dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
36162
share rss forum feed


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

[HD] Get Ready for "Ultra-HDTV"

While Comcast is still charging us an "HD Technology" fee, it looks like DirecTV is already planning for "Ultra-HDTV":

DirecTV planning for Ultra HDTV
Advanced Television - March 15, 2012
»advanced-television.com/index.ph···-u-hdtv/

"US pay-TV giant DirecTV will adopt Ultra-HDTV. DirecTV is already planning its future spectrum needs in readiness for U-HDTV. Philip Goswitz, DirecTV’s SVP/Space and Communications/R&D, speaking at the Satellite 2012 event in Washington, said “4,000 and 8,000-line services are great for the satellite industry, and will ensure that satellite broadcasting continues to distinguish itself for image quality of service. We see this as a key strategic advantage for us.”"
:
While Goswitz did not say when 4,000-line services would start, and it is fair to say that there is still a great deal to be done on compression and other enabling technologies in order to bring these super high-resolution images into viewers’ homes, it is nevertheless clear that DirecTV wants to see its lead maintained over terrestrial TV, cable and DSL-type delivery services, and Goswitz sees satellite as maintaining that technological edge.

Japan’s planned introduction of Ultra-HDTV is scheduled for 2020, and will use Ka-band, a largely unused set of frequencies."

Geez - I don't think I want to know what Comcast would charge as a "U-HD Technology" fee then!


lorennerol
Premium
join:2003-10-29
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

1080p, 1080i, 720p or 4K are all pointless with the amount of compression they're all putting onto the signals. All of them look like garbage on good TV or projector when it comes to fast-moving sports.

Instead of worrying about 4K they should be worrying about reducing compression. Below 50 or 60 inches, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between good 4K, 1080p and 720p signals, but the difference between a highly compressed 1080i signal and a lightly or uncompressed signal is stark.



telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

1 edit

Are you saying that it is too early to start arguing over which is better - 7680i or 5120p?

Actually, 4K-HDTV (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution) in the "Quad Full High Definition" (QFHD) format of 3840 x 2160 pixels in a 16:9 ratio, is just four times the resolution of the 1080p HDTV, and Version 1.4 of the HDMI Spec supports it.

With Comcast compressing the current HD channels at 3:1 per 256QAM carrier, maybe with a more advanced compression scheme, they could get a QFHD channel squeezed into one 256QAM.

As for 8K (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High···levision), the Wiki article says that the BBC intends to trial 8K UHDTV during the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Edit: Also, one application of UHDTV is for glasses-free 3DTV: »www.multichannel.com/article/475···ance.php



telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

said by telcodad:

With Comcast compressing the current HD channels at 3:1 per 256QAM carrier, maybe with a more advanced compression scheme, they could get a QFHD channel squeezed into one 256QAM.

Here is a candidate for the compression scheme for UHDTV - "High Efficiency Video Coding" (HEVC), also known as H.265 (»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Effic···o_Coding ):

"HEVC aims to substantially improve coding efficiency compared to AVC High Profile, i.e. to reduce bitrate requirements by half with comparable image quality, at the expense of increased computational complexity. Depending on the application requirements, HEVC should be able to trade off computational complexity, compression rate, robustness to errors and processing delay time.

HEVC is targeted at next-generation HDTV displays and content capture systems which feature progressive scanned frame rates and display resolutions from QVGA (320x240) up to 1080p and Ultra HDTV (7680x4320), as well as improved picture quality in terms of noise level, color gamut and dynamic range."


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:4

I want to know when the heck we're going to see this encoding with Comcast.



markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5

said by Mike Wolf:

I want to know when the heck we're going to see this encoding with Comcast.

It begins candidate testing for "capture" this summer.

»www.itu.int/itu-t/workprog/wp_it···isn=7752

I have posted about JCT-VC's efforts for the past few years. It is a good reason to not waste money on MPEG-4 rollouts. It is a fantastic solution to deliverable streams in tight bandwidth without the horrific side-effects that MPEG-4 demonstrates. HEVC will be a much better digital TV solution than the MPEG-4 joke that was forced upon us.

Things must happen before its delivered in-home:
Source back-haul must be upgraded to a better quality than today (especially Fox!!!)

CPE must be significantly increased to handle the brute computational force needed in smaller form factors and power use

Cost must be lowered with adoption in other areas before source material is prepared (UV discs and pay-IP-streams would help tremendously)

After that, THEN someone like Comcast would receive content with quality and cost adequate enough to encode further for home delivery. DirecTV as well. Press releases are fun, but have no bearing on the fact that the US is 5-10 years away for "live, non-special high paying special" TV. The Superbowl? Olympics? Much sooner than 5-10 years...
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix

nysports4evr
Premium
join:2010-01-23
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to telcodad

said by telcodad:

With Comcast compressing the current HD channels at 3:1 per 256QAM carrier, maybe with a more advanced compression scheme, they could get a QFHD channel squeezed into one 256QAM.

I could see them doing it with a full QAM and MPEG-4.


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

said by nysports4evr:

I could see them doing it with a full QAM and MPEG-4.

Maybe, but as markofmayhem said, MPEG-4 does not provide a quality video experience, especially for something called "Ultra" HDTV.


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:4
reply to markofmayhem

Ok, but when will the new compression technology be made compantibe with current CPE like TiVo and Moxi and HTPC's, or currently deployed DVR's that are rented?



djrobx
Premium
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VOIPO

1 recommendation

reply to lorennerol

1080p, 1080i, 720p or 4K are all pointless with the amount of compression they're all putting onto the signals. All of them look like garbage on good TV or projector when it comes to fast-moving sports.

I totally agree, but the reality is that they won't fix that, just like they didn't for standard definition.

Standard def could have been DVD quality, yet it was garbage. The only way we got higher bitrates was to move up to HD. And now, once again, we could have bluray quality HD, but we won't.

That said, I don't think DirecTV should be worrying about this when they can't even get lots of basic HD channels to their subscribers.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.


cypherstream
Premium,MVM
join:2004-12-02
Reading, PA
kudos:3
reply to telcodad

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.

For U-HDTV, DirecTV really needs to focus on the basics first. Come on, they don't even have E!, DIY, Style, BBCAmerica, Cooking, We, IFC, and many other's in HD. They overcompress all SD to look like garbage.

Ultra HDTV is going to need a lot of engineering marvels to make it a reality for any provider. Maybe they could get 4K in one QAM if its at a minimum MPEG4. Say theoretically its 4 times the 9mbps bitrate. That's 36mbps, and in one QAM 38.8mbps is usable. Channel bonding for 8K? Either that or this H.265 is going to be the bees knees.



mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV
Reviews:
·Frontier Communi..
·Verizon Online DSL
·Comcast

the thing is directv and dish network can ONLY put so many satellites in orbit.
If they decide to try the merger front again they Could claim without the merger they can't compete with cable tv because of the limits of satellites. They could claim with a merger they could use all of their satellites to offer more hd channels and maybe even sub-channels of the locals they offer.

Unless they merge I don't see directv doing this.



TriForce

join:2008-05-27
Chico, CA
Reviews:
·Comcast
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.

For U-HDTV, DirecTV really needs to focus on the basics first. Come on, they don't even have E!, DIY, Style, BBCAmerica, Cooking, We, IFC, and many other's in HD. They overcompress all SD to look like garbage.

Ultra HDTV is going to need a lot of engineering marvels to make it a reality for any provider. Maybe they could get 4K in one QAM if its at a minimum MPEG4. Say theoretically its 4 times the 9mbps bitrate. That's 36mbps, and in one QAM 38.8mbps is usable. Channel bonding for 8K? Either that or this H.265 is going to be the bees knees.

I agree DTV has to first get more HD channels and naturally bandwidth starved satellite will chock with acceptable quality 4K. I think DTV may be moving a bit too fast considering UHD displays are still grossly expensive.

Work on getting great selection and quality 1080P channels first before you can move on to anything higher.

lorennerol
Premium
join:2003-10-29
Seattle, WA
reply to markofmayhem

said by markofmayhem:

CPE must be significantly increased to handle the brute computational force needed in smaller form factors and power use

And given that they are still stubbornly handing out 6+year old DVRs and it's nearly impossible to get the newer 2+ year old boxes, I don't see this happening for a long, long time.


Streetlight

join:2005-11-07
Colorado Springs, CO
reply to telcodad

1. One of the reasons DirecTV is bandwidth limited is the HUGE number of sports channels available on their service. Basically it's what the available bandwidth is used for that's part of their bandwidth problems. This is a little different from frequency bandwidth. Call it "number of channels bandwidth."

2. Comcast has a similar bandwidth limitation problems as DirecTV has, except different programming choices from DirecTV. One thing Comcast has done here is they have dropped a number of HD channels including some of the Starz and Encore feeds and added some others such as BBCAmericaHD, HUBHD and BloombergHD. They've also converted all the analog channels to digital. Frequency bandwidth is now maxed out with their current physical setup.

3. For any of these providers changing the encoding algorithm generally means a change in STB hardware. A firmware change won't do it. Comcast has > 20 million subscribers with probably an average greater than two boxes per sub. Lots of cost there to replace them. I'm pretty convinced that to really increase the bandwidth cable companies must either increase their frequency bandwidth to at least 2 GHz or go to fiber to the home. Again, maybe replacing cable boxes and other parts of their physical plant. Very expensive. Otherwise they will continue the programming-change-dance.
--
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.

Sherlock Holmes in
The Boscombe Valley Mystery
A. C. Doyle
Strand Magazine, October 1891



Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to telcodad

said by telcodad:

Are you saying that it is too early to start arguing over which is better - 7680i or 5120p?

7680i would be better on a CRT type of TV Since interlace is native on it

Progressive scan will be better on LCD/OLED/Plasma

since they have native progressive scan


markofmayhem
Why not now?
Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
reply to TriForce

said by TriForce:

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.

For U-HDTV, DirecTV really needs to focus on the basics first. Come on, they don't even have E!, DIY, Style, BBCAmerica, Cooking, We, IFC, and many other's in HD. They overcompress all SD to look like garbage.

Ultra HDTV is going to need a lot of engineering marvels to make it a reality for any provider. Maybe they could get 4K in one QAM if its at a minimum MPEG4. Say theoretically its 4 times the 9mbps bitrate. That's 36mbps, and in one QAM 38.8mbps is usable. Channel bonding for 8K? Either that or this H.265 is going to be the bees knees.

I agree DTV has to first get more HD channels and naturally bandwidth starved satellite will chock with acceptable quality 4K. I think DTV may be moving a bit too fast considering UHD displays are still grossly expensive.

Work on getting great selection and quality 1080P channels first before you can move on to anything higher.

This isn't happening in the next few years or this year, they are plans over the NEXT DECADE. UHD is 5-10 years away, longer for widespread adoption. Displays will ramp up sooner (5ish years away) as the 3D cash cow never came to fruition. There will be many more "I don't see the difference" this time around, however. The average TV size (50 inches) has NO DIFFERENCE between 720p and 1440p at a distance of 6.5 feet. Larger screen sizes at closer viewing distances will benefit the most, placing the cost curve even higher than the difference between 720 and 1080 which was a realized difference (7.5 feet, full benefit realized between a 720p 40 inch and 1080p 55 inch). 10 feet away from TV, UHD will offer real benefits at 100 inch and greater sizes over 1080p, quite a huge shift in pricing between 40-50 inch on the last "jump" as neck pain and eye-strain most likely would stop the 100 inch TV size being watched from 7.5 feet away (where 1440p see full benefit). While it will eventually be wide-spread adopted through attrition and force-buying, it will be very limited in early adoption and result in certain channels, events, and one-time showings being offered stand-alone for quite a few years just like 3D.



said by THX Home Theater Setup :
How do you calculate the best seat-to-screen distance for a plasma, LCD TV or projection screen? Divide the size of your screen by .84 (screen size is measured diagonally). For example, a 65-inch TV divided by .84 equals a 77-inch viewing distance (6.5 feet).
At greater and greater resolutions, the "comfort" and "immersion at once" protocols of THX will conflict with the ability for perceived difference by smaller and smaller viewing distances for larger screens at higher resolutions. Having to turn your head left to see action is not recommended, but will be done by many of buyers cramming 80 inch TV's into a 11'x13' room with plump sofas demanding UHD delivery for an overpriced junk experience.
--
Show off that hardware: join Team Discovery and Team Helix


telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

The biggest problem with 3DTV is the need to wear glasses, and the reduction in effective resolution in its presentation.

U-HDTV will provide the extra resolution to allow quality, glasses-free 3DTV.

See:

Ultra High-Def TV moves one step closer to your living room
geek.com - Oct. 24, 2011
»www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/ul···0111024/

DirecTV begins working on broadcasting Ultra HDTV signals
Digital Trends - March 17, 2012
»www.digitaltrends.com/home-theat···signals/

"[Philip Goswitz, DirecTV’s SVP/Space and Communications/R&D,] continued “4000-line is exciting to us because of its image quality, and the potential for glasses-free 3D.” The digital movie industry commonly refers to 4096-by-1714 resolution as the 4K format and several consumer electronics companies showed off 4K-capable televisions during CES 2012 with the most common resolution at 4096-by-2160."



mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

please let me know when sports in 3d is better than sports in hd. I expected it to be like I was actually on the field with the player coming at me but it was just hd.



telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

Actually, I'm just going to totally skip the 3D stuff and just wait for Holographic Projection TV.



telcodad
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

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
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
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


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:4
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
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

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!


Mike Wolf

join:2009-05-24
Beachwood, NJ
kudos:4
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
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15
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)"



celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium
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
Premium
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:15

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