# Discovery and TLC HD quality



## twindaddy (Feb 5, 2007)

I just saw "Dirty Jobs" on Discovery HD and "What Not to Wear" on TLC HD. The quality of both of them was very mediocre. Is this to be expected for all content on these channels, or just some of the shows?

Also, I noticed slight black bars on the left and right. Are a lot of shows recorded in 16:10 (or whatever aspect ratio they're using -- more square than 16:9)?


----------



## lpmiller (Mar 8, 2007)

some shows are going to be like that, since they are unconverted from SD cameras.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

The show that you are talking about are older shows. Only the newest episodes of most shows have been shot in HD. We will be seeing upconverted SD for many years in the future.


----------



## lawdawg97 (Aug 17, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> The show that you are talking about are older shows. Only the newest episodes of most shows have been shot in HD. We will be seeing upconverted SD for many years in the future.


1440 x 1080 HDLite


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If the shows were shot in 1440x1080 it isn't "HD Lite" - it is just passing through the best that was available.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> If the shows were shot in 1440x1080 it isn't "HD Lite" - it is just passing through the best that was available.


errr, no....they weren't shot in MPEG4 and they were clearly shot in a higher bitrate that what you are seeing.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

1440X1080 is part of the satellite standard for HD broadcasting.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I wish we didn't have to have the same argument over and over again..

But in this case, the real problem is that these new channels are airing many non-HD programs, so all the "HD-lite" discussions in the world will not change the fact that Dish has no control over the content of these channels, and the channels are not airing HD all the time.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDme we are in agreement on that. Besides if it were 1440 X 1080 It would still fill the screen. Small bars on the side is a give awasy that it is 4 X 3 upconvertion.


----------



## Lincoln6Echo (Jul 11, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> HDme we are in agreement on that. Besides if it were 1440 X 1080 It would still fill the screen. Small bars on the side is a give awasy that it is 4 X 3 upconvertion.


Or that they were shot in a 1.66:1 ratio, rather than a 1.78:1 ratio.


----------



## coldmiser (Mar 10, 2007)

I'm just happy to see Mythbusters and Cash Cab in something better than SD. Mythbusters looked awesome this week.


----------



## DishSubLA (Apr 9, 2006)

And this is why the Direct TV 100 HD channels means a whole lot of upconverted TVLAND (an extreme example, but you know what is meant). Direct TV doesn't want to pay for 24/7 HD Voom channles, so they argue that airing the HD version of well known brand channels (Game Show Network and its stable of SD warhorses in HD is what America really wants, right?) with a bunch of fair quality upconversion is what people want and is what Direct TV is gonna give them.


----------



## twindaddy (Feb 5, 2007)

Did anybody see Blue Planet on Discovery HD? I saw the episode about the deep sea and it suffered from serious compression/blocking artifacts. Questions:

* Did anybody else experience this?

* Is this show more prone to artifacts because of so much low light shooting?

Some of the shots looked decent. Overall, not a mind blowing HD experience. However, the content sure was cool.


----------



## upnorth (Jun 21, 2006)

DishSubLA said:


> And this is why the Direct TV 100 HD channels means a whole lot of upconverted TVLAND (an extreme example, but you know what is meant). Direct TV doesn't want to pay for 24/7 HD Voom channles, so they argue that airing the HD version of well known brand channels (Game Show Network and its stable of SD warhorses in HD is what America really wants, right?) with a bunch of fair quality upconversion is what people want and is what Direct TV is gonna give them.


 
It does not matter who you have E* or D* as more and more HD channels come aboard we are going to see alot of upconverted content untill eventually everything is recorded in HD.


----------



## ubankit (Jan 7, 2005)

twindaddy said:


> Did anybody see Blue Planet on Discovery HD? I saw the episode about the deep sea and it suffered from serious compression/blocking artifacts. Questions:
> 
> * Did anybody else experience this?
> 
> ...


I didn't notice a degraded pq on the episode I recorded, I did notice the copyright in the credits was (IIRC) 2001, so that's an older episode. I could sure tell the difference between it and the more recent "Planet Earth" series. 
While the older programs aren't "DiscoveryHD Theatre" eye popping, they are sure a vast improvement over watching the same sd version.


----------



## twindaddy (Feb 5, 2007)

ubankit said:


> I didn't notice a degraded pq on the episode I recorded, I did notice the copyright in the credits was (IIRC) 2001, so that's an older episode. I could sure tell the difference between it and the more recent "Planet Earth" series.
> While the older programs aren't "DiscoveryHD Theatre" eye popping, they are sure a vast improvement over watching the same sd version.


Agreed, definitely far better than SD. The only thing I can stomach in SD is animation, e.g. South Park.

One of the things I was wondering is how good Discovery HD and TLC HD can look if the content were pristine. For example, if Planet Earth were broadcast on Discovery HD, would it look as good as on DiscoveryHD Theatre? Or, is Dish reducing the bitrate and compression quality for non-showcase channels?


----------



## motts (Apr 11, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> HDme we are in agreement on that. Besides if it were 1440 X 1080 It would still fill the screen. Small bars on the side is a give awasy that it is 4 X 3 upconvertion.


When I watched Mythbusters before the equivalent HD version of the channel came out, I would notice that it was shot in 16:9 format. So, while the commercials and some prgrams may in fact be upconverted (which still look much better than SD) I believe programs such as Mythbusters were shot in the 16:9 ratio.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

motts said:


> When I watched Mythbusters before the equivalent HD version of the channel came out, I would notice that it was shot in 16:9 format. So, while the commercials and some prgrams may in fact be upconverted (which still look much better than SD) I believe programs such as Mythbusters were shot in the 16:9 ratio.


We noticed this on quite a few of the programs we were watching prior to the new HD channels being launched; 'How it's made' on the Science channel was framed the same. Somebody told me they refer to that as 'windowbox'; like a combination of 'letterbox' and 'pillarbox'. To me, when I see this format, it's a sure bet the channel is going to go HD - don't know when but I think it's a step in the right direction!


----------



## lpmiller (Mar 8, 2007)

Being shot in 16:9 is not the same as HD. HD is a not an aspect ratio, it's a level of quality, really. I mean, my 10year old sony camcorder can do 16:9, but it's hi8mm, not digital, and not HD.


----------



## joebird (Sep 15, 2003)

Last night I was recording an episide of Blue Planet. First of all, the quality was nowhere near the Planet Earth stuff shown on Discovery HD Theater. 

I noticed something strange, though. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this -- maybe I just imagined it. The live program filled my entire HDTV screen. But when I played back the recording, it had the small black vertical bars on the left/right edges that are being discussed here.


----------

