There is nothing wrong with 1080i for sports, infact it is probably the best
standard for live sports having a high horizontal resolution and high
temporal resolution being interlaced (maybe even better than 1080p).
The problem is trying to squash all that resolution down into a 13-15Mbps
stream, now that's just crazy and its why live sports broadcasts generally
look terrible on digital (they look pretty bad in SD as well trying to cram
all that motion into 5-6Mbps.
Notice how Tennis looks good though. Many more static camera positions
means less motion (only a small % of the image is moving), so much better
compression.
"Alice Rembrant" <Al8181@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:8jtij1des8bln13flc3o21r6nhqglenb8b@4ax.com...
>
> NO shit. Wish These Aussie Morons knew that when they did the
> standards. 1080i is fucked for live action sports and stuff.
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:50:09 +1100, "justin" <justin@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Probably right.
>>
>>I know I'll get burnt for this one, but it's not really an issue at the
>>moment here. Between 7's HD Plus (which should be minus) & mostly only
>>studio shows & a handful of US dramas being in 1080i (which most peole
>>have to watch downscaled anyway), it's going to be 4(?) years (my guess -
>>what's yours?) before we see genuine HD in a significant number of homes.
>>It's only just hitting pay TV in the US now (& boy, how far are we behind
>>that?).
>>
>>Sharp in Japan are getting ready to launch an enhanced SD LCD panel that
>>makes SD signals look awsome, but when you run an HD signal in to it, it
>>looks crap (something about native resolution - I don't claim to
>>understand). A mate who works for them has just been to Osaka & saw it
>>demo'd. He asked them why they were bothering with SD & they basically
>>said that there was no point (I assume they meant outside the US) in
>>pushing HD for the next few years.
>>
>>You ask the average joe in the street about whether or not they have
>>digital TV & chances are they'll either say that they do or don't have
>>Foxtel (meaning that they think Foxtel is the only form of digital), or
>>they'll say yes they have a digital TV, when they don't - they have been
>>sold a TV with digital processing & they don't know or understand the
>>difference. Until this lack of understanding in the general population is
>>overcome & people move to digital, you can forget about the networks
>>getting serious about HD - it simply isn't attracting viewers for them.
>>Whether you blame the government or the retailers, the introduction of
>>digital TV in this country has been a disaster. We take up technology
>>faster than anyone else in the world (DVD uptake & mobile phone use tell
>>you that), so why do we have so few people with digital TV after 4 or 5
>>years???
>>
>>I think that the solution is simple. If the government legislated that all
>>new analogue tuner TV's sold had to have stickers all over them saying
>>that they required extra components for digital TV reception, you'd
>>probably have a 90% uptake with new TV purchases. Within 2-3 years you'd
>>have digital penetration beyond critcal mass & that would lead to a larger
>>voice calling for HD programming (the 'I had a taste & now I want more'
>>mentality).
>>
>>Dont expect to see any recommendations like that in the Digital TV review
>>by the Dept. of Communications later this year. It would simply make too
>>much sense. Also don't expect to see a finding that digital TV
>>implementaion has been a disaster. The retailers will probably be in for
>>some stick though - some jusified, but mostly not.
>>
>>
>>"Matthew Smith" <matty_d@macxxx.com> wrote in message
>>news:matty_d-C60D01.09180611022005@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>> Here's an interesting article (although American) which suggests 1080i
>>> is best suited to films, which were original 24 fps, while 720p is
>>> better for action, like sport.
>>>
>>> http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000167030871/
>