Picture quality - UHF vs streaming app

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › Picture quality - UHF vs streaming app

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

gordy7
2002 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 505

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3326665 31-Dec-2024 21:46

Apsattv:

How were you watching it? its definetly 1080p at over 8 mbits.

I was watching TV3 live streaming on a 4k TV with very good network bandwidth.

The picture appeared poor resolution - maybe the program material was poor.

The streaming had occasional pixelation and dropouts as if it had come from a satellite transmission.

I do recall checking other TV live streaming channels at the time - they had no problems with pixellation and dropouts.

Gordy

My first ever AM radio network connection was with a 1MHz AM crystal(OA91) radio receiver.

Aucklandjafa

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 253

#3326700 1-Jan-2025 06:46

nztim:
cyril7:

Hi Tim, totally agree, but my guess is while both FTA broadcasters are laying off staff and services to stay alive I suspect not a lot will happen on that front.

Cyril

Guess you're right, still why I have Sky and not got gone to Sky Sport Now.... I could not handle sport with a 3-4 minute delay.

Don’t know where you’re getting a 3-4 min delay. Last time I was at the stadium, I got my app going, out of pure curiosity, and it was 30-40 seconds max. Hardly an issue if you’re at home.

RunningMan

9210 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4854

#3326759 1-Jan-2025 08:53

Aucklandjafa: Don’t know where you’re getting a 3-4 min delay. Last time I was at the stadium, I got my app going, out of pure curiosity, and it was 30-40 seconds max. Hardly an issue if you’re at home.

Respectfully that is just as bad. It is totally an issue if you want to watch in partnership with another device/source. Most major sporting events provide some sort of online timer / scorecard / timing monitor (as applicable to each sport) that is far easier to read and more informative than stuff scrolling across the bottom of the screen.

If that monitor is even 30s ahead of the video stream you're watching, it takes every surprise away before it happens. Motorsport is a good example with a live timing monitor that is continually updated with a row of info for each driver, split times, best times etc -it's far more and far better info than any linear broadcast could every provide by itself (so a good supplement) but if that flashes up yellow because there's been some mishap it takes away the enjoyment of watching. Same thing if you know the final score to a rugby game that could go either way 30s before it finishes.

The sport promoters are trying to make a more immersive and interesting experience by having this extra info available but it is completely undermined and instead detracts from the experience if the broadcaster doesn't actually let you watch it live.

Aucklandjafa

527 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 253

#3326761 1-Jan-2025 09:00

Unless you live right next door to the stadium/race track/et al, having a 30 second delay makes zero difference.

RunningMan

9210 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4854

#3326762 1-Jan-2025 09:08

Aucklandjafa:

Unless you live right next door to the stadium/race track/et al, having a 30 second delay makes zero difference to @Aucklandjafa but does make a significant difference to some other people that watch sport differently to @Aucklandjafa.

FTFY.

farcus

1635 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 440

#3326902 1-Jan-2025 22:16

askelon:

Steaming is garbage quality.. Def nowhere near UHF

Is it true that the streams are worse than DTT?

I don't have an aerial to check . . .

But, TVNZ used to be restricted to 720p. I'm not sure that this is still the case. They seem to have an adaptive stream now - but I could be wrong.
TV3 stream in 1080p - although some of their content doesn't seem to be uploaded in this resolution (TV3 news is broadcast in 1080i but is definitely not streamed in 1080p - more like an old SD broadcast)

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Oblivian

7347 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

#3326905 1-Jan-2025 22:30

farcus:
Is it true that the streams are worse than DTT?

Correct. Outlined best in one of the first thread posts as to the order.

AAC/2 channel also.

I've been playing 911 lone star (ondemand) and the playback reports 720. I wasn't aware of any of the 'live' ones being beyond that on three.

Spyware

3820 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1369

Lifetime subscriber

#3326922 2-Jan-2025 07:48

farcus:
TV3 stream in 1080p - although some of their content doesn't seem to be uploaded in this resolution (TV3 news is broadcast in 1080i but is definitely not streamed in 1080p - more like an old SD broadcast)

The electronic news gathering component of TV3 news is still mostly produced in SD, they do this as it costs less money and requires less storage space on servers.

Spark Max Fibre using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+, CRS125-24G-1S, Unifi UAP, U6-Pro, UAP-AC-M-Pro, Apple TV 4K (2022), Apple TV 4K (2017), iPad Air 1st gen, iPad Air 4th gen, iPhone 13, SkyNZ3151 (the white box). If it doesn't move then it's data cabled.

Rentakill

86 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 14

#3336508 28-Jan-2025 08:41

I don't get it. Comparing Online to DTT.

As far as i see it - It's a No Brainer... DTT Wins Hands Down.

Online - Only good for those Lazy can't be stuffed installing an Antenna.

DTT is Free

DTT has far Superior Picture Quality.

DTT doesn't Use any DATA or any of your Data Allowance

DTT is Built into Every Television Set.

DTT - You don't have to upgrade your set when the Online Providers change their System Delivery Codec or Security.

DTT is Easy to setup.

Online - Streaming.

Picture Quality is Piss Poor.

Laggy/ Slow Zapping Times

Relies on a good Interweb Connection

Chews up your Data

Is not available in Remote areas

The user usually needs to upgrade their TV after about 4 years when their Current Tv no longer has Support.

For Example...

Hotels and Motels out there that have gone Online are finding it a total Shocker.

They need to employ the services of an IT Tech to Regularly update all Streaming Apps - Then Totally Buy new sets every few years.

plus they are required to have a Reasonably good Backbone Network to run it all.

Meanwhile - DTT is simple and just Works.

"I come from a land downunder"

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#3336536 28-Jan-2025 09:46

Rentakill:

I don't get it. Comparing Online to DTT.

As far as i see it - It's a No Brainer... DTT Wins Hands Down.

Online - Only good for those Lazy can't be stuffed installing an Antenna.

DTT is Free

DTT has far Superior Picture Quality.

DTT doesn't Use any DATA or any of your Data Allowance

DTT is Built into Every Television Set.

DTT - You don't have to upgrade your set when the Online Providers change their System Delivery Codec or Security.

DTT is Easy to setup.

Online - Streaming.

Picture Quality is Piss Poor.

Laggy/ Slow Zapping Times

Relies on a good Interweb Connection

Chews up your Data

Is not available in Remote areas

The user usually needs to upgrade their TV after about 4 years when their Current Tv no longer has Support.

For Example...

Hotels and Motels out there that have gone Online are finding it a total Shocker.

They need to employ the services of an IT Tech to Regularly update all Streaming Apps - Then Totally Buy new sets every few years.

plus they are required to have a Reasonably good Backbone Network to run it all.

Meanwhile - DTT is simple and just Works.

This just seems silly to me and not based on any real world experience. Yes, UHF is better quality than streaming. No argument there. But the difference is not like comparing HDMI to VCR. Streaming quality is perfectly acceptable and far, far better than VCR (to use an example). Those who sniff at streaming quality today would have been blown away by it just a few years ago. There is more than a little pretentiousness involved here.

Not everyone can receive OTA and the image can break up in marginal reception areas. Streaming is an excellent fall back for this. Someone playing a special effects blockbuster on a 100 inch screen might notice a few pixels or streaks but in most cases there is nothing at all wrong with streaming quality, except for those who think there is. And those who think there is should not be trying to watch special effects blockbusters on TV anyway. That is what Blu-Ray disks are for.

A $30 Android box works fine for this and thanks to the IPTV streams of @Apsattv and others, it is very easy to stream all of the channels that any antenna can pick up and many, many more. I stream all of my channels as a matter of choice and they work just fine. Quality is excellent on a 50 inch screen at less than 10 feet and so is zapping. And the choice of channels is infinitely greater than the paltry NZ Freeview offering.

Of course there is nothing wrong with UHF but to try to maintain that a dozen boring reality channels are preferable to hundreds of international ones is simply silly. And it doesn’t take any data or require a lot of maintenance and it is not at all difficult to set up, except maybe to those who think it is.

Streaming is simple, and it just works.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

KiwiSurfer

1732 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 999

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3336572 28-Jan-2025 12:27

Another vote for UHF quality here. When I build our new house I made sure we had a UHF antenna installed so we could receive TVNZ channels in the highest quality possible. Whenever I visit family I can tell straight away TV1/TV2/etc is not from the UHF service -- it's horrible on Satellite and worse via streaming. But most people don't care. I could, when they're not looking, swap it to an analogue 576i with plenty of ghosting and they'd be none the wiser...

I agree DTT is on its way out. Even the BBC's CEO has signaled that the BBC may exit the DTT business and go online only. They were clever selling off their transmission arm in the 1990's (following after their main competitor ITV who did so some years previously). They can easily say "bye bye" to the company they outsourced their DTT transmission to. Here in NZ we are in the same boat -- TVNZ/WBD/et al has no obligation to continue their relationship to Kordia, JDA, et al. The only issue may be the expectation on TVNZ to be an emergency TV broadcaster but even so the political desire to keep DTT going even for emergencies is slowly on its way out. At best we may see TV1 continue with a few other token channels as a minimal service but once we get to that point the pressure to discontinue DTT altogether will just increase.

Hopefully the move to HD on the satellite service improves things but I'm not holding my breath on that. Streaming may be slightly better as with new tech and cheaper bandwidth costs we may see higher bit-rates. But still not holding my breath on that either! I only really see good bitrates/encodings from Netflix, YouTube (sort of) and Nebula. Everyone else seem to screw the bitrate or do horrible things to their video encodes.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

DjShadow

4223 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1323

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3336575 28-Jan-2025 12:44

I've noticed a lot of the new town-houses going up around me do not have UHF Antennas or Satellite Dishes installed, I've just assumed anyone moving into those places would use Freeview Streaming and/or Sky Pod

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#3336578 28-Jan-2025 12:51

KiwiSurfer:

Another vote for UHF quality here. When I build our new house I made sure we had a UHF antenna installed so we could receive TVNZ channels in the highest quality possible. Whenever I visit family I can tell straight away TV1/TV2/etc is not from the UHF service -- it's horrible on Satellite and worse via streaming. But most people don't care. I could, when they're not looking, swap it to an analogue 576i with plenty of ghosting and they'd be none the wiser...

I agree DTT is on its way out. Even the BBC's CEO has signaled that the BBC may exit the DTT business and go online only. They were clever selling off their transmission arm in the 1990's (following after their main competitor ITV who did so some years previously). They can easily say "bye bye" to the company they outsourced their DTT transmission to. Here in NZ we are in the same boat -- TVNZ/WBD/et al has no obligation to continue their relationship to Kordia, JDA, et al. The only issue may be the expectation on TVNZ to be an emergency TV broadcaster but even so the political desire to keep DTT going even for emergencies is slowly on its way out. At best we may see TV1 continue with a few other token channels as a minimal service but once we get to that point the pressure to discontinue DTT altogether will just increase.

Hopefully the move to HD on the satellite service improves things but I'm not holding my breath on that. Streaming may be slightly better as with new tech and cheaper bandwidth costs we may see higher bit-rates. But still not holding my breath on that either! I only really see good bitrates/encodings from Netflix, YouTube (sort of) and Nebula. Everyone else seem to screw the bitrate or do horrible things to their video encodes.

What do you actually find to watch on TV1/TV2/etc? Boring crap in HD is still boring crap.

I did used to have UHF and I used it when TVNZ and Three included 5.1 audio in their transmissions. But I never could see that much difference in picture quality and when the wind rearranged my antenna I just kept to streaming and satellite.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos