ESPN made a point of mentioning its new Lexington designed L.A. Live based studios (home of the new West Coast SportsCenter edition) would be the first capable of "full HD" 1080p production, but with no details we could only speculate on what that meant -- check that week's podcast for our take. We got in contact with Colleen Lynch of ESPN and confirmed the new equipment is designed for 1080p at 60 frames per second, with additional production equipment coming in over the next few months. There's no way to get that bandwidth home yet and won't be for at least several years but it's good to know the network is ready for whatever comes next. Check out the full response and a video clip of the studio -- for those who hit the sack before its 1 a.m. EST timeslot -- after the break.
"The entire LAPC has been designed to support a full 1080 60P production workflow. Our existing 1080P infrastructure is complete and ready to accept these signals as soon as more production equipment is available from the vendors. Our present timeline for delivery of 1080P equipment will be over the next few months. At that time we plan on completing 1 production control room, supporting facilities (edit, server playout, converters, etc.) and studio cameras. All remaining signals that are not capable for a 1080P output will be upconverted to integrate into the production."
We're unlikely to see 1080p coming to people's homes until cable companies stop compressing the shit out of 1080i/720p channels today. On a more serious note, we'll probably have to wait until SDV hits mainstream before 1080p is a reality; there's just no possible way to have all 1080p HDTV streamed at once to a user's home.
why so negative? i remember just last year people were saying blu ray was the only way to see 1080p, then those same people came down with a case of foot in mouth disease when dish network announced their 1080p VOD service.
Sportscenter might look nice in Comcastically compressed 1080 when its just two guys sitting there.
But you cut to highlights of games and it looks like trash. Basketball especially anytime it zooms in on a guy running.
Is it just me or is there nobody out there doing HD Sports the way it should be done? Watching playoff basketball there is so much pixellation during fast motion, especially on the color red. Its painful to watch.
I've yet to see it look good. TNT looked compressed through Comcast and DirecTV. NBC looks like ass no matter what, Comcast, DirecTV and even OTA. The fact that even OTA NBC playoff basketball looked terrible here in Portland, OR leads me to believe that the problem is way beyond Comcast or DirecTV, its in the transmission of the game itself from the arena.
Tell me I'm wrong. Watching basketball is the quickest and easiest way to realize that over-compression (or just lazy compression) is a crime.
Just had another thought. NBC here in Portland, OR which I was watching the playoffs, they broadcast that ridiculous sub-channel of weather on 8.2. That misuse of bandwidth could be the cause of this garbage.
You can't even have 1080p/60 on blu ray. 1080p/24 on blu ray actually uses less bandwidth than 1080i/60 on tv (before compression), but for some reason it isn't broadcasted.
I don't get it. Blu-Ray isn't the standard, 1080p@60 is the standard. Just because BD tops up at 1080i@60 doesn't mean that no one can go above 1080i@60
I really doubt you can see a major difference between 1080i and 1080p. I dont see it as being a huge benefit for ESPN being able to do this but hey if they can broadcast it and my cable company and handle it, ill gladly take it.
It's also the case that Sky TV's in the UK's new studio facilities (online next year) will be 1080p50, the European equivalent. They see this as futureproofing the facility, as well as allowing for 3D requirements...
well, lets just look at the bright side. 1080p is a hella lot better than 720p. even 1080i is alot better. lets hope it is a sign of things to come from ABC/Disney, ie more networks on 1080i. maybe even 1080p
No mitchelljd, 1080i is NOT better than 720p. SMPTE carried out a blind test (no pun intended) between the two standards at the IBC (international broadcasters convention). 99% of people picked 720p as much clearer.
Death to bloody interlace.
However, I don't see how they can get good pictures out of 1080p at 60fps. They can't even do it at 25 or 30fps atm. Horrible compression to keep within bandwidth. HDCAM SR machines (the ALMOST decent tape HD recording method) is the most available and popular means of recording HD at the moment, and entire studios are downgrading to standard HDCAM because of bandwidth and not being able to get the data into the NLE's. HDCAM is 3:1:1 for pity's sake. It's useless! If they start off cak, how will our pictures at home ever look good? 'tis the only reason our (PAL land) SD pictures look(ed) so good - they start off completely uncompressed and generally remain so right up until transmission. Now they get horribly compressed in a multiplexer and bandwidth gets shared over 10 channels and looks useless. I watched a film on PAL SDTV channel Film4 yesterday. The Xvid copy I have of it features far less banding...
I give up with television. Why do we even care about broadcast programmed content anyway? Surely we all want it when we want it.... on demand....
I just wrote an incredibly long and detailed message and proceeded to click post to which I lost the lot (and obviously it didn't post).
Can't be bothered to write it all out again, so here's the link. To clarify, I hadn't read the report when stating my opinion earlier (I apologise for my aggressive slant - I'm no HD curmudgeon), only spoken to EBU (again apologies, I had remembered it as SMPTE!).
Of particular note in regards to my mentioning of HDCAM is PDF page 7 when they mention HDCAM's horizontal subsampling.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
dagamer43 @ May 5th 2009 4:16PM
We're unlikely to see 1080p coming to people's homes until cable companies stop compressing the shit out of 1080i/720p channels today. On a more serious note, we'll probably have to wait until SDV hits mainstream before 1080p is a reality; there's just no possible way to have all 1080p HDTV streamed at once to a user's home.
Miggity @ May 6th 2009 12:57AM
No doubt. Who gives a shit if its 1080-anything when all I see is macroblocking during fast motion?
corey smith @ May 6th 2009 11:10AM
why so negative? i remember just last year people were saying blu ray was the only way to see 1080p, then those same people came down with a case of foot in mouth disease when dish network announced their 1080p VOD service.
Miggity @ May 6th 2009 11:25AM
Sportscenter might look nice in Comcastically compressed 1080 when its just two guys sitting there.
But you cut to highlights of games and it looks like trash. Basketball especially anytime it zooms in on a guy running.
Is it just me or is there nobody out there doing HD Sports the way it should be done? Watching playoff basketball there is so much pixellation during fast motion, especially on the color red. Its painful to watch.
I've yet to see it look good. TNT looked compressed through Comcast and DirecTV. NBC looks like ass no matter what, Comcast, DirecTV and even OTA. The fact that even OTA NBC playoff basketball looked terrible here in Portland, OR leads me to believe that the problem is way beyond Comcast or DirecTV, its in the transmission of the game itself from the arena.
Tell me I'm wrong. Watching basketball is the quickest and easiest way to realize that over-compression (or just lazy compression) is a crime.
Just had another thought. NBC here in Portland, OR which I was watching the playoffs, they broadcast that ridiculous sub-channel of weather on 8.2. That misuse of bandwidth could be the cause of this garbage.
Richard @ May 5th 2009 4:31PM
They could do this now, PPV offer 1080p but not in other channel?
tama @ May 5th 2009 4:56PM
You can't even have 1080p/60 on blu ray. 1080p/24 on blu ray actually uses less bandwidth than 1080i/60 on tv (before compression), but for some reason it isn't broadcasted.
Roger @ May 5th 2009 5:35PM
You can easily have 1080p/60 on blu-ray...and often do. Just check any 1080p television series released on blu-ray...it will be 1080p/60.
tama @ May 5th 2009 5:37PM
It must be interlaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Technical_specifications
JKBC @ May 5th 2009 10:26PM
I don't get it. Blu-Ray isn't the standard, 1080p@60 is the standard. Just because BD tops up at 1080i@60 doesn't mean that no one can go above 1080i@60
Omar @ May 5th 2009 8:49PM
I really doubt you can see a major difference between 1080i and 1080p. I dont see it as being a huge benefit for ESPN being able to do this but hey if they can broadcast it and my cable company and handle it, ill gladly take it.
R. Santangelo @ May 5th 2009 10:47PM
I can tell a difference between the two, maybe you should get a 1080p tv first....
Ben Holmes @ May 5th 2009 11:40PM
It's also the case that Sky TV's in the UK's new studio facilities (online next year) will be 1080p50, the European equivalent. They see this as futureproofing the facility, as well as allowing for 3D requirements...
mitchelljd @ May 6th 2009 5:23AM
well, lets just look at the bright side. 1080p is a hella lot better than 720p. even 1080i is alot better. lets hope it is a sign of things to come from ABC/Disney, ie more networks on 1080i. maybe even 1080p
Pete W @ May 6th 2009 7:41AM
No mitchelljd, 1080i is NOT better than 720p. SMPTE carried out a blind test (no pun intended) between the two standards at the IBC (international broadcasters convention). 99% of people picked 720p as much clearer.
Death to bloody interlace.
However, I don't see how they can get good pictures out of 1080p at 60fps. They can't even do it at 25 or 30fps atm. Horrible compression to keep within bandwidth. HDCAM SR machines (the ALMOST decent tape HD recording method) is the most available and popular means of recording HD at the moment, and entire studios are downgrading to standard HDCAM because of bandwidth and not being able to get the data into the NLE's. HDCAM is 3:1:1 for pity's sake. It's useless! If they start off cak, how will our pictures at home ever look good? 'tis the only reason our (PAL land) SD pictures look(ed) so good - they start off completely uncompressed and generally remain so right up until transmission. Now they get horribly compressed in a multiplexer and bandwidth gets shared over 10 channels and looks useless. I watched a film on PAL SDTV channel Film4 yesterday. The Xvid copy I have of it features far less banding...
I give up with television. Why do we even care about broadcast programmed content anyway? Surely we all want it when we want it.... on demand....
corey smith @ May 6th 2009 11:19AM
pete W,
do you have any links to this blind test you mentioned above? i'd like to give that a read.
Pete W @ May 6th 2009 12:04PM
Corey,
I just wrote an incredibly long and detailed message and proceeded to click post to which I lost the lot (and obviously it didn't post).
Can't be bothered to write it all out again, so here's the link. To clarify, I hadn't read the report when stating my opinion earlier (I apologise for my aggressive slant - I'm no HD curmudgeon), only spoken to EBU (again apologies, I had remembered it as SMPTE!).
Of particular note in regards to my mentioning of HDCAM is PDF page 7 when they mention HDCAM's horizontal subsampling.
Pete W @ May 6th 2009 12:06PM
And I STILL didn't post the PDF! It's time to go home....
www.ebu.ch/trev_308-hdtv.pdf
Galley @ May 6th 2009 9:02AM
Man, that is one ugly set!