A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

New technologies?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 10th 18, 11:38 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,910
Default New technologies?

On 10/02/2018 09:19, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/02/18 23:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 09/02/2018 16:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
Is there really a call for this sort of definition outside of very large
screen public use?
** Brian

Yes, even on a 40" screen which was the smallest UHD TV I could buy
about a year ago, the picture does look better. I would like to see more
UHD channels on satellite.


The problem is that most people don't sit near enough to benefit from a
4K picture. I doubt that many sit close enough to really benefit from HD!


Depends on the quality of the upscaling of the TV or PVR. I can tell the
difference if I look carefully, and the signal source is high quality,
but I wouldn't say that SD with normal viewing is unpleasant, unless I
freeze the picture in which case I see jagged edges.

--
Max Demian
  #12  
Old February 10th 18, 11:38 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jeff Layman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default New technologies?

On 10/02/18 10:04, Robin wrote:
On 10/02/2018 09:23, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/02/18 10:01, Pinnerite wrote:
Right now we have a mix of standard definition (SD) and high definition
(HD). Currently marketed are 4K televisions with amazing images.

We can stream 4K from commercial sources provided we are prepared to
pay for
the fibre-optic connection and streaming source.


I have a 10MB wire download and can stream 4K without buffering from
YouTube. Just in case it was not 4K I tried it with the Blue Planet
trial the BBC ran. Same thing - no buffering. So do we really need these
high-speed links, or was I really not viewing 4K both times?


May I ask if you definitely have 10 Megabytes/s rather than 10
Megabits/s? I ask because connection speeds are usually quoted in
bits/s. And when I trialled Netflix the UHD usually required much more
than 10 Megabits/s. IIRC they recommend a minimum 25. And the
resolution started off low and then increased (much like BBC iPlayer).
So if you are on 10 Megabits/s my answer to your question is a definite
maybe


Sorry, I meant 10Mb/s, not 10MB/s. I just checked again (not a good time
at the weekend), and I was down to 8Mb/s down, and 0.8 up.

There seems to be a lot of variation in what is said to be required for
downloading (see first table he
https://www.cable.co.uk/guides/what-broadband-speed-do-i-need-for-skype/).
Why so much variation? Do compression methods vary?

--

Jeff
  #13  
Old February 10th 18, 11:46 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jeff Layman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default New technologies?

On 10/02/18 10:45, Tweed wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/02/18 10:01, Pinnerite wrote:
Right now we have a mix of standard definition (SD) and high definition
(HD). Currently marketed are 4K televisions with amazing images.

We can stream 4K from commercial sources provided we are prepared to pay for
the fibre-optic connection and streaming source.


I have a 10MB wire download and can stream 4K without buffering from
YouTube. Just in case it was not 4K I tried it with the Blue Planet
trial the BBC ran. Same thing - no buffering. So do we really need these
high-speed links, or was I really not viewing 4K both times?


If *all* you are doing at one moment is this, then no. But a household can
have multiple simultaneous demands on their Internet connection. Not all
the time I grant you, but it is useful to have the high speed capacity
available.


That's really the point AFAICS. If you have several people trying to
download at once, particularly anything with video and/or game-playing,
then a higher bandwidth will be required. But here it's just me, and as
I'm not particularly good at multitasking, I don't need high bandwidth.

The other thing with pure fibre delivery is it is a whole lot
more reliable than relying on a bit of twisted pair for the last bit.
Higher upload speeds are also handy, and will become increasingly important
as the use (reliance upon) cloud storage increases. At work I have 1
Gbit/sec up and down to my desktop, and 10 Gbit/sec connecting work to the
outside world. It makes a big difference to what you can do, and I notice
the difference at home, where I’m lucky enough to have 200 down and 12
MBit/sec up. The up link is a bottleneck.


Well, if you need that sort of connection, fine. But why should I pay
extra for something I don't need, just because I'm told I can't download
without it?

--

Jeff
  #14  
Old February 10th 18, 11:46 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default New technologies?

On Friday, 9 February 2018 10:01:23 UTC, Pinnerite wrote:
Right now we have a mix of standard definition (SD) and high definition
(HD). Currently marketed are 4K televisions with amazing images.

We can stream 4K from commercial sources provided we are prepared to pay for
the fibre-optic connection and streaming source.

Is that it for broadcast TV or is there currently any research currently
seeking to squeeze more out of the available bands?


I thought you could get it on $ky and BT TV for certain sports events (e.g. F1)
http://uk.pcmag.com/sky-sports/82988...-the-differenc
https://www.stuff.tv/features/sky-q-...v-service-best


(Just contemplating upgrading my ancient Hauppauge SD card. Knowing my luck
it will be obsolete the next day)


Ah yes, I have one of those somewhere... analogue, wrong bus, S-video connections. Nice while it worked...
  #15  
Old February 10th 18, 11:51 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default New technologies?

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 09:19:22 UTC, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/02/18 23:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 09/02/2018 16:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
Is there really a call for this sort of definition outside of very large
screen public use?
Brian

Yes, even on a 40" screen which was the smallest UHD TV I could buy
about a year ago, the picture does look better. I would like to see more
UHD channels on satellite.


The problem is that most people don't sit near enough to benefit from a
4K picture. I doubt that many sit close enough to really benefit from HD!

--

Jeff


We definitely benefit from full HD at normal viewing distance (3.5m) on a 42" screen, but you can't tell SD from HD at say 7m on a screen that size.

When we bought online guidance recommended 42" at that distance rather than a larger screen, but when we get to replacement I would want 49/50" next time.

Seen in a shop (e.g. Richer Sounds), 4k HDR is definitely a step up from even full HD.

I have two 28" 4K monitors on this PC and whilst I sit at arms' length from them the quality is superb - very crisp detail, easy to read small print etc.
  #16  
Old February 10th 18, 11:56 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default New technologies?

On Saturday, 10 February 2018 10:33:46 UTC, Ken O'Meara wrote:
In article , lid
says...
The problem is that most people don't sit near enough to benefit from a
4K picture. I doubt that many sit close enough to really benefit from HD!


Some do! My gawping chair sits on teflon gliders which slide backwards
and forwards on a sacrificial rug.
I have three preset positions marked on the rug.

1. Far back. This is for stereo audio only and gives a good image
without exaggerated width and a natural perspective..

2. Mid distance. This is for TV, movies and multi channel music.
You haven't lived till you've heard the surround mix of Dark Side Of the
Moon


heard it live twice. First time here in Manchester and it was superb and the second time at Knebworth (1975) when they made a complete hash of it (tapes, music, plane, film and fireworks all badly out of synch).

Will try Pulse version on my AV amp if it has 5.1 on the web, only got 2.1 on the PC.

or a snooker tournament in 5.1

3. Close up. This is for auditioning 4K HDR sources.
OK, it's for playing Gran Turismo Sport really, sitting close means I
can see the corners before I crash. The graphics are really very good
and the surround sound effects very well done and at this distance my
unaided eyesight is as good, or as bad:-( as when bespectacled.


  #17  
Old February 10th 18, 12:42 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Tweed[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default New technologies?

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 10/02/18 10:45, Tweed wrote:
Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/02/18 10:01, Pinnerite wrote:
Right now we have a mix of standard definition (SD) and high definition
(HD). Currently marketed are 4K televisions with amazing images.

We can stream 4K from commercial sources provided we are prepared to pay for
the fibre-optic connection and streaming source.

I have a 10MB wire download and can stream 4K without buffering from
YouTube. Just in case it was not 4K I tried it with the Blue Planet
trial the BBC ran. Same thing - no buffering. So do we really need these
high-speed links, or was I really not viewing 4K both times?


If *all* you are doing at one moment is this, then no. But a household can
have multiple simultaneous demands on their Internet connection. Not all
the time I grant you, but it is useful to have the high speed capacity
available.


That's really the point AFAICS. If you have several people trying to
download at once, particularly anything with video and/or game-playing,
then a higher bandwidth will be required. But here it's just me, and as
I'm not particularly good at multitasking, I don't need high bandwidth.

The other thing with pure fibre delivery is it is a whole lot
more reliable than relying on a bit of twisted pair for the last bit.
Higher upload speeds are also handy, and will become increasingly important
as the use (reliance upon) cloud storage increases. At work I have 1
Gbit/sec up and down to my desktop, and 10 Gbit/sec connecting work to the
outside world. It makes a big difference to what you can do, and I notice
the difference at home, where I’m lucky enough to have 200 down and 12
MBit/sec up. The up link is a bottleneck.


Well, if you need that sort of connection, fine. But why should I pay
extra for something I don't need, just because I'm told I can't download
without it?


Is anyone actually asking you to pay more for something you don’t need? As
far as I can tell, you can pay for ADSL or a bit more for VDSL (FTTC),
Virgin cable if you can get it, or FTTP if you are really lucky. Within all
of that there are a whole bunch of offers from various ISPs, some hopeless
and some very good.

  #18  
Old February 10th 18, 01:19 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jeff Layman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default New technologies?

On 10/02/18 11:51, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
On Saturday, 10 February 2018 09:19:22 UTC, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 09/02/18 23:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 09/02/2018 16:24, Brian Gaff wrote:
Is there really a call for this sort of definition outside of very large
screen public use?
Brian

Yes, even on a 40" screen which was the smallest UHD TV I could buy
about a year ago, the picture does look better. I would like to see more
UHD channels on satellite.


The problem is that most people don't sit near enough to benefit from a
4K picture. I doubt that many sit close enough to really benefit from HD!

--

Jeff


We definitely benefit from full HD at normal viewing distance (3.5m) on a 42" screen, but you can't tell SD from HD at say 7m on a screen that size.

When we bought online guidance recommended 42" at that distance rather than a larger screen, but when we get to replacement I would want 49/50" next time.

Seen in a shop (e.g. Richer Sounds), 4k HDR is definitely a step up from even full HD.

I have two 28" 4K monitors on this PC and whilst I sit at arms' length from them the quality is superb - very crisp detail, easy to read small print etc.


I have no quibble with you about viewing 4k on a 28" screen at arm's
length, but can't see how you can see any difference between SD and HD
on a 42" at 3.5 metres. Just about all sources (eg
https://www.avforums.com/image.php?imageparameters=editorial/products/38c56aa3af5093a6cc7282bb9bf5eee8_0.jpg)
say you are in the middle of SD territory at 3.5m with that size screen.
I sit around 4.25m from my 55" Panny and am hard pushed to see any
difference between SD and HD. That is more-or-less an equivalent
distance to your 42" at 3.5m according to that AVforums diagram.

When I was looking at 4K from YouTube or iPlayer I was standing only
1.5m from the screen, and the quality was amazing.

--

Jeff
  #19  
Old February 10th 18, 01:40 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 522
Default New technologies?

Jeff Layman wrote:

When I was looking at 4K from YouTube or iPlayer I was standing only
1.5m from the screen, and the quality was amazing.


A lot of it's down to the source material, even on a 3K screen at arms
length, you can tell the difference between 4K and 8K sources especially
with 60fps
  #20  
Old February 11th 18, 03:25 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
R. Mark Clayton[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 611
Default New technologies?

I am fortunate to have above average acuity, but if you can't easily tell SD from HD at 3.5m from a 42" screen, then I would seriously suggest an eye test.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.