This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
July 2014 www.tvbeurope.com


Having hardware rigidly constrain users to a predefi ned set of image parameters may not be acceptable in the future


TVBEurope 29 4K: Beyond HD


Beyond HD Masters 2014 brings key issues to the table


John Ive, IABM director of business development and technology, provides the foreword to our review of the 2014 Beyond HD Masters conference, which examined the challenges and the capabilities of the UHD movement. Conferenece Report by Melanie


Dayasena-Lowe


THE 2014 Beyond HD Masters conference provided vivid clarity regarding the introduction of resolutions beyond HD. A fascinating day that combined the complex interactions between production, distribution and consumer consumption of Ultra High Defi nition in both its 4K and 8K variants. Conference speakers and panellists called upon their in-depth experience to highlight the opportunities available for an improved video experience. However, they also cautioned that further development is necessary to make a signifi cant impact at the consumer level before making a compelling case to transition from the already excellent HD quality.


Increasing screen sizes Consumer TV companies have launched high resolution products worldwide, together with extensive marketing budgets in order to boost maturing HD sales. Against this, several speakers emphasised that improved picture quality is not just about resolution with higher frame rates: extended colour space and high dynamic range all have their part to play.


During the content-packed day, case studies were presented of pilot programming shot in UHD-1 (4K), and under


controlled conditions the results can be stunning. However, one graphic example of the extreme contrast range of a football match combining bright sunlight and shadow, illustrated the potential benefi t of high dynamic range. Also with an assumption that screen sizes are increasing to 50-inches and larger, tolerance to motion judder and blurring reduces, hence the benefi t of higher frame rates.


Clearly the consumer TV manufacturers cannot wait for these developments to mature and incorporate them into the fi rst models. This, together with no fi nalised delivery specifi cations, leaves the possibility of the fi rst generation products being incompatible a few years hence.


Despite consumer promotion and marketing, take-up of higher resolution TV sets is expected to be slow according to Futuresource Consulting with the majority of products being produced and delivered into China’s domestic market.


Better pixels, not just more pixels


Andy Quested from the BBC joined the rally for all-round picture quality improvements, requesting: “Better pixels, not just more pixels,” and listed fi ve points: higher dynamic range, more colour, better audio, appropriate frame rates and


more resolution. His request for “appropriate frame rates” is interesting, indicating that different programme genres may benefi t from different frame rates. This theme for more fl exibility in formats and image parameters was echoed by others throughout the day. Having hardware rigidly constrain users to a predefi ned set of image parameters may not be acceptable in the future. Evolution will continue, and user requirements may vary, so a more fl exible infrastructure will be needed by broadcasters and media companies. The need for fl exibility led to another important theme and question regarding infrastructure. Will current video and hardware- centric infrastructures support broadcasters’ needs in the future? Should we as an industry embrace more fully IT solutions based upon Internet Protocol and network architectures? It is quite clear these approaches cannot satisfy the needs of live production today, but modifying existing coaxial cable (HD-SDI) interconnects and routers may end up being no more than an expensive interim solution. The needs of the IT industry are such that 10GB and 40GB networks are rapidly becoming commodity solutions and a more fl exible, format-agnostic interconnection alternative to video over co-axial cable.


Trials and experience We


John Ive, Chairman of the Beyond HD Masters 2014 conference


“We have two to three


found that programme trials and the consequent case studies are providing good experience at the operational and technical level. Several presenters suggested that shooting techniques will change, taking advantage of the higher resolution with wider shots. However, we were reminded that the same was said about HD, and that, in fact, very little has changed. It was made clear that, unlike 3D, UHD can be distributed natively or down- converted to provide stunning HD pictures. This will be an important factor when both formats are needed and removes the need for separate production crews. It may however constrain the shooting styles in order to preserve image compatibility. Fortunately there is hope that UHD will not consume four times the bandwidth of HD, with the emergence of HEVC compression enabling transmission at bitrates with just a modest overhead compared to HD.


Content rules


As always speakers stressed that “Content rules”, and it is clear that UHD production should


years to go before many of the open questions will be answered with workable


and economic solutions”


be considered if a programme is to retain its value for the years to come. Broadcasters however are underwhelmed by the prospect of UHD, because many do not have the available bandwidth, the potential for additional income, and therefore no budget for investment. This has left a newcomer, Netfl ix, to be the innovator and provide UHD content through its internet service. Other online service providers will follow. So with this development, internet-delivered video gains yet another small step in credibility.


In conclusion the day proved to be a fascinating glimpse at how far we have come since last year’s event but also presented the feeling that we have two to three years to go before many of the open questions will be answered with workable and economic solutions.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52