dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
13720
share rss forum feed

donjuan2002

join:2002-10-06
Kearny, NJ
reply to PJL

Re: Fox announces Fox Sports 1 & 2..

making space for BeiN sports

OwlSaver
OwlSaver
Premium
join:2005-01-30
Berwyn, PA
said by donjuan2002:

making space for BeiN sports

One can hope. Verizon needs to get BeIN 1 and BeIN 2 before the start of next years european soccer season.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to PJL
said by PJL:

said by MURICA:

Glad to hear News Corp continues to lose all interesting programming. Their channels look like shit because they're only 720p. Best if the good stuff is kept on the 1080i networks so I can keep ignoring Fox.

I'm not sure it's the 720p. ESPN uses 720p (as does ABC), and their quality is fine. It's the fact that Fox uses a lot of compression -- it's cheaper, and we all know how Rubert pays attention to the bottom line.

No it's not. ESPN looks terrible and so is ABC.

In fact ESPN is one of the worst looking cable networks and ABC is the worst looking broadcast network, even worse than Fox...

Even ESPN's backhauls look like shit, and the standard bitrate for an ESPN backhaul is 38+ Mbps MPEG-2 or H.264. It's pretty obvious that 720p is the limiting factor here.

Have you ever tried watching ESPN 3D? The idiots at Disney still insist on using 720p even for their 3D channel.

So what happens is you get two side-by-side horizontal videos that must fill a 1280x720 space and be combined into a single picture by your 3DTV, giving the video an effective resolution of 1280x360 - that's 460,800 pixels! Barely better than SD. (SD is 345,600 pixels)

The folks at Discovery Communications are actually competent and as such they have selected 1080i for 3net, and the picture quality difference between 3net and ESPN 3D is vast as a result.

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by MURICA:

said by PJL:

said by MURICA:

Glad to hear News Corp continues to lose all interesting programming. Their channels look like shit because they're only 720p. Best if the good stuff is kept on the 1080i networks so I can keep ignoring Fox.

I'm not sure it's the 720p. ESPN uses 720p (as does ABC), and their quality is fine. It's the fact that Fox uses a lot of compression -- it's cheaper, and we all know how Rubert pays attention to the bottom line.

No it's not. ESPN looks terrible and so is ABC.

In fact ESPN is one of the worst looking cable networks and ABC is the worst looking broadcast network, even worse than Fox...

Even ESPN's backhauls look like ***, and the standard bitrate for an ESPN backhaul is 38+ Mbps MPEG-2 or H.264. It's pretty obvious that 720p is the limiting factor here.

Have you ever tried watching ESPN 3D? The idiots at Disney still insist on using 720p even for their 3D channel.

So what happens is you get two side-by-side horizontal videos that must fill a 1280x720 space and be combined into a single picture by your 3DTV, giving the video an effective resolution of 1280x360 - that's 460,800 pixels! Barely better than SD. (SD is 345,600 pixels)

The folks at Discovery Communications are actually competent and as such they have selected 1080i for 3net, and the picture quality difference between 3net and ESPN 3D is vast as a result.

You have the right to your opinion, and I to mine. I do not agree with your assessment.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03

1 edit
This is not an opinion, though. Some things aren't opinions.

This is fact.

1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels.
1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels.

There is no need to have a debate about this when the facts are right in front of you. It is a fact that when given a sufficient bitrate 1080i video will look clearer than 720p video no matter what bitrate the 720p video has been assigned as long as the material is filmed natively at 1080i or higher.

mets18

join:2008-10-15
New York, NY
Correct for a still picture. For fast motion progressive scan has its advantages which is why 1080p looks better than 1080i.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
1080i, when properly de-interlaced, is 1080p.

When it comes to Blu-ray, anything with fast motion has to use 1080i, as the Blu-ray specifications only allow a maximum framerate of 24 fps for 1080p. 1080i video, on the other hand, can be up to 30 fps or 60 fields per second.

mets18

join:2008-10-15
New York, NY
Yes, but LCD and plasma screens cannot deinterlace perfectly so there is deterioration.


aztecnology
O Rly?
Premium
join:2003-02-12
Murrieta, CA
reply to jodhak
I love a good epeen contest...

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
said by aztecnology:

I love a good epeen contest...

Me too -- but MURICA says it isn't opinion-- he says it's fact. And that he's glad "we go that resolved." Although he does present technical facts, I'm not that arrogant - I think it's also opinion based on perception. And this is my last comment.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to mets18
said by mets18:

Correct for a still picture. For fast motion progressive scan has its advantages which is why 1080p looks better than 1080i.

There is only one advantage offered by 720p: faster overall framerate.

But that advantage only applies if the material is shot at 60fps and never ever falls below that framerate throughout the production pipeline.

The only people who produce content this way are Fox Sports and ESPN, and then only for American productions (since America and Japan are pretty much the only countries which use the 720p60 format.) Most other countries use 720p50 or 1080i25 for production. Those productions get chopped down to 720p30 by Fox and ESPN for broadcast here, removing any benefit the 720p format might have offered.

Case in point: the FIFA World Cup in 2010 was produced in 1080i25 by the South African broadcasters. ESPN took that feed, chopped it down to 720p (removing resolution) and added a bunch of useless frame interpolation to make it 60fps. The result looked like shit. By contrast, Univision (an NBCUniversal brand and the Spanish-language rightsholders) kept it in 1080i and used frame-doubling to get it from 25fps to 30fps. The result looked quite frankly stunning, so much so that as soon as I found out about it, I watched the games on Univision (and Telefutura when necessary) exclusively.

In America, the only time 720p provides any sort of benefit is if you are watching a very fast-moving sport (I would only really count motorsports, basketball and ice-hockey as candidates) produced and broadcast by Fox or ESPN. In all other cases, 720p offers no practical benefit over 1080i.

UnnDunn
Premium
join:2005-12-21
Brooklyn, NY
reply to mets18
said by mets18:

Yes, but LCD and plasma screens cannot deinterlace perfectly so there is deterioration.

Only if the original material was 60fps.

If the original material was 25/30fps, and interlaced solely for broadcast (as the vast majority of HD video is, worldwide), your TV will deinterlace it perfectly.