http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/10/04/poll-would-you-rather-see-live-1080p-or-high-quality-3d-from-yo/

That poll inspired me to make one here, as the question being posed is very intriguing. What do you guys think?

It's not 1080p and it's not something else, I can tell you that for sure.

I agree with Ken. And also, out of all the 3D things I've seen in theaters, only one experience (Monsters vs. Aliens) made the movie worth seeing. All others I could have done with out...it added nothing. So I'm not real gung-ho about bringing it into the home just yet.

1st less compression, then we can see about getting 1080p.

They can't do 720p or 1080i correctly yet. We aren't going to see 1080p for a LONG time as the don't have the bandwidth needed for 720p/1080i (total number of channels limitations). 1080p would also require a large investment from all of the content creators.

Give me total HD first with no compression. I have Fios (who doesn't compress the signal they get) and when the signal isn't destroyed by CBS, NBC, etc, it looks wonderful. When they do it looks terrible. When watching Comcast at friends houses it looks terrible all the time. They are compressing heavily to fit as many HD channels as they can. We have much larger problems than 3D or 1080p (which is a joke in and of itself).

less compression

If I wanted something in 3D I'd go outside.

Reserving bandwidth for two things that are not currently produced in any real quantity seems like an unwise tradeoff, when more bandwidth could be used today to improve the quality of content already in existence.

First less compression. (Then ultra HD.)

1080p thats a hoot.....

"Less compression on the HD that's already there"

Seems like that's the ticket. I voted that as well. Give me THAT first before you butcher it and feed me some hyped up dribble!

I could give a rat's ass about 1080p. I'll bet that would look even worse given the current cable company compression. At this point, I wish some channels like USA HD were 720p!

More HD channels, and a la carte pricing. I have no desire to pay for ESPN, YES, SNY, MSG and all the other sports channels that probably add $20-30/month to my bill. Let me choose what I pay for.

Well, I voted for something else only because the listed item really don't bother me that much. I don't care about more stuff in 1080p, compression is not that bad on stuff i watch, and I have no interest in 3d. I have plenty of HD options but I would not object to a few more that are out there but not carried on my provider, AMC for one.

Yeah. Less compression on the station logos and all the other crap and gratuitous clutter currently on the screen.

Since Verizon adds no compression of its own, I'd go with something else--less compression by the content providers themselves. Or if we're limiting it to what the provider can offer, I guess I'd go with more HD channels. Or maybe 1080p VOD.

Not particularly interested in 3D until they can do it without any headgear at all, and 1080p linear channels are decades away.

Less compression is the first thing, of course - but a close second would be the programming itself. It's gotten pretty bad, IMO. I have no use for endless reality shows and Law & Order/CSI reruns.

I want fios to lower my bill :) Hate paying $20 extra for HD pack, AND $15 for 160GB dvr.

compression not so much a problem.

Other than Dish's little temporary 'loss leader' experimentations with that, I think it'd be the least likely choice (if it were one given) to ever happen permanently.

Definitely less compression, but the geniuses at the providers are probably working on giving us more.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9596/3stoogesvice1m.png

Less compression. I'm tired of seeing macroblocking whenever Conan O'Brien moves two inches to the left because the cable company recompressing the HD signal down. It makes me yearn for the age of HD-Lite on D*.

Also, who are these mythical people who want 3D television sets?

I want fios to lower my bill :) Hate paying $20 extra for HD pack, AND $15 for 160GB dvr.

compression not so much a problem.

I would jump at the chance to pay $20/mo extra for HD channels that weren't compressed to hell.

Also, who are these mythical people who want 3D television sets?I think 3D Blu-ray and files will be available for some time before it's sent by providers, but who knows there could be some dedicated channels. It should be especially compelling for gaming. The 3D can look quite good, although the displays are somewhat compromised by using odd rows for one eye and even for the other via circular polarization. I've been noticing that nearly every pair of circular polarized display/glasses has some crosstalk between the left and right images, so I hope that's improved. The displays should be around next year and I don't think there's a huge premium in their manufacturing. I haven't seen low bitrates yet with 3D, so I can only imagine what 3D artifacts will look like: Wow, I can reach out and touch the blocks now. :D

It's not just the compression anymore. Here in PDX comcast has crammed so many new "HD" channels in their system they have apparently resorted to filtering as there is now seriously annoying banding even on the previously untouched local channels. If there was any other way too receive the Blazer HD game feeds I'd be gone yesterday... :mad:

ron

Less compression

I would jump at the chance to pay $20/mo extra for HD channels that weren't compressed to hell.Just get rid of all the SD channels once and for all, reclaim the bandwith/transponder space, and set the prices at no higher than what the SD packages were.

Anybody that has an SDTV can just downscale it.

Assuming 1080p is referring to 1080p/60, I'd put that in second place. First is obviously less compression. I could give a flying hell about 3D, anything that requires glasses is a stupid gimmick.

I have D*, I chose less compression. If I had to choose a 2nd I'd pick less compression again.

Just remembered, another option would be less spam in the guide. And then less compression again.

another option would be less spam in the guide.
Guide spam can go away with the press of the Exit button. Compression can't.

Assuming 1080p is referring to 1080p/60, I'd put that in second place. First is obviously less compression. I could give a flying hell about 3D, anything that requires glasses is a stupid gimmick.

No, not if it's done right. Trust me on this one.

No, not if it's done right. Trust me on this one.
I trust your opinion, but I'd have to see it to really change my opinion on it.

Just get rid of all the SD channels once and for all, reclaim the bandwith/transponder space, and set the prices at no higher than what the SD packages were.

Anybody that has an SDTV can just downscale it.

Fully agree on this one. This is their new cost of doing business, why do I have to pay twice for the same content?

They would get centercut stretch-o-vision or window boxing. Its probably easier for them to have a SD channel then to use AFD.