Espn-hd, not the WOW factor!
- Thread starter Sean Mota
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 79
- Views 8K
It would be interesting if everyone would read completly the following article on ESPN http://espn.go.com/espnhd/ask_expert.html
Then explain quality over quantity? seems to me the money spent on a new facility would have been better used to increase the number of HD sports broadcasts. And that the true motivation was not to give the viewer More quality sports broadcasts but to increase the % of HD airtime no matter what drible it may be.
and the descision to stretch?
Then explain quality over quantity? seems to me the money spent on a new facility would have been better used to increase the number of HD sports broadcasts. And that the true motivation was not to give the viewer More quality sports broadcasts but to increase the % of HD airtime no matter what drible it may be.
and the descision to stretch?
720p sunday night football looks good on Espn everything else has looked inferior to me to CBS football or HDNET anything in 1080i.
Boondockbill said:
Um, Bill... you are so very wrong
. I'd suggest you take the time to understand exactly what that little "i" and "p" mean, and why your simplistic statement above is incorrect when it applies to content formatting.-MP
Kinda funny article. He says they chose 720 because it's better suited for a 104 mph fastball.
1) who throws a 104 mph fastball? No one.
2) you can't even see it in person, let alone on a tv screen. So why base your 720 decision on something that's visually impossible. It's not the ball we al watch, it the players reaction to the ball.
3) they should've chosen 1080 - the pic all around is much, much better
4) poor ESPNHD - wait till their HD studio goes "on air" in June and get ready to switch channels as the SD highlights will drive ya crazy. Kinda like their marvelous "picture stretching."
BB
1) who throws a 104 mph fastball? No one.
2) you can't even see it in person, let alone on a tv screen. So why base your 720 decision on something that's visually impossible. It's not the ball we al watch, it the players reaction to the ball.
3) they should've chosen 1080 - the pic all around is much, much better
4) poor ESPNHD - wait till their HD studio goes "on air" in June and get ready to switch channels as the SD highlights will drive ya crazy. Kinda like their marvelous "picture stretching."
BB
Again Bill... if a true 1080i picture is that much better on your screen than a true 720p picture, it's because your display device does a crappy job handling 720p.
-MP
-MP
Ive watched 720p on a 50" sammy DLP, the colors are more vivid but on a 1080i display i see the threads in the peoples shirts.
Some various info from the web...
"Displaying formats at their native scan frequencies cuts down on the picture artifacts that are generated when formats are converted up or down to another scanning frequency. These artifacts tend to get more severe when a scan format is converted from progressive scan (as in 720p) to interlace (as in 1080i).
Although the 1080i format offers more horizontal and vertical lines of resolution, the 720p actually has a higher scan frequency: 45kHZ for 720 versus 33.75kHz for 1080i and 31.5kHz for 480p."
And...
"Both 720P (progressive) and 1080i (interlaced) are considered high definition. If you compare 720P at 60 frames a second with 1080i at 60 fields a second, the actual closeness in resolution might surprise you.
At 720P 60, you get 1280x720 every 60th of a second.--. And the interlaced version is 1080i, in the case of HDV, is 1440x1080. (or 540 fields 60 times a second.) In the case of 720 60P, you actually get more pixels per second than with 1080i. (1280 x 720 x 60) versus (1440 x 540 x 60).There are actually more pixels per second on the screen at 720p than there is at 1080i in the HDV format."
And a very good review of why one is prefered over the other:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/dvdinternational/dve-faq.html
"Displaying formats at their native scan frequencies cuts down on the picture artifacts that are generated when formats are converted up or down to another scanning frequency. These artifacts tend to get more severe when a scan format is converted from progressive scan (as in 720p) to interlace (as in 1080i).
Although the 1080i format offers more horizontal and vertical lines of resolution, the 720p actually has a higher scan frequency: 45kHZ for 720 versus 33.75kHz for 1080i and 31.5kHz for 480p."
And...
"Both 720P (progressive) and 1080i (interlaced) are considered high definition. If you compare 720P at 60 frames a second with 1080i at 60 fields a second, the actual closeness in resolution might surprise you.
At 720P 60, you get 1280x720 every 60th of a second.--. And the interlaced version is 1080i, in the case of HDV, is 1440x1080. (or 540 fields 60 times a second.) In the case of 720 60P, you actually get more pixels per second than with 1080i. (1280 x 720 x 60) versus (1440 x 540 x 60).There are actually more pixels per second on the screen at 720p than there is at 1080i in the HDV format."
And a very good review of why one is prefered over the other:
http://shop.store.yahoo.com/dvdinternational/dve-faq.html
________________Vert_______Horiz
------------------(Lines)-----(Pixels)
1920X1080i
B&W static______800________1638
B&W dynamic____400________1780
Color static______280________890
Color dynamic____200________481
1280X720p
B&W static______550________1139
B&W dynamic____420________1068
Color static_____(360)________641
Color dynamic___(320)_______(605)
720p has an advantage in color if something is whizzing by. Otherwise it doesnt have the "wow" factor of 1080i. Now the arguement will go on and on to things about how many lines you have on your screen or even the old "piel count doesnt matter". thats my fav. The real proof is on the TV screen and 1080i wins.
------------------(Lines)-----(Pixels)
1920X1080i
B&W static______800________1638
B&W dynamic____400________1780
Color static______280________890
Color dynamic____200________481
1280X720p
B&W static______550________1139
B&W dynamic____420________1068
Color static_____(360)________641
Color dynamic___(320)_______(605)
720p has an advantage in color if something is whizzing by. Otherwise it doesnt have the "wow" factor of 1080i. Now the arguement will go on and on to things about how many lines you have on your screen or even the old "piel count doesnt matter". thats my fav. The real proof is on the TV screen and 1080i wins.
No... no it doesn't. Just because your display device is incapable of displaying native 720p doesn't make 1080i a superior format. Take a native 720p image and display it on a device capable of native 720p. It's obvious that you are just looking at the total numbers without understanding what they mean, and not taking into account the actual display properties. Re-read the DVE link I posted. The answer is obvious.
We all need 1080p, so this damn argument can go away.
We all need 1080p, so this damn argument can go away.
1080 DOES win everytime, someting poor MadPoet doesn't see.
Face it, 720 sucks bigtime for sports.
Face it, 720 sucks bigtime for sports.
one of the reason 1080i wins is that it cannot take compression schemes very well without pixelating. 720p is much easier to compress, takes less bandwidth, the image dulls nicely. providers love 720p they hate 1080i. If you think they made 720p for the consumers benefit you need to think again. LMAO
case in point my local pBSHD used to be 1080i with 3 sd channels cut out of it reducing the bandwidth from 18 to 14 MB/s. It pixelated horribly so they convert it to 720p. no pixelation. but dull. And thats what your getting with most providers after they degrade with compression schemes over satellite. If you have a 1080i station it will just look better because they cant cheat very much without really screwing it up. But with 720p it is easier to steal bandwidth and eventually turn HD into HDlite.
The big question is what is ESPNHD doing to their signal? is the latin channel cut out of it? espn regular? espn2? who knows but it is dull. currently fox here is upconverted to 720p and it looks as good as espnhd frequently!!
case in point my local pBSHD used to be 1080i with 3 sd channels cut out of it reducing the bandwidth from 18 to 14 MB/s. It pixelated horribly so they convert it to 720p. no pixelation. but dull. And thats what your getting with most providers after they degrade with compression schemes over satellite. If you have a 1080i station it will just look better because they cant cheat very much without really screwing it up. But with 720p it is easier to steal bandwidth and eventually turn HD into HDlite.
The big question is what is ESPNHD doing to their signal? is the latin channel cut out of it? espn regular? espn2? who knows but it is dull. currently fox here is upconverted to 720p and it looks as good as espnhd frequently!!
madpoet said:
Right on the money madpoet. If your display can handle equally well 720p and 1080i signals you will not see much difference (if any) between good quality 720p signal and good quality 1080i signal.
Moreover, Boondockbill, this has nothing to do with the number 1080 being greater than 720. It is a myth that 1080i is superior to 720p. If you want to understand it better read about the difference between progressive and interlaced signal.
Boondockbill said:
Bill, I'm beginning to suspect you are either a troll or a by-choice ignoramous. But whatever floats your boat. It's sad to see this is the level of knowledge that it takes these days. I blame Microsoft (just because I always blame them for the dumbing down of America).
Mad, don't fall into the namecalling. Of course, 1080i and 720p are different. But of course, 1080i is much more superior a picture. If you don't see that then you really need to see an optometrist.
There's no way the ESPNHD baseball pic can compare with DISCHD's Artic series. It's night and day. ESPNHD's sports in general doesn't hold a candle to let's say HDNET's sports. Or VOOM sports. ESPNHD is not much better than my 1st generation signal C-Band. That's why I STILL have my C-Band....for the glorious pic.
And don't stoop don't so low as to name call.
BB
There's no way the ESPNHD baseball pic can compare with DISCHD's Artic series. It's night and day. ESPNHD's sports in general doesn't hold a candle to let's say HDNET's sports. Or VOOM sports. ESPNHD is not much better than my 1st generation signal C-Band. That's why I STILL have my C-Band....for the glorious pic.
And don't stoop don't so low as to name call.
BB
It's ok Sean.. I just added Bill to the old "Ignore" list. Congrats Bill, you're the first. Hopefully the last.
no,wasch_24 said:
this applies to the quality of espnhd. Which is the title of this thread is it not? If 720p is so much better, then why the lack of "wow" on espnhd? What are they doing?
