VOOM is ED+, not HD

[Tom Bombadil]

Let's call it like it is.

Any channel transmitted in 1280x1080i should not be marketed or referred to as HD. Nor should it be referred to as "HD-Lite," which implies that it is a lesser form of HD.

The 1280x1080i standard is not HD. Many resolutions were debated for years as to what would be accepted into the HD standard. In the end 1920x1080i and 1280x720p were selected as the standards. 1280x1080i was one of the many resolutions that were considered and rejected.

In the world of TVs, we have Standard Definition, Extended/Enhanced Definition, and High Definition. Extended/Enhanced Definition is generally defined as having a resolution of around 854x480i, which is then line doubled to create a 854x480p image. There are a number of EDTVs on the market, mostly smaller LCD sets at this time, there were some ED CRT sets out, but I believe most are gone now.

I submit that as 1280x1080i does not meet HD standards, falling short by 33%, and lies between ED and HD, that it be referred to as ED+ or ED-plus.

This strikes me as a very good way to describe 1280x1080i.

I further believe that no provider should be allowed to market a non-HD channel as being HD, whether that be Dish, DirecTV, cable, or an individual station.

I'm not proposing that use of the term "HD-lite" be eliminated. It strikes me that this is a good description of a 1920x1080i or 1280x720p signal that has been overly compressed, i.e. bandwidth starved. Such a signal is still HD, but it is light by a few (or many) bits.

I think our use of the term "HD-lite" for 1280x1080i has caused confusion in the ranks, leaving too many people believing that it is still HD.

 

[BFG]

I don't like the conversions the content providers are making to source content, but the sad fact is that what they are giving you is still HD.

If television manufacters are allowed to sell sets with 1440,1280,800 horizontal resolutions and call them HDTVs then legally content providers are allowed to send you the same thing and call it HD as well.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Well, I admit that is a good point. It effectively eliminates almost any standard for HD, (I could transmit in 800x1080i) but I see where you are coming from.

If we were to extend truth in advertising to the sets too, then everything not capable of displaying either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p would not be able to be sold as an HD set. Quite a few sets can do the 720p standard.

 

[CPanther95]

That's the difference between an HD capable set and HD-Lite marketed as "HDTV". An HD set can display real HD (1280 x 720p).

 

[jonesbruce91361]

I agree with all the above.
Now the question is, with HD DVD just around the corner, are those makers of palyers and discs going to abuse the same flimy paramiters as broadcaster--and/or are they even allowed to under the gcurrent uidelines set for them?

I mention this, because it seems to me that if the average, non techie viewer can see an appreciable difference in resolution between the new HD DVD's and say, Dish's Voom channels, it would be suicidal for any satellite or cable network to broadcast anything less than the best that HD DVD's have to offer, be that HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

Thoughts?

 

[BobaBird]

Thank you Tom. I now know how to label the channels when I add an "HD resolution" column to the EKB HD Channel listing. I was going to use "Lite" but agree that only gives a certain amount of legitimacy to what is being done.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

In thinking a little more, even though many HDTVs cannot display true HD, I believe there is even more importance upon the provider to be truthful. After all, if I do own a true HD set, I cannot watch VOOM in HD because Dish is not transmitting it in HD.

Just like a gas station is required by law to verify that what they sell as a gallon of gasoline is indeed a true gallon of gasoline ... it can't be .9 gallons and if they add ethanol it has to say so ... and a grocery store cannot sell a mixture of 2/3rds hamburger and 1/3 soy filler as 100% hamburger, Dish/DirecTV/cable cannot be allowed to sell non-HD video labelled as HD.

If some HDTV sets cannot fully reproduce true HD if fed true HD, then that's a different problem. At least if one goes to the expense of purchasing a true HD TV, then they should be able to view true HD if they sign a contract from a provider than proclaims they are selling them an HD source.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Ha! I'm watching the Charlie Chat right now and they have one of their engineers on telling people how to buy a HDTV. In it she says that you should make sure that your TV supports a "true HD standard" like 720p or 1080i. She goes on to talk about Enhanced Definition, defining it as something that is in between Standard Definition and High Definition.

I agree completely. E*'s VOOM lies between SD and HD, it is ED, and I'll give them a "+" because it is on the high side of that range. So using Dish's own guidelines, VOOM is ED+.

They also suggested that people check out www.howstuffworks.com to find out more about HDTV. Well, I did, and I found this page:
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/hdtv1.htm

 

[dragon002]

In thinking a little more, even though many HDTVs cannot display true HD, I believe there is even more importance upon the provider to be truthful. After all, if I do own a true HD set, I cannot watch VOOM in HD because Dish is not transmitting it in HD.

Just like a gas station is required by law to verify that what they sell as a gallon of gasoline is indeed a true gallon of gasoline ... it can't be .9 gallons and if they add ethanol it has to say so ... and a grocery store cannot sell a mixture of 2/3rds hamburger and 1/3 soy filler as 100% hamburger, Dish/DirecTV/cable cannot be allowed to sell non-HD video labelled as HD.

If some HDTV sets cannot fully reproduce true HD if fed true HD, then that's a different problem. At least if one goes to the expense of purchasing a true HD TV, then they should be able to view true HD if they sign a contract from a provider than proclaims they are selling them an HD source.

i hate to butt in on a post...but mcdonalds signs do not say the burgers are all beef, but rather the meat USED is 100% beef,, and they do add fillers.*read the small print

i do know that this is a dish forum and i do not know what the contract says, but directvs contract does NOT mention hd or sd.

and the contract says subject to programming changes at any time.

you are not going to get better resolution, all you will accomplish is the satcasters and the cablecos saying ED+,,,so? you wont get the magic ring of true hd.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

If Dish/DirecTV/cable did have to advertise their sub-HD channels truthfully, it would be better. At least then it wouldn't be fraud. And they would not be hooking people into purchasing them with fraudulent claims.

Dish should not be claiming credit for being the leader in HD, when a signficant factor in that claim are VOOM channels which are not HD.

And I specifically did not use "McDonalds" as an example, I used a grocery store, which would be fined if they add fillers.

 

[dragon002]

tom,

understood, but you are still going to pay extra for ed or ed+.

there is no free lunch.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

If Dish states that they are offering 15 channels of VOOM ED+ in enhanced definition 1280x1080i, along with X true HD channels all for one low price of $20/month, then I'm fine with that.

As long as they live up to what they are doing and not defrauding people, then I'm okay. I would then lobby them to upgrade their VOOM ED+ channels to true HD.

Note on tonight's chat, they brought on a rep from VOOM who touted how VOOM had extensive libraries of true HD material. But Dish did not utter a peep about how they have VOOM downrez it to a non-HD standard before they broadcast it.

 

[M Sparks]

The 1280x1080i standard is not HD. Many resolutions were debated for years as to what would be accepted into the HD standard. In the end 1920x1080i and 1280x720p were selected as the standards. 1280x1080i was one of the many resolutions that were considered and rejected.

Technically, there are 6 HD standards- those are just the two that actually get used in the US. But you are correct- 1280x1080i is not one of them.

Extended/Enhanced Definition is generally defined as having a resolution of around 854x480i, which is then line doubled to create a 854x480p image.

The ED standards are all either 640x480p or 704x480p. They are the same resolution as the SDTV standards...just progressive. This is nitpicking, but you're comparing apples to oranges. More specifically, you're comparing the ATSC standards to what manufacturers call an "EDTV" resolution. My HD set is 1366 x 768, but obviously that's not a standard.

More importantly, the standards ONLY APPLY TO DIGITAL TELEVISION. Meaning broadcast, not DBS. In modern standard definition video editing, the standard is 720x480i.

Up until ATSC, we had NTSC. The NTSC standard is 525 lines of vertical resolution. There is no standard for the horizontal resolution...it depends on the equipment, tape format, ect.

When the industry refers to "HD", they mean something that is capable of at least 720P lines of vertical resolution. That's why my set is an HDTV, even though it doesn't match any of the standards.

The fact is, 1280 x 1080i is HIGHER resolution than 1280 x 720p. It just doesn't look as good, which is presumably why it was rejected by the ATSC. But just because it was not made a standard for digital TV doesn't not mean isn't "High Definition". The fact that it was under consideration means that is IS "High Definition"...it just isn't broadcast that way.

It is also far closer to to any of the HD standards than any of the ED standards.

To make things more confusing, the American Heritage Dictionare defines HDTV as "A television system that has twice the standard number of scanning lines per frame and therefore produces pictures with greater detail." Well, 720 is not "twice" 525 (or even 480). And 1080 is more than twice.

Sorry Tom, I hate to pick on one of the few people around here I usually agree with. Soon I will have no friends left

 

[M Sparks]

More stuff you don't want to hear...

From the ATSC website (the creators of the standards you keep talking about.)

What is HDTV?
High Definition Television "HDTV" provides significantly improved picture quality with more visible detail, a wide screen format (16:9 aspect ratio), and may be accompanied by digital surround-sound capability.

Also, back in the late 90s when NBC and ABC threw their support behind 720p, many argued that 1080i was the only "true HD", even though 720p was an established HD standard.

 

[kyblue]

But if E* Says 1080i or 720p it should be just that, not a bastard love child!

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I don't mind some fair give and take on this issue.

Under your ATSC website def for HDTV, it states that one requirement is a 16:9 aspect ratio. I would submit that 1280x1080i is not a 16:9 aspect ratio. The reason why 1920x1080i was chosen was that it is a true/native 16:9 aspect ratio.

I don't believe that the "1080i" portion of a spec alone can define whether something is HD. Just like if someone started broadcasting a 720x720p signal, I would not consider that to be HD.

Also 1280x1080i contains significantly less information than 1280x720p, as evidenced by the bandwidth needed to carry it. 1280x1080x30 is less than 1280x720x60.

I would agree that 1280x1080 is "Higher Definition" but not "High Definition."

And the fact that it is closer to HD than to ED, does not change my position. HD is a standard, you either meet it or you don't.

I have no problem accepting your 1366x768 TV as being HD, as it accepts a 1280x720p signal and strips no information away from it. It fully displays all 720p resolution. Wherein 1280x1080i does not fully capture all of the information from either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p.

Thus I say that if there are defined standards for HD, and the format you choose to transmit requires that information from all true HD sources must be stripped away in order to fit within your format, then your format is not HD.

By your interpretation, what would you say would be the minimum resolution to meet your "HD" standard? As long as the number of pixels, disregarding the frame rate, is above 1280x720, with no requirement of 16:9? So 960x1080i would qualify?

PS Don't mean to sound like I'm attacking or being nasty, just trying to pursue the issue. Assume all of the above is stated in a passive voice.

 

[Reefer123]

In all honesty I think that for it to be true HD it HAS to be a true 16:9 aspect ratio. IMO this is the greatest and most important point.

 

[M Sparks]

But if E* Says 1080i or 720p it should be just that, not a bastard love child!

It IS 1080i! The horizontal resolution standard only applies to DTV. (Isn't that what I said?)

I'm not saying it's not inferior! I'm just saying that it is a HIGHER resolution than 1280 x 720p, therefore it fits within the generally accepted definition of "HD"

Whether or not it looks acceptable to you is another story. Go to another provider if you aren't happy. But all this stuff about "false advertising" and lawsuits is absurd.

 

[mike123abc]

TV manufactures only specify 720 vertical pixels for HD sets. This is how 42" plasmas with 1024x720 resolution can be called HD.

 

[BFG]

Exactly what I said earlier