4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

4K TVs are becoming available and more reasonable prices and there are
some 4k internet streaming channels.

So when, if ever, will any of the Freesat or Freeview channels convert
to 4K?

--
Michael Chare

Hi
I thought 4K TV was being supplied via the internet.

Regards
David





"Michael Chare" wrote in message ...

4K TVs are becoming available and more reasonable prices and there are
some 4k internet streaming channels.

So when, if ever, will any of the Freesat or Freeview channels convert
to 4K?

--
Michael Chare

So when, if ever, will any of the Freesat or Freeview channels
convert to 4K?

Sky is apparently launching a new 4K and/or UHD compatible SkyQ box later
this year and has plenty of satellite bandwidth to cope with the higher (up
four times HD) demands of UHD (remember how the BBC and Sky conjured up 20
or more new HD channels for the last Olympics).

The BBC did UHD test transmissions using DVB-T2 from three main
transmitters last year, but has been giving up it's satellite transponders
to save money, so seems unlikely to want to offer free to air UHD in the
near future.

So I'd guess the only free to air UHD will be state subsidised European and
Arabic broadcasters, and a German shopping channel.

Angus

On 02/08/2015 14:06, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
So when, if ever, will any of the Freesat or Freeview channels
convert to 4K?

Sky is apparently launching a new 4K and/or UHD compatible SkyQ box later
this year and has plenty of satellite bandwidth to cope with the higher (up
four times HD) demands of UHD (remember how the BBC and Sky conjured up 20
or more new HD channels for the last Olympics).

The BBC did UHD test transmissions using DVB-T2 from three main
transmitters last year, but has been giving up it's satellite transponders
to save money, so seems unlikely to want to offer free to air UHD in the
near future.

So I'd guess the only free to air UHD will be state subsidised European and
Arabic broadcasters, and a German shopping channel.

Angus





worth waiting before buying a tv though.
if sky uses 120fps for their broadcasts as rumoured there's probably
nothing on sale now that will show them at their best.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

On 02/08/2015 15:56, the dog from that film you saw wrote:

worth waiting before buying a tv though.
if sky uses 120fps for their broadcasts as rumoured there's probably
nothing on sale now that will show them at their best.


Yes, I think it is necessary to wait a couple of years. From what I have
read, some of the present TVs blur motion pictures.

I would rather receive by satellite rather than broadband as there are
less contention problems.


--
Michael Chare

On Sunday, 2 August 2015 20:12:17 UTC+1, Michael Chare wrote:
On 02/08/2015 15:56, the dog from that film you saw wrote:

worth waiting before buying a tv though.
if sky uses 120fps for their broadcasts as rumoured there's probably
nothing on sale now that will show them at their best.


Yes, I think it is necessary to wait a couple of years. From what I have
read, some of the present TVs blur motion pictures.

I would rather receive by satellite rather than broadband as there are
less contention problems.


--
Michael Chare

Wait if you can, but if your TV breaks down, then the additional cost of 4K will provide more future proofing.

"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
4K TVs are becoming available and more reasonable prices and there are
some 4k internet streaming channels.

So when, if ever, will any of the Freesat or Freeview channels convert to
4K?

--
Michael Chare


4K ....over Freeview?
One hopes you are 'having a laugh'. Seriously.

Consider that this stuff originates at 12Gb/s.
Tweleve gigabits of data, per second.
In comparison, present HD originates at just under 1.5Gb/s.

And to compress this enough so that its transmittable over freeview, you
would have to dispense with so much information that you would render 'UHD'
pointless.
i.e. The loss in quality would be so bad that it would be comparable to
existing HD. Therefore, just what is the point?

The only way to transmit 'acceptable' UHD is either usings serveral channel
spaces over satellite, or proper* broadband.
* meaning something better than BTs standard twisted pair phone line. Either
the co-ax that Virgin is installing, or fibre from both BT and Virgin.

4K over Freeview?
Hopefully, never.

On Monday, 3 August 2015 12:07:38 UTC+1, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
4K TVs are becoming available and more reasonable prices and there are
some 4k internet streaming channels.

So when, if ever, will any of the Freesat or Freeview channels convert to
4K?

--
Michael Chare


4K ....over Freeview?
One hopes you are 'having a laugh'. Seriously.

Consider that this stuff originates at 12Gb/s.
Tweleve gigabits of data, per second.
In comparison, present HD originates at just under 1.5Gb/s.

And to compress this enough so that its transmittable over freeview, you
would have to dispense with so much information that you would render 'UHD'
pointless.
i.e. The loss in quality would be so bad that it would be comparable to
existing HD. Therefore, just what is the point?

The only way to transmit 'acceptable' UHD is either usings serveral channel
spaces over satellite, or proper* broadband.
* meaning something better than BTs standard twisted pair phone line. Either
the co-ax that Virgin is installing, or fibre from both BT and Virgin.

4K over Freeview?
Hopefully, never.

UHD is certainly no more than four times the bandwidth of 1080i, which is broadcast in the teens of Mbps (SD usually less than half that).

With more sophisticated compression BT expect to be able to get UHD down a 30-40Mbps pipe, which curiously enough is what you normally get from FTTC. This will also fit onto a single satellite transponder. These currently carry up to ten SD channels or two to three HD ones.

Different argument for Freeview, although Freeview HD looks good.

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
wrote:

With more sophisticated compression BT expect to be able
to get UHD down a 30-40Mbps pipe, which curiously enough
is what you normally get from FTTC.

Your version of "normally" might not apply to all FTTC users.

Rod.

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 3 August 2015 12:07:38 UTC+1, _Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
"Michael Chare" wrote in message
...
4K TVs are becoming available and more reasonable prices and there are
some 4k internet streaming channels.

So when, if ever, will any of the Freesat or Freeview channels convert
to
4K?

--
Michael Chare


4K ....over Freeview?
One hopes you are 'having a laugh'. Seriously.

Consider that this stuff originates at 12Gb/s.
Tweleve gigabits of data, per second.
In comparison, present HD originates at just under 1.5Gb/s.

And to compress this enough so that its transmittable over freeview, you
would have to dispense with so much information that you would render
'UHD'
pointless.
i.e. The loss in quality would be so bad that it would be comparable to
existing HD. Therefore, just what is the point?

The only way to transmit 'acceptable' UHD is either usings serveral
channel
spaces over satellite, or proper* broadband.
* meaning something better than BTs standard twisted pair phone line.
Either
the co-ax that Virgin is installing, or fibre from both BT and Virgin.

4K over Freeview?
Hopefully, never.

UHD is certainly no more than four times the bandwidth of 1080i, which is
broadcast in the teens of Mbps (SD usually less than half that).

With more sophisticated compression BT expect to be able to get UHD down a
30-40Mbps pipe, which curiously enough is what you normally get from FTTC.
This will also fit onto a single satellite transponder. These currently
carry up to ten SD channels or two to three HD ones.

Different argument for Freeview, although Freeview HD looks good.






"Freeview HD looks good."

"...looks good" ????



The war, my lord, is lost!

Freeview HD is.... (sorry, Ive run out of expletives) DOG ****E!

Next time there's a field based sport on telly, watch it.
Instead of watching 'the action', watch the detail in the grass when the
camera moves around.

The grass turns to one big green VHS* quality mush. All the detail in the
grass disappears.
When I say VHS quality, I mean the tape you left in the deck for that
'emergency crash in to record' occasion!

The detail only returns to the grass when the camera stops moving.
.....once the mpg encoding has enough bandwidth to restore picture detail.


Next, take any 'shiney floor show' on ITV.... well, just about any programme
on ITV which isnt a vacuous soap or period drama.
Wait for the confetti drop at the end of the programme.... And just like
Cillit Bang, the detail is gone!
.....too many different items moving in too many different directions for mpg
encoding to be able to maintain any reasonable level of detail, resulting in
a picture resembling a YouTube video in 2005!

Any captions or graphics, any channel. They should all have distinct sharp
edges.
Look again, and you'll see a border around everything, about 1 to 3 pixels
wide.
.....because the transmitted mpg stream doesnt have enough bandwidth to
detail the edges of graphics.

"HD" is not HD.
Yes, its 'High', lots of pixels and vertical lines, but no 'Definition'.

The quality you see on HD Freeview equates to SD quality at source.
i.e. What you see on telly is only as good as broadcast quality SD (at
source) ever was.

Thus, the 'digital tv' rip off.
Freeview HD does not look good.




FWIW, UHD IS more than four times the bandwidth.

A 4K video source produces four 3Gb/s streams.
......that was the method SMPTE came up with.

A 4K camera has four video outputs BNCs. Each containing a 3Gb/s stream.
4 x 3 = 12Gb/s

As opposed to a 1080 HD camera, which produces one 1.5Gb/s stream from one
BNC socket.

And you want to compress 12Gb/s down to teens of Mb/s ????
Just what do you think will happen to your detail? ....to your picture
definition?
You think it will be 'Ultra High' do you?


"....better compression....blah"
Its called HEVC, or h.265.
.....Which is also ********!

All they did was take h.264 and make the macro blocks bigger, and tweak
colour spacing.
i.e. the size of the squares the encoder carves the picture in to.

So when you get a 4K ITV shiney floor show (HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA! Shortly
after hell freezes over), the size of the squares the confetti drop causes
will be four times bigger.
i.e. it will still be dog ****e!


On the plus side, the UHD pictures you see will by that point be source HD
quality at least!
i.e. You will see at home what we presently see at source in HD.


At present, if a football match is shot in 4K, it is possible to make out
the detail in peoples faces _in the opposite stand_.
It is actually possible to lip read whilst the camera is sat on a wide shot,
such is the level of detail in 4K.
If you compress it..... well, whats the point?



FTR, I live right next to a major BT exchange.
There isnt even a cabinet between me and the exchange.
I get 13Mb/s!! (twisted pair phone line)
As I said previously, to get decent bandwidth to the home requires either
fibre or co-ax.
......not a lot of that about, and in some areas, just aint gonna happen.