# YTTV's Picture Quality



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I've said several times I didn't like the PQ on YTTV when I tried it and each time I got responses that told me the PQ was fine. The last couple days I've seen articles about YTTV's recent PQ upgrade. I haven't tried it again but I'd like to know what you folks were thinking when I was complaining about the PQ prior to this upgrade.

What I saw while watching games on YTTV was an inferior picture. Inferior to what I was getting from D*. What were you seeing, or were you willing to settle just because you subbed to YTTV?

Here's a link to an article about the PQ on YTTV: YouTube TV Subscribers Notice Picture Quality Upgrade - Cord Cutters News

Rich


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Genuinely, I never saw the difference that you were seeing or mentioned, or felt there was a substantial change from what I was viewing with D*. But television calibrations, settings and viewing environments all vary from person to person (I'm still holding onto my plasma, you know ), so I never gave it much of a thought.

When I first subscribed to YTTV, I did try to critically compare certain things (ex: the musical guest scenes on Saturday Night Live, which can have a lot of quick moving light differences with spotlights, lasers, etc. in the stage area.) I noticed a couple of small things, but never felt I was losing anything truly significant. Bottom Line text on ESPN networks always seemed to flow crisp on either platform.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

With lots of bandwidth, 4k roku paired with 4k display, 1080 sources (particularly local live newscasts) are noticeably crisper, while 720 stations are only marginally so. Wish there were some live sports but that's a no go at the moment, my go to pq test would be YES network for 720p although one can see the reduction of the pq on espn simulcasts, at least in years past vrs the mlb.tv feed. Same with nesn at 1080i, really top notch production facilities (cameras, switching, and transmission). But will be xx weeks for any testing.


----------



## espaeth (Oct 14, 2003)

It seems like PQ took a bit of a hit in December - January. There were some glitchy things, like a stutter that was persistent on FOX Sports RSNs. Right after they inked the new deal, that all got resolved interestingly enough.

I took pictures during the Stanley cup playoffs last year when DIRECTV was compressing NBCSN into the ground. These are from a phone camera pointed at the TV, but it gives you a true A/B look of the same game on the same TV.

Look at the game clock on the DIRECTV feed:

__
https://flic.kr/p/8
Now look at the clock on YoutubeTV:

__
https://flic.kr/p/3

Expand those images to full size. On DIRECTV they compressed it so badly that you couldn't even read the NHL letters on the shield!

One thing I still notice is that not all broadcast trucks they send out to the games are equal. There are definitely some trucks out there that are producing grainy compressed feeds. FOX Sports South seems to get that truck in the Dallas area a lot, and I notice a bad truck feed about every other Devil's game I watch on MSG (via NHL.tv).


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Rich said:


> I've said several times I didn't like the PQ on YTTV when I tried it and each time I got responses that told me the PQ was fine. The last couple days I've seen articles about YTTV's recent PQ upgrade. I haven't tried it again but I'd like to know what you folks were thinking when I was complaining about the PQ prior to this upgrade.
> 
> What I saw while watching games on YTTV was an inferior picture. Inferior to what I was getting from D*. What were you seeing, or were you willing to settle just because you subbed to YTTV?
> 
> ...


IMO their are way too many variables. That being said, I always thought YTTV to have the best PQ of all the OTT services I have ever tried...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

B. Shoe said:


> Genuinely, I never saw the difference that you were seeing or mentioned, or felt there was a substantial change from what I was viewing with D*. But television calibrations, settings and viewing environments all vary from person to person (I'm still holding onto my plasma, you know ), so I never gave it much of a thought.
> 
> When I first subscribed to YTTV, I did try to critically compare certain things (ex: the musical guest scenes on Saturday Night Live, which can have a lot of quick moving light differences with spotlights, lasers, etc. in the stage area.) I noticed a couple of small things, but never felt I was losing anything truly significant. Bottom Line text on ESPN networks always seemed to flow crisp on either platform.


I've tried a few cable replacement services and I've been disappointed with each one. All because I could see a better picture when using D* (for sports). I agree with you about it being a subjective thing. But this isn't my imagination, you don't see articles about a site improving the PQ very often. Hulu did it and I didn't see one mention of that. The PQ on Hulu used to annoy me and when it was fixed...well, it doesn't annoy me anymore.

Perhaps a 4K set would show you that difference better than a plasma can. How old is your plasma?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mjwagner said:


> IMO their are way too many variables. That being said, I always thought YTTV to have the best PQ of all the OTT services I have ever tried...


All I really wanted was a better picture than I get from D*. For sports. I have yet to see that in any cable replacement service. I'd like to get that 160 a month monkey off my back but that's not happening till I find something better. I'll take another look at YTTV one of these days. And ATTTV. Just not into settling for an inferior service.

Rich


----------



## crkeehn (Apr 23, 2002)

I have a 4K television, perhaps it does a good job of upconverting. I was only able to get SD service with DirecTV and this is much better than that (I know.) I will say that the YTTV picture is clear and sharp. The sport I follow most is Formula One and the picture for that is great, clear and smooth.


----------



## mjwagner (Oct 8, 2005)

Many (majority as far as I saw) of channels on YTTV are now [email protected] to “stats for nerds” on YTTV.


----------



## B. Shoe (Apr 3, 2008)

Rich said:


> Perhaps a 4K set would show you that difference better than a plasma can. How old is your plasma?


My apologies on the delay. My line of work has become increasingly busy this week. It's a Samsung plasma, purchased in September 2016 (model included in signature.) I've taken pretty good care of it, I feel, in regards to proper setup/calibration and being cautious of burn-in. (ex: I've never watched CNN on it because of the massive onscreen white/black graphics. Only ever streamed it.) I've helped with settings on some friends' 4K models, but just never been compelled to get rid of a set that I'm comfortable with and enjoy. Someday, I will. Just not today.

I think part of what you're seeing with the YouTube TV coverage, possibly, is the notion that YTTV is the predominant service in terms of cable replacement streamers? The most popular things grab the most attention? Since this thread started, I've tried to pay more attention during the week when I arrive home. I can see some differences, if I'm really trying hard.

In regards to sports, since I've seen you reference FOX for NFL broadcasts; I have always noticed that NFL broadcasts through the FOXNOW/FOX Sports apps have always felt a little sharper than the YTTV version.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

B. Shoe said:


> My apologies on the delay. My line of work has become increasingly busy this week. It's a Samsung plasma, purchased in September 2016 (model included in signature.) I've taken pretty good care of it, I feel, in regards to proper setup/calibration and being cautious of burn-in. (ex: I've never watched CNN on it because of the massive onscreen white/black graphics. Only ever streamed it.) I've helped with settings on some friends' 4K models, but just never been compelled to get rid of a set that I'm comfortable with and enjoy. Someday, I will. Just not today.
> 
> I think part of what you're seeing with the YouTube TV coverage, possibly, is the notion that YTTV is the predominant service in terms of cable replacement streamers? The most popular things grab the most attention? Since this thread started, I've tried to pay more attention during the week when I arrive home. I can see some differences, if I'm really trying hard.
> 
> In regards to sports, since I've seen you reference FOX for NFL broadcasts; I have always noticed that NFL broadcasts through the FOXNOW/FOX Sports apps have always felt a little sharper than the YTTV version.


It's not what I'm seeing. It's what I read about the picture quality of YTTV. What I read was pretty clear, the resolution is better now than it was. I saw several articles about this...and I can't find any of them at this moment. This happened with Hulu last year. I had ignored that site for some time because I thought the picture was poor. Then I was told here that it had been fixed. And what I saw on Hulu then was about the same PQ as I'd expect from Netflix or AP. I don't have YTTV active at the moment and can't make that comparison.

Rich


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

I subscribed to YTTV for a while, mostly to watch basketball. I noticed that the picture quality was definitely worse on my Fox Sports Regional on YTTV than it was on Dish Network.


----------

