[opendtv] Re: Time to give up on 1080i for football
- From: "Hunold, Ken" <KRH@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:32:56 -0500
Looks we've started up the old 720p/1080i argument again (in just a
slightly different form.) This "church bus" has been joined by many and
is racing downhill at an ever-increasing rate of speed.
Let me try to divert the discussion into a "run-away truck" emergency
off-ramp, of sorts, by suggesting that 60 Hz is not a high enough frame
rate for football (either American or "metric") regardless of how you
slice the picture. To me, there is no advantage for either a blurry
1280x720 frame or a blurry 1920x540 field. The minimum frame rate seems
to be 3x the frame or related field rate (150/180 Hz.) Evidence to
support this can be found in the 3x "Super Motion" system from the
1980's (Super Slo-mo to some) and some of the higher frame rate versions
being employed on sports broadcasts today.
Regards,
Ken Hunold
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Peter Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:35 AM
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Time to give up on 1080i for football
-----Original Message-----
From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Albert Manfredi
Sent: 08 December 2009 01:08
To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Time to give up on 1080i for football
Peter Wilson wrote:
> I sit on a DTG http://www.dtg.org.uk/ Group Committee in the UK
> chaired by BSkyb looking at the changes needed in infrastructure to
> move to 1080P50 for Production. There is serious intent from Several
> UK Broadcasters in moving.
Makes good sense for prooduction and archiving, IMO.
> In the UK there was serious consideration given to Terrestrial
> broadcast of 1080P50 once the Analogue to Digital switchover is
> complete and the frequencies are reallocated. Unfortunately Production
> Silicon will not be available in time for mass rollout before the
> London Olympics so it wont happen this time round.
If it were up to me, I would incorporate the 1080/60p (or 50p) options
at the same time that the H.264 compression algorithm is introduced. I
would do that whether or not silicon exists now, on the assumption that
at least eventually, H.264 would become tweaked enough to make 1080/60p
feasible at the current HD bit rates.
> There is plenty of data produced by the EBU which proves that there is
> no coding penalty over 1080I50 if you encode 1080P50 as progressive
> encoding is more efficient. Craig has been saying this for a while. In
> this case 1080P50 or 720P50 becomes a life choice.
Yes, and that last sentence, which is the natural conclusion one would
come to, is precisely why I have never believed this to be true. The
problem here is semantics, I'm convinced.
I would readily agree that by some measures of efficiency, coding
progressive is more efficient than interlaced. For instance, I have no
doubt that coding 60 frames per second in progressive mode is more
efficient than coding 60 frames per second (120 fields per second)
interlaced.
I also wouldn't doubt that a heavily pre-filtered 1080/60p can fit in
the same channel as a 720/60p. But then again, the pre-filtered 1080/60p
would also have no more detail than the 720/60p.
If we are really to believe that 1080/60p takes up no more channel
capacity than 720/60p, then we are saying that 480/60p should take up no
more capacity than 720/60p, and by extension, no more bit rate than
1080/60p.
Which I find hard to swallow.
>>I didn't say that 1080P takes up no more channel capacity than 720P,
>>it
takes up no more space than 1080I for most pictures.
>>720P has half the spatial resolution of 1080 so it will always need
>>less
capacity.
>>The life choice was a comment on the market. Marketed as true HD most
people will now buy 1080 receivers even if the benefit is small to
>>none on smaller screen sizes.
Everything costs more in 1080p. The interframes, the motion vectors, the
interpolated frames, the predictive frames. Unless you pre-filter the
quality down.
Bert
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is faster and more secure than ever.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowslive/hotmail_bl1/hotmail_bl1.asp
x?oc
id=PID23879::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-ww:WM_IMHM_1:092009
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
