Comcast Technology Topic - Page 43 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 126Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1261 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 12:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States, Earth
Posts: 2,073
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Liked: 512
Ah, one good thing is that it reminds me of the famous The Wizard of Oz (1939), this time the quote:

Quote:
Auntie Em Gale: Almira Gulch, just because you own half the county doesn't mean that you have the power to run the rest of us. For twenty-three years, I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!
The more I see things like this, the more I am glad I purchased a "small" HDTV for my cable viewing: artifacts and reduced resolution are less visible on this TV than on the "large" HDTV I use primarily for Netflix (streaming & disc) and my own (quite limited) disc collection.

On the other hand, when my contract runs out, I'll be less reluctant to consider alternatives.

My very humble setup:
Spoiler!
Mark12547 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1262 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 01:49 PM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
Well that sucks. It looks like I won't be ever getting a Xi5 or Xi6. I don't use Comcast's built in router. I have my cable modem in "Bridge Mode" and used my own router.
Hi. Xi5 works with a MoCA to Ethernet bridge and your own router/WiFi. We don't supply these bridges but they can be purchased online. The Xi5 just needs to see the XG1 or XG2 in your house to pull live TV and DVR content. This all happens through MoCA and would be sent over the bridge to your own network. It's truly an awesome device!

Last edited by enroberts; 08-09-2016 at 01:53 PM.
enroberts is offline  
post #1263 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 03:46 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dryeye View Post
Maybe on mobile devices and tiny entry level screens of 50" or less. The loss in resolution makes everything look softer and not very HD. I am so upset with this move I better stop typing before I get into trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12547 View Post
Ah, one good thing is that it reminds me of the famous The Wizard of Oz (1939), this time the quote:



The more I see things like this, the more I am glad I purchased a "small" HDTV for my cable viewing: artifacts and reduced resolution are less visible on this TV than on the "large" HDTV I use primarily for Netflix (streaming & disc) and my own (quite limited) disc collection.

On the other hand, when my contract runs out, I'll be less reluctant to consider alternatives.
I disagree. Most HD networks are already mostly broadcasting in 720p and with low compression it looks pretty damn good. I have a 55" screen and the few channels that I get over an antenna look really good even at 720p. It's only the Comcast feed of the same channels that have the issue. I've also compared to streaming apps from some major networks like ABC, FOX and Comedy Central. Even shows from the major networks streamed over Netflix look really good and those are 720p too. I would expect that by reducing the resolution from 1080i to 720p Comcast could compress less for the same bandwidth usage resulting in an overall better picture. It's important to remember that lower compressed 720 can be better than highly compressed 1080.
jimv1983 is offline  
 
post #1264 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 03:56 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
Hi. Xi5 works with a MoCA to Ethernet bridge and your own router/WiFi. We don't supply these bridges but they can be purchased online. The Xi5 just needs to see the XG1 or XG2 in your house to pull live TV and DVR content. This all happens through MoCA and would be sent over the bridge to your own network. It's truly an awesome device!
So the Xi5 has an ethernet port that goes to the bridge and then to the coax? So I'd have to buy an extra $75 device for every TV just to use my own router instead of the Comcast one?
jimv1983 is offline  
post #1265 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 04:06 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 31,719
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2379 Post(s)
Liked: 2207
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I disagree. Most HD networks are already mostly broadcasting in 720p and with low compression it looks pretty damn good. I have a 55" screen and the few channels that I get over an antenna look really good even at 720p. It's only the Comcast feed of the same channels that have the issue. I've also compared to streaming apps from some major networks like ABC, FOX and Comedy Central. Even shows from the major networks streamed over Netflix look really good and those are 720p too. I would expect that by reducing the resolution from 1080i to 720p Comcast could compress less for the same bandwidth usage resulting in an overall better picture. It's important to remember that lower compressed 720 can be better than highly compressed 1080.
That's not true at all, and in fact, the ratio of 1080i to 720p is about 4:1. And it illustrates why Comcast is down-rezzing those 1080i channels, if it were the other way around, then they really wouldn't be saving much bandwidth.
Keenan is online now  
post #1266 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 04:09 PM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
Hi. Xi5 works with a MoCA to Ethernet bridge and your own router/WiFi. We don't supply these bridges but they can be purchased online. The Xi5 just needs to see the XG1 or XG2 in your house to pull live TV and DVR content. This all happens through MoCA and would be sent over the bridge to your own network. It's truly an awesome device!
So the Xi5 has an ethernet port that goes to the bridge and then to the coax? So I'd have to buy an extra $75 device for every TV just to use my own router instead of the Comcast one?
Sorry should have been more clear. You can use one bridge for multiple Xi5. That bridge connects the traffic from the X1 MoCA network to your personal network. The Xi5 DOES have Ethernet and WiFi but the bridge connects to coax and then Ethernet to your router (or a switch would be connected to your router). Make sense?
enroberts is offline  
post #1267 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 04:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
Hi. Xi5 works with a MoCA to Ethernet bridge and your own router/WiFi. We don't supply these bridges but they can be purchased online. The Xi5 just needs to see the XG1 or XG2 in your house to pull live TV and DVR content. This all happens through MoCA and would be sent over the bridge to your own network. It's truly an awesome device!
Thank you for your post. Do you have any recommendations as to what equipment would need to purchase for the Xi5 to work? It appears the cost of these wireless MoCA to Ethernet bridge devices are quite expensive (over $200?). How does the Xi device initially establish a link with bridge device? Also what is the range of these wireless devices as it seems in a large house their may be wireless transmission issues. One last question why couldn't the functionality needed be built into the Xi5 / Xi6 for communication using a COAX connector as the Xi3 uses? I would assume that would assure a consistent level of signal to the Xi5 / Xi6 because it would not depend on a wireless router. I realize it would increase the size (and cost of the Xi device but for some it would be a worthwhile trade off.
PaulGo is online now  
post #1268 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 04:31 PM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
Thank you for your post. Do you have any recommendations as to what equipment would need to purchase for the Xi5 to work? It appears the cost of these wireless MoCA to Ethernet bridge devices are quite expensive (over $200?). How does the Xi device initially establish a link with bridge device? Also what is the range of these wireless devices as it seems in a large house their may be wireless transmission issues. One last question why couldn't the functionality needed be built into the Xi5 / Xi6 for communication using a COAX connector as the Xi3 uses? I would assume that would assure a consistent level of signal to the Xi5 / Xi6 because it would not depend on a wireless router. I realize it would increase the size (and cost of the Xi device but for some it would be a worthwhile trade off.
I can't recommend a specific device but you don't need a wireless to MoCA bridge...you need an ethernet to MoCA bridge. Then you connect your Xi5 (when they launch) to your own wireless SSID. If you need coax on the device, the XiD is the best device to use. Xi5 doesn't need it as it's got Ethernet and WiFi. a very small % of the customer base use their own router. The XB3 gateway is really a great device and very powerful as well!
enroberts is offline  
post #1269 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 05:31 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
I can't recommend a specific device but you don't need a wireless to MoCA bridge...you need an ethernet to MoCA bridge. Then you connect your Xi5 (when they launch) to your own wireless SSID. If you need coax on the device, the XiD is the best device to use. Xi5 doesn't need it as it's got Ethernet and WiFi. a very small % of the customer base use their own router. The XB3 gateway is really a great device and very powerful as well!

The more I look at this bridge and the example they give the more confused I am getting. Are your saying the Ethernet to MoCA bridge goes between the cable modem and the router? If so I would need a splitter to split the cable signal between the bridge device and the cable modem. The MoCA bridge would then also have RJ45 input to input the signal from the cable modem and an output RJ45 that has the combined cable modem signal and the MoCa signal that would go to the router. The other possibility is the bridge device has a cable input and a cable output with the cable output going to the cable modem with the integrated MoCa and cable signal.

Sorry I just saw this by you:
Quote:
Sorry should have been more clear. You can use one bridge for multiple Xi5. That bridge connects the traffic from the X1 MoCA network to your personal network. The Xi5 DOES have Ethernet and WiFi but the bridge connects to coax and then Ethernet to your router (or a switch would be connected to your router). Make sense?
My question is how does the cable mode output and the bridge output get combined?

Last edited by PaulGo; 08-09-2016 at 05:55 PM.
PaulGo is online now  
post #1270 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 05:33 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
Sorry should have been more clear. You can use one bridge for multiple Xi5. That bridge connects the traffic from the X1 MoCA network to your personal network. The Xi5 DOES have Ethernet and WiFi but the bridge connects to coax and then Ethernet to your router (or a switch would be connected to your router). Make sense?
Yeah. That makes sense. So I'm guessing that if you do use the modem's built in router it effectively acts as the bridge?
jimv1983 is offline  
post #1271 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 05:59 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States, Earth
Posts: 2,073
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Liked: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I disagree. Most HD networks are already mostly broadcasting in 720p and with low compression it looks pretty damn good.
When I look at this chart, List of current American high-definition channels, it sure looks like we are dealing with 75% to 80% of the networks (depending on how you count them, such as whether to count multiple channels for a network together or separately) are 1080i, with only the remaining 20% to 25% 720p.

A couple years ago I had set my DVR on "Native" and checked the channels I watch, and roughly the same ratio came through: 75% to 80% of the HD channels I regularly watch were 1080i, the rest of the HD channels I regularly watched were 720p.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I have a 55" screen and the few channels that I get over an antenna look really good even at 720p.
The best way to view a TV show is probably on Blu-ray, if available. Then generally over-the-air is second best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
It's only the Comcast feed of the same channels that have the issue.
I read postings complaining of picture quality for the satellite and cable companies. The issue with either cable or satellite is that there is only so much bandwidth in which to send the signal, and the cable has to accommodate all users on the node, so some form of compromise has to take place, and Comcast has chosen to compress the signal much more than the broadcast stations compress the signal. (Some other cable companies may carry fewer channels, or use switched digital video.)

I don't have that good of TV reception here, so most TV watchers in this area are either on Comcast or a satellite service, so I can't personally compare over-the-air vs. Comcast for the local stations, but I frequently notice compression artifacts. (Look at "The Flash" on CW thread and you would be able to find me commenting that it wouldn't be The Flash without macroblocking. )

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I've also compared to streaming apps from some major networks like ABC, FOX and Comedy Central. Even shows from the major networks streamed over Netflix look really good and those are 720p too.
I very seldom stream from the networks, but I do stream from Netflix somewhat regularly. The Netflix app on my TV will step up to 1080p and it looks beautiful, at least until there is lots of action. (If possible, I'll try to get the Blu-rays from Netflix instead of use Netflix streaming for action movies.) But then Netflix and other streaming services can use time to run various algorithms to try to do the least disruptive amount of compression for a given bandwidth, whereas compression on the fly requires fast hardware and almost no time for better optimizing the stream. But for a movie like, "Chasing Ice" (2012), there were a couple of times I reached for the wrong remote, forgetting that I was streaming at 1080p from Netflix instead of watching a Blu-ray; but then "Chasing Ice" is where one wants to see detail, the action being somewhat limiting (real-time glaciers calving, time-lapse of glaciers receding) compared to action/adventure movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I would expect that by reducing the resolution from 1080i to 720p Comcast could compress less for the same bandwidth usage resulting in an overall better picture. It's important to remember that lower compressed 720 can be better than highly compressed 1080.
Good point. The type and extent of compression can ruin the picture quality, especially when there is action, far more than downscaling from 1080i to 720p.

However, any time an image is downscaled, part of the resolution is lost, and even upscaling he resulting stream back up at the TV will not recover the lost resolution. I sit far enough from my "small" TV that I have to look hard from my typical viewing distance and then it's iffy whether or not I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080i, both usually being far sharper than 480i. (Yes, I said "usually"; some shows tend to use a "soft focus" and that loses the crisp details.)

My initial reaction to the news that we may be losing detail for the majority of the channels. But if the lost detail is slight and the compression of the downscaled image has fewer artifacts, this may indeed be "less bad" approach.

And if it means I would be able to store more on the DVR, the result won't be all bad. Last Saturday I had an opportunity to do some measuring and came up with some better numbers than I had previously posted:
1% of disk space0.8 hours of HD MPEG2 (local HD channels, most of this was tested on the Rio Olympics Opening Ceremony on the local NBC affiliate; but it was a total of 8 hours of local stations using 10% of the DVR disk space)
1% of disk space3.3 hours of HD MPEG4 (cable network, this was 5 episodes of Dark Matter on Syfy and an episode of The Last Ship on TNT, a total of 6.62 hours when counting the 5-10 minute extending the recording after the end of each episode, taking a total of 2% of DVR disk space)
So if compression becomes better, I could record a marathon on a cable network without worrying about disk space, something that is handy when Syfy or TCM decides to have another themed marathon.

My very humble setup:
Spoiler!
Mark12547 is online now  
post #1272 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 06:00 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
The more I look at this bridge and the example they give the more confused I am getting. Are your saying the Ethernet to MoCA bridge goes between the cable modem and the router? If so I would need a splitter to split the cable signal between the bridge device and the cable modem. The MoCA bridge would then also have RJ45 input to input the signal from the cable modem and an output RJ45 that has the combined cable modem signal and the MoCa signal that would go to the router. The other possibility is the bridge device has a cable input and a cable output with the cable output going to the cable modem with the integrated MoCa and cable signal.
I think the last comment clarified it for me. It's basically like this, the Ethernet to MoCA bridge basically just connects a MoCA network to your own home network. The bridge has one RJ45 port and one coax port. You run an Ethernet cable from the RJ45 end to your own router. You run a coax cable from the coax end of the bridge to a coax wall jack (or splitter). After that your home (Ethernet/WiFi based) network and MoCA network are basically the same network. The main X1 box would stream content from the box, through the home's coax wiring where it would hit the bridge. The bridge would then send it down the Ethernet cord to your router which would then send it out over Wi-Fi to the Xi5 box.

At least that's my understanding now.
jimv1983 is offline  
post #1273 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 06:16 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
snidely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Oakland, Ca. & Aventura (Miami), Fl.
Posts: 1,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Question re: Audio setting on Comcast DCX3400 box

After 20+ years - just realized under "settings" you can set various audio settings- at least in our present DVR. Right now, we are using a mid-level sound bar with our Panny plasma via optical. (We are thinking of getting to floor standing speakers mainly for music-but may connect the TV audio to the new speakers as well.) I question is: which audio setting should I pick?
The choices are: 1. TV speakers 2. "Stereo" people (with a sub setting to "optimize") 3. "Advanced" with 3 sub settings available called "light", "stereo", "optimize".

If I am posting this in the wrong section, please let me know where it should be.
snidely is offline  
post #1274 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 06:17 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I think the last comment clarified it for me. It's basically like this, the Ethernet to MoCA bridge basically just connects a MoCA network to your own home network. The bridge has one RJ45 port and one coax port. You run an Ethernet cable from the RJ45 end to your own router. You run a coax cable from the coax end of the bridge to a coax wall jack (or splitter). After that your home (Ethernet/WiFi based) network and MoCA network are basically the same network. The main X1 box would stream content from the box, through the home's coax wiring where it would hit the bridge. The bridge would then send it down the Ethernet cord to your router which would then send it out over Wi-Fi to the Xi5 box.

At least that's my understanding now.
So the bridge would combine the cable modem Ethernet signal with the MoCA Ethernet signal?
PaulGo is online now  
post #1275 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 06:23 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by snidely View Post
After 20+ years - just realized under "settings" you can set various audio settings- at least in our present DVR. Right now, we are using a mid-level sound bar with our Panny plasma via optical. (We are thinking of getting to floor standing speakers mainly for music-but may connect the TV audio to the new speakers as well.) I question is: which audio setting should I pick?
The choices are: 1. TV speakers 2. "Stereo" people (with a sub setting to "optimize") 3. "Advanced" with 3 sub settings available called "light", "stereo", "optimize".

If I am posting this in the wrong section, please let me know where it should be.
Before I had the X1 I had the DCX3400 For your system I believe Advance and Stereo or Optimize would sound best. Try both and decide.
PaulGo is online now  
post #1276 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 06:31 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keenan View Post
That's not true at all, and in fact, the ratio of 1080i to 720p is about 4:1. And it illustrates why Comcast is down-rezzing those 1080i channels, if it were the other way around, then they really wouldn't be saving much bandwidth.
Wow, according to a Wiki page I looked at here you are correct. I had no idea that many networks and switched to 1080i. It was more 720p than 1080i just a few years ago. Or maybe it was just that Comcast wasn't broadcasting at the original resolution.

The pre-X1 Comcast DVR had the option to set the resolution to "Native". When you used "Native" the box would switch the output resolution every time you changed the channel to whatever the resolution of that channel was. It would cause my TV to behave as if I had changed inputs which would bring up the TV's onscreen info bar that showed the time, input and current resolution of the source. Most channels came up saying 720p. I upgraded to X1 about a year and a half ago and the X1 box doesn't have that "Native" option. So, it either means many networks have started broadcasting in 1080i instead of 720p in just the last year and a half or Comcast wasn't sending the signal at the original resolution for many channels. Maybe Comcast has starting sending more of the channels in 1080i instead of 720p and as a result of the increased bandwidth requirement they have been compressing more which could account for my recent decline in picture quality. If that is the cause of awful picture quality (which might not be the case) then maybe going (back?) to 720p might be a good thing.

All I know for sure is that a year ago all of my channels (720p and 1080i) looked great and now they look bad. Some don't look as bad like CBS and NBC but many like FOX, ABC, ION, TBS, TNT, HBO, Velocity, The CW, Comedy Central, etc look really bad. FOX is the WORST. It's AWFUL. I tried to watch the MLB All Star game last month and if it hadn't been for the difference between the aspect ratio between SD and HD I literally wouldn't have been able to tell the difference. The same broadcast over DirecTV and OTA were fantastic.
jimv1983 is offline  
post #1277 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 06:44 PM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I think the last comment clarified it for me. It's basically like this, the Ethernet to MoCA bridge basically just connects a MoCA network to your own home network. The bridge has one RJ45 port and one coax port. You run an Ethernet cable from the RJ45 end to your own router. You run a coax cable from the coax end of the bridge to a coax wall jack (or splitter). After that your home (Ethernet/WiFi based) network and MoCA network are basically the same network. The main X1 box would stream content from the box, through the home's coax wiring where it would hit the bridge. The bridge would then send it down the Ethernet cord to your router which would then send it out over Wi-Fi to the Xi5 box.

At least that's my understanding now.
Bingo! You got it. You're just combining the two networks (hence the name "bridge). It's that simple. Just plug and play!
enroberts is offline  
post #1278 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 07:01 PM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark12547 View Post
When I look at this chart, List of current American high-definition channels, it sure looks like we are dealing with 75% to 80% of the networks (depending on how you count them, such as whether to count multiple channels for a network together or separately) are 1080i, with only the remaining 20% to 25% 720p.

A couple years ago I had set my DVR on "Native" and checked the channels I watch, and roughly the same ratio came through: 75% to 80% of the HD channels I regularly watch were 1080i, the rest of the HD channels I regularly watched were 720p.
Yes, I remember the "Native" option (I mentioned it in my last comment before I read yours) but the last time I used that about 1.5 years ago most channels were showing as 720p for me. Whether it was just Comcast down converting the original picture or just fewer networks were broadcasting in 1080i is anyone's guess.

Quote:
I read postings complaining of picture quality for the satellite and cable companies. The issue with either cable or satellite is that there is only so much bandwidth in which to send the signal, and the cable has to accommodate all users on the node, so some form of compromise has to take place, and Comcast has chosen to compress the signal much more than the broadcast stations compress the signal. (Some other cable companies may carry fewer channels, or use switched digital video.)
According to others that have commented on this thread Comcast has plenty of bandwidth to offer even mainstream 4K content without issue. Personally, I don't believe it. If it were true then 1080i/720p wouldn't be so bad.

Quote:
I don't have that good of TV reception here, so most TV watchers in this area are either on Comcast or a satellite service, so I can't personally compare over-the-air vs. Comcast for the local stations, but I frequently notice compression artifacts. (Look at "The Flash" on CW thread and you would be able to find me commenting that it wouldn't be The Flash without macroblocking. )
My issues isn't even "compression artifacts" in the typical sense. The picture isn't "blocky" it's blurry and I know for sure that it's a Comcast issue. It might not be a compression issue but it is an issue.

Quote:
I very seldom stream from the networks, but I do stream from Netflix somewhat regularly. The Netflix app on my TV will step up to 1080p and it looks beautiful, at least until there is lots of action. (If possible, I'll try to get the Blu-rays from Netflix instead of use Netflix streaming for action movies.) But then Netflix and other streaming services can use time to run various algorithms to try to do the least disruptive amount of compression for a given bandwidth, whereas compression on the fly requires fast hardware and almost no time for better optimizing the stream. But for a movie like, "Chasing Ice" (2012), there were a couple of times I reached for the wrong remote, forgetting that I was streaming at 1080p from Netflix instead of watching a Blu-ray; but then "Chasing Ice" is where one wants to see detail, the action being somewhat limiting (real-time glaciers calving, time-lapse of glaciers receding) compared to action/adventure movies.
I don't typically stream from the networks either but with my cable being so bad I have a bit but mostly I've used it for comparison as well as an antenna. Both look great. As for the resolution I know Netflix streams in 1080p but I didn't realize that the networks were now providing content in 1080p. My TV does show 1080p as the resolution but I just figured they were upconverting to 1080p or that maybe my Chromcast was upconverting to 1080p or deinterlacing for 1080i. Netflix looks great, even for action movies. The only reason I even have the BluRay service is because of selection.

Quote:
However, any time an image is downscaled, part of the resolution is lost, and even upscaling he resulting stream back up at the TV will not recover the lost resolution. I sit far enough from my "small" TV that I have to look hard from my typical viewing distance and then it's iffy whether or not I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080i, both usually being far sharper than 480i. (Yes, I said "usually"; some shows tend to use a "soft focus" and that loses the crisp details.)
Yeah, I realize that about downscaling and then re-upscaling. It absolutely will lose detail from the original. Although not at the level I'm seeing from Comcast right now.

Quote:
And if it means I would be able to store more on the DVR, the result won't be all bad. Last Saturday I had an opportunity to do some measuring and came up with some better numbers than I had previously posted:
1% of disk space0.8 hours of HD MPEG2 (local HD channels, most of this was tested on the Rio Olympics Opening Ceremony on the local NBC affiliate; but it was a total of 8 hours of local stations using 10% of the DVR disk space)
1% of disk space3.3 hours of HD MPEG4 (cable network, this was 5 episodes of Dark Matter on Syfy and an episode of The Last Ship on TNT, a total of 6.62 hours when counting the 5-10 minute extending the recording after the end of each episode, taking a total of 2% of DVR disk space)
So if compression becomes better, I could record a marathon on a cable network without worrying about disk space, something that is handy when Syfy or TCM decides to have another themed marathon.
That's an interesting assessment. It looks like the MPEG2 streams are using about 15Mbps while the MPEG4 streams seem to be about 3.6Mbps. I've been wondering if maybe it was the switch to MPEG4 that was causing my issues but my understanding is that MPEG4 is a better compression than MPEG2 and should give similar quality while using less bandwidth. Also, my issues are on both local channels and cable channels so if I'm on the same set up I don't think MPEG2 vs MPEG4 is the issue.

On an unrelated topic...Dark Matter is awesome.

Last edited by jimv1983; 08-09-2016 at 07:04 PM.
jimv1983 is offline  
post #1279 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 08:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Mark12547's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Salem, Oregon, United States, Earth
Posts: 2,073
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Liked: 512
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
... I just figured they were upconverting to 1080p or that maybe my Chromcast was upconverting to 1080p or deinterlacing for 1080i. Netflix looks great, even for action movies. The only reason I even have the BluRay service is because of selection.
Generally, if a streaming device is connected to a TV, that device will rescale whatever the incoming resolution is to be what you specified the output resolution to be (or the handshaking between the streaming device and the TV determine is the highest common resolution both can handle).

For example, my original Roku would upscale everything to 720p (the top resolution it could handle for the Netflix channel), even if stream was 480p, or 384, 288, or a mere 240p; I would have to dig into a secret menu to see what resolution was being received, or count the dots at the original handshake. The TV would always report 720p because that was the resolution being received through its HDMI port.

My current "large" TV, on the other hand, came with a Netflix app (and a dedicated Netflix button). While streaming content, pressing the "info" button would display various things, including the lines of resolution (240, ... 1080). Since the Netflix app of the TV uses "adaptive streams", it will shift between resolutions while playing a title to adjust for varying throughput conditions and I can watch that resolution change during the feature with usually nothing else changing other than the sharpness of the picture would change a bit as the Netflix app switched from one resolution stream to another resolution stream.

Anyway, one reason why these boxes don't output the resolution they are receiving at that moment is because each change in resolution (particularly using the current "adaptive streams") is because most TVs will blank out for half a second or so as they determine the new resolution, which would disrupt the user experience (the same thing your TV experienced when switching the cable box from one resolution channel to another resolution channel when the box was set to NATIVE).

Now I have the HD DVR set to 1080p60, even though most HD channels are 1080i and some are 720p and the box allows for a NATIVE setting, because then I get minimal loss in resolution and no half-second blanking when changing channels to a channel of a different resolution.

My very humble setup:
Spoiler!
Mark12547 is online now  
post #1280 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 09:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
My main concern in changing 1080i channels to 720p is the possible loss of resolution. 1080i is at 30fps while 720p is at 60fps so downrezing 1080i content will also mean duplicating the 1080i frame at 720 to get 60fps. I believe it is possible to look at to successive 1080i frames and make the second 720p frame a blend of the two frames, but I don't know if Comcast will do this. Another option is if Comcast gets a 1080p feed that is broadcast at 1080i then content that has motion would benefit at 720p.
PaulGo is online now  
post #1281 of 1672 Old 08-09-2016, 09:16 PM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimv1983 View Post
I think the last comment clarified it for me. It's basically like this, the Ethernet to MoCA bridge basically just connects a MoCA network to your own home network. The bridge has one RJ45 port and one coax port. You run an Ethernet cable from the RJ45 end to your own router. You run a coax cable from the coax end of the bridge to a coax wall jack (or splitter). After that your home (Ethernet/WiFi based) network and MoCA network are basically the same network. The main X1 box would stream content from the box, through the home's coax wiring where it would hit the bridge. The bridge would then send it down the Ethernet cord to your router which would then send it out over Wi-Fi to the Xi5 box.

At least that's my understanding now.
So the bridge would combine the cable modem Ethernet signal with the MoCA Ethernet signal?
No. The modem is connected to your 3rd party router. The bridge connects your local network being created by your own router and the X1 MoCA network being created on coax. The internet from modem has nothing to do with this connectivity, only your internal home network.
enroberts is offline  
post #1282 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 07:50 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
No. The modem is connected to your 3rd party router. The bridge connects your local network being created by your own router and the X1 MoCA network being created on coax. The internet from modem has nothing to do with this connectivity, only your internal home network.
Sorry for my confusion. In terms of wiring the bridge device - it appears you need a splitter to send the cable signal to the cable modem and the MoCA to Ethernet bridge, then the Ethernet output of the cable modem goes into the MoCA to Ethernet bridge, and then the output from this device goes to the wireless router where the signal is picked up by the Xi5 (and the internet portion of the signal is picked up by other wireless devices).
PaulGo is online now  
post #1283 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 08:02 AM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
Sorry for my confusion. In terms of wiring the bridge device - it appears you need a splitter to send the cable signal to the cable modem and the MoCA to Ethernet bridge, then the Ethernet output of the cable modem goes into the MoCA to Ethernet bridge, and then the output from this device goes to the wireless router where the signal is picked up by the Xi5 (and the internet portion of the signal is picked up by other wireless devices).
You're correct. Remember though, Xi5 has not started shipping yet. Also, here is a wiring diagram I quickly put together.

PaulGo likes this.
enroberts is offline  
post #1284 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 08:19 AM
Member
 
rdarcy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
You're correct. Remember though, Xi5 has not started shipping yet. Also, here is a wiring diagram I quickly put together.





Not looking forward to this anymore. Looks like a nightmare for the techs to install at residential homes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rdarcy is offline  
post #1285 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 08:29 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
egnlsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 2,627
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
In terms of wiring the bridge device - it appears you need a splitter to send the cable signal to the cable modem and the MoCA to Ethernet bridge, then the Ethernet output of the cable modem goes into the MoCA to Ethernet bridge, and then the output from this device goes to the wireless router where the signal is picked up by the Xi5 (and the internet portion of the signal is picked up by other wireless devices).
The STB, then, communicates directly with the wireless router? 2.4 or 5 Gig?

CIAO!

Ed N.
egnlsn is offline  
post #1286 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 08:46 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 3,875
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 171 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
You're correct. Remember though, Xi5 has not started shipping yet. Also, here is a wiring diagram I quickly put together.

This is what is confusing me, in your diagram it appears you show two Ethernet feeds going into the router from both the cable modem and the MoCA bridge. The routers that I am familiar with has only one input and four outputs (along with wireless) so shouldn't your diagram show the modem Ethernet connection going to the bridge where it is combined and then only one Ethernet wire going to the router?
PaulGo is online now  
post #1287 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 09:19 AM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdarcy View Post
Not looking forward to this anymore. Looks like a nightmare for the techs to install at residential homes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
A tech wouldn't install the Xi5 this way. I think there's more confusion here. Some folks above asked how to use their own router because they don't want to use/lease the Comcast XB3 gateway. the explanations and diagrams I've posted are to solve for that very limited use case. 99.9999% of our customers will use the Comcast XB3 gateway. When you use our gateway it's already connected to coax. All the tech/user will do is enable MoCA on the XB3 and the Xi5 will work. If you don't want to use our leased XB3, but use your own router and a stand alone modem instead, you'll need to buy your own MoCA to Ethernet bridge (as discussed above) and set it up as mentioned in my quick diagram above. Make sense?
enroberts is offline  
post #1288 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 10:07 AM
Member
 
rdarcy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by enroberts View Post
A tech wouldn't install the Xi5 this way. I think there's more confusion here. Some folks above asked how to use their own router because they don't want to use/lease the Comcast XB3 gateway. the explanations and diagrams I've posted are to solve for that very limited use case. 99.9999% of our customers will use the Comcast XB3 gateway. When you use our gateway it's already connected to coax. All the tech/user will do is enable MoCA on the XB3 and the Xi5 will work. If you don't want to use our leased XB3, but use your own router and a stand alone modem instead, you'll need to buy your own MoCA to Ethernet bridge (as discussed above) and set it up as mentioned in my quick diagram above. Make sense?


Wow, I know so many people with there own modem. I don't think most of us will buy it if the MoCA to Ethernet is expensive. What a shame with the monthly cost of Comcast that we would have to pay for that connection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
rdarcy is offline  
post #1289 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 10:14 AM
Member
 
enroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdarcy View Post
Wow, I know so many people with there own modem. I don't think most of us will buy it if the MoCA to Ethernet is expensive. What a shame with the monthly cost of Comcast that we would have to pay for that connection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've seen ECB's go for as little as $30 and as much as $120 online. We simply need to be sure we're providing as best an experience as possible to our customers. In order to do so, we've built an ecosystem of devices that will work together to deliver a positive experience. We just cannot support every single 3rd party router and ECB, that's not possible as there are so many. That said, I'm happy to help through things here when there are questions. Also, if you'd rather not use the Xi5, the XiD and other boxes will continue to support MoCA directly with no need for WiFi/Ethernet connections at all. The Xi5 is filling a need many folks have where they cannot run coax to certain areas but have access with WiFi. If you choose not to use our XB3, this solution will work great. Thanks!
enroberts is offline  
post #1290 of 1672 Old 08-10-2016, 11:20 AM
Senior Member
 
jimv1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 422
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 355 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post
This is what is confusing me, in your diagram it appears you show two Ethernet feeds going into the router from both the cable modem and the MoCA bridge. The routers that I am familiar with has only one input and four outputs (along with wireless) so shouldn't your diagram show the modem Ethernet connection going to the bridge where it is combined and then only one Ethernet wire going to the router?
The Ethernet line from the bridge goes into one of the ports you called "output"(LAN). A home router essentially contains a bridge(although it's Ethernet to Ethernet instead of Ethernet to MoCA). The "input"(WAN/Internet) port on a router is used to connect one Ethernet network(your home network) to another network (the internet). Technically the "router" part is just the LAN("output") ports. The WAN/Internet port is basically one side of an Ethernet to Ethernet bridge. The other end of the Ethernet to Ethernet bridge is inside the router where it goes into what is basically a "smart" splitter(router). Anything that is connected to any of the LAN("output") ports on your router becomes a device on your home network. You can basically think of the entire MoCA network as just another "device" that is on your network. A commercial router only has the LAN("output") ports and usually a lot more of them. A router just connects many devices to a the same network.
PaulGo likes this.

Last edited by jimv1983; 08-10-2016 at 11:31 AM.
jimv1983 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off