> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:35:57 PM UTC-7, krauster wrote:
>> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The picture is incredible.
> KTVU's picture is 720p.
But it's not always about 720p vs 1080i at the affiliate station. Fox, for whatever else I may think about that organization, always does a magnificent technical job at these big playoff games. Great camera angles, the sharpest lenses, crisp audio, people who seem to know exactly what they're doing.
>> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The picture is
>> incredible.
> No idea, but it's clear that a lot of the players don't shave very well...
Those would be the playoff beards. Players from various sports don't shave once they get into the playoffs. It's supposed to be lucky. However the Giants took it a lot further with Taliban-style beards in the regular season and playoffs.
>But it's not always about 720p vs 1080i at the affiliate station. Fox, >for whatever else I may think about that organization, always does a >magnificent technical job at these big playoff games. Great camera >angles, the sharpest lenses, crisp audio, people who seem to know >exactly what they're doing.
Speaking of which, they were showing an interesting angle during
some pitches last week: it was from almost behind the catcher.
I don't recall seeing that in the past few days, so maybe it was
only during the NLCS and not during the World Series? I wish they
had done it some more.
> In article<508ef265$0$71147$742ec...@news.sonic.net>,
> Neil<weiser...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> But it's not always about 720p vs 1080i at the affiliate station. Fox,
>> for whatever else I may think about that organization, always does a
>> magnificent technical job at these big playoff games. Great camera
>> angles, the sharpest lenses, crisp audio, people who seem to know
>> exactly what they're doing.
> Speaking of which, they were showing an interesting angle during
> some pitches last week: it was from almost behind the catcher.
> I don't recall seeing that in the past few days, so maybe it was
> only during the NLCS and not during the World Series? I wish they
> had done it some more.
I liked the super slo mo. They really nailed it down, the 2 most memorable shots to me were
(1) Hunter Pence breaking his bat and the ball contacting it 3 times
(2) Marco Scutaro looking up into the rain
In article <f039dcd8-6d3a-474b-8a2c-1cfd4986a6ba@googlegroups.com> c319ch...@aol.com writes:
>On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:35:57 PM UTC-7, krauster wrote:
>> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The picture is incredible.
>KTVU's picture is 720p.
KGO-tV 7.1 is also 720p. The picture is not as good. I think they may
be running 720p on 7.2 as well, and it is even worse.
Factors like spacial filtering in the processing, and other forms of
bit-rate reduction, are more important than the choice of 720 or 1080.
On Oct 29, 9:56 pm, nos...@w6yx.stanford.edu (Alan) wrote:
> In article <f039dcd8-6d3a-474b-8a2c-1cfd4986a6ba@googlegroups.com> c319ch...@aol.com writes:
> >On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:35:57 PM UTC-7, krauster wrote:
> >> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The picture is incredible.
> >KTVU's picture is 720p.
> KGO-tV 7.1 is also 720p. The picture is not as good. I think they may
> be running 720p on 7.2 as well, and it is even worse.
> Factors like spacial filtering in the processing, and other forms of
> bit-rate reduction, are more important than the choice of 720 or 1080.
At the beginning of the the telecast, when an announcer was standing
in front of the field, I was struck by the depth of focus. The
announcer and everything behind him was sharp and clear. It reminded
me of the Viewmaster images of my youth. Maybe the lenses made the
difference.
> In article <f039dcd8-6d3a-474b-8a2c-1cfd4986a6ba@googlegroups.com> c319ch...@aol.com writes:
>> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:35:57 PM UTC-7, krauster wrote:
>>> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The picture is incredible.
>> KTVU's picture is 720p.
> KGO-tV 7.1 is also 720p. The picture is not as good. I think they may
> be running 720p on 7.2 as well, and it is even worse.
> Factors like spacial filtering in the processing, and other forms of
> bit-rate reduction, are more important than the choice of 720 or 1080.
> Alan
KGO has 7.1 in 720p, 7.2 in 720p, and a standard-def simulcast of 7.2 on 7.3 ("Live Well TV") in 480i.
Due to a vagary of terrain, I sometimes can pull in both the Fremont translator of KGO (RF channel 35) and KOVR from Sacramento (10.1 and 10.2 on RF channel 10). When I switch between KGO and KOVR, KOVR always looks clearer and seems to have better color saturation. And yet both stations are 720p on the main channel, and running the identical ABC network feed.
In article <ac486a9b-f732-4323-8f09-2974d5b81078@googlegroups.com>,
krauster <krauster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The picture is > incredible.
My recording says about 13.5Mbps, MPEG2 1280x720 @ 59.94 fps, Dolby Digital 5.1 @ 48KHz. My guess is that it's reporting the frame rate incorrectly.
The quality of an MPEG2 signal also depends greatly on the encoder.
There are three different frame types that an encoder can use to represent video. The I-frame resembles a JPEG so it's easy. The P-frame and B-frames are motions, detail deltas, and interpolations from other frames. Their efficiency depends on how much computational power you can throw at them.
-- I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam
> In article <ac486a9b-f732-4323-8f09-2974d5b81078@googlegroups.com>,
> krauster <krauster...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The picture is
>> incredible.
> My recording says about 13.5Mbps, MPEG2 1280x720 @ 59.94 fps, Dolby
> Digital 5.1 @ 48KHz. My guess is that it's reporting the frame rate
> incorrectly.
> The quality of an MPEG2 signal also depends greatly on the encoder.
> There are three different frame types that an encoder can use to
> represent video. The I-frame resembles a JPEG so it's easy. The
> P-frame and B-frames are motions, detail deltas, and interpolations from
> other frames. Their efficiency depends on how much computational power
> you can throw at them.
59.94 fps is correct for 720p. ABC and FOX chose 720p for sports. Comcast squeezes the bitrate down to around 4 mbps. Problem is how gritty the picture will look when it can't keep up with fast pans, etc. H264 is better for that.
> On 10/29/12 9:56 PM, Alan wrote:
>> In article <f039dcd8-6d3a-474b-8a2c-1cfd4986a6ba@googlegroups.com>
>> c319ch...@aol.com writes:
>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:35:57 PM UTC-7, krauster wrote:
>>>> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The
>>>> picture is incredible.
>>> KTVU's picture is 720p.
>> KGO-tV 7.1 is also 720p. The picture is not as good. I think they
>> may
>> be running 720p on 7.2 as well, and it is even worse.
>> Factors like spacial filtering in the processing, and other forms of
>> bit-rate reduction, are more important than the choice of 720 or 1080.
>> Alan
> KGO has 7.1 in 720p, 7.2 in 720p, and a standard-def simulcast of 7.2 on
> 7.3 ("Live Well TV") in 480i.
> Due to a vagary of terrain, I sometimes can pull in both the Fremont
> translator of KGO (RF channel 35) and KOVR from Sacramento (10.1 and
> 10.2 on RF channel 10). When I switch between KGO and KOVR, KOVR always
> looks clearer and seems to have better color saturation. And yet both
> stations are 720p on the main channel, and running the identical ABC
> network feed.
They ought to put translators on one of the hills here on Martinez so we can dump cable or satellite. Of course those not in the valleys can get the Sacramento stations. I live in a nice location but it's zilch as far as any OTA TV reception. Of course with what they're broadcasting, who cares?
> > On 10/29/12 9:56 PM, Alan wrote:
> >> In article <f039dcd8-6d3a-474b-8a2c-1cfd4986a6ba@googlegroups.com>
> >> c319ch...@aol.com writes:
> >>> On Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:35:57 PM UTC-7, krauster wrote:
> >>>> What sort of bandwidth does KTVU broadcast over the air? The
> >>>> picture is incredible.
> >>> KTVU's picture is 720p.
> >> KGO-tV 7.1 is also 720p. The picture is not as good. I think they
> >> may
> >> be running 720p on 7.2 as well, and it is even worse.
> >> Factors like spacial filtering in the processing, and other forms of
> >> bit-rate reduction, are more important than the choice of 720 or 1080.
> >> Alan
> > KGO has 7.1 in 720p, 7.2 in 720p, and a standard-def simulcast of 7.2 on
> > 7.3 ("Live Well TV") in 480i.
> > Due to a vagary of terrain, I sometimes can pull in both the Fremont
> > translator of KGO (RF channel 35) and KOVR from Sacramento (10.1 and
> > 10.2 on RF channel 10). When I switch between KGO and KOVR, KOVR always
> > looks clearer and seems to have better color saturation. And yet both
> > stations are 720p on the main channel, and running the identical ABC
> > network feed.
> They ought to put translators on one of the hills here on Martinez so we
> can dump cable or satellite. Of course those not in the valleys can get
> the Sacramento stations. I live in a nice location but it's zilch as
> far as any OTA TV reception. Of course with what they're broadcasting,
> who cares?
Make your own CATV system. An antenna, a preamp, solar panel, gel
cells, maybe a 2.6 GHz link?
Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> They ought to put translators on one of the hills here on Martinez so we > can dump cable or satellite. Of course those not in the valleys can get > the Sacramento stations. I live in a nice location but it's zilch as > far as any OTA TV reception. Of course with what they're broadcasting, > who cares?
Martinez is very difficult to cover with secondary facilities. The bang for the buck is very low because of the terrain. I know; I'm one of the few broadcasters that intentionally targets Martinez with a booster signal.
> Due to a vagary of terrain, I sometimes can pull in both the Fremont
> translator of KGO (RF channel 35) and KOVR from Sacramento (10.1 and
> 10.2 on RF channel 10). When I switch between KGO and KOVR, KOVR always
> looks clearer and seems to have better color saturation. And yet both
> stations are 720p on the main channel, and running the identical ABC
> network feed.
Just realized I meant KXTV, not KOVR (which is Sacto's CBS affiliate).
> In article <S9Uks.17746$2Q3.9...@newsfe25.iad>,
> Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> They ought to put translators on one of the hills here on Martinez so we
>> can dump cable or satellite. Of course those not in the valleys can get
>> the Sacramento stations. I live in a nice location but it's zilch as
>> far as any OTA TV reception. Of course with what they're broadcasting,
>> who cares?
> Martinez is very difficult to cover with secondary facilities. The bang
> for the buck is very low because of the terrain. I know; I'm one of the
> few broadcasters that intentionally targets Martinez with a booster
> signal.
When I had my smog check done a couple years back the place had one of those analog converters on the little TV in the waiting room. I was surprised at how many channels they got (all Sacramento) there.
Translators must cost a whole lot more these days. My dad back in the 1950s and 60s was on the board for a mostly farm area organization that had some TV translators in SE Washington to bring in stations from Spokane and by the 1980s Portland and a PBS station in Eastern Oregon. The yearly donation was only $25 at the time and in the late 80s when people started buying C-Band dishes it started to become difficult to raise even $25 a user.
Bhairitu <noozg...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Translators must cost a whole lot more these days. My dad back in the > 1950s and 60s was on the board for a mostly farm area organization that > had some TV translators in SE Washington to bring in stations from > Spokane and by the 1980s Portland and a PBS station in Eastern Oregon. > The yearly donation was only $25 at the time and in the late 80s when > people started buying C-Band dishes it started to become difficult to > raise even $25 a user.
The KKDV Martinez booster is essentially a complete radio station. It is located in a secure climate controlled box in a space rented to us. The program is delivered via T1. No analog audio is present anywhere in the chain. Even the modulated FM signal is generated via DSP from the arriving digital audio from the T1. It is located in the hills southwest of downtown.
The moment you scrap "fed off the air" topology, costs increase exponentially. Scrapping the T1 will dramatically reduce our monthly cost.
From the above discussion I come away with 13.5Mbps of MPEG2 for over the air vs 4Mbps of the more efficient MPEG4 compression. Given this type of program material and those numbers which medium looks better - over the air or HD cable?
> From the above discussion I come away with 13.5Mbps of MPEG2 for over the air vs 4Mbps of the more efficient MPEG4 compression. Given this type of program material and those numbers which medium looks better - over the air or HD cable?
Hard to say because I have no access to OTA though I have a USB HD tuner I have been meaning for years to take to the top of the nearby hill to record some broadcasts from Sacramento. These tuners just write the transport stream being broadcast to the hard drive. There is no recompression.
But back when Comcast took over AT&T Cable in the area I was able to record shows and movies on the Open QAM channels before they started stuffing two or three channels to one. You still saw macroblocking on those channels. MPEG4 (h.264) has more tricks to throw at a stream to avoid macroblocking.
The interesting thing I've found is the lack of DIY 8VSB transmitters. There are DVB hobby transmitters which is what is what Europe uses but no 8VSB (which ATSC uses) yet.
In article <67667322-497b-4d22-b571-79ba48d0b30d@googlegroups.com>,
krauster <krauster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From the above discussion I come away with 13.5Mbps of MPEG2 for over the air > vs 4Mbps of the more efficient MPEG4 compression. Given this type of program > material and those numbers which medium looks better - over the air or HD > cable?
I've seen extremely CPU intensive H.264 encodings manage clean 1080p @ 24fps using 5Mbps, but Comcast at work is a muddy mess compared to OTA at home. They only win when compared to OTA stations having too many subchannels.
-- I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam
