SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A couple of weeks ago in news of someone coming out with 8K resolution televisions, I left a comment to the effect that I have a 4K TV, but there's no 4K content, so an 8K TV was a bit silly. Someone said they thought Netflix had a couple of 4K offerings.
I recently ran across news that I'll have 4K content in the nebulous future. The FCC [US Federal Communications Commission] is taking its first steps toward over the air 4K broadcasts. but it appears that it may be a while before I see it.
There's more about it here at CNet. But all three articles raise questions that aren't answered, primarily, what about bandwidth? It seems to me that without extremely tight lossy compression, it would take four times the bandwidth of 1080p. Will quality be much better than 1080p after they compress the signal?
How will they get around that? Will I lose some side channels? What do you folks have to say?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday February 06 2017, @03:46PM
I get between 12 and 18 channels depending on the weather. Why would I possibly need cable? That's more channels than cable had when it came out in the '70s. Cable is a complete waste of money unless you live where radio waves have a hard time reaching.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by WillR on Monday February 06 2017, @04:30PM
Judging by the amount of paper TWC wastes junk-mailing me about how amazingly great their $150/month TV service is, that seems to really upset them.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday February 06 2017, @09:06PM
Same here, I haven't had cable since TV went digital.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday February 06 2017, @07:38PM
Cable is a complete waste of money.
FTFY.