Remember were getting geared twards the era of 1080P so any resolution diffrence horizontally will make a diffrence as 1080P does depend on a horizontal resolution of 1920 
New mpg4 dish channels in HDLITE!
- Thread starter goaliebob99
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 120
- Views 24K
"Good point! Even the high-end plasmas are 1366 x 768, so the 1440 x 1080i would be fine for most HD viewers."
Bad point !
Dish's receivers/DVRs DOESN'T know about yout TV native resolution and making double _artificial_ 1920x1080i from any source less then that !
Bad point !
Dish's receivers/DVRs DOESN'T know about yout TV native resolution and making double _artificial_ 1920x1080i from any source less then that !
I am just GLAD we are getting more HD channels!
Even HD-Lite looks a helluva lot better than the stuff in SD!!!
Even HD-Lite looks a helluva lot better than the stuff in SD!!!
These posts supporting HD-lite are of the type that would make Dish execs jump for joy!!!
Hooray, we can downrez HD, throw in a couple more channels, and the subs actually LIKE IT!!!
Call engineering and down-rez them all.
When we run out of transponders, don't waste money sending up more satellites, just down-rez again and throw in a few more channels. They'll love it!!
Hooray, we can downrez HD, throw in a couple more channels, and the subs actually LIKE IT!!!
Call engineering and down-rez them all.
When we run out of transponders, don't waste money sending up more satellites, just down-rez again and throw in a few more channels. They'll love it!!
Last edited:
Note for those viewing on 1366x768 or 1280x720 HDTVs. The quality of the image on your screen will be better if the source is 1920x1080i than 1440x1080i. Don't fool yourself that just because your screen's resolution is less than 1440x1080 that there would be no difference between 1920 vs 1440. 1920 will provide more detail for your TV to convert down to its native resolution.
That is correct. Two extra conversions (1920 to HDLite and then back to 1920) distort the picture. And the result of this distortion will be visible regardless of the TV's native resolution. Perhaps even on EDTV. Of course on higher resolution displays it will be more noticeable.
If it had not been for the original VOOM, that DISH said they would bring back, none of us would have know how good real HD can look on our sets. DISH is still the HD Leader and much better that D* HD presently. They sure could be doing better, but DirecTV is far behind at present. I watch (record) both each day. Thanks DISH for what you have now, but hopefully you will improve much more in HD PQ in the future!
Has to be an issue with their mpeg4 encoders. Anyone know what encoders they are using or is that confidential?
E* will broadcast in the resolution they want, regardless if I or you don't want HD-lite or not. I don't think they really care about our likings in that matter. I don't like HD-lite either, but nobody is gonna ask me. They'll do what suits them best. They don't even care that my 622 has permanent reboots. They told me that with a reboot the receiver fixes itself, and then it's OK again. Why should they care then about my picture resolution preferences?
rickaren said:
This is so wrong. OTA HD puts this stuff to shame and is a great example of what HD could look like. If network programming wasn't so bad it would be a great alternative for the Lite-crap Dish is feeding us. The sad part is that this supposed HD does not even look as good as a well produced DVD. I have at least a dozen Superbit DVDs that blow away the downressed Voom stuff.
ravensong said:
Not necessarily. In a lot of markets the OTA stations multicast, thus not being better...
Exactly. Every OTA major network in my city has at least 2 sub-channels for multicasting. E*'s picture is much better to me.
most (1080i) OTA HD stations (here in LA ) don't look that great, most have low bitrate and you can see blockiness!
Now that the Canon XL H1 is getting in people's hands, expect tons of 1440 x 1080i source material anyway, especially on channels like Nat Geo. It will become the norm.
Interesting "shootout" in DV magazine recently between several sub-$10,000 HD cameras, along with two pro-HD cameras. In the technical tests, the XL H1 beat the others in most tests. But in the end, they decided the JVC HD100 just "looked" better in most situations. (It shoots native 1280 x 720p.)
They also noted that the JVC had higher native resolution than the pro Varicam in the test. (Varicam's record 960 x 720p- and you can bet a ton of material on these channels were shot with Varicams.) But the sentence I found interesting was this...
"If recorded resolution were the only factor of interest, you'd probably buy the JVC."
But it's not the only factor of interest. The Panasonic AG-HVX200P has a 960 x 540 pixel CCD. (Personally, I don't get it...resolution isn't everything, but it is SOMETHING.) But the Panasonic can record with 4:2:2 color sampling...no other low cost camera can. It can also shoot in a ton of different frame rates. For digital filmmakers, this is the camera of choice. It would be my LAST choice, because I have different needs.
The point is, resolution isn't everything- it's only a part. I would consider bitrate more important as far as Satellite HD goes.
The problem with HD-Lite is that it's being distorted...and poorly. If you saw a raw Varicam tape, it would blow away every HD channel available, even though it's just 960 x 720p. It's not being compressed for transmission, and it's not being converted to a different resolution.
I guess what I'm getting at is that until you've watched these channels, looking at the resolution doesn't mean much. They might look fantastic, or they might look like garbage.
Some people have been complaining that we've stopped complaining about the VOOM channels. As far as I'm concerned, they've gotten better. For me, Equator was the channel I really saw a problem with...I couldn't watch it for a while. But now, it looks OK. They did something to improve it, but the resolution hasn't changed. In fact, the other night, I sat up close to the screen and flipped between channels, and (whispering nervously)...Equator looked better than Discovery. Discovery had a LOT of blockiness, Equator had little. Blockiness is related to bitrate, usually. I don't know what the bitrates were, but forced to choose, I'd rather they maximize bitrate than resolution. Your milage may vary.
If it looks bad, then by all means raise a stink. But don't bitch about a raw resolution figure sight unseen.
Interesting "shootout" in DV magazine recently between several sub-$10,000 HD cameras, along with two pro-HD cameras. In the technical tests, the XL H1 beat the others in most tests. But in the end, they decided the JVC HD100 just "looked" better in most situations. (It shoots native 1280 x 720p.)
They also noted that the JVC had higher native resolution than the pro Varicam in the test. (Varicam's record 960 x 720p- and you can bet a ton of material on these channels were shot with Varicams.) But the sentence I found interesting was this...
"If recorded resolution were the only factor of interest, you'd probably buy the JVC."
But it's not the only factor of interest. The Panasonic AG-HVX200P has a 960 x 540 pixel CCD. (Personally, I don't get it...resolution isn't everything, but it is SOMETHING.) But the Panasonic can record with 4:2:2 color sampling...no other low cost camera can. It can also shoot in a ton of different frame rates. For digital filmmakers, this is the camera of choice. It would be my LAST choice, because I have different needs.
The point is, resolution isn't everything- it's only a part. I would consider bitrate more important as far as Satellite HD goes.
The problem with HD-Lite is that it's being distorted...and poorly. If you saw a raw Varicam tape, it would blow away every HD channel available, even though it's just 960 x 720p. It's not being compressed for transmission, and it's not being converted to a different resolution.
I guess what I'm getting at is that until you've watched these channels, looking at the resolution doesn't mean much. They might look fantastic, or they might look like garbage.
Some people have been complaining that we've stopped complaining about the VOOM channels. As far as I'm concerned, they've gotten better. For me, Equator was the channel I really saw a problem with...I couldn't watch it for a while. But now, it looks OK. They did something to improve it, but the resolution hasn't changed. In fact, the other night, I sat up close to the screen and flipped between channels, and (whispering nervously)...Equator looked better than Discovery. Discovery had a LOT of blockiness, Equator had little. Blockiness is related to bitrate, usually. I don't know what the bitrates were, but forced to choose, I'd rather they maximize bitrate than resolution. Your milage may vary.
If it looks bad, then by all means raise a stink. But don't bitch about a raw resolution figure sight unseen.
goaliebob99 said:Here's the report
National Geographic HD
Uplinked at 1280x720p.
Mpeg2 video.
Only sharing TP with HGTV HD so tons of bandwidth.
HGTV HD
Uplinked at 1920x1080i.
Mpeg2 video.
Hey goaliebob, what are the datatypes (think thats it) on the 2 channels, as in, will it be viewable on older boxes, or the mpeg4 boxes only! (couldnt find it in a search!)
Thanks!
They have the channel type set so that only ViP receivers will be able to view them. Any new HD added will be this way.
I KNEW that question was going to pop up any hour now.
It does in every new HD channel thread.
And the answer is always the same ... no new channels for old MPEG2 receivers!
It does in every new HD channel thread.
And the answer is always the same ... no new channels for old MPEG2 receivers!
