METV CH 247 Missing?

[dare2be]

We get Me-TV Here Local into local high definition ( and over the air HD as well as a second OTA standard definition low quality sub Channel). I've noticed that Me-TV is now airing much better quality source for some their programs. While the source is not in HD, the high SD quality of the source on the HD LiL is excellent! Charlie's Angels being one of the programs using very high-quality SD source to broadcast looking excellent on HD LiL, almost like true hi-def.

But it's still distorted, HD or not.

 

[sam_gordon]

There I fixed your error.

"Cross converted" is used when talking about switching between 1080i and 720p. Some people think 720p is better, others think 1080i. I would agree if you were taking a 1080p signal and changing it to 720p, that would be a down conversion. So yes, while going from 1080 to 720 is a loss of lines, changing from i to p helps negate that.

 

[mwdxer1]

I watch a lot of SD, especially old shows. Often the new TV sets look awful in SD. I bought a Toshiba 32" 720p TV years ago and even though SD is not quite as sharp as on an older CRT, it still is decent. But so many want 1080i, UHD, 4K. So SD is left in the dust. Everything is not in HD and probably never will.

 

[Tampa8]

There I fixed your error.

It's more cross converted than down converted. 720P can look better than 1080I. Sports or fast action can look better, Fox and ABC, and that includes ESPN broadcast in 720P. I believe so does MLBN.

 

[Cheddar_Head]

It's more cross converted than down converted. 720P can look better than 1080I. Sports or fast action can look better, Fox and ABC, and that includes ESPN broadcast in 720P. I believe so does MLBN.

Yes, I believe that Fox, ABC and ESPN chose 720P for their broadcasts because they can do 60fps OTA which definitely results in better motion handling with sports. CBS and NBC chose 1080i as it gives better PQ for standard programming. Trade-offs, that's life.

 

[dare2be]

I can't tell much of a difference between 1080 and 720, but I sure can tell a difference between p (progressive scan) and i (interlaced).

Given that none of the broadcasters (or cable channels for that matter) deliver 1080p, I prefer 720p over 1080i.

 

[Cypresstree]

Yes, I believe that Fox, ABC and ESPN chose 720P for their broadcasts because they can do 60fps OTA which definitely results in better motion handling with sports. CBS and NBC chose 1080i as it gives better PQ for standard programming. Trade-offs, that's life.

I much prefer nbc and cbs OTA feeds for sports broadcasts.


Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys mobile app

 

[mwdxer1]

I can't tell much of a difference between 1080 and 720, but I sure can tell a difference between p (progressive scan) and i (interlaced).

Given that none of the broadcasters (or cable channels for that matter) deliver 1080p, I prefer 720p over 1080i.

I don't notice anything much between 720p and 1080i, except in watching SD (480i), an HD 720p does better on SD.
Here we have METV OTA.
2.1 KATU ABC 720p
2.2 METV 720p
2.3 COMET 480i
2.4 STADIUM 480i

METV does broadcast in 720p.

 

[sam_gordon]

METV does broadcast in 720p.

I admit this is picking nits, but no, it doesn't. Your local station is sending METV out in 720. They are getting the feed from network in 1080.

There's two MeTV network feeds, a primary and secondary. They are both 1080. What the MVPDs or locals are doing with that feed (cross converting to 720 or down converting to 480)is what affects how you get it at home.

 

[DishSubLA]

But it's still distorted, HD or not.

Yeah it is still zoomed-in a bit, but I don't have much of an objection to that. I did at first, but I find it to be not really damaging. They really shot quite a bit with overscan in mind in those days--well quite a LOT of overscan in mind, so it is not like we are missing anything vital. I works well enough for me, but I understand the objections. Oh, and I would add that I don't find the zoom-in to be distortion at all. There appears to be no changing of the aspect ratio. The result is extremely great PQ with no "distortion."

 

[DishSubLA]

I admit this is picking nits, but no, it doesn't. Your local station is sending METV out in 720. They are getting the feed from network in 1080.

There's two MeTV network feeds, a primary and secondary. They are both 1080. What the MVPDs or locals are doing with that feed (cross converting to 720 or down converting to 480)is what affects how you get it at home.

I believe Weigel owns the local we get through LIL in HD, so the 1080 feed is most likely for best quality (no sports) as source, and then almost all the stations will broadcast at 720 most likely to accomodate "sub-channels" with decent PQ for the main channel. A compromise.

 

[DishSubLA]

Well, the problem today is that regardless of the resolution, it is the bit-rate that makes the greatest difference in the quility of the main OTA channel. By accomodating "sub-channels," sometimes too many, they are robbing from the band-width, and so even one would be hard pressed to see much of a differnce between 1080 and 720 because the bit rate is starved sufficiently that it can look worse than cable or Dish LIL--by that I mean the OTA is can be pretty bad to start with, although I get the impression that Dish really crams poor PQ for smaller DMA's. Here in LA, it is close to what we get OTA, although I think it used to be almost a wash, but now just a touch more noticalbly inferior, but NOT at all objectionalbe.

In fact, last week KABC was looking AWFUL. There were compression artifacts during the big late afternoon big money making newscasts most noticably on the fine, small logo image (the bug) and Chyron effects, and it was bad, but not that bad on the main video image, but it did look a little softer. I suspected Dish, but when I went to OTA on the Dish, then OTA on the TiVo, and OTA directly on the TV, the lousy artifacts were still there. OMG! KABC was smashing the PQ--no doubt in relation to accomodating those stupid sub-channels. I hope it was temporary. I have not checked lately.

And that is the sad point. We are not getting the absolutely beautiful HD on our Main channels all across the country that we used to enjoy because of the sub-channels. Too bad because those early days had some breathtaking PQ. Now it all look a bit softended and no so clear compared to early days. I knew that was going to happen when the FCC ruled to allow OTA's to slap on the sub-channels. I don't think we can get true full 19MHz HD ANYWHERE these days, not even the OTA's that used to provide them.

 

[dare2be]

Yeah it is still zoomed-in a bit, but I don't have much of an objection to that. I did at first, but I find it to be not really damaging. They really shot quite a bit with overscan in mind in those days--well quite a LOT of overscan in mind, so it is not like we are missing anything vital. I works well enough for me, but I understand the objections. Oh, and I would add that I don't find the zoom-in to be distortion at all. There appears to be no changing of the aspect ratio. The result is extremely great PQ with no "distortion."

It is slightly zoomed AND stretched left-to-right, enough for me to notice it. So the aspect ratio is affected. I have compared a show like MASH on MeTV to my DVDs. There is a difference in aspect. People look fatter.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well, the problem today is that regardless of the resolution, it is the bit-rate that makes the greatest difference in the quility of the main OTA channel. By accomodating "sub-channels," sometimes too many, they are robbing from the band-width, and so even one would be hard pressed to see much of a differnce between 1080 and 720 because the bit rate is starved sufficiently that it can look worse than cable or Dish LIL--by that I mean the OTA is can be pretty bad to start with, although I get the impression that Dish really crams poor PQ for smaller DMA's. Here in LA, it is close to what we get OTA, although I think it used to be almost a wash, but now just a touch more noticalbly inferior, but NOT at all objectionalbe.

In fact, last week KABC was looking AWFUL. There were compression artifacts during the big late afternoon big money making newscasts most noticably on the fine, small logo image (the bug) and Chyron effects, and it was bad, but not that bad on the main video image, but it did look a little softer. I suspected Dish, but when I went to OTA on the Dish, then OTA on the TiVo, and OTA directly on the TV, the lousy artifacts were still there. OMG! KABC was smashing the PQ--no doubt in relation to accomodating those stupid sub-channels. I hope it was temporary. I have not checked lately.

And that is the sad point. We are not getting the absolutely beautiful HD on our Main channels all across the country that we used to enjoy because of the sub-channels. Too bad because those early days had some breathtaking PQ. Now it all look a bit softended and no so clear compared to early days. I knew that was going to happen when the FCC ruled to allow OTA's to slap on the sub-channels. I don't think we can get true full 19MHz HD ANYWHERE these days, not even the OTA's that used to provide them.

I totally agree with you. Supposedly ATSC 3.0 will give more bandwidth, but TPTB will probably just cram in more subchannels.

 

[dare2be]

Well, the problem today is that regardless of the resolution, it is the bit-rate that makes the greatest difference in the quility of the main OTA channel. By accomodating "sub-channels," sometimes too many, they are robbing from the band-width, and so even one would be hard pressed to see much of a differnce between 1080 and 720 because the bit rate is starved sufficiently that it can look worse than cable or Dish LIL--by that I mean the OTA is can be pretty bad to start with, although I get the impression that Dish really crams poor PQ for smaller DMA's. Here in LA, it is close to what we get OTA, although I think it used to be almost a wash, but now just a touch more noticalbly inferior, but NOT at all objectionalbe.

In fact, last week KABC was looking AWFUL. There were compression artifacts during the big late afternoon big money making newscasts most noticably on the fine, small logo image (the bug) and Chyron effects, and it was bad, but not that bad on the main video image, but it did look a little softer. I suspected Dish, but when I went to OTA on the Dish, then OTA on the TiVo, and OTA directly on the TV, the lousy artifacts were still there. OMG! KABC was smashing the PQ--no doubt in relation to accomodating those stupid sub-channels. I hope it was temporary. I have not checked lately.

And that is the sad point. We are not getting the absolutely beautiful HD on our Main channels all across the country that we used to enjoy because of the sub-channels. Too bad because those early days had some breathtaking PQ. Now it all look a bit softended and no so clear compared to early days. I knew that was going to happen when the FCC ruled to allow OTA's to slap on the sub-channels. I don't think we can get true full 19MHz HD ANYWHERE these days, not even the OTA's that used to provide them.

On top of that, MPEG2 compression (OTA) is less efficient than MPEG4 (LiL), so any reduction in bitrate on OTA will have more deleterious effects on quality than with MPEG4.

So, why don't OTA feeds transmit in MPEG4 instead of MPEG2, which would effectively cut the bandwidth requirements in half for similar picture quality?

 

[Juan]

All this over a bunch of reruns from the 60s and 70s

Well, the problem today is that regardless of the resolution, it is the bit-rate that makes the greatest difference in the quility of the main OTA channel. By accomodating "sub-channels," sometimes too many, they are robbing from the band-width, and so even one would be hard pressed to see much of a differnce between 1080 and 720 because the bit rate is starved sufficiently that it can look worse than cable or Dish LIL--by that I mean the OTA is can be pretty bad to start with, although I get the impression that Dish really crams poor PQ for smaller DMA's. Here in LA, it is close to what we get OTA, although I think it used to be almost a wash, but now just a touch more noticalbly inferior, but NOT at all objectionalbe.

In fact, last week KABC was looking AWFUL. There were compression artifacts during the big late afternoon big money making newscasts most noticably on the fine, small logo image (the bug) and Chyron effects, and it was bad, but not that bad on the main video image, but it did look a little softer. I suspected Dish, but when I went to OTA on the Dish, then OTA on the TiVo, and OTA directly on the TV, the lousy artifacts were still there. OMG! KABC was smashing the PQ--no doubt in relation to accomodating those stupid sub-channels. I hope it was temporary. I have not checked lately.

And that is the sad point. We are not getting the absolutely beautiful HD on our Main channels all across the country that we used to enjoy because of the sub-channels. Too bad because those early days had some breathtaking PQ. Now it all look a bit softended and no so clear compared to early days. I knew that was going to happen when the FCC ruled to allow OTA's to slap on the sub-channels. I don't think we can get true full 19MHz HD ANYWHERE these days, not even the OTA's that used to provide them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using the SatelliteGuys app!

 

[dare2be]

When TV was good, not the trashy reality crap we have now.

 

[DishSubLA]

It is slightly zoomed AND stretched left-to-right, enough for me to notice it. So the aspect ratio is affected. I have compared a show like MASH on MeTV to my DVDs. There is a difference in aspect. People look fatter.

OK. I get your point. I have to say that the stretch to my eye is not noticable. I will look at it more closely next time. But, still, it is a decent compromise. HOWEVER, I would prefer, and think it best to just LEAVE it ALONE and send it out in ORIGINAL aspect ration. I do PREFER that always. But I don't find MeTV's solution greatly objectionalbe. It is certainly better than what--was it USA--or some of those channels were doing years ago with "Stretch-o-vision." I am quite pleased to see that most channels choose to send original aspect ratio, although there are still a few offenders out there. .

 

[DishSubLA]

On top of that, MPEG2 compression (OTA) is less efficient than MPEG4 (LiL), so any reduction in bitrate on OTA will have more deleterious effects on quality than with MPEG4.

So, why don't OTA feeds transmit in MPEG4 instead of MPEG2, which would effectively cut the bandwidth requirements in half for similar picture quality?

Although the current ATSC can support MPEG4, the problem is that virtually every HDTV in homes today do not have the ability/hardware to decode the MPEG4 codec. I do think there is one or two manufacturers/brands, and of what FEW models I do not know, that actually do have the hardware for the MPEG4 codec, but that was most recently, a few years ago. I do not know if any of the most recent UHD TV's have MPEG 4 decoders in them, but I would doubt it. Absolutely none of my HDTV's have the ability to cope with MPEG4, and likely none of yours, either. A move to MPEG4 for ATSC 1.0 would require us to get new HDTV's and turn our current TV's into bricks. It is a matter of HARDWARE.

Even with MPEG4 years ago, while the standard was set for some time and was being used for rendering, on the other hand, linear (live streaming) TV (Sat & Cable, etc.) had to wait until the technology could catch up to provide reliable encoders that could do the job on the fly well enough to meet "broadcast" standards for satellite DBS like Dish and DTV required for their live streams and be sufficiently economical to implement in millions of devices along with the necessary chips from the chip makers.

Of course, the broadcasters would say, "wait for ATSC 3.0: the solution to everything." Good Grief. I have forgotten what codec is going to be used for ATSC 3.0, but it will NOT be MPEG2, and I can't recall if it will be MPEG or another codec. But it will be IP, and that is the real change that matters the most, and gives it the most flexibility, and no "tuners" on TV's necessarirly necessary as legacy HDTV's, most easily using the built-in port for Ethernet, can view ATSC 3.0 using a headless "tuner/receiver" that uses your home network to distribute OTA TV to all manner of devices--and viewing local TV directly on your mobile device live as it streams from the transmitter--and MORE, perhaps even delivering streams from Netflix, etc. in rural areas via your local OTA ATSC 3.0 IP stream. We will have to see which of the many touted features the broadcasters actually implement.

 

[DishSubLA]

I totally agree with you. Supposedly ATSC 3.0 will give more bandwidth, but TPTB will probably just cram in more subchannels.

EXACTLY! Or more SERVICES, such as streaming Netflix, etc. to rural subscribers, and who knows all manner of data since ATSC 3.0 will be IP, and that means it can use its broadcast signal to transmit data--any data using IP (Internet Protocol)--to IOT devices or part of a network for Hospitals in the region to share data or WHO KNOWS WHAT!