Looks like CES 2006 is a NON EVENT for HD

[jakesnake3037]

I am just wondering-- Do any of you have jobs or lives, because all you do is sit in here and complain about how bad your HD looks or why D* or E* hasn't done this or that for you. I hate to tell you this, but the world does not revolve around your couch patato ways!!!
Go out and do something else and just be grateful you have tv to watch (unlike billions of people in the world who don't have anything)

JUST MY HONEST OPINION

That's my vent for the day!!! Just tired of hearing all the whining!!!

BTW- This is directed to all of us posters (yes, me too)-We are all guilty!!

[BobMurdoch]

Yup, got a job. January is a slow month, so lots of free time to surf and kvetch.....

You NEED a good job to pay for all these toys........

As for the whining, events of the last 24 hours have done more to enflame users than a dozen 921 software updates......

[CPanther95]

The TV world should be catering to the couch potato in all of us. It's CES, not a mountain climbing trade show - although it's good to know that if we do take up mountain climbing, we'll soon be able to catch Dancing with the Stars via D* or E* on our portable devices while hanging upside-down off a cliff.

[Don Landis]

Oh Hell! Time to jump in on this whining session-

OK, I like high quality HDTV like the rest of you but I also like it to be a balance between quantity and cost. I also respect the established common sense facts about HDTV and television broadcast.

Our TV in HDTV is not about just what res D* or E* sends, It's about what res we can actually use. If the source HDTV is only at 1080i x 1440 pixels all the complaining about not getting 1920 is meaningless. If your monitor and the majority of monitors out there are just 720p x 1280, even the HDCAM sourced program at 1440 Hpixels is being lost. So why even spend your money to transmit it to you since as soon as the signal gets to you the first thing you do is toss out the 1280 to 1440 pixels anyway as your monitor can't resolve them?
Several years ago a forum friend was complaining about D* downresing, his point was that since the ATSC allows for 1080i x 1920, all HDTV should be in that maximum resolution. To end the whiniong, I asked him what sort of 1080i x 1920 monitor he was using? His answer - a 32" CRT. In that tube the dot pitch alone limited the display to under 550 pixels! Yes, we now have monitors we can buy that displays 1080p x 1920 and the picture using a true 1080p source does look great. But, that is what we see at CES2006, not what the whiners have at home.

What DishNetwork and DirecTV as well as the Broadcast networks understand, is that they can offer a resolution that is at best 1280 and please nearly all the HDTV viewers with a great picture. Offer a limit of 1000 Hpixels and valid complaints of image softness will surface from those with large screen 1280 displays. Those using Plasmas and LCD's may not ever notice the difference but probably will just complain because they are a complaining type personality, a true whiner. If you have a true 1080p x 1920 display then you need to consider that you are the extreme exception and not the bulk general population. Your display device is the strongest link in the chain and you should learn the HDTV process by how you get a picture to understand if your whine is valid. Meaning that if a program was produced in HDCAM, no amount of whining will add pixels of image detail for your Picture improvement. Yes, pixels will be added if they want in an upconvert process but those upconverted pixels never add more image pixel detail, just numerical bandwidth! Those with average HDTV's will not realize any gain in resolution beyond the 1280 you now have.
Today, when the discussion came up among the "satelliteguys" meeting at the E* booth, I said I'll worry when they downres HDTV to that of a DVD or about 600-800 Hpixels. In the meantime, until 1080p x 1920 monitors become mainstream, I don't care if E* and D* wish to limit the bandwidth to 1280Hpixels, especially if it means I can have more content at a reasonable cost. I certainly do not wish to double my sub rates just so a dozen or so 1080P x 1920 monitor owners will stop complaining. And, I don't want to limit variety and pay more so poeople with low res HDTV monitors that barely do DVD resolution will stop whining. Let them buy a proper monitor first.
At this point in time the best source we have for quality is from E* D* and local broadcast/network OTA. When BlueRay / HDDVD is released these broadcast HDTV channels will become second to the hard media formats. Then it will be time
for E* and D* as well as the local stations to adjust their attitudes toward this down resing policy. When, I believe it was Scott who was reporting to us that E*'s policy was they will downres all HDTV and "never" go back to full bandwidth. (paraphrasing) I disagreed since I believe, #1 "Never" is an unrealistic limit to future events, and #2 As long as these guys are in business, they will adjust their policy to hat the market will bare. If people will pay for the quality they will deliver ity to us. This in fact is the whole proof as to why the success of HDTV in the first place. We consumers have proven to the providers that we are willing to pay for improved quality. The next question is how much?

So when you are about to post a complaint about not having HDTV at 1920 just remember this:
FILM to HDTV tape is scanned at 1920 Hpixels (down res from film) for D5 recording master and then usually dubbed down to HDCAM for distribution at 1440pixels. If all is untouched at that point YOU downres it at your end to 1280 for display. IF E* does it at their end to conserve TP bandwidth limiting the detail to 1280, then who cares?

If a live program was shot using HDCAM, then it was shot and recorded at a maximum of 1440 Hpixels (eg. HDNET event programming)

HDPPV, Showtime HD, and HBO HD is nearly all using D5 distribution tapes today, but they have no need to suffer resolution reduction since they are not bandwidth starvedfrom their sources to the MSO. D* and E* are starved so if they can manage to limit this before YOU do, they can save you money and offer more content.

In summary- I support HDTV downresing to 1280 Hpixels until the majority of viewers are using 1080P x 1920 monitors. At that time, I think the right thing to do would be to pass the full resolution of the program source, meaning for the most part, 1440 HDCAM Hpixels or when originating from D5 tape, 1920 H pixels assuming that cost and content variety are respected in that offering.

[rickaren]

Well 99% of the population never saw how good HD programing looked on the original VOOM. It never has looked that good after DISH picked it up, and now it doesn't look as good on some channels as it did just a few weeks ago. Going to MPEG4 will not do anything for the picture quality on our 1080i sets we most use, and those that have 1080p or are interested in true full-definition 1,920X1080 sets like the SED technology will have to use a DVD to be happy! Does anyone care? Yes a few of us that know it could be much better. DISH has dropped the ball. They could be a true leader that we could recommend, instead they are now the same as cable or DirecTV. Why up-grade your present set, or switch to DISH? No reason I see. What a shame.

[jsb_hburg]

Don,

I understand what you are saying but the picture looks noticeably softer on my 720p DLP. Are you saying that 1280 x 1080 could look very good if the encoders at Dish are properly adjusted?

[CPanther95]

In summary- I support HDTV downresing to 1280 Hpixels until the majority of viewers are using 1080P x 1920 monitors. At that time, I think the right thing to do would be to pass the full resolution of the program source,

Unfortunately, we can't rely on anyone to do "the right thing" when that time comes. We've seen the erosion of SD channel picture quality despite the capability of virtually all viewers to discern the difference on their displays. The significant thing here is the shift from the early intentions of all providers to simply "pass through" a channel as received, to the willingness to manipulate the image however they see fit to do so.

If they can go to 1280x1080 - why not 1280x720? With no firm long-term view into what our provider's intentions are, we have no idea of the actual impact - whether this is the result of necessity, or the beginning of a worsening trend.

That's my concern anyway.

[JH1949]

Don,

I understand what you are saying but the picture looks noticeably softer on my 720p DLP. Are you saying that 1280 x 1080 could look very good if the encoders at Dish are properly adjusted?

Don,

I have a 30" diagonal 16x9 screen 1280 x 1024 monitor that receives native 1080i or 720p. My 811 is set to 1080i. Voom looks softer after the downrez. As 2 examples, I can no longer see the detail on paintings on Voom Gallery and the facial detail is gone on Soundstage Voom Rave.

Do you have any explanation as to why this may be even though my set is not 1920 x 1080i ? TIA

[VideoGrabber]

Don, I was more than a little surprised to hear you take this position, but you explained yourself pretty well, and I can see where you're coming from and acknowledge your points, even if I disagree with your some of your conclusions.

> I'll worry when they downres HDTV to that of a DVD or about 600-800 Hpixels. <

It sounds like you've become very easy to please. I think virtually everyone who inhabits these forums would be worried long before then.

> In the meantime, until 1080p x 1920 monitors become mainstream, I don't care if E* and D* wish to limit the bandwidth to 1280Hpixels, <

This is the biggest falacy in your argument. Until the best quality monitors not only are available, but mainstream, throwing away 33% of the h-rez is "OK". So, if the vast majority of people are viewing so-called "HD content" from downrezzing HD-Lite sources (d*, e*, and we're being led to believe many cable-co's soon), what possible reason would there be for the vast majority of viewers to ever buy any display that can do better than that? Virtually none, because other than HD-DVD, there would simply be no difference to be seen. So 1920 monitors will never become mainstream, and we'd be stuck with HD-Lite broadcasts forever.

> I certainly do not wish to double my sub rates just so a dozen or so 1080P x 1920 monitor owners will stop complaining. And, I don't want to limit variety and pay more so poeople with low res HDTV monitors that barely do DVD resolution will stop whining. Let them buy a proper monitor first. <

I've come to expect better from you than silly implications that to provide high-quality real HD would double your sub rates, when no such correlations exist. That's a scare tactic. Also "a dozen or so" is a pretty cheap slam, and your constant references to 1080p displays (currently rare and expensive) ignores the quality impact on 1080i displays (neither rare, nor expensive) that many viewers already have.

> At this point in time the best source we have for quality is from E* D* and local broadcast/network OTA. <

Which is pretty sad. Even OTA-HD is seriously degraded in many markets by multi-casting, resulting in bit-rate starving and artifacting, to the point where down-rezzing to HD-Lite would probably be a net improvement.

> When BlueRay / HDDVD is released these broadcast HDTV channels will become second to the hard media formats. Then it will be time for E* and D* as well as the local stations to adjust their attitudes toward this down resing policy. <

Huh? These formats are being released this spring/summer. So the DBS guys should take one position now, then reverse themselves in less than 6 months? I don't see the logic in that.

> ...they can offer a resolution that is at best 1280 and please nearly all the HDTV viewers with a great picture. <

I can't argue with your claim of pleasing most HD viewers, since as more newbies get exposed to HD, the numbers will shift to those who really have no idea what HD can look like, but simply that it's better than what they had before. They'll be easily satisfied. However, your claim of a "great picture" is something I suspect many here would disagree with you on, when they know how much better it could be.

And regardless of how you denegrate the "whiners", if some day you do wind up with real HD again at 1920x1080, it will be because of them, not anything you did or said.

There are two HD formats: 1920x1080i, and 1280x720p. 1280x1080i combines the two, to provide a bastardized version which is "the worst of both worlds".

- Tim

[hammerdown]

Am I dreaming? I literally felt sick to my stomach after reading Don's post. Looks to me like the big dogs here bowed down in Charlie's presence and handed HD-Lite acceptance over on a silver platter.

Hammer