Can Tata Sky 4K be viewed on 1080p TV and HDMI 1.4 cable?

[jdrocks]

Set top box recieves modulated H.265 signals and demodulates it. If your Tv hardware doesnt support H.265 im sorry you cannot play it. I hve given the cnet article link. They asked you to look for H.265 when you buy 4K tvs. Please read the article

Yes they ask you to look for H.265 to play multiple content like Internet streams, direct connected media devices, etc. HDMI 1.4 or 2.0 will carry only uncompressed video and will not require the HEVC decoder on the TV. H.265 by definition is a compression standard, which the STB will decode.

 

[sagar.patnaik]

Yes they ask you to look for H.265 to play multiple content like Internet streams, direct connected media devices, etc. HDMI 1.4 or 2.0 will carry only uncompressed video and will not require the HEVC decoder on the TV. H.265 by definition is a compression standard, which the STB will decode.

thats not mentioned that you need H.265 just for internet streaming and playing USB. If you already have a hardware supporting H.265 in tv why would anyone put it in an STB increasing the cost.

 

[jdrocks]

thats not mentioned that you need H.265 just for internet streaming and playing USB. If you already have a hardware supporting H.265 in tv why would anyone put it in an STB increasing the cost.

Because HDMI cannot carry H.265 encoded compressed signal. TS is going to use Technicolor STB. Check the below link. The STB has HEVC decoder built in.

Premium Ultra HD and Multi-Screen Services

 

[sanjay0864]

Decoding part of STB is to just decrypt the signal. They dont convert the signals so your tv should support H.265 which the HDtv doesnt

I'm sorry to say, but not only are you wrong, but worse, you are stating incorrect information as fact.

The H.265 codec, or for that matter any other video compression codec, is decoded in the set top box, which further only outputs an uncompressed digital video signal. In fact, HDMI can only carry 'uncompressed' video and cannot carry compressed video codecs. However, it can carry both uncompressed PCM 8 channel audio and compressed audio codecs such as DTS & Dolby Digital.

Therefore as long as there is an option in the set top box to output a 1080p/1080i signal, which it most likely should have, there should not be a problem in viewing the signal on a 1080p HDTV using a HDMI 1.4 cable.

PS: The vast majority of UHD TVs sold so far, do not even have H.265 decoders and or HDMI 2.0 connectors. So if your contention were correct, then the majority of the existing UHD TVs that don't have HDMI 2.0 and or H.265 decoders, would not work with the TataSky UHD set-top box.

If you follow the news then you would know that the UHD standards were approved in November 2014. The tvs sold in 2014 had HDMI 2.0 but still do not comply with all the standards. Tvs sold before 2014 do not have HDMI 2.0 or support H.265 codecs. Approx 1,000 UHD tvs were sold in 2013 in India. If I go by your view then Tv is just a monitor which is not. Tv needs to support H.265 to run UHD. If tv did not require codecs then all would have bought PC monitors which are really cheap Rs 26,000 for a 4K Monitor

I hate to say this, but your knowledge and or understanding of audio/video technologies is not only quite limited but is also quite wrong. As a matter of fact, a digital TV is nothing but a monitor. That is if you don't take into account the built in TV tuner that the majority of us no longer use. Since PC monitors too now come with built in audio, even that difference is no longer there. You can in fact buy a UHD PC monitor and use that with the set top box to view a UHD video signal. That is if you are willing to live with the rather small screen size and relatively crappy picture quality that you would get from a ₹26000 monitor.

PS: I am quite sure there are no 4K monitors available for ₹26000. You must be confusing 4k (4096x2160) with UHD (3840x2160).

 

[sagar.patnaik]

I'm sorry to say, but your knowledge and or understanding of audio/video technologies is not only quite limited but is also quite wrong. As a matter of fact, a digital TV is nothing but a monitor. That is if you don't take into account the built in TV tuner that the majority of us no longer use. Since PC monitors too now come with built in audio, even that difference is no longer there. You can in fact buy a UHD PC monitor and use that with the set top box to view a UHD video signal. That is if you are willing to live with the rather small screen size and relatively crappy picture quality that you would get from a ₹26000 monitor.

PS: I am quite sure there are no 4K monitors available for ₹26000. You must be confusing 4k (4096x2160) with UHD (3840x2160).

Iam not at all confused, dont enter into technicalities of resoutions. Hardly any difference. I am quite aware of it. The monitor I am talking is a 27 inch monitor. Google it you ll find loads of 4K high quality monitors. Just a simple question if there is already a decoder in television why will they add another one in set top box. They could easily cut that and reduce the price by few bucks.

 

[sanjay0864]

I never said that you need HDMI 2.0 now. Television broadcasting happens at 60 fps not 30 fps. Still HDMI 1.4 is sufficient coz we will be broadcasting in 2160i not p.

Yes, SD & HD TV broadcasts are 50/60 fps but almost all film sourced DVDs & Blu-rays are at 24fps.

Codec support is needed in television to watch channels.

Once again, that is totally incorrect. 'Codec' support is NOT needed in the TV to watch a signal input thru HDMI. 'Codec' support is only needed in the TV to watch streaming video directly on the TV and or signals received via the TV tuner.

The video signals will be recieved in H.265.

WRONG. The video signal will not be received in H.265. The set top box will output a decoded, uncompressed signal. In fact HDMI CANNOT carry a video codec signal.

You know every signal has a codec.

NOPE I know no such thing. That is because not all signals have a codec. A codec is an algorithm for compressing a signal. An uncompressed signal does not, I repeat, DOES NOT have a codec.

 

[sanjay0864]

This is for Sanjay

Start looking out for HEVC (or H.265) as a line item on TVs, Blu-ray players and other media players in the future. Nearly all major-brand 2014 4K TVs include the necessary hardware decoder, although 2013 4K TVs do not. There will also be more streamers like the Sony FMP-X10 that include the requisite hardware. This paragraph is taken from a renowned tech website CNET.

What is HEVC? High Efficiency Video Coding, H.265, and 4K compression explained - CNET

I am at a total loss to understand why you are so adamant to prove something that is totally incorrect. What you state here is just gobbledygook as far as the discussion at hand is concerned. Everything you have stated is irrelevant, as is the link that you have provided, for it does not in any way support your contention that the TV/Monitor requires a decoder to view a signal input via HDMI.

 

[sanjay0864]

Set top box recieves modulated H.265 signals and demodulates it. If your Tv hardware doesnt support H.265 im sorry you cannot play it. I hve given the cnet article link. They asked you to look for H.265 when you buy 4K tvs. Please read the article

Yes, they do suggest, and quite rightly so, that one must look for H.265 support in any UHD TV one buys. But that is for direct streaming and over the air broadcast signals. For viewing a signal input via HDMI, no codec support, H.265 or otherwise, is required. I have read the article as suggested by you, not that I needed to, but it provides no clue to support your contention. I fail to understand how you are comprehending from it what is not there.

 

[sanjay0864]

Iam not at all confused, dont enter into technicalities of resoutions. Hardly any difference.

Sorry to say, but yes, you are confused. As for your statement, "don't enter into technicalities", really? You want to have a technical discussion, without getting technical. How is that even possible? It's like discussing ailments without getting into medicine. There is most certainly a difference between 4k (4096x2160) & UHD (3840x2160) monitors. The very fact that you would suggest that the difference does not matter, clearly indicates how little you know and understand technology.

The monitor I am talking is a 27 inch monitor. Google it you ll find loads of 4K high quality monitors.

First of all a 27" monitor is ridiculously small to be used as a TV, which would mean sitting at least 8-10 feet from it. Especially if you wish to see the advantages of UHD resolution. In fact 27" is too small even to see the benefit of HD from that distance. Secondly, you are most likely looking at US prices that are not relevant to India. In any case, believe you me, no 27" 4K monitor currently sold for ₹27000 which would be equivalent to around a US $300 monitor, will have very good quality.

Just a simple question if there is already a decoder in television why will they add another one in set top box. They could easily cut that and reduce the price by few bucks.

There are at least three good reasons:
1. First & foremost for the reason that HDMI is not designed to carry video codecs and can only carry uncompressed video signals. In fact which is why HDCP is a requirement for HDMI for copy protected software.
2. Because all TVs don't have all codecs. In this case more specifically H.265
3. The DTH company would like the control of which codec to use to be with them rather than with TV companies.

Think about it. Don't flat panel TVs, from before MPEG 4 existed, work fine with MPEG 4 set top boxes. This itself should rest the argument. In fact, almost all older HD TVs, don't even have any built in codec decoder. How do you think they have been displaying MPEG2 & MPEG4 video until now? Video codec decoding ability came to TVs only after USB ports appeared on them and later with Smart TVs that incorporated direct internet and or DLNA streaming.

 

[sagar.patnaik]

Sorry to say, but yes, you are confused. As for your statement, "don't enter into technicalities", really? You want to have a technical discussion, without getting technical. How is that even possible? It's like discussing ailments without getting into medicine. There is most certainly a difference between 4k (4096x2160) & UHD (3840x2160) monitors. The very fact that you would suggest that the difference does not matter, clearly indicates how little you know and understand technology.

First of all a 27" monitor is ridiculously small to be used as a TV, which would mean sitting at least 8-10 feet from it. Especially if you wish to see the advantages of UHD resolution. In fact 27" is too small even to see the benefit of HD from that distance. Secondly, you are most likely looking at US prices that are not relevant to India. In any case, believe you me, no 27" 4K monitor currently sold for ₹27000 which would be equivalent to around a US $300 monitor, will have very good quality.


There are at least three good reasons:
1. First & foremost for the reason that HDMI is not designed to carry video codecs and can only carry uncompressed video signals. In fact which is why HDCP is a requirement for HDMI for copy protected software.
2. Because all TVs don't have all codecs. In this case more specifically H.265
3. The DTH company would like the control of which codec to use to be with them rather than with TV companies.

Think about it. Don't flat panel TVs from before MPEG 4 existed, work fine with MPEG 4 set top boxes. This itself should rest the argument. In fact, almost all older HD TVs, don't even have any built in codec decoder. How do you think they have been displaying MPEG2 & MPEG4 video until now? Video codec decoding ability came to TVs only after USP ports appeared on them and later with Smart TVs that incorporated direct internet and or DLNA streaming.

No idea about that but Mpeg 4 was present since late 90's. I guess since 1997 im not quite sure.