|
Silly Burrito posted:My only choice: Do I replace my Roku 3 in the front with this, or should I leave that one alone since it's not a 4k TV? Almost definitely getting one for the new bedroom 4k TV. Unless you have a 4K TV, don't bother. Not to mention even you had a 4K TV I'd be hard pressed to get this off the bat. 4K streaming sources are currently all equally absolute poo poo when it comes to bitrate, and you're much better off 99% of the time watching a decently ripped 1080p Blu-Ray upscaled. If you want some actual 'wow' to go with your new 4K TV, invest in a TV and player that will play the UHD Blu-Rays coming out next year.
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
tonic posted:Really? I have both the Fire TV (non 4k) and the Roku 3. I much much prefer the Roku 3. It feels much faster to me. The hardware buttons for Hulu/Netflix are awesome whereas the FireTV feels like it takes ages to navigate menus to find the app I want. Also the updated Plex app on Roku is 1000x better than the crap on the FireTV. Finally, I love the headphone port on the remote on the Roku 3. I have a Roku 2 on my main TV (but the new one with the Roku 3 internals) and a FireTV stick on my bedroom TV and I've really enjoyed the fireTV stick more. Moving around netflix seems a ton less laggy on the FireTV stick and I'm tired of having to reboot the Roku before I use netflix to get it to recognize I have 5.1 audio. The SlingTV app (the one for slingbox, not the TV service) is also leagues ahead of the Roku's sling capabilities as it's an actually thick client that doesn't require casting. Roku also just has a ton of low resolution assets (which may be resolved in the upcoming update.) Stuff like the scrub bar in a lot of apps just feels really dated. Roku has a ton more apps, but they really don't feel all that polished. Honestly though, I just bought a Tivo Bolt which does Netflix AND Amazon Instant better than any platform I've seen so far, including Amazon's own FireTV, so I'm not sure how much I'll use a full interface streamer anyways now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Does the Roku do framerate switching in Plex too? The navigating through fields of Amazon's poo poo is annoying but manageable to me. Cutting out one of the main features of my TV is more annoying.
Panty Saluter fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
tonic posted:Finally, I love the headphone port on the remote on the Roku 3. Oh god this. We've got a 2 and the fact that my wife can watch TV while I work in the same room is just goddamned incredible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
tonic posted:Really? I have both the Fire TV (non 4k) and the Roku 3. I much much prefer the Roku 3. It feels much faster to me. The hardware buttons for Hulu/Netflix are awesome whereas the FireTV feels like it takes ages to navigate menus to find the app I want. Also the updated Plex app on Roku is 1000x better than the crap on the FireTV. Finally, I love the headphone port on the remote on the Roku 3. To each his own I guess but I found your comment kind of confusing. You hit the home button and all of your frequently used apps at right at the top on the FireTV. I don't know why you would need to navigate around the menus and even if you did the FireTV is snappy and responsive. You can also Favorite things for even easier access. Heck you can also voice search for things if you fancy that stuff, it works very well. It's not as convenient as a hardware button for sure but its not cumbersome by any means. The updated Plex app is out on the FireTV as well, it just took a bit longer for Plex to port it. The headphone port thing I get though. They're both good devices to own and I like the Roku 3 just by virtue of having NHL GameCenter. I do like the FireTVs ability to run sideloaded apps in addition to the usual streaming stuff though. The Gunslinger fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Roku 4 must be incoming- I just updated the app on my phone and it had a screensaver feature. "Only on Roku 4" Edit- never mind, I guess I missed the announcement. Glass of Milk fucked around with this message at 03:43 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:Unless you have a 4K TV, don't bother. Not to mention even you had a 4K TV I'd be hard pressed to get this off the bat. 4K streaming sources are currently all equally absolute poo poo when it comes to bitrate, and you're much better off 99% of the time watching a decently ripped 1080p Blu-Ray upscaled. If you want some actual 'wow' to go with your new 4K TV, invest in a TV and player that will play the UHD Blu-Rays coming out next year. Is OTA HDTV going to be available in 4K resolution at some point? Or is that not possible because of bandwidth limitations?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
It's possible with mpeg4
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:It's possible with mpeg4 Which will finally be adopted about the time MPEG-16 becomes available 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Is OTA HDTV going to be available in 4K resolution at some point? Or is that not possible because of bandwidth limitations? I don't doubt it will, and the bandwidth problem can be defeated through modern compression, but you're still looking at a timetable in the range of years for any serious adoption. Live sports in 4k, despite the incredible demand for it, may be one of the last to adopt, considering the tech required.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Will Roku4 introduce display sleep or auto-powerdown, finally? My money's on no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Slowhanded posted:I don't doubt it will, and the bandwidth problem can be defeated through modern compression, but you're still looking at a timetable in the range of years for any serious adoption. Live sports in 4k, despite the incredible demand for it, may be one of the last to adopt, considering the tech required. Most sports already film in 4K and have been for a few years - it helps with instant replays when they're played back in slow motion
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Most sports already film in 4K and have been for a few years - it helps with instant replays when they're played back in slow motion Yes, but the technology to render that footage (going from 1080i to 4k is a incredible jump!), composite the incredible number of graphics used, and then broadcast it from a truck to stations around the world is a different beast than dealing with footage they use locally for replay. The NFL, for example, only uses a limited number of 4k Cameras (last time I saw, around 8-10) on the goal lines and sidelines to solely capture replay footage — this is completely separate from all the other cameras, including the primary series used for TV viewing audience that have graphics like the score, stats, and down markers being composited onto them. In fact, most US Sports are probably the worst case scenario, considering that the nature of how baseball, basketball, and particularly football are shot (and are expected to be covered), require an incredible amount of cameras and operators in tandem working effortlessly together. Speaking from beyond the curtain, the NFL specifically has one of the most complex and extensive filming and editing setups known to man. The work they do week-to-week is an absolute marvel of editing, camera technology, and computing power. It dwarfs anything else I've seen, and the switch to 4k is not as simple as switching out cameras for ones with 4k sensors. e: This is all talking about the source as well! Nevermind that your local station can compress all this hard-earned footage! BitesizedNike fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Oct 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
TV isn't even at 1080p yet. I don't think the audience for OTA TV is the same as the audience for 4K, anyway. The format seems destined for Internet streaming and extremely niche physical media, if it ever takes off at all, which is still a big question mark.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:TV isn't even at 1080p yet. I don't think the audience for OTA TV is the same as the audience for 4K, anyway. The format seems destined for Internet streaming and extremely niche physical media, if it ever takes off at all, which is still a big question mark. It's not a question mark. Sony's going to push it. Netflix and Amazon are already pushing it. Prices are already bordering affordable. In five years, it's going to be another pointless bullet point on a $300 TV.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
Looks like Amazon is responding to the Roku 4 announcement and dropped the price of the new FireTV to $79 today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:It's not a question mark. Sony's going to push it. Netflix and Amazon are already pushing it. Prices are already bordering affordable. In five years, it's going to be another pointless bullet point on a $300 TV. Moving OTA to 4k though would/will be a huge undertaking if/when it happens. It would make most OTA tuners obsolete unless more bandwidth was opened up for OTA TV (it wont be) so they could broadcast both mpeg4 and mpeg2
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
Considering how God drat long it took to shift from analog SD broadcast to MPEG2 ATSC I wouldn't buy anything with OTA 4K in mind for at least a decade. TV broadcast formats don't change like home video formats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Is 1080 even the majority of broadcasts yet? Or is upscaled 720 still a big thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:It's not a question mark. Sony's going to push it. Netflix and Amazon are already pushing it. Prices are already bordering affordable. In five years, it's going to be another pointless bullet point on a $300 TV. People were saying this about 3D at one point, too, though. I want 4K to succeed but I don't have high hopes 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Bumming Your Scene posted:Is 1080 even the majority of broadcasts yet? Or is upscaled 720 still a big thing? On-demand programming is about the only thing that is 1080p. DirectTV also has a couple of featured movies a week that it broadcasts in 1080p. Not a single channel has ever broadcast continuously in 1080p.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Bumming Your Scene posted:Is 1080 even the majority of broadcasts yet? Or is upscaled 720 still a big thing? I don't know about the US, but certainly here in Denmark, 720p and 1080i are still the most common formats, simply because they take up less bandwidth. And I'd rather watch high-bitrate 720p than medium-bitrate 1080p. Bass Bottles posted:People were saying this about 3D at one point, too, though. I want it to succeed in order to drive the prices of high-resolution desktop displays down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
4k will show up on TVs simply because the panels will be there and in the right pricepoint. Otherwise UHD will follow on the same path as HD. Wowing demos, reaching for content, content becomes more common but overall quality lowers, finally the norm will be an overcompressed poorly encoded signal just with a shitload of pixels. One of the biggest content hurdles is that nearly every movie post 2001 has been done using a digital intermediate at only 2k resolution (4k happens, but is still relatively uncommon even if it's filmed in 4k.) So, similar to all those TV shows that were edited on video rather than film, any REAL 4k conversion is going to require going through the entire post production process again. That gets very expensive once you start moving into movies with liberal use of CGI. So, movies in the last 10 years are going to be hurt the worse since CGI was used for things like set extensions. It isn't a trivial process to get that stuff to 4k. A good chunk of newer stuff is completely boned because there was a high probability that it was shot 2k digitally. That stuff will never go to 4k as anything other than an upscale. So, there's going to be some awesome 4k stuff but some stuff won't really benefit much to at all. I'd love to see a 70mm film like Blade Runner on a huge 4k screen. However, something like The Avengers is never going to be true 4k since the majority of the live action was shot in ARRIRAW 2.8k (with some 35mm for high speed shots.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
I talked with someone who helped do a 4K restoration of Wizard of Oz a few years ago and asked if the film would ever be restored in a higher resolution. He said no because anything clearer than 4K can't be distinguished by the human eye. But the recent 8k restoration of Lawrence of Arabia that was released in 4K is loving beautiful. I need more of that in my life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I talked with someone who helped do a 4K restoration of Wizard of Oz a few years ago and asked if the film would ever be restored in a higher resolution. He said no because anything clearer than 4K can't be distinguished by the human eye. Well, in many cases even 1080p does that depending on screen size and viewing distance and even the subject matter. Keep in mind that the professionals, the ones that we rely on to make these worlds real to us, have very different views on what's necessary than marketers from TV manufacturers. Many visual effects are rendered below 1080p because motion blur and such makes it pointless to do higher. But yes, in general (and as much as you can make such comparisons between analog and digital), most 35mm film stock shows very little benefit from being scanned above 4k from a detail perspective. 70mm can still show advantages above 4k, but 35mm rapidly has diminishing returns as you approach 4k. 4k SHOULD be all that we ever need in home theater, but you know that won't be the case because TV manufacturers gotta keep that train rolling and not go back to the pre-HD dark days of TV sales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
tonic posted:Finally, I love the headphone port on the remote on the Roku 3. Do you use rechargeables with it? Mine goes through batteries really fast to where I had to switch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:People were saying this about 3D at one point, too, though. 3D's a whole separate thing. The content wasn't there. 3D conversion (rightfully) got panned. And the novelty of paying a few dollars extra to see 3D on a giant screen doesn't translate to wanting to wear glasses at home. 4K's a resolution bump. Even if people don't care about it, it's going to become the standard for TVs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
king of the bongo posted:Do you use rechargeables with it? Mine goes through batteries really fast to where I had to switch. Yeah, Sanyo Eneloop batteries. I use them for all my remotes/mice/keyboards, I haven't noticed the Roku 3 remote going through batteries especially fast, though we only use the headphone port for maybe ~5 hours/week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Bumming Your Scene posted:Is 1080 even the majority of broadcasts yet? Or is upscaled 720 still a big thing? In countries that have been to the moon, it basically comes down to the network choosing either 1080i or 720p. Some go with 720p instead of 1080i for reasons of sports, since they can have a true 60 fps progressive picture without having to devote their entire signal to pushing 1080p60 (a lot of local broadcasters run OTA subchannels). Most modern TVs have a good enough deinterlacer that 1080i channels showing sports don't suffer much at all, though. Most scripted content runs at 24 fps, and you aren't really going to see a difference between 720p and 1080i despite the difference in resolution just because a lot of broadcasters don't give a 1080i signal the bitrate to really shine, and that's not even accounting for the horseshit compression cable companies subject those feeds to as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Yup, 1080i60 and 1080p30 should be equal in picture quality assuming a good deinterlacer and a correctly constructed signal. Your can, at least on paper, perfectly reconstruct a 1080p30 signal from 1080i60. Since most scripted content is 24fps, there's little incentive to move to 1080p and 1080i should offer superior picture quality than 720p (when higher framerate doesn't matter.) And if you have a really good tv, the motion engine should be able to go further and deconstruct the 1080p30 3:2 cadence into a native 24fps signal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:3D's a whole separate thing. The content wasn't there. 3D conversion (rightfully) got panned. And the novelty of paying a few dollars extra to see 3D on a giant screen doesn't translate to wanting to wear glasses at home. I've never seen a 3D movie at the theater, but I have a friend who got a 55" 3D TV. I wasn't really impressed. It was like watching a big rear end View Master.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:I've never seen a 3D movie at the theater, but I have a friend who got a 55" 3D TV. I wasn't really impressed. It was like watching a big rear end View Master. Depends on the TV, I guess. I have a 65" Vizio 3D and if it's not a lovely 3D program it looks pretty good. Avatar looked amazing to me on it but I'm not a videophile so I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can rip it apart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Mister Kingdom posted:I've never seen a 3D movie at the theater, but I have a friend who got a 55" 3D TV. I wasn't really impressed. It was like watching a big rear end View Master. I saw Coraline 3D in theaters and it was pretty amazing. The 3D effect was more like a shoebox diorama and it ramped up the special effects as the story went on. I can't imagine it being as good in 2D or on a screen that doesn't fill your line of sight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Holding out for a 4D TV + couch combo so I can watch my local PBS affiliate OTA
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
All this technical chat reminded me. Recently Comcast seems to have changed something. For many years we had an HDTV set to the "dot by dot" TV setting so that all SD content would display in 4:3 (so there were always black bars on both sides). But recently all the SD channels are coming out stretched so that a 2.35:1 movie on an SD channel is stretched to the far ends of the TV and looks closer to something like 2.65:1. Obviously the picture is stretched too. And of course the other three TV settings are full screen, zoom and smooth stretch and all distort the picture further. What's going on here? Zogo fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
What's the best way for a friend of mine to get all the NFL games while staying in Guam for some contracting? I see multiple (legitimate pay) options out there, but I'm not sure which one is best. He's trying to watch every game live, not just Sunday a la Sunday Ticket, etc. He's tech savvy enough to use a VPN, so using something that's outside of the 'local' realm wouldn't be an issue. EconOutlines fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Oct 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
EconOutlines posted:What's the best way for a friend of mine to get all the NFL games while staying in Guam for some contracting? I see multiple (legitimate pay) options out there, but I'm not sure which one is best. He's trying to watch every game live, not just Sunday a la Sunday Ticket, etc. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3655798 NFL Gamepass is what he wants. Check out the thread in TFF about it and all the other options.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Zogo posted:All this technical chat reminded me. Check to see if there are resolution/aspect options in the cable box. Something may have gotten changed with a box software update. Otherwise Comcast or the channel are stretching all content so they won't have to listen to people grousing about how "thuh picksher dont take up muh whole teevee!!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Panty Saluter posted:Check to see if there are resolution/aspect options in the cable box. Something may have gotten changed with a box software update. Otherwise Comcast or the channel are stretching all content so they won't have to listen to people grousing about how "thuh picksher dont take up muh whole teevee!!" I checked all the settings (everything I knew how to at least) and couldn't find anything pertaining to aspect ratio. I think there are some special controller commands that technicians use that may allow more configuration. I'll have to research this. I think you're right that it's some kind of Comcast HD box setting/firmware update that messed with it because the channels do appear fine when using an SD box and an SDTV (and the setting was fine for like five years). The instruction manual is out of date as when I push the buttons to configure the box like I want it doesn't even look anything like the actual menu. This wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for the fact that there are still a lot of SD only channels. I suppose I might *try* to call Comcast tech support but usually it's someone somewhere in Asia that won't know what I'm talking about and might mess with my account settings (this has happened two or three times in the past). Calling tech support is like playing Russian roulette with your account (I'm not being facetious at all).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 06:34 |
|
|
When I had Comcast you had to restart the box holding mute or something to access the secret menu. Google the model of your box for directions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2015 13:30
|
|
