Are content providers ever going to get ahead of the game

[matjk]

It seems that most content available is always years behind the tech everyone has in their houses, it’s taken till only recently that HD is the norm, I’ve had a UHD tv for 3 years, watched a few Youtube and Netflix UHD programs but their ain’t much , now they are advertising 8k , at this rate UHD will be common in another 6 years and buy then TVs will be 4D holographic with smellyvision but still there won’t be content, why are the likes of the BBC and Sky so far behind the curve ?

[gizlaroc]

I guess they don't want to invest hundred of millions until they know firstly the tech is not going to get dropped, ie 3D, and secondly there are enough people out there with the kit to want to pay for the service.

[matjk]

Can you even buy a non 4K tv still ? Plenty of people have them , I see your point but the tv manufactures keep pushing the boundaries of a tech and the content providers trail at a snails pace

[peterperkins]

What's the resolution of the human eye at the average tv viewing distance?

No point having more pixels than that..

A genuine holographic HD image/projection, I can view from 360 degrees now you might be talking....

[Tony1963]

You might want to read up for yourself about the resolution of the human eye. It's not a straightforward answer.

[gizlaroc]

matjk said:

Can you even buy a non 4K tv still ? Plenty of people have them , I see your point but the tv manufactures keep pushing the boundaries of a tech and the content providers trail at a snails pace

Which HDR format will win the battle to be the industry standard?

[boyse7en]

Because producing and buying a 4k or 8k TV is a cheap. Buying a whole new studio of UHD cameras is going to be thumpingly expensive and, at the moment, there is no guarantee that UHD won't be dead in the water in a few year's time. Which bandwagon do you jump on first with your £million investment?

[anonymous-user]

I found a BBC R&D survey of UK TV viewing conditions, that they carried out three years ago - it states 'the results of the survey are of particular interest for determining the technical parameters of future television services'.
It concludes that, based on current screen size and viewing distance, 10% of of those surveyed could benefit from a resolution beyond HD. When they asked for people's 'ideal' screen size (bearing in mind the viewing distance would be unlikely to change), they said that 20% could benefit from a resolution beyond HD.
I don't have a 4K TV, and haven't got any opinion on the arguments made that depending on screen size and viewing distance, a 4K image isn't automatically 'better', but it's not that surprising that based on the results of the survey (and a limited budget), 4K broadcasts aren't the norm, from the BBC at least.

[Oakey]

There's also the question of how you deliver the content.

[hornmeister]

Not only method of content delivery but also storage & available bandwidth.

Sky HD was stunning when it was first launched. It's now so compressed to fit multiple channels in that it's little better than an uncompressed SD signal. I;d say SD DVD rivals it now

I've recently upgraded to Sky Q UHD and I do notice the difference. 60" TV 3-4 meters away, but I'd also say that the upgrade to HDR is as big a step as HD - UHD. Can't wait for my first UHD F1 race this weekend.

Until everyone is able to get decent internet speeds I can't see really see UHD becoming mainstream.