1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dish HD Resolution just 480i?

Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by mark8arm, Mar 9, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mar 10, 2006 #61 of 100
    mark8arm

    mark8arm New Member

    8
    0
    Feb 22, 2006
    Ta very much :)
     
  2. Mar 10, 2006 #62 of 100
    normang

    normang Icon

    1,017
    0
    Nov 14, 2002
    Highly unlikely since the max HD bandwidth for an ATSC channel is 19mbps per channel..
     
  3. Mar 10, 2006 #63 of 100
    mitch672

    mitch672 AllStar

    53
    0
    Feb 28, 2006
    I have read of some OTA HD stations peaking at higher bandwidth than 19Mbps.

    It's also double what dish sends down for most of their "HD Locals", which are pretty much unviewable on my 622, compared to the same via OTA. I am in Boston, BTW, HD locals are on 61.5, in MPEG4 in theory.

    OTA HD has, and continues to be superior to anything sent down via SAT. TIFWIW.

    Mitch

    ATSC Website: http://www.atsc.org/guide_default.html

    http://www.satelliteguys.us/bfg/dish-hd.htm

    While bitrate is not the end-all of HD quality, you need sufficient bandwidth to get a decent picture.


     
  4. Mar 10, 2006 #64 of 100
    robill

    robill Cool Member

    25
    0
    May 13, 2005
    I fully realize that not all Voom channels have been down-rezzed. That is why I referred to the "affected" Voom channels. I know what I've seen last year and what I'm not seeing now. It doesn't appear that you would care if all the channels were down-rezzed as you can not see the difference. I can and it has nothing to do with "repeat programming or more HD choice".
    As for "the whole world sucks", those are your words. I'm glad you're so happy.
     
  5. Mar 10, 2006 #65 of 100
    normang

    normang Icon

    1,017
    0
    Nov 14, 2002
    Since the ATSC Standard max is 19mpbs, I seriously doubt anyone is exceeding it. If I had to guess, whoever said its higher is mis-understanding something or relying on some software or hardware that is giving incorrect information.

    I find it hard to beleive that anything in any level of HD is "unviewable", if that were the case, you could never possibly consider watching anything in SD and DVD's must look archiac..

    While OTA may have higher rates on some channels, many multicast, providing an SD version of their channel along with their HD channel, so their bitrate based on my reading is usually somewhere around 12-15mbps.

    Never ceases to amaze me that the picture quality of some Dish HD channels, depending on its source and original quality, can some how look crappy because the resolution is being reduced so that you can watch it in the first place with complete disregard for the technical limitations of the medium that is delivering it to you.. IMHO any HD channel any day of the week looks better than any SD channel you've ever watched or will watch..
     
  6. Mar 11, 2006 #66 of 100
    normang

    normang Icon

    1,017
    0
    Nov 14, 2002
    If I understood what James said, he indicated that most Voom channels have never had any higher resolution than they do now, and some Voom channels have always had higher resolution.. If this is the case, they really can't look any different than they did before.

    The bottomline is that there is only so much bandwidth, there are technical limitations to satellite delivery of signals that you cannot just ignore just because you want better resolution.

    If giving you and other people that don't want HD-Lite, means less channels, then your paying money for a slightly better picture and less programming.

    I think if there was a way to get a scientific poll, and not some forum based poll, I suspect more people given a choice of a little less resolution and more programming, I think more programming would come out ahead.. I could be wrong.. and we'll probably never really know.
     
  7. Mar 11, 2006 #67 of 100
    mitch672

    mitch672 AllStar

    53
    0
    Feb 28, 2006
    http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53d.pdf

    Broadcast MAX bitrate 19.4Mbps, Cable MAX bitrate 38.8Mbps (8VSB vs 16VSB encoding)

    Considering the audio and picture was breaking up badly, the few times I tried watching the SAT HD Locals, I have given up on them. I have no need for them anyway, since the OTA HD locals look superior. Maybe dish improved it in the new firmware, but it doesn't really matter to me at this point.

    In Boston, all of the major networks in primetime don't multicast, except for 1 of them that has a weather rader channel (useless). I am not counting the WB or UPN, I don't consider them major networks.

    The local PBS station (WGBH Boston), multicasts, but has a a great HD subchannel, where the picture is always amazing.

    Maybe I should have said DTV is superior to Dish SD, I pretty much only watch OTA TV and some Dish HD channels, I don't really bother with the SD channels any longer, I find it very annoying to have to go back and watch SD... Firmware L355 on the 622 now has a setting for "HD only", that makes me very happy :)

    Mitch
     
  8. Mar 11, 2006 #68 of 100
    robill

    robill Cool Member

    25
    0
    May 13, 2005
    Originally on Dish some of the Vooms had a higher resolution than they do today. So they can and do look different today.
    I understand the more programming vs. resolution argument. That comes down to a personal opinion. My choice would be resolution. To me that is what HD is all about.
    We could easily have both considering the absolutely insane number of repeats on all of the HD channels. Fewer channels, same programming, just not repeated to death.
     
  9. Mar 11, 2006 #69 of 100
    normang

    normang Icon

    1,017
    0
    Nov 14, 2002
    Just because cable provides a higher bitrate capability does not mean the channel coming down the pipe exceeds the established standard for a single channel.

    If your having breaks ups on Dish HD locals, it could be any number of issues, if its not occuring on other HD Channels. It could be the feed from your locals itself. Since this is all relatively new, perhaps there are some kinks to work out. However if you are all OTA and that works fine, looks good for you, great..

    There are ATSC DVR's out there, I think Sony has one.. Perhaps thats all you really need..
     
  10. Mar 11, 2006 #70 of 100
    robill

    robill Cool Member

    25
    0
    May 13, 2005
    Why does a moderator seem so bent on picking a fight on this topic???
    It is a matter of fact that resolution has been degraded on some channels to a certain degree. Some people's eyes and/or Tvs can see it, apparently some can't.
    It is personal opinion whether that presents a problem for an individual subscriber.
    It seems more like pot-stirring than moderating.....
     
  11. Mar 11, 2006 #71 of 100
    Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,499
    2
    Mar 21, 2002
    I just checked, according to page 30 of the hidden diagnostic screens, Time Warner's 'SD Lite' is 328 x 480 for regular channels, premium movie channels are 528 x 480 and all HD content is true HD, unlike other the other options.
     
  12. Mar 11, 2006 #72 of 100
    Rogueone

    Rogueone Hall Of Fame

    1,133
    0
    Jan 29, 2004
    mitch, what is this HS only setting your talking about? what's it for/do?
     
  13. Mar 11, 2006 #73 of 100
    rbyers

    rbyers Godfather

    264
    0
    Jan 14, 2004
    How so? ABC and FOX are 720P. CBS and NBC are 1080i. How is this mostly 1080i?

    I've read some comparisons of OTA vs Sat and, for the most part, people didn't see much difference. Many said they "thought" satellite was a little softer. When I've compared CBS-HD Sat with CBS-OTA-HD, I couldn't see a difference. I have, as you can see, a 34" HD CRT. I'd think you'd need a much bigger set to see a difference. And then, what is the difference? Is it something in the set, or in the signal?
     
  14. Mar 11, 2006 #74 of 100
    normang

    normang Icon

    1,017
    0
    Nov 14, 2002
    Well, all I can say is I don't know that. I have read where some think that Voom's resolution is lower than before, but with todays equipment, I don't know how anyone could tell for sure, because just watching a picture is very subjective, there could be other reasons that it doesn't look as sharp as one thought it did..

    While there is probably a technical means, I would not rely on what some reciever says as a defintive answer to the resolution issue. If someone has proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that something is different, great. However, Its like so much around the forums that gets passed on and on, whether or not its accurate.

    I for one am really bored off the HD purist attitude that its all resolution all the time.. because there are so many elements that can effect what you actually see. Many HD sets that have been bought are 720, not 1080, so slews of people don't even have the hardware to see the full resolution even if it were transmitted to them. And in comparison to SD programming that one has watched for years, any level of HD picture puts an SD program to shame..

    This reminds me when CD's first came out and vinyl purists were saying that CD's couldn't be as good as vinyl records, which of course was never true for a number of technical reasons..
     
  15. Mar 11, 2006 #75 of 100
    DP1

    DP1 Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 15, 2002
    Well to me it just comes down to principle. Either they're going to send out HD material in full resolution (with adequate bit rate) or they're not. Doesnt matter really what percentage of people have displays that can fully resolve it. Or what percentage of people sit so far away from their displays that they couldnt tell the difference anyway.

    I just think it's kinda odd that the HD spec when it comes to interlaced signals was written up as 1920x1080i not 1440 or 1280, yet the DBS co's have taken it upon themselves to in some cases use those other resolutions anyway.

    I use the word "odd" and not unbelieveable because as I already said, it's a simple matter of fact that they dont have qualms about skimping on PQ on their system when they believe it's in their best interest to do so.

    Besides, theres no question that if you polled the masses they'd much rather have 200 channel universes than pristine PQ. If that werent the case we'd have had pristine SD PQ all along and only about 50 total channels in "AEP". ;)
     
  16. Mar 11, 2006 #76 of 100
    mitch672

    mitch672 AllStar

    53
    0
    Feb 28, 2006
    on the ViP622, when you press the "Guide" button, several times, one of the settings is "HD Only", which only puts the OTA locals and the HD SAT channels in the guide, so you don't need to be distracted from the rest of dish's "High Quality SD" channels, lol

    Mitch

     
  17. Mar 11, 2006 #77 of 100
    mitch672

    mitch672 AllStar

    53
    0
    Feb 28, 2006
    maybe because I only watch CBS and NBC :)

    I don't watch FOX, ABC, the WB, or UPN, except rarely.

    Also, I have a 50" plasma... The HD locals from Dish are horrendous right now,
    they have audio breakup, video pausing, and are unwatchable. Maybe its a problem they are having because they are new, what I am saying is, I DON'T CARE. My OTA HD locals work just fine, don't need them delivered by SAT anyway.

    This has nothing to do with the aim of the dish etc, since the Voom HD channels are on the same sat and have no issues.

    Mitch

     
  18. Mar 11, 2006 #78 of 100
    Rogueone

    Rogueone Hall Of Fame

    1,133
    0
    Jan 29, 2004
    you're right rb, for the big 4, it's about even on what's available. I don't know if you counted the hours of HD, which would have the advantage, I'd guess 720p by a little

    as to the OTA differences, you are correct, your set is too small to notice the differences unless you know specifically what to look for and where, and get close enough. Those like me with a 65" projection unit will see the imperfections much easier. Simply put, the same image, same number of pixels on your TV have to be on my tv and my tv is 4 times the size of yours (twice as wide, twice as tall) so the pixels either have to be 4 times the size or 4 times further apart on the screen, or some combination of the two. So the bigger the display the farther away one needs to be so the ratio of viewing distance and pixel seperation stay the same.

    now, the compressed, or reduced HD images mentioned all over, those would manifest as less than sharp on a TV like mine. For example, watch an SD program on a 20" TV then on your 34" TV. Doesn't the 20" TV have the "sharper" or clearer picture? it's smaller and it's much harder to see the imperfections. Now, take the same image and put it on my 65" TV, yuck. SD looks terrible no matter what, and I just have to live with that so I can get the great HD I do get.

    But I will throw out to you, and everyone, that I've often wondered what HBO and Showtime do, because even this HD lite people like to call it is going to be better than DVDp, and when I watch most programs on HBO and Show HD, it sure has the look of DVD upscaled to 1080. there is no way the stuff HBO is broadcasting was recorded in 1080, it's not sharp enough, or there's no way it's being sent to me as 1080. But TNTHD looks crisper, and Discovery, wow, no way to compare the others to Discovery. OTA is much the same. I don't watch a lot of movies via OTA, but when I have, I havent' felt like I was seeing a 1080i or 720p print of the movie. It still seems like it's an upscaled dvd.

    thing is, this might be me misunderstanding how film looks in HD :) Maybe what I'm perceiving as less crisp is the by product of 24fps shooting on film stock. I just know that for some programming HD just doesn't "look" like HD, but I haven't a clue what I'm really receiving at those times to know if it's a bad compression, upscaled original, or how it's suppose to look :)
     
  19. Mar 11, 2006 #79 of 100
    normang

    normang Icon

    1,017
    0
    Nov 14, 2002
    What principle? If it were your company, you would provide optimal PQ all the time on every channel, and that's great, and in the mean time, your competition would be providing perhaps dozen's of other channels you can't because you don't have the bandwidth needed to provide it unless you make some PQ sacrifices or you spend millions or billions that you cannot afford and would have to be passed on to PQ loving customers that eventually would have to decide, its not worth having pristine PQ, because they cannot afford it.

    This means that eventually, you would be 'out of business", forcing all your PQ loving customers to where Voom customers are today... where is the principle in that?
     
  20. Mar 11, 2006 #80 of 100
    DP1

    DP1 Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 15, 2002
    I never said what I would do if I owned a company. I'm just talking about what is being done. HD is a certain standard and they're claiming that their channels are HD when they dont all meet that standard.. simple as that.

    If some people wanna believe, from CEO's down to paying subs, that anything above say 480p is close enough to HD simply because it's so much better than say 480i, so be it.

    Maybe the HD standard should have just been 1280x1080i and 1024x576p or some such to begin with. Course even if it would have been, they'd have just shaved down from those numbers instead I imagine.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page