When I first got my HD set (61" Samsung 720p DLP) I was amazed by the picture quality of HD material over cable. Compared to SD and DVD it was an amazing experience. I now also have a 67" Samsung 1080p DLP and while the HD material via cable still looks good I have become spoiled looking at high quality Blu-ray movies. I believe the broadcast standard allows 6 MHZ for a channel and using Mpeg-2 this allow up to 18 MB in 1080i for the HD signal. HDM allows for over twice the bandwidth and uses a superior compression standard (AVC, VC-1). So even though broadcast allow for a 1080i signal the HDM should give a picture which is much sharper.

Cable and satellite compress the signal which even makes for a lower picture quality also some broadcast stations add sub-channels which cuts down on the bandwidth of the HD signal.

Am I making a fair comparison? How do you find broadcast HD material compared to HDM?

On cable, the best HD channel is Discovery HD.
All other HD channels are OK. Better than SD but nothing like Discovery HD.

OTA HD channels of local broadcasts are great, especially the public access channels.
Some people who've seen the OTA PQ on my TV are blown away that they can get that for FREE with an HDTV of course.

It also doesn't seem to matter if they are 1080i or 720p. Both formats seem to look great on a 42" and 60" HDTV.
As long as the OTA signal strength is good, you get consistent great PQ between channels.

OTA can look very impressive but at its best it can't compete with Blu-ray or HD DVD. MPEG2 is an old codec and the finest audio presentation is DVD quality.

But why comparing the two? it's apples to oranges. We all know HDM looks and sounds better than OTA. However OTA is great for TV shows, news and sports and HDM is good for movies (and boxset TV shows).

It sucks in comparison.

Here is my comparison:
Lawrence of Arabia in HD...cable HD - yes, HDM - no.

If you really just care about the movie and no extras, cable HD + DVHS is the way to go...since most great movies are unavailable on other forms of HDM.

I wouldn't say OTA is great for those things, especially sports. It's merely the only option for those things.

Something the original poster left out is that the TV signal is compressed in real-time, while the discs are (at the very least) done with two-pass optimized encoding. Between the real-time encoding and sub-channels we end up with a a bit-rate barely higher than a quality DVD.

Here is my comparison:
Lawrence of Arabia in HD...cable HD - yes, HDM - no.

If you really just care about the movie and no extras, cable HD + DVHS is the way to go...since most great movies are unavailable on other forms of HDM.

DVHS....
It bothers me that we still get no Blu-ray recorders here! The idea of recording hours of SD and HD content and archive them on an optical disc is so tempting; too bad no company is offering anything!

DVHS....
It bothers me that we still get no Blu-ray recorders here! The idea of recording hours of SD and HD content and archive them on an optical disc is so tempting; too bad no company is offering anything!

Its why I still have DHVS...yes, VHS tapes!!!:eek:

I can not wait for the day when I can record to optical media...Sony are you listening?

Its why I still have DHVS...yes, VHS tapes!!!:eek:

I can not wait for the day when I can record to optical media...Sony are you listening?

I like my DVHS machine but I don't record broadcasts anymore (maybe occasionally) because I'm not sure if it's going to be easy for me to find playback machines in future anymore once this one fails.
The funny thing is recorders have been out in Japan for few years now so not much development is needed; all they have to do is adjust the copy protection and maybe add a electronic guide.
Sony, Panasonic and Philips, where are the recorders?

If cable/satellite companies compress it, does anybody know the average bandwidth of HD they put out?

I disagree to some point. I think channels like CBS and DiscoveryHD look comparable to HDM, while NBC/Fox/CBS not so much. Both CBS and DHD take pride in their presentations and max out the bitrate avaliable to them, while broadcasters seem to employ monkies to run their HD broadcast networks.

On cable, the best HD channel is Discovery HD.
All other HD channels are OK. Better than SD but nothing like Discovery HD.



:rolleyes: ....um...nevermind...

There is no comparison by and large. Each local market and provider(s) will give you differeing results. For the most part, cable/OTA/DBS cannot provide sufficient bitrates to avoid blocking.

:rolleyes: ....um...nevermind...

There is no comparison by and large. Each local market and provider(s) will give you differeing results. For the most part, cable/OTA/DBS cannot provide sufficient bitrates to avoid blocking.

Sometimes it's even worse than SD.

Where do you folks live that your OTA is so bad? I have access by antennae to Baltimore Maryland and Washington DC and OTA is usually very good. At least as good as the Panny 10 I have for Blu Ray, and many times as good as my XA2 for HD DVD. Dadgum Panny is known to be "soft" displaying Blu Ray.

For me, going from HDTV to HD/BD was like going from DVD to HDTV. A whole another level of clarity was added. Not to mention the far superior level of audio.

In the Washington, DC area PBS has three SD channels in addition to its 1080i channel. The picture does not look sharp. NBC, CBS and ABC also have additional channels that take away from the signal quality. I was reading that HBO most of the time only sends out a 10 to 12 MB signal. To me HDM looks much better.

Local HD OTA broadcasts in Toronto are beautiful....especially CBC HD hockey broadcasts or programs like CSI Miami on CTV HD. Some of the Buffalo HD channels I was able to pick up seemed a bit blurry or down-rezzed by comparison. CSI Miami in HD is about the best looking thing on TV, even though I'm no fan of the show.....

Your mileage may vary.... ;)

Three words: SUCKS BIG TIME.

:)

Local HD OTA broadcasts in Toronto are beautiful....especially CBC HD hockey broadcasts or programs like CSI Miami on CTV HD. Some of the Buffalo HD channels I was able to pick up seemed a bit blurry or down-rezzed by comparison. CSI Miami in HD is about the best looking thing on TV, even though I'm no fan of the show.....

Your mileage may vary.... ;)

CTV HD does some good HD broadcasting. I find CBC HD's quality a bit lower but still acceptable.

my ota pbs and cbs looks better than my comcast cable although discovery hd has the
best on cable followed by hd-net.

Local HD OTA broadcasts in Toronto are beautiful....especially CBC HD hockey broadcasts or programs like CSI Miami on CTV HD. Some of the Buffalo HD channels I was able to pick up seemed a bit blurry or down-rezzed by comparison. CSI Miami in HD is about the best looking thing on TV, even though I'm no fan of the show.....

Your mileage may vary.... ;)

Toronto stations don't do any multicasting, while Buffalo stations do.

I find CBC seems to add artificial grain to their drama programs, but their live and video stuff looks great.

Kudos to them for following the European lead and presenting non-HD programming in widescreen too.

In the Washington, DC area PBS has three SD channels in addition to its 1080i channel. The picture does not look sharp. NBC, CBS and ABC also have additional channels that take away from the signal quality. I was reading that HBO most of the time only sends out a 10 to 12 MB signal. To me HDM looks much better.
I think it depends on the station and the show. Prime time TV seems variable, depending on the channel and show. I find Channel 9's local news to be quite good, about as good as OTA gets. It may not be as good as the best HDMs, but it can be as good as many of them. Its hard to make the comparison, apples and oranges, and all that.
J

What about the quality of HD movies on cable vs HDM. Do you find the experience as satisfying? I don't.

i dont see anyone comparing it to Fios. Will be getting Fios in march. so i am very curios if there is a jump in picture quality between comcast to fios to hdm. im expecting fios to be very close to hdm. we will see.

From what I have read Fios is better on SD material but for most HD sources they are about the same as Comcast. It also depends upon the cable company and how much compression they do on HD material.

As a comparatively longtime FiOS user and owner of a large dual format HDM collection I have to say that FiOS HD is excellent and for all intensive purposes is very, very close to HDM given a good channel.

Yes, HDM is better but seriously if some people think upscaled DVD is close at times then this difference between good broadcast HD like FiOS and HDM is only for us enthusiasts.

Now if you value your extra's and interactive features then that's a different story but for the overwhelming majority of consumers not a big difference on pure PQ.

we could all have better hd on ota and cable/sat if the _#***!!!! would not compress
the **** out of it.

The very best HD I've seen (and I've got access to excellent signals from both OTA and cable) still pixellates wildly during extremely fast motion. With HDM, this has not happened (at least not with any of the material I've viewed), so I would have to rate HDM as far superior to the best that OTA or cable has offered to date.

The very best HD I've seen (and I've got access to excellent signals from both OTA and cable) still pixellates wildly during extremely fast motion. With HDM, this has not happened (at least not with any of the material I've viewed), so I would have to rate HDM as far superior to the best that OTA or cable has offered to date.

I've had the exact same experience. I have OTA piped to my RS1 at my place and HD cable at my girlfriend's place on her 46" 1080p Sammy LCD, and the macroblocking becomes very visible during fast pans or lots of quick cuts. I have never experienced this with HDM, and rightly so - OTA and HD cable can't touch the bit rates or higher quality compression available to HDM. That's not to say that OTA or HD cable look bad - they blow away SD cable and can look spectacular - but they do have their limitations.

the only channels i have found to be anywhere near hdm on comcast is discovery and pbs. but pbs is full of blocking i guess due to compression. Most PBS affiliates use subchannels for some time now. PBS has not had "good" HD for about 4 years now, as do most network stations. Anything that needs higher bit rates will macroblock. Same goes for many cable channels - multiple channels are broadcast on the same QAM channel. There are quite a few channels that look great until they are "pushed". I've yet to see any match the best HDM encodes, especially during fast motion sequences.

larry

Being a film purist, the thing that gets me is when the cable channels, and I am pointing directly at the Universal HD channel, changed the original theatrical aspect ratio. Some channels even squish it to fill the screen or just crop the image. Also, my Comcast box will only do Dolby Digital 5.1. So, with Blu-ray, I get much closer to the OAR and I can get as much as uncompressed 7.1 sound.

DVHS....
It bothers me that we still get no Blu-ray recorders here! The idea of recording hours of SD and HD content and archive them on an optical disc is so tempting; too bad no company is offering anything!
I subscribe to DishNetwork and currently use their ViP 622 HD-Digital Video Recorder (DVR). I can record up to 30 HRS of Hi Def programming, BUT, what's new and exciting is that you can attach an external hard drive of up to 750GBs for an additional 70 HRS of HD programming storage.
I watched and recorded Lawrence of Arabia in HD over the HDNET channel and the PQ was supurb...like watching a Blu-ray disc.
I think it's a no brainer - Satellite DBS services compare very favorable with HDM and when CONTENT is taken into consideration, simply blows HDM right out of the water. For this reason I think HDM will remain a niche format, much like Laserdisc was, and the average consumer will be perfectly satisfied with satellite DBS/cable services.

we could all have better hd on ota and cable/sat if the _#***!!!! would not compress
the **** out of it.

As posted by bfdtb in the "Verizon FIOS TV & Capture card" after measuring the bitrates on FIOS broadcast channels - FIOS HD and SD delivery is extremely good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by milan03
Does anyone have info on how high are the FioS's bit rate comparing to OTA or other cable providers?
Thank you.

As high or higher than every other cable provider.

Verizon FiOS passes through the original source feed on all local and cable HD channels. They saved money by not buying extra equipment to modify HD signals. In addition to saving them money, this also provides the best possible picture quality. FiOS bitrate on locals is 100% identical to OTA.

FiOS SD bitrates as of Dec 8.

Code:
Channel -----------Resolution----Average Bitrate
USA----------50----704x480-------5.05
TBS----------52----704x480-------3.25
FX-----------53----528x480 -------2.51
CNN----------80----704x480-------3.10
CNBC---------83----704x480 -------4.97
Disc---------100----528x480-------4.87
SciFi--------160----704x480-------2.42
TCM--------200----704x480-------2.63
AMC--------201----704x480-------3.64
Starz-------340----704x480-------3.56
Showtime---361----704x480-------2.75

Average bitrates on some of these channels will vary by up to 20% depending on content.FiOS HD bitrates as of Dec 23.

Code:
Channel------------------Resolution---Average Bitrate ---Peak Bitrate

TNT--------------825----1920x1080------17.8----------19.4
ESPN-------------826----1280x720-------18.1 ----------20.0
ESPN2------------827----1280x720-------17.8----------20.0
NFL Network------828 ----1920x1080-------16.8----------17.0
CSN MidAtlantic---829----1920x1080-------16.6----------17.7
HD Net------------833 ----1920x1080-------17.3 ----------19.2
HD Net Movies----834----1920x1080-------17.2----------18.7
Universal----------835----1920x1080-------10.5----------?
HD Theater--------836----1920x1080-------17.2----------18.2
Wealth TV---------837----1920x1080-------13.3----------14.0
National Geo.------838----1280x720--------13.3
MHD---------------839----1920x1080-------17.0 ----------18.1
Food Network------840----1920x1080-------14.2----------15.0
HGTV-------------841----1280x720-------18.0----------18.2
Lifetime Movie-----845----1920x1080-------15.0----------18.0
Discovery---------846----1920x1080-------12.5----------15.0
HBO---------------851----1920x1080
Cinemax-----------852 ----1920x1080
Showtime----------853----1920x1080-------12.0----------14.5
TMC---------------854----1920x1080-------12.0----------14.5
Starz!--------------855----1920x1080-------11.0----------14.0

No more than two HD channels on any 38.8Mbps QAM slot.Numbers are based on the average of several recordings from each channel.

Interesting comparison article (with pictures):

Apple TV 2.0 vs. Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable: The Comparison

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/

Being a film purist, the thing that gets me is when the cable channels, and I am pointing directly at the Universal HD channel, changed the original theatrical aspect ratio. Some channels even squish it to fill the screen or just crop the image. Also, my Comcast box will only do Dolby Digital 5.1. So, with Blu-ray, I get much closer to the OAR and I can get as much as uncompressed 7.1 sound.

Universal HD? Are you sure your set top box wasn't on Starz, HBO, TNT or Cinemax?

I've found Universal to be pretty good about OAR. HDNet/HDNet movies and the Voom channels tend to be really good.

We have a fun discussion going on in the hdtv programming forum. (TNT actually dared to put black bars up when they showed Titanic!)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=320739&highlight=oar

The main issue I have with OTA and especially cable/sat is that the bitrates are so low that with MPEG2 (and even the h.264 mpeg4 used with Dish) you get major compression artifacts and macroblocking on action scenes. Flash bulbs and explosions are the worst. I've seen major breakups and pixelation just watching flash bulbs on Ultra HD.

Tough question to ask as there are a lot of things that can affect each persons opinion on this.

1. Quality of cable or satellite service.
2. Quality of wiring in your home or to the main line.
3. Quality of equipment.

Your picture quality will only be as good as your weakest link.
All things optimal, television can look almost as good as physical HDM. However physical HDm is vastly superior in regards to audio quality. Cable and OTA can't touch it.

Universal HD? Are you sure your set top box wasn't on Starz, HBO, TNT or Cinemax?

I've found Universal to be pretty good about OAR. HDNet/HDNet movies and the Voom channels tend to be really good.

We have a fun discussion going on in the hdtv programming forum. (TNT actually dared to put black bars up when they showed Titanic!)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=320739&highlight=oar

The main issue I have with OTA and especially cable/sat is that the bitrates are so low that with MPEG2 (and even the h.264 mpeg4 used with Dish) you get major compression artifacts and macroblocking on action scenes. Flash bulbs and explosions are the worst. I've seen major breakups and pixelation just watching flash bulbs on Ultra HD.


While I have a really great setup, I am still too cheap to pay for HBO or any other extra movie channel. Came close to getting HBO and they got rid of Rome and Deadwood. Seems stupid with all of the movies I buy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dahlsim
As a comparatively longtime FiOS user and owner of a large dual format HDM collection I have to say that FiOS HD is excellent and for all intensive purposes is very, very close to HDM given a good channel.

Yes, HDM is better but seriously if some people think upscaled DVD is close at times then this difference between good broadcast HD like FiOS and HDM is only for us enthusiasts.

Now if you value your extra's and interactive features then that's a different story but for the overwhelming majority of consumers not a big difference on pure PQ.

thanks for the heads up guys.

could you give me an example of a good hd channel when comparing hdm? just to get my bearings the best hd channel i have now with comcast is discovery. is this still the best channel with fios?

the only channels i have found to be anywhere near hdm on comcast is discovery and pbs. but pbs is full of blocking i guess due to compression.

I wouild have to say HDNet /HDNet Movies is outstanding and even at 720p ESPN comes off very well. I used to have DirecTV before FiOS and I was suprised when I switched how obvious the difference is.

Since you sound like the type of viewer that notices things like minor compression artifacts you're already probably the top 1% of viewers in terms of noticing PQ at a critical level.

I myself don't watch for flaws or notice most artifacts unless they jump out. In that respect HDM is immaculate and unbeatable but at any level of comparison below that just about any channel posted above on FiOS will fare quite well in a comparison. Broadcast does introduces more variation in quality as in 'some stuff is poor' compared to HDM which has become pretty consistently high really, only really being measured against itself.

Im looking forward to getting fios but im holding my breath in the quality of the picture i will be getting due to the fact that most of the quality will really depend on what they get from the stations. crap in crap out. But it will be interesting to see. I hope i wont be dissapointed.

True about crap in/out. I have FIOS, and watched the Patriots vs. the Giants during the regular season, when it was broadcast on two national channels, a local channel (from Boston) and on the NFL channel. You could see the difference among the different sources, which was amazing to me given that the original source was the NFL Network. I can say that in my own unofficial opinion, the NFL network was best, Channel 5 (Boston) followed closely, then CBS and far behind (showing definite artefacts, blurring) was NBC.

The NFL signal was pristine, Channel 5, which has made a large committment to HD (even field cameras for news are 1080i) was also excellent. I chalk up the worsening signal to compression either at NBC, CBS central or affiliates.

Not surprisingly, the high bitrate feeds have become my personal favorites, especially HdNet(s), given my interest in movies. They really do a very good job, and it comes off very well on FIOS.

I have a tivo HD. I dont know if the problems I see are with the tivo or my cable, but some shows at times (NCIS or Law & Order suffers from this in certain scenes esp close ups on people's faces) get pretty grainy at times, then become more normal.

Beyond macroblocking is "vast amounts" of black crush with OTA HD. I've done side-by-side comparisons of HD material compared to SDVD upscaled on my PS3 and I often prefer the PS3 upscaled SDVD. The OTA material is "sharper" and has some deeper colors, but seems perhaps a little oversaturated and I really get more detail in dark areas from DVD.

(I have Comcast, btw)

With the current compression technology I wonder if 720p will produce a better quality picture (with less compression artifacts) than 1080i for broadcast TV.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php

In Japan 7680 x 4320 pixel Super HD.
Warner and others working digital cinema 4096 x 2160 pixel "4K" projectors.
In this forum people bitch about the "best HD" being blu-ray at 1920 x 1080 pixels ...

I for one can't wait for consumer grade 4K projectors which my viewing distance and screen size can take advantage of.

With the current compression technology I wonder if 720p will produce a better quality picture (with less compression artifacts) than 1080i for broadcast TV.

I've tried both on my Comcast HD box and they look the same,theoretically 720p should look better.

I've tried both on my Comcast HD box and they look the same,theoretically 720p should look better.

What was the size and resolution of the set you are using?

OTA in my area is hit and miss with lots of in-betweens. The source makes all the difference in the world, sometimes they may be broadcasting in 720p or 1080i, but it's obvious the source quality stinks. OTOH, sometimes the quality is very good, but never as good as the best HDM.

A friend of mine is the sr. broadcast engineer at a local station and he says the locals rarely, if ever, do anything to the national feeds, it's mostly straight pass-through.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php

In Japan 7680 x 4320 pixel Super HD.
Warner and others working digital cinema 4096 x 2160 pixel "4K" projectors.
In this forum people bitch about the "best HD" being blu-ray at 1920 x 1080 pixels ...

I for one can't wait for consumer grade 4K projectors which my viewing distance and screen size can take advantage of.

it would be nice but that would be super niche.

hd cable sucks compared to bluray... why should i have to rent the hd box for an additional $10 bucks a month??...

ota hd sucks compared to bluray... but heck its free (get a good indoor/outdoor antenna)... i'm not the type of person to spend 100 plus bucks a month just to watch tv sd or hd.... i'd rather read or play online games on the ps3.

i can get 1080p, subtitles and 7.1 surround sound with blu... i doubt i can get than on any broadcast hd....

hd cable sucks compared to bluray... why should i have to rent the hd box for an additional $10 bucks a month??...

ota hd sucks compared to bluray... but heck its free (get a good indoor/outdoor antenna)... i'm not the type of person to spend 100 plus bucks a month just to watch tv sd or hd.... i'd rather read or play online games on the ps3.

i can get 1080p, subtitles and 7.1 surround sound with blu... i doubt i can get than on any broadcast hd....

Because with that $10 you can get hundreds of HD movies.
Sure the picture is better with Blu Ray but is the average person going to spend $30USD for one movie?

Because with that $10 you can get hundreds of HD movies.
Sure the picture is better with Blu Ray but is the average person going to spend $30USD for one movie?

you obviously have a better cable provider than me that 10.00 a month
extra might get me 6 new movies but thats after the premium increase
for the digital package and then a charge for the hd package,seriously
looking at direct tv for the future.

I have Comcast HD and find that there is a slight difference between HDM and cable, but the quality of the transfer varies more than how it is delivered.

I've been very disappointed with some HDM titles, and blown away with others.

Overall, I'd say that HDM holds a small quality lead over a similar transfer on cable. How much this small difference is worth is really the question. If I have to plunk down several hundred dollars for a player and $30 each for software, I'd say cable is the better value.

Cable feeds also introduce the video vs film issue of different looks, with video often looking sharper than film. LIve video, such as sports, takes viewing to another level.

All in all, HD really shines when you get extreme closeups of actors. Seeing the flaws, makeup, etc. gives you the "that's what I paid for" moments. Either medium can deliver these. Most people that don't use projectors and 100" screens won't notice the small differences in quality.

Blu-Ray is definitely superior to cable/satellite in terms of the quality of HD delivered.

I know one thing: I had my favorite IMAX film - Chronos - on my DVR for almost a year. Finally I decided to go whole-hog and buy it on Blu-Ray. The difference in quality was astounding. The Blu-Ray version was as big a leap over the cable-delivered HD, as the cable HD version was over standard def DVD. It's like a whole new film!

Ask Engadget HD: Which provider has the best quality HD?

Posted Feb 21st 2008 12:00PM by Ben Drawbaugh

Who'd a thought so many people were interested to learn which provider had the greatest selection of HD programming, but judging by how many folks read that edition of Ask Engadget HD, we'd say more then we could've ever imagined. Like many great questions, when you receive the answer it only invokes more questions, which lead Chris to ask the age ol' quality vs quantity question:

"While DirecTV has the most HD channels right now, is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of their HD vs. the HD I would get from my local cable provider? I've read a lot about "HD Lite" and how the satellite providers have to compress the data – but is there really that big of a difference visually? Am I not getting a real 1080i/720p picture?"

Lets get something straight right out of the box, all HD is compressed -- even HD DVD and Blu-ray -- and the how much is it compressed answer, doesn't tell the whole story. What really matters is if can you tell it's compressed and the most obvious signs are when you can see those blocks (sometimes referred to as macroblocking or pixelation) that've been made famous by internet video sites such as YouTube. With that out of the way. we'll cut to the chase before getting into the nitty-gritty. The answer isn't black and white, and no matter what anyone tells you, no one can really claim the best HD quality. Ultimately the only thing that is important is what looks good to you, but we're not going to let that stop us from analyzing the data.

National HD Channels

Yes Chris there can be a noticeable difference in the quality of providers, but not always. As much as they don't want to admit it they're all just bit providers carrying the content from the networks to our homes, and because everyone gets ESPN HD from the same place -- for example -- it can only look so good. So even on a provider like Verizon FiOS who prides itself on passing on the original signal, it can still look bad. It has been confirmed that FiOS passes the signal untouched, but at the same time it has also been observed that HD feeds such as National Geographic HD, have seen reductions in bit rates recently. Although no one knows the reason for sure, the theory is that it is at the request of the cable companies. This sounds great to big cable, because not only does it save them a few bits, but it also ensures that competing services won't have a better quality feed. Unfortunately it's not the norm to pass the signal on untouched, in fact many providers choose to compress the signal even further in order to raise the efficiency of their available throughput.

Local HD

Because ATSC provides up to 19.3 Mbps to your home, combined with the super high bit rate feed from the networks (like CBS's feed is is over 30Mbps) local networks have always provided some of the best quality HD around -- before HD DVD and Blu-ray anyways. But unfortunately because of multicasting, it is also the source of some of the worst HD compression artifacts you've ever seen. What happens is a local station makes the decision -- usually business related -- to broadcast more than one channel in its alloted space, this effectively splits the 19.3 Mbps channel up into multiple channels and leaves far less bits for the HD feed and thus can produce macroblocking like you've never seen before. The sad part is that most of the time 1080i uses no-where near all the throughput and if the latest statistical multiplexing technology was utilized and priority was giving to the main feed, we wouldn't even be able to tell. So until all the local station engineers figure out how to use the new encoders, some of us are stuck watching football with squares and dancing grass. There are some who will argue that the real reason some networks choose 720p over 1080i had nothing to do with frame rate and is instead because of the fact that 720p has significantly lower throughput requirements. We love 1080 as much as the next person, but we'll gladly take 720p if that's what it takes to ensure there are no compression artifacts. Finally your provider receives your local broadcaster's signal either via a dedicated uplink or an OTA antenna -- crazy right. Some providers simply modulate the signal on the QAM network, while others choose to re-compress on the fly to save a few bits beforehand. Regardless of how much the bandwidth is reduced, re-encoding introduces another opportunity for the single to be mucked up.

MPEG-4 isn't all good

It's true that MPEG-4 is a much more efficient codec than MPEG-2, but because every local broadcaster and just about every national channel is transmitted in the older codec, we live in an MPEG-2 world. This means that when a provider makes the switch to MPEG-4, it has to buy encoders that will re-encode the signal in real time. For the most part this doesn't cause any noticeable problems, but any compression artifacts in the source feed can be exaggerated or prolonged and the option of passing on an un-touched feed is completely out -- again, a chance to muck it up. This doesn't necessarily mean the signal will look worse than the MPEG-2 source, but it most certainly can't look better. Some networks like HBO have announced plans to deliver its feed to providers in MPEG-4, but it'll be a long time before this is the norm.

Conclusion

So as much as it pains us to say it, it really depends on your market. It depends how good your locals are and how much of a pinch your provider is in for bandwidth. As the analog channels go away, new satellites are launched and new technology like SDV and MPEG-4 are more widespread, the quality should get better. But as long as most of Americas prefer quantity over quality, and the complaints are low enough to make business sense, we'll continue to see some ugly HD. As for which is the best, FiOS is the only provider who we would feel comfortable saying is any better than anyone else only because it doesn't re-encode the original signal to save bandwidth, but with its pitiful list of HD channels, it is hardly the HD leader -- not to mention only available in a few select parts of the country.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/02/21/ask-engadget-hd-which-provider-has-the-best-quality-hd/

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/inadequacy/super-hi+vision-makes-your-hdtv-obsolete-already-264077.php

In Japan 7680 x 4320 pixel Super HD.
Warner and others working digital cinema 4096 x 2160 pixel "4K" projectors.
In this forum people bitch about the "best HD" being blu-ray at 1920 x 1080 pixels ...

I for one can't wait for consumer grade 4K projectors which my viewing distance and screen size can take advantage of.

It would be nice but can you imagine how many people will be posting i
will pass on it till its available for 200.00 or less since that is been embedded into some posters heads.