ABC O&O's destroy HD quality with launch of Live Well HD. - Page 2

I somewhat doubt they'll do this, for two reasons:

1. Backlash from viewers on the ABC deal (and there probably will be some) will sour NBC on trying it themselves.
2. 1080i requires even more bandwidth than 720p to look good. I said earlier that a single-pass encoder requires 14.5 Mbps; that's for 720p content. 1080i requires 16.1 Mbps or so to look good. So if NBC does do the 2 HD channel deal, they'll be asking for it.


Not necessarily. There are artifacting errors in the SD feeds, but the primary issue that makes the images so bad is that the physical resolution settings are so paltry (in the 480x480i range).

When people are getting HDTV sets, they tend to upgrade from 27-36-inch sets (and more like 27), to 40-52 inches. Some are going DLP for the better colors than LCD, and getting sets in the 61-67-inch mark as a result. Either way, these larger sets mean that flaws in the picture are enhanced over what you'll see with an SD set. If there's enough poor image quality, over a long enough period of time, there is a likelihood that viewers will throw their hands up, and give up on a network's programming, since it's so difficult to watch.

Another thing to consider is that most people get their HD via cable. It's bad enough to have their providers offer three or even four(? Wow.) MPEG-2 HD channels on a single QAM channel. That would mean that the cable providers might have to re-compress the already-bitstarved HD feeds. So that further requires a pristine feed coming from the station -- anything else, and after the re-encode by the cable company, the picture would look beyond horrendous, and most viewers would probably blame the station, because they don't tend to be techno-proficient, and understand what the cable cos. are doing, and how each re-encoding reduces picture quality.

You also have to wonder if people that do go over-the-air will think they did something wrong with their setup. I read a report in The Washington Post about some new HDTV DVR that tunes in over-the-air signals. He mentioned occasional blurriness and pixelization on the NBC station. That was probably due to our local NBC affiliate's use of two SD subchannels.

Even the name of the channel is stupid. It reminds me of fishing boats.

I'd be willing to bet that this thread right here is about 80% of the public "backlash." Talking ABC out of this is going to be really hard.

andgarden,
Reminds me of the Parks & Recreation thread.

I checked this out last night. I did not notice any HD programming. I got to see a infomercial about a blues CD. Maybe I was on the wrong sub channel.

Looking at the description of this channel it seems to be basically 100% advertising (some of it disguised as programming). Pure profit for ABC, no matter how many people hate it.

There are already many stations that do this. Style, E!, Bravo, TLC, etc. So where is the opportunity where there is not a lot of content?

It's not about the content, it's about monetizing that "extra" bandwidth. Saw an article today that revenue at ABC O&O's was down 30%, this channel will add another 24 hrs a day in which to sell advertising, and with General Mills and AT&T already on board, it looks like they're well on their way to accomplishing that.

Here's part of the article for those that didn't see it:

http://www.mediapost.com/publication...art_aid=104819

Why waste all kinds of money on expensive HD technology if you're going to pass through DVD quality video? ABC could've saved a fortune by skipping HD entirely for SD widescreen, and then they could've thrown up a dozen of low-quality channels at each O&O.

Thank God I don't live in an ABC O&O market.

Don't think that Disney won't try to offer this to their affiliates at some point. I could see some station groups desperate for some extra revenue going for this.

Absolutely.

If advertizers don't want to buy on the primary channel, I doubt any significant revenue will be generated by the second channel that will have miniscule viewers.THis is a complete waste of time. Subchannels will never be a major source of revenue for broadcasters. It is about time they woke up to the obvious.

But from what I've read from various local forums, like here, each of these HD feeds seem to look like 704x480i anamorphic widescreen at best. So for the OTA audience, taking Live Well to a 16x9 anamorphic format would allow a higher HD bitrate, and better picture quality, for the bread and butter ABC feed, which will remain the primary ad revenue source over the years. I'm not saying that ABC shouldn't air the Live Well channel. It's just that it looks like it's a no-lose situation to air it over-the-air in an anamorphic DVD-like format -- who would care about the difference?

Another benefit to taking the true HD version of Live Well to cable only: It might encourage some people to get cable, just for the HD version of this subchannel. The big deal about that is that ABC could grab more cable retransmission royalty money, if they ask for it. Currently, I think they include ABC O&O stations free with ESPN carriage rights, but this could change at any time.

I think you are right it will be offered. I am just glad I really don't watch ABC other than CFB and local news.

So would cable viewers be immune to this degradation of ABC O&O channels?

I guess my question is where in the chain does the ABC feed for a cable company comes into play. If the cable company gets the feed before the station compresses it, then cable subscribers don't get affected, right? Or is it a station by station kind of issue?

ft

That hasn't quite been the experiences in the UK - where the digital OTA system is seen to have been quite succesful.

Many of the main networks have seen their audiences drop on their original legacy "analogue" networks, but they have been able to compensate this audience loss, at least in part, by growing audiences to their new digital-only channels (which are our equivalent of "sub-channels" - though as we are SD 16:9 only via OTA currently - the bitrates are different)

Most UK terrestrial broadcasters have a number of digital only channels OTA :
BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC News 24, CBeebies, CBBC and BBC Parliament, BBC News Interactive and BBC Press Red Video screens 1 & 2, ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, CITV, E4, More4, Film4, Fiver, FiveUS etc. plus a number of "+1" time delayed variants. These in addition to BBC One, BBC Two, ITV1, C4 and five - which are analogue simulcasts.

The obvious difference is that it is relatively easy to squeeze 4-8 SD 16:9 services into a single 8MHz RF slot - whereas HD will only sustain 3-4 services in the same bandwith once we launch our next gen modulation and encoding system (36Mbs DVB-T2 with H264 encoding)

No, cable viewers are not immune. With few exceptions the cable and satellite feeds are taken from the same point in the chain as the OTA feed.

I was surfing through the 5pm newscasts here in NYC and hands down WABC-HD broadcast was at the bottom in quality of the picture, you could just see the softness and faded looking image, the quality was as follows.

WCBS
WNBC
WNYW (Fox)
WABC - by far the worse of the lot to watch. I would even rank WABC below the CW11 affiliate WPIX here in NY.

Its one thing if folks don't care about quality but if you have seen better and are now viewing what ABC has done to their O&O stations in the major markets its disgraceful to HD quality. I vow to never view ABC again. I will surf right over it, this is not HD. What's worse is that they did this for a b.s. channel that isn't worth the time of day to degrade your primary stations quality in such a manner.

My only alternative is not to watch it and that is what I will indeed do.

We just have to keep our fingers crossed that CBS, NBC and Fox don't follow this path of multicasting two "HD" channels.

No. Cable and DBS providers get the same signal as an OTA viewer.

The only way this is not the case, is if the local cableco or DBS provider has a fiber feed directly to the local ABC station, and the ABC station provides the main ABC HD feed prior to it being multiplexed with the second HD subchannel. I know of no DTV stations where this is happening at this time.

Isn't NBC in NYC done via fiber? Or am I "misremembering"?

I know. But once Lost is finished a year from now, it won't matter. And you've got to figure that affiliates will need to see revenue numbers from a couple quarters before they consider picking this up.

Plus, my affiliate already has three subchannels, so it's not like they afford to add this one without dropping something else.

I think you missed the "and" part of Ken's remarks. Several areas use fiber connections, but I don't believe any provide cable or sat with the signal prior to processing by the station.

It's a disaster. I tried to watch a basketball game yesterday both on Directv and OTA in Chicago and there was blockiness/compression artifacts everywhere. I've never seen such a horrible HD picture. What's even more pathetic is the subchannel is showing the same handful of crap over and over. If all my HD channels looked like this I'd cancel my satellite sub.

It would require an additional encoder and they are expensive.

Eh, I thought I remembered there being something special about NYC's NBC affiliate that involved the cable providers having a higher bitrate feed than the OTA viewers, but I guess I could be mistaken. It's been known to happen.

Anyone in the NYC area who watches WABC please contact Bill Beam, VP of Engineering WABC-TV.

His email is in the public domain. bill.beam@abc.com