HD customers love quality but disappointed with programming options

directv just recently added alot of HD programing....basicly doubled the hd programs they had and i hear by the ned of the year even more i'm glad to say that someone is finally adding more hd content....

I have HDTV but don't have HDTV quality cause that's extra $10. I'm waiting untill almost everyone start having HDTV and people complain why they are paying extra $10.

I have HDTV but don't have HDTV quality cause that's extra $10. I'm waiting untill almost everyone start having HDTV and people complain why they are paying extra $10.

I have HDTV but don't have HDTV quality cause that's extra $10. I'm waiting untill almost everyone start having HDTV and people complain why they are paying extra $10.

This is why a lot of this new technology doesn't get adopted. Everything is in place except for the stuff that the poeople want to spend their money on. Still as far into the HD revolution as we have come, their are very few "must have" movies in either HD format, and many of the networks are not converting their programming to a HD format.

Money talks. Look at what has sold well in the past, and convert it to HD, rebundle, rebadge, and re sell it.

Quote:

---

According to research carried out by the Nielsen Company, consumers with HDTV's and high definition television services in their homes are very enthusiastic about the picture quality benefits...

---

^those people are all idiots, or they live in some special place unknown to me where their cable providers actually give enough bandwidth to EVREY HD channel, not just ESPN HD, or all they do is watch ESPN HD and nothing else.
Until I stop seeing pixelization during fades and high action sequences I will continue to rate the picture quality of so-called "HD" TV stations poorly. ITS NOT "HD" IF ITS ONLY HD WHEN THE SCENE IS STILL, wtf is the point of having HD TV service if all the action sequences and fades in every transfer for every scene look like a mosaic? Anyone with a trained eye can vouch that it is annoying and VERY misleading to advertise that you offer "HD" channels yet you don’t back them with enough bandwidth to actually make them "hd" unless the scene is still. Most providers only give ESPN HD enough bandwidth to handle the heavy loads, but they NEVER give ANYTHING ELSE enough.
Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard. As its sits right now pretty much every “HD” channel on TV outside of sports is a joke.

A message to the cable companies: WAKE THE F#CK UP! There are a lot of people out there that aren’t going to buy into the HD scam until you bring the quality of the non-sports HD channels to an acceptable level. I know it’s hard to imagine this, but there are people out there that don’t just use their HD TVs’ to check out the pock marks and sweat beads of hairy 400 pound linebackers in spandex.

no point of HDTV untill HD is standard.

Isnt it true that most channels are only broadcasting in 720p? So for all thos 180p/i customers out there are really getting cheated.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

According to research carried out by the Nielsen Company, consumers with HDTV's and high definition television services in their homes are very enthusiastic about the picture quality benefits...

---

^those people are all idiots, or they live in some special place unknown to me where their cable providers actually give enough bandwidth to EVREY HD channel, not just ESPN HD, or all they do is watch ESPN HD and nothing else.
Until I stop seeing pixelization during fades and high action sequences I will continue to rate the picture quality of so-called "HD" TV stations poorly. ITS NOT "HD" IF ITS ONLY HD WHEN THE SCENE IS STILL, wtf is the point of having HD TV service if all the action sequences and fades in every transfer for every scene look like a mosaic? Anyone with a trained eye can vouch that it is annoying and VERY misleading to advertise that you offer "HD" channels yet you don’t back them with enough bandwidth to actually make them "hd" unless the scene is still. Most providers only give ESPN HD enough bandwidth to handle the heavy loads, but they NEVER give ANYTHING ELSE enough.
Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard. As its sits right now pretty much every “HD” channel on TV outside of sports is a joke.

A message to the cable companies: WAKE THE F#CK UP! There are a lot of people out there that aren’t going to buy into the HD scam until you bring the quality of the non-sports HD channels to an acceptable level. I know it’s hard to imagine this, but there are people out there that don’t just use their HD TVs’ to check out the pock marks and sweat beads of hairy 400 pound linebackers in spandex.

---

I agree. HD is nice, but quality is iffy. Some programs use too much compression and the quality looks like sh!t. And also, many shows are badly produced, they are so grainy on hd that it's unbearable to watch. It may look ok on standard def, but HD will show all your video flaws. Give us quality!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

According to research carried out by the Nielsen Company, consumers with HDTV's and high definition television services in their homes are very enthusiastic about the picture quality benefits...

---

^those people are all idiots, or they live in some special place unknown to me where their cable providers actually give enough bandwidth to EVREY HD channel, not just ESPN HD, or all they do is watch ESPN HD and nothing else.
Until I stop seeing pixelization during fades and high action sequences I will continue to rate the picture quality of so-called "HD" TV stations poorly. ITS NOT "HD" IF ITS ONLY HD WHEN THE SCENE IS STILL, wtf is the point of having HD TV service if all the action sequences and fades in every transfer for every scene look like a mosaic? Anyone with a trained eye can vouch that it is annoying and VERY misleading to advertise that you offer "HD" channels yet you don’t back them with enough bandwidth to actually make them "hd" unless the scene is still. Most providers only give ESPN HD enough bandwidth to handle the heavy loads, but they NEVER give ANYTHING ELSE enough.
Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard. As its sits right now pretty much every “HD” channel on TV outside of sports is a joke.

A message to the cable companies: WAKE THE F#CK UP! There are a lot of people out there that aren’t going to buy into the HD scam until you bring the quality of the non-sports HD channels to an acceptable level. I know it’s hard to imagine this, but there are people out there that don’t just use their HD TVs’ to check out the pock marks and sweat beads of hairy 400 pound linebackers in spandex.

---

Quote:

---

Being able to label a station "HD" should require an average bitrate minimum to be met, not just a size and format standard

---

An ideal solution, however that would make to much sense...

I have HDTV and DirecTV. It broadcasts in 1080i and I have great picture quality. They have recently added alot more channels in HD and are aiming to have added 100 more by years end. If you are having bandwidth problems or having HD displayed in 720 only, I suggest you switch to DirecTV.

Well as a consumer i do realize that it is just in its infancy and will take some time before the new technology will grow to its full capacity so we will just have to be patient and see where this goes to.