Directv HD Quality

[HDTVFanAtic]

Hey, I'm not the one you need to argue with. It's a matter that your congressmen and the FCC jointly agreed on, and they are who you must prove it to. You'll also have to refute expert testimony by the sat & cable industry.

Consider these points:

1. Tapes. Having tapes does not prove anything. Tapes can be tampered-with. Tapes are magnetic storage and degrade, sometimes fairly quickly.

Are you even thinking about what you just said?

Degraded tapes look better than the current state of the DBS broadcasts

2. You mention measurements. Have you got quantitative measurements? If so, what instrument was used and what were the measurements?

Nothing, except for actual graphics captures of then and now so that you can see it with your own eyes and bitrate measurements of then and now - not to mention some very expensive test equipment that show Quantization and other measures that one is able to replicate, but besides that, I guess we have nothing



The blue line is KABC-DT via Directv, Seattle and Boston are Bell ExpressVu - and you can see how low KABC-DT via Directv falls below the norm...AND THIS WAS ON A 720P CHANNEL THAT HAD NOT EVEN BEEN DEGRADED TO HDLITE!!!!!!!!

3. You say if watched from beginning of sat transmission (is that the start of today's program, or the day HD was introduced to sat?). If you are talking 2+ years ago, how does anybody know that it's not your eyes that are aging?

Because maybe the "degraded" tapes still look better today

4. You say WE HAVE materially degraded pictures NOW. By whose definition of MATERIALLY DEGRADED? Yours? You need to meet the definition of the FCC, which is going to be different from yours. (not saying I disagree with you, I'm saying you aren't proving yourself)

Since you are so smart, please show us the FCC standard for the definition of MATERIALLY DEGRADED which is different than PSmiths.

But let me show you MATERIALLY DEGRADED:

WCBS-DT OVER THE AIR AT FULL 1920X1080i




WCBS-DT OVER DIRECTV @ HDLITE 1280x1080i

5. Breakouts, macroblocking and stuttering? I never see any of those, and I've had 5 HD stb's over 3 years with 3 dishes in 2 houses 600 miles apart. Besides, you need to prove that it's the transmission and not the electronics presenting it (your dish, cabling, stb, and tv). Proof in this case means providing instrumented measurements that demonstrate that your dish is properly aimed and giving strong signal (provide measurements); that the cabling is good and providing strong signal to the STB's (measure again); that the stb & tv meet their oem calibration.

It's a pretty steep hill climb to prove it to the people who make decisions. I've read a lot of the threads, and I have not seen where anybody anywhere on satguys has even a shred of what it's going to take to push HD-lite anywhere. The providers admit to bitskimming and to trimming bandwidth; the disagreement is over the threshold of materially-degraded. They say 'no'. The FCC says 'no'. Tapes, inspection by the human eye, and crying bloody murder aren't going to get anywhere. You need to quantify the case with actual data that can be verified and repeated.

I'm reading a lot of emotion, and not much in the way of proof

You clearly are an idiot as even the hardcore D* supporters admit there HAVE been problems with macroblocking and studdering on certain channels at times, YET YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN IT :rollseyes:

There are more threads on HDLITE with proof than you could read in a week on the internet if you bothered to look....but I'll let you look here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=704350

 

[JamesJ]

HDTV you are warned, please do not make personal attacks toward other members, your post was good until that point, thank you.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

HDTV you are warned, please do not make personal attacks toward other members, your post was good until that point, thank you.

If it walks like a duck, looks like duck, sounds like a duck, its most likely........

 

[JamesJ]

By the way HDTV, your 3rd picture (WCBS) over directv shows a date in 2005 so I am assuming this is Mpeg2, with Mpeg4 the picture quality has improved, do you have anything in comparison to that?

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

By the way HDTV, your 3rd picture (WCBS) over directv shows a date in 2005 so I am assuming this is Mpeg2, with Mpeg4 the picture quality has improved, do you have anything in comparison to that?

No, its still the same 1280x1080i....as revealed on tests in multiple markets last month on AVSForum by the same engineers that did the original study.

 

[JamesJ]

wow, that would have fooled me as It does look good compared to my OTA. thats too bad too as I remember when Directv and DIsh first announced Mpeg4, better quality was one of the things they harped on (that and more HD channels per trans.)

 

[digiblur]

Isn't WCBS still in MPEG2? Or did they swap out all of the WCBS viewers to MPEG4 boxes already?

 

[JamesJ]

Isn't WCBS still in MPEG2? Or did they swap out all of the WCBS viewers to MPEG4 boxes already?

I wasnt asking about that channel in specific, just in general of the New Mpeg4 channels.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Isn't WCBS still in MPEG2? Or did they swap out all of the WCBS viewers to MPEG4 boxes already?

MPEG2 on the 4:3 SD (actually 3:3 @ 480x480 but who's counting with SD-LITE) and Channel 80.

MPEG4 on the HD-LIL.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

wow, that would have fooled me as It does look good compared to my OTA. thats too bad too as I remember when Directv and DIsh first announced Mpeg4, better quality was one of the things they harped on (that and more HD channels per trans.)

http://www.tbo.com/video/xml/MGBN6UPBZRE.html

and god forbid the poster who has never seen problems watchs this!!!!

 

[digiblur]

MPEG2 on the 4:3 SD (actually 3:3 @ 480x480 but who's counting with SD-LITE) and Channel 80.

MPEG4 on the HD-LIL.

Ahh..ok. I was confused. I didn't think they were running an MPEG4 HD on the 101W slot...yet.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

wow, that would have fooled me as It does look good compared to my OTA. thats too bad too as I remember when Directv and DIsh first announced Mpeg4, better quality was one of the things they harped on (that and more HD channels per trans.)

If you are asking has the MPEG4 picture quality improved over the MPEG2 on the Network Stations in LA and NYC, I would have to agree that of the 30 frames each second - that most appear have a "better" look to them than the VERY old MPEG2 encoders - however, the problem is the when there are errors over the air - the conversion to MPEG4 amplifies this issues even more so and so the end result is worse for that time frame. Now, depending on the type frame, I,P or B that it occurred on, it can have a worse consequence.

There are also errors in the normal MPEG4 conversion, as seen in the news story.

But, back around to your question, yes, probably 99% of the time the newer MPEG4 HD-LITE looks better the older MPEG2 HD-LITE. It's the 1% that really stands out - especially as more and more move to HDTV - compared to what they have seen in terms of technical glitches of cable and the SD feeds of local channels.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Ahh..ok. I was confused. I didn't think they were running an MPEG4 HD on the 101W slot...yet.

Correct, they are not.

 

[jpn]

Are you even thinking about what you just said?

Degraded tapes look better than the current state of the DBS broadcasts



Nothing, except for actual graphics captures of then and now so that you can see it with your own eyes and bitrate measurements of then and now - not to mention some very expensive test equipment that show Quantization and other measures that one is able to replicate, but besides that, I guess we have nothing



The blue line is KABC-DT via Directv, Seattle and Boston are Bell ExpressVu - and you can see how low KABC-DT via Directv falls below the norm...AND THIS WAS ON A 720P CHANNEL THAT HAD NOT EVEN BEEN DEGRADED TO HDLITE!!!!!!!!



Because maybe the "degraded" tapes still look better today



Since you are so smart, please show us the FCC standard for the definition of MATERIALLY DEGRADED which is different than PSmiths.

But let me show you MATERIALLY DEGRADED:

WCBS-DT OVER THE AIR AT FULL 1920X1080i




WCBS-DT OVER DIRECTV @ HDLITE 1280x1080i





You clearly are an idiot as even the hardcore D* supporters admit there HAVE been problems with macroblocking and studdering on certain channels at times, YET YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN IT :rollseyes:

There are more threads on HDLITE with proof than you could read in a week on the internet if you bothered to look....but I'll let you look here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=704350

I know how to use a search engine. Simply posting blather does not constitute truth or scientific proof. You seem to believe everything you read, aren't you. Anybody can forge a graph. Anybody can doctor tapes. If all of this stuff is for real, then take the argument where it belongs and get off the chilcish crying and petitions-that-go-nowhere.

Hey, I've got some really nice beachfront property in Utah, want to buy it.
What makes avsforum so reliable?

I tried to tell you what you need to prove, not to argue over quality with you. If you choose to whine like a 3 year-old girl rather than approaching it like a responsible adult, fine. Just quit subjecting the rest of us to your prissy rants and personal attacks.

 

[jpn]

http://www.tbo.com/video/xml/MGBN6UPBZRE.html

and god forbid the poster who has never seen problems watchs this!!!!

One non-technical woman's complaint about HD LIL. You call that evidence of a bandwidth issue? If you want to argue bandwidth, you have to prove that the problems being reported are actually caused by low bandwidth.

Last summer I saw some stuttering only on local RSN's. Watching baseball on ch 94 (mpeg2) and the same game simultaneously on ch 96 (mpeg4). The mpeg4 channel stuttered, the mpeg2 channel was fine. Thinking logically, that most likely indicates a problem somewhere in the mpeg4 stream. But where? It could be bad mpeg4 encoder algorithms (or hardware); uplink issues with the mpeg4 stream; airborne hardware issues specific ot the mpeg4 transponders (or other specific airborne hardware); finicky downlink/dish aiming/atmospheric disturbance in the mpeg4 bands; stb issues with the mpeg4 decoders, processor/decoder hardware, or firmware bugs.... the list goes on and on.

But nothing indicating a bandwidth issue.

So go ahead: keep up the name-calling; keep quoting unreliable sources; keep believing everything you read; keep twisting everything you read into what you want to believe (aka rationalizing); and keep acting like there's a big conspiracy going on.

Just please decide to address the issue you're whining about (bandwidth?) in an adult manner, presented to the people who can do something about it; and quit bitching about it as though people here cause your bandwidth issue and are trying to make you miserable.

Just give it a rest, will 'ya?

 

[Smith P.]

Good grief, but you're devil advocating for sat provider, not helping one iota to customers who spent $1000s for their HD equipment and getting lie in ads and physically degradated motion PICTURES and AUDIO.
Will be interesting use your (seems to me good court's experience ) manner for make user's life better.

 

[jpn]

Good grief, but you're devil advocating for sat provider, not helping one iota to customers who spent $1000s for their HD equipment and getting lie in ads and physically degradated motion PICTURES and AUDIO.

I am not in the least advocating for any provider. I've had my share of complaints with DirecTV. The key to getting what you want is knowing the facts on both sides of the disagreement, and using it to your advantage. Facts can be documented (as a series of complaints with dates/times/topics recorded) and measured. And the facts must be relevant. When one claims that low-bandwidth causes degraded picture, one ought to be able to prove it with scientific measurements using test instruments.

I'm not saying low-bandwidth is not involved and I'm not saying there are no picture quality issues. I'm saying that your elected congressmen and the FCC are responsible for setting the stage for the dispute, and that progress in this jihad will only happen by convincing the FCC and Congress to take action. Congressmen are not likely to risk the campaign contributions of DBS, cable, or the NAB, based on the complaints assembled here. They're going to want a smoking-gun, and a concrete payback for making any change (i.e. improving chances of re-election).

I've read a lot of legitimate complaints on these forums. Poor PQ on HD channels might be one of them, but it's got to be backed-up a lot better. And when we consider bandwidth, what do we find? Bandwidth costs money. Does anybody really care what the bandwidth is, as long as the PQ is satisfactory? If the complaints are resolved by some means other than throwing bandwidgth at it, will anybody really care?

Anybody with kids knows you have to pick your battles. Earl does a great job of working within the system to get things done. His efforts to form a grassroots beta-test program has gotten a lot of bugs fixed. He's done it in a matter of months, and continues to get results for all of us. No company addresses all complaints simultaneously; at some point they brand you a whiner, ignore you, and focus on others and their issues.

I'm not advocating d*, and I'm not debating whether poor PQ exists. I'm asking people to back-up the claims and do something meaningful, or clam-up and allow others to make progress in areas that actually get results.

The HD-lite debate has gone on for 2 years now, and gone absolutely nowhere. That does not mean it's a false claim. It does mean that those making the complaint have gone about it entirely wrong.

 

[jpn]

Good grief, but you're devil advocating for sat provider, not helping one iota to customers who spent $1000s for their HD equipment and getting lie in ads and physically degradated motion PICTURES and AUDIO.
Will be interesting use your (seems to me good court's experience ) manner for make user's life better.

My earlier reply was long. Suffice it to say that I'm not devil-advocating; I'm saying that if people want to really get a result, they need to go about it differently. 2 years of HD-lite bitching and whining and petitions worth used toilet paper have gone nowhere. It's like asking the same question six times, getting the same answer six times, not liking the answer, and asking it yet again in exactly the same words.

How much energy should be spent getting zero results, before somebody decides to change the approach?

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Good grief, but you're devil advocating for sat provider, not helping one iota to customers who spent $1000s for their HD equipment and getting lie in ads and physically degradated motion PICTURES and AUDIO.
Will be interesting use your (seems to me good court's experience ) manner for make user's life better.

He clearly has no idea of any science or technology and believes that unlike other Satellites, Directv's magical transponders have unlimited bandwidth. He probably also believes in 200MPG cars and perpetual motion machines.

Just because he can't read a graph or understand the limitations of how much bandwidth can be produced by a transponder - well, some people will just always deny the truth even when the evidence is right before their eyes.

Unfortunately for him, personally believing it doesn't make it true in the real world.

 

[Smith P.]

I would hire him as a lawyer in a case of suffering customers by HD-Lite viewing, but seems to me he is already taken by other side .
Anyway, I got all the points in case of the battle; they are pretty much typical for legal contests.