Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

CBS will air the Super Bowl in 4K (but there's a catch)


PanthersATL
 Share

Recommended Posts

CBS will be airing the Super Bowl in 4K, but only via dedicated 4K cable channels.

It will not be available in 4K anywhere else -- including the CBS app, the Nickelodeon broadcast, or any local channel (either via antenna or otherwise).

The Paramount+ streaming service will also not be carrying the game in 4K, but will be in 1080p there.

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

It's always interesting watching institutions fail. Cable TV is very on obviously going the way of the dodo but that doesn't mean it's not gonna go away without a fight to squeeze every last dime they can out of the institution's dying gasps.

It could be that CBS doesn't have the streaming infrastructure setup to handle a super bowl-sized audience on the 4K transcoding/distribution backend. 

It's likely a CBS decision rather than a cable company demand

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, PanthersATL said:

It could be that CBS doesn't have the streaming infrastructure setup to handle a super bowl-sized audience on the 4K transcoding/distribution backend. 

It's likely a CBS decision rather than a cable company demand

That's what I think too.  I don't disagree that Cable Companies are good ole capitalistic institutions that strive for profit over all (and need to be reigned in), but there are some SIGNIFIGANT challenges to streaming the volume of data to the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always been in 720p because many broadcasting companies don't want to pay to upgrade to 1080p. I've actually never seen a sporting event in 4k, but I've heard of Japan broadcasting in 8k. I've never seen anything in 8k but there are 8k tvs on the market. 

I have a 65" 4k OLED CX10 and I watch 4k HDR movies on a regular basis as I have a 4k blu-ray collection, so I'll be interested to see what football looks like in 4k. Hell I'll be interested to see it in full HD as it's always been 720p, or 1080i which is lame.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4K on a small tv is pointless. On a large tv, say 65", you need to be about 6ft or closer to really take in the increase in resolution. The bigger the tv the better when it comes to 4k. Also, 4k that is broadcasted, say over a streaming service, will not look as good as a physical media source due to compression. Streaming 4k is second rate which is why I have a physical media collection.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, pantherj said:

It's always been in 720p because many broadcasting companies don't want to pay to upgrade to 1080p. I've actually never seen a sporting event in 4k, but I've heard of Japan broadcasting in 8k. I've never seen anything in 8k but there are 8k tvs on the market. 

I have a 65" 4k OLED CX10 and I watch 4k HDR movies on a regular basis as I have a 4k blu-ray collection, so I'll be interested to see what football looks like in 4k. Hell I'll be interested to see it in full HD as it's always been 720p, or 1080i which is lame.

 

All 4K football broadcasts are upscaled from 1080p. Lots of systems -- like the slo-mo stuff -- are limited to 1080p on the backend

Nobody is filming NFL in native 4k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PanthersATL said:

All 4K football broadcasts are upscaled from 1080p. Lots of systems -- like the slo-mo stuff -- are limited to 1080p on the backend

Nobody is filming NFL in native 4k

For the longest time it was only 720p so they must have moved up to 1080p in the last couple of years.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, pantherj said:

It's always been in 720p because many broadcasting companies don't want to pay to upgrade to 1080p. I've actually never seen a sporting event in 4k, but I've heard of Japan broadcasting in 8k. I've never seen anything in 8k but there are 8k tvs on the market. 

I have a 65" 4k OLED CX10 and I watch 4k HDR movies on a regular basis as I have a 4k blu-ray collection, so I'll be interested to see what football looks like in 4k. Hell I'll be interested to see it in full HD as it's always been 720p, or 1080i which is lame.

 

8k looks freakin' amazing when you see it live.

but we're a ways off from getting anything close to that on this side of the world. We're having trouble getting to 4k in general.

I can see 8k video boards in stadiums for locally-produced stuff, but the replay feeds won't be at that quality for a while

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PanthersATL said:

8k looks freakin' amazing when you see it live.

but we're a ways off from getting anything close to that on this side of the world. We're having trouble getting to 4k in general.

I can see 8k video boards in stadiums for locally-produced stuff, but the replay feeds won't be at that quality for a while

Yeah I've never seen anything over native 4k, but in the coming years 8k blu-ray discs will be available. Older movies will have 6.5k resolution, and some newer movies will have 8k resolution. I doubt I'll eve see 8k streaming sports unless I watch a Japanese broadcast as they can manage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jackie Lee said:

I believe the Super Bowl should be watched live on regular cable or rabbit ears. Who wants a multiple second delay just so they can view in 4k which makes things look unnatural anyways. Save it for the replay

I wouldn't know if I wanted it or not as I've never seen football in 4k.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • A lot of people have been slobbing all over this last draft but I hate the way that Fitterer/Morgan have built this offense since drafting Bryce. Anyone with eyes knew our IOL was crap but we didn't invest there and instead took project receivers and an injured RB. If you want a lesson in how build for your QB wrong, IMO, this was it. Draft him, protect him, THEN get him weapons. Its pretty much a rule, draft interior linemen, pay tackles. We're paying everyone. We had the opportunity to draft a center instead of Brooks, or perhaps instead of trading up for XL, trade back and take 2 guards/center. We could have paid Lewis and still drafted 2, but Hunt at 100m was just an overpay. And it's not like the guys many of us were begging us to draft were long shots. They're solid starters from day 1. Injuries happen. That's why all your starters can't be high value players. You need rookie contracts mixed in to be able to absorb those inevitable losses on the line. An offensive line playing an entire season together is an abnormality.  Factor into that also paying Moton 44m this offseason with a huge signing bonus when we didnt need to do right now to do him a "solid".  Now we have to sign Icky and possibly Bryce and it's a mess with more money tied up in the offense, inevitable cuts and dead cap coming. That's not even factoring in shifting Corbett to C last year after major injury to start at a position he's never played for an NFL season. It's all stuff that was foreseeable and pretty easily avoided.  The $$ and picks we've spent trying to surround Bryce outside of Tmac (Mitchell and Horn are TBD) have been used inefficiently IMO. Smarter drafting and FA with the line could have let us get more reliable weapons than XL and Sanders in FA. It might not be popular opinion, but I'll take a Bersin with hands that can get 6-8 85% of the time vs a big play XL with greasy fingers.  The part about hitting guys in stride was more about placement, which Bryce has struggled with. Obviously not every route is run to be hit in stride, but they do need to have the ball placed well to give the receivers a chance to do something after the catch. I just used Hill as an example because he's the biggest YAC threat I could think of over the past 5 years.   Receivers can feast on dink and dunk if it's schemed right. But to make it work, that vertical threat has to be there, if not the deep pass then the high speed routes that can spring someone for the huge YAC to keep the safeties from cheating into that 20 yard box all game.  I hope DC and Bryce can keep up what they did in the last game and it isnt just an Atlanta thing. But no matter what, I really want to see some better long term strategy coming from the FO. 
    • Eh. Don't speak it into existence lol. We've got enough on our plate just trying to overcome the bad juju of what has been our historically bad perfomances more often than not in primetime over the course of 30 years. We're overdue for a statement primetime game!
    • Passing chart had 3 over 20 I think. The Legette TD and another completion and an incompletion. All over 20 yards.  An incompletion at 19 or maybe 20 yards. So you could technically probably say 4 throws 20 or more.     That seems high to me compared to the norm. 45 throws and 10 YPA are both way high.   
×
×
  • Create New...