VOOM is ED+, not HD

[M Sparks]

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.

You are cherry picking your arguments again. 8 of the 18 ATSC standards have un-native aspect ratios. Specifically, they are all 704 x 480 with EITHER a 16:9 or 4:3 aspect ratio. (704 x 480's native aspect ratio is 22:15!)

Now, I'm going to give you one point here. Moving to a narrower aspect ratio IMPROVES resolution. Obviously, what they have done is degade it.

But here's why native aspect ratio doesn't matter that much- pixel aspect ratio. When you toggle the widescreen settings on your WS TV, you are adjusting the pixel aspect ratio.

I am going to speak about DV and DVDs, because that's what I know best. I can shoot DV or create a DVD in 4:3 or 16:9. But either way, the resolution is 720 x 480i. This is a native aspect ratio of 3:2.

The difference is in how you define the pixel aspect ratio in the editing process. If you define the PAR as .9:1, you wind up with a 648 x 480 picture- close enough to 4:3. If you define the PAR as 1.2:1, you wind up with 864 x 480- close enough to 16:9.

(Notice that the vertical resolution never changes. It's always 480. That's what makes it an SD picture. AN ED PICTURE IS JUST A PROGRESSIVE SD PICTURE.)

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.

Agreed. But we have already accepted 1280 as an HD horizontal resolution.

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

WHOA WHOA WHOA! Where do you get the 60 from? I've never heard anything about anyone actually broadcasting 720p at 60 frames a second. I could be wrong, but I would want to see some hard evidence. 30 frames is the standard.

1280 x 1080i is a higher resolution than 1280 x 720p. Period. The reason it's inferior is that progressive scan just makes it "look" better. (And using square pixels AKA "Native Aspect Ratio" helps too.) But there are more pixels in a 1280 x 1080i picture...they are just displayed differently.

To make it easier to understand, think of a DVD. It's 720 x 480i. When you watch it in widescreen, the pixels are stretched out, but it still looks great. (If you letterbox it on a 4:3 TV, you see a "better" horizontal resolution- because the PAR is lower- but you lose vertical resolution.) Now, if you play it on a progressive player, the machine artificially inserts "more" information to make a progressive picture, which looks better. But the resolution is exactly the same...AS IS THE AMOUNT OF DIGITAL INFORMATION ON THE DVD.

If they downrezzed everything to 1280 x 720p, it seems to me they would save even more bandwidth, and people wouldn't be complaining much. I'm willing to accept correction on this from one of the engineers, because my knowledge is sketchy when it comes to actual transmission. (My job is to get it TO the programmer, what they do with it is their business.) It's possible that 720p broadcasts each progressive frame twice (in place of two interlaced fields), but I doubt it.

HD is a standard, you either meet it or you don't.

That's the problem...it's not, at least not for DBS, and not for manufacturers. Only for broadcasters. The industry has been defining HD as 1080i or 720p for years.

Wherein 1280x1080i does not fully capture all of the information from either 1920x1080i or 1280x720p.

Right on the first count, wrong on the second.

Thus I say that if there are defined standards for HD

But there AREN'T. Not for DBS.

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?

No, as I said, 1280 is an accepted horizontal resolution, so that's my bottom level.

I'm going to give you another point now. I explained PAR- hopefully well enough. But in my example, the pixel is only stretched to 1.2:1. More importantly, I would assume most TVs are built to handle this pixel ratio automatically.

1280x1080i requires a 1.5:1 PAR. That's a LOT wider. BUT, we're also dealing with a lot SMALLER pixel than a 720x480 SD picture. So it's probably a wash.

Remember, Dish's "SD" pictures don't meet the ATSC Standard for SD either. DBS has always been a tradeoff. I can't imagine why anyone with access to a good digital cable system would want a dish. I never have...I chose DBS to get more channels. But DBS has always degraded picture quality. As a reletively new HD customer, I'm amazed they're as good as they are. I expected more "blockiness".

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.

Not at all...you're still one of my favorites. Just trying to educate and inform. Technically, we're just arguing semantics.

All this stuff about lawsuits will never go anywhere. And there's no point arguing about standards. But you know what can't be argued with?...

"I don't think it looks as good."

And that's all that matters. Let them know you're unhappy, especially if you have other options. I, for one, do not.

 

[BFG]

Just had to post that I actually read that and it was very good

 

[CPanther95]

Bottom line is that it is not HD as defined and accepted by the industry. However, that industry acceptance is changing to the point that 1280x1080i will be considered HD simply because it has become an industry standard.

Until the government adopts the ATSC standards as law - instead of just making reference to them - nothing will change. And as long as it is not "law", you can't bust E* or D* for anything illegal. Right now, it is misleading advertising, at worst.

 

[M Sparks]

THE ATSC STANDARDS ARE FOR DTV
THE ATSC STANDARDS ARE FOR DTV
THE ATSC STANDARDS ARE FOR DTV
You can make them "law" (whatever you mean by that), but it's irrelevant, because...
THE ATSC STANDARDS ARE FOR DTV

What you're talking about is an issue for the FTC not the FCC. And even if the the ATSC standards are made "law", the FTC could decide something different as far as what can be advertised as HD.

The industry standard is 1080i or 720p. Please show me one advertisement, announcement, press release, ect that refers to horizontal resolution when touting "HD". (EDIT- NOT refering to native resolution or maximum resolution in a TV.)

The fact is, it's been this way for years. You should have been fighting back in the 90s. Many tried to say that ONLY 1920x1080 was HD, and fought NBC and ABC.

Oh,and....
THE ATSC STANDARDS ARE FOR DTV

(Thanks BFG, I just stuck up for you in another thread.)

 

[CPanther95]

You can't be that clueless.

There's documented references from D* and E* using the ATSC standards for their definition of HD. They no longer use those standards for obvious reasons, but those ATSC DTV standards were accepted by all parties when defining HD.

I'm the one who has been posting over and over again that it is an FTC issue, not an FCC or legal issue. But even through the FTC, you need to have a basis to claim that the ATSC standards are the proper standards to enforce. Since those standards have gone from universal acceptance (by EVERYBODY) to now, where companies are trying to establish their own bastardized standards - time is running out for that support - even from the FTC.

 

[bdemz]

Improved SD or SD+ Content

I said before, what compelling content is there on the HD channels that dictate their own tier other than that they are in HD??

Who wants to watch dinosaurs, flowers, fashion, Van Gough or old hockey games if they are not in HD?? THAT IS THE COMPELLING CONTENT

This SD+ (I will not refer to it as HD-Lite anymore) tier is equivelent to purchasing the NHL package and them blacking out all the games.

If I buy HD, I want HD.

Dammit

 

[Tom Bombadil]

M Sparks

The HDTV broadcasting standard as chosen by ABC, ESPN, and Fox is 1280x720p60, not p30. Vs that standard, 1280x1080i30, or 1280x540i60 if you prefer, does contain less information and consumes less bandwidth.

Now, given that there are also 720p24 and 720p30 HDTV standards, which may be used at times by ABC. etc., there are 720p standards wherein 1280i (shorthand) would have more data.

My reluctance to accept the 1280 portion of 1280i, as opposed to the 1280 portion of 720p, is that they are not equivalent. Let's say a sporting event is captured by a 1920x1080i camera, then downconverted to 1280x1080i. 1/3rd of the original information is stripped away. Then when your receiver or TV upconverts the 1280 image, it will interprolate the missing lines via some algorithm, like averaging the 2nd and 3rd lines to create a new line, which is then inserted between the 2nd and 3rd "original" lines.

If this image is then sent to a 1280x720p TV, then the final image will be 2/3rds of the original horizontal information, along with a vertical where a 540i60 frame is likely upconverted to 720p60.

However the same sporting event captured on a 1280x720p camera will capture all of the information, albeit on larger pixels (and with lower resolution) than the 1920 camera. The 1280 lines represent the full, unaltered image When displayed on a 1280x720p HDTV, the final image should be a near perfect representation of the original image.

Thus I am reluctant to accept the argument that since one established HD standard has a horizontal resolution of 1280 lines, that a manipulated/altered version of another standard that also produces 1280 lines is an equivalent standard. I admit that it is relatively easy to market/sell the two as equivalent.

Likewise if one is watching a soccer game on ESPN in 1280x720p60 and flipping to Rave to watch another soccer game in 1280x1080i30, then the Rave image has less information than ESPN.

Now, all of that said, I understand your point about the standards not being codified in law and that the universal references to DTV standards are simply 1080i and 720p, with no mention of horizontal resolutions. This worries me because they could drop down to 960x1080i and still claim to be HD.

 

[Ilya]

Two similar threads merged.

 

[Gary Murrell]

Sparks, like Tom said, 720p is 60 frames per second and that is how it's lower resolution competes with 1080i

here are all the numbers for anyone interested:

1920 x 1080 x 30FPS = 6,220,800 Pixels (True 1080i)
1280 x 720 x 60FPS = 5,529,600 Pixels (True 720p)
1280 x 1080 x 30FPS = 4,147,000 Pixels (HD-Lite)
720 x 480 x 60FPS = 2,073,600 Pixels (Old Fox 480p)
720 x 480 x 30FPS = 1,036,800 Pixels (DVD)

HD-Lite is only 2 times better than 480p from FoEDTV) and 4 times better than DVD
1080i on the other hand is 3 times better than 480p from FoEDTV) and 6 times better than DVD

big difference isn't there ??

-Gary