using the single occupancy restroom and was taking a while cause something he ate didn't agree with him. A customer tried to use it and I told him it was occupied.
The customer apparently didn't believe me as he went and got an employee. I told the employee there was someone using it. Apparently he didn't believe me, so he knocked quietly. My friend didn't respond, so he unlocked the door to see my friend sitting there taking a shit.
So that's my Future Shop memory.
@@zeruty Future Shop was the big electronic store in Canada, then Best Buy came later and bought Future Shop out. Then shut them down. So now we just have Best Buys
@@Googaliemoogalie ahh, OK thanks.
Interesting how that stuff happens.
We had Computer City, CompUSA in the past too, and even an Incredible Universe.
Now we only have Best Buy and one Fry's Electronics in the region, and last several times I went there, the shelves looked bare
Maybe if the 3 4k channels some providers wouldn't cost as much as the standard package put together, people would adopt it. Extra costs will reduce adoption
In Canada all cable providers are pushing people onto their IPTV platforms so they can re-purpose the old cable TV frequencies for internet bandwidth. Nearly all the providers that own their own cable network use the Comcast X1 TV platform (except Bell, Telus, Cogeco and a few other niche providers) in a desperate attempt to keep cable TV alive and relevant for the next generation, and because they didn't want to reinvent the wheel.
I predict that cable TV will be obsolete within the next few generations as providers keep on increasing the price of cable TV in an attempt to keep it financially viable.
I came here to learn how to trade after listening to a guy on radio talk about the importance of investing and how he made $460,000 in 4 months from $160k. Somehow this video has helped shed light on some things, but I'm confused, I'm a newbie and I'm open to ideas.
@Martinez It is possible to produce superior performance provided you do something different from the majority. However, most of us tend to pay more attention to the shiniest position in the market to the cost of proper diversification.
Investing with expert Mrs Elizabeth has been one of the best steps I've ever took in life, the day i met was a blessing unto me.
Bitcoin is bringing a different revolution in the world economy. People who are optimistic investors earn consistently....... Others will just sit and watch.
Maybe part a to blame is in the marketing? I dont know how it was marketed in america at the time but here in germany, 720p TVs were branded as "HD Ready" when they came out. 1080p was branded as "Full HD" after TVs hit the shelves a while later. 4K is commonly known as "Ultra HD" now.
So people who dont have any clue about tech likely were like "its HD ready but its not full HD so this is a huge gap" and are like "I already have a full HD TV, the Ultra HD is probably only some fancy eyecandy filter stuff going on to make it look better. No one needs this stuff."
This is my personal take on one of the reasons why people are not massively buying into 4k. At least in germany.
But in my country, there are several programs on TV in 4k
well I bet they arent live
We have had UHD sports in the UK for the last few years. Sky have pioneered improved picture quality at all the sports events it covers. All Premier league games are Even the 3rd tier football was in UHD/HDR last week. The US really does seem to lag behind the curve and for such a big market, the providers seem to be dragging their heels over money.
little do they know, i am streaming this in 4K... on a 1080p monitor.
So, wasting bandwidth for essentially no gain.
@@flameshana9 Oh but there is a gain, compared to a native 1080p, a downscaled from 4k 1080p image looks way sharper.
@@blindguardian8599 It seems I can't post any links to screenshots but it's easy to prove this isn't the case. Whether RUclips downscales it from 4k or your browser/app does, the result is the same. Make some screenshots of this video yourself if you don't believe it's true.
@@flameshana9 Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing, the thing I'm refering to is this: '' When you downscale from 4K to full HD, you're essentially oversampling the image to have 4x the data for every pixel. Therefore, when you have 4K footage and downscale it to 1080p (Full HD), the image is going to look better than it would at native 1080p''
In Germany all private TV Stations broadcast in 480p - acutally massively downscaled
Getting 720p comes at a monthy premium for a "TV+" subscription.
and 720p is the maximum.
aight anotherone:
Cable is actually the only way we can get Gigabit-Ethernet in Germany at all
and thats the fastest we have at all
I've said it before - I love LMG content, 4K or not! Love from the UK. 🙂
Dorna (MotoGP owners) not only transmits in 4K with high speed cameras, but also sells the live footage to any company that wants to transmit it. And you can watch MotoGP live in DAZN which is a streaming service. It's not that hard but I supose here in Europe people cares more about resolution.
Here in tiny Slovenia, we get to watch a few channels in 4k on cable, including F1 and I can definitely tell a difference even from couch distance on our 40inch 4k TV
For me, TV is the thing I have in the background in the kitchen when I cook.
It's a 15" CRT.
I considered buying a 4k TV but haven't for the lack of 4k TV content, I know I can get 4k via streaming providers , I recently removed my satellite box from my av set up and plugged my firestick into my av amp, I was very pleased to see the available audio choices even using an older av amp, the sound quality is great and makes wat hing content more more enjoyable
This is exactly why 8k is struggling to become a thing because with out 4k tv/cable 4k has never really been as widely adopted as it needed to be.
AND the human eye struggles to see a lot of that benefit as we can't even see in 4k with our eyes... so... yeah...
8k is just useless. Even 4k is overkill at usual viewing angles covered by a tv. It's useful on a monitor because you keep it up close, but a tv is usually kept a bit far too away. I'm pretty sure that if there were qHD TVs, there would be zero perceivable difference between those and 4k TVs. Even full HD vs 4k if will be noticed is marginal as a difference...
@@NeverlandSystemZor The first time I came across it was in a tech demo room without warning, it was playing a video of the street outside and I had to take a moment to establish that I wasn't looking through a pane of glass. It's definitely noticeable to me.
8K is a lot more bandwidth hungry than say 4K. Especially when you take in mind TV's low margins which is why Apple won't give us something like an Apple TV XDR. And 8K gaming is extremely demanding where you'll need like a Quadro GH100 with 64GB HBM3 and a 32-core i9. You have to overcome how RAM hungry 8K gaming can be.
@@NeverlandSystemZor That is complete nonsense, and doesn't even take into account screen size, viewing distance and PPI. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about
In Romania we get a few 4k channels from two cable providers : the first one has an exclusive 4k Channel that broadcasts live international sport events , movies and documentaries and another channel that broadcasts only sports named Eurosport 4k . The other provider offers Eurosport 4K just like the other one, but also another 4k channel dedicated only to sport and another channel that broadcasts some sort of life style documentaries . So there is 4k cable tv in Romania plus a lot of free 4k channels on satelite
Yet another reason why Cable TV is dying. Literally the only reason I keep mine is for sports. As soon as a good 4k streaming service is available for watching the games I want, I'm pulling the plug.
So not for quite a while.
I had a lady come into my store to buy a t.v once. She declared she only needed a t.v to watch basic cable. She didn't need or care about streaming or any of that pointless garbage as she called it.
She then proceeded to get mad at me because I "didn't know what I was talking about" and couldn't explain why one tv would be better then the other. Of course
When you only watch basic cable that gets 720p-1080i the picture quality doesn't matter when we only sell 4k televisions
The smart operating systems are pointless when you only want basic cable
You don't need HDR for judge Judy
You don't want a sound bar so HDMI ARC is pointless
Literally every tv would suffice but she wouldn't take that as an answer.
Dude, the lack of 4k content is actually insane when literally every TV now days is definitely 4k. Sure "it doesn't matter" is kinda meh, anything that isn't 4k on a 4k display definitely looks meh and blurry in comparison to 4k. I honestly prefer watching RUclips because of the more high resolution content on here vs anything else. Netflix lost me as a subscriber because they simply charge more for a 4k tier when D+ has 4k content available regardless.
Well it depends on Bitrate,the distance from TV and the post-processing of the TV. There's a reason why lots of people buys Sony and Panasonic TV even if they have the same LG/Samsung panel.
"when literally every TV now days is definitely 4k" ... Ummmmm ... no. Can't tell if you are joking, but if not ... OMG
@@Bare_Essence Anything that's over 32 inches is 4k. There's no reason to get a smaller tv anymore considering how prices have fallen.
@@flameshana9 not everything is true 4k. LG for example sold lots of 3k TVs at low prices until some years ago, saying that they are 4k. Still they look good (decent, still it's better to have a better picture quality and source than an high resolution) and very bright, but that shows that 4k below 50" is nearly unuseful at a right distance.
@@flameshana9 No, its not. The cheaper 40" TVs has lots of 1080p and some 1440p
ESPN requests 720p 60i ProRes from the studio I manage that works on some of their produced documentaries that are shot on 4K-8K RED cameras. There is a 4K digital copy long after it airs on TV but platforms for that are limited and not wide reaching.
As much as I love 4k content, I would be much happier to see things move to 60fps before moving to all 4k...
You kinda need both, seeing as higher frame rates and higher resolution are both particularly useful for sporting events where zoomed out fast panning shots are common.
@@alexatkin That would be great too! But I do most of my TV watching on a 42" screen in my workshop and 4k doesn't really help much at that size but the reduction of motion blur from 60fps makes a huge difference!
Working in the CATV industry I can say, dedicated 4K channels will never exsist under current standards. However, once everything is IP based, and your cablebox is basically a streaming device, then it will be 100% possible. Sat TV sufferes from the same bandwith limitations as well
The best 4K are dvd movies
Yes 4k looks better but im perfectly happy with standard 1080p it doesn’t bother me at all
We do have a few channels broadcasted in 4K in Romania. It doesn't cost much, like a few $ extra a month. Also, bandwidth isn't a problem, have had 1gbps fiber optics for almost 10 years and just switching to 10gbps now. We would love to have many 4K channels, since we got 2 4K TVs around the house, but most TV channels don't even broadcast in 1080p, rather 720p. I guess, the adoption process is slow..
anyone who's still paying for cable probably doesn't even know what 4k is
Also consider that most people who do not where glasses also do not have perfect eye sight. So sharpness is only seen if it is at the perfect distance. Even color is some what degraded. So I do agree with the who cares group. Its just not worth the price or extra bandwidth to me.
I find it disgusting that the LTT media group channels are not exclusivly released in 8K, Dolby HDR, surround sound @ 120fps.
3:40
You really pulled out the Kermit on that line, didn't you?
Bottom line: drop your cable service. It's expensive and obsolete. Using standard cable in 2022 is the equivalent of using a 28.8k modem. Don't get me wrong, I loved my 28.8k baud modem back in the early 1990's, but this isn't the early 1990's.
TV is miles back compared to videos.
I remember until 2006, our TV channels were still analogue.
In 2006, they switched to digital, but it's still MPEG-2 an old ass standard.
I think around 2010, some channels started the switch to MPEG-4
in 2022, I think about 80% of the channels here are using MPEG-4, but rest still MPEG-2
even for FHD channels, one HD channel takes almost 3 times as much space as a SD channel, which is why most channels are still at SD.
Unless HEVC makes it to broadcast, there's no way we're getting any 4K channels...
HDR 1080p does the job more than enough for me. I had a 4K display for my PC which died recently. I got a 1080p HDR after this and I didn't notice any difference. Unless you are some kind of alien, 1080p is more than enough for everything. 4K is overrated for 95 % of people. Same as having games rendering @ 340 fps while nobody is able to guess the difference past 120~144 fps...
The problem I see with cable and satellite is not the HD signal they use (720p), it's the amount of compression they use on that signal, the more compression the worst the picture quality will look. I ditched cable a few years ago since I realized all the shows my wife watched were on local stations (in Canada, so CTV, Global, City TV and CBC), using a decent quality antenna, I get 3 of those channel in 1080i and CBC in 720p BUT all are a uncompressed signal so they look a LOT better on my 4k TV than they ever did with Cable. :)
4:39 Germany actually managed to kill digital TV over air, by requiring a subscription and an active internet connection for version 2.0 (1.0 was popular, but was replaced by 2.0). Many that were using TV over air before also had no internet connection. (Not by choice, tho) Which did cut them off forcefully, even if they wanted to.
Isn’t satellite free to air in Germany, I remember Germany used to have free analog satellite but they shutdown in may 2012 and replaced with digital satellite, I’m not sure if it still fta now
@@Annyumi_ Dunno. Seems they transitioned to digital anyway, and I think they are also encrypted by now.
Which doesn't help if you are living in a city, since it is basically illegal to install an antenna there. Also often if you are renting your property*.
*= if you want to mount it on the house itself, you can set up a small mast next to it, but run into problems as the line of sight to the satellite often is blocked, and you can't get a licence, you then need, if the mast / tower exceeds a certain height.
Honestly, my grandparents still pay for cable and they couldn’t tell you the difference between 1080p and 720p.
The demographic for cable is slowly dying out, being generally for the older generation and hospital/nursing home/hotel settings. The majority of the market has moved towards streaming content which is far more doable.
Even sporting events, most of them can be streamed these days at a higher resolution rather than tuning into local channels, or ESPN over cable television.
I hate to agree with anything that the CEO of Sinclair broadcasting group says, but the TV that I still have sitting in my living room which is a nearly 10-year-old Panasonic plasma kind of agrees with him. I just don't use it enough to warrant replacing it, but I also don't want anything with an inbuilt spying device
Here in India I have 4k tv connection and broadband (100 down , 10 up) over single coax cable.
You are welcome to move to the Netherlands where we do have 4k on cable or over IPTV. And where a lot of homes have a fiber connection with 1000mbps up and download speed 😁
Another reason is a lot of cable content is mastered in either standard definition or 1080 (reruns of old shows). Unless a show was shot on 35mm (or whatever the film equivalent of 4k is), all you're ever getting is upscaled content and your tv can do that itself if given a 1080 feed.
0:06 I genuinely can't tell if that's James starring in his very own stock footage or just a lookalike
Laser James and Riley are the best at communicating the core of the information, with Linus, Alex Clarke & Lois, and David bringing up the rear, altho' to be fair, we've only really seen David run around like shirtless monster (ooo-baby) and unboxing things on Short Circuit and ye olden Carpool Critics...which is much better than They're Just Movies.
In this major metropolitan area it's not even true 1K. They've cut the bit rate down to the point that it causes problems on shows with a lot of flashing lights. One thing they do need to do is get rid of the duplicate SD/HD channels. While the SD channels don't use nearly the bandwidth, they still use some. For those who don't have an HD TV, the cable box is capable of outputting an SD picture from an HD channel. Since they've gone full digital, the analog cable tuners on the SD TV are useless, so the user has to have some sort of box, whether from the cable company or a 3rd party with a Cable Card and Tuning Adapter.
On the service I have in the UK there is only 1 4k channel and there are still a lot of channels that don't even broadcast in HD yet.
_rips down shirt pockets and begins rubbing_
Also, here's another fact about sports channels on TV that I was surprised not to see mentioned.
Most Cable TV today (as far as I know) has the options of 720p (progressive) and 1080i (interlaced). The reason for this is because with 1080 interlaced, you only need to use half the bandwidth as you would with progressive, so they use it to save bandwidth. The issue is though, obviously, that interlaced creates combing and banding on modern displays. Technology has advanced a lot to the point where this can be made very hard to notice, but with sports there is A LOT of fast motion, which means this can become very apparent.
Because of this, a lot of sports channels still opt to use 720p since it is progressive scan and they can ensure that the picture remains clear with all of this motion.
TL;DR Lots of sports channels still use 720p, since it is progressive scan vs 1080i since it is interlaced and all of the motion can create lots of combing and banding.
I would love to see all of those compression artifacts, in glorious 4k
My point is... Most of us have experienced worsened and worsening vision since entering adulthood. Now that we don't see things around us the same way it used to be, a 4K content might not only create far less impact than is expected, but also come out rather strange or even other-worldish to people's brain which is already accustomed to a fuzzier reality. So, I would definitely go for higher framerates or contrast too, just like most content providers have thought.
I don't get why networks and local stations don't just live stream their broadcast themselves for free anyway? Basically same monetization practice as over the air. Include commercials and such within the stream, just like regular TV so they'll still make money and can't be blocked by browser based ad-blockers. Its all about getting eyes onto the ads and contents, I know licensing shows has their issues, but since it won't be on-demand, can't they just negotiate contracts just like how they do with regular shows and syndication?
I've had a 4K monitor for 6.5 years and I still have trouble getting 4K content outside of RUclips. I'm not too surprised cable is still limited to 1080p, especially since most subscribers don't really care about resolution
That's definitely the key to this whole thing. Yes, we know that 4K isn't cheap, but it's not exactly new. Who has a cable subscription? old people, with bad eyes, who hate change. And younger people aren't going to go out and get a cable subscription just because they went 4K.
Streaming has most new content in 4k, and young people stream shows. I don't buy the whole "Live is expensive, so they aren't doing it." They would just need a large amount of viewers to actually care, and they would fork over the money right away.
Not to mention, upscaled 1080p(whit a fine tv ofc) is pretty great already, compared to native 4k.
In fact, 1080p at a high bitrate can rival 4k at a streaming bitrate
I'd be happy if live sports could upgrade to at least 1080p. NHL feeds are still 720p60 in 2022...
LTV sounds like a plan to me!
TV manufacturers pushed 4k hard before there were even many 1080p broadcast or streaming video. It's all about selling people a new TV they don't want or need
i didn't know this channel is this old and had 4K, great work guys
Yeah, phones can record 4k, but the storage space used by it is so much more. Part of the reason I got my Galaxy S20 FE was that it was one of the newer phones with reasonable specs, and also had an SD card slot. I got the 256gb model, but I have had to rely on the SD card I have. I record a ton of 4k videos of my dog. I have Aphantasia, so keeping these memories is really important to me. Once he(my dog) is gone, I won't have any way of truly remembering him visually without the videos and pictures. When we go hiking I can record like 150gb+ in a single trip. I do sort through later and keep the good stuff, but initially I use a TON of storage space for that 4k footage.
U sure it's a Galaxy S20FE? I didn't see a SD card slot on those the last time I checked.
@@kahuna1247 yes I am sure. I bought it right from the Samsung website.
It is a dual sim/sd card slot. The SD card goes on the other side of the SIM tray, or you can use 2 SIM cards. Multi-purpose slot. Unless you're being pernickety and want me to specifically say "micro sd".
The S21 FE does NOT have an SD slot, the S20 FE does
@@DustyTheDog Huh. Well I need to check again, I had no idea and have been missing out like a proper retard! Thanks for the heads up!