More HD Channels or Higher Res HD?

[Tom Bombadil]

Dish has announced plans to add more HD channels in the coming months. These could include Cinemax, MTV HD, A&E, more VOOM channels, etc.

Please vote as to whether you'd prefer to receive all of these in HD-lite, leaving existing channels just as they are today, or would you rather keep the channels we have now, with all of them being upgraded to true HD 1920x1080i or 1280x720p & at high bitrates for MPEG2 & MPEG4 respectively.

 

[SimpleSimon]

Here we go again.

It's a good idea, tho.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I thought it would be a good time to get a read on the forum's perspective. We just got some new channels, all in HD-lite. The general public always goes for more channels. I was wondering if there was a clear perference from SatGuys.

 

[riffjim4069]

Of course we would all prefer a few more HD channels...and all HD channels at full bitrate!

 

[waltinvt]

It's called "cake and eat it too" and it's only natural to want both.

Realistically we're going to get quantity over quality for a while yet - no matter how the majority of SatGuys feels (and I voted quality) - that's just the way it is.

Eventually the quantity of HD channels will reach a critical mass and the competition will shift in a PQ direction but right now the PQ issue is so subjective that it doesn't carry the marketing power that quantity does.

Had "D" not gone to HDLite first, things might be different now. We'd probably have less channels, better PQ and Voom would never have had a "fiber" problem. But "D" did and once that happened, there was never any chance that "E" wouldn't follow suit.

 

[MikeD-C05]

I want the mpeg4 encoder problem fixed on the Hd stations in 1080i. They look like crap when they pan or there is any movement at all. They are full of jerky ,choppy robotic artifacts. It looks like it is missing some frames when they move which causes the ticking or choppy , non fluid panning shots. I wouldn't care if they were in 720p as long as they looked good and there was no artifacting. Bit rates would be nice too if they were high. Also FIX the 622 software issues now:

1. audio/video stuttering - not related to the mpeg4 artifacts I mention above.
2. the black screen but audio when you tune to a hd local station- this is related to the mpeg4 encoders issues I spoke of above.

In short before you add anymore national hd channels you need to catch up and fix the software and other mpeg4 encoder issues especially on the 1080i channels.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

So would you favor more channels in MPEG4-fixed HD-lite over having existing channels in MPEG4-fixed true HD?

I'm not convinced that the MPEG4 problems are E*'s fault. So far no one is having much success with them. But E* decided to go ahead and use crappy MPEG4 in order to gain a marketing advantage over D* by having more HD channels.

We can hold out hope that MPEG4 will be the great savior of HD, that Dish would use it to bump everything up to true HD by dedicating the bandwidth savings from MPEG4 to higher picture quality. But I am not convinced this will be the case. Right now E* is moving the bar down to HD-lite and if customers are happy with it, then they can use MPEG4 to squeeze in even more HD-lite channels.

 

[nazz]

If I have to choose it is without a doubt full resolution with high bitrate for my vote.

 

[MikeD-C05]

So would you favor more channels in MPEG4-fixed HD-lite over having existing channels in MPEG4-fixed true HD?

I'm not convinced that the MPEG4 problems are E*'s fault. So far no one is having much success with them. But E* decided to go ahead and use crappy MPEG4 in order to gain a marketing advantage over D* by having more HD channels.

We can hold out hope that MPEG4 will be the great savior of HD, that Dish would use it to bump everything up to true HD by dedicating the bandwidth savings from MPEG4 to higher picture quality. But I am not convinced this will be the case. Right now E* is moving the bar down to HD-lite and if customers are happy with it, then they can use MPEG4 to squeeze in even more HD-lite channels.

I would take hd lite over the full upconverted mpeg4 version of an hd channel like Starz or my locals that are in 1080i , because they both look like CRAP. They are full of choppy , jerky panning scenes that make you have a headache. I would take hd lite UNTIL they get the mpeg4 encoder issues right. This is what is causing the artifacts .

Right now there is no way I am going to watch a channel that when there is movement it is like watching a jerky mtv video effect. I want fluid shots that do not distract from the over all experience. IF I am getting annoyed when I watch something and all I can do is shake my head in shame then I do not want these channels.

They should immediately move the starzhd channel to mpeg 2 so they can correct this crap. Then they need to fix their mpeg 4 encoder issues. THen and only then would I nicely ask for full hd resolution. Quantity of hd channels that look like crap but at full resolution isn't want I want. Since we know that Dish is going to keep adding more hd channels anyway , I think they should do them in hd lite to make them look more fluid and less choppy and jerky untill they get the mpeg 4 encoder issues fixed. I want excellent picture quality . Isn't that what hd is supposed to be about anyway? ONce they get the mpeg 4 encoder issues fixed then they can do full hd resolution and we will all be happy.

 

[dude2]

We can complain about hdlite all we want but why have millions of people subscribed to the sh!tty pq of cable for years and think it is just great.

Local store was using cable to demonstrate hd and all I saw was the crappy hum bars scroll up the screen. No one else seemed to notice.

People are so used to putting up with inferior products that it is a way of life for them.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I would take hd lite over the full upconverted mpeg4 version of an hd channel like Starz or my locals that are in 1080i , because they both look like CRAP. They are full of choppy , jerky panning scenes that make you have a headache. I would take hd lite UNTIL they get the mpeg4 encoder issues right. This is what is causing the artifacts .

Starz HD and HD LiLs are in HD-lite. They aren't the alternative to HD-lite.

They are just poorly implemented HD-lite.

Right now Dish has some control over the resolution of their MPEG2 and fake MPEG4 channels. They could up all of these to true HD.

What they should do is change all of the true MPEG4 channels back to MPEG2 and not roll out MPEG4 until it is of production quality.

I consider the HD-lite discussion to be separate from the MPEG4 issue. I don't believe Dish would would be airing the HD LiLs in true HD even if MPEG4 worked properly.

 

[Jeff_R]

I thought it would be a good time to get a read on the forum's perspective. We just got some new channels, all in HD-lite. The general public always goes for more channels. I was wondering if there was a clear perference from SatGuys.

All in HD-Lite? I thought HGTV-HD and NTGEO HD were both native resolution? The only ones that were HD Lite were NFL HD (not a really big deal right now as most programming seems to be SD, and no new games until the fall), and Starz HD (a much bigger deal!).

Of course I'd rather see the HD Lite channels increased to their native resolutions, but I'd also like to have the actual, real, true national HD channels as well. I like the Voom channels alright, but 15-21 channels all from one provider? With the repeats, they could actually make about 5 true channels with a good variety of content.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Now that you mention it, National Geographic is probably being shown in its true 1280x720p resolution. However as it is also in MPEG4, the overall quality will be lower than a channel like ESPN.

NG HD looks like a big disappointment right now. A large percentage of their programming is SD, and what is in HD, is going to be degraded by the MPEG4 encoding problem. Definitely not a channel worth paying an upgrade to get, IMHO.

 

[Kirby Baker]

National Geographic is not MPEG4. Its MPEG2.

As for a Poll answer, cant give one. Need to know who is telling the truth about Voom to begin with. The basis of that answer, plus knowing the eventual plan with 1080i mpeg4 channels (if and when they can encode at 1920x1080i) affects any answer I would pick, and two unknowns make it impossible to pick.

 

[animalhouse]

Being a fairly new HD viewer (6 months), I was impresed with the difference between SD and the HD that I was watching. But, after reading the forums on Sat Guys, it has made me really curious as to just how good true HD is. So I voted for quality over quanity.

 

[tnsprin]

National Geographic is not MPEG4. Its MPEG2.

As for a Poll answer, cant give one. Need to know who is telling the truth about Voom to begin with. The basis of that answer, plus knowing the eventual plan with 1080i mpeg4 channels (if and when they can encode at 1920x1080i) affects any answer I would pick, and two unknowns make it impossible to pick.

Can anyone even verify that any of the HD channels are truly encoded using the newer encoding possible with MPEG4. Just being flagged mpeg4 doesn't prove it.

 

[jerryez]

My Voom channels and others are fairly good with no pixalation on my 211. The picture is much better than the SD channels. If the quality on some is better than others, I can't tell the difference with my naked eye (eye glasses anyway). Which ones are true HD and which ones are Lite and which ones are fake mpeg4. Let me know and I will make my own comparison.

 

[sclaws]

My vote is quality AND quantity. HD is just that...high-definition. If a provider can't deliver what they advertise then its false marketing. I don't want a choice that is a compromise on what is promised to me as a consumer.

That said, I am enjoying HD on Dish and hope they will eventually do the right thing and pass HD as it was meant to be.

 

[Kirby Baker]

Can anyone even verify that any of the HD channels are truly encoded using the newer encoding possible with MPEG4. Just being flagged mpeg4 doesn't prove it.

I can absolutely positively prove that NGCHD is NOT mpeg4. I am watching it in SageTV and as of yet, there is not native MPEG4 support in Sage. Its pure MPEG2 goodness at 1280x720p, marked with the ViP receiver only flag. Not to mention that you can run the recorded file through various tools to tell you what it really is

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The VOOM channels are in 1280x1080i, i.e. HD-lite. This is all VOOM channels. At this format, the image has only 2/3rds of the original digital information. HOWEVER ... as many HD programs have been recorded using cameras having maximum resolutions of 1440x1080 or even 1280x960 (or lower), it is possible that a very good conversion to 1280x1080i could capture most of the original information.

All channels being broadcast in MPEG4 have been reported as being in 1440x1080i.

HBO and Showtime are being broadcast in 1920x1080i, but frequently at low bitrates, which causes some compression artifacts.

HDNET and HDNMV are in 1920x1080i and usually with good bitrates.

ESPN and ESPN2 are 1280x720p and usually with good bitrates. (Note: 1280x720p contains more image information than 1280x1080i.)

So I would recommend HDNET, HDNMV and ESPN as good examples of HD.

Many people will not notice a difference between a VOOM channel vs HDNET. Heck, many people don't notice much of a difference between upconverted DVD vs true HD. If you have a good HDTV set and you are a critical viewer, who knows what HD can look like, then the differences between VOOM and HDNET jump off the screen at you.

I have portions of the great HD demo program "Winged Migration" recorded from VOOM Equator HD back in November when it was 1920x1080i, again from Equator HD after it was down-rezzed to 1280x1080i, and from HDNET.

The HDNET version is best, with the November Equator HD very close, but the HD-lite Equator version has softer lines and lacks the jaw-dropping realism that HD can provide.

HD-lite does produce a pretty good picture, it just isn't a match for true HD.