Why Aren’t More Sports in 4K? It’s Way Harder Than You Think
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 чер 2024
- With so many 4K movies and TV shows available to stream, you'd think we'd be able to watch more sports in 4K -- and even in HDR -- yet only the biggest sports events have any hope of being in 4K, and even those 4K sports broadcasts aren't real 4K. So why aren't more sports in 4K? Making 4K sports is way harder than you think, and we're here to tell you all about it in this video.
WATCH MORE OF OUR SPORTS GUIDES
How to Make NFL Games Look Amazing on Your TV: • Super Bowl 2024 | How ...
Best TV Settings for Watching Sports: • Best TV Settings for W...
How To Pick the Best TV for Sports: • How To Pick the Best T...
DIGITAL TRENDS' BEST TVS YOU CAN BUY🔥
🛒 LG G3 OLED: amzn.to/46DReha
🛒 Samsung S95C OLED: amzn.to/45xPx3C
🛒 LG M3 Wireless OLED: amzn.to/3S1d21W
🛒 TCL QM8 mini-LED: amzn.to/46zgxRN
🛒 Sony X93L mini-LED: amzn.to/3S761Ng
🛒 Sony X90L LED: amzn.to/402Ztkp
🛒 Hisense U8K mini-LED: amzn.to/3SoAmXN
🛒 Sony A95K OLED: amzn.to/46Co9D0
🛒 Samsung QN90C QLED: amzn.to/45CabzB
🛒 LG C2 OLED: amzn.to/3M9H9QO
Read more at digitaltrends.com:
The Super Bowl is finally in Dolby Vision - if you have Comcast: www.digitaltrends.com/home-th...
NFL on Fox look bad? There’s a workaround (or two): www.digitaltrends.com/home-th...
00:00 Intro
02:31 4K Bottlenecks
06:16 Is Native 4k Even the Answer?
08:47 Final Thoughts
SUBSCRIBE FOR THE LATEST VIDEOS
bit.ly/DTUA-camSub
VISIT DIGITAL TRENDS
www.digitaltrends.com/
Digital Trends may earn a commission when you buy through links on our channels.
FOLLOW US!
/ digitaltrends
/ digitaltrends
/ digitaltrends
channelstore.roku.com/details...
#superbowl #sports #nfl #football #hometheater #4k #technology #tech #nba #mlbb #basketball #tvs #tv #superbowllvii #soccer #digitaltrends - Спорт
You don’t need 4 cables, just one with higher bandwidth. Cable bandwidth has been increasing over time. It’s the same story from when they went SD to HD. I do agree that the ‘HD’ artifacts look terrible in current broadcasts. I have been impressed by UA-cam TV + Fox 4K broadcasts.
Like of sight 5G can also deliver 4K wirelessly and without loss.
Yes and no. It depends on the video equipment and the specification. For example, some production switchers are possible to take a quad link (12G) signal over a single piece of copper. However, unless the production trucks are running the latest and greatest (spoiler alert, they're not), they are only capable of single link (3G) cables.
Just stick to watching CNN. They run off the back of the DoD's bandwidth - which is limitless. Your tax dollars at work ...
@@taylorbroad8941 time for fiber optic
@@HaloHamsturlive event video engineer here, and fun fact, they ARE using fiber optic cable for cameras. There's a cable called TRIAX that is a dual direction and power supplying cable for connecting cameras to the image processing rack unit, also known as a CCU.
The TRIAX cable is capable of being somewhere around 2500 feet long, whereas a copper based SDI cable can only be reliably used up to 350 feet, and that's with the good stuff(there are some differences depending on lower resolutions being used on higher bandwidth capable cable).
I feel like a lot of the cabling issues for broadcasters could be handled by the stadium, at least in modern newly-built stadiums. It wouldn't be that difficult to run a bunch of fiber optic cabling from the stadium to those broadcast truck areas while the stadium is being built. The challenge then would be upgrading the equipment and also weather-proofing the connection points. Underground maintenance tunnels could carry the majority of this cabling.
Isn’t it already done that way at a lot of stadiums? Some may still have the old triax cables.
Not just 4K but at least Pre-Wire the Stadiums with 8K (or 16K?) cabling.
With Power Back-Ups to boot.
Now that would be impressive.
@@OldDood lol do you know the cost of that SMPTE fiber cable? One cable to one camera in a regular size studio? $2k. You’re talking miles of cable. I’m not sure what this imaginary 16k standard is, or which existing cables would support that for the non existent cameras and switchers.
Why does the stadium care? They don’t.
@@alexs3187 SMPTE Fiber is only $2 a foot. A lot of these issues is that these companies are cheap. It's like internet providers. They have been using fiber optics on the back end since the 1990s. Instead of future proofing and saving money they just deal with what's cheap.
There are newer standards for cable modulation since 1080 broadcast became common for more bandwidth on the same cabling. Processing power and graphics processing has definitely improved more than 4x. They just don’t want to.
4K TV sports channels should be standard today.
Considering even 1080p is not a complete standard, that's not happening anytime soon.
@@nathanmerritt1581but they marketing 8k TVs 😂😂 🔥🔥💰💰💰
@@gaurd3 yeah yeah good luck actually seeing content for that anytime soon!
Did you watch the video… ?
Did you even watch the video? Your comment is embarrassing
I assume these were all issues when we upgraded to HD. They solved those issues, they can solve the 4K issues.
Not really. They're not trying to solve the same problem, so there is no guarantee they will find a solution. Just because tire makers made a road tire that can do 200MPH, doesn't mean they'll be able to make one do 300MPH that anyone can afford to use.
As a Boston sports fan, I have to say that the NESN 4K HDR feed is the best I’ve ever seen sports. I feel genuinely grateful every time I watch a Bruins home game that they seem to have actually ponied up the money to do it right, however that may be.
I recently watched the Super Bowl in 4K HDR and it was so much worse than the NESN broadcasts. There were artifacts around the fast moving plays, it just didn’t pop. Before I watched this video I would have said that the Super Bowl was upscaled 4K, and the NESN home broadcasts for the Bruins are genuine 4K HDR. But now I’m thinking it’s exactly what you theorize would be the gold standard: ultra high bit rate upscaled at 60 frames per second in HDR. I’d love to read an article about how NESN accomplished it.
Are you using cable or internet tv? If you're on IPTV I would be interested in what your live feed delay is. Delays are already such a huge problem with live 720P feeds.
I find my stream is sometimes extremely laggy with 4K Bruins games. Very frustrating.
If NESN is doing what they do for baseball then only one replay machine is 4K, the others are upconverted.
That would be nice to try and watch a Bruins game in 4k HDR. I have get Wings and Jackets on local Bally channels that look good(I'm a Wings fan). When I try to watch a Leafs game on CBC it looks like it is in 360p in 4:3 format, it makes me wonder if Canada even has HD at all yet. (yes I know they do). All the games are on Spectrum, doubtful anything is in 4k.
I also live in Boston and yeah, NESN 4K HDR looks great! If NESN can do it, why can’t other channels do it?
I would also simply take 1080p streaming - when I have to watch a badly compressed 720p feed through cable (which it seems a lot of broadcasts still are!), I always think broadcasters could do so much better.
Amen!
Why, in 2023 does the four leading broadcasters in the USA STILL transmit their programming in 720p or 1080i? In other developed nations programming is in 1080p and occasionally in 4k!
@@damianhaber4890 The average American viewer is much more concerned about quantity and could care less about quality. Remember what started the Beta vs VHS war, and why Beta lost?720 more than satisfies most, even after they see a proper 4K presentation
Plug an antenna into a TV and watch uncompressed OTA. I can't stand sports feeds over cable.
@@martinb7554 As a motorsports and Baseball fan, sadly I must watch via garbage cable. Baseball has not been on OTA in my area since 2018, and the cable companies charge 20 Small extra to watch it
Thank you for covering this topic! It’s something I’ve long wondered about. I hope to always have my bad news delivered by Caleb, he somehow makes me enjoy hearing it.
in the UK BT sports shows a couple of games a week in native 4K HDR and it looks amazing , nothing beats 4K HDR at 50FPS when it comes to sports.
A lot of the cable weight concerns could be allayed with fiber, even accounting for the bend radius restrictions. Also there are high speed proprietary wireless protocols combined with maybe a minute delay to absorb hiccups that would fix those issues at the broadcast point. Transmission through the broader network is the real issue.
Not really they can use fibre optic cable I’ve been using it on tv for years
The real bottleneck in delivering 4k to households is over the air bandwidth. Having the ATSC 2.0 standard alongside ATSC 3.0 standard means the over the air broadcasters don't have enough bandwidth to run a 4K signal. Get rid of ATSC 2.0 and every major network would be broadcasting in 4K right now.
@@fritzkabeano1969 No such thing as ATSC 2.0. And the issue with a few channels sending 4k OTA isn't about the amount of bandwidth, it is that they have no content that is produced in 4k and, as this video partially highlighted, they don't have the infrastructure to support true 4k end to end. Now if they all had sources and wanted to send higher bandwidth 4k, it would be a problem for many.
@@curtisbme I meant ATSC 1.0
and if they could broadcast 4K there'd be content overnight. As for end to end "true" 4K there's enough fiber bandwidth to get it to the transmitters in major metro areas. It's OTA bandwidth that's preventing it from happening.
Superbowl was in 720p 😂
Those shots you have of the miles and miles of cables running into those production trucks really puts this thing into true perspective. Thanks for the educational video
Great Topic and Great Video! Thank you!
Premier League in the UK has been 4k for a couple of years now, so there's no excuse for American sports, where there's a lot more money involved.
It’s still upscaled 1080p just like “4k” sports here.
It's upscaled Fake 4K in the UK. Don't buy in the hype, it's not the real deal.
Formula 1 is also produced in 4k since 2018.
Well done,explained , didn't know the details. Keep up the good work.!!
I totally agree - high quality 1080p is enough except for the wide shot. And this is what I don't understand. Close-ups of sports at 1080p look amazing even compressed - there's more detail than we need. But the wide shot of the play being 1080p is the stupidest thing ever. If it's just 1 camera and we're talking Bernabeu or Camp Nou, that thing needs to be at least 4k (or 16k) and then downsample the image to 1080p. It's like the PS5 rendering at 4k and then displaying a 1080p image, it's going to look much than native 1080p rendering.
When I watch soccer, it's near impossible to read the jerseys and see in full clarity the extremities of the players. I'm pretty sure that if that was shot in native 4k converted to 1080p it would look very smooth. Reality creation improves it but not enough. I understand small teams sticking with 1080p but the wide shot at any big sport arena should be 4k.
So interesting and so well explained, thank you
Really great video! Thanks
In Canada, all of the major professional teams (NBA, NHL, MLB, CFL) have had most of their home games broadcast in 4K for years now (exception was during 2020-2021 during the pandemic where it was mainly HD). Pretty sure Europe has 4K HDR broadcasts going for soccer, Wimbledon, etc
Yup, this is a bullshit video. USA is just cheap as fuck and they paid him to make this POS.
Fantastic video. Thank you!
Great video and explanation thanks! Unfotunately in Canada we can only watch football/soccer through streamers like DAZN and Fubo TV which both boradcast at 720p, at least at 50fps. The high compression isn't great though and feel they could at least do 1080p as they are broadcast in 4K in Europe
Thank you for the video. I've always wondered why it's been taking so long to get here. I even thought of starting my 4K sports streaming service for a. But know I understand why lol
Well, I’ve always wondered but now I know! Thanks!
Thanks a good explanation .Our broadcast TV is still mainly 1080i / 25 fps interlaced . Plus with many "sub channels" the bit rate is low.
Somehow they worked it out for the World Cup...all 64 matches. World Cup > Superbowl.🤷♂
Thank you kales,very informative 👍👍👍
Great explainer thanks.
Such an awesome video!
A while back, Prime Video did Premier League football (soccer) in 4K, and the ball motion was a jerky mess. I totally agree that 60fps high-bitrate 1080p is better for sport. The other thing is making sure the motion of the ball is clearly visible and not 'optimised away' by the compression. While squash is not that popular as a TV sport, it is a good example where high fps and bitrate means you can see the ball, but high compression tends to erase the ball when it's moving quickly.
It's hard to even get true 1080p 60fps in most sport broadcasts let alone true 4k60
I did find this informative and fun to watch and I think I may even share it on social media.. I like videos that teach things.. :)
Great video. Do you recommend I purchase the option of buying the 4K UA-cam ? If so, will I see a difference? Where do I buy it if you recommend it?
DirecTV has been airing 4K sports for more than five years now. They've done extensive Masters broadcasts since 2016, Pac-12 late-night football, Dodgers baseball, Nuggets basketball, MLB Network games. College Football Playoff. they also aired Olympic coverage in each of the last Summer and Winter Games. Broadcasts are available. Better to light a single candle than to curse th darkness ...
Fantastic timing video for me although as I found out reality is actually a little worse than what is described here: was at my in-laws for the semi-final Superbowl and was puzzled (assuming it was all 4K) how side field reports looked so soft (like a real bad up-converting) on their 85in TV compared to the actual game broadcasting. Now I know better what was really going on behind the scenes.
Weren't the Olympics shot with 8K cameras and broadcast in 4K? My TV (Sony 930D) delivers near 4k like images on anything live, especially sports or anything shot outdoors. Still want more quality, though
Nope. Most it's just upconverted.
@@ians.4284 Huh?
The incredibly slow move from making 4k the default resolution versus 1080p, which hasn't been achieved yet, just makes me laugh when I see 8k TVs. If moving from 1080p to 4k is this hard, you can look forward to a lot of 8K content in about 25 years.
But also, the increase in resolution keeps providing diminishing returns. Every jump is more difficult to notice the difference at normal screen sizes.
The only reason to get an 8k TV today, and for many years into the future, is to be able to tell people that you have a fancy shmancy 8k TV.
I have always wanted to know this and well you have now answered it lol. Thank you so much for doing this vid
Here’s one for you: I’m in Alberta with Telus Optik TV and I find their picture quality way better than Shaw cable. Is there a limitation with the distribution networks? Telus is FTTH where as Shaw is FTTN (node then coax to the house). I tried Shaw and couldn’t deal with the grainy image compared to the same channel on Telus. I assume it’s all to do with the codecs used. Any thoughts?
Thanks CD for the explanation. I heard about atsc 3.0. Would this solve broadcast issue for 4k? Have you see 4k sports in atsc 3.0 yet?
The greatest misunderstanding is what the definition of resolution is. I worked in high resolution radar mapping, so I know what that means. In reality one needs to remove the idea that resolution is digital and related to pixel size, although pixel size or sampling has to be fine enough to represent the bandwidth in the signal. Each pixel or point has a continuous response much larger than the pixel. If two identical amplitude points are separated by a distance just large enough so that a sufficient depth or gap is produced then that distance should be referred to as resolution. If the requirement is High Dynamic Range (HDR), then the gap has to be deeper than SDR. Subjective testing a long time ago found that 1080p HDR image was better than 4K. This issue with 4K HDR is that it takes more bits per pixel to represent and the gap needs to be deep. Netflix UHD (Dolby Vision is better but still has quantization noise filling the gaps) doesn’t subjectively look as good as 1080 P bluray video with lower compression.
One answer for the Fox production case, would be to get rid of the cables for all of those cameras and use a wireless network that supports the capacity for those channels. Also, couldn’t each camera be given an inexpensive processor to convert its video and audio to uncompressed 1080P HDR, until it’s feasible to handle 4K HDR. The processor could also do Dolby vision encoding. Seems that the expensive part should be the camera’s with their sensors, not the processing which shouldn’t be more than 80 iPhones could do.
What wireless network do you suggest that also allows for four return video feeds to the camera op, two channels of intercom, teleprompter video to the camera head from the camera control unit (CCU), ability of the video engineer to paint or adjust camera color?
During Obama’s first inauguration a producer wanted to use wireless technology, USSS reserves the right to jam any wireless frequency they see fit. We had to have wired backups in case they jammed stuff. Didn’t happen at his inauguration but it did happen when he was at a sporting event.
Great video! Thanks Caleb. Will we be able to get 4K sports OTA on an antenna with ATSC 3.0?
Not enough bandwidth until the FCC sunsets ATSC 2.0
Did you watch the video? The broadcast companies havent upgraded their infasctructure, so the answer is no.
Always have been curious about why sport-streams look so bad. Thank you for answering! May the time of good looking sport-streams come sooner than later.
Thank you for this! I will say that in my area, with my provider (Xfinity), I watched five or six college games in 4K last season. College football seems to be ahead of the NFL on this.
PLEASE DON’T PUMP FAKE HDR, JUST STAY ON STANDARD DYNAMIC RANGE… PLEASE!!
What about local ATSC 3.0 4K or 1080P HDR Broadcasts on markets that have upgraded. Since it is over the air and the station is capable?
Interesting video. You just answered a question I was trying to find an answer for. I got BeIn sport decider with on 4K sport channel. Compared to the HD channels the same sport event looks way more better to my eyes in HD than 4K! The 4K looks sharper yes but also strangely desaturated and dull compared to the HD counterpart.
The world cup 4k Livestream was stunning to me and I don't even like or normally watch soccer. It's really pathetic that we don't have 4k sports in the US but many other countries do. Even Canada is doing 4k baseball and basketball and hockey. I don't care if they go down from 80 cameras to just 20, the picture quality is worth it and it has to be done. Most people have 4k tvs and no 4k content, it's ridiculous and embarrassing for the United States.
Here in Canada we do have Sportsnet and TSN in 4K broadcasted for IPTV providers... however actual 4K broadcasts on these channels are indeed limited; basically to only a few teams home games... mostly those in the Toronto market (BlueJays all 81 home games, Maple Leafs and Raptors) among a few others... but when they're on a road or at one of these venues they haven't setup for 4K broadcasts, back to the usual 1080i (or 720p). It's too bad they're unable to bring in the Sky Sports F1 4K feed for F1 broadcasts.
So how do you think UA-cam TV will stream NFL next year and at what resolution?
Weren't there similar issues when it came to upgrading from standard definition to HD? (When HD sports first started becoming common,) I thought many HD broadcasts or SD channels of a game being shown in HD looked worse because they had digital compression and punched up colors that looked fake compared to say ESPN in the 90s.
I've seen 90s games that look less over exposed than newer ones.
Some of them Consider HD but it's 1080i. Some announce 1080p but lower the bitrate and the image fluctuates between 480p and 1080p .
So So informative and cleanly delivered...you need a broadcast TV show. The reason I stopped by was because I watched 'the game LVII' yesterday and noticed a little 'something' messing up the clarity of the broadcast. I chalked it up to, even thou my Samsung is 4K, it must be an older 4K. Now I know why I was seeing this 'glitchy' image. It wasn't as clean as say a NEWS broadcast. I get my feed with an antenna and the picture is pretty damn good. Anyway, thanks.
I think HDR is more important. I’d take 1080p with HDR than just 4K any day.
60fps would nice too
I just want better than 5mbps 1080p… TSN PLEASE
Thank you for the video! I think sports on my Sony 4K LED TV look phenomenal!
We've had 4k for a long time. I would have thought we'd be farther along by now.
I work for Verizon FiOS TV. We had the Olympics in 4K and we were getting pissed off calls from NBC executives watching at home saying the 4k channels had issues. Of course Verizon executives started freaking out. We discovered in pretty much every case, the NBC executives were using shitty HDMI cables that couldn't handle the 4K.
HDR 1080p signals would be fine for sports, like you said. Every single TV manufacturer needs to perfect motion processing (no soap opera effect, I hate that) on every TV.
No motion processing, it's garbage. Just transmit 60 FPS when needed
I totally agree about the compression rate!
If you have seen good not much compressed 720P or even 1080P, you will know that it is better than a much compressed 4K video.
High Frame Rates (HFR) would be huge for Sports. NHL and ball tracking in golf would be so much better to watch. I also think Golf in 3D would be cool.
I would love 3D MLB games.
@@PSYCHOV3N0M3d was tried, once Sony stopped paying the bill, the 3d went away.
NBA Finals in 3D in 2011 was pretty great
give me NHL at 120hz, 4k native, HDR. Id die a happy man.
@@dumbcow1 Even uncompressed 1080p would be a huge upgrade with higher frame rates
There is a major noticeable difference between native 4K and fox sports 1080p up conversion. I’ve watched a couple MLB broadcasts in native and they look incredible. We’ve had 720p sports now since 2006. It’s time to move on.
That was fantastic. 💪💪💪
I find it very misleading calling upconverted 1080p 4K. It’s not 4K.
We struggled for the better part of a decade with basic 1080p. Do you honestly believe 4K sports will be a thing any time soon if ever?...
Could you make a video on the 4K cable box?
In germany we have 4k at the Bundesliga(Football/Soccer) but online for the top game. This season there is dolby atmos available.
Thanks for the video and the informations!
guessing before I watch the video: because 4k content is generally stored on servers across the country and continent so that it doesn't have to travel (e.g.) from L. A. to N. Y. in "real time." When it does have to do that, it's a ton of bandwidth vs. the standard 720p feeds. Can't wait to listen and come back to this! 🙂
edit: ah! bandwidth was the answer, but I didn't consider all the uncompressed stuff they'd have to route on site. wow! 😯
Now I'm curious how much 1080p and UHD BD video is compressed...or are they native?
At least now I know it isn’t my setup that ruins the PQ 😂 Great video
Pretty cool. Didn’t know so much went into the production
Is UA-cam 4k actually 4k? Or upscaled 1080?
All the sports I watch in Toronto (when the game is at home) is all broadcast in 4k. Baseball, basketball, football, soccer, hockey). Even the channels that broadcast the 4k content, when showing other 1080p content just looks a bit better due to bitrate
Will AV1 codec compression make 4K (digital) broadcasts possible in the next few years? It reportedly has a much lower bitrate for the same quality.
I have the A80K bought in December of 2022 with Sony Soundbar HT-A5000 having similar problems. Use my headset plugged into the speaker input on the back of the TV. Once I used that, my sound only wanted to use the TV speakers. My Comcast TV remote and Sony remote that came with the TV sound bar stopped working. (It was like the eARC HDMI port shut off) Switch to Audio System and I could hear sound through the soundbar but the TV remote and Comcast remote stopped working while my sound was going through the Sony HT-A5000 soundbar. The bottom line is I now get the sound out of my Audio System, however, I always have to use my Sony remote to turn up or down the sound! I ordered the CEC-LESS HDMI plug. Once I get it do I plug it in the back of the TV eARC where my soundbar is being used or where my Comcast box is being used? Sony Sound system when working correctly, turning up or down the volume on Sony TV remote or Comcast remote I can see Audio System working. Now I see only the sound going up or down only the soundbar while using Sony Soundbar remote
Thanks for the video Caleb. But my question is wasn't it the same when we went from 480p to 1080p? Meaning everyone had to adapt their software and hardware?
Maybe so, but it did take a lot of time before we got 720p on broadcasts and later on 1080p. 4K is a lot harder.
@@FHC1944 4k isn't a lot harder.our current bandwidth is exponentially much higher than it was in 98 when the NFL went hd .these companies have access to multi gigabits of data whereas back then they were on low dsl or dial up 😂
@@truthx7 It was really rare with hd in the 90s. It's going to take time before we get 4K on every live sports. It's more complex than we think and not so economical. Like Caleb said, it's better with an uncompressed 1080p than a compressed 4K. Just watch every streaming service. It's very compressed streams.
@@truthx7 No you're mistaking internet connection with broadcast infrastruture. It only at the end hits an internet connection. Even then a 1080p60fps stream is 3Gbps. I doubt you even have a 1Gbps download speed (1000Mbps) at your house.
@@FHC1944 Yep. Additionally, many companies just invested in HD infrastructure a few years ago, meanwhile SD was around for 20 -25 years. So the cost of moving all equipment (especially since 4K is bleeding edge) is astronomical. Many TV stations waited for the price of HD to come down and rode out their SD equipment for as long as possible.
Very interesting! 👌👌
Two issues I'm surprised you didn't mention was camera focus or home/on demand media.
Even with a perfect 4k setup, trying to adjust the focus and exposure on the fly, will make the benefits harder to get. Because you dont get to plan the shots out in advance, a more detailed picture won't always show up when and where you want it. I thought the winning TD from the Bill @ Chiefs 2022 ot playoff game looked better on espn highlights than it did on the CBS broadcast. CBS broadcasts in 1080i while ESPN is 720p. On the touchdown, I dont want to see the crowd in as sharp of a focus as Kelce making the catch. Again, movies take time to compose shots so the important part stands out, while sports usually try to keep everything in focus so more shots are usuable. In this case I think the lower definition on ESPN from that clip created the appearance of a shallower depth of field, which drew the viewers eye more to the action on field. So more resolution simply added may not make it look better. Just like a really punchy HDR with no super bright or super dark areas might not look better overall.
The other real benefit of 4k is best observed with little to no compression. You would want a 4k bluray to fully appreciate it. But very few people like watching sports broadcasts again or after they concluded.
So it cant really make money with on demand streaming or syndication reruns. And as you said, live sports is one of the most complicated and expensive content to hit television. (I never would have thought that as a kid, it seemed like less work because theres no script, editing or multiple takes needed. All you seemingly had to do was show up and point a camera at the field of play, I did that countless times myself with a video camera.)
Exactly, I think it probably comes down to physical limitations like focus rather than cabling or other temporary factors with the back-end. They probably DO already use many 4K and higher cameras, and then zoom in to a portion of the shot. If they wanted these in 4K, they'd need really high resolution cameras (16K?) and phenomenal focusing. Plus you then run into light issues so need a larger sensor and perhaps lenses.
@blargg indeed the skycam is often advertised as being 4k. This just means it can magnify the image more before digitally zooming past 100% scale.
Though i often don't like the skycam shots. Too jerky and often would never be considered acceptable tracking or dolly shots for a movie.
High frame rates are more important for sports than high definition. 60hz refresh just isn't good enough when a ball is flying through the air.
What about 4K (and, more importantly, HDR) sports over the air with ATSC 3.0? That's why I am looking for a TV with a NextGen tuner. It might not happen soon, but it will happen eventually.
When it comes to American football, even if the broadcast is not in 4K, I think 4K cameras can really make a difference for instant replay when you're trying to punch in on the action to check the call from the officials.
yes but that Brodcaster will have upgrade to ATSC 3 and lot wont cause local tv station dont have that kind of money and since they got keep old transminters gong over backwared compabitly they not reason to pay all that money , Plus you still can by tvs right now that still not ATSC 3 ready i see a lot of them when bouight our new tv the other day hell our Samsung smart tv had nothing about ATSC 3 or anything listed
Than you for this. I try to explain bit rate to fly friends all the time. The quality of the pixels matters way more than the quantity of pixels. It’s the same with audio. all the streaming services say the broadcast Atmos and yes technically it is but it’s so compressed it’s nothing like real Atmos on a blue ray
Gees I forgot what an amazing job you've done with your weight when you showed the clip from years agp. Congrats old Twitter friend.
If we are even going to have discussions about what resolution is important in terms of motion pictures, we need to talk about the lack of motion resolution on Sample and hold displays.
Sttandard LCD and even OLED displays can only resolve about 300 lines in motion unless black frame insertion is employed, which will bump the resolution in motion up to 800 lines. Your TV has to artificially interpolate fake frames just to get to 1080 lines in motion on any Modern Display.
So even the signal that they are sending during the Superbowl, your television cannot resolve without help from internal motion processing.
We need impulse driven displays like CRTs to be able to see 1920 x 1080 pixels per second in motion.
Micro-led provided that it is driven the right way is the only modern technology that will be able to reproduce 1080p in motion without artificial frames, or black frame insertion.
This video bringing up that the bandwidth and cash required to transmit 4K for the Super Bowl illustrates fully that we need better TVs that operate differently from today's flat panels and instead act like our older analog CRT sets.
Here in the U.K. we do get Premier League games and other big sports like F1 racing in 4K but that’s about it. There were some games in the recent World Cup that were also in HDR, which took things to the next level. However it’s still certainly not the norm here to get all sports broadcast in 4K.
there are wireless alternatives to those thick cables, that include some form of encryption. The added pixels would still result in higher quality
Cost of camera's is about the only thing that's really an issue here. How do you think datacentres run? A cheap single fibre optic cable per camera can easily carry WAY more bandwidth than even 8K produces. They get connected to switches which can feed the consoles. You don't need extra cables, just fibre in the first place.
Also if you want twice the power of a server from say 5 years ago, you don't have to generate twice the heat. Chips have shrunk, they are more power efficient. My phone can process 4K HDR. These tasks are generally offloaded to dedicated chips anyway which handle multiple streams. If you needed 10 servers 5 years ago you can almost certainly do the same workload these days with 3 or 4 servers which at worst would produce the same heat as the original 10.
Sure, local distributors may have issues, but that's on them. Cables from cameras and processing 4K really is not an excuse. F1 can do it for every race, and these days they don't even have on-site (at the race track) media production centres - it's bitstreamed to a central processing location thousands of miles away, directed, edited, produced and distributed to the relevant local distributor. Really isn't as hard as Fox are making out.
This is just about bandwidth, and 4K is laughably small in comparison to even medium sized company network infrastructure. How do you think you can have 50 people in an office streaming 1080p or 4K at lunchtime over the company WiFi or 4G/5G?
Yes, you need upgraded cameras. Yes, compression is horrendous from the traditional media companies and yes we should expect 60FPS and HDR. You can buy a XBOX Series X for $400 that spits out 4K, HDR, 120FPS and that's GENERATING the frames as well as processing. You're telling me Fox Sports and other's can't do the same as what 40 (I'm being VERY generous, could easily be 20) Xbox Series X / PS5's can do for a huge sports event? The heat output is too high? Pssshh - you've been fobbed off mate!
Source: 23 years as technical infrastructure architect
Is this the same for soccer?
Which services broadcasted 2023 Super Bowl in 4K HDR?
Apple's MLS subscription looks fantastic on my calibrated LG OLED. It's 1080P, but they seem to be streaming a very high quality signal with no bit-stuffing artifacts. The color is fantastic and on a properly calibrated TV, looks very tonally balanced and clean. No blown out highlights, good shadow detail, and punchy but not unrealistic colors are a genuine feat considering what a low CRI most stadium lights produce.
Having done recordings for games using uncompressed FRAPS, and then see how UA-cam has to compress it down, I can definitely speak to how much uncompressed video looks fantastic
8K physical Sony and Blu ray disc Association by 2026 please 8K Blu ray disc or flash drive format.
Even why not 8k streaming !!
8K Ultra HD Blu ray disc it should be exclusive to physical media 8K
Well Fox is still primarily 720p on sports even in 2023......
In Australia. Our pay TV provider Foxtel has sports in 4K. Huge difference.
The upscaled 4K that FOX provides is significantly better than the standard broadcasts and streams from other networks. Sure, I would love native 4K HDR 60fps for sports at high bitrates. However, what FOX is doing is a great stop gap solution until the infrastructure catches up for native 4k.
Where are the comparisons on upscaled NFL 4k that we can say significantly better.i bet over the air hd will stomp the upscaled fake 4k the NFL is pushing
I had no idea it was that complicated. Why would those receivers take three 1080 camera inputs for one 4K camera input? Wouldn't the receivers just need to also be updated?
In summation of the video, my takeaway is the old repeated saying: "4K isn't worth it". Because if it was, then the sports people would have updated their equipment by now.
Speaking of 4K content, how much of regular TV content is 4K now? The news, morning shows, sitcoms and drama shows, cartoons, are regular TV channels all fully in 4K now or is it still spotty?
The vast majority of broadcast TV channels are still stuck on 720p and 1080i.
Also, "worth" is relative. 4K is worth it if we're talking about entertainment from a consumer perspective. 4K is not worth it if we're talking financially from a producer/business perspective.
They want to make more money for the least amount of effort.
Thank you for adding the chapter markers, that first 2 minutes was completely unnecessary for the video. Wish I could get that time back
I have Spectrum cable in the hotel and it’s sucks, serious quantization noise. Hooked up my 1080p Apple TV to the TV and wham, phenomenal picture on Fox for Super Bowl.😊
It’s kinda funny that F1 can do 4K HDR a sport that’s around $16bn yet American Football NFL franchise is around $8bn then each team averages a value of $4.5bn…. Not as if the money isn’t there.
Premier League football (soccer) in 4K is stunning. Always blows me away.
Well that explains a lot of things. Thanks for the information. I definitely do notice a difference even between some 4k movies. Don’t know if it’s the bit rate or how it was edited between producers, or even the streaming app.
I think if its streaming then its 100% the bit rate most often. if you compare a 4k blu-ray of the same movie , its almost night and day. This is really the exact reason I buy 4k Blu-rays of movies I genuinely enjoy. Just a more enjoyable presentation overall.
@@MultiplexityGaming Good to know! Half the reason I watch my tv is strictly the enjoyment of the visual graphics alone. I always put off buying a br player because of advancements in technology. Years ago I swear I heard of movies coming to thumb drives. Totally digital and no moving parts, just plug and play. I believe Sony owns the rights to br technology or at least they developed it. Maybe this is the reason for delays in any advancements.
are they capable of broadcasting over the air in 4k?
Apple TV+ showed MLB games in 4K very well last year. Picture quality was amazing for it’s first year.
Remember when HDTV was 'New'?
It was 'The Thing' back then.
(All in all that was NOT all that long ago either)
I could not believe how 'Clear' the picture was.
After growing up with snowy 480p (at best) and 3 channels (sometimes 4 channels).
Now we have 4K with 8K on the horizon.
Here in Europe most Broadcast content is 1080i and some in 720p. During the 2022 Word Cup soccer we had an extra channel from our cable provider which broadcasted the Word Cup soccer in 1080p HDR HLG at 50 fps and the result was amazing. I could easily compare the 1080i vs the 1080p HDR HLG since I had both of the signals via my cable provider and the quality difference was immense, a huge improvement really.
A broadcast in 1080p HDR HLG is the way to go for all broadcast content, I think that is the quality boost we are all waiting for when watching regular broadcast TV. With all those bigger TV's we are really suffering with the crappy 1080i/720p broadcast. To be honest, I don't expect any improvement over the next years in this area except for a rare sports event.....
What the video missed is that 1080i / 720p, not 1080p, is the standard for broadcasting in North America as well; we see it as 1080p because our TVs, tuners, set-top boxes, etc. all upconvert to it as today's LCD & OLED displays all favor a consistent progressive scan resolution. However, since 720p & 1080i each use roughly half the bandwidth of 1080p at identical refresh rates (generally same-as-SD 50 fps PAL/SECAM Europe vs. 59.97/60 fps NTSC North America), that only exacerbates the video's point as 2160p (consumer grade 4K) requires at least EIGHT times the bandwidth of 720p or 1080i. (That's on top of consumer grade 4K not quite meeting Hollywood's more accurate definition of 4K -- 4,096 horizontal pixels vs. 2160p's 3,840.) Still, as 1080p is commonly seen in parts of the infrastructure today even "fake 4K" improves on broadcast HD by upscaling 1080p straight to 2160p, not to mention HDR which is more common at higher resolutions & is arguably more important (even if HLG is extremely hard to find in North America, as I noted in another reply, mainly because the use case for HLG is rare at this stage of 4K's evolution).
@@richellebrittain2127, thanks for your response on this subject. For the coming years not much will change in broadcasting quality, we will just have to deal with the 1080i / 720p broadcast signal for the next decade for 99.99% of the content. There is only one thing we can do as a consumer, choosing the best TV for 1080i / 720p upscaling to 4K. And there are vast differences in this area, hardly ever tested in any review in the Internet. In my case, I own a 2021 LG Oled and my son a 2022 Philips Oled 807. The difference in upscaling quality is much bigger than I anticipated. The Philips 807 does a far better job than my LG Oled, regular TV broadcasts almost look like real 4k content on the Philips....and yes we are on exactly the same provider, no difference there. With all other input sources (Netflix, Amazon Prime etc) there is hardly any difference, both TV's provide a beautiful image.
We had 4K HDR Dolby Atmos
Here in england an app called bbc iplayer showed the world cup games in 4K HDR
world cup football for god sake.