4K content - worth upgrading PVR?

[David]

I have a FreeSat PVR (Humax) and a FireStick which give me Full HD content.
I've recently upgraded a TV to 4k (long story).
I can get 4K content over Ethernet direct to the TV.
The TV has a satellite decoder (so should show 4k content) and I have one
spare connection on the LNB but lack the will at the moment to run yet
another cable.

One option is to upgrade the PVR to a 4k model, but I'm wondering if I
will see a noticeable difference.
I am assuming the TV is already doing some upscaling.

TV is an LG 43UQ91006LA.

At the moment I am always using it as a monitor for the PVR because my
main use is to record then watch F1.

I haven't used the FireStick in a while, but a 4K version might make sense
assuming that it offers more functionality that the TV's inbuilt software.

Too many choices.

Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?

Cheers


Dave R

[MikeS]

Post by David
I have a FreeSat PVR (Humax) and a FireStick which give me Full HD content.
I've recently upgraded a TV to 4k (long story).
I can get 4K content over Ethernet direct to the TV.
The TV has a satellite decoder (so should show 4k content) and I have one
spare connection on the LNB but lack the will at the moment to run yet
another cable.
One option is to upgrade the PVR to a 4k model, but I'm wondering if I
will see a noticeable difference.
I am assuming the TV is already doing some upscaling.
TV is an LG 43UQ91006LA.
At the moment I am always using it as a monitor for the PVR because my
main use is to record then watch F1.
I haven't used the FireStick in a while, but a 4K version might make sense
assuming that it offers more functionality that the TV's inbuilt software.
Too many choices.
Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?
Cheers
Dave R

I had a 4K 49" TV several years ago simply because it is no longer
possible to buy a decent HD one. Unless you sit very close to your 43"
TV upgrading the PVR is pointless. However, a fanatic or two will
probably be along to tell you I have ignored the wonders of HDR.

[Vir Campestris]

Post by MikeS
I had a 4K 49" TV several years ago simply because it is no longer
possible to buy a decent HD one. Unless you sit very close to your 43"
TV upgrading the PVR is pointless. However, a fanatic or two will
probably be along to tell you I have ignored the wonders of HDR.

I helped develop 4k TVs. The process taught me to look for all the
possible defects in broadcast TVs.

I wouldn't bother. I'm always being bothered by artefacts caused by
inadequate bitrate, but the improved resolution? Shrug.

Andy

[alan_m]

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by MikeS
I had a 4K 49" TV several years ago simply because it is no longer
possible to buy a decent HD one. Unless you sit very close to your 43"
TV upgrading the PVR is pointless. However, a fanatic or two will
probably be along to tell you I have ignored the wonders of HDR.

I helped develop 4k TVs. The process taught me to look for all the
possible defects in broadcast TVs.
I wouldn't bother. I'm always being bothered by artefacts caused by
inadequate bitrate, but the improved resolution? Shrug.

But is 4k with an inadequate bit rate better than HD with an inadequate
bit rate? Is HD with an inadequate bit rate better than SD with an
inadequate bit rate?

[Mark Carver]

Post by David
Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?

Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?

I think it's only Sky who do a limited amount of UHD in 4K via
satellite, and subs only,

[David]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by David
Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone
FreeSat decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?

Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?
I think it's only Sky who do a limited amount of UHD in 4K via
satellite, and subs only,

I was just searching for that.
At the moment I cannot find any FreeSat UHD channels.
I know that Virgin has something, but was assuming that there would be
other channels.

If there aren't any 4k channels then upgrading the PVR doesn't look
sensible.

<https://www.richersounds.com/freesat-uhd-4x-1tb.html> seems pretty clear
that it can stream 4K but only records FHD from FreeSat.

Cheers


Dave R

[alan_m]

Post by David

Post by Mark Carver

Post by David
Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone
FreeSat decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?

Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?
I think it's only Sky who do a limited amount of UHD in 4K via
satellite, and subs only,

I was just searching for that.
At the moment I cannot find any FreeSat UHD channels.
I know that Virgin has something, but was assuming that there would be
other channels.
If there aren't any 4k channels then upgrading the PVR doesn't look
sensible.
<https://www.richersounds.com/freesat-uhd-4x-1tb.html> seems pretty clear
that it can stream 4K but only records FHD from FreeSat.

If you ignore Freesat/freeview branded receivers/PVR you will soon not
find any new satellite models that are not 4K compatible. It much like
TVs where most new models are 4K or even 8K.

The latest in satellite receivers is multiple tuners (Full Band Capture)
and unicable LNBs.
For instance a unicable lnb can feed, say, 32 tuners, down a single drop
cable. These 32 tuners may be in 32 different receivers or each of the
receivers may have 8 or 16 tuners (or a combination of either).

The sky equivalent (but different) is a wideband LNB feeding 12 tuners
in a Sky Q box via two drop cables.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Mark Carver
Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?

astra/ses demo UHD channels, and the occasional BBC special event
streamed via red-button

[MikeS]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Mark Carver
Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?

astra/ses demo UHD channels, and the occasional BBC special event
streamed via red-button

The UHD demo channels closed a few weeks ago.

The only proper UHD broadcast content is Sky if you are a subscriber.
Otherwise its subscription streaming with a small amount on iPlayer plus
a variety of free stuff on Youtube, etc. I played with it when the TV
was new but otherwise can't be bothered.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Mark Carver
Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?

astra/ses demo UHD channels, and the occasional BBC special event
streamed via red-button

BBC shows world cup and some other events and they come via the internet not satellite. Sadly BBC 4K content suffers from a brightness/contrast problem.

There is quite a lot excellent free 4k content on YouTube, but whether a PVR could record this I doubt. In any event unless it is [only] live why bother?

4K on a 43" TV will be hard to benefit from. We have a 55" set. At 3.5m the benefit is obvious. At 7m+ one can't tell 4K from full HD.

[the dog from that film you saw]

Post by David
Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?

the pvr will in all probability not receive 4k sat broadcasts nor record
them.
it will simply allow output from iplayer, netflix, amazon, disney app
etc when the show you're watching is 4k.
and chances are your new tv already has those apps anyway.

[Brian Gaff]

I don't know, but a friend came around who can see and he put it onto an 8k
feed from youtube and he said it was amazing, even the writing on a distant
plane in the sky could be read. Its true the screen on the Samsung claims to
be 8k resolution, but what does that mean pixel wise?
Obviously lost on me, so why not make TVs modular. The receiver and
internet bit, an attachable choice of screens etc. I could then flog my
telly and buy just the receiver and it would be cheaper!

Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by David
I have a FreeSat PVR (Humax) and a FireStick which give me Full HD content.
I've recently upgraded a TV to 4k (long story).
I can get 4K content over Ethernet direct to the TV.
The TV has a satellite decoder (so should show 4k content) and I have one
spare connection on the LNB but lack the will at the moment to run yet
another cable.
One option is to upgrade the PVR to a 4k model, but I'm wondering if I
will see a noticeable difference.
I am assuming the TV is already doing some upscaling.
TV is an LG 43UQ91006LA.
At the moment I am always using it as a monitor for the PVR because my
main use is to record then watch F1.
I haven't used the FireStick in a while, but a 4K version might make sense
assuming that it offers more functionality that the TV's inbuilt software.
Too many choices.
Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?
Cheers
Dave R
--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64

[Andy Burns]

a friend came around who can see and he put it onto an 8k feed from
youtube and he said it was amazing [...] what does that
mean pixel wise?

7680 by 4320

[Brian Gaff]

Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on here, ie
even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Andy Burns

a friend came around who can see and he put it onto an 8k feed from
youtube and he said it was amazing [...] what does that
mean pixel wise?

7680 by 4320

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Brian Gaff
Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on here, ie
even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.
Brian

Yes a lot, however the visual effect is minimal despite this. MP4 is the most common.

The main compression is that large parts of the image change little from frame to frame.

If your bandwidth is low or the action is fast moving (e.g. live sports) then you may get image smearing, tearing or blurring.

SNIP

[David Woolley]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Brian Gaff
I bet some compression is being used.
Brian

Yes a lot, however the visual effect is minimal despite this. MP4 is the most common.

MP4 is a container format, not a compression scheme. There are multiple
possible codecs that an be used with MP4, although I doubt raw RGB is
one of them.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Brian Gaff
Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on here, ie
even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.

Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...

Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
without breaking a sweat.

[NY]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Brian Gaff
Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on here, ie
even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.

Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...
Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
without breaking a sweat.

The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.

For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than off-air
HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling that VLC
uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way increases
the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing contrast of
edges. The other difference is one of motion representation: the 4K test
is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.

[Mark Carver]

Post by NY
The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than off-air
HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling that VLC
uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way increases
the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing contrast of
edges. The other difference is one of motion representation: the 4K test
is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.

Let's not get sloppy with terminology

3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k

4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

[NY]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by NY
The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than
off-air HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling
that VLC uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way
increases the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing
contrast of edges. The other difference is one of motion
representation: the 4K test is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.

Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
and 4k that are so similar?

I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
"greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by NY

Post by Mark Carver

Post by NY
The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than
off-air HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling
that VLC uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way
increases the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing
contrast of edges. The other difference is one of motion
representation: the 4K test is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.

Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
and 4k that are so similar?
I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
"greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

They are not, however I have never even seen a true 4K screen offered for sale and colloquially when people talk about 4k monitors or TV's they almost invariable mean 3840X2160.

For disc and memory capacity this works the other way round, when vendors describe something as MB, what you actually get is 1,048,576 bytes and for GB you get 7% more and for TB nearly 10%.

[Robin]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by NY

Post by Mark Carver

Post by NY
The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than
off-air HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling
that VLC uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way
increases the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing
contrast of edges. The other difference is one of motion
representation: the 4K test is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.

Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
and 4k that are so similar?
I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
"greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

They are not, however I have never even seen a true 4K screen offered for sale and colloquially when people talk about 4k monitors or TV's they almost invariable mean 3840X2160.

Marks probably has some :) But AIUI used for editing digital movies made
in 4096 x 2160 - eg

https://www.cclonline.com/z4y82a4-abu-hp-z31x-monitor-31-1-inch-4096-x-2160-4k-ultra-hd-ips-panel-black


https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-ColorEdge-CG319X-31-Monitor/dp/B07C5HJ2WG

[Andy Burns]

Marks probably has some 🙂 But AIUI used for editing digital movies made
in 4096 x 2160  - eg
https://www.cclonline.com/z4y82a4-abu-hp-z31x-monitor-31-1-inch-4096-x-2160-4k-ultra-hd-ips-panel-black
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-ColorEdge-CG319X-31-Monitor/dp/B07C5HJ2WG

I'm not going to look at the prices of those ...

[Mark Carver]

Post by Andy Burns

Marks probably has some 🙂 But AIUI used for editing digital movies
made in 4096 x 2160  - eg
https://www.cclonline.com/z4y82a4-abu-hp-z31x-monitor-31-1-inch-4096-x-2160-4k-ultra-hd-ips-panel-black
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-ColorEdge-CG319X-31-Monitor/dp/B07C5HJ2WG

I'm not going to look at the prices of those ...

Or one of these, not much change out of £30k

https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/broadcastpromonitors/pvm-x300

(Yes, I've installed a couple in recent years for clients)

[Andy Burns]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Andy Burns
I'm not going to look at the prices of those ...

Or one of these, not much change out of £30k
https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/broadcastpromonitors/pvm-x300

It's amusing how Mr HDTVtest makes youtube videos comparing new TVs to
such reference monitors, when his audience will probably be
watching on a sub-par laptop screen ...

[alan_m]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Andy Burns
I'm not going to look at the prices of those ...

Or one of these, not much change out of £30k
https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/broadcastpromonitors/pvm-x300

It's amusing how Mr HDTVtest makes youtube videos comparing new TVs to
such reference monitors, when his audience will probably be
watching on a sub-par laptop screen ...

Even if the audience is watching on a high end TV the chances are that
it will not have been optimally adjusted - over saturated colour, too
bright, all the gimmicky features turned on (or left on default) etc.

[the dog from that film you saw]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Andy Burns
I'm not going to look at the prices of those ...

Or one of these, not much change out of £30k
https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/broadcastpromonitors/pvm-x300

It's amusing how Mr HDTVtest makes youtube videos comparing new TVs to
such reference monitors, when his audience will probably be
watching on a sub-par laptop screen ...

why?
what high quality oled tv in the last 5 years didn't have a youtube
client? - that's what i watch his videos on.

[NY]

Post by the dog from that film you saw

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Andy Burns
I'm not going to look at the prices of those ...

Or one of these, not much change out of £30k
https://pro.sony/en_GB/products/broadcastpromonitors/pvm-x300

It's amusing how Mr HDTVtest makes youtube videos comparing new TVs to
such reference monitors, when his audience will probably be
watching on a sub-par laptop screen ...

why?
what high quality oled tv in the last 5 years didn't have a youtube
client? - that's what i watch his videos on.

Our TV has a Youtube client, but I still use a PC (either desktop or
laptop) for watching Youtube because I can type text to search for, and
I can stop/start/rewind videos. It's like the difference between the
Windows or Linux UI and a mouse versus the touchscreen UI of Android - I
find a mouse interface much easier and more precise for selecting text
etc than a touchscreen interface.

I ought to work out how to connect a wireless keyboard and mouse to the
TV. I'm in the doghouse because my wife bought a Bluetooth keyboard for
the TV which I unpacked and then took the box to the tip along with a
lot of other cardboard. I didn't realise that the keyboard came with a
Bluetooth USB adaptor (I thought it used Bluetooth that was built-in to
the TV etc), and I never checked for the little adapter in the box. I
bought what was supposed to be a compatible adapter, but it didn't work,
either with a PC or with the TV. So we have a spare keyboard that can't
talk to anything...

[NY]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by NY

Post by Mark Carver
Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
and 4k that are so similar?
I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
"greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

They are not, however I have never even seen a true 4K screen offered for sale and colloquially when people talk about 4k monitors or TV's they almost invariable mean 3840X2160.
For disc and memory capacity this works the other way round, when vendors describe something as MB, what you actually get is 1,048,576 bytes and for GB you get 7% more and for TB nearly 10%.

If HD and UHD are broadcast standards, what is 4K used for, given that
it is very very similar to UHD? Is it intended for cinemas rather than
TV? If so, why didn't both industries decide on common resolutions?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television seems to
merge the terms UHDTV-1 and 4K, and UHDTV-2 and 8K.

[Mark Carver]

Post by NY

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by NY

Post by Mark Carver
Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
and 4k that are so similar?
I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
"greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

They are not, however I have never even seen a true 4K screen offered
for sale and colloquially when people talk about 4k monitors or TV's
they almost invariable mean 3840X2160.
For disc and memory capacity this works the other way round, when
vendors describe something as MB, what you actually get is 1,048,576
bytes and for GB you get 7% more and for TB nearly 10%.

If HD and UHD are broadcast standards, what is 4K used for, given that
it is very very similar to UHD? Is it intended for cinemas rather than
TV? If so, why didn't both industries decide on common resolutions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television seems to
merge the terms UHDTV-1 and 4K, and UHDTV-2 and 8K.

More sloppy colloquialism then (Particularly from whoever wrote the Wiki
page, always read Wiki with some caution) !

The Cinema industry has always done its own thing. It still uses 24
frames per second too, though it has dabbled with higher frame rates
(notable 48 fps !) According to Wiki ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates

[NY]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by NY

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by NY

Post by Mark Carver
Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
and 4k that are so similar?
I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
"greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

They are not, however I have never even seen a true 4K screen offered
for sale and colloquially when people talk about 4k monitors or TV's
they almost invariable mean 3840X2160.
For disc and memory capacity this works the other way round, when
vendors describe something as MB, what you actually get is 1,048,576
bytes and for GB you get 7% more and for TB nearly 10%.

If HD and UHD are broadcast standards, what is 4K used for, given that
it is very very similar to UHD? Is it intended for cinemas rather than
TV? If so, why didn't both industries decide on common resolutions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-definition_television seems
to merge the terms UHDTV-1 and 4K, and UHDTV-2 and 8K.

More sloppy colloquialism then (Particularly from whoever wrote the Wiki
page, always read Wiki with some caution) !
The Cinema industry has always done its own thing. It still uses 24
frames per second too, though it has dabbled with higher frame rates
(notable 48 fps !) According to Wiki  ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_rates

I wasn't sure whether UHD and 4K were going to head for unified frame
rates that are > 24, 25 or 29.97 - the "up to 120" that Wiki mentions.

I treat Wikipedia as probably correct, but not guaranteed and if there's
anything that seems too good to be true, I look for alternative sources.
In theory, the constant peer review by "experts in the field" should
tend to iron out any inaccuracies like that.

Anyway, I know know that UHD <> 4K and won't forget it ;-)

Given that UHD decoders on TVs will be recent technology, is there
actually any need for the 25 / 29.97 distinction for "PAL" versus "NTSC"
countries? I suppose there will always be the backward compatibility for
showing older SD and HD material on UHD channels, so the frame rates
need to remain split...

There's going to be some *horrible* problems upscaling/downscaling 3840
and 4096 material since they are such similar numbers, probably with
blurring and anti-aliasing - eg when 4096 film is shown on 3840 TV. They
may choose to crop 64 pixels from either side, rather than zooming out
very slightly.

[Mark Carver]

Post by NY
Given that UHD decoders on TVs will be recent technology, is there
actually any need for the 25 / 29.97 distinction for "PAL" versus "NTSC"
countries? I suppose there will always be the backward compatibility for
showing older SD and HD material on UHD channels, so the frame rates
need to remain split...

The NTSC 59.94 'thing' is still baked well and truly into contemporary
HD/UHD working in '60 Hz' territories !

Some Apple products that get used as sources for broadcast, don't
support 59.94, and this can cause disappointment when integrating them
into a '60 Hz' broadcast system.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by NY
I wasn't sure whether UHD and 4K were going to head for unified frame
rates that are > 24, 25 or 29.97 - the "up to 120" that Wiki mentions.

Triucky to do this with such a huge back catalogue of material already
shot at different frame rates. It's always better to show material at
the original frame rate if possible, rather than trying to convert it,
and luckily modern equipment is able to do this without a glitch,
though I don't think it's always used properly.

Every time I select something to watch, a caption briefly pops up
saying "adjusting frame rate" so I decided to investigate. Amazon
sticks have a diagnostic display that can show the frame rate, so I
was able to see what the various services have decided to do. Amazon
itself shows movies at 24fps as they should be, and most television
material at 59.94 (though it's indicated as as 59.93 for some reason),
others (Disney I think) show everything at 59.94, and BBC iPlayer
shows everything, even movies, at 50fps.

We've come a long way since the days of having to change display
standards between 405 and 625 by means of clunky mechanical switches
connected by levers or bowden cables (like the ones used for bicycle
brakes). We have electronics that can detect the relevant technical
parameters of any signal and adjust itself automatically without the
viewer needing to switch anything, just enjoy the programme.

Rod.

[NY]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by NY
I wasn't sure whether UHD and 4K were going to head for unified frame
rates that are > 24, 25 or 29.97 - the "up to 120" that Wiki mentions.

Triucky to do this with such a huge back catalogue of material already
shot at different frame rates. It's always better to show material at
the original frame rate if possible, rather than trying to convert it,
and luckily modern equipment is able to do this without a glitch,
though I don't think it's always used properly.
Every time I select something to watch, a caption briefly pops up
saying "adjusting frame rate" so I decided to investigate. Amazon
sticks have a diagnostic display that can show the frame rate, so I
was able to see what the various services have decided to do. Amazon
itself shows movies at 24fps as they should be, and most television
material at 59.94 (though it's indicated as as 59.93 for some reason),
others (Disney I think) show everything at 59.94, and BBC iPlayer
shows everything, even movies, at 50fps.
We've come a long way since the days of having to change display
standards between 405 and 625 by means of clunky mechanical switches
connected by levers or bowden cables (like the ones used for bicycle
brakes). We have electronics that can detect the relevant technical
parameters of any signal and adjust itself automatically without the
viewer needing to switch anything, just enjoy the programme.

As recently as 2000 when I bought a widescreen CRT TV, it had a relay inside
it which gave a very loud clonk when it switched between 25 fps UK signals
and "pseudo NTSC" from a US-recorded VHS tape (525/29.97 NTSC, but with the
colour transcoded to PAL by my VHS machine).

I'm gobsmacked at how good that standards conversion is these days. I
noticed at the time of Trump's inauguration there were interviews with
supporters and "anti-supporters" in bars where US news programmes were being
shown, so there were US TVs visible in the background. Given that those
pictures did not have even the remotest hint of 25/30 frame beating, I
wonder whether the *UK* news crews were using 1080i/29.97 equipment to avoid
the frame bars, and then standards-converting that to 1080i / 25 fps for
showing on UK news, whereas normally they'd shoot in 1080i/25 even in the
US.

A far cry from the days of very unsubtle conversion in the 1970s-90s. At the
time of Princess Diana's funeral in1997, I happened to be flitting between
BBC, ITV and CNN coverage. CNN were taking BBC and ITN feeds, together with
their own (US-standards) cameras for their own reporters' contribution. They
were converting UK-sourced video from 25 fps to 30 fps for feeding to the US
audience, along side their 30 fps cameras, but where the channel was being
shown in the UK , there was a 30-to-25 conversion. 25-to-30, followed by
30-to-25 was not pretty especially if the camera panned, using the
technology that was available in the late 1990s :-(

[Mark Carver]

Post by NY
I'm gobsmacked at how good that standards conversion is these days. I
noticed at the time of Trump's inauguration there were interviews with
supporters and "anti-supporters" in bars where US news programmes were
being shown, so there were US TVs visible in the background. Given that
those pictures did not have even the remotest hint of 25/30 frame
beating, I wonder whether the *UK* news crews were using 1080i/29.97
equipment to avoid the frame bars, and then standards-converting that to
1080i / 25 fps for showing on UK news, whereas normally they'd shoot in
1080i/25 even in the US.

'Foreign' news bureaux usually operate at the local frame rate.
Primarily because they then don't have to faff around when using local
material to standards convert to integrate into packages they are editing.

You can go one step further, ITV ran the entire UK studio facility used
for the Rugby World Cup at 59.94, because the host coverage in Japan was
obviously run at that too.

Modern kit is easily and quickly switchable between line and frame rate
standards.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by NY
I'm gobsmacked at how good that standards conversion is these days. I
noticed at the time of Trump's inauguration there were interviews with
supporters and "anti-supporters" in bars where US news programmes were
being shown, so there were US TVs visible in the background. Given that
those pictures did not have even the remotest hint of 25/30 frame
beating, I wonder whether the *UK* news crews were using 1080i/29.97
equipment to avoid the frame bars, and then standards-converting that to
1080i / 25 fps for showing on UK news, whereas normally they'd shoot in
1080i/25 even in the US.

'Foreign' news bureaux usually operate at the local frame rate.
Primarily because they then don't have to faff around when using local
material to standards convert to integrate into packages they are editing.
You can go one step further, ITV ran the entire UK studio facility used
for the Rugby World Cup at 59.94, because the host coverage in Japan was
obviously run at that too.
Modern kit is easily and quickly switchable between line and frame rate
standards.

Modern? - I had a Philips CRT TV in ~1997 that would auto-switch between PAL, NTSC and SECAM (internally or on composite) at various rates and support an external D2-MAC box on component...

[Mark Carver]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Mark Carver

Post by NY
I'm gobsmacked at how good that standards conversion is these days. I
noticed at the time of Trump's inauguration there were interviews with
supporters and "anti-supporters" in bars where US news programmes were
being shown, so there were US TVs visible in the background. Given that
those pictures did not have even the remotest hint of 25/30 frame
beating, I wonder whether the *UK* news crews were using 1080i/29.97
equipment to avoid the frame bars, and then standards-converting that to
1080i / 25 fps for showing on UK news, whereas normally they'd shoot in
1080i/25 even in the US.

'Foreign' news bureaux usually operate at the local frame rate.
Primarily because they then don't have to faff around when using local
material to standards convert to integrate into packages they are editing.
You can go one step further, ITV ran the entire UK studio facility used
for the Rugby World Cup at 59.94, because the host coverage in Japan was
obviously run at that too.
Modern kit is easily and quickly switchable between line and frame rate
standards.

Modern? - I had a Philips CRT TV in ~1997 that would auto-switch between PAL, NTSC and SECAM (internally or on composite) at various rates and support an external D2-MAC box on component...

Good for you. I'm talking about modern broadcast equipment, a completely
different kettle of fish

[Vir Campestris]

On 10/11/2023 12:06, NY wrote:
<snip>

Post by NY
I'm gobsmacked at how good that standards conversion is these days. I
noticed at the time of Trump's inauguration there were interviews with
supporters and "anti-supporters" in bars where US news programmes were
being shown, so there were US TVs visible in the background. Given that
those pictures did not have even the remotest hint of 25/30 frame
beating, I wonder whether the *UK* news crews were using 1080i/29.97
equipment to avoid the frame bars, and then standards-converting that to
1080i / 25 fps for showing on UK news, whereas normally they'd shoot in
1080i/25 even in the US.

<snip more>

I imagine those US TVs in the background were LCD TVs. Do they show
frame beating to the same extent? I assumed that they will go down the
screen changing each pixel to the new setting, so that they are on all
the time, rather than like CRTs where they flash once per frame.

Andy

[Andy Burns]

Post by NY
I'm gobsmacked at how good that standards conversion is these days.

Not specifically talking about broadcast TV, but more about PCs and
monitors ...

It barely seems to matter these days, source material can be 24/25/30/60
fps from youtube, or local DVB-T2 streams from mythTV, monitor can be
60Hz or 90Hz - nothing ever seems to have artefacts nowadays.

[Vir Campestris]

Post by Andy Burns
Not specifically talking about broadcast TV, but more about PCs and
monitors ...
It barely seems to matter these days, source material can be 24/25/30/60
fps from youtube, or local DVB-T2 streams from mythTV, monitor can be
60Hz or 90Hz - nothing ever seems to have artefacts nowadays.

You lucky, lucky, lucky man. Work taught me how to see the artefacts
that are common in broadcast TV, and I can't not see them. I will
refrain from pointing out (again) my current pet hate.

Andy

[Davey]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:32:54 +0000

Post by Vir Campestris
You lucky, lucky, lucky man. Work taught me how to see the artefacts
that are common in broadcast TV, and I can't not see them. I will
refrain from pointing out (again) my current pet hate.
Andy

That sounds like me and reel film transfer indicator marks. I learned
them, and I cannot miss them when they are shown on TV. My wife did not
know about them, and always said that they were just dirt marks on the
film.

[Max Demian]

Post by Davey
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:32:54 +0000

Post by Vir Campestris
You lucky, lucky, lucky man. Work taught me how to see the artefacts
that are common in broadcast TV, and I can't not see them. I will
refrain from pointing out (again) my current pet hate.

That sounds like me and reel film transfer indicator marks. I learned
them, and I cannot miss them when they are shown on TV. My wife did not
know about them, and always said that they were just dirt marks on the
film.

You don't mean the cue marks in the top right of the screen do you?

[Davey]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:51:57 +0000

Post by Max Demian

Post by Davey
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:32:54 +0000

Post by Vir Campestris
You lucky, lucky, lucky man. Work taught me how to see the
artefacts that are common in broadcast TV, and I can't not see
them. I will refrain from pointing out (again) my current pet
hate.

That sounds like me and reel film transfer indicator marks. I
learned them, and I cannot miss them when they are shown on TV. My
wife did not know about them, and always said that they were just
dirt marks on the film.

You don't mean the cue marks in the top right of the screen do you?

Yep, them. I find them very annoying since I don't need to respond to
them any more. Especially the ones that look as though somebody has
scratched them in with an angle grinder.

[Max Demian]

Post by Davey
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 18:51:57 +0000

Post by Max Demian

Post by Davey
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:32:54 +0000

Post by Vir Campestris
You lucky, lucky, lucky man. Work taught me how to see the
artefacts that are common in broadcast TV, and I can't not see
them. I will refrain from pointing out (again) my current pet
hate.

That sounds like me and reel film transfer indicator marks. I
learned them, and I cannot miss them when they are shown on TV. My
wife did not know about them, and always said that they were just
dirt marks on the film.

You don't mean the cue marks in the top right of the screen do you?

Yep, them. I find them very annoying since I don't need to respond to
them any more. Especially the ones that look as though somebody has
scratched them in with an angle grinder.

What are people supposed to do with them? I had a VHS version of a film
where they were like cog wheels. The DVD version replaced them with
black blobs, so were still visible.

[Vir Campestris]

Post by Max Demian

Post by Davey
On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 15:32:54 +0000

Post by Vir Campestris
You lucky, lucky, lucky man. Work taught me how to see the artefacts
that are common in broadcast TV, and I can't not see them. I will
refrain from pointing out (again) my current pet hate.

That sounds like me and reel film transfer indicator marks. I learned
them, and I cannot miss them when they are shown on TV. My wife did not
know about them, and always said that they were just dirt marks on the
film.

You don't mean the cue marks in the top right of the screen do you?

He does, but I don't. I can ignore something in the corner of the
picture. It's artefacts in the middle of the screen that get me.

Andy

[Paul Ratcliffe]

Post by NY
There's going to be some *horrible* problems upscaling/downscaling 3840
and 4096 material since they are such similar numbers, probably with
blurring and anti-aliasing - eg when 4096 film is shown on 3840 TV. They
may choose to crop 64 pixels from either side, rather than zooming out
very slightly.

128.

[NY]

Post by NY
There's going to be some *horrible* problems upscaling/downscaling 3840
and 4096 material since they are such similar numbers, probably with
blurring and anti-aliasing - eg when 4096 film is shown on 3840 TV. They
may choose to crop 64 pixels from either side, rather than zooming out
very slightly.

128.

I'd be dangerous if I could actually do subtraction ;-)

[Paul Ratcliffe]

Post by Mark Carver
Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

What hope is there when the DTG issue emails with stuff like this:

"France confirms UHD 4K on DTT"

but perhaps they just cribbed it from here without thinking:

https://advanced-television.com/2023/10/27/paris-2024-4k-broadcast-on-france-3/

[David Paste]

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Mark Carver
Let's not get sloppy with terminology
3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

"France confirms UHD 4K on DTT"

Isn't 4k UHD 3840 and 4k DCI is the 4096?

[Vir Campestris]

Post by Andy Burns
Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...
Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
without breaking a sweat.

It would be interesting to know what bitrate those tests are done at. I
bet the 8k stuff has a higher bitrate as well as more pixels.

Andy

[SH]

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Andy Burns
Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...
Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
without breaking a sweat.

It would be interesting to know what bitrate those tests are done at. I
bet the 8k stuff has a higher bitrate as well as more pixels.
Andy

I've used the following HD video on YouTube with Stats for nerds
enabled, and a bit rate of up to 100 Mb/s is common.

and

[Brian Gaff]

Does anyone remember those cameras and photos that looked 3 d, but if you
got close in you saw they made up of little vertical stripes and prisms in
the coating? I don't know why I suddenly thought of those as my vision has
been unable to see photos for many years!



Every thing looked like a cardboard cut out in those.

Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Andy Burns
Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...
Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
without breaking a sweat.

It would be interesting to know what bitrate those tests are done at. I
bet the 8k stuff has a higher bitrate as well as more pixels.
Andy

I've used the following HD video on YouTube with Stats for nerds enabled,
and a bit rate of up to 100 Mb/s is common.
http://youtu.be/LXb3EKWsInQ
and
http://youtu.be/hwNWx1GTSKo

[Davey]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 16:45:14 -0000
"Brian Gaff" <***@gmail.com> wrote:

I remember what you describe as something that was applied to gew-gaws
such as pens or key fobs.
--
Davey.

Post by Brian Gaff
Does anyone remember those cameras and photos that looked 3 d, but if
you got close in you saw they made up of little vertical stripes and
prisms in the coating? I don't know why I suddenly thought of those
as my vision has been unable to see photos for many years!
Every thing looked like a cardboard cut out in those.
Brian

[Max Demian]

Post by Brian Gaff
Does anyone remember those cameras and photos that looked 3 d, but if you
got close in you saw they made up of little vertical stripes and prisms in
the coating? I don't know why I suddenly thought of those as my vision has
been unable to see photos for many years!

Lenticular screens (sometimes called a lenticular lens, which sounds
like a tautology). Used for 3D, simple animation and a "reveal" like
clothed and naked images (oo-er Mrs!). (I wonder whether anyone has
tried to do that with Goya's Clothed and Unclothed Maja paintings?)

Post by Brian Gaff
Every thing looked like a cardboard cut out in those.

Most 3D systems I've seen have that effect I've noted.