# Has anyone calculated how many HD channels could be added if NO SD channels?



## RVRambler (Dec 5, 2004)

With the obvious HD ch limit being imposed on all of our beloved sports (& non sports), wonder how much Bandwidth/channels we would have with no 'E./W. array' redundancies and NO SD channels?

(obviously this will not happen as there are some ppl that 'do not see/hear any difference' between SD or HD or just don't care, and all those legacy SD rcvrs still at work)

One can only wish! All those satellites and still not enough BW!

==
PS: I think I am getting to like such a glacially slow EPG on my 722k, I press EPG button, get up, go to restroom, relieve myself, go to kitchen make eats or drinks, go out kick the dog, come back, minutes later EPG is finally up! Then, of course, if I desire a time not on screen, I press ->, I get to do it all over again!, life and slow ass dish EPG is so Grand!! If only I could quick-nap!

PPS: But your honor, how could I have killed him, I pressed the EPG button on my 722k looking for a specific ball game, how could I possibly have had enough time to murder that Dish EPG s/w programmer fixing all those C++ memory leaks & BloatBuster addons and be back to set up that timer? How???


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The first part is easy ... with no east/west arc redundancies we could have twice as many channels. We would also need twice as many dishes and a switch that could handle all the inputs.

The second part ... how much HD if there was no SD ... 232 more channels (roughly). Of course if DISH did go HD only they would need to replace millions of receivers not capable of tuning HD channels or give up most of their customers. Neither is a good option.

SD will be around for a while.


----------



## Jhon69 (Mar 28, 2006)

James Long said:


> The first part is easy ... with no east/west arc redundancies we could have twice as many channels. We would also need twice as many dishes and a switch that could handle all the inputs.
> 
> The second part ... how much HD if there was no SD ... 232 more channels (roughly). Of course if DISH did go HD only they would need to replace millions of receivers not capable of tuning HD channels or give up most of their customers. Neither is a good option.
> 
> SD will be around for a while.


I find this question and answer an interesting one because I am now HD(since 5-7-2011),but when I had an SDTV (I still have one in the bedroom) I was and am still watching the HD channels.Why? because the HD channels have better PQ,the colors are deeper,the definition is clearer on a HD channel on a SDTV.Are there black bars on the top and bottom?,sure(unless you stretch it?Ouch! That's worse), but you learn to ignore that because the PQ is better.

Heck! even when I am watching a Bluray movie on some movies there are black bars on top and bottom(and my HDTV is definitely Widescreen).So you learn to live with it to watch a better quality picture.

What I find interesting is that some channels local and satellite broadcast in 4:3 HD?,What the hell is up with that?.Thought all HD was supposed to be Widescreen!.:nono2::eek2:


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Jhon69 said:


> What I find interesting is that some channels local and satellite broadcast in 4:3 HD?,What the hell is up with that?.Thought all HD was supposed to be Widescreen!.:nono2::eek2:


Nothing says HD has to be widescreen.

If you don't want those black bars just distort the image to fill the screen or Zoom it until the black bars are gone.

Or are the one person that liked Stretch-O-Vision?

So to make you happy should they take a movie that was shot in 4:3 AR and trim off the top and bottom til it fits a widescreen display?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jhon69 said:


> Heck! even when I am watching a Bluray movie on some movies there are black bars on top and bottom(and my HDTV is definitely Widescreen).So you learn to live with it to watch a better quality picture.


We call that "original aspect ratio". Theatrical movies are often wider than 16:9. In order to keep the full picture and not do a vertical stretch it becomes letterboxed. It is a good thing.



Jhon69 said:


> What I find interesting is that some channels local and satellite broadcast in 4:3 HD?,What the hell is up with that?.Thought all HD was supposed to be Widescreen!.:nono2::eek2:


HD does not have to be 16:9 but what you are likely seeing are 4:3 shows (or the "SD" versions of the shows) upconverted to HD for broadcast. Fortunately that practice is slowly going away as more HD sources are used in television.

I occasionally notice issues on the news with playback of clips from other stations or from sports. The station will take clips recorded in 16:9 and play them back squeezed to 4:3 (really tall skinny people). They need to keep better track of their source aspect ratio and respect it. The better channels respect the aspect ratio.


----------

