# Dish HD is not High Definition (according to some)



## Algie Abrams

Though the image is 16:9 and the resolutions fall with ATSC for the HD specification, Dish filters out a large percentage of the fine detail information and limits color depth as it is re-compressed to fit within Dish's HD Channels.

HD uncompressed raw data rate i 1.5 Gigabits/sec and is used primarily for production, off air broadcast is significantly compressed to 19.4 Megabits/sec, but still maintains most of the high frequency visual information.

Dish network re-compresses this to the 3-5 Megabit (my eyeball's guess) range. You can notice this in lack of detail in hair on meduim close ups, or as in the banding of colors in gradients. I also see motion vector errors caused by re-compression. In a medium close up, the persons nose, eyes, and mounth will all move, but in a motionless blob of face which is fixed. I haven't seen this effect since a very good mushroom trip in the 1960's.

My eyeball's guess is that dish is delivering something akin to "Extended Definition" which is a 16:9 version of standard defintion. 1920 x 1080 carries 6 times the resolution of Standard definition of 720 x 486. Just because the picture size is large does not mean the image it displays contains all the information your set can display. There is a similar softness to all Dish HD channels.

I just don't see a 6X increase in detail and am disappointed in the quality, and would not reccommend it - but only as a desperate last choice.

They advertise and sell a product that they do not deliver. They count on the untrained eye not to notice. Shame on them.:
:nono2:


----------



## Redlinetire

Algie Abrams said:


> I haven't seen this effect since a very good mushroom trip in the 1960's.


That pretty much explains all I need to know about your opinion. :lol:


----------



## Bobby H

DishHD sure isn't Blu-ray quality. But it's a big jump above standard definition.

OTA broadcast certainly does seem to have higher bit rates. But those broadcasts are not perfect in quality or similar to Blu-ray quality either. Let's also not forget the fact both ABC and FOX broadcast at 720p resolution instead of 1080i.

Anyone expecting master-grade quality HD or even Blu-ray quality via satellite (or cable, OTA, etc.) really needs a reality check. You make the trade-off for some loss in image quality in return for the wide variety of programming.


----------



## braven

Hope you're wearing your flame suit.


----------



## willc

And what do you think Directv's HD is? It's not 1.5 Gigabites / sec.

Somethings got to give somewhere.


----------



## EXTACAMO

The OP probably works in video production in some capacity and is used to being in dimly lit rooms full of perfectly calibrated displays and signals that are right on the money. I know when I worked in broadcasting years ago I found it difficult to watch TV at home or at a friends house after a day at work. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending him. I can't stand people in any field that throw around techno babble because they think it makes them sound smart. :nono:


----------



## EXTACAMO

That's also one helluva first post.


----------



## todbnla

Have ya seen DirecTV HD?


----------



## garys

Gotta love the use of "My eyeball's guess", I wish my eyeballs were that smart. Does the OP really think anyone could supply that type of HD on all the HD channels. I think we would only see 2 or 3 channels with nothing much else. Even OTA does not supply the signal at that high a resolution.


----------



## Carl Spock

Let me guess, Algie Abrams. Your solution would be to have Dish only offer the dozen HD station you watch, eliminating everything else, and putting all of that extra bandwidth towards your favorites.

And that's only a guess because you don't give a solution to the problem. But I understand why. You can't. Subscribers want HD. They also want a lot of channels. In a marketing war with DirecTV, Dish has to provide around 100 HD channels. If they don't, they lose, period. As someone else said, something's got to give and that's a bit of picture quality.

And you are wrong even with your technical knowledge. Dish's signal isn't "extended definition". EDTV is, by definition, a 480p signal on a 16:9 screen. And complain all you want, but Dish's definition is better than 480p.

May I recommend post #2 be one where you state your disappointment with Dish's HD signal without over-exaggerating and trying to impress folks with technical talk.

Or maybe, bub, it should be a plan to launch your own satellites.


----------



## nmetro

While the HD is not BluRay; I think it is very good. When one can stand in front of a 32" Sony Bravia, using a VIP211 set at 1080i with component video, and read the very tiny numbers on a score board in the background during the Olympics Gymnastics action; I would say that is very good picture quality.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Algie Abrams said:


> HD uncompressed raw data rate i 1.5 Gigabits/sec and is used primarily for production, off air broadcast is significantly compressed to 19.4 Megabits/sec, but still maintains most of the high frequency visual information.


Actually, most of our local OTA stations also have a number of SD subchannrels so I would guess their "HD" broadcasts are running around 9 Megabits/sec.


----------



## DishSatUser

Algie Abrams said:


> They advertise and sell a product that they do not deliver. They count on the untrained eye not to notice. Shame on them.:
> :nono2:


Just like many quotes over time, "ignorance is bliss". To my untrained eye, it looks fantastic!!! 

And, yes, I've viewed HD from many sources. Like others have said, it's not Blue Ray (but if it where, then all those BD players sales would tank), but it still really good.


----------



## simulated

HobbyTalk said:


> Actually, most of our local OTA stations also have a number of SD subchannrels so I would guess their "HD" broadcasts are running around 9 Megabits/sec.


as you can see, atsc @ 8vsb hovers around 20 mega bits per second ala 6mhz bandwidth. I sometimes can lock a PBS channel, with 4 sub channels, that leave less than 10 mega bits per second for their High def channel, so your guess is on the money.


----------



## phrelin

Algie Abrams said:


> Though the image is 16:9 and the resolutions fall with ATSC for the HD specification, Dish filters out a large percentage of the fine detail information and limits color depth as it is re-compressed to fit within Dish's HD Channels.
> 
> My eyeball's guess is....


I had the same problem on my 16' x 9' panel, but I can't see it on my 42" plasma when I sit on the furniture 7 feet away. So I sold the big panel and settled for my tiny 42 incher.


----------



## goldenbear

todbnla said:


> Have ya seen DirecTV HD?


Have you seen Comcast HD!

I don't know what real HD technically is, but since it's not possible to see the difference between 720p and 1080p from more than ~7 feet on a 42" screen, I don't really care. At this point, I'd rather these providers give a large quantity of 720p rather than less quantity of 1080p, and that's exactly what they do. And some more than others. Of course there is no 1080p TV programming outside of movies.

Now Dish HD saying their 1080p VOD is the same quality as blu ray... I doubt that. Same resolution, but compressed, yeah.


----------



## Nick

> *Dish HD is not High Definition *


Sit farther away! :lol:


----------



## brant

my dishHD looks great! but I have an "untrained" eye. Some programs aren't as sharp as others, but it sure beats standard definition. Compared to OTA HD, the picture quality I get from dishHD isn't far from it; in fact, its hard for me to tell a difference most times. And that's all that matters to me.


----------



## grooves12

Carl Spock said:


> And you are wrong even with your technical knowledge. Dish's signal isn't "extended definition". EDTV is, by definition, a 480p signal on a 16:9 screen. And complain all you want, but Dish's definition is better than 480p.


Actually, I really don't think it is in many cases... people will notice compression errors (macroblocking), loss of detail or blurring in motion or panned shots, and lack of color depth a lot more than they do a loss in resolution.

My picture from a 480p DVD player is about on par if not better than most of Dish's HD...

I think people are so used to the reduced resolution overcompressed SD that they are blown away by reduced resolution overcompressed HD.

I'm not saying Dish's HD is hrrible... but it could get a LOT better. Personally I would be happier if Dish downsampled everything to 720p, kept the bitrate the same, and thus got rid of all of the compression artifacts.

Unfortunately, that is not a solution because then all the stats commandos would be crying up a storm not because they SEE a difference but because TSreader tells them the difference. I mean look at all the people still clamoring for 1080p when it offers absolutely zero benefit over 1080i. Blu-ray does not look better because it is 1080p... it looks better because it has more bandwidth and has better compression algorithms not being limited by having to do real-time compression. It would look just as good with a 1080i signal.


----------



## razorbackfan

*Dish HD is not High Definition*

...is too!


----------



## anex80

So who among the top players (Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, TWC, etc.) IS true HD?


----------



## ptuck874




----------



## kal915

anex80 said:


> So who among the top players (Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, TWC, etc.) IS true HD?


None, only Blu-Ray is true HD


----------



## latino49

Hi to all olso it depends what tv u have ..i have a a 40 inch tv bravia with 16,000 of constrast and my sister have a 28 barvia but only 1.600 and the picture dont look like sharp like my 40 inch tv HD channel on my tv looks great on dish and sd wooow look cool too some tv the pic on with HD looks very bad like Ilo ore panasonic and vcio ... like i say it depends what type of TV u have .


----------



## kal915

latino49 said:


> Hi to all olso it depends what tv u have ..i have a a 40 inch tv bravia with 16,000 of constrast and my sister have a 28 barvia but only 1.600 and the picture dont look like sharp like my 40 inch tv HD channel on my tv looks great on dish and sd wooow look cool too some tv the pic on with HD looks very bad like Ilo ore panasonic and vcio ... like i say it depends what type of TV u have .


you're right
mybe he was expecting 1080i resolution on a 720p tv


----------



## Carl Spock

grooves12 said:


> My picture from a 480p DVD player is about on par if not better than most of Dish's HD...


That hasn't been my experience. Admittedly, it's more limited, in customer's homes, setting up systems, but I did live with a damn fine Dish HD system for about a week when I was staying with a videophile friend, and I didn't find this to be the case. His Dish HD picture looked significantly better than an upconverting Oppo DVD player he had, the one with the _DCDi by Faroudja _circuit.

I'm a DirecTV subscriber so I don't live with Dish daily. I will let more knowledgeable folks on this board carry the water for Dish. And yes, I do find its picture to be softer, with more macroblocking, than what I'm used to at home. But it's still HD to my eye. Its color, black level and resolution was closer to the HD DVD player that was in my buddy's system (a Toshiba HD-A3) than any EDTV signal I've seen.

To call Dish's picture "not HD" is to throw mud. It's hyperbole. To say it could be better is right on. But then, virtually every HD broadcast I receive could be better.


----------



## Taco Lover

Please, Algie, send your concerns to [email protected]! Maybe you can get them to improve upon things!


----------



## DJ Lon

garys said:


> Gotta love the use of "My eyeball's guess", I wish my eyeballs were that smart.


ROTFLMAO! !rolling


----------



## HobbyTalk

kal915 said:


> None, only Blu-Ray is true HD


Is not! BD is also compressed HD!


----------



## Hunter Green

Soylent green is people.


----------



## Tulsa1

latino49 said:


> Hi to all olso it depends what tv u have ..i have a a 40 inch tv bravia with 16,000 of constrast and my sister have a 28 barvia but only 1.600 and the picture dont look like sharp like my 40 inch tv HD channel on my tv looks great on dish and sd wooow look cool too some tv the pic on with HD looks very bad like Ilo ore panasonic and vcio ... like i say it depends what type of TV u have .


That was painful to read:eek2:


----------



## garys

latino49 said:


> Hi to all olso it depends what tv u have ..i have a a 40 inch tv bravia with 16,000 of constrast and my sister have a 28 barvia but only 1.600 and the picture dont look like sharp like my 40 inch tv HD channel on my tv looks great on dish and sd wooow look cool too some tv the pic on with HD looks very bad like Ilo ore panasonic and vcio ... like i say it depends what type of TV u have .


It is more due to the picture size as you cannot see as much detail. A 13" analog looks better and a 32" analog.


----------



## JCN

Algie Abrams said:


> Though the image is 16:9 and the resolutions fall with ATSC for the HD specification, Dish filters out a large percentage of the fine detail information and limits color depth as it is re-compressed to fit within Dish's HD Channels.
> 
> HD uncompressed raw data rate i 1.5 Gigabits/sec and is used primarily for production, off air broadcast is significantly compressed to 19.4 Megabits/sec, but still maintains most of the high frequency visual information.
> 
> Dish network re-compresses this to the 3-5 Megabit (my eyeball's guess) range. You can notice this in lack of detail in hair on meduim close ups, or as in the banding of colors in gradients. I also see motion vector errors caused by re-compression. In a medium close up, the persons nose, eyes, and mounth will all move, but in a motionless blob of face which is fixed. I haven't seen this effect since a very good mushroom trip in the 1960's.
> 
> My eyeball's guess is that dish is delivering something akin to "Extended Definition" which is a 16:9 version of standard defintion. 1920 x 1080 carries 6 times the resolution of Standard definition of 720 x 486. Just because the picture size is large does not mean the image it displays contains all the information your set can display. There is a similar softness to all Dish HD channels.
> 
> I just don't see a 6X increase in detail and am disappointed in the quality, and would not reccommend it - but only as a desperate last choice.
> 
> They advertise and sell a product that they do not deliver. They count on the untrained eye not to notice. Shame on them.:
> :nono2:


Thanks for the information. Unlike others I want to know what I am getting. I love my HD and don't want the pretend 1080p. When I am told its like blue ray 1080p, that's what I look for. They said it I didn't. If people are happy with less then that ok. I am not. Don't sell me pretend. Buzz words don't impress me, resolution does.


----------



## pauly

huh?


----------



## Redlinetire

JCN said:


> Thanks for the information. Unlike others I want to know what I am getting. I love my HD and don't want the pretend 1080p. When I am told its like blue ray 1080p, that's what I look for. They said it I didn't. If people are happy with less then that ok. I am not. Don't sell me pretend. Buzz words don't impress me, resolution does.




All the OP told you was that unless you sit in the production truck, every service provides a compressed signal. At least according to his 'trained' eyeballs. :lol:


----------



## HDftw

JCN said:


> Thanks for the information. Unlike others I want to know what I am getting. I love my HD and don't want the pretend 1080p. When I am told its like blue ray 1080p, that's what I look for. They said it I didn't. If people are happy with less then that ok. I am not. Don't sell me pretend. Buzz words don't impress me, resolution does.


Yeah, I :heart: my Dish HD :lovenote:


----------



## Presence




----------



## kucharsk

I don't think anyone can say Dish HD is good looking HD.

Yes, it's better than Comcast.

But it's significantly worse than it could be.

Would I rather have ten full resolution HD channels than 100 HD Lite ones? Actually, yes.

Something like Voom with content I want to watch would be nice.

But Americans voted long ago that they prefer quantity to quality, and so the "HD" we get from Dish, DirecTV and cable is what we get as a result.

Yes, it looks good, but largely only because Dish's SD product is so horrible, even upscaled full resolution SD would look "amazing" to most by comparison.

That having been said, I think if at this point you don't realize what Dish provides is really bit-rate reduced resolution lowered "HD Lite" it's your own fault. 

In all seriousness, if most viewers had any ideas what HD or even SD looks like directly from the source that enters the head ends at D*, E* and your cable company, it would look like the "crowds with torches" scene in _Frankenstein_.


----------



## P Smith

Unfortunately, they had the idea - DVD players giving the basic point for SD comparison and HD/BR for HD.
So, the providers still driven by money and silent acceptance the low quality of general public.


----------



## dshu82

Why is it that these types of posts where the OP drops in with random, uninformed babble, never to be heard from again are my favorite? 

Priceless.....


----------



## Bobby H

P Smith said:


> Unfortunately, they had the idea - DVD players giving the basic point for SD comparison and HD/BR for HD.


While there may be some drawbacks for using 480p MPEG-2 based DVD as a quality reference for standard definition, I see nothing wrong at all with using Blu-ray as a quality reference for high definition.

Blu-ray delivers the highest quality of HD video of any HD format available to the general public. No broadcast, satellite or cable format is equal to Blu-ray simply because they don't have anywhere near the data bandwidth of Blu-ray. When a broadcaster can deliver HD at 54Mb/sec. then we can talk about something that actually equals Blu-ray.

Sure, Blu-ray is lossy data compressed. It isn't the same as a 1.4Gb/sec. uncompressed HD master or even the same as a mildly compressed 2K d-cinema JPEG2000 file. Average people have no access at all to that content and won't for a very long time. Blu-ray it is the best of what's available to play in HD in a home environment. So, yeah, it is useful as a comparison to measure the quality (or lack of) in other kinds of HD broadcasts, formats or downloads.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Bobby H said:


> When a broadcaster can deliver HD at 54Mb/sec. then we can talk about something that actually equals Blu-ray.


Do you actually own any Blu ray movies that are delivering 54 Mbps? I don't. In fact, I do own at least onw Blu ray movie that says right on the package that it is 18Mbps... which is actually less than broadcast OTA quality.

The "as good as Blu ray" comment can work both ways, depending upon which disc you use to make the comparison.


----------



## P Smith

Last Dish attempt to gather customers was "1080p" campaign; it bring 15 Mbps H.264 VOD movie in 1080p24 format. Not that bad comparing to BR 18 Mbps.


----------



## Bobby H

HDMe said:


> Do you actually own any Blu ray movies that are delivering 54 Mbps? I don't. In fact, I do own at least onw Blu ray movie that says right on the package that it is 18Mbps... which is actually less than broadcast OTA quality.


I'll bet you're probably looking at some of the dopey verbiage on the back of a Fox Blu-ray movie title. Fox is the only studio I know of that often quotes a video bit rate on the back cover of the case. It's a number that could only be averaged between the lowest bit levels and peak rates.

BTW, which title are you quoting? Chances are it's only a BD-25 single layer disc. Some BD-50 Fox discs I own quote higher average bit rates. _Independence Day_ is listed at 27Mb/s for its video bit rate.

Try actually taking a look at the bit rate readings during the movie. Few, if any, movies on Blu-ray keep the video bit rate sustained or below a 18Mb/s level -even ones on a single layer disc.

I've seen lots of Blu-ray movies sustain video levels in the high 20's and low 30's and then peak in the 40's. _Independence Day_ often goes above 40Mb/s for the video bit rate. Even a mild comedy like _Juno_ does too. _Cloverfield_ (a Paramount title) has peaks that peg the 50Mb/s mark. Saw the same thing with _Beowulf_.

Also, to clarify something, that 54Mb/s limit for Blu-ray includes the audio tracks in that overall bandwidth. A 5.1 channel Dolby TrueHD track is going to consume a healthy amount of bandwidth. Uncompressed LPCM consumes twice as much bandwidth. Any foreign language tracks, commentary tracks, etc. have to be factored into that bandwidth limit.



P. Smith said:


> Last Dish attempt to gather customers was "1080p" campaign; it bring 15 Mbps H.264 VOD movie in 1080p24 format. Not that bad comparing to BR 18 Mbps.


Not bad -if the comparison was actually valid. Unlike Blu-ray, OTA broadcast, cable and satellite don't have the high ceiling for big data peaks on very demanding video material. So we just have to put up with the occasional flaws in video quality from time to time. It's a trade-off in return for the wide variety of HD channels within constricted bandwidth limits. But it's still better than SD.


----------



## P Smith

I would say the movie is better then any _current_ HD channels on Dish and DTV. BTW, the movie's stream looks as made with CBR = 15 Mbps, no jumping on video PID.


----------



## StevenJB

anex80 said:


> So who among the top players (Dish, DirecTV, Comcast, TWC, etc.) IS true HD?


I really don't know what true HD is supposed to be. I wouldn't even begin to guess. But, what I can be sure of is that Verizon FiOS has the very best drop dead HD picture out there not including BD.

I have both Dish and FiOS. FiOS is a slightly sharper picture on HD. The picture jumps out at you. As far as SD is concerned, FiOS has a much better picture than Dish does.

My understanding and I could be mistaken is that Verizon FiOS is passing on to its customers the exact same signal that it receives from its sources. That means that FiOS is NOT compressing their signals or degrading the bitrates that they send out.


----------



## Citivas

goldenbear said:


> Have you seen Comcast HD!


I have seen Comcast HD and it looks great in my area. I can't speak to Dish HD because I don't have it but from the posts it sounds similar to DirecTV which has been dubbed "HD Lite" because of their level of signal compression. I can tell you that there is a world of quality difference between Comcast HD and DirecTV HD here in Central jersey and Comcast is way better. I subscribed to both at the same time for a while (was essentially getting digital cable for free) and would literally flip between one video source and the other on the same TV and it was very noticeable. Comcast clearly wasn't compressing its HD's nearly as much as my sat provider.


----------



## crawdad62

Citivas said:


> I have seen Comcast HD and it looks great in my area. I can't speak to Dish HD because I don't have it but from the posts it sounds similar to DirecTV which has been dubbed "HD Lite" because of their level of signal compression. I can tell you that there is a world of quality difference between Comcast HD and DirecTV HD here in Central jersey and Comcast is way better. I subscribed to both at the same time for a while (was essentially getting digital cable for free) and would literally flip between one video source and the other on the same TV and it was very noticeable. Comcast clearly wasn't compressing its HD's nearly as much as my sat provider.


Really? Wow. That's the first time I've ever heard (and don't be offended thinking I'm disputing you) that Comcast has come out ahead. I had was was essentially Fios. It was delivered to me via fiber to the house by my regional electric company. I'd say for the most part it was better than what I receive now with D* (forgive me for surfing other forums) but not by much and in some instances equal or even less than D* in HD. SD was definitely better with the fiber however. If they offered as much HD as Dish or Directv I'd still be with them but alas they don't.

That being said we have Comcast at work and it's absolutely horrible. SD is probably equal to D* but HD isn't even close.


----------



## Citivas

crawdad62 said:


> Really? Wow. That's the first time I've ever heard (and don't be offended thinking I'm disputing you) that Comcast has come out ahead. I had was was essentially Fios. It was delivered to me via fiber to the house by my regional electric company. I'd say for the most part it was better than what I receive now with D* (forgive me for surfing other forums) but not by much and in some instances equal or even less than D* in HD. SD was definitely better with the fiber however. If they offered as much HD as Dish or Directv I'd still be with them but alas they don't.
> 
> That being said we have Comcast at work and it's absolutely horrible. SD is probably equal to D* but HD isn't even close.


Comcast was almost the opposite of what you are experiencing for us -- i.e. it is the HD's that are way better and the SD was not as good. Part of the problem was Comcast still combined analog and digital signals so the SD network feeds and "Core" cable channels like CNN and USA were horrible. The digital SD's were comparable. It is the HD that was way better. To really notice the difference you needed to be viewing a program that really makes HD shine. The HD was SO good on PBS and Discovery programs on Comcast that we would find ourselves watching shows we would never watch otherwise just because we were enchanted with the images. That has never happened with DirecTV even on the same channels. It was so noticeable that I thought there was some problem with the hardware until I read on Tivocommunity (this was 3 years ago) about "HD Lite" and came to understand it had to do with how much D* was compressing the signal.


----------



## quasi888

I've been with 4 different TV service providers over the past year (mainly due to a couple relocations): a municipal cable co; Comcast; a regional provider who uses fiber-delivered IPTV; and finally, Dish.

Guess which one of the four allows me to record 3 different programs simultaneously, while watching live or prerecorded DVR content on two different TVs, and supporting an external hard drive to archive all my content. All from one single box.

I have an older Samsung DLP that only supports 720p, so maybe having the highest possible resolution is not my top priority. In fact, it isn't. What drew me to Dish was a hardware solution that is full-featured, stable, fairly glitch free, with a decent user interface, and just plain WORKS for the way my family watches TV -- almost always timeshifted, rarely live, from multiple TVs in the house. No one else has even come close. If I'm not getting the absolute, sharpest HD programming, so be it. Dish more than makes up for it in other ways, and is the best overall solution currently available for us.


----------



## HobbyTalk

How many HD channels does your local Comcast have? I know in our area when they added some HD channels all they did was to compress all of them to squeeze more channels in the same amount of bandwidth. It is painful to watch and I'm far from an HD connoisseur. They are basically out of bandwidth and their only solution (other then more compression) is to rebuild the plant for switched video.

Your reference to HD Lite was 3 years ago. That was a long time ago, the comparison might be different now.


----------



## Citivas

HobbyTalk said:


> How many HD channels does your local Comcast have? I know in our area when they added some HD channels all they did was to compress all of them to squeeze more channels in the same amount of bandwidth. It is painful to watch and I'm far from an HD connoisseur. They are basically out of bandwidth and their only solution (other then more compression) is to rebuild the plant for switched video.
> 
> Your reference to HD Lite was 3 years ago. That was a long time ago, the comparison might be different now.


I compared again when DirecTV launched the new MPEG-4 channels last year. I had heard the HD might be better when they did. I was really looking forward to seeing the spectacular Discovery HD shows again but as bummed when it was just OK by comparison...

My Comcast doesn't have that many HD channels, as I said. But it happened to have all but 1 of them that I ever watch (missing SciFi which I only watch for Battlestar Galactica and that won't matter soon as they only have 1/2 a season left before the show ends). If quantity is the primary judge, my Comcast can't compete. If quality of the picture is the judge, DirecTV isn't even in the same league with my Comcast HD.


----------



## jclewter79

Of course E* does not match the picture you will see in a producton truck. But, for an extra $10 bucks over the base package charge, it is pretty damn good. My trained eye tells me that anything I see on a monitor is not as good as seeing it in real life, therefore if I don't see it in real life it is not HD. One heck of a first post, just wish he come back and defend it.


----------



## ehb224

Here in N FL Comcast HD is not anywhere as good as Dish. Before it was Comcast in my area it was Time Warner. I had both before Dish. The HD quality on my Westinghouse 42" 1080P monitor is MUCH better with dish. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## peano

Fact is, most folks don't know the downrezzed picture doesn't look good because they have never seen a quality HD broadcast, or they have their HDTV set for 480p, or they have a cheap display, or their eyes can't tell the difference.

All the providers count on this and will continue to further compress HD until the masses complain. That is a long way off.

For those of us that have high end calibrated displays and can tell the difference, it is obvious. Unfortunately, we are in a minority. Thank goodness I have OTA for the networks at least.


----------



## phrelin

And if you sit a normal distance from a 42" or smaller TV, it's really tough to tell the difference most of the time.


----------



## mishawaka

Citivas said:


> I compared again when DirecTV launched the new MPEG-4 channels last year. I had heard the HD might be better when they did. I was really looking forward to seeing the spectacular Discovery HD shows again but as bummed when it was just OK by comparison...
> 
> My Comcast doesn't have that many HD channels, as I said. But it happened to have all but 1 of them that I ever watch (missing SciFi which I only watch for Battlestar Galactica and that won't matter soon as they only have 1/2 a season left before the show ends). If quantity is the primary judge, my Comcast can't compete. If quality of the picture is the judge, DirecTV isn't even in the same league with my Comcast HD.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## RAD

Citivas said:


> I compared again when DirecTV launched the new MPEG-4 channels last year. I had heard the HD might be better when they did. I was really looking forward to seeing the spectacular Discovery HD shows again but as bummed when it was just OK by comparison...


Until a couple weeks ago Discovery HD Theater on DirecTV was still on the old MPEG2/Ku band satellites. It wasn't until the DirecTV 11 satellite became active this month that the channel was converted to MPEG4/Ka band. Channel 76 is still the old MPEG2 version while channel 281 is the MPEG4 version.


----------



## ehb224

peano said:


> For those of us that have high end calibrated displays and can tell the difference, it is obvious. Unfortunately, we are in a minority. Thank goodness I have OTA for the networks at least.


Forgot to add that I was a broadcast engineer back in the 70's (PBS affiliate) and my monitor has been calibrated (I know how to get into the service menu and set the grey scale.) It might be an inexpensive display but it's picture quality, when calibrated, is outstanding.


----------



## inkahauts

Algie Abrams said:


> Though the image is 16:9 and the resolutions fall with ATSC for the HD specification, Dish filters out a large percentage of the fine detail information and limits color depth as it is re-compressed to fit within Dish's HD Channels.
> 
> HD uncompressed raw data rate i 1.5 Gigabits/sec and is used primarily for production, off air broadcast is significantly compressed to 19.4 Megabits/sec, but still maintains most of the high frequency visual information.
> 
> Dish network re-compresses this to the 3-5 Megabit (my eyeball's guess) range. You can notice this in lack of detail in hair on meduim close ups, or as in the banding of colors in gradients. I also see motion vector errors caused by re-compression. In a medium close up, the persons nose, eyes, and mounth will all move, but in a motionless blob of face which is fixed. I haven't seen this effect since a very good mushroom trip in the 1960's.
> 
> My eyeball's guess is that dish is delivering something akin to "Extended Definition" which is a 16:9 version of standard defintion. 1920 x 1080 carries 6 times the resolution of Standard definition of 720 x 486. Just because the picture size is large does not mean the image it displays contains all the information your set can display. There is a similar softness to all Dish HD channels.
> 
> I just don't see a 6X increase in detail and am disappointed in the quality, and would not reccommend it - but only as a desperate last choice.
> 
> They advertise and sell a product that they do not deliver. They count on the untrained eye not to notice. Shame on them.:
> :nono2:


!rolling

My brain hurts after reading this... I can't even decide where to start...

I have to ask, who decided that the Dish and Directv forums would trade off weekly on crazy first timers threads?


----------



## DishSatUser

It's the usuall roll-out of the cable trolls. Think about it, both D* and E* roll-out new HD channels or packages and the usuall start of the 'HD sucketh on SAT' threads start.

Neighbor has Comcast and just checked out my TurboHD Gold package on my ViP 722 and is calling to cancel and order E* right now. Must be an intense desire to lower the quality of his HD, hmm  Actually noticed a marked improvement over his current picture and also the lower price for the package. I kept pointing out that there are less channels than what he gets now, but he also explained he doesn't like to watch the SD channels. Once you view HD, SD is just not good enough and why pay the extra.

Didn't mind the extra dish he saw on my roof too. In Washington we have both the 500+ and a second 24" single. Apparently the 1000.2 in this region isn't good enough for the older 129 SAT. I did suggest that if the second dish was a problem, that there is an anticipated move of another SAT to 129 now that EchoStar XI had successfully launched and is moving to 110. He was, what? Nope a second dish is fine.


----------



## Citivas

I can't speak for others but I am not a "cable troll." And it’s pretty weak of you to dismiss any opinion that doesn't agree with yours as such. The bottom line is I have been a sat subscriber for 12.5 years and still am, so what stake to I have in being a "cable troll"? I am simply relating what I, my neighbors and friends have observed here locally. I can't speak for others experiences because cable is local and what others get in a different area could be completely different. And I can't even tell you what kind of compression the local cable is technically doing. I can only state with confidence that a wide assortment of friends, relatives and neighbors have informally weighed-in at my household and without exception they all liked the local Comcast HD picture better. There were a few people (all women, for what it's worth, not trying to propagate any stereotypes) who said "both are fine" and couldn’t tell the difference, but 100 percent of the men and numerous women said the cable HD was noticeably better and no one said the DirecTV HD was better. I had this for many months so over time there were a lot of people who weighed-in, though far from a scientific sampling for sure. I know what I saw. I saw “wow” when watching PBS HD on Comcast and I haven’t seen “wow” on DirecTV.

That said, I haven’t run to switch just on that basis because I am not obsessed with HD and what I’ve had on sat has been “good enough.” I can tell you that other than 1 neighbor that has Dish, none of my neighbors have sat. That’s the first place I have lived (of 7) where the ratio was so low. They are all satisfied with what Comcast locally is giving them despite probably weekly calls, like I still get, from people offering to switch them for free plus tons of free programming. I suspect it is the fact that the combo of digital TV and high speed is much cheaper here than getting sat plus high speed through cable so most people are incentivized to stay put…


----------



## phrelin

Imagine for a moment that when you signed up for Dish Network you might get one of 300 different services.

That's what it is like with Comcast. Two counties to the south (100 miles) my adult kids get a Comcast service offering quality HD channels, solid high-speed internet, and phone service in a nice neat package. I get high-speed internet from Comcast, just not as high-speed as they offer my kids, and could get "digital" TV service with very limited HD and no phone service option is available.

Cable is local even if it is Comcast or Time Warner.


----------



## DishSatUser

Civitas, are you the original poster with a join date of August 11th and a single post to your name?

If the answers no, then what's your beef? Perhaps it's because the post you left just now indicating how it was DirecTV you and your neighbors compaired Comcast felt "trollish" to you when in a Dish thread? I'd posted in general and it was in regards to my opinion of the OP and in regards to my own personal observations towards Dish and Comcast. The fact I've neighbors cancelling their Comcast service to switch should be worth as a counter point to the OP and others.

Perhaps one would take an argument of Dish versus DirecTV = A , DirecTV versus Comcast =B, so A must be the same in versus C right? That by itelf would be the only post directed towards you. 

I'm just seeing to many "one time posters" hashing the HD versus cable at this particular point in time. It's just too coincidental.


----------



## JCN

DishSatUser said:


> Civitas, are you the original poster with a join date of August 11th and a single post to your name?
> 
> If the answers no, then what's your beef? Perhaps it's because the post you left just now indicating how it was DirecTV you and your neighbors compaired Comcast felt "trollish" to you when in a Dish thread? I'd posted in general and it was in regards to my opinion of the OP and in regards to my own personal observations towards Dish and Comcast. The fact I've neighbors cancelling their Comcast service to switch should be worth as a counter point to the OP and others.
> 
> Perhaps one would take an argument of Dish versus DirecTV = A , DirecTV versus Comcast =B, so A must be the same in versus C right? That by itelf would be the only post directed towards you.
> 
> I'm just seeing to many "one time posters" hashing the HD versus cable at this particular point in time. It's just too coincidental.


You probably need to grow up.


----------



## DishSatUser

JCN said:


> You probably need to grow up.


Naw! 



JCN said:


> You probably need KETCHUP.


That's more like it.


----------



## kucharsk

Likewise I am not a cable troll; most cable companies' HD signals look as bad as, if not in some cases _worse_ than what D* and E* provide.

Once again, in all seriousness, I still say if most people knew what the original HD sources made available to D*, E* and cable companies (I'm not talking the HD masters here, but just what is sent via C-band satellite) looked like, or for that matter how good full-bandwidth SD analog looks, there wouldn't be any argument as to whether Dish HD looks good or not.

It's merely _acceptable_, but it, D* or cable are the only choices those of us without FIOS have (and it's not like FIOS doesn't do some recompression and down-resing of their own.)


----------



## DishSatUser

kucharsk said:


> Once again, in all seriousness, I still say if most people knew what the original HD sources made available to D*, E* and cable companies (I'm not talking the HD masters here, but just what is sent via C-band satellite) looked like, or for that matter how good full-bandwidth SD analog looks, there wouldn't be any argument as to whether Dish HD looks good or not.


This is most likely true. However, outside of renting/purchasing blue-ray discs, I'm not able to enjoy the non-compressed feeds. One then has to make do with what is available.

So far, I'm pretty happy with the results compared to what I had. Unfortunately I'm outside of the range when it comes to getting decend OTA, so I can't even compare to that. Artifact and hang city on OTA with a large variety of antenna's tested.


----------



## JCN

DishSatUser said:


> Naw!
> 
> That's more like it.


Listen dingys, I had Time Warner cable and went to dish. I went to Dish because in my area it's much better than cable. I love my HD. Just because I pay for something or own something I don't have to be on a band wagon for that company. They make good money off me and I want to get the most for my money. Most times they give me just enough to keep me around. Really you need to grow up.


----------



## Ron Barry

*General Moderator comment*

Ok .. we are wondering off topic here a bit. Lets try and avoid the personal digs and stay on topic. The topic is "Dish HD is not High Definition".

As for my opinion.. Yes it is. end of story.


----------



## JCN

Ron Barry said:


> *General Moderator comment*
> 
> Ok .. we are wondering off topic here a bit. Lets try and avoid the personal digs and stay on topic. The topic is "Dish HD is not High Definition".
> 
> As for my opinion.. Yes it is. end of story.


Hey Ron! I agree and really don't want to be apart of it. It's like anything, weather it be Blueray, HDdvd, Chevy or Ford. People get so wrapped into a product because they own it They can't step outside the box and deal with its limitations and business strategy. Every product has its faults.


----------



## Ron Barry

Totally agree JCN and every technology has it limitations and some of those are technology based while others are business based like choices made around quantity vs. quality.


----------



## surfdude85

personally everyone, I prefer to view my local's with my channel master 4-bay. The picture quality is much better than "dish". Although I do enjoy espn in hd(much better than 420.


----------



## JCN

Ron Barry said:


> Totally agree JCN and every technology has it limitations and some of those are technology based while others are business based like choices made around quantity vs. quality.


Said well Ron. Think how great our HD world would be if money put into profit strategy was put into end user experience.


----------



## JCN

surfdude85 said:


> personally everyone, I prefer to view my local's with my channel master 4-bay. The picture quality is much better than "dish". Although I do enjoy espn in hd(much better than 420.


My local over the air HD is the best, or one of the best, for sure.


----------



## Ron Barry

surfdude85 said:


> personally everyone, I prefer to view my local's with my channel master 4-bay. The picture quality is much better than "dish". Although I do enjoy espn in hd(much better than 420.


Interesting. This is a great example of why PQ is so subjective. I have done some A/B test in SoCal with Dish HD and my OTA and in my configuration and at my viewing distance the differences are marginal. This is one of the reason I generally stay away form PQ threads. Too many variables and very subjective to have a definitive answer. Bottom line in my opinion is the only way to determine for yourself is actually view both and your definitely a "Results will vary" situation.


----------



## phrelin

Ron Barry said:


> *General Moderator comment*
> 
> Ok .. we are wondering off topic here a bit. Lets try and avoid the personal digs and stay on topic. The topic is "Dish HD is not High Definition".
> 
> As for my opinion.. Yes it is. end of story.


Was there ever any doubt? According to Wikipedia:


> High-definition television (HDTV) is a digital television broadcasting system with higher resolution than traditional television systems (standard-definition TV, or SDTV).


Of course the next 6,000+ words discuss all kinds of standards and issues, some of which seem to imply that your TV set is screwing around with the picture and that movies are 24fps and while they are high definition, they are not really compatible with high definition television standards, etc. But compared to the same programming coming out of my old 508's, the 722 delivers satisfactory high definition on my 42" plasma.

Could there be better high definition than coming out of my 722? Sure. Could there be worse? Probably.

Would I like a 72" TV and have a delivery service deliver Blu-ray discs every day for all the nightly shows I watch? Yes. Will I buy a 72" TV and get the equivalent to that service in my lifetime? Probably not.:grin:


----------



## duffytoo

brant said:


> my dishHD looks great! but I have an "untrained" eye. Some programs aren't as sharp as others, but it sure beats standard definition. Compared to OTA HD, the picture quality I get from dishHD isn't far from it; in fact, its hard for me to tell a difference most times. And that's all that matters to me.


Agree, 100 per cent


----------



## duffytoo

Maybe it's not HD, but it's very good at my house. I do have avery strong signal at my property. I have a 67inch 1080 DLP that I can stand 2 feet away and still see a very, very sharp picture. What else would I want?


----------



## JCN

duffytoo said:


> Maybe it's not HD, but it's very good at my house. I do have avery strong signal at my property. I have a 67inch 1080 DLP that I can stand 2 feet away and still see a very, very sharp picture. What else would I want?


The absolute highest resolution available!


----------



## P Smith

What about 4K front projector ? But movies would be hard to rent .


----------



## ChrisR

I have both DirecTV *and* a small package with Dish. On my 1080i display, there is macroblocking on many of Dish's HD channels, while the same channel on D* has none (name any channel here). I did A/B comparisons last year with StarzHD on the two systems, and the quality was night and day. I like having the premiums, and if I'm going to pay extra for those I want the best quality possible, and in my case, D* was it. They're doing something right with the bitrate & bandwidth that Echostar, for whatever reason, is not.

That said, I have seen a number of HD locals on Dish that look pretty darn good - it's just the PQ of the nationals and premiums I'm disappointed with.


----------



## sdague

Still resolution looks great, but I will say that all the macroblocking during track events of the Olympics has been sort of sadening. I definitely put myself in the camp that I'd like to see the PQ upped on Dish.


----------



## jericho

I just upgraded to Dish HD with a 612 receiver. The first couple days I was really dissatissfied with the quality compared to cable HD. Then I found the problem. The receiver was only set to 480p! I went into menu and HDTV settings and changed it to 720p (my TV's native resolution) and it looks way better! I think there are many people out there who don't know what 480p to 1080i even is, or haven't figured out to change the default from 480p on their dish receivers who are not enjoying true HD. I've even seen this problem at retail stores showing a sample of Dish HD in 480p!


----------



## Jack White

4DTV and Fiostv are the only sources of FULL 1080I HD programming that I know of. Digital Cable, Directv, and Dish Network all employ either HD Lite, HD Ultralite, or HD Hyperlite Processing. In other words the COMPRESS THE HELL OUT OF IT till it looks like dog poop. I think Dish Network is by far the WORST offender.
I've experimented with different HD DVRs and from the file sizes, it seems to be that out of the 3 overcompressors Dish is the worst offender, cable is the least bad, and Directv is in the middle. I can't wait till I grauate in 9 months, Buy a Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite, Blu Ray Player, upgrade to a Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Tru HD, and DTS HD reciever from my old 7.1 DTS ES 6.1 Discrete receiver, and get a new sub, and 7 new speakers, and Fiostv with FULL up to 19.39Mbps 1080I HD. Why would anyone settle for like 3Mbps Dish Network or whatever the hell it is now, when they could get 19.39 Mbps FULL 1080I HD on Fios, 4DTV or OTA? Why even buy an HDTV in the first place if you're just going to feed it garbage?



Algie Abrams said:


> Though the image is 16:9 and the resolutions fall with ATSC for the HD specification, Dish filters out a large percentage of the fine detail information and limits color depth as it is re-compressed to fit within Dish's HD Channels.
> 
> HD uncompressed raw data rate i 1.5 Gigabits/sec and is used primarily for production, off air broadcast is significantly compressed to 19.4 Megabits/sec, but still maintains most of the high frequency visual information.
> 
> Dish network re-compresses this to the 3-5 Megabit (my eyeball's guess) range. You can notice this in lack of detail in hair on meduim close ups, or as in the banding of colors in gradients. I also see motion vector errors caused by re-compression. In a medium close up, the persons nose, eyes, and mounth will all move, but in a motionless blob of face which is fixed. I haven't seen this effect since a very good mushroom trip in the 1960's.
> 
> My eyeball's guess is that dish is delivering something akin to "Extended Definition" which is a 16:9 version of standard defintion. 1920 x 1080 carries 6 times the resolution of Standard definition of 720 x 486. Just because the picture size is large does not mean the image it displays contains all the information your set can display. There is a similar softness to all Dish HD channels.
> 
> I just don't see a 6X increase in detail and am disappointed in the quality, and would not reccommend it - but only as a desperate last choice.
> 
> They advertise and sell a product that they do not deliver. They count on the untrained eye not to notice. Shame on them.:
> :nono2:


----------



## Jack White

Bobby H said:


> DishHD sure isn't Blu-ray quality. But it's a big jump above standard definition.
> 
> OTA broadcast certainly does seem to have higher bit rates. But those broadcasts are not perfect in quality or similar to Blu-ray quality either. Let's also not forget the fact both ABC and FOX broadcast at 720p resolution instead of 1080i.
> 
> Anyone expecting master-grade quality HD or even Blu-ray quality via satellite (or cable, OTA, etc.) really needs a reality check. You make the trade-off for some loss in image quality in return for the wide variety of programming.


It's a gigantic jump from DISH SD, not from OTA SD, C-band SD or Fiostv SD.
The more important thing is that Dish HD is an GIGANTIC JUMP down into the bottomless pit compared to OTA HD and Fiostv HD.


----------



## whatchel1

Don't know where he was trolling from but he was a "starter". I think that was his whole intent was to start something then run away. Anyway someone said that what is seen in the production truck isn't compressed. BS if it is encoded it is compressed. Even SDI out of an HD camera is MPEG 2 SDI and that is compressed. There is almost no such thing as uncompressed HD. the storage needed for that is multi-Terabyte territory. As far as what is sent out OTA from TV stations the HD is part one of a multi-plex signal and most likely is around 12. At least I know that is what we put out w/ 3 SD's dividing up the rest.


----------



## kal915

Jack White said:


> 4DTV and Fiostv are the only sources of FULL 1080I HD programming that I know of. Digital Cable, Directv, and Dish Network all employ either HD Lite, HD Ultralite, or HD Hyperlite Processing. In other words the COMPRESS THE HELL OUT OF IT till it looks like dog poop. I think Dish Network is by far the WORST offender.
> I've experimented with different HD DVRs and from the file sizes, it seems to be that out of the 3 overcompressors Dish is the worst offender, cable is the least bad, and Directv is in the middle. I can't wait till I grauate in 9 months, Buy a Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite, Blu Ray Player, upgrade to a Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Tru HD, and DTS HD reciever from my old 7.1 DTS ES 6.1 Discrete receiver, and get a new sub, and 7 new speakers, and Fiostv with FULL up to 19.39Mbps 1080I HD. Why would anyone settle for like 3Mbps Dish Network or whatever the hell it is now, when they could get 19.39 Mbps FULL 1080I HD on Fios, 4DTV or OTA? Why even buy an HDTV in the first place if you're just going to feed it garbage?


No, i think cable is the worst offender, you should see how Comcast looks in our area, then judge


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Why would anyone settle for cable or satellite or Blu ray disc or FIOS compressed lossy "HD" resolution when they could instead go outside and view actual reality in all its glorious ANALOG resolution with more detail than has ever been captured via any other medium?


----------



## P Smith

That's perfect, but how I can be at Beijing now and hour later at Mohave Desert


----------



## phrelin

I know we all want the best quality. But we need to keep in mind that the nice folks at the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) are not trying to deliver live to your home from China five simultaneous HD video/Dolby 5.1 audio streams of the 2008 Olympics. Dish Network and NBCU together did that for me pretty darned well, bitrates not withstanding.


----------



## brant

HDMe said:


> Why would anyone settle for cable or satellite or Blu ray disc or FIOS compressed lossy "HD" resolution when they could instead go outside and view actual reality in all its glorious ANALOG resolution with more detail than has ever been captured via any other medium?


That's a little misleading. You can't quite see natural HD unless you have these: HD VISION SUNGLASSES - HD VISION AS SEEN ON TV



> HD VISION makes the world come alive in brilliant defined color like never before!




Have you seen the TV commercial? People will believe anything.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

brant said:


> That's a little misleading. You can't quite see natural HD unless you have these: HD VISION SUNGLASSES - HD VISION AS SEEN ON TV
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen the TV commercial? People will believe anything.


I haven't actually seen that infomercial, but I do remember someone else bringing it up in a forum (maybe here) somewhere once before. People will believe almost anything IF you say it with conviction and don't waver.


----------



## DishSatUser

P Smith said:


> That's perfect, but how I can be at Beijing now and hour later at Mohave Desert


I could tell you, but I've already got Paladins on my tail. :eek2:


----------



## mapoff

Actually OTA has 19.4 Mb/s total for everything. Most digital OTA broadcast multiple channels with 12-14Mb/s used for the primary HD chan.



Algie Abrams said:


> HD uncompressed raw data rate i 1.5 Gigabits/sec and is used primarily for production, off air broadcast is significantly compressed to 19.4 Megabits/sec, but still maintains most of the high frequency visual information.


----------



## tkrandall

Jack White said:


> 4DTV and Fiostv are the only sources of FULL 1080I HD programming that I know of. Digital Cable, Directv, and Dish Network all employ either HD Lite, HD Ultralite, or HD Hyperlite Processing. In other words the COMPRESS THE HELL OUT OF IT till it looks like dog poop. I think Dish Network is by far the WORST offender.
> I've experimented with different HD DVRs and from the file sizes, it seems to be that out of the 3 overcompressors Dish is the worst offender, cable is the least bad, and Directv is in the middle. I can't wait till I grauate in 9 months, Buy a Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite, Blu Ray Player, upgrade to a Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Tru HD, and DTS HD reciever from my old 7.1 DTS ES 6.1 Discrete receiver, and get a new sub, and 7 new speakers, and Fiostv with FULL up to 19.39Mbps 1080I HD. Why would anyone settle for like 3Mbps Dish Network or whatever the hell it is now, when they could get 19.39 Mbps FULL 1080I HD on Fios, 4DTV or OTA? Why even buy an HDTV in the first place if you're just going to feed it garbage?


Don't spend it all before your first paycheck now. 

What encoding is FiosTV using? MPEG-2? What make you believe you'll actually get "full" 19.39 Mbps? Most progrmaming does not demand that much I don't think.


----------



## tkrandall

Jack White said:


> The more important thing is that Dish HD is an GIGANTIC JUMP down into the bottomless pit compared to OTA HD.


OTA HD quality also depends on how many sub channels your station carries - any number more than zero could be said to be a bad thing.


----------



## RAD

Jack White said:


> Digital Cable, Directv, and Dish Network all employ either HD Lite, HD Ultralite, or HD Hyperlite Processing.


Are you sure about DirecTV (do you have something to back it up)? There was a CE release of the HD DVR software a few months back that allowed some PC software packages to see what was recorded on the DVR's and what the resolutions were, and it showed standard HD resolutions (1920x1080i or 1440x720p) for the MPEG4 HD channels.


----------



## P Smith

RAD said:


> Are you sure about DirecTV (do you have something to back it up)? There was a CE release of the HD DVR software a few months back that allowed some PC software packages to see what was recorded on the DVR's and what the resolutions were, and it showed standard HD resolutions (1920x1080i or *1440x720p*) for the MPEG4 HD channels.


???
1440x1088i and 1280x720p ?


----------



## scooper

Guys - Jack White periodically comes around to blast every video provider in the known universe for not delivering a full, uncompressed video stream to his TV. My suggestion would be to ignore him.


----------



## RAD

P Smith said:


> ???
> 1440x1088i and 1280x720p ?


Sorry wrong on the 720p, yep 1280x720p, but the 1440x1088i, where did that come from?


----------



## tkrandall

scooper said:


> Guys - Jack White periodically comes around to blast every video provider in the known universe for not delivering a full, uncompressed video stream to his TV. My suggestion would be to ignore him.


You mean he wants the full 1.5 (or whatever it is) Gbps?  Now that is uncompressed.


----------



## Jack White

tkrandall said:


> You mean he wants the full 1.5 (or whatever it is) Gbps?  Now that is uncompressed.


No. I'd be happy with *no additional compression* like 4dtv, fiostv, and smart ota broadcasters


----------



## Jack White

tkrandall said:


> Don't spend it all before your first paycheck now.
> 
> What encoding is FiosTV using? MPEG-2? What make you believe you'll actually get "full" 19.39 Mbps? Most progrmaming does not demand that much I don't think.


I get a real nice discount fronm my current job

BTW, people on avs forums have uploaded fiostv content and the filesize on the pc proved that it was in full content provider bitrate and format.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

It's interesting that even Comcast is afraid to overcompress HBO,s mpeg4 feed


----------



## inkahauts

Jack White said:


> No. I'd be happy with *no additional compression* like 4dtv, fiostv, and smart ota broadcasters


Directv is not touching the MPEG-4 material it is getting from HBO, and I suspect many others... Since those channels are already spending lots of time doing high quality transfers to MPEG-4 HD, and sending that signal too them, there is no need for Directv to touch the signal, they just pass it through... Sorry, but Directv doesn't do all the extra compression you seem to think they do. (they used to on the MPEG-2 HD channels) I do not know about Dish, but I can also tell you my local cable company looks like *&^*$% on there 10 channels of HD...


----------



## inkahauts

Jack White said:


> I get a real nice discount fronm my current job
> 
> BTW, people on avs forums have uploaded fiostv content and the filesize on the pc proved that it was in full content provider bitrate and format.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271
> 
> It's interesting that even Comcast is afraid to overcompress HBO,s mpeg4 feed


I believe that HBO has contractual agreements for no extra compression form anyone... part of the reason they usually cost more than other premiums across different providers...


----------



## Jim5506

I see the OP still only has one post.


----------



## Ron Barry

Yep.. I would say. Mission accomplished..


----------



## Jack White

inkahauts said:


> Directv is not touching the MPEG-4 material it is getting from HBO, and I suspect many others... Since those channels are already spending lots of time doing high quality transfers to MPEG-4 HD, and sending that signal too them, there is no need for Directv to touch the signal, they just pass it through... Sorry, but Directv doesn't do all the extra compression you seem to think they do. (they used to on the MPEG-2 HD channels) I do not know about Dish, but I can also tell you my local cable company looks like *&^*$% on there 10 channels of HD...


Directv MUST be doing tons of extra compression, or else they'd have to get rid of all the locals to have "FULL BANDWIDTH HD" channels.
The bitrate of HD channels varies from anywhere from 8Mbps for Mpeg-4 to about 19.39 for Mpeg-2 HD locals and Nationals.
There's NO WAY that Dish, Directv, or even many cable systems are delivering FULL HD on all channels. Comcast was actually delivering FULL HD up till a 6 months or 1 year ago, but they joined the "MOST HD CHANNELS WAR" and started overcompressing just like Dish and Directv.
Fiostv, 4DTV and some OTA stations are the only ones that are "FULL BANDWIDTH".
I mean just look at a few of these numbers, I'd think that for all the Mpeg-2 channels, Directv and Dish would be worse than even Comcast let alone Fiostv or 4DTV.

FiOS Comcast Difference

AETV HD 18.66 Mbps 14.48 Mbps -28.9%

Discovery HD 14.16 Mbps 10.43 Mbps -35.8%

Discovery HD Theater 17.45 Mbps 12.60 Mbps -38.5%

Food Network HD 14.32 Mbps 13.73 Mbps -4.3%

HGTV HD 14.76 Mbps 12.43 Mbps -18.7%
MHD 17.73 Mbps 13.21 Mbps -34.2%

National Geographic HD 13.40 Mbps 11.92 Mbps -12.4%

Universal HD 12.72 Mbps 11.01 Mbps -15.5%

HBO HD 8.87 Mbps 8.81 Mbps -0.7%

Cinemax HD 11.40 Mbps 10.77 Mbps -5.8%

Starz HD 11.93 Mbps 9.76 Mbps -22.2%

CNN HD 11.42 Mbps

History HD 10.40 Mbps

SciFi HD 12.59 Mbps
USA HD 12.48 Mbps


----------



## RAD

Jack White said:


> Directv MUST be doing tons of extra compression, or else they'd have to get rid of all the locals to have "FULL BANDWIDTH HD" channels.
> The bitrate of HD channels varies from anywhere from 8Mbps for Mpeg-4 to about 19.39 for Mpeg-2 HD locals and Nationals.
> There's NO WAY that Dish, Directv, or even many cable systems are delivering FULL HD on all channels. Comcast was actually delivering FULL HD up till a 6 months or 1 year ago, but they joined the "MOST HD CHANNELS WAR" and started overcompressing just like Dish and Directv.
> Fiostv, 4DTV and some OTA stations are the only ones that are "FULL BANDWIDTH".
> I mean just look at a few of these numbers, I'd think that for all the Mpeg-2 channels, Directv and Dish would be worse than even Comcast let alone Fiostv or 4DTV.
> 
> FiOS Comcast Difference
> 
> AETV HD 18.66 Mbps 14.48 Mbps -28.9%
> 
> Discovery HD 14.16 Mbps 10.43 Mbps -35.8%
> 
> Discovery HD Theater 17.45 Mbps 12.60 Mbps -38.5%
> 
> Food Network HD 14.32 Mbps 13.73 Mbps -4.3%
> 
> HGTV HD 14.76 Mbps 12.43 Mbps -18.7%
> MHD 17.73 Mbps 13.21 Mbps -34.2%
> 
> National Geographic HD 13.40 Mbps 11.92 Mbps -12.4%
> 
> Universal HD 12.72 Mbps 11.01 Mbps -15.5%
> 
> HBO HD 8.87 Mbps 8.81 Mbps -0.7%
> 
> Cinemax HD 11.40 Mbps 10.77 Mbps -5.8%
> 
> Starz HD 11.93 Mbps 9.76 Mbps -22.2%
> 
> CNN HD 11.42 Mbps
> 
> History HD 10.40 Mbps
> 
> SciFi HD 12.59 Mbps
> USA HD 12.48 Mbps


Why would Directv or Dish need to get rid of all the locals, ever hear of spot beams? In an early post I asked if you had proof that DirecTV is downrezzing and bit starving the new MPEG4 HD channels, still waiting, I don't care about your comparision between FIOS and your local cable system since I can't get FIOS and never will be able to since I'm not in a Verizon service area.


----------



## tkrandall

So how do you measure bit rates like that anyway?


----------



## kucharsk

inkahauts said:


> I believe that HBO has contractual agreements for no extra compression form anyone... part of the reason they usually cost more than other premiums across different providers...


Then how do you explain the fact that DISH delivers them at _1440_x1080i?

They uplink at *1920*x1080i on their C-Band feeds.


----------



## ivtech

Algie Abrams said:


> Though the image is 16:9 and the resolutions fall with ATSC for the HD specification, Dish filters out a large percentage of the fine detail information and limits color depth as it is re-compressed to fit within Dish's HD Channels.
> 
> HD uncompressed raw data rate i 1.5 Gigabits/sec and is used primarily for production, off air broadcast is significantly compressed to 19.4 Megabits/sec, but still maintains most of the high frequency visual information.
> 
> Dish network re-compresses this to the 3-5 Megabit (my eyeball's guess) range. You can notice this in lack of detail in hair on meduim close ups, or as in the banding of colors in gradients. I also see motion vector errors caused by re-compression. In a medium close up, the persons nose, eyes, and mounth will all move, but in a motionless blob of face which is fixed. I haven't seen this effect since a very good mushroom trip in the 1960's.
> 
> My eyeball's guess is that dish is delivering something akin to "Extended Definition" which is a 16:9 version of standard defintion. 1920 x 1080 carries 6 times the resolution of Standard definition of 720 x 486. Just because the picture size is large does not mean the image it displays contains all the information your set can display. There is a similar softness to all Dish HD channels.
> 
> I just don't see a 6X increase in detail and am disappointed in the quality, and would not reccommend it - but only as a desperate last choice.
> 
> They advertise and sell a product that they do not deliver. They count on the untrained eye not to notice. Shame on them.:
> :nono2:


i Have to agree with you HD has been degrading lately,i notice it now since i upgraded from the old 311 receiver to this vip211,i noticed the picture was much sharper.


----------



## MattDL

ivtech said:


> i Have to agree with you HD has been degrading lately,i notice it now since i upgraded from the old 311 receiver to this vip211,i noticed the picture was much sharper.


That would probably be because the 311 is an SD receiver :lol:


----------



## Algie Abrams

Whew! This brewed up quiet a storm.

And yes, I am a engineer who works in the high end TV post production industry, so I do have a critical eye. I do get paid for seeing defects and correcting them. As far as the jargon, I have no reason to try to impress you and invite you to find out what it means. It is a fascinating topic.

As far as Dish, my main complaints are two: First, they claim HD service, but do not deliver it, and second, more satellite bandwidth would allow more data per HD channel. A small jump from 3-4 mbs to 8-10 mbs would make a huge difference. An addtional satellite transponder would allow this, but is a business decision made by Dish.

It is very dissappointing to see the stunning quality of HD in the production environment turned into varying levels of crap as it makes its way through distribution venues such as Dish. But, if they really cared about quailty, we would not be having this discussion.


----------



## Jeff_DML

guess that might be considered rude


----------



## phrelin

Algie Abrams said:


> Whew! This brewed up quiet a storm.
> 
> And yes, I am a engineer who works in the high end TV post production industry, so I do have a critical eye. I do get paid for seeing defects and correcting them. As far as the jargon, I have no reason to try to impress you and invite you to find out what it means. It is a fascinating topic.
> 
> As far as Dish, my main complaints are two: First, they claim HD service, but do not deliver it, and second, more satellite bandwidth would allow more data per HD channel. A small jump from 3-4 mbs to 8-10 mbs would make a huge difference. An addtional satellite transponder would allow this, but is a business decision made by Dish.
> 
> It is very dissappointing to see the stunning quality of HD in the production environment turned into varying levels of crap as it makes its way through distribution venues such as Dish. But, if they really cared about quailty, we would not be having this discussion.


If I were in your business I would be disappointed also.

But frankly, I'm an old guy who in Sacramento in 1951 watched a TV station in San Francisco showing live MacArthur's plane land in San Francisco, all on Hoffman TV with a small green screen offering a snowy picture using a 40' antenna. I thought then it was a miracle of modern science.

I'd have to say that at this point in my life I was more than impressed with the multiple NBCU channels HD offering live Olympics coverage from China through a series of satellites and ground stations presenting a truly sharp picture on my 42" Pany via a 722 which was recording everything so I could play it back.

Not that I don't expect Dish to keep improving things, but it's alot of engineering and scientific progress.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Algie Abrams said:


> As far as Dish, my main complaints are two: First, they claim HD service, but do not deliver it,


This is a problem with your own argument. Dish does deliver HD. HD, as defined, includes a wide range of acceptable resolutions for satellite broadcast and there is NO definition to the amount of compression or bitrates as far as I'm aware. Thus, Dish is absolutely delivering HD as they claim.

Whether or not it is acceptable is open for debate... and certainly they could improve the quality... but there is no way to say they are not, by definition, delivering HD.



Algie Abrams said:


> and second, more satellite bandwidth would allow more data per HD channel. A small jump from 3-4 mbs to 8-10 mbs would make a huge difference. An addtional satellite transponder would allow this, but is a business decision made by Dish.


This is just stating the obvious. The same can be said for all walks of life. Burger King could give me a bigger burger for my bucks, but they made a business decision. The price of gas could go down $1 per gallon, but someone made a business decision there too. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus 

When DirecTV was adding channels, even channels that were not broadcasting any HD (just upconverts and stretching) the complaints were why doesn't Dish add those... no one was comparing quality to quantity then... customers never do until the dust settles... so companies have no choice but to try and leap forward... then it becomes accepted, and they never look back.

IF quality was that important, then customers would overwhelmingly demand it and companies would deliver it. The consumer has already spoken many times over.


----------



## Jack White

Dish Network is overcompressed and doesn't have good picture quality. All the people who say it has good picture quality either don't know what good picture quality is, have EXTREMELY low standards, need glasses, or have very powerful ego defense mechanisms that prevent them from seeing the truth.
Dish overcompressed HD may look good compared to overcompressed Dish SD, but how does Dish HD look compared to betters sources like 440Mbps Uncompressed HD CAMSR, 144Mbps HD Cam, up to 40Mbps Bluray AVCHD, 25Mbps HDV, or up to 19.39 Mbps Fiostv, OTA, and 4DTV? Anyone who has not used or seen any of those sources regularly is UNQUALIFIED to even state an opinion on Dish Network's Picture quality as they don't have anything substantial to compared Dish's picture quality to.


----------



## space86

Turbo HD is Blu-ray Disc quality.


----------



## Jack White

HDMe said:


> This is a problem with your own argument. Dish does deliver HD. HD, as defined, includes a wide range of acceptable resolutions for satellite broadcast and there is NO definition to the amount of compression or bitrates as far as I'm aware. Thus, Dish is absolutely delivering HD as they claim.
> 
> Whether or not it is acceptable is open for debate... and certainly they could improve the quality... but there is no way to say they are not, by definition, delivering HD.
> 
> This is just stating the obvious. The same can be said for all walks of life. Burger King could give me a bigger burger for my bucks, but they made a business decision. The price of gas could go down $1 per gallon, but someone made a business decision there too. If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bus
> 
> When DirecTV was adding channels, even channels that were not broadcasting any HD (just upconverts and stretching) the complaints were why doesn't Dish add those... no one was comparing quality to quantity then... customers never do until the dust settles... so companies have no choice but to try and leap forward... then it becomes accepted, and they never look back.
> 
> IF quality was that important, then customers would overwhelmingly demand it and companies would deliver it. The consumer has already spoken many times over.


You are WRONG because by your definition upconvert DVD players are High Definition when even the craziest manufacturer's claims will only state "NEAR HD quality". Upconvert DVDs look better than most of the HD content yet they're not HD and by defacto very little on Dish qualifies to be "Full HD" which includes original resolution, original video format, and original bitrate.
Fiostv, OTA, and 4DTV are the only true sources of MULTICHANNEL FULL HD programming in the US.
Comcast used to offer FULL HD in the past, but because of joining the "WE OFFER THE MOST HD CHANNELS" race they no longer can afford to offer FULL HD only many channels.


----------



## Jack White

space86 said:


> Turbo HD is Blu-ray Disc quality.


Turbo HD up to 15Mbps, Bluray=up to 40Mbps.
I THINK NOT.

Nice Try Though. I just can't wait for Chaz to get his pants sued off, I think he may have gone too far this time.


----------



## EXTACAMO

Jack White said:


> Dish Network is overcompressed and doesn't have good picture quality. All the people who say it has good picture quality either don't know what good picture quality is, have EXTREMELY low standards, need glasses, or have very powerful ego defense mechanisms that prevent them from seeing the truth.
> Dish overcompressed HD may look good compared to overcompressed Dish SD, but how does Dish HD look compared to betters sources like 440Mbps Uncompressed HD CAMSR, 144Mbps HD Cam, up to 40Mbps Bluray AVCHD, 25Mbps HDV, or up to 19.39 Mbps Fiostv, OTA, and 4DTV? Anyone who has not used or seen any of those sources regularly is UNQUALIFIED to even state an opinion on Dish Network's Picture quality as they don't have anything substantial to compared Dish's picture quality to.


Bla,Bla,Bla more techno babble. As stated before in this thread there is a trade off Quantity vs quality. A balance must be reached. The sat providers I feel are doing a damn good job at achieving that balance. Certainly allot better then cable.


----------



## ImBack234

EXTACAMO said:


> Bla,Bla,Bla more techno babble. As stated before in this thread there is a trade off Quantity vs quality. A balance must be reached. The sat providers I feel are doing a damn good job at achieving that balance. Certainly allot better then cable.


I agree. Plus either way it's better then being a beta tester for fios.
Lets us know when fios has a nation wide properly working multi-room DVR and all full time HD channels. God they have more limited HD then any one.
Btw Dish only claims Blu-ray Video-On-Demand.


----------



## crawdad62

space86 said:


> Turbo HD is Blu-ray Disc quality.


Oh please. It might be acceptable. It might even be high quality but it's far from BD quality.


----------



## brant

EXTACAMO said:


> Bla,Bla,Bla more techno babble. As stated before in this thread there is a trade off Quantity vs quality. A balance must be reached. The sat providers I feel are doing a damn good job at achieving that balance. Certainly allot better then cable.


agreed. and why the hell is this thread still going? the same points are being repeated over and over.

dish HD is high def _by_ definition.

it looks better than "regular" TV

I am happy with it and so are thousands of other subscribers.

Its not important to me what someone else thinks of my picture quality.

I have no other options for HD besides directv, and for the cost difference i'll gladly keep dish network.

I have found in my business that some customers just cannot be pleased, and once I realize that, I stop trying and move on to those I can make happy.

unless you have an alternative source that can provide the quality you know is available, why even talk about it? you're not making anything happen by complaining about it on a message board.


----------



## Algie Abrams

Thanks Jack White, you understand the arguement I am presenting.

Its important to dissengage the distribution medium - sat, cable, disc - from bandwidth and pix quality. A high bit rate stream will most often look better than lower bit rate one. So a high bit rate Blu-Ray stream is as good as a Dish stream of the same bit rate - assumming similar compression schemes.

HD material can stand a higher degree of compression and still look good, because of the smaller changes between pixel macroblocks. By increasing media data bandwidth, less rounding occurs in the encoder between macroblocks and more information is stored in the file and displayed on the screen.

Dish appears to have pushed the compression ratio for HD to the point that it looks like big SD and not beautiful HD.

With all due respect to those who were offended by this post "Dish HD is not High Defintion", no arguement I've seen refutes it.

Could I suggest that Dish Network put a HD multiburst signal through thier encoding and transmission system on an open channel, at the same data rates as thier HD programming? If I am correct, the frequency response would roll off near or just above SD.


----------



## brant

Algie Abrams said:


> Thanks Jack White, you understand the arguement I am presenting.
> 
> Its important to dissengage the distribution medium - sat, cable, disc - from bandwidth and pix quality. A high bit rate stream will most often look better than lower bit rate one. So a high bit rate Blu-Ray stream is as good as a Dish stream of the same bit rate - assumming similar compression schemes.
> 
> HD material can stand a higher degree of compression and still look good, because of the smaller changes between pixel macroblocks. By increasing media data bandwidth, less rounding occurs in the encoder between macroblocks and more information is stored in the file and displayed on the screen.
> 
> Dish appears to have pushed the compression ratio for HD to the point that it looks like big SD and not beautiful HD.
> 
> With all due respect to those who were offended by this post "Dish HD is not High Defintion", no arguement I've seen refutes it.
> 
> Could I suggest that Dish Network put a HD multiburst signal through thier encoding and transmission system on an open channel, at the same data rates as thier HD programming? If I am correct, the frequency response would roll off near or just above SD.


:nono2:

see reply above


----------



## Algie Abrams

kucharsk said:


> Then how do you explain the fact that DISH delivers them at _1440_x1080i?
> 
> They uplink at *1920*x1080i on their C-Band feeds.


This is a trick used to reduce bit rates. The picture is squashed horizontally to 1440, but left full size on the vertical. When your device places it back, it stretches the 1440 back out to 1920.

It saves 30% bandwidth, and most viewers can't see the difference.


----------



## P Smith

AA, Dish ch5710 should be open for measures.


----------



## HobbyTalk

Hey Jack, How many channels of 440Mbps Uncompressed HD CAMSR, 144Mbps HD Cam, up to 40Mbps Bluray AVCHD quality video do you have available at home?


----------



## P Smith

The issue is no truth in Dish/DTV HD ads and stream !
If the company will do their honest business, then the ads will never state such "near BR quality" or just "HD", but 'almost HD' or similar. Lets them stay with big number of the HD-Lite channels in ads, but tell their HD quality near of half REAL HD.


----------



## Algie Abrams

brant said:


> :nono2:
> 
> see reply above


Brant,
My arguement is that Dish HD is not real HD, but that it could be if Dish increased satellite transponders and boosted bit rates on HD channels. Now, what they claim is HD, isn't. I do not like paying for things I don't get and if I had another option I would use it.

Its not clear to me why you want to shut this discussion down. Isn't this what these things are about anyway?


----------



## Algie Abrams

HobbyTalk said:


> Hey Jack, How many channels of 440Mbps Uncompressed HD CAMSR, 144Mbps HD Cam, up to 40Mbps Bluray AVCHD quality video do you have available at home?


HT,
Great question. The answer NONE. 

But there is a range which would fit most TV programming. 3mbs for slow moving talking heads, 8 - 10 mbs for feature films, 12- 15 Basketball. Of course the higher the better.

This is where another sat transponder would allow Dish this head room, and dynamically re-allocate bandwidth based on content.

So to continue your original question, "How many HD sigs do I get now with Dish?" None.


----------



## Richard King

> This is where another sat transponder would allow Dish this head room, and dynamically re-allocate bandwidth based on content.


Where do you propose they come up with this extra transponder?? The number of transponders in each slot in the sky is determined by the FCC and international treaties. Of course, if they had 33 transponders per slot in place of the current 32, they would simply use the space to add more channels, not bandwidth per channel. The picture quality that they deliver is what the VAST majority of their customers are VERY happy with. That's all that matters to them. It ain't gonna change no matter how much you and Jack, your little brother in spirit, complain. You don't like it, cancel your subscription and rent DVD's.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Jack White said:


> You are WRONG because by your definition upconvert DVD players are High Definition when even the craziest manufacturer's claims will only state "NEAR HD quality".


No. Not only does my definition not even imply that, it simply isn't true.

I merely stated the simple truth that there are different HD resolutions listed in the broadcast standard. As long as Dish broadcasts in one of these standards, then they are by definition HD.

I didn't say it was high-quality or that it was the best possible... But the all-encompassing "Dish HD is not HD" statement is categorically false by its definitive nature.



Jack White said:


> Upconvert DVDs look better than most of the HD content yet


What? Are you serious? I've never seen an upconverted DVD that looked better than HD. Even the resolution reduced bitrate starved HD has more information to reproduce a higher quality picture than a DVD upconverted.

While you're accusing some folk of drinking Dish's HD Kool-Aid, you seem to have just swallowed a different flavor yourself I think 



Jack White said:


> they're not HD and by defacto very little on Dish qualifies to be "Full HD" which includes original resolution, original video format, and original bitrate.


I'm sorry... what does "full HD" even mean? The world is quite higher definition than digitized representations. While we may sometimes see things on TV and say "that is almost like looking out a window" it is in fact NOT the same as looking out a window, and can be proven quite easily by actually looking out the window.

IF by "full HD" you mean original HD as recorded from the camera... you have to define what kind of camera (different cameras have different resolutions too you know)... and keep in mind that 35mm and 70 mm film have a higher effective resolution than the highest digital cameras I've ever heard of... so even "full HD" in your mind seems to me like it should come from film and not a digital camera.



Jack White said:


> Fiostv, OTA, and 4DTV are the only true sources of MULTICHANNEL FULL HD programming in the US.


Not all OTA is created equally. How many OTA channels dedicate their full channel bandwidth to an HD signal? Even then, that is still not "full HD" when compared to the original source.

Most folks don't have FIOS available to them... and even if so, I have no reason to believe they too will not begin to compress more when they have need to do so.

My ears perk up when people speak in absolutes... and the title of this thread simply is an untruthful statement at its face value. Dish could definately do better, and I wish they would... but some of the extremes here just don't make sense to me.


----------



## Jack White

I think the main point of this thread is that Dish DOES have *HORRIBLE* picture quality compared to Fiostv, OTA stations that are allocating full 19.39 Mpbs for the HD channel, and 4DTV. 
And for anyone who thinks that this was not a true statement, I have some beach front property I'd like to sell you in Kansas.


----------



## EXTACAMO

Yea, and my Chevy is not a Ferrari. No matter what I do to my Chevy it will never be a Ferrari. Yet it serves me well and i am happy with it. The same goes for my TV provider. I don't have a production truck in my living room but I'm still happy with the product.


----------



## ImBack234

Jack White said:


> I think the main point of this thread is that Dish DOES have *HORRIBLE* picture quality compared to Fiostv, OTA stations that are allocating full 19.39 Mpbs for the HD channel, and 4DTV.
> And for anyone who thinks that this was not a true statement, I have some beach front property I'd like to sell you in Kansas.


Don't we have a name him????
I think the thread is call "Dish HD is not High Definition" or did I miss something.
Just like fios isn't a tv company.:eek2: It should be called a beta test company that you have to pay for the privilege. :eek2: They should kiss you first.
Also don't they say options are like a-holes and we all have one!!!:eek2:


----------



## HobbyTalk

Jack White said:


> I think the main point of this thread is that Dish DOES have *HORRIBLE* picture quality compared to Fiostv, OTA stations that are allocating full 19.39 Mpbs for the HD channel, and 4DTV.


By your standards anything other then full RAW HD is not "true" HD. The real facts are that the vast majority of customers are happy with the HD Dish provides and a large percentage are watching streached/voomed SD in 16:9 and think they are watching HD and are happy with it.

In our area we will never have FIOS and the cable company (Comcast) has far worse HD then Dish or Direct. Our local channels all have a number of subchannels and I do not notice a difference on my 42" Panny between them and the Dish supplied rebroadcasts.


----------



## Richard King

The solution: 1 channel per transponder. That would leave 32 channels per slot in the sky. Of course, you'd need a moving dish, not the fixed dish used now. And, of course, compression is what causes all the "problems", so we get rid of all compression. Since there are fewer channels per slot, we need more slots. Let's redo the system with 2 degree spacing to solve this "problem". Ah, but 2 degree spacing would require bigger dishes, so, we'll redo the whole thing with bigger dishes. Maybe 10' would be perfect. Hmmmm... what else to do.... Ah, I got it, lets get rid of all digital artifacts by going analog! Great idea. Let's get rid of rain fade also by moving most programming to C-band rather than KU or DBS band. Now, let's all jump into the way back machine and simply flash back to 1990 and all problems are solve.


----------



## phrelin

Richard King said:


> The solution: 1 channel per transponder. That would leave 32 channels per slot in the sky. Of course, you'd need a moving dish, not the fixed dish used now. And, of course, compression is what causes all the "problems", so we get rid of all compression. Since there are fewer channels per slot, we need more slots. Let's redo the system with 2 degree spacing to solve this "problem". Ah, but 2 degree spacing would require bigger dishes, so, we'll redo the whole thing with bigger dishes. Maybe 10' would be perfect. Hmmmm... what else to do.... Ah, I got it, lets get rid of all digital artifacts by going analog! Great idea. Let's get rid of rain fade also by moving most programming to C-band rather than KU or DBS band. Now, let's all jump into the way back machine and simply flash back to 1990 and all problems are solve.


:lol:


----------



## jclewter79

Just out of curiosity, can HD be broadcast in analog?


----------



## Algie Abrams

phrelin said:


> :lol:


No nothing that radical, but if additional transponders are not available on thier sat, then there are other sats with space available.

I am not suggesting a "DC to Daylight" data rate for thier HD channels, but rates which show the same level of image detail as OTA. I believe that 2 or 3X the current data rates will produce significantly better images.

Regardless of which flavor of HD is shown, the current set of defects are embedded into each image which delivers a substandard HD picture, while they are selling it as an HD product.

Imagine ordering pizza, and getting only the crust.


----------



## RAD

jclewter79 said:


> Just out of curiosity, can HD be broadcast in analog?


Yes, the original HD standard that came out of Japan was analog and it required a ton of bandwidth. Don't remember the exact number but it was like they would need to take a number of current SD analog channels space to get one analog HD channel.

UPDATE, after posting I looked at Wikipedia and found that was incorrect, there were earlier analog systems, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_high-definition_television_system


----------



## Stewart Vernon

jclewter79 said:


> Just out of curiosity, can HD be broadcast in analog?


Furthering what RAD said... even before "HD" some countries in Europe were broadcasting more analog lines than we were. I forget all the details, but I think France was one broadcasting 711 or something line that vertical lines of resolution. Granted, they didn't have 1280 equivalent horizontal level of detail... but they were higher definition than HD before the Japanese started their analog HD.

I'm not sure of all the reasons for going digital here in the US. I know they looked at what the Japanese were doing and at least considered analog HD.

One thing I wish had happened in the US... when they decided to go digital AND re-assign channels to OTA stations AND chop off some of the OTA bandwidth for other uses... I wished they had also decided to change what defines a channel for broadcast TV at the same time.

They could, for example, have changed the frequency spacing for OTA channels so that more bandwidth per channel could be there. But they can't do it now... so it's a pipe dream wish...

Also a shame we had to lock so far back into MPEG2, because MPEG4 would be better use for the bandwidth also... but that would mess up all the existing HDTVs already in consumer homes... so we will be stuck with MPEG2 for the forseeable future too.


----------



## James Long

HDMe said:


> They could, for example, have changed the frequency spacing for OTA channels so that more bandwidth per channel could be there. But they can't do it now... so it's a pipe dream wish...


Fitting the new digital channels in around the existing analog channels without interfering was pretty difficult. Some stations got assignments that were unworkable and had to be adjusted. Trying to fit in 12 MHz channels around the 6 MHz existing channels would be more difficult ... and doing an odd size (9 MHz/10 MHz/whatever) would just add to the complication.

A completely different band would have been possible ... if there was one available.

Perhaps down the road new stations will pop up in the gaps left by the digital transition. Perhaps they will be used as repeaters to extend major stations further or to allow stations to put up a second HD feed or provide sub channels without losing bandwidth for their HD feed on the main station. We should see new stations not connected to current broadcasters (although broadcasting costs money). All yet to be seen.


----------



## Richard King

Algie Abrams said:


> No nothing that radical, but if additional transponders are not available on thier sat, then there are other sats with space available.


Amazing. :nono:


----------



## BattleZone

Algie Abrams said:


> No nothing that radical, but if additional transponders are not available on thier sat, then there are other sats with space available.


You clearly know very, very little about the restrictions and limitations imposed upon the satellite industry, nor do you appreciate the costs and complexity necessary to add even one new satellite to, say, Dishnetwork.

The costs are enormous, and if you start planning today, you might be able to implement 10 years from now. The sats that Dish and DirecTV are bringing online right now were planned no less than 7 years ago.

Compare this to a delivery truck. We're saying that only so many boxes of a given size will fit in the truck. If you make the boxes larger, the number of boxes has to decrease. We all agree that we can't decrease the number of boxes, so your solution is "get a second truck". Sure. Would you be prepared for a 40% price increase on your bill to pay for it? Do you think enough of Dish's customers would also be willing? Because if not, then the plan is unworkable.

Then there is the issue that there is the FCC and international treaties (can you say the State Department) who have to approve any new sat locations and any new frequencies. Do you have any idea of the amount of work that has to be done to get such changes approved? And how long it takes? And what if one of the other countries doesn't want to give up the bandwidth allocated to them?

It's easy to sit at home and demand "Ferarri" service on a "Ford" budget. Dish is a business, and has to use a business plan that makes a profit. Delivering the ulitmate product is rarely a succeessful business plan if it involves counting on more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the population to pay for it. Most folks aren't willing to pay extra for more quality, and you are outnumbered, heavily.


----------



## phrelin

Or to put it another way...

Would I like to have a delivery service deliver Blu-ray discs each and every day for all the nightly shows I watch? Yes. Could I pay for it? No.


----------



## EXTACAMO

Maybe in 20yrs. or so the technology will have evolved to the point where a provider can cost effectively put out 200+ channels of un-fooled around with HD but I probably won't be around to see it so therefore the point is moot as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## DustoMan

You know if you arn't happy with the "HD" you are receiving... why are you still a subscriber? Especially if you think you can do a better job then they can... why don't you? I've never seen a more pointless thread... it's obvious that you only posted here to make trouble.


----------



## ivtech

HDMe said:


> No. Not only does my definition not even imply that, it simply isn't true.
> 
> I merely stated the simple truth that there are different HD resolutions listed in the broadcast standard. As long as Dish broadcasts in one of these standards, then they are by definition HD.
> 
> I didn't say it was high-quality or that it was the best possible... But the all-encompassing "Dish HD is not HD" statement is categorically false by its definitive nature.
> 
> What? Are you serious? I've never seen an upconverted DVD that looked better than HD. Even the resolution reduced bitrate starved HD has more information to reproduce a higher quality picture than a DVD upconverted.
> 
> While you're accusing some folk of drinking Dish's HD Kool-Aid, you seem to have just swallowed a different flavor yourself I think
> 
> I'm sorry... what does "full HD" even mean? The world is quite higher definition than digitized representations. While we may sometimes see things on TV and say "that is almost like looking out a window" it is in fact NOT the same as looking out a window, and can be proven quite easily by actually looking out the window.
> 
> IF by "full HD" you mean original HD as recorded from the camera... you have to define what kind of camera (different cameras have different resolutions too you know)... and keep in mind that 35mm and 70 mm film have a higher effective resolution than the highest digital cameras I've ever heard of... so even "full HD" in your mind seems to me like it should come from film and not a digital camera.
> 
> Not all OTA is created equally. How many OTA channels dedicate their full channel bandwidth to an HD signal? Even then, that is still not "full HD" when compared to the original source.
> 
> Most folks don't have FIOS available to them... and even if so, I have no reason to believe they too will not begin to compress more when they have need to do so.
> 
> My ears perk up when people speak in absolutes... and the title of this thread simply is an untruthful statement at its face value. Dish could definately do better, and I wish they would... but some of the extremes here just don't make sense to me.


You have to remenber that they're out there to make as much money as the can out of the hd techology,if they give true hd on regular channel they wouln't sell this new turbo HD that they invented, that's the reason why you see a degrading in HD.money more money they got to sucke it all in other countrys they give the best pic they can give and are proud of it , here they sell, and try to make as much money as they can and i call this greed.


----------



## BattleZone

ivtech said:


> in other countrys they give the best pic they can give and are proud of it


I'm sorry, but that's a complete load of crap. No other country on earth has the number of channels available to them as the US, and none have as many HD channels. Japan is the only country that might hope to compare, but that's because they pushed HD by government mandate a decade before the US, which resulted in many problems on its own. You just don't hear about all the problems here (unless you speak/read Japanese and go to their forums).

Without that "greed", there would have been no captial to get any of the satellites in the sky in the first place, and none of those network channels you like to watch would exist. Making money is what motivates most folks to WORK, for you and all the rest of us.


----------



## phrelin

ivtech said:


> You have to remenber that they're out there to make as much money as the can out of the hd techology,if they give true hd on regular channel they wouln't sell this new turbo HD that they invented, that's the reason why you see a degrading in HD.money more money they got to sucke it all in other countrys they give the best pic they can give and are proud of it , here they sell, and try to make as much money as they can and i call this greed.


Me too. And I know the solution. I can buy an HD camera or two, hire a bunch of my friends, and make my own shows at the quality I want. I'd need to borrow some money from you....:nono2:


----------



## peano

Why such disdain for HD lovers that want a better picture? A lot of folks here think we should shut up and accept mediocrity. If I could find a better supplier I would switch in a minute. But I can't. That doesn't mean we should meekly accept poor picture quality.


----------



## Richard King

peano said:


> Why such disdain for HD lovers that want a better picture? A lot of folks here think we should shut up and accept mediocrity. If I could find a better supplier I would switch in a minute. But I can't. That doesn't mean we should meekly accept poor picture quality.


I think it's because of the totally false and uninformed statements that a couple of them have made throughout this thread. They have repeatedly shown their total ignorance on the subject of HD specifications and how the satellites they get their signals from work. HD specifications are very specific. Both satellite providers meet those specifications. As far as the satellites go, anyone with ANY basic knowledge of their operation knows that you can't snap your fingers and have an extra transponder.


----------



## TP715

I remember why I bought my HD TV. It was the Sony Hawaii demo playing on one of their SXRD sets. It looked spectacular, like looking out a window. I bought one. Then I learned the Sony demo was playing from a special hard drive unit at a bit rate something like 60 Mbps. Absolutely nothing I've seen since comes even remotely close. _Certainly_ nothing I get from Dish. Yet I keep Dish. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the wonderful Dish HD quality; it just means I have no choice. However, I do agree with the argument that it is pointless to complain- there is zero chance the image quality will ever go up. So, don't worry, be happy, keep paying.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Richard King said:


> As far as the satellites go, anyone with ANY basic knowledge of their operation knows that you can't snap your fingers and have an extra transponder.


And I proved it... I tried snapping both hands at the same time for good measure, and nothing. I even tried snapping my toes, but I think I hurt myself.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

James Long said:


> Fitting the new digital channels in around the existing analog channels without interfering was pretty difficult. Some stations got assignments that were unworkable and had to be adjusted. Trying to fit in 12 MHz channels around the 6 MHz existing channels would be more difficult ... and doing an odd size (9 MHz/10 MHz/whatever) would just add to the complication.
> 
> A completely different band would have been possible ... if there was one available.


I had two theoretical possibilities in my mind... One was that for now they would have to squeeze into the 6MHz until Feb when analog is turned off... then they would be able to expand to new "wide" bandwidth OTA channels with 10-12MHz spacing.

The other theoretical was, as you suggested, if there was another band available... or perhaps with some judicial planning they could have done this on a by-market basis examining what analog was in use and ensuring they didn't interfere with those when assigning the temporary digital frequencies.

In any event, it was all just "what iffing" on my part for somethig that is way way too late to try now anyway... just a shame some other future expansion possibilities weren't taken into the original ATSC spec discussions.


----------



## ivtech

TP715 said:


> I remember why I bought my HD TV. It was the Sony Hawaii demo playing on one of their SXRD sets. It looked spectacular, like looking out a window. I bought one. Then I learned the Sony demo was playing from a special hard drive unit at a bit rate something like 60 Mbps. Absolutely nothing I've seen since comes even remotely close. _Certainly_ nothing I get from Dish. Yet I keep Dish. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the wonderful Dish HD quality; it just means I have no choice. However, I do agree with the argument that it is pointless to complain- there is zero chance the image quality will ever go up. So, don't worry, be happy, keep paying.


yes it will get better if you buy one of those HD Turbo pakages Ha,Ha, Ha,? this is what we call crap, they seem not to keep up with the available HD Pic Q they already thinking of screwing some people on this 1080P that no broadcasting station carrys, and wont carry for a long time to come, suckers want to suck as much as they can from a tech. that should be free,and not charge to give customer the best pic they possible can,some people here must be geting payed to defend their ways of supplying the best pic to every body,it's like when the first colour signal came out ,i hope that did not happened that way,i was saying charge for people that wanted colour so much and people that didn't want colour charge less, i don't think it happened that way when they invented the colour pic, i guess they were not so much greedy at that time, than they are now.


----------



## Richard King

What!?!?! Punctuation is your friend.


----------



## HobbyTalk

HDMe said:


> And I proved it... I tried snapping both hands at the same time for good measure, and nothing. I even tried snapping my toes, but I think I hurt myself.


You guys know nothing. The transponders are equipped with Clappers.


----------



## Richard King

Clap on. Clap off. The Clapper. :lol:


----------



## BobaBird

Richard King said:


> HD specifications are very specific.


 The Real Story of HDTV Standards
Surprisingly, there is little regulatory control over compression. According to ATSC president Mark Richer, the ATSC standard does not require minimum bit rates for over-the-air broadcasters, ...

Cable and satellite services transmit hundreds of channels at a time, and there is literally no regulatory oversight at all when it comes to compression of HD content on those services.​


> Both satellite providers meet those specifications.


Quite the accomplishment. 

I recognize that a lot of people have bigger and better TV sets than the one I got 5 years ago, and someday I hope to join them. Insisting that they should be happy with the level of HD quality that is currently good enough for me would be counterproductive.

Can we limit the debate on the merits of the topic to the discussion in the thread without adding ridicule to the thread title "(according to some)" ?


----------



## James Long

BobaBird said:


> Can we limit the debate on the merits of the topic to the discussion in the thread without adding ridicule to the thread title "(according to some)" ?


That title change (which I did not perform) is part of the topic. We've had "HD Lite" discussions here for years and the core facts have been proven over and over.

Bottom line, DishHD _*is*_ HD. So is DirecTV HD. So is Comcast HD. So is OTA HD. But there are _*some*_ who refuse to accept the standards accepted by the industry and seem to think that the world will change because of their complaints. It won't.

If anyone doesn't like the way DISH or DirecTV or Comcast or anyone runs their business go out and compete with them. It is the American way. Start up a "true HD" service and broadcast one channel per DBS transponder (and still not be "true HD"). See how long the business lasts.

If you don't like the quality of HD services being offered choose a different carrier. If you can't find one that meets your high quality standards don't subscribe at all. Nobody is forcing you to pay these companies money.

Meanwhile those of us who will take what we can get will keep the companies in business. And enjoy all the "HD" we can get. No need to be bitter about it. It is just TV.


----------



## Algie Abrams

Thanks to the couple of you who understand my original point. 

Most Sat and Cable HD is not HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

And for the record... I am a fan of quality too. I let Dish know from time to time when I see really poor quality. I used to bug the local cable company to death back before I had Dish as a choice for better quality!

I just encourage truthfullness (truthiness) in debates. I'm perfectly able and willing to criticize the things Dish gets wrong, things they can/should improve, and gripes in general that have merit.

I think folks that read through this forum will find many others like myself (James included) that are not always defending everything Dish does... just the things that I think are right or make sense.

I would love better quality HD... but I also have wanted more channels, and understand the tradeoff. IF there were truly a competitor that offered "uncompressed" HD at comparable rates with the same channel lineup and comparable receivers then we could have a debate about that. Where I live, the choice is pretty much Dish, DirecTV, or Time Warner. Time Warner has next to no channels compared to satellite but picture quality is sometimes better. Dish and DirecTV are virtually equal in my mind if I discount the things like Sunday Ticket/MLB that I have no interest in whatsoever.

A better topic and title for this thread would have been "Dish HD is not as good as it could/should be" and then we could debate what is wrong and what could be better... but starting off with "Dish HD isn't HD" and folks adamantly refusing to accept refutation of the initial concept of the thread doesn't really make for good debating.


----------



## puckwithahalo

> Thanks to the couple of you who understand my original point.
> 
> Most Sat and Cable HD is not HD.


according to who's definition?


----------



## aloishus27

I had no idea that there was a minimum bit rate for something to be HD, here all this time I thought it was determined by the lines of resolution. 

Dummy me! :nono2:


----------



## aloishus27

HDMe said:


> A better topic and title for this thread would have been "Dish HD is not as good as it could/should be" and then we could debate what is wrong and what could be better... but starting off with "Dish HD isn't HD" and folks adamantly refusing to accept refutation of the initial concept of the thread doesn't really make for good debating.


I couldn't agree more


----------



## James Long

"Dish HD sucks" would probably be the most accurate title ... but such a title is not allowed.

(And no, I'm not saying that Dish HD sucks ... I'm saying that is the topic of the thread.)


----------



## tcatdbs

Man, such a strong word... I've never had OTA or BluRay, but since I switched to Dish a month or so ago, I couldn't imagine IQ being any better than Dish. Yeah a few shows are crap, but I believe it's the content and not Dish. So what if it's not "true HD"... most of the stuff I watch looks like a high res. photo (MGM, football, HBO...). Does look Horrible from 2', but at 10' it's amazing. I've yet to see pixalization in a baseball or football game (or a movie for that matter). IMO upconverted DVD does look just as good... so maybe I'm over 50 and have bad eyes. I'd rather have MORE channels of this "crappy" HD than fewer at full Mpbs.



Jack White said:


> I think the main point of this thread is that Dish DOES have *HORRIBLE* picture quality compared to Fiostv, OTA stations that are allocating full 19.39 Mpbs for the HD channel, and 4DTV.
> And for anyone who thinks that this was not a true statement, I have some beach front property I'd like to sell you in Kansas.


----------



## Tulsa1

Richard King said:


> Clap on. Clap off. The Clapper. :lol:


:lol: THANK YOU Richard!!!:lol: 
I needed a good laugh today:lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Bad analogy time once again...

Having $1,000.00 is bad when compared to $1,000,000.00 but I would not say "$1,000.00 is horrible" or "$1,000.00 is not money"


----------



## P Smith

> but since I switched to Dish a month or so ago, I couldn't imagine IQ being any better than Dish.


Yours ?


----------



## ivtech

James Long said:


> That title change (which I did not perform) is part of the topic. We've had "HD Lite" discussions here for years and the core facts have been proven over and over.
> 
> Bottom line, DishHD _*is*_ HD. So is DirecTV HD. So is Comcast HD. So is OTA HD. But there are _*some*_ who refuse to accept the standards accepted by the industry and seem to think that the world will change because of their complaints. It won't.
> 
> If anyone doesn't like the way DISH or DirecTV or Comcast or anyone runs their business go out and compete with them. It is the American way. Start up a "true HD" service and broadcast one channel per DBS transponder (and still not be "true HD"). See how long the business lasts.
> 
> If you don't like the quality of HD services being offered choose a different carrier. If you can't find one that meets your high quality standards don't subscribe at all. Nobody is forcing you to pay these companies money.
> 
> Meanwhile those of us who will take what we can get will keep the companies in business. And enjoy all the "HD" we can get. No need to be bitter about it. It is just TV.


At list OTA off the air don't charge for the best colour, or don't charge nothing at all for their signal,it's free.thats what we call no suckers at all.


----------



## ivtech

IIP said:


> I'm sorry, but that's a complete load of crap. No other country on earth has the number of channels available to them as the US, and none have as many HD channels. Japan is the only country that might hope to compare, but that's because they pushed HD by government mandate a decade before the US, which resulted in many problems on its own. You just don't hear about all the problems here (unless you speak/read Japanese and go to their forums).
> 
> Without that "greed", there would have been no captial to get any of the satellites in the sky in the first place, and none of those network channels you like to watch would exist. Making money is what motivates most folks to WORK, for you and all the rest of us.


80 per cent of the channels ain't worth nothing, for not saying ****.and one has to swallow them and pay for something that you never watch,that's what call a waist of bandwith.


----------



## BattleZone

ivtech said:


> 80 per cent of the channels ain't worth nothing


Maybe to you, but I assure you that there are people who find each and every one of them to be VERY important.

Clearly your problem is that you are upset that the world doesn't revolve around you personally. You'll just have to get over it.


----------



## Mindhaz

All channels are watched by someone, I'd personally like to pay for the 20% I watch... and I'd settle for a 20% discount. Give the extra $$$ to the networks I like... so they can make more programs I like.

The technology exists to give me exactly what I want at a reasonable price. Packages are just a way to justify overcharging me. No one can watch 225+ channels.


----------



## HobbyTalk

ivtech said:


> At list OTA off the air don't charge for the best colour, or don't charge nothing at all for their signal,it's free.thats what we call no suckers at all.


Translation:

At least OTA over the air doesn't charge for the best color or doesn't charge anything at all for their signal. It's free. (last part I have no idea).


----------



## Jack White

tcatdbs said:


> Man, such a strong word... I've never had OTA or BluRay, but since I switched to Dish a month or so ago, I couldn't imagine IQ being any better than Dish. Yeah a few shows are crap, but I believe it's the content and not Dish. So what if it's not "true HD"... most of the stuff I watch looks like a high res. photo (MGM, football, HBO...). Does look Horrible from 2', but at 10' it's amazing. I've yet to see pixalization in a baseball or football game (or a movie for that matter). IMO upconverted DVD does look just as good... so maybe I'm over 50 and have bad eyes. I'd rather have MORE channels of this "crappy" HD than fewer at full Mpbs.











Well just because you've never seen better picture quality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To people in some remote part of the Amazon or Africa, a bicycle would seem like "THE FASTEST FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IMAGINABLE".
That's basically what people who think Dish has "Great HD Picture Quality" are like. I guess IGNORANCE is bliss.
I've seen Fiostv, OTA, Bluray, and even HDV, HDCAM, and HDCAMSR so to me Dish HD is PURE UTTER GARBAGE, and the biggest waste of money imaginable. Dish HD makes about as much sense as riding a bicycle 200 miles to your family's house for the holidays when there are cars, trains, planes and motorcycles available.
IF you take a 144Mbps HDCAM or 440Mbps HDCAMSR source video and compress it down to 19.39Mbps for television, isn't that already ENOUGH.
When is enough ENOUGH. When Dish REcompresses it to like 3Mbps so it looks like
dog poop?


----------



## rbonzer

Jack White said:


> ...Dish HD makes about as much sense as riding a bicycle 200 miles to your family's house for the holidays when there are cars, trains, planes and motorcycles available.


Dang, I'll bite...

Your comment assumes that there is a choice of providers! Is there a service provider that gives me the equivalent of 144Mbps HDCAM picture quality, with channels like local networks (heck, I don't care if its local!), ESPN, Fox Sports, USA, Disney...(insert important channels here)? If so, is it $600/month? $300? $100?

Yes, I'm upset about overcompression. When there is an alternative, that is reasonably priced, I'll jump.

Heck, what am I doing working the job I have? I should get a job that pays $10000/day! Now, I just need to figure out where I put those want ads.


----------



## BattleZone

Maybe you should talk to NetFlix, and see if they are willing to start up an HDCAM SR rental service, so you can rent all your favorite shows.
For only $189/month, you could have 2 tapes out at once! What a deal!

In fact, I better sign up now, before the rush hits. Here I have been sitting here with my $72,000 deck doing nothing, when I could have been watching My Name Is Earl in ultra-high-def all this time. Who's with me?


----------



## Richard King

Jack White said:


> Well just because you've never seen better picture quality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To people in some remote part of the Amazon or Africa, a bicycle would seem like "THE FASTEST FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IMAGINABLE".
> That's basically what people who think Dish has "Great HD Picture Quality" are like. I guess IGNORANCE is bliss.
> I've seen Fiostv, OTA, Bluray, and even HDV, HDCAM, and HDCAMSR so to me Dish HD is PURE UTTER GARBAGE, and the biggest waste of money imaginable. Dish HD makes about as much sense as riding a bicycle 200 miles to your family's house for the holidays when there are cars, trains, planes and motorcycles available.
> IF you take a 144Mbps HDCAM or 440Mbps HDCAMSR source video and compress it down to 19.39Mbps for television, isn't that already ENOUGH.
> When is enough ENOUGH. When Dish REcompresses it to like 3Mbps so it looks like
> dog poop?


stupid sized picture of $72,000 HD recorder deleted from post. Jack... I really don't think that a $72,000 HD recorder is very important to the conversation.


----------



## klegg

Jack White said:


> Well just because you've never seen better picture quality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To people in some remote part of the Amazon or Africa, a bicycle would seem like "THE FASTEST FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IMAGINABLE".
> That's basically what people who think Dish has "Great HD Picture Quality" are like. I guess IGNORANCE is bliss.
> I've seen Fiostv, OTA, Bluray, and even HDV, HDCAM, and HDCAMSR so to me Dish HD is PURE UTTER GARBAGE, and the biggest waste of money imaginable. Dish HD makes about as much sense as riding a bicycle 200 miles to your family's house for the holidays when there are cars, trains, planes and motorcycles available.
> IF you take a 144Mbps HDCAM or 440Mbps HDCAMSR source video and compress it down to 19.39Mbps for television, isn't that already ENOUGH.
> When is enough ENOUGH. When Dish REcompresses it to like 3Mbps so it looks like
> dog poop?


This guys is PURE comic relief...you're killin me...stop it...ROFL!!!!!!:hurah:


----------



## inkahauts

Jack White said:


> Well just because you've never seen better picture quality doesn't mean it doesn't exist. To people in some remote part of the Amazon or Africa, a bicycle would seem like "THE FASTEST FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IMAGINABLE".
> That's basically what people who think Dish has "Great HD Picture Quality" are like. I guess IGNORANCE is bliss.
> I've seen Fiostv, OTA, Bluray, and even HDV, HDCAM, and HDCAMSR so to me Dish HD is PURE UTTER GARBAGE, and the biggest waste of money imaginable. Dish HD makes about as much sense as riding a bicycle 200 miles to your family's house for the holidays when there are cars, trains, planes and motorcycles available.
> IF you take a 144Mbps HDCAM or 440Mbps HDCAMSR source video and compress it down to 19.39Mbps for television, isn't that already ENOUGH.
> When is enough ENOUGH. When Dish REcompresses it to like 3Mbps so it looks like
> dog poop?


Just curios... What kind of HDTV do you have?


----------



## ImBack234

klegg said:


> This guys is PURE comic relief...you're killin me...stop it...ROFL!!!!!!:hurah:


:righton:


----------



## Jack White

rbonzer said:


> Dang, I'll bite...
> 
> Your comment assumes that there is a choice of providers! Is there a service provider that gives me the equivalent of 144Mbps HDCAM picture quality, with channels like local networks (heck, I don't care if its local!), ESPN, Fox Sports, USA, Disney...(insert important channels here)? If so, is it $600/month? $300? $100?
> 
> Yes, I'm upset about overcompression. When there is an alternative, that is reasonably priced, I'll jump.
> 
> Heck, what am I doing working the job I have? I should get a job that pays $10000/day! Now, I just need to figure out where I put those want ads.


No, but many give you up to 19.39 Mbps(especially Fiostv on many channels).
Which is still lightyears ahead of Dish.
Nobody except for people in the industry like me will use HDCAM SR, but the average person should NEVER have to settle for less than 15Mbps for Mpeg2 HD.
The average person should NEVER EVER have to settle for a RECOMPRESSED signal. Being compressed one time is bad enough. Recompression after a signal already being compressed is like a dog eating it's own poop and pooping it again. WRONG ON JUST SOOOOOO MANY LEVELS.


----------



## Jack White

inkahauts said:


> Just curios... What kind of HDTV do you have?


2009 Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite(after I graduate) in May 2009.
It's going to be my graduation present to myself including a bluray player, 7.1 DTS-HD, Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby True HD Surround Sound Reciever, 7 new speakers, new sub, Fiostv Setup, ISF calibration, etc. I'm going to spend about 4-6K, but I should get 8-12K worth of stuff with my discount.
I work 32 hours a week, have many production classes, have up to a 4 hour round trip commute to my college, etc so I'm not going to by my tv till I graduate.


----------



## James Long

Jack White said:


> inkahauts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just curios... What kind of HDTV do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> 2009 Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite(after I graduate) in May 2009.
> ... I'm not going to by my tv till I graduate.
Click to expand...

So the honest answer to the question is *NONE*.

It would have saved you a lot of explanation to use the appropriate four letter word there.


----------



## inkahauts

Jack White said:


> No, but many give you up to 19.39 Mbps(especially Fiostv on many channels).
> Which is still lightyears ahead of Dish.
> Nobody except for people in the industry like me will use HDCAM SR, but the average person should NEVER have to settle for less than 15Mbps for Mpeg2 HD.
> The average person should NEVER EVER have to settle for a RECOMPRESSED signal. Being compressed one time is bad enough. Recompression after a signal already being compressed is like a dog eating it's own poop and pooping it again. WRONG ON JUST SOOOOOO MANY LEVELS.


You do realize that some companies, like Directv, and in some instances Dish, don't touch the signals given to them. HBO is a prime example. They are giving Directv (and I assume DIsh as well) a MPEG-4 signal, and they pass it through, no additional compression...

And ah, Until you get a TV, how is it you can tell us exactly how Dish channels look? When you get your Pioneer, then hook up Dish and lets see what you say, and grade every channel on PQ quality. Until then, frankly, you seem to be making assumptions based on numbers rather than reality. I'm not saying your bit rate argument isn't valid, but you might be a bit extreme, and off on some channels (like HBO)


----------



## klegg

inkahauts said:


> but you might be a bit extreme, and off on some channels (like HBO)


Blasphemer!!!!!!


----------



## Richard King

Jack White said:


> 2009 Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite(after I graduate) in May 2009.
> It's going to be my graduation present to myself including a bluray player, 7.1 DTS-HD, Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby True HD Surround Sound Reciever, 7 new speakers, new sub, Fiostv Setup, ISF calibration, etc. I'm going to spend about 4-6K, but I should get 8-12K worth of stuff with my discount.
> I work 32 hours a week, have many production classes, have up to a 4 hour round trip commute to my college, etc so I'm not going to by my tv till I graduate.


I thought maybe you had one of the items in your picture. I'm really surprised you would downscale the picture. It's no longer HD. I figured since you couldn't put it up in it's original version, full scale, that you would just leave it off. Rather hypocritical isn't it? What's the purpose of posting the picture anyway?


----------



## jclewter79

If anybody thinks that FIOS will not be compressing channels when they get to a point that they need to, they are crazy.


----------



## ImBack234

jclewter79 said:


> If anybody thinks that FIOS will not be compressing channels when they get to a point that they need to, they are crazy.


Considering most of there HD channels are limited that's a save bet. Then lets see how much more they bend you over for.:eek2:
They have 76 channels and 52 are limited nation wide!!!:eek2:


----------



## kucharsk

IIP said:


> Maybe you should talk to NetFlix, and see if they are willing to start up an HDCAM SR rental service, so you can rent all your favorite shows.
> For only $189/month, you could have 2 tapes out at once! What a deal!


If they offered such a thing, I'd be up for it.

Count me as one of those who only has DISH "HD" because there's no alternative.


----------



## kucharsk

inkahauts said:


> You do realize that some companies, like Directv, and in some instances Dish, don't touch the signals given to them. HBO is a prime example. They are giving Directv (and I assume DIsh as well) a MPEG-4 signal, and they pass it through, no additional compression...


Is HBO really sending out 1440x1080i on an MP4 feed somewhere?

Yet another reason to be grateful for the 1920x1080i DCII feed I get from C-Band on Galaxy 13&#8230;


----------



## RAD

kucharsk said:


> If they offered such a thing, I'd be up for it.
> 
> Count me as one of those who only has DISH "HD" because there's no alternative.


Why isn't DirecTV and alternative?


----------



## crawdad62

RAD said:


> Why isn't DirecTV and alternative?


Because you can argue that it's not that much better or even that it's worse than Dish. I suppose it's another choice but not much of an alternative.


----------



## RAD

crawdad62 said:


> Because you can argue that it's not that much better or even that it's worse than Dish. I suppose it's another choice but not much of an alternative.


It's been shown that D*'s loading only 5 HD channels per Ka band transponder for MPEG4 HD and during the testing of the PC viewing software there was a bug that allowed people to see the resolution of the channels which was not HD lite but full rez. To me that sounds better then E* with their downrezed HD Lite and loading 7 or 8 channels per transponder.

But then again, it doesn't answer the question as to why D* is not an alternative for that poster.


----------



## crawdad62

Oh don't get me wrong I think it's better. If you notice my signature you'll see I have it. But again if you visit the D* forums of this site (which I know you do but for the sake if argument) you'll see people complaining about PQ too. And in the overall gist of this thread I'm sure it's not an alternative for the OP (of course I guess nothing but uncompress, raw material would be:nono2: )

Honestly I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here.


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> But then again, it doesn't answer the question as to why D* is not an alternative for that poster.


It seems pretty clear that DirecTV is not better enough. Perhaps it matches your lower standards, it does not reach his higher standards.


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> It seems pretty clear that DirecTV is not better enough. Perhaps it matches your lower standards, it does not reach his higher standards.


I have higher standards, that's why I have D* and not E*.


----------



## paulman182

I think all of us who are satisfied with our satellite HD are on the same side here.

I've never driven a Lamborghini so my Chevy is fine.

I've never stayed in Donald Trump's mansion so my little house is fine.

Why not start a thread in the OT section saying "Lamborghinis are better than Chevys!" or "Donald Trump has a better house than you do!"

Now that we understand that the comparison standard is one that virtually none of us can have in our homes, the point has been made, I think.


----------



## phrelin

paulman182 said:


> I think all of us who are satisfied with our satellite HD are on the same side here.
> 
> I've never driven a Lamborghini so my Chevy is fine.
> 
> I've never stayed in Donald Trump's mansion so my little house is fine.
> 
> Why not start a thread in the OT section saying "Lamborghinis are better than Chevys!" or "Donald Trump has a better house than you do!"
> 
> Now that we understand that the comparison standard is one that virtually none of us can have in our homes, the point has been made, I think.


Well, said!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

paulman182 said:


> Why not start a thread in the OT section saying "Lamborghinis are better than Chevys!" or "Donald Trump has a better house than you do!"
> 
> Now that we understand that the comparison standard is one that virtually none of us can have in our homes, the point has been made, I think.


I got the impression too that he was essentially saying if you can't drive a Lamborghini and live in Trump Tower, that you should just burn your house and give away your car and walk the streets instead.
:nono:


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> I have higher standards, that's why I have D* and not E*.


His standards are higher than D* ...


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> His standards are higher than D* ...


James, why do you feel that you need to answer for kucharsk and not let him answer? And can you please refer me to the post by him that says that?

In the post at http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1738194&postcount=38 he says _"Would I rather have ten full resolution HD channels than 100 HD Lite ones? Actually, yes."_ so to me that going to D* would fill that one reuirement of his.


----------



## swissy

James Long said:


> His standards are higher than D* ...


His standard seems to be higher than OTA with subs.

Even our local OTA without sub doesn't meet his minimum standards.


----------



## James Long

RAD said:


> James, why do you feel that you need to answer for kucharsk and not let him answer? And can you please refer me to the post by him that says that?
> 
> In the post at http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1738194&postcount=38 he says _"Would I rather have ten full resolution HD channels than 100 HD Lite ones? Actually, yes."_ *so to me* that going to D* would fill that one reuirement of his.


RAD, if you are so upset by my comments why are _you_ answering for him? D* does NOT offer full HD channels. They reduce the bandwidth of their channels to fit multiple HD channels on a transponder. They are much closer to the HD lite category than you are portraying in your posts.


----------



## klegg

RAD said:


> James, why do you feel that you need to answer for kucharsk and not let him answer? And can you please refer me to the post by him that says that?
> 
> In the post at http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1738194&postcount=38 he says _"Would I rather have ten full resolution HD channels than 100 HD Lite ones? Actually, yes."_ so to me that going to D* would fill that one reuirement of his.


Actually, John replied to your vague, biased post. Couldn't you read the part he quoted from the post you quoted??

BTW, did I somehow end up on the D* board? I could swarn we were on a E* board. "My dad can beat your dad up..."

You and "Jack" are prolly the only two people known to man that can actually tell the difference between the two services...:hurah:


----------



## RAD

James Long said:


> RAD, if you are so upset by my comments why are _you_ answering for him? D* does NOT offer full HD channels. They reduce the bandwidth of their channels to fit multiple HD channels on a transponder. They are much closer to the HD lite category than you are portraying in your posts.


What am I answering for him, I responded to one of his posts asking why D* was not an alternative, you responded with one of your snide comments about it matching _my_ lower standards. So I guess I can ask you why are you responding for him?

And the quote from kucharsk said full resolution, not full bandwidth, and D* does provide full resolution. If you don't believe me on this point why don't you check with your fellow mods on the D* side of the house. As for bandwidth unless you're taking the feed directly from the source I don't know of a MSO out there that isn't reducing it to some extent, so it comes down to who's doing it the least to make it less noticable.


----------



## crawdad62

The deal with HD and HD "lite"? Is there a written rule somewhere, and this is not a rhetorical question BTW, that states what the minimum allowable throughput should be?If there is (and I'm not aware of any) then anything that meets the resolution standards for HD is HD. Whether or not it's "good" HD is again open to debate. 

I think that, to echo an earlier post, should be the title of this thread. Dish IS HD. It might not be to someone that has standards higher than any broadcasted HD content but it is HD by definition.


----------



## RAD

klegg said:


> Actually, John replied to your vague, biased post. Couldn't you read the part he quoted from the post you quoted??
> 
> BTW, did I somehow end up on the D* board? I could swarn we were on a E* board. "My dad can beat your dad up..."
> 
> You and "Jack" are prolly the only two people known to man that can actually tell the difference between the two services...:hurah:


I thought the purpose of this site was to share information. Member kucharsk said that he didn't have an alternative to E* and I asked why wasn't D*, that's all I asked in that post.

Them member crawdad62 responded with "Because you can argue that it's not that much better or even that it's worse than Dish. I suppose it's another choice but not much of an alternative." so I responded with reason that have been documented to show why D* might be better. All I was trying to do was to find out if there was some information that I could have helped kucharsk with to see if D* would be an alternative. That's all I was trying do to was help a fellow member of this site. Guess the E* boys don't want to listen to what might be an alternative to thier provide no matter what.


----------



## klegg

RAD said:


> I thought the purpose of this site was to share information. Member kucharsk said that he didn't have an alternative to E* and I asked why wasn't D*, that's all I asked in that post.
> 
> Them member crawdad62 responded with "Because you can argue that it's not that much better or even that it's worse than Dish. I suppose it's another choice but not much of an alternative." so I responded with reason that have been documented to show why D* might be better. All I was trying to do was to find out if there was some information that I could have helped kucharsk with to see if D* would be an alternative. That's all I was trying do to was help a fellow member of this site. Guess the E* boys don't want to listen to what might be an alternative to thier provide no matter what.


I get your point, but you jumped in defending posts essentially made by "Jack White". kucharsk was (and I believe I'm correct on this) that there is alternative to the "compressed" signals we are getting which WAS "Jack's" point.

BTW, you then followed that up with an opinionated post that D* is somehow superior to E*. My opinion is (and I'm sure I'm not alone on this), NO ONE can tell the difference with their naked eye...not a normal person anyway...


----------



## James Long

RAD, it seems that you're arguing with the PEOPLE in the thread and getting away from the topic of THIS thread. Attacking people for sharing their opinions is not good.

Perhaps you joined late and didn't understand the standard being set in this thread. Perhaps you saw the post on the homepage and ignored the Dish Network focus. Perhaps you are so accustomed to pushing DirecTV that you just ignored the topic for your own agenda. It doesn't matter. That isn't what this thread is about.

:backtotop please - without further argument. Thanks.


----------



## kucharsk

RAD said:


> Why isn't DirecTV and alternative?


To be completely honest, because I live outside of Los Angeles and want to view KTLA.

Superstation availability is why I first got DISH about ten years ago and why I recently updated to a pair of 722s.

I've watched the KTLA Morning News every morning since 1993, originally via C-Band, and don't want to stop now.

If there was an alternative to the recompressed, downresed signals D*, E* and cable companies are all sending out as "HD" I'd go that route.

As I mentioned, I currently have a C-Band dish and I view the HD signals I _can_ that way.

For everything else, I view via DISH.

But I don't pretend that what DISH is giving us is anywhere near the picture quality they *could* be delivering to us, as it's a noticeable step down from what the program providers are sending _them_ and, frankly, it's less than DISH themselves used to send out when they first started making HD content available to subscribers.

It's also not just SD; I've said before that if most people saw how good SD signals looked as delivered to DISH and compared it to what DISH or D* (or their cable company) provides them, it would be like the "villagers with torches" scene in _Frankenstein_.



crawdad62 said:


> The deal with HD and HD "lite"? Is there a written rule somewhere, and this is not a rhetorical question BTW, that states what the minimum allowable throughput should be?If there is (and I'm not aware of any) then anything that meets the resolution standards for HD is HD. Whether or not it's "good" HD is again open to debate.
> 
> I think that, to echo an earlier post, should be the title of this thread. Dish IS HD. It might not be to someone that has standards higher than any broadcasted HD content but it is HD by definition.


I think that's rather unfair.

Full bandwidth ATSC is actually still sent by many stations - those who aren't sending subchannels - and those stations are, if in 1080i, broadcasting 1920x1080i content passed along from the network, not content recompressed to 1440x1080i as DISH *and* D* provide.

As far as OTA with subs, yes, that's pretty poor HD as well, and I suspect most people don't complain to their TV station because they don't realize how much better say their local NBC affiliate's HD picture would look if they weren't (IMHO) wasting bandwidth sending out Weather Plus.

Ask anyone who had an ATSC receiver in 2004 how much better the (admittedly minimal) content the HD coverage from Athens looked then compared to how the 2008 Beijing content looked for viewers on stations broadcasting Weather Plus on a subchannel.


----------



## inkahauts

kucharsk said:


> not content recompressed to 1440x1080i as DISH *and* D* provide.


Can you show me how you know that both Directv and Dish are sending out that resolution for all their channels? I bet you can't prove it. First off, Directv offers every HD channel in either full 1080i or 720p... and a few of the channels are mirrored in 1080i X 1440 as well. Second, I doubt seriously Dish is delivering the HBO channels in anything less than full 1080i. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that they were putting one HBO channel on the same transponders as several other HD Lite channels, as you say. Why, because HBO is making everyone pass full resolution from them to their customers in their contracts... So unless Dishes contract is very old and was in place before they start stipulating that, then I suspect Dish isn't just supply HD Lite, but also some full resolution HD too...

At some point, I would think Dish will have enough bandwidth to pump up the stations to full resolution... The question is when, and at that point, will that be enough for the OP? If the pixel count is right is that enough? I doubt it, because he probably wants the color depth of uncompressed, which he will never get off of any MSO.... SO he will never be happy, no matter which carrier he chooses...


----------



## inkahauts

crawdad62 said:


> Is there a written rule somewhere, and this is not a rhetorical question BTW, that states what the minimum allowable throughput should be?If there is (and I'm not aware of any) then anything that meets the resolution standards for HD is HD.


ATSC standard is all about resolution, and if a program is broadcast in 1080i X1440, technically, it should be considered EDTV. It needs to be 1080i X 1920 to be true HD... But as you say, I have never seen anything in the way of standards for bit rates... (Yeah, also 720P is HD, but the question of "HD Lite" is always with 1080i signals so I only mentioned those)


----------



## Jack White

Dish Network "HD" is not like a Chevy, it's like a 1987 Yugo.
Fiostv HD is like a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. When you're talking about a Lamborghini, that would like if you were a Network Exec and had the privilege of watching shows in your own home on an HDCAM SR deck, or perhaps watching movies on 35mm film in your own theater.


----------



## ImBack234

Jack White said:


> Dish Network "HD" is not like a Chevy, it's like a 1987 Yugo.
> Fiostv HD is like a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. When you're talking about a Lamborghini, that would like if you were a Network Exec and had the privilege of watching shows in your own home on an HDCAM SR deck, or perhaps watching movies on 35mm film in your own theater.


Again what kind of HD TV do you have?:eek2:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> ATSC standard is all about resolution, and if a program is broadcast in 1080i X1440, technically, it should be considered EDTV. It needs to be 1080i X 1920 to be true HD... But as you say, I have never seen anything in the way of standards for bit rates... (Yeah, also 720P is HD, but the question of "HD Lite" is always with 1080i signals so I only mentioned those)


Worth keeping in mind that the ATSC broadcast spec has essentially zero to do with satellite broadcasting specs. The Satellite spec is different and allows for different HD resolutions (by definition) than the ATSC spec does.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

inkahauts said:


> Can you show me how you know that both Directv and Dish are sending out that resolution for all their channels? I bet you can't prove it.


Can you prove your claim? My suspicion is that virtually no one here can prove most of what they are saying in terms of what Dish and DirecTV are broadcasting, technically speaking. We can all say what our opinion is on what we see, but can any of us truly prove the technical bits?



inkahauts said:


> Second, I doubt seriously Dish is delivering the HBO channels in anything less than full 1080i. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that they were putting one HBO channel on the same transponders as several other HD Lite channels, as you say. Why, because HBO is making everyone pass full resolution from them to their customers in their contracts...


Has anyone actually seen this contract? I've seen lots of people in forums talking about it... but I've never seen in print the actual HBO right-to-carry contract (or whatever they might call it) nor any specific stipulations from HBO to carry a specific bitrate and/or resolution.

To some extent it would be very much pot vs kettle for HBO to stipulate such a thing anyway... when you consider that HBO presents much of its "HD" not in original aspect. They don't stretch, but they almost never present 2.35:1 in anything but 16x9 that has been zoomed/cropped... and often don't even have 5.1 surround for movies that we know have it available... and sometimes still have 4:3 when there are widescreen transfers available... so I'm not sure HBO would actually open that can of worms.



inkahauts said:


> At some point, I would think Dish will have enough bandwidth to pump up the stations to full resolution... The question is when, and at that point, will that be enough for the OP? If the pixel count is right is that enough? I doubt it, because he probably wants the color depth of uncompressed, which he will never get off of any MSO.... SO he will never be happy, no matter which carrier he chooses...


Agreed... it is one thing to want, expect, and ask for better presentation of HD... but it is another to aspire to some of the lofty goals I see some aspiring. Some of the comparisons made are to impossible standards that are not likely to ever be met (or need to be for that matter), which is how this thread gets out of hand quickly.


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> Second, I doubt seriously Dish is delivering the HBO channels in anything less than full 1080i. I wouldn't be a bit surprised that they were putting one HBO channel on the same transponders as several other HD Lite channels, as you say. Why, because HBO is making everyone pass full resolution from them to their customers in their contracts...


HBO West, Zone, Family, Signature and Latino are on 61.5° TP 24 and 129° TP 22 along with Starz Comedy and Starz Kids and Family. Seven HDs with five of them being HBOs on that mux. Certainly not "one HBO channel with several HD lite channels".


----------



## Jack White

There are quite a few threads from people who know quite a bit more than the average dbstalk poster who seem to agree about Dish lowering resolutions and overcompressing stuff.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-866189.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18870385-DISH-Network-Stepping-up-HD-Offering

I think the burden of proof is on the side of the people who defend Dish to PROVE that Dish isn't downrezing and overcompressing EVERYTHING.

Both Dish and Directv are OVERCOMPRESSED GARBAGE.

19.39Mbps original programming reduced to

8.25Mbps by D

reduced to 9.10Mbps by E

Edit... .stupid oversize images deleted.


----------



## Jack White

BTW, this is all the proof needed for how craptastic E HD really is.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1018525


----------



## inkahauts

HDMe said:


> Can you prove your claim? My suspicion is that virtually no one here can prove most of what they are saying in terms of what Dish and DirecTV are broadcasting, technically speaking. We can all say what our opinion is on what we see, but can any of us truly prove the technical bits?
> 
> Has anyone actually seen this contract? I've seen lots of people in forums talking about it... but I've never seen in print the actual HBO right-to-carry contract (or whatever they might call it) nor any specific stipulations from HBO to carry a specific bitrate and/or resolution.
> 
> To some extent it would be very much pot vs kettle for HBO to stipulate such a thing anyway... when you consider that HBO presents much of its "HD" not in original aspect. They don't stretch, but they almost never present 2.35:1 in anything but 16x9 that has been zoomed/cropped... and often don't even have 5.1 surround for movies that we know have it available... and sometimes still have 4:3 when there are widescreen transfers available... so I'm not sure HBO would actually open that can of worms.
> 
> Agreed... it is one thing to want, expect, and ask for better presentation of HD... but it is another to aspire to some of the lofty goals I see some aspiring. Some of the comparisons made are to impossible standards that are not likely to ever be met (or need to be for that matter), which is how this thread gets out of hand quickly.


Actually, through some accidentally left open back door, people where able to see resoultions being sent from the HD DVR's of Directv to computers, and the computers showed the programs where in full 1080 X 1920...

Unfortunately, not enough people (stations) seem to understand the problems with messing with aspect ratios... and it bugs the *&^I&^ out of me... And I think all the companies are dumb enough to open that can of worms... unfortunately... If stations understood that bit rate and aspect ratio and sound where as important as resolution, we wouldn't be dealing with strech every show on earth TBS and TNT....


----------



## inkahauts

Jack White said:


> There are quite a few threads from people who know quite a bit more than the average dbstalk poster who seem to agree about Dish lowering resolutions and overcompressing stuff.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/index.php/t-866189.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r18870385-DISH-Network-Stepping-up-HD-Offering
> 
> I think the burden of proof is on the side of the people who defend Dish to PROVE that Dish isn't downrezing and overcompressing EVERYTHING.
> 
> Both Dish and Directv are OVERCOMPRESSED GARBAGE.
> 
> 19.39Mbps original programming reduced to
> 
> 8.25Mbps by D
> 
> reduced to 9.10Mbps by E


How exactly did you capture these images? And how exactly is it that we are supposed to know where they came from? And how do we know those numbers you claim are what actually is being sent by the sats? Enlighten me... And I'm still waiting to hear what kind of TV you have now, not what you plan on buying someday in the future....

Edit.. I saw the pics before they where yanked...


----------



## EXTACAMO

How long are we gonna beat this dead horse? Yes D* E* OTA and cable and also FIOS is not raw HD. So what? Most of us are happy with what ever provider we are with. There is nothing better available to the average consumer so no further debate is necessary.:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## ImBack234

Jack White said:


> BTW, this is all the proof needed for how craptastic E HD really is.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1018525


So is all your trashing just based on other peoples information, nothing first hand?
Like watching it on your own HD TV.


inkahauts said:


> And I'm still waiting to hear what kind of TV you have now, not what you plan on buying someday in the future....


----------



## grog

There are a good number of us who perfer the reduced 'compressed' feeds.

Why?

The reconstruction of the image is 'good enough'. With the naked eye it is really hard to see a difference. Sure you can see someone post an image and say.. which looks better ( A or B ). The reality is ( A of B ) is just fine. We are not talking about major image issues here which many of us even with very good sets just don't see.

I have a 47" that does 1080p/24 just fine. Yes the 1080p/24 content such as the 10,000 BC feed looked great on my set. But do I want ever station to be 1080p/24. No!

Why not. Because I use my DVR and the higher the bandwidth the less I can record. I would perfer to record HD in compressed MPEG4 over MPEG2 any day.

I get more content and it 'looks good enough'. It's still HD and as I said, for many of us here we really can't see the diference.

Let me put it in another light.

Audio:
I know there are a lot of there who are fine with recording MP3 at 64K.
Now that is too low for my taste. I record my MP3's at 320k. 
Now the real audiophile does not like compression at all. They will record using lossless methods only.

I think for audio I use balance between space and quality.

For HD content I think Dish and DirecTV does the same for video feeds.

The magic word for today is: *Balance*



EXTACAMO said:


> How long are we gonna beat this dead horse? Yes D* E* OTA and cable and also FIOS is not raw HD. So what? Most of us are happy with what ever provider we are with. There is nothing better available to the average consumer so no further debate is necessary.:beatdeadhorse:


----------



## HobbyTalk

Jack White said:


> BTW, this is all the proof needed for how craptastic E HD really is.
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1018525


Ohhhh..... it was posted on the internet so it MUST be true!!!! :hurah:


----------



## James Long

Jack White said:


> 19.39Mbps original programming reduced to
> 8.25Mbps by D
> reduced to 9.10Mbps by E


Ooooh, the DirecTV trolls won't like that! 
More Mbps on DISH than DirecTV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm not calling anyone out specifically here, nor am I attacking the messengers per se... but worth pointing out that sometimes the threads (here and other forums) that I see where people are discussing "proof", I'm not always sure I can trust the messenger.

In some cases the "proof" supposedly has come from someone with some kind of equipment that is either designed to "hack" or take advantage of a backdoor... I know not all "hack" is bad, but when you don't know people personally it is hard to know the difference.

I also know, from experience with manipulating graphics on the computer, you can sometimes mess with headers and have them say one thing while the file itself is something else... so I'm not sure I even always trust the legitimate stuff coming from the exposed backdoor stuff.

That said... it seems like most companies (Dish, DirecTV, cable) are doing something... either resolution changing or extra re-compression, or something... and I think we'd all have to learn a lot more math to see what the endgame is. I know I've talked before about the theoretical possibility of a 1920x1080 picture at XX Mbps essentially being the same quality as a 1440x1080 picture at YY Mbps depending upon the error correction and other settings on the transmission. Just looking at any one element alone is not telling, as many factors contribute to the picture quality we get at the end.

Since I like fruit analogies 

I can fill a box to the brim spilling over with oranges that I know I will be dropping along the way because it is too heavy for me to carry and I will wobble along the way plus the oranges on the bottom will be crushed by the weight of the ones on top OR I can fill a slightly smaller box so that I can comfortably carry them all without dropping any or damaging any... and the end result is that I carry the same or more usable oranges to my destination even though I started with less.

And now I'll let someone make fun of my analogy.


----------



## Jack White

EXTACAMO said:


> How long are we gonna beat this dead horse? Yes D* E* OTA and cable and also FIOS is not raw HD. So what? Most of us are happy with what ever provider we are with. There is nothing better available to the average consumer so no further debate is necessary.:beatdeadhorse:


It's CRAZY to put Dish and Directv in the same sentence as Fiostv.
Fiostv does NOT recompress, it does NOT downrez, and it does NOT do format changes (which also reduce picture quality on Dish and Directv).
Fiostv basically shows the programming the way it way it was meant to be broadcast and has equal quality to OTA/4DTV.


----------



## James Long

Jack White said:


> Fiostv basically shows the programming the way it way it was meant to be broadcast and has equal quality to OTA/4DTV.


In other words, it passes on the _*compressed*_ "HD" source (including any resolution changes done by the programmer).

Nothing in the consumer market is going to beat the full uncompressed HD that you claim to have access to. My humble suggestion is that you never buy a HD TV, as there is no consumer market source that truly meets the standard that you have set.


----------



## kucharsk

I don't think there's anything wrong in pointing out that in the name of financials, D*, E* and cable companies are sending out degraded HD to customers, not unlike the degraded analog and SD they've been sending out for years.

Unfortunately, unless most people have seen what they're missing, they won't know what they're missing, and therefore also won't complain when one of the cable or satellite companies suddenly decides that say, _1366_x1080i is good enough, saying that "most" HDTVs in homes have resolution no better than 1366x768 anyway.

So yes, we in effect have no choice; if you want to see TLC HD most people will have to watch it at 1440x1080i because we have no other choice.

It's just a shame if the signal is coming out of Discovery Networks at 1920x1080i, just as it was a shame that most people are not aware of just how good NTSC can actually look.


----------



## Jack White

kucharsk said:


> I don't think there's anything wrong in pointing out that in the name of financials, D*, E* and cable companies are sending out degraded HD to customers, not unlike the degraded analog and SD they've been sending out for years.
> 
> Unfortunately, unless most people have seen what they're missing, they won't know what they're missing, and therefore also won't complain when one of the cable or satellite companies suddenly decides that say, _1366_x1080i is good enough, saying that "most" HDTVs in homes have resolution no better than 1366x768 anyway.
> 
> So yes, we in effect have no choice; if you want to see TLC HD most people will have to watch it at 1440x1080i because we have no other choice.
> 
> It's just a shame if the signal is coming out of Discovery Networks at 1920x1080i, just as it was a shame that most people are not aware of just how good NTSC can actually look.


The funny thing is that the bitrate on some of the SD channels on 4DTV or Fiostv may actually be higher than some of the HD channels on D and E.
I was going through the thread on AVSforum and the CNN HD feed on E was like 5Mbps. That's not even enough for GREAT SD quality, just enough for ok SD quality.


----------



## Jack White

Jack White said:


> The funny thing is that the bitrate on some of the SD channels on 4DTV or Fiostv may actually be higher than some of the HD channels on D and E.
> I was going through the thread on AVSforum and the CNN HD feed on E was like 5Mbps. That's not even enough for GREAT SD quality, just enough for ok SD quality.


Do you E defenders even have ANY IDEA what you're MISSING?
Here's a 17.73Mbps direct passthrough of the original feed on Fiostv HD.
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/.../1080/FiOS-MHD-RedHotChiliPeppersLiveinMi.png

Here's a *FAR FAR FAR* better quality than D or E 13.21 Mbps recompressed feed of the same channel on Comcast.
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/...n/1080/Comcast-MHD-RedHotChiliPeppersLi-1.png

Now consider that D and E have FAR more compression than Comcast and go down in the 5Mbps range for many so called "HD" channels but they do probably also downrez to like 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 while the comcast feed was 1920x1080.


----------



## ImBack234

Does anyone know what HD TV jack has?
Considering MOST fios HD channels are Limited Availability should they be called a limited HD company?


----------



## phrelin

Jack White said:


> The funny thing is that the bitrate on some of the SD channels on 4DTV or Fiostv may actually be higher than some of the HD channels on D and E.
> I was going through the thread on AVSforum and the CNN HD feed on E was like 5Mbps. That's not even enough for GREAT SD quality, just enough for ok SD quality.


I'm a Dish customer and I'm happy enough with the picture. If I wanted to get nearer to the HD-perfection god, I'd watch only prior season television shows on Blu-Ray. And....

Even if Fios delivered the perfect picture to its customers, I wouldn't move to get it. I don't live in an area that will ever see Fios or Uverse. Neither of these companies include in their mission statement "universal access for all Americans." I belong to DBSTalk partly because the two companies here try to provide that level of service.


----------



## Jack White

James Long said:


> In other words, it passes on the _*compressed*_ "HD" source (including any resolution changes done by the programmer).
> 
> Nothing in the consumer market is going to beat the full uncompressed HD that you claim to have access to. My humble suggestion is that you never buy a HD TV, as there is no consumer market source that truly meets the standard that you have set.


I would ABSOLUTELY LOVE to have acess to my favorite shows on HDCAM SR, but I would love to have a warehouse sized garage full of cars like Bentley Continental GTs, Enzo Ferraris, Lexus LF-As, Brabus Rockets, Rolls Royce Phantoms, etc.
However, I'd be happy even if I got a 2009 Accord Sedan, and I'm satisfied even with my 2002 Passat 1.8T. So I'd be HAPPY with a Fiostv or a 4DTV/OTA setup.
I'm a purist but I also live in the real world. 
I know that it's possible to get 4-4-4 RBG from my classic videogame consoles because a bought a European xbr trinitron with RGB scart inputs and a voltage transformer and got RGB cables from Ebay UK and Ebay Australia so I can play all my classic consoles in GLORIOUS 4-4-4 RGB with a nice 7.1 channel sound system for the audio.
You don't have to be rich to be a purist, just put forth some effort and be dedicated. So if you guys want to settle for your Echostar Yugos, go ahead, but I'll be moving up from Comcast Elantra to a Fios Accord after I graduate in May.


----------



## Jack White

phrelin said:


> I'm a Dish customer and I'm happy enough with the picture. If I wanted to get nearer to the HD-perfection god, I'd watch only prior season television shows on Blu-Ray. And....
> 
> Even if Fios delivered the perfect picture to its customers, I wouldn't move to get it. I don't live in an area that will ever see Fios or Uverse. Neither of these companies include in their mission statement "universal access for all Americans." I belong to DBSTalk partly because the two companies here try to provide that level of service.


If I couldn't get Fiostv, then I'd try to get thousands of people in my area to sign a petition and send it to Verizon begging for Fiostv. For the average American, television takes 3rd place after sleep and work in their life on an hour to hour basis. So it's pretty darn important. When considering job offers after graduation, Fiostv will be one of the top 10 factors in deciding where to live/work.


----------



## crawdad62

When I got my first HD set there really wasn't any HD (D was just starting to push it out and I didn't want to get all new equipment) so I got it OTA. Quality was good but nothing better than I'm getting now through satellite. In fact it was worse because I was really on the edge of reception.

I moved to fiber which was exactly like Fios but it's being delivered by a regional power company (Cinergy). PQ was excellent and that's about all I can say positive about it. Actually the HD was decent and the SD was excellent. However I had about 1/4 the HD content and had to put up with a crap SA8300 box. 

Now I'm on satellite again and I've got tons more content/channels, a much better DVR and the PQ in HD is as good as I was getting with fiber. Whether or not the throughput is better or worse I really don't know (or care) but the PQ is equal in HD. SD isn't near what it was with fiber though. 

Comcast serves my area and I won't even get into that. It's a mess. If you have access to a good Comcast provider or you have Fios available and you're so sure you can be better served by either of them then there's really no argument then is there?


----------



## Richard King

> I'm a purist but I also live in the real world.


You have no concept of what the "real world" is.


----------



## crawdad62

As the cry for more and more HD channels comes it also comes with a price.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/22/atandt-will-increase-hd-compression-on-u-verse/


----------



## ImBack234

crawdad62 said:


> As the cry for more and more HD channels comes it also comes with a price.
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/22/atandt-will-increase-hd-compression-on-u-verse/


Lets see when fios does this, I bet it when they become full-time HD.


----------



## DishSatUser

Jack White said:


> If I couldn't get Fiostv, then I'd try to get thousands of people in my area to sign a petition and send it to Verizon begging for Fiostv. For the average American, television takes 3rd place after sleep and work in their life on an hour to hour basis. So it's pretty darn important. When considering job offers after graduation, Fiostv will be one of the top 10 factors in deciding where to live/work.


And those rural customers that can't garner over a thousand signatures even if everyone in that local signed it or not? What's your solution then?

*"Sell that home and move to the coast"?* :nono:

Fiosttv isn't going to compete with Sat in the same manner regarding rural customers any more than cable has. Also for snowbirds, can they take their FIOSTV DVR with them when they do their annual RV tour of the U.S.? Note that I talk about "nation wide" capable services that can potentially work anywhere. Now we are talking about retired professionals that have large nest eggs to crack, yet FIOSTV can't serve their needs. This doesn't even cover those that may spend "millions" for vacation homes in truely idealic views, etc that are normally not an urban or suburban local and wouldn't have FIOSTV access either.

So to put it into perspective. Yeah, D* and E* may not be unprocessed, raw HD broadcast, but it may be the "best" available from ones choices. Regardless of the amount one may be willing to spend.

With that in mind, each to their own. Enjoy what you've got and if it's not what you had in mind, get something else. For some of the customers, E* or D* is the best they'll be getting this side of their own extensive Blu-Ray disc collection. Even blu-ray is totally inadequate for cutting live news or other "live" content that may be in "HD lite".

Regardless though, it's still better than SD, and even if not much more in the extent of severe compression. At this point though, I'm more than satisfied.

The only issue when I run into Sat coverage would be if I "sail" outside the sat footprints. FIOSTV would need a many mile long cable that saltwater proof at that point. Auto pointing Sat mounts on the boat are more effective and less prone to snagging in the commercial lanes.


----------



## ZBoomer

This has to be the most stupid thread to date on this forum; almost embarrassing, good lord.

A guy who doesn't even own a TV in here bashing E*, you just gotta love it.


----------



## ImBack234

ZBoomer said:


> This has to be the most stupid thread to date on this forum; almost embarrassing, good lord.
> 
> A guy who doesn't even own a TV in here bashing E*, you just gotta love it.


:righton: 
Isn't his mother calling.


----------



## P Smith

*Jokers, please, keep discussion on-topic!*


----------



## HobbyTalk

Jack White said:


> bah... bah,,, shows the programming the way it way it was meant to be broadcast and has equal quality to OTA/4DTV.


But OTA is NOT HD!!!!!


----------



## EXTACAMO

Jack White said:


> If I couldn't get Fiostv, then I'd try to get thousands of people in my area to sign a petition and send it to Verizon begging for Fiostv. For the average American, television takes 3rd place after sleep and work in their life on an hour to hour basis. So it's pretty darn important. When considering job offers after graduation, Fiostv will be one of the top 10 factors in deciding where to live/work.


Whew... I'm sure glad FIOS _won't_ be coming to my area anytime soon.


----------



## phrelin

Jack White said:


> If I couldn't get Fiostv, then I'd try to get thousands of people in my area to sign a petition and send it to Verizon begging for Fiostv.


Wouldn't work. Mendocino County has only 88,000 folks spread out over 3,509 square miles. It wouldn't be cost effective.

And since we get TV from satellite and I hate crowds anyway I don't care if Fios lovers won't come here.


----------



## jclewter79

I too, am glad that videophiles without TV's won't be moving in the vacant house next door.


----------



## klegg

jclewter79 said:


> I too, am glad that videophiles without TV's won't be moving in the vacant house next door.


Just sign the dang petition and be quiet...:lol:


----------



## Jack White

jclewter79 said:


> I too, am glad that videophiles without TV's won't be moving in the vacant house next door.


I do have lik 6 tvs, just not an HDTV yet because I work 32 hours a week, and I'm a full time student, and I have a roughly 4 hour round trip commute to college about 5 days a week. It would be just STUPID for me to get an HDTV now when I can wait till graduation and get myself a Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite as a graduation present plus all the xtras like a nice bluray player, 7.1 channel Dolby Digital Plus/Dolby Tru HD/DTS HD reciever, 7.1 channel speaker setup from Magnolia, 4 year warranty including ISF calibration for Plama, tv stand, and a new Dual Tuner Fiostv HD DVR. Now that's only 8 1/2 short months away so why ruin it by getting a lesser tv now when I don't even have time to watch?


----------



## James Long

Perhaps you could spend some of your posting/posing time watching HDTV?


----------



## phrelin

Jack White said:


> I do have lik 6 tvs, just not an HDTV yet because I work 32 hours a week, and I'm a full time student, and I have a roughly 4 hour round trip commute to college about 5 days a week. It would be just STUPID for me to get an HDTV now when I can wait till graduation and get myself a Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite as a graduation present plus all the xtras like a nice bluray player, 7.1 channel Dolby Digital Plus/Dolby Tru HD/DTS HD reciever, 7.1 channel speaker setup from Magnolia, 4 year warranty including ISF calibration for Plama, tv stand, and a new Dual Tuner Fiostv HD DVR. Now that's only 8 1/2 short months away so why ruin it by getting a lesser tv now when I don't even have time to watch?


I too had a dream when I graduated, but it did not involve a TV. It had to do with what I was going to accomplish. Hmmm. Well maybe it should have been a tv set.


----------



## kucharsk

phrelin said:


> I'm a Dish customer and I'm happy enough with the picture.


Which, unfortunately, is how D* and E* (and cable companies) get away with what they send out.

As long as the majority of customers are happy to have _something_, the consumers they lose every time they reduce picture quality is worth it.

I'm not blaming you, phrelin, just pointing out how their economics work, unfortunately.

It's also not just television; it's amazing the garbage people will put up with as "projection quality" at their local movie theater.

If only they had ever seen a film projected at theatre that cares about presentation, like a Century, Pacific or Arclight, they might not accept what the local cineplex feels is "good enough"&#8230;


----------



## klegg

kucharsk said:


> Which, unfortunately, is how D* and E* (and cable companies) get away with what they send out.
> 
> As long as the majority of customers are happy to have _something_, the consumers they lose every time they reduce picture quality is worth it.
> 
> I'm not blaming you, phrelin, just pointing out how their economics work, unfortunately.
> 
> It's also not just television; it's amazing the garbage people will put up with as "projection quality" at their local movie theater.
> 
> If only they had ever seen a film projected at theatre that cares about presentation, like a Century, Pacific or Arclight, they might not accept what the local cineplex feels is "good enough"&#8230;


Or, like many have pointed out, that's how they keep it affordable. IT'S TELEVISION!


----------



## kucharsk

klegg said:


> Or, like many have pointed out, that's how they keep it affordable. IT'S TELEVISION!


When it comes to television, quality often costs no more than providing garbage, the question is how *much* garbage you provide, and whether the public feels it's garbage.

That's always been the issue and will continue to be so.

D* and E* have of course been in a continual race to cram more and more SD channels on each transponder and SD quality has suffered.

Over the past few years the same pattern was followed with HD.

Cable and OTA are doing the same.

So we often get a "who cares if the entire screeen is a bunch of moving blocks, as long as we get 4,000 channels of it?" attitude as a result.


----------



## klegg

kucharsk said:


> When it comes to television, quality often costs no more than providing garbage, the question is how *much* garbage you provide, and whether the public feels it's garbage.
> 
> That's always been the issue and will continue to be so.
> 
> D* and E* have of course been in a continual race to cram more and more SD channels on each transponder and SD quality has suffered.
> 
> Over the past few years the same pattern was followed with HD.
> 
> Cable and OTA are doing the same.
> 
> So we often get a "who cares if the entire screeen is a bunch of moving blocks, as long as we get 4,000 channels of it?" attitude as a result.


I get NO "moving blocks" so I guess you need to check your equipment...


----------



## Jared701

Jack White said:


> I do have lik 6 tvs, just not an HDTV yet because I work 32 hours a week, and I'm a full time student, and I have a roughly 4 hour round trip commute to college about 5 days a week. It would be just STUPID for me to get an HDTV now when I can wait till graduation and get myself a Pioneer Extreme Contrast Kuro Elite as a graduation present plus all the xtras like a nice bluray player, 7.1 channel Dolby Digital Plus/Dolby Tru HD/DTS HD reciever, 7.1 channel speaker setup from Magnolia, 4 year warranty including ISF calibration for Plama, tv stand, and a new Dual Tuner Fiostv HD DVR. Now that's only 8 1/2 short months away so why ruin it by getting a lesser tv now when I don't even have time to watch?


I bet you get teased a lot. You seem like a very angry nerd... 4 hour trip daily... wtf is wrong with you. You have NO LIFE. I'm sorry but you are NOT at all passionate about what you are doing in school or else you wouldn't spend 20 hours per week on the road traveling to classes. You would move to the town where your college is. 
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/08/ces_back_to_black_baby/ "Shown only as a concept, with no indication of when it might come to market" 
Oh look, you have someone in the thread now who has done research on pioneers and owns one. There's no such TV as that set on the market. yeah... I'm sure you are going to buy that tv May of this next year. You are a fool who tries to find what he considers to be 'the best' and claim he's going ot get it as he pays outrageous sums of money on gas because he hasn't figured out traveling 5 minutes to class is better than 2 hours. Keep believing what you will or bankrupt yourself on an entertainment center you can't afford. You are pathetic.


----------



## crawdad62

Jared701 said:


> I bet you get teased a lot. You seem like a very angry nerd... 4 hour trip daily... wtf is wrong with you. You have NO LIFE. I'm sorry but you are NOT at all passionate about what you are doing in school or else you wouldn't spend 20 hours per week on the road traveling to classes. You would move to the town where your college is.
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/08/ces_back_to_black_baby/ "Shown only as a concept, with no indication of when it might come to market"
> Oh look, you have someone in the thread now who has done research on pioneers and owns one. There's no such TV as that set on the market. yeah... I'm sure you are going to buy that tv May of this next year. You are a fool who tries to find what he considers to be 'the best' and claim he's going ot get it as he pays outrageous sums of money on gas because he hasn't figured out traveling 5 minutes to class is better than 2 hours. Keep believing what you will or bankrupt yourself on an entertainment center you can't afford. You are pathetic.


That's kind of harsh.

But the bottom line would be for him to get his Kuro and his FIOS and be happy. Seems like he's just picking a fight. Most people are happy with D or E and are going about their business of actually enjoying viewing said service. There's no need to pick it apart. I said earlier in this thread I have no idea what the throughput is that I'm getting...... nor do I care. I only care that it looks good.


----------



## Jared701

crawdad62 said:


> That's kind of harsh.
> 
> But the bottom line would be for him to get his Kuro and his FIOS and be happy. Seems like he's just picking a fight. Most people are happy with D or E and are going about their business of actually enjoying viewing said service. There's no need to pick it apart. I said earlier in this thread I have no idea what the throughput is that I'm getting...... nor do I care. I only care that it looks good.


You are right that's harsh but I'm not even an E* customer and just had D* installed but was bored and decided to come read some threads here. All I've seen from this guy is negativity and bragging how 'he will have it all' in May while he continues to spend 20 hours driving weekly for SCHOOL. I have never heard of anyone who would do that and it makes no logical sense. That's like me living in Columbia (middle of Missouri) and going to school in KC or St. Louis. It just makes NO sense.


----------



## msmith198025

Jack White said:


> Anyone who has not used or seen any of those sources regularly is UNQUALIFIED to even state an opinion on Dish Network's Picture quality as they don't have anything substantial to compared Dish's picture quality to.





Jack White said:


> I do have lik 6 tvs, *just not an HDTV *


IMHO, anyone who doesnt have have an HD set from which to make comparisons isnt qualified either. It honestly sounds to me that you are going off of handpicked info that is found in discussion forums, and can be spun however one desires.

On a side note, you keep throwing around bit rates of one source versus bit rates of another. You do realize that you are comparing in some cases MPEG2 to Mpeg 4 dont you. You should also realize that less bandwidth is required for mpeg 4 to achieve the same PQ as a higher bandwidth mpeg 2 signal, so it seems like you are comparing apples to oranges, and simply basing your arguments off of numbers that arent really related.


----------



## Jared701

I'd really like to see an unbiased review with pictures from the exact same broadcast from D* E* some of the major cable networks and fios. I switched to D* sight unseen because I wasn't sure if I could get LOS to the E* satellites and either satellite company had WAY more HD channels than my local mediacom. I'm still unsure if D*s high def stations look better or worse than my local cable. So far they seem softer to me but I haven't spent enough time watching to be sure. One thing which is sure is that D*s SD looks like crap


----------



## Jason Nipp

Jared701 said:


> I'd really like to see an unbiased review with pictures from the exact same broadcast from D* E* some of the major cable networks and fios. I switched to D* sight unseen because I wasn't sure if I could get LOS to the E* satellites and either satellite company had WAY more HD channels than my local mediacom. I'm still unsure if D*s high def stations look better or worse than my local cable. So far they seem softer to me but I haven't spent enough time watching to be sure. One thing which is sure is that D*s SD looks like crap


E*'s SD leaves more to be desired as well. I have has Comcast and Medicomm as well and the SD isn't much better than E*. I believe that uplink rates on many of these SD stations and filmed resolutions take part in the crappiness. For instance I watch a lot of DIY Network. The most horrific SD is the older This Old House episodes. But on other SD channels like Comcast Sports Net, It's sometimes hard to tell it's SD. MMV

A friend has FIOS, and the DVR absolutely leaves much much more to be desired. 
*
Oh, and Guys, Please tone down the bashing. *


----------



## Ron Barry

Excellent point msmith198025 and there are a lot of other factors in determining overall PQ that don't even relate to BandWidth. Quality of downstream encoding for example and type of encoding as mentioned above. The endpoint equipment and viewing distance also play a factor. Bottom line.. PQ is subject and what one considers good quality another might consider garbage. I just recently went through the process of buying a zoom lens and same type discussions go on in terms of the difference in quality between lenses. Some can't tell others totally think one is crap compared to another.

Bottom line.. No service has unlimited bandwidth and business decisions are made as to what to do with the bandwidth a company has at a given time that will make the company the most money.

I for one would love love top end HD quality encoding with high quality encoding equipment and MPEG4, but I also understand that those needs have to be balanced with bandwidth usage and content choices. Bottom line for most subs is... content choices in HD with equipment functionality 2nd and if that means some quality will suffer to meet the major content choice needs at the cost of a drop in PQ that 95% of the people watching will not notice the choice from a business perspective is simple.

When top notch quality will become and issue to the providers is when the playing field is level on both Content and equipment and one has the edge over the other to the point it is very noticeable driving consumers from one to the other if the conversion is a painless one.

Hopefully I did not wonder too far from the topic.. But bottom line is. D* HD is HD... E* HD is HD and Cable's HD is HD etc etc etc... There is no proof contrary based on the numerous threads we get on this subject over the last years. Sure the PQ does not meet the expectations of some, but that does not mean it is not HD.

*Moderator Hat On*
We have about a half a dozen of these type of threads a year and they go around and around. Please keep the comments on topic and try to avoid the personal insults even though you might feel the person making the counter argument is way out there. We know this topic can be hot, so please try and stick to opinions and facts and away from personal attacks.


----------



## msmith198025

Agreed Ron. People in these discussion tend to focus on one set of factors when discussing PQ, be it Rez, Bandwidth, ect. When in fact it is a variety of things that come into play to make a good picture (as you listed).


----------



## phrelin

msmith198025 said:


> Agreed Ron. People in these discussion tend to focus on one set of factors when discussing PQ, be it Rez, Bandwidth, ect. When in fact it is a variety of things that come into play to make a good picture (as you listed).


Yes, and you combine that with a realistic economic model for the the businesses providing the signal, you aren't going to see any time soon a picture that consistently looks as if you're viewing through a picture window.

In our area, Adelphia built a cable system less than 10 years ago. A few years ago they went bankrupt and Comcast acquired the system. Ever since, Comcast has had to spend relatively large sums of money to upgrade for digital service. My best guess is that regionally they have several hundred miles of cable along roads and streets serving less than 10,000 customers. In San Francisco where my daughter lives, they can serve 1,000 customers with several blocks of street cable. It will be on her street that either or both Fios and U-verse will build infrastructure that won't be sufficient 5 years after its built while Comcast will be doing something new.

Or, maybe all this duplicate infrastructure will become so uneconomic that our government will have to step in because they quit regulating....

In the meantime, we'll be talking about how the two satellite companies can squeeze it all on existing satellites.


----------



## Jason Nipp

I'm waiting for the day people realize how much unused copper is beneath the soil that is creating a Faraday cage within the earth's crust and how that contributes to magnetic losses in turn that allow less heat from the sun to penetrate the earths crust and therefore changes the Mid-Atlantic current which will force us into another ice-age. 
.
.
.
.

:lol:
.
.
.
.
.

Or we can all just agree that it's only TV and we shouldn't get so worked up about it.

Frankly, the cost of wire is going up so high these days I am surprised that more cable Co's aren't trying to go wireless or fiber.

Oh, the rate of return on recycled copper is up there.... I wonder if anyone has the abandoned burial cabling mapped out? :scratch: :grin:

Sorry... too much sugar I guess...


----------



## Paul Secic

Jared701 said:


> I bet you get teased a lot. You seem like a very angry nerd... 4 hour trip daily... wtf is wrong with you. You have NO LIFE. I'm sorry but you are NOT at all passionate about what you are doing in school or else you wouldn't spend 20 hours per week on the road traveling to classes. You would move to the town where your college is.
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/08/ces_back_to_black_baby/ "Shown only as a concept, with no indication of when it might come to market"
> Oh look, you have someone in the thread now who has done research on pioneers and owns one. There's no such TV as that set on the market. yeah... I'm sure you are going to buy that tv May of this next year. You are a fool who tries to find what he considers to be 'the best' and claim he's going ot get it as he pays outrageous sums of money on gas because he hasn't figured out traveling 5 minutes to class is better than 2 hours. Keep believing what you will or bankrupt yourself on an entertainment center you can't afford. You are pathetic.


Jack just wants to get educated. Nothing wrong with that? TV is just TV.


----------



## aloishus27

Jared701 said:


> I bet you get teased a lot. You seem like a very angry nerd... 4 hour trip daily... wtf is wrong with you. You have NO LIFE. I'm sorry but you are NOT at all passionate about what you are doing in school or else you wouldn't spend 20 hours per week on the road traveling to classes. You would move to the town where your college is.
> http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/01/08/ces_back_to_black_baby/ "Shown only as a concept, with no indication of when it might come to market"
> Oh look, you have someone in the thread now who has done research on pioneers and owns one. There's no such TV as that set on the market. yeah... I'm sure you are going to buy that tv May of this next year. You are a fool who tries to find what he considers to be 'the best' and claim he's going ot get it as he pays outrageous sums of money on gas because he hasn't figured out traveling 5 minutes to class is better than 2 hours. Keep believing what you will or bankrupt yourself on an entertainment center you can't afford. You are pathetic.


So this unit doesn't even exist except in concept yet he is going to have one in May.

Maybe he is getting it as a present in May from Pioneer themselves, as a signing bonus and he is going to work for Pioneer on their new 4120p set that comes out in 2011 and can handle 1.2TB/sec bandwidth. 

We'll be so out of touch as to what HD is it wont even be funny.


----------



## HobbyTalk

aloishus27 said:


> We'll be so out of touch as to what HD is it wont even be funny.


And just think, since there will be no media available that would be able to be shown in this format, no one will ever know what they are missing! But think of all the fun you could have with yourself as you sit in that specially sealed, black enclosure! :lol:


----------



## jclewter79

Will it really matter if it is 4120p or 8240p when we get to the point that the human eye cannot tell the difference?


----------



## P Smith

jclewter79 said:


> Will it really matter if it is 4120p or 8240p when we get to the point that the human eye cannot tell the difference?


Then look in your window.


----------



## kucharsk

klegg said:


> I get NO "moving blocks" so I guess you need to check your equipment...


*All* digital television is a bunch of moving blocks; the question is how big the blocks are, and in general as bandwidth goes down, block size goes up and rate of update goes down.


----------



## Jack White

klegg said:


> I get NO "moving blocks" so I guess you need to check your equipment...


Maybe you don't watch fast action content, have bad eyes, a really bad tv, or just really really low standards.


----------



## phrelin

Jack White said:


> Maybe you don't watch fast action content, have bad eyes, a really bad tv, or just really really low standards.


Me, I'm just blind.


----------



## James Long

Jack White said:


> Maybe you don't watch fast action content, have bad eyes, a really bad tv, or just really really low standards.


There is no need to insult people, Jack. We're just doing the best we can with consumer equipment and services and enjoying the HD we have. We are in the consumer marketplace, paying for that equipment and service. We are in the game. We understand what is available and where the market is going and most of all our place in that market.

It isn't about our eyes, our TV or our standards ... or even the speed of the content we watch. It is about what is available. Good luck finding anything "better" and better luck keeping that "better" at high quality forever.

No one here is in a position to change what DISH Network, DirecTV, Fios or cable do with their signals. If after graduation next year you are in a position in the industry to make such a change then please do. Otherwise it is kinda tilting at windmills.


----------



## ImBack234

James Long said:


> There is no need to insult people, Jack. We're just doing the best we can with consumer equipment and services and enjoying the HD we have. We are in the consumer marketplace, paying for that equipment and service. We are in the game. We understand what is available and where the market is going and most of all our place in that market.
> 
> It isn't about our eyes, our TV or our standards ... or even the speed of the content we watch. It is about what is available. Good luck finding anything "better" and better luck keeping that "better" at high quality forever.
> 
> No one here is in a position to change what DISH Network, DirecTV, Fios or cable do with their signals. If after graduation next year you are in a position in the industry to make such a change then please do. Otherwise it is kinda tilting at windmills.


And we own HD TV's today.


----------



## Richard King

Jack White said:


> Maybe you don't watch fast action content, have bad eyes, a really bad tv, or just really really low standards.


Maybe he has an HD television.


----------



## Curtis0620

If it's not HD, then is it ED?

I think they have pills for that.


----------



## Jason Nipp

Curtis0620 said:


> If it's not HD, then is it ED?
> 
> I think they have pills for that.


*Stop the insults! ........ Everyone!

Vacations now forthcoming on next insult!*


----------



## Richard King

I have a better idea. Thread closed. Don't start another on this subject. When the main character in the conversation complains about Dish HD, but doesn't own an HD television, the conversation is pointless. Closed


----------

