how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
 BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2
 ·Frontier FiOS
1 edit | reply to appleman102
Re: [HD] So what HD channels do you MOST want to see on FiOS? How about this, all channels convert to hd, and all sd channels which are already covered by hd are dropped, obviously they couldn't charge more for hd channels anymore, however it would be better for everyone.
Edit: They would have to make the aspect button work for the stb for those without an hdtv, but overall it would be a move for the better. It's about time they started moving away from these standard definition channels. | |
| said by BlitzenZeus:How about this, all channels convert to hd, and all sd channels which are already covered by hd are dropped, obviously they couldn't charge more for hd channels anymore, however it would be better for everyone. Edit: They would have to make the aspect button work for the stb for those without an hdtv, but overall it would be a move for the better. It's about time they started moving away from these standard definition channels. Good point.... I have my kitchen SD TV connected to my living room FIOS and DirecTV HD DVRs. One of the boxes displays the SD feed in 16x9 with black bars and it looks great. The other box stretches the 16x9 to fit the screen. I cannot remember which is which, but the 16x9 black bars is the way to go and it looks better than the SD channel of the same (Fox News HD I watch all the time, let's not get political here I am just saying what I watch while cooking dinner and it looks good). They could scrap the SD channels and downconvert HD channels for SD TVs. If done right it looks good. | | |
|
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | reply to BlitzenZeus
said by BlitzenZeus:How about this, all channels convert to hd, and all sd channels which are already covered by hd are dropped, obviously they couldn't charge more for hd channels anymore, however it would be better for everyone. Edit: They would have to make the aspect button work for the stb for those without an hdtv, but overall it would be a move for the better. It's about time they started moving away from these standard definition channels. Better for whom? What about customers who have at least one SD STB in the house (like me)? I don't want to lose all those channels on those other TVs, nor do I want to pay more every month for HD boxes (I have a free digital adapter on one TV). | |
| said by JPL:said by BlitzenZeus:How about this, all channels convert to hd, and all sd channels which are already covered by hd are dropped, obviously they couldn't charge more for hd channels anymore, however it would be better for everyone. Edit: They would have to make the aspect button work for the stb for those without an hdtv, but overall it would be a move for the better. It's about time they started moving away from these standard definition channels. Better for whom? What about customers who have at least one SD STB in the house (like me)? I don't want to lose all those channels on those other TVs, nor do I want to pay more every month for HD boxes (I have a free digital adapter on one TV). It would be better for all. They would downconvert the HD signal to SD. Yes, it would be in 16x9 so you would have black bars on the top and bottom. It actually looks much better this way than the SD channels. I have been watching HD channels on an SD patio and kitchen TV since 2007. Even Monsters HD looked good on Dish on my patio SD TV. Much better than the same movie playing on an SD channel. It is the ultimate way to go and probably what they will do when over 50% of viewers have an HDTV. They should do it now. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | said by skottey_ :said by JPL:said by BlitzenZeus:How about this, all channels convert to hd, and all sd channels which are already covered by hd are dropped, obviously they couldn't charge more for hd channels anymore, however it would be better for everyone. Edit: They would have to make the aspect button work for the stb for those without an hdtv, but overall it would be a move for the better. It's about time they started moving away from these standard definition channels. Better for whom? What about customers who have at least one SD STB in the house (like me)? I don't want to lose all those channels on those other TVs, nor do I want to pay more every month for HD boxes (I have a free digital adapter on one TV). It would be better for all. They would downconvert the HD signal to SD. Yes, it would be in 16x9 so you would have black bars on the top and bottom. It actually looks much better this way than the SD channels. I have been watching HD channels on an SD patio and kitchen TV since 2007. Even Monsters HD looked good on Dish on my patio SD TV. Much better than the same movie playing on an SD channel. It is the ultimate way to go and probably what they will do when over 50% of viewers have an HDTV. They should do it now. You're missing my point - I don't doubt that it looks better (although they would need to account for the 'postage stamp' effect you get when you watch an SD program on an HD channel, downconverted to an SD TV), but to make that change would cost me an extra $15/month to keep my existing setup (to replace the one SD STB, and one free digital adapter with HD STBs), which I have no desire to do. | |
BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| I wouldn't be necessary to downgrade the hd signal to sd at Verizon, the hd stb would have to be standard, and hd stbs already are capable of making hd channels viewable on sdtvs.
The added benefit is even if you don't have an hdtv, if your watching a hd channel on a sdtv you still get the benefit of the surround sound normally not encoded on standard definition channels.
Overall it would be better for everyone, and they wouldn't need to carry hd duplicates of each sd channel available. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | said by BlitzenZeus:I wouldn't be necessary to downgrade the hd signal to sd at Verizon, the hd stb would have to be standard, and hd stbs already are capable of making hd channels viewable on sdtvs. The added benefit is even if you don't have an hdtv, if your watching a hd channel on a sdtv you still get the benefit of the surround sound normally not encoded on standard definition channels. Overall it would be better for everyone, and they wouldn't need to carry hd duplicates of each sd channel available. Again, Verizon would have to account for the price difference in STBs. If they offered me an HD STB for the same price as my SD STB, then I would be fine with it. Although, I go back to my one other issue - that postage stamp effect. If you watch an SD program on an HD channel, and you have that HD channel downconverted to an SD TV, you get black bars all around the picture - the picture just shows up as a tiny postage stamp in the middle.
That's due to the fact that the black side-bars are part of the picture for an HD channel - the 16:9 picture gets downsized to fit in a 4:3 space, which results in black bars on the top and bottom. But because the side-bars are technically part of the picture, the HD STB treats them as part of the picture.
You get a similar effect when you watch widescreen programs, on an SD channel, on your HD TV. Their HD STBs currently don't account for that. They would need to. | |
BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| See my previous comment about the aspect button needing to work for the stb.
Ever use a digital converter? They have multiple modes/aspects, normal(full widescreen), 14:whatever(partial zoom), and vertical zoom to make it look like an sd channel.
The fcc keeps putting the digital transition off, however get with it, broadcast channels are all digital now, and most shows have been done in hdtv for years now, so it's just a matter of catching everything else up. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1
1 edit | said by BlitzenZeus:See my previous comment about the aspect button needing to work for the stb. Ever use a digital converter? They have multiple modes/aspects, normal(full widescreen), 14:whatever(partial zoom), and vertical zoom to make it look like an sd channel. The fcc keeps putting the digital transition off, however get with it, broadcast channels are all digital now, and most shows have been done in hdtv for years now, so it's just a matter of catching everything else up. I understand what you're saying. I really do. It's just that the current set of STBs that Verizon has doesn't support a zoom function. So, not only would they have to replace all the SD STBs/ digital adapters out there, they'd have to do with a new box that they currently don't offer. Also, zooming in the picture causes it to lose resolution. I love Verizon's SD PQ on my 27" SD Sony Vega. I don't want to lose that.
The price difference (you have to believe that they're going to pass the cost of the new boxes onto customers) would be off-putting to alot of customers, including me.
Right now Verizon has space. They can probably add another 20 - 30 HD channels before they run out of room. The cost of doing what's proposed (replacing all the boxes out there with a new box that can zoom in, just so they can remove a couple channels that they carry in both SD and HD) would be really high, and the benefit, I think, would be minimal.
There are other ways that Verizon can expand HD bandwidth without having to go that route. One is to convert the HD channels to MPEG-4. The newer HD DVRs support it, and changing out people's HD DVRs/STBs with newer versions would be cheaper than replacing all the SD boxes out there for HD equivalents.
Another would be to do what they've planned all along - go full IP.
Edit - I don't mean to harp on you, but I simply don't agree with your assertion that this move would be better for everyone. It most definitely wouldn't be better for me. | |
| reply to JPL
said by JPL:said by BlitzenZeus:I wouldn't be necessary to downgrade the hd signal to sd at Verizon, the hd stb would have to be standard, and hd stbs already are capable of making hd channels viewable on sdtvs. The added benefit is even if you don't have an hdtv, if your watching a hd channel on a sdtv you still get the benefit of the surround sound normally not encoded on standard definition channels. Overall it would be better for everyone, and they wouldn't need to carry hd duplicates of each sd channel available. Again, Verizon would have to account for the price difference in STBs. If they offered me an HD STB for the same price as my SD STB, then I would be fine with it. Although, I go back to my one other issue - that postage stamp effect. If you watch an SD program on an HD channel, and you have that HD channel downconverted to an SD TV, you get black bars all around the picture - the picture just shows up as a tiny postage stamp in the middle. That's due to the fact that the black side-bars are part of the picture for an HD channel - the 16:9 picture gets downsized to fit in a 4:3 space, which results in black bars on the top and bottom. But because the side-bars are technically part of the picture, the HD STB treats them as part of the picture. You get a similar effect when you watch widescreen programs, on an SD channel, on your HD TV. Their HD STBs currently don't account for that. They would need to. Use Zoom.
I have just the opposite problem. When I am watching an SD program on one of my 16x9 HDTVs, for a show such as Breaking Bad on AMC SD that is 16x9, I get what you refer to as the postage stamp effect (never heard that term before and I hang around a lot of these sites). It has a black frame all the way around it. One because the SD feed is 4:3 and two because the 4:3 feed is playing a 16x9 show. So I use the proper zoom to have it fill out the screen without cutting any of the picture off.
Most older TVs have a zoom function. My Grandparents in 1980 had a Zenith that had zoom on it.
They would have to standard issue a HD box, yes. But they would give you a zoom function for 4:3 TVs. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | said by skottey_ :said by JPL:said by BlitzenZeus:I wouldn't be necessary to downgrade the hd signal to sd at Verizon, the hd stb would have to be standard, and hd stbs already are capable of making hd channels viewable on sdtvs. The added benefit is even if you don't have an hdtv, if your watching a hd channel on a sdtv you still get the benefit of the surround sound normally not encoded on standard definition channels. Overall it would be better for everyone, and they wouldn't need to carry hd duplicates of each sd channel available. Again, Verizon would have to account for the price difference in STBs. If they offered me an HD STB for the same price as my SD STB, then I would be fine with it. Although, I go back to my one other issue - that postage stamp effect. If you watch an SD program on an HD channel, and you have that HD channel downconverted to an SD TV, you get black bars all around the picture - the picture just shows up as a tiny postage stamp in the middle. That's due to the fact that the black side-bars are part of the picture for an HD channel - the 16:9 picture gets downsized to fit in a 4:3 space, which results in black bars on the top and bottom. But because the side-bars are technically part of the picture, the HD STB treats them as part of the picture. You get a similar effect when you watch widescreen programs, on an SD channel, on your HD TV. Their HD STBs currently don't account for that. They would need to. Use Zoom. I have just the opposite problem. When I am watching an SD program on one of my 16x9 HDTVs, for a show such as Breaking Bad on AMC SD that is 16x9, I get what you refer to as the postage stamp effect (never heard that term before and I hang around a lot of these sites). It has a black frame all the way around it. One because the SD feed is 4:3 and two because the 4:3 feed is playing a 16x9 show. So I use the proper zoom to have it fill out the screen without cutting any of the picture off. Most older TVs have a zoom function. My Grandparents in 1980 had a Zenith that had zoom on it. They would have to standard issue a HD box, yes. But they would give you a zoom function for 4:3 TVs. Again, not to be argumentative, but most older TVs don't have a zoom function. I've never seen an SD TV with one - not saying they don't exist, and I believe you when you say that your grandparent's 1980 Zenith has one. But since most circa 1980 TVs didn't even have remotes, I'd have a real hard time believing that many TVs from that time had something like a zoom feature. I have a 19" Zenith from I don't know when ('inherited' it from my in-laws when my wife and I got married 15 years ago - it was old then - so it doesn't surprise me that that TV has no zoom feature), and I have a newer 27" Sony Vega. The Vega has some pretty advanced features, and still no zoom.
As for the term 'postage stamp effect' - that's just one that I made up to describe the issue. Is it commonly used? Dunno - but it IS descriptive of the issue.
Finally going back to one other issue - zooming in causes the picture to lose resolution. I don't have any of the OTA digital adapters, but from people who do, that's one complaint I continually hear - yeah, they can zoom in the picture, but when they do so the picture loses some of its sharpness.
If Verizon offered an HD box for the same price as their SD box, and if said box could adjust the picture (e.g. crop the sides off) THEN I'd be ok with Verizon going that route. But again, their boxes don't do that. | |
| said by JPL:zooming in causes the picture to lose resolution. How do you think those of us feel when we have nice HDTVs, and our providers don't even give us our channels in HD (such as AMC) and we watch our favorite show (Breaking Bad) on the SD version of the channel. The SD picture looks horrible whether zoomed or not. But I zoom to fill the screen. It would look much better if they just gave he the HD signal and I would have my 16x9 HD feed rather than zooming a "postage stamp effected" channel.
The bottom line is, they won't be able to deliver an ideal picture to everybody. Going all HD and downconverting would be a step towards the future for all. Keeping SD around is slowing down progress. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1
1 edit | said by skottey_ :said by JPL:zooming in causes the picture to lose resolution. How do you think those of us feel when we have nice HDTVs, and our providers don't even give us our channels in HD (such as AMC) and we watch our favorite show (Breaking Bad) on the SD version of the channel. The SD picture looks horrible whether zoomed or not. But I zoom to fill the screen. It would look much better if they just gave he the HD signal and I would have my 16x9 HD feed rather than zooming a "postage stamp effected" channel. The bottom line is, they won't be able to deliver an ideal picture to everybody. Going all HD and downconverting would be a step towards the future for all. Keeping SD around is slowing down progress. Sorry, but what does not having the HD version of a channel have anything to do with this discussion? The comment made - and the one to which I responded - was this: eliminating the SD feeds is better for everyone.
That's what I was responding to. And, for me, it's simply not true. I've given several reasons why that's the case. The fact that Verizon doesn't carry channel x in HD is totally irrelevent to that discussion.
Besides, I don't agree that getting rid of all the SD channels, and replacing them with just the HD feeds, will help the company. I know alot of FiOS customers who are still SD-only - at least 2 co-workers, a neighbor (right across the street), my in-laws, my brother... not to mention all the people who currently have the less expensive SD STBs or digital adapters on another TV. How much business would they lose if they went this route and forced everyone to rent more expensive boxes, AND degraded the SD PQ in the process?
One other point with this - the DVRs. You'd be required to record everything on those channels in HD - whether you have an HDTV or not. How much LESS recording capacity would an SD-only customer have in that case? Hell, there are shows that I record which are available in HD but I record the SD version because I don't want them taking up too much space on my harddrive.
I also don't buy that this helps Verizon future-proof anything. They have room for probably another 30 HD channels per market. What happens at that point? They've already announced their plans to go full IP.
I'm sorry if you don't think my reasoning is valid, but I was responding to a VERY specific post, and I gave actual reasons why I believed the statement to NOT be true. Besides, how in the world does doing this (getting rid of all the HD channels) help you at all in getting AMC HD? What does one have to do with the other? | |
| said by JPL:Besides, I don't agree that getting rid of all the SD channels, and replacing them with just the HD feeds, will help the company. My apologies that we are having two different conversations. I am not talking about Verizon FIOS TV only eliminating SD channels. I am talking about an industry wide removal of SD channels. The providers could decide whether to down-convert at the set top box or the head end. But the signal coming from HBO to the cable or satellite company would only be HD. Obviously, a provider down-converting at the head end would not save bandwidth, but if they down-converted at the boxes it would save bandwidth. HD boxes would be standard, but could be hooked to an SD TV and viewed. You could select a recording format, which they should allow anyway. If I am recording something other than an action movie or sports, I don't need full HD for a talk show like Oprah (not that I personally watch that show). DVRs should allow you to pick a recording quality similar to DVD-R or VHS. If you want to squeeze more out of the recording space you compromise quality. Want higher quality, you have less recording space. Twenty hours of HD, no matter what it is, is ridiculous. An example of something I record sometimes is Dave Ramsey's show on Fox Business. I don't need to have it in full HD. I just like to listen to other people's problems while working. I could record it in half or a third the quality. It doesn't matter. Yet most DVRs have one bitrate. That needs to change and would if they made an HD DVR standard for all users (SD and HD).
Think about it. If you upgrade your TV you have the equipment you need. This is progress for all. And yes, the price would be passed on to customers. The price is passed on to the customers anyway if a channel like ESPN raises their fees with FIOS, it is passed onto you. The cost is always passed on. Companies are in business to make a profit.
Do you really not have HD or are you playing Devil's Advocate here? You are a FIOS fan, lurking on this site, and you don't have an HDTV? I am not buying it. But whatever. | |
JPLPremium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:1 | said by skottey_ :said by JPL:Besides, I don't agree that getting rid of all the SD channels, and replacing them with just the HD feeds, will help the company. My apologies that we are having two different conversations. I am not talking about Verizon FIOS TV only eliminating SD channels. I am talking about an industry wide removal of SD channels. The providers could decide whether to down-convert at the set top box or the head end. But the signal coming from HBO to the cable or satellite company would only be HD. Obviously, a provider down-converting at the head end would not save bandwidth, but if they down-converted at the boxes it would save bandwidth. HD boxes would be standard, but could be hooked to an SD TV and viewed. You could select a recording format, which they should allow anyway. If I am recording something other than an action movie or sports, I don't need full HD for a talk show like Oprah (not that I personally watch that show). DVRs should allow you to pick a recording quality similar to DVD-R or VHS. If you want to squeeze more out of the recording space you compromise quality. Want higher quality, you have less recording space. Twenty hours of HD, no matter what it is, is ridiculous. An example of something I record sometimes is Dave Ramsey's show on Fox Business. I don't need to have it in full HD. I just like to listen to other people's problems while working. I could record it in half or a third the quality. It doesn't matter. Yet most DVRs have one bitrate. That needs to change and would if they made an HD DVR standard for all users (SD and HD). Think about it. If you upgrade your TV you have the equipment you need. This is progress for all. And yes, the price would be passed on to customers. The price is passed on to the customers anyway if a channel like ESPN raises their fees with FIOS, it is passed onto you. The cost is always passed on. Companies are in business to make a profit. Do you really not have HD or are you playing Devil's Advocate here? You are a FIOS fan, lurking on this site, and you don't have an HDTV? I am not buying it. But whatever. It does sound like we were having two different conversations. First, for purposes of disclosure, I've posted ALOT on here - I'm not a FiOS fan-boy lurking on this site or any other. I'm a FiOS customer, and yes, I really like their service. I have no connection to the company at all (although there are some that won't believe me).
Next, I never said that I don't have an HDTV. I said that I know a good number of people, many of whom are FiOS customers also, who are SD only. I have 3 TVs in my house - a 32" Panasonic LCD HD in my living room (with home media DVR hooked up), a 27" SD Sony SD TV in my family room (with a QIP 2500), and a 19" SD Zenith TV (no idea how old that sucker is, like I've said - it isn't cable ready, and has real rabbit ears) in my office. On that last TV I have a digital adapter - the DCT700. That last one I got, for free, when Verizon eliminated their analogs. That TV wasn't even hooked up - the only reason it is hooked up now is because of that free adapter.
Next, I agree with you on these points - I do think, eventually, all TV programming will be HD. It will be up to the individual TV service providers to do whatever to those signals - including sending an SD version of those channels. In fact, I think it's coming sooner than people realize - Fox has already announced that they will moving to all HD for all their channels in the near future (2010?).
In all fairness, though, I was responding to a point dealing with Verizon bandwidth - the spectrum that they have going into your home. I have objections to losing those SD feeds, and having an HD STB do that work. Why? I've already indicated why - even if the box could zoom, I would lose resolution on those SD channels, and I have to say, the PQ looks really spectacular on that Sony - hell, it looks great even on that ancient 19" in my office. I don't want to lose that.
When all tv signals go HD, it will, like I said, be up to the TV service provider to do the downconverting to get the channels to their customers (there will still be a strong desire, I think, for SD programming for a long time - there are lots of SD TVs out there that people aren't going to want to just throw away). As a result, I think these providers will handle the HD-> SD conversion the right way - instead of sending the native HD signal, they'll crop it - not zoom it, but actually get rid of the left and right parts of the picture to make the 16:9 picture fit appropriately into a 4:3 frame, without that postage stamp effect.
I think that's probably a few years away, though, to be honest. | |
Mark F
join:2007-08-01
Fort Wayne, IN | I agree that SD programming will be around for a long time, especially since most everything in the past 70+ years of TV is in SD. I watch some SD on TV Land, American Life, Sleuth, etc and I just got more DVDs of Quincy "TV's Original Crime Scene Investigator", and Hawaii 5-0.
So, as much as I like things in HD, I, like many others, like SD, too. If DVD releases are any indication, SD will be around for quite a while.
Mark F.
»www.tvshowsondvd.net/graphics/ne···w_S2.jpg | |
|
