Which would you prefer? More HD channels with less picture quality (ie. lower resolution, less data rate, etc.) or less HD channels with higher picture quality (ie. 1920x1080i, higher data rate, new compression formats)?
More HD channels or Better HD Picture Quality?
- Thread starter ChetK
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 14
- Views 2K
I'm allowed to give my opinion right?
I'd prefer less HD channels for higher picture quality.
Do I think E* cares? That's an entirely different question that I believe I know the answer to: No. E* cares about subscriber #'s as that directly relates to money. Advertising better picture quality to the masses will get you a few subscribers. Advertising a higher number of HD channels than your competitor will get you many more subscribers.
I'd prefer less HD channels for higher picture quality.
Do I think E* cares? That's an entirely different question that I believe I know the answer to: No. E* cares about subscriber #'s as that directly relates to money. Advertising better picture quality to the masses will get you a few subscribers. Advertising a higher number of HD channels than your competitor will get you many more subscribers.
Whenever new HD programming is available, add it! And keep working on those MPEG-4 encoders to boost the resolution!
I guess I would probably be in the minority here, but I'm a newb so don't flame me!
I recently switched to E* from D* two weeks ago and just started receiving sat HD (had OTA for 6 months now). I've compared my OTA to "HD lite" stations like Voom and while it does vary from program to program, every HD station I receive looks unbelievable on my 46" DLP (especially when switching to a SD station).
For the last few weeks I've had the service, I have watched and recorded 75% of my programming from only a few stations. MonstersHD, RAVE, HDNet... I could live with fewer stations in higher HD, but I'm sure that MonstersHD and RAVE would NOT be high on E*'s list of stations to keep in HD.
I'm anxiously awaiting FoodHD (please come soon!), but I'm sure there are many people that would poo-poo that station in exchange for a Sci-Fi HD (though it's not available yet) or MTV HD. I wouldn't watch either of these.
I hope E* continues to add more HD programming at the quality it is now and eventually work toward increasing that quality over time.
While HD lite sucks, it still blows every SD station out of the water.
I recently switched to E* from D* two weeks ago and just started receiving sat HD (had OTA for 6 months now). I've compared my OTA to "HD lite" stations like Voom and while it does vary from program to program, every HD station I receive looks unbelievable on my 46" DLP (especially when switching to a SD station).
For the last few weeks I've had the service, I have watched and recorded 75% of my programming from only a few stations. MonstersHD, RAVE, HDNet... I could live with fewer stations in higher HD, but I'm sure that MonstersHD and RAVE would NOT be high on E*'s list of stations to keep in HD.
I'm anxiously awaiting FoodHD (please come soon!), but I'm sure there are many people that would poo-poo that station in exchange for a Sci-Fi HD (though it's not available yet) or MTV HD. I wouldn't watch either of these.
I hope E* continues to add more HD programming at the quality it is now and eventually work toward increasing that quality over time.
While HD lite sucks, it still blows every SD station out of the water.
I ran a poll last month on whether people would prefer Dish to add more HD-lite channels in the 2nd half of 2006 or up the current channels to true HD.
The results were 165 for going to true HD and 77 for more HD-lite.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=68360
The results were 165 for going to true HD and 77 for more HD-lite.
http://www.satelliteguys.us/showthread.php?t=68360
Last edited:
Thats hard to answer.
Depends on how much they down resed the HD content. If they added stuff at 1440 x 1080 I personally would not mind much, however I would not want anything below that.
Depends on how much they down resed the HD content. If they added stuff at 1440 x 1080 I personally would not mind much, however I would not want anything below that.
There was one classic HD program that I've seen aired on both a true HD channel as a HD-lite channel. The documentary "Winged Migration", which is reknowned as an excellent HD demo, has been shown on both HDNET and VOOM Equator. I recorded the beginning 15 minutes from each.
My HDTV set is not fully capable of 1920x1080i, it is a CRT RP that can resolve around 1300 lines. However comparing these two recordings, it is immediately obvious that the HDNET showing is decidedly sharper and you get sucked into the action - in the old adage of HD being a window through which you view the world.
The VOOM version is good quality and fairly sharp, but there is no illusion of it being a window for the images are softer and the colors a bit muted.
When I walk back to the back wall of my room and am standing 15' from the screen, I can easily distinguish between the two versions.
Good, true HD is a marvelous thing. It is a shame to buy a HDTV set and a HD receiver and still not get much true HD.
My HDTV set is not fully capable of 1920x1080i, it is a CRT RP that can resolve around 1300 lines. However comparing these two recordings, it is immediately obvious that the HDNET showing is decidedly sharper and you get sucked into the action - in the old adage of HD being a window through which you view the world.
The VOOM version is good quality and fairly sharp, but there is no illusion of it being a window for the images are softer and the colors a bit muted.
When I walk back to the back wall of my room and am standing 15' from the screen, I can easily distinguish between the two versions.
Good, true HD is a marvelous thing. It is a shame to buy a HDTV set and a HD receiver and still not get much true HD.
We had this poll many-many times. And every time the result is the same: Quality is preferred over Quantity by majority of our forum members!
Now since HD DVD is out, it is very easy to see all PQ issues on Dish caused by high compression. Reduced resolution ("HD-Lite") is only one of them. How about washed-out colors, pixelation, flat-looking picture, loss of detail on moving objects, mosquito noise, etc., etc.
I thought HBO-HD looked pretty good. Now having watched some of the same movies on HD DVD, I see how poor the PQ on HBO-HD is in comparison. I would gladly trade half of HD channels to get HD DVD-like quality at least on some of the channels!
Now since HD DVD is out, it is very easy to see all PQ issues on Dish caused by high compression. Reduced resolution ("HD-Lite") is only one of them. How about washed-out colors, pixelation, flat-looking picture, loss of detail on moving objects, mosquito noise, etc., etc.
I thought HBO-HD looked pretty good. Now having watched some of the same movies on HD DVD, I see how poor the PQ on HBO-HD is in comparison. I would gladly trade half of HD channels to get HD DVD-like quality at least on some of the channels!
ClevelandRob said:
And this is what I think D* and E* are banking on. They know that the bulk of the eventual HD subs are yet to come. And these people will find HD-lite to be far better than SD. They will love HD-lite.
And they will love us if we provide as many HD-lite channels as we can squeeze on the air.
So what if some of the current HD install base doesn't like HD-lite. Screw them! They have no place else to go. In 5 years time they will make up something like 3%-5% of their HD install base.
So the time to ween everyone off of true HD is now. Before they get a good taste of it and get used to it.
If they can get high customer sat marks from feeding people 1280x1080i at 9mb/s then that will save them a lot of money on satellites down the road. We'll give them 1280x720p too, but we'll squeeze down the bandwidth.
At least that is what my cynical side sees coming. It is exactly what D* and E* did with SD and what we already see both of them doing with HD.
I really hope I am wrong about this and E* has plans to increase resolution as soon as they get these danged MPEG4 encoders and VOOM fiber links fixed.
why did we all by a hd tv in the first place?? because of the picture! the WOW!!! so i say give us the full hd!!! i had voom, now with charter, st louis, waiting for you guys to tell me when to jump to dish, will wait till they fix voom, ect. thought it would be done by now. i spent $5000 for tv and home theather, LOVED it for 4, 5 months till vomm said bye bye. now i think i wasted my money!! 40 or what ever chanels to about 7 0r 8. damn...woe is me. if voom started now instead of 4 years ago, or whenever it started would it work?
rickaren said:
Well DUH! The option is not there because nobody in their right mind would pick any of the other three options if it were. I knew somebody would say this, but it's pretty obvious that E* doesn't have the technical know-how, ability, or want (take your pick) to let us have our cake and eat it too. Therefore, your option couldn't possible be an option...today.
