Any Full Res Still Out There?

Toggle sidebar
No one on thread disagrees

No one on this thread will disagree that the OTA is better looking. There is only 1 conversion and less compression on OTA HD. The thing is we are in a waiting period to see if after they upgrade the sats and get MPEG4 working correctly see if they stay with the quality that is taking place now. I'm one of those that thinks once these bugs are worked out that the pix will get better again. Maybe I'm an optimist but I do think that they will give us the best pict available so that they can compete with the FIOS's and HD discs that will be coming out.
 
Can someone confirm something for me? I am extracting some recordings from my 622, and the recording I made the other night of "About Last Night" from Universal HD (129 bird) is showing video at 1440x1080. Have they now downrezzed Universal HD as well?
 
Jeff_R said:
Can someone confirm something for me? I am extracting some recordings from my 622, and the recording I made the other night of "About Last Night" from Universal HD (129 bird) is showing video at 1440x1080. Have they now downrezzed Universal HD as well?
Click to expand...

I hope not, I just updated the list :confused:
 
Hi, Im a quality nut like many of you, but I thought I would add some info that may enlighten this conversation. I am a documentary editor and work in High Definition from time to time.

When shooting a documentary these days, there are two formats, or flavors, or CODECs that are more compressed but allow for affordable production. Sony, Cannon, and JVC use the HDV codec, and Panasonic uses a less compressed DVCPRO-HD codec.

Many of the HD news pieces and documentaries you see now are shot and edited on these two formats. Its even becoming more popular to shoot on HDV and then edit on DVCPRO-HD environment in the computer.

But you guys should know that each of these formats cheats resolution to keep bandwidth high. Look:

HDV is originally.....................1440x1080
DVCPRO-HD is originally..........1280x1080

Then they get "un-streched" to 1920x1080 by the display device or computer software/hardware. Its almost like anamorphic.

So we can complain about resolution in broadcast, but remember that much of what is seen may not even start out as 1920x1080 to begin with.

I'll take 1280x 1080 at a high bandwidth any day over bit-starved crap.

-Christopher Johnson
 
Thank you. Similar info has been posted before, but some folks don't want to believe it. Just like some folks insist they should get 1080 60p even though it's not in the ATSC tables. And maybe there is a camera somewhere that captures at that frame rate.
 
Well, I'm believe Christopher and same time I know different cameras and DIFFERENT processing and DIFFERENT resolutions.
Don't tell me navychop, it is final words of cinema world.
 
I hope none of you think that I am advocating for high resolution "bit-starved crap". I just think that when I have a high resolution on my computer monitor, it is stupid for me to use a lesser resolution than the monitor can handle. The picture is always crisper when the highest resolution is used.

Of course lower res high bandwidth is great and all, but it doesn't appear that we get our choice of that. It is either high resolution that is bit-starved, or low resolution that is bit-starved. I think I will take the former.

I don't do most of my HD watching in news or documentaries. There is a lot of HD source that is full resolution. We might as well have the capability to see the full resolution, as it makes no sense to want lower resolution with the same low bitrates.

I just wanted to know what channels operate at full resolution, because I think we at least are lucky enough that E* still has some. I'm all for adding bandwidth!!! I was just curious.
 
One should also be aware that if the program they were watching was recording in 1440x1080, upconverted to 1920x1080i for storage, then downconverted back to 1440x1080 for transmission, that the resultant 1440x1080 picture is not identical to the original recording. Information is lost in the transformation.

Also note that most movies are converted directly to full res 1920x1080 from film, so no lower-res camera is involved in the process.

I'm with the general, I want bandwidth *AND* resolution.
 
A good way to test your tv for best hd picture is this. Record the resolution chart on HDNet on tue am at 5:50 am. Put the resolution part in pause. Now go and set the hd settings on the 622 to 720p. Go look at the resolution chart and notice how clear you can read the message on the left side of the screen.
Now go back and set the hd settings on the 622 to 1080i.
Now, again check the resolution screen and read the message.
My set is a native 1080i and definately makes the message more readable on the 1080 i setting.
 
Tom Bombadil said:
One should also be aware that if the program they were watching was recording in 1440x1080, upconverted to 1920x1080i for storage, then downconverted back to 1440x1080 for transmission, that the resultant 1440x1080 picture is not identical to the original recording. Information is lost in the transformation.

Also note that most movies are converted directly to full res 1920x1080 from film, so no lower-res camera is involved in the process.

I'm with the general, I want bandwidth *AND* resolution.
Click to expand...


This and other things said above are very legit comments in my opinion. I just thought you guys would want to know about the codecs we work with in our production shop.

-Christopher
 
Are they still doing the HD test patterns on HDnet? I checked my program guide for Tuesday morning and it isn't there. I just upgraded to the 622, so I wanted to run the patterns. Before, on my 411, they went too fast for me to do anything.

Any links to how to use the test patterns?
 

Similar threads

M
Channels still out in 28501 area code
Replies
2
Views
1K
DISH Network Support Forum
jannah
jannah

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Share this page

Share this page
Top