Glen Dickenson on HD Cable

[Attebery]

Glen Dickenson of Broadcasting & Cable discusses HD Cable. YOu thoughts?

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...ueeze_Play.php

[Krawk]

Glad to see someone put it to text. Most people don't understand "digital quality picture and sound" does NOT necessarily mean it's a good thing. Even for SD video for example what is Directv's average bitrate for most of their lineup, is it 1.5Mbps if I recall? Even for their hd signal, all hd means is higher resolution, much of their stuff is compressed comparitively to their SD stuff with regards to ratios.

As a general rule cable has a better ratio than the dish but with all their on-demand, internet, phone and gazillions of channels to offer they are suffering the same problems of the pipes only being so wide.

[ElwoodJD]

Originally Posted by Krawk

Glad to see someone put it to text. Most people don't understand "digital quality picture and sound" does NOT necessarily mean it's a good thing. Even for SD video for example what is Directv's average bitrate for most of their lineup, is it 1.5Mbps if I recall? Even for their hd signal, all hd means is higher resolution, much of their stuff is compressed comparitively to their SD stuff with regards to ratios.

As a general rule cable has a better ratio than the dish but with all their on-demand, internet, phone and gazillions of channels to offer they are suffering the same problems of the pipes only being so wide.

Right with you. Can't say the number of times I've tuned into an HD station and seen lots of compression artifacts and other pixelation issues. The worst is a friend of mine who upgraded to HD satellite after getting a new TV and then taking it back to the store because he thought it was broken. The replacement one had the same problem, so I hooked up a BD player and showed him some reference quality material. Suffice to say he was blown away, cancelled his HD satellite and just got his own BD player for now.

On top of that, the continued compression (overcompression, more compression, whatever you want to call it) of cable and satellite HD signals is a real slap in the face to those who think On-Demand and other set-top box HD streaming is going to replace BD. The more people who want this stuff and the more channels that switch over, the more compression that will occur. If you think that getting an overly compressed 1080i signal with merely dolby digital 5.1 is giving your HDTV and sound systems a workout, then fine stick with it. I'll take true high def instead.

[CoheedIV]

My wife always DVR's Rescue Me on FXHD with Directv. Some episodes are pretty good quality while others are worse that DVD quality with lots of artifacts and fuzz. Some episodes look like your watching a 20 year old VHS tape there that bad. How can the same show, which I assume is filmed in HD, be different quality every episode? I have watched some real top notch sporting events (tennis, baseball, and golf) in HD on Directv so this Multicasting or whatever excuses need to stop.

[CTIQ21]

This is why I use OTA for my local channels. I never notice any compression artifacts and it is free.

[Nut Bunnies]

Well duh. After getting Blu Ray I almost can't watch "HDTV" anymore. It's filled with digital noise, macroblocking, all sorts of artifacts, etc. Not to mention 2:35.1 movies being zoomed in to be 1.78:1.

[Vidfreek]

Wow talk about whiners.....cant watch HDTV after watching Bluray? My favorite shows look great from my cable box, sure there are some issues here or there, but to the point of being unwatchable, boy you have high standards

Shows like Lost look fantastic in HD, the lush forest and detail is amazing and to say it looks bad is really reaching....obviously nothing is going to look like Bluray on a 1080p set or sound like it with full HD audio, but that doesnt make HDTV so bad its unwatchable, it will be a long time before full 1080p video and HD audio can make it over these wires instantly

You could be watching your favorite shows in standard definition, so quit your bitching

Oh and as for zooming, depends on the channel my friend, has nothing to do with HDTV in general, MGM HD, HDNet Movies and FX show their movies (that are broadcast in HD that is) in the original aspect ratio, then you get crap like TNT thats stretcho vision, yeah those channels I dont watch and I would figure TNT would have got it by now, but alas they have not

[newtype311]

Originally Posted by Vidfreek

Wow talk about whiners.....cant watch HDTV after watching Bluray?...

WOW...

I had to register just to respond to you.

I think you're missing the whole point of this thread and thus the article. Not everyone is getting the same level of service and that's the problem. If Lost looks great on your TV with whatever service you're using in your area that's great, but in my house it looks like garbage, no better than watching the standard def channel. And that's if its lucky enough to be playing on NBC dont even get me started is it's playing on a "cable" channel like "SCIFI" or "universal HD" then I may as well be streaming it off HULU on my PS3 because it looks about the same.

I have ATT Uverse in SoCal and pay around $160 a month when you add in my internet. even then the best of my best HD channels (Smithsonian HD and HD Theater) still dont even come close to popping in any regular DVD into my PS3. So Im sorry that when some of us are dropping that much money and not getting adequate service that we may just feel the right to complain about it.

[Cochise]

Originally Posted by ElwoodJD

On top of that, the continued compression (overcompression, more compression, whatever you want to call it) of cable and satellite HD signals is a real slap in the face to those who think On-Demand and other set-top box HD streaming is going to replace BD. The more people who want this stuff and the more channels that switch over, the more compression that will occur. If you think that getting an overly compressed 1080i signal with merely dolby digital 5.1 is giving your HDTV and sound systems a workout, then fine stick with it. I'll take true high def instead.

Well, I generally agree, but as much as I love movies and watching them on blu-ray in 1080p24 and lossless audio, I occasionally have to come up for air and watch sports, national news, some network broadcast shows. So I get my TV over the air for free, with better quality than satellite or cable.

[newtype311]

To add to the flavor, going over to my in laws house is a slap in the face since they just got Verizon Fios and their channels actually look remotely like HDTV. But too bad since in my areas the choices are Time Warner (Garbage), and ATT Uverse (Cheaper Garbage with Faster Internet).

But anyway I'm sure you'll be 'B!tchin' with the rest of us when Comcast, Time Warner, ATT, and the rest take away unlimited Internet use in favor of by the GIG plans for the same price (like they already have in the South). Then someone's gonna come and say "Geez stop your whinning how much bandwidth do you need to check your email?"

[mlemaire]

I totally agree with pretty much everything going on here. I do get the same problems: often shows look pretty good/great in HD, other times, not so much. Stuff like Lost looks great, and that's when I am getting an ABC HD feed, and not some simulcast BS.

My biggest problem with all the HD broadcast is, being in Canada (a big f*ck you to the CRTC from where I sit), we often have simulcasts (for nearly every show). So I can DVR something like CSI or Prison Break or 24 for example, and 99 times out of 100 I am going to get a Global HD/CTV HD feed instead of the Fox or CBS feed. I'd have no problem with that if it weren't for the fact that the Global feed is utter shite. Honestly, I almost want to simply watch it in SD instead, because at least the details and the colors come through better. The colors are washed out and drab on the Global feed, pixelation is insane, artifacts and so on and so forth. Frankly, it's rather ridiculous. I almost have to get down on my knees and thank the TV gods when I manage to somehow get a Fox feed directly and get to watch the show like it was intended.

Yeah, it may sound like unnecessary bitching, but why even have the channels offered on the satellite if you're never really watching them? If I wanted to watch it on Global, I'd change the damn channel to Global, not Fox! This happens no matter what coast I watch it from too, whether East or West, there's always a goddamned simulcast.

Any suggestions on how I might rectify (if even possible) this travesty of HD broadcasting?

[ElwoodJD]

Originally Posted by newtype311

To add to the flavor, going over to my in laws house is a slap in the face since they just got Verizon Fios and their channels actually look remotely like HDTV. But too bad since in my areas the choices are Time Warner (Garbage), and ATT Uverse (Cheaper Garbage with Faster Internet).

But anyway I'm sure you'll be 'B!tchin' with the rest of us when Comcast, Time Warner, ATT, and the rest take away unlimited Internet use in favor of by the GIG plans for the same price (like they already have in the South). Then someone's gonna come and say "Geez stop your whinning how much bandwidth do you need to check your email?"

HA, +1. As stated above mileage varies so if Vidfreak gets some nice looking HD broadcasts more power to him. I definitely feel you on the pay per gig internet concerns. Imagine if you game as well...that is some actual bandwith usage there. It's a shame that the internet has become practically a monopoly with two or three vendors max in each region unless you live near a metropolis.

[Nut Bunnies]

Sports actually look really good OTA, and frankly anything live usually looks excellent. The problems arise with movies and TV shows. Watch an episode of Burn Notice and try to hold back your vomit when they do a quick cut over a panoramic shot of Miami.

Apparently FIOS actually has really good quality, but all the cable companies who have congressmen in their pockets are doing what they can to keep it as small as possible.

[ZMan2000]

I hear you brother. I always watch NBC, ABC, CBS HD but I still get all the crappy Liberal Global or CTV commercials.

[rickman33]

My biggest pet peeve is when cable/satellite channels stretch a 4:3 picture to make it fit a widescreen.

My question to everyone:
What do you hate more-
1) when they stretch all of the image equally, or
2) when they do that fish-bowl stretching where the image is stretched more on the sides?

I hate both of these, but I really think the fish-bowl thing is more distracting. So, I'd probably vote that I dislike #2 the most.

Just leave the picture as it is, and start making more boxes/tvs that can stretch a 1080 picture. This way non-videophiles can still utilize all of their television screens, while others can leave the bars and watch the original picture unstretched. There have been a few times where I've simply not been able to watch a program because of the stretching.

And who makes the decision in how to display the video? Is this up to the cable/satellite provider or the actual cable/television station? Do they need to get permission to display the content in a certain format from the original distributor/owner or do they just get the rights to air it and then they can show it however they choose?