Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: KQED HD PQ

Expand Messages
  • E Frank Ball
    ... The macro-blocking shows up quite clearly on my 34 Toshiba CRT. I sit six feet away from the screen. -- Frank Ball frankb@frankb.us
    Message 1 of 13 , Jul 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 02:21:39AM -0000, Ivan Vojvodic wrote:
      > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Smith" <ebsmith1@...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > Maybe it is your hardware? I'm using a Sony HD200 receiver and a
      > > Loewe 38" (tube) 1080i with Component inputs.
      >
      > That is probably the reason. I have a 50" Panasonic plasma with a
      > built in tuner, so, most likely the macro-blocking effects are more
      > visible on the larger screen.

      The macro-blocking shows up quite clearly on my 34" Toshiba CRT.
      I sit six feet away from the screen.

      --

      Frank Ball frankb@...
    • Mike Iimura
      I think that you have atypical hardware. Your Loewe tube must be masking the artifacts we re talking about. I have a Sony 36 4:3 tube so my image is much
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I think that you have atypical hardware. Your Loewe tube must be
        masking the artifacts we're talking about. I have a Sony 36" 4:3
        tube so my image is much smaller than yours when squeezed to 16:9
        and I don't see how you can miss it. On a larger digital set like
        LCD, Plasma, DLP, or LCD projection it is much more obvious.

        - Mike

        --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Edward Smith" <ebsmith1@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > I didn't watch that particular Nova but I'm a steady watcher and I
        > Love the quality of 9.1. I don't see any of the micro-whatsit
        > stuff your talking about. I've especially enjoyed the recent
        > Cousteau series
        >
        > Maybe it is your hardware? I'm using a Sony HD200 receiver and a
        > Loewe 38" (tube) 1080i with Component inputs.
        >
        > My only complaint is I get occasional signal dropouts (low signal
        > strength) perhaps from my CM4228 Attic antenna. I live in Campbell
        >
        > Edward
        >
        >
        > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "scottc6666" <scottc@> wrote:
        > >
        > > --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Ivan Vojvodic" <yckx@>
        wrote:
        > > >
        > > > I know that some of you have already commented on this, but I
        > > > had to share my disgust with the horrible picture quality of
        > > > KQED HD channel.
        > > >
        > > > Ever since they started multiplexing 4 channels after 8PM,
        > > > what used to be a shiny example of good programming and good
        > > > picture quality turned into a turn-off for HD. At tonight's
        > > > Nova, any movement on the screen turned into macroblocking of
        > > > epic proportion...
        > > >
        > > > What a shame... :(
        > > >
        > > > IV
        > >
        > >
        > > That wasn't my experience last night. I saw no macroblocking of
        > > epic proportions at all. In fact, I didn't even see any
        > > macroblocking of minor proportions OTA.
        > >
        >
      • rico468
        I ve noticed the same thing on Comcast here in Palo Alto. I thought Comcast had narrowed down the bandwidth some more. I was watching the Paradise by the Bay
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 17, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I've noticed the same thing on Comcast here in Palo Alto. I thought Comcast
          had narrowed down the bandwidth some more. I was watching the "Paradise
          by the Bay" show during the pledge drive the other day. Every time there was
          a scene change there was this moment where things would be pixellated like
          crazy -- which was very distracting. And any significant camera motion would
          give similar effect. It pretty much ruined the enjoyment on my new plasma TV.

          Is this what the future is going to be? We pay a bunch of money for a high-def
          television, and all people want to do is pack the airwaves / cable feeds with
          more channels of junk!?

          And KQED folks, if you're reading this -- you used to run that Cringely Crash
          Course on the HDTV overnight -- lauding the quality of HD programming. That
          program had some PhD standing in front of the MIT Great Dome explaining
          how terrific it was going to be to have more pixels and a wider format. And now
          you're pissing it away so you can show repeats of American Experience, etc. on
          KQED Encore? If you wanted to do that, you should have kept KQEC going.
          (sorry, low blow) [Oh, and I'm holding back on my membership renewal until
          you guys fix this... like you care...]

          Blah.


          --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, E Frank Ball <efball@...> wrote:
          >
          > KQED HD via Comcast has the same problems. It got a lot worse when they
          > changed things a few months back. Scenes with a lot of motion break up.
          >
          > NBC used to have this problem, but they fixed it last
          > spring. KQED now has the worst HD picture by far (of the
          > stations I can get, I hear WB-HD is nothing to brag about either).
          >
          > Frank Ball frankb@...
          >
          > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:59:40PM -0700, Kenny Hom wrote:
          > > > I mentioned this to KQED via email but no answers
          > > They probably felt they've answered it already in their April newsletter. OTA is not
          their priority.
          > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HDTV-in-SFbay/message/21314
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message ----
          > > From: pmccolgan <pmccolgan@...>
          > > To: HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:33:41 PM
          > > Subject: Re: [HDTV-in-SFbay] KQED HD PQ
          > >
          > > Ivan
          > > I have been complaining about this for quite a while - The quality of all digital
          channels is badly impacted in scenes with fast motion. I basically stopped watching KQED
          Encore - 9.2 because of this and rarely watch KQED HD.
          > >
          > > I mentioned this to KQED via email but no answers (but keep tryinging please - Red
          Dana, dtv@... or vwrserv@... - she does read these groups BTW)... Sad really because they
          used to have the best HD signal when they limited the number of simultcasting digital
          signals.
          > >
          > > I would rather watch an analog signal with snow (which my brain can filter out) than a
          badly macro-blocking picture.
          > > Peter
          > > p.s. I wonder of the situation is better on Cable?
          > >
          > >
        • Phil Ross
          We also have decided to hold back our membership renewal and inform them, in writing, why. I believe that this is the only way that has a chance of getting
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 20, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            We also have decided to hold back our membership renewal and inform them, in writing, why. I believe that this is the only way that has a chance of getting their attention, especially if enough members do the same.
             
            Phil
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: rico468
            Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 9:50 PM
            Subject: [HDTV-in-SFbay] Re: KQED HD PQ


            I've noticed the same thing on Comcast here in Palo Alto. I thought Comcast
            had narrowed down the bandwidth some more. I was watching the "Paradise
            by the Bay" show during the pledge drive the other day. Every time there was
            a scene change there was this moment where things would be pixellated like
            crazy -- which was very distracting. And any significant camera motion would
            give similar effect. It pretty much ruined the enjoyment on my new plasma TV.

            Is this what the future is going to be? We pay a bunch of money for a high-def
            television, and all people want to do is pack the airwaves / cable feeds with
            more channels of junk!?

            And KQED folks, if you're reading this -- you used to run that Cringely Crash
            Course on the HDTV overnight -- lauding the quality of HD programming. That
            program had some PhD standing in front of the MIT Great Dome explaining
            how terrific it was going to be to have more pixels and a wider format. And now
            you're pissing it away so you can show repeats of American Experience, etc. on
            KQED Encore? If you wanted to do that, you should have kept KQEC going.
            (sorry, low blow) [Oh, and I'm holding back on my membership renewal until
            you guys fix this... like you care...]

            Blah.

            --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@ yahoogroups. com, E Frank Ball <efball@...> wrote:
            >
            > KQED HD via Comcast has the same problems. It got a lot worse when they
            > changed things a few months back. Scenes with a lot of motion break up.
            >
            > NBC used to have this problem, but they fixed it last
            > spring. KQED now has the worst HD picture by far (of the
            > stations I can get, I hear WB-HD is nothing to brag about either).
            >
            > Frank Ball frankb@...
            >
            > On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:59:40PM -0700, Kenny Hom wrote:
            > > > I mentioned this to KQED via email but no answers
            > > They probably felt they've answered it already in their April newsletter. OTA is not
            their priority.
            > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/HDTV- in-SFbay/ message/21314
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message ----
            > > From: pmccolgan <pmccolgan@. ..>
            > > To: HDTV-in-SFbay@ yahoogroups. com
            > > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2006 12:33:41 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [HDTV-in-SFbay] KQED HD PQ
            > >
            > > Ivan
            > > I have been complaining about this for quite a while - The quality of all digital
            channels is badly impacted in scenes with fast motion. I basically stopped watching KQED
            Encore - 9.2 because of this and rarely watch KQED HD.
            > >
            > > I mentioned this to KQED via email but no answers (but keep tryinging please - Red
            Dana, dtv@... or vwrserv@... - she does read these groups BTW)... Sad really because they
            used to have the best HD signal when they limited the number of simultcasting digital
            signals.
            > >
            > > I would rather watch an analog signal with snow (which my brain can filter out) than a
            badly macro-blocking picture.
            > > Peter
            > > p.s. I wonder of the situation is better on Cable?
            > >
            > >

          • jwpottberg
            Ditto on the membership here. I had started to subscribe when I got my HD set (at that time the picture was pretty good), but concur the quality has taken a
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 20, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Ditto on the membership here. I had started to subscribe when I got my
              HD set (at that time the picture was pretty good), but concur the
              quality has taken a nose dive since they insist on playing KIDS 24/7.
              I have sent Emails to the station tech and manager detailing my
              complaints, but of course to no avail. Putting it in a written letter
              is a good idea, that will go in with my $0 contribution.

              On cable vs OTA, I have the luxury of watching/recording 9.1 on either
              and I currently find the OTA signal to be slightly better than
              (Comcast Sunnyvale) cable in the area of pixilation and breakups in
              complicated scenes and when switching between scenes. But it is still
              worse than any other Bay Area HD signal bar none.

              Jim


              --- In HDTV-in-SFbay@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Ross" <paross@...> wrote:
              >
              > We also have decided to hold back our membership renewal and inform
              them, in writing, why. I believe that this is the only way that has a
              chance of getting their attention, especially if enough members do the
              same.
              >
              > Phil
              >
            • pmccolgan
              I subscribe to KQED mainly for their radio programming which I would not want to hurt by withholding my annual membership. But if this is the only way we can
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 21, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I subscribe to KQED mainly for their radio programming which I would not want to hurt by withholding my annual membership.  But if this is the only way we can get through to KQED management, then we do what we have to do... 

                I can understand what KQED is doing from one point of view - basically quantity over quality (please correct me KQED if I am wrong), but to not have come up with a response to these numerous complaints is not just disappointing, but also bad business practise. Just to acknowledge that there is a serious problem would be a good first step by KQED.  I am hoping threads like these will cause them to reconsider - they are read by KQED staff, by the way.

                peter
                p.s. for some shows I just watch KQED analog (9-0) where my brain can at least filter out constant noise (snow, shadows etc.) unlike with the random pixelation of a digital signal  which is incredibly disruptive for a viewing experience - sad but true...


                Do you Yahoo!?
                Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.