DIRECTV HD: Not Everything Is HD

[Poke]

I did not watch the video yet to see what he had to say.

DIRECTV HD: Not Everything Is HD

Some channels are 'stretching' the definition of High-Definition, says Swanni.
By Allison Moore
HD Diva

Washington, D.C. (October 16, 2007) -- DIRECTV recently expanded its High-Definition lineup from nine to 47 national channels.

In addition, the satcaster says it now offers more than 70 high-def channels in total when you include regional sports channels and Pay Per View.

Phillip Swann, aka Swanni and president of TVPredictions.com, has just posted a video commentary on DIRECTV's new HD lineup.

He explains that although the DIRECTV high-def viewer has more to choose from, not everything that's called HD is actually HD.

The video also includes brief snippets of new channels such as Fox Business Network HD and MGM HD.

 

[Andrewwski]

Yeah, that's not exactly D*'s fault. It's the network's fault for not providing an HD broadcast.

Any network doesn't provide all shows in HD. Doesn't depend on the provider. It's the network. But now I'm sounding like a Verizon Wireless commercial.

 

[Hall]

They are HD channels. That's what the network is calling them... What they show isn't relevant. Remember, Dish does the same thing.

Besides, what classifies a channel as really "HD" ? 24 hours of HD programming ? 12 hours ?

 

[richiephx]

Personally, I think it's terribly misleading especially to the non-technical tv viewer. Since many of the new not-so HD channels stretch or crop their SD picture to fill the screen, many viewers think they are watching HD even though it's not. D* and E* are reaping the benefit of this misrepresentation because viewers are being enticed into signing up and paying extra for a service that really isn't HD. Now the techies defend the cause by saying it still looks better than SD with a little HD and you gotta start somewhere. While I agree with both defenses, providers could also wait to add channels they call HD until there is a certain level of programming available to light up the channel. This could be negotiated in carriage agreements with programmers and might offer an incentive to create more HD sooner, rather than later to get their channel lit up faster. As it stands now, the channel designation is there and programmers can take as long as they want to add hd programming. The programmer and provider win but the subscriber loses because he pays for the expectation of watching HD but has to now wait because there is little or no HD available.

 

[charper1]

Boy Swanni with more news that is non-news. LOL.

The majority of HD channels do not show HD content 24/7, some likely not 65% of time. It is not the fault of your DBS, but the originating provider; so if FX or TBS is stretching or pillar-boxing on DirecTV, then they are doing it on DISH and cable too.. Regardless, what SHOULD we call the channels if not HD?

 

[richiephx]

you call them HD channels but, it is still misleading and inaccurate to the non-tech viewer because they are paying additional for HD channels that have little or no HD. People are thinking they are watching HD and they aren't. Both E* and D* are both guilty, but D* is even more guilty because they just happen to be doing it faster than E* at this point in time.

 

[charper1]

guilty of what? Adding a channel from a provider like TBS that calls their channel TBS-HD, so what is DirecTV supposed to call it? They simply pass what they get to you. I think you guys are nitpicking over nothing; although I do agree I would like MORE HD, but the fact remains should one wait till 75% or more of the programming is presented HD before actually adding the channel? IMHO that is NO WAY!

 

[FlyingJ]

you call them HD channels but, it is still misleading and inaccurate to the non-tech viewer because they are paying additional for HD channels that have little or no HD. People are thinking they are watching HD and they aren't. Both E* and D* are both guilty, but D* is even more guilty because they just happen to be doing it faster than E* at this point in time.

\

I have read your posts (the same one) on multiple threads now. We understand, everyone has an opinion and it is fine. But, you seem to make it sound like its criminal. Poor viewers are being taken for a ride. LOL. Since D* has added all of these new HD channels has my bill gone up, no. Who is getting hurt here exactly? You have thought it out, and you are well spoken, but, the premise is just way off, IMO. For the last 5 years many folks have been buying 16 by 9 sets and watching TV, happy as could be without understanding that they were not watching HD. It is not the Sat cos job to educate.

 

[talos4]

Let's look at SpeedTV for example, because that's one of my favorite channels:up

For the "non-tech viewer" as well as my self, the switch to the "HD"version of the channel resulted in an enormous improvement in PQ over the SD version.

If the only thing that is accomplished for these "non tech viewers" is improved PQ, where's the harm.

My brothers both couldn't understand what the "big deal" was with HD. One brother would have been happy watching his analog TWC and would never given it a second thought.

Then he was at the house and watched a Packer game and he was hooked.

It took a couple days of shopping, set up and my time showing him how his new 42" LCD should be set up to get the most out his HD experience. Explaining why some programming has "those stupid black bars" and some don't.

THAT is how the "non tech viewers" will be educated. By taking a little of YOUR time and experience, more and more people will get it.

Now, if I could only find a way to battle the WAF for a DBS system, their HD experience would be much better!