Forum Jump: 
 33Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 121 Old 12-26-2018, 04:25 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
On average, you're not far off. But as Dr. Don said, it doesn't have to look too bad. Bandwidth needs vary depending on several factors, such as the amount of motion in the image. The stations use statmuxes that shift bandwidth around to where it's most needed at that instant.
Since viewers will notice the picture suddenly going soft, the only thing you can do is strip out the high frequency detail all the time so the viewers won't notice that a channel is getting a lower bit rate occasionally.

I've noticed that some stations (mainly KOIN) have a noticeably softer image than they did five or six years ago based on recordings I still have from then. One station (KATU) appears to be removing high frequency detail and then sharpening it (adding low frequency detail) because most people just want a sharp-looking image on their televisions.

It looks like their goal for these stations is to make the picture quality somewhat better than standard definition but not much better. I think most viewers are happy with this.
scowl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 121 Old 12-26-2018, 05:02 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 34,456
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8415 Post(s)
Liked: 5312
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post
Since viewers will notice the picture suddenly going soft, the only thing you can do is strip out the high frequency detail all the time so the viewers won't notice that a channel is getting a lower bit rate occasionally.

I've noticed that some stations (mainly KOIN) have a noticeably softer image than they did five or six years ago based on recordings I still have from then. One station (KATU) appears to be removing high frequency detail and then sharpening it (adding low frequency detail) because most people just want a sharp-looking image on their televisions.

It looks like their goal for these stations is to make the picture quality somewhat better than standard definition but not much better. I think most viewers are happy with this.
Yes. that vast majority of users either won't notice or won't care. But I certainly notice. It's close to vomit inducing around here.

53TB unRAID2--45TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
TCL 6 Series--Sony UBP-X800--Philips BDP7502--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
post #63 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 07:53 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
Yes. that vast majority of users either won't notice or won't care. But I certainly notice. It's close to vomit inducing around here.
Doesn't matter if viewers notice or not. It's advertisers who drive many picture-quality improvements.. something I quickly learned selling broadcast equipment, back in the day. Pitching "you can give your advertisers something the other stations cannot" was the line that closed the sale. The best part? Once one station in a market bought the latest-greatest piece of gear, it wasn't long before the others bought one, too. All driven by advertisers seeing a difference in the same ad on different stations. I know quite a few smaller-market stations upgraded to carry high-definition commercials long before upgrading their studios for HD.
Super Eye likes this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #64 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 08:08 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,196
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
It helps when two stations are co-owned or in an LMA. That gives engineering the flexibility to schedule bandwidth allocations. The issue is when two different broadcasters share a transmitter and the bandwidth allocation between the two is contractually fixed. I guarantee once the dust settles on the repack and we roll into the following Olympic cycle, the complaints will start popping up.
If they're sharing a transmitter, wouldn't they just use automatic settings for the stat mux? The concern I have with our local NBC is that they share with Telemundo, and Telemundo also does Olympics, so they are both putting high bandwidth demands on at the same time. It wasn't horrible for PyeongChang, but it definitely didn't look as good as it used to when they had ~12mbps for their main broadcast.

These stations just don't care that much, as OTA is generally the lowest common denominator anyway, and as Comcast has shown, most people are too oblivious or stupid to tell the difference between DVD-quality 720p and actually good looking HD.
BiggAW is offline  
post #65 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 08:48 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
If they're sharing a transmitter, wouldn't they just use automatic settings for the stat mux?
If they're not co-owned, there's likely a fixed percentage of bandwidth the client station is paying or otherwise compensating the hosting station for. Anything that would throttle the client station's bandwidth enough to affect commercial quality would likely be met with resistance.

For your NBC/Telemundo scenario, assuming co-ownership, it would depend on the market and the revenue for the Olympics. If the Telemundo affiliate's Olympic ratings and revenue are only a fraction of what the NBC affiliates' are, then the latter is the one I'd set to "win" in a statmux showdown of identical, fast-motion programming. You don't want a ski jump on a lesser-viewed channel wrecking your top client's car commercial on the other.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #66 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 12:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2541 Post(s)
Liked: 1232
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
It's advertisers who drive many picture-quality improvements...
But what drives PQ disimprovements, as we're seeing with so many stations adopting dual HD? I can think of a few reasons:

  • Cold hard cash: in the recent spectrum auction, some stations got paid a lot of money to shut down separate transmitters and squeeze onto one signal.
  • Small markets, where there aren't many transmitters to start with; because of viewer demand to receive all the major networks, a station can make a lot more money selling ads for two networks in mediocre HD than just one network in great HD.
  • Preparing for ATSC 3.0: stations channel-share on two transmitters; one broadcasting in ATSC 1.0 and the other in ATSC 3.0. (We haven't really seen this one yet, but probably will soon.)
But it also seems like lately, we're seeing cases where none of the above apply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
I know quite a few smaller-market stations upgraded to carry high-definition commercials long before upgrading their studios for HD.
That probably explains KATU running MeTV at 720p. MeTV has little if any programming that can take advantage of HD, but the advertisers sure do.

But is that worth reducing PQ (including ads) on ABC? Apparently KATU thinks so.

<tinfoil hat>It all makes me wonder if the stations have some way of electronically flagging their ads, so that when they air, the statmux automatically shifts more bandwidth to the ad and takes it away from the worthless "regular programming" on the other HD subchannel </tinfoil hat>
JHBrandt is offline  
post #67 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 01:52 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 34,456
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8415 Post(s)
Liked: 5312
Geee, that commercial looks great in HD. Even better than the show I was watching NOT!!!

They need to start paying me if they want me to watch their commercials. After thirty four years of time shifting my TV watching, now that I'm using streaming services to watch some broadcast content, I'm still doing everything I can to avoid commercials.

53TB unRAID2--45TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
TCL 6 Series--Sony UBP-X800--Philips BDP7502--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
post #68 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 03:00 PM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
But it also seems like lately, we're seeing cases where none of the above apply.
You missed the addition of diginets.

As for ATSC 3.0, the tell will be what the network O&Os do. Comcast made their flagship virtually un-sharable when they let WNBC go to auction and crammed everything on WNJU. That says just how dedicated to ATSC 3.0 they really are.
aaronwt and BiggAW like this.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #69 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 03:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2541 Post(s)
Liked: 1232
Well, yes, but traditionally, diginets have been in SD so they don't take that much bandwidth.

They add up though: KAZD in D/FW has one HD channel and six SD channels. So that probably winds up being about as bad as dual HD. And I understand that's nowhere near the worst in N. America.

ATSC 3.0 conversion is going to be rough for those stations who are already channel sharing. They just about have to wait for someone else to go first, then buy bandwidth on the early-adopting transmitters; and since the first ATSC 3.0 transmissions will already be sharing channels, there's not that much "room" for more guests even with 3.0's increased capacity. I'll save the details for the ATSC 3.0 thread, but suffice it to say here that if you have a market like Chicago where most of the big networks are already channel-sharing (NBC/Telemundo, ABC/Unimas, Fox/CW) or dual HD (PBS), it's hard to see how they'll get there from where they are now.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #70 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 07:19 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 16,197
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1245 Post(s)
Liked: 420
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
And I understand that's nowhere near the worst in N. America.
Check out what KXLA in Los Angeles is doing.

- Trip
DrDon and BiggAW like this.

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #71 of 121 Old 12-27-2018, 07:55 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,196
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
If they're not co-owned, there's likely a fixed percentage of bandwidth the client station is paying or otherwise compensating the hosting station for. Anything that would throttle the client station's bandwidth enough to affect commercial quality would likely be met with resistance.
That's total insanity, as that defeats the purpose of a stat mux. I always understood stat muxing to be mostly done by the stat muxer using an algorithm that looks as the relative deltas of the frames, with the possibility to bias it a bit one way or another, but not based on contractual requirements.

Quote:
For your NBC/Telemundo scenario, assuming co-ownership, it would depend on the market and the revenue for the Olympics. If the Telemundo affiliate's Olympic ratings and revenue are only a fraction of what the NBC affiliates' are, then the latter is the one I'd set to "win" in a statmux showdown of identical, fast-motion programming. You don't want a ski jump on a lesser-viewed channel wrecking your top client's car commercial on the other.
Yeah, I don't know how they do it, although for the low amount of bandwidth NBC gets, it actually looks surprisingly not horrible. It just doesn't have the "pop" that it used to when they were at 12mbps on NBC, and high production value segments like parts of SNL were absolutely spectacular.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
But what drives PQ disimprovements, as we're seeing with so many stations adopting dual HD? I can think of a few reasons:
You forgot adding a bunch of crappy subchannels to the main feed. Also, no one seems to care about VQ in the first place. If they did, they would at least do a better job compressing video. It seems to be a race to the bottom, to see who can make it look worse. Frontier is now worse than Comcast in CT, which I thought was impossible. OTA stations are often lousy, even when they have enough bandwidth to throw at the feed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
They add up though: KAZD in D/FW has one HD channel and six SD channels. So that probably winds up being about as bad as dual HD. And I understand that's nowhere near the worst in N. America.
I'm 99% sure I read that somewhere in the US there is a station doing a triple 720p stat mux on a 19mbps channel. The thought of that is horrifying.

Quote:
ATSC 3.0 conversion is going to be rough for those stations who are already channel sharing. They just about have to wait for someone else to go first, then buy bandwidth on the early-adopting transmitters; and since the first ATSC 3.0 transmissions will already be sharing channels, there's not that much "room" for more guests even with 3.0's increased capacity. I'll save the details for the ATSC 3.0 thread, but suffice it to say here that if you have a market like Chicago where most of the big networks are already channel-sharing (NBC/Telemundo, ABC/Unimas, Fox/CW) or dual HD (PBS), it's hard to see how they'll get there from where they are now.
Most markets only need one ATSC 3.0 channel, maybe two for the entire market's HD and SD channels, as it is WAY more efficient with HEVC stat muxing. Also, prepare for the triple-720p stations on ATSC 1.0. I don't think we've gone as low as we can go VQ wise in most markets. All that being said, I'm still not convinced ATSC 3.0 is going to go anywhere. Why make the signal easier to receive when the stations are double dipping with retrans fees? It makes no business sense. The networks' ratings are plummeting, so why not just collect those retrans fees as long as possible, since the advertising market keeps shrinking, and is probably shrinking faster than cord cutting.
BiggAW is offline  
post #72 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 05:01 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Trip in VA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Alexandria, VA, US
Posts: 16,197
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1245 Post(s)
Liked: 420
Send a message via AIM to Trip in VA
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
I'm 99% sure I read that somewhere in the US there is a station doing a triple 720p stat mux on a 19mbps channel. The thought of that is horrifying.
Check out what WGEM in Quincy is doing.

- Trip

N4MJC

Comments are my own and not that of the FCC (my employer) or anyone else.

RabbitEars

"Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand..." - Rush "Witch Hunt"

Trip in VA is offline  
post #73 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 07:10 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sjm817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked: 227
As the OP of this thread, the info has been sort of depressing. Cutting the cord (FiOS in my case) and going to OTA did save me a nice monthly bit of $ so no regrets there. At one time, OTA was also a way to get away from the bad quality of the cable Co but no longer the case and from what Im reading, it will get worse, not better. For me, locals are really only important during NFL season and special sporting events. Summer and Winter Olympics where I want good quality. Other than that, the evening news which is fine. My wife does watch some broadcast TV but she is fine with what we get. I guess the hope is an OTT with good quality carrying all the locals for a good $ will come along one day. I'm cheap though and still like the $0 OTA
sjm817 is offline  
post #74 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 07:43 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjm817 View Post
For me, locals are really only important during NFL season and special sporting events. Summer and Winter Olympics where I want good quality.
How did SNF look on WRC? I'd hazard a guess that's what you can expect w/r/t Olympics. NBC is pretty generous when it comes to equipping their O&Os with the latest-greatest processing gear. I feel for smaller-market duopolies running "antique" encoders. And they're out there.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #75 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 09:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sjm817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked: 227
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
How did SNF look on WRC? I'd hazard a guess that's what you can expect w/r/t Olympics. NBC is pretty generous when it comes to equipping their O&Os with the latest-greatest processing gear. I feel for smaller-market duopolies running "antique" encoders. And they're out there.
Watchable but not great. Of the 3 NFL networks I would rate them
WUSA CBS
WTTG FOX (close 2nd)
WRC NBC
sjm817 is offline  
post #76 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 10:32 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,196
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip in VA View Post
Check out what WGEM in Quincy is doing.
They have FOUR HDs crammed into a 19.3mbps channel!! That's absolutely horrifying. Sadly, I think this is the future of ATSC 1.0, as people apparently just don't care about VQ. Frontier's pay TV service looks like YouTube back when it was all 240p and people still have it. It's sad that with all the technology we have from HD and 5.1 DD to UHD with Atmos, most people just don't care about VQ or AQ. It's also sad to see the high quality, high production value network broadcasts that are done out of New York and elsewhere that are putting out high bitrate H.264 feeds, just to see those squished and crammed to nothing by the time they get to the viewer. Maybe ATSC 3.0 will be better, we can hope, right?
aaronwt likes this.
BiggAW is offline  
post #77 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 12:50 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
scowl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 10,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDon View Post
I know quite a few smaller-market stations upgraded to carry high-definition commercials long before upgrading their studios for HD.
I remember commercials being in standard definition for years during HD programming. During one Superbowl, nearly all the ads were in HD, then when they ran them again they were all back to standard definition letterbox.

During that period none of my local stations could run their local commercials on their HD channel because they didn't have the equipment to upscale them. They switched to the network HD feed during the local commercial breaks which was usually just a network logo or the funny Fox Box. For years I never saw a single local commercial on television!

For a long time the only ads that were in HD were from Target (amazing!) and Volkswagon.
scowl is offline  
post #78 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 03:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
They have FOUR HDs crammed into a 19.3mbps channel!! That's absolutely horrifying. Sadly, I think this is the future of ATSC 1.0, as people apparently just don't care about VQ. Frontier's pay TV service looks like YouTube back when it was all 240p and people still have it. It's sad that with all the technology we have from HD and 5.1 DD to UHD with Atmos, most people just don't care about VQ or AQ. It's also sad to see the high quality, high production value network broadcasts that are done out of New York and elsewhere that are putting out high bitrate H.264 feeds, just to see those squished and crammed to nothing by the time they get to the viewer. Maybe ATSC 3.0 will be better, we can hope, right?
I would like to think ATSC 3.0 will make things better, but I think it is clear broadcasters could care less about picture quality, and will merely increase the number of sub-channels they can squeeze on one ATSC 3.0 frequency. Or, just as likely, they'll duplicate the channels and sub-channels currently available in a city on several 1.0 frequencies into one 3.0 channel, and turn the other broadcast channels into cash.
Short term profits always win.
nathill is offline  
post #79 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 08:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
JHBrandt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: S. Garland, TX
Posts: 6,422
Mentioned: 60 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2541 Post(s)
Liked: 1232
WGEM is a pathological example, but this sort of thing happens a lot in small markets like Quincy. There aren't enough viewers (i.e., ad revenue) to support the full panoply of TV transmitters we see in big cities like Chicago; but it's still more profitable to air all the major networks in lower quality than to air one or two in good quality. The most surprising thing is that the smaller networks didn't just wind up in SD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
... I think it is clear broadcasters could care less about picture quality, and will merely increase the number of sub-channels they can squeeze on one ATSC 3.0 frequency.
Yep. Luckily ATSC 3.0 is a lot more efficient, so they can load it up quite a bit and still get better PQ than now. I'm guesstimating that quadruple HD a la WGEM may still be a bit too much, but it would still look a lot better than it does now; and triple HD should be just fine, even with an SD subchannel or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
Or, just as likely, they'll duplicate the channels and sub-channels currently available in a city on several 1.0 frequencies into one 3.0 channel, and turn the other broadcast channels into cash.
Luckily, events like the recent spectrum auction don't come along every day; and there's less interest in the TV band by non-TV users today than there was when Congress mandated that auction. So the only way to turn a transmitter into cash is probably to sell it to another broadcaster.
JHBrandt is offline  
post #80 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 08:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Valley of the Jolly Green Giant
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 515 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
I'm 99% sure I read that somewhere in the US there is a station doing a triple 720p stat mux on a 19mbps channel. The thought of that is horrifying.
few examples

WDIO in Duluth, MN does 3 HD stations
10-1 ABC HD
10-2 MeTv
10-3 Ion

KTCA in Minneapolis has 3 1080i stations
2-1 PBS
2-4 PBS Kids
2-5 TPT Now (WX)

WKTV Utica, NY
2-1 NBC
2-2 CBS
2-3 CW
2-4 Me (SD)

WTHI Terre Haute, IN
10-1 CBS
10-2 FOX/My
10-3 CW
10-4 Ion (SD)

KGNS Laredo, TX
8-1 NBC
8-2 ABC
8-3 Telemundo

WGEM in Quincy does 4 HD stations as Trip noted
10-1 NBC
10-2 CW+
10-3 FOX
10-4 Me
aaronwt and BiggAW like this.
unclehonkey is offline  
post #81 of 121 Old 12-28-2018, 08:42 PM
Advanced Member
 
nathill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Bloomington, IN
Posts: 757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 194 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
.... Luckily ATSC 3.0 is a lot more efficient, so they can load it up quite a bit and still get better PQ than now. I'm guesstimating that quadruple HD a la WGEM may still be a bit too much, but it would still look a lot better than it does now; and triple HD should be just fine, even with an SD subchannel or two......
Luckily, events like the recent spectrum auction don't come along every day; and there's less interest in the TV band by non-TV users today than there was when Congress mandated that auction. So the only way to turn a transmitter into cash is probably to sell it to another broadcaster.

Your knowledgeable observations give me some comfort. Would enjoy better picture quality coming out of Terre Haute Indiana! They're cramming a lot of channels into one ATSC 1.0 frequency, and maybe someday thirty dollar set top boxes will let me see all of them in much improved quality!
nathill is offline  
post #82 of 121 Old 12-29-2018, 03:55 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
WGEM is a pathological example, but this sort of thing happens a lot in small markets like Quincy. There aren't enough viewers (i.e., ad revenue) to support the full panoply of TV transmitters we see in big cities like Chicago; but it's still more profitable to air all the major networks in lower quality than to air one or two in good quality. The most surprising thing is that the smaller networks didn't just wind up in SD.Yep. Luckily ATSC 3.0 is a lot more efficient, so they can load it up quite a bit and still get better PQ than now. I'm guesstimating that quadruple HD a la WGEM may still be a bit too much, but it would still look a lot better than it does now; and triple HD should be just fine, even with an SD subchannel or two.Luckily, events like the recent spectrum auction don't come along every day; and there's less interest in the TV band by non-TV users today than there was when Congress mandated that auction. So the only way to turn a transmitter into cash is probably to sell it to another broadcaster.
What bitrate is a 6MHz ATSC 3.0 mux likely to deliver?

In Germany the ARD mux is carrying 5 x 1080p50 services encoded in h.265/HEVC at average bit rates of between 2.9Mbs and 4.1Mbs (statmuxed with max bitrates of 8Mbs) in a 22.8Mbs DVB-T2 service in an 8MHz mux. Germany runs their DVB-T2 muxes, as they did their DVB-T muxes, in a very robust mode, and it may be optimised for SFNs with a higher guard interval per symbol. (In the UK we are running our 8MHz DVB-T2 muxes at 40.25Mbs rather than 22.8Mbs - one of the benefits of DVB-T and T2 is that you can trade-off bitrate with robustness in your modulation choices and don't have to use a one-size-fits-all approach... Germany is using 16k or 32k carriers and 64QAM, the UK is using 32k carriers and 256 QAM)

http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.ph...en&mux=ARD-SWR

(NB there are lots of (internet) listings as these are place holder broadcast channel positions for IP-delivered streams - which is a part of the DVB-T/T2 standard already and in widespread use in Europe. These channels appear in your regular programme guide, but when you surf to them to watch them the video and/or audio is delivered over your broadband IP connection, not via your antenna. They can include radio stations. Also present are Mediathek PID links to HbbTV apps that allow you to access Hulu-style catch-up services via your set top box as part of a standard)

The Germans are pretty hot on decent picture quality - so are a good guide as to what can be achieved at reasonable levels of quality I'd hope.

The ZDF mux is 21.4Mbs containing 5 x 1080p50 h.265/HEVC services.

http://www.digitalbitrate.com/dtv.ph...ang=en&mux=ZDF

As a rule of thumb h.264 services require 50% the bitrate of MPEG2, and h.265 requires 50% the bitrate of h.264. As a result of switching from MPEG2 to h.265 services could require 25% the bitrate to deliver similar quality services? In Germany they have jumped from MPEG2 576i25 16:9 SD to h.265 1080p50 16:9 HD with their change from DVB-T to DVB-T2 without losing services (though SD commercial channels that were free-to-air are now behind a low-cost pay-wall since they moved to HD)
aaronwt and BiggAW like this.

Last edited by sneals2000; 12-29-2018 at 04:01 AM.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #83 of 121 Old 12-29-2018, 07:57 AM
Super Moderator
 
DrDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Metro Detroit, Tampa Bay
Posts: 16,175
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1911 Post(s)
Liked: 3607
Let's keep this thread about existing ATSC 1.0 comparisons, please. We have a whole 'nuther ATSC 3.0 thread for technical discussions and other observations/predictions/etc.

Walking the fine line between jaw-dropping and a plain ol' yawn.
DrDon is offline  
post #84 of 121 Old 12-29-2018, 08:21 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
mrvideo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 7,889
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1020 Post(s)
Liked: 707
I just got back from a 10 day trip to the Phoenix metro area. I only watched the locals (OTA) for the news, ET, Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! ET only because it was on before the other two.

While channel surfing, it was annoying to see that the stations had at least 3 SD subchannels. The dumbest one being the local Fox affiliate which simulcast their HD channel in SD What a waste of bandwidth.

I was amazed that the TV was able to receive the stations via an indoor antenna, even after have to go through a lot of the apt complex's building. Mesa, ENE of South Mountain.

"You're Sherlock Holmes, wear the damn hat!" - Watson to Sherlock
Sherlock - The Abominable Bride - 1/01/16
My 2017 Total Solar Eclipse Photos
mrvideo is offline  
post #85 of 121 Old 12-30-2018, 03:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,849
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 463 Post(s)
Liked: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
While channel surfing, it was annoying to see that the stations had at least 3 SD subchannels. The dumbest one being the local Fox affiliate which simulcast their HD channel in SD What a waste of bandwidth.
Is this to provide an SD feed to local cable companies?
sneals2000 is offline  
post #86 of 121 Old 12-30-2018, 06:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
unclehonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: The Valley of the Jolly Green Giant
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 515 Post(s)
Liked: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrvideo View Post
While channel surfing, it was annoying to see that the stations had at least 3 SD subchannels. The dumbest one being the local Fox affiliate which simulcast their HD channel in SD What a waste of bandwidth.
I assume you are referring to KUTP 45 "Fox 10 Xtra" carrying a SD version of KSAZ Fox 10?
It probably has to do with KSAZ being on RF10 and issues with indoor antennas and VHF. So they simulcast it on RF45

No different than what WFTC (RF29) and KMSP (RF9) Minneapolis have done for years now (If I remember it was right after the conversion in 09). So the HD was on KMSP and a SD version was on RF29. 4 years ago they combined the PSIP's and made both versions of FOX in HD. So RF29 has 9-1 FOX HD, 9-2 My(Fox9+) HD, 9-3 Movies! SD and RF9 is 9-4 Buzzr, 9-5 Light and 9-9 FOX HD
unclehonkey is offline  
post #87 of 121 Old 12-30-2018, 08:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sjm817's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,145
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 581 Post(s)
Liked: 227
OP here. This is the info from RabbitEars on the 4 major networks that started this thread. This is the DC market. How bad is this compared to what is typical these days?

04-1 48.3 1080i DD5.1 WRC-HD NBC "NBC 4"
04-2 48.4 480i (w) DD2.0 COZI COZI TV
44-1 48.5 1080i DD5.1 WZDC Telemundo "Telemundo 44"
44-2 48.6 480i DD2.0 XITOS TeleXitos

05-1 36.3 720p DD5.1 WTTG-DT FOX "Fox 5"
05-2 36.5 480i (w) DD2.0 BUZZR BUZZR
05-3 36.6 480i (w) DD2.0 ME TV Me-TV
20-1 36.4 720p DD5.1 WDCA MyN "Fox 5 Plus"
20-2 36.7 480i (w) DD2.0 MOVIES Movies!
20-3 36.8 480i (w) DD2.0 HEROES Heroes & Icons

07-1 7.3 720p DD5.1 WJLA-HD ABC "ABC 7"
07-2 7.4 480i (w) DD2.0 WJLACHG Charge!
07-3 7.5 480i (w) DD2.0 WJLACMT Comet TV
07-4 7.6 480i (w) DD2.0 WJLATBD TBD

09-1 9.1 1080i DD5.1 WUSA-HD CBS "WUSA 9"
09-2 9.3 480i (w) DD2.0 Justice Justice Network
68-1 9.2 720p DD2.0 LATV SonLife
sjm817 is offline  
post #88 of 121 Old 12-30-2018, 10:15 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,196
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathill View Post
I would like to think ATSC 3.0 will make things better, but I think it is clear broadcasters could care less about picture quality, and will merely increase the number of sub-channels they can squeeze on one ATSC 3.0 frequency. Or, just as likely, they'll duplicate the channels and sub-channels currently available in a city on several 1.0 frequencies into one 3.0 channel, and turn the other broadcast channels into cash.
Short term profits always win.
I'm not sure that they were push it as far as ATSC 1.0, and HEVC is a lot more forgiving. They could reasonably put 7-10 HD channels on a transmitter without it looking like total garbage as long as they have really good encoders/muxers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHBrandt View Post
Luckily ATSC 3.0 is a lot more efficient, so they can load it up quite a bit and still get better PQ than now. I'm guesstimating that quadruple HD a la WGEM may still be a bit too much, but it would still look a lot better than it does now; and triple HD should be just fine, even with an SD subchannel or two.Luckily, events like the recent spectrum auction don't come along every day; and there's less interest in the TV band by non-TV users today than there was when Congress mandated that auction. So the only way to turn a transmitter into cash is probably to sell it to another broadcaster.
I don't know if Quincy, IL is going to get the latest and greatest in HEVC encoders, but major market stations who will drop the big bucks will be able to do something like 8-10 HD channels on a single transmitter in good quality using an HEVC stat mux. ATSC 3.0 is going to have something like 25-30mbps of bandwidth, and HD is quite possible in the 2-3mbps range in a stat mux with HEVC. It's too bad that they can't use H.264 on ATSC 1.0, as that would offer a lot more options with stat muxing. Comcast is doing 3.8mbps CBR MPEG-4 on cable, and while it looks objectively like garbage for sports and movies, it probably looks a lot less garbagey than trying to cram 3 or 4 HDs into a single ATSC-8VSB channel, and it looks fine for news and talk show type of stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post
As a rule of thumb h.264 services require 50% the bitrate of MPEG2, and h.265 requires 50% the bitrate of h.264. As a result of switching from MPEG2 to h.265 services could require 25% the bitrate to deliver similar quality services? In Germany they have jumped from MPEG2 576i25 16:9 SD to h.265 1080p50 16:9 HD with their change from DVB-T to DVB-T2 without losing services (though SD commercial channels that were free-to-air are now behind a low-cost pay-wall since they moved to HD)
If they get the full 36mbps on a 6mhz channel using OFDM, and their compression is 4x as efficient as MPEG-2, which can get a decent but not great 1080i feed into about 8mbps, then they could have 15+ HD channels per transmitter. The reality, however, is that the number will be lower, as the industry is all the way through the MPEG-2 learning curve and has squeezed everything out of it, but they have barely started with HEVC online encoding.
BiggAW is offline  
post #89 of 121 Old 12-30-2018, 10:18 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
BiggAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,196
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 741 Post(s)
Liked: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjm817 View Post
OP here. This is the info from RabbitEars on the 4 major networks that started this thread. This is the DC market. How bad is this compared to what is typical these days?
That's about typical. Not particularly good or bad. 2x720p and 4x480i or 2x1080i/2x480i is about the limit that most stations are willing to push at the moment, with a few outliers like the 1x1080i/3x720p channel. You can make 2x1080i/2x480i look OK, it's not noticeably over-compressed with the current generation of encoders, but it does lose some of the "pop" and "wow" that higher bitrate MPEG-2 HD used to have.
BiggAW is offline  
post #90 of 121 Old 12-30-2018, 12:04 PM
UHD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 34,456
Mentioned: 58 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8415 Post(s)
Liked: 5312
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post
I'm not sure that they were push it as far as ATSC 1.0, and HEVC is a lot more forgiving. They could reasonably put 7-10 HD channels on a transmitter without it looking like total garbage as long as they have really good encoders/muxers.



I don't know if Quincy, IL is going to get the latest and greatest in HEVC encoders, but major market stations who will drop the big bucks will be able to do something like 8-10 HD channels on a single transmitter in good quality using an HEVC stat mux. ATSC 3.0 is going to have something like 25-30mbps of bandwidth, and HD is quite possible in the 2-3mbps range in a stat mux with HEVC. It's too bad that they can't use H.264 on ATSC 1.0, as that would offer a lot more options with stat muxing. Comcast is doing 3.8mbps CBR MPEG-4 on cable, and while it looks objectively like garbage for sports and movies, it probably looks a lot less garbagey than trying to cram 3 or 4 HDs into a single ATSC-8VSB channel, and it looks fine for news and talk show type of stuff.



If they get the full 36mbps on a 6mhz channel using OFDM, and their compression is 4x as efficient as MPEG-2, which can get a decent but not great 1080i feed into about 8mbps, then they could have 15+ HD channels per transmitter. The reality, however, is that the number will be lower, as the industry is all the way through the MPEG-2 learning curve and has squeezed everything out of it, but they have barely started with HEVC online encoding.
They can use h.264 with atsc 1.0. There is a station around here that uses it for a sub channel. The problem is older devices cant decide it. Which is why it isnt used much.

Sent from my Galaxy S8 using Tapatalk
BiggAW likes this.

53TB unRAID2--45TB unRAID3--35TB unRAID1a
TCL 6 Series--Sony UBP-X800--Philips BDP7502--Onkyo HT-S7800
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply HDTV Technical



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