ABC Superbowl 720p image quality is great! 1080i should be banned for sport

[edDV]

I'm just gushing at the quality of the ABC Superbowl picture.
720p is tops IMO.

They must have new camera or lens technology to get the picture that good.
The 1280x720 progressive image on the computer is tops.

5.1 soundfield varies but the pre-produced stuff is great.
Better surround than most DVD.

[redwudz]

My HDTV video card is broke. I'm watching it from broadcast cable to a 5ft x 8ft projection screen. Fuzzy like VCD. I gotta get it replaced.

[yoda313]

Yeah I've been watching back and forth regular/hdtv on the computer.

GO 720P!!!!!!!!

You think we could get a firmware upgrade to 1080P when that kicks in????? (wishful thinking )

[redwudz]

I have a older Sony projector, Sony VPL-HS2. It's resolution is 858 x 484, but I have been happy with it so far. I'm waiting for it to die, but it keeps hanging in there, so I'm not going to replace it for now.

But the HDTV performance was good with the DVICO card. I did a stupid thing, pulled a wire loose from the MB and it hooked the HDTV card and broke off one of the board components. Been kicking myself ever since.

I'm not sure at this point if I want to replace the DVICO card or go with a different card. Any thoughts? I want OTA HDTV, not sure that my cable has any unencrypted HDTV, but I doubt it. I don't plan on satellite at this location or premium channels from my cable. OTA HDTV is good enough.

[MozartMan]

Come on guys, you probably didn't see hockey games on InHD or NBC-HD at 1080i on Hitachi 57" 1080i HDTV .

720p sucks.

[lordsmurf]

It's not the size of the resolution, it's how you use it.

Game looks good on an old-fashioned 14" screen. Nice clear cable signal.

[edDV]

Yep, no one best way to go. It depends on your display as well but the following general issues exist. See if you can add more.

1920x1080 interlace (1080i) 29.97 fps, 14-19Mb/s ATSC

Pro:
- high resolution when the image is not moving
- reasonable performance with 24fps (telecined) film sourced material.
- easy to downscale to 480i or analog NTSC
- can use as little as 14Mb/s and still look reasonable
- can drop to single field (aka 540p) for a "poor man's" progressive image.

Con:
- low resolution and interlace tear during motion
- resolution advantages are lost on all but the highest end displays.
- if any equipment in the chain deinterlaces the image, significant motion artifacts result. This is true even if your set can display interlace.
- computer display requires realtime software deinterlacing taking CPU resource.
- LCD and other display technologies must deinterlace, producing motion artifacts.
- LCD and other display technologies must downscale to native resolution (1366x768 typ. or lower)


1280x720 progressive (720p) 59.94 fps, 14-19Mb/s ATSC

Pro:
- Medium-High resolution in every frame, few sets can display more resolution.
- 59.94 frames per second for fine motion resolution and easy stop frame
- easy to downscale to 480p, 480i or upscale to 1080i with minimal loss.
- can be displayed directly on computer and other LCD displays
- can use as little as 14Mb/s and still look reasonable

Con:
- Less resolution on high end displays
- Needs 720p 59.94 film transfer tapes for best film performance.
- 1080i film transfer tapes must be deinterlaced
- 480i SD/NTSC upconversions to 720p must be deinterlaced
- Must be converted to 1080i, 540p or 480p for low end CRT sets.

Any disputes or more ideas?

[paulw]

I was under the impression with the ATSC HD standards that there were only full FPS i.e. 30 and 60 FPS rather than part frames as in the old NTSC standards.. can someone clarify this for me.

TIA.

[edDV]

I was under the impression with the ATSC HD standards that there were only full FPS i.e. 30 and 60 FPS rather than part frames as in the old NTSC standards.. can someone clarify this for me.

TIA.

ATSC 1080i is interlaced just like 480i DV. Normal framerate is 29.97.

ATSC 1080p can be either 29.97 or 24 fps.

Below is the full format list that must be supported by ATSC DTV tuners. Current broadcasting is only done in 1080i or 720p + 480i SD.

When more people have high end sets, some channels may try 1080p/24. 1080p/24 would be frame repeated 3:2 at the HDTV for a 1080p 60 refresh similar to the way it is done for progressive DVD now.

http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

[tedkunich]

I'm just gushing at the quality of the ABC Superbowl picture.
720p is tops IMO.

They must have new camera or lens technology to get the picture that good.
The 1280x720 progressive image on the computer is tops.

5.1 soundfield varies but the pre-produced stuff is great.
Better surround than most DVD.

I was not terribly impressed with the picture at all, and neither were any of my guests. HDNet's picture vastly blows away what ABC was spewing out tonight. And the audio "special effects" were WAY WAY overdone... nearly blew out my speakers at one point.


T

[edDV]

It would be interesting to know the model number of your HDTV because these perceptions differ by display technology and native display resolution.

I based my 5.1 sound comment on the pregame show. ABC totally blew the audio side of the half time Rolling Stones performance. It was like they never did a sound check to set levels before the show. You couldn't hear Jagger. They finally got it acceptable about half way through.

IMO, hockey would be a worst case for 1080i. It will look nice on the still cover shot but when the action begins, the MPeg2 encoder is given an extreme workout as the camera continously pans and zooms to follow the action. Effective motion resolution drops to a very jerky 15 fps in the extreme. 720p will hold an acceptable frame rate during that kind of action.

I'm going to watch this closely when NBC does the Winter Olympics in 1080i/30. 720p/60 would be much more appropriate.

What they should be doing is mixed 1080i/30 for features and 720p/60 for actual event coverage.

[MozartMan]

IMO, hockey would be a worst case for 1080i. It will look nice on the still cover shot but when the action begins, the MPeg2 encoder is given an extreme workout as the camera continously pans and zooms to follow the action.

did you see hockey in 1080i on 1080i HTDV?

Effective motion resolution drops to a very jerky 15 fps in the extreme.

I thought that reolution is measured in pixels.

Effective motion resolution drops to a very jerky 15 fps in the extreme.

I thought the HD 1080i in US was 29.97 pfs

[edDV]

IMO, hockey would be a worst case for 1080i. It will look nice on the still cover shot but when the action begins, the MPeg2 encoder is given an extreme workout as the camera continously pans and zooms to follow the action.

did you see hockey in 1080i on 1080i HTDV?

Yes, nice thing about cable is they can offer 25Mb/s data rates for HDTV where DTV broadcast uses 14-19 Mb/s. But the issues are still there during motion.

Effective motion resolution drops to a very jerky 15 fps in the extreme.

I thought that reolution is measured in pixels.

I'm talking about framerate (motion) resolution.

Effective motion resolution drops to a very jerky 15 fps in the extreme.

I thought the HD 1080i in US was 29.97 pfs

1080i would be constant 29.97 fps if it was uncompressed or all I frame MPeg2. ATSC MPeg2 compresses intraframe (inside frame like JPeg) and interframe (motion compression between I frames).

MPeg2 divides the picture into 8x8 blocks and 16x16 macroblocks. When block motion happens in a portion of the image, only change values and motion vectors are transmitted allowing significant compression. If a scene is doing a slow pan, all blocks are in motion but motion vectors point to mostly existing data so compression is still possible. If a camera is both panning and zooming, then all blocks need recalculation and compression boggs down. Since the transmission bitrate is constrained, the encoder can only respond by dropping pixel resolution and in extreme cases drop frame rate. This happens alot in football, hockey and basketball. Baseball camera angles are chosen to minimize fast pans. Baseball and golf can work in 1080i.

All of this happens with 720p/59.94 as well but the effective frame rate stays between 59.94 and worse case 29.97 when full frames are being dropped (i.e previous frame is repeated).

This is a 480i frame inside a 720p frame but illustrates the issue. 29.97 fps interlace by definition starts with half the vertical resolution during motion.

[MozartMan]

Yes, nice thing about cable is they can offer 25Mb/s data rates for HDTV where DTV broadcast uses 14-19 Mb/s. But the issues are still there during motion.

As far as I know HDTV standard for 1080i is VBR at 19 Mb/s max.
HDV standard is 25 Mb/s CBR.

All HD videos that I recorded from Comcast cable are between 8 and 17 Mb/s.

[MozartMan]

This is a 480i frame inside a 720p frame but illustrates the issue. 29.97 fps interlace by definition starts with half the vertical resolution during motion.

Of course when you blow up 480i frame to fit into 720p frame you will see all the crap from 480i source. Try to do this with 1080i source and see what happens.

[edDV]

Yes, nice thing about cable is they can offer 25Mb/s data rates for HDTV where DTV broadcast uses 14-19 Mb/s. But the issues are still there during motion.

As far as I know HDTV standard for 1080i is VBR at 19 Mb/s max.
HDV standard is 25 Mb/s CBR.

All HD videos that I recorded from Comcast cable are between 8 and 17 Mb/s.

Networks distribute to the TV stations and cable head ends at greater bitrates. The broadcaster can set transmittion bitrates as they see fit. Many transmit a SD 480i + HD in the 19Mb/s total bitrate.

Are you getting Comcast HD off the IEEE-1394 MPeg2_TS stream? My local Comcast has just been upgraded to 750MHz and HD channels (both locals and nationals) are provided at either 20 or 25 Mb/s. This will vary locally. Your rates may indicate your system is 550 MHz and they need to compress more.

Local stations here (all but one) connect to Comcast by fiber with higher bitrates than they broadcast over ATSC. For new system upgrades, Comcast is connecting to neighborhoods by fiber so that coax runs are less than a couple of miles or so. HD channels look great but the dramatic difference has been in the "cable digital" channels that are still 524x480 but have much greater bitrate than before.

[edDV]

This is a 480i frame inside a 720p frame but illustrates the issue. 29.97 fps interlace by definition starts with half the vertical resolution during motion.

Of course when you blow up 480i frame to fit into 720p frame you will see all the crap from 480i source. Try to do this with 1080i source and see what happens.

I know it is a poor example but illustrates the way interlace handles motion. I'm planning to get more examples off the Olympics coverage.

[MozartMan]

Are you getting Comcast HD off the IEEE-1394 MPeg2_TS stream?

Yes, I have 3412 that replaced 6412. I use CapDVHS to get TS videos to my PC via FireWire.

[tedkunich]

It would be interesting to know the model number of your HDTV because these perceptions differ by display technology and native display resolution.

It is a Hitachi 50VS810 LCD rear projection set. Source is a HD DirectTivo. I see no difference in the picture quality setting the direcTivo to 720p or 1080i output.

I based my 5.1 sound comment on the pregame show. ABC totally blew the audio side of the half time Rolling Stones performance. It was like they never did a sound check to set levels before the show. You couldn't hear Jagger. They finally got it acceptable about half way through.

My statement is based on the obnoxious rear sound effects, i.e. loud and unneeded, and the occasional extremely loud blasts of static.

IMO, hockey would be a worst case for 1080i. It will look nice on the still cover shot but when the action begins, the MPeg2 encoder is given an extreme workout as the camera continously pans and zooms to follow the action. Effective motion resolution drops to a very jerky 15 fps in the extreme. 720p will hold an acceptable frame rate during that kind of action.

I'm going to watch this closely when NBC does the Winter Olympics in 1080i/30. 720p/60 would be much more appropriate.

What they should be doing is mixed 1080i/30 for features and 720p/60 for actual event coverage.

Well, I am resonably happy with the HDNet hockey feeds, even with DirecTV's reduction in allocated bandwidth. HDNet's equipment seems to just give a much clearer picture than what the major networks use - very apparent in the face closeups.

[edDV]

It would be interesting to know the model number of your HDTV because these perceptions differ by display technology and native display resolution.

It is a Hitachi 50VS810 LCD rear projection set. Source is a HD DirectTivo. I see no difference in the picture quality setting the direcTivo to 720p or 1080i output.

The Hitachi 50VS810 has a native resolution of 1280x720 and LCD is natively progressive. So what you have is a native 720p HDTV which is good.

1080i/29.97 inputs would be IVTC'd to 23.976 progressive if film and then downscaled to 1280x720p for display.

1080i/29.97 live video (sports) would need deinterlace and then downscaled to 1280x720p for display.

480p DVD would be upscaled to 720p for display

480i would need deinterlace and then upscaled to 1280x720p for display.

A 720p source like DTV ABC/FOX or cable ESPN-HD would be the best direct match for that set.

[energy80s]

Hi there, I've been away from these forums for some time and only recently decided to have another look. It's interesting to see your take on HDTV as we in the UK are just about to embark on the HDTV journey. As I work for the BBC I have been party to some HDTV briefings. Basically our satellite service provider (Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV) is planning to start an HDTV service of some 12 channels in April using 720p.

This is only a temporary measure as all of the UK intends to go 1080p. Apparently the only reason for the 720p resolution is that Sky and Fox are the same company and Fox use 720 in America, so Sky has decided to start with it here. However this will be broadcast in MPEG4 at around 9Mbps, so God knows what the pictures will look like in people's homes. The BBC intends making all its programmes in HD by 2010 but still hasn't decided on a transmission system.

The other thing is that it appears to be very expensive with TV sets costing thousands of pounds so I don't see it catching on too readily. I'm wondering if people will really notice much of a difference between 576i and 720p - especially on smaller sets (remember that most people's living rooms here are only about 12ft square!) - maybe seeing some 1080p material via HD-DVD will convince them that 720 isn't worth the investment.

Just wondering what the US take is on this?

Incidently I saw the start of the Superbowl game and thought that the camera work was terrible - anyone else notice the poorly selected shots / out of focus shots / shaky shots poor cutaways being broadcast?

[edDV]

Hi there, I've been away from these forums for some time and only recently decided to have another look. It's interesting to see your take on HDTV as we in the UK are just about to embark on the HDTV journey. As I work for the BBC I have been party to some HDTV briefings. Basically our satellite service provider (Rupert Murdoch's Sky TV) is planning to start an HDTV service of some 12 channels in April using 720p.

This is only a temporary measure as all of the UK intends to go 1080p. Apparently the only reason for the 720p resolution is that Sky and Fox are the same company and Fox use 720 in America, so Sky has decided to start with it here. However this will be broadcast in MPEG4 at around 9Mbps, so God knows what the pictures will look like in people's homes. The BBC intends making all its programmes in HD by 2010 but still hasn't decided on a transmission system.

Hi, interesting to see the UK taking a similar path to the 1950's - 1960's, by letting America and Japan experiment and then select the best of the experiments. A quick history of our experience follows:

1. ATSC DTV system was developed in the 1990's primarily to consolidate the VHF and UHF TV spectrum into about half of the former UHF band in order to free VHF for telecommunications purposes. The resulting compressed digital transmission system allowed channels to be located closer together in the spectrum and allowed about 19Mb/s of data transmission in each 6MHz of spectrum. The MPeg2 compression technique allowed multi-channel broadcasting of up to five SD 720x480i channels (~3.5 Mb/s) in combination with HDTV 1080i/30 720p/60 (~12-19 Mb/s) or one 1080p/24 movie channel in one 6MHz RF TV station slot. The complete list of options is shown here.
http://www.hdtvprimer.com/ISSUES/what_is_ATSC.html

2. We are now designing a second generation based on MPeg4 which will allow similar quality at about half the bitrate. This is being implemented first for satellite DBS (DirecTV's 1000 HD channel system) but is also part of the HD DVD standards (H.264 or VC-1) and is being considered for second generation ATSC broadcasting.

So this is where we are today and it makes sense for Sky to use MPeg4 in order to fit more channels on a given transponder.

The choice of 720p vs 1080i is more of a marketing/business decision. 720p/50 would be better for sports, 1080i/25 would have advantages for broadcasters who are also doing 576i/25. 720p/25 could be done in half the datarate of either 720p/50 or 1080i/25. 1080p would take more bandwidth.

The other thing is that it appears to be very expensive with TV sets costing thousands of pounds so I don't see it catching on too readily. I'm wondering if people will really notice much of a difference between 576i and 720p - especially on smaller sets (remember that most people's living rooms here are only about 12ft square!) - maybe seeing some 1080p material via HD-DVD will convince them that 720 isn't worth the investment.

Just wondering what the US take is on this?

First, I'm not sure if the UK is planning to shut down the analog PAL system soon. Here there is great pressure to turn off analog NTSC and force all TV to ATSC DTV.

The NTSC viewer will need a new DTV set top tuner to connect to his analog NTSC TV. He will see a better ~720x480i DVD quality picture with less ghosting and more channels from each local station. About 88% of US TV housholds are already connected to cable or DBS tuners. Those people will need no new equipment but will see better quality on local stations.

For a true HDTV experience you need to think in terms of "theater" viewing where people sit close to a large 16:9 aspect screen. Rule of thumb, best theater experience requires sitting about 3-5 screen heights back from the screen.
http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

The calculator above shows that a 12'x12' room will do nicely with a 42 to 50'' screen. At that size, 720x576 (DVD) falls short on resolution. 1280x720p should be adequate resolution for that size screen. 1920x1080p may be overkill.

People watching a smaller 27" set will see little if any difference between 720x576 and 1280x720, unless they sit 1 meter from the screen!


PS: I'm half Brit and have relatives in the UK so I know the typical home layout there. I'm trying to get my mind around whether the formal "front room" is going to be converted into a home theater. I think you may see your divorce rate double over that issue.

[leebo]

About 88% of US TV housholds are already connected to cable or DBS tuners. Those people will need no new equipment but will see better quality on local stations.

You obviously dont have Comcast cable. I just switched from Dish (due to apartment issues). Dish pic quality was less than stellar on many channels, but Comcasts digital channels (like the many flavors of MTV) reach a new low. Can you say VCD quality?

HD quality is not bad though.

[edDV]

About 88% of US TV housholds are already connected to cable or DBS tuners. Those people will need no new equipment but will see better quality on local stations.

You obviously dont have Comcast cable. I just switched from Dish (due to apartment issues). Dish pic quality was less than stellar on many channels, but Comcasts digital channels (like the many flavors of MTV) reach a new low. Can you say VCD quality?

HD quality is not bad though.

This varies by your local situation. Recently here Comcast converted from one of the nations worst systems to a state of the art upgrade all connected by fiber optics to the head end. The old system stuffed 8-10 524x480 "digital" channels into each 6MHz analog channel. The Mpeg artifacts were awful. The new system has less compression and looks much better than Dish or DirecTV. The HBO SD channels are showing 4-6Mb/s not much different than you get on a DVD.

[leebo]

Well, here's hoping a small town like Los Angeles will eventually catch up to new technology.

[edDV]

Well, here's hoping a small town like Los Angeles will eventually catch up to new technology.

The worst case for both Comcast and SBC DSL technology has been in wide patches of Silicon Valley. The cable systems are moslty 550MHz (90 channel) and the phone company central offices are widely spaced. Things are changing slowly.

I imagine most of LA is similar since infrastructure growth also occured 1960's - 70's

[canadateck]

ABC totally blew the audio side of the half time Rolling Stones performance. It was like they never did a sound check to set levels before the show. You couldn't hear Jagger. They finally got it acceptable about half way through.

NFL censorship

[MOVIEGEEK]

This varies by your local situation. Recently here Comcast converted from one of the nations worst systems to a state of the art upgrade all connected by fiber optics to the head end. The old system stuffed 8-10 524x480 "digital" channels into each 6MHz analog channel. The Mpeg artifacts were awful. The new system has less compression and looks much better than Dish or DirecTV. The HBO SD channels are showing 4-6Mb/s not much different than you get on a DVD.

I agree,I'm on Comcast and the picture is much better than my friends Dish.I went over to my friends on Sunday and I could barely stand to watch the game on his HDTV through all the macroblocking,cable doesn't suffer(as much) from the high compression.

[edDV]

ABC totally blew the audio side of the half time Rolling Stones performance. It was like they never did a sound check to set levels before the show. You couldn't hear Jagger. They finally got it acceptable about half way through.

NFL censorship

I was talking about the 5.1 mix. That bleep lasted about a second.

PS, right not a bleep but a level dip.

[canadateck]

There was no bleep/ Maybe I missed it/,But they Lowered the Audio at Points in the Song.