When will we get UFC in 4K???

[Dandy Chiggins]

I would like to watch the fights on a VR set. So 8K would be ideal for the immersed experience.

 

[Spinkick KO]

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 hte 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% of global population bro. in other words 96% of people don't like in nice rich advanced countries like USA, and 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

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 popuilation (4.6% the 2 countries combined).

Finally yes I started off on 56k dialup in the 1990s.
1996 or 1997 to be exact I think. Halcyon days, in some ways.

Well yeah the price for 4K UFC streams would be ridiculous.
Yeah downscaling from the recording source is how it's always been done since film. Ever seen the old 35mm films broadcast in 4k? They are downscaled from almost 6k.

All those additional TV channels on the digital network are broadcasting it downscaled to 1080 and the bitrate will be dynamic based on demand or any fluctuations dependent on your connection. They can do 4k via digital terrestrial tv with DVB T-2. The infrastructure is quite expensive and I don't think many places implemented it after testing as it's basically easier and cheaper to do it via hfc/fibre instead of towers and repeaters, especially for remote areas and LOS issues.

But the point is other major sporting leagues can do deals with fox/sky/optus, the UFC is kinda dropping the ball. If I recall F1 has 4k streams with their web based infrastructure and the android tv app.

With the UFC being a global sport thats bigger than every league in existence and powerslap trending more than cybertruck it's a service they should be able to provide, most of the western world have migrated to 4K tv's, North America, Europe and Australia are all their largest paying consumers and have the infrastructure to handle it. They can still keep the existing SD/HD for the other regions, but it would take the snow out of Dana's driveway.

Started on C64 with BBS and remember dial up at college/uni in the 90's, when the series of tubes started, those were the days quake on LAN, cs 1.6, tribes, icq.

 

[IDGETKTFO]

Im still waiting since 2009 for the Superbowl to be in 3D.

 

[Neck&Neck]

It’s only worth it for the hot WMMA fights

 

[bambammccoy]

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.

Ofcourse that's like word for word what I was gonna say.

 

[Tronald Dump]

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.

Agree with most of what you said but 4k TVs are extremely common now.

Edit: See your subsequent post saying 'globally'. USA would still be their primary market, and in Canada/USA they are extremely common.

 

[Queue]

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.

This is nonsense. 4K tv's are standard in the US at least (and the US/Canada are the biggest audiences), you can get a 65 inch 4k tv for $300. Many cable companies broadcast in 4k (Verizon, Comcast, Optimum). Many football games are broadcast in 4k. I watched the Packers beat the Cowboys last week in a 4k broadcast.

but of course, you don't NEED 4K. Hell, we don't NEED 1080p, but the technology is there. Shitty infrastructure isn't a good enough excuse.

 

[Queue]

UFC 200 was already in 4K, 8 years ago.

Can we please move on from the stone age, it would look so much better.
More frames would also be great, you could see punches land way superior.

We pay so much for PPV, fight pass and so on. All other streaming plattforms got 4K for way less money.

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.

 

[Corrado Soprano]

Only only cares about the 4k purses they pay their fighters… Am I right?

 

[Ladder Master]

Old links for UFC 4K info.

We Go Inside UFC's 4K Production Truck, Where It's a Symphony of Pixels and Punches

Here's how UFC 205 in New York City was produced in sparkling 4K.

www.wired.com

This Saturday's UFC event will be the first pay-per-view to stream in 4K

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

 

[Mcnugget]

Is 4K better than 1080

 

[Paolo Delutis]

Who cares if you want that much detail and realism.. just buy a ticket and go sit front row..

What are you poor...

Real life greater then 4k ...

You plebs .

 

[Lawrence]

They'll go 480p before they go 4K. Dana does not approve.

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

But I spit coffee.

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

 

[skylolow]

Pretty simple, very few providers even have a 4K channel. They all kind of paused that on traditional ways we would get that signal since everything is moving to stream platforms. The tech is there now the problem is bandwidth of getting 4K to millions of people. People bitch about their streams jittering periodically now or buffering, can you imagine the issues when you literally over double the information coming down the pipeline.

 

[Billthebutcher]

If you can't see punches hitting and the actual fight, get some glasses, or contact lenses at least.

 

[Connection Lost]

To be honest, framerate is more important now. As long as its 60 fps I'm fine.

 

[Connection Lost]

Pretty simple, very few providers even have a 4K channel. They all kind of paused that on traditional ways we would get that signal since everything is moving to stream platforms. The tech is there now the problem is bandwidth of getting 4K to millions of people. People bitch about their streams jittering periodically now or buffering, can you imagine the issues when you literally over double the information coming down the pipeline.

Its 4x the data. Each quarter of a 4k screen is a 1080p screen, essentially. Some 4k TVs and monitors can switch to a 4x 1080p mode.
1920 x 1080 (2k but no one calls it that)
vs
3840 x 2160 (4k)

 

[El Fernas]

I would like to watch the fights on a VR set. So 8K would be ideal for the immersed experience.

Not sure which one, but Holloway vs Aldo was available on the Samsung Gear VR back then, the experience was alright but it can get tiring to wear those things for hours.

 

[HI SCOTT NEWMAN]

The UFC Classics DVDs are better quality than fightpass.. UFC released UFC 1 - 12 called UFC Classics, I brought them all, well worth the money, extras which fightpass or internet doesn't have, but the events look clearer, remember these are old events from 1993-1997 time, but they are better quality than fightpass.

On fightpass Dan Severn's eyes almost look a dull boring grey color, but on the UFC Classics DVDs you can see his beautiful blue ocean eyes much clearer, it brings out the tones better.

 

[Bobby Boulders]

Probably whenever those Russian sites upgrade their servers.