AFC Playoffs - Motion Artifacts on 58

[borghe]

I am seeing some artifacting for sure, but some of it I honestly question if it is due to multi-casting or using a single production truck for the display. For example, you will always see the same compression artifacts any single time the CBS/NFL logo wipe occurs. 100% in the same manner. That sure doesn't seem like a compression issue but instead it appears more like applying a low resolution effect to a high resolution picture. There are other parts also that seem more like production issues than compression artifacts.

I am not blind, I do see some obvious compression artifacts and wonder how much of those would be cleaned up by eliminating Telemundo (doesn't NBC own them?). But I see a lot of consistent artifacting that leads me to wonder how much of it is at the production end. Those who work consistently with video compression should know that artifacts don't happen as consistently as the logo wipe for example, especially when the motion on one side of the wipe is varying between a moving crowd and an empty field.

Just my two cents. Overall very beautiful picture, some compression artifacts, but most of the ugliest artifacts I honestly don't believe are compression based.

Edit - The logo wipe was just one example. Another example similar to the logo wipe is some pans off of certain cameras across the crowd or players. It always seems to be from the same couple of cameras. Again, we shouldn't see the exact same artifacting just because the same cameras are being used. Compression artifacts don't work like that.

[bigcheeshead]

As others have stated the 3rd quarter is absolutelly stunning.  Just wanted to give a BIG THANK YOU to everyone at CBS both locally and everyone else at the network that has made this STUNNING game possible for us.

[Tom Snyder]

Credit where credit is due... Second half was spectacular.  

Just switched to Fox 6 Analog for the Eagles/Falcons... but after watching 4 hours of 1080i, I just can't watch this... and I haven't missed an NFC playoff game in years.  

[Joseph S]

Credit where credit is due... Second half was spectacular.  

There was definitely less pixelation as the bandwidth was lowered on 1.2, but that wasn't the only problem. So many frames were missed that the picture would jump and players would move 5 yards without being seen. It didn't matter if it was a play or just a sideline shot of players running out onto the field. When something moved many frames were lost in the process. On simple one minute clips the missed frames left playbacks of "Ovavavaver the midadadalllllee... McNaaaaair." Please don't ever multicast during a HD sporting event again it clearly can't be done.

[borghe]

josephs - I didn't see any of the jumping you are talking about.. :confused:

[Tom Snyder]

I did experience a few freeze-ups myself... once when the cheerleaders shook their shiney silver pom poms right at the camera...locked it up real good... had to change channel and back again.

That sounds more like a weak signal or ghosting. I used to get that a lot until I got a better antenna. What kind of signal strength are you getting?

[AndrewP]

I don't know why so many critical remarks about the broadcast. I watched 3 & 4 quarters and everything was PERFECT!
The problem is that I just cannot watch FOX game now.
What a shame, FOX!

Andrew

[MesaV]

I had eight friends over to watch the Madison CBS coverage of the game.  In the whole game there were only 4 or 5 times that I experienced any pixelation; and very minor ones at that.  I think the high ERP at Madison must make a difference.  My friends will be back tomorrow to watch the second game.  First Class Job Madison, thank you.

[ugyvel]

I, too, did not experience ANY of the skipped frames or freeze-ups or pixelizations referenced above (except for that one side line camera and except for one commercial where it froze and gave us a strobe light effect that was cured on channel change--probably the receiver).  Awesome broadcast, makes the Fox look SOOOOO Bad. Thanks CBS!!!!

Mequon, OTA via Samsung 150.

[Joseph S]

That sounds more like a weak signal or ghosting. I used to get that a lot until I got a better antenna. What kind of signal strength are you getting?

81/100

Any quick ways to convert .ts in mpeg2 for demo purposes? I can take some screen shots, but demonstrating the framedrops is another issue.

[John Polulach]

For whatever reason, the college games on CBS looked a little better...more snap, or something.  But this is still very nice!...now if only the Pack had beat the Jets...

JP

[ReesR]

It was explained to me, by their chief engineer,  they are using a statistical multiplexing system to multicast their 3 channels.  This was a way to handle 2 SD program channels while continuing a single HD program channel.  All of this on a single HD channel.

Despite marketing claims, you simply can not put 10 lbs of programming through a 5 lb pipe after all the compression that has already been done to it.  The proof is in the results that you see.

We can complain all we want here about the results but the fact will remain at the end of the day that they care more about their priorities than their viewers.

The trend is quite clear with regard to Ch 58:

1. low power transmitter
2. directional antenna not designed for their coverage area/power level
3. taking forever getting on Time Warner cable
4. taxing their hd feed by multicasting 2 additional sd channels
5. using non-standard virtual channels 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3.  Creates confusion.  What will happen when and if they go cable?
6. electric bills are being paid by their competition using high power.  Their claim of too expensive is a smoke screen.

I continue to provide this perspective and opinion because I believe we need to constantly remind them that the market place ultimately will get what it wants one way or the other.  It always does.  The management of a tv station always reports to their viewers not the other way around.  The longer they delay correcting the above 6 issues the worse the harm to their market.

I recently bumped into a recently downsized Time Warner manager who said there was long term bad blood between Time Warner and Ch 58.  He wouldn't comment further than that.

I just hope we all understand what is going on when most of us are not happy with what we are seeing on 1-1 on our expensive investments.  In my case I was able to see the game but unreliably and with the same artifacts most of you saw.  I ultimately viewed a different channel.

[borghe]

Hmm.. Overall my thoughts on 58 and the game in general are extremely positive.

The comparison of 10lbs into a 5lb bag is not at all appropriate. Even on a 28.8Mbps D-VHS tape there is compression. MPEG2 is a compressed video format and in that sense you will always be fitting the 10lbs of sugar into the proverbial 5lb bag, even on D-VHS. The other side of the coin with video compression is keeping it pretty in the process.

Channel 58 multi-casting for most television shows is a moot point. They are allocating on average 14Mbps to 58-1, and in many instances I would imagine 58-2 and 58-3 are even taking up less than the combined 5Mbps. That 14Mbps is is more than enough to show television shows with medium and high action shots at 1080i.

Now we have all mentioned how we saw compression artifacts during the game last night, but again I ask the question of how many of those artifacts were compression based on 58's end, how many were compression based on CBS' end, and how many were artifacts at the production end. Going to avsforum yesterday and today there were a lot of people who were talking about motion and compression artifacts, many people who were viewing the game on singular HDTV stations not multi-casting.

Some people in this group are very quick to jump down the stations' throats when there is something they don't like. They don't think to ask the question: Where does the problem originate from? Is it my equipment? Is it the station? Corporate? A production issue? We saw it last weekend with the Alias commercial screwup on ABC. We are seeing it this weekend with the NFL playoffs. People need to stop being so critical and need to start either being grateful for what we have or if you honestly can't, start looking for where the answers truly lie instead of instantly saying "58 needs to do things differently."

To put the final 58 multi-casting issue to rest, I ask that everyone lay off on it until someone actually does an A/B comparison with two identical televisions calibrated the same within reason, one with WDJT and the other with either WISC or WBBM showing. Until this happens complaining that multi-casting is dramatically affecting the picture is baseless and without merit. We are assuming it does, but have no actual comparison or measure to prove it with.

[wozz]

Did anybody else notice that the camera CBS used on the left side of the 50 yard line (as we watched game)was cleaner than the camera they used to the right side of the 50, or did I have to many Modelo's

Wozz

[MesaV]

Was that from the visitors or the home teams sideline?