New mpg4 dish channels in HDLITE!
- Thread starter goaliebob99
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 120
- Views 23K
(I originally posted this and the following message in the Starz thread in the standard Dish forum. But this thread and forum are much more appropriate, so I'm moving them here)
I complained about SD-lite for a long time, but gave up the ghost there a few years ago. No use wasting time beating that dead horse.
So I've seen HD as the new battleground. HD is all about high quality, wherein SD never was. People are paying big money for high-res TV sets. The newer HDTVs continue to get better and better. Now if only the owners of those sets demand the source material be equal to their TV's capabilities, we may have a chance to get true, high-bitrate HD programs.
But so many HDTVs owners are willing to play the same game as SD, probably many of the same people involved. My HD-lite is good enough, it's a lot better than SD, therefore I am willing to accept it, and I will even be happy about it if I get more channels.
If too many E* and D* subs adopt this attitude, then DBS HD quality will erode over time, just like SD did.
But at least it isn't going to happen without me screaming about it!!!
I complained about SD-lite for a long time, but gave up the ghost there a few years ago. No use wasting time beating that dead horse.
So I've seen HD as the new battleground. HD is all about high quality, wherein SD never was. People are paying big money for high-res TV sets. The newer HDTVs continue to get better and better. Now if only the owners of those sets demand the source material be equal to their TV's capabilities, we may have a chance to get true, high-bitrate HD programs.
But so many HDTVs owners are willing to play the same game as SD, probably many of the same people involved. My HD-lite is good enough, it's a lot better than SD, therefore I am willing to accept it, and I will even be happy about it if I get more channels.
If too many E* and D* subs adopt this attitude, then DBS HD quality will erode over time, just like SD did.
But at least it isn't going to happen without me screaming about it!!!
I'll add that my prediction is that HD quality will erode over time. Due to the following factors:
A) As HDTV goes mainstream, the late adopters will not be as demanding on quality as the early adopters. They will accept HD-lite as great TV.
B) As more and more channels go HD, including more and more HD LiLs, there will be great pressure on how many transponders are available for HD. Squeezing more channels on each TP is far cheaper than putting up new satellites
C) Once again the general public will demand and prioritize more HD channels over high quality HD channels. The providers offering the most HD channels will win significant marketshare.
All of these lead to down-rezzing and bit-starving HD in order to put up more channels using fewer transponders & satellites, while maximizing the number of subscribers and income.
The number of HD subs who scream about quality will become an increasingly small portion of the HD market. These will eventually have to accept that common providers are going to broadcast in various forms of HD-lite (which I think will get worse than it is now) while they obtain true HD from sources like HD DVD, Blu-Ray, VOD, etc..
It is my opinion that any chance to head this off requires that people demand true HD NOW! As soon as the downgrading begins, we must complain en masse. For once a company heads down this road, while encountering minimum resistance along with outright acceptance, then it is a certainty that it will only get worse.
A) As HDTV goes mainstream, the late adopters will not be as demanding on quality as the early adopters. They will accept HD-lite as great TV.
B) As more and more channels go HD, including more and more HD LiLs, there will be great pressure on how many transponders are available for HD. Squeezing more channels on each TP is far cheaper than putting up new satellites
C) Once again the general public will demand and prioritize more HD channels over high quality HD channels. The providers offering the most HD channels will win significant marketshare.
All of these lead to down-rezzing and bit-starving HD in order to put up more channels using fewer transponders & satellites, while maximizing the number of subscribers and income.
The number of HD subs who scream about quality will become an increasingly small portion of the HD market. These will eventually have to accept that common providers are going to broadcast in various forms of HD-lite (which I think will get worse than it is now) while they obtain true HD from sources like HD DVD, Blu-Ray, VOD, etc..
It is my opinion that any chance to head this off requires that people demand true HD NOW! As soon as the downgrading begins, we must complain en masse. For once a company heads down this road, while encountering minimum resistance along with outright acceptance, then it is a certainty that it will only get worse.
token said:not true, NHLHD comes in for me on my old MPEG2 receivers
Okay, then my guess is that Dish has deemed this an "event" rather than an on-going channel. Just like MPEG2 receivers got the Olympics (and thus the Universal HD channel for a temporary period), they are going to get the NHL playoffs.
Tom Bombadil said:
Unfortunately, I think you may be right. And in addition to all the HD LiLs, another factor will be the eventual switch of the "mainstream" cable/satellite channels to HD. As HD sets become common, and HD broadcast equipment cheaper and more widely available, I would think that channels like A&E, Biography, CNN, the other news channels, even (God help us!) the home shopping channels, will switch over to HD and drop their SD format. That will put more pressure on transponder space.
short-term... dish will keep adding satellites to hopefully keep up with adding of HD channels... also with each new HD channel eventually the SD equivalent will go away (not that 1 SD channel equates maybe 1/4 the space of a full HD channel). E* seems to be on the forefront of satellite technology, D* seems to be way behind, I'm glad I'm with E*.
ChetK said:
First of all, it's a bit misleading to say that a camera "uses" any particular PAR. PAR is more a function of the viewing device. But regardless of semantics, the XL-H1 absolutely does NOT "use" a .9 PAR in HDV mode.
Right up front, it's important to remember that 1440 x 1080 is a native 4:3 aspect ratio.
In Widescreen HDV mode, 1440 x 1080 is a 1.33 PAR. You can't record 4:3 in HDV mode, but if you could, it would be a 1.0 PAR. So .9 PAR doesn't enter into it in HDV mode. (Although if it did, it would be a very good thing...the widescreen resolution would be 2133 x 1080 !)
.9 PAR is only used in 4:3 DV mode...which is exactly the same as every other DV camera in the world. If recording in DV instead of HDV, the recorded resolution is always 720 x 480. In Widescreen mode, this is a 1.2 PAR...in 4:3, it's .9 PAR. That's just the DV standard.
The XL-H1 is the HDV format at it's highest possible quality. HDV hasn't really been taken seriously for broadcast use in the past. The Sony Z1 LOOKS just like a PD-150/70 which has long been accepted and embraced in the SD production world. (I myself use a Sony VX2000- the PD-150's little brother- for broadcast use.) But the Z1 uses upconverted 960 x 1080 CCDs. The XL-H1 actually has 1440 x 1080 CCDs- it's the best quality you can wring out of this format.
Depending on how you look at it, the JVC GY-HD100 is even better, as it actually records 1280 x 720p from 1280 x 720p CCDs. For the sticklers out there that seem obsessed with "True HD standards"- this is a "True HD" camera, even though it's not really as good as a XL-H1.
With these two sub $10,000 cameras out there, you can expect a LOT more HD material to be produced. Even the lowest budget cable programs can afford to shoot in HD, whether or not they even have access to an HD channel to broadcast on. That's a GREAT thing. But it won't be 1920 x 1080.
ChetK said:
Good question...I would assume so, but I'm not an engineer. I've been in TV for many years, and I never understood PAR until I started editing animorphic SD recently. (And yes...that would mean the camera is "using" a 1.33 PAR if that's what you're getting at.)
Smith said:
I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about algorhythms?
When we talk about a Pixel Aspect Ratio of 1.33, it's because 1440 x 1.33 = 1920.
In the case of DV and DVDs, both 4:3 and 16:9 pictures have the same resolution- 720 x 480. The difference is the PAR... 0.9 vs 1.2.
When you switch a widescreen TV from "normal" to "wide", you are adjusting the PAR. The resolution remains the same...there are no pixels "added."
Last edited:
I mean making output signal of the cam; if it 1920 then must be some internal algorithm for _adding_ the missing pixels in each row. I don't think it's done by 'widening' analog signal, would be easy to manipulate in RAM with pixels.
HDlite
If these channels are active what are they channel number ? If not any idea when they will be available ?
If these channels are active what are they channel number ? If not any idea when they will be available ?
Smith said:
There aren't any "missing" pixels...the pixels just have a different Pixel Aspect Ratio. If you capture the digital signal though Firewire, you will have a 1440 x 1080 file with a 1.33 PAR. The PAR is part of the file header. There's nothing "missing"...you're just working with a lower horizontal resolution.
As far as the analog output...The XL-H1 doesn't have an analog HD output, so it doesn't matter. But in general, the horizontal resolution is irrelevant when you're talking about analog signals. Back when everything was analog SD, horizontal resolution was expressed as a range or "around". For example, VHS is "around 240" lines, but SVHS is "more than 400". By your definition of Horizontal Resolution and "missing pixels", a VHS picture should look "narrower" than a SVHS picture. It doesn't...it just looks "softer".
Now Chet, I did do some research, and the SDI output does indeed have a 1920 x 1080 output resolution. So yes, it does have to upconvert that signal. That's mainly to ensure compatability with high end broadcast equipment. (More evidence that we're going to see the XL-H1 used a lot in TV.)
One thing I just found out...even HDCAM records in 1440 x 1080! And we already know DVCPRO-HD is even more inferior. As far as I can tell, XDCAM-HD is HDV format on a disc instead of tape. So that's 4 major aquisition formats that don't handle full 1920 x 1080.
And look at this quote I found on Wikipedia about HDCAM SR...
"The increased bitrate (over HDCAM) allows HDCAM SR to capture much more of the full bandwidth of the HDSDI signal (1920x1080). "
Key phrase there..."much more"- that means "not all" to me. So that leaves D5-HD as the only tape format I can think of that records 1920 x 1080....and it's not portable.
(Of course, you can record full 1920 x 1080 to a hard drive with the right codec.)
I'm willing to bet that a majority of FIELD produced HD programs are not recorded in 1920 x 1080. I'd like to see some actual numbers on that...
M Sparks said:
I thought this was true, but didn't have any physical evidence or tech specs right on hand to back it up. I should have mentioned it, but didn't want to be told I was wrong if I was wrong.
If I were to use the Xl-H1 for "film-out" production, or I wanted the best possible 1920x1080 picture possible, I'd use the HD-SDI output into a Matrox Axio. I could put the H1 in 24f mode and capture 1080p 24fps uncompressed. This can be done on location too. So, for around 30 to 40 grand, you're shooting and editing "Lucas Style" digital movies. Of course, there's a LOT to say about lens quality. The H1 will NEVER shoot as good of a picture as a big Sony HD-Cam, but the Sony is also 10s of thousands of dollars more.
For HD News production, I see the H1 is where it's really at. I've shot Betacam-SP, XL-1, XL-1s and now the XL-H1. You really can't beat the H1 at it's price point.
It's an amazing camera...as is any HDCAM, and even Varicams are fantastic despite their "inferior" specs. Which is exactly my point...don't focus on the raw resolution data. Your eyes are all that matters. You could blow VHS footage up to 1920 x 1080 and broadcast it HDNET full resolution, or you could take 1440 x 1080 footage from an XL-H1 and drop it down to 1280 x 1080 on Equator. The Equator stuff will look great, and the HDNET stuff will look awful. An extreme example, but true.
While all this camera talk is educational, it really defracts from the meaning of HD-Lite. Regardless of the resolution of the cameras, the HD channels surely are mastering these captures NON-REALTIME into high quality full rez 1920x1080i content. I bet you'd be suprised at how good a even a 480p camera mastered in studio to 1920x1080i would look.
We all know the degradation occurs when the providers take the TRUE 1920x1080i source material and squish it real-time into some non-sqare pixel low bitrate garbage feed.
Hammer
We all know the degradation occurs when the providers take the TRUE 1920x1080i source material and squish it real-time into some non-sqare pixel low bitrate garbage feed.
Hammer
