4K TV Service

[vescaegg]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have no idea what that means.

[anonymous-user]

vescaegg said:

I have no idea what that means.

I think he's asking do you like it a 'bit' or a 'lot'.

I could be wrong.

[Magic919]

It's about 15mb/s but bear in mind it is H.265.

[TEKNOPUG]

vescaegg said:

The Moose said:

Am I correct in thinking that's just House of Cards though?

Think there are a few other things too. I believe Breaking Bad for example has been put on.

I think the 4k service costs a few more quid a month.

Are they actually filmed in 4K or just upscaled? That will make a big difference. You can't add quality, just reduce compression.

[Gio G]

I have owned a 4K screen (Samsung 50") for around 6 months and access Netflix. You can watch Breaking Bad, House of Cards and Marco Polo in 4K format.

You do need a good connection, I have Sky unlimited fibre, so do not get any buffering. I did send an email to Netflix suggesting they needed more 4K movies, as they cannot justify their top monthly fee with only a handful of content in 4K.

I think the quality of 4K looks amazing on Samsung screen, just wish there was more content. I also believe that Samsung have nailed the 3D performance on these screens. I now love watching 3D Bluerays.

G

[mp3manager]

Magic919 said:

It's about 15mb/s but bear in mind it is H.265.

But it's still less bit-rate than a blu-ray disc.

[Magic919]

I haven't seen any H.265 Blurays.

[AlanQ]

If you're going to spend a lot of money on a TV it might be best to wait until they've sorted the standard for HDR

[T1berious]

I'll just put this here....

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-3d-201501273992....

They agreed the UHD "standard" just after CES I think, so the big news was the colour gamut and bit rate.

and this

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sky-bt-201502034004...

General gist is that you'll see rollout's by Q3 of Sky and BT's 4K platforms.

However....

Considering the compression needed to get HD I dread to think what they'll need for 4K, talk is of UHD Blu Ray supporting 3 layer 100Gb Disks!

I'm waiting till the 2015 UHD Models hit as they "may" support the BT 2020 standard.

[Magic919]

HEVC should be enough to get the bit rates down. 10 bit colour is no surprise. Higher than 60p frame rates would be nice.

[T1berious]

Gio G said:

I have owned a 4K screen (Samsung 50") for around 6 months and access Netflix. You can watch Breaking Bad, House of Cards and Marco Polo in 4K format.

You do need a good connection, I have Sky unlimited fibre, so do not get any buffering. I did send an email to Netflix suggesting they needed more 4K movies, as they cannot justify their top monthly fee with only a handful of content in 4K.

I think the quality of 4K looks amazing on Samsung screen, just wish there was more content. I also believe that Samsung have nailed the 3D performance on these screens. I now love watching 3D Bluerays.

G

3D was unfortunately given the finger of death in the BR UHD standard doc.

So little take up for it and the movie houses not really tripping over themselves to push out quality 3D content, just token action sequences.

[The Moose]

T1berious said:

I'll just put this here....

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-3d-201501273992....

They agreed the UHD "standard" just after CES I think, so the big news was the colour gamut and bit rate.

and this

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sky-bt-201502034004...

General gist is that you'll see rollout's by Q3 of Sky and BT's 4K platforms.

However....

Considering the compression needed to get HD I dread to think what they'll need for 4K, talk is of UHD Blu Ray supporting 3 layer 100Gb Disks!

I'm waiting till the 2015 UHD Models hit as they "may" support the BT 2020 standard.

Thank you. That's helpful...for a tv salesman!!

[T1berious]

I tried

In all seriousness though, the "new" UHD \ 4K \ whatever they are calling it this week standard will hopefully be implemented in the 2015 model units.

Who isn't completely in the dark about it? there's very few concrete details out there. Last time I went off a wee bit early I ended up with a niche product with very little media available (Laserdisk).

Caution may save some folk a few bob

[FlossyThePig]

The Moose said:

T1berious said:

I'll just put this here....

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-3d-201501273992....

They agreed the UHD "standard" just after CES I think, so the big news was the colour gamut and bit rate.

and this

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/sky-bt-201502034004...

General gist is that you'll see rollout's by Q3 of Sky and BT's 4K platforms.

However....

Considering the compression needed to get HD I dread to think what they'll need for 4K, talk is of UHD Blu Ray supporting 3 layer 100Gb Disks!

I'm waiting till the 2015 UHD Models hit as they "may" support the BT 2020 standard.

Thank you. That's helpful...for a tv salesman!!

Euro broadcast industry still in a fug over that 4K-ing UHD telly

[helidan]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

A very sensible question.

Bit-rate plays a big part.

[Magic919]

I answered that earlier in the thread. Codec is relevant too.

[rotarymazda]

Muncher said:

I thought some broadcasters might be skipping 4k entirely and they were already concentrating on 8k?

Some info if anyone is interested about broadcast infrastructure:

HD uses 1.5Gbps link bandwidth for uncompressed video around a studio. Most broadcasters are using this. Technology is cheap, mostly done with FPGA's running 20bit, 75MHz.

3G uses ~3Gbps. Easily done with technology today (20-bit, 150MHz) but broadcasters aren't using it.

4K requires ~12Gbps. This is getting expensive, as much larger FPGAs needed (4x silicon area needed). Cable lengths are too short so will need fibre based equipment.

8K requires ~48Gbps. Silly money.

(Gbps vary depend on exact frame rates and format used)

For 4K and upwards, there is a lot of uncertainty with the broadcasters:

1. Frame rate needs to go up with large pixel counts to get a decent picture (unless you like watching still images). Higher frame rates => needs more data.
2. Not enough "wow" with just more pixels, looking at higher dynamic range pixels ("nits")
3. SDI-cable based infrastructure is no longer up to the job, will need to fibre-based IP.
4. IP Video Standards suitable for broadcasters still being worked on
5. Who is going to pay for all this? (the TV manufacturers don't)

As far as I can tell, there is a lot of talk about 4K .... until someone sees what it is going to cost to produce and broadcast. The ones that talk about it most are trying to sell you a new TV.

Compression technology is getting better but not keeping up with the new data rates. That will limit how good a picture you will eventually get from your ISP.

[Magic919]

Quad 3G seems to be doing the job for the trials. Doesn't need too much change to accomodate it.

HEVC and 4k work just fine.

Higher frame rates don't necessarily mean much higher data rates once compressed due to temporal redundancy.

[JustinP1]

rotarymazda said:

Compression technology is getting better but not keeping up with the new data rates. That will limit how good a picture you will eventually get from your ISP.

There's something else even more important, and is having an affect already. It has always been the case that the video recording technology has moved to give the end viewer the best experience, and the 'art' follows the use of that technology.

From the dawn of cinema, every shot was a state shot, because they had to be as the cameras were so large. It cost even to take them out of the building, so the first films were effectively recordings of stage shows.

The most recent example of the 'art' following the technology to deliver the best viewing experience, is when the first true 3D films came out a few years ago. By this, I don't mean the one that have been filmed in 2D and made 3D later, but the ones that have been filmed in 3D.

Not only are the cameras not as mobile, it was quickly seen that as the eye needs to focus for 3D the shots became more static, and much longer between cuts.

The same will happen to get the best 4K experience. Don't believe me?

Stream Breaking Bad from Netflix. It was recording on film (probably 16mm) so a lot of data is taken up reproducing the grain, especially in darker scenes. Now look as 'Better Call Saul', made by the same team. This was recorded digitally (no doubt at 4K), and by Netflix themselves

It is without a doubt the best looking thing I have seen streamed. I have a 2.5 meg internet connection, and it streams at 720 and I can blow it up on a projector to 105 inches, and it looks almost as good as blu-ray, and certainly better than Sky HD or BBC HD.

How does it perform this magic? 90% of the shots are long, and static.

I've not seen the 4K version of House of Cards, but my guess is that it uses the same trick.

What does this mean for the 'art'? My guess is that more shows, especially ones which will be streamed, or 4K will be made like this to look the best for playback.

[FurtiveFreddy]

JustinP1 said:

There's something else even more important, and is having an affect already. It has always been the case that the video recording technology has moved to give the end viewer the best experience, and the 'art' follows the use of that technology.

From the dawn of cinema, every shot was a state shot, because they had to be as the cameras were so large. It cost even to take them out of the building, so the first films were effectively recordings of stage shows.

The most recent example of the 'art' following the technology to deliver the best viewing experience, is when the first true 3D films came out a few years ago. By this, I don't mean the one that have been filmed in 2D and made 3D later, but the ones that have been filmed in 3D.

Not only are the cameras not as mobile, it was quickly seen that as the eye needs to focus for 3D the shots became more static, and much longer between cuts.

The same will happen to get the best 4K experience. Don't believe me?

Stream Breaking Bad from Netflix. It was recording on film (probably 16mm) so a lot of data is taken up reproducing the grain, especially in darker scenes. Now look as 'Better Call Saul', made by the same team. This was recorded digitally (no doubt at 4K), and by Netflix themselves

It is without a doubt the best looking thing I have seen streamed. I have a 2.5 meg internet connection, and it streams at 720 and I can blow it up on a projector to 105 inches, and it looks almost as good as blu-ray, and certainly better than Sky HD or BBC HD.

How does it perform this magic? 90% of the shots are long, and static.

I've not seen the 4K version of House of Cards, but my guess is that it uses the same trick.

What does this mean for the 'art'? My guess is that more shows, especially ones which will be streamed, or 4K will be made like this to look the best for playback.

True, to an extent.

Compression algorithms have to work harder and consume more bandwidth for moving scenes or 'difficult' subjects such as water, fire etc. so to make the new HD formats look good with limited capacity bandwidth, the static scenes with lots of detail make sense.

Breaking bad was shot on Super 35mm film and then converted to 2K HD. I can't think of any modern-day U.S. shows shot on 16mm. I don't think even many old ones would have been. Plenty of spare motion picture cameras around Hollywood and stock was cheap enough not to bother with anything less than 35mm.