Facts about HD Lite on E*

[Kirby Baker]

To clarify: the original ATSC spec defines HD as being either 1280x720p or 1920x1080i. As long as DISH is broadcasting material that is equal to or superior than the "lowest" HD res (1280x720p) then he can legally claim it to be HD.

You are almost correct there. While the ATSC spec defines those resolutions, it also defines a 1:1, or square pixel aspect ratio! Thats where it all goes to hell in a handbasket! 1440x1080 is a 1.33 PAR, and 1280x1080 is a 1.5 PAR. Neither of which are HD.

 

[sullivbt]

Hmmm...

not quite sure you're correct there. Your pixel aspect ration comment is correct, but IIRC, that part is not a hard "requirement" - it's just a "derived" consequence of the two "defined" HD rezzes. Sorry for the legalistic parsing, but I am a systems engineer, and old habits die hard

In any case, I'll double check the spec (I got a pdf version stored on my hard drive) and post back later.

 

[waltinvt]

I'm going to tell one of my stories.

Once upon a time there were only simple mono record players and transitor radios. Most music was experienced via the single 45 rpm mono record or on AM radio. When HiFi came along in was the dawn of a whole new audio experience and the beginning of a surge of audio technico

Then someone invented stereophonic sound. Well actually they invented the precursor to 5.1 (w/o the Dolby) - quadraphonic sound. However the decision was made to hold back on releasing quad because someone got the bright idea that they could make a fortune on just stereo now and maybe another fortune on quad later. As it turns out, quad was a relative bust for other reasons but it none the less opened the door for a the new marketing strategy whenever innovation outpaced market saturation.

In other words, they learned it was not always the best policy to release bigger & better too quick because it could suck the wind right off the marketing sails of a hot product that had not yet reached it's full sales potential.

Obviously there's a lot more to it than this and competition skews all the rules but my point is it's not natural to backtrack with technology but that's exactly what they're trying to do with HD Lite. Although HD was ready at the CE hardware level, it had no chance at the practical marketing level because of bandwidth restrictions and carrier limitations.

Half the battle is in one's head. If we had never experienced true HD, we would be embracing this "HD Lite" as a great new improvement to PQ. We'd probably even be calling it ED+ or something like that. But someone screwed up big time and now they're trying to close the barn door after the horses are out.

Trying to get those of us that have already experienced true HD to embrace this HD Lite or ED+ is about like trying to shove a wet noodle up a wildcat's ass.

 

[Kirby Baker]

Trying to get those of us that have already experienced true HD to embrace this HD Lite or ED+ is about like trying to shove a wet noodle up a wildcat's ass.

Which I have heard is quite difficult!

As to the ATSC standard, I dont think the 1:1 pixel aspect ratio is derived, I believe you will find when you read it, that the resolutions are hard coded in the spec, 1280x720p. and 1920x1080i or 1920x1080p. Check ATSC A/53E, table A3, "Compression Format Constraints". Maybe I am mis-understanding it, but it appears there is no wiggle-room in between those resolutions for the HD Lite we are getting. Another interesting thing I just noticed on that, footnote 4 on the 1080 resolution indicates that the actual resolution is 1088 (we all probably knew that) but that the bottom 8 lines are to be BLACK per MPEG specs. In all my video editting, they have ALWAYS been gray!

 

[MikeD-C05]

Well the public probably doesn't notice because your hd receiver will up scale it to 720p or 1080i anyway. I think that Dish thought this would be the best and cheapest way to get all the hd channels up there and still get good picture quality through the receiver. My question is when they add native resolution to the 622 dvrs which will pass through what ever resolution they are transmitting, what will hd look like then? This might be the time we start hearing more complaints from some subs.

 

[Kirby Baker]

it will look the same as it does now. they are sending various pixel aspect ratios, which get recognized by your TV, or should. I view all my Dish content through SageTV via R5000 captures, and its 16:9 for all HD, regardless of pixel aspect ratio, and my display settings are set to 'source'. If they sent a 1440x1080i and didnt flag it for 1.33 pixel ratio, then you would have issues.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Sean,

I've been out of town for a few days and just found this thread.

I have a problem with your basic premise in that only resolution determines if something is HD-lite or not. Several of the channels that you list, correctly, as having true 1920x1080i or 1280x720p resolution still do not yield a particularly good HD picture because they are not getting sufficient bandwidth - or possibly due to E* not having a good implementation of MPEG4.

So while UHD is 1920x1080, I have seen many, many instances of blocking, contouring, motion blur and other compression artifacts off of UHD. Likewise for FOOD and HGHD and other channels. I consider this channels to also be HD-lite, or at least HD-mediocre or HD-crap.

Nevertheless, as I wrote earlier tonight in the HD Forum, I concede that HD-lite is the new E* standard. And that while some of us may continue to contact E* in protest, that those protests are falling on deaf ears. The direction is cast.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I must also add that for those tired of HD-lite to break into a HD-lite thread and complain about it is silly. Perhaps they should break into the HDMI thread and say it is a good thing that HDMI connectors are breaking. Or into the Distant Nets threads to complain that people should accept the loss of their nets and quit bitching about it. Perhaps they would like to campaign against E* having DVRs too.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

Sean,

I've been out of town for a few days and just found this thread.

I have a problem with your basic premise in that only resolution determines if something is HD-lite or not. Several of the channels that you list, correctly, as having true 1920x1080i or 1280x720p resolution still do not yield a particularly good HD picture because they are not getting sufficient bandwidth - or possibly due to E* not having a good implementation of MPEG4.

So while UHD is 1920x1080, I have seen many, many instances of blocking, contouring, motion blur and other compression artifacts off of UHD. Likewise for FOOD and HGHD and other channels. I consider this channels to also be HD-lite, or at least HD-mediocre or HD-crap.

Nevertheless, as I wrote earlier tonight in the HD Forum, I concede that HD-lite is the new E* standard. And that while some of us may continue to contact E* in protest, that those protests are falling on deaf ears. The direction is cast.

The direction is also cast when instead of this forum being the advocate of true HD, the headline news on the frontpage was "DISH IS UPLINKING INHD" and never was their a headline mention of dropping the resolution of HDNET and HDNET Movies.

Goalie Bob would at least be screaming with his bad verbal skills.

When this site sells out to HDLITE, what chance do we have? You are right - too many have sold out.

 

[waltinvt]

I must also add that for those tired of HD-lite to break into a HD-lite thread and complain about it is silly. Perhaps they should break into the HDMI thread and say it is a good thing that HDMI connectors are breaking. Or into the Distant Nets threads to complain that people should accept the loss of their nets and quit bitching about it. Perhaps they would like to campaign against E* having DVRs too.

Well said Tom.

 

[dslate69]

I must also add that for those tired of HD-lite to break into a HD-lite thread and complain about it is silly. Perhaps they should break into the HDMI thread and say it is a good thing that HDMI connectors are breaking. Or into the Distant Nets threads to complain that people should accept the loss of their nets and quit bitching about it. Perhaps they would like to campaign against E* having DVRs too.

I would LOVE the Highest Resolution the Highest Bitrate and the Highest Number of channels. That being said until DISH has a major breakthrough with the codecs, there will be a balancing game. The last thing any of us want is for DISH to have a contract with NFL-HD, RSN-HDs or "insert channel here" and not put it up because they want drop the resolution a tick or two. As I have stated before BITRATE is more important than the Resolution as long as the resolution is in the ballpark (HD-News & EQUATOR look awesome at times).
I don't think NFL fans would be happy if DISH put out a press release saying we aren't going to carry NFL-HD because Tom Bombadil says it's FULL resolution or nothing.

The name of this Thread is "Facts about HD Lite on E*", not "HD Lite Haters Club". If you can't handle the FACT that HD Lite isn't as much of a problem as BITRATE than you are in the wrong thread.
Also if you do a search for HD Lite rants you will find 99.9% of them in Threads named something totally unrelated. So who's breaking into what threads?

 

[8bitbytes]

This discussion should be called "1080 lite" versus HD lite. All the resolutions being debated are "HD" but the current 1080 formats do not properly conform to the 1080 standard for various reasons some find acceptable and others do not. The quest for true 1080p is a worthy quest and I think it deserves continued conversation and debate. However, since we are in fact talking about TV here, the hyperbole and idle threats and bad attempts at comparisons and labeling have become really distracting.

 

[riffjim4069]

This discussion should be called "1080 lite" versus HD lite.

Nobody is questioning 1080 and all providers are sending 1080 bits of vertical resolution. E* is stripping bits of horizontal resolution, which renders the final products as HD-Lite: 25% of horizontal resolution is lost with 1440x1080i, and 33% is lost with 1280x1080i - HUGE! This thread is appropriately titled "HD-Lite" as 1080 is not an issue.

All the resolutions being debated are "HD" but the current 1080 formats do not properly conform to the 1080 standard for various reasons some find acceptable and others do not.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong!!!

The quest for true 1080p is a worthy quest and I think it deserves continued conversation and debate.

I don't think anyone mentioned anything about 1080p?

However, since we are in fact talking about TV here, the hyperbole and idle threats and bad attempts at comparisons and labeling have become really distracting.

Ok, I can see why you're distracted...you don't understand the issue. Again, nobody mentioned anything about 1080p...and if you feel this thread is about hyperbole and idle threats, then we simply won't tolerate your double-talk and rhetoric.

Parity Check:

1920x1080p, 1920x1080i, and 1280x720p are ATSC HD formats, 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i ARE NOT! The ATSC standard(s), as defined in their "practices" document and incorporated into FCC DTV rules and regulations, pertain to over-the-air (OTA) and cable. The problem is the ATSC standards for High Definition or HD are not regulated nor enforced by the FCC. E* is representing that 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i are HD (they are not!), it is knowingly false, and it legally constitutes a "fraud" on the American Public. Such misrepresentations, deception, and unethical behavior are regulated by the Federal Trace Commission (FTC), as per the U.S.C.

The Problem: it takes money (lots of it) to go after a litigious company such as EchoStar. While nobody likes HD-Lite, who has the time, money, and desire to take on the HD-Lite campaign. For example, I was the Citizen Co-Chair for Cable Choice Now! Coalition. We were the driving factor in helping to reform cable franchising laws here in Virginia. While the political climate was right for cable reform, we never would have had an opportunity to pass legislation without money from Verizon and other interested parties: millions in advertising, millions in legal fees, and millions in political contributions.

The Solution: HD-Lite will mostly likely be solved be competition. In time, the Telcos will exploit picture quality as being a competitive advantage on a large scale, and the competition (E* and D*) will have to provider better services in order to compete.

Until then, I will continue to bitch about HD-Lite, demand full value for my paid DishHD subscription, and continue to file complaints to the FTC concerning HD-Lite. While my actions may not be very effective, they certainly aren't idle threats....

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The name of this Thread is "Facts about HD Lite on E*", not "HD Lite Haters Club". If you can't handle the FACT that HD Lite isn't as much of a problem as BITRATE than you are in the wrong thread.

I'm unclear as to the point of this post. You quoted and replied to me, yet in my post that was the post before the one you quoted, I made a point of stating that HD-lite is just as much about bit rates as resolution.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

The Solution: HD-Lite will mostly likely be solved be competition. In time, the Telcos will exploit picture quality as being a competitive advantage on a large scale, and the competition (E* and D*) will have to provider better services in order to compete.

Until then, I will continue to bitch about HD-Lite, demand full value for my paid DishHD subscription, and continue to file complaints to the FTC concerning HD-Lite. While my actions may not be very effective, they certainly aren't idle threats....

I like to think that we will have true HD at some point in the future. It may be a while, but as available bandwidth to the home keeps increasing, perhaps at some point providing bandwidth for true HD will become routine. I'm afraid this may be another 10 years or so for many of us.

It's too bad that high quality HD doesn't sell, because we could have true HD now. I'd gladly pay an extra $10/mon to E* and take fewer HD channels than we have now if the remaining ones were full HD with high bit rates. But I know I'm one of a small minority who would do so.

 

[Anole]

Yea, Tom, but if you ever saw a 1080p demo, you'd want that!
I have, and I know I do !

 

[SRW1000]

Yea, Tom, but if you ever saw a 1080p demo, you'd want that!
I have, and I know I do !

I know that I would love to see everything in 1080p, but if bandwidth is the claimed culprit for the downrezzing 1080i signals, what chance do we ever have of seeing 1080p? At least delivered via Dish or DirecTV.

Even with MPEG4 encoding, I doubt we will ever see any 1080P satellite broadcasts.

Scott

 

[FlyingJ]

Sean,
Is the first post in the "Facts about HD_Lite on E* " thread still accurate?

 

[Sean Mota]

Sean,
Is the first post in the "Facts about HD_Lite on E* " thread still accurate?

Yes, I have updated to the best of my knowledge so far.

 

[HDTVFanAtic]

There is another way to get rid of HD-Lite that would rip the heart out of both E* and D*. Anyone have contacts with high ranking Corporate Execs or Marketing people at the cable companies or their advertising agencies? D* and E* did it to cable in the 90s - paybacks are hell.

"You just paid thousands of dollars for a new HDTV - but did you know that satellite companies are only giving you 66% of that picture - (while showing a picture of 1/3 of the TV screen disappearing).

Did you really spend all that money on your new HDTV to loose 1/3 of your picture with satellite reception? Cable gives you the full picture - the way the channels meant for you to see it. Why watch an inferior signal after you paid all that money on a HDTV.....

And there are the same analogy commercials that can be done with conversion from MPEG2 to MPEG4 that the average joe could easily understand.

If cable started this campaign nationwide, D* and E* would have some tough decisions to make - and most likely they are past the point of no return.