ATSC2.0 (H.265) & ATSC3.0 (UHDTV 4K) Discussion - Page 3 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

 4Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #31 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-18, 01:52 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simonizer
And delivering content down the pipe will strain BDU's capacities even more - look how much compression is already being done.
This is just a argument that BDUs will adapt slowly, not a argument against high quality content being delivered. Netflix already looks better than what my local cableco delivers.

With higher resolutions and better codecs, Netflix will be increasing its quality lead.
audacity is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 103 (permalink) Old 2014-01-18, 06:56 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,291
interesting article. Mentions CBS will be changing their satellite fronthaul toward their affiliates to h.264 this year. Meaning how they feed the affiliates will go from mpeg2 -> mpeg4.
ABC, NBC, and PBS already do h264 on their satellite feeds.
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/008...--world/222961

DB4E/VHF Yagi rotor FM Bandstop ap-8700 preamp 4way split LG lcd.
majortom is online now  
post #33 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-03-09, 05:11 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1
hi there! sorry -- I'm wholly tech-illiterate, and don't understand much of what I have been here But I'm hoping my question makes sense, and that someone can respond in REALLY simple terms: I am watching OTA (in London On) and only get 3 channels even WITH an indoor antenna. I'm thinking of buying a fancy big-screen 4k TV so I can watch Netflix and movies in real style. Will I still be able to get my OTA channels? 3 is not much, but I would hate to lose them. Thanks so much to anyone able and willing to help me with some info.

Last edited by 57; 2015-03-09 at 05:54 PM. Reason: OT sentence removed
Jenny1 is offline  
 
post #34 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-03-09, 05:43 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 188
@jenny1,

Quote:
Will I still be able to get my OTA channels?
Yes.

Regarding what TV to buy, you should probably ask that in another forum.
Wetware is offline  
post #35 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-03-10, 11:00 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 12,200
Here's a useful thread to discuss 4K TV options:

What's Upcoming for 4K TV's? (Should I wait?)
Dr.Dave is offline  
post #36 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-05-15, 12:13 AM
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 44
I remember how good 1080p looked on a Plasma TV's with 600mhz refresh rate and you don't see Plasma TV's much any more because they were said to have a possible short life span.

I personally won't buy one, I'll let everyone else buy them and take the chances. This reminds me when 3D was the thing they tried to convince you was something you couldn't live without but they didn't realize, long term eye damage could be a side effect of watching too much 3D content.

This is just like the TV industry, VHS was replaced DVD's and Blue Ray when analog to digital was forced upon us, now they'll going to make you buy more crap you don't need so you can watch and record 4K content, nope not me.
florida ham is offline  
post #37 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-21, 01:33 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Kitchener
Posts: 780
Thumbs up Testing of Proposed ATSC3.0 (4K) OTA System in Cleveland

Just a heads up, Cleveland's WJW are testing ATSC3.0 on rf31, hope some of you peeps down there catch it and can report back.

Inside the Cleveland Futurecast ATSC 3.0 Transmission Tests | TvTechnology
Frankzappa is offline  
post #38 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-22, 03:11 AM
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,878
ATSC3.0: 4K OTA capability, spectrum efficiencies

Quote:
Licensed as WI9X3Y in the Cleveland suburb of Parma, Ohio, and owned by WJW’s parent company Tribune Broadcasting, the full-power UHF station operates on Channel 31 with an ERP of 430 kW.
That's great to see Futurecast (Zenith, LG and GatesAir) working on a proposed next generation Digital OTA technology! 4K OTA (3840×2160 at 60 fps) would be a tremendous jump in broadcasting quality.

Here's a link about their August and October, 2014 testing of ATSC3.0 in Madison, WI: Zenith and Futurecast Test ATSC 3.0 Broadcasts in Wisconsin - Article from CE Pro
stampeder is offline  
post #39 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-22, 04:26 AM
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,878
ATSC2.0 vs ATSC3.0

Here's an introduction to ATSC2.0:
Quote:
Broadcast industry takes charge with new ATSC standard for OTT services, non-real-time (NRT) content delivery, second-screen viewing, rich interactivity
New ATSC 2.0 Will Change the Way We Watch TV - Article from CE Pro

ATSC3.0 takes all those 2.0 features and packs them more efficiently into the standard 6MHz channel slot on the TV spectrum, permitting 4K and ATSC M/H (mobile/handheld) streams. Bandwidth provided by ATSC3.0, utilizing H.265 and OFDM, is ~26Mbps, as opposed to the original ATSC1.0's ~19Mbps using MPEG-2 and 8VSB.

ATSC2.0 is meant to be backwards compatible (ATSC1.0 gear would receive it as ATSC1.0 broadcasts as we see them today) but ATSC3.0 would not, requiring a compatible new tuner/receiver.

Here's a link to Wikipedia's info on ATSC2.0 and ATSC3.0:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanc...andards#Future
stampeder is offline  
post #40 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-22, 12:08 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Laval, QC
Posts: 880
Once ATSC 3.0 gets the green light, I don't think 4K will be the main selling point for stations. I can see stations using ATSC 3.0 to offer more 1080 streams.

Some US stations are currently offering two 720p streams. Such as WWTI in Watertown, NY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWTI

In this particular case they offer ABC on their 50.1, and CW on 50.2 at 720p each. That market also has no NBC station.

I can see stations using ATSC 3.0 to offer three 1080i (or 1080p) streams, and increasing their possible revenue streams than using up a large piece of their spectrum for 4K. It would also depend on the networks as well. Will they want to offer their main network feed at 4K to their affiliates. Would a 2K stream be a better option. Would all those new 480i sub-channel networks prefer to upgrade their feeds to 480p or 720p to their affiliates thus increasing the space they take up the stations spectrum.

I think we'll see less licensed stations with ATSC 3.0. But, each station will be affiliated with more networks. Thus, for the viewer, there may be more channels available in HD in their market.

Channel Master CM4228HD, CM3414, DVR+, Sharp AQUOS
Blackburst is offline  
post #41 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-22, 07:35 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Kitchener
Posts: 780
Quote:
Some US stations are currently offering two 720p streams.
WQHS Cleveland offers 2 1080i streams and 2 480i streams using existing tech and their picture is fantastic.

I agree that 4K will NOT be the big mover/shaker with ATSC 3.0 but added HD channels and Datastreams/Datacasting will be.

From what I've read the new ATSC 3.0 would offer up to 6- 1080p streams utilizing HEVC compression, which is fantastic.

Sports and other fast moving video will benefit with 4K video but there are few broadcasters willing to shell out to produce content in that format. The big networks will do BIG sporting events in 4K but I highly doubt we'll see a Phoenix Coyotes vs Calgary Flames game done in 4K for at least a decade, too expensive to produce with not enough revenue on the table. I could be wrong, the League/Leagues could offer a 4K package but it will come at great expense to the consumer.
Frankzappa is offline  
post #42 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-23, 12:20 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Laval, QC
Posts: 880
The other thing that I think should be looked at when ATSC 3.0 gets the green light is the 6mhz assigned to each channel.

It's no secret that the FCC wants to do a re-pack, and sell off the upper end of the UHF spectrum. I have read a few articles about some tests concerning the sharing of a 6mhz block by two stations. That would give them each 3mhz.

From the article I read concerning the station in Cleveland running on a ATSC 3.0 test, with a 6mhz block, they manage to get about 26Mbs. And 15.7Mbs was assigned to the 4K stream.

Now simple math, divide that 26Mbs by two for sharing the 6mhz block and you get 13MBs per 3mhz. Now I'm no expert on this, and simply trying to understand this possible future ATSC 3.0 and sharing of the 6mhz block, tells me that 4K would have a problem being used. Or a station would be stuck only offering a 4K, and no sub-channels. Worse yet, a station assigned to sharing is stuck when its main network feed starts to get offered in 4K, and the station can't provide the 4K because of contracts it has to offer other HD channels on it's 3mhz.

Now this is just pure speculation on my part, and simply trying to point out that a re-think of the 6mhz assignment block may be in need. Lets say for the sake of arguement that the sell off happens, and we end up with Channels 2 - 36 (6mhz blocks) for TV. We would end up loosing 38-51. This totals 14 possible channels lost. And as I pointed out, sharing 6mhz blocks by two stations, would effect any possible use of 4K. And if there is no sharing, and each station gets a 6mhz block, then there is a limit to competition from smaller stations. No room for them in some markets. Or placing stations too close to each other, and thus effecting reception.

But, what if we end up dividing the blocks into 5mhz with ATSC 3.0. Just a very rough calculation on my part gave me TV channel assignment 2-41 (5mhz), using the same space of channels 2-36 (6mhz).
If ATSC 3.0 can get us 26Mbs at 6mhz, then we should be able to get 21.6Mbs with 5mhz blocks. This would still allow stations the ability to offer 4K if the network they are with goes that route. But, also room for a HD sub-channel. The increase in the number of channels available for license would increase as well. Leaving smaller stations (by that I mean stations not affiliated to the major networks), to stay on the air. I do believe some consolidation will occur with a re-pack, but not as severe if the assignment blocks are at 5mhz each.

Lets also look at it another way. If we remain with 6mhz blocks with ATSC 3.0, and a station can run a possible 5 HD_1080p streams, then just a single station can offer all the major US networks (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX, CW). Now what happens in a market that now has three stations offering all those networks. Do the other two sign off. Shutdown? What happens to the local news those stations offered in their market. No longer available? But one station affiliated to the 5 main networks, offers only one local point of view news. Is this healthy for any market? Assigning a smaller block of 5mhz would put a limit on one station offering all the networks. Some will have to sign up with another local station. Thus keeping another local news source available.

Now everything I wrote here is speculation. But, something that might need to be considered with ATSC 3.0, and a possible re-pack of the TV frequency.

Remember, the 6mhz assignment per block was based on analog needs. Does it still need to be that if we are going to have to change the system once again when ATSC 3.0 kicks in.

Channel Master CM4228HD, CM3414, DVR+, Sharp AQUOS
Blackburst is offline  
post #43 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-23, 01:25 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,059
I haven't seen anything re 3 MHz assignments. When stations "share" a channel, they mean that multiple data streams are carried in the SAME 6 MHz Channel assignment.

There is a serious DISADVANTAGE to going to smaller bandwidth assignments, such as 3 MHz....which is why MOST of the World has gone to 7 MHz and 8 MHz channel assignments. Statistical Multiplexing is frequently used TODAY on SAT, CATV and OTA systems. In a well managed StatMux, some of the COMPOSITE data rate (e.g. 38 Mbps for CATV, 19.4 Mbps for OTA and now 26 Mbps in ATSC 3.0) is allocated to FIXED data streams, such as cyclic Software Updates to attached devices (that don't have I-N connections) and other revenue generating data streams, such as perhaps a subscription Stock Market Ticker service. The REMAINDER of the data stream can be allocated "AS NEEDED" across ALL of MULTIPLE Video Data Streams so that when one or more video program has "Action on the Field" requiring additional data rate, it is available to the program that most NEEDS it.

In the fol. TSReader Example, TWO 1080i and ONE 480i Video Programs are being carried....you can see the instantaneous data rate allocation in the Green Line Chart....the line at the bottom are the 3.3 Mbps of "NULL Packets" that were UNUSED, in excess of what the collective video programs needed:
SI Parsing by TSReader 2.8.47a
Note the the ALLOCATED data rate in the Summary section is actually a MAX value, arbitrarily set to a very high number, so the StatMux is the limiting factor rather than Allocating too LOW a Max Data Rate.

In the fol. TSReader Example, there is ONE 720p and several 480i programs in addition to ATSC A/153 (MPEG4) sub-channels for Subscription Starz and Shotime and "Airbox" programs (which I'm guessing are ALSO using the "shared" StatMux capacity)..

FYI: RabbitEars maintains a list of stations carrying TWO or more HD channels if you want to look at more examples:
RabbitEars.Info

The higher the Bandwidth Assignment, the more TOTAL Data Rate Capacity is available to be allocated across all Video Programs....which means that there will be fewer and fewer occasions that TWO or more Video Channels "NEED" more Data Rate capacity than is available. Hence higher Data Rate CATV and ATSC 3.0 systems can successfully pack MORE HD Channels than current ATSC....esp when using TWICE as efficient MPEG4 coding....or FOUR times as efficient HVEC coding expected in the future.......and 8 MHz Bandwidth systems are even better prepared to handle a larger number of HD Channels.

Antenna Simulations, Overload Calculations, etc: http://imageevent.com/holl_ands

Last edited by holl_ands; 2015-07-23 at 01:45 AM.
holl_ands is offline  
post #44 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-23, 03:42 AM
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,878
6MHz scheme is here to stay

Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands
I haven't seen anything re 3 MHz assignments. When stations "share" a channel, they mean that multiple data streams are carried in the SAME 6 MHz Channel assignment.
Exactly - no need to carve up the channel allotments any smaller when data stream multiplexing can slice and dice each 6MHz slot so well. I've never come across the 3MHz idea before either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackburst
Remember, the 6mhz assignment per block was based on analog needs. Does it still need to be that if we are going to have to change the system once again when ATSC 3.0 kicks in.
Keep in mind that soooooo much filtering in place today in passive signal gear is done according to 6MHz channel notches, and the stated goal of ATSC standards is to be transparent to such home and professional gear, so I cannot imagine the authorities forcing all that equipment to be obsolete. The 6MHz scheme is here to stay.
stampeder is offline  
post #45 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-07-23, 11:45 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Laval, QC
Posts: 880
I wasn't actually looking at the 3mhz. My point was the actual sharing of the 6mhz block by separate licensed stations. You do understand that though technically this might make sense, business people and corporations tend to want a well defined space of operations, staking their limits to the shared 6mhz block. Which of course effects the value of the licensed station, and the sale value as well. Sharing a block means defining the shared space by each party. It was a simple divide by two. So I was making the point that sharing a 6mhz block might not be a good idea.

Channel Master CM4228HD, CM3414, DVR+, Sharp AQUOS
Blackburst is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome