The other practical issue is that most TVs take a good second or two to resync on frame rate changes - and flash and bang when they do so - often flashing up their on-screen display. Can you imagine how annoying that would be continuously happening on a TV channel?
Thanks. Oh well - I wondered whether there might be a glitch at frame rate changes - too bad
Also, it's a shame in this digital age (where we're going completely to digital TV soon), where we have progressive displays like LCD/Plasma etc. that we have to continue with broadcasting new content in interlaced formats. I'm not a fan of 720p50 - I just think we should use 1080p50 (with mpeg4/avc) and, if we have to, increase the compression a bit (though they'd have to make sure that existing digital tv's/set top boxes etc. still worked or at least with SD sources). But if we can't have it - oh well
Thanks that was useful info. Do you work in broadcasting?
Might do
Quote:
I didn't know if there was a proper of saying 1080i50/1080p50 (or if there was a broadcast standard way of writing it).
The "official" standard - as used by the EBU - is to always refer to the frame rate and never the field rate.
So 576i25 is what we use for SD broadcast and 1080i25 is what we use for HD broadcast in the UK, whilst Sweden uses 720p50 for HD broadcast, for example.
However many people prefer to use the field rate when talking about interlaced formats - as it gives a much better idea of the motion rendition.
Some people might think 576i25 and 576p25 gave the same motion rendition as they are both 25 frame per second formats. However an interlaced frame can contain two fields captured at different times - so has twice the motion sampling.
Describing them as 576/50i and 576/25p makes this much clearer - and in most areas (including many manufacturers) you will see this notation used.
If the format is XXXLYY then :
XXX is the vertical lines
L is the interlaced or progressive nature of the scanning
YY is the frame rate
If the format is XXX/YYL
The YY is the frame rate for progressive, and the field rate for interlaced.
Confusingl this means that 1080i25 is the same as 1080/50i...
Quote:
It's a shame they aren't going to create a Blu-ray - I can see how it would be more expensive to make than DVD, including with the license they have to pay to make a Blu-ray (even a test disc). But I thought with the contest taking place with many European countries, there would be quite a big market for it.
Though the BluRay market is still pretty small in the most developed Western European countries - the smaller and more developing regions are further behind us when it comes to HD and consumer goods I suspect. (Sweden, Germany, France, Italy may be moving towards HD, but I suspect it is less popular in Armenia, Azerbaijan etc. Many of these countries are still 4:3 SD - even places like Norway and Denmark only shifted to 16:9 SD production relatively recently)
Quote:
Also, with it already being broadcast/recorded in high def I would have thought it would be fairly easy to put it onto a Blu-ray disc (unlike many feature films which would require a lot of restoration work etc).
Possibly - though most old movies released on BluRay are probably being remastered for HD broadcast in the US and Europe as well.
Quote:
About 1080p50 - my TV can accept (and display it) as well as 1080p60
Yep - more recent displays can - but it isn't an "HD Ready" format.
It is also not a format supported by the allied "HD TV" licensing scheme for HD satellite (and terrestrial) receivers sold in Europe. These support MPEG2 and H264 HD broadcasts in 720/50p and 1080/50i only AIUI - no 1080/50p.
Quote:
And I'm sure for people who have a TV which can't accept either of those standards the player could output 1080/50i or whatever resolution their TV was capable of. So maybe the EBU could persuade the Blu-ray group to add 1080p50 into the specs (and they might want to expand the specs anyway because James Cameron wants to make films in 3D and/or 48fps?)
y
I think there are variants in the works for 24fps 3D - and these could obviously be used for 48fps - though again these are likely to be extensions.
I don't think people are going to want to have to buy super duper new BluRay players just to watch Eurovision without interlace - but then as it is shot interlaced this isn't an issue...
Quote:
Also, I thought the "Red" cameras can record 1080p50 (they can apparently record 2k at up to 120fps! (http://www.red.com/cameras)) - but it does say "windowed" for the 50p and 120p options so I don't know if that means it doesn't record a full (16:9?) frame.
The RED camera isn't a broadcast camera - it is a digital cinema camera. It isn't suitable for live TV production - and I've not seen any suggestion that it will be developed to be. It is much easier to record 1080/50p when you have a recorder sat next to the camera - as I said the HDC-1500s (standard BBC HD studio camera) allow for this via their dual-link HD-SDI outputs.
Getting it down a couple of hundred metres of camera cable, into a router, through a vision mixer, uplinking it to satellite to the broadcast centre (or via fibre) etc. is still a bit of a challenge at 1080/50i. Doubling the data rate to 1080/50p is still quite cutting edge.
Stuff is being developed to support it - like the BBC's Dirac Pro codec - but this is not "ready for primetime" stuff yet.
Quote:
Blu-ray 1080/50i - I thought there were a few of these Blu-ray discs - I read that one was a film called "Death Sentence" that should probably really have been encoded at 24p. I'm not sure about documentaries - maybe some have been converted to 60i with artefacts, but hopefully they won't need to be converted in future, especially for the European/British market.
Suspect it depends on two things :
Whether the ability to master in a common standard for all territories (now all European displays can accept US HD content) over rides the quality arguments.
Whether all European BluRay players will replay 50Hz HD content without problems. (Apparently they don't currently.?)
Quote:
Also, on the EBU website at http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/hdtv/test_sequences.php They have test sequences where they recorded the 2006 Eurovision opening at 1080p50. They've also got a 3840x2160p/50 sample clip! (but they recorded that on film).
Yep - seen some of those sequences.
The video stuff was shot on a single HDC-1500 - presumably dual-link HD-SDIed back to the server - and NOT using the fibre or triax camera cables back to the camera CCU (i.e. the box at the other end of the camera cable that actually feeds the vision mixer and remotely controls the camera in colour balance, exposure, black level, gamma, detail, flare correction etc. terms). This is possible for a single camera recording - but you have to be able to get 1080/50p stuff reliably into a multi-camera production area - and there are still no trucks available that do this (as the camera kit doesn't exist yet)
Live and as-live multi-camera stuff isn't multiple single-camera...
As for the film stuff - you just shoot at twice the frame rate (with faster stock or more light!) and telecine as normal but you end up with twice the number of frames. Same as the RED (though the RED may have to clock fewer scanlines of its sensor to deliver higher frame rates)
Also, it's a shame in this digital age (where we're going completely to digital TV soon), where we have progressive displays like LCD/Plasma etc. that we have to continue with broadcasting new content in interlaced formats.
Yep - though as a simple compression system it does a pretty good job. Particularly relevant given that the bulk of what we watch in HD (drama and most documentary) is usually shot in 1080/25p not 1080/50i - and thus is carried as a segmented progressive frame via 50i and thus can be perfectly de-interlaced back to a 1080/25p sequence in your TV.
1080/50p would have some benefits on shows shot 1080/50i - like music concerts, entertainment shows and sport - but the benefits over 1080/50i are not as marked as many thought.
Quote:
I'm not a fan of 720p50 - I just think we should use 1080p50 (with mpeg4/avc) and, if we have to, increase the compression a bit (though they'd have to make sure that existing digital tv's/set top boxes etc. still worked or at least with SD sources). But if we can't have it - oh well
Well we can't produce it at the moment!
1080/50i is based on the 1080/60i format - and that is a direct development of the Japanese HD format that has been in development since the late 1960s(!)
1080/50p and 1080/60p capable cameras have only just arrived in the market - and they are not capable of working in this format in practical "real world" situations yet, just very controlled single camera/single recorder set-ups, and certainly not live.
Given that we are struggling to find the data rate to deliver 720/50p and 1080/50i in decent quality using H264 - doubling the source data rate is probably not a great move yet...
Whether the ability to master in a common standard for all territories (now all European displays can accept US HD content) over rides the quality arguments.
Whether all European BluRay players will replay 50Hz HD content without problems. (Apparently they don't currently.?)
I don't think I have any 50hz HD Blu-ray discs, but I've never heard of a Blu-ray player not being able to play such discs. I know HD-DVD players couldn't play 50hz HD discs until they released a firmware update in Feb 2008 but I've not yet heard of a Blu-ray player not being able to play 50hz Blu-ray discs. TVs in the US probably can't display the picture though??
Is it me or is the camera work on the contest generally better than concert Blu-rays? Is it to do with more use of cranes/jibs/cameras on tracks/dollies (even though in concert Blu-rays they have these they have some poor quality hand-held shots too yet they don't seem to have these in the contest (or at least it seems better)). Though, do you think they sometimes use a few too many moving/fast moving camera shots in the contest recently (there are some concerts with good camera work that use less fast moving cameras).
What is the budget for the Eurovision Contest - is it a lot higher than most concert Blu-ray productions (which is why the camera-work is often better)? Yet concerts sell a lot better than the DVDs of the contest which is why the contest doesn't get released on Blu-ray?
Also, as the last contest (2007) was made in HD (ie. digital full hd cameras) why is it that when you watch it in full 16:9 without overscan most shots have a white line down the left hand side of the screen constantly - is it a limitation with the their HD cameras or the vision mixer or something else?
Is it me or is the camera work on the contest generally better than concert Blu-rays?
I don't have any concert BluRay discs so can't compare. However AIUI most concert BluRays aren't shot just for BluRay - they are shot for broadcast outlets or for standard DVD release but in HD to preserve their shelf life (as well as for HD broadcast outlets and to improve quality over SD coverage) - which has allowed them to be released on HD formats like BluRay and HD-DVD (RIP)
Quote:
Is it to do with more use of cranes/jibs/cameras on tracks/dollies (even though in concert Blu-rays they have these they have some poor quality hand-held shots too yet they don't seem to have these in the contest (or at least it seems better)).
The Eurovision Song Contest is a HUGE TV show - much bigger than most concerts - as it is a major prime-time show airing in 40+ countries, and is hugely sponsored. It is about as big a music show as you get in Europe.
It is also VERY tightly camera scripted and every act gets a number of rehearsals, so it is incredibly polished by the time it is broadcast live.
Concerts are usually done to a smaller budget - after all the shows often air first on cable or satellite channels - not prime time networks, and not 40 of them all paying for the show. Therefore they are much less highly resourced. They are also usually far less rehearsed and less scripted - so it is more event coverage than TV production. Also - there are often compromises with camera positions at concerts as the main aim of the concert is to entertain the audience in the venue - whereas with Eurovision the TV audience is the main priority - so the venue audience can be more disadvantaged.
The lighting and staging of the contest is always conceived with the TV audience paramount - the same is not true of many concerts - where stuff is optimised for the local audience - and often the TV coverage have to cope with that.
Quote:
Though, do you think they sometimes use a few too many moving/fast moving camera shots in the contest recently (there are some concerts with good camera work that use less fast moving cameras).
The shows directed by Sven (Swedish director who has done quite a few as well as Melodifestivalen) have all been pretty good. Don't think he did Athens - which I think was noticably poorer.
I quite like the "Swedish look" - lots of jibs, two Steadicams, couple of rail cams, couple of mid-audience static rostrum mounted cameras and just a few peds either side of the stage. I like shows where the cameras are constantly moving, or shots are constantly changing. I'm not a fan of the more static style - though the best "traditional" production has to be 1998 Birmingham - where each song was beautifully scripted - but it was the last contest with an orchestra, and one of the last to have no LED or projection screens on the main set ISTR?
Quote:
What is the budget for the Eurovision Contest - is it a lot higher than most concert Blu-ray productions (which is why the camera-work is often better)? Yet concerts sell a lot better than the DVDs of the contest which is why the contest doesn't get released on Blu-ray?
Not sure of your point.
The ESC doesn't sell as well as mainstream artists on DVD because it is a niche product I guess. The BluRay concerts released are for pretty popular mainstream artists who will sell more discs. The costs of BluRay production (mastering and duplication) are still higher than for DVD - so if the Eurovision BluRay is unlikely to sell high volumes it won't be cost effective - yet - to market it. As costs fall and BluRay replaces DVD - then things will obviously change - hopefully!
Quote:
Also, as the last contest (2007) was made in HD (ie. digital full hd cameras) why is it that when you watch it in full 16:9 without overscan most shots have a white line down the left hand side of the screen constantly - is it a limitation with the their HD cameras or the vision mixer or something else?
2006 was shot in HD as well - but not broadcast in HD.
The white line wasn't present on the 1080i BBC HD broadcast of the final or the 720p SVT HD broadcast of the semi. I've just checked my recordings of both in HD on a Full 1080 HD display in 1:1 pixel matched mode (no overscan) with the 720p content scaled to 1080p externally.
Any white line was either introduced during the downconversion or the mastering process if it is present on the DVD.
** EDIT - Just dug out my DVD of the contest and watched it in the same way and there does appear to be a (single pixel?) white line on the left of frame that isn't present on the original HD broadcast recordings I have... Wonder if this is a consequence of proper 702x576 rather than 720x576 picture area being respected? In theory 720x576 is 9 samples wider each side than 4:3/16:9 - with 702x576 being the actual 4:3/16:9 picture area equivalent to a 1920x1080 or 1280x720 16:9 frame... However most equipment and software manufacturers are now ignoring this and treat 720x576 as 4:3/16:9 width...**
I assumed most anamorphic "PAL" SD DVDs these days would be using the full 720x576 as that would give the highest SD resolution.
For a show shot on SD OB triax cameras (almost all triax systems are analogue component based) it is entirely possible that cameras will not generate a full 720x576 image - there is usually a bit of blanking one side or the other - though the 16:9 /4:3 702x576 analogue-equivalent portion should be full of image.
If you ever watch a full SD Rec 601 image on an underscanned monitor you will often notice black edges changing width left / right of frame.
HD downconversions - in theory - shouldn't fill the 720x576 image - there should be 9 samples of black each side. This is because the HD source is exactly 16:9 - whereas 720x576 is wider than 16:9 (by a tiny bit) However - as I mentioned - some (but not all) SD downconversions stretch the 16:9 HD image to 720x576 (distorting it just a tiny bit)
Film transfers may well fill the full 720x576 "slightly wider than 16:9" image - as telecines can have various aperture shapes.
The other thing to remember about 702, 704 and 720 x 576 resolutions is that the "pixels" are the same width (704x576 and 720x576 images are just different widths)- and thus the angular resolution of all three formats should be the same - it is just the width of the image that changes - assuming the SD format is accurately followed. If you encode a 720x576 source image (i.e. slightly wider than 4:3 or 16:9) in 702 or 704 x 576 - all you do is crop the left and right, you don't re-size or scale.
This is in comparison to the 352x576 and 544x576 reduced resolution resolutions also used by DVB and DVD formats. (352x576 is used by DVD Recorders in their long-play formats, and 544x576 is the resolution used by many digital channels)
Are the BBC stumping up alot of the cash for production, as usual?
Strictly the Beeb don't pay for "production" - they pay for a licence to broadcast the event AIUI.
As the event licensing costs are set by the EBU using a formula based on population and country wealth the UK, France, Germany and Spain (and Italy if they still entered) are the main bankrollers of the contest. As a result, and to avoid them pulling out, the EBU ensures that they are always in the final! (And as a result the Big Four usually come close to the bottom most years there has been a semifinal that they've been able to skip...)
(and they might want to expand the specs anyway because James Cameron wants to make films in 3D and/or 48fps?)
(http://www.red.com/cameras)) - but it does say "windowed" for the 50p and 120p options so I don't know if that means it doesn't record a full (16:9?) frame.