108 replies to this topic

[pgdownload]

ajm, on 27 August 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Problem for the networks is they never know what difference broadcasting in HD does to their audience figures. They cant be satisfied that they couldn't have achieved the same numbers broadcasting in SD.

I disagree with Peter G, I think the primary driver has to be financial - its the fundamental behind being in business. The advantage of moving to DTV was the ability to broadcasting channels and created additional revenue. The move from MPEG2 to MPEG4 would require the same incentive.

I'd be (genuinely) interested why you got the impression I thought it wasn't financial - perhaps I posted something contrary I can't remember?

I think there are two potential motivators. Political and financial. IIR, the last time around it was generally the government directing, paying and handling the digital change over. As we near the end of that transition I can't see the government itching to start the process off all over again. So I agree the only likelihood of a fast switch to MPEG4 is if the networks see a decent return in it (which there's not an obvious lot of it.) As I mentioned before, if a network could some how show horn an HD MPEG4 primary channel broadcast into its spectrum (which retaining the SD MPEG2 one) then that might see a ratings benefit.

Quote

Now, if you view the HD takeup figures, surely this figure would be reversed if the general public cared about picture quality? Instead, the majority of people with HD capable displays chose to watch in SD.

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The figures mentioned are over 3 years old. HD takeup was significantly less than it is now. Regardless, the figures likely show those with HD capable equipment watched in HD. How do you infer they watched it in SD instead?

Regards

Peter Gillespie

[GoForMoe]

pgdownload, on 27 August 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The figures mentioned are over 3 years old. HD takeup was significantly less than it is now. Regardless, the figures likely show those with HD capable equipment watched in HD. How do you infer they watched it in SD instead?

Figures are from June 2011, almost exactly a year ago. The digital tracker report covering that time suggests that at the time 89% of the 81% of digital ready households had HD - or 72% of all households (if I can do maths). Assuming that the population watching the AFL align with the digital conversion rates - that means that of the 765k people watching that football match, around 619k of them would have had access to One HD, and of those, less than one in three would have chosen to watch that HD coverage.

Malich, on 27 August 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

Just on this: the way the NBN is being built at the moment, that's not quite the case - the current plan is to allow the multicast virtual circuit (VC) to take up to 50Mbps if required / requested. If that + the unicast VC (i.e. "normal" data) > the 'link' bandwidth, then the unicast VC's bandwidth is reduced accordingly (well, actually the multicast data has priority). Assuming (to use nice round numbers) that the link between the GPON and you is 100Mbps:

Very interesting. The date in one of those slides mentions next month we should start seeing this roll out - I wouldn't be surprised if Fetch TV start an NBN based service, which would allow us to see this in action in the real world.

I'd also assume that in the real world, the capacity of each GPON should mean that it will never have practical impacts on each user's internet speed, because even if somehow everyone is using the full 50Mbps, there's still nearly a Gigabit left for the internet, so that would mean every household maxing out the television, having a 100Mbps service in the first place and then 10 of those users out of 32 also maximising their internet at the same time before anything actually slows down. I think we're safe.

[Owen]

Alan,
There is a snowflakes chance in hell we will see high quality HD on free to air TV let alone quality programming, with or without Mpeg4, so stop dreaming.

alanh, on 27 August 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

By the way stop calling out TV system 50i. If it were then the frame rate would be 50 frame/s and the field rate 100 field/s. There is no plans for any 50 frame/s cameras to scan in an interlaced way.

There is 25 frame/s on our TV each frame is split into a pair of fields, it takes 2 fields to scan all picture elements. A new scan starts 40 ms after the previous start. 1/40 ms = 25 frame/s.

Its clear you have learned nothing in this thread and appear to have no interest in doing so.

The ONLY time two fields make up a frame is when the source is 25 progressive frames per second like film, the de interlacing method is called weave and the progressive output is lossless 25p. There is no "scan" in digital displays the entire frame is displays at once.

Interlaced source from an interlaced video camera must be de interlaced to 50 frames per second because the camera shutter operates 50 times per second and captured 50 motion updates. Since fields are captured 1/50th of a second apart in time they cannot and MUST NOT be simply combined into frames, doing so destroys the motion resolution of the video and results in terrible combing artefacts.
Digital TV's have always displays true interlaced source at 50 distinctly different frames per second for 50 motion updates per second (usually via simple bob de interlacing) either at 50Hz or at 100Hz with each frame displayed twice. Progressive sourced interlaced video is displayed at 50Hz or 100Hz with each frame displayed twice or 4 times for for 25 motion updates per second.

If you cant see the dramatic difference in motion smoothness between progressive sourced interlaced content and true interlaced content you have a visual impairment.

Edited by Owen, 27 August 2012 - 08:13 PM.

[Malich]

GoForMoe, on 27 August 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Very interesting. The date in one of those slides mentions next month we should start seeing this roll out - I wouldn't be surprised if Fetch TV start an NBN based service, which would allow us to see this in action in the real world.

From what I remember, July 2012 was the predicted launch date when they first started giving details in the first part of last year. So it's not too far off schedule.

GoForMoe, on 27 August 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

I'd also assume that in the real world, the capacity of each GPON should mean that it will never have practical impacts on each user's internet speed, because even if somehow everyone is using the full 50Mbps, there's still nearly a Gigabit left for the internet, so that would mean every household maxing out the television, having a 100Mbps service in the first place and then 10 of those users out of 32 also maximising their internet at the same time before anything actually slows down. I think we're safe.

I was actually a little surprised, when I first saw their plans for IPTV last year, that they'd chosen from the start to go with GPONs rather than a more "intelligent" LTE/MUX alternative which would have allowed multicasting to continue further out towards the customer. But then I did the same rough calculation as you have, & it works out OK as you describe.

[jsmith]

alanh, on 27 August 2012 - 02:12 AM, said:

By the way stop calling out TV system 50i. If it were then the frame rate would be 50 frame/s and the field rate 100 field/s. There is no plans for any 50 frame/s cameras to scan in an interlaced way.

There is 25 frame/s on our TV each frame is split into a pair of fields, it takes 2 fields to scan all picture elements. A new scan starts 40 ms after the previous start. 1/40 ms = 25 frame/s.

Alanh

JSmith

[ajm]

pgdownload, on 27 August 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I'd be (genuinely) interested why you got the impression I thought it wasn't financial - perhaps I posted something contrary I can't remember?

Sorry Peter, I misinterpreted the last paragraph of your previous post where you spoke about financial incentives.  My apologies.

[MLXXX]

Here's an example of the internet encroaching on television, and actually being promoted by television.

From http://blogs.abc.net...e-on-iview.html:-

ABC TV is thrilled to announce that in true time-lord style, the first episode of Season 7 of Doctor Who, "Asylum of the Daleks", will now premiere on iview Sunday, 2 September from 5.10am EST immediately after its UK launch on 1 September.

The new series of Doctor Who, including "Asylum of the Daleks", then starts on ABC1 the following Saturday, 8 September at 7.30pm EST, and is also repeated on ABC2 from Tuesday, 11 September at 9.30pm EST.

ABC1 Controller Brendan Dahill said, “For Doctor Who fans, it is a fantastic opportunity to see new episodes within hours of them premiering in the UK – each episode will be available on iview on Sundays.”

“ABC’s iview is the most watched catch-up service in Australia with 48% of online Australians aged 16+ having accessed iview,” said Dahill. “The new iview app for iphones and iPod Touch, launched on June 26, has seen a phenomenal 434,000 downloads recorded to date – with 210,000 downloads recorded in its first week.”

The picture quaity of iview when I last checked was not as good as SD television. But it was quite watchable. I myself would have no problem paying a small fee and obtaining high quality video and sound as a download.

In terms of this thread, if and when 4k displays appear in showrooms at affordable prices, download of the (intially rare) 4k content from the net (for a fee) might be a viable approach for obtaining video source material.

Edited by MLXXX, 31 August 2012 - 02:04 AM.

[pgdownload]

Doctor Who? back. Yay

I wonder if the ABC would be allowed to (want to?) start up a premium iview area (alla itunes) where you could get better quality episodes for a ]fee (or perhaps a season subscription).

Quote

In terms of this thread, if and when 4k displays appear in showrooms at affordable prices, download of the (intially rare) 4k content from the net (for a fee) might be a viable approach for obtaining video source material.

You'd be looking at 6Gb for an episode of Doctor Who (compared to the current 7Gb for 720p HD). Do-able I suppose.

Regards

Peter Gillespie

Edited by pgdownload, 31 August 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[davep]

Yep, I read this too, although given the option of a 720 rip, or a sub-sd iView option, I know which one im going to continue to choose.