- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why do all these 4K HDR tvs and streaming boxes not support HEVC/H.265
Posted on 3/9/18 at 11:42 pm
Posted on 3/9/18 at 11:42 pm
looks like the Roku 4ks can, so it says, but AFTV 4k cant even thought it says it is supported. and the built in software in the TVs cant support it.
They are only giving customers 4K lite
They are only giving customers 4K lite
This post was edited on 3/9/18 at 11:46 pm
2
Posted on 3/10/18 at 12:55 pm to CarRamrod
First I wouldn't call if 4k lite since we are talking about compression algorithms and not the actual display technology.
H.264 is in widespread use and does a fine job as long as you have the bandwidth. H.265 takes a good bit more processing power which raises the price of the products and TVs and streaming boxes are a very price sensitive goods.
It is similar to the HD rollout in the early 2000s it took a long time for all the hardware to become standardized, the 4K rollout has been much faster but 8K is just around the corner.
The technology is moving so fast you can not expect to future proof the cutting edge requires at least yearly upgrades, most people pick a point they are happy with a live with it for a few years.
H.264 is in widespread use and does a fine job as long as you have the bandwidth. H.265 takes a good bit more processing power which raises the price of the products and TVs and streaming boxes are a very price sensitive goods.
It is similar to the HD rollout in the early 2000s it took a long time for all the hardware to become standardized, the 4K rollout has been much faster but 8K is just around the corner.
The technology is moving so fast you can not expect to future proof the cutting edge requires at least yearly upgrades, most people pick a point they are happy with a live with it for a few years.
Posted on 3/10/18 at 4:59 pm to CarRamrod
NVidia Shield for the win!
If you don't have one, get one.
If you don't have one, get one.
Posted on 3/10/18 at 6:57 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
8K is just around the corner.
Is 8k really necessary for home TV use?
Posted on 3/10/18 at 8:10 pm to jg8623
I would ask the same about 4k.
Posted on 3/11/18 at 10:50 am to emanresu
quote:Most television product is created in HD, but more and more is now created in 4K. In movie production, digital 4k is widespread, but super 35mm and 65mm is still used quite a bit, but those formats can be converted to 4k easily.
I would ask the same about 4k
Posted on 3/11/18 at 10:05 pm to jg8623
It all depends on the display size and distance from the display. I'm 7ft from my 75" TV in the den and can see a significant difference with 4k vs 1080p (Bluray) and definitely wish I had 8k in my theater (140" diagonal @ 8ft from the front row) but I would rather have enough lumens to do HDR justice instead...
There is still a lot of room for display improvement but often the manufacturers are chasing specs that sell vs specs that actually make a better experience. The average buyer gets pixels better than nits and contrast ratio, especially when contrast has been lied about so much.
The leaps are coming fast and furious now and it requires a lot of upgrading since it isn't just the display but all the downstream components as well. Just keeping HDMI cables with proper bandwidth is a pain, many of use with 30+ ft runs to our projectors are having to move from active HDMI to fiber optic HDMI to have enough bandwidth for current high frame rate 4k HDR signals.
There is still a lot of room for display improvement but often the manufacturers are chasing specs that sell vs specs that actually make a better experience. The average buyer gets pixels better than nits and contrast ratio, especially when contrast has been lied about so much.
The leaps are coming fast and furious now and it requires a lot of upgrading since it isn't just the display but all the downstream components as well. Just keeping HDMI cables with proper bandwidth is a pain, many of use with 30+ ft runs to our projectors are having to move from active HDMI to fiber optic HDMI to have enough bandwidth for current high frame rate 4k HDR signals.
Posted on 3/12/18 at 10:11 am to HubbaBubba
quote:my next A/v Purchase.
NVidia Shield for the win!
If you don't have one, get one.
Id upgrade all mine but they are really expensive.
Posted on 3/13/18 at 11:55 am to emanresu
quote:ok then is 1080p really necessary? what about 720. shite lets just go back to standard def tube tvs.
I would ask the same about 4k.
Seeing true 4k hdr, your eyes feel the same way they did when they first saw HDTV in the early 2000s.
This post was edited on 3/13/18 at 11:55 am
Posted on 3/13/18 at 12:08 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
Seeing true 4k hdr, your eyes feel the same way they did when they first saw HDTV in the early 2000s.
Absolutely. I just got my LG B7 last week. Meridian and Cosmo's Laundromat on the YouTube HDR channel will blow your mind.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 6:08 am to CarRamrod
quote:
ok then is 1080p really necessary? what about 720. shite lets just go back to standard def tube tvs.
Seeing true 4k hdr, your eyes feel the same way they did when they first saw HDTV in the early 2000s.
I have a 55" 4K HDR TV, I absolutely love it.
But 4K HDR is not the leap HD was. 4K HDR is not practically necessary for most of the TVs in most households, aside from the main living room TV or theater room TV. Whereas all TVs benefitted immensely from the HD jump.
Posted on 3/14/18 at 6:27 am to efrad
8K is just around the corner.
Is 8k really necessary for home TV use?
Saw 8k at NAB two years ago. 8 foot screen, with a herd of Japanese dancers in filmy gowns doing their thing on the screen. As each one would spin, you could see every fiber of the gown during the spin. Absolutely mindblowing. That said, many US broadcasters are still paying off the bills from going all-digital and being all HD. Expect 4K to start popping up off-air in about 5 years, and 8K probably relegated to the high end "rich-baw' bin for the next decade or so. The technology to broadcast 4K in the US is just being developed (tran$mitter$, tran$mi$$ion line and antenna$), but broadcasters don't have the money to buy it. And the public is not quite ready to receive it. The big money gamble is whether broadcasters can implement 4K and make some cash off of it before the entire spectrum moves over to copper or fiber home delivery.
Is 8k really necessary for home TV use?
Saw 8k at NAB two years ago. 8 foot screen, with a herd of Japanese dancers in filmy gowns doing their thing on the screen. As each one would spin, you could see every fiber of the gown during the spin. Absolutely mindblowing. That said, many US broadcasters are still paying off the bills from going all-digital and being all HD. Expect 4K to start popping up off-air in about 5 years, and 8K probably relegated to the high end "rich-baw' bin for the next decade or so. The technology to broadcast 4K in the US is just being developed (tran$mitter$, tran$mi$$ion line and antenna$), but broadcasters don't have the money to buy it. And the public is not quite ready to receive it. The big money gamble is whether broadcasters can implement 4K and make some cash off of it before the entire spectrum moves over to copper or fiber home delivery.
This post was edited on 3/14/18 at 6:28 am
Posted on 3/14/18 at 9:37 am to efrad
quote:well by the numbers it is.
But 4K HDR is not the leap HD was.
quote:a tv being in a household is not necessary.
4K HDR is not practically necessary for most of the TVs in most households,
Posted on 3/14/18 at 4:08 pm to CarRamrod
quote:quote:
But 4K HDR is not the leap HD was.
well by the numbers it is.
not when you factor in human eyes and their ability to see. 4K means a lot to a large screen but it is practically imperceptible on smaller screen sizes that are still commonly bought and used. HD was a huge upgrade even for casual tv watching on 23"-32" TVs. 4K not really.
Posted on 3/15/18 at 11:44 pm to CarRamrod
quote:Yes, they cost more, but the gaming features are fantastic and they also act as a really good Plex server. I have tried using Plex on five different devices at once. Not a single hiccup from the Shield. It handled all five streams with ease.
my next A/v Purchase.
Id upgrade all mine but they are really expensive.
Posted on 3/16/18 at 3:24 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:im running a plex server on my HTPC. i just want to be able to watch my HEVC movies
Yes, they cost more, but the gaming features are fantastic and they also act as a really good Plex server. I have tried using Plex on five different devices at once. Not a single hiccup from the Shield. It handled all five streams with ease.
Posted on 3/16/18 at 7:50 pm to HubbaBubba
quote:it's actually not. Most is still upscaled
In movie production, digital 4k is widespread,
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:05 am to HubbaBubba
quote:
NVidia Shield for the win!
If you don't have one, get one
Yep, and at $129 is a no brainier. Hands down the best streaming media box on the market.
LINK
Posted on 3/23/18 at 10:29 am to umop_apisdn
frick yes. the controller version is 160. im picking one up.
This post was edited on 3/23/18 at 10:30 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News