Comcast launches HD-LITE! Hundreds of 'HD' Channels that look like CRAP on the way!

[Adam1115]

http://www.multichannel.com/blog/100000410/post/1150024115.html

here is also "3-in-1" compression: Comcast is distributing some of its HD channels using a variable bit-rate encoding technique that fits three HDs into one QAM. One of Comcast's technology suppliers for this project, startup Imagine Communications, has touted the ability of its system to deliver lower bit rates without harming quality.

But as Ken Fowler, an A/V buff in Virginia, claims to have found in an analysis he posted to AVSForum.com, the differences between some of Comcast's more highly compressed channels and Verizon's FiOS TV are indeed noticeable (see "Test Shows Comcast’s HD Squeeze In Virginia").

[bicker]

I've had Sci Fi HD 3:1 MUXed for about a month now. The first week or so was kind of iffy, but after that, they evidently tweaked things and it is fine. Sci Fi HD 3:1 is far far far better than Sci Fi SD. :up: :up:

We want HD channels for our HDTV, absolutely, but we also want analog channels for our other televisions. This is a decent compromise.

[cypherstream]

I agree with bicker. 3:1 is a great compromise.

I have a few HD channels on our system that are 3:1. It's required because we only have a 750 MHz, but every time an analog is moved to digital customers complain in droves.

Oh and 3:1 HD channels still look miles ahead of 12:1 SD channels.

[HiDefGator]

I'm confused. Isn't HD-Lite why all the HD snobs left Directv last year and switched to cable?

[bicker]

I'm not sure your timing is right, but essentially that's the case. In response, DirecTV invested loads of money to put some new satellites up, allowing them to switch to MPEG-4 encoding (though in the process rendering their older boxes unable to receive the older channels). That investment combined with DirecTV's very successful advertising campaign has helped DirecTV recover much of what it lost, and put then back on par with the cable companies, DirecTV now having the PQ edge in many cases, while cable still having the convenience edge for many customers (such as those in apartment complexes and condos).

[HiDefGator]

In response, DirecTV invested loads of money to put some new satellites up,

I doubt the two were related. I'm pretty sure Directv had plans to put those new sats up to support HD several years before anyone left over HD-Lite.

[kdmorse]

I've had Sci Fi HD 3:1 MUXed for about a month now. The first week or so was kind of iffy, but after that, they evidently tweaked things and it is fine. Sci Fi HD 3:1 is far far far better than Sci Fi SD. :up: :up:

We want HD channels for our HDTV, absolutely, but we also want analog channels for our other televisions. This is a decent compromise.

I'm going to disagree. In my area, when Sci-Fi was first lit up it was beautiful. It was obvious there was some motion compression going on somewhere, but it manifested itself as a hit in frames per second - the picture was beautiful.

Now - it's barely a tick above SD Sci-Fi. If I flip to a real HD channel, then back to Sci-Fi HD, the difference is unbelievably striking. If I flop between Sci-Fi HD and Sci-Fi SD, the difference is minimal.

Maybe the 'tuning' in my area hasn't caught up yet - but the current result is dreadfull. (If you call the horrible screencaps posted last time this thread came up, mine still look that bad).

-Ken

[bicker]

I'm sorry, but I think that's a gross exaggeration. Sci Fi HD was about 10 times better than Sci Fi SD, and Sci Fi HD "Lite" is about 8 times better than Sci Fi SD. Your assertion that the current PQ is just "a tick" above Sci Fi SD is indefensible, unless you are having a completely different experience there in Maryland than I'm having here in Massachusetts. This isn't just a matter of opinion -- the assertion is so far off from the reality I see here that it is not within the realm of opinion. It's like saying the world is flat AFIAC.

[kdmorse]

Let me see if I can find a good way to get samples for objective review. I'm dead serious when I say it's that bad.

-Ken

[bicker]

bfdtv has posted samples on avsforum, which are pretty decent representations of the issue.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

As you can see from that thread, there are definite differences between "before" the 3:1 muxing (i.e., his FiOS screen-shot) and "after", and the difference is pretty minimal, and inconsequential as compared to the difference between SD and HD Lite. It is NOT ideal, but it isn't horrendous.

[Stu_Bee]

there are definite differences........and the difference is pretty minimal, and inconsequential

They differences seem pretty big to me (viewing the website). I'm not sure how you can say "definite difference" yet "inconsequential" when it comes to visual quality. If it is 'definitely' apparent...than it's not that minimal in my opinion. Especially if you plunked down a few grand on a HDTV, HDTivo, and paying for the HD channels.

[bicker]

The money has nothing to do with it. And I think that really points out the problem: Some folks parlay how much they paid into some sense of entitlement for more than what was actually promised, by the television manufacturer, TiVo or the television service provider. People get aggrieved by spending money and not getting what they wanted to get.

[HDTiVo]

Now - it's barely a tick above SD Sci-Fi. If I flip to a real HD channel, then back to Sci-Fi HD, the difference is unbelievably striking. If I flop between Sci-Fi HD and Sci-Fi SD, the difference is minimal.


It is certainly possible for HD to not look much better than SD, or even worse. As the bit rate per pixel for the HD relative to the SD is starved more and more, more and more people will say "hey, that looks worse and worse..."

[Stu_Bee]

The money has nothing to do with it. And I think that really points out the problem: Some folks parlay how much they paid into some sense of entitlement for more than what was actually promised, by the television manufacturer, TiVo or the television service provider. People get aggrieved by spending money and not getting what they wanted to get.

Can you blame them? The industry as a whole has been promoting the heck out of getting hdtv's.... HD Cable box......then they gonna pipe quasi-hd to you?

[HDTiVo]

Can you blame them? The industry as a whole has been promoting the heck out of getting hdtv's.... HD Cable box......then they gonna pipe quasi-hd to you?

DNFTT :rolleyes:

[bicker]

Can you blame them?My point is that blame, itself, is irrelevant, when people get what they were explicitly promised even if that was not what they wanted. See the distinction -- promised versus wanted.

[bicker]

DNFTT :rolleyes:In other words, HDTiVo hates my perspective so much that he has to use silly initials to express himself.

I disagree with you. I'm a hard, cold realist while you're an eternal optimist. We're not going to agree. Get over it.

[HDTiVo]

I'm sorry, but I think that's a gross exaggeration. Sci Fi HD was about 10 times better than Sci Fi SD, and Sci Fi HD "Lite" is about 8 times better than Sci Fi SD. Your assertion that the current PQ is just "a tick" above Sci Fi SD is indefensible, unless you are having a completely different experience there in Maryland than I'm having here in Massachusetts. This isn't just a matter of opinion -- the assertion is so far off from the reality I see here that it is not within the realm of opinion. It's like saying the world is flat AFIAC.

Let´s see, you made statements about video which you yourself have never seen, telling the person what they saw and/or that what they saw was so far from reality that their opinion did not fall in the realm of opinion.

In addition, you stated that video, with only 6 times the number of pixels and 3-5 times the data rate looked 10 times better, or 8 at the lower end. Perhaps an emotional statement, but certainly not an assertion that falls within the realm of reality.

Furthermore, you have no clue what you are talking about. I have already given one potential explanation for what the person saw; do you know any of the others?

You have no perspective whatsoever. In this case, you have no frame of reference either. You are so far from reality that your comments do not fall in the realm of opinion.

You are simply Trolling.

[bicker]

You're the one who dug out a message from five days to mumble about now... that makes you the troll. Get over yourself.