Has anyone got a recommended platform for this? Dam near need a RACK these days by your TV for all the gadgets required to plug into the TV
Ideally they would have just launched a Player compatible with Xbox, PS3 etc but I guess any flash enabled 1080 IPTV player would suit however I imagine not alot in the market in NZ.
I am keen to also get this for Eurosports Player to watch cycling although slightly off topic
will it make any difference on quality if i am watching on same bitrate. Compare when using a pc connected to a TV, and using airplay from an Ipad? Both into same TV
fyscdaniel: will it make any difference on quality if i am watching on same bitrate. Compare when using a pc connected to a TV, and using airplay from an Ipad? Both into same TV
A PC directly connected to the TV will only require a single stream over your home connection. If your home network is wireless and bandwidth limited (e.g. older 802.11g), when using airplay I have had issues with some streams where the iPad gets the content and then uses the same network to deliver the stream to the TV, with some unwanted buffering impacts due to limited network bandwidth. If you have a high speed home network then either should work but watch out for local network loading. While I don't believe there is any video transcoding when using Airplay via an iPad, I don't yet know how their app will work so I couldn't confirm whether their HD 3 Mbps stream would be the same quality via iPad as direct.
Benoire: I notice that only 250 games will be available as video on demand... Has this been detailed yet?
No but they say in the FAQ that most of them will be the games that kick off at 3am. They've also said that on-demand schedule won't be set in stone so depending on feedback they can change them. But I believe they'll be a cap on the amount of on-demand games per team, Like how there will be a limit on the amount of times a team will appear on the tvnz game of the week.
I am on a slowish Telecom ADSL connection in Wellington area and my demo stream started off at 3M with good quality and dropped as low as 800k but came back up to 3M. The rates I have seen, all at 30 fps, with the nominal rate being taken from the file names, give different resolutions and the video bit rates are variable with the content - this is over a limited time sample:
3000k - 1280x720 pixels, video 1.5 to 4.4 Mbps 1600k - 960x540 pixels, video 1 to 2.5 Mbps 800k - 640x360 pixels, video 0.6 to 1.3 Mbps
Also found: 400k - 400x224 pixels, low rate
The download rate required varies with content movement - over a 30 second sample the rates roughly averaged the nominal rate but the higher rates are required at times - e.g. a nominal 3 Mbps stream will need 4.5 Mbps (or more) for several seconds at a time otherwise it may drop to a lower rate if too much loss.
The CDN source for me seems to be Auckland. I strongly encourage anyone interested to check out this trial to make sure they can get adequate rates for their situation.
The FAQ says "The average game will be about 1.1GB, obviously this changes depending on the quality of stream you're taking in." If you have a good connection and are getting the 3 Mbps stream, I think this is understating usage. For 100 minutes this may use over 2 GB and I would imagine longer viewing time than this per game. Still not too bad but take their advice to check your plans.
I tested the video quality from the Premier League Pass (PLP) website last night and it was horrible. I have Telecom UFB installed on the top plan, I have a PC in my living room hooked up to a 5.1 sound system and a 55" LED.
I cannot begin to describe the difference in picture quality from SKY Sports HD to the streaming experience offered by PLP. On a big screen TV it is a horrible experience.
The sound is being broadcast in stereo. STEREO. This is a complete joke.
I have been in touch with PLP and there response was and I quote "The stream we provide is for computers and not intended to be outputted to a 55" TV and there will be great quality loss when doing so. There are no plans on offering audio in 5.1 quality."
To state that the stream is not intended for TV's is unbelievable.
Last year we were watching the EPL with the ability of PVR, Full HD and 5.1 sound. All included within your sky sports subscription.
This year I am still paying for my sky sports subscription as I watch more sport than just the EPL. I would now have to add in $150 to watch the EPL in terrible picture quality and stereo sound.
I love the EPL and am borderline obsessed about it but I cannot support PLP in any way as they have absolutely butchered the presentation of this fantastic game.
I can only hope that there are more people like me that will not accept this poor quality broadcast and will make a stand by not subscribing to PLP.
For the record, I would have been happy paying $300 (double what they are charging) a year to watch all the premier league games via PLP if it was in HD and 5.1 sound.
richardgnz: I tested the video quality from the Premier League Pass (PLP) website last night and it was horrible. I have Telecom UFB installed on the top plan, I have a PC in my living room hooked up to a 5.1 sound system and a 55" LED.
I cannot begin to describe the difference in picture quality from SKY Sports HD to the streaming experience offered by PLP. On a big screen TV it is a horrible experience.
The sound is being broadcast in stereo. STEREO. This is a complete joke.
I have been in touch with PLP and there response was and I quote "The stream we provide is for computers and not intended to be outputted to a 55" TV and there will be great quality loss when doing so. There are no plans on offering audio in 5.1 quality."
To state that the stream is not intended for TV's is unbelievable.
Last year we were watching the EPL with the ability of PVR, Full HD and 5.1 sound. All included within your sky sports subscription.
This year I am still paying for my sky sports subscription as I watch more sport than just the EPL. I would now have to add in $150 to watch the EPL in terrible picture quality and stereo sound.
I love the EPL and am borderline obsessed about it but I cannot support PLP in any way as they have absolutely butchered the presentation of this fantastic game.
I can only hope that there are more people like me that will not accept this poor quality broadcast and will make a stand by not subscribing to PLP.
For the record, I would have been happy paying $300 (double what they are charging) a year to watch all the premier league games via PLP if it was in HD and 5.1 sound.
That was a big concern for me, how it would look on a full size TV. I have 1080p content that looks great on a 24" monitor but when it's a 55" plasma it almost look disappointing.
I really hope the comment about not intending for the streams to be watched in the living room is a mistake. If I wanted to watch the EPL on my PC I would have done before. I used sky sports so that I could wake up in the morning, switch on the tv and watch the highlights from the day before (in full hd).
I have yet to try the streaming service, we're getting VDSL installed next week so I'll probably wait until then. I really hope it doesn't disappoint...
richardgnz: To state that the stream is not intended for TV's is unbelievable.
This does seem a bit crazy. With the bit rates available and using 720p resolution it should be adequate but a 55" is crying out for full HD so they would be right to not promise that sort of HD experience - I believe 1080p streaming is much harder to get right. We need to remember that this is fast moving action which will tax the encoding process more (whether it be on-line or Sky trying to squeeze it into a slot) - having a well focused round ball during a fast pass isn't easy.
For me the pictures were still TV quality but I would rank them as reasonably good SD (acknowledging that 720p is higher than SD) but rather mediocre HD, when at the highest rate, close up on a 23" full HD monitor. I wonder if you were getting the full 3M option - my player doesn't show what it is doing and I was using the Chrome browser developer tools (CTRL-SHIFT-I if installed) to see what rate I was actually getting. If the stream dropped to 1600 or lower it was definitely an impaired experience.
Phexx: I have yet to try the streaming service, we're getting VDSL installed next week so I'll probably wait until then. I really hope it doesn't disappoint...
If your ADSL is reasonable (e.g. speedtest always > 5Mbps) then the experience on VDSL may not be any better. If you don't like what you see now and it is doing 3M you probably won't get any improvements.
The industry has challenges putting this sort of content online and I watch with great interest how it will fare against more traditional broadcast.
Just tried out the sample stream, it doesn't look that bad, sure, not a patch on what Sky have been offering with HD in previous seasons but its certainly a lot better than iSky etc. I think a couple more quality tiers would be a good idea (I know a 4500 on is being assessed, but what about a 6000?). Naturally, this would require more data but data caps have been increasing exponentially for years now and I suspect those that would be most keen for the top tier would be prepared to pay for the extra data it consumes. Perhaps they could have an opt in process for the top tier quality, warning users of the additional data it uses but also explaining the increase in quality?
I also think they really need to work on getting some proper "apps" out, particularly for consoles (of which there are thousands in households across NZ) and for a "cheap" STB-esque device so that you do not have to muck around plugging your laptop into the TV and having to troubleshoot all the problems that go with that (e.g. my Mac decided to be a pain and not want to output sound via HDMI, now I could have fixed that, but its just a hassle).
Alas this was my greatest fear, with sky putting out a 9mbps 1080i stream, it was always going to be hard for any online distributer to match, even with the encodings available (bearing in mind the DVB-S2 stream is H.264 encoded before transmission by Sky).
To state that it is not designed for the telly really means they have missed their mark. They should have been trying to compete with Sky on the lounge TV front, not the I'm using a tablet or PC crowd...
I'm still tempted to sign up as I really miss watching the football live as I did in the UK, but given the concerns I might have to hold for a little while and find other higher quality streams online.
expression: Just tried out the sample stream, it doesn't look that bad, sure, not a patch on what Sky have been offering with HD in previous seasons but its certainly a lot better than iSky etc. I think a couple more quality tiers would be a good idea (I know a 4500 on is being assessed, but what about a 6000?). Naturally, this would require more data but data caps have been increasing exponentially for years now and I suspect those that would be most keen for the top tier would be prepared to pay for the extra data it consumes. Perhaps they could have an opt in process for the top tier quality, warning users of the additional data it uses but also explaining the increase in quality?
I also think they really need to work on getting some proper "apps" out, particularly for consoles (of which there are thousands in households across NZ) and for a "cheap" STB-esque device so that you do not have to muck around plugging your laptop into the TV and having to troubleshoot all the problems that go with that (e.g. my Mac decided to be a pain and not want to output sound via HDMI, now I could have fixed that, but its just a hassle).
I just connected my MacBook up to the tv via HDMI and I had to change the sound output by pressing the option key while clicking on the volume button. this could be your issue.
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
