Is D*s HD locals HD-Lite or not?

[Reggie3]

I could not find this posted anyplace. Does anyone know for sure. I know the new channels are MPEG4 sat with more bandwidth.

[Earl Bonovich]

What is your definition of HD-Lite?

They are not at the same bit rate as OTA signals.
But they are higher then some of the MPEG-2 HD Channels on DirecTV.

From my comparisons here, the OTA versions are just slightly better then the DirecTV supplied versions. The MPEG-4 versions are very good.

[Reggie3]

What is your definition of HD-Lite?

They are not at the same bit rate as OTA signals.
But they are higher then some of the MPEG-2 HD Channels on DirecTV.

From my comparisons here, the OTA versions are just slightly better then the DirecTV supplied versions. The MPEG-4 versions are very good.
1280x1080 is HD-Lite vs 1920x1080 which is what HD is suppose to be.

So you have some data?

Here is info on what is considered Lite: http://www.stophdlite.com/hdlite/news.html

[Earl Bonovich]

Actually bit rates... nope, don't have the data on that.
I tend not to focus on numbers.... Why?

The numbers are only part of the issue.
I go by what the picture looks like in my home, and what it sounds like in my home... vs what it costs for me to get it and display it.

Would I like to have "FULL HD"... sure... why not.
But knowing the technology that is in place, and what is the "options" are...

I'll take "HD-LITE" vs SD any day....


I would recommend doing a search on avsforum.com or maybe even SatGuys
I am sure someone with the equipment and technology has already dug into the signal and figured out if it is up to "full HD standards"

[Wolffpack]

I think the term HD-Lite has gotten much more press than it deserves. My guage is how the shows look on my equipment. I believe the HD channels DTV provides (as limited as they are - National Geographic folks) look great on my equipment. I receive my locals OTA and have no need for the MPEG4 locals thus have no experience with them. Personally, I'm having more PQ problems with some of DTVs SD channels such as SciFi. Noticeable pixelation.

I don't really care what the resolution is or what the bitrate is until my sorry old eyes can tell the difference. But then again, I' not what one would consider a HDTV coni-sewer.

[Earl Bonovich]

Wolf...

I think the Cubs might win the World Series......
We are starting to agree.. WAAAAAAYYYYY too often... :D

[Wolffpack]

Wolf...

I think the Cubs might win the World Series......
We are starting to agree.. WAAAAAAYYYYY too often... :D
Cubs???? You are truly a funny man Earl!!! :sure:

I'm just loving the current situation. Tigers....who? Tigers? Growing up in Michigan I haven't seen anything for years from the Tigers. Look at it now. Pistons. They really did the job tonight. And now with my new home, out here in Phoenix, well, last night the Suns set the Mavricks straight.

MLB is way to early to tell, but I'm looking for Pistons/Suns in the finals. That way I don't have to have a heart attack every night for those 7 games. :grin: :grin: :grin:

[Que]

Here are some links for HD-Lite:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=HD+Lite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_lite



HD Lite is an informal term used to describe the broadcast of a particular HDTV channel with reduced picture quality. In most cases this means that the channel originates with a particular video encoding, resolution, and bit rate, but is re-encoded or rate shaped by the multichannel video programming distributor (i.e. cable television or DBS provider) to save bandwidth. Reduced video quality is characterized by reduced sharpness, reduced detail, excessive compression artifacts (mosquito noise and blocking), and in some cases, washed-out colors. The reduced video quality is most often caused by poorly done recompression, low bit rates (from recompression or rate-shaping equipment), or reduced resolution. When HD Lite uses reduced resolution, it is most commonly 1280 x 1080i or 1440 x 1080I, which is in contrast to the 1920 x 1080i and 1280 x 720p resolutions that most networks, over-the-air broadcasters, and cable/satellite HDTV channels provide.

Cable is your best bet for PQ. If you have the money why not get HD-lite ($9.99) it's better then SD. Right now I'm sticking with OTA and waiting for the upgrade.

[Ron Barry]

1280x1080 is HD-Lite vs 1920x1080 which is what HD is suppose to be.

So you have some data?



Actually someone provided links but I figured I would throw my 2 cents in. My take on HD Lite is that it is a terms that some have used to describe less than HD quality. From time to time this discussion is brought up in both sides of the fence (D* and E*) forums. It can become of very heated discussion.

There is nothing offical about HD-Lite and it means different things to different folks. As the two links que provide show. It definitely does not have a defined format as you indicate above. As for the site mentioned in the OP, anyone can throw up a site and declare something is something but it does not necessarly make it so.

I would tend to agree with Earl, bottom line is how does it compare with the alternatives and in some cases is it better than other options.

[Reggie3]

I have been to the HDNet studios - and they are aware of the down rezing of their signal. They do not like it -but as a supplier to D* are powerless to change the signal that D* puts out. D* has received complaints about the HDNet channel and have asked HDNet if they would supply a HD-Lite feed for them (instead of D* converting it themselves) - so this indicates that D* is aware of the issue and is looking for solutions other than providing true HD.

I was hoping that since HDNet is still on the old sats with MPEG2 and limited bandwidth that the locals in MPEG4 and the added bandwidth of the new sats would be in true HD. This would mean that when HDNet and the other HD programming is moved to the new sats that D* would stop down rezing.

Guess not.

[Earl Bonovich]

There is no reason why it won't happen in the future.

As the capacity increases, they will be able to offer more.

There is still an additional satalite that is too be launched and used....

It is a technological balance:
Offer more "HD" channels at a lower bit rate, but still a such a level that it is an excelent picture
Or offer less channels, and provide more data for those channels.

[junebughunter]

It is a technological balance:
Offer more "HD" channels at a lower bit rate, but still a such a level that it is an excelent picture
Or offer less channels, and provide more data for those channels.

The third option...offer all HD channels at the highest quality as it should be.

I don't care what it takes, but that's what I want, that's what I feel I am paying for and anything less isn't true HD.

DirecTV better get this together. It's making a lot of people angry.

[harsh]

I don't care what it takes, but that's what I want, that's what I feel I am paying for and anything less isn't true HD.

DirecTV better get this together. It's making a lot of people angry.You're paying for what DirecTV has to offer. If you don't think it is a fair deal, you should investigate alternatives.

[junebughunter]

This is the last thing I'll say as to avoid any arguing but...

If DirecTV says "$9.99 a month for HD service"

and I pay "$9.99 a month for HD service"

only to find out what I am paying $9.99 for is not actually HD...that is deception some people might even say it is a lie. Some people (for example me if I wasn't on a 2-year contract) might even cancel their service and go to someone who does offer HD.

Sure it's good quality stuff but it's not what I was deceived into buying.

Maybe somewhere in the fine print of some contract I unknowingly agreed to over the phone when I ordered it states "HD by directv's standards will be offered" then so be it...but deception is deception is deception.

I don't care what you guys consider HD-Lite, I don't care how good it looks or how bad. I want to take advantage of my 16:9 TV 1920x1080i is HD or 720p, or even 720i (is that even used?). I just want HD like I thought I was getting.

[harsh]

I don't care how good it looks or how bad. I want to take advantage of my 16:9 TV 1920x1080i is HD or 720p, or even 720i (is that even used?). I just want HD like I thought I was getting.This is the real problem. I want. I want. I want.

If they offered 720p, some would want 1080i instead. If they offered either, the plasma display owners would howl because it is a relative waste of bandwidth for their systems.

Everyone has to compromise. If you're lucky and don't do too much research, you can be happy with what you have. I go with what looks good and if that happens to be a sharper, lower resolution picture versus a smeary "full resolution" image, sobeit.

I miss the old definition of TV resolution which spoke directly to the quality of the final product. As plasma TV and dye sublimation printer owners will assure you, pixels aren't everything.