More info about "HD-Lite" and pixel aspect ratio.

[M Sparks]

(Make that "More...", apparently you can't edit the subject when you make a typo.)

Here's some more info that a few of you will find interesting, a few of you will be infuriated by, and most won't understand. Don't worry...I OWN a production company and worked in TV many years and didn't understand some of this until recently.

Many of you claim that 1280 x 1080i isn't "HD", because it doesn't conform to the ATSC standards- which doesn't fly because those standards only apply to broadcast. And, as I've pointed out many times- no one seems to see the fairly obvious fact that 1280 x 1080 is HIGHER resolution than 1280 x 720...which no one seems to have a problem with anymore. (They did in the early days of broadcast HD.)

Then, a few of you came back with a slightly better argument- that 1280x1080 isn't a native 16:9 aspect ratio. A few weeks ago, I posted a rather long essay on pixel aspect ratio. In essence, DV and DVD pictures are ALL 720x480, whether they are widescreen or not. The difference is how your equipment- usually the monitor- inturprets the pixel aspect ratio.

1920x1080 and 1280x720 use a square P.A.R.- called 1.0. This is just an easier way of saying 1:1. Now, as I said, DV and DVD uses a 720x480 aspect ratio. In square pixels, this would be a 3:2 aspect ratio. But by assigning a 0.9 P.A.R., we get a picture pretty close to 4:3. By giving it a 1.2 P.A.R., we get pretty close to 16:9.

So the actual pixel count is unimportant to the aspect ratio, because we can adjust the P.A.R. And, ATSC standards aside, analog television was always defined by the number of VERTICAL lines. The horizontal resolution varies between different types of equipment. The composite output of any type of NTSC equipment always puts out 525 lines, whether it's a $59 VHS player, or a $20,000 Betacam deck. It's the horizontal resolution that varies.

It's true that a P.A.R. of 1.0 or less results in a superior picture. But the definition of HD lies in the number of vertical lines, and the method of displaying them. 1280x720i is the same resolution as 1280x720p. But only 720p qualifies as "HD". At some point, it was decided that 720i didn't "look" good enough to be considered "HD". An interlaced picture must be at least 1080 lines before it's "HD" The horzontal resolution is not important, as far as the "definition" goes.

I think Tom asked me what horizontal resolution I considered acceptable- I think he asked me if 960 qualified. I said no- to me 1280 was the minimum. After all 960 is only slightly more than 720- which is generally considered the top quality level of SD. (Remember, the ATSC standard for SD is only 640- inferior to DVD and DV.)

I also conceeded the point that a 1.5 P.A.R. is much higher than the accepted 1.2, and therefore may be "stretched" to a point that is unacceptable.

HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART! This is the part that made me THANKFUL for 1280x1080i, and is going to drive some of you into a rage.

Yesterday, I upgraded my After Effects software to the new version 7.0 Pro. After Effects is a piece of software used in both television and film for special effects. The software itself can handle a resolution of 30,000 x 30,000- far greater than anyone would ever need, or that any computer could ever handle. By way of comparison, IMAX is 4096 x 3002. And...get ready for this...most digital cinema projectors in use are only 1280 x 1024. (Yup...HD-Lite is superior to most digital cinema projectors, although next-generation digital cimema will be 2048x1536 or higher.)

The point is...After Effects is used by serious pros, and can easily handle full 1920x1080 HD as long as your computer can. Here's what it has to say about pixel aspect ratios on page 117 of the users guide. (I removed the parts not related to HD.)

"COMMON PIXEL ASPECT RATIOS FOR ASSETS...

...1.0...Your footage...is 1920 x 1080 HD (not HDV or DVCPRO HD), is 1280 x 720 HD or HDV...

...1.33...HDV 1080/DVCPRO HD 720...Your footage has a 1440 x 1080 or 960 x 720 frame size...

...1.5...DVCPRO HD 1080...Your footage has a 1280 x 1080 frame size..."

Now some might argue that HDV is not a professional format. However, it will undoubtedly make it's way into broadcast use if it hasn't already. The Sony FX-1 HDV camera is essentially the same as the VX-2000 DV camera except for the CCD resolution and the recording method. I use the VX-2000 for shooting commercials for broadcast, and I have seen them used by a Nickelodeon crew. They are were standard issue for producers of PBS's Frontline. So this camera- which sells for under $4000- is capable of doing 1280 x720p in low resolution mode, or 1440 x 1080i in high resolution mode.

However, no one can argue that DVCPRO-HD is not a professional format. I shot in DVCPRO-25 when I worked in TV news. A DVCPRO-HD camcorder starts at about $57,000. There is essentially no market for them other than HD television producers. Sure, it's cheaper than HDCAM, but not by much.

Go read that chart again...DVCPRO-HD records in 1280x1080 in high resolution mode, and 960 x 720 in low resolution mode.

These arguments that DISH is engaging in false advertising simply won't ever fly. They could downrez to 960 x 720p and still be considered HD by the television industry.

If you want 1920 x 1080i-and who doesn't - tell them. Vote with your dollars. If you have better options (cable, I guess), use them. But filing FTC complaints is a waste of time. If Panasonic can sell a $81,000 camcorder that records 960 x 720 and calls it HD, we should be thankful for 1280x1080...but also we need to let DISH know we expect better before they think they can make it worse. Stop wasting your time whining on message boards about "deceptive advertising", and let DISH know that you want and expect the best possible picture. The customers have the power here- not the government. (Hey, that's a nice change of pace!)

 

[goaliebob99]

Let me be the first one to take a crack at this ...

Many of you claim that 1280 x 1080i isn't "HD", because it doesn't conform to the ATSC standards- which doesn't fly because those standards only apply to broadcast.

These standards were formed by the ATSC and the Grand alliance, Recognized by the FCC as official standards for HDTV. It applies to all forms of terrestrial broadcasting.. whether its ota, or via sat..

Then, a few of you came back with a slightly better argument- that 1280x1080 isn't a native 16:9 aspect ratio. A few weeks ago, I posted a rather long essay on pixel aspect ratio. In essence, DV and DVD pictures are ALL 720x480, whether they are wide-screen or not. The difference is how your equipment- usually the monitor- interprets the pixel aspect ratio.

The fact that 1280 X 1080I is not a true 16:9 aspect ratio has been proven. Look at the video's on my site.. and those videos have the aspect ratio as 16 X 9 but with the fewer pixels it smashes the picture into a 4 * 3 pic.

1920x1080 and 1280x720 use a square P.A.R.- called 1.0. This is just an easier way of saying 1:1. Now, as I said, DV and DVD uses a 720x480 aspect ratio. In square pixels, this would be a 3:2 aspect ratio. But by assigning a 0.9 P.A.R., we get a picture pretty close to 4:3. By giving it a 1.2 P.A.R., we get pretty close to 16:9.

So the actual pixel count is unimportant to the aspect ratio, because we can adjust the P.A.R.

You may be able to Adjust the Par to give the pic a 16:9 aspect ratio but what will fill the missing pixels? black spots.. On A true 1920 X 1080I TV. this adjustment will still be noticeable on the TV as the pixels that its missing will show black.. so there for you will have a nice picture with a bunch of black pixels all over the place filling in the rest of the pic.

So the actual pixel count is unimportant to the aspect ratio, because we can adjust the P.A.R. And, AT SC standards aside, analog television was always defined by the number of VERTICAL lines. The horizontal resolution varies between different types of equipment. The composite output of any type of NTSC equipment always puts out 525 lines, whether it's a $59 VHS player, or a $20,000 Betacam deck. It's the horizontal resolution that varies.

k, actual pixel count does and is important weather you can change par or not.. as i said before if a display device has 1920 pixels what will fill those pixels. Composite is way different than component.. which is what most HDTV's and Consumer products use.. so that argument is not valid here..

also you spout about a bunch of hd cameras that do hd lite.. if the station wants to do hd lite than its OK but what were all screaming about is when a station or channel broadcasts its format in 1920 x 1080I and dish deliberately down rezzes the signal.. (whats happening with voom)

Next,

These arguments that DISH is engaging in false advertising simply won't ever fly. They could downrez to 960 x 720p and still be considered HD by the television industry.

This is the satellite industry.. not television... anyhow 960 X 720P is not an hd format recognized by the ATSC Broadcast standards and its not a true hd format. The only way that a television station would get away with it at that standard is by calling it EDTV.. (far from HDTV) The TV station does not have to do hd.. all they have to do is provide there analog feed over digital.. 2nd.. On dish's site prior to the the Feb first changes DISH did advertise openly about there hd being in 1920 x 1080I and its completely archived at www.stophdlite.com... So it will and has flown... Next, The FTC has sent everything over to the law enforcement officials to investigate dish and DirecTV.. (hell 1/4 the hits on my site are from them and the government)

AND IS FAR FROM a WAIST OF TIME! KEEP EMAILING THEM AND LET THEM KNOW THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!!!!!!

2nd of all.. what dish is doing providing hd lil service in hd lite when the station originates its programming in 1920 x 1080I is illegal and in violation of FCC orders (all the details are on my site)

Nice try, but try again harder next time (www.stophdlite.com)

 

[SatinKzo]

My red pen ran out of ink circling the spelling in your post bob! As sad as it is, I strongly think the gov't needs to be more involved in regulating this.

 

[goaliebob99]

My red pen ran out of ink circling the spelling in your post bob! As sad as it is, I strongly think the gov't needs to be more involved in regulating this.

yea yea yea.. it wasnt as quick as I wanted to do the spell check because I had to download IE Spell

 

[HokieEngineer]

Yes 1280x1080 is a format used by cameras and DV content. However, I believe the main problem with what dish is doing is converting 1920 material to 1280 on the fly.

Mainly I notice this when there are high contrast vertical lines on the screen, and then the camera pans. I see a jagged line as the camera pans, which I believe is due to the encoder trying to figure out which rectangle pixel to put the data into.

Just like the PPV channels are pre-encoded into a format they are sent, they look better than the real time encoded channels. If the voom source material is 1920x1080, a piece of hardware needs to take that data, reencode it the best that it can, and send it out. All that in realtime. Not to mention vary the bitrate so that 3 channels fit within a transponder's bandwidth.

This is why I think 1920x1080 even at the same bandwidth would look better because there is no conversion taking place. Yes, there might be a conversion in the decode process in the STB because some people have 1080i displays and others 720p, but that is just decoding, much less processor intensive than doing a decode, transform, re-encode.

Anyways, my 2 cents .

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I'm no expert in this arena, but I've read that some HD techs do consider the DVCPRO-HD to be sub-HD quality. It records only 8-bit color, compresses rather aggressively, and does downconvert to 960x720p when recording to tape.

Here's a little more info on the overall subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DV

http://www.videosystems.com/e-newsletters/12192005_hdvwork/

I knew that a lot of existing recorded HD material was in 1440x1080, this is why I advocated a number of times during the HD-lite screamfest that I would be happier if Dish went back to the old VOOM 1440x1080i standard, for at least we would be seeing a lot of material in its native recorded format.

 

[Minsk1]

Mr./Ms./Mrs Sparks,

If you like HD Lite you can enjoy it on your cinema projector.
My projector (768p) and HDTV (1080i) like more TRUE HD OUTPUT. PERIOD.

And of course, ED projectors and TVs can't find a difference between HD Lite and TRUE HD.

There is no nee to insult public here with apologetic threads.

 

[Sarang]

I think it's ridiculous ANY electronics companies would be selling cameras that do only 1280x1080i while trying to pimp a full on 1080i set to consumers. All you're going to end up having is people looking at the picture on the 1080i set and saying it's not worth it and buying some downgraded 1080i HD-Lite piece of crap which may sell for less or about as much.
Seriously I wish Sony, Samsung or LG would just buy a DBS or Cable or make their own, start up in the IPTV market, just so they can sell their product better by showing True HD.

 

[Dish Roamer]

I think the problem really shows itself due to the conversion that the signal has to go through. The 1920 X 1080 signal is down converted to 1280 X 1080 - then to the set top box where it is converted to 1080i or 720P. And then, depending on what kind of TV you have, the signal is once again converted to the screens native resolution. With all of those changes, how can someone not notice?

 

[goaliebob99]

I think the problem really shows itself due to the conversion that the signal has to go through. The 1920 X 1080 signal is down converted to 1280 X 1080 - then to the set top box where it is converted to 1080i or 720P. And then, depending on what kind of TV you have, the signal is once again converted to the screens native resolution. With all of those changes, how can someone not notice?

exactly

 

[M Sparks]

Yes 1280x1080 is a format used by cameras and DV content. However, I believe the main problem with what dish is doing is converting 1920 material to 1280 on the fly.

That is an excellent point, as was Tom's about DVCPROs inferior quality. I am not trying to say I don't have a problem with DISH downrezzing. I'm saying people should be complaining to DISH, loud and often. The government isn't going to do anything about it, because both of these formats are accepted HD. And in fact, they could make it even worse.

(And as a Libritarian- the government SHOULDN'T be involved. But that's another issue )

People are wasting their time arguing the semantics of "What is HD". All that matters is that we aren't satisfied.

Bob...I'm not going to argue with most of your points- a lot of it is just stuff we disagree on, and I know you're a smart guy. But I can tell you still don't get PAR. Your TV/Monitor already adjusts the PAR every time you switch between "wide" and "normal". Presumably, the DISH HD receivers do this internally.

I didn't look at the videos on your site, but they are "smushed" because the PAR hasn't been adjusted. Same reason you get a "smushed" picture when you feed a widescreen picture to a 4:3 TV- they don't have the capability to change the PAR. For that matter, when I edit 16:9 video (SD, not HD), it appears "smushed" on my 4:3 display. But it looks fine on a widescreen monitor. It's always 720x480.

Yes, obviously the picture becomes more inferior as the PAR increases. Obviously a higher pixel count is better. But to claim that there will be "black pixels" is absurd. Why don't you have them now when you watch Voom? They are transmitting a 1.5 PAR.

But you're right- it's the downrezzing that is the problem. My point is, if the SOURCE is 1280 x 1080 or 1440 x 1080, it's still HD. It's SUPERIOR to 1280 x 720p, and INFERIOR to 1920 x 1080i. The "standards" don't matter. If you have a problem with 1280 x 1080i, then you logically should have a problem with 1280 x 720p.

THE PROBLEM IS THE DOWNREZZING, NOT THE RESOLUTION!

It's still HD. It's just crappy HD.

(edit...corrected Voom PAR.)

 

[M Sparks]

If you like HD Lite you can enjoy it on your cinema projector.

Ummm, do you know what a digital cinema projector is? Personally, I don't have 100 grand laying around to get one.

Personally, I was amazed at that piece of info- that's why I emphasized it. I thought they were all in the 2000 - 4000 horizontal resolution range.

 

[M Sparks]

I knew that a lot of existing recorded HD material was in 1440x1080, this is why I advocated a number of times during the HD-lite screamfest that I would be happier if Dish went back to the old VOOM 1440x1080i standard, for at least we would be seeing a lot of material in its native recorded format.

Actually, I'd be surprised if it was...it sounds to me like only HDV uses 1440x1080...and then only Sony's HDV cameras, which are pretty new and not "professional". JVCs HDV only shoots in 1280x720.

Most of the Voom stuff was probably shot in HDCAM, which can do full 1920x1080. But it's likely that DVCPRO-HD (1280x1080) is the second most common.

Here's something from Wiki too...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
It says HDV "upsamples" from 1440x1080. I suspect this is just for the direct TV connection. When editing in HDV, you set the PAR to 1.33- the resolution stays the same.

 

[goaliebob99]

actually I see it on my tv in all the hdlite programming.. its bearly noticable you actualy have to be ontop the picture to notice it.. if your at the proper viewing diffrence you dont notice it at all..

Educate me on par I would like to know more into this..

as far as braudcasters are held to the 1920 x 1080I or 1280 x 720p when they transmit hd. but they dont have to offer that signal in hd.. thats where it gets harry...

also we do agree on something I just dont think you realize it.. if the source is in 1280 x 1080 thats not the problem.. the problem is when the source is in a true hd format and dish downrezzes that format.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

My use of the term a "lot" of the stuff stored in HD libraries being in 1440x1080 was not meant to imply that the majority of the material was in 1440. I've heard from people in the HD industry that many things that were filmed a few years back, along with some of the stuff that was edited via computer editing tools, was saved in 1440x1080. I don't know what percentage that might be. I would consider 10% to be a "lot." Some of it is stored in 1280x1080i too.

 

[Sarang]

That is an excellent point, as was Tom's about DVCPROs inferior quality. I am not trying to say I don't have a problem with DISH downrezzing. I'm saying people should be complaining to DISH, loud and often. The government isn't going to do anything about it, because both of these formats are accepted HD. And in fact, they could make it even worse.

(And as a Libritarian- the government SHOULDN'T be involved. But that's another issue )

People are wasting their time arguing the semantics of "What is HD". All that matters is that we aren't satisfied.

Bob...I'm not going to argue with most of your points- a lot of it is just stuff we disagree on, and I know you're a smart guy. But I can tell you still don't get PAR. Your TV/Monitor already adjusts the PAR every time you switch between "wide" and "normal". Presumably, the DISH HD receivers do this internally.

I didn't look at the videos on your site, but they are "smushed" because the PAR hasn't been adjusted. Same reason you get a "smushed" picture when you feed a widescreen picture to a 4:3 TV- they don't have the capability to change the PAR. For that matter, when I edit 16:9 video (SD, not HD), it appears "smushed" on my 4:3 display. But it looks fine on a widescreen monitor. It's always 720x480.

Yes, obviously the picture becomes more inferior as the PAR increases. Obviously a higher pixel count is better. But to claim that there will be "black pixels" is absurd. Why don't you have them now when you watch Voom? They are transmitting a 1.5 PAR.

But you're right- it's the downrezzing that is the problem. My point is, if the SOURCE is 1280 x 1080 or 1440 x 1080, it's still HD. It's SUPERIOR to 1280 x 720p, and INFERIOR to 1920 x 1080i. The "standards" don't matter. If you have a problem with 1280 x 1080i, then you logically should have a problem with 1280 x 720p.

THE PROBLEM IS THE DOWNREZZING, NOT THE RESOLUTION!

It's still HD. It's just crappy HD.

(edit...corrected Voom PAR.)

Ummm I call bs clearly on 1280x1080i being superior to 720p. If anything look at the #'s and I'm sure 720p easily takes up more bandwidth. Keep in mind the vertical lines are the same on the 720p source as the HD-Lite 1080i so all that leaves is the horizantal which is PROGRESSIVE not interlaced, so it's not throwing out half the picture, it's throwing out the whole thing so incorrect. I would take 720p over HD-Lite 1080i any day of the week.

 

[richmert]

Ummm I call bs clearly on 1280x1080i being superior to 720p. If anything look at the #'s and I'm sure 720p easily takes up more bandwidth. Keep in mind the vertical lines are the same on the 720p source as the HD-Lite 1080i so all that leaves is the horizantal which is PROGRESSIVE not interlaced, so it's not throwing out half the picture, it's throwing out the whole thing so incorrect. I would take 720p over HD-Lite 1080i any day of the week.

thanks for clearing that up Sarang. I have always thought that 720P was superior to 1280x1080 because it was progressive. i am not an expert but i was worrying that some people that pass themselves off as experts are saying that 1280x1080i is better than 1280x720P. i was confused again until i read your post. besides all i have to do is look at those VOOM channels in 1280x1080 and then look at one of the few shows ESPN or ABC has on in 1280x720P to know that 1280x1080i is lite and 1280x720P is HD.