The $64K Question: Will HD-Lite Continue on D*TV... - Page 7 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > HDTV > HDTV Programming > The $64K Question: Will HD-Lite Continue on D*TV...

HDTV Programming

Ken H's Avatar Ken H
09:52 AM Liked: 12
post #181 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Johnson View Post

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

Numbers are not available.
CPanther95's Avatar CPanther95
09:54 AM Liked: 73
post #182 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 23,797
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Johnson View Post

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.
nakedeye's Avatar nakedeye
10:18 AM Liked: 10
post #183 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 1,489
Joined: Jan 2003
Do the new HBO's look better than the MPEG2 HBO?
HDTVChallenged's Avatar HDTVChallenged
10:21 AM Liked: 153
post #184 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 8,610
Joined: Jan 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

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.
Keenan's Avatar Keenan
10:34 AM Liked: 452
post #185 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 28,522
Joined: Aug 2003
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.
Bill Johnson's Avatar Bill Johnson
11:15 AM Liked: 10
post #186 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 1,346
Joined: Dec 2002
Quote:


...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!
stephenC's Avatar stephenC
11:46 AM Liked: 10
post #187 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 1,463
Joined: Apr 2000
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's Avatar Ken H
12:01 PM Liked: 12
post #188 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenC View Post

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.
perilous's Avatar perilous
04:50 PM Liked: 12
post #189 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

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...
Shape's Avatar Shape
04:55 PM Liked: 75
post #190 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 4,216
Joined: Jul 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by perilous View Post

...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...

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.
Jeremy W's Avatar Jeremy W
04:56 PM Liked: 11
post #191 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 4,777
Joined: Sep 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shape View Post

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.
curlyjive's Avatar curlyjive
05:04 PM Liked: 45
post #192 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 1,348
Joined: May 2004
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.
perilous's Avatar perilous
05:14 PM Liked: 12
post #193 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy W View Post

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!!!
redskins4life's Avatar redskins4life
05:17 PM Liked: 10
post #194 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 108
Joined: Jul 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shape View Post

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.
sandiegojoe's Avatar sandiegojoe
10:01 PM Liked: 10
post #195 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 1,059
Joined: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by perilous View Post

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!!!

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.
nm88's Avatar nm88
11:38 PM Liked: 10
post #196 of 281
10-04-2007 | Posts: 2,685
Joined: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy W View Post

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.
NetworkTV's Avatar NetworkTV
04:25 AM Liked: 469
post #197 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 15,640
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by nm88 View Post

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.
perilous's Avatar perilous
06:06 AM Liked: 12
post #198 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
....STILL no a/b comparisons...AMAZING!!! Until proven otherwise, I guess HD-Lite will continue.....
NetworkTV's Avatar NetworkTV
06:15 AM Liked: 469
post #199 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 15,640
Joined: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by perilous View Post

....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.
perilous's Avatar perilous
06:24 AM Liked: 12
post #200 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
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!!!!
perilous's Avatar perilous
06:30 AM Liked: 12
post #201 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post

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"??? 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!!!
TulsaCoker's Avatar TulsaCoker
06:31 AM Liked: 14
post #202 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 1,148
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by perilous View Post

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

Well then you do one. if it's that important ot you.
Ken H's Avatar Ken H
06:34 AM Liked: 12
post #203 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Topics merged.
CCsoftball7's Avatar CCsoftball7
06:37 AM Liked: 10
post #204 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 1,117
Joined: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by perilous View Post

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

I posted in another thread here:

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.
Ken H's Avatar Ken H
06:55 AM Liked: 12
post #205 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by perilous View Post

....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.
perilous's Avatar perilous
06:58 AM Liked: 12
post #206 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by TulsaCoker View Post

Well then you do one. 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!!!
Ken H's Avatar Ken H
07:04 AM Liked: 12
post #207 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 45,876
Joined: Nov 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCsoftball7 View Post

I posted in another thread here:

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.
perilous's Avatar perilous
07:08 AM Liked: 12
post #208 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

?

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??

Frankly, the continued bashing and misrepresentation of my posts by folks supposedly so informed is really disappointing...
perilous's Avatar perilous
07:11 AM Liked: 12
post #209 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 719
Joined: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken H View Post

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...
TulsaCoker's Avatar TulsaCoker
07:13 AM Liked: 14
post #210 of 281
10-05-2007 | Posts: 1,148
Joined: Nov 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by perilous View 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!!!

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.

Reply HDTV Programming

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3