San Francisco, CA - Comcast - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 02:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sfhub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattack View Post

But the digital channel is different from the analog channel, so technically it's not a signal "on the basic service tier".

You need to read the attached post to understand what Russ and I were talking about. *If* must-carry applies to the OTA digital rebroadcast on Comcast, then it is in the basic tier. *Whether* must-carry applies is what some (not Comcast) feel is in contention. Comcast has been treating HD locals as must-carry and basic tier. If someone wants to clarify further FCC statements in this area, feel free to do so. I remember a while back, FCC agenda included clarification on digital must-carry, but it was mysteriously pulled from the agenda w/o further explanation. That's when I stopped paying attention.

Russ basically said HD locals are must-carry but where does it say they have to be unencrypted.

I replied that must-carry implies basic tier and basic tier by definition is not encrypted. I also said must-carry for digital is a point of contention for some.

Russ then asked where does it say basic tier cannot be encrypted, which is the post you read and replied to out of context.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post9580561
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub View Post

The must-carry rules also state it must be included in a "basic-tier". Definition of basic-tier includes not being encrypted.

The contention for *some* cable companies (not Comcast) is whether must-carry applies to:

1) analog only
2) analog *and* digital
3) analog *or* digital, but not necessarily both

That was my understanding from a while back of why some cable companies encrypt the locals and others don't. I don't follow the issue that closely so maybe this has been clarified in further FCC rulings, so please feel free to correct me.

sfhub is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 06:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Tom Koegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub View Post

Comcast has been treating HD locals as must-carry and basic tier.

Well, they aren't entirely consistent in this, as they don't carry the local CW outlet, KBHK, right? I always assumed that was related to some corporate power struggle between TimeWarner and Comcast. But regardless, if they interpreted "must carry" to apply to the KBHK digital signal, we'd have that among the locals, right?
Tom Koegel is offline  
post #63 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 07:45 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Koegel View Post

Well, they aren't entirely consistent in this, as they don't carry the local CW outlet, KBHK, right? I always assumed that was related to some corporate power struggle between TimeWarner and Comcast. But regardless, if they interpreted "must carry" to apply to the KBHK digital signal, we'd have that among the locals, right?

KBCW(KBHK) is owned by CBS along with KPIX in this market. There shouldn't be any issues with Time Warner. I suspect that it's more a bandwidth issue.

BTW, CBS has already stated it wants cash for it's signals come contract time, it will get interesting to see if KPIX-HD remains unencrypted. In fact, once all the nets renegotiate it will be hard to imagine Comcast will absorb all that cost and leave the local HD in Basic and unencrypted without any price increase to the sub.

If ESPN gets about $3 per sub, cablenets like USA and TNT get .50 to 1.00 per sub, FSNBA about $1.00-2.00, you have to figure a highly watched channel like CBS is going to want a considerable amount. Times that by 4 and that's a bunch of money.
Keenan is offline  
post #64 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 08:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Tom Koegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

KBCW(KBHK) is owned by CBS along with KPIX in this market. There shouldn't be any issues with Time Warner. I suspect that it's more a bandwidth issue.

Hard to rationalize it on bandwidth alone, and I had assumed that their might be bad blood nationally (not just locally) between Comcast and TimeWarner. Why else would they not carry a high-def feed of narrow, but popular (Smallville, etc.) programming as opposed to that ridiculous KRON loop that they ran for years? Or the current high-def simulcast of low-def KRON crap?
Tom Koegel is offline  
post #65 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 08:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bobby94928's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 4,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 122
I believe that Comcast has CW in HD in other areas. It may well be CBS......

Bobby 

bobby94928 is offline  
post #66 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sfhub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,527
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Koegel View Post

Well, they aren't entirely consistent in this, as they don't carry the local CW outlet, KBHK, right? I always assumed that was related to some corporate power struggle between TimeWarner and Comcast. But regardless, if they interpreted "must carry" to apply to the KBHK digital signal, we'd have that among the locals, right?

The stations also have a choice of whether they want must-carry or to be paid for the channel.

It is my understanding one of the main goals of must-carry is to make sure OTA can have equal access to customers so they don't go the way of the dinosaur. I don't believe it was written to impose a business model on the stations, so they can choose not to do must-carry, if they felt it was in their best interest. The FCC was interested in preserving the free OTA. If must-carry is a necessity to keep stations alive so they can continue to offer free OTA, then FCC is giving them that option.

I don't know if CW is a case of bandwidth or station negotiation or something else.

Since all the locals are already must-carry, I believe the interpretation Comcast has been effectively using for the digital so far has been *when/if* we carry the signal at all, treat it as must-carry/basic-tier. Since we already carry the analog local we satisfy the base minimum of must-carry.

Even after the discussion of in what way must-carry applies to digital, there is also some contention over whether must-carry should apply to every stream or just the main channel (ie the multitude of weather channels, 4 KQED SD, etc.) Comcast has been again taking the interpretation of must-carry and basic tier for all the sub-channels as well.

In this area, I feel Comcast is doing the appropriate thing, so I applaud them for that.
sfhub is offline  
post #67 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 11:38 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 28,334
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 365 Post(s)
Liked: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Koegel View Post

Hard to rationalize it on bandwidth alone, and I had assumed that their might be bad blood nationally (not just locally) between Comcast and TimeWarner. Why else would they not carry a high-def feed of narrow, but popular (Smallville, etc.) programming as opposed to that ridiculous KRON loop that they ran for years? Or the current high-def simulcast of low-def KRON crap?

It could be that CBS is asking cash for the channel and/or planning on rolling it into their upcoming retrans agreement negotiations, where they have stated, they're going to get cash for their signals. I think CBS/Comcast comes up in another year, or thereabouts.

Time-Warner doesn't have anything to do with it.
Keenan is offline  
post #68 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 12:59 PM
Member
 
MANNAXMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tskrainar View Post

... 'cause the apocalypse must be near: FSN-HD is up in Sunnyvale!!! I never thought I'd see the day

I just got back from a three week vacation a few days ago and have been trying to get caught up on the old thread and this new thread. Just this morning, I was flipping through channels and noticed that Sunnyvale now has FSN-HD. Then I see this post on the new thread. When I heard that Sunnyvale would be upgraded within the next 18 months, I thought the worst and didn't think we'd get upgraded until somewhere toward the end of that 18 month period. But I'm glad to see something so soon! Hopefully more good news isn't too far behind.

By the way, we have one other channel that's been added to the Sunnyvale line up that I also noticed this morning. I don't think anyone has mentioned it on this thread yet. For you Spanish speaking futbol (soccer) fans [I'm not one of them], you can now watch channel 618, GOLTV. It looks as though you have to subscribe to a specific tier to get it, as I got a "Not Authorize" message when I tuned to it.
MANNAXMAN is offline  
post #69 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 01:26 PM
Member
 
Rerics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by fender4645 View Post

FSN-HD pretty much only broadcasts during live events (i.e. Sharks, Warriors, A's, and Giants). During off-times they just show the logo.

OK, thanks, that makes sense. I figured the programming would be more limited than the SD version of FSN. The only reason I thought something might be amiss was that I had heard the channel would be available after the 25th, but I was seeing the logo a few days before and after that time. Also, 720 is still not shown on the channel lineup at Comcast's website for Sunnyvale.
Rerics is offline  
post #70 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davisdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerics View Post

OK, thanks, that makes sense. I figured the programming would be more limited than the SD version of FSN. The only reason I thought something might be amiss was that I had heard the channel would be available after the 25th, but I was seeing the logo a few days before and after that time. Also, 720 is still not shown on the channel lineup at Comcast's website for Sunnyvale.

Tonights Warriors game is scheduled to be on FSN-HD...next is the Sharks on Tuesday (I think)
davisdog is offline  
post #71 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 01:32 PM
Senior Member
 
raghu1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 398
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Can someone confirm if they have ADS in Sunnyvale slums? My friend wanted to get a DCT-700 box but Sunnyvale Comcast office told them it does not work for his home (based on his phone number).

Thanks.
raghu1111 is offline  
post #72 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 01:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
davisdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Saratoga, CA
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by raghu1111 View Post

Can someone confirm if they have ADS in Sunnyvale slums? My friend wanted to get a DCT-700 box but Sunnyvale Comcast office told them it does not work for his home (based on his phone number).

Thanks.

The 550Mhz Slums do NOT have ADS
davisdog is offline  
post #73 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 01:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
btwyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by MANNAXMAN View Post

you can now watch channel 618, GOLTV. It looks as though you have to subscribe to a specific tier to get it,

You need the Sports Tier to get it here.
btwyx is offline  
post #74 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
russwong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: California
Posts: 1,902
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by sfhub View Post

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20...7cfr76.630.htm

Is this explicit enough?

Thanks! Looks pretty clear to me... so I guess the question to be answered is whether or not "must carry" includes digital or just analog, right?

So what's this about CBS wanting to charge more?

I guess the bottom line for me is: I want the main broadcast channels (HD) to remain unencrypted and in the basic tier. I don't mind paying $5 for the HD box rental, plus I'm grandfathered, so I get some of the other channels. Too bad those require the cable box.

So if anyone has any insight on whether or not that's going to change, either not included in the basic tier (Which is what the must carry covers) or becoming encrypted, which is whether or not digital falls under the must carry.... that would be great....

Did I state that all correctly? I'm getting senile in my old age...

Russ
russwong is offline  
post #75 of 15306 Old 01-27-2007, 08:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MikeSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

It could be that CBS is asking cash for the channel and/or planning on rolling it into their upcoming retrans agreement negotiations, where they have stated, they're going to get cash for their signals. I think CBS/Comcast comes up in another year, or thereabouts.

Time-Warner doesn't have anything to do with it.

I suspect this is the case. There is a huge pissing contest going on between Sinclair broadcasting and Mediacom in the midwest over the broadcaster demanding payment for local TV. Mediacom basically told them to fly a kite, and cable subs in in 16 markets no longer have access to 22 local broadcast stations.

Not only that, but Sinclair just did a deal with DirecTV (which has a deal already for HD transmission from Sinclair) to offer subs a $100 to $150 rebate to switch from cable.

Mediacom appealed to the FCC to intervene, but the FCC suggested they go to arbitration instead. :-)

Many folks are looking to see what happens in this dispute as the bellwether for conflicts elsewhere.

Comcast in particular seems to have pissed off the chairman of the FCC so much that he denied a waiver from them to delay forcing them to deploy cablecard equipped boxes, so they can not expect much help in a retransmission consent fight with the broadcasters.

Given the degree cable rates have been going up, significantly more increases to pass along these new payments won't be tolerated well by consumers. DirecTV seems to have taken the tack of striking pioneering retransmission deals with the locals to help embolden them to cause trouble with the cable operators. Probably got a nice discount for being the first to fold too. :-)

Thanks,
mike
MikeSM is offline  
post #76 of 15306 Old 01-28-2007, 12:16 AM
Member
 
Rerics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by davisdog View Post

Tonights Warriors game is scheduled to be on FSN-HD...next is the Sharks on Tuesday (I think)

Yes, I was able to catch that game. Also, when I turned it on again later, it was back to the logo, so I guess that is what we'll see when there is no FSN HD programming.
Rerics is offline  
post #77 of 15306 Old 01-28-2007, 09:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nikeykid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerics View Post

Yes, I was able to catch that game. Also, when I turned it on again later, it was back to the logo, so I guess that is what we'll see when there is no FSN HD programming.

as it should be. is it really that important to see "best damn" in SD on that channel?

stanfurd vs. ruins is on FSN-HD tonight. as a cal bear, i don't know who to boo harder :\\
nikeykid is offline  
post #78 of 15306 Old 01-28-2007, 09:59 AM
Advanced Member
 
Derek87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
i have the exact same setup as you, and i get lots of stuff including what you desire (i'm guessing). i don't have time to type the whole list, but you should get the following HD channels via QAM:

SOP 679, 555 mhz = 702
SOP 613, 747 MHZ = 703
SOP 597, 717 MHZ = 704
SOP 690, 555 MHZ = 705
SOP 687, 753 MHZ = 707
SOP 688, 709 MHZ = 709

at least, those are what i am getting Santa Clara in the clear on my Miglia unit. hopefully this helps and your numbers are similar. if not, i urge you to rescan and carefully go through each channel during prime time and have it display "normal size" to determine the HD ones in an obvious way. beyond using my numbers, i don't think there is any easy way to set up the box except in a labor intensive fashion (it took me a few hours to wade through all the music stations and stuff and figure out which stations to assign with the EPG guide...in the end, it all worked and it's been a nice PVR for me for my minimal TV watching usage. (i was using firewire before with my 6200 box, but when they upgraded the firmwire, i could no longer "tape" 702 and 705, so i went this route and it works well...plus i now have a "TV" in my home office room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puffpuffin View Post

Hi,

I live in San Francisco where we have Comcast. I recently got an HD Tuner for my computer (Maglia TV Mini HD), but I can't seem to get many channels. I let the tuner software (EyeTV2) scan for all the cable channels for unencrypted channels (Clear QAM) and it came up with 215 channels. I flipped through all 215 channels to identify them, but none of them are local channels which I really want. I'm only getting some PBS, home shopping, and government channels along with a few I could not tell (but they weren't local channels). I tried the auto-scan several times, but ended up with the same 215 channels.

Am I missing something? I thought Comcast was broadcasting the local channels in HD through basic cable? I can't use the antenna because my reception sucks here. I could only get 2 stations (PBS stations) via ATSC.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks, Phil

Derek87 is offline  
post #79 of 15306 Old 01-28-2007, 12:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Poochie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 216
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by btwyx View Post

You can file a line up report on the web site, there's tech article pointing to that at http://tivo.com/lineup .

For UHD, TiVo didn't seem to notice until I poked them.

Thanks for the pointer! I first wanted to make sure my TiVo was receiving the channel (it does! yay! bring on the Sharks in HD) before contacting the linup gurus. I sent them a request Saturday afternoon, hopefully they'll set up the guide data soon.
Poochie is offline  
post #80 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 07:50 AM
Newbie
 
mattioli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Our house had a 'round tuit' once, sometime in the 80's I believe. It was yellow. Ring a bell?

Mattioli
Silicon Valley
mattioli is offline  
post #81 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 08:01 AM
Newbie
 
Alan X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: northern california
Posts: 6
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I believe that Comcast Central does follow this thread, so I have a question:

I live in Ukiah, Mendocino Co. Our cable system, Adelphia, was recently purchased by Comcast. The local office does not seem to know (or want to tell) anything about upgrades out here in the sticks. Anyone have any news on anything planned for this system?

We pay a lot, more than what is represented in this thread, for basic analog cable and digital stb. They offer 4 or 5 HD channels, at a premium, but no broadcast network HD. I have a tv with a qam tuner, and pickup 1 hd channel, INHD. So I am teased with the stunning prospect of HD, but nothing of real value available on our cable. I am about to go to satellite for my programming signal, but wondered if anyone has any news about this system, as cable signal does seem to be the best pq.

Thanks for anything. Also this should help those in the "550 slums" feel better, as we poor step children do not even have that...
Alan X is offline  
post #82 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 09:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Tom Koegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Relaying a question for a non-internet-ish friend who has a Motorola 6412 (as do I) and was frustrated in his desire to record the UCLA-Stanford game last night on FSNBA-HD. As is frequently the case, the program guide did not list the game on 720. He thus programmed the box to record the game in low-def on 40 and then set a manual recording for the right time slot on 720. The box made a recording of both, but the recording of 720 is basically empty. Would the box be so "smart" as to refuse to record a channel when the program guide says it is "off the air"? Is there a workaround for this problem?

I had to laugh (what's the alternative, ranting and hair pulling?) when I saw a highly favorable review of the 6412 in the current issue of The Perfect Vision. The author actually lives in the Bay Area, as is witnessed by a screen shot showing the guide with a KQED-HD program listed. The review was highly favorable, with his one major complaint being the lack of implementation of external SATA drives to expand capacity. In my long laundry list of complaints about the 6412, the lack of expandable capacity would be far far far down the list. While over the years the firmware upgrades have made the 6412 experience more tolerable (remember the "green sparklies of death" that would occur during recording playback every week or so requiring a complete power down?--last seen by me during my Oscar Party last year, so it's not that long ago), the experience still reminds me--every day--of the old adage about "whaddaya expect for nuthin?" Or for $5/mo anyways. The most notable remaining gripe is the "remote lag of death", which seems timed to occur most frequently during critical evening viewing periods. Which of course is the most sensible time for the DVR to download the program guide, which at least one poster has identified as the source of the problem. But we still have the incredibly non-intuitive menuing system, the lack of a native pass-through option (720p and 1080i), the lack of any functional ability to skip to a place in a recorded show, etc.

Yeah, I know, I should put my money where my mouth is and buy a Tivo S3. The sheer joy, for a geek like me, of plugging an S3 with terabyte drives might be worth it. But given the cable industry's hatred of the cablecard, I am too concerned about ending up with a box with functionality limited because Comcast decides to mess with data necessary to the (still quite expensive) Tivo box.

And yes, I am having a grumpy Monday . . . .
Tom Koegel is offline  
post #83 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 09:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
nikeykid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 1,614
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
tom, i've successfully recorded FSNHD sports that said "off air", not sure why your friend is having problems. i will say that setting a manual recording is hard as hell, i have to waste time pushing the forward button to get to the right time slot, but i can't push it too fast otherwise it starts going in 30 minute intervals. that is pretty infuriating.
nikeykid is offline  
post #84 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 09:41 AM
Newbie
 
Saratoga Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I have a Sharp LC-37D6U LCD in my bedroom and a Fujitsu 63" Plasma in my family room. Each room has it's own Motorola DCT 6412 III box. The difference in quality between the Fujitsu plasma and the Sharp LCD is unbelievable. The Fujitsu is outstanding and the Sharp is just so so. I'm wondering if this has something to do with how the set top boxes are set up? How do you change the output from 1080i to 720p? Would the Sharp look better if I set the box to 720p. One other difference between the two rooms is that the Sharp is hooked up directly to the Motorola box via HDMI and the Fujitsu is hooked up via HDMI to my Pioneer VSX 74 Txvi Receiver which is hooked up to the Motorola with component cables (HDMI does not work between the Motorola and the Pioneer). Any advice on how to get the Sharp to look better appreciated.

[b]Bernie
Saratoga Lefty is offline  
post #85 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 10:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Tom Koegel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga Lefty View Post

How do you change the output from 1080i to 720p? Would the Sharp look better if I set the box to 720p.

There is a really helpful WikiBook on the 6412. Here is the section that answers your question re changing the output resolution:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_to_...2FYPbPr_Output

As to making the Sharp look like the Fuji . . . that will be a tough deal. I have a very similar setup at home as you do--I have the 50 inch Fuji 40 series and the Sony Bravia LCD 32-incher. I too have a 6412 feeding a receiver by component and then the receiver feeding HDMI to the Fujitsu. (Although the latest 6412 firmware was supposed to eliminate the "HDMI repeater" copy protection error, I haven't bothered to test it out.)

You probably have a couple of things going on. The Fujitsus are known for having one of the best . . . if not THE best . . . internal scalers of any TV set. It's what you are paying for when you paid the premium over what a competitor plasma would cost. So, while the Sharp is an excellent set, you are partly just seeing what you paid for in the Fuji. This is particularly apparent on standard definition programming.

I think part of what you are seeing is likely the difference in the technologies. I know opinions differ, but I just don't think that even the best LCD matches the better plasma screen performance. And when you get out of LCD's sweet spot--higher ambient light levels and straight on viewing--the difference is not even close. Not trying to start an LCD vs. Plasma flame war here, just my opinion.

Another thing is that LCD is much much harder to calibrate properly. In addition to all the usual white and black level settings to mess with, you've got the issue of how much backlighting you want to give the LCD. I've probably spent 5 times the amount of time playing with my Sony LCD as I have with the Fujitsu.

All that having been said, I would try the 6412 at 720p for the Sharp and see if that improves the performance. This might help, particularly with 720p broadcasts (such as ABC and ESPN). This is also one area related to my gripe (a post or two above) about the lack of a native passthrough on the 6412. If you set the 6412 to output 720p, it's going to have to do the scaling on 1080i programming (CBS, NBC, HBO, etc.) One expects that the 6412 scaling is going to be weaker than whatever your Fuji or even your Sharp would be able to do itself on 1080i broadcasting.

Try to find a tips guide on the internet for calibrating the Sharp--I expect you would be able to get some help in the other board in the forum here, for example. There may be internal settings that would improve the performance, particularly for SD.

But bottom line, I don't think that Sharp will ever look as good as the Fuji. But then I bet that Fuji cost a few bucks more . . . .
Tom Koegel is offline  
post #86 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 10:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Jerry Gardner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


I had to laugh (what's the alternative, ranting and hair pulling?) when I saw a highly favorable review of the 6412 in the current issue of The Perfect Vision.

Yes, I read that too and was surprised as Comcast is not likely to be an advertiser in that magazine. Many magazines have a well-known propensity to never criticize anything from an advertiser for fear of loosing ad revenue, but this is not the case here, so either this guy has very low standards, or hasn't spend much time using a 6412.

$300 HDMI cables? P.T. Barnum would have been proud.
Jerry Gardner is offline  
post #87 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 10:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Jerry Gardner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saratoga Lefty View Post

How do you change the output from 1080i to 720p? Would the Sharp look better if I set the box to 720p.

To change the output resolution, go into menu mode. Turn the box off and then hit the menu button on the front of the box. The "HDMI/YPbPr Output" menu item is the one you want to change.

As to whether changing the output resolution from 1080i to 720p will make your Sharp look better is something you need to try and see.

$300 HDMI cables? P.T. Barnum would have been proud.
Jerry Gardner is offline  
post #88 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 10:17 AM
Senior Member
 
Jerry Gardner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Koegel View Post

You probably have a couple of things going on. The Fujitsus are known for having one of the best . . . if not THE best . . . internal scalers of any TV set. It's what you are paying for when you paid the premium over what a competitor plasma would cost. So, while the Sharp is an excellent set, you are partly just seeing what you paid for in the Fuji. This is particularly apparent on standard definition programming.

I have the same Fuji plasma as you do, and its performance on SD with a 6412 phase II was, although nothing to write home about, quite reasonable. When my 6412 gave up the ghost and Comcast replaced it with a 3416, SD performance on HDMI went to hell. It's so bad that I had to switch to component on SD. The difference between the 6412 and 3416 on SD via HDMI is quite remarkable--and not for the better.

$300 HDMI cables? P.T. Barnum would have been proud.
Jerry Gardner is offline  
post #89 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 10:26 AM
Newbie
 
Saratoga Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Koegel View Post

There is a really helpful WikiBook on the 6412. Here is the section that answers your question re changing the output resolution:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_to_...2FYPbPr_Output

As to making the Sharp look like the Fuji . . . that will be a tough deal. I have a very similar setup at home as you do--I have the 50 inch Fuji 40 series and the Sony Bravia LCD 32-incher. I too have a 6412 feeding a receiver by component and then the receiver feeding HDMI to the Fujitsu. (Although the latest 6412 firmware was supposed to eliminate the "HDMI repeater" copy protection error, I haven't bothered to test it out.)

You probably have a couple of things going on. The Fujitsus are known for having one of the best . . . if not THE best . . . internal scalers of any TV set. It's what you are paying for when you paid the premium over what a competitor plasma would cost. So, while the Sharp is an excellent set, you are partly just seeing what you paid for in the Fuji. This is particularly apparent on standard definition programming.

I think part of what you are seeing is likely the difference in the technologies. I know opinions differ, but I just don't think that even the best LCD matches the better plasma screen performance. And when you get out of LCD's sweet spot--higher ambient light levels and straight on viewing--the difference is not even close. Not trying to start an LCD vs. Plasma flame war here, just my opinion.

Another thing is that LCD is much much harder to calibrate properly. In addition to all the usual white and black level settings to mess with, you've got the issue of how much backlighting you want to give the LCD. I've probably spent 5 times the amount of time playing with my Sony LCD as I have with the Fujitsu.

All that having been said, I would try the 6412 at 720p for the Sharp and see if that improves the performance. This might help, particularly with 720p broadcasts (such as ABC and ESPN). This is also one area related to my gripe (a post or two above) about the lack of a native passthrough on the 6412. If you set the 6412 to output 720p, it's going to have to do the scaling on 1080i programming (CBS, NBC, HBO, etc.) One expects that the 6412 scaling is going to be weaker than whatever your Fuji or even your Sharp would be able to do itself on 1080i broadcasting.

Try to find a tips guide on the internet for calibrating the Sharp--I expect you would be able to get some help in the other board in the forum here, for example. There may be internal settings that would improve the performance, particularly for SD.

But bottom line, I don't think that Sharp will ever look as good as the Fuji. But then I bet that Fuji cost a few bucks more . . . .

You are right that the Fujitsu did cost much more but the Sharp wasn't cheap at $3300. I just tried monkeying around with the Sharp's settings on Sharpness and that did seem to help; for some reason it was turned all the way down to -10. I think the native resolution on the Sharp is 1080i (I know it is on the Fujitsu) because when I put an HD show on the Sharp briefly displays "1080i" in the upper right corner. I will try changing the Motorola set top box to 720p to see if that makes a difference but I'm guessing the scaler in the Sharp is better than the one in the Motorola.

[b]Bernie
Saratoga Lefty is offline  
post #90 of 15306 Old 01-29-2007, 10:28 AM
Newbie
 
Saratoga Lefty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 12
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I forgot to mention that I did try to use the HDMI output from the Motorola STB to the Pioneer after the recent firmware upgrade and it still doesn't work properly. Only audio gets through, no video. That said, my picture is outstanding on the Fujitsu with the component cables so I'm not too upset about that but it does seem ridiculous that we still can't use the HDMI output!!

[b]Bernie
Saratoga Lefty is offline  
Reply Local HDTV Info and Reception

User Tag List

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