PBS HD is Horrible.

[Bebop]

Too many sub-channels,  out-dated equipment, or both?

Both 720P, the size of the recored OTA file is 3X that of the torrent.

It's a nice show on Masterpiece. For those that prefers superior picture quality or doesn't want to wait for the next showing. Google is your friend.

[Xizer]

Milwaukee's PBS sucks balls.

WMVS used to broadcast at PBS's native 1080i and because they didn't have any worthless subchannels, they had a very respectable bitrate. It was one of the best looking PBS affiliates in the country. But then they added a bunch of stupid crap subchannels onto the signal so now it looks horrible. 10.1 is broadcasting at 720p, ~9 Mbps now. It's a lost cause.

I see you've mentioned torrents... well... there are better solutions out there. If you want some of the best quality versions of PBS shows around... google "trollhd pbs" Those caps come from WNET THIRTEEN (~12 Mbps) and WNJN (~14 Mbps). Both 1080i

Best of all, TrollHD is reliable and caps new episodes of NOVA, Nature, etc when they air.

[ArgMeMatey]

I am not sure about the cause and effect relationships, but the subchannel shuffle added the main 10.1 feed to 36.2 and they took the opportunity to reassign all the subchannels.  But they are also planning to "upgrade" 36.1 to HD, so they might have done something similar anyway if they'd not had problems using RF 8.  Of course the bit rate on 36.1 will be ridiculously low just like 10.1 is right now.  

I too find the reduction in picture quality obvious on 10.1.  But I suspect they looked at the amount of money they had to work with, and their mission, and decided that two channels of crappy HD would be better than one really good channel.  Not unlike Weigel's approach with 58 ... and so on.  

Maybe Stan will chip in with his opinion on whether the lousy picture on 10.1 is a reasonable price to play for seeing News Hour in widescreen on 36.1.

[Stanley Kritzik]

Well, as far as THIS Stan is concerned, you can't take the lady to the ball in an old, ratty dress and expect to get admiring looks.  In other words, you're in the HDTV world these days, and, regardless of the intellectual content, the video has to look good -- else, stick to radio.

If you want eyeballs on your programming, keep it at 1080i, and make sure the videography and content are both good.

Stan

[CouchPotato]

Yeah, you can't expect too much of PBS.  After all they are a low budget station.  What they are good for is not being too biased in their news broadcasts.  Of any network, they are as close to unbiased as possible.

[Xizer]

PBS isn't that "low budget." They have a modern HDTV production system and all of their shows have been produced in native HD for years now. That includes their childrens' programming.

There's really no excuse for cramming so much junk on the signal and making everything look crummy. It's fine if they just showed animation on the HD channel since that can cope with a low bitrate just fine but it really hurts their flagship live action programs like Nature and NOVA. Their Blu-rays look so much better.

I don't understand why all these subchannels need so much bandwidth. They're already SD so they're already going to look like crap. You can't polish a turd. Might as well keep the SD channels super low bitrate. That weather channel could work with ~500 Kbps bitrate; give the language-that-nobody-can-speak-because-this-isn't-the-southwest "V-me" Spanish channel 1 Mbps and the MPTV World channel 1 Mbps... PBS HD could then get 14-15 Mbps 1080i which would be a huge improvement over the 9 Mbps 720p.

[Jack 1000]

Can Admin resize the picture in this thread?

It makes it easier to navigate.  I totally agree about the too many sub-channels and not enough bandwidth issue.

Jack

[wxndave]

Just so everyone understands.  Direct and Dish network MPEG 2 SD services average around 2.5 Mbs.  Technology now allows stations to use stat muxing.  This allows dynamic sharing of bits between services.  Usually you will give priority to the HD service and set lower priority to the SD services.  All Encoders talk with the Mux by communicating what it's needs are, based on the video content.  This improves the quality of all the services.  

Every PBS station has the same problem.  PBS sends it content over satellite at 19.39 Mbs.  Even if a station gives it a full 19.39 Mbs it will still look worse than what is on the satellite.  Every time you re encode an MPEG you add artifacts.  PBS did this because of station who earlier just passed the transport stream from the satellite right to the transmitter never decoding it.  If you watch any of MPTV local productions you will notice that the quality is much better.  Plus if you watch on a stream analyzer you will notice that the amount of bits needed are less to provide that picture quality.

Everyone needs to also understand that Dish and Direct have moved or are moving to MPEG 4.  They also use stat muxing to balance their quality across transponders.  Cable grooms the signals they put out to the public.  

As for the pictures above you really can't compare them.  One is OTA and the other is MPEG 4 version.  The only way to compare is two MPEG 2 recordings one at 19.39 and the other at the current MPTV stat mux rate.  

For those of you who think 1080i is better than 720p you may want to read the following articles.  What people need to remember that all flat panel devices are progressive not interlace.  What broadcasters really need is MPEG 4 1080p as a transmission standard.

http://www.edubook.com/hdtv-essentials-720p-vs-1080i-explained/3310/
http://ezinearticles.com/?720p-Vs-1080i-HDTV&id=91443
http://www.hdtv.ca/hdtv_knowledgebase/television/720p_1080p.php

[Bebop]

As for the pictures above you really can't compare them.  One is OTA and the other is MPEG 4 version.  The only way to compare is two MPEG 2 recordings one at 19.39 and the other at the current MPTV stat mux rate.  

We are not comparing compressions, just picture quality. It showed how bad local PBS broadcasts HD contents.

[Xizer]

Damn look at that big post full of dumb.

It's like he didn't even read the thread and just wanted an opportunity to sound smart, but it backfired because it is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing here.

[Nels Harvey]

What broadcasters really need is MPEG 4 1080p as a transmission standard.

Dave makes some great points.  Methods of presenting the new digital standards are being improved right along.  

WMVS and WMVT have a responsibility as our local Public TV stations to serve niche markets such as the Spanish language programming, and Children's programming.   Such programming is under served otherwise on Milwaukee over the air broadcasting.  Multiple sub channels provide the opportunity to do so.  Yes, people do watch these sub channels, and the stations receive complaints and feedback if something isn't right.

The Engineering staff at WMVS/WMVT are doing their best to balance both the programming needs and the quality issues of the Milwaukee viewers.  I'm sure as newer technology emerges, They will use it to bring the benefits to Milwaukee viewers.

[wxndave]

I'm sorry that you didn't like my post.  I didn't realize that you were a professional broadcast engineer.  I was just trying to inform people of how things work.  I still believe that you cannot compare either pictures.  They are not the same.  I do believe that you can get better quality from and internet file vs OTA.  As was posted, the OTA file was 3x larger than the internet file.  That means the the internet file was most likely MPEG 4 encoded.  Also do we know what the source of the internet file?  For all we know it was created from a master copy when encoded as MPEG 4.  

I have been a member of this site since 2002.  I have always posted information to help the members of this site.  If you don't want here how it work then I won't post any more.  It's no wonder why broadcast professionals don't want to be involved here.

Dave

[ArgMeMatey]

My point was that today, bit rate is the most relevant and variable factor in how good my "HD" picture looks.  

More clever and efficient encoding may help at some time in the future, but for the forseeable future, the powers that be can choose between more subchannels and better HD quality.  

Maybe in the future there will be a new standard with local wideband consortiums, one big channel for OTA TV, bidding for blocks of high bandwidth, and some provision to preserve high bitrate public interest programming.  

For now, we get a wide variety of programming presented with less-than-ideal picture quality.

[SRW1000]

What broadcasters really need is MPEG 4 1080p as a transmission standard.

I would love to see this, but is there an actual chance of this happening within the next decade?  If locals started transmitting MPEG4, viewers would have to have a way of decoding the signals.  I don't know if there are any consumer-level tuners capable of decoding those signals.

This would be easier on the cable and sat side of things, but even Dish has a lot of receivers out there that are still limited to MPEG2 content.

Just look at the furor over the switch to digital, how long it was planned, and the delays.  Can you imagine if all those people, and those that bought new digital TVs or boxes, were to be told that they'd have to buy new tuners in order to see digital programs?  I can hear the cries already.

It would solve a lot of the compression problems, and allow multicasting without diminishing HD quality (unless used to excess), but I can't see it happen for practical reasons.

Scott

[SRW1000]

I have been a member of this site since 2002.  I have always posted information to help the members of this site.  If you don't want here how it work then I won't post any more.  It's no wonder why broadcast professionals don't want to be involved here.

Dave

Please don't let the posts of a few members discourage you from posting.  These threads are always improved by professionals that take the time to pass on their knowledge, and the vast majority of us appreciate the input and the learning opportunity.

Scott