When and why did TV2 go 1080i?

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › When and why did TV2 go 1080i?

TechnoGuy001

853 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#67567 3-Sep-2010 18:43

Not to sure how long TV2 has been in 1080i but it can't be more then a week as one of my old recordings from last week was still in 720p.

Was wondering if there was any reasoning behind the switch form 720p to 1080i... and why they didn't go to 1080p?
There is little difference in quality going from 720p to 1080i...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#376358 3-Sep-2010 18:51

FV or Sky?? They won't ever go 1080P . Too much bandwidth.. Guess it's FV your talking about..

Regards,

Old3eyes

TechnoGuy001

853 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#376359 3-Sep-2010 18:58

Yeah Freeview.

How is it too much bandwidth, I can see that being an issue for Sky or other satellite based station but there should be plenty of space on Freeview, if not why not?

robbyp

1199 posts

Uber Geek

#376362 3-Sep-2010 19:17

TechnoGuy001: Yeah Freeview.

How is it too much bandwidth, I can see that being an issue for Sky or other satellite based station but there should be plenty of space on Freeview, if not why not?

I believe 1080i is better than 720p, but 1080p does produce a less jagged image.
I don't know why freeview have got two toally different systems, both UHF and Satellite. Surely it would have been better for them to do it all via satellite, so 100% of the population can get HD freeview. Perhaps it is due it licensing, as the publishers don't want overseas countrys hooking onto the satellite signal in HD.

boby55

1539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#376365 3-Sep-2010 19:32

robbyp:
TechnoGuy001: Yeah Freeview.

How is it too much bandwidth, I can see that being an issue for Sky or other satellite based station but there should be plenty of space on Freeview, if not why not?

I believe 1080i is better than 720p, but 1080p does produce a less jagged image.
I don't know why freeview have got two toally different systems, both UHF and Satellite. Surely it would have been better for them to do it all via satellite, so 100% of the population can get HD freeview. Perhaps it is due it licensing, as the publishers don't want overseas countrys hooking onto the satellite signal in HD.

Its all to do with costs.

The Amount of bandwidth required to broadcast HD would cost WAY too much for it to be viable to Freeview, hence only supplying HD via UHF

richms

28168 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#376368 3-Sep-2010 19:43

1080i looks way better for most stuff thats not live video since it started as 24FPS that they just had to speed up to 25FPS because of the illogical decision to base HD frame rates off the legacy analog network. Im only on media center at the moment so cant tell if I am seeing 720p or 1080i but both look the same on a small PC screen really

Good move TV2, now just sort your sound out.

Richard rich.ms

bfginger

1268 posts

Uber Geek

#376391 3-Sep-2010 22:17

TV2 will never be broadcast on 1080p because it'd take so much bandwidth that there'd only be room for one more SD station on the mux, and nearly all STBs are unable to handle 1080p properly, if at all.

TVNZ would have originally chosen 720p because their initial HD broadcasts were of the Olympic games. High-motion, high frame rate content like sports looks better on 720p than 1080i. It also looked at the time that 720p flat panels would become the standard.

There is no real advantage to 1080p over 1080i unless there's movement involved. As TV2 seldom broadcasts sports the advantage of 720p is decreased.

This good news for anybody watching Freeview on a 1080i CRT.

xarqi

727 posts

Ultimate Geek

#376396 3-Sep-2010 23:37

robbyp:
I don't know why freeview have got two toally different systems, both UHF and Satellite. Surely it would have been better for them to do it all via satellite, so 100% of the population can get HD freeview. Perhaps it is due it licensing, as the publishers don't want overseas countrys hooking onto the satellite signal in HD.

Freeview is primarily a terrestrial network. Satellite was a stop-gap and was faster to deploy, and will always serve as a back-up and for remote regions (like where I am - 20 minutes from downtown Auckland, and no UHF!). Freeview have no current intention of ever broadcasting HD by satellite.

Accordingly, the Freeview transponders on Optus D1 can't even transmit HD, or so I'm informed. No other transponders are available for lease. That could change, but it's unlikely. If a new satellite goes in that slot, who knows.

Possibly (but of low probability) a deal will be struck with Sky to remove the encryption on the HD rebroadcasts of Freeview consortium content. I'm not holding my breath. Freeview managed to get reciprocal rights to broadcast Prime, so maybe the favours have all been called in already.

There isn't a licensing issue (well, that isn't the limitation anyway) since the transponders available for Freeview have a footprint that only cover NZ (the NZB beam).

Interestingly, we benefit to a degree from this satellite congestion. In order for SBS to get their HD signal to Tasmania, they have to use a transponder on the ANZ beam, meaning we get the signal too!

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

cyril7

9058 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#376471 4-Sep-2010 09:06

Accordingly, the Freeview transponders on Optus D1 can't even transmit HD, or so I'm informed. No other transponders are available for lease. That could change, but it's unlikely. If a new satellite goes in that slot, who knows.

Ummm, dont believe that is correct, all the transponders on D1 are the same perforamance and design, currently Sky use two of them in 8PSK mode without issues, HD could be inserted onto any of the current FV transport streams in current QPSK, wouldnt leave much capacity for much else.

Cyril

xarqi

727 posts

Ultimate Geek

#376485 4-Sep-2010 09:43

cyril7:
Accordingly, the Freeview transponders on Optus D1 can't even transmit HD, or so I'm informed. No other transponders are available for lease. That could change, but it's unlikely. If a new satellite goes in that slot, who knows.

Ummm, dont believe that is correct, all the transponders on D1 are the same perforamance and design, currently Sky use two of them in 8PSK mode without issues, HD could be inserted onto any of the current FV transport streams in current QPSK, wouldnt leave much capacity for much else.

Cyril

Well, it wouldn't be the first time I'd been wrongly informed and not had my BS detector go off loudly enough. Thanks for the correction.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#376529 4-Sep-2010 12:05

Personally I a surprised and a bit disappointed if TV2 have gone 1080i. People are moving away from CRT TV's to LCD and plasma. Both LCD and Plasma use progressive pictures not interlaced. So why broadcast using a technology that then forces the TV's receiving it to have to process it (deinterlace) before they can display the picture.

We really need to stop supporting these hangover standards and move forward.

Media centre PC - Case Silverstone LC16M with 2 X 80mm AcoustiFan DustPROOF, MOBO Gigabyte MA785GT-UD3H, CPU AMD X2 240 under volted, RAM 4 Gig DDR3 1033, HDD 120Gig System/512Gig data, Tuners 2 X Hauppauge HVR-3000, 1 X HVR-2200, Video Palit GT 220, Sound Realtek 886A HD (onboard), Optical LiteOn DH-401S Blue-ray using TotalMedia Theatre Power Corsair VX Series, 450W ATX PSU OS Windows 7 x64

xarqi

727 posts

Ultimate Geek

#376538 4-Sep-2010 12:37

Is there any significant perceptual difference between the display of 1080i and 1080p on an LCD or plasma screen? Is there visible flickering, or motion artefacts?

If not, what's the issue with having to deinterlace the signal?

If so, how does this disadvantage stack up against the advantage of higher resolution?

From my position of ignorance (and having had a 1080 capable TV for nearly a week now! ;)), it seems like 1080i would be better than 720p. Those with a grievance may be those who have so-called "HD-ready" TVs where downscaling of the 1080 signal may provide lower quality than if the transmission had been in 720.

TechnoGuy001

853 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#376584 4-Sep-2010 14:29

FYI, my first post was talking about FV terrestrial (DVB-T), I don't really care about Satellite.

I watch FV on my laptop which has a screen res of 1920x1200 (capable of showing "FULL HD" 1080p pixel by pixel :) ) So I can see how bad the quality of an HD show can be.

I'v played bluray 1080p video on it and I can see crystal clear titling and content, but when I watch the same Movie in 1080i HD on TV3 the titling/picture is a bit blurry/fuzzed... I assume this is because of the 1080"i" (interlacing) and/or TV3 doesn't use a high enough bit rate (or they have a low quality source)...

... I just think they could do allot better if they put some time and thought into it

Visual comparison of common video/TV display resolutions

This table illustrates total horizontal and vertical detail via box size. It does not accurately reflect the screen shape (aspect ratio) of these formats, which is always stretched or squeezed to 4:3 or 16:9. The table assumes an average vertical detail loss of .75x due to interlace. The actual loss is variable due to content, motion, opinion on acceptable levels of flicker, and possible success of deinterlacing. 1920 × 1080i is not included because all common use of 1080i is filtered to 1440 or less.

1080i vs 1080p
The progressive-scan versions of the 1080-line resolution is known as 1080p. Current digital television broadcast systems and standards are not equipped for 1080p50/60 transmission. Also, the majority of consumer televisions offered for sale are currently not equipped to receive or decode a 1080p signal at any frequency. It is less bandwidth-intensive to broadcast a movie at 1080p24 than 1080i60, since 20% less data would be transferred. In addition, when the source material is 24 frames per second, as are most films, it would be easy to convert a 1080p24 broadcast to an NTSC 1080i60 format using a 3:2 pulldown process (see telecine). Moreover, displaying a p24 broadcast on an i50 system (such as PAL) requires the speed of video and audio be increased by over 4% (to 25 frames per second).

Therefore a hybrid is often used for movies and the like: the frames (25 or 30 per second) are segmented into two interlaced fields with equal time index (psf, progressive in or with segmented frames). The deinterlacer has to perform a simple weave only. This ensures compatibility with 1080i50/60 with only little less coding efficiency than 1080p25/30 and half the bandwidth requirement of 1080p50/60, but the SDTV problems of PAL speed-up and Telecine judder remain.

It is less efficient to transmit any signal with a frame rate significantly higher than that of its source, which is 24fps for movies, however frame differencing in the compression standards used for HDTV transmission greatly reduce the wasted bandwidth in these cases.

Source: http://www.hdtv.ca/hdtv_knowledgebase/television/720p_1080p.php

----

"It is less bandwidth-intensive to broadcast a movie at 1080p24 than 1080i60, since 20% less data would be transferred"
So if it uses less bandwidth then why do they not do it?

TechnoGuy001

853 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#376592 4-Sep-2010 14:48

Nety: Personally I a surprised and a bit disappointed if TV2 have gone 1080i. People are moving away from CRT TV's to LCD and plasma. Both LCD and Plasma use progressive pictures not interlaced. So why broadcast using a technology that then forces the TV's receiving it to have to process it (deinterlace) before they can display the picture.

We really need to stop supporting these hangover standards and move forward.

Oh... I can't edit my previous post anymore...

I just wanted to add that I completely agree with Nety.

fatjulio

90 posts

Master Geek

#376600 4-Sep-2010 15:05

I'm glad they've changed. I enjoy the higher res. All the TV programs that are made in HD aren't interlaced, they're progressive. All it takes is the display to deinterlace it properly and you have full res 1080p.

TechnoGuy001 - the reason you're seeing blurry titles on the laptop could be it's not deinterlacing the image properly. Depends on what program you're using to view it with, though I don't know which ones are good or bad.

I've had a TV3 HD broadcast of Die Hard 4.0 playing on my 1080p projector on a 100 inch screen, it was crisp.

Nety

2584 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#376779 5-Sep-2010 09:19

fatjulio: I'm glad they've changed. I enjoy the higher res. All the TV programs that are made in HD aren't interlaced, they're progressive. All it takes is the display to deinterlace it properly and you have full res 1080p.

TechnoGuy001 - the reason you're seeing blurry titles on the laptop could be it's not deinterlacing the image properly. Depends on what program you're using to view it with, though I don't know which ones are good or bad.

I've had a TV3 HD broadcast of Die Hard 4.0 playing on my 1080p projector on a 100 inch screen, it was crisp.

I'm sorry but IMHO this is just not correct. It does not matter how good a job of deinterlacing your TV does it will never look anywhere near as good as 1080p. Saying that is a similar argument to trying to say that unscaled DVD looks a good as blu ray. Your TV is having to "guess" what information is in each of the missing lines and although a good deinterlacer can get better results it is still receiving almost the same amount of information as 720p.

There is a good article here on the 720p vers 1080i debate.

http://ezinearticles.com/?720p-Vs-1080i-HDTV&id=91443

1 | 2 | 3 | 4