Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by mitchflorida, Mar 19, 2013.
What about the hobbit in 48fps or avatar 2 in 60fps.
I love the smoother motionflow they create.
I doubt they will be broadcasting in those formats. Sorry. You'll probably just get 24fps. Your chance to see those movies in the high frame rate format was in the theaters.
All I know about this is what I see. On my five 720p Panny plasmas I see a better picture when a station is broadcasting in 1080i. When I use my three 1080p Panny plasmas, I see a much poorer picture when I am watching content broadcast in 720p. Very noticeable. ABC and MLB look better at 720p than Fox stations do. I was watching a show on NG the other day and, as usual, began wondering why the picture was so crappy. Hit the Info button on the TV's remote and, sure enough, 720p. Not sure which NG channel I was on.
How is it possible that you can see 1080i on your 720p TV? I have had a 720p Plasma TV for years and never noticed the difference until I bought an upgraded HDTV.
Yea i was just sayin that movies arent just 24fps.
Supposedly the upcoming PS4 has 4K & 48fps capability.
I've agreed with most of what you have said up until this. I'm not sure we will really see 8K in the home. My guess is it will move to 4K in the home and 8K in the theater. You would really have to have a huge TV to recognize the benefits 8K over 4K in the home, or sit rediculously close to smaller sets.
I could be wrong...it has happened before.
Maybe it's what I've seen, but the couple of times I've seen 4K it hasn't blown me away. If I look real carefully I can see the difference between it and 1080p from a BluRay disc but for general viewing...meh. The one time I saw 8K, however, I was amazed at the detail. The 4K was on screens ranging from 64 to 152 inches (including a Sony 84" LED, which I understand is a little less than 4K). The 8k was on Sharp's 85" prototype.
But the real issue, IMHO is the massive screen sizes required before the higher resolution really becomes apparent. On a 64" display (which I think is the largest "mainstream" size) the difference is really imperceptible. You do have to get up into the 80" screen sizes to get the real benefit. Most people are simply not going to have TVs that big in their living room. I think both 4K and/or 8K won't become mainstream until we have OLED screens that can be applied to a wall like wallpaper (which is years, if not decades, away). Until then, people will keep buying 1080p sets and that's all anybody will broadcast. 4K or 8K will be the enthusiasts' domain until then.
Not true. My ABC channels are 1080i (5 WCVB Boston, 9 WMUR NH)
The network is 720p even if your local is 1080i.
This argument has been raging since HD first became available. I am quite surprised to see a post with the same numbers that I have calculated--thank you!
The difference, as far as I an understand it is, 1080i has greater SPACIAL resolution, which is apparently readily noticeable, where 720p has greater TEMPORAL resolution, which manifests itself as less jitter. This is not as readily obvious to the the average television viewer, so they see 1080i as superior. 720p has only about 11% or 12% less information than 1080i, but many people see this as definitely non-trivial.
With 1080p being (yesterday's) brass ring, everyone was waiting for a broadcast standard for this resolution. As you have said, today's brass ring is the 4k and/or 8k new standards. I would not hold my breath for those to become broadcast standards any time soon.
You will find 720P is actually considered better than 1080I to many as well though. They do not present the picture in the same way, 720P presents it in a much better way, albeit at a lesser resolution. Most people who sit at a normal distance from their TV can not see the difference, and if they do, it's often that 720P is smoother, and better for sports.
No doubt with the really large screens, sitting close 720P can look a little soft when compared. But not at normal viewing distance.
To see the difference from 720P to even 1080P (not even the lesser "I") you need to be sitting at 8FT from a 64" screen instead of 12FT.
Also, to be clear no one's ABC is in 1080I. Impossible. WCVB is side converting though and I am skeptical about that actually being a benefit, but in any case upconverting is not making it actual 1080I.
And you can't possibly see 1080I on a 720P plasma TV. It's possible the picture would actually be a little worse converting a 720P to 1080I only to have the TV convert it to 720P. By the way my one 720P TV will tell you the signal is 1080I, a fact, but that does not mean you are seeing 1080I, the TV isn't capable of it.
And there's the question, is even broadcast TV OTA broadcasting in full 1080I, the answer most times is no, let alone TV providers. All those subchannels rob from the available frequency.
WFAA Dallas ABC is 1080i. It looks spectacular during local news.
KVUE in Austin is also an ABC affiliate and is upconverting the network signal to 1080i. AFAIK all Belo stations are 1080i, no matter what the network sends out.
Is up-converting the signal the same thing as improving it? Or just manipulating it with no improvement?
If you understood what the "i" actually means, you would know that this actually downgrades the picture quality when there is motion. As such, 1080 really is not that mucher better looking than 720p on most material - and in fast motion (such as sports), 720p can be preferred.
ESPN has been building 1080p capability in all their studios/upgrades over the past 4 years, so once consumer IRDs are capable of displaying 1080p en mass, I would not be surprised to see them switch from 720p to 1080p.
Upconverting is merely manipulating the signal, as you say, from one format to another. It CANNOT add more information than was present in the original format. Some local stations have elected to change the format of the network feed from 720p to 1080i because their local news cameras are 1080i, and they certainly don't want to change the broadcast resolution on the fly, as if that were even possible.
This is a decent article on the subject: What is upconverting?
If you ever closely examined 720p converted to 1080i, you'd already know the answer to that question!
Indeed the Belo stations with 720p sources do exactly this. Local programming looks good. Network programming, such as movies and other entertainment, is acceptable. Sports is pure crap...at least at KVUE.
When the whole HD thing was shaking out, I had a good friend who was a honcho engineer at the local Fox O&O. He told me that Murdoch's original plan for the Fox stations was to do NO HD WHATSOEVER. The plan was to take that nice 6 mhz bandwidth and multicast four or five streams on each frequency. That was shelved when Rupert was read the riot act by certain members of Congress and the FCC who informed him that the big, beautiful 6 mhz channel was for HD, with the occasional sub channel, and that if he refused to do HD, the Fox stations would not be awarded that much bandwidth.
That's when Fox signed on with 720p. The reason....since day one, we've heard that 720p is better for sports (fast action such as NFL and NASCAR), 1080i is better for movies and lower action video (such as news).
There is no 1080p OTA broadcasting and will never be, IMHO. The equipment that would have to be replaced would cost too much to be justified by the corporations that run broadcasting in this country. They think the increased PQ...even with new compression techniques that may be coming...isn't worth the expense. And with a nation of viewers who don't know the difference between 720p and 1080i, or even what those specifications really mean, who's to argue with that?
And let me recommend the article in Coolman's link....very good info.
Ah, well...now we get down to it, don't we? It is easy to assume that more pixels equals better picture quality, and all things being equal, it would be true. Unfortunately, all things are NOT equal.
No broadcaster, not a cable channel, over the air station, or satellite system, broadcasts in "full" anything. The data is always compressed. Sometimes this is relatively benign, and the resulting decompressed data is nearly identical to the pre-compressed data. More often, there are significant changes. The most obvious will show up in broad areas of very gradual tone changes. Where in the original there were a hundred distinct variations, in the post compressed data there may be only ten.
This is the real issue with picture quality...the video stream may be 1080x1920 and delivered as a progressive scan stream, and still look like garbage. There is far more to picture quality than resolution, pixel density, scan rates and types and data rates.
I didn't say I could "see" 1080i on my 720p sets. I see a better picture with a 1080i feed. Still not a true 1080i, but it's noticeable. It's especially noticeable on baseball and football games.
How is that possible, I dunno. All I can really tell you is that it's there and I see it. I'm sure I'm not alone.