ESPN HDLITE
- Thread starter Kb Cool
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 71
- Views 7K
Some minor points:
- I watched the Lakers last night on ESPN and it looked as good as any other Dish HD channel.
- 10 feet from a 57 inch is a little close. At that distance, it takes a Blu-Ray to look good and you should expect lesser bitrate sources to look... less.
- In case some are not aware, ESPN is a 720p channel. So, it will be more susceptible to sitting close to a large set.
- Digital video is lossey. HD requires that 99% of the original data be thrown out. In order to do that, the encoding takes into account characteristics of human vision - otherwise it would not be possible to provide HD at these bitrates. These encoding algorithms can be defeated by two things: (1) Making a point of looking for visual defects, rather than whether Kobe made the jumper, and (2) sitting particularly close to a large TV. (The extreme magnification reveals the flaws that are otherwise deemed by the encoder to be not visible).
- I think the only way to get any more bitrate for "cable" HD channels is FIOS.
- I watched the Lakers last night on ESPN and it looked as good as any other Dish HD channel.
- 10 feet from a 57 inch is a little close. At that distance, it takes a Blu-Ray to look good and you should expect lesser bitrate sources to look... less.
- In case some are not aware, ESPN is a 720p channel. So, it will be more susceptible to sitting close to a large set.
- Digital video is lossey. HD requires that 99% of the original data be thrown out. In order to do that, the encoding takes into account characteristics of human vision - otherwise it would not be possible to provide HD at these bitrates. These encoding algorithms can be defeated by two things: (1) Making a point of looking for visual defects, rather than whether Kobe made the jumper, and (2) sitting particularly close to a large TV. (The extreme magnification reveals the flaws that are otherwise deemed by the encoder to be not visible).
- I think the only way to get any more bitrate for "cable" HD channels is FIOS.
Last edited:
Whatever....
I owned a 2008 Panny Plasma, and the video processing is far from great (meaning the larger the Panny, and the worse the channel, the worse the tv looks).
Ya, I guess I keep forgetting I am pushing the edge for viewing distance for 720p.
Chart: 1080P Does Matter - CarltonBale.com
I was closer to 8.5-9ft and was great for Blu-Ray, but moving back 1.5ft did wonders to the Dish feed.
Explains a bit why I think ABC, ESPN and FOX all are bad. Give me NBC and CBS anyday.
Chart: 1080P Does Matter - CarltonBale.com
I was closer to 8.5-9ft and was great for Blu-Ray, but moving back 1.5ft did wonders to the Dish feed.
Explains a bit why I think ABC, ESPN and FOX all are bad. Give me NBC and CBS anyday.
I've seen that chart many times. I think it is a bit bogus.
For instance, a 55" @5ft is where you want to be for full 1080p benefit according to that chart, yet I doubt that anyone with eyes left is watching all the time from that distance on that size set.
I think the chart should say full 1080p overwhelmed...
For instance, a 55" @5ft is where you want to be for full 1080p benefit according to that chart, yet I doubt that anyone with eyes left is watching all the time from that distance on that size set.
I think the chart should say full 1080p overwhelmed...
Check again, looks to be about 7ft for 1080p to me, which is right in line with other recommendations I've seen. Keep in mind, this is the amount of detail the eye, with 20/20 vision can resolve.
The recommended max distance chart is about 7-8 ft for 55", which is a different chart on the same site.
I currently have a 61" JVC RPT that I sit about 11' from, it is a 1080i set from a number of years ago. I have pushed up closer, but about 10' is the closest I'm comfortable with.
Today, if my Buick is big enough, I'll go get my new Panasonic 54" Plasma and set it up. I may move up to about 9' as that seems comfortable from my store tests.
My eyes are 20/20, but it is a VERY old 20/20...
I currently have a 61" JVC RPT that I sit about 11' from, it is a 1080i set from a number of years ago. I have pushed up closer, but about 10' is the closest I'm comfortable with.
Today, if my Buick is big enough, I'll go get my new Panasonic 54" Plasma and set it up. I may move up to about 9' as that seems comfortable from my store tests.
My eyes are 20/20, but it is a VERY old 20/20...
Not sure about this
I'm not sure that I can swallow this info. It is saying that max distance for a 42 is 6 ft. To me that is too close. Now maybe my 10ft is a little too far but 6 is too close. I would like to know where he got this data and how it was produced?
I'm not sure that I can swallow this info. It is saying that max distance for a 42 is 6 ft. To me that is too close. Now maybe my 10ft is a little too far but 6 is too close. I would like to know where he got this data and how it was produced?
Look around an other sites and you will see similar info. It is based on the amount of detail the eye can resolve. People may think that is too close or overwelming, but to see every last pixel of your display, those are the recommended viewing distances.
Another good link
http://hdguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/hdtv_distance_chart.pdf
I think 1.5-2 screen widths (not diagonal) is a good ballpark estimate.
Last edited:
Not gonna buy it
I keep looking at all these charts & I just don't buy it. They expect me to be 5.5 ft away from my screen and I just don't want to be that close. I feel it is closer to that is the closest that one can be and not be made sick.
I keep looking at all these charts & I just don't buy it. They expect me to be 5.5 ft away from my screen and I just don't want to be that close. I feel it is closer to that is the closest that one can be and not be made sick.
That is for maximum viewing pleasure for high bitrate HD content. For BD movies, sitting that close on a quality set will be an orgasm for your eyes and fill out much of your total vision. Dish Network that close will be far from that
Don't agree
I don't agree reason I have never liked sitting as close toa screen in a movie theater either. It is just to distrating to be so close that my full feild of vision is filled with the screen.
I don't agree reason I have never liked sitting as close toa screen in a movie theater either. It is just to distrating to be so close that my full feild of vision is filled with the screen.
Everyone is different. I don't like to have empty space taken up by random things in my viewing room. I like to be about 6.5 feet away from my 50" screen so I can get completely lost in a movie and have the best experience possible.
But I believe that Dish is simply only taking smaller HDTV's into account with their compression. They need to move with progression and allow their feed to look good on larger sets.
Televisions are doing nothing but increasing in size and decreasing in price. Dish, along with every other provider, is going backwards by squeezing bandwidth as much as possible in a move to outdo the other with channel count. They need to focus on what HD really is, but I think actual quality will take a back seat until every channel is available. Only then will they start worrying about picture quality.
Televisions are doing nothing but increasing in size and decreasing in price. Dish, along with every other provider, is going backwards by squeezing bandwidth as much as possible in a move to outdo the other with channel count. They need to focus on what HD really is, but I think actual quality will take a back seat until every channel is available. Only then will they start worrying about picture quality.
Actually, the best selling HD TV size is 32 inches.
And, it is the early adopters (doctor/lawyer/engineer) who get the big sets - the late adopters (grandma) get smaller sets. HD set size average gets smaller, not bigger.
In order to "focus on what HD really is", you need to turn on your blu-ray player.
Personally, I am happy for more average viewing to be moving to some sort of HD, whether it is satellite 720p or not. My local NBA team still only provides half of their games in HD, so the Lakers game was far better than the 480i I was watching the following night...
That is probably true, but it is a bad idea to mainly cater to those that wouldn't know the difference anyway. As soon as FIOS is available to me I would cancel in a heartbeat since they get the notion that HD should be HD.
Fat chance of Fios in Tennessee. This is AT&T country and Verizon has no intentions of covering everyone. I'm hoping Dish eventually "gets" it. Whenever channel counts stagnate across most providers quality will be the only difference.
No doubt, the game tonight was hardly HD quality for me. I am sick of this crap, think I might go back with cable. I just don't understand how more people aren't speaking up against this crappy pq
