or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Comcast HD Quality Reduction: Details, Screenshots
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Comcast HD Quality Reduction: Details, Screenshots - Page 12  

post #331 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizio View Post

I currently pay Comcast close to $200 a month for the Triple Play option with the movie channels. As soon as AT&T gets the rights for television in Tennessee, I'm switching, that is if Comcast doesn't get the message on both quality of service as well as price. Then I will urge my family and friends to do the same. I have been a long time customer who feels like I am getting the shaft. Hope you are reading this, Comcast!

Also call your Comcast office and tell them this! They need to realize that they will loose a substantial number of high paying customers if they do not put a plan in place to have comparable picture quality as FiOS. Your low end customers might stay with Comcast because they won't know the difference, but your high end customers which Comcast makes the most profit from will desert Comcast! If they don't make the investment now they will loose more money from customers switching to FiOS!
post #332 of 2079
I'm not sure if this is the right area to post my observation but let me just say that in view of all the chat about Comcast allegedly (gotta throw that in) giving us less than HD and assuming its true.........(getting "less" for more dollarwise) would having a 720P TV show less PQ degradation...........OR...would a 1080 set be more likely to show a lower quality picture?

I suspect that a 720P set would show a "better" (less affected) PQ loss. My "logic" (and I may well be wrong) is that the 1080 takes more "bits" of information to fill the screen than a 720P. In other words, it seems that if a company like Comcast is "cutting back" then there would be more info taken away from a 1080 picture than the 720? If someone could help clear this up in plain English without "technobabble", I/we would sure appreciate it!
post #333 of 2079
Thread Starter 
Here's a screenshot comparison showing Kidnapped on UHD. This is not an intensive program, and the scene has relatively slow movement.

UHD on FiOS


UHD on Comcast


As always, click each for the full-resolution PNG.

From watching UHD on both providers, it is clear that the original feed is already overcompressed. Applying further compression on top of that -- as Comcast has done -- makes for horrific results on more intensive programs like Action Sports. Expect to see shots of that shortly.
post #334 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmil View Post

I suspect that a 720P set would show a "better" (less affected) PQ loss. My "logic" (and I may well be wrong) is that the 1080 takes more "bits" of information to fill the screen than a 720P. In other words, it seems that if a company like Comcast is "cutting back" then there would be more info taken away from a 1080 picture than the 720? If someone could help clear this up in plain English without "technobabble", I/we would sure appreciate it!

I agree, 720P at lower bitrates, still holds better PQ then 1080I.....
post #335 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfdtv View Post

Here's a screenshot comparison showing Kidnapped on UHD. This is not an intensive program, and the scene has relatively little movement.

As always, click each for the full-resolution PNG.

From watching UHD on both providers, it is clear that the original feed is already overcompressed. Applying further compression on top of that -- as Comcast has done -- makes for horrific results on more intensive programs like Action Sports. Expect to see shots of that shortly.

Wow, the difference is really astounding, and bfdtv, thanks for posting, and here is to hoping that this thread makes big news and forces cableco's to fix the compression issues!!
post #336 of 2079
Ugh!! I just discovered this thread yesterday and it took me this long to read through it.

I'd begun to suspect that something was up with some of Comcast's HD channels and I did a Google search on "Comcast HD quality" yesterday. This thread was in the top seven results. Now I'm disgusted, but I can't say that I'm totally surprised.

It's a real bummer because I don't expect FiOS to be available here in Northern California anytime soon, and my wife isn't likely to agree to D* due to the equipment cost and the multiple receivers required. Seems Comcast has me right where they want me...

-Steve
post #337 of 2079
bfdtv you are now famous.

Article on Multichannel News: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6545648.html
post #338 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by sansri88 View Post

bfdtv you are now famous.

Article on Multichannel News: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6545648.html

Now that Comcrap has bfdtv's name and city, I wonder??????????
post #339 of 2079
I got dibs on bfdtv's computer and TV!!!
post #340 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizio View Post

I currently pay Comcast close to $200 a month for the Triple Play option with the movie channels. As soon as AT&T gets the rights for television in Tennessee, I'm switching, that is if Comcast doesn't get the message on both quality of service as well as price. Then I will urge my family and friends to do the same. I have been a long time customer who feels like I am getting the shaft. Hope you are reading this, Comcast!


we pay about $175 for cable/internet and I agree, I would switch in a heartbeat if FIOS TV was available here (gotta love Pittsburgh and the whole monopoly obsession) the cable HD quality over the last couple months has gone significantly downhill


would seriously consider satellite instead as well, except our apartment building disallows it*
post #341 of 2079
We just got done watching August Rush on HD-VOD. I have a free VOD coupon so that's what I used it on.

GREAT MOVIE!!!

But, I noticed the same macroblocking MPEG noise during fast motion scenes. This blocking looks EXACTLY like the screen shots for UHD and MHD. So it must of been a 3:1 encoding, or a 12mbps or whatever VOD file.

There was a few audio drops near the end, but overall it was pretty decent. I'd still get an HD-VOD movie over an SD-VOD movie mainly because they are the same price. Heck in this case FREE, because I have a coupon!

So check your HD-VOD and see if you notice the same compression. Perhaps it's only on certain VOD files and not others.
post #342 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by sansri88 View Post

bfdtv you are now famous.

Article on Multichannel News: http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6545648.html

Very cool, that this is getting attention!!
post #343 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Yes, thanks for that clarification. The essential point I was making, however, stands: Bit rate is no part of the definition of HD, even if we would want it to be.

There is no legal definition of HD. The govenment including the FCC passed on that one. The CEA attempted their own and on this forum we also tend to accept 720p and 1080x or above as hidef.

But, as the name implies, generally it is nice to think of High Definition TV as having a higher definition picture. And that idea rapidly and disappointingly fails when the video is broadcast with an obviously insufficient bit rate.

As consumers we like to share information about vendors peddling low quality product, legally or not. And as AV enthusiasts the products of interest on this forum are obviously audio and video related.

- Tom
post #344 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry View Post

There is no legal definition of HD. The govenment including the FCC passed on that one.

Yes, that is a point that is all too often overlooked - unfortunately!!
post #345 of 2079
wow, 38% for discovery HD

i'm glad i still have alien insect praying mantis in my DVR from last year
post #346 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulGo View Post

But if Comcast makes an infrastructure investment of about $100 per subscriber we can have both HD quality and and quantity.

Comcast investors will expect that $100 per subscriber to come from the subscribers, over a limited period of time, perhaps as little as two years. Furthermore, many subscribers are lifeline subscribers, so the rest of us will have to pick up their share. Many people feel cable is too expensive already; even assuming your $100 is accurate, it would like be too excessive for most customers.
post #347 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

In fact, the FCC is REQUIRING cable to provide analog signals to their customers for a minimum of 3 years past the cut-off.

But:
  • This only applies to qualified OTA stations that cable carries (does not mandate any approach for the typical cable channels like USA or CNN).
  • Cable can get around this by going 100% digital and providing digital boxes to the customer AT NO COST to the customer.
  • The FCC has made it clear that they may well extend this past 3 years.

That TerraPIX gateway, that I mentioned before would certainly help cable out here.

As far as I recall, the stuff you put in bold did not come from the regulation -- that there was nothing in the dual-must-carry regulation that said the digital boxes had to be provided "at no cost".
post #348 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry View Post

But, as the name implies, generally it is nice to think of High Definition TV as having a higher definition picture.

And for sure, even at lower bit rates, the HD provided by even the worst HD Lite implementation is higher definition than analog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trbarry View Post

As consumers we like to share information about vendors peddling low quality product, legally or not. And as AV enthusiasts the products of interest on this forum are obviously audio and video related.

As bfdtv did, clearly stating the actuality. He didn't say that it wasn't HD (because it is). He just said (showed, really) that it wasn't as clear as some other implementation of HD.
post #349 of 2079
Congratulations to bfdtv for this thread

There are a lot of unhappy Comcast customers in my area: they are being forced to get digital boxes because several analog channels are being moved to digital only: and they do charge extra for the boxes

the line at the Comcast counter is out the door and there is a limit of one digital box per customer : needless to say folks are very unhappy: and forget calling...you will spend a lot of time on hold and get nothing done

I turned in my cablecards ,sold my S3, and cancelled Comcast TV service (kept internet for now) :there are too few HD channels to make it worthwhile... happier with DirecTV HD

and FIOS is coming soon (already in my town but not down my street yet)
post #350 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

And for sure, even at lower bit rates, the HD provided by even the worst HD Lite implementation is higher definition than analog.

As bfdtv did, clearly stating the actuality. He didn't say that it wasn't HD (because it is). He just said (showed, really) that it wasn't as clear as some other implementation of HD.

I didn't say it's not HD either. But it does appear to be becoming very low quality HD.

But again, the name is High Definition TV, not High Resolution TV. So I would like to see well defined images, not over quantized softness, blocks, and other artifacts. Or we can start calling it HRLQ TV, for High Resolution Low Quality.

- Tom
post #351 of 2079
To BFDTV:

I'm a reporter for a national publication. I'd like to talk to you about your results. I've sent you a private message with my contact info.

To anyone else on the forum. Feel free to send me a message with additional info as well.
Best
Saul
post #352 of 2079
Sent an email to Comcast about this the other day. Got a voicemail from the "Executive office" wanting to talk to me too... Any advice on what to say when I call back?
post #353 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by snooz123 View Post

Sent an email to Comcast about this the other day. Got a voicemail from the "Executive office" wanting to talk to me too... Any advice on what to say when I call back?

Just tell them the truth about how you feel about the diminished HD quality. If you feel it will cause you to look for alternative provider that offers better HD quality then tell them. The executive might ask about the choice between more HD channels and better quality. I would prefer better quality, but I would put up with a short term reduction in quality if they could give me a date when Comcast would revert to a quality of HD similar to FiOS. The last thing Comcast wants is to loose customers.
post #354 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by snooz123 View Post

Sent an email to Comcast about this the other day. Got a voicemail from the "Executive office" wanting to talk to me too... Any advice on what to say when I call back?

Suggest tracking down the article (and posts here) a month or so back interviewing a Comcast executive. In true marketing/PR-speak, he babbled on about how Comcast, with the PQ-degrading changes outlined above, wasn't going to rely on eagle-eyed video experts but instead on average viewers in making such decisions. Have Comcast elaborate still more on this point .
post #355 of 2079
The joke here is that it does not take an eagle eye to see the difference. As a former Comcast subscriber, I can tell you that on some channels, the two aren't even close. Even Comcast Sportsnet in Philly looks better on FiOS than on Comcast. It is clearly visible on a set over 26" in size.
post #356 of 2079
nice job man
post #357 of 2079
Has anyone compared Comcast to any of the major satellites? I would be curious to know what those results would be.
post #358 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

Quote:


Originally Posted by davehancock
In fact, the FCC is REQUIRING cable to provide analog signals to their customers for a minimum of 3 years past the cut-off.

But:

* This only applies to qualified OTA stations that cable carries (does not mandate any approach for the typical cable channels like USA or CNN).
* Cable can get around this by going 100% digital and providing digital boxes to the customer AT NO COST to the customer.
* The FCC has made it clear that they may well extend this past 3 years.

As far as I recall, the stuff you put in bold did not come from the regulation -- that there was nothing in the dual-must-carry regulation that said the digital boxes had to be provided "at no cost".

Right from Para 76.56 of the rules:

Quote:


(3) The viewability and availability requirements of this section require that, after the broadcast
television transition from analog to digital service for full power television stations cable operators
must either:
(i) carry the signals of commercial and non-commercial must-carry stations in analog
format to all analog cable subscribers, or
(ii) for all-digital systems, carry those signals in digital format, provided that all
subscribers, including those with analog television sets, that are connected to a cable system
by a cable operator or for which the cable operator provides a connection have the
necessary equipment to view the broadcast content.
(4) Any costs incurred by a cable operator in downconverting or carrying alternative-format
versions of signals under ยง76.56(d)(3)(i) or (ii) shall be the responsibility of the cable operator.

post #359 of 2079
Quote:
Originally Posted by shansell View Post

To BFDTV:
I'm a reporter for a national publication. I'd like to talk to you about your results. I've sent you a private message with my contact info.
To anyone else on the forum. Feel free to send me a message with additional info as well.
Best
Saul

NYTimes. Nice. Please help us
post #360 of 2079
I happened to be chatting with Comcast today to confirm the addition of 10 HD channels to my area next month. This would appear to indicate that my area is switching to 3 channels per QAM, so I took the opportunity to ask about quality reduction (referencing this thread) and this is the response I got. I want to make it clear that this is just a customer support representative and not a spokesperson for Comcast so don't take this as an official Comcast response:

Quote:
I have not seen any complaints about this sort of thing personally. One of our key marketing points is that our HD quality is higher than that of the competition and I do not believe that they would risk that to a significant extent.

If there is a problem I am certain that sometime in the next little while we will be launching SDV. (the pilot started last year)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Comcast HD Quality Reduction: Details, Screenshots