Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Satellite HDTV -- who has the best HD quality?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 3:11:45 PM

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

I'm guessing Direct TV?

In particluar though, I'm really interested in the following HD channels :
Discovery, HBO, PPV and HDNET/movies.

For recording HD using 169time which would you reccommend for now, dish or
directv?

More about : satellite hdtv quality

Anonymous
May 19, 2005 9:35:14 PM

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

For now, if Dish Network has the channels you want, I would say Dish
Network. When DirecTV goes to MPEG4, I believe DirecTV will be the
preferred HDTV service but the current 169time receivers won't work
with MPEG4. The only other concern would be which of the two will
discontinue MPEG2 HDTV first since that obsoletes the recorder.

Chris

Son of man wrote:
> I'm guessing Direct TV?
>
> In particluar though, I'm really interested in the following HD
channels :
> Discovery, HBO, PPV and HDNET/movies.
>
> For recording HD using 169time which would you reccommend for now,
dish or
> directv?
Anonymous
May 20, 2005 1:20:41 AM

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

Hi Chris! Long time no hear.

How much longer do you think Dish will keep MPEG 2?

"Chris Gerhard" <chris_gerhard@my-Deja.com> wrote in message
news:1116549314.478029.134630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> For now, if Dish Network has the channels you want, I would say Dish
> Network. When DirecTV goes to MPEG4, I believe DirecTV will be the
> preferred HDTV service but the current 169time receivers won't work
> with MPEG4. The only other concern would be which of the two will
> discontinue MPEG2 HDTV first since that obsoletes the recorder.
>
> Chris
>
> Son of man wrote:
>> I'm guessing Direct TV?
>>
>> In particluar though, I'm really interested in the following HD
> channels :
>> Discovery, HBO, PPV and HDNET/movies.
>>
>> For recording HD using 169time which would you reccommend for now,
> dish or
>> directv?
>
Related resources
May 21, 2005 5:44:08 PM

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

Son of man wrote on Thu, 19 May 2005 15:11:45 GMT:

> I'm guessing Direct TV?
>
> In particluar though, I'm really interested in the following HD
> channels : Discovery, HBO, PPV and HDNET/movies.
>
> For recording HD using 169time which would you reccommend for now,
> dish or directv?

All of my HDTV kit are new as of April 2005. Connectivity is via HDMI
interface.

Not sure about Dish as I went with DirecTV, but most impressive are the
periodic NASA Mars Lander project updates on Discovery HD. Those short
updates make everything else on HDNet, UHD, HBO HD, Showtime HD and even
some Discovery HD material look pathetic by comparison.


--
Rob


£¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤¤º°`°º¤£
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 6:37:31 PM

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

On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:35:14 -0700, Chris Gerhard wrote:

> For now, if Dish Network has the channels you want, I would say Dish
> Network. When DirecTV goes to MPEG4, I believe DirecTV will be the
> preferred HDTV service but the current 169time receivers won't work with
> MPEG4. The only other concern would be which of the two will discontinue
> MPEG2 HDTV first since that obsoletes the recorder.
>

All MPEG-4 at NAB looked very bad. Even with comparable bitrates to MPEG2.
MPEG4 equipment manufactures say these new artifacts are acceptable and
not visible to the average viewer. The best looking MPEG4 was all
pre-rendered with selected content that would not stress the encoder.

I feel DirecTV is making a BIG mistake
Anonymous
May 21, 2005 9:18:18 PM

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

"yea right" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:p an.2005.05.21.20.37.30.828782@spam.spam...
> On Thu, 19 May 2005 17:35:14 -0700, Chris Gerhard wrote:
>
>> For now, if Dish Network has the channels you want, I would say Dish
>> Network. When DirecTV goes to MPEG4, I believe DirecTV will be the
>> preferred HDTV service but the current 169time receivers won't work with
>> MPEG4. The only other concern would be which of the two will discontinue
>> MPEG2 HDTV first since that obsoletes the recorder.
>>
>
> All MPEG-4 at NAB looked very bad. Even with comparable bitrates to MPEG2.
> MPEG4 equipment manufactures say these new artifacts are acceptable and
> not visible to the average viewer. The best looking MPEG4 was all
> pre-rendered with selected content that would not stress the encoder.
>
> I feel DirecTV is making a BIG mistake

I think I may go with Dish...
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 7:15:33 AM

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

On 21 May 2005 13:44:08 GMT, Rob <rowens@earth.net.au> wrote:

>Son of man wrote on Thu, 19 May 2005 15:11:45 GMT:
>
>> I'm guessing Direct TV?
>>
>> In particluar though, I'm really interested in the following HD
>> channels : Discovery, HBO, PPV and HDNET/movies.
>>
>> For recording HD using 169time which would you reccommend for now,
>> dish or directv?
>
>All of my HDTV kit are new as of April 2005. Connectivity is via HDMI
>interface.
>
>Not sure about Dish as I went with DirecTV, but most impressive are the
>periodic NASA Mars Lander project updates on Discovery HD. Those short
>updates make everything else on HDNet, UHD, HBO HD, Showtime HD and even
>some Discovery HD material look pathetic by comparison.


Absolute Best HD signal comes via C-Band HDTV. Master antenna first
generation. It is where everyone else gets their signal for
recompression and retransmission.
Anonymous
May 22, 2005 8:04:03 AM

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

On Sun, 22 May 2005 jameselmore@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> On 21 May 2005 13:44:08 GMT, Rob <rowens@earth.net.au> wrote:
> >Son of man wrote on Thu, 19 May 2005 15:11:45 GMT:
> >> I'm guessing Direct TV?
> >>
> >> In particluar though, I'm really interested in the following HD
> >> channels : Discovery, HBO, PPV and HDNET/movies.
> >>
> >> For recording HD using 169time which would you reccommend for now,
> >> dish or directv?
> >
> >All of my HDTV kit are new as of April 2005. Connectivity is via HDMI
> >interface.
> >
> >Not sure about Dish as I went with DirecTV, but most impressive are the
> >periodic NASA Mars Lander project updates on Discovery HD. Those short
> >updates make everything else on HDNet, UHD, HBO HD, Showtime HD and even
> >some Discovery HD material look pathetic by comparison.
>
> Absolute Best HD signal comes via C-Band HDTV. Master antenna first
> generation. It is where everyone else gets their signal for
> recompression and retransmission.

However, much of that is encrypted. That which isn't is either 4DTV
(digicipher 2) or MPEG2-DVB FTA (e.g. CBS and PBS).
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 1:36:55 AM

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

In article <Xns965D6322CF7D4rowensearthnetau@130.133.1.4>,
Rob <rowens@earth.net.au> wrote:

> Those short
> updates make everything else on HDNet, UHD, HBO HD, Showtime HD and even
> some Discovery HD material look pathetic by comparison.

I think the words for that are "gross exaggeration". Simply not true
also comes to mind. Sure, the shorts look good. But so many other HD
video shows look just as good. And to compare HD video to an HD film
transfer is ridiculous.
Anonymous
May 30, 2005 6:34:04 AM

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

"Alton Divvers" <alton@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:119l637j94lb081@news.supernews.com...
And to compare HD video to an HD film
> transfer is ridiculous.

You are correct. It's exactly like what the professional image makers have
been telling us for years. HD transfers of 35mm film are almost always
better looking than the uncontrolled depth of field and general "videoish"
look of dramatic material originated on HD. The best looking HD stuff is
that which tries to mimic the look of film. That's why they are shooting HD
at 24P.
May 31, 2005 1:08:49 AM

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

Alton Divvers wrote on Mon, 30 May 2005 04:36:55 GMT:

> In article <Xns965D6322CF7D4rowensearthnetau@130.133.1.4>,
> Rob <rowens@earth.net.au> wrote:
>
>> Those short
>> updates make everything else on HDNet, UHD, HBO HD, Showtime HD and
>> even some Discovery HD material look pathetic by comparison.
>
> I think the words for that are "gross exaggeration". Simply not true
> also comes to mind. Sure, the shorts look good. But so many other HD
> video shows look just as good. And to compare HD video to an HD film
> transfer is ridiculous.
>

My statement was rhetorical in nature.

In a perfect world film-based media will always outshine video-based
media. However, there are too many variables involved for this to be
consistently true at all times.

--
Rob


£¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤¤º°`°º¤£
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:22:44 AM

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

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:Le-dndoMIsmJQwffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>
> "Alton Divvers" <alton@is.invalid> wrote in message
> news:119l637j94lb081@news.supernews.com...
> And to compare HD video to an HD film
>> transfer is ridiculous.
>
> You are correct. It's exactly like what the professional image makers have
> been telling us for years. HD transfers of 35mm film are almost always
> better looking than the uncontrolled depth of field and general "videoish"
> look of dramatic material originated on HD. The best looking HD stuff is
> that which tries to mimic the look of film. That's why they are shooting
> HD at 24P.

I have read your posts for some time and I realize you have some expertise
in this matter, but I disagree.
Why couldn't the 'look' of HDTV be compared to reality rather than film.
Live theater (opera, ballet, basketball, and soccer) have 'uncontrolled'
depth of field (and a frame rate faster than 24p). Why couldn't that be the
ideal ?
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:22:45 AM

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

"no one" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:o 7Ome.520$rL7.197@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
> news:Le-dndoMIsmJQwffRVn-uw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Alton Divvers" <alton@is.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:119l637j94lb081@news.supernews.com...
>> And to compare HD video to an HD film
>>> transfer is ridiculous.
>>
>> You are correct. It's exactly like what the professional image makers
>> have been telling us for years. HD transfers of 35mm film are almost
>> always better looking than the uncontrolled depth of field and general
>> "videoish" look of dramatic material originated on HD. The best looking
>> HD stuff is that which tries to mimic the look of film. That's why they
>> are shooting HD at 24P.
>
> I have read your posts for some time and I realize you have some expertise
> in this matter, but I disagree.
> Why couldn't the 'look' of HDTV be compared to reality rather than film.
> Live theater (opera, ballet, basketball, and soccer) have 'uncontrolled'
> depth of field (and a frame rate faster than 24p). Why couldn't that be
> the ideal ?

Ballet, Opera and Theater all control the depth of field through staging and
lighting. When they don't want you to see the back of the stage they turn
off or turn down the lights on that area and put a spot or some other
lighting on the subject they want you to look at. There is no question in my
mind that film acquisition is slowly but surely diminishing, but it's
digital replacement will ultimately mimic the same qualities that film
currently posses. Sure there are situations like sports where you want to
viewer to be able to look at whatever they want to in a frame but that's not
so for dramatic material. Might I turn the debate around on you and ask what
qualities you feel "uncontrolled" depth of field add to a dramatic story
line? When you read a book and the author is setting the scene with "it was
a dark and stormy night" do you want the freedom to imagine the scene to
follow as taking place on a hot and sandy sun drenched beach? I know that's
an extreme example, but the whole point of telling a story is to direct the
audience to certain places and things in the story line. Right now 24P and
the ability to control the depth of field are two of the qualities that
"film" makers seek out when trying to shoot on HD.
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:22:46 AM

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

Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> Right now 24P and
> the ability to control the depth of field are two of the qualities that
> "film" makers seek out when trying to shoot on HD.

I wonder if 60p production will ever take off for some really special "looks".
It's trivial (through repeated frames) to emulate 24p (or just convert 24p
source to 60p), but you could use full 60p for special effects of various
kinds.

Douglas Trumbull wanted to use this sort of idea for "Brainstorm", although
he was going to use 30fps for "reality" scenes and 60fps for the "recorded"
scenes (so as to imply that viewing straight through the brain was somehow
more real than reality).

--
Jeff Rife | "The old guy was leading a 'Simon Says' game
| when he collapsed. On the way down he yelled
| 'call an ambulance!', but no one moved."
| -- Wings
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 4:22:47 AM

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

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0584ebfdccc048989d93@news.nabs.net...
> Charles Tomaras (tomaras@tomaras.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>> Right now 24P
>> and
>> the ability to control the depth of field are two of the qualities that
>> "film" makers seek out when trying to shoot on HD.
>
> I wonder if 60p production will ever take off for some really special
> "looks".
> It's trivial (through repeated frames) to emulate 24p (or just convert 24p
> source to 60p), but you could use full 60p for special effects of various
> kinds.

That is exactly how the Panasonic Varicam works.

http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet...

A good deal of my work these days is on shoots with the Varicam. In fact I
even grabbed the domain name (still unused) www.variography.com

Anyway...the big battle between the Varicam and the Sony Cine Alta HD are of
course the fact that the Varicam is a 720P camera and the Sony is a 1080P
camera. There are also a number of Sony 1080i models. Most feature work is
being done with the Sony while a good deal of Commercial work, Documentary,
and Sports EFP is being shot with the Varicam.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
May 31, 2005 10:02:01 AM

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

In article <Le-dndoMIsmJQwffRVn-uw@comcast.com> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
>
>"Alton Divvers" <alton@is.invalid> wrote in message
>news:119l637j94lb081@news.supernews.com...
> And to compare HD video to an HD film
>> transfer is ridiculous.
>
>You are correct. It's exactly like what the professional image makers have
>been telling us for years. HD transfers of 35mm film are almost always
>better looking than the uncontrolled depth of field and general "videoish"
>look of dramatic material originated on HD. The best looking HD stuff is
>that which tries to mimic the look of film. That's why they are shooting HD
>at 24P.


While taste is non-disputable, as more and more find that there is an alternative
to the fuzzy look of film with poor temporal resolution, they find that they like
the clear and sharp natural looking image of HD video.

Our eyes have an apparently huge depth of field -- we can focus on anything in our
field of view sharply and at will. To us, it all looks in focus. With film, it generally
doesn't. With video, it looks like looking out through a clear window.

Film is a limited system that has practicioners with many years of experience. They
are experts at using it to its best -- including taking advantage of its weaknesses.
However, those are still weaknesses. Those who saw the 60 frame/second showscan system
reported it as vastly more commanding -- drawing the viewer into the image.

Just as sill photographers still use black and white for the effect -some may still use
24 frame/second film. It does not, however, make either black and white, or 24 frame/second
film, better than a more realistic image.


Alan

(who finds the 48 Hz flicker of film painful).
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 10:02:02 AM

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

"Alan" <nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:D 7gukp$2l7$1@news.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <Le-dndoMIsmJQwffRVn-uw@comcast.com> "Charles Tomaras"
> <tomaras@tomaras.com> writes:
>>
>>"Alton Divvers" <alton@is.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:119l637j94lb081@news.supernews.com...
>> And to compare HD video to an HD film
>>> transfer is ridiculous.
>>
>>You are correct. It's exactly like what the professional image makers have
>>been telling us for years. HD transfers of 35mm film are almost always
>>better looking than the uncontrolled depth of field and general "videoish"
>>look of dramatic material originated on HD. The best looking HD stuff is
>>that which tries to mimic the look of film. That's why they are shooting
>>HD
>>at 24P.
>
>
> While taste is non-disputable, as more and more find that there is an
> alternative
> to the fuzzy look of film with poor temporal resolution, they find that
> they like
> the clear and sharp natural looking image of HD video.
>
> Our eyes have an apparently huge depth of field -- we can focus on
> anything in our
> field of view sharply and at will. To us, it all looks in focus. With
> film, it generally
> doesn't. With video, it looks like looking out through a clear window.

There's the hitch....movie makers don't want you to focus on whatever you
want to in the frame. They want to direct your vision to the element of the
story they are telling that they want you to see.


> Film is a limited system that has practicioners with many years of
> experience. They
> are experts at using it to its best -- including taking advantage of its
> weaknesses.
> However, those are still weaknesses. Those who saw the 60 frame/second
> showscan system
> reported it as vastly more commanding -- drawing the viewer into the
> image.

>
> Just as sill photographers still use black and white for the effect -some
> may still use
> 24 frame/second film. It does not, however, make either black and white,
> or 24 frame/second
> film, better than a more realistic image.

Not that I agree with much of what you say...but what makes you think that
dramatic movies are supposed to be realistic?
Anonymous
May 31, 2005 11:06:33 PM

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

Charles Tomaras wrote:

>
>> Just as sill photographers still use black and white for the effect -some
>>may still use
>>24 frame/second film. It does not, however, make either black and white,
>>or 24 frame/second
>>film, better than a more realistic image.
>
>
> Not that I agree with much of what you say...but what makes you think that
> dramatic movies are supposed to be realistic?
>

That is exactly the issue. If movies (including nature documentaries)
were realistic, most people would probably find them boring. Anyone for
Andy Warhol's "Sleep"?

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
!