How come some channel look plentifully better than others on my hdtv?
Im talking in the order of, one cable channel (like animal planet, let say) and fox and abc.
the fox and abc channels look so rough and bad, its almost unacceptable.
What is up with that? Is it the camera, the station, the agency its broadcast, or a combination?
Answers: The first problem is the cameras used to film HD content. NOT adjectives HD cameras produce great, clear & sharp content. I see this on the local ABC (720p) & NBC (1080i) news broadcasts. One report can be a great pic and the subsequent (filmed with a different camera) can be granular. The camera used does have a big impact on the talent of HD content.
The next issue is the cable companie's problem. They compress channel so much that it affects the quality of their content. Cable companies maximize profits by maximize the number of subscriber channels on their system. Their profit motive lead to part of your problem.
Finally, digital broadcasts do hold limited bandwidth and it is possible to momentarily lose some trait due to these limitations. These types of quality issues are usually see following scene changes or during paning shots next to lots of on screen diversion or motion. It's possible to overwhelm the digital Mpeg compression alogorithum and creat on-screen pixelization (blocking), though this tends to be a momentary loss of talent.
I higly doubt that the camera is makeing it look that bad , it is probably the channel the cable station is broadcasting it to you, i would call the cable company and ask them going on for it. they may need to swap out your cable box
devout luck The quality of digital ditch (HD or otherwise) is dependent mostly on the compression rate chosen for that channel (with a cable system, it can differ from canal to channel). Even blu-ray is compressed. If you put the original facts from HDTV camera on blu-ray, you'd only obtain about 90 second of the movie on one disc.
Also important is that FOX, ABC, and ESPN broadcast contained by 720p (a) 60 full images per second (with moral reason). A lot of other channels (like Animal Planet) broadcast contained by 1080i (a) 30 full images per second. The resolution of 720 is lower than 1080; the number of pixels contained by a 720 image is 44% smaller than for 1080. They can update a 720 picture twice as efficient a 1080 one in equal amount of time on the same equipment. Sports and performance benefit from a higher display rate. I'd a bit see a smooth lower res image than a choppy dignified res one and 720 is so much better than the old 480.
Another problem is the cable company and the set top box. If you using a standard box and the box is not set to output 720p (a) 60 fps on a 720p subway, you may get the content upconverted to 1080i (a) 30 fps. I am afraid your set top box could be throwing away every other picture (30 times per second instead of 60) and also add for a moment distortion because of the upscaling.
The cable company uses a lot of compression to broadcast the portrait with perfect reason because we don't enjoy the infrastructure to transmit the whole article all the time.
Your HDTV is most plausible capable of going on for 2,230,000,000 bits per second (2.23Gpbs) but is not seeing a signal anywhere near that. That's the amount of information per second needed to display the print 1920x1080 pixels with 12 bits of luminence per pixel at 12 bit color depth beside each pixel updated 30 times per second. There are 24 bit scheme as well which would be more or less 4.4Gpbs.
Over the air broadcasts from TV antennas for one program will be at most 19,500,000 bits per second (19.5Mbps) because of the bandwidth relegated to the station by the FCC. From 2.3Gbps to 19.5Mbps - that's a compression ratio of over 110. There's a style to squeeze twice as much digital data into that same space beside a technique called QAM but 19.5 x 2 = 41Mbps is the best you'd ever see at home right very soon (compression of 55).
There are further compression schemes which transport the 19.5Mbps and take it down to 7 or 8 Mbps (a compression ratio of over 300!). Cable companies can hand over more content and make more money by squeezing channel together. I'm not sure digital content is as regulated as analog channels hold been and the point standards are not quite established.
Even blu-ray is compressed. Blu-ray have about 5 time the storage size of DVD. A DVD only stores nearly 4.7GBytes (37Gbits). A factor of 5 higher would be something like 200Gbits which at 2.3Gbps would be about 90 second of raw HDTV content. A two hour movie (raw hdtv signal) requires going on for 2.3Gbps*3600s*2 (3600seconds in one hour) = 16,000Gbits. The compression ratio on bluray is somewhere around 16,000/200 = 80
Related Questions :