Why are there still SD channels? (1 Viewer)

Status
Please reply by conversation.

reddice

SatelliteGuys Pro
Mar 13, 2004
615
51
Brooklyn, New York, United States
SD channels look horrible on any HDTV and they are a waste. Now on a SD CRT SD channels look quiet good but now my house has all HDTV's and everyone complains when something is on a SD channel and now refuse to watch it.
SD content only looks good on a HDTV when you use a upconverted DVD BluRay player.
 

Jimbo

SatelliteGuys Master
Lifetime Supporter
Jul 14, 2005
63,496
3,999
NW Ohio - Buckeye Country
SD channels look horrible on any HDTV and they are a waste. Now on a SD CRT SD channels look quiet good but now my house has all HDTV's and everyone complains when something is on a SD channel and now refuse to watch it.
SD content only looks good on a HDTV when you use a upconverted DVD BluRay player.
The problem as I see it is that, yes a biz zillion people have HD sets in thier home, what happens when I have 4 tvs in my home, but only my 2 prime locations are HD, the other 2 are still SD .....
That's why they still need SD, until they are willing to give away HD recvrs, they will have SD to some extent.
 

Tampa8

Supporting Founder
Pub Member / Supporter
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 8, 2003
17,938
7,373
Tampa/Eastern Ct
Ok, then if it's changed from $23 to $15, where is my bill $8 cheaper ?
It's not because I'm probably on an older plan ... right ?

You are correct the fee now is $22 and up with Directv. And you are correct they rolled the HD fee into it. And those fees were the same for non whole home receivers as of last year when I compared prices not just whole home. They accomplished lowering some fees by then charging for the first receiver just as jcrandall lays out.

I have no good explanation for it but I do know some who if not literally prefers at the least are more than happy staying with SD even if HD was no more money.
 

Ely

SatelliteGuys Family
Jul 9, 2005
99
4
Miami, FL
Another issue I see is that many international channels still seem to come SD from the source, my parents watch several Latin American channels in DirecTV that appear to only be in SD, some of these channels however have obviously gone HD during the last year or so, however DirecTV still does not show the HD version, I wonder what will happen with international programming packages if/when everything goes ALL HD.
 

hank123

COLORADO CONNOISSEUR BUD HUNTER
Lifetime Supporter
May 8, 2016
543
288
N. Colorado
International program is a different animal. Even if I get a screaming signal from the 95, it will still break up from time to time. Up-link side issue.

And the 4k stuff is a joke. Nothing is set in stone and it seems only over the last 6 months has Directv started to set a standard for it. Shoot 4k clients could
only get the 4k stuff over the internet for the last year.

I agree with everyone about keeping the standard stuff. Rain fade rain fade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fred555

ejb1980

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 26, 2010
3,350
549
Vermont
Not around here, I know no one with a 4K TV.

Here either. I know few people who even know what a 4K TV is. I am not even sure I understand why it's such a big deal, or why Directv cares more about the probably couple-thousand 4K setups than the millions waiting on HD channels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fred555

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,481
515
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
All HD is coming and is in the works. Maybe sooner than what we all think. There are some things that do have to get hammered out like contracts first. Right now I think ATT is focusing on the next gen product lineup and then will move to all HD with the consolidation of lineups between Uverse and DirecTV.
 

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,481
515
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
Here either. I know few people who even know what a 4K TV is. I am not even sure I understand why it's such a big deal, or why Directv cares more about the probably couple-thousand 4K setups than the millions waiting on HD channels.
I own a 4k set and its amazing. Where in the early stages with 4K of what HD was when it first launched. HD is the new standard and 4K is now what HD was. With ATSC 3.0 coming in the next 5 years, we will see a bigger push. Content is coming. I heard ESPN, HBO and Discovery are all planning 4k versions. Much of the content shot the past 5 years has already been shot in 4k.
 

Darin1234

SatelliteGuys Family
Aug 22, 2012
51
11
Iowa
I heard ESPN [...] planning 4k versions.
Which begs the question, why haven't they made a 1080/60p version of ESPN (now 720) considering the technology has been there for at least the last 5 years. Really goes for all channels. Frame rates don't make that much of a difference in bitrate with modern compression. 1080/60p wouldn't require that much more data than 1080/60i (certainly not double).
 

ejb1980

SatelliteGuys Pro
Oct 26, 2010
3,350
549
Vermont
I own a 4k set and its amazing. Where in the early stages with 4K of what HD was when it first launched. HD is the new standard and 4K is now what HD was. With ATSC 3.0 coming in the next 5 years, we will see a bigger push. Content is coming. I heard ESPN, HBO and Discovery are all planning 4k versions. Much of the content shot the past 5 years has already been shot in 4k.

Well good for you....

The convoluted way you have to get 4K on Directv needs to change.

I am going to need some sources on the rest of that rather than "I heard" ... specifically on the last part. If there is SO MUCH content and SO MANY people have 4K TVs, then there would be linear channels by now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hank123 and fred555

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,481
515
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
Which begs the question, why haven't they made a 1080/60p version of ESPN (now 720) considering the technology has been there for at least the last 5 years. Really goes for all channels. Frame rates don't make that much of a difference in bitrate with modern compression. 1080/60p wouldn't require that much more data than 1080/60i (certainly not double).

Actually, the cost to upgrade a plant is considerable from 720P to 1080P as well as 4k. When ESPN did the 3D version they gave their plant 4k capability and the 3D version was in 1080P, but split into 720P top and bottom. (combined = 1080P) When the 3D channel was shut down it made sense for ESPN to wait for 4k versus launching a 1080P version. After all, it's only been 3 years since ESPN 3D shut down. Why pay for upgrades for 1080P with 4K coming 3 years later. ESPN opted to save the cash and wait for 4K. Honestly, I don't blame them and think it was a good move.
 

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,481
515
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
Well good for you....

The convoluted way you have to get 4K on Directv needs to change.

I am going to need some sources on the rest of that rather than "I heard" ... specifically on the last part. If there is SO MUCH content and SO MANY people have 4K TVs, then there would be linear channels by now.

There is a lot more content than you realize. Olympics in 4k, MLB in 4k, UFC in 4k, Golf in 4k, Movies in 4k, Concerts in 4K. Between Netflix, Youtube, Vimeo, Amazon Prime, and Ultraflix tons of 4K out there. Linear channels are coming and there are linnear channels available now, just not launched on DirecTV. NASAUHD is one amongst others that are on C-band now. Contracts do have to be put in place and I do think we will see NASA UHD when NASA HD and CSPANS's in HD are launched when ever that is. DirecTV would not have invested into putting them on reverse band if it wasn't coming. The way DirecTV does 4k now is the way DirecTV is doing all of their programming. Genie server and client / RVU method isnt going away. You dont need to hear from sources to know what's coming. Just have your ear to the ground. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hank123

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,481
515
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
I don't care much about 4K now but if my TV goes I will end up getting a 4K TV since they are getting cheaper all the time. I do refuse to once again re-buy my movies again. VHS, DVD, BD-Ray 1080p is enough.

Totally understandable. That's why I went with the Samsung and the evolution kits. I would pay 300 every 3-4 years to upgrade the internals with an external box versus buying a new panel outright.
 

goaliebob99

SatelliteGuys Master
Supporting Founder
Aug 5, 2004
14,481
515
-.-. .... .. -.-. .- --. ---
IF, this is actually still available when time comes.

It's not an If, I just upgraded to the latest. Last years model is expected to get the Tizen 2.0 update in the next few months. Samsung has already said that next year we will have another one. I suspect this will include ATSC 3.0.
 

Marcingak

SatelliteGuys Pro
Feb 5, 2015
210
59
NJ
Yes, but 480 TVs aren't available that I can find, so the 720 models work fine for SD at a cheaper price than the 1080 models.

Sticking with the original post, there are people that actually do not like HD for whatever reason and prefer to watch non-HD.
Yes there are people that don't care about HD.
SD is a cheaper way to go too.

What about providers and bandwidth availability and costs?
I'm sure this plays a factor too, doesn't it?
Bandwidth is not cheap and is SD not cheaper to offer than HD?

Then there is this:



At 15 feet away, resolution makes no real difference on a 40 inch screen.
And as you get older, the differences probably become even less.
I don't care to spend more than a 32 inch 720 TV costs and at 15 feet, it makes no difference.

I still have a Sharp 32 '' CRT TV that's still kicking, why get rid of it?

It boils down to costs for me also. You have to pay extra for HD at least when I had DirecTV.

"The gold standard of standard definition:"
http://www.directv.com/technology/standard_receiver

Now I have a TV antennas and some Free-to Air Satellite dishes, SD is the majority of the channels.

In conclusion:
1. Some people don't care about HD, as they are not aficionados.
2. They care that SD packages, equipment and lower res TVs are cheaper maybe.
That diagram is complete BS. I can notice a difference between SD and HD whether it's at 1 foot or 40 feet away. The SD is so blurry you can't even read the text on some channels/shows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddice

fred555

Pub Member
Lifetime Supporter
Sep 18, 2014
7,976
6,902
77W
That diagram is complete BS. I can notice a difference between SD and HD whether it's at 1 foot or 40 feet away. The SD is so blurry you can't even read the text on some channels/shows.

You must have some signal compression going on. Free OTA and FTA signals in SD look pretty damn good, cable and sat providers, I agree, not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZ.

osu1991

SatelliteGuys Master
Sep 4, 2004
9,905
2,339
Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
You must have some signal compression going on. Free OTA and FTA signals in SD look pretty damn good, cable and sat providers, I agree, not so much.

FTA can, but not always. OTA depends on how many sub channels, but even when only 1 SD subchannel HD looks better.

Heck I was watching a movie on DVD in 480 and you can barely tell there are actually people in a boat coming to dock. Watched the same movie in HD from a 1080i tv source and you can actually see faces and tell which characters are which.

I still watch a lot of SD OTA and some online. It's easy to see the difference. Doesn't matter if its my 40in 1080p LED monitor, the 50in 720p plasma in the bedroom or the 65in 4K in the living room. The best SD I watch that does look really good are some of the 540p webstreams and some 576 PAL.
 
Status
Please reply by conversation.

Users who are viewing this thread

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

Latest posts

Top