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

[canadateck]

I should say 2 out of the 3 songs.

[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.

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.

It will be interesting to see how many people actually go for 42" screens as most homes just have their TV in one corner of their living room. Very few have surround sound as no-one can be arsed with the speaker setup! I personally don't like big screens in small environments. A 42" plasma is great in a business environment (like a hotel reception) but total f**king overkill in someones living room. I have a 21" 4:3 TV set and its just about big enough for a room 11ft x 16ft - although I know I will have to go up to a 28" if I go widescreen to get the "height" of image I already have as 4:3. Trust me, a 28" widescreen set is as big as I would want for normal TV viewing, and that's at 8-10 feet away. Whether you would notice much difference between 576i & 720p on such a set remains to be seen.

Plans for analogue TV switchoff are to switch off various regions of the UK between 2008 and 2012 - with the likes of London and N.Ireland being at the very end of 2012. I doubt if anyone would want analogue switched off completely until after the 2012 Olympic Games. However Digital TV and HDTV are NOT classed as the same thing here, so although plans are afoot for digital to replace analogue, HDTV is still in the early stages and is not currently on the agenda for terrestrial transmissions (other than for test broadcasts).

[caernavon]

Even the "Off Topic" forum says no discussions of politics or religion. Maybe this tired, boring topic should be banned as well.

[edDV]

It will be interesting to see how many people actually go for 42" screens as most homes just have their TV in one corner of their living room. Very few have surround sound as no-one can be arsed with the speaker setup! I personally don't like big screens in small environments. A 42" plasma is great in a business environment (like a hotel reception) but total f**king overkill in someones living room. I have a 21" 4:3 TV set and its just about big enough for a room 11ft x 16ft - although I know I will have to go up to a 28" if I go widescreen to get the "height" of image I already have as 4:3. Trust me, a 28" widescreen set is as big as I would want for normal TV viewing, and that's at 8-10 feet away. Whether you would notice much difference between 576i & 720p on such a set remains to be seen.

Plans for analogue TV switchoff are to switch off various regions of the UK between 2008 and 2012 - with the likes of London and N.Ireland being at the very end of 2012. I doubt if anyone would want analogue switched off completely until after the 2012 Olympic Games. However Digital TV and HDTV are NOT classed as the same thing here, so although plans are afoot for digital to replace analogue, HDTV is still in the early stages and is not currently on the agenda for terrestrial transmissions (other than for test broadcasts).

Digital TV and HDTV are separate issues here as well. Interesting that London is last to have analog shut down. Here the large cities are first in line because that is where the RF spectrum is needed.

As for large screens in UK houses, that will be a trend to watch. A 28" 16:9 TV at 8-10 feet will show little difference between 720x576 vs 1280x720. To get the HD theater experience that they are pushing you would need a 50" to 61" screen at 8 feet, or 38" to 42" at 6 feet.

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

[Soopafresh]

Well, the Olympics on NBC in 1080i start soon, so we'll see how they look quality wise. I've complained about NBC's hardware encoding - macro blocks up the ying yang during fast pans and brightness changes. They need to push the bit rate - get rid of those useless PIDs on the transport stream.

I recorded the Stones (man, not a good performance). Perhaps I'll post a few pics when I get home.

[siddharthagandhi]

ya know, i have a standard NO HD tv, and im satisifed with the quality of the programming, it looks perfectly fine, and you people are raving over a goddamn 720p and 1080i

[edDV]

ya know, i have a standard NO HD tv, and im satisifed with the quality of the programming, it looks perfectly fine, and you people are raving over a goddamn 720p and 1080i

Be patient, you will soon be able to rant and rave over interlace vs progressive soon. My main point was progressive 59.94 should be used for action sports and 1080i/29.97 should be used for the broad mountain landscapes. There is no reason why this isn't switching scene by scene or at least progrm by program.

The US networks have decided to do everything 720p/59.94 (ABC-FOX-ESPN) or everything 1080i/29.97 (NBC-CBS-PBS-HBO, et. al.) They should all be mixed standard. I understand the operational difficulties required (i.e. smart operational staff). Hell, they can't even get 5.1 center channel to work consistantly or a decent 2ch audio mix that includes the center channel voice audio. It is both a management and union problem but the customer is getting crap quality. High school students could be trained to do a better job.