** Why A Technology That Disenfranchises SD?

mrhagerty · 11-12-2008, 04:48 PM

rbinck et al,

(I posted this over in the SD thread, but that closed off in August, so I'm giving it a try here.)

I read the first article in the SD thread and while very much appreciating the technical side of why SD is going to look like you're living in a Soviet bloc country, I'm puzzled at how the industry innovators at the start decided to simply leave SD out in the cold?

And it's no longer a matter of simply advising folks to upgrade to HD equipment and service. It's the utter failure to encounter the reality that 40 years of television heritage in this country is going to keep SD around for a very long time. And the answer isn’t, “Learn to live without ‘I Love Lucy.’”

So somewhere back when, the movers and shakers let their gleeful high on the new technology get the best of their judgment and innovation, if it comes down to “Sorry about the rest, but, hey, ain’t HD keeno?”

Nor is it a matter of waiting out the eventual demise of general interest in classic television. Even today’s up to date HD news coverage features cut aways to film clips done on VHS or low res digital, and the SD problem lives on and on, despite being as HD as one can get.

And no, I don't care to move another 4 feet back or disable my incadescent lighting, as if TV rules the realm to the sacrifice of everything else.

Perhaps someone here knows the ugly story of how the industry chose to back into the technology with so little care for the enormous demand and unavoidability of status quo standard def?

Mike

**rbinck** · 11-12-2008, 05:16 PM

First, I doubt that your poor SD performance is due to your HDTV. I get pretty good to great SD performance on my Westinghouse 42" and my son gets good SD peformance from his 47" Westinghouse, but it was not always the case. When I had a SD TiVo hooked up the SD sucked big time. Every SD satellite receiver and cable box that I have viewed on a HDTV has sucked big time. Changing to the U-verse box made the SD acceptable. My son had a SD cable box when he first got his HDTV and same thing. The SD sucked. Changing to a HD DVR fixed his SD to the point that it was not terrible.

Here is what I recommend. Play a good DVD using a good DVD player. That should give you a benchmark for what SD should look like on your HDTV. Chances are any other source is not going to look as good. In my case the OTA tuners produce DVD level SD when the HD channel is showing SD. The U-verse is just slightly softer, depending on the channel.

The basic problem is the compression that satellite and cable systems use as well as the quality of their SD boxes. Since the SD TVs do not show the crappy compression artifacts, they saw no need in adding in artifact processing.

Now to your specific question. Why has the satellite and cable companies not catering quality SD to HD owners. Comes down to the need. There are far more SD users than there are HD users. That will change over time and as it does more of the HD boxes will be out there with their improved SD peformance. Unfortunately some of the early HD receivers are still in use and display SD pretty crappy.

mrhagerty · 11-12-2008, 05:38 PM

I think I get the compression issue creating an impasse for any cable/satellite arrangement. I'm not sure I follow you on your comment about the changing "need" over time.

Agreeably HD will take over as more common than SD (and it appears companies have simply obliged themselves to wait it out than do something helpful).

But as in my post, this really doesn't fix the SD problem? Even HD programs use SD content and will continue to do it for who knows how long. Any time they send a VHS unit or low res digital camera to the field, you're in for an SD feed.

And as for HD users becoming more dominant, convince me that they'll never want to watch I Love Lucy ever again.

You get the impression that most everyone in the HD world got it primarily for sports, so who should care about SD?

Also, what is U-verse? You're not telling me I need to cancel DirecTV, get hit with their termination fee and sign up with someone I've never heard of before.

Thanks for your reply but help me out a little bit more if you can.

Mike

**rbinck** · 11-13-2008, 01:08 PM

The need has to do with what their customer base is. If 85% of the customers can never see the compression artifacts, why address the issue.

As far as HD networks showing SD, yes that is true, but you have to consider they are using $30k equipment to upconvert their SD with artifact processing from uncompressed original sources. Not a $20 upconvert chip that is having to deal with highly compressed artifact filled sources that your HDTV or cable/satellite box is dealing with. Once they upconvert it and broadcast it using HD resolutions it comes out pretty artifact free and pretty good.

If you don't have access to over the air broadcasting, this may not be apparent to you, but the upconverted SD the stations broadcast is largely near DVD level.

You may be able to tell the difference between SD and upconverted SD by switching between the SD channel and the HD version of the same channel. CNN SD and CNN HD for shows that they don't use HD cameras on may also be used to compare. Same with CNBC and FOX News.

After a few months of watching, once you get used to the differences, you will know which networks send down crap and which ones don't as all networks that are SD only are not the same either. Some are near unwatchable on HDTVs.

mrhagerty · 11-13-2008, 03:36 PM

"but you have to consider they are using $30k equipment to upconvert their SD with artifact processing from uncompressed original sources."

So if HD channels are using $30K equipment to upconvert, why is it so incredibly bad? I saw a short clip of a Beach Boys concert on Fox News HD. and I kid you not, I couldn't recognize a single performer. They're certainly not limited to a $20 chip as I would be for unconverted SD.

Why would an HD channel consider this OK, and mind you, that means preferring to watch only HD channels will give me no advantage whatsoever for who knows how long.

It would actually be better if they would show the 480i in unscaled aspect ratio on a smaller square on the screen than this. But that still wouldn't help because, as you say, compression/decompression depleats the original content no matter what you do.

If the calibration DVD doesn't make a difference, I'm going back to SD service. Strangely, in that arrangement with my 1080i HDTV, SD actually looked better than it does now.

Mike

deadhead68 · 11-13-2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrhagerty

Strangely, in that arrangement with my 1080i HDTV, SD actually looked better than it does now.

That is strange indeed.

Sounds like something is severly wrong in your setup or signal coming into your house. I have witnessed that whenever the HD version of a channel is showing something in SD it is DVD quality. Crisp and clear. I only have a handful of channels that are as bad as you say, but they have an HD version that I watch and looks great.

For example on Comcast here in Chicago the "regular" ABC is channel 7. The HD version of ABC is channel 187. Even when 187 is showing something in SD it looks damn good.

DeadHead68

**rbinck** · 11-13-2008, 06:07 PM

I don't know why from time to time they use poor quality SD video. I agree with you some of it looks like it was shot with a camera phone or something. Something that bad can not benifit from any price equipment. I would never use a news channel clip to judge SD myself as there is no way to know where the video came from. As far as FOX News channel HD is concerned, a lot of it is actually upconverted SD with stuff put on the right side of the picture to fill up the widescreen. When you see a show on FNC that fills the whole screen originating in the studio, that is actually HD.

mrhagerty · 11-14-2008, 01:06 PM

rbinck and all,

As I feared, I've already exhausted all my options except calibration. I am surprised that when I upgraded from SD to HD the SD programs actually got worse. I suspect that when I switched over, the bandwidth for the signal I was now getting is pressed to its limit and SD suffers the most in that configuration.

I do have to laugh at the commericials that say "Get all that TV was meant to be."

Thanks for your comments.

Mike

deadhead68 · 11-14-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrhagerty

I am surprised that when I upgraded from SD to HD the SD programs actually got worse.

As I said before, there must be something wrong with the setup of your Directv receiver if that statement is true. Or the receiver itself is bad. What do you have the output set to?

DeadHead68

mrhagerty · 11-14-2008, 08:46 PM

Thanks deadhead for your continued interest,

I have my HDTV cabled to used HDMI, component and S-Video on different inputs from the receiver. My receiver is the latest model, HR22-200 from DTV.

I don't believe it's the receiver, because some purely SD channels come thru very good. But they are few compared to those that aren't. If the receiver were bad it would be consistently so.

For example, Fox 11 is consistently good as SD. But CW (Warner Bros Channel) is dreadful all the time. Hallmark has a few things that are watchable but most are dreadful, depending on the age of the program.

TCM ranges from good to very fuzzy. In many cases, programs are VHS quality or lower. Independent Film Channel is always fuzzy and out of focus in appearance.

E! is clear for studio shots, but break aways for clips of shows are like video phone quality, or like a 30 year old TV set.

My calibration DVD came today, so we'll see how that works.

Thanks,

mrhagerty · 11-17-2008, 02:45 PM

Well, the calibration DVD made minor improvements but nothing to shout about.

I'm wondering if the brand of HDTV can play a factor. I have the Sharp Aquos 42 inch. Someone bragged that the Sony has no SD problems with Comcast cable.

Can the Sharp be that much of a problem for SD?

Mike

11-12-2008, 04:48 PM	#1
mrhagerty My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	** Why A Technology That Disenfranchises SD? rbinck et al, (I posted this over in the SD thread, but that closed off in August, so I'm giving it a try here.) I read the first article in the SD thread and while very much appreciating the technical side of why SD is going to look like you're living in a Soviet bloc country, I'm puzzled at how the industry innovators at the start decided to simply leave SD out in the cold? And it's no longer a matter of simply advising folks to upgrade to HD equipment and service. It's the utter failure to encounter the reality that 40 years of television heritage in this country is going to keep SD around for a very long time. And the answer isn’t, “Learn to live without ‘I Love Lucy.’” So somewhere back when, the movers and shakers let their gleeful high on the new technology get the best of their judgment and innovation, if it comes down to “Sorry about the rest, but, hey, ain’t HD keeno?” Nor is it a matter of waiting out the eventual demise of general interest in classic television. Even today’s up to date HD news coverage features cut aways to film clips done on VHS or low res digital, and the SD problem lives on and on, despite being as HD as one can get. And no, I don't care to move another 4 feet back or disable my incadescent lighting, as if TV rules the realm to the sacrifice of everything else. Perhaps someone here knows the ugly story of how the industry chose to back into the technology with so little care for the enormous demand and unavoidability of status quo standard def? Mike Last edited by mrhagerty; 11-12-2008 at 04:55 PM.

11-12-2008, 05:16 PM	#2
rbinck Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 10,611	First, I doubt that your poor SD performance is due to your HDTV. I get pretty good to great SD performance on my Westinghouse 42" and my son gets good SD peformance from his 47" Westinghouse, but it was not always the case. When I had a SD TiVo hooked up the SD sucked big time. Every SD satellite receiver and cable box that I have viewed on a HDTV has sucked big time. Changing to the U-verse box made the SD acceptable. My son had a SD cable box when he first got his HDTV and same thing. The SD sucked. Changing to a HD DVR fixed his SD to the point that it was not terrible. Here is what I recommend. Play a good DVD using a good DVD player. That should give you a benchmark for what SD should look like on your HDTV. Chances are any other source is not going to look as good. In my case the OTA tuners produce DVD level SD when the HD channel is showing SD. The U-verse is just slightly softer, depending on the channel. The basic problem is the compression that satellite and cable systems use as well as the quality of their SD boxes. Since the SD TVs do not show the crappy compression artifacts, they saw no need in adding in artifact processing. Now to your specific question. Why has the satellite and cable companies not catering quality SD to HD owners. Comes down to the need. There are far more SD users than there are HD users. That will change over time and as it does more of the HD boxes will be out there with their improved SD peformance. Unfortunately some of the early HD receivers are still in use and display SD pretty crappy. __________________ www.highdefinitionblog.com www.BlogOfHawaii.com

11-13-2008, 01:08 PM	#4
rbinck Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 10,611	The need has to do with what their customer base is. If 85% of the customers can never see the compression artifacts, why address the issue. As far as HD networks showing SD, yes that is true, but you have to consider they are using $30k equipment to upconvert their SD with artifact processing from uncompressed original sources. Not a $20 upconvert chip that is having to deal with highly compressed artifact filled sources that your HDTV or cable/satellite box is dealing with. Once they upconvert it and broadcast it using HD resolutions it comes out pretty artifact free and pretty good. If you don't have access to over the air broadcasting, this may not be apparent to you, but the upconverted SD the stations broadcast is largely near DVD level. You may be able to tell the difference between SD and upconverted SD by switching between the SD channel and the HD version of the same channel. CNN SD and CNN HD for shows that they don't use HD cameras on may also be used to compare. Same with CNBC and FOX News. After a few months of watching, once you get used to the differences, you will know which networks send down crap and which ones don't as all networks that are SD only are not the same either. Some are near unwatchable on HDTVs. __________________ www.highdefinitionblog.com www.BlogOfHawaii.com

11-13-2008, 06:07 PM	#7
rbinck Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 10,611	I don't know why from time to time they use poor quality SD video. I agree with you some of it looks like it was shot with a camera phone or something. Something that bad can not benifit from any price equipment. I would never use a news channel clip to judge SD myself as there is no way to know where the video came from. As far as FOX News channel HD is concerned, a lot of it is actually upconverted SD with stuff put on the right side of the picture to fill up the widescreen. When you see a show on FNC that fills the whole screen originating in the studio, that is actually HD. __________________ www.highdefinitionblog.com www.BlogOfHawaii.com

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-12-2008, 05:38 PM	#3
mrhagerty My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	I think I get the compression issue creating an impasse for any cable/satellite arrangement. I'm not sure I follow you on your comment about the changing "need" over time. Agreeably HD will take over as more common than SD (and it appears companies have simply obliged themselves to wait it out than do something helpful). But as in my post, this really doesn't fix the SD problem? Even HD programs use SD content and will continue to do it for who knows how long. Any time they send a VHS unit or low res digital camera to the field, you're in for an SD feed. And as for HD users becoming more dominant, convince me that they'll never want to watch I Love Lucy ever again. You get the impression that most everyone in the HD world got it primarily for sports, so who should care about SD? Also, what is U-verse? You're not telling me I need to cancel DirecTV, get hit with their termination fee and sign up with someone I've never heard of before. Thanks for your reply but help me out a little bit more if you can. Mike

11-13-2008, 03:36 PM	#5
mrhagerty My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	"but you have to consider they are using $30k equipment to upconvert their SD with artifact processing from uncompressed original sources." So if HD channels are using $30K equipment to upconvert, why is it so incredibly bad? I saw a short clip of a Beach Boys concert on Fox News HD. and I kid you not, I couldn't recognize a single performer. They're certainly not limited to a $20 chip as I would be for unconverted SD. Why would an HD channel consider this OK, and mind you, that means preferring to watch only HD channels will give me no advantage whatsoever for who knows how long. It would actually be better if they would show the 480i in unscaled aspect ratio on a smaller square on the screen than this. But that still wouldn't help because, as you say, compression/decompression depleats the original content no matter what you do. If the calibration DVD doesn't make a difference, I'm going back to SD service. Strangely, in that arrangement with my 1080i HDTV, SD actually looked better than it does now. Mike

11-14-2008, 01:06 PM	#8
mrhagerty My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	rbinck and all, As I feared, I've already exhausted all my options except calibration. I am surprised that when I upgraded from SD to HD the SD programs actually got worse. I suspect that when I switched over, the bandwidth for the signal I was now getting is pressed to its limit and SD suffers the most in that configuration. I do have to laugh at the commericials that say "Get all that TV was meant to be." Thanks for your comments. Mike

11-14-2008, 08:46 PM	#10
mrhagerty My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	Thanks deadhead for your continued interest, I have my HDTV cabled to used HDMI, component and S-Video on different inputs from the receiver. My receiver is the latest model, HR22-200 from DTV. I don't believe it's the receiver, because some purely SD channels come thru very good. But they are few compared to those that aren't. If the receiver were bad it would be consistently so. For example, Fox 11 is consistently good as SD. But CW (Warner Bros Channel) is dreadful all the time. Hallmark has a few things that are watchable but most are dreadful, depending on the age of the program. TCM ranges from good to very fuzzy. In many cases, programs are VHS quality or lower. Independent Film Channel is always fuzzy and out of focus in appearance. E! is clear for studio shots, but break aways for clips of shows are like video phone quality, or like a 30 year old TV set. My calibration DVD came today, so we'll see how that works. Thanks,

11-17-2008, 02:45 PM	#11
mrhagerty My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 7	Well, the calibration DVD made minor improvements but nothing to shout about. I'm wondering if the brand of HDTV can play a factor. I have the Sharp Aquos 42 inch. Someone bragged that the Sony has no SD problems with Comcast cable. Can the Sharp be that much of a problem for SD? Mike

Similar Threads to ** Why A Technology That Disenfranchises SD?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
IDT Acquires Silicon Optix Assets and Technology	Robertoy	High Definition News & Informative Articles	0	10-21-2008 01:09 PM
DVD Forum To Explore 3D Technology.	Lee Stewart	High Definition Media	38	04-25-2008 10:57 AM
IBM Unveils a Prototype Green Optical Network Technology for Sharing Huge Files in Se	Lee Stewart	High Definition News & Informative Articles	0	03-04-2008 02:55 PM
CES 2008: New HDTV Products and Technology Overview	eHDMI	High Definition News & Informative Articles	1	01-18-2008 08:39 AM
What are your thoughts on Thomson Film Grain Technology?	µCOM-4	HD DVD Players	17	07-10-2006 12:34 PM