Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by 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.

Have you ever compared the two, though? I'll take the 1080i of CBS for sports over ESPN or Fox's 720p. There really is no comparison, and the compression artifacting for Fox and ESPN is atrocious through DirecTV.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

Have you ever compared the two, though? I'll take the 1080i of CBS for sports over ESPN or Fox's 720p. There really is no comparison, and the compression artifacting for Fox and ESPN is atrocious through DirecTV.

I watch as much as I can OTA directly into my TV. I spent $400 on an OTA setup that is picking up 60 channels here in Atlanta. OTA programs are not compressed. I go directly into my TV with the antenna and stream it native, 720p. My TV is set to 720p when I watch those stations. You most likely have your DirecTV box set at 1080i output. And if DirecTV is streaming it in 1080i then you are screwing with the original signal more then once on top of the compression. Did you try putting your STB to 720p when watching Fox or ESPN?

If you are interested in an OTA setup, visit http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx and it will tell you what you need. You can do it cheaper then I did, I had someone do mine. You see football on Fox OTA, not compressed and converted to 1080i, BIG difference.

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I watch as much as I can OTA directly into my TV. I spent $400 on an OTA setup that is picking up 60 channels here in Atlanta. OTA programs are not compressed. I go directly into my TV with the antenna and stream it native, 720p. My TV is set to 720p when I watch those stations. You most likely have your DirecTV box set at 1080i output. And if DirecTV is streaming it in 1080i then you are screwing with the original signal more then once on top of the compression. Did you try putting your STB to 720p when watching Fox or ESPN?

If you are interested in an OTA setup, visit http://www.antennaweb.org/aw/welcome.aspx and it will tell you what you need. You can do it cheaper then I did, I had someone do mine.

Yes. I have all my content set to Native. I know DirecTV factors into it, which is the only reason I even mentioned it, but I find less distraction from any type of interlacing than I do from the compression.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Truewitt

Yes. I have all my content set to Native. I know DirecTV factors into it, which is the only reason I even mentioned it, but I find less distraction from any type of interlacing than I do from the compression.

Put it this way. Here in Atlanta, the bandwidth is such that Fox is stunning. I am getting 99% signal strength. Its one of the best OTA signals here. What you get from Direct or I get from Dish is a significantly lower bit rate signal with much more compression. When I DVR a movie from Dish its 3-4 GB. OTA its 8-11GB.

I was getting ESPN Gameplan on Dish. HORRID picture since its all the poorest quality SD. Streaming off ESPN3.com is a MUCH better picture without all the artifacts IF you have a good enough connection. They are both SD but the feed is DVD quality, the feed off the satellite is like VHS quality.

[Steedeel]

Maybe we have it too good but i just love the intricate detail and pop of the picture on bluray. However, in the UK we have a very decent HD service and also i have never seen any cable/satellite that is vhs quality so you guys must have it really bad in that part of the world. Even our sd looks great (mind you, that is on a plasma with lovely blacks) i know some lcd tvs really struggle with sd. In fact a lot of people blame the broadcast when in fact it is their tv. That is the point i have been trying to make about streaming, i find it atrocious. It looks even worse on a lcd, especially the edge lit, super bright ones. I know certain people (slick1ru2) will think i am saying such things about streaming because of my love for Blu, but that is honestly not the case. I just find the streams insult my eyes.

Slick1ru2 this is not meant to try to provoke another argument as i honestly cannot be bothered, i am just telling it has i see it. Please don't take it that way!

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by 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.

Now you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. If you honestly think that HD streaming is sub VHS quality... then either you have not watched any of the modern streaming services like Zune or Hulu Plus... or your internet connection is more comparable to dial up than broadband.

Please tell us specifically what streaming services you have tried... and what programming you watched on those streaming services.

[Cevolution]

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.

Here's my issue though, this isn't just an American forum, u keep using Netflix to try to make a point, like it's the holy grail of streaming, forgetting that only Americans and Canadians can use it. You shouldn't even be using Netflix as a point when u are addressing people from other countries which don't have it available, stick to discussing Netflix with American and Canadian members, because members like me don't care 1 bit about Netflix, cause we don't have it.

Where I live everything legally streamed looks horrible, in fact so now does our freeview digital tv viewing. A few years ago HD channels looked great here in Australia, when each network had 1 HD and 1 SD channel, but now since our networks have added a 3rd channel each (in SD) everything in HD looks noticeably worse than before because they are compressing the content more. Unfortunately when our tv networks purchased bandwidth for hundreds of millions of dollars from our government for HD broadcasting, they didn't purchase enough (and they are not going to purchase anymore), so we have gone backwards not forward. Our networks have decided that the consumer wants quanity not quality, which just makes blu-ray more attractive to Australian consumers who prefer quality.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Exactly. But since the source is interlaced, when your TV deinterlaces it, it causes artifacts.

it might but it does not necessarily have to have artefacts. Also interlaced is a distribution and display property, it is not a true capture property.

Its like upresolution, half the material is made up to fill in where the odd or even data is missing.

but there is no data missing. Field one has 1/2 the info captured in the frame and field 2 has the other half, where is something 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.

no, that is where you are completely wrong. it is the same frame and on an CRT both are shown at the same time. This is what happens a CRT draws line 1, then it skips 2 and draws line 3, then 5....... 1,3,5 are glowing because the phosphore is still excited and it takkes 1/30 th of a second for them to become dim enough to be considered off. Once 1,3,5 (all the odd ones) are done being drawn and are while they are still glowing it starts to fill in the even ones with 2,4, 6. and once they are done you have a perfect picture, what happens next is it goes back to the top and overwrites 1, 3, 5.... and when that field is done that is when you get the messed up image of
for much less then one 1000th of a second because as soon as it fineshed the last odd one it starts the even lines.

Now this can happen in theory with 1080i on a progressive TV, but that is only if the de-interlasing is not correctly done by the processor. If each frame is combined correctly (i.e. field 1.1 and 1.2 make frame 1 and 2.1 and 2.2 make frame 2….. ) then there is absolutely no difference between 1080i60 and 1080p30. And even if there is a mistake (i.e. 1.2 combined with 2.1) you still have 1080x1920 pixels just that they are not what they should be (artifactes), and if that happens it will be for 1/60th or 1/30th of a second unless things have gone extremely wrong somewhere.

Interlaced is like me saying I have all the red cards in my left hand and the black ones in the right one. They are not that way because I am playing with 1/2 a deck and so 26 cards instead of 52, but because I am getting ready to shuffle them


which is what a de-interlacer/CRT does.

[Tom Servo]

I don't have time to read the whole thread to see if this has already been said, but I can't see how much better many of these movies can look, mainly the older stuff. Would a higher resolution format make them look that much better than a quality encode on blu-ray, considering the movies themselves weren't filmed in that high resolution? We're probably already seeing the majority of these movies as good as they can possibly look, aside from the unfortunately high number of sub-par encodes they are putting out. The newer generation of movies, and the future ones will probably benefit from a higher resolution, but I hope I won't be missing out on anything since I don't plan on upgrading my collection again, and will settle with blu-ray. I'll invest in the next technology for the newest generation of films that will take full advantage of it, but that's about it.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 4K2K

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 .

no interlaced is not about compression. It is due to the way a CRT works.

A progressive Display or film shows a full image and the image is produced in an instance. ON a CRT, it is more like a painting it is done in parts known as lines. In the original CRTs (pre TV) it would draw line #1, then line #2, then #3...... and 1/30th of a second later it finished the image and went back to #1 of the next frame (and then 2 and 3.....) the issue is this when it was drawing #1, #2 that was there would be 1/30th of a second old and so it would be dimmer then #1 that was fresh, then it would draw #2 and it would be fresh and bright while #3 would be dimmer because it was 1/30th of a second older then #2. This created an effect of descending brightness, and since our eyes/brain dismiss randomness but focus on similarities it becomes a descending flicker of brightness. Before TV was even invented some engineers realized that if you do 1,3,5 it takes 1/2 the time to do so then doing each line (i.e. 1/2 as many lines), so when you go back and do 2 ,4,6 two things happen

1) 3 is brighter then it would have been since it is ~1/60th of a second old and not 1/30th old so the contrast is not as big

2) both 1 & 3 are less bright then 2 (and 3&5 are less bright then 4 when it re draws that one....) since both 1&3 are ~ 1/60th of a second old, so now your eye does not focus on the new 2 that replaced the old 2 which was 1/30th of a second older like it would if 1 was newish and 3 was old.

[Anthony P]

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.

if you are comparing 1080p60 vs 1080i60, then yes more BW is needed for similar quality, on the other hand if you are comparing 1080p30 to 1080i60, then the answer is no it would be the same since in both cases you have 30 frames of 1080x1920. As for 720p vs 1080p, yes it will need more BW if you want more quality, but if you are happy with 720p resolution then it could take less. Since with more pixels to work with it can compress more efficiently

EG1: mpeg2 does 8x8 blocks, so let's say on the screen I have a place with a 7x7 square that is black surounded by white on a 720 resolution on a 1080 it will be something like 10x10 (or 9x9 or 11x11 or 9x11....) so now the encoder, without destroying the image can create an 8x8 block where it could not do that in the 720

EG2: An other thing that MPEG2 does is that it tracks changes, so if two frames are identical then they will need the same amount of data to say "no difference" if it is 1080 or 720.

But obviously the reason to go with 1080p is to have better image and more detail the 720p and not compress it until there is no any more detail then the compressed 720p, so in that sense it will need a bit more but you also have a much better result.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

OTA programs are not compressed.

yes they are, OTA uses MPEG-2 compression here in NA (don't know of any that use AVC which was added a few years ago to the specs).

Now I am a big fan of OTA and on this we can agree that it makes more sense then Sat or Cable because it tends to be less compressed then those other solutions, but OTA is compressed.

PS I find it funny that you chastise cable and sat for being more compressed then OTA and so unacceptable even though bit wise & picture wise there is a lot less difference between those two then there i between BD and Netflix

(i.e. BD is 40/48mbps if you use video or video+audo and netflix<4mbps while OTA is 6MHZ<19.4 mbps and that is shared between all the sub channels if there are any (and PSIP) and cable sat tends to be >4mbps)

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

yes they are, OTA uses MPEG-2 compression here in NA (don't know of any that use AVC which was added a few years ago to the specs).

Now I am a big fan of OTA and on this we can agree that it makes more sense then Sat or Cable because it tends to be less compressed then those other solutions, but OTA is compressed.

PS I find it funny that you chastise cable and sat for being more compressed then OTA and so unacceptable even though bit wise & picture wise there is a lot less difference between those two then there i between BD and Netflix

(i.e. BD is 40/48mbps if you use video or video+audo and netflix<4mbps while OTA is 6MHZ<19.4 mbps and that is shared between all the sub channels if there are any (and PSIP) and cable sat tends to be >4mbps)

Read the engineer forums and you will see the issues that services like Direct and Dish have that individual stations don't. And you missed my point. I am chaste on cable and satellite converting 720p into 1080i and creating artifacts. Don't see them EVER on NetFlix streaming. EVER. You don't know what NetFlix is streaming because there is buffering plus decompression. That is just the raw min. data stream.

As for this being more then just a U.S. forum and my mentioning NetFlix. The person on who said this lives in a country on the verge of 98% Fiber Optics 100mb plus internet penetration. This is now I am talking about. The subject of the thread is "Will Bluray Survive" which means in the future, not today. In the lab, technology can transfer the ENTIRE contents of a BD disc in 24 milliseconds. Not stream it, just copy the entire disc. That is the future.


The crappy SD feed I was referring to is limited to ESPN Gameplan and probably has to do with converting a 720p signal to 480i then back to 1080i. Its a live feed that like I said, looks better on cable where Dish isn't screwing with the feed. It is what it is and its not everything that looks that bad in SD. Someday they will have it in HD.

[Steedeel]

In reply to the earlier post i have tried three hd streaming sources just for curiosity and have vowed never to watch another. The point that i make is that watching vhs is less of a ordeal than watching ANY stream simply because of thr compression. The picture breaking up and pixelating is the issue for me. That is the case with any stream. It takes me out of the film when i see water that seems to be alive with dancing blocks or fog/smoke that stutters across the screen. Vhs has many faults but at least it looks solid in the previosly mentioned conditions. People who sing and dance about streaming cannot be true film fans in my opinion.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

In reply to the earlier post i have tried three hd streaming sources just for curiosity and have vowed never to watch another. The point that i make is that watching vhs is less of a ordeal than watching ANY stream simply because of thr compression. The picture breaking up and pixelating is the issue for me. That is the case with any stream. It takes me out of the film when i see water that seems to be alive with dancing blocks or fog/smoke that stutters across the screen. Vhs has many faults but at least it looks solid in the previosly mentioned conditions. People who sing and dance about streaming cannot be true film fans in my opinion.

Its not the case of every stream. Its the case of your stream, your equipment, your connection. There is absolutely NO blocking or pixilating or studdering etc. with NetFlix 1080p on my connection. You really think I would be on here talking about it if it was garbage, a 360p YouTube video? Seriously? You think seeing 1 connection, yours, is everyone's setup? Really? Is driving 1 car, a Fiat 500 the same as driving every car?

There is a MASSIVE thread at AVSForum and NO ONE mentions the issues you are having. I have no idea what you are watching, its not NetFlix on a PS3 with a decent connection though.

[Steedeel]

Streaming by its very nature does have compression problems. You cannot get a good picture from a file that is so heavily compressed. It is just common sense. The connection speed will dictate picture to a certain extent but it will not eliminate artefact's associated with streaming and downloads.

You say you do not see any blocking or compression problems. I don't believe you. simple as that.

[Steedeel]

By the way can you get through a post without mentioning Netflix?

[punkguy03]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Streaming by its very nature does have compression problems. You cannot get a good picture from a file that is so heavily compressed. It is just common sense. The connection speed will dictate picture to a certain extent but it will not eliminate artefact's associated with streaming and downloads.

You say you do not see any blocking or compression problems. I don't believe you. simple as that.

That is not true at all. I watch netflix on my ps3 and it looks great. My blu-rays look better, but some of the things I watch on netflix aren't on blu yet. They look great, so I don't get how you can say you can't get a good picture, cuz I can!

[Steedeel]

Your idea of a good picture is obviously different to mine. Stop kidding yourself that streaming is acceptable quality.

[punkguy03]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Your idea of a good picture is obviously different to mine. Stop kidding yourself that streaming is acceptable quality.

Either that or you just don't want to admit you are wrong. Look blu-ray is great, but streaming is nice too and it is getting better. It looks even better then it did a couple years ago. I have been into blu-ray since its inception and I love it, but that doesn't mean I won't admit that streaming is nice and has good quality and great future potential.