What's new

Cable IPTV disappointing compared to VDSL

  • SNBForums Code of Conduct

    SNBForums is a community for everyone, no matter what their level of experience.

    Please be tolerant and patient of others, especially newcomers. We are all here to share and learn!

    The rules are simple: Be patient, be nice, be helpful or be gone!

Let's all take a deep breath as everyone has good points...

ATSC and DVB-T, they have a lot of options - it really comes down to the receiver for OTA and across the wire for Cable/DTS - and OTT solutions as well...

Yeah I don't think anyone is saying that every OTA broadcast is better than every stream in all cases. Clearly the broadcaster has to operate within the spectrum they have and decide if range is more important than quality etc. However at equal resolutions, I've found OTA to be the highest quality, especially during complex scenery or motion (sports, etc). At the very least on par with FIOS (which even for 1080P sends around 20 megs on most stations) if not better. It far outshines cable by a mile, they compress 1080 down to 3-5 megs around here.

But OTA vs whatever aside, the idea that sending a multiple gigabit per second 4k movie inside a 30 meg stream is somehow "lossless" because "resolution is resolution" is absurd.

Resolution is just one small piece of the picture (literally).
 
You can tell a lot about faces, blades of grass, and leaves. The detail associated with them.

If you don't have 4K then you are not going to be offered 4K downloads. Sometimes you have to hunt 4K down on the net. The Streams like Netflix, and Prime may try to send you lower resolution streams. You need to find the 4K streams sometimes.
I have Netflix sometimes drop the resolution streaming. I have to get out and back end to get the 4K stream. It is real easy to tell on a large screen Flat screen. At least on mine it is.

And by the way I never said it was lossless, I said it looked good. I think you guys don't own large 4K flat screens.
I found this using google dated 2022. So 4K streaming is going to look better in my way of thinking. National broadcast sounds like it is either 1080i or 720p.

1.
"By the way, 1080i is the same resolution as 1080p, but no modern TV is 1080i. However, most HDTV broadcasts, including those from CBS and NBC, are still 1080i.

720p​

Roughly half the number of pixels of 1080p. It's rare to find a TV that's 720p anymore. However, all ABC, Fox, ESPN, and their affiliated/sister channels broadcast at 720p. This goes back to the initial HD transition at the turn of the century. And if you're wondering why your TV doesn't say "720p" on those channels, check this out."

2.
"Why doesn't the NFL broadcast in 4K?


Every 4K camera represents three 1080p cameras that can't be used. There's another bottleneck. The broadcaster then has to process a 4K video signal, which requires way more processing horsepower than 1080p.Feb 12, 2023"

3.
Here is 4K streaming.
"Do you get true 4K when streaming?


You stream in 4K when you watch any video with a 3,840×2,160 resolution distributed by Netflix, YouTube, Max, and similar services. The video downloads in small chunks that are played immediately and then deleted. Most streaming services currently offer 4K as the highest resolution option.Dec 9, 2022"

4.
"Is the Super Bowl broadcast in 4K?


This year's 4K streaming options

According to Consumer Reports, Super Bowl LVII will be broadcast in 4K HDR. It won't be “true” 4K, though, as Fox will essentially be repeating what it did the last time it hosted the big game in 2020: recording everything in 1080p HDR and upscaling it to 4K.Feb 11, 2023"

I now think this discussion is over. Top streaming wins......
 
Last edited:
Yes, the discussion is over. Still missing the point that there are huge differences between the same resolution sources.

Uncompressed 1080p can look better than compressed 4K (yes, I've seen that too).

Streaming wins only by claiming the lowest bits transferred possible. Not winning by the highest quality image.

Streaming isn't there for you, the consumer. It is there for the company to make billions from, after all.

Yes, the discussion is over, if one can't see the points being made here. And streaming is losing by fooling the consumer again with big 'numbers'. 3840x2160, really isn't significant, sigh.
 
You need to buy a large screen 4K flat screen to start. And then you can tell looking at the images like the blades of grass, leaves edges, and faces. The details are not there in broadcast OTA.

Yes, I was wrong about resolution. Now that I have slept on it, I remember video cards adding more colors at certain resolutions looking better. But it is the resolution that defines the edges of details.
 
Last edited:
I don't need to buy anything. I've seen everything possible (well, almost) from customers.

The one thing that stood out to me very vividly was how the OTA broadcast looked like it had depth/3D-ness, vs the streamed (Fibre) option. And yes, that was a 4K 75" TV.

Blades of grass and then some.
 
You need to buy a large screen 4K flat screen to start. And then you can tell looking at the images like the blades of grass, leaves edges, and faces. The details are not there in broadcast OTA.

Yes, I was wrong about resolution. Now that I have slept on it, I remember video cards adding more colors at certain resolutions looking better. But it is the resolution that defines the edges of details.

Take your large 4K TV. Watch a 4K blu ray on it, something with good detail and lots of motion.
Now watch the same thing via 4K streaming.

Until you do that, stop making foolish statements or comparing apples to oranges.

I promise you, it will be an eye-opening experience.

As far as OTA if you don't have any stations broadcasting 4K (fairly rare) then can't really put that in the mix. But you might actually find a 1080 OTA in some cases will be better than a 4K stream, especially for motion/action/sports which is where the compression becomes very evident.

Resolution is one piece of the puzzle, and can be very misleading. I can broadcast a 4K uncompressed screen that is actually a 360i image at the source. As long as the output on your end has 3840x2160 pixels, it is 4k, and will look very blotchy and crappy.
Color depth is one of the first things to go as that takes a ton of bandwidth.
Next the remaining data is encoded and what it sees as "unnecessary" information is lost. Of course that information is necessary, but they figure the average person won't notice.
One of the main things they do when encoding and compressing is remove some of those 8.2 million pixels that makes up the 4K image and let the decoder "fill them back in" at the other end, using guesswork as to what should be there.
Really bad compression/encoding techniques (mostly older but still in use in some cases, especially the "on the fly" version when it detects you don't have enough bandwidth) simply takes 4, 8, 16, pixels and combines them into one single big dot. That when things get really blurry and blotchy. Even if only 4 pixels, it basically turns your 4k into 720, even though your TV will report 4k resolution.
Compression and encoding often do not handle fast motion well, giving you squares and blocks, because it can't figure out what to fill in the blanks with, since the surrounding pixels are changing so quickly.

Upscaling does the same thing, fill in the missing info, it usually does not work very well. Faroudja and a few others did it quite well back in the days when 480P came along, but that was going from 360 to 480, not a big leap. At these higher resolutions, unless you invest in a super high end AV receiver or blu ray player, upscaling is a bit of a joke. I guarantee your streaming stick isn't doing it well.

That's a brief education on the parts you're missing, again you can do some research on this stuff, or like I said, the easiest way to prove it is look at uncompressed (or very lightly compressed) like a 4K Blu Ray or even a standard Blu Ray vs streaming and see the clear difference for yourself.

Checking out of this conversation at this point as it just keeps circling back to the same things.
 
Just keep in mind - with most TV sets, there's a fair amount of post-processing once the streams arrive - whether via IP or other means... and depending on the vendor and settings of the TV, you'll get different results.

Nobody has acknowledged that variable - the TV set configuration and capabilities...

I'm not sure we're making any movement on this thread now - OP's question has been addressed, and we're now deep in the wires of things that are not really in the wheelhouse of snbfourms...

And most of this thread is now opinion based, not facts at this time... and that's not a good place to be for a community...

Just my $0.02 opinion here...
 
Take your large 4K TV. Watch a 4K blu ray on it, something with good detail and lots of motion.
Now watch the same thing via 4K streaming.

Until you do that, stop making foolish statements or comparing apples to oranges.

I promise you, it will be an eye-opening experience.

As far as OTA if you don't have any stations broadcasting 4K (fairly rare) then can't really put that in the mix. But you might actually find a 1080 OTA in some cases will be better than a 4K stream, especially for motion/action/sports which is where the compression becomes very evident.

Resolution is one piece of the puzzle, and can be very misleading. I can broadcast a 4K uncompressed screen that is actually a 360i image at the source. As long as the output on your end has 3840x2160 pixels, it is 4k, and will look very blotchy and crappy.
Color depth is one of the first things to go as that takes a ton of bandwidth.
Next the remaining data is encoded and what it sees as "unnecessary" information is lost. Of course that information is necessary, but they figure the average person won't notice.
One of the main things they do when encoding and compressing is remove some of those 8.2 million pixels that makes up the 4K image and let the decoder "fill them back in" at the other end, using guesswork as to what should be there.
Really bad compression/encoding techniques (mostly older but still in use in some cases, especially the "on the fly" version when it detects you don't have enough bandwidth) simply takes 4, 8, 16, pixels and combines them into one single big dot. That when things get really blurry and blotchy. Even if only 4 pixels, it basically turns your 4k into 720, even though your TV will report 4k resolution.
Compression and encoding often do not handle fast motion well, giving you squares and blocks, because it can't figure out what to fill in the blanks with, since the surrounding pixels are changing so quickly.

Upscaling does the same thing, fill in the missing info, it usually does not work very well. Faroudja and a few others did it quite well back in the days when 480P came along, but that was going from 360 to 480, not a big leap. At these higher resolutions, unless you invest in a super high end AV receiver or blu ray player, upscaling is a bit of a joke. I guarantee your streaming stick isn't doing it well.

That's a brief education on the parts you're missing, again you can do some research on this stuff, or like I said, the easiest way to prove it is look at uncompressed (or very lightly compressed) like a 4K Blu Ray or even a standard Blu Ray vs streaming and see the clear difference for yourself.

Checking out of this conversation at this point as it just keeps circling back to the same things.
So, do you own a large 4K TV? I think not.

I think you are arguing with something you don't have firsthand experience with. If you do, then what OTA do you watch that is so great? I want to watch it also. I think Austin City Limits, PBS, is about as good OTA as I have seen.

A 4K BlueRay player has nothing to do with streaming vs OTA.

And up sampling to 4K does not fix lower resolution as you have blurring at the edges. It is really noticeable on faces and blades of grass.
 
Last edited:
Still. Missing. The. Point(s).
 
I think you are. I think the whole world sees it my way or all this technology would not happen.

I see it more like using a fast computer after using a slow one. If you only had the slow computer, all would be well. But once you have used a faster computer it is hard to go back to the slower computer.

I watch OTA and internet streaming everyday as I am retired. And I have lots of streaming accounts. Some is good some is not so good. I even watch old movies sometimes. It's just what I watch. But now that I have had a large 4K TV for a while it becomes easy to tell on streaming what the best is and what the faults are.
 
No, the whole world does not see it this way.

Tech does not 'happen'. Tech is used by companies to lower costs, customers be damned.

Streaming companies are excellent marketers. You're just caught in their net.

I'm not.


Let's try this explanation.

All streaming companies use compression to minimize their costs.

Compression is always lossy. Even if marketing tells you otherwise.

OTA broadcasts are superior at the same resolution because they are streamed/broadcast, uncompressed.

Uncompressed 1080p can look superior to compressed 4K (on almost any size screen).

For video quality, OTA is superior to most streamed services. Period.
 
Anyone noted that on Paramount+ at the start of Star Trek Strange New Worlds, the initial intro is low-res and pixelated even if the show comes in 4K! It's definitely the intro and not streaming getting up to speed!
 
I agree about lossy when using compression. The problem with OTA is the resolution sucks. And that bothers me more. Once I got use to watching high resolution I don't want to go back and everything else looks bad.
I would rather watch 30 meg 4K than OTA. Of course, 4K BlueRay will look the best.

If OTA looked the best there would be no reason to do anything else.

And no broadcast TV broadcasts OTA in 1080P. It is all 720p or 1080i.
 
Last edited:
OTA broadcasts are superior at the same resolution because they are streamed/broadcast, uncompressed.

are you fairly certain about this statement?

ATSC 1.0 does allow for compression on the AVC streams within the MPEG-2 specs...

ATSC 3.0, which is active in some markets is MPEG-4...
 
OTA broadcasts are superior at the same resolution because they are streamed/broadcast, uncompressed.
I find this strange. In the UK (and most of Europe) all OTA broadcast TV is compressed to some extent. The first generation of standard definition digital TV used MPEG-2 whereas the current generation uses MPEG-4.

A single stream of uncompressed 1080i video would require a bandwidth of at least 1.5Gbit/sec. So I'm curious how they're achieving this.
 
Last edited:
are you fairly certain about this statement?

ATSC 1.0 does allow for compression on the AVC streams within the MPEG-2 specs...

ATSC 3.0, which is active in some markets is MPEG-4...

Even in the analog days they had to pre process before hitting the transmitter to reduce image complexity, colors, etc.

OTA definitely has compression, the best I've seen on a 1080i broadcast was around 30mbit. But far less loss than typical streaming or even cable. FIOS around here is on par, but it is 1080P so slightly better, though most would not notice the difference between I and P.
 
Even in the analog days they had to pre process before hitting the transmitter to reduce image complexity, colors, etc.

OTA definitely has compression, the best I've seen on a 1080i broadcast was around 30mbit. But far less loss than typical streaming or even cable. FIOS around here is on par, but it is 1080P so slightly better, though most would not notice the difference between I and P.
Watch a baseball game or football game and watch the ball. You can see the difference between I and P. The interlacing screws with the ball.
 
Watch a baseball game or football game and watch the ball. You can see the difference between I and P. The interlacing screws with the ball.

We are in agreement on that. Just saying a lot of people don't notice.
 
I find this strange. In the UK (and most of Europe) all OTA broadcast TV is compressed to some extent. The first generation of standard definition digital TV used MPEG-2 whereas the current generation uses MPEG-4.

A single stream of uncompressed 1080i video would require a bandwidth of at least 1.5Gbit/sec. So I'm curious how they're achieving this.

@sfx2000 too...

Yes, levels of compression. OTA is the least compressed.

With streaming services, they can test 'live' how bad of a signal most consumers won't notice. And there are many, many people that don't see it (we have a few here).
 

Latest threads

Sign Up For SNBForums Daily Digest

Get an update of what's new every day delivered to your mailbox. Sign up here!
Top