SciFi channel HD??

We were right at the time those posts were written. People on this board wrote to the Sci-Fi channel PR department and got a response back that there were no plans for an HD channel. Couple that with no info ANYWHERE else, except for the the DirecTV web site, it was a rational conclusion.

Oh please. Right after people mentioned it showed up on D*, they were plenty of people claiming it wasn't a real HD channel.

Sci-Fi doesn't have a HD feed, therefore, the only thing you will see on Directv is the SD version stretched out and running at the highest bitrate possible but its still stretched and the HD filmed shows will not be in HD because Sci-Fi themselves do not have a HD feed available.

That was on 10/3 @ 10:59 am

Mr Kennedy
The point is the Channel is not HD , That is better unconverted that the current SD format? maybe, but When you have a satcaster like Direct tv claiming they have a HD Channel that their own Network doesn't carry I have a problem with that , If you all are happy with a unconverted Channel amen to that, But don't come here and expect to go unchallenged about you have something clearly you don't have.

This one came on 10/3 @ 10:23 am

So far, none of the content is HD. Not so much as a SciFi-HD logo, AFAIK. You don't think D* has pulled some strings to put the uncompressed SD feed up on an different transponder?

There's a quote "explaining" that D* probably was just upconverting the SD feed.


lol very funny, Probably Direct tv should listen to you since they are unconverting the channel (not SiFi) and selling to you like HD when is NOT!!
BTW I am not only a very Happy Dishnetwork costumer I also A contractor for them;);)

Here's a quote from a E* contractor that on 10/4 (one day after SciFIHD showed up on D*) again pushed the conspiracy theory that it didn't exist.

So there you go, friend. There are many, many more examples but these prove that a stubborn few refused to believe there was a SciFiHD channel even after it launched. Some of the E* fanboys were calling foul based on nothing but their own guesses, but they were clearly wrong.

Glad to help. :hatsoff:
 
It was correct at the time, moron. Look at the date stamps on those. That channel did not exist when those posts were made.


Dude, a little disturbed. Fact, you guys said that there would be no SciFi HD, we said that there would. And your trying to spin it that you were right?

LOL:D:D:D:DLOL:D:D:D:DLOL:D:D:D:DLOL:D:D:D:D:D:D

Pathetic! But funny!
 
E* fanboys were calling foul based on nothing but their own guesses, but they were clearly wrong.

Glad to help. :hatsoff:

No name calling please. According to one of your D* forum mods, referring to anyone as "fanboy" is name calling and will not be tolerated. :cool:

NightRyder
 
Dude, a little disturbed. Fact, you guys said that there would be no SciFi HD, we said that there would. And your trying to spin it that you were right?

LOL:D:D:D:DLOL:D:D:D:DLOL:D:D:D:DLOL:D:D:D:D:D:D

Pathetic! But funny!

Take this stupid sh*t to the War zone already. :rolleyes:

NightRyder
 
Oh please. Right after people mentioned it showed up on D*, they were plenty of people claiming it wasn't a real HD channel.



That was on 10/3 @ 10:59 am



This one came on 10/3 @ 10:23 am



There's a quote "explaining" that D* probably was just upconverting the SD feed.




Here's a quote from a E* contractor that on 10/4 (one day after SciFIHD showed up on D*) again pushed the conspiracy theory that it didn't exist.

So there you go, friend. There are many, many more examples but these prove that a stubborn few refused to believe there was a SciFiHD channel even after it launched. Some of the E* fanboys were calling foul based on nothing but their own guesses, but they were clearly wrong.

Glad to help. :hatsoff:
Yes and I still waiting for those bitrates you have in your wonderful channels, But I guess you don't have anyone with the technical expertise to deliver.;);)
Anyway I think NigthRider is right and if you want to take this go to the war zone,Now you have mods banning people there who don't have to drink your soda:hatsoff:
 
Name Calling

The last half of this thread has been little more than name calling. The channel showed up and must be real HD part of the time w/ upconvert the rest of the time. What is needed is less of the "I told you so" & more of how soon will we be able to get it on E*. According to the forum over at Sci Fi : "Well it's up. But I don't know why. So far everything has been picture framed (except SGA tonight) At least they arn't streching SD material like TNT does."
 
Last edited:
FYI:

- Odyssey 5 (underrated series from 2002) is being shown on SciFi starting Friday, October 12. It was originally shown in HD - so if SciFi-HD channel does not show it in true HD, that will be a pretty good indication of their commitment to HD.

HDNet has been showing these in HD. SciFi may not have the HD rights. Thought HDNet's contract may be up for Odyssey 5 now and SciFi has it.

Looks like we'll know next week.

Voyagerbob
 
Just one comment about all this SciFi HD bruhaha I see this morning: Chill out and go make some margaritas. Its only TV.

Anyways....


We are already at the point where there is a whole lot more HD content we can record on DVRs than there is time to watch even a modest percentage. I had to go delete several unwatched things to make room for some of the HBO freebies (no USB drive for now). Didnt bother me a bit. I just had to make some choices about which ones were not particularly important to keep. Sci Fi will just add more to the glut so I am in no hurry and not particularly interested if it will be October or January for them to get everything up tp speed.

The playoffs are a special case to be fair so I am glad Echostar finally got TBS up and running. And yes I would like the BSG movie and series but there is still plenty time for them :D

In the meantime, there are many things to watch on HDNet, HDNetMV, FilmFest, TNT, The Discovery Channels, Universal and so on. Even with the repeats.
 
You've clearly never seen Heroes...

Actually, yes I have...and it's a comic book series. Fun, but...

It's not truly/good science fiction. It's full of ludicrous premises, gaping holes of logic and fantasy elements that, while perhaps entertaining, relegate it to the pulp side of things.

That said, it's the difference between Blade Runner and Spiderman 3. If you don't know the difference I'm not going to bother...most (seemingly) don't or don't care and won't ever--it's why you have 99% worthless content on SciFi, imho.

As some others have said in previous posts--Mind Control, Battlestar Galactica and Eureka are pretty much the only things worth watching (I've given many other things a shot--and they always slip into campy wastes of time). And only two of those are science fiction, and only one is serious sci-fi. There you go.
 
What load

Why is someone trying to be the next TV critic in this forum? This is really just another case of if you don't care for it there are other channels that you can watch. You have left off many of the Sci=Fi shows like Dr. Who, Flash Gordon, Stargate Atlantis, & BS Galaticia. Now if they don't fit your definition of science fiction, you must have a very limited view of the genre. :D
 
Actually, yes I have...and it's a comic book series. Fun, but...

It's not truly/good science fiction. It's full of ludicrous premises, gaping holes of logic and fantasy elements that, while perhaps entertaining, relegate it to the pulp side of things.

That said, it's the difference between Blade Runner and Spiderman 3. If you don't know the difference I'm not going to bother...most (seemingly) don't or don't care and won't ever--it's why you have 99% worthless content on SciFi, imho.

As some others have said in previous posts--Mind Control, Battlestar Galactica and Eureka are pretty much the only things worth watching (I've given many other things a shot--and they always slip into campy wastes of time). And only two of those are science fiction, and only one is serious sci-fi. There you go.

What, its not "hard" science fiction?

I have just rewatched the whole series over the past few weeks, its as good science fiction as anything.

And while I really like Eureka, how is IT not filled with "full of ludicrous premises, gaping holes of logic and fantasy elements" And BSG's new generation of cylons aren't full of the same? :rolleyes:
 
What, its not "hard" science fiction?

I have just rewatched the whole series over the past few weeks, its as good science fiction as anything.

And while I really like Eureka, how is IT not filled with "full of ludicrous premises, gaping holes of logic and fantasy elements" And BSG's new generation of cylons aren't full of the same? :rolleyes:

First let me say I don't have a dog in this fight, but Scifi and fantasy are fundamentally different genres.

Scifi supposes there are scientific principles that, when known, will make the events in the story possible. A warp drive isn't magic, it's just that no one has discovered how to build one yet. And people appear to disappear but it just the operation of a scientific device that seems like magic to primitive peoples.

Fantasy incorporates magic thinking as in people being able to fly or disappear just using there minds. Scientific principles maintain that these things will NEVER happen... they are magic.
 
Magic is unknown science

First let me say I don't have a dog in this fight, but Scifi and fantasy are fundamentally different genres.

Scifi supposes there are scientific principles that, when known, will make the events in the story possible. A warp drive isn't magic, it's just that no one has discovered how to build one yet. And people appear to disappear but it just the operation of a scientific device that seems like magic to primitive peoples.

Fantasy incorporates magic thinking as in people being able to fly or disappear just using there minds. Scientific principles maintain that these things will NEVER happen... they are magic.

In most Sci-Fi magic is usually science that is not known how it is produced. Example is tele-porting can be considered someone "magically" appearing. So your supposition that Fantasy and Sci-Fi are totally different genres. They are different but related. Sometimes a story or show is both.
 
Some science fiction is not "hard science". I actually took a class in college called "Anthropology Science Fiction". The stories we read involved "first contact", "altering time lines", and "parallel universes".
 
Like it or not calling something "Sci Fi" is no different than calling something "drama" or "comedy". Especially since it has turned mainstream. All of them play with reality to varying extent and many are simply silly. Shakespeare is often totally unrealistic but nobody would argue with Henry V being a great drama.

Then again, as time goes on maybe there will be generally recognized categories of sci-fi just as there is 'romantic comedy'. I am not sure what some of them would be but someone will come up with them. My first suggestion: "Comic Book Sci-Fi". It doesnt have to actually come from a comic book. But it has to have that flavor to it. My first vote is for Star Wars. Very fun and about as comic book and unrealistic as you can get.

Dont laugh or I will use my super powers.... ooops, the force... on you :D
 
Too many people forget that Sci Fi stands for Science FICTION!!!!

And the other operative word is "science"...the "fiction" is the imaginative conjecture that comes from unproven 'what-ifs'...but if they're utterly ludicrous and not based on real scientific principles, they're FANTASY.

Thus, Heroes and Spiderman and all the comic book stuff is fantasy, not science fic tion. It's loosely pulp sci-fi as it has about 5% realistic scientific probability and a whole lot of 'suspension of disbelief'. Its fun, when done well, but it isn't the real deal as far as science fiction goes. A guy blinking his eyes and flying or teleporting or shooting webs out of his wrists is only going to engage a childlike mindset willing to not have to 'think too hard' about the premise. Again, I like that when I'm in the mood...but science fiction it ain't. I like zombie movies, too...when they're smart (read, set some semi-realistic ground rules and stick with them) and have some subtext/social commentary, that is. It's all good, this is entertainment after all. If you're not sure what the hell 'the good stuff is', maybe read some good authors of the past century (from Verne to Bradbury to Orson Scott Card, etc.) and see some movies like the aforementioned Blade Runner or even Matrix or Children of Men. They have a solid idea/basis that doesn't get utterly ludicrous based on the rules they set up. They also function as solid drama, concerned with character and the human condition. They're aimed at adults who want to chew on something in their minds...a game of 'what if' with a relation to the current real world.

And, hey, it doesn't always have to be serious to be real science fiction--and parallel universes and the like ARE solid science, albeit theoretical, just do a little reading up on modern string and m-theory. Heck, read the 100-yr-old classic, "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbott. The idea of a multi-verse is fascinating stuff and is a more 'intelligent' kind of magic that many stories use to great effect. Think about light flicks like 'Tron' and 'Buckaroo Banzai' and you'll see what I mean.

Likewise, 'Eureka' is a silly light sci-fi comedy show...but like Star Trek and other bona fide science fiction programs, it tries to (by and large) maintain the said logic of its premises. It doesn't take itself too seriously (neither did the classic Farscape...which, granted, is about 1/2 sci-fi and 1/2 fantasy, but the creators admit that btw). It is pretty smart about its plotlines and tries to keep things somewhat scientifically respectable. That's the difference.

I'm only voicing these things because I've been so disappointed that SciFi has, imho, only partway supported the genre for which it's named. It panders to schlock, mostly, and lowest common denomenator 'filler' that isn't what it purports to sell as a "science fiction" network. So, as well as upgrading to HD...let's hope they upgrade their content as well.

Battlestar Galactica is a start. It should be a model for the spine of their programming going forward. With so many viewers willing to settle for less, much less, I'm not holding my breath however. The execs at SciFi seem to see nothing absurd w/ superhero shows and pro wrestling being on a science fiction channel versus, say, Spike TV, so what hope do we fans of the genre have?

Their attitude seems to be clear: Why serve steak when grisly hamburger seems to do.

For as picky as folks around here are when it comes to HD bitrates and the like, I'd think more here would be asking for more in the actual quality of the programs themselves. That's just me, though, and if you like the bulk of SciFi's programming, more power to you. I hope someone steps in and steps up to fill the void, though. We'll see.

And to 'watchel1', who seems to have a real problem w/ the questions/concerns I'm raising (and has apparently missed alot of previous references and points I've made)--you say, "if you don't like it, tune in somewhere else." O.K., fine, but answer this--what other channel purports to be dedicated to science fiction programming?
 
Last edited:

Where is the Charlie Chat Summary?

Promotion pricing about to end..

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)