 telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to telcodad
Re: [HD] Get Ready for "Ultra-HDTV" An article on U-HDTV that mentions the current issues with 3DTV:
TV Execs bullish on 4K and 8K, less so on 3D
By Jonathan Tombes, Contributing Editor, Videonet -March 19, 2012
»www.v-net.tv/tv-execs-bullish-on···o-on-3d/
"A panel of programming executives at the Satellite 2012 conference and exhibition in Washington, D.C. said this week that said ultra-high definition (UHD) TV held promise, if not in the near term, but that 3D TV was problematic now.
“As for as high resolution, we’re really bullish on that,” said John McCoskey, CTO of the U.S. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). “It was demoed at CES this year, on 8k and 4k models. These are potentially viable technologies. We expect to see a lot of movement on the 4K acquisition side. That will drive the ability to get higher resolution content.”
McCoskey said commercial deployments, led by Japanese broadcaster NHK could be eight years away, but that Moore’s Law-driven chip improvements (transistors doubling every two years) would enable the transition, along with advanced compression, which already has enabled 4k transmission in under 300 Mbps.
:
The situation with 3D is different. While consumers understand it, content providers are hesitating. David Couret, Technical Solutions Director, Audiovisuel
Exterieur de la France (France 24) noted that satellite transmission was best way to distribute 3D but said that his “main concern … is the glasses you have to get.”
“We agree with David,” said Jaffe. “Until 3D is glass-less in the home, we don’t see mass adoption.” Disney’s Roberts said that interest in 3D has flattened out. “I’ve got broadcasters that can’t re-broadcast it,” he said. Then there are nagging questions about the health effects of 3D. Roberts mentioned the potential impact on epileptic children, in particular." |
|
telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to telcodad
said by telcodad:Actually, I'm just going to totally skip the 3D stuff and just wait for Holographic Projection TV. 
Holographic TV may be closer than we might realize:
Forget 3DTV Holographic TV Is The Next Big Thing
WorldTVPC - May 31, 2010
»www.worldtvpc.com/blog/forget-3d···-tv-big/
Holographic TV
Squidoo - March 2010
»www.squidoo.com/holographictv |
|
| reply to telcodad
Another idea would be to wait for direct neural implants to the optic nerve. |
|
yhp
join:2006-12-27
Philadelphia, PA | To say nothing of turning off the TV and going outside. |
|
telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | said by yhp:To say nothing of turning off the TV and going outside.
And then having to deal with the real world? No thanks! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to yhp
Why would anyone want to do that when they could just turn on Animal Planet HD, Outdoor Network HD, and Sportsman HD? I mean hell they could even pop in a blu ray of the Planet Earth series and get all the outside they want  |
|
telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to telcodad
Well, besides DirecTV, it looks like Comcast has also been doing some planning of their own for Ultra-HDTV, going by who's involved in this particular session scheduled for this year's Cable Show, next month in Boston (»2012.thecableshow.com/ ):
Session 08: Redefining High-Definition: Implications of Ultra HD for Cable Providers
»2012.thecableshow.com/Schedule/Session/1001
"If you thought television images couldn’t get any clearer, watch this. Emerging display technologies are making denser frame rates and bigger screens possible. Get an early read on the technology implications for cable as experts discuss perceptual encoding, the biology behind the medium, and advancements in 4K TV.
Moderator: Tony Werner (Comcast Cable)
Speakers: Christophe Diot (Technicolor), Rob Howald (Motorola Mobility), Mark Schubin (SchubinCafe.com), Yasser Syed (Comcast Cable)" |
|
 celeritypcFor Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. SparklePremium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ | reply to telcodad
Now I'll have to get high resolution eyes. Not really possible during allergy season. |
|
bsoft
join:2004-03-28
Boulder, CO | reply to cypherstream
said by cypherstream:Ok, the thing with MPEG4 is that sometimes the color gamut is compressed more so than seeing "mosquito noise" like in MPEG2. The resolution is sharp and crisp for much less bits per second, but color representation can suffer. Faces have a "clay face" like appearance. Color bands can be seen. Backgrounds can loose detail as MPEG4 highlights active subjects. This is at best misleading and at worst blatantly wrong.
First of all, let's be clear that "MPEG4" refers to a whole family of standards, including MPEG4 Part 2 (ASP) which is used in (among other things) Xvid. To my knowledge, all broadcasting uses of "MPEG4" use MPEG4 Part 10 (AVC / H.264) which is an entirely different compression standard.
The H.264 standard does not say that the encoder has to highlight active subjects, or that it should blur the image.
The reason you sometimes see these problems in H.264 is because of crappy encoders. Encoders that are optimized for quality metrics like PSNR generally end up overusing the deblocking filter because it improves the score. It also ends up destroying fine detail. Similarly, many encoders have poor ratecontrol and end up blurring the crap out of the background because they don't spend enough bits on the I frame.
H.264 has many, many more options than MPEG2 and there are a lot of traps that encoders can fall into. But even the crappiest H.264 encoder beats the pants off of the bet MPEG2 encoders at the same bitrates.
The reality is that Comcast is cramming 3xHD into a 6MHz 256QAM channel (~40Mbps) which is nowhere near enough with MPEG2. As soon as there is any sort of significant motion it turns into block city. At the same bitrates, H.264 with a half-decent encoder looks fine.
Go look at the output of x264 with sane presets and then come back and tell me that H.264 has "horrific side effects".
I'm not going to claim that H.264 is somehow magic. It cannot make 6Mbps U-Verse H.264 look as good as 20Mbps MPEG2. |
|
telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | A pair of recent articles on the Multichannel News site about some more TV services moving to MPEG-4 for ("regular") HDTV:
Discovery Starts MPEG-4 Migration For Five HD Services
Animal Planet, Science in First Phase; Discovery, TLC and Planet Green to Follow in Fall
By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - April 11, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/article/483···ices.php
Motorola Next-Gen Transcoder IRD Ready For 'Full HD'
DSR-6000 Family Scales Up to Four Channels, Supports 1080p HD
By Todd Spangler, Multichannel News - April 12, 2012
»www.multichannel.com/article/483···_HD_.php |
|
|
|
telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to cypherstream
According to a news item today on the Multichannel News site (»www.multichannel.com/article/484···HEVC.php), Motorola will be demonstrating the new High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard at next week's Cable Show in Boston:
"Meanwhile, Motorola will stage a demo of HEVC video compression, also referred to as H.265 (»www.multichannel.com/article/474···eeze.php), which is designed to shave bandwidth as much as 50% compared with MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 at comparable quality. The vendor will have a side-by-side comparison of HEVC and MPEG4 AVC/H.264." |
|
| said by telcodad:According to a news item today on the Multichannel News site (»www.multichannel.com/article/484···HEVC.php), Motorola will be demonstrating the new High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standard at next week's Cable Show in Boston:
"Meanwhile, Motorola will stage a demo of HEVC video compression, also referred to as H.265 (»www.multichannel.com/article/474···eeze.php), which is designed to shave bandwidth as much as 50% compared with MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 at comparable quality. The vendor will have a side-by-side comparison of HEVC and MPEG4 AVC/H.264."
The key here is their definition of "comparable", which usually seems to mean "obviously inferior, but we think it's good enough". |
|
djcrazy
join:2009-08-05
Minneapolis, MN | reply to telcodad
The real problem here is that most of the content they call " Programming" these days is not even worth watching let alone with the higher resolutions |
|
| reply to telcodad
I hope the customer owned equipment like TiVo and stuff will be able to support and benefit from this. |
|
telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to telcodad
The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has now announced its recommendations for UHDTV, with 2 "picture levels," a 4K one with 8 megapixels and an 8K one with 32 megapixels:
Ultra High Definition Television: Threshold of a new age
ITU Recommendations on UHDTV standards agreed
ITU Press Release - May 24, 2012
»www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/pres···/31.aspx
An ITU video on UHDTV development:
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT2XluvAjwQ |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to telcodad
SDV is the only solution cable can do for making UHDTV even possible. By not requiring all the QAM channels to be open all the time they might get the bandwidth needed.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
| reply to telcodad
DirecTV is addicted to these weird not likely to ever happen technologies. They lost me to comcast when they added a bunch of 3d channels when they didn't even have basics like AMC in high def. (Really DirecTV, when Comcast has more channels in HD, you really need to think about it.) |
|
 markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
·Comcast
| reply to Kearnstd
said by Kearnstd:SDV is the only solution cable can do for making UHDTV even possible. By not requiring all the QAM channels to be open all the time they might get the bandwidth needed.
No. SDV does not "provide bandwidth", it makes current usage more efficient up until saturation of the whole which is shrunk.
HEVC is one of many practical solutions. SDV at the home level is a white paper wet dream to grab quick capital; at the edge/node is where it is practical to shut down neighborhood head-ends in favor of large regional super head-ends to dramatically lower operating cost.
The pipeline between our middle-person supply companies (Comcast, Dish, Direct, Cox, TW, FiOS, etc) and the content providers (Disney, Universal, etc) is the first "bandwidth" hurdle. The wire coming into your home is not the stop gap yet. Uplink/downlink satellite distribution will first need solved years before home delivery. SDV is already employed in this space...
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix |
|
telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | reply to telcodad
Over the past week, Comcast and NBC Universal have been hosting invitation-only demonstrations of 8K Ultra-HD versions of various Olympic events at their Washington, D.C. office (»www.multichannel.com/article/488···ence.php).
While 8K Ultra-HD will probably not be available at home until the end of this decade, on the Zatz Not Funny blog site, technology writer Mari Silbey described her viewing experience at a recent screening:
Now Playing: Usain Bolt in Ultra-HD
By Mari Silbey, Zatz Not Funny! - August 6, 2012
»www.zatznotfunny.com/2012-08/now···ltra-hd/ |
|
Reviews:
 ·DIRECTV
| reply to djcrazy
said by djcrazy: The real problem here is that most of the content they call " Programming" these days is not even worth watching let alone with the higher resolutions
Lots of people agree, not only is the cost of service too high as it is currently, the quality of the content is absolutely HORRIBLE!
97% of stuff on pay tv channels today is ABSOLUTE RUBBISH!
No wonder people are shedding traditional cable and satellite TV.
I can head over to Daily Motion, Vimeo. Metacafe, or YT, and actually get to see things that are worth watching for FREE, a lot of what I like is how to (automotive EricTheCarGuy, ScottyKilmer) and alternative information which can NEVER get aired on regular cable/sat channels. About the only worthwhile news channels on regular pay tv are LINK TV, RT, and Al Jezzera TV. Of course many providers don't carry most of them. |
|
