<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Engadget HD - Comments for ATTC, ATSC, other HD makers blessed with Emmy awards</title>
<link>http://enghddev.weblogsinc.com/2008/12/29/attc-atsc-other-hd-makers-blessed-with-emmy-awards/</link>
<description>Engadget HD Comments for ATTC, ATSC, other HD makers blessed with Emmy awards</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2009 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ATTC, ATSC, other HD makers blessed with Emmy awards]]></title><link>http://enghddev.weblogsinc.com/2008/12/29/attc-atsc-other-hd-makers-blessed-with-emmy-awards/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://enghddev.weblogsinc.com/2008/12/29/attc-atsc-other-hd-makers-blessed-with-emmy-awards/</guid><description><![CDATA[ATSC is good, but I really wish they had been just a little more forward looking and picked one of the MPEG4 codecs instead of MPEG2. There is a fairly substantial quality difference between, say, OTA CBS HD in my region, and Dish Network's feed of Cinemax. Both are 1080i, and I doubt Dish Network is allocating more bandwidth to Cinemax than CBS/ATSC's maximum of 20Mbps (in fact, I know they're not, a single episode of NCIS tends to take up 8-10G when archived, whereas a two hour movie from Cinemax generally takes up 4-6G.)<br><br>I suspect part of it is that some of the major enhancements that were done to MPEG 4 Part 2 and H.264 (MPEG 4 Part 10) were to do with reducing macroblocking, which tends to be the easiest to see type of artifacting. Part 2 was seen as a failure in some quarters because the anti-macroblocking algorithms it offered were somewhat CPU intensive, but the point is they were there and fairly effective.<br><br>It's certainly a good system though. I'm glad it's finally being taken seriously by the broadcasters too.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[squiggleslash]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Dec 29th 2008 8:43AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ATTC, ATSC, other HD makers blessed with Emmy awards]]></title><link>http://enghddev.weblogsinc.com/2008/12/29/attc-atsc-other-hd-makers-blessed-with-emmy-awards/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://enghddev.weblogsinc.com/2008/12/29/attc-atsc-other-hd-makers-blessed-with-emmy-awards/</guid><description><![CDATA[Sinclair Broadcasting group demonstrated that COFTM-based DVB-T was superior to ATSC as a terrestrial standard.  Was this ATSC award rigged?  <br><br><a href="http://www.sbgi.net/news_releases/2000/07_26_2000.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.sbgi.net/news_releases/2000/07_26_2000.pdf</a>]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael R]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Dec 29th 2008 10:35AM</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on ATTC, ATSC, other HD makers blessed with Emmy awards]]></title><link>http://enghddev.weblogsinc.com/2008/12/29/attc-atsc-other-hd-makers-blessed-with-emmy-awards/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://enghddev.weblogsinc.com/2008/12/29/attc-atsc-other-hd-makers-blessed-with-emmy-awards/</guid><description><![CDATA[That was back in 2000 and the FCC apparently didn't agree.  Sinclair always seems to have their own agenda.  I guess we may know for sure if ATSC is good enough in about a month and a half.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Philip S]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Dec 29th 2008 1:35PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>