 neufuse
join:2006-12-06
Indiana, PA | not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but most of comcast's deployed HD channels are just 4:3 SD pictures streatched to HD anyways... there are few pure HD channels... or that have over 50% HD programming | |
|
 | 
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN | Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Which ones? | |
|
| | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but said by Chuckles  :Which ones? I can think of a few
Food network
Cable news network(CNN)
Travel channel
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | | quatrix
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but We don't get the latter two here, but almost everything on Food HD is really HD. TBS HD is another story. The channel appeared only for the first round of last year's baseball playoffs (later rounds were somewhere else), and they haven't shown anything in HD since. Isn't that a waste of money for someone? | |
|
| | | | 
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
edit:
March 10th, @08:11PM
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. All TBS (and TNT) does is show re-runs of old shows, doesn't make much sense to have an HD-version of the channel.
--
Tom | |
|
| | | | | 
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
49533
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but said by trparky :Yeah, that doesn't make much sense. All TBS (and TNT) does is show re-runs of old shows, doesn't make much sense to have an HD-version of the channel. Hardly. TNTHD has quite a few original series and mini-series that are shown in true HD (non-stretch-o-vision). | |
|
| | | | | 
Lumberjack
Premium
join:2003-01-18
Newport News, VA
 ·Cox HSI
| I hate non-HD channels now even for old ass re-runs. Such a huge difference between standard def and high def on a 50" plasma.
I even watch Sponge Bob in high def now (well, when the kids watch it).
No HD channels is a waste, but all standard definition channels are.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
| | |
Chuckles
Premium
join:2006-03-04
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| I cant say for sure in AZ about Food and Travel, but the local channels arent always broadcasting in HD so the HD channel at times isn't 1080i 16:9. If there's no HD coming from the station you won't get HD.
--
kustomerservice.net | |
|
| | | 
ComcastFTL
@comcast.net | That issue is with the content providers not having enough HD content. | |
|
| | | | 
michaelp95
Premium
join:2001-08-23
Tucson, AZ
·Comcast
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Yeah, its kinda like the days when black and white TV was the norm, then came COLOR TV...some shows were color and others black and white, as time marched on all TV became in color. Were kind of at the point in the technology now, some SD some HD. When I was young I remember some shows being in B&W then they were in color, our kids will now live that phenomena over again with SD and HD programming. | |
|
| | | ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA | CNN-HD isn't stretched 4x3 here in Atlanta, it's the real thing. | |
|
| | 
Quaoar
join:2004-08-11
Fort Collins, CO
·Comcast
| A&E HD stretches their older programs, but in HD they look great except the babes are fat. Same with TNTHD with older Law and Order, and other older shows, liked Charmed, where the babes are fat.
Comcast has a long row to hoe to present what my son has on Dish for HD. On Demand is a poor second, particularly when movies are limited to 4-5 per month and free movies are either stretched or letterbox.
I really wish Comcast would explain where their competitive advantage exists, in detail. I certainly do not see it.
Q | |
|
| | | 
rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA
edit:
March 11th, @03:41AM
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but The babes were always fat. SD just shrinks them. It's sort of like the way that Cinemascope without conversion makes everyone look very tall and skinny. OK, that's not true about SD, but it would be funny if it were. | |
|
| 
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| said by neufuse :most of comcast's deployed HD channels are just 4:3 SD pictures streatched to HD anyways... there are few pure HD channels... or that have over 50% HD programming Remember it's not just Comcast. For a station to be a pure HD channel, it currently has to be a channel that was created just for HD. In other words, Discovery, National Geographic and History need not apply. Channels like MHD and HD Theater are the exceptions. Unfortunatly, the channels that have shows most people like to watch have mixed HD and SD content.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| 
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| I wish *EVERY* channel was in HD - even the ones originally with SD sources. Why? Compression!
SD can be converted to HD and look much better than the standard SD channels we get today - because the SD signal we all receive now is very compressed/over-compressed. Take an *original* (uncompressed) 480 source and upconvert to 720/1080 and it looks much better than the same channel broadcast through traditional SD means.
I have DirecTV HD, and yes while some channels (not DTV's fault) do end up in stretch-o-vision when they convert SD 4:3 to HD 16:9 most channels have a good fix: They do a quasi-zoom so instead of huge black bars on the side you get little thin ones, and then they slightly crop the top/bottom of the image. This, in my opinion, is by far the best way to convert between the two formats. My example to illustrate this would be the Science Channel - How Its Made. That show looks extremely sharp and crisp in HD even though it's only a 480 source converted exactly as I describe above. But when you switch to the SD broadcast version the quality degrades horribly.
I won't even go into the differences between Cable/OTA Mpeg2 HD vs DTV's Mpeg4 HD. I'll just say the latter is far superior to the point where during the first Giants/Patriots game that was triple-cast on NFL Network (DTV Mpeg4), CBS(OTA Mpeg2), and NBC (OTA Mpeg2) the Mpeg2 was just laughable (major motion artifacts that completely disappeared on Mpeg4). | |
|
| |
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but said by Jerm :I have DirecTV HD, and yes while some channels (not DTV's fault) do end up in stretch-o-vision when they convert SD 4:3 to HD 16:9 most channels have a good fix: They do a quasi-zoom so instead of huge black bars on the side you get little thin ones, and then they slightly crop the top/bottom of the image. This, in my opinion, is by far the best way to convert between the two formats. Certainly better than pure stretchovision (like TNT). I prefer the format not be changed at all. If it's shot in 4:3, that's how I want to see it. No distortion, no cropping. Of course I have a DLP TV, so I don't have to worry about the side bars "burning in".
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | quatrix
join:2005-02-11
Davie, FL
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but said by PaulHikeS2 :Certainly better than pure stretchovision (like TNT). I prefer the format not be changed at all. If it's shot in 4:3, that's how I want to see it. No distortion, no cropping. Same here. Most TVs allow you to stretch 4:3 to 16:9 but not the other direction. People that like the stretched look can have it their way (whatever floats their boats), whereas if the show's already transmitted in stretched form, there's no way to undo it. | |
|
| | | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA | Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Hmm interesting my Samsung 50" Plasma allows me to force 4:3 ratio on an incomming 16:9 signal so I actually can fix stretch-o-vision just fine that way. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | FrostyMelon
join:2006-02-06
Colorado Springs, CO | OMG...TNT HD...horrid! | |
|
| | krichek
join:2004-02-15
Roseville, CA
| said by Jerm : I won't even go into the differences between Cable/OTA Mpeg2 HD vs DTV's Mpeg4 HD. I'll just say the latter is far superior to the point where during the first Giants/Patriots game that was triple-cast on NFL Network (DTV Mpeg4), CBS(OTA Mpeg2), and NBC (OTA Mpeg2) the Mpeg2 was just laughable (major motion artifacts that completely disappeared on Mpeg4). Sorry but that's not always the case. In alot of areas DTV gets there local HD channels from OTA so in those markets it's impossible for them to be better than OTA since the source is the same. | |
|
| | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Not sure where you're comming from on this. Yeah the best you'll ever get from the *local* stations is what the broadcast OTA provides. You are correct DTV just re-broadcasts the OTA signal.
However locals are only a few channels (NBC, CBS, FOX, etc) all the rest come directly from the source provider. What this means is if you watch National Geographic HD on Comcast it will be Mpeg2 and inferior to the Mpeg4 stream on DTV.
The funny part is I would have never believed the above statement until I saw it with my own eyes. Forget the whole 720p/1080i debate, Mpeg2 vs Mpeg4 is much more noticable.
When that NFL game was on, I thought there had to be something wrong with my TV or what not, so I called up a friend with a 58" Panasonic 1080p plasma and he confirmed exactly what I was seeing: DTV Mpeg4 just blows away OTA Mpeg2 | |
|
| | 
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| said by Jerm :I wish *EVERY* channel was in HD - even the ones originally with SD sources. Why? Compression! SD can be converted to HD and look much better than the standard SD channels we get today - because the SD signal we all receive now is very compressed/over-compressed. Be careful what you wish for. Comcast is starting to squash 3 HD channels into 1 QAM channel using "real time compression". Consensus so far has been that many of the channels are near unwatchable for certain programs, causing pixelation and even frame drops (eg: SciFi-HD). | |
|
| | |
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but said by Morac :Be careful what you wish for. Comcast is starting to squash 3 HD channels into 1 QAM channel using "real time compression". Consensus so far has been that many of the channels are near unwatchable for certain programs, causing pixelation and even frame drops (eg: SciFi-HD). This surprises me. No disrespect intended, but what's your source for this info?
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
edit:
March 10th, @05:43PM
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but said by PaulHikeS2 :This surprises me. No disrespect intended, but what's your source for this info? Here's a CED article about it. Scroll down to the part where it talks about "IMAGINE IMPROVED HD OFFERINGS".
Here's a thread over on the TiVo forums about people complaining after the compression was implemented. Here's a video of it in implementation. | |
|
| | | | |
PaulHikeS2
join:2003-03-06
Merrimack, NH | Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Thanks for the info! I haven't noticed the compression; maybe they're not doing it yet in my area.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet??? | |
|
| | | | | |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ | Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but If you haven't received any new HD channels recently, it's probably not. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
·Comcast
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Read the thread I linked to. People are seeing all kind of problems with the new compression technique. It may indeed be configured improperly, but that is not an excuse.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
| | | | 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | It's true. One of my TVs is showing 3 "HD" channels in one QAM stream in SW Florida. The picture quality is certainly not HD.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | |
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs:
edit:
March 10th, @08:16PM
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but I think that the CEOs of the cable companies (not just Comcast, this includes Cox and RoadRunner) ought to look at the service they provide. It would shed some light on the horrible quality of the service they provide.
But then again, we all know that that ain't going to happen.
I have DTV, great picture all around. 
--
Tom | |
|
| | 
kyler13
Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD
 ·ViaTalk
| said by Jerm :I won't even go into the differences between Cable/OTA Mpeg2 HD vs DTV's Mpeg4 HD. I'll just say the latter is far superior to the point where during the first Giants/Patriots game that was triple-cast on NFL Network (DTV Mpeg4), CBS(OTA Mpeg2), and NBC (OTA Mpeg2) the Mpeg2 was just laughable (major motion artifacts that completely disappeared on Mpeg4). You seem to gloss right over the issue of HD Lite with DTV. It's really just about trade-offs in the end. Which is better? DTV's MPEG4 with 33% less resolution, or cable's MPEG2 with full HD resolution? | |
|
| | |
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| Re: not every HD channel deserves to be in HD... but Huh? "HD Lite" is only on DTV's old Mpeg2 streams. The new Mpeg4 is not "lite".
Both Cable & DTV have "full" resolution 1920x1080i signals just in DTV's version it's Mpeg4.
I do agree "HD Lite" sucks, but it only exists in Mpeg2 land | |
|
partysource
join:2000-11-25
Phoenix, AZ | Direct TV HD I think Direct TV has done a remarkable job with the HD service. I have not had any problems with the service at all. | |
|
| MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN | Re: Direct TV HD I agree. I was a Comcast subscriber but the price and lackluster showing of HD content drove me to DirecTV. Plenty of high def channels and they look great. Even non-HD content on HD channels looks a smidge better than it's SD counterpart. | |
|
|
| 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: comcast (and their supporters is about to be taught a lesson That is for internet and nothing to do with this  | |
|
ebubman
join:2002-01-17
Enola, PA
·Vonage
·Comcast
edit:
March 10th, @04:28PM
| it appears satellite has more hd channels methinks the comcastic cfo is stretching things a bit. i wonder if they are referring to every single hd on-demand movie as a channel? if so, their advertising might be accurate.
btw, were it not for the landline requirement, we'd probably have direct hdtv here. have called them & they say "you gotta have a landline" which i have not had in over 7 years.
bub | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:
| Hmm...well.. here's how I see it.
Out of all the things I like about Comcast and give them high marks for..
I think the hd side of the business just deserves a "B" at best. Counting On Demand HD as "channels" is a little lame..or maybe a lot lame depending on ones perspective.
I mean..it is content..but so too is walmarts 4.99 dvd bin.
This doesn't mean I'm ready to concede the whole thing to satellite either because I think for all the providers..it's still very much a work in progress.
Personally, I just really think that the cable co's should use the whole Feb., 2009 digital thing to really take analog down to virtually nothing..and let the hd really roll out.
So many people think it's going to happen anyways..that they really should just make it a reality.
Comcast....gets a "B" for HD from me..Satellite..maybe a B+.
Too close to call still for the long run though.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
|
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
·Vonage
edit:
March 10th, @06:54PM
| Would you buy a used car from Comcast? quote:
Comcast CFO Michael Angelakis . . . told attendees of the Bear Stearns media conference in Florida that Comcast's HD service is a "great service".
I don't believe anything Comcast says.
Comcast has shown, on numerous occasions, that they are complete liars.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
|
ninjatutle
You can keep the "change"
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA | BMW BMW prices for Yugo services is what they're doing. | |
|
Backy
@comcast.net | HD service is great! and we never use sandvine HD service is great! and we never throttle P2P traffic. | |
|
anonomous
@comcast.net
| Here, there are no more issues with HD channels. USA and Sci-Fi HD were bad about freezing and pixelating(mainly Sci-Fi HD) about 2 months ago. Around the second week of February, we switched out the STB(was a DCT 3412, now is a DCH 3416). Since then there haven't been and problems with the HD. So if you are having trouble with the HD and have a DCT 3412 or another older model, go to a Comcast store(NOT a kiosk in a store like Best Buy, but an actual comcast store where you can pay your bill, return a STB, etc) and swap it for the new DCH 3416 or another new model. | |
|
Comcastrated
@calpop.com | HD service "HD service is great! and we never throttle P2P traffic."
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
My three favorite lies. | |
|
|
|
anonomous
@comcast.net
| Re: What are the diffs in HD delivery formats of DTV v Comcast  DirecTV uses MPEG-4, while Comcast and other cable companies use MPEG-2 compression. In my opinion, the Comcast HD looks good. I have not seen DirecTV's HD and more than likely won't since none of my friends or family members have DirecTV, and i wouldn't switching service providers just to see if HD is better with Comcast or DirecTV. I have heard that sometimes MPEG-4 will make HD look absolutely terrible(at&t u-verse). If I ever see an HD demo at radio shack, I'll take a good look and see if DirecTV or Comcast has a better picture. | |
|
asdadasd
| Directv On Demand I don't know if comcast knows this, but Directv also has HD On Demand. Of course, that is for only for customers that have a HR20 or HR21 DVR and HSI, but it still should count for something. | |
|
|
anonomous
@comcast.net | Re: Directv On Demand When did DirecTV get HD on-demand? I know last year DirecTV had an on-demand service in the beta stages, but it could only do SD, not HDTV. When did HD on-demand start? Also, don't you need to have a HSI connection to even get the content? | |
|
| | 
KSUJace
Golden Flash
join:2001-12-01
Chicago, IL | Re: Directv On Demand HD on demand has been working now for a few months. It requires HSI (which my Internet is Comcast) ... thanks Comcast for enabling my HD on demand from DirecTV! | |
|
| | |
anonomous
@comcast.net | How much HD content is there currently? How long does it take to download a movie or show? Finally, is the picture quality good compare to other HD(Blu-ray/HD DVD, DirecTV HD channels, Comcast HD on-demand, Xbox live video marketplace HD, etc.)? | |
|
|
Thppt on Comcast
@cingular.com
| Comcast vs. D TV I currently have Comcast and just switched out my cable box today for HD. I counted the HD channels available and was highly disappointed. 20 channels in all including premium channels. I don't have HBO/Cinemax, etc so subtract 4. 2 channels were "off air" and unavailable for viewing. That leaves 14 channels of HD for an extra $8.00 a month. They do have some HD on demand content which I'm sure they are counting in their comparison to other providers but in my opinion this is completely misleading. If I wanted to watch the movie Hook in HD over and over again I would go buy it on DVD or Blueray. I signed up for Direct TV this morning, my dish will be installed next week....approx $2.00 per channel for HD programming is a complete rip off and Comcast should be ashamed. | |
|
|
|
|
Comcast CFO: Our HD Service Is 'Great'
·
·
·