Another delay story?
Tue Oct 10 15:35:35 EDT 2006
I just got a big screen HDTV a few weeks ago. The pixelation I see
seems to depend on the channel source, even with sporting events.
NESN's coverage of Red Sox games, for example, leaves much to be
desired in the pixelation department.
I haven't yet caught any of their Bruins coverage to see how that
looks. Since there's lots more fast motion in hockey, I'd hope
they'd use more bandwidth.
ESPN, on the other hand, seems to have a beautiful picture, at least
on most of their HD stuff. And they really turn up the quality for
Monday Night Football.
I had heard somewhere that many of the digital channels are squeezed
into a mere fraction of the on-the-wire bandwidth used by the analog
signals. If this is the case, shouldn't the eventual demise of the
analog tier be a good thing, as the cable co could then use more
bandwidth to provide better pictures?
Of course, if Verizon ever gets their FIOS act together in Nashua
they'll be able to deliver far more channels, with a far higher
bitrate, than could possibly be done with copper. (And yes, I know
that the "cable system" is actually fiber on the pole, and the only
part that's electronic these days is the feed from the pole to my
home, but that sounds like the Weakest Link™ in the whole system...)
On 10 Oct 2006, at 13:30, Stephanie Weil wrote:
> On Tue, October 10, 2006 12:27, John Mullaney wrote:
>> As Comcast keeps adding more HDTV channels to their system (And
>> they have
>> more than any other cable system) they have to keep squeezing the
> I have digital cable at home. The picture quality is NASTY. All
> pixillated. Some services more than others, but you can definitely
> it. Of course the sports services get the best bandwith I think.
> I'm surprised people aren't raising cain over this. What with all
> "digital crystal clear pictures" and what not.
> Stephanie Weil
> New York City, NY, USA
More information about the Boston-Radio-Interest