ITV UHD

Like an extension of AdSmart I suppose?
The only issue with AdSmart (aside from the fact it doesn't currently work on live programming) from everything I read about it is that if you wind back or don't play it at normal speed you don't see the advert you've just seen, but the advert that was actually covered up.

Presumably if somebody saw UHD regional news the same issue would apply, but I dare say by the time we get to that point the technology may have changed.

Sky have two UHD streams on Astra, at 11758 H, and 12324V

https://www.lyngsat.com/packages/Sky-UK.html

If that's the path ITV wish to take, such a service will be behind a Sky paywall.

There's no way the Beeb could afford, or justify such a thing

...yet.

The BBC have a 24/7 UHD iPlayer delivered feed NOW. Currently showing on loop almost three hours of the FA Cup Final.

I think desire is the wrong word. ITV have unified their regional news production into a 'channel in a box' solution, (something the BBC are still evaluating) so all their regional news facilities are now HD equipped by default, (even if only a sub-set of them are available to receive in HD). Likewise their playout and opting is centralised, and all HD equipped, (it would be madness to have SD/HD mixed currency). Therefore the only impediment now ITV have to have all regions available on all platforms is the cost of emission ( DTT mux/code, D-Sat mux/code and uplink. Virgin mux/code/dist )

I'd rather have ITV HDR than ITV UHD. The picture quality improvement from HD to UHD isn't as drastic as SD to HD for me.

It kind of feels to me that the market for HDR, is the same as that for 5.1 audio. In fact I often wonder when I'm sat watching something with 5.1, if I'm the only person.

Someone told me Sky are able to tell exactly how many people are using Dolby Atmos, because the Sky Q box flags it back to them. On one event it was just 18 people

I think the difference there is surround sound audio is a bit of a faff that people can't be bothered with, as it requires ideally an AV receiver with multiple speakers in the right places and you have to sit in the 'sweet spot' to get the most of the effect. HDR is just a new display technology like HD and UHD were and you can readily see the difference.

Yes, good point, though for an effective HDR picture you need a screen that can produce both a very bright image, and an inky black one. Most of the 'affordable' models can't, and you need to be spending a four figure amount, which does turn it into more of a niche market. That said, many will just turn up the brightness on their 500 quid screen, and go 'look, HDR', just as 20 years ago many took a 4:3 image and stretched it, saying, 'look, Widescreen'.

To be honest the benefit of 'inky black' pictures may be slightly overplayed in a domestic environment. Yes it's nice to have more detail in the darker areas of the pictures, but the real USP of HDR is that fewer highlights get clipped and instead carry on getting brighter, giving you detail where previously you'd just have a rolled off clip. Speculars and skies look so much better, even if you don't have perfect inky blacks at the low end. Yes - having darker blacks does make a difference - but I'm not sure that's specific to HDR as it benefits SDR too if you have a display capable of that. (Either using FALD LCD or OLED)

To be honest the 'inky black' thing is more an issue for OLED than FALD LCD as OLEDs don't go that bright, so to get the contrast range required for HDR they have to have better black level performance.

It's interesting that grading is now being done on high-end LCDs as much as OLEDs. (EIZO have a very good LCD display that outperforms the Sony X300 OLED AIUI)

“BBC News is not currently available in UHD, please tune to BBC One SD to see this programme”

I'd say the Canon DV-P monitors almost equal the Sony X-300, but they are significantly cheaper. I've not seen a Sony X310 yet though ?