HD Formula One to kick off in 2010

[andrew]

As long as F1 is still available in the current format it can have as high a definition as Bernie Ecclestone wants.

[ESPImperium]

HD in 2011 will see the sports popularity rise in my opinion. Wether theres an additional fee is another thing as most EU countrys have a law that HD must be offered as part of the standard rate contract from the provider (FOM) as the platform (SKY for example) is the only place where theyre is to be an upcharge for the use of the facility.

Altho, my gut feeling is that Bernie has seen most EU broadcasters sign a new contract recently, will provide this for free, see the popularity rise, but then use it as a stick to beat more money out the broadcasters next contract if Bernie hasnt passed on to a successor by that time.

One thing id like to see done at race venues is increased use of football style video advertising, some has been done at Abu Dhabi and at Singapore, but more can be done for the above/over the track advertising as the track level ads should be fixed as they may distract the drivers. Theres money to be made there, say $100,000 for a sponsor to have a ad on those boards for a single lap, thats $6M per race on average.

However, i think more can be done. The F1 livetiming could be offered in 3 forms; Standard (Free, and as it is now), Silver (Added live timing screens, costing $3 a race or $50 a season) or Gold (As silver, but with full access to open band raido albeit delayed 60 seconds, costing $9 a race or $150 a season). Also with theese packages, you could allow access to a F1.com download facility with added extras and such, but bundled into each package.

I think FOM are starting to see new media prospects, but are too slow to implement them still. Progress is being made, but not quick enough.

[Giblet]

As long as F1 is still available in the current format it can have as high a definition as Bernie Ecclestone wants.

It's more the fans who want it I think. Something like 70% of viewers would prefer crystal clear picture.

As people here appreciate technical aspects of cars it will be nice to freeze frame and see nearly 3 times the resolution for analysis. There will be standard def broadcasts still for people with old square tv's or who can't see the point of having a higher quality of broadcast.

[segedunum]

The fans might buy into the hype of HD, but given that most HD pictures are merely upscaled people who get HD and see it then wonder what all the fuss was about.

They've been right so far in the the hype simply hasn't justified the cost or income.

[Scotracer]

F1 isn't even broadcast that well for an SD programme - the BTCC on ITV4 for instance is far clearer.

I watched F1 upscaled when I was in Canada and I does look better than what the BBC broadcast but far from a native HD feed.

[andrew]

The fans might buy into the hype of HD, but given that most HD pictures are merely upscaled people who get HD and see it then wonder what all the fuss was about.

They've been right so far in the the hype simply hasn't justified the cost or income.

Further to that, one of the guys I work with has an HD TV (and watches the F1!). They actually said to me that there is no real difference in the picture on the HD TV and the regular TV. A slightly sharper picture but by the sounds of it not really worth going to the expense of by a new TV just yet.

[WhiteBlue]

Sky brings the upscaled version both in SD and in HDTV. If have subscribed to their HDTV option and I have the choice which signal I want to watch. I must say the SD is really inferior on my 46 " Samsung LED set. So I look much forward to get an even better picture mainly from the in race and on board cameras. The stuff they use for the interviews is already quite high in resolution.

[Miguel]

Sky brings the upscaled version both in SD and in HDTV. If have subscribed to their HDTV option and I have the choice which signal I want to watch. I must say the SD is really inferior on my 46 " Samsung LED set. So I look much forward to get an even better picture mainly from the in race and on board cameras. The stuff they use for the interviews is already quite high in resolution.

The truth is, other than the Sky watermark and the text overlays, if the SD signal of the races is much worse than the HD one is because the upscaler in your TV is not up to scrach. Which I would doubt in a 46" TV.

[WhiteBlue]

Sky brings the upscaled version both in SD and in HDTV. If have subscribed to their HDTV option and I have the choice which signal I want to watch. I must say the SD is really inferior on my 46 " Samsung LED set. So I look much forward to get an even better picture mainly from the in race and on board cameras. The stuff they use for the interviews is already quite high in resolution.

The truth is, other than the Sky watermark and the text overlays, if the SD signal of the races is much worse than the HD one is because the upscaler in your TV is not up to scrach. Which I would doubt in a 46" TV.

I'll call bullsh!t on this one. The difference in transmitted detail is remarkable and the upscaler in my TV is extremly good. The explanation is that FOM obviously transmits in higher resolution than PAL SD and the broadcasters scale it down. For HD they obviously scale it up and the difference shows if you have an opportunity to compare directly.

[segedunum]

The truth is, other than the Sky watermark and the text overlays, if the SD signal of the races is much worse than the HD one is because the upscaler in your TV is not up to scrach. Which I would doubt in a 46" TV.

EDIT: If you're talking about SD then you're right. Since FOM doesn't actually shoot in HD then the SD output is being made worse somewhere along the line, and it's usually the poor upscaler and SD handling in the majority of TVs.

[segedunum]

I'll call bullsh!t on this one. The difference in transmitted detail is remarkable and the upscaler in my TV is extremly good.

How do you know if you haven't seen the raw transmission itself and have only ever seen it through your TV?

As far as I'm aware FOM uses no high definition cameras anywhere. Any HDTV broadcasts there are are merely upscaled by the broadcaster so there is no difference in detail - unless unless SD is being made to look worse somewhere along the line.

[Pup]

FOM does use HD cameras, but the signal is sent to the networks in SD. Bernie has to pay to push his feed through the sat, and there's no point in paying for the HD signal if he doesn't have contracts in place to pay for it. But the equipment isn't the issue. The carriers can upscale the signal if they want, and the quality of the upscaled version can vary. But chances are that if it looks dramatically better on a particular network, then they're actually downgrading their SD channels, which is common.

HD is simply a resolution. The networks and providers can do pretty much anything they want in getting that resolution to your TV. It can be 1080p and still look like crap if your provider is compressing the hell out of their signal. And 1080p can look like crap and still look better than SD if that's also crap. The networks are shoving a lot of stuff through their pipes, and they shovel more and more every day. Something has to give, and that something is compression quality.

But, true HD with reasonable compression is not just noticeably better, but dramatically so. Anyone who says it isn't either:

a) needs glasses,
b) has never seen good quality HD, or
c) is a sour puss.

BTW, the apparent "demand" by the networks for F1 in HD is remarkably well correlated with their "willingness to pay Bernie's price" for HD. When Bernie says that there isn't any demand, what he actually means is that he thinks there's more demand than the networks are willing to admit, and he's holding out until they relent and pay him what he wants.

Consumer demand is there. You can't even buy a TV these days that isn't HD, and at least with my network, HD doesn't cost extra.

[Miguel]

But, true HD with reasonable compression is not just noticeably better, but dramatically so. Anyone who says it isn't either:

a) needs glasses,
b) has never seen good quality HD, or
c) is a sour puss.

a) I need glasses, but with them on I see quite well, thank you very much
b) I've watched a 1080p blu-ray rip of Avatar
c) That could be sometimes true

AFAIK, no one broadcasts in 1080p, and I doubt they will in a very long time. It's too bandwidth intensive to be possible with the current infrastructure. Wikipedia corrects: no over-the-air 1080p, some satellite exists for 1080p/24 in the US.

The difference bewteen 720p and 1080i isn't really noticeable, and 1080i tends to introduce artifacts in fast-changing frames. Like... like... F1?

While it is true that 720p is more than twice as much resolution as 480p, and while geeks can indeed appreciate it, and while I am craving for HD broadcasts, I'll go ahead and say that no, 720p is not dramatically better than 480p for movies/sports.

Could I appreciate all the textures and the pores of the actors in 1080p Avatar? Yes. Did I prefer it to SD. You bet. Did it really add anything to the experience. Not really, I was still bored.

PS: I write this from a colour corrected 22 inch IPS screen, in case you wonder.

[Pup]

So, "c" then.

You seem to have expected HD to turn Avatar into a good movie. It just doesn't have that kind of power.

[Miguel]

So, "c" then.

You seem to have expected HD to turn Avatar into a good movie. It just doesn't have that kind of power.

Yeah, I think I wasn't in the right mood to watch Avatar. It also seemed to have quite a few parts consisting of "oh, look, we can do HD and vibrant colours too!". I'll also add that I hadn't seen the movie before, although maybe the review at Ars Technica and, more importantly, this.

Anyway, while it's an improvement I'd love to see, I wouldn't choose it before better production of the races. For example, I'm sure live timing-like colours could be used to spice qualifying. Nevertheless, we should have both. Eventually, though, I still stand by my statement that it doesn't do a dramatic difference.