# SciFi HD down rezed?



## PanamaMike (Mar 31, 2004)

I'm thrilled to finally be getting SciFi in HD! However, I'm a bit underwhelmed at the quality. I'm not convinced it's HD, at least not as good as the UniversalHD feed.

Any comments?


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

PanamaMike said:


> I'm thrilled to finally be getting SciFi in HD! However, I'm a bit underwhelmed at the quality. I'm not convinced it's HD, at least not as good as the UniversalHD feed.
> 
> Any comments?


It's subjective, I suppose ... but I agree, BSG on SciFiHD didn't look as crisp as on UNIHD. Of course, I was watching two different episodes, so take that for what it's worth. Hopefully in the future I'll be able to get the same episode from both channels and make a more objective comparison.


----------



## Manke (Dec 27, 2005)

PanamaMike said:


> I'm thrilled to finally be getting SciFi in HD! However, I'm a bit underwhelmed at the quality. I'm not convinced it's HD, at least not as good as the UniversalHD feed.
> 
> Any comments?


You must remember that most of what SciFi showes is NOT in High Def. If you start with SD or ED you end up with good quality SD or ED not HD. To improve on this, SciFi must convert their showings to HD like Voom Monster does but that costs money.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

BSG is made a certain way for a certain cinematic effect. If you compare many HD programs to a live event, say basketball or football, live events are always sharper and crisper.


----------



## sdague (Jan 19, 2007)

I guess it depends on your eye. I didn't see noticable difference between BSG on friday and the Universal HD showings. It wasn't a very space heavy episode though.

Having gotten Dish HD just last spring, I'm still waiting for a reairing of BSG 3.04 so I can see "the jump" in HD. Can't wait until I see that.


----------



## Robert W (May 12, 2006)

I still don't think they have their act together on the HD. Enterprise has been shown in HD on Universal HD since the beginning. Now it's being shown letterboxed on SciFi.
Any ideas?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Universal is all HD, so its easier for them. Sci-Fi is still new to the HD broadcasting world.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

FYI, I've never seen Enterprise on UniversalHD.

It comes on HDNet quite regularly though.


----------



## Robert W (May 12, 2006)

HDMe said:


> FYI, I've never seen Enterprise on UniversalHD.
> 
> It comes on HDNet quite regularly though.


Yeah yeah yeah, OK, I got the network wrong. Probably confused it with BSG. But the question still stands. All of tonights Enterprise episodes on SciFi are letterboxed. But they aren't when on HDNet. Why if SciFi is now in HD aren't they broadcasting shows that are HD .......in HD?


----------



## MarkoC (Apr 5, 2004)

I was surprised to see Enterprise letterboxed in SD on SciFi HD as well, especially when we know the series was produced in HD. I have to say though, for SD it was pretty good PQ, even when zoomed.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Robert W said:


> Yeah yeah yeah, OK, I got the network wrong. Probably confused it with BSG. But the question still stands. All of tonights Enterprise episodes on SciFi are letterboxed. But they aren't when on HDNet. Why if SciFi is now in HD aren't they broadcasting shows that are HD .......in HD?


I've asked this question before too... In the case of Enterprise, it could be that HDNet has an exclusive agreement for some time that hasn't yet expired.

HOWEVER, there have been NBC/Universal-owned shows (like Monk) that have not been aired in HD on the new HD channels... so I tend to think laziness and/or lack of proper planning is the larger culprit.

Worth noting too that last year when DirecTV announced some of these channels, like SciFiHD, the channels themselves had not yet announced and were even denying it at first! So I expect some of these HD channels were strongarmed into launching HD before they were truly ready to do so... and we get to watch while they build.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

Robert W said:


> Yeah yeah yeah, OK, I got the network wrong. Probably confused it with BSG. But the question still stands. All of tonights Enterprise episodes on SciFi are letterboxed. But they aren't when on HDNet. Why if SciFi is now in HD aren't they broadcasting shows that are HD .......in HD?


If you want my guess, SciFi hasn't got the HD version in their library. I wonder how much cost is involved in getting all the HD sources for everything they show? I know TNT has done it with some shows, but some movies and shows that were certainly available in HD are instead being shown in strech-o-vision.

By the way, what do we call that edge stretching some channels do? Like food network and hgtv? They used to show HD only stuff, but now they are mirroring the main SD channel, and still most of their stuff is reruns except in prime-time so maybe half or more of it is SD still. I will call it "Morph-o-vision". And "Zoom-o-Vision" for Science, TLC, Disocvery channels.


----------



## jackienopay (Dec 18, 2003)

I hate to complain about it as we begged for so long to get sci-fi. It seems to me that most of sci-fi's shows are not in HD. But BSG looked good to me. The new episode was not letterboxed and seemed very crisp.

CoolGUI: I've always called it stretch-o-vision.


----------



## Kman68 (Jan 24, 2008)

This question is probably better answered on the scifi.com message boards. SciFi does not claim their content is HD very often, because it isn't. People get their panties in a bunch when presented with this fact. They see a 16x9 image and their HT receiver reads "Dolby Digital," and they are convinced it is HD. My upconverting DVD player produces the same result and yet, I know and you know an upconverted DVD is not HD. A true HD CGI show such as BSG, SGA, and all the made for SciFi movies would require enormous computer power to generate a 1080i or 720p computer generated background image added to green room footage filmed in HD. SciFi just went live with their own HD telecasting equipment in March 2008. Before that, Direc was handling the upconversion of their SD broadcast. Give them some time to recoup cost before they buy new CGI equipment.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

jackienopay said:


> CoolGUI: I've always called it stretch-o-vision.


Me too for the ones that actually stretch the entire pictures, but when they only stretch the edges it seems a little better (not much). That's where I came up with Morph-o-vision.


----------



## PanamaMike (Mar 31, 2004)

I'm a bit surprised, I figure since SciFi is the one that puts out BSG they should have access to the best version possible. My assumption had to do more with Dish than with SciFi themselves. There's a finite amount of bandwith Dish has to work with, and I didn't know if they decided to push HD Lite to offer more HD channels . I noticed on a few occasions that HGTV HD was showing shows I know they have in full HD in non linear stretch SD and were still showing the HD logo.

It bothers me that Dish and others try to pass HD Lite for true HD. It's just frustrating to me that they could be providing better content. What I noticed was the black levels on the BSG episode where Cally discovers the final 5 secret were poor compared to the Universal feed. Also the intro where they show the fleet floating in space wasn't as sharp. Sad thing was I was even wondering of the Universal feed is true full HD. It might just be that it's been done in film rather than video.

All that being said, it's definitely better than the plain SD letter boxed on my widescreen set feed. It would be nice if Dish, DirectTV and others would just fess up about the content they are sending us.

Mike


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Guys might want to check out the SciFi HD thread in the DirecTV forum, this has all been hashed out already. 

With Enterprise, HDNet has the exclusive HD rights.

New shows like Atlantis, Flash Gordon and BSG are indeed in HD.
Dr. Who is not shot in HD.
Most of the Saturday movies are in HD as are many other movies.

More HD content has been appearing over time, it's getting better.


----------



## PanamaMike (Mar 31, 2004)

bonscott87 said:


> Guys might want to check out the SciFi HD thread in the DirecTV forum, this has all been hashed out already.
> 
> With Enterprise, HDNet has the exclusive HD rights.
> 
> ...


But is it being broadcast in 1920x1080?


----------



## eudoxia (Apr 8, 2008)

I Wish they would show the X-Files in HD, I know the last few seasons of the show were shot in 16:9 HD.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

eudoxia said:


> I Wish they would show the X-Files in HD, I know the last few seasons of the show were shot in 16:9 HD.


I'm pretty sure the last few seasons were shot in 16:9 but where are you getting this HD part? True, if they were 16x9 and remastered from film sources, it would be much better than SD, but not exactly HD.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

bonscott87 said:


> Dr. Who is not shot in HD.


Agreed, but it is in 16x9 widescreen... and also hashed is that the BBC has something like 576i that it is shot in... so SciFi is already manipulating to show it in letterbox format... might as well go ahead and make it 16x9 widescreen for their SciFiHD channel. When the BBC releases DVDs those will be in 16x9 format (not letterboxed) for widescreen TVs. I know because I buy them.

Meanwhile, for another great example...

Timecop was on USAHD today... but shown in 4:3. NBC/Universal owns USAHD. Timecop is a Universal picture. Timecop has been shown in HD on UniversalHD, AND an HD DVD was released earlier this year by Universal in original 2.35:1 aspect ratio for this movie.

No reason at all that Universal doesn't have an HD master that can be shown on USAHD for this movie... and yet, it wasn't.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

CoolGui said:


> I'm pretty sure the last few seasons were shot in 16:9 but where are you getting this HD part? True, if they were 16x9 and remastered from film sources, it would be much better than SD, but not exactly HD.


IF the last seasons were shot on film, then they absolutely can be HD. "not exactly" doesn't apply here since film has a higher resolution than HD right now calls for... so anything shot on film that has been well preserved can exceed HD standards.

Late seasons of X-Files, though, were aired in FOX Widescreen... which at the time was 480p... so I'm unsure of whether or not X-Files was shot on film or if it was digital with just 480p cameras.


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

HDMe said:


> IF the last seasons were shot on film, then they absolutely can be HD. "not exactly" doesn't apply here since film has a higher resolution than HD right now calls for... so anything shot on film that has been well preserved can exceed HD standards.
> 
> Late seasons of X-Files, though, were aired in FOX Widescreen... which at the time was 480p... so I'm unsure of whether or not X-Files was shot on film or if it was digital with just 480p cameras.


You are right, if it was remastered from the film it could be done in HD. But I guess I should really have been thinking they would be using the 480p from the DVD releases, not really remastering the film.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

PanamaMike said:


> It might just be that it's been done in film rather than video.


 Yes, and filmed deliberately for a "feel" not associated with a desire to see the detail of everyone's pores appearing in well lighted shiny picture. Part of the decision made by directors and producers is the ambient texture to be created by lighting, focus, actual film qualities, etc.

I'm quite satisfied with BSG on SciFiHD. If it were an NFL game, I'd be upset as it's important to be able to distinguish every blade of the fake grass from blimp shots.:lol:


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

HDMe said:


> ...
> No reason at all that Universal doesn't have an HD master that can be shown on USAHD for this movie... and yet, it wasn't.


True they should have access and all rights to the source material. Timecop is from 1994 so I'm sure there would be extra work involved with brining it over from Film/DVD over to HD. Like I was thinking earlier, I think they probably already had it in their "library" in SD and just didn't bother getting an updated version.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

CoolGui said:


> True they should have access and all rights to the source material. Timecop is from 1994 so I'm sure there would be extra work involved with brining it over from Film/DVD over to HD. Like I was thinking earlier, I think they probably already had it in their "library" in SD and just didn't bother getting an updated version.


That's why I made my earlier post... since not only has it aired already in HD on UniversalHD (owned by Universal obviously) and was released just this year on HD DVD in a brand new release... IF they don't have Timecop in their library in HD, then we have no reason to expect anything else in HD for a long time!


----------



## CoolGui (Feb 9, 2006)

HDMe said:


> That's why I made my earlier post... since not only has it aired already in HD on UniversalHD (owned by Universal obviously) and was released just this year on HD DVD in a brand new release... IF they don't have Timecop in their library in HD, then we have no reason to expect anything else in HD for a long time!


Oh, I missed that you said it was on UHD already. Well could it possibly be that they are such slackers they didn't even want to get the media physically to the SciFi office? Are they even different offices??? Or do they even transfer it by discs???


----------



## neowaxworks (Apr 2, 2008)

PanamaMike said:


> But is it being broadcast in 1920x1080?


the only channel on Dish that is 1920x1980 is Disc Science
all others are 1440x1080 or 720P
having said that.. NONE on Dish or Directv are full bandwidth...they get just enough bitrate to look decent..and you will notice in some fast moving scenes you will sometimes get macroblocking and pixelation... thats simply a bandwidth issue.. sinece they are trying to cram as much as possible on...
a TRUE 1080i stream will run about 4-8 Gigs an hour... Dish runs about 2.5 -3gigs.....720 about 2-2.5...for Mpeg 4 compression that should eqaute to a pretty decent picture..
By contrast SD 544x480 resoltuon (Dish standard) runs only about .5-1.5 gigs for 2hours...
But the SD stuff is Moeg 2 and anyone thats familure with vcd and svcd knows that mpeg 2 as a HUNGRY compression... even a 2 hour show at dvd resolution (720x480) can look bad at 4gb...

Motion has a lot to do with how the bits are used, even on mpeg 4.. shows with more motion will generally look worse than a show with less motion...


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> a TRUE 1080i stream will run about 4-8 Gigs an hour... Dish runs about 2.5 -3gigs.....720 about 2-2.5..


where are you getting this information?

Just doing the math, 1080i stream (disregarding compression efficiencies due to the particular material) should be only about 10% more bandwidth than 720p.

and FWIW my upconverting DVD player will make a DVD look very nearly as good as a typical HD broadcast, sometimes better because it doesn't suffer nearly as much of the motion artifacts of HDTV. There is a margin of detail between the upconverted DVD and HDTV but it's not huge. If every "SD" channel looked HALF as good as my upconverted DVDs then I don't think anyone would be begging for HD channels. For that matter, I think that if Dish put a better video processor (Faroudja DCDI) in their STBs, and then down-converted some not-so-detail-critical "HD" channels to 720x480 and put them out with DD5.1 then they would save a ton of bandwidth and pretty much nobody would notice they were not "true" HD unless they took individual screen captures and counted the pixels... I'll take a less detailed "softer" image without motion artifacts any day over a crisp static picture that gets chopped to pieces once the motion starts.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

neowaxworks said:


> the only channel on Dish that is 1920x1980 is Disc Science
> all others are 1440x1080 or 720P


I've never heard that before. In fact, last I remember hearing was that MHD (the MTV HD channel) was the only channel on Dish still at 1920x1080.


----------



## PanamaMike (Mar 31, 2004)

Mr.72 said:


> where are you getting this information?
> 
> Just doing the math, 1080i stream (disregarding compression efficiencies due to the particular material) should be only about 10% more bandwidth than 720p.
> 
> and FWIW my upconverting DVD player will make a DVD look very nearly as good as a typical HD broadcast, sometimes better because it doesn't suffer nearly as much of the motion artifacts of HDTV. There is a margin of detail between the upconverted DVD and HDTV but it's not huge. If every "SD" channel looked HALF as good as my upconverted DVDs then I don't think anyone would be begging for HD channels. For that matter, I think that if Dish put a better video processor (Faroudja DCDI) in their STBs, and then down-converted some not-so-detail-critical "HD" channels to 720x480 and put them out with DD5.1 then they would save a ton of bandwidth and pretty much nobody would notice they were not "true" HD unless they took individual screen captures and counted the pixels... I'll take a less detailed "softer" image without motion artifacts any day over a crisp static picture that gets chopped to pieces once the motion starts.


Sorry bub, this just isn't the case. HD is much better than standard DVD, upconverted or not. Maybe it's almost as good on your system, but it's certainly not on mine.

Mike


----------



## PanamaMike (Mar 31, 2004)

neowaxworks said:


> the only channel on Dish that is 1920x1980 is Disc Science
> all others are 1440x1080 or 720P
> having said that.. NONE on Dish or Directv are full bandwidth...they get just enough bitrate to look decent..and you will notice in some fast moving scenes you will sometimes get macroblocking and pixelation... thats simply a bandwidth issue.. sinece they are trying to cram as much as possible on...
> a TRUE 1080i stream will run about 4-8 Gigs an hour... Dish runs about 2.5 -3gigs.....720 about 2-2.5...for Mpeg 4 compression that should eqaute to a pretty decent picture..
> ...


I'm not surprised about the 1440x1080 since most broadcast cameras record at that resolution. That doesn't really bother me too much. What bothers me is the HDlite, 1280x1080i.

As you said, the bit rate is definitely a big part of the problem.


----------



## IDRick (Feb 16, 2007)

neowaxworks said:


> the only channel on Dish that is 1920x1980 is Disc Science
> all others are 1440x1080 or 720P
> having said that.. NONE on Dish or Directv are full bandwidth...they get just enough bitrate to look decent..and you will notice in some fast moving scenes you will sometimes get macroblocking and pixelation... thats simply a bandwidth issue.. sinece they are trying to cram as much as possible on...
> a TRUE 1080i stream will run about 4-8 Gigs an hour... Dish runs about 2.5 -3gigs.....720 about 2-2.5...for Mpeg 4 compression that should eqaute to a pretty decent picture..
> ...


Yikes! I'm not familiar with bitrates for Mpeg4 files but I am familiar with clear QAM recordings over cable. Example file info is shown below. If your statement is correct, my clear qam recording would totally blow away Dish. My cable HD is gorgeous and don't want to take a major step back by switching to dish if it is lower quality. Am I missing something?

File Name: C:\MyVideos\Apollo 13_part 1.mpg
File Size: 4823449600 ( 4.49 GB )
Program Duration: 01:07:58.24
File Type: PS - MPEG2
Encoding: MPEG 2
Encoding Dimensions: 1920 x 1080
Aspect Ratio: 16/9
Frame Rate: 29.97 FPS
Bit Rate: 38.810 Mbps
VBV_Buffer: 1194 KB
Profile: Main/High
Audio Format: 5.1
Audio Stream Id: AC3: 0 (x80)
Audio Bit Rate: 384 Kbps


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

PanamaMike said:


> Sorry bub, this just isn't the case. HD is much better than standard DVD, upconverted or not. Maybe it's almost as good on your system, but it's certainly not on mine.
> 
> Mike


Full bandwidth HD without compression artifacts... YES. But the downrezzed overcompressed junk we get from Dish network currently... a big fat no!! I get a MUCH better viewing experience out of SD DVD's played at 480p through my HTPC.

At best I would say they are about equal. In slow/no movement scenes w/ HD, there is a bit more detail than the ED picture of DVD's. But, as soon as there is any significant movement, the effective resolution is dropped to what appears to be about half of the DVD. I too would almost prefer they would keep the bandwidth the same and down-rez even more to get rid of the macroblocking and motion artifiacts that are induced because of the combination of High-rez and High-compression, if that is the only choice save getting more bandwidth.


----------



## PanamaMike (Mar 31, 2004)

grooves12 said:


> Full bandwidth HD without compression artifacts... YES. But the downrezzed overcompressed junk we get from Dish network currently... a big fat no!! I get a MUCH better viewing experience out of SD DVD's played at 480p through my HTPC.
> 
> At best I would say they are about equal. In slow/no movement scenes w/ HD, there is a bit more detail than the ED picture of DVD's. But, as soon as there is any significant movement, the effective resolution is dropped to what appears to be about half of the DVD. I too would almost prefer they would keep the bandwidth the same and down-rez even more to get rid of the macroblocking and motion artifiacts that are induced because of the combination of High-rez and High-compression, if that is the only choice save getting more bandwidth.


I'll have to agree and disagree  There are some Dish HD channels that are pretty good, better than deinterlaced, scaled, processed HTPC SD DVD. But you're right, not all channels are created equally there are those that don't look any better than SD.

I wish they would let us know what we are seeing. Bit rates, resolution ect... But then again, they know they would upset us...


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

I guess it all depends on whether you are watching golf games or shots of sunsets and mountains and that kind of thing, or whether you are watching action movies and fast-paced sports like basketball.

For anything with any fast-moving action, I'll take my upconverted DVDs any day. This is not just for Dish's more compressed HD, but also over the air HD, which have these very annoying motion artifacts. For static images, sure the HD has more detail than my DVDs but so what? Television is about moving images.

This kind of reminds me of the audiophile guys who would be more concerned about waterfall plots and THD numbers than whether the music was actually believable and enjoyable. I don't care about detail. I care about whether I enjoy watching a movie. When Ginobili begins to break for the basket and the resolution drops to what looks like 200x100 pixels for that tenth of a second while the real-time MPEG compression algorithm can't keep up, it totally undoes whatever good was done with the detail of being able to see Oberto's stubble while they are sitting on the bench.

The advantage of a DVD, of course, is that it was not compressed in real time. It was mastered with foreknowledge of what content was occurring, which is likely why these compression artifacts don't show up.

I still think HDTV is not really ready for primetime. The whole thing, from marketing to content delivery, including programming and quality of the picture (MOVING picture) is very much beta-quality at best.


----------



## PanamaMike (Mar 31, 2004)

Mr.72 said:


> I guess it all depends on whether you are watching golf games or shots of sunsets and mountains and that kind of thing, or whether you are watching action movies and fast-paced sports like basketball.
> 
> For anything with any fast-moving action, I'll take my upconverted DVDs any day. This is not just for Dish's more compressed HD, but also over the air HD, which have these very annoying motion artifacts. For static images, sure the HD has more detail than my DVDs but so what? Television is about moving images.
> 
> ...


Well, that's an interesting variable you threw in. Yes, I agree the blocky artifacts with high motion scenes is a definite problem. I can't comment on basketball since I don't watch it, but there are several factors that can affect the PQ. On a live feed, things can go wrong with the transmission. Also, the quality of the cameras at the even with affect PQ. I've noticed this with NFL broadcasts. Some are spectacular, while others are nothing more than a blocky mess. Finally, signal strength is an issue.

This is OTA BTW.

Mike


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

well that's my point. I'd rather have consistent frame-by-frame resolution at a lower resolution, vs. it-only-looks-good-when-it's-not-moving. The artifacts are annoying. They are par for the course with on-the-fly MPEG encoding because you cannot place I-frames according to the content, but they are just placed every 15th frame or at some other fixed rate without regard for the effect on the picture.

On a DVD where there is time to master it very deliberately, I-frames can be placed more frequently or strategically in fast-motion sections to ensure smooth motion and no macroblocking. I don't see that this is ever going to be possible to overcome this gap with live or real-time encoded video signals unless some very advanced predictive motion analysis technology is brought to bear whereby the encoding device can anticipate fast motion and increase the frequency or change the positioning of I-frames in the sequence according to the action. I am sure there is some kind of video-game type technology that could be leveraged to do this. It's kind of borderline AI.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

Mr.72 said:


> well that's my point. I'd rather have consistent frame-by-frame resolution at a lower resolution, vs. it-only-looks-good-when-it's-not-moving. The artifacts are annoying. They are par for the course with on-the-fly MPEG encoding because you cannot place I-frames according to the content, but they are just placed every 15th frame or at some other fixed rate without regard for the effect on the picture.
> 
> On a DVD where there is time to master it very deliberately, I-frames can be placed more frequently or strategically in fast-motion sections to ensure smooth motion and no macroblocking. I don't see that this is ever going to be possible to overcome this gap with live or real-time encoded video signals unless some very advanced predictive motion analysis technology is brought to bear whereby the encoding device can anticipate fast motion and increase the frequency or change the positioning of I-frames in the sequence according to the action. I am sure there is some kind of video-game type technology that could be leveraged to do this. It's kind of borderline AI.


I doesn't need to be predictive... it just needs to be faster. There is already a delay in satellite signals because of the processing and transmission to the satellites and back. (about 3-7 seconds I beleive.) If they gave it another couple of seconds to buffer so the encoders could do a better job, nobody would notice the delay.


----------

