Bell HD quality? Bell offer to stay...

  • Thread starter Thread starter marmaduke
  • Start date Start date
M

marmaduke

Guest
I have been an ExpressVu customer since 1998. I have 2 2700 receivers.

I want to upgrade to HD and have went to Bell to get a good package to stay...Bell has offered a 6100 receiver for 2yrs or 9220 HD PVR for 1yr, a free upgrade pkg, free install and 6 months HD free to stay with them and not switch to another provider...can I do better??

What quality is Bell's HD channels? I have a 1080p capable HD tv...can I get HD in 1080p?? I have heard that HD is still only 720p or maybe 1080i, depending on the broadcast. Is that true?
 
PBS feeds in 720p vs 1080i -- a couple of years ago, when I did the ad hoc tests, PBS HD Detroit was available with PBS HD Seattle. They were indeed sending out different signals -- or at least, different signals (that is 720 vs 1080) were being received on my set.

I was never suggesting MPEG-2 at 9.5 mbps would look as good as MPEG-4 at 9.5 mbps; I was saying current MPEG-2 at 19 mbps should look as good as (for example) MPEG-4 at 9.5 mbps. That is: properly encoded and given "normal" bandwidth, the encoding scheme shouldn't make a difference. They can both look great; one is more efficient to transmit.


Perhaps I have this pixel count thing wrong. Here's my understanding:

1080i / 1080p = 1920 x 1080 pixels (aka about 2 million per frame)

720i / 720p = 1280 x 720 pixels (aka about 1 million per frame)

If interlaced, the full image appears in 1/30th of a second; every other line arriving in a frame 1/60th of a second apart

If progressive, the full image appears in 1/30th of a second with no interlacing.

All else being equal, twice the discrete pixels makes a better picture -- that's the intutitive thinking anyway.

All else being equal, one full frame per 1/30th of second is the same whether interlaced or not -- the eye is treated to the same full frame once every 1/30th of a second.

Perhaps technical issues make interlacing "unwatchable" as a poster in another thread once wrote.

Perhaps technical issues mean 1 million pixels is actually crisper than 2 million.

I'd be delighted to be enlightened.
 
Right now BEV is in desperate need for transponder to add HD channels when at the same time, Cable is offering more and more HD channels. It's a race that BEV cannot afford to loose cause when custommers are gone there gone for good. Except for rural ones that dont have other choices.

BEV does'nt have 1080P capable boxes. The max for now is 1080i but not a lot of broadcasters use it apart from PBS I think.
When the MPEG4 boxes it the market, yes they will support 1080P...
 
both...some channels broadcast in 1080i, some in 720p depending on provider. If you have a high quality TV, you can adjust to either as well from the native signal.... ;)
 
1080i:
802 CBCHE
815 NBCHE
817 CBSHE
819 PBSHE
820 NBCHW
822 CBSHW
825 WGNHD
860 SRCHE


ALL other signals are in 720p

What's stands out is:
824 PBSHW in 720p

All the HiFidelty shows in 720p when they are essentially VOOM originals and they are shown in 1080i
As is the Discovery HD Theatre while the Canadian Bev version is 720p.
The same is true for HDNET and RUSH, all 1080i in the US, 720p on Bev.

There may be other signal perversions as well that I'm not aware of.
Maybe the OTA crowd can weigh in to compare their souce against the Bev version.
 
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Notices/2006/pb2006-74.htm



129.
For these reasons, the Commission will impose the same quality standards for the distribution of the pay and specialty services as it did for the distribution of the over-the-air services, as proposed in Public Notice 2004-58. Specifically:
* for the purposes of the framework set out in this public notice, the term "high definition" will encompass both the 720p and 1080i picture formats, as defined by the Advanced Television Systems Committee in its A/53 digital television standard;

* low definition images subjected to line-doubling techniques or algorithms that stretch a 4:3 picture to fill a 16:9 screen will not be considered to be HD for the purposes of this framework; and

* the program signals of pay and specialty services distributed by a BDU must be of the same quality and in the same format as those received by it, without any degradation.


Note that in the responses before this ruling Bev already tried the old "it would mean spending money so we should be exempt" routine. The CRTC said no. If they are getting the broadcasters to recode it for them before sending it over it would still appear to be against the spirit of the regulations. In that case (I can't believe I am saying this) the CRTC may actually stand up for the consumer.

One benefit we had of going later is dish and direct were already squashing their signals south of the border before the CRTC even started looking at this. They have been very adamant that there is no competition in Canada so the BDU's don't get to pull that crap up here. Mind you that was a toss to the broadcasters not the consumers.

There are some other things that I remember from the OTA HD decision that I remember that would seem to make this a violation of the regulations as well. I am trying to find the decision so I get the wording correct before I post it though.
 
Actually no one is broadcasting in 1080p; and most networks in Canada are in 1080i (all of the Canadian HD channels and most US except FOX and ABC -- if I recall correctly -- which are 720p).

You can get 1080p with an HD DVD player.

I believe Bell transmits all (or almost all) HD in 720p either because that is the OTA source; they have asked the broadcaster to give them a fibre feed at that reduced signal quality; or they compress it down to fit.

Bell has started to squeeze three HD channels into a single transponder which provides about half the bandwidth per channel (9.5 mbps or so) vs. a cable QAM which allows 19 mbps. So far Bell is only compressing to this degree with sports -- namely MLB Extra Innings ch 886-888. Other channels provide more bandwidth -- 2 HD channels per transponder.

Why not upgrade with Bell with the best 1 year contract you can get? I'd rent the equipment for now since it will be HD obsolete sometime in 2009 when they switch to MPEG-4; all current HD boxes from Bell at MPEG-2.
 
so are most Bell HD channels 720p?
does anyone else have MPEG4 hardware yet?
are there better quality HD elsewhere?

thanks for responses.
 
OK - though I don't know if it's a clean 2X thing as I've come to expect.



Here's the problem - the progressive scan picture is a full-frame every 1/60th of a second. Fewer pixels, but more rapid refresh is why it can be better on motion (of course only if your display can do both).
 
Yes, Bell delivers most HD signals in 720p; all in MPEG-2. Some argue 720p is as good as or better than 1080i but the reality is 30 times every second, in either system, a full frame is delivered and 1080i deliver around 2 million discrete pixels; 720p delivers about 1 million (half!) pixels. Motion pictures in theatres deliver a full image 24 times every second ....

Personally, and in blind ad hoc tests with friends, 1080i is crisper than 720p (I was able to demonstrate two PBS feeds, one in each format, flippnig the channel back and forth for the test). Bell has opted for the 720p standard.

In Canada, MPEG-4 is not available for HD from any provider.

But that isn't really important: MPEG-2 looks as good (or better) than MPEG-4. It takes more bandwidth (more data transmitted to construct each frame) but cable, as an example has oodles of bandwidth available for this task; satellite has less; telco iptv-like twisted-pair copper wire has virtually none.

In short: MPEG-4 is critical to IPTV; very important to satellite (compress the the signal but deliver equal picture quality OR launch more satellites); and simply another network option to cable (switched video is probably a better solution for cable than MPEG-4).

Better than Bell HD? This is pretty subjective and depends on your choice of providers. Technically, you can make the argument a full 19 mbps MPEG-2 1080i HD provider like Rogers will deliver a better signal than Bell at around 13 mbps 720p HD signal. But since some networks deliver in 720p, and some specialty channels (the movie networks so I am told) deliver in 720p, will the consumer really see the difference? What if your plasma set maxes out at 720p?

In Canada, my impression to date is that Rogers, Bell, Star Choice, Shaw and other leading cablecos offer, more or less, equal HD quality (it is all, after all, digital end-to-end) -- today. As more HD channels come to market, and bandwidth is further imposed upon, cable might well come out with a significantly better signal. Let's regroup same time, next year. ;)
 
On the face of it it's not a bad TV ... but HP isn't the brand name for a widescreen HD set that Toshiba, Sony or Sharp are.

Next time I have $1700+tax burning a hole in my pocket I will consider buying an HD TV from Bell. But, really ... I think I'd rather deal with a Best Buy type store where I get free delivery, full money back guarantee, no contracts tied to other services ....
 
I was told that HDNET in Canada is the ONLY full time 1080i channel 24/7 and it is indeed 1080i. As far a question the was posted about Cogeco, down here in the Niagara area, I have yet to see a nice Cogeco HD signal, before I get yelled at a number of big box stores, as well smaller stores even when Cogeco is offering the promo deals and what not when you by certain TVs, push customers away from it. That is just what I have come across down here, I myself am in a 200 unit apartment building, and have yet to see one Cogeco sub in here with a comparable pic to mine, regardless if they have Plasma, LCD DLP what have you.
 
Not much of an offer. Anyone can get $400 off the HDTV of their choice by shopping around or waiting for a sale. 6 months free HD is offered to any EV customer that upgrades to HD. Throw in a free 9200 and it might be a good deal. HP TV's? Hope they are better than their computers these days.
 
which would be better, the 6100 deal for 2 years or the 9220 for 1 year?
from other posts MPEG4 is not due out until 2008 or 2009?? would either be obsolete then? what is best choice for now?

Thanks
 
To add to what Poet said, I believe ESPN is also using 720p. Most likely ESPN went with 720p because a progressive image is supposed to be better for fast action than interlaced (the reality is that all fixed-pixel displays are inherently progressive, and are de-interlacing the 1080i signal to full 1080p frames; the quality of the de-interlacing has really improved lately, so I don't think that argument has as much weight anymore).

There has been a lot said and written about 1080i vs. 720p. The reality is that this was yet another format holy war years back. A particular manufacturer (forget the details) had already spent a wad of money making equipment (recording, mastering, transmitting) for 1080i, and was fighting tooth and nail producing FUD against 720p. There was a very long "paper" I read which systematically took apart each and every one of the 1080i arguments, and did so very convincingly.

Poet, I have no idea how you could get two simultaneous feeds of PBS -- one in 1080i and one in 720p. PBS broadcasts in 1080i, so for you to watch it in 720p *someone* would have had to convert the stream -- on the fly. It is more than likely that this conversion would result in some artifacts.

The simple fact is that, until very recently, most HD setups (with the exception of some really high-end stuff) had monitors (or projectors) with 768 lines of native resolution. There's no way that they would display 1080i with any better *vertical* resolution than a 720p signal -- how could they?

Now, as for horizontal resolution, first off, I have to plead *a little* ignorance. Does 1080i offer more than 720p? What I remember from that very long paper was some scientific discussion of the visual acuity of the human eye (expressed in radians) -- in other words, what's the smallest amount of information it can discern or, stated another way, what's the thinnest vertical line that the eye can see? Again, I don't have the exact details, but in the end it was clearly shown that you would have to sit pretty close to the display to be able to discern more than >so< many columns of horizontal resolution. Of course with projectors throwing an image onto a 100" or greater screen the viewing distance (relative to screen size) may be smaller.

In the end, really -- assuming your equipment is good, and your provider is not dicking around with the original signal too much -- a lot depends on the source material. Case in point, NBC broadcasts in 1080i, but I always thought Studio 60 was one of the worst examples of HD (picture-quality wise). ABC, on the other hand, broadcasts in 720p, and Lost looks absolutely gorgeous; same with AI and DWTS on FOX. I also recorded Lost on both the original ABC feed (720p) and CTV-HD (1080i) and, frankly, could not see any significant difference (could be because of my CRT-RPTV not being a fixed-pixel display, could be because of my other equipment -- my eyes.
 
Tough call, Dual tuner HD PVR or single HD. I have the 6100 NEVER had a problem, I know there have been a few bugs with the 9200, some guys on here might know more about it. 6100 is DVI out where as 9200 is HDMI, if you don't need the PVR feature, go 6100. But try and get a 1 yr deal on it. I will admit, if I could do it again, I would have liked the PVR feature.
 
Further to the whole 720p vs 1080i argument, isn't it illegal for a service provider to change the format from a 1080i to a 720p? I thought the CRTC outlawed this... I don't profess/pretend to be an expert, but I'm sure I read, somewhere, that a service provider (Bell, Rogers, etc) was not allowed to change the format of the incoming HD signal, as per CRTC rules. I'm not sure how this applies to bitrate/bandwidth, but I thought that they had to at least maintain the same format.

As for the horizontal vs vertical resolution, as far as I am aware, only 1080p offers "full resolution of 1920*1080 pixels. Of course, the source material for this is limited to HD DVD/BluRay and home movies recorded in this format on a capable HD videocamera. I can confirm that my buddy's 1080p Sony picture looks better than my Sony's 1080i capable display, playing the same satellite signal using otherwise identical equipment, but that could just be penis envy.

Most people will agree that 720p generally results in a softer picture, but a lot depends on the quality of the signal, ambient lighting, distance from the TV, quality and size of the TV, content being displayed, etc., etc. It's all an enormous improvement over any SD signal, and increments of improvement in HD visuals are not as easy to detect as you may think they would be given the numbers used to describe them. ie, 1080p images do not look 50% better/clearer/more stunning than 720p.
 
why go 1 year on the 6100 when Bell is offering 2 years free rental. 9200 is 1 year free rental. contracts would be 2 years and 1 year??
 
Back
Top