>> 4K is the term used for UHD displays that can display...

[mdk]

>> 4K is the term used for UHD displays that can display images with a resolution between 3840 by 2160 pixels up to 4096 by 3112 pixels.

This is what I like about the Internet -- if you don't like some information that you find on one web-page, you can find conflicting information on a different web-page.

I think that UHD displays have a recommended feed of 3840, for optimal picture. Of course, when the feed is higher than 3840, the UHD display will "down-scale" to display 3840, unlike a 4K display, that does not need to down-scale a 4096 feed.

>> Wow, ain't nobody got no time for this conversation!

??? Double-negatives are complicated to understand.

[dalehuhtala]

Yeah, that's the point.

Anyway, this is completely off topic and is not related to my original post. My point is this is not an opportunity to try and impress the community with your detailed knowledge of resolutions...it was to see if everybody has poor picture quality or not - and decide if there's anything I can do about it.

[g-idk]

@mdk , technically you are correct, but a big caveat is that you can not buy a true 4k native resolution television in the commercial market, all the televisions are called 4k even though they are 3840 native resolution.  

What is the difference between 4K and Ultra HD?

True 4K refers to a resolution of 4096 x 2160, which is used by digital cinema projectors. UHD in the consumer world refers to a resolution of 3840 x 2160, which is the resolution you get on TVs.

So technically, 4K is the wrong term, but the two are pretty much interchangeable.  Sorry @dalehuhtala for posting another off topic, just needed to put my 2 cents in. I was bored.  

[rstra]

@g-idk  Correct. True 4K is found in digital cinema projectors and UHD is for the consumer market. 

To stay on topic, I seriously doubt that the issue that @dalehuhtala is experiencing has anything to do with his TVs. 

[dalehuhtala]

That is correct. The industry has no issues with 4K resolutions and standards at this point, so this discussion has nothing to do with anything I've been experiencing.

I have confirmed several times all my configurations are correct and optimal. 

Interestingly, I went to a friend's house to see what his picture quality was like as a comparison. He lives in another city, has even faster internet service (750 vs my 500), uses everything from Shaw in stock mode, TV box sits right beside the Ignite router - and his picture quality is just as bad as mine. Exactly the same.

So...the Ignite TV/Bluecurve/whatever you want to call it is simply a low-quality service. These are NOT proper HD level quality videos and everybody just seems to have accepted it for some reason. Clearly, Rogers and Shaw are providing the lowest bandwidth service they can possibly get away with and raking in the profit. Compare a movie on TV to one on Netflix some day and look at the shocking difference in quality. If you were paying for 4K Netflix streaming for $25/month and then the quality suddenly slipped to what Ignite TV offers, you would be angry! When you consider that this service (for me at least) costs almost $200/month, people should be incensed! I know I am. But nobody seems to be talking about it - they just accept it and roll over.

I have no choice but to cancel my services and find alternatives to "cable" since the quality is so terrible. Here in Canada, there is no real competition so we are the sheep in this situation.

Make complaints if you care...

[rstra]

@dalehuhtala  Weird. Mine is as clear as anything else: Netflix, Prime, Disney+ and my MILs OptikTV, but again, I have cable connected boxes. Too bad Rogers wouldn’t give you that equipment to try. 

[Cbncanada]

The new TV boxes are bas for image quality. We still have are old boxes as well as the new ones. When we switch back and forth the difference is amazing. The old boxes are far superior.

[rstra]

@Cbncanada interesting that you were allowed to keep Ignite and older boxes together on your account.