Super Bowl XLIV Uncompressed Feed: Will You Get The Immaculate Reception?

[admin]

Super Bowl XLIV will be transmitted to CBS in pristine, compression free HDTV thanks to Level 3 Communications Inc. Unfortunately, thanks to re-compression, most Cable and Satellite TV subscribers won’t get to see all of its pristine glory. It’s enough to make you want to put up an antenna and go over-the-air for the cleanest digital video signals possible.

Discuss "Super Bowl XLIV Uncompressed Feed: Will You Get The Immaculate Reception?" here. Read the article.

 

[GlocksRock]

Maybe I should just switch over to my antenna for the broadcast, or use my 360's media center so I can still have time shifting capabilites. Can't wait for the superbowl!

 

[krzywica]

I've been doing OTA only for a long time now and its MUCH better quality IMO than the Direct TV or cable that I used to have.

 

[jfalk]

I think things are a lot more complicated than you're making it, as this AVS Forum thread makes clear. (Or sort of clear.) OTA is good, if you can get it. Comcast is probably bad, depending on where you are. But HD quality and compression and recompression are complicated issues for DirecTV and FiOs. And the bad old days of HD-Lite, are, I think, behind us.

 

[sholling]

I'm stuck with Direct TV until August and then switch to FIOS TV. I'm told that Verizon does not compress the signal.

 

[westcott]

I think things are a lot more complicated than you're making it, as this AVS Forum thread makes clear. (Or sort of clear.) OTA is good, if you can get it. Comcast is probably bad, depending on where you are. But HD quality and compression and recompression are complicated issues for DirecTV and FiOs. And the bad old days of HD-Lite, are, I think, behind us.

You could not be more wrong. D TV is just as bad, if not worse than
Comcast when it comes to compression. HD is a loosly used term and OTA is really the best signal to use if you can get it.

Unfortunately, the stations broadcasting over the air primarily provide sub par programming. Sporting events and weather are their only salvation.

I hope the government steps in and forces a "pick and choose" arrangement. This would eliminate a lot of crap stations I don't care for or watch and open up bandwidth to provide a true HD experience.

It is pretty sad when you still see macroblocking on "HD" content.

 

[bandphan]

I've been doing OTA only for a long time now and its MUCH better quality IMO than the Direct TV or cable that I used to have.

It sure is

 

[jfalk]

You could not be more wrong.

Well, I 'm pretty sure there are a lot of ways I could have been more wrong. Especially since I agreed with you on OTA. As to DirecTV, I've been an HD subscriber from the beginning and the shift to MPEG-4 dramatically improved quality. And as the link I pointed to made clear, it's complicated. The link discussed macroblocking on completely uncompressed FiOS channels, possibly induced by recoding from one lossy format to another. (Or not... I make no judgements.) Everybody has an opinion... nobody has numbers, much blind tests that I've seen. And of course the source material matters a bunch as well, as well as decisions as to what deserves more bandwidth. Anybody wanna bet that DTV will give maximum possible bandwidth to the Superbowl tomorrow?
In any case, there is no serious dispute that every DTV HD channel is now transmitted in 1920x1080 (interlaced, except for some PPV movies), so only bandwidth is now the issue. Clearly behind OTA, but closing the gap, IMO. They've thrown a bunch of money at this problem, and they ought to get a little credit.

 

[cwall99]

I recently signed up for ComCast (I know, I know.... ).

The issue for me, though, is that while OTA is great in terms of audio and video quality, it's very spotty in both choices for programming and the quality of the signal I'm able to receive. Nothing's more frustrating than to see a QB release a long pass, and then just have the picture and audio vanish mid-play.

So, given the cable providers in my area, the volume of programming, and other issues (okay, price), I opted for ComCast. For me, they had the best price, the most HD programming (granted there's a compromise there), the best phone service, and the best (highest) internet speed.

It'd be nice to be a purist and demand only the highest quality, but let's face it, the rest of the family has to be able to use the television too.

Um, and it is only television.

 

[westcott]

I got to watch the game on Dish Network and OTA. The time shift in one direction allowed me to watch the same content back to back.

I have to admit, the signal was indistinguishable between the two.

So, it just proves that if the content providers want to, they can send a quality signal.

If they would stop putting greed in front of quality, we would all be happy. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people that still don't know the difference.

 

[jbrillo]

I did not do a comparison between OTA & Directv, but I could honestly tell a difference between the picture quality of the Superbowl vs. a regular HD game on NFL Sunday Ticket. It just looked better. I wish they'd do every game like that. It sure was sweet.

 

[Biggiesized]

Cable/satellite providers won't fudge with your local channels. They pass along the multiplex signal as they get it from your local stations.

They can, and often do, re-compress your other channels.

I watched the game via OTA and the uncompressed signal that Level3 provided to CBS did noticeably improve the picture (10% gain IMO). There was less ringing around players' helmets when the camera was zoomed out before the snap. Also the grass looked very smooth because of the clean compression. Overall, you probably won't see this level of service throughout the regular season anytime soon, but every little bit helps.

 

[jfalk]

Cable/satellite providers won't fudge with your local channels. They pass along the multiplex signal as they get it from your local stations.

I guess I'm a little confused by this. DirecTV still has to recode in MPEG-4. I presume they can vary the amount of compression they use in doing this, no? Or is there something else I don't understand?

 

[ChrisFox]

Three days and I just now get the title joke

 

[Wayde Robson]

Three days and I just now get the title joke

Hehe, I try, doesn't always work out but I try.

 

[Biggiesized]

As a Pittsburgh native, it was the first thing I noticed.

Nice touch, Wayde.

 

[thegreatartiste]

Well, I 'm pretty sure there are a lot of ways I could have been more wrong. Especially since I agreed with you on OTA. As to DirecTV, I've been an HD subscriber from the beginning and the shift to MPEG-4 dramatically improved quality. And as the link I pointed to made clear, it's complicated. The link discussed macroblocking on completely uncompressed FiOS channels, possibly induced by recoding from one lossy format to another. (Or not... I make no judgements.) Everybody has an opinion... nobody has numbers, much blind tests that I've seen. And of course the source material matters a bunch as well, as well as decisions as to what deserves more bandwidth. Anybody wanna bet that DTV will give maximum possible bandwidth to the Superbowl tomorrow?
In any case, there is no serious dispute that every DTV HD channel is now transmitted in 1920x1080 (interlaced, except for some PPV movies), so only bandwidth is now the issue. Clearly behind OTA, but closing the gap, IMO. They've thrown a bunch of money at this problem, and they ought to get a little credit.

Yes, there IS a serious dispute with your statement "that every DTV HD channel is now transmitted in 1920x1080 (interlaced, except for some PPV movies)".

Fox, ABC and ESPN broadcast in 720p, NOT 1080i.