Play-off games in 720p vs. 1080i

jimadams · Post by **jimadams** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:34 pm

This is probably an old subject but ...

I watched this past Sunday's Superbowl playoff finals, back-to-back, OTA using the Samsung T165 STB. The first was via FOX using the HDTV standard 720P. The second was via CBS using 1080i. My Mits 65819 requires a 1080i HDTV input so the Sammy was doing the math on the fly to convert FOX's 720p to 1080i.

It was quite "clear" to me and another that the CBS broadcast was superior in detail, and, had no discernable "interlace" artifacts associated with fast action. The FOX 720P presentation was clearly softer in detail and depth but also without artifacts associated with fast action. I and my guest preferred the CBS 1080i presentation but I wonder about the following:

- Is CBS just ahead of the curve re camera "glass", as in better optical equipment?
- Am I seeing an inferior Samsung 720p to 1080i scaler workings vs. the "do nothing" 1080i pass-thru?
- Is 1080i, afterall, the current "best" or emerging choice for all types of broadcast due to the line and pixel structures better exploited by newer (or older but better) display equipment?

Thoughts?

Jim Adams

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:11 pm

One thing to remember is that the early game was mostly in daylight and the late game was under the lights. ESPN's Sunday night games always looked better to me than the daytime CBS game and they were in 720p also (I also have a Samsung sat HD receiver and 1080i CRT RPTV).

Personally I think it's more about the equipment that's being used (cameras, processing, etc.) than the format or display type.

Richard · Post by **Richard** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:35 am

To fairly compare 720P to 1080I requires a front projection CRT that has been setup for both scan rates and therefore no scaling is required. So few of us have that. Those who do claim 720P looks very good with 1080I having an edge in detail.

As for interlace artifacts with 1080I I have yet to see this with broadcast HD. Oddly though I have seen it with D-Theater. Don't know why...

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:26 am

I also think debating which one is better is like asking whether Angelina Jolie is better looking than Catherine Zeta Jones.

It's ALL good!

jelmarsh · Post by **jelmarsh** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:39 am

I was just going to start a thread on this very topic when I saw this. I have noticed for weeks that the games look far better on CBS, ABC and ESPN and that Fox is noticeably worse. Hard for me to describe but when looking at the field it almost looks like the grass (or turf) is blurry or moving and the colors are not quite as vivid.

I have Comcast HD service and a Toshiba CRT RPTV so I am getting 1080i for all.

Grumpy_Bob · Post by **Grumpy_Bob** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:52 am

Watching the playoffs OTA w/ T165 also, I felt the FOX game was way off what they usually send me. It appeared they were having trouble with focus and light settings. Maybe their hands were shaking from the cold

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:32 am

Fox went from NO HD games to 6 a week. Maybe they're not using the best quality equipment. Given their past behavior this wouldn't surprise me.

jimadams · Post by **jimadams** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:58 am

Interesting input especially the member who also included positive comments re events carried by ABC which is another 720p adopter. His comment stirred similar, albeit old, memories of nice sports stuff coming OTA via them in the past and also remember or even posting that I thought the Sammy's scaler had to be doing a pretty darn good job on those ABC broadcasts. And I don't have that same A/B reaction when watching ABC HD programming vs. NBC or CBS stuff.

So I'm leaning towards FOX's less-mature technical prowess as a possible contributer. And what is it about FOX 42's Philly transmitter in Roxborough, PA? Same location as the other big boys, the most logical direction for my reception, but can't get them so I have to swing around and go for FOX 43 in York, PA.

Anyway, hey, maybe FOX will surprise me/us on Feb 6.

And yes, it's all good...

Jim

akirby · Post by **akirby** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:11 pm

Maybe they aren't transmitting at full power. Our Atlanta CBS station is broadcasting at a puny 49 kw instead of 1000 kw. They plan to go to 1000 but not until this summer. I suspect this may be the case with a lot of other stations.

jelmarsh · Post by **jelmarsh** » Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:36 pm

Saw this elsewhere. I see the same "heatwave" on the grass on the Fox Footbal games. By the way I know ABC is also 720P but that looks fantastic so that is definitely not the issue. .

hey all, I'm new here and love the site. I'm watching the Cards v. Astros game here in Houston via OTA and it is in HD. But the grass and dirt on the field look like their is a heatwave over the ground. What is this from? The players look HD but the field is frustrating me. It's clear but it's almost like the pixels are moving. Any input is appreciated. BTW I have a 46 SAmsung DLP and the LG 3510.
Thanks

The grass is dull, blurred or moves right? In the close ups of players they dont have pores. Reason? The Fox encoders limit its HD to 15mbps max. Anyone that thinks this is great HD needs to take a look at ABC MNF at 19.3 mbps or even 17 or 18. What Fox is putting out is better than hi res but garbage on the HD scale. This is NOT an affiliate issue and is being done at the source. Fox has conceded the PQ at the source allowing room for affiliates to add a multicast channel.

Sucks that I will be showing off my new HDTV at a Superbowl party and people will not get neraly as good an impression as they would with the other networks.
Go Pats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!