# What is HD Lite?



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

I've seen the term used in this forum without a clear understanding of the definition of 'HD Lite'. Is that when an HD program is broadcast in 4x3 with bars on the side?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

No... dbconsultant.

HD-Lite does not have any official basis.. But here is a link that describes one possible definition for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-Lite


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

It's the false assumption that 1080i transmitted a 1080X1280 or 1080X1440 is not High definition.

Step back and watch the hornets.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> No... dbconsultant.
> 
> HD-Lite does not have any official basis.. But here is a link that describes one possible definition for it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-Lite


Thanks, Ron!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> It's the false assumption that 1080i transmitted a 1080X1280 or 1080X1440 is not High definition.


Actually, the false assumption is that different de-facto standards cannot be established for different media. An example might be trying to hold newsprint print quality to that of magazines. It only seems fair not to call what DirecTV offers by the same name that broadcast television offers (as specifically defined by ATSC standards).

HD-Lite also takes into consideration that while the image is being compromised by horizontal pixel averaging, it is further being mushed by reduced bit-rates as compared with broadcast standards. Lossy compression damage goes up exponentially with repeated application.

I would note that we should all be thinking of HDTV in terms of 16:9 instead of your portrait view of 27:32; the "resolution" is discussed in terms of horizontal x vertical.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

harsh said:


> I would note that we should all be thinking of HDTV in terms of 16:9 instead of your portrait view of 27:32; the "resolution" is discussed in terms of horizontal x vertical.


So what do we call it when an HD program is broadcast in 4x3 with the 'HD bars' along the side (like you see sometimes on ESPNHD) instead of 16x9?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

dbconsultant said:


> So what do we call it when an HD program is broadcast in 4x3 with the 'HD bars' along the side (like you see sometimes on ESPNHD) instead of 16x9?


Not HD. 

Every once in a while there is an old movie (like on one of the Voom channels) that has been been scanned from original film and the original aspect ratio was 4:3. In that case, the movie is still in HD just not 16:9 widescreen.

But that is usually the exception. Things like your ESPN example are not HD at all... though they are being broadcast at HD resolution, the video inside that signal is not significantly higher resolution than the 480i/p it was originally produced in.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dbconsultant said:


> So what do we call it when an HD program is broadcast in 4x3 with the 'HD bars' along the side (like you see sometimes on ESPNHD) instead of 16x9?


Pillarbox.

As for "HD Lite", I define that as "An often derogitory term applied to HD compression that involves using a lower resolution than 1920x1080."


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

Now I'm really confused. Is High Definition defined by what you see? Or, is it defined by the Advanced Television Standards Committee? 

--- CHAS


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HIPAR said:


> Now I'm really confused. Is High Definition defined by what you see? Or, is it defined by the Advanced Television Standards Committee?
> 
> --- CHAS


Here are the ATSC standards as they are now. "HD LITE" is an approved standard. Here is the site to the PDF that all can look at that list all the standards. It will list that there are 3 standards 1080 (both of the 3 have subsets for I & P) and 1 for 720p. The chart 7.3 pg 17 gives the comparison chart.

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a81.html


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Bottom line... there are several different standards for HDTV resolutions. Some of these standards permit resolutions that are less detailed than others.

"HD Lite" is a very much unofficial and undefined term which generally is used by people to denote an HD channel's resolution not appearing to be as good to them as another. In fact, "HD Lite" could be a non-standard resolution, or poor compression, or poor OTA signal, or any number of things combining to make the signal appear less pristine than a customer expects.

Essentially, "HD Lite" is a morphing term used to describe general dissatisfaction with reception of HD... and it may or may not be describing a standard/accepted resolution.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Yep.. HDMe... That is my take on the term in a nutshell ....


----------



## dude2 (May 28, 2006)

Yep, and if you have a plasma or lcd set that is not 1080p all you can watch is hdlite as anything anyhigher in quality it can not image. You need a set that is 1080i or 1080p for full hd.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

My official unofficial definition of HD Lite. 

High definition programming that is sent out in one resolution by the content distributor, then lowered down by the programming provider. *Cough* DirecTV *cough*


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

HIPAR said:


> Now I'm really confused. Is High Definition defined by what you see? Or, is it defined by the Advanced Television Standards Committee?
> 
> --- CHAS


High Definition is defined by the marketing department.


----------



## robill (May 13, 2005)

James Long said:


> Pillarbox.
> 
> As for "HD Lite", I define that as "An often derog*A*tory term applied to HD compression that involves using a lower resolution than 1920x1080."


I define that as "An often ACCURATE term applied to HD compression that involves using a lower resolution....


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dude2 said:


> Yep, and if you have a plasma or lcd set that is not 1080p all you can watch is hdlite as anything anyhigher in quality it can not image. You need a set that is 1080i or 1080p for full hd.


Regardless of the brain damaged resolution of the transmission, the receiver converts it back to one of the ATSC broadcast standards. Most older plasmas and LCDs are displaying a triple (or quadruple) compromised image due to downscaling, recompression, upscaling and finally downscaling again.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Throwing gas on the fire....

It seems to me to be what owners of really big screen TV sets and high priced home theatres call anything they don't like the look of. Myself I don't have $50,000+ to drop on a Home video center. :icon_peac 

They'd really be unhappy with the NJN signal I can receive here.... Four channels of digital content and all 4:3 and not very hi-res. :grin: 

I find that in general the HD channels off of dish to look fine with a 32"LCD that I am sitting 3 to 4 foot away from. I even use it for my computer monitor now with wireless Keyboard and Mouse and 16' of VGA cable. Do the Dish Channels look the same as the OTA, of course not and they never will. Dish (and DirecTV) are taking the MPEG2 from the stations and compressing it with MPEG4 technology. Anytime you take a compressed source and recompress it there will be a quality loss. Basic Video rule. That's why you try and capture video in a DV format AVI to filter and edit before converting it to DVD format for example.

Cable will have the same problems as they need to compress the signal too. FIOS holds out the promise of better picture quality but whether or not we will ever see it? 

The only way the picture won't suffer is if it is passed through untouched. I suspect that is what the purists really want and if we lose half our channels so that the signal can passed unchanged they'll be happy. :sure: 

They sound to me as if they don't care how much it costs and if we need a forest of dishes on our roof to get the best signal, well to them thats OK as I see it.

One persons humble opinion after reading HD lite threads on several forums. 

Cheers


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

FIOS compresses too. It has to change to files that are diff from the straight OTA as well.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

Well I dont lose any sleep over this stuff but to me the definition of HD Lite is simple.

If a program source is in 1920x1080 but a retransmitter like E*, D* or cable decides to send it out in 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 then thats HD Lite.

If CBS for example were sending out 1440x1080 in the first place then it'd be a different story.

Sure bit rates play a role in PQ also but thats true of any type programming.. SD or HD. The whole premise of HD though is about resolution. So to just decide to whack a good percentage of it out is questionable.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DP1 said:


> If a program source is in 1920x1080 but a retransmitter like E*, D* or cable decides to send it out in 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 then thats HD Lite.


And yet the output of my receiver is 1920x1080. E* has decided to send it out in full HD. (I can also choose to use 720p and 480 formats for output.)

What they do to compress the signal on the satellite is a choice. By your definition 1440x1080 at 19meg would be "HD Lite" but 1920x1080 at 7meg would not be "HD Lite". Which would look better?


----------



## akron05 (Dec 14, 2005)

Overcompressed HD, or cheaply-made HD.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

James Long said:


> And yet the output of my receiver is 1920x1080. E* has decided to send it out in full HD. (I can also choose to use 720p and 480 formats for output.)
> 
> What they do to compress the signal on the satellite is a choice. By your definition 1440x1080 at 19meg would be "HD Lite" but 1920x1080 at 7meg would not be "HD Lite". Which would look better?


And the output of my upconverting DVD player is 1920x1080 also... so what.. thats not the resolution of the source. So what if the receiver is sending out a signal like that whether it's upconverting a SD channel or a 1440x1080 channel.

As to the second point, totally slashing bitrate isnt really an option regardless because then the channels would look like ass to everyone viewing them no matter what size display they had, the resolving capability it has, or how far away they sat from it because of macroblocking and whatnot.

Thats why they choose to throw out resolution instead. Most displays in peoples homes cant fully resolve 1920x1080 in the first place so the people dont even know what they're missing. Bitrate is a variable measurement anyway depending on what type of programming it is and where it's originating from.. resolution isnt. Not like CBS sends out a 1440x1080 signal sometimes and 1920x1080 other times.

But just because most people dont even know that resolution is being thrown out doesnt make it right. If 1440x1080 is simply "good enough" as far as resolution for HD goes, then the networks themselves might just as well send it out that way whether it's OTA or for retransmission.

Like I say, I'm not whining about it. I'm just giving *my* definition of HD Lite. For me, it's throwing out resolution. It *could* be bitrate too if they wanted to actually double dip us (skimp on both res and bitrate) but usually thats not a big problem since once they jack with resolution they dont need to dedicate the same bitrate anyway.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Please keep in mind that this is a family forum and keep your temper and language in check.

Thanks for your definition ... accept it's flaws or rewrite it. 

BTW: The thing that gets me the most about those people who are generally angry and generally focused 100% on frame size and rarely acknowledge bitrate is that they also refuse to acknowledge that the 1440x1080 and 1280x1080 frame sizes are appropriate ATSC standards for transmitting DBS. There is the connotation that "HD Lite" is not HD. By the standards, D*'s and E*'s HD (and Voom's 1440x1080 HD) all remain "HD".


----------



## William (Oct 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> ...refuse to acknowledge that the 1440x1080 and 1280x1080 frame sizes are appropriate ATSC standards for transmitting DBS. There is the connotation that "HD Lite" is not HD. By the standards, D*'s and E*'s HD (and Voom's 1440x1080 HD) all remain "HD".


I'm only aware of 18 formats that are approved as ATSC standards. So you are saying that the ATSC has approved more formats (it is now at least 20) and now include resolutions like 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i? Where is this listed and when were this new formats approved? If the ATSC has approved these formats then they are officially HD but if not....


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

James Long said:


> BTW: The thing that gets me the most about those people who are generally angry and generally focused 100% on frame size and rarely acknowledge bitrate is that they also refuse to acknowledge that the 1440x1080 and 1280x1080 frame sizes are appropriate ATSC standards for transmitting DBS. There is the connotation that "HD Lite" is not HD. By the standards, D*'s and E*'s HD (and Voom's 1440x1080 HD) all remain "HD".


Oh I totally acknowledge that those formats are in place for DBS so like you said.. it's a choice they're making to change the incoming resolution to something else.

To me it's not much different than ordering a mixed drink at a club. I can order a Rum and Coke and some bartenders would put a lil extra Rum in it, some would put a textbook amount in it and some might skimp a tad bit. Either way it's still a Rum and Coke. Some patrons would whine about it.. some would just belt it down and say mmmm gimme another!

And I dont think using the term "HD Lite" is a negative connotation. Again no different than "Bud Light". It's still beer either way... it just has a little less of "something" and thats how it's differentiated.

The only difference is in that case Budweiser admits it through labelling.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

William said:


> I'm only aware of 18 formats that are approved as ATSC standards. So you are saying that the ATSC has approved more formats (it is now at least 20) and now include resolutions like 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i? Where is this listed and when were this new formats approved? If the ATSC has approved these formats then they are officially HD but if not....


They are not part of the 18 approved formats for OTA, but satellite isn't OTA. They are compression formats -- listed as HD by the ATSC for DBS.


----------



## William (Oct 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> They are not part of the 18 approved formats for OTA, but satellite isn't OTA. They are compression formats -- listed as HD by the ATSC for DBS.


I understand they aren't for OTA but where does the ATSC say (and listed) that they are "official" ATSC DBS HD formats?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The other problem is TV manufacturers FOLLOW ATSC standard (excluding EDTV sets), but the sat prividers doesn't, giving watering down resolution and bandwitdh .


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

William said:


> I'm only aware of 18 formats that are approved as ATSC standards. So you are saying that the ATSC has approved more formats (it is now at least 20) and now include resolutions like 1440x1080i and 1280x1080i? Where is this listed and when were this new formats approved? If the ATSC has approved these formats then they are officially HD but if not....


Table 7.3 of the following ATSC standard lists 1440X1080i as a valid format. One could still argue(and I'm sure many will) whether this is HD or not...

http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_81.pdf


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> The other problem is TV manufacturers FOLLOW ATSC standard (excluding EDTV sets), but the sat prividers doesn't, giving watering down resolution and bandwitdh .


Yet every E* HD receiver (D* ones too) provide ATSC standard HDTV on their HD outputs. The HD Lite crowd is arguing over the form of compression chosen.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

It is nice to see someone else post the ATSC DBS standards other than myself. Was beginning to think no one else could read a white paper.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I've posted them enough times, so I agree with whatchel1!


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

dave1234 said:


> Table 7.3 of the following ATSC standard lists 1440X1080i as a valid format. One could still argue(and I'm sure many will) whether this is HD or not...
> 
> http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_81.pdf


If you still remember calc of 4th grade , you can find by yourself - it does not fit in HD definition because of weird ratio ie NOT 16:9. Same concern raise when you see 1280x1080 format.
Remember - all HD formats have mandatory ratio 16:9 !


----------



## William (Oct 28, 2006)

P Smith said:


> If you still remember calc of 4th grade , you can find by yourself - it does not fit in HD definition because of weird ratio ie NOT 16:9. Same concern raise when you see 1280x1080 format.
> Remember - all HD formats have mandatory ratio 16:9 !


Normally that would be true but while 1920 (x 1080) uses 1:1 (square) pixels 1280 uses 1:1.5 ratio pixels and 1440 uses 1:1.33 ratio pixels to make a faux 1.78 (16x9) picture. Also 1280 throws away 691,200 pixels and 1440 throws away 518,400 pixels. That's a lot of lost info that can't be regained by up-scaling. I was surprised to see that the ATSC approved the non square pixel approach.

Also that leads to the question: Which one does E* uses on MPEG 4 channels?


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

William said:


> Also that leads to the question: Which one does E* uses on MPEG 4 channels?


I believe the 1920x1080 MPEG 4 channels like the LiL CBS and NBC's for example they convert to 1440x1080. It's just the Vooms that are 1280x1080.

At least according to the chart here:

http://www.satelliteguys.us/bfg/dish-hd.htm


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

DP1 said:


> I believe the 1920x1080 MPEG 4 channels like the LiL CBS and NBC's for example they convert to 1440x1080. It's just the Vooms that are 1280x1080.
> 
> At least according to the chart here:
> 
> http://www.satelliteguys.us/bfg/dish-hd.htm


1280x1080 is in the atsc standard as well (as a constraint). Not that I like it but it is HD.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

For TV sets (EDTV) with non-square pixels.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Question: When is a standard not a standard?

Answer: When it does not fit my idea of what the standard should be.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

Jim5506 said:


> Question: When is a standard not a standard?
> 
> Answer: When it does not fit my idea of what the standard should be.


Sure, Jim. But personally I still dont see this issue as having anything to do with standards anyway.

Yeah we've established it's well within written "standards" for a provider to take an incoming 1920x1080 signal and send it out as 1440x1080.

But whats wrong with simply referring to it as HD-Lite if and when the provider(s) choose to do that?

For the sake of conversation if the topic comes up what else would people rather it be called.. "resolution reduction" or something?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DP1 said:


> But whats wrong with simply referring to it as HD-Lite if and when the provider(s) choose to do that?


Because the people who coined that term and use it most often are using it in a derogatory manner. Similar to what Michael Richards (actor who played Kramer) said but not to the same level. The people calling the downrez sampling of HD "HD Lite" generally mean it as an insult - not as a description of technology.

If you want to live your life on derogatory labels I suppose one more won't kill you.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

James Long said:


> Because the people who coined that term and use it most often are using it in a derogatory manner. Similar to what Michael Richards (actor who played Kramer) said but not to the same level. The people calling the downrez sampling of HD "HD Lite" generally mean it as an insult - not as a description of technology.
> 
> If you want to live your life on derogatory labels I suppose one more won't kill you.


Oh brother. Now I have to worry about not only being politically correct in regards to possibly offending humans, now I have to worry about it in regards to machines and the way they're set up to spit out data?

Is it ok with you if I stare my car in the headlights and call it the biggest POS ever made the next time it wont start.. or no?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

The problem I have with the term "HD Lite" is twofold.

#1 It is often used to refer to things incorrectly, i.e. the aforementioned actual standards that some people don't know are standards... and used incorrectly, it gives the impression that it is wrong rather than being undesirable. We may not like the lower resolutions, and can complain about them for sure... but complaints are better heard when they are made from informed and accurate people. I've said it often, that when folks who don't know what they are talking about rant and complain, the big companies figure they don't really know what they are talking about and ignore the complaints.

#2 It seems to have a floating definition that means whatever the person using it means to say at that moment. This makes it fairly ambiguous as a term and relatively useless since no one at any given time really knows what the phrase is intended to mean by the person using it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDMe said:


> The problem I have with the term "HD Lite" is twofold.


You must get a real kick out of the word "tivo".

HD Lite does indeed have several applications and you just have to figure out which one from the context. In any event, it is a derogatory reference to using lossy compression methods overzealously to save bandwidth.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

Funny that nobody ever coined the term SD-Lite.

Afterall, some of the same things that are plaguing HD now have plagued SD channels all along too. With the bottomline being that the providers dont see fit (due to legimate tradeoffs or otherwise) to offer PQ as good as it can be.

From that perspective nobody should be surprised with whats happened in HD. And in defense of the providers, even if they wanted to do the "right thing", it'd be harder now than ever before anyway. Not only because theres more channels than ever before but they're having to double dip with HD and SD versions at the same time.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

DP1 said:


> Funny that nobody ever coined the term SD-Lite.
> 
> Afterall, some of the same things that are plaguing HD now have plagued SD channels all along too. With the bottomline being that the providers dont see fit (due to legimate tradeoffs or otherwise) to offer PQ as good as it can be.
> 
> From that perspective nobody should be surprised with whats happened in HD. And in defense of the providers, even if they wanted to do the "right thing", it'd be harder now than ever before anyway. Not only because theres more channels than ever before but they're having to double dip with HD and SD versions at the same time.


Good point. True, full resolution, SD can look almost as good as some HD. My DVD player looks outstanding on my 61" HDTV. Nearly as good as many "HD" channels.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

DP1 said:


> Funny that nobody ever coined the term SD-Lite.


True. Especially since one of the first things done to a SD signal for satellite broadcast is to sample it at 480x480 resolution ... not 640x480. The issue that brought "HD Lite" in to use has been going on for years with SD.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Well, some of Dish channels going in 352x480 or so . But I recall initially PPV was in 704x480 ( actually, not long time ago, perhaps before LiL and HD era ).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DP1 said:


> Funny that nobody ever coined the term SD-Lite.


It is out there. We call it Comcast. On some of the "throw-in" channels like MTV and VH1, you'll find that some distribution organizations offer VHS resolution (320x240?).


----------



## ilkjh (Oct 6, 2006)

dave1234 said:


> Good point. True, full resolution, SD can look almost as good as some HD. My DVD player looks outstanding on my 61" HDTV. Nearly as good as many "HD" channels.


It is frustrating that many complaints could be eliminated, and the level of enjoyment and value of the sat providers could be greatly enhanced, if they would just provide that increased level of bandwidth for the SD channels.

While HD (or HD-Lite) is the ultimate experience with them now, most viewers still watch a great deal of SD. With the popularity of HDTV sets, this could be a *fantastic marketing strategy for them as well. Lots of good PR would be generated.*


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I think the term "-Lite" came from a person who hate BudLight .


----------



## William (Oct 28, 2006)

ilkjh said:


> It is frustrating that many complaints could be eliminated, and the level of enjoyment and value of the sat providers could be greatly enhanced, if they would just provide that increased level of bandwidth for the SD channels.
> 
> While HD (or HD-Lite) is the ultimate experience with them now, most viewers still watch a great deal of SD. With the popularity of HDTV sets, this could be a *fantastic marketing strategy for them as well. Lots of good PR would be generated.*


I only watch HD so they could eliminate SD altogether and devote all available bandwidth to HD.  I would love to see MPEG4 1920x1080p 24fps 30mbps with TrueHD or at least 1.5 mbps DD+.:eek2:


----------



## Da Rafsta (Oct 26, 2006)

William said:


> I only watch HD so they could eliminate SD altogether and devote all available bandwidth to HD.  I would love to see MPEG4 1920x1080p 24fps 30mbps with TrueHD or at least 1.5 mbps DD+.:eek2:


I like your way of thinking! :grin:


----------



## NYSat (Nov 18, 2005)

Can someone post sample photos of the difference in PQ?


----------



## linuxworks (Dec 27, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Not HD.
> 
> Every once in a while there is an old movie (like on one of the Voom channels) that has been been scanned from original film and the original aspect ratio was 4:3. In that case, the movie is still in HD just not 16:9 widescreen.


for the short time I had HD on D*, I was able to catch a showing of 'northern exposure'. clearly, a tv series way before HD came out.

they did seem to rescan the film or video and produce something really close to HD quality. yes, still 4:3 but the resolution was much better than any SD, coming close to what I'd get from a well-done dvd, locally played over component or hdmi.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

NYSat said:


> Can someone post sample photos of the difference in PQ?


Look here:

http://www.widemovies.com/directvcomp.html

Maybe this can help. I'm not sure how the test was conducted and how current the information is. Capturing the pictures must have been a tedious process.

My analysis -- The number of effective pixels is the smaller part of the problem. When there is frame to frame motion, those compression induced macroblocks are what's really ruining the image. MPEG compression works on both the space and time.

I recently visited the local tech store and took an up-close look at BlueRay. I couldn't see a patchwork of macroblocks but the image was still not crystal clear. There was a slight smearing effect that that shimmered over the image. I'm being extremely critical here but it looked much better than anything I've seen on satellite.

--- CHAS


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HIPAR said:


> I couldn't see a patchwork of macroblocks but the image was still not crystal clear.


Something that I noticed was that the local stores seem to choose the lowest resolution displays to hook the disc players up to (if they hook them up at all; HD DVD players are selling largely sight unseen).

My local BB has the Samsung unit hooked up to a 32" 720p LCD. It looks good, but not great. The Sony is connected to a Sony 40" BRAVIA LCD flat panel too, but at least it is a 1080p.

Hook these players up to a >=60" LCoS via HDMI and we'll start discussing picture quality.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> I think the term "-Lite" came from a person who hate BudLight .


If you're going to drink a beer, have a real beer.

Hi Hi --- CHAS :lol:


----------

