# Local PBS in HD



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Now that DISH Network has rolled out ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC HD channels in almost all the markets. Even going as far as adding CW HD to some of their markets. When can we start seeing them rolling out local PBS in HD? Considering it is next to impossible to obtain the national PBS feed over waiver issues; it would be nice to have this added service. I noticed that DirecTV does carry local PBS in HD in certain markets (at least New York and Los Angeles).

And no I am not expecting the answer of "soon". I am looking for anyone hearing rumors of a possible local PBS HD rollout and expected time frame.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There's no evidence to suggest that DISH is working towards getting PBS HD going. PBS and APTS asked the FCC to intervene about 15 months ago, but it doesn't appear that anything came of it.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

nmetro said:


> Now that DISH Network has rolled out ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC HD channels in almost all the markets. Even going as far as adding CW HD to some of their markets. When can we start seeing them rolling out local PBS in HD? Considering it is next to impossible to obtain the national PBS feed over waiver issues; it would be nice to have this added service. I noticed that DirecTV does carry local PBS in HD in certain markets (at least New York and Los Angeles).
> 
> And no I am not expecting the answer of "soon". I am looking for anyone hearing rumors of a possible local PBS HD rollout and expected time frame.


PBS HD channels won't be on until 2012.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

There is a debate over E* offering the national HD feed vs all the local feeds. The locals obviously want their feeds.

BTW: I have noticed that the local SD ION channel has been added to the Cleveland locals, however a check on the satellite location (119) tells me that E* is mirroring the national ION feed (the real Cleveland SD locals are on 110). I caught this a week before the analog shut-off when I noticed that my Father-in-law's ION channel via cable was pixellating. I went home and the E* feed was clean, then I checked the OTA feed and sure enough the pilellation was being transmitted by the then still analog ION station.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Paul Secic said:


> PBS HD channels won't be on until 2012.


Could you cite the source of this information.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

BillJ said:


> Paul Secic said:
> 
> 
> > PBS HD channels won't be on until 2012.
> ...


That's when certain "must carry" rules kick in. I hope he's wrong. It was explained in the last Charlie Chat thread (see this post).


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

phrelin said:


> That's when certain "must carry" rules kick in. I hope he's wrong. It was explained in the last Charlie Chat thread (see this post).


Interesting, that our so called representatives in Congress offer no special requirements for PBS and force markets to wait to as late as 2013 to receive an HD signal. It is effectively the closest thing to state run television in the United States. It would be like Australia not requiring ABC, or Canada not requiring CBC or the UK not requiring the BBC being uplinked in HD.

Of course for many people, they cannot use OTA because they cannot get a signal and subscribe to satellite for this very reason. Paying extra for cable "lifeline" service makes even less sense, because most cable companies charge extra for HD local channels as they exist on a higher cost tier. So, let's hope that DISH either gives everyone PBS HD or implements a reasonable rollout of PBS HD. If DirecTV can do it, there is no reason why DISH can't do it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

nmetro said:


> Paying extra for cable "lifeline" service makes even less sense, because most cable companies charge extra for HD local channels as they exist on a higher cost tier.


I think you'll find that this isn't the case anymore. Most cable companies now offer the HD locals in clear QAM in the basic level if not at the lifeline level.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

The original assumption in the question is not true.

Dish carries HD locals to the majority of the available viewers, but the number of markets covered is far from "almost all".

This is because they did the bigger markets first to get the % of viewers up but now the grind of picking up the medium and small DMA's is setting in.

I'll do more research on the exact numbers, but I'd guess they might have 2/3 of the markets available in HD.

EDIT:

Of the 210 DMA's Dish has 144 of them carried for at least one HD local and 4 more are uplinked but not live.

That's 69% of markets are available to subscribers covering over 90% of the population.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

Jim5506 said:


> Of the 210 DMA's Dish has 144 of them carried for at least one HD local and 4 more are uplinked but not live.
> 
> That's 69% of markets are available to subscribers covering over 90% of the population.


_________________________________________
Originally Posted by HarveyLA View Post
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...hase_In_HD.php

"satellite broadcasters must carry TV stations' HD signals in 15% of the markets in which they carry any HD signals by Feb. 17, 2010; 30% of those by Feb. 17, 2011; 60% by Feb. 17, 2012; and 100% by Feb. 17, 2013."

____________________________________________________________

So, by the current estimate, 15% of 144= 21.6= 22 must carry HD markets by February 17, 2010. But which markets? Does that include Hawaii and Alaska where Dish is already carrying noncommercial stations in HD as mandated by law? And is Alaska one market or three? There are three PBS stations, in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. Will Dish go with the top markets at first? The larger markets have more of the small independent stations but most of those don't carry any HD. In Los Angeles, for example, Dish would have to add commercial station KCOP, and PBS stations KCET and KOCE. Not sure if there are any other HD locals in L.A. There might be some very small markets where Dish could get away with adding just one HD local. But it would seem to make sense from the business standpoint to hit the top markets first.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Although it now looks like E* is not working to put up PBS HD stations until the must carry rules kick in, they did at one time say they were leaving room to add them when they first were adding HD LIL markets. But that was quite awhile ago.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

tnsprin said:


> Although it now looks like E* is not working to put up PBS HD stations until the must carry rules kick in, they did at one time say they were leaving room to add them when they first were adding HD LIL markets. But that was quite awhile ago.


That's the way I remember it too. Especially frustrated because DirecTV in my market has carried local PBS HD for about a year. And Dish does have another HD local channel reserved. Seems like it's just a matter of negotiating for the rights to the HD feed. Dish has had the SD feed for years.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

PBS station KCET in Los Angeles isn't even in SD, let alone HD! The digital conversion has left the picture in permanent letterbox format, so that a standard 4x3 program has shrunk, with black bars at top, bottom and both sides. Since I mentioned this in the Charlie Chat thread, I have received no response to two e-mails sent to KCET. However, if you navigate through a confusing labyrinth on the KCET web site you will eventually find the explanation buried in the FAQ'S. They say a fiber optic cable link is in the works, which should fix the problem. 4X3 programs would be full screen, I take it,while 16x9 programs would be letterboxed. Obviously, this fiber optic link would come in handy for full HD as well.

http://www.kcet.org/about/DTV/faqs.php

_How long will the picture stay this way?

Currently, KCET is working hard to secure a fiber-optic connection to Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and Dish Network. This process has been in progress for more than one year, and it will eventually be completed. By having a fiber-optic connection, the reduced picture size will not be a problem._

Will every show on KCET look like this?

_KCET is committed to providing the best possible programming. With the new digital transition, we are currently reviewing our options. We do not expect every show to look like this - only those produced in Letterbox.
Will all shows on all channels look like this?

The commercial networks use a different technique in the editing of their programs for broadcast. It is called "Center Crop." The Center Crop technique eliminates the "Letterbox" style, which is used by PBS.
_


----------



## lacruz (Feb 24, 2005)

Many of the programs on PBS 249 on Dish have been like this for awhile.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

"The commercial networks use a different technique in the editing of their programs for broadcast. It is called "Center Crop." The Center Crop technique eliminates the "Letterbox" style, which is used by PBS."

This is an interesting statement. Virtually everyone in this country now has the capability of resizing the picture they receive from broadcasters. Because the analog to DTV converter boxes have a resizing feature. Of course, if you receive broadcast TV over satellite or cable; this feature is already available. So, why are broadcasters cropping pictures, reformatting broadcasts, etc to eliminate "letterboxing"?

As for the above statement; KRMA and KBDI the two public TV stations in Denver are using so called" center crop" for some of their programming; though, it is much more apparent on KRMA. It was one of the reasons why I started this thread in the first place.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

nmetro said:


> " Virtually everyone in this country now has the capability of resizing the picture they receive from broadcasters. Because the analog to DTV converter boxes have a resizing feature. Of course, if you receive broadcast TV over satellite or cable; this feature is already available.


Sure, you can zoom in with your Dish Network remote, but then you are magnifying a picture that's only around 330 lines high (an estimate but it makes the point) because of the letterboxing, to fill the 480 line display. So the picture is blurrier-- SD is bad enough on an HD set!
Receiving the full digital signal off-air with a converter box is different, because then you get a full 480 line display if you decide on center-crop (on an SD Tv receiver)


----------



## Yes616 (Sep 6, 2006)

Michael P said:


> There is a debate over E* offering the national HD feed vs all the local feeds. The locals obviously want their feeds.
> 
> BTW: I have noticed that the local SD ION channel has been added to the Cleveland locals, however a check on the satellite location (119) tells me that E* is mirroring the national ION feed (the real Cleveland SD locals are on 110). I caught this a week before the analog shut-off when I noticed that my Father-in-law's ION channel via cable was pixellating. I went home and the E* feed was clean, then I checked the OTA feed and sure enough the pilellation was being transmitted by the then still analog ION station.


Yep.. E* just gives you the national ION channel at your local channel number. You will never see a local station break.


BillJ said:


> That's the way I remember it too. Especially frustrated because DirecTV in my market has carried local PBS HD for about a year. And Dish does have another HD local channel reserved. Seems like it's just a matter of negotiating for the rights to the HD feed. Dish has had the SD feed for years.


Yep.. E* seemed to have 5 spots saved for each market launched. For the most part they give us ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC and one open slot. The CW ended up in that slot for most where it was filled. Not PBS.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Yes616 said:


> Yep.. E* just gives you the national ION channel at your local channel number. You will never see a local station break.
> 
> Yep.. E* seemed to have 5 spots saved for each market launched. For the most part they give us ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC and one open slot. The CW ended up in that slot for most where it was filled. Not PBS.


While this will work for most of the markets, it will not work for:

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore-Washington, Miami, Seattle, Phoenix, Las Vegas, et. al. Why, because of the number of TV stations in these markets. Some of these markets have two PBS stations, as well. DISH Network is do a disservice to these large markets where a vast majority of the population resides. Why it is nice that Bismark ND will be able to get their stations in HD (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and PBS) which is all they have; it does not help people who reside larger urban areas.

It is hard to believe with all the spot beams that DISH Network has at its disposal, that they created such a limitation. I am not disagreeing with the comment above, but DISH Network's practice in regards to only uplinking a maximum of 5 TV stations per market in HD.


----------



## commodore_dude (Aug 25, 2008)

Yup, in HD Atlanta has:

WSB (ABC)
WXIA (NBC)
WGCL (CBS)
WAGA (FOX)
WPCH (Independent, formerly TBS)
WATL (MNTV)
WUPA (CW)
WPBA (PBS Atlanta)
WGTV (PBS Georgia)
WPXA (ION)

Last time I tinkered with OTA Univision was running stretched widescreen on their HD channel, don't know if that's changed nor do I really care either way


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

L.A. is the first market with 6 locals in HD from Dish. The early HD markets were allotted 6 (not 5) channel numbers each in succession in the 6300-6500 range, but most of the additions over the past year or so have seen re-use of channel number ranges starting with 5150, 5160, 5250, etc. We know from national channels that Dish puts 7 or even 8 HD channels on one Tp. Given that many locals will have sub-channels that will be stripped off, that might allow for a few more HD locals on a spot-beam. My guess is the early markets will get re-numbered so the new channel will be next to the old ones.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

From a bandwidth standpoint there's no reason for Dish to NOT have the bandwidth to carry all of a particular OTA station's subchannels if they can carry that channel in HD.

Reason?

Each OTA channel (regardless of its configuration of sub-channels) exists within a fixed 6MHz bandwidth that provides roughly 19.2 Mbps total for all channels/sub-channels in MPEG2.

Dish uses MPEG4 for re-transmission... but the point really is that bandwidth-wise Dish has the same choice that the broadcaster has... Dish can use their bandwidth for 1 HD channel only or 1 HD + whatever SD sub-channels and cane fit this in the same bandwidth either way by making similar bitrate allocations as the OTA broadcast.

Now, there is more overhead to handle more sub-channels since each would require unique identifiers (channel numbers) so technically it would take more space, but that's just a few bits here and there.

Short-version... bandwidth shouldn't be an issue if Dish has enough to add the HD channel, then Dish could add all the sub-channels at the same sacrifice OTA makes.

IF we want Dish to carry higher-quality, then bandwidth becomes an issue of course.


----------



## CABill (Mar 20, 2005)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Now, there is more overhead to handle more sub-channels since each would require unique identifiers (channel numbers) so technically it would take more space, but that's just a few bits here and there.
> 
> Short-version... bandwidth shouldn't be an issue if Dish has enough to add the HD channel, then Dish could add all the sub-channels at the same sacrifice OTA makes.


It seems to me that that would amount to more than a few bits here and there. 

DISH is going to overcompress to get as much as possible on the transponder, but more lower res sub-channels will be more work at the stat mux. Over simplifying to twice as many channels at half the bandwidth, or 4 times as many at 1/4 the bandwidth, would seem to make it less likely to fit them into the same result bandwidth as the single high res channel. If nothing else, you'd have 4 times as much audio (not a bandwidth hog, but not a few bits either). I'd think (this isn't my area!) a good chunk of the gain from compression for the high res channel is from an average with little change in lots of "small blocks" where there is so much to start with that the end user doesn't notice the compression. If you have 4 times as many motion sources on 1/4 res channels, the same amount of (over) compression may be more visible to the end user.

I'm no compression expert, but it sure seems like it would take more transponder bandwidth for more lower res feeds.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

CABill said:


> It seems to me that that would amount to more than a few bits here and there.
> 
> DISH is going to overcompress to get as much as possible on the transponder, but more lower res sub-channels will be more work at the stat mux. Over simplifying to twice as many channels at half the bandwidth, or 4 times as many at 1/4 the bandwidth, would seem to make it less likely to fit them into the same result bandwidth as the single high res channel. If nothing else, you'd have 4 times as much audio (not a bandwidth hog, but not a few bits either). I'd think (this isn't my area!) a good chunk of the gain from compression for the high res channel is from an average with little change in lots of "small blocks" where there is so much to start with that the end user doesn't notice the compression. If you have 4 times as many motion sources on 1/4 res channels, the same amount of (over) compression may be more visible to the end user.
> 
> I'm no compression expert, but it sure seems like it would take more transponder bandwidth for more lower res feeds.


I probably wasn't completely clear... Let me try another way.

One of my local OTAs is a single 1080i channel, using the full 19.2Mbps available for that OTA channel.

Another of my local OTAs has 1 1080i sub-channel, and 2 480i sub-channels in the same 19.2Mbps space.

It is absolutely true that each sub-channel in multicast suffers not just from the allocated space to the other channels, but also due to "lost" space that comes with sub-channeling...

BUT... the sum total of the sub-channels + overhead still fits in the same 6Mhz bandwidth available for an OTA channel.

So my point about dish carrying sub-channels and not needing any more bandwidth follows the same path. The OTA channel has already degraded the highest possible OTA for each sub-channel... so to start with Dish is already getting lower-quality.

The HD feed Dish would get for my 1080i-only channel is much better than the HD feed Dish would get for the other channel that has already been reduced in bitrate to accommodate sub-channels.

IF Dish doesn't take the sub-channels, then they just get the less-than-possible source HD feed from the local OTA and "save" some bandwidth on their system as compared to carrying a full HD feed from a local OTA that doesn't multicast.

BUT... given the way Dish has been setting aside bandwidth for their LiL, I'm not sure they "save" any usable bandwidth that they can do anything else with.

Consider the LiLs are all on spotbeams now... so if Dish sets aside 6 HD channels for each market, then any "savings" they have by carrying a single sub-channel isn't bandwidth they can use for anything else, since the spotbeam still only covers that market.

Hence my thoughts that IF your local OTA is already carrying sub-channels and Dish spotbeams the LiLs... it shouldn't make a bandwidth difference to Dish to carry your LiL sub-channels along with the main channel.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The flaw in Stewart's logic is that the partitioning of transponders isn't infinitely flexible. Further, the crappier a channel is, the less compressible it is. These two factors make for a no-go on adding subchannels willy nilly.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> The flaw in Stewart's logic is that the partitioning of transponders isn't infinitely flexible. Further, the crappier a channel is, the less compressible it is. These two factors make for a no-go on adding subchannels willy nilly.


I am not seeing the flaw, though.

The channels are already crappy from the original OTA sub-channel process...

I realize Dish has overhead in creating channel numbers and aliases... and I realize there are other technical aspects to consider.

I was merely stating from a bandwidth standpoint... I see no reason why that would be the limitation. Dish would only be able to carry as-good of quality as the OTA station is already broadcasting... so if the OTA broadcaster fits all the channels in the same bandwidth as one single channel, there's absolutely no reason why Dish can't do the same, in terms of bandwidth.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

There is often more than one market per spot beam, such as L.A. and San Diego. Here is an interactive spot beam map: You can see that each beam covers a wide area. What does this say, if anything, about the capacity for HD local expansion?

http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?beam=5851


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> so if the OTA broadcaster fits all the channels in the same bandwidth as one single channel, there's absolutely no reason why Dish can't do the same, in terms of bandwidth.


The flaw in your logic is that lossy compression is a losing proposition. Each time you compress something, it takes quite a bit more bandwidth to yield similar quality. If they could pass the data untouched, they could save at least 25% of the space, but recompressing it requires that much more.

The overhead is not negligible.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

harsh said:


> The flaw in your logic is that lossy compression is a losing proposition. Each time you compress something, it takes quite a bit more bandwidth to yield similar quality. If they could pass the data untouched, they could save at least 25% of the space, but recompressing it requires that much more.
> 
> The overhead is not negligible.


You're probably forgetting, though, that OTA is broadcast in MPEG2... while Dish will be re-transmitting with MPEG4 compression... and MPEG4 for the same data stream typically takes less bandwidth for the same quality signal.

IF we were talking MPEG2-to-MPEG2 recompression then I wouldn't argue as much with you


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I am not seeing the flaw, though.
> 
> The channels are already crappy from the original OTA sub-channel process...
> 
> ...


Dish did not allocate enough bandwidth to match each channels OTA bandwidth.

Technically they also will usually need to decode the MPeg2 and reencode to a mpeg4 signal, than mux these all into the transponder with the other channels on that channel. Shortage of this kind of equipment is just one of the reasons Dish was slow to add channels for awhile.

Might be worth it for some sub channels, but I don't know about all. E.g ABC and NBC in my NY DMA have weather channels that are clearly not produced locally but are regional. And some of the minor stations run really silly programs or Ads. And to be really odd WWOR and WNYW (both run by fox) carry each other in SD on subchannels.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

In a way, carrying the sub channels can be solved by map downs. Most of the sub channels out there could be treated like ION, TBN, shopping channels, etc. (one feed for all markets mapped to the local channel number, instead of carrying the local channels in each market). For example, the sub channels on ION are pretty much the same in all markets, the same with PBS sub channels. In Denver, KUSA (NBC affiliate), has Weather Channel Plus and Universal Sports (similar to other NBC channels). Effectively, there may be a total of about a dozen sub channels replicated across various markets. And yes, I remember reading The New York Times report about WWOR and WNYW; they listed all the sub channels available on the New York stations which pretty much matched what was being carried here in Denver. By the way, the report said that some of the ION sub channels were better than ION itself.


----------



## commodore_dude (Aug 25, 2008)

OK I've seen something mentioned a couple of times about ION's national feed just being replicated to all of the local channel numbers, but last night I was flipping through my locals and WPXA was running some infomercial about Atlanta-area homes for sale... I should have checked to see what was on the national channel number at the time but I took it out of the guide when WPXA appeared...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

That's why you won't see your local Ion replaced with a national feed. The local station wants its revenue for ads, and their affiliation with the network (same as other networks) means the network can't undercut them by providing a national feed in lieu of the local one.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stewart Vernon said:


> You're probably forgetting, though, that OTA is broadcast in MPEG2...


I'm not forgetting that detail at all. The fact remains that MPEG doesn't work all that well on something that's been heavily compressed and if the channel is one of many subchannels it will be bad to begin with. So much so that the MPEG4 version may be the same size or larger than the MPEG2 version because it can't get a lock on the moving objects which is where it usually makes its killing.


----------



## BillJ (May 5, 2005)

Now I'm even more frustrated. After watching a number of programs on Chicago's WTTW PBS it appears Dish is using the HD feed and downconverting to SD. I base that on the HD logo that WTTW keeps popping up between and during programs. Chicago is one of the markets where 6 HD locals were reserved. Only 5 are in use so it's still just a question of getting approval to rebroadcast the HD feed. DirecTV managed to do that a year ago. At the time Dish indicated in replying to my inquiry that they were working on it. Now they seem to have dropped plans to carry any local PBS in HD.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Stewart Vernon said:


> That's why you won't see your local Ion replaced with a national feed. The local station wants its revenue for ads, and their affiliation with the network (same as other networks) means the network can't undercut them by providing a national feed in lieu of the local one.


But, at least for the Cleveland DMA's ION O&O station, that is exactly what is happening! I have the evidence that E* is mapping the national ION East channel and calling it "WVPX" on 23.0. My OTA WVPX does not even show up as "WVPX" in the PSIP data! Instead it shows up as "ION" for the "23.1" channel. This is unique - every other "x.1" channel shows the call letters in the PSIP data. The guide data from E* does not map down to the OTA's (it does for all the other stations with the exception of the TBN channel).

Maybe it's because WVPX is an O&O as opposed to an affiliate. They used to have local programming (the Akron/Canton news) but no longer.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

The ION situation is complicated by the fact that ION Media, owner of 60 local channels, filed for bankruptcy. See this thread Ion Media files Chapter 11.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

BillJ said:


> Now I'm even more frustrated. After watching a number of programs on Chicago's WTTW PBS it appears Dish is using the HD feed and downconverting to SD. I base that on the HD logo that WTTW keeps popping up between and during programs. Chicago is one of the markets where 6 HD locals were reserved. Only 5 are in use so it's still just a question of getting approval to rebroadcast the HD feed. DirecTV managed to do that a year ago. At the time Dish indicated in replying to my inquiry that they were working on it. Now they seem to have dropped plans to carry any local PBS in HD.


Keep in mind there is now only ONE feed (primary feed) post-digital transition. It is the DIGITAL feed. No separate HD and SD feeds any more. And it is not clear to me that satellite or cable providers need permission to carry the primary feed of a noncommercial public TV station.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

HarveyLA said:


> Keep in mind there is now only ONE feed (primary feed) post-digital transition. It is the DIGITAL feed. No separate HD and SD feeds any more. And it is not clear to me that satellite or cable providers need permission to carry the primary feed of a noncommercial public TV station.


So, if there is truly only one feed, all broadcasters are more less broadcasting their signals in 16x9 format, and DISH Network is only uplinking ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX in HD; then, why are the SD channles not in letterbox format? The two PBS stations in Denver seem to be letterboxing 16x9 programming and not letterboxing the rest. But, if one takes a look at SD DISH Network signals of ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, and others they are not letterboxed, but are "filling the screen" (in 16x9, as well as non 16x9 broadcasts). By doing so with a 16x9 broadcasts; it custs off 1/3 of the picture and puts the picture a bit out of focus.

It doubt this is being done by the broadcaster, as they would have to be sending out two signals. So, DISH itself must be doing it. Again, the reason I started I started this thread was that the local PBS stations were being delivered filling the screen on 16x9 broadcasts and I was told by one of the PBS stations I contacted that DISH Network was the source.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Re: - Why is Dish / Direct not showing the SD versions in Letterbox - because the STATION said to do centercut, that's why !

When the digital transition was coming, Dish and DirectTv had to change how they were getting their SD signals. In most cases, E* is getting their signals OTA (a guess - based on what I see here in the Raleigh DMA - we're #30). The stations were offered centercut, letterbox, or AFD. We all know what centercut and letterbox are - to define AFD - 

Automatic Format Description - as part of their signal, the station sends a code that tells the receiver what format to use. This could (in theory) change on the fly, based on the show / commercial, etc.

Since most programming is shot in 4:3 safe - most stations selected "centercut", which gives you coverage of the 4:3 safe zone.


As to why not "Letterbox" - how many Joe Sixpacks would raise holy hell about the black stripes on the top and bottom of the viewable screen ?

My suggestion - if you want to control the format your SD TV shows - get your own convertor box and reception system (antenna etc.) and be happy.


----------



## jamieh1 (May 1, 2003)

I have Directv and live in the Greenville Washington New Bern NC market. 
We just got 2 weeks ago UNC-TV HD and one of its digital sub channels UNC-KD (kids) added to the local package.
UNC-TV HD is the PBS station
UNC-KD is a Standard def kids channel.



nmetro said:


> Now that DISH Network has rolled out ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC HD channels in almost all the markets. Even going as far as adding CW HD to some of their markets. When can we start seeing them rolling out local PBS in HD? Considering it is next to impossible to obtain the national PBS feed over waiver issues; it would be nice to have this added service. I noticed that DirecTV does carry local PBS in HD in certain markets (at least New York and Los Angeles).
> 
> And no I am not expecting the answer of "soon". I am looking for anyone hearing rumors of a possible local PBS HD rollout and expected time frame.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

scooper said:


> Re: - Why is Dish / Direct not showing the SD versions in Letterbox - because the STATION said to do centercut, that's why !
> 
> When the digital transition was coming, Dish and DirectTv had to change how they were getting their SD signals. In most cases, E* is getting their signals OTA (a guess - based on what I see here in the Raleigh DMA - we're #30). The stations were offered centercut, letterbox, or AFD. We all know what centercut and letterbox are - to define AFD -
> 
> ...


I would, but thanks to hills, mountains and valleys an outdoor antenna does not reach this far out (over 40 miles between transmission source with obstructions). It is for this reason why I subscribe to satellite, as the local cable company does not offer a number of channels which are available on DISH Network.

As for the "Joe Sixpack" comment. Because people either receive their signals through digital converters, directly from the station over the air, via cable or satellite; they all have the capability to size the screen the way they want to. So, the need for what you call "centercut" is not necessary. Also, it looks like DISH Network is doing the "centercutting" according to my PBS affiliate.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

"Centercut" is not being done on HD channels being shown as HD. It's being done on HD channels downconverted to 4:3 SD. I can see it being done on MY Dish locals - all of them - that are "HD" on their primary channel. I'll have to take a look on the CW, but I'm pretty sure about the rest.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

nmetro said:


> I would, but thanks to hills, mountains and valleys an outdoor antenna does not reach this far out (over 40 miles between transmission source with obstructions). It is for this reason why I subscribe to satellite, as the local cable company does not offer a number of channels which are available on DISH Network.
> 
> As for the "Joe Sixpack" comment. Because people either receive their signals through digital converters, directly from the station over the air, via cable or satellite; they all have the capability to size the screen the way they want to. So, the need for what you call "centercut" is not necessary. Also, it looks like DISH Network is doing the "centercutting" according to my PBS affiliate.


Sorry for your hill problem - but you knew what you were getting.

That is EXACTLY what I'm saying - Dish asked the stations how they wanted their SD feeds presented - the STATIONS said "Centercut" - so that's how Dish processes them before they send them to uplink - Dish receives the DTV in HD, then using their ATSC tuners/other processing gear, they set them to the option the station wanted . If you ask your local TV station engineers, I'd expect them to say pretty much the same thing (details perhaps different). It's also possible that some stations took other options.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

scooper said:


> Sorry for your hill problem - but you knew what you were getting.
> 
> That is EXACTLY what I'm saying - Dish asked the stations how they wanted their SD feeds presented - the STATIONS said "Centercut" - so that's how Dish processes them before they send them to uplink - Dish receives the DTV in HD, then using their ATSC tuners/other processing gear, they set them to the option the station wanted . If you ask your local TV station engineers, I'd expect them to say pretty much the same thing (details perhaps different). It's also possible that some stations took other options.


Knew what i was getting? I have been a subscriber for over 10 years and no where did DISH, or anyone else, ever mentioned that satellite and cable providers will be taking 16x9 pictures, "centercutting" the picture and filling the screen as if it were 4:3 broadcast. This maneuver is actually changing an over the air broadcast; option from broadcasters or not.

What I thought (and probably others) would get after the conversion was letterboxed on those channels DISH chose not to uplink in HD; this would have been at least an acceptable compromise. DISH Network should give the customer the option on how to size the picture on the screen; DISH should just be passing the signals through, unchanged.

It is bad enough that they insert commercials on cable channels (especially some annoying ones over and over again), but to change the picture and using an excuse that the station said they wanted "centercut" goes beyond words. What make matters worse they don't need to do it because virtually everybody has the capability of resizing a picture with digital converters, HDTVs, satellite converters and cable converters. Oh, I guess having to educate people on how to use their equipment is more difficult/expensive than cropping off 1/3 of the picture and making it look blurry in the process. And the broadcasters, as long as people see their commercials and make money; that is all they care about, because they know they have a monopoly.


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

Look - you have a problem with the stations wanting to give you "Centercut instead of letterbox ? - Go on a letterwriting campaign to THEM, saying you want letterbox instead of centercut. Better get lots of other viewers with you as well - I figure 10% of the market would at least get them to pay attention. In fact, instead of letterbox - get them to properly do AFD .

Dish is NOT your villian here - its YOUR LOCAL BROADCASTERS !


----------



## 4bama (Aug 6, 2006)

I enjoy the HD feeds as much as anyone, however we also have a 508 still connected to 4 old TV's around the house that have no capability for screen size options.

The single PBS signal ( in HD or SD) is transmitted to DISH and they have to do something to it for the older receivers (like our 508) to receive standard SD signals and display them on old TV sets on either ch-3 or ch-4. So Dish will transmit the same SD signal to both HD receivers (like the 622/722) and to the older SD receivers like the 508...

It's difficult to please everyone...Now I agree that OTA signals could be handled differently by the 622/722, but not the Dish-delivered signals...


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

nmetro - have a read of this post - 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16783646#post16783646


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

scooper said:


> Re: - Why is Dish / Direct not showing the SD versions in Letterbox - because the STATION said to do centercut, that's why !


As mentioned in my post #13 on this thread- According to the web site of PBS station KCET Los Angeles:

The commercial networks use a different technique in the editing of their programs for broadcast. It is called "Center Crop." The Center Crop technique eliminates the "Letterbox" style, which is used by PBS.

You may think that letterbox on SD is a good thing, but unless it is adjustable, 4x3 programs will be shrunk, and letterboxed on all four sides. That is the current problem with KCET. In theory, there is an automatic signal that can tell the provider (such as Dish Network) when to letterbox and when to do non-letterbox (for 4x3 programs) but KCET indicated they are not technically able to do this until the get a fiber link to Dish and other providers. Two other PBS stations in the L.A. area on Dish apparently do have that capability. 
The only way to manually choose one style over the other is with an off-the air converter or other digital receiver. This is just one more reason why the lack of PBS Locals in HD is maddening!


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

HarveyLA said:


> In theory, there is an automatic signal that can tell the provider (such as Dish Network) when to letterbox and when to do non-letterbox (for 4x3 programs) but KCET indicated they are not technically able to do this until the get a fiber link to Dish and other providers. !


After the previous post, I decided to check KCET again, and much to my surprise, the problem has apparently been solved. 4X3 programs now fill the screen from top to bottom again.


----------



## rasheed (Sep 12, 2005)

Hello,

I guess KCET is in SD 16:9 on Dish? Was this recent? I usually record HD on 28-1 OTA via my 722, but recorded some programs on SD recently. I noticed they were clearly full letterbox filled SD (the e/i and PBS Kids logo were 4:3 safe like many HD channels). The picture quality was very good even though I know it is not true HD.

Is this Dish's way of trying to circumvent the HD situation since most customers would not notice? It also seems Dish is already receiving the HD feed for this example and is downgrading the resolution but keeping the picture dimensions.

Rasheed


----------



## scooper (Apr 22, 2002)

If you are seeing any broadcasted OTA channels in Dish in SD - it's usually because Dish is taking the HD channel and downrezzing it to SD. Usually in Centercut.


----------



## HarveyLA (Jun 8, 2006)

_the stations themselves send a signal that determines whether their sd picture is full screen or 4x3 letterbox at any given time. It can change, depending on the program._

it's interesting that this thread from last year has suddenly reemerged near the top of the list. Anyone interested in this topic should also look at the current discussion in "Dish sues FCC over PBS-HD"


----------



## rasheed (Sep 12, 2005)

scooper said:


> If you are seeing any broadcasted OTA channels in Dish in SD - it's usually because Dish is taking the HD channel and downrezzing it to SD. Usually in Centercut.


I agree with the downrez to SD, but I do not see the centercut on KCET in Los Angeles. I wanted to make sure others also saw the same result because it seemed unexpected.

Rasheed


----------

