Reply

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

Reply
Sound Designer
Posts: 98
Post 76 of 222
605 Views

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


@ozsatwrote:

Same as we see here. Perhaps BT is 4K throughout and Sky's football is still UHD but not 4K.


@Ant+Man+99wrote:

We have both here on the same tv and for the football is clearer and more defined on BT.

The F1 looks good on Sky it is just the footballdoesn't look that good.


@Nevlolwrote:

@Ant+Man+99 out of interest, is that something you've compared on the same TV or? How are you sure BT is superior?


 


 


What?! UHD is 4K. 3840x2160. BT aren't broadcasting in 4096x2160 and even if they were, and we ignore the big problems that would pose for our 16:9 screens, it would almost certainly not be perceivably different. Any differences will come down to bitrate. 

 

People seem to get hung up on UHD not being 4K. It is. DCI 4K that we seen in the cinema is for a different aspect ratio and has slightly more pixels, but UHD is still "4K.". The standards are defined as:

 

4K Ultra High Definition is 3840x2160

4K DCI is 4096x2160 (different aspect ratio so incompatible)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

Producer
Posts: 3,494
Post 77 of 222
597 Views

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

Differences between BT Sports 4K service and Sky’s UHD service will most likely be down to:

  • Bitrate
  • 10-bit vs 8-bit colour
  •  Colour space. What does BT use - BT.709 or BT.2020?
Boom Operator
Posts: 28
Post 78 of 222
583 Views

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

What I think is perhaps it is being remastered like they do with some films - so not true 4k through the whole process.

I suspect it is the bitrate being used and would improve is Sky gave football some (a lot?) more.


@Nevlolwrote:

@ozsatwrote:

Same as we see here. Perhaps BT is 4K throughout and Sky's football is still UHD but not 4K.


@Ant+Man+99wrote:

We have both here on the same tv and for the football is clearer and more defined on BT.

The F1 looks good on Sky it is just the footballdoesn't look that good.


@Nevlolwrote:

@Ant+Man+99 out of interest, is that something you've compared on the same TV or? How are you sure BT is superior?


 


 


What?! UHD is 4K. 3840x2160. BT aren't broadcasting in 4096x2160 and even if they were, and we ignore the big problems that would pose for our 16:9 screens, it would almost certainly not be perceivably different. Any differences will come down to bitrate. 

 

People seem to get hung up on UHD not being 4K. It is. DCI 4K that we seen in the cinema is for a different aspect ratio and has slightly more pixels, but UHD is still "4K.". The standards are defined as:

 

4K Ultra High Definition is 3840x2160

4K DCI is 4096x2160 (different aspect ratio so incompatible)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution


 

Sound Designer
Posts: 98
Post 79 of 222
574 Views

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

It's purely the bitrate

Director of Photography
Posts: 3,246
Post 80 of 222
561 Views

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

They way it was meant to read was perhaps it is 4K at the end but at some point is not 4K - so not full UHD from start to end. A but like many 4K Bluray films are a 2K source.


@Nevlolwrote:

@ozsatwrote:

Same as we see here. Perhaps BT is 4K throughout and Sky's football is still UHD but not 4K.


@Ant+Man+99wrote:

We have both here on the same tv and for the football is clearer and more defined on BT.

The F1 looks good on Sky it is just the footballdoesn't look that good.


@Nevlolwrote:

@Ant+Man+99 out of interest, is that something you've compared on the same TV or? How are you sure BT is superior?


 


 


What?! UHD is 4K. 3840x2160. BT aren't broadcasting in 4096x2160 and even if they were, and we ignore the big problems that would pose for our 16:9 screens, it would almost certainly not be perceivably different. Any differences will come down to bitrate. 

 

People seem to get hung up on UHD not being 4K. It is. DCI 4K that we seen in the cinema is for a different aspect ratio and has slightly more pixels, but UHD is still "4K.". The standards are defined as:

 

4K Ultra High Definition is 3840x2160

4K DCI is 4096x2160 (different aspect ratio so incompatible)

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution


 

================================================
SkyQ Silver bundle (V2 with UHD + two minis) using VirginMedia Vivid 350 (350/20mb).

Boom Operator
Posts: 28
Post 81 of 222
552 Views

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

Which would mean it is Sky's own choice to broadcast at that quality. You would think that would give the premium service some premium bitrate??


@Nevlolwrote:

It's purely the bitrate


 

Camera Assistant
Posts: 130
Post 82 of 222
522 Views

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


@Ant+Man+99wrote:

Which would mean it is Sky's own choice to broadcast at that quality. You would think that would give the premium service some premium bitrate??


@Nevlolwrote:

It's purely the bitrate


 


I totally agree.  You only have to look at some (not all) of the HD films broadcast by Sky and compare them to the Bluray version.  The difference is sometimes staggering.  I have Apollo 13 on Bluray and out of interest watched a few minutes of the fim as broadcast in HD by Sky recently.  It was like comparing night and day!

Producer
Posts: 3,494
Post 83 of 222
504 Views

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

Has anyone actually measured the bitrate Sky are using for UHD broadcasts?  According to the digitalbitrate website, Sky's UHD broadcast averages 32 Mb/s. By contrast, the Astra UHD and SES UHD promo broadcasts on satellite average 12.8 Mb/s and 14.6 Mb/s.

Boom Operator
Posts: 28
Post 84 of 222
499 Views

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

Some of their UHD films are worse than regular bluray.


@ianmerseysidewrote:

@Ant+Man+99wrote:

Which would mean it is Sky's own choice to broadcast at that quality. You would think that would give the premium service some premium bitrate??


@Nevlolwrote:

It's purely the bitrate


 


I totally agree.  You only have to look at some (not all) of the HD films broadcast by Sky and compare them to the Bluray version.  The difference is sometimes staggering.  I have Apollo 13 on Bluray and out of interest watched a few minutes of the fim as broadcast in HD by Sky recently.  It was like comparing night and day!


 

Sound Designer
Posts: 98
Post 85 of 222
494 Views

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


@Ant+Man+99wrote:

Which would mean it is Sky's own choice to broadcast at that quality. You would think that would give the premium service some premium bitrate??


@Nevlolwrote:

It's purely the bitrate


 


Per this post on another forum Sky's UHD channels average 30-40Mb/s. That's significantly higher than the HD channels. To boot UHD is compressed using a far more efficient codec than ye olde HD. Also worth remembering that F1 is probably broadcast at the same bitrate on Sky though F1 typically has only a few large objects on the screen as opposed to many small objects with football so may subjectively look cleaner.

 

F1 themselves handle all of the filming and just provide Sky with a feed, so I suppose it's possible there is a difference at source but certainly the perceived difference between football on Sky and BT is down to the bitrate used. It's worth bearing in mind that BT is delivering it over broadband, whereas Sky is delivering it over satellite. I'm by no means an expert on broadcasting but I suspect the latter is more expensive.

 

I have been very impressed with the 4K football on Sky as it goes so would love to see a side-by-side comparison to see for myself any differences.

Executive Producer
Posts: 6,441
Post 86 of 222
487 Views

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


@Nevlolwrote:

It's worth bearing in mind that BT is delivering it over broadband, whereas Sky is delivering it over satellite.

Slightly off topic, but just to say that it's not just UHD. BT Sports HD channels (on the Sky box) are consistently a much better quality picture than Sky Sports HD channels, and those are coming over the satellite.

Director of Photography
Posts: 3,246
Post 87 of 222
477 Views

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

Ideally would like to see the same live event in UHD side-by-side on both platforms.

Some of the SD channels are BT are nearly as good as Sky's HD Channels - again I suspect down to the bitrate.


@Nevlolwrote:

@Ant+Man+99wrote:

Which would mean it is Sky's own choice to broadcast at that quality. You would think that would give the premium service some premium bitrate??


@Nevlolwrote:

It's purely the bitrate


 


Per this post on another forum Sky's UHD channels average 30-40Mb/s. That's significantly higher than the HD channels. To boot UHD is compressed using a far more efficient codec than ye olde HD. Also worth remembering that F1 is probably broadcast at the same bitrate on Sky though F1 typically has only a few large objects on the screen as opposed to many small objects with football so may subjectively look cleaner.

 

F1 themselves handle all of the filming and just provide Sky with a feed, so I suppose it's possible there is a difference at source but certainly the perceived difference between football on Sky and BT is down to the bitrate used. It's worth bearing in mind that BT is delivering it over broadband, whereas Sky is delivering it over satellite. I'm by no means an expert on broadcasting but I suspect the latter is more expensive.

 

I have been very impressed with the 4K football on Sky as it goes so would love to see a side-by-side comparison to see for myself any differences.


 

================================================
SkyQ Silver bundle (V2 with UHD + two minis) using VirginMedia Vivid 350 (350/20mb).

Researcher
Posts: 8
Post 88 of 222
476 Views

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

Technically, "Ultra High Definition" is actually a derivation of the 4K digital cinema standard. However while your cinema shows images in native 4096 x 2160 4K resolution, the new Ultra HD consumer format has a slightly lower resolution of 3840 X 2160.

This is one reason why some brands prefer not to use the 4K label at all, sticking with Ultra HD or UHD instead. So thats what i am saying 

Sky Q 2TB
Samsung 65” curved 9 series SUHD
Av Yamaha 7.1 DTX, Atmos running through Acoustics 3050 speakers
Sky fibre Pro 72MB
Sound Designer
Posts: 98
Post 89 of 222
454 Views

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


@Pacco65wrote:

@Nevlolwrote:

It's worth bearing in mind that BT is delivering it over broadband, whereas Sky is delivering it over satellite.

Slightly off topic, but just to say that it's not just UHD. BT Sports HD channels (on the Sky box) are consistently a much better quality picture than Sky Sports HD channels, and those are coming over the satellite.


Interesting. I have BT Sport HD on my Sky Q and I personally do not discern a difference. Both can be equally as acceptable and both can look horrid. It just depends on what is being shown. I suspect bitrate is there or thereabouts the same and it boils down to source material. That's not to say you aren't seeing a difference of course!

First Assistant Director
Posts: 2,335
Post 90 of 222
454 Views

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

I can’t cope 🤯

BT Ultra Infinity. Apple Time Capsule. Sky Q 2TB watching UHD through a LG OLED55B7 and listening through a soundbox. Multiroom with 2 miniboxes
Reply