There Is Hope For HD

[kootaberra]

When they refer to HD in the States, 99% of the time they mean 720p not 1080i.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

75% of HD in US is 1080i. Only Fox, Abc and ESPN use 720p60. Rest of the channels broadcast in 1080i60.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the HiDef Caps I have of CSI:NY from CBS are 720p not 1080i and that's one of the newest show's to come from the US!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

CBS is 1080i/60, don't know where you saw 720p on CBS???? There are 3 x 720p and 18 x 1808i/60 outlets in the US. have a look at this site.

http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadc...e_formats_hdtv/

[kootaberra]

gepm,

interesting info.  and the "issues/limitations" you mention with HDCAM is 1080i only also? (ie cannot do 1080p?)  not going to "start one" but is it perhaps another argument for 720P? hmmmmm

http://www.vxm.com/Progvsinter.html

may have posted before (toooo many forums hehe), but mentions the 1440 issue etc.

my understanding is quite a few HD shows in the US are still filmed? And we know film is way past HDCAM in "capable" resolution (though it does bring about its own little issues, grain, which when very suttle if find is not a bad thing, personal i guess).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem with any 1080 v 720 issues is it is really Sony (1080) v Panasonic (720).

All the Panasonic camcorders are 720p. So when the final product is sent out on HDCAM its still down on res compared to 1080 (other things aside).

In the US 3 outlets are 720p while 18 are 1080i. The bandwith for the same percieved quality is about the same. I still hope the frame rate is raised as in 1080/50(60)p type mode. then we will see some trully HD (non flicker/jitter) images.

Have a look at this site.

http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/broadc...e_formats_hdtv/

[Champion_R]

CBS is 1080i/60, don't know where you saw 720p on CBS???? There are 3 x 720p and 18 x 1808i/60 outlets in the US.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The show was probably resized to 1280x720 and then converted to DivX then uploaded and that's probably how Djos got his CSI:NY.

[laurie]

Bob is for true video based "i" source. Ie much live TV, most news, studio shows etc. Ie crap picture stuff

Thanks Spoonfed

cheers laurie

[laurie]

By the way the price for the Sony High Definition Handycam HDR-FX1 is RRP $5800

so street prices will be cheaper

cheers laurie

[Spoonfed]

I've posted this before, no doubt some have read, i found it interesting on this HD "standard" debate

http://www.vxm.com/Progvsinter.html

[Adam-O]

Champion_R,

Wondering if you've read that article (it's quite a few years old now) that Spoonfed linked to and what your thoughts are regarding Nine broadcasting 1920 x 1080i and Ten broadcasting 1440 x 1080i? Like I've said, Ten's HD looks better and sharper than Nine's here in Brisbane/Gold Coast.

I think Nine are just wasting bandwidth putting out 1920 horizontal pixels. The extra horizontal resolution is not present in most sources anyway.

Additional data on this issue has emerged in Japan and at the recent NAB show. In Japan, the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) has already changed 1080x1920 to 1080x1440 because the higher resolution causes coding artifacts (blocking) that can be reduced or eliminated, depending on the scene, by some reduction in horizontal resolution. There were also reports from NAB of blocking artifacts in 1080I coded material, no doubt from the same cause. Last December, Sony requested ATSC to change the 1080x1920 format to 1080x1440.

Regards,

Adam

[Champion_R]

Champion_R,

Wondering if you've read that article (it's quite a few years old now) that Spoonfed linked to and what your thoughts are regarding Nine broadcasting 1920 x 1080i and Ten broadcasting 1440 x 1080i? Like I've said, Ten's HD looks better and sharper than Nine's here in Brisbane/Gold Coast.

I think Nine are just wasting bandwidth putting out 1920 horizontal pixels. The extra horizontal resolution is not present in most sources anyway.

Additional data on this issue has emerged in Japan and at the recent NAB show. In Japan, the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) has already changed 1080x1920 to 1080x1440 because the higher resolution causes coding artifacts (blocking) that can be reduced or eliminated, depending on the scene, by some reduction in horizontal resolution. There were also reports from NAB of blocking artifacts in 1080I coded material, no doubt from the same cause. Last December, Sony requested ATSC to change the 1080x1920 format to 1080x1440.

Regards,

Adam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can promise you Nine HD has far less blocking in Perth than Ten HD does.

[Adam-O]

Yes, so you keep saying. But that's to do with the fact that their bitrate is somewhat higher than Ten's.

What I am saying is than when all else is equal (bitrates pretty much identical) that perhaps the 1440 broadcasts appear sharper than the 1920 broadcasts (assuming source material that is 1440 anyway -- HDCAM -- and a display device at the end user site which can not resolve more than 1440 pixels; these two assumptions are pretty much the norm these days).

In this case, the 1920 horizontal pixels is completely wasteful and actually contributes to a slight reduction in quality, because there is some overhead involved in packing additional pixels into a stream, even when the high frequency content (read: source resolution) is not present.

Adam

[Champion_R]

Yes, so you keep saying. But that's to do with the fact that their bitrate is somewhat higher than Ten's.

What I am saying is than when all else is equal (bitrates pretty much identical) that perhaps the 1440 broadcasts appear sharper than the 1920 broadcasts (assuming source material that is 1440 anyway -- HDCAM -- and a display device at the end user site which can not resolve more than 1440 pixels; these two assumptions are pretty much the norm these days).

In this case, the 1920 horizontal pixels is completely wasteful and actually contributes to a slight reduction in quality, because there is some overhead involved in packing additional pixels into a stream, even when the high frequency content (read: source resolution) is not present.

Adam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think we can safely assume Nine chose 1920 for a good reason. They have shown they are interested in providing a quality service through their efforts of increasing the bitrate so I'm sure there is a reason for using 1920. We just don't know what it is.

[Adam-O]

I think we can safely assume Nine chose 1920 for a good reason. They have shown they are interested in providing a quality service through their efforts of increasing the bitrate so I'm sure there is a reason for using 1920. We just don't know what it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmmmm, you're willing to put that much faith in the networks. Don't forget that you are watching a Nine affiliate, not a Kerry Packer-owned Nine. Yes, Nine Perth does seem to be genuinely interested in getting the most out of HD. And yes, even Nine Network (Eastern States) is the market leader in HD, but that doesn't mean that everything they are doing is necessarily the best for quality reasons. There could be a lot of reasons why they're doing 1920, and it's not necessarily for quality reasons. Also, you're forgetting one important fact. Nine does not look as good as Ten over here in the East, at least for all of my viewings. Though I am very impressed that they do 5.1 Dolby Surround sometimes.

Adam

[Champion_R]

Hmmmm, you're willing to put that much faith in the networks. Don't forget that you are watching a Nine affiliate, not a Kerry Packer-owned Nine. Yes, Nine Perth does seem to be genuinely interested in getting the most out of HD. And yes, even Nine Network (Eastern States) is the market leader in HD, but that doesn't mean that everything they are doing is necessarily the best for quality reasons. There could be a lot of reasons why they're doing 1920, and it's not necessarily for quality reasons. Also, you're forgetting one important fact. Nine does not look as good as Ten over here in the East, at least for all of my viewings. Though I am very impressed that they do 5.1 Dolby Surround sometimes.

Adam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I'm saying is there is usually a reason for these things. Are you suggesting they could of flipped a coin to decide? Possible but I personally think there is a reason for it. Maybe they think square pixels are a good thing, maybe they're planning to buy HD cameras that can capture 1920 or they already own them, etc.

If you think your Nine HD is bad you should think of the Sydney viewers receiving 11.8mbit 1440x1088 HD Lite.

Edited December 19, 2004 by Champion_R

[Spoonfed]

Though I am very impressed that they do 5.1 Dolby Surround sometimes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes true, however im am more unimpressed that in Brisane at least they cannot even output 2ch AC3, instead some retarded 5.1 upmix that sounds like crap, mono would be better. I guess perhaps the fact they can't even flick it to 2.0 output indicates they really do not give a rats? (especially since i have talked to the local Brisbane "chief tech" or what ever about his issue, and the fact that some AVR's cannot even decode this crap).

[Champion_R]

Yes true, however im am more unimpressed that in Brisane at least they cannot even output 2ch AC3, instead some retarded 5.1 upmix that sounds like crap, mono would be better.  I guess perhaps the fact they can't even flick it to 2.0 output indicates they really do not give a rats?  (especially since i have talked to the local Brisbane "chief tech" or what ever about his issue, and the fact that some AVR's cannot even decode this crap).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can't believe they have not resolved that problem yet. You've been dealing with it for about a year. Have you tried talking to the members who work in televison who might be able to take a sample of this corrupt audio and run it through professional equipment?

[Adam-O]

All I'm saying is there is usually a reason for these things. Are you suggesting they could of flipped a coin to decide? Possible but I personally think there is a reason for it. Maybe they think square pixels are a good thing, maybe they're planning to buy HD cameras that can capture 1920 or they already own them, etc.

If you think your Nine HD is bad you should think of the Sydney viewers receiving 11.8mbit 1440x1088 HD Lite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't say it was bad, just that Ten HD is clearly superior. Of course there are blocking artifacts on Ten's too. We all know that you need > 15 Mb/s to get decent HD.

Of course they didn't flip a coin. Of course they have their reason. It's not necessarily tied up with what is the best quality though. If so, then why are Ten doing 1440? Are you saying that Nine care about quality and Ten don't? You may think that in Perth (because your benchmark is a relatively high Nine HD), but over here, the impression is quite the opposite. Ten have superior technical quality, on both SD and HD.

Adam

[Champion_R]

I didn't say it was bad, just that Ten HD is clearly superior. Of course there are blocking artifacts on Ten's too. We all know that you need > 15 Mb/s to get decent HD.

Of course they didn't flip a coin. Of course they have their reason. It's not necessarily tied up with what is the best quality though. If so, then why are Ten doing 1440? Are you saying that Nine care about quality and Ten don't? You may think that in Perth (because your benchmark is a relatively high Nine HD), but over here, the impression I get is quite the opposite. Ten have superior technical quality, on both SD and HD.

Adam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Apfsds-t said Ten chose 1440 because they found that it helped with blocking. I don't claim to know why Nine chose 1920 and if anyone does know, I'd be interested in knowing.

[Spoonfed]

I can't believe they have not resolved that problem yet. You've been dealing with it for about a year. Have you tried talking to the members who work in televison who might be able to take a sample of this corrupt audio and run it through professional equipment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah i know Don't really care anyways, just like pointing it out as much as possible given there totally lack of care/concern about it. Quite funny actually as we have done some work for 9 Brisbane, they where quite picky that everything was "A OK" haha clowns.

[Champion_R]

Hmmmm, you're willing to put that much faith in the networks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't get me wrong, Nine have their faults. One that I can think of now is not showing Enterprise

[Adam-O]

Apfsds-t said Ten chose 1440 because they found that it helped with blocking. I don't claim to know why Nine chose 1920 and if anyone does know, I'd be interested in knowing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and so did the MIT professor who wrote the article that Spoonfed linked to:

Additional data on this issue has emerged in Japan and at the recent NAB show. In Japan, the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) has already changed 1080x1920 to 1080x1440 because the higher resolution causes coding artifacts (blocking) that can be reduced or eliminated, depending on the scene, by some reduction in horizontal resolution. There were also reports from NAB of blocking artifacts in 1080I coded material, no doubt from the same cause. Last December, Sony requested ATSC to change the 1080x1920 format to 1080x1440.

That's what I have been saying all along. The evidence seems to show that there are less blocking artifacts at 1440 as opposed to 1920. In addition to that, if most high-end consumer displays can't even show more than 1440 (this applies to all HD plasmas and most other HD displays), plus the source is 1440 for most material anyway (HDCAM), then why the hell broadcast in 1920 and possibly risk increasing blocking artifacts?

Apart from reading what these "experts" say, I can only go by my eyes, and as I've said all along, Ten HD @ 1440 horizontal pixels looks better than Nine HD @ 1920 horizontal pixels. I am using a Panasonic 50" plasma that has 1366 pixels of horizontal resolution, and this is quite normal, in fact many are only 1280 or 1024. Even if someone had a display device that is capable of a full native 1920 horizontal pixels, if the source is HDCAM, then that additional resolution isn't present in the source anyway!

I can understand that for you in Perth, with Nine HD being a decent amount higher in bandwidth than Ten, that you obtain different results. But that doesn't prove one way or another that Perth Nine HD wouldn't look even better if they were broadcasting in 1440 at the current bandwith! I believe there's a good chance they probably would. Perhaps you could call an engineer there?

Adam

[Champion_R]

But that doesn't prove one way or another that Perth Nine HD wouldn't look even better if they were broadcasting in 1440 at the current bandwith! I believe there's a good chance they probably would. Perhaps you could call an engineer there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think comparing Nine HD in Adelaide and Perth could prove to be interesting even though Adelaide's bitrate is about ~470kbits higher. They use 1440 but they have a "Shyte Mark" which sucks up the bandwidth and I'm not the only person who thinks so. Here's a quote from the VirtualDub help file:

Use computer generated graphics sparingly when ‘branding’ video.  Video compressors are adapted to natural images and perform sub-optimally on the saturated colors and sharp edges of computer graphics.  Depending on the video codec, title screens and ‘bugs’ in the video can adversely affect video quality, especially at low bitrates.

[Travis1503559517]

Apfsds-t said Ten chose 1440 because they found that it helped with blocking. I don't claim to know why Nine chose 1920 and if anyone does know, I'd be interested in knowing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, and so did the MIT professor who wrote the article that Spoonfed linked to:

Additional data on this issue has emerged in Japan and at the recent NAB show. In Japan, the Association of Radio Industries and Businesses (ARIB) has already changed 1080x1920 to 1080x1440 because the higher resolution causes coding artifacts (blocking) that can be reduced or eliminated, depending on the scene, by some reduction in horizontal resolution. There were also reports from NAB of blocking artifacts in 1080I coded material, no doubt from the same cause. Last December, Sony requested ATSC to change the 1080x1920 format to 1080x1440.

That's what I have been saying all along. The evidence seems to show that there are less blocking artifacts at 1440 as opposed to 1920. In addition to that, if most high-end consumer displays can't even show more than 1440 (this applies to all HD plasmas and most other HD displays), plus the source is 1440 for most material anyway (HDCAM), then why the hell broadcast in 1920 and possibly risk increasing blocking artifacts?

Apart from reading what these "experts" say, I can only go by my eyes, and as I've said all along, Ten HD @ 1440 horizontal pixels looks better than Nine HD @ 1920 horizontal pixels. I am using a Pansonic 50" plasma that has 1366 pixels of horizontal resolution, and this is quite normal, in fact many are only 1280 or 1024. Even if someone had a display device that is capable of a full native 1920 horizontal pixels, if the source is HDCAM, then that additional resolution isn't present in the source anyway!

I can understand that for you in Perth, with Nine HD being a decent amount higher in bandwidth than Ten, that you obtain different results. But that doesn't prove one way or another that Perth Nine HD wouldn't look even better if they were broadcasting in 1440 at the current bandwith! I believe there's a good chance they probably would. Perhaps you could call an engineer there?

Adam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't TEN use Panasonic D5 as their HD source... therefore they have the full 1920 x 1080i to begin with... but chose to subsample to 1440 to help relieve motion artefacts.

Also, HDCAM's filtering is greater in low contrast areas and less in high contrast areas, so the 1440 x 1080i resolution figure isn't really correct either.

At the bitrates that people are currently using, I believe that 1440 is still a better choice than 1920 (except maybe for 9 perth or adelaide).

[Adam-O]

Doesn't TEN use Panasonic D5 as their HD source... therefore they have the full 1920 x 1080i to begin with... but chose to subsample to 1440 to help relieve motion artefacts.

Also, HDCAM's filtering is greater in low contrast areas and less in high contrast areas, so the 1440 x 1080i resolution figure isn't really correct either.

I don't believe that any broadcaster using the full 1920 x 1080 under at least 15-16Mbits is doing the right thing for the viewers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ten use HDCAM (unless that's changed in the last year).

As far as the 1440 effective horizontal res figure for HDCAM, it's an overall approximation yes, but it's close enough for the purpose of what we're talking about.

I see that you've come to the same conclusion as me, that broadcasters in Australia -- who are obviously forced to use sub-optimal HD bitrates -- should not be broadcasting in 1920 x 1080 if they wish to maximise the viewer experience.

Adam

[Champion_R]

I think we are debating the wrong thing. The difference between 1440 and 1920 isn't really that important. I think the bitrates themselves are more of an issue. It's true that I'm lucky I don't have to put up with HD Lite from Nine but Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast and Melbourne viewers do. That's the real problem, not 1920 vs 1440.

[Adam-O]

I think we are debating the wrong thing. The difference between 1440 and 1920 isn't really that important. I think the bitrates themselves are more of an issue. It's true that I'm lucky I don't have to put up with HD Lite from Nine but Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast and Melbourne viewers do. That's the real problem, not 1920 vs 1440.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, that's a problem too, for sure. But, when all else is equal, the 1440 vs 1920 makes a significant difference. Look, even your own chart of bitrates around the country shows that both Nine HD Brisbane and Ten HD Brisbane are 12.8 Mb/s. So why, then, does Ten HD look better? One answer (though I can think of another one -- I'll start another thread when I can be bothered) is that Ten HD broadcast in 1440, which wastes less of the already underserved bandwidth on coding pixels that don't contain any useable resolution. I work with MPEG audio extensively, and I can tell you for sure that the samplerate does matter. A higher samplerate (equivalent to a higher raster format in video) does require some additional overhead even if there is no effective resolution -- because the source doesn't contain it -- in the increased audio spectrum now available. Video is no different.

Adam

[Champion_R]

Yes, that's a problem too, for sure. But, when all else is equal, the 1440 vs 1920 makes a significant difference. Look, even your own chart of bitrates around the country shows that both Nine HD Brisbane and Ten HD Brisbane are 12.8 Mb/s. So why, then, does Ten HD look better? One answer (though I can think of another one -- I'll start another thread when I can be bothered) is that Ten HD broadcast in 1440, which wastes less of the already underserved bandwidth on coding pixels that don't contain any useable resolution. I work with MPEG audio extensively, and I can tell you for sure that the samplerate does matter. A higher samplerate (equivalent to a higher raster format in video) does require some additional overhead even if there is no effective resolution -- because the source doesn't contain it -- in the increased audio spectrum now available. Video is no different.

Adam

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even if Ten HD and Nine HD were the same bitrate they could have different equipment. You can't benchmark with multiple changes. Same applies for comparing Nine HD Brisbane and Nine HD Perth. Perth is an affiliate station so there's a good chance they have different equipment.