<![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union - Gizmodo Comments]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> @lowprofile:
Lowprofile has some of this right regarding pool operations ( one net distributing the signal to the others). First, no one has 'Flimed" in many decades in news. All transmissions are video. Second, the pools in Washington rotate, it is unusual for CBS to have it this year since they had it last year, but that is the rotation. Third, lowprofile seems to suggest that CBS has somehow degraded the signal from the truck to the other networks and kept the best for them selfs. It doesn't work that way. Each network decides how they will receive the output of the production truck (by the way, it is not 1 camera, but 11 that were used last night). Each network then sends a technician out to "wire" the truck output to make sure it is the way they want it. A pool network would never take advantage of being the pool by giving their net a better signal because the next time around, who ever got the bad signal will be the pool, and do likewise.

half50

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> http://xyhd.tv/2007/01/27/comparing-the-state-of-the-union...

I didn't think to try this, because I was busy on some other things that night, but the right way to have done this would have been to grab the MPEG2 stream and compare, but even that would have not been a "Fair" comparison.

Fox broadcast the stream in SD, saving bandwidth for the programming they were broadcasting on their alternate ATSC channels. HD Net runs some noise reduction filters on all the time which does tend to oversharpen edges but helps overall when people are moving. Talking head is not the best way to judge video quality.

The differences in Color are intriguing. In most workflow's the stream would be HD-SDI from an IDR, which would then feed an Encoder, and while you can set a noise filter in the encoder, it would be unusual to set anything that would change colors beyond possibly changing the gain.

It is entirely possible that the TV was mucking with the colors, or the edges when the content was changing from 720p to 1080i or 1080p on the TV. Charlie says he is using a Samsung Reference Monitor, but I think he means he is using a Samsung TV that he uses a lot, which would be VERY different from say my Sony HD Reference monitor at the office.

drakaal

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Well I have to agree with others on here who have brought up football. CBS usually has some lame feeds coming in that they seem to pass of as HD. I'm working with a 56" JVC HD-ILA screen and as far as football goes I have found this to be my preferrence: Fox, ESPN-HD and NBC (except sometimes NBC has some artifacts during the Notre Dame games) and ABC does some decent college broadcast. CBS just always seems to blow chunks in its pigskin quality. Just wish I could get me Fox sports HD so I can watch my Bruins in hi-def.

When it comes to regular old programs, I have really yet to see a show better looking than Lost in HD, but then again none of them compare to Discovery HD (hands down best picture)

Broken-Infinity

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Now, I understand what lowprofile was saying about the press pool, and the broadcasters having to take turns in something like this. But this broadcast quality should be the best any of us has seen from the broadcasters on TV. A speech like this, with little to no movement at all, compresses very well and to a very high level because of the fact that not much changes from one frame to the next.

A better indicator of who's better would be to get all the broadcasters to show a sporting event or some other event that has a lot of motion and change in scenery, quickly. That's where CBS's compression hurts them, and their quality drops off compared to FOX or ABC

telltarget2

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> For some odd reason, I thought this was one of the most informational posts by Gizmodo. A nice relatively low tech experiment for a high tech quality issue. You can really see the differences in the pictures taken by your digital camera and lets folks know that there are differences between network feeds that make a big difference in quality. Too bad Dish doesn't provide HD network feeds, so I'm stuck with crappy video on my HD set.

Thanks again for the cool experiment.

encyclia

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Sorry I missed the chance to compare the networks!! Being a TV technician, I would only value over the air comparisions as cable & satelite both compress their pictures!! I consistantly get better over the air pictures in all cases. Satelite & Cable even vary the HD compression by what people pay them I am convinced so over the air is the best comparison but even then, if a second digital channel is being transmitted--this will even effect the main HD picture as it must to be compressed to fit in the same channel space. That is one reason the Omaha CBS channel (in my area) is the only channel left that does not have a second channel to cut into the bandwidth of the main HD feed & it usually has the best picture (probably for this reason alone!). Roger123

Roger123

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Charlie,

Nice to see some Milwaukee love on these hallowed pages. Wondering if you have tried the over-the-air feeds here in town, as a few of my buddies have stuck to these instead of the cable feeds. They say the quality was good enough to rival/beat cable when they tried both, but maybe they are just sick of giving Time Warner execs new gold toilets to poop on!

ckitzman

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Who the heck is Pelosi? I really should pay more attention to politics.

Galley

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> CBS generally has much better quality in HD than FOX. It's especially noticeable in NFL games and CSI always looks great.

ElPresidente408

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Fox was by far the best in my area (TW Cable - Central North Carolina). Feed was definently real HD and looked better than anything else. I guess it has to do with the local Fox syndicate.

itsah2

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> before it started I was also flipping thrwe to see who's HD broadcast was the best...the first channel I went to was Fox...since I'm not a liberal...but I was dissappionted by there quality, so I went to CBS...which had a good picture, but I got sick of there constant Bush bashing, so I turned it to HDNet, who wasn't saying much...so I watch it on that. And had to turn back to Fox after his speech was over...since the first words out of Dan Rathers mouth was "Bush isn't doing very good in the polls"....how typical. *rolls eyes*

murc

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> @Skeptical_Geezer - just as an FYI, the AG Alberto Gonzales was not at the Capitol just for that very reason. If a bomb drops and flattens the Capitol during the SOTU, then we get President Gonzales.

jarain

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> @Skeptical Geezer - just as an FYI the AG Gonzalez was not in attendance just for that very reason.

jarain

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I definitely saw the same thing about Fox on our local networks. They were doing something really wrong with their broadcast for sure.

Pixelantes Anonymous

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I agree with your assessment, which is odd, Fox usually has the best HD, imo. If you've ever flipped over to Idol (which I don't blame you if you don't), it is like an HD rainbow of colorful explosions. Damn - how can Idol be one of the best looking HD shows? Yeah, they juice that picture up - a lot - it is super saturated, but the quality is usually scary.

... and don't get me started on HD football on CBS - it blows. Broadcast ALL of your games in HD already. What is this? 2004?

bitfactory

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> The fact that a group of fairly well educated individuals are more concerned with the HD appearance than the content of the speech gives a good approximation of how much the American public believes its president will actually say anything meaningful - kind of like Colbert's measure of truthiness.
And if we are REALLY in a state of war with the terrorists, why would we put the whole line of pResidential succession on one place (unless the no-fly zone covered the Eastern seaboard)?

Skeptical_Geezer

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I'd be more interested to see a comparison of one network as delivered by OTA, cable, DirecTV and Dish Network. I imagine OTA would probably win (unless you've got a really lame local station) becuase it's usually compressed less.

I'm surprised how much difference there is. They all got essentially the same signal, probably in digital format. I guess I can understand introducing a few compression artifacts, but how hard is it to do a little compression without changing colors or making people look lie cardboard cutouts?

dperrella

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Hmm...I totally disagree on the NFL comparisons. I've been watching NFL on a Panasonic Plasma with OTA feeds and I feel that CBS has a much better feed. Fox is nice, but its 720p and I find it doesnt look as crisp as CBS' 1080i.

Keep in mind your service provider and TV count too.

Judd

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Speaking as someone who works for a Canadian broadcaster, I think it will be a very long time before any network broadcasts in 1080P. The vast majority of the population doesn't care... it's just geekboys like us who drool over this stuff. Also, since the broadcast industry was essentially forced to upgrade to HD with virtually no return, the likelihood that the industry will invest in 1080P is nil... Cuban excepted but good luck getting carriers to upgrade.

The only 1080P happening anytime soon will be either through DVD or the Internet, so I'm not in any rush to update either of my sets.

haniel

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I'm glad I wasn't the only geek that was switching channels to see who had the best quality feed. I thought NBC, CBS, ABC all had decent feeds - the colors were off a bit from each other but they were HD at least. FOX was a joke, I couldn't believe they tried to pull that off as HD when it was just some sort of wide screen (like you have said). This was in the Philadelphia area so I can confirm your account in this location as well.

ddrager

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Dick Cheney in high-def: you can see the burning coals of hell blazing in his eyes. And when GWB turns his head, you can look in his ear and see light coming from the other side.

ravelgrane

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> They broadcast either at 720p or 1080i. that is going to effect this. Also all of you who bought a 1080p to view TV broadcast...your going to be waiting a long time. NO ONE Broadcast at this.

maximusfilms

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> i was too busy wishing for a quick death to compare picture quality.

did all of you people (wisely) have the audio muted!?

matto

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I am more interested in a OTA or satellite feed compare-o. I think all the HD stuff on cable sucks. Back in the day I had VOOM with a OTA tuner. This was the best HD ever and that was years ago. I got rid of it before they died though because I couldn't get FOX at all.

I also live in Milwaukee. Charlie, ever put together a meet-up?

fastm3driver

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> dancm2000 is right, FOX NFL in HD has always been better than CBS... i'm on time warner in LA, and i swear CBS had been passing off a 480i signal tops until last 2 weeks NFL games.
ABC should get honorable mention for their consistently good signal too.

desimal

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Everyone here does actually understand the press pool, right? There aren't 5 or 6 network cameras in there, there's only 1. For events like this, networks take turns being the one film and then split signal off to each other. At the next big event, the network filming will rotate to another broadcaster until they've all had a turn, then it repeats. Whoever provides the camera that night has a distinct advantage over the other networks. There is the real posibility that the host network isn't providing everyone else with 4:4:4 uncompressed video. It may be 1920x1080 (or more likely 1440x1080), but it very well could have already undergone compression by the time its delivered to the rivals. The host network may be taking a direct digital feed from the camera and providing the other stations with analog signal. There's a whole host of dirty tricks and passive agressive behavior that happens at these kinds of events, so I think that makes your comparison invalid. The host network will always have an advantage in these situations. I don't know who was providing it last night, but it was ABC in 2004, NBC in 2005, CNN in 2006. Chances are that they weren't providing it last night. Based on that info, take a wild guess who was probably providing it last night.

This doesn't take into account that your satellite or cable provider may be playing favorites and giving a bandwidth edge to one station over another.

lowprofile

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Too bad the CBS commentary was so horrible at the beginning of the speech. Katie Couric...ugh. Once she stopped talking, I could finally enjoy the picture.

Judge373

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> This all sucks - CBS is the only network my local cable co. doesn't provide in HD. Boy am I going to be having fun Superbowl Sunday.

jhracing

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Is it me or does Pelosi look like she's got alien eyes in the 1st pic?

liveallnight

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I want to meet the 39 (when I checked) people who voted for Fox as the best picture quality. I suspect they would have a very different interpreation of the State of the Union speech, as well.

Monty

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> NFL fans know the Fox can do better. Their HD NFL broadcast has always looked better than CBS. (Seriously, are you guys sure you got the right feed?)

Something tells that this is a vast left wing conspiracy. The liberal media is just trying to make FoxNews look bad. Or is FoxNews trying to help out Bush by making it difficult to see how dumb he looks in HD?

dancm2000

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> i ran my own interesting test last night. i wanted to watch the state of the union online rather than turning on my tv. i started at nbc.com but they didn't support my mac. next was abc.com and i couldn't get anything from them. then i went to cbs were i finally got a video going but i could not download it fast enough. the player head kept catching up with the download so it wasn't really streaming at all. after nearly giving up i went whitehouse.gov and got a live feed with absolutely no problems.

does that scare anybody else?

voodoodle

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Fox News would not have had a clearer signal-- all their stuff is still in SD. Maybe they had a separate feed for the main Fox network in HD--maybe not.

Your comparison isn't as accurate as it seems it would though, because regardless of how the networks are handling the signal, the individual stations also reduce the quality somewhat, then when it's send to the cable company, they squish it down even further. Most of the HD I watched in central NJ a few weeks ago while visiting relatives looked decent, but especially the Philly local stations had horrific compression artifacts.

I do find it curious that CBS' lower third graphic seems to be stretched. Normally their special reports are done out of control room 47 (same as Evening News), which hasn't had a major overhaul in about 20 years, and still has an analog Grass Valley switcher.

TVGenius

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> As it's always been said, politics is Hollywood for ugly people. HD doesn't help.

It was not a snoozer in the least. You just have to pay attention instead of flipping channels testing signals.

Did anyone pick up on the health insurance tax credit? Essentially, you'll get a $7500 tax credit next year for health insurance. Subtract from that what you pay for health insurance. On the remainder, you pay income tax on in '09. Don't know for sure, but I believe that it will end pre-tax contribution for health care, as well.

Elvisisdead

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Fox is very clear at the beginning of the program if it is being presented in High Definition or Widescreen (which I suspect is only 480p, or perhaps even 480i).

As for the reason of using the two different formats, I can only speculate that is has to do with their adoption of the 720p standard for HD programing. The fact that ABC also uses 720p, however, blows holes through that theory.

Nevertheless, HD nuts can be assured that Fox wasn't trying to pass that substandard signal as High Definition.

rictorgadget

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> The Condi stare was scary, I wasn't sure why they focused on her for so long, nor McCain staring down for a good minute.

It's nice that Cox gives the local HD channels for free over basic cable, watching football games in HD is really amazing compared to SD.

markgm

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> It has as much to do with the hardware your local affiliate uses as it does the network feed...while the networks may all have had the same cameras, the affiliates are all using different hardware and are going to vary in picture quality from market to market.

Axtell

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I thought I was the only one exhibiting this psychotic OCD-ish behavior. Good to know that I have company. ABC had the best feed. CBS and NBC were pretty close. Didn't bother with Fox. Provider is Time Warner cable in Southern California.

S2000Driver

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Another great example of this was watching the Bears-Saints game on Fox followed by the Pats-Colts game on CBS (all on a 200-somthing hd projector)

the difference was stunning

Azdak

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Perhaps the green cast is your set not correctly calibrated? One channel, I'd blame the source... 2 or 3, however...

Also, realize that there are too many variables between the originating signals and your set. Different satellites, different signal procs at your cable head-end (or broadcast towers) all could mean different results in the end.

Except for Fox. Were they saving up that bandwidth for Idol?

Old No.7

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> isnt the reason fox looks crummy in comparison becuase they send 720p?

as far as the comment about OTA being the best way to compare, there can be just as much compression on OTA stuff (locally NBC sends an HD, SD, and an SD channel of the CW on one channel, another broadcaster sends 4 SD on one channel.) as there is on cable. OTA would be good, but make sure there isnt multicasting happening on the same RF band.

meatwad

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> CBS's HD picture quality is consistently pretty amazing, which always makes me wish CSI (the original) wasn't the only show on the network that I like. At least it bodes well for this year's Super Bowl...

Underwhelmed

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Coulda done without that closeup of a cro-mag looking Condi Rice during last night's festivities. Yikes. Reminds me of the several near-strokes I had this year when NBC would cut to Andrea Kremer without warning during one of their Sunday Night NFL HD broadcasts. Fun game you can play with your friends though: pass the remote around your living room and, using the pause button, see who can capture the most alarming HD Kremer.

matchframe

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I voted HDNet as it was the only channel to not have the screen plastered with logos and text telling the viewer what he's watching (as if he didn't already know) :)

koy

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I'm glad I wasn't the only one who was going insane by Pelosi's constant blinking. Halfway though it looked like she was trying to get something out of her front teeth. I just wanted to slap her and tell her to sit still and stop blinking!

On subject, cool idea to test out, I watched it in HD last night too on NBC.


markgm

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Brilliant work this. Also I can rest a bit easier knowing that the omnipresent green cast to many OTA HDTV programs is not just in my head or a consequence of buying a cheap(er) HDTV.

"undulating ubergraphic" :lol:

some_dude

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Last night I set up my new LG LCD TV and using QAM watched the State of the Union on Fox (local affiliate not the News Channel) as my "test". I have Comcast in the Philly Suburbs. Man I was so po'd. I thought my TV was a lemon. Blocky and poor quality image the entire time. I had not tuned all channels last night so I will have to check out the other feeds tonight.

Hayman

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> This test would also be dependant on your carrier and how many HD channels they're providing over their bandwidth. For instance, Dish Network is known for it's "HD Lite" content, which should be full HD but due to the ginormous bandwidth required they throttle back all the stations.

The true test would be HD OTA (over the air)

npsinboro

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I live in Appleton, WI. The problem with your Fox HD is Time Warner Cable. Time Warner and Fox haven't come to "terms" on a deal, therefore TWC customers out here don't get Fox HD. If you have an antenna or ASTC tuner you may be lucky enough to pick up Fox HD over the air.

viscosity22

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> ANYONE NOTICE PELOSI MAKING A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO HIDE HER HIDEOUS NEW VENEERS?? THEY'RE AS BIG AND WHITE AS MATT DILLON'S CHARACTER IN SOMETHING ABOUT MARY!!

JAG42

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Isn't it possible that HDNet's picture was so sharp that it actually revealed that Dubya is a cardboard puppet being controlled by Cheney?

navsimpson

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Doesn't *design* matter in the experience?

ABC wins for the best station ID along the bottom.

What good is CBS' awesome picture if they take up a quarter of it with their annoying, constantly animating, undulating ubergraphic?

leMel

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> In the SF Bay Area, the best HD signals are, by far, the over-the-air broadcast signals. The HD channels delivered via Comcast are much worse, with compression artifacts and color balance problems.

One thing not noted in the review -- when NBC left the pool audio at the end of the speech (moving to their own commentators), the audio got TERRIBLE - it sounded like a bad VoIP line.

bubbler

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I think CBS should be smacked with at least a B because of the gaudy giant graphics at the bottom of the screen.

fonetik

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> The compression comes from the cable/Sat feed you use. My comcast feed has artifacts on non-hd content, the bastards.

I couldn't really vote since I half listened to the babble and didn't even watch it in HD.

inajeep

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> We were watching last night (TW in NYC) and were doing the same comparison just out of curiousity and came to the same conclusion. CBS was definitely she sharpest image albeit with a little deathly green tint.

So does Weber wear a toupee? We were trying to figure that out afterwards. Alas, some things even HD can't help you with.

Kos

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> lol. Very cool little experiement Gizmodo. I love FOX's crappy rip off claiming to be "HD". It looks horrible. Someone needs to go down there and rip them a new one for trying to put a pass at us HD intensive americans!

bmg50barrett

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I don't have as a discerning eye as the reviewer, but I agree.

Last night I did the same thing in the DC area, using a Comcast QAM HD signal on my Mitsubishi 37" 1080P LCD TV, and my results were similar. Fox was clearly SD, I couldn't really tell a difference between ABC and NBC, but something about the picture on CBS made me think it was the best.

Nice to know that I'm not the only lame person comparing the HD quality of channels.

rbf2000

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> CBS looks greener than a couple others and still walks away with an A-? I guess my eye isn't as naked as others.

patrickswayze

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Wait, so does the compression come from NBC, CBS, etc...or form the cable co compession the signal then sending it out so that they can get in high speed internet, basica cable, digital cable, and HD cable into your house via one line?

givemeyourshoes

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Pelosi constant blinking in HD kinda freaked me out. I could also see the puppet strings attached to GW with HD.

cbb

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> I think CBS should have the best feed merely because they have no sub channels in my locale (San Francisco). All the other stations have sub channels with my ABC (7-1, 7-2, 7-3) having the most which probably results in higher compression and degrades the quality of all the feeds.

I've spoken with someone at KQED (mine has sub channels 9-1 through 9-5), and he claimed that 9-2 through 9-5 have higher compression to fit in 9-1, the primary HD channel.

letmepost

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> Cool feature, Charlie! I've always found CBS to have one of the best HD feeds here in NYC via TWC as well.

werk

]]> <![CDATA[Network HDTV Quality Tested: GW's Babbling Tells Us The State of the High-Def Union]]> is it possible that the fox news channel wouldve had a better feed than your local one?
i like pelosi and cheney's lack of facial expressions...

smokyburnout

]]>