DIRECTV Getting Sued over HD Lite
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 185
- Views 29K
- Status
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.
Vurbano, did you not read any of the explanations, that defined how these signals were delivered, and how they really work???
Folks- Thanks for the comments and hopefully, it did answer some questions you had. I'll try to answer any specifics I can but I'm done with the general stuff. There are plenty of other publications on this stuff to read up on. But, really, to fully understand TV you have to start from the beginning. Few people today, don't even know the difference in how a CRT displays a picture and think it is pixel based or why there is even such a thing as interlaced scanning or what happens to that when it is displayed on a digital monitor..
Vurbano- The paper boy would be doing me a favor if I never read that section of the paper. Yes, he would do me a favor by trashing that part before I got it. In the case of 1280 to 1920 pixels, I can't see it so I wouldn't miss it but that is not my complaint here. I'm stating with some degree of measured test results that DirecTV would be doing great if they had HDTV at 1280 H pixels. They don't! It is often far less and this is what we need to focus on. I agree with the statement in the Cohen doc that D* has dumbed down the HDTV to less than SD used to be in some cases. I have some Showtime HD DVHS recordings that clearly bit out at 7 mbs!.. The same movie on E* was at 15 Mbs.
Repeating, we need to insist that ALL DBS HDTV be either 1080i x 1440 ( HDCAM interlaced standard) ; or 720P x 1280 progressive standard. For those that must watch 1080p x 1920 because you spent the money for this latest technology, great!, go buy the HD DVD or Blu ray but don't expect DBS providers or local broadcast to deliver you 1080p x 1920. It isn't in the cards.
As for the Cohen case. This should be interesting to follow to see just how these lawyers define the technology. It will be the experts called to testify that will be a treat to see. I wonder if the real experts out there like Joe Kane, ISF people and such will be called. I remember Mark Cuban was not too happy about what they were doing to his programming either.
Keenan, thanks for the pdf read. I must say, at first glance I wasn't impressed with the technical merits presented except the bit rates but they will have to document how they came up with that using some independent non-biased study. Although I agree with their findings as the extremes, still, they need to have it verified to hold up in court.
Vurbano- The paper boy would be doing me a favor if I never read that section of the paper. Yes, he would do me a favor by trashing that part before I got it. In the case of 1280 to 1920 pixels, I can't see it so I wouldn't miss it but that is not my complaint here. I'm stating with some degree of measured test results that DirecTV would be doing great if they had HDTV at 1280 H pixels. They don't! It is often far less and this is what we need to focus on. I agree with the statement in the Cohen doc that D* has dumbed down the HDTV to less than SD used to be in some cases. I have some Showtime HD DVHS recordings that clearly bit out at 7 mbs!.. The same movie on E* was at 15 Mbs.
Repeating, we need to insist that ALL DBS HDTV be either 1080i x 1440 ( HDCAM interlaced standard) ; or 720P x 1280 progressive standard. For those that must watch 1080p x 1920 because you spent the money for this latest technology, great!, go buy the HD DVD or Blu ray but don't expect DBS providers or local broadcast to deliver you 1080p x 1920. It isn't in the cards.
As for the Cohen case. This should be interesting to follow to see just how these lawyers define the technology. It will be the experts called to testify that will be a treat to see. I wonder if the real experts out there like Joe Kane, ISF people and such will be called. I remember Mark Cuban was not too happy about what they were doing to his programming either.
Keenan, thanks for the pdf read. I must say, at first glance I wasn't impressed with the technical merits presented except the bit rates but they will have to document how they came up with that using some independent non-biased study. Although I agree with their findings as the extremes, still, they need to have it verified to hold up in court.
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.
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!
Experts Debate 'HD Lite' Lawsuit
No Consensus on What Constitutes Hi-Def
Last week the online HD community was abuzz about a class-action lawsuit filed against DirecTV by California attorney Philip Cohen, alleging poor picture quality. The 2-year-old suit claims DirecTV's HD channel bandwidth has become so crunched, it no longer meets the commonly accepted definition of the term "HD" and the company is therefore defrauding subscribers.
The case was brought to the light two weeks ago when TVpredictions.com broke the story that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled against DirecTV's motion to force arbitration. The suit has raised questions among the HD community: What really is HD? And when paying a premium for a picture quality, should operators have to meet a certain resolution standard?
Bert Deixler, a litigation attorney in Los Angeles who read the lawsuit's original complaint, gave a mixed assessment of the case.
"If you assume the facts are true, the statute under which he has brought his claim could conceivably give rise to a lawsuit because the standards applied to those claims are very loose," he said. "In the theoretical sense, if you're promised one thing and something else is delivered, and you're within the broad definition of a 'consumer,' you can bring these kinds of lawsuits."
Mr. Deixler thinks it's not clear what Mr. Cohen was promised.
"It appears to be a bit of a linguistic battle," Mr. Deixler said. "And there's the question of whether these are the type of lawsuits that lawyers should be pursing, or plaintiffs should be bringing."
The plaintiff is represented by Tom Ferlauto, partner at King & Ferlauto, who contends that no matter which standards are used, DirecTV is failing to provide what it promises.
"DirecTV is still advertising HD as providing 10-times resolution and clarity, and what they're doing to the resolution makes that figure impossible," he said. "It all comes down to customers' expectations and whether they're being fulfilled. They see '1080i' [advertised] and they understand it's 1920 x 1080i."
Mr. Cohen claimed DirecTV lowered the resolution of its HD signal from the Advance Television Systems Committee standard of 1920 x 1080i lines of resolution to 1280 x 1080i, a 33 percent drop. Furthermore, he claims the amount of bandwidth used per stream was lowered from the standard 19.4 mbps to as low as 6.6 mbps. Lines of resolution and bandwidth both affect image quality.
DirecTV has denied Mr. Cohen's claims.
"We are disappointed with [the judge's] decision because the plaintiff … knew about his arbitration agreement [in his contract]," a DirecTV spokesman said. "In addition, we believe the plaintiff's underlying claims are completely without merit because DirecTV's high definition service is high-quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV. If it were otherwise, we doubt the plaintiff would continue to subscribe to and pay for DirecTV's HD programming. DirecTV believes alternative dispute resolution is an effective means for controlling costs to all its customers, especially costs and legal fees associated with meritless claims."
Though DirecTV was disappointed with the judge's decision and DirecTV critics were thrilled, Mr. Deixler downplayed the significance of the ruling, noting that arbitration agreements in customer contracts have become a paper tiger.
"[Arbitration agreements] are getting harder to enforce in a consumer context in California. It's no surprise the arbitration request was denied," he said.
But Mr. Deixler also noted that class-action lawsuits have an uphill battle in California courts. He predicted Mr. Cohen's case would not go to trial.
"It would be stunning to see a class-action case go to court in L.A. There's a greater chance of the Jets winning the Super Bowl," he said.
The next step in the case is for DirecTV to decide whether it wishes to appeal the recent ruling to the California Supreme Court. Though experts expressed doubt the court would hear the case, Mr. Ferlauto said he would not be surprised if DirecTV made the attempt.
"This was filed in 2004 and hasn't taken the first baby steps toward trial because of the appeal [DirecTV] filed," he said. "So if delay is their tactic, I expect they'll take whatever steps available to delay this as long as possible."
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.
"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."
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."
Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group and an expert on HDTV, said the issue struck him as frivolous.
"I guess I'd have to ask where in print it says that a consumer will actually receive [1920 x 1080i at 19.4 mbps]," he said. "That doesn't sound like something you'd ever say to a consumer. If they did, I'm shocked. And should we also take a class-action lawsuit when Fox say it's the world's best HD format, when we know it's nowhere near the quality of ESPN?"
Mr. Cohen's lawyers declined to discuss what evidence they have, but said they have something that they feel shows DirecTV made specific promises.
DirecTV maintains the company provides full hi-def.
No Consensus on What Constitutes Hi-Def
Last week the online HD community was abuzz about a class-action lawsuit filed against DirecTV by California attorney Philip Cohen, alleging poor picture quality. The 2-year-old suit claims DirecTV's HD channel bandwidth has become so crunched, it no longer meets the commonly accepted definition of the term "HD" and the company is therefore defrauding subscribers.
The case was brought to the light two weeks ago when TVpredictions.com broke the story that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled against DirecTV's motion to force arbitration. The suit has raised questions among the HD community: What really is HD? And when paying a premium for a picture quality, should operators have to meet a certain resolution standard?
Bert Deixler, a litigation attorney in Los Angeles who read the lawsuit's original complaint, gave a mixed assessment of the case.
"If you assume the facts are true, the statute under which he has brought his claim could conceivably give rise to a lawsuit because the standards applied to those claims are very loose," he said. "In the theoretical sense, if you're promised one thing and something else is delivered, and you're within the broad definition of a 'consumer,' you can bring these kinds of lawsuits."
Mr. Deixler thinks it's not clear what Mr. Cohen was promised.
"It appears to be a bit of a linguistic battle," Mr. Deixler said. "And there's the question of whether these are the type of lawsuits that lawyers should be pursing, or plaintiffs should be bringing."
The plaintiff is represented by Tom Ferlauto, partner at King & Ferlauto, who contends that no matter which standards are used, DirecTV is failing to provide what it promises.
"DirecTV is still advertising HD as providing 10-times resolution and clarity, and what they're doing to the resolution makes that figure impossible," he said. "It all comes down to customers' expectations and whether they're being fulfilled. They see '1080i' [advertised] and they understand it's 1920 x 1080i."
Mr. Cohen claimed DirecTV lowered the resolution of its HD signal from the Advance Television Systems Committee standard of 1920 x 1080i lines of resolution to 1280 x 1080i, a 33 percent drop. Furthermore, he claims the amount of bandwidth used per stream was lowered from the standard 19.4 mbps to as low as 6.6 mbps. Lines of resolution and bandwidth both affect image quality.
DirecTV has denied Mr. Cohen's claims.
"We are disappointed with [the judge's] decision because the plaintiff … knew about his arbitration agreement [in his contract]," a DirecTV spokesman said. "In addition, we believe the plaintiff's underlying claims are completely without merit because DirecTV's high definition service is high-quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV. If it were otherwise, we doubt the plaintiff would continue to subscribe to and pay for DirecTV's HD programming. DirecTV believes alternative dispute resolution is an effective means for controlling costs to all its customers, especially costs and legal fees associated with meritless claims."
Though DirecTV was disappointed with the judge's decision and DirecTV critics were thrilled, Mr. Deixler downplayed the significance of the ruling, noting that arbitration agreements in customer contracts have become a paper tiger.
"[Arbitration agreements] are getting harder to enforce in a consumer context in California. It's no surprise the arbitration request was denied," he said.
But Mr. Deixler also noted that class-action lawsuits have an uphill battle in California courts. He predicted Mr. Cohen's case would not go to trial.
"It would be stunning to see a class-action case go to court in L.A. There's a greater chance of the Jets winning the Super Bowl," he said.
The next step in the case is for DirecTV to decide whether it wishes to appeal the recent ruling to the California Supreme Court. Though experts expressed doubt the court would hear the case, Mr. Ferlauto said he would not be surprised if DirecTV made the attempt.
"This was filed in 2004 and hasn't taken the first baby steps toward trial because of the appeal [DirecTV] filed," he said. "So if delay is their tactic, I expect they'll take whatever steps available to delay this as long as possible."
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.
"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."
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."
Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group and an expert on HDTV, said the issue struck him as frivolous.
"I guess I'd have to ask where in print it says that a consumer will actually receive [1920 x 1080i at 19.4 mbps]," he said. "That doesn't sound like something you'd ever say to a consumer. If they did, I'm shocked. And should we also take a class-action lawsuit when Fox say it's the world's best HD format, when we know it's nowhere near the quality of ESPN?"
Mr. Cohen's lawyers declined to discuss what evidence they have, but said they have something that they feel shows DirecTV made specific promises.
DirecTV maintains the company provides full hi-def.
Bruce Leichtman, president of Leichtman Research Group and an expert on HDTV, said the issue struck him as frivolous.
"I guess I'd have to ask where in print it says that a consumer will actually receive [1920 x 1080i at 19.4 mbps]," he said. "That doesn't sound like something you'd ever say to a consumer. If they did, I'm shocked. And should we also take a class-action lawsuit when Fox say it's the world's best HD format, when we know it's nowhere near the quality of ESPN?"
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Frivolous indeed. :up
This will not only never go to court, but I suspect it will be a moot point by the time it even would get a court date in 2010.
"I guess I'd have to ask where in print it says that a consumer will actually receive [1920 x 1080i at 19.4 mbps]," he said. "That doesn't sound like something you'd ever say to a consumer. If they did, I'm shocked. And should we also take a class-action lawsuit when Fox say it's the world's best HD format, when we know it's nowhere near the quality of ESPN?"
That's what I've been saying for a long time. Frivolous indeed. :up
This will not only never go to court, but I suspect it will be a moot point by the time it even would get a court date in 2010.
People say the stupidest things...
Perhaps this lawsuit will once again remind you and your minions of the terms fraud and business ethics.
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.
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. Mr. Moyer's comments are seriously flawed...just like the picture quality of VOOM HD-Lite, and I won't even go into D*'s shameful enhanced TV.
Plus, I can spot HD-Lite (1280x1080i) a mile away on my four year old Mits CRT - it's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's, or Mr. Moyer's, face. For someone who touts VOOM's superior picture quality, he sure doesn't think much of his HD subscribers with his muchroom-like tactics: you know, keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em BS.
Mr. Moyer, please remove head from arse...oh, and say hello to the rest of your HD-Lite Apologists while you're up there because we're not buying the crap you're selling. Just tell us the truth and all will be forgiven.
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.
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.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. 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. Mr. Moyer's comments are seriously flawed...just like the picture quality of VOOM HD-Lite, and I won't even go into D*'s shameful enhanced TV.
Plus, I can spot HD-Lite (1280x1080i) a mile away on my four year old Mits CRT - it's as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's, or Mr. Moyer's, face. For someone who touts VOOM's superior picture quality, he sure doesn't think much of his HD subscribers with his muchroom-like tactics: you know, keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em BS.
Mr. Moyer, please remove head from arse...oh, and say hello to the rest of your HD-Lite Apologists while you're up there because we're not buying the crap you're selling. Just tell us the truth and all will be forgiven.
Hey Riffjim4069; your post leads to questions to help me;
1. How can a "broken" fiber uplink remain broken for nearly a year?
2. Does the FCC's DTV order affect just OTA, or all cable, DBS, and OTA?
3. Also, I really think the man said that the displays weren't yet in more than 2% of user's home, not that they weren't available. Right? Not that I firmly agree with his assessments, but that would just be being fair to what he really said.
("Why should I burn that bandwidth prematurely? I would rather give them diversity of channels than over-deliver on clarity that 98 percent of homes can't even display. That's the actual debate going on.")
1. How can a "broken" fiber uplink remain broken for nearly a year?
2. Does the FCC's DTV order affect just OTA, or all cable, DBS, and OTA?
3. Also, I really think the man said that the displays weren't yet in more than 2% of user's home, not that they weren't available. Right? Not that I firmly agree with his assessments, but that would just be being fair to what he really said.
("Why should I burn that bandwidth prematurely? I would rather give them diversity of channels than over-deliver 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:
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.
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 pudding and whomever says otherwise is just plain foolish.
Satmeister said:
From experience I know exactly what you mean. 5 1/2 years ago I bought one of the most up to date Mitsubishi HDTVs. Of course the only HD programing at the time was a few C-Band Channels, that I got with my 4DTV HD setup, with its component output. A few years later I changed to D* and had HDMI outputs, which were useless to me. The TV also only excepts 1080i input. Now I have a new DVD player with HD HDMI output and can't use it because of the lack of a HDMI input on my TV. Now I have to sell that set and get a new one to get the best PQ from my D* receivers and DVD players.
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.
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:
Set manufacturers are in the business to sell sets, and unless they offer something really new, the only incentive is price (comparisons).
The problem is, the reception capabilities are ahead of the content providers at this point, and will be so for some time to come. The good news is that current equipment (fi it does what it needs to today) will have some decent "shelf life" left in it.
Sean Mota said:
Damn, and I was looking in the pudding this whole time. No wonder I can't get the freakin facts straight!
Just to point something out
Not all pixels are 1x1
1440x1080i have 1.33x1 pixel sizes to produce the 16:9 image size
Not all pixels are 1x1
1440x1080i have 1.33x1 pixel sizes to produce the 16:9 image size
This article ought to add some fuel to the fire... LOL
http://www.tvpredictions.com/mikecullison092906.htm
http://www.tvpredictions.com/mikecullison092906.htm
Well DirecTV apologists or bashers aside, I'm doing an A/B on a paltry Panasonic CT-30WX15 between DirecTV and Evu. Evu makes Direc "HD" look like DVD. There has been a slow creep with Direc in downrezzing and bit starving that is REALLY noticable when you compare it on the same display.
SD has the same results. I'm sad. I've wasted a c-note a month on DirecTV for many years but knowing that vastly superior PQ is availabe for less has me wretching, I wanna puke.
SD has the same results. I'm sad. I've wasted a c-note a month on DirecTV for many years but knowing that vastly superior PQ is availabe for less has me wretching, I wanna puke.
Solution to the issue-
Given-
Unless you are viewing HDTV on a 1080p x 1920 digital monitor- you are viewing HD Lite!
Any broadcast that does not meet 1080i x 1920 at 19.4 Mbps is HD Lite.
To make everyone happy, all current named HD channels will be hence forth called HD Lite channels. Everyone happy now? No?
What does the industry need to do to preserve full 1080i x 1920 at 19.4 Mbps for "HDTV" under the maximum resolution / bandwidth allowed by the ATSC broadcast standard? Remember, nearly all "HDTV" productions are using 1080i x 1440 HDCAM tape format standard at some point in the chain of production.
All I want is what's possible with present programming. If supplied to DirecTV, in HDCAM resolution, then do not restrict it further to, say 500 lines using SD level compression. But, I will never insist that ALL HDTV be available at 1920 H pixels or not at all. That is like saying if my speedometer goes to 140 mph, then if I can't drive at that speed on the highways, I will sue the car maker. If the highways are designed for 70 mph then I should be able to drive at that speed. But if the car maker adds a governor to the speed that restricts it to 55 mph, then I have a valid bitch!
Given-
Unless you are viewing HDTV on a 1080p x 1920 digital monitor- you are viewing HD Lite!
Any broadcast that does not meet 1080i x 1920 at 19.4 Mbps is HD Lite.
To make everyone happy, all current named HD channels will be hence forth called HD Lite channels. Everyone happy now? No?
What does the industry need to do to preserve full 1080i x 1920 at 19.4 Mbps for "HDTV" under the maximum resolution / bandwidth allowed by the ATSC broadcast standard? Remember, nearly all "HDTV" productions are using 1080i x 1440 HDCAM tape format standard at some point in the chain of production.
All I want is what's possible with present programming. If supplied to DirecTV, in HDCAM resolution, then do not restrict it further to, say 500 lines using SD level compression. But, I will never insist that ALL HDTV be available at 1920 H pixels or not at all. That is like saying if my speedometer goes to 140 mph, then if I can't drive at that speed on the highways, I will sue the car maker. If the highways are designed for 70 mph then I should be able to drive at that speed. But if the car maker adds a governor to the speed that restricts it to 55 mph, then I have a valid bitch!
- Status
