-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
When do you think local TV stations will start broadcasting in 4k?
- Thread starter Miles917
- Start date
1. When the FCC allows it. Which will be...
2. ...when ATSC 3.0 rolls out and is available for stations to upgrade to it. IIRC, 3.0 will allow 4K, but I don't know if it'll be worthwhile, given the number of HD (1080i, or maybe even 1080p) feeds that a station could run off of one transmitter.
3. If 3.0 doesn't support 4K, then the answer is "never."
ATSC 3.0 does support 4K. And ATSC 3.0 conversions are now permissible for TV licensees. However, the FCC is not permitting additional bandwidth for a transition channel like we had under the NTSC->ATSC transition, where some stations broadcast in both analog and digital for many years.
Until broadcasters feel there is a critical mass of TV sets supporting ATSC 3.0, there will probably not be a changeover. And I'm not sure how excited TV manufacturers will be to include *both* ATSC 1 and ATSC 3 during this transition.
It is worth noting that two broadcasters in channel-sharing agreements will be unable to both broadcast in 4K UHD. Not enough bandwidth. Either one would have to agree to be subordinate and only air in a lower resolution, or some other sort of agreement.
Bottom line is, 4K streaming has a huge head start.
Until broadcasters feel there is a critical mass of TV sets supporting ATSC 3.0, there will probably not be a changeover. And I'm not sure how excited TV manufacturers will be to include *both* ATSC 1 and ATSC 3 during this transition.
It is worth noting that two broadcasters in channel-sharing agreements will be unable to both broadcast in 4K UHD. Not enough bandwidth. Either one would have to agree to be subordinate and only air in a lower resolution, or some other sort of agreement.
Bottom line is, 4K streaming has a huge head start.
Technically, broadcasters could transmit in 4K today by using ATSC 3.0. The only problem is that no one could receive it -- while broadcasters are allowed to transmit ATSC 3.0 (which supports 4K video), there are no receivers available, which means that pretty much no one can watch.
That said, I also have to ask "why bother?" I haven't noticed that many viewers can tell the difference between the 720P on Fox and ABC versus the 1080i on CBS, NBC, and the CW. So 4K broadcasts just seem more like a gimmick than anything else. Offering multiple streams in 1080i/P or 720P seems like a better use of the spectrum than offering 4K. I'm envisioning a time when a broadcaster could offer their primary network in 1080P while offering a couple of 720P subchannels.
That said, I also have to ask "why bother?" I haven't noticed that many viewers can tell the difference between the 720P on Fox and ABC versus the 1080i on CBS, NBC, and the CW. So 4K broadcasts just seem more like a gimmick than anything else. Offering multiple streams in 1080i/P or 720P seems like a better use of the spectrum than offering 4K. I'm envisioning a time when a broadcaster could offer their primary network in 1080P while offering a couple of 720P subchannels.
The human eye can only resolve so much detail, and most of us have eyesight considerably worse than 20-20. I've seen the 4K pictures, and can't tell the difference between it and 1080i or 720p. This would be similar to expanding the audio frequency range on FM from the current 15 kHz upper limit to 22 kHz (CD maximum) or higher. Not cost-effective, and few could tell the difference. Other than maybe streaming, 4K will go the way of 3D -- in the museum of useless technology, right next to the CBS color wheel.
There is a huge difference between HD and 4K. I just don't think cable companies will ever have the bandwidth to show it.The human eye can only resolve so much detail, and most of us have eyesight considerably worse than 20-20. I've seen the 4K pictures, and can't tell the difference between it and 1080i or 720p. This would be similar to expanding the audio frequency range on FM from the current 15 kHz upper limit to 22 kHz (CD maximum) or higher. Not cost-effective, and few could tell the difference. Other than maybe streaming, 4K will go the way of 3D -- in the museum of useless technology, right next to the CBS color wheel.
There is if you have the eyesight to tell the difference. I don't. I'm extremely nearsighted (20:200 -- borderline Mr. Magoo), glasses help of course, and have astigmatism. I really couldn't tell the difference, so I won't be spending my money on a 4K TV.
And I'm not the only one.
In a few years 4k TV's will be the standard, as prices are already dropping. I don't think that will matter with networks ability or need to broadcast in 4K as the distribution of the signals won't be there anytime soon. If ESPN isn't broadcasting in 4K I can't see CBS or NBC doing it.
4K cameras are pretty economical. And they make sense for sports on large fields (football, baseball, soccer), or outdoor events (horse racing, auto racing) because it leaves lots of room for digital zoom in the production truck should something interesting happen.
And if the network is buying 4K equipment, they probably use it for indoor sports like boxing or basketball just because they have it.
To my knowledge most live streaming sports are done with 1080P as the max quality. There may be some exceptions.
NFL replay is in 4K but that is only available to the NFL replay center.
Im only aware of special events in 4K. The Masters, probably the Super Bowl, select Baseball games, and Fifa World Cup.
The increased detail in HDTV is good for hockey because of the speed of the game, and increased visibility of the puck. Baseball and football are pretty static, and basketball goes in spurts. Widescreen helps them, but increased resolution doesn't do much.
For example, when I watch baseball or football on KUTP, which airs Fox sister station KSAZ on 10.2/RF 26 -- the only way I can watch Fox on some TVs in my house -- I'm watching at 480i, but with a wide screen. I don't lose anything from the game, even though minute details are of course blurrier. Hockey would be hard to follow at this resolution, just like it was back in the analog days.
Most Likely I can see Local TV stations promote 4k for their internet broadcasts and not so much for OTA and Cable though. I can see apps like Disney's Hulu, Youtube TV, and Netflix hype up 4k for TV subscriptions though.
There were 4K TVs on Black Friday sales for under $200.00 and the prices will continue to drop further on larger sets, so this isn't another passing fad like 3D. And there is already work on the development of 8K sets. I'll admit I probably won't be able to tell the difference, but if the price is right when I need to buy a new set I'll consider 4K.
Why would any TV station upgrade to 4K until it's readily available on cable and satellite? The viewers won't be there for the most part, just like color TV for its first dozen years, until 1965. 80% of TV households are not cord-cutters, and the cable and satellite infrastructures will have to be upgraded for most of us to take advantage of 4K.
https://www.roku.com/4k-ultra-hd
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-tv/apple-tv-4k
The Point here is that most likely its OTTs and MVPD's that are going market 4k Video and internet TV thats going to be upgraded to 4k over traditional OTA and Cable TV though. Also you have Internet TV hardware thats marketing 4k for now given that its the Christmas season. I don't see Local TV stations doing 4k for now unless their apps get updated to meet that.
- Status