ATSC 3.0 breaking news

[Jameron4eva]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The Daily Mail?

https://www.emergingedtech.com/2018/...ful-to-humans/

Hell back in 2015 a large group of scientists went to the WHO to try to put a hold on roll outs of tech like 5G, and 5G, until more testing could be done.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I included that. I was thinking Newcastle FC and that’s covered under toilet paper.

lol, you northeasterners are ruthless towards each other. I’ll tell you the 5G/ATSC 3.0 thing is certainly a hot topic these days, e.g. https://www.thebroadcastbridge.com/h...tv-of-tomorrow

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Jameron4eva

Salon is posting the same thing if politics is your issue.

It’s not the politics.

[PaulGo]

Sadly no mention of 4K broadcasts:

WMYD To Host Detroit’s First ATSC 3.0 Signal

The Scripps MyNetworkTV affiliate will test ATSC 3.0 technology in collaboration with Graham Media and other Motor City broadcasters.

https://tvnewscheck.com/article/top-...sc-3-0-signal/

[Robert Zohn]

Great to hear Detroit is going live to the public with the Advanced Television Standards Committee new OTA, OTT and IP ATSC 3.0 standards. Guess we'll see 2nd screen and feedback sub carriers integrated with broadcast and of course, portable cable viewing of your programming package on your cell phones, tablets and PCs.

Sadly true, no 4K, hopefully analog HLG or Technicolor SL-HDR1 over the ATSC 3.0 1080p broadcast.

[Robert Zohn]

Of course, I'm just ^ talking about the Owned and Operated TV broadcasters and the indpendent and affiliate stations as well as the public broadcasters and even across America the local government and public school channels.

[PaulGo]

ATSC 3.0 Test For HDR Deemed `Immense Success’
Tests of broadcast transmissions carrying upconverted High Dynamic Range (HDR) information over the new ATSC 3.0 television broadcasting platform conducted in an urban Cleveland testbed two weeks ago were deemed an “immense success” by engineers engaged in the project.

According to a report posted Thursday on the Technicolor website, the field test was conducted by a multi-industry engineering team with oversight by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) May 14th-16th to see how ATSC 3.0 signals transmitting upconverted HDR images will enhance both the economic and technological performance of existing digital TV broadcasting systems.

https://hdguru.com/atsc-3-0-test-for...mense-success/

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by PaulGo

https://hdguru.com/atsc-3-0-test-for...mense-success/

Hmmm, Technicolor HDR has a broadcast foothold evidently based it’s use in this test broadcast. Sounds like only LG has consumer displays that can currently decode it.

It would be more encouraging to see HLG being tested as so many more consumer displays are enabled to decode HLG.

[eddievanhalen]

Originally Posted by gkolb

Hmmm, Technicolor HDR has a broadcast foothold evidently based it’s use in this test broadcast. Sounds like only LG has consumer displays that can currently decode it.

It would be more encouraging to see HLG being tested as so many more consumer displays are enabled to decode HLG.

Around 6 months ago on Spanish' Televisión Española they had three 4K Channels airing a loop with the same material (the change of Guard at Royal Palacio de Oriente), one was SDR, one HLG and the third one HDR10 (PQ) and the PQ looked much better with more natural color than HLG, actually, there were changed between HLG and SDR but these were subtle.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by gkolb

Hmmm, Technicolor HDR has a broadcast foothold evidently based it’s use in this test broadcast. Sounds like only LG has consumer displays that can currently decode it.

It would be more encouraging to see HLG being tested as so many more consumer displays are enabled to decode HLG.

Not only that. I would assume videophiles here desire the best (HDR cameras running in an HDR mode -> HDR production -> HDR delivery of which HLG qualifies) rather than what is most practical, in this case a Technicolor upconvert. No?
Even Technicolor admits as to what would be best (an all HDR production), e.g.
– https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt_ZEIgQC-0#t=33m11s

Cable operators especially are attracted to the upconvert because it’s no additional payload on their backbone so they can send it straight to the consumers’ homes and let the signaling happen at the TV set. As an aside, with regards to the ATSC standard and color encoding systems, ATSC allows for YCbCr and
ICtCp . But despite the superiority of ICtCp, at the current time, broadcast people are more comfortable in working with YCbCr because it was done in Rec 709 as well.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by eddievanhalen

Around 6 months ago on Spanish' Televisión Española they had three 4K Channels airing a loop with the same material (the change of Guard at Royal Palacio de Oriente), one was SDR, one HLG and the third one HDR10 (PQ) and the PQ looked much better with more natural color than HLG, actually, there were changed between HLG and SDR but these were subtle.

I remember that from 2017, no? - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...d#post14458947

Anyway, I too prefer PQ over that of HLG but I think if HLG is done properly it won’t look as poorly as you viewed it with that Spanish test case involving the Changing of the Guard. Has anyone expressed dissatisfaction with the look of the recent FA Cup Final in HDR (HLG)?

[RScottyL]

Originally Posted by alexanderg823

Sad news but I would definitely settle for solid 1080p HEVC HDR signal OTA. Isn't atsc 2.0 something like 15ish Mbps MPEG 2?

The jump to hevc at that bitrate would be a huge increase in quality. Not 4k, no, but still would be a dramatic leap that most people probably wouldn't see the difference if it was 4k.

I agree 100%!

With ATSC 3.0 the minimum should be 1080p channels! drop all 720p channels and 1080i channels!

I definitely want as much 4K as possible!

[HDTV1080P]

While sports fans would love 4K progressive scan over the air programs which in theory well occur (Direct TV satellite TV service already has 4K sports channels). For over a decade sports fans have wanted 1080P for sports instead of 720P for sports. Many sports channels and programs do not like to use 1080i since interlace does not look as good as progressive scan when it comes to fast motion (The only advantage of 1080i over 720P is the increased resolution detail). Over the years I have heard of so many people that complained about 720P sports and how they wish they could get 1080P sports. 99% of the sports channels on cable TV and satellite TV are 720P and sometimes 1080i, 1080P and 4K progressive would be a real treat.

[eddievanhalen]

Why 1080p has never been used for broadcast? Is the bandwitdh necessary for 1080p so big compared to 1080i?

[jibucha]

no :: broadcasters are concerned primarily with cost/efficiency and not quality of audio/video

while they (and many others) disagree, from my perspective/study, it's simply what they consider essential to remain a viable business

from my perspective/study, broadcast from the beginning (480i/480p) should have been 'progressive' and never 'interlaced' (while i am quite aware of broadcasters decisions originally and currently, their business decisions are 'just business decisions' (familiar?))

Originally Posted by eddievanhalen

Why 1080p has never been used for broadcast? Is the bandwitdh necessary for 1080p so big compared to 1080i?

[gkolb]

Originally Posted by eddievanhalen

Why 1080p has never been used for broadcast? Is the bandwitdh necessary for 1080p so big compared to 1080i?

Broadcasters would have to upgrade, but they’re cheap sons of b*tches!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by jibucha

no :: broadcasters are concerned primarily with cost/efficiency and not quality of audio/video

while they (and many others) disagree, from my perspective/study, it's simply what they consider essential to remain a viable business

from my perspective/study, broadcast from the beginning (480i/480p) should have been 'progressive' and never 'interlaced' (while i am quite aware of broadcasters decisions originally and currently, their business decisions are 'just business decisions' (familiar?))

The reason why it was interlaced from the beginning was because the technology wasn't there to support progressive scan. The gun in a cathode ray tube could not scan fast enough to support it, And the bandwidth requirements for 1080p ARE much higher than 1080p, which is why 1080i (and 720p) became the broadcast standard.

[jibucha]

simply :: we disagree

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The reason why it was interlaced from the beginning was because the technology wasn't there to support progressive scan. The gun in a cathode ray tube could not scan fast enough to support it, And the bandwidth requirements for 1080p ARE much higher than 1080p, which is why 1080i (and 720p) became the broadcast standard.

[PaulGo]

Why Broadcasters may never put 4K content on ATSC 3.0 - GREED!

Multicasting Special Report | Improved Encoders Equal More Diginets

https://tvnewscheck.com/article/2372...e-tv-capacity/

[Robert Zohn]

Thanks for posting this Paul. I have been publicly speaking to the TV Broadcasters at NAB and other forums strongly suggesting they embrace ATSC 3.0 as the opportunity to include some 4K HDR10 content with no success whatsoever.

At NAB 2018 after my comments during the Q&A of the ATSC 3.0 presentations the moderator closed the session and would not take any more questions.

With the large 4K HDR TV market share of households the TV broadcasters will continue to rapidly lose subscribers as consumers look for more 4K HDR content to watch.