# While we're waiting for HD, how about just better SD for now?



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

If Dish has all this capacity on the 129 satellite for HD, then why don't they broadcast some of the most viewed SD channels via MPEG4 (in SD) so that the picture quality is better than the old MPEG2 channels off of 110/119?

It seems that a lot of people are requesting CNN-HD, Comedy Central, etc. in high definition. Then, people say, "Well, they don't have a lot of HD content on those channels right now." Fine... but I bet a lot of people would be satisfied with a better quality SD channel--at least until these channels start carrying more HD content.

Now I'm not talking about just taking a channel, adding strech-o-vision, and then calling it HD. That's annoying. Just same channel, aspect ratio... but with less compression so that there is less pixelation.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

sure would be nice...tired of SD channels looking like crap...but i have a feeling we are about to see a barrage of "E* wont stoop to that level" replys....


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

texaswolf said:


> sure would be nice...tired of SD channels looking like crap...but i have a feeling we are about to see a barrage of "E* wont stoop to that level" replys....


I just can't believe that you are continuing to fill threads with comments about how unhappy you are with E*. You keep repeating yourself in different threads. D* is just a phone call away. Please switch providers already.


----------



## texaswolf (Oct 18, 2007)

richiephx said:


> I just can't believe that you are continuing to fill threads with comments about how unhappy you are with E*. You keep repeating yourself in different threads. D* is just a phone call away. Please switch providers already.


I just can't believe you pick and choose threads, i have praised them also and recommended others to stay with them at other times.....i'd get off the super supporter bandwagon and take a look around...now..try not to interrupt anymore threads that are on a topic.

and by the way, i was referring to SD channels...not only E* SD channels...i think it would be good of any company that has bandwith to do it...and does not have the HD version of a channel yet, to "upgrade" to a better picture for customers.


----------



## PTown (Aug 18, 2007)

Think about how many SD mpeg2 boxes there are out there... millions, it would cost a whole heck of a lot of money to upgrade those SD only subs to mpeg4 boxes for a few SD channels.

Also, not sure there is much capacity left on 129, besides it has enough problems of its own already.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

PTown said:


> Think about how many SD mpeg2 boxes there are out there... millions, it would cost a whole heck of a lot of money to upgrade those SD only subs to mpeg4 boxes for a few SD channels.
> 
> Also, not sure there is much capacity left on 129, besides it has enough problems of its own already.


Correct on switching out the boxes, however IF they (or D*) had the bandwidth available, its possible they could up the bit rate on the SD channels even in Mpeg 2. That would help alot. May not be feasable for them in their situation though. who knows


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

PTown said:


> Think about how many SD mpeg2 boxes there are out there... millions, it would cost a whole heck of a lot of money to upgrade those SD only subs to mpeg4 boxes for a few SD channels.


I learned a lesson in this regard. I actually purchased an 811 (Mpeg2) unit only to see it go obsolete in two months when E* started offering Mpeg4. Alas, such is the world. Technology does not stand still. What's state of the art today, is limited technology tomorrow. The leason? Lease, don't buy.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Where does everyone get the idea that Dish (or DirecTV for that matter) have unused bandwidth? Especially for their SD feeds, which are on the same satellites as always? DirecTV has available bandwidth on their HD birds, but that's only useful for folks with MPEG v4 HD equipment, and will be used to add more HD channels as those networks come online in HD. DishNetwork doesn't have any significant "excess capacity" on 129 either, or they'd be adding more HD channels to better compete with DirecTV. Dish can't really do anything until they can get some new HD satellites in the sky (years away at this point; remember it took DirecTV more than 3 years from when they ordered their birds to get them in the sky and working) or acquire existing satellite assets.


----------



## YZFBossman (Aug 20, 2007)

IIP said:


> Dish can't really do anything until they can get some new HD satellites in the sky (years away at this point; remember it took DirecTV more than 3 years from when they ordered their birds to get them in the sky and working) or acquire existing satellite assets.


Don't they have some birds in line to launch....

I understand they will be up early next year (2008).....is that still true.

I hope it is...we need E* and D* to battle it out so we get more HD from them all.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

SD is just poor resolution period, it was good in its day and when you start trying to compare it to HD, (even if you think your not) it's never going to look good..

Plus the problem is made worse on some TV sets over others. And since there is 60 years or so of SD footage in the can, your going to be watching it some fashion for years to come.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

YZFBossman said:


> Don't they have some birds in line to launch....
> 
> I understand they will be up early next year (2008).....is that still true.
> 
> I hope it is...we need E* and D* to battle it out so we get more HD from them all.


Still scheduled for 08(as far as i know). They had to delay it due to circumstances outside of their controll, but its still going up


----------



## PTown (Aug 18, 2007)

msmith198025 said:


> Correct on switching out the boxes, however IF they (or D*) had the bandwidth available, its possible they could up the bit rate on the SD channels even in Mpeg 2. That would help alot. May not be feasable for them in their situation though. who knows


Thats what I was thinking also, but I bet those birds are close or already running at maximum efficiency and capacity.

I bet the original poster was thinking mpeg4=higher compression that will free up some more space to add that increased bandwidth to sd channels. However I'm not a huge fan of high compression transmissions.


----------



## tedb3rd (Feb 2, 2006)

I was under the impression that future/new HD channels would be on the 129 satellite and in MPEG4. I was thinking--why doesn't Dish send 2 signals of channels they anticipate to add as HD in the future. 1) The standard MPEG2 channel we already receive and; 2) an MPEG4 (standard def) equivalent off of the 129 that has less compression and, therefore, better picture quality. ...kinda like they do with the networks that carry the same content/same time on their HD and SD channels (I think History Channel is one like that?).

It would be nice to see some of the national channels make the improvement like I saw when my locals went from SD/MPEG2 to HD/MPEG4... even for the shows that are actually recorded and broadcast in SD appear a lot better. I realize that it might not be improved as much... but a 50% improvement even would be noticeable on some channels.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

tedb3rd said:


> I was under the impression that future/new HD channels would be on the 129 satellite and in MPEG4. I was thinking--why doesn't Dish send 2 signals of channels they anticipate to add as HD in the future. 1) The standard MPEG2 channel we already receive and; 2) an MPEG4 (standard def) equivalent off of the 129 that has less compression and, therefore, better picture quality. ...kinda like they do with the networks that carry the same content/same time on their HD and SD channels (I think History Channel is one like that?).


There is hardly any room on 129 now (not to mention its problems staying pointed at the Earth). Why do you think E* isn't able to add new HD channels to keep up with D*? The announced sats are replacing existing sats; they won't be adding HD capacity. E* won't be able to add significant capacity unless they either lease space on _another_ sat (no announcements have been made to this effect), or until they launch a sat that hasn't been announced yet.

D* isn't any different in this regard: they don't have excess capacity on their SD birds either (to increase channel bandwidth). They are trying to get their subs to replace their old MPEG2 HD receivers with new MPEG4 receivers, because they are planning to move the legacy MPEG 2 HD channels to the Ka birds soon. This will free up 6 transponders, but they will be used to consolidate the remaining SD programming, such as moving International channels to 110 or 119 from the FSS 95 sat. In other words, they will be replacing the old HD channels with more SD channels, NOT re-dividing the bandwidth to reduce compression artifacts.


----------

