NEWS: Samsung and BT deliver UK’s first live 8K sports broadcast

StackH

Active Member
It would be nice if Sky had an incentive to broadcast in 4K that actually looks like 4K, rather than a slightly better HD, before they think about 8K. And don’t get me started on HDR...
 

john01707

Active Member
Thats amazing 8K ! the ironic thing is i have BT sport and BT internet and the mbps they supply me on their best package wont even support 4K let alone 8. whats the point, lets get the basics right first. I'm sure its amazing to look at but how good is the human eye !!
 

xxGBHxx

Well-known Member
How does this work at a networking layer?

I think it is a possibility with a live event that can be multicast and where FTTP is available to more than the 2-3million it currently is. But without multicasting where's all that bandwidth going to come from across the cores? They already experience a drop in the average throughput from 55Mbit to 30Mbit during 8-10pm so I can't imagine what sort of a hit you're going to get from something like the Olympics being streamed in 4k and 8k. I also wonder how much Virgins 300+Mbit impacts on those average speed figures. I'd guess most people in the UK don't get anywhere near 50Mbit.

In 5 years+ things will be different of course but it's obviously no more than a marketing exercise at this point.

G
 

ozzzy189

Distinguished Member
I see it this way.
SD = Almost unwatchable in some cases
HD = Like really good SD used to be.
UHD = like really good HD used to be.
See the pattern? Bitrate cuts to enforce folks into thinking they have to upgrade is a disgrace. HD on TV is so soft and blurry compared to the pics we used to enjoy at 20mbps all those years ago. It's p*ss poor imo.
 

MEGATAMA

Well-known Member
Bittrate,compression.....we are not yet there.
 

fathergll

Member
This video discusses the behind the scene of the American Superbowl using 4k. Basically they stated they have to upscale everything to 4k because it would be impossible to natively use 4k with the amount of cameras in use because the data is 4 times the amount. With that said how are they doing 8k? Is it native 4k and they are using less cameras than an american football game? There is no way they are using native 8k from watching this video.

 

Khankat

Active Member
I see it this way.
SD = Almost unwatchable in some cases
HD = Like really good SD used to be.
UHD = like really good HD used to be.
See the pattern? Bitrate cuts to enforce folks into thinking they have to upgrade is a disgrace. HD on TV is so soft and blurry compared to the pics we used to enjoy at 20mbps all those years ago. It's p*ss poor imo.
My BBC Regional news can only be viewed in SD. It is appalling quality. Yet ITV manage to broadcast its regional news in HD. But what really annoys me is that any BBC channel broadcasting in HD, via Freeview, that I can receive looks far better than the same on Sky HD. It is insulting.
 

Over by there

Well-known Member
This video discusses the behind the scene of the American Superbowl using 4k. Basically they stated they have to upscale everything to 4k because it would be impossible to natively use 4k with the amount of cameras in use because the data is 4 times the amount. With that said how are they doing 8k? Is it native 4k and they are using less cameras than an american football game? There is no way they are using native 8k from watching this video.

BT does 4k glass to glass.

Re original news bit, thought it was a test in the stadium , not broadcast out the stadium though I expect a test feed did go out to be monitored.


Edit. Raises a few questions though with which direction the industry is going. Film 8k, done covert a 4k and HD from that feed. The process is about the same as a 4k anyway, just a few more bits being shifted.

Timing the quads must be a sod.
 
Last edited:

cooperda

Well-known Member
I see it this way.
SD = Almost unwatchable in some cases
HD = Like really good SD used to be.
UHD = like really good HD used to be.
See the pattern? Bitrate cuts to enforce folks into thinking they have to upgrade is a disgrace. HD on TV is so soft and blurry compared to the pics we used to enjoy at 20mbps all those years ago. It's p*ss poor imo.
The decision that caused the issue to become a real problem was when the BBC wanted 'equivalence' in that FreeSat could have kept the higher bitrates (16Mbs or more) but were forced to drop down to the Freeview (bandwith) limit, which for HD was 9.6Mbs I think.

I used to have a Twitter List titled 'BBCHDPicQualityConcerns' and a group (not including myself) went to the BBC to 'put the case and ask questions' about the situation. I hope they won't mind me posting this group photo they took - This was in early May 2010 - maybe some are members here.
(Will take down image if asked)
 

Attachments

ozzzy189

Distinguished Member
Thanks for that.
I distinctly remember watching BBC HD masters golf through sky when It was first available. It was stunning, almost like looking outside. It sadly declined steadily ever since.
 

drummerman

Banned
Most youtube reviewers that have commented when seeing 8k next to 4k say the difference is almost invisible!

Then there is the marketing blurb that upscaled HD and 4k looks better on an 8k TV than on a native resolution set. I dont know but this seems highly unlikely!

What internet download speed would one need to stream live 8k? We already have one of the poorest superfast fibre coverage in this country.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, many sets will be 8k in a couple of years, whether there is material to watch or not.

Progress with a healthy dose of bo *****.
 

Over by there

Well-known Member
8k will be decisive for viewers, it already is shown thus. Personally I will wait and see what my eyes tell me. RAI tested a ASI feed to the satellite uplink head at 70mb/s? That is almost inside what BT do for super fast fibre. Chuck in expected gains from better efficiency with AV1 (used in this test?) and VVC, drop that to say 50 and game on?
 

ozzzy189

Distinguished Member
It's totally uneccessary. Just provide a better, higher bitrate, non compromised 4k service. Oh sorry that doesn't sell many TV's as its 8k sets are pretty much the only USP Samsung have these days.
 

Over by there

Well-known Member
Point of view I suppose. I welcome it. I fully expect the manufacturers to go this way now whether we like it or not, timeline will be interesting especially with so much SD around. Wasn't so sure a year ago but the pro kit to manage and shift this stuff is happening. Nothing has stopped progressing since PAL went but we had PAL 50 years, HD first Sky transmission in the UK, 2006, 10 years near as damn it 4k dropped, now 8K its going to happen I suspect quicker but how long is a bit of string. How it is implemented will be the clincher. Nice but sustainable or all out replace 4k panels with a good upscaled and force the authorities to drop SD. Who knows.

TV is now a data stream and the displays are part of the puzzle, companies will innovate and want to make money on the back of it.

Bonus from more efficient compression is 4k can reach more people, backhaul can make more use of it etc. 8K will have filter down benefits. ISP's need to up their game though. I have read that a good 4k down convert can be gained from a 8k capture, better than an original 4k capture. There is more for an editor to work with.
 

avjon

Member
I can barely stream 4K so I am not really jumping for joy over this news. As has already been said, give us decent broadband speeds and then worry about 8K. Oh, and what about decent HD pictures?
 
It would be nice if Sky had an incentive to broadcast in 4K that actually looks like 4K, rather than a slightly better HD, before they think about 8K. And don’t get me started on HDR...
If UHD discs, halfway decent Netflix, ATV4K, beta stuff on iPlayer and (yet to see Disney+) isn't providing incentive, then only rogering with a red hot poker might work.
 

fathergll

Member
BT does 4k glass to glass.

Re original news bit, thought it was a test in the stadium , not broadcast out the stadium though I expect a test feed did go out to be monitored.


Edit. Raises a few questions though with which direction the industry is going. Film 8k, done covert a 4k and HD from that feed. The process is about the same as a 4k anyway, just a few more bits being shifted.

Timing the quads must be a sod.

Verge article gives some insight. First look at 8K HDR sport streaming coming to the UK this summer

"The only issue is you won’t always be getting 8K; BT Sport’s current 4K HDR feed includes 1080p replay and studio shots that are upscaled. "

So BT does a mix of 4k and 1080p upscaled. EU Football is a little bit easier to show that American football because of more continuous action. American football's actual game isn't continuous and they spend most of the broadcast time using multiple angles for replays between plays.
 

fathergll

Member
Most youtube reviewers that have commented when seeing 8k next to 4k say the difference is almost invisible!

Then there is the marketing blurb that upscaled HD and 4k looks better on an 8k TV than on a native resolution set. I dont know but this seems highly unlikely!

What internet download speed would one need to stream live 8k? We already have one of the poorest superfast fibre coverage in this country.

Anyway, it doesn't matter, many sets will be 8k in a couple of years, whether there is material to watch or not.

Progress with a healthy dose of bo *****.


They are currently experimenting with 70 Mbps HEVC. Article stated that they want to get it down closer to 60 Mbps for launch. Netflix 4K is 15 Mbps...so 4 X 15 Mbps = 60 Mbps sounds about right.

The article stated they had a uncompressed 48 Gbps 8k feed going to a Samsung 8k TV which was described as phenomenal.
 

Over by there

Well-known Member
Verge article gives some insight. First look at 8K HDR sport streaming coming to the UK this summer

"The only issue is you won’t always be getting 8K; BT Sport’s current 4K HDR feed includes 1080p replay and studio shots that are upscaled. "

So BT does a mix of 4k and 1080p upscaled. EU Football is a little bit easier to show that American football because of more continuous action. American football's actual game isn't continuous and they spend most of the broadcast time using multiple angles for replays between plays.
One or two cams yes, but in the main the match live is 4K. The article youtube article you linked to mentions 100 camera's. There won't be that many on a football or rugby match in the UK (for the live)

Interestingly there is an article on this very web site somewhere.
 

Similar threads

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG SN7CY Soundbar Review, Hisense 55U7Q, LG Nano90, Best of the Month, B+W Sigourney Weaver

Trending threads

Top Bottom