New HD and Old SD Channels

[mr1213]

As the new MPEG4 HD channels start coming in, will the corresponding old SD channels be retained for a while (2009 analog cut-off) or will they be replaced by the new HD channels?

 

[ChrisPC]

The old SD channels will be kept for a long time. D* won't turn them off until everyone has MPEG4 equipment.

 

[raoul5788]

As the new MPEG4 HD channels start coming in, will the corresponding old SD channels be retained for a while (2009 analog cut-off) or will they be replaced by the new HD channels?

The analog shutoff of channels in 2009 has nothing to do with D*. That is for ota channels only. It remains to be seen how D* will handle it.

 

[harshness]

As the new MPEG4 HD channels start coming in, will the corresponding old SD channels be retained for a while (2009 analog cut-off) or will they be replaced by the new HD channels?

As long as the SD channels are available, they will likely be carried. The analog cut-off has nothing to do with SD versus HD.

Because of the digital transition, there are typically even more SD channels in each market to carry.

 

[Newshawk]

The SD channels will be retained, as there are so many SD TVs still out there in use that to walk away from them would be sheer folly.

 

[Brewer4]

Whats interesting is that not all HD versions will be mirrors of the SD ones only in HD. ESPN is like that but some will be on their own despite connections to any SD version. Universal HD is a combination of HD programs they have in their library while HDNet has no comparable SD version. I will be real curious to see the breakdown of standalone versus HD mirrors.

 

[bonscott87]

As the new MPEG4 HD channels start coming in, will the corresponding old SD channels be retained for a while (2009 analog cut-off) or will they be replaced by the new HD channels?

Yea, you're confused a bit.

Analog shutoff is for OTA only.

Plus the fact that SD is already all digital on DirecTV.

 

[atp1313]

Whats interesting is that not all HD versions will be mirrors of the SD ones only in HD. ESPN is like that but some will be on their own despite connections to any SD version. Universal HD is a combination of HD programs they have in their library while HDNet has no comparable SD version. I will be real curious to see the breakdown of standalone versus HD mirrors.

Didn't I see that Discovery (flagship channel, not DiscHD) will be simultaneously broadcast in HD and SD? I assume this means that the STB will decipher the HD signal and pass it along without disruption if the TV hook-up is HD, and the SD signal will just be a "cropped" or phased-down version for non-HD TV's? In this case, if I tune to what is now Discovery SD (to watch Mythbusters or Dirty Jobs), that my box will just pass through the HD signal when available? In other words, all those new national HD channels will be simulcasting on the current SD channel...?

 

[Brewer4]

Didn't I see that Discovery (flagship channel, not DiscHD) will be simultaneously broadcast in HD and SD? I assume this means that the STB will decipher the HD signal and pass it along without disruption if the TV hook-up is HD, and the SD signal will just be a "cropped" or phased-down version for non-HD TV's? In this case, if I tune to what is now Discovery SD (to watch Mythbusters or Dirty Jobs), that my box will just pass through the HD signal when available? In other words, all those new national HD channels will be simulcasting on the current SD channel...?

Thats a good question and something other providers are going to have to broach especially when local SD channels cease. Nobody is certain on this side if they are going to just take one feed, make it MPEG4 16:9 HD, and downgrade and crop for the SD version. I think we will know more come September. I cant wait.

 

[atp1313]

Is it possible (or rather is it feasible) to send two signals on one "wavelength", one being HD and the other being SD? I would imagine that it will ultimately be easier to have the STB's decode the signal as SD (then crop it) or HD (unfiltered native signal) than to try and cram two signals in the same "wavelength" for that channel assignment. Plus the end user would not see any changes as it would appear to be seamless. One thing that bugged me about E* when I had them was that there were channel numbers up into like the 1300 range. Even with Favorites filtering out the other channels, that's a lot to scroll through.

I just want to know that when I tune to channel 247 (TBS) it will be the HD or SD feed. I don't want to have to remember that there is channel 247 (SD) and channel 979 (HD). Kind of like the TNT-HD feed is upconverted if in SD or naturally HD. I don't have TNT-SD in my favorites list since the channels are the same, except for occasional HD content.

Just my opinion...I could be wrong

 

[bonscott87]

It will be no different then today with ESPN and ESPN-HD. Both are completely separate and different channels. Besides, all HD will be on 2 different satellites that any of the SD channels.

 

[Brewer4]

It will be no different then today with ESPN and ESPN-HD. Both are completely separate and different channels. Besides, all HD will be on 2 different satellites that any of the SD channels.

I think you misinterpreted? They are separate today but whats to stop the source from being the exact same from the provider. Its not the specific channel down to the receiver but Directv could get one from lets say Discover, create 2 downs to its customer, one SD and one HD. Both having an origination in one HD feed from the channel provider. I imagine its going to have to work something like that in 2009 when all local channels are digital and most in HD from the source (only talking locals here).

 

[bonscott87]

I think you misinterpreted? They are separate today but whats to stop the source from being the exact same from the provider. Its not the specific channel down to the receiver but Directv could get one from lets say Discover, create 2 downs to its customer, one SD and one HD. Both having an origination in one HD feed from the channel provider. I imagine its going to have to work something like that in 2009 when all local channels are digital and most in HD from the source (only talking locals here).

Sure, why not. There isn't any problem with doing something like that. There would be no change on us, the customers part though. If you tune to the HD channel you get HD, if you tune to the SD channel you get SD. No difference.

 

[atp1313]

Sure, why not. There isn't any problem with doing something like that. There would be no change on us, the customers part though. If you tune to the HD channel you get HD, if you tune to the SD channel you get SD. No difference.

But wouldn't it be easier for all involved if you simply tuned to channel 247 (TBS) and the picture displayed was either HD or SD depending on your particular STB or some setting within the STB that would say "Display as HD if available"? That way, there is only one channel to map, and the coding in the box is the determining factor as to whether you see HD or SD.

The only advantage I see to having a channel 247 for SD and channel 957 for HD (hypothetically speaking of TBS here again) is that those who don't have HD might see that there is an HD offering on a channel they like and might spur them on to getting an HDTV and HD STB. Drive those existing clients who don't have HD and charge $10 more each month so they can see/receive channel 957.

 

[bonscott87]

But wouldn't it be easier for all involved if you simply tuned to channel 247 (TBS) and the picture displayed was either HD or SD depending on your particular STB or some setting within the STB that would say "Display as HD if available"? That way, there is only one channel to map, and the coding in the box is the determining factor as to whether you see HD or SD.

The only advantage I see to having a channel 247 for SD and channel 957 for HD (hypothetically speaking of TBS here again) is that those who don't have HD might see that there is an HD offering on a channel they like and might spur them on to getting an HDTV and HD STB. Drive those existing clients who don't have HD and charge $10 more each month so they can see/receive channel 957.

Sure, technicaly what you propose could certainly be done. But then they would have to replace about 35 million SD receivers to be able to do it (currently they can't tune to the new sats, can't decode MPEG4 and also can't tune to HD channels). That's a whole lot of equipment that would need to be swapped out costing billions. That's just not gonna happen.

 

[Bob Nielsen]

Is it possible (or rather is it feasible) to send two signals on one "wavelength", one being HD and the other being SD? I would imagine that it will ultimately be easier to have the STB's decode the signal as SD (then crop it) or HD (unfiltered native signal) than to try and cram two signals in the same "wavelength" for that channel assignment. Plus the end user would not see any changes as it would appear to be seamless. One thing that bugged me about E* when I had them was that there were channel numbers up into like the 1300 range. Even with Favorites filtering out the other channels, that's a lot to scroll through.

I just want to know that when I tune to channel 247 (TBS) it will be the HD or SD feed. I don't want to have to remember that there is channel 247 (SD) and channel 979 (HD). Kind of like the TNT-HD feed is upconverted if in SD or naturally HD. I don't have TNT-SD in my favorites list since the channels are the same, except for occasional HD content.

Just my opinion...I could be wrong

More likely they will have two channels numbered 247. The HD receivers will receive either with the HD version listed first (as they already do with locals in HD and the fulltime HD RSNs). If they later decide to convert everything to MPEG4 then it would make sense to only transmit the HD version, as the receivers can reformat and letterbox/pillarbox/crop/stretch as necessary.