Upcoming TV on Blu-ray releases from Warner Brothers

[satam55]

I'm surprised to see there is not a thread for this yet, So I will go ahead and start it:

TV on Blu-ray Wave from Warner


Posted April 14, 2010 05:41 AM by Juan Calonge






According to retailer information, Warner Home Video will soon release half a dozen new TV season sets on Blu-ray: Chuck: The Complete Third Season, Fringe: The Complete Second Season, Human Target: The Complete First Season, Smallville: The Complete Ninth Season, Supernatural: The Complete Fifth Season, V: The Complete First Season, and The Vampire Diaries: The Complete First Season.

Exact street dates and other release details are still pending.

Regarding V, during the recent online chat with the publicity team from the Television and Animation Division of Warner Home Entertainment hosted at Home Theater Forum, the WHV representatives were asked about a BD release of the original V 1983 mini-series and V: The Final Battle. The answer was that the studio was "evaluating it" but that "remastering costs are high so there are no specific plans at this point."

The release of earlier seasons of Smallville also was being held up by technical issues on the first season, which the studio is "trying to work through."



http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=4441

I'll definitely be getting Smallville Season 9, Supernatural Season 5 and Chuck Season 3.

What about the rest of y'all?

[Trevor]

I guess with Smallville Season 1, while the DVD had the entire season in Anamorphic Widescreen, it was probably just edited (and possible captured into the computer) in standard definition, since as I recall the first 3 or 4 seasons were aired on TV in 4:3 and then the DVD sets saw the sets in 16:9.

As for these new announcements I considering getting Fringe Season 2 and Smallville Season 9. The only episode of Fringe that I've seen on TV is the Season 1 finale since I wanted to see Leonard Nimoy, so I got the Season 1 Blu-ray when it came out to see the rest of the series. I found the series to be the type that I'd buy on Blu-ray/DVD, but not the type that I'd tune into every week to catch, since I remember that about half-way through Season 1 I found that the episodes get rather formulaic and dull, so I didn't watch Blu-Ray for close to a month.

As for Smallville I started to watch the season on TV this year, but the last episode that I saw was the one that aired the week before Hallowe'en. However by that point I was finding the plots to be rather formulaic and the General Zod plot was rather boring. The only version of General Zod that I've ever found somewhat interesting was the version presented in Superman 2: The Richard Donner Cut, otherwise, even in the Richard Lester cut, Zod was extremely boring and uniteresting. Plus I was getting tired of show not moving Superman's characteristic growth forward since Season 6 when Martha Kent left. So I'll be picking it up on Blu-Ray to be able to watch it at my own pace. But I hope that Season 10 of Smallville will be the last. I think its time that the show steps aside for future Superman shows before it grows even more stale than it is already.

[Adam Tyner]

I guess with Smallville Season 1, while the DVD had the entire season in Anamorphic Widescreen, it was probably just edited (and possible captured into the computer) in standard definition, since as I recall the first 3 or 4 seasons were aired on TV in 4:3 and then the DVD sets saw the sets in 16:9.

The first season aired in high-def on HDNet. It's been long enough that I can't remember if looked any good or not. Dunno if it's one of those cases like Firefly or Angel's last season where the effect shots were SD and the remainder was HD.

[OnePark]

I'll be getting Supernatural: Season 5. After getting the first four seasons for Christmas, I figured I may as well finish the series. I've only watched two seasons, but it's my next series to continue. I halted it because I found Pokemon on DVD, so I've been occupied with that.

[Trevor]

The first season aired in high-def on HDNet. It's been long enough that I can't remember if looked any good or not. Dunno if it's one of those cases like Firefly or Angel's last season where the effect shots were SD and the remainder was HD.

But with most HD stations, considering all the compression that is applied to the signal, the highest possible resolution that HD subscribers can get on HD Cable or Satellite is 720p. I remember last year when tvshowsondvd.com had their Facebook page with their discussion area up, I posted about how I would like Warners to put Babylon 5 on Blu-ray, but only if Warner redid the sfx shots and made it a true HD transfer, and someone replied and asked why bother asking for shows that are already on DVD and can be up-ressed to 1080p on an upconverting DVD or a regular Blu-ray player, and I think it was Dave (from tvshowsondvd.co) who answered that when he saw Lost on Blu-ray who was blown away by just how much clearer it looked on Blu-ray than DVD or HDTV, since he said that he was able to make out individual grains of sand in beach shots at 1080p, whereas the HD broadcasts on TV were equivalent to a 720p picture, and then DVD, even up-ressed is only as good as 720p.

So with Smallville, Warner may only have the shots in 480p and the HD tapes being used for HD broadcast have been upressed from those 480p masters.

[Adam Tyner]

But with most HD stations, considering all the compression that is applied to the signal, the highest possible resolution that HD subscribers can get on HD Cable or Satellite is 720p.

Smallville aired in 1080i, and there's no shortage of 1080i channels on cable/satellite. It sounds like you're misunderstanding the relationship between compression and resolution.

The first season was absolutely not upscaled or upconverted when I saw it. HDNet has a very firm policy about that sort of thing ("HD" being in their name and all ). It's been long enough (five or six years?) that I can't remember if it looked great or not, and I was using a much tinier HDTV back then compared to the one I have now, but there wasn't any doubt that it was in HD.

whereas the HD broadcasts on TV were equivalent to a 720p picture, and then DVD, even up-ressed is only as good as 720p.

You lost me. Lost's broadcasts on ABC weren't equivalent to 720p -- they were (and continue to be) 720p. I mean, ABC's digital broadcasts are 720p, period. Upscaled DVDs aren't "as good as 720p" either. You can upscale any resolution to any other resolution, but you're not gaining any detail beyond what was there in the first place. There's an enormous gulf between an upscaled DVD and native 720p content (or, in the case of Lost, downscaled 720p content).

So with Smallville, Warner may only have the shots in 480p and the HD tapes being used for HD broadcast have been upressed from those 480p masters.

There's certainly the possibility that these early episodes were mastered the same way as Firefly and Angel's final season -- regular live-action shots are HD, anything with digital effects are upscaled (it's been long enough that I can't remember) -- but Smallville's first season inarguably aired on HDNet in high definition.

Do you have HDNet? Apparently they just started reairing the first season of Smallville this morning. If you don't, I can record an episode on Monday and give it another look.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Clear this up for me. I always thought that Blu-Ray is actually a compressed HD format. All things being equal, if there were channels broadcasting over the air in 1080p, shouldn't that look better? Would OTA 1080i look better than Blu-Ray 1080p?

[Adam Tyner]

Clear this up for me. I always thought that Blu-Ray is actually a compressed HD format.

Yes, using one of 3 codecs -- MPEG-2 (which is what OTA is based around in the U.S.), AVC, and VC-1. A two hour movie with wholly uncompressed video would run a little over a terabyte, so there realistically has to be some sort of compression.

All things being equal, if there were channels broadcasting over the air in 1080p, shouldn't that look better?

Not as things stand now. The digital broadcast standard in the U.S. is MPEG-2, an old and very inefficient codec, plus the bitrate is capped at 19.2 Mbps...and that includes the audio in the feed that's capped at DVD quality. Because so many channels multicast, you're not even getting the full advantage of that a lot of the time, and most cable and all satellite providers rate shape/recompress these channels anyway.

Virtually all Blu-ray discs anymore use AVC or VC-1, and they're about 40%-60% more efficient than MPEG-2. Not only are you gaining an enormous amount just by using these codecs at all, but Blu-ray can push out more than twice what OTA can at once too. Compression artifacts are rarer and usually much tinier with AVC and VC-1 than you see with MPEG-2, which tend to be big and blocky. The healthier bitrate ensures that you can resolve a lot more detail, and progressive video (most Blu-ray discs are 1080p24) compresses more cleanly than interlaced video (like what you'd get over the air on CBS, NBC, etc.).

Would OTA 1080i look better than Blu-Ray 1080p?

Only if someone did something terribly wrong. Interlaced video with an aging, inefficient codec and comparatively little headroom for the bitrate can still look very good, but Blu-ray has the potential to look much, much better.

[Trevor]

Smallville aired in 1080i, and there's no shortage of 1080i channels on cable/satellite. It sounds like you're misunderstanding the relationship between compression and resolution.

No I'm not misunderstanding the relationship between compression and resolution since I have worked with people who have been in broadcasting for years and they have told me that the HD tapes (or HD live broadcasts) that they use at the stations come in 1080i or 1080p formats, but when they broadcast the program, inorder to send the signal out they need to compress it to the point where the most resolution that they are able to send for an HD signal is 720p. Sure they advertise that they're programming in in 1080p or 1080i High-Def, but by the time that it reaches your HD TV you are not receiving a 1080p/i signal, but a 720p signal.

Also a lot of stations don't use Dolby Digital or DTS to compress the audio from the HD tape, so that the audio is taking up a lot of bandwidth that would otherwise be used for the video signal leading to a loss in resolution.

Do you have HDNet? Apparently they just started reairing the first season of Smallville this morning. If you don't, I can record an episode on Monday and give it another look.

HDNet doesn't air up here in Canada.

[Adam Tyner]

but when they broadcast the program, inorder to send the signal out they need to compress it to the point where the most resolution that they are able to send for an HD signal is 720p. Sure they advertise that they're programming in in 1080p or 1080i High-Def, but by the time that it reaches your HD TV you are not receiving a 1080p/i signal, but a 720p signal.

Compression doesn't change the resolution, though. If someone overcompresses 1080i video, you get overcompressed 1080i video...it doesn't suddenly become progressive video at a lower resolution. Recompressing the video doesn't inherently change the resolution. It's kind of like if I open a 1920x1080 image in Photoshop and crank the JPEG compression up as high as I can, it doesn't suddenly become 1280x720.

Yes, there are many broadcasters who receive video at one resolution and send it out in another, but that's sideconverting/downconverting. (One of the PBS stations in my neck of the woods takes 1080i video and sideconverts it to 720p to better accommodate multicasting, for instance. One of the DBS providers used to rescale everything to fit their meager bandwidth pipe, but that's more than just recompression, and they don't do that anymore anyway.) There are still many, many 1080i broadcasters, though.

Come on, pretty much every digital TV in existence has a 'Display' button that'll point out exactly what resolution it's being fed. My Kuro Elite PRO-151FD cycles through 720p, 1080i, and 1080p, depending on what I'm watching. Saying that broadcasters misrepresent their material as being 1080i and are actually feeding you 720p is demonstrably false.

There's not a network in the U.S. that uses 1080p over-the-air, and I'm doubtful any individual stations would claim to do so. Maybe that's different in Canada.

Also a lot of stations don't use Dolby Digital or DTS to compress the audio from the HD tape, so that the audio is taking up a lot of bandwidth that would otherwise be used for the video signal leading to a loss in resolution.

This is untrue. As far as I know, everyone adopting the ATSC standard (which includes every digital station in the U.S./Canada) uses AC-3 (Dolby Digital) audio. Nosing through the ATSC standards, I don't even see how it'd be possible for a station to broadcast using uncompressed audio. It's also worth noting that DTS isn't part of the ATSC standard at all.

[Trevor]

Compression doesn't change the resolution, though. If someone overcompresses 1080i video, you get overcompressed 1080i video...it doesn't suddenly become progressive video at a lower resolution.

Compression does affect the resolution. As an example think back to when VHS was all the rage for watching video in the home. If you were watching a tape that had been recorded at the SP speed then you would be able to record onto that video approximately 240 lines of interlace resolution. Now if you had that same video recorded at SLP then you could expect to see anywhere from about 210 to 220 lines of resolution in the picture due to compression. Same goes for whenever a broadcaster sends out a signal in HD. Compression plays a big role in how much resolution a signal carries because compression is physically removing parts of the signal to where the receiver only has part of the original signal.

This is untrue. As far as I know, everyone adopting the ATSC standard (which includes every digital station in the U.S./Canada) uses AC-3 (Dolby Digital) audio. Nosing through the ATSC standards, I don't even see how it'd be possible for a station to broadcast using uncompressed audio. It's also worth noting that DTS isn't part of the ATSC standard at all.

We were just recently on digital satellite (no HD, just standard) and I hooked my 5.1 system up to my satellite receiver box (which could receive PCM and Dolby Digital) by digital optical audio a few times, since my 5.1 system displays what sort of audio signal it is receiving, whether it be PCM, Dolby Digital or DTS. And out of the approximately 120/130 channels we had, there were maybe 5 channels that were broadcasting their audio in Dolby Digital. 5 channels out of 120/130. The two that I specifically remember receiving Dolby Digital 2.0 broadcasts from were Sun TV and Teletoon Retro. Otherwise all the CTV-owned channels, all the CBC's, Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC and the plethora of other channels that we got were broadcasting in PCM---uncompressed 2.0 audio, and it greatly affected the the resolution of the video by having high action scenes go all blocky and causing reds, for the most part (and which I know is the hardest color to compress), to appear in squares of digital break-up.

Now then on those channels that were using Dolby Digital there was hardly a trace of compression on the video. I'd be watching an episode of Smallville on Sun TV (where the audio was being sent in Dolby Digital) and I'd see nearly no compression issues. But then I'd watch Smallville on YTV or SPACE and I'd see compression issues in the video because those channels were sending uncompressed audio.

[Adam Tyner]

Compression does affect the resolution.

If you consider "resolution" to be the dimension of the image as measured in pixels, then no, it doesn't. Compression does affect resolvable detail, though, obviously.

As for the audio, I think you're confusing what your STB is feeding your receiver with what's being broadcast. Cable and satellite providers are trying to cram as much as they can into as tiny a space as possible. No rational broadcaster would use PCM.

[Trevor]

No, compression can affect resolvable detail, but that's not the same as resolution.

It is the same as resolution. You are in error here.

[Adam Tyner]

It is the same as resolution. You are in error here.

I mean resolution in the clearly defined sense we're talking here. Compression does not turn 1080i -- 1920x1080 with 60 interlaced frames a second into 720p -- 1280x720 with 30 progressive frames a second. You said that many broadcasters claim to be airing 1080i material, but what actually is sent over the air and fed to televisions is 720p. This is patently false.

When talking about resolution in the sense of, say, film photography, I would equate resolvable detail with resolution. When you start moving to the digital realm, I do consider resolution to be numerically defined -- the number of pixels by the number of pixels.

If your argument is that cable/satellite providers have a nasty habit of overcompressing their video and sapping away a lot of the detail, then yes, I agree. I've never argued otherwise.

Different providers use rate shaping to different levels, so to say that 1080i broadcasts wind up being equivalent to 720p is painting with too broad a brush. To say that 1080i broadcasts become 720p -- that this is the actual format that's sent to your TV almost across the board, which you seem to be saying -- then that's clearly wrong.

Your argument about Lost is kind of strange because ABC broadcasts in 720p. ABC didn't claim to be airing it at a higher resolution and is just wound up being 720p by the time it showed up at your doorstep. Why wouldn't the Blu-ray disc at 1080p -- sourced from 1080p24 masters -- look better than the 720p broadcasts? I have no clue what you mean by "DVD, even up-ressed is only as good as 720p" because you can upconvert a DVD to any resolution, but no one with 20/20 vision from a reasonable distance would mistake an upconverted DVD for 720p high definition video.

I promise you that no satellite provider is sending out PCM audio -- that's a massive bandwidth hog. Dollars to doughnuts that this is a setting on your set top box.

[Trevor]

I mean resolution in the clearly defined sense we're talking here. Compression does not turn 1080i -- 1920x1080 with 60 interlaced frames a second into 720p -- 1280x720 with 30 progressive frames a second. You said that many broadcasters claim to be airing 1080i material, but what actually is sent over the air and fed to televisions is 720p. This is patently false.

Hey I've worked with people a television stations and the facts are the facts. When they are broadcasting programming from a 1080i/p tape, the recorder takes that information, passes it along to the broadcast encoder at which point it gets compressed to where the signal that has been passed along is compressed to a lower resolution with fewer frames so that it can fit in the bandwidth that the broadcaster has to broadcast over the air or to send up to the satellite from cable and satellite companies to acquire. That bandwidth may tell your TV at home that it is a 1080i signal, but but really it is like when you save a picture file with a lossy compression algorithm for sending it via email or internet. The original signal may be in a certain resolution, but by the time that it is compressed it is at a lower resolution.

When talking about resolution in the sense of, say, film photography, I would equate resolvable detail with resolution. When you start moving to the digital realm, I do consider resolution to be numerically defined -- the number of pixels by the number of pixels.

If your argument is that cable/satellite providers have a nasty habit of overcompressing their video and sapping away a lot of the detail, then yes, I agree. I've never argued otherwise.

Its not the cable/satellite providers who are overcompressing the video. It is the actual networks and stations themselves, since, say for example, Sportsnet, is broadcasting a baseball game then they are most likely using the same satellite as their network/station feeds to send the feed from the ballpark back to their studios where the commercials and station bug are added and then at that point that feed is sent up to the satellite. So a network/station could have hundreds of feeds bouncing off of most likely one satellite (think about how much it costs for the networks to put up and run satellites, so they aren't going to have just one or two feeds on one satellite) with which they need to compress their signals. Therefore broadcast HD is never going to be as clear or as sharp as Blu-ray/DVD HD.

Different providers use rate shaping to different levels, so to say that 1080i broadcasts wind up being equivalent to 720p is painting with too broad a brush. To say that 1080i broadcasts become 720p -- that this is the actual format that's sent to your TV almost across the board, which you seem to be saying -- then that's clearly wrong.

No, since the signal that your TV is receiving has a basically up-ressed 1080i signal from a heavily-compressed source.

Your argument about Lost is kind of strange because ABC broadcasts in 720p. ABC didn't claim to be airing it at a higher resolution and is just wound up being 720p by the time it showed up at your doorstep. Why wouldn't the Blu-ray disc at 1080p -- sourced from 1080p24 masters -- look better than the 720p broadcasts? I have no clue what you mean by "DVD, even up-ressed is only as good as 720p" because you can upconvert a DVD to any resolution, but no one with 20/20 vision from a reasonable distance would mistake an upconverted DVD for 720p high definition video.

You would be surprised at how many people, basically standing with their "nose touching the screen" think that video coming from a DVD via a Blu-ray/Upconverting DVD player upconverting it, think that the video is coming from an HD source.

I promise you that no satellite provider is sending out PCM audio -- that's a massive bandwidth hog. Dollars to doughnuts that this is a setting on your set top box.

Yeah the setting on my set top box had the options of outputting in purely PCM and converting any Dolby Digital signals into PCM, but then it also had the option of outputting the channels how it received them in PCM or Dolby Digital (just like on your DVD/Blu-ray player you have the option of having the audio output in 2.0 PCM, or you can have the player output 2.0 PCM, 2.0 & 5.1 Dolby Digital and DTS). And I had it set to the option to output just as it received it. You have to realize that with a lot of channels, even though they are sending the signals for both video and audio out in digital, a lot of them are using a mix of both analog and digital equipment since the stations tend to use the equipment till its worn out. So for a lot of Standard Definition stations, and even their HD equivalents, while they may be sending a digital signal, that doesn't mean that they've upgraded their audio to compress it into a Dolby Digital signal since it is cheaper to buy an NTSC to ATSC converter in order to make their signal comply with the digital broadcasting regulations than it is to overhaul their entire audio section with new equipment just so that their audio signal can be compressed. I remember when I watched Wolverine and the X-Men on YTV when it was on, quite a few times I put hooked my satellite box up to my stereo system via optical audio and, even though the end credits of the show said that the show had been produced for the intent of airing in Dolby Digital 2.0 or 5.1, YTV was just airing it in PCM 2.0 which led to quite a bit of compression issues in the video.

And the satellite/cable providers have nothing to do with it because all that they do is collect the signals of the different channels together so that you can decide which channel you want to watch. So your promise is one that you cannot keep.

[Adam Tyner]

Its not the cable/satellite providers who are overcompressing the video.

It can be either or both. This is astonishingly well-documented. For crying out loud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite and http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271 , just to point out two of tens/hundreds of thousands of links to this effect.

You would be surprised at how many people, basically standing with their "nose touching the screen" think that video coming from a DVD via a Blu-ray/Upconverting DVD player upconverting it, think that the video is coming from an HD source.

I've come to expect this.

You have to realize that with a lot of channels, even though they are sending the signals for both video and audio out in digital, a lot of them are using a mix of both analog and digital equipment since the stations tend to use the equipment till its worn out. So for a lot of Standard Definition stations, and even their HD equivalents, while they may be sending a digital signal, that doesn't mean that they've upgraded their audio to compress it into a Dolby Digital signal since it is cheaper to buy an NTSC to ATSC converter in order to make their signal comply with the digital broadcasting regulations than it is to overhaul their entire audio section with new equipment just so that their audio signal can be compressed.

...but PCM isn't part of the ATSC standard! What you're claiming is a widespread practice literally is not possible.

And the satellite/cable providers have nothing to do with it because all that they do is collect the signals of the different channels together so that you can decide which channel you want to watch. So your promise is one that you cannot keep.

Cable and satellite providers muck with what they're sent all the time. Again, hit up Google and search for "rate shaping". This is done on the provider level.

Come on, there are products like this: http://www.multichannel.com/article/...AM_Channel.php
The description of the freakin' thing says it's for cable providers to recompress video to fit more channels into a QAM channel. If what you're saying is true (which it's not), products like this couldn't exist. They do, and they're in very, very widespread use.

I would stake my life on the fact that there isn't a DBS provider sending more than a hundred channels with PCM audio. Prove this. Show me anything from any vaguely reputable source indicating that your DBS provider is squandering staggering amounts of bandwidth by using PCM audio...not on the decoding level but what they're beaming to your box.

[Trevor]

It can be either or both. This is astonishingly well-documented. For crying out loud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite and http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271 , just to point out two of tens/hundreds of thousands of links to this effect.

Sources like Discovery Channel (not Discovery Theater) and Universal HD are highly compressed to start with, and adding extra compression on top of that causes the picture to deteriorate rapidly with excessive noise and detail loss.

Therefore, encoder manufacturers have elected to discard approximately 25% of the picture for over-the-air transmission. This compromise is not required for 720P. More of the original picture information remains through the transmission chain.

As your source indicates, while the cable/satellite providers may add some compression on their end, it is the networks/stations that add the highest amount of compression, resulting in a loss of resolution and frames.

I've come to expect this.

Come to expect what? That you can't find proof of what you are claiming?

...but PCM isn't part of the ATSC standard! What you're claiming is a widespread practice literally is not possible.

PCM is part of the ATSC standard, since the ATSC standard calls for either MP2 (or more recently MP4) audio or Dolby Digital while the video codec used in MPEG2.

Cable and satellite providers muck with what they're sent all the time. Again, hit up Google and search for "rate shaping". This is done on the provider level.

But their involvement is very negligible, since by the time that the provider gets the signal its already been degraded to a lower resolution. For example, its like they've received a program on VHS that was made from a DVD master, and they are adding a tiny bit of compression to fit on their systems. To consumers, unless they are video fanatics, they are not going to notice the little bit of loss that their cable/satellite provider has added.

Come on, there are products like this: http://www.multichannel.com/article/...AM_Channel.php
The description of the freakin' thing says it's for cable providers to recompress video to fit more channels into a QAM channel. If what you're saying is true (which it's not), products like this couldn't exist. They do, and they're in very, very widespread use.

Cable and satellite providers have been doing this for decades with analog systems.

I would stake my life on the fact that there isn't a DBS provider sending more than a hundred channels with PCM audio. Prove this. Show me anything from any vaguely reputable source indicating that your DBS provider is squandering staggering amounts of bandwidth by using PCM audio...not on the decoding level but what they're beaming to your box.

And you would lose. And I've checked every cable/satellite company up here in Canada, and a few in the US. There are some channels that use Dolby Digital, but the majority use MPEG2/4 PCM audio.

[Adam Tyner]

As your source indicates, while the cable/satellite providers may add some compression on their end, it is the networks/stations that add the highest amount of compression, resulting in a loss of resolution and frames.

No one's intentionally dropping entire frames.

...but still, I thought you said they didn't add any compression?

And the satellite/cable providers have nothing to do with it because all that they do is collect the signals of the different channels together

(backpedaling)

As your source indicates, while the cable/satellite providers may add some compression on their end

. . .

Come to expect what? That you can't find proof of what you are claiming?

What? I'm agreeing with you. A lot of people can't appreciate the difference. That hardly makes an upscaled DVD equivalent to a proper 720p broadcast.

PCM is part of the ATSC standard

Show me where in the ATSC docs that PCM is mentioned. I see AC-3 mentioned up and down but no mention of PCM whatsoever.

But their involvement is very negligible, since by the time that the provider gets the signal its already been degraded to a lower resolution.

A QAM-256 channel can accommodate 2 HD channels at full bitrate. Most cable providers are cramming 3 and sometimes 4 channels into that space. You consider that to be negligible?

And you would lose. And I've checked every cable/satellite company up here in Canada, and a few in the US. There are some channels that use Dolby Digital, but the majority use MPEG2/4 PCM audio.

Prove it. Show me a reputable website or some sort of technical document making this claim. DBS and cable are desperate to do whatever they can to eke every spare bit they can out of their bandwidth. NO RATIONAL CABLE OR DBS PROVIDER IS CHUCKING LARGE, LARGE SWATHS OF BANDWIDTH OUT THE WINDOW TO USE PCM AS A STANDARD PRACTICE.

Again, there was a class action lawsuit filed against DirecTV when they were rescaling/recompressing their video. Most every cable provider rate shapes their video to squeeze as many channels into each QAM slot. You're telling me all of these companies are going to this enormous effort to try to save as much bandwidth as possible, and yet they're using PCM audio? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Recompressing video is considerably more expensive than encoding audio to AC-3.

[Trevor]

No one's intentionally dropping entire frames.

...but still, I thought you said they didn't add any compression?

(backpedaling)

. . .

The amount of compression that cable and satellite companies add is so negligible that it hardly makes a difference to the video and audio quality that they are receiving from the networks/stations.

Show me where in the ATSC docs that PCM is mentioned. I see AC-3 mentioned up and down but no mention of PCM whatsoever.

The ATSC documents that I've seen mention Dolby Digital AC-3 but then also mention AAC and MP2/4 audio which compresses the audio a little bit but not as much as AC-3. AAC and MP2/4 are PCM formats that are the basis of MPEG2 encoding. Plus it is easier to convert analog audio into a PCM signal than a Dolby Digtial signal.

A QAM-256 channel can accommodate 2 HD channels at full bitrate. Most cable providers are cramming 3 and sometimes 4 channels into that space. You consider that to be negligible?

Yes it is negligible considering that the 1080i picture that the station's VTR is sending out has already lost 25% or more of its resolution just by the compression added by the broadcaster themselves. What the cable/satellite companies are doing only loses about 5% of the signal from what they have received.

Prove it. Show me a reputable website or some sort of technical document making this claim. DBS and cable are desperate to do whatever they can to eke every spare bit they can out of their bandwidth. NO RATIONAL CABLE OR DBS PROVIDER IS CHUCKING LARGE, LARGE SWATHS OF BANDWIDTH OUT THE WINDOW TO USE PCM AS A STANDARD PRACTICE.

Again, there was a class action lawsuit filed against DirecTV when they were rescaling/recompressing their video. Most every cable provider rate shapes their video to squeeze as many channels into each QAM slot. You're telling me all of these companies are going to this enormous effort to try to save as much bandwidth as possible, and yet they're using PCM audio? Your argument makes no sense whatsoever. Recompressing video is considerably more expensive than encoding audio to AC-3.

While to you it may make no sense, it is the truth of the matter. Don't forget that while the actual machines that do the compression may be cheap, because the AC-3 compression algorithms are patented by Dolby: that means that the stations would have to pay a high royalty fee to Dolby inorder to use AC-3. While it may be cost effective to use Dolby Digital AC-3 on home video formats, to TV stations and networks the cost may be too high for even a network license.

[Adam Tyner]

The amount of compression that cable and satellite companies add is so negligible that it hardly makes a difference to the video and audio quality that they are receiving from the networks/stations.

In some cases, perhaps, but certainly not all. Check the comparison shots in that AVS thread about what Comcast did when they started rate-shaping. It's not negligible at all.

Screenshots

I captured the same uncompressed frame from each program in full-resolution using MPC with Dscaler5-IVTC. These images were rescaled to half-resolution with XnView (Lanzos) and are shown below in lossless PNG format. Click an image to download the full-resolution version.

Discovery HD on FiOS (Comcast was the same until recently)


Discovery HD on Comcast


Discovery HD on FiOS (Comcast was the same until recently)


Discovery HD on Comcast


MHD on FiOS


MHD on Comcast


MHD on FiOS


MHD on Comcast


UHD on FiOS


UHD on Comcast


Links to More Captures
MHD
NGC
HGTV
A&E

Comparison screenshots of more channels coming next week.

To be fair, Comcast has improved the quality of their rate-shaping dramatically since those shots were snapped, but the point remains: providers do muck with the signal, and the results can be ravaging. I'm seeing plenty of similar artifacts through my cable provider (Charter) too. Charter's notorious for being one of the worst about it on a national level too.

This wasn't an isolated incident. Google "HD Lite" and see what people are saying. The fault there is with the DBS and cable providers, although the source signal obviously has an impact too (crap in, crap out). I guarantee you the fuss over HD Lite wasn't a matter of 5%.

The ATSC documents that I've seen mention Dolby Digital AC-3 but then also mention AAC and MP2/4 audio which compresses the audio a little bit but not as much as AC-3. AAC and MP2/4 are PCM formats that are the basis of MPEG2 encoding. Plus it is easier to convert analog audio into a PCM signal than a Dolby Digtial signal.

Oh, come on. AAC is not even close to being PCM, and it's hardly "the basis of MPEG-2 encoding". AAC didn't even exist until the mid-to-late '90s...MPEG-2 dates back at least several years before that.

AAC also compresses more than AC-3, not less...otherwise, that first 'A' (advanced) wouldn't amount to much. PCM is inherently uncompressed. How can you say a lossy, compressed format like AAC is a "PCM format"? If the idea is that you can take PCM and compress it to AAC, wouldn't that make every audio codec a PCM format?

But hey, to prove you don't know what you're talking about:

From http://www.atsc.org/cms/standards/a5...art-1-2009.pdf ( found at http://www.atsc.org/cms/index.php/st...shed-standards ):

The digital television system employs the MPEG-2 video stream syntax for the coding of video and the Digital Audio Compression (AC-3) Standard for the coding of audio.

Does it get more definitive than that?

. . .

Yes it is negligible considering that the 1080i picture that the station's VTR is sending out has already lost 25% or more of its resolution just by the compression added by the broadcaster themselves. What the cable/satellite companies are doing only loses about 5% of the signal from what they have received.

Do the math: cable providers frequently squeeze 3 or 4 channels into the space allotted for 2. That's more than 5%!

Show me where you're getting this 5% number from.

While to you it may make no sense, it is the truth of the matter.

I asked for proof. Show me some. Seriously, if most every channel on most every cable/DBS provider is PCM, there should be ample documentation. Shouldn't take you any time at all to find many, many references. (To clarity, I do mean digital channels, obviously. I know an analog channel isn't going to be in Dolby Digital. )

You said NBC broadcasts PCM. Here's one note from NBC themselves refuting that. From http://www.nbc.com/Footer/HDTV/ :

All HDTV programs use Dolby Digital sound, which is also used on DVDs. This format is used to transmit two to six channels of audio depending on the program. NBC's soundtracks are a variety of stereo (2-channel) and surround sound (multi-channel). NBC surround sound programs are four-channel, five-channel or the most advanced, 5.1-channel (the .1 is the subwoofer channel). With these soundtracks driving 6 speakers, NBC and Dolby Digital create a home theater experience rivaling the best cinema sound.

From http://www.chartercommunicationsoffers.com/faq_video/ :

HDTV is digital television that combines extremely high resolution with Dolby Digital® 5.1 Channel surround sound.

From http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/Lea...lCable/HD.html :

Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound

From http://www.timewarnercableoffers.com...deo/#digital_7 :

Can I get Dolby Digital sound from my Digital Cable box?
Yes. We support the latest Dolby Digital technology. Customers will need a Dolby Digital receiver with a coaxial digital input.

You said CTV uses PCM. Nope. From http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/ploc...hub=OttawaHome :

High Definition is a digital broadcast signal with more lines of resolution than analog Standard Definition (1080i compared to 480i). HD-TV is also broadcast in a different aspect ratio, giving you a wider image (16:9 compared to 4:3). HD-TV also sounds different, with audio in either Dolby Digital stereo or Dolby Digital 5.1.

Doing quick searches, I couldn't find any references on the CBC site, but
from http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show....php?p=1023010 :

CBC always sends a DD5.1 signal, but most programmes are 2 channel (coming out the LF & RF only), while others are actually DD5.1.

Fox (at least at one time?) uses a splicer system that doesn't let affiliates recompress the video/audio. They're passing Dolby Digital 5.1 - from Fox's press site - http://www.foxflash.com/div.php/main/page?aID=1z4 :

--“’TIL DEATH”—(7:00-7:30 PM ET/PT) CC-HDTV 720p-Dolby Digital 5.1

--“THE SIMPSONS”—(7:30-8:00 PM ET/PT) CC-HDTV 720p-Dolby Digital 5.1

--“THE SIMPSONS”—(8:00-8:30 PM ET/PT) CC-HDTV 720p-Dolby Digital 5.1

From http://www.afterdawn.com/news/articl...els_full_1080p :

By the end of the month all HD programming will have Dolby Digital 5.1 audio and by the end of the year DIRECTV promises to begin offering movies in full 1080p resolution.

(This is from a 2008 article based on a press release from DirecTV.)

From http://www.itshboinepicdetail.com/co...aq.shtml#jump2 :

Dolby Digital 5.1/AC3 stereo availability -- Can I receive Dolby Digital 5.1 audio on HBO/Cinemax?

HBO Dolby Digital 5.1 audio is available on our HBO Eastern and Pacific digital feeds.

HBO's commitment to Dolby Digital 5.1 is significant. 70% of titles, representing major theatrical premieres are shown in Dolby Digital 5.1.

From http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-85930977.html :

NEW YORK -- Showtime Networks Inc., which was the first premium network to launch Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound on its HDTV signals in 2000, has now brought the audio technology to every one of its standard definition and HDTV channels throughout all time zones. The result is 32 Dolby Digital 5.1 enabled channels-triple the number of Dolby Digital 5.1 enabled channels of all other premium networks combined.

(This article's 8 years old too.)

From http://www.dishnetwork.com/faq/hdtv/ :

What is the benefit of HDTV over regular satellite TV?
Greater picture detail with higher resolutions, truer color, clearer reception, a theater-like widescreen picture and multi-channel Dolby Digital surround sound.

From http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/hd/overview :

With DIRECTV HD, you get:
...
Theater-quality Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound

The funny thing...? Without even trying, I dug up many, many references to individual affiliates/networks/DBS providers/cable providers using Dolby Digital...could barely find anything mentioning PCM. I did see a handful of references to HGTV and Food Network using PCM, but that's literally it, and even those were stray posts on message boards rather than anything definitive. (I'm not sure if that's current, was based on the standard definition version, if it was HD, or if the poster was just wrong.) They were definitely treated like outliers in the context I saw, and obviously they're a different case than anyone broadcasting over-the-air since cable/DBS aren't held to the same restrictions as OTA.

It looks like for DirecTV and Dish, MUSICAM (MPEG-1 Level 2) is the default (looks like the only other option, period?) for non-AC-3 channels. This seems to hold true for digital cable as well.