or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Portland, ME - HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Portland, ME - HDTV - Page 62

post #1831 of 4996
Hi Craig, I noticed that 13-2 is still active. Any chance of getting it temporarily removed for the Super Bowl?
post #1832 of 4996
I'm not sure that it matters that 13-2 is "active". Without any signal does it take up any badnwidth? Can you post a reference that shows the HD signal will be better without it? For that matter, do you know of any references that show that the video quality (however measured) is degraded by one standard definition multicast channel (does the bandwidth loss matter, or is there full bandwidth for both signals)?


Thanks,

Joe
post #1833 of 4996
I'm not sure what you mean by "Without any signal", because I'm seeing an SD simulcast on 13-2.

Everything I've read says that a 1080i HD signal can easily take up the full bandwidth of an OTA frequency. That means that any bandwidth dedicated to additional subchannels will cause the need for more aggressive compression on the subchannel. The more motion that is present in the particular program at the time, the more noticeable this increase in compression will be. Football in particular has a lot of shots where there is a lot of motion (Many players moving during the play, Zoomed in shots of a running player where the background is panned quickly, shots of thousands of people moving in the crowd, etc.)


Here's a link explaining the #s, (although his example is for a 720p signal which wouldn't be as adversely affected by an SD subchannel.):
http://broadcastengineering.com/digi...ultiplexing_5/


As far as how much bandwidth that is in this case, I'm not sure because I don't have any measurements on the bitrate for 13-2. It looks slightly better than the SD version I receive through DirecTV, however, which means it's probably around 2-3 MB/s, which cuts the bandwidth for 13-1 considerably.

My real point is that one of the following has to be the case:
1. 13-1 PQ is being compromised for satisfactory PQ on 13-2
2. Both 13-1 and 13-2 PQ are being compromised for the sake of having both

Either option seems silly when there, IMO, isn't any real target audience for 13-2. I can't imagine anyone with an ATSC wouldn't prefer the HD version, even if they have to downscale it for display on their particular TV.
post #1834 of 4996
AccidenT's point seems to be borne out by this article:

Quote:


Washington, D.C. (February 2, 2007) -- A top CBS executive says the network's HDTV picture quality is diminished when a local station decides to add a subchannel to its digital feed.

Known as multicasting, many local stations today are broadcasting multiple feeds instead of just one high-def channel via their digital spectrum.

The extra feeds, which often include local weather channels, splits the digital transmission into parts, thereby possibly diluting the high-def picture quality. The local stations hope the extra channels will generate more advertising.

But Ken Aagaard, CBS Sports' senior vice president of operations and production services, tells the Syracuse Post-Standard that his network's engineers believe any digital subchannel takes away from the HD quality...

The link is http://www.tvpredictions.com/cbs020207.htm

Dana
post #1835 of 4996
Quote:
Originally Posted by AccidenT View Post

I'm not sure what you mean by "Without any signal", because I'm seeing an SD simulcast on 13-2.

At least initially when they shut off the Tube I thought I wasn't getting anything... It could be I remember wrong and was thinking of 6-3. Haven't been back to 13-2 since just after the Tube went off. I guess they "fixed" it so to speak. For that matter, I don't know if 6-3, 10-3, and 10-4 1are still "there" anymore -- I deleted them from my active channel lineups.

I know that the SD simulcast takes up some bandwidth, but I had also heard that the HD simulcast itself does not make use of the entire bandwidth available. It isn't at all clear to me how "measureable", if at all, the reduction to picture quality is. What I'd like to see is a comparison of resolution for the same image in HD by itself and with an SD subchannel. I haven't seen anything other than rough "it is X Mbps for the HD feed" and "it is Y Mbps for the SD feed". How does this translate to picture quality? Is a side by side comparision available anywhere? Would you be able to tell the difference in still images? Or is it just in active video?

Joe
post #1836 of 4996
post #1837 of 4996
I find it very difficult to imagine how an HD picture cannot be negatively affected by multicasting. The latter was a bone tossed to broadcasters to cause them to be cooperative in bearing the cost of the transition to digital broadcasting.

Naturally, the local broadcast station would swear to the high heavens that HD picture quality would not be negatively in any way, shape or manner. Such a claim just can't pass the straight-face test, however.
post #1838 of 4996
Well, I haven't heard anyone "swear to the high heavens" about HD picture quality either way, Stan. Which local broadcaster are you referring to in particular?

As far as imagining the HD picture cannot be negatively affect, the aritcle Devin linked to says that the maximum bit rate used is 19 Mbps and that it usually is lower. It complains when there are three 3 Mbps SD simulcasts and the HD channel is lowered to 8-13 Mbps. It also sites the quality of Comcast's 17-18 Mbps broadcast.

The total bandwidth available is 20 Mbps, right? Lets say you have a good encoder and are able to very the bit rate well. If you have a standard def simulcast at 1-3 Mbps, and an HD simulcast at 17-19 Mbps with the maximum bit rate avaiable on demand, I see no reason to expect that the quality would be lowered compared to the HD only broadcast. I don't know if, on consumer equipment, one can tell the difference between a 19 Mbps signal and a 17 or 18 Mbps signal even side to side. All of the complaints I see are about the signal being throttled WAY back, like the 8-13 Mbps HD signal cited in the article. I have no doubt that THAT will effect picture quality.

Joe
post #1839 of 4996
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJoe View Post

Well, I haven't heard anyone "swear to the high heavens" about HD picture quality either way, Stan. Which local broadcaster are you referring to in particular?

As far as imagining the HD picture cannot be negatively affect, the aritcle Devin linked to says that the maximum bit rate used is 19 Mbps and that it usually is lower. It complains when there are three 3 Mbps SD simulcasts and the HD channel is lowered to 8-13 Mbps. It also sites the quality of Comcast's 17-18 Mbps broadcast.

The total bandwidth available is 20 Mbps, right? Lets say you have a good encoder and are able to very the bit rate well. If you have a standard def simulcast at 1-3 Mbps, and an HD simulcast at 17-19 Mbps with the maximum bit rate avaiable on demand, I see no reason to expect that the quality would be lowered compared to the HD only broadcast. I don't know if, on consumer equipment, one can tell the difference between a 19 Mbps signal and a 17 or 18 Mbps signal even side to side. All of the complaints I see are about the signal being throttled WAY back, like the 8-13 Mbps HD signal cited in the article. I have no doubt that THAT will effect picture quality.

Joe

I should have said "a" local broadcaster meaning 'any'.

There's a good thread on this subject under "Programming."

I did pick up this quote:

"We do as much as we can. But when it gets to affiliates or DirecTV, or when it gets to some of the cable guys, it's hard to say what happens," says Ken Aagaard, CBS Sports senior vice president of operations and production services.

Aagaard says engineers at CBS believe adding any subchannel to a digital TV signal takes away from the quality of the HD.

Complete Article is here."

I'm thinking the engineers might be correct.

Edit: The link didn't appear in my post, but it is in the thread on this subject under Programming.
post #1840 of 4996
Chet, have you heard anything lately about your stations going on TWC? I read something recently that said TWC did not plan to add those networks from locals unless the stations invoked the must-carry provision. I imagine TWC's point is that they don't want to pay.

Is there anything you say about what you may have heard?
post #1841 of 4996
Anyone in Cumberland County here using QAM tuner for their HDTV?

I just recently seem to have lost FOX HD and ABC HD.
What's going on?


NBC just got moved around too.

AND JUST IN TIME FOR THE SUPERBOWL, CBS HD just showed up on 93.1.

So now I have CBS HD, but lost ABC and FOX.

EDIT
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevermind. Found 'em all. Just quite a bit different than before. Wish my TV had a better way to search for stations.


79.13 Classic Rock Music Choice
82.1 MPBN
82.2 MPBN 2
82.3 PBS
82.4 Create
82.5 MPBN HD
82.6 NBC HD
93.1 CBS HD
110.1 ABC HD
110.2 FOX HD
114.1 Starz HD
114.2 Cinemax HD
post #1842 of 4996
First real comparison I've been able to do between WGME OTA and WGME TWC (Superbowl...obviously!) and I'm surprised to say that I'm seeing a much richer picture via OTA. There's some pretty bad pixilations and poor production so far over all on both, but the OTA side has a better looking picture. More texture in the grass. The colors are richer.
Anyone else able to compare?
post #1843 of 4996
Only OTA here but ABI and GME are equal except for sound, ABI is louder. Pixelation on both during camera transitions and the group tackles.

And both have sub channels. (Added)
post #1844 of 4996
Station identification went by without switching to SD! Whohoo!

And I shouldn't have said poor production..just bad pixalations on the logos spinning between plays. And they seem to be going away. Still a better picture OTA though. The TWC just seems a little washed out.
post #1845 of 4996
ABI Station ID in SD, along with Irving, local,ford commercials.
post #1846 of 4996
I actually cannot see a difference between OTA and my DirecTV HD Mpeg4 local. I'm really surprised.
post #1847 of 4996
Then you're getting your money's worth.
post #1848 of 4996
I didn't see any pixellation on WGME OTA in Greene. Signal strength was good. I had a couple of friends over to watch and they were blown away by the resolution -- hadn't seen HD video before. Went on and on about the grass clods flying.


Joe
post #1849 of 4996
For those Comcast subscribers out there I just received a pre-recorded message saying that the interactive menu will soon be changing. I hope this means On Demand and of course the new HD channels (NESN, ect) that we have been waiting for
post #1850 of 4996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcalkin View Post

For those Comcast subscribers out there I just received a pre-recorded message saying that the interactive menu will soon be changing. I hope this means On Demand and of course the new HD channels (NESN, ect) that we have been waiting for

You optimist, you!

Dana
post #1851 of 4996
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbonbi View Post

You optimist, you!

Dana

That maybe true But I do remember getting a similar message a few years ago when On Demand was first introduced in Philly. We can only hope, but if I'm right it would mean that they have finally upgraded the infrastructure and should be ready to introduce new services. By the way, I emailed the VP as you did, still haven't got a response yet.
post #1852 of 4996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webini View Post

I actually cannot see a difference between OTA and my DirecTV HD Mpeg4 local. I'm really surprised.

I've read some good things on the Forum about the recent Mpeg4 improvement for home satellite. If this is the case, it will create stronger competition with cable once the channel capacity is increased this summer.
post #1853 of 4996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan54 View Post

Chet, have you heard anything lately about your stations going on TWC? I read something recently that said TWC did not plan to add those networks from locals unless the stations invoked the must-carry provision. I imagine TWC's point is that they don't want to pay.

Is there anything you say about what you may have heard?

WPXT, CW Portland is still in negotiations with Time Warner. Currently, the latest draft is being evaluated at Time Warner. This has gone back and forth between their lawyers and ours. I don't know the details, but you know how lawyers can be.

As far as WPME, MYPortland, there has been no discussion. If viewers want to see the HD of MyNetworkTV, they need to write or call Time Warner.
post #1854 of 4996
Hello all,

Mary McLaughlin, V-P for Comcast NE responded to my inquiry about Comcast Brunswick, ME. getting FOX23 via closed circuit and NESN HD saying:

Quote:


FOX23 continues to be work in progress, as is NESN HD. My goal is to launch NESN HD as soon as possible.



Dana
post #1855 of 4996
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbonbi View Post

Hello all,

Mary McLaughlin, V-P for Comcast NE responded to my inquiry about Comcast Brunswick, ME. getting FOX23 via closed circuit and NESN HD saying:




Dana

Glad to see that she responded, I haven't got one yet. It sounds like maybe we might get NESN HD before the Red Sox season starts. I received a letter and instruction card from Comcast today detailing the new DVR software they are introducing. From the pictures on the card it looks like the same software they were running in Philly which is good because it is much better than the Passport software they are running now. The bad news is that it will be installed overnight on Feb 20/21 and all current setting and recordings will be lost. Figures I will be out of town from the 10 to the 25th which means I will be losing all that programing Guess I will be downloading a lot of torrents In the notice it does not say anything about on demand but does say that the new software will allow them to introduce new services in the future. At least this is progress!
post #1856 of 4996
That is good news for the local Comcast customers.

I was seriously considering Comcast but ultimately decided to update my DirecTv install to the new Mpeg4 DVR. The cost increase notice from Comcast last week was the final straw. It would be way more expensive for me to move to Comcast.

So far so good with the H20 DVR. Now DirecTV just needs to rollout the 100+ HD channels promised for Mpeg4 this year. If they give me NESN and FSNE I'll be happy. Already have Fox in HD.
post #1857 of 4996
Webini, is Fox HD one of the Mpeg4 locals? I thought I remembered reading that it wasn't being carried for Portland customers yet, and I've heard that they remove any DNS HD feeds (i.e. Fox HD 88) if you had the HR20 and Mpeg4 locals, regardless of whether or not that particular network is available. I've been considering adding an HR20 to my account but don't want to lose access to ch. 88 if ch. 23 isn't available yet.
post #1858 of 4996
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Fox HD is not Mpeg4. I have a waiver from Fox25 and get the DNS HD Fox feed on 88. I've had the waiver for about 4 years.

So I do have both the HR20 and channel 88.
post #1859 of 4996
Grr.

The QAM channels have changed again.
What's going on?


Now I have to find em all again. Should be fun.
post #1860 of 4996
CableCARD update.

I reported that last Fall I lost the station identifiers when tuning into a station (i.e., WCSH, NESN, etc). I had read where a gentleman in Bangor reported a similar problem. So since then I only had the channel number to work with. Today I noticed that I am now receiving the station identifiers again.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Portland, ME - HDTV