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

HD Quantity vs Quality and a little HD-Lite

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by Earl Bonovich, Jun 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 27, 2007 #1 of 105
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    You can take it either way:

    What is better for the consumer:
    -) Less channels at that maximum bandwith requirement
    -) More channels at a lower bandwith requirement, even if that means a picture that is not "the best it can be", but is still "pretty damm good"

    If there where no $$$ restrictions, and technological barriers... it is a no brainer. However, there is (and has to be) a balance between "utopia" and "reality"
     
  2. Jun 27, 2007 #2 of 105
    falken

    falken Legend

    185
    0
    Jun 14, 2007
    I vote for #1, and they call me personally and ask which channels I would like them to carry. Sure hope we don't have any sports fans. :)
     
  3. Jun 27, 2007 #3 of 105
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,999
    182
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    I'm disagree with you,Earl, with such yes/no all/nothing argumentation. I understand you got the chair where you will be always watch your mouth, but remember days when you was free at TiVo forum ?
    I'm not first time posting on our [customer] side of HD-Lite, actually from a beginning of the campaign. And I remember original quality and later discussion when providers put us in bended position by the 'your' last arguments; I was and still disappointed by Scott's position when he was agree in person with Ergen to expand number of HD channels in favor of decrease PQ. We made a lot of buzz, brought HD-Lite to masses, we didn't fail - providers failed to adhere to ATCS standards. :(
     
  4. Jun 27, 2007 #4 of 105
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    I am very much aware where my chair sits... and really... I don't have to watch my mouth, or what I write.... I never have... and still don't.
    As much as you or anyone of the many others want to think I do...

    I give you all the benefit of the doubt that you are speaking your own private opinions... why can't people understand, that unless I state otherwise... my comments are my own? I am a big boy... I can make my bed and sleep in it to...

    I state my dislike for certain things... and I state my opinion on others.
    So if you want to think my fingers are attached to strings, that are controlled by someone else... think again.

    The problem is... I really have no major issues with what DirecTV is doing... really don't... wouldn't matter if I have never talked to someone inside DirecTV or not...

    My overal tune has not changed much in the 7 years...

    On this particular topic... and the HD-Lite topic.
    I would have the EXACT same answer today as I would have 4 years ago.

    I would STILL prefer to have more quality content.... then less "ultimate" content. I have long since had appriciation for the technology and it's limits.

    I still today this day, don't see why people have gotten so bent to the extreme level they have over the HD-Lite.

    And yes... I have seen some of the HD-Lite channels on other providers...
    And will acknowledge that it looks better... but on the flip side... I can look back at what I got and say... damm that still looks really good, and I also have this channel as well.

    If they provided the full image... what do you lose?
    Would I have Universal in HD... or no TNT... what about ESPN2?
    More shuffling and part time channels?

    Or should they have just not launched additional channels and waited 2-3+ years to get more bandwith up there?
     
  5. Jun 27, 2007 #5 of 105
    skyboysea

    skyboysea Icon

    540
    0
    Nov 1, 2002
    Earl,
    the problem is: who defines what is "pretty damn good"?
    Look at what happened to SD. It was pretty damn good and now most of the channels look like crap. What's stopping anyone from doing the same with HD? First you cut resolution, after to cut bandwidth and you end up with a picture that is pretty damn bad.
    I personally think that's a good idea if the program providers set some limits on how their signal can be manipulated. If that's going to limit the number of channels available, so be it. We do not really need all the proliferation of channels we have now.
     
  6. Jun 27, 2007 #6 of 105
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    Your right... there is no one entity that defines "pretty darn good"...

    And yes, SD has gotten worse over the years... and all we can hope is that haver the new sats are up, they complete the shutdown of the MPEG-2 HD, and free up a significant amount of bandwith on the 101 sat... that SD material can be improved...

    Or at least we would have the HD alternative then.
     
  7. Jun 27, 2007 #7 of 105
    tkrandall

    tkrandall Hall Of Fame

    1,807
    1
    Oct 3, 2003
    Personally, I think the pendulum in on the side of there being too many channels (for the limitation of the given bandwidth and encoding technologies).

    Kind of ironic that just as "HD" is coming the masses, it's delivery mechanisms are downgrading it to a quality well below it's nominal design potential.
     
  8. Jun 27, 2007 #8 of 105
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I'm not sure who administers ATCS standards, but for ATSC standards don't forget to use the appropriate ones! For transferring HD via satellite E* and D* are using defined ATSC standards. The standards for satellite do NOT require full 1920x1080.

    Whatever your rant may be, try to stay factual.
     
  9. Jun 27, 2007 #9 of 105
    Drew2k

    Drew2k New Member

    14,514
    228
    Aug 16, 2006
    Earl ... Maybe you need to make this portion of your signature just a tad bigger? :p

    All comments are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of DBSTalk.com, or DirecTV

    After you posted your response above I thought, "Earl should have something in his signature aobut this!", and then I looked. How long has it been ther? I never even thought to look until now! :p
     
  10. Jun 27, 2007 #10 of 105
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,999
    182
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    James, this things become oxymoronic - we all know if midlleman degrade signal between source and TV, it's still degraded. Regardless the word DIGITAL.
    And our TV sets in masse adhere to two ATSC HD standard resolutions: 1280x720 and 1920x1080.
     
  11. Jun 27, 2007 #11 of 105
    Earl Bonovich

    Earl Bonovich Lifetime Achiever

    30,092
    3
    Nov 15, 2005
    About 4-5 months now... when somewhere else someone quoted me as a spokesperson for DirecTV.
     
  12. Jun 27, 2007 #12 of 105
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Your complaint was that the carriers were not following ATCS standards ... I'll translate that to ATSC. Your complaint is bogus since the formats the carriers are using ARE ATSC standards. TVs have different ATSC standards.

    Think of the standards as traffic laws. For example, the speed limit. On a county road the speed limit may be posted at 45. You can drive any speed you want below that and you are fine. But go on the interstate and you will find out that the rules change. In many areas you will see a minimum speed posted. Your choice of speed is limited in a different way on the interstate. We call both of these standards "speed limits" yet those standards vary based on type of road (and many other factors).

    The ATSC gave satellite their standard. Like it or not it is a standard. Complain about the standard if you must, but stop spreading the lie that the carriers are not following ATSC standards.
     
  13. Jun 27, 2007 #13 of 105
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,999
    182
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Let me add some references from satguys.

    By Voayger6:
    "If you read the A/81 standard (Table 3), no where is it defined as a HD standard just compression formats for DBS. Whereas the FCC and ATSC has defined HDTV as 16:9. When D* advertises "all in 1080i", they would have to use 1920 (1920X1080) to comply with the HDTV standard. 1440X1080 does not meet the 16:9 requirement for HDTV. See page 9 of the ATSC DTV standards: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-1-2007.pdf"
    http://www.satelliteguys.us/938965-post155.html

    By riffjim4069:
    "to reiterate what I have posted in the past...

    The FCC references and incorporate the ATSC Standard for DTV. The ATSC defines HDTV as 1920x1080p, 1920x1080i, and 1280x720p. According to page 12 of the Recommended Practice: Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard (see below references), "The ATSC Standard enables transmission of HDTV pictures at several frame rates and one of two picture formats; these are listed in the top two lines of Table 5.1 . The ATSC Standard also enables the delivery digital sound in various formats."

    References:
    1. OET -- DTV FAQ's
    2. ATSC Standards (HDTV definition page #12)
    3. http://www.atsc.org/standards/practices/a_54a.pdf (Table 5.1 - page #24)

    Table 5.1 (top two lines of ref #3):

    Vertical Lines Pixels Aspect Ratio Picture Rate
    1080 1920 16:9 60i, 30p, 24p
    720 1280 16:9 60p, 30p, 24p

    What D* and more recently E* are doing is stealing lines of horizontal resolution to create what is known as HD-Lite (1440x1080i, 1280x1080i), which does meet the ATSC standard and, in my opinion, does not look like HD.

    People often ask me, "Is this is what all the excitement is about? Is there something wrong with my new set" I tell them there is nothing wrong with their set and there is nothing wrong with their eyes...other than the wool being pulled over them. The difference between HD and HD-Lite is like the difference between Crisp and Crap. Many channels are nothing more than a 1280x1080i crap sandwich...a excretion filled horror that will only leave the viewer with a bad taste in his or her mouth.

    I have to disagree...DirecTV, and others, are guilty of fraud, deceptive advertising, and taking money from customers for services not rendered. A DirecTV HD customer has a reasonable expectation to receive a) a High-Definition broadcast signal as defined by the FCC and b) receive "The Best Quality" HD signal according to the DirecTV advertising. Needless to say, DirecTV has failed the litmus test and [hopefully] should lose this class action case. Although customers and HD-Lite haters will be vindicated, I doubt they will receive much in the form of compensation - perhaps a $50 rebate if they purchased a HD receiver or three free months of HD programming).

    We shall see..."
    http://www.satelliteguys.us/936621-post145.html
     
  14. Jun 27, 2007 #14 of 105
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,999
    182
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    "I'll translate that to ATSC. Your complaint is bogus since the formats the carriers are using ARE ATSC standards. TVs have different ATSC standards."
    Just bunch of words ... Don't tell me about sub-standards and non-degrading PQ of that conversions :(.
    I'm SW and HW engineer and know the pitfalls in real numbers, not by your words.
     
  15. Jun 27, 2007 #15 of 105
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And it is ALL irrelevant ... the FCC set standards for broadcast TV, not satellite. This is like saying that the State of California setting their speed limits at 65 forces Maryland to allow 65 MPH on their roads.

    PSmith there were days that I considered you an intelligent addition to the discussion. But when you block quote material that is totally irrelevant I fail to see what you are adding other than lies and confusion.

    Bottom line, satellite providers are following valid ATSC standards and no amount of "wishful thinking" by you or anyone who has championed the "HD Lite" cause will change that fact. It is time to return to intelligent discussion.

    Follow the standards for the work you're doing. In this case, if you're doing DBS follow DBS standards.
     
  16. Jun 27, 2007 #16 of 105
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,999
    182
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Well, I can come back to my own point - getting from content providers ( HDNET, local stations, etc ) a MPEG-2 signal in 1920x1080 or 1280x720 only (!) and cut significant amount data ( 1/3 in case 1920->1280x1080 ) plus overcompressing doesn't tell me the DTH provider on right path of following FCC and ATSC rules and standards.

    [Please, lets stay with real standards, not blur to personal level of intelligence ;)].
     
  17. Jun 27, 2007 #17 of 105
    Christopher Gould

    Christopher Gould Icon

    1,007
    18
    Jan 14, 2007

    Earl you are not alone. More choice is always better.
     
  18. Jun 27, 2007 #18 of 105
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,751
    985
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Once again, a California cop is trying to enforce an interstate speed on a county road in Maryland. :rolleyes:
    Does the output of the receiver display on an ATSC standard TV? :)
    That's whay I'm trying to do ... yet you keep bringing in OTA standards that simply do not apply to the satellite segment we are discussing.
     
  19. Jun 27, 2007 #19 of 105
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    So when does your next paycheck from DirecTV come in?
     
  20. Jun 27, 2007 #20 of 105
    P Smith

    P Smith Mr. FixAnything

    21,999
    182
    Jul 25, 2002
    W.Mdtrn Sea
    Why ?! Our TV sets have to adhere to the FCC mandated ATSC standards.
    Not long time ago, you should remember a battle about naming TV sets - DTV, ETDV, HDTV - now it settles to normal - because of the standards.

    BTW, A/81 is a part of ATSC package and applied to DTH.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page