Phire Phox
Banned
Yay! I can now see my Browns get whooped in 60 FPS! :/
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbox One will provide live NFL games at a blazing 60fps
- Thread starter statham
- Start date
Guess I just take this for granted, but yeah we've been there for some time.
edit: You one of the bigger problems is all that motion artifacts when things start moving at a high speed. Always been an issue.
1080i@60hz is interlaced, so half of the image is missing at all times.
it's closer to being 540p@60hz .
720p@60hz is going to be significantly better quality.
Can you source where you're getting this 30 frames per second on all broadcasts in NA from?
infinityBCRT
Member
That's like asking if I could source where I learned that 2 + 2 equals 4
. I've just known this information for so long. Maybe its because I've dealt with several capture cards dating back to when I only had analog cable and have played around with using third party capture software like DScaler which absolutely blew away the default Haupaugge or ATI TV Wonder capture software because DScaler could both handle di-interlacing a 480i signal correctly and would have very little input lag so that I could hook my PS2 up to it to play GTA3 and MGS2 and have it be actually playable and look pretty good.Your original comment here was making a firm point that all live sports in the US are broadcast at 60 fps. I never commented on the process of creating a progressive image from an interlaced one, since resolution is independent from framerate, but your explanations gave the impression that a 1080p60 video source is necessarily 60 fps (as opposed to frame doubling the source). This is what I assumed was your misunderstanding.
Your explanation here was also giving the impression that you're assuming that 60 fields per second means a signal is also 60 frames per second. This was your original post that brought up this line of questions.
Probably not, but then the motion interpolation will have no effect on a source that is 60fps on most TVs
I'm a video editor who has worked in broadcast TV for over a decade, and I've never heard of any television station or channel accepting 720p60 or 1080p for that matter. That's not to say there aren't channels or stations that might broadcast at those rates, but the standard television frame rate in North America is 29.97 frames per second.
Here's some info on frame rates and standards from the Final Cut Pro manual:
infinityBCRT
Member
Not sure what you're arguing here, and no there is no frame doubling going on.
yankeehater
Member
LOL at the bolded.
That's like asking if I could source where I learned that 2 + 2 equals 4
Well I hate to say it, but I think you're misinformed about a few things. I don't claim to be an expert on frame rates and the likes, but my experiences with this stuff leaves me believing that some of your facts are wrong.
speculawyer
Member
Well, if you can't deliver games at 60FPS you can at least offer video at 60FPS (but probably massively compressed).
Unknown Soldier
Member
What's even more hilarious is that you probably will have to pay for Live Gold to get this so that's another $50 a year.
I don't get who this is targeting, if you have OTA/cable/satellite TV you already have this. Why would you pay extra to stream the same thing to your Xbone? I thought the whole point of the HDMI input on the Xbone was to watch the pay TV service you already have on it!
You believe that all sports broadcasts in the US are 60 fps. I believe that's not the case. Your explanations didn't clarify your view, from my reading. I assumed you might want someone to explain why it looked that way. I don't see a reason to try in the future.
People are confusing refresh rate (field rate) and actual frame rate. In the US & Japan broadcasts have always been 30FPS, with a frequency of 60Hz, I.e. Each frame is illuminated twice. In other regions it's 25FPS (24.49ish) at a frequency of 50Hz.
It gets confusing because in the switch to HD the names 1080i60 and 1080i50 got thrown around referring to the field rate whereas the actual frame rate of these are still 30 and 25-ish respectively.
This is somewhat independent of whatever refresh rate your TV advertises itself as, which adds more confusion, not to mention all the motion enhancement stuff modern LCD's advertise themselves at with ridiculous refresh rates, that is a different measurement yet again (and I still don't really understand how Sony arrive at the numbers they use in their latest TV's, they look good though!)
It gets confusing because in the switch to HD the names 1080i60 and 1080i50 got thrown around referring to the field rate whereas the actual frame rate of these are still 30 and 25-ish respectively.
This is somewhat independent of whatever refresh rate your TV advertises itself as, which adds more confusion, not to mention all the motion enhancement stuff modern LCD's advertise themselves at with ridiculous refresh rates, that is a different measurement yet again (and I still don't really understand how Sony arrive at the numbers they use in their latest TV's, they look good though!)
infinityBCRT
Member
Whether a 1080i60 signal is actually 1920x1080@30hz with 2 fields per frame or 1920x540@60hz, is not really important in the argument of whether sports are already broadcast at 60FPS. They are.
You know, after more digging, I did find this article, which states that certain sports broadcasters do broadcast at 60p...
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/whats_the_difference_between_5994fps_and_60fps_07032011
In any event, I fucking hate frame rates.
http://broadcastengineering.com/news/whats_the_difference_between_5994fps_and_60fps_07032011
In any event, I fucking hate frame rates.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Sports has always been broadcast at the highest field rate, 60i or 60p.
60i is not 30p split into 2 interlaced frames. It is actually 60 even and odd fields shown alternately every second.
60p is 60 progressive frames a second.
From wikipedia...end of story
50p/60p is a progressive format and is used in high-end HDTV systems. While it is not technically part of the ATSC or DVB broadcast standards yet, reports suggest that higher progressive frame rates will be a feature of the next-generation high-definition television broadcast standards.[12] In Europe, the EBU considers 1080p50 the next step future proof system for TV broadcasts and is encouraging broadcasters to upgrade their equipment for the future.[13]
This is only in planning...they don't exist yet
50p/60p is a progressive format and is used in high-end HDTV systems. While it is not technically part of the ATSC or DVB broadcast standards yet, reports suggest that higher progressive frame rates will be a feature of the next-generation high-definition television broadcast standards.[12] In Europe, the EBU considers 1080p50 the next step future proof system for TV broadcasts and is encouraging broadcasters to upgrade their equipment for the future.[13]
This is only in planning...they don't exist yet
Of course. It is mentioned right in the OP that ESPN cares more about frame rate than resolution. It is only strange that the author seemed to have missed that the reason they're vocal about this is they broadcast in 720p/60 instead of 1080i/30
Yeah, I think you're right; my bad for leaving 720p60 out of my post. That is a broadcast standard too - I just wanted to try to help clarify some of the confusing ways of naming the same standards!
Marty Chinn
Member
NTSC doesn't have anything to do with HD broadcasts though.
Damn it, guys.. We've been watching NBA, NFL, Soccer, 99% live broadcasts, in 60fps / 50fps for eternity. It's a TV standart; although interlaced, but it wasn't much of a problem for CRT technology due to the way that rows were being displayed in alternate fashion (It did flicker tho, but the motion was 60hz NTSC / 50hz PAL)
And here are people asking why is it needed if it's not a game.. We need 60fps where sensing the motion is important. Especially when there's god damn camera pans, you need that 60fps. And god damn it, anyone can feel it. Not everyone can tell it.
And here are people asking why is it needed if it's not a game.. We need 60fps where sensing the motion is important. Especially when there's god damn camera pans, you need that 60fps. And god damn it, anyone can feel it. Not everyone can tell it.
720p60 does. 1080 not yet but I think BT Sport in the UK are starting to advertise 1080p sport on some models of set top box because they stream the channel to you over BT broadband rather than OTA.
I think it does for frame rates still. From one of my broadcaster spec sheets (who only accepts HD, but has an SD channel as well):
Edit: so yea, you're right, but I still deal with NTSC despite only doing HD because of down-conversions and the likes handled by the broadcaster, who has digital SD channels.
shock-value
Neo Member
This announcement is stupid and misleading. All broadcast sports are already displayed in 60fps.
For streams at 720p (ESPN and ABC I believe -- and possibly others), they are true, progressive, no-holds-barred 60fps.
For the majority which are 1080i, the vertical resolution is effectively halved (since you are jamming two "displayed frames" into each "transmitted frame" every other scan line), but the image is interpolated by your TV each frame so it still looks pretty good. The TV is able to recover the two distinct "display frames" from the single "transmitted frame" and display them separately (each for 1/60 of a second). So in this case it is the resolution which is diminished, not the framerate (which is still true 60fps).
So the only thing that MS can be doing here that is special is to broadcast in 1080p, which would still be novel and would still improve image quality somewhat (although by far the more important issue is what bitrate they would be transmitting at), but would not affect framerate.
For streams at 720p (ESPN and ABC I believe -- and possibly others), they are true, progressive, no-holds-barred 60fps.
For the majority which are 1080i, the vertical resolution is effectively halved (since you are jamming two "displayed frames" into each "transmitted frame" every other scan line), but the image is interpolated by your TV each frame so it still looks pretty good. The TV is able to recover the two distinct "display frames" from the single "transmitted frame" and display them separately (each for 1/60 of a second). So in this case it is the resolution which is diminished, not the framerate (which is still true 60fps).
So the only thing that MS can be doing here that is special is to broadcast in 1080p, which would still be novel and would still improve image quality somewhat (although by far the more important issue is what bitrate they would be transmitting at), but would not affect framerate.
Marty Chinn
Member
It's not really that different than what you're seeing now. You're currently seeing a refresh rate of 60 times a second.
To settle the "what framerate is broadcast" argument: it's definitely 60 (well, 60000/1001).
This site has a sample of a direct broadcast capture from an American ABC affiliate. You can open it in your editor of choice (if you're doing it on the cheap, dgindex->avisynth+avsp works fine) and step frame by frame if you want: each frame is both full and unique.
This site has a sample of a direct broadcast capture from an American ABC affiliate. You can open it in your editor of choice (if you're doing it on the cheap, dgindex->avisynth+avsp works fine) and step frame by frame if you want: each frame is both full and unique.
? I was wondering if our sports networks broadcast in 60p is what I meant - I can't find anything about it, so I'm guessing no.
shock-value
Neo Member
You mean 720p60? According to Wikipedia the two you mentioned are 1080i60. So still 60fps but with a lower effective vertical resolution.
Unknown Soldier
Member
This junior knows his shit.
To be strictly correct, when discussing interlaced formats like 1080i60, you have to talk about something called temporal resolution. The effective resolution of 1080i varies depending on what is shown. If a still frame is being shown, resolution is actually 1080 lines, because the even and odd fields are showing the same thing. When a moving scene is shown, the effective resolution decreases as the even and odd fields do not match. In theory, if a scene is moving faster than the refresh rate of the recording camera, effective resolution can be as low as 540 lines as the even and odd fields are showing completely different things. In reality the human eye cannot truly resolve the difference in resolution that well and so on most cases it's very difficult to see the variance in effective resolution, such is why watching NBC Sunday Night Football or the NFL on CBS in 1080i60 doesn't really look different at all from Fox NFL Sunday or ESPN Monday Night Football in 720p60.
BRocknRolla
Member
Well, while people argue over the framerate and res questions, this was my first thought too.
I guess if you're the sort of person who wants to sit and watch highlights or specific sports tv shows/clips, then you might find this interesting. As someone who loves football, but only the actual games, this sounds likely useless. Can't imagine you'll see more than a game or two broadcast live all season, if that. (Unless there's some kind of Direct Ticket esque additional package to buy. Which, if there is, you've once again lost me.)
infinityBCRT
Member
A lot of the studio shots (pregame, half time), overlays, etc will even look better on the 1080i broadcast because there's not that much motion going on.
shock-value
Neo Member
Yes that is a good point about temporal resolution. I believe that is the motivating factor for ESPN and some other sports networks to broadcast in 720p rather than 1080i. They want a consistent image even when displaying fast moving 60fps content (i.e. sports). Not to mention 720p takes up less bandwidth generally so there are fewer compression artifacts as well.
shock-value
Neo Member
The videos on this page http://deadspin.com/richard-sherman-breaks-up-pass-wins-game-goes-nuts-on-1504807735 are displaying at 60fps on my computer. Basically this is the same as you get on broadcast TV, though rare for internet broadcasts or even VODs.
Unknown Soldier
Member
So anyways the point of all this discussion is that the Xbone is doing the same thing you already have on your OTA/cable/satellite TV feed. So unless you actually have no TV service of any kind at all this is stupid and pointless. Anyone who watches the NFL already has TV service, otherwise how could you already be watching it?
I've already been completely wrong in this thread (but learned something at least), but according to my math, if the 60 refers to fields, and you need two fields to make a frame, then how is 60i not effectively 30p?
I get that they look similar - And I do work with 720p60 and 1080p60, which is the frame rate I prefer things recorded in when I want to slow them down.
Every piece of footage on my computer right now that has been shot in 1080i60 (which is the vast majority) all give me a native frame rate of 29.97 fps with a field dominance of top.
infinityBCRT
Member
When I full screen it the FPS drops for me... another reason why internet video just sucks.
shock-value
Neo Member
60i is effectively 30p if you display it raw without recovering the display fields. You'd get a 30fps video that looks like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Interlaced_video_frame_(car_wheel).jpg
The reporter is rewriting old news, and royally fucked up the tech component by buying standard press release fluffery hook, line, and sinker.
The original source appears to be here - which mentions that 60fps is double "standard" video but doesn't note that sports are an exception, and for some reason plays up the Xbone's power like the PS3 and 360 couldn't do 60fps HD video fine.
Also, we have to mention that there there are several de-interlacing methods. You need to de-interlace on any progressive display. The best ones are that rebuild an entire frame by way of motion-estimation and re-projection, when you do that, the resolution is not halved, tho it's a partly generated image with possibilities of artefacts here and there, but it's a damn good image. High end TV's would be most likely to employ that technique, but I'm not sure which do or if at all.
Here's a very good site about what interlace is and why we are still talking about it when 99.9% of all new displays are progressive: http://www.100fps.com/
Going progressive is the only sane way as the recording and broadcast will match the technology of our displays.