# NFL-HD mpeg4- motion blur



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

on Jets game, compared to my local CBS 1080i OTA football game. Especially when the camera moved/panned.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

Local HD channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc) will always look better via OTA than from Dish and likely from any provider


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

rtk said:


> Local HD channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc) will always look better via OTA than from Dish and likely from any provider


Heretic!!!!! Haven't you seen the thousands of posts where people say the MPEG4 HD-LIL looks just as good as OTA


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Mpeg 4 can look close, but not as good. OTA will always win out at this point


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> Mpeg 4 can look close, but not as good. OTA will always win out at this point


I like the "at this point" to end your statement. :lol:


----------



## kilroyc (Jun 2, 2006)

OTA beats cable or satellite for HD


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> I like the "at this point" to end your statement. :lol:


haha, never know what is coming later on


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

As MPEG4 throws away information, it will never look as good as MPEG2 - at any point - as it throws away info that can never be recovered.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> As MPEG4 throws away information, it will never look as good as MPEG2 - at any point - as it throws away info that can never be recovered.


That's ridiculous. Does a cd sound better than an LP? How much information did that digital medium "throw away" that can never be recovered?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

heisman said:


> That's ridiculous. Does a cd sound better than an LP? How much information did that digital medium "throw away" that can never be recovered?


An audio CD doesn't use compression, bad comparison.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

RAD said:


> An audio CD doesn't use compression, bad comparison.


MP3 isn't a compression standard?


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Ive been watchin the NFLHD games and they look great. I agree OTA CBS might look a tad better because its OTA, but I think what you are seeing is the 1080i blur. I see it on CBS ota and NFLHD.

IMHO, NFLHD(both games) looked as good today as CBSHD does. It could also be your tv and its calibration.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

heisman said:


> That's ridiculous. Does a cd sound better than an LP? How much information did that digital medium "throw away" that can never be recovered?


Actually, as admitted by Sony engineers by the late 80s, yes, CDs loose resolution - that's why they went to higher sampling and bit rates.

So, to answer your question, mpeg4 by its codec of discarding information can never have the details of mpeg2 - and yes, LPs can sound better than CDs - as demonstrated multiple times and admitted by Sony Engineers.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

heisman said:


> MP3 isn't a compression standard?


You are showing your ignorance.

CDs have non-compressed audio files.


----------



## seajohn (Aug 12, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> As MPEG4 throws away information, it will never look as good as MPEG2 - at any point - as it throws away info that can never be recovered.


Both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 compress the original source material. MPEG-4 (aka AVC) is a more recent codec and is more efficient at encoding and can provide as good or better picture as MPEG2 in considerably less space.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

I don't know where the motion blur was introduced but why wasn't someone watching it to fix it. It isn't like that on other MPEG4 channels such as UNIHD. I think the conversion from the OTA channel source was bad.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> As MPEG4 throws away information, it will never look as good as MPEG2 - at any point - as it throws away info that can never be recovered.


You say that as if to imply MPEG2 does not throw away information? Take a look at how much bandwidth uncompressed HD signals would take... then compare to MPEG2 19.2 Mbps at the "best" we have seen in the US... then tell me MPEG2 has not thrown away a lot of data!

MPEG4 and MPEG2 are both lossy compression schemes. MPEG4 is new enough that we don't yet know how to evaluate and compare how it ultimately will look compared to MPEG2. All we really know is that things (except for OTA) are slowly moving towards MPEG4 and one day we will not have another choice.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

RAD said:


> An audio CD doesn't use compression, bad comparison.


Bad comparison for another reason... since the mere fact of digitizing the audio throws away a lot of information. Life, including audio, is analog... so a CD by necessity throws away a lot of information in the analog-to-digital conversion. For the most part we cannot hear these losses with our human ears, and some of the loss is offset by the cleaner sound without the scratching of the needle on the vinyl... but the truth is, CD even in "uncompressed" audio is still lossy when compared to the original analog playing of the music by the artists.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

heisman said:


> MP3 isn't a compression standard?


CD's don't use MP3.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> As MPEG4 throws away information, it will never look as good as MPEG2 - at any point - as it throws away info that can never be recovered.


You are the only person ive ever heard or read make that statement. The concensus that ive seen is MPEG 4 is far more efficient


----------



## Volitar Prime (Apr 1, 2007)

MPEG 4 is more efficient, but in many cases what we are getting now is MPEG 4 applied to an MPEG 2 compressed signal. It's a lossy compression on top of a lossy compression.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Volitar Prime said:


> MPEG 4 is more efficient, but in many cases what we are getting now is MPEG 4 applied to an MPEG 2 compressed signal. It's a lossy compression on top of a lossy compression.


Theoretically this can be done with no additional loss, but in reality you are right and so some additional loss of detail is occurring because of the additional step using lossy compression.

We will have better luck with some providers, such as HBO, that intend to encode mpeg4 for all there material (hopefully from uncompressed or loseless compressed sources).


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Volitar Prime said:


> MPEG 4 is more efficient, but in many cases what we are getting now is MPEG 4 applied to an MPEG 2 compressed signal. It's a lossy compression on top of a lossy compression.


that i understand and know. But to say that Mpeg 4 isnt as good as Mpeg 2 based on that is a bs statement and misinformation IMO. I mean both of them throw away info.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> You are showing your ignorance.
> 
> CDs have non-compressed audio files.


All my cd's have mp3's, otherwise they would only be able to fit about 14 .wav files. I'm not sure why the name calling.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Actually, as admitted by Sony engineers by the late 80s, yes, CDs loose resolution - that's why they went to higher sampling and bit rates.
> 
> So, to answer your question, mpeg4 by its codec of discarding information can never have the details of mpeg2 - and yes, LPs can sound better than CDs - as demonstrated multiple times and admitted by Sony Engineers.


Old people love the overtones. Most like the clean sound of digital audio. I'm sure a small amount of old-timers love the macro-blocking of mpeg2 as well.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

seajohn said:


> Both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 compress the original source material. MPEG-4 (aka AVC) is a more recent codec and is more efficient at encoding and can provide as good or better picture as MPEG2 in considerably less space.


Wrong again......

There are trades offs in everything.

I suggest you read a primer on the difference codecs.

Yes MPEG4 is more efficient than MPEG2, but the sweet spot for MPEG4 is 15Mbps-20Mbps - not the 6-8 Mbps you will see from dbs.


----------



## TiVoPrince (May 10, 2007)

*Still wrong*
Original content is converted from camera outputs and NBC production truck to 1080i MPEG2 for broadcast with the inherent loss of the compression process. Dish Network (and others) take that MPEG2 signal and convert it to MPEG4 with some additinal loss during the process. I watched some of that game OTA locally and saw no major motion artifacts. YMMV since I only saw random parts and may not have seen the segments you found motion atifacts in...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Yes MPEG4 is more efficient than MPEG2, but the sweet spot for MPEG4 is 15Mbps-20Mbps - not the 6-8 Mbps you will see from dbs.


Something about that doesn't sound right... when you consider that most folks talk about how great OTA HD is compared to satellite... and the most OTA can be is 19 Mbps or so using MPEG2. Since MPEG4 is supposed to be more efficient, it stands to reason it could be the same or better at lower bitrates. IF MPEG4 was not the same or better at lower bitrates there would be absolutely no reason at all to invest in upgrading to it.


----------



## allen98311 (Jan 19, 2006)

heisman said:


> All my cd's have mp3's, otherwise they would only be able to fit about 14 .wav files. I'm not sure why the name calling.


Every CD that comes from the store are uncompressed.

You can burn your own data cds that have mp3 files on it.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

TiVoPrince said:


> *Still wrong*
> Original content is converted from camera outputs and NBC production truck to 1080i MPEG2 for broadcast with the inherent loss of the compression process. Dish Network (and others) take that MPEG2 signal and convert it to MPEG4 with some additinal loss during the process. I watched some of that game OTA locally and saw no major motion artifacts. YMMV since I only saw random parts and may not have seen the segments you found motion atifacts in...


I Never said cameras had a MPEG2 output.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

heisman said:


> Old people love the overtones. Most like the clean sound of digital audio. I'm sure a small amount of old-timers love the macro-blocking of mpeg2 as well.


ROFLMAO.

When you hit a cymbal in real life, it has an intial impact, a ring and a decay.

Digital audio at rates most hear it sounds nothing like that.

I guess you need to get into the real world and find out what things really sound like instead of listening to your MP3 CDs and video games :lol:


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

HDMe said:


> Something about that doesn't sound right... when you consider that most folks talk about how great OTA HD is compared to satellite... and the most OTA can be is 19 Mbps or so using MPEG2. Since MPEG4 is supposed to be more efficient, it stands to reason it could be the same or better at lower bitrates. IF MPEG4 was not the same or better at lower bitrates there would be absolutely no reason at all to invest in upgrading to it.


You've almost answered your own question - just take it to the next level and you will be there.

Just as low bitrate causes you to loose the sound of how a cymbal or drum really sounds in real life, you can do the same with mpeg4 at lower bitrates, with the same results.

Again, the sweet spot for MPEG4 is 15-20Mbps, just look at a HD Discs to see that if you need any confirmation (and that's only if it was encoded from a master source at a higher bitrate, something that D* and E* are not doing).

On top of that, they really need to start with the 4:2:2 Chroma, not a 4:2:0 from MPEG2.

And to give you one more to think about, why do you think the MPEG4 satellites in Europe are running upwards of 20Mbps?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> And to give you one more to think about, why do you think the MPEG4 satellites in Europe are running upwards of 20Mbps?


Because they don't have as many channels on their satellite system?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

yes higher bit rate makes it all look better, i think we all understand that. The statement I think was misleading is that Mpeg 4 will NEVER look as good as Mpeg 2. They arent going to bump up the bit rate of any remaining mpeg 2 channels when they make the conversion, so anything encoded in mpeg 4, bit rates staying pretty much where they are now, should be superior to the mpeg 2 equiv.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> yes higher bit rate makes it all look better, i think we all understand that. The statement I think was misleading is that Mpeg 4 will NEVER look as good as Mpeg 2. They arent going to bump up the bit rate of any remaining mpeg 2 channels when they make the conversion, so anything encoded in mpeg 4, bit rates staying pretty much where they are now, should be superior to the mpeg 2 equiv.


Sorry, but that's not saying anything.....and again, MPEG4 at will NEVER look as good as MPEG4 at the bitrates (and encoding) that the dbs companies in the USA are planning to do.

If you take a 19Mbps (or even a 12Mbps) bitrate and encode it to MPEG4, it won't look superior at all, which is what the dbs providers are doing.

You take a 35Mbps bitrate 4:2:2 MPEG2 program and encode it to MPEG4 with a bitrate between 15Mbps and 20Mbps, it will look pretty good.....but not when you are starting with the 12Mbps-19Mbps bitrate at 4:2:0 as the source.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Sorry, but that's not saying anything.....and again, MPEG4 at will NEVER look as good as MPEG4 at the bitrates (and encoding) that the dbs companies in the USA are planning to do.
> 
> If you take a 19Mbps (or even a 12Mbps) bitrate and encode it to MPEG4, it won't look superior at all, which is what the dbs providers are doing.
> 
> You take a 35Mbps bitrate 4:2:2 MPEG2 program and encode it to MPEG4 with a bitrate between 15Mbps and 20Mbps, it will look pretty good.....but not when you are starting with the 12Mbps-19Mbps bitrate at 4:2:0 as the source.


Im sorry but you are all over the place with your statements. First its mpeg 4 will never look as good as mpeg 2 period. So then its the bit rate and the fact that they are encoding mpeg 2 into mpeg 4 at a low bit rate. Anyone can throw some numbers around, but dont do it just to try to spin a statement that you made before.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Enough already!

This is a discussion forum, not a personal insult/bickering forum.

This thread is done.


----------

