Class action suit against DirectTV as the HD content well isn't...

[CollinR]

I illuded to this a couple time in tha past that without higher technology present the the Sat box you really don't know what you are getting. Well evidently some have done some decent research on the subject.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=962

After this morning’s piece “Don’t believe the low bit-rate ‘HD’ lie“, I thought I would follow up and show you want crappy HD looks like. The following is a sample from AVSForum user Xylon who digitally ripped some images from DIRECTV and Dish Networks satellite service 1.5 years ago. Note that both of these are delivering less than half the 19.2 bit-rate of ATSC over-the-air broadcast HD so neither example is all that great. I linked to the forum and cropped out the image at 1:1 size and posted the samples for a side-by-side comparison below but you can click to see the full-size images.

DIRECTV HD @ 8.25 mbps Dish “HD” @ 9.10 mbps


Source/credit: Xylon @ AVSForum

Apparently, DIRECTV switched from 1920×1080 resolution HD video to highly compressed 1280×1080 so they can shove a lot more channels on to their service which users not-so-lovingly named “HD Lite“. As you can see above, the DIRECTV image to the left absolutely stinks compared to the not-so-great sample from Dish on the right. This apparently angered a lot of DIRECTV customers and one such customer Peter Cohen actually filed a class action lawsuit.

Even the Dish example on the right above sucks compared to broadcast HDTV and that the hair is blurred and blended in. But everyone’s rushing to announce their “100 channel HD” service when all they’re doing is squeezing twice as many channels down the same pipe. Now imagine what happens when you try to cut the bit-rate down by a factor of 4 like Apple’s iTune HD rental service or you try to cut it down 10 times like some websites. Granted the usage of higher-end codecs like H.264/MPEG4-AVC or VC-1 can lessen the losses in quality, but no compression technology in the world can handle fast changing video with low bit-rates without severe degradation. People often hear MPEG-4 and the knee-jerk reaction is that it’s automatically better than MPEG-2 because they see a bigger number but that’s only true if it’s at or almost the same bit-rate.

In light of the fact that 8 mbps 1280×1080 video gets you sued, you have to wonder what Steve Jobs is thinking when he says Blu-ray and HD DVD will get killed by download services such as his newly launched 4 mbps 720p “HD” iTunes movie rental service. I guess if consumers believe the lie that you can do HD with these low bit-rate downloads, then Steve might be right. But with cheap 42 inch 1920×1080 full 1080p LCD and Plasma panels coming out spring this year at less than $1400, consumers are going to be in for a surprise when they see the difference between the free stuff coming over the airwaves versus the crap they actually pay for coming from Satellite and download services.

Video quality reference table from best to worst:
(Some data might be outdated, missing, or approximate but I will update)

Source/service >> CODEC >> Resolution >> Bit-rate

Blu-ray >> H.264 or MPEG2 >> 1920×1080 1080i/p >> 40mbps
HD DVD >> H.264 or VC-1 >> 1920×1080 1080i/p >> 28mbps
DVD >> MPEG2 >> 720×480 >> 8mbps

ATSC >> HDTV MPEG2 >> 1920×1080 1080i/p >> 19.39mbps
Digital cable >> MPEG2 1920×1080 1080i/p >> 16mbps
Verizon FiOS >> MPEG2 1920×1080 1080i >> 15mbps

DISH HD >> MPEG2/MPEG4 >> 1440×1080 >> 10mbps
DIRECTV HD MPEG2/MPEG4 1280×1080 >> <10mbps

IPTV >> H.264 ? >> <10mbps
Xbox Live Video >> VC-1 >> 1280×720 >> 6.8mbps
Apple iTunes >> QuickTime/H.264 >> 1280×720 >> 4mbps
Web “HD” downloads >> H.264 >> 1280×720 >> 1.5mbps

Interesting find as you typically can't find this info easily.


Lawsuit Info:

http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletter..._lite_20060925/

Peter Cohen, a subscriber to DirecTV’s HD satellite service, has filed a class action lawsuit against the DTH provider for reducing the quality of its HDTV signal by lowering the bit rate.

When Cohen initially signed up for DirecTV’s HD package in 2003, the operator promised “astonishing picture quality.” Within a year, Cohen charged, DirecTV broke it promise by reducing the quality of its HD satellite channels.

Cohen’s lawsuit, drawing a wave of supporters from various Web sites, got its first public hearing last week when a judge ruled against DirecTV on its motion to compel arbitration in the case.

The complaint, apparently shared by other vocal DirecTV critics, has resulted in DirecTV’s service being tagged “HD Lite” because of the low bit rate the service uses to transmit HD channels.

“We believe the plaintiff’s underlying claims are completely without merit because DirecTV’s high-definition service is high quality, true HD service under accepted definitions for satellite TV,” DirecTV spokesman Robert Mercer told the Web site TVPredictions.com.

Subscribers have claimed that DirecTV highly compresses HD images to create more channel space. This compression, to save bandwidth, reduces image quality.

Since information about the lawsuit surfaced, TVPredictions.com has reported that it received approximately 100 negative e-mails from DirecTV subscribers, complaining that the service’s nine-channel national HD lineup fares poorly compared to rival EchoStar, which airs 30 national HD channels.

Earlier, DirecTV announced plans to change to MPEG-4 compression technology for HDTV. That change is expected to occur next year.

 

[dublin00]

No comment with respect to DirectTV or Dishnetwork HD, but saying that XBOX Live or AppleTV HD movies are poor compared to "free" content on cable or sat is a bit miss-leading. You have to pay a monthly subscription fee for cable and sat services, so the content really isn't "free".

Personally my wife and I have two 1080p TVs and Comcast HD cable. We find the Comcast HD cable service to be just awful, even though we get 20+ HD channels, most of the content is "junk" that we would never watch and the rare "free" movie is so packed with ads and cut down (or censored) that it is unwatchable to us. The VOD content is worse, all of it being very low quality pan and scan format (looks like VHS quality to me, not even close to DVD quality let alone Bluray/HD-DVD).

We are going to try out the AppleTV download service when it starts next month. If it works we will probably drop our cable service since we can't afford to spend $950 a year on something that we only watch three/four times a week and often has nothing but crap. The idea of $2.99 720x480 DVD widescreen movies on-demand when we want is just great for us. The large library these guys are supposed to provide sure beats what we have now, and we can always pay for 720p quality if we want.

The bottom line, not everyone out there wants or cares that everything is "real" HD, what ever that is. I'm personally just happy that we are starting to get some alternatives to cable & sat services.

 

[IVB]

that lawsuit is total BS, it's not like anyone is holding a gun to his head and forcing him to buy the product. it's still better than DVD, even if not by a huge bitrate level. Just cuz it used to be better screams "Stupid American files $65M lawsuit cuz the drycleaner lost his pants."

don't get me wrong, i'm all about good quality, and compression sucks, but lawsuits and whining incessantly about products that don't make the grade is idiotic.

 

[beelzerob]

The bottom line, not everyone out there wants or cares that everything is "real" HD, what ever that is. I'm personally just happy that we are starting to get some alternatives to cable & sat services.

I think the real point here, and hopefully an outcome of the lawsuit other than making more lawyers rich, is that the term "HD" is being thrown around with wild abandon, and there is either no clear definition of it, or no one is adhering to it. If you ask most people what HD is, they'll probably just say it looks better and is 16X9 aspect ratio.

 

[CollinR]

Agreed that is a massive difference between free ATSC and Cable and FIOS QAM rebroadcasts. There needs to be some kind of regulation just as a gallon of gas from any gas station should be very close to the same volume as a gallon from any other. The consumer needs to know what they are paying for before they can really make an educated choice. Further they get to hide behind their propietary boxes that prevent the end user from analizing what they are getting. Maybe thats the better option make all box providers display the bitrate, encoding, framesize and framerate for available streams.

 

[Steve]

I think the real point here, and hopefully an outcome of the lawsuit other than making more lawyers rich, is that the term "HD" is being thrown around with wild abandon, and there is either no clear definition of it, or no one is adhering to it. If you ask most people what HD is...

Oh man, and all this time I always thought HD meant Home Depot.

 

[IVB]

Read up on HD Radio.

You'll realize that HD doesn't mean Hi-Def at all. It's just a 2 letter branding thing. Now *that's* deceptive advertising.

 

[electron]

Are you saying my HD mouse and soundcard aren't really HD?

There has to be some sort of standard so when people buy a HDTV, they are actually buying 720p/1080p TV, not a "hot damn tv" or something like that. I feel bad for the consumers who don't know anything about this and probably get taken advantage of because of all this confusion.

 

[beelzerob]

There has to be some sort of standard so when people buy a HDTV, they are actually buying 720p/1080p TV, not a "hot damn tv" or something like that. I feel bad for the consumers who don't know anything about this and probably get taken advantage of because of all this confusion.

I haven't heard any reports of TV manufacturers trying to toy with the "HD"-edness of their sets...I think that would probably be pretty hard, as most of them are made from the same parts.

In fact, I'd almost wish that the TV manufacturers would get in on this fight, as when I see crappy, blurry, sloppy "HD" on my TV, at least I know it's the provider's fault...I bet most regular consumers would just be unimpressed with their TV, maybe even return it wondering what all the fuss was about.

 

[upstatemike]

Are you saying my HD mouse and soundcard aren't really HD?

There has to be some sort of standard so when people buy a HDTV, they are actually buying 720p/1080p TV, not a "hot damn tv" or something like that. I feel bad for the consumers who don't know anything about this and probably get taken advantage of because of all this confusion.

I wonder if Blu-Ray will end up helping consumers be more HD aware? As more people buy Blu-Ray players and discs and play them on their 1080P TV sets, they will have a frame of reference to compare the broadcast HD sources to. Maybe this will help keep the content providers honest?

I know I am seriously considering dropping all paid broadcast sources and going with a "NetFlix Only" strategy for all content... even TV shows. (I don't mind the delay for them to come out on DVD which is getting shorter and shorter anyway). Why should I pay for a fuzzy cable or satellite picture when I can get the maximum use of my TV's resolution using Blu-Ray?

 

[CollinR]

Same for ATSC which is free to air HD programming that contains quite a bit of what people really watch. This can be compared head to head against most cable and sat providers as many rebroadcast those streams (in their reduced quality).

 

[IVB]

From this page, a claim that HD radio means "Hybrid Digital":

In-Band On-Channel (IBOC)
HD Radio transmits the digital signals in unused portions of the same channel as the analog AM and FM signals (in-band on-channel). As a result, radios are more easily designed to pick up both signals, which is why the HD in HD Radio stands for "hybrid digital," not "high definition." HD Radios tune into the station's analog signal first and then look for a digital signal.

First i've heard of that definition, but that's also techweb's def'n, so I suppose that's the new meaning.

 

[IVB]

Interesting quote today on SageTV forum about the original zdnett article:

That screen cap was from an mpeg-2 channel. Since then they've moved over most channels to mpeg-4 AVC and retained about the same bitrate. So the pic quality should be much better.

EDIT: Actually, that whole article is misleading. Look at the chart at the bottom. Blu-ray encodes are at a variable bit rate, 40mbps is the maximum burst it can handle, not an average or constant bitrate. DVD @ 8 mbps? Hardly ever seen one over 5mbps. ATSC channels @ 19.39 mbps??? Only 1 of them in my market uses all 19mbps (CBS). Digital cable HDTV @ 16mbps?? I remember seeing some from comcast at as low as 8mbps.

I wonder who paid these guys off?!

 

[TonyNo]

Actually, "Hybrid Digital" was being used shortly after they first came out.

I read an article (I think a few years ago) about a ton of HDTV's being returned by people that didn't know how bad SD looked on HD sets plus they had no HD sources (and didn't know any better).

 

[huggy59]

The thing that bothers me most about all this HD hoopla is that the private corps and the public are being forced to change in a year, and the technology groups have done basically nothing to ease the transition or make things more compatible. There used to be two standards - NTSC and PAL. and many TVs could go either way. Now what a mess. A digital mess.

Remember when the IT industry screwed themselves in the 80's and 90's with all the tech specs and basically made everyone a liar (depending on how you looked at it, of course)? Now it's happening all over again with this TV fiasco. And soon Joe Smoe won't be able to buy a TV and hook it to his A/V receiver.

At this point all I can say is: watch out for Wal-Mart cause they'll figure out how to capitalize on this pronto... and then all but the richest of us will be in trouble! ;-)

And if you think that's funny, remember: Wal-mart is protecting us from the likes of Bruce Springsteen by not selling his new album. and you thought just George W was the bad guy...