Fox Sports is broadcasting the first NFL game in 4K HDR

G

Gary T

Well-known member
FOX is delivering via cable and streaming the first NFL game broadcast in 4K HDR. Unfortunately because almost all of their equipment including the slow motion cameras is 1080P, they have to upscale the 1080P HDR signal to deliver 4K HDR. Apparently Fox is trying to get to a true 4K pipeline as soon as they can but I imagine the HDR image along with quality upscaling will make this pretty darned good. It was so depressing to read that everyone else will be getting the game in 720P.

I'm in Spectrum country so I'm a bit jealous of those of you who have 4K providers. Apparently you can get FOX's 4K on the Apple TV but I've been holding out hoping for a Apple TV hardware update to launch with the Apple TV+ programming service.

If anyone can check it out in 4K HDR, let us know how it looks.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/26/...-fox-sports-thursday-night-football-streaming
 
If they are 1080p TV cameras I wonder how they could send an HDR signal as most TV cameras are true Rec709.

The article talks about conversion from SDR to HDR, so I don't know if we have to take this whole HDR exercise with a large grain of salt.
 
Being a Packers fan, this game is depressing enough but, on top of that, Fox Sports seems not to have an intimate relationship with my broadband provider. So, I am the one that's being screwed.

And, on top of that top, ESPN3 moved most of their sports streaming properties to a paid subscription via ESPN+.

PS. Don't post the final score.
 
NorBro said:
Why is it depressing? It's a great game!
Click to expand...

Because, watching it in 720 60P, Non-Guy LaFleur screwed up three red zone possessions that Guy Lefleur would surely score on.

(and Guy just had a quadruple bypass)
 
Cary Knoop said:
If they are 1080p TV cameras I wonder how they could send an HDR signal as most TV cameras are true Rec709.

The article talks about conversion from SDR to HDR, so I don't know if we have to take this whole HDR exercise with a large grain of salt.
Click to expand...
They are using 4K broadcast cameras (mostly Sony HDC-4300), but these cameras can only shoot 4K up to 120 fps. Higher frame rates up to 480 fps are possible, but only in HD (1080p). The cameras are capable of capturing and Rec. 2020 color space and HDR output in either 4K or HD.

Since sports are often shot in 60 fps (in NTSC countries), 120 fps is only 2x slow motion, while 480 fps would be 8x slow motion. It is pretty common in sports to have a handful of cameras operating from 3x up to 8x slow motion, usually for select camera angles that are often used in replays. For football, this might include goal line angles, for example. The primary camera angles (usually wide and high in the bleachers) will often just be running at 1x (60 fps) since they are rarely used for replays.

One other consideration is the capacity of the replay servers to handle 4K footage. Usually recording 4K sources rather than HD cuts in half the number of video channels that can be handled simultaneously (so a replay server might be able to handle input from 6 cameras in HD but only 3 in 4K). Depending on the number of high frame rate cameras typically used and replay server channels available, this might be another reason to shoot HD rather than 4K.

Considering most people will be watching the standard HD broadcast, rather than the 4K HDR version, it kind of makes sense that they wouldn't want to make compromises on the slow motion features of the broadcast, especially since these aspects are important for sports viewers. Which may have led to the decision to run the cameras at 1080p. Note that even 1080p60 is an improvement over most current sports broadcasts which are generally either 720p60 or 1080i.

There's some mention of the gear used in this article:
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2019/09...-uhd-distribution-of-thursday-night-football/

And here are links to the cameras and production truck (with equipment list) they are using if you're interested in all the specifics:
https://pro.sony/en_GR/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems/hdc-4300
https://www.gamecreekvideo.com/equipment-list/encore.pdf
 
I can still remember FOX taking the stance of '480P is enough'.

So it's basically bullsh!t. They're admitting it's BS out of one side of their mouth and out of the other side, trying to tell you that it's 4K. HDR, I can believe, but if you're not at least starting with 4K in, it 'ain't' really 4K out. 1080 upscaled to 2160 is as much UHD as 480 upscaled to 1080 is HD.
 
davedv said:
They are using 4K broadcast cameras (mostly Sony HDC-4300), but these cameras can only shoot 4K up to 120 fps. Higher frame rates up to 480 fps are possible, but only in HD (1080p). The cameras are capable of capturing and Rec. 2020 color space and HDR output in either 4K or HD.

Since sports are often shot in 60 fps (in NTSC countries), 120 fps is only 2x slow motion, while 480 fps would be 8x slow motion. It is pretty common in sports to have a handful of cameras operating from 3x up to 8x slow motion, usually for select camera angles that are often used in replays. For football, this might include goal line angles, for example. The primary camera angles (usually wide and high in the bleachers) will often just be running at 1x (60 fps) since they are rarely used for replays.

One other consideration is the capacity of the replay servers to handle 4K footage. Usually recording 4K sources rather than HD cuts in half the number of video channels that can be handled simultaneously (so a replay server might be able to handle input from 6 cameras in HD but only 3 in 4K). Depending on the number of high frame rate cameras typically used and replay server channels available, this might be another reason to shoot HD rather than 4K.

Considering most people will be watching the standard HD broadcast, rather than the 4K HDR version, it kind of makes sense that they wouldn't want to make compromises on the slow motion features of the broadcast, especially since these aspects are important for sports viewers. Which may have led to the decision to run the cameras at 1080p. Note that even 1080p60 is an improvement over most current sports broadcasts which are generally either 720p60 or 1080i.

There's some mention of the gear used in this article:
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2019/09...-uhd-distribution-of-thursday-night-football/

And here are links to the cameras and production truck (with equipment list) they are using if you're interested in all the specifics:
https://pro.sony/en_GR/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems/hdc-4300
https://www.gamecreekvideo.com/equipment-list/encore.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks for giving the details on this!
 
Neither the NFL You Tube channel nor Fox Sports has the highlights in 4K.

DirecTV broadcasts the English Premier League in 4K but NBC YouTube channel also has the EPL only in 1080p.
 
I would probably set the high cameras to 4k and let the field cameras run in 1080 at 8x. Game is still primarily covered from the high cameras, with the low cameras providing detail.

But then again everyone got spoiled by having that 8x and dropping down to a mere 2x just can't happen anymore.

Those cameras can provide a really nice image, the amount of tweaking that you can do is truly amazing. Download the manual for the RCP1500 if you want to see what is available in the DSP of these newer cameras. https://pro.sony/s3/cms-static-content/uploadfile/78/1237493650778.pdf I think the master station can do a little more, but I don't use it very often so not entirely sure. Lots of menu diving in the RCP.
 
Tom Roper said:
My solution is much more simple, get rid of the instant replay. Let them play the game.
Click to expand...

I assume most here are not soccer fans but, following an egregious referee error in the Germany-England match in 2010 Round of 16, FIFA introduced a goal line technology similar to tennis and, in the last couple of years, all major European leagues have also introduced an automatic replay of scoring plays and the (potential) red card infractions. Some judgement calls can still be bewildering - much like last night's Al Riveron refusal to reverse an obvious pass interference - but the improvement in offside and goal decisions has been remarkable. In other words, the replay is here to stay.

That said, if they have problem with the 4K files and bit rates, an intermediate 2.5/2.8K at 60p would be fine too.
 
I don't think they even looked at the turnover last night (did they?) because it was never flagged or challenged (was under 2 minutes)...game was over like 30 seconds later. Or maybe you're referring to the one earlier in the game.

The refs won't win either way; PI is too difficult of a call for humans to make consistently in real time in today's game (hence the approval of instant replay).
 
The only reason that play is in history is because the call was made by replacement officials.

If the regular refs made that call it would have just been a bad call like the hundreds of others over the years.

Instant replays will really help the game in the long run once they fine-tune the process.
 
NorBro said:
I don't think they even looked at the turnover last night (did they?) because it was never flagged or challenged (was under 2 minutes)...game was over like 30 seconds later.

The refs won't win either way; PI is too difficult of a call for humans to make consistently in real time in today's game (hence the motion for instant replay).
Click to expand...

Too bad Kramer was offside in '67 Ice Bowl, Cowboys won. That was from instant replay too, the book.:huh:
 
Modern replay...with better cameras and computers and AI.

Different time, different people, different game back then.

They just played football and life was simpler. And better, arguably.
 
davedv said:
They are using 4K broadcast cameras (mostly Sony HDC-4300), but these cameras can only shoot 4K up to 120 fps. Higher frame rates up to 480 fps are possible, but only in HD (1080p). The cameras are capable of capturing and Rec. 2020 color space and HDR output in either 4K or HD.

Since sports are often shot in 60 fps (in NTSC countries), 120 fps is only 2x slow motion, while 480 fps would be 8x slow motion. It is pretty common in sports to have a handful of cameras operating from 3x up to 8x slow motion, usually for select camera angles that are often used in replays. For football, this might include goal line angles, for example. The primary camera angles (usually wide and high in the bleachers) will often just be running at 1x (60 fps) since they are rarely used for replays.

One other consideration is the capacity of the replay servers to handle 4K footage. Usually recording 4K sources rather than HD cuts in half the number of video channels that can be handled simultaneously (so a replay server might be able to handle input from 6 cameras in HD but only 3 in 4K). Depending on the number of high frame rate cameras typically used and replay server channels available, this might be another reason to shoot HD rather than 4K.

Considering most people will be watching the standard HD broadcast, rather than the 4K HDR version, it kind of makes sense that they wouldn't want to make compromises on the slow motion features of the broadcast, especially since these aspects are important for sports viewers. Which may have led to the decision to run the cameras at 1080p. Note that even 1080p60 is an improvement over most current sports broadcasts which are generally either 720p60 or 1080i.

There's some mention of the gear used in this article:
https://www.sportsvideo.org/2019/09...-uhd-distribution-of-thursday-night-football/

And here are links to the cameras and production truck (with equipment list) they are using if you're interested in all the specifics:
https://pro.sony/en_GR/products/4k-and-hd-camera-systems/hdc-4300
https://www.gamecreekvideo.com/equipment-list/encore.pdf
Click to expand...

That is an impressive setup!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top