When will I be able to watch a Rockets game in 4k?

Not anytime soon, much of HDTV isn't even 1080p yet.

4K live streaming will probably come from the internet before it comes from television providers. That's the thing about 4K TVs, people are buying them up - but there is very little content for them.

A two hour 4K resolution move is about 120GB download. After 1-2 of them in a single month you'll more than likely get throttled by your internet provider.

 

Potentially soon. Directv already has 4K movies available.

 

Movies is one thing, live events is another. They already need behemoth horsepower behind the scenes to produce and edit live HD content. Not saying it can't be done, but it is going to take a while to be financially feasible - with flash storage and network throughput being the biggest cost inhibitors.

Then the bandwidth constraints, a few thousand people watching 4K videos is one thing - millions is another. The size and bandwidth requirements grow exponentially as you scale up in resolution. Two hours of uncompressed 1080p video is about 25GB, two hours of uncompressed 4K video is about 125GB.

 

HDTV was apparently a thing in the 1980s and brought in during the early to mid 90s. Seeing as media and products for HDTV didn't roll out until the early 2000s though this makes me believe we are a ways away. 4k was brought out what, a couple years ago? If technology keeps its trend (everything moves faster and develops much quicker) I would imagine 4k tv pricing drops to under $1000 by next summer, and 4k live stream for TV probably kicks in 2018.

 

Do you think if TV providers merged that it would be easier to accomplish? Like if Dish or DirecTV bought one another out and became a super satellite proivder? Or if there were only one Cable provider (AT&T/Comcast/TimeWarner)? Much like the cellphone market where Cingular bought out AT&T

 

Great post. That's a very good point. Plus, who knows how Uverse will EVER get 4K. Especially when their HD streams at such terrible rates it looks worse than Netflix HD

 

Way beyond 2020, I think.

 

Whenever you hear some sort of 'official' projection from someone, like some government agency, or some large provider.. some kind of announcement along the lines of 'We should have live sports events available to watch in 4K resolution some time during the year of 20xx'.. then, whatever year they say, add 5 years to it. That's the year it will happen.

 

The first 4K sports channel is launching in August. (In the UK)
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/06/09/footballcrazyfootballmad/

I think we are closer than people think!
We just need US cable companies to start buying in.

 

Haha, it's 2015 and I think Chase Bank is the only major bank that is barely rolling out chip and pin debit cards. lol

 

This is why I recently invested in a Vizio M-series that is still 1080p and none of that 3D crap. There just isn't enough content in 4K that will be available anytime soon. 240hZ max refresh rate with 1080i DTV channels is good enough for me. Getting a TV with a picture as good as the Vizio M series for $400 is a steal.

 

One of my Samsung Plasma's was going out so I bought a Sharp 70" Aquos Q+ 1080p/240Hz. I really didn't need the Smart TV (I love my Roku) or 3D, but it was only $100 more so I anteed up. I rarely watch the 3D, but the other night I put in David Attenborough's Galapagos while lit and :mind blown .gif:

I could do without spider webs and roaches in my face though. Not down.

 

My old PS3 crapped out so I decided the Vizio Smart would be a good option so my wife stops b****ing about having to find a controller to watch Netflix.

 

^^This^^

I've been getting a lot of flack for saying this in various forums lately (including this one)

We actually shoot and post a lot of 4K stuff (short form), but its all downcoverted to HD to hit the air. Most of our long form stuff is still shot in HD and we're using 2 pentabytes of storage to do so. (thats 2,000 terabytes) - to go all 4K would be a ridiculous amount of storage. Its much cheaper to shoot and edit things in 4K than it is to actually broadcast in 4K. - this is why you can download 4K content, but not watch it on NBC over the air. Cameras and editing equipment are very cheap compared to the guts of a broadcast facility. The entire control rooms, master controls, uplink equipment etc are much much more expensive to replace. Plus, the bandwidth for those guys..they may have to give up broadcasting sub channels to go 4K. Many networks are still working to recover the costs from when they made the move to HD.

Netflix can do it much much easier and cheaper than NBC.

Sure, it will happen..but it took 30yrs for HD to become mainstream so it will take several more years before 4K is mainstream.

 

I voted 2017 because I think the demand is there, but reconsidering the infrastructure investment required and the lack of competition in the industry there is little hope for the near future.

I had to get a new 43" TV where one got hit by lightning, it's only like $100, 20% more to be prepared for 4K.

 

yes. Around Black Friday last year I got Vizio's 80 inch HD tv. After all the various discounts, etc, the base price was like $1,700. Got a lot of discounts. They have a 4k version 80 inch now selling for $4k. I think I could have gotten the 65 inch Vizio in 4k for like $2,400 or something like that.

So it was still $500+ ish more, for 15 less inches, for a tv that has no content to take advantage of the tech that makes it more expensive (or very little content).

To top it all off, I don't think 4k makes a huge difference. Yes, it makes a difference. And certainly when everything is perfect... well, it looks GREAT. But I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather maximize size than clarity when we are talking about 1080pHD jumping to 4k. 1080p HD is already VERY clear. Watching basketball this year on an 80 inch tv has been amazing. I have a 50 inch tv as well, and going to that it's like going back to the stone age.

I get why the manufacturers push the new technology like this. Bent screens, 4k, etc. Really really high margin product...

Just think it's a waste of money.

In my case, the difference at the same size range (80 inch) as $2,300... when 4k is finally here, it will be close to time for a new tv, and I can use that $2,300. Though, to be fair, I think it will be so long before 4k is universally played by everything - as in 5 years+, that if I get anotehr new tv in 5 years, I'll still value size over the resolution jump.... so if I can get a nice, cheap 120 inch screen at that point, I'll do that instead of worrying about 4k.

The thing is, the 1080p tv itself also has a lot of the technological advancements that the 4k tvs see, by virtue of the tech just being there. So it's still an even better 1080p HD tv than the versions 2,3 years ago.

 

4K? How about even a SD feed of the Rockets on Dish Network??

 

No, I think a merger would hinder the improvement of the infrastructure due to a reduction in competition. I'm a free-thinking, business-loving Libertarian but I absolutely hate our service providers. They up-charge us on all kinds crap and add on "network improvement fees" and the likes, and they don't improve a damn thing.

I think Google Fiber and other non-media interests are the key to the infrastructure improvement that is required for that much data. When you look at a lot of countries in Europe and SE Asia (especially S. Korea) our mobile and broadband infrastructures are laughable.

I'm not sure U-verse could even handle the bandwidth requirements over phone line copper, they'd have to upgrade to door to door fiber to make it viable.

They won't buy into it, because their profit margins are so good right now. They invest pennies on the dollar to improve the infrastructure - that's the reason companies like Google are getting involved. They want to drive information forward so they can deliver content.

The US is a different beast than the rest of the world because we are so geographically diverse. South Korea and London can run door to door fiber a hell of a lot easier than we can.

Thanks for the insider view. I just remember watching a lot of "behind the scenes" videos and features on "How we upgraded to HD," and the cost and the complexity involved. Storage is the huge cost, as you know with that much data on hand... and to deliver loss-less 4k it will need to be all flash storage, which has come down tremendously in price but still huge on the SAN/NAS side of the house.