# Is It Me Or Has Directv PQ REALLY Gone Down Hill?



## JayPSU (Jul 17, 2007)

The other day I plugged my Time Warner cable wire into my tv because I preferred to get my locals from them. I was ASTOUNDED to see how great the picture quality was compared to almost all of Directv's HD channels. I remember when I first signed up for Directv I was coming from Dish Network and the PQ was a major step up from them, and I recalled that the difference in PQ between Dish Network and when I had Time Warner wasn't huge. So to see such a HUGE difference now seems odd. The directv HD picture now looks grainy, fuzzy, splotchy, and devoid of fantastic detail when compared to Time Warner. 

So, has the quality gone down hill with directv, or is there a technical issue somewhere?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

JayPSU said:


> The other day I plugged my Time Warner cable wire into my tv because I preferred to get my locals from them. I was ASTOUNDED to see how great the picture quality was compared to almost all of Directv's HD channels. I remember when I first signed up for Directv I was coming from Dish Network and the PQ was a major step up from them, and I recalled that the difference in PQ between Dish Network and when I had Time Warner wasn't huge. So to see such a HUGE difference now seems odd. The directv HD picture now looks grainy, fuzzy, splotchy, and devoid of fantastic detail when compared to Time Warner.
> 
> So, has the quality gone down hill with directv, or is there a technical issue somewhere?


The older MPEG2 HD from DirecTV is pretty poor the newer MPEG4 stuff appears to be pretty good to me. If you're comparing locals you're probably comparing with the older MPEG2 encoding.


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

I don't have Time Warner to compare it to but my Directv HD picture looks wonderful.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

I don't have anyway to measure the difference between our local cable and Direct, but I can say that I am currently watching Indiana Jones on USA HD on Direct and the PQ is excellent. Other things like yesterday's FOX Saturday baseball was horrible. But that was a network problem, not a provider problem.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

TigersFanJJ said:


> I don't have Time Warner to compare it to but my Directv HD picture looks wonderful.


Ditto.

The few SD shows we watch (from HD stations) also look good.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

I have OTA and sat.. both look the same here..


----------



## Slip Jigs (Oct 20, 2006)

I've read many posts and articles on current HD quality with various providers talking about resolution, downscaling, compression, etc. Some say D* compresses more than cable, some say it depends on which cable provider you're comparing it to, etc etc etc. 

One of the issues that is coming up with calbe and MPEG2 is that they are starting to compress more to make room for more channels and the PQ is suffering. So it may very well be in your case that your cable provider has yet to do this and it is delivering a higher bitrate signal and better PQ than D* Mpeg4. 

Having said that, I think that D* Mpeg 4 is quite good in most cases. It's also possible that you have a defective cable somewhere in the system, which may lead to issues such as a grainy picture, pixelation, etc.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I noticed FOX Saturday baseball was upconverted widescreen 480. It was horrible.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I don't see problems that are D*'s fault. As mentioned yesterdays MLB games (Phoenix/Cubs really stank) were bad but it was the source. Looking at Eureka on Sci-Fi and the Indy movies on USA look great to me.


----------



## CrazyforYeshua (Feb 23, 2008)

I used to have TW, and I don't miss it at all. The quality was horrible,the sound was robotic. Had them check/replace everything from cables to connectors, stuff on the pole, nothing worked.
D* has an awesome picture here, clear, crisp and right on colors. SD as well as HD.


----------



## braven (Apr 9, 2007)

I think it's you. When my cable friends see my HD picture their jaws drop.


----------



## doctrsnoop (Nov 20, 2007)

DirecTV looks as great as ever, SD and HD. Far better than Comcast analog, and at least as good as Comcast HD


----------



## vollmey (Mar 23, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> I noticed FOX Saturday baseball was upconverted widescreen 480. It was horrible.


Yeah, that was ugly yesterday. Fox needs to either have they truck in place for full HD or give up the Saturday afternoon baseball gig.


----------



## JayPSU (Jul 17, 2007)

Ok, guys. Those of you who love you directv HD, what settings do you have for your HR21? I need to do troubleshooting. The television I have is the Samsung LNT4065f LCD HDTV (40" 1080p). Since other sources look incredible on this tv, it's either the HR21, the wiring, the dish, or directv themselves.


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

JayPSU said:


> Ok, guys. Those of you who love you directv HD, what settings do you have for your HR21? I need to do troubleshooting. The television I have is the Samsung LNT4065f LCD HDTV (40" 1080p). Since other sources look incredible on this tv, it's either the HR21, the wiring, the dish, or directv themselves.


Others sources will always look better than what you get on satellite, especially a 1080p source such as blue ray or HD-DVD. The best PQ for me comes from setting my receiver at 1080i pillar box with native off. I also use component cable instead of HDMI (although I cannot really tell the difference)


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

JayPSU said:


> Ok, guys. Those of you who love you directv HD, what settings do you have for your HR21? I need to do troubleshooting. The television I have is the Samsung LNT4065f LCD HDTV (40" 1080p). Since other sources look incredible on this tv, it's either the HR21, the wiring, the dish, or directv themselves.


I have a HR20-700 connected to a Samsung LN-S4696D (46" 1080p LCD), HR20 set to 1080i output, native off. Have you done any calibration on your set? Someone else awhile ago also said the PQ was bad until someone asked what his TV settings were and he had them still in tourch mode, once he did some tuning he was happy with the picture.


----------



## Ed Campbell (Feb 17, 2006)

Slip Jigs said:


> I've read many posts and articles on current HD quality with various providers talking about resolution, downscaling, compression, etc. Some say D* compresses more than cable, some say it depends on which cable provider you're comparing it to, etc etc etc.


I haven't found anyone actually testing in a lab situation [like PCMag, etc.] who says DirecTV is compressing more than any cable system. To the contrary, reports uniformly agree that virtually all cable systems are mediocre by comparison.

The sole exception is FIOS - for PQ only. And they ain't within 400 miles of me; so, that's not a consideration.

Everything else is windbags and opinion - not measurement.


----------



## JayPSU (Jul 17, 2007)

RAD said:


> I have a HR20-700 connected to a Samsung LN-S4696D (46" 1080p LCD), HR20 set to 1080i output, native off. Have you done any calibration on your set? Someone else awhile ago also said the PQ was bad until someone asked what his TV settings were and he had them still in tourch mode, once he did some tuning he was happy with the picture.


I used calibration settings from the thread on my tv on the avsforum as well as ones with my own tinkering. The odd thing is I just plugged the box into my Sony XBR970 and it looks great! This just gets more and more odd. Does a good 1080p lcd hdtv like mine highlight all the flaws in satellite signal or something?


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

RAD said:


> Have you done any calibration on your set? Someone else awhile ago also said the PQ was bad until someone asked what his TV settings were and he had them still in tourch mode, once he did some tuning he was happy with the picture.


I'm curious about this as well. My picture didn't look all that great until I was able to correctly adjust the settings. Now it's great.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

JayPSU said:


> I used calibration settings from the thread on my tv on the avsforum as well as ones with my own tinkering. The odd thing is I just plugged the box into my Sony XBR970 and it looks great! This just gets more and more odd. Does a good 1080p lcd hdtv like mine highlight all the flaws in satellite signal or something?


Since I have a Samsung 1080p LCD panel also I think I can say it will show more of the 'flaws' in any source, but the new MPEG4 HD channels on DirecTV are very good. Two things you could try, if using HDMI try component, if component try HDMI and see if you like the other better. Also the problem using calibration numbers for one source (such as DVD) for another source (such as the HR21) they boxes themselves will probably have differences in what they output. You can always just try playing around with the various settings to get a picture what you're happy with, forget the numbers that someone else likes.


----------



## marquitos2 (Jan 10, 2004)

The sound on hd channels is very low lately.The pq looks good on my Sony set to 720p native off.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Do the mpeg-4 LIL's look as good as OTA, no. Do the mpeg-4 channels look as good as mpeg-2 did before they started bit starving them, no. 

I can't say the HD PQ has really gone down hill, but I will say that there are still flaws in the PQ. I do believe the resolution is better, but they need to give some more bandwidth to the channels. Since shortly after they launched I have seen motion blocking on many of the stations/programming. So there is still room for improvement. Will D* give it to us, probably not. 

I've seen it on 2 different tv, a 30" 720p LCD from an HR21 and a 42" 1080i RPTV from a H20 and HR20. There are no issues with signal/hardware as I have personally calibrated each tv after many hours of research/calibration and I don't see the same issues on local OTA channels with no subchannels.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

JayPSU said:


> Does a good 1080p lcd hdtv like mine highlight all the flaws in satellite signal or something?


While an HD set will show the flaws in a SD signal more than a SD set will, your set will not show flaws in an HD program any more than any other HD set will (within reason). The fact that your set is only 40" means your set will actually show less flaws than most other big screen HD sets, unless you're sitting closer than 5 feet.

PS. I have native on, stretch, 720p, 1080i, HDMI


----------



## MarcusInMD (Jan 7, 2005)

JayPSU said:


> The other day I plugged my Time Warner cable wire into my tv because I preferred to get my locals from them. I was ASTOUNDED to see how great the picture quality was compared to almost all of Directv's HD channels. I remember when I first signed up for Directv I was coming from Dish Network and the PQ was a major step up from them, and I recalled that the difference in PQ between Dish Network and when I had Time Warner wasn't huge. So to see such a HUGE difference now seems odd. The directv HD picture now looks grainy, fuzzy, splotchy, and devoid of fantastic detail when compared to Time Warner.
> 
> So, has the quality gone down hill with directv, or is there a technical issue somewhere?


First HD-DVD and now this Jay? Tsk Tsk.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

JayPSU said:


> So, has the quality gone down hill with directv, or is there a technical issue somewhere?


So here we go yet again.

There are WAY too many variables here, especially for folks with *consumer* grade displays, for sure those with 'HD' LCD or Plasma.

For one thing, anyone with something (non-CRT) below about $6-8K simply cannot tell much about the quality. The LCD/Plasma 'flat screens' are universally abysmal below that cost level. No matter WHAT the source or transmission media. Note I'm talking HD.

Secondly, the source of most of the SD on DirecTV is C-Band analog (CNN etc.), so it can't be any better than what analog C-Band supplies. For those with 4x3 CRT HD sets (watching the SD), the PQ has been rock solid for years.

Now locals SD, captured over the air from the analog source, can be bad, and has proven itself time and again to be. Unless and until the broadcasters start providing SD DIGITAL on their digital carriers, it'll stay that way. When we hit the digital changeover in 2009, whether they will (or continue) to provide 4x3 SD on one of the subchannels, is a good question, one that DirecTV for one has been asking the NAB and the FCC to clarify.

This is one of those 'you can't tell me' kind of 'arguments'. Without the ability to A/B the different signals, in a totally 'double-blind' test (neither you nor anyone else knows which signal you're looking at, so it has to be selected and scored by computer), it's simply your particular prejudice (ot maybe lack of a recent trip to your eye doctor) showing through.

Every time I see a cable ad, or now press releases from the FIOS crowd, 'claiming' one thing or another, or read a posting such as this one, where is your proof? What kind of 'testing' did you do? Or is it your 'opinion', judging from one or two particular program/channel at whatever time...?

There are a few of us 'old timers' who were around (pre-1982, when the FCC relieved the broadcasters of any actual 'quality assurance' to their signals), and simply by watching what flies out of their displays can 'guess' pretty close to reality as to what's going on.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

My HD OTA is undistinguishable from D*'s MPEG-4 locals.


----------



## Upstream (Jul 4, 2006)

1948GG said:


> Without the ability to A/B the different signals, in a totally 'double-blind' test


I agree that you really need an A/B switch to compare signals, otherwise you may just be comparing televisions, not signals.

But I disagree that you need a double-blind test. In a research study, gathering opinion from hundreds of viewers, you would want a double-blind test.

But for my personal opinion, it does not need to be double-blind, especially if there is a great difference between signals. As an example, my brother-in-law has TWC and during football season he has DirecTV for SundayTicket. He keeps TWC because he sees much better picture quality with TWC. (He only has SD, so the comparision only applies to SD.) When I was at his house last Thanksgiving, I compared the same stations on the same television, delivered by TWC and DirecTV. The difference was significant enough that neither he nor I needed a double-blind study to see the difference.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I think locals have gotten better here. I haven't noticed any difference, plus or minus, for nationals channels. They look great to me too.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

1948GG said:


> So here we go yet again.
> 
> There are WAY too many variables here, especially for folks with *consumer* grade displays, for sure those with 'HD' LCD or Plasma.
> 
> ...


Several years ago I might have agreed with your assessment of HDTVs based on price but not anymore. Prices of HDTVs have plummeted recently and sets in the sub $2K are better than sets cost 2-3 times that much only a few years ago. Also, if you're comparing sets that haven't been properly calibrated then it's no wonder that they look abysmal to you. Every consumer set needs to be calibrated for proper setup because there are no sets I've ever seen that display a proper picture right out of the box. I can't recall that last time I saw a set that didn't have the contrast level jacked up to 100% as the default setting, although I suspect there may actually be one or two out there that don't.

Here's a news flash - DirecTV's SD picture quality has steadily deteriorated over the years, and I _CAN_ prove it. I've been extracting videos recorded on my DirecTivos for about 7 years now and movies and shows that I extracted over 5 years ago look better than the shows I extracted only one year ago. Note that the DVDs I made from the shows are the exact digital images broadcast by DirecTV with no conversion or processing of any kind imposed on the signal so the result is an exact duplicate of the original feed. I dropped DirecTV last year so I can't vouch for the current state of SD transmission but since you claim it's been "rock solid for years" I can only assume it's still as crappy as it was when I left.

When DirecTV first introduced HD programming they had very little extra bandwidth to play with. This required even more compression on SD channels in order to free up bandwidth and most likely your locals were among the first to take the hit. Even prior to the introduction of HD channels, DirecTV was compressing channels to make room for even more SD channels, such as shopping networks and religious channels that netted them a bundle. It was great for their bottom line and stockholders but not so much for their customers. The thing is, the changes took place gradually over a long period of time so most people never noticed it.

The fact that so many people rave about download services such as Amazon unBox tells me that most of them are half blind anyway (unBox and other download services typlically transmit at a resolution much lower than SDTV). Downloads from sources such as BT clients are far worse in avi format.

I switched to FIOS last year and my SD channels never looked better. I have A/B'd the two and FIOS is the clear winner, IMHO. DirecTV has got to clear out the unnecessary channels on the 101 sat to get their programming back up to their original quality levels with lower compression. I just wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

Please note that I have only been talking about SD channels from DirecTV. I have not seen the latest mpeg4 offerings so I have no opinion ragrding them one way or another.


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

1948GG said:


> For one thing, anyone with something (non-CRT) below about $6-8K simply cannot tell much about the quality. The LCD/Plasma 'flat screens' are universally abysmal below that cost level. No matter WHAT the source or transmission media. Note I'm talking HD.


No thanks. A $6-8K set doesn't have a noticeably better picture to *MY* eyes. So, during football season this fall, my friends and I will keep enjoying my "abysmal" PQ. We'll also enjoy the BBQ from my really nice new grill, that is located on my nice new deck, knowing that all three of those things combined cost less than half the price of the TVs that you are talking about.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

captain_video said:


> I've been extracting videos recorded on my DirecTivos for about 7 years now and movies and shows that I extracted over 5 years ago look better than the shows I extracted only one year ago.


So your 'proof' is that you're a federal felon.

Great.


----------



## JayPSU (Jul 17, 2007)

MarcusInMD said:


> First HD-DVD and now this Jay? Tsk Tsk.


LOL. So which did I do wrong this time, Marcus? Directv? LCD? Samsung?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

1948GG said:


> So your 'proof' is that you're a federal felon.
> 
> Great.


Outputting from the HR10 makes him a federal felon? Under what statute?


----------



## JDubbs413 (Sep 4, 2007)

I had Time Warner HD and there is no way it's better than DirecTV.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

1948GG said:


> So your 'proof' is that you're a federal felon.
> 
> Great.


Let's not go down that road, ok?


----------



## clbw (Jan 10, 2006)

1948GG said:


> So your 'proof' is that you're a federal felon.
> 
> Great.


I did not recall reading that he was distributing the recordings ? If he wishes to "backup" recorded shows for later viewing he is within the law.


----------



## Slip Jigs (Oct 20, 2006)

captain_video said:


> Here's a news flash - DirecTV's SD picture quality has steadily deteriorated over the years, and I _CAN_ prove it. I've been extracting videos recorded on my DirecTivos for about 7 years now and movies and shows that I extracted over 5 years ago look better than the shows I extracted only one year ago. Note that the DVDs I made from the shows are the exact digital images broadcast by DirecTV with no conversion or processing of any kind imposed on the signal so the result is an exact duplicate of the original feed. I dropped DirecTV last year so I can't vouch for the current state of SD transmission but since you claim it's been "rock solid for years" I can only assume it's still as crappy as it was when I left.


I don't doubt your assessment, but how they recorded shows look to you is not what one one consider proof. When you record the shows off to a DVD recorder, you are re-encoding the signal to DVD format - but whether this process introduces any further compression, I'm not sure.

And if they are bit-for-bit, line by line copies then only by analyzing the resulting video file can proof be offered. What is the video resoution? What is the bitrate? These are objective measurements, not subjective viewing.

That's what I was getting at earlier referencing all the posts and articles out there on the subject. Terms that keep coming up like, "Over-compression" and "HD'Lite."

What is "Over-compression" anyway? Any digitial video is compressed, no matter how it's delivered. At what point does it become "Over-compressed"? When one person decides it's too much and doesn't look like they think it should?


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

1948GG said:


> So your 'proof' is that you're a federal felon.
> 
> Great.


I guess I must have missed the big FBI logo telling me I couldn't make copies of TV shows. I can always count on someone with the holier than thou response to posts like mine and totally missing the point I was making in the process. Ironically, Tivo has implemented Tivo To Go on the standalone models that does the exact same thing I did. I gues that makes them felonious as well.


----------



## Old Tv Watcher (Dec 23, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> My HD OTA is undistinguishable from D*'s MPEG-4 locals.


 Me too!...In Denver, Co.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

Slip Jigs said:


> I don't doubt your assessment, but how they recorded shows look to you is not what one one consider proof. When you record the shows off to a DVD recorder, you are re-encoding the signal to DVD format - but whether this process introduces any further compression, I'm not sure.
> 
> And if they are bit-for-bit, line by line copies then only by analyzing the resulting video file can proof be offered. What is the video resoution? What is the bitrate? These are objective measurements, not subjective viewing.
> 
> ...


I don't think you understand the recording process I'm using. The shows are recorded in digital format directly from the satellite to the Tivo's hard drive. I transfer the digital content from my Tivo's hard drive to my PC where it is authored entirely in the digital domain, resulting in a bit for bit copy of the original. There is no re-encoding taking place. The DVDs I create are an exact duplicate of the original DirecTV broadcast.

The resolution of SD content broadcast by DirecTV is 480x480 and not 720 by 480 which is the actual NTSC standard for broadcast TV. You're already losing one-third of the picture information with a DirecTV broadcast by default. You don't notice it so much because terrestrial broadcasters and analog cable degrade the image so much that the DirecTV signal actually looks better by comparison. If you were able to see an NTSC broadcast the way it should look then you'd wonder why you ever subscribed to DirecTV. I don't think anyone could argue that DVDs look better than standard def broadcasts from DirecTV. The thing is, DVDs are basically NTSC programming recorded directly to disc with no degradation taking place. In other words, NTSC broadcasts should look as good as DVDs. Unfortunately, we all know that this is not the case in real life.

The bitrate varies from channel to channel and thus the reference to varying levels of compression. Objective measurements for video can usually be confirmed by subjective viewing, especially when the differences are as vast as DirecTV's broadcasts. The term "HD Lite" was coined for DirecTV's mpeg2 HD broadcasts because they are broadcast as 1280x1088i, which falls well short of the HD standard resolutions of 1920x1080i or 1280x720p for terrestrial HD broadcasts. Overcompression results in loss of information from the original material. All HD material, except perhaps OTA HD broadcasts, are compressed to some degree. OTA HD digital broadcasts will always be the best signal you will get for HD viewing. DirecTV just retransmits the same signal uploaded to their satellites after converting it to an mpeg4 format as follows: local station -> uploaded to satellite -> received by DirecTV via C-Band dish (I believe they still use C-band for this) -> converted to mpeg4 -> retransmitted to the Ku birds at 99 and 103 degrees -> received by your mpeg4 receiver for viewing.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

OTA is most definitely still compressed. It's compressed using Mpeg2 as part of the standard and depending on the situation may vary quite a bit in quality. With several sub-channels setup the OTA HD channel my have very similar bandwidth to DirecTV's Mpeg 2 channels. In that situations DirectTV's HD-lite signal would actually be less likely to show compression artifacts since it has less info to compress but obviously at the loss of some horizontal resolution.

The Mpeg 4 channels on the other hand seem to be and should be every bit as good as Mpeg2 OTA signals at max rate especially if compressed by the channel and optimized well. They also are at full HD resolution.

As far as SD stuff goes it's possible that things will improve. With D11 going up they will have a fair bit of bandwidth to play with and as they start shuffling things around and possibly implementing more Mpeg-4 compression they will make more efficient use of the bandwidth available. If all this leads to transmitting sd at the original res instead of horizontally down sampled remains to be seen. It would be interesting to see if someone in one of the current Mpeg-4 SD markets could find out what those broadcasts are in. If they will actually do it I don't know. I'd guess that the actual demand would be pretty low. Most people on SD tv's probably can't tell the different and most people with HD TV's are just waiting for everything to go hd anyway and full res sd will still look poorer.


----------



## MarkN (Jul 13, 2007)

JDubbs413 said:


> I had Time Warner HD and there is no way it's better than DirecTV.


I second that statement!


----------



## Slip Jigs (Oct 20, 2006)

Captain Video; You're correct, I was not understanding the methods you were using to record the video, and what you say makes sense. 

Still - just to cover all bases, where does the info come from that declares and confirms the resolution and bitrate of D* HD content? Are you also able to transfer that to your PC and analyze it? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to challenge you on this, because I've read the same stats elsewhere, I'm just curious as to where they come from. 

Some people have recorded cable HD via cable card tuners and were able to determine resolution and bitrates from this. 

Also, the same questino applies to what evan_s said that the MPEG 4 signals are at full resolution (1920x1080?)

I think these stats and specs are important to the original topic - there is a direct correlation between how much the program is down-rezzed and/or compressed to the subjective view of how good it looks. I would say it's a good starting point of knowing what to expect with certain providers and certain content and channels before deciding if we need to tweak the panel or start troubleshooting dish or cable issues.


----------



## Kenkong586 (Apr 3, 2007)

The mpeg-4 HD looks great, the mpeg-2 HD is passable. Now the SD signal, well, IMO I flushed things down the toilet today that look better than the D* SD.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

Slip Jigs said:


> Also, the same question applies to what evan_s said that the MPEG 4 signals are at full resolution (1020x1080?)


The MPEG4 stats are from the recent CE for one specific HR-20 models that allowed streaming of MPEG4 content to Nero on a PC. It was 1920x1080 resolution and 9-10mbs using several advanced features including CABAC. A more recent CE has stopped this from functioning and it's assumed to prepare for a DirecTV provided viewer app.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CABAC


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Isn't OTA the best that anybody outside the TV station could ever get?

If so, seeing how OTA = D* MPEG-4, D* = The best you can get.

True?


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Isn't OTA the best that anybody outside the TV station could ever get?
> 
> If so, seeing how OTA = D* MPEG-4, D* = The best you can get.
> 
> True?


It's a little more complicated than yes or no but the Mpeg-4 from DirecTV should be very good quality. In part it depends on how the content is being received.

For example most LiLs, I assume, are handled by picking up their OTA signal in Mpeg-2 and then re-compressing it. This has to introduce some minor generational loss due to being re-compressed but at bit rate and options DirecTV is running at it shouldn't introduce any new compression artifacts and isn't being down sampled at all. This should be very hard to distinguish the original OTA from the Mpeg-4 version.

Obviously this is limited to broadcast sources. Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both have a much higher bit rate and mpeg4 or VC1 to use for compressing their video.

Mpeg-4 compressed content coming to DirecTV already compressed is another story. Mpeg-4 content directly from premium channel providers that is being taken from some higher quality master should be comparable quality to Mpeg-2 OTA or possibly even higher quality if care was taken and it was pre-compressed as opposed to compressed on the fly. Think HBO pre-compressing movies once and storing it almost like mastering a Blu-Ray disk just aiming at a lower bitrate and different encoder options.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

Slip Jigs said:


> Captain Video; You're correct, I was not understanding the methods you were using to record the video, and what you say makes sense.
> 
> Still - just to cover all bases, where does the info come from that declares and confirms the resolution and bitrate of D* HD content? Are you also able to transfer that to your PC and analyze it? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to challenge you on this, because I've read the same stats elsewhere, I'm just curious as to where they come from.
> 
> ...


I've got several apps that display the resolution as 480x480. Check out the forums at dealdatabase.com for all the info you'll ever need about extracting programs recorded on a Tivo and authoring them to DVD. They're the real pioneers in this area. Back in the early days of extraction we used to use an authoring program called SpruceUp for creating our DVDs. SpruceUp would not accept any mpeg files that were non-standard resolution so we had to use another app called DVD Patcher to patch the 1st header of the file and make it appear that the mpeg2 file was 720x480 and not the actual resolution of 480x480. Once the VOB fileset was created we had to patch it back to 480x480 or else it wouldn't play properly once it was burned to DVD.

Many older DVD players did not like the 480x480 resolution DVDs and would display them in a square image area with a wide vertical black bar down one side of the display. Newer players capable of playing SVCDs worked fine with them because that is the same resolution they use.

VideoReDo is an editing and processing app that most people use for working with extracted Tivo files as well as those from Dish and other sources. VRD also works with .tivo files extracted using TivoToGo and removes the encryption wrapper to create standard mpeg2 files you can play with and create your own DVDs or convert them to some other format. You can pull up info in VRD that shows the bitrate used for the original file. I don't recall what the average bitrates were for SD content but I do recall they were all over the place. HD content tops out at 19.5Mbps but I've found that most OTA recordings are about 17-18Mbps. DirecTV mpeg2 HD broadcasts were considerably lower than that, IIRC.

I had authored a lot of HD content to DVD that was originally recorded from DirecTV on the mpeg2 sat channels. There is a process posted in the AVSForums under the HD DVD Software section that tells you how to use Ulead's DVD Movie Factory 5 or 6 and your existing DVD burner and media to create homebrew HD-DVDs that will play back in HD with Dolby Digital audio on any standard HD-DVD player (who said HD-DVD is dead? ). When I signed up for FIOS I trashed all of my old DirecTV-sourced HD-DVDs and created new ones extracted in full HD resolution from FIOS. I've got a fair-sized library of HD movies culled from HBO-HD, HDNet Movies, UHD, and other channels. I've got all of the Star Wars movies and the Lord of the Rings trilogy in HD as well as numerous other movies.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Isn't OTA the best that anybody outside the TV station could ever get?
> 
> If so, seeing how OTA = D* MPEG-4, D* = The best you can get.
> 
> True?


In theory.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

Kenkong586 said:


> The mpeg-4 HD looks great, the mpeg-2 HD is passable. Now the SD signal, well, IMO I flushed things down the toilet today that look better than the D* SD.


No truer words were spoken. Kudo's at least to Direct TV for getting the sats up to improve the bandwidth problems. They will easily outdistance cable for some time with repect to this issue.

FIOS is the only real competition, but for now, Direct TV can put sats up faster than FIOS can roll out. Would be great to see FIOs catch up so we could base our choice on service and reliability rather than channel availability. Maybe then Direct TV would have to clean up its act with regrards to customer service.


----------



## Paul A (Jul 12, 2007)

Umm... It's you


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

highheater said:


> No truer words were spoken. Kudo's at least to Direct TV for getting the sats up to improve the bandwidth problems. They will easily outdistance cable for some time with repect to this issue.
> 
> FIOS is the only real competition, but for now, Direct TV can put sats up faster than FIOS can roll out. Would be great to see FIOs catch up so we could base our choice on service and reliability rather than channel availability. Maybe then Direct TV would have to clean up its act with regrards to customer service.


What size TV are you watching SD on and is it an SD tv or an HD tv? I ask because my SD tv with SD stations looks as good today as it did 5 years ago... The difference is that SD just looks like *&^* on an HD set, period. There is no way around it....


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

My SD looks worse than it did years ago, but I attribute that to the fact that we went from a 36" SD CRT to a 65" HD RPTV. I'm kinda doubting DirecTV was the major factor there, when I am spreading x number of pixels across a far greater area.


----------



## Brandon428 (Mar 21, 2007)

I feel that their quality has gone down a little. Maybe I just so used to HD now it doesn't amaze me quite like it used to. Although Starz HD looks fantastic as ever. In my opinion Starz is the best HD of all the channels.


----------



## JayPSU (Jul 17, 2007)

Ok, to add to my gigantic confusion, no one has done anything yet and this evening the PQ looks absolutely phoenominal! Particularly on the mpeg4 channels. Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont on StarzWest looks absolutely breathtaking. Unfortunately I have no interest in the movie. Anyway, I just don't get it. Nothing has been done, and yet this evening things look night and day different. Anyone have any idea what could cause this?


----------



## TigersFanJJ (Feb 17, 2006)

JayPSU said:


> Ok, to add to my gigantic confusion, no one has done anything yet and this evening the PQ looks absolutely phoenominal! Particularly on the mpeg4 channels. Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont on StarzWest looks absolutely breathtaking. Unfortunately I have no interest in the movie. Anyway, I just don't get it. Nothing has been done, and yet this evening things look night and day different. Anyone have any idea what could cause this?


Were you hung over when you were watching it before? :lol:

If not, I have no clue.


----------



## spidey (Sep 1, 2006)

JayPSU said:


> Ok, to add to my gigantic confusion, no one has done anything yet and this evening the PQ looks absolutely phoenominal! Particularly on the mpeg4 channels. Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont on StarzWest looks absolutely breathtaking. Unfortunately I have no interest in the movie. Anyway, I just don't get it. Nothing has been done, and yet this evening things look night and day different. Anyone have any idea what could cause this?


were you having ANY weather issues? rain, fog, damp, ice. either day??


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

JayPSU said:


> Ok, to add to my gigantic confusion, no one has done anything yet and this evening the PQ looks absolutely phoenominal! Particularly on the mpeg4 channels. Mrs. Palfrey at the Claremont on StarzWest looks absolutely breathtaking. Unfortunately I have no interest in the movie. Anyway, I just don't get it. Nothing has been done, and yet this evening things look night and day different. Anyone have any idea what could cause this?


Maybe they saw your post and decided to fix the PQ.


----------



## highheater (Aug 30, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> My SD looks worse than it did years ago, but I attribute that to the fact that we went from a 36" SD CRT to a 65" HD RPTV. I'm kinda doubting DirecTV was the major factor there, when I am spreading x number of pixels across a far greater area.


Well Direct TV hasn't helped with its default Stretch-O-Vision delivery of SD channels. For the sake of consistency in filling up the screen for all channels for both HD and SD, they have made SD a lot worse.

That 42" widescreen TV showing an SD program in 4:3 has about the same picture size diagonal as the old 36" tube. I've always found the SD on the 42" HDTV to be worse than the old Mits tube even though the actual picture was about the same size. So the re-scaling of new HDTV sets has a downside.

On the other hand, the SD of some channels is just atrocious, and isn't even worthy of broadcast. All those chanels are just embarrassing Direct TV.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

highheater said:


> Well Direct TV hasn't helped with its default Stretch-O-Vision delivery of SD channels.


??? What S-O-V is doing of SD channels, all mine are in 4:3 by default.


----------



## sdk009 (Jan 19, 2007)

Wednesday night's beginning of the Lakers-Jazz game was on TBS because of the length of the early game on TNT. It was amazing how much better the PQ was on TBS (MPEG-4) than TNT (MPEG-2).


----------



## Steve Robertson (Jun 7, 2005)

sdk009 said:


> Wednesday night's beginning of the Lakers-Jazz game was on TBS because of the length of the early game on TNT. It was amazing how much better the PQ was on TBS (MPEG-4) than TNT (MPEG-2).


Although I did not see this I agree MPEG 4 really is working out very well and can't wait for the ESPN'S to make the switch


----------



## BigSey (Oct 18, 2006)

sdk009 said:


> Wednesday night's beginning of the Lakers-Jazz game was on TBS because of the length of the early game on TNT. It was amazing how much better the PQ was on TBS (MPEG-4) than TNT (MPEG-2).


Yeah, I flipped over just to check it out and sure enough, TBS was so much better. I can't wait till they get everything over to MPEG4.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

ditto



RAD said:


> ??? What S-O-V is doing of SD channels, all mine are in 4:3 by default.


----------



## BrucePadgett (Nov 14, 2007)

I can't comment on MPEG-2 or 4, but I do have what I believe is a a good eye with the SD programming. I've had DirecTV since the beginning, and I can't help but notice had poor the SD can be most of the time. It's certainly watchable, but resolution is generally of VHS quality the last several years, with the locals trailing in the rear, being given the fewest bits.

Of course many times the originating material is overcompressed as well--last night's TNT Lakers-Jazz game looked horrendous on analog cable--but even premium services such as MLB Extra Innings are coming up short. During the recent free preview I had a chance to compare satellite with Time Warner's digital service. Sad to say, DTV's image had the color dialed way down and was a tad less sharper than cable. It's to DirecTV's credit they offer both home and away telecasts, but apparently at a compromise when it comes to image quality.

As standard definition broadcasts wind down over the next few years, one cannot reasonably expect DirecTV (or any other provider) to remedy this situation, but it goads me nonetheless. Especially as MPEG-2 hi-def seems to be lacking as well, per this forum. The observations here that MPEG-4 is better gives credence to the belief that DirecTV gives its best efforts towards the newest technology.

Draw your own conclusions as to why!


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

highheater said:


> Well Direct TV hasn't helped with its default Stretch-O-Vision delivery of SD channels. For the sake of consistency in filling up the screen for all channels for both HD and SD, they have made SD a lot worse.


As others have pointed out, the choice of whether to stretch SD or not is up to you. Check the settings on your receiver/DVR and also your TV. I watch all my SD in 4:3 mode.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

I compared my tv whit my friends tv whit Comcrap. Hd channels look the same analog is another story. If you put a grainy signal trough these new tv's what you are going to get is grain in greater detail. I will will stick whit Directv.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Please tell me that was typed on a cell phone missing keys....



gfrang said:


> I compared my tv whit my friends tv whit Comcrap. Hd channels look the same analog is another story. If you put a grainy signal trough these new tv's what you are going to get is grain in greater detail. I will will stick whit Directv.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Please tell me that was typed on a cell phone missing keys....


No it was typed on my keyboard whit missing keys and i use only one finger to type.


----------



## Xram (Nov 19, 2005)

gfrang said:


> No it was typed on my keyboard whit missing keys and i use only one finger to type.


Otay Spanky :lol:


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

gfrang said:


> I compared my tv whit my friends tv whit Comcrap. Hd channels look the same analog is another story. If you put a grainy signal trough these new tv's what you are going to get is grain in greater detail. I will will stick whit Directv.





gfrang said:


> No it was typed on my keyboard whit missing keys and i use only one finger to type.


Not sure if missing keys is the issue.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Not sure if missing keys is the issue.


Ok you got me,:eek2: tell you the truth the dog ate my homework.


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Ok back OT i will give it one more try, what i was trying to say is Directv looks much
better than Comcrap with grainy analog programs. How did i do?


----------



## Nicholsen (Aug 18, 2007)

I think the PQ is slightly better than Comcast, but it has certainly declined from the "good old days." When D* was young, SD looked as crisp as DVD. It jumped out at you when you saw it in a store.

I expect that SD PQ might improve as the HD channels all move to MPEG4, feeing up bandwith. That would help make up for the pain inflicted upon D* customers with the HR21.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Better, but try some punctuation, and check a dictionary for how you spell your home state. 



gfrang said:


> Ok back OT i will give it one more try, what i was trying to say is Directv looks much
> better than Comcrap with grainy analog programs. How did i do?


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> Better, but try some punctuation, and check a dictionary for how you spell your home state.


Fixed my home state.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Better, but try some punctuation, and check a dictionary for how you spell your home state.


He wont win with you will he? 

I hope there is a valid reason the quote under your screen name is spelled wrong.


----------



## bwaldron (Oct 24, 2005)

Nicholsen said:


> I think the PQ is slightly better than Comcast, but it has certainly declined from the "good old days." When D* was young, SD looked as crisp as DVD. It jumped out at you when you saw it in a store.
> 
> I expect that SD PQ might improve as the HD channels all move to MPEG4, feeing up bandwith. That would help make up for the pain inflicted upon D* customers with the HR21.


Yes, DirecTV PQ was quite good in the early days, prior to the rollout of locals. Although most of my viewing is HD, I would also like to see less compression on those channels that will remain in SD, and hope that is part of their plans.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

:lol: He's been remarkably patient, he has my respect now. 

Yeah, two reasons - One, it amuses me to have it misspelled there, and two, it hit the character limit, I can't spell it right if I wanted to.

As another poster up here once had in his sig - If you want to be taken seriously and treated like an adult, then type like one  I love it. If course I have gone waaaaaay of topic, so I will reprimand myself, and shut the heck up already.



mx6bfast said:


> He wont win with you will he?
> 
> I hope there is a valid reason the quote under your screen name is spelled wrong.


----------

