Think you've seen everything
SportsCenter has to offer? Already a go to channel for most HDTV owners by default, the
next big change to ESPN's daily news show is the debut of a West Coast produced edition, coming 5 days a week at 1 a.m. EST / 10 p.m. PST. The
Sony-outfitted digs in the
L.A. Live entertainment complex are the world's first capable of 1080p production (what, no 3D?), but until someone starts broadcasting live that way, it'll be the same 720p as usual when Neil Everett and Stan Verett bring it to your house featuring a Magic Johnson / Larry Bird interview on the 30th anniversary of their championship game tonight.
Read - ESPN's studio in L.A. debuts
Read - Bird and Magic Interview on Debut of SportsCenter from Los Angeles Monday, April 6
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Josh @ Apr 9th 2009 9:50AM
3D, who cares...Give my high quality 1080p (uncompressed)...ya!!!!!
Charles @ Apr 6th 2009 12:26PM
Who the hell has the bandwidth to broadcast QUALITY 1080p60?
It'll have to be at least 30 mb/s MPEG-4 AVC.
Pete @ Apr 6th 2009 1:02PM
FiOS could probably do a couple of 1080p HD channels right now, although a lot of their customers would have to upgrade to their MPEG-4 capable boxes. When the rest of the content providers start distributing HD in 1080p, Verizon would have to start upgrading their systems to offer more QAM channels. For now, however, they have the bandwidth to offer several 1080p HD channels. Someone over on DSL reports figured that Verizon currently had the bandwidth to offer about 150 1080i HD channels. In most markets they are currently offering about 110 1080i MPEG-2 HD channels, so they still have the bandwidth to offer 40 more in 1080i MPEG-2 or 20 more in 1080p MPEG-4. That all changes if everything goes to MPEG-4, but they would have to swap out 1.5+ million set top boxes.
the highest of Defs @ Apr 6th 2009 12:47PM
DirecTV could do it, but ESPN is a 720p channel so it will be 720p like everything else (which you would know if you had read the article....)
Too bad they don't move the whole channel to 1080i though. I think CBS and others have proven that even "fast action sports" look better in 1080i. Especially now that almost all new HDTVs are 1080-line (vs the majority of early 720p flat panels).
tony @ Apr 6th 2009 1:42PM
DIRECTV does MPEG-4 1080p today, so the receivers are ready if they ever decide to flip the switch!
Jeff Regan @ Apr 6th 2009 1:44PM
I've never heard anybody who is qualified in broadcast television say that interlace capture is superior to progressive capture in terms of fast action, slow motion or superior resolution. 1080/60i is just 540p with interlace artifacts.
I don't know of many sports trucks that have 1080/60p record capability, even if it could be broadcast. Most people I know can't discern the difference in resolution between 720p and 1080p, not even with projection video systems, much less 42" LCD and plasma displays, which of course deinterlace the 1080/60i broadcasts.
ESPN and ABC and FOX had good reason to select 720p as their format--it is still best for sports, until 1080/60p is practical in production, post production and transmission.
MidnightDT @ Apr 6th 2009 8:46PM
what are you talking about? do you watch sports idiot? do you just have a 720p tv so you are talking out your ass?
EVERYONE will tell you that football/basketball look much better on NBC/CBS etc then they do on ESPN. the 720p looks great unless its a wide view with alot of details, like fans in the back and full team sports.
TreyIM @ Apr 6th 2009 10:14PM
Midnight has a great point and I thought I made that same point in my comment that I wrote much earlier but forgot to goto my email and click the link - NBC and CBS are the BEST channels for sports games...usually. March Madness hasn't looked so great to me but eh.
Andrew @ Apr 9th 2009 8:18AM
Personally I think that 1080i obviously looks better in lower motion, which, by the way, 95% of the March Madness coverage you mention is. Most of it is just watching one side of the court or the other, there isn't a lot of fast panning going on. I personally notice a difference in 1080i and 720p when there is a lot of fast panning. Granted, it's easy to ignore, but if I notice it once during a broadcast, I'm going to notice it every time, it's just one of those things. 720p just does look smoother on my screen, even if it doesn't look quite as clear.
I'm sure different panels work differently, but there is a difference in sports looking better resolution-wise, and sports looking better in smoothness.
Regardless, we all just need to support 1080p to have the progressive scan on a higher resolution image. Hell, most TVs support 1080p already. DirecTV and Dish are both broadcasting 1080p or have the capability. Someone has to take the first step.
TreyIM @ Apr 6th 2009 10:09PM
I dunno all the technical jazz many of you are talking about but I know I am glad that they are bumping up to 1080p. I've seen a couple things broadcast in 1080i on that channel, strangely enough, but whatever. 1080p on ESPN will be the first of it's kind and I hope other channels will either bump up to 1080p or improve their 1080i because a lot of channels just look terrible in 1080i compared to others. My 1080p Aquos would appreciate.
Jeff Regan @ Apr 6th 2009 10:26PM
@MidnightDT,
There is a lot of controversy about 720/60p vs. 1080/60i. I have seen sports on ABC and Fox that look very good and presumably were shot in 720/60p. I have seen a lot of 32"-50" video display devices, both 720p and 1080p, and I defy the average person to be abel to tell the difference, even with their noses at the screen.
1080/60i does NOT provide 1080 lines of vertical resolution, as interlaced signals are field based, 540 odd and 540 even fields at any given time. 720p shows 720 lines per frame at a given moment. The 1080X1920 signal is often rolled off in the horizontal space by HD VTR's,
transmission and displays. The display may not do a good job of deinterlacing and ends up
showing half the vertical resolution and is more likely to have artifacts in the process vs. showing a native progressive signal.
60p motion is smoother and more detailed than 60i. Slow motion is always better in 720/60p vs. 1080/60i. Interlace is technology developed in the '30's due to technology limitations. There is a reason why 480p ALWAYS looks better than 480i--just look at a computer screen vs.a standard def. TV. One thing you can always count on with interlace is interlace artifacts.
There is no reason to be shooting in interlace in 2009 when all new displays are likely to be fixed pixel progressive scan.
What an OB sports truck shoots vs.what is actually aired are often two different things. Sports are often acquired in 720/60p and scaled to 1080/60i for transmission and vice versa.
I have a 100" screen with 1080p DLP front projection setup, I have a very hard time being able to tell the difference between a good 720/60p image and a good 1080/60i image. It's unlikely the average viewer will be able to tell the difference with a 42" or 46" LCD display.
There are so many factors that make for a good vs. not so good image along the chain from camera through transmission to display. Compression rate and bandwidth limiting done by satellite and cable providers really do a number on the image, which can make a much bigger difference than original resolution/frame rate.
1080/60p will be amazing if implemted properly all the way through the chain. In the meantime, I prefer the modern format--720p over interlace.
Michael @ Apr 6th 2009 10:47PM
Arthur J. Ward is not going to like this