4K

On 22/12/2014 14:50, Klaus wrote:

Well, if you were able to receive Astra 19 degr. east, there is a UHD
Demo channel to try: 11406 MHz Vert. | 22000 | DVB-S2 | 8PSK | FEC 2/3.

The first live concert transmission in UHD resolution ("Linkin Park" in
Berlin) was shown on 19. Nov. with max. 35 Mbit/s. It was freely
received by already some Samsung UHD TV owners with 4k HEVC capability
and by modern Windows7-64bit PC owners with DVB-S2-tuners and 4k-ready
software decoding (MPC-HC-64 player i.e. here).

Demo clips are running there 24/7 if not a closed test transmission is
performed - like on 20. Dec. with "Fanta 4" rappers from Stuttgart,
delivered to some testing households and 4k capable cinemas.

I'm genuinely glad to hear that, but I don't think the UK will follow,
except (as is also happening) delivery to cinemas etc

Sky Germany is testing live soccer transmission in 4k for long and is
suspected to start a regular UHD *pay* TV channel end of 2015...
^^^^
That's the most likely thing to happen in the UK, a pay only
subscription service.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

On 22/12/2014 10:29, Geoff Pearson wrote:

"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...
On 22/12/2014 10:09, Geoff Pearson wrote:

Interesting - so far no one has confessed to buying one to watch telly,
nor identified any tempting sources of material.

The words 'telly' and 'programme' are rapidly being replaced now by
the word 'content'.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Accepted - but the point stands - what is there to watch?



they would make a good pc monitor as long as you get one with hdmi 2 input.


--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

On 21/12/2014 19:37, Mark Carver wrote:
On 21/12/2014 19:33, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/12/2014 15:59, Geoff Pearson wrote:
I guess even Blu-ray is sub 4k definition.

Blu-ray is 1920x1080 _maximum_.

Strictly speaking Blu-Ray (just like DVD) is a data storage medium.

25GB for a single layer disc, double that for dual layer.

It can, (and I beleive will) be used to record 4k format material

This turns out not to be the case.

At least, not yet - the spec isn't even finalised.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14923

So while it _will_ be used to record 4k material, if it's got 4k on it
right now it isn't blu-ray.

Andy

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:14:26 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Interesting - so far no one has confessed to buying one to watch telly,
nor identified any tempting sources of material.

Perhaps it will go the way of Betamax - technically superior, but
not enough obvious superiority to become the de facto standard.

It's being used in the production environment, as a means to 'overshoot'
footage, so the resolution is retained for HD. For instance zooming
in on action (retrospectively) sports replays notably.

I suspect native 4k material will be available domestically, should
anyone be sufficiently enthusiastic. As many people seem incapable of
spotting the difference between SD and HD, in many cases ownership
of 4k kit, will simply be 'to keep ahead of the Joneses'.

So it won't matter if nobody can see the difference, as long as they
can see the "4K" sticker on the front?

Rod.

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
Mark Carver wrote:
On 22/12/2014 10:09, Geoff Pearson wrote:

Interesting - so far no one has confessed to buying one to watch telly,
nor identified any tempting sources of material.

The words 'telly' and 'programme' are rapidly being replaced now by the
word 'content'.

Or even 'product'.

No, that's us.

--
Max Demian

On 22/12/2014 21:41, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 21/12/2014 19:37, Mark Carver wrote:

Strictly speaking Blu-Ray (just like DVD) is a data storage medium.

25GB for a single layer disc, double that for dual layer.

It can, (and I believe will) be used to record 4k format material

This turns out not to be the case.

Everything I said, is the case.

At least, not yet - the spec isn't even finalised.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=14923

So while it _will_ be used to record 4k material,

Which is what I said !

if it's got 4k on it right now it isn't blu-ray.

Where did I say that was the case ?






--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:14:26 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

Interesting - so far no one has confessed to buying one to watch
telly, nor identified any tempting sources of material.

Perhaps it will go the way of Betamax - technically superior, but
not enough obvious superiority to become the de facto standard.

It's being used in the production environment, as a means to 'overshoot'
footage, so the resolution is retained for HD. For instance zooming
in on action (retrospectively) sports replays notably.

I suspect native 4k material will be available domestically, should
anyone be sufficiently enthusiastic. As many people seem incapable of
spotting the difference between SD and HD, in many cases ownership
of 4k kit, will simply be 'to keep ahead of the Joneses'.

So it won't matter if nobody can see the difference, as long as they
can see the "4K" sticker on the front?

Rod.

I suspect that as 4k sales increase and HD sales diminish, 4k sets will
become the only ones around. That's when the pressure will grow.
That hasn't happened with 3D yet mind you. I haven't even opened my 3D
specs pack since buying the TV over a year ago!

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 09:18:21 +0000, Alan Secker
wrote:

I suspect native 4k material will be available domestically, should
anyone be sufficiently enthusiastic. As many people seem incapable of
spotting the difference between SD and HD, in many cases ownership
of 4k kit, will simply be 'to keep ahead of the Joneses'.

So it won't matter if nobody can see the difference, as long as they
can see the "4K" sticker on the front?

Rod.

I suspect that as 4k sales increase and HD sales diminish, 4k sets will
become the only ones around. That's when the pressure will grow.
That hasn't happened with 3D yet mind you. I haven't even opened my 3D
specs pack since buying the TV over a year ago!

I might consider purchasing a bigger computer monitor if that happens.
So far, progress has been backwards in this area, as my present
monitor is 1920x1200, but all monitors and TVs seem to be 1920x1080
now, regardless of size. I haven't seen one anywhere with a resolution
equal to the one I've got. They're all gravitating towards a slightly
lower spec in the interests of everybody having the same.

Rod.

On 24/12/14 10:42, Roderick Stewart wrote:

I might consider purchasing a bigger computer monitor if that happens.
So far, progress has been backwards in this area, as my present
monitor is 1920x1200, but all monitors and TVs seem to be 1920x1080
now, regardless of size.
I haven't seen one anywhere with a resolution
equal to the one I've got.

Mine's the same resolution - Dell UltraSharp U2412M 16:10

I like it, those extra 120 pixels ...

They're all gravitating towards a slightly
lower spec in the interests of everybody having the same.

Not so gloomy though. Amazon does shows some others.

--
Adrian C

On 22/12/14 08:40, PeterC wrote:

I suspect the sensible answer for my room is HD, but DSLR photos shown
on a 4K screen could be interesting.

At that distance and 42" there'll be little difference.

Agree.

My TV is 50" HD at
3m and is about right (55 - 60 would be pushing it simply for scanning the
picture). At 4m, 60" seems about right.

Yup, after Christmas probably will be a HD purchase for the main viewing
area (mainly for Eastenders in HD, yay....), and a 4K 42" one later for
the computer room where I'm sat closer and can use the high resolution
for IT multiple remote screen support, admiring photography and claiming
it as a legitimate business expense.... Hmmm...

If I may mention it, 4k and UltraHD aren't the same - apologies if you
already know that.

Didn't

--
Adrian C