Hacker News Reader

Comment by rini17 | Hacker News Reader

Extrapolating from current consumer situation, we can expect 8K huge ass TVs which display cringingly poor picture and users won't care. As usual contemporary digital TV setup is:

1. set top box is by default sending only 720p to the TV

2. HDMI input on the TV is by default in "video mode", where it rescales the picture even when fed native 1080p

It took me months to eventually figure this out, and now I have sharp pixel-perfect FullHD picture...that makes compression artifacts pop up :(

View on HN

It won’t be that bad.

STBs from Comcast over the past few years support 1080p and the ones released over the past year support 4K. Also most newer Android TV based STBs support 4k. You’re probably saying “yeah, but the content doesn’t”, oh, but it does.

Companies like Comcast and OTT providers like DirectTV Now support 4K linear broadcast as most transcoders in the past five years support 4K streams and most broadcasters are supplying these providers with 4K streams. Even the recent move to HVEC is making these providers rencode their VOD libraries and titles are being rencoded at 4K.

The transition to 8k won’t be as bad when people had 1080p TVs with 480 content.

Comcast sends everything to the home as 720p, regardless of what the box can do.

This is false.

Some channels in some markets may be at 720p and some older STBs top out at 1080i, but recent boxes like the XG1, any boxes that are IP, like the Xi series, and all of their apps take top bitrate profiles, so channels like your local affiliates or ESPN are received at least 1080p.

Either that or 1080i, depending on the channel. Disney/ABC/ESPN networks all use 720p, as do Fox networks. CBS/NBC and all their networks produce in 1080i.

There may be some 4K or 1080p on-demand or special event content (i.e. Olympics), but it is very rare.

CBS/NBC get converted to 720p by comcast before you see it.

This is still not true. I’ve personally worked on some Of these transcoders, unless your affiliate has something running on a Pentium 4 in their back closet from 2003, they’re not broadcasting something that is down converted.

There are complaints all over their forums about this and CS agents confirming it. They started to do it about a year ago. Also, it’s very obvious when watching.

https://forums.xfinity.com/t5/Non-X1-Service/1080i-channels-...

With the exception of local access, over seas channels, and some really small and locally produced content for local affiliates, it’s 1080p. A lot of companies transitioned from 720/1080i in 2012-13. If you have an older STB, you might be seeing content scales down. Fox’s animation I thought was produced in 720 but broadcasted in 1080i, you see that with Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon.

The overcompression/poor compression of streaming video is scandalous. Netflix cannot even offer a decent DVD quality stream, it seems perverse for them to even offer 4K.

When I watch '4K' content on Amazon Prime Video, I can see huge compression artifacts. Now, I don't really expect to see great quality 4K streaming video on a 25 Mbps connection, but it'd be nice to have an option for higher bitrate 1080p instead of mediocre 4K.

I still haven't seen any streaming service look nearly as good as a Blu-ray and this is on a mid-range TV, from farther away than I should be with probably-should-wear glasses vision.

I have far, far worse compression artifacts in cable broadcast (apartment provided, can't opt out) than from Netflix, and I can only pick out artifacts in Netflix 4K if I'm actively trying.

Where streaming services do fall down for me is audio stream handling. If you stream high quality in most services on most dedicated streaming devices you get 5.1/7.1 by default, with awful, unconfigurable downmixing to 2.0/2.1 that makes you crank the volume to make dialogue audible but is still immediately drowned out by the slightest peripheral foley effect. Amazon video is the worst about this.

For years digital camera manufacturers scrabbled to have the camera with the higest number of megapixels, as that was what the majority of consumers looked for - it feels like that's where we're at with TVs these days.

I personally don't see the point in anything higher than 4k. I'd much prefer if manufacturers focused on better colour reproduction, better blacks, better audio and better network and media functionality.

I'd be happy with just proper mixing that doesn't make vocals a second or third-class citizen to orchestral swells or explosions.

I don't even had bad hearing and I had to get a 5.1 system, just so I finally had a proper center channel.

You didn't even mention the horror of the level of color reproduction on the cheap models that most people are buying. Or how some TVs don't even seem to have a way to fully disable motion interpolation.

We used to have a HiVision signal in Vladivistok in early nineties, the difference in between blurry coffee muck soviet tv, and Japanese tv sets was dazzling.

People back than were paying serious moneys for HiVision set, but I remember one case in particular. Some rich dude from Moscow flew all the way to Vladivistok, to buy a HiVision set from father.

First, he paid a ton of money, and happily flied away to Moscow, then father gets an angry call "the TV set is broken!" In a few months time he returned with the set, father asks him to turn in on to see what happened, and it "miraculously" starts working.

The rich dude wasn't able to hide his embarrassment and disbelief, and flew back again. As you can guess, the guy was not away for long, and that time father answered "if you that rich, maybe you will buy an own satellite," and pointed him to fine script in the contract.

I don't have cable, watch Netflix and steam from PC in 4k all the time - looks amazing. Netflix 4k is limited but they are adding more all the time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com