blakamin:

 

I just want all my channels in HD!

 

 

 

4K would be excellent,but I'm a realist.

 

E! online and Bravo in HD - yeaboi!!

tripper1000:

 

I shudder to think what bandwidth this is using on the satellite - can't be cheap. Ultimately, satellite bandwidth costs is why Sky is reluctant to go HD on every channel.

 

Untrue. Satellite costs no more if configured DVB-S mpeg2 or S2 H.264. The cost isn't in the satellite bandwidth at all but in the purchase of the HD streams.

22.2 audio??? My entire lounge would have to be made of speakers.

Spyware:

 

Untrue. Satellite costs no more if configured DVB-S mpeg2 or S2 H.264. The cost isn't in the satellite bandwidth at all but in the purchase of the HD streams.

 

But they are going SD h264 which will cost less than HD would. Low cost not quality seems to win with them.

What size screen and how close to it do you need to be to even distinguish 8K from 4K?

In your average living room setup and viewing distance I'd wager most people couldn't even distinguish for 4K from 1080p on a 65" screen.

I don't regret getting a 4K OLED, but to be honest for me the real improvement comes from the pure blacks and HDR - not 4K.

EDIT: Projectors are a different story of course.

Spyware:

 

tripper1000:

 

I shudder to think what bandwidth this is using on the satellite - can't be cheap. Ultimately, satellite bandwidth costs is why Sky is reluctant to go HD on every channel.

 

 

Untrue. Satellite costs no more if configured DVB-S mpeg2 or S2 H.264. The cost isn't in the satellite bandwidth at all but in the purchase of the HD streams.

 

When leasing satellite broadcast access you pay for the bandwidth you use on the satellite and the power consumed.

I think I've found it on Lyngsat - Symbol rate of 33,756 for a single channel. By comparison Freeview broadcasts 12 channels of SD at 22,500, so that one channel would cost as much as 18 SD freeview channels to broadcast, assuming all other variables are equal.

By comparison Sky seems to be transmitting 4 to 6 HD channels per 22,500 transponder and 9 to 11 SD channels per 22,500 transponder, so even with the efficiency gains of DVB-S2, a Sky HD channel takes between 1.5 and 1.8 times the bandwidth of a DVB S1 SD channel.

You misunderstand Sky's situation though. They use 100% of bandwidth configured DVB-S mpeg2 and can double their available equivalent bandwidth by switching to DVB-S2 H.264. Cost remains exactly the same. In theory they would have spare capacity as still pushing the same blurry low bitrate muck into the encoders and out so can decide to renew their transponder lease and buy 4 instead of 7.

tripper1000:

 

By comparison Sky seems to be transmitting 4 to 6 HD channels per 22,500 transponder and 9 to 11 SD channels per 22,500 transponder, so even with the efficiency gains of DVB-S2, a Sky HD channel takes between 1.5 and 1.8 times the bandwidth of a DVB S1 SD channel.

 

So what. HD image has 5 times as much detail so has got to be worth 1.8 times the cost. Trouble is Fellet couldn't care less about how blurry their output is.

Spyware:

 

tripper1000:

 

By comparison Sky seems to be transmitting 4 to 6 HD channels per 22,500 transponder and 9 to 11 SD channels per 22,500 transponder, so even with the efficiency gains of DVB-S2, a Sky HD channel takes between 1.5 and 1.8 times the bandwidth of a DVB S1 SD channel.

 

 

So what. HD image has 5 times as much detail so has got to be worth 1.8 times the cost. Trouble is Fellet couldn't care less about how blurry their output is.

 

Old guy probably has it hooked up over composite and thinks it looks fine like many elderly people I know have had their "HD sky"

From memory Sky moved channels to h264 so they could drop transponders, ie save money, not increase quality.

They could have kept transponders and increased quality, but that's not how they roll.

Not sure if done it yet, but think they were going to drop SD streams where HD one being done saving more space - decoder would've downgraded to SD where the HD ticket not purchased.

Think 8k will be long way off, I'm real happy with 4k Netflix, though if I view an 8k stream that could change.

H265 would've save more bandwidth, that would've required a bit more forward thinking when doing.

tripper1000:

 

When leasing satellite broadcast access you pay for the bandwidth you use on the satellite and the power consumed.

 

I think I've found it on Lyngsat - Symbol rate of 33,756 for a single channel. By comparison Freeview broadcasts 12 channels of SD at 22,500, so that one channel would cost as much as 18 SD freeview channels to broadcast, assuming all other variables are equal.

 

For what it's worth, satellite bandwidth is a little more complicated than that. The usable bandwidth for a transponder (or part thereof) can be roughly calculated as follows:

bandwidth = [bits per symbol] x [symbol rate] x [FEC rate]

The actual value will always be less than this due to complications (pilot tones etc. etc. etc.).

Anyway, by way of example, Freeview/Sky DVB-S transponders:

• QPSK modulation => 4 [= 2^2] unique symbols => 2 bits per symbol
• bandwidth = 2 bits per symbol x 22500 kilo-symbols per second x 3/4 FEC
• => 33750 kilo-bits per second

...and Sky's DVB-S2 transponders:

• 8PSK modulation => 8 [= 2^3] unique symbols => 3 bits per symbol
• bandwidth = 3 bits per symbol x 22500 kilo-symbols per second x 2/3 FEC
• => 45000 kilo-bits per second

As you can see, Sky's chosen DVB-S2 configuration gives a healthy boost to the available bandwidth per transponder.

The choice of video encoding - MPEG 2, h.264, or h.265 - is theoretically independent of the chosen broadcast standard.

davidcole: I dunno how they can be doing 8k when 4K hasn’t fully rolled out. Al it will do is alienate those that bought 4K into thinking damn now we need another new set.

There is no reason to keep doubling it every time. Nothing stopping 5k or 6k becoming the next thing, and I think that is much more likly to serve as 4k is only just not sufficiant for the cases when you can sit close enough to a large screen.