Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: HD on NBC... Sound Sync Problem? +OT Rants on all things bad with network TV

This is topic HD on NBC... Sound Sync Problem? +OT Rants on all things bad with network TV in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005237

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 09-30-2007, 07:22 PM:

I've been noticing this problem since I started watching HD over a year ago. Dish Network is my provider, but I've heard from Comcast cable folks that they have also noticed this problem. Can anyone else confirm this phenomenon across the fruited plains, or is this a local Philadelphia affiliate problem?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-30-2007, 08:01 PM:

I bet it's the local affiliate. The networks send out a test feed that the affiliate is supposed to use to get the sound in sync with the video. I saw one that accidentally aired here a couple weeks ago. It was clearly labeled something like "FOR SOUND SYNC ONLY -- NOT FOR AIR". It was a closeup of a woman sitting in a studio reading a fake news story containing lots of words beginning with the letter "p".

The local NBC station here has abysmally bad HD video quality, truly awful, so compressed it's blocky and unwatchable. Has been like that forever.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-30-2007, 09:32 PM:

One of our local channel 7 PBS station had that problem way back when they started broadcasting digitally. I called and told the Chief Engineer about it and he didn't even know... Now this is back just before the SLC Winter Olympics when HD DTV was just getting started... I must have been the only person in town with an HDTV set. Now when I was in TV you were required to off-air monitor your transmitted picture and sound live so you knew if something was amuck. Anyway after a few days they apparently figured out how to make the adjustments which in KUED's case was a delay setting at the transmitter itself.
Also noticed today some NBC audio that was out of sync.... I was just flipping through channels but don't remember what it was... hopefully some overpaid sports caster!
Mark

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-30-2007, 09:43 PM:

Do stations outside the very largest markets (like L.A. and New York) even have "real" chief engineers any more? When the FOX station here first started HD, there was a huge imbalance in levels between their SD and HD material, so in the middle of an HD broadcast when they would insert local SD commercials, the audio was at what seemed like half the volume, almost inaudible. That went on for months. You'd think the advertisers would have been screaming.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-30-2007, 10:59 PM:

I bet the viewers were loving that. I always MUTE commercials as it is when I actually watch TV.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 09-30-2007, 11:57 PM:

Stations do have real chief engineers, even in small markets.

If you see a problem like this, call the station and ask for master control (apply social engineering skills).

Often these problems affect only one of SD and HD, and they are generally not able to monitor the audio of both simultaneously. I've had my fair share of reporting these problems in real-time to master control in Boston. It's fun.

(Then there was the time we reported a problem to the network guys in New York and said we were calling from "Boston" and they thought we were the Boston affiliate, but of course we were just some guys at MIT watching the Boston HDTV transmission... It was an honest mistake!)

--jhawk

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 10-01-2007, 01:10 AM:

The video is re-encoded from the network's feed at your local affiliate. (The only exception is FOX, their stream is passed through as its encoded from the source, save for a local logo inserted into the video stream.) The problem is, video encoders aren't instant, and add a delay... hence the digital audio stream must have delay added to it. This can be a bit tricky, as you must compensate for both people who are using DD decoders (slower), and people simply using a stereo downmix of the audio (faster). This delay can even change depending on what brand of receiver you have, and what year it was made.

Generally, a happy medium is found, but in some cases it's a bit off (or a lot off). Awhile back I helped our local WB affiliate by loading the .TS video stream onto my PC and adjusting the audio delay in the AC3 track myself until it looked "right" to me... I then emailed their engineer with the ms of delay that had to be removed (he was adding too much).

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 10-01-2007, 03:03 AM:

I used to notice numerous SD broadcasts on the local Cox cable franchise that the picture and sound was out-of-sync. The worst offender was The Weather Channel. The audio seemed to be one second ahead of the video.
I thought even here, Digital is supposed to be "perfect". [Razz]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-01-2007, 04:09 AM:

quote: Mark Strube
save for a local logo inserted into the video stream.

This would require recompression of the picture.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 10-01-2007, 07:39 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
This would require recompression of the picture.

It does not. FOX provides a "splicer" to local affiliates that allows them to insert their local station bug into the video stream without re-encoding anything. The only positive to the other networks relying on the local station to choose their own bitrate, is then they can add as many sub-channels as they like... the downside obviously being quality loss. Central VBR encoding, like FOX does, is really the best way to retain quality, as the video is only being encoded once (and by very good encoders at that, not some old piece of hardware your local affiliate invested in when HD first appeared).

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-01-2007, 07:55 AM:

Might as well get used to it....it's digital, therefore perfect. Theatres and TV stations have one thing in common: the low pay. Things just don't get done or inspected.

One station here could not even get the assistant chief to accept the chief job since the pay raise was only 2k. ($27,000 total). A "paper" chief flew in one day a week for 4 years. Louis

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-01-2007, 11:59 AM:

How can you insert a logo into an MPEG stream without encoding it?

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 10-01-2007, 12:58 PM:

You only need to reencode the blocks you're modifying with the bug. You always need to decode the entire frame so you have the data to replace P frame macroblocks with motion vectors that reference an area under the bug.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-01-2007, 01:18 PM:

I like how NBC not only puts a bug on their HD shows (therefore defeating the purpose of HD) but puts the letters "HD" right next to it so you always know you're watching HD! ABC does this too, and they put a nice black background around it. Too bad they didn't put "COLOR" in nice multicolored letters on color shows when they started.

It's ironic that Fox, which brought this disgusting practice to the US, has no bug on their digital feeds but the local stations put their own bugs on it instead. If I can find a digital tuner that'll let me crop the picture down to 4x3, I'll finally be able to watch The Simpsons again though. I quit watching it when the whole bug thing started. Matt Groening is a sellout for allowing this to go on for so long.

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 10-01-2007, 02:41 PM:

Heck our local stations can't even remember most of the time to switch back to HD after a SD commercial has ran. They may go through two commercial breaks before the "show" comes back to HD.

Theatres apparently arn't the only place that "booth monkeys" exist.

Why in the world in this day and age does the switch from SD to HD need to be done manually anyway?

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-01-2007, 03:50 PM:

quote: Jesse Skeen
Matt Groening is a sellout for allowing this to go on for so long.

Neither Matt Groening nor any other television producer for any network anywhere has any say in the matter. The Simpsons is owned by Fox, it’s their show to air as they like, with whatever they like over it. If you accept network money to produce or license your show, you do so knowing that a network brand ID is going to appear, end of story. In fact, the various Discovery channels (Discovery, Animal Planet, Science Channel, HD Theatre et. al.) have program delivery standards that specify the position of the bug down to the line and millisecond. Content providers have to agree to this contractually, they also have to agree to keep that area of the image clear of other graphic content before seeing a dollar from them.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-01-2007, 07:25 PM:

What is the official purpose of a bug? How does it bring in more $$$ to the networks and/or local affiliate?

Posted by Jon Miller (Member # 163) on 10-01-2007, 08:08 PM:

In this case, the purpose of the bug is to bug...the viewer! [Smile]

IMHO it's just branding, pure and simple. In this zillion-channel world, the networks want you to be sure you are watching CBS, Discovery Channel, Food Network, whatever, even if the programming already makes it obvious what channel you're tuned to.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-02-2007, 01:14 PM:

It seemed like a good idea......at first. Louis

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 10-02-2007, 03:34 PM:

Does A.C. Neilsen still send out the viewer diaries, or is this now done electronically? The diaries may have been the original reason for the "bugs".

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-02-2007, 05:31 PM:

I think MTV started placing "bugs" in the 1980s to prevent people from taping and then reusing/reselling their programming. Today the branding concept seems to be the logical reason for continuing the practice. I just love it when program tags overlay a subtitle.

Posted by Mark Strube (Member # 4190) on 10-03-2007, 09:48 AM:

I hate it when networks think it's an okay idea to place large animated ads in the picture in the middle of a show! A good example was the premiere of Heroes... about 4-5 times we got treated to large animated ads on the bottom of the image, with the Bionic Woman's hair blowing. Very distracting while I'm trying to watch one of my favorite shows. [thumbsdown]

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-03-2007, 01:02 PM:

I absolutely agree with that. That is a horrible practice, and it makes me not want to watch either show.

I'm almost to the point where I'll wait for the show to premier on DVDs or iTunes for that very reason. It's sad when I would rather watch Lost and 24 on my 17" widescreen laptop display through iTunes than watch them on the 53" HDTV in my living room.

quote: Mark Ogden
Neither Matt Groening nor any other television producer for any network anywhere has any say in the matter.

I think Mr. Groening has a little more pull than you give him credit for in that statement. Sure, most producers do not, but I believe if he flexed his muscle just a little bit, they would listen.

Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 10-04-2007, 12:41 PM:

With DTV (HD), with the push of a button, you can get an on screen display that tells you the network, program, and other information; so why do we still need this stupid bug? Notice that you never see the bug during commercials. The sponsor could claim that the bug is a distraction, and refuse to pay for the spot. That should tell the networks something.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-04-2007, 02:24 PM:

It is a contractual requirement that nothing except the commercial occupies the frame, not even the "weather crawl".

The "free program" is not "protected." Louis

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-04-2007, 04:55 PM:

A weather crawl would piss me off.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 10-04-2007, 07:09 PM:

I think Matt Groening doesnt have any pull in regards to the bugs. Have you seen the Simpsons movie where they put a bug in the movie for "Catch Who's Smarter than a celebrity - Yes we even advertise new shows during movies now". I also remember an episode from a few years ago where they spoofed the Joe Millionaire bug/advertisement, I can't remember the episode but it was funny.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-04-2007, 09:20 PM:

I don't think any tv star has pull re: the bugs, otherwise you would see some shows without the stupid things. Are there any?

The stars probably know that there are plenty of people who wait for the DVD to come out (and then buy it) just to avoid looking at the bugs, so why should they be against them?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-04-2007, 11:35 PM:

Why would anyone buy a DVD of a show they haven't seen? How would they know if the show is even any good?

Posted by Shane Cooper (Member # 2510) on 10-05-2007, 01:27 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Why would anyone buy a DVD of a show they haven't seen? How would they know if the show is even any good?

I have done this on occasion. It is usually shows that friends or family tell me about or something I have read. I watched Sports Nite, The Shield, The 4400 and House this way.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-05-2007, 10:07 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Why would anyone buy a DVD of a show they haven't seen? How would they know if the show is even any good?

You have reviews of the show/DVD then you have friends reccomending the show.

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-05-2007, 10:21 AM:

The Simpsons also did an episode where they put up a fake hand drawn "Fox" bug on the opening of the show and when they all went to the couch, Homer jumped up, ran over and ripped it off the viewer's TV screen, threw it on his floor and started stomping on it.

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 10-06-2007, 11:08 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Why would anyone buy a DVD of a show they haven't seen? How would they know if the show is even any good?

Renting a DVD of a TV show I've never seen seems to make a lot of sense. Especially since Netflix seems to be cheaper than cable.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-06-2007, 02:13 PM:

Note that I have next to no talent so this will probably never happen, but if I were offered any amount of money to have something that I shot or otherwise created put on TV, I would only accept the offer on the condition that it be shown WITHOUT any network bugs. I would not even take any sort of job at any station or network that uses a bug either (I'd wanted to work in TV for a long time, but this was a big reason why I decided not to). That's why I say that people who produce content for network TV are sellouts, and the people who advocate the practice are among the lowest forms of life on the planet and deserve very painful deaths. What's the point of high-definition when they're still going to ruin the picture? That's like if they developed radio with master-recording sound quality, but still used the dynamic range compression techniques many stations use, and played station IDs constantly over the music.

There are also WAY too many commercials now. Commercial breaks used to run a minute on average and the total time for an hour would be about ten minutes, now there's almost 20 minutes of commercials every hour.

I've bought a few DVDs of TV shows that I'd never seen but was pretty sure I'd like. Freaks and Geeks is a masterpiece, and I would have been a big fan of it when it was on TV had NBC not ruined it not only with their turkey but also the Olympics symbol on every frame to remind people about the Olympics coming up in the next year. I was glad to see the show canceled because it meant the audience for that type of show would not put up with crap like that. Family Guy owes much of its success to DVD, it's not the funniest thing in the world but it's certainly amusing, and the picture quality on the DVDs is gorgeous.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-06-2007, 05:29 PM:

quote:
Family Guy ... it's certainly amusing

No it isn't.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-06-2007, 06:20 PM:

The use of bugs and other "secondary events" is only going to get worse. Some of the scheduling systems, broadcast logs, "as-run" systems and automation systems haven't been able to handle such events properly up until recently. They're all being modified to do so.

I didn't see the Emmy award broadcast this year, but Lewis Black apparently did a very funny routine decrying the use of these elements as well as the practice of starting a program while the credits are running (compressed to the upper half of the screen) on the previous program.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 10-07-2007, 04:23 PM:

I noticed this today.
I'm at a laundrymat where they have satellite tv and TNT was on. While the previous movie's credits were running, the beginning of the next movie started up, split screen, previous right and new one left. I have been off cable since May and I don't recall TNT doing this before. Are they doing this simply to have more time per hour to sell? What is this going to grant them? 2 more minutes? Annoying...

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-07-2007, 05:39 PM:

Most TV stations/networks run the credits at warp speed or completely re-type them and, of course, make sure each screen of credits gets only 2 or 3 frames of screen time max.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-07-2007, 06:05 PM:

Amazing as it may seem I saw a short segment of an ABC broadcast this morning that was way out of sync... And this was off air analog. Obviously there are no competant souls running these stations any more.

Mark

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-07-2007, 06:54 PM:

It's been a while since I've seen any TV broadcast (cable or antenna) with sound that actually was properly synced with the picture. Admittedly, I don't watch much TV, but this seems to be sadly common. Not sure why, but it is very annoying.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-07-2007, 07:56 PM:

Locally, interns (no pay) on nights & weekends network stations. Louis

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-07-2007, 10:47 PM:

I don't understand internship. Just sounds like an easy way for companies to skimp out on paying employees.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 10-08-2007, 12:59 AM:

And someone to blame when something goes wrong...

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2007, 08:23 AM:

We had interns when I worked in TV... But they did get paid althouugh I'm sure it was minimal pay.

Mark

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-08-2007, 09:30 AM:

quote: James Westbrook
TNT was on. While the previous movie's credits were running, the beginning of the next movie started up, split screen, previous right and new one left. I have been off cable since May and I don't recall TNT doing this before. Are they doing this simply to have more time per hour to sell?

Last night on TNT when Mean Girls was over, they did that. But the funny part was that the credits for Mean Girls were running on the right, and then Mean Girls was re-starting on the left at the same time.

I swear I wish cable companies would go with an a la carte system. I hate sending my money to some of these idiotically run stations.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-08-2007, 09:55 AM:

quote: Louis Bornwasser
Locally, interns (no pay) on nights & weekends network stations.

What ever happened to the requirement to have a FCC licensed engineer with [first phone] on site?

[ 10-09-2007, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: Rick Raskin ]

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 10-08-2007, 06:25 PM:

Long ago, the Commission decided they were doing the licensee's work. The rules have always laid responsibility for compliance at the feet of the licensee, so some bright soul at the Commish figured out they could save a bunch by making the licensees evaluate their engineers. Bingo... bye bye first phone! (second and third phones too, for that matter).

Code's also gone from the ham tickets, too... progress!

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 10-09-2007, 07:17 AM:

Yeah, dumb it down. Seems like we've had these discussions numerous times.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 10-09-2007, 10:53 AM:

Time to hand out another M.O.O.T. certificate: (Master Of Obsolete Technology.) Code, First Phone, cahangeovers, steram locomotive, tube transmitters, etc)

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-09-2007, 11:06 AM:

Louis,

Tube transmitters are still alive and well! Almost all the big DTV transmitters 100kw and up are using tube(klystron)finals because of the ultra high power many of them have to put out. The Varian plant out by Salt Lake International is still doing big buisness in the Klystron department! Granted the smaller 50kw and below transmitters are all solid state now There are also some really small all solid state DTV transmitters in small cities like Reno(1kw) but around this area these smaller transmitters are mainly used as translators. Some of the SLC stations are running well over 100 translators in as many as four different states in addition to what on top of Farnsworth Peak! Their maintainance costs must be staggering....

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-09-2007, 11:29 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
A weather crawl would piss me off.

That doesn't piss me off as much as the BEEP BEEP BEEP and then they just dump the show and go to some dipshit telling us about a storm brewing 800 miles away that could turn in our direction and attack tomorrow.

quote: Joe Redifer
Why would anyone buy a DVD of a show they haven't seen?

I have done that because a show was out for a few seasons before I realized it and gave it a chance. Then I wanted to see the back episodes, so I just bought the DVD. Also some shows can't stand on their own if you watch them out of order. Since I watch about 10 hours of tv a year, I can't justify buying a DVR, nor can I seem to keep up with setting my trusty VCR to timeshift it...hence the DVD. I'm in no hurry. It's just tv.

As far as HD goes, WHAT CRAP!!! I've been watching DirectHD and various HD sources such as BlueRay and HD-DVD and so far NONE of them look decent. The compression. That evil, awful compression! [Mad]

I propose we modify theatrical presentations via a DVD that will loop itself. So once the preshow is over and the 35mm projector starts, this DVD starts playing automatically and is nothing more than a black screen with various logos and "mmmmmmmmm, how about some hot golden popcorn?" scrolling across the bottom of the screen randomly through the movie. It should be a huge hit!!! (With the corporate boneheads, not the customers.)

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 10-09-2007, 11:45 AM:

But Mark is in a Mountaneous region. Out here, where it's flat, translaters are for a very few stations and for areas that have trouble picking up both Amarillo and Lubbock, or Midland/Odessa and Lubbock. Hobbs New Mexico, Clovis New Mexico and Snyder Texas comes to mind.
A few years ago, the NBC affiliate was having the top of it's transmission tower replaced for Digital. After it was replaced and after it was fired up, it literally caught on fire. I never knew this was possible.
The local Fox affiliate, who also broadcasts the CW, My Lubbock TV, The Accuweather Channel (which simucasts the audio from it's local news talk station) and Telemundo has built a new taller tower for it's digital conversion, but this is close to the original tower...so close I am wondering how they are going to get the old tower down without accidently knocking down the new tower. The new tower still has not been painted, but has flashing white lights on it in the day time. I've seen and heard numerous glitches coming from these stations. If they have an engineer, he probably has his work pile up on him...
The CBS affiliate and the ABC affiliate both operate from the same studio building, but the ABC affiliate's transmitter, I understand, is still out of it's original site. Neither have had work done on their towers. (Around here when this is done, it can be easily seen and noticed.)
The PBS affiliate is all set up and currently broadcasting it's digital programming. The NBC affiliate is, too. Heard nothing from the others...
Maybe they will beg for another dead-line extension for digital switchover?
Both of my sets are analog. I'm debating just going "cold turkey" on Feb of 09...

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-09-2007, 01:29 PM:

Last night I tried watching "Chuck" on NBC in HD. What a freaking joke! NBC's HD network feed is ABSOLUTE CRAP, at least on our local Eugene affiliate. I tried both Comcast Cable and off-the-air and they're both awful. It doesn't look like HD at all. It looks like 99% of the bits have been removed. Whenever there's a fast camera pan or any action, the picture becomes completely pixelated and blocky. Even shots with relatively little motion look like crap, no detail and lots of "mosquito noise". Just to make sure it's not my TV I tried ABC-HD last night and it looked WAY better.

Now what's weird is the commercials look 200% better than the main program, and that's both network and local-sourced commercials. By commercials I mean ads by sponsors. As soon as they start running promos for NBC shows, they look like ASS again, and the main show again looks like ASS. The NBC affiliate here is doing subchannels, same as the other network affiliates, and the others manage to put out decent-looking HD.

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 10-09-2007, 03:40 PM:

It's because the majority of so-called advances in technology aren't made with the goal of making the finished product better, but with the goal of making the end product "good enough".

Examples:
1955-Todd AO is introduced. It's not quite the same as Cinerama, but it's "good enough" that not a decade later "Cinerama" will be presented in a similar manner.

1965-Panavision, Technicolor & Kodak develop the 70mm print-up process. It's not quite as good as originating on 65mm, but it's "good enough" that, within the next decade, it is adopted as the standard for all big-budget films.

1978-The VHS/Beta format wars begin. VHS isn't quite as good as Beta, but it's good enough that in a few short years it is the preferred home video format in every home worldwide.

1994-Digital sound begins to appear in most cinemas. The picture's not quite as good as with a 70mm blowup. But the 6-channel sound makes it "good enough" that 70mm blowups will dissappear within 5 years.

ALSO IN 1994: Jurrassic Park is released, convincing everyone that CGI is finally "ready for prime-time," so to speak. 4k is too expensive and time-consuming for most studio heads, but filmmakers convince themselves that 2k is "good enough".

None of the present compression formats deliver a "perfect" product. But they're all "good enough" that most people don't notice, or at least they don't complain.

Similarly, watching 4x3 content stretched out to fit a 16x9 set used to annoy me, but I've learned to adjust my eyes, because most people find it "good enough".

I would hate it if a surgeon thought his work on me had been "good enough".

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-09-2007, 04:20 PM:

quote: David Stambaugh
As soon as they start running promos for NBC shows, they look like ASS again, and the main show again looks like ASS.

Good to see the Film-Tech'eze has rubbed off on you! [Big Grin]

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-09-2007, 05:22 PM:

I believe that NBC REQUIRES there to be at least two subchannels, one of which is 24 hour SD weather and the other... well I dunno... just SD nonsense I guess to steal bandwidth. I demand the full 19.2mbps for the HD and nothing else!!!1!! Even then that's still not enough because they are using the piss-poor MPEG2 codec. Yes, MPEG2. As we all know, MPEG 2 is purely amateur in quality and was developed by people with IQs less than 42. FACT. Otherwise MPEG2 would be good. Even MPEG1 sucked ass in its own day.

Broadcasting is no longer a professional medium as there is nothing professional about it.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 10-09-2007, 07:02 PM:

This is what the Chief Engineer for the local NBC affiliate said today via email (I'm quoting him, hope that's ok -- It's just technical info that I'm sharing).

quote:
Basically, we have 19Mbits/sec to work with and within that 19Mbits/sec we multiplex(transmit) 2 services 16-1 & 16-2...We encode 16-1NBC HD video at 13.3Mbits/sec and 16-2 Eugene CW video at 4Mbits/sec. The remaining bandwidth is used for audio, program guide/service information, and a few null packets for protection. It's tricky to transmit NBC's 1080i HD video in 13 Mbits/sec. I've been "tweaking" the MPEG-2 encoders trying to improve the compression artifact situation. I'm trying to keep both CW SD viewers and NBC HD viewers happy. I'll continue to "tweak" and see if I can improve NBC HD. Hopefully this helps...

Yes, their sub-channel is The CW. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-09-2007, 07:37 PM:

Well, he'll only have to tweek till Feburay 2009.... then he can dump that analog channel. Thats not so bad really. Kind of like all of us who will be tweeking our film systems for say another 5 or 6 years [Cool]

.

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-09-2007, 11:26 PM:

Ummmm, the analog channels don't take up any of the HDTV bandwidth. He's referring to subchannels which ruin pretty much HDTV for everybody these days.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 10-10-2007, 01:09 PM:

The NBC affiliate in Lubbock has 2 subs:
NBC Weather Plus
The Tube.(Which is a music video network.)
I have not attempted to watch this in high def.
I still only have 2 analog tv's.
I don't seem to have a sense of urgency to replace them.

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 10-11-2007, 12:41 AM:

I just got a new DVD recorder (which I'm going to have to return because discs recorded on it have problems on my older player) and it happens to have a digital TV tuner, so I recorded 2 minutes of NBC and put it online as INDISPUTABLE proof that HDTV is pointless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BChnI33tDvs

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 10-11-2007, 10:44 AM:

Last year, ABC six here in Philly used to drop Lost out of HD into SD about 30 seconds before the end of every single episode. Why you ask? So they could show the Power Ball drawing live in a small box on the screen concurrently with the shows climax.

Fucking morons. [fu]

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-29-2007, 10:17 PM:

These are HD captures from tonight's Patriots-Giants game. I've resized them to fit the forum restrictions and yes they're JPEG, but they still illustrate the magnitude of the insufficient bandwidth problem visible on most HDTV broadcasts. The horrendous digital artifacts shown in pic #2 are visible here on either Comcast Cable, or over-the-air.

Static shots with little or no motion look pretty good:

But as soon as there's any camera or player motion, this is what you get:

Did this broadcast look this bad on every station?

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-29-2007, 10:48 PM:

Those are great pics. Someone really dropped the ball (pun intended) when they chose MPEG2. Have I already mentioned my dislike for MPEG2? Well, it probably won't be the last time.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-30-2007, 01:24 AM:

Definitely noticed the horizontal banding that occured with any horizontal motion during the game tonight. And yeah, something was going on with the replays, as shown in David's second screen grab. It looked like they were also having problems in the truck with signal timing on certain source transitions, like when coming back from replay or when bringing up the down marker overlays. I was seeing huge changes in detail level during the transitions. Guess there must still be some growing pains associated with engineering live HD broadcasts.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-30-2007, 02:55 AM:

Cheers to whomever was switching at Channel 7 Sydney yesterday afternoon during the screening of the great movie 'Lawrence Of Arabia'.

I gave it two segments for you guys to work out it was at least a second out of sync then gave up. You guys are just useless.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-31-2007, 09:16 AM:

quote: Paul Mayer
Guess there must still be some growing pains associated with engineering live HD broadcasts.

If you want to see motion without artifacts then live action 720p is going to be the better choice. The bandwidth of 720p is about the same as 1080i... though what it lacks in spatial resolution it makes up for in temporal resolution because the picture is at 1/60th of a second, not 1/30th x 2. On 1080i this would show as flickered or jagged edges on bright horizontal objects like in the background of a camera pan, it may also look like data breakup is occuring in parts of the image. Now... you all see why Joe is right about interlace anything sucking big time for HD!! Literally... no camera can pan nor can anyone move quickly with interlace HD. Some day... not soon enough... that will all disappear and all TV will be progressive scan... As it sits now transmitters just don't have enough bandwidth to pull it off anmd they are in fact barely able to transmit 1080i or 720p without major compression. Cable systems may or may not make that bottle neck even worse.

Mark

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-31-2007, 10:48 AM:

If the idiots running the HD show behind the scenes would get rid of subchannels and allocate all a channel's b/w to the HD programming, it would look a whole lot better, whether it's 720p or 1080i. Subchannels are the devil's spawn. The artifacts in the CBS football broadcast are 99% the result of insufficient bandwidth allocation. The networks know full well how overcompressed these broadcasts are. They want to see how far they can push the public with this crap before there's a backlash. If the public accepts this artifacting as being "just the way it is", it'll never be fixed. Kinda like how low bitrate MP3s, $10 earbuds, etc. have basically destroyed high-quality audio for the masses.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 12-31-2007, 02:33 PM:

Dave,
They have to limit themselves now in the sub channel realm to have a full time HD channel, many here have no sub channels operating but that doesn't mean better HD The HD stuff is limited within the design of the HD system itself and more so by the transmitters. Transmitters can only pump through so much bandwidth... your TV can only receive so much bandwidth, etc, etc. Innterlace HD is just a poor system to begin with and it's not going to get any better until they get rid of it.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-31-2007, 04:36 PM:

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
The bandwidth of 720p is about the same as 1080i... though what it lacks in spatial resolution it makes up for in temporal resolution because the picture is at 1/60th of a second, not 1/30th x 2.

720p broadcast is 30 frames per second progressive. Not 60. Nevertheless, progressive scan at 30fps is still better than any 60i stuff because it eliminates certain types of flicker, sawtooth artifacts and other stuff that makes anything interlaced stink.

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-31-2007, 05:28 PM:

PBS in Phoenix is broadcasting FOUR digital SD programs in their OTA bandwidth and the religious channel is broadcasting FIVE SD programs. It's no wonder I never watch television.

My absolute favorite thing to see in the middle of an HD broadcast is material inserted in letterboxed SD.

My second absolute favorite thing to see in an HD broadcast is a bug placed in the SD safe-zone.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-31-2007, 05:43 PM:

Correction to my earlier posts: The CBS affiliate here (KVAL) isn't doing any subchannels (all the other local stations are). So theoretically there's ~18mbps or so of b/w allocated to their HD.

So are you guys saying this is the best that 1080i can do with content containing lots of motion at a bitrate of ~18mbps? I find that hard to believe, but I also have nothing to compare it to.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-31-2007, 06:22 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
720p broadcast is 30 frames per second progressive. Not 60.

Wrong. It is 60 frames per second progressive.

1080i broadcast = 1440x540x60 = 46,656,000 pixels per second
720p broadcast = 960x720x60 = 41,472,000 pixels per second

Broadcast bitrate is around 19.2 mbps I believe.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-31-2007, 07:30 PM:

If most 720p over the air broadcasts are truly going out at 60 frames per second progressive then it sure seems like a bunch of bandwidth wasting overkill.

Hardly anything is shot in native 60fps frame rates (even though a few HD cameras can record it). Most TV programs, from TV movies to talk shows are shot at/near 30fps. 60fps would just double flash each frame. Most any feature film is still just 24fps.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-31-2007, 08:52 PM:

Sports games are ALL 60fps without exception. Let's also not forget about news and soap operas. Talk shows like Jay Leno/David Letterman/etc are also 60fps (ie: 60 different moments in time shown each second). Also, a "double flash" of a frame wouldn't really kill bandwidth in MPEG since it is an interframe-style codec. In fact it'd actually help it. MPEG2 needs all the help it can get.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-01-2008, 01:31 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Sports games are ALL 60fps without exception.

I don't think that is correct. Not unless every network broadcasts all sporting events at 720p. And that is surely not the case at all. Otherwise we would not have some of the glorious examples of interlaced artifacts posted here and elsewhere.

Isn't ABC one of the very few TV networks dedicated to broadcasting much of its content in 720p? Don't most others send out their HD feeds in 1080i instead?

For pro sports, I suppose 60fps would let us see in ripe detail all the effects of "roid rage" in our so-called professional sports these days. Yeah, I really want to see Barry Bonds rip out home run number 900 via some artificial hormones normally given to race horses. I'm not even bothering to tune into French bicycling races whether they're doped up or not. Which athlete is running his own hillbilly pit bull dog fighting ring? Sounds like a bunch of "thumbhead" inbreeding Deliverance banjo playing mutants stuff to me. Naturally, this is more a commentary on the irrelevance of professional sports to ordinary society these days. Regular people relate to it on no level anymore. There is truly very little real entertainment value left in it.

quote: Joe Redifer
Let's also not forget about news and soap operas. Talk shows like Jay Leno/David Letterman/etc are also 60fps (ie: 60 different moments in time shown each second).

Soap Operas? I have a day job. Doesn't work into my schedule.

As for talk shows and so-called news programs that seem to only vomit out shit about Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan...who really gives the first rat's ass if it is VIDEOTAPED at 60 frames per second?

The entire 720p format is really a "I couldn't give a shit about it" format to be quite honest. Not when the content is the fucking crap that it is.

MOVIES are what really drive HD. And NONE are filmed at 60fps. Not unless you can run down Douglass Trumbull and see what he might be doing on the side in Showscan. But who ever gave a shit about that format when it had its chance? No one.

Instead, we have new HDTV monitors billing new HDMI connections that support 1080p connections with 1080p 24fps frame rates. Yay! More film like! Forget fake interpolation to 60fps. Double flash and all that. Lets go lower on the FPS and make it closer to what it's like in the movie theater.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-01-2008, 01:55 AM:

On all sporting events and live broadcasts in the US you'll see 60 different moments in time per second no matter the format. I can easily tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps with my eyeballs.

As for movies, you'll never escape "double flash" as you put it because nobody would dare make a monitor that refreshes at 24Hz. Also, let's not forget about videogames. Most of them don't run lower than 30fps with probably more than 50% of them running 60fps.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-01-2008, 02:14 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
On all sporting events and live broadcasts in the US you'll see 60 different moments in time per second no matter the format. I can easily tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps with my eyeballs.

Not if the network is broadcasting in 1080 resolution. There is no way any 1080p 60fps format is fitting within 6MHz of broadcast spectrum. 1080p, even at 30p, only exists in home playback formats. There isn't even any 30p progressive mode for over the air. It's all interlaced. Half a frame one hertz. The other half of the frame on the next hertz. Hell, I'm even wondering if the old 29.97 bullshit from the analog era is still holding strong in this crap.

quote: Joe Redifer
Also, let's not forget about videogames. Most of them don't run lower than 30fps with probably more than 50% of them running 60fps.

That's something that is independent of any over the air or cable broadcast format.

Double or triple flash of frame rate is also something that can be done entirely on the user end in hardware instead of wasting valuable bandwidth on the broadcast end. 720p, no matter how strongly it is sold, is really a freaking waste of bandwidth if it is really going out at 60fps. The only native 60fps content mentioned is shit I do not intend to watch.

To make matters worse, some of the newest and "best" HDTV monitors featuring the fastest 120Hz frame rates have been criticized for how electronic and fake their pictures look when engaged in those modes. I'm pretty concerned about that since the most likely large HDTV monitor I'm fixing to buy is one of those 120Hz capable TVs. It's also capable of that rather strange 1080p/24fps mode via Blu-Ray too. But I guess we'll see what happens when this latest surge of spew gets washed aside.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-01-2008, 02:49 AM:

That's probably why nobody broadcasts in 1080p. It's not an official HDTV standard to my knowledge. But still, 1080i is 60 different temporal images per second. And yes, I do believe they are running at the 29.97, etc BS. Heck, HDTV in Europe still has the oddball PAL framerates. Worldwide standards? Forget 'em.

I saw one of those Samsung 120Hz monitors the other week running one of those Pirates movies from EWWWWWWWWWWWW-Ray. It interpolated the frame rate up to 120fps and it looked more like "behind the scenes" camcorder footage of the making of the movie, but it was the actual movie itself. Worse yet when the action got fast, it began to drop frames because it couldn't interpolate that kind of information fast enough. 120hz is fine with me, but interpolating frames is a definite no-no in all cases. Also, who wants their image delayed even more?

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-01-2008, 03:34 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Isn't ABC one of the very few TV networks dedicated to broadcasting much of its content in 720p?

Actually Fox has also switched over to 720P because of all its sports broadcasting work. Imagine buying all that 1080 gear only to have to replace it..... [Roll Eyes]

Mark

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-01-2008, 06:32 PM:

Fox has been 720p for as long as I've had HDTV (at least a few years).

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-01-2008, 11:48 PM:

The 60fps thing for sports sounds really cool -even if it's just at 720p resolution. But it makes me think of an additional problem: the current state of flux in HDMI video connections. Even the newest HD monitors are kind of hit and miss with what HD fps modes they support.

Absolute full support should be any level of resolution at 24fps, 30fps and 60fps. But next to no HDTV monitors in existence support all of those modes. I'm not really sure which HD monitors truly support 60fps from various digital cable and digital satellite boxes -or if they even support such a fps mode over the air.

Maybe we'll get more attention to this kind of thing during WinterCES in Las Vegas next week. I hear there's some new "PD" format to compete with HDMI on digital connections. Just what we need. More connection standards to confuse the issue even further.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-25-2008, 06:39 AM:

quote: John Lasher
Similarly, watching 4x3 content stretched out to fit a 16x9 set used to annoy me, but I've learned to adjust my eyes, because most people find it "good enough".

HD Done wrong. This bugs the hell out of me and I revert to the SD broadcast. I recently sent an email to the History Channel (via A&E Networks) because they seem to be the worst offenders. No reply. No suprise either.

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 08-25-2008, 06:58 AM:

In fairness, email is not terribly effective. Send it paper mail or make some phone calls...if your email was even read, it's unlikely to've been distinguished out of the noise by any responsible person...

--jhawk

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 08-25-2008, 02:29 PM:

You're right John -- A letter is in the mail.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 08-26-2008, 08:41 PM:

NBC Nightly News continues to have audio problems: loss, sync, and voice over bumper music levels. Too much trouble...now watch ABC. Louis