HD streaming sports quality question

870 Views | 14 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by akaggie05
flakrat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For those who know the technology, why does HD football look like a$$ on streaming?

One thing I notice consistently with football is the field gets screwed up

Is this some sort of bandwidth or compression thing where the broadcast is trying to optimize the stream to minimize bandwidth?

The commercials and graphic overlays are usually sharp, however the players and field usually have a blur.
FatZilla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Its all broadcast in 720p is why. Unless you are watching the 4k channel specifically, its 720p native. Overlays are full 1080p and crisp as they are overlayed digitally in a live post processing step.
Fenrir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you using a streaming service like YouTube tv or the app? I've noticed espns app has garbage quality more often than not.
flakrat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fenrir said:

Are you using a streaming service like YouTube tv or the app? I've noticed espns app has garbage quality more often than not.

The photo was YTTV. But any streaming service has been crappy like that. Players on the field result in the field being garbled.

Even over the air (antenna) does it, and I thought they were the pure signal.
akaggie05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The streaming services use fairly robust compression technology (such as H.264 / H.265) to keep each stream within a fairly compact bandwidth (6-8 Mbps is a typical target for an HD stream).

The problem is that one of the main principles of these compression algorithms is something called "motion compensation." The general idea is that only information about what changed in the scene from the previous frame is transmitted. There are occasionally "key frames" sent that represent a full snapshot with all info, usually every few seconds to sync everything back up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_compensation

The result of this is that video streams that include a lot of fast motion and a high detail background (like a grassy field with a lot of texture) have to trade off image quality in order to be able to still fit within the allocated bandwidth. It's also why you see the effect mentioned where graphics and logos look sharp (they don't change much). There just isn't enough bandwidth in a relatively constrained streaming profile to accurately convey all the visual info present in a rapidly changing, detailed scene.

A workable fix to this is to allocate more bandwidth to programs where there will be a lot of motion. I'm not up to speed on if the streaming services already do this to some extent for major sporting events but would be surprised if they don't cheat it up just a bit. Ultimately it costs them more money to do that to a large degree, so they walk a fine line between the average Joe not knowing any difference and mass complaints about picture quality.

The only real solution is to eliminate or minimize video compression, with the first not really being an option outside of broadcast-grade video production facilities where very expensive equipment is used to process and route raw uncompressed video. The best ability for a consumer to minimize the usage of compression is to view over the air broadcasts via antenna when available. These still have compression applied, but it's much lighter than streaming services and satellite TV.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
While both compress video, satellite TV compression is not as bad as streaming. For a time, we had both satellite DTV (at secondary house) and YTTV/Hulu Live at our primary house. Satellite DTV had the superior picture and it frankly wasn't close. I had forgotten how much better PQ is on old school DTV satellite. Kind of floored by it. Killed it though because it was too expensive to maintain two different services.
rynning
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I believe there are lot of factors that impact streaming quality along the way, including the source, the distributor/service, your network speed, and the streaming device itself. An Apple TV will perform better than a $30 Roku…
The Sun
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The TV itself is a major factor as well. Some displays are much better than others for high speed sports. Check yours out on Rtings to see how it rates.
Seven Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For me, games on Peacock are much higher quality than the exact same game on YTTV. I've found that the ESPN app (on Roku) is often better than the same game on YTTV (on the same Roku).

Fox and ABC apparently only do 720p, while NBC and CBS do 1080i. And that's before compression.

On top of compression by the streaming service, apparently some of it has to do with the local affiliate, so it can vary by market.
akaggie05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
720p is better for sports than 1080i.
Seven Costanza
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That is true, but whatever it is, the picture quality of a game on YTTV on NBC or CBS is better than on Fox.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seven Costanza said:

That is true, but whatever it is, the picture quality of a game on YTTV on NBC or CBS is better than on Fox.


Yes, Fox is terrible.
AustinScubaAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
akaggie05 said:


The only real solution is to eliminate or minimize video compression, with the first not really being an option outside of broadcast-grade video production facilities where very expensive equipment is used to process and route raw uncompressed video. The best ability for a consumer to minimize the usage of compression is to view over the air broadcasts via antenna when available. These still have compression applied, but it's much lighter than streaming services and satellite TV.


You are never going to eliminate compression. 1080p at 30 FPS can be up to 250 MB/s uncompressed ( higher for some HDR formats). Streaming video will always be compressed. The bigger problem is compressing live video with limited lag. H265 works best when the encoding process can look both forward and backwards to find the best reference frames. This cant be done for live broadcasts.
k20dub
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
akaggie05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AustinScubaAg said:

akaggie05 said:


The only real solution is to eliminate or minimize video compression, with the first not really being an option outside of broadcast-grade video production facilities where very expensive equipment is used to process and route raw uncompressed video. The best ability for a consumer to minimize the usage of compression is to view over the air broadcasts via antenna when available. These still have compression applied, but it's much lighter than streaming services and satellite TV.


You are never going to eliminate compression. 1080p at 30 FPS can be up to 250 MB/s uncompressed ( higher for some HDR formats). Streaming video will always be compressed. The bigger problem is compressing live video with limited lag. H265 works best when the encoding process can look both forward and backwards to find the best reference frames. This cant be done for live broadcasts.


That's what I said. Not an option outside of broadcast production facilities where they have millions of dollars worth of equipment to handle raw uncompressed video.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.