ABC O&O's destroy HD quality with launch of Live Well HD. - Page 6

Originally Posted by CKNA

I agree with most of you said except the part for modulation. There is nothing wrong with 8VSB and it is not dated. You can easily run 2 decent quality HD channels using h.264 in 19.39Mbps.

Jury is still out on how well DVB-T2 will work in real life instead of careful testing. There is no commercial broadcasting anywhere in the world that uses DVB-T2. Besides DVB-T2 is not new modulation. It is still COFDM using QAM256 and much higher error correction.

Originally Posted by icemannyr

WABC-DT 7.1 looks much sharper tonight and the softness is gone.
It seems at least a meg of bandwidth was taken away from 7.3 the weather sub which is back to looking more like low quality web streamed video feed.
This is from tonight:

Free Image Hosting by ImageBam.com

Originally Posted by CKNA

Using h.264 you could do 2 HD channels with acceptable quality.
.........

H.264 is part of ATSC spec since summer of last year.

Originally Posted by sneals2000

The encoders for decent H264 at 8Mbs weren't quite delivering late last year - when I was last able to look at them. You still needed around 11-12Mbs for good quality H264 1080/50i stuff - which would allow 3x12Mbs H264 streams in a 36Mbs DVB-T mux. We're aiming for 4 in the UK - which would be nearer 8-9Mbs per service - but I don't know if the H264 encoders are quite there yet - but they will be I'm sure.

Originally Posted by kucharsk

99% of the public won't care, or if they do will just grumble about it, and those who do aren't a loud enough voice to matter.
...

But is someone going to stop watching Desperate Housewives or Grey's Anatomy because the PQ sucks? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by andgarden

So? Technology marches on. Think of it as video over a datacast?

Originally Posted by mikemikeb

Here in the States, DirecTV (satellite TV) uses Harmonic H.264 encoders for HD national channel distribution. IIRC, they average in the 8-9 Mbps range, and they look pretty good.

Originally Posted by sneals2000

I'm not sure that would be acceptable to the mainstream consumer would it?

Many have bought HDTVs with built-in ATSC/QAM demodulators and HD MPEG2 decoders - to deliver HDTV onto their HDTV display.

Originally Posted by Ken H

This comment shows a real lack of understanding of the issues involved.

Originally Posted by StudioTech

You have to remember the FCC only mandated stations go digital. Every station in the country could've just continued broadcasting 480i 4:3 (like many smaller stations are) and have been done with it. Let's face it. HD was a bonus of this transition. The NAB probably would've thrown a fit if they were to mandated to provide HD. In fact, some in the FCC would prefer if *all* stations multi-cast. (gasp!)

Originally Posted by andgarden


Of course, in all probability, with h.264, the broadcasters would just try for 3x720p.

Originally Posted by spwace

No, h.264 is not part of the ATSC standard and is incompatible with the existing receivers.

Originally Posted by andgarden

So? Technology marches on. Think of it as video over a datacast?

Originally Posted by CKNA

You better check your facts. H.264 is part of ATSC spec since summer of last year.

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a72.php Current receivers are not compatible but, they could split bandwith and h.264 would just show as blank screen on old receivers.

Originally Posted by spwace

Now that you mention it I do recall that change, but broadcasters are not going to send their main channel in a format that most people can't receive. The percentage of h.264 capable receivers would have to be near 100% before that would happen.

Originally Posted by hphase

h.264 is part of ATSC standard A/72, which is NOT what the FCC adopted. A/72 is there for other countries who want to start broadcasting digitally using the ATSC system. As has been mentioned, it would not be backward compatible with current receivers, but I guess someone could distribute STBs that do support h.264 along with the service (a la USDTV.)

h.264 will be part of the mobile/handheld (M/H) portion of the new ATSC standard, which will be added to the US DTV standard.

Originally Posted by mikemikeb

OK; I'll admit that this looks pretty good. Do you know what the average bitrate of 7-1 was last night (or could you check during tonight's Kimmel)?

It would help, at least in the short term, if WABC's settings are sent to the engineering departments of other ABC O&O's. But this probably won't help with fast motion, like basketball or racing. We'll probably see a terrible-looking screencap when the next NASCAR race or NBA game comes on.

If I had to guess, if/when H.264 becomes prominent, most networks will switch their primary channels to 1080p, which encodes properly in the 15-18 Mbps range via H.264. So I doubt that H.264 will help like you hope.

Here in the States, DirecTV (satellite TV) uses Harmonic H.264 encoders for HD national channel distribution. IIRC, they average in the 8-9 Mbps range, and they look pretty good.
____________________________________________________

I'll add this:

You never know.

I found something online about HD Radio and how NPR Labs, Kenwood (a radio manufacturer), and iBiquity (the developer of the HD Radio codec) came together to test HD Radio's audio codec. With HD Radio, a station gets 96 kbps to air whatever it wants, including the potential for multiple stations (kind of like how DTV stations get 19.39 Mbps of room to air whatever they want).

Anyway, the radio companies wanted to determine how low a station could take its bitrate and still get good results in audio quality, with the hope to add multiple audio streams on that 96 kbps area. Towards the end of the report (pdf), it shows the results from two different panels to this question: Would you listen to a station at the given bitrate for a long period of time? We'll focus on the second panel, because it consisted of members of the general public. They found that there's no risk in reducing the bitrate to 64 kbps. At 48 kbps, 5% of the respondents said that they'd turn the station off compared to 96 kbps.

Why have I mentioned all of this? Let's say that ABC has determined that the bitrate settings of ABC proper, under the current 2 HD + 1 SD arrangement, are the equivalent of taking the ABC HD feed back to the audio equivalent of 48 kbps. As a result, ABC loses 5% of viewership. 5% loss in viewers might not seem like much to most, but that's not chump change in such high-profile markets, at such high viewership levels. It's doubtful at best that they'll make that money back with advertising revenue from Live Well. Also, it's highly unlikely that the Live Well channel will make any less money as an anamorphic SD widescreen (over-the-air) station, compared to an HD station.

But, you might say, HD isn't in even half of homes, so ABC wouldn't lose 5% of viewers. Not quite: Note my experience with FiOS. That's SD cable, and cable remains the dominant player (and for all I know, D* and E* also create SD feeds from HD ones). If Ken H is correct, and SD will be created via the HD feeds, poor HD quality translates to poor SD quality on cable systems everywhere. So if I'm at Disney, I don't want to mess too much with ABC's picture, whether in HD or SD: ABC's where the money is. Not Live Well, or whatever other channel that Disney could concoct.

Originally Posted by andgarden

Most people who watch HD do so over cable in the US.

Originally Posted by sneals2000

[J]ust because most people receive HDTV via cable, doesn't stop some people watching it OTA.

They have invested in reception equipment (i.e. ATSC 8VSB HDTVs) in good faith that a standard chosen by the government/legislative process (i.e. 8VSB ATSC with MPEG2 being selected as the US OTA standard) will be compatible with it.

Without providing a phased upgrade path that is acceptable to both broadcasters and consumers - there isn't much more that can be done as I see it.

Originally Posted by CKNA

A/72 is part of DTV standard and broacasters can use it if they want, but nobody does for now as there are no receivers. When it was approved ATSC comitte was actually saying to FCC to assign new channels in some markets so stations could start switch to h.264 after analog shut off.

Yes A/72 was added to also give new ATSC markets option of using AVC but not the only reason.

Originally Posted by sneals2000

Yep - but just because most people receive HDTV via cable, doesn't stop some people watching it OTA.

They have invested in reception equipment (i.e. ATSC 8VSB HDTVs) in good faith that a standard chosen by the government/legislative process (i.e. 8VSB ATSC with MPEG2 being selected as the US OTA standard) will be compatible with it.

Originally Posted by Thomas Desmond

By "most people", what he probably means is that *he* watches HDTV via cable, and therefore doesn't care if those of us watching OTA HDTV get screwed over.

In any event, I'd take exception to his statement -- a bit over half of US households are connected to cable, with the remainder split between satellite and OTA. Some of those satellite viewers use OTA for their locals, since OTA generally looks better than what passes for HD on the DirecTV/DISH locals.

Also, cable, satellite, and OTA viewing rates do vary dramatically from market to market. Here in Dallas/Fort Worth, fewer than half of the households subscribe to cable (in fact, cable is down to 45% here) -- and it would be interesting to see what percentage of satellite households are relying on OTA HD reception. While OTA probably doesn't make up the majority of HD viewing to our local stations, I suspect that the percentage is more than high enough that broadcasters would be very wary indeed of blowing us off.

Originally Posted by hphase

The FCC adopted A/52 (audio) and A/53 (video.) The FCC did not adopt A/72, so I do not believe it can be used in the US.

Originally Posted by hphase

The FCC adopted A/52 (audio) and A/53 (video.) The FCC did not adopt A/72, so I do not believe it can be used in the US.

Originally Posted by scowl

What were USDTV stations broadcasting before the company went under?

Originally Posted by scowl

What were USDTV stations broadcasting before the company went under?

Originally Posted by Ken H

Standard ATSC.

Originally Posted by CKNA

Mpeg 2. This was before Mpeg4 h.264 was even finished as codec.

Originally Posted by scowl

This article said they were broadcasting in MPEG-4. Is this an error?

Originally Posted by andgarden

An update: WABC appears to have capped the Accuweather subchannel at about 1 MB/s and LiveWell at about 6 MB/s. 7-1 now looks MUCH improved.

Viewers of other O&Os should ask their stations to follow WABC's setup.

Originally Posted by scowl

When I say "USDTV", I'm talking about the US Digital Television subscription service that some stations sold subchannel bandwidth to. They went under a year or two ago. Some people have already forgotten it existed.