Voom gets ESPN HD

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <DTOkc.8254$I%1.710647@attbi_s51> jeff b <fakeaddy@fjyfj.com>
writes:

>It happened on Apr. 30.
>Jeff B]

Wheee... (yawn, actually) - now that you've got it, be sure and report
back in a week or so about how much content really is "HD" vs how much is
obviously upconverted.
Had it
Tried it
Disappointed in it
Dropped it

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

updates voom got its 10th customer!
End higher ticket prices! Go to local college games!

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Big whoop!
>
>It is the worst "HD" station in the world.
>Virtually no HD and the SD is stretched!

Can't disagree with that, but it is scheduled to be mostly HD by mid-summer.
Also, many have waited for the arrival of ESPN HD on Voom before switching.
Many more will now switch to Voom.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Deborah Proctor (maraskywalker@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I'm going to get the least amount of programming I can from DirecTV and
> still get NFL Sunday Ticket. DirecTV is making a huge mistake by not
> getting more HDTV programming choices.

As much as I love HDTV, this just isn't true.

Less than 2% of DirecTV subscribers have HD receivers. Even though they
might be some of the larger monthly bills, even if *all* of them quit
DirecTV, it would hardly be a ripple compared to churn of normal customers.

By the time there are enough DirecTV customers who have HDTVs *and* think
that DirecTV doesn't have enough HD, DirecTV will probably have 5 more
HD channels than they do now.

Now, if DirecTV pissed off their subscribers with DVRs...that would start
to be something that would affect the bottom line.

--
Jeff Rife | Sam: Hey, how's life treating you there, Norm?
SPAM bait: |
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | Norm: Beats me...then it kicks me and leaves me
uce@ftc.gov | for dead.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Deborah Proctor (maraskywalker@earthlink.net) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> What about five to ten years from now?

You mean after the SpaceWay satellites allow them to do 2000 or more HD
channels? That's not enough for you...oh, well.

Five years is a lifetime in the DBS business, and DirecTV has satellites
in the pipe, while Voom is stuck with one orbital position that they lease
(instead of own). Five years from now, Voom will have about the same 30
to 50 HD channels, while DirecTV will likely have several hundred (if
there are that many "cable" HD channels by then), with HD local-into-local
via spot beam making up the rest of the 1000 or more they provide.

> Five more HDTV channels with DirecTV
> ain't gonna make a bit of different since they've only got a handful now.

Five more *this year* (which is likely after the various manipulations they
do with new spot beams) would be more than enough to keep them competetive,
considering everything else they offer. Although NFLST is their only
exclusive, if you want sports, Voom is *not* your provider of choice, since
MLBEI, NBASP, NHLCI, ESPN Gameday, NCAA March Madness, etc., are not
available.

If you want current movies in HD, Voom does only slightly better than
DirecTV. Older movies in HD is the only place Voom has a real advantage.

Again, I'm all for more HD, and competition is great for the consumer,
but Voom isn't even a blip on the long-range scanner of things that DirecTV
is worried about. Cable DVRs, *cable* HD, Dish Network, and fighting to
keep regulations from killing them are all far more important...even out
to a five-year timeframe.

--
Jeff Rife | "When I first heard that Marge was joining the
SPAM bait: | police academy, I thought it would be fun and
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | zany, like that movie: Spaceballs. But instead
uce@ftc.gov | it was dark and disturbing, like that movie:
| Police Academy."
| -- Homer Simpson

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Five years is a lifetime in the DBS business, and DirecTV has satellites
>in the pipe, while Voom is stuck with one orbital position that they lease
>(instead of own). Five years from now, Voom will have about the same 30
>to 50 HD channels, while DirecTV will likely have several hundred

And, IF that ever happens, those with Voom can just switch over back to DirecTV
since there's no penalty to leave Voom. In the meantime they've enjoyed FIVE
YEARS of significantly more HD than DirecTV. I'll never understand why some so
passionately defend D*'s total indifference to HD. Whatever.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"darius" <noone@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:53998962497.8554256396.38109@news.verizon.net...
> "Deborah Proctor" <maraskywalker@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:6J8lc.2785$Hs1.21@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> > I'm going to get the least amount of programming I can from DirecTV and
> > still get NFL Sunday Ticket. DirecTV is making a huge mistake by not
> > getting more HDTV programming choices.
>
> From what I've heard, you can get NFL:ST by itself; no other programming
> required.

That's good to know... thanks.

Deborah Proctor
maraskywalker@earthlink.net

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

SAC 441 wrote:
> Attn: Jeff Rife>>>
> Query: Is the reassignment of the Spaceway satellites to DirecTV
> downlink use something that is DEFINITELY going to happen or is this
> mere speculation that it MIGHT happen? I have heard this as a rumor for
> months.....is there a link or information someplace that EVEN HINTS at
> this in the media? I thought these satellites were strictly dedicated to
> internet and broadband use.Another thing,is that I have also heard that
> they are MPEG-4 birds;would that not indicate that all the current DTV
> equipment on the consumer end would need to be replaced(including the
> new HD DirecTV/DVR (TiVo)? And if so,would not that be an expensive
> changeover even a profitable company like Hughes?
>

You misspelled "News Corp"

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Vidguy7 (vidguy7@aol.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> And, IF that ever happens, those with Voom can just switch over back to DirecTV
> since there's no penalty to leave Voom.

Correct. This is why Voom is an excellent add-on to give more HD.

> In the meantime they've enjoyed FIVE
> YEARS of significantly more HD than DirecTV.

That remains to be seen. I suspect that DirecTV will catch up in all the
important area in less than 3 years. True, they won't have 10 HD channels
each showing the same movie over and over during the day, but with a DVR
and just one channel with movies, you get the same effect.

> I'll never understand why some so
> passionately defend D*'s total indifference to HD.

Because HD really doesn't matter at the cash register, and DirecTV has
used a *lot* of bandwidth to give quite a bit of HD. They won't compete
with cable for local HD for quite a while, but they are doing well as
a general provider with HD that is reasonable for the number of customers
who want it.

--
Jeff Rife | "It's amazing the advances the Swedes have made
SPAM bait: | in the science of furniture...especially
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov | considering they have only one known tool."
uce@ftc.gov | -- Tommy Solomon, "3rd Rock from the Sun"

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <6J8lc.2785$Hs1.21@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Deborah Proctor" <maraskywalker@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Vidguy7" <vidguy7@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040502094700.19969.00000669@mb-m10.aol.com...
> > >updates voom got its 10th customer!
> >
> > Update, DirecTV loses its 10,000,000 customer due to lack of HD
> programming.
>
> I'm going to get the least amount of programming I can from DirecTV and
> still get NFL Sunday Ticket. DirecTV is making a huge mistake by not
> getting more HDTV programming choices.
>

Are any of those Voom-exclusive HD channels really worth watching? They
sound like the stuff on HDNet and InHD channels. Some nature, some
travel, some sports (mostly minor sports).

Pictures are pretty but you find yourself looking for stuff with more
entertainment substance.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <MPG.1aff3817f964420698b3ec@news.nabs.net>,
Jeff Rife <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote:

> Rupert has pledged to spend $2 billion on equipment replacement to give
> them the bandwidth they need to compete with cable. Remember that those
> satellites are already in the pipeline, and cancelling costs a lot of
> money. So, doing a conversion makes a lot of sense, especially if it can
> get you customers that absolutely wouldn't have gone with satellite before
> because you didn't provide HD locals.

Do you have a link to that pledge? Not doubting you, but it's an
interesting concrete promise.

Comcast is always talking about how they're going to spend $400 million
in the next two years in this market (SF) to bring cable internet and
HDTV to most of its customers.

So it would be a good idea for D* to fight back with a campaign pledge,
so to speak.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

poldy (poldy@kfu.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > Because HD really doesn't matter at the cash register, and DirecTV has
> > used a *lot* of bandwidth to give quite a bit of HD. They won't compete
> > with cable for local HD for quite a while, but they are doing well as
> > a general provider with HD that is reasonable for the number of customers
> > who want it.
>
> Don't know how much longer you can say that. 32-inch HDTV sets are well
> under $1,000 now (local radio ad for a Panasonic for $799) while Philips
> has a 34-inch model for $1100-1200.

Too long (unfortunately), I think. It's not the TV...a TV with S-Video
input would give you a huge quality boost for DirecTV HD vs. SD. It's
the fact that people aren't getting the HD receiver.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverT [...] atcher.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> Are any of those Voom-exclusive HD channels really worth watching? They
> sound like the stuff on HDNet and InHD channels. Some nature, some
> travel, some sports (mostly minor sports).
>
> Pictures are pretty but you find yourself looking for stuff with more
> entertainment substance.

I found myself watching the "rave" and "rush" channel a lot yesterday.
Rave is concerts, and Rush is all extreme sports type stuff. Great
eye candy. I've only had it 1 day, so we'll see how often these
shows get rerun.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"jeff b" <fakeaddy@fjyfj.com> wrote in message
news:x6jlc.19441$kh4.1138307@attbi_s52...
>
>
> Richard C. wrote:
>
> > Big whoop!
> >
> > It is the worst "HD" station in the world.
> > Virtually no HD and the SD is stretched!
>
> Agreed, and not only that, but the Non-SDTV is
> only medium def (aka 720)

720p is just as much "high definition" as 1080i. In FCC testing, the
differences in perceived resolution between the two were minor, with no
clear winner, which is why they were both selected. Each has its advantages
and disadvantages.

Of course, if you have a 1080i display, then it is throwing away half of the
content in the 720p signal, so you'll never really be able to see how good
it looks.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"jeff b" <fakeaddy@fjyfj.com> wrote in message
news:c4ioc.75676$kh4.4354468@attbi_s52...
>
> > 720p is just as much "high definition" as 1080i.
>
> yeah, except for the missing scanlines.
>
> In FCC testing, the
> > differences in perceived resolution between the two were minor, with no
> > clear winner,
>
> After seeing both on the same set, I can now say that anyone who claims
that
> 720 is "just as good" as 1080 needs to see an eye doctor.

Again, if you are viewing on a 1080i set, it is incapable of showing the
full 720p image (just as a 720p set is incapable of showing the full 1080i
image), as it has to throw away half the data. Just because the data is
"temporal" doesn't mean you can't see it or that it only affects "fast
action (like sports)". It affects the perceived total spatial resolution any
time there is even the slightest movement, such as the camera shifting or
zooming (which happens probably a lot more than most people realize).

One reason people don't notice is that they're used to TV (interlace) and
movies (extremely low framerate) in which this effect occurs routinely;
they're just not used to being able to track objects in motion on screen and
see them at full resolution, so it's something they don't miss. Even in the
real world, moving objects blur when our eyes aren't actively tracking them.
So having the resolution drop by half when something starts to move (even a
little) doesn't bother most people that much.

From reports that I have seen that systematically and quantitatively
compared the perceived resolution of interlace to progressive scan under
otherwise equal conditions, even the researchers were surprised to find that
the interlaced signal managed resolution only about 60% as high as a
progressive image with the same number of total scanlines. So scanlines on
their own are pretty meaningless. And this would give 1080i an average
perceived vertical resolution of only about 650. I typically figure more
generously that interlace might average 70% of its "potential" vertical
resolution (compared to a progressive image), but even so, at around 750,
that's hardly better than 720 (and 1440 across isn't too dramatically
different from 1280 either). When you add in the, for me, blindingly obvious
and incredibly annoying interlace scan pattern (even, or perhaps especially,
on still scenes), and I know what my clear choice is. (Other people's eyes
may not be capable of registering fast motion, so interlace, like 60Hz
refresh-rate computer monitors, may not bother them, so lucky for them I
say, though perhaps they should see an eye doctor, by your reasoning -
they're obviously blind to something that I can see clearly and notice
instantly.)

Again, overall the two formats are about the same, each with its strengths
and weaknesses. At least as many organizations that have thoroughly
evaluated both have expressed a preference for 720p as for 1080i. Initially,
I think about half the networks were going to use 720p, but it's shifted
more to 1080i as it became obvious that nearly all of the affordable TV sets
for years to come were going to be 1080i.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I have a front projection CRT display that can natively display both 1080i
and 720p. It is my subjective opinion that 1080i provided a clearer picture
than 720p. When watching material that was shot for 1080i from the
beginning (i.e. not 24 fps film), the picture is very clear and stable.
720p looks good as well but I perceive the "lack" of resolution more than I
notice the lack if interlacing artifacts. Keep in mind that interlacing is
much more noticeable from film sources that HD video camera sources.

That being said, I find it best to watch 720p source material at 720p and
1080 source material at 1080i. The one thing I can say with certainty is
that the 720p up converted to 1080i doesn't look as good as the native 1080i
or the original 720p and that 1080i down converted to 720p doesn't look as
good as native 720p or the original 1080i. So, all other things being
equal, I would choose the setup that required the fewest channels that you
watch to be converted.

"Matthew Vaughan" <matt-no-spam-109@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_droc.10931$Fo4.143490@typhoon.sonic.net...
> "jeff b" <fakeaddy@fjyfj.com> wrote in message
> news:c4ioc.75676$kh4.4354468@attbi_s52...
> >
> > > 720p is just as much "high definition" as 1080i.
> >
> > yeah, except for the missing scanlines.
> >
> > In FCC testing, the
> > > differences in perceived resolution between the two were minor, with
no
> > > clear winner,
> >
> > After seeing both on the same set, I can now say that anyone who claims
> that
> > 720 is "just as good" as 1080 needs to see an eye doctor.
>
> Again, if you are viewing on a 1080i set, it is incapable of showing the
> full 720p image (just as a 720p set is incapable of showing the full 1080i
> image), as it has to throw away half the data. Just because the data is
> "temporal" doesn't mean you can't see it or that it only affects "fast
> action (like sports)". It affects the perceived total spatial resolution
any
> time there is even the slightest movement, such as the camera shifting or
> zooming (which happens probably a lot more than most people realize).
>
> One reason people don't notice is that they're used to TV (interlace) and
> movies (extremely low framerate) in which this effect occurs routinely;
> they're just not used to being able to track objects in motion on screen
and
> see them at full resolution, so it's something they don't miss. Even in
the
> real world, moving objects blur when our eyes aren't actively tracking
them.
> So having the resolution drop by half when something starts to move (even
a
> little) doesn't bother most people that much.
>
> From reports that I have seen that systematically and quantitatively
> compared the perceived resolution of interlace to progressive scan under
> otherwise equal conditions, even the researchers were surprised to find
that
> the interlaced signal managed resolution only about 60% as high as a
> progressive image with the same number of total scanlines. So scanlines on
> their own are pretty meaningless. And this would give 1080i an average
> perceived vertical resolution of only about 650. I typically figure more
> generously that interlace might average 70% of its "potential" vertical
> resolution (compared to a progressive image), but even so, at around 750,
> that's hardly better than 720 (and 1440 across isn't too dramatically
> different from 1280 either). When you add in the, for me, blindingly
obvious
> and incredibly annoying interlace scan pattern (even, or perhaps
especially,
> on still scenes), and I know what my clear choice is. (Other people's eyes
> may not be capable of registering fast motion, so interlace, like 60Hz
> refresh-rate computer monitors, may not bother them, so lucky for them I
> say, though perhaps they should see an eye doctor, by your reasoning -
> they're obviously blind to something that I can see clearly and notice
> instantly.)
>
> Again, overall the two formats are about the same, each with its strengths
> and weaknesses. At least as many organizations that have thoroughly
> evaluated both have expressed a preference for 720p as for 1080i.
Initially,
> I think about half the networks were going to use 720p, but it's shifted
> more to 1080i as it became obvious that nearly all of the affordable TV
sets
> for years to come were going to be 1080i.
>
>