Ota Hdtv

[renelicious]

I didn't know exactly where to post this, so I thought I would put it here and if its wrong hopefully someone could move it. I figured the HDTV Dish people would know though.

How well does OTA HDTV come in. I don't have and haven't even yet seen HDTV, so I was just wondering if it works better the SDTV over air. Its seems silly to spend that money and they get a grainy picture. It works in higher frequencies, so I would assume that it comes in clearly (and worse as you get farther away from the source), but I was just wondering if someone could fill me in.

3 out of the 4 networks in my local area still aren't even broadcasting in HD anyway, so it will be a while before I find out.

Thanks.

[John W]

I didn't know exactly where to post this, so I thought I would put it here and if its wrong hopefully someone could move it. I figured the HDTV Dish people would know though.

How well does OTA HDTV come in. I don't have and haven't even yet seen HDTV, so I was just wondering if it works better the SDTV over air. Its seems silly to spend that money and they get a grainy picture. It works in higher frequencies, so I would assume that it comes in clearly (and worse as you get farther away from the source), but I was just wondering if someone could fill me in.

3 out of the 4 networks in my local area still aren't even broadcasting in HD anyway, so it will be a while before I find out.

Thanks.

Its actually OTA Digital and then certain programs are in HD.It is just like sat. in that if you can lock onto the signal, its perfect.None of the traditional analog OTA reception issues.

[Mikey]

I didn't know exactly where to post this, so I thought I would put it here and if its wrong hopefully someone could move it. I figured the HDTV Dish people would know though.

How well does OTA HDTV come in. I don't have and haven't even yet seen HDTV, so I was just wondering if it works better the SDTV over air. Its seems silly to spend that money and they get a grainy picture. It works in higher frequencies, so I would assume that it comes in clearly (and worse as you get farther away from the source), but I was just wondering if someone could fill me in.

3 out of the 4 networks in my local area still aren't even broadcasting in HD anyway, so it will be a while before I find out.

Thanks.Actually, it's not HDTV you're asking about, it's digital TV. HDTV requires digital TV, but not all digital is HD. There really isn't such a thing as a grainy digital picture. For the most part, if your receiver can lock onto the signal, you'll get a great picture. If not, you'll get no picture. Check www.antennaweb.org for digital broadcasters in your area. That will give you an idea of who's out there doing digital tv, and what kind of antenna you'd need to get each from your location.

[Bill R]

OTA digital SD content looks a lot better than analog SD content no matter how good your analog signal is. As mentioned, digital is either GO or NO-GO, there is no snowy "in-between". Besides the HDTV (or HD ready TV) it is very important to be able to receive a strong digital signal. Many digital stations are not transmitting at their full power right now (they will do that when analog is shut down [currently scheduled for Feb. 19, 2009 but that date is expected to be moved back AGAIN] and they move their antennas to the top of their broadcasting tower) so you might not be able to receive them very well without a good antenna. In my area we have to use a fairly good (medium range) VHF/UHF antenna to get all the local digital stations. In many markets the digital stations are UHF only so you want to check http://www.antennaweb.org to see what antenna you need in your area. Another important consideration is the STB (set top box) or the tuner in your HD TV. OTA digital stations require an ATSC in the TV or STB. Right now only the larger TVs are required to have ATSC tuners. Some time in the future (and the time varies by TV size) all TVs (and sometime in the future VCRs and DVD recorders) will be required to have ATSC tuners.

Most of the people here are satellite subscribers and all the HD satellite receivers have ATSC tuners so you can get your local digital stations by just adding an antenna (most receivers require you to subscribe to your local channel package before you can use the ATSC tuner). The newer satellite HD receivers (like the DirecTV H20 and the DISH Network ViP series) have very good ATSC tuners (MUCH better than past generation receivers) so if you have a good antenna you will have no problem getting your digital locals.

[Jason Kragt]

OTA digital SD content looks a lot better than analog SD content no matter how good your analog signal is.
Not necessarily.

In general practice, yes, digital SD content looks better than analog SD content much of the time. If you have a less-than-perfect signal and the broadcaster is not trying to squeeze in too many subchannels, then it does look very good.

However, there are instances where the analog SD content can outperform digital SD content. I was watching an outdoor show on PBS recently. I receive our PBS station (both digital and analog) very clearly. The analog picture showed ripples in the water beautifully. The digital picture, because of overcompression, did not show the features of the water nearly so clear. It can be difficult to squeeze certain types of details (like water waves) into a digital picture when your bandwidth is constrained.

This reminds me of the old vinyl versus CD debate. In most cases, especially after repeated use, a CD will outperform vinyl, but if you have a good needle and a brand new record, vinyl can sound noticably better.

The situation is different when comparing digital HD pictures to analog SD pictures. I have never seen an analog SD picture that looked better than a digital HD picture.

[LtMunst]

[QUOTE=Jason Kragt
This reminds me of the old vinyl versus CD debate. In most cases, especially after repeated use, a CD will outperform vinyl, but if you have a good needle and a brand new record, vinyl can sound noticably better.

The situation is different when comparing digital HD pictures to analog SD pictures. I have never seen an analog SD picture that looked better than a digital HD picture.[/QUOTE]

In theory, digital will never be able to provide the same audio quality as perfect analog. All digital does is sample points along the analog wave. Some resolution will always be lost.

In terms of Video, though, the highest picture quality is dependent on the pixel resolution of the display. There is no reason to believe an analog signal would map to the pixels any better than digital.

The source material, though, is always best captured in analog (Film). Digital cameras can now record in impressively high resolutions, but still do not capture as much image info as good 35MM.

[russ9]

My local Fox station's digital signal looks like they aim a video camera at the analog signal and convert it. Yup, it's that bad.

[renelicious]

Thanks to everyone for thier replies. I think I've got a pretty good understaing now!

Thanks

matt

[Michael P]

Not necessarily.

In general practice, yes, digital SD content looks better than analog SD content much of the time. If you have a less-than-perfect signal and the broadcaster is not trying to squeeze in too many subchannels, then it does look very good.

However, there are instances where the analog SD content can outperform digital SD content. I was watching an outdoor show on PBS recently. I receive our PBS station (both digital and analog) very clearly. The analog picture showed ripples in the water beautifully. The digital picture, because of overcompression, did not show the features of the water nearly so clear. It can be difficult to squeeze certain types of details (like water waves) into a digital picture when your bandwidth is constrained.

This reminds me of the old vinyl versus CD debate. In most cases, especially after repeated use, a CD will outperform vinyl, but if you have a good needle and a brand new record, vinyl can sound noticably better.

The situation is different when comparing digital HD pictures to analog SD pictures. I have never seen an analog SD picture that looked better than a digital HD picture.
Jason when you compair analog to digital are these both OTA or is one source the satellite-delivered LIL's? Compression artifacts are mostly found in LIL's and some OTA subchannels. The main feeds SD or HD all look better in digital OTA than their LIL counterparts.

My experience is if both signals are received OTA the digital signal wins hands down, unless you are looking at a subchannel. I have one local broadcaster (a UPN affilliate owned by Raycom Media) who carries "The Tube" music television on a subchannel. They compress the living daylights out of The Tube, and it really is not necessary. My NBC affilliate has "Weather Plus" on their subchannel and it looks excellent even when the main feed is in true HD. The TBN station carries 5 SD subchannels (no HD content) all five are very good for SD.

[Bill R]

I have one local broadcaster (a UPN affilliate owned by Raycom Media) who carries "The Tube" music television on a subchannel. They compress the living daylights out of The Tube, and it really is not necessary. My NBC affilliate has "Weather Plus" on their subchannel and it looks excellent even when the main feed is in true HD. The TBN station carries 5 SD subchannels (no HD content) all five are very good for SD.

We also have a Raycom Media station (a FOX affiliate) that carries "The Tube". You are right, it looks like crap. I called the engineer at the station and he said that the problem isn't compression at their end, the signal arrives that way he said that even if they gave it full bandwidth it would still look bad.

On the compression front, many digital OTA stations are installing (or have installed) MPEG-2 Stat Mux equipment to manage the multiple digital streams. That is the same thing the satellite companies use. And, just a point of interest, OTA digital stations still have only 6 MHz of space to put all their content in. They can transmit 19 Megabits of information on that 6 MHz.

[Michael P]

Bill, thanks for the reception report on "The Tube". The Tube asks for comments, I guess I can now tell them about their lousy PQ.

For anyone who hasn't seen it, "The Tube"'s PQ looks like streaming video on a low-bandwidth connection. Music videos have a lot of action, the amount of compression or lack of bandwidth used on The Tube makes Dish LIL's look pristine. The only thing that looks good on The Tube is their logo, which were probably produced slow enough to take advantage of MPEG2 compression.

Here is a link to "the Tube": http://www.thetubetv.com/ Once the page loads Click on "Image" and "campaigns" to watch their promos. The pixillation/blockiness you see on line is also seen on their subchannel broadcast.