# DirecTV class action suit over HD quality.



## Bobman (Jan 3, 2006)

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


----------



## NurseDave (Aug 20, 2006)

Let me know when we can sue because they take away a channel we wanted.


----------



## pyrettablaze (Sep 18, 2006)

That is interesting because if what I see if lower quality HD then I could not even imagine what higher quality would look like.


----------



## byron (Nov 15, 2004)

you had to know this was going to happen.... personally, i can't see the difference on my 51" display, but i can feel for those who have very large displays that are affected by directv's bandwidth allocation tactics. i just hope this doesn't raise my montly bill.


----------



## tommyb (Aug 18, 2006)

SUE,SUE,SUE. That is all everybody knows how to do these days!!! I guess I should have gone to law school.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

_"We believe the plaintiff's underlying claims are completely without merit because* DIRECTV's High Definition service is high quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV*," Mercer said._

So there is a publicly published document that defines High Definition for satellite? It would be nice to see exactly what the satellite TV business considers high definition since they sure aren't passing that info to their customers.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Where do people get the spare cash for stuff like this?
You have got to be kidding me...

Oh well.... If the law allows it....

If the singal is at least 720p.... then it is a HIGH DEFINITION transmission...
You could also argue anything higher then 480p is HIGH Definition

If this goes through... where do I signup for the HD upconvert DVD players..
I mean those are "diluted" as well.


----------



## zortapa (Nov 16, 2005)

On the other hand, one could argue that since D* is not sending the same resolution/quality signal as one receives OTA, then D* is sending a "diluted" signal. 

Clearly there is a continuum since SD and HD are not a true dichotomy, and it seems that this tug-of-war confrontation will help to define the boundry between the two... at least from a legal perspective.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

The big question is...
Where in the user agreement, or the website... does it say they will send the 1920x1080i (or what ever the max resolution is) version?

Doesn't stop TNT-HD from calling their upconverts "HD"

Actually... if this case goes through... you can see a similar one for the degrated SD picture quality (on some channels)


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

All I know is that my PQ for OTA is pretty close to what D* provides. Is there some pixelization - yep, but it's not a deal breaker for me.

When I saw my parent's Time Warner SD picture pixelate often, it made me realize that D* just isn't that bad.


----------



## zortapa (Nov 16, 2005)

Out of curiosity, will all this be moot when the new birds are flying?


----------



## perilous (Sep 4, 2006)

zortapa said:


> Out of curiosity, will all this be moot when the new birds are flying?


Agreed, THAT is the BIG question for me...will D*TV return to quality (and market the hell out of it) or simply sqeeze in more BS channels?

Its sad when on Sunday, D*TV cannot even keep its "limited #" of HD channels up and running EVEN WHILE DILUTED (HD-LITE)!!!!! :nono:

Only in USA do you have HD capability, and broadcasters/distributers find ways to reduce the quality at the same time set manufacturers are producing sets (and marketing/selling them) capable of 1080P (yes 1080P!!) quality pictures -- capitalism at its finest with the FCC, etc. "supporting" this BS!!!! :eek2:


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Sounds like this guy needs a girlfriend


----------



## KCWolfPck (Jul 10, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You could also argue anything higher then 480p is HIGH Definition


You could? What would your argument be based on, because 480p, by definition, is NOT high deifinition.


----------



## perilous (Sep 4, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> Sounds like this guy needs a girlfriend


Thanks for your insight :lol:


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Where do people get the spare cash for stuff like this?
> You have got to be kidding me...


There is a good chance he is an attorney and is filing it because he can. Or he has found some law firm willing to take it on a contingency basis by hoping to expand it to class-action status and make million in fees while we get a coupon for $5 off the HD package for a month.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

this is what lawyers do when they have no buisness..... and it's garenteed that the lawyer will make a lot more than any of the coustomers, like 10million to $5.95 for each coustomer


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The big question is...
> Where in the user agreement, or the website... does it say they will send the 1920x1080i (or what ever the max resolution is) version?
> 
> Doesn't stop TNT-HD from calling their upconverts "HD"
> ...


Earl, I think the big issue is that there are published standard by the ATSC that define what resolutions are HD, horizontal and vertical. The DBS companies, along with some cable companies, are not providing signals that match these standards and telling their customers what they are actually providing. Then you read statements from D*'s VP's that say they provide a high quality HD signal which their customers say is BS since they can compare their service to others and can see the difference.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> The big question is...
> Where in the user agreement, or the website... does it say they will send the 1920x1080i (or what ever the max resolution is) version?
> 
> Doesn't stop TNT-HD from calling their upconverts "HD"
> ...


No. That's not really the question....

The question is whether the locked him into a contract based on a promised level of quality then unilaterally violated that contract by lowering the picture quality.

If DTV dropped 75% of their channels, would you expect to be held to your 2 -yr agreements? Is it that far gone to say thay lowering promised signal quality is different?

However, I personally, would side with DTV as as long as what they distribute meets the industry standard definition (no pun) of HD then they are in clear.

But I also can see how their practices could be considered misleading.

I love that when someone tries to go up against a corporation for *potentially* misleading or even fradulent practices or simply for demanding not to be taken advantage of, the gut reaction is to blame the "little guy" or attorneys for being "sue happy" and not the corp. that take advantage of you, the consumer.

Sure that's sometimes the case. But it's unfair to assume.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

KCWolfPck said:


> You could? What would your argument be based on, because 480p, by definition, is NOT high deifinition.


Then what is it?

It is "higher" then Standard Definition.....
I am just saying you could "argue" that is "Higher" then Standard..

Thus High Definition.... not ATSC-High Definition 

Not that the argument is right, or valid... but from a legal dot the i's cross the t's

And no one would accept a 481p signal as HD but.....


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

mikewolf13 said:


> No. That's not really the question....
> 
> The question is whether the locked him into a contract based on a promised level of quality then unilaterally violated that contract by lowering the picture quality.
> 
> ...


True......

It will be intresting to see how it pans out.


----------



## chdwil (Sep 6, 2006)

Whenever I view HD via cable at my sisters house, I always think to myself "My HD is so much better looking!". Now I do have a new Sony 50" (not SXRD) and have it hooked up with HDMI, so there may be different issues at work. But I have always been very happy with the picture. 

Now the difference between true HD and upconverted is tremendous. In my mind you can not get a better picture than with live sports filmed in HD. The difference between interlaced and progressive can also be dramatic depending on the program.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Anyone have a source of any objective details about what DirecTV is doing? Like what the source resolution and bitrate are versus what they are sending to their customers?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

What resolution have people "reported" at times on DirecTV...

I check one of the "HD Lite" pages, and they didn't list the DirecTV resolution.

Their example was for Dish Network.

1280x720p & 1920x1080i are the two "HD" formats
The one example they had for Dish was 1440x1088i

Obviously it is not a standard resolution... but doesn't it fit between the two ?
or does 1440x1088i translate to 1440x544p ?


What could be the outcome of this class action suit? Obviously depending on how long it goes.

1) Ability to get a "refund" or credit for the $10.99 or $9.99 for the HD package for "x" months
2) DirecTV having to drop three or so HD networks, so they can push the full 1920x1080i (obviously this would change if things drag past the new sat launch)
3) Nothing changes, and the courts find in DirecTV's favor 

It will be intresting to keep track of..

But if DirecTV loses, expect Dish Network and most of the cable-co's to be next on the chopping block.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What resolution have people "reported" at times on DirecTV...
> 
> I check one of the "HD Lite" pages, and they didn't list the DirecTV resolution.
> 
> ...


Other possible outcomes include:

1. Adding required "disclaimer" language to any advertising of HD programming
2. Allowing HD customers to terminate contract without penalty

and I am sure there are other possibilites...

Remember it's not just the quality of the signal in question but the fact D* reduced the quality from what was agreed to.

Whether this applies to Dish or other cable operations I don't know.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What could be the outcome of this class action suit? Obviously depending on how long it goes.
> 
> 1) Ability to get a "refund" or credit for the $10.99 or $9.99 for the HD package for "x" months
> 2) DirecTV having to drop three or so HD networks, so they can push the full 1920x1080i (obviously this would change if things drag past the new sat launch)
> 3) Nothing changes, and the courts find in DirecTV's favor


Exactly what I was thinking. Worst case, this is a bait and switch tactic. I'm OK with the way things are because I prefer content over quality (within reasonable bounds, mind you). So, a 100% signal distribution 1920x1080i simply is not needed in my mind. For most people, there are other options now and even if you live in the middle of nowhere, you still have the option to *NOT WATCH TV* if you don't like it.

Think about it a minute. You pay per-month and you can always stop. In this particular instance, even if there was a commitment, I'm quite certain that DirecTV would have waived the fee. His complaint is valid, but his continued subscription indicates that he either (1) actually enjoys the service that he is paying for or (2) continues to pay ONLY because he wants to win the lawsuit.

I cannot image what punitive damages would exist. Let's get real, it's TV. The guys going to get an award of 24*$11 = $264 AND he could have stopped 2 years ago and never spent the $264 OR the time fighting about it. In fact, I've probably spent too much time stewing over it right now.


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then what is it?
> 
> And no one would accept a 481p signal as HD but.....


From Wikipedia (so consider the source):

The FCC process, led by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) adopted a *range of standards from interlaced 1080 line video (a technical descendant of the original analog NHK 1125/30fps system) with a maximum frame rate of 30fps, and 720 line video, progressively scanned, with a maximum frame rate of 60 fps. *The FCC officially adopted the ATSC transmission standard (which included both HD and SD video standards) in 1996, with the first broadcasts on October 28, 1998.​ (emphasis mine)

Again, I don't know If the crucial issue is whether they are or are not sending a HD signal.

I think it's whether they violated any agreement or were misleading by lowering the quality of the signal from what the consumer reasonably expected to remain the same or improve.

If they suddenly announced your 100GB R15 would now only record 40 hours with the rest "reserved" would you be upset? I mean you still a have a "working" DVR. (This is a hypo so please let's not argue over how well a R15 actually works- assume the best). after all there is already a disclaimer on the 100 hours that it is based on type of programming....

nevermind that they still claim the R15:

*Skips reruns if you don't want them. Just choose to only record new episodes*​
but again I am talking best case scenario.......


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Okay.... I can see that.

So the argument is not what is HD and what is "HD-Lite"
It is more so... you stated you would offer X resolution, which results in PQ, but you switched it to Y resolution later on.


----------



## dervari (Dec 1, 2005)

mikewolf13 said:


> Remember it's not just the quality of the signal in question but the fact D* reduced the quality from what was agreed to.


You agreed to an HD signal, which is what they are providing. IIRC, they never stated specifically what resolution would be provided, only that it was an HD signal.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dervari said:


> You agreed to an HD signal, which is what they are providing.


And there in lies the argument....

Was the contract for a specific resolution? or the term "HD"... 
If it is the later, then it turns to an argument of what defines "HD"

Funny... where is the lawsuits for Comcast Broadband....
I agreed when I signed up for a 2mb download service.... I am now getting 6mb+
I didn't agree to that...


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

brott said:


> Think about it a minute. You pay per-month and you can always stop. In this particular instance, even if there was a commitment, I'm quite certain that DirecTV would have waived the fee. His complaint is valid, but his continued subscription indicates that he either (1) actually enjoys the service that he is paying for or (2) continues to pay ONLY because he wants to win the lawsuit.


Or that he likes DTV for other reasons (sunday ticket, his cable sucks, maybe doesn't like E*).....

Some of us dislike the R15, but like DVR and DTV....eventually if I want Sunday Ticket and a DVR I may need to use the R15.

I shouldn't be required to use unintegrated products just to maintain standing as someone who hates the R15.

Should the plaintiff be required to do without HD even if it is "lite", just beacuse he wants DTV for other reasons?

You are "quite certain" that he would not have been held to his committment?Maybe. maybe not. As we know CSR roulette sometimes gives different results. but the fact they may or may not have let him out of an agreement they allegedly violated does not excuse the fact they allegedly violated it.

I borrow $1 from you to buy a lottery ticket and say "IF I win, I will give you half the money"

I win.

I put in my will that when I DIE you get half the money.

You are mad, thinking I you should get half immediately.

I say Forget it here's your $1 back and here's one more to cover interest.

Hey, no harm to you. You got your buck back plus some.

What's to be mad about?

Would you take the $2? If you did wouldn't the case be settled?

Do you really hold it against a guy for protecting his right to sue by not accepting a$10.99 credit?


----------



## mikewolf13 (Jan 31, 2006)

dervari said:


> You agreed to an HD signal, which is what they are providing. IIRC, they never stated specifically what resolution would be provided, only that it was an HD signal.


I have also agreed to he Total choice package (Minimum). for 2 years. DTV has the right to make changes to that package.

If they drop 75% of the channels, not out of maliciousness but becasue of contract issues with Viacom/Disney?whoever.... should I be held to the my 2 year commtitment at $49.99 or whatever it is?

I agreed to the package. They have a right to change that package (channels come and go). At what point has the package I am getting materially change from what I agreed to?


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I guess they could go back to transmitting a full 1080i resolution but lower the bitrate to the point that it looked like crap, as far I know ATSC doesn't cover the datarate requirements, just maximum frame rates. This could then be construed (legally) as meeting the HD standard and what they committed to delivering, but no one would be happy about it!


----------



## Ben_jd (Aug 21, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> 2) DirecTV having to drop three or so HD networks, so they can push the full 1920x1080i (obviously this would change if things drag past the new sat launch)


Will the new satellites offer "full" resolution/bitrate HD broadcasting? Though I'm not ready to sue anyone, I am a little disappointed by the pixelation ... especially during football.


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

mikewolf13 said:


> I borrow $1 from you to buy a lottery ticket and say "IF I win, I will give you half the money"
> 
> I win.


The problem is that "the money" to which "half" refers is ambiguous. Give him $0.50 and tell him to pound sand.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

tommyb said:


> SUE,SUE,SUE. That is all everybody knows how to do these days!!! I guess I should have gone to law school.


What's better? Punch them in the nose? Taking crap?

Even with all the problems and abuse that the system has, suing is a reasonable why to solve disagreements. Specially when you have disagreements with a powerful corporation that you have no change to influence otherwise.


----------



## Bobman (Jan 3, 2006)

brott said:


> The guys going to get an award of 24*$11 = $264


Its a class action suit and every DirecTV user with HD can join in. So the approx $264 x (a guess) couple hundred thousand HD users could add up.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

If you want to get stinky, you could sue all program delivery companies for re-compressing the original programming. If you look at the PQ of VH1 through almost any delivery service, it is horrible. Through Comcast in my area, it looks like it is being broadcast in 8 bit color. Unless they are truly using Fisher Price video gear, I can't imagine that's how it looks when it is uplinked.

The ABC affiliate in my area was switching back and forth between HD and SD last night so that they could insert election results underneath the network programming.

"Crystal clear digital" has gone beyond being a joke and is now a real sore point with many.

As satellite subscribers, we signed up for compromised PQ in the interest of getting a good value. I would much rather have "reduced" resolution than a high resolution image cluttered with distracting compression artifacts.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ben_jd said:


> Will the new satellites offer "full" resolution/bitrate HD broadcasting? Though I'm not ready to sue anyone, I am a little disappointed by the pixelation ... especially during football.


Given what they say is room for 150 channels, they could certainly do wonders with only 50 channels. We probably won't know for at least a year what they end up doing, but I'd bet that they aren't going to burn up their batteries running one channel per transponder.


----------



## cheer (Nov 9, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What resolution have people "reported" at times on DirecTV...
> 
> I check one of the "HD Lite" pages, and they didn't list the DirecTV resolution.


DirecTV broadcasts at 1280x1080i (actually 1088i but the 8 extra pixels are just garbage anyway). So the H-res is significantly lower than typical 1920x1080i.

Also, D* re-encodes to a lower bitrate -- it varies from channel to channel but I've seen as low as 6-8 mbps (as opposed to the 19+ mbps for OTA 1080i).

D* HD looks nice, but OTA blows it away -- if you have a decent set that's properly calibrated, it's a pretty obvious difference.


----------



## cheer (Nov 9, 2005)

perilous said:


> Only in USA do you have HD capability, and broadcasters/distributers find ways to reduce the quality at the same time set manufacturers are producing sets (and marketing/selling them) capable of 1080P (yes 1080P!!) quality pictures -- capitalism at its finest with the FCC, etc. "supporting" this BS!!!! :eek2:


Absolutely it is capitalism at its finest. Most people care about # of channels, not resolutions or bitrates. Go check out all the threads where people are demanding Starz HD and National Geographic HD (!) and bashing D* because they don't have all those useless Voom channels.

Can't win for losing.


----------



## neuronbob (Apr 12, 2003)

I can't believe this lawsuit. I agree with the posts that if this continues, all we'll get is some token gesture from DirecTV, and other consumers will see a price hike to cover the legal costs. The HD signal received is pretty good, much better than SD, and hopefully will improve as more birds are launched (I hope).


----------



## tzphotos.com (Jul 12, 2006)

houskamp said:


> this is what lawyers do when they have no buisness..... and it's garenteed that the lawyer will make a lot more than any of the coustomers, like 10million to $5.95 for each coustomer


This is really what all these lawsuits are really about, money for the lawyers.

I do hope that when things go to Mpeg 4 we will get a better picture, maybe even someday 1080P. The image looks really good on my set. I do notice the reduced bit rate, you can see this with fast moving objects on the screen. You can also see the reduced bit rate when the film grain gets blocky and slow motion while watching older movies.


----------



## LeoGetz (Jan 24, 2006)

As much as I hate the sue happy world we live in....Something needs to be done...As for me my HD is pretty bad...but like what I read earlier bad HD is still better than standard TV....I have had very poor quality in HD since the new dish and rec. I had an OTA before and the HD was great. Not sure what got me to let them "upgrade" to the new stuff...oh ya free install and free 6 month of HD...I have complained and complained...they swap out my rec. they send out the installers and nothing ever changes...Lip sync issues on local channels, better now than before but still happens, pixelation every 20 mins while I am trying to watch football...


----------



## chicagojim (Sep 13, 2006)

Not to knock those with a truly serious condition, but:


The lawsuit is coming that all those flashing blue lights are causing seizures! 



People will find anything to throw into the courts these days . . . :nono2:


----------



## spidey (Sep 1, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> What resolution have people "reported" at times on DirecTV...
> 
> I check one of the "HD Lite" pages, and they didn't list the DirecTV resolution.
> 
> ...


On my one HD receiver if I press info it tells me if the football game is 720P or 1080i not sure I see this same info on my HR20. Right now I have the HR20 set to 1080i always would hope it would properly adjust to what the signal is


----------



## cheer (Nov 9, 2005)

What you output is often different from what is sent.

Locals (OTA) are whatever is broadcast. No idea what they are doing with the HD LiLs. The national stuff is all 1280x1080i.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

cheer said:


> What you output is often different from what is sent.
> 
> Locals (OTA) are whatever is broadcast. No idea what they are doing with the HD LiLs. The national stuff is all 1280x1080i.


I don't recall seeing anywhere if the MPEG4 channels are running at 1920x1080i or 1280x1080i. Anyone know?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I posted this story yesterday on another thread: DIRECTV's Eric Shanks On HDTV

I was wondering how long it would take until the story was "buzzing" on the boards.

~Alan


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

PoitNarf said:


> I don't recall seeing anywhere if the MPEG4 channels are running at 1920x1080i or 1280x1080i. Anyone know?


From what I have been told... they are not altering the resolution of the supplied signal from the affiliates, for MPEG-4 Locals.


----------



## Mavrick (Feb 1, 2006)

Because of stupid lawsuits I can no longer get a cup of hot coffee at a fast food resturant like mcdonalds its only just warm and now because of a stupid lawsuit if D* looses we loose for we might loose a couple of hd channels for we all on here know that the D* bandwidth is already maxed out and if they have to up the HD resoulotion on the HD then they wont have enough for the HD channels they currently have.

Of course all of this will be a moot point once the new birds are up but until then I dont really mind the down rezed verision of the HD channels for they are still better than the ones my friends have through the local cable company.


----------



## bagleyb (Sep 14, 2006)

I think ESPNHD and ESPN2HD are full resolution, as they're 1280X720p from Bristol.

Personally, I think the networks are the only ones that have the ability to force D*'s hand. If I'm Mark Cuban, I tell D* to take a flying leap when contract negotiations come around for HDN & HDNM. He should tell them to broadcast at the resolution he gives them, or they won't carry his station at all. Cuban is probably the only current content provider that would have the balls to do this. 

Unfortunately, it's going to take HBO and/or Showtime to to get on board before it has any teeth. If enough people call HBO or Showtime, and tell them they're dropping their channels for the reamining 18 months of their contract because D* is not broadcasting at the correct resolution, then they might put some pressure on D*.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> From what I have been told... they are not altering the resolution of the supplied signal from the affiliates, for MPEG-4 Locals.


I am inclined to believe this, because the MPEG4 locals look almost identical to the OTA signals. But I have to ask, have you actually been told that DirecTV *is* in fact altering the resolution of the MPEG2 1080i channels?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I am inclined to believe this, because the MPEG4 locals look almost identical to the OTA signals. But I have to ask, have you actually been told that DirecTV *is* in fact altering the resolution of the MPEG2 1080i channels?


Never specifically asked about the MPEG-2 channels, as it is pretty well know that they are


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Never specifically asked about the MPEG-2 channels, as it is pretty well know that they are


I know, I was just wondering if you ever got anyone at DirecTV to tell you the truth on that.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I know, I was just wondering if you ever got anyone at DirecTV to tell you the truth on that.


Then the answer would be no, I have never had them specifically tell me what resolution changes DirecTV has been doing to the MPEG-2 HD signal.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Then the answer would be no, I have never had them specifically tell me what resolution changes DirecTV has been doing to the MPEG-2 HD signal.


That's what I figured. Thanks!


----------



## Drunk Wex (Sep 11, 2006)

Personally I'm glad they're getting what's coming to them. Sure a lower bitrate transfer doesn't necessarily mean a lower picture quality, but it's definitely noticable in fast motion. Going from Comcast HD to D* I've noticed a lot "blockier" transitions with D*. Ever watch a Divx movie? It's kind of like those same blocks you see in fast motion. Only with D* you see them on scene transitions, mostly. As much as I like a higher quality HDTV I can't stand Comcast. Which is why I'm still using D*. For now.


----------



## LeoGetz (Jan 24, 2006)

Drunk Wex said:


> As much as I like a higher quality HDTV I can't stand Comcast. Which is why I'm still using D*. For now.


Same here.....Hoping FIOS will be in my area soon....


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

walters said:


> Anyone have a source of any objective details about what DirecTV is doing? Like what the source resolution and bitrate are versus what they are sending to their customers?


D* still sends out poorly done recompression and low bit rates. Maybe in 2007 they will have more bandwidth.



> HD Lite is an informal term used to describe the broadcast of a particular HDTV channel with reduced picture quality. In most cases this means that the channel originates with a particular video encoding, resolution, and bit rate, but is re-encoded or rate shaped by the multichannel video programming distributor (i.e. cable television or DBS provider) to save bandwidth. Reduced video quality is characterized by reduced sharpness, reduced detail, excessive compression artifacts (mosquito noise and blocking), and in some cases, washed-out colors. The reduced video quality is most often caused by poorly done recompression, low bit rates (from recompression or rate-shaping equipment), or reduced resolution. When HD Lite uses reduced resolution, it is most commonly 1280 x 1080i or 1440 x 1080I, which is in contrast to the 1920 x 1080i and 1280 x 720p resolutions that most networks, over-the-air broadcasters, and cable/satellite HDTV channels provide.


Here a link that show each channels bit rate

»www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html

Here are some more HD-Lite links:

»www.stophdlite.com/

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=HD+lite

»http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_lite

[Edit] You might even need to calibrate your TV »www.smartcalibration.com/hdnetpatterns.html


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I am inclined to believe this, because the MPEG4 locals look almost identical to the OTA signals. But I have to ask, have you actually been told that DirecTV *is* in fact altering the resolution of the MPEG2 1080i channels?


Please list your display when making statements like this. I doubt anybody would notice a difference with smaller screen sizes. There is a very large difference between MPEG4 locals and OTA locals on my 106 inch screen. Sure, most people don't have this size screen .... yet. But as front projectors become better and cheaper, I think more people are going to start noticing the difference. Bottom line is that I will continue to pay for Directv for the NFL Sunday ticket, but I miss the days when Directv had the best PQ available. Those days are LONG gone.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

edpowers said:


> Please list your display when making statements like this. I doubt anybody would notice a difference with smaller screen sizes.


I'm not going to list my screen size every time I refer to the PQ, because mine (42") is average for an HDTV. You should list your screen size, because you're way outside of the average.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

And mine is a 50" Plasma, and I have also seen the same setup on a 62" DLP and don't notice that much of a difference...

But if you are up at 106"... how do watch anything that ISN'T OTA... SD from any provider has to look awful blown up nearly 4 times larger then it is optimized for (32" CRT)


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Not to negate the merit of this thread...

But I am curious... why isn't this story being picked up by any of the major news outlets.... news.yahoo.com search on DirecTV doesn't get any thing...

Is there any chance that there is more to the story that Swani put up at his site?


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And mine is a 50" Plasma, and I have also seen the same setup on a 62" DLP and don't notice that much of a difference...
> 
> But if you are up at 106"... how do watch anything that ISN'T OTA... SD from any provider has to look awful blown up nearly 4 times larger then it is optimized for (32" CRT)


 I never watch SD on my 106" TV, except for the occasional DVD. I never said that Directv HD looked awful, I just said that there is a large, noticeable difference between Directv's MPEG4 locals and OTA. I've been a Directv customer since 96 and I'm still a subscriber. I'm just saying that some people have a right to be annoyed by the altered resolution / over compression and the steady decline of PQ through the years. I would never sue them, but I wouldn't mind seeing this guy win. Its not surprising that people don't see the difference on a 42 inch display. To my eyes, there is a larger difference between OTA HD and Directv MPEG4 locals on my 106" projector than there is between upconverted DVD and OTA HD on my 42 inch 720p plasma.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

edpowers said:


> To my eyes, there is a larger difference between OTA HD and Directv MPEG4 locals on my 106" projector than there is between upconverted DVD and OTA HD on my 42 inch 720p plasma.


Man... I need to come party at your house...


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

106" is bigger than my wall


----------



## gator5000e (Aug 29, 2006)

Mavrick said:


> Because of stupid lawsuits I can no longer get a cup of hot coffee at a fast food resturant like mcdonalds its only just warm and now because of a stupid lawsuit if D* looses we loose for we might loose a couple of hd channels for we all on here know that the D* bandwidth is already maxed out and if they have to up the HD resoulotion on the HD then they wont have enough for the HD channels they currently have.


Sorry I feel compelled to say this, especially because your avatar is pretty hot, but if you knew the actual facts of the McDonalds case you might not feel it was a "stupid" case.

I was involved as a plaintiff in a class action involving Pioneer Elite Rear Projection TVs. Pioneer for years denied there was a problem with the TVs. Finally a class action was filed and after a very heated fight, it was shown they knew these TVs had a significant problem, which they was ultimately rectified. I am not saying down rezzing the signal is the same as a defective TV, but if they guy feels he has been misled, then let this guy have his day in court. It may end up benefitting us all in the long run. If its a stupid claim, a jury will let him know.


----------



## jbellanca (Sep 1, 2006)

Ben_jd said:


> Will the new satellites offer "full" resolution/bitrate HD broadcasting? Though I'm not ready to sue anyone, I am a little disappointed by the pixelation ... especially during football.


I know it doesn't have an impact on the lawsuit, but I have to agree here. I have a Sony 60A2000 SXRD and can see a very noticable difference between watching Mpeg4 locals and OTA locals. I really love DTV and wouldn't switch, but on the other hand, I'm also pretty disappointed that they didn't do a better job with the quality of the image. I get the quality vs. quantity of HD channels, and you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I guess I'm just disappointed to be able to see the quality of HD locals. But oh well, maybe things will get better with the new sats, or with the lawsuit happening.


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not to negate the merit of this thread...
> 
> But I am curious... why isn't this story being picked up by any of the major news outlets.... news.yahoo.com search on DirecTV doesn't get any thing...
> 
> Is there any chance that there is more to the story that Swani put up at his site?


It's on google news http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=DirecTV&btnG=Search+News

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

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2006/dire091906.htm


----------



## Que (Apr 15, 2006)

jbellanca said:


> I know it doesn't have an impact on the lawsuit, but I have to agree here. I have a Sony 60A2000 SXRD and can see a very noticable difference between watching Mpeg4 locals and OTA locals. I really love DTV and wouldn't switch, but on the other hand, I'm also pretty disappointed that they didn't do a better job with the quality of the image. I get the quality vs. quantity of HD channels, and you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I guess I'm just disappointed to be able to see the quality of HD locals. But oh well, maybe things will get better with the new sats, or with the lawsuit happening.


Maybe that is why the HR20 has the OTA tuners off??


----------



## btmoore (Aug 28, 2006)

Good for Cohen in bringing the suit, I hope he wins. Consumers have been complaining about the down rezing for long time and D* has not responded nor do they clearly communicate or share exactly what they are doing to the picture. I have gone thru 4 different HD STB with D* over the years I have been with them and I have multiple HD displays ranging from 42 - 110 inches. While sometimes it is noticeable and other times it is not so much and while I have not directly compared the mpeg4 locals to OTA yet, the locals OTA are better than west coast feed. IMO D* should not down rez and they should do their best to ensure the proper bandwidth is there so picture quality does not suffer for the critical viewer which is what the HD in HDTV is all about. IMO I think D* tries to slide by, packing as much as tight as they can and they don't really care that much about the picture quality. Maybe the mpg4 on the new birds will change thing, but in the mean time It is nice to see some one standing up to D* and using the only real tools we have as consumers to make sure providers don't get away misrepresent their goods and services they sell us. These class actions are the only big sticks that a consumer has.

So good for Cohen in bringing the suit, I will happily be a member of the class if it goes that far. If this is what it takes to get D* focus on this, so be it. If D* sold the product that was represented there would be no case and no one would be complaining about the picture quality. I am sure from D*s perspective this was all a P&L / risk reward thing. You can almost imagine the conversations internally, HDTV is only a small part of our customer base, and regardless of how much we down rez it still looks much better that our over compressed SD transmissions. Lets try to pack 3 HD channels on one transponder that we can keep the 20 shopping channels and all that other crap we are getting paid to broadcast. The HDTV customer base is too small and lacks the experience to know any different, so there is low to no risk. Our CSRs are not trained well so they wont even understand when some one is complaining about the picture quality of HDTV, we will just run the customers thru scripts to make them remove their cards and restart their STB so many times that eventually they will just give up and stop complaining. And with our big advertising budget, we will just tell every one how great our HDTV is compared to everyone else, thank you P. T. Barnum.


----------



## thumperr (Feb 10, 2006)

a bunch of reply related items.

above 480p and below 720p would be considered Enhanced Definition. they sell TVs in this spectrum. not sure if it is specifically defined in the ATSC standard.

If you look at the standard for HD and thing over 1280x720 would be considered HD. does D* provide a non standard size, yes, but would that meet the minimum requrement, i believe it does.

The real question is on the bit rate. how much data is D* providing. Compression is the real enemy for most HD viewers in my opinion. (the person with the 106" would be the exception)

To the point 'who would be next if this was sucessful?' What about the OTA stations that have multiple sub channels. With OTA it is approximately 19Mbs. each sub channel cuts some amount of data from this bit rate. If a station has 2 additional subchannels at 3Mbs you are now down to 13Mbs for the primary station. You also would wonder about ABC. As I recall ABC is the only major channel that still does 720p and not 1080i. For more bit rate information take look on avsforum at the local HD threads. The washington baltimore one is rather interesting in that some of the broadcasters participate and discuss how the sub channels affect the bit rate.

For the desire to someday see 1080p. there is no reason to expect this, and no reason to really want this. A good display that takes in 1080i to display 1080p is all you need. The display just must handle 3/2 pull down properly. this is the BlueRay argument why they have 1080p and HDDVD is bad because they have 1080i. It is a totaly bogus argument. all the data is in the 1080i stream, your display just has to reassemble the data.

To file a federal lawsuit, I believe all it takes is the paper work and $35 dollars. So the burden is not that high. i think i remember that correctly for 'Sexual Harrasement' training. It is this persons right to be able to file a lawsuit if they choose. There are alot of reasons for groups of people to bring class action suits, and a lot of suits bring about positive effects. 

My opinion, this lawsuit will not go far. The person has the option to not keep the service and go elsewhere. I also don't remember seeing any bitrate guarantee in the user agreement. and i thought the current agreement called for arbitration to settle disputes.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

thumperr said:


> As I recall ABC is the only major channel that still does 720p and not 1080i.


Fox, ABC, and MNTV all do 720p. CW may as well, but I have not checked into that. 1080i is not an "upgrade" to 720p, so they are not "still" doing 720p.


----------



## archie4oz (Sep 17, 2006)

RAD said:


> So there is a publicly published document that defines High Definition for satellite? It would be nice to see exactly what the satellite TV business considers high definition since they sure aren't passing that info to their customers.


No. "HD" (and "SD" for that matter) are basically nebulous terms, that depends on who's perspective... Current broadcast standards (e.g. ASTC, DVB, ISDB) tend to avoid explicitly defining what is HD and what is not.



RAD said:


> Earl, I think the big issue is that there are published standard by the ATSC that define what resolutions are HD, horizontal and vertical


That's not quite accurate. The ASTC standards don't actually quantify what is "HD" and what is not, they just define various compression format constraints, and recommended video input formats.



RAD said:


> The DBS companies, along with some cable companies, are not providing signals that match these standards and telling their customers what they are actually providing.


As far as DBS companies go, no they aren't... I presume you're making the same mistake that many people make and presume ASTC A/53E applies to satellite broadcasts. It does not. It applies to terrestrial and cable broadcasts, while satellite broadcasts are defined within A/81 (in which resolutions such as 1280x1080, and 1440x1920 are specified).

As far as cable companies go, they do broadcast 1920x1080, however the actual material being transmitted is quite often 1440x1080 (HDCAM), unless it's from a D5-HD source (pricey!).


----------



## vlj9r (Nov 23, 2005)

I'm glad someone is challenging DTV. My HD locals look better on Brighthouse networks and with an OTA when I get a strong enough signal.

My local HD channels are plague with dropping frames. Looks like watching a movie under a strobe light. Very annoying.

sony kdsr60xbr1


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

There are really 2 issues...is the orignal transmission in 720p or 1080i (considered HD by virtually all standards), and then what is done by the services (sat, cable) with that signal to transmit it to the household (compression, etc.).

In the first case, most providers passs the test - the real issue is the second item - compression - both how its executed and what technology is used. For that topic, the debate is over a wide range of topics and opinions. MPEG4 will be the defacto standard by both D* and E*, but its a matter of the bit-rate that some of the complaints have originated from...at the end of the day, its about bandwidth and how it is used. As the bandwidth grows, these things can be/are often re-allocated. Time will tell if this is even an issue a year from now when D* and E* both have major bandwidth expansion.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

Hell, I'm pissed about their SD picture quality on SciFi. It is horrible. But then you look at some of the movie channels in Total Choice Plus, and they look great. Almost DVD quality.

SciFi has to be a very well watched channel given the great original programming they are showing these days.

I suppose I could watch Eureka on a different channel, but with Battlestar, I have no choice!

I'm getting my first HD from DirecTV on October 5th. Hopefully I'm not horribly disappointed. At least I have my Media Center 2k5 setup with an ATI HDTV Wonder as my other HD DVR.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> Hell, I'm pissed about their SD picture quality on SciFi. It is horrible. But then you look at some of the movie channels in Total Choice Plus, and they look great. Almost DVD quality.
> 
> SciFi has to be a very well watched channel given the great original programming they are showing these days.
> 
> ...


SciFi looks great with my HR20.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

That is good to hear. I have often wondered if the S-video output of the SD Series 2 Tivo was causing some of the issues I am seeing.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

PoitNarf said:


> SciFi looks great with my HR20.


I would concur... I was amazed on how well SCIFI looked on the HR20 compared to what I was used to on the DSR704


----------



## newsposter (Nov 13, 2003)

dont they already have contract language in regards to reallocating b/w as needed? That seems to cover it if you ask me


----------



## toy4two (Aug 18, 2006)

pyrettablaze said:


> That is interesting because if what I see if lower quality HD then I could not even imagine what higher quality would look like.


Finally a worthwhile class action lawsuit. If you think HD quality is good on HD please do not ever watch it at true 1920x1080 at full bit rate, it looks SO much better. I currently have D* and am very disappointed with their HD, the football I watch on NBC West HD is all pixelated, blocky, and fuzzy. I have to watch it OTA.

Back when I had TWC the HD was much cripser and WOW, but now its like, eh, better but not jaw dropping.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

From what I heard if you realy want to be dissapointed with broadcast hd you need to watch one of the new hd-dvd's.. that is the only real hd


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Oh man...saw a Blu Ray about a month ago at a Best Buy.

Tha's what sold me on HD in the first place. Never even hoped TV could look like that.


----------



## the_bear (Oct 18, 2004)

I know many people who have left D because of D reducing bit rates from when they originally signed up for service. All of those people were allowed to cancel without penalty. If D tried to charge them a penalty, I’m sure they would have sued too.


----------



## gvatty (Sep 21, 2006)

I just bought a Sony 46" HDTV 2 weeks ago and wasn't able to hook it up to Directv until today. I could only get 6 local HD channels. I got an HR20 DVR installed today. I was surprised how much better the OTA local channels looked compared to the Directv HD channels. Why is that the case? I love Directv but I was a little surprised. On my tv 720p seems sharper than 1080i. Do most people have the same experience?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

fox last year decided to broadcast nascar in 720p not 1080i because it looked better.. Thats because the 720p is a full screen redraw everytime not "interlaced".. for highspeed video 720p is better


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

toy4two said:


> Finally a worthwhile class action lawsuit. If you think HD quality is good on HD please do not ever watch it at true 1920x1080 at full bit rate, it looks SO much better. I currently have D* and am very disappointed with their HD, the football I watch on NBC West HD is all pixelated, blocky, and fuzzy. I have to watch it OTA.
> 
> Back when I had TWC the HD was much cripser and WOW, but now its like, eh, better but not jaw dropping.


I'm curious where I can watch HD at "full bit rate"? I'd need a direct feed from an HD camera to get that. Not very practical for most of us regular folk. Full bit rate means no compression. At HD bit rates that's a 1.5GHz bit rate. All ATSC is compressed so I assume you must have meant ATSC's horribly compressed bit rate to 19.4Mhz. So should we be sueing all the TV stations for not showing true HD because ATSC is grossly compressed?


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

dave1234 said:


> I'm curious where I can watch HD at "full bit rate"? I'd need a direct feed from an HD camera to get that. Not very practical for most of us regular folk. Full bit rate means no compression. At HD bit rates that's a 1.5GHz bit rate. All ATSC is compressed so I assume you must have meant ATSC's horribly compressed bit rate to 19.4Mhz. So should we be sueing all the TV stations for not showing true HD because ATSC is grossly compressed?


Actually if you were there right next to the HD camera, your eyes would provide an even higher bitrate to your brain


----------



## cadjoe (Aug 22, 2006)

Found this explanation of HDTV interesting on weaknees.com, fourth paragraph. 

They sometimes carry more than one stream of HD signal allowing for more programming options. It is these channels that DirecTV is adding to its new satellite and broadcasting in the MPEG4 format. But the DirecTV, Dish Network, and cable rebroadcasts of these channels are down-rezzed so that the HD image loses much of its clarity and sharpness. In many cases the differences are enormous


----------



## jwilson (Sep 24, 2006)

After watching the Atlanta local SD stations at home I wouldn't think of getting HD through DirecTV.

The Atlanta locals have so much ghosting in them it's actually better just to watch them off of rabbit ears. DirecTV just can't seem to get this fixed.

When I went to a friend's house to help with the install of his new 1080p set I just couldn't believe that people were accepting what DirecTV was selling for HD.

Sure, it was a 1080i picture coming out of the set top box, but the compression artifacts were terrible. The whole family could see the background going out of focus during movement and the frequent blockiness.

When it got later at night, after all the sports was over the picture became noticeably better. Looks like DirecTV is still statmuxing in too many streams.

Dish seems to be a bit better, but you can still see a serious reduction in quality compared to what's being sent to them.

If you have a friend in the business you should see what the uncompressed 1.5 gigabit/sec looks like. Even when it's compressed to around 19 megabit/sec for DTV transmission it looks so good that I generally cannot tell the difference. When compressed further to around 12 megabit/sec for distribution to MSOs it still looks great. But when a satellite provider brings it down further to around 3 - 6 megabits/sec it certainly looks a LOT worse than the original 1.5 gigabit/sec.

I was watching Comcast in the Atlanta metro area and was amazed at the quality - they are not compressing the signals that they receive - yet. Of course a big problem with them is that they cannot seem to maintain service to some of my friends houses.

After DirecTV's treatment of the Atlanta locals issue and the over-compression of the HD channels I'm very unhappy with what DirecTV is trying to pawn off on us. I wish this guy all the luck and will help him any way I can...



RAD said:


> Earl, I think the big issue is that there are published standard by the ATSC that define what resolutions are HD, horizontal and vertical. The DBS companies, along with some cable companies, are not providing signals that match these standards and telling their customers what they are actually providing. Then you read statements from D*'s VP's that say they provide a high quality HD signal which their customers say is BS since they can compare their service to others and can see the difference.


----------



## jwilson (Sep 24, 2006)

This has been bothering me too - you can really see that the decoder is starved for information, especially in darker scenes, or scenes with fire, or scenes with fast motion - well I guess it just looks pretty bad most of the time...

They are applying too much compression - too many channels in too little bandwidth...



ShapeGSX said:


> Hell, I'm pissed about their SD picture quality on SciFi. It is horrible. But then you look at some of the movie channels in Total Choice Plus, and they look great. Almost DVD quality.
> 
> SciFi has to be a very well watched channel given the great original programming they are showing these days.
> 
> ...


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

jwilson said:


> This has been bothering me too - you can really see that the decoder is starved for information, especially in darker scenes, or scenes with fire, or scenes with fast motion - well I guess it just looks pretty bad most of the time...
> 
> They are applying too much compression - too many channels in too little bandwidth...


Do you guys have your TVs calibrated properly? The SD image looks fine on my 50" Sony rear projection LCD.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

Calibration doesn't affect compression artifacts. Well, sharpness does.

I really think it may be the svideo from my Series 2 SD Tivo, though. I'm hoping that the HDMI or component does better. I'll know in another week and a half.


----------



## jwilson (Sep 24, 2006)

I use a CRT, and not a large one at that and I see the problems. I'm sure that I could see them on your TV too.

Yes I have set the black level with pluge and used blue only to set the chroma level off a test signal generator. The black and white balance are occasionally set with a Minolta meter.

The problems that were are complaining about are DCT artifacts caused by throttling the bandwidth too much, not a monitor setup.

Off course if I set up my monitor with too little bias and turned the saturation and contrast way down I probably wouldn't notice the artifacts so much...



PoitNarf said:


> Do you guys have your TVs calibrated properly? The SD image looks fine on my 50" Sony rear projection LCD.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

PoitNarf said:


> Do you guys have your TVs calibrated properly? The SD image looks fine on my 50" Sony rear projection LCD.


Ditto on the exact same set. SD better than ever, HD terrific.


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> Hell, I'm pissed about their SD picture quality on SciFi. It is horrible. But then you look at some of the movie channels in Total Choice Plus, and they look great. Almost DVD quality.
> 
> SciFi has to be a very well watched channel given the great original programming they are showing these days.
> 
> ...


I have a sony 34" CRT and my picture looks fantastic, even BG, SG1 & SGA. I also have East coast feeds and they look as good as OTA. I was thinking of buying the Sony 50" SXRD but I keep thinking of how good my 34" looks. I guess I'll buy 50" and move 34" to back bed-room for grand-sugars.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

My old 32" FD Trinitron WEGA (SD) looked fine with it, too. But that was because it was downright blurry compared to my 52" DLP.


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

This may sound wierd, but....


I have a Westinghouse 42w2, and the HR20-700. To be honest, I couldnt be happier. My MPEG 4 channels look amazing, and with the upscaler in the receiver, my SD channels looks great too. Granted, during football games, occasionally during a fast motion picture change, or a logo that zooms in from the center of the screen out I notice some pixelization due to overcompression. But to be honest, it really isn't that noticeable. I know its there, and it kinda bugs me a little knowing it is, but it is really not that big of a deal. When I was using OTA, I got it way worse, I mean way worse. During football games (OTA) I would get the blocky squares the second the footbal was hiked. I understand that Directv is broadcasting "HD Lite" as an overcompressed version of HD, but man, I really think it looks great. 

I have calibrated my TV btw and my MPEG 4 channels are LA. Please let me know if there is something I am missing.


----------



## bakerfall (Aug 23, 2006)

Pragmatic Lemur said:


> This may sound wierd, but....
> 
> I have a Westinghouse 42w2, and the HR20-700. To be honest, I couldnt be happier. My MPEG 4 channels look amazing, and with the upscaler in the receiver, my SD channels looks great too. Granted, during football games, occasionally during a fast motion picture change, or a logo that zooms in from the center of the screen out I notice some pixelization due to overcompression. But to be honest, it really isn't that noticeable. I know its there, and it kinda bugs me a little knowing it is, but it is really not that big of a deal. When I was using OTA, I got it way worse, I mean way worse. During football games (OTA) I would get the blocky squares the second the footbal was hiked. I understand that Directv is broadcasting "HD Lite" as an overcompressed version of HD, but man, I really think it looks great.
> 
> I have calibrated my TV btw and my MPEG 4 channels are LA. Please let me know if there is something I am missing.


The mp4 locals are not HDLite, they are full res. Personally, I can't tell any difference between my OTA locals and the mpeg 4 ones. The channels that are considered HDLite are the mpeg2 ones.


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

bakerfall said:


> The mp4 locals are not HDLite, they are full res. Personally, I can't tell any difference between my OTA locals and the mpeg 4 ones. The channels that are considered HDLite are the mpeg2 ones.


Mpeg 2 being EspnHD, Universal HD, TNT HD, etc?

A picture of The 5th Element on TNT HD


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Pragmatic Lemur said:


> Mpeg 2 being EspnHD, Universal HD, TNT HD, etc?
> 
> A picture of The 5th Element on TNT HD


Yes, channels 70 - 79 are MPEG2 HD. And TNT "HD" isn't a good channel to go about comparing as a good amount of their "HD" programming is just a SD image stretched to 16:9.


----------



## cadjoe (Aug 22, 2006)

PoitNarf said:


> Do you guys have your TVs calibrated properly? The SD image looks fine on my 50" Sony rear projection LCD.


50" Projection* LCD *? Interesting model u have there.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

PoitNarf said:


> Yes, channels 70 - 79 are MPEG2 HD. And TNT "HD" isn't a good channel to go about comparing as a good amount of their "HD" programming is just a SD image stretched to 16:9.


TNT HD is not exactly the role model for HD broadcast transmissions....

....and Mr. Lemur...you link in your post is kaput.


----------



## bakerfall (Aug 23, 2006)

cadjoe said:


> 50" Projection* LCD *? Interesting model u have there.


Uhm, LCD Projection is a very popular form of rear projection. Instead of an old school CRT Projection TV, LCD panels are used. Much like DLP is also projection.


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

cadjoe said:


> 50" Projection* LCD *? Interesting model u have there.


Why is that? Rear projection LCDs are pretty much as popular as DLP sets. Maybe you thought I meant an actual 50" LCD instead of a projection LCD?


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> TNT HD is not exactly the role model for HD broadcast transmissions....
> 
> ....and Mr. Lemur...you link in your post is kaput.


The link doesnt work for you? What does it say? Wierd, it works for me. :lol:


----------



## 69RoadRunner (Feb 17, 2006)

Pragmatic Lemur said:


> The link doesnt work for you? What does it say? Wierd, it works for me. :lol:


Here's what I get (see attachment).


----------



## dervari (Dec 1, 2005)

Same here on the link....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

When you click on the link, just refresh the page when it gives you the forbidden error. It's blocking external referrers.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> When you click on the link, just refresh the page when it gives you the forbidden error. It's blocking external referrers.


Nope - doesn't work either.

Plus...since I've seen HD on TNT for a while, I'm not sure this will be any kind of viable reference information anyway....


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nope - doesn't work either.


I'm sorry, not refresh. You have to click Go to reload the page. Refreshing sends the same referrer information.


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm sorry, not refresh. You have to click Go to reload the page. Refreshing sends the same referrer information.


So then you did get it to work?

Try this one


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

OK. I got it to work - wow - that is one ugly picture - not just the TV image...the whole picture has horrible color, clarity, and overall is hard on the eyes.


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> OK. I got it to work - wow - that is one ugly picture - not just the TV image...the whole picture has horrible color, clarity, and overall is hard on the eyes.


HAHA yeah, i have a pretty shi*y camera. Sorry about that. I promise though... It really looked great.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Pragmatic Lemur said:


> HAHA yeah, i have a pretty shi*y camera. Sorry about that. I promise though... It really looked great.


He -he. :hurah:

I understand...I take a fair number of digital camera shots of screen shots and other pictures as well - fortunately, my camera is a very good one. That said, without a digital capture of the screen via a PC image or something similar, its really hard to judge any photo images of screen quality. Its a picture of a picture...

Bottom line, TNT HD is the last of my HD channels I'd use to judge HD picture quality. ESPN, HDNet, and Discovery are about the best, with nominal difference in ESPN2HD and HDNet Movies. Local Channels are typically excellent too.


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> He -he. :hurah:
> 
> I understand...I take a fair number of digital camera shots of screen shots and other pictures as well - fortunately, my camera is a very good one. That said, without a digital capture of the screen via a PC image or something similar, its really hard to judge any photo images of screen quality. Its a picture of a picture...
> 
> Bottom line, TNT HD is the last of my HD channels I'd use to judge HD picture quality. ESPN, HDNet, and Discovery are about the best, with nominal difference in ESPN2HD and HDNet Movies. Local Channels are typically excellent too.


I guess what I was trying to say was that I was shocked to see TNT HD look so good. I know it isn't normall that good since it plays movies that are crap resolution, and then they just stretch and upscale them. But the 5th element really looked great, it shocked me. Oh, and my favorite HD channel to watch is CBS. My CBS is almost always in 1080i and everything looks amazing on that channel.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

it did look pretty good on my set as well... nascar looks worse in 1080i because the interlacing messes with the picture on fast moving shots.. looked better on fox in 720p (and better coverage, nbc's stinks)


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TNT HD looks OK much of the time here as well...but in the big picture, it is the weakest HD offering in the HD channel stable.


----------



## gtaker (Aug 19, 2006)

Direct TV needs to be sued for the HR20-700 it's a piece of crap stick with your Tivo HR10-250


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

gtaker said:


> Direct TV needs to be sued for the HR20-700


Only in America... :nono2:


----------



## stuart628 (Jul 8, 2004)

gtaker said:


> Direct TV needs to be sued for the HR20-700 it's a piece of crap stick with your Tivo HR10-250


this guys new goal in life is to bash the HR20-700 I am sure the Mods will clean this up soon!


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

gtaker said:


> Direct TV needs to be sued for the HR20-700 it's a piece of crap stick with your Tivo HR10-250


I actually like mine. I can't run HDMI, but I am patient enough to use component for now. Besides that, no complaints here.


----------



## DCSholtis (Aug 7, 2002)

gtaker said:


> Direct TV needs to be sued for the HR20-700 it's a piece of crap stick with your Tivo HR10-250


WOW he signed up here just to post _THAT???_. Helluva contribution there gtaker. :sure: Mustve taken you what?? 2-3 minutes to come up with it huh?


----------



## Pragmatic Lemur (Sep 20, 2006)

DCSholtis said:


> WOW he signed up here just to post _THAT???_. Helluva contribution there gtaker. :sure: Mustve taken you what?? 2-3 minutes to come up with it huh?


He just keeps saying the same thing over and over. Pretty much a troll.


----------



## jedster (Sep 20, 2006)

I am blown away at how bad the PQ is on D* with tonight's MNF broadcast. Does anybody have cable to compare it with? I am seriously going to order cable tomorrow if it turns out that the PQ ESPNHD tonight was significantly lower than cable. To me, the PQ looks worse than 480p -- yes it is higher resolution, but the compression artificats are awful. Yuck.


----------



## diagoro (Aug 17, 2006)

I've also been extremely tired of poor sd quality, primarily with soccer and basketball on he local Fox Sports channel and FS World/soccer. It can be tough to enjoy when you can't even tell what the players ersey # or name is.............


----------



## perilous (Sep 4, 2006)

Plus, on Sunday Ticket, just TRY to watch an SD game (because its not in HD) like the Miami game or the Ravens game -- it was darn near unwatchable on my Mitsubishi Diamond!!!!

HD-Lite and "though a fisheye lens" SD for Sunday Ticket/Superfan...what a combination!!!...Plus, I have to pay extra for this "exclusive" quality.

Please, no replies saying "if you don't like it, leave" -- who else has ST????


----------

