Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

CBS HD on 61.5 now being down converted!!!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
88 replies to this topic

#26 OFFLINE   JohnH

JohnH

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,802 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 17 December 2005 - 05:06 PM

Dividing by 2 is WRONG.

Just because interlaced only gives "half" of the frame at a time the WHOLE frame is still 1080 'lines' which is 360 more than 720.

Forget the funny math just use simple math.


Yep, but the flicker is different.

...Ads Help To Support This Site...

#27 OFFLINE   boylehome

boylehome

    Hall Of Fame/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 2,143 posts
Joined: Jul 16, 2004

Posted 17 December 2005 - 05:55 PM

I'm trying to find the exact wording of the FCC requirement that stations within a market be given equivilent bandwidth. I keep finding the rule as it refers to distant channels not getting more bandwidth than the local version and significantly viewed channels not getting more bandwidth than the local version but not the rule I'm looking for.

I
JL

I have read it also and I have read the latest letters to the FCC. As I have said in other posts, it is a HARD read. I believe that the FCC basically gives the satellite broadcasting industry to do as they feel fit within reason. It is so general and ambiguous that it is open to just about any interpretation.

Here is a reference point for the report to congress: http://www.fcc.gov/

#28 OFFLINE   kb7oeb

kb7oeb

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 631 posts
Joined: Jun 16, 2004

Posted 17 December 2005 - 07:12 PM

Do we know that its 720p? Maybe its 720i since the original signal is interlaced.

#29 OFFLINE   BrettTRay

BrettTRay

    Cool Member

  • Registered
  • 15 posts
Joined: Aug 13, 2005

Posted 17 December 2005 - 07:38 PM

its is 720p

#30 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,352 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 18 December 2005 - 12:54 AM

Too bad we can't get natural scan anymore. We have to put up with these 60 or 30 freeze frames per second and the motion just jumps across the screen.

I am waiting for someone to tell them they cannot change the digital OTA signal when providing it on satellite. That is they have to mirror it. No additional compression or any format changing.


A lot of folks also don't seem to grasp that moving to digital from analog threw out a lot of resolution too. Japan has analog 1000 scanline TV, so we could have done that here in the US too... but when the move to HD was discussed the powers-that-be also decided to go digital at the same time.

We gain a bunch of stuff... but one gain is in digitizing the signal, they can compress it and even at a minimal level of compression the digital HD signal takes less bandwidth than an analog HD signal would have.

We could have done analog HD digital, and *that* would have been an awesome sight!

#31 OFFLINE   BoisePaul

BoisePaul

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 322 posts
Joined: Apr 26, 2005

Posted 18 December 2005 - 01:17 AM

We could have done analog HD digital, and *that* would have been an awesome sight!


I think my head just exploded when I read that...

#32 OFFLINE   Richard King

Richard King

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 21,331 posts
Joined: Mar 25, 2002

Posted 18 December 2005 - 08:01 AM

A lot of folks also don't seem to grasp that moving to digital from analog threw out a lot of resolution too.

I recall seeing an analog HD display MANY years ago at an NAB convention. I have NEVER seen anything come even close since. The source material was on custom laser discs, the display was two stacked CRT projectors. I certainly wouldn't have wanted the job of converging that mess, but the end result was worth it. I always had a hard enough time back then converging my 3 tube Zenith projector. :lol:
The Pump Don't Work 'cause the Vandals Took the Handles.

#33 OFFLINE   tnsprin

tnsprin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,129 posts
Joined: Mar 15, 2003

Posted 18 December 2005 - 02:01 PM

I must have misread Tony's charts ... seeing 9483, 9936, 9937 and 9938 on R1 TP17. One of those numbers must be a mirror (two numbers, same content).

BUT - CBS at 10.98 Mbps times four channels is 43.92 Mbps. 8PSK transponders can handle 41.2 Mbps (FCC filing for E10). It is not inconcievable that four HDs would be tried on a TP (average 10.3 Mbps each). If E* was planning on giving the channel 1/3 of a transponder the bitrate could be closer to 13.7 Mbps.

Eventually we are going to have to let go of the numbers games. When HD channels go MPEG4 (and the encoders get up to speed) it is likely that we will see lower bit rates per channel.

JL

What is the bit rate claimed for 8psk turbo that Echostart said it was going to roll out? This was said to be happening even before they planned to go to mpeg4.
Ex Dish subscriber
Fios TV subscriber on 3/8/10

#34 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 41,236 posts
  • LocationMichiana
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 18 December 2005 - 03:03 PM

I believe the 41.2 Mbps for 8PSK is including Turbo.

JL

#35 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,352 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 18 December 2005 - 04:36 PM

I think my head just exploded when I read that...


Sorry... I was just trying to be as wrong as some other people to fit in ;)

Actually, it was an honest mistake as I didn't proofread my post before (or after) I sent it... Thanks for noticing my mistake! Really, when I make a mistake even an accidental one, I like knowing so I can try not to do it again!

It does read pretty funny though... :)

#36 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 20,352 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 18 December 2005 - 04:41 PM

I recall seeing an analog HD display MANY years ago at an NAB convention. I have NEVER seen anything come even close since. The source material was on custom laser discs, the display was two stacked CRT projectors. I certainly wouldn't have wanted the job of converging that mess, but the end result was worth it. I always had a hard enough time back then converging my 3 tube Zenith projector. :lol:


I wish I could have seen that. I seem to remember way back that when Japan introduced their analog HD there was some pressure here in the US and there were some sets designed for some of those fancy CES-type shows... but I gather either it was too expensive OR at the same time folks were looking at going digital so it never really saw the official light of day.

I believe Japan switched to digital as well at some point... but I figured it was worth noting that it was possible and spectacular. In a perfect world, we would get crisp analog signals and that would put everything else to shame!

But usually we have to choose between poor analog and passable digital... with the occasional nice HD digital signal thrown into the mix, fortunately.

To keep myself semi-on-topic here... I sincerely hope they don't decide to downconvert CBSHD or NBCHD. I know both use 1080i natively... I believe the WB does as well. I know ABC and FOX are 720p. I don't know what UPN uses, because my local UPN is the only station that doesn't use HD at all. I've read that PBS typically is 1080, but I can't be sure of that from my local PBS because it never looks quite as sharp as my CBS does.

#37 OFFLINE   BobMurdoch

BobMurdoch

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 4,009 posts
Joined: Apr 24, 2002

Posted 19 December 2005 - 08:38 AM

I've heard people say that 1080i looks "sharper", but that 720p handles motion better.

I tend to leave my 921 set at 1080i....
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." Henry David Thoreau Walden (1854)

:ramblinon


XBox 360 Gamertag::grin:
Posted Image

#38 OFFLINE   LtMunst

LtMunst

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,267 posts
Joined: Aug 24, 2005

Posted 19 December 2005 - 09:34 AM

I've heard people say that 1080i looks "sharper", but that 720p handles motion better.



There's plenty of pro/con propaganda for both formats. I wish someone would do a double blind study comparing the two so this controversy could finally be put to rest.

#39 OFFLINE   voripteth

voripteth

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 216 posts
Joined: Oct 25, 2005

Posted 19 December 2005 - 11:24 AM

I have a set that can display 1080p and I think more of that type are purchased every day. It would be a shame to throw away the extra data just to appease the 720p zealots.

I did see some odd graphic glitches this weekend on CBS HD. Every few minutes I would see a screen flash. With careful use of freeze frame I was able to see that it was a video frame shifted to the right about a half screen. Is this an artifact of DISH changing from 1080i to 720p?

#40 OFFLINE   Mike123abc

Mike123abc

    Hall Of Fame/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 2,818 posts
Joined: Jul 19, 2002

Posted 19 December 2005 - 11:54 AM

I believe the 41.2 Mbps for 8PSK is including Turbo.

JL


What turbo coding does is use an improved error correction algorythm so they are able to cut back the amount of error correction and still get the same error rate for a given signal strength.

Dish is currently using 2/3 FEC on 8PSK. So 1/3 of the bits being transmitted are error correction. Now with turbo coding they can either keep 2/3 FEC and have less rain fade since error correction is better, or they can reduce the error correction to 3/4 or 5/6 and have more bits used for programming and keep the rain fade resonable.

At 3/4 they would have 21500 (symbol rate) * 3 (8PSK) * 3/4 (FEC) * 188/204 (RL EC) or roughly 44.58 Mbit/sec

At 5/6 they would have 21500 * 3 * 5/6 *188/204 or roughly 49.53

versus the current 21500 * 3 * 2/3 * 188/204 or roughly 39.62

It will be interesting to see what the final rates end up being. They can make adjustments in the symbol rate to balance rain fade vs bits/sec. For example if they decide that 3/4 is too little rain fade yet 5/6 is too much, they could slow down the symbol rate to lower the rain fade.

#41 OFFLINE   Foxbat

Foxbat

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 207 posts
Joined: Aug 01, 2003

Posted 19 December 2005 - 12:10 PM

I think everyone is missing the point with the 1080i vs. 720p argument here. CBS originates in 1080i; therefore, a conversion must be made to 720p. If Dish had decided to try 1280x1080i, the image would lose horizontal resolution, but kept the same vertical resolution, and more importantly, the same interlacing. To convert to 720p from 1080i you need to deinterlace. Is Dish cheating and taking each 540 line field and scaling it up to 720 lines, or are they building up a 1080 line buffer with both fields, then scaling down to 720?

Either way, Dish is taking CBS's 1920x1080i signal, decoding it, converting it to 720p, encoding it, uplinking it to the satellite, broadcasting to your receiver, where it may undergo another conversion back to 1080i (since many sets won't accept 720p from an external input).
--Roland W. Fox

#42 OFFLINE   thxultra

thxultra

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 440 posts
Joined: Feb 01, 2005

Posted 19 December 2005 - 01:09 PM

Brings up the question if sat will ever be able to handel hd as well as cable. I have heard many storys that sat will never be able to have the bandwith cable has. Not to mention sat has to share its bandwith with many local markets.

#43 OFFLINE   Mike123abc

Mike123abc

    Hall Of Fame/Supporter

  • Gold Members
  • 2,818 posts
Joined: Jul 19, 2002

Posted 19 December 2005 - 03:58 PM

Brings up the question if sat will ever be able to handel hd as well as cable. I have heard many storys that sat will never be able to have the bandwith cable has. Not to mention sat has to share its bandwith with many local markets.


It is hard to say at this point. Cable can beat satellite if they eliminate the analog stations, which they are probably going to do a few years from now. But, by the time cable gets around to eliminating the analog channels the satellite companies will have a bunch of new satellites. So, it is really going to be interesting, not to mention the outside players putting in fiber everywhere.

Right now most of the cable capacity goes into the analog channels. If cable were to eliminate the analog and have a state of the art cable plant, they could deliver 250-300+ full resolution HD channels. Most cable companies already carry so many analog channels and have not updated their plants that they cannot carry more than 10-20 channels. That is why they have been fighting must carry digital locals, they do not want to have all their remaining capacity filled by minor locals in digital.

It will probably remain as it is now... some areas cable will be the best deal with the best resolution and in other areas it will be satellite or a third party like fiber.

#44 OFFLINE   Jon Spackman

Jon Spackman

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 650 posts
Joined: Feb 07, 2005

Posted 19 December 2005 - 04:21 PM

All digital cable is happening now in some areas. Newport beach, CA has an area where Adelphia has 100% digital service. They had to replace the amplifiers that boosted to signal to multiple tv's because they were not compatible with their all digital system. All i can say is that the locals digital looked very good. I think this is going to happen elsewhere soon.


Jon

#45 OFFLINE   Bill R

Bill R

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,498 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2002

Posted 19 December 2005 - 05:47 PM

Brings up the question if sat will ever be able to handle hd as well as cable.


Are you kidding? Have you ever seen HD on cable?

While it might not be the same on all cable systems, some (especially mine), does a horrific job on HD. They over-compress it and, on top of that, their digital set top (DVR) boxes sometime can't handle recording a HD channel while you are watching another one.

While HD via satellite might never be as good as OTA HD, I hope that it will never be as bad as my local cable company provides.
Bill R

#46 OFFLINE   Bill R

Bill R

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,498 posts
Joined: Dec 20, 2002

Posted 19 December 2005 - 06:24 PM

All digital cable is happening now in some areas. Newport beach, CA has an area where Adelphia has 100% digital service.


Jon


Can cable systems currently do that? I thought that the FCC rules say that the cable companies must provide their basic tier (which, at the very least, must include OTA local channels) unscrambled and must not require a cable box. Did I miss a FCC rule change?
Bill R

#47 OFFLINE   tnsprin

tnsprin

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 2,129 posts
Joined: Mar 15, 2003

Posted 19 December 2005 - 09:39 PM

I am sorry but I must ask again. What evidence do we have that they are converting WCBS-dt to 720P. Tonight I have been recording CSI Miami tonight both from Satellite and Direct frin WCBS-dt in NY. I am having trouble seeing any difference in picture. Alright the TV I am using is a first generatrion HDTV toshiba (tws65h85) but shouldn't I see some significant difference in some of the frames.
Ex Dish subscriber
Fios TV subscriber on 3/8/10

#48 OFFLINE   hokieengineer

hokieengineer

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 89 posts
Joined: Jul 31, 2004

Posted 19 December 2005 - 10:27 PM

I am sorry but I must ask again. What evidence do we have that they are converting WCBS-dt to 720P. Tonight I have been recording CSI Miami tonight both from Satellite and Direct frin WCBS-dt in NY. I am having trouble seeing any difference in picture. Alright the TV I am using is a first generatrion HDTV toshiba (tws65h85) but shouldn't I see some significant difference in some of the frames.


Debug message from VLC while playing back the transport stream recorded from CBS-E HD from TP17:

main debug: picture in 1280x720 (0,0,1280x720), chroma I420, ar 16:9, sar 1:1

Gary and others with transport recording ability can also confirm this.

I find it interesting some people have seen flashing effects after this change took place. That really sounds like a problem between dish doing their conversion to 720p and a customers receiver either reconverting to 1080i output or having problems processing the converted transport stream.

#49 OFFLINE   saweetnesstrev

saweetnesstrev

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 289 posts
Joined: Oct 08, 2005

Posted 20 December 2005 - 05:47 AM

What channel is CBS-HD i just got HD, and i dont see it and im in the cleveland area :) tyvm.

#50 OFFLINE   JohnH

JohnH

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 7,802 posts
Joined: Apr 22, 2002

Posted 20 December 2005 - 08:27 AM

CBSHD East is 9483. CBSHD West is 9484. You will not see either unless you have a subscription to those specific channels. You also would need a dish pointed at 61.5 or 148 for East or West.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...