# 9456 HBO-HD reduced to HD-LITE



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

I don't usually watch HBO-HD via E* ( C Band is much better) but I noticed on a backup yesterday that 9456 has now been reduced to 1440x1080i.

The more amazing part was the the encoder was so bad that it actually took slightly more data for the HD-LITE than it took for full 1920x1080i off C Band.

So how recently did E* reduce HBO to HD-LITE?


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

within the last week I think....showtime too I think


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Maybe they are getting ready for MPEG 4 feeds of all the HD programming. So they are cutting back on the MPEG 2 versions.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Shouldn't rush - anounced for August.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> Maybe they are getting ready for MPEG 4 feeds of all the HD programming. So they are cutting back on the MPEG 2 versions.


Earlier it was said it was Voom going MPEG4 - not all HD Programming - is it now all HD Programming?

Just more channels I can cut from my E* bill it appears.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Shouldn't rush - anounced for August.


Considering their sloppy encoders are requiring more bandwidth than passing it through natively 1920x1080i, its really quite comical.

In the past they had bit starved 9456 so it had a smaller footprint than HBO with the C Band Distribution.

Now its actually BIGGER than the native 1920x1080i and HD-Lite.

TOO FUNNY.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So are you noticing changes on E* by PQ or are you looking at the numbers?

It looks like you're complaining that E* has given HBO-HD more bandwidth using a different compression technique ... scaling instead of "bit starved". Just a different flavor of "HD Lite" (if you want to use that term).


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Considering their sloppy encoders are requiring more bandwidth than passing it through natively 1920x1080i, its really quite comical.
> 
> In the past they had bit starved 9456 so it had a smaller footprint than HBO with the C Band Distribution.
> 
> ...


How much bandwidth is it for "native" 1080i and how much us the HD-lite ?

I've read the Sky has better PQ using their mpeg4 encoders ... don't know what bitrate they use.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> So are you noticing changes on E* by PQ or are you looking at the numbers?


PQ - I noticed something wasn't right when going between the two and then spent the day checking adjustments on my end before I looked at the actual stream - which in retrospect should have been my first place to look.



James Long said:


> It looks like you're complaining that E* has given HBO-HD more bandwidth using a different compression technique ... scaling instead of "bit starved". Just a different flavor of "HD Lite" (if you want to use that term).


Perhaps you'd like to explain how reducing the resolution and making the end bitrate higher than the original that HBO-HD transmitted in distribution is in any way smart or positive - instead of just passing through the original natively.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

nataraj said:


> How much bandwidth is it for "native" 1080i and how much us the HD-lite ?
> 
> I've read the Sky has better PQ using their mpeg4 encoders ... don't know what bitrate they use.


We are not talking converting MPEG2 to MPEG4 - we are talking reducing MPEG2 and staying in MPEG4.

EDITTED for clarity:

Should read:We are not talking converting MPEG2 to MPEG4 - we are talking reducing MPEG2 and but staying in the MPEG2 format.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> PQ - I noticed something wasn't right when going between the two and then spent the day checking adjustments on my end before I looked at the actual stream - which in retrospect should have been my first place to look.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain how reducing the resolution and making the end bitrate higher than the original that HBO-HD transmitted in distribution is in any way smart or positive - instead of just passing through the original natively.


First off, it is not possible for dish to send a native 1920 x 1080i stream. They are ALL compressed with Mpeg2/Mpeg4 compression before being sent to us, if we would have america's TOP 25/50, and thats it.

But, in most cases, picture wuality IS better if you sacrifice a slight reduction in resolution for reduced compression. Compression artifiacts are more noticable and distracting than lower resolution is. On most displays and viewing distances people can not tell the difference between 720p and 1080i in blind tests... but they can definitely see compression artifacts at any resolution.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

grooves12 said:


> First off, it is not possible for dish to send a native 1920 x 1080i stream. They are ALL compressed with Mpeg2/Mpeg4 compression before being sent to us, if we would have america's TOP 25/50, and thats it.


I am very aware of that. As HBO distributes it in as 1920x1080 MPEG2, it can be passed through without re-encoding though.



grooves12 said:


> But, in most cases, picture wuality IS better if you sacrifice a slight reduction in resolution for reduced compression. Compression artifiacts are more noticable and distracting than lower resolution is. On most displays and viewing distances people can not tell the difference between 720p and 1080i in blind tests... but they can definitely see compression artifacts at any resolution.


Sorry, you don't get better than the original distribution feed by reducing resolution of a 9Mpbs to 14Mbps MPEG2 feed and sending it out at a higher bitrate.

You can't create a masterpiece out of a xerox. If the information (detail) is gone, its gone.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

To attempt to answer your question, here are the loading changes on 110° TP13 (where 9456 currently is) courtesy of TNG Tony:

6/21/07
- 9420 TNT HD moved to TP 7, 9421 DISC HD moved from TP 17
- 9460 SHO HD moved from TP 17
= Four HD streams on TP 13 (9421,9456,9460 and 9467 or other part time HD)

2/28/07
- 9615 HD Business TV added sharing 9467's space

5/19/06
- 9464 NFL HD stops sharing 9467's space and becomes a full time channel on 61.5°/129°

No other changes I can find in 2006-2007.

That means there have been four MPEG2 compatible HD signals on TP13 since June 21st (about 10 days). Prior to that there were three MPEG2 compatible HD signals there.

Perhaps you need to check your bitrates. Four HD signals in MPEG2 would not allow E* to give one of them more bits than the C Band signal you report.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> You can't create a masterpiece out of a xerox. If the information (detail) is gone, its gone.


Perhaps some semantic arguments are creeping in here... but as I've said in a few other threads..

Given that a 1920x1080 signal is sent already compressed via MPEG (either 2 or 4), we are already not getting full resolution. The MPEG algorithm works because it systematically throws away detail and approximates something in between based on studies and statistics.

So... Take a 1920x1080 resolution image sequence... and compare that to 1920x1080 MPEG2 and you have thrown away ALOT of the bits. What you decompress at your receiver is no longer a 1920x1080 image. What is it? I don't know. But I know it isn't 1920x1080 anymore! That is how the encoding works. MPEG is a "lossy" encoding scheme designed to approximate reality but consume far less bandwidth than the actual complete date would need.

So... we would have to do alot more analysis and comparison than I've seen anyone do before we can say what is what.

It is entirely possible that a 1440x1080 signal compressed less and at a higher bitrate is better than a 1920x1080 signal compressed more at the same or lower bitrate. What ends up painted on the TV screen may be virtually the same. You can't just look at the "downrezzed" resolution alone and make grand claims that it is worse. It might be, but it might not.

2 + 2 is not always 4... 2 apples + 2 oranges does not equa 4 apples or 4 oranges! It equals 4 fruits perhaps... but just looking at the numbers without knowing what is being counted is useless information.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

HDMe, I understand what you are saying with regards to comparing apples with apples but justifying a reduction of resolution to 1440 to overcompensate for an already bitstarved/overcompressed 1920 isn't exactly what I as the consumer want. While picture quality will always be subjective, especially to the masses, its hard to argue that that Dish's HD picture quality is today what it was 5 years ago.

While I completely understand that there are many contributing factors to picture quality, perhaps someone (HDTVFanAtic?) has compared HB0-HD feed on 110 (1440) to the one on 148 which supposedly is still at 1920?. While I can look at bit rate numbers, its pretty easy for anyone to see the reduction in picture quality from Dish, just compare a local OTA HD channel to one received from Dish and you will see the effect of their recompression.

If you look back at the trend in dbs, quanity has always replaced quality so I'm not overly optimistic. things are definitely in flux as it remains to be seen what happens to HD picture quality when hbo starts uplinking in mpeg4 so I'm not jumping ship yet. hopefully hbo will mandate no further recompression.

http://www.cedmagazine.com/article.aspx?id=149552


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Really comparing OTA to DBS transmission is another form of apples to oranges comparison. There has to be different things done to the signal that is making the round trip to sat than has to be done in OTA.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> Really comparing OTA to DBS transmission is another form of apples to oranges comparison. There has to be different things done to the signal that is making the round trip to sat than has to be done in OTA.




Please explain how comparing the exact same content shown at the exact same time is not comparing apples to apples? My point was that one doesn't have to look at numbers to see the differences for themselves which are obvious to the naked eye. We both know the cause for the difference between OTA and DBS transmission or the same showing of HBO-HD on Cband vs. DBS but please tell me *why you as a consumer think its OK?*

What I continue to be dissapointed at is the number of people who accept/justify suboptimal HD picture quality. When your customers don't demand or expect a high quality product, why provide one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

rtk said:


> When your customers don't demand or expect a high quality product, why provide one.


That is a good reason in favor of what D* and E* are doing. There are a lot of technophiles on the forums who demand the best possible ... some are just demanding the best numbers possible with no regard to actual quality ... but as usual internet posters are the ones that demand more. Even in situations where they don't know what they are demanding they demand more.

So what customers are demanding a quality higher than what D* and E* are delivering? Not the regular Joes that went to the store, bought a HDTV and connected a HD receiver. As previously reported many of those Joes think blindly that SD looks pretty darn good on their fancy TV sets. The average customer does NOT demand or expect a higher quality than what is being delivered.

But the average customer DOES demand quantity ... that is the battlefield today. D* makes a pass at the quality argument by stating that their channels are in 1080i --- and they are. Just not 1920x1080i. But what matters today is channel count. D*'s alleged 150 HD channel capacity by the end of the year (capacity not actual content) and their claim of having a 100 channel HD package available (which will likely include creative counting). E*'s current 32 channel package. Many cable operators catching up and offering channel counts in the 30s and soon 40s.

Is anyone advertising "we broadcast in 1920x1080i at a high bitrate"? Are those companies succeeding in the business because of their overwhelming quality? Or are the quantity companies doing better?

The only other variable is content ... which is the variable that puts D* ahead of E* if one is looking for the unique content that D* carries or E* ahead of D* if one is looking for E*'s unique content. Regardless of channel count.

Does quality count? To us, yes. But in real life outside this cocoon of technophiles?


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

James,
I completely agree with everything you've said. We can only hope that with the increase in the number of homes that have HD displays, growth of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD and continued competition between the different DBS providers, Cable, Fios, etc. that picture quality again will become a factor. There were hints in some of the press stories about HBO going to mpeg4 that indicated they may mandate no further compression which shows at least they are committed to maintaining a quality product. Irregardless of the outcome, the transition to mpeg4 will be interesting.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

In many ways, the argument of quality over quantity vs what the public says and what they do... is like the "buy American made" campaigns.

If you ask folks, I suspect most polls would indicate that people in the US would prefer to buy American-made products... BUT ultimately, most of us will buy what we can afford and will buy at the best price we can find so we can afford to buy more things. So we may say in a public forum or in a poll that we want American-made... but we will usually buy a cheaper foreign-made product over an American one.

There are always some amount of exceptions of course.

Similar for quantity vs quality... We like to say we want the best quality... and we do... but if Dish has 5 channels at the highest quality possible and DirecTV had 10 channels at a lower quality... people would go to DirecTV for more viewing options most of the time in spite of public protest about wanting more quality.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

I'm not agree with proposed low quality [life] here. VOOM had more HD channels in its time, but failed. So, not only quantity drive ppl on the market.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Voom didn't have enough SDs to make a go of it. They were a bit early to market for a HD centered service. To survive they practically needed every HDTV owner to subscribe. They just couldn't get the subscribership.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

P Smith said:


> I'm not agree with proposed low quality [life] here. VOOM had more HD channels in its time, but failed. So, not only quantity drive ppl on the market.


Saying in a similar but different way as James just did..

Voom didn't know what it wanted to be. It wanted to be all HD only at first... but quickly realized that even if it got every HDTV owner to subscribe, there was not enough customers to support their startup and launch of satellites and everything else involved.

So... then they tried adding SD... but they didn't have all the SD... and Voom cost about the same as other services that had alot more channels.

Once Dish and DirecTV started adding more HD, that put the final nails in the Voom coffin as the only carrot they could dangle was their unique channels... and no one knew enough about those at the time.

So while Voom had more HD... they didn't have more total channels... and again quantity won over quality. Yes, we say we want the best and HD... but we would rather watch our programs in SD than not at all!


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

rtk said:


> Please explain how comparing the exact same content shown at the exact same time is not comparing apples to apples? My point was that one doesn't have to look at numbers to see the differences for themselves which are obvious to the naked eye. We both know the cause for the difference between OTA and DBS transmission or the same showing of HBO-HD on Cband vs. DBS but please tell me *why you as a consumer think its OK?*
> 
> What I continue to be dissapointed at is the number of people who accept/justify suboptimal HD picture quality. When your customers don't demand or expect a high quality product, why provide one.


There is 1 more stage of clean up and amplification inside the sat. That is when comparing OTA to DBS. As far as comparing DBS to C-band it would be similar. Although not sure if they use as much compression on C-band since the GI system is much older. That brings up the point that even the MPEG 2 encoders are being changed out in stations. We are in the process of doing just that. The newer one's are much better. Where did I say that is anything that it's OK. That's why I'm glad to see new far better ways of encoding/ decoding.


----------



## KalebD (May 8, 2007)

First off, how are you guys checking the actual bitrates and resolution?

Secondly, one of the fears I had going from cable to sat was the quality. The "HD-Lite" factor. I can say, that so far, E* has been superior to my former cable company. The compression rates, etc, had macroblocking all the time. Now, I rarely see that, even on high detailed scenes.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Since the HD-Lite started a couple years ago, it was posted a lot of data and how-to.


----------



## paulcdavis (Jan 22, 2004)

MPEG 2 and MPEG 4 are radically different ways of compressing video data. MPEG 2 is frame based, and sends a GOP (group of pictures) that consist of I frames, B frames and P frames. Only I frames are compressed versions of the entire picture, the others only contain changes from the last I frame (B frames also look at the next I frame).

MPEG 4 is object based compression. The encoder breaks a picture up into objects and encodes each one separately. The decoder builds the picture back up from the objects much like a video game.

Thus if a scene pans right past a chair (object) that was previously encoded, MPEG 4 just has to send the new location of the chair (say move chair 1 pixel left)

This is what can enable better PQ with fewer megabits per second than MPEG 2 which is frame based.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That's true for pure computer input processing to MPEG-4 stream like games when all scene rendered from a set of objects, but doesn't work for regular movies or newcast.
There is no AI in MPEG-4 encoders what could restore objects and devine them from any frame.
In a future, when HAL will be cheap, probably.


----------



## KalebD (May 8, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Since the HD-Lite started a couple years ago, it was posted a lot of data and how-to.


And where would I come across that information? What would be a key word to search on?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

HD-Lite


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

While there probably are many ways to analyze the stream, the two that I know of are to look at the actual files recorded from the STB or with software like TSReader


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

KalebD said:


> And where would I come across that information? What would be a key word to search on?


Yes if you do a search on HD-Lite you will get a number of hits here and a number of threads discussing both points of view on the issue. There have been a lot of detail discussion on the topic.

One thing that has not been mentioned, As far as I know there is no real technical definition of HD-Lite (You won't find it in any standard that I am aware of). It means different things to different people. So if one wanted to be technical. based on what I know but i haven't been keeping up with the standards world, HBO has reduced its resolution and not gone to HD-Lite since there is no HD-Lite Standard.

Ofcourse this is my opinion and I am sure others will disagree.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

HD-Lite never been a STANDARD ( tsk, tsk, tsk Ron).
The term came when video signal (MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 now too  ) become water down to lower resolution and gone overcompressed creating artifacts and picture far away from initial quality what many of us saw on our TV and some of us have in archives, what allow to make comparison and do the conclusion.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Well I am glad we are in agreement.  Based on some of the replies I figured it required mentioning since not everyone knows what the term means and even the people that do at times disagree on what it really means.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

If Dish is going to overcompress and down-rez even the "high definition" movie channels, why are we paying full price? And why wouldn't we just switch to Netflix, where we can get Blu-Ray or HD-DVD versions of movies which don't suffer from these problems for an equivalent price?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

That's first question what came at beginning of the HD-Lite campain; 
at least I can say in result of this I have now the *PQ* using my 1080p TV and HD DVD player.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

P Smith said:


> HD-Lite never been a STANDARD ( tsk, tsk, tsk Ron).


"HD Lite" is a standard derogatory word used for channels delivered at less than the quality desired by certain customers regardless of the fact that ATSC approved standards are being followed in the compression and transport of said channels.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

James Long said:


> "HD Lite" is a standard derogatory word used for channels delivered at less than the quality desired by certain customers regardless of the fact that ATSC approved standards are being followed in the compression and transport of said channels.


I.E. double compressed (?) and waterdown original _standard_ ATSC resolutions: 1920x1080i and 1280x720p.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> We are not talking converting MPEG2 to MPEG4 - we are talking reducing MPEG2 and staying in MPEG4.


Are you talking about sending mpeg2 within mpeg4 ?

Anyway, what format does HBO use to send the feeds ?


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

nataraj said:


> Are you talking about sending mpeg2 within mpeg4 ?
> 
> Anyway, what format does HBO use to send the feeds ?


My bad.....good catch...surprised no one else said anything in a week.

Should read:We are not talking converting MPEG2 to MPEG4 - we are talking reducing MPEG2 and but staying in the MPEG2 format.

HBO sends its distribution signal out for HBO-HD East at a max rate of 14.25Mbps and that includes the 384kb of audio and other data information.

However, with a telecine movie, the highest I have seen is roughly 13.73 Mbps (I have seen higher with Video Source non-telecine programming)...

BUT....rarely does HBO air anything outside of the 9Mbps - 11Mbps Video Rate.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

HBO has announced that it is going all MPEG 4 in the not too distant future.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

whatchel1 said:


> HBO has announced that it is going all MPEG 4 in the not too distant future.


And all HD. I wonder if they will do downconverts or make the providers make their own SD feeds?


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> HBO has announced that it is going all MPEG 4 in the not too distant future.


Oh really?

Maybe E* and D* are going MPEG4, but I have seen no announcement that HBO is giving up the MPEG2 customers on cable (of which there are 2x as many of than DBS).

I'd love to see your source for that reference as I clearly must have missed that one.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Hmmm ... I thought it was part of their big HD announcement ...
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1632125,00.html

Engadget seems to say that it is true ...
In a world where almost all HD channels are distributed with MPEG-2, HBO has just announced that all 26 of their new HD channels will be MPEG-4. The stream will be 8 Mbps, and HBO has mandated that the provider not reduce the bit-rate.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/06/22/hbo-to-use-mpeg-4-and-mandate-a-minimum-bit-rate/​
Prewashed jeans ... shrunk before you buy them!


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> Hmmm ... I thought it was part of their big HD announcement ...
> http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1632125,00.html


Could you please point out the line in that press release that says MPEG4 Distribution - or are people just reading what they want to read into it 

BTW, if the change from MPEG2 to MPEG4 is done at the source, it clearly will be better than doing it after the fact at the MSO end - even though the cable MSOs that have MPEG2 equipment may very well see more ill effects from converting it back to MPEG2.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Could you please point out the line in that press release that says MPEG4 Distribution - or are people just reading what they want to read into it


http://telecompetitor.com/node/184

"HBO announced at the SCTE Cable-Tec Expo that all of their HDTV programming will be distributed in MPEG-4. "


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

rtk said:


> http://telecompetitor.com/node/184
> 
> "HBO announced at the SCTE Cable-Tec Expo that all of their HDTV programming will be distributed in MPEG-4. "


Interesting.

I put in a call to one of my contacts who is one of the top tech people at HBO but she has gone fishing for 2 weeks.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

after thinking about this all day

"BTW, if the change from MPEG2 to MPEG4 is done at the source, it clearly will be better than doing it after the fact at the MSO end - even though the cable MSOs that have MPEG2 equipment may very well see more ill effects from converting it back to MPEG2."

I have changed my position on this when it comes to HBO encoding at the head end - here's why.

If HBO was starting with a 15-20Mbps or even 25Mbps MPEG2 Source and then re-encoding to MPEG4, the MPEG4 would have a more detailed source to work from.

Simply stated, the sweet spot for MPEG4 is 15Mbps - 20Mbps anyway. If you doubt that, just look at the HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray. Obviously, 8Mbps is 1/2 of what is needed on the low end for great performance.

Now, HBO has most of it's source library material between 8.5 Mbps and 11.5Mbps - and 9.5 Mbps to 10.5Mbps would really be the majority - very seldom do you see material outside of the range.

If you ask how I am sure of the figure, it's because the bitrate is within a few 10ths of a point between HBO and Cinemax on the same titles. While HBO-HD East has a fixed total of 14.25Mbps on the transponder - however, Cinemax East in Turbo Mode can take whatever it needs from Cinemax West (and vice versa) if it is not being used - so if the source material was higher than the 8.5 Mbps - 11.5 Mbps, it should go up substantially on Cinemax, just as SHO-HD East is able to hit 16.5 Mbps on its titles.

So - if you have a title averaging 10Mbps or 10.5 Mbps, its already soft enough - not giving the MPEG4 the greatest detail to work with.

Quite frankly, giving it 8 Mbps with MPEG4 is probably a waste at that point.

SOOOOO, you will loose quality from the first encode of low bitrate MPEG2 to MPEG4 - which is why in this case its not going to help a great deal.

Crap in...Crap out....


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I still thing you're watching numbers instead of the movie.

*ENJOY THE SHOW!*


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

James Long said:


> I still thing you're watching numbers instead of the movie.
> 
> *ENJOY THE SHOW!*


Sorry, but when things don't look right, I want to know why - and in virtually every case when it comes to HD, I can find the reason for the decline in quality. Some people are inquizitive by nature and want to know how and why. Just ask P Smith.

Just like with your medical records, the trick is to have info you can refer to over a period of time.

Without it, you have no idea what happened and when - or if that is the cause of the change.

So, I'll continue to observe and take notes - so I have proof positive of changes when I observe them - and can see what happened and why.

I'll let the others who believe in an alternative universe theory where what we know based in science doesn't apply to their HD - keep on guessing and believing in the impossible.

AND BTW, its a shame E* reduced HBO-HD and SHO-HD to HDLITE last week - because 2 days later SHO-HD East replaced a number of their transfers with higher bitrate transfers - again, when I saw it I knew something was up - and because of the documentation I was able to once again explain it.

As for E* 9456 and 9460, they have been turning DOWN the bitrate more and more each day - to go along with the HD-LITE.

So most E* subs will never know the increase in quality that SHO gave us last Friday.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> I still thing you're watching numbers instead of the movie.
> 
> *ENJOY THE SHOW!*


You're being ridiculous. I can either have HBO-HD from Dish, or Netflix, for the same monthly price. If I watch a movie on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray from Netflix, the quality is superior to that provided by Dish. It was even _before_ all of this latest nonsense about reducing the resolution and re-compressing the source material.

Through their efforts, Dish Network is ushering in a new "sub-HD" era of high definition. Whether it meets the specifications or not, it's inferior to competing products / delivery systems.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

Slordak said:


> You're being ridiculous. I can either have HBO-HD from Dish, or Netflix, for the same monthly price. If I watch a movie on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray from Netflix, the quality is superior to that provided by Dish. It was even _before_ all of this latest nonsense about reducing the resolution and re-compressing the source material.
> 
> Through their efforts, Dish Network is ushering in a new "sub-HD" era of high definition. Whether it meets the specifications or not, it's inferior to competing products / delivery systems.


I wouldn't say Blu-ray/Hd-DVD is truly a competing product. And even if you look through this thread, most people say Dish is better than Cable in PQ, and from what I have seen is better than DirecTV.

Could it be better... probably, but it is far from poor.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Slordak said:


> You're being ridiculous. I can either have HBO-HD from Dish, or Netflix, for the same monthly price.


The Netflix subscription closest to a month of HBO (not counting minimum package requirements) is $13.99. You can rent two movies at a time and watch 14 hours per month online. Watching two movies at a time, sending them back, getting the next two from your list, watching them, sending them back, etc. requires time for mailing. BEST case scenario you get the watched DVD out in today's mail, they get it in the morning and send your next one to arrive the next business day. So you're getting an average of a movie a day. If you can receive, watch and return them in the same mailing day you're looking at six movies per week or 26 per month.

Reality: My mail doesn't come until 4pm and has to be out by 5:30pm (if I drive downtown) to get back the next day. That's not enough time to enjoy a movie. That experience expanded to include people who would watch their movies at night and the number of movies is reduced to four per week or 17 per month.

Perhaps one might only want to watch four movies per week on their HBO subscription ... with eight channels on E* (one simulcast in HD) there are plenty of choices. But if one wants more than four movies per week ... or more than two for the weekend ... the cost goes up.

Remember, the above is "best case". Netflix discloses that the majority of their customers rent 2 to 11 movies per month and they reserve the right to prioritize who gets the next DVD off of the shelf, generally the customer who is renting the least or paying more.

Now think of the Post Office as Netflix's bandwidth. They sell you enough bandwidth to receive up to 17 movies per month for $13.99. They also have the option of charging you more for additional "bandwidth" in movies.

E*'s bandwidth is limited. For $13.99 per month they deliver 8 SD feeds and one HD feed 24/7 for you to pick an unlimited amount of viewing (noting 2 feeds are west feeds showing a 3 hour delay).

If they reconfigured their feed in some way so that it would only deliver 17 movies per month instead of the full schedule they could get to the "quality" of a Blu-Ray. There would be a lot of annoyed people who don't want to watch the same 17 movies you picked for a month.

It is a compromise. While both "delivery systems" allow you to watch movies in your home both are limited by their own form of bandwidth.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

How much selection is there with HD-DVD & BR disc?


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

HD-DVD titles

Blu-Ray titles


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> How much selection is there with HD-DVD & BR disc?


Some 250 each - probably 400 or so unique titles.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

Sorry, I guess I'm making a bit of an assumption here.

The assumption is that you've watched most of what you already wanted to see on HBO-HD, and hence your ability to watch new movies is related to how frequently HBO-HD adds new movies. While there are some cases where HBO-HD shows more than one brand new movie per week, in general, it's about one per week (on Saturday night). It is these recent/new movies which are the same ones typically being released on Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

Obviously if you're watching older movies frequently on HBO-HD, you can certainly hit a higher total movie viewing bandwidth with Dish.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

There is a HD PPV channel that would work nicely for new HD releases. Hopefully it's use can be expanded. E* is also working on VOD in HD for the new 722 (and perhaps the 622). This would be a better comparison for Netflix.


----------



## rtk (Apr 15, 2007)

After struggling to find a place to position a dish to have line of sight to 148 I finally managed to get adequate signal for HB0-HD and Show-HD. While I didn't record anything to look at resolutions, bit rates, etc, the HD picture quality on 148 is better than what is currently being provided on 110. How much difference? Picture quality is always subjective but the difference is definitely there. The image on 148 has a little more detail. I just need to figure out how to get a little more signal before mounting the dish. For anyone not satisfied with the pq on 110, this may be a good option... at least for now.


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

Does FIOS do HD-LITE?

Which has better quality--DISH or FIOS?


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

FIOS blows E* and D* out of the water.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> FIOS blows E* and D* out of the water.


Unfortunately, only FIOS's little toe is even near the water.


----------



## allargon (May 3, 2007)

Call me crazy. However, did HBO and Cinemax get better resolution recently? They seem to look a good bit better than even a week ago.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

No one can say for sure what your local MSO is doing, but HBO is the same as it has been for sometime on its C Band Distribution.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> Unfortunately, only FIOS's little toe is even near the water.


Considering over 1 Million TV subs additions in the past year, I wouldn't begin to say that.

Maybe you cannot get near it with your little toe, but clearly more and more are coming on line every day.


----------



## JohnL (Apr 1, 2002)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Considering over 1 Million TV subs additions in the past year, I wouldn't begin to say that.
> 
> Maybe you cannot get near it with your little toe, but clearly more and more are coming on line every day.


Sure, FIOS added one Million Subscribers Nationwide. Remember though it will be at least 5 years before FIOS is available to more than 80 percent of the US.

Since FIOS isn't even available to even 50 percent of the US, FIOS is not a true competitor to Dish or DirecTV as FIOS's footprint doesn't even cover 50 percent of the coverage of both Dish and DirecTV.

If FIOS was available locally I'd give them a try, but I heard that FIOS won't be available locally for at least 4 years.

I suggest you stick to suggestions that the Majority of DBS subs can get. Dish and DirecTV signals' cover 100 percent of the US, until FIOS comes even within 40 percent of that coverage they are not a viable alternative to most DBS subscribers.

John


----------



## Artwood (May 30, 2006)

So how much better is FIOS?

If one were moving and could move to somewhere where it would be available would that make sense?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

JohnL said:


> Sure, FIOS added one Million Subscribers Nationwide. Remember though it will be at least 5 years before FIOS is available to more than 80 percent of the US.


Where did you get the 80% of the US figure? IFAIK, Verizon's not said anything about expanding FIOS beyond their service area, and Verizon doesn't even come close to serving 80% of the US.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

It appears that FIOS will soon cross that magical threshold of 1% of the US population. Maybe even approach DishNetwork's HD subscriber level some day.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> It appears that FIOS will soon cross that magical threshold of 1% of the US population. Maybe even approach DishNetwork's HD subscriber level some day.


It will blow past Dish's roughly 1.5M within the next year.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

JohnL said:


> Sure, FIOS added one Million Subscribers Nationwide. Remember though it will be at least 5 years before FIOS is available to more than 80 percent of the US.
> 
> Since FIOS isn't even available to even 50 percent of the US, FIOS is not a true competitor to Dish or DirecTV as FIOS's footprint doesn't even cover 50 percent of the coverage of both Dish and DirecTV.
> 
> ...


More FUD

Technically, as only Directv and Dish have a national footprint, so by your statement even Comcast with roughly 50% more subs than Dish or Directv isn't a competitor.

That doesn't mean that anyone that has that ability shouldnt take it and at least compare before they drop Dish.


----------



## TechnoCat (Sep 4, 2005)

rtk said:


> What I continue to be dissapointed at is the number of people who accept/justify suboptimal HD picture quality. When your customers don't demand or expect a high quality product, why provide one.


I think you're overlooking a few things.

My HD plasma set is not 1080p or even 1080i. It's a bit above 720p.
I watch it from around fifteen feet away. The difference between HD and SD or Laserdisc bugs me, but the difference between a SuperBit DVD played on my Denon 2930 vs HD isn't a big deal. There's a bit of a difference, but the quality is already "good enough".
Most women I know barely notice the difference in sound between a clock radio and a THX-certified surround system. You over-sell the capabilities of the untrained consumer.
My primary television watching is in an open sunken livingroom with large picture windows and no full walls. Zero. Light cannot be fully controlled, sound cannot be fully optimized for. But it is a great living room - we can lounge around, have easy access from the kitchen and dining room, strew computers, toys, pets around the place. And I suspect this is more common than a dedicated "media room" where watching a sitcom must take on the ceremony of initiating a pledge into a dark fraternity. After a certain point, quality is simply lost in the chaos of a real-life room.
Do I _want_ the best picture quality I can get? To a point. But I'd rather have what I consider to be "good enough" on more channels than "pristine" on a few and "crapola" on the rest.
If you have a media room and 1080p, I understand your ire, but your mistake is in thinking that Dish should care. That segment is not the sweet spot for sales or profit. :nono2:


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

RAD said:


> Where did you get the 80% of the US figure? IFAIK, Verizon's not said anything about expanding FIOS beyond their service area, and Verizon doesn't even come close to serving 80% of the US.


Even within Verizon's service area, FIOS is not always available. I have had Verizon and Verizon DSL for years but FIOS is not available in my area. I check periodically, just to see what my options are.


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

TechnoCat said:


> Most women I know barely notice the difference in sound between a clock radio and a THX-certified surround system.


How about when they stop talking?

(there, that should take some heat off you )


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

TechnoCat said:


> Most women I know barely notice the difference in sound between a clock radio and a THX-certified surround system.





BobaBird said:


> How about when they stop talking?
> 
> (there, that should take some heat off you )


No, now you're just both in trouble!!! I introduced my husband to the joys of surround sound and he hasn't been the same since!:lol:


----------

