 HRMGod Bless AmericaPremium,MVM
join:2002-02-03
Darien, CT
kudos:1
1 edit | Big Problem here in NY is the broadcast Quality No station but PBS ch 13 routinely broadcasts 1080i. Even the superbowl was crap HD. Calling 480i HD has given all the stations an out which they gladly take. Why bother using the bandwidth if the general public is too dumb to know the difference.
I can't believe most people are OK with less than the best signal, but I have no doubt that the quality of "HD" will always be less than what it could be if people would demand the best that technology can produce on current equipment.
EDIT: For example, no network show that I know of is broadcast at 1080i. No matter how much money they rake in, they never bother to give us the best our sets can deliver. I think of it as robbing us of the money we waste on sets that can display resolutions they refuse to broadcast. |
|
| NBC and CBS broadcast in 1080i for network shows. ABC and Fox broadcast in 720p for network shows. Nobody calls 480i "HDTV" -- it's SDTV; 480p is "EDTV" but nobody broadcasts that, you only see it as downconversion or from a DVD. |
|
|
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | reply to HRM
Sucks to be where you are then. Here in Chicago they're all running 720P or 1080i except for the one which has split it's channel into four leased channels and one main. That's fourteen stations, most with subchannels too. All receivable with a $50 antenna in my attic.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to russotto
I can't speak for what stations are carrying in the NYC market, but I do know that the loss of the World Trade Center antenna mast presented HUGE challenges for broadcasters:
»www.tvtechnology.com/features/On···ng.shtml
New Yorkers owe a debt of gratitude to the many radio and TV pioneers who worked in the area. Edwin H. Armstrong stands out, because the tower that he built while inventing FM radio was pressed into service 65 years later, after the NYC market lost all of its VHF TV transmitter sites, and most of its UHF sites in one fell swoop. (WCBS-TV had a backup transmitter at the Empire State Building, and was the only VHF station to stay on the air through the tragedy.) Certainly nobody who built the Empire State Building envisioned that it would remain New York City's most important building some 80 years later. |
|
HRMGod Bless AmericaPremium,MVM
join:2002-02-03
Darien, CT
kudos:1
4 edits | reply to russotto
said by russotto:NBC and CBS broadcast in 1080i for network shows. ABC and Fox broadcast in 720p for network shows. DO you get OTA broadcasts from NYC or are you just saying this biased on what you believe?
ABC and Fox are perfect examples, 720 is very different than 1080 and it is a shame they can call second rate signals "HD" and most people think it is as good as it gets. Personally I hate 720 knowing what it could be if they were not short changing us with the blessing of the masses.
I do not agree that NBC and CBS broadcast shows that are native 1080i. They don't look like it to me. If they are broadcast, then they sure are not shot that way, but maybe thay are poorly upsampled.
Believe me, I have had OTA digital in this area since 1999 (maybe it was 2000), it has gone nothing but downhill. They used to have baseball (as tests) in 1080. Sometimes there are still college games, but everything else is not 1080i quality, like at least some things used to be, back in the day. |
|
HRMGod Bless AmericaPremium,MVM
join:2002-02-03
Darien, CT
kudos:1
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:Sucks to be where you are then. Here in Chicago they're all running 720P or 1080i I am not trying to pick on you, but this is my point. In my mind 720P should not be called HD. It should be called "about 70% as good as HD TV" Most people are perfectly happy thinking of 720P as HD and all I can say is I don't. I think we are all being robbed of resolution. Everything we watch should be like Discovery HD or PBS travel shows, or certain college games. ANything less is robbing me. That is half of my rant. Personally I can not compare the two formats on the same scale. |
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | said by HRM:In my mind 720P should not be called HD. It should be called "about 70% as good as HD TV" Back when HDTV was experimental and all-analog, I felt that way. But with all of the advances since, I'm inclined to disagree. Sure, it might be "HD Lite", but it's still high definition when compared to NTSC (or PAL or SECAM, for that matter). |
|
| reply to HRM
said by HRM:: : I can't believe most people are OK with less than the best signal, but I have no doubt that the quality of "HD" will always be less than what it could be if people would demand the best that technology can produce on current equipment. : : Case in point is DirecTV lies about " true HD" channels. They make you pay for those channels and make you believe you're watching high def channels when in fact you're just getting at signal at the anemic 1280x1080 and NOT the full resolution of true HD which is 1920x1080
|
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | reply to HRM
I have a TV with a 1920x1080p native resolution. It manages to upconvert 720p to almost the same subjective image resolution as 1080i. I don't have any sources which can spit out 1080p so there is no real qualitative comparison.
720p works better for high-speed programming (e.g. sports) while 1080i is fine for more static content like Discovery HD and PBS, which I've noticed has a more than it should of compression artifacts.
I've been looking at HDTV for almost 15 years, having seen the first prototypes at the NAB convention in 1993. There are certain economic realities which broadcast (and cable for that matter) have to live with. I don't have a problem with 720p but I am glad there is another, better option.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
| reply to HRM
said by HRM:I do not agree that NBC and CBS broadcast shows that are native 1080i. They don't look like it to me. If they are broadcast, then they sure are not shot that way, but maybe thay are poorly upsampled. Think what you like, but the shows are broadcast in 1080i. I don't know about the sports, but the network shows are mostly in 1080i/60 telecined from 1080p/24. Certainly _Heroes_ and _Las Vegas_ are. Bit rate is about 7.5GB/hour, or 17 megabits per second.
I get my OTA from Philadelphia, but both NY and Philly stations are owned&operated by the networks; they aren't sending different streams. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| said by russotto:Think what you like, but the shows are broadcast in 1080i. I don't know about the sports, but the network shows are mostly in 1080i/60 telecined from 1080p/24. Certainly _Heroes_ and _Las Vegas_ are. Bit rate is about 7.5GB/hour, or 17 megabits per second. Not that I don't believe you, but I've never seen any reference that has indicated that any network programming was filmed in 1080P as a source. Do you have any more information on that?
--
Go Colts |
|
| You can ask over on avsforum. You can also see the telecine pattern (except during effects shots) if you go frame-by-frame using a DVR. I don't know if it is filmed in 1080p or filmed literally on film, but it's definitely a progressive source. |
|
| reply to HRM
HRM,
I came across this site today.
»alvyray.com/DigitalTV/Naming_Proposal.htm
as well as your thread today.
I was trying to find out why the movie DVDs I am playing are looking better than the broadcast HD version. I am upscaling the 480p DVD format to 720p format through the dvd player. I can upscale it to a 1080i format, but that makes it look like the HD broadcast that I am receiving on cable. After reviewing the above site and later identifying that most HD is in 1080i from cnet link,
»www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5119938-1.html
I think the problem is that I prefer movies in a progressive format. The 1080i stuff looks too much like sit-com TV to me. My preference may be affected by compression, because that can greatly affect quality. I will be watching ABC and FOX to see if their 720p appears more movie like. As for HDNet and HD-Discovery (1080i), I think their quality is exceptional, as long as the shot is in focus. I suspect that if you shoot video with 1080i, and broadcast it that way, it will look great. But since most movies are shot with film (progressive), I think they should be shown that way. National Geographic-HD is in 720p, so I will be comparing their broadcast.
As for my cable company, I need to find out if they are sending out the 720p format. Previously they told me that "they do no converting". "Whatever the broadcaster sends them, they pass it along as is". |
|
| Quick update on my findings: My cable provider is using the Motorola Dual-Tuner DVR High-Definition Set-Top Box DCT6412. This has the ability to output 1080i, 720p, 480p.
FYI: I am using a 1080p LCD monitor.
720p broadcasters (abc, fox, ng-hd, espn-hd) look great when tv-box is outputting 720p, and only OK when box is set to 1080i.
1080i broadcasters (the others) display greater detail in backgrounds when TV-box is in 1080i as opposed to 720p. However, I find my eyes getting very tired when I am focusing on people, faces, especially closeups due to the interlacing. I can also detect blurs which appear as lost subject focus. When I set the 1080i channel to display as 720p my tired eye problem goes away. I did notice a slight difference in clarity viewing the 1080i broadcast outputted as 720p.
My conclusion is that I am sensitive to the 1080i, maybe because I am using a 47" 1080p WS-LCD. But for me, the reduced eye strain outweighs any clarity improvement. It is fairly easy to switch back and forth, so if I am watching scenery, or subject matter that has no people, I may switch back to 1080i provided the broadcast is in 1080i. As for viewing the regular 480p programming on the 99 other channels, I noticed my eyes were more relaxed. The SD picture is still horrible on an HD screen though.
I prefer a progressive picture. 1080p would be just fine, but as for the current interlace, the eye's have it (not the i's). |
|
