HD-Lite?
- Thread starter mdavej
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 45
- Views 7K
I'm glad to even have HD-lite, looks better than the crappy SD only i could get from Suddenlink Cable. 
Well it is more than that. It is when they take something from a programming provider that is in 1920x1080 and down convert it to, yes, a valid format of 1440x1080 to help it not look so bad when they extra compress it. There are still some providers that do not apply extra compression to HD channels like FIOS. Unfortunately both DBS companies and now a lot of cable companies are doing this.
I'm glad to even have HD-lite, looks better than the crappy SD only i could get from Suddenlink Cable.
Which is why Dish gets away with it.
They may be the only one then. Of course they are only in major (high value) cities across the US. Verizon FiOS Availability Map | DSLReports.com, ISP Information
You should see the wonderful quality that Suddenlink has here w/ it's HD cable. I have net w/them so I can scan the clear Quam on both my PC & Panny plasma set. Even though they added the Tivo Premiere in the area the PQ makes E* HD Lite look fantastic by comparison.
Yep, and eventually it will get as bad as the majorly overcompressed SD channels. SD really isn't that bad if not overcompressed, but what we get from most sat/cable companies makes it look that bad. I really wish I could get FIOS, because I feel Dish is subpar HD quality and my local cable providers are no different. It's all about quantity and not quality. People buying brand new 1080p TVs and don't realize the only source able to take advantage of it is Blu-Ray. You throw in streaming and portability people want these days and I don't see quality getting any better for a long time. Most people just want the convenience.
I'd say the only good/full 1920x1080 is BluRay. When movement occurs in a picture the resolution really drops off except in BluRay. BluRay has variable 50mbs, nothing else comes close. So Dish and everyone else is lacking with not much difference between most of them. Dish can only be as good as the networks are providing them and I don't believe any of them are providing full 1920x1080 anymore. OTA definitely is not full 1920x1080, especially if it is 1280x720.
As far as having a 1080p TV, you will get a better picture irregardless of the source as it is upconverting to 1920x1080p.
As far as having a 1080p TV, you will get a better picture irregardless of the source as it is upconverting to 1920x1080p.
Last edited:
Have any proof of that? My local CBS does no multi-casting and I have no reason to believe it or any other of my local 1080i channels are not full resolution. They also all are better than the same channel provided by Dish.
Upconverting does not give you a better picture, you can't create resolution from information that isn't there.
Funny no one from Dish as jumped in on this thread.
Also thought I'd add that HD-Lite typically refers to bandwidth reduction in addition to resolution reduction.
Also thought I'd add that HD-Lite typically refers to bandwidth reduction in addition to resolution reduction.
Well actually the networks are providing a much better picture. The networks are scattered across satellites and have plenty of bandwidth. Some do 19.2+ Mbit MPEG-2 and some do MPEG4 at 10-15mbit. Dish is trying to squeeze all that on to 3 satellite, dividing 8 HD channels on 40mbits. The SD feeds from the networks could almost pass for Dish HD, you would be surpised how good the SD feeds are before Dish overcompressed them.
When I first got satellite, years ago, I had direct for the first couple of weeks but had it removed because of the picture quality. Dish was so much better. It didn't have the "blockieness" that direct did.
But now that HD has showed up on the scene, things seem to be going in reverse. Now Direct has a slightly better image than Dish.
But neither of them come close to my OTA local channels during primetime.
But now that HD has showed up on the scene, things seem to be going in reverse. Now Direct has a slightly better image than Dish.
But neither of them come close to my OTA local channels during primetime.
When I used OTA I thought they were broadcasting in 720P? But still HD over OTA looks way better than overly compressed satellite HD from what I remember. And Blu Ray should be the standard that the satellite companys should be shooting for, but next pipe dream please! I have seen movies on D* HD that I have on Blu Ray and the Blu Ray blows away the satellite picture by far, and lets not forget how much better the lossless sound is on Blu Ray to just plain ol' DD! And you are correct about upconversion, it has it's qualities, but you can't upconvert 480i (DVD) to 1080P.
Jeff
CBS & NBC are 1080i. ABC & Fox are 720p. They will never be able to look like BR disc as there is no way for them to ever have the bit rate that a disc has.
Primetimeguy,
Then why don't they look like Blu-Ray? Because the resolution isn't full 1920x1080. See this- FCC's experts report these color/B&W resolutions for HDTV programming - AVS Forum Archive and maybe a lot of 1440x1080 cameras are still being used. Theoretically Dish could be sending a better signal than OTA, some programs look it to me.
Tell that to everyone who bought an upconverting DVD player (me included) and yes you can there IS information there to extrapolate from.
Then why don't they look like Blu-Ray? Because the resolution isn't full 1920x1080. See this- FCC's experts report these color/B&W resolutions for HDTV programming - AVS Forum Archive and maybe a lot of 1440x1080 cameras are still being used. Theoretically Dish could be sending a better signal than OTA, some programs look it to me.
Tell that to everyone who bought an upconverting DVD player (me included) and yes you can there IS information there to extrapolate from.
Last edited:
It doesn't look like Blu-ray because of the limited bandwidth, and maybe resolution. 40+ Mbs MPG4 (Blu) vs 18Mbs MPG2 (OTA) are not even close to each other.
How can Dish send something better than OTA if that is what the source is?
Sure, you can extrapolate all you want but you can't create resolution that never existed in the source, your just inventing new information. Upconverting players were beneficial if their signal processing was better than that of your TV. And other than for the extreme PQ nuts (including myself) watching on large screens, upconverting players were more about marketing than anything. Playing a DVD in an upconverting player looks nothing like a Blu-Ray.
How can Dish send something better than OTA if that is what the source is?
Sure, you can extrapolate all you want but you can't create resolution that never existed in the source, your just inventing new information. Upconverting players were beneficial if their signal processing was better than that of your TV. And other than for the extreme PQ nuts (including myself) watching on large screens, upconverting players were more about marketing than anything. Playing a DVD in an upconverting player looks nothing like a Blu-Ray.
You're using a 10 year old post based on 15+ year old report to prove your point? You do realize technology changes, right? Also, when talking about OTA, just because a network (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) puts out a certain resolution, doesn't mean the station is putting out that resolution. Our CBS local takes the 1080i from network and converts it to 720p to add subchannels.
As has been mentioned, the key issue is bandwidth. You want more channels (HD or SD), you're going to sacrifice bandwidth. Why is that so hard to understand?
I may be wrong but it seems I remember some talk awhile back regarding the difference in the quality of the equipment being used by the multitude of studios shooting whatever series we're watching. That may not be the case anymore but I notice that some shows on the same network look better than other shows on the same network. The Discovery Channel used to be considered top notch and CBS also compared to others.
Non OTA networks can send Dish MPEG4 that is superior PQ. Of course Dish has to pass it on that way. As far as the chart I posted, does anyone have anything to refute it? I believe it still applies. There is no question MPEG4 is superior to MPEG2. If you don't want to believe everything looks better on a 1080p set than on a 720p set , then I assume you own a 720p set.
If a 720p source looks better on a 1080p display than a 720p display it is not because of resolution. It is because 1080p is where the new technology is at. All new development of signal processing, contrast ratio, black levels, etc goes into the 1080p sets. If you think otherwise, can you explain what sort of resolution magic happens to create this new information that is apparently better than the original source?
For clarification, I own 720p, 1080i and 1080p TVs.
