Over 150 national HD channels in 2006?

Status
Please reply by conversation.
S

Sean Mota

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
19,039
1,738
New York City
Robert,

Thanks... That is light at the end of the tunnel... :)
 
rad

rad

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 7, 2003
10,567
4,170
Dripping Springs, TX
DTV TiVo Dealer said:
Once DIRECTV begins rolling our national HD channels using MPEG-4 compression they will have the ability to deliver full HD bandwidth. I believe that is their plan.

-Robert

Is that for the MPEG4 LIL channels or is D* going to stop doing HD-Lite on all the existing national channels? IMHO we're not going to see any change until D10 and D11 go up and D* get's all the HD customers KA/MPEG4 boxes. I don't see where they have the KU bandwidth now to make any changes unless they do something like dump the the NYC/LA NPEG2 feeds.
 
mdonnelly

mdonnelly

Supporting Founder
Supporting Founder
Aug 26, 2004
8,037
2,749
Mustang, OK
So, what's the answer? Is D* going to deliver 150 national HD channels in 2006? Did D* ever say where they were going to find 150 national HD channels, ever???
 
Last edited:
lou_do

lou_do

SatelliteGuys Pro
Jun 2, 2005
957
0
Central Maine
DTV TiVo Dealer said:
Once DIRECTV begins rolling our national HD channels using MPEG-4 compression they will have the ability to deliver full HD bandwidth. I believe that is their plan.

-Robert

I have been thinking along those same lines. I know currently they are very limited on bandwidth. As I have said previously, we need to be a little patient with them. People need to understand the magnitude of the changes they are currently making. Before they can switch any of their current HD Nationals or add any new MPG4 Nationals, they need to get all of the HD customers switched over to the MPG4 receivers.
 
G

GeorgeLV

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 27, 2005
1,244
0
mdonnelly said:
So, what's the answer? Is D* going to deliver 150 national HD channels in 2006? Did D* ever say where they were going to find 150 national HD channels, ever???

No. They said they'd have the capacity for 150 national hd channels at that time. Obviously, there will probably only be 30-50 national hd channels when D10 and D11 are launched.
 
H

hdtoby

New Member
Dec 25, 2005
4
0
Sean Mota said:
I saw that... It looks like some people do have a special interest in hiding the truth. That is very sad because this situation can only help us all and not to act like this in a very childish way. Isn't this sadder than HD Lite?
As I was afraid, now that I made some comments that disagree with you, Mr. Mota, you are attempting to find yet another victim.

I do happen to share a network at the same employer with a peer having the name pradike at the location, but he was not even the one who advised me to check out this site in the first place.

I am glad there are other real and helpful people here like Robert, who provide information, rather than criticism, sarcasm, and pent up hateful comments.

Part of me wishes I knew why you despise so many people, but based on what I've seen after just my first day here, I suspect that would cause another tirade of negativity. When I see pradike in the morning, I'll make sure and let him know my experiences here. Based on his comments earlier today, it looks like he gave up on this site altogether, which is a shame, since there is some useful information if you go through the various threads.

Thank you Robert. You are most helpful with your information.

Best wishes
 
hancox

hancox

Pub Member / UConnaholic
Supporting Founder
Nov 23, 2003
3,588
64
Monroe, CT
Keep it civil, kiddies. We're all in the same boat here.
 
S

Sean Mota

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Sep 8, 2003
19,039
1,738
New York City
hdtoby said:
As I was afraid, now that I made some comments that disagree with you, Mr. Mota, you are attempting to find yet another victim.

I do happen to share a network at the same employer with a peer having the name pradike at the location, but he was not even the one who advised me to check out this site in the first place.

I am glad there are other real and helpful people here like Robert, who provide information, rather than criticism, sarcasm, and pent up hateful comments.

Part of me wishes I knew why you despise so many people, but based on what I've seen after just my first day here, I suspect that would cause another tirade of negativity. When I see pradike in the morning, I'll make sure and let him know my experiences here. Based on his comments earlier today, it looks like he gave up on this site altogether, which is a shame, since there is some useful information if you go through the various threads.

Thank you Robert. You are most helpful with your information.

Best wishes

Yeah sure... make up another one... we heard the same before haven't we?
 
G

guffy1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 19, 2005
422
0
Traverse City, MI
hdtoby said:
As I was afraid, now that I made some comments that disagree with you, Mr. Mota, you are attempting to find yet another victim.
I do happen to share a network at the same employer with a peer having the name pradike at the location, but he was not even the one who advised me to check out this site in the first place.
I am glad there are other real and helpful people here like Robert, who provide information, rather than criticism, sarcasm, and pent up hateful comments.
Part of me wishes I knew why you despise so many people, but based on what I've seen after just my first day here, I suspect that would cause another tirade of negativity. When I see pradike in the morning, I'll make sure and let him know my experiences here. Based on his comments earlier today, it looks like he gave up on this site altogether, which is a shame, since there is some useful information if you go through the various threads.
Thank you Robert. You are most helpful with your information.
Best wishes

Give it up pradike...

Do you somehow think we are retarded?

You become more of a joke with every keystroke you make...

First we have to read your ludicrously wrong and twisted take on D* HD, and now your dual identities..

Cant someone make this guy disapeer?
 
Last edited:
CPanther95

CPanther95

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Mar 25, 2004
1,073
0
Charlotte, NC
pradike said:
If you are not getting the results you expect, that's your problem, your equipment, your installation, and your location. Don't assume everyone else is the same.

I have no desire to dumb down all sources/displays so that I can't see a difference.

If you can't tell the difference between a bandwidth starved 1280x1080i source and a full bandwidth 1920x1080i source - you might want to look into a calibrator or upgrade to an HDTV. It's the person that can't tell a difference that has equipment issues, not those that can.
 
Mike McGann

Mike McGann

SatelliteGuys Family
Jul 22, 2005
45
0
West Chester, PA
Well, I'm not thrilled by a couple of things in this — including the fact that people rushed out to correct me without, it seems, actually reading my post.

I was making the point that the complaints about resolution are irrelevant — in part because your displays can't show even the truncated resolution, but that the issue is compression.

Just to be clear on who I am (feel free to Google me), I'm an ISF certified tech, a THX Level II certified theater designer and the former executive editor of Home Theater magazine, as well former Editor in Chief of E-Gear magazine and someone who has been writing about D* for a decade — and HDTV for the same period. I have extensive experience in both critical viewing — as well as the technical know-how when it comes to MPEG-2 compression and the ATSC format table. I also critically evaluate HDTV broadcasts and have spent time talking to network chief engineers about output encoding, compression and multicasting.

I was pointing out the absolute declarations of HD Lite on the basis of the truncated resolution, are well, a bit presumptuous — unless viewed on a proper display to judge resolution. Basically, you can't see something you can't see.

Now compression, both in terms of D* and OTA, is a different matter. As it it is dynamic, the HD picture of D* varies — probably worst on Sunday afternoons when the most bandwidth is sucked up by Sunday Ticket HD. But my point that the compression also comes from the broadcasters — depending on market to market, how many extra channels are being spewed and so on, that it's impossible to always tell where the signal is being compressed and by how much. That's why some people say the D* signal looks as good — and sometimes, better — that OTA. In other cases, obviously, the opposite is true.

And frankly, if you're not looking at a properly calibrated display — well judging picture quality is like judging how fast you're driving your car by counting how many trees go by a minute.

I do not agree that E* HD is better looking. Because of the way their system is set up, I actually think it is harder them to reliably deliver as good a picture at the same compression rates — forcing them to either allow more bandwidth be used, or let PQ suffer, although they seem to allow the former more often than not. Largely, it's a toss up, in my eyes, with both systems delivering roughly the same quality, but your milage many vary, of course.

My point was, and remains, people should understand what they're talking about before they complain about it.
 
G

guffy1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 19, 2005
422
0
Traverse City, MI
Mike McGann said:
Well, I'm not thrilled by a couple of things in this — including the fact that people rushed out to correct me without, it seems, actually reading my post.
I was making the point that the complaints about resolution are irrelevant — in part because your displays can't show even the truncated resolution, but that the issue is compression.
Just to be clear on who I am (feel free to Google me), I'm an ISF certified tech, a THX Level II certified theater designer and the former executive editor of Home Theater magazine, as well former Editor in Chief of E-Gear magazine and someone who has been writing about D* for a decade — and HDTV for the same period. I have extensive experience in both critical viewing — as well as the technical know-how when it comes to MPEG-2 compression and the ATSC format table. I also critically evaluate HDTV broadcasts and have spent time talking to network chief engineers about output encoding, compression and multicasting.
I was pointing out the absolute declarations of HD Lite on the basis of the truncated resolution, are well, a bit presumptuous — unless viewed on a proper display to judge resolution. Basically, you can't see something you can't see.
Now compression, both in terms of D* and OTA, is a different matter. As it it is dynamic, the HD picture of D* varies — probably worst on Sunday afternoons when the most bandwidth is sucked up by Sunday Ticket HD. But my point that the compression also comes from the broadcasters — depending on market to market, how many extra channels are being spewed and so on, that it's impossible to always tell where the signal is being compressed and by how much. That's why some people say the D* signal looks as good — and sometimes, better — that OTA. In other cases, obviously, the opposite is true.
And frankly, if you're not looking at a properly calibrated display — well judging picture quality is like judging how fast you're driving your car by counting how many trees go by a minute.
I do not agree that E* HD is better looking. Because of the way their system is set up, I actually think it is harder them to reliably deliver as good a picture at the same compression rates — forcing them to either allow more bandwidth be used, or let PQ suffer, although they seem to allow the former more often than not. Largely, it's a toss up, in my eyes, with both systems delivering roughly the same quality, but your milage many vary, of course.
My point was, and remains, people should understand what they're talking about before they complain about it.

Its great that you are so highly qualified and all, but your statement that E* HD PQ looks no better than D*'s makes all your experience (and your post) irrelevant, IMO..

Actually, it makes me believe that you may actually be blind, and I cannot take a blind guys opinions on HD seriously :D
 
S

Satmeister

SatelliteGuys Pro
Dec 26, 2005
253
0
guffy1 said:
Its great that you are so highly qualified and all, but your statement that E* HD PQ looks no better than D*'s makes all your experience (and your post) irrelevant, IMO..
Actually, it makes me believe that you may actually be blind, and I cannot take a blind guys opinions on HD seriously :D
I don't understand what these comments have to do with this thread. :confused:
 
G

guffy1

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 19, 2005
422
0
Traverse City, MI
Satmeister said:
I don't understand what these comments have to do with this thread. :confused:

I really dont see anything that would be considered difficult to understand?

I guess maybe you should elaborate..

I take it you are referring to the fact that this thread has gone off topic..

Are you suggesting that my post is the first one in this thread that is totally off the original posters topic :confused:
 
CPanther95

CPanther95

SatelliteGuys Pro
Supporting Founder
Mar 25, 2004
1,073
0
Charlotte, NC
pradike said:
We know what it is supposed to and can look like when properly installed, configured, and tuned (and the source material not downrezzed and or compressed).

If you know what it is suppossed to look like when the source material is not downrezzed and/or compressed - are you saying that downrezzing/compression does not matter - or are you saying D* doesn't downrez/compress?
 
D

drbill28

SatelliteGuys Family
Feb 17, 2005
62
0
Mike McGann said:
Well, I'm not thrilled by a couple of things in this — including the fact that people rushed out to correct me without, it seems, actually reading my post.
I was making the point that the complaints about resolution are irrelevant — in part because your displays can't show even the truncated resolution, but that the issue is compression.
Just to be clear on who I am (feel free to Google me), I'm an ISF certified tech, a THX Level II certified theater designer and the former executive editor of Home Theater magazine, as well former Editor in Chief of E-Gear magazine and someone who has been writing about D* for a decade — and HDTV for the same period. I have extensive experience in both critical viewing — as well as the technical know-how when it comes to MPEG-2 compression and the ATSC format table. I also critically evaluate HDTV broadcasts and have spent time talking to network chief engineers about output encoding, compression and multicasting.
I was pointing out the absolute declarations of HD Lite on the basis of the truncated resolution, are well, a bit presumptuous — unless viewed on a proper display to judge resolution. Basically, you can't see something you can't see.
Now compression, both in terms of D* and OTA, is a different matter. As it it is dynamic, the HD picture of D* varies — probably worst on Sunday afternoons when the most bandwidth is sucked up by Sunday Ticket HD. But my point that the compression also comes from the broadcasters — depending on market to market, how many extra channels are being spewed and so on, that it's impossible to always tell where the signal is being compressed and by how much. That's why some people say the D* signal looks as good — and sometimes, better — that OTA. In other cases, obviously, the opposite is true.
And frankly, if you're not looking at a properly calibrated display — well judging picture quality is like judging how fast you're driving your car by counting how many trees go by a minute.
I do not agree that E* HD is better looking. Because of the way their system is set up, I actually think it is harder them to reliably deliver as good a picture at the same compression rates — forcing them to either allow more bandwidth be used, or let PQ suffer, although they seem to allow the former more often than not. Largely, it's a toss up, in my eyes, with both systems delivering roughly the same quality, but your milage many vary, of course.
My point was, and remains, people should understand what they're talking about before they complain about it.
Well, if you read what I wrote I clerified that most people complain about resolution when that's not really what they're complaining about as well. I said that what you said would be true. But it's not the real problem. They mean to say complression. Then I talk about how that works and what they really mean. I was agreeing with you, just took it along with an explanation. It doesn't make them wrong, just using the wrong words.
 
bgsmallwood

bgsmallwood

SatelliteGuys Pro
Apr 30, 2004
401
0
The Nations
National Geographic HD....

I just checked the National Geographic website and it says that the new National Geographic HD channel will be up and running in "early 2006". There is also a story about how skytv in Europe already has an agreement to carry the new channel. There is a link to check if it is available in your area and when I checked DirecTV it says it is not available yet but gives a number to call to request it.
 
S

Satmeister

SatelliteGuys Pro
Dec 26, 2005
253
0
CPanther95 said:
If you know what it is suppossed to look like when the source material is not downrezzed and/or compressed - are you saying that downrezzing/compression does not matter - or are you saying D* doesn't downrez/compress?
I didn't read that out of his comments at all - I think he was trying to say that he's seen HD outside of it being broadcast via any of the major sat carriers, like at the CES show demos, etc. At least, that's what I got out of it.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Latest posts

Top