# More HD channels are on there way.



## astayton (Aug 30, 2006)

I just saw this on D* site....

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=900034

The future of television has arrived. DIRECTV brings you our new HD DVR, soon with the capacity to offer 150 HD channels*, that's three times more than cable.** Images are sharper. Sound is crisper. And now, they can be recorded. Get the best sports, movies, family and special events, all in stunning HD.


----------



## beartrap (Nov 8, 2005)

astayton said:


> I just saw this on D* site....
> 
> http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPage.jsp?assetId=900034
> 
> The future of television has arrived. DIRECTV brings you our new HD DVR, soon with the capacity to offer 150 HD channels*, that's three times more than cable.** Images are sharper. Sound is crisper. And now, they can be recorded. Get the best sports, movies, family and special events, all in stunning HD.


*Number of channels subject to available HD programming.

Capacity without content = 0


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

I can't believe they are still marketing that PQ as HD.


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

HomieG said:


> I can't believe they are still marketing that PQ as HD.


When are you guys going to stop this ridiculous argument/discussion???

The Industry Definition (there are no others) is that HD is anything with more than 480 lines interlaced. Thus 720P and 1080i are High Definition. There is nothing in the industry definition about Horizontal Resolution. Besides, 1280 x 1080 is higher definition than 1280 x 720, and everyone accepts 1280 x 720 as HD, so what exactly is your point?


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

Richard Chalk said:


> When are you guys going to stop this ridiculous argument/discussion???
> 
> The Industry Definition (there are no others) is that HD is anything with more than 480 lines interlaced. Thus 720P and 1080i are High Definition. There is nothing in the industry definition about Horizontal Resolution. Besides, 1280 x 1080 is higher definition than 1280 x 720, and everyone accepts 1280 x 720 as HD, so what exactly is your point?


Their HD product is inferior to other HD offerings and looks like crap. Their SD is even worse.


----------



## mjbvideo (Feb 29, 2004)

When they down-rez it to save bandwidth it's HD-Lite. It would be like buying a new Audi and then discovering a year or so later that Audi has a way of remotely cutting the performance of the engine whenever they feel like it....and of course no rebate or cut in payments because of the down-rez of the engine.

When are you guys going to stop this ridiculous defence of DirecTV???


----------



## Jotas (Mar 19, 2005)

So I guess I'm better off staying with my 3LNB dish and avoid upgrading to a 5LNB model? To avoid the additional compression.


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

mjbvideo said:


> When they down-rez it to save bandwidth it's HD-Lite. It would be like buying a new Audi and then discovering a year or so later that Audi has a way of remotely cutting the performance of the engine whenever they feel like it....and of course no rebate or cut in payments because of the down-rez of the engine.
> 
> When are you guys going to stop this ridiculous defence of DirecTV???


Actually, it's not the same at all, unless Audi were to stop publishing the engine specifications for their car. Since they do publish them, however, they obviously can' downgrade them.

As for defending DirecTV, I am not trying to do that, I am simply pointing out that they are not misrepresenting what they are delivering, because it does meet the definition for HD. Could it be better? Absolutely! Could their SD be better? I have a 5-year-old granddaughter who can draw a better picture with crayons. I'm simply pointing out that there is no specification, and HD-Lite is a user-created term, not an industry created one...


----------



## jpenneck (Sep 16, 2002)

Richard Chalk said:


> The Industry Definition (there are no others) is that HD is anything with more than 480 lines interlaced. Thus 720P and 1080i are High Definition. There is nothing in the industry definition about Horizontal Resolution. Besides, 1280 x 1080 is higher definition than 1280 x 720, and everyone accepts 1280 x 720 as HD, so what exactly is your point?


What industry definition are you referring to ? As I mention below, there are only 2 HD resultions that matter currently...



Richard Chalk said:


> As for defending DirecTV, I am not trying to do that, I am simply pointing out that they are not misrepresenting what they are delivering, because it does meet the definition for HD. Could it be better? Absolutely! Could their SD be better? I have a 5-year-old granddaughter who can draw a better picture with crayons. I'm simply pointing out that there is no specification, and HD-Lite is a user-created term, not an industry created one...


DirecTV is claiming that they broadcast in 1080i according to their recent ad compaign (the ones with Jessica Simpson). The 1080i resolution is 1920x1080 interlaced. From what people around here have been saying, they are actually down-rezing to something more like 1024x768 or something along those lines. That is what people are complaining about... or referring to as HD-lite.

There are really only 2 accepted HD resolutions (1920x1080, 1280x720), so anything less than one of these should not be considered HD, but rather falls into a grey area between SD & HD.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

DirecTV "HD" is 1280 x 1080i. Note that they say full 1080i in their marketing. True. But they can't and won't say full 1920x 1080i.

Hey, if you don't mind not getting 1/3rd of the vertical resolution that is available in a lot of the better content, that's your choice. It's a shame they charge you for it. Compare 1920x1080i to 1280x1080i side-by-side. The difference is quite apparent.


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

HomieG said:


> DirecTV "HD" is 1280 x 1080i. Note that they say full 1080i in their marketing. True. But they can't and won't say full 1920.
> 
> Hey, if you don't mind not getting 1/3rd of the vertical resolution that is available in a lot of the better content, that's your choice. It's a shame they charge you for it. Compare 1920x1080i to 1280x1080i side-by-side. The difference is quite apparent.


Yup, just watch Batman Begins on HDDVD and HBO on D*. BIG difference.


----------



## Cheezmo (Apr 26, 2004)

1280x1080i is about the same as 1280x540p which is less than 1280x720p.

Anything at < 8Mbps (HBO, Showtime, HDNet Movies on DirecTV) is a far cry from HD, regardless of the so called resolution. 8Mbps is DVD bitrates. OTA HD in our market is 15Mbps->18.2Mbps.


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

Cheezmo said:


> 1280x1080i is about the same as 1280x540p which is less than 1280x720p.
> 
> Anything at < 8Mbps (HBO, Showtime, HDNet Movies on DirecTV) is a far cry from HD, regardless of the so called resolution. 8Mbps is DVD bitrates. OTA HD in our market is 15Mbps->18.2Mbps.


Although there are a total of 19 possible systems within the ATSC specification, 540p is not one of them. You are trying to compare resolutions by comparing scanning systems, and this is not valid. 540p, if it were to exist, would have a total of 540 lines of vertical resolution, while 1080i has, 1080 lines. This is a 2:1 ratio of resolution capability, since no system can resolve more pixels than there are lines in the raster.

It is true that when the image is moving, there is a degradation of HORIZONTAL resolution in an interlaced system, due to the horizontal displacement between consecutive fields, but this is not defined as resolution.

As for giving up 1/3 of the Vertical resolution, let me point out that the reduction from 1920 to 1280 is in the Horizontal, and not the Vertical resolution.

If 1280 x 1080 is not High Definition, then most of the companies making Plasma displays are in for a rude shock. Panasonic, for example, produces models which are 1024 x 768, and they are advertised as HDTV. Similarly, any 720-line DLP, LCD, LCOS, or other technology are only 1280 horizontal pixels resolution, so even if the broadcast is 1920 x 1080, none of these displays can reproduce it, so by your definition, these should also not be called HDTV.

Come on, you guys....the vast majority of the TV sets available today are not 1920 x 1080, and neither are two of the major networks-Fox, and ABC.

I will restate - the Consumer Electronics Association has defined HDTV as any resolution over 720 lines vertical, with NO specification as to the Horizontal. You can make up any terms (like HD-Lite) you choose, but they are not defined by anyone other than a select group of users.

Finally, with respect to the comparison with HD DVD, remember that these are capable of 1080p scanning, which is not possible or defined within the ATSC specifications for broadcast. Does it look better? On a 1080p display, probably, but on all the rest, it has to be down-converted, or re-scaled to an interlaced format. It is not, and cannot be, a broadcast format for over-the-air stations.


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

HomieG said:


> DirecTV "HD" is 1280 x 1080i. Note that they say full 1080i in their marketing. True. But they can't and won't say full 1920x 1080i.
> 
> Hey, if you don't mind not getting 1/3rd of the vertical resolution that is available in a lot of the better content, that's your choice. It's a shame they charge you for it. Compare 1920x1080i to 1280x1080i side-by-side. The difference is quite apparent.


DirecTV is not in the business of delivering the best available. They are in the business of delivering a level of performance, and a wide selection of programming, which customers will accept, and pay for. If you don't like the product, then don't pay for it. With the available bandwidth today, their choice is to deliver fewer programs in higher quality, or more programs in lower quality. They have obviously made a business decision which they believe maximizes their income. If you don't like their decision, your choice is to buy a different product. If enough people vote with their wallets, they will make a different choice..


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

Here it is, plain and simple.

To reasonable people, SD = Standard Definition and HD = High Definition.

To DirecTV, SD = Standard Definition (the channels they've had for years) and HD = Higher Definition.

Since DirecTV's SD is already heavily compressed and blocky, their "HD" falls easily into their definition,
Higher Definition then their Standard Definition.

You'll notice, their commercials always say DirecTV HD, not DirecTV High Definition.


phox


----------



## pdawg17 (Mar 1, 2003)

So what's the average bitrate of E* HD? And does anyone know if D* plans on increasing the bitrate of HD once the new birds are up?


----------



## Jotas (Mar 19, 2005)

Dang, I've been under a rock. I wasn't aware of the diluted resolution. Sounds like staying with the 3LNB won't make a difference as this has been on-going for a while now. Also read up on the class action lawsuit. I guess I shouldn't have taken that hiatus from the boards. Had I known about this it would've influenced my decision to continue with D*.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

If HBO puts out a signal to cable/satellite systems at resolution X as their HD product, and company D takes that feed and REDUCES the resolution, you are NOT getting what the content provider originated.

Secondly, you get that reduced resolution in a highly compressed datastream -- which means more incidence of artifacts due to motion.

I don't really care what definition of HD that you use; if channel A is available from DirecTV and an alternate source, and that alternate source delivers channel A closer to the originating quality and resolution than DirecTV, then DirecTV is not delivering what they claim to be delivering and is grossly misleading their subscribers.

And that's exactly the problem with DirecTV HD. That doesn't mean every other delivery system is better than DirecTV; there certainly are other systems out there similarly pushing the limits of their capacity by reducing resolution and/or using higher compression levels. But DirecTV is unquestionably doing it to a great degree across their entire HD lineup. And they're trying to pass their content off as BETTER than their competition.

Things, of course, should change once they use bandwidth on the yet-to-be-launched national Ka-band satellites. Though depending on how the whole issue unfolds with SeaLaunch, they may well find themselves in a position to once again reduce resolution and increase compression in order to fit their planned content within the available bandwidth.


----------



## harley3k (Jul 19, 2006)

Can we all agree that what DirecTV broadcasts is 1280x1080i ?

Can we all agree that it is NOT the highest definition 1080i that exists?
(1280 < 1920)

We can probably all aruge endlessly about weather this should really be cosnidered HD, HD Lite, or somewhere in between 1280x720p and 1920x1080i.

*The rub is that DirecTV advertises it as SUPERIOR.*
It clearly IS NOT superior, but in fact isn't even EQUAL to the quality of every other provider who broadcasts "1080i". So what if it's better than 720p, it isn't superior to other 1080i broadcasts.

The lawyers will tell you that they didn't say it was superior to other HD systems, but that it was superior to basic analog cable.

"It depends on what your definition of the word IS is" -- President Bill Clinton.

-h


----------



## XBR (May 17, 2002)

The CEA cites 720p and 1080i as HDTV resolutions specifically and implies the corresponding horizontal resolution though citing a 16:9 aspect ratio.

The ATSC A/53 rev. D standard (pg. 15) defines High Definition Television as having "a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in _both_ the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9" (emphasis mine). With NTSC being approximately 720 x 480, one could argue that only 1920x1080 meets the ATSC definition for High Definition Television since it's the only standard transmitted resolution that is at least twice the NTSC standard in both dimensions while maintaining a 16:9 aspect ratio.

ITU-R Recommendation 1125 ATSC Digital Television Standard, Revision D 19 July 2005 16 further defines HDTV quality as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard. I assume this means SMPTE 274M, which encompasses 1920x1080i.

Note: stating that 1920x1080i is the same as 1920x540p without specifying the context is pretty weak. It might be true of simple "bob" deinterlacing of original 1080i video, but it is possible to reverse the pulldown and deinterlace original 1080/24p film _perfectly_. A static 1080i image can also be deinterlaced perfectly with a simple weave. So deinterlacing of original 1080i video with motion could be as bad as 540p equivalent but could also approach 1080p with the latest video processing available on the market today (HQV, VXP, etc.).


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

XBR said:


> The CEA cites 720p and 1080i as HDTV resolutions specifically and implies the corresponding horizontal resolution though citing a 16:9 aspect ratio.


This assumes square pixels, which is not what many of the displays are using. Clearly a plasma display of 1024 x 768, with a 16:9 aspect ratio, does not have square pixels



XBR said:


> The ATSC A/53 rev. D standard (pg. 15) defines High Definition Television as having "a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in _both_ the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9" (emphasis mine). With NTSC being approximately 720 x 480, one could argue that only 1920x1080 meets the ATSC definition for High Definition Television since it's the only standard transmitted resolution that is at least twice the NTSC standard in both dimensions while maintaining a 16:9 aspect ratio.


The key word here is "approximately". While an NTSC studio signal is probably over 700 pixels wide, by the time it is encoded and broadcast, it is much less than that, so 1280 is "approximately" twice that of conventional, i.e. broadcast analog, television.

The ATSC standard is not what the CEA uses. They have made their own definitions, oriented toward the consumer, and not the studio.

As far as DirecTV is concerned, I am not defending or criticizing what they are doing to the signal. All I am trying to point out is that they are not contradicting the definition, since the definition does not specify the horizontal resolution, or the bitrate for that matter.

The ATSC specifications for broadcast encoding do not automatically apply to cable or satellite, since they are not broadcast stations - in fact, most cable systems are not even using 8VSB modulation, but instead use QAM.


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

Forget specs.

It looks like crap. That's all you need to know.


----------



## Hersheytx (Feb 15, 2003)

Richard Chalk said:


> DirecTV is not in the business of delivering the best available. They are in the business of delivering a level of performance, and a wide selection of programming, which customers will accept, and pay for. If you don't like the product, then don't pay for it. With the available bandwidth today, their choice is to deliver fewer programs in higher quality, or more programs in lower quality. They have obviously made a business decision which they believe maximizes their income. If you don't like their decision, your choice is to buy a different product. If enough people vote with their wallets, they will make a different choice..


So they spend billions of dollars for a total of 4 new Sats and promise to give more HD then cable and you say they have gone in the opposite direction.
Directv SD is by far better then anything cable has given me. Directv's HD is great on my 1080 P LCD (46inch). I have seen Comcast/Time Warner and FOIS from Verizon and I am quite sure that Directv is making every effort to give me the same or better quality then the competition. 
I will wait for the fall for the new HD offerings. Then I will watch the flood of cable subscribers scream at their cable companies that they want more HD like Directv.
To top it all off we can all listen to everyone on cable scream about how their cable company is degrading the picture quality trying to make more room for HD. Since they do not have the capacity for so many HD channels.


----------



## LlamaLarry (Apr 30, 2003)

Jeez, for a second there I thought I was in a Lost thread. 

Do we really, really, have to toss in the HD-Lite battle into every thread that alludes that DirecTV offers HD? I don't particularly care one way or the other as almost 100% of the HD I watch is OTA, but damn maybe the mods can make the topic a sticky so the argument can run 24x7 and stop littering other threads.


----------



## ike (Feb 26, 2002)

There should be a FAQ Sticky for this topic as everyone regularly confuses HD, resolution, bitrate, compression, motion artifacts etc...


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

Richard Chalk said:


> ...Finally, with respect to the comparison with HD DVD, remember that these are capable of 1080p scanning, which is not possible or defined within the ATSC specifications for broadcast. Does it look better? On a 1080p display, probably, but on all the rest, it has to be down-converted, or re-scaled to an interlaced format. It is not, and cannot be, a broadcast format for over-the-air stations.


1080p @ 24fps is indeed part of the ATSC broadcast spec. I'll bet you a tall Coca-Cola (with or without ice) that we'll see 1080p/24fps movies over broadcast within the next 10 years.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

HomieG said:


> 1080p @ 24fps is indeed part of the ATSC broadcast spec. I'll bet you a tall Coca-Cola (with or without ice) that we'll see 1080p/24fps movies over broadcast within the next 10 years.


Were receivers required to support 1080p24 and 1080p30 (even if they downconvert it to 1080i or 720p for output) from day 1?

If not, then I'd take your bet.

Why? Because a small number of receiver models had issues with channels switching live between different ATSC resolutions and that very limited problem has kept every station from broadcasting 1080i/720p for HD material and 480i/480p for SD material, letting the receiver and display of the viewer do its job deciding how to display it -- rather than being forced to see pillarboxes or forced to see stretching by the broadcaster.


----------



## HomieG (Feb 17, 2003)

dswallow said:


> Were receivers required to support 1080p24 and 1080p30 (even if they downconvert it to 1080i or 720p for output) from day 1?
> 
> If not, then I'd take your bet.
> 
> Why? Because a small number of receiver models had issues with channels switching live between different ATSC resolutions and that very limited problem has kept every station from broadcasting 1080i/720p for HD material and 480i/480p for SD material, letting the receiver and display of the viewer do its job deciding how to display it -- rather than being forced to see pillarboxes or forced to see stretching by the broadcaster.


Doug, Great question about the receiver support. Don't know the answer to that. If they are truly ATSC compliant, though, they'd support the following progressive frame rates at 1920 x 1080:

1920x1080 at 23.976/24/29.97/30 fps progressive

According to the recommend practices of ATSC standard, receivers should decode the various scan rates, etc. and display them in their native display format (http://www.atsc.org/standards/a_54a_with_corr_1.pdf), but I am not sure if that is actually required since it's a recommended practice:

Receiver Video Issues
Transmissions conforming to the Digital Television Standard are expected to include the video formats as described in Table 9.3. Receivers will have to extract the picture rates and video format information, and will have to perform the necessary interpolation and format conversion so that these video formats can be displayed in the native display format of the receiver.
In Table 9.3, 
vertical lines refers to the number of active lines in the picture. Pixels refers to the number of pixels during the active line. 
Aspect ratio refers to the picture aspect ratio. 
Picture rate refers to the number of frames or fields per second. In the values for picture rate,
P refers to progressive scanning, and I refers to interlaced scanning. 
Note that both 60.00 Hz and 59.94 (60x1000/1001) Hz picture rates are allowed. Dual rates are allowed also at the picture rates of 30 Hz and 24 Hz.
Table 9.3 Digital Television Standard Video Formats
Vertical lines Pixels Aspect ratio Picture rate
1080 1920 16:9 60I, 30P, 24P
720 1280 16:9 60P, 30P, 24P
480 704 16:9 and 4:3 60P, 60I, 30P, 24P
480 640 4:3 60P, 60I, 30P, 24P


----------



## TomRaz (Mar 1, 2002)

Boy I guess someone hit a sore point on the HD quality issue  

Anyway how about we get back on the original subject. Other than locals using mpeg4 what are the new D* HD offerings that they keep talking about ?


----------



## Richard Chalk (May 13, 2004)

Hersheytx said:


> So they spend billions of dollars for a total of 4 new Sats and promise to give more HD then cable and you say they have gone in the opposite direction.
> .


I am not contradicting myself. The statement was based on the bandwidth available today, and the business they operate today. No company would have a business model that cannot be changed when the marketplace changes, or when technology permits change.

When they have the additional bandwidth of the new satellites available to them, they will have the opportunity to change the model. Will it be more bandwidth per program, more programs, or a combination of both? Probably the latter, but it will be a business decision based on the profitability of the company, and the reaction of the customer base. Remember that the users on here represent a very knowledgeable, but very small sector of their viewers.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 20, 2004)

TomRaz said:


> Boy I guess someone hit a sore point on the HD quality issue
> 
> Anyway how about we get back on the original subject. Other than locals using mpeg4 what are the new D* HD offerings that they keep talking about ?


IMO they will spot beam the 4 major local channels to 37 new locations and add 2 new HD channels for eveyone. 4 X 37 + 2 = 150 HD channels.


----------



## jgjackson (Oct 27, 2006)

I don't really care about the numbers. All I care about is that my progressive scan 720x480p DVD player has as good or better picture than most of the DirectTV HD stuff.


----------



## astayton (Aug 30, 2006)

bpratt said:


> IMO they will spot beam the 4 major local channels to 37 new locations and add 2 new HD channels for eveyone. 4 X 37 + 2 = 150 HD channels.


I believe you are correct in your assumption, but I wonder what the two new channels would be. I bet it's going to be something great that we can't live without. :-(


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

harley3k said:


> We can probably all aruge endlessly about weather this should really be cosnidered HD, HD Lite, or somewhere in between 1280x720p and 1920x1080i.


Actually, it's quite inferior to 1280x720p, too. This I think is the key point of confusion -- people see "1280x1080" and think "well, that's still higher than 1280x720". But it's not, because that comparison leaves out the "i" and the "p".

This is reality:

1920x1080i -- 1036800 pixels every 1/60th of a second
1280x720p -- 921600 pixels every 1/60th of a second
1280x1080i -- 691200 pixels every 1/60th of a second

But that's not even the main problem with DirecTV's HD Lite. The main problem is that it's bit-rate starved.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

bpratt said:


> IMO they will spot beam the 4 major local channels to 37 new locations and add 2 new HD channels for eveyone. 4 X 37 + 2 = 150 HD channels.


Great. I guess everyone does have an a**hole. 

How many times does it have to be said. They are talking about 150 NATIONAL channels not locals.

And CAPACITY because they have to scare up 150 national channels to broadcast.

They have many signed up but 150 is more than exist today or will exist by the end of the year.

Facts outweigh conjecture.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Facts outweigh conjecture.


Conjecture floats?


----------



## Fahtrim (Apr 12, 2004)

Too many factors to account for and too many opinions. Do what makes you happy, don't be stupid enough to think it applies to everyone else and their AV setup.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

HomieG said:


> 1080p @ 24fps is indeed part of the ATSC broadcast spec...


Homie is right. All you have to do is look it up.



HomieG said:


> ...I'll bet...that we'll see 1080p/24fps movies over broadcast within the next 10 years.


A very safe bet. The only way that WOULD NOT happen is if they stopped right now, because it is a common practice even today.

While 1080p/24fps movies are technically broadcast as 1080i, that is totally nondestructive to the content. Any 1080p display can reconstruct source material broadcast as 1080i that was originally telecine'd as 1080p/24 back into the identical format. It is as simple as holding the first scan in a buffer, capturing the second scan in another buffer, and then stitching it all back together as one progressive frame. At that point it has none of the temporal distortion of 1080i, even though transmitted in 1080i.

As for the 24fps part, even though 1080i is technically 30fps (29.97), content that is 24fps is encoded essentially without pullup because MPEG encoding reverts to 24fps whenever it detects pullup, and discards the duplicated frames created by pullup.

The end result in your living room is true 1080p/24 out of the decoder. Connect that to a 1080p display, and voila...displayed true 1080p/24.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

wmcbrine said:


> ...This is reality:
> 
> 1920x1080i -- 1036800 pixels every 1/60th of a second
> 1280x720p -- 921600 pixels every 1/60th of a second
> ...


That would reflect reality if HD PQ were simply a numbers game based on pixel rate. But that is hardly the case. There are many factors that are much more significant impacting the perceived resolution.

For instance, all of the increased resolution in the world can't improve a picture that is even slightly out of focus. 99.99% of video shot today can't even reach the resolution ceiling of 1080i a significant part of the time for a number of reasons, partly due to imagers with inferior resolution and lenses with imperfect abberations, but mostly because the real-world images themselves rarely have that much resolution in the first place. My car's speedometer only goes up to 100 MPH, while older models used to go up to 120. But in the real world, that missing 20 MPH really doesn't affect my commute all that much.

And ironically, the reason DTV uses a pixel rate that is 70% lower than that of true 1080i is because that allows them to bit-limit the signal with significantly fewer artifacts than if they did not. In their estimation, they have traded off H rez which may be mostly insignificant for better performance at a lower bit rate which is very significant if you have limited bandwidth to play with, all so they can bring us a couple more HD channels and better quality than they would be able to otherwise.

That on its face is actually a clever engineering decision, regardless of what anyone thinks, and is designed to give us a better picture and more channels within the constraints of the overall bit rate than could be provided otherwise. Of course that does not excuse them for bit-limiting it further, which does cause artifacts, but if they kept the same bit rate and number of channels and used true 1080i, people here would really be howling.

Of course we want full 1080i, and of course we want more HD channels. But I wanted piano lessons, too. Crying about that didn't help my cause much.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

Cheezmo said:


> 1280x1080i is about the same as 1280x540p which is less than 1280x720p.


How many years with this crazy myth continue?

1080p != double the resolution of 1080i.

1080i != 540p * 2.

1280 x 1080i > 1280 x 720p > 1280 x 540p

p does not mean double the resolution of i.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

dswallow said:


> Conjecture floats?


Yeah, just like something else.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> This is reality:
> 
> 1920x1080i -- 1036800 pixels every 1/60th of a second
> 1280x720p -- 921600 pixels every 1/60th of a second
> 1280x1080i -- 691200 pixels every 1/60th of a second


No. Both 720p and 1080i as currently broadcast are at frame rates of 30 FPS. A 720p frame consists of 921,600 pixels. A 1080i frame consists of 2,073,600 pixels. Your example suggests that 720p is being delivered at a frame rate of 60 FPS. This is inaccurate and this is why people have the mistaken belief that p = i*2. It does not.

- 1080i: 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels per frame at a rate of 30 FPS or, assuming 24 bit color, an uncompressed data rate of 1,492,992,000 bits per second (1.492 Gbps)

- 720p = 1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels per frame at a rate of 30 FPS or, assuming 24 bit color, an uncompressed data rate of 663,552,000 bits per second (663 Mbps)

- "HD Lite:" 1280 x 1080 = 1,382,400 pixels per frame at a rate of 30 FPS or, assuming 24 bit color, an uncompressed data rate of 995,328,000 bits per second (995 Mbps)

It is also important to note that even if 720p could be broadcast at a frame rate of 60 FPS or 120 FPS or a million FPS, it doesn't ever improve the picture quality of a source that captured with a frame rate of 30 FPS. If the source material is 30 FPS and you broadcast, receive, and display at 60FPS the only thing you can do is duplicate the frame - you will never improve the picture quality.

Why can't people get the whole "p is so much superior to i" thing out of their head?

However, your point on the main problem with DirecTV being a disgusting example of bit stariving is dead on 169% accurate. The motion artifacts and pixelation on DirecTV are disgusting.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

SpankyInChicago said:


> How many years with this crazy myth continue?
> 
> 1080p != double the resolution of 1080i.
> 
> ...


No offense meant, but even though you present a limited understanding of certain aspects of the issue, what you've given us here is a perfect example of a post from someone who apparently does not really understand anything more than the numbers themselves, and has little if any understanding what the numbers actually imply.

What is important in the end is how faithfully the information is reproduced, and that is based on countless variables. Even if you limit the discussion purely to image resolution, understanding this issue is much, much, much, more complex than what can be boiled down to simple math regarding one tiny aspect of that process.

When an issue is that complex an extremely-oversimplified answer actually does more harm than good. It becomes a real disservice to put emphasis on a few numbers as if they told the entire story very simply when that actually diverts folks who wish to understand further away from true understanding. It is just not a simple story, and even if the numbers here were correct or even important, which is debatable, posts like this actually tend to confuse the issues more than they ever resolve them, IMHO.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

SpankyInChicago said:


> No. Both 720p and 1080i as currently broadcast are at frame rates of 30 FPS...


Assuming you mean frames per second, again I mean no offense whatsoever, but this time I'm afraid you are absolutely, categorically incorrect. 720p is almost always employed at 60 (59.94) fps for ATSC broadcasting, including every frame of video ever broadcast from ESPNHD, ESPNHD2, ABCHD, FOXHD, and MyTVHD. The higher frame rate is one of two chief reasons why it is better suited for fast-moving video (the other being no line-dicing artifacts as with interlaced video). For the record, the field rate of 1080i is 60 (59.94), while the frame rate is 30 (29.97). The frame rate is identical to the field rate for progressive format, which is 60 (59.94) for 720p.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

TyroneShoes said:


> Assuming you mean frames per second, again I mean no offense whatsoever, but this time I'm afraid you are absolutely, categorically incorrect. 720p is almost always employed at 60 (59.94) fps for ATSC broadcasting, including every frame of video ever broadcast from ESPNHD, ESPNHD2, ABCHD, FOXHD, and MyTVHD. The higher frame rate is one of two chief reasons why it is better suited for fast-moving video (the other being no line-dicing artifacts as with interlaced video). For the record, the field rate of 1080i is 60 (59.94), while the frame rate is 30 (29.97). The frame rate is identical to the field rate for progressive format, which is 60 (59.94) for 720p.


Well, then, I stand unoffendly corrected.


----------



## cheer (Nov 13, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> No. Both 720p and 1080i as currently broadcast are at frame rates of 30 FPS. A 720p frame consists of 921,600 pixels. A 1080i frame consists of 2,073,600 pixels. Your example suggests that 720p is being delivered at a frame rate of 60 FPS. This is inaccurate and this is why people have the mistaken belief that p = i*2. It does not.


You could not be more wrong, and your description seems to indicate that i and p are no different, which is just silly.

1080i is delivered as ~60 interlaced fields/sec.
720p is delivered as ~60 progressive frames/sec.

But I do agree that people put way too much emphasis on i/p, especially if we're talking about film-sourced content. Folks, if you're watching a movie, or a filmed drama or comedy, it was shot at 24 progressive frames/sec. Anything beyond that is padding to meet the broadcast specs. So whether it's at i or p, if your equipment is properly doing pulldown, you're ending up with 24 progressive frames/sec when you watch it.

For stuff shot on HD video, well, that's another story. But other than sports and some reality stuff/news/talk, very little is.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

cheer said:


> You could not be more wrong


So it seems. Hey, it isn't the first time.


----------



## harley3k (Jul 19, 2006)

Most people's eyeballs and brains are analog and can only process video at 642i @ 4fps, depending on how much they blink.


----------



## jautor (Jul 1, 2001)

harley3k said:


> Most people's eyeballs and brains are analog and can only process video at 642i @ 4fps, depending on how much they blink.


Blink too fast and you'll see rainbows.

Blink too slow, and you'll see dead people.



But as a serious comment, I'm really tired of the useless "HD lite" bashing. First, it's not that bad. Anyone who claims that "DirecTV's HD doesn't look any better than SD" needs to have their head, eyes, and TV examined. Comparing it to Blu-ray is unfair, as BD can easily double the bitrate of even the best ATSC broadcast.

Would I like D* to give me 19Mb/s, full resolution HD for each and every channel? You bet! Would I prefer that they drop half of their HD content to do so - absolutely not.

Real world experience: I have D* HD, and I came very close to dumping it for TWC and a Series3 (because of the S3 lifetime offer, not because of picture quality). But a look at what TWC called "HD" on some friends sets made me wince. Horrible bit-starved macroblocking on both local channels and HBO/ESPN. Much, much worse than anything on D* HD. Blew that plan right out of the water. Now, apparently, TWC Houston is one of the worst offenders in terms of recompression, but to make blanket statements about how horrible D* is, is not helpful for people on this forum trying to make informed decisions.

The good news for D* is that once they get these other birds in the air, they will be in a situation that hasn't been seen in quite a while in the multichannel provider business: Ample bandwidth. Huge tracts of bandwidth. Just waiting for content...

Now, if they can just get the providers to fill those pipes, they'll have quite a product on their hands... And if only they'll offer it without costing us all of our limbs. 

Jeff


----------



## Budget_HT (Jan 2, 2001)

The impact of "HD Lite" and other bandwidth-starved HD broadcasts varies a lot by viewing screen size and fixed-pixel versus analog CRT display technology.

The undesirable artifacts are less apparent (actually less visible) on smaller screens, many of which cannot even display full 1920-pixel horizontal resolution.

Conversely, larger displays bring out those artifacts.


----------



## jautor (Jul 1, 2001)

Budget_HT said:


> The impact of "HD Lite" and other bandwidth-starved HD broadcasts varies a lot by viewing screen size and fixed-pixel versus analog CRT display technology.
> 
> The undesirable artifacts are less apparent (actually less visible) on smaller screens, many of which cannot even display full 1920-pixel horizontal resolution.
> 
> Conversely, larger displays bring out those artifacts.


Of course, and on my 61" DLP, it's still NOT THAT BAD...

Can I see the difference between an OTA and the national (NYC) feed of ABC/Fox? Yes, if I switch between the two, but certainly not enough to call it awful, or even bad. Heck, I even record some shows from the national feeds *because* they're bit-reduced, and therefore take up less disk space...

I've seen much worse on TWC cable HD, stuff I would call unwatchable because of the fast motion pixelization (not due to signal quality). Again, could D* be better - certainly. But this over-the-top negativity may steer people to providers that may have worse PQ and/or less content.

Jeff


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

weather channel in HD..time to ditch HDtivo and move on


----------



## Mr. Bill (Jan 18, 2006)

newsposter said:


> weather channel in HD..time to ditch HDtivo and move on


And let's not forget _New Leaf TV_ (out of Arlington, TX) -- a new network promoting healthy lifestyles, organic living, natural healing and related topics will also be coming in Spring-Summer in HD. How do I know? Their contracted production company was shooting (w/ 720P cameras) a show with my wife earlier this week. They said the network would debut on Time-Warner cable, DirecTV and one other major cable network that I can't remember right now.


----------



## cstelter (Mar 18, 2002)

Hi All, 
Joining the discussion a little late-- I've read numerous of these threads over the past few months but one point escapes me right now. Is D* broadcasting the HDlite on MPEG-4, or is it just on the MPEG-2 bandwidth-limited sats that they're doing the HD-Lite? I was under the impression it was only the MPEG-2..

But now onto the thought that has me posting in the first place...



jautor said:


> But as a serious comment, I'm really tired of the useless "HD lite" bashing. First, it's not that bad. Anyone who claims that "DirecTV's HD doesn't look any better than SD" needs to have their head, eyes, and TV examined.
> Jeff


I'm with you on this-- sure it would be *great* to get full 1080i (or 1080p for that matter). But honestly at the moment my request is for a much lower bar.

You know, I output 480i from my HD Tivo and burn DVD's all the time. If the original source was HD (OTA) or HD-Lite(HBO-HD) it really doesn't matter, the resulting DVD is so greatly superior to what was on the Sat-SD feed it isn't even funny.

What I'm saying is that I'd much rather watch the DVD recording of an HBO-HD-LITE show than catch the same movie on HBO-SD via the sat. It's *that* much better.

If they have capacity for 150 national channels and only 50 are actually available, why not just broadcast all the movie channels and other 100 most popular channels _at their full 480i bandwidth_ and reformat them at HD (or HD Lite for that matter if mpeg4 is still slated as HD Lite)??

I know SCI-FI-HD is supposedly coming soon, but I like to watch Battlestar Galactica. I take the sucky SD image and I zoom my TV in to avoid the letterbox and it works, but is pretty lame. If they're going to have all this extra bandwidth, why not take the 720x480i SD channel (I'm assuming the original source is actually a pretty nice 480i image similar to what you can get on a DVD 480-- maybe that's a misconception on my part) and scale it up to 1280x1080i and pillerbox it and send out the best possible SD channel they can.

Then as HD Versions of each channel come available, they can just swap it out.

I mean, isn't that largely what TNT-HD is? (Please, oh please though if they were to go down this road preserve the 4:3 aspect ratio and avoid that nasty stretch stuff on TNT-HD). Also don't advertise it as HD-- call it Maximum Definition or somesuch.

I suppose it would never happen though as then folks would realize how sucky the SD compression really is....


----------

