DS Forums

 
 

BT to bring out 4K STB this autumn


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2015, 10:42
Jimmy_Barnes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794

Telegraph article

Sky is expected to bring forward the launch of its next generation set-top box to this spring to help counter the threat from BT’s exclusive deal to show European football.
New hardware and services will be offered as an incentive for households to sign up to new pay-TV and broadband contracts before BT’s monopoly on Champions League matches kicks in next season, industry sources said. Sky is also likely to charge more for the premium service.
The set-top box will be capable of showing ultra-high definition 4K pictures, four times as sharp as current high definition broadcasts.
It is understood that Sky’s pitch to customers will focus on other advanced features, however, such as “multiscreen” viewing on smartphones and tablets, and the ability to store recorded programmes online for access anywhere.
The focus on portability and user-friendliness has been prepared with penetration of 4K screens very low, in spite of prices coming down rapidly. Sky has had mixed experiences introducing new broadcast technology: high definition was for years a major source of growth, but consumers rejected 3D.
The set-top box has been developed as part of a major overhaul by Sky. The company originally intended to introduce the update next year, but it has accelerated in an effort to maintain its reputation for technology leadership among “early adopter” consumers.
The tighter schedule will help Sky meet the stronger football challenge from BT.
In contrast to Sky’s wait-and-see attitude to 4K, it is understood that BT aims to introduce the technology on BT Sport within months. It is also poised to launch a new set-top box and mount a major marketing push in spring.
BT will begin trials of ultra-high definition streaming via the internet by May so the system is ready to carry high-profile Champions League clashes in the autumn, sources said.
The pictures will require a superfast connection so BT will use its launch to encourage customers to upgrade their broadband contract.
Virgin Media, the cable operator, is also currently running trials of 4K.
Sky’s decision to bring forward its launch underscores how it has been forced to act defensively as BT threatens its pay-TV stronghold.
Last week Sky announced a wholesale deal with O2 to complete its “quad play” of pay-TV, broadband, home phone and mobile services. After years of shunning the mobile market, its move was seen by analysts as necessary in the face of BT’s £12.5bn acquisition of EE.
A Sky spokesman said: “Innovation is at the very heart of Sky’s business. We have a proven track record of leadership in the industry as we continually strive to find new ways to enhance the customer experience”.
Though the article focuses mainly on Sky bringing their 4K/UHD plans forward, the pertinent news for us BT TV customers is that BT look set to broadcast Champions League in 4K from next season. One would assume that any Premier League matches shown on BT Sport may also be broadcast via 4K.

BT are looking to be quick to the races here and Sky are playing catch up, though it will be a harder sell to get their customers to upgrade now they have lost Champions League to BT. Still what Id consider to be an early adaption period for 4K hardware, but the prices of UHD television sets are starting to fall, and the announcement that Sky will bring their STB out in the spring, and BT theirs soon after.

Anyone here have a 4K ready TV? Would you be interested in upgrading your YouView box to a 4K one, which lets face it, will really only be for a handful of sports events in the early days? Saying that, you'd have to believe that Netflix, who offer a 4K subscription plan, would also be a UHD feature on the forthcoming STB.

Everone knows I'm not a Sky fan at all, but I can't say I blame them for getting their 4K service out a few months earlier than BT. This year will be interesting to see exactly how the two companies will promote what will be a premium service until 4K hardware truly enters the mainstream. BT still have the advantage by announcing this early that their vaunted Champions League coverage will be available in 4K, so presumably Sky will do the same for whatever big-time sport they'll have left to show later in 2015, and I'd have thought them eventually showing 4K movies is also inevitable.
Jimmy_Barnes is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 01-02-2015, 11:40
fatboy75
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: doncaster
Posts: 81
Looks like I'm going to save up for a 4k tv then
fatboy75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 15:51
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,724
Not interested in either of their 4K offerings, it's pretty well pointless on normal size TVs (<=65 inches), and I won't hunch up on the floor nose-to-screen like the grandkids do .

I love the idea of real competition for the first time, at the leading edge though.

Incidentally, I see the media still spout marketeers nonsense regarding 4K, e.g. "The set-top box will be capable of showing ultra-high definition 4K pictures, four times as sharp as current high definition broadcasts."

It's twice as sharp, but in other picture quality aspects, much the same so overall, a bit better quality.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 17:06
scointer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 143
Not interested in either of their 4K offerings, it's pretty well pointless on normal size TVs (<=65 inches), and I won't hunch up on the floor nose-to-screen like the grandkids do .

I love the idea of real competition for the first time, at the leading edge though.

Incidentally, I see the media still spout marketeers nonsense regarding 4K, e.g. "The set-top box will be capable of showing ultra-high definition 4K pictures, four times as sharp as current high definition broadcasts."

It's twice as sharp, but in other picture quality aspects, much the same so overall, a bit better quality.
I agree with some of what you say. Check here to see that 4k is double the amount in both axis therefore giving you 4 times the definition over the screen. It also gives a good viewing distance vs screen size. The other benefit is making passive 3d full definition (slightly niche I know but still relevant)

http://www.rtings.com/info/4k-ultra-...0p-full-hd-tvs
scointer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 17:15
Colin_London
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Essex
Posts: 3,858
Sky will never want to suffer the indignity of being beaten to 4K by BT. I'm sure they will pull out all the stops to get something on air ASAP, even if that's only a barker channel showing trailers to a couple of execs with prototype receivers.

Wonder how much the satellite capacity will cost however? Could be the start of a real differentiation with IPTV services where the cost of adding UHDTV services will be marginal.
Colin_London is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 17:29
moox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 14,635
Could be the start of a real differentiation with IPTV services where the cost of adding UHDTV services will be marginal.
In Sky's case they'd have to set up the infrastructure to do it, while they can do on demand content, they don't do linear stuff on a significant scale (Now TV/Sky Go aren't this). They'd have to start playing with multicast and what not to reduce the load on their network, which might require changes to how their network operates and will require changes to the routers that they supply to their users

BT should find it a lot easier since they already have everything in place for SD/HD as far as content delivery networks/multicast are concerned
moox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2015, 17:47
ds_reader
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,095
In Sky's case they'd have to set up the infrastructure to do it, while they can do on demand content, they don't do linear stuff on a significant scale (Now TV/Sky Go aren't this). They'd have to start playing with multicast and what not to reduce the load on their network, which might require changes to how their network operates and will require changes to the routers that they supply to their users

BT should find it a lot easier since they already have everything in place for SD/HD as far as content delivery networks/multicast are concerned
Nothing new for Sky...

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sky-uhd-201404283750.htm
ds_reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 01:34
tvmad-alan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wickford, Essex, England,UK,GB
Posts: 1,820
The BT case for 4xHD on there system to beat SKY is just waste of money and time for most people as Sport is not the reason to get a TV package and only people to make out of any fight is the footballers with higher wages then they do now as the clubs will ask extra for the rights as they do each step from radio, TV SD, HD live replays etc...

BT also needs to make sure the TV customers are happy first and at this time the channel list has not grown and film fans have no Sky movies HD when Sports has 4 HD channels .
tvmad-alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 01:50
gomezz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Buckingham
Posts: 28,534
for most people as Sport is not the reason to get a TV package
Sky have built their whole business on you being wrong about this.
gomezz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 05:48
Ragnarok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: too close to Hell, Londonistan
Posts: 4,566
Sky have built their whole business on you being wrong about this.
Quite, sport is made for 4k, even on my 55" tv world cup footage looks a step up over HD, and the footage I saw was virtually devoid of visible encoding artefacts unlike HD. It's not the leap in quality HD ended up being. there is already pretty amazing consumer 4k video capturing camera's and devices with some stunning quality footage appearing on the likes of youtube!

Though film based material will look better. it usually takes a while for movies to really shine in a higher res format. early HD transfers from film where quite frankly better but not alot better than SD vs the latest blockbusters which ooze HD detail and look like night and day vs SD, where as live pictures from HD camera's when properly lit the pictures always looked great . Though I suspect most of the donkey work as been this time with 4k for digital cinema and capture and film scanner Tech is already moving past 4k.

4k blu-ray is due out later this year assuming no hiccups.
Ragnarok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2015, 06:48
ney
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Scotland, Dunfermline Area
Posts: 10,698
Sounds good but I and a good few others will only have full HD TVs and not 4k TVs.
I would hope the new BT set top box would come with a choice of 500gb or 1tb hard drives.

Darren
ney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 03:28
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,724
Sounds good but I and a good few others will only have full HD TVs and not 4k TVs.
I would hope the new BT set top box would come with a choice of 500gb or 1tb hard drives. Darren
4K played on a Full HD TV (via a 4K box) should look a bit better than Full HD, in the same way that Full HD broadcasts played on a digital SD TV look better than broadcast SD TV.

Only a bit better mind (fewer artifacts, which lower the apparent resolution of broadcast HDTV, will improve the apparent resolution, but obviously not beyond 1920 x 1080). It will seem a bit sharper.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 08:52
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
4K played on a Full HD TV (via a 4K box) should look a bit better than Full HD, in the same way that Full HD broadcasts played on a digital SD TV look better than broadcast SD TV.
As would broadcasting SD (or HD) at a decent bandwidth in the first place

It's not the fact it's a higher resolution that helps, it's that much higher bandwidth is used.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 10:13
1andrew1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,981
"It [BT] is also poised to launch a new set-top box and mount a major marketing push in spring."
Spring seems very early for a 4K box from BT. Could this just be a new YouView box that they are talking about?
1andrew1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2015, 11:28
Jimmy_Barnes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
"It [BT] is also poised to launch a new set-top box and mount a major marketing push in spring."
Spring seems very early for a 4K box from BT. Could this just be a new YouView box that they are talking about?
As they intend to broadcast Champions League in 4K this autumn, I'd assume it'll be a UHD YouView box.
Jimmy_Barnes is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2015, 02:01
tvmad-alan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wickford, Essex, England,UK,GB
Posts: 1,820
Any new youview box that allows 4xHD in put and out put will need 2TB hard drive because of the space needed to hold a good number films sport and other shows a 1TB will just hold but I feel that after six months calls for large space will get very loud ....

As they go for it a 3 channel recording would be handy too along with use of USB.3 to add Hards USB sticks to record and play back or photos etc....

I think sky will bring out 4xHD film channel in time to go along with sports so I hope BT gets a contact to add HD and 4xHD films too.
tvmad-alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2015, 02:59
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,724
As would broadcasting SD (or HD) at a decent bandwidth in the first place
Fat chance of that happening, they'd need to broadcast SD at DVD bit rates and that ain't gonna happen any time ever. That's why I said what I said.

It's not the fact it's a higher resolution that helps, it's that much higher bandwidth is used.
It's not solely bandwidth, it's a combination of source quality (of which resolution is a part), bandwidth and codec efficiency/implementation. Mpeg 2? Meh! H.264/AVC? Quite good. H.265/HEVC? Excellent!

This also explains why BT's SD Internet channels are usually better quality than Freeview or satellite SD - their 3Mbps is encoded h.264, unlike the archaic 2 to 4 Mbps/mpeg2 of traditional and satellite broadcast SD TV and certain penny-pinching reduced-resolution channels.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 06:33
David Waine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 2,270
I rather enjoy watching IMAX films in the cinema, but I don't want it in my living room. From what I have seen of 4K TVs, they are all enormous and getting one of more common dimensions (40" - 46") would be rather pointless because the difference would not be particularly appreciable. I may be wrong, of course, but I doubt whether I am alone in having this view.

If the new box turns out to be an extension of YouView, presumably TalkTalk will be bringing one out as well. They don't have BT Sport (yet) but they do have Netflix. On the other hand, now that BT have bought EE, what about their set top box? It has only just become available, so presumably it doesn't have many users yet. What will happen to it?

I am quite happy for Sky to charge headlong into UHD, however, because it might mean that they start releasing their HD channels to YouView providers, and that will suit me on my fairy modestly-sized TV.
David Waine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 08:48
Nigel Goodwin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,782
It's not solely bandwidth.
Not solely no - but almost entirely.

Another 'non-broadcast' option (which is why DVD and BD look better) is to compress BEFORE distribution - such as NetFlix, catch-up etc. can do. This isn't an option for broadcasting, as it's transmitted live so has to be compressed in real-time - thus causing much larger bandwidth requirements.
Nigel Goodwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 13:54
Jimmy_Barnes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 794
I rather enjoy watching IMAX films in the cinema, but I don't want it in my living room. From what I have seen of 4K TVs, they are all enormous and getting one of more common dimensions (40" - 46") would be rather pointless because the difference would not be particularly appreciable. I may be wrong, of course, but I doubt whether I am alone in having this view.

If the new box turns out to be an extension of YouView, presumably TalkTalk will be bringing one out as well. They don't have BT Sport (yet) but they do have Netflix. On the other hand, now that BT have bought EE, what about their set top box? It has only just become available, so presumably it doesn't have many users yet. What will happen to it?

I am quite happy for Sky to charge headlong into UHD, however, because it might mean that they start releasing their HD channels to YouView providers, and that will suit me on my fairy modestly-sized TV.
As the BT purchase of EE won't be made official for over a year yet, I expect EE TV to stick around in the short-term, albeit with minimal promotion (not that it's getting much now anyway).

EE's STB has had some good feedback here, and they use the same system as Eircom's IPTV service in Ireland which looks decent, but if BT are fully committed to YouView for the foreseeable future, I can't see why they'd carry on with EE TV for much longer than the middle of 2016. Unless they retain it as like a budget alternative to BT TV. Which would be understandable as EE TV doesn't have a lot of the premium channels/apps BT YouView does like the IPTV Entertainment channels, Netflix, sports etc.
Jimmy_Barnes is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 07-02-2015, 21:48
d'@ve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,724
Not solely no - but almost entirely.
Not even that, codec efficiency is equally important; source quality perhaps less so but still a significant factor. As I said, codec efficiency mainly explains why BT's 3Mbps h.264 SD TV streams produce better quality pictures than 3 to 4 Mbps mpeg2 SD TV broadcasts - codec efficiency!

Another 'non-broadcast' option (which is why DVD and BD look better) is to compress BEFORE distribution - such as NetFlix, catch-up etc. can do. This isn't an option for broadcasting, as it's transmitted live so has to be compressed in real-time - thus causing much larger bandwidth requirements.
I agree that pre-encoding allows the use of less bandwidth for equal quality, whatever the codec. But we are comparing live channels here and BT's SD ones beat the Sky, Freesat and Freeview SD live channels on quality. To match them, the sat/terrestrial channels would need to change to h.264 encoding at existing bandwidths, or increase bandwidths for mpeg2 by 50% to 100%. But they won't.
d'@ve is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:45.