NFL HD vs Rugby HD

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › NFL HD vs Rugby HD

BigMal

998 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 160

ID Verified

Trusted

#90799 29-Sep-2011 20:17

Anyone else notice the quality of the NFL HD footage appears better than the likes of the RWC? Don't get me wrong the RWC looks great but the NFL looks friggin superb! Maybe they have higher quality cameras in the States or maybe it's just my eyes.

throbb

675 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 167

#527407 29-Sep-2011 20:58

I actually think the rugby looks better. I think because its a bit of an illusion in the NFL as they play on perfect artificial fields, sharp white markings etc.

hdinsider

552 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 16

#527450 29-Sep-2011 22:12

NFL would be shot in 1080i at 59.94Hz (or would it be 720p?) but would need a frame rate conversion to 50Hz for SkyNZ. Maybe the frame converter "enhances" the picture a bit too? I believe the converters are really expensive... so you'd want it to look good!

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

vexxxboy

4336 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2072

#527466 29-Sep-2011 22:31

i also think the NFL looks really good but i still think the champions league looks really bad i keep checking to see if it is in HD but its meant to be, it just doesnt look like it

Common sense is not as common as you think.

BigMal

998 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 160

ID Verified

Trusted

#527532 30-Sep-2011 08:44

throbb: I actually think the rugby looks better. I think because its a bit of an illusion in the NFL as they play on perfect artificial fields, sharp white markings etc.

Nah a lot of the games are outside on grass so it's not that. The colours seem more vibrant, the detail sharper. Just something I observed and wondered if its equipment quality (i.e. cameras) or my eyes :-)

Spyware

3817 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1366

Lifetime subscriber

#527543 30-Sep-2011 09:25

More likely related to bitrate used off the venue to the studio and ultimately the bitrates of any recordings. In NZ probably uplinked from venue over satellite at 15 Mbps or less, in US would be all fibre fed probably at bitrates exceeding 100 Mbps.

ESPN in theory is fed to NZ over fibre from Connecticut at 45 Mbps which is then sent to the headend encoders, 15 Mbps or so to satellite. The higher the bitrate in then the better the resulting output.

P.S. I'm not an expert but merely reproducing what I've heard and making some assumptions given our limited technology. Would be nice to hear from a TV person who knows how things are done.

Spark Max Fibre using Mikrotik CCR1009-8G-1S-1S+, CRS125-24G-1S, Unifi UAP, U6-Pro, UAP-AC-M-Pro, Apple TV 4K (2022), Apple TV 4K (2017), iPad Air 1st gen, iPad Air 4th gen, iPhone 13, SkyNZ3151 (the white box). If it doesn't move then it's data cabled.