• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • TV and Home Entertainment Technology
4K standard agreed....
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
AB500
09-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“"Well I'm afraid this is where there is a lot of rubbish floating about in my opinion. There are those who say that the eye can't resolve the resolution so you can't see the difference. There are those who say you need huge screens to notice it.

What I say is simple, look on Youtube for 8K demo videos and if you find the good ones, you realise that even when viewing it on a pc monitor at lower resolution and it's being filmed from a close distance, you CAN see a huge difference in sharpness,. detail and colour range (the latter of which especially results in a 3D effect)".”

The problem there being it looks better "even when viewing it on a pc monitor at lower resolution" due to it being a tech demo with very high bitrates to prove a point. Back in the real world, we live in a country where not only has HD been watered down from 1920x1080 @ 15-18MB/s to 1440x1080 @ 6-7MB/s, but they can't even broadcast 720x576 @ 3-4MB/s SD without nerfing it to 544x576 @ 1.5MB/s bitrates (even before HD came along...) Anyone who thinks 4k is going to bring some magic panacea of high-bitrate 4-8k broadcasting is ludicrously naive given the "race to the bottom" history of SD/HD TV, DAB, etc, bitrate nerfing and general "pile it high, sell it cheap" broadcaster attitude in the UK (which sadly doesn't look to be changing anytime soon...)

My prediction : What's going to happen to any 4K UK channel is the same that's happened to literally every single digital SD & HD channel on every single platform (cable, DVB-T, DVB-S, DAB, etc) - it'll be introduced at a high bitrate, which will then be promptly reduced down by 66-75% 6-12 months later to squeeze in more channels. End result = it'll end up looking no better than 1080p at its earlier high bitrates due to over-compression...

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“"As for SD, native SD needs removing from satellite in favour of 4K and HD native broadcasting with SD via a downscale"”

Nowhere near enough bandwidth for 100% HD even without 4k. SD isn't going to "die naturally" at all anytime soon (neither is DVD) no matter how much a tiny number of enthusiasts want it to hype The Next Big Thing That Needs Selling After 3D Ran Out Of Steam (tm). Broadcasters don't particularly want 4k unless they can charge an arm and a leg for premium subscriptions due to obviously much higher bandwidth costs (a finite resource). Even today only half of Sky subscribers care about the HD pack ("family bundle") over the "variety bundle" for resolution alone and the price reduction of that from £10 to £5 to slow the formerly "HD pack" high churn proves people aren't willing to pay very much on average. And the difference between SD and HD on most sets is far greater than HD & 4k to the average person.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“"There are plenty of videos on Youtube where you can see a difference between 4k / 8K and HD even when viewing in HD resolution and from 10 or more feet. One example video to start you off is here: The 3D effect and depth is amazing and sharpness from only a couple of feet of viewing distance, similarly so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

Watch it at as high a resolution as you can. Ultimately, I've never seen HD look that detailed or that good.”

Again the problem is the 1080p version of that clip is a low 4MB/s with very clear bandwidth starvation causing eg, ringing artifacts around her outstretched hand at 5s and a general lack of definition (macroblocks on the wooden stand, lack of definition on her face not due to res but bitrate). Most Blu-Ray's look far better than that like for like due to 4-5x the bitrate. Even the 4k version downscaled to 1080p doesn't look that spectacular vs the average Blu-Ray due to Youtube compression. Certainly nothing I'd pay a premium for (and I'm as geeky as they come).

A lot of placebo out there at the moment & it's a natural contradiction - sit too close to a large screen and you notice the compression. Sit further away and the resolution difference becomes extremely minimal. About the only thing you can do a serious "like for like" with is uncompressed gaming footage on a 4K gaming PC where half the detail isn't smudged out by high Youtube compression, and even then half of today's "next gen" console gamers can't tell 720p vs 900p vs 1080p on an average sized 30-46" 1080p TV from 8-10ft away...

I'm not bashing 4k, but I do think a lot of enthusiasts don't see that a lot of average people with average sized TV sets sitting at normal 8-10ft view distances see the manufactured hype more like the video equivalent of DVD-Audio / SACD vs CD than "Blu-Ray vs DVD reloaded"...
grahamlthompson
09-07-2014
Originally Posted by AB500:
“. Back in the real world, we live in a country where not only has HD been watered down from 1920x1080 @ 15-18MB/s to 1440x1080 @ 6-7MB/s, "...”

HD broadcasting was for years anamorphic HD (1440 x 1080), the BBC HD satellite tests was never 1920 x 1080. Neither was BBC-HD, the change to full HD is relatively recent.

All Freeview-HD and all HD on satellite is now 1920 x 1080. So this information is completely the wrong way around.
Nigel Goodwin
09-07-2014
Originally Posted by grahamlthompson:
“HD broadcasting was for years anamorphic HD (1440 x 1080), the BBC HD satellite tests was never 1920 x 1080. Neither was BBC-HD, the change to full HD is relatively recent.

All Freeview-HD and all HD on satellite is now 1920 x 1080. So this information is completely the wrong way around.”

Doesn't really matter - the crippling of bit-rates mean that it's no where near as good as it used to be, way back pre-Freeview HD when it was only 1440
d'@ve
09-07-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“Doesn't really matter - the crippling of bit-rates mean that it's no where near as good as it used to be, way back pre-Freeview HD when it was only 1440 ”

A typical BBC studio-based documentary in HD these days averages under 5 Mbps, using VBR of course. 'Where is Flight MH 370?' recently was 4.1Mbps average video bitrate, VBR.

Yes the VBR stops movement pixellation usually, but it loses much of that original overall 'wow!' factor that was originally noticeable to the minority who care about that. UHD will undoubtedly go the same way.
White-Knight
09-07-2014
Originally Posted by AB500:
“Nowhere near enough bandwidth for 100% HD even without 4k.”

Can you back that up as I understand the new satellite at 28.2e has space for hundreds of HD channels.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“SD isn't going to "die naturally" at all anytime soon”

I agree and that and the fact that space is needed for new formats means that it's going to have to be killed artificially, at least in terms of native broadcasting. SD itself will probably be around along time. It just won't be broadcast but downscaled from the newer formats via set top boxes.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Broadcasters don't particularly want 4k unless they can charge an arm and a leg for premium subscriptions due to obviously much higher bandwidth costs (a finite resource). Even today only half of Sky subscribers care about the HD pack ("family bundle") over the "variety bundle" for resolution alone and the price reduction of that from £10 to £5 to slow the formerly "HD pack" high churn proves people aren't willing to pay very much on average.”

I very much imagine that on Sky once the number of 4K channels gathers pace, that HD will increasingly become free and 4K will become the new subscription package, especially if native SD broadcasting gets switched off.

As for all broadcasters wanting to charge a premium, the BBC will be making 4K for free as it's what they do.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“And the difference between SD and HD on most sets is far greater than HD & 4k to the average person.”

Another unsubstantiated statement. What evidence do you have to back this up? Almost everyone who's reported on 4K from Trade Shows and whose reports I've read have been blown away by the difference between 4K and HD, whereas there are quite a few people who say they can't see the difference between SD and HD - not something I agree with, but still, some people report it.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“I'm not bashing 4k, but I do think a lot of enthusiasts don't see that a lot of average people with average sized TV sets sitting at normal 8-10ft view distances see the manufactured hype more like the video equivalent of DVD-Audio / SACD vs CD than "Blu-Ray vs DVD reloaded"...”

You sound a bit like someone who to me is sitting at home with a 32" tv or smaller and regards themselves as the "norm".

In fact, the top 2 best selling LCD tv's in the UK through internet stores are 55 inch models:

http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/top10.shtml

With only 2 models in the Top 10 below 46 inches in size.

Back in 2013, the average tv size in UK homes was reported as 37 inches and rising:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-t-better.html

Given the number of small old SD sets out there, that is surprising as an average.

As someone who has a 42" that I sit exactly 10 feet from (tape measured), I can see a huge difference between SD and HD.

Furthermore, my biggest regret was not buying a 50". At the time 42" seemed huge after 32", my last tv. But over time it's seemed smaller and smaller and now I would definitely buy 55" next time around. I'd happily buy larger actually for a more immersive experience, but don't have the depth of pockets.

Also, 4K is much more than about resolution, as Technolgist will tell you, the colour space is just as important and one of the things that makes real strides forwards in picture quality.
AB500
09-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Can you back that up as I understand the new satellite at 28.2e has space for hundreds of HD channels.”

You're missing the point. It's an issue of cost as much as technology. Budget SD channels aren't going to suddenly want to fork out 2-3x their share of a multiplex just to please 4k owners even if more bandwidth is added. That's why their bitrates are low even on SD in the first place... In fact that's why bitrates even on HD channels are low - it's cost effective to run 4-5x HD chans per satellite multiplex, but not 1-2 channels per multiplex (unless they charge significantly more). Why do you think the BBC squeezed in more channels? Because it wasn't cost effective to run 1-2 chans per transponder. The Beeb aren't rolling in money, and are struggling to keep even BBC3 on air due to budget cuts, and you're talking about them magically buying 2-3x more transponders to roll out 4k channels?...

Then there's the issue of "platform neutrality" by the BBC, etc, who happily nerf satellite so it matches Freeview. Bottom line : Broadcasters will do what's cost effective for them not what a few enthusiasts "demand", and as long as SD channels (or parent company) pay their multiplex rent on time, no-one can or will "force them off" even if they broadcast in black & white with mono sound...

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“I very much imagine that on Sky once the number of 4K channels gathers pace, that HD will increasingly become free and 4K will become the new subscription package, especially if native SD broadcasting gets switched off.”

You "imagine" Sky will give away a product they can charge £5 pm for for free to millions of subscribers so fewer people can start paying for 4k which costs 2-3x more to broadcast? Why on Earth would they voluntarily lose money like that? If anything they'll simply charge extra for 4k on top of HD (just as they did with 3D before they had to give it away for free due to lack of interest). Given most new Sky boxes have been HD for a while, many dual HD/SD channels already could shut down SD versions & downscale HD. Why haven't they? Because charging for 1080 HD is lucrative and replacing hundreds of thousands / millions of SD-only older boxes still out there is the opposite...

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Another unsubstantiated statement. What evidence do you have to back this up?”

Observable reality. The difference between 1080 vs 576 IS far more noticeable than 1080 vs 4k at typical 8-10ft viewing distances on the same screen size. Resolution improvements aren't some constant never-ending perfectly straight line where doubling resolution gives exactly 100% perceived improvement each time due to the way the human eyeball works with depreciating pixel size given a fixed arc minute "resolution".

We've already reached the "big jumps" in perception (240-288 VHS -> 576 DVD -> 1080 Blu-Ray). The perceivable "gap" between each new jump starts to become less & less. 1080 -> 4k isn't the same jump in experience as DVD -> Blu Ray. 4k -> 8k isn't the same as 1080 -> 4k. It's not belief but basic physics & physiology of the human eyeball (home cinema enthusiast "superman complexes" aside ). Same with 8k -> 16k -> 32k -> 64k, etc, that marketing will inevitably invent in future whether its actually needed or not (just like 192khz DVD-Audio because "CD's are for deaf people", LOL).

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Almost everyone who's reported on 4K from Trade Shows...”

Precisely - trade shows run by marketers with giant screens fed by custom +50-80MB/s ultra-high-bitrate (even lossless) sources from a local wired server where people are encouraged to stand 3-6ft away from, which are a far cry from watching at home with the 10-20MB/s OTA bitrates that 4k channels will inevitably end up with in the UK a few years down the line...

Look at the "World's First 8K Ultra High Definition Display" Youtube clip you posted earlier where people are standing literally 1-3 ft away from the 85" screen. LOL.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“You sound a bit like someone who to me is sitting at home with a 32" tv or smaller and regards themselves as the "norm". As someone who has a 42" that I sit exactly 10 feet from (tape measured), I can see a huge difference between SD and HD.”

As someone else who also has a 42" screen that I also sit exactly 10 feet from (also tape measured), I too can see a huge difference between SD and HD (as can most). The difference between 4k vs 1080p is far less though at same distance. And that's with an uncompressed local source, not a 4MB/s Youtube download...

Is 4k vs 1080p noticeable on a 42"? Yes. Marginally. Is it as massively different as 576 vs 1080 DVD vs Blu-Ray or 800x600 vs 1920x1080 gaming? Not a chance in hell unless you move from 10ft to 4-5ft away ("price-tag placebo" aside). Would I pay a premium for it? No. The only reason 4k is popular in PC gaming is because you literally sit 2ft from the screen (where it genuinely is much more noticeable).

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Also, 4K is much more than about resolution, as Technolgist will tell you, the colour space is just as important and one of the things that makes real strides forwards in picture quality.”

10-12 bit-per-sample colour space which again requires more bitrate vs 8-bit per sample, which yet again brings us straight back to an ideological fantasy of charitable super-wealthy broadcasters vs cold-hard pragmatism of the state of low-bitrate UK broadcasting who can't even find the bandwidth to broadcast SD channels at proper 720x576 PAL SD resolutions even when it was the only choice pre-HD...

I'm not saying you're wrong to want 4k, I just think you and many others are chronically naive for reading numbers off of TV spec-sheets and issuing personal wish-lists "demands" of "what they must do" whilst ignoring the "bottom line" that UK broadcasters have long made clear to everyone - they really don't care about paying significantly more for quality - they'll pretend to adopt it by jumping on the hype train, then nerf the hell out the bitrates at a later date - with a 100% proven track record of doing that on every channel on every platform over the past 15 years. That's why 4-5MB/s is the "new norm" for BBC One HD - and it shows...
Last edited by AB500 : 09-07-2014 at 22:05
2Bdecided
10-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Well I'm afraid this is where there is a lot of rubbish floating about in my opinion.

There are those who say that the eye can't resolve the resolution so you can't see the difference.

There are those who say you need huge screens to notice it.

What I say is simple, look on Youtube for 8K demo videos and if you find the good ones, you realise that even when viewing it on a pc monitor at lower resolution and it's being filmed from a close distance, you CAN see a huge difference in sharpness,. detail and colour range (the latter of which especially results in a 3D effect).

One example video to start you off is here:

The 3D effect and depth is amazing and sharpness from only a couple of feet of viewing distance, similarly so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

Watch it at as high a resolution as you can. Ultimately, I've never seen HD look that detailed or that good. Nor have I ever seen it create a 3D effect like that - that is not a trick but a result of the expanded colour space plus extra sharpness. That for me is reason enough to disprove the theories that you can't see the difference or need to be sat 20 feet from a 100 inch screen etc.”

But hang on - when you watch on a 1280x720 monitor, you're watching 1280x720 pixels. 1920x1080 monitor = you're watching 1920x1080. etc. Depending on the settings, YouTube either delivers exactly that resolution, or your PC does some (usually dodgy) scaling to get down to that resolution (if you choose "original" on a 4k video), or up to that (if you're connection is too slow, or you choose a lower resolution). In all cases the YouTube bitrate is inadequate for most content. And you're using this experience to say 8k is better?!

Worse still, in all cases YouTube delivers Rec.709 video which is decoded to the matching sRGB on your PC. No 4k or 8k videos are using any different colours from HD yet.

So the resolution isn't different, and the colours aren't different, but when you watch these videos you think they're better? A classic case of you seeing what you want to see.

The only benefit you could be seeing is oversampling and higher resolution aperture correction. These effects need higher resolution cameras, but the rest of the chain can be HD.

More likely it's either that you quite like the aliasing introduced by the bad downconversion, and/or the extra bitrate YouTube allocates when delivering more pixels, which does give a better picture even after downscaling - but it's the bitrate, rather than the pixels, that helps here. The exact same thing happens if you switch to "HD" when watching in the small window - it looks better that YouTube's dubious quality SD, but not better than decent SD at that size.

Cheers,
David.
call100
10-07-2014
Posting THIS because it adds to the debate...
2Bdecided
11-07-2014
Originally Posted by AB500:
“10-12 bit-per-sample colour space which again requires more bitrate vs 8-bit per sample”

It doesn't. 8-bit to 10-bit increases the broadcast bitrate by a couple of %. Using different colour primaries makes essentially no difference to the broadcast bitrate. HDR will be between a few % and 20% increase depending on which system gets used. Higher frame rates is highly content dependent, but a typical figure is 20% increase.

Meanwhile HEVC halves the required bitrate.

So you can launch an HEVC "4k" channel, sub-sample it to barely more than HD, throw all those other improvements on top, and the bitrate will still be less than 1080i AVC HD.

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm just saying it doesn't have to eat bitrate in the way you assume. Quite the opposite if you're willing to sacrifice resolution yet deliver all the other improvements. Better picture, lower bitrate.

Cheers,
David.
White-Knight
11-07-2014
Originally Posted by AB500:
“You're missing the point. It's an issue of cost as much as technology. Budget SD channels aren't going to suddenly want to fork out 2-3x their share of a multiplex just to please 4k owners even if more bandwidth is added.”

They would have no choice if Sky / Freesat decided to switch native SD broadcasting off on satellite, which surely has to be on the cards given that HEVC encoding is likely going to be necessary to broadcast 8K and given that it will surely be uneconomic for broadcasters to broadcast and encode in 4 formats. Something surely has to give and I predict native SD is likely to be the 1st victim followed by native HD later when 8K becomes available.

Now whether or not only 4K broadcasters would be affected or all native SD channels have to be switched off is another matter (will probably come down to transponder encoding and whether the whole sat had to go HEVC or individual transponders). However, I would favour the latter as broadcasters need to be forced to up standards in the Uk and this is an ideal opportunity to impose HD as a minimum standard, and even a minimum standard on HD, even if it means a small minority cease to exist as a result.

It's all speculation at the moment of course as SD might never be turned off, but can you really see 4 formats being broadcast given the cost involved? To me it doesn't make sense when SD can be downscaled from HD at arguably better quality than natively broadcast SD.

This is one reason why it's important in my opinion for Freesat and Sky to get together over this, if it does become necessary or desirable, and to provide a united front, and also why the BBC Trust / Sky board should take the opportunity to set unified high minimum broadcast standards as it's also an ideal opportunity to reverse the downward trend in broadcasting quality we've seen these last few years by imposing high minimum standards on ALL channels across the satellite platform.

However, to pick up on something above, when you speak in this debate above, you put this in terms of "pleasing 4K owners" as if this is some kind of battle between yourself, an SD traditionalist by the sounds of it, and owners of the latest technology. I would suggest this is not what this about.

SD standards were conceived crica 1960 - approx 54 years ago.

Technology has moved on and old technology can't stay current for ever. Whether 10 people or 10 million people currently own 4K sets is irrelevant. This isn't about numbers of owners or tech geeks, but the fact is that it appears that 4K and 8K are the future of tv, just as HD was the future beyond SD.

Technology moves on just as the computer you bought 10 years ago probably won't run the latest programs today, if run at all!

Originally Posted by AB500:
“ Why do you think the BBC squeezed in more channels? Because it wasn't cost effective to run 1-2 chans per transponder. The Beeb aren't rolling in money, and are struggling to keep even BBC3 on air due to budget cuts, and you're talking about them magically buying 2-3x more transponders to roll out 4k channels?...”

I made no mention of the number of 4K channels. I believe it has been reported that the BBC are trialling 4K and thus it's reasonable to presume that the BBC will eventually launch a 4K channel, even if its only 1 channel initially, much as they did with HD.

How they deal with that in cost terms, I don't know. HEVC will certainly help.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Then there's the issue of "platform neutrality" by the BBC, etc, who happily nerf satellite so it matches Freeview. Bottom line : Broadcasters will do what's cost effective for them not what a few enthusiasts "demand", and as long as SD channels (or parent company) pay their multiplex rent on time, no-one can or will "force them off" even if they broadcast in black & white with mono sound...”

Well I think the nerfing of sat to match Freeview is alleged rather than proven.

Again here you accuse 4K owners as being enthusiasts, but weren't HD owners enthusiasts when HD started? As I said above, technology moves on and what is an enthusiasts expensive tv today becomes a mainstream cheap tv tomorrow. 4K prices will and are falling.

Regarding forcing broadcasters off by imposing standards, I'm pretty sure the platform operators ie Sky / The BBC Trust are free to set whatever rules they like regarding minimum broadcast standards / formats, simply by changing the rules. At the end of the day, they are landlords renting space and if they want to impose conditions in the rental agreement, then they are probably free to do so provided they comply with the law, whatever that current law may be.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“You "imagine" Sky will give away a product they can charge £5 pm for for free to millions of subscribers so fewer people can start paying for 4k which costs 2-3x more to broadcast? Why on Earth would they voluntarily lose money like that? If anything they'll simply charge extra for 4k on top of HD (just as they did with 3D before they had to give it away for free due to lack of interest). Given most new Sky boxes have been HD for a while, many dual HD/SD channels already could shut down SD versions & downscale HD. Why haven't they? Because charging for 1080 HD is lucrative and replacing hundreds of thousands / millions of SD-only older boxes still out there is the opposite...”

No I imagine they'd initially charge more for 4K and then as the number of 4K channels increased would consider making HD available for free because then they could cease broadcasting the SD channels as they could be downscaled from the HD ones which everyone will have access to so not only would HD subscriptions be replaced by 4K ones, but the cost of broadcasting SD would disappear.

Also, a future advert of "Sky customers can now get all Sky HD channels for free", would be a great marketing claim for their platform.

As for replacing SD boxes being expensive, there would be no cost to them. Last time I looked they charged £49 for an upgrade to a HD2+ box from SD. I don't see why Sky should provide it for free. What would SD customers do, leave?....and go where, Freesat?....which having also gone over to non native SD broadcasting would leave them still having to buy either a Sky HD box or a Freesat HD box...

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Observable reality. The difference between 1080 vs 576 IS far more noticeable than 1080 vs 4k at typical 8-10ft viewing distances on the same screen size. Resolution improvements aren't some constant never-ending perfectly straight line where doubling resolution gives exactly 100% perceived improvement each time due to the way the human eyeball works with depreciating pixel size given a fixed arc minute "resolution".”

Said it many times, 4K is not just about resolution. Most of it's advantages as I understand it come from it's expanded colour space and the increased sharpness of having smaller pixels. Whether or not you can discern individual pixel detail becomes irrelevant in the debate in the light of that.

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided:
“But hang on - when you watch on a 1280x720 monitor, you're watching 1280x720 pixels. 1920x1080 monitor = you're watching 1920x1080. etc. Depending on the settings, YouTube either delivers exactly that resolution, or your PC does some (usually dodgy) scaling to get down to that resolution (if you choose "original" on a 4k video), or up to that (if you're connection is too slow, or you choose a lower resolution). In all cases the YouTube bitrate is inadequate for most content. And you're using this experience to say 8k is better?!

David.”

You make a valid point David, but I believe you can see even without the extra resolution that the colours are richer and there's a 3D effect / depth produced by 4k / 8K when you watch those videos of 4K / 8K displayed on tvs compared to ones on which HD is displayed.

Originally Posted by call100:
“Posting THIS because it adds to the debate...”

Now that is interesting.

However, I'm not surprised to see Freeview reported to show little interest, as to broadcast 4K would probably take a lot of bandwidth they don't really have to spare.

It is interesting though to see that Samsung, have put their control electronics in a separate box at the foot of the tv that plugs in so that if standards change, you can buy an updated box and just swop the electronics out. What they're claiming is a future proof tv:

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs/UN55F9000AFXZA

However, whatever way you look at it, in my opinion at least, the standards are in a real mess atm.
Winston_1
11-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“They would have no choice if Sky / Freesat decided to switch native SD broadcasting off on satellite,”

Neither Sky nor Freesat own the satellite so they can not decide that. Astra could demand it as they recently demanded the end of analogue on 19E. But as the vast majority of broadcasters are SD it aint gonna happen soon, if ever.
d'@ve
11-07-2014
Originally Posted by Winston_1:
“But as the vast majority of broadcasters are SD it aint gonna happen soon, if ever.”

Indeed. Just to add that the vast majority of viewers too are happy to watch SD for most of their viewing and given a forced choice (one or the other) would probably opt to drop all HD channels not all SD channels. Never mind the already over-hyped overblown and chaotic UHD debate.

Of course, Government could solve the problem by providing free HD or UHD PVRs or tuners for all. Fat chance of that happening this side of the Great Global Warming Flood!
technologist
11-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“However, whatever way you look at it, in my opinion at least, the standards are in a real mess atm.”

But until there is widespread consensus there will always be ...

Some if us remember the PAL plus , and all forms of MAC .... During the early 1990s
(and the EU mandated one which was the MOST unlikely to work!)
and also different types of MPEG.... Like musicam for audio and digi cypher for video......
Incidentally SD TV gies back to 1936 with the "worlds first HD service ....."
But the electrical optical transfer characteristic .. What you may know as gamma was nit standardised until 2011... ( perhaps with tubes in camera HD TV set it did not need to be ..)

So what is different now...?

One thing is boards like DS which open comments to a wider audience than those few directly involved in implementing the new technology.

Another is the larger number of manufacturers developing the technology.
...and many di research which previously tended to be to domain of the broadcasters

And one is that TV set manufacturers want to sell their product as they loose money on flat panels ...

And that TV is not the sole provider of av content or equipment.

As HD omitted things .. The key players want to get UHD standards/profiles/shims as right as they can be,,,, to make standards which work for all of the users and have some longevity .

And DVB UHD phase 1 is not something which has these properties.
2Bdecided
11-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“They would have no choice if Sky / Freesat decided to switch native SD broadcasting off on satellite, which surely has to be on the cards given that HEVC encoding is likely going to be necessary to broadcast 8K and given that it will surely be uneconomic for broadcasters to broadcast and encode in 4 formats. Something surely has to give and I predict native SD is likely to be the 1st victim followed by native HD later when 8K becomes available.”

SD simulcasts of HD channels will be culled one day, but people will always be free to broadcast only in SD if they wish (using H.264 for enhanced efficiency when all the MPEG-2 only SD-only boxes have gone).

Quote:
“You make a valid point David, but I believe you can see even without the extra resolution that the colours are richer”

The colours are exactly the same. Please read my previous post. No one is using the expanded colour space, certainly not YouTube!

Quote:
“and there's a 3D effect / depth produced by 4k / 8K when you watch those videos of 4K / 8K displayed on tvs compared to ones on which HD is displayed.”

They are shot as demonstration videos, not normal content. All kinds of tricks are possible.

You are watching low bitrate sub-HD, thinking it's 8k, and being wowed by it. "It's all in yer 'ead!"

Cheers,
David.
AB500
11-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“They would have no choice if Sky / Freesat decided to switch native SD broadcasting off on satellite, which surely has to be on the cards given that HEVC encoding is likely going to be necessary to broadcast 8K and given that it will surely be uneconomic for broadcasters to broadcast and encode in 4 formats. Something surely has to give and I predict native SD is likely to be the 1st victim followed by native HD later when 8K becomes available.”

Already answered previously (as have others). Astra own the satellites, not Sky or Freesat. Most non Sky-owned channels which are included in Sky packages pay Sky only for Sky's EPG services, etc, (which are only needed for Sky, not Freesat or Freeview). So there is no entity which will "force" them. Astra only forced analogue to digital changeover because they can charge more per satellite due to the way transponder multiplexing works. It's also totally pointless & complete waste to upscale SD & broadcast it as HD then downscale it for SD only content channels (Gold, etc). Likewise for Sky subscribers without the £5 extra HD pack, the HD channels are "locked" ("You need to upgrade your subscription to view this channel"), etc, unless Sky give them away for free which is pretty unlikely given it would lose them money... It might be what you want but I doubt that's what Sky wants.

As for "8k channels" kicking 1080 channels off of TV, this is just a personal wish-list. As mentioned , enthusiasts tend to think that everyone wants what they do. I've made the same mistake in the past with thinking "everyone wants a high end gaming rig with super-fast desktop CPU's because that's what everyone I talk to wants" after hanging round tech / gaming sites all the time that falsely reinforce that with sampling bias. That's basically what you're doing here with imaginary "demand" for 8k channels that ironically needs to be "forced" (do you not see the contradiction there?) I haven't heard anyone crying "Oh God. Blu-Ray is just SO hideous to watch. I can't bear to look at the fuzziness. I just can't [sobs]" even on 50-60" TV's... LOL.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“However, I would favour the latter as broadcasters need to be forced to up standards in the Uk”

Again - "forced" by whom? OFCOM can't even "force" them to use 720x576 & decent bitrates on widescreen SD channels since 1998, or bitrates higher than 5MB/s for some BBC 1080 HD channels, so after 16 years of UK digital TV quality enforcement failure, it's comical to think they're suddenly going to issue dictats of "There shalt be-eth no channels lest than 8k @ 50MB/s else a rain of fire will cometh down on ye heads".

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“can you really see 4 formats being broadcast given the cost involved?”

No, but given huge 4-8k bandwidth costs and that they've slashed bitrates on 1080 even now for affordability reasons, the obvious common sense observation is they won't bother broadcast 4-8k OTA channels and will simply offer "4k streaming" during premium events... That's pretty much the BBC's stance now - testing 4k *streaming* yet zero plans for an actual 4k OTA channel. And given the UK's average broadband is still 15MB/s plus server costs, bitrates for that are likely to max out at 6-10MB/s...

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“This is one reason why it's important in my opinion for Freesat and Sky to get together over this, if it does become necessary or desirable, and to provide a united front, and also why the BBC Trust / Sky board should take the opportunity to set unified high minimum broadcast standards”

You're joking right? The BBC Trust spent over a year defending the 66% nerfing of the bitrates from 15MB/s down to 9.5MB/s down to 5-6MB/s then told people "It must be your eyeballs, it's the lighting in the studio, it's the source material, etc" when they complained of visible quality loss (even when some provided before & after screen-caps of old vs new recordings of the same scene in the same programme recorded losslessly on a PC at different broadcast bitrates to prove it). The BBC is filled with people like Danielle Nagler whose main job is to patronise the hell of out anyone who wants high technical quality and defend doing everything as cheaply as possible, and the BBC Trust generally about as useful as a concrete parachute for technical quality issues on the side of the consumer...

The trend for broadcast quality is going DOWN not UP even for "HD". It's sadly not something you have to "believe" in - it's objectively measurable. 4k will not solve this (if it takes off), it'll just suffer exactly the same "bitrate nerfing" re-run, and a lot of 4K proponents are in deep denial over this if they're expecting "trade show quality" 30-80MB/s 4:4:4 colour sources coming over the airwaves in any future decade...

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“However, to pick up on something above, when you speak in this debate above, you put this in terms of "pleasing 4K owners" as if this is some kind of battle between yourself, an SD traditionalist by the sounds of it, and owners of the latest technology. I would suggest this is not what this about.”

Firstly, I'm not an "SD traditionalist" (I have HD) - just a down-to-earth pragmatist. Secondly, I don't see it as a battle between pro vs anti, more like a rerun of a few early proponents trying to make a fringe "experience" mainstream vs most people simply not caring nor interested beyond a certain quality point. You "demand" 4k - even 8k channels from the BBC, and yet you've ignored what I mentioned in above post - this is the same BBC which is facing a choice of either scrapping BBC3 or cutting BBC 1 content precisely because it doesn't have the money. In fact they're cutting over 600 jobs on top of that from BBC News, radio, etc, just to balance their budget. It is literally the worst possible time for the BBC to "invest" in anything like a whole new 4K infrastructure. Sky are also a lot more wary after over-estimating demand for 3D.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Whether 10 people or 10 million people currently own 4K sets is irrelevant.”

Are you serious?...

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“This isn't about numbers of owners or tech geeks, but the fact is that it appears that 4K and 8K are the future of tv, just as HD was the future beyond SD.”

People said the same thing about DVD-Audio. "Get with it man, 44.1khz music is so 1982". The problem is - as I said - depreciating gains on average equipment affect whether "newness" counts for anything as a significant tangible upgrade or just more "you must buy this" manufactured hype with barely perceptible differences. The difference in DVD vs Blu-Ray is huge. The difference between 4-8k and 1080 isn't anywhere near that from the same several feet away. There's less of a natural urge to upgrade from 1080 to 4k than SD vs HD, especially since much of the SD -> HD changeover was just as much about CRT -> TFT, which amplified how "bad" SD looked on TFT's. Likewise, the people "admiring" the 85" 8k screen from 1-3ft away in your video clip, pretty much screams the opposite of what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Well I think the nerfing of sat to match Freeview is alleged rather than proven.”

Objective bitrate measurements & screencaps prove otherwise. DVB-S has indeed been nerfed down to DTT levels (both SD & HD), and banding, ringing, macroblock, etc, artifacts are quite clear on both at times. "The Better colours of 4k" won't solve this because again - the problem is insufficient broadcast bitrate, not insufficient pre-compression source data.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Said it many times, 4K is not just about resolution. Most of it's advantages as I understand it come from it's expanded colour space and the increased sharpness of having smaller pixels. Whether or not you can discern individual pixel detail becomes irrelevant in the debate in the light of that.”

Problem is as 2Bdecided said - all that extra colour space wasn't present on the Youtube video that you linked (or on any Youtube video). So you swearing blind there's a "huge difference in color range" is basically placebo since they're both still 8-bit per channel colour... Likewise, anyone who thinks there's going to be 12-bit 4:4:4 colour-space OTA sources (at any resolution) anytime soon is coming more from emotion than any serious practical appraisal of broadcaster priorities. You could have 4096-bit per channel source colour space and it will be 100% wasted if they keep running bitrates into the ground. That's what they need to fix first - and so far they've shown zero intention of doing that at any resolution on any platform, which is why I'm so cynical as to the "glories" of 4k resolution 12-bit colour that's still compressed to buggery...
White-Knight
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by Winston_1:
“Neither Sky nor Freesat own the satellite so they can not decide that. Astra could demand it as they recently demanded the end of analogue on 19E. But as the vast majority of broadcasters are SD it aint gonna happen soon, if ever.”

They don't need to own it.

My understanding is Sky and Freesat lease the space off Astra and so far as I'm aware, then sub lease on payment of the epg fee, it to those who want to be on their platforms. I would imagine therefore that Sky and Freesat are free (within the law and the terms of their agreement with Astra) to sub lease, whilst imposing any conditions they see fit, in respect of being on their epg that doesn't contravene the law or their agreement with Astra. I can't imagine Astra wanting to specify that they can't restrict the format sub lessees can broadcast in beyond anything that might physically damage the transponders or cause interference with other services as it's not in their interest to unnecessarily restrict their lessees ability to carry out their business.

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided:
“SD simulcasts of HD channels will be culled one day, but people will always be free to broadcast only in SD if they wish (using H.264 for enhanced efficiency when all the MPEG-2 only SD-only boxes have gone).”

But can single transponders be turned over to HEVC? I seem to remember that when DVB-2 was done recently, the whole lot were switched as one.

In any case, I fail to see the resistance here. SD looks better when downscaled in any event.

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided:
“The colours are exactly the same. Please read my previous post. No one is using the expanded colour space, certainly not YouTube!”

No but then again that isn't broadcast, it's fed from Disc, most probably hard drive so provided the demo set supports expanded colour, they can encode it on pc and stream it off the hard drive.

Originally Posted by 2Bdecided:
“They are shot as demonstration videos, not normal content. All kinds of tricks are possible.”

Exactly so they encode it anyway they want.

On the tricks part though, it looks better than any DVD I've ever seen even at lower Youtube resolution.
White-Knight
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by technologist:
“Incidentally SD TV gies back to 1936 with the "worlds first HD service ....."”

I know but I believe the "modern standard" we now use as SD was agreed upon around 1960. Please feel free to add the exact date if you know it.

Originally Posted by technologist:
“
As HD omitted things .. The key players want to get UHD standards/profiles/shims as right as they can be,,,, to make standards which work for all of the users and have some longevity .”

I agree but there appear to be two different speeds here. Certain standards bodies seem to be working to a time scale of several years for 4K when the TV's are already here and 8K will possibly be out and in use before 4K has even been agreed.

Originally Posted by technologist:
“And DVB UHD phase 1 is not something which has these properties.”

From the little I've read, I agree.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“
As for "8k channels" kicking 1080 channels off of TV, this is just a personal wish-list. As mentioned , enthusiasts tend to think that everyone wants what they do.”

Well as I see it there are issues here with bandwidth cost and possibly more of an issue, encoding. I can't see the BBC for example employing 4 sets of technicians in 4 sets of post production studios producing every programme to be simulcast in SD, HD, 4K and 8K.

It doesn't make economic or practical sense when you can encode in 4K and 8K and then downscale to SD and HD at better quality than you can get from native encoding, and employ 1/2 the staff and equip 2 studios instead of 4. The savings are potentially enormous.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Again - "forced" by whom?”

If Sky and Freesat got together and agreed a minimum standard for broadcasters to transmit on each of their respective platforms, then assuming nothing in the law or their lease agreement with Astra prevented them from doing so, then I see no reason why they couldn't force broadcasters to comply as a part of the conditions of broadcasting on the platform. After all, it's their platform and so they are presumably free to specify such conditions in their contracts as they see fit within the confines of the law and their lease agreement with Astra.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“
No, but given huge 4-8k bandwidth costs”

As David has already pointed out, HEVC will allow 4K at much lower bit rates than was previously possible. I don't know the rate, but he suggested above at possibly the same rate as current HD.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Sky are also a lot more wary after over-estimating demand for 3D.”

http://www.whathifi.com/news/sky-pla...ultra-hd-4k-tv

Funniest thing about all of this though, is how the UK is getting left behind. Even India will have broadcast 4K by next year:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...cle6186857.ece
Nigel Goodwin
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“My understanding is Sky and Freesat lease the space off Astra and so far as I'm aware, then sub lease on payment of the epg fee, it to those who want to be on their platforms.”

Totally incorrect - Sky do lease entire transponders, and lease space to other broadcasters, but it's completely separate to the EPG fees, many (most?) of whom don't lease from Sky, but simply pay the EPG fee.

Freesat don't have any broadcast transponders at all (they aren't a broadcaster), they simply lease space for their EPG, and charge EPG fees just as Sky do.

So there's no 'sub-leasing' involved in the EPG's - the broadcaster simply provides Sky/Freesat with the EPG data (directly and electronically) who then uplink it to the satellite.
AB500
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“Well as I see it there are issues here with bandwidth cost and possibly more of an issue, encoding. I can't see the BBC for example employing 4 sets of technicians in 4 sets of post production studios producing every programme to be simulcast in SD, HD, 4K and 8K.”

Like I said, the BBC have said - ZERO - about running 8k channels, and are internally testing 4k purely as a tech demo (just as they did with 3D which resulted in no BBC-3D channel as they didn't have the money / inclination to pay for it). The only person I've ever met talking about 8k broadcasts channels is you. No UK broadcaster is talking about them.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“It doesn't make economic or practical sense when you can encode in 4K and 8K and then downscale to SD and HD at better quality than you can get from native encoding, and employ 1/2 the staff and equip 2 studios instead of 4. The savings are potentially enormous.”

There are zero "savings" in being forced to replace every single camera, production, editing desk, equipment, etc, plus broadcast everything across 14-odd transponders in 8k (virtually 1 channel per transponder including "red button interactive streams") vs current 7 transponders in 1080/SD. It'll virtually double the cost of satellite broadcasting alone even over dual 1080/SD. They aren't going to "save" any more over "4 studio's vs 2" because they don't currently employ "4 studio's" and that's not how broadcasting works anyway, ie you don't need double the whole set production staff just for a few extra cameramen...

Likewise, no matter how much you want it, 1080 isn't going to be switched off just because you personally have bought a 4K TV, as hardly anyone has the equipment to receive even 4k let alone 8k, and ordinary people aren't going to spend hundreds on a new box set just to carry on watching SD / 1080 (either native or downscaled). That's precisely why Freeview SD, Freesat SD & Sky SD pay channels are all still MPEG2 even though they could easily broadcast SD in H264 - even today many still have SD-only STB's, even SD-only Sky boxes. This is one example of the disconnect between early-adopter technophiles "visions" to justify rushing into an ultra-expensive purchase vs the reality of the rest of the country.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“If Sky and Freesat got together and agreed a minimum standard for broadcasters to transmit on each of their respective platforms, then assuming nothing in the law or their lease agreement with Astra prevented them from doing so, then I see no reason why they couldn't force broadcasters to comply as a part of the conditions of broadcasting on the platform. After all, it's their platform and so they are presumably free to specify such conditions in their contracts as they see fit within the confines of the law and their lease agreement with Astra.”

And again - they can't and show zero intention of doing that for even SD or 1080 even for their own owned channels. The same companies you envision "lead the charge for better quality" are the same ones pumping out 544x576 @ 1MB/s SD channels just to save 1/36th of a transponder worth of bandwidth... It's the same case of wishful thinking vs observable reality. And again as Nigel said (and I mentioned previously) - many 3rd-party channels pay Astra directly - the only "Sky fee" is EPG / encryption services. Sky & Freesat *still* cannot "force" anyone off the satellite just for disagreeing with their broadcast format. OFCOM / monopolies commission would have a field day if they even threatened / tried to bribe Astra to force competitors who pay their bills on time off air arbitrarily.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“As David has already pointed out, HEVC will allow 4K at much lower bit rates than was previously possible. I don't know the rate, but he suggested above at possibly the same rate as current HD.”

4k has 4x the pixels over 1080, and 8k has 16x the pixels vs 1080. All the HEVC tests I've seen typically translate to a 30-50% reductions over H264 at same resolution, ie half the bitrate for same res or same bitrate for double the res. You aren't going to fit in 4-8k at the same 5MB/s bitrate you see for 1080 without compromise just because you use HEVC, any more than you can broadcast 1080 HD @ 1MB/s Video-CD bitrates (virtually the same 16x resolution difference) just because you're using H264 instead of MPEG1... That's a wildly over-exaggerated assertion of its actual capability which you can test for yourself with the open source X265 vs X264 codecs to get a rough idea of HEVC's natural limits.

Likewise, 1080 looks awful broadcast at 3-4MB H264 vs 3-4MB/s MPEG2 SD because although the codec is "twice as efficient" it's spread over 5x the pixels. Even at 5-6MB/s, the compression artifacts (banding in rapid scene changes, ringing artifacts, etc) are plain for all to see, and the MPEG2 vs H264 difference in codecs is roughly the same as H264 vs HEVC.
White-Knight
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“Totally incorrect - Sky do lease entire transponders, and lease space to other broadcasters, but it's completely separate to the EPG fees, many (most?) of whom don't lease from Sky, but simply pay the EPG fee.
”

So presumably Sky could impose conditions on the space they sub lease? That's what we are potentially talking about here.

Also, if the leasers can't impose conditions for any reason, then broadcasting quality control is something that needs to be looked at as a role for OFCOM.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Like I said, the BBC have said - ZERO - about running 8k channels, and are internally testing 4k purely as a tech demo (just as they did with 3D which resulted in no BBC-3D channel as they didn't have the money / inclination to pay for it). The only person I've ever met talking about 8k broadcasts channels is you. No UK broadcaster is talking about them.”

Technologist will no doubt drop in here but I seem to remember some time ago someone saying that the BBC were reluctant to adopt 4K because they were reluctant to buy 4K cameras only to then need 8K equipment a year or two later.

I understand the BBC are working with NHK Japan to develop broadcast 8K.

Here's a broadcast test they conducted from 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtSasGs12dM

This was done with internet broadcasting in mind but HEVC didn't exist back then.

It's also interesting to note for those that say there's no difference that the presenter says "it's so sharp it's like looking through a glass window".

I also understand the BBC also made 8K test broadcasts from last years 2013 Olympics in conjunction with NHK.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“There are zero "savings" in being forced to replace every single camera, production, editing desk, equipment, etc, plus broadcast everything across 14-odd transponders in 8k”

As there was for HD. So you think it's not going to happen? 8K is going to happen, it's just a question of when, and when it does arrive, I can't see them encoding 4 formats. Just my view though on the latter.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Likewise, no matter how much you want it, 1080 isn't going to be switched off just because you personally have bought a 4K TV, as hardly anyone has the equipment to receive even 4k let alone 8k,”

I never said it was. I said that when 8K arrives, I can see HD being downscaled from 4K instead of being native because of economics. Just my prediction.

BTW, I don't have a 4K tv, I have a 720P tv (Pioneer Kuro).

I agree not many UK consumers have 4K tv's atm. But this is no different to HD. People have short memories. HD tv's were several thousand £'s when they 1st came out so only the very rich had them. When Freesat started in 2010, I hardly knew anyone with a HD tv. However, as prices dropped they became more popular and numbers climbed exponentially.

According to this recent report, the head buyer at John Lewis is said to have suggested that 4K prices will be the same as current HD tv prices with a year (that was last September):

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/p...etailer-claims

John Lewis sell quite a few 4K tv's which shows the extent of it's market penetration towards mainstream when a large quality retailer such as JL stock them in large numbers - in fact they sell no less than 23 x 4K models at the moment and 1 x 4k compatible set: http://www.johnlewis.com/electricals...054/c800005013

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Likewise, 1080 looks awful broadcast at 3-4MB H264 vs 3-4MB/s MPEG2 SD because although the codec is "twice as efficient" it's spread over 5x the pixels. Even at 5-6MB/s, the compression artifacts (banding in rapid scene changes, ringing artifacts, etc) are plain for all to see, and the MPEG2 vs H264 difference in codecs is roughly the same as H264 vs HEVC.”

Well broadcast rates are something that's down to the broadcaster / Trust / Sky / OFCOM.

On the one hand you oppose the idea that platform leasers should impose quality conditions but on the other hand complain against low bit rates. You can't have it both ways. You either have to explore the possibilities for platforms to impose conditions on the leasing of space or you have to accept low bit rates may occur if they are left to their own devices.
AB500
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“So presumably Sky could impose conditions on the space they sub lease? That's what we are potentially talking about here.”

Sky can't demand 3rd party channels broadcast at exact x res / bitate, no (unless they're out of DVB spec). And they don't "own" all satellite bandwidth and cannot block out channels from their packages for being the "wrong" resolution. That's precisely why you see under-spec 544x576 resolution channels on Sky / Freesat too (CBS Action / Drama / Reality, Horror Channel, True Movies / Entertainment / Drama, etc), and not just on Freeview. Repeating the same contrary wishlist over & over won't make it become true.

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“This was done with internet broadcasting in mind but HEVC didn't exist back then.”

Which was pretty naive then as the average 15MB/s UK internet connection still regularly shows dropouts / stutter / slowdowns on even 1080p content @ 4MB/s all on BBC iPlayer, ITV, Ch4, Sky Go, Eurosport Player, etc, so it's pretty comical people think they're going to squeeze 8k streams in even with HEVC without stuttering like hell on most devices...

Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“On the one hand you oppose the idea that platform leasers should impose quality conditions but on the other hand complain against low bit rates. You can't have it both ways.”

Wrong. I didn't say we SHOULDN'T have minimum broadcast standards - I simply said they DON'T do it because broadcasters DON'T WANT to do it or can't afford it. Budget SD channels aren't going to go HD due to cost no matter what happens to 4k. Sky don't even impose minimum quality on their own internally owned Sky branded channels (compared to earlier higher launch HD bitrates from years back), and Freesat (Beeb), etc, sure as hell don't do it either. You're arguing what you want to be. I'm simply stating what IS observable reality (and has been for over 16 years of digital broadcasting in the UK) whether it sounds appealing or gets a "4k stamp of approval" or not.

Many UK broadcasters - incuding the Beeb - couldn't give a toss about ultra high quality programming beyond giving people the illusion of "supporting" new technologies at launch then watering them down later on for cost-cutting measures. 1080 HD looked quite eye-catching at 15MB/s at launch, now at 5MB/s looks decidedly average compared to Blu-Ray. Same will happen to 4k whether you or I like it or not. The only real "crystal clear UHD 4k" sources you're likely to get are off-line content (Blu-Ray, PC gaming, etc).
Deacon1972
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“So presumably Sky could impose conditions on the space they sub lease? That's what we are potentially talking about here.”

As far as I know and in respect of the HD channels on the EPG, they are subject to certain conditions, bitrate being one of them - would have thought these conditions apply regardless of whether space is leased/sub leased.

An old document so the bitrates will be out of date. Page 3 onwards....


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...70810081,d.ZWU
Nigel Goodwin
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by White-Knight:
“So presumably Sky could impose conditions on the space they sub lease? That's what we are potentially talking about here.”

Hitler lost the war, and we're not a Communist country - why would Sky be able to force people to do something they don't want, and don't need?.

You really need to get over this crazy obsession you have against SD
White-Knight
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by AB500:
“Sky can't demand 3rd party channels broadcast at exact x res / bitate,”

As I see it, Sky can in theory impose whatever conditions they like for channels to join their epg, as can the BBC Trust with Freesat, subject to any curtailment of their contractual rights by law. Simple freedom of contract unless there are laws restricting their rights. That's why I am debating who has control here and suggesting the BBC Trust and Sky could get together to provide a united front to present a proposal such as this. That way channels can't jump ship between Freesat and Sky to whichever has the most favourable bit rate requirements if both platforms have agreed the same.

If neither the BBC Trust nor Sky have the ability to control quality for whatever reason, then surely this needs to be a role for OFCOM, because a simple free market strategy free from quality regulation appears not to have worked so well as I'm sure you will agree, many channels broadcast at non native resolution and pretty poor bit rates.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Which was pretty naive then as the average 15MB/s UK internet connection still regularly shows dropouts / stutter / slowdowns on even 1080p content @ 4MB/s all on BBC iPlayer, ITV, Ch4, Sky Go, Eurosport Player, etc, so it's pretty comical people think they're going to squeeze 8k streams in even with HEVC without stuttering like hell on most devices...”

I believe the government are looking at internet connections with an eye on this for the future. However, personally I'm against internet delivered tv services, other than catchup for several reasons:

1. Reliability - as you point out, the internet is complex and thus often unreliable

2. Cost - it shifts the cost from the broadcaster onto the customer as the customer is requires to subscribe to a fast connection

3. Social Justice - if you can't afford an internet subscription then potentially you can no longer receive a tv service. Is this really what the BBC at least was set up to achieve? A service that depends on people's ability to pay a monthly fee (albeit to an ip provider)?

4. Effects on outage - losing your tv signal or internet is bad, but atm you can do the other if you lose one. Deliver TV over internet, and you lose both tv and internet if there's an outage, leaving people with nothing watch or do.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Wrong. I didn't say we SHOULDN'T have minimum broadcast standards - I simply said they DON'T do it because broadcasters DON'T WANT to do it or can't afford it. Budget SD channels aren't going to go HD due to cost no matter what happens to 4k. Sky don't even impose minimum quality on their own internally owned Sky branded channels (compared to earlier higher launch HD bitrates from years back), and Freesat (Beeb), etc, sure as hell don't do it either. You're arguing what you want to be. I'm simply stating what IS observable reality (and has been for over 16 years of digital broadcasting in the UK) whether it sounds appealing or gets a "4k stamp of approval" or not.”

Of course they don't want it. It costs money to broadcast at higher quality. Unless you want a race to the bottom, then standards need to be forced on the industry.

A turning point like this where format standards are being formulated is an ideal time to impose binding minimum broadcast quality requirements as a part of those formulations.

If some of the cheaper channels go bust, and we have a few less shopping channels then personally I couldn't care less. Sometimes standards need to be required because without it some broadcasters will continue to cut costs and in some cases that means quality.

Originally Posted by AB500:
“Many UK broadcasters - incuding the Beeb - couldn't give a toss about ultra high quality programming beyond giving people the illusion of "supporting" new technologies at launch then watering them down later on for cost-cutting measures. 1080 HD looked quite eye-catching at 15MB/s at launch, now at 5MB/s looks decidedly average compared to Blu-Ray. Same will happen to 4k whether you or I like it or not. The only real "crystal clear UHD 4k" sources you're likely to get are off-line content (Blu-Ray, PC gaming, etc).”

You may possibly be right. But all the more reason to have legally enforced standards.
White-Knight
12-07-2014
Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin:
“Hitler lost the war, and we're not a Communist country - why would Sky be able to force people to do something they don't want, and don't need?.

You really need to get over this crazy obsession you have against SD ”

Come, come Nigel. Regulatory standards exist everywhere. What about nursing, doctors, local government? What about non regulatory restrictions in contracts eg insurance is a good example of restrictions on performance via exclusions or requirements eg the need to keep the keys to your car safe. Regulation does not equal communism.

Also, are we talking quality or SD?

I believe I've given my opinion on quality in the post above.

Regarding SD, I do think it's had it's time and I would be saying that even without 4K and 8K being on the horizon, in favour of HD. It's a fast developing technological market where a few years now results in leaps and bounds, (the very latest now is huge 60" 4K screens that can be rolled up into a tube a few inches in diameter), and SD stands at 50+ years old and far behind the current top standard - HD (at least when HD is at high quality). So why would you continue with it natively? If we had that attitude to everything, we'd still be flying in balloons and airships!

However, I've never advocated SD cease existing as such as obviously that would leave people with SD tv's out in the cold. What I've been advocating is that SD native broadcasting should be turned off and channels forced to adopt the modern standard of HD and move on from 50 years ago, with SD still being available to those with SD tv's via a downscale.

You struggle to even buy an SD tv anymore, and within a year or two will probably even struggle to buy a HD tv, so why would you continue to broadcast in such an outdated format? It doesn't make sense when downscaling provides retro compatibility.

By the same token, I've also been pointing out that when 4k / 8K launch are we going to broadcast 4 standards? ..and what about HEVC, can one or two transponders be turned over or do the lot need to go HEVC?

I just can't see how we are either going to continue to broadcast native SD from an economic standpoint or how in the case of all the transponders having to be switched over, how it can even be physically possible to continue to broadcast native SD.
<<
<
2 of 3
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map