HD broadcasts on TV

[BStecke]

Y'know . . . I'm watching "The Young And The Restless" (I'm not really watching it, the g/f is, but I'm sitting next to her) in HD, and since I've gotten into Blu Ray, anything I see broadcast in HD kind of sucks. It definitely lacks the wow factor it used to have. Colors are great, but the overall sharpness and clarity of the picture is weak compared to BD. Plus, anything I've watched seems to have a LOT of motion in the picture (save the Superbowl . . . that's always impressive). When HD becomes more prevalent and closer to standard, are there plans to beef up the quality? I don't really get into TV, I mostly just watch movies, so it's not that big of a deal, just wondering.

[Wondermaker]

Call me ignorant, but it was my understanding that most HD broadcast signals on TV were 720p only. Hence it is technically HD, but not "full HD," like what Blu-ray is.

I wouldn't know personally - I haven't had any HD experience on TV. Would love to, though... Conan is in HD!

[movies3]

Originally Posted by Wondermaker

Call me ignorant, but it was my understanding that most HD broadcast signals on TV were 720p only. Hence it is technically HD, but not "full HD," like what Blu-ray is.

I wouldn't know personally - I haven't had any HD experience on TV. Would love to, though... Conan is in HD!

no your correct, most of the shows are in 720p some in 1080i. So its not full 1080p yet. But im guessing it should be changing soon i hope

[clyon]

Originally Posted by movies3

no your correct, most of the shows are in 720p some in 1080i. So its not full 1080p yet. But im guessing it should be changing soon i hope

1080p OTA is never going to happen, many be in 30-50 years.

OTA (HD) is highly compressed video

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...6&print_page=y

[aaronwt]

Originally Posted by Wondermaker

Call me ignorant, but it was my understanding that most HD broadcast signals on TV were 720p only. Hence it is technically HD, but not "full HD," like what Blu-ray is.

I wouldn't know personally - I haven't had any HD experience on TV. Would love to, though... Conan is in HD!

The majority(ie. more than 50%)of networks broadcast in1080i. 720P is the minority.

And "full HD" is some marketing term thought up. When the HD specs were finalized there was nothing called full HD and there still isn't. It's HD and can be in several formats.

[movies3]

Originally Posted by clyon

1080p OTA is never going to happen, many be in 30-50 years.

OTA (HD) is highly compressed video

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...6&print_page=y

why would it take 30 yrs to get 1080p on tv broadcast? Since its already out on bluray just wondering. If it did take that long we would already have another format to talk about and buy.

[donricouga]

Problem is HD Broadcast is highly compressed. This results in artifacting and macroblocking. Its more evident in broadcasts with alot of motion in it. I.e. a sporting event, moving water, or a chase scene. On top of that, we can't even enjoy lossless audio from broadcast.

[clyon]

Originally Posted by movies3

why would it take 30 yrs to get 1080p on tv broadcast? Since its already out on bluray just wondering. If it did take that long we would already have another format to talk about and buy.

OTA bitrat is way to low, I think it is 1/4 or 1/2 of what is needed for 1080p.

The technology needs a jump & get cheap & as stuff breaks down then the broadcast companys with replace the equipment with stuff that can broadcast in 1080p. Right now they are running around across the country just to get everything digital for next year & that equipment that is being installed now, will last 10-15+ year.

[BStecke]

Haven't other countries had HD for awhile now? If I remember correctly and was informed correctly, we're lagging quite a bit in this area. Has anybody seen HD in another country? How does it compare to the US?

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by movies3

why would it take 30 yrs to get 1080p on tv broadcast? Since its already out on bluray just wondering. If it did take that long we would already have another format to talk about and buy.

Short answer: Receivers are not good enough yet and we can't squeeze in enough bits yet.

Long answer:
1. 1080p requires more bits to be sent over the air than either 720p or 1080i. This requires a better carrier to noise ratio (Eb/No) at the receiver than is currently the standard (or expected to be in the near future).
2. Also the occupied bandwidth is more than is currently authorized.

We can mitigate the first one by better forward error correction codings, but that requires a fair amount of horsepower in both the encoding and decoding ends. The horsepower required is not currently available at consumer electronic pricing.

We can mitigate the second one by using higher order encodings, but that exacerbates the first one.

Both of these will eventually happen, but it will take years for it to trickle down to the consumer.

It won't take thirty years as the long duration issue is a technical one (getting enough bits through in a discernible manner) rather than a political one (getting more or different bandwidth allocated by the FCC). However, I don't expect 1080p for *at least* five years from the digital switch date and maybe not for 10 years after that date.

Originally Posted by donricouga

Problem is HD Broadcast is highly compressed. This results in artifacting and macroblocking. Its more evident in broadcasts with alot of motion in it. I.e. a sporting event, moving water, or a chase scene. On top of that, we can't even enjoy lossless audio from broadcast.

Over the air is not significantly more compressed than some Blu-ray disks have been. The issue is real-time or near real-time compression versus having enough time to tweak the compression.

The algorithms implemented for real-time or near real-time compression are not as efficient as those used for Blu-ray disks. Additionally, there is a fair amount of hands-on tweaking of the codecs for Blu-ray disks, some times taking several days per hour of movie. This time is not available for TV shows... especially "live" shows like the evening news and such. Plus, the computational horsepower to implement truly real-time MPEG-4, Part 10 compression on 1080p is more than can be inexpensively attained right now. The only ones of which I know are custom implementations in the latest and greatest field programmable gate arrays. They are quite costly implementations. Not something the local news station are going to implement. Will we get there? Yes, but not in the next year or two.

Additionally, many cameras used for HD transmissions are not 3 CCD/CMOS FPA cameras but instead use a "Bayer Array" with a single CCD. Look up Bayer Array and you'll see that you don't get as much information with that system (and thus start with a softer image to encode) than when you can capture each and every pixel at 3 (or more) colors.

Also the issue with lossless audio is, as above, the bandwidth available. Lossless audio -- especially 5.1, 7.1 and such -- just requires too much bandwidth to fit within the authorization.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Haven't other countries had HD for awhile now? If I remember correctly and was informed correctly, we're lagging quite a bit in this area. Has anybody seen HD in another country? How does it compare to the US?

on what you call "HD".

Certain areas of Japan had "HD" back in the 80s. It was analog rather than digital.

There are also localized area in the world where OTA HD is more prevalent than the average of the entire U.S., but that is just "cherry picking". I know of know area even one fourth the size of the U.S. that is more advanced in OTA HD (as defined by the Grand Alliance and/or ITU) than is the U.S.

[movies3]

Originally Posted by Shadowself

Short answer: Receivers are not good enough yet and we can't squeeze in enough bits yet.

Long answer:
1. 1080p requires more bits to be sent over the air than either 720p or 1080i. This requires a better carrier to noise ratio (Eb/No) at the receiver than is currently the standard (or expected to be in the near future).
2. Also the occupied bandwidth is more than is currently authorized.

We can mitigate the first one by better forward error correction codings, but that requires a fair amount of horsepower in both the encoding and decoding ends. The horsepower required is not currently available at consumer electronic pricing.

We can mitigate the second one by using higher order encodings, but that exacerbates the first one.

Both of these will eventually happen, but it will take years for it to trickle down to the consumer.

It won't take thirty years as the long duration issue is a technical one (getting enough bits through in a discernible manner) rather than a political one (getting more or different bandwidth allocated by the FCC). However, I don't expect 1080p for *at least* five years from the digital switch date and maybe not for 10 years after that date.



Over the air is not significantly more compressed than some Blu-ray disks have been. The issue is real-time or near real-time compression versus having enough time to tweak the compression.

The algorithms implemented for real-time or near real-time compression are not as efficient as those used for Blu-ray disks. Additionally, there is a fair amount of hands-on tweaking of the codecs for Blu-ray disks, some times taking several days per hour of movie. This time is not available for TV shows... especially "live" shows like the evening news and such. Plus, the computational horsepower to implement truly real-time MPEG-4, Part 10 compression on 1080p is more than can be inexpensively attained right now. The only ones of which I know are custom implementations in the latest and greatest field programmable gate arrays. They are quite costly implementations. Not something the local news station are going to implement. Will we get there? Yes, but not in the next year or two.

Additionally, many cameras used for HD transmissions are not 3 CCD/CMOS FPA cameras but instead use a "Bayer Array" with a single CCD. Look up Bayer Array and you'll see that you don't get as much information with that system (and thus start with a softer image to encode) than when you can capture each and every pixel at 3 (or more) colors.

Also the issue with lossless audio is, as above, the bandwidth available. Lossless audio -- especially 5.1, 7.1 and such -- just requires too much bandwidth to fit within the authorization.

ty for the long answer

[desmond]

at this point you cant even upscale 1080i to 1080p in real time on a ps3 (most powerful processor).

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by donricouga

Problem is HD Broadcast is highly compressed. This results in artifacting and macroblocking. Its more evident in broadcasts with alot of motion in it. I.e. a sporting event, moving water, or a chase scene. On top of that, we can't even enjoy lossless audio from broadcast.

Basketball in HD is the worst.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by BStecke

Haven't other countries had HD for awhile now? If I remember correctly and was informed correctly, we're lagging quite a bit in this area. Has anybody seen HD in another country? How does it compare to the US?

In rare pockets there were some other forms of HD, but it isn't like tha quality of today, which still sucks OTA. In general you need to realize that no one is close to the US in terms of TV and movies. people like to pretend their is better stuff out there, but truth is most of these nations are lucky if they have 10 legit channels. Just travel, stay for awhile and try to actually watch TV. Everywhere else blows.

[ra1024]

Shadowself, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in this area. Can you say how cable, satellite, and ota differ in hd quality? I thought I had read that ota was actually better than cable which was better than satellite. I wasn't sure if this was accurate and wondered if you could shed some light on this.

Thanks for all the info.

[clyon]

Originally Posted by ra1024

Shadowself, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in this area. Can you say how cable, satellite, and ota differ in hd quality? I thought I had read that ota was actually better than cable which was better than satellite. I wasn't sure if this was accurate and wondered if you could shed some light on this.

Thanks for all the info.

Cable is the worst for HD.

[aaronwt]

Originally Posted by desmond

at this point you cant even upscale 1080i to 1080p in real time on a ps3 (most powerful processor).

You can with other processors. My VP50 does an excellent job deinterlacing 1080i to 1080P.

[GarettP]

I have the DirecTv +HD-DVR and have the native setting on and almost everything is 1080i, ESPN and Fox are 720p, but those really seem to be the only ones in 720p.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ra1024

Shadowself, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable in this area. Can you say how cable, satellite, and ota differ in hd quality? I thought I had read that ota was actually better than cable which was better than satellite. I wasn't sure if this was accurate and wondered if you could shed some light on this.

Thanks for all the info.

For TV Broadcasts:

#1 OTA
#2 Satellite
#3 (by far) Cable

Cable is a joke compared to DirecTV or other sat providers. OTA is a bit better than sat. If you watch a pre-recorded Blu-ray disc, even OTA is a bad joke.