Plea to PAL land HD providers

[rotty]

Please Please Please providers of HD TV in Europe (and in fact any PAL) Country.

Please do NOT convert 60i HD recordings/live media to 50i.

Why do you do it?

ALL HD TV's are 60i capable, just transmit as original.

I am of course ONLY talking about HD transmissions.

And yes I know that there is a slight increase in bandwidth if the frame for fame quality is the same, BUT just cap it at what it would have been for 50i, it would still be MILES better than frame rate conversion. (REPEAT, HD ONLY OF COURSE)

[kieranrk]

It's not that simple. You can't suddenly reconfigure your entire broadcast chain to use 60i on the fly.

[rotty]

It's not that simple. You can't suddenly reconfigure your entire broadcast chain to use 60i on the fly.

I would totally agree with you if this was analogue.

We are basically dealing with a "file" being transmitted.

The SKY box can really easily be configured to receive 60i, in fact the same box as UK box is used in NTSC Countries, just configured "over sat" to reciveve 60i.

[scharfis_brain]

kieranrk means, that a frequency switch between 50 and 60 Hz on-the-fly would be nearly impossible. Its not just a file playback.
It will mess with all timcode and timing stuff.

The only option is to interupt the broadcast and switch to another completely different feed.

And I bet that there a plenty of HD-Receivers out there, that cannot switch formats on-the-fly.
The can switch formats during zapping a channel. But even this switch might not be desirable because cheapo devices often mess around with display modes and the like.

[rotty]

kieranrk means, that a frequency switch between 50 and 60 Hz on-the-fly would be nearly impossible. Its not just a file playback.
It will mess with all timcode and timing stuff.

The only option is to interupt the broadcast and switch to another completely different feed.

And I bet that there a plenty of HD-Receivers out there, that cannot switch formats on-the-fly.
The can switch formats during zapping a channel. But even this switch might not be desirable because cheapo devices often mess around with display modes and the like.

Timecode would be EXACTLY the same, when you convert from NTSC to PAL, or vice versa, it is millisecond for millisecond, you are NOT converting like telecine, i.e speeding by one frame for PAL.

i.e., I can be watching a LIVE broadcast from New York, the USA is seeing it in 60i, I am seeing it at 50i (converted from 60i), we are BOTH seeing it in REAL time.

BD does it seamlessly, i.e. changing from 50i, 60i, 24p No problems during single playback session, why, because they are just digital streams.

TV is exactly the same NOW.

[scharfis_brain]

the change between 60, 50 and 24 Hz on Bluray is NOT seamless.
Also the stream is aborted on a frequency change.
I've not seen a continuous stream that contains severaly framerates AND is able to seamless alter HDMI vertical frequency.

[rotty]

the change between 60, 50 and 24 Hz on Bluray is NOT seamless.
Also the stream is aborted on a frequency change.
I've not seen a continuous stream that contains severaly framerates AND is able to seamless alter HDMI vertical frequency.

Yes it is aborted and then re engaded at new rate, what I meant by seamless is that you do not need to do anything yourself, the change break is only a second or so.

Although I would agree with you that this may well be a reason why its not done.

[kieranrk]

25p to 50i switching broke a ton of TVs when it was enabled. Also the video is only a "file" for a small part of the broadcast chain. Most of the chain contains uncompressed video and the vast majority of equipment would not handle framerate changes like that.

[rotty]

25p to 50i switching broke a ton of TVs when it was enabled. Also the video is only a "file" for a small part of the broadcast chain. Most of the chain contains uncompressed video and the vast majority of equipment would not handle framerate changes like that.

Yes, as I said above, this could be a reason.

But, also, frame rate changes have to be handled by TV's when watching a BD, there is a break and HDMI has to re handshake, re connect with new rate and continue. I have not seen a TV fail with this but that doesnt mean of course that they dont.
The same thing could apply to a transmittion.

Thanks for all the answers.

[kieranrk]

TVs are the least of the issues. The problem is with all the infrastructure between playout and encoder.

[Ghitulescu]

There is also a bit of European pride discretely mixed in.

[wonkey_monkey]

There is also a bit of European pride discretely mixed in.
:confused:

[scharfis_brain]

There is also a bit of European pride discretely mixed in.

The same is to be applied to 60hz countries vs. 50hz transmissions

[Mug Funky]

masters probably arrive already converted.

it can be hard to convince some providers to just give you a master in native format...

[Lyris]

Please Please Please providers of HD TV in Europe (and in fact any PAL) Country.

Please do NOT convert 60i HD recordings/live media to 50i.

Why do you do it?

ALL HD TV's are 60i capable, just transmit as original.

I am of course ONLY talking about HD transmissions.

And yes I know that there is a slight increase in bandwidth if the frame for fame quality is the same, BUT just cap it at what it would have been for 50i, it would still be MILES better than frame rate conversion. (REPEAT, HD ONLY OF COURSE)

I agree with you, standards conversions suck, but it's not that simple.

Kieran will be able to tell us, but is 60hz handling even a mandatory requirement in DVB? Do European STB designers have to include support for handling 60hz video?

[kieranrk]

Do European STB designers have to include support for handling 60hz video?

In theory yes. It's worth saying virtually all of US satellite television is DVB of some sort.

[rotty]

I must admit that I still don’t understand why (as far as transmission is concerned) why it matters if the pre H264 media is 50i or 60i.

Once it is an H264 stream it is neither 50i or 60i really, it is just a data stream.

Its only at the de-code (in the receiver box) that it becomes 50/60 or whatever.

So the only place it is 50i or 60i is before encoding and after decoding and not in the H264 stream. Its just data.

If the Master original file on the studio's hard drive (or whatever) originates from 60i media, then just transmit that H264 file.

As far as frame rate change at the receiver end, the Sat. Box re-generates the sync etc, so the menus run overlayed or in fact autonomously without Sat signal.

So the receiver box with the right firmware could sort the changes of frame rate nicely with HDMI re handshaking/re connection for the TV to handle.

[TheSkiller]

If the Master original file on the studio's hard drive (or whatever) originates from 60i media, then just transmit that H264 file.
Well, it doesn't work that way.
First, they don't store H264, usually it's something like Digital Betacam or HD-Cam on on a tape or hard drive. At this stage, the video is stored almost lossless at very high data rates and 4:2:2 chroma subsampling.

Then, for broadcast, it runs through their equipment to add station logos and splice it together with everything else.
This is where switchting between (and mixing!) 60i and 50i would become a problem (I mean, it would be solvable but probably requires some additional equipment).

The outgoing data stream is usually uncompressed SDI which then gets transferred to an uplink station where it gets encoded to what we receive in the end.
But often there's an intermediate compression with high data rates inbetween the playout center of the station and the uplink station of the satellite service because they like to save money...

[rotty]

Well, it doesn't work that way.
First, they don't store H264, usually it's something like Digital Betacam or HD-Cam on on a tape or hard drive. At this stage, the video is stored almost lossless at very high data rates and 4:2:2 chroma subsampling.

Then, for broadcast, it runs through their equipment to add station logos and splice it together with everything else.
This is where switchting between (and mixing!) 60i and 50i would become a problem (I mean, it would be solvable but probably requires some additional equipment).

The outgoing data stream is usually uncompressed SDI which then gets transferred to an uplink station where it gets encoded to what we receive in the end.
But often there's an intermediate compression with high data rates inbetween the playout center of the station and the uplink station of the satellite service because they like to save money...

Hi Skiller

Thanks for your explanation, that makes sense.

[Blue_MiSfit]

TVs are the least of the issues. The problem is with all the infrastructure between playout and encoder.

Well said. The key to understanding this issue is first having an understanding of signal flow through broadcast infrastructure.

File based playout (or legacy tape playout) generates an (HD)SDI signal, which is then routed through a number of devices to add graphics, logos, captions, and other sorcery. Usually there are multiple, protected paths, and the final result is piped into a broadcast encoder which produces an MPEG Transport Stream, usually encapsulated in ASI or UDP-IP. This is then likely muxed with other streams then fed into modulators, and other marvelous bits of RF equipment that I personally know nothing about. The end result is a microwave signal being blasted out of a dish at a satellite.

[jq963152]

Just wondering:

Please do NOT convert 60i HD recordings/live media to 50i.


How is 60 Hz converted to 50 Hz?

For 24 Hz to 30 Hz it's 2:3 pulldown, for 24 Hz to 25 Hz it's PAL speedup, but how is 60 Hz converted to 50 Hz?

[scharfis_brain]

bob-deinterlace -> framerate conversion (frame droppping/repetition, blending, mocomping) -> reinterlacing

[Blue_MiSfit]

Usually in broadcast, 60i <-> 50i is accomplished with a motion compensated standards converter, like one of these:

http://www.snellgroup.com/products/conversion-and-restoration/alchemist/alchemist-ph.c-hd1

Or one of these incredibly cheap ($2k) little beasts:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/teranex/

[pandy]

Just wondering:
but how is 60 Hz converted to 50 Hz?

Usually broadcasters don't care about quality - frame rate conversion is performed in the most simplest and fastest way - frame/field blending which can be easily seen nowadays.

[TheSkiller]

They do care about quality but they need a one-fits-it-all never failing method which gives fast and acceptable results for any input without having to tweak settings (which costs time and money).

[jq963152]

IMHO they never should have allowed 1280x720p50 / 1280x720p60 / 1440x1080i50 / 1920x1080i50 / 1440x1080i60 / 1920x1080i60 as "HD" formats.

Such a mess.

The only HD format they should have allowed should have been full 1920x1080p60 and nothing else. At 10bit 4:4:4 of course.

[paradoxical]

IMHO they never should have allowed 1280x720p50 / 1280x720p60 / 1440x1080i50 / 1920x1080i50 / 1440x1080i60 / 1920x1080i60 as "HD" formats.

Unfortunately for you, the opinion of the people having to create and transmit the content is the one that actually matters.

The only HD format they should have allowed should have been full 1920x1080p60 and nothing else. At 10bit 4:4:4 of course.

Which means HD would never have seen wide adoption. You again show that you live in fantasy land.

[jq963152]

Unfortunately for you, the opinion of the people having to create and transmit the content is the one that actually matters.

So you think content creators / providers prefer those messy and insufficient "HD ready" formats over the full 1920x1080p60?

Do you think their opinion is that it's good that support for 1920x1080p60 distribution basically is non existant?

:rolleyes:

Which means HD would never have seen wide adoption.

Why?

I see much more value in 1080p60 than i see in 720p50 / 720p60 / 1080i50 / 1080i60.

You again show that you live in fantasy land.

Why?

[paradoxical]

So you think content creators / providers prefer those messy and insufficient "HD ready" formats over the full 1920x1080p60?

Yes, doing 1080p60 10bit 4:4:4 would required massively more bandwidth and huge infrastructure upgrade costs. So, yes, they would prefer the less costly solution.


Why?

Because it would have required massive costs to upgrade EVERYTHING to support it. From the entire content creation/broadcasting flow to having to replace every single STB box (that would also need more expensive decoder chips) to be able to handle that content. There is no way that any broadcaster and/or content provider would have paid all that cost to support a format that would only show benefit to a tiny niche of videophiles.


I see much more value in 1080p60 than i see in 720p50 / 720p60 / 1080i50 / 1080i60.

Good for you.

Why?

Because you ignore reality in making these ridiculous statements?

[jq963152]

Because it would have required massive costs to upgrade EVERYTHING to support it. From the entire content creation/broadcasting flow to having to replace every single STB box (that would also need more expensive decoder chips) to be able to handle that content.

That's all true for UHDTV / 4K as well...

There is no way that any broadcaster and/or content provider would have paid all that cost to support a format that would only show benefit to a tiny niche of videophiles.

See above... :rolleyes:

[paradoxical]

That's all true for UHDTV / 4K as well...

And how many broadcasters, TVs and set top boxes support that? Last time I checked pretty much no one was broadcasting it, no home video formats support it, only handful of TVs support it and no STBs that you can buy do as well. Yeah, great example, eh?

See above... :rolleyes:

What am I supposed to be seeing? You blathering on about a format that has no mass adoption?

[jq963152]

a format that has no mass adoption?

There's a rather good chance that this will change though.

[paradoxical]

Oh and just so you know UHDTV defines two different resolutions and also has 24, 25, 30 and 60fps frame rates to choose from. So I fail to see how it is less fragmented than the current HD standards. The only real difference is no interlacing. And considering the bandwidth requirements, I'm guessing you'll see most content in 4k at the lower end frame rates.

[paradoxical]

There's a rather good chance that this will change though.

Only if consumers are convinced to buy UHDTVs. I'm willing to bet most won't any time soon. HDTV took numerous years to become widely accepted by consumers. It's highly unlikely that most of the people who bought an HDTV within the last 10 years are going to buy another, even more expensive TV to get UHDTV.

[jq963152]

Only if consumers are convinced to buy UHDTVs. I'm willing to bet most won't any time soon. HDTV took numerous years to become widely accepted by consumers. It's highly unlikely that most of the people who bought an HDTV within the last 10 years are going to buy another, even more expensive TV to get UHDTV.

You do not necessarily need a UHDTV display to benefit from UHDTV.

Watching a 2160p UHDTV channel on a 1080p HDTV display by letting the Set-Top-Box downscale the 2160p input to 1080p output, probably will still look much better than watching a 720p or 1080i channel on that HDTV display.

[paradoxical]

Watching a 2160p UHDTV channel on a 1080p HDTV display by letting the Set-Top-Box downscale the 2160p input to 1080p output, probably will still look much better than watching a 720p or 1080i channel on that HDTV display.

Many people think they are watching HD when watching upscaled DVDS and 480i TV content. Most consumers have never even bought into Bluray. Yet you think all these people are somehow going to jump on the UHDTV bandwagon? Riiiiiiiight.

[pandy]

The only HD format they should have allowed should have been full 1920x1080p60 and nothing else. At 10bit 4:4:4 of course.



Any justification for such claim ? - and if this is beauty contest let me express that i want to have 1920x1080p72 as a true HD format

[jq963152]

Any justification for such claim ?

Yeah, 1920x1080p is the native resolution of almost all HDTV displays today and 60 fps is the native refresh rate of almost all HDTV displays today. Perfect fit.

[TheSkiller]

IMO a "perfect fit" does not exist in the TV world (=anything displayed on a TV except PC input) because there is overscan to be done on top of everything anyway (at least there should be although for most BDs it's not necessarily needed but definitely for TV programms).

Not even speaking of the frame rate. 60 fps only?! What about 50, 25, 30 and 24? :rolleyes:

Not trying to sound ignorant but your perceptions are illusory and far away from reality – especially if you consider the average Joe neither knows nor cares about these minor things at all, so why would anyone go through the trouble of doing it that way?

[jq963152]

IMO a "perfect fit" does not exist in the TV world (=anything displayed on a TV except PC input) because there is overscan to be done on top of everything anyway (at least there should be although for most BDs it's not necessarily needed but definitely for TV programms).

What :confused:?

Overscan is not needed at all. Why do you say something like that?

IMHO overscan is at least as evil as interlacing and chroma subsampling :p.

Not even speaking of the frame rate. 60 fps only?!

Yes, 60 fps only was mentioned in hope that content creators then would finally record in 60 fps only.

Well, choice usually is a good thing. But if content creators can only choose between 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i and 60i (which is all insufficient IMHO), then that's rather... suboptimal.

What about 50, 25, 30 and 24? :rolleyes:

Just upconvert all old 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i and 60i footage to 60p and start recording every new footage at native 60p. Simple.

And please no arguments like "but 24p is more cinematic :(" or anything like that... :rolleyes:

Not trying to sound ignorant but your perceptions are illusory and far away from reality – especially if you consider the average Joe neither knows nor cares about these minor things at all, so why would anyone go through the trouble of doing it that way?

What :confused:?

So you think average Joe would not be able to see the vast improvement that would come with the full fat native 1920x1080p60 10bit 4:4:4?

It would be a tremendous improvement. No upscaling, no deinterlacing, fluid motion, full spatial resolution, full chroma resolution. Of course this would be very noticeable.

[paradoxical]

Just upconvert all old 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i and 60i footage to 60p and start recording every new footage at native 60p. Simple.

Hahahaha. You're covering the costs, right? Just like how you'll cover the cost for all the infrastructure upgrades and STB replacements, right? You realize that doing that would be an extremely expensive and time-consuming process (to do it correctly at least), right?

What :confused:?

So you think average Joe would not be able to see the vast improvement that would come with the full fat native 1920x1080p60 10bit 4:4:4?

Yes. I've seen tons of people since the beginning of HDTVs that walk into stores like Best Buy and watch stock content of upscaled DVDs and 480i TV content and are amazed at the "HD" picture. Not to mention the people I've known who have worked in said stores and have seen the same thing when directly dealing with said customers. Your point of view is so far from the average consumer's that it's hilarious.

[nevcairiel]

Just upconvert all old 24p, 25p, 30p, 50i and 60i footage to 60p and start recording every new footage at native 60p. Simple.


I have a different argument:
Give me the content the way it was recorded, and not in any other way. Conversion reduces quality, period.

You should really stop trolling every thread that even remotely touches the topic of frame rates or resolutions, its getting quite boring.

[paradoxical]

I have a different argument:
Give me the content the way it was recorded, and not in any other way. Conversion reduces quality, period.

You should really stop trolling every thread that even remotely touches the topic of frame rates or resolutions, its getting quite boring.

But the world should cater to his wants and needs, the costs be damned, or else he's going to throw his toys out of the pram. :rolleyes:

[jq963152]

STB replacements

This is such an invalid argument IMHO.

When there was the switch from H.262 SDTV to H.264 HDTV, the STBs needed to be upgraded anyway.

They just could have made those H.264 HDTV STBs 1080p60 (H.264 Level 4.2) compliant from the beginning. But unfortunately they didn't :(.

Also, when there will be a switch from H.264 HDTV to H.265 UHDTV, the STBs will need to be upgraded again.

So STBs have to be upgraded from time to time anyway.

You realize that doing what you claim would be an extremely expensive and time-consuming process (to do it correctly at least), right?

No.

How about some figures?

Yes. I've seen tons of people since the beginning of HDTVs that walk into stores like Best Buy and watch stock content of upscaled DVDs and 480i TV content and are amazed at the "HD" picture. Your point of view is so far from the average consumer's that it's hilarious.

My POV is not hilarious then. Instead the POV of the average consumer is sad.

You should really stop trolling every thread that even remotely touches the topic of frame rates or resolutions, its getting quite boring.
You should really stop accusing me of "trolling" because of rule #4 :).

[paradoxical]

This is such an invalid argument IMHO.

Your opinion means little.


When there was the switch from H.262 SDTV to H.264 HDTV, the STBs needed to be upgraded anyway.

They just could have made those H.264 HDTV STBs 1080p60 (H.264 Level 4.2) compliant from the beginning. But unfortunately they didn't :(.

Yes, because it would have been more costly to do. See, in the real world decisions usually come down to going with less costly solutions when most people aren't going to need or care about the more costly one.


No.

Then you again prove you live in fantasy land. You think upscaling and conversion of millions of hours of legacy footage just gets done for free?

How about some figures?

Okay. A 2K or 4K restoration of a color film movie usually runs in the several hundreds of thousands of dollars and could probably easily go over a million depending on how extensive the restoration work needs to be. Also, IIRC the post-production costs to upscale and frame rate convert all the footage for the Planet Earth documentary was a couple of million. So you can do the math for how much it would require to convert all "old footage" to 1080p60.


My POV is not hilarious then. Instead the POV of the average consumer is sad.

Maybe so, but you need to finally realize that the average consumer WILL NOT CARE so no one is going to put in huge investments for something that provides marginal benefit to the average customer.

Most consumers do not even buy Blu-Rays yet because they see no convincing reason to do so yet you think they will buy expensive UHDTVs and shoulder other ridiculous costs to get 1080p60 TV service? No, it really is quite hilarious how out of touch with reality you are.


You should really stop accusing me of "trolling" because of rule #4 :).

If it quacks like a duck... :rolleyes:

[jq963152]

This is such an invalid argument IMHO.Your opinion means little.

Maybe that should be reported as rule #4 violation :)?

So you can do the math for how much it would require to convert all "old footage" to 1080p60.

See:




Usually in broadcast, 60i <-> 50i is accomplished with a motion compensated standards converter, like one of these:

http://www.snellgroup.com/products/conversion-and-restoration/alchemist/alchemist-ph.c-hd1

Or one of these incredibly cheap ($2k) little beasts:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/teranex/



;)

[paradoxical]

Maybe that should be reported as rule #4 violation :)?

Go ahead.


See:


Usually in broadcast, 60i <-> 50i is accomplished with a motion compensated standards converter, like one of these:

http://www.snellgroup.com/products/conversion-and-restoration/alchemist/alchemist-ph.c-hd1

Or one of these incredibly cheap ($2k) little beasts:

http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/teranex/
;)

Great the cost of a machine for one part of the process is $2k, but you seem to ignore the fact that a ton of the legacy footage is shot on film or resides on magnetic tape which has to be both digitized and restored which is the costs I was referring to. Also, for example, old composite NTSC footage will need extensive cleanup work as well before being upscaled and converted. The costs of doing all the conversions are much more than simply the cost of the machine and does not just happen at the snap of someone's fingers which was the "time-consuming" part.

[paradoxical]

As a followup to your pathetic attempt at thinking you "gotcha'd me", in 2009 Lowry Digital started restoring the original footage of Apollo 11 Moon Landing from missing tapes. It was said by them that it would need months of effort (and that is with their huge cluster of computers) and cost something like $230,000. Now, it also was stated that it was some of the worst footage they had ever seen, but it is incredibly naive to think that restoring and converting footage is simply a 2k cost for a machine.

[nhakobian]

This is such an invalid argument IMHO.

When there was the switch from H.262 SDTV to H.264 HDTV, the STBs needed to be upgraded anyway.

They just could have made those H.264 HDTV STBs 1080p60 (H.264 Level 4.2) compliant from the beginning. But unfortunately they didn't :(.

Also, when there will be a switch from H.264 HDTV to H.265 UHDTV, the STBs will need to be upgraded again.

So STBs have to be upgraded from time to time anyway.


In an optimal world, this is true.

Just remember that a very large portion of the US is still using the same set top boxes that were used 10 years ago. In the US, if you are a traditional cable customer (meaning not satellite or IPTV like Uverse), you're still getting MPEG2 streams for every channel, including HDTV. Many (if not all) HD channels are limited to 20 Mbps, which easily is not enough for certain types of content (in MPEG2). (The Comcast broadcast of the Super Bowl of a couple years ago comes to mind, where the confetti at the end made the video turn into a mess of flat color macroblocks of rapidly flickering colors.)

The main reason, as I understand it, is that the broadcast equipment is extremely expensive to replace. It is definitely time to replace it, in my opinion, but I think that is going to be a slow process.

Perhaps if the cable compaines will be motivated to change if they start running out of bandwidth. They could easily cut their bandwidth requirements in half for each channel and achieve better subjective quality (or at least better resilience to content with varying visual complexity). I have a feeling that may end up being a motivation for switching.

Now, I realize that the original topic of this conversation was restricted to PAL land, but the destinction between the formats is shrinking (ignoring the obvious framerate differences). It would make things easy (or at least easier) if everyone adopted a set of standards, but the main problem would be getting everyone to switch.

[paradoxical]

The main reason, as I understand it, is that the broadcast equipment is extremely expensive to replace. It is definitely time to replace it, in my opinion, but I think that is going to be a slow process.

Yeah, as you mention in an ideal world they would have already transitioned. In the real world, as you mention and I've tried to convey to him, such things are costly processes and take many, many years of transition. Someone can't just snap their fingers and replace the tons of equipment that make up the broadcast chain. Nor can anyone really justify such a huge sink of capital costs to their shareholders, of which almost all of the major companies are publicly traded, without some serious guarantees of an ROI. And it's not unlikely that a number of companies simply neither have the money or manpower to make the transition even at this point in time.

In the real world, systems that have always worked tend to be very infrequently replaced.