or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Boston, MA - OTA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Boston, MA - OTA - Page 17

post #481 of 10632
OAR = Original Aspect Ratio
post #482 of 10632
Anyone know when FOX is going to be at the same power level before their problems occurred? It appears they have increased power since my signal strength went from 5 last week to 15 this week.

---Andy Garabedian
post #483 of 10632
Bob, I know this is a redundant reply, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE go back to 4:3. On this afternoon's NFL game, the out-of-town scores at the top corner of the screen were wiped out because of the 14:9 stretch. This is unacceptable, not to mention the decreased resolution. As has been stated before, the black bars are not a problem if you are watching a combination of black bars, gray bars and HD. WBZ has been a shining light in digital TV in the Boston area, please keep it like that.
post #484 of 10632
Bob,

I have noticed that people respond to your survey in several ways. Some make threats like they will not watch wbz unless you do so-and-so. Others simply state what they like. Most give a reason for their preference. I wish all would give reasons.

Some people state that they can zoom a 4:3 format to what they want. You send the 4:3 format in a 16:9 frame. This must be for a technical reason that I do not understand. I an unable to zoom a 16:9 frame on my system.

Others state that they don't like the distortion of the 14:9 format. I don't understand this statement. The image is not distorted like I've seen on wmur. The height/with ratio of the image zoom remains the same. The 14:9 format only clips a little from the top and bottom of the image. I was able to see the text at the top and bottom of the screen during the games this weekend. I did a side by side comparison of your 4:3 analog and 14:9 digital broadcast and prefer the 14:9 image. To me, no significant information is lost by the minor clipping of the top and bottom.

I strongly would like wbz to continue to broadcast 4:3 images in 14:9 format. I say this because to me, the 14:9 image looks a lot better on a wide screen direct view tv then a 4:3 image or a 4:3 image zoomed up to 16:9. I feel so strongly about this that I wish my system had the ability to do variable zoom on any images size in any frame size.

Thanks for all the hdtv,
MikeD
post #485 of 10632
By my count, I have 15 in favor of retaining 4:3 in a 16:9 frame; one in favor of 14:9; one in favor of 16:9 and two who don't care.

We will switch back to 4:3, which is my personal choice.

Don't be surprised if we do this experiment again in a year or two as more TV's and more "average viewers" join the DTV market.

Bob
post #486 of 10632
MikeD,

As you may have noticed you are alone on this one. Well maybe my daughter and you are alone in this one, she likes 14:9 also.

When I first got my "wide screen" HD set two years ago I too always wanted the screen to be filled totally on all sides. Even playing DVD's that were anamorphically enhanced (2.35:1) gave me small black bars top and bottom so I would use the flexible zoom feature of WinDVD to stretch the image north and south to fill the screen.

It did not take me long however to HATE all of these aspect ratio manipulations and settle on OAR as the ONLY way to go. When I did the zoom thing with DVD's I ended up with tall people and very distorted backgrounds. 14:9 is worse yet because it not only does the stretch horizontally but to compensate for the FAT (wide) look it also does some vertical stretch as well. It's more like the dumb ZOOM feature on my Mit's RPTV......! You end up with a very distorted, weird looking image that is not as the original producer intended. Plus you loose about 15% of the image top and bottom. And lastly, if the ONLY reason to use this weird format is to avoid screen burn 14:9 will not do it as there are still small black bars left and right, on my set they are much smaller than 4:3 in a 16:9 frame but they are still there.

I'm with the others that say if WBZ keeps the 14:9 format I will not watch WBZ-DT at all until a true HD 16:9 image is broadcast. I'm fortunate to get my locals off DirecTV and the image of WBZ, although highly compressed and often shows signs of artifacts, it's available in real 4:3 and to me I would rather give up just a tad in image quality to see a image that is not stretched and distorted.

Just my opinion and I could be wrong.....!
post #487 of 10632
15 to 1, I can't argue with that.

I still don't understand what people are saying about distortion in the 14:9. Both width and height are stretched the same percentage as far as I can tell so the image is not fat or tall. You do get clipping from the top and bottom but I feel this is little lost of information. I like the 14:9 for it looks, not for anything to do with burn in. I also have a 34 inch direct view wide screen so a 4:3 looks like a 27 inch on my TV.

Maybe I will change my vote next time, maybe I won't.
post #488 of 10632
Mike, you're correct... 14:9 is normally 4:3 stretched horizontally and the way that WBZ-DT has been doing it is to maintain the aspect ratio but clip the top and bottom instead. Regardless, the original image is modified resulting in a distortion or loss of data and it's this that many of us have a problem with.

It was stated that the original intent for switching to 14:9 was to solve burn-in issues, but it doesn't fix the problem because there are still black bars on the sides.... so why do it at all.

Again, the best solution is for stations to broadcast 4:3 content as 480i and let the viewer decide what to do with it. I know there is some technical issue that does not allow WBZ-DT to do this.

Bob, is this a limitation of the encoder/transmitter that you are using? Is it something that could be changed in the future? Thanks.

/Matt
post #489 of 10632
mkingman, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't 480i inferior in pq to 480p?, thus viewers modifying the 480i signal would produce even more prounced distortions....if this is true, I would not be in favor of 480i just so some people could play with the image
post #490 of 10632
Quote:


Originally posted by Bob Hess
By my count, I have 15 in favor of retaining 4:3 in a 16:9 frame; one in favor of 14:9; one in favor of 16:9 and two who don't care.

We will switch back to 4:3, which is my personal choice.

Don't be surprised if we do this experiment again in a year or two as more TV's and more "average viewers" join the DTV market.

Bob

Bob, how about the suggestion to do gray bars? Is this technically feasible? My preference is to do gray bars and to move the CBS bug so that it falls outside the 4x3 image. Maybe the bug can walk around the gray bars very slowly to avoid burn in (I'm full of great ideas this morning
post #491 of 10632
MikeD,

One more thing to add to Matt's perfect description of image distortion. Think of an electronic picture image on your computer screen that has an original pixel size of say 800x600. If you enlarge the image you will introduce distortion and lower the overall image quality. Worse yet if you enlarge the image and choose not to keep the aspect ratio you end up with a distorted image that also is out of normal proportion as well. It's possible on a smaller direct view set such as yours that some of these issues are not as noticeable as they are on 55" and larger sets as many of us own.

Anyway, thanks Bob for going back......!

OAR rules
post #492 of 10632
Quote:


Originally posted by eags
mkingman, correct me if I'm wrong, isn't 480i inferior in pq to 480p?, thus viewers modifying the 480i signal would produce even more prounced distortions....if this is true, I would not be in favor of 480i just so some people could play with the image

When you're talking about source that was originally shot on NTSC video, which is effectively 480i, there would be little improvement over what your digital TV already shows you. Since your digital TV already displays 480i as 480p, the only difference in PQ would be the quality of the line-doubler in your TV vs. the one at the station.

The big problem with 480p is that many digital TVs incorrectly assume that all 480p is 16:9 and therefore lock into full mode which prevents the viewer from controlling the aspect ratio... so you end up with 4:3 stretched to 16:9 which is unwatchable.

/Matt
post #493 of 10632
thanks matt, now your idea makes sense to me
post #494 of 10632
Bob, You are doing the right thing by going back to 4:3. The problem with 14:9 isn't distortion, it's loss of part of the picture and decreased resolution. And we all spent big-time $$$'s on our sets to have that superior resolution. Hopefully, in a couple of years when more folks have HDTVs, you won't have to make a decision like this because most of the programming will be in 16:9 HD. For you folks that want to control the aspect ratio of your picture, tune in to WHDH. They broadcast only in 480i.
post #495 of 10632
While demonstrating a widescreen TV today at work I turned to 4.1 to show the customer your signal and was very pleased to see you back at 4:3 aspect. I had the same problem as a previous poster with the out of town scores on the game yesterday. I had to keep switching to analog 4 to see how "our Doug" was doing in San Diego.

More importantly though, I thought that there was a definite degradation of the signal.

I thank you for being so responsive. I wonder if CBS realizes that they have picked up many viewers such as myself who rarely watched CBS before they went HD with so many of their programs. Since I went HD last January I have watched many shows on CBS that I never watched before and have become a regular viewer of many. The Guardian is a perfect example. By the description of the program it did not appear to be of interest to me. Since it was in HD however, I checked it out and it is now on my list of shows to watch each week.

This is a very long winded way of saying THANK YOU for being our advocate.
Jay
post #496 of 10632
Thanks everyone for their feedback on my 14:9 vote. I understood that people didn't like the clipping of the top/bottom. It took me A LONG TIME to understand that resolution is also being thrown away with the clipping. I didn't notice that on my smaller 34 inch screen so I guess it is a classic case of the little guy against the big guys.

Anyway,
Thank you Bob for allowing me to cast my lone vote,
Thank you, wbz, and cbs for all the hdtv. You put whdh to shame.

QUESTION:
I noticed both wbz and wcvb 4:3 images are wider and contains more information then their corresponding analog singles and whdh single. Why is that?

MikeD
post #497 of 10632
I wrote to Fox 25 regarding their DTV channel (no signal for the past month) and here's the response I got from them today:

Thank you for your email.

WFXT has been performing maintenance on our DTV equipment. We hope to have our
DTV transmission back to normal in approximately 2 weeks.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

FOX25 Community Connection

FOX25CONNECT@fox.com
post #498 of 10632
I received the same message today. Given that it took them neary 3 weeks to respond; which inconvenience are they apologizing for? Having been down for a month or taking close to 3 weeks to respond?

Hmmm, must be one long "maintenance" procedure.

-- Steve
post #499 of 10632
My comments may be after the fact, but here I go anyways...

WBZ:
I hated the recent 14:9 transmissions. Top and bottom cut off and the picture is grainy. Can address the first concern by training all camera operators to give their subject more headrooms, but the easier solution is to go back to 4:3/sidebars. How come the sidebars can't be made grey instead of black? It seems like the simple way to address burn-in concerns.
I like all effort CBS is putting into making this work.

WFXT:
An added bonus is that the digital reception out here in the boonies is so much better than the analog signals. Too bad
Fox doesn't have ch. 31 back up -- would have been nice to
watch the World Series without the co-channel interference
from nearby WUNI.
post #500 of 10632
Quote:


Originally posted by Benji
For you folks that want to control the aspect ratio of your picture, tune in to WHDH.

or use a Dish 6000 which allows aspect control on HD transmissions. I have both DirecTV & Dish STBs with OTA and can say I never use the ability to change aspect on an HD single as OAR is the only way to go, whether sidebars on 4:3 or top and bottom bars on "scope" movies. Filling more of the screen but getting less of the content just doesn't make sense.

Tim
post #501 of 10632
I was watching Bob Patterson and Drew Carey last night and during both programs the picture would scramble a bit every so often as if it was losing signal(strangely this would cease when the commercials ran). I checked my signal strength for WCVB and it was pretty strong (around 92). Anyone notice this or have any thoughts as to why this was happening?
post #502 of 10632
eags,

I noticed it last night and have seen this for a while now as well. And you're right it does not happen when in upconverted 4:3 mode. I wonder if it's a local problem or a network problem. I have not seen other threads from other geographic areas complaining about it so maybe it's a local (WCVB) problem.
post #503 of 10632
Thanks for the reply Richard. Normally I would automatically conclude it was a WCVB problem but the fact the commercials looked ok puzzles me. I am going to call WCVB today and see if they know anything.
post #504 of 10632
Anyone notice problems with WHDH (NBC, channel 7) digital last night? Every 15 minutes or so it would swap the channel number to 42 causing my STB (an E* 6000) to drop the signal. In the past I noticed that the channel mapping is flaky on this channel when you scan it (it flips between 7-1 and 42) but last night was the first time it started causing problems during viewing of the programs.

Interestingly, once channel 7-1 went away and channel 42 appears, the subchannels under 42 were completely broken. The STB listed 23 subchannels (non of which appeared to work). After about 5 minutes channel 7-1 would return and work for another 10 minutes. Drove me crazy during Will & Grace, had to go to analog.
post #505 of 10632
Quote:


Anyone notice problems with WHDH (NBC, channel 7) digital last night?

Glad it wasn't just me. Exactly the same thing for me as well on my E*6000. Not sure what WHDH was doing but hopefully they'll get it squared away.
post #506 of 10632
I experienced the same problems with NBC last night, I ended up watching the analog channel.
post #507 of 10632
Anyone know what happened to WHDH? No signal here in Newton. Anyone else or is it just me?
post #508 of 10632
Quote:


Originally posted by eags
Anyone know what happened to WHDH? No signal here in Newton. Anyone else or is it just me?

No WHDH and still no WFXT in Tewksbury.
post #509 of 10632
Quote:


Originally posted by MikeD


No WHDH and still no WFXT in Tewksbury.

No WHDH-DT in Attleboro as well. Maybe they're upgrading so we can see Leno in HD.

Ok, I'm done dreaming

It looks like WFXT-DT is still at half power here.
post #510 of 10632
Unlike WFXT which is giving me a signal strength of 0 to 22 with no usable signal, WHDH has a signal strength of 76 which is rock solid, but with no associated picture. I have tried re-scanning with both the program guides on and off, and it has not resulted in any usable picture. I am glad I'm not the only one having trouble.

SMK
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 › Boston, MA - OTA