Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Shutter speed causes blurring, not elongation unless its very slow. And I am pretty sure Fox Sports and ABC use native 720p equipment. ESPN even said in their initial announcement that so few of their broadcasts were HD initially because no 720p trucks in existence. They had to wait to get them to start broadcasting.


I'm sure the engineers from Fox and ABC would be pretty amused at your assertion that 1080i is the better format. As with Sky HD, they broadcast their Sports channels in 720p, not 1080i.

Movement while the shutter is open will cause blurring and elongation - equal to amount of motion during the time the shutter is open and the frame/field capture time.

Sky HD in the UK is all 1080i. All UK HD channels, including when they show sports, are 1080i (50Hz). And yes, channels that broadcast 720p (such as NRK) are often conversions from 1080i (because 720p compresses better than 1080i).

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Movement while the shutter is open will cause blurring and elongation - equal to the amount of time the shutter is open and the frame/field capture time.

Sky HD in the UK is all 1080i. All UK HD channels, including when they show sports, are 1080i (50Hz). And yes, channels that broadcast 720p (such as NRK) are often conversions from 1080i (because 720p compresses better than 1080i).

ABC and ESPN for sure use 720p and their stations broadcast 720p. ESPN is one of the few networks with an all-digital infrastructure. Trucks are dual format because those two major networks broadcast in 720p.

As for shutter speed, this is the setup for MNF, all shot and broadcast in 720p.

Three 120-frame per second “slo-mo” cameras;
Two new 180-frame per second “super slo-mo” cameras;
Two new 300-frame per second “super slo-mo” cameras;
Skycam, which provides aerial views above the field of play;
RF Steadicam, a 75-lb. wireless camera that is strapped on a harness to a camera operator.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

As for shutter speed, this is the setup for MNF, all shot and broadcast in 720p.

Three 120-frame per second “slo-mo” cameras;
Two new 180-frame per second “super slo-mo” cameras;
Two new 300-frame per second “super slo-mo” cameras;
Skycam, which provides aerial views above the field of play;
RF Steadicam, a 75-lb. wireless camera that is strapped on a harness to a camera operator.

So where's the shutter speed?

I'm sure in the US, for sports, it will be open - ie. 1/60th of a second (ie. 1 fields worth in 1080/60i, 1 frame's worth in 720p60).

ABC and ESPN for sure use 720p and their stations broadcast 720p

ESPN broadcasts the world cup? That was originated at 1080/50i so in the US they converted it.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

So where's the shutter speed?

I'm sure in the US, for sports, it will be open - ie. 1/60th of a second (ie. 1 fields worth in 1080/60i, 1 frame's worth in 720p60).

Sigh. Is there a point to any of your posts? Just to prove you are right? The two networks that want to be most associated with sports in the U.S. ESPN/ABC and Fox both use 720p cameras, trucks and broadcast in that format because compared to an interlaced image, especially on a progressive monitor, has more artifacts. Pure and simple. You can see for yourself by putting the output of your satellite or cable box to 720p vs 1080i output and the ball blurs in 1080i more then 720p on the same feed. They don't change the shutter speed when you change your STB outbox. Its in all the releases by both on why they choose it, its on forums and boards across the internet. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make you correct, does it?

[ZoetMB]

Shutter speed is independent of frame rate in the sense that while the shutter speed can't be longer than the frame rate, it can be shorter.

And we can debate forever whether 720p is better or worse than 1080i. But one thing to keep in mind is that when HD was first being developed, the original SMPTE and AES definition was "> 1000 vertical lines". 720p got away with calling itself HD because the claim was that "720p was the equivalent of 1440i".

As for the major over-the-air broadcast networks, CBS and NBC are 1080i and ABC and FOX are 720p. However, some cable companies convert and/or compress the signals, so you could be getting almost anything, which is why, if the over-the-air signal is strong enough in your area, you're better off picking up those networks with an antenna.

[PaddyMcAloon]

loose="not tight", lose="can't find it, doesn't have anymore" or the opposite of "win".
their="belongs to", there="place", they're="they are", there's = "there is"
it's="it is", for everything else use "its"
then="after", than="compared with"
"a lot" not "alot"

I so love this!!!!!!!!!!!

[slimdude]

Will Blu-ray survive? It already has!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

1 frame is displayed at a time. That is the difference. 1 frame at a time, very quick, but differences in the in the two frames can be seen.

NO, there are always two fields displayed at a time that is the simple fact you can't grasp. There is always one frame but two fields. With each filed having 1/2 the info of a frame.

If it is a CRT, the CRT takes 1/30th of a second for the phosphorus to stop glowing. If you only look at the electron gun, then you don't even have fields, you only have lines and even then you don't realy have that because while it is painting the front of the line it is not painting the end of it, the electron gun works like a typewriter, one line at a time and one character at a time on that line.

Now if we are talking a progressive display like LCD or Plasma or DLP or SXRD, then they show the whole screen at one and it changes 1/60th of a second later. So if it gets a Progressive signal, all is OK and it puts that image up. If it receives an interlaced signal it needs to do some work to build a frame. One laze technique that could be used is line doubling, I have 60 fields and want 60 frames if I make line 1&2, 3&4, 5&6 the same in each field then I get my 1080 lines I need for the frame and I have my 60 frames (since 1&2 ae always the same one could call this 540, but no one really does that any more and have not heard of TVs that are newer then 10 years old that do it). An other is de-interlacing, so what that does is it gets the info for the two fields and combines them, now if the fields are correct it is exactly the same as a 1080p, if they pick the two wrong fields that are wrong
then you get an image where the object is in two places. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Interlaced_video_frame_%28car_wheel%29.jpg[img] but there will still be 1080 lines of the object. And then that frame will be shown twice if it is 60hz.

That is why sports heavy channels broadcast on 720p, you don't see the artefacts like in 1080i because it displays the entire frame, not two half frames.

no it is because it is cheaper and too many people don't care enough for PQ to make a fuss or stop watching so they cut corners. If it was about being better then why not go with 1080p? I hope you can at least agree that 1080p is better then 720p


But I really don’t see what this has anything to do with anything. What does sports have to do with BD survival?

[Steedeel]

I think the BBC (UK) are moving/have moved to 1080p broadcasting so it's only a matter of time before others follow.

To be honest in a streaming future (many years from now) I think a lot of current bluray fans will just move to HD pay tv (yes it will still be here) rather than tolerate the shockingly bad streaming standards that exist and will exist. I would be horrified to be forced into going from Bluray picture quality to streaming quality, I really would.

These stupid claims by silly people that just want to knock the format are tedious. I checked out another forum and there are people that have being arguing for five years about the bluray format. It just goes backwards and forwards with new spreadsheets and latest sales figures. It is pretty sad to be honest.


I wasn't going to post on this topic again but i am bored so there you go!

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I think the BBC (UK) are moving/have moved to 1080p broadcasting so it's only a matter of time before others follow.

Sort of yes, but...

What they have is their encoder on their BBC HD channel is currently supposed to be switching between a 25p mode and a 50i mode depending on what it thinks the content is. It still doesn't do 1080p50.

Though pressing "Info" on the BBC's HD channel always shows "1080i" - at least on my PVR. Also, it only changes on a new GOP - that probably means in theory, for part of a GOP it could be using the wrong format (in theory that could be worse than before, unless it can create a new GOP sequence every time it thinks there's a change - which I don't think so? - eg. a 25p programme switches to a 50Hz credit sequence, for a bit of the credits surely it could be using 25Hz not 50, and cause the credits to look worse initially).

So because its 1080p mode (if it actually is broadcasting in that mode) is only 1080p25 and not 1080p50, I don't see it as being much better than how it was before, and in some cases it might make it worse.

Also, people who have Sony TVs who are watching the BBC HD channel are now getting audio problems because of this change, and Sony are working on a fix for it.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

NO, there are always two fields displayed at a time that is the simple fact you can't grasp.

Wrong. Simply wrong. Its FIELD, only 1 FIELD is displayed at a time but it takes 2 to make 1 FRAME but the aren't displayed at the same. Its something YOU can't grasp. Interlaced material is 1 field of the odd field drawn and displayed followed by the even in the next field, NOT AT THE SAME TIME and combined they make 1 FRAME. On a modern LCD or LED progressive screen, your TV since its progressive has to try and put the two fields together and that is where all the artifacts come from, deinterlacing. You are defending an artifact laden display technology, decades old, and talk about others not caring about PQ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing


Deinterlacing is the process of converting interlaced video, such as common analog television signals or 1080i format HDTV signals, into a non-interlaced form.

Interlaced video frame consists of two sub-fields taken in sequence, each sequentially scanned at odd and even lines of the image sensor; analog television employed this technique because it allowed for less transmission bandwidth and matched the properties of CRT screens. However, most current displays are inherently progressive, so the two fields need to be combined to a single frame, which leads to various visual defects which the deinterlacing process should try to avoid.

Deinterlacing has been researched for decades and employs complex processing algorithms; however, consistent results are very hard to achieve.

The European Broadcasting Union has argued against the use of interlaced video in production and broadcasting, recommending 720p 50 fps (frames per second)


The main argument is that no matter how complex the deinterlacing algorithm may be, the artifacts in the interlaced signal cannot be completely eliminated because some information is lost between frames.


Examples of deinterlacing

Weaving



Blending



Doublers, most commonly used in TVs.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Wrong. Simply wrong. Its FIELD, only 1 FIELD is displayed at a time but it takes 2 to make 1 FRAME but the aren't displayed at the same.

Like you say further down in your post, on a modern (ie. progressive) HDTV, they get de-interlaced so it doesn't show one field at a time - unless you are using an (outdated) interlaced TV.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Like you say further down in your post, on a modern (ie. progressive) HDTV, they get de-interlaced so it doesn't show one field at a time - unless you are using an (outdated) interlaced TV.

Exactly. But since the source is interlaced, when your TV deinterlaces it, it causes artifacts. Its like upresolution, half the material is made up to fill in where the odd or even data is missing. Interlacing came about so broadcasters could use half the signal to broadcast an image, they broadcast half of it and a CRT would draw half and quickly draw the second half in then next frame, fast enough that your brain would put them together into one picture. New displays are progressive so of course 720p is a complete frame without all the crap the TV doesn't have to put into half a 1080i image to make it a whole image.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Exactly. But since the source is interlaced, when your TV deinterlaces it, it causes artifacts. Its like upresolution, half the material is made up to fill in where the odd or even data is missing.

I agree (assuming you mean 50Hz/60Hz content and not 24/25/30Hz content encoded in 1080i).

Interlacing came about so broadcasters could use half the signal to broadcast an image, they broadcast half of it and a CRT would draw half and quickly draw the second half in then next frame, fast enough that your brain would put them together into one picture.

I agree (except where you say frame - I'm sure you mean field not frame) - it was a type of compression in the analogue TV days .

New displays are progressive so of course 720p is a complete frame without all the crap the TV doesn't have to put into half a 1080i image to make it a whole image.

If a programme is made at 1080/60i (or especially 1080p24-30), I don't necessarily think it's always best to broadcast it at 720p.

Do I think interlacing is great? No, I think they should get rid of it - if we have something better. I'd much rather have 1080p50/1080p60 (or obviously higher resolutions such as 4K or 8K).

This thread was talking about disc/media formats. Since our HDTVs are capable of 1080p60 (some newer TVs even higher like 4K and they're demonstrating 7.6K ones). I think any good media format shouldn't have to reduce from the resolution of the HDTV (eg. 1080p or 4K or whatever) to 720p to have the full 60 (or more) fps.

So in the end, I don't think the question should be "which is best 720p50-60 - or 1080/50-60i" when we should have something better than both (eg. 1080p50-60 / 4K@ >=50-60 / 8K @ 60-120 etc.

[slick1ru2]

The whole 1080i vs 720p came up when I said of the two 720p was better for sports. Of course if I said water was wet, that would be considered wrong by some on here too. My point is that the artifacts from deinterlacing cause artifacts in 1080i you don't have in 720p, most noticeable in sports which is why Fox and ESPN broadcast in 720p. The massive amount of bandwidth needed in comparison to 1080i or 720p for 1080p broadcasting will lead to more signal compression, something I don't think many want.

[4K2K]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The massive amount of bandwidth needed in comparison to 1080i or 720p for 1080p broadcasting will lead to more signal compression, something I don't think many want.

Yes more bandwidth is needed for say 1080p50 than 720p50 ("about 15 to 20% more" according to the EBU), but you don't need more bandwidth for compressed 1080p50 than you do for compressed 1080/50i - according to the EBU.

[Steedeel]

How about this for a new debate. Is streaming VHS or Betamax quality? Personally i go for sub VHS simply because of the compression. Honest, i actually think VHS beats streaming.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

Yes more bandwidth is needed for say 1080p50 than 720p50 ("about 15 to 20% more" according to the EBU), but you don't need more bandwidth for compressed 1080p50 than you do for compressed 1080/50i - according to the EBU.

Which is what all the know it alls are complaining about when I say NetFlix has 1080p/5.1 DD+. Of course its an MPEG compression, but they couldn't see the difference or if the could, couldn't tell in a blind study which is which.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Which is what all the know it alls are complaining about when I say NetFlix has 1080p/5.1 DD+. Of course its an MPEG compression, but they couldn't see the difference or if the could, couldn't tell in a blind study which is which.

That says more about the people than the tech! Sorry, but it does.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That says more about the people than the tech! Sorry, but it does.

That's my point. Most believe they can see what they physically can't see because there isn't enough technologically different in the two from a normal viewing distance in an average sized display in the 45-55" range. Egos are fueling what does not come out in blind studies.