# HD Quantity vs Quality and a little HD-Lite



## Earl Bonovich

ajwillys said:


> While I love to see higher quality HD channels, I have to play devils advocate here. Wouldn't this result in less HD channels for all the sat and cable companies that don't have the bandwidth for such a mandate. Those companies have to decide either to not carry HBO because they do not have the bandwidth for their mandate or to drop some other HD channel to free up enough bandwidth for that pristine HBO HD. Would you rather have lots of channels in mediocre HD or a few channels in pristine HD?
> 
> Now imagine that your favorite HD channel is the one that gets cut because we know it ain't gonna be HBO that gets cut.





P Smith said:


> Your proposal totally controversial and works in favor to the providers - increase profit. Would be nice if you will be on our side - customers.
> 
> Think if your ideas will be applied to milk or whiskey manufacturing.


You can take it either way:

What is better for the consumer: 
-) Less channels at that maximum bandwith requirement
-) More channels at a lower bandwith requirement, even if that means a picture that is not "the best it can be", but is still "pretty damm good"

If there where no $$$ restrictions, and technological barriers... it is a no brainer. However, there is (and has to be) a balance between "utopia" and "reality"


----------



## falken

Earl Bonovich said:


> You can take it either way:
> 
> What is better for the consumer:
> -) Less channels at that maximum bandwith requirement
> -) More channels at a lower bandwith requirement, even if that means a picture that is not "the best it can be", but is still "pretty damm good"
> 
> If there where no $$$ restrictions, and technological barriers... it is a no brainer. However, there is (and has to be) a balance between "utopia" and "reality"


I vote for #1, and they call me personally and ask which channels I would like them to carry. Sure hope we don't have any sports fans.


----------



## P Smith

I'm disagree with you,Earl, with such yes/no all/nothing argumentation. I understand you got the chair where you will be always watch your mouth, but remember days when you was free at TiVo forum ? 
I'm not first time posting on our [customer] side of HD-Lite, actually from a beginning of the campaign. And I remember original quality and later discussion when providers put us in bended position by the 'your' last arguments; I was and still disappointed by Scott's position when he was agree in person with Ergen to expand number of HD channels in favor of decrease PQ. We made a lot of buzz, brought HD-Lite to masses, we didn't fail - providers failed to adhere to ATCS standards.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

I am very much aware where my chair sits... and really... I don't have to watch my mouth, or what I write.... I never have... and still don't.
As much as you or anyone of the many others want to think I do... 

I give you all the benefit of the doubt that you are speaking your own private opinions... why can't people understand, that unless I state otherwise... my comments are my own? I am a big boy... I can make my bed and sleep in it to... 

I state my dislike for certain things... and I state my opinion on others.
So if you want to think my fingers are attached to strings, that are controlled by someone else... think again.

The problem is... I really have no major issues with what DirecTV is doing... really don't... wouldn't matter if I have never talked to someone inside DirecTV or not... 

My overal tune has not changed much in the 7 years...

On this particular topic... and the HD-Lite topic.
I would have the EXACT same answer today as I would have 4 years ago.

I would STILL prefer to have more quality content.... then less "ultimate" content. I have long since had appriciation for the technology and it's limits.

I still today this day, don't see why people have gotten so bent to the extreme level they have over the HD-Lite.

And yes... I have seen some of the HD-Lite channels on other providers...
And will acknowledge that it looks better... but on the flip side... I can look back at what I got and say... damm that still looks really good, and I also have this channel as well.

If they provided the full image... what do you lose?
Would I have Universal in HD... or no TNT... what about ESPN2?
More shuffling and part time channels?

Or should they have just not launched additional channels and waited 2-3+ years to get more bandwith up there?


----------



## skyboysea

Earl Bonovich said:


> What is better for the consumer:
> -) Less channels at that maximum bandwith requirement
> -) More channels at a lower bandwith requirement, even if that means a picture that is not "the best it can be", but is still "pretty damm good"


Earl,
the problem is: who defines what is "pretty damn good"? 
Look at what happened to SD. It was pretty damn good and now most of the channels look like crap. What's stopping anyone from doing the same with HD? First you cut resolution, after to cut bandwidth and you end up with a picture that is pretty damn bad.
I personally think that's a good idea if the program providers set some limits on how their signal can be manipulated. If that's going to limit the number of channels available, so be it. We do not really need all the proliferation of channels we have now.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

skyboysea said:


> Earl,
> the problem is: who defines what is "pretty damn good"?
> Look at what happened to SD. It was pretty damn good and now most of the channels look like crap. What's stopping anyone from doing the same with HD? First you cut resolution, after to cut bandwidth and you end up with a picture that is pretty damn bad.
> I personally think that's a good idea if the program providers set some limits on how their signal can be manipulated. If that's going to limit the number of channels available, so be it. We do not really need all the proliferation of channels we have now.


Your right... there is no one entity that defines "pretty darn good"...

And yes, SD has gotten worse over the years... and all we can hope is that haver the new sats are up, they complete the shutdown of the MPEG-2 HD, and free up a significant amount of bandwith on the 101 sat... that SD material can be improved...

Or at least we would have the HD alternative then.


----------



## tkrandall

Personally, I think the pendulum in on the side of there being too many channels (for the limitation of the given bandwidth and encoding technologies). 

Kind of ironic that just as "HD" is coming the masses, it's delivery mechanisms are downgrading it to a quality well below it's nominal design potential.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> I'm disagree with you,Earl, with such yes/no all/nothing argumentation. I understand you got the chair where you will be always watch your mouth, but remember days when you was free at TiVo forum ?
> I'm not first time posting on our [customer] side of HD-Lite, actually from a beginning of the campaign. And I remember original quality and later discussion when providers put us in bended position by the 'your' last arguments; I was and still disappointed by Scott's position when he was agree in person with Ergen to expand number of HD channels in favor of decrease PQ. We made a lot of buzz, brought HD-Lite to masses, we didn't fail - providers failed to adhere to ATCS standards.


I'm not sure who administers ATCS standards, but for ATSC standards don't forget to use the appropriate ones! For transferring HD via satellite E* and D* are using defined ATSC standards. The standards for satellite do NOT require full 1920x1080.

Whatever your rant may be, try to stay factual.


----------



## Drew2k

Earl Bonovich said:


> I am very much aware where my chair sits... and really... I don't have to watch my mouth, or what I write.... I never have... and still don't.
> As much as you or anyone of the many others want to think I do...
> 
> I give you all the benefit of the doubt that you are speaking your own private opinions... why can't people understand, that unless I state otherwise... my comments are my own? I am a big boy... I can make my bed and sleep in it to...
> 
> I state my dislike for certain things... and I state my opinion on others.
> So if you want to think my fingers are attached to strings, that are controlled by someone else... think again.


Earl ... Maybe you need to make this portion of your signature just a tad bigger? 

All comments are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of DBSTalk.com, or DirecTV

After you posted your response above I thought, "Earl should have something in his signature aobut this!", and then I looked. How long has it been ther? I never even thought to look until now!


----------



## P Smith

James, this things become oxymoronic - we all know if midlleman degrade signal between source and TV, it's still degraded. Regardless the word DIGITAL. 
And our TV sets in masse adhere to *two *ATSC *HD *standard resolutions: 1280x720 and 1920x1080.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Drew2k said:


> Earl ... Maybe you need to make this portion of your signature just a tad bigger?
> 
> All comments are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of DBSTalk.com, or DirecTV
> 
> After you posted your response above I thought, "Earl should have something in his signature aobut this!", and then I looked. How long has it been ther? I never even thought to look until now!


About 4-5 months now... when somewhere else someone quoted me as a spokesperson for DirecTV.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> James, this things become oxymoronic - we all know if midlleman degrade signal between source and TV, it's still degraded. Regardless the word DIGITAL.
> And our TV sets in masse adhere to *two *ATSC *HD *standard resolutions: 1280x720 and 1920x1080.


Your complaint was that the carriers were not following ATCS standards ... I'll translate that to ATSC. Your complaint is bogus since the formats the carriers are using ARE ATSC standards. TVs have different ATSC standards.

Think of the standards as traffic laws. For example, the speed limit. On a county road the speed limit may be posted at 45. You can drive any speed you want below that and you are fine. But go on the interstate and you will find out that the rules change. In many areas you will see a minimum speed posted. Your choice of speed is limited in a different way on the interstate. We call both of these standards "speed limits" yet those standards vary based on type of road (and many other factors).

The ATSC gave satellite their standard. Like it or not it is a standard. Complain about the standard if you must, but stop spreading the lie that the carriers are not following ATSC standards.


----------



## P Smith

Let me add some references from satguys.

By Voayger6:
"If you read the A/81 standard (Table 3), no where is it defined as a HD standard just compression formats for DBS. Whereas the FCC and ATSC has defined HDTV as 16:9. When D* advertises "all in 1080i", they would have to use 1920 (1920X1080) to comply with the HDTV standard. 1440X1080 does not meet the 16:9 requirement for HDTV. See page 9 of the ATSC DTV standards: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_53-Part-1-2007.pdf"
http://www.satelliteguys.us/938965-post155.html

By riffjim4069:
"to reiterate what I have posted in the past...

The FCC references and incorporate the ATSC Standard for DTV. The ATSC defines HDTV as 1920x1080p, 1920x1080i, and 1280x720p. According to page 12 of the Recommended Practice: Guide to the Use of the ATSC Digital Television Standard (see below references), "The ATSC Standard enables transmission of HDTV pictures at several frame rates and one of two picture formats; these are listed in the top two lines of Table 5.1 . The ATSC Standard also enables the delivery digital sound in various formats."

References:
1. OET -- DTV FAQ's 
2. ATSC Standards (HDTV definition page #12)
3. http://www.atsc.org/standards/practices/a_54a.pdf (Table 5.1 - page #24)

Table 5.1 (top two lines of ref #3):

Vertical Lines Pixels Aspect Ratio Picture Rate
1080 1920 16:9 60i, 30p, 24p
720 1280 16:9 60p, 30p, 24p

What D* and more recently E* are doing is stealing lines of horizontal resolution to create what is known as HD-Lite (1440x1080i, 1280x1080i), which does meet the ATSC standard and, in my opinion, does not look like HD.

People often ask me, "Is this is what all the excitement is about? Is there something wrong with my new set" I tell them there is nothing wrong with their set and there is nothing wrong with their eyes...other than the wool being pulled over them. The difference between HD and HD-Lite is like the difference between Crisp and Crap. Many channels are nothing more than a 1280x1080i crap sandwich...a excretion filled horror that will only leave the viewer with a bad taste in his or her mouth.

I have to disagree...DirecTV, and others, are guilty of fraud, deceptive advertising, and taking money from customers for services not rendered. A DirecTV HD customer has a reasonable expectation to receive a) a High-Definition broadcast signal as defined by the FCC and b) receive "The Best Quality" HD signal according to the DirecTV advertising. Needless to say, DirecTV has failed the litmus test and [hopefully] should lose this class action case. Although customers and HD-Lite haters will be vindicated, I doubt they will receive much in the form of compensation - perhaps a $50 rebate if they purchased a HD receiver or three free months of HD programming).

We shall see..."
http://www.satelliteguys.us/936621-post145.html


----------



## P Smith

"I'll translate that to ATSC. Your complaint is bogus since the formats the carriers are using ARE ATSC standards. TVs have different ATSC standards."
Just bunch of words ... Don't tell me about sub-standards and non-degrading PQ of that conversions .
I'm SW and HW engineer and know the pitfalls in real numbers, not by your words.


----------



## James Long

And it is ALL irrelevant ... the FCC set standards for broadcast TV, not satellite. This is like saying that the State of California setting their speed limits at 65 forces Maryland to allow 65 MPH on their roads.

PSmith there were days that I considered you an intelligent addition to the discussion. But when you block quote material that is totally irrelevant I fail to see what you are adding other than lies and confusion.

Bottom line, satellite providers are following valid ATSC standards and no amount of "wishful thinking" by you or anyone who has championed the "HD Lite" cause will change that fact. It is time to return to intelligent discussion.

Follow the standards for the work you're doing. In this case, if you're doing DBS follow DBS standards.


----------



## P Smith

Well, I can come back to my own point - getting from content providers ( HDNET, local stations, etc ) a MPEG-2 signal in 1920x1080 or 1280x720 only (!) and cut significant amount data ( 1/3 in case 1920->1280x1080 ) plus overcompressing doesn't tell me the DTH provider on right path of following FCC and ATSC rules and standards.

[Please, lets stay with real standards, not blur to personal level of intelligence ].


----------



## Christopher Gould

Earl Bonovich said:


> I would STILL prefer to have more quality content.... then less "ultimate" content. I have long since had appriciation for the technology and it's limits.
> 
> I still today this day, don't see why people have gotten so bent to the extreme level they have over the HD-Lite.


Earl you are not alone. More choice is always better.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> ... doesn't tell me the DTH provider on right path of following FCC and ATSC rules and standards.


Once again, a California cop is trying to enforce an interstate speed on a county road in Maryland.  
Does the output of the receiver display on an ATSC standard TV? 


> [Please, lets stay with real standards, not blur to personal level of intelligence ].


That's whay I'm trying to do ... yet you keep bringing in OTA standards that simply _do not apply_ to the satellite segment we are discussing.


----------



## Jeremy W

Christopher Gould said:


> Earl you are not alone. More choice is always better.


So when does your next paycheck from DirecTV come in?


----------



## P Smith

Why ?! Our TV sets have to adhere to the FCC mandated ATSC standards.
Not long time ago, you should remember a battle about naming TV sets - DTV, ETDV, HDTV - now it settles to normal - because of the standards.

BTW, A/81 is a part of ATSC package and applied to DTH.


----------



## Jeremy W

P Smith said:


> Our TV sets have to adhere to the FCC mandated ATSC standards.


Yes they do, and so does the output of our receivers. But between DirecTV and your receiver, the FCC-mandated ATSC standards do not apply.


----------



## premio

It really isn't right to call D* HD, HD. But HD is a buzz term that has giant consumer recognition, so we are stuck with things like FM HD. Does it look acceptable? On my 50" it sure does. If I had a 70" I might be more irritated. If more stations demand certain bitrates in their contract, this could be a non-issue someday soon.

Can someone clarify D*'s MPEG4? It was my understanding that is actually H.264 compression being offered which should give us a lot to look forward to as soon as the available bandwidth is increased.

I have often thought that they needed to incorporate some sort of compression throttling encapsulation to the protocol. What I mean, is that during movies with lots of fast image movement, The compression should dynamically be lowered and temporarily use more bandwidth to prevent artifacts, when the fast movements subside, it should kick back to a higher compression. This would preseve picture quality and would provide a balance point between the quanity and quality debate. Another point to consider is that we may be lucky that the processing power of the HR20 is limited, as evidenced by the jerkiness of MPEG4 cruise controls. This will force D* to keep compression rates relatively low to make sure the decoder will be able to process the feed without any hiccups. This of course has nothing to do with if they choose to broadcast it in 1440 or 1280.


----------



## Jeremy W

premio said:


> I have often thought that they needed to incorporate some sort of compression throttling encapsulation to the protocol. What I mean, is that during movies with lots of fast image movement, The compression should dynamically be lowered and temporarily use more bandwidth to prevent artifacts, when the fast movements subside, it should kick back to a higher compression.


They already have this, it's used on MPEG2 and MPEG4. It's called statistical multiplexing, and the reason it's not more effective is that it has to balance all of the channels on a transponder. So even if one channel needs a really high bitrate to not macroblock, there's only so much headroom that the statmux can give it.


----------



## aim2pls

the quality of HD vs compression that you will see in the future .... depends on a number of factors 

1) PROFIT
2) PROFIT
3) PROFIT 
4) PROFIT ... and keeping consumer "*****" factors down just to the point that is doesn't effect >>>>>> PROFIT


----------



## P Smith

Jeremy W said:


> Yes they do, and so does the output of our receivers. But between DirecTV and your receiver, the FCC-mandated ATSC standards do not apply.


Cool !

Would be nice if you spend same amout of your time to read PDF files as post here.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> Well, I can come back to my own point - getting from content providers ( HDNET, local stations, etc ) a MPEG-2 signal in 1920x1080 or 1280x720 only (!) and cut significant amount data ( 1/3 in case 1920->1280x1080 ) plus overcompressing doesn't tell me the DTH provider on right path of following FCC and ATSC rules and standards.


Nobody is arguing that the carriers aren't compromising the PQ. The FCC adopted ATSC standards for the respective media and as such they will find D* and E* in compliance.

What is wrong is your continued attempts to assert that D* and/or E* are in violation of established standards or policies. They are both operating within the _applicable_ ATSC guidelines and no amount of ranting on your part is going to change that. If you would like the carriers to be held to a higher standard, you're not going to accomplish that here. You'll have to work to change the _applicable_ standards.


----------



## P Smith

harsh, did you read A/81 pp 15-17 ?

I want be sure where you got the word "applicable".


----------



## RAD

My answer would be it depends. Yes, I'd love to have full bitrate/resolutions, remember what all the SD channels looked like back in the early days of D* and E*? But it gets down to reality, the different distribution companies, DBS, cable, telco, whatever are all saying look how many channels we will/can have, not our HD is 1920x1080i. Now for the it depends, if we're saying we need to reduce bandwidth/resolution in order to carry channels like Voom (sorry folks that like Voom) or a HD version of HSN I'd vote no. But if we're saying they need to do it to add something like TMC then OK, but just a bit (at least no lower then what E* does so D* customers don't need to listen to the you suck more then we do line all the time).


----------



## Stewart Vernon

People ultimately want quality AND quantity... but we almost consistently choose quantity.

Do you go to individual stores for each item you want to buy? Or do you go to larger stores that have multiple items? A specialty store might have better product, but you'd have to make several trips to get everything you need.

The public consistently speaks, and everyone demands "when is Dish/DirecTV/cable carrying channel YYY in HD" and the companies hear this... and cater to the customers by emphasizing quantity over quality when they have to make that choice.


----------



## machavez00

That is the whole purpose these for new satellites going up, to be HD exclusive and hopefully at full PQ, be it 720 or 1080. They will have the capacity to carry 150 HD channels. I don't know off hand what the current total is, active and announced, but once they hit 151 actual channels up and broadcasting, then we can start worrying that they are lowering the PQ. Until then there should not be any reason to dumb down the PQ

BTW what are all the N/A transponders on the 101, 110, and 119? (and why are they not being used?)


----------



## P Smith

Lets keep allegories close to the subject - HD channels;

I'd like to propose fiction but very close case: imagine you sending images or motion picture via Internet; you got decent camera (HD perhaps) , did nice editing, etc - now want share it with your grandma on other coast; sending ...
but your ISProvider crop it, overcompress it and delivered in watchable condition - 'pristine' as they will define; and they will telling you how appreciable you must be, because they sent it and gave same ability to many ppl. Actually take IPTV and add the 'that's will better for all' rule. Now what ? Will be you happy ?


----------



## John in Georgia

tkrandall said:


> Personally, I think the pendulum in on the side of there being too many channels (for the limitation of the given bandwidth and encoding technologies).
> 
> Kind of ironic that just as "HD" is coming the masses, it's delivery mechanisms are downgrading it to a quality well below it's nominal design potential.


+1


----------



## RAD

machavez00 said:


> They will have the capacity to carry 150 HD channels. I don't know off hand what the current total is, active and announced, but once they hit 151 actual channels up and broadcasting, then we can start worrying that they are lowering the PQ.


You're assuming that D* was computing the 150 number based on full res/bandwidth, maybe they were computing it based on their HD-Lite resolution.


----------



## RAD

machavez00 said:


> BTW what are all the N/A transponders on the 101, 110, and 119? (and why are they not being used?)


Where are you getting info for N/A transponders at 101? D* is using all their licensed transponders at all three slots. D* does not have all the licenses at 110 and 119, E* has most of those, hence why they're N/A at D*.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

P Smith said:


> Lets keep allegories close to the subject - HD channels;
> 
> I'd like to propose fiction but very close case: imagine you sending images or motion picture via Internet; you got decent camera (HD perhaps) , did nice editing, etc - now want share it with your grandma on other coast; sending ...
> but your ISProvider crop it, overcompress it and delivered in watchable condition - 'pristine' as they will define; and they will telling you how appreciable you must be, because they sent it and gave same ability to many ppl. Actually take IPTV and add the 'that's will better for all' rule. Now what ? Will be you happy ?


Okay... let's continue with your analogy....

"You" have your finished HD Video... that you want to send.
Your Neighboor has also done the same....
Your Other neighboor does too... and a few others on the block...

Say 10 people...
You all have private fiber links to your ISP... so there are no issues with you uploading your video real time...

But your grandmother, and all the other people's grandmothers, cousins, aunt's, ect... are connected via a connection that has limitation...

That limitation has a fixed maximum point, that cannot be exceed... only so much can fit in the download pipe.

So what do you do?
Do you say to the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th video source... sorry... no more room for you, as the first 6 are filling up the entire download pipe....

Or do you ask (or were already granted permission via your upload contract agreement), if something can be done to the video source... so all 10 can exist... with an understanding that the limitation is being worked by introducting more download pipe, but will take time to implement.

So at the end... all 10 feeds are available to all the people that want them...
At a quality level that is not at the best it could be... but at best it "can" be given all the technological limits.

----------------------

Now let's extend that a bit more:

New technology is ready... Not only is there more download pipe... There is a new compression mechanism... That will allow MORE content, in less space... and you now have more space.

And then in more tiem... the download pipe remains the same... but the compression mechanisms get even better and more efficant... which results in even more space... and better picture...

-----------------------

Let's continue:
The definitions that keep getting thrown around are "geek" talk...
99% of the consumer population has absolutely no idea what we are talking about here.... They don't know 1920x1280 from 2x4... Resolution and bitrate are not what they are concerned about.

They are concerned about how that picture looks like on their new TV they just bought. They are concerned if they are watching the baseball game, can they see the blades of grass on the field... the blood on the running back chin, and the CSI crime lab in full glory and sound....

That is the customer base that DirecTV, Dishnetwork, IPTV, FIOS, and even OTA targets... they are not targetting us nerds that discuss the 1's and 0's

----------------------

Continuing on...

What is one of the #1 complaints we see about OTA....
Bitstarving.... They comply with the EXACT definitions of the ATSC standards, but compress the hell out of the picture... which results in a chain reaction affect....

Since both DirecTV and Dishnetwork (and pretty much every carrier) get's their local HD via OTA.. .that bitstarved overcompressed (which if I am correct doesn't have a definition in the ATSC standards), image... results in poor images in every distribution pipe.

So comming back to HD-Lite...
You have a choice in the issue... Alter the resolution some, or crank up the compression.... I'll take the altered resolution, because compression artifacts are so much more noticeable (IMHO).

------------------------

This whole argument boils down to the technology...
Not just the technology of HD
Not just the technology of the compression of the HD
Not just the distribution mechanisms
Not just the cost of the receiving equipment

There are so many factors that go into from the filming the content and getting it on your TV at home... If you narrow in on one (HD-Lite/Resolution), and focus on that one.... the other's get neglected (Over Compression)... but they can't be... all those factors have to come into consideration as they are all part of the process.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> ... but your ISProvider crop it, overcompress it and delivered in watchable condition - 'pristine' as they will define; and they will telling you how appreciable you must be, because they sent it and gave same ability to many ppl.


AOL used to do precisely this to still pictures.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> harsh, did you read A/81 pp 15-17 ?
> 
> I want be sure where you got the word "applicable".


More specifically table 7.3 of A/81.

Where do you find your version of the DTH satellite broadcast standard?


----------



## premio

Earl Bonovich said:


> Okay... let's continue with your analogy....
> 
> That limitation has a fixed maximum point, that cannot be exceed... only so much can fit in the download pipe.
> 
> So what do you do?
> Do you say to the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th video source... sorry... no more room for you, as the first 6 are filling up the entire download pipe....


You allow whoever pays more through. Screw Net Neutrality :nono:



Earl Bonovich said:


> The definitions that keep getting thrown around are "geek" talk...
> 99% of the consumer population has absolutely no idea what we are talking about here.... They don't know 1920x1280 from 2x4... Resolution and bitrate are not what they are concerned about.
> 
> They are concerned about how that picture looks like on their new TV they just bought. They are concerned if they are watching the baseball game, can they see the blades of grass on the field... the blood on the running back chin, and the CSI crime lab in full glory and sound....
> 
> That is the customer base that DirecTV, Dishnetwork, IPTV, FIOS, and even OTA targets... they are not targetting us nerds that discuss the 1's and 0's


I'm going to disagree here. A coworker of mine was having a party at his house. He had been raving bout how great his Samsung LCD looked for weeks. I get to his house and his other friends are raving about it. (These people have money, if that matters)

I thought it looked horrible, and they were suprised by my assertion. Let's just say it was in VIVID mode and using the COAX out from comcraps box.

I switched his video input to the component cables that were hooked up, tuned to a test pattern, and by eye calibrated the baseball game. Obviously a 10000% improvement.

OH! They didn't even know the HD channels were in the 900's, nor really what a HD channel was.

Point? Him and all his HD adopting buddies didn't even notice the bad PQ. They just assumed it was good because it was on an HD panel. They definately noticed the improvement, but it didn't hit them emotionally like it would many people here.

You're right people don't care about the nerd stuff, but you give the non techies WAY too much credit.


Earl Bonovich said:


> What is one of the #1 complaints we see about OTA....
> Bitstarving.... They comply with the EXACT definitions of the ATSC standards, but compress the hell out of the picture... which results in a chain reaction affect....
> 
> Since both DirecTV and Dishnetwork (and pretty much every carrier) get's their local HD via OTA.. .that bitstarved overcompressed (which if I am correct doesn't have a definition in the ATSC standards), image... results in poor images in every distribution pipe.
> 
> So comming back to HD-Lite...
> You have a choice in the issue... Alter the resolution some, or crank up the compression.... I'll take the altered resolution, because compression artifacts are so much more noticeable (IMHO).


Agreed!


----------



## P Smith

That's it.

Earl, Internet providers adding pipes and using new technology for increase bandwidth without killing data; at least they're just slow down speed for individuals.

Our DTH providers continue killing PQ .

I don't want drink 27% watered down Cognac and see 30% reduced resolution with bit-starving movies on my 1080 TV set ! We all have a taste of good picture in movie theaters or HD/BR DVDs. Don't steal it !


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> More specifically table 7.3 of A/81.
> 
> Where do you find your version of the DTH satellite broadcast standard?


They are 'allowed' compress those resolutions; I don't see where they are indulged to crop original.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

P Smith said:


> That's it.
> 
> Earl, Internet providers adding pipes and using new technology for increase bandwitdh without killing data; at least they're just slow down speed for individuals.
> 
> Our DTH providers continue killing PQ .


So since we agree on that....

What do you do until those new pipes can be installed (Aka the new SATs), or the new technology can be enhanced and utilized (further rollout and enahncement of MPEG-4)

So you not add any more channels, thus stunting the growth of HD
(Then we can get into the entire Chicken or the Egg arguments about why HD has taken this long)....

Or do you add them, but at an altered level.

---------------------------

Either way this entire argument changes in about 3 months.... 
(At least with regards to DirecTV)


----------



## Earl Bonovich

P Smith said:


> They are 'allowed' compress those resolutions; I don't see where they are indulged to crop original.


So you would rather see... and overcompressed full resolution version...
VS something that is cropped a bit, but has less compression?

What good does it do to have the rest of the resolution, if the overall PQ has to degrade?


----------



## P Smith

Earl Bonovich said:


> So you would rather see... and overcompressed full resolution version...
> VS something that is cropped a bit, but has less compression?
> 
> What good does it do to have the rest of the resolution, if the overall PQ has to degrade?


Don't split my wordings - resolution and bandwidth stay together in my posts.

Sweetening poison ? Hehe - 'a bit' - 30% ! From 1920 to 1280 !


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> They are 'allowed' compress those resolutions; I don't see where they are indulged to crop original.


D* isn't REQUIRED to change the resolution to 1440x1080i (or one of the other listed formats), but they are PERMITTED to change the resolution for transmission. It is part of the standard!

As long as you are limited to an 8 meg stream something has to give. Resolution is one way of reducing the load ... severe compression and less key frames is another way. Pick your poison - and no, you can't have more bandwidth. There are other channels to carry!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

If the providers had stuck to full resolution and maximum bandwidth per channel... then for the last several years everyone would have been mad at only having 5 HD channels or whatever smaller number there would be room for having.

Shelf space, to use an analogy, costs money... if you can't get on the shelf then you can't sell your product. If you were a channel would you rather nitpick for full resolution and bandwidth and maybe not get your channel on the air? Or let them tinker with the signal a bit to squeeze you in there so you can start making money?

And for Dish/DirecTV/whomever... do you refuse to carry channels that you could agree with them to carry AND your customers want, just because you'd have to tinker to squeeze it in now? Or do you make the decision to sacrifice a bit to carry that channel everyone wants you to air?

Of course the catch-22 here... once everyone in the food chain accepts the lower quality... that becomes the de-facto standard, so even when bandwidth increases we don't necessarily see increased quality.

SD channels have been lower quality for much longer than HD has existed now... and that became a standard of sorts.

Dish's proposed new offering of MPEG4 only service will be both SD and HD at those new satellites... so they will still have to make some choices, although perhaps not as hard at the first.

For as much as I want HD at the highest quality... its hard for me to get too up in arms over the level of degradation thus far when it would mean less channels and variety to watch. If the HD was only slightly better than SD, then we have something to riot about... but right now, I'll live with it and hope things will improve in the future with increased bandwidth.


----------



## P Smith

You're guys so bullish with DTH providers... I don't get it.

Again, there is Cognac and there is Brandy - you can't take more then that authentic provinces can make.  So, it's still have a taste as a Cognac !

Wish all content providers will follow HBO requirement !


----------



## James Long

HBO's "requirement" isn't too bad. At least they seem to be working WITH the carriers to get a signal of a usable size. They can still do six HDs per transponder with HBO's requirement (although all six probably won't be HBO on each transponder). If they were demanding 14-15 it would be a problem. 8 is fine.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Seems to me, we really need to break (not brake) this discussion into atomic questions before we go arguing our points:
1) Who is the authority to define HD(TV)?
2) What have they defined as HDTV?
3) Are there other defined terms that might play: EDTV, SDTV, ?
4) What are the originating sources sending?
5) Eyeball reviews

General axioms we've all been reminded and are reminding to other people: Digital TV is NOT necessarily HDTV. The FCC did not mandate broadcast HDTV by February 17, 2009; just Digital TV. SDTV and EDTV are not HDTV.

My thoughts by question:
1) The FCC to me is most sensible authoritative source. As they also have relied upon the ATSC, we can also draw upon them.

2) From the ATSC glossary in _Guide to Use of the ATSC DTV Standard_ dated December 4, 2003: http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf



> high-definition television (HDTV) High-definition television provides significantly improved picture quality relative to conventional (analog NTSC) television and a wide screen format (16:9 aspect ratio). The ATSC Standard enables transmission of HDTV pictures at several frame rates and one of two picture formats; these are listed in the top two lines of Table 5.1. The ATSC Standard also enables the delivery digital sound in various formats.


Further table 5.1:


Code:


Vert. Lines Pixels Aspect Ratio Picture Rate
1080      1920    16:9           60I, 30P, 24P
 720      1280    16:9           60P, 30P, 24P
 480       704    16:9 and 4:3   60P, 60I, 30P, 24P
 480       640     4:3           60P, 60I, 30P, 24P

ATSC standard A53 revised this year also talks about ITU-R recommendation 1125: "ITU-R Recommendation 1125 further defines "HDTV quality" as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard."

ITU-R also allows 1080p according to Wikipedia (I don't have access to the ITU-R standards to verify.)

HDTV is defined as an MPEG2 bitrate of 19Mbs. [I have no particular problem with more efficient encoding schemes that would reduce the resultant bitrate; but certain quality standards must still be met to qualify as HDTV. I am not yet aware of definitive sources for such standards, aside from what might be in the ITU-R recommendations.]

3) SDTV seems to roughtly translate as "NTSC quality in digital form." EDTV apparently is 480p or 576p and seems to use non-square pixels.

4) The broadcast networks are pretty much locked into 720p or 1080i HDTV standards by the FCC (if they are sending HDTV). Anyone with definitive information as to the cable networks?

5) This is for each of us to decide for ourselves.

My interim conclusion: the current offerings based on a 1080x1440 using non-square samples is not true HD. Sure, lots better than NTSC, but does not fit the strict definition. With sufficient analysis, I might be persuaded that the non-square samples at 1440 sampling rate is sufficiently close to HD to qualify, just as I'm already willing to allow more efficient encoding schemes to replace the MPEG2 standard.

Further commentary: A) Standards based nomenclature is rather important. Companies get sued when they "spin" their product or service as something that really isn't true to accepted standards. Or the government can step in and legislate compliance if industries don't voluntarily meet standards.

B) I understand very well that DBS companies need to conserve bandwidth to present us with more channels that are at least "near" HD in quality. Colloquially: I gots no problems with that. I only gots problems when they try to calls something that isn't HDTV by the HDTV name. Calling a Yugo a luxury car doesn't make it so.

C) I'm willing to have a mix of true HDTV channels and near HDTV channels if that gets me more better viewing options.

D) I sure would like to see the ITU-R specs on quality. I think that is an important part of the whole shootin' match.

Good luck with this topic. I'm sure it will continue for years, resurfacing from time to time whenever someone gets a new 120" TV 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> D* isn't REQUIRED to change the resolution to 1440x1080i (or one of the other listed formats), but they are PERMITTED to change the resolution for transmission. It is part of the standard!
> 
> As long as you are limited to an 8 meg stream something has to give. Resolution is one way of reducing the load ... severe compression and less key frames is another way. Pick your poison - and no, you can't have more bandwidth. There are other channels to carry!


While 1440x1080i is part of a standard, I have yet to find it called an acceptable part of the HDTV standard. DTV standard, yes. But you and I both have 'splained to many people that DTV is not HDTV. Perhaps you can point us to an authoritative source that includes this format as part of HDTV.

My point is not that DBS providers aren't providing MUCH better PQ than SD. But does it meet the requirements to be HDTV as the providers are calling it? If not, lets call it something else.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## jacksonm30354

I'd rather have 100 channels in maximum resolution than 150 just to say we have more. I think alot of the current SD channels are useless - why do we need 5 or 6 shopping channels? I think there is a balance between quality and quantity. I would not want it to get to a point where the PQ suffers to add a channel. I would rather wait until a new sat is launched to offer that channel and leave the existing ones alone.

I am glad I live in a larger market. I really hate that the local stations in some areas are using sub channels to provide networks that don't exist in that market. I.E. CW and in some instances the major networks. the subchannel takes away from the PQ of the primary signal PLUS the subchannel network might actual offer HD in most other markets but since you get it via a subchannel will never see that. I kind of wish that sub channels could be limited to the automated weather/radar that most seem to be doing. Having more than 1 subchannel gives the viewers in the market a 2nd class signal on the main channel as well as the subchannels.


----------



## Jeremy W

jacksonm30354 said:


> I think alot of the current SD channels are useless - why do we need 5 or 6 shopping channels?


Because these channels pay DirecTV to carry them.


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> Perhaps you can point us to an authoritative source that includes this format as part of HDTV.


An interesting question ...

My main interest in this thread has been to counter the idea that what D* and E* are doing is somehow a violation of the standards. The "less than 1920x1080i" resolutions are allowed by the oft mentioned: *A/81 Direct-to-Home Satellite Broadcast Standard* which is a standard that _allows_ DBS signals to be compressed and restored.

The suggested (but not required) input formats on page 15 include two that are HD without question and one that is common to SD (scanning NTSC at 720px per line):


Code:


SMPTE 274M     1080 1920
SMPTE 296M      720 1280
ITU-R BT.601-5  483  720

Page 17 contains a large table of "allowed compression formats" ... this table includes:
(Footnotes changed to comments.)


Code:


1080 1280 (16x9)          (23.976/24),(29.97/30),(59.94/60) P
1080 1280 (16x9)                      (29.97/30),(59.94/60) I
1080 1920 (Square),(16x9) (23.976/24),(29.97/30),(59.94/60) P
1080 1920 (Square),(16x9)             (29.97/30),(59.94/60) I
1080 1440 (16x9)          (23.976/24),(29.97/30),(59.94/60) P
1080 1440 (16x9)                      (29.97/30),(59.94/60) I
 720 1280 (Square),(16x9) (23.976/24),(29.97/30),(59.94/60) P
 480  720 (4x3),(16x9)    (23.976/24),(29.97/30),(59.94/60) P
 480  720 (4x3),(16x9)                (29.97/30)            I
 480  704 (4x3),(16x9)    (23.976/24),(29.97/30),(59.94/60) P
 480  704 (4x3),(16x9)                (29.97/30)            I
 480  640 (Square),(4x3)  (23.976/24),(29.97/30),(59.94/60) P
 480  640 (Square),(4x3)              (29.97/30)            I
 480  544 (4x3)           (23.976)                          P
 480  544 (4x3)                       (29.97)               I
 480  480 (4x3)                       (29.97/30)            I
 480  528 (4x3)           (23.976)                          P
 480  528 (4x3)                       (29.97)               I
 480  352 (4x3)           (23.976)                          P
 480  352 (4x3)                       (29.97)               I

Both E* and D* take signals that were initially one of the three input formats, run them through one of the intermediate compression formats allowed, then present them to customers in a user selected format generally chosen from a list of output formats generally compatible with ATSC TV monitors.

*Is it still HD?*
That is the million dollar question. There is no point in the specification that says "if this compression scheme is used the signal remains HD" or "if this compression scheme is used the signal ceases to be HD".

You stated "_HDTV is defined as an MPEG2 bitrate of 19Mbs._" Yet such signals are not common. It seems that too many people are relying SOLELY on the fact that D* and E* choose something other than 1920x1280i or 1280x720p from that table above and completely ignore all other influences.

So I'll answer the question with a series of questions:

If HBO delivers a 8Mbs signal to D* and E* for each of their channels, and that channel happens to be encoded 1920x1080/24p ... and both systems pass through HBO's signal without further changes. Is that signal HD?

If HBO delivers a 8Mbs signal to D* and E* for each of their channels, and that channel happens to be encoded 1280x1080/24p ... and both systems pass through HBO's signal without further changes. Is that signal HD?

If HBO delivers a 19Mbs signal to D* and E* for each of their channels, and both systems re-encode it to 1920x1080/30i but at a 8Mbs rate and pass it without further changes. Is that signal HD?

If your answer is not the same for all questions why are you biased against one form of compression vs another?

*My answer...*
Nothing is in HD ... even 1920x1080 encoded streams ... because nothing is passed unadulterated by some form of PQ stealing compression.

And that's my answer to your question, along with a reminder of the point I am making (D* and E* are following ATSC standards).

BTW: You may note that I used 24p signals above. It could be 30p, 60p, 30i or 60i as well. I still have hope that SOME movie network will actually use the 24p standard that matches film frame rate instead of converting to 30/60 frames. It is just another step away from "original".


----------



## Earl Bonovich

jacksonm30354 said:


> why do we need 5 or 6 shopping channels?


Why?
Since they PAY the carriers to be on their networks, they are a major source of income to the carrier... which in turn keeps our bills from growing quicker then they are.


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> An interesting question ... [Original ellipsis]
> 
> My main interest in this thread has been to counter the idea that what D* and E* are doing is somehow a violation of the standards.
> ... [redaction: Tom Robertson]
> 
> *Is it still HD?*
> That is the million dollar question. There is no point in the specification that says "if this compression scheme is used the signal remains HD" or "if this compression scheme is used the signal ceases to be HD".
> 
> ... [further redaction: Tom Robertson]
> 
> If your answer is not the same for all questions why are you biased against one form of compression vs another?
> 
> *My answer...*
> Nothing is in HD ... even 1920x1080 encoded streams ... because nothing is passed unadulterated by some form of PQ stealing compression.
> 
> And that's my answer to your question, along with a reminder of the point I am making (D* and E* are following ATSC standards).
> 
> BTW: You may note that I used 24p signals above. It could be 30p, 60p, 30i or 60i as well. I still have hope that SOME movie network will actually use the 24p standard that matches film frame rate instead of converting to 30/60 frames. It is just another step away from "original".


For HDTV to be a _defined term_ there must be suitable tests to apply. Breaking the issue into mulitiple parts: resolution, colorimeter, and quality is a valid methodology for testing "Is it HD". So people who focus on the resolution alone and find that the test fails, need not really go any farther. Should that test succeed, then we can focus on the other tests. Remember all tests must pass to become HDTV. (Note I allow that, conceivably, non-square pixel resolutions that result in delivered resolutions defined as HD could be satisfactory to pass the test.)

Your point "D* and E* are following ATSC standards" seems like a weak response ONLY because the standards also define compression factors that are very clearly not HD. So D* and E* can be _following standards_ and delivering next to nothing. Surely you do not mean this.

Alas, as you know your 3 bitrate questions are incomplete without an encoding type. So I'll interpret as best I can while breaking the questions into their salient compenents:
HBO 1280x1080 Square pixels: nope. not a defined HD input nor output.
HBO 1280or1440x1080 suitably non-square pixel--might be.
HBO 8Mbs MPEG4 delivered--might not be HD. 8Mbs MPEG4 is pretty weak to be HD in my mind. I'd consider it, but no slam dunk.
HBO 19Mbs MPEG2 delivered as 8Mbs MPEG4--same comment as above.
HBO 19Mbs MPEG4 delivered (just a comparison for fun)--WOOHOOO! Bring it on!!! 'Bout time someone really stepped up to HD. 

The million dollar question is so true. All so true is the "Nothing is in HD" comment. But we are talking about a marketing promise made by the providers. If HDTV is to become a _defined term_ then the fact that you and I agree that 19Mbs MPEG2 ain't enough, doesn't matter. But someone will have to take ownership of the defined term.

And I did notice you used the /24p format. Thank you for reminding us about that important consideration.

Cheers all,
Tom


----------



## James Long

As a marketing term "HD" seems to be any signal that displays in 16x9 in higher than SD resolution. Getting all technical is pointless when it comes to marketing people. (Is anyone advertising any "ED" channels?)

Monitors have a specific resolution requirement to be labeled HD _by the industry_ ... it isn't 1920x1080i. 1080i HDTV must be 810i in 16:9 viewable area, 720p HDTV must be 540p in 16:9 viewable area. Monitors less than 480p or NTSC output tuners are "SDTV". EDTV is what falls between.

So "marketing" allows a 810i or 540p monitor to be labeled "HDTV" ... with no limits on the number of pixels per line. D*'s marketing of their signal may be true and deceptive (broadcasting in 1080i) but if a TV displaying what D* and E* are calling HD can be labeled "HDTV" by the industry why can't the signal be labeled "HD"?


----------



## P Smith

And some important argument from creators of movies, events, etc. 
They select proper equipment and technology and own master class experience for create the SOURCE. They had a vision and effort to produce it and they definitely want to preserve quality of video and sound of it !
That's where came THX certification and George Lucas was the man who break the wall !
Remember !


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> They are 'allowed' compress those resolutions; I don't see where they are indulged to crop original.


They aren't cropping; they are scaling. That's how you get from 1920 to 1280. If the ATSC hadn't intended to allow those matrices, they wouldn't have published them.

If you want more content, you have to make some compromises. Given the existing HDTV display resolutions, scaling is how things are. If you don't have a 1080p set, it is likely that most (if not all) of what you're watching is scaled.

Like it or not, the bandwidth of all transmission technologies is limited so they have to figure out ways of getting the information out that satisfies the subscriber base. Most seem to be happy not to have ghosting and/or snow.


----------



## P Smith

harsh, you're circling again on lamer's level - those arguments 'user can be blind' doesn't applicable in such discussions .

My point as an engineer - deliver best, preserve at least. And George Lucas's THX is the level ! 

Please re-read Tom's last posts here and be intelligent, not the crowd's voice.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> My point as an engineer - deliver best, preserve at least. And George Lucas's THX is the level !


As an engineer one should know the resolution and bandwidth occupied by an NTSC signal without correction. 

And one should not incorrectly call scaling a picture "cropping". Nor should one say that DBS providers are not following standards when they clearly are (you just don't like the standards). Nor should one confuse technical standards with marketing terms.

Should one?


----------



## P Smith

nitpicker !


----------



## HIPAR

Well now home entertainment was my baby's wish
So I hopped into town for a satellite dish
I tied it to the top of my Japanese car
I came home and I pointed it out into the stars
A message came back from the great beyond
There's fifty-seven channels and nothin' on

--- Bruce Springsteen

So if you actually want to watch, I guess having 150 channels might increase your probability of finding something on. 

We all know, in a digital industry where bits are bucks, quantity and quality are mutually exclusive. You can quote specs, bits, pixels, ATSC standards and argue about HD Lite all you want. I've come to the conclusion that if it doesn't look HD it isn't HDTV. Here's the catch .. most viewers don't know what to look for.

The bottom line Harvard Business School people know this and are betting more is what we want. They know the I have more channels then you have argument is having a major effect in the marketplace.

So, to those of us who really care, forget about the promise of HDTV. As time moves on, the only place you're going to see it is from your blue laser disk player.


OK my answer to the origional question:

Give me quality on the half dozen or so channels I actually watch.

--- CHAS


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> As an engineer one should know the resolution and bandwidth occupied by an NTSC signal without correction.
> 
> And one should not incorrectly call scaling a picture "cropping". Nor should one say that DBS providers are not following standards when they clearly are (you just don't like the standards). Nor should one confuse technical standards with marketing terms.
> 
> Should one?


If we're nitpickin' (and we know we are and we know that is what we do  ), then we must not call a standard that is not verified HDTV compliant as HDTV, should we?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## P Smith

Some very good points from a lawyer at end of the thread: http://www.satelliteguys.us/directv-hd-discussions/77318-directv-getting-sued-over-hd-lite.html


----------



## aim2pls

I would bet the HSN would pay for as much bandwidth as they could get once they go HD


----------



## Stewart Vernon

If you guys really want to argue what "HD" means... try searching for the historic use of high-definition in terms of television.

You will find that it was used many many years ago when television was going from ~200 lines of resolution to something more like the current NTSC ~400 system.

Historically "HD" was used to refer to anything greater than the "old" standard in use commonly at the time.

We also know that a few countries in Europe had analog 700-line television broadcast for a long time before the Japanese 1080-line system OR the digital movement we are now undergoing.

As someone else alluded to, "HD" is really more of a marketing term than anything, and it tends to get redefined as needed. Unfortunately our language is based on constantly redefining words that have been around for a long time... so it is often hard to pinpoint exactly what something means to today's ears.


----------



## Jeremy W

aim2pls said:


> I would bet the HSN would pay for as much bandwidth as they could get once they go HD


I would think that the shopping channels will be some of the last ones to go HD. Where's the benefit for them?


----------



## James Long

Tom Robertson said:


> If we're nitpickin' (and we know we are and we know that is what we do  ), then we must not call a standard that is not verified HDTV compliant as HDTV, should we?


Who verified what as HD? We're back to the answer "there is no such thing as HD on satellite".

I was trying to find a reference for the minimum number of scan lines to certify a monitor as HD earlier today ... I kept finding European standards that are even worse. To be labeled HD all a European set needs to do is ACCEPT 1080i and 720p.

HD is whatever the marketers want it to be.


Jeremy W said:


> I would think that the shopping channels will be some of the last ones to go HD. Where's the benefit for them?


If the stuff looks better in HD than SD there is a benefit. Isn't Wealth HD a shopping channel?


----------



## premio

Jeremy W said:


> I would think that the shopping channels will be some of the last ones to go HD. Where's the benefit for them?


To sell those DIAMONDS!

Another thought: Is there anyway DBS could combine IPTV into it's stream to increase available channels?


----------



## James Long

premio said:


> Another thought: Is there anyway DBS could combine IPTV into it's stream to increase available channels?


Sounds like a good idea to me. Both DBS providers are planning to use IPTV for"On Demand" programs (as well as satellite pre-feeds). Why not give access to live stuff.


----------



## Jeremy W

premio said:


> Is there anyway DBS could combine IPTV into it's stream to increase available channels?


The reason IPTV allows acccess to more channels is because they're not all streaming at once. DirecTV has to (pretty much) address the entire nation with their feed, which means there is a good chance that every channel will actually be in use, negating any benefit. There is also the problem of MASSIVE delay if you tune to a channel that's not broadcasting, because of the request having to go over the Internet and then the video having to go 22,000 miles up and back down before you get to see it.

IPTV is for terrestrial use, not satellite.


----------



## Jeremy W

James Long said:


> Isn't Wealth HD a shopping channel?


Not even close: http://www.wealthtv.net/


----------



## James Long

Jeremy W said:


> Not even close: http://www.wealthtv.net/


Somehow I was thinking it was a "how to get rich" channel ... along the lines of the kind of shopping channel that plays a lot of theme programs that are infomercial in nature (every commercial in the program happens to be for the product prominently used in the main program). It looks like it is more than that.

BTW: For IPTV I was thinking satellite delivery of regular channels and regular broadband IPTV delivery of niche channels and on demand content. Perhaps even allow customers use an IPTV service like SkyAngel is moving to on their DVRs.


----------



## Jeremy W

James Long said:


> Somehow I was thinking it was a "how to get rich" channel


Yeah, it's more of a "why you'd want to be rich" channel.


----------



## Ron Barry

premio said:


> To sell those DIAMONDS!
> 
> Another thought: Is there anyway DBS could combine IPTV into it's stream to increase available channels?


Based on what I know about video delivery on the web, delivering HD content let along SD content with the current incoming bandwidth limitations is currently not feasible. THe internet it way to unpredictable to deliver a steady video stream at a current rate not to mention what type of load something like this would add to net.

I worked on a project that was looking at web video cam delivery and even to get 30 frames a second at a reasonable rate and size and reliability required a walled community that could provide a reliable quality of service. The internet is not built for that type of system.

I think at this point, the best the DBS companies can hope for is using it as a VOD delivery mechanism and for web management.


----------



## Tom Robertson

James Long said:


> Who verified what as HD? We're back to the answer "there is no such thing as HD on satellite".


(in best Robin Williams voice) Buzzz... Thanks for playing our game, but you lose, Mr. 

Ummmm....what do you think the networks use to push all the "real" HD around?  (Ok, I cheated, AFAIK most use 44Mbs MPEG2 as the intermediary broadcast bitrate. [I gather Fox has another ace up their sleeve.])

Is there some reason we can't use the resolutions as specified by the FCC and ATSC for broadcast as the definition? The concept that "both the major DTH providers don't provide it therefore it can't be the definition" does not seem to compel as an argument. (And seems circular too.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## James Long

Define it as strictly as you like, Tom. You're not going to find it!

So, what is the point of all the whining and complaining? If this were a "cause" that actually could bring HD to DBS it would be of value. But it isn't. The "cause" seems to be just a preference for one way of messing up the signal over another. We get the "wah, wah, wah - they scaled it to 1280x1080i !" complaints as if scaling were somehow so much worse than the alternatives! It can be left 1920x1080i and be ruined just as easily.


> Thanks for playing our game, but you lose, Mr.


The point is we _*all*_ lose. Especially those who fixate on a set of numbers and forget to actually watch the content.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Tom Robertson said:


> Is there some reason we can't use the resolutions as specified by the FCC and ATSC for broadcast as the definition? The concept that "both the major DTH providers don't provide it therefore it can't be the definition" does not seem to compel as an argument. (And seems circular too.)


I think the main reason why that falls short is because the ATSC broadcast standards discussed for HD (or really for digital to be more precise) only apply to OTA. Satellite and cable have a different set of standards that apply to them.

So there is a definition of "HD" that applies to your HD television... another that applies to OTA broadcast... and yet another that applies to satellite/cable transmission.

And also as someone else mentioned... MPEG4 (and MPEG4) are lossy compression methods anyway, designed and intended to throw away bits and bytes that the algorithm deems not-necessary or noticable...

So... and something I've never seen addressed... What is the REAL difference between a 1920x1080 stream heavily compressed with MPEG2 vs a downrezzed 1440x1080 stream less-heavily compressed with MPEG2?

It is entirely possible, depending on compression settings, that BOTH could result in an identical end-image on your and my TV screens. We are never getting all the 1920x1080 bits with MPEG2 involved (same for MPEG4) anyway... so just how much are we getting?

I haven't seen anyone actually be able to compare this to see just how much effective resolution we really are losing.

Consider that for it to still be 1080 (or 720 depending on the resolution)... MPEG2 or MPEG4 cannot make bit-sacrificing decisions for vertical detail or the signal would no longer be 1080 or 720... so the compression and bit-discarding must happen along the horizontal.

Since we know there is loss involved... How much of that 1920 gets to us? 1440 is about 25% less detail than 1920... so it is entirely possible that 1920x1080 actually comes through to us no better than 1440x1080 effective resolution after compression anyway using MPEG2 or MPEG4 at the current settings.

Reducing the resolution to 1440x1080 for transmission may in reality be less about giving us a lower amount of data and more about not over-taxing the real-time encoders... It may be that 1920x1080 at normal compression results in more errors than 1440x1080 with lower compression... and we may in the end get the same (or virtually) the same resolution either way.

This is all hypothetical since I do not know how things are configured upstream... but it is all logical conjecture.


----------



## P Smith

Would be nice of you re-read old threads with pictures and outlined details when E* just went HD-Lite. 
Nay, I don't think you're the type of person who will come to real discussion. Better ignore what was collected before you and make an illusion of discussion.


----------



## James Long

I rememeber those old threads ... my favorite post was the day when the guy watching the numbers more than the TV screen swore that the picture had returned to 1920x1080i -- and swore that the PQ had improved -- until he found out that he had got the numbers wrong and the improved picture was still 1440x1080i.

Sometimes you have to pull your head out of your PC and watch TV.
Which is exactly what I'm going to do right now as "Studio 60" airs for the last time.


----------



## P Smith

I'm with my HD DVDs. Quality and MY time - what could be better ?!


----------



## brittonx

I've had a 65" HD Toshiba set (TW65x81) since 2000. I remember quite vividly how stunning the little bit of HDNet programming was when it wasn't being bit-starved. Over the years, it has been quite frustrating watching the HD quality degrade as they kept adding channels. SD also got much worse on the big set.

As more people are getting larger TVs the PQ should continue to increase in importance.

By the way, I still get stunning PQ on the Toshiba via the OTA channels So any PQ loss is not due to the TV aging.

So, if you haven't guessed by now, I strongly prefer higher PQ over additional channels.


----------



## harsh

P Smith said:


> My point as an engineer - deliver best, preserve at least. And George Lucas's THX is the level !


My point as an engineer is is based on having to produce something that a reasonable percentage of the marketplace can and will buy into so that it will be economically feasible in the face of competition.

You might have noticed that a couple of companies have recently forsaken THX certification on all but their flagship models; it isn't that THX isn't relevant, but the cost of certification doesn't pencil out financially. Will those who aren't into labels notice the difference?

As it has been since 1980, if you want the best quality available, you're going to have to obtain your programming from some sort of high zoot laser disc.


----------



## Steve Mehs

Jeremy W said:


> I would think that the shopping channels will be some of the last ones to go HD. Where's the benefit for them?


QVC Studios are already wired for HD. If I go back this year I'll ask the production crew for an estimated timeframe for an HD channel.


----------



## Jeremy W

Steve Mehs said:


> QVC Studios are already wired for HD.


That is just wonderful. :nono2:


----------



## James Long

The good news is that when E* adds it (or D*) it will be in MPEG4 ... so it will only take up twice as much space as it does already as a SD MPEG2 channel.

I expect D* will add it ... they have to get to 100 HD channels somehow!


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> My point as an engineer is is based on having to produce something that a reasonable percentage of the marketplace can and will buy into so that it will be economically feasible in the face of competition.
> 
> You might have noticed that a couple of companies have recently forsaken THX certification on all but their flagship models; it isn't that THX isn't relevant, but the cost of certification doesn't pencil out financially. Will those who aren't into labels notice the difference?
> 
> As it has been since 1980, if you want the best quality available, you're going to have to obtain your programming from some sort of high zoot laser disc.


Don't need to be rhetoric - just 3 hours before your post (#80) it was exposed. Are you talking to me ?


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

In case D* subs have forgotten what true 1920x1080(1088) looks like, you might want to look at Channel 332 - seems they forgot to put the encoder into HD-LITE mode, though they clearly aren't giving it the bitrate that CTV or FIOS is as the picture is softer.

If E* subs want to see more downgrading, look at HBO 9456 and SHO 9460 as they are now in HD-LITE.


----------



## Jeremy W

HDTVFanAtic said:


> seems they forgot to put the encoder into HD-LITE mode


Maybe if they would have, it wouldn't look like complete garbage the way it does now.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Jeremy W said:


> Maybe if they would have, it wouldn't look like complete garbage the way it does now.


That's the pool feeds - everyone has the same issues - D* is just softer than the others.


----------



## Jeremy W

HDTVFanAtic said:


> That's the pool feeds - everyone has the same issues - D* is just softer than the others.


MHD on DirecTV has been very poor quality since day one. I can't believe that the severe macroblocking is present on the pool feeds.


----------



## machavez00

the CMT awards was HORRIBLE


----------



## HDTVFanAtic

Jeremy W said:


> MHD on DirecTV has been very poor quality since day one. I can't believe that the severe macroblocking is present on the pool feeds.


They clearly didn't spend the money to send it over the Atlantic with a high enough bitrate - CTV has the same issues - even though they are giving it about 1.5 Mbps higher bitrate overall.

As we all know by know, when you have strobing lights (aka a light wall) behind the performers, you are going to drive the encoders crazy. Even MPEG4 at the bitrate at the 6-8Mbps D* and E* give it wouldnt help - only about 20Mbps MPEG4 such as what you will see in Europe would survive that.


----------



## Drew2k

Jeremy W said:


> MHD on DirecTV has been very poor quality since day one. I can't believe that the severe macroblocking is present on the pool feeds.


I've actually been impressed by the quality, and I really haven't seen any macro-blocking here in NY. (The only time I questioned the quality was when I looked away for a moment and then looked back, and they were zooming out of a close-up on one of the giant on-stage video screens!)


----------



## Jeremy W

Drew2k said:


> I really haven't seen any macro-blocking here in NY.


Well we're all seeing the exact same thing on DirecTV, so I can tell you that you must not be looking hard enough. It's pretty bad.


----------



## Drew2k

Jeremy W said:


> Well we're all seeing the exact same thing on DirecTV, so I can tell you that you must not be looking hard enough. It's pretty bad.


I would say not everyone, as the whole reason this discussion of Ch. 332 came about is because apparently HDTVFanAtic is also happy with the quality of 332.

Seriously, I'm not saying this to be contrary or anything, but I've been very pleased with the quality - I haven't had any problems with the channel at all...


----------



## Jeremy W

Drew2k said:


> I would say not everyone, as the whole reason this discussion of Ch. 332 came about is because apparently HDTVFanAtic is also happy with the quality of 332.


Well you should check out the thread in the DirecTV Programming forum about MHD. Everyone in there agrees that the PQ is garbage.


----------



## James Long

Perhaps the signal level on that transponder should be reported along with the PQ reports?


----------



## Jeremy W

James Long said:


> Perhaps the signal level on that transponder should be reported along with the PQ reports?


Come on James, you know that signal level doesn't have any effect on PQ.


----------



## James Long

Jeremy W said:


> Come on James, you know that signal level doesn't have any effect on PQ.


Come on Jeremy, if your signal is poor enough that you're losing too many bits you're not going to have excellent PQ!


----------



## P Smith

James, James ... You did nitpicking on me but fall yourself. MISERABLY !


----------



## James Long

So ... there is no signal level that affects PQ?


----------



## Jeremy W

James Long said:


> Come on Jeremy, if your signal is poor enough that you're losing too many bits you're not going to have excellent PQ!


OK, but you're talking about having a signal so bad that the FEC fails and the picture starts breaking up. You're just being difficult now, because I know that you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## James Long

Just looking for an explaination to why one guy sees the signal as unwatchable and another sees it as fine - other than one guy being a liar. Signal quality is a variable.


----------



## Jeremy W

James Long said:


> other than one guy being a liar.


Why are we throwing away that possibility? :lol:


----------



## PerryH

I think I've seen everything that is ever shown on MHD (since the whole channel is an endless loop) over at my girlfriend's apartment on Comcast cable. The PQ is poor - lots of blocks in dark areas. The picture is especially bad where there is a lot of movement.

That being the case I would guess that the problem is with the source and not the transmission method in this particular instance.


----------

