that's cause the internet stream of those channels are in HD compare to Standard Definition. these are the same streams that are on the Dish Anywhere app/website which had these channels streaming in HD.
DISH Down Converting Channels from HD to SD
- Thread starter glgw
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 956
Advertisements
I just checked out 106 on my 722. It immediately came up as set for "gray bar," and Andy Griffith looks as good as he did back in 1961. If all of a ch's content is in native SD I would see no need to waste bandwidth upconverting to HD. Other available settings include "normal," which appears to be exactly the same thing as "gray bar" other than the side "bars" are black. Indeed this is not letterboxing, as that references, typically, wider screen native content being shown in a 4:3 framing, with the "bars" at top and bottom rather than at the sides. Leaves the picture in a horizontal "slot" across the full width of screen, resembling the horizontal slot in a house door for mail drop. I guess this could be called "windowboxing," but I've also heard that term used when there are bars both at the sides and top/bottom of picture, such as when wider screen content is converted to 4:3 with letterboxing and then shown on a widescreen TV, adding side bars.
The other aspect settings are "stretch", "partial zoom" and "zoom". I would never attempt to use those settings on 4:3 native content like older TV. Oh, yes, they all 3 serve to fill the modern 16:9 screen from side to side but radically distort and/or crop the image. "Stretch" puts all of the image on widescreen but horribly distorted so that everything is shorter & fatter. No thanks, and all it further does is to constantly remind me that I'm not in the 20th century anymore, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of watching classic TV. "Zoom" both enlarges the picture and crops off top & bottom to fill the 16:9 screen, leaving both an incomplete image and reduced sharpness. Another big "no". And "partial zoom" appears to combine in stretching along with enlarging and cropping for the best, er, worst, of both worlds- noope...
The "thing," as I see it, is that some people are sensitive to getting "a" picture across the entirety of their 16:9 HDTV screen, over and above any other considerations, such as it being a good picture that displays all of the native image without distortion. Me, I love those sidebars, as they indicate to me that I'm getting the original, uncropped, undistorted movie or TV show. If today's huge TVs still aren't huge enough to watch 4:3 content with sidebars and have plenty of picture size, I don't know how I can help further. Some just have that need to always fill the screen and will happily watch a crap picture as long as it does so.
The other aspect settings are "stretch", "partial zoom" and "zoom". I would never attempt to use those settings on 4:3 native content like older TV. Oh, yes, they all 3 serve to fill the modern 16:9 screen from side to side but radically distort and/or crop the image. "Stretch" puts all of the image on widescreen but horribly distorted so that everything is shorter & fatter. No thanks, and all it further does is to constantly remind me that I'm not in the 20th century anymore, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of watching classic TV. "Zoom" both enlarges the picture and crops off top & bottom to fill the 16:9 screen, leaving both an incomplete image and reduced sharpness. Another big "no". And "partial zoom" appears to combine in stretching along with enlarging and cropping for the best, er, worst, of both worlds- noope...
The "thing," as I see it, is that some people are sensitive to getting "a" picture across the entirety of their 16:9 HDTV screen, over and above any other considerations, such as it being a good picture that displays all of the native image without distortion. Me, I love those sidebars, as they indicate to me that I'm getting the original, uncropped, undistorted movie or TV show. If today's huge TVs still aren't huge enough to watch 4:3 content with sidebars and have plenty of picture size, I don't know how I can help further. Some just have that need to always fill the screen and will happily watch a crap picture as long as it does so.
Last edited:
Atleast those channels can be watched on Dish Anywhere. After DISH moved all the International Channels from Sat 118 to streaming such as JadeWorld that I am paying $30.00/month for, none of those channels can be seen on DISH Anywhere at all.
That would be what I would do if I was watching something live and not recording it. But if I as recording, I would actually record and watch the SD version because HD would use up more storage space faster.
Another q. just occurred to me- anyone know how/why the HDTV aspect standard chosen was 16:9? 2:1 would seem simpler, and be just a little wider.
Oh, also another note on aspect- if pic is fully windowboxed (top/bottom and on sides) then using full "zoom" will fill a 16:9 screen correctly without loss or distortion, though rsolution won't be great. Show on 106 "Everyone Loves Raymond" from year 2000 was apparently native in 16:9 and they're running it on this SD-only ch.
Oh, also another note on aspect- if pic is fully windowboxed (top/bottom and on sides) then using full "zoom" will fill a 16:9 screen correctly without loss or distortion, though rsolution won't be great. Show on 106 "Everyone Loves Raymond" from year 2000 was apparently native in 16:9 and they're running it on this SD-only ch.
Last edited:
It's mentioned here:
The Filmmaker’s Guide to 16:9: Why it Still Dominates
Chances are, you're watching everything in the standard 16:9 aspect ratio.
nofilmschool.com
16:9 atleast is a standard as I remember the Pioneer Plasma Displays like the PDP4330HD 43" Plasma TV system I had and the 50" PDP5030HD which had separate speakers and a HDTV tuner/receiver box was 16:9 in 2002.
My 17.3" SGI (Silicon Graphics Inc) made by Mitsubishi Industrial in Japan with a 1600x1024 resolution actually used 16:10 and not 16:9.
Japan's MUSE system (Analog HDTV) was broadcasting 16:9 in 1989.
2.35:1 or 2.39:1 would be another choice that would mimic many modern widescreen movies. There are dozens of aspect ratios that have been used in films. I suppose they could have defined "HD" in a pixel density sort of way but allowed the consumer to buy the aspect ratio of their choice and experience "bars" whenever the content and screen didn't match, but they probably decided the HDTV transition would be confusing enough already to not add something like that.
2.35:1 or 2.39:1 would be another choice that would mimic many modern widescreen movies. There are dozens of aspect ratios that have been used in films. I suppose they could have defined "HD" in a pixel density sort of way but allowed the consumer to buy the aspect ratio of their choice and experience "bars" whenever the content and screen didn't match, but they probably decided the HDTV transition would be confusing enough already to not add something like that.
Wednesday evening and yesterday, TVLand and FETV were full screen again. This morning both went back to pillarbox. I was watching the same shows I watched yesterday over breakfast. Either DISH is testing something or they are trying to make me think I'm going crazy.
You just qualified to become a Dish Retailer.
CongratsYou just qualified to become a Dish Retailer.
