Good to know, I wondered if that might be the case - but I've never actually looked

And while I've fitted two 4K sets on walls, with no 4K sources available yet it wasn't of any concern.

That will almost certainly change though when such sets become mainstream and there are no cost advantages of the lower specified interface.

Talk about jumping down somebody's throat.

What he was getting at is that more people are choosing streaming options these days, and that is hitting physical format sales dramatically.

Streaming has significant impact on picture and audio quality due to the comprimises required to restrict bit rates. . Some people will watch and listen to anything, look at the music channels on satellite.

I cannot see the point in dumbing down the picture quality that is available from 4K by streaming compared to a physical storage media with adequate capacity. It would be far more sensible to devote these resources to a high quality 1080p service. The number of users of 4K kit that will gain much from 4K is small.

Ultimately it doesn't matter which is better, 4K is the new whiz thing and that is what counts. The bigger number is why broadcast is 1080i rather than 720p and why most people assume a 1080 line TV is automatically better than a 768 line TV.

Rationally the resolution isn't at all important to the PQ for most people given their viewing distances and TV sizes and an improved 1080p would be better than 4K but that won't happen.

The quality of streaming may be inferior but it's a very simple fact that video- and audiophiles are a very small section of the market. You may keep buying the physical format but the market at large will put convenience ahead of marginal gains in visual and aural quality. Hence physical sales continue to decline sharply year on year.

Blu-ray never took off like DVD, proof that the mass market is not driven by the best quality available. Streaming is cheap and convenient and will continue to mercilessly eat into physical format sales until they're as niche and retro as the VCR.

Only if you are lucky enough to live in a area that has a decent broadband service.

That precludes so many who aren't fortunate enough to be able to access decent broadband. What do you think of ITV player on a 3Mbps connection ? All my grandson who lives on the edge of Bridgwater (So by no means rural) can manage if he's lucky.

In this case the difference is anything but minor. I agree that the difference can be small but only with existing 1080i sources. iplayer at 1280 x 720 25 fps is pretty good, but a lot of the population cannot even watch this let alone a 4K stream.

It's costs a similar amount of money to rent disks from services like Amazon, and this is often the only way to watch decent quality.

It always amazes me that those who get decent broadband, stick there heads in the sand and make glaring observations that do not apply to many others. They forget much of the population don't even have broadband at all.

The industry must think there's a place for a 4K optical disk source, at the prices they charge compared to the production costs there will be still money to be made.

Regardless, the tech will advance and it will be the main delivery of 4K content. It's not a matter of sticking heads in sand, it's recognising the way it will pan out.
There is a generational gap forming as much as anything else. Those that can't see past the physical CD/DVD/Bluray and the generation that don't buy any of them. Most people I know download or stream all their media and have no physical copies of any of it. I can't remember the last DVD/Bluray I purchased.
You are right, that those with, don't really consider those who don't have, decent BB. But, why should they? There are millions with a decent BB connection, no doubt enough to satisfy the business case for streaming. As tech is continually moving forward, delivery will only improve as time goes on.

Look, the facts back up the argument that streaming will only continue to damage physical format sales:-

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/superfast-bb-surge/

Broadband is not a stationary technology.

You can keep arguing that niche areas of the market (video- and audiophiles, those with no/poor broadband) will prop up the Blu-ray market, but that is to put your own head in the sand and ignore completely the trend in technology and of end user behaviours.

Call100 is right, it's a generational thing in the main. There will be many a youngster who has never purchased a CD, DVD, Blu-ray disc etc etc.

And many adults have stopped. I own thousands of CDs (literally). I have essentially stopped buying them (the exception being small-volume stuff sold at gigs) because for music by popular beat combos 320Kbps MP3 or AAC is indistinguishable for a fifty-ish man, even using top-notch equipment, and for classical music I can download 16-bit and increasingly 24-bit/96KHz FLAC direct from the record company.

Optical discs are obviously declining. Try buying something from the top 20 as a CD Single! However...


As retro as vinyl maybe - eventually - clinging on to a few percent of the market for some releases in some areas. But if they can make a profit from pressing shiny silver discs, why wouldn't they? All the really expensive stages still have to be done to create the streaming version. Videophiles are a small but high-spending sector of the market.

Writeable disc formats can live on in the smallest of niches. Haven't you heard of burn on demand / cook-to-order discs? I haven't bought any DVDs that way, but several (legitimate, legal) CDs I've bought recently have been on CD-Rs. I guess that tells you how niche my music tastes are.

Cheers,
David.

Any news on Freeview or Freesat for Ultra HD transmissions?
What was the result of the BBS World cup test via freeview?
I guess we will need new Ultra HD tuners for any transmitting method.
I currently have both freesat and freeview tuners on my PC so am waiting with anticipation for an Ultra HD tuner.

Frank

Yes you will need new hardware chips that can take decode HEVC H.265 for any 4K output. Good chance SKY will be first with 4K broadcasts as their customers will pay a premium and it is in their interests to compete with Netflix and Amazon on the 4K front.

I highly doubt anything will happen in 2015 and 2016 looks far more likely imho.

I think 2015 is more likely , otherwise Netflix and Amazon will make a significant march on them.
I'm surprised they have not already announced plans as their commitment to 3D has decreased by a massive amount recently. Not even football is shown in 3D anymore. This suggests to me that all their R&D must be in 4K now.

As I've said repeatedly, when 4K sets first appeared in the UK we were told by Sky that they were developing a new 4K box 'just in case' they decided to launch a 4K option.

3D was always going to be a flop, it has been every time it's been launched.

4K? - who knows? - but as sets are likely to gradually all become 4K over the next few years, it's likely that some kind of 4K broadcasting will appear. I still think it's a total waste and not needed though

The TV's or the Broadcasting? People will need their 4K's as the capabilities of everyone to video in 4K is already there. Even mobile phones do it now, let alone cheaper video cameras. So the sale of 4K sets will grow and probably (as you say) be the norm for large screen TV's pretty soon.
As for Broadcasting in 4K. It'll be pure economics that drive that. Sooner or later Sky et al will want to curb Netflix and Co's 4K lead.

Both really - people don't watch close enough to make 1080 worth while, they certainly aren't going to watch from a LOT closer still to make 4K worthwhile.

I would agree with you Nigel if it was just an increase in resolution. If they are going to increase the frame rate and increase the colour bit depth and gamut then that might well be worth having.

And still make sod all difference

Not that an increase in frame rate might be somewhat beneficial though.

I think when people see a decent picture with higher dynamic range and wider colour gamut, then the kinds of pictures we've been watching all our lives until now (which haven't changed much in these respects for decades) are suddenly going to look quite old fashioned.

More pixels per frame and more frames per second are the kind of picture quality improvements that us geeks will love (if we sit close enough to see them ) but the completely different look that HDR and WCG gives to images will appeal more widely, almost on a "fashion" level - regular TV pictures will just look out-of-date, like last decade's clothes.

It's like when you have a phone or tablet with a really nice display, people think it looks great. 4k/HDR/WCG TV is going to have the same impact.

I could be wrong of course

Cheers,
David.