]jpn said:
Sure they will. Why don't you think Best Buy couldn't keep their el cheapo 42" plasmas on the shelf over the holiday season?
Directv committed to HDLITE!!!!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter vurbano
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 74
- Views 18K
- Status
Sure they will. Why don't you think Best Buy couldn't keep their el cheapo 42" plasmas on the shelf over the holiday season?
I'm not sure my Congressman or Senator is going to care a whole lot about what resolution my HD satellite provider is broadcasting. Complaints might be better directed to the satellite providers, they need us to keep paying to stay in business. Might be worth sending an e-mail to the FTC also.jpn said:
http://www.stophdlite.com/hdlite/stop.html
Also, Voom in HD-Lite is supposedly due to fiber problems . http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=54242&highlight=voom+hd-lite
1080p
Display resolution is alway relative. currently, DBS HD is the only source for 1080i other than computer generated video. Some time this year, the Blue Ray/ HD DVD will be available and 1080p will become a better resolution as a source than DBS HD.
Clearly 1280x1080i is better than SD. I am sure pretty soon, some people are going to complain about 1080i. Especically now that the 1080p plasma and LCD HDTVs are out.
Display resolution is alway relative. currently, DBS HD is the only source for 1080i other than computer generated video. Some time this year, the Blue Ray/ HD DVD will be available and 1080p will become a better resolution as a source than DBS HD.
Clearly 1280x1080i is better than SD. I am sure pretty soon, some people are going to complain about 1080i. Especically now that the 1080p plasma and LCD HDTVs are out.
"Directv committed to HDLITE!!!!!!!!!!! "
DirecTv have been committed to HD Lite for a long time (almost 2 years now since all 1920x1080i channels went the HD lite route). All 1920x1080i channels are currently committed to HD Lite and it will not surprise me to see any new 1920x1080i channel as HD Lite in the future. Of course, "this will be better than SD channels" some we'll argue and sure it will beat it but it won't beat a 1920x1080i channel at native resolution.
I have four months left on my DirecTv contract. After that is done, I am going to cut my loses and say goodbye. I Had such a bad experience with DirecTv and their HD channels that I just do not watch them at all. So I have no use for them. I am not waiting for miracles. I decided that if by the time my contract is over policies have not changed, I will vote with my monthly bill. That's the best way to do it. Paying for sub-standard product is not what I was looking for.
DirecTv have been committed to HD Lite for a long time (almost 2 years now since all 1920x1080i channels went the HD lite route). All 1920x1080i channels are currently committed to HD Lite and it will not surprise me to see any new 1920x1080i channel as HD Lite in the future. Of course, "this will be better than SD channels" some we'll argue and sure it will beat it but it won't beat a 1920x1080i channel at native resolution.
I have four months left on my DirecTv contract. After that is done, I am going to cut my loses and say goodbye. I Had such a bad experience with DirecTv and their HD channels that I just do not watch them at all. So I have no use for them. I am not waiting for miracles. I decided that if by the time my contract is over policies have not changed, I will vote with my monthly bill. That's the best way to do it. Paying for sub-standard product is not what I was looking for.
Your misunderstanding is due to the fact that you are only looking at one part of the equation.ejdowden said:
HD is
1920x1080i (2,073,600 pixels interlaced)
or 1920x 1080p (2,073,600 pixels scanned progressively)
and
1280x720p (921,600 pixels scanned progressively)
HD is not
1280x1080i (1,382,400 pixels interlaced, even though the multiplied pixel count is higher than 1280x720p you do NOT have the inherent advantages of prgressive scan and the picture looks like crap)
Last edited:
thomastchen said:
How can you make such a statement. The ONLY source of 1920x1080i is DBS. Where did you hear this? How can resolution be relative? Various cable companies provide 1920x1080i resolution, FIOS TV provides the same and Dish Network provides the same full resolution on NON-VOOM channels. Nope. It is not relative.
thomastchen said:
Agreed. As long as you have a 1080p display and enough programming in Blue Ray or HD DVD. But there will be a market for stuff not available on either one.
thomastchen said:
Actually, current 1080p displays (as testimony given by owners of 1080p displays), do a better job in handling the 1080i signal. Of course, the native resolution will be ideal but no one is providing a 1080p signal. Heck! they are even having problems providing a 1080i at fulll resolution. Can you imagine at 1080p full resolution.
Boo hoo. My car can only go 175 miles an hour and it's supposed to go 200.
Nevermind that the local roads can only be driven at 140 at best.
Please, just stop whining.
As an ISF certified tech — and someone who's seen D* truncated 1280 signal since it was announced — it's just not that horrible. The vast, vast majority of TVs cannot display resolution beyond 720 by 1280 anyhow, so frankly, a well-done 540p by 1280 signal works for 90 percent of the households in the US.
It's not like the broadcast signals are always better — in a lot of markets it is exactly the same.
Just go get cable and stop whining. Unlike most of you, I have the training to look at a picture and figure out where data loss impacts it — and where broadcast encoding errors hurt the picture.
If you demand your 19.39 MB/sec. of video data, fine. Enjoy your three channels. The rest of us will enjoy dozens of channels in exchange for a slightly less sharp (although in Philadelphia, except for the CBS signal, it's virtually impossible to see the difference).
If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Millions of other people, however, will continue to enjoy D*.
I wish only two things: that they had more programming and were less dependent on signal at 110 and 119.
Nevermind that the local roads can only be driven at 140 at best.
Please, just stop whining.
As an ISF certified tech — and someone who's seen D* truncated 1280 signal since it was announced — it's just not that horrible. The vast, vast majority of TVs cannot display resolution beyond 720 by 1280 anyhow, so frankly, a well-done 540p by 1280 signal works for 90 percent of the households in the US.
It's not like the broadcast signals are always better — in a lot of markets it is exactly the same.
Just go get cable and stop whining. Unlike most of you, I have the training to look at a picture and figure out where data loss impacts it — and where broadcast encoding errors hurt the picture.
If you demand your 19.39 MB/sec. of video data, fine. Enjoy your three channels. The rest of us will enjoy dozens of channels in exchange for a slightly less sharp (although in Philadelphia, except for the CBS signal, it's virtually impossible to see the difference).
If you don't like the product, don't buy it. Millions of other people, however, will continue to enjoy D*.
I wish only two things: that they had more programming and were less dependent on signal at 110 and 119.
Mike McGann said:
I believe He was just stating he wanted to enjoy the product the way it was meant to be enjoyed. If yI pay for "HD", I as a customer would expect to get true "HD". I expect D* to provide me withthe highest quality possible and nothing less. They don't do that. My choice is to use them or not. I currently choose too use them. Also if you have HD capability you are not "90%" of the US households and 540p x 1280 is crap on a $5000 TV.
Speeds and feeds
Pardon me for jumping in here as a newbie, but it seems like some issues are being overlooked:
1. I would amend the previous comment to say that we expect D* to provide the best possible quality at a reasonable cost. There's a price/performance curve to be considered, especially in light of a relative lack of competition (1 major cable competitor in most markets) and the still relative nascent demand of HDTV (or even digital TV, for that matter) in most markets.
2. It's not like D* isn't trying to fix the issue. D* is working with 10-year-old MPEG-2 technology which was never intended for channels that can consume 20Mb/sec of bandwidth. That's about 100 times greater than a good digital music channel or MP3 played at 200kb/sec and 10-20 times the amount of data to broadcast a channel in 640x480i (or 480x480i, which is what DirecTV uses for on-HD signals). They're switching to MPEG-4 but have a big install base to convert to the new spec and a big market barrier of HD local channels to tackle first, but until they execute a wholesale change to MPEG-4 they're dealing with finite bandwidth on the MPEG-2 satellite system. Personally I'd rather have TNT in HD than not have it and have all of the other channels look slightly better.
3. Most HD televisions, including just about every LCD and LCD projection TV sold today, have a native resolution of 1280x720. Any resolution above this is overkill. Yes, as the previous writer says, you can purchase a $5,000 TV that can do 1080p, but a buyer should realize that he's buying a set that surpasses the capabilities of 100% of the available media out there. No one has any commercial media in any form today that's 1920x1080p. That may change this spring when HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players become available, but it's my understanding that the new media formats are still going to be 1080i.
4. Many televisions programs are not broadcast in 1920x1080i to begin with. In answer to a previous question, it's pretty easy to verify the specifications of a television program using some tools that I'd be happy to describe to anyone who's inerested. (It doesn't require any training or an advanced degree!) A few examples:
24 (fox) 1280x720p, 24fps (upconverted to 60fps)
CBS football this winter: 1920x1080i, 60fps native
It's been my experience that most recorded events are broadcasted in 1280x720p today with some sort of framerate upconvert.
5. The framerate issue is one that hasn't had any discussion on this forum, and it's something I hope D* is looking at. A framerate of 60fps interlaced is a carryover from the old NTSC spec and is not in any way part of the MPEG-2 standard. There is no reason why D*'s satellites and receivers need to be upconverting televisions shows like 24 that are shot at 24fps and upconverting them to 60fps. This has the effect of wasting an incredible amount of bandwidth, even when using MPEG-2 conpression. It's my experience that about 40% of the bandwidth of a typical station could be reduced if 24 were shown in its native fps. And there's no reason why the new MPEG-4 receivers could not have been designed to accomodate for a variable FPS, and I'm not sure that they were (does anyone know?) but on the old MPEG-2 equipment, we're stuck with a 60fps rate that has the effect of wasting tremendous amounts of bandwidth. Even my OTA stations in the Memphis area are doing the same thing. Every movie theater in this country broadcasts their shows at 24fps, which unless you're a gamer with a complex about such things is plenty of framerate for the human eye. If you don't believe me, remember this the next time you're watching 24 - the show is 24fps upconverted to 60fps. 3 out of every 5 frames are repeats.
Pardon me for jumping in here as a newbie, but it seems like some issues are being overlooked:
1. I would amend the previous comment to say that we expect D* to provide the best possible quality at a reasonable cost. There's a price/performance curve to be considered, especially in light of a relative lack of competition (1 major cable competitor in most markets) and the still relative nascent demand of HDTV (or even digital TV, for that matter) in most markets.
2. It's not like D* isn't trying to fix the issue. D* is working with 10-year-old MPEG-2 technology which was never intended for channels that can consume 20Mb/sec of bandwidth. That's about 100 times greater than a good digital music channel or MP3 played at 200kb/sec and 10-20 times the amount of data to broadcast a channel in 640x480i (or 480x480i, which is what DirecTV uses for on-HD signals). They're switching to MPEG-4 but have a big install base to convert to the new spec and a big market barrier of HD local channels to tackle first, but until they execute a wholesale change to MPEG-4 they're dealing with finite bandwidth on the MPEG-2 satellite system. Personally I'd rather have TNT in HD than not have it and have all of the other channels look slightly better.
3. Most HD televisions, including just about every LCD and LCD projection TV sold today, have a native resolution of 1280x720. Any resolution above this is overkill. Yes, as the previous writer says, you can purchase a $5,000 TV that can do 1080p, but a buyer should realize that he's buying a set that surpasses the capabilities of 100% of the available media out there. No one has any commercial media in any form today that's 1920x1080p. That may change this spring when HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players become available, but it's my understanding that the new media formats are still going to be 1080i.
4. Many televisions programs are not broadcast in 1920x1080i to begin with. In answer to a previous question, it's pretty easy to verify the specifications of a television program using some tools that I'd be happy to describe to anyone who's inerested. (It doesn't require any training or an advanced degree!) A few examples:
24 (fox) 1280x720p, 24fps (upconverted to 60fps)
CBS football this winter: 1920x1080i, 60fps native
It's been my experience that most recorded events are broadcasted in 1280x720p today with some sort of framerate upconvert.
5. The framerate issue is one that hasn't had any discussion on this forum, and it's something I hope D* is looking at. A framerate of 60fps interlaced is a carryover from the old NTSC spec and is not in any way part of the MPEG-2 standard. There is no reason why D*'s satellites and receivers need to be upconverting televisions shows like 24 that are shot at 24fps and upconverting them to 60fps. This has the effect of wasting an incredible amount of bandwidth, even when using MPEG-2 conpression. It's my experience that about 40% of the bandwidth of a typical station could be reduced if 24 were shown in its native fps. And there's no reason why the new MPEG-4 receivers could not have been designed to accomodate for a variable FPS, and I'm not sure that they were (does anyone know?) but on the old MPEG-2 equipment, we're stuck with a 60fps rate that has the effect of wasting tremendous amounts of bandwidth. Even my OTA stations in the Memphis area are doing the same thing. Every movie theater in this country broadcasts their shows at 24fps, which unless you're a gamer with a complex about such things is plenty of framerate for the human eye. If you don't believe me, remember this the next time you're watching 24 - the show is 24fps upconverted to 60fps. 3 out of every 5 frames are repeats.
I just read something in Home Theater magazine that stated: yes there are 1080P sets being sold, however there is no way for them to receive a 1080p signal. They said the inputs on the sets can't handle 1080p. So my understanding is that even if 1080p programming becomes available you won't be able to watch it, because an HDMI input won't handle it. I smell a class action law suit.
I think i saw a mention of True 1080p sets on some website, or somewhere, that they are available
24fps has plenty of flicker and a very long time ago, movies were actually shown at that rate.splam said:
Modern movie theaters project each frame twice, using a shutter, to make the effective frame rate 48fps.
1080P input capable sets are available now. Brillian has one of these sets available. I expect a lot more to become available in Fall. I have been holding off on replacing my 5 year old HDTV until the 1080P technology gets a little more mature.
when will networks start broadcastin 1080P? They barely have the rest down right, can't imagine them trying something else.
- Status
