# MHD - Up-converted?????????



## Austin316 (Dec 9, 2007)

I was watching there videos in HD show and some of the videos were defiantly in HD, while others look like crap. So is MHD upconverting some content to fill in, it could be worst and be stretch o vision but I was a little disappointed at the fact that it looks like up converted content and not true HD. though I have seen things on MHD that look amazing. So I really dont know if there upconverting content or if it just the way it filmed. Anyone have any insight on it.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

Looks like they are doing it right.
HD in 16:9 and SD in 4:3 
Is that such a cardinal sin?
The videos are shot by a third party. If they only show HD videos that would cut the content down tremendously. Every one of the live concerts I have watched were HD.


----------



## Austin316 (Dec 9, 2007)

ssmith10pn said:


> Looks like they are doing it right.
> HD in 16:9 and SD in 4:3
> Is that such a cardinal sin?
> The videos are shot by a third party. If they only show HD videos that would cut the content down tremendously. Every one of the live concerts I have watched were HD.


My point being why have a show on MHD called Videos in High Def when they are showing upconverted SD. That is not HD. Not all the videos are that way only some. I just would of thought a they all should be in high def because the show was called videos in high def. Not SD vid we upconveted.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

I agree it's not all HD. But how is it upconverted? 
It's only using the 480x480 part of the screen.

I'm thinking all of the HD broadcasters should use the bars like ESPN and NBC Nightly news uses. That would take all of the confusion out.


----------



## Austin316 (Dec 9, 2007)

ssmith10pn said:


> I agree it's not all HD. But how is it upconverted?
> It's only using the 480x480 part of the screen.
> 
> I'm thinking all of the HD broadcasters should use the bars like ESPN and NBC Nightly news uses. That would take all of the confusion out.


Again your missing the point it one thing to show videos that are not HD on MHD but to have its own show called Videos in High Def I expect them all to be in High Def. It would be like buying a bottle of coke but instead of getting 100-% there is some damn pepsi in there to ruine the experience.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Austin316 said:


> Again your missing the point it one thing to show videos that are not HD on MHD but to have its own show called Videos in High Def I expect them all to be in High Def. It would be like buying a bottle of coke but instead of getting 100-% there is some damn pepsi in there to ruine the experience.


This is confusing to me. You are ok with MHD being an HD channel that sometimes is not HD... but are complaining when their HD video block doesn't have all HD videos in it?

Isn't that a conflicting viewpoint?

I would understand complaints about the channel itself not always being HD... but once you are ok with it sometimes not being HD, that seems to cancel out the other argument you are making.


----------



## Austin316 (Dec 9, 2007)

I dont have a problem with HD channels not being 100% HD for the time being as I do expect them to be full HD eventually.

But I do have an issue with them labeling HD content that not HD.

It would be like TBS saying all our shows are in HD 

So yes I take issues with a show called Videos in High Def, where I wouldnt if it was just called Videos.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Austin316 said:


> I dont have a problem with HD channels not being 100% HD for the time being as I do expect them to be full HD eventually.
> 
> But I do have an issue with them labeling HD content that not HD.
> 
> ...


You could hold that expectation to any channel labeled HD....and it goes back to the old argument seen many times here....

Some say a channel should not be labeled HD unless it shows 24/7 HD.

Some say as long as a channel shows HD content on it, it can be labeled HD.

It's a matter of opinion. I don't watch MHD all that much, but every time i have turned it on, it is in HD, as someone else sated, all of the concerts I have seen are HD...which is a nice choice to have if Rave isn't showing a concert you like.

Me personally, I feel that when they label a channel HD, that means they are going to show HD content on that channels as much as they can...but not everything is shot in HD yet.....


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> You could hold that expectation to any channel labeled HD....and it goes back to the old argument seen many times here....
> 
> Some say a channel should not be labeled HD unless it shows 24/7 HD.
> 
> ...


You and I share the same opinion. Our NBC doesn't have HD 24/7 but it's still an HD channel to me.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

braven said:


> You and I share the same opinion. Our NBC doesn't have HD 24/7 but it's still an HD channel to me.


I agree with 100% with that


----------



## Tenor (Sep 3, 2007)

I don't watch MHD all the time, but when I do, the picture quality is excellent. As a matter of fact, I've been recording several performances to use as a demo. Smithsonian HD is also excellent.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Tenor said:


> Smithsonian HD is also excellent.


SUUUUREEE...rub it in.....lol


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

It is near impossible to be all HD 24/7. There is just not enough material out there to cover it for all of the HD channels. Over time there will be less SD but it will never disappear because there is too much material since the film & video has been made. The thing the OP asked is should a show calling itself HD videos have any upconverted videos. I saw not really but then they probably have the same problem that they can't find enough to fill the time slot.


----------



## bartendress (Oct 8, 2007)

Austin316 said:


> ... some of the videos were defiantly in HD...


in HD whether we like it or not?

I found this funny given the context of this thread.


----------



## Tenor (Sep 3, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> SUUUUREEE...rub it in.....lol


At first, I was wondering what you were talking about. Then, I realized I was in the Dish forum. Sorry guys! I'm out of here!


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> It is near impossible to be all HD 24/7.


Except... (wait for it)... the Voom channels are 24/7 HD


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> It is near impossible to be all HD 24/7. There is just not enough material out there to cover it for all of the HD channels. Over time there will be less SD but it will never disappear because there is too much material since the film & video has been made. The thing the OP asked is should a show calling itself HD videos have any upconverted videos. I saw not really but then they probably have the same problem that they can't find enough to fill the time slot.


i suppose they can get away with the same thing...technically...there _were_ HD videos shown.....lol


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Tenor said:


> At first, I was wondering what you were talking about. Then, I realized I was in the Dish forum. Sorry guys! I'm out of here!


It's cool man...at least we know what we are missing now



> Except... (wait for it)... the Voom channels are 24/7 HD


BADA BING! there it is...i was waiting for it!:lol:


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HDMe said:


> Except... (wait for it)... the Voom channels are 24/7 HD


I said nearly impossible I think that is making my point. How many full time HD channels are there, less than 2 dozen. And these have a limited amount of source for their channels. That is why there has to be all the repeats. It is slow for them to get new material.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> I said nearly impossible I think that is making my point. How many full time HD channels are there, less than 2 dozen. And these have a limited amount of source for their channels. That is why there has to be all the repeats. It is slow for them to get new material.


not counting VOOM channels. i don't think there is any 24/7 HD yet...maybe HDnet....but i think i remember seeing something stretchy on there before


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> not counting VOOM channels. i don't think there is any 24/7 HD yet...maybe HDnet....but i think i remember seeing something stretchy on there before


HDnet, HDnet movies, and HD th. are 3 i have never seen anything other than HD on, I would be really suprised if they had stretched, but hey, who knows. I just thought that was kind of the point with those three.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> HDnet, HDnet movies, and HD th. are 3 i have never seen anything other than HD on, I would be really suprised if they had stretched, but hey, who knows. I just thought that was kind of the point with those three.


oh yeah i forgot about HDnet movies...but HD theater i have seen stretched on...i remember thinking what the hell....it was only once...but i also dont watch it that much...and it wasn't anything good anyway.

Regardless i don't care if they do every once in awhile...as long as the good stuff is HD


----------



## Austin316 (Dec 9, 2007)

I think everyone is missing the point. I am fine if mhd does not show all HD content. As long as it labeled as such. I have a problem with a show called videos in HD. If your going to have a show called Videos in HD they better all be in HD. 

I thought a better example of this it would be like watching Law and Order in HD on NBC having it go to commerical break and when it came back it was in upconverted SD signal with the bars on the side , then next scene is in HD and back to upconverted SD. Your expecting Law and order HD not Law and order hd some of the show rest of it upconverted. Like I said I am targeting just the videos in HD show on MHD, not the many concerts and other programing that is in hd.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

I would suspect that the signal they are providing is 1080i so technically it is an HD broadcast. The source material may not have been "filmed" in HD.... some may consider this "artsy" or "nostalgic" 

FWIW I don't see it as any diff. then any channel that claims to be HD to be broadcasting a source that is not in HD.... such as the channel TNT in HD.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

Austin316 said:


> I think everyone is missing the point. I am fine if mhd does not show all HD content. As long as it labeled as such. I have a problem with a show called videos in HD.


But there *were* videos in HD, right?


> If your going to have a show called Videos in HD they better all be in HD.


Then it would be called "Nothing but HD videos"

Im kidding, i know what you are saying...it's just something you'll see for a while until there is much more HD out there.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

texaswolf said:


> But there *were* videos in HD, right?
> 
> Then it would be called "Nothing but HD videos"
> 
> Im kidding, i know what you are saying...it's just something you'll see for a while until there is much more HD out there.


I agree.


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

I just watched 3 hours of MHD I recorded on 12/31 at 3AM Eastern.
The title of the show was HD Videos.
Out of three hours of video music ONE that's *ONE* video was 4:3 and that was Bon Jovi "Have a nice day" so I have no idea what all the b1tching is about. :nono:


----------

