I understand that completely. I recall when Starz HD started that we had a similar problem. The Starz HD website stated that the movie was supposed to be HD but when you turned the channel to Starz Hd, it was SD. Remember that Starz HD first appeared on Voom DBS and it was the same problem. I do not figure that the proper feed was not given to Dish Network. I think they have the correct feed, it just that 5max does not have the HD transfers. Remember just because max hd has the movie in hd they cannot take that copy and show it to 5max without the properly paying the license feed. I think someone dropped the ball at 5max and were caught by surprised without any HD content.
Something up with 5Max's launch?
- Thread starter nsps
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 147
- Views 12K
I understand that completely. I recall when Starz HD started that we had a similar problem. The Starz HD website stated that the movie was supposed to be HD but when you turned the channel to Starz Hd, it was SD. Remember that Starz HD first appeared on Voom DBS and it was the same problem. I do not figure that the proper feed was not given to Dish Network. I think they have the correct feed, it just that 5max does not have the HD transfers. Remember just because max hd has the movie in hd they cannot take that copy and show it to 5max without the properly paying the license feed. I think someone dropped the ball at 5max and were caught by surprised without any HD content.
Well...sort of. But not in this case.
Yes, an HD signal could contain 4:3 programming. Usually that means it's upconverted. But not necessarily. Gone With The Wind is natively 4:3. It SHOULD be broadcast in 4:3, and still, an HD signal improves the picture vastly.
But that's not what's going on here. And the fact that this chump told you to stretch (AKA "ruin") the picture to "make it HD" drives me insane.
Ok here is what I have heard...
5 Star Max is not ready yet. It was launched early.
It is the reason why the HBO HD suite is not available yet on Dish or DirecTV.
Dont know if its true, but its what I have heard. I do expect the HBO suite on Dish in the near future.
5 Star Max is not ready yet. It was launched early.
It is the reason why the HBO HD suite is not available yet on Dish or DirecTV.
Dont know if its true, but its what I have heard. I do expect the HBO suite on Dish in the near future.
Thanks, now I do remember watching Bride Of Frankenstein on Monsters HD and it was in 4:3 and HD, but boy did that guy make me crazy telling me to just hit the format button on my remote and it would be in HD!!
Starz was a totally different situation. They were the only HD feed. They simply didn't have the programming available. Or they didn't want to go to the trouble of obtaining HD sources for EVERYTHING, because they had so few subscribers. They shaped up after being on DISH a while.
Where does this myth come from? Please, if anyone can prove me wrong, I will stop beating this dead, bloated horse...
Cinemax, HBO, ect, all sell a SERVICE. The SERVICE is made up of multiple channels. They license programming to run on their SERVICE. Licensed on one, licensed on all.
This is how the multiplexes were formed. It was a way to make the premium services seem more valuable, without increasing costs very much.
Over the years, they began putting SOME exclusive programming on SOME multiplex channels. This MAY have changed the way they charge the providers...perhaps there are a few pennies per subscriber added on per channel. I can't really find any info one way or another. But I KNOW that several years ago, the only multiplex that charged per channel was Encore...mainly because the Encore channels all MOSTLY have programming that is exclusive to that channel.
ALL of the other multiplexes were just free add ons. The channel owners WANTED DISH, Direct and the cable companies to carry ALL the additional channels. The idea was, more channels = better value = more subscribers.
Eventually, the sat providers saw a saturation point. Adding, say, Showtime Beyond didn't bring in any new Showtime subscribers, but adding some weird basic channel that reached a specific unserved niche could bring in a whole group of people. Suddenly, Cinemax and Showtime had a bunch of new channels, but DISH and Direct weren't biting. Digital Cable was coming out though, and wanted to catch up with Satellite. Adding tons of premium multiplexes pumped up their channel counts and made their profitable premium channels look more appealing...all without increasing program costs.
Please, someone prove this wrong and I will shut up about it. I've been seeing these kind of comments for years. Remember when we were supposedly getting HBO Zone, and then DISH backed down? People said "I guess HBO wanted too much money for it." I'm pretty sure they didn't want a dime! HBO was probably BEGGING them to carry it. But look at it from DISH's point of view...how many 19 year old kids pay for DISH on their own? How many people are going to subscribe to HBO just to get the "edgy" channel? Hence, no HBO Zone, no Showtime Next, no @Max. We only got Starz Edge because they converted a channel that was already on.
You may be right, but not for the reason you think you are. Maybe Max doesn't have their master control set up right yet, because no one was subscribing anyway. I am 99% sure it has nothing to do with licensing. And I don't want to get into your concept that they pay separate license fees for HD and SD versions...that just seems nuts, but I don't know for sure.
But c'mon...why would they claim that one movie is in HD and another isn't. Why would they claim that 5 Star is in HD and ThrillerMax isn't.
There are separate license fee for hd masters. If you say so that the license covers every multiplex channel maybe so, depending on their contract but I was in the impression that it did not.
I'm willing to concede your HD master point, because I really don't know.
But I would assume that it works the same way...licensing the HD master for one channel licenses it for all. So the point still stands.
Again, if someone can prove to me that the whole business model has changed in the last five years or so, I'm willing to stop flogging this point. But as recently as yesterday, I saw a post from someone who thought that since 6 HBOs are $12, one of them would be $2.
It...doesn't...work...that...way...
all I can tell you that the HD master production is a completely different procedure as it is more expensive to do. The previous model may or may not apply as the production companies would love to shift the cost of these hd movies. Something is broken I think they were caught with their pants down.
That's a good point, but I can't imagine they would try to change the entire licensing structure for an entire industry to do it.
A more likely way is that they say "OK, you can show Transformers on your channels this month for a $X licensing fee...and there's a $10,000 fee for generating a new HD master."
But it should be a one time only thing. It's not like when a premium channel shows, say, Ferris Bueller for the millionth time, they go to Paramount and say "Can you send over a copy of Ferris Bueller? They have this stuff in their library, and pay the appropriate licensing fee.
However, at some point, they had to obtain an HD master, and I'm sure that cost them. Since 5 Star has a bit more older stuff, it wouldn't surprise me to see more 4:3 stuff on there, just because maybe they didn't want to pay for an HD Master on , say, "Summer Rental" with John Candy. But not for brand new movies that have already aired in HD on Max.
(And yes, "Summer Rental" is on later this week. "5 Star"? Really?)
Probably a master control issue.
All recent films already have HD transfers. It will take a while, however, before all the 5-star classics from yesteryear, like "Summer Rental," are in HD. The channel right now, however, is just not really launched.
I guess we should just ignore the fact that it's showing up on our guides.
I guess we should just ignore the fact that it's showing up on our guides.
The way I heard it works is that you paid for the HD master. Once you have in your position then you need to pay a fee to show the movie on window. Let's say two nights, then you pay for those two nights to show it on your channel. However, if you only pay for two nights, you cannot show it a third without paying the fee again. All movies aired have a window to show. Once you have the HD master you own it but you need to pay a fee to show it on the channel and determine how long is it going to be.
I think everyone is missing the point that sure it looks better than the SD version and this is a given because SD version is starved of bandwith and the resolution is quite low. So it is a given that the upconvert version of an SD channel will look better than its counterpart in SD. But the point is not whether the upconvertion will look better because it is supposed to be an HD channel and I want to watch HD content not SD upconvertion.
As I said before 5max was caught with their pants down. We are going to see HD content on this channel. It is a matter of time but it is quite surprising that they were not ready to launch from the beginning.
Well, the first part is pretty much what I was saying.
But the way I have always understood it, they pay a license fee for a WINDOW OF TIME, not for each individual showing. That's why you'll see some old movie pop up, and it will be on 20 times in a month, and then vanish again for a while.
I could be wrong, or it could have changed, or maybe it's different for the big new premiere movies.
Another possibility is that there IS an individual charge for each showing, but maybe it's very small in comparison for the initial charge for the window. So, for example, HBO pays Paramount $10,000 for a 45 day window to show a particular movie, and then another $500 for each individual showing.
In any case, I know that the whole original point of the multiplexes was to leverage the programming rights they were already paying for. It was supposed to be a cheap way to make them seem like a better value.
And in these specific cases, they already have HD masters, and they already have licensed the film itself. 5 Star's lack of HD can't be a licensing issue. They just plain weren't ready.
I think you are making this more complicated than it was.
Dish needed to launch all 22 HD channels on Sunday night.
It is likely that it was simply that the HD feed from Cinemax for 5-Star to EchoStar was not finished at that time, so they launched any way, and will shift to real HD when the connection is done.
Dish needed to launch all 22 HD channels on Sunday night.
It is likely that it was simply that the HD feed from Cinemax for 5-Star to EchoStar was not finished at that time, so they launched any way, and will shift to real HD when the connection is done.
In a nutshell ---> it is a place holder until somehow it magically starts showing HD movies. Right now it is a useless channel. Man I can count so many useless channels on Dish right now.
I'm sure that is the case.
But it shouldn't have been. Cinemax has been claiming to have 4 HD feeds for months. They claim they will have 4 more by June.
It's just weird, that's all. Why not just lie about all the channels instead of some of them?
Shining seems to be in HD on 5Max right now...But Max-w HD seems to be the wrong movie and letterbox within a letterbox....
