Why the hell is WISN/ABC 1080i now?

[Xizer]

Ugh what is going on with this affiliate?

Has anyone else noticed that WISN is now 1080i for some reason?

Details from a recording of a recent WISN broadcast:

Sequence Frame 29821(1-P) / Time 0:16:35 :
Info: End of MPEG2 sequence

Sequence Summary:

File Size Processed: 2.08 GB, Play Time: 00h:16m:34s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps, 17.10 Mbps (17.03 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 69.37 KB/Frame, 0.27 Bits/Pixel.
AC3 Audio: 3/2 Channels (L, C, R, SL, SR) + LFE, 48.0 kHz, 384 kbps.
Dialog Normalization: -27.0 dB, Center Mix Level: -3.0 dB, Surround Mix Level: -3.0 dB
0 of 29821 video frames found with errors.
0 of 31093 audio frames found with errors.
0 corrupted video bytes in file.
0.000000 seconds of video timestamp gaps.
0.000000 seconds of audio timestamp gaps.

End of Log

ABC master feed is 720p so now they're upscaling everything to 1080i for some reason. It's really unnecessary. There's no need to bring interlacing into this. At least they've still got that awesome 17 Mbps bitrate. Because of that I think they are able to do this without the picture quality suffering; in fact, I didn't notice a difference between old 720p caps from WISN and a recent 1080i capture on my 1080p TV. So I guess it's fortunate they're not upscaling badly.

If they ever add subchannels though it's going to start looking awful. Let's hope that day never comes... *shudder*

[trev57]

Pure speculation here, but could it have anything to do with them launching HD news next week?

[SRW1000]

If they ever add subchannels though it's going to start looking awful. Let's hope that day never comes... *shudder*

There have been recent posts on other forums about ABC affiliates adding the Live Well network.  There would be little reason for them to go to 1080i for that reason, though, since 720p does better with multicasting.

For the past week, I thought it would be rather ironic if WISN made the leap to HD, and then also decided to add a subchannel.  

Scott

[Xizer]

It depends if they have some good HD cameras for their news operations.

If they transmit their news ops @ 1080i - they could definitely have the best looking news thanks to the high bitrate. Milwaukee's Fox affiliate is 720p so it's always going to look crappy no matter what the bitrate is. WTMJ is 1080i but their bitrate is 12 Mbps and their MPEG2 encoder is garbage. They always look less clear than the 2 Mbps lower bitrate Chicago NBC affiliate.

On screen graphics could look better if they transmit them at native 1080i and overlay them on the upscaled 720p ABC feed.

Since I haven't noticed a difference between my 1080p TV upscaling the 720p feed to 1080p and their upscaling to 1080i they seem to have good upscalers.  So I'm not too worried about this change... until they start molesting the signal with subchannels some day.

[mrschimpf]

There's actually a more simple reason; all of Hearst's stations are going 1080i in order to make it easier for equipment and production across all of their stations. Almost all of their ABC affiliates in places such as Boston, KC, and Pittsburgh have switched to 1080i in the last few months in order for local productions and syndicated HD programming to look their best. There are many more ABC affiliates that are also doing the 1080i switch outside of Hearst.

There's also this story from Pittsburgh describing how ad agencies have torn out their hair making different ad formats for different aspects, so it's more also making it much easier for ad clients to only output one file to air on most of the stations that are in 1080i than having to bounce around creating different files for 720p, and for now a different 480i file for the Sinclair stations and Weigel low-powers.

[Xizer]

What on Earth?

Some advertising agencies, trying to avoid the cost of delivery services (about $200 per spot), now post their commercials on their own servers and have the stations download them at will.  But downloading a 30-second HD spot, at about 350 megabytes, can be a time-consuming task for station personnel.

Is it just me, or do the "professionals" seem to be woefully incompetent, and behind us consumers on our consumer grade equipment and Internet connections?

I have no problem transferring TERABYTES of files via the Internet, and these guys are struggling with megabytes. Did that article come through a timewarp from the 1990s? Seriously. Consumer-grade connections, right here in the Milwaukee area. Time Warner Cable Wideband. 50/5 Mbps for $99 a month. A Time Warner Cable Wideband connection can download a 350 megabyte file in 56 seconds. $99 a month gonna break the bank at these TV stations or something?

My PC can play and encode every high definition file format under the sun including MPEG-2, VC-1, H.264, 4:4:4 video, lossless high definition video, etc with ease.

I don't see why it's so hard for these companies to get this **** standardized.

[foxeng]

You are pulling terabytes of files that are highly compressed and you are not on a deadline. That is the difference.

The files they are talking about are usually non compressed files for best quality. MPEG4 is not the standard yet in the broadcasting industry, but it is moving in that direction. Majority of the servers in use only do MPEG2. A none compressed HD 30 minute program averages around 5-7 Gigabits in size. Without a FAIRLY LARGE pipe, it takes hours to download that. Some services use satellite, some use the Internet to push product. It all takes time if you want the quality from stations you say you do.

The consumer world and the broadcast world are two completely different worlds on this.

[Xizer]

You are pulling terabytes of files that are highly compressed and you are not on a deadline. That is the difference.

The files they are talking about are usually non compressed files for best quality. MPEG4 is not the standard yet in the broadcasting industry, but it is moving in that direction. Majority of the servers in use only do MPEG2. A none compressed HD 30 minute program averages around 5-7 Gigabits in size. Without a FAIRLY LARGE pipe, it takes hours to download that. Some services use satellite, some use the Internet to push product. It all takes time if you want the quality from stations you say you do.

The consumer world and the broadcast world are two completely different worlds on this.

It takes me 15 minutes to download a 5-7 GB file on my home connection. A major business like a TV station can't match what I get in my basement? Uhh? :confused:

Also, I hate to break it to you, but you don't seem to understand what is and isn't compressed video. Lossless 1080i video @ 29.97 has a bitrate around 1 Gbps. Compressed lossless 1080i30 video with a lossless codec like HuffyUV has a bitrate of 300-450 Mbps.

So yeah, if they were sending lossless/"uncompressed" video, it would be about 180 GB for 30 minutes of uncompressed lossless video or 60 GB for 30 minutes of lossless video compressed with a lossless codec like Huffy.

But I doubt any broadcaster has the competence to handle lossless video, so everything they are working with is undoubtedly heavily compressed with lossy codecs.

[foxeng]

It takes me 15 minutes to download a 5-7 GB file on my home connection. A major business like a TV station can't match what I get in my basement? Uhh? :confused:

Also, I hate to break it to you, but you don't seem to understand what is and isn't compressed video.

If I were you, I would be very careful lecturing to me since you really don't know what I know.

But I doubt any broadcaster has the competence to handle lossless video, so everything they are working with is undoubtedly heavily compressed with lossy codecs.

You just proved my point. You have no clue.

Good Bye.

[Talos4]

This should be a good one!!!!

[Xizer]

A none compressed HD 30 minute program averages around 5-7 Gigabits in size.

If I were you, I would be very careful lecturing to me since you really don't know what I know.



You just proved my point. You have no clue.

Good Bye.

Good riddance, dumbass.

[Tom Snyder]

Good riddance, dumbass.

Hey Derek: You've got a PM.

[brewtownska]

foxeng,

Please don't get discouraged with this one bad apple. You've provided lots of great info over the past few years, and I'd hate to see you go over some ignorant comments by Xizer.  I for one enjoy your out-of-market perspective on things, and you've been great in bridging the gap between the consumer point of view and the station point of view.  Keep doing what you do!

[trev57]

Hey Derek: You've got a PM.

Uh oh...

foxeng,

Please don't get discouraged with this one bad apple. You've provided lots of great info over the past few years, and I'd hate to see you go over some ignorant comments by Xizer.  I for one enjoy your out-of-market perspective on things, and you've been great in bridging the gap between the consumer point of view and the station point of view.  Keep doing what you do!

I agree.

[Talos4]

Hey Derek: You've got a PM.

{storm}

Foxeng, I also agree with trev's comments. You put things in perspective and explain it so us "consumers" can understand the issues, the hurdles and hoops you guy's have to navigate to get us our infotainment!

Thanks and keep it up. :award