# All Directv HD is HD-Lite??



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

On a cable forum the HD-Lite topic came up & one cable lover stated:
"Currently, Dish still has a few HD-Lite channels. *ALL HD on DirecTV is HD-Lite either through 1080x1440 elliptical encoding or MPEG4 compression.*"

Is this guy right or way off?


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

Elliptical encoding? Nice use of a fancy term that has little to do with HD. If this guy thinks MPEG4 is HD-Lite he is obviously demonstrating his complete ignorance of the subject.

Dave


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Wonder what he will say when cable (which is going to do it) goes to MPEG4.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

drded said:


> Elliptical encoding? Nice use of a fancy term that has little to do with HD. If this guy thinks MPEG4 is HD-Lite he is obviously demonstrating his complete ignorance of the subject.
> 
> Dave


I googled "Elliptical encoding" and came up with magnetic resonance imaging - so is that the correct usage ? Does it mean something else ?

Back on topic - if it is HD-Lite - HD-Lite looks fine to me. Somehow I doubt it is though.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Digital by it's nature is compressed.
MPEG-2 uses an older algorithm while MPEG-4 is a newer algorithm that is able to work with smaller file sizes.

Does DirecTV, Dishnetwork, AND cable have some over compressed channels? YES.
Do the newer MPEG-4 channels look good? To me...yes.


----------



## Heem(JimmyG) (Nov 15, 2007)

Not sure about "HD Lite", I was under the impression that anything under full 1080P is "lite". I just changed over to D* about 4 days ago and I can pass on that most but not all of my HD channels thru D* are better than our old cable. Its just a crisper picture.

TV predictions posted an article a few months back that the head guy at "Dish" called the HD channels at D* "lite" to battle the amount of channels D* has vs dish

Lite or not the picture looks great


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Heem(JimmyG) said:


> I was under the impression that anything under full 1080P is "lite".


Since there is zero 1080p broadcasting, how can you compare broadcast to a bluray/HD-DVD?
This isn't even apples to oranges.


----------



## kstefanec (May 13, 2007)

Couple of weeks ago, I read that the Japanese are working on the NEW HD, 4x's the resolution of 1080, so about 4000 something. So when that comes out, is a 1080p Blue-ray, HD-Lite?

If the picture looks good, I ain't complaining.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Technically all transmitted HD is "HD lite". All of it is compressed including live over the air broadcasts. The question then becomes what amount of compression is acceptable before you are able to notice any of the effects of compression.

MPEG4 is able to compress more than MPEG2 while delivering the same or better quality of picture. 

While some of DirecTV's MPEG2 HD channels and broadcasts were "bit starved" to the point of being noticeable or objectionable, so far, in it's relatively short lifespan, MPEG4 appears to be doing much better, and providing much higher picture quality.

If it is "HD lite", it's okay by me. I think my HD pictures are fantastic.

Carl


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

carl6 said:


> Technically all transmitted HD is "HD lite". All of it is compressed including live over the air broadcasts. The question then becomes what amount of compression is acceptable before you are able to notice any of the effects of compression.
> 
> MPEG4 is able to compress more than MPEG2 while delivering the same or better quality of picture.
> 
> ...


I thought I read the BBC is now 1080p. I think it is H264 with AC3 ( I downloaded the TS they released for testing last year - don't remember the framerate though I think it was 50fps). *If* DirecTV (or anyone for that matter) wanted to switch to the same type of video - would it be a whole new infrastructure (encoders, receivers, etc.) or is the existing stuff software upgradeable ?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

bhelton71 said:


> I thought I read the BBC is now 1080p. I think it is H264 with AC3 ( I downloaded the TS they released for testing last year - don't remember the framerate though I think it was 50fps). *If* DirecTV (or anyone for that matter) wanted to switch to the same type of video - would it be a whole new infrastructure (encoders, receivers, etc.) or is the existing stuff software upgradeable ?


None of the current HR2* series systems, can output a 1080p signal...

So it would require new hardware (at a minimum), on the home consumer side of the equation.

To answer the OP's question.

What is the exact definition of HD-Lite...
It is a fairly vague internet definition ?

Some people say it is HD Lite if it is not one of the approved ATSC resolutions.... even if the images falls "between" two of the approved ATSC

Some people say it is HD Lite if it is just compressed more then they like it to be. (since all HD we see in our homes is compressed, including optical based medias).

some people say it is HD Lite... when they are comparing it to something else, with no other basis.

Others say HD Lite... just because they don't know any better.

So since there is no exact definition of HD-Lite... there is no real answer to your question.

The MPEG-4 versions we get of the channels are un-altered.
They are at the same resolution that are received from their content providers.

Compression levels are what they are, and can account for some of the image quality issues.

Others... Some are received already in a compressed degraded state (some of the HD Locals for example, by over compressed broadcasters)... and the conversion to MPEG-4... can only be as good as it source.

Some HD content... is a pure as it can get via current technology standards from content provider to DirecTV... and then compressed as efficiently as possible via DirecTV to mpeg-4 and sent to us.

So my recommendation to the OP...
Redirect that poster on the cable-forum over here...
So he/she can explain how they feel DirecTV is HD-Lite is on all channels.


----------



## Cable Lover (Jun 19, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> On a cable forum the HD-Lite topic came up & one cable lover stated:
> "Currently, Dish still has a few HD-Lite channels. *ALL HD on DirecTV is HD-Lite either through 1080x1440 elliptical encoding or MPEG4 compression.*"
> 
> Is this guy right or way off?


What cable fourm were you on?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Thanks everyone. As usual, I learned A LOT here.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Cable Lover said:


> What cable fourm were you on?


LMAO, I still have cable for my internet...until/if Fios EVER gets here.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> On a cable forum the HD-Lite topic came up & one cable lover stated:
> "Currently, Dish still has a few HD-Lite channels. *ALL HD on DirecTV is HD-Lite either through 1080x1440 elliptical encoding or MPEG4 compression.*"
> 
> Is this guy right or way off?


I've heard of ellipitical curve encryption. Is that what ellipitical encoding is based on?

Mike


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19708348-What-is-HDLite

Read right here


----------



## Grydlok (Mar 31, 2007)

If that was comcastRick I would have even chuckled.


----------



## AZ_Engineer (Nov 14, 2007)

I assume the MPEG 4 supports various compression levels. I understand that uncompressed HD is 19.2M bits/sec. Can 2M bits/sec at 720p or 1080i be still called HD?

I realize that MPEG4 enables greater compression at the same image quality as MPEG2. But I also hear that the broadcasters and carriers can really compress a ton. With some DVD players you can monitor the bit rate realtime. Wish the D-boxes would let us do that :lol:


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

AZ_Engineer said:


> I assume the MPEG 4 supports various compression levels. I understand that uncompressed HD is 19.2M bits/sec. Can 2M bits/sec at 720p or 1080i be still called HD?
> 
> I realize that MPEG4 enables greater compression at the same image quality as MPEG2. But I also hear that the broadcasters and carriers can really compress a ton. With some DVD players you can monitor the bit rate realtime. Wish the D-boxes would let us do that :lol:


19.2 is the ATSC channel standard but that is already compressed. In the TV studio it runs about 45Mbps and true raw, uncompressed HD is way above that.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

longrider said:


> 19.2 is the ATSC channel standard but that is already compressed. In the TV studio it runs about 45Mbps and true raw, uncompressed HD is way above that.


"Uncompressed HD" would be the HDMI @ 1.4 Gb/s

*AZ_Engineer:*
SD VOD seems to becoming at about 3 Mb/s


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "Uncompressed HD" would be the HDMI @ 1.4 Gb/s


I'll take that. :lol:

I define HDlite as anytime that the picture is degraded from what the broadcaster provides. By that definition ALL of D* HD is HDLite.

Get yourself a couple satellite dishes and a program called TSreader, and look at some bitrates of HD signals.

If some of you knew what BOTH satellite comapnies were doing to the signal that YOU pay good money for and what you COULD be seeing....you'd be sick all over the floor.:nono:


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Uncompressed HD" would be the HDMI @ 1.4 Gb/s
> 
> *AZ_Engineer:*
> SD VOD seems to becoming at about 3 Mb/s


1080p is almost 3 Gbps and VESA is pimping DisplayPort at 10.2 Gbps. The point of that is compared to the rest of the world we (ie the US) are completely HD-Lite

But here is a silly question - how do they measure maximum bitrates ? HDMI is rated at 5Gbps - is that a burst or is that sustained ?


----------



## cb7214 (Jan 25, 2007)

Grydlok said:


> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19708348-What-is-HDLite
> 
> Read right here


and if you look at the date on that posting it was from back in may of 07 before the new satellite went up and the new channels started broadcasting in MPEG4

correction: my mistake i was looking at the posters join date, the comment was from yesterday i apologize


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> LMAO, I still have cable for my internet...until/if Fios EVER gets here.


And when you get Fios, you will still be on cable.

I love Fios trying to say it isn't cable, but what isn't cable about it? There is a line going to your house. It is fiber (just like most cable systems these days).


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> And when you get Fios, you will still be on cable.
> 
> I love Fios trying to say it isn't cable, but what isn't cable about it? There is a line going to your house. It is fiber (just like most cable systems these days).


Ahh, you're right...I just want Fios' speed. TW is ok, but I am a download-aholic at times.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

stogie5150 said:


> I define HDlite as anytime that the picture is degraded from what the broadcaster provides. By that definition ALL of D* HD is HDLite.


 I guess you would need to know what the broadcaster provides. If you use OTA as a reference 19.2 Mb/s is the highest for MPEG-2. Now is this what non OTA providers send?


> Get yourself a couple satellite dishes and a program called TSreader, and look at some bitrates of HD signals.


So far all those reports have been for MPEG-2 with nothing about MPEG-4. It is known that 1080i & SD channels are reduced resolution in MPEG-2, except for Discovery HD theater and all 720p channels.


> If some of you knew what BOTH satellite comapnies were doing to the signal that YOU pay good money for and what you COULD be seeing....you'd be sick all over the floor.:nono:


 Whether it's a SAT feed, cable, or over the air broadcast, "we're being squeezed", so the real question is: Does it look good or not?


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

stogie5150 said:


> I define HDlite as anytime that the picture is degraded from what the broadcaster provides.


I agree 100%


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> And when you get Fios, you will still be on cable.
> 
> I love Fios trying to say it isn't cable, but what isn't cable about it? There is a line going to your house. It is fiber (just like most cable systems these days).


In the cases where the fiber-optic line is brought all the way to the residence, it truely is not 'cable'. I can't speak to 'most' cable systems, but I know in this area TWC is only a fiber optic main trunk. All lines from the trunk to the residences are coax cable.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> In the cases where the fiber-optic line is brought all the way to the residence, it truely is not 'cable'. I can't speak to 'most' cable systems, but I know in this area TWC is only a fiber optic main trunk. All lines from the trunk to the residences are coax cable.


Ther more then just the physical medium used to get it from point a-b... when referring to things as "cable".

The over model of FIOS is still very similar to cable.

(Aka... local regionalized centers... that only provide service to that area... were offerings may or may not be the same accross the entire "brand" )


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> In the cases where the fiber-optic line is brought all the way to the residence, it truely is not 'cable'. I can't speak to 'most' cable systems, but I know in this area TWC is only a fiber optic main trunk. All lines from the trunk to the residences are coax cable.


Big deal.

It is still cable.

Did we change the name of cable when they went from no fiber optics to some fiber?

I do believe Comcast here is fiber to the doorstep. Does that make them Fios?

It is just marketing from Fios.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Ther more then just the physical medium used to get it from point a-b... when referring to things as "cable".
> 
> The over model of FIOS is still very similar to cable.
> 
> (Aka... local regionalized centers... that only provide service to that area... were offerings may or may not be the same accross the entire "brand" )


That is not the point that was made. Using that broad of a generalization to support a statement that FiOS is no different than cable is just plain non-sense.
When one media is capable of delivering gigabit datarates, and the other can only deliver a fraction of that speed, there deserves to be clear distinction made between the two. For someone to criticize Verizon for using that as an advertising advantage over cable operators is just plain silly.


----------



## viperlmw (Oct 20, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Big deal.
> 
> It is still cable.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that you are confusing 'Cable TV' and 'Telco TV'. The difference is that cable tv is distrubuted using the 'Cable Company' infrastructure, while telco tv is distributed using the 'Telephone Company' infrastructure, both of which are completely different (the only place they might 'connect' is if the local telco is hauling any of cable tv's data/bandwidth). Otherwise, these networks are completely isolated from each other. FioS, or 'Fiberoptic Service', is a Verizon branded service, and is their fiber to the prem project (btw, Verizon is a Telco, or Telephone Company).

When people here use the term 'Cable TV', it is the business model that is being discussed, not the cabling to the house.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> That is not the point that was made. Using that broad of a generalization to support a statement that FiOS is no different than cable is just plain non-sense.
> When one media is capable of delivering gigabit datarates, and the other can only deliver a fraction of that speed, there deserves to be clear distinction made between the two. For someone to criticize Verizon for using that as an advertising advantage over cable operators is just plain silly.


Why?

There is much more to the TV aspects of "FIOS" then just how it gets from the head-end to your home.

It is great that one mediau is capable of carrying gigabit datarates, doesn't change the overall model... just because they could carry more data thus more channels.

What is the advantage that they can get the TV signal to your home FASTER then Cable.... when the broadcast still remains at the same speed...

It's not like you get to watch the show faster because they can get the program to you faster.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> Big deal.
> 
> It is still cable.
> 
> Did we change the name of cable when they went from no fiber optics to some fiber?


No, so why did we change the name to Satellite when all they did was move the transmitter from one place to another? It still just sends a signal through the air from a tranmitter to an antenna on my house...



tonyd79 said:


> I do believe Comcast here is fiber to the doorstep. Does that make them Fios?


No, FiOS is a registered trademark. It would make them Comcast Fiber Company. And if that meant that they were able to deliver higher data rates and more channel capacity than Comcast Cable Company, I would hope they would advertise that fact.


tonyd79 said:


> It is just marketing from Fios.


And 'Up to 100 HD Channels..." isn't just marketing from DirecTV?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why?
> 
> There is much more to the TV aspects of "FIOS" then just how it gets from the head-end to your home.
> 
> ...


Bandwidth. More bandwidth, more channels, more HD, more everything. Fiber delivers that over coax, so to say there's no diference between cable and fiber is just not true. Read his post again, he was not merely pointing out that there is still a physical attachment, he was insisting that FiOS offers nothing more than what standard cable does... that it is all some false marketing campaign. If that were true, TW wouldn't be spending millions on Ohio politicians trying to keep FiOS out of here...


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

HD-Lite, that's the HD that is less filling, right? :lol:

Sorry...I have seen these threads too many times I think and I'm getting a bit cynical.

I think HD Lite came about as one person discribed a comparison between multiple TV signal providers. HD Lite is rhetoric to fuel controversy between the providers. It to me means nothing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> Bandwidth. More bandwidth, more channels, more HD, more everything. Fiber delivers that over coax, so to say there's no diference between cable and fiber is just not true. Read his post again, he was not merely pointing out that there is still a physical attachment, he was insisting that FiOS offers nothing more than what standard cable does... that it is all some false marketing campaign. If that were true, TW wouldn't be spending millions on Ohio politicians trying to keep FiOS out of here...


And fair enough, if that is what he was talking about...

But I'll bring it back around to my point:

That is bandwith... and getting more channels... great.... 
But at it's core...

It is still a "cable" model... where it is regionalized.. and the offerings are not necessarily consistant accross all their markets (Excluding locals).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> Bandwidth. More bandwidth, more channels, more HD, more everything. Fiber delivers that over coax, so to say there's no diference between cable and fiber is just not true. Read his post again, he was not merely pointing out that there is still a physical attachment, he was insisting that FiOS offers nothing more than what standard cable does... that it is all some false marketing campaign. If that were true, TW wouldn't be spending millions on Ohio politicians trying to keep FiOS out of here...


Maybe I don't understand some of the "points" trying to be made here. I've worked with fiber systems carrying TV. The most common receivers and transmitters used are limited to under 1 GHz/gigbit.
Fiber's greatest advantage is distance over copper.
You can run several different lasers through the same fiber [1320 & 1550 nm] to gain bandwidth, but I doubt this is being done to the house.
So with a gigbit of bandwidth, you can send several very large signals or smaller multiple signals. Bandwidth is bandwidth, so until the fiber receivers can expand their bandwidth, whether it's copper or fiber, "it's the same".


----------



## curt8403 (Dec 27, 2007)

Heem(JimmyG) said:


> Not sure about "HD Lite", I was under the impression that anything under full 1080P is "lite". I just changed over to D* about 4 days ago and I can pass on that most but not all of my HD channels thru D* are better than our old cable. Its just a crisper picture.
> 
> TV predictions posted an article a few months back that the head guy at "Dish" called the HD channels at D* "lite" to battle the amount of channels D* has vs dish
> 
> Lite or not the picture looks great


1080P? don't know anyone who has 1080P except BlueRay, and maybe HDDvD. Certainly not any form of broadcast.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

stogie5150 said:


> I define HDlite as anytime that the picture is degraded from what the broadcaster provides. By that definition ALL of D* HD is HDLite.


Trouble is my eyeballs tell me you haven't a clue...or Network kool-aid is filtering what you see.

I had the perfect opportunity the other night to watch the Pats vs. Giants in the NFL channel 212 - and then A-B with the NBC and CBS OTA telecasts. The comparison was obvious and the networks came out sucking wind.

I watched the whole game on the D* feed, thank you.


----------



## Kansas Zephyr (Jun 30, 2007)

Ed Campbell said:


> Trouble is my eyeballs tell me you haven't a clue...or Network kool-aid is filtering what you see.
> 
> I had the perfect opportunity the other night to watch the Pats vs. Giants in the NFL channel 212 - and then A-B with the NBC and CBS OTA telecasts. The comparison was obvious and the networks came out sucking wind.
> 
> I watched the whole game on the D* feed, thank you.


The game was produced/originated by NFL network, and allowed to be rebroadcast by NBC and CBS.

So who knows how many times it was compressed/uncompressed/re-compressed to flow from the truck/NFL Network/NBC or CBS/local affiliate/OTA?

In this instance, D* may very well have had superior PQ. But, this one sample isn't enough to be conclusive.


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

Ed Campbell said:


> I had the perfect opportunity the other night to watch the Pats vs. Giants in the NFL channel 212 - and then A-B with the NBC and CBS OTA telecasts. The comparison was obvious and the networks came out sucking wind.


I think it's NBC that doesn't know how to produce HD football. I was watching the same game and the PQ was horrible - lots of pixellation and just poor PQ. When they showed replays it seemed like all the NBC stuff looked like that while the FOX/NFL network feeds were fine. Same thing last night (Sunday) - the FOX feeds were stunning.

I think it's just that NBC has no idea how to do HD sports.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> <...>So far all those reports have been for MPEG-2 with nothing about MPEG-4. <...>


Well, if you will not lock yourself to one site you should find real data here.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

This particular game was not a good test for comparison. The OTA network sigs were pretty poor in terms of PQ. NFL network was better...but still not particularly good. In general, I find the PQ to rank as follows (and this is for the entire NFL season and a few college games):

1. OTA HD CBS, OTA HD-FOX
2. ESPN-HD (Monday night & some college games)
3. NFL-ST HD (some games very good, some mediocre, highly variable)
4. NFL Network HD 
5. NBC OTA...predictably and consistently poor PQ

Any football game/sporting event in SD via Sat is unwatchable, IMO, and OTA-SD is not much better (but it is discernably better)


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Digital by it's nature is compressed.


 Not a true statement. Being digital does not mean it has to be compressed. There are ways to transmit digitally with no compression. The bandwidth does not exist for satellite providers to do it that way - but that doesn't mean that "digital by its nature is compressed".


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

stogie5150 said:


> I define HDlite as anytime that the picture is degraded from what the broadcaster provides. By that definition ALL of D* HD is HDLite.


 If that's the definition then most of the television available in the United States is HD-Lite. OTA would be HD-Lite because what the local stations transmit is not the same quality provided to them by the networks. Most cable would be HD-Lite, too, since the cable companies use compression just like the satellite providers.

I really don't see the point in people continuing to whine about HD-Lite - when the fact is, unless you're watching a Blu-Ray or HD DVD, you're more than likely watching "HD-Lite".


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Ppl's complains could bring legal attention to the 'butchering' of the signal and force the providers to make it up to existing standards instead of proclaims itself as 'leaders in HD'.

Don't make it less valuable using words like 'whine'.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

l8er said:


> Not a true statement. Being digital does not mean it has to be compressed. There are ways to transmit digitally with no compression. The bandwidth does not exist for satellite providers to do it that way - but that doesn't mean that "digital by its nature is compressed".


The only digital known so far is either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4, so what from of digital are you thinking about that is ATSC?


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Don't make it less valuable using words like 'whine'.


 Just calling it what it is. All the whining in the world in the confines of these forums won't change a thing.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> None of the current HR2* series systems, can output a 1080p signal...
> 
> So it would require new hardware (at a minimum), on the home consumer side of the equation.QUOTE]
> 
> Earl from the information I recieved from a rescent visit with a Technical group of Engineers from D* Corporate all h20/21 and Hr20/21 are capable of 1080p they would need a software download to unlock that resolution. but i don't know this for a 100% fact it was just a question I have recieved from a lot of people


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Well, if you will not lock yourself to one site you should find real data here.


I can't find very much credible at that site. :nono2:


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> The only digital known so far is either MPEG-2 or MPEG-4, so what from of digital are you thinking about that is ATSC?


 If you look up "digital" you'll find no mention of MPEG anything or compression. I didn't say anyone is employing an uncompressed digital broadcast - but it is possible. I stand by my comment - digital is not by its nature compressed.


----------



## mtnsackett (Aug 22, 2007)

l8er said:


> Not a true statement. Being digital does not mean it has to be compressed. There are ways to transmit digitally with no compression. The bandwidth does not exist for satellite providers to do it that way - but that doesn't mean that "digital by its nature is compressed".


True but an uncompressed Hd 1080 I signal is 1.49 BBPS(Billion Bits Per Second) or roughly equal to 400 Standard Def digital cable channels so every one compresses their signal no matter who they are


----------



## itguy05 (Oct 24, 2007)

> If you look up "digital" you'll find no mention of MPEG anything or compression. I didn't say anyone is employing an uncompressed digital broadcast - but it is possible. I stand by my comment - digital is not by its nature compressed.


If you want to get technical, all digital is "compressed" and not an exact replication of an analog form. Digital by nature takes samples of the analog waveform at various stages and assigns a value to that. You are only getting a picture of that waveform at a point in time, not the true exact waveform. While we get close with increased sampling rates and resolutions, it's not the same thing as the exact analog waveform.

Think back to High School geometry. If I draw a 1 inch line, there is an infinite number of points along that line to capture. You've got 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128, 1/256, 1/512, etc. I can get a pretty darn close approximation of that line by sampling every 1/512'th of an inch. But it's not the same exact thing.

Digital does not have to be compressed. Think CD's vs MP3's. The CD is the uncompressed music while the MP3 uses some tricks to get things down in size. Both are digital, one is compressed the other is not. You can do basically the same thing with MPEG2/4 by increasing the bitrate to the maximum.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

itguy05 said:


> If you want to get technical, all digital is "compressed" and not an exact replication of an analog form.


 And if you want to get very technical - there are very few analog systems capable of making an exact replication of the original. All digital is not compressed. Analog data is converted to 0s and 1s. It's only compressed when you start throwing away some of those 0s and 1s.


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I can't find very much credible at that site. :nono2:


Not that makes D* look good, anyway. :lol:


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

Ed Campbell said:


> Trouble is my eyeballs tell me you haven't a clue...or Network kool-aid is filtering what you see.
> 
> I had the perfect opportunity the other night to watch the Pats vs. Giants in the NFL channel 212 - and then A-B with the NBC and CBS OTA telecasts. The comparison was obvious and the networks came out sucking wind.
> 
> I watched the whole game on the D* feed, thank you.


The channel I watched was over 30 mbps MPEG 2 HD, confirmed by TSreader. I bet the channel you watched wasn't. And it looked magnificent.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

I'm sure there is something I am missing here but I thought the OTA HD broadcast standard was 19.2 mbps, so how could a 1080i stream be higher?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

stogie5150 said:


> Not that makes D* look good, anyway. :lol:


I can't get past Scott's bull to find anything else pro or con about D*.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> I can't get past Scott's bull to find anything else pro or con about D*.


You're into too much politics and LOST vision of read technical data. 
Sorry, that's where is your technical credential sink.


----------



## Pink Fairy (Dec 28, 2006)

People, please. Don't let this disintigrate into a peeing match ^.^

Back to topic, please!?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

VOS, can you just read those DATA by URL what I posted ? W/out politics.


----------



## dthreet (Jun 6, 2006)

kstefanec said:


> Couple of weeks ago, I read that the Japanese are working on the NEW HD, 4x's the resolution of 1080, so about 4000 something. So when that comes out, is a 1080p Blue-ray, HD-Lite?
> 
> If the picture looks good, I ain't complaining.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television

This mentions 4096x2160 hd format called Quad HDTV, also known as 2160p.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> VOS, can you just read those DATA by URL what I posted ? W/out politics.


It's not politics, but Scott. Every time I've gone to that site, the BS from him has been so overwhelming that I can't weed through it to find anything I can believe.
If you would like to post something here, I'll be happy to read it and maybe learn something.
Scott has an agenda the gets in the way of anything that is credible IMO.


----------



## raoul5788 (May 14, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> It's not politics, but Scott. Every time I've gone to that site, the BS from him has been so overwhelming that I can't weed through it to find anything I can believe.
> If you would like to post something here, I'll be happy to read it and maybe learn something.
> Scott has an agenda the gets in the way of anything that is credible IMO.


VOS, can you be more specific? I go to both sites, have for quite a while. I know Scott rubs some people the wrong way, but I don't know what you mean when you say his bs is overwhelming. Please enlighten us.


----------



## Janice805 (Nov 27, 2005)

OK, I don't know about all this "HD" or "HD-lite" stuff but I've been with DTV for 10 years, am basicially a satisfied customers, and here's MY thoughts.

Since Hi-Def came along and was being broadcast by DTV, and I replaced both of my TV's with Sony 1080P TV's, I loved it. I couldn't get enough of HD programming. I mean there were grass growing channels (the DSC-HD, now HDTH?, UHD, HDN, etc.). Beautiful programs and picture quality, and they filled the screen. 

Then, DTV, comes up with all of these other channels (as promised). BTW, I don't watch sports. Only family channels (200-300'S) and all the premium movie channels (500's). Keep that in mind with my comments.

My complaint is that I got used to the first channels with their marvelous quality. Then they added premium channels which are good in HD, but when they added (supposedly) more of the family-type channels and called them HD, aarg. I mean like TBS, TNT, A&E, FX, etc. Sometimes what's proported to be HD fills my 16:9 screen and looks good and clear, and is what I expected from HD. Somtimes, it's called HD but is only in the 4:3 format (which I don't like and don't consider -to me- to be HD), then there are the channels that show HD in the 4:3 fomat but "stretched" (which is even worse). I absolutely refuse to watch those.

Some of the HD broadcasts are good and like I got used to seeing originally and what I now compare everything to as "HD". These new channels (a lot of them anyway) are not what I consider (in MY terminology) to be true HD. Some, even just stretch the SD picture and that's not HD. This blonde hates "stretched" pictures.

Again, consider I don't watch sports. I'm only comparing the original HD channels broadcast by DTV (channels in the 70's), to the Premium Movie Channels (which for the most-part are OK), and to all of the "other" channels (which for the most part are NOT really HD and therefore are not OK).

I got all excited when some of the channels in the 200-300's came along but then felt "cheated". I watched one program called HD and it was in 4:3 fomat, then I viewed the same thing on the SD channel and I didn't see much difference between the two (at least on my Sony TV).

Again, I don't know HD from HD-lite nor all the technical terminology, but DTV sold me some programming that's not much better than SD and I'm disappointed. Opinions welcome. Keep the terminology simply though as I'm not a techno-weenie. These are only my simple observations of what "I" expected from the new HD channels (minus the sports, guys).

Comments?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

When I hear terms like "HD Lite" or "True HD"...I immediately roll my eyes, take a sip of my beverage, giggle at the source of the term, and move on....  

My eyeballs (and those of family and visiting friends) do all the research needed to judge my HD...and they are might happy campers these days.

Just another example of the abuse of technology language. :lol:


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Janice805 said:


> OK, I don't know about all this "HD" or "HD-lite" stuff but I've been with DTV for 10 years, am basicially a satisfied customers, and here's MY thoughts.
> 
> Since Hi-Def came along and was being broadcast by DTV, and I replaced both of my TV's with Sony 1080P TV's, I loved it. I couldn't get enough of HD programming. I mean there were grass growing channels (the DSC-HD, now HDTH?, UHD, HDN, etc.). Beautiful programs and picture quality, and they filled the screen.
> 
> ...


I think a great many of folks here would agree with you. I'm not certain DirecTV can control the content however. The channels that produce the programs are likely (my guess) playing catch up. Their hardware is capable of sending us HD but their content isn't entirely HD (yet). Was there marketing hype by DirecTV that gave us the impression we were getting soemthing extraordinary? Absolutely, take the 100 HD channels by January 1, 2008. The words I missed from that hype was *up to* 100 HD channels. The 100 HD channels stuck in my head, and not the up to...similarly with the HD channels content. DirecTV can not control their content and how it is presented, they can only make certain that the HD hardware and software that touches the content providers content does what it should to provide the content however the provider wants it presented.

I too watch a lot of Family Oriented content since Mrs. Smiddy and I have a 4 year old and a 5 month old. I am really looking forward to Disney HD and I would suspect that they will be prepared with HD content and not SD programming made to look like HD content.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> When I hear terms like "HD Lite" or "True HD"...I immediately roll my eyes, take a sip of my beverage, giggle at the source of the term, and move on....
> 
> My eyeballs (and those of family and visiting friends) do all the research needed to judge my HD...and they are might happy campers these days.
> 
> Just another example of the abuse of technology language. :lol:





smiddy said:


> HD-Lite, that's the HD that is less filling, right? :lol:
> 
> Sorry...I have seen these threads too many times I think and I'm getting a bit cynical.
> 
> I think HD Lite came about as one person discribed a comparison between multiple TV signal providers. HD Lite is rhetoric to fuel controversy between the providers. It to me means nothing.


Yep, nearly the same reaction I have...I'm a bit more cynical though...


----------



## Matt9876 (Oct 11, 2007)

Mpeg4 is an excellent way to send HD and Directv has proven to me it works very well !

Mpeg can be sent at a low data rate and presto HD-Lite/Crap TV most providers do this at some point to add in extra channels but in Directv cases they have the needed bandwidth with D10 and have no need to over compress the HD feeds.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

raoul5788 said:


> VOS, can you be more specific? I know Scott rubs some people the wrong way, but ...


Maybe I'm just one of those people.


----------



## DarkAudit (Sep 10, 2007)

720p, 1080i. Makes no difference to me. Both look so much better than the SD I was using up until two months ago.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

This site is about the discussion of DBS Technologies.

Not other forum sites, how they are run, and the people that participate in different forums.

If you want to continue the discussion of that nature... take it to PM.

:backtotop


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I believe the intent is to deliver HD in the best format, resolution, compression method, and bit rate required for a quality broadcast image and audio result. 

This holds true for any service, DirecTV or otherwise. That said, bandwidth considerations vary by provider, and will impact the actual resources used to deliver content. This is also something that is dynamic, not static, based on the volume and content source at any given time.


----------



## seemenewd (Dec 19, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> And when you get Fios, you will still be on cable.
> 
> I love Fios trying to say it isn't cable, but what isn't cable about it? There is a line going to your house. It is fiber (just like most cable systems these days).


"Cable" is now fiber where it enters your home (i.e. fiber is terminated in or on your house, not up the street at a distribution point)?


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

Grydlok said:


> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r19708348-What-is-HDLite
> 
> Read right here


man that pi#$ed me off!
wish I never read that link


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> And 'Up to 100 HD Channels..." isn't just marketing from DirecTV?


No, as I have over 100 HD channels in my favorites list.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SteveHas said:


> man that pi#$ed me off!
> wish I never read that link


Why? Because some nimrod has decided that any recoding is HD Lite? That is not what HD Lite came to mean. He is redefining a pretty much accepted term to fit his own agenda.

I guess if cable re-encodes the coming HBO feeds from MPEG4 to MPEG2, that is HD Lite? Nonsense.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

tonyd79 said:


> Why? Because some nimrod has decided that any recoding is HD Lite? That is not what HD Lite came to mean. He is redefining a pretty much accepted term to fit his own agenda.
> 
> I guess if cable re-encodes the coming HBO feeds from MPEG4 to MPEG2, that is HD Lite? Nonsense.


Agreed. This topic has been bantored now for years, literally.

The term "HDLite" is virtually an urban myth term that someone created to describe *their *vision of what HD should be according to *their* specifications. Bitrates....compression....purists...

There are numerous threads and posts throughout this site that discuss and reveal that the proper accepted definition of digital (ak) HD) transmission *does not include **any *of the descriptions used to define "HDLite".

To many, "HDLite" is in the same category of vocabulary as "imaginary friend".

In the spirit of how the original post was submitted....DirecTV has evolved their digital transmission over a number of years, with the goal to get to all MPEG-4 compression broadcasts of digital (HD) communications.

MPEG-4 compression has quickly become the defacto standard of acceptable quality digital encoding used by not only satellite services, but also network and cable broadcasters. DirecTV has actually been one of the leaders in the migration to this standard, investing many Millions of $$$ for new equipment in that methodology. Dish and cable have started to do likewise.

At the end of the day, its all about how to transmit quality digital video and audio using leverage bandwidth. In DirecTV's case, they added substantial capacity through one new satellite last year, and will do so again soon this year.

In the case of cable, they are more limited to their infrastructure, having to either replace existing cabling or else use other new conceptual transmission techniques, such as "dynamic digital channel switching". Comcast is experimenting with that as we speak.

Regardless of the technique used, HDTV is alive and strong, and getting better all the time. Talk of "HDLite" is merely a verbose distraction.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

What is picture quality anyway? How is it measured? Is it the exact reproduction of the original picture, bit by bit? Is good picture quality >= 90% of the original? Is better picture quality >= 95%? Is DirecTV >= 98% of the original picture bit by bit? Can a human tell sitting at a distance good enough not to be able to recognize the difference between pixels able to descern these quantities?

These question are more important to me.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Perhaps you have too many D* shares, hdtvfan. Speaking by a language of D* PR.

Really, your or my taste and personal preference doesn't play here. 
Those technical parameters what D* or E* messing up clearly verifiable and your rhetorics is good for couch-potatos.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

P Smith said:


> Perhaps you have too many D* shares, hdtvfan. Speaking by a language of D* PR.
> 
> Really, your or my taste and personal preference doesn't play here.
> Those technical parameters what D* or E* messing up clearly verifiable and your rhetorics is good for couch-potatos.


"PR"? "Taste"?

I have no interest in, shares of, or financial participation in anything with DirecTV other than being a paying customer for 15+ years. I also read alot, speak to informed people, and generally keep on top of digital technology for work, as well as for HDTV enjoyment.

It's not about rhetoric or personal preferences, its about facts. HDLite doesn't belong in the same sentence as facts. That has been extensively documented by countless others.


----------



## turey22 (Jul 30, 2007)

okay i am sorry if you guys answered this already, but what is hd lite?


----------



## bwclark (Nov 10, 2005)

turey22 said:


> okay i am sorry if you guys answered this already, but what is hd lite?


---------------------------------
Re: What is HD-Lite?

Sorry folks, but you all are mixing up some definitions here. HD Lite is a reference to HD source resolutions, not MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 compression!

Broadcast HD source resolutions are either 1920 x 1080i or 1280 x 720p and each TV network chooses one technological format or the other.

When DirecTV's HD satellite service initially was launched, the provider down sampled the 1920 x 1080i HD signals -- to 1440 x 1080i, which was dubbed HD Lite by some detractors. Like all broadcasters at the time, DirecTV used MPEG-2 compression to reduce the digital file sizes of each program and retransmit the signals back to customers. The 720p resolutions were not altered. The use of "HD Lite" down-sampling helped DirecTV squeeze a few, initial HD channels (about seven total, I think) onto the bandwidth of an existing satellite for a couple of years -- until their new space vehicles were launched in 2007.

To my knowledge, DirecTV has not revealed whether the new 1080i HD channels being added now are transmitted as HD Lite (1440 x 1080i) or full-resolution (1920 x 1080i), but all those new channels are compressed using the improved MPEG-4 compression technology. As a result of the switch to MPEG-4, all DirecTV channels (1080i or 720p) broadcast using the new satellite(s) are said to be much improved.

Down-sampling resolution and compression each can degrade picture quality. The old, HD Lite channels are not as sharp as raw, full-resolution 1920 x 1080i HD, but DirecTV always denied any difference. However, viewers with a discriminating eye for detail could easily see a difference.
----------------------

1) Are all Direct Sat now MPEG4?

Evidently not........but soon?
http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1343676&postcount=6

2) Is there a way to connect up an OTA antenna to the new Direct receiver?
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=114668

Cable Guy


----------



## bemenaker (Jan 6, 2008)

Just a few words on the compression. All digital signals (video and audio) are sent in some sort of encoding. Encoding almost always means it has some sort of compression involved (the translation from analog to digital means that you have to do a mathmatical approximation, which by definition is compression). Yes, you can send raw digital info, but it is extremely large in size. If you have seen .raw picture files versus .jpg you will understand what I am saying. 

Compression when done correctly, minimizes the changes to the experience you receive in the end. Anytime you do a analog to digital conversion, you will lose some detail, this is a fact of life and physics. That is why higher bit rate samplings mean more detail. (You will probably be more familiar with this in mp3's, 120Khz or 196Khz samplings, someone said cd's are exact sound, no they are not, they drop highs and lows but had more bandwidth than cassettes, a 360Khz mp3 is cd quality)

Mpeg2 and Mpeg4 are video compression standards. 4 is remarkably better at compressing to smaller file sizes while retaining even more detail than mpeg2 does. H.264 is one method of mpeg4 compression. (BTW you can fit an HD movie on a standard dvd if you use mpeg4 endoding of some sort)


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Thanks for posting obvious info. You pass 1st grade test.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Thanks for posting obvious info. You pass 1st grade test.


Stop being such an ass. Seriously.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

bemenaker,

I want to Welcome you to DBSTalk and hope that you give the rest of us a chance to show that opinions and information are, in fact, welcome here and the people here are generally very knowledgable, helpful, and GREAT PEOPLE. Unfortunately, your first post also proves that the above is not always the case. I think Jeremy W's post shows that not all of us are like that first reply.

Please continue to visit AND contribute. This place has been a stopping place for me for quite some time now and I nearly always enjoy my visits.

Welcome! Welcome! Welcome!
:welcome_s :welcome_s :welcome_s


----------



## cnr1089 (Nov 14, 2007)

I didn't read through all the post, so this may have been covered, but as far as I can tell, the my local HD channels (Mpeg4) are definitely lower quality then the national HD feed (the only channels I can compare MPEG2 to MPEG4 DirecTV channels).

On my 50" DLP (720p native) I cannot tell the difference. On my 1080p LCD it is VERY noticeable (to the point where I almost took the TV back, until I realized I could watch the same show on the national feed).

I understand these facts:

MPEG4 produce the same quality of MPEG2 at a lower bitrate. It is likely that the local feeds are doing either or both of the following:
1) re-compressing an already compressed national feed they receive
2) Cranking the bit-rate down to the point where it looks ok for most people

In fact, to me, the local HD channels look like SD but with better color to me (very soft). The same show on the national feed looks way better.

Anyone else seeing this?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

JLucPicard said:


> bemenaker,
> 
> I want to Welcome you to DBSTalk and hope that you give the rest of us a chance to show that opinions and information are, in fact, welcome here and the people here are generally very knowledgable, helpful, and GREAT PEOPLE. Unfortunately, your first post also proves that the above is not always the case. I think Jeremy W's post shows that not all of us are like that first reply.
> 
> ...


JLucPicard

I think you may have misunderstood Jeremy's post (#87) - I believe he was referring to the post right before his (#86)....not the original post...or at least that's how I read it...

...but I don't condone personal insults or swearing in posts whatsoever. :eek2:

Thanks for your good intentions on the OP.


----------



## jjohns (Sep 15, 2007)

It's quite telling that a post (#87) containing both a personal attack and swearing, is not deleted but other anti-D* posts are quickly pounced upon.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jjohns said:


> It's quite telling that a post (#87) containing both a personal attack and swearing, is not deleted but other anti-D* posts are quickly pounced upon.


With many of the Mods traveling at the CEA this week...I'm sure they have to catch up to monitoring things off-hours. Also, there's the old time-difference thing.

Rest assured...DBSTalk is an outstanding source of information that is primarily populated by 2 sets of posters - those who request help and those who provide assistance.

That said, there are those couple of occasional posts that slip through....I'm not defending anything .... but with thousands of post per day ....

The Mods here do an incredible job of giving help, providing guidance, and monitoring the basic rules of posting here. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt please. Thanks for your patience.

This site always welcomes any/all (civil) contributions.

In the mean time....:backtotop


----------



## garydhunter (Aug 24, 2007)

OK, alot of real good information, but what is the actual HD D* resolution? I heard a Best Buy guy tell someone if he has a HD DVR the best resolution he can get is 720P and any TV that has more resolution is a waste of time. I have a HR20-100 and my home theater projector says I am getting 1080i out of the DVR, but is this real or upconverted? Are the Mpeg2 stations 720p maybe this is what he is saying and doesn't know about the Mpeg4 stations?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

garydhunter said:


> OK, alot of real good information, but what is the actual HD D* resolution? I heard a Best Buy guy tell someone if he has a HD DVR the best resolution he can get is 720P and any TV that has more resolution is a waste of time. I have a HR20-100 and my home theater projector says I am getting 1080i out of the DVR, but is this real or upconverted? Are the Mpeg2 stations 720p maybe this is what he is saying and doesn't know about the Mpeg4 stations?


The HR20 and HR21 series DVRs output 720p and/or 1080i.

Your projector's readings are correct - your HR20-100 must be set at 1080i, which is what you have.

Not all stations broadcast in 1080i, however......ABC, ESPN, etc currently are at 720p, which is what DirecTV will pass on...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

cnr1089 said:


> I didn't read through all the post, so this may have been covered, but as far as I can tell, the my local HD channels (Mpeg4) are definitely lower quality then the national HD feed (the only channels I can compare MPEG2 to MPEG4 DirecTV channels).


If your locals are of lower quality than the HD DNS channels in the 80s, which is possible, then I feel sorry for you. Given a decent quality feed from your local channels, they should look noticeably better than the channels in the 80s. But if your locals are crap, then they will look like crap on DirecTV too.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I think you may have misunderstood Jeremy's post (#87) - I believe he was referring to the post right before his (#86)....not the original post...or at least that's how I read it...


He understood it, and so did you. I was referring to #86, and JLucPicard recognized that.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jjohns said:


> It's quite telling that a post (#87) containing both a personal attack and swearing, is not deleted but other anti-D* posts are quickly pounced upon.


My post did not contain a personal attack, nor did it contain swearing. Personal attacks focus on the person, obviously, and I did not do that. And if you try and swear on this site, the word will get censored with asterisks.

P Smith has a history of being abusive to others, and I found his post towards a new user to be highly offensive. It warranted a slightly rougher response.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

cnr1089 said:


> I didn't read through all the post, so this may have been covered, but as far as I can tell, the my local HD channels (Mpeg4) are definitely lower quality then the national HD feed (the only channels I can compare MPEG2 to MPEG4 DirecTV channels).
> On my 50" DLP (720p native) I cannot tell the difference. On my 1080p LCD it is VERY noticeable (to the point where I almost took the TV back, until I realized I could watch the same show on the national feed).
> I understand these facts:
> MPEG4 produce the same quality of MPEG2 at a lower bitrate. It is likely that the local feeds are doing either or both of the following:
> ...


Your locals seem to really have problems.
I'm able to compare:
OTA CBS
MPEG-4 CBS [same station]
MPEG-2 CBS West coast national.
My picture is best with OTA
My MPEG-4 is very close
The national CBS MPEG-2 is "softer" than the two above because the 1920 x 1080i is reduced to 1280 x 1080i, sent through the SAT feed and then scaled back up to 1920 x 1080i to your display. This is the cause of the "softness".
The 720p stations come at 1280 x 720 through the SAT feed.

Now if your locals look "softer" than the compressed national feed [MPEG-2], I would think it's with your local station and not DirecTV. They may be just upconverting their SD feed to HD resolution.


----------

