# E* Downrez HDNET & HDNMV



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

I read at Satellite Guys that E* reduced the HD resolution to 1440x1080i and lowered the bitrate about 30% on the two HDNet channels. I know some people here get tired of hearing the term "HD-lite", but, the trend to reduce picture quality continues. We pay big bucks for HD equipment and pay a premium for HD programming. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to EXPECT the highest possible HD picture quality, is it? I don't think it's an unreasonable request. So, continue writing to E*, maybe they might start doing what's best for the consumer for a change.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

Why don't they just make all HD channels MPEG4 1920x1080?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HDlover said:


> Why don't they just make all HD channels MPEG4 1920x1080?


It would really annoy those who have not made the jump to ViP receivers. The 811, 921 and 942s installed in people's homes would instantly become OTA HD only doorstops as far as HD goes.


----------



## geno58 (Jan 14, 2006)

richiephx said:


> I read at Satellite Guys that E* reduced the HD resolution to 1440x1080i and lowered the bitrate about 30% on the two HDNet channels. I know some people here get tired of hearing the term "HD-lite", but, the trend to reduce picture quality continues. We pay big bucks for HD equipment and pay a premium for HD programming. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to EXPECT the highest possible HD picture quality, is it? I don't think it's an unreasonable request. So, continue writing to E*, maybe they might start doing what's best for the consumer for a change.


I have all the HD programming E has to offer, and if the two HDNET channels are not showing full HD, I don't see it. Those two channels are the best HD in picture quality, I have on my TV, bar none. I do believe however, their is 4 or 5 VOOM channels that don't show full HD half of the time.


----------



## scooby2 (Nov 29, 2005)

HDlover said:


> Why don't they just make all HD channels MPEG4 1920x1080?


It appears their MPEG4 encoders can not handle 1920x1080 yet. Best we have seen from them so far is 1440x1080. Their MPEG4 does not appear ready for prime time yet. Only true MPEG4 national channels currently are StarzHD and NFL Network HD.


----------



## nataraj (Feb 25, 2006)

scooby2 said:


> It appears their MPEG4 encoders can not handle 1920x1080 yet. Best we have seen from them so far is 1440x1080. Their MPEG4 does not appear ready for prime time yet. Only true MPEG4 national channels currently are StarzHD and NFL Network HD.


This is possible. MPEG4 realtime h/w encoders are still not mature.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

HDNet and HDNet Movies are MPEG2 channels. The 211 receiver is capable of both MPEG2 and MPEG4. Prior to the downrez, these two channels were 1980x1080i with a higher bitrate. The picture quality was EXCELLENT. Almost all HD programming is still in MPEG2 and very little is in MPEG4. All I'm saying is....E* continues to lower the resolution and bitrate because they can; and if we just accept that then, they will continue to do so. I'm not willing to be passive on this issue. I have too much invested and pay a premium for a service and, expect the HIGHEST possible picture quality that they CAN provide right now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

While I do not like the trend to reduce bitrate and overcompress HD... it is not new, and people have accepted that they did this to SD for many years... so no reason to believe it is any different.

People old enough to remember can tell that Coke & Pepsi are watered down no longer with real cane sugar so that they can be cheaper to produce than in the past too.

Unfortunately not a new concept for businesses to maximize profits and use of resources.

I still cross my fingers/hope that we can get some resolution back... meanwhile, I'm not having the same heart-attack that other people have over it for the very simple reason right now that for the cable/satellite only channels there is nowhere I can go to get them at any better quality than at Dish right now... so changing providers wouldn't gain any quality.


----------



## scooby2 (Nov 29, 2005)

HDMe said:


> While I do not like the trend to reduce bitrate and overcompress HD... it is not new, and people have accepted that they did this to SD for many years... so no reason to believe it is any different.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ... meanwhile, I'm not having the same heart-attack that other people have over it for the very simple reason right now that for the cable/satellite only channels there is nowhere I can go to get them at any better quality than at Dish right now... so changing providers wouldn't gain any quality.


Could not agree more. I do not like it but of course most people do not like lots of things but deal with them anyway (taxes, insurance, etc etc). No other provider available (to most) comes close to matching the quantity of HD that Dish provides at this time. This could change with DirecTV getting their new sats up over the next year and a half and with cable companies moving towards digital switching technology.

Competition means we can change as long as we are not under contract (or are willing to pay the termination fees).


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

So far the competition between E* and D* vitalized in downrezzing to HD-Lite and slow but raising fee. I don't see any advantage of the competition in HD content if going this way down ( when our TV sets , DVDs going up to 1080p) 

Dish made excuse for 1440i a few months ago because of "fiber cable issue" - how long it should take for multibillons company to fix the F^%$%^$ cable ?


----------



## BFG (Jan 23, 2004)

I still don't get why dish couldn't of just added nfl-hd to hdnet without changing the rez

HBO, HDPPV, and TNTHD all are on a tp and TNT looks pretty good to me, don't see the problems..


----------



## GeorgeLV (Jan 1, 2006)

BFG said:


> I still don't get why dish couldn't of just added nfl-hd to hdnet without changing the rez
> 
> HBO, HDPPV, and TNTHD all are on a tp and TNT looks pretty good to me, don't see the problems..


HBO, HDPPV majority 24fps filmed content and except for the NBA season, TNT is mostly 24fps filmed content and SD upconverts. If the mpeg encoder that utilizes 3:2 pulldown correctly, you get a 20% bandwidth savings on 24fps material. HDNet (and presumably NFL Network HD) are mostly true 1080/60i so there is no free lunch, all of the fields have to be encoded.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Well, I would add to your math - Dish extending GOP to 15, how about that ?


----------



## ibglowin (Sep 10, 2002)

I have watched quite a few movies on HDNet in the last few months. 2001, 2010, Open Range, The Shining, Andromeda Strain. They all looked pretty darn good to me and I'm picky when it comes to PQ. 2001 was especually crisp and sharp looking on my 3 yr. old 60" Sony Grand Wega RPLCD. I am looking at 61.5 most of the time. 129 on occasion.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

richiephx said:


> I read at Satellite Guys that E* reduced the HD resolution to 1440x1080i and lowered the bitrate about 30% on the two HDNet channels. I know some people here get tired of hearing the term "HD-lite", but, the trend to reduce picture quality continues. We pay big bucks for HD equipment and pay a premium for HD programming. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to EXPECT the highest possible HD picture quality, is it? I don't think it's an unreasonable request. So, continue writing to E*, maybe they might start doing what's best for the consumer for a change.


HDENet varies quite a bit in resolution depending on the source. The movies vary because the master often was not that HD - 35mm half frame minus the sound stripe for the old Technirama movies, not much better than 16mm. Some of the hourly programs, like Smallville, are obviously just DVD copies played through a progressive scan player. Some of the original short programming, like the bikini babe show, looks very good.

For the best HD quality, DiscoverHD has my vote.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

Anyone know what day this happened? I just compared a movie, Lost in Translation, recorded on 7/22 with it running live right now and there is no difference. Guessing it happened a while before this thread started?


----------



## ssmith10pn (Jul 6, 2005)

I have HDNET on my 622 connected to my Denon AVR-3806 via HDMI and then Connected to my Mitsubishi 52628 1080P DLP via HDMI.
I also have HDNET connected to the same system from a Scientific Atlanta 3800HD via component cable. (Because of HDCP) 

My cable company version of HDNET does look a little better as well as ESPN2 and TNT.

So I am a little dissipointed in E*'s HD right now.


----------



## Jack White (Sep 17, 2002)

As far as I'm concerned, dbs in the US will ALWAYS care more about cramming in as many locals as possible more than picture quality.
IT's WRITTEN IN STONE as far as I'm concerned.
People can email and write letters till their fingers fall off, but it's not going to change a thing.
That's why I'm going to get 4DTV and a ROOFTOP OTA for CRYSTAL CLEAR HDTV when I graduate and have a REAL JOB.



richiephx said:


> I read at Satellite Guys that E* reduced the HD resolution to 1440x1080i and lowered the bitrate about 30% on the two HDNet channels. I know some people here get tired of hearing the term "HD-lite", but, the trend to reduce picture quality continues. We pay big bucks for HD equipment and pay a premium for HD programming. I don't think it's unreasonable for us to EXPECT the highest possible HD picture quality, is it? I don't think it's an unreasonable request. So, continue writing to E*, maybe they might start doing what's best for the consumer for a change.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

> That's why I'm going to get 4DTV


Enjoy the fabulous picture quality of all the Voom channels on your 4DTV.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Any survey I have ever seen tends to indicate that people want more channels rather than better quality. Sure, some of us do want high quality also... but ultimately the public seems to want more rather than better.

As a business, this means companies cater to more rather than better whenever they have to make that choice.

People are always talking about I want XXX channels for YYY money (ZZZ per channel)... sometimes people will say "hey, I want quality here"... but those voices are usually few and far between with things like this.

So that's how the decisions ultimately are made.


----------



## bytre (Sep 10, 2003)

I have also seen some pretty nice HDNET stuff in the last couple of months. Old movies that looked really outstanding (the shining, a clockwork orange, 2001).

A couple nights ago, watching miscellaneous stuff and surfing through the HD channels, it didn't look nearly as good as it had. I don't know when (or if) they changed the resolution or bitrate, or how good the film conversions were, but it certainly didn't look like the outstanding quality picture I've been watching the last couple weeks.

Reducing SD quality is different. People dont watch SD for visual quality - most with an HD investment do.


----------

