When will we get UFC in 4K???

[Neck&Neck]

1080Pimping is all you really need
get that refresh rate up though

 

[deanambrose]

Watch Dan Ige fights... he is 50k

 

[PabloMEX]

I mean we are getting NFL games in 4K already. Not sure if that is 1080p upscaled tho.

 

[neandertal]

MMA in HDR would be dope though.

 

[AmonTobin]

I can’t wait for my streams to be 4K and 60fps. Need to have a word with my internet provider.

 

[Vairloff]

you're in the wrong place asking for this. Most people here watch UFC fights with ads for dick pills popping up over their 480p livestream from Mozambique.

Or mayby downloading next day in best resolution

 

[Vairloff]

i,m watching champions league in 4k do its not that hard

Being technical here :

Broadcast frame rate already is (*AFAIK) 60fps and at 1080p resolution. That's about as good as it will get for now DUE TO the extreme bandwidth required for streaming a 4K res over LIVE broadcast. Think about it....it's FOUR TIMES the number of pixels (spatial resolution) and even if they wanted to do it, there are probably encoder bitrate limits OR a max data bitrate limit that is transmissible and 4K at 60fps exceeds that, and it probably also exceeds ESPN's own limits that it has for it's sports. It's a huge amount of data and what will happen is dropped frames or constant buffering etc.
ESPN as far as i know broadcast action sports at 720/p60 for a long time and I'd guess now it does football and ice-hockey at 1080/p60.

"more frames would also be great". Well....more frames is a higher temporal resolution and that AGAIN is another massive leap in bitrate and bandwidth for the entire hardware/software/ chain that is capture/mix / encode/transmit / decode / video.

Also...they have multiple cams of course doing the shoot, probably 6 or 7 (cageside cams, high-angle jib crane cam, audience cams, B-roll cams, analyst cams, studio cams, all of whcih would also need to be have video encoded at 4K 60fps and associated hardware capable of doing that. All of which costs MONEY and is less reliable as it is pushing things too hard for a LIVE broadcast.
Cable TV will not support it, and it'll also be beyond too many routers / ISP limits or whatever. Any hardware could be upgraded to do it, but at the end of the day you NEED a 4K TV to watch it OR a computer monitor that is 4K resoluition and those still are not commonly used.
Waht is teh point of 4K if you cannot SEE it on a monitor that natively displays that res?
Yes new TV's are all 4K these days....but not EVERYONE is gonna buy a 4K TV (or PC monitor) instantly and most consumers certainly don't wanna pay even more money to watch cagefighters beat each other up.

Also...UK standard-def is 720 x 576 resolution which was not bad at all (USA and Canada) standard-def is 720 x 480.
1080p at 60fps is not stone-age and works very well.

Mo'resolution....mo' problems.

i,m watching champions league live in 4k so its not that hard

 

[Barteh]

Yes I am obviously fully aware of 4K on youtube etc etc, I use it myself but it'is NOT reliable. (See reasons further below).

nevertheless, very few CONSUMERS have 4K Tv's, GLOBALLY. Yes they're cheap in USA, but they're not cheap in the country i am currently in. If you ain't got a 4K TV or a 4K computer monitor there is no point having a 4K signal.
Having said that, the higher bitrate does show fewer compression artefacts on my 1080p TV. Downrezzing a 4K signal to 1080p will show some image benefits, this is has been well known in videography for a long-time.

"Premium cable packages offer Football/Soccer and F1 in 4k"
Yes jolly good and people are already PISSED OFF paying the ludicrous fees for a 1080p image, what are UFC gonna charge for a 4K signal ? US$120? US$130? It is self-defeating, because they'll spend the money on it and barely anyone will choose that option. Net financial loss for Zuffa LLC. Good work! (not).
Again, most countries and most consumers do NOT have infrastructure / cabling / fiber-optics or FAST-enough modems/routers to handle RELIABLY 4K signal. oh and what happens when your wife / sister / kids / whoever else in the house hops on your wifi and takes half the bandwidth? Did you think about that? No you fucking didnt.

"HFC connections can easily handle 100mb/s."
Remember USA is just 4.2% of global population bro. in other words 96% (to 1 d.p.) of people don't live in USA, and a high percentage of those don't have hi-end infrastructure and endless fiber-optic cables etc etc, Not every country /region / city has advanced high-bandwidth broadband cabling etc. I knopw you're prob American (its the arrogance) and like to think the entire world is like USA with equivalent cash-rich economy to throw on premium hi-end networking for their entire beloved population but....they don't.

Ethernet thing -- absolutely you'd want an ethernet cable, wifi is struggling to cope with these bitrates. Again, I have a nice fast net connection, about 80Mbps often, and usually it's 50Mbps and i STILL cannot reliably stream a 4K youtube video. It buffers. Connection ios shared with a couple of other people, but that is *normal* for most households and is a practical demonstration that 4K signals will buffer due to outside factors such as ISP bandwidth variability / oher end-users taking bandwidth in same house / building, etc.etc.

Again, you're being a bit of a smart-ass here using 1st world countries (USA / Canada / some Euro countries) as the "SURELY THE WHOLE WORLD IS LIKE THIS WITH THEIR NETORK INFRASTRUCTURE in 2023??!!?!?"
NO THEY ARE NOT!

and yes USA/Can are important markets but tiny fraction of the global population (4.6% the 2 countries combined).

Finally yes I started off on 56k dialup in the 1990s. Dell 450 desktop in 1998 at home and Compaq desktops (386/20e and 386/33 etc) gear at work since the late 1980s with HP Laserjet II for hard-copy stuff. Just saying that I've been around I.T. infrastructure for a long-ass time. First computer at home in 1982.

Halcyon days, in some ways.

It doesn't matter that USA and Canada have 4,6% of the global population. What matters to the UFC is that they have >90% of all paying PPV customers.

Which makes your entire rant about the third world having shit infrastructure completely irrelevant.

 

[Pechan]

Wtf? You think Zuffa is made of money?

 

[pick999]

funny my streams say 4K

 

[Spinkick KO]

It doesn't matter that USA and Canada have 4,6% of the global population. What matters to the UFC is that they have >90% of all paying PPV customers.

Which makes your entire rant about the third world having shit infrastructure completely irrelevant.

Dude has absolutely no idea what he's talking about regarding telco/networking or a/v tech.

His post was that embarrassing I would have felt bad cruelly mocking him so explained it nicely.

 

[spooNN]

I don't know WTF is going on with your Avatar.

But I spit coffee.

Like... Even if I don't know why.

Just a donkey smokin' the reefer. Nothing special.

 

[Barteh]

Dude has absolutely no idea what he's talking about regarding telco/networking or a/v tech.

His post was that embarrassing I would have felt bad cruelly mocking him so explained it nicely.

I just kept it short and simple but the dude was all over the place.

I could've mentioned the part where I live in the third world, I have an affordable 4k tv and the 300 mbit/s internet connection I'm paying 25 bucks a month for (includes tv as well) clocks in at 460 mbit's ON WIFI.

 

[rear naked ankle pick]

4k? Dude its only 2024, 4k is in 2k years lol

 

[GrantB13]

Right? I'm pretty sure they actually did this already. I swear I remember there being a 10 dollar up charge for a higher quality PPV.

$45 SD $55 HD when I started watching. I remember the realization when we got an HD TV and I ordered the SD to save money and it looked like shiiiit.

 

[markg171]

They use some 8K camera when they do the fighter introductions at the Apex and it looks so fucking weird.

Like to the point my eyes are telling me the picture isn't real.

 

[Spinkick KO]

I just kept it short and simple but the dude was all over the place.

I could've mentioned the part where I live in the third world, I have an affordable 4k tv and the 300 mbit/s internet connection I'm paying 25 bucks a month for (includes tv as well) clocks in at 460 mbit's ON WIFI.

Yeah you can get good quality cheap TV's from amazon, kogan etc. I have a decent Samsung qled I bought like 4 years ago and it was around what most people spend on flagship phones, worthwhile investment. Now OLEDS are affordable.

Damn, I can only get FTTC at 100mb/s at my current place and I'm paying 110 a month in a first world country. Am moving shortly, fibre to the premises is one of my main priorities lol.
You can get 5G plans at around 300mb/s but they have data caps and costly and generally need to be tied to a contract with a phone.

Enjoy the fights tonight bud, even if they are in a peasant resolution.

 

[MMAProfessional]

$45 SD $55 HD when I started watching. I remember the realization when we got an HD TV and I ordered the SD to save money and it looked like shiiiit.

Back in the day when I use to buy UFC PPVs

 

[Clark Rogers]

They use some 8K camera when they do the fighter introductions and it looks so fucking weird.

Like to the point my eyes are telling me the picture isn't real.

I'm with ya. Some of the ultra HD stuff has a weird uncanny valley effect for me.

 

[Fergelmince]

At $80 per PPV, they're practically giving the content away at a loss already. Why increase costs by delivering it in higher definition? They'll probably lower it to 720p before they raise it to 4K.