SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ultra HD group outlines next generation of 4K TV broadcasts
The concept of 4K TV broadcasting is only just getting off the ground, but its overseers are already planning for what comes next. The Ultra HD Forum has published its first "Phase B" guidelines detailing what companies should aim for with future 4K broadcast tech. Not surprisingly, high frame rates should play a major role -- the group is hoping for 100FPS and 120FPS video (depending on the region) with a fallback for 60FPS. It's also pushing for dynamic HDR video through formats like Dolby Vision and SL-HDR, while Dolby AC-4 and MPEG-H would provide audio that could adapt from elaborate 3D sound setups to a plain set of headphones.
PDF for Revision 1.0 of the Ultra HD Forum Phase B Guidelines:
The Phase B technologies were carefully selected to help service operators plan for next generation UHD services. In August 2017, the Ultra HD Forum conducted a Service Operator Survey with the goal of learning about up-and-coming UHD technologies that have captured the interest of service operators. The survey results served as a guide to the Ultra HD Forum in drafting this document.
This version of the UHD Phase B Guidelines is a preliminary look at these important UHD technologies. The goal of this version is to introduce and de-mystify the technologies and provide information to operators that are considering incorporating one or more of these advanced features into their UHD services.
Also at MyBroadband.
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Monday April 09 2018, @01:07AM (5 children)
There are some people who can't hear the difference between CD audio and 64kbps compressed. I am not one of those people, and I tend to prefer higher quality to lower (even as I lose high frequencies with age).
And there are some people for whom 480 is quite acceptable compared to 4k. But like that watery audio file, 480p is what you get when you remove most of the details. There are just no words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @01:22AM (3 children)
Yup. I save time and money by listening to 64kbps audio. You gotta pay for the extra quality. Sucks to be you. Hope you're rich.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday April 09 2018, @01:49AM
It's not "more expensive". Just buy used CDs for pennies, rip them, and encode to FLAC. The highest quality you'll ever need, for basically nothing.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 09 2018, @09:19AM (1 child)
Some of us care about what how we satiate our senses.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @02:42PM
Get off your high horse. You're boring.
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Wednesday April 11 2018, @03:10AM
Keep in mind that there's more than resolution. I've seen plenty of 1080P content that's been compressed to hell. Sure, it's technically 1080P, but that content in 720P that's been encoded at reasonable settings ends up looking far better. This can apply to a lot of cable/satellite TV where they compress the crap out of some (many) of the channels. I suspect in many cases if they insist on using such a low bitrate, they'd get better results by dropping the resolution too, but nope - gotta sell that HD package for extra $$$. On the other hand, OTA TV actually ends looking a lot better because each channel actually gets a reasonable amount of bandwidth.