PBSHD on Ch.13 looks horrible a lot of blur. My other local HD channels look great but PBSHD looks just plain awful.

i've read that pbs uses far more subchannels than most other networks.

this could explain what you're seeing

Don't know what you're talking about, how are you receiving WNET-HD? I get it through Comcast and it looks fantastic, lol.

I watch OTA and PBS-HD generally looks looks spectacular. However, Masterpiece Theatre looks like crap on Sunday nights. Its programming is usually compelling enough for me to watch anyway. But in this case, I think the problem is the manner in which it is filmed/videographed.

PBS HD also uses a lot of Widescreen SD. I'm not sure of the source material your referencing....

PBSHD on Ch.13 looks horrible a lot of blur. My other local HD channels look great but PBSHD looks just plain awful.


No, it's not just you. Here in Portland the Newshour is first broadcast via national PBS feed at 4 PM local time (7 PM EST), and it looks very good. Same program broadcast at 7 PM (local time) looks like upconverted SD, with ghosting around letters, etc! Could be recorded locally and rebroadcast, who knows? but you're not alone!

Madison WI PBS-HD national on 21-1 downrezzed to 720p
PBS SD local Madison WI 21-2
Create 21-3

Yeah ours blows.

PBS HD also uses a lot of Widescreen SD.That probably explains it.

PBS St. Louis broadcasts no less than THREE subchannels in addition to the "HD" main channel... with predictable results.

PBS 28-1 in Los Angeles also sucks. I think it looked alot better actually back when it used to be 1080i. Now images aren't as sharp and shots look pretty blurry like during the presidential debates.

No it's not you. PBS has looked terrible for a few years now. I'm not convinced it is a local issue either. Even running 2 subchannels, it shouldn't look that bad. We had the ABC affilate run 2 subchannels and ABC looked fine.

Our local PBD affilate started out running 1080i, switched to 720p to increase bandwidth for their subchannels, then switched back to 1080i a month or so after the local newspaper published an article where a certain viewer complained about their poor quality. ;)

Others in nearby markets claim it's a local issue. I disagree.

All one has to do is look at ECU's (extream close ups) of faces. All I see is the 'clay face' syndrome that was a hot topic a few years ago with DLP TV's.

I really feel it's a network PBS issue, with their master control facility, their distrubution system, satellite bandwidth they are paying for, or a combunation of everything. It was also suggested the station equipment (assumed to be) supplied to the 'locals'; might be aof lesser quality.

PBS HD also uses a lot of Widescreen SD.Is this 'stretched' SD you are talking about, or cropped SD from PBS? Another nearby smaller markets PBS affilate takes the PBS SD feed, stretches it to 16:9 and transmits it on their digital channel. I thought SD satellite programming looked bad.

PBS currently distributes an almost ready-to-air feed at ATSC-level bitrates (~17Mb/s). Almost all stations are reencoding this video to lower bitrate so that subchannels can be added, and most are crossconverting to 720p. When reencoding video, the source needs to be at least twice the bitrate of the destination in order for concatenation artifacts to not have an effect. The poor quality most people see from their local PBS HD station is a result of both the low bitrate used for the HD broadcast as well as concatenation artifacts from insufficient bitrate on the source.

PBS is planning to remove the linear HD feed at the end of analog and move to only feeding new shows when needed. I don't know if these plans will include a better feed like ABC and CBS use; someone with better information will have to share that.

Madison WI PBS-HD national on 21-1 downrezzed to 720p
PBS SD local Madison WI 21-2
Create 21-3

Yeah ours blows.And to ours you can add V-me *-4.

Ours really blows.

All one has to do is look at ECU's (extream close ups) of faces. All I see is the 'clay face' syndrome that was a hot topic a few years ago with DLP TV's.Panny plasmas and Sharp LCD's, too.

And to ours you can add V-me *-4.

Ours really blows.

Too bad you don't have a PBS affiliate like KPBS. Just 1 subchannel.

Almost all stations are reencoding this video to lower bitrate so that subchannels can be addedHow is all of different than what the other network affilates do?PBS is planning to remove the linear HD feed at the end of analog"Linear feed"??

My understanding of how a local affilate passes network video along is just that. All they do is pass that 'live' signal back out to their transmitter on their main channel with the ability to switch that feed out and insert local programming in SD assuming they don't have ability to orginate HD material at the local level.

Fill me in.

How is all of different than what the other network affilates do?
ABC, CBS, and CW feed at 45Mb/s, NBC at 25Mb/s, PBS at 17. Very little degradation occurs from an encode to 45Mb/s, and none that matters when encoding to 13 or 17 (it's so minute that the lower bitrate wouldn't even try to preserve the noise). More occurs at 25, enough that the later encoder will try to encode some of the noise, which is why NBC never looks quite as good as the other big networks. PBS's 17Mb/s feed is relatively heavily degraded to begin with, and when the station reencodes that to 13Mb/s, the encoder is wasting bits trying to keep all the artifacts that were introduced in the first encode.
"Linear feed"??
Right now, PBS provides a 24/7 feed of PBS HD. This is going away in a few months, to be replaced by a feed that only comes on when there's something new that needs to be sent. Local PBS stations will be expected to program everything themselves, either by upconverting SD content or by showing recorded HD.
My understanding of how a local affilate passes network video along is just that. All they do is pass that 'live' signal back out to their transmitter on their main channel with the ability to switch that feed out and insert local programming in SD assuming they don't have ability to orginate HD material at the local level.

Fill me in.
That's a very simplified version of how network programming works. The network only programs so many hours a day (national morning news, daytime soaps, national evening news, primetime, late night, and sports on the weekend depending on the network). Outside of those times and the local news, there are still plenty of hours in the day that have to be filled by something else. Syndicated programming takes up most of the time, either first-run shows like Oprah or reruns of older network and cable shows.

PBS stations don't have the option to show normal syndicated shows, so they rely on a back catalog of SD programming from PBS. Few stations have the ability to keep a catalog of HD shows, so the 24/7 feed was helpful in filling time outside of primetime on the local PBS HD channel. This feed won't exist anymore, so unless your local PBS station is raking in large amounts of cash, look for a big increase in upconverted programming over the coming months.

PBSHD on Ch.13 looks horrible a lot of blur. My other local HD channels look great but PBSHD looks just plain awful.

It is horrible (wide screen or hd)
sub channels killed it in NY OTA

Well the national feed looks outstanding but my cable co. just switched to the local bit-starved/downsampled feed which is crap. The Nature show featuring monkeys was a pixelated mess. Thanks for nothing, RCN.

ABC, CBS, and CW feed at 45Mb/s, NBC at 25Mb/s, PBS at 17. If I may ask, where/how did you come about these figures? This is very interesting and confirms what I have been saying alol along about PBS looking terrible. Someone from the next nearer market to me tried to argue it was a 'local' issue. :rolleyes:
Why is there such a huge difference between ABC, CBS and NBC and more so PBS? Is it just cost , or is the equipment in use?Right now, PBS provides a 24/7 feed of PBS HD. This is going away in a few months, to be replaced by a feed that only comes on when there's something new that needs to be sent. Local PBS stations will be expected to program everything themselves, either by upconverting SD content or by showing recorded HD.For the majority of the country, except for the larger markets (at least initally) this HUGE drop in quality, even further than what it is now, will be a big setback for PBS.
Can I assume this is cost cutting measure for PBS, as they won't have to 'lease' a transponder 24/7 anymore?

If I may ask, where/how did you come about these figures? This is very interesting and confirms what I have been saying alol along about PBS looking terrible. Someone from the next nearer market to me tried to argue it was a 'local' issue. :rolleyes:
The numbers are posted around various threads here. A lot of it is a local issue. All other things being equal, PBS HD at 14Mb/s 1080i with 1 subchannel rate-shaped using a Leitch DTP will look a heck of a lot better than PBS HD at 8Mb/s 720p with 3 SD subchannels encoded using a 1999 vintage Flexicoder.
Why is there such a huge difference between ABC, CBS and NBC and more so PBS? Is it just cost , or is the equipment in use?For the majority of the country, except for the larger markets (at least initally) this HUGE drop in quality, even further than what it is now, will be a big setback for PBS.
Can I assume this is cost cutting measure for PBS, as they won't have to 'lease' a transponder 24/7 anymore?
Money. New equipment costs a lot of money, and some commercial station owners are content to get by with old equipment for as long as possible. However, most commercial stations get equipment upgrades on the cycle of depreciation, just like every other business. Once the IRS considers the equipment worthless, it's time to upgrade :D.

This isn't the same for PBS stations since they're nonprofit, but they still have to collect enough in donations to pay salaries, licensing fees, rent, power bills, etc., before they can pay for new toys. PBS is killing the feed because HD is becoming primary, and they want stations to have a local feel, not all showing the same national feed. The mother bird is kicking the babies out of the nest; it's time to fly.

If the 24 hour PBSHD feed goes away I will have little HD to watch! I don't have "digital cable" service and refuse to pay Bright Hous eany more money and I also don't want a box. The only HD channels I get are local stations in clear QAM. None of Bakersfield's local stations can do syndicated HD or HD local news. My only all day source of HD has been PBSHD. There is little chance that low budget KVPT (from Fresno with a local digital translator and carried on cable) will have the ability to record and playback HD. Their main signal's programming mostly sucks in daytime anyway. It is the national PBSHD channel that they carry that is awesome. Bright House also carries KCET from L.A., which I assume can record and playback HD. However we only get KCET in analog (and probably encrypted SD digital). KCET plans to keep it's OTA translator here analog, so that is not an option either. I WANT 24 HOUR HD!!! I DON'T WANT TO USE A FREAKING CABLE BOX!!! PBSHD has been my only source of it. Eliminating it will totally suck!!!

coyoteaz; This doesn't seem to add up somehow regarding those data rate., If a OTA channel has 19mb/sec limit and rates down to 15mb seems not to be noticeably degraded, why do some of these networks have as high as a 45mb/sec bandwidth and why is it a problem? Even with a a 17mb/sec rate, one would think it wouldn't matter. IOW's, as long as the network bandwidth is greater than what is sent out locally, I don't understand the problem.

When the source video has twice the bitrate of the destination video, any artifacts present in the source are so minor that the encoder doesn't even bother trying to preserve them. When it's less then that ratio, the encoder "sees" all the minor artifacts in the video, and wastes bits trying to preserve them rather than using them to encode the video you want to see. The more of this goes on, the worse the video becomes by the time you see it.

This feed won't exist anymore, so unless your local PBS station is raking in large amounts of cash, look for a big increase in upconverted programming over the coming months.

... and ironically, I am much less inclined to give to PBS money if their main HD channel looks like crap. I am ready to resume my contribution to my local PBS (WVIZ Cleveland) if and when they provide a decent quality HD feed. (I am not hopeful, I've been waiting 6 years for them to get a full power digital transmitter on the air...)

... and ironically, I am much less inclined to give to PBS money if their main HD channel looks like crap. I am ready to resume my contribution to my local PBS (WVIZ Cleveland) if and when they provide a decent quality HD feed. (I am not hopeful, I've been waiting 6 years for them to get a full power digital transmitter on the air...)
I have to agree with you there. I stopped donating to my old PBS station in Phoenix when they went from 1 1080i HD + 1 SD to 1 720p HD + 2 SD. Now I'm in Dallas, and the local PBS station only sends out a single program on their DTV channel, which is the HD broadcast. However, they're only sending about 13Mb/s, so the PQ is still subpar and I don't feel any need to contribute to that.

coyoteaz; Is this Nyquist rate you are talking about here?

No, Nyquist is related to sampling of analog signals which wouldn't impact digital compression.

If the 24 hour PBSHD feed goes away I will have little HD to watch! I don't have "digital cable" service and refuse to pay Bright Hous eany more money and I also don't want a box. The only HD channels I get are local stations in clear QAM. ...... I WANT 24 HOUR HD!!! I DON'T WANT TO USE A FREAKING CABLE BOX!!! PBSHD has been my only source of it. Eliminating it will totally suck!!!
I'm with you! And now its happened and it sucks big time. I don't have cable or dish, the only OTA Channel I would regularly watch was PBS-HD and I loved it. Our Local channel had the main channel playing PBS-HD, and one sub doing the regular local PBS stuff. Alas, NOW PBS-HD is gone.. our local channel now has *2* subs. What do we have on a saturday night? Nova? nope. Nature? Nope. We have Glorious Lawerence Welk on the Main channel, and one subchannel. They put programs like Rick Dee's Europe in letterbox inside a 4:3 frame on the other subchannel. It looks dreadful. I don't have anything good to watch in HD OTA anymore. I'm just depressed.

The PQ hasnt improved since i made this thread...Looks bad...I think its Widescreen SD...But when they aired the presidential inauguration it looked great.

Oliver Twist looked terrible last night.

To make matters worse, in the Lehigh Valley PA, WLVT isn't even broadcasting an HD signal anymore. It's just a postage stamp 16:9 picture. They can count on not getting any contributions from viewers like me.

I only watch a few things on PBS any more, primarily the Newshour, NOVA, and Frontline. The picture quality on these shows seems no worse than the PQ on any other HD channel. Some segments on the Newshour are pillar-boxed, but that looks more like a limitation on the equipment available at the remote location. The studio shots are all fully HD with excellent quality.

Boston - WGBH via FiOS

Oliver Twist looked terrible last night.
Yeah, and so did the image quality....


...I'll still watch part 2 next Sunday, though. Gotta find out if Oliver mans up to getting capped... ;)

Our local PBS station has 4 subchannels. Not much else to say.

Yeah, and so did the image quality....


...I'll still watch part 2 next Sunday, though. Gotta find out if Oliver mans up to getting capped... ;)I think many of these "Masterpiece" productions are actually upconverted widescreen; someone first mentioned that possibility in the PBS programming thread a while back. OT certainly looked like it is.

I think many of these "Masterpiece" productions are actually upconverted widescreen; someone first mentioned that possibility in the PBS programming thread a while back. OT certainly looked like it is.

Some of them certainly are, but others I know aren't. I'm almost sure Oliver Twist was not upscaled (actually it was one of the best looking Masterpieces I've seen). They'll be playing Little Dorrit in a few weeks, which I know was made in HD (I've seen it and it looks quite good). I think the poor video quality (in comparison to other PBS programs which are better but still mediocre IMO) has to do with the conversion process of blending fields to go from 50i to 60i.

Some of them certainly are, but others I know aren't. I'm almost sure Oliver Twist was not upscaled (actually it was one of the best looking Masterpieces I've seen). They'll be playing Little Dorrit in a few weeks, which I know was made in HD (I've seen it and it looks quite good). I think the poor video quality (in comparison to other PBS programs which are better but still mediocre IMO) has to do with the conversion process of blending fields to go from 50i to 60i.I didn't mean to imply the shows weren't originally produced in HD....perhaps the local affiliate screws them up during broadcasting(?).

Before our local affiliate dropped the ball on HD, I watched the 2nd half of Tess of the d'Urbervilles and was impressed. Low light resolution wasn't great but most of it was as good as any film converted to HD. There didn't seem to be any 50i/60i judder or other conversion-type issues.
What I was doing watching a weepy 19th century melodrama at 4am is another story, though.

The Tess production was 35mm, as the BBC press release (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=15511873&postcount=6) indicated. But can't pinpoint anything spelling out how Little Dorrit was shot; reads like it'll be a lengthy mini-series, which could imply a less costly approach than 35mm but hopefully not 16mm. -- John

^^^A bit more Googling came up with a PDF for camera trainees (http://www.wizzoandco.co.uk/cvs/Laura---Redpath---CameraDepartment---CameraTrainee.pdf) suggesting the upcoming PBS-scheduled "Little Dorrit" was made with the D-21, an Arri digital-cinema camera with a 35mm-size sensor. While capable of ~4k capture, potentially boosting 1080i PQ after downconversion, suspect the production folks have protected viewers from excessive realism by tucking lots of diffusion filters behind D-21 camera lenses. -- John

The recent Masterpiece Classic airings (3, since I only started watching then), are all SD upconverts. The key is right before the show starts. They tell you it is an upconvert by displaying on the screen that the show is a "widescreen presentation." If it is a true HD program, it is "presented in high definition."

Keep in mind that the PAL line count is 576, instead of our sh!tty 480 lines. The 576 upconverts to 1080 much better than 480.

Until PBS gets their push technology up and running (later in the year), the HD sat feed to the stations, IMHO, is inferior. Accepted standard practice is that the bitrate of the MPEG-2 feed to stations should be a minimuim of two times what it will be re-encoded to. For ATSC, the best possible is around 17 Mbps. But, as we all know, there isn't a PBS station that doesn't also have a SD stream, or two. Still, the sat feed should be at least 34 Mbps, or better. Well, guess what. The HD being fed to the stations is actually 1:1. That will introduce various MPEG-2 encoding artifacts.

PBS is using the OLDEST delivery method around and they cram two HD streams where there should only be one. I fully understand why they are doing what they are doing, but it is inferior none-the-less. The cure is to have two transponders, one for the east feed and one for the west feed. But that costs money.

In years past I've been fooled by a few PBS presentations (WNET-HD via NYC's TWC), mistaking some documentaries as HD when they were actually upconverted 16X9 SD. Sometimes note the 'letterboxed vs HD' mentions at the start and other times miss them.

Not sure about the recent local presentation of "Tess" as a Masterpiece Classic (true HD or not). Can only recall some of the outdoor scenes looked like 35mm origination. But then HD downconverted to 16X 9 SD (as 1080i HD) does boost the sharpness (better-contrast lower- and mid-range resolutions), and even overseas 576i upconverted to 1080i often looks pretty good: (TNT's delivery of some UK live golf matches, etc.) Wonder if there's a difference in local PBS stations between true HD versus upconverted 16X9 SD, or if everyone broadcasts the same thing (overlooking multicasting's degradations)? -- John

Not sure about the recent local presentation of "Tess" as a Masterpiece Classic (true HD or not).

"Widescreen Presentation" In other words, SD upconvert.

A bit more Googling came up with a PDF for camera trainees (http://www.wizzoandco.co.uk/cvs/Laura---Redpath---CameraDepartment---CameraTrainee.pdf) suggesting the upcoming PBS-scheduled "Little Dorrit" was made with the D-21, an Arri digital-cinema camera with a 35mm-size sensor. While capable of ~4k capture, potentially boosting 1080i PQ after downconversion, suspect the production folks have protected viewers from excessive realism by tucking lots of diffusion filters behind D-21 camera lenses. -- John
Here's a NY Times review (http://tv.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/arts/television/28dorr.html?_r=1&ref=arts) of Sunday's (3/29) PBS programming. My cable guide lists it as HDTV. -- John

I can't get pbs in ota hd here in the Philly burbs. Anyone in the Philly area getting it ota?

I tried to watch King Lear the other night, but the PQ was so amazingly bad, it was distracting. Don't know if that was the result of the national feed, or just our local station's insistence on 4 sub-channels.