"Super Hi-Res" (I assume he's talking about 4k), good luck getting the FCC to change broadcast standards for TV yet again, and that whole ball of wax, when HD and Blu-Ray are just at the bottom of mainstream acceptance.
FWIW I hear they do film mastering and telecine transfers at 4K to prepare for the future.
no no no! i am not talking about 4k!
super hi-res/vision. it measures 7680 × 4320 pixels. 4 times that of current "HD" (1080p). it is around twice the size of your crappy 4k
24gb/s blaablaablaa. there are currently no single cameras that can capture at this rate, so testing has been done by combining a number of smaller cameras.
That's done on purpose. A slideshow of perfect still images doesn't look right to the human eye. The SFX houses actually include motion blur on a frame-by-frame basis on purpose (and that's on the film and everything derived from it, DVD or Blu).
hmm. it still looks pixelated though, i can most def see the blur. would that be from compression or VBR of the movies?
So your telling me that you can notice the difference between ABC's 720p broadcast and NBC's 1080i broadcast? I don't believe you. 720p is here to stay and will for a long time. No one is going to broadcast everything in 1080p for a very long time.
not that i have seen those types of channels over here in australia, but yes even i can see the difference.
Most broadcast is 1080i or 720p. They're basically the same in terms of resolution/pixel count.
the end image is a guess yup.
Most of the 720p channels are horribly compressed, too. I see terrible macroblocking and compression artifacts all the time on FiOS. I called FiOS, and according to them they re-encode nothing - they get badly encoded broadcasts from the source.
SO very compressed. the bitrate of TV channels is that bad its not even funny, so i really dont consider them anything to go off.
In the last 3 months I've bought a few Blu-Ray movies.
For $8 each I got I Am Legend, The Departed, Young Guns, Ocean's Eleven, Underworld.
For $10 I got The Wedding Singer.
For $13 I got Gladiator, The Matrix.
For $15 I got The Dark Knight.
All on Blu-Ray and all from Best Buy (without coupons or membership).
Meanwhile, my wife bought DVDs for some of her family who are too stubborn to switch to Blu-Ray.
For $20 she got Angels and Demons, Up
For $9 she got Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, Marley & Me
Personally, I prefer my movies but that's why I got them. Not saying all BR movies are cheap but as a whole they're coming down in price. In Best Buy, the DVD section has lost its footing to BR like when DVD pushed VHS to the less traveled sections of the store.
holy wow! movies over there are so cheap! for the "older releases" here in australia, its about $20Aus for them. more expensive for later releases.
If anything it's the opposite. Fox and ABC (or more appropriately the production companies that actually create the shows for them) master their programs at 1080 and it gets broadcast in 720. The Blu-Ray releases of their stuff is 1080.
they would, of course, be using higher quality cameras then just 1080p
they compress it to what the viewing mediums can handle.
Anyway, here's my challenge -- find me a single Blu-Ray that is mastered at 720p.
actually, i saw one! it was the start of last year (IIRC). i was reading the back of the packet, and it had 720p instead of the usual 1080p! it was a popular new movie too (james bond seems to be jumping into my head).
On a technicality, that 1080i is interlaced (so each "field" is only 1920x540). But the two fields are recombined into a progressive 1080p image by the TV. HDTVs are not interlaced, but the broadcast frames of a 1080i signal are, only because 1080p would require more bandwidth than the FCC allowed. The image you're looking at is still 2 megapixels when deinterlaced versus less than 1 megapixel with a 720 frame.
very good to know! so 1080i will be twice the bandwidth of 720p.
It isn't really surprising when you think about it -- the broadcasters that chose 720 did so to save bandwidth and squeeze more channels in the same space, at the expense of quality. No shock that they probably have the bandwidth of their encoders set to "miserly". We already know they didn't care about quality above all else when they chose 720.
HA! you should see australian satellite TV. that is straight about abysmal. most people wouldnt see/care/know about the 720p/1080i differences. so the broadcasters really arent losing anything.
Ever watched a live sporting event on FOX or ESPN? 720p60 from the camera straight to your TV. And slow motion or speed ups on interlaced footage can be down right ugly compared to how clean it looks on progressive footage. When shooting something like sports, where the action is fast and slow motion is commonplace, 720p60 is the better way to go, IMO.
no arguement there. interlaced footage in action scenes/sports does look really ugly.
720p60 and 1080i60 take up about the same amount of bandwidth.
Lethal
but 720p would look much more attractive.
