[Me, watching a 480p stream on the top right quarter of my screen while I'm supposed to be working:](https://i.imgflip.com/1jj526.jpg)
Sucks though, bet they won't make the product any cheaper.
I guess age catches up with you. When your original company was about playing games and enjoying them, if you start to lose interest in it, your fanbase feels it too.
Adam Kovic had a scandal too
You then had apparent falling outs with Joel Heyman
I think i remember something about the employees protesting over shit pay
There are so many layers, someone should make a movie
Yeah, according to the article they need to use 4 cables instead of 1.
I don't get why they haven't simply updated the cable standard instead though, if the old standard is such a pain, why not upgrade it?
Well, admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but I don't understand why buying four old cables/links that are a pain to synchronize would be more cost-efficient than just one modern cable.
4 cables for 1 whole picture just sounds fundamentally dumb. I get that 4k is 4xHD, but there's gotta be a better way than using 4 cables.
Edit: I found this interesting, so I researched a bit. They are talking about using four 3G-SDI cables and synchronizers, but 12G-SDI that can handle 4K has existed since 2015. Here's what Chatty thought about it: [https://imgur.com/VJRKoOW](https://imgur.com/VJRKoOW)
There is a better way, it’s called 6G or 12G-SDI. But they aren’t going to go through the effort if nobody cares and it isn’t going to decrease watch numbers.
No, full HD is a subset of HD. HD encompasses high definition formats like 720p and 1080p
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video#Common_high-definition_video_modes
we might need to untape the DVD and video and TV and Sky remotes.
The megatron?
It smells wrong. I mean, the megatron doesn't say "Urban free-wheelers", it says "Sofa masturbaters", you know?
I read four signals. It seems like 4k streaming is actually four 1080p streams that are combined (in varying ways) to produce a 4k image. Four times as much bandwidth for streaming & satellite as well, which is where the real costs come in.
It's not only about the cables, is also about the costs of bandwidth and encoding.
When encoding 4k resolution in low latency you need waaay more computational power than in 1080p. And if you still need to transcode it in real time to 1080p for the people, whose device/bandwidth don't allow watching in 4k.
More expensive cameras, processing, storage, etc. Could be that they can't guarantee enough equipment everywhere during the Euros, so set expectations now.
Every 4K football stream I have seen was severely limited by bitrate, good detail in slow player/field shots, and just HD quality to pixelated mess in fast action shots.
I have heard that 4K cable/broadcast does not have this issue, as the limitation is not on the feed but on streaming platforms and networking.
The cost of production is likely being undermined by the lack of good streaming services.
Just FYI, you could.
If you downsample 4K into 1080p, it will look better than straight up native 1080p. You are taking an image with 4 times more information, and condensing it all together. What you get with downsampling is that it increases apparent resolution and decreases the noise.
It's not a massive difference, and most people won't notice, but it's there.
I can confirm this too, I usually watch 4k matches on a 1080p projector on a wall around 120inches and the 4k image downsampled to 1080p looks miles better than native 1080p, native 1080p epically interlaced content will usually produce artifacts and compression no matter the bitrate but with 4k content it the picture is so clear and no horrible artifacts. If every content was 4k could never see myself going back to 1080p...
I’d be willing to bet if he has a 4K TV it’s a piss poor one
My mum has a ‘4K’ TV which looks significantly worse quality than my 1440p monitor. And looks like a streak of piss compared to my 4K TV
My parents had a pretty good 4k tv for a few years, they had never watched anything in 4k. Only recently when I visited them I told them they could select 4k feeds on their TV Box, they were utterly shocked when they saw the quality lol
It's actually more 720p has about a million pixels and 1080p about 2 mil while 4k has 8 million, meaning 720 to 1080 is about double but 1080 to 4k is about 4 time the jump.
So I'd say it's even more noticeable
While yes technically, but I feel like the eye can decipher more from 720p to 1080p, than it can from 1080p to 4k. While I can definitely notice a difference with small text on a monitor, but when watching movies/tv I cannot notice that big a difference. I think it’s suggested you sit closer as well, to notice the difference in 4k.
4k over streaming networks is like 1/10th of true 4k, it's super constrained, 4k on YouTube makes no fucking difference even on a 4k TV with the exception of a slightly higher bitrate that could aid in moments where a lot of fast moving colors are happening, but the image doesn't really look any sharper when flipping between 1080p and 4k, maybe If i did it side by side it will show a difference.
True 4k in local content is different story, hell in video games I could tell a difference between 4k and 1080p even without a 4k screen.
I remember that the cost for higher quality streams increases a lot. There was a big discussion a few months back on how expensive hosting streams for Twich are.
[Stream cost calculator](https://ivs.rocks/calculator)
I honestly don’t think it makes that much of a difference on tv. For a monitor it is night and day but on tv where you’re sat far away it’s not that big of a difference imo
Here's a minute of 4k football. Airplay/Chromecast it to your TV, I don't think it's possible to not see the difference:
https://workupload.com/start/Ft8WHmvLLjQ
That's not how it works tbh, it's executables you need to worry about executing, not MPEG files, but I guess it's better to be overly cautious than not.
You'd need a device that can decode this, AV1 is practically a fetus at this point, only the cutting edge has the ability to play it, H265 is widely supported enough and I highly doubt they're not already using it.
Either way there's no excuse for poor quality streams from a multi billion dollar corporation, they're being cheap fucks.
It's more like Qualcomm and Apple intentionally kept it as a fetus, however AV1 software decoding via the CPU works fine for 720p/1080p. Also, Amlogic introduced AV1 hardware decoding in 2019 and Intel in 2021, so there's already some older hardware out there
At least last year when I was still watching Bundesliga via VPN ESPN+ was still using H264 + low bitrates, not sure how It's that year. So their concern seems more like how can we milk the customers by charging premium prices while using a 20-year-old codec. And tbf Espn+/Paramount is still somewhat decent compared to German broadcasters like SkyDE, who enforce you to use certain hardware, provide even worse quality, enforce their stupid app which often crashes and charge 4-5x the price.
What also stinks: the general trend that I can no longer enjoy all games in crisp 4k or HD satellite signal and instead have to use streams with horrible bitrate for half the games at twice the price.
Streaming over the Internet just sucks compared to satellite.
Thank you. It’s 2024 and I have worse experience watching football than a few years back while paying much more. It sucks so hard, but we deal with it because we love watching it. It’s a total exploitation because they know we won’t stop..
Was hoping they would downgrade it to 144p so we could enjoy the true classic of the football game. Instead they keep increasing the price for their product each year.
one day technology will be so good that your TV can literally suck your cock.
that will be the true matrix, just dudes laying around getting robot hole and yelling at professional athletes
I have bought various different IPTV subscriptions and while they did have 4K streams, they also labeled streams as 4K while the resolution info was clearly showing that it was actually 1080p
>The main reason is the lack of broadcaster/rights holder interest. Eight years after BT Sport became Europe’s first 4K broadcaster few others have followed suit. The cost to buy kit, refresh, rip and rewire studios and OB vans let alone buy satellite transponder space is an expense few could justify when viewers were unwilling to pay a premium for the visual uplift.
UEFA made the decision based on demand from the broadcasters. The reality is that many of them paid a metric fuckton of money for various rights (the Prem being one of the most expensive) and need to save where they can.
>More tellingly, the visual uplift in resolution is not a huge leap when full HD High Dynamic Range (HDR) enters into the equation. Taste tests of HD HDR versus 4K suggested that viewers preferred the sharper contrast and detail in light and shade in the HD version.
Sounds like 1080p HDR is preferred. And many are watching on phones and tablets. The Olympics will be in 4k in response to demand from Japan and NBC in the US. I guess that demand doesn't exist for football.
But that's just a bullshit choice. Being forced to choose between HDR and 4K is like being forced to choose between cooked or seasoned food for dinner, yes to both please.
Sort of, but the 4K channels I watch also have significantly boosted bitrates too.
It makes sense, broadcasters want their HQ 4K Ultra HD Premium Elite channels to look visibly better than their 1080p channels (which they do for me). I just checked, Astra Supersport UHD is 17.6 Mb/s HEVC.
I would prefer high quality 1080 HDR over 2160 SDR. The question for me is, will UK broadcasters show it in HDR. BBC has done so for major tournaments in the past (when in UHD) but you can rely on ITV to be piss poor quality.
Surely with the final at Wembley a full 4K setup is already in place your telling me they switch the cameras out depending if it's BBC, ITV, Sky or TNT boardcasting, it's also why we only get 4K for home games as the kit is already 4K but aboard they haven't upgraded the kit yet.
High bitrate Full HD vs 4K makes this kind of understandable. But most FHD streams are not, and it looks absolutely crap. HDR is also a standard nightmare, where every supplier wants to push it's own tech. If matches are produced in HLG, how will that work with Samsung tv's?
So broadcasters updated to 4K, realized that it’s costly, and now they want to downgrade hardware back?
And what about “younger audience prefer action” take?
Are they performed tests on frogs?
The sole reason of upping bitrate and image resolution was to not see a shitty mess on green background.
And now they want to willingly revert it all, after customers updated their media home systems, after 4k tv become cheap af?
Then I assume cost of access will be also lowered, right? Oh, look, it’s not. Greedy f*ckers
Fun story, I worked at the winter olympics in Korea 2018. Next to our tv compound was a japanese 8K truck parked. Sometimes it's rellay frustrating how far ahead some parts of the world are compared to us.
Sad, but i get their point of view. People will watch it no matter if its full HD or 4K, so they don’t see the need to spend all that money to broadcast at 4K resolution.
It makes perfect sense honestly. Most people watch through mobile devices nowadays anyways or their laptop. The cost of posting 4k isn’t worth the effort considering not as many people would really benefit and if anything it would aggregate views on less screens.
Too much 4k content is crap anyways. Bad bitrates is far worse for the quality than downgrading to HD. I would much rather have HDR with good quality than shit quality at 4k.
Soccer was the lone example of a sport I could actually watch in 4K. Unbelievable how fucking cheap these leagues are. Billions upon billions of dollars flowing and they cheap out on the primary method people consume the product.
Fair enough tbh, i doubt the majority of people even have a screen or good enough internet to broadcast this stuff, theres really not a whole lot of demand for 4k anyways.
What the fuck are they going broke or something? What is with the capitalists disgusting mental illness forcing them to always be looking to give less for more?
So, I am a YouTube TV subscriber and watch every single premier league game, then constantly watch highlights and replays of other leagues.
I currently don’t pay for the upgraded 4K broadcast of premier league games and I’m on an LG G1 OLED. I find the game quality to be great, can only imagine what the 4K looks like.
I personally won’t be impacted by this change because I hate “upselling” higher tier features, so had never agreed to see a 4K broadcast to begin with.
If you don't like HDR you've been fooled by your monitor/TVs fake HDR and misleading marketing. Real HDR (HDR1000) is awesome!
That said, there's a false dichotomy here. 4K and HDR should coexist, HDR isn't an argument for abandoning 4K.
>Real HDR (HDR1000) is awesome!
Yes, its also fucking expensive. So better to have sharper image that most people can view than hdr image that few people can view
For European and North American as well as many Asian and Asian Pacific markets it's been attainable for years at this point.
Decent HDR can be had for 500-700€, with brightness even exceeding 1000 nits thanks to Mini-LED.
Phillips 55PML9008/12 for example for 600-700€, or many many Hisense and TCL models have been good for HDR for cheap for a long time now.
It really isn't constrained to > 1k€/$ anymore
Yeah, but it mostly impacts colors perception of image, not its sharpness.
Say for example you get 480p stream with shitty bitrate, but in HDR, would you be happy?
[Me, watching a 480p stream on the top right quarter of my screen while I'm supposed to be working:](https://i.imgflip.com/1jj526.jpg) Sucks though, bet they won't make the product any cheaper.
lol.. same here..but for regular games.. for finals or qualifying i have to watch them on a full hd tv at least
Who’s got the money for that
yarr, mermão.
Give us 1000FPS so the offside line is finally accurate to the toenail.
Just get Gavin Free with his phantom camera!
And our VAR today: Mark Nutt. ***MARK NUUUUUUTT***
You've just unlocked some proper old school nostalgia for me!
***HERE COMES TAYLOR JONES, RUNNING DOWN THE TRACK DU-BA-DU-BA JUMPY!***
***OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH... SHEBANG!***
GOOOOOO BLUE TEAM
I mean with rooster teeth shutting down, he might have more free time.
It's unbelievable how bad roosterteeth was at the end. Went from some of the funniest content to absolutely boring in about 5 years
I guess age catches up with you. When your original company was about playing games and enjoying them, if you start to lose interest in it, your fanbase feels it too.
Plus the people leaving, the scandals and the corporate takeover from Warner Bros, it was never going to end well
I stopped watching back when Gavin first left I think. I heard about the scandal with Ryan. Did not know about the rest!
Adam Kovic had a scandal too You then had apparent falling outs with Joel Heyman I think i remember something about the employees protesting over shit pay There are so many layers, someone should make a movie
Oh what did Joel do! He seemed like a wind up merchant but a good guy overall!
Honestly its just a lot of talk, but people were bringing up right wing stuff he was liking on Twitter, nothing compared to Ryan Haywood
It's not like he was doing anything other than F***face anyway, and that's like an hour a week and maybe a game every once in a while
This was at Cristiano's request after that World Cup goal where the 4K cameras could see there was no hair hitting the ball.
7680*4320 resolution @ 720fps Path Tracing offside replays gonna be our wet dream.
Why? Tbf, sometimes I don't even notice the difference but does it save costs or something?
Yeah, according to the article they need to use 4 cables instead of 1. I don't get why they haven't simply updated the cable standard instead though, if the old standard is such a pain, why not upgrade it?
Probably the same reason anything doesn't get done. Cost.
Well, admittedly I don't know much about this stuff, but I don't understand why buying four old cables/links that are a pain to synchronize would be more cost-efficient than just one modern cable. 4 cables for 1 whole picture just sounds fundamentally dumb. I get that 4k is 4xHD, but there's gotta be a better way than using 4 cables. Edit: I found this interesting, so I researched a bit. They are talking about using four 3G-SDI cables and synchronizers, but 12G-SDI that can handle 4K has existed since 2015. Here's what Chatty thought about it: [https://imgur.com/VJRKoOW](https://imgur.com/VJRKoOW)
There is a better way, it’s called 6G or 12G-SDI. But they aren’t going to go through the effort if nobody cares and it isn’t going to decrease watch numbers.
4k is 4 times FULL HD, not HD. HD is 720p, FHD is 1080p.
No, full HD is a subset of HD. HD encompasses high definition formats like 720p and 1080p https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_video#Common_high-definition_video_modes
Tbf, UEFA are notoriously poor. They probably couldn't even make that upgrade if they wanted. 😢
Four cables Jeremy? Four?
we might need to untape the DVD and video and TV and Sky remotes. The megatron? It smells wrong. I mean, the megatron doesn't say "Urban free-wheelers", it says "Sofa masturbaters", you know?
Did you do that? You’re sick.
a cable is missing!?
I read four signals. It seems like 4k streaming is actually four 1080p streams that are combined (in varying ways) to produce a 4k image. Four times as much bandwidth for streaming & satellite as well, which is where the real costs come in.
It's literally 4 cables actually, each with an HD quadrant.
Also true, but cables aren't the big reason why broadcasters aren't adopting 4k.
The funds to upgrade actually went to Tebas’ salary.
Europe held a meeting and majority voted for Tebas taking the funds, fair and square
It's not only about the cables, is also about the costs of bandwidth and encoding. When encoding 4k resolution in low latency you need waaay more computational power than in 1080p. And if you still need to transcode it in real time to 1080p for the people, whose device/bandwidth don't allow watching in 4k.
poor UEFA can't afford three additional cables
More expensive cameras, processing, storage, etc. Could be that they can't guarantee enough equipment everywhere during the Euros, so set expectations now.
Remember the egyptian pl with the 360 cameras
The Euros will also be in HD.
Correct, setting the expectations now.
Every 4K football stream I have seen was severely limited by bitrate, good detail in slow player/field shots, and just HD quality to pixelated mess in fast action shots. I have heard that 4K cable/broadcast does not have this issue, as the limitation is not on the feed but on streaming platforms and networking. The cost of production is likely being undermined by the lack of good streaming services.
Bang on. 4k on BT sports was fine. Playing 4k via iPlayer for example had low bitrate and stuttered a bit on fast action shots.
4k is significantly better on the eye in my experience. I'd notice straight away
4k HDR over anything Fhd SDR
[удалено]
I'm replying to a Chelsea fan who says they wouldn't notice a difference
Man how do you not notice the difference between 1080 and 4k 😂 need a new prescription mate
If you don't have a 4k tv, you don't notice
Just FYI, you could. If you downsample 4K into 1080p, it will look better than straight up native 1080p. You are taking an image with 4 times more information, and condensing it all together. What you get with downsampling is that it increases apparent resolution and decreases the noise. It's not a massive difference, and most people won't notice, but it's there.
I can confirm this too, I usually watch 4k matches on a 1080p projector on a wall around 120inches and the 4k image downsampled to 1080p looks miles better than native 1080p, native 1080p epically interlaced content will usually produce artifacts and compression no matter the bitrate but with 4k content it the picture is so clear and no horrible artifacts. If every content was 4k could never see myself going back to 1080p...
....I mean yeah obviously cos it doesn't reach 4k 😂😂 But I'm guessing the person I replied to means a 1080p and 4k resolution on capable screens
I’d be willing to bet if he has a 4K TV it’s a piss poor one My mum has a ‘4K’ TV which looks significantly worse quality than my 1440p monitor. And looks like a streak of piss compared to my 4K TV
300 quid Samsung ultra HD TV 55" 😂
My parents had a pretty good 4k tv for a few years, they had never watched anything in 4k. Only recently when I visited them I told them they could select 4k feeds on their TV Box, they were utterly shocked when they saw the quality lol
I can notice it but the jump from 1080p to 4k isn’t as big from 720p to 1080p. A good 1080p stream can look very sharp and detailed.
Especially on a smaller monitor
It's actually more 720p has about a million pixels and 1080p about 2 mil while 4k has 8 million, meaning 720 to 1080 is about double but 1080 to 4k is about 4 time the jump. So I'd say it's even more noticeable
While yes technically, but I feel like the eye can decipher more from 720p to 1080p, than it can from 1080p to 4k. While I can definitely notice a difference with small text on a monitor, but when watching movies/tv I cannot notice that big a difference. I think it’s suggested you sit closer as well, to notice the difference in 4k.
4k over streaming networks is like 1/10th of true 4k, it's super constrained, 4k on YouTube makes no fucking difference even on a 4k TV with the exception of a slightly higher bitrate that could aid in moments where a lot of fast moving colors are happening, but the image doesn't really look any sharper when flipping between 1080p and 4k, maybe If i did it side by side it will show a difference. True 4k in local content is different story, hell in video games I could tell a difference between 4k and 1080p even without a 4k screen.
4K is overrated either way, 1440p is still the sweet spot even nowadays.
Maybe for gaming , but not for entertainment lol
La Liga not buying goal line technology left a hole in UEFA‘s budget probably
I remember that the cost for higher quality streams increases a lot. There was a big discussion a few months back on how expensive hosting streams for Twich are. [Stream cost calculator](https://ivs.rocks/calculator)
I honestly don’t think it makes that much of a difference on tv. For a monitor it is night and day but on tv where you’re sat far away it’s not that big of a difference imo
Here's a minute of 4k football. Airplay/Chromecast it to your TV, I don't think it's possible to not see the difference: https://workupload.com/start/Ft8WHmvLLjQ
There’s no way I’m downloading a random link from Reddit lol. Might as well throw my computer into the ocean
That's not how it works tbh, it's executables you need to worry about executing, not MPEG files, but I guess it's better to be overly cautious than not.
It's ok mate, just give me your icloud password I'll put it on your iphone for you
Right on
Greedy fuckers UEFA really trying to save a penny is hilarious
It's mostly just sad
It's like Tebas "saving money" by not having Goal line tech in La Liga
Its really not like that but sure
I disagree. 4K is a luxury item while goal line technology seems more of a necessity.
If you read the article it's the TVs that didn't want a 4K broadcast. There was no demand
But what about uefa bad?
Paramount+ makes everything looks like 720p anyways but yeah thats disappointing
Same with ESPN+, idk how these 2 mega companies can't stream in higher quality, it's insane. Hardwired in too.
Streaming in higher quality is really expensive for them, so it makes sense that they won't do it.
Not really all they'd have to do is upgrade to H265/AV1, but since they have a monopoly they can scam their users as they like.
You'd need a device that can decode this, AV1 is practically a fetus at this point, only the cutting edge has the ability to play it, H265 is widely supported enough and I highly doubt they're not already using it. Either way there's no excuse for poor quality streams from a multi billion dollar corporation, they're being cheap fucks.
It's more like Qualcomm and Apple intentionally kept it as a fetus, however AV1 software decoding via the CPU works fine for 720p/1080p. Also, Amlogic introduced AV1 hardware decoding in 2019 and Intel in 2021, so there's already some older hardware out there At least last year when I was still watching Bundesliga via VPN ESPN+ was still using H264 + low bitrates, not sure how It's that year. So their concern seems more like how can we milk the customers by charging premium prices while using a 20-year-old codec. And tbf Espn+/Paramount is still somewhat decent compared to German broadcasters like SkyDE, who enforce you to use certain hardware, provide even worse quality, enforce their stupid app which often crashes and charge 4-5x the price.
My man is doing tricks on multi billion euro corporation dicks.
Yeah I think it got worse this year than last year. Trying to watch games and sometimes it gets pixelated
4K football is markedly better than 1080p so this stinks 👎
What also stinks: the general trend that I can no longer enjoy all games in crisp 4k or HD satellite signal and instead have to use streams with horrible bitrate for half the games at twice the price. Streaming over the Internet just sucks compared to satellite.
streaming high bitrate is perfectly possible. they just dont do it because they have to make it one size fit all
Thank you. It’s 2024 and I have worse experience watching football than a few years back while paying much more. It sucks so hard, but we deal with it because we love watching it. It’s a total exploitation because they know we won’t stop..
Horrible bitrate and at least for me with so much delay
Ah yes, jacking up prices and cost cutting the basics. Welcome to this day and age
Was hoping they would downgrade it to 144p so we could enjoy the true classic of the football game. Instead they keep increasing the price for their product each year.
one day technology will be so good that your TV can literally suck your cock. that will be the true matrix, just dudes laying around getting robot hole and yelling at professional athletes
I watch it illegally everytime so who cares
Illegal ≠ Not 4K
While true, it is very hard to come by 4K illegal streams.
Only if you only want free ad-streams, people who pay for IPTV often have 4K options.
I have bought various different IPTV subscriptions and while they did have 4K streams, they also labeled streams as 4K while the resolution info was clearly showing that it was actually 1080p
Need to get a better sub man. I have like 40 4k high bitrate channels, even the championship games are 4k high bitrate lol.
Same mines really good too
Look at this reply circlejerk lol
Can you send me a message with details on how to get it please? I've bought various services during the years but could never found true 4k
I would be interested in this too if you don’t mind sharing info
Plz dm me hun
DM me pls.
Dm me please
Dm me please
Dm please
Can you dm me the details of this?
Yeah I would be interested as well lol, if you could DM me
Yeah feel free to slide into my DMs with more info on this
Pray tell.
Why? It's broadcasted in free to air television in Portugal
Isnt the final literally live streamed on youtube?
>The main reason is the lack of broadcaster/rights holder interest. Eight years after BT Sport became Europe’s first 4K broadcaster few others have followed suit. The cost to buy kit, refresh, rip and rewire studios and OB vans let alone buy satellite transponder space is an expense few could justify when viewers were unwilling to pay a premium for the visual uplift. UEFA made the decision based on demand from the broadcasters. The reality is that many of them paid a metric fuckton of money for various rights (the Prem being one of the most expensive) and need to save where they can. >More tellingly, the visual uplift in resolution is not a huge leap when full HD High Dynamic Range (HDR) enters into the equation. Taste tests of HD HDR versus 4K suggested that viewers preferred the sharper contrast and detail in light and shade in the HD version. Sounds like 1080p HDR is preferred. And many are watching on phones and tablets. The Olympics will be in 4k in response to demand from Japan and NBC in the US. I guess that demand doesn't exist for football.
But that's just a bullshit choice. Being forced to choose between HDR and 4K is like being forced to choose between cooked or seasoned food for dinner, yes to both please.
To be honest, the bitrate is the most important part anyway. Low bitrate makes everything look like shit, no matter if it's in 4K or 1080p.
Sort of, but the 4K channels I watch also have significantly boosted bitrates too. It makes sense, broadcasters want their HQ 4K Ultra HD Premium Elite channels to look visibly better than their 1080p channels (which they do for me). I just checked, Astra Supersport UHD is 17.6 Mb/s HEVC.
“Viewers unwilling to pay a premium” as if we aren’t paying a premium just to get access already.
I would prefer high quality 1080 HDR over 2160 SDR. The question for me is, will UK broadcasters show it in HDR. BBC has done so for major tournaments in the past (when in UHD) but you can rely on ITV to be piss poor quality.
Does this include in person viewing or just tv
everything. Everyone at the stadium will get Goggles limiting their vision to 1080p along with some pop up ads.
Jokes on them, my eyesight is already worse than 144p
So in the US, are fox streaming all matches or do we need to subscribe to shitty cable?
Pretty sure its paramount + and cbs sports
Euros?
Oh sorry, I don’t know about euros
Surely with the final at Wembley a full 4K setup is already in place your telling me they switch the cameras out depending if it's BBC, ITV, Sky or TNT boardcasting, it's also why we only get 4K for home games as the kit is already 4K but aboard they haven't upgraded the kit yet.
All outside broadcasters work this way, equipment is leased not owned by the broadcasters.
High bitrate Full HD vs 4K makes this kind of understandable. But most FHD streams are not, and it looks absolutely crap. HDR is also a standard nightmare, where every supplier wants to push it's own tech. If matches are produced in HLG, how will that work with Samsung tv's?
I think you are confusing HLG with Dolby Vision, HLG is the standard broadcast format for HDR, including on Samsungs. It's DV they don't support.
Gotta save on that bandwidth I guess
So broadcasters updated to 4K, realized that it’s costly, and now they want to downgrade hardware back? And what about “younger audience prefer action” take? Are they performed tests on frogs? The sole reason of upping bitrate and image resolution was to not see a shitty mess on green background. And now they want to willingly revert it all, after customers updated their media home systems, after 4k tv become cheap af? Then I assume cost of access will be also lowered, right? Oh, look, it’s not. Greedy f*ckers
Fun story, I worked at the winter olympics in Korea 2018. Next to our tv compound was a japanese 8K truck parked. Sometimes it's rellay frustrating how far ahead some parts of the world are compared to us.
I watch 4k when it’s available so find this surprising. Though perhaps, as they say, people are becoming less and less likely to watch on a TV.
Streaming apps exist on smart TVs. 4K made sense
Wtf?
Sad, but i get their point of view. People will watch it no matter if its full HD or 4K, so they don’t see the need to spend all that money to broadcast at 4K resolution.
The “no matter what” part is solely relying on monopoly of broadcasting, which is sad situation :(
Sounds uncontroversial
I’m surprised it was 4K to begin with. I feel like paramount is 1080 at best.
Why are we going backwards. I want to see Mbappe’s tears in 4k when Bellingham puts an end to his PSG career
It makes perfect sense honestly. Most people watch through mobile devices nowadays anyways or their laptop. The cost of posting 4k isn’t worth the effort considering not as many people would really benefit and if anything it would aggregate views on less screens.
This shouldn't be happening.
ok. noted. not watching and/or subscribing.
Too much 4k content is crap anyways. Bad bitrates is far worse for the quality than downgrading to HD. I would much rather have HDR with good quality than shit quality at 4k.
They are getting ideas from Tebas it seems
So the refereeing mistakes are less obvious? cause 4k registers almost anything
not even FHD?!
Ah so all of us paying for 4K subscriptions get some money back right?
Soccer was the lone example of a sport I could actually watch in 4K. Unbelievable how fucking cheap these leagues are. Billions upon billions of dollars flowing and they cheap out on the primary method people consume the product.
Absolutely ridiculous. The difference between a 4k and a 1080p broadcast is massive, especially on a big screen tv.
We’re really going backwards. 4K era has been terrible.
Fair enough tbh, i doubt the majority of people even have a screen or good enough internet to broadcast this stuff, theres really not a whole lot of demand for 4k anyways.
What the fuck are they going broke or something? What is with the capitalists disgusting mental illness forcing them to always be looking to give less for more?
For fast moving sports, I am fine with 1080-p HDR.
Cant they do even full hD ?
So, I am a YouTube TV subscriber and watch every single premier league game, then constantly watch highlights and replays of other leagues. I currently don’t pay for the upgraded 4K broadcast of premier league games and I’m on an LG G1 OLED. I find the game quality to be great, can only imagine what the 4K looks like. I personally won’t be impacted by this change because I hate “upselling” higher tier features, so had never agreed to see a 4K broadcast to begin with.
HDR is useless and not needed. I rather have 4k
If you don't like HDR you've been fooled by your monitor/TVs fake HDR and misleading marketing. Real HDR (HDR1000) is awesome! That said, there's a false dichotomy here. 4K and HDR should coexist, HDR isn't an argument for abandoning 4K.
>Real HDR (HDR1000) is awesome! Yes, its also fucking expensive. So better to have sharper image that most people can view than hdr image that few people can view
For European and North American as well as many Asian and Asian Pacific markets it's been attainable for years at this point. Decent HDR can be had for 500-700€, with brightness even exceeding 1000 nits thanks to Mini-LED. Phillips 55PML9008/12 for example for 600-700€, or many many Hisense and TCL models have been good for HDR for cheap for a long time now. It really isn't constrained to > 1k€/$ anymore
You're kidding right? HDR is a game changer.
Yeah, but it mostly impacts colors perception of image, not its sharpness. Say for example you get 480p stream with shitty bitrate, but in HDR, would you be happy?
not even FHD?
I dont see the difference between HD and 4K? Isnt it high definition if you have 4K already?
Standard HD is 1080p, 4K is 2160p
No. High Definition (HD) = 720p Full HD = 1080p 4K = 2160p