HDTV Magazine
Welcome, Anonymous  •  Sign In  •  Register  •  Help
Receive instant notification of new columns: Register Now to receive notification of new HDTV Magazine Columns via email as soon as they are published.
Ed Milbourn
Ed's View - UHDTV - See It Soon?
by Ed Milbourn on March 29, 2010 Categories: 4K (Ultra HD), Broadcast

Hidden in the backwater of all the 3D hoopla at CES 2010 was the Panasonic 152" Viera Plasma 4K (4096 x 2160) display that has been showcased for the last couple of years. Arguably, the big Viera display was the most striking TV image at the show. There may have been other such Ultra High Definition TV (UHDTV) direct view displays at the LVCC complex this year, but I didn't see them. But NHD's idea of UHDTV promises to be even better!

From the start of serious HDTV research in the late 1970's, Japan's NHK has been "pushing the envelope" of ever increasing television picture resolution – not just related to displays, but on a system level – creation, transmission/distribution and display. Their early studies are essentially the foundation for our present day HDTV standards. Now NHK is moving their UHDTV system out of the labs to the field prototype level – and gaining increasingly world wide interest, having been demonstrated at several international technical venues over the past five years.

UHDTV (as defined by NHK et al) is essentially high definition high definition, i.e. it is to HDTV as HDTV is to SDTV. UHDTV is described as sixteen times the picture resolution as HDTV (4X vertical and 4X horizontal) for a total of 7680 X 4320 square pixels progressively displayed in a 16x9 aspect ratio at a 60Hz frame rate. The audio is specified up to 24 channels with a "theater" mix of front, rear, side and LFE feeds.

Now there is word from a consortium of UHDTV stakeholders of a unique UHDTV broadcast demonstration to be held in New York City sometime this coming fall. For one hour, four major network local affiliates will each simultaneously broadcast the same program material that will be produced in UHDTV. However, each of these stations will transmit only one-fourth of the picture resolution. At the program source, a special temporal "slicer and splitter" system will direct every fourth pixel stream to a separate broadcast facility for encoding and transmission. In this manner the existing broadcast infrastructure including MPEG2 encoding can be used with no changes. Thus the program will be fully compatible with existing ATSC HDTV receivers tuned to any one of the broadcast of cable channels carrying the program.

Each special UHDTV receiver used in the demonstration will have four separate tuners, each tuned to one of the respective transmitters (or cable channels or a combination of both). Special timing pulses generated by the source temporal splitter will enable the receivers' separate encoders to concatenate the individual decoded streams thus reproducing the full UHDTV display signal.

Other than to showcase UHDTV, this will be an interesting but academic exercise. Any deferential phase anomaly among or between separate transmission facilities will no doubt cause objectionable resolution change artifacts on the UHDTV displays. The total bandwidth devoured for the sake of compatibility is clearly unacceptable for any practical application. But the pictures should be breathtakingly beautiful! Suddenly it's 1984 again (or, perhaps, 1934).

Announcements are expected from the consortium regarding this unique UHDTV demo in special press releases on April 1. Stay tuned.

Ed

Posted by Ed Milbourn, March 29, 2010 8:38 AM

Reader Commentary

Reply
BobDiaz • Mar 29, 10:16am
I've seen the UHDTV demo at a past NAB show. OK, the high resolution is impressive, BUT at what cost? The first problem is bandwidth; there are so many pixels that even with MPEG-4 H.264 compression, the demo had to be 24P. So we gain a lot of pixels, but lose on the frame rate.

Another issue is "DOC-26935A1.pdf" do a search for it with Google. This plan from the FCC is pushing to drop the number of broadcast channels down to just 30. Remember there has to be at least one blank channel between each active channel, so at best an area might have 10 to 15 channels. How will they deal with the higher bit rate? It this going to be an option for only pay services?

Given the major upgrade costs that the TV stations have had to go through to upgrade to HDTV, I can see them willing to pay even more to upgrade again.

On the other hand, if this is just something for the digital cinema, well it might fly.... or not...



Bob Diaz...
Reply
akirby • Mar 29, 10:43am
Remember there has to be at least one blank channel between each active channel, so at best an area might have 10 to 15 channels.

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure we had WXIA in Atlanta using NTSC channel 11 and ATSC channel 10 simultaneously - for at least 8 years....
Reply
BobDiaz • Mar 29, 7:03pm
I was talking about digital channels.

Also, be careful, the number of the channel may not be the frequency of the channel.

See: http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=29


Bob Diaz...
Reply
akirby • Mar 30, 5:57am
These were physical channels, not virtual. WXIA channel 11 analog was on channel 11 and WXIA Digital 11-1 and 11-2 were broadcast on channel 10. I know it was channel 10 because it was the only VHF ATSC station in Atlanta and there were many conversations about how to pick it up with a CM4228 UHF antenna (it works BTW as long as you tie the grids together).

There is no difference in the physical reception - a VHF signal is a VHF signal whether it carries NTSC or ATSC. That's why 50 yr old antennas still work just fine.

Think about it - if you really couldn't do adjacent channels then why not just widen the bands and only have half the channels? Why have twice as many channels if you can only use half of them?...
Reply
BobDiaz • Mar 30, 9:18am
In the case of the Analog to Digital switchover, yes both Analog and Digital Channels were placed next to each other. In many cases, there just weren't enough open spaces to do both Analog and Digital TV with every other channel spacing. Because the two systems were very different, the risk of interference was reduced.

I want to point out that the every other channel rule is still going to be followed, because IF all 30 channels were being used by a major city, all surrounding cities would not be able to broadcast on ANY channel because they would be on the same frequency. This would be a a case of 100% interference.

Try to picture a checkerboard where the dark square represents the major city and the white squares around this major city are other broadcast areas. (Think of locations like LA, Riverside, Santa Barbara, and San Diego) too far to always receive the signal from the other city, but too close to avoid massive interference if they broadcast on the same frequenc...
Reply
akirby • Mar 30, 10:10am
That was a problem with NTSC but not with ATSC. With ATSC you can assign adjacent channels with no problems. e.g.

San Diego ch 18-19
San Francisco ch 38-39 and 29-30
Philadelphia ch 34-35

In some cases there are even 3 channels in a row if you add in a close surrounding city.

Doesn't look like every other channel to me, even in the same city....
Reply
BobDiaz • Apr 1, 11:46am
There's still the problem that if LA takes a channel, San Diego can't use the same frequency, because one WILL interfere with the other. LA can't take all 30 channels unless everywhere from Santa Barbara to San Diego has zero channels.

The number of digital channels (not sub-channels) within 30 miles of the LA area is 28. IF the number of TV channels is going to be reduced to just 30 (See FCC Document DOC-296935A1.pdf), how will we ever fit all of that AND the UDHD Signals too?

http://www.tvfool.com/?option=com_wrapp ... a353e356a3


Bob Diaz...
Reply
akirby • Apr 1, 1:17pm
You could always use SD multicasting and put 4 stations on one physical channel. I'm sure all 30 aren't doing full HD resolutions.

But I'm having a hard time figuring out how that many stations could survive in the first place....
Reply
BobDiaz • Apr 1, 2:59pm
According to my TV after doing a scan, there are a total of 80 digital sub-channels in the LA area. You are correct, the 28 digital stations aren't all doing HD. Going in order to the channel number on my TV:

2 - CBS is HD
4 - NBC is HD
5 - KTLA is HD
7 - ABC is HD
9 - KCAL is HD
11- FOX is HD
13 - KCOP is HD
22 - KWHY is HD
24 - KVCR (Riverside) is HD
28 - KCET PBS is HD
34 - KMEX is HD
50 - KOCE (Orange County) is HD
52 - KVEA is HD

That's 13 stations now doing HD and very likely in the future, others will upgrade to HD. The idea of pushing all TV channels to just 30 channels might work in less populated areas, but it just won't work in major cities like LA. Add to that Mobil-DTV and even UDHD and there's just no way to fit it all in.


Bob Diaz...
Reply
akirby • Apr 2, 6:10am
I still don't understand how any market can support that many TV stations. I guess it depends on what they do with the other channels as to whether it's a worthwhile endeavor. And who said UDHD had to be OTA?

I'm sure the FCC will take all of that into consideration before doing something that drastic....

More from Ed Milbourn

» - Currently Reading

More in Category: 4K (Ultra HD)

About Ed Milbourn

After graduating from Purdue University with degrees in Electrical Engineering and Industrial Education in 1961 and 1963 respectively, Ed Milbourn joined the RCA Home Entertainment Division in 1963. During his thirty-eight year career with RCA (later GE and Thomson multimedia), Mr. Milbourn held the positions of Field Service Engineer, Manager of Technical Training and Manager of Sales Training. In 1987, he joined Thomson's Product Management group as Manager of Advanced Television Systems Planning, with responsibilities including Digital Television and High Definition Television Product Management. Mr. Milbourn retired from Thomson multimedia in December 2001, and is now a Consumer Electronics Industry consultant.