Versus in HD?
Jason Spaceman
definition, but on OLN Canada I'm only getting standard definition. Is HD only
available in the US, and Canada being a few years behind the times is still only
carrying it in SD?
J. Spaceman
KG
wrote:
Dumbass -
The only thing we get in HD down here is porn.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
Donald Munro
>> I thought I heard Phil Ligget mention that Versus was broadcasting in
>> high definition, but on OLN Canada I'm only getting standard definition.
>> Is HD only available in the US, and Canada being a few years behind
>> the times is still only carrying it in SD?
KG wrote:
> The only thing we get in HD down here is porn.
They may be bankrupt but its good to see California has its priorities
right.
BTW I'm sure I heard Liggett describe Wiggins as super-motivated.
Jason Spaceman
Canada about 10 years, then they'll have an HD channel too.
J. Spaceman
bar
dumbass,
you are correct.
-b
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:h2o7s3$c40$1...@news.datemas.de...
VS is definitely feeding their contractors HD. Dishnet/Echostar finally
came out with an HD channel for VS, and the HD content is wonderful
compared to the heavily-compressed and artifacted SD we lived with
before. The first inkling that things were going to be better came with
the rebroadcasted stages from the past (Lance: The Look Back) which were
of far better quality than the DVDs (which were already better than what
you saw on TV).
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Ryan Cousineau
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
OLN Canada does not use the "Versus" brand at this point. It also has
certain amounts of Canadian content not seen on the US channel. I
believe that it's a case of the channel operator licensing the brand and
some of the contract.
At least on my satellite service, OLN Canada doesn't have an HD channel.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
P. Chisholm
wrote:
On Comcast, yes it's in HD, but in another 'package' that I don't
have.
Tom Kunich
news:6048cbef-ba06-4c4a...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Comcast, yes it's in HD, but in another 'package' that I don't
> have.
Dang! You mean you can't see the blackouts in high fidelity?
Mark J.
For anyone who's seen Versus Tour (or other racing) coverage in HD:
Is the on-road picture quality any good? I assumed that the
transmissions from the motos and the helicopters was low-def, so Versus
HD would just allow us to see low-def source video rebroadcast in hi-def
(which could be even worse). Then you're left with P&P's pores (and
Bobke's receding hairline) in high-def.
Seriously, though, was I wrong above? It's not too late for me to
upgrade my Comcast "package."
Mark J.
cur...@the-md-russells.org
wrote:
>Seriously, though, was I wrong above? It's not too late for me to
>upgrade my Comcast "package."
>
>Mark J.
The picture is pretty uniform HD, with no real drop off in quality. It
does mean that we will probably get pixilation more often under bad
conditions, but I can live with that.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
Zeno
>
> The picture is pretty uniform HD, with no real drop off in quality. It
> does mean that we will probably get pixilation more often under bad
> conditions, but I can live with that.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...
The on the road segments may be in 16x9 HD format size, but they are
definitely NOT in "high definition" (full 760P or 1080i resolution) .
You can tell this by looking at the foliage in the helicopter shots
which is little more than a series of green smudges. Faces of the
riders lose all detail. The very heavy pixelation during high action
sequences is another give away . The video compressor is working into
the red trying to fit the changing action into too small a pipe. Such
pixelation is by no means inevitable, it's just a symptom that VS. is
renting too little bandwidth and are cramming too much into it. Loss
of detail and pixelation is an inevitable result of this. BUT IT DOES
NOT HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. VS IS JUST CUTTING CORNERS. The cameras may
be shooting in true HD, but lack of adequate transmission bandwidth is
killing the high definition. This is the same thing that happens when
you try to shoe horn an HD video into a low bandwidth UTube picture.
It's not HD any more.
I believe this is because probably because the signal is being
heavily compressed for satellite relay that the effective resolution
is no better than "SD" standard definition analog. VS, probably
rents a transponder that can't handle full HD bandwidth. (CHEAP) The
screen ratio may be 16X9, but resolution isn't significantly better
than on an old analog TV during the road sequences.
Versus is is trying to hide this dumbing down by image manipulation.
Long shots show the bunch looking sharper because Versus is
apparently using a heavy "edge sharpening" filter on the receiving end
to give the illusion of higher detail. This works in static shots in
the booth, but IMO, on the road, this often looks worse. If you
have ever put too much "sharpenning" into a photo in a program like
Photoshop, you know what I mean. Some of VS 'HD" Stanley Cup games
really suffered from over sharpening.
If you watched VS "HD" coverage of the Spring Classics, you saw the
same poor video quality. Essentially a standard definition broadcast
in 16X9 format. I was hoping they would spend the extra $ for the
Tour to broadcast true HD, but apparently the bean counters won.
Zeno
Ryan Cousineau
<64a1f88b-0219-4c76...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Zeno <zwarbi...@zenoswarbirdvideos.com> wrote:
Unless you have insider information to the contrary, I think you may be
making unwarranted inferences.
It's entirely possible the source material is in 16x9 aspect but not
full-HD quality. Explanations could range from using some intermediate
("EDTV") camera spec, to bandwidth limitations between the camera, the
helicopter, and the production truck. Wireless transmission of raw HD
signals is far from trivial, even with major-network broadcast budgets.
NASCAR does it routinely, but those cameras only go about a mile or two
from the base station. They may even be able to use land-based receivers
there.
d p chang
[ .. snippage .. ]
> Explanations could range from using some intermediate
> ("EDTV") camera spec, to bandwidth limitations between the camera, the
> helicopter, and the production truck. Wireless transmission of raw HD
> signals is far from trivial, even with major-network broadcast budgets.
>
> NASCAR does it routinely, but those cameras only go about a mile or
> two from the base station. They may even be able to use land-based
> receivers there.
why would nascar (or maybe auto racing in general) need wireless? aren't
the courses all pretty much fixed where it would be 'easy' to setup
cameras w/ big fat pipes to the production/encoding/etc stations in the
trucks.
i guess there's stuff like paris/dakar or baja, but i'm not sure i've
ever seen that on tv.
\p
---
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what
to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing
you said to-day. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Howard Kveck
wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [ .. snippage .. ]
>
> > Explanations could range from using some intermediate
> > ("EDTV") camera spec, to bandwidth limitations between the camera, the
> > helicopter, and the production truck. Wireless transmission of raw HD
> > signals is far from trivial, even with major-network broadcast budgets.
> >
> > NASCAR does it routinely, but those cameras only go about a mile or
> > two from the base station. They may even be able to use land-based
> > receivers there.
>
> why would nascar (or maybe auto racing in general) need wireless? aren't
> the courses all pretty much fixed where it would be 'easy' to setup
> cameras w/ big fat pipes to the production/encoding/etc stations in the
> trucks.
>
> i guess there's stuff like paris/dakar or baja, but i'm not sure i've
> ever seen that on tv.
I think Ryan's talking about the in-car cameras. You might find it hard to do that
hard wired (heh).
--
tanx,
Howard
Caught playing safe
It's a bored game
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
d p chang
> In article <m2hbxpv...@macrovision.com>, d p chang <pch...@macrovision.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [ .. snippage .. ]
>>
>> > Explanations could range from using some intermediate
>> > ("EDTV") camera spec, to bandwidth limitations between the camera, the
>> > helicopter, and the production truck. Wireless transmission of raw HD
>> > signals is far from trivial, even with major-network broadcast budgets.
>> >
>> > NASCAR does it routinely, but those cameras only go about a mile or
>> > two from the base station. They may even be able to use land-based
>> > receivers there.
>>
>> why would nascar (or maybe auto racing in general) need wireless? aren't
>> the courses all pretty much fixed where it would be 'easy' to setup
>> cameras w/ big fat pipes to the production/encoding/etc stations in the
>> trucks.
>
> I think Ryan's talking about the in-car cameras.
ahh...
i'm not sure why those would be 'hd' though? usually, they are
bouncing/shaking and shooting through some goo on the windshield so the
'signal' is degraded. anyway, how i see them 'break up' looks more
analog (less macro-blocking and holds), but i only see the occasional
highlight reel so have no idea what the norm is.
on a side (and more off-topic note), i saw a little ad/movie called
'truth in 24' about audi's 2008 run at le mans. i had no idea that
sarthe was for anything other than bike racing :-)
\p
---
comp.arch was specifically created to help effort-efficient solving of
homeworks through a sucessful combination of mentoring and team work.
- Michael Gschwind (c.a)
Ryan Cousineau
Short answer? Because they can. NASCARs have a lot of room for camera
equipment, so it's feasible to put in a decent HD camera and an
industrial-strength transmitter.
I've been pretty impressed with the image quality from in-car cameras
now. It's not uncommon for a single car to have 2-3 cameras built in. I
can't swear they're full HD; I'll watch more carefully next time I'm
watching a race.
> on a side (and more off-topic note), i saw a little ad/movie called
> 'truth in 24' about audi's 2008 run at le mans. i had no idea that
> sarthe was for anything other than bike racing :-)
>
> \p
> ---
> comp.arch was specifically created to help effort-efficient solving of
> homeworks through a sucessful combination of mentoring and team work.
> - Michael Gschwind (c.a)
--
d p chang
> In article <m2d48cw...@macrovision.com>,
> d p chang <pch...@macrovision.com> wrote:
>
>> Howard Kveck <YOURh...@h-SHOESbomb.com> writes:
>>
>> > In article <m2hbxpv...@macrovision.com>, d p chang
>> > <pch...@macrovision.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> [ .. snippage .. ]
>> >>
>> >> > NASCAR does it routinely, but those cameras only go about a mile or
>> >> > two from the base station. They may even be able to use land-based
>> >> > receivers there.
>> >>
>> >> why would nascar (or maybe auto racing in general) need wireless?
>> >
>> > I think Ryan's talking about the in-car cameras.
>>
>> ahh...
>>
>> i'm not sure why those would be 'hd' though? usually, they are
>> bouncing/shaking and shooting through some goo on the windshield so the
>> 'signal' is degraded. anyway, how i see them 'break up' looks more
>> analog (less macro-blocking and holds), but i only see the occasional
>> highlight reel so have no idea what the norm is.
>
> Short answer? Because they can. NASCARs have a lot of room for camera
> equipment, so it's feasible to put in a decent HD camera and an
> industrial-strength transmitter.
>
> I've been pretty impressed with the image quality from in-car cameras
> now. It's not uncommon for a single car to have 2-3 cameras built
> in.
ok. i didn't really know that they had that much room (ie, multiple
cameras probably mean multiple live feeds rather than switchable from
the booth). they'd need some sort of 'private' network though. i need to
look into this some more :-)
\p
---
The only grace we can ever have is the grace we imagine. If we can't see
it, we won't have it. - Toni Morrison
Donald Munro
> I've been pretty impressed with the image quality from in-car cameras now.
> It's not uncommon for a single car to have 2-3 cameras built in. I can't
> swear they're full HD; I'll watch more carefully next time I'm watching a
> race.
What is disquieting is that you watch nascar. Next thing you'll
be a triathlete.
SLAVE of THE STATE
I think you make it sound a bit easier than it is, and VS likely just
gets a feed anyway. There is only so much that can be done after
being handed a mediocre image .
"Polish a turd and you still have a turd."--BF, 1759
The initial radio path quality is dynamic by the nature of the
problem, and if transmission modulation-demodulation schemes are in
turn dynamic, then this breaks down to variable picture quality.
Since I don't have HD, I don't know if /any/ live racing shots have HD
quality and what that would imply for the path quality and dynamic
transmission schemes. Is there /never/ a live racing shot that looks
HD sharp?
My /past/ understanding of the radio path included the motorcycle
catching the live shot and passing it up to a helicopter. The
helicopter in turn passed it to an airplane which in turn repeated the
data to a terrestrial station(s). We can assume that all links in
this signal chain just mentioned are subject to highly varying
transmission impairments (noise and multipath, for example).
(Helicopter shots have higher probability of more consistant and
higher quality than motorcycle shots as there is one less link in the
chain in that case.)
"Noise, like the poor, will always be with us."--Carson, J R,
_Reduction of Atmospherics_, Procedures of the IRE, vol 16 no 7, July
1928, pp966-975.
If impairments are significant, there may be only 2 choices: no
picture or a degraded one. All a more robust system requires is
additional money/resources. (We need The Retard Prezident to promote
a stimulus package backing "green" sports. That way we can have phony
gdp growth and better pictures at the same time. HeyZeus.H.Crisco,
you people are effing morons.)
We can reasonably assume that once the terrestrial station has the
data, the pipe is always then "big" enough to never be the "long pole
in the tent." Now if the "pipe" for the dynamic chain is /always/ too
small under even the best conditions, then touting is "HD" is pretty
much bs. Whatever the problems are, I doubt they are in the satellite
relay. That would be f-d up if they were. I think ~6 MHz BW is all
that is needed for HD. That is no big deal for a sat link. IOW and
IIRC, I read that one new HD channel would fit into an one old (NTSC/
PAL) analog channel, and 4 new SD channels would fit into one old
analog channel. That is subject to my memory and definitions of
quality. Of course, there may well be more than one (sat) channel of
feed -- there probably is since there are multiple race cameras, but I
just don't know. In any case, I doubt the sat link has BW issues.
f u,
SLAVE
Ryan Cousineau
Donald Munro <fat-d...@mailinator.com> wrote:
Same deal as triathlons: I'm only watching for the crashes.
Donald Munro
> f u,
> SLAVE
At last we can get our 2009 issue PMs.
Donald Munro
>> > I've been pretty impressed with the image quality from in-car cameras
>> > now. It's not uncommon for a single car to have 2-3 cameras built in.
>> > I can't swear they're full HD; I'll watch more carefully next time I'm
>> > watching a race.
Donald Munro wrote:
>> What is disquieting is that you watch nascar. Next thing you'll be a
>> triathlete.
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Same deal as triathlons: I'm only watching for the crashes.
And the beer ads.
Zeno
TDF feed for a few years now. 90% of the race is shown via the motos
on the course and the helicopters, so its reasonable to assume that
virtually all of those camera are HD and are sending a high
resolution HD signal back to the studio. Given the current state and
cost of HD technology there is no good reason why that wouldn't be
the case. There may be some old analog cameras scattered around the
course to pick up bits of the action, but you can bet the main cameras
and feed are high rez are HD. You see the same thing at American
football games. A few of the sideline cams may be in SD, but the main
cams are HD. In fact, you almost never see new professional grade
analog low def professional TV equipment for sale any more. It's all
HD and the cost has come way down. HD cameras and location relay
packages are now no bigger or more demanding to use than the old
standard definition ones. There is no reason why the French wouldn't
be using full res HD for their primary HD feed for their national
race, broadcast by a national network.
As I said in my earlier post, I believe that it's Versus who is
dumbing down the full HD resolution signal they are getting via video
signal compression, probably to keep there satellite transmission
costs down by using a reduced bandwidth stream. This may also allow
them to edit footage on old equipment. This compression is visible in
ALL of their coverage, including the studio shoot in the morning when
they do their predictions. It's just less obvious there because the
subjects are much more static than the road shots, but you can still
see the effect in the way the age spots blink in and out of visibility
on Phil's forehead when he moves and the generally low rez pasty faces
they all have.
MPEG video compression is "lossy." That means that in static shots
where there is little or no movement can look sharp, but the more
movement there is, the more the program is "guessing" about what ought
to be in the next video frame and manufacturing it. All mpeg
compressed signals are not the same. A 1meg/sec mpeg video stream
will not look nearly as sharp as a 4meg/sec video stream if there is
much action. The more bandwidth (information") you provide, the less
the program has to guess about what will be in the next video frame.
OTH, in 35mm film or in an uncompressed video transmission, you get
full resolution in every frame. Compressed video can look virtually as
good as uncompressed video if you give it enough bandwidth and/or use
a more efficient compression scheme like mpeg 4. Vs isn't. Contrast
their TDF video quality with any of the HD "Sky View" travel programs
that are shot from helicopters moving over the countryside. Huge
difference.
Versus is using an edge sharpening filter to try and counteract the
loss of detail by supplying apparent detail. That's why things like
helmets, logos on jerseys and architectural shots look relatively
sharp. Well defined lines benefit most from edge sharpening, but it
has little effect on features like faces, which often look like pasty
masks under those sharp helmets.
I have yet to see a single shot in the VS coverage that didn't show
some artifacts or loss of resolution. Too bad. I was really looking
forward to the peleton crossing that Alpine scenery in true HD.
Zeno
bjwe...@gmail.com
> Versus is using the French HD race feed. The French have had an HD
> TDF feed for a few years now. 90% of the race is shown via the motos
> on the course and the helicopters, so its reasonable to assume that
> virtually all of those camera are HD and are sending a high
> resolution HD signal back to the studio. Given the current state and
> cost of HD technology there is no good reason why that wouldn't be
> the case.
You just assumed away the problem.
Keep in mind the motos can't have directional antennas;
probably even the helis can't have a highly directional
antenna. Bandwidth from a moving transmitter, even over
a short link, is always going to be a harder problem than
uplink/downlink from a stationary, well, station, even if it's
a satellite. This is why I think you are probably wrong to
blame Versus, and I bet someone watching France TV sees
more or less the same feed. However, I don't have Versus
nor HD, so take this an observation from a dumbass
who can't see the artifacts you speak of.
Cameras at football games are not a good analogy. My cell phone
is digital and my desk phone is decades-old analog technology.
Guess which has better sound quality.
Ben
Zeno
wrote:
> On Jul 8, 8:27 am, Zeno <zwarbirdm...@zenoswarbirdvideos.com> wrote:
>
> > Versus is using the French HD race feed. The French have had an HD
> > TDF feed for a few years now. 90% of the race is shown via the motos
> > on the course and the helicopters, so its reasonable to assume that
> > virtually all of those camera are HD and are sending a high
> > resolution HD signal back to the studio. Given the current state and
> > cost of HD technology there is no good reason why that wouldn't be
> > the case.
>
> You just assumed away the problem.
>
> Keep in mind the motos can't have directional antennas;
> probably even the helis can't have a highly directional
> antenna. Bandwidth from a moving transmitter, even over
> a short link, is always going to be a harder problem than
> uplink/downlink from a stationary, well, station, even if it's
> a satellite. This is why I think you are probably wrong to
> blame Versus, and I bet someone watching France TV sees
> more or less the same feed. However, I don't have Versus
> nor HD, so take this an observation from a dumbass
> who can't see the artifacts you speak of.
Well, yeah, I agree, you are an uninformed dumbass who is posting
without even seeing the Vs HD broadcast. But, what the hell, this is
USNET, so feel free. ;-) FWIW, I am a video professional who works
all the time with video compression.
It is no more difficult to uplink a signal from a moving moto or
helicopter in full resolution HD than it is in analog SD. You don't
have to compress the hell out of the signal to the point where it
degrades to do so. Compression does not influence whether or not the
signal can be transmitted and received. While any location signal may
break up if there is a physical barrier between the transmitter and
the receiver, all of the helicopter and moto shots shown on Vs are low
resolution crap compared to true HD, even in wide open terrain where
there is no physical line of sight obstruction. Even the stationary
studio camera shots show obvious signs of loss of resolution if you
know what to look for or if there is significant movement in the
scene. Phil keeps saying the Vs video is being shown in "true HD." He
is just saying what he has been told to say, but it's just *not* true.
z
bjwe...@gmail.com
However, the heli and moto shots always looked lower
resolution than the stationary camera shots, back in the
dark ages before HD (I did watch it on OLN then). That
is why I think they are compressing it significantly
for the uplink.
Bandwidth requirements always influence whether a
signal can be received successfully. A lower bandwidth
signal can be transmitted over a weaker link.
Of course Phil doesn't know whether the signal is in
true HD. That's not his job. That's some boffin in the
control room's job. Hell, Phil can't even identify riders
without 3 or 4 tries.
In order to confirm the Versus throttling theory you
would need to figure out whether the quality artifacts
you see are absent in other countries' feeds.
Ben
Tom Kunich
news:d347ea39-7c3b-42d4...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> However, the heli and moto shots always looked lower
> resolution than the stationary camera shots, back in the
> dark ages before HD (I did watch it on OLN then). That
> is why I think they are compressing it significantly
> for the uplink.
That's because they were doing two things:
1) They were using a telephoto lens which itself cuts the clarity of the
picture and
2) They were using electronic "telephoto" stuff which in fact was blowing up
a portion of the picture and so that section had a lower resolution.
> Bandwidth requirements always influence whether a
> signal can be received successfully. A lower bandwidth
> signal can be transmitted over a weaker link.
That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
Ryan Cousineau
Donald Munro <fat-d...@mailinator.com> wrote:
Wrong kind of beer.
Ryan Cousineau
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d347ea39-7c3b-42d4...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > However, the heli and moto shots always looked lower
> > resolution than the stationary camera shots, back in the
> > dark ages before HD (I did watch it on OLN then). That
> > is why I think they are compressing it significantly
> > for the uplink.
>
> That's because they were doing two things:
>
> 1) They were using a telephoto lens which itself cuts the clarity of the
> picture and
> 2) They were using electronic "telephoto" stuff which in fact was blowing up
> a portion of the picture and so that section had a lower resolution.
Why do you think tele lenses cut the clarity of the picture? I'm not a
tv broadcasting pro, but the most likely effect would be that a serious
telephoto lens might be slower (higher-number wide-open aperture), and
that shouldn't be very important on a sunny day in July.
> > Bandwidth requirements always influence whether a
> > signal can be received successfully. A lower bandwidth
> > signal can be transmitted over a weaker link.
>
> That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
No it's not. Or at least, not that way.
It's likely that their digital* radio link can automatically (maybe
manually) fall back to lower data rates (with attendant lower quality)
if the signal isn't strong enough to properly transmit at the highest
data rate.
*this is an assumption, but given the theory that they're using a
better-than-SD mobile camera, a reasonable one.
Tom Kunich
news:rcousine-1EE9D8.18414008072009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
> In article <ieidnfEyfMPbgsjX...@earthlink.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d347ea39-7c3b-42d4...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > However, the heli and moto shots always looked lower
>> > resolution than the stationary camera shots, back in the
>> > dark ages before HD (I did watch it on OLN then). That
>> > is why I think they are compressing it significantly
>> > for the uplink.
>>
>> That's because they were doing two things:
>>
>> 1) They were using a telephoto lens which itself cuts the clarity of the
>> picture and
>> 2) They were using electronic "telephoto" stuff which in fact was blowing
>> up
>> a portion of the picture and so that section had a lower resolution.
>
> Why do you think tele lenses cut the clarity of the picture? I'm not a
> tv broadcasting pro, but the most likely effect would be that a serious
> telephoto lens might be slower (higher-number wide-open aperture), and
> that shouldn't be very important on a sunny day in July.
But they are using VERY powerful telephoto lenses. Remember that they are in
helocopters flying sometimes 1500 feet above the pack and you can read their
numbers!
>> That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
>
> No it's not. Or at least, not that way.
When you lose a part of the analog signal you're only losing part of the
picture. When you lose a digital portion the link asks for a resend. If
that's successful you have the proper component of the picture.
> It's likely that their digital* radio link can automatically (maybe
> manually) fall back to lower data rates (with attendant lower quality)
> if the signal isn't strong enough to properly transmit at the highest
> data rate.
That's an additional ability. Remember that digital pictures allows you to
send the data stream intermittently whereas analog pictures operate in
real-time.
KG
>
> Well, yeah, I agree, you are an uninformed dumbass who is posting
> without even seeing the Vs HD broadcast. But, what the hell, this is
> USNET, so feel free. ;-) FWIW, I am a video professional who works
> all the time with video compression.
Dumbass -
You still don't know more than Tom Kunich. He knows everything. Just
ask him.
thanks,
Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.
SHUSSBAR
> i guess there's stuff like paris/dakar or baja, but i'm not sure i've
> ever seen that on tv.
>
SHUSSBAR
Waow, I love this techie stuff and wish to be able to do the same.
Great interesting stuff man, thanks.
Ryan Cousineau
Very powerful teles mostly mean, in the pro world, very big glass. At
any rate, unless you can show me otherwise, I'm very skeptical they're
using lenses so dark that they can't properly expose the sensor on a
sunny day.
I also don't think they're picking race numbers from 1500 feet.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/murky/951952434/
This year's Tour de Suisse:
http://www.picture-newsletter.com/tour-suisse/tour-helicopter-8f1.jpg
I think that's HD.
I will concede one thing. This camera mount isn't as big as I thought it
would be, so they may be using a smaller lens than I assumed, but I
still don't think the problem is the lens' light-gathering ability.
> >> That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
> >
> > No it's not. Or at least, not that way.
>
> When you lose a part of the analog signal you're only losing part of the
> picture. When you lose a digital portion the link asks for a resend. If
> that's successful you have the proper component of the picture.
Aside from the fact that many digital systems can cope with partial loss
of information regardless of resend (those digital-blocking artifacts so
familiar to people like me with satellite tv) I'm also pretty willing to
bet that, like my satellite TV link, this transmission system is
effectively one-way (that is, no retransmission requests. Think UDP/IP
vs. TCP/IP).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Datagram_Protocol
> > It's likely that their digital* radio link can automatically (maybe
> > manually) fall back to lower data rates (with attendant lower quality)
> > if the signal isn't strong enough to properly transmit at the highest
> > data rate.
>
> That's an additional ability. Remember that digital pictures allows you to
> send the data stream intermittently whereas analog pictures operate in
> real-time.
I'm going to wave my hands a little to abstract away some details, and
say that for our purposes, this digital wireless transmission from moto
to helicopter is almost certainly more analgous to a real-time stream
than a non-real-time stream. Packets that are noticeably late or
out-of-order are probably ignored.
Returning to the roots of this question, we're asking whether Versus is
doing mean things to the source signal in the process of satellite
transmission. In these cases, if any of Tom's theories are correct, they
demonstrate the trickiness of getting good source video from an event in
which your cameras are moving, your video uplink relay station is
moving, and several key chunks of your video system have to be
(unusally) portable or wireless.
Ryan Cousineau
<2a3183c7-2d1a-4c10...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
SHUSSBAR <SHUS...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this effect could also be evidence that their on-the-road video
quality is not studio-perfect. Please cross-check and see if Bob Roll's
face looks muddy.
> > I have yet to see a single shot in the VS coverage that didn't show
> > some artifacts or loss of resolution. Too bad. I was really looking
> > forward to the peleton crossing �that Alpine scenery in true HD.
> >
> > Zeno
>
> Waow, I love this techie stuff and wish to be able to do the same.
> Great interesting stuff man, thanks.
The best tests of whether Zeno's theories are correct are these:
1) ask a viewer in Europe who has HD service to post some screencaps, or
better yet, some losslessly-compressed clips, or at least give a
perceptual opinion about the picture quality. If they notice similar
issues, it's not Versus' fault.
2) see if the studio shots and feature segments look notably better than
the muddy action shots, that's evidence the problems are not Versus'
fault.
This may also be partly a PAL/NTSC signal-translation side-effect,
though I'm not certain that should be the case. The HD standards differ
only in framerate, which could introduce some oddities, but probably not
the ones Zeno is mad about.
bjwe...@gmail.com
> "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwei...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > However, the heli and moto shots always looked lower
> > resolution than the stationary camera shots, back in the
> > dark ages before HD (I did watch it on OLN then). That
> > is why I think they are compressing it significantly
> > for the uplink.
>
> That's because they were doing two things:
>
> 1) They were using a telephoto lens which itself cuts the clarity of the
> picture and
Not at the level of the type of lenses they use. In fact,
building a tele lens for a small format detector is not
outrageously difficult. Holding it steady is more
difficult, but they have mounts designed for that.
> 2) They were using electronic "telephoto" stuff which in fact was blowing up
> a portion of the picture and so that section had a lower resolution.
I doubt this. They aren't amateurs.
> > Bandwidth requirements always influence whether a
> > signal can be received successfully. A lower bandwidth
> > signal can be transmitted over a weaker link.
>
> That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
No it isn't. With digital you can suffer picture breakup
instead of slow degradation. However, you still have a
minimum bandwidth requirement for a given quality.
You can only cram so much information into a given
bandwidth.
This is why you can read Usenet ASCII art over a
300-baud modem link, but you can't watch Youtube
usefully over a modem.
Ben
Donald Munro
>> Bandwidth requirements always influence whether a signal can be received
>> successfully. A lower bandwidth signal can be transmitted over a weaker
>> link.
Tom Kunich wrote:
> That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
Huh ? Nyquist never existed in the Kuniverse.
Donald Munro
> Paris/Dakar is on SPEED channel in the US
You mean Paris / New Dakar.
Tom Adams
> On Jul 4, 11:43 am, Jason Spaceman <notrea...@jspaceman.homelinux.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I thought I heard Phil Ligget mention that Versus was broadcasting in high
> > definition, but on OLN Canada I'm only getting standard definition. Is HD only
> > available in the US, and Canada being a few years behind the times is still only
> > carrying it in SD?
>
> Dumbass -
>
> The only thing we get in HD down here is porn.
>
I am getting the TDF in HD. But I am in the C.S.A. and we don't
acknowledge being part of the so-called US.
I don't think it's porn, but my wife did ask if one of the riders had
a hardon. I told her it was a codpiece.
d p chang
> In article <62cei6-...@donald.homeip.net>,
> Donald Munro <fat-d...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> >> > I've been pretty impressed with the image quality from in-car cameras
>> >> > now. It's not uncommon for a single car to have 2-3 cameras built in.
>> >> > I can't swear they're full HD; I'll watch more carefully next time I'm
>> >> > watching a race.
>>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>> >> What is disquieting is that you watch nascar. Next thing you'll be a
>> >> triathlete.
>>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> > Same deal as triathlons: I'm only watching for the crashes.
>>
>> And the beer ads.
>
> Wrong kind of beer.
i can only imagine a beer ad featuring trappist monks mumbling in
flemish/french/whatever about their glorious yeast. mmmmmm....
\p
---
To be ignorant of what happened before you were born is to be ever a
child. For what is man's lifetime unless the memory of past events is
woven with those of earlier times? - Cicero
d p chang
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcou...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-1EE9D8.18414008072009@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>> In article <ieidnfEyfMPbgsjX...@earthlink.com>,
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>>> That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
>>
>> No it's not. Or at least, not that way.
>
> When you lose a part of the analog signal you're only losing part of
> the picture. When you lose a digital portion the link asks for a
> resend. If that's successful you have the proper component of the
> picture.
i think for a 'live' feed from moto to helicopter you're not going to
have a lot of resend logic. w/o knowing anything about what formats
they're sending (but knowing a little about what's on the downlink to
viewer side) it makes sense to 'just' send a transport stream alowing
broken slices/whatever. this simplifies the portable unit to not need
full duplex and local storage waiting for acks.
>> It's likely that their digital* radio link can automatically (maybe
>> manually) fall back to lower data rates (with attendant lower quality)
>> if the signal isn't strong enough to properly transmit at the highest
>> data rate.
>
> That's an additional ability. Remember that digital pictures allows
> you to send the data stream intermittently whereas analog pictures
> operate in real-time.
but for a live feed they can't buffer too much. there is only so much
queueing delay that you can take (digital or not) before the broadcaster
has to just drop frames as well.
\p
---
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - Nietzche
d p chang
> The best tests of whether Zeno's theories are correct are these:
>
> 1) ask a viewer in Europe who has HD service to post some screencaps,
> or better yet, some losslessly-compressed clips, or at least give a
> perceptual opinion about the picture quality. If they notice similar
> issues, it's not Versus' fault.
occasionally, one finds 'hd' races on demonoid. yes, they've gone
through yet another compression pass (at least a demux/mux pass or maybe
european hd is just in matroska :-), but there is a difference between
the shots at teh sign-in and on the road.
however,
> On Jul 8, 10:27 am, Zeno <zwarbirdm...@zenoswarbirdvideos.com> wrote:
> >
> > As I said in my earlier post, I believe that it's Versus who is
> > dumbing down the full HD resolution signal they are getting via
> > video signal compression, probably to keep there satellite
> > transmission costs down by using a reduced bandwidth stream.
versus may not want to do it, but may be forced to by their
satellite/cable/whatever deals. as a simplification, a satellite feed is
broken into multiple programs. each of these programs gets a 'fixed'
slice of bandwidth based on their profitability. eg, hbo/premium sports
channels get more than c-span/tcm. the channel or providers 'tune' their
content to fit into their allotment.
> This may also be partly a PAL/NTSC signal-translation side-effect,
> though I'm not certain that should be the case. The HD standards
> differ only in framerate, which could introduce some oddities, but
> probably not the ones Zeno is mad about.
pal/ntsc are going to be sd only (well, there is stuff like
480p/576p/etc but i'm not sure i'd call them pal/ntsc).
zeno might be dumbing it down for the masses, but maybe a little too far
> > MPEG video compression is "lossy." That means that in static shots
> > where there is little or no movement can look sharp, but the more
> > movement there is, the more the program is "guessing" about what ought
> > to be in the next video frame and manufacturing it.
it isn't 'guessing', it is creating a set of difference vectors between
the frames. the search for these differences is tuned for closeness,
bit-rate, and deadline. for example, when doing a movie conversion to
dvd (same thing applies to blue-ray or whatever) it is an interactive
process so there are no deadlines. the encoder does its thing, but a
human tweaks parameters around certain scenes to keep allow for bitrate
spikes. this means that the encoder can spend more time searching for
good/more differences.
> > The more bandwidth (information") you provide, the less the program
> > has to guess about what will be in the next video frame.
however, for 'live' there is the problem of the deadline. you have to
send out the next frame on time or someone is going to be starved for
data.
\p
---
Never open the door to a lesser evil, for other ones invariably slink in
after it. - Baltasar Gracian
Zeno
not up to full rez HD standards. (IMO, other than being in 16X9
format, the broadcast video quality often isn't noticeably better than
good quality analog.) So, the question is: why does the image quality
suck compared to ful rez HD? IMO, the argument that it is what it is
because in can't be done any better is just ignorant.
If you already have a decent HD TV, compare what you are seeing on the
Versus TDF coverage with other, comparable sources like race coverage
on the Speed Channel or NASCAR. Speed Channel covers races in Europe
all the time, including using remote cameras. There is no loss in HD
quality due to a conversion from PAL. Ditto for ESPN's world Cup
soccer broadcasts, including the ones shot in France by French
television. By comparison, the Vs TDF broadcast coverage is low rez
crap with edge sharpening thrown in at the US end to try and make it
look better than it really is.
Compare the detail of faces of the TDF riders on the road with the
photo graphic inserts that are added to the graphics with the rider
bio that are shown simultaneously at the bottom of the screen. (The
pictures of the riders with the flag background.) Those graphics are
added later in the chain in true HD, probably in their US studios. The
faces of the riders on the road look like bad paint by number. The
only reason the Vs shots of the boys in the studio appear to be
sharper than the road segments is because the studio shots are almost
static by comparison, so the compression artifacts are less
noticeable, but is still not full rez HD.
Re anolog vs digital transmission. Digital actually uses less
bandwidth than analog. That's why the switch to digital over the air
TV broadcasting we just went through is freeing up more of the
spectrum for extra channels than were available in the same space
before. It takes no more transmission power to broadcast an HD signal
with good resolution from a moto than it did to broadcast the old
analog signal. Wireless HD cameras are now used all the time to
broadcast news and sporting events without signal degradation. The
idea that the French can't put together a clean HD broadcast chain
that preserves HD resolution is miss-informed. It is now routine and
not rocket science. (Spare me the xenophobic frog comments.) What
would be the point in putting together an "HD" broadcast where the
resolution is not even as good as a standard definition DVD (more like
VHS) when the technology to produce a high rez HD signal is readily
available and used all the time?
The "telephoto" argument is bogus. Many of the shots of the riders on
the road are medium or close and their faces still look like they are
wearing flesh colored plastic goalie masks.
I still believe the culprit is probably the VS satellite relay link
back to the US. Maybe they have a long term lease on an old
transponder with limited bandwidth. Maybe they are just cheap and are
renting a low bandwidth relay. Everything is compressed by Vs in
Europe to fit through that pipe. This compression is more or less
noticeable depending on the complexity and amount of movement over
time in each shot, but it is always there.
Cheers,
Z
PS -- Yes, I used "guessing" re mpeg compression to simplify the
discussion, but it is still about predicting some pixel placement
based on past frames as opposed to an uncompressed signal where every
pixel in each frame is simply transposed from the camera sensor to
the video frame. How much is predicted rather than known (and the
accuracy of that prediction) is in proportion to the amount of
bandwidth available. When not enough bandwidth is available to
reproduce the original image up to the full potential resolutionof the
HD standard, the compressor dumbs down the image by providing less
detail in each frame because it doesn't have enough info to supply an
accurate image. (Hence, the pasty, featureless faces on the TDF road
shots. When there is way too much movement (and not enough bandwidth)
for the compressor to handle, the compressor gets really stupid and
throws up its hands in despair by supplying the large pixelated blocks
you sometimes see. The question here is: are there technological
limitations in play here that limit the quality of the Vs broadcast to
the crap that it is? No!!
Donald Munro
> While any location signal may break up if there
> is a physical barrier between the transmitter and the receiver
That explains the HD porn breakup.
Zeno
available" I mean the streaming volume that is predetermined by Vs
when they adjust the settings in their compression software and refers
to the bandwidth of the video after compression for transmission to
the satellite. Just for example's sake, say the full HD resolution
signal that Vs may be receiving from the French feed is streaming at 4/
megabytes/sec, but the Vs satellite transponder can only handle 2
megabytes of data/sec. So Vs has to set their compression software to
allow a maximum of 2 megabytes/sec, which causes a reduction in
picture detail in proportion to the amount of action in a scene,
because 2 megabytes/sec is insufficient to support full HD resolution.
SLAVE of THE STATE
wrote:
> > > Bandwidth requirements always influence whether a
> > > signal can be received successfully. A lower bandwidth
> > > signal can be transmitted over a weaker link.
>
> > That is with analog signals. Digital is different.
>
> No it isn't. With digital you can suffer picture breakup
> instead of slow degradation. However, you still have a
> minimum bandwidth requirement for a given quality.
Minimum S/N might be a better idealistic way to put it. But you are
pretty much on-track.
> You can only cram so much information into a given
> bandwidth.
Dumbass,
Why are you talking radio with Z and T? It is about as productive as
discussing politics.
Nevermind, I just remembered you're a pet.
Thanks,
SLAVE
"A signal masked by noise can be detected either by correlation
techniques or by filtering. Actually, the two techniques are
equivalent. The correlation technique is a means of extraction of a
given signal in the time domain, whereas filtering achieves exactly
the same results in the frequency domain. … [C]orrelation in the time
domain corresponds to filtering action in the frequency domain." – B.
P. Lathi, p531, SIGNALS, SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATION, 1966, John Wiley &
Sons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_capacity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVB-T
Ryan Cousineau
d p chang <pch...@macrovision.com> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau <rcou...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > In article <62cei6-...@donald.homeip.net>,
> > Donald Munro <fat-d...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> >> > I've been pretty impressed with the image quality from in-car cameras
> >> >> > now. It's not uncommon for a single car to have 2-3 cameras built in.
> >> >> > I can't swear they're full HD; I'll watch more carefully next time I'm
> >> >> > watching a race.
> >>
> >> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> >> What is disquieting is that you watch nascar. Next thing you'll be a
> >> >> triathlete.
> >>
> >> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> > Same deal as triathlons: I'm only watching for the crashes.
> >>
> >> And the beer ads.
> >
> > Wrong kind of beer.
>
> i can only imagine a beer ad featuring trappist monks mumbling in
> flemish/french/whatever about their glorious yeast. mmmmmm....
YES!
Ryan Cousineau
<2fb47717-afe7-40b6...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Zeno <zwarbi...@zenoswarbirdvideos.com> wrote:
> There seems to be general agreement that what we are seeing on Vs is
> not up to full rez HD standards. (IMO, other than being in 16X9
> format, the broadcast video quality often isn't noticeably better than
> good quality analog.) So, the question is: why does the image quality
> suck compared to ful rez HD? IMO, the argument that it is what it is
> because in can't be done any better is just ignorant.
I should clarify one thing: I can only get an SD signal in Canada; no
Vs. HD for me.
> If you already have a decent HD TV, compare what you are seeing on the
> Versus TDF coverage with other, comparable sources like race coverage
> on the Speed Channel or NASCAR. Speed Channel covers races in Europe
> all the time, including using remote cameras. There is no loss in HD
> quality due to a conversion from PAL. Ditto for ESPN's world Cup
> soccer broadcasts, including the ones shot in France by French
> television. By comparison, the Vs TDF broadcast coverage is low rez
> crap with edge sharpening thrown in at the US end to try and make it
> look better than it really is.
As I said before, the coverage of a live, moving race using cameras
continuously moving across the countryside and transmitting to moving
intermediate relay stations, imposes unique demands on the wireless
video chain. NASCAR and F1 come close, but the cars don't go very far
away, and the terrain doesn't change.
Please compare the sign-on footage and studio footage and tell me if
it's better or the same as the in-race footage. If the former, it
suggests the problem isn't the satellite link.
That's not denying that there's such a thing as compressed HD and
over-compressed HD. Some Canadians (possibly ones with golden eyes to go
with golden ears) swear up and down that they can see differences in the
picture quality between the HD offerings of the two competing digital
DTH satellite TV providers, and they blame the satellite bandwidth
allocations.
Zeno
word of my gearhead rants in this thread?) there also are obvious
signs of over compression in the studio scenes. The guys faces look
flat & pasty & when they move, their pores and freckles etc wink in
an out of focus.
I have two TVs in different rooms hooked up to my DirecTv HD
receiver. One is 42" Panasonic plasma hooked up with a digital HDMI
cable, the other is an analog 27' Sony that is hooked up via a plain
old yellow plug "video out" analog cable (not even s-vhs quality).
The DTV receiver converts the digital HD channel signal into standard
analog for the Sony, which has a neat feature that converts the screen
ratio to 16X9 format. The Sony does even support 480P, its just
plain vanilla analog broadcast standard, probably no better than 350
lines. So on the Sony, I am watching analog quality in 16X9 HD ration
format.
But, I am not seeing any more detail in the Vs TDF studio segments on
the HD plasma than I am on the old plain vanilla Sony. OTH, during
the commercials that are shown in true HD on Vs during the TDF, the
difference is huge, obvious and as it should be.
Z