![]() |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
As old_tv_nut has said, there are so many other variables in the transmission chain it's almost impossible to compare the relative performance of 720p and 1080i in the home.
Interlace was once a wonderful system to reduce bandwidth but it's now just a curse. It's difficult if not impossible to undo it accurately for progressive displays. All flat panel displays are progressive. The best one can say is that receivers have got better, the days of the 2 field splitting apart to give comb shpaed edges on moving objects have largely gone. [rant] Another curse is the old USA frame rates of 29.97Hz etc. Except they don't affect the home user, only programme makers/distributors. First introduced to cope with NTSC colour (they either had to move the sound subcarrier or frame/line rate to make it work OK) it was a valid choice at the time. That was before timecode. It's been a total PITA ever since, as timecode has to be frigged to make it work with these frame rates. (I'm in a 50Hz country where everything works just fine - I just happen to design kit that has to cope with all standards in the studio. When HD came in why on earth were the 29.97 etc standards retained? If you needed to re-use old material in a true 30Hz/60Hz standard environment you just played it in 0.1% fast. The madness has been retained in the 4K era, where the SMPTE standards documents still allow for these wretched frame rates. [/rant]
__________________
Jeffrey Borinsky www.borinsky.co.uk |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Thus the mentioned discussion. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Digital came in to use piecemeal with islands of digital processing in essentially analog facilities. The digital gear had to mesh with NTSC rates for a long time.
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
For older sources at 59.94Hz you ingest them into your digital editing system and replay them at 60Hz. If you need to transmit 60Hz programmes at 59.94Hz for compatibilty with with legacy NTSC systems then digital playoout systems can do this too. old_tv_nut's comment about digital islands is true. But for quite a few years production and editing has been entirely digital and computer based. Legacy material on tape is ingested before being used and can be readily converted to whatever standard is required.
__________________
Jeffrey Borinsky www.borinsky.co.uk |
Audiokarma |
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Also, how would they have broadcast HD in 60Hz, while simulcasting it in NTSC 59.94Hz? Our digital OTA adapter boxes would be a problem. I'm curious to see what happens when you do try to generate NTSC at 60Hz. I'm guessing you end up with a lot more interaction between the chroma and luma. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
As I've said before, there's no problem trasnmitting at 59.94Hz, even if the material was made at 60Hz. NTSC at 60Hz doesn't (or shouldn't) exist.
__________________
Jeffrey Borinsky www.borinsky.co.uk |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Y'all would be literally sick if you ever had the chance to compare the garbage that comes out of your cable box (any cable box) to the signal leaving a broadcast truck or studio. If we could all see that quality, there would have been no need for the great failed 3D experiment. It is that good.
I usually respond to questions such as which format is better, with .... it was all better before cable ![]() Oh yea ... your EYEBALLS are actually analog :-D But I digress ..... I thought it would be better with DirecTV or Dish, eliminating the land based compression in the various spots where that happens along the way, but sadly, no. The dirty little secret of digital TV is that unless you are looking at in "native" format, it's going through at least one, and usually many, format conversions, not the least of which happens in your actual display. And cable box. And And And. Each one of these steps has some penalty to quality. Phooey! |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Back around 1988, when I worked for Philips Labs we were developing an enhanced NTSC scheme that would use a 2nd TV channel to provide side panel area for a 5:3 aspect ration screen, and additional scan lines to provide real progressive scan. It sorta worked, looked decent under clean lab conditions, but surely would look awful after noise and ghosts got into it. The side panels would have different ghosts and noise than the regular NTSC channel. It was a lame system...
__________________
|
Audiokarma |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
BBTV wrote: "I thought it would be better with DirecTV or Dish..."
In part of my pro video work, I've had to monitor various differences between terrestrial over-the-air broadcasts (probably the best signal a consumer can get except for file-based) and DirecTV. The big hint is: It takes 9 seconds for a local's signal to make it to, thru, and up and down (2x round trips) from the local to DirecTV's receiver. Only a second of that is spent in-transit to and from satellites. The rest is bandwidth-preserving squishing to a hopefully-not-to-apparent degraded signal to squeeze in a few more pay-per-view movie channels. Even with spot beams for locals, the quality is not there when compared to OTA. Granted, not all is sweetness and light within the TV station either, but if there's no intermediate studio-transmitter link, what comes out the big stick is better than most other options. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|