WDJT your picture quality is RUBBISH!

[murdoc]

I'd be more concerned about loosing viewership to Netflix, torrents, online providers, and other on-demand sources.  It's so easy and quick now to download a torrent or from iTunes and just stream it to your media center.  I don't have to fast forward through commercials and can watch them over and over.

[zoothorn]

I have to agree with murdoc. I have seriously considered just going OTA as you can download just about any series show or movie. The only thing stopping me are a few of the news shows I watch each night. Not the type of shows really that are posted to a torrent or newsgroup so no way to get them.  

HDMI cable to the TV, Digital Audio to the receiver and 3.5TB of HD and its all good.

Any sports that wasn't on OTA would be another concern for some but that's not a problem for me.

[Bebop]

You be surprised what shows are on the torrents. Which news shows are you watching?They might be free on the own site.

[troyriley]

My Super Bowl plan: Give CBS 58 a try. The minute I start to see poor quality (which will probably be the first time there's any motion in the game), I'm turning the antenna towards Rockford and watching the game on WIFR-23.

[No-Muzak-Al]

I live in Sheboygan and also have the benefit of being able to watch both WDJT in Milwaukee and WFRV (Channel 5) from Green Bay via OTA antenna.  Like it was mentioned in a previous post, WFRV with no subchannels has a far superior HD picture quality over Channel 58, and unfortunately, the horrible "fast motion" artifacts are most noticable during college basketball and football games on Channel 58.  I definitely will be watching the Super Bowl this weekend on WFRV.  Maybe such a big event like this will finally open some eyes over at Channel 58, even though I'm sure they are more worried about making as much money now as they can with their multiple subchannels then providing the best possible HD quality video anymore.

I'd hate to be their switchboard operator on duty Sunday when the game starts, and a good portion of their viewing audience who has spent up to several thousand dollars the past couple of years for a brand new, state-of-the-art HD television all of a sudden sees these horrible "fast motion" artifacts due to their overcompressed signal and wonder what in the world is going on?  For now, I'll keep enjoying my HD CBS programming via WFRV, but unfortunately, I know that someday soon, they too will most likely join the rest of the world by adding multiple subchannels in order to survive in this financially strapped broadcast industry.

[basshive]

Time to switch back to a chicago service address.

[bschlafer]

A question for the experts (because I'm certainly not one).

Does WDJT have sufficient bandwidth to carry two channels in full HD if they shut down their other channels?  

My thinking is, wouldn't it be cool for the NCAA basketball tourney if they carried two seperate games in HD?  

I know that CBS would never permit them to carry two simultaneous feeds.  But does WDJT technically have that capability?  Or can they stuck with only being able carry one HD channel and reduced SD on the others?

Just curious.


*Bill

[SRW1000]

Does WDJT have sufficient bandwidth to carry two channels in full HD if they shut down their other channels?  

. . . But does WDJT technically have that capability?  Or can they stuck with only being able carry one HD channel and reduced SD on the others?

Just curious.


*Bill

No.  The ATSC system was designed for one, single HD program or up to four SD programs.  There isn't enough bandwidth for two quality HD programs to be shown at the same time.

While they certainly could broadcast two shows, the quality would likely be worse than the one HD and three SD channels they are showing today, and most of us wouldn't consider it worthy of the HD moniker.

Now, if MPEG4 were used for OTA broadcasting, you probably could show two HD programs at the same time.  It's not likely for that to happen for some time, though.

Scott

[mrschimpf]

No.  The ATSC system was designed for one, single HD program or up to four SD programs.  There isn't enough bandwidth for two quality HD programs to be shown at the same time.

While they certainly could broadcast two shows, the quality would likely be worse than the one HD and three SD channels they are showing today, and most of us wouldn't consider it worthy of the HD moniker.

Now, if MPEG4 were used for OTA broadcasting, you probably could show two HD programs at the same time.  It's not likely for that to happen for some time, though.

Scott

There are some operations, such as a CBS/FOX combo in Youngstown, OH and WGXA in Macon, GA (FOX/ABC) which air two HD streams on a single channel; however both of those examples broadcast in 720p, and CBS is native 1080i. ABC's O&O's also carry a 720p lifestyle network in addition to their main signal and AccuWeather on DT3. So it can be done with proper attention to bandwidth management.

Certainly however two HD streams are completely out for 1080i stations.

The other issue currently is Channel 49 is still in low-power operation and hasn't cranked their signal really past Port Washington, so until Weigel gets full-power going on 49, nothing can be moved (Telemundo needs only aerial in Waukesha and Milwaukee and cable gets everything else, so their coverage is about break-even even with the lower power signal on DT4.

[zoothorn]

Bebop - I'm looking for Countdown at a minimum and Hardball would be nice. MSNBC junkie

I don't see them at nzbmatrix or on the torrents.

My son is OTA only. He lives in Australia but is more current on US TV series than I am. All you have to do is subscribe to one of the premium news services for $10/mo.

[Bebop]

They are both on the iTune store for free. Countdown is in video and Hardball in audio.

[SRW1000]

There are some operations, such as a CBS/FOX combo in Youngstown, OH and WGXA in Macon, GA (FOX/ABC) which air two HD streams on a single channel; however both of those examples broadcast in 720p, and CBS is native 1080i. ABC's O&O's also carry a 720p lifestyle network in addition to their main signal and AccuWeather on DT3. So it can be done with proper attention to bandwidth management.

Well, of course it could be done, but it's a matter of how well.  

There isn't enough bandwidth to handle two HD programs at the same time, without affecting the quality.  It may not be noticeable during less-demanding programming (just as CBS and NBC dramas on 4 and 58 can look pretty good occasionally), but any shows with highly-dynamic content will struggle to keep up.  Throwing out resolution is one answer, and there are other tricks that can be used to minimize the artifacts.  But it comes at the cost of quality, and more-expensive encoders for the stations.

So, yes, it could be done, just as CBS58 can show an HD channel along with three SD channels.  That doesn't mean it would look any better than what we have today.

Scott

[troyriley]

What are your opinions of the picture quality of the Super Bowl on WDJT?

Maybe it was just me, but it seemed a LITTLE better than the last game I saw on 58- the AFC Championship game. I'm not sure if they did a little bandwidth adjustment knowing there would be so many viewers, or maybe I was just sitting farther away from the TV and didn't notice the poor quality as much. Either way, I could tell that WIFR-23 definitely had the better picture quality.

I can only hope local advertisers are aware that their high-priced ads on WDJT are not reaching everyone because some local viewers choose to watch programming on CBS affiliates in adjacent markets because of 58's poor picture quality.

[beeper]

It looked pretty good OTA on 58.
The confetti at the end, totally confused the encoding.
Other than that, it was very acceptable on my 42" display.

Audio, on the other hand was riddled with various network problems throughout.

[Blitzburgh]

Looked great via DirecTV.

I have a 73" Mits DLP and the pictures was great.