Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
6th August 2024, 08:48 | #5 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,154
|
Quote:
the mpeg roadmap shows it being ratified at the end of 2025/beginning of 2026, by that time vvc will be 5.5yrs old. Last edited by hajj_3; 6th August 2024 at 09:15. |
|
6th August 2024, 11:37 | #6 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 132
|
Why create another thread when we already have one?
__________________
Previously iwod |
8th August 2024, 20:52 | #7 | Link |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
It's standard for the new codec R&D to start relatively soon after the prior standard has been completed. There's always a bunch of leftover tools that didn't make the cut to take another run at. Generally each new generation allows ~10x more encode compute and ~2x more decode compute, so techniques that didn't make sense for one generation can make sense for the following one.
|
8th August 2024, 20:58 | #8 | Link | |
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
The minimum pixel size of 2nd gen quantum dot OLED and microLED are also still too big to make an 8K TV out of it at an acceptable living room size. So the displays the offer the best image quality for movie content on a calibrated display in a darker viewing environment aren't available in 8K either. Of course, this is a temporary situation. I expect EU-legal 8K TVs to become feasible in the next few years. That said, my primary TV/gaming monitor is an 85" Samsung Q900C, and it is a great display and experience. Nice to be in the USA where our power restrictions aren't as limited (and I use it in a darker room, so ambient light adaptation keeps power draw lower). |
|
12th August 2024, 22:35 | #9 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
The reason 8K TVs don't sell is a much simpler one: Nobody has a good reason to own one, because there is no tangible benefit over 4K. This in turn means there is no demand for 8K content, much less enough demand to justify the rather steep demands of 8K when it comes to bitrate (even if VVC is used, or even ECM). Personally, I want to see what ECM will achieve when it comes to 4K content, which is still rare in broadcasting (especially FTA). Could we see a 4K HLG10 channel finally fit in the space of a typical FHD H.264 channel? (one way we might see 8K panels become useful is to provide "glasses-free" stereoscopic 4K content, since the black dots of the "glasses-free" technology will be invisible with such a panel, but that's a slim chance I'll admit, and that still won't make 8K content useful, just the panels) Last edited by kurkosdr; 12th August 2024 at 22:49. |
|
16th August 2024, 01:36 | #10 | Link | ||
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 4,878
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
18th August 2024, 20:19 | #11 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
1*4*1.2*0.6=2.88, so 288% of a 1080p H.264 SDR broadcast (assuming a reduction to 60% of bitrate for HEVC compared to H.264 for UHD content) Now, in a parallel universe where broadcasters give actually good 1080p (15Mbps), you could just barely do it (replace FHD with UHD on a 1:1 basis), but this is not the universe we live in, most broadcasters don't even give 6Mbps of statistical bitrate to FHD (and even premium ones don't give above 7Mbps of statistical bitrate to FHD). The only way UHD works in broadcast is by squeezing FHD channels even further to make space for a couple of UHD channels per 30 FHD channels or so. Last edited by kurkosdr; 18th August 2024 at 20:22. |
|
18th August 2024, 21:06 | #12 | Link |
Broadcast Encoder
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 3,069
|
Well, another additional consideration is that channels are actually 1080i not 1080p, which does actually allow lower bitrates compared to encoding the whole thing progressively. Only with UHD there's been the move from 25i TFF to 50p and that of course requires a lot more bandwidth.
So yeah, you can't really put a UHD channel in using the same bandwidth of a FULL HD one. By the way, above we were talking about HDR10, but I don't really think that there's gonna be a move to HDR10 anytime soon for linear. When UHD arrived in 2013-2015, early adopters settled on BT2020 SDR, which is why when HDR arrived in 2017 everyone shifted towards HLG to not screw people with early TVs over and we've been stuck in a loop ever since. Currently, a broadcaster has to keep the very same channel with the very same content playing in: - 720x576 SD (anamorphic flagged 16x9) 4:2:0 25i TFF BT601 SDR 8bit MPEG-2 2.5 Mbits - 1920x1080 FULL HD 16x9 4:2:0 25i TFF BT709 SDR 8bit H.264 12 Mbits - 3840x2160 UHD 16x9 4:2:0 50p BT2020 HLG HDR 10bit H.265 18 Mbits Keep in mind that the ideal UHD 50p bitrate is actually 25 Mbits and it used to be that, but bandwidth on hotbird is so constrained that we were forced to lower it down to 18 Mbits. Also keep in mind that the efficiency of live hardware encoding isn't comparable to the one of offline software encoding. On top of that, in Italy we had to shut down the Sky Cinema UHD channel as it was far too expensive to run. Right now, the only UHD channel still going is the Sky Sports one. This didn't really get a very good reception and we were scolded at the UHD meeting in Milan earlier on this year 'cause in their view if we don't innovate and bring UHD over to customers, who will? Well, obviously streaming companies will, but that's not linear. Streaming companies also don't have the issue of keeping compatibility with older UHD SDR TVs as they can easily put out a PQ stream and it would be just an additional file on the CDN that a player can choose. For a broadcaster, either you just put it there instead of the HLG one and eventually end up screwing someone over or you put out another UHD channel but keep the HLG one, which is never gonna happen. This is why I said that I was excited about H.266 VVC and 8K. I mean, 8K won't really be something important in terms of resolution, so much so that lots of people won't even notice the resolution shift from 4K, but it will finally give broadcasters the excuse to move to PQ once and for all (and potentially go to 12bit instead of 10bit although early drafts still showed 10bit as the standard). Last edited by FranceBB; 18th August 2024 at 21:10. |
18th August 2024, 21:57 | #13 | Link | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, they've already screwed us over by marrying their cards to their decoder boxes (and making Common Interface worthless in the process), the ability to periodically "refresh" hardware is the silver lining of that. But nope: penny-pinching, accountants, focus on the next quarter etc etc, they'd rather bleed subscribers to OTT and Streaming every year than look beyond the next quarter. The only premium broadcasters who have a reason to broadcast H.264 today are those moving UHD customers to OTT. But the ones trying to make UHD happen on broadcast, if they were forward-looking, they'd already be giving subscribers free UHD VVC boxes when renewing, but I know, I'm dreaming, but still, free UHD HEVC decoder boxes is realistic. About FTA, 2 UHD channels per 30 FHD channels will remain the name of the game until ECM comes in the next "transition" (at least a decade from now), because again, good luck telling people they need to get FTA receiver boxes for their still-new UHD TVs. Last edited by kurkosdr; 19th August 2024 at 02:17. |
|||
19th August 2024, 06:39 | #14 | Link | |
Broadcast Encoder
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 3,069
|
Quote:
p.s about replacing decoders (boxes), if it was for me, I would have gifted a Sky Q box to everyone, got rid of the dark gray SD decoder, the white FULL HD one and the black My Sky one to move people over to H.265. Then I would have closed all the SD channels, implemented UHD downscaling on the decoder side and only really kept the necessary bunch of FULL HD with the UHD ones showing different content, instead of having the same content on three different versions of Sky Cinema playing like we have now for three different channels for four different decoders. Unfortunately, my saying is worth nothing, I'm just an encoder who "gets things done" but I have no say on how those things go. I think someone did this exercise once, saw that the cost was too high and just forfeit. Last edited by FranceBB; 19th August 2024 at 06:43. |
|
19th August 2024, 07:32 | #15 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
__________________
My github... |
|
19th August 2024, 15:42 | #16 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 380
|
Quote:
Let me rephrase the question: - What bitrate range do you consider acceptable for HEVC SDR FHD 25i? - What bitrate range do you consider acceptable for HEVC SDR FHD 50p? (with the source material having been shot in native 50p) Last edited by kurkosdr; 19th August 2024 at 16:25. |
|
19th August 2024, 22:25 | #17 | Link | |||
Broadcast Encoder
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, UK
Posts: 3,069
|
Quote:
On the other hand, given that pretty much no one is developing new SDI MPEG-2 hardware encoders and that no business would justify the expense of replacing the already functioning ones, I guess we're left with what we have. Anyway, this is a very nice surprise. Quote:
Quote:
FULL HD 25i 12 Mbits FULL HD 50p 15 Mbits For H.265: FULL HD 25i 8 Mbits FULL HD 50p 9 Mbits H.265 can generally encode contents 35% more efficiently than H.264 for progressive outputs. Unfortunately, the same isn't true for interlaced contents as most encoders never really focused on interlaced stuff and as result its efficiency is slightly impaired. Keep in mind that H.266 doesn't even support interlaced encoding at all, so... p.s all those refer to live hardware encoding, obviously software offline encoding would achieve far better results at lower bitrates. Last edited by FranceBB; 19th August 2024 at 22:41. |
|||
9th September 2024, 09:03 | #18 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2024
Posts: 73
|
I'd say if you compare the equivalent resolutions (i.e. half the height for 50p) the 50p will be very close if not better.
Also worth noting there's no MBAFF support in HEVC. The interlaced support is just separated fields encoded like a normal sequence each with SEI denoting the field order. |
Tags |
ecm |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|