MotoGP on HDTV
Dirt
and all I can say is what a waste. Despite the fact that SPEED was
broadcasting in 720p, the original signal appeared to have been an
upconverted 520i PAL or 480i NTSC. The picture quality was abysmal
and looked far better on an older non-HD television. Before you ask,
the HD television I was watching the race on yesterday was most
definitely not the issue, because the previously broadcast Brazilian
F1 GP was crystal clear.
Andrew
"Dirt" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de11343b-2177-42b5...@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
That's why I use the x264 captures of the Euro channels.
pablo
i agree, the speed quality is awful. my TV setup is pretty sweet, i
can utterly detect bad audio and video, and speedtv delivers both...
Dirt
> ...the original signal appeared to have been an upconverted 520i PAL or 480i NTSC.
I've been thinking a little. Since I've always thought the broadcasts
were lower than average quality even on an SD broadcast, I bet there's
a good chance that the races are filmed in 520i PAL and downconverted
to 480i NTSC for the American market and that's the only signal that
SPEED gets. If SPEED then has to upconvert the previously
downconverted signal to 720p for their HD broadcasts, that would
explain why it looks poor in SD and even poorer in HD. If that's the
case, I'd say Dorna needs to get their head out of their asses and
start filming in the same format that F1 uses, since it appears to
translate fairly well either up or down. Either that or they already
are and SPEED isn't paying for the higher quality signal, which is
probably more likely and wouldn't surprise me one bit.
-Dirt-
Switters
> If that's the
> case, I'd say Dorna needs to get their head out of their asses and
> start filming in the same format that F1 uses, since it appears to
> translate fairly well either up or down. Either that or they already
> are and SPEED isn't paying for the higher quality signal, which is
> probably more likely and wouldn't surprise me one bit.
The picture that we get on the BBC and British Eurosport in SD is a pretty
good one, and this year is in widescreen (last year Eurosport only showed
full frame, whilst the BBC went with widescreen).
As both the BBC and Eurosport now offer HD in the UK, one of the others
(Champ/Julian?) might be able to comment on its quality.
Dirt
> The picture that we get on the BBC and British Eurosport in SD is a pretty
> good one, and this year is in widescreen (last year Eurosport only showed
> full frame, whilst the BBC went with widescreen).
I lived in England for 2008 and watched MotoGP and WSBK in the SD
format on Eurosport. It was better quality than we ever got in SD
here in the states.
-Dirt-
AnotherSquid
wrote:
>
> That's why I use the x264 captures of the Euro channels.
Are these available to anyone for the taking? If so, where?
Andy
Julian Bond
>As both the BBC and Eurosport now offer HD in the UK, one of the others
>(Champ/Julian?) might be able to comment on its quality.
Virgin Cable doesn't yet have Eurosport HD. And I don't think or haven't
noticed MotoGP on BBC HD. I can't stand Cox and Parrish commentating so
I tend to watch BBC so I get live coverage but with the Web audio
commentary.
Just checked. Sepang is on BBC1 live. BBC HD is showing "HD Preview".
Eurosport 2 is showing MotoGP one hour later.
To be honest with my slightly old LCD TV, I can't tell the difference
between BBC and BBC HD even with an HDMI cable. The TV claims to be able
to do 1080 but I'm not entirely sure that's what I'm getting through
cable.
BTW. Why are HDMI cables *so* expensive?
--
Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
Please Pull Basket Through Checkstand
Dirt
> BTW. Why are HDMI cables *so* expensive?
They don't have to be. See if either of these two places ships
internationally.
http://www.monoprice.com/home/index.asp
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/
-Dirt-
Andrew
"AnotherSquid" <m...@ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:4f44e3c8-2bf2-49bc...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Try some of the torrent sites around.
The captures are popular.
Andrew
"Dirt" <christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:daca8a12-20c6-40b2...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
here's a good place I use frequently.
http://www.dealextreme.com/search.dx/search.hdmi%20cable
sweller
> I lived in England for 2008 and watched MotoGP and WSBK in the SD
> format on Eurosport. It was better quality than we ever got in SD
> here in the states.
Is that a product of the difference between PAL and NTSC? I'm not an
expert on these things, just wondered.
--
Simon
Dirt
PAL is 520i compared to NTSC which is 480i, so PAL is a bit better to
begin with. I think the poor SD quality in the US is due to the
downconversion from 520i to 480i. The resolutions are close enough
and coarse enough the converted signal just looks fuzzy.
-Chris-
Michael Sierchio
> PAL is 520i compared to NTSC which is 480i, so PAL is a bit better to
> begin with.
PAL is 25 fps and NTSC is 30 fps, so NTSC is a bit better to
begin with.
Stupid...
Ed Light
Don't be a baby. 520 lines vs 480 lines. Which would you rather watch,
no knowing the country of origin.
--
Ed Light
Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com
Iraq Veterans Against the War and Related:
http://ivaw.org
http://couragetoresist.org
http://antiwar.com
Send spam to the FTC at
sp...@uce.gov
Thanks, robots.
Norm Young
> Michael Sierchio wrote:
>> Dirt wrote:
>>
>>> PAL is 520i compared to NTSC which is 480i, so PAL is a bit better to
>>> begin with.
>>
>> PAL is 25 fps and NTSC is 30 fps, so NTSC is a bit better to
>> begin with.
>>
>> Stupid...
>
> Don't be a baby. 520 lines vs 480 lines. Which would you rather watch,
> no knowing the country of origin.
>
Not to put too fine a point on it but SD PAL actually is 576i so it is
quite a bit better resolution than NTSC at 480i and the difference
is *very* apparent.
The conversion process from PAL to NTSC not only has to try to
sensibly squeeze 576 lines of video into 480 lines but also has to
do the frame rate conversion and colour mapping. A very messy
process which inevitably results in poor quality.
Why we (North America) adopted, and stuck with, such an inferior
TV standard all these years is beyond me.
ny
Ed Light
> Not to put too fine a point on it but SD PAL actually is 576i so it is
> quite a bit better resolution than NTSC at 480i and the difference
> is *very* apparent.
Plus the 25 fps can contain 24 fps film without the pulldown business,
which can create jumpy effects, especially during pans.
Switters
> Norm Young wrote:
>
>> Not to put too fine a point on it but SD PAL actually is 576i so it is
>> quite a bit better resolution than NTSC at 480i and the difference
>> is *very* apparent.
>
> Plus the 25 fps can contain 24 fps film without the pulldown business,
> which can create jumpy effects, especially during pans.
All that's troo, but we get sped up movies instead. Fine if you're
watching LotR trilogy, but discerning viewers can detect the change in
pitch on the audio.
I was hoping we'd get rid of the interlaced nonsense when we got to the
21st century.
Dirt
wrote:
Name calling? What's with that?
-Chris-
Michael Sierchio
I was characterizing facile observations, not calling anyone
stupid. "A similarly dumb thing to claim is that NTSC is
superior to PAL because the frame rate is higher"
Anyway, isn't NTSC pretty much dead? Broadcast channels
in the US are usually at least 720p, some are 1080p.
Ed Light
> Anyway, isn't NTSC pretty much dead? Broadcast channels
> in the US are usually at least 720p, some are 1080p.
Lots of 480i in my area. Some 1080i.
Kuskokwim
> Why we (North America) adopted, and stuck with, such an inferior
> TV standard all these years is beyond me.
>
I can't remember the details, but it has to do with circuit design and our
line voltage being 60Hz and much of the rest of the world being 50Hz. When
TVs first came out (and for many, many years after) the difference in lines
didn't make any difference since the picture didn't have much detail,
anyway.