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.

4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old August 16th 15, 11:01 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Furniss[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message


Which makes me wonder what "paused" means/does in the world of analogue
kit.

I may well be that taking photos of paused images is only ever going to
get one field as the kit sending the signal is repeating the same field
over and over.


Depends on the kit concerned.
Some had an option switch. This would select whether your freeze/slow motion
was field based or frame based.

Field based would send the present field to both fields on the display.
Frame based would send the present frame (both parts of it) to the display.


Interesting, thanks for this and all the snipped info.

Ads
  #102  
Old August 16th 15, 11:19 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Furniss[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

Java Jive wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 00:17:28 +0100, Andy Furniss [email protected] wrote:


Looking at that image and reading your site I think what I would
call de-interlacing differs from what you would.


Yes. I think that is becoming clear ...

I consider any processing to display interlaced content on a
progressive display as de-interlacing. It may be that it is very
simple like line doubling fields and a bit of filtering to
compensate for the different spatial position of the fields, but
it's still processing that is needed and wouldn't be if a native
interlaced display were being driven. Doing line doubling hurts
resolution just weaving fields together is good for res with static
portions of the frame but artifacts on motion. Being clever and
adding edge interpolation/motion detection to get the best of both
is what "advanced" de-interlacers do.


I have to say that I prefer my own definitions ... I don't see how
anything can truly be called de-interlacing unless electronically it
combines the content of *two or more successive* fields to produce
an image that is different from what it would have been had the lines
of each field been drawn on the screen in the appropriate place as
received. As we both seem to acknowledge, there are other things
that an LCD does, such as buffering and scaling, which are necessary
for it to display content correctly, but as long as it is only
electronically processing *one* field at a time, and not
electronically combining it with the content of, temporally speaking,
neighbouring fields, before drawing it on the screen, I don't think
it makes any sense to call that de-interlacing. If you were going to
use that definition, you'd more less have to say that a CRT
de-interlaces as well, and the definition of the word thus becomes
too wide and general to be useful.


I think it's fair enough to take that position, though I, having read
various papers on de-interlacing where bob and weave are explicitly
mentioned as "types of" de-interlacing, will still think of them as such.

Judging by the arm shot your TV looks like it's doing fields - I
accept what you write about the pairs not matching, but that could
be additional processing that's nothing to do with interlacing.


But the *simplest* and *cheapest*, and therefore most probably
correct, of the many possible explanations is that it is simply
drawing the fields on the screen pretty much as received.


Possibly - it seems that the first cheap consumer chips were 1996, so
maybe your TVs didn't have them. The actual chip I found referred to in
a paper on de-interlacing also did 100Hz frame creation (which IIRC
later big CRTs used) as a side effect of being able to do motion
compensated deint.


From your descriptions and others' I think it likely that modern
LCDs do more processing than they did at the time of the original
demonstration, either by default or via menu options, and I probably
ought to update some of the wording of the page accordingly, but at
the time I never saw any evidence of more complex processing for
either of the two LCDs used in it.


I would say for some years TVs have also had high Hz frame
interpolation/creation of some sort. Usually an option and historically
not always that good. My 5 yo TV is not so good with 24/25p (so i would
turn it off). For 50Hz extreme motion I can see it as an improvement but
it's not so much better I would really care whether it's on or off.



  #103  
Old August 16th 15, 11:40 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Furniss[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 130
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:
"Andy Furniss" [email protected] wrote in message
o.uk...
_Unknown_Freelancer_ wrote:

Take a football match being covered in 4K. (Ive seen some.) Now
get your main gantry camera to frame on a stationary wide angle*
facing across the pitch. *As wide as the lens will go. Not
pointing at anything in particular. Such is the detail in that
picture you can make out individual facial expressions of people
in the crowd in the opposite stand (usually around 100metres
away). Its a fair wager that detail will _never_ be present in
any "Freeview 4K".


Instead of wasting so much bandwidth on such guff, why not just
turn up the bandwidth for present HD channels, and make Freeview
better quality than Sky satellite or BT TV???


I am curious what bitrate you think is enough for HD?


I dont know. I really cant be arsed to carry out loads of tests. But
I do know that when I watch Freeview HD, I got annoyed! ....yes I
know what the doctor will tell me!

I get annoyed because it looks so, well, ****! And this '****' is
sold as "HD". Its a bleedin' con!


Well I must admit having looked at the rates on the main HD mux 22.45 -
23.45 Saturday night and they were really much lower than they used to
be :-(

MOTD was on BBC1 HD and it maxed out at 7.5 mbit!

The highest I saw for BBC3 IIRC was 9mbit and it wasn't like there was
no space - the nulls min was 7mbit and max 12 for the whole hour monitored.

This is nothing like a previous test I found that I did in 2012 - there
were also 5 HD channels on then (as C4 had the spare for the paralympics).
Then all 5 were going up to 14/15 mbit.

I know Film 4+1 SD is on now as well, but that maxed at 1.3mbit min 0.7.

What a pointless waste - broadcasting nulls - or maybe lack of
adaptability as 2x red button are listed on the web as being on the mux,
but were not running at the time of the test.
  #104  
Old August 17th 15, 08:39 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,326
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article ,
_Unknown_Freelancer_ /dev/null wrote:
credit squeezing is just so they can get on with the next thing
a.s.a.p. whilst still satisfying the copyright owners demand to
ensure the full credits go to air.


The squeezing does at least sometimes tend make the credits virtually
unreadable. So I've been surprised that no copyright owners have
threatened to take action. The contracts of performers, etc, may
mandate the way their name appears in the credits. Presenting credits
in a way that makes them hard (or impossible) to read may violate
that. If so, interesting if no one has taken action. Maybe the
reality is that the star names can still be read, and the media
company doesn't care because they know the 'lesser' artists, etc,
won't be able to afford to persue any complaint.


But if the contract with the rights holders only says to "show the
credits in full", then there is nothing which says they can not be sped
up or squeezed! The contractual obligation has been served.


It would depend on what a court took "show" to mean in the event of an
annoyed artist, etc, taking action. Squeezing down the credits to one pixel
for one frame might not be felt to mean "show" in terms of the legal
meanings of words in contracts. Seems to me quite reasonable for a court to
so decide, and to require the text to be readable by viewers with normal
eyesight, etc, but it would be a matter for a court.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #105  
Old August 17th 15, 10:34 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:34:56 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

I wasnt refering to the actual forecast.
More to the sort of community based information.
e.g.. Dont use this bypass unless you have a submarine. I cant get in to
x/y/x because the road is closeD, can someone rescue my mum? Can anyone help
the a/b/c/ museum, its flooding.

Independant stations seem to be stuck in 1996, yet all with the identical
playlist.

What good is internet "radio" (HA!) for this?
The BBC has hundreds of local stations across this island of ours, all
working for the community, thanks to the LF.


There are hundreds of independent local stations too, and if the sort
of information you describe is what their listeners want, then they
will have an incentive to provide it.

Internet "radio" provides an alternative outlet for all these
stations, including the ones too far away for their radio signals to
reach, and in addition thousands more - literally thousands - that
don't use radio signals at all. I couldn't even count them all.

Just considering one tiny sub-genre of all these, the ones
broadcasting baroque or ancient music with no announcements (because
that's what I happen to like on my bedside radio while I'm reading, so
it's the one I happen to know about) I can assure you that they
absolutely don't all use the same playlist. I've heard plenty of music
I've never heard anywhere else, and occasionally something new has led
me to make purchases of more music by the same composers, the details
on the little screen on the front of the radio showing just how
unnecessary a traditional presenter is for certain types of broadcast.
I haven't checked all the other five, six or seven thousand stations
(or however many there are), but I guess the situation must be the
same with a significant number of them.

The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet, and the
BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it. You may feel
nostalgic for the good old days when the BBC was all there was, and
then became the example of excellence that everybody else followed
(and trust me, I feel this too - many years ago I worked for the BBC
as my first job, having read about this noble institution since my
schooldays and nurtured an ambition to join it one day), but this is
not the way history is going now. If the BBC thinks it still deserves
special treatment, then it will have to demonstrate that it is still
special, and frankly I become less convinced every day.

Rod.
  #106  
Old August 17th 15, 10:37 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 22:53:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

The Weather Forecasts on the BBC are provided by the Met Office.


Yes.


Indeed. You can get weather "apps" for your phone from both the BBC
and the Met Office. IMHO the presentation of the BBC one looks neater,
but the weather predicted by both of them is equally wrong.

Rod.
  #107  
Old August 17th 15, 10:41 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:48:22 +0100, Charles Hope
wrote:

Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free
Amazon right now if you want. Just make sure you cut off your tv and
satellite co-ax cables so you can show the inspector if they can be
bothered to come round, so as to prove it is impossible for you to
receive television programmes.


Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house,

.
indeed they haven't, but I understsnd that HMRC can make a forced entry if
they believe there to be contraband on the premises. The two have been
know to work together.


If they broke into my house, they would find neither contraband nor
any unlicenced TV set. Where should I send the bill for repairs?

Rod.
  #108  
Old August 17th 15, 10:50 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,246
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:12:56 +0100, "_Unknown_Freelancer_" /dev/null
wrote:

Youre quite free to ditch your tv licence and wonder off to tax free
Amazon
right now if you want.
Just make sure you cut off your tv and satellite co-ax cables so you can
show the inspector if they can be bothered to come round, so as to prove
it
is impossible for you to receive television programmes.


Given that TV licence inspectors have no right of entry to your house,
and that in any case you should have no obligation to prove your
innocence in the face of a presumption of guilt, it shouldn't be
necessary to cut any cables. I certainly wouldn't vandalise any of my
own property in case somebody *might* think I was doing something
illegal with it.

Rod.


Lets put it another way, I, and probably including lots of other legitimate
licence fee payers, do not want you to continue receiving BBC services once
you have ceased paying your LF.


I have no intention of ceasing to pay my TV licence as long as it
remains a legal requirement. This doesn't stop me having strong
opinions about the fact that it is a legal requirement, but I realise
that if it's a legal requirement for me, it's "fair" in the sense that
it's a legal requirement for everybody else too, and that I stand no
chance of changing it all by myself just by breaking the law.

Whether you invite the LF inspectors in for tea and biscuits are tell them
where to shove their court case, Im not really fussed.
But fact remains, the LF is NOT compulsory. Other services ARE available by
other means.


True, other services are, but other *broadcast* services are not. We
still have the absurdity of having to pay the BBC to be allowed to
watch other broadcasts that the BBC has nothing to do with.

Rod.
  #109  
Old August 17th 15, 11:03 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,326
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

In article , Roderick
Stewart
wrote:

The future of broadcasting, all broadcasting, is the internet,


Yes, that seems quite likely. However...

and the BBC is becoming an ever more insignificant part of it.


Really? I'd be interested in seeing detailed evidence for that belief. It
seems clear to me that:

A) The BBC iplayer and website is popular and has to keep being upgraded to
cope with the demand. So popular that the commercial press owners, etc,
routinely moan about it being "unfair" competition. TBH I doubt they'd do
that if it was "insignificant".

B) That there are many internet radio and TV stations, etc. And that many
people now use these.

But I've not seen any assessable figures for the idea that the BBC is
"becoming an ever more insignificant part" of internet radio/TV for people
in the UK. The term "insignificant" seems doubtful.

The reality may well be that some never use it, whilst others use it a lot.
But what the overall figures and trends are, I don't know. So maybe you can
point to some given what you say?

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #110  
Old August 17th 15, 01:06 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,381
Default 4k TV on Freesat or Freeview?

Roderick Stewart wrote:

I've encountered people with Freeview HD receivers selecting channels
1 to 4 even when I've pointed out to them that the same programmes are
available in HD on channels 101 to 104, and they are apparently quite
happy with what they are watching. Maybe they just can't be bothered
to type the extra digits, or don't see any advantage.


You can lead a horse to water but you can't get milk out of a blind bat.

Bill
 




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 05:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.