DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
 ·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: MPEG4 will solve this
So is CC2, tru2way etc. The cablecos will never invest in mpeg4, unless they have too. Who do they think there fooling selling HD in SD resolution. They could implement SDV but just like tru2way we will never see it. I think Dish/Direc should capitalize on this. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| said by DaveNJ  :I think Dish/Direc should capitalize on this. They are. Both are implementing MPEG4 and expanding transponder space. Why do you think Comcast (for example) is using so much marketing sleight-of-hand trying to sound like they have more HD channels when in reality they are behind and getting behinder.
DirecTV was spanked by their customers for pulling this same crap a couple of years ago. You'd think that the cablecos would know better. Of course, these are the same cablecos whose installers have been known to "install" HD boxes using S-video and call it a day.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to DaveNJ
said by DaveNJ :Who do they think there fooling selling HD in SD resolution. SD is packing 8 to 10 channels in 6Mhz. HD has 2 or 3 channels in 6Mhz. So, NO they are not selling HD with SD resolution.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Semantics. I can set my 1920x1080 set to display 480i SD at full screen, using every pixel, but in no possible way is it HD. Compressing the snot out of a video stream and calling it HD because it is still 720p is not much different.
Unfortunately, the definition of HD is very slippery and the marketing weasels have taken full advantage of that to sell decidedly inferior product.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
| Exactly... just because the display resolution = 1920x1080, it shouldn't be called HD, unless
a) The source is HD (i.e. was generated at 1920x1080)
b) The quality of the picture hasn't been degraded to appear as if it was SD.
Sure, I can take a 480i image on my PC and put it to full screen (1600x1200), but the image isn't going to look all that great.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to RadioDoc
Is it really that big of a deal with some channels that are stretching the hell out of SD content and calling it HD? I guess I don't see the problem with cablecos doing this if it's done smartly. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to en102
said by en102 :a) The source is HD (i.e. was generated at 1920x1080) Tell the content providers that. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | They _could_ push HD lite (don't they all?) at 720p. I have yet to see any provider pushing 1080p
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to openbox9
My wife calls it "fat-o-vision". Yes it is a very big deal, and is very much not high definition.
One form of "HD Lite" is the practice of squeezing a 16:9, 1920x1080 picture into a 1280x1080 box, transmitting it at the lower bitrate, and then expanding it at the receiver having lost at least 33% of the horizontal picture information in the process. My HDTV actually has a function for that built-in to record one tuner to a standard def 4:3 recorder while preserving the aspect ratio. Of course the result is not HD, but it isn't supposed to be and we don't use that function.
There is no "smart" way to do it and call it HD. Sorry.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to en102
I was mainly referring to channels such as "TNT HD". Cropped and stretched content is not necessarily HD, but the providers will broadcast it as such because the content distributors say it is. I wouldn't call 720p HD-lite either. I'll take quality 720p over 1080i any time. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :There is no "smart" way to do it and call it HD. Sorry. You totally missed the point. If content providers such as TNT distribute their "HD" streams at low bitrates, why can't cablecos take advantage of that and throw three streams into a single QAM channel? Limit channels that actually distribute at 19.4 Mbps to two per QAM channel. No blood, no foul. |
|
Laidback
join:2001-09-30
Woodstock, ON
·PrimusDSL
| reply to DaveNJ
said by DaveNJ : I think Dish/Direc should capitalize on this. Currently not legally available in Canada  |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to openbox9
Personally, with all the watered down HD (macro blocking, compression, etc.) I'll take a "good" SD picture for at least another year.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| reply to openbox9
I certainly didn't miss the point. You brought up something irrelevant. If TNT is running SD programming as HD, then it really isn't HD, is it?
You might also want to look up how this is done.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
2 edits | reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail :said by DaveNJ :Who do they think there fooling selling HD in SD resolution. SD is packing 8 to 10 channels in 6Mhz. HD has 2 or 3 channels in 6Mhz. So, NO they are not selling HD with SD resolution. 3 channels in 256 QAM MPEG-2 is at best ED. "fat-o-vision" eats up more than its share of precious bits too. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc :I certainly didn't miss the point. You brought up something irrelevant. ... You might also want to look up how this is done. It most certainly is relevant and I'm fairly comfortable with how it is done. I'm waiting for you to say why more than two of some "HD" channels can't comfortably fit in a single QAM channel. |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
·AT&T Midwest
| Your example of SD up-converted to HD as being HD is what is irrelevant. Having trouble following along?
You can fit three proper HD streams into one QAM256 channel if you are very careful, don't have high-motion or complex video on any of them, and make sure that your statistical multiplexing and rate shaping are adjusted for minimum damage to picture quality. But, just because it is possible to do properly doesn't mean it's done properly, and in the case of one Enlightened operator, "done properly" isn't in their vocabulary or operations manual.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by RadioDoc :Your example of SD up-converted to HD as being HD is what is irrelevant. Having trouble following along? I'm following along nicely, although I was questioning whether you were or not.said by RadioDoc :You can fit three proper HD streams into one QAM256 channel if you are very careful, don't have high-motion or complex video on any of them, and make sure that your statistical multiplexing and rate shaping are adjusted for minimum damage to picture quality. Thank you for finally confirming what I suggested. Placing more than two streams of some content in a single QAM channel is possible if done correctly. Now the second part of that is recognizing that it isn't a big deal if it is done correctly. You're almost there, just a little further now  |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | I appear to be a post ahead of you, so while you go back and catch up I'll just reiterate what I said before...'done correctly' is rare. Very rare.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| said by RadioDoc :I appear to be a post ahead of you, so while you go back and catch up I'll just reiterate what I said before...'done correctly' is rare. Very rare. Considering you had to post three times before you finally acknowledged that it's possible, I'd say you're behind a little. But hey, who's counting right? I' won't even reiterate what I said and let you figure it out for yourself. |
|
