noggin's posts, page 302

15,946 search results, most recent first

NG
noggin Founding member

Resolution of Film

davidhorman posted:
Quote:
I've heard and read people say that you'd need a screen around the 100" mark to actually appreciate 8K


That depends how far you sit from it.

It comes down to angular resolution in the end, rather than the size of the screen.


THIS ^.

Incidentally for a long time broadcast R&D and TV manufacturers assumed a certain picture-height to viewing distance ratio - and assumed that people sat at it. However as people moved from 28" CRTs to 42" Plasmas to 55" LCDs, it became clear that many people were sitting in the same place, with the TV in the same place, so the fixed picture-height to viewing distance ratio was a non-starter. People were viewing from a fixed distance irrespective of the picture height (i.e. screen size) in many cases.

A US engineer realised this years earlier (as CRT screen sizes increased) and this distance is named after him, the Lechner distance : http://www.schubincafe.com/2014/04/28/he-went-the-distance/
NG
noggin Founding member

Resolution of Film

Larry the Loafer posted:

I, for want of a better term, "lost my s**t" when we went HD in our house. But while the demos in shops look great, I've yet to be blown away by any 4K content. Granted all I've seen so far is Netflix stuff and my internet connection could be affecting the bitrate, but I'm finding myself paying far too much attention to trying to spot any extra clarity.


The streaming stuff is dreadful. Even at the highest bitrate, Netflix is still very heavily compressed. The DVB-T2 HEVC tests done for the 2014 World Cup were at around 35Mbs 2160/59.94p and looked pretty nice (even though the HEVC compression was quite new). Compared to Netflix, which runs at around 15Mbs for UHD, this is a LOT higher bitrate - and looked a lot better.

The HDR UHD stuff I've seen recently has been cracking - though this has been at production bitrates (400Mbs+), and I've seen uncompressed (or very lightly compressed) 10bit 4:2:2 UHD broadcast camera outputs that were >8Gbs... They looked VERY nice.
NG
noggin Founding member

Resolution of Film

Neil Jones posted:
Okay let's have another go (I've taken the description out in the title)

Let's take the original example, Spartacus. It is my understanding that to convert this film into a format that I can put in my DVD player at home it has to be bumped down to a format that fits on the disk and negates the quality of the picture.

Sort of.

The original 35mm film will have been scanned. In days gone by this would have been telecined to SD "PAL" or 16:9 - with around 720x576 resolution.

If the film was scanned at HD (1920x1080), UHD (3840x2160) or 4K (4096x2160) and the SD version produced from this, then the SD will have been down-scaled, down-sampled, down-converted, down-resed - whatever you want to call it. This may look a lot nicer in SD than a native SD telecine transfer, even though the final resolution is the same. (Obviously if you aren't using 16:9 aspect ratio the resolution will drop in one dimension or the other as these are 16:9 resolutions)

However as part of most remastering processes, you benefit from more than just higher resolution scanning, and get better colour rendition, cleaned up dirt/scratch/sparkle etc. and these remastering processes will still benefit from these improvements, and there is a also a factor in downconversion called 'oversampling' which means the SD result from a downconvert can be noticably cleaner and sharper with information all the way up to the maximum SD resolution (out performing that of an SD telecine done in the SD domain)

Quote:

I'm assuming 35mm film is better picture quality on the original negatives than it would be on my DVD player.


Yes - even a decent 35mm film print will out perform SD DVD in resolution terms. Super 16 and 16mm decently handled will massively out perform SD DVD too.

Quote:

My question should really have been pretty much what Bilky Asko said: With the advance of 4k, 8k and whatever else in the future, does there come a point where I could buy Spartacus in a picture/media format close to the picture quality of the original 35mm negative or are we already past that point with 8k and 4k? ie can it be scanned to, for argument's sake, 16k or even 32k? Or does that level of detail not exist on film?


Yes - there is a limiting point. It will, to a degree, depend on the original quality of the film stock used and the size of the film frame that was used (there are different ways of shooting 35mm that use different film areas - the larger the area, the higher the resolution of the image captured on a given film stock)

The other thing to be aware of is that since the 90s, Digital Intermediate post production has been used for movies, where the camera negative is scanned, the film edited in the digital domain, and the final master then written back to film. A lot of this has been done in the 2K domain, so unless you go back to the original negatives, match edit (and re-grade, re-composite and re-render effects shots etc.) you may not do much better than HD for some more recent films.

Older movies that were cut in the film domain may fair better (and may not require you to go all the way back to negatives to get a good result)...

AIUI good 35mm negatives shot with high quality lenses have >4K resolution, but below 8k. However once you go through the film production process in the optical domain it can drop below 4K.

Lots of digital cinemas are still 2K too...
NG
noggin Founding member

SD Picture Quality

Spencer For Hire posted:
I wonder if a lot of people just aren't aware of it, and of the benefits. It doesn't seem to get much promotion. Even a '5.1 Surround Sound' DOG at the start of programmes like the old 'Stereo' one from the 90s might at least drive some curiosity in the technology.


Historically the BBC didn't want to put a 'Dolby' logo up - which ITV did for their Dolby Surround tests. (Ironic that ITV broadcast suround sound shows on NICAM but don't on digital..)

SVT in Sweden put a 5.1 logo up along with an HD logo for their HD 5.1 shows. I'm not sure the EPG is even that accurate (as some programme makers/acquisition units may not be aware that their show is 5.1, and the EPG is based on billings not the actual broadcast signal...)
NG
noggin Founding member

Virgin Media reveals it's "V6" UHD set top box

picard posted:
noggin posted:
picard posted:
Yes I remember HD I was also an early subscriber, I bought a new PSU off Ebay and the Thomson box ok then until I got the 1tb. My 1TB box is six years old and still going strong, never had any issues at all.

Our 1TB is a little newer but has started to lock up a bit more frequently, and increasingly is downscaling 1080i to 576p until it is power-cycled (I'm sensitive to HD resolution, some people might not notice). I think this MAY be connected with the box thinking it doesn't have an HDCP connection as occasionally we get an error message like that (again fixed by a power cycle)

Quote:

Q just really seems to wind people up, as its billed as a premium product. You expect it to work. Lots of people have the hump over it.


Anyone buying something like this within the first 12 months of launch should expect the odd niggle. They haven't rolled out all the functionality yet have they?


I would expect the odd niggle, but Sky sells it with glossy adverts, lots of people will expect it to "just work", that is modern society for you. Q is a lot more complex than HD was when it started, the box etc, sure you know that. One of the problems they have is that the extra box mostly relies on wireless signals unless they use the cable, and wireless is still not reliable enough. Its nearly there. I have run cables anyway for BT so if I ever get Q should be ok. I do ask why BT did not build wireless into its 4k box that came out last year, perhaps that tells us something?


Well the main Sky Q box gets its high quality signal via its LNB feed, not via IP, whereas BT source their content entirely via IP, at high bitrates compared to streaming services, so there is a difference. UHD bitrates will be the most demanding, and the high quality high bitrate stuff on Sky Q will still be coming from an LNB or a harddrive, not directly via IP. I'd expect UHD 2160/50p stuff to be >20Mbs (probably nearer 30Mbs) - so can see why BT use a cable.

The Sky Q Mini boxes DO use IP for their SD and HD Live/Recorded TV services, and like you I'd be concerned if I were relying on WiFi for multiple boxes, particularly as Sky are using the Q Mini boxes as mesh repeaters which increases range, but can drop speeds. However for a single box streaming at most 16Mbs, 5GHz WiFi in a reasonable set-up should be OK. (Thick stone walls not great though...) Sky are supposed to be augmenting with Powerline connections (which BT also use and which should be up to the job - I get >50Mbs sustained through mine using iperf to test) but don't seem to have enabled that yet?

I agree that buggy systems aren't ideal - but I also don't agree that 'rushed' is the right way to describe it. This stuff is complex, early adopters for most systems these days are beta-testers. It's the way of the world. Systems are so complex that it's the only way.

However if your mate's system simply doesn't work - then it will presumably be under warranty. I've got quite a few friends with Sky Q who love it, and who have quite complex set-ups, though I think most of them have cabled network connectivity.
Last edited by noggin on 20 August 2016 2:54pm
UKnews and bilky asko gave kudos
NG
noggin Founding member

2016 Paralympic Games

Rkolsen posted:
noggin posted:


I wonder if this increase in coverage is related to the Invictus Games of 2014 and 2016? AIUI ABC are the US rights holders (and were host broadcasters this year, after the BBC in 2014 in London) I don't know how much ABC broadcast and how the shows rated, but it may have demonstrated to NBC (along with UK audiences in 2012) how receptive the wider public are to watching Para-sport.


ESPN did air 40+ hours of the Invictus games - specifically 10 hours on ESPN 2 consisting of the opening/closing ceremonies and a daily one hour Primetime wrap up. The remaining coverage was on their digital platform ESPN3.

Did any of it air on the main ABC channel rather than ESPN? In the UK it was broadcast on BBC One in prime time.


I suspect ESPN aired more live coverage, but the BBC One highlights shows were probably more prominent (8pm on the UK's most watched TV channel is quite a good slot)

Are the UK leading the way in para-sport on TV - sounds like we may be?
NG
noggin Founding member

Virgin Media reveals it's "V6" UHD set top box

picard posted:
Yes I remember HD I was also an early subscriber, I bought a new PSU off Ebay and the Thomson box ok then until I got the 1tb. My 1TB box is six years old and still going strong, never had any issues at all.

Our 1TB is a little newer but has started to lock up a bit more frequently, and increasingly is downscaling 1080i to 576p until it is power-cycled (I'm sensitive to HD resolution, some people might not notice). I think this MAY be connected with the box thinking it doesn't have an HDCP connection as occasionally we get an error message like that (again fixed by a power cycle)

Quote:

Q just really seems to wind people up, as its billed as a premium product. You expect it to work. Lots of people have the hump over it.


Anyone buying something like this within the first 12 months of launch should expect the odd niggle. They haven't rolled out all the functionality yet have they?
NG
noggin Founding member

Virgin Media reveals it's "V6" UHD set top box

picard posted:
noggin posted:
picard posted:
It's rushed, just like Q, although the design of Q is much better.


What makes you think the Sky Q is rushed? It's been in development for quite a while AIUI (and the use of Unicable LNBs is a very neat development)


Err, it does not work properly. Many bugs and issues reported over on Sky forums. A mate has it, works ok most of the time, but it gets pink screens and the extra box is unreliable.


I suspect, like VM's Tivo roll-out, however rushed or un-rushed, stuff will only surface when properly hammered by users. I was an early Sky+HD adopter and that had its fair share of issues. (And a nasty hardware design fault in the Thomson PSU capacitors...)

That doesn't mean it was rushed... (I know some of the people who worked on it - it certainly wasn't a last-minute development) At least the box appears to be powerful enough to cope with most demands.

There IS an issue with the Sky Q Mini boxes though. They don't support H265/HEVC - only H264/AVC and MPEG2. So you can't record UHD shows (which are H265/HEVC) on your main box and then watch them on the Mini apparently, even if you were happy with an HD or SD downscale...

Quote:

Did Sky have anything to do with Unicable LNBs? thought these started before Q.


No - but I think they are one of the first to use them in this way (to allow large numbers of tuners to be provided in a single receiver fed by only two rather than 4 LNB cables) rather than for multi-dwelling distribution over a single cable (which was, I think, the original aim) The real reason for this is presumably to avoid having to recable existing Sky+ set-ups. (Only the LNB needs to be changed in these installs)
NG
noggin Founding member

Deal or No Deal axed

I see that BBC Studioworks make no mention of any Bristol studio facilities these days. AIUI they used to manage the production facilities for Deal or No Deal in Bristol at both The Paintworks and then The Bottle Yard studios? I guess with no long-term studio deal needed, any contract to manage facilities ended a while ago. (The old BBC S&PP website used to mention the Bristol facilities)
NG
noggin Founding member

Olympics 2016

toby lerone 2016 posted:

The reason I said the Silver medallists is the story they have behind them and whilst I don't think they will win it but Katherine Grainger became Britain's most decorated Olympian


No - Kath Grainger isn't Britain's most decorated Olympian. She's Britain's most decorated female Olympian, but there are male Olympians with a higher medal tally.

Kath has 1 gold and 4 silver - a total of 5 Olympic medals.

She is out ranked by at least the following male Olympians :
Jason Kenny and Chris Hoy both have 7 in total - 6 gold and 1 silver each.
Bradley Wiggins has 8 in total - 5 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze.

(This is using medal numbers as the metric - not taking into account career longevity and the fact that cyclists routinely win multiple medals at the same games, and rowers don't)
NG
noggin Founding member

2016 Paralympic Games

Rkolsen posted:
NBC anounced commentators for their Paralympic coverage. In addition it appears they solidified their coverage plans. While not as much as Channel 4 they will broadcast 70 hours on NBC and NBCSN in addition to coverage on the NBC Live Extra App taking feeds from the OBS. Seventy hours may not seem like a lot but it is a significant increase from London 2012 where they only carried SIX hours and for Sochi they carried 50 hours.

Daytime coverage on NBCSN will typically run from 2- 5PM ET, Primetime coverage from 7-9PM and latenight from 1-5AM. No word yet on NBC network coverage.


I wonder if this increase in coverage is related to the Invictus Games of 2014 and 2016? AIUI ABC are the US rights holders (and were host broadcasters this year, after the BBC in 2014 in London) I don't know how much ABC broadcast and how the shows rated, but it may have demonstrated to NBC (along with UK audiences in 2012) how receptive the wider public are to watching Para-sport.
NG
noggin Founding member

SD Picture Quality

Markymark posted:
AlexEdohHD13 posted:

But why won't ITV broadcast in Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound on SD let alone HD?


No one broadcasts in 5.1 on SD platforms. Out the 'legacy analogue' broadcasters, only the Beeb and C4 bother with it.


No - not in the UK.

In Sweden they introduced 5.1 broadcasts when they started SD 16:9 DVB-T/S/C digital broadcasts in the late 90s (not sure if 5.1 arrived immediately), so they have been broadcasting 5.1 audio (and making 5.1 shows) for many years. Interestingly they stopped 5.1 for their SD channels after a couple of years of HD broadcasting, with one reason being that few 5.1 listeners weren't likely to have upgraded to HD. (And some stereo SD viewers complained about 5.1->2.0 downmixing - even though there was a stereo audio feed separately broadcast in MP2...)

It's interesting how much more 5.1 content there is in Sweden than the UK. All the major high-end drama there is 5.1, and a lot of TV shows are. I think that is one reason that the Eurovision Song Contest switched to 5.1 before it went HD. (The 2005 contest was SD 16:9 and 5.1, and sound mixed by Swedish crew...)