Channel 6 rumors

[Gilbert]

Nels,

I have to say that I think FOX did it right by going with 720p instead of
1080i. 1080i is great for shows where cameras move slowly. It is
terrible for sporting events and concerts.

When concert lightning changes rapidly, and when cameras move rapidly
during sporting events, even a well-tuned 1080i broadcast shows artifacts,
or "macroblocking". It looks like "pixellation". When FOX showed NASCAR this
season, the picture quality was stunning. Now, I see macroblocking like
crazy on NBC, which is mildly annoying. A WGN-DT over-the-air broadcast of a Cubs game is also bad when the cameras move to capture a line drive or a runner
rounding the bases. I don't think, at least for the most part, that it is WGN's
fault. Did I mention I see the NBC feed from WMAQ-DT, arguably one of the
finest engineered signals in the city?

I know, I know there's the brouhaha over which format is better.
I just see what my eyes see and make the call. On my crappy letterboxed
26" TV, it's 720p, no macroblocking, and a very sharp picture. I am fully
aware that in seeing a true HDTV, I may have a completely different opinion.

Gilbert

[borghe]

to be fair, there is no practical difference between 720p and 1080i. Most sit too far back from their TVs to even fully resolve 720p let alone 1080i. and there is such a miniscule bit-per-pixel increase on 720p that from a visual standpoint on today's encoders we aren't going to see any difference in quality (re: two encoders of same quality, one at 720p and one at 1080i, and they will have the same level of compression artifacts). also with 1080i, at the sizes we watch TV at typically (even up to 73"+) 1080i is too fine a resolution for us to typically see any interlacing artifacts.

for any of these "benefits" of either resolution to be seen you would have to be talking probably 100"+ screens. then you might start seeing interlace artifacting, or slightly noticeable compression artifact differences, or increased resolution, etc. but on your typical 65" or smaller screen, there is effectively no difference between 1080i or 720p.

[StarvingForHDTV]

A little bit off topic here, but it would be interesting to see a broadcast on two channels of the same event.  Let's say a Packer game.

Channel A= 1080i coverage
Channel B= 720p coverage

Then have two displays.  Maybe 70" each.

Display A= Native 1080i tuned to Channel A
Display B= Native 720p tuned to Channel B

If those conditions were met, I think it would be fair to judge the two formats against each other.

Anything else is speculation, in my opinion.

[GBK]

If those conditions were met, I think it would be fair to judge the two formats against each other.

Anything else is speculation, in my opinion.

I totally agree besides I'd like best of both worlds 1080p :-)

[Joseph S]

Native 1080i dominated in the only chance I've had so far for this sort of comparison.

The Red Sox home opener this year was 1080i on INHD via a NESN feed and ESPN HD at 720p. The difference was obvious.

[easylistener]

But then you have to through compression rate in.  That is mostly the differnce you see in the hd channels.  You have to remeber very few of use have actually seen a true hd feed at 720p or 1080i.  I think when we get to that point then the hd of today will look like vhs of yesterday

[Joseph S]

Looks like they didn't really have anything on 6/30 or 7/1. They waited until 7/12 and they want to feed us nothing but more low power for a long time!!!!!!!!!!

"request...to operate with reduced antenna height and a slightly different antenna pattern"

"The station is unable to construct its DTV facitlity at present due to structural issues associated with the tower upon which the authorized antenna will be mounted. "

 :rolleyes:

[foxeng]

Looks like they didn't really have anything on 6/30 or 7/1. They waited until 7/12 and they want to feed us nothing but more low power for a long time!!!!!!!!!!

"request...to operate with reduced antenna height and a slightly different antenna pattern"

"The station is unable to construct its DTV facitlity at present due to structural issues associated with the tower upon which the authorized antenna will be mounted. "

 :rolleyes:

HHHMMM. I wouldn't call 1 million watts low power, but maybe you do. It is just too bad you didn't bother to READ the SECOND attachment, because if you had you would have seen:

ERP 1,000kw
Site Elevation AMSL 192.2  meters
Overall Structure Height AGL 329.4 meters
Radiation Center Height AGL 264 meters
Radiation Center Height AMSL 456 meters
Radiation Center Height AAT 260 meters

Now, I have no first hand knowledge, but from just those details it looks like a structrual analysis showed that at around 260 meters, the tower would support a full power antenna and they want to do just that at full power of 1 million watts. Looking at the coverage map supplied in the application, the coverage is set to keep the most power over land and not dump it into the lake. The northern most point on the map seems to be north of Sheboygan through Fond du Lac,  through Waterloo, not quite to Janesville, and south of Waukeugan.

Now I don't kow how far any of those places are from Milwaukee, but it looks like to me that the STA is about 95% of their full power coverge anyway.

All of this is available to the public at

http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/forms/prod/getattachment_exh.cgi?exhibit_id=324602

YMMV.

[Talos4]

The station is unable to construct its DTV facitlity at present due to structural issues associated with the tower upon which the authorized antenna will be mounted.

For the past several weeks, there has been extensive structural work being done to the tower.

While I'm not "an insider" or an iron worker, With the amount of strutural steel being fabricated and installed at the tower site it sure seems like they're  beefing up the tower and not just putzing around.

All you have to do is drive past the tower or sit in the lot next to the tower eating your lunch to see the amount of work being done.