Wrc+

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19th January 2015, 19:26
N.O.T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franky

I suspect this isn't the usual "spice" post by you. Just to educate you. 30, 60, 120 and so on frames per second is NTSC standard. You're still in the PAL zone. And technically all FullHD broadcast footage is 50fps, it's just interlaced.

4K won't be mainstream any time soon, considering that majority of TV channels on this planet are still in SD. Quite a large number of stations are still broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. And besides TV cameras cost a fortune (one high-end FullHD TV camera costs $80k, 4K ones start from $100k), so only the filthy rich will upgrade their equipment to 4K. But who will they show the almighty 4K? A minority.

Even when WRC+ is far from perfect, it's a comfortable way to consume the broadcasted material legally and without extra hassle.

apart from the technical blah blah that we do not care..

WRC+ is crap as it is... its good for bottom feeders and i am sure there are plenty but when you broadcast at crap resolution and crap Fps you do not deserve a penny from proper humans.

i never said that they should broadcast at 4k i said 720p and 60fps or at least as high as those girly nobodies enjoy the F1. In motorsport and sports in general fast frames per second counts, it is not a noire movie of the 50s.
19th January 2015, 19:37
Franky

Quote:

Originally Posted by N.O.T

i never said that they should broadcast at 4k i said 720p and 60fps or at least as high as those girly nobodies enjoy the F1. In motorsport and sports in general fast frames per second counts, it is not a noire movie of the 50s.

You want everything in slooooo-moooo? Or what's with the damn 50/60 fps. For proper slowmotion you need to be at 100 or 200 fps.

Okay, the image quality isn't the best. Your other option is either some shitty pirate stream or TV.
19th January 2015, 19:38
stefanvv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franky

I suspect this isn't the usual "spice" post by you. Just to educate you. 30, 60, 120 and so on frames per second is NTSC standard. You're still in the PAL zone. And technically all FullHD broadcast footage is 50fps, it's just interlaced.

4K won't be mainstream any time soon, considering that majority of TV channels on this planet are still in SD. Quite a large number of stations are still broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. And besides TV cameras cost a fortune (one high-end FullHD TV camera costs $80k, 4K ones start from $100k), so only the filthy rich will upgrade their equipment to 4K. But who will they show the almighty 4K? A minority.

Even when WRC+ is far from perfect, it's a comfortable way to consume the broadcasted material legally and without extra hassle.

The live stages & daily reviews are good enough with HD quality. The same should be with the onboards, I don't really care about the timing synchronization, than the quality of the videos, that includes the camera position as well. Otherwise the service is good for the money.
19th January 2015, 19:41
dodge33cymru

Quote:

Originally Posted by EightGear

The onboard video quality on the WRC Youtube page is better (in 1080p) than all onboards on WRC+, which is quite strange since it's from the same cameras.
Surely it must be the video player they are using?

Streaming live is a whole different board game to what can be recorded locally with a camera, must rely on a lot of other factors which can be very costly.

For what it's worth, I think that this service should be available for free; not to save me a few pennies, but to open it up to the viewers that the manufacturers are in this to attract.

As far as I can see, the benefit free coverage could provide would vastly outweigh the relative pittance they will make through WRC+. WEC (another niche series) seems to have made the same decision, much to their detriment.
19th January 2015, 19:48
Franky

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodge33cymru

Streaming live is a whole different board game to what can be recorded locally with a camera, must rely on a lot of other factors which can be very costly.

For what it's worth, I think that this service should be available for free; not to save me a few pennies, but to open it up to the viewers that the manufacturers are in this to attract.

As far as I can see, the benefit free coverage could provide would vastly outweigh the relative pittance they will make through WRC+. WEC (another niche series) seems to have made the same decision, much to their detriment.

Then what's the point of TV channels buying the rights, if the same thing is available for free ;)

WRC+ is just a bonus to the TV rights deal
19th January 2015, 19:58
rage82

Quote:

Originally Posted by dodge33cymru

I'm loathe to ask this, but why does it have no respect for the customer? It looks infinitely better value than the WEC's equivalent offering to me and it's much more logical to spend £30 for a year of recorded content (that I'll download) than on a BT Sport subscription that would cost me literally 30x more?

If the live stages are on demand and at least 480p, then that's all I need to know.

Actually the live streamed stages are available in HD format and also the daily highlights are also in HD if you have enough fast internet connection. Only the onboards are in poor quality.
19th January 2015, 20:00
N.O.T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franky

You want everything in slooooo-moooo? Or what's with the damn 50/60 fps. For proper slowmotion you need to be at 100 or 200 fps.

Okay, the image quality isn't the best. Your other option is either some shitty pirate stream or TV.

you have some kind of disability to understand simple sentences ??? who talked about slow motion ???
19th January 2015, 20:06
EightGear

Quote:

Originally Posted by rage82

Actually the live streamed stages are available in HD format and also the daily highlights are also in HD if you have enough fast internet connection. Only the onboards are in poor quality.

Exactly, while the exact same onboard videos on Youtube are much better.
19th January 2015, 20:20
Franky

Quote:

Originally Posted by N.O.T

you have some kind of disability to understand simple sentences ??? who talked about slow motion ???

Then stop talking about high frame rates since that's only useful for slow motion. You get sharp images/frames with a high shutter value. You are talking about minimal motion blur for the action shots.
19th January 2015, 20:25
N.O.T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franky

Then stop talking about high frame rates since that's only useful for slow motion. You get sharp images/frames with a high shutter value. You are talking about minimal motion blur for the action shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nU2_ERC_oE

as you can see these two correlate....

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page