New HDTV in Europe

[eb]

On HotBird13 HD Forum (France) broadcasts in DVB/MPEG2 Clear on 11344 MHz, pol.H SR:20344 FEC:2/3 SID:1 PID:528/529 French
http://img108.exs.cx/img108/140/bscap97.jpg

[Latexxx]

It appears that those idiots are broadcasting 1080i instead of 720p which is the official recommendation of EBU.

[Kika]

Yeah, i love 1080i, 720p is junk...

[Ishan]

i don't see the point of 1080i in europe (for now at least), most of the receiver i've seen so far are only 720p compatible.
It's a waste of bandwidth i think.
Same goes for the so called adaptation to f**king PAL standard! What's the point?! You need a new receiver capable of handling HDTV so it was the time to put a world standard in place using 24p 30p 60i and no 25p 50i PAL crap! And the same goes to the colors transmition, there's no composite video standard to follow, only RGB or YCrCb component.
Euro HDTV is a step in the right direction but a step done by morons.

(it feels good to scream a bit about anoying things :p )

[scharfis_brain]

going to other than our 25 or 50 rates is not possible for several reasons

[Kika]

@scharfis_brain

Sounds similar to the last discussion about HDTV we had in those german board, eh? ;)


@Ishan
I don't see the point of 720p in europe. I'm interestet in getting as much resolution as possible - and that's not 720p.
OK, i beg for 1080p25 and 1080i50, but 720p only? If this is the Future of HDTV, it is a wrong beginning and i hope, they will use 720p25 AND 720p50.
And yes, 24p and 60i would be nice, yes.

But why are you guys blaming 1080i? Where's the problem?

[Latexxx]

The problem is interlacing which is an analog compression method. It appears that you haven't either read EBU's papers (ebu.ch -> technical review). If you had read them already, you would have noticed that content adaptive compression, which can only be applied to non-interlaced sources, is more efficient than non-content adaptive compression. Let me quote EBU (http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3298_tcm6-17109.pdf):

The EBU Technical Committee agreed in April 2004 to recommend to EBU Members the use of a progressively scanned delivery (or ‘transmission’) format for higher quality digital television broadcasting by members. The main arguments for the use of progressive scanning1 for the delivery channel are as follows:
• It avoids the need for a de-interlacer in the display.
• De-interlacing, when needed, can be done with professional equipment in the studio.
• The transmission channel achieves the best efficiency because of the progressive scanning coding gain.
• Improved motion portrayal is possible, given a progressively scanned source signal is used.

Also, the idea is to later migrate from 720p (50 Hz) to 1080p (50 Hz) instead of going the 1080i way (25 Hz).

So, you say going the 1080i way is to get the best resolution. Unfortunately, that is false assumption and implies that you don't know what interlacing means. It means taking two frames, throwing away every second line of information, and composing a new frame these processed frames, so you'll end up having a frame, whose vertical resolution is 1080 pixels, and when you'll deinterlace it, you'll get two frames the resolution of which is 540 pixels!

All in all, this happens in your TV:
1080i/25Hz => 540p/50Hz + some (cheap/simple) upsampling by your monitor and/or deinterlacer
720p/50Hz => 540p/50Hz

Same goes for the so called adaptation to f**king PAL standard! What's the point?! You need a new receiver capable of handling HDTV so it was the time to put a world standard in place using 24p 30p 60i and no 25p 50i PAL crap! And the same goes to the colors transmition, there's no composite video standard to follow, only RGB or YCrCb component.
And you don't seem to understand that NTSC (24/30/60 Hz) is minority and PAL is majority! And who cares about component video because hdmi (http://www.hdmi.org/faq/faq.asp) is coming.

[scharfis_brain]

1080i/25Hz => 540p/50Hz + some (cheap/simple) upsampling by your monitor and/or deinterlacer

only true, if stupid upscalers/deinterlacers are used.

a threshold-based deinterlacer will make all static parts being 1080p50!

depending on its type of interpolation,
either flicker is reduced well (kernel)
or stairstepping is eliminated very well (edge directed, like tomsmocomp(-1,-1,0) or sangnom)
(this will not make 540->1080, but it will make the image looking more pleasant)

to get an entirely 1080p50 out of an 1080i25, mocomped deinterlace is needed, as discussed here:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84725

also the better philips-TVs (and other ,too ?!?) have a builtin mocomped deinterlacer.


1080i25 with progressive content can be displayed as it is!
this means 1080p25 is a substandard of 1080i25

this is, why KiKa and me are thinking, 1080i25 is the way to go for now instead of going to 720p.
1080p50 would be very nice! but it is not applicable with the current bandwidth limitations (Lacking Transponders, high costs).

[Ishan]

My point is : downsampling 1080i on most (if not all) the "HD" tv to 720p is crappy as hell, even worse than regular SDTV. But i don't really mind as I watch HD content on my PC.
Why 24p, 30p, 60i? well face it, most of the contents are made in the USA and converting it to any 25p/50i based systems involve totaly crappy interlacing/speeding of the video source.

As for the so called PAL standard it has no meaning in the digital world, we all have PC/Mac/whatever and those are all the same everywhere on the planet. It can be done for video as a unified world standard.
It's certainly another lame attempt at regioning everything.

My 2 cents...

[Latexxx]

Some reading about progressive vs interlaced broadcast: http://www.ebu.ch/trev_300-wood.pdf
Read it, please.
Here is one interesting quote.
Certainly there has been much research and development of consumer interlace-to-progressive
conversion by the large receiver manufacturers. But, even so, we are told (openly or in private)
that progress – especially for HD resolution – is not matching its original promise.

[scharfis_brain]

I've read this before, and must say, this article sounds not really qualified, especially the 60Hz-all-over-the-world thing.
And then, this always repeating "someone told us..."
aren't they clever enough making own tests?



The bitrate required to
deliver a “good” quality 720p/50 image has been found to be less than that required to deliver 1080i
(interlace) for material which is “critical but not unduly so”.

My interpretation is, that we can gain more image information from the 1080i-signal, IF postprocessed correctly.
I think, that in future such deinterlacers will available in consumer-products (if interlace is still broadcasted in that future)
[oh yes, I know... self contradiction.....)

From all this, we concluded that conversion from interlace to progressive should not be carried out at
the receiver if we can avoid it.

I agree with them in that point,
but I would like to see 1080i25 in prior to 720p50, cause the switching process to 1080p50 will be much easier.
and, as I said, FILM (25p) looks MUCH better in 1080i25 than in 720p50.

short conclusion:

. | Resolution
. | 720p50 1080i25
. |
FILM | 921600pixels 2073600pixels
. |
VIDEO| 921600pixels 1036800pixels
. | (FILM has no resolution) (restoreable to near 2.000.000)
. | (gain over VIDEO with 720p) (pixels with clever deinterlacers)


this means, we have a massive resolution gain with 1080i25 for FILM!
For VIDEO we have at least full-res static areas (motion adaptive deinterlacers, as they are common in such devices)
and only moving parts are getting lower resoluted, but this effect becoming visible is surely avoidable using this Faroudja-Chip, which makes usage of edge directed interpolation.

[Latexxx]

This is not to say that decisions taken years ago in other parts of the world to use interlace scanning
for HD, principally in a CRT analogue world, were wrong. They were right for their time, and they
may be right today for other circumstances. Furthermore, if a decision has already been made, and
there is an interlace legacy, then the question “Which is the best system for new services?” is the
wrong one. The question here is whether what you already have can be made to work. Interlace
scanning can work well with advanced compression and progressive displays – it is just less efficient
in transmission, needs complex standards-conversion in the flat-panel display, and has less motionportrayal
quality potential.
This is pretty much my opinion. I hope that you read the part which says that their test showed that there is practically no visual difference between 1080 and 720 picture at normal viewing distance and that most manufacturers aren't going to build 1080 panels in near future. That's all. 720p today, 1080p tomorrow.

[scharfis_brain]

hey, in this
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_text_r112-2004_tcm6-16462.pdf
document you'll find this statement:


Although there are strong technical arguments in favour of progressive scanning for emission,
the EBU Technical Committee recognises that some broadcasters might wish to broadcast
1080i programme material. As consumer electronics equipment (e.g. set-top boxes and
displays) will accept both 720p and 1080i formats, broadcasters will be able to select either of
these formats – even on a programme-by-programme basis.

so, if they can switch per-programme, this would be the optimal solution, IMO.
720p50 for VIDEO (sports, news etc.),
1080i25 for FILM and maybe VIDEO (think about hybrids!)

[Ishan]

I still don't see the point with the 25/50 thing. As i've said before, most of the broadcast (at least in my country) come from the USA and are 24/30/60 based. It had been wiser to choose the frame rates used in europe in correlation with the "to be" broadcasted material and unified once for all a world standard.
I'm tired on the US/Euro/Japan/whatever war for a "standard", it leads to very bad framerate convertion wich is, from my point of view, totaly useless because we are dealing with a totaly new standard with nothing in common with PAL/NTSC (and SECAM, the piece of crap created by my country).

i'm sorry if I sound a litle bit too arch but all of this is really anoying :)

[scharfis_brain]

you say, it is annoying converting 24, 30 and 60 fps to 25/50 fps.


I say, it is annoying converting all past-stuff with 25/50fps to 24/30/60 fps!
This means, to convert ALL the footage shot in the past TV-history.
Noone will do such an enterprise.

also it would be annoying replacing all 25/50 equipment with 24/30/60 equipment.

PS: I dislike the telecining Judder present due to 60fps.
I prefer non-juddery speedup-film 25p

[Ishan]

That's a good point, and what about a standard with all those frame rates? We've seen in the past PAL60 was possible but I don't see that happening in any new standard.
But I disagree with your point about the equipement, to watch HDTV content YOU HAVE to change your equipement so what's the point at looking backward as we can move forward to a more flexible system.
I'm maybe some kind of a utopist :D

for movie stuff I prefer telecined R1 DVD on my good old PAL60 xbox, but that's a matter of taste :)

[Kika]

I agree to scharfis_brain. 1080i can be the best Solution for FILM, because of the much higher Resolution.
And for the frame rates... There should be no problem to build up HDTV-Equipment with the possibility to handle different Framerates and Resolutions. Just like most PAL-TVs do with NTSC Footage.

And i dislike the recommendation of the EBU... let the Broadcasters and the viewers decide, it's not the Job of the EBU to do that!

And for the Receivers: All Receivers i've seen now are able to handle both... 1080i AND 720p. The Problem are the present TV-Sets. Most (some) of the TFTs and Plasmas in Europe aren'd able to handle even PAL-Resolutions without some Scaling and FpS-Conversion!

And my recommendation for a good HDTV-Start in Europe: Let's start with the highest Resolution possible, not with the lowest!

[Doom9]

@Ishan: In the overall picture, PAL equipment capable of handling NTSC framerates properly is not very common. Sure there are the techies that have all the new gadgets, but joe average doesn't. Likewise, it wouldn't be a problem to have not only a few TV series but all TV material shot progressively, and to transmit it in the original progressive framerate (24fps progressive rather than 29.97fps telecined).. but it just won't happen for some time to come. So as they'll stick to crappy telecine and interlaced transmission in the US, PAL countries will stick to 50Hz.

Sure it would be nice to throw all the old crap overboard, but that utopic. You can't just replace the TV equipment for a couple billion of people even though CE manufacturers would sure love that, and it would give the world economy a considerable boost.

Oh, and don't confuse ATSC with HDTV.. it's not the same. HDTV is a generic term. The ATSC specs also include D1 and other low resolutions, just as DVB does. And what the high def stuff in Europe is all DVB. There is no standard resolution or framerate for HDTV.. there only is for ATSC and DVB (and ISDB if we're at it).

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by Kika
IAnd i dislike the recommendation of the EBU... let the Broadcasters and the viewers decide, it's not the Job of the EBU to do that!
Apparently you don't know why EBU even exists. Here is a small quote (http://www.ebu.ch/en/union/ebu_in_brief/index.php)
Technical

Cooperation in the technical sphere is one of the EBU's major activities. The Union is in the forefront of research and development of new broadcast media, and has led or contributed to the development of many new radio and TV systems: radio data system (RDS), digital audio broadcasting (DAB), digital television (DVB), high- definition TV (HDTV).
So, it is one of EBU's goals to do recommendations and standards.

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by scharfis_brain
so, if they can switch per-programme, this would be the optimal solution, IMO.
720p50 for VIDEO (sports, news etc.),
1080i25 for FILM and maybe VIDEO (think about hybrids!)
That would be somewhat optimal, but I doubt no receivers support changing resolution on fly.

[Kika]

That would be somewhat optimal, but I doubt no receivers support changing resolution on fly.

Why that? Changing resolution is one of things, all DVB-Receivers are doing. The only new thing is to change from p to i and switch between different framerates. And from the technical point of view, this isn't a big deal.

Apparently you don't know why EBU even exists.

I know the EBU and it's "goal". But why the hell are they suggesting 720p while broadcasters already are using 1080i?
And if broadcasters are willing to provide a higher Videoresolution, why you are calling them Idiot's?

[Ishan]

@Doom9 : as you've said, i'm a utopist :) more seriously, I don't see why all those new HDTV sets (we have to buy new sets to watch anyway) can't handle all resolutions/frame rates. This has been done in the computer world for years now. I don't see why a new content idependant standard can't be created, maybe it's mostly a price issue...
In fact what i'm mad about is all those speed up/telecine crap advertised as high quality blablabla.
I got HD1 on cable and I have to say the encoding is total crap, many blended stuffs, 1080i@10Mbps (ooch!).
I don't see a very bright future if it remains like this.

[scharfis_brain]

I don't see why all those new HDTV sets (we have to buy new sets to watch anyway) can't handle all resolutions/frame rates. This has been done in the computer world for years now.

don't be that fast with your conclusions...
Do YOU switch your displays refreshrate always to fit the current best?
120Hz for 24,30,60 transmissions/records
and
100Hz for 25,50 transmissions/records

I doubt you are doing so!

And I do not know a piece of software, that is capable of doing it automatically.

I don't see why a new content idependant standard can't be created, maybe it's mostly a price issue...

it is not only a price issue. it is impossible to create a VFR-like broadcast!
imageine this european-located scenario:
FILM : 24p
VIDEO : 50p

how should one broadcast a TV-show (sports, games, news etc)with 50p motion and then cutting/blending/merging in some FILM scenes with 24p (with transitions between video <-> FILM, of course!) without getting in trouble with timings or doing blending/framerepetition/mocomping ?!?

[Wilbert]

I'm a bit confused about some of the remarks here, maybe you can help me out ...

to get an entirely 1080p50 out of an 1080i25, mocomped deinterlace is needed, as discussed here: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=84725

also the better philips-TVs (and other ,too ?!?) have a builtin mocomped deinterlacer.
You need to bob to get 1080p50, not to deinterlace. If you deinterlace you will get 1080p25.

So, will it bobbed or deinterlaced by the tv?

1080i25 with progressive content can be displayed as it is!
Since the stream is marked interlaced, it will either bob or deinterlace it. If it deinterlaces the progressive content (which is marked interlaced), you are screwed :)

I agree to scharfis_brain. 1080i can be the best Solution for FILM, because of the much higher Resolution.
I would say lower resolution because 540<720, but I guess I don't understand the concept of 1080i streams ...

[scharfis_brain]

You need to bob to get 1080p50, not to deinterlace. If you deinterlace you will get 1080p25.

So, will it bobbed or deinterlaced by the tv?

deinterlacing is meant here to be fullframerate deinterlacing or so called bobbing/bob-deinterlacing.

THis means, all TVs do a kind of bob-deinterlacing.

Since the stream is marked interlaced, it will either bob or deinterlace it. If it deinterlaces the progressive content (which is marked interlaced), you are screwed :)

only if the deinterlacer is a stupid flag-reader.
look at the much better 100Hz-TVs. they have a built-in FILM-detection (even for phase-shifted, I think)
so nothing gets deinterlaced (okay for you: bobbed) if it is FILM.
(this is like dscaler is working!)

I would say lower resolution because 540<720, but I guess I don't understand the concept of 1080i streams ...

1080i streams are like PAL.
they can contain progressive 25p (full height) and interlaced 50i (half height, field-wise).
DVB can dynamically switch (on a frame-base, I assume) between progressive and interlaced encoding.
(even low motion interlaced scenes are getting encoded as progressive, if I can trust DVD2AVIs information)

[Wilbert]

only if the deinterlacer is a stupid flag-reader.
look at the much better 100Hz-TVs. they have a built-in FILM-detection (even for phase-shifted, I think) so nothing gets deinterlaced (okay for you: bobbed) if it is FILM.
(this is like dscaler is working!)
Ok, but what about pal?


I would say lower resolution because 540<720, but I guess I don't understand the concept of 1080i streams ...

1080i streams are like PAL.
they can contain progressive 25p (full height) and interlaced 50i (half height, field-wise).
Yeah, yeah, I understand all that :) So, you agree that 720p has higher resolution than 1080i?

[scharfis_brain]

Ok, but what about pal?
what do you mean?

with FILM you get full res and with video at least half res.
with better (define 'better' as you want to) treatment of laced video, one can gain near to full res...

Yeah, yeah, I understand all that So, you agree that 720p has higher resolution than 1080i?

uhm, no.

please read my earlier posts in this thread....

[Kika]

I would say lower resolution because 540<720, but I guess I don't understand the concept of 1080i streams ...

No, if an 1080i-Stream contains progressive FILM, you have the full resolution of 1920x1080, 25 FpS (PAL-Stuff, you know..). And that's much more Video-Information than 1280x720 (also 25 FpS) can contain.

In any possible combination, 1080i50 always contain much more Pixels than 720p25.

For Sport-Broadcasting, 50 Frames/Fields per Second are much better than only 25, but do the Mathematics by yourself.

1920x540 = 1036800
1280x720 = 921600

In this case:
1080i = better horizontal Resolution
720p = better vertical Resolution
But: 1080i = always the better overall Resolution.

And on progressive Source, 720p is junk compared to 1080i:

1920x1080 = 2073600
1280x720 = 921600

So, what's the better Choice? ;)

[scharfis_brain]

KiKa: you should note, that 720p25 is not planned to be used...

720p50 is planned.

[Kika]

you should note, that 720p25 is not planned to be used...

Yes, you are right, my fault.
But this is not important if we are talking about Resolutions. And... 50p does not make many sense for FILM-Source, doesn't it? Just doubles the amount of Frames without any benefit.

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by Kika
Why that? Changing resolution is one of things, all DVB-Receivers are doing. The only new thing is to change from p to i and switch between different framerates. And from the technical point of view, this isn't a big deal.
One channel uses only one resolution. No channel switches resolution between programmes.

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by scharfis_brain
Ok, but what about pal?
what do you mean?

with FILM you get full res and with video at least half res.
with better (define 'better' as you want to) treatment of laced video, one can gain near to full res...
But your stupid TV will deinterlace it using bob instead of motion compensated deinterlacer, which would detect content being progressive, and will only give you 540 pixels.

And no. There is currently no TV capable of doing mocomped deinterlacing for hdtv resolutions.


In this case:
1080i = better horizontal Resolution
720p = better vertical Resolution
But: 1080i = always the better overall Resolution.
FYI. It is the vertical resolution that makes picture look sharp, not the horizontal one.

[scharfis_brain]

One channel uses only one resolution. No channel switches resolution between programmes.

They actually do so!

Think about anamorphic DVB-transmissions!

Here in Germany, the public broadcasters (the ones not financed from advertising) are using anamorphic PAL with DVB!

changing the AR, or reducing anamorphic to letterboxed can be called 'changing the resolution'


FYI. It is the vertical resolution that makes picture look sharp, not the horizontal one.

so then, you must have been fully satisfied with VHS-LongPlay, cause its vertical resolution is the same like 4:3 DVD.

[Latexxx]

Going anamorphic doesn't change the resolution of the video stream. "Anamorphic" is only a flag in the video headers - the resolution of the feed coming from broadcaster doesn't change. On the other hand, your stb is likely to letterbox the video if you haven't set its preferences correctly. (see TS 101 154/B.3 and B.4)

It could be possible to change resolution on-the-fly but I don't know how stbs will handle. (dvb recommends a new sequence header at least once every 500 ms)

[minolta]

lcd/plasma TVs don't have to deinterlace... the "receiver" feeds them a progressive signal (via DVI). its the receiver's job to deinterlace 25i->50p ('bob' or better). if the receiver sees a 'progressive', 'interlaced', or 'telecined' flag in the mpeg stream, it knows exactly what to do... likewise, switching framerates or resolutions (via mpeg header info) "should" be just as simple, but remains questionable.

so, when the receiver sees a 1080 mpeg stream with a progressive flag, it CAN output a progressive DVI signal. many DVD players already do this...

i believe:
-video camera people should upgrade to 720p cameras
-film people should get film->1080 machines or 1080p cameras
-nobody should get 1080i cameras, as bandwidth just is not there yet

[Kika]

Resolution-Changes are easy to handle, any DVD-Player can do this, so DVB-Receivers should be able to do it too. Or did you never see a DVD with mixed Resolutions/Framerates?
They have to read the new Header and... *flash* ... tadaaa! The Switching is done, very easy.

These (not realy existing) Interlace-Problem is not a real one, it needs just true intelligent Receivers/Televisions.

It is the vertical resolution that makes picture look sharp, not the horizontal one.

Oh no, that's too easy. Remember what we are talking about: 1280 vs. 1920! Compare Half-D1 vs. Full-D1 or even 2/3-D1 vs. Full-D1 - and now post your Statement again!
And don't forget the Full Resolution of progressive Footage in 1080i: Much higher horizontal AND vertical resolution.
It's true, vertical resolution is more important - but only if analog signal technics are used. On pure digital equipment, this is an other story.

My point of view:
720p is not what i want! It's Resolution only doubles the PAL-Standard, and that's not what i call an inovation in technology.
1080i exists and it's resolution is more than the double of 720p. I beg for 1080i (Sports-Broadcasting, converted NTSC-TV-Shows, that's enough) and 1080p25.

[Wilbert]

@Kika,

You're right. I made some dumb comments (I forgot about the different horizontal size, pal!=hdtv of course, etc ...). I'm still interested in Latexxx's follow up remark though ...

[Latexxx]

These (not realy existing) Interlace-Problem is not a real one, it needs just true intelligent Receivers/Televisions.

But you wont get them for the next five or ten years. And when they come available, only the most expensive sets will have it. Your average set will have a 1080 mocomp deinterlacers when broadcasters have already switched to 1080p.

Resolution-Changes are easy to handle, any DVD-Player can do this, so DVB-Receivers should be able to do it too. Or did you never see a DVD with mixed Resolutions/Framerates?
They have to read the new Header and... *flash* ... tadaaa! The Switching is done, very easy.

On the other hand, those are completely different video streams. When it comes to dvb, we are speaking about one continous stream and I have no idea about how it works if you try to put two different resolutions into the same video stream. It is possible, but I believe that no receiver supports it though I could be wrong.

My point of view:
720p is not what i want! It's Resolution only doubles the PAL-Standard, and that's not what i call an inovation in technology.
1080i exists and it's resolution is more than the double of 720p. I beg for 1080i (Sports-Broadcasting, converted NTSC-TV-Shows, that's enough) and 1080p25.

But you won't do nothingwith your extra reslution because hardware manufacturers are standardising to WXGA instead of UXGA, except Sony which trys to push UXGA displays. If you had read the EBU papers, you would have known this and also that there is practically no difference in picture between 1080 and 720 when you look at it from a distance of 3 m, unless you have a 100" display when you are likely to watch it from 10 m.

[thegeby]

Not to enter into the arguments here, where both sides have valid poits, but only adding that as far as terrestrial broadcasting is concerned, there is a bandwidth issue under MPEG-2. The successor codecs are only now becoming viable alternatives. Personally, I will rather wait a few years and get VC-1/H.264 or whatever.

That, in turn, means that it is the display technology of 2007-8 that will be the clincher. In my opinion it will be LCD, with a resolution that can easily accomodate either 720 or 1080, but it will be P as LCD does not lend itself naturally to interlacing.

Whether it will be 720 or 1080 is not only a question of resolution or frame rate, but also of "luminance", i. e. the higher the LCD resolution, the more difficult it is for the backlight to come through. If Europe stick to its preference for smaller TV sets that the US, the choice of resolution is less important, as frankly, on a 32 inch widescreen you have to sit closer than you coffee table allows to see the difference. For 40 inch upwards it does become imporant.

With all of these uncertainties, the one thing I DO know is that I would never buy a TV-set that does not have a DVI or HDMI in (or possibly VGA). The display has a much longer life-span that the technology deciphering the bitstream. There will be set top boxed also post DTT transition.