# Please clarify "HD Lite" and whats coming in Sept



## saleen351 (Mar 28, 2006)

I use to see 3490534 threads about HD lite and massive complains, so when this thing is turned on, is all that history? Will we have the latest and greatest? And how will the new PQ compare to the best offerings by Cable and FIOS???


----------



## mcbeevee (Sep 18, 2006)

Won't know until it is turned on...then we can judge the quality.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

"HD Lite" is an internet term, that has been coined to denote a lot of different things.

It was first used to refer to HD broadcasting that was not at the one of the defined ATSC HD resoutions.... 

It has now grown to include Picture Quality issues, that could be related to resolution, bitrate, or what ever.


So just do a google search on HDLite to find out more about it's term, and the different "things" that people are putting into that bucket.


As for the PQ... we won't know until it is turned on.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> "HD Lite" is an internet term, that has been coined to denote a lot of different things.
> 
> It was first used to refer to HD broadcasting that was not at the one of the defined ATSC HD resoutions....
> 
> ...


Earl, how do the new MPEG4 channel like YESHD compare these days, in terms of what resolution they are being broadcast in? Are they still downrezzing those, as well, to the now imfamous 1280x1024(instead of 1920 or whatever the defined number is).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

There has been a lot of comments on "HD-lite". Most is compared to OTA channels that have no bandwidth limitations.
Cable & SAT systems have bandwidth limitations. MPEG-2 is old and not as effective as MPEG-4 for reducing file size.
Depending on what is in the video, it will change the bit rate used/needed.
720p is reported to be sent in 1280 x 720.
1080i is 1920 x 1080, but "lite" is reported to be 1280 x 1080. If you were to see this image, it would look very distorted, since one third of it is removed [compressed]. What you see is a 1920 x 1080 image as the decoding tries to average in the missing pixels. While this isn't the same as having the missing pixels, not every scene will show a problem since if you are averaging two pixels that are the same, the averaged pixel will be what was missing.
If the two pixels aren't the same, then the averaged pixel will be "something", but not far off from what it was [in most cases]. Softer edges could be what you would see. Loss of fine detail could be another.
MPEG-4 is a different way of coding. Current Local HD channels are using this and [in my market] look very close [the same?] to the OTA picture I get.
Those that say they can read the pixels say that the image size is 1440 x 1080, so it has more than the MPEG-2 1080i compressed image.
If the new channels coming are as good as my locals, I doubt most of us will be complaining.
Will this stop all of the "HD-lite" rants/stories? I doubt it.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

Well the HD I have right now is wonderful IMO  Could it really get any better?


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

Dolly said:


> Well the HD I have right now is wonderful IMO  Could it really get any better?


If it is MPEG 2 than yes it can be a lot better


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Dolly said:


> Well the HD I have right now is wonderful IMO  Could it really get any better?


You're still under the "WOW" factor influence. :hurah:


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> You're still under the "WOW" factor influence. :hurah:


Well if it gets any better I'll think I'm in Heaven :angel: And I also won't be moving from in front of my TV  This could be the end of life as we know it :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Dolly said:


> This could be the end of life as we know it :lol:


I know it would be if there was ever a 24 hour tennis channel.


----------



## Dolly (Jan 30, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I know it would be if there was ever a 24 hour tennis channel.


Guess what TTC is 24/7 :lol: But it isn't on D until 8/27 and then it won't go HD until Dec. At least that is the last thing I heard about it.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

VOS... is 1080p ever an option for directv?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> If the new channels coming are as good as my locals, I doubt most of us will be complaining.


+1. My MPEG-4 locals look as good as the MPEG-2 OTA channels they are encoded from, and noticeably better than those same channels broadcast as MPEG-2 "HD-Lite" in the 80-89 range. /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> VOS... is 1080p ever an option for directv?


Most likely...no
Currently none of the hardware is capable and then there would be the bandwidth issue.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Steve said:


> +1. My MPEG-4 locals look as good as the MPEG-2 OTA channels they are encoded from, and noticeably better than those same channels broadcast as MPEG-2 "HD-Lite" in the 80-89 range. /steve


Now having acces to YESHD fulltime(channel 622), as well as my locals(Hartford, except for stupid WTNH HD) which are in MPEG4, I can say that at least, so far, YESHD on 622 is noticeably better looking that what I was seeing, when they showed the Yankees on channel 95, which is MPEG2.

Seeing the difference in YESHD is why I asked the question, in my earlier post, in this thread.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Most likely...no
> Currently none of the hardware is capable and then there would be the bandwidth issue.


well... i mean they could come up with new harware right? and as far as the bandwidth goes... i guess it would involve launching many new sats... so i guess the only hope for 1080p (or higher) to be a household standard would be with fiber optics... right?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> well... i mean they could come up with new harware right? and as far as the bandwidth goes... i guess it would involve launching many new sats... so i guess the only hope for 1080p (or higher) to be a household standard would be with fiber optics... right?


As there are no content providers producing a 1080p signal it's kinda a mute point..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

houskamp said:


> As there are no content providers producing a 1080p signal it's kinda a mute point..


moot too.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> moot too.


it's a moo point... like a cows opinion... it doesn't matter....... it's moo


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> it's a moo point... like a cows opinion... it doesn't matter....... it's moo


what.... no "friends" fans?? come on people...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

:lol:


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> "HD Lite" is an internet term, that has been coined to denote a lot of different things.
> 
> It was first used to refer to HD broadcasting that was not at the one of the defined ATSC HD resoutions....


Earl - as I understand it the DBS providers covered by a different chapter of the ATSC regulations, A/81: Direct-to-Home Satellite Broadcast Standard. I think this chapter applicable to them does recognize the 1280x1080i and 1440x1080i formats as part of the standard (it's not clear to me whether they are condidered "HD", though), unlike the chapter applicable to OTA DTV broadcasts, A/53, Part 4:2007, "MPEG-2 Video System Characteristics". (These are avaiable at ATSC.org)

I do think it a bit misleading for the DBS providers to call it HD when the general accepted understading in the population is is that "HD" means at least 1280x720p or 1920x1080i.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

tkrandall said:


> Earl - as I understand it the DBS providers covered by a different chapter of the ATSC regulations, A/81: Direct-to-Home Satellite Broadcast Standard. I think this chapter applicable to them does recognize the 1280x1080i and 1440x1080i formats as part of the standard (it's not clear to me whether they are condidered "HD", though), unlike the chapter applicable to OTA DTV broadcasts, A/53, Part 4:2007, "MPEG-2 Video System Characteristics". (These are avaiable at ATSC.org)
> 
> I do think it a bit misleading for the DBS providers to call it HD when the general accepted understading in the population is is that "HD" means at least 1280x720p or 1920x1080i.


While it is true they have to follow a different set of "rules"

The "general accepted"...... amongst the people really into their AV...
But the "average joe".... doen't know 1280x720p/1920x1080i from any other resolution... they just want a good looking picture...

HD to the "general" public, is simply High Definition... and that means a better looking picture then non-high def, and better sound...


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That's happen when a standard *treated *as a slave (I did say different word, but self-censored ).


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

HD Lite looks OK. Unless you get up close and look for flaws in the image (and they are there) you will be satisfied.

--- CHAS


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

As long as the quality is as good or better as I have now with D*, I will be happy


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

If you want more information on what users have called "HD Lite" I would check out the following article. It explains the complaint pretty well.

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvlawsuit092006.htm

As for DIRECTV, they have never admitted to lowering HD picture quality in order to save bandwidth. This was a term invented by the users describing what they thought was poor picture quality from DIRECTV.

As for what is coming, the new upcoming HD channels are all going to be encoded using the MPEG-4 compression standard, not MPEG-2 like they were in the past. This saves bandwidth and allows DIRECTV to send more HD programming.

A good example of the bandwidth that is saved using MPEG-4 can be seen on the HR20's. They can record 30 hrs of MPEG-2 HD programming or 50 hrs of MPEG-4 HD programming.

They also launched more satellites, increasing the amount of bandwidth they can send.

Personally, I have seen better quality from DIRECTV than I got from cable and when I compare a HD off-air channel to DIRECTV's HD locals on a friend's HR20 I really have not noticed a difference.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

The way I see it, anything better than 480p qualifies as HD. A lot of the content on locals (and on some of the upcoming HD channels) is upconverted from 480i and sometimes it even looks fairly good (as do upconverted DVDs), although it is easy to tell the difference.

Caveat: I have some cataracts, so what looks good to me may not to the next person (I'm also practically deaf in one ear, although DD5.1 does sound better to me than normal audio). It's tough getting old....


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

bobnielsen said:


> Caveat: I have some cataracts, so what looks good to me may not to the next person (I'm also practically deaf in one ear, although DD5.1 does sound better to me than normal audio). It's tough getting old....


Get rid of those cataracts ASAP! I have had lenses implanted in both eyes over the last two years and now the WORLD is HD!:lol:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

bobnielsen said:


> The way *I see it*, anything better than 480p qualifies as HD. <..>


There is ATSC standard with strong technical definition of HD *parameters*.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> There is ATSC standard with strong technical definition of HD *parameters*.


That only gets into lines, pixels per line, frame rates etc. The 720 and 1080 line formats are CAPABLE of HD. Problem is,  the ATSC doesn't regulate the quality of the picture you actually see. If you took a 200 line image and converted it to 1080p, would you be watching High Definition?

--- CHAS


----------



## Donb01 (Feb 8, 2007)

The last time I was paying any attention to the "HD Lite" complaints over on AVS Forum they were primarily complaining about the bitrate. Supposedly "True" HD runs best with a bitrate of around 16+ Mbps (or pixels per second - can't remember) and they were saying it looked good down to around 12, but D* was routinely running bitrates around 12 or 13 which really jacked around with picture noise on fast moving action films, football games and the like and acaused a lot of artifacts. Supposedly by reducing the bitrate they could run an HD channel and a couple SD channels on the same transponder. People also complained that during the heavy sports season packages they borrowed bandwidth from the HD to support the higher bitrates needed to make the sports shows look good. I hadn't really heard a lot of discussion about screen resolution, although it's been over a year since I've paid any attention to it.

I don't know how current this information is, but here is the website we used to watch to see who was sucking on what day, etc.... http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Donb01 said:


> The last time I was paying any attention to the "HD Lite" complaints over on AVS Forum they were primarily complaining about the bitrate. Supposedly "True" HD runs best with a bitrate of around 16+ Mbps (or pixels per second - can't remember) and they were saying it looked good down to around 12, but D* was routinely running bitrates around 12 or 13 which really jacked around with picture noise on fast moving action films, football games and the like and acaused a lot of artifacts. Supposedly by reducing the bitrate they could run an HD channel and a couple SD channels on the same transponder. People also complained that during the heavy sports season packages they borrowed bandwidth from the HD to support the higher bitrates needed to make the sports shows look good. I hadn't really heard a lot of discussion about screen resolution, although it's been over a year since I've paid any attention to it.
> I don't know how current this information is, but here is the website we used to watch to see who was sucking on what day, etc.... http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html


This may not be how it works & too simple of a view: If every third pixel is removed [1280 x 1080] then doesn't this reduce the bit rate by the same amount? 
It has a third less information to send, therefore 16-19 Mbps becomes 11-13 Mbps.
I don't know and this may be just the "blonde" in me, but seems to also explain the "how they do it". How else could they "starve" the bit rate? Give us less color? Drop a frame?
The whole reason to change over to MPEG-4 is that it uses less bits for the same image as MPEG-2, but costs more since it needs more memory to work.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Chuck W said:


> Earl, how do the new MPEG4 channel like YESHD compare these days, in terms of what resolution they are being broadcast in? Are they still downrezzing those, as well, to the now imfamous 1280x1024(instead of 1920 or whatever the defined number is).


It's very simple really.

You measure the bandwidth coming off the YPbPr output.

Compressed or not, even after it is uncompressed, it still needs the bandwidth to obtain full resolution. Ditto a mp3 at 64/96/128/196 etc. You know how those sound when you don't have enough.

This is the reason why the cheap YPbPr or RGB switchers that are made for games degrade a true HDTV signal so much - they do not have the bandwidth for full resolution (and why good HDTV switchers cost more than those you buy for games).

You measure the bandwidth coming off the station OTA - then switch to the HD-LIL feed and watch the bandwidth disappear. Just like anything else, the higher the bandwidth is where the high end detail lives.

Then using math its very easy to see roughly where the limits are on the resolution....which is 1280x1080 on D* at this point on their Ka birds.

So some will try to argue (incorrectly) that D* is doing 1920x1080, but choosing that route leaves you with a bigger issue - as the bandwidth isn't coming out of the IRD to produce that on your HDTV, it means that if D* is truly doing that, the H20 and HR20s circuits are so bad they its loosing it inside the IRD. Furthermore, it fails to explain why the bandwidth is there when viewing OTA ATSC signals and disappears when you switch to the HD-LIL equivilant.

Thus, the IRD can do full bandwidth. It's not getting a full bandwidth signal at this point from the birds.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> This may not be how it works & too simple of a view: If every third pixel is removed [1280 x 1080] then doesn't this reduce the bit rate by the same amount?
> It has a third less information to send, therefore 16-19 Mbps becomes 11-13 Mbps.
> I don't know and this may be just the "blonde" in me, but seems to also explain the "how they do it". How else could they "starve" the bit rate? Give us less color? Drop a frame?
> The whole reason to change over to MPEG-4 is that it uses less bits for the same image as MPEG-2, but costs more since it needs more memory to work.


Correct.

You can also reduce bitrate by using a telecine pull down flag (if the original source material is film).

In essence, HDNET which uses a set 17.57 Video Bitrate non-telecine essentially is throwing away 20% of its bandwidth retransmitting duplicate frames that the IRD could duplicate if it was flagged properly - thus the effective bitrate of HDNET drops for 17.57Mbps to roughly 14Mbps.

That is why SHO-HD East at a Video Bitrate telecined in excess of 16Mbps HAS THE ABILITY to look better than HDNET if all other things are equal.

Furthermore, bitrate will also be reduced with a 2.35:1 in OAR - as roughly 22% of the information is a black line. It is why Star Wars was able to look as good as it did on HBO with a Video Bitrate of roughly 9.15Mbps.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> It's very simple really.
> 
> You measure the bandwidth coming off the YPbPr output.


What kind of device is used to do such measurements?


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

Remember when they said " it's all 1's and 0's. You either get the full picture or not." Who came up with bitrates, pixilization, macroblocking, etc.:lol: 


By the way - what is HD-LIL?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> By the way - what is HD-LIL?


HD local in local [local channels in the local market].


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

tkrandall said:


> What kind of device is used to do such measurements?


An oscilliscope.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> Remember when they said " it's all 1's and 0's. You either get the full picture or not." Who came up with bitrates, pixilization, macroblocking, etc.:lol: By the way - what is HD-LIL?


The "all or nothing" quote refers to signal strength from the satellite, not compression and bandwidth artifacts that can be seen regardless of signal strength.

HD-LIL is High Definition Local-Into-Local.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> An oscilliscope.


I'm pretty sure it would take a spectrum analyzer.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> An oscilliscope.


I would have a major problem measuring the bandwidth of a complex waveform in the time domain with an o-scope.

Let's consider a special case where a single frame that is not part of a moving picture (i.e. a test pattern) is sent and displayed. It can be sent once at full bandwidth because the compression encoder detects successive frames are always identical. So if you look at the bandwidth at the analog connector you will see full bandwidth with the actual transmitted bandwidth being near zero.

Next, somewhere in the transmission process, that every third pixel must be reinserted (probably in the set top box) to format the signal back to 1080i so your monitor can recognize it as a valid ATSC over-the-air picture format. I'm thinking that process will increase the bandwidth you measure at the connector because there is more data there then was transmitted.

Certainly, those 'missing' pixels cannot be reconstructed with 100% accuracy so even though there is more data there, it's 'bogus' data that the HD-Lite people hope you can't see.

--- CHAS


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> I'm pretty sure it would take a spectrum analyzer.


"You measure the bandwidth coming off the YPbPr output." Sounds like:
1) An O-scope might work.
2) since the signal going out of the HR-20 would be 1920 x 1080 [after it is scaled], I'm not sure how it would show the reduced bandwidth.
As I understand the process: D* drops every third pixel [1920 down to 1280], send this through the SAT feed and then averages in the missing pixels. There is no way that I can see my TV showing a 1080i image in anything less than 1920 x 1080, given that when it is in letterbox [a movie] or 4:3 format, I see it as such, & would see a 1280 x 1080 image not filling up my display and looking distorted at the same time.


----------



## Blitz68 (Apr 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Most likely...no
> Currently none of the hardware is capable and then there would be the bandwidth issue.


Would it not be a source issue? Is there anyone broadcasting 1080p?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Blitz68 said:


> Would it not be a source issue? Is there anyone broadcasting 1080p?


Yes, a source issue, and no, not to my knowledge is anybody even thinking of broadcasting it. I've been told the broadcom chip can't de-interlace 1080i also.
The bandwidth for 1080p would be tough to pass.
720p is actually smaller than 1080i, so "something" would have to give to send 1080p and fit the current bandwidth [even for OTA].


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

HIPAR said:


> I would have a major problem measuring the bandwidth of a complex waveform in the time domain with an o-scope.
> 
> Let's consider a special case where a single frame that is not part of a moving picture (i.e. a test pattern) is sent and displayed. It can be sent once at full bandwidth because the compression encoder detects successive frames are always identical. So if you look at the bandwidth at the analog connector you will see full bandwidth with the actual transmitted bandwidth being near zero.
> 
> ...


Your assumptions are incorrect on several levels, but in a nutshell, your comments assume (correctly) that D* is using reduced resolution from 1920x1080 - otherwise there is no reason to throw away every third pixel. There are still the majority who refuse to believe that basic fact and that is what it shows.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

paulman182 said:


> I'm pretty sure it would take a spectrum analyzer.


These were done several years ago by Bob Siedel @ CBS in New York who has the proper equipment to take a screen capture with. They ARE NOT the current HD-LIL but everyone who has checked has confirmed the results are the same for the MPEG4 HD-LIL as they are for the downrezed HD-LITE MPEG2 feeds.

This is how WCBS-DT looks OTA via an ATSC Tuner:



This is how WCBS-DT looks via Directv HD-LITE:


----------



## psychobabbler (Sep 16, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> what.... no "friends" fans?? come on people...


I got it, and was thinking the same thing reading the post just above yours.:hurah:


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Your assumptions are incorrect on several levels, but in a nutshell, your comments assume (correctly) that D* is using reduced resolution from 1920x1080 - otherwise there is no reason to throw away every third pixel. There are still the majority who refuse to believe that basic fact and that is what it shows.


The every third pixel theory is just a carry over from an earlier post that suggested that as a possible method to convert a 1080i picture to HD lite. I think in principle, 'throwing away' a third of the data would indeed reduce the bandwidth required to send the picture. That method would be somewhat simplistic so I hope they employ a more sophisticated algorithm.

It's factual that an ATSC standard exists that justifies HD Lite as a satellite transmission standard with less than 1920 horizontal pixels. That means a 1080i picture must somehow be altered to reduce the number of effective horizontal pixels for transmission through the satellite. For a 16:9 picture that would mean the either the pixels aren't square anymore or some are missing. That original 1080 format really does need to be regenerated because a consumer monitor, which is designed for over-the-air ATSC, cannot directly understand the ATSC DBS format. 

There can only be speculation because they won't tell us how they they do it and don't readily admit they do do it.  You can learn atomic secrets easier than you can get tech information from the DBS people.

But, there's no doubt they are playing mind games with us. :lol:

--- CHAS


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

HIPAR said:


> The every third pixel theory is just a carry over from an earlier post that suggested that as a possible method to convert a 1080i picture to HD lite. I think in principle, 'throwing away' a third of the data would indeed reduce the bandwidth required to send the picture. That method would be somewhat simplistic so I hope they employ a more sophisticated algorithm.
> 
> It's factual that an ATSC standard exists that justifies HD Lite as a satellite transmission standard with less than 1920 horizontal pixels. That means a 1080i picture must somehow be altered to reduce the number of effective horizontal pixels for transmission through the satellite. For a 16:9 picture that would mean the either the pixels aren't square anymore or some are missing. That original 1080 format really does need to be regenerated because a consumer monitor, which is designed for over-the-air ATSC, cannot directly understand the ATSC DBS format.
> 
> ...


That was one of the test patterns we played around with - a line missing every 3rd line (of course we needed to make 3 versions not knowing which would be discarded).


----------



## mhammett (Jul 19, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> VOS... is 1080p ever an option for directv?


Ever? Yes, of course. Likely any time soon? No. It isn't on any public radar.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

psychobabbler said:


> I got it, and was thinking the same thing reading the post just above yours.:hurah:


haha... good to know somebody got it...


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

mhammett said:


> Ever? Yes, of course. Likely any time soon? No. It isn't on any public radar.


i understand that no one is broadcasting in 1080p... just from what I've read... i don't think it's possible for 1080p to be carried over a coax... or at least from a cable company perspective... maybe one feed from a dish to a receiver... just not enough bandwidth to feed that much to thousands of houses... so that leaves fiber and satellites... so my question was is it possible (from a bandwidth perspective) to ever expect 1080p from D*


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Technically it possible now, but one or two channels will occupy whole bandwidth of one transponder.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> i understand that no one is broadcasting in 1080p... just from what I've read... i don't think it's possible for 1080p to be carried over a coax... or at least from a cable company perspective... maybe one feed from a dish to a receiver... just not enough bandwidth to feed that much to thousands of houses... so that leaves fiber and satellites... so my question was is it possible (from a bandwidth perspective) to ever expect 1080p from D*


It's not a question of coax, fiber, or SAT. OTA has the most bandwidth and uses 5 MHz for their channels. If they don't drop some part of the signal [24 frames instead of 30/60], they would need say 10 MHz [for example only as it may not be this much]. Then a 1080p signal would take up two 1080i channels. This is the bandwidth problem as with any HD channel. Quality verse quantity. The supplier [SAT or cable] can get more bang [bucks] with more channels than "better" picture.
This goes back to the title of this thread: HD-lite. The more the supplier can offer channel wise, the more revenue. It's a pure business decision.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

There ya go VOS - business decision. It's a business, they are in it to make money, not to please videophiles. They will do the least they can get away with, to maximize profit, without losing customers.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> These were done several years ago by Bob Siedel @ CBS in New York who has the proper equipment to take a screen capture with. They ARE NOT the current HD-LIL but everyone who has checked has confirmed the results are the same for the MPEG4 HD-LIL as they are for the downrezed HD-LITE MPEG2 feeds.


So are you saying at first D* was doing HD-Lite with LIL's but now they aren't? A lot of people on this board and avs have wanted to see facts but other than hearsay nothing has been said.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> So are you saying at first D* was doing HD-Lite with LIL's but now they aren't? A lot of people on this board and avs have wanted to see facts but other than hearsay nothing has been said.





> everyone who has checked has confirmed the results are the same for the MPEG4 HD-LIL as they are for the downrezed HD-LITE MPEG2 feeds.


What I've read was: MPEG-4 [1080i] is 1440 x 1080 and not the 1280 x 1080 used with MPEG-2.
I don't have the equipment to know myself and there is a lot of "smoke" in all of the postings about any of this.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

There may be some smoke coming from a number of sources, but I'm pretty confident in stating D* has been reducing the resolution of MPEG4 HD LIL. Whether that continues as we speak is not clear, but I'd be shocked if it isn't.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> There may be some smoke coming from a number of sources, but I'm pretty confident in stating D* has been reducing the resolution of MPEG4 HD LIL. Whether that continues as we speak is not clear, but I'd be shocked if it isn't.


Well, 1440 sure isn't 1920. 
Instead of a third lost it's a quarter [if the numbers are true].
I believe what I see, hear, touch, or can test. After that I have to take things on faith in whoever is posting it and how well it makes sense to me.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> ...I believe what I see, hear, touch, or can test. After that I have to take things on faith in whoever is posting it and how well it makes sense to me.


When it comes to D*'s HDLite, this belief kind of reminds me of what Groucho Marx said in an old B&W movie: "Who are you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes!" :rolling:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> When it comes to D*'s HDLite, this belief kind of reminds me of what Groucho Marx said in an old B&W movie: "Who are you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes!" :rolling:


I tend to go with "my own eyes". :lol:

My local MPEG-4 look damn close to the same channel's OTA signal. as always YMMV 

I also like Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member".


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

HIPAR said:


> HD Lite looks OK. Unless you get up close and look for flaws in the image (and they are there) you will be satisfied.
> 
> --- CHAS


Ok, is there someone out there with a 1080 line native resolution set who can get up close, inspect the image and report back to us about what they see? Specifically, I would like to know if what is determining the definition of the picture. If it's macroblocks that transcend several rows and columns of pixels, then I have a problem calling it HD. Maybe Higher Definition might be a more honest term.

--- CHAS


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HIPAR said:


> Ok, is there someone out there with a 1080 line native resolution set who can get up close, inspect the image and report back to us about what they see? Specifically, I would like to know if what is determining the definition of the picture. If it's macroblocks that transcend several rows and columns of pixels, then I have a problem calling it HD. Maybe Higher Definition might be a more honest term.
> 
> --- CHAS


My set is in my sig line.
I sat 18" from my set on several HD 1080 channels [MPEG-2 & 4] The only thing I can see, with my "good glasses on", is during a moving scene [camera pans] is the background losing slight detail until the decoding can catch up. Basically this is with the background, where there is a twinkle [not brightness but as close as I can describe what I see] that settles down as soon as the image stabilizes.
Now I think I know what you're asking about because when I first got this TV, if I stood as close to it as this time, I could see what looked like artifacts in the background, but not today on CBS [local], HBD or Discovery. 
I also compared OTA MPEG-2 to my same channel MPEG-4 and see the same thing. FWIW


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I tend to go with "my own eyes". :lol:
> 
> My local MPEG-4 look damn close to the same channel's OTA signal. as always YMMV
> 
> I also like Groucho's "I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member".


So as I read this, and other posts, "MPEG-4 looking as good as an OTA signal" doesn't mean (as I thought originally) that the MPEG-4 picture should be as good a picture as you can get with 1920x1080i uncompressed cable, it just looks as good as a dowrez'd, compressed signal being sent over the air. Correct?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> So as I read this, and other posts, "MPEG-4 looking as good as an OTA signal" doesn't mean (as I thought originally) that the MPEG-4 picture should be as good a picture as you can get with 1920x1080i uncompressed cable, it just looks as good as a dowrez'd, *compressed signal being sent over the air*. Correct?


That's the best I can get here, and my MPEG-4 looks damn close.
Now where can you get something better outside of the back room of the TV station?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> That's the best I can get here, and my MPEG-4 looks damn close.
> Now where can you get something better outside of the back room of the TV station?


I'm somewhat Old School myself.

MPEG compression and HD Lite are shaping up as a none issue if the image isn't visibly degraded, especially when it's inspected close up. Lets all go check out Pamela and Jessica in 1080i.

--- CHAS


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

HIPAR said:


> I'm somewhat Old School myself.
> 
> MPEG compression and HD Lite are shaping up as a none issue if the image isn't visibly degraded, especially when it's inspected close up. Lets all go check out Pamela and Jessica in 1080i.
> 
> --- CHAS


But with MPEG2, it IS visually degraded, severely in some cases. With MPEG4 it may be a non-issue, but until everything is moved to MPEG4, HD-Lite will continue to be a problem.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> What I've read was: MPEG-4 [1080i] is 1440 x 1080 and not the 1280 x 1080 used with MPEG-2.
> I don't have the equipment to know myself and there is a lot of "smoke" in all of the postings about any of this.


I jokingly posted this over on avs last week "I'd rather have than 1440 than 1280. Baby steps. " I guess I can hope that D* is stair stepping us? Which is still pretty dumb.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

raott said:


> But with MPEG2, it IS visually degraded, severely in some cases. With MPEG4 it may be a non-issue, but until everything is moved to MPEG4, HD-Lite will continue to be a problem.


Now I think I understand the "lite" issue and have tried to give good info about it.
You say MPEG-2 is visually degraded. Do you mean from D*? Or are you comparing to some other form of HD?


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

As far as I know, OTA is the best you can get, without being there in person. Your cable company is getting the same feed, there is no uncompressed cable - it's compressed before it gets to them, and sometimes again after.



Impala1ss said:


> So as I read this, and other posts, "MPEG-4 looking as good as an OTA signal" doesn't mean (as I thought originally) that the MPEG-4 picture should be as good a picture as you can get with 1920x1080i uncompressed cable, it just looks as good as a dowrez'd, compressed signal being sent over the air. Correct?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> As far as I know, OTA is the best you can get, without being there in person. Your cable company is getting the same feed, there is no uncompressed cable - it's compressed before it gets to them, and sometimes again after.


The best "we" can get. 
Being mere mortals, we can't have access to the mystical 40-45 Mbps feed.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I am assuming the cable companies don't get it either, and that that 45Mbps feed is only used from the studio itself to the headend equipment for processing....


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> I am assuming the cable companies don't get it either, and that that 45Mbps feed is only used from the studio itself to the headend equipment for processing....


To my limited knowledge of it, it's only in the back room of a TV station.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

Impala1ss said:


> So as I read this, and other posts, "MPEG-4 looking as good as an OTA signal" doesn't mean...the MPEG-4 picture should be as good a picture as you can get with 1920x1080i uncompressed cable, it just looks as good as a dowrez'd, compressed signal being sent over the air. Correct?


Absolutely correct, and in fact once upon a time, before practically all stations went to multicasting, I was able to directly compare network HD OTA feeds on one station not multicasting, to ones OTA on a station that was. The HD PQ was always clearly softer and images not as distinct on the multicasting station.

So this D* sub isn't getting his hopes too high as of yet when I hear MPEG4 HD-LIL is as good as OTA. What's more, some are saying it isn't!


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

My cousin is a camera engineer at Panavision - they are working on the next generation of quad-hi-def video cameras for movie makers. One challenge they had was obtaining sufficient bandwidth INTERNALLY in the camera to record in such high definition, let alone feed it down a cable. Someday bandwidth will be an afterthought, but not this week.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Getting any HD is better than no HD and having to live with SD.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I posted this in another thread, but this conversation seems to discussing the same thing. Cable does compress, and often compressed to HD Lite as well.



> PRESSING THE CASE
> 
> ...*Every HD signal transmitted over a cable network or satellite must be compressed.* That's because a single, uncompressed HD stream at 1080i, currently the highest-resolution specification in wide use, consumes about 1.4 Gigabits of bandwidth per second - 36 times the capacity available via one channel in a modern cable network...
> 
> ...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Now I think I understand the "lite" issue and have tried to give good info about it.
> You say MPEG-2 is visually degraded. Do you mean from D*? Or are you comparing to some other form of HD?


MPEG2 from D*


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

man_rob said:


> I posted this in another thread, but this conversation seems to discussing the same thing. Cable does compress, and often compressed to HD Lite as well.


My calculator must be broken. 1.4 Gbps divided by OTA 19+ Mbps seems to come out at 72 times.


----------



## tkrandall (Oct 3, 2003)

simple question I am sure, but how is the 1.4Gbps calculated? (what is it based on)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

tkrandall said:


> simple question I am sure, but how is the 1.4Gbps calculated? (what is it based on)


Now understand I don't have a clue, but:
1920 x 1080 [interlaced] with 32 bit color @ 30/60 frames per second plus sound would give something in that range.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Here's a couriosity question.. If you by some miracle you could get uncompressed bitrate, how many TV's could even handle that kind of input?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

houskamp said:


> Here's a couriosity question.. If you by some miracle you could get uncompressed bitrate, how many TV's could even handle that kind of input?


HDMI I believe is what does. This is the big thing trying to copy HD. The PC cards need to connect to a PCI express slot [that handle HDMI] as the PCI slot can't handle it.

BTW: I've a PC connected through a DVI to HDMI cable to my TV with a desktop setting of 1920 x 1080 progressive with a refresh rate of 60 cycles and 32 bit color.
Which seems to be 3,981,312,000 bps [1080p] if my calculator still works.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

houskamp said:


> Here's a couriosity question.. If you by some miracle you could get uncompressed bitrate, how many TV's could even handle that kind of input?


Any HDTV made that has an external HD input.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

I thought it was sent at over 2 gbps?


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

mx6bfast said:


> I thought it was sent at over 2 gbps?


No, it's not. It works something like this:

Somewhere near the original source of the picture, maybe out of the camera, the data rate is indeed very high .. in the 2gbs range. This goes into a MPEG2 compressor (Not the DBS or cable plant compressor) to reduce the bitrate sent to the transmission point. I have seen reference to numbers like 30 megabits/sec for this stream.

For over-the-air TV, this bit stream and those for sub-channels go into some kind of multiplexer that regulates the final bit rates chosen for each multicast channel and formats everything into the transport stream at about 19.2 megabits/sec. That goes to the 8VSB modulator for transmission in a 6 Mhz TV channel. The TV receiver recovers the transport stream and demultiplexes the multicast channels .

The 30 megabit stream might also go to the DBS or cable plant, say through a fiber link, where they will process it to their standards. But if DBS or Cable source is derived from over-the-air, the rate for a multicast channel will be no better than its original share of the 19 megabit transport stream. Ironically, in that case the DBS/Cable derived from the 30 megabit source might actually look better than the broadcast. :eek2:

Blu-ray claims 40 Megabits/s

--- CHAS


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

In case if that article above left without reading, last phrases:

_For now, it's going to be tough sledding. In at least one deal outside the U.S., however, Voom has broken its all-or-nothing rule: It has a carriage deal with Telenor's Canal Digital satellite service in Norway, which distributes the Voom Global channel. Here's the kicker: The channel goes out at a whopping 45 Mbps, according to Moyer.

So how's it look? "It is," Moyer said happily, "uncompromisingly good." _

If small European country can allow use the bandwidth on their satellite ( one !), then our local sat provider should be ashamed.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

HIPAR said:


> No, it's not. It works something like this:
> 
> Somewhere near the original source of the picture, maybe out of the camera, the data rate is indeed very high .. in the 2gbs range.


That's where I saw the 2 gbps number.

I knew 19.2 was the number affiliates have. TSReader tells me how bad Memphis affiliates are, excluding FOX and ABC.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> HDMI I believe is what does. This is the big thing trying to copy HD. The PC cards need to connect to a PCI express slot [that handle HDMI] as the PCI slot can't handle it.
> 
> BTW: I've a PC connected through a DVI to HDMI cable to my TV with a desktop setting of 1920 x 1080 progressive with a refresh rate of 60 cycles and 32 bit color.
> Which seems to be 3,981,312,000 bps [1080p] if my calculator still works.


Here's the math (for 1080P):

1920 x 1080 is really 2200 x 1125 when blanking intervals are included.

So 2200 x 1125 x 60(frames per second) x 10(bits per sample) x 2(Y, CB/CR) =

2.97 gbps. or to be exact 2.97/1.001 gbps. since the frame rate is 60/1.001 not 60.

"Normal" 1080i is half that or 1.485/1.001 gbps.

FWIW with all the whining about HDlite no mention is usually made of the fact most all current content is only 8 bits resolution but the HD standard calls for 10 bits resolution.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

mx6bfast said:


> So are you saying at first D* was doing HD-Lite with LIL's but now they aren't? A lot of people on this board and avs have wanted to see facts but other than hearsay nothing has been said.


No, I am saying that every HD-LIL that has been checked has been doing HD-LITE.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Bill Johnson said:


> There may be some smoke coming from a number of sources, but I'm pretty confident in stating D* has been reducing the resolution of MPEG4 HD LIL. Whether that continues as we speak is not clear, but I'd be shocked if it isn't.


Then you have a bigger problem - as you are now saying that the equipment (HR20 and H20) are incapable of producing 1920x1080i resolution to your TV now.

So we can go that way if you want.....They are sending out 1920x1080 but the equipment they lease to you is incapable of producing anything more than 1280x1080 via satellite broadcast - is that what you want?

Because that is the only other explanation.

If I were you, I'd personally want the 1280x1080 explanation in the distribution feed, but if you reject that, the only other explanation is the equipment is incapable of it.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> What I've read was: MPEG-4 [1080i] is 1440 x 1080 and not the 1280 x 1080 used with MPEG-2.
> I don't have the equipment to know myself and there is a lot of "smoke" in all of the postings about any of this.


Don't confuse E* (at 1440x1080) and D*(at 1280x1080).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Don't confuse E* (at 1440x1080) and D*(at 1280x1080).


Mr. PSmith was my source for D* MPEG-4 being 1440 x 1080 in the SAT feed.
My TV gets 1920 x 1080 from my H/HR-20 through HDMI. If it was anything less I would see it as with a 4:3 format sent over a 1080i channel.
As it has been explained to me the chip inside the receiver scales the compressed image back to the correct 1920 x 1080. This does require a third of the image to be "averaged" from the compressed MPEG-2 image. The 1280 x 1080 is less than a 4:3 image and I know my TV isn't doing the scaling to 16:9.
For MPEG-4 I've been told D* is compressing it to just 1440 x 1080, so instead of a third they've reduced the compression to a quarter and use the MPEG-4 algorithm for the rest of the bandwidth reduction.
Can you show any proof to enlighten me further, or to correct my sources?
There does seem to be a lot of "smoke" around, & I'm interested to seeing through it to the real truth.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Mr. PSmith was my source for D* MPEG-4 being 1440 x 1080 in the SAT feed.
> My TV gets 1920 x 1080 from my H/HR-20 through HDMI. If it was anything less I would see it as with a 4:3 format sent over a 1080i channel.
> As it has been explained to me the chip inside the receiver scales the compressed image back to the correct 1920 x 1080. This does require a third of the image to be "averaged" from the compressed MPEG-2 image. The 1280 x 1080 is less than a 4:3 image and I know my TV isn't doing the scaling to 16:9.
> For MPEG-4 I've been told D* is compressing it to just 1440 x 1080, so instead of a third they've reduced the compression to a quarter and use the MPEG-4 algorithm for the rest of the bandwidth reduction.
> ...


I am sorry to say that you are jumbling everything together and I have laid it out to you as clear as it will get.

I have not seen P Smith say that D* is using 1440x1080 and from my conversations with him, he has never mentioned that - so again, I believe you are jumbling E* with D*. I will leave it up to P Smith to try and explain it to the non-technical people as I have taken it down as far as I can for those without a basic understanding of video bandwidth, whether from a computer video card to a monitor - or an ird to a HDTV.

If one does not understand what part bandwidth on the output of the IRD to the TV plays, then you will never understand why the scope shows in every test that D* is broadcasting in 1280x1080 - or if you prefer - that the HR20/H20 is an inferior product that's output circuit cannot diplay 1920x1080 from satellite broadcasts - but can via OTA - (something I do not believe to be true).

I will leave you with this bandwidth riddle from the news releases this morning - why do you think they quote a bandwidth spec in this release?

Key Digital Intros Two New A/V Matrix Switchers 
Looking for a way to install an audio or video system that sends multiple inputs to multiple zones? If cost isn't an issue, the two new matrix switchers from Key Digital might be the answer.

The KD-MSV8x8 video matrix switcher can switch up to eight different sources to eight different zones, and accepts component, composite or S-video inputs. The device features a video bandwidth of over 500MHz for full 1080p HD performance and can support RGBHV applications.

The KD-MSA8x8 audio matrix switcher offers similar specs with an audio focus. It can accept up to eight stereo analog or digital PCM sources and output them to eight different zones. Both devices feature discrete IR commands, remote controls, front panel LED displays and support for automated control systems via the RS-232 port.

"With the common use of flat panel displays, matrix switching is needed in virtually all commercial establishments, from retail clothing stores to restaurants and bars," said Michael Lakhter, Key Digital's vice president of sales. "Additionally, many residential homes with large family rooms and numerous viewing areas are using multiple displays. Our new matrix switchers can answer the needs for almost all audio/video designs from the simplest to the most complex system."

Here's the rub -- both the KD-MSV8x8 video switcher and the KD-MSA8x8 audio model carry MSRPs of $2,500.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> I am sorry to say that you are jumbling everything together and I have laid it out to you as clear as it will get.
> 
> I have not seen P Smith say that D* is using 1440x1080 and from my conversations with him, he has never mentioned that - so again, I believe you are jumbling E* with D*. I will leave it up to P Smith to try and explain it to the non-technical people as I have taken it down as far as I can for those without a basic understanding of video bandwidth, whether from a computer video card to a monitor - or an ird to a HDTV.
> 
> ...


OK, I'm just a noob, that can't grasp very much.
Because I've spent thirty years in a testing environment means I don't have or can grasp some of the most basic concepts of a electronic device, but a press release always tells the truth & so there is no need to have an engineering group.
Mr PSmith was replying to this very topic in an earlier thread, when I questioned his source as I have yours.
If you want to give some source it would help everyone learn [or become more familiar with] what is really going on. Using MPEG-2 data to describe MPEG-4 is just blowing more smoke.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dave1234 said:


> Here's the math (for 1080P):
> 
> 1920 x 1080 is really 2200 x 1125 when blanking intervals are included.
> 
> ...


Thank you.
It's clear [to me] you have a strong understanding and with such, can explain it to others quite well. Good job.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> If I were you, I'd personally want the 1280x1080 explanation in the distribution feed, but if you reject that, the only other explanation is the equipment is incapable of it.


The only thing this non-engineer really knows about tv technology is what I read on the Internet. So I can safely state that a knowledgeable expert with a proven track record over the years reported that D* is reducing the resolution on MPEG4 HD-LIL. He based this on technical documentation he's seen and confirmation from impeccable sources. And that's good enough for me!

And having been a D* sub for going on 5 years, my cynicism -- which D* has done little to pacify me on -- leads me to believe that not only is MPEG4 HD-LIL going out 1280x1080 (or some other awful reduction to us true HD advocates), but it doesn't matter anyway because the exclusive equip. they're forcing me to lease doesn't go any higher.

But hey, like someone said earlier, this is just television!


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> OK, I'm just a noob, that can't grasp very much.
> Because I've spent thirty years in a testing environment means I don't have or can grasp some of the most basic concepts of a electronic device, but a press release always tells the truth & so there is no need to have an engineering group.
> Mr PSmith was replying to this very topic in an earlier thread, when I questioned his source as I have yours.
> If you want to give some source it would help everyone learn [or become more familiar with] what is really going on. Using MPEG-2 data to describe MPEG-4 is just blowing more smoke.


resolution knows no formats.

that is saying that the word thank you is described by using the word gracias is blowing smoke.

Sorry, you are very confused on terms - and without a basic understanding you'll never get it.

My notes are being in 5 different TV stations across the country with a Corporate Head of Engineering running tests patters into the transmitter and seeing what comes out of the H20/HR20 - then comparing it with Bob Siedel @ CBS and find that its the same result.

If that isn't good enough for you, have fun looking elsewhere.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Bill Johnson said:


> The only thing this non-engineer really knows about tv technology is what I read on the Internet. So I can safely state that a knowledgeable expert with a proven track record over the years reported that D* is reducing the resolution on MPEG4 HD-LIL. He based this on technical documentation he's seen and confirmation from impeccable sources. And that's good enough for me!


And Ken H on AVS got that information from me and and correspondence he saw between myself and Bob Siedel.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> 1) resolution knows no formats.
> 2) that is saying that the word thank you is described by using the word gracias is blowing smoke.
> 3) Sorry, you are very confused on terms - and without a basic understanding you'll never get it.
> 4) My notes are being in 5 different TV stations across the country with a Corporate Head of Engineering running tests patters into the transmitter and seeing what comes out of the H20/HR20 - then comparing it with Bob Siedel @ CBS and find that its the same result.
> 5) If that isn't good enough for you, have fun looking elsewhere.


It would be "good enough" if I could understand your use of the English & grammar.
About the only thing that is confusing me is what you're trying to say in this reply.
1) "resolution knows no formats." I'm guessing you're trying to say the 1080i is 1080i whether it's in 16:9 or 4:3 format. Somewhere I'd guess the bit rate might be just a bit different between the two images/formats.
2) I understand thank you in a few languages and what blowing smoke is.
3) feel free to insult me, I don't mind if I can learn something out of it.
4) "My notes are being in 5 different TV stations " I hope you wrote them better than you did this or I doubt they will be of much use to anybody.
5) I'm looking here as a member of the forum, for others that can actually communicate with others, ideas and share their knowledge.
I'm not going to insult you, but ask if you could spend enough effort to post things that could help others, if you can. Some facts would help and either how they were derived in a test set up, or a reference to where they come from, for others to look into.
You posted a couple of scope patterns, but as well as I can read a display, it doesn't tell me what it is. I assume it was an analog output. As with your 500 MHz bandwidth switch posting. I would guess that would equate to 500 Mbps, but since there are three analog HD components they would need to be summed which would mean 1.5 GHz total bandwidth. Which would seem to match the 1.4 Gbps HDMI from the previous posting.
You may know what you're trying to say, but it doesn't do much good if others can't understand you. I've seen better use of the English language from children. I think a sign of really knowing something is when you can teach it to others. FWIW


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

VOS, your mentoring tone in last post will not do any good for the technical discussion, but will oppress other knowledgeable members from posting. 
Please stay on track of the topic.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> VOS, your mentoring tone in last post will not do any good for the technical discussion, but will oppress other knowledgeable members from posting.
> Please stay on track of the topic.


Thank you and I mean to. I just couldn't get anything out of he's replies.
Topic is clarifying HD-Lite and the new MPEG-4 channels, right?
It was never my intention to oppress anyone. Understanding a post would be helpful.
As you have posted a few times,
Saying something is not a technical discussion without references to the what & why.


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> That's the best I can get here, and my MPEG-4 looks damn close.
> Now where can you get something better outside of the back room of the TV station?


I know I'm new to discussing D* but I believe I have read all the threads about PQ at dbstalk. It seems to me that many of you are combining different issues into the same questions, i.e. apples and oranges.

When talking about PQ some are saying "I like it (so therefore it is good PQ).

Others are saying it is the best I can get where I live so I think the PQ is great.

Others are comparing HD-Lite to over the air HD and saying , since they are the same PQ, PQ is great.

Doesn't anyone have a comparison of a good cable HD picture to the new MPEG-4 picture?  I know many have had poor experience with cable HD PQ, especially with Comcast but I have had a great experience with Brighthouse cable PQ. My problem is their lack of concern about adding any more channels, and that is why I became interested in D*.

I also suggest those watching on a small screen (less than 50+ inches) always will have a better looking picture than a larger set, all else being equal. The pixels are closer together. That's why a 20 " TV looks better than a 60" tv all things being equal. Also, many have never had their HD tv ISF (?) calibrated properly, and have a mediocre picture in spite of the program source.

MY problem is should I give up what has been described on many cable boards as the best cable HD PQ available, to get more HD channels with a lesser PQ or stay with what I am very happy with. Or, perchance, D*'s new MPEG-4 signal will equal what I get now.

And for the skeptics who assume all cable companies compress their signal to consumers, please do the research. Unless completely lying to us ( and some of us are pretty technically savy (not me)) Brighthouse has frequently stated that their signal is NOT compressed when sent to us.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Thank you and I mean to. I just couldn't get anything out of he's replies.
> Topic is clarifying HD-Lite and the new MPEG-4 channels, right?
> It was never my intention to oppress anyone. Understanding a post would be helpful.
> As you have posted a few times,
> Saying something is not a technical discussion without references to the what & why.


I actually think your reply was very courteous given the tone of what you were repyling to.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> I know I'm new to discussing D* but I believe I have read all the threads about PQ at dbstalk. It seems to me that many of you are combining different issues into the same questions, i.e. apples and oranges.
> 
> When talking about PQ some are saying "I like it (so therefore it is good PQ).
> 
> ...


You seem to have a "pipe" to something us mere mortals don't have. OTA [with a weather radar sub-channel] is the best I get. I did and A-B-C with my MPEG-2 OTA, my D* MPEG-4, and my local Cable. OTA looked the best, MPEG-4, was close [but slightly off] and coming up in the distant third was my local Cable [green grass was brown, dead grass]. I was using my old Sony 51" HD RPTV. The 19.2 Mbps OTA is all some of us can use as an "HD reference". HD-DVD or Blu-ray can't really be counted as they aren't transmitted.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

Impala1ss said:


> Brighthouse has frequently stated that their signal is NOT compressed when sent to us.


I don't know what Brighthouse sends out, but the signal they receive has been compressed somewhere in the signal chain if it's EVER been stored to a typical broadcast quality disk recorder. So it I think it would be more accurate for Brighthouse to state that they don't ADD additional compression.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> It would be "good enough" if I could understand your use of the English & grammar.
> About the only thing that is confusing me is what you're trying to say in this reply.
> 1) "resolution knows no formats." I'm guessing you're trying to say the 1080i is 1080i whether it's in 16:9 or 4:3 format. Somewhere I'd guess the bit rate might be just a bit different between the two images/formats.
> 2) I understand thank you in a few languages and what blowing smoke is.
> ...


Proven again, you are clueless when it comes to technical specs and how things work.

You'll never understand what we are discussing without the basics.

All you'll ever be able to comprehend at your level is that D* is chopping the resolution fo 1920x1080 signals down to lower levels.

If you choose not to believe it, so be it, but that still doesn't make you correct......only wrong and in the dark.

Sorry I even attempted to answer your questions - I won't make that mistake again.

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Proven again, you are clueless when it comes to technical specs and how things work.
> 
> You'll never understand what we are discussing without the basics.
> 
> ...


If you ever read any of my posting here:
I have posted several times how the resolution was reduced:
For 1080i MPEG-2 it is 1280 x 1080 in the data stream and then scaled by the receiver back to 1920 x 1080 [with a third of the missing pixels averaged back in].
For 1080i MPEG-4 I've been told [by Psmith who I believe is a credibly source for both figures] that it is 1440 x 1080.
Show me where I've said anything else in this thread.
I don't know everything & can be wrong, but don't tell me I posted something that I clearly didn't. READ the thread ^^^^^^.

If you decide to stop posting, then less smoke will be in the air at this point because you don't seem to read what others have posted, before you reply to them.
If you have something valid to help out. please do. If you're going to keep misquoting me then it isn't very useful or productive.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> If you ever read any of my posting here:
> I have posted several times how the resolution was reduced:
> For 1080i MPEG-2 it is 1280 x 1080 in the data stream and then scaled by the receiver back to 1920 x 1080 [with a third of the missing pixels averaged back in].
> For 1080i MPEG-4 I've been told [by Psmith who I believe is a credibly source for both figures] that it is 1440 x 1080.
> ...


PSmith is commenting on your other posts in this thread - so why hasn't he stated the resolution is 1440x1080 if he has evidence as such - as I too believe he is a credible source. I'd love to know how he measured it.

All I've seen is evidence of 1280x1080 in 5 different markets.

Regardless, 1920x1080 is not 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 - which is what the majority of D* supporters claim D* is broadcasting.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> PSmith is commenting on your other posts in this thread - so why hasn't he stated the resolution is 1440x1080 if he has evidence as such - as I too believe he is a credible source. I'd love to know how he measured it.
> 
> All I've seen is evidence of 1280x1080 in 5 different markets.
> 
> Regardless, 1920x1080 is not 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 - *which is what the majority of D* supporters claim D* is broadcasting*.


Bingo. part of the smoke in the air.
I don't have the equipment to make the measurements ,or I would as testing has been "my thing" for a very long time. I have to question others until it makes enough sense to what I already know. Blind faith isn't anything I'm very good at.
Somewhere in a thread long ago Mr Psmith gave me the equipment model/number used for the test, but I don't think I could find it now if I tried.
Clearing some of the smoke and increasing everybody's understanding [along with my own] is one of the things I try to go here.
Please help out in any way you can, but don't be surprised if I question something until "I get it" as I can be just a bit hard headed, before it get into my head.
Some people keep trying to tell me the sun will rise from the North tomorrow. :lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Whoa, lighten up - VOS is a class act, and a well respected member up here. We should all strive to be a bit more like him.



HDTVFanAtic said:


> Proven again, you are clueless when it comes to technical specs and how things work.
> 
> You'll never understand what we are discussing without the basics.
> 
> ...


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

dave1234 said:


> I don't know what Brighthouse sends out, but the signal they receive has been compressed somewhere in the signal chain if it's EVER been stored to a typical broadcast quality disk recorder. So it I think it would be more accurate for Brighthouse to state that they don't ADD additional compression.


That is what they do say, and I repeated.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> That is what they do say, and I repeated.


Maybe I should stay out of this but, isn't the nature of MPEG to have some compression.
If there wasn't, then a 1080i signal would be 1.4 Gbps [as with the HDMI], so even the broadcaster's backroom feed of 40-45 Mbps is compressed, Right?


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

MPEG2 (and 4) *is* compression. You can't have MPEG 2 or 4 without compression.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> MPEG2 (and 4) *is* compression. You can't have MPEG 2 or 4 without compression.


Don't you love the marketing guys? :lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Yeah, I have my own team of them, and man, the things they want to claim - they'll take the tiniest grain of truth and fashion a granite mountain out of it


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JeffBowser said:


> MPEG2 (and 4) *is* compression. You can't have MPEG 2 or 4 without compression.


Compression is good. PQ loss is bad. MPEG2 should not shoulder the blame for all PQ loss.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Yeah, I have my own team of them, and man, the things they want to claim - they'll take the tiniest grain of truth and fashion a granite mountain out of it


It reminds me of a young teenager trying "not to lie". 
"Not lying" isn't the same as telling the truth. 
Now if we could just get our politicians to understand this. :lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

You are 100% correct.



harsh said:


> Compression is good. PQ loss is bad. MPEG2 should not shoulder the blame for all PQ loss.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Impala1ss said:


> That is what they do say, and I repeated.


As I showed you in the other thread with info on a specific QAM that contained HDNET, that claim is incorrect.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

JeffBowser said:


> Whoa, lighten up - VOS is a class act, and a well respected member up here. We should all strive to be a bit more like him.


When someone cannot understand that resolution is used in mpeg4 and mpeg2 (as well as other codecs) there is no reason to even try to explain.

The tests we conducted were in the Fall of 2006 and it was decided to work this through the back channels of Directv. After several months, it went no where.

I only made it public to Ken H on AVS after Bob Sidel confirmed the results independently in January.

If D* has gone from 1280x1080 to 1440x1080, so be it. It still is not 1920x1080 as the D* supporters had claimed - so to me the exact resolution is non-important aat this point and is only a red herring to divert the real attention - I can still still a major difference in the D* picture vs the original - of course I have looked at studio monitor for a good long time.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

You miss my point. I could care less about the technical argument at this stage, I am suggesting that perhaps you would like to be a bit more civil.



HDTVFanAtic said:


> When someone cannot understand that resolution is used in mpeg4 and mpeg2 (as well as other codecs) there is no reason to even try to explain.
> 
> The tests we conducted were in the Fall of 2006 and it was decided to work this through the back channels of Directv. After several months, it went no where.
> 
> ...


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> I can still still a major difference in the D* picture vs the original - of course I have looked at studio monitor for a good long time.


You appear to be in a good position to comment on PQ. Can you describe the difference? Is it bigger macroblocks? Is it more macroblocks during motion? Is it a spontaneous breakup of details in parts of the image that aren't moving? Rolling edge artifacts .. etc?

Are you looking at D* MPEG2 or MPEG4 from the satellite? I think it's safe to say the MPEG2 HD will be gone within a year so that's going to be a non-issue.

MPEG2 is part of the basic HD encoding process and will be forever. The problem occurs when they compress the already compressed bitstream. Since MPEG is a lossy compression scheme, there has to be some alteration of the recovered product. How well are the differences hidden?

--- CHAS


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

HIPAR said:


> MPEG2 is part of the basic HD encoding process and will be forever.


HBO is going to be using MPEG4 across the board for HD in the near future. The only standard that is chained to MPEG2 is ATSC broadcast.


----------



## Chuck584 (Apr 17, 2007)

tkrandall said:


> Earl - as I understand it the DBS providers covered by a different chapter of the ATSC regulations, A/81: Direct-to-Home Satellite Broadcast Standard. I think this chapter applicable to them does recognize the 1280x1080i and 1440x1080i formats as part of the standard (it's not clear to me whether they are condidered "HD", though), unlike the chapter applicable to OTA DTV broadcasts, A/53, Part 4:2007, "MPEG-2 Video System Characteristics". (These are avaiable at ATSC.org)
> 
> I do think it a bit misleading for the DBS providers to call it HD when the general accepted understading in the population is is that "HD" means at least 1280x720p or 1920x1080i.


It's not misleading, it's called "Marketing".

You must believe 1280 x 1080i is more "high definition" than 1920 x 1080.

Your eyes have less to see so they don't have to work as hard so it looks better.

See?

I've been talking to cable / FIOS people this week. I think there was (is?) a lawsuit about creatively redefining HD to suit marketing / make more channels fit into available bandwidth.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

The bottom line for me is: There is NO accepted definition of what HD means. Applied to radio, as it has been, dilutes the meaning even more. Pretty much everything is getting the term HD applied to it now. I'll admit I haven't seen any HD cars for sale yet, but that's probably coming. :lol:


----------



## jsirwin (Jan 15, 2007)

My recollection of D* going to HD Lite was around April of 2005. 

I had just finished my bonus room and set up an HD (720p) ceiling mounted projector with a 106 inch 16 x 9 screen at Christmas of 2004. I had been watching a lot of HD up there and it was breath taking. It was not a noobie reaction as I had been getting HD via a Samsung 160 DirecTV receiver to a Sony XBR HDTV for two or three years by that time. Specifically I ended up watching a movie on HBO that I didn't think I had any interest in, Seabiscuit, and was really blown away. The colors of the riders silks and the country in fall was incredible. But enough about that.

At that time HD Net always plugged itself as the only HD Network specifically that it broadcast everything at 1080i HD. I went to watch a movie and noticed the pop was gone. This seemed to be the case as I watched almost anything on satelitte. Note on locals I have an antenna in my attic so sports were still just as good. Just movies were lacking. Then I started seeing the HD Lite complaints and found out that HD Tivo users were able to view the resolution recieved from D* in a screen in there settings. This visability went away as complaints to D* about down rezing to HD Lite really started hitting the internet. With a firmware upgrade the visability went away. There was still a way to measure it and I found myself checking out bit rate monitor to see what was happening:

www(dot)widemovies(dot)com/dfwbitra

Then the banner that always ran across HD Net's logo was gone. The one that stated Broadcast in 1080i, because you see on D* it wasn't broadcast in 1080i. 

So I was pissed for a long time but everytime I looked at alternatives I knew I wasn't going to get anything better. HD from D* was HD Lite but at least I had a strong OTA signal and all locals were 1080i or 720p. 

If D* ever moves away from combining OTA HD locals in there HD boxes it may be time to leave. But for now I am sticking with them as I truely belive D* has the best quality although not wwhat it once was. So for now I just signed up for an HR20, 5lnb, and 2 year commitment and hope the added HD are great.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

It was actually Summer of 2003 - and there are threads on AVS when it happened if you care to search it out in their archives.

And it was still broadcast in 1080i - just not 1920x1080i but 1280x1080i.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

[moderator mode] Guys, I am going to close this thread. This thread has lost its sense of purpose. And yet, clearly there is a lot of education and information that can be shared, so I'll open a new thread with specific questions to start things off. Let us keep that thread helpful and informative. Ok?

Thanks,
Tom


----------

