# E* becomes the HDLITE Leader



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Pretty sad state of affairs when Directv is blowing away Dish on DiscoveryHD Theater

1920x1080i on DirecTV
1440x1080i on Dish

13.25 Mbps Video Bitrate on DirecTV
8.22 Mbps Video Bitrate on Dish

I-Frame 61,648 bytes on DirecTV
I-Frame 40,028 bytes on Dish

Both flunk putting 2 B frames back to back - but Directv still has 50% more Video Bitrate and higher resolution than Dish.


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

To bad the D* HD DVR sucks more than a Bissel Vaccum cleaner. E* is THE leader when it comes to HD receivers.

I'll stick with my 622's despite the "defective" HD signal.

-Funk


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

And too bad the two posted images *only* show that two small, badly compressed jpgs were uploaded to imageshack.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

thefunks67 said:


> To bad the D* HD DVR sucks more than a Bissel Vaccum cleaner. E* is THE leader when it comes to HD receivers.
> 
> I'll stick with my 622's despite the "defective" HD signal.
> 
> -Funk


Why does the D* HD DVR suck? Please backup your claim. I see E* is going to enable your USB ports for $39.99. The USB on D* has been working for quite awhile now and at no charge. I am not trying to turn this into a pissing match. You like your DVR and I like mine for each of our own reasons.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Just a correction, it's the eSATA port that's been enabled for an external drive, not USB. From what I've seen of the 622's feature it's a bit more advanced the the HR20's since you don't loose the internal drives function and used the external USB drive for archiving recordings.

But back on topic. Wonder why D*'s decided all of a sudden to bump DHDT back up to 1920x1080 and how did they find the bandwidth to do it? Wonder if they got some better encoders?


----------



## tonytony24 (Aug 9, 2007)

Question about Programming. Is it just me or does Dish offers more HD programming than Direct? Just wanted to confirm, looking to change my Dish subscription...


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

tonytony24 said:


> Question about Programming. Is it just me or does Dish offers more HD programming than Direct? Just wanted to confirm, looking to change my Dish subscription...


I think Dish does have more HD channels right now, but that will change next month for Directv. The reason I didn't go with Dish for HD alot of their HD channels I would never watch. Sure they have FOOD, A&E for sometime now, but I am can wait for those. Good things come to those who wait is what I always say.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

thefunks67 said:


> To bad the D* HD DVR sucks more than a Bissel Vaccum cleaner. E* is THE leader when it comes to HD receivers.
> 
> I'll stick with my 622's despite the "defective" HD signal.
> 
> -Funk


Ha ha ha ha ha yeah right. Keep living in denial.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

tonytony24 said:


> Question about Programming. Is it just me or does Dish offers more HD programming than Direct? Just wanted to confirm, looking to change my Dish subscription...


Here's a chart, http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11185308 , that shows what the providers have now and what they've annoucned as channels that they'll carry. The chart does not include any regional sports channels if that's a concern of yours. So while E* has more HD now if the chart is correct and D* carries all it's supposed to then D* will have more then E*, unless E* announces more. The who has more HD might end up being a question thats answer changes from week to week.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

markrubi said:


> I think Dish does have more HD channels right now, but that will change next month for Directv. The reason I didn't go with Dish for HD alot of their HD channels I would never watch. Sure they have FOOD, A&E for sometime now, but I am can wait for those. Good things come to those who wait is what I always say.


Mark,

What WILL happen in September, none of us know for sure. DirecTV has been promising to ramp up their HD carriage for 2 years, and they seem ready to offer more very soon. The question will be how many providers will offer an HD source for Third Party providers to carry.

What we do know NOW is that Dish has 31 HD channels right now, with 7 More coming for SURE on August 15th and September 1st, and a rumored additional 7 Channels in Mid September. If an additional 7 channels are added in September that would account for almost all of the Nationally available HD channels for the rest of this year.

We can argue which provider is better forever. The bottom line is that both DBS providers are working hard to add as many HD channels as possible (GREAT, YES), and for the near term DBS providers will have similar offerings in HD. The same can NOT be said for the Wired ones, most cable company offerings, pale in comparison.

One last quip though, how do you know you wouldn't watch many of the Dish HD offerings that you do not get, when you do not KNOW what you are missing. Personally I enjoy many of the VOOM channels, sure they repeat a lot but I really enjoy much of what they offer.

Some nights I'd watch PAINT DRY in HD if it was carried.

John


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

thefunks67 said:


> To bad the D* HD DVR sucks more than a Bissel Vaccum cleaner. E* is THE leader when it comes to HD receivers.
> 
> I'll stick with my 622's despite the "defective" HD signal.
> 
> -Funk


While the HR-20 had a few bugs to begin with, it is an excellent box now. I dont have the 622, but do have an older dish DVR and in the only comparison I can make the directv DVR is head and shoulders better. The 622 should be much better than the one I have however. I just wouldnt say the HR-20 sucks when it doesnt. Do you have any basis for comparison?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Pretty sad state of affairs when Directv is blowing away Dish on DiscoveryHD Theater
> 
> 1920x1080i on DirecTV
> 1440x1080i on Dish
> ...


I think your findings may have more to do with timing than SOP. Back in April, the DFW bitrate monitor measured DHDT on D* at 1280x1080i with a bitrate of 13.5.

Dish Network is shuffling things around right now with their move of the VOOM channels to MPEG4.

Your findings may confirm my contention that 1920x1080i requires less bandwidth than downscaled content.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> While the HR-20 had a few bugs to begin with, it is an excellent box now.


Check out MiloMinderbinder2's list of promised features that aren't there yet.

To be certain, a lot of the complaints about the HR20 stem from the departure from familiar features that previous DVRs had (TiVo, Replay, Ultimate TV). There are enough omissions and misbehavior that "excellent" clearly doesn't apply. I'll buy serviceable. The HR20 can (and will) get _much_ better.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

markrubi said:


> Why does the D* HD DVR suck? Please backup your claim. I see E* is going to enable your USB ports for $39.99. The USB on D* has been working for quite awhile now and at no charge. I am not trying to turn this into a pissing match. You like your DVR and I like mine for each of our own reasons.


DLB???


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Check out MiloMinderbinder2's list of promised features that aren't there yet.
> 
> To be certain, a lot of the complaints about the HR20 stem from the departure from familiar features that previous DVRs had (TiVo, Replay, Ultimate TV). There are enough omissions and misbehavior that "excellent" clearly doesn't apply. I'll buy serviceable. The HR20 can (and will) get _much_ better.


All i know is I have had Zero problems, and the features that might not be there arent missed. Perhaps its because i am not used to them, we are creatures of habit.
But i agree 100% with your last sentence.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok guys.. This topic is not about DVR comparisons it is about HD Picture quality being delivered though based the one sample personally I would not come to the conclusion the OP did.

I would say interesting Data point... But basically I see one data point and to make the claim of the OP, wouldn't one have to see all the channels side by side? Well at least the ones that in common.

And I will start removing DVR feature comparison posts from now on.. Take that to another thread.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

I would be interested in seeing bitrate measurement of some VOOM channels I regularly watch, e.g. Equator HD, RAVE HD, HDNEWs, World Film HD (or whatever it's called).

Or how about bitrate measurements for HDNet as well?


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

harsh said:


> I think your findings may have more to do with timing than SOP. Back in April, the DFW bitrate monitor measured DHDT on D* at 1280x1080i with a bitrate of 13.5.
> 
> Dish Network is shuffling things around right now with their move of the VOOM channels to MPEG4.
> 
> Your findings may confirm my contention that 1920x1080i requires less bandwidth than downscaled content.


I don't really care what DFW bitrate monitor shows as he does it by file size - therfore its just a guess.

I measured the same program on E* and D* - so the bottom line is, as can be seen by the MPEG2Repair Output - the Video Bitrate was over 50% higher on D* than E*.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Ok guys.. This topic is not about DVR comparisons it is about HD Picture quality being delivered though based the one sample personally I would not come to the conclusion the OP did.
> 
> I would say interesting Data point... But basically I see one data point and to make the claim of the OP, wouldn't one have to see all the channels side by side? Well at least the ones that in common.
> 
> And I will start removing DVR feature comparison posts from now on.. Take that to another thread.


As E* is downgrading all their 1920x1080 to 1440x1080, then they clearly are the HDLITE leader.

And again, as this is the same program from both sources, it is a very telling tale as to bitrate.

Let me just ask, what 1920x1080i channel does E* deliver throughout its system that is 13.25Mbps Video bitrate or higher?

If the answer is nothing, then it seems they are the HDLITE leader.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Chandu said:


> I would be interested in seeing bitrate measurement of some VOOM channels I regularly watch, e.g. Equator HD, RAVE HD, HDNEWs, World Film HD (or whatever it's called).
> 
> Or how about bitrate measurements for HDNet as well?


They are all HD-LITE.

None are 1920x1080i.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

l8er said:


> And too bad the two posted images *only* show that two small, badly compressed jpgs were uploaded to imageshack.


People complain when I put them up big...then people complain when I put them up small.

Bottom line - making them bigger doesn't change the results - it just help those in denial that have questionable eye sight.

Happy now?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> People complain when I put them up big...then people complain when I put them up small.


I'll just complain that you put them up at all.

Perhaps a link would be better? Small inline with a link to big for those who care enough to read the fine print?

Personally I'm just tired of the whole issue ... as if the whining is going to change anything! Customers judge HD based on what they see on their screen not on some numbers that only specialized (and legal) hacking equipment is needed to see.

We get it. E* isn't passing 1920x1080i and despite having access to each feed on three different systems and several prior threads we get a rehash. Is it time to enforce the rule? (Emphasis added.)
(q) The posting of duplicate messages in the same forum or in multiple forums is not allowed, and the duplicates are subject to deletion. This not only includes posts that are identical to other posts from the same user or from different users, but also includes posts that are similar in message to other posts left by the same user. *Repeated rants against anyone or anything will be considered spam and subject to removal.*​
If the average customer could tell the difference this rant would not bother me so much. It would be an explanation WHY they are seeing a problem. But the average customer is haply watching the channels (with the exception of those on 129°/TP27).

Can this be the last thread on this issue?


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> While the HR-20 had a few bugs to begin with, it is an excellent box now. I dont have the 622, but do have an older dish DVR and in the only comparison I can make the directv DVR is head and shoulders better. The 622 should be much better than the one I have however. I just wouldnt say the HR-20 sucks when it doesnt. Do you have any basis for comparison?


My basis is the fact I sent back an HR-20 and a 15 to D* after I switched to E* in Jan. Just could not deal with all the bugs both of those units had. If they have improved than that is a good thing. I just wasn't willing to deal with the hassle both those receivers created for me and my household.

-Funk


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

James Long said:


> ...Can this be the last thread on this issue?


While I appreciate your voice of moderation on the topic and agree with you that the majority of people do not recognize or understand the difference that does not mean its unimportant to hear the facts. Picture quality will always be subjective and the perception of quality is very much related to the viewers display as well as the input source material. At least for now, there is even no "standard" for 1080i HD material so it is up to the consumer to determine which cable/DBS product is better. At this point, the masses are most concerned with quantity. No one is arguing this point although why discussions about picture quality are upsetting to some people, particularly when factual data is provided, is surprsing. Considering almost no one has 2 1080p HD displays side by side, its not surprising that subtle differences in picture quality go unoticed or that people say 1440x1080i is good enough. If you want to talk facts, how may people have actually taken the time to compare a 1440 or 1280ix1080i to 1920x1080i image? If we were to go by the vote of the masses, upscaled DVD's probably look good enough. While I agree that this thread by itself will not cause any change in the way Dish does business, educating people as to just what they are paying for should never be discouraged unless one has something to hide. People have always made comparisons about picture quality between providers and always will but when one can provide objective data supporting a difference that person/information should not be silenced.

For the record, I recently added a dish to receive programming from 148 so that I could receive my HBO-HD and Sho-HD where they are still being broadcast in 1920x1080i. I mention this because if you actually take the time to compare a Dish 1440x1080i to a 1920x1080i you can see the difference in detail.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

The way I'm reading his info it's MPEG 2. As far as I'm concerned those don't make much difference anymore. Reason being they will be going away before that long. We are going to an MPEG 4 world and that is what I care about.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> The way I'm reading his info it's MPEG 2. As far as I'm concerned those don't make much difference anymore. Reason being they will be going away before that long. We are going to an MPEG 4 world and that is what I care about.


Sorry, 1440x1080 is still 1440x1080, whether its MPEG, MPEG2 or MPEG4. It doesn't discriminate.

When the source is 1920x1080, you are loosing resolution - even MORE with MPEG4.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

rtk said:


> For the record, I recently added a dish to receive programming from 148 so that I could receive my HBO-HD and Sho-HD where they are still being broadcast in 1920x1080i. I mention this because if you actually take the time to compare a Dish 1440x1080i to a 1920x1080i you can see the difference in detail.


Amazing isn't it.

We should just all shut up and take the slop - so we do not upset those who have had their drink of the kool-aid.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

thefunks67 said:


> My basis is the fact I sent back an HR-20 and a 15 to D* after I switched to E* in Jan. Just could not deal with all the bugs both of those units had. If they have improved than that is a good thing. I just wasn't willing to deal with the hassle both those receivers created for me and my household.
> 
> -Funk


good enough. While the HR-20 is much better now than it was in january, i can understand someone feeling that way based on the problems that were being reported around that timeframe and before. Im just glad mine was bug free or i didnt notice them. Enjoy!


----------



## RandallA (Feb 4, 2005)

James Long said:


> I'll just complain that you put them up at all.
> 
> Perhaps a link would be better? Small inline with a link to big for those who care enough to read the fine print?
> 
> ...


:nono2:

I thought this was a discussion forum. Just because you're tired of the topic that doesn't mean others shouldn't discuss it. There are always new users that are just getting their feet wet into DBS and they probably just noticed HD Lite and would like to talk about it.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

thefunks67 said:


> To bad the D* HD DVR sucks more than a Bissel Vaccum cleaner. E* is THE leader when it comes to HD receivers.


Boy are you wrong.


----------



## ramy (May 18, 2004)

James Long said:


> Can this be the last thread on this issue?


Nope.


----------



## MarcusInMD (Jan 7, 2005)

At least the HD from Dish still looks much MUCH better than it does on DirecTV. DirecTV's Hd offerings were/are horrible in the quality department. Maybe that will change but as of now Dish still looks better in HD then DirecTV. Dish will step up when they can.


----------



## ramy (May 18, 2004)

MarcusInMD said:


> At least the HD from Dish still looks much MUCH better than it does on DirecTV. DirecTV's Hd offerings were/are horrible in the quality department. Maybe that will change but as of now Dish still looks better in HD then DirecTV. Dish will step up when they can.


Not on all channels. DiscoveryHD looks better on Directv. It is full resolution now.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

MarcusInMD said:


> At least the HD from Dish still looks much MUCH better than it does on DirecTV. DirecTV's Hd offerings were/are horrible in the quality department. Maybe that will change but as of now Dish still looks better in HD then DirecTV. Dish will step up when they can.


i think based on looking at a friends Dish HD on a Hitachi plasma vs Directv HD on my samsung plasma that they are very similiar with the edge going to Direct. Thats as close i as i can get to a direct comparison. My dish setup I have at home doesnt have hd whereas my direct does. but our conditions are very similiar.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

What is funny about this thread title is that it says "Dish is the HD Lite leader"... what one must infer from that is DirecTV, for example, is not even the HD-Lite leader! 

So if Dish being the "HD Lite leader" is bad... where does that leave DirecTV?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDMe said:


> What is funny about this thread title is that it says "Dish is the HD Lite leader"... what one must infer from that is DirecTV, for example, is not even the HD-Lite leader!
> 
> So if Dish being the "HD Lite leader" is bad... where does that leave DirecTV?


 Until you look at the graphs that were posted......


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

RandallA said:


> :nono2:
> 
> I thought this was a discussion forum. Just because you're tired of the topic that doesn't mean others shouldn't discuss it. There are always new users that are just getting their feet wet into DBS and they probably just noticed HD Lite and would like to talk about it.


How about making threads about HD-Lite discussions sticky (and if anyone creates new threads about it, merging them into the sticky one) if James doesn't want to deal with this as a recurring topic?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Just to be off-topic for a second... I don't think James was referring to rehashing the same old discussions over and over, although I admit to finding some of them boring and tiresome myself at times... but rather some folks who rather than participate in the repetitive discussion by posting new comments, instead post and re-post almost identical comments and/or rhetoric.

A discussion requires conversation from multiple people... Copying/pasting the same stuff into new threads, or multiple threads on the same topic, isn't discussion.

That said... I have gone on record many times as saying I wish we could get back to full resolution HD on Dish, but I would rather have some of the new channels we have than not at all... and while things are settling am ok with the quality we are receiving right now. I am definately not going to throw my TV out the window over this.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDMe said:


> Just to be off-topic for a second... I don't think James was referring to rehashing the same old discussions over and over, although I admit to finding some of them boring and tiresome myself at times... but rather some folks who rather than participate in the repetitive discussion by posting new comments, instead post and re-post almost identical comments and/or rhetoric.
> 
> A discussion requires conversation from multiple people... Copying/pasting the same stuff into new threads, or multiple threads on the same topic, isn't discussion.
> 
> That said... I have gone on record many times as saying I wish we could get back to full resolution HD on Dish, but I would rather have some of the new channels we have than not at all... and while things are settling am ok with the quality we are receiving right now. I am definately not going to throw my TV out the window over this.


I agree with you on the last part. It would be GREAT if they would show it full rez and high bit rate. No one can or will do that right now, so I am willing to wait. 
Does the HD i am getting right now look good? Yes, it looks great. Could it look better? Of course!


----------



## MarcusInMD (Jan 7, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> i think based on looking at a friends Dish HD on a Hitachi plasma vs Directv HD on my samsung plasma that they are very similiar with the edge going to Direct. Thats as close i as i can get to a direct comparison. My dish setup I have at home doesnt have hd whereas my direct does. but our conditions are very similiar.


I had both and DirecTV was bad, REALLY bad on a 32" CRT and a 120" 1080p Sony projector. Also compared both on my parents 720p plasma. Once again once they saw the difference between direct and dish they dumped direct in a heartbeat. All of the DirectTV HD was so bit starved it was not funny. This was particularly noticable on DiscoveryHD when complicated scenes showed up like water (waves) and tall grass blowing in the wind. DirecTV went to hell and Dish held up well. Things may change but right now I see a big difference and I am very sensitive to bit starved material coming from a c-band background.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Sorry, 1440x1080 is still 1440x1080, whether its MPEG, MPEG2 or MPEG4. It doesn't discriminate.
> 
> When the source is 1920x1080, you are loosing resolution - even MORE with MPEG4.


My statement is plain and simple come back and show us what the pq is after they have the new sats in place and running the MPEG 4 system. Until then I think that all the MPEG 2 HD will be as you like to call it HD LITE. No Dish isn't the HD LITE leader Directv still has that claim to fame. The only channel that D* is running that is better than E* is Discovery HD theater.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

HDMe said:


> That said... I have gone on record many times as saying I wish we could get back to full resolution HD on Dish, but I would rather have some of the new channels we have than not at all... and while things are settling am ok with the quality we are receiving right now. I am definately not going to throw my TV out the window over this.


I tend to agree with your comments above and until both Dish and DirecTV finish their transition its too premature to draw a conclusion about which has or will have the better picture quality. I'm hopeful that Dish's downrezzed HD channels are temporary and things will improve. No matter where one stands on the topic of HD-Lite and the current quality of DBS HD, its only a good thing for everyone to see DirecTV returning to 1920x1080i for Discovery-HD as hopefully this be the start of more HD channels returning to full resolution.

While everyone may not like HDTVFanAtic's style, he does provide us with up to date technical info which is a lot better than the usual completely subjective comparisons.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

You mean technical mumbo jumbo (smoke and mirrors) with incorrect conclusions attached?

Sorry, but D* raising ONE channel to a higher frame size than E* uses does not make E* a leader in using "HD Lite". Lest one forget that D* invented "HD Lite" and remains the provider with the most number of de-rezzed HD.

To be blunt, saying E* is the leader in HD Lite is pure HD bull****.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

James Long said:


> Lest one forget that D* invented "HDLite"...


I thought the resolution that D*'s using for "HDLite" is a standard created by the ATSC for DBS? Haven't you quoted that standard a few times???


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yes, the actual compressed formats for DBS is an ATSC standard. The ATSC also allows full resolution options on DBS. I have referenced and quoted the standard many times in response to those who erroneously state that what E* and D* is doing is not following the ATSC standards.

The actual _use_ of the lower resolution options in the DBS standard that earned the derogatory term "HD Lite" was D*'s creation.

It other words, it was not "HD Lite" until D* used it.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

OK, it's just that your post made it sound like D* went out on their own and created the lower resolution, they just took advantage of one of the standards for DBS, lie E*'s also doing now.

If D* 'invented' HD-Lite, is E* paying them royalties?:hurah:


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

RAD said:


> If D* 'invented' HD-Lite, is E* paying them royalties?:hurah:


Oh don't worry that lawsuit is coming! :lol:


----------



## grog (Jul 3, 2007)

I am glad Dish uses 1440x1080i.

Did you know that 1080i HDV camera's also use 1440x1080i.

Maybe you might want to know why HDV camera's use 1440x1080i instead of 1920x1080i.

http://www.backscatter.com/learn/article/article.php?ID=11

*How is 1440x1080i the same as 1920x1080i*


> I'd like to mention one final thing concerning the resolution of 1920x1080i HDV footage. Some of you may have noticed that all1080i cameras state a resolution of 1440x1080i and not 1920x1080i. This is because the 1080i HDV format uses non-square pixel dimensions to record video images, but when played through an HD television the HDV video is stretched out to fill a standard 1920x1080 frame. Why do 1080i cameras do this? Full-resolution 1920x1080 video would mean a bandwidth that would exceed the mini DV tape's capabilities. It would simply be too large a file.


When I compare the output from my 622 with my HDTV OTA setup I can see no difference. The video is not stretched. The quality is also the same to me. Maybe someone else who is one inch in front of their set can see some quality differences but on my 42" 1080P LCD I don't see any issues!

Sure the bandwidth is lower with Dish and I am very happy about that.
MPEG4 is also a great thing!

Why? Because I get a great picture which takes less space. Anyone with a DVR loves having more space without losing quality!


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Ive had both and its hard for me to believe D* is sending 1920 on DiscHD. E* PQ is better than D*'s. If they are sending 1920 they should be embarrassed because the E*1440 looks better.

Also, if anyone tells me they can see the difference between 1920 and 1440 Ill tell em they are full of shat.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> Also, if anyone tells me they can see the difference between 1920 and 1440 Ill tell em they are full of shat.


Have you actually compared Dish's own 1440x1080i to 1920x1080i? All you need to do is add a dish for 148 and compare HB0-HD and Sho-HD which are both still at 1920x1080i. While I doubt much difference can be seen on a display under 50", I'd say you need your vision checked if you didn't see the difference on a larger screen. Its true that picture quality is subjective and dependant upon your particularly display but EVERY person I've asked to compare the two on my display has preferred the latter.

On a similar topic, anyone know if Dish HD-PPV still 1920x1080i?


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

rtk said:


> Have you actually compared Dish's own 1440x1080i to 1920x1080i? All you need to do is add a dish for 148 and compare HB0-HD and Sho-HD which are both still at 1920x1080i. While I doubt much difference can be seen on a display under 50", I'd say you need your vision checked if you didn't see the difference on a larger screen. Its true that picture quality is subjective and dependant upon your particularly display but EVERY person I've asked to compare the two on my display has preferred the latter.
> 
> On a similar topic, anyone know if Dish HD-PPV still 1920x1080i?


Oh sorry, i have a 46". Maybe its my vision


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> Oh sorry, i have a 46". Maybe its my vision


No need to apologize. If you had actually compared the two and said you didn't see a difference that's fine, as I've said repeatedly PQ is always subjective. Whats continually at issue here is that you formed a rather definitive conclusion without even doing a comparison


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Ok. Ive owned both in the last 6 mo's. Maybe D* has moved DiscHD to 1920, and MAYBE it does look better on a plus 50" screen. What about the other channels? 

When I switched from D* to E* the HD PQ on nationals was noticeably better. Granted its all subjective, but IMHO E* had better OVERALL PQ and the 622 beats the HR20 slightly for the best DVR out there.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

As I know there are several different issues being mixed in this thread, I was actually referring to comparing 1920x1080i to 1440x1080i on two Dish HD channels. I know the OP did this by comparing Disc-HD on DirecTV to Disc-HD on Dish but most of us don't have both services. Has anyone considered that the differences seen between the two providers over the past year in part related to the fact that Dish _was_ at 1920x1080i whereas DirecTV was at 1280x1080i? Its sort of a moot point now but if people actually preferred the HD picture quality of Dish over DirecTV isn't it at least a possibility that the resolution was a factor?


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

rtk said:


> As I know there are several different issues being mixed in this thread, I was actually referring to comparing 1920x1080i to 1440x1080i on two Dish HD channels. I know the OP did this by comparing Disc-HD on DirecTV to Disc-HD on Dish but most of us don't have both services. Has anyone considered that the differences seen between the two providers over the past year in part related to the fact that Dish _was_ at 1920x1080i whereas DirecTV was at 1280x1080i? Its sort of a moot point now but if people actually preferred the HD picture quality of Dish over DirecTV isn't it at least a possibility that the resolution was a factor?


It is possible


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

elwaylite said:


> Ok. Ive owned both in the last 6 mo's. Maybe D* has moved DiscHD to 1920, and MAYBE it does look better on a plus 50" screen. What about the other channels?
> 
> When I switched from D* to E* the HD PQ on nationals was noticeably better. Granted its all subjective, but IMHO E* had better OVERALL PQ and the 622 beats the HR20 slightly for the best DVR out there.


Unfortunately E* has been on a crash and burn to downgrade all the channels to HD-LITE.

And by the way 1920x1080 looks better on a lot smaller than 50" screens.

As is obvious, most don't have a clue if something is HD, HD-LITE or just cropped 4:3 that is line doubled.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Unfortunately E* has been on a crash and burn to downgrade all the channels to HD-LITE.


D* led the way!


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> D* led the way!


I agree 100%

But now E* is on a crash and burn scorched earth policy to beat them at their own game.


----------



## bnwtrout (Dec 5, 2005)

I have had a 942 for the last two years. I upgraded yesterday to the 722 and I am sure the PQ is softer and not full HD on even the old standards feeds like discovery and some other HD feeds. 

It is noticeable to me that E* is going Lite.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> But now E* is on a crash and burn scorched earth policy to beat them at their own game.


DirecTv not only led the way, but they forced Dish in this direction by promoting *fill in the blank* channels of HD programming. To remain competitve on NUMBER of channels Dish is forced to do this. Hopefully it is only a very temporary "solution".


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

Richard King said:


> DirecTv not only led the way, but they forced Dish in this direction by promoting *fill in the blank* channels of HD programming. To remain competitve on NUMBER of channels Dish is forced to do this. Hopefully it is only a very temporary "solution".


Interestingly, if DirecTV loaded the transponders on their new satellites the way Dish is doing currently, they could claim a whole lot more capacity than 150 HD channels.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Correct. And when the channels are available, I expect them to do just that. It's a race to the lowest common denominator as is most of what's on television today.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bnwtrout said:


> I have had a 942 for the last two years. I upgraded yesterday to the 722 and I am sure the PQ is softer and not full HD on even the old standards feeds like discovery and some other HD feeds.
> 
> It is noticeable to me that E* is going Lite.


Did you remember to check to see that your new receiver is configured to output either 720p or 1080i? By default they all come configured at 480 until you change the setting.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

GeorgeLV said:


> Interestingly, if DirecTV loaded the transponders on their new satellites the way Dish is doing currently, they could claim a whole lot more capacity than 150 HD channels.


And come up with the quality of SD while E* remains at some level of HD.

D*'s new satellites are not high powered DBS. It is apples and oranges when it comes to loading (although the post download bit rates are still something that can be compared).


----------



## kb7oeb (Jun 16, 2004)

grog said:


> I am glad Dish uses 1440x1080i.
> 
> Did you know that 1080i HDV camera's also use 1440x1080i.


Thats fine for video but what about movies transfered from film?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

kb7oeb said:


> Thats fine for video but what about movies transfered from film?


Playing devil's advocate... do we really know what resolution they scan at when converting film down to HD? Film has a much higher resolution than HD... but I've never actually read what resolution old films are being converted to when going digital HD. For all we know they are doing 1440x1080i or even 720p. I dunno.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

This about sums it up:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1053099#post1053099


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

huh??? One person's opinion of which I disagree with.

Since the addition of Animal Planet and Discovery I have watched content on both and found it very good. Am i sitting 6 inches from the TV? nope. I am sitting 11' from a 60" Sony Grand Wega II and compared to the OTA content I watch regularly I would say it is not disappointing at all. Of course.... We are in the area of subjected PQ opinions, but based on my vantage point and having both OTA and the new HD channels to compare I would say.. Nice addition and the post you indicated HDTVFanAtic does not sum it up in my opinion.. it is one voice of which the person as every right to make, but yet a voice I disagree based on my personal experience.

Also.. people have to remember that whenever new channels are added that were are also SD, it is very possible that you will see a mixed bag of quality. Some unconverted SD and some HD. No different when ESPN went HD and yeck TNT still does a heck of a lot SD upconversion.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

HDMe said:


> Playing devil's advocate... do we really know what resolution they scan at when converting film down to HD? Film has a much higher resolution than HD... but I've never actually read what resolution old films are being converted to when going digital HD. For all we know they are doing 1440x1080i or even 720p. I dunno.


Nearly all films are recorded to HDTV on D5 Panasonic decks in 1080i x 1920. Today, some are done to 1080p for disk. The request may be for D5 dubs or for HDCAM dubs. The latter is reduced to 1440. But in the case of event video shot with HDCAMs most of the stuff airing today was recorded to HDCAM tape originals which reduced it to 1440 on the tape and when played back will be upscaled to 1920.

But I feel there is a more important issue most HD lite belly achers are forgetting. Unless you are using a true native display of 1080p x 1920 monitor or higher, all you will see is what you monitor is capable of anyway. Check the native pixel resolution of your monitor. Mine is 720p x 1280. I can't tell the difference between a so called HD lite at 1280 and one at 1920 or 1440. 
The problem we all had with D* over the past years with HD LIte was their experiments in HD lite were often airing picture quality that was worse than DVDs!
However, today, both services seem to be done experimenting with that level of HD Lite and now are trying to determine if 1440 or upsampled to 1920 is required. Here is my view- Both services need to set their resolution limits to the source of the program resolution. i.e. Set the channels like HBO to 1920 and set the channels like those with sources that were recorded to 1440 to that level and set the channels that are recorded to 1280 to that level.( ABC ESPN etc) In other words, the DBS companies should not be restricting the original at all. I didn't say it quite this way a year ago but today we are seeing quite a few 1080p x 1920 monitors in the market. Those of you who don't have a 1080p x 1920 monitor should just shut the he## up about bemoaning you want 1920. You could not see the difference. All you are doing is making big noise when you see the published numbers! Sorry, but I watch the picture. If it looks sharp and clean, I am happy. If it looks like DVD or worse, I complain.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

Excellent post, Don.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

Don,
Thanks for the info. If Dish were to send out material at their native resoltions, there would be little room for people to complain. Many of us are hoping for native resolution output from the 622 which really does say that all we want is the programming as it originated. Would transmitting different channels at different (native) resolutions actually save them bandwith rather than sending everything at 1440x1080i? I agree with your comments about limitations in display resolution however the percentage of 1080p displays will continue to grow as that is where the consumer market is today. I would hope the majority of people complaining about HDlite are those with 1080p displays. If Dish were to have movie channels like HBO, Show, Max, etc at 1920x1080i, Voom channels which air HDV content, at 1440x1080i and ESPN, ABC would be 1280x720p this whole issue of HD-Lite would probably be put to rest. For those that need/want a fixed resolution, let the STB handle the scaling.


----------



## seajohn (Aug 12, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> When the source is 1920x1080, you are loosing resolution - even MORE with MPEG4.


That would only be true if the original source was MPEG2, and even then only if MPEG4 wasn't using a high enough bit rate to reproduce the original. From what I've read, they usually start with an uncompressed source.

You seem to be confusing bit rate with codecs. Sure, MPEG4 uses fewer bits for the same picture quality as MPEG2, but if they lower the bit rate even lower so the picture is "HD-Lite", that is independent as to whether MPEG2 or MPEG4 is better. They obviously can do the same thing with MPEG2.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

seajohn said:


> That would only be true if the original source was MPEG2, and even then only if MPEG4 wasn't using a high enough bit rate to reproduce the original. From what I've read, they usually start with an uncompressed source.
> 
> You seem to be confusing bit rate with codecs. Sure, MPEG4 uses fewer bits for the same picture quality as MPEG2, but if they lower the bit rate even lower so the picture is "HD-Lite", that is independent as to whether MPEG2 or MPEG4 is better. They obviously can do the same thing with MPEG2.


As you are a new member I will be polite and just say, go back and re-read my posts as your assumptions are incorrect.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

rtk said:


> No need to apologize. If you had actually compared the two and said you didn't see a difference that's fine, as I've said repeatedly PQ is always subjective. Whats continually at issue here is that you formed a rather definitive conclusion without even doing a comparison


He's one of those that think because he has a 46" screen that it must be perfect

Interesting that there are many large screens that cannot even do 1920x1080 - much less calibrated properly - and god forbid he has a fast enough screen to even see reality.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> He's one of those that think because he has a 46" screen that it must be perfect
> 
> Interesting that there are many large screens that cannot even do 1920x1080 - much less calibrated properly - and god forbid he has a fast enough screen to even see reality.


each and every word of that made perfect sense


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic: I've only had DISH a few months and I can tell that some of the HD channels don't have as much resolution as they used to have--I have a Panasonic 50-inch Plasma.

I'm just afraid that BOTH Dish and Direct Tv will give us zillions of down rezzed Hd channels that won't really be HD.

I could care less which one--DISH or Direct TV sucks slightly more if they BOTH SUCK!

I'm thinking of moving somewhere where I could get FIOS--I know they don't have many HD channels and their DVR may not be the greatest but at least with them you get all that can be gotten resolution wise.

My question for you is this: Just exactly how much does FIOS kick Dish AND Direct Tvs A$$?

If someone were considering moving so they could get FIOS--would you recommend its increased resolution for HD channels and its better SD quality?

Is FIOS a quantum leap better or should I stay with the Dish and Direct TV HD-LITE fiasco?


----------



## Guest (Aug 27, 2007)

thefunks67 said:


> To bad the D* HD DVR sucks more than a Bissel Vaccum cleaner. E* is THE leader when it comes to HD receivers.
> 
> -Funk


I have the HR20 DVR and I can tell you firsthand that it does NOT suck. It's an excellent DVR. Too bad (or should I say "to bad") you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## ScoBuck (Mar 5, 2006)

rcoleman111 said:


> I have the HR20 DVR and I can tell you firsthand that it does NOT suck. It's an excellent DVR. Too bad (or should I say "to bad") you don't know what you're talking about.


Agreed - I have had 2 of them for about a year now - both work FINE.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Artwood said:


> HDTVFanAtic: I've only had DISH a few months and I can tell that some of the HD channels don't have as much resolution as they used to have--I have a Panasonic 50-inch Plasma.
> 
> I'm just afraid that BOTH Dish and Direct Tv will give us zillions of down rezzed Hd channels that won't really be HD.
> 
> ...


Honestly, why would someon in alabama move just for FIOS?

Have u had dish or direct? Notsaying you wouldnt say they suck, hey pq perception is subjective, but why go with what someone else tells you on what YOU pick?


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

I have DISH now--I just wanted his opinion because he seems so fired up about resolution and if anyone knew a quantifiable reason to embrace or not embrace FIOS it would be him.

And look I love Alabama--but moving to get FIOS makes as much sense to me as any other reason for moving out.

Anyone else who has had FIOS and could say whether Dish or Direct Tv suck compared to it or not is welcome to chime in!


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Artwood said:


> I have DISH now--I just wanted his opinion because he seems so fired up about resolution and if anyone knew a quantifiable reason to embrace or not embrace FIOS it would be him.
> 
> And look I love Alabama--but moving to get FIOS makes as much sense to me as any other reason for moving out.
> 
> Anyone else who has had FIOS and could say whether Dish or Direct Tv suck compared to it or not is welcome to chime in!


id pack today


----------



## 459707 (Aug 15, 2007)

How did the OP find these readings? Did you hack your hard drive, make a dvd-r?

Unless you have a Blue-Ray recorder (for full HD), I don't see how you got these shows on the computer to analyze this information. 

Please fill us in on how you did this!

Thanks!

Scott


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic apparently has installed some extra equipment on his receivers that allows him to tap into the program stream (after the receiver descrambles it - so no theft of service issues) and is basing his readings entirely off of those streams.

I believe the entire argument pro and con is in this thread. There is no reason to repeat the posts. Just start at the beginning.


----------

