# Class action progressing on HD pix quality



## kckucera (Aug 1, 2005)

Looks like the D* HD picture quality class action has taken a turn for the worse for them. This thread on the D* side http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvlawsuit092006.htm

Does anyone know if E* has been sued on the same issue?


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

kckucera said:


> Looks like the D* HD picture quality class action has taken a turn for the worse for them. This thread on the D* side http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvlawsuit092006.htm
> 
> Does anyone know if E* has been sued on the same issue?


We may have HD Lite but it is as good or better than D*. The suit is claiming that the customer was sent an amended agreement after he was a sub to them. We have not been sent such an agreement and so what we have is what we were promised. To file a suit under this type of case then it would have to be proved that we are getting a signal that isn't as good as the competitor. Which would be D* so it would be provable that we are getting at least the same quality as they are sending out. I would like to see us get full HD but with the bandwidth limitations right now I'm not sure that they can do any better. Maybe once they get the MPEG 4 fully working thing will get even better but HD Lite is an approved standard right now. Even as it is we are getting a quality and number of channels that are far excedding any of the other carriers of HDTV. That includes digital calbe companies. Most of the cable companies only cary a handful of channels just like D* does.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"HD Lite is an approved standard right now" ? By whom ?


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

True HD is 1920 x 1080i/p or 1280 x 720p.....period


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

P Smith said:


> "HD Lite is an approved standard right now" ? By whom ?


In the MPEG standards there are 2 standards for HD for 1080 and 1 for 720 p. The 2 are 1920 x 1152 and 1440 x 1152 they are both considered acceptable. The 1st is know as High and the 2nd is High-1440. I'm looking at it on the Tektronix MPEG-2 Fundamentals for Broadcast and Post Production Engineers: A Video and Networking Division White Paper (July, 1996). So until I see some documentation to prove otherwise I will trust the statements of the Tektronix engineers.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Will be helpfull to check ATSC _standard_ also. Latest one. Not ancient white paper from past what doesn't have legal base in the class action.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Will be helpfull to check ATSC _standard_ also. Latest one. Not ancient white paper from past what doesn't have legal base in the class action.


The present standard on the ATSC site for DBS is stated on page 17 table 7.3. In it there are 3. 1080 x 1920, 1080 x 1440, & 1080 x 1280 for both interlaced and progressive scan. This is the present standard and paper is dated 30 July 2003. 720 x 1280 is the only standard rate for 720p. These are for MPEG 2 not for 4. Those will be different but not stated in the paper. BTW there are 13 standards for 480, not going to list them.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

There is also the precedent set by the overcompression/downconversion of the SD programming.... for years and I can't recall a lawsuit that we aren't getting "what they promise" for SD... so likely this will be used as evidence to support that most customers feel they are getting their money's worth.

Not saying I agree... but also not saying this whole lawsuit scenario is the right way to go. Only lawyers win in these class-action things, because we get a PPV coupon or something after all is said and done.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

I'll go out on a limb and say that I don't think this is going anywhere, and if it does, all its going to do is make it harder for Satellite to compete with cable because they could be forced to provide addtional bandwidth for channels that will prevent them from adding new programming. There has to be a balance somewhere..

And as noted, all these suits really do is enrich lawyers, and the end user gets little or nothing, and many may even think that there isn't anything wrong with the picture in the first place


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

whatchel1 said:


> The present standard on the ATSC site for DBS is stated on page 17 table 7.3. In it there are 3. 1080 x 1920, 1080 x 1440, & 1080 x 1280 for both interlaced and progressive scan. This is the present standard and paper is dated 30 July 2003. 720 x 1280 is the only standard rate for 720p. These are for MPEG 2 not for 4. Those will be different but not stated in the paper. BTW there are 13 standards for 480, not going to list them.


Those number related to nonsquare pixels; if you not aware but all LCD,DLP,DILA,plasma,LCoS,SED displays have square pixels. I'm pretty sure those formats directed to CRT models what could handle not 1:1 ratio per pixel.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

normang said:


> I'll go out on a limb and say that I don't think this is going anywhere, and if it does, all its going to do is make it harder for Satellite to compete with cable because they could be forced to provide addtional bandwidth for channels that will prevent them from adding new programming. There has to be a balance somewhere..
> 
> And as noted, all these suits really do is enrich lawyers, and the end user gets little or nothing, and many may even think that there isn't anything wrong with the picture in the first place


Would you concider to see honest ( at least by standard ) ads ? Like "subHD" or "HD-Lite".
Do you remember recent misguiding TV ads - everything was HDTV. Now after kick in right direction, you and other ppl could distinguish EDTV, HDTV, monitors and full featured TV sets.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

When are Coke and Pepsi going to start advertising that they are Coke-lite and Pepsi-lite? They haven't used pure cane sugar in years, and it tastes different than when real sugar is used... so we aren't getting "what we are promised" there either... but no uproar.

Honestly, while I would like full-resolution HDTV... we just aren't getting it. Even OTA is compressing, and I don't see a class-action suit against local channels or national networks... and nobody is suing ESPN or TNT or other cable/satellite channels for providing upconverted programming on their HD channels...

This is just another case of lawyer-litigation-happy people who don't know how to handle their business. IF all the people who hate this "HDLite" so much would just stop paying for it, then either the companies would re-evaluate their business model and improve OR we would know for sure how many people really don't mind.

Also true that we never got the highest quality of the SD signals in the past from cable or satellite... because if we did, the dramatic difference in HD wouldn't have been as dramatic since our old TVs are capable of better picture quality than we usually send to them.

Again, I would like full HD with as little compression as possible... but I don't feel like anyone is cheating me because I can look at the picture and decide for myself to keep it or not, and I know a lawsuit is going nowhere.


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

Some how I think we were all better off when there was no high def and we didn't know the difference . AHHH Yes the 90's a simplier time when analog was king and to have a better picture all you needed was a progressive dvd player. And when I think of all the years when I watched vcr and never knew that the picture quality was lower than dvd or sat tv or ota tv. 

The real hope for satellite customers lies in mpeg 4 compression. Hopefully when they get more bandwith savings from the encoders we will be able to add more hd and in better picture quality. Once all the channels are in mpeg 4 we might have the best picture quality we have seen since we first got satellite tv back in 95. But I could be wrong. 


IF satellite doesn't have some kind of hook for the future they will continue to lose customers to cable and other providers. The best Picture Quality and the most high def channels available in both national and local would be the hook that a lot of picture quality folks would go for. This might be achived by better encoders or even a possible merger of the two sat companies which we can all see coming in the next few years.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

For sure, there is one big problem - WITHOUT PUBLICITY you will NEVER change companies.
We have enough facts for that.

And your chilling down position will not bring anything positive to us, customers !


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> IF all the people who hate this "HDLite" so much would just stop paying for it,


I strongly suspect that the number that would drop HD service because of this would be less than 1%.


----------



## dude2 (May 28, 2006)

When will we get full mepeg4 compression and when we do will the dvr 622 have 60 hours of hd storage instead of 30?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Oh man ! Have you some respect to forum's rules !?:backtotop


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

P Smith said:


> Would you concider to see honest ( at least by standard ) ads ? Like "subHD" or "HD-Lite".
> Do you remember recent misguiding TV ads - everything was HDTV. Now after kick in right direction, you and other ppl could distinguish EDTV, HDTV, monitors and full featured TV sets.


Must have missed those ads.. I don't think a lawsuit will accomplish anything. If it does anything, it will probably make something cost more. And pay TV costs enough now.

While I would be nice if everything were perfect, there was unlimited bandwidth, Satellites filled the skies to cover every DMA, and everything was 1080i or 1080p heaven, but unfortunately, its not. Probably never will be. Some networks don't even deliver 1080, only 720.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Those number related to nonsquare pixels; if you not aware but all LCD,DLP,DILA,plasma,LCoS,SED displays have square pixels. I'm pretty sure those formats directed to CRT models what could handle not 1:1 ratio per pixel.


The ratios I gave came straight off the ATSC standards table. I was not relating it to square or rectangles just quoting from the table I stated. That is why I gave the chart number for anyone that wants to read through the standards. I had been asked to use newer data so I got it straight off the ATSC website for the present Direct to Home Satellite standard. No more, No less just the present standards.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Well, those papers suppose to be read, not just for pointing a finger .


----------



## nazz (May 4, 2006)

What about the magic bitrate which has a huge impact on PQ?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> "HD Lite is an approved standard right now" ? By whom ?


When the biggest player in an industry does something one way, it becomes a "de facto" standard. That DirecTV is using 1280x1080 for all of their 1080i channels and Dish Network is using it for the Voom channels is certainly enough to establish HD Lite as a part of the DBS industry standard.

Of course we often lament such standards because that's what brought DOS and Windows to prominance.

DBS has always been different from broadcast. At one time or another those differences have even been celebrated. Understand that you can't hide behind ATSC standards in the DBS industry.

I think if you look around, you may well find that some cable operators are also delivering 1080i content in HD Lite.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

nazz said:


> What about the magic bitrate which has a huge impact on PQ?


The necessary bitrate is entirely dependent on the pixel count. Of course you need to be concerned that it isn't a direct proportion as the reduced count starts taking away detail. If you halve the resolution, you may only be able to cut the bitrate by 20-30% without noticable degradation.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

harsh said:


> The necessary bitrate is entirely dependent on the pixel count. Of course you need to be concerned that it isn't a direct proportion as the reduced count starts taking away detail. If you halve the resolution, you may only be able to cut the bitrate by 20-30% without noticable degradation.


Its much more complicated than that. And, if working well, MPEG4 bitrate can be up to 1/2 to that of mpeg2 bitrate for the same quality picture.

But I don't think we should allow a defacto lite standard stand. If they can reduce bitrate while presenting a full pixel count and quality picture fine. But neither Pixel count or picture quality should be allowed to deteriorate.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

New article about the suit came out today in both Broadcast Engineer and on the TV Predictions.com
http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvbig092106.htm


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

tnsprin said:


> Its much more complicated than that. And, if working well, MPEG4 bitrate can be up to 1/2 to that of mpeg2 bitrate for the same quality picture.
> 
> But I don't think we should allow a defacto lite standard stand. If they can reduce bitrate while presenting a full pixel count and quality picture fine. But neither Pixel count or picture quality should be allowed to deteriorate.


Personally if a sacrifice HAS to be made... I would prefer the sacrifice resolution over bitrate. On several "HD" channels the picture quality is less impressive with the compression artifacts at 1080i than I get from my progressive scan DVD player at 480p. If they are bandwidth limited and NEED to make cuts to fit the channels, I would prefer less compression and a cleaner picture at a lower resolution than one that is at a high resolution but has a muddy looking picture with lots of macroblocking.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

HDMe said:


> Also true that we never got the highest quality of the SD signals in the past from cable or satellite... because if we did, the dramatic difference in HD wouldn't have been as dramatic since our old TVs are capable of better picture quality than we usually send to them.
> 
> Again, I would like full HD with as little compression as possible... but I don't feel like anyone is cheating me because I can look at the picture and decide for myself to keep it or not, and I know a lawsuit is going nowhere.


Thats about the size of it. Was there any lawsuits over the SD quality for all those years? They touted it as the greatest thing going even though it was far from it.

After all these years of feeding us SD at PQ something less than it otherwise could've been, did anyone really think that when it came to HD they'd suddenly have a change of heart and think they should send out the absolute best PQ they could? Only in an "unlimited" bandwidth world would they ever dream of doing that.

And maybe someday that'll happen. But in the here and now even with the ways of adding bandwidth.. technology and more sats, the bandwidth crunch is greater than ever before.. not only because HD takes so much more, but because they have to do the HD on top of the existing SD way of going about it.

Just about the time they were finally able to offer all the national channels known to man and most everybodies SD locals it was like.. ok now start over again, do the same thing with all the HD channels that take many times the bandwidth. Oh, and you need to leave the SD ones up there while you do it, to boot..


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

grooves12 said:


> Personally if a sacrifice HAS to be made... I would prefer the sacrifice resolution over bitrate. On several "HD" channels the picture quality is less impressive with the compression artifacts at 1080i than I get from my progressive scan DVD player at 480p. If they are bandwidth limited and NEED to make cuts to fit the channels, I would prefer less compression and a cleaner picture at a lower resolution than one that is at a high resolution but has a muddy looking picture with lots of macroblocking.


Don't encourage the HD Lite processing.

There are lots of ways to reduce bitrates and keep up quality. If the program material was recorded and stored as mpeg2/mpeg4 in advance and not done on the fly, a significant decrease in bitrate is possible. If you have ever done any encoding of video on a computer you can see this. This would work well with many programs, but obviously not with live shows. Upgrading the encoders will help (some new ones of the brand some say Dish uses are recently announced), and proper adjustment of the parameters controlling these controllers helps (Dish seems to have made some progress here). Encoding and broadcasting Progressive material as progressive (1080p24 or 1080p30), e.g. films, will also reduce bit rate significantly and can reduce some types of artifacts. Macroblocking is a typical effect with mpeg2 but not usually Mpeg4.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Mr. Swann intentionaly or not but making statement like that "called MPEG 4, which promises cleaner and more detailed images" create false prediction for unexperience ppl. Seen real implementation of new encoding scheme in real life, we got more channels with LESS PQ. That's the fact what show his 'sweetening pill'. I see he did that as attempt to rest on two chairs - our, customer and provider's. Hard to hold your reputation in such position .


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

richiephx said:


> True HD is 1920 x 1080i/p or 1280 x 720p.....period


So you're saying that Dish is sending out true HD? They are sending out a 1920 X 1080i signal.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Nice, here we go again - each time someone jump into the discussion bring naked numbers without any proof. Mr. dave1234 - take your time, read tons of post with pctures, numbers, real info at AVS, SatGuys and here. Before begin typing .


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dave1234 said:


> So you're saying that Dish is sending out true HD? They are sending out a 1920 X 1080i signal.


Yep. My TV is reporting 1920 x 1080i output to my TV 24/7 regardless of what channel I'm watching. Dish HD receivers are sending out true HD. (Although you can set the receivers to less than HD output and there are SD outputs.)

Now if you are talking about transmission within the system, please see the documents whatchel1 is referring to (and I've referred to in previous versions of this arguement). There are standards for transmitting compressed HD via DBS ... both DirecTV and EchoStar are following those standards. "True HD" or not, it follows the standard. If this is too hard to understand I'm sure there will be a dozen more threads arguing the finer points.


----------



## dave1234 (Oct 9, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Nice, here we go again - each time someone jump into the discussion bring naked numbers without any proof. Mr. dave1234 - take your time, read tons of post with pctures, numbers, real info at AVS, SatGuys and here. Before begin typing .


True this gets argued ad nauseum. I was responding to another posters comment about what consitutes true HD. Dish outputs 1920 x 1080i from their HD receivers. I didn't realize there were those on this forum who didn't know that and required proof. For that I apologize.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

dave1234 said:


> True this gets argued ad nauseum. I was responding to another posters comment about what consitutes true HD. Dish outputs 1920 x 1080i from their HD receivers. I didn't realize there were those on this forum who didn't know that and required proof. For that I apologize.


There is a big mouth on the forum that just loves to stir things up. He even will deny the truth of what is done even when shown what is going on with the industry. We right now are getting the best that can be watched. In the future we will be able to get true 1080p which will be the "super standard". The world will be changing to MPEG 4 before long and when the bugs are worked out things are going to be great. Right now we are in a fast changing video world. So just bare with us and watch the beauty unfold and try to just realize there will always be whiners that don't think it is right. When those people start working with the new equipment then they will find out how hard the transition is. These forums are full of whiners and it is a good place to get out the gripes and some of the them will even have good ideas. These ideas will help to advance the features that come to us so just laugh about it when it happens and bare with us.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And on that note ... we end it (with several thoughts removed).
Let's not get into personal battles here.

*Closed*


----------

