DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
 ·Charter Pipeline
2 edits | reply to BF69
Re: competition the american way
"HD Lite" is a concocted term meant to spread FUD. The quality is just fine.
EDIT - Yes, resampling is there, but it is nonetheless HD.
Incidently, according to Wikipedia, TWC resamples in this fashion as well:
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_lite
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX
| Care to prove HD Lite is FUD?
I've seen plenty examples to prove that the satellite providers dumb down the signal to skimp on used bandwidth.
--
Ubuntu Tips »www.ubuntutips.org |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| reply to DaSneaky1D
No, it is not HD. HD is 1280x720 or 1920x1080, not 1280x1080 that Directv is trying to pass as HD. There is no FUD about it, Directv does not offer true HD, but neither does Dishnetwork or many other cable providers. To my knowledge(as a few years ago), only Comcast offers HDTV channels without altering the data stream from the source. |
|
DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to NOCMan
I'm not saying re-sampling is not happening. Saying that any re-sampling is totally destroys the picture is FUD. The quality (of course, totally subjective) is fine.
And what's wrong with trying to conserve bandwidth? Unlike terrestrial services, you can't really upgrade bandwidth to space too easily.
--
:: my trivial ramblings :: |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to DaSneaky1D
said by DaSneaky1D  :"HD Lite" is a concocted term meant to spread FUD. The quality is just fine. EDIT - Yes, resampling is there, but it is nonetheless HD. Incidently, according to Wikipedia, TWC resamples in this fashion as well: » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_lite So what if TWC uses this? I'm not in TWC territory. TWC is not on TV having Dr Brown say how they are going to have 100X more HD capacity when they don't even have the capacity for 8 HD channles NOW. Here's a novel ideal, how about telling me you have 100X the HD capacity WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE IT. |
|
lovswr
join:2001-09-15
Stockbridge, GA | reply to DaSneaky1D
Yes HD lite is a term of derision used by us customers, but I can assure you the "quality" is not fine at all.
--
lovswr = good hivswr = bad |
|
na
@tsaadvet.com
| reply to dispatcher21
said by dispatcher21 :No, it is not HD. HD is 1280x720 or 1920x1080, not 1280x1080 that Directv is trying to pass as HD. There is no FUD about it, Directv does not offer true HD, but neither does Dishnetwork or many other cable providers. To my knowledge(as a few years ago), only Comcast offers HDTV channels without altering the data stream from the source. Wrong! Anything over 1280x720 is HD. It doesn't specifically have to be 1280x720 or 1920x1080. Another reason they call it HD lite is because it is bit starved, not necessarily because of the resolution.
»www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t···=hd+lite |
|
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
·CableOne
| reply to dispatcher21
Um, have you done some simple math? IF one variety of HD, as you say, is 1280x720 and DirecTV is broadcasting at 1280x1080, isn't that better? 1280x1080 is MORE pixels than 1280x720.
I've seen DirecTV HD channels on dozens of different HDTVs, and I think the quality is excellent. However if you don't, don't complain about it, simply don't subscribe to the service. No one is forcing you to watch DirecTV. The fact that someone will sue simply because they don't like the service is ridiculous. In my experience, if you don't like the service, go with another provider.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| reply to DaSneaky1D
I think it does.
There are a lot of 1080p TVs on the market now.
We already dumb it down enough by using 1080i and 720p, why dumb it down even further? That's another step backwards I don't want to take.
Don't you dare say it's for compatibility purposes, either. Because I know several hundred thousand to millions of people with HDTVs that don't support HDCP that, come bluray/HDDVD time, are going to want their money back.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| said by thender2 :Don't you dare say it's for compatibility purposes, either. Because I know several hundred thousand to millions of people with HDTVs that don't support HDCP that, come bluray/HDDVD time, are going to want their money back. They can want all they want.
Here's a good example of stupid America. This is the mentality of people who think they are owed believing that. The bottom line is you buy something with a price on it.. you purchased what you did. There is no "I want my money back".. there is no "victim" here.. People spend way too much time finding others to blame for their own lack of care in making choices.
Let them want their money back - I'd simply put them in a category of needing remedial education since they obviously can't function in the real world or reality.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-reitchous and lazy ... those who also never take the time to point out a good fortune when the opportunity presents itself. It says a lot about one's moral character." - Unknown |
|
Jobastion
@comcast.net
| reply to PolarBear
If it were 1280x720p vs 1280x1080p, then yes, it would be better. DirectTV apparently broadcasts at 1280x1080i... which pixel wise calculates as 1280x540p. And that, is less than HD resolution, hence the griping.
That's 691,200 pixels per frame (technically, per refresh, but I'm so not going there) on Direct TV, with the lowest standard of HDTV running at 921,600 pixels per refresh.
End result is DirectTV broadcasting at ~%75 percent of the low end of HDTV.
Also, that's not 16x9... that's not even a 4x3 ratio... that some funky 32x27 ratio. Closer to a square than even SDTV. Weird. |
|
