HD-Lite Class Action
- Thread starter Smith P.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 435
- Views 45K
HD's quality
Until MPEG 4 is really up and running plus the new sats are in place there are going to be all the different "qualities of HD" being transmitted. I think being upset about "HD LITE" is good. But there is no way for the providers to run all the channels at 1920 X 1080. Hopefully once MPEG 4 is solid and there are new more powerful sats running all the channels will be the highest quality HD.
Until MPEG 4 is really up and running plus the new sats are in place there are going to be all the different "qualities of HD" being transmitted. I think being upset about "HD LITE" is good. But there is no way for the providers to run all the channels at 1920 X 1080. Hopefully once MPEG 4 is solid and there are new more powerful sats running all the channels will be the highest quality HD.
whatchel1, the HD talk have long history here and at DBST;
you missed a lot I would say and the picture in historical perspective looks different
when Dish had a few HD channels and on each Charlie Chat we heard - "no compelling" content present that time for add new channel(s) - I thought oh Mr.Erghen is so picky in selecting HD content that's OK we can wait - it was time of REAL HD - only those two standard resolution 1920x1080i and 1280x720p with good bitrate transmitten; later it was exciting when 5 VOOM channels added in good resolution because of fiber failure 1440x1080i, but later the HD competition race started
and everithing come to the worst level of PQ in Dish HD history. 1280x1080i with low bitrates.
I'm sure if CE would stay on his position "when compelling content" come, then the whole HD position will be much better plus he would gain time for shuffle transponders/channels for fit new HD program or/and for new sats as DTV goes.
you missed a lot I would say and the picture in historical perspective looks different
when Dish had a few HD channels and on each Charlie Chat we heard - "no compelling" content present that time for add new channel(s) - I thought oh Mr.Erghen is so picky in selecting HD content that's OK we can wait - it was time of REAL HD - only those two standard resolution 1920x1080i and 1280x720p with good bitrate transmitten; later it was exciting when 5 VOOM channels added in good resolution because of fiber failure 1440x1080i, but later the HD competition race started
and everithing come to the worst level of PQ in Dish HD history. 1280x1080i with low bitrates.I'm sure if CE would stay on his position "when compelling content" come, then the whole HD position will be much better plus he would gain time for shuffle transponders/channels for fit new HD program or/and for new sats as DTV goes.
Last edited:
I think you may have missed the details of some posts.dude2 said:
1080 x 1920i/p is HD.
720 x 1280p is HD.
The "bitching" is about HD Lite (either 1080 x 1280i or 1080 x 1440i). That's not HD.
The set specs you referenced were 720 x 1280p. That's an HD set (see above). There's no reason for those sets to be considered mislabeled.
Scott
That's right, you make a good point. I remembered the phrase "compelling content" but forgot the whole context he used it in. Now, we have tons of compelling content, much of which is marginal compared to what he refused to carry at the time it was available.Smith said:
Scott
Few of you will agree
I will state this again I know that few of you at this forum will believe it but using the ATSC standards for DBS (not OTA) 1920, 1440, & 1280 X 1080 + 1280 x 720 are legal standards. 2 of them are considered by this forum to be HD Lite. To me all of the last 3 are HD Lite. By the reality is there is not enough bandwidth for them to be displayed in only 1920 X 1080 right now. Keep gripping so that we will get full HD when there is enough bandwidth thanks to full use of MPEG 4 and new satellites. As far as my coming in late to this forum I have read the whole thread so P. look in the mirror and stick your tongue out there. It won't probably be as much fun as doing it here but it will do just as much good. LOL.SRW1000 said:
Can"t laugh
It was a joke U didn't see the LOL at the end. It's about your icon. O course you can take it the way U want. I know what I meant.Smith said:Keep going, man ... Insulting is real core of the discussion
foghorn2 said:
YoMamasMan said:
dslate69 said:
I did not think reading posts on this forum was as difficult as providing High Definition satellite broadcast. Do you understand me, now? Actually, I am not afraid of many things, especially when I spend my money.
Now you want me summarily dismissed from the board. I really would not want to disagree with you on a serious issue; I still want to know who “us” is.
dslate69 said:
Well I'm sorry I got you that "riled" and I commend you on you're self control. I haven't seemed to master that little virtue yet.
As for being a "geek", I wish I was. I know a few and trust me, my technical knowledge is nowhere near good enough to qualify as one. Maybe some day.
And finally son, I suspect I've "faced to face" it with a whole lot worse than you've ever encountered and possibly before you were out of grade school but if you're feeling frisky, you're more than welcome to come to Vermont and discuss my "tone" - I have bad days like anyone else.
YoMamasMan said:
HD-Lightweights are those who want pure speck max HD channels with less channels in the process. The lightweights refers to the fact that they are so fanatical about this, but too weak and lightweighted to quit Dish or Direct and go to cable to get exactly what they want instead they complain about it all day. Thus HD-Lightweights are officially what these people with these attributes shall be called
whatchel1 said:
Thank You! I asked this question twice now and most the HD-Lightweights have not responded:
If Dish and DirectTv were both to give you full rates and rezzes right now, will they have enough bandwith? Will they have to remove some channels?
Instead they call names and become insulting and invite fighting. So I ask those people again:
If Dish and DirectTv were both to give you full rates and rezzes right now, will they have enough bandwith? Will they have to remove some channels?
Last edited:
Smith said:Let me trace back his IP, I'll tell you after that - who "us" is
[perhaps Dish PR Dept ?]
Ok, you win, I get paid 2 million dollars a month from Charlie to defend Dish. he also lends me his wife every Saturday morning for my services.
There, you figured me out.
Now lets get back on topic.
I guess this is were I email you my "brawling resume" , but instead I look at the size of your HDTV and laugh that you are even complaining about resolution.waltinvt said:...
And finally son, I suspect I've "faced to face" it with a whole lot worse than you've ever encountered and possibly before you were out of grade school but if you're feeling frisky, you're more than welcome to come to Vermont and discuss my "tone" - I have bad days like anyone else.
If you want to beat on your chest some more, PM me so I can make travel arrangements.
It is funny how since we are not coming to the same conclusions of the opposing side, we must be getting compensated. I could always use more income. I wonder if we really have the power to control the stock price as hinted at by some of the best and brightest the forum has to offer.foghorn2 said:
I don't know if you saw it, but in post #200 of this thread I posted a link to a DirecTV video hosted by the SBCA defining HD. It spells out the resolution for both 1080i and 720p. 1440 x 1080i and 1280 x 1080i are not on that list. But, even though they are legitimate DBS broadcast standards, there is no reason to call them HD.whatchel1 said:
For either DBS broadcaster to classify them as HD is to unfairly mislead consumers. Hence the lawsuit.
And, if you think improved compression technology and capacity will necessarily lead to increased picture quality, I have to disagree. I hasn't had that effect on their SD material. We're more likely to see more local markets added, or more "compelling" niche channels.
Scott
