• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Should Europe move to 1080p50 TV production?

Should Europe move to 1080p50 TV production?

  • Yes they should

    Votes: 5 20.0%
  • No they should start 1080p60 production

    Votes: 9 36.0%
  • No, interlacing is great

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, for another reason

    Votes: 3 12.0%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 8 32.0%

  • Total voters
    25

200p

Well-known Member
I don't know enough about this to comment, but I'm interested :)
Well the EBU recommends moving to 1080p50 (1080p at 50fps) for production/broadcasting.

I think it might be better for them to produce at 1080p60 instead, seeing as:
1) All European HDTVs are compatible with it - well all the ones capable of 1080p50 (and for any TVs not compatible with 60hz the decoder box could convert it to 50hz)
2) It's a higher frame rate so better motion
3) When they put HD 50i productions on Blu-ray, a lot of the time they convert them to 60hz so you might as well start at 60hz in the first place for better quality, so you don't get conversion artefacts converting from 50hz to 60hz.

One problem (with producing at 60hz in Europe) might be lighting, they might they have to change lighting.
 
Last edited:

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
Surely the only benefit would be for sport.

Personally I'd rather they went to 720p50 for sport (roughly the same bandwidth as 1080i50) and save the bandwidth.

What are the advantages for everything else of going to 1080p50 (or 60) ?

Movies on sky HD are already in 1080p25 (compared to Blu Ray 1080p24) - so there is no advantage for films.

We have a shortage of bandwidth already (witness what's happened to BBC HD recently) - moving to 1080p50 for broadcast will almost double the requirements.
 

Hillskill

Moderator/Games Reviewer
This is a pointless poll. Programming is broadcast in 1080 50i for the sake of bandwith constraints. TV material is generally shot 1080 50i and films are mastered 1080 25PSF. Eitherway the HD Cam SR decks are set to playback at 50i but you still get an excellent HD picture. Films are Mastered to HD Cam SR @ 24psf for Bluray authoring so if anything this is the "truer" HD film experience.
 

Hillskill

Moderator/Games Reviewer
Surely the only benefit would be for sport.

Personally I'd rather they went to 720p50 for sport (roughly the same bandwidth as 1080i50) and save the bandwidth.

Everyone would be up in arms if sport was shot progressive. Interlaced is exactly what gives it the "live" look. Not sure if you have seen the Zidane movie (the one where the camera follows only him for 90mins in a match) that would be a perfect example of what progressive sport would look like.
 

200p

Well-known Member
Surely the only benefit would be for sport.

Personally I'd rather they went to 720p50 for sport (roughly the same bandwidth as 1080i50) and save the bandwidth.

What are the advantages for everything else of going to 1080p50 (or 60) ?

Movies on sky HD are already in 1080p25 (compared to Blu Ray 1080p24) - so there is no advantage for films.

We have a shortage of bandwidth already (witness what's happened to BBC HD recently) - moving to 1080p50 for broadcast will almost double the requirements.
It would benefit everything currently shot at 50i, not just sports. This poll is about TV production, not broadcasting. 1080p50/1080p60 TV production should lead to better quality broadcasts even if those broadcasts are at 720p50 or 1080i25. It would lead to better quality Blu-ray production too (especially 1080p60 if they're going to release them at 60hz as they sometimes do with 50hz productions). eg. it's temporal oversampling. It will also mean there is a much better quality broadcast master available for when infrastructure is available to broadcast in 1080p50/1080p60 or release it in other ways such as on disc (eg. better quality than current Blu-ray - even Blu-ray in 2010 might support 1080p48 or better in 2D because of the 3D addition) or downloads/streaming.
 

KhalJimbo

Distinguished Member

200p

Well-known Member
Everyone would be up in arms if sport was shot progressive. Interlaced is exactly what gives it the "live" look. Not sure if you have seen the Zidane movie (the one where the camera follows only him for 90mins in a match) that would be a perfect example of what progressive sport would look like.
Sport has been broadcast progressive in the USA before (at 720p60) and people haven't minded. It's the higher refresh rate that it needs not interlaced vs progressive.

eg. 1080p25 sport would look awful and juddery
1080/50i sport would look good
1080/50p (1080p50) sport would look even better - just as high refresh rate as 1080/50i but, unlike 1080/50i, every single line is captured every 1/50th of a second, whereas with 50i, only half of the lines are captured every 1/50th of a second.
 

KhalJimbo

Distinguished Member
Surely the only benefit would be for sport.

Personally I'd rather they went to 720p50 for sport (roughly the same bandwidth as 1080i50) and save the bandwidth.

What are the advantages for everything else of going to 1080p50 (or 60) ?

Movies on sky HD are already in 1080p25 (compared to Blu Ray 1080p24) - so there is no advantage for films.

We have a shortage of bandwidth already (witness what's happened to BBC HD recently) - moving to 1080p50 for broadcast will almost double the requirements.

Are you sure? Is it not 1080\50i? Sky HD boxes only output 480i 560p 720p and 1080i
 

200p

Well-known Member
Not with Sky you dont.

OP do you mean TV broadcasting?
No, this poll is just about the TV production side. If they don't broadcast in 1080p50/better, 1080p50 or better can still be down-converted to other formats like 720p50 or 1080i25 or 576i or whatever other formats for the actual broadcast, and should still give better quality, and give all the advantages I said in previous posts. It would also mean there was more content available for when 1080p50/better broadcast/distribution formats are available.
 
Last edited:

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
Are you sure? Is it not 1080\50i? Sky HD boxes only output 480i 560p 720p and 1080i

The two interlaced frames for movies (not other shows) are coded so that the TV knows to recombine them to give 1080p/25. This means that Sky HD gets close to Blu Ray on occasions - especially for films like Shrek, where encoders are more efficient. For movies with less CGI and plenty of action, Blu Ray wins simply because it has more bandwidth.


Of course because the film is at 25fps rather than 24fps, a movie on sky is 4% shorter than on Blu Ray. (assuming the same cut etc).
(The audio is adjusted separately to stop the resultant pitch change).
 

GasDad

Remembered (1964-2012)
No, this poll is just about the TV production side. If they don't broadcast in 1080p50/better, 1080p50 or better can still be down-converted to other formats like 720p50 or 1080i25 or 576i or whatever other formats for the actual broadcast, and should still give better quality, and give all the advantages I said in previous posts.

I agree in a theoretical sense - but the cost implications are horrendous. We are starting to get studio and outside broadcasr infrastructure etc in place for HD - but not much of it is 50p capable. To enforce such a change, will just add to costs.
 

Hillskill

Moderator/Games Reviewer
Sport has been broadcast progressive in the USA before (at 720p60) and people haven't minded. It's the higher refresh rate that it needs not interlaced vs progressive.

eg. 1080p25 sport would look awful and juddery
1080/50i sport would look good
1080/50p (1080p50) sport would look even better - just as high refresh rate as 1080/50i but, unlike 1080/50i, every single line is captured every 1/50th of a second, whereas with 50i, only half of the lines are captured every 1/50th of a second.

I mean this in the nicest possible way but you are chatting utter Jive.

I agree in a theoretical sense - but the cost implications are horrendous. We are starting to get studio and outside broadcasr infrastructure etc in place for HD - but not much of it is 50p capable. To enforce such a change, will just add to costs.

50p is simply not production framerate :suicide:
 

Hillskill

Moderator/Games Reviewer

OK. I find it strange that they are coining this as 1080 50p as this suggest the programming is shot at 50 frames per second. That simply isn't happening. From what I am reading in that article they are describing a framerate/frequency we refer to as 25PSF (progressive segmented frame). In my previous post I listed that all Movies are now being mastered at 25PSF to HD Cam SR and then simply "played back" as 50i for broadcast. The current broadcast infrastructure will simply not be able to accomodate 100s of channels of progressive full HD video.
 

200p

Well-known Member
OK. I find it strange that they are coining this as 1080 50p as this suggest the programming is shot at 50 frames per second. That simply isn't happening. From what I am reading in that article they are describing a framerate/frequency we refer to as 25PSF (progressive segmented frame). In my previous post I listed that all Movies are now being mastered at 25PSF to HD Cam SR and then simply "played back" as 50i for broadcast. The current broadcast infrastructure will simply not be able to accomodate 100s of channels of progressive full HD video.
This poll/the linked to article isn't about what format most TV production companies/broadcasters are currently using, it's about whether TV production companies (the ones not currently using it - ie. the majority) should move to 1080p50 production. The EBU is recommending moving to 1080p50 production as stated in the article.

1) Very few broadcasters currently produce in 1080p50

Of the 29 [broadcasters] that answered the question "What production format do you use today for HDTV?", only one uses 1080p50 for programme production;

2) Currently in Europe they usually either produce in 25p or 50i (for TV production) - for film production it's mostly 24fps - though I've read that some European films are shot at 25fps to make it easier to broadcast.

3) As I said previously, this poll is about the production side (though I would like broadcasting at 1080p50+ if possible).

4) The EBU (see article) are recommending that broadcasters/TV production companies move to 1080p50 production (and emission too). The article says:

"The production and emission formats do not have to be coupled," said Hoffman. 1080P50 production works very well with 720p50 or 1080i25 transmission. It will mean just one format to handle for production, and it can be easily down-converted to deliver multiple variations. If 1080p50 is used for transmission it "provides better quality at reasonable bitrates. You do not need higher bitrates than 1080i," he stated
And for feature film type broadcasts (currently shot at 24 and broadcast 1080i in 25PSF) broadcasting them at 1080p50 should might even require less bandwidth than currently. 1080p is easier to compress than interlaced, and every 2 frames of the 1080p50 broadcast will be identical, it will mean no interlace, de-interlacing stages and no filtering.
 
Last edited:

Hillskill

Moderator/Games Reviewer
For Studio based shows it mean huge investment. For example Sky might adopt it for their news channel which would require new Cameras (or significant upgrades) and also a new graphics sytem for all its on air news tickers etc. So I am sure the EBU would love everyone to spend a ton on new equipment but in this financial climate I just don't see anyone taking the risk. There would need to be some pretty efficient transcoding to deliver the content too, most post-companies/broadcasters have already had to shell out eye watering sums for MP4 codec support on its exsisting systems (I think the company I work for were quoted 10k to add MP4 support to an exsisting system :eek:). With regard to 60p that simply wouldn't happen. Any HD framerates/frequencys still need to be downconverted for SD broadcast which 60p wouldn't.
 

200p

Well-known Member
With regard to 60p that simply wouldn't happen. Any HD framerates/frequencys still need to be downconverted for SD broadcast which 60p wouldn't.
At least one broadcaster in the USA has moved/is moving to 1080p60 production. They currently convert 60i shows to 50i for broadcast in the UK. I'd have thought they would get better quality converting 60p content to 50i than 60i to 50i. What is stopping broadcasters from being able to convert 60p content to 50i? Their current standards converters? I'd have thought that most current standards converters/video editors would be able to convert 60p to 50i?
 
Last edited:

Hillskill

Moderator/Games Reviewer
At least one broadcaster in the USA has moved/is moving to 1080p60 production. They currently convert 60i shows to 50i for broadcast in the UK. I'd have thought they would get better quality converting 60p content to 50i. What is stopping broadcasters from being able to convert 60p content to 50i? Their current standards converters? I'd have thought that most current standards converters/video editors would be able to convert 60p to 50i?

Sure. Standards conversion is common place. I have two SD/HD standards/cross converters in here now. The tech is pretty good at getting acceptable results when converting but some artefacts do occur. This is most obvious when going from NTSC to PAL as NTSC as 100 less lines resolution then PAL so the image softens. 60p to 50i wouldn't result in superior pics as it would suffer at the hands of the conversion process.
 

200p

Well-known Member
Sure. Standards conversion is common place. I have two SD/HD standards/cross converters in here now. The tech is pretty good at getting acceptable results when converting but some artefacts do occur. This is most obvious when going from NTSC to PAL as NTSC as 100 less lines resolution then PAL so the image softens. 60p to 50i wouldn't result in superior pics as it would suffer at the hands of the conversion process.
I was saying that 60p to 50i should give better results than 60i to 50i.
I have two SD/HD standards/cross converters in here now. The tech is pretty good at getting acceptable results when converting but some artefacts do occur
That's the thing - when you do standards conversion you can lose quality. People who want the best quality in TV will generally have a HDTV. All (or the vast majority) of HDTVs in Europe are capable of receiving & displaying 60hz sources as well as 50hz (though the digital tuners might not be :confused:), and all those that carry the HD-ready badge are, which is why many Blu-ray titles are released in Europe containing 60i content.

Yet when they release 50hz titles on Blu-ray in Europe, they often (but not always) standards convert them (eg. to 24 or 60hz), eg. probably because it's cheaper so they only have to have one master for the US/European releases since most US HDTVs don't accept 50hz (though quite a lot of US Blu-ray players can convert 50hz to 60hz).

Blu-ray/other high def formats are supposed to be all about high quality so it would be better if no format conversion was done. If they want to release in only one HD distribution format eg. for Europe/the USA (eg. for financial reasons), wouldn't it be better to shoot the original footage at 1080p60 instead of 1080p50? One problem would be the current decoders might not be compatible if they were to broadcast in it - though there's very few consumer 1080p50 decoders either yet.

Also 60hz is slightly better motion than 50hz. In the standard def world, though NTSC had the higher refresh rate, PAL had more lines, but in the high def world, both have the same resolution (well certain broadcasters use less) but 50hz is lower than 60, so is technically not as high standard (though there are other things like mpeg2 vs mpeg4, different bitrate broadcasts etc..). Also, LCD computer monitors (including European ones) usually run at 60hz, and with things like the BBC iplayer, wouldn't 60hz programming be better on them than 50hz?
 
Last edited:

dunks517

Well-known Member
This is a pointless poll. Programming is broadcast in 1080 50i for the sake of bandwith constraints. TV material is generally shot 1080 50i and films are mastered 1080 25PSF. Eitherway the HD Cam SR decks are set to playback at 50i but you still get an excellent HD picture. Films are Mastered to HD Cam SR @ 24psf for Bluray authoring so if anything this is the "truer" HD film experience.

And your experience is?
 

loz

Distinguished Member
Shouldn't we be thinking of the future and moving straight to something higher definition like 2160p as the production standard even if it can't be broadcast yet?

I am sure there are technical difficulties and cost involved, but I can imagine the EBU taking years to standardise on 1080p, just as the Japanese move to 2160p and all new TVs are suddenly 2160p... :rolleyes:

Surely it is only a matter of time
 

The latest video from AVForums

JVC 4K projectors, Denon X3800 & Perlisten speaker reviews, adding a sub to 2-channel + AV/HiFi news
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom