 telcodad
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | [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!  |
|
| 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
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2
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
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | 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." |
|
| I want to know when the heck we're going to see this encoding with Comcast. |
|
 markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| 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 |
|
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
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | 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. |
|
| 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
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·VOIPo
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| 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.
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.
|
|
| 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. |
|
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
| 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. |
|
| 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_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
·RoadRunner 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 |
|
markofmayhemWhy not now?Premium
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Comcast
| 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
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | 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." |
|
| 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
join:2011-09-16
Lincroft, NJ
kudos:2 | Actually, I'm just going to totally skip the 3D stuff and just wait for Holographic Projection TV. |
|
