Comcast HD Quality Reduction: Details, Screenshots - Page 26 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #751 of 2079 Old 04-04-2008, 08:40 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPAR View Post

It's all as clear as mud.

Absolute mud.

I really don't care about the legal terms, I want 19 mbps for every HD channel all the time from every provider. I want HBO, SHO, STZ, MAX, USA, HGTV, Food, and all the rest to provide that bitrate. I even want 720p channels to provide it even though I know they can look as good as 1080i channels at a lower rate. I don't want any sub-channels to rob bandwidth from the main channel. If a station wants another channel, let them apply for one.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #752 of 2079 Old 04-04-2008, 08:40 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 33,833
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3756 Post(s)
Liked: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehancock View Post

But, any such suit is not about the definition of HD. It would be about the accurate use of "uncompressed".

Don't forget, this is a national ad, and there are lots of cable systems out there that are not using any additional compression. So any statements indicating that cable compresses and they (Verizon) don't would be libelous.

Good points, but it really comes down to the meaning of what is HD? Surely you wouldn't expect to see 1.5GBps stream delivered to your display? So is that real HD? Not for anyone who doesn't have expensive, commercial equipment to view those streams. We have to deal with what everyone gets(can get) in their home unfettered by an intermediary such as a cable/sat/OTA provider, and if you make the argument that Verizon's ad is false, then you open the door for someone like Comcast to do what they are doing with the channels in question here, and still call it HD.

I suppose the question then becomes, how much can you compress the stream and still call it HD? Right now, as much as they want and they can still market it as HD.
Keenan is online now  
post #753 of 2079 Old 04-04-2008, 08:42 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
MikeSM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,020
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPAR View Post

We need a baseline bitrate standard for what is considered noncompressed. Perhaps Verizon might be asked to demonstrate they can deliver at least 19 megabits on all channels simultaneously.

Certainly Verizon has to format the incoming data feeds to their system interface requirements. Although that might require reducing the bitrate received on the a feed to 19 megabits with some alteration of the image, we will not consider that process to be compression in the context of our baseline definition.

It's all as clear as mud.

--- CHAS

VZ has no problem being able to show they can allocate 19 Mbps of capacity to each HD signal they carry. They don't waste space on analog like cable does. Cable doesn't have to either, but they really don't want to move to an all digital environment.
MikeSM is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #754 of 2079 Old 04-04-2008, 08:46 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 33,833
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3756 Post(s)
Liked: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Just a nit, but I didn't mention HD, I only mentioned the use of the term "uncompressed" and although I, too, doubt it will go that far, I don't see how they can defend the use of the word "uncompressed" as a matter of law, not what they intended to say.

I think it's all much to do about nothing and I just hope it spurs Comcast and other cableco's to deal with the 3:1 issue while making Verizon and others spell out what they mean in more accurate terms. If you go by the ad (which I haven't seen but assume ), I think you'd get the impression that all cable channels are inferior and all Verizon channels are pristine, including those that are already bit-stared at the source. Not all channels feed video at 18 mbps, so IMHO even trying to make any claim on PQ is tenuous at best and requires a lot of discussion, as this thread shows.

But the ad does.

I agree, regardless of whether the ad is truthful or not, as long as it prompts the competition to react in a manner positive to HD fans, them I'm all for it.
Keenan is online now  
post #755 of 2079 Old 04-04-2008, 08:52 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeSM View Post

VZ has no problem being able to show they can allocate 19 Mbps of capacity to each HD signal they carry. They don't waste space on analog like cable does. Cable doesn't have to either, but they really don't want to move to an all digital environment.

They do waste some bandwidth on analog so they can still use non-CC tuners until the analog cutoff. Cable could go all-digital, but for whatever reasons, they chose to support their analog customers. They get no thanks from us for doing so and I'm quite sure their motives are greed, but they do it none the less. Should they simply cut all those folks loose to give us better PQ? Even when some of them at least have a few things in the works to cope with the problem and make this a short-term frustration for us? Personally I don't care what they do between now and then, but once SDV, better equipment, and all those HD channels are here, they'd better have the problems ironed out.

Then too, any definition has to consider MPEG2, MPEG4, and any future MPEGX, definitions can get pretty dicey and in some cases even limit innovation/progress.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #756 of 2079 Old 04-04-2008, 08:55 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

But the ad does.

I agree, but you quoted me, not the ad.

Quote:


I agree, regardless of whether the ad is truthful or not, as long as it prompts the competition to react in a manner positive to HD fans, then I'm all for it.

Can't disagree with that! The thing is though I think bfdtv has done more than the ad to further that.

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #757 of 2079 Old 04-04-2008, 08:59 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 33,833
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3756 Post(s)
Liked: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

I agree, but you quoted me, not the ad.

Can't disagree with that! The thing is though I think bfdtv has done more than the ad to further that.

Yes he has, and reading the MCN article one could even speculate that Verizon may have created their new ad based on bfdtv's findings.
Keenan is online now  
post #758 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 03:25 AM
Newbie
 
linowsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bonn/Germany
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

Absolute mud.

I really don't care about the legal terms, I want 19 mbps for every HD channel all the time from every provider. I want HBO, SHO, STZ, MAX, USA, HGTV, Food, and all the rest to provide that bitrate. I even want 720p channels to provide it even though I know they can look as good as 1080i channels at a lower rate. I don't want any sub-channels to rob bandwidth from the main channel. If a station wants another channel, let them apply for one.

19mbps would be also a dream for the most european HD subscribers. On the european satellites it is usual to transmit with an average bitrate of lower than 15 mbps.

There is an interesting page with all bitrate values and charts. But I can only post this URL after 3 posts here ;-)

LinowSat






But interesting to see that there is a discussion about bitrates not only in europe.

Oliver
linowsat is offline  
post #759 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 05:04 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleDAZ View Post

In the court of public opinion though, I think we all know the point being made.

I suspect different people are catching different points. Folks who both know about and care about the nuance might be impressed, while anyone who just care about the difference in the screen-shots that are being posted will think well of Verizon and less of those who are attacking the ads.
bicker1 is offline  
post #760 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 05:08 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Good points, but it really comes down to the meaning of what is HD? Surely you wouldn't expect to see 1.5GBps stream delivered to your display?

As compared to what? The point folks have made is that many customers are comparing HD to SD, and even the lesser bit-rates being used today compare positively to SD on a big screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

I suppose the question then becomes, how much can you compress the stream and still call it HD? Right now, as much as they want and they can still market it as HD.

That is the actuality. And I believe that the only way to have something different be the case is to come up with a new standard, trademark the name, and start getting providers to claim they're certified to that standards. The ship has sailed with regard to the specific term, "HD".
bicker1 is offline  
post #761 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 06:23 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
John Mason's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 11,139
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 76 Post(s)
Liked: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by linowsat View Post

19mbps would be also a dream for the most european HD subscribers. On the european satellites it is usual to transmit with an average bitrate of lower than 15 mbps.

Thought that was mostly MPEG-4, though, with theoretical efficiency double that of MPEG-2 (half the bit rate required). Have read here the actual efficiency isn't that high yet, so comparing bit rates is fuzzier. To include OP topic, perhaps the prevalence of excessive blurring and blocking with motion should be compared between MPEG-4 (EU and US) along with MPEG-2 used by Comcast/Verizon. -- John
John Mason is offline  
post #762 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 06:39 AM
Newbie
 
linowsat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bonn/Germany
Posts: 4
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yes you're right. Most in europe is in MPEG4. And you're also right that the efficiency isn't currently on the level that you just need the half of the bitrate. The second encoder generation which are using some broadcasters are better than the first generation.

Also interesting to know what encoders are using comcast/verizon vor their MPEG2 encoding.
linowsat is offline  
post #763 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 06:59 AM
Senior Member
 
HIPAR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NE Pa
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bicker1 View Post

... And I believe that the only way to have something different be the case is to come up with a new standard, trademark the name, and start getting providers to claim they're certified to that standards. The ship has sailed with regard to the specific term, "HD".

I'd hate to be the person tasked with defining visual standards. The problem here is HD (or whatever) is ultimately defined by what you see. Vision is a very complex thing. I've seen endless debates about what you can or cannot see such as that chart relating viewing distance to screen size. That's OK for a first order analysis but when you get into more detail, analysts start talking about exotic concepts like 'modulation transfer function'.

For now, if I were the judge in a no compression Verizon lawsuit, I'll accept their argument if they can demonstrate 19 megabits sustained transmission on all channels. Any scheme employed by a provider that 'Robs Peter to pay Paul' (or is that lending bits to Paul) is a compression scheme.

Neither Verizon, nor any other provider has any control over the image quality of the source feed.

--- CHAS

If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
HIPAR is offline  
post #764 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 08:41 AM
 
bicker1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Burlington, MA
Posts: 8,199
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
No, that wouldn't fly -- it is too reasonable a perspective.
bicker1 is offline  
post #765 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
davehancock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hamburg, NY (near Buffalo)
Posts: 5,574
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 113 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIPAR View Post

I'd hate to be the person tasked with defining visual standards. The problem here is HD (or whatever) is ultimately defined by what you see. Vision is a very complex thing. I've seen endless debates about what you can or cannot see such as that chart relating viewing distance to screen size. That's OK for a first order analysis but when you get into more detail, analysts start talking about exotic concepts like 'modulation transfer function'.

Sorry, but this thread has diverted from what Comcast has done to HD signals into two other related, interesting, but different subjects:
1) Verizon advertising and the use of the term "uncompressed".
2) "What is HD?" And is Comcast violating some law or something.

The FCC has been struggling some with this issue too. Basically it is centered on concerns that the cable companies would "materially degrade" the quality of broadcast stations on cable. There have always been somewhat vague "rules" against this, and they have struggled with this definition as part of the rulings requiring cable to assure that after the digital transition cable customers will still be able to see their local stations on their analog only sets.

The complete Report & Order is here.

They had asked for comments on how to quantify material degradation, and were really not able to do so. Once concept that received a lot of attention was the requirement for cable to pass through all program content bits. (Essentially the 19Mbps "requirement" that some here have suggested).

Quote:


6. In the Second Further Notice, we sought comment on proposals for ensuring that broadcast
signals would not be materially degraded after the digital transition. We proposed that the measurement
by which we determine whether an operator is degrading the broadcast signal change from a subjective to
an objective standard or, in the alternative, to maintain the comparative standard established in the First
Report and Order. We asked whether we should require cable operators to pass through all primary
video and program-related bits (content bits).

They ultimately rejected this proposal:
Quote:


9. We considered the all content bits proposal, the main benefit of which was a clear means
of measurement and consequently ease of enforcement. Ultimately, we conclude, however, that the all
content bits approach is likely to stifle innovation and the very efficiency that digital technology offers,
and may be more exacting a standard than necessary to ensure that a given signal will be carried without
material degradation.

What they DID end up with was retaining a more nebulous (and ominous) standard that was already in effect:

Quote:


7. We retain the requirement that HD signals be carried in HD, as well as the comparative
approach to determining whether material degradation has occurred. In 2001, the First Report and Order
established two requirements to avoid material degradation. First, "a cable operator may not provide a
digital broadcast signal in a lesser format or lower resolution than that afforded to any" other signal on
the system. Second, a cable operator must carry broadcast stations such that, when compared to the
broadcast signal, "the difference is not really perceptible to the viewer."Thus, "a broadcast signal
delivered in HDTV must be carried in HDTV."


The ominous part of this, to me, is the phrase "the quality of signal processing and carriage provided by a cable system for the carriage of local commercial television stations will be no less than that provided by the system for carriage of any other type of signal. I'm concerned that if they degrade (such as Comcast has done) all the other cable HD channels then they can also degrade the local stations as well! Till now, I believe that ALL cable systems have NOT put 3 (or more) local commercial HD stations on a QAM - but it would appear that if they degrade the rest of their cable HD channels then they can do it on the locals as well. I sincerely hope that this is not the case - but I've got to wonder.

Dave Hancock
davehancock is offline  
post #766 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 11:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Glimmie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 9,088
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1017 Post(s)
Liked: 924
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

Good points, but it really comes down to the meaning of what is HD? Surely you wouldn't expect to see 1.5GBps stream delivered to your display? So is that real HD? Not for anyone who doesn't have expensive, commercial equipment to view those streams. We have to deal with what everyone gets(can get) in their home unfettered by an intermediary such as a cable/sat/OTA provider, and if you make the argument that Verizon's ad is false, then you open the door for someone like Comcast to do what they are doing with the channels in question here, and still call it HD.

I suppose the question then becomes, how much can you compress the stream and still call it HD? Right now, as much as they want and they can still market it as HD.

1.5gbs is only the standardized transport rate for HD production systems. Even some smaller broadcasters handle HD at 19.2mbs.

The absolute highest bit rate HD avialable for distribution is 400mbs MPEG4 at 4:4:4 sampling. That's the "to tape" rate of a Sony SRW vtr. 880mbs is possible but only in digital cinema applications. HDD5 is 270mbs intraframe DCT compression at 4:2:2. HDCAM is 143mbs intraframe DCT with 3:1:1 sampling.

So even atthe highest levels of the production chain ther is always some compression. There are quite a few uncompressed disk based edit and color correction systems but once the signal goes to tape there is always compression.
Glimmie is offline  
post #767 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 12:52 PM
Newbie
 
tmcmahon2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I haven't read the entire thread but...

I watched part of the Battlestar Galactica season opened on UniHD last night via Comcast and there were very lots of scenes where the compression degraded the picture quality. The scene where Baltar arrives at his new home was very similar to the pic of Anthony singing in the first post. (The guy with the gloves and the mic)
tmcmahon2 is offline  
post #768 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 01:13 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
Keenan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 33,833
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3756 Post(s)
Liked: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmcmahon2 View Post

I haven't read the entire thread but...

I watched part of the Battlestar Galactica season opened on UniHD last night via Comcast and there were very lots of scenes where the compression degraded the picture quality. The scene where Baltar arrives at his new home was very similar to the pic of Anthony singing in the first post. (The guy with the gloves and the mic)

I think you mean SciFi-HD. It looked fine on DirecTV. This might be a good show to compare for this thread as the show itself is dark and grainy and I'll bet it looks substantially worse through a Comcast 3-pak feed.
Keenan is online now  
post #769 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Member
 
IamtheGTIguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just thought I would check in and say that Comcast screwed me as well.

My local provider here was just bought-out by Comcast.

Last week, my box officially switched over to Comcast and I had 8 or so new HD channels. Also, at about the same time, the image quality degraded like crazy.

At times with lots of motion and detail (like during a basketball game), the picture is almost unwatchable it is so pixelated.

I am mad.

I may just switch to DirecTV.
IamtheGTIguy is offline  
post #770 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 04:13 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 12,524
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by IamtheGTIguy View Post

My local provider here was just bought-out by Comcast.

Any chance your local provider was Insight?

125" Projection | 5.2.4 Audio | Shield TV | LibreELEC/ODROID-C2 Kodi Media Client | Ubuntu/ODROID-XU4 NAS/Server | 65" LG OLED TV | TiVo | Shield TV |
| Water cooled PC - i7-8700K - NVMe - RTX 2080 - 4K 43" Monitor |
Charles R is offline  
post #771 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 04:15 PM
Member
 
IamtheGTIguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 23
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles R View Post

Any chance your local provider was Insight?

Bingo.
IamtheGTIguy is offline  
post #772 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 04:28 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Charles R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 12,524
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 791
Here we are scheduled to switch to their line-up May 1st. With Insight I had been getting the HD Pack with just limited service (you are supposed to have Classic Service or some sort of package) and I confirmed I wouldn't be able to sneak under the radar with the change so I dropped off my three CableCARDs yesterday. I feel a little better knowing I'm not missing much.

125" Projection | 5.2.4 Audio | Shield TV | LibreELEC/ODROID-C2 Kodi Media Client | Ubuntu/ODROID-XU4 NAS/Server | 65" LG OLED TV | TiVo | Shield TV |
| Water cooled PC - i7-8700K - NVMe - RTX 2080 - 4K 43" Monitor |
Charles R is offline  
post #773 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 04:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
dean-l's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Under a Moderator's Thumb
Posts: 606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
i hear as soon as Comcast takes over they raise your bill as well.

Less for more.

That's Comcastic!

Moderator harassment is wrong and immoral.  
dean-l is offline  
post #774 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 04:55 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
DoubleDAZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Peoria, AZ (75 Ave & T-Bird)
Posts: 10,417
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 404 Post(s)
Liked: 532
Unfortunately, it's not just cableco's/satco's. IMHO, local stations started all this dumbing-down when they started multicasting, robbing pristine HD to add yet another weather channel, etc. We now have 4 weather channels in Phoenix to tell us it's going to be sunny and hot, sheesh!!!!

Cheers, Dave
DoubleDAZ is offline  
post #775 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 05:05 PM
Member
 
Dbower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Windsor, Calif
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yeah - what's up with that? Is there that many people tuning in rather than looking out a window? Hard to imagine there's much ad revenue in all these weather channels.
Dbower is offline  
post #776 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 06:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 970
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Comcast does the triple stuff HD around here because they are already out of digital bandwidth and have not started shutting down analogs, Outside Orlando in lake, marion, and debary Florida here is how the 500-750 mhz digital lineup with the triple stuff hd mux(es) looks


V CH# DES mhz 256QAM CH ENC
256 QAM 507 71
???? 507 71-1 Y

EMPTY 513 72

256 QAM 519 73
73-1 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-2 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-3 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-4 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-5 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-6 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-7 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-8 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-9 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-10 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO
73-11 ON-DEMAND 519 73 NO

???? 525 74

ANALOG 531 75

256 QAM 531
432 WESH HD 537 76-1 NO
433 WKMG HD 537 76-2 NO

256 QAM 537
434 WOFL HD 543 77 NO
440 WMFE HD 543 77 NO
201 WMFE2 SD 543 77 NO
202 WMFE3 SD 543 77 NO
203 WMFE4 SD 543 77 NO

ANALOG 549 78

555 79

561 80

256 QAM 567
406 NFL HD 567 81 Y
421 TBS HD 567 81 Y

256 QAM 573
411 MTV HD 573 82 Y
407 TNT HD 573 82 Y

256 QAM 579
410 AE HD 579 83 Y
415 HGTV HD 579 83 Y
419/369 STARZ HD 579 83 Y

256 QAM 585
420 USA HD 585 84 Y
424 DISC HD 585 84 Y
427 SCI FI HD 585 84 Y

256 QAM 591
401 FSN HD 591 85 Y
403 ESPN1 HD 591 85 Y

256 QAM 597
??? 597 86- Y
FAM 68 HGTV SD 597 86-2 NO
405 VS/GOLF HD 597 86-4 NO

256 QAM 603
729 GOL TV 603 87 Y
106 FOX BIZ 603 87 Y
108 FOX REAL 603 87 Y

256 QAM 609
802-849 MUSIC CH 609 88 Y
500 PROMOS 609 88 NO
508 INDEMAND 609 88 Y
507 INDEMAND 609 88 Y
506 INDEMAND 609 88 Y
505 INDEMAND 609 88 Y
504 INDEMAND 609 88 Y
503 INDEMAND 609 88 Y
502 INDEMAND 609 88 Y
501 INDEMAND 609 88 Y


256 QAM 615
409 UNI HD 615 89 Y
413 NG HD 615 89 Y
414 FOOD HD 615 89 Y

256 QAM 621
166 SUND WEST 621 90
110 SCI CH 621 90
111 DISC INVEST 621 90
112 MIL CH 621 90
113 DISC HOME 621 90
114 BBC A 621 90
130 DISC KIDS 621 90
171 FLIX WEST 621 90
348 SHOW EXT W 621 90
343 SHOW W 621 90
344 SHOWTOO W 621 90
345 SHOW SHO W 621 90

256 QAM 627
708 627 91
549 PENT 627 91
311 HBO ZONE 627 91
306 HBO COM E 627 91
353 TMCX W 627 91
351 TMC W 627 91
349 SHOWBEYW 627 91
325 THRILMAXE 627 91
327 WMAX 627 91
328 ATMAX 627 91
329 5STARMAX 627 91
330 OUTERMAX 627 91

256 QAM 633
781 633 92
782 633 92
375 STZ CE 633 92 Y
374 STZ KF 633 92 Y
373 STZ W 633 92 Y
372 STZ INBLCK 633 92 Y
371 STZEDGE 633 92 Y
370 STZ E 633 92 Y

256 QAM 639
150 ENCORE E 639 93 Y
151 ENCORE W 639 93 Y
771 639 93
772 639 93
773 639 93
774 639 93
775 639 93
776 639 93
777 639 93
778 639 93
779 639 93
780 639 93

256 QAM 645
152 E ACT E 645 94 Y
153 E ACT W 645 94 Y
154 E MYST E 645 94 Y
155 E MYST W 645 94 Y
156 E LOVE E 645 94 Y
157 E LOVE W 645 94 Y
158 E DRAMA E 645 94 Y
159 E DRAME W 645 94 Y
160 WESTERN E 645 94 Y
161 WESTERN W 645 94 Y
377 STZ COM 645 94 Y
376 STZ CW 645 94 Y
134 WAM 645 94 Y

256 QAM 651
139 MTV HITS 651 100 Y
140 MTV2 651 100 Y
141 MTV TR3S 651 100 Y
142 MTV JAMS 651 100 Y
143 VH1 CLAS 651 100 Y
144 VH1 SOUL 651 100 Y
145 CMT PURE 651 100 Y
163 LOGO 651 100 Y
783 651 100
784 651 100
129 NICK TOONS 651 100 Y
131 NOGGIN 651 100 Y
132 NICK WEST 651 100 Y
133 THE N 651 100 Y

256 QAM 657
162 G4 657 101 Y
699 SUN SPORTS 657 101 Y
101 WSL LAKE 657 101 Y
115 BIO 657 101 Y
116 HIST INT 657 101 Y
175 AZN 657 101 Y
179 GSN 657 101 Y
780 657 101
786 657 101

256 QAM 663
417 MAX HD 663 102 Y
404 ESPN2 HD 663 102 Y

256 QAM 669
165 SUND E 669 103 Y
109 NGC SD 669 103 Y
136 DISNEY 669 103 Y
170 FLIX E 669 103 Y
352 TMCX E 669 103 Y
350 TMC E 669 103 Y
346 SHOW B E 669 103 Y
347 SHOW X E 669 103 Y
340 SHOW E 669 103 Y
341 SHOW T E 669 103 Y
342 SHOW S 669 103 Y

256 QAM 675 104
102 ESPNEWS 675 104 Y
105 CSPAN3 675 104 Y
120 SOAPNET 675 104 Y
135 TOON DISN 675 104 Y
323 MOREMAXW 675 104 Y
322 CINEMAX W 675 104 Y
313 HBO LAT W 675 104 Y
310 HBOFAM W 675 104 Y
307 HBO WEST 675 104 Y
308 HBO PLUS W 675 104 Y
309 HBOSIG W 675 104 Y
326 ACTIONMAXW 675 104 Y

256 QAM 681
302 HBO EAST 681 105-1 NO
320 CINEMAX E 681 105 Y
312 HBO LAT E 681 105 Y
321 MOREMAXE 681 105 Y
303 HBO PLUS E 681 105 Y
304 HBOSIG E 681 105 Y
305 HBOFAM E 681 105 Y
324 ACTIONMAXE 681 105 Y

256 QAM
737 TENNIS 687 106 Y
738 SPORTSMAN 687 106 Y
734 NBA TV 687 106
731 OUTDOOR 687 106 Y
728 FOX SOCCER 687 106 Y
546 SHOR 687 106 Y
545 FRES 687 106 Y
544 PLAY 687 106 Y

256 QAM 693
416/301 HBO HD 693 107 ???
418/339 SHOW HD 693 107 Y

256 QAM 699
408 MOJO HD 699 108 Y

705 109

256 QAM 711
431 WFTV HD 711 110-1 NO
437 WRDQ HD 711 110-2 NO

256 QAM 717
412 HD THEATER 717 111-10 NO
422 HIST HD 717 111 Y
426 AP HD 717 111 Y


256 QAM 723 112
167 INDIEPLEX 723 112 Y
168 RETROPLEX 723 112 Y
721 723 112
702 ESPN GP 723 112 Y
703 ESPN GP 723 112 Y
704 ESPN GP 723 112 Y
705 ESPN GP 723 112 Y
706 ESPN GP 723 112 Y
707 ESPN GP 723 112 Y
173 TV ONE 723 112 Y

256 QAM 729 113
750 NBA LP BARK 729 113 NO
751 NBA LP 729 113 NO
752 NBA LP 729 113 NO
753 NBA LP 729 113 Y
754 NBA LP 729 113 Y
755 NBA LP 729 113 Y
756 NBA LP 729 113 Y
757 NBA LP 729 113 NO
758 NBA LP 729 113 NO
759 NBA LP 729 113 NO

256 QAM 735 114
107 CURR TV 735 114 Y
119 LMN 735 114 Y
121 DIY 735 114 Y
122 FINE 735 114 Y
128 SPROUT 735 114 Y
147 GAC 735 114 Y
149 MOVIEPLEX 735 114 Y
735 CBS COLL SP 735 114 Y

256 QAM 741 115
435 WKCF HD 741 115-1 NO
436 WRBW HD 741 115-2 NO

EMPTY 747 116

FAM25 CNN HN SD ??? Y
FAM24 TWC LEES ???? Y
FAM51 FOOD SD ???? Y
FAM24 TWC DEBARY ???? Y
FAM24 TWC OCALA ???? Y
101 WSL OCALA ???? Y
101 WSL DEBARY ???? Y
???? WXIA NBC ATL Y
satpro is offline  
post #777 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 07:11 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
MKANET's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NORCAL
Posts: 5,807
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 24
To my eyes, HowardTV in HD also took a hit. Just 4 months ago, my recordings look razor sharp compared to the softer look. I dont see horrible compression artifacts, but I definitely wouldnt call it razor sharp. I thought HD on demand wasnt affected by this problem.

Edit: I was wrong. Bitrates are still the same. The comparison I did wasn't really a good one since they were different shows.

For months ago on HowardTV

Now..
MKANET is offline  
post #778 of 2079 Old 04-05-2008, 07:55 PM
Member
 
Wizio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 45
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
All VOD took a hit. I tried watching Mission Impossible 3 in HD and it was so bad I quit watching it at all.
Wizio is offline  
post #779 of 2079 Old 04-06-2008, 03:07 PM
Advanced Member
 
George-O's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 13
After reading most of the postings here, it seems to boil down to the following dilema for me with 16 TVs throughout my main house, guest house, and garage/shop .... all usually tuned to a SD station 95% of the time (2 thru 71 on Comcast Portland, OR):

1. Do I scrap the convenience of direct tuning on 14 of the 16 TVs without a digital converter box to improve the 5% of the time someone in the household or domestic staff is watching something in HD via the 2 HDTVs currently setup with DVRs?

or

2. Do I place digital converter boxes on the remaining 14 older analog TVs to improve the HD on those 2 HDTVs that we watch about 5% of the time (maybe an hour or so a day)?

It seems that if I go with FiOS, I will need boxes on all 16 TVs. If I stick to cable, the 14 older TVs will still work post Feb. 2009 w/o any converter boxes.

I am still amazed how everyone here finds the time to watch so much TV these days and still stay healthy, wealthy and wise .... but that's another topic
George-O is offline  
post #780 of 2079 Old 04-06-2008, 03:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
PaulGo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North Potomac, MD
Posts: 4,030
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 254 Post(s)
Liked: 161
You have a two choices - within the next few months Comcast will be cutting back on their analog channels to about 20 or so. They need the space for more digital channels and for DOSIS 3.0 (which may cause further HD compression)
https://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1015352

Comcast has announce they will keep these core analog channels for a few years, but things could change and they could eliminate it sooner. (Remember a year ago they said they were broadcasting the best quality HD picture.)

So you could stay with Comcast.

Choice two is to wire your non -HD TVs to an antenna with a cheap digital converter box and use satellite of FIOS for the TVs that you want additional content.


Quote:
Originally Posted by George-O View Post

After reading most of the postings here, it seems to boil down to the following dilema for me with 16 TVs throughout my main house, guest house, and garage/shop .... all usually tuned to a SD station 95% of the time (2 thru 71 on Comcast Portland, OR):

1. Do I scrap the convenience of direct tuning on 14 of the 16 TVs without a digital converter box to improve the 5% of the time someone in the household or domestic staff is watching something in HD via the 2 HDTVs currently setup with DVRs?

or

2. Do I place digital converter boxes on the remaining 14 older analog TVs to improve the HD on those 2 HDTVs that we watch about 5% of the time (maybe an hour or so a day)?

It seems that if I go with Fios, I will need boxes on all 16 TVs. If I stick to cable, the 14 older TVs will still work post Feb. 2009 w/o any converter boxes.

I am still amazed how everyone here finds the time to watch so much TV these days and still stay healthy, wealthy and wise .... but that's another topic

PaulGo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread HDTV Programming

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off