...with new satellite capacity? :confused:

Finally in a position to see how bad HD-Lite is. Did an "apples to apples" comparison of D*TV (MPEG4) vs. cable and NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

Have new Pio 60' (6010FD) plasma and hooked up BOTH the new D*TV HR20 PVR and Cablevision Io HD on Saturday -- both are connected DIRECTLY to the plasma with HDMI connections. Sunday Night Football was on D*TV and I was "disappointed" by the picture; I then switched to cable and WOW!!! -- much nicer picture! Toggled back and forth and was amazed by the difference. Also asked my 16-year old son to look and he agreed with the dramatic difference. :eek:

Isn't the new MPEG4 technology for locals (only available on the new receivers) "supposed" to look better than MPEG2? Isn't MPEG4 being shown in NYC for locals on the new receivers? Someone correct me?

Got the new HR20 in anticipation of the new D*TV channels PLUS the hope HD-Lite would be gone forever...here's to hoping and praying D*Tv. If you don't dramatically improve quality with this capacity, it is clear you NEVER will.

As a result, this PATIENT, long-term supporter (since 1994) will finally concede and drop you once and for all -- am watching carefully D*TV -- the balls in your court now...please prove me wrong!!!!! :rolleyes:

I am in a position where I am about to pull the trigger and switch to D* from fios. Mostly because they don't have my RSN in HD in the dc area. But also because I currently have teh old mpeg 2 stuff in the basement form D* that I have hooked up for Season Ticket in the fall. So I currently see the difference between the two on Sundays. It is a pretty big difference. The question is is it a difference that I can live with if I make the switch?

That is the question that I have not answered my self.

The $64K Question: Will HD-Lite Continue on D*TV...with new satellite capacity? :confused:Yes indeed, that is the $64,000 question.

And unfortunately, there is no good answer at this time.

Proponents of both sides of the issue (Yes, D* will continue to do HDLite - No way, HDLite will be a thing of the past for D*) have been going at it for quite some time now. The reality of the matter is that the answer will probably not be known anytime soon. Even after the initial lightup, bugs will have to be worked out, evaluations will have to be made, and it could take months before a final disposition is reached.

...with new satellite capacity? :confused:

Have new Pio 60' (6010FD) plasma and hooked up BOTH the new D*TV HR20 PVR and Cablevision Io HD on Saturday -- both are connected DIRECTLY to the plasma with HDMI connections. Sunday Night Football was on D*TV and I was "disappointed" by the picture; I then switched to cable and WOW!!! -- much nicer picture! Toggled back and forth and was amazed by the difference. Also asked my 16-year old son to look and he agreed with the dramatic difference. :eek:

Isn't the new MPEG4 technology for locals (only available on the new receivers) "supposed" to look better than MPEG2? Isn't MPEG4 being shown in NYC for locals on the new receivers? Someone correct me?



i think your experience is in the minority. there have been a lot of posts in other threads about the quality of the mpeg4 locals on d*, with the vast majority of comments being positive. my own experience is that the mpeg4 locals through d* are as good as my ota quality.

whether that remains the case as d* adds more hd channels and markets remains to be seen. but as of now, i have no complaints over mpeg4 quality.

All I can add is..if the upcoming Directv HD channels look the same as my local stations via Directv, then I shall be satisfied. For these locals (from Directv) look as good as the local digital tv stations via my antenna. I am most pleased. Anything much beyond this quality will probably have to wait until many years have passed. Images on our display are clean and clear with almost zero breakup, etc. Of course, 40 years from now all this will look quite primitive. But, for now, it is what we have and we should enjoy!

Interesting comments, but most of you missed my initial point -- why is my local cable signal THAT much better than D*TV's??? If most of you are "satisfied" with the relative HD-Lite crap from D*TV -- good for you. I, for one, am not!!!! This new launch will FINALLY answer the question for me....

I'm plenty satisfied with the supposed "HD-Lite"....

The reality of the matter is that the answer will probably not be known anytime soon. Even after the initial lightup, bugs will have to be worked out, evaluations will have to be made, and it could take months before a final disposition is reached.

Ken -- WHY months??? :confused:

D*TV has all of this new capacity...why not give us the best signal possible when the new channels are added??? To conscientously continue to downrez the signal is a CLEAR CUT signal to most of us what D*TV's ultimate model really is --- quantity to the ignorant masses and those of us searching for quality to continue to search elsewhere...really sad if D*TV does this, PLUS jacking up the HD packages too!!! Amazing!!!

I simply do NOT understand how my local digital cable has such a superior HD signal and now after all of this new capacity, HD-Lite will continue??? Will know once and for all in a couple of days...

I did a comparison last night on sunday night football NBC (Mpeg4 from D* and OTA). both looked terrible, severe blurring. I'm curious how cable got a better picture then OTA? There are threads on how bad NBC looked last night from many providers.

I'm plenty satisfied with the supposed "HD-Lite"....

You wouldn't be if you saw the signal on my local cable compared to the "HD" D*TV is currently providing (re-read my original post)...I guess ignorance is bliss!!!! :eek:

I did a comparison last night on sunday night football NBC (Mpeg4 from D* and OTA). both looked terrible, severe blurring. I'm curious how cable got a better picture then OTA? There are threads on how bad NBC looked last night from many providers.

Not true at my house -- please re-read my original post!!! ;)

Interesting comments, but most of you missed my initial point -- why is my local cable signal THAT much better than D*TV's??? If most of you are "satisfied" with the relative HD-Lite crap from D*TV -- good for you. I, for one, am not!!!! This new launch will FINALLY answer the question for me....

i don't think i missed your point. i am satisfied because mpeg4 picture quality in comparison to the purest signal available - ota - is equal. it is not as if i am putting up with something less than the best picture i can get. why you are not getting the same quality of mpeg4 most of the rest of us are, i can't answer.

Before I get attacked by all of the D*TV apologists, let me make it clear I AM a BIG D*TV supporter and an early adopter (1994), ALWAYS getting the "new" toys (Tivo, HD, HDTivo and so on).

I remember the days when D*TV first came out and my neighbors saw my set up, the quality and little dishes popped up all over the neighborhood. Over time, cable caught up, D*TV started degrading their signals (for more channels) and less and less people kept their dishes, etc. When HD first came out, it was WOW!!!, once again, but then quickly HD-Lite was born.

I was at my neighbors about a year ago and saw a baseball game on his HD TV and was like WOW!! -- what a picture. Why not like that at my house?? He had local HD cable, but I couldn't believe cable by itself provided such a better picture. I then began on ongoing quest to find out the cause of these picture differences. HD-Lite?? My TV vs. his??

I got my Mitsubishi 65" Diamond HD TV calibrated (it MUST be the TV) -- NO!! I FINALLY broke down and added cable 6 months ago and WOW!! -- great picture for the same channels vs. D*TV. Being patient, I said well maybe its this Mpeg2 vs. Mpeg4 thing and said let's see what happens...

Well, now I have the Mpeg4 boxes and STILL cable is way better!! All that is left is HD-Lite and WHETHER OR NOT D*TV will give us a better signal in a couple of days or not.

I have done my research, done my homework, can make apples to apples comparisons (as per my original post) and I will see what D*TV FINALLY does soon. Those of you who know better (and there are quite a few of you on this board and dbstalk) know what I am saying is true and are also waiting for an answer once and for all.

The rest of you that are "happy" with your signals and NEVER saw the original HD signal from D*TV and/or do not have the ability to see my local cable HD picture, continue to believe D*TV's BS about them providing the "best picture". Many of us know better...

I SINCERELY hope that D*TV will stop downrezzing their signals to the ignorant masses and give us a great HD signal. I could then, once again, get all of my friends, family and neighbors to get the new dishes back on their roofs -- imagine the word of mouth if QUALITY was back at D*TV??!!?? Until then, I have seen with my own eyes, the superior signal our local cable provides. That is why I am the only one in the neighborhood that still has D*TV -- in the hope that FINALLY we get a QUALITY HD signal once again!!

I for one am glad I can afford cable too -- that's where I watch ALL of my HD programming that's available....

i don't think i missed your point. i am satisfied because mpeg4 picture quality in comparison to the purest signal available - ota - is equal. it is not as if i am putting up with something less than the best picture i can get. why you are not getting the same quality of mpeg4 most of the rest of us are, i can't answer.

No....let me try again!! I am getting a BETTER signal than your local OTA or D*TV signal -- if that is true, D*TV is capable of providing you AT LEAST the same quality signal I am getting from my local cable company. Why not???? HMMMMMMMMMMM....;)

Not to question your intelligence here, but I know NYC big4 locals are on the Conus Sat in mpeg2 hd-lite. I can say those channels do look worse than locals OTA or my areas HD-LIL MPEG4. I have never had D* within the NYC spotbeam, but one thing to check would be whether or not they are rebroadcasting the big four in mpeg4 or just mapping the mpeg2 signal to channel 2,4,5, and 7 instead of in the 80s. The quality of MPEG4 HD-LIL for Jacksonville, FL rivals OTA reception quite well.

We might find out soon enough, but as Ken H mentioned, it might be awhile before a final verdict is available, if ever. The capacity will be there, yes, but there will likely be numerous tweaks for DirecTV to make after they make their first uplink to the new D10 satellite.

What I'm hoping is that we will find out fairly quickly whether or not DirecTV will continue down-rezzing. Personally, I think the resolution is sufficient - it's the bitrate that I hope they don't penny-pinch too much.

We shall see soon enough. It certainly looks like DirecTV is getting real close to turning the first of the new HD channels very soon.

Is it possible your cable company is getting a raw feed from your local NBC? Did you compare OTA with the MPEG4 feed from D*?

Well, now I have the Mpeg4 boxes and STILL cable is way better!! All that is left is HD-Lite and WHETHER OR NOT D*TV will give us a better signal in a couple of days or not.You are confused. The MPEG4 box itself is only part of the equation. It will not make the existing MPEG2 channels look any different, you'll have to view the MPEG4 locals.

Finally in a position to see how bad HD-Lite is. Did an "apples to apples" comparison of D*TV (MPEG4) vs. cable and NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!


Are you sure you were watching the MPEG4 feed and not the MPEG2 feed. NBC is still MPEG2 in the 80's. Sure you had the receiver set to channel 4? My MPEG4 feeds are just about transparent to OTA in NJ.

I'm in Robbinsville, too.

Is it possible your cable company is getting a raw feed from your local NBC? Did you compare OTA with the MPEG4 feed from D*?

I was going to ask the same thing. Our Cable Company (TWC) gets a direct fiber feed from CBS and FOX. I'm not sure about the others.

Jeff

My answer to this would be: Possibly Yes, unless maybe it's no, erroring on the side of hopefully but not being too optimistic that it will unless it is, then that's great.

Ken -- WHY months??? :confused:Already explained, bugs, evaluations, etc. More? New hardware at the head end. Believe me, it's a lot more complicated than you know.


I simply do NOT understand how my local digital cable has such a superior HD signal and now after all of this new capacity, HD-Lite will continue??? Will know once and for all in a couple of days...By your own admission, there are a number of things you don't understand, and I would have to agree. So, why not just wait & see what happens, rather than getting agitated now? If D* continues HDLite, there will be lots of time for that later.....

No....let me try again!! I am getting a BETTER signal than your local OTA or D*TV signal

you live in new jersey. i live in kansas city. how can you possibly know that your cable signal is better than my ota picture?

Not true at my house -- please re-read my original post!!! ;)

I guess my question was if NBC was having issues with Sunday Night Football and it was noticed by viewers across the country with different providers (OTA, different cable cos, D* and E*) why then was your signal from your cable co so great that you were WOW'ed?

You wouldn't be if you saw the signal on my local cable compared to the "HD" D*TV is currently providing (re-read my original post)...I guess ignorance is bliss!!!! :eek:

I've watched plenty of HD on Cox cable (on a Mitsu 52" DLP) and while the pic was nice..it wasn't much better than anything I've seen on D*...

Call me ignorant if you wish...but it's just TV and I don't get too nutted up about it like some folks apparently do. :rolleyes:

The OP never mentioned whether he installed a 5 LNB dish when he got an HR20. If he's still got the old 3 LNB dish, he's only watching the MPEG2 locals and it's not a fair comparison. My MPEG4 locals are nearly identical to OTA in Atlanta. If OTA is 100/100, MPEG4 is 95/100, in my experience.

.

Finally in a position to see how bad HD-Lite is. Did an "apples to apples" comparison of D*TV (MPEG4) vs. cable and NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!



Did a similar test last night on the SNF game. It was ugly via Time Warner cable, and ugly via an OTA. In other words, I don't put much faith in your test. Need more data.

Not to question your intelligence here, but I know NYC big4 locals are on the Conus Sat in mpeg2 hd-lite. I can say those channels do look worse than locals OTA or my areas HD-LIL MPEG4. I have never had D* within the NYC spotbeam, but one thing to check would be whether or not they are rebroadcasting the big four in mpeg4 or just mapping the mpeg2 signal to channel 2,4,5, and 7 instead of in the 80s. The quality of MPEG4 HD-LIL for Jacksonville, FL rivals OTA reception quite well.

Thanks...if that is true (we aren't getting Mpeg4 yet in NYC), that answers one of my original questions in the thread starter...I would wonder why they wouldn't be providing the best signal they could in the #1 market though???? :confused:

From what I have heard , COX down rezzes similar to D*. I know that my Dad has it and it looks really weak, just not very crisp.

You are confused. The MPEG4 box itself is only part of the equation. It will not make the existing MPEG2 channels look any different, you'll have to view the MPEG4 locals.

I thought the new boxes (HR20 vs. HR10) were needed to "see" the Mpeg4 locals -- you mean to tell me we are NOT getting Mpeg4 in NYC??? Where can I determine this or not? And, if not, WHEN??? :eek:

Are you sure you were watching the MPEG4 feed and not the MPEG2 feed. NBC is still MPEG2 in the 80's. Sure you had the receiver set to channel 4? My MPEG4 feeds are just about transparent to OTA in NJ.

I'm in Robbinsville, too.

:eek: Hey, I'll try that, I WAS looking at 80!!! I am hoping to eat crow!!! :D

you live in new jersey. i live in kansas city. how can you possibly know that your cable signal is better than my ota picture?

Hmmmm....because you said your D*TV signal was as good as OTA, and my cable picture is better than D*TV...therefore, if A=B and C>B, then by rule C>A ;) :D

I guess my question was if NBC was having issues with Sunday Night Football and it was noticed by viewers across the country with different providers (OTA, different cable cos, D* and E*) why then was your signal from your cable co so great that you were WOW'ed?

Again, reread my original post and you will see why I said what I said....

I've watched plenty of HD on Cox cable (on a Mitsu 52" DLP) and while the pic was nice..it wasn't much better than anything I've seen on D*...

Call me ignorant if you wish...but it's just TV and I don't get too nutted up about it like some folks apparently do. :rolleyes:

Perhaps the cable in your area sucks -- here, its much better than D*TV as described in post #1...I guess apologists cannot deal with observed facts :confused:

The OP never mentioned whether he installed a 5 LNB dish when he got an HR20. If he's still got the old 3 LNB dish, he's only watching the MPEG2 locals and it's not a fair comparison. My MPEG4 locals are nearly identical to OTA in Atlanta. If OTA is 100/100, MPEG4 is 95/100, in my experience.

Sorry...5LNB!!! ;)

Did a similar test last night on the SNF game. It was ugly via Time Warner cable, and ugly via an OTA. In other words, I don't put much faith in your test. Need more data.

Sorry. the variable is the quality of your local cable. The "constant" is the quality of the D*TV HD-Lite picture. In simple terms (once again as per post #1), the quality of my local cable picture was much better than HD-Lite. Sorry that YOUR local OTA picture and local cable picture sucks -- mine doesn't!!!

Those are the facts; therefore, IMHO D*TV should be able to provide at least an equal quality picture....;)

Hmmmm....because you said your D*TV signal was as good as OTA, and my cable picture is better than D*TV...therefore, if A=B and C>B, then by rule C>A ;) :D


how can you assume that your d* signal and mine are of the same quality? a number of posters have suggested that you might still be looking at mpeg2 transmissions. from one of your prior posts, the one about watching the nbc feed in the '80's rather than channel 4, it sounds like you are indeed still watching the mpeg2 feed.

I'm thinking that D* will have to continue with HD-Lite until the picture quality class action lawsuit is either thrown out or settled. Think about it, if all of a sudden D* gives us full HD resolution and full bandwidth, how could they explain the change related to the lawsuit? D* has held the position that their signal is the "best", so how could they give us better or true HD?

I'm still waiting to hear the reports of the new channels before I decide to either drop the HD package or to get the new slimline dish and the HR20 STB.

Ken H - I appreciate your stating to wait a couple of months before deciding on the final product. I was going to make a decision next week assuming the new channels appear on Wednesday, the 19th. But, now I guess I may wait until Q1 2008.

how can you assume that your d* signal and mine are of the same quality? a number of posters have suggested that you might still be looking at mpeg2 transmissions. from one of your prior posts, the one about watching the nbc feed in the '80's rather than channel 4, it sounds like you are indeed still watching the mpeg2 feed.

Notice the ;); I was joking!! In any case, yes indeed, I was looking at 82, not 4 -- I am anxious to NOW compare an HD broadcast on 4 (Mpeg4) vs. 82 (Mpeg2) and then see how Mpeg4 compares to my local cable. I will post my observations....

I am ROOTING for D*TV to make HD-Lite go away!!

sadly, i think the answer is yes

quantity over quality...always.

Why would they increase the PQ when your average Joe Sixpack is:
-probably happy/used to HD-Lite
-has nothing to compare it to
-are probably wowed by anything that fills the 16 x 9 stretched or in the proper AR
-probably doesn't understand their new HDTV set or ever will as long as it continues to show sports in super-bright mode to produce that eye popping effect...

The fact is raising PQ lowers their ability to squeeze more channels and if you look at D*'s history they like to cram and do not care about PQ.

MPEG4 is better / more efficient than MPEG2, but you need to consider the source, which if you're talking about HD-LILs, RSN's or just about every HD source they all are sent as MPEG2, so to re-compress to MPEG4 you are going to change something and possibly lose something.

What will be exciting is to see when Starz and HBO get their new MPEG4 source feeds up, then we should have very sharp MPEG4/HD content, which will hopefully be passed through untouched... here's to dreaming though.

I'm thinking that D* will have to continue with HD-Lite until the picture quality class action lawsuit is either thrown out or settled. Think about it, if all of a sudden D* gives us full HD resolution and full bandwidth, how could they explain the change related to the lawsuit? D* has held the position that their signal is the "best", so how could they give us better or true HD?

I'm still waiting to hear the reports of the new channels before I decide to either drop the HD package or to get the new slimline dish and the HR20 STB.

Ken H - I appreciate your stating to wait a couple of months before deciding on the final product. I was going to make a decision next week assuming the new channels appear on Wednesday, the 19th. But, now I guess I may wait until Q1 2008.

I don't believe the lawsuit was a class action suit. But either way, the existing suit will have no impact on what D* does, or doesn't do, with the new capacity - it is a minor issue being handled by their legal department. Additionally, the suit only has merit at a fixed point in time in the past while there was still an overlap between D* defining HD using ATSC standards and after they reduced the resolution of their HD channels.

Notice the ; I was joking!! In any case, yes indeed, I was looking at 82, not 4

Then you were watching MPEG2 for sure. All the MPEG4 channels (locals for NY) are 2, 4, 5, 7. If you have favorites setup make sure you have WCBS, WNBC, WYNY, WABC selected. The standard def channels in the guide are NY2, NY4, NY5, NY7.

Perhaps the cable in your area sucks -- here, its much better than D*TV as described in post #1...I guess apologists cannot deal with observed facts :confused:

No need to label everyone "apologists". You admitted in an earlier post that your observations were based on incorrect assumptions - which explains why your observations were different than the majority on the forum. That isn't an apologist, it's someone trying reconcile how you may be making a mistake in your evaluation.

No need to label everyone "apologists". You admitted in an earlier post that your observations were based on incorrect assumptions - which explains why your observations were different than the majority on the forum. That isn't an apologist, it's someone trying reconcile how you may be making a mistake in your evaluation.

Considering the channel he was watching, there's no "may be" about it. :)

In the past, D* has claimed that their current HD-Lite channels provide the best PQ of any HD provider. I'd be very surprised if they increase their 1080i resolution anytime soon.

In the past, D* has claimed that their current HD-Lite channels provide the best PQ of any HD provider. I'd be very surprised if they increase their 1080i resolution anytime soon.

They can keep their resolution as far as Im concerned. Bit rate, bit rate, bit rate.. Way more crucial to quality HD than resolution, IMO..

^ Yep, cable did look better for me, but i'm going back to D* for the extra channels. MPEG4 should make a difference.

I do see a difference at my friends' houses who have cable HD. It's not enough to switch. For me quantity > quality at this point. After watching a football game or a movie in HD and then switching to a SD channel, I find the SD nearly unwatchable and at best very unpleasant as if I need to wear glasses to correct the blurry haze. I find myself watching paint dry as long as it's in HD. I never want to watch an SD feed again if I can help it.

Luckily, once they launch the 70 new channels, I won't have to! Every single channel I ever watch will be in HD, even if it is HD Lite. I don't care if the few HD channels Comcast offers clean the house for you, until every single channel I need is HD (including NFL Network at no extra charge), cable is not an option.

Interesting comments, but most of you missed my initial point -- why is my local cable signal THAT much better than D*TV's??? If most of you are "satisfied" with the relative HD-Lite crap from D*TV -- good for you. I, for one, am not!!!! This new launch will FINALLY answer the question for me....

I had Cable HD for the last 2 years and don't see a darn difference between my current D* HD and Cox's HD. None

Neither do any Cox customer friends of mine.

I'd be very surprised if they increase their 1080i resolution anytime soon.
Well the worst reports say that the MPEG4 1080i locals are broadcast at 1440x1080i, which is an increase from the MPEG2 1280x1080i resolution. So either way, they have already increased the resolution. There's no telling what the new MPEG4 nationals will run at, since they'll be using different encoders.

I would lean twords saying yes.

In the past, D* has claimed that their current HD-Lite channels provide the best PQ of any HD provider. I'd be very surprised if they increase their 1080i resolution anytime soon.

If we go by past actions (SD and HD), the assumption would be that the MPEG4 channels will ratchet up the PQ as high as possible - then gradually be reduced as capacity becomes strained.

If we go by past actions (SD and HD), the assumption would be that the MPEG4 channels will ratchet up the PQ as high as possible - then gradually be reduced as capacity becomes strained.

that is the most likely scenario, i believe.

No need to label everyone "apologists". You admitted in an earlier post that your observations were based on incorrect assumptions - which explains why your observations were different than the majority on the forum. That isn't an apologist, it's someone trying reconcile how you may be making a mistake in your evaluation.

Let's cut to the chase...do you acknowledge HD-Lite or not??? If not, then nothing more needs to be said. My point of the thread (reread the title) is whether HD-Lite will continue or not....people saying "my picture is fine" and "I am satisfied" -- well that's great -- those of us who know better are waiting to see what happens in the next couple of days (and perhaps "months" respectfully for Ken H.). To keep "defending" D*TV and saying "the suit doesn't really matter" (You know the genesis of the suit PLUS the "evidence") -- well, I'll say is an "apologist" vs. dealing with observed "facts".

Why would they increase the PQ when your average Joe Sixpack is:
-probably happy/used to HD-Lite
-has nothing to compare it to
-are probably wowed by anything that fills the 16 x 9 stretched or in the proper AR
-probably doesn't understand their new HDTV set or ever will as long as it continues to show sports in super-bright mode to produce that eye popping effect...

The fact is raising PQ lowers their ability to squeeze more channels and if you look at D*'s history they like to cram and do not care about PQ.

MPEG4 is better / more efficient than MPEG2, but you need to consider the source, which if you're talking about HD-LILs, RSN's or just about every HD source they all are sent as MPEG2, so to re-compress to MPEG4 you are going to change something and possibly lose something.

What will be exciting is to see when Starz and HBO get their new MPEG4 source feeds up, then we should have very sharp MPEG4/HD content, which will hopefully be passed through untouched... here's to dreaming though.

Well-stated and TOTALLY AGREE!!! ;)

I do see a difference at my friends' houses who have cable HD. It's not enough to switch. For me quantity > quality at this point. After watching a football game or a movie in HD and then switching to a SD channel, I find the SD nearly unwatchable and at best very unpleasant as if I need to wear glasses to correct the blurry haze. I find myself watching paint dry as long as it's in HD. I never want to watch an SD feed again if I can help it.

Luckily, once they launch the 70 new channels, I won't have to! Every single channel I ever watch will be in HD, even if it is HD Lite. I don't care if the few HD channels Comcast offers clean the house for you, until every single channel I need is HD (including NFL Network at no extra charge), cable is not an option.

Need I say more!!??!! :eek:

I had Cable HD for the last 2 years and don't see a darn difference between my current D* HD and Cox's HD. None

Neither do any Cox customer friends of mine.

HMMMMM...New Orleans, NYC. I wonder if we have different cable systems (therefore, different quality pictures)? Just wondrin'....;)

If we go by past actions (SD and HD), the assumption would be that the MPEG4 channels will ratchet up the PQ as high as possible - then gradually be reduced as capacity becomes strained.

Why not just give us full bitrate/resolution out of the box and keep it there???? For those of us (apparently very few based on this thread) who truly care about quality, that's what we are looking for. Its truly sad to see that most of you have already given up!!! :(

Well the worst reports say that the MPEG4 1080i locals are broadcast at 1440x1080i, which is an increase from the MPEG2 1280x1080i resolution. So either way, they have already increased the resolution. There's no telling what the new MPEG4 nationals will run at, since they'll be using different encoders.

Where did you read this? Can you please post a link? Increasing the pathetic 1280x1080i to a still unacceptable 1440x1080i is not going to cut it (for most people) around here.

Why not just give us full bitrate/resolution out of the box and keep it there???? For those of us (apparently very few based on this thread) who truly care about quality, that's what we are looking for. Its truly sad to see that most of you have already given up!!! :(

Dude......relax!

IT'S JUST TELEVISION! It's not like there's that much good programming on there anyway.....

perilous: you can shout that you "know better" than CPanther95 all you want.

The evidence of this thread -- as well as years of his posts -- would argue precisely the opposite.

But you do excel in one area: you certainly can repeat your mantra over and over and over and over without, apparently, tiring of saying the same thing.

We get it: Cable is better than even OTA, and everyone knows that DirecTV's PQ is awful. And those who don't agree are just an apologist, not dealing with the "facts" as they are so apparent in your home in Robbinsville NJ.

Let's cut to the chase...do you acknowledge HD-Lite or not??? If not, then nothing more needs to be said. My point of the thread (reread the title) is whether HD-Lite will continue or not....people saying "my picture is fine" and "I am satisfied" -- well that's great -- those of us who know better are waiting to see what happens in the next couple of days (and perhaps "months" respectfully for Ken H.).

Of course we acknowledge HD-Lite - we've been complaining about it for years before you received your "epiphany" recently acknowleding it.

You've admitted that the conclusions drawn in the first post were based on your ignorance of how HD is delivered by D*. We have no obligation to argue your point under the conditional hypothetical that we share in that ignorance. As far as the title is concerned, you have your answer, we have no idea what they will do until they do it. They've made no claims, so most of us are in "wait and see" mode until we find out if the crappy HD PQ of the MPEG2 channels will be similar when delivered via MPEG4.

To keep "defending" D*TV and saying "the suit doesn't really matter" (You know the genesis of the suit PLUS the "evidence") -- well, I'll say is an "apologist" vs. dealing with observed "facts".

Yes, I know the genesis of the suit PLUS the "evidence". My observation was based on that knowledge and made absolutely no declaration as to what they would do with the MPEG4 channels - only that the suit is unlikely to impact their plans. That is in no way "defending D*" and anyone who's been on this forum for any length of time knows I'm no D* apologist. I was referring to your declaring people who questioned your MPEG4 observations as apologists - even after you admitted that your observations were based on ignorance of the difference between which channels were MPEG2 and which were MPEG4.

Further observations...I will report back on my observations re: locals via Mpeg4 vs. local cable once there is a sports event on (baseball on Fox, SNF)....

however, I CAN tell you my local cable's MNF picture blew away HD-Lite on D*TV last night....sooooo, do we expect that when D*TV launches its new satellite capacity, they will "upgrade" their signals on all HD channels from downrezzed Mpeg2? We will see soon, right folks???? :cool:

Again, I am VERY fortunate to have the ability to afford both cable and D*TV; therefore, when a show or game is on both services, I can switch to cable for a much better picture. In case you missed it, I took the plunge and recently got 2 HR-20's in anticipation of the new launch of channels with the HOPE (apparently somewhat futile) that D*TV would upgrade quality with their new capacity. If they do, GREAT for everyone; if not, I will continue to watch the better signal/picture on my local cable whenever I can and then see what Fios has to offer when they show up in my neighborhood!!

I am rooting for you D*TV to be different than the "usual" corporation and focus on quality vs. quantity...we'll know soon!!! ;)

Further observations...I will report back on my observations re: locals via Mpeg4 vs. local cable once there is a sports event on (baseball on Fox, SNF)....


The Yankees were on YES HD last night in MPEG4. They are probably on again tonight. Plenty of areas to compare. The MPEG4 looks great. I think you need to see it..

In other news..UMR coming over to calibrate my set today. :)

HMMMMM...New Orleans, NYC. I wonder if we have different cable systems (therefore, different quality pictures)? Just wondrin'....;)

Just letting you know that people around the country are getting HD-Lite quality HD from cable systems as well

Further observations...I will report back on my observations re: locals via Mpeg4 vs. local cable once there is a sports event on (baseball on Fox, SNF)....

however, I CAN tell you my local cable's MNF picture blew away HD-Lite on D*TV last night....sooooo, do we expect that when D*TV launches its new satellite capacity, they will "upgrade" their signals on all HD channels from downrezzed Mpeg2? We will see soon, right folks???? :cool:

That's probably unnecessary - I think we already know what your "observations" will be. Considering you found out you the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 NYC HD LILs over 4 hours before MNF aired last night and you chose to compare the MPEG2 to cable (again) - I think it's pretty clear where you're heading with this.

Of course we acknowledge HD-Lite - we've been complaining about it for years before you received your "epiphany" recently acknowleding it.

You've admitted that the conclusions drawn in the first post were based on your ignorance of how HD is delivered by D*. We have no obligation to argue your point under the conditional hypothetical that we share in that ignorance. As far as the title is concerned, you have your answer, we have no idea what they will do until they do it. They've made no claims, so most of us are in "wait and see" mode until we find out if the crappy HD PQ of the MPEG2 channels will be similar when delivered via MPEG4.



Yes, I know the genesis of the suit PLUS the "evidence". My observation was based on that knowledge and made absolutely no declaration as to what they would do with the MPEG4 channels - only that the suit is unlikely to impact their plans. That is in no way "defending D*" and anyone who's been on this forum for any length of time knows I'm no D* apologist. I was referring to your declaring people who questioned your MPEG4 observations as apologists - even after you admitted that your observations were based on ignorance of the difference between which channels were MPEG2 and which were MPEG4.

Nice try...attack me personally now as an idiot!! Check my post history and you will see numerous posts regarding HD-Lite from the beginning, including in the "suit" thread. I ACKNOWLEDGE my "mistake" regarding channel 82 vs. local cable and will soon compare a sporting event on D*TV Mpeg4 "local channel 4" vs. local cable, post my observations and "eat crow" if necessary (see earlier post).

My broader question (and by the way the title of this thread) regards HD-Lite in general and as I KEEP SAYING, we will all know soon!! (Perhaps as early as tomorrow).

What's sad is there a combination of D*TV "apologists" (not my term by the way but coined in much earlier HD-Lite threads that I supposedly know nothing about according to you) and/or those duped by D*TV into thinking they are getting "the best HD picture" available already (!) with Mpeg2 (!) that "defend" D*TV without acknowledgment of observed "facts".

Just reread this thread alone and see how many truly understand the HD-Lite "issue" :eek:

Need I say more!!??!! :eek:

No, you've embarrassed yourself plenty. No more needs to be said.

Nice try...attack me personally now as an idiot!!

I only stated what you posted and never concluded you were an idiot. But you're free to draw your own conclusion.

Increasing the pathetic 1280x1080i to a still unacceptable 1440x1080i is not going to cut it (for most people) around here.It's kind of interesting that, from what I've noticed, most AVSers with 1080i/1080p TVs (or their cable boxes) these days have only been able to resolve about 1400 horizontal lines max of HDNet's weekly 1920x1080i test pattern (at least of those that have reported). So, unlike down-resolving to 1280x1080i, down-resolving to 1440x1080i shouldn't reduce PQ on most "full HD" TVs, until TV (or cable box) manufacturers catch up on that.

The Yankees were on YES HD last night in MPEG4. They are probably on again tonight. Plenty of areas to compare. The MPEG4 looks great. I think you need to see it..

In other news..UMR coming over to calibrate my set today. :)

My intent was to compare NBC (which was what I originally had compared by mistake between 82 and cable) but OK, I will try that (and as I said "eat crow" if necessary)...let's be clear, however, my HOPE is to see quality on ALL HD channels, not just a few!!

No, you've embarrassed yourself plenty. No more needs to be said.

:D

It's kind of interesting that, from what I've noticed, most AVSers with 1080i/1080p TVs (or their cable boxes) these days have only been able to resolve about 1400 horizontal lines max of HDNet's weekly 1920x1080i test pattern (at least of those that have reported). So, unlike down-resolving to 1280x1080i, down-resolving to 1440x1080i shouldn't reduce PQ on most "full HD" TVs, until TV (or cable box) manufacturers catch up on that.

If they don't address the low bitrates, resolution isn't the biggest problem. We're even having issues with SD channels.

No, you've embarrassed yourself plenty. No more needs to be said.

I love it -- let's pounce on someone and focus on that person's mistake (which I have acknowledged but apparently not to your satisfaction) vs. deal with the issue at hand. Good for you and thanks for your contribution...:eek:

I only stated what you posted and never concluded you were an idiot. But you're free to draw your own conclusion.

I already did :D

That's probably unnecessary - I think we already know what your "observations" will be. Considering you found out you the difference between MPEG2 and MPEG4 NYC HD LILs over 4 hours before MNF aired last night and you chose to compare the MPEG2 to cable (again) - I think it's pretty clear where you're heading with this.

In case you didn't realize...ESPN is NOT MPEG4 on D*TV (you mean the mighty CPanther may have made a "mistake" too!! Heaven forbid, we are all supposed to be perfect ;) )

AGAIN, using ESPN as an example, the POINT OF MY THREAD is whether D*TV will continue with HD-Lite or not? Let's see (perhaps as early as tomorrow) whether D*TV leaves ESPN as well as all other Mpeg2 channels the same, or upgrades the quality -- FOR NOW, MY LOCAL CABLE PICTURE IS BETTER!!!

Come on folks, IF your picture was better on one service vs. the other, would you choose the inferior picture if you had a choice? :confused:

I only stated what you posted and never concluded you were an idiot. But you're free to draw your own conclusion.

HMMMM, from your post to me: "....your "epiphany" recently acknowledging it." Suggesting what -- enlightenment?? Please....

Can't we all "just get along" and debate the issues without the personal attacks??? ;)

perilous, what are you basing that ESPN is HD-lite on D*?

BUSTED! CRAP!

Yep - I'm still stuck in ABC MNF mode. :)

1) If had a better provider available - I'd jump ship in a minute.

2) If you are waiting to see if HD-Lite will continue on MPEG2 - don't hold your breath. The MPEG2 channels will not be improved from their current state until they can increase their MPEG2 capacity. For that, they'd have to convert all LA or NYC HD LIL customers to MPEG4 hardware so they can get their locals exclusively on the MPEG4 sat.

The only other option is if they supply the existing MPEG2 channels in MPEG4 also. We still don't know if entering "206" will bring up ESPN MPEG2 (channel 73) or an MPEG4 version of ESPN.

ALSO NOTE - If you really want to see the negative effects of MPEG2 HD-Lite - don't view a 720p channel like ESPN, you need to look at one of D*'s 1080i HD channels.

I already did :D

Hit a man while he's already down?? Shame on you sir!!! :D

thanks Cpanther:cool:, I was trying to get from perilous is definition of HD lite on ESPN

BUSTED! CRAP!

Yep - I'm still stuck in ABC MNF mode. :)

1) If had a better provider available - I'd jump ship in a minute.

2) If you are waiting to see if HD-Lite will continue on MPEG2 - don't hold your breath. The MPEG2 channels will not be improved from their current state until they can increase their MPEG2 capacity. For that, they'd have to convert all LA or NYC HD LIL customers to MPEG4 hardware so they can get their locals exclusively on the MPEG4 sat.

The only other option is if they supply the existing MPEG2 channels in MPEG4 also. We still don't know if entering "206" will bring up ESPN MPEG2 (channel 73) or an MPEG4 version of ESPN.

ALSO NOTE - If you really want to see the negative effects of MPEG2 HD-Lite - don't view a 720p channel like ESPN, you need to look at one of D*'s 1080i HD channels.

In all sincerity, thank you. :)

I was hoping they would just not downrez the signals for HD channels ONLY with the new capacity. That was probably somewhat naive given that it may "blow up" all of the Mpeg2 boxes out there -- now I am beginning to see the "insight" of Ken H.'s comments earlier in the thread about "months". It ISN'T as easy as I thought....

What sucks about this is we are potentially left in limbo once again as to what D*TV's true intentions will be re: HD-Lite. Will they improve it or not?

If they don't address the low bitrates, resolution isn't the biggest problem. We're even having issues with SD channels.I absolutely agree with you on this. I'd much rather have 1440x1080i at enough bandwidth to avoid macroblocking than getting a 1920x1080i signal with some mosquito noise and blocking. Meanwhile, at least to me, there needs to be the balance of lack of macroblocking and great resolution. I hope that D* can hit that balance and keep it.

thanks Cpanther:cool:, I was trying to get from perilous is definition of HD lite on ESPN

I compared the picture on my local cable vs. D*TV (both HDMI direct to my new Pio 60" 6010FD plasma). The cable picture was definitely better/clearer/sharper. Therefore, I said "HD-Lite".

Others (via PM's related to this thread -- thank you all by the way) have told me that ESPN is still an Mpeg2 transmission and that the only MPEG4 in NYC area are local CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, YES Network and SNY (Mets baseball); all others are still MPEG2.

The $64K question is -- what happens starting tomorrow???

Not to reopen a can of worms, but my frustration is why can't D*TV at least give me the quality of my local cable picture with all of this new satellite capacity.

For crying out loud, they charge us enough, don't they (MUST get Total Choice, now the newly defined HD Technology fee, an HD tier to get HDNet and HDNet movies -- plus ST and Superfan to see HD football). For all of that, can't we at least get a decent "HD" picture??? Pretty please??

I would expect the upcoming HD channels to look 'about the same' as the present Directv channels delivering local stations. If that happens, I am satisfied because the present local HD stations delivered by Directv look 'about the same' as the local stations (networks) OTA. By the way, I, also, see a very nice image from Discovery Theatre and HDNET, etc. I really doubt that cable can make the networks look better than a signal delivered OTA.

With my signals on 103-b holding steady now for many hours, it may well be that Directv is approaching the end of their testing.

3 years ago when they announced this HD expansion plan, the conventional wisdom was that there was no real motivation not to offer top notch PQ. It was still an unknown, but the outlook was good because at a time when there were about half a dozen HD channels and people were talking about whether we might get 1 or maybe even 2! HD channels in the next 12 months - the thought of 150 national HD channel capacity may as well been considered "unlimited".

The downside of this massive rollout of approx. 100 hd channels - and a concern I posted right after the initial D* announcement earlier this year - is what will the mindset of D* engineers be knowing that even before they deliver the first MPEG4 HD channel, 2/3rds of the CONUS capacity of both D*10 and D*11 will already be allocated? At what PQ is the 150 channel capacity figured? What contingency do they have in case of a D*11 failure, and is D*10's CONUS capacity only adequate for the announced channels with severe bandwidth restrictions?

A lot of questions and variables and we don't know how they will all be weighed and evaluated when they decide what to actually deliver to us. One thing is certain - at least IMO - if I had known 3 years ago that 2/3rds of their CONUS capacity would be allocated immediately upon launch, I would have been much less optimistic about eliminating HD-Lite for the past 3 years.

why can't D*TV at least give me the quality of my local cable picture with all of this new satellite capacity.
Why can't they? You are a piece of work! You haven't even seen anything being broadcasted with all of this new satellite capacity, so asking why they can't give you the PQ of local cable is completely stupid. You are clearly on a mission to bash DirecTV at all costs, and it's glaringly obvious.

<<snipped>>
Come on folks, IF your picture was better on one service vs. the other, would you choose the inferior picture if you had a choice? :confused:

perilous - I'm not a sports fanatic, but many DirecTV subscribers are sports nuts and subscribe because of "Sunday Ticket". Even the most ardent quality picture supporters will cave on quality if it means reducing the number of games available to them. DirecTV knows this and exploits their position in this respect. That is the ugly, down-rezzed truth.

As Mr. Panther points out, we can't accept full resolution without full bandwidth. The macroblocked mess of 1920x1080 at bit-starved levels would be horrendous.

The downside of this massive rollout of approx. 100 hd channels - and a concern I posted right after the initial D* announcement earlier this year - is what will the mindset of D* engineers be knowing that even before they deliver the first MPEG4 HD channel, 2/3rds of the CONUS capacity of both D*10 and D*11 will already be allocated? At what PQ is the 150 channel capacity figured? What contingency do they have in case of a D*11 failure, and is D*10's CONUS capacity only adequate for the announced channels with severe bandwidth restrictions?

A lot of questions and variables and we don't know how they will all be weighed and evaluated when they decide what to actually deliver to us.Fortunately, a lot of these "100 HD channels" seem to be a lot of hokum. It seems that in truth, only about 65 nationwide networks will be going up on D*10, with the rest of the channels being occasional and fleeting uses of bandwidth. The truth is, at one time, each satellite will hold about 75 HD channels at most, which happens to be around the limit that D* claims on nationwide channel capacity for one of these satellites. So that'll satiate desire for now.

But come on, we all know that there will be even more HD channels coming from various sources in very due time. There's always that concern of D*10 or D*11 going down prematurely, or simply maxing out capacity, and what to do then? This is why I've been claiming that D* will buy E* soon (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=909685) -- to get E*'s copious bandwidth (and I now guess backup satellites) to continue to thrive into the future with top-notch HD quality (barring solar flares or Chinese ballistic missiles wiping out space birds).

I could then, once again, get all of my friends, family and neighbors to get the new dishes back on their roofs -- imagine the word of mouth if QUALITY was back at D*TV??!!?? Until then, I have seen with my own eyes, the superior signal our local cable provides. That is why I am the only one in the neighborhood that still has D*TV -- in the hope that FINALLY we get a QUALITY HD signal once again!!

I totally agree. Can someone explain to me why HD does not look as good today as it did 2 years ago? This is astonishing.

I remember recording my first game (Redskins-Ravens) on my Fujitsu 2 years ago on ESPN HD. The picture was stunning...I would demo that game to people who had never seen an HD signal.

Fast forward to last night for the Skins-Eagles game on ESPN HD. The thrill is gone. There is no comparison. Seems like the only time I see a picture comparable to the one I was getting 2 years ago is my local news.

Much of ESPN's quality issues seem to be coming from ESPN not the provider. There have been complaints coming in (comparing the quality negatively to previous years) across all providers. It's also a 720p channel which means D* isn't cutting bandwidth in addition to reducing the bitrate.

If that's your biggest beef, you're very lucky. If you saw the 1080i HD D* was sending out initially - you'd be in tears with the rest of us talking about the good ol' days.

Shouldn't everything be getting BETTER as time goes on? This is crazy. I understand the how we came to HD Lite but how long is this going to last? It just seems really strange how we have come from B&W TV to color TV to digital satellite TV to now HDTV and all the sudden, after 50 years of progressing to the ultimate in picture quality, the quality now has DECLINED. I don't understand this at all. Is this simply a 2 or 3 year bump in the road?

Why can't they? You are a piece of work! You haven't even seen anything being broadcasted with all of this new satellite capacity, so asking why they can't give you the PQ of local cable is completely stupid. You are clearly on a mission to bash DirecTV at all costs, and it's glaringly obvious.

Geeeeez...why are some of you so quick to attack!!!

If that is your interpretation of my posts (including my thread starter), I feel sorry for you (and I won't even say its "completely stupid" ;)....

I have stated in this thread alone "I am rooting for D*TV", "I am an early adopter/advocate for D*TV" and "I hope they upgrade their signals upon launch of new capacity".

Many have opined in this thread that they do NOT expect D*TV to upgrade the signals anytime soon -- if ever; therefore my rhetorical question "why can't they?" (given all of this new capacity).

Unless you know something we don't, we will all know soon!!

I would expect the upcoming HD channels to look 'about the same' as the present Directv channels delivering local stations. If that happens, I am satisfied because the present local HD stations delivered by Directv look 'about the same' as the local stations (networks) OTA. By the way, I, also, see a very nice image from Discovery Theatre and HDNET, etc. I really doubt that cable can make the networks look better than a signal delivered OTA.

With my signals on 103-b holding steady now for many hours, it may well be that Directv is approaching the end of their testing.

That would be great -- I hope this is true!!! :)

I have stated in this thread alone "I am rooting for D*TV"

Actions speak louder then words

perilous - I'm not a sports fanatic, but many DirecTV subscribers are sports nuts and subscribe because of "Sunday Ticket". Even the most ardent quality picture supporters will cave on quality if it means reducing the number of games available to them. DirecTV knows this and exploits their position in this respect. That is the ugly, down-rezzed truth.

As Mr. Panther points out, we can't accept full resolution without full bandwidth. The macroblocked mess of 1920x1080 at bit-starved levels would be horrendous.

So true!! I am one of those sports fanatics that cannot live without ST either -- I am addicted!!! Its so sad, that I got cable PRIMARILY so I could see my local sports teams in HD!! The boss (you know who) is ready to kill me!!! :eek:

I totally agree. Can someone explain to me why HD does not look as good today as it did 2 years ago? This is astonishing.

I remember recording my first game (Redskins-Ravens) on my Fujitsu 2 years ago on ESPN HD. The picture was stunning...I would demo that game to people who had never seen an HD signal.

Fast forward to last night for the Skins-Eagles game on ESPN HD. The thrill is gone. There is no comparison. Seems like the only time I see a picture comparable to the one I was getting 2 years ago is my local news.

Thanks for reading my entire post!! That is my essential frustration too....

Actions speak louder then words

Are you drinking too many hurricanes???? :confused: All we can go by here ARE words!!??!!

I thought the new boxes (HR20 vs. HR10) were needed to "see" the Mpeg4 locals -- you mean to tell me we are NOT getting Mpeg4 in NYC??? Where can I determine this or not? And, if not, WHEN??? :eek:

NYC area is getting MPEG2 locals because D* used the NYC network stations as the Eastern Time Zone national network feed (for those customers in areas where D* wasn't offering their local network feeds). I would assume that at some point within the next year (or two) D* will eliminate all of the MPEG2 HD feeds and all HD will convert over to MPEG4. At the latest, NYC will be getting HD locals in MPEG4 by then. In the short term, I suspect that D* may decide to not duplicate NYC network feeds in both MPEG2 (for their national customers) and also on the new satellite's spot beam in MPEG4 to serve their NYC customers.

Are you drinking too many hurricanes???? :confused: All we can go by here ARE words!!??!!

Holy Cow, I really need to spell this out?

You can type all you want about "rooting for D*" or anything like that but your consistent mis-informed posts show otherwise.

So the contention by perilous is that NYC only gets MPEG2 locals (80, 82, etc)?

Here in Los Angeles we get the MPEG2 locals (81, 83, etc) but also get the MPEG4 version when we hit our local HD channel numbers (2,4,5,7,11).

It has been my understanding that such has also been happening in NY, so that MPEG4 signals ARE available for the local stations. They just aren't numbered 80, 82, and 84, but rather 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11.

(The MPEG2 channels in the 80s are used for DNS viewers and are not spot beamed. Their quality is markedly worse than the OTA signals.)

But I could well be wrong. Perilous does seem on top of the situation.

Not to reopen a can of worms, but my frustration is why can't D*TV at least give me the quality of my local cable picture with all of this new satellite capacity.
How about this for a reason: The satellite is not online yet (at least as of when this was posted). The capacity isn't yet available. There is no extra room until the new satellite actually begins broadcasting the channels assigned to it.

Nothing has changed from 6 months ago to now other than the bird is in space. However, until the satellite actually goes online and the channels are activated, you won't see any difference. The only MPEG4 channels right now are the locals on two spot beam satellites - which can't be effectively used for national programming. We're still waiting to see the results from the bird that can.

Relax, dude. Switch to decaf. No offense, but if you were worried about HD - Lite, why would you upgrade your equipment without checking on reports of the new channels here first? That's like buying a car sight unseen that no one has ever driven without hearing from those that get to test it.

But I could well be wrong. Perilous does seem on top of the situation.
NYC definitely gets MPEG4 locals just like LA and every other city that has HD locals available.

I hope this thread turns into one where someone edits the title with the answer. "The $64K Question: Will HD-Lite COntinue on D*TV...<yes|no>" That way I'll know as soon as I load the first page of the forum. Heck, I won't even need to turn on the Tv.
--

Holy Cow, I really need to spell this out?

You can type all you want about "rooting for D*" or anything like that but your consistent mis-informed posts show otherwise.

:D:D:D "Consistent, misinformed posts"...my only "mistake" was comparing 82 (Mpeg2) as opposed to the Mpeg4 channel vs. local cable (which I admitted once told)....please point out any other "misinformed" posts please, Mr. Perfect :confused:

Again...another one adding value to the thread....GEEZ!!!!

So the contention by perilous is that NYC only gets MPEG2 locals (80, 82, etc)?




Where did I say that??? I mistakenly thought 82 would be "mirrored" to Mpeg4 when I got the new HR20 and was viewing an Mpeg4 signal; however, I was informed early in the thread about the mirrored Channel 4 and that 82 was left as Mpeg2 (therefore the source of many jumping on the "bash Perilous" bandwagon as being ill-informed, an embarassment, etc. Amazing!!!). Further, later in the thread I outlined that I subsequently was educated that the Mpeg4 locals we are receiving in the NYC area are...2 (CBS), 4 (NBC), 5 (Fox), 7 (ABC) and YesHD and SNYHD (no HD local channel 11 by the way).

Your description of the 80's and Mpeg2 is correct and hopefully helpful to others...

How about this for a reason: The satellite is not online yet (at least as of when this was posted). The capacity isn't yet available. There is no extra room until the new satellite actually begins broadcasting the channels assigned to it.

Nothing has changed from 6 months ago to now other than the bird is in space. However, until the satellite actually goes online and the channels are activated, you won't see any difference. The only MPEG4 channels right now are the locals on two spot beam satellites - which can't be effectively used for national programming. We're still waiting to see the results from the bird that can.

Relax, dude. Switch to decaf. No offense, but if you were worried about HD - Lite, why would you upgrade your equipment without checking on reports of the new channels here first? That's like buying a car sight unseen that no one has ever driven without hearing from those that get to test it.

ANOTHER one on the bash Perilous bandwagon who didn't read my posts...let me summarize excerpts from my posts for you as you clearly did not read them yourself...

I got the NEW equipment (D*TV early adopter since 1994) in ANTICIPATION of the launch of new channels with the new capacity. I have been told that the Mpeg4 transmissions are BETTER than Mpeg2, but to see them you MUST have an HR20 vs. an HR10 (plus that the Mpeg2 boxes would be phased out). Further, I plan on KEEPING D*TV no matter what because of Sunday Ticket, etc.

Again...my rhetorical question is (the title of the thread)....WILL HD-LITE CONTINUE?

Could you please opine on that instead of piling on??? :confused:

I hope this thread turns into one where someone edits the title with the answer. "The $64K Question: Will HD-Lite COntinue on D*TV...<yes|no>" That way I'll know as soon as I load the first page of the forum. Heck, I won't even need to turn on the Tv.
--

AGREED!! ;)

<<snipped>>

Further, I plan on KEEPING D*TV no matter what because of Sunday Ticket, etc.

Again...my rhetorical question is (the title of the thread)....WILL HD-LITE CONTINUE?

Could you please opine on that instead of piling on??? :confused:

perilous - Based on your post which I have quoted, I have to ask "Why do you care if HD-Lite will continue on DirecTV?" You state that you will keep DirecTV because of their Sunday Ticket package "no matter what". So, what difference does it make to you if you see it in SD, HD-Lite, or full bandwidth HD? If you really cared about HD-Lite, you would drop your DirecTV HD packages and only keep the SD. Why pay extra for HD-Lite?

perilous - Based on your post which I have quoted, I have to ask "Why do you care if HD-Lite will continue on DirecTV?" You state that you will keep DirecTV because of their Sunday Ticket package "no matter what". So, what difference does it make to you if you see it in SD, HD-Lite, or full bandwidth HD? If you really cared about HD-Lite, you would drop your DirecTV HD packages and only keep the SD. Why pay extra for HD-Lite?

First of all, did anyone ever say SD is as good as HD-Lite??? Please...

Secondly, don't all of us want the best signal we can get?? However, if that's still not good enough for you, I'll bore you with my own additional personal motivation....

Because as I stated earlier in the thread, I ALSO have local cable so I can get a "better HD picture", plus my local sports in HD (not available on D*TV).

If all the "rumors" are true, the new capacity "may" provide a better picture and "may" add MSGHD and FSNYHD. If all true, I can get rid of cable once and for all -- get it???

If not, I will keep D*TV BECAUSE its the only place to get Sunday Ticket and I must pay additional to see the games in HD-Lite -- if you have other options I am unaware of, please enlighten all of us....:confused:

Yes, I agree with you that we all want the best signal source available to feed our display devices. But, DirecTV is a profit making business. They wish to maximize profits while minimizing expenses. If they can provide 70 HD-Lite channels and get 20 million subscribers versus 50 full HD channels and only 10 million subscribers, which path do you think DirecTV will follow?

I think what I'm trying to say is that DirecTV has provided the sports addict with the Sunday Ticket drug. If you are willing and able to pay extra for this package and accept the quality of the package provided, then enjoy. But, if you want better quality, I don't think your addiction will be satisfied.

Good luck and I hope your favorite team wins.

It would be cool if D* could just give me free service and I could have fios for free. Just remember there are people that don't even have homes to live in, just keep the nitpicking in perspective. If we are complaining about hd lite(which I do) we are in one hell of a country!

So the contention by perilous is that NYC only gets MPEG2 locals (80, 82, etc)?

Here in Los Angeles we get the MPEG2 locals (81, 83, etc) but also get the MPEG4 version when we hit our local HD channel numbers (2,4,5,7,11).

It has been my understanding that such has also been happening in NY, so that MPEG4 signals ARE available for the local stations. They just aren't numbered 80, 82, and 84, but rather 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11.

(The MPEG2 channels in the 80s are used for DNS viewers and are not spot beamed. Their quality is markedly worse than the OTA signals.)

But I could well be wrong. Perilous does seem on top of the situation.

It's my understanding from the NYC local reception thread (for DTV services) at: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=607959

that they are still getting MPEG2 for the locals. Perhaps D* is remapping the national channel numbers to appear as the local channel numbers.

I don't believe the lawsuit was a class action suit. But either way, the existing suit will have no impact on what D* does, or doesn't do, with the new capacity - it is a minor issue being handled by their legal department. Additionally, the suit only has merit at a fixed point in time in the past while there was still an overlap between D* defining HD using ATSC standards and after they reduced the resolution of their HD channels.

Yes it is, in fact, I'm giving a deposition later this month in support of the suit.

Yes it is, in fact, I'm giving a deposition later this month in support of the suit.

Did they solicit additional participants?

First of all, did anyone ever say SD is as good as HD-Lite??? Please...

Secondly, don't all of us want the best signal we can get?? However, if that's still not good enough for you, I'll bore you with my own additional personal motivation....

Because as I stated earlier in the thread, I ALSO have local cable so I can get a "better HD picture", plus my local sports in HD (not available on D*TV).

If all the "rumors" are true, the new capacity "may" provide a better picture and "may" add MSGHD and FSNYHD. If all true, I can get rid of cable once and for all -- get it???

If not, I will keep D*TV BECAUSE its the only place to get Sunday Ticket and I must pay additional to see the games in HD-Lite -- if you have other options I am unaware of, please enlighten all of us....:confused:

mpeg4 isnot hdlite to many people. Yes it is bitstarved, but the main problem with defining "HD lite" is that it requires a noticeable degradation in picture quality to qualify.

many, includng myself, do not see a degradation in PQ on mpeg4 broadcasts. Therefore, I don't consider it HD Lite.

Others say that unless it is full bandwidth, it is hd lite. Which I find to be kind of silly. The end product is the important thing, not the process along the way. If it looks as good as OTA, I'll be hapy.

hd lite in mpeg2 will most likely continue for the forseeable future. But since most of the hd channels will be mpeg4 now, if D* continues the trend they did with LILs, I'll be quite happy.

when sunday ticket is fully deliveredin mpeg4, hopefully it will look even better.

mpeg4 isnot hdlite to many people. Yes it is bitstarved, but the main problem with defining "HD lite" is that it requires a noticeable degradation in picture quality to qualify.

many, includng myself, do not see a degradation in PQ on mpeg4 broadcasts. Therefore, I don't consider it HD Lite.

Others say that unless it is full bandwidth, it is hd lite. Which I find to be kind of silly. The end product is the important thing, not the process along the way. If it looks as good as OTA, I'll be hapy.

hd lite in mpeg2 will most likely continue for the forseeable future. But since most of the hd channels will be mpeg4 now, if D* continues the trend they did with LILs, I'll be quite happy.

when sunday ticket is fully deliveredin mpeg4, hopefully it will look even better.

Don't confuse bandwidth and down-rezzing. My technical knowledge of the subject is obviously not where some members are; however, if the 1920x1080 frame is displayed at 1440x1080, then it is HD-Lite. With MPEG4, 19 mbps is not going to be the norm, probably around 9 mbps is enough, but you would have to ask someone with more knowledge of the delivery mechanism.

Jeff

Did they solicit additional participants?
I trying to remember how it worked, been quite awhile now..I think he contacted me via PM, or I sent him my email addy in response to a post here asking if anyone was interested. This goes back at least 18 mos or more so my memory is pretty hazy on it.

Initially the attorney said my participation would probably be limited to just one of the named in the class and nothing beyond that. It could be that my geographic location, next to San Francisco/LA, was a factor in actually being deposed, I'm not sure, having not been in contact with the attorney for a few weeks.

My local cable company's broadcasts look MUCH worse than DirecTV's. They are over compressed. Charter Cable is horrible.

My antenna delivers the best picture out of the 3, of course. But DirecTV isn't bad. If you think it is, you don't know what bad really is.

It still takes someone wearing a tinfoil hat - instead of business experience - to conclude that D* would continue with HD-lite when they needn't.

I haven't seen any tech whizbangs offering requirements diminishing easy capacity for 6 full HD channels per transponder. I'm looking at 16 transponders lit up. That's capacity for 96 channels of full HiDef.

Now, whether or not the content providers all offer streams capable of that quality is another - and separate - question.

if the 1920x1080 frame is displayed at 1440x1080, then it is HD-Lite.

Only if you can see the difference.
;)

DirecTV actually has more full resolution 1920x1080i channels than Dish Network now, by one channel, DiscoveryHD.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=910673

Only if you can see the difference.
;)

Exactly!
And there are sooooooo many other factors that degrade PQ more than Resolution. In fact depending on the panel you are using added resolution wont mean anything. So if anyone complains about resolution and is watching on anything less than a 1080p panel there are probably other factors involeved for you

uh oh! getting server busy messages here now! are we about to crash AVS also???? lol

I haven't seen any tech whizbangs offering requirements diminishing easy capacity for 6 full HD channels per transponder. I'm looking at 16 transponders lit up. That's capacity for 96 channels of full HiDef.I suppose two of those might be spots?

DirecTV-10 is only supposed to have 14 x 36MHz national beams, each of which should provide ~61Mbps usable with DVB-S2 + 8PSK.

ANOTHER one on the bash Perilous bandwagon who didn't read my posts...let me summarize excerpts from my posts for you as you clearly did not read them yourself...

I got the NEW equipment (D*TV early adopter since 1994) in ANTICIPATION of the launch of new channels with the new capacity. I have been told that the Mpeg4 transmissions are BETTER than Mpeg2, but to see them you MUST have an HR20 vs. an HR10 (plus that the Mpeg2 boxes would be phased out). Further, I plan on KEEPING D*TV no matter what because of Sunday Ticket, etc.

Again...my rhetorical question is (the title of the thread)....WILL HD-LITE CONTINUE?

Could you please opine on that instead of piling on??? :confused:

I could care less what equipment you bought or how you use your service. I was responding to this:

Not to reopen a can of worms, but my frustration is why can't D*TV at least give me the quality of my local cable picture with all of this new satellite capacity.

How do you know they won't give you that quality? "All this new satellite capacity" hasn't opened up yet. As a result, neither you, me or anyone else on this board can make that comparision. Simply put, we haven't seen the programming.

As far as the original question - WE DON'T KNOW.

I have to say that I've found this thread very amusing :)

Perilous, since it is now clear that the locals you are receiving on are all MPEG2, have you looked at the Yankee game on YES-HD in MPEG4? This should give you some idea from what to expect from the new MPEG4 channels.

I also have Cablevision and have been a 10 year D* subscriber. The MPEG2 picture quality that I receive from D* on my HD10-250 looks absolutely horrendous when compared to Cablevision or OTA on my Series3 Tivo. I'm waiting on the MPEG4 verdict to decide whether or not to dump D* altogether.

I have to say that I've found this thread very amusing :)

Perilous, since it is now clear that the locals you are receiving on are all MPEG2, have you looked at the Yankee game on YES-HD in MPEG4? This should give you some idea from what to expect from the new MPEG4 channels.

I also have Cablevision and have been a 10 year D* subscriber. The MPEG2 picture quality that I receive from D* on my HD10-250 looks absolutely horrendous when compared to Cablevision or OTA on my Series3 Tivo. I'm waiting on the MPEG4 verdict to decide whether or not to dump D* altogether.

EXACTLY my observation as well!! Therefore, we are all still waiting to see what they will do with all the Mpeg2 HD-Lite channels!!

I did finally get an opportunity to compare the Yankee game last night (Tues nite was on a local SD channel, NOT YesHD) on D*TV (I assume Mpeg4) on my new HR20 to local Cablevision. The picture on D*TV was pretty darn good (better than HR10 Mpeg2), but my local cable was "slightly" better.

It was close enough that IF D*TV delivered that quality for all of its HD channels (including Sunday Ticket!!), I (and I think most of us) would be very happy. :)

(For those of you who care, all hooked up directly via HDMI to a new Pio 1080P 60" 6010FD plasma).

I am looking forward to comparing football games this weekend -- its much easier (to me anyway) to see differences -- especially when they do the wide field shots (color of uniforms, details in the stands and color of the grass)...

I did finally get an opportunity to compare the Yankee game last night (Tues nite was on a local SD channel, NOT YesHD) on D*TV (I assume Mpeg4) on my new HR20 to local Cablevision. The picture on D*TV was pretty darn good (better than HR10 Mpeg2), but my local cable was "slightly" better.That's pretty much what I would have expected you to see. Glad to hear it. :) Let's hope that this will become the new D* HD benchmark and we can soon say goodbye to the poor excuse for HD that they currently send us.

So, the new MPEG4 national HD channels are now out. What is the verdict? Are they HDLite or not? Has anybody checked the resolution and the bit rates?

The bit I saw this morning before heading to work looked very good to me.

No but based upon visual observation they look extreamy good.

So, the new MPEG4 national HD channels are now out. What is the verdict? Are they HDLite or not? Has anybody checked the resolution and the bit rates?

Look very good to me but I've said before that the MPEG4 locals look just like OTA so it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the MPEG4 nationals look good.

Any idea HOW to check bit rates? And once you do, since they are using MPEG4, what do you compare it to?

And how can you check resolution?

I have an HR20. I'd love to do it, but I don't know how.

So, the new MPEG4 national HD channels are now out. What is the verdict? Are they HDLite or not? Has anybody checked the resolution and the bit rates?

My understanding is that all the MP4 channels will be full HD (not HD lite).
That being said, it is up to the channel (not D*) to broadcast the program in HD. Some do not yet have a full slate of HD programming yet.

But, the new channels that are broadasting in HD look great and are not "HD Lite" as far as I can tell. They look way, way better.

Any idea HOW to check bit rates? And once you do, since they are using MPEG4, what do you compare it to?

And how can you check resolution?

I have an HR20. I'd love to do it, but I don't know how.

I remember reading that there is a feature on the HR20 that displays the byte size of a recording. You can determine the average bit rate of that recording by dividing the total byte size by the duration in seconds. [update - LameLefty says this doesn't exist]

I don't know how to determine the screen resolution, but I believe that others on this board do have the tools (R5000 modded board?) to do this analysis. [update - keenan says this doesn't work]

I remember reading that there is a feature on the HR20 that displays the byte size of a recording. You can determine the average bit rate of that recording by dividing the total byte size by the duration in seconds.

I've had an HR20 for 11 months (and dozens of software versions) and never seen such a feature.

I remember reading that there is a feature on the HR20 that displays the byte size of a recording. You can determine the average bit rate of that recording by dividing the total byte size by the duration in seconds.

I don't know how to determine the screen resolution, but I believe that others on this board do have the tools (R5000 modded board?) to do this analysis.

I don't believe the HR20 is receptive to the R5000 mod, been awhile since I've checked though...

How does the PQ compair to cable or FiosTV? Can anyone whose recently had Comcast, Fios or a similar provider with excellent PQ make a comparison to the new D* channels added today?

.

But, the new channels that are broadasting in HD look great and are not "HD Lite" as far as I can tell. They look way, way better.


If you can't tell, then it's not HD Lite. Bit rates and resolutions may get tweeked, but if there's no perceptual difference, it ain't HD Lite.

How does the PQ compair to cable or FiosTV? Can anyone whose recently had Comcast, Fios or a similar provider with excellent PQ make a comparison to the new D* channels added today?

I just switched about 8 days ago from Comcast to D* and D*'s MPEG 4 channels , in addition to those added this morning, absolutely blow Comcast out of the water for me. It's a tough comparison though since cable providers vary so vastly across the country with regards to the PQ they're sending out. For me though, in my area, I'm very happy I switched.

As the thread starter I wish I could check!!! :( Unfortunately, am NOT receiving the new HD signals -- tech coming out Friday....(it appears my dish needs to be tweaked, NO signals from 103b)!!!!

I'd be willing to say that DirecTV is now providing the highest quality HD picture out of any provider in the country. I really don't care what the resolution is, because they look great.

If you can't tell, then it's not HD Lite. Bit rates and resolutions may get tweeked, but if there's no perceptual difference, it ain't HD Lite.

And without the consumer able to compare the same HD channel being shown at 1920x1080i and XXXXx1080i does it surprise you that there is no perceived difference? :rolleyes:

Yes I've heard all the justifications/spin for decreasing resolution, not all content orginates at 1920x1080i, not all displays can resolve 1080i/p, seating distance, etc. For those that have an interest in HD picture quality 1920x1080i HD content, the format of the majority of HD channels and the resolution of a LOT of content (HBO, DISCOVERY, CBS, etc), should be delivered to the subscriber at the same resolution.

I look forward to seeing a technical analysis of Directv new mpeg4 channels. Comments that it looks great, bad, about the same are nice but some actual comparisons to other providers and seeing what resolution and bitrates are being broadcast would be preferrable. This is the AVSCIENCE forum.

And without the consumer able to compare the same HD channel being shown at 1920x1080i and XXXXx1080i does it surprise you that there is no perceived difference? :rolleyes:

Yes I've heard all the justifications/spin for decreasing resolution, not all content orginates at 1920x1080i, not all displays can resolve 1080i/p, seating distance, etc. For those that have an interest in HD picture quality 1920x1080i HD content, the format of the majority of HD channels and the resolution of a LOT of content (HBO, DISCOVERY, CBS, etc), should be delivered to the subscriber at the same resolution.

I look forward to seeing a technical analysis of Directv new mpeg4 channels. Comments that it looks great, bad, about the same are nice but some actual comparisons to other providers and seeing what resolution and bitrates are being broadcast would be preferrable. This is the AVSCIENCE forum.

+1

I'd be willing to say that DirecTV is now providing the highest quality HD picture out of any provider in the country. I really don't care what the resolution is, because they look great.

On what basis are you making the above statement? Forgive some skepticism but you are actually stating that you compared DirecTV to every other provider in the country.

On what basis are you making the above statement? Forgive some skepticism but you are actually stating that you compared DirecTV to every other provider in the country.
I've seen enough screenshots to feel confident in saying that. I've also seen the PQ on DirecTV, and I can't see how any provider would be doing any better.

I look forward to seeing a technical analysis of Directv new mpeg4 channels. Comments that it looks great, bad, about the same are nice but some actual comparisons to other providers and seeing what resolution and bitrates are being broadcast would be preferrable. This is the AVSCIENCE forum.



I'm sure someone will. Makes no difference to me. I have Blu Ray, so I've seen the best my tv can offer. I've had local cable and OTA here, so I've pretty much covered the range of options (We don't have FIOS in my neighborhood) I've seen D* when they were good, when they were terrible, and now they're looking good again.

Watching Smithsonian HD right now, I have no idea if the resolution or bitrate is altered. I Don't care either, it looks fantastic. That isn't HD Lite.

I've seen enough screenshots to feel confident in saying that. I've also seen the PQ on DirecTV, and I can't see how any provider would be doing any better.

You can't see how any provider would be doing any better because you never did any comparison. My mistake for not recognizing a TV provider fanboy sooner.

My mistake for not recognizing a TV provider fanboy sooner.
It happens.

I'm sure someone will. Makes no difference to me. I have Blu Ray, so I've seen the best my tv can offer. I've had local cable and OTA here, so I've pretty much covered the range of options (We don't have FIOS in my neighborhood) I've seen D* when they were good, when they were terrible, and now they're looking good again.

Watching Smithsonian HD right now, I have no idea if the resolution or bitrate is altered. I Don't care either, it looks fantastic. That isn't HD Lite.

On some level I actually agree with you. Resolution and bitrate numbers are used by many to substantiate claims about picture quality (good or bad) and remove some of the inherrent subjectivity when discussing picture quality. If your DBS picture quality looks great and you are happy that is really all that matters. With regards to drawing an opinion on the quality of the new DirecTV HD channels, I would suggest you do so watching channels with significant motion. While static or low motion images such as those on Smithsonian may look great, a sporting event or action movie may not. I have no emotional attachment to any TV provider. If one provides a significantly better picture quality, I'll be the first to switch.

On some level I actually agree with you. Resolution and bitrate numbers are used by many to substantiate claims about picture quality (good or bad) and remove some of the inherrent subjectivity when discussing picture quality. If your DBS picture quality looks great and you are happy that is really all that matters. With regards to drawing an opinion on the quality of the new DirecTV HD channels, I would suggest you do so watching channels with significant motion. While static or low motion images such as those on Smithsonian may look great, a sporting event or action movie may not. I have no emotional attachment to any TV provider. If one provides a significantly better picture quality, I'll be the first to switch.

Isn't this about what we see, not about the bit rate? I've never said, "Honey, check this out. Look at the bit rate!" However, I have told my wife to check out how great the picture looks.

With regards to drawing an opinion on the quality of the new DirecTV HD channels, I would suggest you do so watching channels with significant motion.
I watched a replay of a CBS football game on NFL Network, and the PQ was better than OTA with no subchannels. It was very clearly better too, not just "two inches from the screen" better.

I watched a replay of a CBS football game on NFL Network, and the PQ was better than OTA with no subchannels. It was very clearly better too, not just "two inches from the screen" better.

How much is DirecTV paying you to make completely ludicrous statements which almost sound believable? Do you write your own material?

Isn't this about what we see, not about the bit rate? I've never said, "Honey, check this out. Look at the bit rate!" However, I have told my wife to check out how great the picture looks.

Unfortunately what both you see and what my 90 year old grandmother sees are subjective opinions. Resolution and bit rate are measurable objective data. Having a high resolution and/or high bit rate doesn't guarantee a great picture. Unless one has something to hide there is no reason not to inquire on the data being transmitted in making a valid comparison. I'm not saying that your new DirecTV channels don't look great, I'm just awaiting until more information and actual comparisons are made. What you are doing is providing an opinion, not a comparison.

BTW, asking your wife how the TV looks is sort of like her asking your how her rear looks in a pair of jeans. If you really are married, you'll know what I mean.

How much is DirecTV paying you to make completely ludicrous statements which almost sound believable? Do you write your own material?
Completely ludicrous? Did you watch the game OTA and then on NFL Network HD via DirecTV? If not, how can you possibly judge whether the statement is ludicrous or not? Unless you're trying to imply that NFL Network got their hands on the game by recording it OTA from a local CBS affiliate, and therefore the quality can't possibly be any higher. In that case, you'd just be an idiot.

How much is DirecTV paying you to make completely ludicrous statements which almost sound believable? Do you write your own material?

What a completely idiotic statement to make.

The first channel I turned to check out was NFLN. I've always hated NBC's 1080i football on D* because of all the artifacts. It was almost unwatchable. OTA was much better. This is the best looking game I've seen on D*.

Completely ludicrous? Did you watch the game OTA and then on NFL Network HD via DirecTV? If not, how can you possibly judge whether the statement is ludicrous or not? Unless you're trying to imply that NFL Network got their hands on the game by recording it OTA from a local CBS affiliate, and therefore the quality can't possibly be any higher. In that case, you'd just be an idiot.


Your claim is that the NFL Network rebroadcast on a DirecTV mpeg4 channel was better than the original game shown via OTA on CBS.

Was the game captured in mpeg2 or mpeg4? What source do you believe NFL networks uses for their material and do you believe DirecTV just uplinks it directly unaltered?

Please explain why you believe a rebroadcast is better than the original material shown.

Your claim is that the NFL Network rebroadcast on a DirecTV mpeg4 channel was better than the original game shown via OTA on CBS.

Was the game captured in mpeg2 or mpeg4? What source do you believe NFL networks uses for their material and do you believe DirecTV just uplinks it directly unaltered?

Please explain why you believe a rebroadcast is better than the original material shown.

No CBS macroblocking on the NFL Network rebroadcast. Just a beautiful, sharp, 1080i football game. Simply beautiful.

Why am I seeing a 4:3 HD replay of Giants/Skins on NFL-HD right now? Shouldn't it be 16:9?

I do have native on.

Your claim is that the NFL Network rebroadcast on a DirecTV mpeg4 channel was better than the original game shown via OTA on CBS.

Was the game captured in mpeg2 or mpeg4? What source do you believe NFL networks uses for their material and do you believe DirecTV just uplinks it directly unaltered?

Please explain why you believe a rebroadcast is better than the original material shown.

RTK, take a look at NBC Sunday Night Football highlights on ESPN.
You'll see what Jeremy is talking about.

Since the word "idiot" keeps popping up in this thread, I guess, the people who use it so freely must speak from experience. This argument is totally ludicrous.

this thread has turned into nothing more than a pissing contest

Your claim is that the NFL Network rebroadcast on a DirecTV mpeg4 channel was better than the original game shown via OTA on CBS.

Was the game captured in mpeg2 or mpeg4? What source do you believe NFL networks uses for their material and do you believe DirecTV just uplinks it directly unaltered?

Please explain why you believe a rebroadcast is better than the original material shown.http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=913337

I've seen enough screenshots to feel confident in saying that. I've also seen the PQ on DirecTV, and I can't see how any provider would be doing any better.

Oy, a statement of fact based on nothing. What would Judge Judy say about your claim?

How much is DirecTV paying you to make completely ludicrous statements which almost sound believable? Do you write your own material?

Got to agree with J on almost everything he said.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=913337
Glad to see my observations backed up by someone who doesn't get paid by DirecTV! ;)

<<snipped>>
I have no emotional attachment to any TV provider. If one provides a significantly better picture quality, I'll be the first to switch.

RTK - You should bear in mind that many DirecTV subscribers are sports fanatics and Sunday Ticket is all important to them. Luckily, I am not committed to that subscription and like you I could switch to another provider that was giving better picture quality.

Everytime people derail this thread with "ludicrous" statements, I chuckle. The fact that you are "happy" with your D*TV picture is NOT relevant to those of us who want to see PQ as measured via objective standards (apples to apples comparisons to other providers, measurements of bitrates, etc., etc.) and are hopeful D*TV WILL get rid of HD-Lite with all of this new capacity....

Let me summarize my observations posted throughout this thread....D*TV's Mpeg 2="HD-Lite", my local cable (Cablevision) HD is "much better" PQ than D*TV Mpeg 2 HD-Lite (my apples to apples comparisons), THEREFORE my rhetorical question to start this thread!!!

About 2 weeks ago I got the HR20's which enable me to see Mpeg4 LOCAL channels (CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, YES (Yankees) and SNY (Mets)). The PQ was very good and "just about" equal to my local cable...I opined that IF D*TV upgrades all of their HD channels to this level of PQ, most of us who care about PQ will be pretty darn happy!!

However, we still do not know the answer to that question!!! As of today...D*TV is still retaining "legacy HD" channels in Mpeg2 (channels 70-99)...therefore STILL HD-Lite for those channels (thus far!!!). I cannot "see" the NEW Mpeg4 channels yet for some reason (a tech is scheduled for tomorrow)...

I am ENCOURAGED that the Mpeg4 channels I DO receive via D*TV look really good (the locals....). The question remains...will they upgrade ALL the channels anytime soon?

Can we stick to observed FACTS vs. subjective OPINIONS...I am glad some of you are "happy", but quite frankly I (and many others) won't be until we see what PQ D*TV is ACTUALLY going to provide...

I have both TWC and D* (new subscriber). The OTA and MPEG-4 LIL look virtually identical. TWC may actually look slightly better than the OTA. How, you ask. There is a fiber feed from the stations directly to TWC. With that said, the "new" MPEG-4 HD stations look better than the "old" MPEG-2 HD stations. There is no question. However, source material (channels) are also different. When WTBS-HD lights up on TWC on October 1, I will do an A/B comparison to see if we can "see" the difference. However, from what I've seen from the new HD, I doubt I will see any. I can definitely see a difference on TNT, ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD (and other stations on both systems). TWC is better on those. WTBS-HD will be the first true test of TWC (MPEG2) vs D* (MPEG4).

May the banter continue.

Jeff

I have both TWC and D* (new subscriber). The OTA and MPEG-4 LIL look virtually identical. TWC may actually look slightly better than the OTA. How, you ask. There is a fiber feed from the stations directly to TWC. With that said, the "new" MPEG-4 HD stations look better than the "old" MPEG-2 HD stations. There is no question. However, source material (channels) are also different. When WTBS-HD lights up on TWC on October 1, I will do an A/B comparison to see if we can "see" the difference. However, from what I've seen from the new HD, I doubt I will see any. I can definitely see a difference on TNT, ESPN-HD, ESPN2-HD (and other stations on both systems). TWC is better on those. WTBS-HD will be the first true test of TWC (MPEG2) vs D* (MPEG4).

May the banter continue.

Jeff

Some observations!!! That's what we need!! Further confirmation that Mpeg2/HD-Lite can be beat by others -- will D*TV rise to the challenge for ALL of its HD channels??? Still the $64K question!!! ;)

BUMP!!! Anyone?? with A/B comparisons between new D*TV Mpeg4 channels and other providers (preferably big screen observations, NOT 32" displays) and/or between Mpeg2 HD-Lite and new Mpeg4 channels (HBO-E vs. HBO-W using HD DVR, for example???)

THANKS!!!

The $64K question is...will D*TV keep HD-Lite or upgrade the PQ?? So far, ALL of the Mpeg2 channels have NOT been upgraded yet!!??!! :confused:

Anyone?? with A/B comparisons between new D*TV Mpeg4 channels and other providers.....All observations are in the D* topics stuck at the top of the page. Based on what I've read, my overall impression is that most viewers feel the HD image quality is at least as good or better than the other sources they have access to (as good as OTA), including the MPEG2 HD channels (better than). For now, the best apple to apple comparison is between the same film on HBO East (MPEG2) & West (MPEG4), recorded on an HD DVR.

The $64K question is...will D*TV keep HD-Lite or upgrade the PQ??Another $64k question? Unfortunately, no one knows the answer to this one, either. Only time will tell.

They will have great PQ until they fill the space up. Then it will slowly go back to the way it was. Everyone should know that, its their business model to get the most money out of their bandwidth. History proves that. Question is how long will that take, 12 -18 months?

Seeing the SD quality on SCI FI HD - it's scary how far the SD has been degraded. We all knew it, but switching back and forth shows just how bad it has gotten.

They will have great PQ until they fill the space up. Then it will slowly go back to the way it was. Everyone should know that, its their business model to get the most money out of their bandwidth. History proves that. Question is how long will that take, 12 -18 months?Well, maybe, maybe not.

Your point is based on the same reasoning that many used here when saying that D* would continue with HD Lite when introducing the MPEG4 channels. Bases on initial forum opinions, this is not the case.

With new ownership, it's impossible to know what to expect from DirecTV in the future regarding their HD image quality. I would expect at a minimum for technology to continue to advance, allowing for continued high quality images even with addition of many new HD channels. Of course at some point bandwidth will become scarce again, and no one knows what will happen at that point.

Based on what I've read, my overall impression is that most viewers feel the HD image quality is at least as good or better than the other sources they have access to (as good as OTA), including the MPEG2 HD channels (better than).
So D* is or is not currently reducing the resolution and/or bitrate of the new national MPEG4 channels??? And please forgive me, numbers do matter to me although other posters have every right to say they don't!

By the way, D* had really good HD PQ on Ch. 95 MPEG2 last evening carrying the Cubs playoff game. Am I just getting old and more forgiving of D* or is it my 57" Hitachi has native resolution perfectly amenable to 1080i (or none of the above)????

So D* is or is not currently reducing the resolution and/or bitrate of the new national MPEG4 channels??? Numbers are not available.

So D* is or is not currently reducing the resolution and/or bitrate of the new national MPEG4 channels??? And please forgive me, numbers do matter to me although other posters have every right to say they don't!


We only have the anecdotal evidence provided by the viewers' subjective observations - and unofficial reports that they are not reducing the resolution.

As far as bitrate - obviously they will reduce the bitrate with the MPEG4 channels because the bitrate required is less. The consensus opinion thus far is that there doesn't appear to be any artifacts associated with insufficient bitrate present in any of the new channels.

Do the new HBO's look better than the MPEG2 HBO?

The consensus opinion thus far is that there doesn't appear to be any artifacts associated with insufficient bitrate present in any of the new channels.

If only someone could figure out how to push the BD-7669 pattern though the system. :)

While video memory is extremely fleeting, the USA-HD broadcast yesterday of NBC's "Life" looked virtually the same as the original airing last week from my local NBC station via Comcast. Our NBC station runs around 16-17mbps for their HD channel.

"Fast and Furious" on prior to "Life", looked good as well, although I really have no memory of how well that movie has/can look so it's no good for any comparison, but I did not see any bitrate artifacts and there was very good detail as well.

...obviously they will reduce the bitrate with the MPEG4 channels because the bitrate required is less.And this is only because 4 is double 2 therefore one half of 19.39 is 9.7. So that would be full bitrate but D* probably reduces this to no more than 7 or 8 at the most with MPEG4.

Or is this totally simplistic plus dead wrong since Wikipedia didn't help this non-scientist and non-engineer -- forgive the pun -- one bit! :)

Ken H - You suggested waiting until Q1-2008 before switching to the HR20 or H20 plus the slimline dish. Do you still think that is a reasonable time period to allow DirecTV to work out the new channels? I got sucked in back in 2001, I can wait this time.

Ken H - You suggested waiting until Q1-2008 before switching to the HR20 or H20 plus the slimline dish. Do you still think that is a reasonable time period to allow DirecTV to work out the new channels? I got sucked in back in 2001, I can wait this time.We ought to have a decent idea of how D* will handle their new MPEG4 bandwidth by the end of the year, but this is nothing more than my educated guess.

For now, the best apple to apple comparison is between the same film on HBO East (MPEG2) & West (MPEG4), recorded on an HD DVR.

.
...and I keep asking for a link to someone's observations on this!! Anyone?? Anywhere?? And, ONCE AGAIN, there are no upgrades of the current Mpeg2 HD-Lite channels yet...:confused:

...and I keep asking for a link to someone's observations on this!! Anyone?? Anywhere?? And, ONCE AGAIN, there are no upgrades of the current Mpeg2 HD-Lite channels yet...:confused:

They can't really upgrade the MPEG2 channels to MPEG4 because that would leave the people with old HD tuners out in the cold.

I would guess that their numbers are dwindling, though, as these new MPEG4 channels are launched.

They can't really upgrade the MPEG2 channels to MPEG4 because that would leave the people with old HD tuners out in the cold.
All they have to do is mirror them in MPEG4, not disable the MPEG2 feed.

I have had D for over a year now. I was NOT impressed with the original lineup of MPEG2 HD channels, or even their MPEG4 locals....which looked much worse than they do now in all fairness. At the time, I just used OTA to watch football in HD, since HD locals over D were really bad, but in fairness they are much better now though OTA is still slightly better.


NOW with the new channels coming online, I have been impressed so far. With HD content, there are no artifacts or pixelation, as with the mpeg2 hd channels. TBSHD's presentation of the philies playoffs looked perfect. MHD, which launched today, looked fantastic. Smithsonian HD also has some really impressive HD content. It can be hard to gauge, since content providers are not always broadcasting HD...and many stretch or crop programs. But with true HD content, D's new mpeg4 channels look excellent and better in comparison to my parents comcast HD.

So, I definitely will be sticking with D, though it was a tough wait for the new channels and hoping the wait would pay off.

All they have to do is mirror them in MPEG4, not disable the MPEG2 feed.

EXACTLY!!! Why wouldn't they want to impress us with the best PQ possible?? Instead, they are adding only "new", much lesser watched channels....BIZARRE!!! :confused:

They can't really upgrade the MPEG2 channels to MPEG4 because that would leave the people with old HD tuners out in the cold.

I would guess that their numbers are dwindling, though, as these new MPEG4 channels are launched.

It does not makes sense for them to leave customers out in the cold and lose their busienss. In their eyes, if they don't need to replace hardware and people keep spending the same money then GREAT!! They have a enough demand I am sure on hardware and installers as is with out having to replace all hardware for legacy customers at the same time. I doubt that they switch these for at least a year or more.

EXACTLY!!! Why wouldn't they want to impress us with the best PQ possible?? Instead, they are adding only "new", much lesser watched channels....BIZARRE!!! :confused:

Why would they waste the time and effort? THey've got one hd channel, they don't need two versions of it if everyone can receive the mpeg2 one. The ipgrade in PQ isn't that big of a deal to them. People will still watch HDNet and the like.

All they have to do is mirror them in MPEG4, not disable the MPEG2 feed.If they had that much bandwidth to spare, they could simply supply a high bandwidth full resolution MPEG2 feed like in the old days.

If they had that much bandwidth to spare, they could simply supply a high bandwidth full resolution MPEG2 feed like in the old days.
No they couldn't. The MPEG4 and MPEG2 programming are on different satellites. The MPEG2 satellites are full and the MPEG2 customers can't see the new birds.

....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....

....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....
One word of advice:

By asking for a comparison, you're asking for a favor. Try not being a jerk about it and someone might help you out.

In summary, my disappointment with the new "capacity":

-- All Mpeg2 HD-Lite channels have NOT been upgraded!
-- NO hockey games in HD on the Center Ice package (even though available on E*)!
-- NO local HD broadcasts of MSGHD and FSNYHD in NYC (despite being announced as far back as 12/06, plus on current "test" lists)

Plenty of apologists around "rationalizing" all this; however IMHO, why wouldn't you want to give the best PQ available on your existing HD-Lite channels (ESPN, HBO-E, SHO-E, etc.)? Why not focus on giving as much sports as possible in HD (for crissakes if cable and E* can give us NHL CI hockey in HD, why not D*TV?? Especially stupid given there is a 6-day CI "freeview" going on right now)!!!

I WILL admit, having many more channels is great, but IF they did some of the things listed above, too, WOW!!!!

Wake up D*TV!!!! :eek:

One word of advice:

By asking for a comparison, you're asking for a favor. Try not being a jerk about it and someone might help you out.

Asking for a comparison is being a "jerk"??? :confused: Get a freakin' grip!!

BTW...Read the OP again will you....that is the intent of the thread. And because people like you have taken this so far O/T vs. attempting to answer my fairly simple question, I have started a new one summarizing my disappointment with D*TV...

Have a nice day!!! ;)

....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....

Well then you do one. :rolleyes: if it's that important ot you.

Topics merged.

....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....

I posted in another thread here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=917732):

D* (channel 247) - fantastic PQ. Audio slightly out of synch.
D* (channel 95) - obviously bit starved (see macro blocking on many things, not quite as sharp)
TWC (Raleigh, NC) - Not quite as sharp as D* channel 247. Audio seems ok. But, much better than D* channel 95...

I never thought I'd say it, but D* channel 247 actually looks better than cable...

Last night's game, the audio was in synch and the PQ was still better than TWC. It's not measured, but to my eye (very picky) D* looks VERY good.

....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....?

You've had the opportunity to read the comments about the MPEG4 and still think they are HD Lite, when the subjective comments say different. Then you ask for other subjective opinions about HBO, as if that would make a difference.

At a very minimum, you should suspend your judgement until you have whatever it is that you consider proof.

Well then you do one. :rolleyes: if it's that important ot you.

GEE THANKS!! You mean the only way to get info is to everything yourself? Then why are you here? My experience has been to share info with others so EACH of us are not left on our own....PLEASE, add some value next time!!! :eek:

I posted in another thread here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=917732):

D* (channel 247) - fantastic PQ. Audio slightly out of synch.
D* (channel 95) - obviously bit starved (see macro blocking on many things, not quite as sharp)
TWC (Raleigh, NC) - Not quite as sharp as D* channel 247. Audio seems ok. But, much better than D* channel 95...

I never thought I'd say it, but D* channel 247 actually looks better than cable...

Last night's game, the audio was in synch and the PQ was still better than TWC. It's not measured, but to my eye (very picky) D* looks VERY good.
Just to be clear, this post is referring to TBS HD from DirecTV in MPEG2 (ch 95), TBS HD from DirecTV in MPEG4 (ch 247), and TBS HD from Time Warner Cable in Raleigh, NC.

I would say this is the most definitive information available at this time.

?

You've had the opportunity to read the comments about the MPEG4 and still think they are HD Lite, when the subjective comments say different. Then you ask for other subjective opinions about HBO, as if that would make a difference.

At a very minimum, you should suspend your judgement until you have whatever it is that you consider proof.

Gee Ken thanks for misinterpreting my posts (where did I ever say Mpeg4 is HD-Lite, for example????) PLUS "merging" my OP into this "way off track" thread. (Why didn't you merge all the NHL CI threads....HMMMMM!!!!). Further, I have NOT come to any conclusions, I am SEARCHING for info from the community in order to come to one!!!

Let me summarize my intent once again...

BECAUSE of D*TV's history of HD-Lite, SOME of us are interested in the PQ being provided with the new satellite capacity; we are curious as to how the "new" Mpeg4 transmissions compare to the Mpeg2 HD-Lite transmissions (in case you haven't noticed, NONE of the existing Mpeg2 channels have been upgraded; therefore, STILL HD-Lite!!). IF the new transmissions ARE better, wouldn't it be a good idea to then try to "inform" D*TV that we would like ALL the channels to be given to us with the newer technology???

Secondly, another type of A/B comparison being asked for is D*TV's new Mpeg4 transmissions vs. OTHER providers. The intent is to get some idea as to whether D*TV is downrezzing the Mpeg 4 signal...

The overall goal is to share the findings to all interested folks in the forum, PLUS express "feedback" to D*TV -- isn't that why we are all here?? :confused:

Frankly, the continued bashing and misrepresentation of my posts by folks supposedly so informed is really disappointing...:(

Just to be clear, this post is referring to TNT HD from DirecTV in MPEG2 (ch 95), TNT HD from DirecTV in MPEG4 (ch 247), and TNT HD from Time Warner Cable in Raleigh, NC.

I would say this is the most definitive information available at this time.

AGREED!! Thanks to the poster and hopefully we will see more of these type of observations as per my prior post...

GEE THANKS!! You mean the only way to get info is to everything yourself? Then why are you here? My experience has been to share info with others so EACH of us are not left on our own....PLEASE, add some value next time!!! :eek:

Well if after 2 weeks of asking for and getting the answer as to why hard number are not available you seem to ask the same question over and over. If you want subjective opinions then just look at them your self. All people here agree that Mpeg2 channels from D* do not look as good as they should. Most agree that the Mpge4 channels from D* look extreamly good. So is the Mpeg4 channels from D* HD-lite? no one knows for sure but it is deffinitely not in the same catigory as the Mpeg2 or any thing offered by E*. Hope that helps.

HD-lite is a buzz term that was created in one of the DBS forums I think. I don't doubt that people are seeing better picture quality with MPEG4 on D* I agree that until someone can quantify the resolution and bitrate, this argument will continue. Back in January, this online article was published by Engadget (link below), entitled The Engadget HD Interview: DirecTV's CTO RE: HD Lite and was an interview with Rômulo Pontual the Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of DirecTV who stated,

"We spend a huge amount of resources to optimize our transmission and the configuration we have today is the configuration that is the best video quality for the consumer, I don't want to tell you how, because it is a trade secret. Consumers should judge by the video quality'.

Mr. Portual pretty much implied that HD-lite doesn't exist and that the picture quality, pre-MPEG4 was the best video quality available. I guess it's still a trade secret because this debate is still happening today. I hope that someone can put this issue to rest, once and for all. Until such time, people should enjoy what they have and not be critical of what others are seeing or enjoying because opinions are subjective and are not equal. One opinion is not better than another.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/11/the-engadget-hd-interview-directvs-cto-re-hd-lite/

Just to be clear, this post is referring to TNT HD from DirecTV in MPEG2 (ch 95), TNT HD from DirecTV in MPEG4 (ch 247), and TNT HD from Time Warner Cable in Raleigh, NC.

I would say this is the most definitive information available at this time.

Actually TBS (not TNT)...but, the same idea. :)

....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....


Are you this way in real life? If so, my condolences to anyone that has to suffer you in person.

HD-lite is a buzz term that was created in one of the DBS forums I think. I don't doubt that people are seeing better picture quality with MPEG4 on D* I agree that until someone can quantify the resolution and bitrate, this argument will continue. Back in January, this online article was published by Engadget (link below), entitled The Engadget HD Interview: DirecTV's CTO RE: HD Lite and was an interview with Rômulo Pontual the Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of DirecTV who stated,

"We spend a huge amount of resources to optimize our transmission and the configuration we have today is the configuration that is the best video quality for the consumer, I don't want to tell you how, because it is a trade secret. Consumers should judge by the video quality'.

Mr. Portual pretty much implied that HD-lite doesn't exist and that the picture quality, pre-MPEG4 was the best video quality available. I guess it's still a trade secret because this debate is still happening today. I hope that someone can put this issue to rest, once and for all. Until such time, people should enjoy what they have and not be critical of what others are seeing or enjoying because opinions are subjective and are not equal. One opinion is not better than another.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/11/the-engadget-hd-interview-directvs-cto-re-hd-lite/

A more pertinent quote for this thread from the same exact interview would have been:

"You don't feel that DirecTV has sacrificed picture quality at all in order to deliver more HD channels?

Everything in life is a balance, we are not contained in capacity with MPEG4, but we were in MPEG2. MPEG4 will be a leap better in in terms of quality. I could argue that our local MPEG4 transmission today is even better than a ATSC signal."

I'm not as techno as many here so this is all very interesting reading, but one thing I've clearly noticed is that BTN HD has a sharper and better picture than just about every other HD channel. Anybody know why that is? I'm in Nashville btw.

This is a bit off-topic and probably throwing gas on the fire, but has E* shown an improvement with MPEG4? Early on it was discovered that the MPEG4 channels were actually encoded as MPEG2 but I haven't heard much since then.

Actually TBS (not TNT)...but, the same idea. :)Ei yi yi. What a sap am I.

Thank you very much for the correction. I will edit my post.

I hope this thread turns into one where someone edits the title with the answer. "The $64K Question: Will HD-Lite COntinue on D*TV...<yes|no>" That way I'll know as soon as I load the first page of the forum. Heck, I won't even need to turn on the Tv.
--

LOL! I guess this is one of those questions that will never get a no answer, may possibly get a yes answer, but will likely never get a definitive answer.
--

Here is my guess - When DirecTV starts charging the $4.99 per month for the HDNet and HDNet Movies package those channels will be on Ka band in MPEG4. Again, I stress that this is a guess on my part.

Are you this way in real life? If so, my condolences to anyone that has to suffer you in person.

Another "value added" response....:eek: Bash the poster instead of answer what is a VERY SIMPLE question. Unbelievable!!! :confused:

Well, at least over at the DBS forum people are starting to post observations and discuss this in an intelligent manner in response to my same question over there...

You folks continue to criticize each other and be "happy"/ "satisfied" with your PQ while some of us actually move forward...however in case any of you care...

-- NONE of the Mpeg2 HD-Lite channels (70-99) have been upgraded as of yet

-- NO HD hockey games on CI by D*TV (although E* broadcast 4 -- yes FOUR last night alone). This is during CI "free preview" week!!

-- NO definitive word on MSGHD and/or FSNYHD as well as other NYC locals (UPN, CW, PBS)...

If you ARE interested in these things and believe that being informed matters, come join us on these topics in the "other forum".

Otherwise, enjoy SmithsonianHD!!! ;)

LOL! I guess this is one of those questions that will never get a no answer, may possibly get a yes answer, but will likely never get a definitive answer.
--


Glad to see your still around! You are always going to be a rock-star around here!

LOL! I guess this is one of those questions that will never get a no answer, may possibly get a yes answer, but will likely never get a definitive answer.
--

If there was currently an easy answer it wouldn't be a $64,000 question. :)

Glad to see your still around! You are always going to be a rock-star around here!

No kidding he belongs in the AVS HOF

Nice to see him back

Another "value added" response....:eek: Bash the poster instead of answer what is a VERY SIMPLE question. Unbelievable!!! :confused:



So simple that you, a D* subscriber, can't answer it. Shocking.

Glad to see your still around! You are always going to be a rock-star around here!

No kidding he belongs in the AVS HOF

Nice to see him back

You guys are just too funny. That day may never be forgotten by some, and I smile everytime I see mention of it. Think about how far we have come from that day though. It was what, 4 years ago, regarding 4 HD channels? This thread is bashing some 33 MPEG4 HD channels.
--

For those of you that ARE interested in the topic at hand...reliable sources in the other forum (in response to the same questions/observations I posted here) have stated that A/B comparisons between the new Mpeg4 transmissions vs. the Mpeg2 HD-Lite transmissions indicate the Mpeg4 are much better (in fact, some were so "surprised" by the difference, they recognize now that HD-Lite did and does exist!!!), and that ALL of the Mpeg2 channels WILL be upgraded (no definitive date yet)...therefore no more HD-Lite!!!

Still no definitive word on HD hockey on CI on D*TV, plus whether MSGHD and FSNYHD will be lit up.

You guys are just too funny. That day may never be forgotten by some, and I smile everytime I see mention of it. Think about how far we have come from that day though. It was what, 4 years ago, regarding 4 HD channels? This thread is bashing some 33 MPEG4 HD channels.
--


Where am I "bashing" the new Mpeg4 HD channels????? :confused:

Where am I "bashing" the new Mpeg4 HD channels????? :confused:
I can certainly see where people might consider posts like this to be bashing:

....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....

This not only assumes the worst, it jumps all over people for not bending to your personal need for an A-B comparision.

People post information, advice and screen shots to help others understand and make good descisions. They do this with no compensation on their own time. To get annoyed when your request goes unanswered certainly doesn't make people any quicker to help you out. The more you make bitter replies to people, the less they'll be likely to help.

Originally Posted by perilous
....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....
Not to mention the absurd logic based conclussion.

Anyhow, when a real HD show is on, the channels look great. Way better than the 90s channels. Some have been a tad soft at times. But, that seems to be a show by show thing. I recorded T2 on StarzHD and it was a little washed. But, I have no idea what the actual source of that is. Could have been the SD upsampled for all I know.

A couple of unnecessary posts deleted and a few comments edited.

I asked earlier how the new HBO'S compared to the legacy chans and am patiently awating an answer...

See my earlier post re: current results I have obtained elsewhere....

You guys are just too funny. That day may never be forgotten by some, and I smile everytime I see mention of it. Think about how far we have come from that day though. It was what, 4 years ago, regarding 4 HD channels? This thread is bashing some 33 MPEG4 HD channels.
--

Didn't you check the source code on D*'s website once every hour every day for two years straight?

.... uphill, both ways? ;)

....... the legend lives on.

Didn't you check the source code on D*'s website once every hour every day for two years straight?

.... uphill, both ways? ;)

....... the legend lives on.

At the risk of an 'unnecessary post', it was once a day for 2 months. Well worth it in retrospect...

From http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?threadid=266030
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by juniormaj
my only question for mythical_phenix is:
Do you spend a lot of time looking at page sources or did you just stumble on this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked at it a couple of months ago on a whim. Saw the Masters stuff commented out and thought, hmmm, maybe some other nuggets will appear here in the future, also commented out. So I've checked it every morning for the past two months. Finally, something interesting. It will probably be the last, though...

Another "value added" response....:eek: Bash the poster instead of answer what is a VERY SIMPLE question. Unbelievable!!! :confused:I've read all eight pages of this thread and what is "unbelievable" is your obsession with finding the answer your seeking.

This reminds me of the movie "Wargames" where Matthew Broderick (can't remember his character name in the movie) goes to talk to his computer programmer friend, "Jim" about finding a way to play a new computer game. Matthew is trying to break into the game makers computer, as "Jim" is reading some of the info Matthew has brought to him this really obnoxious guy IIRC his name was "Liteman" who is a high pitch nasal speaking nerd who grabs the paper out of Jim's hand and starts spouting off on a tangent finally Jim gets fed up and says, "Mr Potato Head! Mr Potato Head! Remember when you told me to tell you when you were starting to get obnoxious -" It was something to that effect anyway. Ultimately Jim suggests that Matthew needs to find a 'backdoor' or a way back that the original programmer may have put in place so that he could always have access to the game.

So Mr. Potato Head (Perilous)! Quit checking your big face G-force watch every 15 minutes expecting an update to whether D* is still broadcasting HD-lite or not!

IF you really want an answer or the "backdoor" to this question I suggest you try to figure a way to get inside and talk to the engineers at D* and let them give you the definitive and quantitative answers that you so eagerly and obsessively desire to know. However, be forewarned that if you take the same approach as you have exhibited here - you may here a 'click' at the other end of the line.

The bottom line is that the answer you seek has not been definitively available or someone would have given you the answer; if for no other reason so you would relax and move on with your life.

I have viewed same programs on MPEG2 channel and on MPEG4 channel and notice very little, if any, difference. To me, both offerings look very good. Then again, I have been pleased with HDNET thru the years. I just hope Travel Channel and NATGEO have been shooting their shows in HD for past few years.

Why does it seem that HDNet consistently provides a better sharper picture than the other channels?

Why does it seem that HDNet consistently provides a better sharper picture than the other channels?

Perhaps due to HDNet always running actual HD content, as opposed to upconverted SD? Don't know.

I have viewed same programs on MPEG2 channel and on MPEG4 channel and notice very little, if any, difference. To me, both offerings look very good. Then again, I have been pleased with HDNET thru the years. I just hope Travel Channel and NATGEO have been shooting their shows in HD for past 2 years or so.

We'll have to see what consensus opinion forms. At this point, that would be an opinion that is in a clear minority. Most have noticed significant improvements and feel the problems with the existing MPEG2 channels are not present in the MPEG4 channels.

Why does it seem that HDNet consistently provides a better sharper picture than the other channels?

Been doing it a lot longer than most of them? Quality equipment?

There are no shortage of inane polls on this forum. Here we have a topic just begging for a poll, yet none exists. I'd create it, but I couldn't vote, as my D* service is in hibernation at the moment.
--

There are no shortage of inane polls on this forum. Here we have a topic just begging for a poll, yet none exists. I'd create it, but I couldn't vote, as my D* service is in hibernation at the moment.
--
...and I'd be little help since I'm hoping HDNet, HDNET Movies and ESPN/2 will get put up in MPEG4 before I upgrade. That's where the real comparison will be...

I also just dumped all my movie channels, so I can't make that comparison, either.

Why does it seem that HDNet consistently provides a better sharper picture than the other channels?LAck of multicasting seems a likely factor. Haven't measured it myself, but recall AVS posts indicating HDNet is typically ~17 Mbps--about the maximum video payload for 19.39 Mbps ATSC signals (OTA HD). Lossy MPEG-2 compression 'tosses out' higher resolution, generally, as bit rates decrease. The HD.Net site has a drop-down 'technical' menu, although it just lists all the hardware used.

Oh yes, while on this subject but OT: Maybe they'll schedule their 10-minute weekly test patterns again very soon. The patterns (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5175424#post5175424) (see sublink) are a long running service, recently stopped, that let HD viewers measure how well their delivery chain and home gear are performing, 1080i resolution-wise, as well as calibrate their systems (search calibration forum for 'HDNet' thread title). Wouldn't hurt if they'd confirm, on site or within the patterns, that the resolution wedges are being uplinked for national distribution with a potential effective resolution of 1920X1080i, besides that format resolution. -- John

LAck of multicasting seems a likely factor. Haven't measured it myself, but recall AVS posts indicating HDNet is typically ~17 Mbps--about the maximum video payload for 19.39 Mbps ATSC signals (OTA HD). Lossy MPEG-2 compression 'tosses out' higher resolution, generally, as bit rates decrease. The HD.Net site has a drop-down 'technical' menu, although it just lists all the hardware used.

Oh yes, while on this subject but OT: Maybe they'll schedule their 10-minute weekly test patterns again very soon. The patterns (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=5175424#post5175424) (see sublink) are a long running service, recently stopped, that let HD viewers measure how well their delivery chain and home gear are performing, 1080i resolution-wise, as well as calibrate their systems (search calibration forum for 'HDNet' thread title). Wouldn't hurt if they'd confirm, on site or within the patterns, that the resolution wedges are being uplinked for national distribution with a potential effective resolution of 1920X1080i, besides that format resolution. -- John

Although I don't understand everything in the reply, it might be fair to partially sum it up as "because they are trying" to provide a clearer sharper picture.
Thanks for the interesting detailed response.

We'll have to see what consensus opinion forms. At this point, that would be an opinion that is in a clear minority. Most have noticed significant improvements and feel the problems with the existing MPEG2 channels are not present in the MPEG4 channels.

I understand we all 'see' things differently; that is evident from reading the views/opinions on this forum. For me, HDNET looks as good as any MPEG4 HD on Directv. Some of the newer HD MPEG4 channels (that actually do HD) look very good as well. I, personally, believe HD Theatre has some very good looking programs. There are so many things that enter into what a final picture looks like on the screen. So, of course, opinions of picture quality will always be all over the spectrum. The actual production of a program can influence the final result of how the program looks on our display more than whether that program comes to us in MPEG2 or MPEG4. I have seen good and poor programming (how the program looks) in both.
For sure, a number of programmers have to learn how to send out quality HD programming. To me, 'numbers' are unimportant. My eyes are the sole judge; again the content of the program being most important. As mentioned before, I watch old westerns on the The Westerns Channel and enjoy them very much, black and white and 4 x 3 format. I will say, these old movies have been 'cleaned-up' very nicely and they are quite pleasant to view.

Although I don't understand everything in the reply, it might be fair to partially sum it up as "because they are trying" to provide a clearer sharper picture.
Thanks for the interesting detailed response.

I hope John will excuse me picking on him a bit, but usually the gyst of every one of his very detailed posts is "X" is (better/worse/good/bad) because of (technical information to back up post)".

I've learned to read the quote from the person he answers and pretty much look to see if he agrees or disagrees. Despite being a TV tech myself, more than a few sentences of technical specs makes my eyes cross. I'm worried my mother might be right and one day they might stay that way... ;)

I hope I didn't offend John with this comment, because I, for one, do appreciate the input. His posts (despite being far from "Cliff Notes" level of detail) are always polite, researched and relevent to the thread.

If D* is not downward rate shaping, down rezzing, bit starving -- whatever the term to describe HD Lite -- the new MPEG4 channels, why would they have taken the steps they apparently have to make sure none of us can do any measuring???

I'm not an engineer and all I know is pretty much what I read on these forums. But it seems D* has gone to extraordinary purposeful lengths to prevent anyone from coming up with numbers. That doesn't give this D* sub a warm fuzzy feeling about their honesty, uprightness, and customer concern (but I still sincerely hope D* gets MPEG4 right, but am increasingly concerned).

If D* is not downward rate shaping, down rezzing, bit starving -- whatever the term to describe HD Lite -- the new MPEG4 channels, why would they have taken the steps they apparently have to make sure none of us can do any measuring???

I'm not an engineer and all I know is pretty much what I read on these forums. But it seems D* has gone to extraordinary purposeful lengths to prevent anyone from coming up with numbers.Nope. With the new MPEG4 hardware, it simply changed the ability to know specifics.

Believe me, they had little concern with this issue.

If D* is not downward rate shaping, down rezzing, bit starving -- whatever the term to describe HD Lite -- the new MPEG4 channels, why would they have taken the steps they apparently have to make sure none of us can do any measuring???

I'm not an engineer and all I know is pretty much what I read on these forums. But it seems D* has gone to extraordinary purposeful lengths to prevent anyone from coming up with numbers. That doesn't give this D* sub a warm fuzzy feeling about their honesty, uprightness, and customer concern (but I still sincerely hope D* gets MPEG4 right, but am increasingly concerned).
Keep in mind, the utilities to do this were built into the previous hardware. This is new equipment. If D* doesn't add it to the new stuff, I'm sure someone will come up with a hack that will do it.

The fact is, almost nobody actually does this (most people that care pass around the data from a select few people that do). As a result, there's little motivation for D* to go through the bother and expense of including this ability in customer equipment.

If D* doesn't add it to the new stuff, I'm sure someone will come up with a hack that will do it.
Don't count on it. All of the previous information was gathered using the HR10-250, which was very hackable. The HR20 is completely different, and not hackable at all. I feel quite confident in saying that there will never be any hacks for it.