HD-LITE is not that BAD?

[Brewer4]

I agree. We are still going through HD transition and most in this forum are early adopters. I for one definately want full picture but HD Lite is good enough for now until more sats are roaming the earth. I dont think it truely defines the customers choice yet until there is more pervasive HD. At some point, quality may be the differentiator that lures folks from one service to another but I think the major draw that is keeping folks from upgrading is the lack of HD programming and channels. If the general user sees more channels (regardless of TRUE HD), they may jump in. I think we are in the general public jump in phase. I say the more the merry for better than SD stuff.

 

[scottrell]

On a side note, I just read something that said the ATSC considers 1280x720p HDTV. What if they went that way instead?

Did you hear about the Lindberg baby?

1280 by 720p is HD
1920 by 1080i/p is HD

Always has been, ABC and ESPN have been using the 720p resolution for years now. All sorts of discussion points about which (720p/1080i) is better, but not the subject of this thread.

Question for anyone with a HDTV. Would you rather watch your HDTV in SD or HD-LITE? It is really a simple question. One or the other and full HD may not enter into the conversation as the question is between SD and HD-LITE! I already know that everyone would prefer full HD but that is not the question. SD or HD-LITE? Your comments please.:devil:

You're missing the greater part of the point for me. What's the cost?

Would I prefer HD-Lite at no cost over SD ? You bet.
Would I prefer the HD-Pak in HD-Lite at $5/mo over SD? yeah...probably
Would I prefer the HD-Pak in HD-Lite at $10/mo over SD? I don't think so...
Would I prefer the HD-Pak and Voom in HD-Lite at $20/mo over SD? No
Would I prefer the HD-Pak in real HD at $20/mo over SD? No
Would I prefer the HD-Pak and Voom in real HD at $20/mo over SD? Maybe

I can't really say the value of HD-Lite for me since I don't think I've seen it. I don't get any Voom, just the HD-pak. But I will say that I expect the higher resolution of HD-Lite to be a significant improvement over SD, and therefore be of some value.

-sc

 

[dlm10541]

I had Voom and loved it inspite of all the PQ griping on various forums. I switched to D* on Vooms demise and got used to HDlite. Then got HD cable over fiber (from landlord) and decided to drop D*. I had more HD and higher quality on cable including 7 NYC locals.

I still have cable but got E* for the HD(Voom primarily). On my 52" RPTV SD sucks so I am temporarily content with HD lite and am quite willing to see what the next year brings.

 

[scottrell]

It is my understanding that with E* ESPN2 and UniversalHD will be in full resolution but the VOOM Channels will not because of an uplink problem that will hopefully be resolved by the end of the year.

This is the first I've heard of that, certainly not from any substantiated sources. Then again, how credible are the HD-Lite sources?

My point is that both E* and D* are trying desperately to bring new HD services to their customers with limited bandwith and a new MPEG4 product that is not ready for primetime. The only way they can deliver those new HD channels both Nationals and HD-LIL right now is HD-LITE.

Are they even allowed to down-rezz the LiLs when the cable cos. are not?

My point is that HD-LITE is vastly superior to SD and much perferable to HDTV owners. We want as much HD product as we can get.

But HD-Lite is not HD

My point is that I am paying for a superior picture and sound and while HD-LITE does not provide what the FCC calls a true HD signal it is far superior to the SD crap that I have been watching over the last 5 years.

That may be true for you, but I'm paying for an HD product, which I expect to get. Don't give me chuck, call it rib-eye and bill me the rib-eye price.

My point is that until the resources are in place to provide true HD from E* and D* that HD-LITE is better than nothing.

true

My point is that complaints should be aimed at the FCC! They set the rules and they are the ones that will inforce the rules.

They have set no rules or requirements to broadcast HD, they've only defined the term. The misuse/abuse of the term is a case for the FTC, not FCC.

I will except HD-LITE for now. However, when the new sats are up and the new links for VOOM to the uplink center are in then I will expect my HD in full rez. Untill then, bring on as much HD-LITE as possible. When all the pieces to the puzzle are in place then I will start complaing -- to the FCC!!

By then it may be too late. If they're allowed to call it HD for an extended time, they could reasonably continue to call it HD forever since they've established it as an accepted resolution for HD.

I can accept HD-Lite for what it is, but don't let them get away with calling it HD.

-sc

 

[gutter]

I will give this much. If VOOM or D* or E* are broadcasting 1280 X 1080I and want to call it HDLITE or Enhanded Defination. I could accept that as being truthful. but don't call it HD. And don't kid yourself...once HDLITE is accepted by millions there is no incentive to give you anything better. Case in point...compare Full SD from a 4DTV to etiher E* or D*. E* and D* compressed the crap out of SD and the subs accepted it. So why change? Do you get the message of what is happeing now? Better to demand now because you won't get it later. Let them experiment on test channels. Not with subs.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

It would be great for Dish to transmit all HD in true HD resolution and at a bitrate that is adequate to produce a high quality HD image.

It is fine for Dish to transmit some channels in near-HD if that is all they can do. As long as they are honest when they market it.

It would be great if Dish would transmit several SD channels in high quality DVD-like SD. They can and have done this. Some of their PPV channels are very good right now. I could be much more patient in waiting for a channel like Sci-Fi to go HD if I could currently get it in near DVD quality. Dish could decide to do this at any second, if they were so inclined. Just trim off some lightly viewed channels off of 110 and/or 119 and reallocate the bandwidth. I'm not talking an AT60 kinda channel getting trimmed either. Dish is carrying a boatload of channels off of these two locations.

About two years ago, Dish was moving some channels around and for about a month or so, it resulted in some of the Encore channels being on a transponder with fewer than normal channels. So they started getting more bandwidth. The increase in picture quality was amazing. I recorded a couple of 3 minute snippets from high-bandwidth movies on my Dishplayer. The image detail was wonderful and there was very little low contrast contour mapping. This was as viewed on my good quality 32" analog SD TV. When those same movies were recycled again on Encore a month later, the detail was gone.

My point here is that Dish doesn't even need to go all the way to HD-lite to provide much better picture quality on several heavily viewed channels. I'd love to see them give us some higher quality SD channels.

And I don't know how a couple of the earlier posters cannot see significant image degradation from the SD channels on a high quality SD TV. I can easily spot compression-related artifacts even from 15' away from a 32" analog TV.

In my opinion, we've all been watching SD-lite for a long time. And during some periods it was SD-ultra lite.

 

[JoeSp]

Maybe some of you who are members should go into the Pub and read some of Scott's postings?

 

[JoeSp]

Scotrell, Have you forgot about FOX'S HIGHDEFINITION WIDESCREEN 480P that Fox used to tout as HD. The FCC made FOX drop that designation and informed them what they would consider HD. Shortly after that decision FOX made the annoucement of their move to a true HD signal.

I believe the same principal should be applied to all HD providers reguardless of the transmission (OTA, cable, satellite, vios). If you are selling the product as HD then it must meet the specs. If it doesn't and you advertise it that way then the FCC should and we as end users should demand that there be a change in advertising from the providers or they must step up and provide a true HD resolution.

 

[wirenut]

Remember Dish's new slogan ( Finally delivering on the promise of HD)

 

[scottrell]

JoeSP--Do we disagree?

I don't recall Fox ever calling it high definition, I do remember vividly seeing the graphic for "High Resolution Widescreen". I just about burned my keyboard at another HD forum about "Faux" thinking that we may have just been loopholed. At the time, the line from Fox was they'd never do HD, they'd use the bandwidth for other things.

At least they never called it HD.

If you check the other threads, the few of us who actually got off our duffs and contracted the FCC got re-directs to the FTC.

Please review the information that is being sent on the DTV / HDTV issue that you reference. It appears that you may want to contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC / 1-877-382-4357) if you feel that the service provider is misrepresenting what they are offering. The FTC deals with false advertising and deceptive business practices.

 

[Chop-Chop]

All service providers are doing it because of limited bandwith. It is my understanding that with E* ESPN2 and UniversalHD will be in full resolution but the VOOM Channels will not because of an uplink problem that will hopefully be resolved by the end of the year.

Well Comcast in my area is not doing it AND they are capacity constrained (still don't have TNTHD in my area)so that should not be an excuse when Comcast and other Cable companies can do it with limited bandwidth. Granted Cable markets vary by region while DBS is nationla but still it is not an excuse.

 

[DarrellP]

HD-Lite is so bad, I just cut my screen size down from 110" to 80", it was so horrible, I couldn't watch it. I am just in the process of retensioning my screen and should be back in operation by this weekend. I sure hope it helps or I am going to quit watching TV altogether.

 

[Brewer4]

HD-Lite is so bad, I just cut my screen size down from 110" to 80", it was so horrible, I couldn't watch it. I am just in the process of retensioning my screen and should be back in operation by this weekend. I sure hope it helps or I am going to quit watching TV altogether.

This is what I am talking about. 80". Are you kidding me? Its gotta be 1% of 1% of TV households that is gonna have above 60 inches. I can see how you can see the difference. Wow, thats a big screen area. How far back are you from the viewing area?

 

[GeorgeLV]

Well Comcast in my area is not doing it AND they are capacity constrained (still don't have TNTHD in my area)so that should not be an excuse when Comcast and other Cable companies can do it with limited bandwidth. Granted Cable markets vary by region while DBS is nationla but still it is not an excuse.

You're not considering the capital costs involved. DirecTV and Dish need to buy the equipment to downrez/recompress once. A cable company needs to do it for each local head end. Economically, it makes more sense for a capacity constrained cable company to do without hd channels rather than invest in the equipment to squeeze them in.

 

[Sarang]

I will give this much. If VOOM or D* or E* are broadcasting 1280 X 1080I and want to call it HDLITE or Enhanded Defination. I could accept that as being truthful. but don't call it HD. And don't kid yourself...once HDLITE is accepted by millions there is no incentive to give you anything better. Case in point...compare Full SD from a 4DTV to etiher E* or D*. E* and D* compressed the crap out of SD and the subs accepted it. So why change? Do you get the message of what is happeing now? Better to demand now because you won't get it later. Let them experiment on test channels. Not with subs.

Great point gutter. I think honestly the VOOM channels need to be compressed in content OR Dish needs to dump them and put up more official National HD channels like Universal HD in full HD.

 

[JoeSp]

Scottrel , I stand corrected. It was the use of 'High Resolution' in their promos that the FCC took up with FOX and had them drop it to just FOX WIDESCREEN right before they went to their current 720p resolution.

One thing of note is that stations must broadcast a digital signal but not neccesarily a HD signal. Also if the station that you are viewing has multiple stations (ie. 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, etc) then you are not even receiving the full HD OTA signal possible. The FCC allows this so now I question as to if they would also allow HD-LITE advertised as HD?

 

[scottrell]

JoeSp--

It doesn't sound like the FCC wants to get into the discussion about the actual definition of HD. They have blatantly omitted a complete definition of the term and have left it to the ATSC. Now they are bouncing complaints over to the FTC as if they have no role in this discussion.

I don't recall if it was the FCC or the FTC that forced Fox to change its labeling. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that if the FCC came out of the closet on this, D*, E*, and CableCos will follow quickly.

I've been concerned about the direction of the FCC on HD since the departure of Chairman Powell--whose advocacy was more aligned with my preferences.

-sc

 

[gutter]

JoeSp--
It doesn't sound like the FCC wants to get into the discussion about the actual definition of HD. They have blatantly omitted a complete definition of the term and have left it to the ATSC. Now they are bouncing complaints over to the FTC as if they have no role in this discussion
-sc

No. the FCC is correct. The question was asked about false advertising. The FCC does not regulate advertising. Congress left that to the FTC who investigates misleading or false advertising. The FTC will probably look at FCC definations about HD and other sources.

 

[FreddyvsJasonvsAsh]

I was the one to ask the question but I also stated that Dish was not broadcasting in those formats..so the FCC should look into it as well. I'm calling the ATSC Monday morning and see what they say

 

[DarrellP]

This is what I am talking about. 80". Are you kidding me? Its gotta be 1% of 1% of TV households that is gonna have above 60 inches. I can see how you can see the difference. Wow, thats a big screen area. How far back are you from the viewing area?

I sit back 13'. I got it finished and fired up over the weekend and though the Voom channels do look better, they are still quite soft. My upconverting DVD player looks better than the Voom channels do. I watched Phantom of the Opera on DVD last night and it looked awesome. HDNET was downright spectacular on the new screen, though it always was good. All channels should look as good as HDNET, then I will be a happy camper.