Fox 720p vs. ABC 720p

[StarvingForHDTV]

Has anyone noticed a difference in the two when watching football games?  I think they both look great, and sound great.  The ABC Monday Night Football seems a little sharper to me when compared to the Fox-HD Packer games I have seen.  Is it possible that ABC is using better cameras and/or production equipment?

I was just wondering if anyone else noticed this.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining about Fox's HD NFL coverage.  I am very happy that Fox stepped up to true HD.

[summerfun]

Yes, I agree. I also think the CBS 1080i is a better PQ than FOX HD on football games.

[Scott Zsori]

I agree as well.  I chuckle every time Fox has their soundbite on how they're broadcasting in the finest HD format available, 720p and Dolby 5.1.  I agree it looks nice, but I'll take the crisp 1080i on CBS any day.

I'm curious which will work better for other sports with faster moving objects, like hockey or tennis.

[borghe]

ok, here is the scoop.. crisp or other "perceived" differences are simply a result of camera work.. there are plenty of shots on all three networks that frankly look awful.

As has been said many times, 1080i is technically better than 720p. Temporal resolution on the 720p picture is higher but our eyes can't see the increased temporal resolution. Actual resolution on the 1080i picture is higher which our eyes can sort of resolve. BUT, at the end of the day our eyes really can't see the differences between 720p and 1080i. The only thing they CAN see the difference between is the presence or absence of interlace artifacts.

In the Milwaukee area, pound for pound Fox and ABC SHOULD look better than CBS. Both Fox and ABC have around the same bitrate as WDJT but have fewer pixels that need the bits, hence a higher bits per pixel on those stations.

The faster the motion, the more bits per pixel that are needed. So technically, very fast moving sports will look better on 720p vs. 1080i at the same bitrate. This isn't because 720p is superior, it's because there are fewer pixels on the screen and more bits per pixel.

but again, all of this is negligible (even the bits per pixel difference). At the end of the day under typical conditions, our eyes don't noticfe any of it.. The only things we do typically notice are interlace artifacts and compression artifacts.

[dlhoppe]

"BUT, at the end of the day our eyes really can't see the differences between 720p and 1080i"

What???  Don't tell me what my eyes can or can't see.  I can clearly see the difference on my set!  The easiest way to see the difference is to look at a CBS game just before the snap. That's the shot from up high above the sideline. Compare that to the same camera shot on 720p. I'm sure most people who can flip back and forth between 720 and 1080 games will agree.

As for Fox vs. ABC/ESPN,  ABC/ESPN looks much better. Fox still has color and focus problems.  I could see it clearly during the GB/Indy game.  Different cameras had entirely different PQ. At one point one of the cameras focused on Dungy and I could see the color/tint pulsating and changing like someone was trying to adjust it. Hopefully they'll work out the kinks and get us some better PQ.

[borghe]

your entire argument is moot as you are talking about two different games by two different crews. it could be brand and model of cameras used, exposure of the camera, lighting in the stadium (or sky), white balance, adjustment for surrounding colors, etc.

but alas everyone says this.. I am too lazy so look under my posting name at //www.avsforum.com and look for some posts that I've made on temporal resolution, visual acuity, or just take a look around on the net for those terms and especially the art of camera work.

Furthermore, you more than likely weren't watching one of those games at it's real resolution anyway as either your TV or your HD box were sideconverting them to another resolution. So you were most likely watching 1080i at 720p or vice versa.

Sorry, what you saw were production differences, not 720p vs. 1080i differences. we don't have the visual acuity to see the differences between the two resolutions within the same surface area.

What is comes down to is you are really saying who has the better camera work, and in this case the answer is CBS and ABC.. but remember that Fox has only been doing this for... ohh... three weeks now.

[Scott Zsori]

Wouldn't the size of the TV make a difference as well?  Granted, on a 48 inch TV (which is what I have) we might not be able to see the difference, but what about with a projected HD image?  Say you're projecting an 80 or 90 inch image on a screen... wouldn't the resolution differences be obvious then?  I'm just trying to understand more.

Also,  am I right in assuming our eyes' limit is somewhere between 700 and 900 lpi?  I assume that since the difference between 480 and 720 is obvious, and is approximately the same jump in lpi.

Or am I completly wrong?  

[borghe]

ok, first off I used a lot of "Our eyes can't" etc.. sorry.. I get over zealous.. what I meant to say was that in general, we can't see the difference. Not that our eyes are incapable of it, but that how 99% of us have our home theaters setup we can't.

http://www.myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

That is a viewing distance calculator. The very bottom number is our visual acuity distance for 1080i based on a TRUE 20/20 eyesight (in other words we can PERFECTLY resolve an eye chart from 20 feet). 720p would basically be 1.5 times that number. Also worse than TRUE 20/20 will affect the numbers. Note I would even say such as (if such a thing medically existed) 20/20.1, 20/20.5, etc. . So a 55 inch set if you were sitting basically 10 feet away and had true 20/20 vision you could resolve 720p. Fine. But here is the thing. For you to resolve 1080i on the same set, you can only be 7 feet away... How many of us sit only 7' away from a 55" set? A 34" set is 6 feet for 720p and 4.4' for 1080i!! And this is all with 20/20 vision. So if you would actually need to be 21 feet away to FULLY resolve a typical eyechart, that would alter those numbers for the worse.

So that's where visual acuity comes into play. Most of us are probably sitting far enough away from our set that we can barely resolve 720p. And lets not forget this is with 20/20 vision. And mind you I'm not talking about "My vision is good enough that I don't need glasses." I am talking about true 20/20 vision. It is very possible for the human eye to have worse than 20/20 vision and still not require glasses.

Next up you have the sideconverting issue. If you are watching 720p on a TV that does 1080i or vice versa, you are a) not watching the picture at it's real resolution and b) are at the mercy of the hardware doing the side converting. So you have interpolation of the pixels, either 1080i being deinterlaced, and shrunk through a bicubic filter or every other frame of a 720p dropped, then blended and scaled to a 1080i picture.

Hopefully I've made my case. Well, regardless of whether I've made it or not it is undeniable fact. Unless you had the Packers/Colts game recorded and broadcasted natively in both 720p and 1080i from identical sources, comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges. And if you DID have that capability, say a move mastered in both 1080i and 720p, and were to watch them over say a DVHS VCR, you likely wouldn't notice a single solitary difference under even the most perfect of conditions.

Again, what is being talked about in this thread is the quality of the production. PQ is definitely very real, but it has NOTHING to do with resolution. It is camera shots, lighting, exposure, edge enhancement, quality of equipment being used, etc. In that respect I agree with others here in saying that Fox is probably last place. Hopefully as the season goes on they will become more familiar with shooting HD.. (well, they better).

but as far as which is better between 1080i or 720p, basically it doesn't matter. at typical viewing distances with typical eyesight ratings most of us probably aren't fully resolving even 720p let alone 1080i.

[borghe]

oh, and to answer your question scott, yes, if you were to blow it up tremendously large (or get extremely close) the picture at its best would look about 50% better (this goes to temporal resolution which I won't go into). Unfortunately again, most of us have aboslutely no way of quantifying a 50% visual difference.

[summerfun]

I will stand behind my statement that CBS looks better than FOX.

I will also agree with borghe that it is not the 720 vs 1080 argument, but rather quality of camera work, quality of equipment both on location and in the broadcast segment.

I just think CBS does the best job, ABC is pretty good and FOX has a lot of room for improvement.

[Scott Zsori]

Excellent response, borghe.  I understood a good portion of it.     Based on your response, I think it'd probably also be safe to say that the quality of 720 vs 1080 would also depend on the quality that your HD receiver converts the signal to your TV's standard.  With a poor box (like my old TWC box), I'm sure it wouldn't blend and upscale 720p as well to 1080i as some of the newer equipment.  Another reason to justify upgrades!  

[StarvingForHDTV]

Wow this thread drifted off topic quickly!  Who brought up 1080i anyway?

I'm glad other people see the difference between Fox 720p and ABC 720p HD Football.  It sounds like the consensus is that it's skill rather than equipment quality that is making the difference.  I hope that is true.

For those of you with CRT computer displays, you could view sceen captures of 1080i with your monitor set at 1920 X 1080 and also view screen captures of 720p with your monitor set at 1280 X 720  See for yourself if there is any difference with the two resolutions.  To me, on my set, both 720p and 1080i look very nice.  I prefer 720p for faster action.  1080i can be great for stills and nature scenes.  JMHO.

[tazman]

ok, here is the scoop.. crisp or other "perceived" differences are simply a result of camera work.. there are plenty of shots on all three networks that frankly look awful.

Just to put things back on track.  And I do agree also.  I have noticed that ABC Monday night may be perceived as looking slightly better than FOX.  But take into consideration the time of day the games are played.  FOX Packer games are generaly mid day games and ABC are evening games.  Lighting and contrast levels are definately different, giving the ABC nightly games a little higher contrast ratio.

We had a discussion once about an article that was posted regarding 720p versus 1080i.  All DLP and LCD RPJ's convert incomming signals to 1280x720.  That is the max res. the imaging chips currently being used can reproduce.  If you could find a CRT RPJ that was focused sharp enough then you could tell the dif. between 720 and 1080.  Untill we see manufacturers putting 2.1 meg. instead of 1.3 meg. pixal imaging chips in our sets, we will be hard pressed other than artifacts, to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i.  End of story.

[mhz40]

Originally posted by dlhoppe
[BWhat???  Don't tell me what my eyes can or can't see.  I can clearly see the difference on my set![/B]

What you are mostly seeing is the difference between camera equipment of the two origination sites.  Upconverted SD is also 1080i or 720p and looks terrible!  Should one judge bicture quality on that level?  I think we all know the answer....
The bottom line is it all depends on the source material, not the HD format.

[foxeng]

FOX is still tweeking the system and there are some things that are still being sorted out. FOX's 720p isn't at it's peak yet. The PQ will differ on the same game from station to station depending on MANY factors and all at the network in LA, not with the local FOX station. Many people who have seen the SportsCenter hightlights say that it looks better than the actual broadcasts in some cases. It has little to do with camera work in the big picture.

It might be as long as a couple of months before it is all ironed out. It is getting better every week and that is a good thing.