Reply

4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Reply
Director of Photography
Posts: 3,172
Post 211 of 222
1,158 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@fastbicycle wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I have noticed a difference with Sky Q over my old HD box and generally speaking I am happy.

 

I watched Ninja Turtles and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film and I was blown away by the picture and audio quality.

 

What I have noticed though, from my position, is that some 4k programmes are really poor, and some are outstanding. Just recently I  watched Blacklist, then Brittania.  Blacklist was shocking, absolutely abysmal.  Brittania was intense, fantastic colour and clarity.

 

Why should this be? 

(my Sky signal is constant at 90/90 very strong)



The reason for the difference in The Balcklist and Brittania is that The Blacklist is a lot darker and thus is not as bright. When we finally get HLG (HDR) then you'll see both programs will look better if they are shown in HDR.

Sky Q 2TB V1 -- LG 55UH850V UHD TV -- 1 Mini
Director of Photography
Posts: 3,172
Post 212 of 222
1,153 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@trevorh wrote:

Thanks Jong99 for your reply. I was suprized that sky did not use BT.2020. I found this on the internet

http://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/skygroup-sky-static/documents/about-sky/commissioning-and-ideas-su...

 

Which confirms that BT.709 is used for SDR video. Another shock for me is that 25 fps is specified. This is odd as I thought skyq outputs at 50 fps.

 

As for HDR content PQ is specified which will be converted to HLG10 for broadcast. I find this disappointing as this will give the poorest HDR experience. My TV only supports HDR10 so I hope Sky will give the capability of converting to HDR10 in the skyq box.

 

I think the BBC has been over selling HLG10 by saying it is the best system for domestic tv.

 


According to BBC, the reason they chose to go with HLG is that they say it is backwards compatible to HDR. So if your TV does not support HLG, you should get HDR.

Sky Q 2TB V1 -- LG 55UH850V UHD TV -- 1 Mini
Director of Photography
Posts: 3,172
Post 213 of 222
1,087 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@Anonymous wrote:

@Nevlol wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

@Nevlol wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

Just my 2 pennorth.

When changing from HD to UHD via the select or red button to watch football or F1 I'm not exactly blown away and barely, if at all, notice a difference.  I haven't watched UHD from other providers (not sure where to find it to be honest) so I'm unable to make that comparison. I only have Sky Sports and not BT Sport.

So I guess I fall into the 'I can't tell the difference camp'.

Sky Q 2TB Silver via LG 55" UHD TV


I just can't fathom how. F1 and Premier League football on Sky look "alright" on the HD channel, and I suspect that to be down to the source being downscaled, but it's still quite obviously compressed and when compared with the UHD channel there is a obvious (to me) step up in every which way one can define picture quality. 

 

What about other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? Do you not see the poor HD we're all talking about?


No obvious step up to me at all.  What other broadcasts that aren't 4K at source? What do you mean?


Anything that isn't F1 or Premier League football pretty much. What I mean is that when Sky are broadcasting Premier League they are recording it at a higher resolution than it is being broadcast in on the HD channel and so at some point in the chain it is being downscaled (and compressed of course).

 

What's your overall perception of quality on the HD channels then? 


My overall perception of the quality on the HD channels is good.  My point is that when watching live football/f1 in HD, which looks good, I don’t notice any real jump in quality.  As an experiment earlier today I looked at some catch up in UHD from Discovery and Nat Geo.  Now they showed me UHD.  Quite a marked improvement of picture quality.


Which programs on Discovery and National Geographic are available in UHD?

 

Sky Q 2TB V1 -- LG 55UH850V UHD TV -- 1 Mini
Camera Assistant
Posts: 129
Post 214 of 222
1,065 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@JonW42 wrote:


Which programs on Discovery and National Geographic are available in UHD?

 


Think UHD  shows from Discovery and National Geographical are available via box Sets rather than Catch Up., didn't notice anything in the latter. In the Ultra Hd Tab on Box Sets -Documentaries   there are 11 listed.  Includes such programs as Galapagos with David Attenborough , Africa's Hunters, Year Million,Capturing The Universe, Monkeys and Richard Hammond's Jungle Quest.

 

 

Researcher
Posts: 8
Post 215 of 222
806 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Completely agree on a 55 in nano cell LG sky q ultra HD looks hardly better than hd however if I switch  to Netflix or Amazon and watch their content in this format it is noticeably better I think it's literally a gimmick from sky

Director of Photography
Posts: 3,172
Post 216 of 222
769 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@slipstreem wrote:

Completely agree on a 55 in nano cell LG sky q ultra HD looks hardly better than hd however if I switch  to Netflix or Amazon and watch their content in this format it is noticeably better I think it's literally a gimmick from sky


UHD on Sky will look better once we get HDR. The colors will be better and that with the increase in resolution can make a significant difference. For example, I have The Martian on UHD DVD. I've compared the UHD version with the HD version and yes, the UHD version is noticably better. The UHD version has HDR and that helps make even more of a difference.

 

One thing I have noticed with some UHD, the picture just looks cleaerer. It's not a big difference with the same color space, but I like the increased clarity.

Sky Q 2TB V1 -- LG 55UH850V UHD TV -- 1 Mini
Researcher
Posts: 36
Post 217 of 222
745 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Wimbledon now available in uhd all be it ìn stereo!.

It looks a little flat some thing I have not noticed on the cricket.

 

Director of Photography
Posts: 3,172
Post 218 of 222
738 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@trevorh wrote:

Wimbledon now available in uhd all be it ìn stereo!.

It looks a little flat some thing I have not noticed on the cricket.

 


If your TV supports HLG, try the UHD stream from BBC iPlayer using the BBC iPlayer app on your TV. You'll find it looks better than the UHD coming from the Q box.

Sky Q 2TB V1 -- LG 55UH850V UHD TV -- 1 Mini
Researcher
Posts: 8
Post 219 of 222
713 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Yes just did today and noticed difference on the Tennis, looked Great  live on iPlayer think sky need to up their game As sky q doesn't compete with even Terrestrial tv now in my opinion

Director of Photography
Posts: 3,172
Post 220 of 222
704 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.


@slipstreem wrote:

Yes just did today and noticed difference on the Tennis, looked Great  live on iPlayer think sky need to up their game As sky q doesn't compete with even Terrestrial tv now in my opinion


HDR in the form of HLG is due to be on Sky Q UK sometime in 2018. We are thinking it may before September, but that's not 100% sure.

Sky Q 2TB V1 -- LG 55UH850V UHD TV -- 1 Mini
Camera Operator
Posts: 396
Post 221 of 222
657 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

@slipstreem  iPlayer isn't terrestrial TV.   

Researcher
Posts: 8
Post 222 of 222
627 Views

Re: 4K/UHD really isn't much better than HD.

Haha fair enough.....agreed it's not but BBC is and they have created it paid for with my liscence fee

Reply