|
|
| |
| |
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=4029CAF9.F311B7A5%40tech.net&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.video.satellite.dbs%26start%3D75
"TNGTony" <tngtony@REMOVE.TO.REPLYcinci.rr.com> wrote in message news:<jQ_Ib.114640$031.88372@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
"starman" <starman@tech.net> wrote in message
news:3FF3D40F.844F205E@tech.net...
It makes me wonder if anyone has ever challenged and canceled their
contract because the picture quality wasn't living up to the DBS
advertising claims.
Take a look at the picture quality claims on the Dish and DirecTV ads. They
state "Digital Quality Picture". And no matter how bad the picture quality
is, it is "Digital Quality". A single gigantic pixel covering the entire
screen alternating from black to white is "digital quality". :-)
Case dismissed. :-D
See ya
Tony
Clearly, they are taking liberty with the term. I don't think the
term was originally coined to suggest all the bad traits of a digital
medium. It was coined to suggest all the good traits that digital can
offer (specifically, uncompressed digital)- that is, high resolution,
high dynamic headroom, and maximum frequency response. That is how
people interpret the term (as in the superior end result, not
necessarily in those literal terms). DBS is quite certainly
capitalizing on all of the bad traits of digital in the service they
do offer, and subsequentially marketing behind the term in a contrary
manner to which it is commonly understood. Perhaps, we should come
around to the understanding that anyone who utters the term "digital
quality" in their marketing is actually conceding to the *inferior
quality* of their format? DBS seems to be well on their way to
redefining that term in that respect. ...or they could be more
upfront and refer to their service quality as "LOSSY digital quality".
That would be completely legit, descriptive, and accurate, not to
mention it contains the all important "digital quality" term. The
buyer can't very well claim they were mislead if that variation of the
term is used. Lossy data compression, though a useful and pivotal
component to all of the modern distribution mediums, has also turned
out to be the industry's utter achilles heel in terms of delivering
performance to the end user. It is a powerful tool, yet far too
susceptible to abuse, by those who don't know better, don't care, or
are just too dispassionate about the very service they live by as a
means of business.
An enterprising lawyer might make a mark for him/her self by starting a
class action suit against DTV and/or Dish on the grounds they are not
delivering the picture quality 'implied' in their advertising.
[...raises virgin lamb sacrifice to the almighty lawyer gods above...]
|
| |
| |
[bump]
|
| |
| |
If you follow the news, there is a good reason for them to decrease
bandwidth. Going back a year, they are set to add lots of locals and add
more programming. They expect to launch a satelitte in the fall, but it does
not happen. It is delayed until this spring. In the meanwhile, more of the
public wants more programming more than the quality. Because for more
people, the greater compresion is still better than most noisy and ghosty
and filled with co-channel interference analog cable. I can look at a
picture and enjoy it, or I can inspect it and point out compression
artifacs. But I would rather enjoy it than simply going over and over and
over with getting myself upset with inspection. It ain't DirecTV's fault.
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=4029CAF9.F311B7A5%40tech.net&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.video.satellite.dbs%26start%3D75
"TNGTony" <tngtony@REMOVE.TO.REPLYcinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<jQ_Ib.114640$031.88372@fe3.columbus.rr.com>...
It makes me wonder if anyone has ever challenged and canceled their
contract because the picture quality wasn't living up to the DBS
advertising claims.
Take a look at the picture quality claims on the Dish and DirecTV ads.
They
state "Digital Quality Picture". And no matter how bad the picture
quality
is, it is "Digital Quality". A single gigantic pixel covering the
entire
screen alternating from black to white is "digital quality". :-)
Case dismissed. :-D
See ya
Tony
Clearly, they are taking liberty with the term. I don't think the
term was originally coined to suggest all the bad traits of a digital
medium. It was coined to suggest all the good traits that digital can
offer (specifically, uncompressed digital)- that is, high resolution,
high dynamic headroom, and maximum frequency response. That is how
people interpret the term (as in the superior end result, not
necessarily in those literal terms). DBS is quite certainly
capitalizing on all of the bad traits of digital in the service they
do offer, and subsequentially marketing behind the term in a contrary
manner to which it is commonly understood. Perhaps, we should come
around to the understanding that anyone who utters the term "digital
quality" in their marketing is actually conceding to the *inferior
quality* of their format? DBS seems to be well on their way to
redefining that term in that respect. ...or they could be more
upfront and refer to their service quality as "LOSSY digital quality".
That would be completely legit, descriptive, and accurate, not to
mention it contains the all important "digital quality" term. The
buyer can't very well claim they were mislead if that variation of the
term is used. Lossy data compression, though a useful and pivotal
component to all of the modern distribution mediums, has also turned
out to be the industry's utter achilles heel in terms of delivering
performance to the end user. It is a powerful tool, yet far too
susceptible to abuse, by those who don't know better, don't care, or
are just too dispassionate about the very service they live by as a
means of business.
An enterprising lawyer might make a mark for him/her self by
starting a
class action suit against DTV and/or Dish on the grounds they are
not
delivering the picture quality 'implied' in their advertising.
[...raises virgin lamb sacrifice to the almighty lawyer gods above...]
|
| |
| |
|
