I have a FreeSat PVR (Humax) and a FireStick which give me Full HD content.
I've recently upgraded a TV to 4k (long story).
I can get 4K content over Ethernet direct to the TV.
The TV has a satellite decoder (so should show 4k content) and I have one
spare connection on the LNB but lack the will at the moment to run yet
another cable.

One option is to upgrade the PVR to a 4k model, but I'm wondering if I
will see a noticeable difference.
I am assuming the TV is already doing some upscaling.

TV is an LG 43UQ91006LA.

At the moment I am always using it as a monitor for the PVR because my
main use is to record then watch F1.

I haven't used the FireStick in a while, but a 4K version might make sense
assuming that it offers more functionality that the TV's inbuilt software.

Too many choices.

Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?

Cheers

Dave R

--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64

On 29/10/2023 14:24, David wrote:
> I have a FreeSat PVR (Humax) and a FireStick which give me Full HD content.
> I've recently upgraded a TV to 4k (long story).
> I can get 4K content over Ethernet direct to the TV.
> The TV has a satellite decoder (so should show 4k content) and I have one
> spare connection on the LNB but lack the will at the moment to run yet
> another cable.
>
> One option is to upgrade the PVR to a 4k model, but I'm wondering if I
> will see a noticeable difference.
> I am assuming the TV is already doing some upscaling.
>
> TV is an LG 43UQ91006LA.
>
> At the moment I am always using it as a monitor for the PVR because my
> main use is to record then watch F1.
>
> I haven't used the FireStick in a while, but a 4K version might make sense
> assuming that it offers more functionality that the TV's inbuilt software.
>
> Too many choices.
>
> Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
> Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
> decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave R
>
>
I had a 4K 49" TV several years ago simply because it is no longer
possible to buy a decent HD one. Unless you sit very close to your 43"
TV upgrading the PVR is pointless. However, a fanatic or two will
probably be along to tell you I have ignored the wonders of HDR.

On 29/10/2023 14:24, David wrote:

> Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
> Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
> decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?

Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?

I think it's only Sky who do a limited amount of UHD in 4K via
satellite, and subs only,

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:17:19 +0000, Mark Carver wrote:

> On 29/10/2023 14:24, David wrote:
>
>> Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
>> Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone
>> FreeSat decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?
>
> Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?
>
> I think it's only Sky who do a limited amount of UHD in 4K via
> satellite, and subs only,

I was just searching for that.
At the moment I cannot find any FreeSat UHD channels.
I know that Virgin has something, but was assuming that there would be
other channels.

If there aren't any 4k channels then upgrading the PVR doesn't look
sensible.

<https://www.richersounds.com/freesat-uhd-4x-1tb.html> seems pretty clear
that it can stream 4K but only records FHD from FreeSat.

Cheers

Dave R

--
AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64

Mark Carver wrote:

> Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?

astra/ses demo UHD channels, and the occasional BBC special event
streamed via red-button

On 29/10/2023 14:24, David wrote:

> Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
> Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
> decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?
>
>

the pvr will in all probability not receive 4k sat broadcasts nor record
them.
it will simply allow output from iplayer, netflix, amazon, disney app
etc when the show you're watching is 4k.
and chances are your new tv already has those apps anyway.

On 29/10/2023 16:30, Andy Burns wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?
>
> astra/ses demo UHD channels, and the occasional BBC special event
> streamed via red-button
>
The UHD demo channels closed a few weeks ago.

The only proper UHD broadcast content is Sky if you are a subscriber.
Otherwise its subscription streaming with a small amount on iPlayer plus
a variety of free stuff on Youtube, etc. I played with it when the TV
was new but otherwise can't be bothered.

On 29/10/2023 16:27, David wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 16:17:19 +0000, Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/2023 14:24, David wrote:
>>
>>> Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
>>> Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone
>>> FreeSat decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?
>>
>> Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?
>>
>> I think it's only Sky who do a limited amount of UHD in 4K via
>> satellite, and subs only,
>
> I was just searching for that.
> At the moment I cannot find any FreeSat UHD channels.
> I know that Virgin has something, but was assuming that there would be
> other channels.
>
> If there aren't any 4k channels then upgrading the PVR doesn't look
> sensible.
>
> <https://www.richersounds.com/freesat-uhd-4x-1tb.html> seems pretty clear
> that it can stream 4K but only records FHD from FreeSat.

If you ignore Freesat/freeview branded receivers/PVR you will soon not
find any new satellite models that are not 4K compatible. It much like
TVs where most new models are 4K or even 8K.

The latest in satellite receivers is multiple tuners (Full Band Capture)
and unicable LNBs.
For instance a unicable lnb can feed, say, 32 tuners, down a single drop
cable. These 32 tuners may be in 32 different receivers or each of the
receivers may have 8 or 16 tuners (or a combination of either).

The sky equivalent (but different) is a wideband LNB feeding 12 tuners
in a Sky Q box via two drop cables.

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 29/10/2023 15:20, MikeS wrote:
>>
>>
> I had a 4K 49" TV several years ago simply because it is no longer
> possible to buy a decent HD one. Unless you sit very close to your 43"
> TV upgrading the PVR is pointless. However, a fanatic or two will
> probably be along to tell you I have ignored the wonders of HDR.

I helped develop 4k TVs. The process taught me to look for all the
possible defects in broadcast TVs.

I wouldn't bother. I'm always being bothered by artefacts caused by
inadequate bitrate, but the improved resolution? Shrug.

Andy

On 29/10/2023 21:24, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 29/10/2023 15:20, MikeS wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> I had a 4K 49" TV several years ago simply because it is no longer
>> possible to buy a decent HD one. Unless you sit very close to your 43"
>> TV upgrading the PVR is pointless. However, a fanatic or two will
>> probably be along to tell you I have ignored the wonders of HDR.
>
> I helped develop 4k TVs. The process taught me to look for all the
> possible defects in broadcast TVs.
>
> I wouldn't bother. I'm always being bothered by artefacts caused by
> inadequate bitrate, but the improved resolution? Shrug.

But is 4k with an inadequate bit rate better than HD with an inadequate
bit rate? Is HD with an inadequate bit rate better than SD with an
inadequate bit rate?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sunday, 29 October 2023 at 16:30:52 UTC, Andy Burns wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>
> > Are there any 4k/UHD broadcasts available on Freesat ?
> astra/ses demo UHD channels, and the occasional BBC special event
> streamed via red-button

BBC shows world cup and some other events and they come via the internet not satellite. Sadly BBC 4K content suffers from a brightness/contrast problem.

There is quite a lot excellent free 4k content on YouTube, but whether a PVR could record this I doubt. In any event unless it is [only] live why bother?

4K on a 43" TV will be hard to benefit from. We have a 55" set. At 3.5m the benefit is obvious. At 7m+ one can't tell 4K from full HD.

I don't know, but a friend came around who can see and he put it onto an 8k
feed from youtube and he said it was amazing, even the writing on a distant
plane in the sky could be read. Its true the screen on the Samsung claims to
be 8k resolution, but what does that mean pixel wise?
Obviously lost on me, so why not make TVs modular. The receiver and
internet bit, an attachable choice of screens etc. I could then flog my
telly and buy just the receiver and it would be cheaper!

Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"David" <wibble@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kq787vF52m3U1@mid.individual.net...
>I have a FreeSat PVR (Humax) and a FireStick which give me Full HD content.
> I've recently upgraded a TV to 4k (long story).
> I can get 4K content over Ethernet direct to the TV.
> The TV has a satellite decoder (so should show 4k content) and I have one
> spare connection on the LNB but lack the will at the moment to run yet
> another cable.
>
> One option is to upgrade the PVR to a 4k model, but I'm wondering if I
> will see a noticeable difference.
> I am assuming the TV is already doing some upscaling.
>
> TV is an LG 43UQ91006LA.
>
> At the moment I am always using it as a monitor for the PVR because my
> main use is to record then watch F1.
>
> I haven't used the FireStick in a while, but a 4K version might make sense
> assuming that it offers more functionality that the TV's inbuilt software.
>
> Too many choices.
>
> Anyway, is it worth going to 4K and are PVRs relatively affordable?
> Noting the TV offers some PVR functionality so perhaps stand alone FreeSat
> decoders and PVRs are a thing of the past?
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave R
>
>
> --
> AMD FX-6300 in GA-990X-Gaming SLI-CF running Windows 10 x64

Brian Gaff wrote:

> a friend came around who can see and he put it onto an 8k feed from
> youtube and he said it was amazing [...] what does that
> mean pixel wise?

7680 by 4320

Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on here, ie
even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message
news:kq9rfbFnou1U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> a friend came around who can see and he put it onto an 8k feed from
>> youtube and he said it was amazing [...] what does that
>> mean pixel wise?
>
> 7680 by 4320

On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 14:10:50 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on here, ie
> even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.
> Brian
>

Yes a lot, however the visual effect is minimal despite this. MP4 is the most common.

The main compression is that large parts of the image change little from frame to frame.

If your bandwidth is low or the action is fast moving (e.g. live sports) then you may get image smearing, tearing or blurring.

SNIP

Brian Gaff wrote:

> Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on here, ie
> even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.

Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...

Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
without breaking a sweat.

On 31/10/2023 15:39, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> I bet some compression is being used.
>> Brian
>>
> Yes a lot, however the visual effect is minimal despite this. MP4 is the most common.

MP4 is a container format, not a compression scheme. There are multiple
possible codecs that an be used with MP4, although I doubt raw RGB is
one of them.

On 31/10/2023 19:51, Andy Burns wrote:
> Brian Gaff wrote:
>
>> Of course I do often wonder how much visual processing is going on
>> here, ie
>> even over the internet, I bet some compression is being used.
>
> Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
> obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...
>
> Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
> without breaking a sweat.

The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.

For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than off-air
HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling that VLC
uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way increases
the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing contrast of
edges. The other difference is one of motion representation: the 4K test
is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.

On 01/11/2023 13:42, NY wrote:

> The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
> broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
>
> For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
> played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than off-air
> HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling that VLC
> uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way increases
> the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing contrast of
> edges. The other difference is one of motion representation: the 4K test
> is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.

Let's not get sloppy with terminology

3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k

4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

On 31/10/2023 19:51, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
> obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...
>
> Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
> without breaking a sweat.

It would be interesting to know what bitrate those tests are done at. I
bet the 8k stuff has a higher bitrate as well as more pixels.

Andy

On 01/11/2023 17:44, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 31/10/2023 19:51, Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> Even on a 4K monitor, when watching 8K video from youtube, it is
>> obviously a higher quality source than 4K video ...
>>
>> Modern CPU with in-chip video processing handles the decode/downsize
>> without breaking a sweat.
>
> It would be interesting to know what bitrate those tests are done at. I
> bet the 8k stuff has a higher bitrate as well as more pixels.
>
> Andy

I've used the following HD video on YouTube with Stats for nerds
enabled, and a bit rate of up to 100 Mb/s is common.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXb3EKWsInQ

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwNWx1GTSKo

On 01/11/2023 14:47, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 01/11/2023 13:42, NY wrote:
>
>> The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
>> broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
>>
>> For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
>> played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than
>> off-air HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling
>> that VLC uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way
>> increases the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing
>> contrast of edges. The other difference is one of motion
>> representation: the 4K test is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.
>
> Let's not get sloppy with terminology
>
> 3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
>
> 4k resolution is 4096 × 2160

Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
and 4k that are so similar?

I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
"greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 23:31:28 UTC, NY wrote:
> On 01/11/2023 14:47, Mark Carver wrote:
> > On 01/11/2023 13:42, NY wrote:
> >
> >> The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
> >> broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
> >>
> >> For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
> >> played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than
> >> off-air HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling
> >> that VLC uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way
> >> increases the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing
> >> contrast of edges. The other difference is one of motion
> >> representation: the 4K test is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.
> >
> > Let's not get sloppy with terminology
> >
> > 3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
> >
> > 4k resolution is 4096 × 2160
> Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
> for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
> square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
> the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
> horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
> and 4k that are so similar?
>
> I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
> "greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
> standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
> 7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.

They are not, however I have never even seen a true 4K screen offered for sale and colloquially when people talk about 4k monitors or TV's they almost invariable mean 3840X2160.

For disc and memory capacity this works the other way round, when vendors describe something as MB, what you actually get is 1,048,576 bytes and for GB you get 7% more and for TB nearly 10%.

On 02/11/2023 12:15, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 23:31:28 UTC, NY wrote:
>> On 01/11/2023 14:47, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 01/11/2023 13:42, NY wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only 4K video that I've seen is the SES tests which used to be
>>>> broadcast on 12441V until that mux closed a few weeks ago.
>>>>
>>>> For some reason that I cannot fathom, that video looks sharper when
>>>> played in VLC on a PC that has a native 1920x1080 display, than
>>>> off-air HD video that is 1920x1080. I wonder whether the down-sampling
>>>> that VLC uses to display 3840x2160 on a 1920x1080 screen in some way
>>>> increases the subjective sharpness of the picture - maybe by enhancing
>>>> contrast of edges. The other difference is one of motion
>>>> representation: the 4K test is 50 fps rather than 25 fps.
>>>
>>> Let's not get sloppy with terminology
>>>
>>> 3840 x 2160 is UHD, and NOT 4k
>>>
>>> 4k resolution is 4096 × 2160
>> Is it now? I never knew that. I thought that 3840 was rounded up to 4000
>> for the "4k" standard. I've never heard of 4096x2160. Does it still have
>> square pixels (ie is the picture slightly wider - more like 17:9) or is
>> the picture still 16:9 but with a slightly closer pixel spacing in the
>> horizontal than vertical direction? How come there are two standards UHD
>> and 4k that are so similar?
>>
>> I'd assumed wrongly that "UHD" and "4k" were synonyms and that all the
>> "greater than HD" formats were integer multiples of the 1920x1080 HD
>> standard. And so I thought that "8k" was 4x HD in each direction ie
>> 7680x4320. I presume it's actually 8192x4320.
>
> They are not, however I have never even seen a true 4K screen offered for sale and colloquially when people talk about 4k monitors or TV's they almost invariable mean 3840X2160.
>

Marks probably has some :) But AIUI used for editing digital movies made
in 4096 x 2160 - eg

https://www.cclonline.com/z4y82a4-abu-hp-z31x-monitor-31-1-inch-4096-x-2160-4k-ultra-hd-ips-panel-black

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-ColorEdge-CG319X-31-Monitor/dp/B07C5HJ2WG

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin wrote:

> Marks probably has some 🙂 But AIUI used for editing digital movies made
> in 4096 x 2160  - eg
>
> https://www.cclonline.com/z4y82a4-abu-hp-z31x-monitor-31-1-inch-4096-x-2160-4k-ultra-hd-ips-panel-black
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Eizo-ColorEdge-CG319X-31-Monitor/dp/B07C5HJ2WG

I'm not going to look at the prices of those ...