DIRECTV says it will go all HD in 2016 , what about DISH?
- Thread starter MikeD-C05
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 87
- Views 16K
It is too far away to see how the UHD content will be priced. There doesn't seem to be much evidence of UHD linear programming in the works so it will probably all be PPV for a while.
Why not? DISH still charges a $10.00 HD fee and I would say that hd has been the norm for the last 5 years.
I can imagine in the 70's cable companies charging extra for "color TV reception" instead of black and white.
UHD linear programming? There isn't any 1080P programming!! DISH is making room to even be able to have full time HD channels (RSN's) and/or more HD channels, let alone use more bandwidth per channel. There are many (maybe most?) cable companies that are also dealing with bandwidth issues. It seems to me either a new codec that can drastically reduce the space needed to send the signal is needed, and/or it will be a very watered down UHD. We will see in reality just how much and how fast Direct TV has meaningful UHD programming. You are very likely correct if/when there is UHD programming it seems it has to be via PPV. (Or possibly online - bringing up other issues)
In one respect UHD is like 3D, not many will feel the need to spend any extra money on a UHD TV. So not till all TV's are UHD or they are the same price as a current HD TV, they aren't going to be in many homes, and then only when a current TV is ready to be replaced. A very high percentage of people only have 3D because it was the only way to get the higher level TV's for awhile. That will be the same for UHD.
Now that said, UHD is different than 3D just like HD was different than 3D in acceptance. UHD is capable of delivering a better picture that generally anyone would appreciate and not a gimmick, and if there is a way to get that picture in everyday TV to the consumer UHD would prevail.
1080p wasn't much of an improvement over the current 1080i/720p broadcasters were already using to be worth the investment. Even 4k isn't worth it for tv's 50" inches or smaller really, it's only a major improvement for people with very large tv's, and larger the TV better the picture will be compared to HD.
Kinda of like comparing an iPhone 6 photo to a nice high end Canon EOS camera photo, on a small screen they both look really good, heck iPhones take great small pics, but blow that pic up to make a large wall portrait the iPhone pic will look terrible in comparison.
If you look, DIRECTV has/had dozens of trademarks and quite a few of them never get used (like DIRECTV2Go) or were just bad ideas all the way around (nomad -- the original name of the GenieGo)
Second time I have seen that in the last hour. Just read that in my world religions book for Buddhism.
I took that to mean that every channel that is in standard definition would be brought in in high definition. (This would apply to standard definition-carried channels that are available in high definition.) I don't think it's going to happen. But, I think DirecTV will get a lot of channels added in high definition this year and next year.
Sent from my smartphone using Tapatalk.
It still shows checked off in my programming online ,even though I have HD for life on my account. DISH still sells it like it is a value added to your programming pack. But if you change your programming to say Welcome pack , you lose your FREE Hd for life on your account.
I agree, Directv will most likely add more hd channels that are available to be added. I still wish DISH would add Tv Land in hd.
Even if a channel is not available in HD, if Dish (or DIRECTV) gave the channel the bandwidth/compression of an HD channel, the picture would look far, far better. Pristine broadcast SD is DVD quality - SD looks as bad as it does because it is way over compressed.
