SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the we-want-moar-pixels-and-moar-colours dept.
The BBC has begun a trial of 4K high dynamic range (HDR) video on its iPlayer streaming platform.
The test involves four minutes of footage from its Planet Earth II series, which promise to reveal more detail and present more vibrant colours than was possible before.
It is part of efforts to develop technologies that will make live broadcasts in the new formats possible.
But only a minority of TVs can screen the footage at this stage.
"One of the clips is a frog on a leaf with lots of rain, and the reason this is so interesting is that the redness of the frog is a really deep Ferrari red that you would never get in broadcast television at the moment," explained Phil Layton, head of broadcast and connected systems at BBC Research & Development.
[...] But programmes will cost more to make if they take advantage of the innovations. So, the improved quality will have to be weighed against the fact the majority of viewers will be unlikely to have TVs that support the new technologies for some time to come.
In the meantime, Amazon and Netflix both offer some pre-recorded shows and movies in HDR and 4K.
And BT and Sky both offer movies and sport in 4K but not HDR.
There's always the chicken/egg situation with video - without the screens that can view them, there's little point making the content, and without the content being available, there's little point in producing the screens. Has 4K reached the critical mass that will make it inevitable, or will it retreat the way that 3D did?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday December 09 2016, @09:50PM
No ee didn't jump to 1080p, that's the problem. We jumped to 1080i, so we still had interlaced issues.
4K doesn't do interlace, it's 12gbit or bust. The extra resolution tends to be a bit by the by, but the increase in temporal resolution and in dynamic range makes a big difference.
Broadcasters are moving to 4K as the next step from hd,they're also moving to ip - although that's a far harder issue.
(Score: 1) by ilsa on Friday December 09 2016, @09:55PM
Well, yeah. From a technical perspective, 4K is obviously superior for a variety of reasons.
What I'm saying is that it's not superior *enough* to interest the average person and have them think, "Holy crap, I need this!". They certainly arn't going to pay extra for the privilege.
(Score: 2) by fishybell on Saturday December 10 2016, @03:11AM
Without my glasses on I agree.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday December 10 2016, @01:18AM
A sensible standard would bring an increase in the frequency and color range, without the unnecessary pixels associated with 4k. Apart from penis measuring, there's really no purpose in having that many pixels on screen for a TV set.
4k worth of pixels for a movie screen or a computer monitor make sense, but you'd have to sit so close to the TV in order to actually tell the difference that most people just don't have the necessary space for a screen like that. And then, there's the bandwidth and storage space necessary to make it happen.
For such a small gain, it makes no sense.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday December 10 2016, @12:18PM
I completely agree, and I was at an SMPTE event where they presented findings which basically said that hardly anyone will benefit from 4K - based on the distance people sit from their TVs and their ideal TV size. At least in the U.K.
However when someone pointed this out, the chap in change basically agreed but said "panel manufacturers need a new gimick" to sell. 3D, curved screens, 4K without HDR, 4K with HDR, and I guess HDR with higher frame rate (there's a big difference between 60p and 120p in high speed movement). It's easier to persuade the average Joe that 4K is better than 2k, as the number is higher. Same thing we saw with cameras 10 years ago.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday December 10 2016, @12:23PM
Or in processors at the time when Intel ranked up their CPU clock figures by simply doing less per clock.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 10 2016, @06:19PM
but you'd have to sit so close to the TV in order to actually tell the difference that most people just don't have the necessary space for a screen like that.
Huh? Close? Not enough space? How much space is necessary for closeness?