HD Broadcasts for F1
Discussion
So F1 God BE says that HD broadcasts could start in 2011, AFTER BBC tv Uk says that 20% of Uk viewers can receive the transmissions.?????????? Can someone explain why I paid £1300 for a Panasonic 3 years ago, when we were supposed to be getting the HD transmissions,BUT didnt and now you can buy the same new tv set for £450.What utter mugs WE are.
Trouble is!!! Not one of the TV Manufacturers in Japan asked BE what GOD had decided for the peasants who keep the industry alive---
Trouble is!!! Not one of the TV Manufacturers in Japan asked BE what GOD had decided for the peasants who keep the industry alive---
Yup, you're a mug.
You'll also be happy to note that HD means 720p quality, now 1080p. So that extra £500 you probably spent on the higher pixel version is worthless. Actually, it's worse than worthless because you're TV is displaying in a lower resolution than it was originally intended for.
You'll also be happy to note that HD means 720p quality, now 1080p. So that extra £500 you probably spent on the higher pixel version is worthless. Actually, it's worse than worthless because you're TV is displaying in a lower resolution than it was originally intended for.
paranha said:
So F1 God BE says that HD broadcasts could start in 2011, AFTER BBC tv Uk says that 20% of Uk viewers can receive the transmissions.?????????? Can someone explain why I paid £1300 for a Panasonic 3 years ago, when we were supposed to be getting the HD transmissions,BUT didnt and now you can buy the same new tv set for £450.What utter mugs WE are.
Trouble is!!! Not one of the TV Manufacturers in Japan asked BE what GOD had decided for the peasants who keep the industry alive---
Anyone who buys new Tech at the beginning is going to get stung on the price, or there just not worried about money.Trouble is!!! Not one of the TV Manufacturers in Japan asked BE what GOD had decided for the peasants who keep the industry alive---
StevenJJ said:
F1 has always under-delivered on this. I thought I was supposed to be able to chop and change between driver cameras as per my whims by now.
That was Bernie's digital dream and it folded after a couple of seasons due to complete lack of customer interest.I went to watch the Singapore race on BBC HD only to find it wasn't there. Fortunately their mainstream digital picture is very good these days.
By the way, I thought HD TV was all broadcast in 1080i, not the higher 1080p resolution.
Ozzie Osmond said:
By the way, I thought HD TV was all broadcast in 1080i, not the higher 1080p resolution.
err... 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution.at the moment, all (UK) HDTV is in 1080i (with BBC HD at 1440x1080 as opposed to 1920x1080).
Can't see any broadcaster going for 1080p any-time soon, they just don't have the bandwidth - and with the new DVB-T2 services, I suspect the HD will be somewhat less than stellar (due to very restricted bandwidth).
Personally for F1 and other fast moving stuff, they would do better to use 720p50 than 1080i25, you only have to look at football in HD to see why.
Edited by Scuffers on Sunday 26th September 21:40
StevenJJ said:
F1 has always under-delivered on this. I thought I was supposed to be able to chop and change between driver cameras as per my whims by now.
Can't you do that via the Red button?I've not looked but they say at the start of the broadcast that you can follow different drivers on-board during the race.
Scuffers said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
By the way, I thought HD TV was all broadcast in 1080i, not the higher 1080p resolution.
err... 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution.i = interlaced, so every other frame has half the lines, then spliced to show a 1080 image. Where p = progressive, all lines are rendered every frame.
Edited by joe_90 on Monday 27th September 12:18
joe_90 said:
Scuffers said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
By the way, I thought HD TV was all broadcast in 1080i, not the higher 1080p resolution.
err... 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution.i = interlaced, so every other frame has half the lines, then spliced to show a 1080 image. Where p = progressive, all lines are rendered every frame.
the fact it's interlaced or not does not change the resolution, as in how many pixels there are, just the rate at which they are refreshed, both are still 1920x1080.
the reason for running interlaced is all about bandwidth (and to some extent processing power), to run 1080p50 (as opposed to 1080i25) you need either 20Mb+ or very heavy compression (see BBC HD for details), now, codec's are getting better, but they also need a lot of processing power, especially live stuff that's done real time (ie. 1 pass), it's much easier for off-line stuff (like iPlayer) when you can run 2 pass encoding on it).
this is why 720p would be a better idea for F1, but I am sure they won;t do that and just try and cram 1080i into a <10Mbit carrier.
Edited by Scuffers on Monday 27th September 15:15
So far as I can see the answer to this resolution point seems to be "yes and no".
1. If the signal needs more bandwidth there must be more in it - yes.
2. Regarding strict definition of resolution 1080 is 1080 is 1080 - yes.
3. With "p" movement is displayed better because the TV merges two consecutive frames - yes.
4. You don't NEED to transmit "p" because a clever TV can do it itself - yes.
5. "p" looks nicer than "i" if there's a moving image on screen - yes.
6. Are "i" and "p" the same - no
1. If the signal needs more bandwidth there must be more in it - yes.
2. Regarding strict definition of resolution 1080 is 1080 is 1080 - yes.
3. With "p" movement is displayed better because the TV merges two consecutive frames - yes.
4. You don't NEED to transmit "p" because a clever TV can do it itself - yes.
5. "p" looks nicer than "i" if there's a moving image on screen - yes.
6. Are "i" and "p" the same - no
Ozzie Osmond said:
So far as I can see the answer to this resolution point seems to be "yes and no".
1. If the signal needs more bandwidth there must be more in it - yes.
more in the sense of updates, then yes, in the sense of resolution, no.1. If the signal needs more bandwidth there must be more in it - yes.
1080i picture of something not moving will be identical to the 1080p one.
Ozzie Osmond said:
2. Regarding strict definition of resolution 1080 is 1080 is 1080 - yes.
3. With "p" movement is displayed better because the TV merges two consecutive frames - yes.
nope, just a case of how the picture is updated, but that's just semantics.3. With "p" movement is displayed better because the TV merges two consecutive frames - yes.
Ozzie Osmond said:
4. You don't NEED to transmit "p" because a clever TV can do it itself - yes.
Nope - TV can't make up the data, it can de-interlace the picture, but that's not going to make up for the lack of picture update.Ozzie Osmond said:
5. "p" looks nicer than "i" if there's a moving image on screen - yes.
6. Are "i" and "p" the same - no
yes.6. Are "i" and "p" the same - no
given the limit's of bandwidth being used/planned for DVB-T2 (terrestrial HD), 720p would be a much better proposition.
Not knowing a huge amount about the domestic (ie received) end of Broadcast, I was under the impression that HD TV was 1080i50.
I know for certain that it's usually captured in the 1080i50 format (in the UK), which is better for sports etc, because the faster refresh gives a smoother appearance to motion.
Bandwidth issues of 1080p50 are of course a huge problem, unless broadcasters start using double channels as mentioned above.
I know for certain that it's usually captured in the 1080i50 format (in the UK), which is better for sports etc, because the faster refresh gives a smoother appearance to motion.
Bandwidth issues of 1080p50 are of course a huge problem, unless broadcasters start using double channels as mentioned above.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff