TiVo Community Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
BBQ Chicken said:
Is it me or is DirecTV HD a ripoff?
no

read my post here: http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=277929 to know my opinion about this.

if you can't stand watching SD content then get a HD tivo. simple. if you don't want to pay $300.- or $400.- for it now and $11.- a months than wait a few more years.

but don't expect to get true HD (with tivo) for free anytime soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
luckily there are guys like me who are willing to pay the $11.- a months now.

if everyone would have the sentiment of "i wait until it gets cheap or free" a lot of things would be moving slower. show your interest now and things will move faster.

and for the D* HD package. you will have at least 3 months for free to see if you like it or not. some complain, i love it. but that's because of my taste of programming. i love disc.HD, lots of really great programming. HDnet has good stuff, concerts etc., there is some good movies too. but if you don't like sports, movies from 3 years ago or discovery, there is no reason to get the HD package, but the HD tivo still might be worthwhile to you if you like to watch shows like lost, my name is earl and many more which are broadcast in HD too...

i have no regrets, but i think the tivo (instead of just the receiver) is crucial. because you can search for HD shows you like and record them and then watch them. you won't be bound to their schedule.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
jeffl said:
I started to subscribe to the hd package when it started and I just cancelled yesterday. The programming is not worth the money especially after football season ends. D* is the worst provider now as far as hd goes. I went back home for the holidays to visit my family. They live in a small town 40 miles from Pittsburgh. Checking out their hd line up (Comcast) really depressed me.
1. All Locals
2. Hbo, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax
3. Hdnet movies, Inhd
4. Discovery
5. Espn's
they get Hbo, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax in HD with their HD package or because they subscribe to the movie channels ??

because besides of the movies, that's what i get with the HD package (but i got showtime free for six months when i signed up)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
HiDefGator said:
Maybe so. But the movies in HD on HBO do not have the clarity that the shows on the discover channel do. If I can't see the pores in the skin on the actor's nose then it doesn't meet my definition of HD.
you are highly confused my friend.

video and film are two different things. HD discovery, sports and live shows (if in HD) are the only things filmed with HD Video.

there are a FEW prime time shows that are filmed with HD video, but 90%-95% of prime time HD is filmed on 35mm film and that will not change for some time due to the cost and availability of HD equipment. shooting HDvideo is not yet cheaper than shooting 35mm film

if you THOUGHT that all prime time shows are HDvideo and you liked it, but you don't like HD-hbo than you might have just watched a bad transfer or an older movie.

and to correct TyroneShoes, a show filmed in the 30's will have a lower quality than a show filmed now. film has not always been the same and there is constant improvements still done with film stock too. especially in the last 10 years or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
rmassey said:
You get Starz and InHD from D*? When did this happen?
of course you get starz... and what the heck is InHD ?

or are you saying you get all the HD movie channels by subscribing to the HD package and NOT the movie packages ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
Redux said:
In the context of this thread I have no quarrel with that.

However, it's much like saying that music of the 1930s is of lower quality than music today.

In both cases there is a difference, and living today and being immersed in today's conventions, we tend to prefer today's conventions. Personally, I don't think there's ever been a better film "look" than the late 1930s/early 1940s b&w film "sheen." Occasional attempts made to recreate that look with modern film stocks or video fail.

And, probably not coincidentally, I like the sound of vinyl and find much digitally-recorded music to be harsh. I don't find either vinyl or digital to be anything like the experiece of live music.

HiDef is new, it's today. Where there is no artistic content in the material (e.g. TV), the look is clearly superior. But I, for one, dread the day when movies are shot with HD cameras, much like other hanger-ons to the past once were uncomfortable with the transition to sound movies, or to 3-D (oops) or color.
well, here we go with that... it's all very subjective. but we are talking about picture quality and not the art form, but even than i would not agree with you on that. but that's because you like old movies... i don't

some movies are shot already in high def. and it is something that will be unavoidable. it's a train that can't be stopped. and that's fine. because when hi-def is shoot properly it has an incredible film-close look. especially when transferred back to film for the theaters.

for years i was against it, but i see the quality and film like look and i am fine with that. at this point i prefer to work with film tough because it is easier. hi-def cameras are hugh and heavy and you "need" all these monitors and cables...

but again this is all get subjective and should be argued over in a "film" forum and not here :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
yes and no. pretty much all commercials are shot on film, but not even transmitted in HD format 16:9 that is. but i have not seen a difference in the pic quality of a promo and the show itself. maybe you did not really watch a HD show and you thought you were...

promos are shot to promote... so they take more care of shooting it and make it look good. maybe it (the promo) was shot on 35mm and the show itself was shot on 16mm or even HD, but with a D.P. that wasn't that talented... they have 2 days to shot a 60 sec promo and they have 7 days to shot 42mins of show...

what show is it you are referring to ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
SpankyInChicago said:
That is a very general statement and not entirely factual.

Depending on many, many factors it can be very easy to get HD OTA or very difficult. The poor tuners in the HR10-250 don't make the difficult situations any easier.
the tuners in the 10-250 are not that bad. i had a OTA receiver for a while and needed a line booster from the antenna to get a signal ad with the 10-250 i could remove the booster at still get a signal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
i'd rather have fewer HD channels with no CRAP than just making up something or upconverting SD to HD with black sidebars.

there is just not that much HD content availble yet. it will take time. this switch is by far more difficult than VHS-DVD for example. at even that took a long time.

look at the major four, barley 10% of the air time is actully 16:9 true HD, so how can you excpect some mini mouse channel to produce HD 24/7 ?? i don't mind paying $11.- for HDnet and HDdiscovery, at least they are broadcasting 24/7 in HD unlike any other channel (As far as i know) and mostly original HD content. not movies (that's easy to convert, since you have the quality and format there already)

i said it before and i will say it again, i think it is said that so many people want everything for free. if i'd have a choice (and that's what i watch mainly) i'd be just subscribing to the HD channels and the locals. great i have an other 180 channels or so, but it's all useless stuff (for me and in my point of view)

i think it would be great if the channel lineup would be more split up, how about five bucks for the locals, five bucks for news, five bucks for shopping, five bucks for home improvemnt channels, 10 bucks for sports, 10 bucks for HD... you get the picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
129 Posts
DuffMan said:
I would however like to thank all you early adopters in advance for getting HD more mainstream in a year or two :)
you are welcome

TheBigDogs said:
Actually, there's an enormous amount of HD content available - almost all movies made since the conversion in the 50's to 16:9 can be transmitted as HD with an excellent PQ. We just watched Midnight Run which was filmed in 1988 on HD and it looked excellent - far better than the same movie on SD.
not sure if you did read my post or not, but that's still only all the movie channels. 30 or so out of 200... and that's not new content.

i want to see news, reality tv etc. in HD

TheBigDogs said:
The problem has to do with the NAB and the cabal of small time operators who control NAB policy. These guys don't want to give up their current bandwidth and buy expensive new equipment.
of course not, because nobody wants to pay for it. you hear them here whine all the time about the extra cost for the HD channels.

but's it's more then just the equipment to transmit and the bandwidth. it's the cameras, mobile editing stations etc... everything is more or less obsolete. and here you got a guy whining abut $11.- bucks a months. so who's going to pay for it ? commercials ? not really, we all got our HD-Tivos - right ?
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Looks like we ran into some issues. Please come back and try again later
Top