BT sport in 4K

From August, but only streamed to VDSL customers ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33062026

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

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 ....

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.

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.

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.

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??

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.

"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.

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