digital TV : you find it to be a farce ?

[Eric Smith]

We've used it for the last couple years with no problems. Love the picture quality HD or SD. The only complaint would be the fact that our LCD big screen takes forever to change a channel. Not so with our converter boxes for the other TV's.

 

[bretfraz]

 Originally Posted By: XS650

Bret, I have noticed that my OTA HD picture is marginally better than the signal I get from Dish and a lot better than the signal that my neighbors get from our local dirtbag cable company. What I like most about the OTA digital is that sometimes the digital sub-channels have programming that Cable or satellite doesn't carry. Unfortunately, the OTA digital station that has the best subchannels is moving to VHF tomorrow and we don't have a VHF antenna.

Howdy, Yeah, that's what I've heard. My folks bought a cheap HDTV antenna and got great images OTA but I haven't tried it yet. I know cable co's compress the HD signal on many (most?) channels for their own reasons, and image quality suffers. Still, I'm pretty happy and certainly notice a diff between HD signal and SD. Sounds like Smokey has a problem with his provider if a couple channels are not xmitted in HD. If I had that problem, I'd switch to the competition.

 

[CivicFan]

 Originally Posted By: XS650

From what I have seen. They can get one HD and one SD channel in the 6mHz bandwidth allocated each OTA channel. Or 4 SD channels.

The local NBC affiliate broadcasts 1 HD (regular NBC), 1 SD (weather and news) and 1 very badly compressed SD sports channel (Universal Sports). The PBS affiliate broadcasts 1 HD, 1 SD (Spanich language programming) and 1 somewhat compressed SD channel (Create TV). That makes me think that you can squeeze in a third SD channel if it's compressed. Some of the religious broadcasters have 5 sub channels but they don't have HD - just bad quality SD broadcasts.

 

[CivicFan]

 Originally Posted By: XS650

dirtbag cable company

Priceless expression

 

[StevieC]

 Originally Posted By: AcuraTech

Speaking of confused grandmas with the Digital transition: YouTube Video (PG rated) Jack Benny. LOL.

When I had first seen this I laughed my arse off.

 

[XS650]

 Originally Posted By: CivicFan

That makes me think that you can squeeze in a third SD channel if it's compressed. Some of the religious broadcasters have 5 sub channels but they don't have HD - just bad quality SD broadcasts.

The most bad quality SD broadcasts a religious station has on one channel here is 4, so you are ahead of us.

 

[heavyhitter]

 Originally Posted By: BrianWC

Are we/am I confusing digital TV with HD? I thought "digital" has been the norm for a while now...and the issue is just the cutting off of the analog signal?

Digital TV's have been around (mainstream) for maybe the last 3-4 years. Digital broadcast have not. The advantage of digital broadcast over analog TV is that digital channels take up less bandwidth. This means that digital broadcasters can provide more digital channels in the same space, provide high-definition television service, or provide other non-television services such as multimedia or interactivity. My point number one is, it is about time that they offer public TV something better than 480 (704x480). Digital public broadcast can hit a 720 (1280x720) if you have a Tv that supports that or greater. My point number 2 is even the best HD TV's you can buy today with a 1800 (1920x1080) max resolution picture is still not surpassed even some old PC CRT that could resolve a picture more than (1920x1080). In summary, we had the tecnology for some time to offer better viewing, its about time they did something better. I have had HD cable television for like 5 years so the only benefit I get from the digital broadcast now are in my RV.

 

[heavyhitter]

 Originally Posted By: BrianWC

Right. That's what I am saying. When I see statements like "It's about time for digital," I scratch my head. Whether or not the previous poster was, I think a LOT of people ARE confused about this whole transition and think digital=HD.

I think you miss read my meaning of my post.

 

[ZZman]

Digital TV is not HD TV. They are 2 different things. http://www.dtv.gov/whatisdtv.html

 

[heavyhitter]

 Originally Posted By: ZZman

Digital TV is not HD TV. They are 2 different things. http://www.dtv.gov/whatisdtv.html

Who say digital TV is HDTV?

 

[ZZman]

Many people are confused about this and think they will have this wonderful HD picture just because we are switching to Digital TV. Go to the bottom of the page of the link and read the DTV facts at a glance.

 

[BrianWC]

Argh, all I was saying is that digital cable has been around (at least by my old provider) for a while. Yes, we've had subchannels of the local stations, they were just placed on different channels. One local station uses it's subchannels for a 24 hr doppler and 24 reruns of the latest newscasts. This has been going on in my area since at least 2003. I know not ALL the channels were digital but many were. And as far as what I said about HD vs digital, what I mean is a lot of people I know seem to be getting confused and think that they had to run out and buy an HD capable TV in order to continue to receive their channels without an analog to digital converter box or in order to get the full benefit of digital broadcast. I really think there has been a bit of collusion between cable companies, TV makers, and some broadcasters over the issue. I've seen some local stations airing "special reports" about the digital transition AND similar "special reports" about the benefits of HD.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

 Originally Posted By: XS650

 Originally Posted By: CivicFan

That makes me think that you can squeeze in a third SD channel if it's compressed. Some of the religious broadcasters have 5 sub channels but they don't have HD - just bad quality SD broadcasts.

The most bad quality SD broadcasts a religious station has on one channel here is 4, so you are ahead of us.

LOL I like one of those sub channels to *listen* to rather than watch. Nice relaxing music. Pax network I think. But, there's always internet radio that has a bizillion of those channels. I wish DirecTV carried the sub channels as the local CBS station has interesting programming on their alternate channel.

 

[brianl703]

 Originally Posted By: bretfraz

I know cable co's compress the HD signal on many (most?) channels for their own reasons, and image quality suffers.

They remodulate the digital data to use more efficient modulation scheme because the higher signal/noise ratio of cable allows them to do that. It doesn't degrade the image quality, no more so than using a 56K modem instead of a 28.8K modem causes your data to get garbled.

 

[bretfraz]

 Originally Posted By: brianl703

 Originally Posted By: bretfraz

I know cable co's compress the HD signal on many (most?) channels for their own reasons, and image quality suffers.

They remodulate the digital data to use more efficient modulation scheme because the higher signal/noise ratio of cable allows them to do that. It doesn't degrade the image quality, no more so than using a 56K modem instead of a 28.8K modem causes your data to get garbled.

Hi, I don't want to open Pandora's Digital HD Box here, but there has be a great deal of discussion on bandwidth compression by cable providers so more programming can be offered at the expense of image quality. However, this seems to affect only some channels and can be traced to poor source material in some cases. This was the basis of my comment. Personally, if there is bandwidth compression, I haven't noticed it, but others have.

 

[XS650]

 Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn

The most bad quality SD broadcasts a religious station has on one channel here is 4, so you are ahead of us.

LOL I like one of those sub channels to *listen* to rather than watch. Nice relaxing music. Pax network I think. [/quote] That's the one with 4 here, Pax.

 

[Kruse]

 Originally Posted By: smokey1

not really impressed thus far . :- (

My mom lives out in a fringe area and went from 2 channels to about 10. I got her a converter box, hooked it up and everything went okay without a glitch. This was about 3 months ago. I'll have to reboot the thing after this weekend to see if any more stations got picked up. She's very happy, considering she was going to get a satellite dish before this.

 

[XS650]

 Originally Posted By: Kruse

 Originally Posted By: smokey1

not really impressed thus far . :- (

My mom lives out in a fringe area and went from 2 channels to about 10. I got her a converter box, hooked it up and everything went okay without a glitch. This was about 3 months ago. I'll have to reboot the thing after this weekend to see if any more stations got picked up. She's very happy, considering she was going to get a satellite dish before this.

Some stations will probably change actual channel assignments too. Some are going to move when the analog stations vacate frequencies.

 

[CivicFan]

As suggested earlier, the coat hanger antenna is a cheap way of receiving more channels. We have one of that style (bought from Amazon) that is professionally made and is pretty good. Much better than any other antenna I tried when we switched.

 

[brianl703]

 Originally Posted By: bretfraz

Personally, if there is bandwidth compression, I haven't noticed it, but others have.

The local cable company is not re-encoding OTA broadcast channels to use a lower bitrate--I've recorded some with a TV tuner card and the resulting file is as large as it should be. (The TV tuner card simply dumps the bitstream to the hard drive exactly as it's recorded). They might be re-encoding other channels, but I'm not sure how you could ever prove or disprove that (at least until they start passing them through unencrypted so you can record the bitstream).