You don’t need 4 cables, just one with higher bandwidth. Cable bandwidth has been increasing over time. It’s the same story from when they went SD to HD. I do agree that the ‘HD’ artifacts look terrible in current broadcasts. I have been impressed by CZcams TV + Fox 4K broadcasts.
Yes and no. It depends on the video equipment and the specification. For example, some production switchers are possible to take a quad link (12G) signal over a single piece of copper. However, unless the production trucks are running the latest and greatest (spoiler alert, they're not), they are only capable of single link (3G) cables.
@@HaloHamsturlive event video engineer here, and fun fact, they ARE using fiber optic cable for cameras. There's a cable called TRIAX that is a dual direction and power supplying cable for connecting cameras to the image processing rack unit, also known as a CCU. The TRIAX cable is capable of being somewhere around 2500 feet long, whereas a copper based SDI cable can only be reliably used up to 350 feet, and that's with the good stuff(there are some differences depending on lower resolutions being used on higher bandwidth capable cable).
I feel like a lot of the cabling issues for broadcasters could be handled by the stadium, at least in modern newly-built stadiums. It wouldn't be that difficult to run a bunch of fiber optic cabling from the stadium to those broadcast truck areas while the stadium is being built. The challenge then would be upgrading the equipment and also weather-proofing the connection points. Underground maintenance tunnels could carry the majority of this cabling.
@@OldDood lol do you know the cost of that SMPTE fiber cable? One cable to one camera in a regular size studio? $2k. You’re talking miles of cable. I’m not sure what this imaginary 16k standard is, or which existing cables would support that for the non existent cameras and switchers.
@@alexs3187 SMPTE Fiber is only $2 a foot. A lot of these issues is that these companies are cheap. It's like internet providers. They have been using fiber optics on the back end since the 1990s. Instead of future proofing and saving money they just deal with what's cheap.
Not really. They're not trying to solve the same problem, so there is no guarantee they will find a solution. Just because tire makers made a road tire that can do 200MPH, doesn't mean they'll be able to make one do 300MPH that anyone can afford to use.
As a Boston sports fan, I have to say that the NESN 4K HDR feed is the best I’ve ever seen sports. I feel genuinely grateful every time I watch a Bruins home game that they seem to have actually ponied up the money to do it right, however that may be. I recently watched the Super Bowl in 4K HDR and it was so much worse than the NESN broadcasts. There were artifacts around the fast moving plays, it just didn’t pop. Before I watched this video I would have said that the Super Bowl was upscaled 4K, and the NESN home broadcasts for the Bruins are genuine 4K HDR. But now I’m thinking it’s exactly what you theorize would be the gold standard: ultra high bit rate upscaled at 60 frames per second in HDR. I’d love to read an article about how NESN accomplished it.
Are you using cable or internet tv? If you're on IPTV I would be interested in what your live feed delay is. Delays are already such a huge problem with live 720P feeds.
That would be nice to try and watch a Bruins game in 4k HDR. I have get Wings and Jackets on local Bally channels that look good(I'm a Wings fan). When I try to watch a Leafs game on CBC it looks like it is in 360p in 4:3 format, it makes me wonder if Canada even has HD at all yet. (yes I know they do). All the games are on Spectrum, doubtful anything is in 4k.
I would also simply take 1080p streaming - when I have to watch a badly compressed 720p feed through cable (which it seems a lot of broadcasts still are!), I always think broadcasters could do so much better.
Why, in 2023 does the four leading broadcasters in the USA STILL transmit their programming in 720p or 1080i? In other developed nations programming is in 1080p and occasionally in 4k!
@@damianhaber4890 The average American viewer is much more concerned about quantity and could care less about quality. Remember what started the Beta vs VHS war, and why Beta lost?720 more than satisfies most, even after they see a proper 4K presentation
@@martinb7554 As a motorsports and Baseball fan, sadly I must watch via garbage cable. Baseball has not been on OTA in my area since 2018, and the cable companies charge 20 Small extra to watch it
A lot of the cable weight concerns could be allayed with fiber, even accounting for the bend radius restrictions. Also there are high speed proprietary wireless protocols combined with maybe a minute delay to absorb hiccups that would fix those issues at the broadcast point. Transmission through the broader network is the real issue.
The real bottleneck in delivering 4k to households is over the air bandwidth. Having the ATSC 2.0 standard alongside ATSC 3.0 standard means the over the air broadcasters don't have enough bandwidth to run a 4K signal. Get rid of ATSC 2.0 and every major network would be broadcasting in 4K right now.
@@fritzkabeano1969 No such thing as ATSC 2.0. And the issue with a few channels sending 4k OTA isn't about the amount of bandwidth, it is that they have no content that is produced in 4k and, as this video partially highlighted, they don't have the infrastructure to support true 4k end to end. Now if they all had sources and wanted to send higher bandwidth 4k, it would be a problem for many.
@@curtisbme I meant ATSC 1.0 and if they could broadcast 4K there'd be content overnight. As for end to end "true" 4K there's enough fiber bandwidth to get it to the transmitters in major metro areas. It's OTA bandwidth that's preventing it from happening.
Thank you for covering this topic! It’s something I’ve long wondered about. I hope to always have my bad news delivered by Caleb, he somehow makes me enjoy hearing it.
There are newer standards for cable modulation since 1080 broadcast became common for more bandwidth on the same cabling. Processing power and graphics processing has definitely improved more than 4x. They just don’t want to.
Those shots you have of the miles and miles of cables running into those production trucks really puts this thing into true perspective. Thanks for the educational video
The incredibly slow move from making 4k the default resolution versus 1080p, which hasn't been achieved yet, just makes me laugh when I see 8k TVs. If moving from 1080p to 4k is this hard, you can look forward to a lot of 8K content in about 25 years. But also, the increase in resolution keeps providing diminishing returns. Every jump is more difficult to notice the difference at normal screen sizes. The only reason to get an 8k TV today, and for many years into the future, is to be able to tell people that you have a fancy shmancy 8k TV.
In Canada, all of the major professional teams (NBA, NHL, MLB, CFL) have had most of their home games broadcast in 4K for years now (exception was during 2020-2021 during the pandemic where it was mainly HD). Pretty sure Europe has 4K HDR broadcasts going for soccer, Wimbledon, etc
I totally agree - high quality 1080p is enough except for the wide shot. And this is what I don't understand. Close-ups of sports at 1080p look amazing even compressed - there's more detail than we need. But the wide shot of the play being 1080p is the stupidest thing ever. If it's just 1 camera and we're talking Bernabeu or Camp Nou, that thing needs to be at least 4k (or 16k) and then downsample the image to 1080p. It's like the PS5 rendering at 4k and then displaying a 1080p image, it's going to look much than native 1080p rendering. When I watch soccer, it's near impossible to read the jerseys and see in full clarity the extremities of the players. I'm pretty sure that if that was shot in native 4k converted to 1080p it would look very smooth. Reality creation improves it but not enough. I understand small teams sticking with 1080p but the wide shot at any big sport arena should be 4k.
Thank you for the video. I've always wondered why it's been taking so long to get here. I even thought of starting my 4K sports streaming service for a. But know I understand why lol
Weren't the Olympics shot with 8K cameras and broadcast in 4K? My TV (Sony 930D) delivers near 4k like images on anything live, especially sports or anything shot outdoors. Still want more quality, though
Great video and explanation thanks! Unfotunately in Canada we can only watch football/soccer through streamers like DAZN and Fubo TV which both boradcast at 720p, at least at 50fps. The high compression isn't great though and feel they could at least do 1080p as they are broadcast in 4K in Europe
A while back, Prime Video did Premier League football (soccer) in 4K, and the ball motion was a jerky mess. I totally agree that 60fps high-bitrate 1080p is better for sport. The other thing is making sure the motion of the ball is clearly visible and not 'optimised away' by the compression. While squash is not that popular as a TV sport, it is a good example where high fps and bitrate means you can see the ball, but high compression tends to erase the ball when it's moving quickly.
The greatest misunderstanding is what the definition of resolution is. I worked in high resolution radar mapping, so I know what that means. In reality one needs to remove the idea that resolution is digital and related to pixel size, although pixel size or sampling has to be fine enough to represent the bandwidth in the signal. Each pixel or point has a continuous response much larger than the pixel. If two identical amplitude points are separated by a distance just large enough so that a sufficient depth or gap is produced then that distance should be referred to as resolution. If the requirement is High Dynamic Range (HDR), then the gap has to be deeper than SDR. Subjective testing a long time ago found that 1080p HDR image was better than 4K. This issue with 4K HDR is that it takes more bits per pixel to represent and the gap needs to be deep. Netflix UHD (Dolby Vision is better but still has quantization noise filling the gaps) doesn’t subjectively look as good as 1080 P bluray video with lower compression. One answer for the Fox production case, would be to get rid of the cables for all of those cameras and use a wireless network that supports the capacity for those channels. Also, couldn’t each camera be given an inexpensive processor to convert its video and audio to uncompressed 1080P HDR, until it’s feasible to handle 4K HDR. The processor could also do Dolby vision encoding. Seems that the expensive part should be the camera’s with their sensors, not the processing which shouldn’t be more than 80 iPhones could do.
What wireless network do you suggest that also allows for four return video feeds to the camera op, two channels of intercom, teleprompter video to the camera head from the camera control unit (CCU), ability of the video engineer to paint or adjust camera color? During Obama’s first inauguration a producer wanted to use wireless technology, USSS reserves the right to jam any wireless frequency they see fit. We had to have wired backups in case they jammed stuff. Didn’t happen at his inauguration but it did happen when he was at a sporting event.
DirecTV has been airing 4K sports for more than five years now. They've done extensive Masters broadcasts since 2016, Pac-12 late-night football, Dodgers baseball, Nuggets basketball, MLB Network games. College Football Playoff. they also aired Olympic coverage in each of the last Summer and Winter Games. Broadcasts are available. Better to light a single candle than to curse th darkness ...
The world cup 4k Livestream was stunning to me and I don't even like or normally watch soccer. It's really pathetic that we don't have 4k sports in the US but many other countries do. Even Canada is doing 4k baseball and basketball and hockey. I don't care if they go down from 80 cameras to just 20, the picture quality is worth it and it has to be done. Most people have 4k tvs and no 4k content, it's ridiculous and embarrassing for the United States.
High Frame Rates (HFR) would be huge for Sports. NHL and ball tracking in golf would be so much better to watch. I also think Golf in 3D would be cool.
Fantastic timing video for me although as I found out reality is actually a little worse than what is described here: was at my in-laws for the semi-final Superbowl and was puzzled (assuming it was all 4K) how side field reports looked so soft (like a real bad up-converting) on their 85in TV compared to the actual game broadcasting. Now I know better what was really going on behind the scenes.
HDR 1080p signals would be fine for sports, like you said. Every single TV manufacturer needs to perfect motion processing (no soap opera effect, I hate that) on every TV.
The upscaled 4K that FOX provides is significantly better than the standard broadcasts and streams from other networks. Sure, I would love native 4K HDR 60fps for sports at high bitrates. However, what FOX is doing is a great stop gap solution until the infrastructure catches up for native 4k.
Where are the comparisons on upscaled NFL 4k that we can say significantly better.i bet over the air hd will stomp the upscaled fake 4k the NFL is pushing
I work for Verizon FiOS TV. We had the Olympics in 4K and we were getting pissed off calls from NBC executives watching at home saying the 4k channels had issues. Of course Verizon executives started freaking out. We discovered in pretty much every case, the NBC executives were using shitty HDMI cables that couldn't handle the 4K.
There is a major noticeable difference between native 4K and fox sports 1080p up conversion. I’ve watched a couple MLB broadcasts in native and they look incredible. We’ve had 720p sports now since 2006. It’s time to move on.
Here in Canada we do have Sportsnet and TSN in 4K broadcasted for IPTV providers... however actual 4K broadcasts on these channels are indeed limited; basically to only a few teams home games... mostly those in the Toronto market (BlueJays all 81 home games, Maple Leafs and Raptors) among a few others... but when they're on a road or at one of these venues they haven't setup for 4K broadcasts, back to the usual 1080i (or 720p). It's too bad they're unable to bring in the Sky Sports F1 4K feed for F1 broadcasts.
Always have been curious about why sport-streams look so bad. Thank you for answering! May the time of good looking sport-streams come sooner than later.
Why, in 2023 does the four leading broadcasters in the USA STILL transmit their programming in 720p or 1080i? In other developed nations programming is in 1080p and occasionally in 4k!
Get Sharp Aquos Quatrum panel 😅! They r made in Japan . They upscale 2X native . N 10 yr ago I was watching HD stream in 2K all d time! When ppl were doing 4k Tv getting 720p experience! Yeah I was doing 2K they were doing 720-HD . But those r SHARP flagship panels usually $200-300 more pricy than Sony Flagship ! Those r WORTH it ! Like they r lunching SHARP Aquos XLED this year for d -- 1st time in 8 yrs in USA . Maybe next a few yrs they might bring back AQUOS Quattrun panels back . They r future prove for 8-10 yrs .
If we are even going to have discussions about what resolution is important in terms of motion pictures, we need to talk about the lack of motion resolution on Sample and hold displays. Sttandard LCD and even OLED displays can only resolve about 300 lines in motion unless black frame insertion is employed, which will bump the resolution in motion up to 800 lines. Your TV has to artificially interpolate fake frames just to get to 1080 lines in motion on any Modern Display. So even the signal that they are sending during the Superbowl, your television cannot resolve without help from internal motion processing. We need impulse driven displays like CRTs to be able to see 1920 x 1080 pixels per second in motion. Micro-led provided that it is driven the right way is the only modern technology that will be able to reproduce 1080p in motion without artificial frames, or black frame insertion. This video bringing up that the bandwidth and cash required to transmit 4K for the Super Bowl illustrates fully that we need better TVs that operate differently from today's flat panels and instead act like our older analog CRT sets.
Thank you for this! I will say that in my area, with my provider (Xfinity), I watched five or six college games in 4K last season. College football seems to be ahead of the NFL on this.
Y’all remember when we made the slow transition to 720/1080p television back in 2007ish? I remember I was amazed how incredible the picture looked when watching the news and shit 😂😂
Weren't there similar issues when it came to upgrading from standard definition to HD? (When HD sports first started becoming common,) I thought many HD broadcasts or SD channels of a game being shown in HD looked worse because they had digital compression and punched up colors that looked fake compared to say ESPN in the 90s. I've seen 90s games that look less over exposed than newer ones.
Interesting video. You just answered a question I was trying to find an answer for. I got BeIn sport decider with on 4K sport channel. Compared to the HD channels the same sport event looks way more better to my eyes in HD than 4K! The 4K looks sharper yes but also strangely desaturated and dull compared to the HD counterpart.
The other day I went and tried to order a 4K Blu-ray of ANY type of major sporting event. Not even ONE was available for purchase - anywhere, in ANY type of sport. You would think that those producing those big sporting events would at least be willing and able to sell 4K DVD's of their events to fans after the fact now in 2023...and you would be wrong.
@@enadegheeghaghe6369 Did YOU even watch the video? They clearly said that ALL of the content is frequently UPCONVERTED to 4K after the fact. All of which can easily be put onto a 4K Blu-ray.
So right after the Super Bowl tonight I went to the NFL Shop site and, just exactly as anticipated, STILL no 4K disc of the game available for purchase. Still only standard 1080p Blu-rays can be bought. Is this EVER going to change? Will ANY sporting event of ANY kind ever be available to be purchased on 4K Blu-ray?
I totally agree about the compression rate! If you have seen good not much compressed 720P or even 1080P, you will know that it is better than a much compressed 4K video.
Cost of camera's is about the only thing that's really an issue here. How do you think datacentres run? A cheap single fibre optic cable per camera can easily carry WAY more bandwidth than even 8K produces. They get connected to switches which can feed the consoles. You don't need extra cables, just fibre in the first place. Also if you want twice the power of a server from say 5 years ago, you don't have to generate twice the heat. Chips have shrunk, they are more power efficient. My phone can process 4K HDR. These tasks are generally offloaded to dedicated chips anyway which handle multiple streams. If you needed 10 servers 5 years ago you can almost certainly do the same workload these days with 3 or 4 servers which at worst would produce the same heat as the original 10. Sure, local distributors may have issues, but that's on them. Cables from cameras and processing 4K really is not an excuse. F1 can do it for every race, and these days they don't even have on-site (at the race track) media production centres - it's bitstreamed to a central processing location thousands of miles away, directed, edited, produced and distributed to the relevant local distributor. Really isn't as hard as Fox are making out. This is just about bandwidth, and 4K is laughably small in comparison to even medium sized company network infrastructure. How do you think you can have 50 people in an office streaming 1080p or 4K at lunchtime over the company WiFi or 4G/5G? Yes, you need upgraded cameras. Yes, compression is horrendous from the traditional media companies and yes we should expect 60FPS and HDR. You can buy a XBOX Series X for $400 that spits out 4K, HDR, 120FPS and that's GENERATING the frames as well as processing. You're telling me Fox Sports and other's can't do the same as what 40 (I'm being VERY generous, could easily be 20) Xbox Series X / PS5's can do for a huge sports event? The heat output is too high? Pssshh - you've been fobbed off mate! Source: 23 years as technical infrastructure architect
I used to work for many broadcasting companies. Most of engineers don't know crap! The simple solution to stream in 4k was by upconverting the feed. Remember that resolution means nothing in TV and video, what is the most important is the definition. Those cameras has enough sensels (not pixels) to capture the luma values to deliver very detailed images. NO broadcast in the USA broadcast not even in 1080p. They all are in 1080i and 720p. ONLY online videos are in 4k and 8k. All these digital switchers you see can handle a ton of video feed, the problem is the producers and directors trying to add BS to the system.
Here’s one for you: I’m in Alberta with Telus Optik TV and I find their picture quality way better than Shaw cable. Is there a limitation with the distribution networks? Telus is FTTH where as Shaw is FTTN (node then coax to the house). I tried Shaw and couldn’t deal with the grainy image compared to the same channel on Telus. I assume it’s all to do with the codecs used. Any thoughts?
Having done recordings for games using uncompressed FRAPS, and then see how CZcams has to compress it down, I can definitely speak to how much uncompressed video looks fantastic
So So informative and cleanly delivered...you need a broadcast TV show. The reason I stopped by was because I watched 'the game LVII' yesterday and noticed a little 'something' messing up the clarity of the broadcast. I chalked it up to, even thou my Samsung is 4K, it must be an older 4K. Now I know why I was seeing this 'glitchy' image. It wasn't as clean as say a NEWS broadcast. I get my feed with an antenna and the picture is pretty damn good. Anyway, thanks.
Here in the U.K. we do get Premier League games and other big sports like F1 racing in 4K but that’s about it. There were some games in the recent World Cup that were also in HDR, which took things to the next level. However it’s still certainly not the norm here to get all sports broadcast in 4K.
12gSDI Is so common now, and has been for so long, these sports broadcasters are capable of broadcasting in 4K. It’s just not profitable for them. Buuut they can’t figure out why their industry isn’t seeing profits like they want. Hummm, I wonder why people aren’t paying up. Maybe because things like the cost of food is too damn expensive. Thanks Caleb, always enjoy your videos.
Depends on what you mean by common...there are many things in the chain that are not 12G capable. Including converters, monitors, routers, etc. Every. Single. piece of equipment MUST be upgraded.
Remember when HDTV was 'New'? It was 'The Thing' back then. (All in all that was NOT all that long ago either) I could not believe how 'Clear' the picture was. After growing up with snowy 480p (at best) and 3 channels (sometimes 4 channels). Now we have 4K with 8K on the horizon.
It’s kinda funny that F1 can do 4K HDR a sport that’s around $16bn yet American Football NFL franchise is around $8bn then each team averages a value of $4.5bn…. Not as if the money isn’t there.
I have been saying FOR YEARS that its crazy we watch sports at sub 30fps!?! Sports, after gaming should be the first entertainment offerings to jump on the higher frame rate hype train!! It would improve the viewing experience profoundly!! I would take 1080/60 over 4k/30(or 23.4) EVER day of the week!!
Thanks for the video Caleb. But my question is wasn't it the same when we went from 480p to 1080p? Meaning everyone had to adapt their software and hardware?
@@FHC1944 4k isn't a lot harder.our current bandwidth is exponentially much higher than it was in 98 when the NFL went hd .these companies have access to multi gigabits of data whereas back then they were on low dsl or dial up 😂
@@truthx7 It was really rare with hd in the 90s. It's going to take time before we get 4K on every live sports. It's more complex than we think and not so economical. Like Caleb said, it's better with an uncompressed 1080p than a compressed 4K. Just watch every streaming service. It's very compressed streams.
@@truthx7 No you're mistaking internet connection with broadcast infrastruture. It only at the end hits an internet connection. Even then a 1080p60fps stream is 3Gbps. I doubt you even have a 1Gbps download speed (1000Mbps) at your house.
@@FHC1944 Yep. Additionally, many companies just invested in HD infrastructure a few years ago, meanwhile SD was around for 20 -25 years. So the cost of moving all equipment (especially since 4K is bleeding edge) is astronomical. Many TV stations waited for the price of HD to come down and rode out their SD equipment for as long as possible.
F1 has been in 4k for years and it generally looks fantastic. Onboard footage isn’t in 4k yet due to wireless broadcast limits but they are working on a solution.
There is one drawback to 4K which you didn't mention. When you have sports like tennis, where the camera work features many close-up shots, those shots have to be exceptionally well-focused, or it really stands out that they aren't as sharp as they should be. 4K sports have been common in Europe for a while, and whether it is true 4K or not, it is noticeably better than HD.
I'd be happy if channels like ESPN would finally jump to 1080! Watching baseball on this channel with a 65" screen or bigger is ABSOLUTELY noticeable when the broadcast is in 720.
The lossy encoding should be done in the camera. English premiere league 50 fps 4k hevc broadcast takes around 12 mbps. Cat6a 1 gbps Ethernet should be able to deliver effective 500 mbps. This should be more than enough to deliver low compressed 60fps 4k hevc
BBC iPlayer shows large sporting events (world cup, Wimbledon tennis, soccer finals) using HLG HDR. Its technology the BBC made with Japan's NHK network. It looks so good, but the delay is noticeable!
Conclusion: broadcasters IN THE USA are years behind in terms of upgrading their equipment because they are too cheap (or too greedy) to spend money, but they really quick when it comes to increasing prices for their services.
Two issues I'm surprised you didn't mention was camera focus or home/on demand media. Even with a perfect 4k setup, trying to adjust the focus and exposure on the fly, will make the benefits harder to get. Because you dont get to plan the shots out in advance, a more detailed picture won't always show up when and where you want it. I thought the winning TD from the Bill @ Chiefs 2022 ot playoff game looked better on espn highlights than it did on the CBS broadcast. CBS broadcasts in 1080i while ESPN is 720p. On the touchdown, I dont want to see the crowd in as sharp of a focus as Kelce making the catch. Again, movies take time to compose shots so the important part stands out, while sports usually try to keep everything in focus so more shots are usuable. In this case I think the lower definition on ESPN from that clip created the appearance of a shallower depth of field, which drew the viewers eye more to the action on field. So more resolution simply added may not make it look better. Just like a really punchy HDR with no super bright or super dark areas might not look better overall. The other real benefit of 4k is best observed with little to no compression. You would want a 4k bluray to fully appreciate it. But very few people like watching sports broadcasts again or after they concluded. So it cant really make money with on demand streaming or syndication reruns. And as you said, live sports is one of the most complicated and expensive content to hit television. (I never would have thought that as a kid, it seemed like less work because theres no script, editing or multiple takes needed. All you seemingly had to do was show up and point a camera at the field of play, I did that countless times myself with a video camera.)
Exactly, I think it probably comes down to physical limitations like focus rather than cabling or other temporary factors with the back-end. They probably DO already use many 4K and higher cameras, and then zoom in to a portion of the shot. If they wanted these in 4K, they'd need really high resolution cameras (16K?) and phenomenal focusing. Plus you then run into light issues so need a larger sensor and perhaps lenses.
@blargg indeed the skycam is often advertised as being 4k. This just means it can magnify the image more before digitally zooming past 100% scale. Though i often don't like the skycam shots. Too jerky and often would never be considered acceptable tracking or dolly shots for a movie.
Apart from streaming services, there’s very little 4K content here in the uk. SKY tv, the main satellite tv company here doesn’t even have a single 4K only channel.
I'm gonna argue that they don't need 4k(+) cameras for 4k broadcasting, but they need the extra resolution for cropping in replays, in post, etc. You can crop into 4k footage by 200 % and into 8k footage by 400 %, and you still get Full HD footage. You can also use AI to automatically crop towards the ball. That should work especially fine for shots with high overview and deep depth of field.
An uncompressed HDR 1080p in 60fps looks just as good! And anyway, like it's been said, we're not there yet. An upscaled compressed 4K looks ass anyway!
Apple's MLS subscription looks fantastic on my calibrated LG OLED. It's 1080P, but they seem to be streaming a very high quality signal with no bit-stuffing artifacts. The color is fantastic and on a properly calibrated TV, looks very tonally balanced and clean. No blown out highlights, good shadow detail, and punchy but not unrealistic colors are a genuine feat considering what a low CRI most stadium lights produce.
All the sports I watch in Toronto (when the game is at home) is all broadcast in 4k. Baseball, basketball, football, soccer, hockey). Even the channels that broadcast the 4k content, when showing other 1080p content just looks a bit better due to bitrate
You don’t need 4 cables, just one with higher bandwidth. Cable bandwidth has been increasing over time. It’s the same story from when they went SD to HD. I do agree that the ‘HD’ artifacts look terrible in current broadcasts. I have been impressed by CZcams TV + Fox 4K broadcasts.
Like of sight 5G can also deliver 4K wirelessly and without loss.
Yes and no. It depends on the video equipment and the specification. For example, some production switchers are possible to take a quad link (12G) signal over a single piece of copper. However, unless the production trucks are running the latest and greatest (spoiler alert, they're not), they are only capable of single link (3G) cables.
Just stick to watching CNN. They run off the back of the DoD's bandwidth - which is limitless. Your tax dollars at work ...
@@taylorbroad8941 time for fiber optic
@@HaloHamsturlive event video engineer here, and fun fact, they ARE using fiber optic cable for cameras. There's a cable called TRIAX that is a dual direction and power supplying cable for connecting cameras to the image processing rack unit, also known as a CCU.
The TRIAX cable is capable of being somewhere around 2500 feet long, whereas a copper based SDI cable can only be reliably used up to 350 feet, and that's with the good stuff(there are some differences depending on lower resolutions being used on higher bandwidth capable cable).
I feel like a lot of the cabling issues for broadcasters could be handled by the stadium, at least in modern newly-built stadiums. It wouldn't be that difficult to run a bunch of fiber optic cabling from the stadium to those broadcast truck areas while the stadium is being built. The challenge then would be upgrading the equipment and also weather-proofing the connection points. Underground maintenance tunnels could carry the majority of this cabling.
Isn’t it already done that way at a lot of stadiums? Some may still have the old triax cables.
Not just 4K but at least Pre-Wire the Stadiums with 8K (or 16K?) cabling.
With Power Back-Ups to boot.
Now that would be impressive.
@@OldDood lol do you know the cost of that SMPTE fiber cable? One cable to one camera in a regular size studio? $2k. You’re talking miles of cable. I’m not sure what this imaginary 16k standard is, or which existing cables would support that for the non existent cameras and switchers.
Why does the stadium care? They don’t.
@@alexs3187 SMPTE Fiber is only $2 a foot. A lot of these issues is that these companies are cheap. It's like internet providers. They have been using fiber optics on the back end since the 1990s. Instead of future proofing and saving money they just deal with what's cheap.
I assume these were all issues when we upgraded to HD. They solved those issues, they can solve the 4K issues.
Not really. They're not trying to solve the same problem, so there is no guarantee they will find a solution. Just because tire makers made a road tire that can do 200MPH, doesn't mean they'll be able to make one do 300MPH that anyone can afford to use.
As a Boston sports fan, I have to say that the NESN 4K HDR feed is the best I’ve ever seen sports. I feel genuinely grateful every time I watch a Bruins home game that they seem to have actually ponied up the money to do it right, however that may be.
I recently watched the Super Bowl in 4K HDR and it was so much worse than the NESN broadcasts. There were artifacts around the fast moving plays, it just didn’t pop. Before I watched this video I would have said that the Super Bowl was upscaled 4K, and the NESN home broadcasts for the Bruins are genuine 4K HDR. But now I’m thinking it’s exactly what you theorize would be the gold standard: ultra high bit rate upscaled at 60 frames per second in HDR. I’d love to read an article about how NESN accomplished it.
Are you using cable or internet tv? If you're on IPTV I would be interested in what your live feed delay is. Delays are already such a huge problem with live 720P feeds.
I find my stream is sometimes extremely laggy with 4K Bruins games. Very frustrating.
If NESN is doing what they do for baseball then only one replay machine is 4K, the others are upconverted.
That would be nice to try and watch a Bruins game in 4k HDR. I have get Wings and Jackets on local Bally channels that look good(I'm a Wings fan). When I try to watch a Leafs game on CBC it looks like it is in 360p in 4:3 format, it makes me wonder if Canada even has HD at all yet. (yes I know they do). All the games are on Spectrum, doubtful anything is in 4k.
I also live in Boston and yeah, NESN 4K HDR looks great! If NESN can do it, why can’t other channels do it?
I would also simply take 1080p streaming - when I have to watch a badly compressed 720p feed through cable (which it seems a lot of broadcasts still are!), I always think broadcasters could do so much better.
Amen!
Why, in 2023 does the four leading broadcasters in the USA STILL transmit their programming in 720p or 1080i? In other developed nations programming is in 1080p and occasionally in 4k!
@@damianhaber4890 The average American viewer is much more concerned about quantity and could care less about quality. Remember what started the Beta vs VHS war, and why Beta lost?720 more than satisfies most, even after they see a proper 4K presentation
Plug an antenna into a TV and watch uncompressed OTA. I can't stand sports feeds over cable.
@@martinb7554 As a motorsports and Baseball fan, sadly I must watch via garbage cable. Baseball has not been on OTA in my area since 2018, and the cable companies charge 20 Small extra to watch it
A lot of the cable weight concerns could be allayed with fiber, even accounting for the bend radius restrictions. Also there are high speed proprietary wireless protocols combined with maybe a minute delay to absorb hiccups that would fix those issues at the broadcast point. Transmission through the broader network is the real issue.
Not really they can use fibre optic cable I’ve been using it on tv for years
The real bottleneck in delivering 4k to households is over the air bandwidth. Having the ATSC 2.0 standard alongside ATSC 3.0 standard means the over the air broadcasters don't have enough bandwidth to run a 4K signal. Get rid of ATSC 2.0 and every major network would be broadcasting in 4K right now.
@@fritzkabeano1969 No such thing as ATSC 2.0. And the issue with a few channels sending 4k OTA isn't about the amount of bandwidth, it is that they have no content that is produced in 4k and, as this video partially highlighted, they don't have the infrastructure to support true 4k end to end. Now if they all had sources and wanted to send higher bandwidth 4k, it would be a problem for many.
@@curtisbme I meant ATSC 1.0
and if they could broadcast 4K there'd be content overnight. As for end to end "true" 4K there's enough fiber bandwidth to get it to the transmitters in major metro areas. It's OTA bandwidth that's preventing it from happening.
Superbowl was in 720p 😂
I find it very misleading calling upconverted 1080p 4K. It’s not 4K.
in the UK BT sports shows a couple of games a week in native 4K HDR and it looks amazing , nothing beats 4K HDR at 50FPS when it comes to sports.
Thank you for covering this topic! It’s something I’ve long wondered about. I hope to always have my bad news delivered by Caleb, he somehow makes me enjoy hearing it.
There are newer standards for cable modulation since 1080 broadcast became common for more bandwidth on the same cabling. Processing power and graphics processing has definitely improved more than 4x. They just don’t want to.
Those shots you have of the miles and miles of cables running into those production trucks really puts this thing into true perspective. Thanks for the educational video
The incredibly slow move from making 4k the default resolution versus 1080p, which hasn't been achieved yet, just makes me laugh when I see 8k TVs. If moving from 1080p to 4k is this hard, you can look forward to a lot of 8K content in about 25 years.
But also, the increase in resolution keeps providing diminishing returns. Every jump is more difficult to notice the difference at normal screen sizes.
The only reason to get an 8k TV today, and for many years into the future, is to be able to tell people that you have a fancy shmancy 8k TV.
4K TV sports channels should be standard today.
Considering even 1080p is not a complete standard, that's not happening anytime soon.
@@nathanmerritt1581but they marketing 8k TVs 😂😂 🔥🔥💰💰💰
@@gaurd3 yeah yeah good luck actually seeing content for that anytime soon!
Did you watch the video… ?
Did you even watch the video? Your comment is embarrassing
In Canada, all of the major professional teams (NBA, NHL, MLB, CFL) have had most of their home games broadcast in 4K for years now (exception was during 2020-2021 during the pandemic where it was mainly HD). Pretty sure Europe has 4K HDR broadcasts going for soccer, Wimbledon, etc
Yup, this is a bullshit video. USA is just cheap as fuck and they paid him to make this POS.
I totally agree - high quality 1080p is enough except for the wide shot. And this is what I don't understand. Close-ups of sports at 1080p look amazing even compressed - there's more detail than we need. But the wide shot of the play being 1080p is the stupidest thing ever. If it's just 1 camera and we're talking Bernabeu or Camp Nou, that thing needs to be at least 4k (or 16k) and then downsample the image to 1080p. It's like the PS5 rendering at 4k and then displaying a 1080p image, it's going to look much than native 1080p rendering.
When I watch soccer, it's near impossible to read the jerseys and see in full clarity the extremities of the players. I'm pretty sure that if that was shot in native 4k converted to 1080p it would look very smooth. Reality creation improves it but not enough. I understand small teams sticking with 1080p but the wide shot at any big sport arena should be 4k.
It's hard to even get true 1080p 60fps in most sport broadcasts let alone true 4k60
Thank you for the video. I've always wondered why it's been taking so long to get here. I even thought of starting my 4K sports streaming service for a. But know I understand why lol
Weren't the Olympics shot with 8K cameras and broadcast in 4K? My TV (Sony 930D) delivers near 4k like images on anything live, especially sports or anything shot outdoors. Still want more quality, though
Nope. Most it's just upconverted.
@@ians.4284 Huh?
I did find this informative and fun to watch and I think I may even share it on social media.. I like videos that teach things.. :)
Great video and explanation thanks! Unfotunately in Canada we can only watch football/soccer through streamers like DAZN and Fubo TV which both boradcast at 720p, at least at 50fps. The high compression isn't great though and feel they could at least do 1080p as they are broadcast in 4K in Europe
Somehow they worked it out for the World Cup...all 64 matches. World Cup > Superbowl.🤷♂
So interesting and so well explained, thank you
A while back, Prime Video did Premier League football (soccer) in 4K, and the ball motion was a jerky mess. I totally agree that 60fps high-bitrate 1080p is better for sport. The other thing is making sure the motion of the ball is clearly visible and not 'optimised away' by the compression. While squash is not that popular as a TV sport, it is a good example where high fps and bitrate means you can see the ball, but high compression tends to erase the ball when it's moving quickly.
The greatest misunderstanding is what the definition of resolution is. I worked in high resolution radar mapping, so I know what that means. In reality one needs to remove the idea that resolution is digital and related to pixel size, although pixel size or sampling has to be fine enough to represent the bandwidth in the signal. Each pixel or point has a continuous response much larger than the pixel. If two identical amplitude points are separated by a distance just large enough so that a sufficient depth or gap is produced then that distance should be referred to as resolution. If the requirement is High Dynamic Range (HDR), then the gap has to be deeper than SDR. Subjective testing a long time ago found that 1080p HDR image was better than 4K. This issue with 4K HDR is that it takes more bits per pixel to represent and the gap needs to be deep. Netflix UHD (Dolby Vision is better but still has quantization noise filling the gaps) doesn’t subjectively look as good as 1080 P bluray video with lower compression.
One answer for the Fox production case, would be to get rid of the cables for all of those cameras and use a wireless network that supports the capacity for those channels. Also, couldn’t each camera be given an inexpensive processor to convert its video and audio to uncompressed 1080P HDR, until it’s feasible to handle 4K HDR. The processor could also do Dolby vision encoding. Seems that the expensive part should be the camera’s with their sensors, not the processing which shouldn’t be more than 80 iPhones could do.
What wireless network do you suggest that also allows for four return video feeds to the camera op, two channels of intercom, teleprompter video to the camera head from the camera control unit (CCU), ability of the video engineer to paint or adjust camera color?
During Obama’s first inauguration a producer wanted to use wireless technology, USSS reserves the right to jam any wireless frequency they see fit. We had to have wired backups in case they jammed stuff. Didn’t happen at his inauguration but it did happen when he was at a sporting event.
DirecTV has been airing 4K sports for more than five years now. They've done extensive Masters broadcasts since 2016, Pac-12 late-night football, Dodgers baseball, Nuggets basketball, MLB Network games. College Football Playoff. they also aired Olympic coverage in each of the last Summer and Winter Games. Broadcasts are available. Better to light a single candle than to curse th darkness ...
The world cup 4k Livestream was stunning to me and I don't even like or normally watch soccer. It's really pathetic that we don't have 4k sports in the US but many other countries do. Even Canada is doing 4k baseball and basketball and hockey. I don't care if they go down from 80 cameras to just 20, the picture quality is worth it and it has to be done. Most people have 4k tvs and no 4k content, it's ridiculous and embarrassing for the United States.
High Frame Rates (HFR) would be huge for Sports. NHL and ball tracking in golf would be so much better to watch. I also think Golf in 3D would be cool.
I would love 3D MLB games.
@@PSYCHOV3N0M3d was tried, once Sony stopped paying the bill, the 3d went away.
NBA Finals in 3D in 2011 was pretty great
give me NHL at 120hz, 4k native, HDR. Id die a happy man.
@@dumbcow1 Even uncompressed 1080p would be a huge upgrade with higher frame rates
Fantastic timing video for me although as I found out reality is actually a little worse than what is described here: was at my in-laws for the semi-final Superbowl and was puzzled (assuming it was all 4K) how side field reports looked so soft (like a real bad up-converting) on their 85in TV compared to the actual game broadcasting. Now I know better what was really going on behind the scenes.
We've had 4k for a long time. I would have thought we'd be farther along by now.
Well done,explained , didn't know the details. Keep up the good work.!!
I think HDR is more important. I’d take 1080p with HDR than just 4K any day.
60fps would nice too
I just want better than 5mbps 1080p… TSN PLEASE
Great Topic and Great Video! Thank you!
Thanks a good explanation .Our broadcast TV is still mainly 1080i / 25 fps interlaced . Plus with many "sub channels" the bit rate is low.
HDR 1080p signals would be fine for sports, like you said. Every single TV manufacturer needs to perfect motion processing (no soap opera effect, I hate that) on every TV.
No motion processing, it's garbage. Just transmit 60 FPS when needed
The upscaled 4K that FOX provides is significantly better than the standard broadcasts and streams from other networks. Sure, I would love native 4K HDR 60fps for sports at high bitrates. However, what FOX is doing is a great stop gap solution until the infrastructure catches up for native 4k.
Where are the comparisons on upscaled NFL 4k that we can say significantly better.i bet over the air hd will stomp the upscaled fake 4k the NFL is pushing
I work for Verizon FiOS TV. We had the Olympics in 4K and we were getting pissed off calls from NBC executives watching at home saying the 4k channels had issues. Of course Verizon executives started freaking out. We discovered in pretty much every case, the NBC executives were using shitty HDMI cables that couldn't handle the 4K.
Gees I forgot what an amazing job you've done with your weight when you showed the clip from years agp. Congrats old Twitter friend.
There is a major noticeable difference between native 4K and fox sports 1080p up conversion. I’ve watched a couple MLB broadcasts in native and they look incredible. We’ve had 720p sports now since 2006. It’s time to move on.
Here in Canada we do have Sportsnet and TSN in 4K broadcasted for IPTV providers... however actual 4K broadcasts on these channels are indeed limited; basically to only a few teams home games... mostly those in the Toronto market (BlueJays all 81 home games, Maple Leafs and Raptors) among a few others... but when they're on a road or at one of these venues they haven't setup for 4K broadcasts, back to the usual 1080i (or 720p). It's too bad they're unable to bring in the Sky Sports F1 4K feed for F1 broadcasts.
Always have been curious about why sport-streams look so bad. Thank you for answering! May the time of good looking sport-streams come sooner than later.
Why, in 2023 does the four leading broadcasters in the USA STILL transmit their programming in 720p or 1080i? In other developed nations programming is in 1080p and occasionally in 4k!
Get Sharp Aquos Quatrum panel 😅! They r made in Japan . They upscale 2X native . N 10 yr ago I was watching HD stream in 2K all d time! When ppl were doing 4k Tv getting 720p experience! Yeah I was doing 2K they were doing 720-HD . But those r SHARP flagship panels usually $200-300 more pricy than Sony Flagship ! Those r WORTH it ! Like they r lunching SHARP Aquos XLED this year for d -- 1st time in 8 yrs in USA . Maybe next a few yrs they might bring back AQUOS Quattrun panels back . They r future prove for 8-10 yrs .
We struggled for the better part of a decade with basic 1080p. Do you honestly believe 4K sports will be a thing any time soon if ever?...
If we are even going to have discussions about what resolution is important in terms of motion pictures, we need to talk about the lack of motion resolution on Sample and hold displays.
Sttandard LCD and even OLED displays can only resolve about 300 lines in motion unless black frame insertion is employed, which will bump the resolution in motion up to 800 lines. Your TV has to artificially interpolate fake frames just to get to 1080 lines in motion on any Modern Display.
So even the signal that they are sending during the Superbowl, your television cannot resolve without help from internal motion processing.
We need impulse driven displays like CRTs to be able to see 1920 x 1080 pixels per second in motion.
Micro-led provided that it is driven the right way is the only modern technology that will be able to reproduce 1080p in motion without artificial frames, or black frame insertion.
This video bringing up that the bandwidth and cash required to transmit 4K for the Super Bowl illustrates fully that we need better TVs that operate differently from today's flat panels and instead act like our older analog CRT sets.
Thank you for this! I will say that in my area, with my provider (Xfinity), I watched five or six college games in 4K last season. College football seems to be ahead of the NFL on this.
Y’all remember when we made the slow transition to 720/1080p television back in 2007ish? I remember I was amazed how incredible the picture looked when watching the news and shit 😂😂
Weren't there similar issues when it came to upgrading from standard definition to HD? (When HD sports first started becoming common,) I thought many HD broadcasts or SD channels of a game being shown in HD looked worse because they had digital compression and punched up colors that looked fake compared to say ESPN in the 90s.
I've seen 90s games that look less over exposed than newer ones.
Some of them Consider HD but it's 1080i. Some announce 1080p but lower the bitrate and the image fluctuates between 480p and 1080p .
Even why not 8k streaming !!
8K Ultra HD Blu ray disc it should be exclusive to physical media 8K
I have always wanted to know this and well you have now answered it lol. Thank you so much for doing this vid
Really great video! Thanks
Well, I’ve always wondered but now I know! Thanks!
PLEASE DON’T PUMP FAKE HDR, JUST STAY ON STANDARD DYNAMIC RANGE… PLEASE!!
Interesting video. You just answered a question I was trying to find an answer for. I got BeIn sport decider with on 4K sport channel. Compared to the HD channels the same sport event looks way more better to my eyes in HD than 4K! The 4K looks sharper yes but also strangely desaturated and dull compared to the HD counterpart.
The other day I went and tried to order a 4K Blu-ray of ANY type of major sporting event. Not even ONE was available for purchase - anywhere, in ANY type of sport. You would think that those producing those big sporting events would at least be willing and able to sell 4K DVD's of their events to fans after the fact now in 2023...and you would be wrong.
They just want control over things. Makes no sense honestly
Did you even watch the video? Many of the cameras are not 4k
@@enadegheeghaghe6369 Did YOU even watch the video? They clearly said that ALL of the content is frequently UPCONVERTED to 4K after the fact. All of which can easily be put onto a 4K Blu-ray.
So right after the Super Bowl tonight I went to the NFL Shop site and, just exactly as anticipated, STILL no 4K disc of the game available for purchase. Still only standard 1080p Blu-rays can be bought. Is this EVER going to change? Will ANY sporting event of ANY kind ever be available to be purchased on 4K Blu-ray?
High frame rates are more important for sports than high definition. 60hz refresh just isn't good enough when a ball is flying through the air.
I totally agree about the compression rate!
If you have seen good not much compressed 720P or even 1080P, you will know that it is better than a much compressed 4K video.
Great explainer thanks.
Cost of camera's is about the only thing that's really an issue here. How do you think datacentres run? A cheap single fibre optic cable per camera can easily carry WAY more bandwidth than even 8K produces. They get connected to switches which can feed the consoles. You don't need extra cables, just fibre in the first place.
Also if you want twice the power of a server from say 5 years ago, you don't have to generate twice the heat. Chips have shrunk, they are more power efficient. My phone can process 4K HDR. These tasks are generally offloaded to dedicated chips anyway which handle multiple streams. If you needed 10 servers 5 years ago you can almost certainly do the same workload these days with 3 or 4 servers which at worst would produce the same heat as the original 10.
Sure, local distributors may have issues, but that's on them. Cables from cameras and processing 4K really is not an excuse. F1 can do it for every race, and these days they don't even have on-site (at the race track) media production centres - it's bitstreamed to a central processing location thousands of miles away, directed, edited, produced and distributed to the relevant local distributor. Really isn't as hard as Fox are making out.
This is just about bandwidth, and 4K is laughably small in comparison to even medium sized company network infrastructure. How do you think you can have 50 people in an office streaming 1080p or 4K at lunchtime over the company WiFi or 4G/5G?
Yes, you need upgraded cameras. Yes, compression is horrendous from the traditional media companies and yes we should expect 60FPS and HDR. You can buy a XBOX Series X for $400 that spits out 4K, HDR, 120FPS and that's GENERATING the frames as well as processing. You're telling me Fox Sports and other's can't do the same as what 40 (I'm being VERY generous, could easily be 20) Xbox Series X / PS5's can do for a huge sports event? The heat output is too high? Pssshh - you've been fobbed off mate!
Source: 23 years as technical infrastructure architect
Fantastic video. Thank you!
I used to work for many broadcasting companies. Most of engineers don't know crap! The simple solution to stream in 4k was by upconverting the feed. Remember that resolution means nothing in TV and video, what is the most important is the definition. Those cameras has enough sensels (not pixels) to capture the luma values to deliver very detailed images. NO broadcast in the USA broadcast not even in 1080p. They all are in 1080i and 720p. ONLY online videos are in 4k and 8k. All these digital switchers you see can handle a ton of video feed, the problem is the producers and directors trying to add BS to the system.
Here’s one for you: I’m in Alberta with Telus Optik TV and I find their picture quality way better than Shaw cable. Is there a limitation with the distribution networks? Telus is FTTH where as Shaw is FTTN (node then coax to the house). I tried Shaw and couldn’t deal with the grainy image compared to the same channel on Telus. I assume it’s all to do with the codecs used. Any thoughts?
Great video! Thanks Caleb. Will we be able to get 4K sports OTA on an antenna with ATSC 3.0?
Not enough bandwidth until the FCC sunsets ATSC 2.0
Did you watch the video? The broadcast companies havent upgraded their infasctructure, so the answer is no.
Having done recordings for games using uncompressed FRAPS, and then see how CZcams has to compress it down, I can definitely speak to how much uncompressed video looks fantastic
So So informative and cleanly delivered...you need a broadcast TV show. The reason I stopped by was because I watched 'the game LVII' yesterday and noticed a little 'something' messing up the clarity of the broadcast. I chalked it up to, even thou my Samsung is 4K, it must be an older 4K. Now I know why I was seeing this 'glitchy' image. It wasn't as clean as say a NEWS broadcast. I get my feed with an antenna and the picture is pretty damn good. Anyway, thanks.
Here in the U.K. we do get Premier League games and other big sports like F1 racing in 4K but that’s about it. There were some games in the recent World Cup that were also in HDR, which took things to the next level. However it’s still certainly not the norm here to get all sports broadcast in 4K.
Well Fox is still primarily 720p on sports even in 2023......
12gSDI Is so common now, and has been for so long, these sports broadcasters are capable of broadcasting in 4K. It’s just not profitable for them. Buuut they can’t figure out why their industry isn’t seeing profits like they want. Hummm, I wonder why people aren’t paying up. Maybe because things like the cost of food is too damn expensive. Thanks Caleb, always enjoy your videos.
Depends on what you mean by common...there are many things in the chain that are not 12G capable. Including converters, monitors, routers, etc. Every. Single. piece of equipment MUST be upgraded.
Remember when HDTV was 'New'?
It was 'The Thing' back then.
(All in all that was NOT all that long ago either)
I could not believe how 'Clear' the picture was.
After growing up with snowy 480p (at best) and 3 channels (sometimes 4 channels).
Now we have 4K with 8K on the horizon.
Great video. Do you recommend I purchase the option of buying the 4K CZcams ? If so, will I see a difference? Where do I buy it if you recommend it?
It’s kinda funny that F1 can do 4K HDR a sport that’s around $16bn yet American Football NFL franchise is around $8bn then each team averages a value of $4.5bn…. Not as if the money isn’t there.
I have been saying FOR YEARS that its crazy we watch sports at sub 30fps!?! Sports, after gaming should be the first entertainment offerings to jump on the higher frame rate hype train!! It would improve the viewing experience profoundly!! I would take 1080/60 over 4k/30(or 23.4) EVER day of the week!!
Thanks for the video Caleb. But my question is wasn't it the same when we went from 480p to 1080p? Meaning everyone had to adapt their software and hardware?
Maybe so, but it did take a lot of time before we got 720p on broadcasts and later on 1080p. 4K is a lot harder.
@@FHC1944 4k isn't a lot harder.our current bandwidth is exponentially much higher than it was in 98 when the NFL went hd .these companies have access to multi gigabits of data whereas back then they were on low dsl or dial up 😂
@@truthx7 It was really rare with hd in the 90s. It's going to take time before we get 4K on every live sports. It's more complex than we think and not so economical. Like Caleb said, it's better with an uncompressed 1080p than a compressed 4K. Just watch every streaming service. It's very compressed streams.
@@truthx7 No you're mistaking internet connection with broadcast infrastruture. It only at the end hits an internet connection. Even then a 1080p60fps stream is 3Gbps. I doubt you even have a 1Gbps download speed (1000Mbps) at your house.
@@FHC1944 Yep. Additionally, many companies just invested in HD infrastructure a few years ago, meanwhile SD was around for 20 -25 years. So the cost of moving all equipment (especially since 4K is bleeding edge) is astronomical. Many TV stations waited for the price of HD to come down and rode out their SD equipment for as long as possible.
Thank you for adding the chapter markers, that first 2 minutes was completely unnecessary for the video. Wish I could get that time back
F1 has been in 4k for years and it generally looks fantastic. Onboard footage isn’t in 4k yet due to wireless broadcast limits but they are working on a solution.
Premier League in the UK has been 4k for a couple of years now, so there's no excuse for American sports, where there's a lot more money involved.
It’s still upscaled 1080p just like “4k” sports here.
It's upscaled Fake 4K in the UK. Don't buy in the hype, it's not the real deal.
Formula 1 is also produced in 4k since 2018.
Thank you kales,very informative 👍👍👍
There is one drawback to 4K which you didn't mention. When you have sports like tennis, where the camera work features many close-up shots, those shots have to be exceptionally well-focused, or it really stands out that they aren't as sharp as they should be. 4K sports have been common in Europe for a while, and whether it is true 4K or not, it is noticeably better than HD.
I'd be happy if channels like ESPN would finally jump to 1080! Watching baseball on this channel with a 65" screen or bigger is ABSOLUTELY noticeable when the broadcast is in 720.
In Australia. Our pay TV provider Foxtel has sports in 4K. Huge difference.
Apple TV+ showed MLB games in 4K very well last year. Picture quality was amazing for it’s first year.
The lossy encoding should be done in the camera.
English premiere league 50 fps 4k hevc broadcast takes around 12 mbps.
Cat6a 1 gbps Ethernet should be able to deliver effective 500 mbps.
This should be more than enough to deliver low compressed 60fps 4k hevc
8K physical Sony and Blu ray disc Association by 2026 please 8K Blu ray disc or flash drive format.
maybe its different in gaming but jumping up from 60 fps to lets say 90 (or more) is very noticeable in how smooth and realistic things appear to move
Another perfect example of why “just because we can. Doesn’t mean we should”
I myself don’t even have a 4k tv. 1080p is more than enough
BBC iPlayer shows large sporting events (world cup, Wimbledon tennis, soccer finals) using HLG HDR. Its technology the BBC made with Japan's NHK network. It looks so good, but the delay is noticeable!
Thank you for the video! I think sports on my Sony 4K LED TV look phenomenal!
Conclusion: broadcasters IN THE USA are years behind in terms of upgrading their equipment because they are too cheap (or too greedy) to spend money, but they really quick when it comes to increasing prices for their services.
Exactly what it is!
With ESPN charging $80 for UFC Pay Per Views on top of a $10/month subscription. It should be in 4K Dolby Vision minimum.
Okay, then why couldn’t CZcams TV have a minimum 1080P resolution for the “Big Game”? The game and commercials looked horrendous on 720P!
Such an awesome video!
Watching the Cubbies play a game at Wrigley on a bright sunny day in 4K would be the ultimate viewing.
You forgot ATSC 3.0 it can handle 4K HDR over the air.
At least now I know it isn’t my setup that ruins the PQ 😂 Great video
Two issues I'm surprised you didn't mention was camera focus or home/on demand media.
Even with a perfect 4k setup, trying to adjust the focus and exposure on the fly, will make the benefits harder to get. Because you dont get to plan the shots out in advance, a more detailed picture won't always show up when and where you want it. I thought the winning TD from the Bill @ Chiefs 2022 ot playoff game looked better on espn highlights than it did on the CBS broadcast. CBS broadcasts in 1080i while ESPN is 720p. On the touchdown, I dont want to see the crowd in as sharp of a focus as Kelce making the catch. Again, movies take time to compose shots so the important part stands out, while sports usually try to keep everything in focus so more shots are usuable. In this case I think the lower definition on ESPN from that clip created the appearance of a shallower depth of field, which drew the viewers eye more to the action on field. So more resolution simply added may not make it look better. Just like a really punchy HDR with no super bright or super dark areas might not look better overall.
The other real benefit of 4k is best observed with little to no compression. You would want a 4k bluray to fully appreciate it. But very few people like watching sports broadcasts again or after they concluded.
So it cant really make money with on demand streaming or syndication reruns. And as you said, live sports is one of the most complicated and expensive content to hit television. (I never would have thought that as a kid, it seemed like less work because theres no script, editing or multiple takes needed. All you seemingly had to do was show up and point a camera at the field of play, I did that countless times myself with a video camera.)
Exactly, I think it probably comes down to physical limitations like focus rather than cabling or other temporary factors with the back-end. They probably DO already use many 4K and higher cameras, and then zoom in to a portion of the shot. If they wanted these in 4K, they'd need really high resolution cameras (16K?) and phenomenal focusing. Plus you then run into light issues so need a larger sensor and perhaps lenses.
@blargg indeed the skycam is often advertised as being 4k. This just means it can magnify the image more before digitally zooming past 100% scale.
Though i often don't like the skycam shots. Too jerky and often would never be considered acceptable tracking or dolly shots for a movie.
Apart from streaming services, there’s very little 4K content here in the uk. SKY tv, the main satellite tv company here doesn’t even have a single 4K only channel.
I'm gonna argue that they don't need 4k(+) cameras for 4k broadcasting, but they need the extra resolution for cropping in replays, in post, etc. You can crop into 4k footage by 200 % and into 8k footage by 400 %, and you still get Full HD footage. You can also use AI to automatically crop towards the ball. That should work especially fine for shots with high overview and deep depth of field.
Fox OTA is still 720p
I want 16k streaming.
Not till 2036
You'll need a huge ass screen to notice it.
@@stevebragg4256 100 inch minimum
Tell your alien friends with the advanced technology to hook you up lp
@@nathanmerritt1581 lol
Was just kidding.
An uncompressed HDR 1080p in 60fps looks just as good! And anyway, like it's been said, we're not there yet. An upscaled compressed 4K looks ass anyway!
Apple's MLS subscription looks fantastic on my calibrated LG OLED. It's 1080P, but they seem to be streaming a very high quality signal with no bit-stuffing artifacts. The color is fantastic and on a properly calibrated TV, looks very tonally balanced and clean. No blown out highlights, good shadow detail, and punchy but not unrealistic colors are a genuine feat considering what a low CRI most stadium lights produce.
All the sports I watch in Toronto (when the game is at home) is all broadcast in 4k. Baseball, basketball, football, soccer, hockey). Even the channels that broadcast the 4k content, when showing other 1080p content just looks a bit better due to bitrate