Current Status of High Definition Television Delivery Technology (Spring 2008)
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/publications/index.php
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3328-2008_tcm6-59454.pdf

EBU studies suggest that, if the final quality seen by the modern HDTV viewer is taken into account, the most ‘quality-efficient1’ broadcast format of these four, seen on current HDTV consumer displays, is the 720p/50 format. 1080p/50 is also relatively quality-efficient and can be compressed to bitrates comparable to 1080i/25. No technical advantages have been identified todate for the 1080i/25 format in the current broadcast environment, though there were advantages in the past in the all-CRT-based display environment.

Some broadcasters in Europe are however choosing the production format 1080i/25 for other than technical reasons.

EBU tests suggest that, all other elements being equal, the advantage for 720p/50 broadcasting applies whether the viewer's display is one of the widespread Wide-XGA-panels (1366x768 pixel, also called HD-Ready) or a newer panel with 1920x1080 pixel (HD Ready 1080p), up to a diagonal size of about 52 inch.


Slight hdmovie offtopic(?), but why is 720p/50 format the most quality-efficient. I did not find an exact answer from the study. This sure does not apply to a disc based distribution material and fullhd LCD screens.

Current Status of High Definition Television Delivery Technology (Spring 2008)
http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/publications/index.php
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3328-2008_tcm6-59454.pdf


Slight hdmovie offtopic(?), but why is 720p/50 format the most quality-efficient. I did not find an exact answer from the study. This sure does not apply to a disc based distribution material and fullhd LCD screens.
I guess they want a 50hz (high update rate) format so they can broadcast live/real stuff that will look live/real, as well as mix in adverts/PiP stuff with movies etc. For broadcast they also want low bitrate and hardly any artefacts (I'd guess, from the right distance, with some picture content, at a certain (low) bitrate, a lower resolution picture might look better than a higher resolution one with blocking & interlace artefacts etc.).

I do think that 720p/50 would be really wasteful for watching movies or watching footage shot at 1080p25. It seems such a waste of all the full HD (1080p) HDTVs that are out.

I haven't read much of the document yet, but I imagine they think it's efficient because encoding & displaying progressive 50hz content is easier than encoding and displaying interlaced 50hz content on modern LCD/Plasma HDTVs, which are progressive (unlike CRTs which are interlaced). Interlaced content would be harder to encode etc. Also, interlace content would/might have interlace artefacts and would need good de-interlacers etc. - whereas 720p50 content wouldn't have the interlace artefacts (but in my view would be worse for films/slow moving stuff).

Though the Sky satellite system is ignoring their recommendation, if they are recomending 720p50, as I think they broadcast everything in 1080i50 (1080i/25 to use the EBU terminology).


1080p/50 is also relatively quality-efficient and can be compressed to bitrates comparable to 1080i/25. No technical advantages have been identified to date for the 1080i/25 format in the current broadcast environment, though there were advantages in the past in the all-CRT-based display environment.
Seeing as all current HDTV displays are progressive (LCD/Plasma) and not CRT-based, it seems strange then that the Blu-ray format allows 1080i/25 but not 1080p/50 when 1080p50 is relatively quality-efficient and can be compressed to bitrates comparable to 1080i/25...

And if 1080p50 is relatively quality-efficient it's a shame they don't recommend this for broadcast HDTV - given the number of 1080 line HDTVs available - and the future will be even higher res.

EBU tests suggest that, all other elements being equal, the advantage for 720p/50 broadcasting applies whether the viewer's display is one of the widespread Wide-XGA-panels (1366x768 pixel, also called HD-Ready) or a newer panel with 1920x1080 pixel (HD Ready 1080p), up to a diagonal size of about 52 inch.
That doesn't mean anything without viewing distances, which they don't mention. 1080p broadcasting could well have more advantages for people with smaller 1080p HDTVs than 52 inch if they sat closer than whatever they did in the EBU 'test'.

In my view, them trying to make 720p50 the standard instead of 1080p50, in this age of 1080p full HDTVs (which are capable of receiving 1080p50 & 1080p60 inputs) is a very bad idea.

In my view, them trying to make 720p50 the standard instead of 1080p50, in this age of 1080p full HDTVs (which are capable of receiving 1080p50 & 1080p60 inputs) is a very bad idea.
Exactly right. A lot of these studies came in advance of 1080p becoming the norm. I remember meeting with BBC 4 years ago with them wanting to promote 720p and at the time, it made sense relative to going with 1080i.

But today, anything other than 1080p resolution will incur two resize operations: one at encode and and another in the display. No reason to have the image become softer and/or gain more artifacts. So unless I am pressed for bitrate (i.e. for internet delivery/streaming), then 1080p at 24p/25p/50p is the right answer.

Currently most stations send 1080i50 here in Europe. But some that will start in the next few months/years are planning to use 720p50. I hope they'll change their mind and go 1080i50, too, since my main interest is movies.

Anyway, there is a big problem with 1080p50: None of the sat/cable receivers which are available today support it. So people would have to throw away all their receivers and buy new ones if stations actually broadcasted in 1080p50. I think because of this reason it's very unprobable that we will see 1080p50 broadcasting here anytime soon. Also 1080p24 and 1080p25 are not supported by some receivers (hardware wise), as far as I know. So probably there's no chance for that, either. I think it will be either 720p50 or 1080i50.

Anyway, there is a big problem with 1080p50: None of the sat/cable receivers which are available today support it. So people would have to throw away all their receivers and buy new ones if stations actually broadcasted in 1080p50. I think because of this reason it's very unprobable that we will see 1080p50 broadcasting here anytime soon.
But there isn't yet any terrestrial OTA HDTV system in the UK - they've done some trials somewhere but there's not an actual one in the UK yet - so nobody would need to throw out a terrestrial OTA HDTV receiver - so it's still possible they could add this (1080p50) to a Freeview style HDTV (though terrestrial has less bandwidth capacity than satellite :() [they might have to throw out their current SDTV digital receiver though - but they'd have a HDTV one to replace it with). Satellite would have more bandwidth than terrestrial for this though.

Currently most stations send 1080i50 here in Europe. But some that will start in the next few months/years are planning to use 720p50. I hope they'll change their mind and go 1080i50, too, since my main interest is movies.

Anyway, there is a big problem with 1080p50: None of the sat/cable receivers which are available today support it. So people would have to throw away all their receivers and buy new ones if stations actually broadcasted in 1080p50. I think because of this reason it's very unprobable that we will see 1080p50 broadcasting here anytime soon. Also 1080p24 and 1080p25 are not supported by some receivers (hardware wise), as far as I know. So probably there's no chance for that, either. I think it will be either 720p50 or 1080i50.

Yes 720/50P have a better hardware support then 1080/50P. People dont respond to well to switch hardware here. We just have finish our broadcast to digital, and now they gonna make a switch from mpeg2 to mpeg4, and the more avarage viewer thinks its stupid to have to switch boxes again.

And how much content have been produced with 1080/50P?

Seeing as all current HDTV displays are progressive (LCD/Plasma) and not CRT-based

That sucks. That means I won't be able to watch my 1080i CRT based RP any more. Crap I kind of liked it to. :rolleyes:

That sucks. That means I won't be able to watch my 1080i CRT based RP any more. Crap I kind of liked it to. :rolleyes:
OK the vast majority of HDTVs sold (especially in Europe) are progressive in nature (eg. LCD/Plasma).

In that short paragraph that you quoted I was saying how the EBU found that "1080p50 is relatively quality-efficient and can be compressed to bitrates comparable to 1080i/25" and they found no technical advantages of broadcasting in interlaced 1080i/25 when most European HDTVs are progressive, so I was commenting on how it was odd that Blu-ray cannot store 1080p50. For any HDTVs that can't accept such a signal, it could be converted to whatever format(s) the TV is capable of (just like 99% of Blu-ray discs are progressive but if your TV can't accept progressive or not at full res, the player can convert it). It would be easier to convert a 1080p50 signal to 1080i25 than to convert a 1080i25 signal to true 1080p50 (which wouldn't really be possible - ie. you can output a 1080p50 signal but a convert from 1080i25 to 1080p50 obviously won't be as good as having a proper 1080p50 source & output). Also, for USA HDTV owners, chances are their TV can't accept 1080i25 or 1080p50 anyway.

I'd like to know what they're thinking recommending a resolution that is not native to the overwhelming majority of new displays sold!

I don't understand why Europe is son keen on 50 Hz scanning frequency.
Pal system proved that 50 Hz is way too low as flicker problems were evident on screens over 21''.
For me 60 Hz is the way to.

I don't understand why Europe is son keen on 50 Hz scanning frequency.
Pal system proved that 50 Hz is way too low as flicker problems were evident on screens over 21''.
For me 60 Hz is the way to.

Have watch 50hz my entire life, and had not really any flicker problem, but on the other hand most TVs I have watched the last 14 years run at 100hz.

I don't understand why Europe is son keen on 50 Hz scanning frequency.
Pal system proved that 50 Hz is way too low as flicker problems were evident on screens over 21''.
For me 60 Hz is the way to.
I'd like to second the above, I didn't consider flicker as a problem.

Europe should have taken the initiative and switched to 60hz for HDTV broadcasting. It would mean a tougher transition, sure, but it would have been worth it.

Good thing that BD in Europe is 60hz-based.

I'd like to second the above, I didn't consider flicker as a problem.

Europe should have taken the initiative and switched to 60hz for HDTV broadcasting. It would mean a tougher transition, sure, but it would have been worth it.

Good thing that BD in Europe is 60hz-based.

Actually 60hz playback is standard for every HD set sold today. But since most people still watches SD you get some problem if you start produce at 60hz. Since the ones with SD set must have 50hz transmissions.

Also 50hz production has some advantages as when you film in rooms with lights.