More HD at what cost!

[tvropro]

I don't need to see the c-band signal that you seem to almost worship. I have OTA signals (which have no more or possibly even less compression than c-band) so I can compare E*'s network channels with those I get via antenna. As I have said before, I'm not happy with E*'s additional compression, but does it warrant putting up a 12-foot dish, buying a lot of new equipment, and having far less functionality than I do now? No, because the difference just isn't that substantial. That said, I want E* to provide better quality HD before they add any new channels.

If your looking at OTA HD your still not getting the raw network feed. It will not look as good as C band. Unless you have seen c band operate in the flesh you are basing your judgment call on OTA and Echostar's reups only. Don't post misinformation that OTA is the same or better then the raw network master feed because it isn't. Heck the CW's SD feeds on C band look better than the HD CW I get OTA.

If your happy with DSS and what you get that's fine. As I said before the OP wanted to see where the DSS public stood on Quality vs Quantity and the public has spoken. Quantity

 

[STL]

Don't post misinformation that OTA is the same or better then the raw network master feed because it isn't.

It certainly is when I'm watching my local news (which is shot in HD)! And just because your local CW affiliate does a lackluster job with their digital signal (which is all they are required to provide -- they are not required to provide HD and might not be) doesn't mean all OTA signals from all networks are junk.

 

[tvropro]

It certainly is when I'm watching my local news (which is shot in HD)! And just because your local CW affiliate does a lackluster job with their digital signal (which is all they are required to provide -- they are not required to provide HD and might not be) doesn't mean all OTA signals from all networks are junk.

You make a point as far as your local news goes. It also depends how well that is done. Let me ask you this, would you like all your HD to look like that? You will never see it on DSS especially with the downward spiral of any quality left. If I were you I would call E* and tell them that you refuse to pay for the crap that they provide unless they make it better. Good Luck getting that to happen though. It's your money not mine that there stealing for what your getting. BTW Charlie's raising prices again ain't he.

 

[primetimeguy]

It certainly is when I'm watching my local news (which is shot in HD)! And just because your local CW affiliate does a lackluster job with their digital signal (which is all they are required to provide -- they are not required to provide HD and might not be) doesn't mean all OTA signals from all networks are junk.

LOL, no it is not, you need to do some more research. What you get via OTA is not what the network is receiving or what you could get on C-band.

I guess I'm actually surprised by the poll numbers here. I would have thought the people that care enough or are "in tune" enough to post on these forums would be more sticklers for PQ. Guess I was wrong. I would have that the numbers would be reversed.

 

[STL]

It's your money not mine that there stealing for what your getting. BTW Charlie's raising prices again ain't he.

No one is stealing from me so you can get down off that high horse of yours! I know exactly what I am getting for my $40/month and it is an acceptable deal for me personally. And yes my bill is going up -- a whopping dollar a month.

 

[STL]

I guess I'm actually surprised by the poll numbers here. I would have thought the people that care enough or are "in tune" enough to post on these forums would be more sticklers for PQ. Guess I was wrong. I would have that the numbers would be reversed.

I agree. I would have thought we'd have more educated people around here than the general public, but apparently not (or at least not enough).

 

[Kb Cool]

But that doesn't help. Even if providers went to a true a la carte system, that wouldn't change bandwidth issues. Stations would still be uplinked (tying up bandwidth), you just may not see them at your location. It's not like someone with a "basic" package is seeing better quality than someone with HD Platinum and all the movie channels.

You do realize with a alacarte system, all the "Junk" channels will die off and no longer exist, freeing up much needed bandwidth for channels that people actually watch?

 

[STL]

I don't think we will ever see an a la carte system unless it gets mandated by the government -- even then if the mandate isn't written really well then the sat/cable providers could make the pricing on each channel so expensive that it wouldn't be practical for anyone. A long, long, long, long time ago DISH used to offer any 10 channels for $15/month.

 

[tvropro]

No one is stealing from me so you can get down off that high horse of yours! I know exactly what I am getting for my $40/month and it is an acceptable deal for me personally. And yes my bill is going up -- a whopping dollar a month.

It's your dollar not mine. Charlie loves you and others that keep giving him more.

 

[tvropro]

You do realize with a alacarte system, all the "Junk" channels will die off and no longer exist, freeing up much needed bandwidth for channels that people actually watch?

From looking at your poll results it looks like the brainwashed public has spoken. I can see from responses to all this here that most don't care about quality. I will be interesting to see how bad E* HD lite will end up looking in the next year. Glad I don't have it

 

[--sexy-warlock--]

Quality has become less of a concern as of late. Everything on my end has been much improved from what I got during the summer and early fall months. I sit 7 feet away from a 50" and while I can make out the shortcomings, if I scoot back to 10 feet, I am hard pressed to discern my excellent OTA signal to a Dish Network HD channel.

I am definitely ready for a larger quantity at this point.

 

[Edgar_in_Indy]

HD Lite The Big Lie...

Why are your comparison images only 960x544? If this is the "C band original", as claimed in the article, then we are not talking about HD.

On the other hand, if the images were originally a higher resolution, and then down-rezzed for the web page, then they're still invalid as a basis for comparison, since both have been modified. I assume this is the case.

Are you able to post the screen shots in their original, full resolutions?

 

[STL]

...Glad I don't have it

You sure take a lot of joy in being condescending. Why do you keep posting the same thing over any over? Are you waiting for everyone to bow down to you and your awesome c-band setup or something?

Enjoy that big 32" HDTV of yours (heck the televison in my bedroom is bigger than that), and let me know when you have finally amassed enough equipment to be able to record three different HD streams simultaneously while watching something different on any one of five different TVs.

 

[Kb Cool]

If this is the "C band original", as claimed in the article, then we are not talking about HD.

What do you mean by that statment above?

 

[STL]

What do you mean by that statment above?

It has to be at least 720 lines to be considered HD (meaning 1280x720 for 16:9). His images are evidently only 960x544 so it appears he scaled them down -- which means they have been modified and thus really cannot be used to prove anything.

 

[Kb Cool]

You sure take a lot of joy in being condescending. Why do you keep posting the same thing over any over? Are you waiting for everyone to bow down to you and your awesome c-band setup or something?

Enjoy that big 32" HDTV of yours (heck the televison in my bedroom is bigger than that), and let me know when you have finally amassed enough equipment to be able to record three different HD streams simultaneously while watching something different on any one of five different TVs.

Maybe he doesn't feel the need to run out and buy a new tv every 2 yrs or so.
I think his Sharp was probally a top of the line 32 incher just a couple yrs ago. I know my Panasonic 50" 720P plasma that i bought on Black friday 2006 on sale for $2000 was considered one of the best back then. But, until it dies i see no need to upgrade.

 

[Kb Cool]

It has to be at least 720 lines to be considered HD (meaning 1280x720 for 16:9). His images are evidently only 960x544 so it appears he scaled them down -- which means they have been modified and thus really cannot be used to prove anything.

So are you saying he intentionly modified the DishHD photo to look soft and not as detailed? If so, I don't believe he would do that.

 

[STL]

Maybe he doesn't feel the need to run out and buy a new tv every 2 yrs or so.
I think his Sharp was probally a top of the line 32 incher just a couple yrs ago. I know my Panasonic 50" 720P plasma that i bought on Black friday 2006 on sale for $2000 was considered one of the best back then. But, until it dies i see no need to upgrade.

Who said anything about buy new TVs every couple years....I sure don't do that. I still have my 2001 55" Mits RPTV -- and in many ways it has a better picture than the two LCDs I've purchased since then. What is rather ironic is that he is preaching PQ, being about as condecening as possible, when the smallish HD he has makes gains in PQ harder to see is real life (meaning motion video -- versus side by side stills). I don't doubt he can see some differences on his smallish HDTV, but I seriously doubt it is so night-and-day like he tries to make it sound. Now if he have a 50" or larger HDTV, then he'd really start seeing some substantial gains from his stack of equipment. And yes his 32" Sharp was the top of the line a couple years ago; I know because I have the 37" version in my bedroom.

 

[STL]

So are you saying he intentionly modified the DishHD photo to look soft and not as detailed? If so, I don't believe he would do that.

Absolutely not! I believe he made them smaller (they were probably originally 1920x1088) perhaps to make it easier to host them all. BUT, anytime you modify them you re-encode them which changes them. The encoder very well could handle a clean picture better than one that already has artifacts -- and those with artifacts could likely have those artifacts get disproportionately exaggerated in the re-encoding process. Strictly speaking, we'd need a couple original RAW or TIFF images from his capture tool (and I am curious to know what he is using too) to really do an accurate comparison.

 

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Strictly speaking, we'd need a couple original RAW or TIFF images from his capture tool (and I am curious to know what he is using too) to really do an accurate comparison.

I would also love to see the original, unmodified images. Not because I doubt his claims at all, but because I would like to see the difference first hand. If nothing else, he should explain how the images were captured and processed.