Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 9/7/2023 12:11 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2023 8:50 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Murder on the Orient Express (Amazon Prime streaming) 2017 murder
>>>>>> mystery directed by and starring Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot, a
>>>>>> 1930s detective based on the Agatha Christie novels.  First up Poirot
>>>>>> solves a murder on a train.  The victim (Johnny Depp) is a very bad
>>>>>> man
>>>>>> and the train is full of suspects (too many to name).  I hated the
>>>>>> resolution when I saw this in the theater.  I thought on this second
>>>>>> viewing knowing how it all plays out it might be better.  It
>>>>>> wasn't.  I
>>>>>> still hated the ending.  I did get a bit of chuckle at the end when
>>>>>> Poirot gets invited to Egypt to solve a murder on the Nile.  I
>>>>>> recorded
>>>>>> this off of FXM, but it was in the wrong aspect ratio, so I broke down
>>>>>> and used some credits I had saved up to stream if off of Amazon in the
>>>>>> proper aspect ratio.  At least it looked good.
>>>
>>>>> I despise this movie, starting with the mustache.
>>>
>>>>> But there's something completely off with the way it's shot on high
>>>>> resolution video or the video processing of those outdoor scenes with
>>>>> the train stuck. I don't get it, but it looks awful.
>>>
>>>> It looks even worse in the wrong aspect ratio!  I actually recorded it
>>>> twice.  I think first on FXM which is commercial free then on FX which
>>>> had commercials.
>>>
>>> FXM -- at least the satellite feed -- has commercials, but the
>>> commercial breaks tend to be twice an hour and they are usually careful
>>> about where they break the movie. It's tolerable enough that I'll watch
>>> commercials. But there are instances in which FXM screws up the aspect
>>> ratio, I'll certainly agree.
>>>
>>>> Without even knowing at first it was in the wrong aspect ratio I watched
>>>> the FXM version and it looked horrible.
>>>
>>> That stinks.
>>>
>
> To be clear, I didn't watch the whole movie. I only looked at a few
> snippets and noticed the picture looked off.
>
>>>> So then
>>>> I rerecorded it with commercials on FX and realized it was the exact
>>>> same image, now with commercials.  But the Amazon version look really
>>>> good to my eyes.  It was also broadcast in HDR10+.  So they probably
>>>> helped as well.
>>>
>>> I don't know what HDR10+ is.
>>
>> Most of us landlubbers don't have access to that - I know I don't: Dolby
>> Vision is as good as it gets on my end.
>>
>
>
> Actually Dolby Vision is considered superior to HDR10+. No projector can
> do Dolby Vision. I think very few can even do HDR10+. They are all
> forms of HDR. HDR is an added signal that tells the TV (or projector)
> the maximum amount of brightness or darkness any image should be at any
> given time.
>
> Basic HDR should provide a superior viewing experience over standard 4K
> image and closer to what the director intended.
>
> HDR10+ is basically HDR with even more information. It's from Samsung
> and it's free but few companies bother to use it. I am glad that Amazon
> streaming and Paramount+ (and maybe Hulu too) will often encode using
> it, because I think there is a noticeable uptick in quality when it's
> turned on. I rarely notice HDR, but I do notice HDR10+. It just pops a
> bit more.
>
> Dolby Vision is a propriety format that studios have to pay to use.
> it's generally considered the best of the three (technically there are
> other formats, but we don't talk about them. LOL). Just about any new
> 4KTV (unless it's a Samsung) will do Dolby Vision. Almost every new 4K
> disc, and big budget Netflix show will be in Dolby Vision. My TV can do
> Dolby Vision, but any movie or streaming show I'm watching that has
> Dolby Vision, I'm almost always going to be watching on my projector.
> Projectors can't decode Dolby Vision so it down converts it to basic
> HDR. So I'm always pleased when something is in HDR10+.
>
> HDR10+ is *free* so every studio really should add it on. But I guess
> if they are doing Dolby Vision, and most TVs can decode Dolby Vision,
> they must figure there's no need.
>
>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>
>>
>
> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>

Lol

God I hated Macrovision

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

>. . .

>HDR10+ is basically . . .

Thanks

>>>Are you set up to record from streaming?

>No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)

I found this device.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG

And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC

On 9/7/2023 6:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>> On 9/7/2023 11:36 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2023 9:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> What Did You Watch? 2023-09-06 (Wednesday)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ancient Empires S1E01 'Alexander the Great' (History Channel - DVR)
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer the William Shatner Adam West version
>>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid to ask.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326725/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
>>>
>> I didn't ask!! I said I was AFRAID to ask!!!
>>
>
> Geena Davis says to be very afraid.
>
I thought that was Newt's line.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>
>> . . .
>
>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>
> Thanks
>
>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>
>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>
> I found this device.
>
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>
> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC

Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
shows. I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>
>>> . . .
>>
>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>
>>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>>
>> I found this device.
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>
>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>
>Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>shows.

I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
system.

>I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.

Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
indeed.

Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 9/7/2023 6:00 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2023 11:36 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2023 9:28 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> What Did You Watch? 2023-09-06 (Wednesday)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ancient Empires S1E01 'Alexander the Great' (History Channel - DVR)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer the William Shatner Adam West version
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid to ask.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0326725/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
>>>>
>>> I didn't ask!! I said I was AFRAID to ask!!!
>>>
>>
>> Geena Davis says to be very afraid.
>>
> I thought that was Newt's line.
>

https://youtu.be/uP9ZaWx7wG8?si=XJEGjYpSpBrBMnI7

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>
>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>>
>>>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>>>
>>> I found this device.
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>>
>>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>>
>>Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>shows.
>
>I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>system.

That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)

>>I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>
>Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>indeed.
>
>Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.

It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
to work around the security.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>>HDR10+ is basically . . .

>>>>Thanks

>>>>>>>Are you set up to record from streaming?

>>>>>No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)

>>>>I found this device.

>>>>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG

>>>>And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors

>>>>https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC

>>>Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>shows.

>>I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>system.

>That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)

I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
"channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.

As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
know what the technical explanation is.

>>>I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.

>>Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>indeed.

>>Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.

>It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>to work around the security.

Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
non-HDCP devices or receivers.

It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
needs to buy his own.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>
>>>>>>. . .
>
>>>>>>HDR10+ is basically . . .
>
>>>>>Thanks
>
>>>>>>>>Are you set up to record from streaming?
>
>>>>>>No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>>without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>>Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>
>>>>>I found this device.
>
>>>>>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>
>>>>>And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>
>>>>>https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>
>>>>Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>>shows.
>
>>>I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>>change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>system.
>
>>That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)
>
>I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>"channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
>but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.

Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
using dedicated channels for it. With X1 you would still have the On
Demand access, it's just not sent on a dedicated channel.

Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.

>As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
>to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
>and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
>know what the technical explanation is.

It's all part of freeing up bandwidth as that's the one thing that is
currently limited. It's also part of what goes on with DOCSIS 4.0 as
it frees up more bandwidth for upstream data (so you could see Comcast
increase the current limits on upstream data once they roll out DOCSIS
4.0.) I think (but am not sure) there's also some other technical
changes that will increase the available upstream bandwidth (changing
the way the data is put on the line (64-256 QAM). Oh and they are
increasing the available frequencies. Think it was something like
moving from around 860MHz to 1086Mhz. A nice bump in the available
channels will likely end mostly allocated to data. Unless there's
going to be a vast increase in 4K video available.

(I'm not fresh on the DOCSIS changes as I'm not current involved in
that area so I probably have the details wrong but the gist is there.
Increase available upstream bandwidth (# of channels) and increase
overall available bandwidth (# of channels.)
>>>>I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>>DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>>Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>>very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>>functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>>technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>
>>>Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>>indeed.
>
>>>Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>>of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>>this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.
>
>>It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>>can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>>hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>>to work around the security.
>
>Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
>purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
>non-HDCP devices or receivers.
>
>It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
>television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
>are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
>needs to buy his own.

On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>
>>>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>>>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>
>>>>>>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>>
>>>>>> I found this device.
>>
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>
>>>>>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>
>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>>
>>>>> Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>>> shows.
>>
>>>> I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>>> change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>> continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>> Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>> system.
>>
>>> That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>> it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>> little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>> getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>> dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)
>>
>> I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>> "channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
>> but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>> vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>> terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>> Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.
>
> Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
> using dedicated channels for it. With X1 you would still have the On
> Demand access, it's just not sent on a dedicated channel.
>
> Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
> setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
> watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.
>
>> As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
>> to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
>> and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
>> know what the technical explanation is.
>
> It's all part of freeing up bandwidth as that's the one thing that is
> currently limited. It's also part of what goes on with DOCSIS 4.0 as
> it frees up more bandwidth for upstream data (so you could see Comcast
> increase the current limits on upstream data once they roll out DOCSIS
> 4.0.) I think (but am not sure) there's also some other technical
> changes that will increase the available upstream bandwidth (changing
> the way the data is put on the line (64-256 QAM). Oh and they are
> increasing the available frequencies. Think it was something like
> moving from around 860MHz to 1086Mhz. A nice bump in the available
> channels will likely end mostly allocated to data. Unless there's
> going to be a vast increase in 4K video available.

I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
needs to happen soon!

(Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
480!!!)

> (I'm not fresh on the DOCSIS changes as I'm not current involved in
> that area so I probably have the details wrong but the gist is there.
> Increase available upstream bandwidth (# of channels) and increase
> overall available bandwidth (# of channels.)
>
>>>>> I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>>> DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>>> Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>>> very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>>> functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>>> technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>>
>>>> Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>>> indeed.
>>
>>>> Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>>> of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>>> this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.
>>
>>> It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>>> can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>>> hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>>> to work around the security.
>>
>> Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
>> purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
>> non-HDCP devices or receivers.
>>
>> It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
>> television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
>> are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
>> needs to buy his own.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:

>>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>>>HDR10+ is basically . . .

>>>>>>Thanks

>>>>>>>>>Are you set up to record from streaming?

>>>>>>>No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>>>without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>>>Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)

>>>>>>I found this device.

>>>>>>https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG

>>>>>>And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors

>>>>>>https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC

>>>>>Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>>>shows.

>>>>I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>>>change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>>continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>>Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>>system.

>>>That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>>it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>>little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>>getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>>dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)

>>I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>>"channels" the same way as X1.

the same way as my current DVRs do

>They

my current DVRs

>could be addressable boxes like X1
>>but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>>vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>>terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>>Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.

>Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
>using dedicated channels for it.

The channels aren't dedicated, but reserved. There's a group of channels
available for On Demand. The DVR negotiates with the On Demand server
which channel to use after I've selected the program.

I'm guessing that the reserved channels are being repurposed.

Actual tv channels from satellite or broadcast are reserved because
there's no Switched Digital Video, which would use reserved and not
dedicated channels. Comcast said they were getting rid of Switched
Digital Video as well but I have no idea where in the country that's
used. Not around here.

>With X1 you would still have the On Demand access, it's just not sent
>on a dedicated channel.

As far as I know, X1 has no dedicated nor reserved channels for any tv
signal. It's all addressable and essentially reserved bandwidth within
the portion of broadband reserved for Internet.

I think.

>Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
>setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
>watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.

That's true. I was able to use the QAM tuner in the tv and I could see
On Demand programming being watched by my neighbors, including pr0n.

>>. . .

On 9/8/2023 8:05 AM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
> On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>>>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>>
>>>>>>>> No.  I didn't know that was a thing that was possible.  At least
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> without some highly specialized equipment.  And a way to get around
>>>>>>>> Macrovision.  Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing?  :-)
>>>
>>>>>>> I found this device.
>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>>
>>>>>>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record
>>>>>> streaming
>>>>>> shows.
>>>
>>>>> I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I
>>>>> have to
>>>>> change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>>> continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>>> Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>>> system.
>>>
>>>> That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>>> it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>>> little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>>> getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>>> dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)
>>>
>>> I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>>> "channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
>>> but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>>> vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>>> terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>>> Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.
>>
>> Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
>> using dedicated channels for it. With X1 you would still have the On
>> Demand access, it's just not sent on a dedicated channel.
>>
>> Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
>> setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
>> watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.
>>
>>> As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
>>> to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
>>> and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
>>> know what the technical explanation is.
>>
>> It's all part of freeing up bandwidth as that's the one thing that is
>> currently limited. It's also part of what goes on with DOCSIS 4.0 as
>> it frees up more bandwidth for upstream data (so you could see Comcast
>> increase the current limits on upstream data once they roll out DOCSIS
>> 4.0.)  I think (but am not sure) there's also some other technical
>> changes that will increase the available upstream bandwidth (changing
>> the way the data is put on the line (64-256 QAM). Oh and they are
>> increasing the available frequencies. Think it was something like
>> moving from around 860MHz to 1086Mhz. A nice bump in the available
>> channels will likely end mostly allocated to data. Unless there's
>> going to be a vast increase in 4K video available.
>
> I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
> to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
> needs to happen soon!
>

I definitely want proper 4K, with HDR! During the last Olympics some
events were being simulcast in true 4K with HDR. At the time I had just
got a new TV that could do HDR and the Olympic 4K channel looked much
better than the standard broadcast version. But I also remember that my
old 4KTV that didn't have HDR couldn't tune those channels. So I can
see how the cable stations would have to have enough bandwidth to
broadcast every channel in both 4K HDR and 1080P (or non HDR 4K).

> (Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
> 480!!!)
>

I don't think I'm watching those channels! LOL.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>
>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>>>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>>
>>>>>>>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>>>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>>>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>>>
>>>>>>> I found this device.
>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>>
>>>>>>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>>>> shows.
>>>
>>>>> I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>>>> change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>>> continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>>> Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>>> system.
>>>
>>>> That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>>> it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>>> little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>>> getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>>> dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)
>>>
>>> I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>>> "channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
>>> but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>>> vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>>> terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>>> Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.
>>
>> Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
>> using dedicated channels for it. With X1 you would still have the On
>> Demand access, it's just not sent on a dedicated channel.
>>
>> Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
>> setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
>> watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.
>>
>>> As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
>>> to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
>>> and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
>>> know what the technical explanation is.
>>
>> It's all part of freeing up bandwidth as that's the one thing that is
>> currently limited. It's also part of what goes on with DOCSIS 4.0 as
>> it frees up more bandwidth for upstream data (so you could see Comcast
>> increase the current limits on upstream data once they roll out DOCSIS
>> 4.0.) I think (but am not sure) there's also some other technical
>> changes that will increase the available upstream bandwidth (changing
>> the way the data is put on the line (64-256 QAM). Oh and they are
>> increasing the available frequencies. Think it was something like
>> moving from around 860MHz to 1086Mhz. A nice bump in the available
>> channels will likely end mostly allocated to data. Unless there's
>> going to be a vast increase in 4K video available.
>
> I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
> to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
> needs to happen soon!
>
> (Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
> 480!!!)
>
>> (I'm not fresh on the DOCSIS changes as I'm not current involved in
>> that area so I probably have the details wrong but the gist is there.
>> Increase available upstream bandwidth (# of channels) and increase
>> overall available bandwidth (# of channels.)
>>
>>>>>> I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>>>> DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>>>> Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>>>> very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>>>> functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>>>> technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>>>
>>>>> Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>>>> indeed.
>>>
>>>>> Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>>>> of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>>>> this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.
>>>
>>>> It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>>>> can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>>>> hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>>>> to work around the security.
>>>
>>> Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
>>> purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
>>> non-HDCP devices or receivers.
>>>
>>> It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
>>> television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
>>> are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
>>> needs to buy his own.
>
>

Isn’t ABC still 720 P?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>>>>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>>>>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I found this device.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>>>>> shows.
>>>>
>>>>>> I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>>>>> change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>>>> continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>>>> Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>>> That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>>>> it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>>>> little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>>>> getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>>>> dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>>>> "channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
>>>> but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>>>> vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>>>> terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>>>> Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.
>>>
>>> Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
>>> using dedicated channels for it. With X1 you would still have the On
>>> Demand access, it's just not sent on a dedicated channel.
>>>
>>> Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
>>> setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
>>> watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.
>>>
>>>> As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
>>>> to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
>>>> and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
>>>> know what the technical explanation is.
>>>
>>> It's all part of freeing up bandwidth as that's the one thing that is
>>> currently limited. It's also part of what goes on with DOCSIS 4.0 as
>>> it frees up more bandwidth for upstream data (so you could see Comcast
>>> increase the current limits on upstream data once they roll out DOCSIS
>>> 4.0.) I think (but am not sure) there's also some other technical
>>> changes that will increase the available upstream bandwidth (changing
>>> the way the data is put on the line (64-256 QAM). Oh and they are
>>> increasing the available frequencies. Think it was something like
>>> moving from around 860MHz to 1086Mhz. A nice bump in the available
>>> channels will likely end mostly allocated to data. Unless there's
>>> going to be a vast increase in 4K video available.
>>
>> I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
>> to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
>> needs to happen soon!
>>
>> (Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
>> 480!!!)
>
> Isn’t ABC still 720 P?

Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
affiliate.)

In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
is also apparently 720p.)

But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
converts everything to 1080i...).

Except for the "low-def" (480(p?)) channels in the cable system, like
TeenNick and some of my Showtime channels, which are painfully low-def
on my UHDTV!!

>>> (I'm not fresh on the DOCSIS changes as I'm not current involved in
>>> that area so I probably have the details wrong but the gist is there.
>>> Increase available upstream bandwidth (# of channels) and increase
>>> overall available bandwidth (# of channels.)
>>>
>>>>>>> I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>>>>> DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>>>>> Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>>>>> very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>>>>> functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>>>>> technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>>>>> indeed.
>>>>
>>>>>> Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>>>>> of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>>>>> this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.
>>>>
>>>>> It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>>>>> can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>>>>> hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>>>>> to work around the security.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
>>>> purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
>>>> non-HDCP devices or receivers.
>>>>
>>>> It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
>>>> television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
>>>> are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
>>>> needs to buy his own.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
wrote:

>On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>

>>>
>>> I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
>>> to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
>>> needs to happen soon!
>>>
>>> (Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
>>> 480!!!)
>>
>> Isn’t ABC still 720 P?
>
>Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>affiliate.)
>
>In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>is also apparently 720p.)
>
I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
1080i so why not convert to 1080i?

>But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>converts everything to 1080i...).
>
>Except for the "low-def" (480(p?)) channels in the cable system, like
>TeenNick and some of my Showtime channels, which are painfully low-def
>on my UHDTV!!
>
>
>>>> (I'm not fresh on the DOCSIS changes as I'm not current involved in
>>>> that area so I probably have the details wrong but the gist is there.
>>>> Increase available upstream bandwidth (# of channels) and increase
>>>> overall available bandwidth (# of channels.)
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>>>>>> DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>>>>>> Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>>>>>> very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>>>>>> functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>>>>>> technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>>>>>> indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>>>>>> of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>>>>>> this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>>>>>> can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>>>>>> hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>>>>>> to work around the security.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
>>>>> purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
>>>>> non-HDCP devices or receivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
>>>>> television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
>>>>> are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
>>>>> needs to buy his own.
>

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>>>>>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>>>>>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I found this device.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>>>>>> shows.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>>>>>> change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>>>>> continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>>>>> Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>>>>> it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>>>>> little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>>>>> getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>>>>> dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>>>>> "channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
>>>>> but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>>>>> vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>>>>> terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>>>>> Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
>>>> using dedicated channels for it. With X1 you would still have the On
>>>> Demand access, it's just not sent on a dedicated channel.
>>>>
>>>> Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
>>>> setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
>>>> watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.
>>>>
>>>>> As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
>>>>> to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
>>>>> and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
>>>>> know what the technical explanation is.
>>>>
>>>> It's all part of freeing up bandwidth as that's the one thing that is
>>>> currently limited. It's also part of what goes on with DOCSIS 4.0 as
>>>> it frees up more bandwidth for upstream data (so you could see Comcast
>>>> increase the current limits on upstream data once they roll out DOCSIS
>>>> 4.0.) I think (but am not sure) there's also some other technical
>>>> changes that will increase the available upstream bandwidth (changing
>>>> the way the data is put on the line (64-256 QAM). Oh and they are
>>>> increasing the available frequencies. Think it was something like
>>>> moving from around 860MHz to 1086Mhz. A nice bump in the available
>>>> channels will likely end mostly allocated to data. Unless there's
>>>> going to be a vast increase in 4K video available.
>>>
>>> I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
>>> to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
>>> needs to happen soon!
>>>
>>> (Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
>>> 480!!!)
>>
>> Isn’t ABC still 720 P?
>
> Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
> affiliate.)
>
> In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
> Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
> is also apparently 720p.)
>
> But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
> converts everything to 1080i...).

That’s a setting on my DVR. It’s not automatic.

>
> Except for the "low-def" (480(p?)) channels in the cable system, like
> TeenNick and some of my Showtime channels, which are painfully low-def
> on my UHDTV!!
>
>
>>>> (I'm not fresh on the DOCSIS changes as I'm not current involved in
>>>> that area so I probably have the details wrong but the gist is there.
>>>> Increase available upstream bandwidth (# of channels) and increase
>>>> overall available bandwidth (# of channels.)
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>>>>>> DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>>>>>> Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>>>>>> very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>>>>>> functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>>>>>> technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>>>>>> indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>>>>>> of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>>>>>> this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>>>>>> can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>>>>>> hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>>>>>> to work around the security.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
>>>>> purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
>>>>> non-HDCP devices or receivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
>>>>> television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
>>>>> are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
>>>>> needs to buy his own.
>
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>
>
>>>>
>>>> I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
>>>> to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
>>>> needs to happen soon!
>>>>
>>>> (Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
>>>> 480!!!)
>>>
>>> Isn’t ABC still 720 P?
>>
>> Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>> affiliate.)
>>
>> In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>> Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>> is also apparently 720p.)
>>
> I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
> all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
> 1080i so why not convert to 1080i?

720p is actually higher resolution than 1080i (lower resolution frames, but
a higher frame rate).
Of course 1080 P beats them all.

>
>> But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>> converts everything to 1080i...).
>>
>> Except for the "low-def" (480(p?)) channels in the cable system, like
>> TeenNick and some of my Showtime channels, which are painfully low-def
>> on my UHDTV!!
>>
>>
>>>>> (I'm not fresh on the DOCSIS changes as I'm not current involved in
>>>>> that area so I probably have the details wrong but the gist is there.
>>>>> Increase available upstream bandwidth (# of channels) and increase
>>>>> overall available bandwidth (# of channels.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't stream things *that* often. But if I had an external
>>>>>>>>> DVR I'd probably be more interesting in just archiving things now that
>>>>>>>>> Xfinity put a 1 year limit on how long I can save recordings. It is
>>>>>>>>> very frustrating how as technology continues to expand it also looses
>>>>>>>>> functionality. So then you have to go out and buy some other piece of
>>>>>>>>> technology just to do what the new and improved version can't do any more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, this reminds me that switching to X1 will make me very unhappy
>>>>>>>> indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please note that the likelihood of HDCP errors are the modern equivalent
>>>>>>>> of Macrovision. See my other thread on HDCP errors. I started looking
>>>>>>>> this stuff up because of what I'm about to go through.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a pain that doesn't really buy the company any security since it
>>>>>>> can be worked around without that much trouble. So it just creates a
>>>>>>> hassle for everyone while annoying only the people that aren't trying
>>>>>>> to work around the security.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. HDCP has to see an HDCP device on the television viewer's end. The
>>>>>> purpose of these HDCP splitters is to allow the signal to be fed to
>>>>>> non-HDCP devices or receivers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been pointed out that if some technician is bringing splitters, the
>>>>>> television viewer won't be able to tell if the splitters being installed
>>>>>> are HDCP or not because the plugs and jacks are the same, which is why he
>>>>>> needs to buy his own.
>>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>Isn't ABC still 720 P?

>>Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>>affiliate.)

>>In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>>Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>>is also apparently 720p.)

>I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
>all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
>1080i so why not convert to 1080i?

Sports programming looks better in progressive scan and 1080p wasn't
cost effective at the time. If I ever get the outdoor antenna installed
I'll be able to confirm it.

>>But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>>converts everything to 1080i...).

Comcast isn't. The set-top box or DVR has the ability to convert the
signal received and output something else, but I always leave the signal
set as "native" because I don't find the stepped-up signal desireable.

>>. . .

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>Isn't ABC still 720 P?

>>>Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>>>affiliate.)

>>>In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>>>Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>>>is also apparently 720p.)

>>I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
>>all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
>>1080i so why not convert to 1080i?

>Sports programming looks better in progressive scan and 1080p wasn't
>cost effective at the time. If I ever get the outdoor antenna installed
>I'll be able to confirm it.

>>>But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>>>converts everything to 1080i...).

>Comcast isn't. The set-top box or DVR has the ability to convert the
>signal received and output something else, but I always leave the signal
>set as "native" because I don't find the stepped-up signal desireable.

Finishing my thought: In my experience, stepping up 720p to 1080i did
not look better. "P" means progressive, "I" means interlaced. With
interlaced, this is the same scan technique from NTSC, which I think was
480i, right? You get two half frames, every other scan line but
progressive is the full frame with all scan lines, which I think looks
better. That's why I leave 720p alone.

>>>. . .

On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 13:46:47 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>>>>>. . .
>
>>>>Isn't ABC still 720 P?
>
>>>Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>>>affiliate.)
>
>>>In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>>>Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>>>is also apparently 720p.)
>
>>I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
>>all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
>>1080i so why not convert to 1080i?
>
>Sports programming looks better in progressive scan and 1080p wasn't
>cost effective at the time. If I ever get the outdoor antenna installed
>I'll be able to confirm it.

I can understand the cost issue back in the beginning, but that cost
issue has been resolved for a long time. I get why I didn't bother to
upgrade my TV but I'm not running a multi-million dollar business.

>>>But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>>>converts everything to 1080i...).
>
>Comcast isn't. The set-top box or DVR has the ability to convert the
>signal received and output something else, but I always leave the signal
>set as "native" because I don't find the stepped-up signal desireable.

Yeah, I do the same thing since my TV is only 720P. I currently have
my PVR putting out a 1080i picture but my TV converts it to 720p
before displaying it. I probably should have the PVR put out the 720p
image but it defaulted to 1080i and I didn't bother to change it. I
thought I could find out what ABC (WSB-TV) is putting out but it seems
I can get all sorts of signal information but not that. I could
disconnect the PVR and see what is coming in from the broadcast
station but can't be bothered at the moment.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>Sat, 9 Sep 2023 13:46:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>Isn't ABC still 720 P?

>>>>Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>>>>affiliate.)

>>>>In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>>>>Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>>>>is also apparently 720p.)

>>>I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
>>>all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
>>>1080i so why not convert to 1080i?

>>Sports programming looks better in progressive scan and 1080p wasn't
>>cost effective at the time. If I ever get the outdoor antenna installed
>>I'll be able to confirm it.

>I can understand the cost issue back in the beginning, but that cost
>issue has been resolved for a long time. I get why I didn't bother to
>upgrade my TV but I'm not running a multi-million dollar business.

The cost issue has not been resolved. I'm sure the cameras and on
location production facilities (mobile production trailers) are mostly
upgraded these days but at the time it had to do with a choice of
video cameras and mobile production trailers and what looked better
for sports. With progressive scan, because it's full frame, you get more
frames than interlaced, which is half frames.

You also have to remember that with a network signal, it's uplinked and
downlinked multiple times. If it's a game being shown nationally or
regionally, the first uplink is from the mobile satellite uplink on
site, which is then downlinked to the network affiliate. The network
affiliate does BOTH the broadcast signal AND the second satellite
uplink. The second satellite downlink is for cable distribution.

That's a hell of a lot of equipment to upgrade, plus upgrades at the
cable head end. It's not just how much signal can be packed in between
the cable head end and the subscriber's premisis, and then what
equipment the subscriber is using to receive the signal.

For small dish satellite subscribers, there is a separate uplink as they
have their own satellites.

Cable and small dish satellite subscribers do not receive broadcast network
programming directly from the network but from affiliates. This is a
different model than satellite-only channels which don't have local
affiliates (but sometimes local commercials pre-empt national
commercials, which is done at the cable company head end).

>>>>. . .

On 9/9/2023 6:00 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 9/8/23 8:01 AM, shawn wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 12:21:01 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>>>>> <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Fri, 8 Sep 2023 05:58:21 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/7/2023 6:53 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2023-09-07 18:00:15 +0000, Adam H. Kerman said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HDR10+ is basically . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you set up to record from streaming?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No. I didn't know that was a thing that was possible. At least not
>>>>>>>>>>> without some highly specialized equipment. And a way to get around
>>>>>>>>>>> Macrovision. Wait, is Macrovision even still a thing? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I found this device.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B012T1D0IG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And you'll need this to deal HDCP errors
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004F9LVXC
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting. So it's basically an external DVR that can record streaming
>>>>>>>>> shows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think so. I haven't purchased it yet. I need something since I have to
>>>>>>>> change things shortly what with Comcast taking away On Demand if I
>>>>>>>> continue to use the two DVRs I'm renting. I assume the channels On
>>>>>>>> Demand is using are being repurposed within the cable distribution
>>>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's odd. I'm not sure why they would be taking away On Demand as
>>>>>>> it's one of their selling points over something like DirecTV. There's
>>>>>>> little need to re purpose their bandwidth now as the system is only
>>>>>>> getting more useable bandwidth over time. (DOCSIS 4.0 will
>>>>>>> dramatically improve the situation once it's released.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure Comcast is trying to force me to use X1 which doesn't use
>>>>>> "channels" the same way as X1. They could be addressable boxes like X1
>>>>>> but Comcast went with a different model. They have MAC addresses and I
>>>>>> vaguely recall reading that the manufacturer designed them to be
>>>>>> terminal adapters (cable modems) that could have been used to bring
>>>>>> Internet to the home network. Comcast never used these features.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, so you don't mean they are getting rid of On Demand, but only
>>>>> using dedicated channels for it. With X1 you would still have the On
>>>>> Demand access, it's just not sent on a dedicated channel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or to put it another way, if the video weren't encrypted your current
>>>>> setup would be like the old days where anyone could see what you were
>>>>> watching from the On Demand service. I remember those days. LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I said in the other thread, my guess is that Comcast no longer want
>>>>>> to reserve the channels used for On Demand at all. X1 uses IP addresses
>>>>>> and the channels are all on the Internet side, or something. I don't
>>>>>> know what the technical explanation is.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's all part of freeing up bandwidth as that's the one thing that is
>>>>> currently limited. It's also part of what goes on with DOCSIS 4.0 as
>>>>> it frees up more bandwidth for upstream data (so you could see Comcast
>>>>> increase the current limits on upstream data once they roll out DOCSIS
>>>>> 4.0.) I think (but am not sure) there's also some other technical
>>>>> changes that will increase the available upstream bandwidth (changing
>>>>> the way the data is put on the line (64-256 QAM). Oh and they are
>>>>> increasing the available frequencies. Think it was something like
>>>>> moving from around 860MHz to 1086Mhz. A nice bump in the available
>>>>> channels will likely end mostly allocated to data. Unless there's
>>>>> going to be a vast increase in 4K video available.
>>>>
>>>> I'm of the opinion that, if cable TV is going to survive, it needs to go
>>>> to at least 1080p, if not 4k, on a bunch of important channels. And it
>>>> needs to happen soon!
>>>>
>>>> (Meanwhile, I'm still getting some cable TV channels in, like, 480(p?)!
>>>> 480!!!)
>>>
>>> Isn’t ABC still 720 P?
>>
>> Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>> affiliate.)
>>
>> In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>> Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>> is also apparently 720p.)
>>
>> But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>> converts everything to 1080i...).
>
> That’s a setting on my DVR. It’s not automatic.
>
>
>

I just checked and my ABC is coming out at 4K. I have my DVR set to
output everything at the best resolution possible, which is 2160p60 4K.
So everything gets upconverted. And it all pretty much looks the same.
Of course native resolution is going to look better, but I have no way
of knowing what's native and what's not.

On 9/9/23 6:46 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>>>>> . . .
>
>>>> Isn't ABC still 720 P?
>
>>> Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>>> affiliate.)
>
>>> In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>>> Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>>> is also apparently 720p.)
>
>> I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
>> all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
>> 1080i so why not convert to 1080i?
>
> Sports programming looks better in progressive scan and 1080p wasn't
> cost effective at the time. If I ever get the outdoor antenna installed
> I'll be able to confirm it.
>
>>> But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>>> converts everything to 1080i...).
>
> Comcast isn't. The set-top box or DVR has the ability to convert the
> signal received and output something else, but I always leave the signal
> set as "native" because I don't find the stepped-up signal desireable.

Well, darn, if you're not right!

My cable box does have the option for "Auto select" output resolution,
along with 720p, 1080i (and, ridiculously! 480i and 480p!).

I've never set it to "Auto select" before. Now I will have to mull this
over...

But Spectrum has always defaulted this option to "1080i" as far as I can
tell.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>On 9/9/23 6:46 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 23:53:02 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>On 9/8/23 10:14 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>Isn't ABC still 720 P?

>>>>Sure is! (I just confirmed by checking my OTA signal from the ABC
>>>>affiliate.)

>>>>In fact, I think all Disney channels are still broadcast in 720p.
>>>>Most everyone else (I believe) is broadcasting 1080i... (Actually, FOX
>>>>is also apparently 720p.)

>>>I wonder why they are still using 720P after all these years. I mean
>>>all of the content they are broadcasting on ABC must be in at least
>>>1080i so why not convert to 1080i?

>>Sports programming looks better in progressive scan and 1080p wasn't
>>cost effective at the time. If I ever get the outdoor antenna installed
>>I'll be able to confirm it.

>>>>But *all* cable TV is transmitted as 1080i, even ABC, etc. (cable
>>>>converts everything to 1080i...).

>>Comcast isn't. The set-top box or DVR has the ability to convert the
>>signal received and output something else, but I always leave the signal
>>set as "native" because I don't find the stepped-up signal desireable.

>Well, darn, if you're not right!

>My cable box does have the option for "Auto select" output resolution,
>along with 720p, 1080i (and, ridiculously! 480i and 480p!).

That makes no sense, you're right. Just making the connection via
composite video will output 480i, or via component video will output
480p. I'm spacing out on whether component video connection will do
720p. But a tv set that's limited to 480 scan lines isn't going to have
another kind of port on it.

>I've never set it to "Auto select" before. Now I will have to mull this
>over...

>But Spectrum has always defaulted this option to "1080i" as far as I can
>tell.

You'll have to experiment to see if auto select is actually native.