HD-Lite Class Action

[dslate69]

Im sorry but I have to disagree! He is right! Alot of you "Noobie's" have no earthly idea what a "TRUE" HD signal looks like and because of your accepting what you see as late adoptors, your acceptance of this watered down signal is hurting us early adoptors who know what the picture should look like, what resolution should be displayed and the Mbps that should be per frame. Probably the closest you all have ever seen to true HD is from an HD DVD player for those that have it or and OTA signal.
...

Surely before you finished typing your message you realized it didn't make sense.
All us 622 owners have OTA built in and know what the difference in signal between our local HD and LIL-HD from DISH. It is hilarious how some of you try and discredit others by calling them "noobs" or making baseless accusations like "no earthly idea what a true-hd signal looks like". I was a DISH customer for many years with a modded Microsoft Dishplayer then upgraded thru the 500 series, tried TWC with their HD DVR now back with DISH with a 622. So if I am a "noob" because I don't have a thousand post bitchin' about HD-Lite so be it. I will put my technical expertise and my HD setup against yours or any other blow-hard in this thread.
rustamust gets ripped for having a 5 year old HDTV by one of you and then gets called a "late adopter" by another, you guys are true geniuses.

 

[dslate69]

If you don't think manufacturers have made great strides in HD picture quality in the past five years, you haven't been paying attention. If you don't think that we'll see even more improvements in the next five years, you haven't been paying attention.

If you want satellite-delivered HD to remain a down-rezzed, bit-starved version of what it once was and should be, then feel free to keep denying their deceptions, but please don't call us the ignorant, uninformed ones.

Obviously HDTVs are getting better everyday. Your HDTV may be newer and better than his, mine may be newer and better than yours; that doesn't negate his expression that the HD he gets from DISH looks great. You don't get HD from DISH so you don't get to vote.

I will not rehash all of my arguments that I have filled this thread with, you know I want 100% quality + 100% quantity. Any NOOB to this thread should have read the posts in the thread and know how we all want the same thing, except some of us have unrealistic expectations of DISH or ZERO business sense.

There are some 1080p sets out now, and some idiots actually expect DISH to provide some 1080p content. There will be a time when DISH has boo-koo bandwidth and kickass encoders but until then DISH is providing a compromise of quantity and quality and it makes sense for now.
Any of you that are TOO good to settle for HD-Lite better never watch a non HD DVD or Lord forbid a watch DIVX or XVID or listen to a MP3; not when there are so many lossless options available.

 

[SmityWhity]

I've scanned this thread every now and then, and took a quick look tonight again. But I had to back up and see what the bashing of "dslate69" was all about. His burger story sure did get twisted around, but he still made a good point. Accepting the actual burger even though the burger picture is better, is not the same as ordering a 16 oz T-Bone and being served pork chops.

The real sucker is the one who goes to the same restaurant every night and gets the same thing, and keeps going back and coming out unsatisfied each time.

Does that apply to Mustang Ranch?

Oh, BTW, the 5" B&W I have connected to my ViP 622 with HD-Silver/Locals/KVP has a rotary knob.

 

[dslate69]

Oh, BTW, the 5" B&W I have connected to my ViP 622 with HD-Silver/Locals/KVP has a rotary knob.

As long as you have it hooked up with a Monster HDMI cable you will be ok.

 

[SRW1000]

Obviously HDTVs are getting better everyday. Your HDTV may be newer and better than his, mine may be newer and better than yours; that doesn't negate his expression that the HD he gets from DISH looks great.

Actually, he said the HD looked "quite good," not great. He also said their SD content looks quite good on his 55" HDTV from only 9 ft. away, so I have to admit I'm puzzled. Dish's SD content has been roundly criticized, especially when viewed on large HD sets.

Maybe he is getting some benefit from being only 65 miles away from Dish.

If someone claimed HD programming looked spectacular on their 25" SD set, would that mean Dish's HD is great?

You don't get HD from DISH so you don't get to vote.

No, I'm pretty sure that I still get to vote, especially since Dish or DirecTV would love to get some extra money out of me each month. It's called the voice of the consumer, and both companies should be paying attention.

Scott

 

[dslate69]

No, I'm pretty sure that I still get to vote, especially since Dish or DirecTV would love to get some extra money out of me each month. It's called the voice of the consumer, and both companies should be paying attention.

I over stepped you are right if you ever subbed to DISH HD and canceled it because of HD-Lite you get a vote. But if you never had DISH HD-Lite I still say you don't get a vote. That would be like you telling everyone how awfull a Restaurant's food is without ever eating there.

 

[whatchel1]

So if you don't have them

If you don't have either D* or E* HD how do you really know what to comment on? Seems like you are making statements with out even the ability to compare the product. I have E* so I feel I have a right to talk about it in anyway that I want. There are problems and I want to see it better but as far as the amount of HD that I'm getting it is much better than having none at all. As far as a lawsuit against E* I'm of the opinion that we should wait and see how the 1 against D* goes before doing anything.

 

[SRW1000]

If you don't have either D* or E* HD how do you really know what to comment on? Seems like you are making statements with out even the ability to compare the product.

The data is clear. DirecTV and Dish are not providing HD resolution on the majority of their channels. I don't need to see that to know that it's wrong. You don't need to drink a soda to know that an 8 oz can shouldn't be labeled as 12 oz.

Additionally, there have been numerous screen captures posted showing the negative effects of down-rezzing HD content compared to true HD.

My experience (or lack of) with their product have no bearing on the argument that what they're doing is dishonest and wrong.

Scott

 

[whatchel1]

All I can say is not in agreement

This is the point in which I'm going to have to say we are going to have to agree to disagree. Screen shots are not good enough quality to tell an excellent pict with a slightly less than excellent one. Criticizing by using numbers only doesn't make for a total story. We are also in the midst of a transition from MPEG 2 to MPEG4 and compromises are to be expected. When they have the equipment up and running like it to supposed to be running before to long then if they are still putting out less than top quality then we should hit it hard to get them to give us better. By then most ppl will have fulfilled their commitment to Dish and maybe can go to another provider that is better. And yes I do think that your not being able to see the product of either of the provider makes your statements lacking in strength.

 

[dslate69]

Obviously a MP3 is not lossless compression so if you look strictly at the numbers and not ever listen to a properly made MP3 you can give a uninformed all be it correct analysis that the MP3 is not as good a quality.
That said I can also play a MP3 and the original CD side by side and you won't be able to tell the difference.
I don't believe DISH has the HD-Lite perfected yet and they are stretched with all the HD-LIL as far as bandwidth is concerned, but I know that when DISH does perfect their DISH HD that no one in this thread would be able to tell the difference if all HD-Lite is missing is a few ticks to it's resolution. This can be seen in other threads as people chime in on which HD channels look the best on DISH, as the HD-Lite channels are well represented.

A word of advice: I wouldn't take (insert any device) advice from someone without (insert any device).

 

[SRW1000]

This is the point in which I'm going to have to say we are going to have to agree to disagree. Screen shots are not good enough quality to tell an excellent pict with a slightly less than excellent one. Criticizing by using numbers only doesn't make for a total story.

When those numbers show that they are not providing the resolution they claim to be, they do illustrate a critical part of the story.

We are also in the midst of a transition from MPEG 2 to MPEG4 and compromises are to be expected. When they have the equipment up and running like it to supposed to be running before to long then if they are still putting out less than top quality then we should hit it hard to get them to give us better.

Two points here. First, neither Dish nor DirecTV are telling customers that they are providing anything less that "full" or "true" HD. That's a problem.

Second, why should we believe that either provider will use more efficient encoding or bandwidth to actually improve quality? Instead, since consumers have been accustomed to their "lite" service, why not just load up the pipe with more LILs, PPV, and foreign-produced channels? I think the evolution of their SD programming is a much better guide to what we'll see for the future of satellite-delivered HD.

By then most ppl will have fulfilled their commitment to Dish and maybe can go to another provider that is better.

Here's the real danger of your argument. If this lawsuit fails (rest assured that all providers will be watching this closely) it will give the competition reason to lower their quality also. Without minimum standards, we won't be seeing a battle over who will provide the best service, rather it will be a fight over how low quality can go before customers leave.

And yes I do think that your not being able to see the product of either of the provider makes your statements lacking in strength.

I strongly disagree. We make decisions and judgments all the time based on less than first-hand experience, through published reviews, measured standards, or through accounts of acquaintances.

The flip side of the argument is what are HD-Lite supporters comparing the HD-Lite content to? Have they done side-by-side comparisons to other providers or better yet, to the unaltered feed from the originating broadcaster? Or, does the picture just look good, subjectively or when compared to SD?

This brings us back the importance of the numbers. Using objective criteria is a valid way of judging a product, even without a direct, visual comparison. Add in the screen captures I mentioned, and the argument is even stronger.

Scott

 

[SRW1000]

A word of advice: I wouldn't take (insert any device) advice from someone without (insert any device).

I really don't want to know what kind of devices your inserting into what, please leave that to a different type of forum.

What were debating here is whether or not DirecTV and Dish are intentionally misrepresenting the services they are offering, not advice on what service to go with.

Lawsuits are not won or lost based on whether or not the judge and jury have actually own or have used the product, although demonstrations are often a factor.

The problem for DirecTV is that when there are objectively-based numbers involved, experience is less important than measurement.

Scott

 

[dslate69]

I really don't want to know what kind of devices your inserting into what, please leave that to a different type of forum.

I think if there is any objective reader of this thread they see what some decide to reply to in a post and what they decide to hide from. You are the weakest debater I have run across in any forum, of course that may not be your fault since you are speaking on a providers HD offerings that you don't even subscribe to.

 

[SRW1000]

I think if there is any objective reader of this thread they see what some decide to reply to in a post and what they decide to hide from. You are the weakest debater I have run across in any forum, of course that may not be your fault since you are speaking on a providers HD offerings that you don't even subscribe to.

I wouldn't say I'm "hiding" from anything. I did pick out that specific quote as amusement, aimed at someone who earlier tried to refute my arguments by labeling me as a "short bus rider." I thought you might get a chuckle out of it.

In response to your post, I did write much more, most of which were included in my response to watchel1's post, so I chose not to repeat them.

I intentionally left out your comparison to MP3 and CDs, but maybe I shouldn't have. I don't recall anyone actually claiming that an MP3 sounded as just as good as the original CD before. That's a pretty telling admission for anyone commenting on quality.

Your comparison explains a lot, and now I can fully understand your acceptance and embrace of HD Lite.

Thanks for the honest insight on your perspective.

Scott

 

[dslate69]

I don't recall anyone actually claiming that an MP3 sounded as just as good as the original CD before. That's a pretty telling admission for anyone commenting on quality.

Your comparison explains a lot, and now I can fully understand your acceptance and embrace of HD Lite.

And your unability to create original sounding MP3s tells me a lot about your abilities.

 

[whatchel1]

Not objective but subjective

Visual is subjective I will agree with that statement. Now here is another place where we disagree going by the "numbers" is not always an objective viewpoint either. Measurements can be manipulated to work in almost anyway one wants to push their agenda. Your agenda is to keep pushing how wronged "we" are when you are not even one of the "we". I have been working in the A/V, satellite, & broadcast industries for a very long time. What I have seen is not a weakening of quality but a vast improvement over the years. The thing is each new standard has to be given time to be implemented. Right now providers are scrambling just to provide any HD product. Much of the product that is shot in HD is never true HD according to your standards. The equipment it is shot on starts out as 1440 x 1080 anyway.
Criticism is good but not giving them some time to work it out is not going to help either. This why I'm saying let's see where things go. 1 see if the D* suit goes anywhere, & 2. wait a bit on getting the MPEG4 working well.
Where do you even get your HDTV since you don't own a sat system do you have FIOS?

 

[SRW1000]

Sorry in advance, but this is going to be a long one.

Visual is subjective I will agree with that statement. Now here is another place where we disagree going by the "numbers" is not always an objective viewpoint either. Measurements can be manipulated to work in almost anyway one wants to push their agenda.

I don't really think the numbers being used in this discussion are fudged, manipulated, or misrepresented. They are accurate measurements of resolution, which are being compared to the numbers required for HD (according to the providers' own descriptions).

Your agenda is to keep pushing how wronged "we" are when you are not even one of the "we".

My not being a current subscriber to Dish or DirecTV's HD offerings doesn't change the fact that they're not actually offering what they claim to be selling, and my subscription status doesn't have any bearing on what started this thread. We're commenting on a suit against DirecTV which will probably spill over to Dish at some point.

I don't need to be part of a suit to either have an opinion on it or to be affected by it.

I have been working in the A/V, satellite, & broadcast industries for a very long time. What I have seen is not a weakening of quality but a vast improvement over the years.

Do you honestly believe that the quality of SD services from both satellite providers is better today than it was 3-5 years ago? Following the discussions on this forum, I have to agree with most subscribers that quality has suffered. It's nearly impossible to watch programs today that aren't riddled with compression artifacts, pixelization, and other flaws that were not anywhere nearly as obvious years ago.

This has been caused by the rapid consumption of bandwidth; allocated to international channels, shopping channels, fringe-appeal programming, and LILs. Look for them to use that same market plan as a model for what to do with any new bandwidth allocated to HD.

The thing is each new standard has to be given time to be implemented.

More time? Dish has been offering HD for well over five years now, how much longer should we expect to wait?

They have choices to make today, and plans to make for the future. They are fully capable of providing true HD, if they wanted to, by simply paring back some of their offerings. Instead, they chose to reduce the quality, hoping that most of their customers will never be the wiser.

Right now providers are scrambling just to provide any HD product. Much of the product that is shot in HD is never true HD according to your standards. The equipment it is shot on starts out as 1440 x 1080 anyway.

While this is true for much new content, it doesn't apply to the majority of filmed content, and 4K cameras will soon be used for new content.

Even today, once the material has been captured, it is up-converted to actual HD. I agree that this is a weak link in some of today's programming. But to take that HD product, reduce it to 1080x1280i, and then convert it once more to 1080x1920i will substantially affect quality.

Criticism is good but not giving them some time to work it out is not going to help either. This why I'm saying let's see where things go. 1 see if the D* suit goes anywhere, & 2. wait a bit on getting the MPEG4 working well.

As I said above, there is no need to wait. Dish has decided that they are in a better marketing position by claiming they have more HD channels. To do this, they have to play a shell game.

I agree that the suit will have a major impact. If it fails, I think we can all kiss true, satellite-delivered HD goodbye. HD Lite will become an acceptable standard. Hence my interest, even if I don't currently subscribe. If either service were to offer all HD all the time, I would sign up. It would be rather odd for me to subscribe now, since I want true HD, not some watered-down imitation.

Where do you even get your HDTV since you don't own a sat system do you have FIOS?

I wish FIOS were available in my area. For now, I'm settling for OTA only.

Scott

 

[whatchel1]

Better?

Yes the PQ of at least the Directv SD is better than the 1st gen stuff that came out. In fact the PQ wasn't worth watching until the 3rd gen units. The waiting I was talking about has to do w/ MPEG 4 really getting up and running. As far as Sat systems in general I helped install some the original systems in the late 80's and the PQ is better than those as well. The PQ of the 1st decade of home satellite was only slightly better than VHS. Now even the worse SD is better than that. Up-converting 1280x1080i only redistributes the original it doesn't change what the original was. It is still not possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Your thinking to me is I'm gonna wait till they send only a perfect picture is the same thinking that keeps ppl from buying until the next big "perfect" thing comes out. There will always be the next thing. That is how the electronic's industry has been able to stay alive. It reinvents itself over and over and the salesmen keep selling what is there now. So next year the salesman will be selling the new perfect thing and so on and so on it goes. I hope the suit does something to impress upon all providers that there is going to be resistance to "cheating it's customers".

 

[SRW1000]

Yes the PQ of at least the Directv SD is better than the 1st gen stuff that came out. In fact the PQ wasn't worth watching until the 3rd gen units. The waiting I was talking about has to do w/ MPEG 4 really getting up and running. As far as Sat systems in general I helped install some the original systems in the late 80's and the PQ is better than those as well. The PQ of the 1st decade of home satellite was only slightly better than VHS. Now even the worse SD is better than that.

I wasn't referring to first-generation stuff. Rather, the quality that we saw about 4-5 years ago. At that time, Dish's SD was better than OTA analog. That's not the case today.

Up-converting 1280x1080i only redistributes the original it doesn't change what the original was. It is still not possible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Agreed. But, I'd rather have the original upconverted just once, rather than having the original upconverted, downconverted to below the original resolution, and then upconverted again. Each subsequent generation lowers the quality.

Your thinking to me is I'm gonna wait till they send only a perfect picture is the same thinking that keeps ppl from buying until the next big "perfect" thing comes out. There will always be the next thing. That is how the electronic's industry has been able to stay alive. It reinvents itself over and over and the salesmen keep selling what is there now. So next year the salesman will be selling the new perfect thing and so on and so on it goes.

I guess that's one way of looking at it. I realize that anytime you purchase something, it's a compromise with having it now versus a better, cheaper product in the future.

My choice to not subscribe is due to not wanting to reward the providers for cheating their customers. If they were to admit that what they're providing is less-than-HD, and that there are definite plans to change within an established timeframe, I could accept that. (Although this is not without great risk - just look at the what's happened with the much-discussed NBR upgrade fiasco.)

I hope the suit does something to impress upon all providers that there is going to be resistance to "cheating it's customers".

Let's agree on this, and hope we see a positive change in the near future.

In the meantime, those of us who really care, need to spread the word. Consumer ignorance is their strongest ally.

Scott

 

[dslate69]

I am just confused on whether this is a "quality" issue with the HD-Lite haters or a "truth in advertising" because depending on the post I don't think you guys know.
I don't think that if HD-Lite's resolution was one line less than advertised anyone could tell the difference or care enough to sue for "truth in advertising". Could anyone tell the difference with two lines or three lines less resolution and if not would "truth in advertising" be worth sueing over then?

--------
SRW1000 post don't have to be long and circular, if you try you can have a short concise post that won't put people to sleep.