keenan said:In case anyone was interested, the original complaint that was filed is attached below.
Thanx Keenan!!!
keenan said:In case anyone was interested, the original complaint that was filed is attached below.
vurbano said:I totally disagree. The broadcaster should deliver the highest quality. If the consumer wants to watch it on a less than optimum display then that is his perogative. I suppose that if your paper boy finds that you do not read all of your newspaper then he should just throw half of it in the trash before it gets to you.
YEAH WHAT HE SAIDDon Landis said:Illya-
"So, which of the five described steps you are having problem with? The only one I am not absolutely sure about is step B, as I don't know for sure what kind of rescaling they do internally. I suspect they convert everything to 1920x1080i first,"
"B" Yes, B stuck out like a sore thumb first but then as I read from the top, I had no idea where you got the 1080i x 1280 source program from. So A is also an unknown for me.
As I said, the most common method that does a rescaling of the pixel specification is tape dubbing. This is done at sources like HBO, Showtime etc, from the film chain to D5 tape master then to HDCAM distribution sub masters before uplinking at the higher bit rates. I got this info straight from one man who does this for one of the few companies. He is a telecine operator.
The data stream scaling of resolution pixels is at the DBS and is a result of compression softening. They don't generally time shift the programming like TV stations do but only further compress the stream with real time compression THAT RESULTS IN a lowering of the pixel resolution. There is no such thing as adding program resolution once it has been lost due to compression. All you can do is add noise.
Step C is normal but your description is a more of a cut to the chase result of the process than really what is going on. The resolution reduction is a result of the compression and what it results in.
Step D Yes, the receiver may output a signal that is in this form but anytime the upscale process is in play the result is additional noise as once the picture is gone, it (the original) is not put back by present day methods. All that can be done in this case is image enhancement processing which artificially adds clarity to the appearance of the program.
E- This is a necessary and final step to convert the data bits to an array of pixel data to display on your particular displays native digital imager. In the case of analog, the equivalent process builds the analog voltage curves for scan line imaging on the CRT.
"Don, sounds like you keep insisting that HD-Lite issue is irrelevant if the source is not 1920 or if the TV set is unable to resolve above 1280 H. I was trying to prove the opposite in my post above. It's not the resolution I am having problem with, it's the two additional image transformations that I think damage the picture quality regardless of the resolution."
Hope I'm understanding you correctly here. but I have to disagree on this basis:
Resolution reduction is the RESULT of those transformations if they are taking place. I have a problem with that result. If transformations vis a vis compression can take place (not with present technology) without resolution reduction then transfor all you want, it won't matter.
"That's where our positions differ completely. I would prefer less channels but at the best possible quality: just give us whatever resolution the content provider delivered with minimum or no additional rescaling and give us the highest possible bitrate, ideally 16-17 Mbps. For that, I would be willing to give up 1/3 of the channels of your choice. "
Agreed! this is where we differ. I feel there is no point in having the highest "possible" quality if the chain of quality is broken at the consumer display and it requires a drastic reduction in programming to achieve. Your definition of the highest quality is not but rather an olive branch compromise, I think.. It is a reduced quality from the source, but as I said much earlier, unless you are using the latest 1080p x 1920 monitor, then you really will gain nothing with having 1920 pixels in the programming.
What I'm saying is that to force DBS providers to send all HDTV at the maximun 1920 pixels and not allow anything less is too restrictive and unnecessary. BUT, and this is important so plese do not discount this- When it is determined that the predominate number of customers of the DBS company own the display equipment to see this quality, THEN is the time to upgrade the DBS quality with less compression that results in the maximum bandwidth allowed and maximum resolution we can view. In the meantime, we maximuize the number of programs with the quality people can see.
Your compromise suggestion is humorous since it puts you at exactly where I would like to be- 16 Mbs of compressed signal is really equivalent to something of HDCAM at about 1440 H pixels. as it pertains to MP2. But give up 1/3 the programming of my choice? Maybe you don't want to go there my friend!
Well, our slash at bringing some technical reality to this "emotional topic" has been fun but I believe you and I agree we're on the same side on this. I don't want to be emotionally rediculous in requiring something that is unobtainable, but don't like what DirecTV is doing either. They have taken it too far. I trust their claim that when they have the new birds in operation and MP4 they will make things better. They have in the past. Let's see what happens. Also, I don't want to give Dish Network ideas they can have acceptable "HDTV" as in 720P x 500 pixels resolution either. I know they will try it if they think they can get away with it. This suit is good in that it may help define for the DBS providers and others what we really want. Let's hope the lawyers... get it!
Thanks folks for your kind comments, but I agree that maybe this dialog has gone into overtime, besides, I have to get back to work!
If you truly want your channels to appear in as high of resolution as possible, then why don't you repair or replace your "broken" fiber uplink to EchoStar, which has been broken since October 2005.Greg Moyer, general manager of Voom HD Networks, which runs on DirecTV competitor EchoStar, said programmers want their channels to appear in as high of resolution as possible, yet have little control over a distributor's bandwidth allocation.
Sorry Chumley, but I think we'll let the ATSC HDTV "standard" define what qualifies as HD; not you, and not Satmeister. Mr. Moyer, I'm surprised you weren't aware the ATSC standard was incorporated into the FCC's DTV order. Perhaps this lawsuit will once again remind you and your minions of the terms fraud and business ethics."I like a high enough pixel count so that the HD experience is genuine … [but] this is a challenging time and I think we have to be patient," he said. "If the consumer wants the higher resolution, they will deliver and the marketplace will ultimately speak to the importance of this."
And this guys runs a High Definition Network? Holy Crap! Mr. Moyer's understanding of this issue is completely wrong! No wonder there is so much confusion and so many confused people running around these threads. But I suppose he is paid to think his company's 15 channels of VOOM HD-Lite bliss is the cat's meow.A key issue for operators, Mr. Moyer pointed out, is the relative scarcity of sets capable of displaying full HD resolution.
"My understanding is that until there were 1080p monitors, there were hardly any commercially available television sets that could resolve anything more than like 1330 x 720," he said. "So it's hard to argue why they should have been delivering a television picture better than any set could show. … Arguably, there's a perceptible difference, but it will be minor. [Cable and satellite providers] wonder: 'Why should I burn that bandwidth prematurely? I would rather give them diversity of channels than overdeliver on clarity that 98 percent of homes can't even display.' That's the actual debate going on."
Missed in all this hoopla about 1080p (except by charper1 and a few others) is the fact that the only way you can see 1080p content is with Blue Ray or HD DVD, generation 2. No one provides (nor has any near-term plans to provide) 1080p transmissions of any broadcast content. Equipment and bandwidth are not in place at any cable or sat provider to do so.riffjim4069 said:Even more amazing is how I was inundated with wall-to-wall 1920x1080p HDTV's on display this weekend at Tweeters, The Big Screen Store, and even Circuit City and Best Buy. Apparently, Mr. Moyer must be shopping for this televisions at The Goodwill Store. I was partial to the Sony KDS-R60XBR1, but I'm now taking a closer look at the Mitsubishi WD-57732...but I digress. Anyway, I just did a quick search and found 61, yes sixty-one, 1920x1080p HDTV models currently being offered by 8 manufacturers.
Satmeister said:Those buying 1080p sets now have a long wait ahead of them to use more than 85% of their horsepower (except those high def DVD's, of course). With (at best) a 50/50 mix of 720p and 1080i broadcast content, a 1080p set is underutilized, and will be for years. Right now, the manufacturers are using the "new model" campaigns like car dealers do, just to have something different - whether you can use it is a whole different fish to fry.
I'd bet plenty....they're on HDMI 1.3 near release, and plan they'll be an HDMI or other such version thereafter. Then there's potential "3D" TV, and so on....lou_do said:From experience I know exactly what you mean. ......My concern now is, if I buy a new 1080p HDTV today, by the time everyone starts outputting 1080p programming, how much will change on the current 1080p HDTVs, making them outdated.
Sean Mota said:The fact of the matter is that at 1280x1080i at 6mbps HD channels are noticeable like night and day when provider delivers them at 1920x1080i at 15mbps-19mbps. There is no way around this and whomever argues against it is just foolish or ignorant. The difference is so obvious even if your TV does not have a native resolution at 1920x1080i. That is just a fact. No more no less and why HD Lite is so devastating and what DirecTv and Echostars are doing to the current HD Lite. The proof is in the putting and whomever says otherwise is just plain foolish.