|
BT sport in 4K
From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026 |
BT sport in 4K
On Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:52:47 +0100, Andy Burns
wrote: From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026 They need to sort out the "free" BT Sport to us who still can't get 2Mbps :( -- AnthonyL |
BT sport in 4K
AnthonyL wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026 They need to sort out the "free" BT Sport to us who still can't get 2Mbps :( Oh, did I xpost to u.t.broadCAST? I meant to send to u.t.broadBAND as well as u.t.digital-tv, never mind .... |
BT sport in 4K
On 10/06/2015 13:03, Andy Burns wrote:
AnthonyL wrote: Andy Burns wrote: From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026 They need to sort out the "free" BT Sport to us who still can't get 2Mbps :( Oh, did I xpost to u.t.broadCAST? I meant to send to u.t.broadBAND The way the broadcast industry is going, both groups may as well merge soon. :-) -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
BT sport in 4K
On 09/06/2015 23:52, Andy Burns wrote:
From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026 but given it's online delivery, will it actually even have a data rate equal to a satellite hd broadcast? there's more to quality than resolution. -- Gareth. That fly.... Is your magic wand. |
BT sport in 4K
On 10/06/2015 17:17, the dog from that film you saw wrote:
On 09/06/2015 23:52, Andy Burns wrote: From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026 but given it's online delivery, will it actually even have a data rate equal to a satellite hd broadcast? there's more to quality than resolution. A good FTTC connection could provide a far higher bit rate, than a satellite tp. You could stuff a whole DSAT transponder or DTT mux down my FTTC connection -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
BT sport in 4K
the dog from that film you saw wrote:
On 09/06/2015 23:52, Andy Burns wrote: From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026 but given it's online delivery, will it actually even have a data rate equal to a satellite hd broadcast? there's more to quality than resolution. I looked, after seeing this to see if there was a new BT SIN - but no. The existing SIN for BTW TV gies IIRC 2 products for normal HD 1440 7.5mbit and 1920 10mbit. mbit pedentary will be ignored! I guess depending on their "compliance" WRT using the term UHD it will also be 50 or even 60p as well?? |
BT sport in 4K
On 10/06/2015 19:35, Andy Furniss wrote:
I looked, after seeing this to see if there was a new BT SIN - but no. The existing SIN for BTW TV gies IIRC 2 products for normal HD 1440 7.5mbit and 1920 10mbit. mbit pedentary will be ignored! I guess depending on their "compliance" WRT using the term UHD it will also be 50 or even 60p as well?? If you're going to be serious about 4k/UHD, you really need to run at 120p, you might get away with 50 or 60 for slow moving wildlife docs, but not sport. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
BT sport in 4K
"Mark Carver" wrote in message
... On 10/06/2015 19:35, Andy Furniss wrote: I looked, after seeing this to see if there was a new BT SIN - but no. The existing SIN for BTW TV gies IIRC 2 products for normal HD 1440 7.5mbit and 1920 10mbit. mbit pedentary will be ignored! I guess depending on their "compliance" WRT using the term UHD it will also be 50 or even 60p as well?? If you're going to be serious about 4k/UHD, you really need to run at 120p, you might get away with 50 or 60 for slow moving wildlife docs, but not sport. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. Given the great rip off that the broadcasters sold as "High Definition" was barely better than grade 1 SD (i.e. as the image was aquired and laid uncompressed to DigitBetacam cassette), it is likely UHD will only just contain more detail than existing HD at the point of aquisition. And also, don't forget any UHD media is now compressed at the point of recording. i.e. Pushed through a codec, either Avid thing-me-bob, Apple Pro-Res, or AVC Intra, before being put to disc. The bit rate for this is usually decided by a bean counting super-genius! bits = pennies Q) Why not save a wheel barrow load of cash and transmit true HD? A) Because there will be no sales gimmick for BT to drive broadband sales. Other than (all the) European football, what do BT have that others can not offer? Little else. And also because its a massive poke in the eye for Sky. There is zero chance of Sky launching 4K any time soon. They spent ALL of their money on football rights. Sports programming budgets are being slashed like they're trying to save the company. There will be many redundancies soon (in sports), and production crews will be 'pooled', just as it was in 1993, and just as BBC Sport do now. Sky (non sport channels) drama and comedy budgets have been protected. F1 costs a lot of money, and Sky have never traditionally been a motorsport broadcaster. It _may_ be dropped. To sell UHD, Sky couldnt (in reality) push it over a satelite, just not enough bandwidth available (unless you drop several channels). They would have to up their broadband game. AFAIK, all of the tests so far (for both sports broadcasters) have been at 50p. UHD at 120p would result in a phenominal volume of data at every stage of aquisition, recording and playout. As above, bits = pennies. Plus, (true) UHD at 50p already looks absolutely amazing (even sports). The picture contains so much information your brain _almost_ interprets it as a three dimensional image. I can not conceive why you would want UHD @ 120p. |
BT sport in 4K
null wrote:
snip some valid points AFAIK, all of the tests so far (for both sports broadcasters) have been at 50p. I've got a rec2020 60p hevc sport sample - but then it's from Japan :-) UHD at 120p would result in a phenominal volume of data at every stage of aquisition, recording and playout. As above, bits = pennies. Plus, (true) UHD at 50p already looks absolutely amazing (even sports). Unless you went out of your way to turn off frame interpolation you were likely watching 50p. Of course if the display was good at it fair enough - bits saved. The picture contains so much information your brain _almost_ interprets it as a three dimensional image. I can not conceive why you would want UHD @ 120p. Read some links starting - http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/publications/whitepaper169 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com