|
||||||||
Will 4K set top boxes be available soon |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Leicester
Posts: 2,964
|
Quote:
Same could be said for HD. But what has this got to do with the BBC launching a HD channel on Satellite years before it was available on Freeview, which clearly shows it is possible to launch a dedicated channel that doesn't have to be platform neutral. Nothing stopping the BBC doing the same for 4K.
The BBC are in a different place now finance wise, whilst the BBC still have to help develop and trial new technology it is far less likely they will start a full time service. I'm not sure why some think there will be more space on freeview come 2022, the chances are the space will be further eroded over time and we will be lucky to hold onto all the existing channels. I really cant see anything other than a small trial in 1 or 2 locals maybe at most, certainly wouldnt warrant manufacturing a set-top box for, let alone buying one |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Just because you can buy a cheap 4K TV doesn't mean that the BBC have to spend countless millions on providing a service for it. You need a very large TV to see any difference or to sit very close to it neither of which the public want to do according to an excellent BBC survey posted on these forums by Technologist.
We get people coming in that, regardless what you say, must have a 4K TV even though it will be of little or no benefit to them. These people will also convince themselves that they can see the difference at whatever distance they sit and so want the best broadcast. As a public service broadcaster, if ITV, C4,5 are not going to provide free 4K broadcasting, is it not the BBC's duty to do so? |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
As definition goes up you get the ever diminishing return in terms of perceived improvement, so you cant compare 4k to HD the difference will not be day and night like HD/SD
The BBC are in a different place now finance wise, whilst the BBC still have to help develop and trial new technology it is far less likely they will start a full time service. I'm not sure why some think there will be more space on freeview come 2022, the chances are the space will be further eroded over time and we will be lucky to hold onto all the existing channels. I really cant see anything other than a small trial in 1 or 2 locals maybe at most, certainly wouldnt warrant manufacturing a set-top box for, let alone buying one There's a good chance that some of the 4K sets already will work on 4K broadcasts now. I'm watching a Panasonic 65" running on a 4k Sat' demo as I type. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Leicester
Posts: 2,964
|
Quote:
Who needs to make a set-top-box? Once a standard is agreed the TV manufacturers will include the option, as will the PVR makers & I'm sure BT/TalkTalk would require one too. The BBC wouldn't make it, they'd leave it to market forces. They already have Satellite boxes that can handle 4K & Cable is following suit very soon.
There's a good chance that some of the 4K sets already will work on 4K broadcasts now. I'm watching a Panasonic 65" running on a 4k Sat' demo as I type. It is about a 4k set-top box becoming available |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Do you even know what this thread is about?
It is about a 4k set-top box becoming available There is no definitive need for anyone to build a set top box. As I have already written, I am currently sat watching a 4K broadcast on a Panasonic 65" TV. As time goes on there is every likelihood that more sets will come with the ability built in. As far as I know the Panasonic I'm watching right now might work with a terrestrial signal if/when it becomes available or be firmware updateable to do so. Sky already have a 4K box in homes now therefore not needing to create/build one to allow BBC to broadcast a signal for people to get free of charge, Virgin have already unveiled their 4K box which launches shortly which again means the don't need to create/build one as it's already done. Humax already make the 4K capable box for BT and have said that the next generation box will possibly support 4K broadcasts and streamed content, following on from boxes in Germany already. If there is sufficient demand from the consumer 4K boxes will appear but as I said there are already boxes out there now that deal with providing 4K content to TVs & TVs that can already do it via IP & broadcast that should allow the BBC to provide 4K viewing to the public. The current generation boxes from Humax, as with most ranges will probably be around for maybe another year before being updated anyway. There is no way that Humax will make a box that can't handle 4K from Amazon/Netflik streaming & if it can do that it would cost peanuts to allow broadcast reception too. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 279
|
Quote:
As definition goes up you get the ever diminishing return in terms of perceived improvement, so you cant compare 4k to HD the difference will not be day and night like HD/SD
The BBC are in a different place now finance wise, whilst the BBC still have to help develop and trial new technology it is far less likely they will start a full time service. I'm not sure why some think there will be more space on freeview come 2022, the chances are the space will be further eroded over time and we will be lucky to hold onto all the existing channels. I really cant see anything other than a small trial in 1 or 2 locals maybe at most, certainly wouldnt warrant manufacturing a set-top box for, let alone buying one I doubt consumers needing bigger screens or having to sit ultra close to 4K TVs will have any bearing on the BBC launching a 4K channel, it didn't with HD, and the living room environment changed in much the same way. I can see the BBC launching a 4K trial on satellite followed by approval, possibly a limited trial on Freeview (Crystal Palace), as they did for HD back in 2006, but I doubt it'll get a country wide launch for many years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,457
|
Quote:
Funnily enough yes I do, having posted numerous times within it. Quote:
There is no definitive need for anyone to build a set top box. As I have already written, I am currently sat watching a 4K broadcast on a Panasonic 65" TV. As time goes on there is every likelihood that more sets will come with the ability built in. As far as I know the Panasonic I'm watching right now might work with a terrestrial signal if/when it becomes available or be firmware updateable to do so.
Of course there is a need to build set top boxes. Just as there were HD ready TV's we still needed set top boxes that were capable of delivering HD signals, many TV's had the picture capability but not the HD tuners.Quote:
Sky already have a 4K box in homes now therefore not needing to create/build one to allow BBC to broadcast a signal for people to get free of charge,
People don't get things from the BBC FREE of charge. They pay a TV licence, £145.50 a year which contributes to the BBC providing the technology.Virgin have already unveiled their 4K box which launches shortly which again means the don't need to create/build one as it's already done. Another box from another provider. Like Netflix, Amazon, Apple we require set top boxes capable of delivering 4K. What should happen is we should have providers cater for the public and not build their own protected eco system. Amazon are one of the worst examples where they do not have their app available on a number of set top boxes or media centres. Millions have bought Apple TV set top boxes not to view Apple but many streaming services such as iplayer, HBO, Netflix, People shouldn't be buying two or more boxes to have access to services. In reality it is a dumb idea from Amazon as they are denying easy access to their streaming service which they presumably want people to sign up to. They are going to make much more revenue through subscriptions every month, attract people to their Prime service for free delivery than what they will ever get from selling boxes and sticks. We need the Amazon's, Googles, Roku's, Apple Nvidia's to have boxes that have the ability to deliver not only 4K but those services that have 4K content. Quote:
Humax already make the 4K capable box for BT and have said that the next generation box will possibly support 4K broadcasts and streamed content, following on from boxes in Germany already.
A perfect example which contradicts your opening line "There is no definitive need for anyone to build a set top box."Quote:
If there is sufficient demand from the consumer 4K boxes will appear but as I said there are already boxes out there now that deal with providing 4K content to TVs & TVs that can already do it via IP & broadcast that should allow the BBC to provide 4K viewing to the public.
There is more than sufficient demand for Amazon Prime but Amazon don't allow their app to be included on several boxes. Actually we have a growing problem that some others such as SKY don't support certain browsers such as SKY not supporting SKY Go. The public deserve technology that is available and better to be available more easily on a wider platform.Quote:
The current generation boxes from Humax, as with most ranges will probably be around for maybe another year before being updated anyway. There is no way that Humax will make a box that can't handle 4K from Amazon/Netflik streaming & if it can do that it would cost peanuts to allow broadcast reception too.
One of the biggest advantages of early Humax boxes was making services such as Netflix and iplayer available, it makes sense if their new boxes were capable of delivering Netflix in 4K. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
I find the situation very comparable to the early days of HD, when much work was done testing and preparing for it long before any service was generally available to the public.
"HD Ready" TVs and "Full HD" TVs were available long before broadcast standards were finalised and actual broadcasts were available. Sky, and the BBC and others via the Sky platform and FreeSat were broadcasting HD well before it came to FreeView. They developed the terrestrial standard for HD broadcasting and FreeView HD became available, along with new receivers (set top boxes) capable of receiving in HD. It's similar with UHD/HDR. We're at the point where Sky has started 4K broadcasts on its platform and streaming service. Others already provide 4K streaming services too. The only difference really is the question of spectrum availability on the terrestrial (FreeView) platform. 4K might never be practical via the terrestrial network for that reason. Most people today still receive their TV via terrestrial broadcasts but viewing habits are changing with the growth of satellite and now streaming services. Many people have other options now. I rarely use the terrestrial tuner in my TV and usually watch terrestrial channels via Sky or streaming instead. In the long run it may be desirable to switch off the terrestrial network completely and free up the spectrum it currently occupies for other uses. I do mean long run. It took about 40 years to switch off 405 line broadcasts. Complete analogue switch off was much faster. How long before digital switch off? |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
I only have a 1080p television but wondered if 4 k set top boxes would be available when bbc/itv/c4/c5 start broadcasting in 4K.
Will i tell the difference on my telly or will i need to buy a 4k tv anyway. They would of course extend it in due course to other delivery systems but initially, it could in theory be made available right now - contract free - after discussions and arrangements with BT if necessary, or their box makers, as to retail box availability. I can't see Sky being willing to do something similar with Sky Q though! |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
..Quote:
Originally Posted by skinj Funnily enough yes I do, having posted numerous times within it. Quote: There is no definitive need for anyone to build a set top box. As I have already written, I am currently sat watching a 4K broadcast on a Panasonic 65" TV. As time goes on there is every likelihood that more sets will come with the ability built in. As far as I know the Panasonic I'm watching right now might work with a terrestrial signal if/when it becomes available or be firmware updateable to do so. Of course there is a need to build set top boxes. Just as there were HD ready TV's we still needed set top boxes that were capable of delivering HD signals, many TV's had the picture capability but not the HD tuners. Quote: Sky already have a 4K box in homes now therefore not needing to create/build one to allow BBC to broadcast a signal for people to get free of charge, People don't get things from the BBC FREE of charge. They pay a TV licence, £145.50 a year which contributes to the BBC providing the technology. Virgin have already unveiled their 4K box which launches shortly which again means the don't need to create/build one as it's already done. Another box from another provider. Like Netflix, Amazon, Apple we require set top boxes capable of delivering 4K. What should happen is we should have providers cater for the public and not build their own protected eco system. Amazon are one of the worst examples where they do not have their app available on a number of set top boxes or media centres. Millions have bought Apple TV set top boxes not to view Apple but many streaming services such as iplayer, HBO, Netflix, People shouldn't be buying two or more boxes to have access to services. In reality it is a dumb idea from Amazon as they are denying easy access to their streaming service which they presumably want people to sign up to. They are going to make much more revenue through subscriptions every month, attract people to their Prime service for free delivery than what they will ever get from selling boxes and sticks. We need the Amazon's, Googles, Roku's, Apple Nvidia's to have boxes that have the ability to deliver not only 4K but those services that have 4K content. Quote: Humax already make the 4K capable box for BT and have said that the next generation box will possibly support 4K broadcasts and streamed content, following on from boxes in Germany already. A perfect example which contradicts your opening line "There is no definitive need for anyone to build a set top box." Quote: If there is sufficient demand from the consumer 4K boxes will appear but as I said there are already boxes out there now that deal with providing 4K content to TVs & TVs that can already do it via IP & broadcast that should allow the BBC to provide 4K viewing to the public. There is more than sufficient demand for Amazon Prime but Amazon don't allow their app to be included on several boxes. Actually we have a growing problem that some others such as SKY don't support certain browsers such as SKY not supporting SKY Go. The public deserve technology that is available and better to be available more easily on a wider platform. Quote: The current generation boxes from Humax, as with most ranges will probably be around for maybe another year before being updated anyway. There is no way that Humax will make a box that can't handle 4K from Amazon/Netflik streaming & if it can do that it would cost peanuts to allow broadcast reception too. One of the biggest advantages of early Humax boxes was making services such as Netflix and iplayer available, it makes sense if their new boxes were capable of delivering Netflix in 4K.... The content available currently is already coming through boxes that are already here. Sky, BT, Virgin (about to launch), Humax already doing so in Germany so has the tech available to go. As far as a 4K broadcast for the BBC, there is already the capability to do so without anyone making boxes specifically for it. Netflix/Amazon is available through 4K Smart TVs already & these would be capable of handling a 4K stream from the BBC too, probably with just firmware updates or directly via the iPlayer app with an update at the BBC end. When the Humax gets to the end of life for their current boxes, do you really think they won't add 4K on then, simply as a natural progression and to maintain margins? |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Well there is already a '4k' set top box in general use and I have one. It's the BT Youview box mentioned by another poster and while I don't know if it could handle UHD over Freeview at the moment, it could certainly handle it over IP using the same delivery system as the BT UHD channel (with encryption switched off).
They would of course extend it in due course to other delivery systems but initially, it could in theory be made available right now - contract free - after discussions and arrangements with BT if necessary, or their box makers, as to retail box availability. I can't see Sky being willing to do something similar with Sky Q though! BBC is a big player, with huge viewing figures that could sway a consumers decision as to whether they choose to subscribe to Sky/BT/Virgin to access 4K content. Of course the BBC has to stay platform neutral, whether this means they only have to make the service available to all providers but it's down to the providers to say yes/no to the service, or that the BBC has to be on all platforms or none could be a sticky question. Historically they have just been on a couple while the tech caught up on the others. I think from memory they clever and described the early version of BBC HD on freesat/Sky as a test/beta version rather than an actual station to get around the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
BT, Sky & Virgin I'm sure would all be delighted to advertise that their boxes give their customers access to 4K BBC.
BBC is a big player, with huge viewing figures that could sway a consumers decision as to whether they choose to subscribe to Sky/BT/Virgin to access 4K content. Of course the BBC has to stay platform neutral, whether this means they only have to make the service available to all providers but it's down to the providers to say yes/no to the service, or that the BBC has to be on all platforms or none could be a sticky question. Historically they have just been on a couple while the tech caught up on the others. I think from memory they clever and described the early version of BBC HD on freesat/Sky as a test/beta version rather than an actual station to get around the issue. I could see the beginning of a UHD test service from the BBC taking a similar route with the launch of a BBC UHD channel via satellite. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,457
|
When BBC HD started many studios had equipment that was overdue for replacement. As the cost of HD equipment had fallen and SD equipment was going out of production it was considered cost effective to re-equip with HD, that is not the situation at the present time with UHD. One major cost was replacement lenses as existing ones did not do justice to HD. When Granada re-equipped their Coronation Street facility for widescreen HD cameras were not available but they did a deal with Canon and Ikegami to use SD cameras with HD lenses until the HD cameras became available. The difference between the new and quite expensive lenses was even noticeable on SD. UHD requires even bigger and better lenses to be successful, it also requires studio equipment to be completely replaced probably including current fibre distribution systems. The cost is colossal, as only around 16% (BARB Coronation Street 3-9 Oct) of viewing is in HD at present and as the difference between UHD and HD/upscaled HD is negligible at the screen sizes and viewing distances preferred by the public, regular BBC UHD transmissions could not be financially justified. Their next step will presumable be a roll out of regional HD which currently is SD only.
You should remember that most cinema viewing at the present time is in 2K often upscaled by the projection system to 4K, mainly due to the cost of upgrading the server systems. Cinemas are not rushing as many films are still made in 2K anyway. I don't see people standing outside my local Odeon with protest banners about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 279
|
Quote:
When BBC HD started many studios had equipment that was overdue for replacement. As the cost of HD equipment had fallen and SD equipment was going out of production it was considered cost effective to re-equip with HD, that is not the situation at the present time with UHD. One major cost was replacement lenses as existing ones did not do justice to HD. When Granada re-equipped their Coronation Street facility for widescreen HD cameras were not available but they did a deal with Canon and Ikegami to use SD cameras with HD lenses until the HD cameras became available. The difference between the new and quite expensive lenses was even noticeable on SD. UHD requires even bigger and better lenses to be successful, it also requires studio equipment to be completely replaced probably including current fibre distribution systems. The cost is colossal, as only around 16% (BARB Coronation Street 3-9 Oct) of viewing is in HD at present and as the difference between UHD and HD/upscaled HD is negligible at the screen sizes and viewing distances preferred by the public, regular BBC UHD transmissions could not be financially justified. Their next step will presumable be a roll out of regional HD which currently is SD only.
You should remember that most cinema viewing at the present time is in 2K often upscaled by the projection system to 4K, mainly due to the cost of upgrading the server systems. Cinemas are not rushing as many films are still made in 2K anyway. I don't see people standing outside my local Odeon with protest banners about that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
I could see the beginning of a UHD test service from the BBC taking a similar route with the launch of a BBC UHD channel via satellite.
I basically agree with you and Night Crawler on this - a test channel like the old BBC HD channel, or BT UHD but with more varied content not restricted to 'live' or sports. Incidentally, I get a better picture then the BT HD Sports channel when using the BT UHD channel even though I am using a mere 1024x768 HD Ready plasma set |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
I agree except that it shouldn't and hopefully wouldn't be limited to proprietary receiving equipment requiring a Sky subscription to obtain it, so the question remains, how to get UHD capable PVRs out there and available at retail? The easiest way currently would appear to be via BT UHD boxes being made available at retail under the manufacturer's name. If that deal could be done, I'm pretty sure Sky would soon find a way to make their UHD boxes or a cut-down variant available in that way too. They wouldn't want to be left out of the party.
I basically agree with you and Night Crawler on this - a test channel like the old BBC HD channel, or BT UHD but with more varied content not restricted to 'live' or sports. |
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
Could just use IP. The vast majority of 4K sets are Smart TVs. Tweak iPlayer and use that to access the content.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,195
|
Quote:
Good point - but I was thinking of PVRs. And it wouldn't be very good for live TV due to buffering delays, unless using the (currently BT Wholesale) multicast IP delivery system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
How about YouTube? They can live stream on there in 4K can't they, and again YouTube seems to be on all the 4K sets I've seen?
Only multicast IP streaming with its dedicated 'hived off' bandwidth (at least on BT TV) can currently provide essentially the same viewing conditions as live Satellite or terrestrial TV (to within a second or two and no buffering issues). |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
|
I think any new UHD channel will be via a stream only initially. I am pretty sure the BBC have been working on a system that simply sends one stream down the pipe - which your device will then decide which one to choose, so 4K, HDR, HD etc. will all be on the one stream.
Set top boxes will all need new hardware - HEVC. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
When BBC HD started many studios had equipment that was overdue for replacement. As the cost of HD equipment had fallen and SD equipment was going out of production it was considered cost effective to re-equip with HD, that is not the situation at the present time with UHD. One major cost was replacement lenses as existing ones did not do justice to HD. When Granada re-equipped their Coronation Street facility for widescreen HD cameras were not available but they did a deal with Canon and Ikegami to use SD cameras with HD lenses until the HD cameras became available. The difference between the new and quite expensive lenses was even noticeable on SD. UHD requires even bigger and better lenses to be successful, it also requires studio equipment to be completely replaced probably including current fibre distribution systems. The cost is colossal, as only around 16% (BARB Coronation Street 3-9 Oct) of viewing is in HD at present and as the difference between UHD and HD/upscaled HD is negligible at the screen sizes and viewing distances preferred by the public, regular BBC UHD transmissions could not be financially justified. Their next step will presumable be a roll out of regional HD which currently is SD only.
You should remember that most cinema viewing at the present time is in 2K often upscaled by the projection system to 4K, mainly due to the cost of upgrading the server systems. Cinemas are not rushing as many films are still made in 2K anyway. I don't see people standing outside my local Odeon with protest banners about that. Your comments on resolution are valid but don't take into account the improved colour reproduction that HDR brings. It's that that brings the really noticeable improvement in PQ. More so than the improved resolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Darn Sarf
Posts: 28,728
|
Quote:
I think any new UHD channel will be via a stream only initially. I am pretty sure the BBC have been working on a system that simply sends one stream down the pipe - which your device will then decide which one to choose, so 4K, HDR, HD etc. will all be on the one stream.
Set top boxes will all need new hardware - HEVC. |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Derbyshire
Posts: 41,783
|
Quote:
Incidentally, I get a better picture then the BT HD Sports channel when using the BT UHD channel even though I am using a mere 1024x768 HD Ready plasma set
Same applies to SD sets, you get a considerably better picture watching the HD channels. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,816
|
The BBC have hinted that UHD HDR streams of Planet Earth II will be available via the iPlayer, though not sure if these will be available just after the show airs on the BBC or at a later date ... in effect a tech demo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The City and County of Bristol
Posts: 2,623
|
Don’t know if this has been put up anywhere else but seen it today and remembered this thread.
![]() https://www.avforums.com/news/bbc-to...-iplayer.13072 |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:10.




