or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › ABC O&O's destroy HD quality with launch of Live Well HD.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ABC O&O's destroy HD quality with launch of Live Well HD. - Page 8

post #211 of 355
Time to broadcast it at 352x480i and tell everyone the H stands for Half.
post #212 of 355
They could say that "HD" stands for "healthy day" if that would make them feel that they were saving face.
post #213 of 355
Thread Starter 
In Raleigh, Live Well is back to 720p, however the main ABC channel looks quite good and Live Well is better as well, not good, but better. The main channel might be a tad softer than previously, but not at all objectionable, and the motion artifacts are pretty much as good as one would expect. All in all, I'm a happy camper.
post #214 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

It's actually more watchable (content aside) at 480 without the picture collapsing into blocks at every small movement. The big problem is the branding, which has "HD" in it.

Yeah, I mean, so many people are talking about LiveWellHD, to change it to LiveWell, at this point, would be ruin the branding.
post #215 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by dattier View Post

Broadcasting Livewell in HD to the detriment of the PQ of ABC network programming was a brainless, out-of-touch, uninformed, half-witted, ivory-tower marketing decision made in a vacuum.

Tell us how you really feel.
post #216 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by QZ1 View Post

Tell us how you really feel.

Your retort would have worked better without the emoticons.

But I got my position across, didn't I?
post #217 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

In Raleigh, Live Well is back to 720p, however the main ABC channel looks quite good and Live Well is better as well, not good, but better. The main channel might be a tad softer than previously, but not at all objectionable, and the motion artifacts are pretty much as good as one would expect. All in all, I'm a happy camper.

I sent an email earlier this week to the GM and CE at WTVD Raleigh Durham and they said that they knew there was an issue and were working on the setup to try to improve it. I did notice that Lost looked better last night than last week. I wish they would just do away with it alltogether, but if they work on it, maybe they will get things dialed in more. As long as they do this, I would not say I am a happy camper though, just less unhappy.
post #218 of 355
WABC-DT has given more bandwidth back to 7.1.

On May 2nd, a two hour recording of WABC-DT 7.1 was 8.51 GB.
A one hour recording of WABC-DT 7.1 was 4.14 GB.

Today, a two hour recording of WABC-DT 7.1 is 10.1 GB.
A one hour recording of WABC-DT 7.1 is 5.9 GB.
post #219 of 355
Good to hear icemannyr.
post #220 of 355
Yup. 7.1 is now peaking at 12 MB/s. 7.2 seems to be capped at 4.5 or 5 MB/s, and 7.3 at just over 1 MB/s.
post #221 of 355
Excellent!

(it would have been better if they got rid of both subchannels, wishful thinking I know :P)
post #222 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by andgarden View Post

Yup. [WABC's] 7.1 is now peaking at 12 MB/s. 7.2 seems to be capped at 4.5 or 5 MB/s, and 7.3 at just over 1 MB/s.

Anyone know what the bit rates are now for WLS's 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3?
post #223 of 355
Now Cablevision's distribution of WABC and its subs may differ from OTA, but all 3 WABC stations are on the same QAM.

Here are the average video bitrates I logged on May 1 compared to tonight.

Code:
                                 May 1        May 9
(7.1) 707 WABC-DT             10.09 Mb/s   12.23 Mb/s
(7.2) 729 LiveWell HD          5.61 Mb/s    4.55 Mb/s
(7.3) 108 Eyewitness News Now  1.23 Mb/s    1.08 Mb/s
post #224 of 355
One thing to keep in mind is that you can't compare bitrates on different content. The NetVXs in use at ABC O&Os have always been aggressive in their use of variable bitrate, so a 10Mb/s or lower average bitrate on SD or barely HD content (say Desperate Housewives) was common even before LiveWorse made its appearance. Hell, I noted recordings of Desperate Housewives that barely broke 6Mb/s on WABC even before 7.2 went HD.
post #225 of 355
My recording sizes for both days came from the local news cast for the 2 hours and GMA weekend for the one hour.
post #226 of 355
If LiveWellHD is being capped at less than 5Mbs, and is 720/60p MPEG2 - doesn't it look pretty awful?

How much 16:9 content is there on the channel at the moment - and how much is HD?

As others have stated - running 16:9 480/60i (sourced from 720/60p or 480/60i) or 16:9 480/60p would surely be a better use of bitrate. If you've only got 4-5Mbs then you could get a half-decent SD signal out in MPEG2 at that bitrate - which might look better than a heavily compressed 720/60p one?
post #227 of 355
LiveWell looks terrible at 5 MB/s. The good news is that it mostly runs windowboxed infomercials. Most of the rest of the programmin is "HD," but none of it is really worth watching.
post #228 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post

How much 16:9 content is there on the channel at the moment - and how much is HD?

The actual Livewell programming is six half-hour shows that run in a three-hour block, five times per day (how often a given episode is repeated, I don't know).  They're 16:9, but whether they're natively HD or they're upconversions is beyond the kenning of my eyesight or my hardware.

The other nine hours of programming per day is up to the local station.

Certainly there is nothing in them where it's an advantage to air them in 720p over widescreen 480i (other than the illusory marketing edge of the names "Livewell HD" and "livewellhd.com" over just "Livewell" and whatever the domain would have been if the station were not in HD).  To do so at the expense of the main channel is even worse.
post #229 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by andgarden View Post

LiveWell looks terrible at 5 MB/s.

That's what most of us on here were hoping for.
post #230 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by dattier View Post

They're 16:9, but whether they're natively HD or they're upconversions is beyond the kenning of my eyesight or my hardware.

On my 50" 768p display, most of what I've seen definitely looks like it's shot in HD.

And yes - at 5MB's, it is virtually unwatchable. It really is the most insane thing I've ever seen since the advent of digital television.

The subchannel that it formerly was here in Chicago was 4:3 480i, and as long as there wasn't anything fast-moving (which there usually wasn't) it looked alright. The programming was also occasionally worth watching - that is, if you hadn't have already seen it on the main channel.
post #231 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by andgarden View Post

LiveWell looks terrible at 5 MB/s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rammitinski View Post

And yes - at 5MB's, it is virtually unwatchable.

Most of us would find it unwatchable if it had its own RF frequency and got all 19 Mb/s.
post #232 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpr281 View Post

Now Cablevision's distribution of WABC and its subs may differ from OTA, but all 3 WABC stations are on the same QAM.

Here are the average video bitrates I logged on May 1 compared to tonight.

Code:
                                 May 1        May 9
(7.1) 707 WABC-DT             10.09 Mb/s   12.23 Mb/s
(7.2) 729 LiveWell HD          5.61 Mb/s    4.55 Mb/s
(7.3) 108 Eyewitness News Now  1.23 Mb/s    1.08 Mb/s

Bear in mind that 1 QAM is 38 Mbps. So, technically, you could put 2 transport streams broadcasting 19 Mpbs each (which includes all of both station's sub channels) in 1 QAM.
post #233 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyoteaz View Post

One thing to keep in mind is that you can't compare bitrates on different content. The NetVXs in use at ABC O&Os have always been aggressive in their use of variable bitrate, so a 10Mb/s or lower average bitrate on SD or barely HD content (say Desperate Housewives) was common even before LiveWorse made its appearance. Hell, I noted recordings of Desperate Housewives that barely broke 6Mb/s on WABC even before 7.2 went HD.

So you're saying that a 6 Mbps bit rate does not cause any loss in this content and a higher bit rate will make the content look exactly the same?
post #234 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

So you're saying that a 6 Mbps bit rate does not cause any loss in this content and a higher bit rate will make the content look exactly the same?

I'm saying that some of the HD content on ABC is mushy crap to begin with and a direct numeric comparison is only valid when comparing apples to apples. Those same shows that barely hit 6 on ABC O&Os also barely broke 10Mb/s on affiliates with no subchannels using VBR encoders. Comparing shows that don't max out the capabilities means that the differences in what is shown from week to week can have a significant effect on the final bitrate. A basketball game, on the other hand, is going to be maxing out the available bitrate most of the time because of the high level of detail in most shots and the high level of motion.
post #235 of 355
I cannot believe how terrible ABC looks now (KGO in SF Bay Area for me)...everything looks so soft it is ridiculous...if it wasn't for Lost I would boycott the channel completely...
post #236 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdawg17 View Post

I cannot believe how terrible ABC looks now (KGO in SF Bay Area for me)...everything looks so soft it is ridiculous...if it wasn't for Lost I would boycott the channel completely...

So, don't watch the station. Send them an e-mail explaining why you will no longer watch that station.

Then purchase the Lost Blu-ray discs in glorious 1080p.
post #237 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post

So, don't watch the station. Send them an e-mail explaining why you will no longer watch that station.

Of course KGO would then say "One viewer gone, millions left" and pull out the inevitable letters they got thanking them for adding Live Well.
post #238 of 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by kucharsk View Post

Of course KGO would then say "One viewer gone, millions left" and pull out the inevitable letters they got thanking them for adding Live Well.

That's the problem...my wife is one example of the "average" viewer...she had no idea the station went down the crapper PQ-wise until I pointed it out...then she said something like "oh yeah - it does look worse" - and then continued on with her show happily...
post #239 of 355
Not to mention everyone getting new HDTVs due to the digital switch will just assume that's the way HD always looked.
post #240 of 355
Live Well HD seems like a waste of bandwidth to me.

They can use the money to make another great show or something.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › ABC O&O's destroy HD quality with launch of Live Well HD.