Study: Broadcasters Still Suspect of UHD, HEVC

[bluegras]

Few global media companies are willing to make any significant investments in broadcasting Ultra HD (UHD) technology today, with many believing there’s just not enough consumer demand to upgrade from HD, according to a new report.

The survey from multiscreen video and ad management solutions company Imagine Communications garnered the opinions of more than 700 broadcast and media professionals, and found that nearly 50% estimated it would take more than two years before there was enough market demand to justify any significant investment in UHD.

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/technology/study-broadcasters-still-suspect-uhd-hevc/154486

 

[Troch77]

Couldn't agree more.
The only reason it's even remotely considered is because the TV manufacturers pushed it for a boost in sales.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Bruce]

First off, they all said the same thing about going from SD to HD all those years ago.

Second, I think it is a sad day when broadcasters ( both cable and OTA) can't even put out 1080P let alone 4K while internet companies like Netflix, Amazon and Vudu can ( 4K is limited but pretty much everything is 1080P).

And last, after having my 4K set for a week now, I do have to say watching 4K shows on the above services it is worth it, there is a big difference, 1080P stuff does look better up-converted, but real 4K blows that away.

I own the first season of The Blacklist on Vudu (1080P), watched the first episode then went to the same episode on Netflix (4K), so much better, if anyone says they can't tell need their eyes checked.

 

[harshness]

First off, they all said the same thing about going from SD to HD all those years ago.

Then there's the other "they" that made much of how UHD is/was progressing so much faster than HD did. All the chatter and re-blogging about Ultra HD Blu-ray has heralded one real Ultra HD Blu-ray player (and a significant number of upconverting Blu-ray players claiming 4K that won't do Ultra HD).

Given that the jump in quality is NOT a quantum leap (perhaps not even with HDR) as compared to good HD, it will be a big investment with probably not as big a return; see more at SACD.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

I would agree that going from HD to UHD is not that big of a deal, unlike when we went from SD to HD.

But I do see the market going so that the only new TV you can buy is a 4K TV.

 

[harshness]

But I do see the market going so that the only new TV you can buy is a 4K TV.

1080p TVs clearly didn't drive rapid and widespread adoption of Blu-ray over DVD so I submit that there's little reason to believe that 2160p displays will create a huge demand for UHD content (especially given how few of said TVs are HDR and 3D capable).

My local TV retailers, from Walmart and Target to specialty shops offer many 1080p models. Just before the holidays it seemed like every fourth cart leaving Costco had a modest 1080p TV in it.

 

[gadgtfreek]

The key to UHD in the disc and streaming format is HDR and WCG, not resolution increases... Which could apply to broadcast.

If you sit there and talk 1080p vs 2160p all the time, you are ignorant to the format potential.

HEVC is more important to me in this new stuff, because maybe we can finally see compression decreases from content providers...

 

[harshness]

The key to UHD in the disc and streaming format is HDR and WCG, not resolution increases... Which could apply to broadcast.

If you sit there and talk 1080p vs 2160p all the time, you are ignorant to the format potential.

If more than 1% of the available TVs had the potential to do HDR and WCG, you're argument would have impact. As one of the popular providers for this site's visitors has proven time and again, potential and sustained delivery to the masses are often spaced years apart -- if it happens at all.

HEVC is more important to me in this new stuff, because maybe we can finally see compression decreases from content providers...

Since HEVC can't reasonably be made part of ATSC, we're going to have to wait for the next great broadcast standard to be implemented and we know from experience that it won't happen without an Act of Congress and at least ten years of screwing around. You must not ignore that many carriers haven't even made the jump to MPEG4 yet in rationalizing what's to come.

You must also be careful about distinguishing between content providers (a term typically used in reference to the content owners) and those who relay the content (carriers). If the carrier chooses to transcode (as most must do to avail themselves of adaptive modulation), most (if not all) advantages are lost.

 

[NR2D]

Do you think the reason that the broadcasters are still suspect of 4K is the new investment that would be required on equipment. It was just 5 -6 years ago that broadcasters were mandated to
digital modulation. Just several years before, maybe 7 - 10 years, the major broadcasters went to HD TV. I think the broadcasters now are being mandated to completely vacate the VHF band.
I know the majority of broadcasters have moved to the UHF frequencies nut there are some that haven't. The local ABC outlet in Philadelphia temporarily moved to UHF but once digital transmission
became mandatory within days they moved back to there VHF frequency assignment.

And now here is another new technology which will require new equipment and I'm sure this new technology will be an expensive investment.

 

[osu1991]

Do you think the reason that the broadcasters are still suspect of 4K is the new investment that would be required on equipment. It was just 5 -6 years ago that broadcasters were mandated to
digital modulation. Just several years before, maybe 7 - 10 years, the major broadcasters went to HD TV. I think the broadcasters now are being mandated to completely vacate the VHF band.
I know the majority of broadcasters have moved to the UHF frequencies nut there are some that haven't. The local ABC outlet in Philadelphia temporarily moved to UHF but once digital transmission
became mandatory within days they moved back to there VHF frequency assignment.

And now here is another new technology which will require new equipment and I'm sure this new technology will be an expensive investment.

No, with the incentive auction and repack. OTA is being pushed back down into VHF not off of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[harshness]

It was just 5 -6 years ago that broadcasters were mandated to digital modulation.

Some of them just completed the transition within the last year!

The ability/inability of the more "efficient" compression schemes to handle corrupt data is a big bogeyman in my mind. It is one thing when the interruption is a time-based issue but another problem entirely when the data is corrupt.

 

[navychop]

Broadcasters, as in OTA broadcasters, cannot adopt MPEG-4. It isn't part of ATSC.

ATSC 3 includes MPEG-4 as well as HEVC.

 

[harshness]

Broadcasters, as in OTA broadcasters, cannot adopt MPEG-4. It isn't part of ATSC.

I thought it was a given that in order to get to UHD broadcasts, ATSC 3.0 or similar with HEVC would be necessary.

While UHD may be possible with very sophisticated (stupid expensive) encoders, I don't think anyone is expecting that MPEG4 is enough -- especially if there's lots of FEC riding shotgun.

From an article in Broadcast Engineering:

http://atsc.org/newsletter/atsc-3-0-where-we-stand/

 

[mike123abc]

The transition to HD was a dramatic leap in picture quality.

If you have ever seen C band in its fullest will full, uncompressed SD, the transition to HD would not seem like that big a deal.

The problem is that HD now is so compressed it really is not a lot better than full C-Band SD was (worse one could argue in some cases)... Just that the delivered SD picture to the TV, back then, was so bad on average that HD made a huge difference.

If FULL HD at good bandwidth was delivered to your TV, most people would see little improvement with UHD at current screen sizes and viewing distances.

I predict that if UHD finally hits broadcast the picture would only be marginally better than a good HD Bluray. It could even be worse...

 

[navychop]

I thought it was a given that in order to get to UHD broadcasts, ATSC 3.0 or similar with HEVC would be necessary.

While UHD may be possible with very sophisticated (stupid expensive) encoders, I don't think anyone is expecting that MPEG4 is enough -- especially if there's lots of FEC riding shotgun.

From an article in Broadcast Engineering:

http://atsc.org/newsletter/atsc-3-0-where-we-stand/

When was it published? Did I miss the date?

 

[harshness]

When was it published? Did I miss the date?

Sadly, there is no time reference. It is conceivable that the article was written before the magazine was shut down in 2013. ATSC 3.0 was to be pretty close to done three years ago. Bloggers that don't put dates on their articles should be boiled in beezlenut oil.

There are many articles here (and they all have dates):

http://www.tvtechnology.com/atsc3

Should be a hot topic at NAB.

 

[Bruce]

I predict that if UHD finally hits broadcast the picture would only be marginally better than a good HD Bluray. It could even be worse...

I don't think we will ever get any 4K from broadcasters/ providers, maybe special programming, but that is about it.

When HD started out, we had or at least knew it was coming was OTA ( certain networks took longer but we knew it was coming), now with 4K we don't even get rumors about it happening, the only thing on sat providers is 1 PPV channel and one golf event soon, cable nothing.

Any 4K we get will be on the net and UHD BR, broadcasters/providers can't even get 1080P going how can they be expected to jump to 4K.

Everything seems to working in reverse, OTA, Cable/Sat had HD first in the 90's, we did not get HD physical media till 2006, HD on the net well after that.

Now we get 4K on the net first, physical media now and who knows when when on the other platforms.

 

[harshness]

I don't think we will ever get any 4K from broadcasters/ providers, maybe special programming, but that is about it.

I submit that it is much to early to say never. The US will be a little behind the curve as we have so many markets and so much buzz about how content will be distributed going forward. Korea is talking next year. UK satellite services are talking this year. The key to a speedy transition probably lies in who has fewer HD broadcast setups to replace and a government that is focused on something other than amajor election and its associated fallout.

It seems likely that ATSC 3.0 capable tuners will show up in the next couple years and that must happen before anyone can make an informed call on widespread UHD broadcast adoption/rejection. Hopefully the technology licensing won't be so costly this time around.