BIB: D'oh! I meant to say: Prices will go down and take up will increase as Joe Public replaces their TVs. Despite Joe Public's relative apathy towards HD you'd struggle to buy a non-HD TV today. It will be the same for UHD.

It was my understanding that UHD TV's from late 2014 early 2015 complying with DVB UHD Phase 1 specs had tuners onboard capable of UHD output at 60fps and HEVC/H265. Phase 2 could add HDR.

Agree, you don't need tech to be mainstream for first impressions.


Strangely enough, UHD Phase 2 will include a 1080p HDR profile, designed for those operaters on a restricted bandwidth, with a view it will be upscaled by the TV to 3840x2160. I wonder if it could be viewed natively on a HD TV?

I suppose that means they will be able to receive terrestrial UHD broadcasts? If so that good news and much better than the situation with HD when it was new.


Interesting. I didn't know that. I think since the HD TV must be able to decode the additional HDR information and have a display capable of rendering it a current HD set could only render the non-HDR signal. It's an option though. No reason for manufacturers not to make such TVs if some broadcasters go that way.

I'm at IBC .... And the demo of HFR and HDR on the ebu stand in hall 10 is amazing ...
Two DVB T2 channels plus an MPEG dash demo where you can turn on or off HFR and HDR ....
And of course NHK in the future zone just outside hall 8
.... If you get there at 4pm. Saturday Just next to NHK is SMPTE who are celebrating their 100 years ... .. With cake and champagne ...

See you there !!

I'm far more excited about the color gamut improvements like Rec. 2020 than I am about 8K. I can appreciate 1080p as sharper than previous images, but the jump to 4k is more than I really need for TV watching. I can get some benefit out of the 4k resolution for a computer monitor (though it's an annoying transition now when certain things don't scale properly yet). I sit closer to a computer than a TV and use it for fine detail work, whereas TV is about the gestalt of the whole scene more than background details. I haven't tried an 8k screen yet, but I can't imagine being able to really tell a difference, even up close.

But color? Everyone can tell a difference with rich, faithful color reproduction. I think we've focused on resolution for decades and are hitting diminishing returns there, but we've stagnated for longer on that other fundamental aspect of image quality, so there should be a lot of upside there still.

I think that almost all people who are originating quality images fir home display consider static resoltion as one if the last things to improve
For all genres HDR and WCG are so obvious to the viewer .....
And then HFR and immersive audio ...,
And then static resolution.

Things are a bit different for theatric viewing
But ang lee's "Billy Lynn's long half time walk" which is HDR extended color gamut , 120fps , Dolby Atmos 4K per eye S3D ...as shown at the SMPTE Chinese conference at NAB and repeated yesterday at IBC ..... Is a total new and adsorbing viewing experience ...
Becuse it gives him so much more to be able to tell the story ... And with very very few technical distractions,
A pity there is not single public Dolby vision cinema in the uk !

I wish I could have seen those demos!

About HFR: I saw the first Hobbit film in HFR and was unimpressed. In theory it should have been a more immersive experience than film at 24fps, but for some reason it wasn't for me.

To these eyes, used to 24fps judder (seen whenever the camera pans a little too quickly and one reason to go for higher frame rates), the look of film (dynamic range and grain) and the difference between film and the look of video, it looked like video rather than film despite the higher resolution.

Maybe it's just the association between "old" video (all those old UK TV dramas from the 70s and 80s that were shot on video vs US TV dramas shot on film) and the feel of cheapness, but it certainly didn't look "right".

I think there's still a lot for filmmakers to learn about how to shoot and process high frame footage if it's ever to "take off".

Yes I wish all DSers could sevenths and the excellence Of ang lee's direction ...
And cinematography and edit and audio..

24 fps with three bladed shutter t give a high flash rate gives a very strange unnatural motion.......

But this goes away with higher frame rates say greater than 48/50/60 etc ...
And the industry is moving fast to,enable this to,happen ....

Watch out for smpte gathering requirements for new timecode/ time label between now and Christmas .....
Things will move faster with the users requirements .......
SMPTE will be meeting in Hollywood London And New York to get face to face views
Announcements in the next 2-3 weeks

I believe The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was shot at 48fps. HFR probably needs to go to even higher frame rates.

Douglas Trumbull did some experiments in the late 70s and early 80s and worked out you need to go to at least 60fps to achieve that immersive effect. This lead to the development of his Showscan film format which was basically 70mm film at 60fps. That format never caught on as the costs using using 2 and half times as much film and equipping cinemas to handle larger canisters and display them were prohibitive.

Today's digital formats now make 60fps achievable.

Perhaps it's just that over a lifetime of watching film and television I've become accustomed to the look of film, with all its attendant flaws. There was definitely something about The Hobbitt: An Unexpected Journey that didn't look "cinematic" at 48 fps.

It's amazing that, despite all the other advances in film technology, we're still using a frame rate that was originally worked out early last century as an absolute minimum in order to conserve film stock and so minimise costs.