Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

HD Quantity vs Quality and a little HD-Lite


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
104 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Earl Bonovich

Earl Bonovich

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Registered
  • 30,092 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 27 June 2007 - 01:03 PM

While I love to see higher quality HD channels, I have to play devils advocate here. Wouldn't this result in less HD channels for all the sat and cable companies that don't have the bandwidth for such a mandate. Those companies have to decide either to not carry HBO because they do not have the bandwidth for their mandate or to drop some other HD channel to free up enough bandwidth for that pristine HBO HD. Would you rather have lots of channels in mediocre HD or a few channels in pristine HD?

Now imagine that your favorite HD channel is the one that gets cut because we know it ain't gonna be HBO that gets cut.


Your proposal totally controversial and works in favor to the providers - increase profit. Would be nice if you will be on our side - customers.

Think if your ideas will be applied to milk or whiskey manufacturing. :(


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"
Earl - Gotta Love Karma

DIRECTV employee since April 2008.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#2 OFFLINE   falken

falken

    Legend

  • Registered
  • 185 posts
Joined: Jun 14, 2007

Posted 27 June 2007 - 01:33 PM

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"


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 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,044 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 27 June 2007 - 01:42 PM

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 OFFLINE   Earl Bonovich

Earl Bonovich

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 30,092 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 27 June 2007 - 01:52 PM

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?
Earl - Gotta Love Karma

DIRECTV employee since April 2008.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#5 OFFLINE   skyboysea

skyboysea

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 540 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2002

Posted 27 June 2007 - 02:30 PM

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"

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 OFFLINE   Earl Bonovich

Earl Bonovich

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 30,092 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 27 June 2007 - 02:33 PM

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.


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.
Earl - Gotta Love Karma

DIRECTV employee since April 2008.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#7 OFFLINE   tkrandall

tkrandall

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,795 posts
Joined: Oct 03, 2003

Posted 27 June 2007 - 02:40 PM

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 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,227 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 June 2007 - 02:42 PM

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. :(

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 OFFLINE   Drew2k

Drew2k

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,041 posts
Joined: Aug 16, 2006

Posted 27 June 2007 - 03:33 PM

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.

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 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,044 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 27 June 2007 - 03:34 PM

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 OFFLINE   Earl Bonovich

Earl Bonovich

    Lifetime Achiever

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 30,092 posts
Joined: Nov 15, 2005

Posted 27 June 2007 - 03:41 PM

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


About 4-5 months now... when somewhere else someone quoted me as a spokesperson for DirecTV.
Earl - Gotta Love Karma

DIRECTV employee since April 2008.
All comments are my own. Unless specifically stated, my views do NOT represent the views of DIRECTV

#12 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,227 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 June 2007 - 04:30 PM

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.

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.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#13 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,044 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 27 June 2007 - 04:55 PM

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/...Part-1-2007.pdf"
http://www.satellite...65-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/...tices/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.satellite...21-post145.html

#14 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,044 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 27 June 2007 - 04:59 PM

"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 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,227 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 June 2007 - 05:07 PM

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 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,044 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 27 June 2007 - 05:16 PM

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 OFFLINE   Christopher Gould

Christopher Gould

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 827 posts
Joined: Jan 14, 2007

Posted 27 June 2007 - 05:16 PM

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.



Earl you are not alone. More choice is always better.

#18 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 40,227 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 June 2007 - 05:25 PM

... doesn't tell me the DTH provider on right path of following FCC and ATSC rules and standards.

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? :)

[Please, lets stay with real standards, not blur to personal level of intelligence ;)].

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.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#19 OFFLINE   Jeremy W

Jeremy W

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 13,447 posts
Joined: Jun 18, 2006

Posted 27 June 2007 - 05:36 PM

Earl you are not alone. More choice is always better.

So when does your next paycheck from DirecTV come in?

#20 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 20,044 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 27 June 2007 - 05:37 PM

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.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...