Why Is WFN Classified as a HD Channel?

[mike123abc]

Or, it could be a bad investment if all the investors (that is we consumers) bail on the investments. My "free" HD ends next month. I will not pay extra for the hope that someday these channels may have HD content, maybe.

As very wise friend of mine said, "Wish in one hand, spit in the other. Which one fills up fastest?"

WFN has not answered the HD??? email.

As long as they have room to keep adding channels what difference does it make how much HD WFN has? Yes it appears this channel was added to appease the company that offers it, probably forced on Dish in a contract, but it did not boot another HD filled channel off the air.

As long as Dish finishes its goal over the next couple months and has about the same lineup of HD channels that DIRECTV has, were are you as a consumer going to go to see all this HD Dish is not carrying? Not paying extra for the Ultimate pack if you do not like the channels will probably happen a lot now that VOOM dropped out, but it is not like the same HD channels on DIRECTV show any more HD than they do on Dish...

 

[dangue]

As long as they have room to keep adding channels what difference does it make how much HD WFN has? Yes it appears this channel was added to appease the company that offers it, probably forced on Dish in a contract, but it did not boot another HD filled channel off the air.

I think part of the problem is that Dish used "we removed unpopular channels so that we have the capacity to add other HD channels" excuse.

As long as Dish finishes its goal over the next couple months and has about the same lineup of HD channels that DIRECTV has, were are you as a consumer going to go to see all this HD Dish is not carrying?

In the short term, I think shooting for having the same HD lineup as Direct has is a mistake. Dish needs something to distinguish itself. Direct distinguishes itself in the Sports arena and being in the lead in HD. Dish needs something to hang it's hat on rather than just saying our packages are comparable we have the same HD lineup. Without that, why would anyone, choosing a Satellite provider for the first time, go with Dish over Direct? Why pick the provider with less programing options overall?

And sure you can say technology or maybe internationals. But most people aren't going to be swayed by claims of a better receiver (at least not if they haven't had a chance to try out the two); at least not more so than hearing that direct offers things like NFL Sunday Ticket and MLB EI.

 

[SmokeFan14]

As long as they have room to keep adding channels what difference does it make how much HD WFN has? Yes it appears this channel was added to appease the company that offers it, probably forced on Dish in a contract, but it did not boot another HD filled channel off the air.

As long as Dish finishes its goal over the next couple months and has about the same lineup of HD channels that DIRECTV has, were are you as a consumer going to go to see all this HD Dish is not carrying? Not paying extra for the Ultimate pack if you do not like the channels will probably happen a lot now that VOOM dropped out, but it is not like the same HD channels on DIRECTV show any more HD than they do on Dish...

No-diggity, no-doubt..That's why I'm staying put. Even after my contract runs out (in 2 freakin' years), unless D* comes out with mind-blowing amounts of HD, it won't do me any good to leave. Same channels, same poor customer service as everyone else..blah, blah, blah. I do miss VOOM, though. Had to throw that in..

 

[nsps]

I don't get your line of thinking. Your initial question is valid, but you lost me after that.

What does TCM have to do with it?

The key difference- TCM has the potential to be 100% HD. They only have two sets (probably both in the same studio) and don't shoot in the field, so converting the studio to HD should be pretty easy. They have thousands and thousands of hours of HD-ready source material. However, it takes time and money to transfer it to HD Masters. I think the reason we don't have TCM-HD yet is because they are waiting until they can do it RIGHT.

And the best part is, no one would care if the intros weren't in HD anyway—we just want to see those new HD transfers!

And TCM will NOT be like the other Turner networks' HD efforts. TCM has never been anything like the other Turner networks. It exists on another plane, a heavenly plane.

 

[kvnfl]

I think part of the problem is that Dish used "we removed unpopular channels so that we have the capacity to add other HD channels" excuse.

In the short term, I think shooting for having the same HD lineup as Direct has is a mistake. Dish needs something to distinguish itself.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner, step right up and claim your prize!

 

[Rey]

maybe by surpassing D on hd channels?

 

[Sean Mota]

Public deception --- it is called.

 

[zim2dive]

Has anyone seen HD on Sci-Fi? I already miss Rave. Thanks E for nothing.

Yep, been recording the BSG and SGA episodes. Big gain here IMO. Thanks E* for getting me some of my favorite shows in HD!

 

[Mojo]

Yep, been recording the BSG and SGA episodes. Big gain here IMO. Thanks E* for getting me some of my favorite shows in HD!

And every now and then there's a movie in HD. I will give Dishnet its propers for adding Sci-Fi HD

 

[Pakbackr]

I didn't read whole thread, so if this has been said, sorry. But seems like an ingenious plan by the folks at WFN. Think about it - they have a niche channel of marginal interest at best. They brand it as HD, and pitch the idea to carriers saying, "you get to count us as one of your HD channels, but until the content starts coming on board, we won't take up hardly any of your bandwidth." The carrier bites the hook (sorry, I couldn't resist), and we get stuck with a "crappy" HD channel. Whoever said, its "public deception" was absolutely right!

 

[M Sparks]

"you get to count us as one of your HD channels, but until the content starts coming on board, we won't take up hardly any of your bandwidth."

I've seen several people say things like this. Where did people get the idea that upconverted programming takes up "hardly any bandwidth"?

An HD signal is an HD signal. Now, it's true that due to the pillarboxes, you could compress it a little more, because there's less motion. I suppose putting ALL the mainly upconvert channels on the same transponder might let them squeeze in one or two extra.

But it's still MUCH bigger than an SD version would be.

 

[Hall]

I don't believe up-converted material takes up as much as native HD material. The up-converted material is filled with extra data to fill the gap(s). That extra stuff can most likely be "squeezed" much more than real data.

 

[M Sparks]

I don't believe up-converted material takes up as much as native HD material. The up-converted material is filled with extra data to fill the gap(s). That extra stuff can most likely be "squeezed" much more than real data.

It really would depend on the material. Yeah, in general, if it's pillarboxed, it's probably going to be more compressible, because there's less movement on the screen.

But the simple fact is, upconverting makes more information,m even if it's bogus. I can actually run a test on this...hang on...

 

[M Sparks]

OK, something's funky with my Mpeg-4 encoding software, so I went to Mpeg-2 encoding. The point will be the same.

I've only done a 1280 x 720 test so far, but here are the results...

I started with a standard 720 x 480 DV AVI file- 30 seconds. I encoded to MPEG-2, highest quality, 2 pass VBR. I used the min and max bitrates from the preset.

File size- 15.9 MB

Then I upconverted to 1280 x 720...without stretching, leaving pillarboxes. Again, I used a high-quality VBR preset.

File size- 68.9 MB

Then I STRETCHED the picture to fill the screen. Used the exact same preset.I assumed this file would be slightly larger.

File size 68.9 MB

Hmmmm...

EDIT, OK, I'm having some technical issues, so I'm not going to waste any more time on this. But my main point stands...an HD stream is an HD stream. When you upconvert, you create more info, and the compressed version is still much larger than a standard SD stream.

 

[Cantonsurroundsound]

It's the new, cool thing .... a channel or network has to have an HD channel nowadays. What do they do ? Take the regular channel and re-transmit it in a 16:9 frame and stick an "HD" watermark in the corner. Put out a press release, add it to their website, get providers to sign up, and they're in business !

To one extent, D*, E*, and the cablecos don't care. They get to say "we added another HD channel". A lot of customers scream "add more HD" and seemingly could care less if there's any HD programming or not.

Personally, I want HD programming, not a bogus, marketing gimmick. A channel like WFN-HD in fact takes away a "slot" for a real HD channel.

I agree! I want Voom not these wanabee HD channels they are providing. Voom to me was the clearest HD channels on the market! Dish has upset me so much that if they do not bring back Voom they are going to be canceled as I can get more HD and more chanels elsewhere for less money. I am not going to stick around and listen to more bogus info from dish trying to tell me that I now have better HD when they are not. Those fishing shows are filmed with some lame consumer camera as they are not even as clear as the outdoor channel in SD.

 

[bkushner]

Yeah, I've seen quite a bit of HD on Sci-Fi.

And I'll be darned...Disney is showing something in HD right now. Something about a bird..."Phineus" or something like that

That just leaves Bravo, Cartoon Network, and WFN as the only channels I haven't seen ANY HD on.

I haven't seen any HD on Hallmark?

 

[dfergie]

Upconverted SD generally takes as much HDD space on my 622 as HD...same with my HR20...

 

[techweb]

If Dish was hell bent on adding an outdoor type channel, they would have been much better off adding Outdoor Channel 2 HD that's on my cable system. While I seldom watch it because it's mostly hunting and fishing, at least much of the programming is actually in HD with decent picture quality.

 

[zim2dive]

... I can get more HD and more chanels elsewhere for less money....

Where can you get ~45 HD channels for less than $47/month? (the cost of the Dish Hd-only pak + DVR + locals)

 

[Sean Mota]

from today's retailer chat...

"Jim kind of laughs about the WFN"