# Is it me or is DirecTV HD a ripoff?



## BBQ Chicken (Nov 26, 2002)

I'm new to HD, just got a set. I have directv currently with my old tv and enjoy it, but it seems like it will be a big pain to upgrade to HD because to get local channels I will have to set up a huge antenna? And if I want to record I'll have to buy a 600 dollar tivo and get a new sattelite dish, also it doesn't look like DirecTV has many channels in HD anyway. I can't stand watching standard TV on my new set now, it looks awful.

From what I understand i could for a whole lot cheaper get HD and a DVR from comcast and not have to worry about using an antenna for locals.. or would I? This is all so confusing, I just want to watch NFL games in HD.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

Well, it's your call. All I know is when they offered the $299-$100MIR deal in August, I jumped on it. Still waiting on the rebate though, supposed to show up this week. I get two networks in HD, CBS and FOX (crucial for the NFL), and there's only one local station broadcasting in HD, NBC, that would require my putting up an antenna. That's one of the reasons I've delayed on that. I'm getting the HD package for $6 mo. until the middle of next month and I'll see what might get added and make a decision then. If all new channels are for MPEG-4 only and I'm not offered a free switch, I'll probably cancel. 

"West Coast" is a really vague location description, so I'll assume you know whether or not if MPEG-4 locals are available where you are. I'll also assume you don't qualify for distants. If it were me and I could get all of the networks in HD instead of just one, I'd have put that antenna up awhile ago.


----------



## nhaigh (Jul 16, 2001)

Yes it's a total rip off. They sell you a DVR when cable give you a DVR. You pay for the service but they give you 2 or 3 channels os ftuff like sports and an areal to put on the roof to receive all the free stuff most people get without paying DirecTV for.

IMO if you wan't HD then Cable is your friend, at least it will be 100% your friend when the CC HD TiVo becomes available.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

nhaigh said:


> They sell you a DVR when cable give you a DVR.


That's false info right there. Cable doesn't *give* you anything more than any pay service does, you lease their equipment and you lease it for as long as you're a customer AND it can be pretty substantial on your monthly bill.


----------



## smith13 (Apr 29, 2004)

First of all you won't need a huge antenna for local hd. Just get the winegard antenna, it's no bigger that your dish and is easy to set up. Second of all, how much football are you going to be able to watch in hd on cable? Not much because they don't have sunday ticket. But hey it's your money that you invested into that expensive t.v. to get hd programming so you decide.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

The PVR and STB are priced well. What is a rip is the HD Pak. Some of the channels in this package go 4 days running with no HD programs (ESPNHD2).

My antenna cost me a whopping $1.79. I'm a lot happier with that than the grand I just sunk into satellite radio, which I still can't receive consistently and makes the compression used by DTV look generous.


----------



## RunnerFL (May 10, 2005)

TyroneShoes said:


> The PVR and STB are priced well. What is a rip is the HD Pak. Some of the channels in this package go 4 days running with no HD programs (ESPNHD2).


D* has absolutely NOTHING to do with the content broadcast on ESPN2HD so you can't blame them for the lack of HD content.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I didn't blame them for the content of ESPNHD2, and if you'd care to actually read and comprehend my post, you should be able to understand that. I blamed them for adding a useless channel devoid of much HD content to the HD Pak, which they had EVERYTHING to do with. TNT-HD would have been a much better choice.


----------



## jennifer (Dec 2, 2001)

Hi BBQ.

Long time,no see. Welcome back!


----------



## kapurcell (Nov 18, 2005)

bidger said:


> That's false info right there. Cable doesn't *give* you anything more than any pay service does, you lease their equipment and you lease it for as long as you're a customer AND it can be pretty substantial on your monthly bill.


Even if the "lease" is $15 a month, it would take 3 years to pay for what you pay out of pocket for a HDTivo from DTV. Plus you have the benefit of not having to fork it all out at once.

DTV is not ready for mass HDTV so it's not incentivising it with price. When they get more channels in HD I believe we will see lower costs. I hope anyway.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Each locale is different. Where one person lives they may be able to get all networks via their cable company or even OTA. Where I'm at, I get the networks from DirecTV. TWC here only has ABC-HD since that is the only station that is broadcasting HD (other than PBS).


----------



## mx6bfast (Jan 2, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> I didn't blame them for the content of ESPNHD2, and if you'd care to actually read and comprehend my post, you should be able to understand that. I blamed them for adding a useless channel devoid of much HD content to the HD Pak, which they had EVERYTHING to do with. TNT-HD would have been a much better choice.


Different strokes. PErsonally I think UHD is a waste, since I never watch it. I have watched much more HD on ESPN2HD than UHD.

To the op, why will you have to setup a huge antenna? Are you that far from the towers? check www.antennaweb.org to find out how far you are. For the most part, cable co's usually have the local stations in HD, if they broadcast HD.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

I thought WBNG was HD, Jim. WENY (NBC) is the only one here. I get conflicting reports about ABC over TWC. They show on their web site that they're using WIVT out of Bingotown, but I'm told by actual subscribers that there is no ABC-HD. 

kaprucell- I don't know where you get 3 years from, but as I said I used the special back in August so it would be more like 13 mos. if you're using the cable equivalent of $15/mo. Then again, I'd have to add an extra 25 cents a month because TWC tacks on a separate charge for a remote to control the unit.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

bidger said:


> I thought WBNG was HD, Jim. WENY (NBC) is the only one here. I get conflicting reports about ABC over TWC. They show on their web site that they're using WIVT out of Bingotown, but I'm told by actual subscribers that there is no ABC-HD.


Going slightly off topic to answer this. WBNG is broadcasting OTA digitally, but no HD. They may be providing an HD feed to TWC, but since I gave up on TWC a couple of years ago I can't say for sure. I can only say what I see. WIVT is broadcasting HD OTA. Their picture is quite good, infact a little better than WABC I get with DirecTV. But, WIVT isn't passing through DD5.1. I do believe that TWC is carrying WIVT-HD. Maybe the subscribers you talked to were only thing about the SD feed.

We can continue this here if you want.
http://www.rochesterhdtv.com/viewtopic.php?t=60


----------



## Jim Abbett (Nov 6, 2005)

Heck, I paid $750 for a single box and dish when they first came out AND had to install it myself. 

Now for around $450 I got a dish, HD DVR, 2 extra boxes and installation along with small credits and a $100 rebate (I hope). 

Others have gotten better deals but it's better than what I had before.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

If you're in L.A., you should be able to get CBS, ABC, NBC & FOX HD off of the satellite.

Setting up an OTA antenna is not that big a deal really. It works seemlessly with the HR10-250.

While D* is the only one with Sunday ticket, and Sunday Ticket in HD, you should be able to pick up a few games a week in HD without it, including a few Sunday games, Sunday night football (on NBC), and Monday night football on ESPN-HD. All next year of course.

-smak-


----------



## Texceo (Mar 11, 2003)

It Is You!


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

BBQ Chicken said:


> Is it me or is DirecTV HD a ripoff?


no

read my post here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=277929 to know my opinion about this.

if you can't stand watching SD content then get a HD tivo. simple. if you don't want to pay $300.- or $400.- for it now and $11.- a months than wait a few more years.

but don't expect to get true HD (with tivo) for free anytime soon.


----------



## KyLafoon (Dec 26, 2005)

Jim, Have you ever taken a tour of the McIntosh Lab up there in Binghampton? Isn't that where McIntosh Labs are located?


----------



## mroe (Oct 15, 2004)

I have just the standard DTV Tivo, I like it a lot, but I'd really like to go to HD. I had it when I had Cox Cable, so it really does look good. But from what I've been reading so far, I think I'm going to wait for the next generation unit to come out. I did call and see what they had to offer, and they said 6 channels. WOW! for an additinal $10.00 per month??? NOT!! So hopefully when they come out with the new unit, they'll have some more channels up.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

SO, how big is the largest hard drive in a Cable HD PVR? Seems like the biggest I have heard is a 160 gig, which gives you what, 18-20 hours maybe. That is a serious detriment right there for me. The HR10-250 is about 30 hours out of the box and I added a 250 gig drive for 63 hours.

Plus, the HD Tivo works better than most cable PVR's. I have freinds with the Sci Atlanta 8000 and 8000HD and they lock up on a pretty consistent basis so tehy have to be rebooted once a week.

Yes, things can be obtained slightly cheaper, but often they are not as good.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

BBQ Chicken said:


> I'm new to HD, just got a set. .... I just want to watch NFL games in HD.


Just realize that not only will you have to pay $250 (or whatever it is) for Sunday Ticket - and ~ $10 per month for D* HD, you will also have to pay $99 per year to get SportsFan - which is required to get Sunday Ticket in HD. (And hopefully &$*%& CBS will get their *$&% together soon and start broadcasting more than 3 games per week in HD).


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

I'd love to have DTVHD but I cannot bring myself to spend $11 a month plus cost of receivre (yes I know theres a rebate but i still have to ponyup $200 at first for a reciever). And the fact that there are only 4 channels I might watch in HD (dont like sports so ESPN1/2 are worthless). Just doesnt seem very money friendly right now. Besides Im hoping to see them move to more HD content soon with the MP4 stuff and get on board then.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

luckily there are guys like me who are willing to pay the $11.- a months now.

if everyone would have the sentiment of "i wait until it gets cheap or free" a lot of things would be moving slower. show your interest now and things will move faster.

and for the D* HD package. you will have at least 3 months for free to see if you like it or not. some complain, i love it. but that's because of my taste of programming. i love disc.HD, lots of really great programming. HDnet has good stuff, concerts etc., there is some good movies too. but if you don't like sports, movies from 3 years ago or discovery, there is no reason to get the HD package, but the HD tivo still might be worthwhile to you if you like to watch shows like lost, my name is earl and many more which are broadcast in HD too...

i have no regrets, but i think the tivo (instead of just the receiver) is crucial. because you can search for HD shows you like and record them and then watch them. you won't be bound to their schedule.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Texceo said:


> It Is You!


I agree!


----------



## jspencer (Dec 23, 2001)

It's a poor value at best based on content offered


----------



## 2nd2no1 (May 24, 2005)

flmgrip said:


> luckily there are guys like me who are willing to pay the $11.- a months now.
> 
> if everyone would have the sentiment of "i wait until it gets cheap or free" a lot of things would be moving slower. show your interest now and things will move faster.
> 
> ...


I have to agree and you left out "24".


----------



## jeffl-1 (Jul 12, 2004)

I started to subscribe to the hd package when it started and I just cancelled yesterday. The programming is not worth the money especially after football season ends. D* is the worst provider now as far as hd goes. I went back home for the holidays to visit my family. They live in a small town 40 miles from Pittsburgh. Checking out their hd line up (Comcast) really depressed me.
1. All Locals
2. Hbo, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax
3. Hdnet movies, Inhd
4. Discovery
5. Espn's


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

jeffl said:


> I started to subscribe to the hd package when it started and I just cancelled yesterday. The programming is not worth the money especially after football season ends. D* is the worst provider now as far as hd goes. I went back home for the holidays to visit my family. They live in a small town 40 miles from Pittsburgh. Checking out their hd line up (Comcast) really depressed me.
> 1. All Locals
> 2. Hbo, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax
> 3. Hdnet movies, Inhd
> ...


they get Hbo, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax in HD with their HD package or because they subscribe to the movie channels ??

because besides of the movies, that's what i get with the HD package (but i got showtime free for six months when i signed up)


----------



## elvisisded (Apr 7, 2001)

jeffl said:


> I started to subscribe to the hd package when it started and I just cancelled yesterday. The programming is not worth the money especially after football season ends. D* is the worst provider now as far as hd goes. I went back home for the holidays to visit my family. They live in a small town 40 miles from Pittsburgh. Checking out their hd line up (Comcast) really depressed me.
> 1. All Locals
> 2. Hbo, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax
> 3. Hdnet movies, Inhd
> ...


I get all that now with DTV! I'm not understanding the complaint here.


----------



## kbohip (Dec 30, 2003)

The only reason I got my HD-Tivo was to watch prime time network shows in HD. The $11 a month Directv wants for their crappy HD package is a joke at best. Half the time I look on the guide the shows on those channels aren't even in HD anyway. I'll be cancelling it as soon as my 50% off deal runs out on it. This will free up that money for Sirius.


----------



## rmassey (Sep 5, 2002)

elvisisded said:


> I get all that now with DTV! I'm not understanding the complaint here.


You get Starz and InHD from D*? When did this happen?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I think what most people don't realize when they upgrade to HD is that sports, discovery channel shows, and prime time network shows are all that's made with HD cameras today. 

If one or more of those things isn't important enough to you to pay $11 a month to record in HD than yes the HD package is a rip off. 

I personally love all three in HD and can't imagine going back to SD for any of them. The HD picture quality is addictive. If they converted more channels to HD what would be the point? Few of the other channels on the dial have any HD content today. Starz might be nice but movies aren't filmed with HD cameras yet so watching one in HD is only slightly better than watching it in SD.

Where DirecTV saves you money is when you want multiple SD and HD DVR's in your house. Try pricing that at your local cable company for a monthly bill. Last but not least my local cable company still supplies the vast majority of the channels in analog. And poor signal quality analog at that.


----------



## ggalindo (Sep 9, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> I think what most people don't realize when they upgrade to HD is that sports, discovery channel shows, and prime time network shows are all that's made with HD cameras today.
> 
> If one or more of those things isn't important enough to you to pay $11 a month to record in HD than yes the HD package is a rip off.
> 
> ...


First, I cannot believe that I would agree with someone with the name "Gator"!

But I do agree, and would like to add my $.02 Would I like more HD channels, of course, proportionally, is the $11 worth an additional 5 channels when you get over 100 for $29-$39, probably not. Are we subsidizing D* with the fee, of course. However, I think it is fairly priced at the moment for the following reasons:

1. HD is like flying first class, once you have done it, you don't really want to go back. D* of course is targeting the sports fan through their HD choices, which is fine with me, and if you are a sports fan, the $11 is clearly worth it. However, my wife loves watching much of the other non-sports programming on HD; I tend to think there is enough variety to be satisfactory.

2. If we watch one evenings worth of shows or a movie in HD (that we likely would not watch in SD), instead of going out, we have saved money. If we simply went to the movies, that would be $14, add dinner, that is another $20-$30. I can tell you that having sports and movies/shows on HD has kept us at home at least 3 or 4 nights a month on average; well worth the $11.

I sometimes think people look at cable/satellite pricing as a comparison against the standard cost or base cost and then place a value on incremental services based on that base cost (I know I often do). Nobody wants to get nickled and dimed to death, but I think in the case of HD, the value is certainly there for me.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> ...Starz might be nice but movies aren't filmed with HD cameras yet so watching one in HD is only slightly better than watching it in SD...


Huh?

Even a 16mm film camera is an HD camera by definition. Every movie and TV show shot on film can be telecine'd to HD video. The HD Pak includes "Charlie's Angels" and "Hogan's Heroes", both in true HD, and both produced when the ATSC format was decades away from being even a gleam in anyone's eyes. I just saw "The Wizard of Oz" in true HD, and that was filmed in what, 1939?

That means just one thing...when DT becomes the norm rather than the exception, all of these old TV shows and movies will be transferred using HD telecine and we will be watching virtually everything ever shot on film as HD. Maybe I'll even think about getting the HD Pak again at that point.


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

kbohip said:


> ...Half the time I look on the guide the shows on those channels aren't even in HD anyway. I'll be cancelling it as soon as my 50% off deal runs out on it. This will free up that money for Sirius.


Half the time? More like 85% of the time on ESPN2HD. I'm not paying 11 bucks for 6 hours a day of fat morons playing poker. In SD.

But if you are disappointed that the resolution is not high on the HD Pak, you will be crying your eyes out once you go to Sirius. I've got a string and two Dixie cups that have better audio. Maybe instead of that little dog, they should use that as their logo.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

TyroneShoes said:


> Huh?
> 
> Even a 16mm film camera is an HD camera by definition. Every movie and TV show shot on film can be telecine'd to HD video. The HD Pak includes "Charlie's Angels" and "Hogan's Heroes", both in true HD, and both produced when the ATSC format was decades away from being even a gleam in anyone's eyes. I just saw "The Wizard of Oz" in true HD, and that was filmed in what, 1939?


Maybe so. But the movies in HD on HBO do not have the clarity that the shows on the discover channel do. If I can't see the pores in the skin on the actor's nose then it doesn't meet my definition of HD.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

HiDefGator said:


> Maybe so. But the movies in HD on HBO do not have the clarity that the shows on the discover channel do. If I can't see the pores in the skin on the actor's nose then it doesn't meet my definition of HD.


That's certainly what I watch movies for.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

HiDefGator said:


> Maybe so. But the movies in HD on HBO do not have the clarity that the shows on the discover channel do. If I can't see the pores in the skin on the actor's nose then it doesn't meet my definition of HD.


you are highly confused my friend.

video and film are two different things. HD discovery, sports and live shows (if in HD) are the only things filmed with HD Video.

there are a FEW prime time shows that are filmed with HD video, but 90%-95% of prime time HD is filmed on 35mm film and that will not change for some time due to the cost and availability of HD equipment. shooting HDvideo is not yet cheaper than shooting 35mm film

if you THOUGHT that all prime time shows are HDvideo and you liked it, but you don't like HD-hbo than you might have just watched a bad transfer or an older movie.

and to correct TyroneShoes, a show filmed in the 30's will have a lower quality than a show filmed now. film has not always been the same and there is constant improvements still done with film stock too. especially in the last 10 years or so.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

rmassey said:


> You get Starz and InHD from D*? When did this happen?


of course you get starz... and what the heck is InHD ?

or are you saying you get all the HD movie channels by subscribing to the HD package and NOT the movie packages ?


----------



## rmassey (Sep 5, 2002)

Starz HD? I thought D* only offered SHO and HBO in HD.


----------



## Redux (Oct 19, 2004)

flmgrip said:


> a show filmed in the 30's will have a lower quality than a show filmed now


In the context of this thread I have no quarrel with that.

However, it's much like saying that music of the 1930s is of lower quality than music today.

In both cases there is a difference, and living today and being immersed in today's conventions, we tend to prefer today's conventions. Personally, I don't think there's ever been a better film "look" than the late 1930s/early 1940s b&w film "sheen." Occasional attempts made to recreate that look with modern film stocks or video fail.

And, probably not coincidentally, I like the sound of vinyl and find much digitally-recorded music to be harsh. I don't find either vinyl or digital to be anything like the experiece of live music.

HiDef is new, it's today. Where there is no artistic content in the material (e.g. TV), the look is clearly superior. But I, for one, dread the day when movies are shot with HD cameras, much like other hanger-ons to the past once were uncomfortable with the transition to sound movies, or to 3-D (oops) or color.


----------



## mike_k (Sep 20, 2005)

From the OP:



BBQ Chicken said:


> ...I just want to watch NFL games in HD.


Just have to take a second again to say that CBS sucks - only broadcasting three games a week in HD. I keep on hearing that's it all due to bandwidth issues, and I've been saying all year that that is BS, and I think this week proves it. The game today was HD, and they only have two games tomorrow in HD. Seems to me that they are just too cheap to buy enough HD equipment for all games. All year long they have had two early games in HD and one late game in HD - where does the bandwidth limitation come in??

I'm sick of hearing that they are #1 for NFL coverage - people don't choose CBS over Fox - they choose to watch the games CBS broadcasts over than the games that Fox broadcasts. It has nothing to do with the fact that the game is on CBS and has everything to do with the teams that are playing. I could go on and on about why they suck, but I'm sure it's all common knowledge.

/rant
/hijack


----------



## jeffl-1 (Jul 12, 2004)

rmassey said:


> Starz HD? I thought D* only offered SHO and HBO in HD.


D* only has showtime and hbo hd. My original post stated that cable companies carry those plus starz and cinemax. Even TMC sometimes. More choices! Is the D* package a rip?

UHD- a total waste
DHD- Nice, good programming
HDNET- A copy of UHD
HDNET MOVIES- Some good movies
Espn- great for sports
Espn2- Not enough programming in hd
Also, take into account that this is not real hd because it is compressed so bad. I remember a few years ago some of these channel were awesome now they are just not the same. Maybe $5 should be the price.


----------



## rmassey (Sep 5, 2002)

Yeah, I understood your post, it was ElvisIsDed who replied with


> I get all that now with DTV! I'm not understanding the complaint here.


He was (incorrectly) saying he's getting Starz and Cinemax in HD via D*


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

Redux said:


> In the context of this thread I have no quarrel with that.
> 
> However, it's much like saying that music of the 1930s is of lower quality than music today.
> 
> ...


well, here we go with that... it's all very subjective. but we are talking about picture quality and not the art form, but even than i would not agree with you on that. but that's because you like old movies... i don't

some movies are shot already in high def. and it is something that will be unavoidable. it's a train that can't be stopped. and that's fine. because when hi-def is shoot properly it has an incredible film-close look. especially when transferred back to film for the theaters.

for years i was against it, but i see the quality and film like look and i am fine with that. at this point i prefer to work with film tough because it is easier. hi-def cameras are hugh and heavy and you "need" all these monitors and cables...

but again this is all get subjective and should be argued over in a "film" forum and not here


----------



## hoopsrgreat (Jan 2, 2005)

flmgrip said:


> you are highly confused my friend.
> 
> video and film are two different things. HD discovery, sports and live shows (if in HD) are the only things filmed with HD Video.
> 
> there are a FEW prime time shows that are filmed with HD video, but 90%-95% of prime time HD is filmed on 35mm film and that will not change for some time due to the cost and availability of HD equipment. shooting HDvideo is not yet cheaper than shooting 35mm film


I remember when I first got my HD tv and was watching the HD commercial on CBS. The picture quality of the commercial was phenominal. I remember asking my wife why the shows that were HD were not as good as the commercial that was promoting their shows that are "HD."

IM assuming the above explanation is why?


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

yes and no. pretty much all commercials are shot on film, but not even transmitted in HD format 16:9 that is. but i have not seen a difference in the pic quality of a promo and the show itself. maybe you did not really watch a HD show and you thought you were...

promos are shot to promote... so they take more care of shooting it and make it look good. maybe it (the promo) was shot on 35mm and the show itself was shot on 16mm or even HD, but with a D.P. that wasn't that talented... they have 2 days to shot a 60 sec promo and they have 7 days to shot 42mins of show...

what show is it you are referring to ?


----------



## hoopsrgreat (Jan 2, 2005)

the promo was for HD on cbs in general. It showed sports on cbs(tennis and football and basketball) it showed the stars of various cbs shows (csi miami) and it showed Prince (the musician)playing for a few seconds. The stars of the shows were just standing in a studio, not actually out takes from the shows.

The quality of all of the pictures was great, and better than anything ive seen from any of the shows themselves. CSI Miami looks great in HD, but still cant compare to the quality of this particular CBS HD commercial. It would air over and over ahain, but I cant remember the last time ive seen it.


----------



## greywolf (Apr 9, 2004)

The promo was shot on video. The programming is shot on film. "The Young and the Restless" is shot on video. Probably the creative teams don't want prime time programming looking like a soap opera. Also, film is well established medium for producing visual effect. Film stock choice and processing adjustment can be used to produce grain, contrast enhancement and depth of field tricks cinematographers and directors have relied on for decades. Grainy stock is the choice to convey the mood in a burned out building or a crack house for example. Conversely, video is seen as having a "cheap home video" effect by many. There are as many opinions as there people I guess.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

smith13 said:


> First of all you won't need a huge antenna for local hd. Just get the winegard antenna, it's no bigger that your dish and is easy to set up.


That is a very general statement and not entirely factual.

Depending on many, many factors it can be very easy to get HD OTA or very difficult. The poor tuners in the HR10-250 don't make the difficult situations any easier.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

SpankyInChicago said:


> That is a very general statement and not entirely factual.
> 
> Depending on many, many factors it can be very easy to get HD OTA or very difficult. The poor tuners in the HR10-250 don't make the difficult situations any easier.


the tuners in the 10-250 are not that bad. i had a OTA receiver for a while and needed a line booster from the antenna to get a signal ad with the 10-250 i could remove the booster at still get a signal


----------



## steak (Jul 1, 2005)

I can't use the 3 LNB dish due to tree issues. Can I buy and use the HD Tivo from DTV without subing to the HD Package and also use the normal round dish?


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

steak said:


> I can't use the 3 LNB dish due to tree issues. Can I buy and use the HD Tivo from DTV without subing to the HD Package and also use the normal round dish?


yes


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

flmgrip said:


> the tuners in the 10-250 are not that bad. i had a OTA receiver for a while and needed a line booster from the antenna to get a signal ad with the 10-250 i could remove the booster at still get a signal


The tuners keep getting better and better. Since both of my TVs with built-in tuners are about 2 model years newer than the HR10-250, the tuners seem to have benefited as I have much more reliable HD OTA reception with my TVs directly than with my HR10-250. Of course the TVs don't record!


----------



## bollwerk (Apr 8, 2005)

I watch many programs in HD on HBO, Showtime and the 4 major networks. I think the price is worth it, although I'd like to see alot more HD channels like TNT HD, Starz HD, Cinemaz HD and UPN/PBS/WB in HD.


----------



## jmace57 (Nov 30, 2002)

You kicked over the antpile with this question, didn't cha BBQ?

Long time no see

Jim


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

jmace57 said:


> You kicked over the antpile with this question


that's pretty easy to do these days


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

i just cant believe that there arent more HD channels on DTV... I mean, seriously. These guys have like 3490348 channels of crap, why cant they have some HD crap too?

Keep holding out for the new mp4 systems and maybe an announcement on more channels. I dont want to spend money on a receiver until I know Im going to get at least 10-20 channels of HD content.

I mean, didnt Voom have at least that many? (Yeah yeah sure they went out of business, but thats beside the point here)

And if DTV will come thru with more HD channels I will bite maybe.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

i'd rather have fewer HD channels with no CRAP than just making up something or upconverting SD to HD with black sidebars.

there is just not that much HD content availble yet. it will take time. this switch is by far more difficult than VHS-DVD for example. at even that took a long time.

look at the major four, barley 10% of the air time is actully 16:9 true HD, so how can you excpect some mini mouse channel to produce HD 24/7 ?? i don't mind paying $11.- for HDnet and HDdiscovery, at least they are broadcasting 24/7 in HD unlike any other channel (As far as i know) and mostly original HD content. not movies (that's easy to convert, since you have the quality and format there already)

i said it before and i will say it again, i think it is said that so many people want everything for free. if i'd have a choice (and that's what i watch mainly) i'd be just subscribing to the HD channels and the locals. great i have an other 180 channels or so, but it's all useless stuff (for me and in my point of view)

i think it would be great if the channel lineup would be more split up, how about five bucks for the locals, five bucks for news, five bucks for shopping, five bucks for home improvemnt channels, 10 bucks for sports, 10 bucks for HD... you get the picture.


----------



## DuffMan (Jun 30, 2003)

I've been mulling HD over for a couple years but to me it's still at the "novelty" stage: really cool for limited programming but not worth it overall. It's actually less about the money and more about the hassle in my case.

I don't watch all that much sports so I'll probably buy a 1080i up-conversion DVD player (or blue-ray when it comes down) to watch my Netflix and wait til HD is more of a commodity.

I would however like to thank all you early adopters in advance for getting HD more mainstream in a year or two


----------



## TheBigDogs (Oct 14, 2004)

Actually, there's an enormous amount of HD content available - almost all movies made since the conversion in the 50's to 16:9 can be transmitted as HD with an excellent PQ. We just watched Midnight Run which was filmed in 1988 on HD and it looked excellent - far better than the same movie on SD. 

The problem has to do with the NAB and the cabal of small time operators who control NAB policy. These guys don't want to give up their current bandwidth and buy expensive new equipment. 

If you want to see HDTV expand, write your representative in D.C. and tell them that February 2009 for the all digital conversion is way too long. Attend one of their campaign functions this fall (mid term elections) and ask why they support giving billions of $ worth of bandwidth to a bunch of snake oil salesmen and bible thumpers. 

Get rid of the small local TV broadcasters and you'll have very high quality HD all over the country.


----------



## flmgrip (Nov 26, 2003)

DuffMan said:


> I would however like to thank all you early adopters in advance for getting HD more mainstream in a year or two


you are welcome



TheBigDogs said:


> Actually, there's an enormous amount of HD content available - almost all movies made since the conversion in the 50's to 16:9 can be transmitted as HD with an excellent PQ. We just watched Midnight Run which was filmed in 1988 on HD and it looked excellent - far better than the same movie on SD.


not sure if you did read my post or not, but that's still only all the movie channels. 30 or so out of 200... and that's not new content.

i want to see news, reality tv etc. in HD



TheBigDogs said:


> The problem has to do with the NAB and the cabal of small time operators who control NAB policy. These guys don't want to give up their current bandwidth and buy expensive new equipment.


of course not, because nobody wants to pay for it. you hear them here whine all the time about the extra cost for the HD channels.

but's it's more then just the equipment to transmit and the bandwidth. it's the cameras, mobile editing stations etc... everything is more or less obsolete. and here you got a guy whining abut $11.- bucks a months. so who's going to pay for it ? commercials ? not really, we all got our HD-Tivos - right ?


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I wouldn't really say HD is still in the 'novelty' stage. All the prime time shows on the four major networks are done in HD.


----------



## bidger (Mar 30, 2001)

There are still some prime time network shows that aren't HD, e.g.- "Scrubs", "Survivor", but the majority are and I agree that HD is _far_ from the novelty stage.


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Anyone know if DTV has shown any mpg4 equipemt or made any announcements at CES that might give us a time frame on when their HD lineup isnt going to suck as much?


----------



## rkester (Jan 10, 2005)

Just answered my own question when reading bluesnews a bit ago. I guess they did show the Series3 cablecard HD units and they sound pretty hot!

http://www.tivolovers.com/252572.html


----------



## gtadell (Oct 20, 2003)

Directv HD Tivo gives me the best possible viewing experience in my local area. I am a long time subscriber to NFL Ticket so I don't really consider a switch to cable. However, the local cable co. (Cox) is only able to offer CBS in HD. No Fox, NBC or ABC in HD. The only way to see these in southeastern VA is via antenna so the HD Tivo makes for the best possible setup.

Sure it is a big antenna, but its only about $50 and I have not touched it in months.


----------

