Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | ... | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | ... | 210
482 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 63


  Reply # 875673 12-Aug-2013 10:44
Send private message

Thanks for that, I just looked at the PLP page which has every game listed as 2am Sunday at the moment. Arsenal are definitely that time though and are still not listed for the schedule on Sunday.

17 posts

Geek


  Reply # 875692 12-Aug-2013 10:55
Send private message

JarrodM: As I suspected United's trip to Swansea next week is the first game on TV one.


So with Devlin (Manure fan) and Miles Davis (west Ham) presenting the games, there will be no biased reports on Chelsea games %)...on another note when are PLP releasing the Apps? I can never get an answer from them! 

 
 
 
 


1027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 111


  Reply # 875693 12-Aug-2013 10:56
Send private message

MarkCerny: Is anyone else noticing the quality on tvone????

Nothing like SKY sports hd...... oh dear......


Yes, I felt like I was pi55ed by the end of it. Unfortunately, I wasn't :-)

25 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 6


  Reply # 875728 12-Aug-2013 11:28
Send private message

In this article today (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/9030745/Telecom-poised-to-enter-internet-TV-race)

Martin said the original test video put online by Coliseum had been replaced with another that better showed off its EPL service. "The comments we are getting now are amazing. We are delivering broadcast quality through [copper broadband] connections. The quality conversation has gone and the question now is when are we going to be HD."

The comments are amazing??? The quality conversation is gone???

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 875751 12-Aug-2013 11:41
Send private message

LFCNZ: If PLP ddcide to do a 4500 stream, then anyway of gussing what the quality will be like?


Don't hold out too much hope for a huge improvement in quality. Again, if you compare the PLP 3000kbps stream to the NFL 3000kbps stream there is a large disparity in quality, likely due to a substandard encoder used by PLP. Increasing the bitrate might not bring the desired quality increase. 

61 posts

Master Geek


  Reply # 875754 12-Aug-2013 11:45
Send private message

Surely the encoding part woudln't be that costly? Assuming just a grunty server with encdoing software on it?  If they are skimping on that, then its a worry!

Surely the feed they are getting before they convert is HD?

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 875755 12-Aug-2013 11:45
Send private message

BermudaBlues: So with Devlin (Manure fan) and Miles Davis (west Ham) presenting the games


Has this been confirmed?

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 875771 12-Aug-2013 11:56
Send private message

LFCNZ: Surely the encoding part woudln't be that costly? Assuming just a grunty server with encdoing software on it?  If they are skimping on that, then its a worry!

Surely the feed they are getting before they convert is HD?


I have little doubt the feed they are getting is excellent, however I suspect they've gone for a cheap encoding option. Commercial software options can be quiet expensive, can't find any pricing on NeuLions site though.

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 875780 12-Aug-2013 12:05
One person supports this post
Send private message

expression:
LFCNZ: If PLP ddcide to do a 4500 stream, then anyway of gussing what the quality will be like?


Don't hold out too much hope for a huge improvement in quality. Again, if you compare the PLP 3000kbps stream to the NFL 3000kbps stream there is a large disparity in quality, likely due to a substandard encoder used by PLP. Increasing the bitrate might not bring the desired quality increase. 


I'd surprised in the encoder is different, given it is the same company doing it for both PLP and NFL.

Are you sure it isn't just the game itself is played at a faster pace and so compression artifacts show up more readily for EPL than they would with NFL, where 95% of the time the ball is not in play and you are just watching players walking around for 2-3 mins getting ready for the next 6 seconds of 'action'

229 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 12


  Reply # 875805 12-Aug-2013 12:53
One person supports this post
Send private message

NonprayingMantis:
expression:
LFCNZ: If PLP ddcide to do a 4500 stream, then anyway of gussing what the quality will be like?


Don't hold out too much hope for a huge improvement in quality. Again, if you compare the PLP 3000kbps stream to the NFL 3000kbps stream there is a large disparity in quality, likely due to a substandard encoder used by PLP. Increasing the bitrate might not bring the desired quality increase. 


I'd surprised in the encoder is different, given it is the same company doing it for both PLP and NFL.

Are you sure it isn't just the game itself is played at a faster pace and so compression artifacts show up more readily for EPL than they would with NFL, where 95% of the time the ball is not in play and you are just watching players walking around for 2-3 mins getting ready for the next 6 seconds of 'action'


There are definite disparities, the definition of the grass for example.

I've taken a few screenshots as comparison. Both sites are running at 3000kbps:

Close ups:
https://i.imgur.com/IFoH55R.jpg - PLP
https://i.imgur.com/UCdmvml.jpg - NFL

You see there is more detail in the face of the NFL shot.

Long angle:
https://i.imgur.com/qxOAIjp.jpg - PLP
https://i.imgur.com/WdY1MLx.jpg - NFL

Both of these screenshots were taken while the camera was panning. Much of the detail in the grass on the PLP shot was lost to "mush" however its retained on the NFL shot. A lot of the sharpness is lost in the motion in the PLP shot however it is retained on the scoreboard, emphasising the difficulty the encoder has with motion.

Granted, these screenshots are far from perfect. They've been stretched massively to fit my Retina Macbook, and they were taken using the OSX screenshot tool, which is not ideal. However they still show the differences in quality.

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1571


  Reply # 875813 12-Aug-2013 13:07
One person supports this post
Send private message

expression:
NonprayingMantis:
expression:
LFCNZ: If PLP ddcide to do a 4500 stream, then anyway of gussing what the quality will be like?


Don't hold out too much hope for a huge improvement in quality. Again, if you compare the PLP 3000kbps stream to the NFL 3000kbps stream there is a large disparity in quality, likely due to a substandard encoder used by PLP. Increasing the bitrate might not bring the desired quality increase. 


I'd surprised in the encoder is different, given it is the same company doing it for both PLP and NFL.

Are you sure it isn't just the game itself is played at a faster pace and so compression artifacts show up more readily for EPL than they would with NFL, where 95% of the time the ball is not in play and you are just watching players walking around for 2-3 mins getting ready for the next 6 seconds of 'action'


There are definite disparities, the definition of the grass for example.

I've taken a few screenshots as comparison. Both sites are running at 3000kbps:

Close ups:
https://i.imgur.com/IFoH55R.jpg - PLP
https://i.imgur.com/UCdmvml.jpg - NFL

You see there is more detail in the face of the NFL shot.

Long angle:
https://i.imgur.com/qxOAIjp.jpg - PLP
https://i.imgur.com/WdY1MLx.jpg - NFL

Both of these screenshots were taken while the camera was panning. Much of the detail in the grass on the PLP shot was lost to "mush" however its retained on the NFL shot. A lot of the sharpness is lost in the motion in the PLP shot however it is retained on the scoreboard, emphasising the difficulty the encoder has with motion.

Granted, these screenshots are far from perfect. They've been stretched massively to fit my Retina Macbook, and they were taken using the OSX screenshot tool, which is not ideal. However they still show the differences in quality.


I honestly can't see much difference in those shots.  

The closeup one has more detail on the NFL one, but then it is much closer and fills the screen more, so you would expect that to be the case anyway.  Other than that, they look about the same to me.

17 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 1


  Reply # 875830 12-Aug-2013 13:39
One person supports this post
Send private message

Ok so i've gone with the $149 package & buzzing for the season to start!!! I've got a 40" sony bravia (KLV-40S200A) & an intel i5 HP DV6 laptop - i've successfully hooked the laptop up to the TV via HDMI cable & run the sample video stream & is of 'acceptable' quality. I'm not overly tech savvy so i haven't played around with any of the settings so was wondering if the default settings are best for viewing quality? I think it's 1080i but would love any tips to get it looking better! :) thanks >

dwl

363 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 43


  Reply # 875883 12-Aug-2013 14:57
Send private message

NonprayingMantis: I honestly can't see much difference in those shots.  

The closeup one has more detail on the NFL one, but then it is much closer and fills the screen more, so you would expect that to be the case anyway.  Other than that, they look about the same to me.


The close up from NFL has a lot more edge detail to my eye that isn't there in the PLP.  If I look at the sizes of the JPG (letting an "independent" algorithm work out how much detail it thinks is there with the same number of pixels) the NFL has 417 kB while the PLP has only 162 kB.  This is a lot.  If this could be carried through for every frame you have a higher quality stream. It could be argued that the closer shot will force more resolution into the adaptive coding at that time (it is trying to average 3 Mbps) and whether this quality will be sustained over many seconds is a key issue.  

A frame by frame analysis of detail per frame but accumulated over several seconds and compared to the bit rate may be interesting.  If each static shot looked like it had more detail and yet the streams were using the same average Mbps then this might confirm some impressions.  As they are probably using the same player this may be valid.  However, does anyone want to get down to this detail?  

For the motion they don't look much different to me but the JPG check shows NFL at 619 kB and the PLP at 537 kB.

While there could well be differences with the way this has been captured (and thanks to expression for providing the comparison), my overall feeling when I have viewed the streams was that PLP was using softer coding than what I saw for NFL.  

We are still left guessing for the games what quality feeds will be used to the encoders and what encoder capabilities are being applied to each stream.  I still think early days yet and PLP operators have been listening and will hopefully be asking questions of NeuLion and other providers whether they are getting the best possible result feed for their 3000 kbps stream.  A 4500 option is being considered and that would raise quality expectations.



1027 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 111


  Reply # 875994 12-Aug-2013 16:53
Send private message

BermudaBlues:
JarrodM: As I suspected United's trip to Swansea next week is the first game on TV one.


So with Devlin (Manure fan) and Miles Davis (west Ham) presenting the games, there will be no biased reports on Chelsea games %)...on another note when are PLP releasing the Apps? I can never get an answer from them! 


Aaaaagh anyone but Devlin, I can't stand the guy, he reminds me of a dodgy used car salesman. I thought he was awful during the world cup.

2 posts

Wannabe Geek


  Reply # 876025 12-Aug-2013 18:35
Send private message

Does anyone know if this works through the PS3? i tried running the trial clip and flash didnt work, but i know PS3 has flash installed.  Would it be an app to make it work?

cheers

1 | ... | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | ... | 210
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Geekzone Live »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.