What do you want in HD channels - Quality or Quantity?

I want it all! However, give me the genuine, crisp HD channels. Fiber optics should be poised to offer the best of both worlds.

I'd want the bitrate to be as high as possible on the few channels that really matter and provide great content (Discovery, movie channels, ESPN etc), THEN they can cram in as many FoodNetwork, Lifetime HD fillers as they have room for.

So a mix.

As I've been telling people for years, it remains to be seen what DirecTV will do with their newly acquired bandwidth capabilities. To assume otherwise is foolish.

To be fair, their recent track record is HDLite, which can be fully accounted for by the previous bandwidth available. The big question is: Now that they have lots of bandwidth, how will they use it? Right now no one really knows, but we will all know soon.

In general, those reading and participating here will lean toward better image quality, but the general public will want more channels.

20 is not enough. I want 50 great looking channels

25 is enough for me if I can pick the 25.

I'm happy with what I have with Comcast cable right now - about 20 HD channels and they all look good. I've never seen the PQ of D* and I'm very curious what will happen when they go live with D*10 in the next few weeks. If I hear that HD-Lite is no more then I'm going to be very likely to switch. My biggest reason to switch is to get Setanta but more HD content would be a plus. The other problem there is it's going to cost me at least $30 more a month to switch to satellite as well, not to mention the $200 up front for the stupid HD-DVR. The only thing that's keeping me interested in Comcast is the new Tivo DVR software but that appears to going nowhere and is taking entirely too long to roll out.
Sorry, bit of a ramble there. I prefer quality over quantity. If D* has 70 HD-Lite channels I could care less and I'd keep my 20 cable, better quality HD channels.

As Ken H wrote, do not assume that D* will use HD-Lite for the new HD satellite feed. They built these two satellites for MPEG-4 distribution of HD channels, so they knew how much bandwidth they needed. They may have to increase compression down the road as they squeeze more HD channels when all the 2nd and 3rd tier cable/sat nets begin to provide a HD simulcast channel, but for now they reportedly have the bandwidth for the channels they have listed.

You also can not make a blanket statement on compression and # of HD channels when it comes to cable. There are still small cable systems that do not have HD at all or very recently added a limited number of HD channels. Within the biggest player, Comcast, the number of HD channels and reports of over-compression vary significantly between the Comcast systems. Comcast, like Time Warner, brought up a lot of smaller cable systems, most recently dividing up Adelphia, so it depends on where each local video head end system is in the update and upgrade process.

With Time Warner widely implementing Switched Digital Video (SDV) (to the detriment of subscribers with cable cards and QAM tuners), TWC is obviously planning to add a bunch of HD channels this fall. Verizon Fios reportedly has to do some equipment upgrades in their distribution system to be able to add a lot of new HD channels, but they won't be sitting at 13 national HD and 5 premium HD channels for that long.

What we want is both quality and quantity. The bandwidth is there for most cable systems if they use SDV or shut down some analog channels for the number of HD channels starting up this fall. It is certainly there for Verizon Fios at the home with 860 MHz of bandwidth used for TV only with a limited number of analog channels and not shared with internet, VOD, or phone service.

I want both! Now, if I have to choose? *long pause* Quality every time! With VOD and Blu-ray/HD DVD the pressure is on the Cable/Sat television industry to provide high bit rates and true HD resolution. Whether they come through or not is the question.

Most movie channels originate from the C-Band master feeds, providing clean detail images .

You'll be very surprised how well the SD detail is, not to mention C-Band HD.

And you know the cable companies, DirecTV & Dish Network receive most of the programming from the C-Band satellites, so can you imagine receiving these feeds on your own C-Band satellite system?

No HD-Lite from the master feeds.

I'll take quantity at this point...heck even the worst HD channel looks better than the old days of rabbit ear TV or analog cable...I'm not gonna fall into the trap of uber nitpicker about the quality as many here and elsewhere get into...

Quantity for me too.

I want quality too. If I want quantity, I wouldn't need to spend big bucks for a HD tv. SD still looks good on a smaller tv.

Yeah, Gordon and joed have it damn straight. Quantity over quality every time! Medium definition tv is great. The more medium the better! Just think of all the wonderful channels you might miss if you had definition quality over channel quantity.

Indeed, I am a big fan of medium definition tv. One of the great things that a broadcasting station can do to help us out in this regard is to create a couple of subchannels to use up some of the bandwidth that would otherwise be wasted on providing high definition to its primary channel. This is a super shortcut to medium definition. Then, the station can demand that the cable company carry all of its signals, thereby further diluting the HD quality of all HD channels on the cable. Oh man, ............ talk about medium definition heaven!!! This is really what you call a 'twofer' or 2 for 1 situation.

So keep on demanding all the HD channels out there. It's a great way to be sure that you will always be able to experience the joy of medium definition television.

Now, here's a little tip for all of you fellow medium definition tv lovers. .......... Demand the NFL Network on your cable system. This channel offers only 24 hours or so of significant programming per year, but that leaves 8,736 other hours in the year that this channel can work to ensure that your tv definition is not too high or too low, but JUST right. ........... MEDIUM DEFINITION ALL THE WAY!

Not sure how NFL Network fits into the mix, but I can name about 50 channels carried that have less than 24 hours of programming a year that I'm interested in, yet I'm forced to subsidize for others. I've got no problem having others subsidize my favorites (including the NFL).

But I'm 100% in agreement that you should call any provider you have that refuses to carry the NFL Network and demand carriage. Not just for you, but for everybody. Maybe some non-NFL fans will become converts and enjoy all that the fun that rooting for a favorite team can do for them and the people in their city.

I'm with you, too, Mr. Panther. I could, possibly, root for my "hometown" Patriots 3 hours per year on this channel. An exciting and rewarding prospect for sure.

I wouldn't wish rooting for the Pats for 3 hours on anybody.

But it is a bargain - less than minimum wage per hour.

Quality.

I'd estimate that over 90% of the programming I watch is available in HD. The days of watching random HD programming for the eye-candy factor alone are over for me. Now I just want what I watch to look and sound as good as it can.

+1......

I'll judge after the channels go live...

Hmmmm. If I showed you the best looking analog cable or OTA signals I've ever had or seen, alongside the worst, so-called HD I've ever had or seen, on an HD-capable display with a decent scaler, you might change your tune. Especially if it was shot on modern, digital-based equipment, and was involving something extremely fast moving like a basketball game.

Either that, or you have an excessively high tolerance for annoying, digital artifacts.

Can 1 of the channels be the Victoria's Secret channel?

I want 150 HD channels, And no SD channels wasting Bandwidth. I'd even be willing to pay 30-40 for that.

Doesn't E* already have a VOOM "style" channel already which occasionally shows babes scantily clad in undergarments and/or sexy, nighttime apparel?

(I don't know if they ever show that as I've never had the channel, but I thought I remembered someone here saying they do on occasion.)

Heck, just a few years back, most of the SD channels on D* and E* looked almost as good as the HD ones do now. And we weren't paying a premium for them .

Yeah, I'm going to go with quantity hands down...My eyes suck as it is, so they would have to be pretty large gaps in quality for me to notice. I'm more interested in having more than 20-25 channels to flip through for hd programming.

This is why we will never get great HD from D*. Many, many simply do not care; probably watching on old B & W tv's. I guess if I had a 27" analog RCA tv I wouldn't care either but since HD was invented (?) to provide the best in video quality AND I invested mucho dienero in a HDTV, I want QUALITY.

Actually, I think you are right on. Let's hope the day will come when we can pick and choose. I doubt there will be more than 15 to 20 that I will ever watch.

Indeed, there are several new E* HD channels I haven't sampled yet.

Give me quality and I don't just mean quality picture wise. I mean quality programming too.

Setanta is the reason I went D*. As a non HD channel, it probably has the worst quality of any station on any system, but they carry the EPL or BPL or whatever their calling it this year. Here's hoping for better quality with d10 - though I'll still watch the horrible feed of the premiership over just about any other program.

You are absolutely right.... And still available from the C-Band satellites with most channels...