So, a very nice 720p Matroska encoded Bluray comes in at around 4.35GB for 2 hours.
1080p would normally push around 9GB.
Since 4k is simply 4x1080p it would therefore be around 36GB for 2 hours - however - content would NEVER be encoded at this quality. I would half that for actual quality required for 4k.
18GB should do it.
= 20 Mbit no?
Not even close - a genuine full hd /hi-def audio is nearly 40GB now (and thats just the film), yes there are some much lower than that but average I have over 400+ rips is 25-30GB (without reducing the quality)
4k is likely to top 100GB + depending on the quality of the compression (which they are still finalising now so its anyone's guess).
I find HD, even SD, to be just fine on my TV. I like watching my Blu Rays too. I don't see how a 4k setup is going to improve on what I already have. My set is a 46" LED LCD, which I guess is about the norm nowadays, to benefit from 4k I'm guessing I'd need to have a much bigger TV ? Not really an option for my living room. I may move to a 50" in the future, but anything bigger would be too big I think.
I think a sensible step forward would be for all TV channels to broadcast in HD. I think most people would be happy with that.
While Im not knocking your view in the slightest - you have to consider that you are only able to buy 46-50" tv at the price you can today because of the likes of me (and 1000's of others of course) who bought a 50! Full HD many years ago.
As Ive said in a few different posts, people in general may never be interested in the technology that goes into a Ferrari or Porsche because it doesnt relate to their Mondeo /Focus etc . This is fair enough. However - the Ford 10 years from now will have the 3rd /4th generation of stuff from that Porsche and its only in the Ford because it was released at a higher price that amount of years ago in a premium product.
You are right though in that screen sizes below 50" for certain, and probably below 65" depending on other factors, will never really show the benefits of 4k/8k (unless you are talking about desktop monitors rather than tv's). At standard viewing distances these "smaller" screen sizes, are just not relevant.
The style might not sit right but he makes some good points.
I see parallels between 4K and SACD. 1080p is good enough for most people on the sort of size of TV that they're likely to have in a British living room. Especially when you look at our TV transmission quality. Nothing is being done to address the huge amount of SD material still broadcast. Going digital has actually reduced quality in a lot of cases. It has added a layer of MPEG artifacting on top a low resolution source.
Im not sure why you are focusing on broadcasting - certainly for me its a minor part of what I use my tv for. Unless you are interested in enless repeats or X-Factor talent shows there is very little out there in the first place.(Yes there are some good dramas etc occasionally and stuff imported from the states a season or two later, but by this time they are usually out on BR anyway)
Dont get me wrong, I would love more HD channels, but with the relatively limited bandwidth /range available it isnt going to happen.
It will be interesting to see the next World Cup as a tech demo in 4k/8k and the next Olympics in this kind of quality but thats the time scales for broadcasting (in the UK) before we will see anything meaningful. Its not any time soon.
The main point for me is quality. 1080p is mature, so the industry should be focusing on picture quality. However, the herd has never been good at getting the quality message. Beta died. HD DVD died. SACD survives only as a nice product. Plasma is going that way. Big and cheap is a message that the average British consumer understands. This is why 4K will sell even though it's pointless for a lot of people.
What does excite me is 4K and more so 8K projection. That opens up the possibility of doing native 21:9 fixed height projection without complicated and expensive lens systems.
I was discussing 4K/8K with a colleague from another AV business. His view was similar to mine. 4K will be a temporary stepping stone to 8K a bit like 720p projectors gave way to 1080p ones. We saw the marketing of Full HD, and the "
Full" was the operative word. I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar with UHD...... Full UHD anyone?
Plasma isnt dead yet - there are still a few companies out there producing good quality dispalys for reasonable money. Its fair to say its always been niche market though, as its always been more expensive than LCD (for the most part anyway).
Projection just isnt suitable unless you can have a nearly black / totally black environment which just isnt possible for everyone - thats exactly why projection and TV's have to go hand in hand (and if you think plasma is niche, projectors are even more so lol).
Huge difference between the move from 720p to 1080p and from 4K>>8k and thats screen size. The general tv quality was so bad to start with (prior to 720p) that for the same screen size you could get a visible improvement. This wont happen at all for 4k to 8k (even if it does from full hd to 4k to start with) without a massive screen size change , which wont happen for the UK on a mass scale (world wide may be different though).