ATSC2.0 (H.265) & ATSC3.0 (UHDTV 4K) Discussion - Page 6 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

 4Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

post #76 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-08-17, 12:04 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 28
ATSC 3.0

I've been seeing a lot of discussion in the newsletters I subscribe to, but this popped into my inbox over the weekend.
People don't realize...
Quote:
Once the transition to the ATSC 3.0 digital broadcast standard does occur, it's unlikely you'll be able to use the ATSC 1.0 digital tuners in current TVs. There won't be enough TV spectrum available for broadcasters to simulcast both ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0 signals.
ATSC 3.0 Digital Broadcast Standard - Consumer Reports
audioguy_on_ca is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #77 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-08-17, 02:03 PM
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,878
Backwards Compatibility Recap

Yep, post #64 summarizes the ATSC1.0 backwards compatibility of ATSC2.0, along with the absence of same in ATSC3.0

The goal of ATSC2.0 is to use modern and efficient data compression to allow much more data to be passed to the consumer device over the same 6MHz of spectrum as ATSC1.0 uses, while being backwards compatible in most "normal" TV programming.

The goal of ATSC3.0 is to provide UHDTV (along with other data types as in ATSC2.0) to the consumer device, so backwards compatibility with ATSC1.0 will not be possible.
stampeder is offline  
post #78 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-09-22, 01:15 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 28
will these antennae stand up to 4k?

or will a redesign be required?

Here's why i ask:
ATSC 3.0 Tested With 4K, Mobile in Korea by LG, SBS | TvTechnology

I know, I'm getting ahead of myself as the broadcasters are still getting a handle on the infrastructures and workflows involved, but mobile devices now shoot at that resolution, so there's a whole bunch of 4k cams starting to walk around...it's only a matter of time before more commercial content producers migrate.
audioguy_on_ca is offline  
 
post #79 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-09-22, 01:34 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Antennas Direct Tech Support - St Louis
Posts: 358
It's a non-issue. Antennas are designed with the frequency span to be received foremost in mind. The modulation scheme or the video resolution of the content is largely irrelevent.

As long as the broadcasters don't move to different frequencies, any current (or past) TV antenna is pretty much "4K Ready".

Antennas Direct Tech Support
ADTech is offline  
post #80 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-09-22, 02:05 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 3,059
Concurrent with, or perhaps just prior to the change to ATSC 3.0, there will (probably...after all it's the gov't) be yet another CHANNEL REPACKING EXERCISE, clearing out many of the upper UHF Channels for Cellphone Use. This will force many stations to change to Hi-VHF and even Lo-VHF Channels....which could necessitate a change in your Antenna System. Although SOME locations may voluntarily switch at ANY time as Phone companies buy them out, it's more likely to be at LEAST FIVE years away for most affected stations.....
Frankzappa likes this.

Antenna Simulations, Overload Calculations, etc: http://imageevent.com/holl_ands
holl_ands is offline  
post #81 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-09-23, 03:00 AM
OTA Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,878
Apples and oranges

audioguy_on_ca, there is no such thing as an "HD", "Digital", "4K", etc. etc. antenna. We've been telling people that for years and years here. An antenna is the means of receiving what the transmitter outputs via its electromagnetic waves. It is not involved in resolving what a receiving tuner makes of the digital data gathered by that antenna. As always, go for the best reception available, but don't get the concepts of OTA signal and digital payload mixed up. Even if/when the UHF channels are repacked, the antenna will simply need to be strong on those replacked channels.

As mentioned earlier here, one of the ATSC's guiding principles for 2.0 and 3.0 is that they must be transparent to passive signal gear already in use (antennas, preamps, switches, splitters, etc.) so let's not forget that.
stampeder is offline  
post #82 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-09-28, 02:06 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampeder
Even if/when the UHF channels are repacked, the antenna will simply need to be strong on those repacked channels
Quote:
Originally Posted by holl_ands
which could necessitate a change in your Antenna System
This was my concern. Thank you all.

As far as 4k doubters go (never mind the Japanese 8k), consider how many 4k cameras are actually around RIGHT NOW. The new Apple phone, the Samsung phones have been there a year or more, the 8-9MP DSLRs being used to shoot feature films and episodic television for how long now? There's an army out there...it's happening. Manufacturers have driven this change, and now we're close to (or driving towards) having the infrastructure to deliver to the end user, although I suspect "channel surfing" may take a different form in the future...GUI anyone?? NOW does net neutrality seem important to you?

Driverless cars are coming, as is immersive entertainment (we'll need SOMETHING to do while we're being driven to/from work - Dolby Atmos in cars, anyone?) /tinfoilhat /leftturnofftopic
audioguy_on_ca is offline  
post #83 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-10-06, 07:27 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 140
Camera manufacturers are marketing megapixels, and people are buying because it doesn't cost much for still images and it allows for a substantial amount of digital zoom before there is significant quality loss. Resolution is much more costly with video (in terms of increased bitrates), especially if you want high framerates to reduce jitter and motion blur, and even 1080p is beyond to the resolution limit of your eye in many viewing situations. Most people's eyes can resolve approximately 1 minute of arc, or about 1 mm at a distance of 3 m. A 1920 x 1080 image at 1 mm per pixel is 1.92 x 1.08 m, or 2.2 m on the diagonal. That means you need a bigger than 90 inch TV from 10 feet away before you see the limits of 2k, nevermind 4k. Introduce any significant motion and you will notice compression artifacts with that setup, even at a full ATSC 1.0 bitrate. Better codecs should be used to reduce motion artifacts before upping the resolution.
Titanium48 is offline  
post #84 of 103 (permalink) Old 2015-12-04, 07:33 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Kitchener
Posts: 780
Checking the news recently and I came across an article regarding Sinclair Broadcasting showcasing to a South Korean delegation a live demonstration of of 4K, High Dynamic Range, Scalable High Efficiency Video.

Sinclair demoes ATSC UHD HDR |

With South Korea looking to broadcast the 2018 Olympics in 4k and Japan looking to broadcast the 2020 Olympics in 8K things are moving ahead at breakneck speed.

Resolution crazy?
First 4K commercial broadcast in Japan, NHK record the Yankees in 8K and Samsung to develop a 11K display


Considering how cheap 4K displays are already with very little content I suspect next Christmas that 8K Sharp 85" Display that's currently about $150,000 will go for a paltry $75,000, something to ask Santa for next year

Sharp is selling the world?s first 8K TV for $133K

Considering I payed $448 @ Krazy Kellys ($1,060 today money) back in 1983 for a 20" (really 19") middle of the road RCA TV we're getting one heck of a bargain....or I got ripped off as a youngun

P.S. Has anyone signed up to see the Blue Jays in 4K next year @$149.00/month and what's the cost of the STB?
Frankzappa is offline  
post #85 of 103 (permalink) Old 2016-04-24, 03:20 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,291
with NAB last week,imagine there is probably more about ATSC 3.0 floating around out there in "blogger land"...

But this sounded interesting... sounds like LG/Zenith is essentially combining a smart antenna with hdhomerun like functionality...

NAB 2016: LG Demos ATSC 3.0 Wireless Network Antenna | TvTechnology

DB4E/VHF Yagi rotor FM Bandstop ap-8700 preamp 4way split LG lcd.
majortom is offline  
post #86 of 103 (permalink) Old 2016-04-24, 07:53 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: derry + winston Mississauga
Posts: 1,542
ASTC 3.0 internet content/capability

Will this content not end up getting geo blocked between Canada and US for those receiving cross border broadcast ?

Attic CM 4248 at Buffalo,M4 at Buffalo.VHF yagis at Toronto .
rob50312 is offline  
post #87 of 103 (permalink) Old 2016-04-24, 08:18 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 738
Are we going to skip ATSC 2.0? Sounds like a good idea with TV manufacturers pushing the 4K panels.

Just trying to remove that damn setup progress bar.
Wheelman is offline  
post #88 of 103 (permalink) Old 2016-04-24, 09:38 PM Thread Starter
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Scarboro
Posts: 6,328
It is disappointing that OTA is so far behind the curve with 4K. OTA was one of the first ways to be able to get HD content about 15 years ago. But now we have had 4K from streaming services like Netflix for a while and 4K BluRays are now out as well. But I guess it is just too hard to change broadcasting standards in short periods of time.
Wayne is offline  
post #89 of 103 (permalink) Old 2016-04-24, 11:01 PM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 43░ N, 81.2░ W
Posts: 6,131
It took about 10 years to transition from analog to ATSC. At that pace, it could take until 2026 to transition to ATSC3. It does look like ATSC2 is going to be skipped.

The other question to ask is whether there will be any demand for ATSC3. OTA stations are being squeezed out of the UHF spectrum used by ATSC and VHF is less than ideal. In a few years, there may not even be enough spectrum to implement ATSC3 in major markets. In addition, younger viewers are ignoring traditional broadcasting in favour of streaming. Even traditional TV viewers are opting for OTT services. By 2026, OTA may be obsolete.
ExDilbert is offline  
post #90 of 103 (permalink) Old 2016-04-25, 11:32 AM
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 3,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
But I guess it is just too hard to change broadcasting standards in short periods of time.
Exactly. Because when you do those sorts of "cut-over" transitions, everyone with the old gear is immediately left out in the cold. I suppose they could setup new UHD channels that broadcast at the same time as the old HD channels. But then that's sitting on extra spectrum unnecessarily.

I don't think we'll see ATSC3, or whatever, for a good decade from now.

Blu-ray discs also have a similar "cut over" problem to the new 4k format. I fully expect all future physical formats to be stillborn, but for different reasons than the "cut over" problem.

Ultimately, streaming is the best option for integrating the latest tech. When your piece of equipment (Apple TV, smart TV, or whatever) connects to a service like Netflix, they can do the protocol negotiation thing and send the highest quality format that both the client and the server supports.

At the end of the day though, I don't perceive much of a difference between 1920x1080 and 3840x2160 unless I'm really close to the TV set. I don't see this resolution improvement as a "must have" upgrade unless you have a really large TV, or you sit really close to it.

The main thing that I'm looking forward to in future formats are: eliminating interlaced video, 10 bit color, and higher frame rates. If we could get 1920x1080, progressive scanned @ 60fps with 10 bit color, I think that would be sufficient for most scenarios.
audacity 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