Sony announces cloud based DVR and live TV

[wayner]

Here's the story from the Verge. I am skeptical that this will come to anything, but who knows, it could be a cable killer.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/7/528...ideo-on-demand

[nyplayer]

Everytime something like like this is announced people keeps saying this might be a Cable killer on every new Product... but the bottom line in comparison to Cable TV etc... there are very few Cloud users for TV. This is a very minisicle community that uses HTPC compared to cable tv dishes subscribers. It might be good for an Individual user but for the masses it will not kill Cable TV giants. Heck right now through my cable company I can stream any TV show I want to any device and also watch it on my regular TV.

[Skybolt]

let's face it while that is really interesting, cable will never die, we all need iNet and that's really the only way to get it. The tv portion of cable may change to IP based over time but that's about it. It's going to be all about how are we going to receive our data today. So if you need to sub from the cable co already why not stick with them for iptv as well.

My cable co already forces anyone seeking out a DVR to use there Cloud (man I hate that ackronym) based service. I mean what's the point if you can already stream it all from on-demand.

[nycjoe]

between this and intel oncue, I think we'd better all start pooling our money and try to buy sagetv back from google

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by nycjoe

between this and intel oncue, I think we'd better all start pooling our money and try to buy sagetv back from google

Sagetv eventually was going to die anyway as long as they did not support CableCard and DRM.

[wayner]

To me those continue to be of a huge benefit and I will continue using it until: (1) I can't get a cable box with a component output or a hackable HDMI output or (2) We move to 4K TV.

Give the news coming out of CES #2 seems more likely to happen although I haven't heard too much about 4K content, other than Netflix. It is not clear if/when TV stations are going to 4K other than for the odd event like the Superbowl.

[pjpjpjpj]

Anyone seen mention of what networks they will provide? If they don't have ESPN, and to a lesser extent, HBO, they have no chance. And I doubt they have those contracts signed or they would have touted them front-and-center.

There are a million articles out there on the internet about the cost-prohibitive nature of trying to cut a deal with all the networks needed to truly compete with cable. Not to mention the fact that many networks are owned by companies like Comcast and will never be made available at a reasonable price to competitors.

As for 4KTV, I just want to know how we're going to get it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I saw stats indicating that, short of some new compression codecs being created (which would likely reduce quality and negate the benefit anyway), 4KTV requires more bandwidth to stream than virtually anything we have today, except HDMI 1.3 (barely), fiber optic, and one or two types of internal PC cables? And most hard drives can't read or write fast enough to handle 4KTV data streams on-the-fly (real time)? Not to mention 4G LTE or wireless-N, which aren't close? If that's correct, doesn't this fly in the face of the idea that the future is all about everything streaming or on-demand?

[wayner]

I don't think the 4K bitrate is as much as an issue as you think.

4K is about 4x the resolution of 1080p - 1080p is 1920x1080 and 4K is 3840x2160 - two times as wide and two times as high and two squared is four. That's 8M pixels vs 2M, assuming the same colour depth. Netflix has announced 4K streamiing that uses 15 Mbps using HEVC/H.265 compression.

ATSC is broadcasted at 1080i which uses 19Mbps using MPEG-2 encoding. Even multiplying that by four doesn't get us to ridiculous bitrates and the more modern compression algos help.

And I am pretty sure that HDMI can deal with 4K - my new receiver can do 4K passthrough on its HDMI ports..

[videolog]

4k is the next 3D......meaning epic fail.
Reason being, no content.
We'll see, but I'm not buying it.

[ccsmoke]

The problem with 4k is the specs should be increased to give a better overall experience. Higher resolution will have limited returns, need huge screens or sit close. While todays receiver may pass 4k, it will only do it at 60Hz @ 8bit. The new chips supporting high speeds for HDMI 2.0 are not even being sold yet...if HDMI wins over Display Port, Thunderbolt, HDbaseT, etc.

Ideally you want at least 10bit @ 120Hz with 4:4:4 or at least 4:2:2 and a different aspect ratio for true 4k (4096 x 2160). Hopefully this will get put in as less artifacts and better images.

Currently bluerays are compressed video 4:0:0 8 bit. I really think that a redray @1080p would be a better picture than any 4k tv at CES this year. I think Dolby Vision is going to do just that.

As for content, You Tube and Netflix (h.265) have 4k or really 2160p (3840x2160) and many modern movies are already master in true 4k. The problem is the some how Red patented 4k and want royalties and are sueing Sony. Sony has a closed 4k currently, meaning Sony's movies in 4k will only play only Sony's TV.

Not saying it will be a flop, it can be amazing...just need a lot of bugs worked out atm.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by videolog

4k is the next 3D......meaning epic fail.
Reason being, no content.
We'll see, but I'm not buying it.

There's a ton of available content, anything shot on film can be remastered for 4K, many movies have already received 4k (or higher) scans/masters and are scaled down to 2k/1080p for Cinema/Blu-ray. The Hobbit films are currently being shot at 5k.

Originally Posted by ccsmoke

The problem with 4k is the specs should be increased to give a better overall experience. Higher resolution will have limited returns, need huge screens or sit close. While todays receiver may pass 4k, it will only do it at 60Hz @ 8bit. The new chips supporting high speeds for HDMI 2.0 are not even being sold yet...if HDMI wins over Display Port, Thunderbolt, HDbaseT, etc.

Ideally you want at least 10bit @ 120Hz with 4:4:4 or at least 4:2:2 and a different aspect ratio for true 4k (4096 x 2160). Hopefully this will get put in as less artifacts and better images.

ITU-R 2020 specifies 10 and 12 bit coding for UHD (specifically does not mention 8-bit) and a much wider gamut.

Current HDMI 2.0 devices should support 12-bit color as well, though only up to 30Hz (which is just fine for movies):
http://www.projectorreviews.com/tech...-4k-uhd-video/

[SWKerr]

My first HDTV was a 720p set. At some point I replaced it with 1080p.
As the cost went down I was willing to go with the better resolution.
If the cost between 4k and 1080p sets gets to be within a few hundred dollars then I can see wide spread adoption. With adoption will come content.

Still I don't see this happening quickly. There was a huge difference in quality from SD to HD. It was a compelling upgrade. I would think that except for people with huge screens, the real world quality difference would not make for a compelling reason to replace a working 1080p set. The only reason I longer own a 720p set is that Samsung makes crappy capacitors. I really do not see normal people running out to replace there working 1080p sets with these things. If you recall the government kinda forced the adoption of HDTV and that is why so many people have relatively new HD sets. 4k will have no such advantage.

Now I may considering upgrading PC monitors to higher than 1080p resolution. But even then looking a the few people I know with high res monitors it is hard to justify. Most things don't seem to scale well enough to take advantage of the extra pixels.

[BobPhoenix]

My mother still has SDTV and analog from cable company. She won't be around much longer but I don't plan on going to 4K until local broadcasters upgrade and it took YEARS to get them to go to ATSC.

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by wayner

I don't think the 4K bitrate is as much as an issue as you think.

4K is about 4x the resolution of 1080p - 1080p is 1920x1080 and 4K is 3840x2160 - two times as wide and two times as high and two squared is four. That's 8M pixels vs 2M, assuming the same colour depth. Netflix has announced 4K streamiing that uses 15 Mbps using HEVC/H.265 compression.

ATSC is broadcasted at 1080i which uses 19Mbps using MPEG-2 encoding. Even multiplying that by four doesn't get us to ridiculous bitrates and the more modern compression algos help.

And I am pretty sure that HDMI can deal with 4K - my new receiver can do 4K passthrough on its HDMI ports..

Yeah, they haven't standardized on the codecs for 4k - UHD TV yet. The two main candidates are HEVC/H.265 and "VP9", which Google is pushing as a royalty-free option. Both of these are supposed to be about twice as efficient as H.264 (and they could be used to more-efficiently encode 1080p or 720p content too). H.264 was already a lot more efficient than MPEG-2 (which is the current standard for broadcast TV in the US - ATSC).

Of course we will need new video cards to handle hardware decoding of these new formats. This means old video cards, laptops, cell phones, and tablets will need to be replaced before these new codecs can take off.

The current HDMI standard can handle 4k, but not at 60fps. Most of the "4k" TV's that are being launched now with HDMI-1.4 connectors are limited to 24 or 30fps. Some of the TV's are offering DisplayPort connectors in addition to HDMI to get around this limitation. At least one TV is being sold with a Beta HDMI-2.0 connector.

The HDMI 2.0 spec is not finalized yet, but will support 4K at 60fps.

And of course the "4K" name itself is confusing. 4K is really a cinematic format and refers to a picture that is 4096 pixels wide, and has a wider aspect ratio than current "widescreen" TVs. The new UHD (Ultra-High Definition) TVs are supposedly either 4K or 8K and are double (or quadruple) the height and width of 1080p. A 1080p picture is 1920 pixels wide x 1080 tall, so "4K" UHD TV will really be 3840 x 2160, or more accurately "2160p".

[wayner]

Originally Posted by BobPhoenix

My mother still has SDTV and analog from cable company. She won't be around much longer but I don't plan on going to 4K until local broadcasters upgrade and it took YEARS to get them to go to ATSC.

If you're on cable then technically it doesn't matter if broadcasters ever move up from ATSC as you can send higher resolutions and bitrates on cable/satellite. Don't (didn't) some cable companies offer the odd event in 3D, like the Super Bowl or World Cup even though no one broadcasts in 3D? There was an ESPN 3D that I think has now shutdown. Last year's Super Bowl had some 4K cameras and presumably that will grow this year. But I don't know where you can watch it in real time in 4K.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by Tiki

The current HDMI standard can handle 4k, but not at 60fps. Most of the "4k" TV's that are being launched now with HDMI-1.4 connectors are limited to 24 or 30fps. Some of the TV's are offering DisplayPort connectors in addition to HDMI to get around this limitation. At least one TV is being sold with a Beta HDMI-2.0 connector.

The HDMI 2.0 spec is not finalized yet, but will support 4K at 60fps.

Final HDMI 2.0 was announced at CEDIA last September:
http://www.hdmi.org/press/press_release.aspx?prid=133

Here's a good writeup on HDMI 2.0.
http://www.projectorreviews.com/tech...-4k-uhd-video/

We probably can't say "most" yet, but probably half (if not more) of "4K" models available now either support HDMI 2.0 or are upgradable to HDMI 2.0. All of Sony's TVs are or are upgradeable, Samsungs are. Panasonics are apparently the only ones with "full" HDMI 2.0 chipsets (ie supporting the full 18Gbps available with HDMI 2.0). All of these HDMI 2.0 displays support 60Hz, though most are limited to 10.2Gbps which means they only support 8bit 4:2:0 (IIRC) at 60Hz, but they support 12bit 24Hz.

Given that the only 4k/UHD content available in the forseable future will be movies, and thus 24fps, that's not a bad compromise.

[wayner]

So my new AVR, even though it supports 4K passthrough and has 7 HDMI inputs, is obsolete.

Sonofabitch.

I am developing quite a collection of AVRs - I have about 3 with no HDMI ports since they are 7+ years old, another fairly high end Yamaha with 2 HDMI ports since it is about 5 years old and one with 4 HDMI ports that is about 2 years old, in addition to the new one which is a Pioneer SC-72.

Has anything become obsolete quicker than AVRs?

[tvmaster2]

4K video? I'm still waiting for conventional (not DD Plus) 5.1 DD surround sound from Netflix. Been waiting for years, actually (no XBox or Playstation in my place). When that happens, then I can worry about 4K....lol

[Tiki]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Here's a good writeup on HDMI 2.0.
http://www.projectorreviews.com/tech...-4k-uhd-video/

Well that makes it clear as mud... Actually that is a really good article that explains things quite well. I find it quite disappointing that they are allowing devices that are limited to 10.2Gbps (rather than the full 18Gbps) and can't support all the features of HDMI-2.0 to use the HDMI-2.0 label. Seems like this will just add to consumer confusion.

[Skybolt]

Originally Posted by wayner

... Has anything become obsolete quicker than AVRs?

Apparently us. JJ.

Hear is a good question though, what media is going to handle this new monster and does that mean new palyers as well. I mean, a full BD rip to MKV is ~25gb. Does that mean it will now be ~100gb. There goes ripping anything.