# ISn't Picture Quality the most important feature of DTV HD?



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

First, while I am new here, I have been on other HD sites for years and have had HDTV for at least 5 years. That being said, most discussions always center around the number of channels available, their cost, who is better, etc. NO ONE seems to care about Picture Quality (PQ) which to me is the premium.

I don't want a lot of crappy , low PQ channels. I want as many HD channels I can get; and not just HD but crystal clear HD. Not HD Lite either.

I now have Brighthouse Network which has excellent quality with no compression of the signal. Their problem is that there seems to be no concern for adding additional HD channels. The Direct TV additional 150 HD channels starting in September has caught my attention. However I only read about the current crappy overcompressed DTV signal resulting in microblocking, pixilating on fast motion sequences, etc. I have none -0- of this on Brighthouse Cable.

No one seems to talk much about this regarding DTV, except to accept it as part of the experience. MPEG 4 is just another compression scheme, and compression is the enemy of a clear, picture which looks life-like. Bit rate is another picture killer. My question therefore is there anyone here who is an "expert" (define it in your own way) in what to expect about the September


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Unless you have a line right off the camera it is all compressed video..


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> I now have Brighthouse Network which has excellent quality with no compression of the signal. Their problem is that there seems to be no concern for adding additional HD channels. The Direct TV additional 150 HD channels starting in September has caught my attention. However I only read about the current crappy overcompressed DTV signal resulting in microblocking, pixilating on fast motion sequences, etc. I have none -0- of this on Brighthouse Cable.


Congratulations, glad you enjoy your cable service.



> No one seems to talk much about this regarding DTV, except to accept it as part of the experience. MPEG 4 is just another compression scheme, and compression is the enemy of a clear, picture which looks life-like. Bit rate is another picture killer. My question therefore is there anyone here who is an "expert" (define it in your own way) in what to expect about the September


As for mpeg-4, the New Orleans locals delivered via D* are on par with the OTA signal. Not much difference, if any at all. I'd expect the new national HD mpeg-4 signals to be on par or better - I'd suspect they might be using newer equipment, plus they're getting their own, brand spanking new satellite dedicated to their bandwidth.


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

I'm far from an expert on this (regardless of definition), but I think the best guess for the PQ of the new HD channels can be derived from the HD locals that are currently broadcast in MPEG4. I see little to no difference between those channels and the OTA MPEG2 version. This means that D*'s compression techniques are making very little change to the PQ. I expect the new MPEG4 channels which are added in September and beyond to be the same.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

Hopefully it will be a very good pq with Directv when they launch these new channels. But, I don't think anybody will know until the new sat's are up and we see what we get. I am hoping for the best.

:welcome_s


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Based on a recent study...

To the majority of the people out there... it is the QUANTITY of channels...
Not necessarily the QUALITY of the channels.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=92578

---

I am of the boat that I want more options, of a HIGHER quality.
Not necessarily the absolutle best possible picture every possible...
But one that is extremely good.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

If I had the choice of many channels I'd watch being in HD (SciFi, FX, etc.) versus a few channels that 'pop' (Voom?), I would opt for the channels I'd watch every, single time. I'm one to watch TV for the program's content, not just because the picture looks pretty. I am satisfied with the PQ I'm getting on D*s HD channels (UHD, ESPNs, TNT when they are actually showing an HD program and not stretch-o-vision, Discovery HD, etc.) and if, in fact, the MPEG4 channels coming later this year are better in PQ, then all the better.


----------



## directvfreak (Feb 1, 2006)

Bright House Cable not compressed... LIE!
Every provider compresses HD Video. According to Wikipedia, uncompressed HD Video is about 900-1000 Mbps. Impossible for it to be uncompressed. 
BTW I am happy you like your cable.


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

In defense of the OP, I'm sure he meant that Brighthouse does not add additional compression to the original signal. i.e. They rebroadcast whatever is sent to them. And this is what D* appears to be doing with MPEG4 HD locals and what I'm hoping they do with future HD programming.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

It is all about Picture Quality for me, 100%. With Blu-ray and HD DVD out I am not so dependent upon what OTA or Directv give me, which is a big plus. 

In addition the expansion of Blu-Ray and HD DVD will hopefully raise the standards of what others want and expect too. I don't think many people really understand what the difference is between 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i. But if they see the difference, I'm hoping that they'll want the BEST!

True! I'm greedy! I want more channels at HD quality resolutions and bit rates. And I find it refreshing when I find out that I'm not alone with my very high standards.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

In my personal viewing experience, I am not able to discern degradation of picture quality due to so called "HD Lite". I thoroughly enjoy both my local MPEG4 channels in HD, as well as many of DirecTV's existing HD channels.

I anticipate that new HD channels offered starting in September will be of an equal or possibly better PQ than what is currently being broadcast, therefore I fully welcome any new HD offerings from DirecTV as long as they compare with what I am already getting.

I guess to define it in the terms that the original poster (Impala 1SS) used, I guess I am willing to settle for a higher quantity of "decent" PQ channels than a lesser quantity of "perfect" PQ channels, as in my own viewing experience I can't tell the difference.

However, there is no transmission process currently in use that does not use some level of compression, including over the air. You are getting a compressed signal no matter who or where you are getting it from. The difference is in the method and degree of compression. DirecTV appears to be doing pretty well in those regards with their mpeg4 signals.

Carl


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

carl6 said:


> In my personal viewing experience, I am not able to discern degradation of picture quality due to so called "HD Lite". I thoroughly enjoy both my local MPEG4 channels in HD, as well as many of DirecTV's existing HD channels.
> 
> Carl


Carl, I was in Best Buy this morning looking at new TV's, I knew instantly the ESPN signal was coming from Directv (which I confirmed with the area manager) because, on a 52inch HDTV, the macroblocking and compression was very obvious and the picture really suffered. I have a number of football games recorded from ESPN HD through D* that are absolutely awful looking because of compression. There have been folks at AVSforum that have measured the MPEG2 bit rate through D* and it has been pretty poor, less than 10 at times if I remember right.

I'm very glad to hear the new channels are much closer to OTA and cannot wait for the nationals to get put up in MPEG4, but at least with MPEG2, a potential customer should be aware that HD Lite is a fact of life.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

I do care about quality, but won't you want to have the channel first before you can pick on the quality? HDlite is still better than SD. If you don't have those new channels in HD, your comparison is not HD vs. HDlite, but HDlite vs. SD. By the way, new channels probably are not going to be HDlite, either.

ESPN is a mixed bag. Their Wimbeldon coverage was way better than NBC through OTA on my locals. They are not always that bad. They are only often that bad.


----------



## Spike (Jul 4, 2007)

Dusty said:


> They are not always that bad. They are only often that bad.


:icon_lol:


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

As far as new HD channels on BHN, to my knowledge as far as I know Time Warner still handles the negotiations for Brighthouse. In the past year you should have seen Universal HD, A&E HD, MHD, Versus/Golf HD, ESPN 2 HD and any local HD channels owned by Sinclair added. ESPNEWS HD, Toon Disney HD, ABC Family HD and Disney Channel HD should be added when launched, those are a done deal. TBS HD and CNN HD should be on due to the fact TW owns them, but not a guarantee. 

While more channels are always welcomed, if at the cost of quality in any way shape or form, keep them off my system! Picture quality here on Time Warner is excellent. I couldn't do it with HD as I never had DirecTV HD programming, but I did do an A/B comparison of SD between TW and DirecTV on the same channels. Time Warner blew away DirecTV for the most part (D* had a few channels that looked better, standard def ESPN being one of them) but No DirecTV is not about quality, they’re about saying ‘We have 150 HD Channels that don’t exist yet’.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

Impala1ss said:


> ...NO ONE seems to care about Picture Quality (PQ) which to me is the premium...My question therefore is there anyone here who is an "expert" (define it in your own way) in what to expect about the September


Definitely the wrong place to raise D* PQ questions! First of all, a lot of us think we're "experts" and in comparison to at least 95% plus of the population, we're heads and shoulders beyond what the average person knows.

Not only that, but some of us are absolute HD sports nuts and despite HDLite, being able to watch on average 7 or 8 NFL games a Sunday with 3 or 4 in HD -- & and I don't even have ST -- makes up for a multitude of down-rezzing and bit-starving sins.

But having said that, I've pursued quantity over quality too long! And you raise some perceptive questions so come September and beyond, if PQ tails off as it did before -- or indeed never rises to the imputed level of D* MPEG4 LIL -- some of us are threatening to do something drastic: Go on the wagon as far as the NFL is concerned and switch to cable!


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> ISn't Picture Quality the most important feature of DTV HD?


Currently, NO. If it was the most important feature their mpeg-2 channels would look pristine. Instead they are claiming it is the best, err the highest quailty signal, when it most definately isn't.

Mpeg-4 that could change.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

Impala1ss said:


> I now have Brighthouse Network which has excellent quality with no compression of the signal. Their problem is that there seems to be no concern for adding additional HD channels. The Direct TV additional 150 HD channels starting in September has caught my attention. However I only read about the current crappy overcompressed DTV signal resulting in microblocking, pixilating on fast motion sequences, etc. I have none -0- of this on Brighthouse Cable.


Maybe BHN is giving your neighborhood a different signal than they are in our neighborhood, but their PQ here is very grainy, on the analog channels (1 to 99). One of my reason for dropping them. The same channels on D* are much clearer.

The other night I was at a neighbors house watching a game on the MLB package, on BHN. It was pixelating big time. We came over to my house to watch the end of the game on D*, with no pixelation. Also, when ever the Marlins or Devil Rays play on FSN Florida, one of our two local RSNs that BHN refuses to carry, he can't get the games. D* carries both networks. Yes, I have had some games pixelating on D* MLB games, some days they are excellent and other days not so good. They usually occur on MPG4 channels, but as the season is going along they are getting better and better as they tweak the signals.

BHN, just like all cable and satellite providers, compresses their signal. It is just some compress more than others do, because of bandwidth limitations.



Impala1ss said:


> No one seems to talk much about this regarding DTV, except to accept it as part of the experience. MPEG4 is just another compression scheme, and compression is the enemy of a clear, picture which looks life-like. Bit rate is another picture killer. My question therefore is there anyone here who is an "expert" (define it in your own way) in what to expect about the September


I am open minded about changing services and every so often look at my options, but BHN hasn't improved enough to this point to get me to consider coming back to them. I am looking forward to September for more HD, and from the amount of times I have seen DirecTV installing new systems in this neighborhood lately, I think a lot of there people are also.

I am not saying D* is perfect PQ, but when you put the BHN lower channels on a HDTV, it amplifies the grainy picture and it really looks bad.


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I've been with D* for a very long time and I think that for me there is a balance. I most certainly do want the best possible picture quality possible but would also like a selection of channels providing good HD content. 

That said take a look at the summer line up of all 3 National Stations (ABC, CBS & NBC) they have so little HD Programming on it almost doesn't matter that the stations are in HD. 

I feel that D* has good HD PQ but is certainly depends on the content. I mean seriously watching a movies that is more than say 10 yeas old on some of the HD Channels just isn't going to look as good as say Planet Earth on Discovery HD which is why I went with HD in the first place (that kind of amazing / spectacular content.) 

It should also be noted that over the years in my opinion the PQ of even the SD channels has gone way down. Some have said it is due to bandwidth limitations which may be true. Assuming that is true then hopefully now that D10 is up and D11 is scheduled to go up by the end of the year we can get back the SD PQ and provide great HD PQ as well. Only time will tell at this point but I've most certainly got my finger crossed!


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm not sure what to expect come September, honestly. I see a lot of people on here talking about how the network channels will be as good or better than the locals that are currently sent as MPEG4... My locals are very hit and miss with MPEG4. The NBC affiliate is positively horrible on D*, with washed out, smear-y images, but OTA looks wonderful. CBS is very pixelated at times, certainly not what I've been able to see a time or two OTA. ABC and Fox both look very good, on the other hand.

If this is an indicator, then I expect any 1080i networks (Discovery nets) to look like crap, but the 720p networks (Nat. Geographic) to look decent.

I really hope the nets look better than my locals_!_

That being said, I am absolutely positive that, given time and enough HD nets, the PQ will not be very good. I've been with D* for about 9 years now and the SD PQ has slid downhill year by year, from "wow_!_" to "I can't watch this_!_"

Unfortunately D* has consistently offered the channels I desire versus my last two cable providers. So I'm kinda stuck.


----------



## garypet (Feb 17, 2006)

DBS providers have "conditioned" us to accept poorer and poorer PQ as a trade off for quantity. Why on earth would they change course now when they have us right where they want us. One thing you can count on, PQ will not improve because the majority of users are happy with quantity over quality. D will fill up the spare bandwidth with additional crap and then raise prices and we will allow them to get away with it.


----------



## CoachGibbs (May 23, 2007)

PQ is definetly important to me, hence why right now I'm anti-D*. Between the unbelievably bad MPEG-2 HD and the 720p MPEG4 version of NESNHD it's clear that D* doesn't give a crap about providing good PQ on HD channels.

At this point I'll be shocked if the new channels in Sept look good.


----------



## UTVLamented (Oct 18, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I am of the boat that I want more options, of a HIGHER quality.
> Not necessarily the absolutle best possible picture every possible...
> But one that is extremely good.


+1.

Do you want a top quality picture of paint drying or do you want to see Nip/Tuck in "HD-Lite"?


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

I don't know if it's just me but I am not having HD orgasims like everyone else seems to be having. It appears that most think that EVERYTHING HAS GOT TO BE HD NOW AND IF IT ISN'T I WON'T WATCH IT!!!:lol: For me IMHO, the content is more important than the quality of picture. I grew up watching TV over rabbit ears while one stands in an awkward position with the ears while the other enjoys the program (taking turns). Sometimes Duct Tape would work for a day or two but usually not for long. With my S-Video hook up, my SD picture (in my eyes) looks good enough for me (better than I ever thought possible growing up). I probably will not go HD unless I am forced to if everything switches over (which I am sure it will as some point in the distant future).


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Dusty said:


> HDlite is still better than SD.


How much better than SD, a little?


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Luckily, there are choices for consumers. If one guy likes his cable, more power to him. Competition is good, and if Cable offers him a good service, then I cannot argue his choice.

Where I live, the cable (Comcast) is absolutely horrible. Some channels are unwatchable because of terrible, snowy PQ. I did call Comcast, and they blamed the wiring in the house...Comcast installed the wiring in question... I dropped cable after about 2 months and got DirecTV. They connected to the exact same wiring, and for some reason suddenly I had a great picture. It's was like having a new TV. (Recently, my favorite bar switched to D* from cable...Sweet. Now I can actually see the games.) The problem with Comcast here is they don't want to spend the money to boost the signal enough for the number of people connected to the system, so everyone gets crappy PQ. Now if Comcast got their act together, (10 years ago, I lived in the same area, and the cable was just as bad.) I would consider them, but right now satellite TV is the only way to go. As I see it, Comcast can't get SD right, why would I think they could do HD? D* has better quality _and_ quantity.


----------



## JMCecil (Jan 20, 2007)

Impala1ss said:


> That being said, most discussions always center around the number of channels available, their cost, who is better, etc. NO ONE seems to care about Picture Quality (PQ) which to me is the premium.
> 
> I don't want a lot of crappy , low PQ channels. I want as many HD channels I can get; and not just HD but crystal clear HD. Not HD Lite either.
> 
> Their problem is that there seems to be no concern for adding additional HD channels.





> The Direct TV additional 150 HD channels starting in September has caught my attention.


And this is the root of the problem. Lots of people get on the soapbox of PQ, including me, BUT when it comes down to it you can't stand the idea that someone else gets 150 channels of HD. Even HD-Lite. As long as this is the case there is no incentive for the providers to improve PQ. But, there is massive incentive for them to have 1298098348902343 channels of pixel scramble.


----------



## n-spring (Mar 6, 2007)

My experience with MPEG-4 from DirecTV is this. When I first got my H20, the thing was not much better than a door stop. It would lock up, PQ was unbearable, spontaneous reboots, audio/video sync problems. All of these issues have been corrected with subsequent national and CE releases of software. In fact, I have noticed steady, but subtle improvements in PQ with every CE release. I was unhappy and frustrated for many months because of the poor quality and problems I experienced. I believe DirecTV rolled out the MPEG-4 service before it was really ready for prime time. I think they have their act together now.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually I watched King Kong last night recorded on HBOHD and compared it to the movie on my upscaling DVD player. If I recall correctly HBOHD is still "HD-Lite". Almost every time, the HD feed completely blew the DVD away. In some of the really fast action sequences, it was about equal because the HD feed had a lot of pixelation in it. But in the ending NYC sequence, it was not even comparable - HD, even HD-Lite, wins hands down.


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

Nobody gives a dang about the BEST anymore. Just good enough. Why somone would make the sizable investment in HD equipment and not demand the BEST quality possible is beyond me. HD Lite is unconsionable. But its the only choice. And the Sheeple just keep lapping it up. Good enough? GOOD ENOUGH? That disgusts me. For what we pay we should have the BEST.
One gets used to HDlite. I did until I saw some real HD, master feed of a Versus hockey game. Holy Crap what a difference. No macroblocking, no blurring on fast motion. And I only have a 720p panel. Directv's MPEG2 feed looked like SD in comparison.

And its not just D*, E* and the cable folks do it too. And the sheeple keep licking it up. :nono2:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Call me a sheeple - while I would prefer to have full res HD, I am not enough of a TV addict to care that much. And, I agree with the posters about cable - I quit cable when after years of complaints, and a fiber lay in my neighborhood they still could not deliver any channel under 100 without snow. Unbelievable.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

stogie5150 said:


> Nobody gives a dang about the BEST anymore. Just good enough. Why somone would make the sizable investment in HD equipment and not demand the BEST quality possible is beyond me. HD Lite is unconsionable. But its the only choice. And the Sheeple just keep lapping it up. Good enough? GOOD ENOUGH? That disgusts me. For what we pay we should have the BEST.
> One gets used to HDlite. I did until I saw some real HD, master feed of a Versus hockey game. Holy Crap what a difference. No macroblocking, no blurring on fast motion. And I only have a 720p panel. Directv's MPEG2 feed looked like SD in comparison.
> 
> And its not just D*, E* and the cable folks do it too. And the sheeple keep licking it up. :nono2:


Um...wow...I know someone who needs to step away from the TV for awhile. We don't pay that much, and my I got my TV at Walmart. I'm not doing micro-surgery via video monitor. I'm watching Ugly Betty.


----------



## Redlinetire (Jul 24, 2007)

man_rob said:


> I'm not doing micro-surgery via video monitor. I'm watching Ugly Betty.


+2 :lol:


----------



## CobraGuy (Apr 23, 2007)

lamontcranston said:


> Actually I watched King Kong last night recorded on HBOHD and compared it to the movie on my upscaling DVD player. If I recall correctly HBOHD is still "HD-Lite". Almost every time, the HD feed completely blew the DVD away. In some of the really fast action sequences, it was about equal because the HD feed had a lot of pixelation in it. But in the ending NYC sequence, it was not even comparable - HD, even HD-Lite, wins hands down.


Lamont...you need a new DVD player. Seriously. My upconverting player produces stunning results. Very little on D* compares.

PQ is very important to me. I want content too...but I would rather see them get it right with what they have than add more the way it is. It's not bad now by any means, but improvement wouldn't hurt. I can't compare it to cable because the only HD cable I've seen is on my son's set...which is different than mine and thus not a fair comparison. I'm not about to even consider cable...I'm pleased with D*. Would I like to see a better picture? Of course...and I think a new TV will give that to me. But all the help D* can provide in that area would be welcome.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

As a longtime satellite subscriber (C-band, D*, E*, now back to D*) I have to admit that a large part of what makes D*'s HD look so darn good is the fact that D*s SD looks so darn bad.

I recently connected my H20 non-DVR receiver to a very good non-HD TV set. The HD channels on that SD set brought back memories of the way D* and E*'s SD looked many years ago. 

Few of us have Blu-Ray or HD DVD yet, so most of us are comparing good (not perfect) HD with poor (not even good) SD, and of course we love the HD! Anyway, I do.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> How much better than SD, a little?


Way better than SD. You probably can try it out at some retail. Ask them to tune to SD channels for you.

ESPN HD sometimes broadcast in SD resolutions. Even in SD resolution, it's still way better than SD channels.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

lamontcranston said:


> Actually I watched King Kong last night recorded on HBOHD and compared it to the movie on my upscaling DVD player. If I recall correctly HBOHD is still "HD-Lite". Almost every time, the HD feed completely blew the DVD away. In some of the really fast action sequences, it was about equal because the HD feed had a lot of pixelation in it. But in the ending NYC sequence, it was not even comparable - HD, even HD-Lite, wins hands down.


The upconverting DVD is still not HD. I don't think the HDlite is going to win the comparison against HD DVD or Blueray Disc.

With that said, I agree with you that the HDlite is still quite good.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

CobraGuy said:


> Lamont...you need a new DVD player. Seriously. My upconverting player produces stunning results. Very little on D* compares.
> 
> PQ is very important to me. I want content too...but I would rather see them get it right with what they have than add more the way it is. It's not bad now by any means, but improvement wouldn't hurt. I can't compare it to cable because the only HD cable I've seen is on my son's set...which is different than mine and thus not a fair comparison. I'm not about to even consider cable...I'm pleased with D*. Would I like to see a better picture? Of course...and I think a new TV will give that to me. But all the help D* can provide in that area would be welcome.


When I first got HD, I was so excited that I would tune into any HD channels just to admire the pictures. The novelty has worn off on me. If the program sucks, even in HD, it still sucks. It will be a waste of my time to watch it. However, I am very impatient with SD programs. I hate not being able to see golf balls on the Golf Channel. I hate the food not looking as appetiting as it supposed to be. I think HGTV that my wife forces me to watch may be more tolerable if it's in HD.

I think we should demand both. We want contents and we want them in HD.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

lamontcranston said:


> Actually I watched King Kong last night recorded on HBOHD and compared it to the movie on my upscaling DVD player. If I recall correctly HBOHD is still "HD-Lite". Almost every time, the HD feed completely blew the DVD away. In some of the really fast action sequences, it was about equal because the HD feed had a lot of pixelation in it. But in the ending NYC sequence, it was not even comparable - HD, even HD-Lite, wins hands down.


I hope your not trying to make the argument that HD Lite is OK because it beats a 480p picture. Every piece of HD that D* puts out should be better than a 480p DVD picture - you can upconvert all you want, but if the core picture is 480p, you aren't getting any better than that.

The "a lot of pixelation" is the problem, the signal through D* is terribly compressed, now imagine trying to watch a football game with pixelation and artifacting on every play.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

paulman182 said:


> As a longtime satellite subscriber (C-band, D*, E*, now back to D*) I have to admit that a large part of what makes D*'s HD look so darn good is the fact that D*s SD looks so darn bad.
> 
> I recently connected my H20 non-DVR receiver to a very good non-HD TV set. The HD channels on that SD set brought back memories of the way D* and E*'s SD looked many years ago.


You hit the nail right on the head, the SD signals are formatted to look good on a SD TV. When you send them to an HDTV, they really look bad because they are a 480i signal being processed to fit a 1080p or 1080i screen. Any imperfection in the video is going to be amplified and make a bad signal look even worse.

I have the composite video/audio taken from the back of my H20 and sent via Baluns, through Cat6 networking, to a SD TV in the spare bedroom. That SD picture is so much sharper and clearer than the H20 HDMI SD signal, from that same receiver, sent to my Mitsubishi 1080P TV.


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

loudo said:


> Maybe BHN is giving your neighborhood a different signal than they are in our neighborhood, but their PQ here is very grainy, on the analog channels (1 to 99). One of my reason for dropping them. The same channels on D* are much clearer. .


I'm in Melbourne also (Suntree) and my PQ is excellent. MAybe you need a service call? I am talkin g about PQ of HD channels though. I have a 61" Sony that beats everything I've seen, plus I've had it properly tuned by a technician at a cost of $300.



loudo said:


> The other night I was at a neighbors house watching a game on the MLB package, on BHN. It was pixelating big time. We came over to my house to watch the end of the game on D*, with no pixelation. Also, when ever the Marlins or Devil Rays play on FSN Florida, one of our two local RSNs that BHN refuses to carry, he can't get the games. D* carries both networks. Yes, I have had some games pixelating on D* MLB games, some days they are excellent and other days not so good. They usually occur on MPG4 channels, but as the season is going along they are getting better and better as they tweak the signals..


That's not HD is it? I don't get those channels but I have never had one second of pixilation./macroblocking, either in Cocoa Beach or Melbourne, either in SD or HD.



loudo said:


> BHN, just like all cable and satellite providers, compresses their signal. It is just some compress more than others do, because of bandwidth limitations..


Simply not rrue. Brighthouse adds no compression to what is delivered to them. Most do though, and I believe that is the problem with the DTV picture. Their bitrate is also larger than DTV's, I believe..



loudo said:


> I am open minded about changing services and every so often look at my options, but BHN hasn't improved enough to this point to get me to consider coming back to them. I am looking forward to September for more HD, and from the amount of times I have seen DirecTV installing new systems in this neighborhood lately, I think a lot of there people are also..


I agree. That';s why me, and a lot of others are looking elsewhere for our HD service.

I


loudo said:


> am not saying D* is perfect PQ, but when you put the BHN lower channels on a HDTV, it amplifies the grainy picture and it really looks bad.


Most of the graininess comes from very large tv's versus the smaller ones we used to have. The smaller the picture the better it looks; The pixels are closer together. But bitrate contributes also and I have heard that DTV has reduced teirh bitrate to unacceptable PQ levels.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> As I see it, Comcast can't get SD right, why would I think they could do HD? D* has better quality and quantity.


Using analog picture quality to make comparative assumptions on digital SD and HD programming is a little unfair. If I were to hook my cable line directly to my TV and tune to analog channels, they would look terrible. I did it before. Nothing but a grainy, snowy picture with shadows. Analog picture quality is terrible. But digital picture quality beats DirecTV and HD is amazing. Just because analog sucks doesn't mean the whole systems like that. My cableco does digital simulcast, so with the exceptions of the community access channels, going through the cable box all channels (including 2-78) are digital and beat D*.


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

UTVLamented said:


> +1.
> 
> Do you want a top quality picture of paint drying or do you want to see Nip/Tuck in "HD-Lite"?


Neither, I want to see Nip/Tuck in pristine HD, and not an upconvert. I also want to see as many channels as I can in good HD. I currently probably watch 75% of my programming in SD because it isn't available in HD. If it was I would want it in full bitrate, and no pixilation/macroblocking; simply clear HD.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> Using analog picture quality to make comparative assumptions on digital SD and HD programming is a little unfair. If I were to hook my cable line directly to my TV and tune to analog channels, they would look terrible. I did it before. Nothing but a grainy, snowy picture with shadows. Analog picture quality is terrible. But digital picture quality beats DirecTV and HD is amazing. Just because analog sucks doesn't mean the whole systems like that. My cableco does digital simulcast, so with the exceptions of the community access channels, going through the cable box all channels (including 2-78) are digital and beat D*.


Comcast's digital quality was very bad as well. I had it for the first month, and so was frustrated that I was paying that much for such a horrible picture that I dropped it. But you have a point, D* is 100% digital versus, Comcast's get a couple dozen or so digital channels with horrible PQ. I've seen decent cable offerings, but where I live, Comcast offers crap. For me, D* has, by far, superior PQ.


----------



## stogie5150 (Feb 21, 2006)

man_rob said:


> Um...wow...I know someone who needs to step away from the TV for awhile. We don't pay that much, and my I got my TV at Walmart. I'm not doing micro-surgery via video monitor. I'm watching Ugly Betty.


Go big or go home. :lol: 

1440X1088 at 8 mbps mpeg 2 is NOT HD. Its HD lite.  And it looks terrible.


----------



## richiephx (Jan 19, 2006)

Assuming all plans stay on schedule, in 6 months, we will have a much better understanding of what all providers will have. All providers will be adding more HD channels. Who will be the HD leader? Who cares. IMO, the provider who *clearly* steps up picture quality *and* offers the most HD at the best price will get my business.


----------



## Farsight (Jul 16, 2007)

I swear some people don't even like watching TV, they just want to flex and preen next to their expensive toy.

Putting unrealistic requirements like all channels in 1080p is just setting yourself up to be miserable. Unless you have a spare few billion dollars laying around, it's not happening. Use your game console or HD DVD player for that, where the signal only has to travel 5 feet.

All I care about is who carries all the channels I want with the best picture at the lowest price. I'm a statistics freak, but even I just don't care about the numbers.

Heck, right now my 1080p TV isn't even getting an HD signal from D*, since the only channel I like that D* carries in HD is ESPN. When that changes (soon), I'll pay for HD/HDLite/HDpoopoo/whatever. And 99% odds are I'll keep DirecTV, because no other provider will be able to match their combination of quantity (the channels I LIKE, not total # of garbage channels), quality and price.

Unless someone else can deliver the channels I actually watch in higher quality and/or a better price, I have no reason to throw tantrums at D". Sure we'd all love an uncompressed signal beamed directly into our retinas, but until then, I'll just keep happily paying whoever's doing it the best.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Farsight said:


> Sure we'd all love an uncompressed signal beamed directly into our retinas


Psh, why would you settle for that crap? Bypass the retinas and jack directly into the optic nerves!


----------



## Da_Pops (Jul 28, 2007)

Impala1ss said:


> First, while I am new here, I have been on other HD sites for years and have had HDTV for at least 5 years. That being said, most discussions always center around the number of channels available, their cost, who is better, etc. NO ONE seems to care about Picture Quality (PQ) which to me is the premium.
> 
> I don't want a lot of crappy , low PQ channels. I want as many HD channels I can get; and not just HD but crystal clear HD. Not HD Lite either.
> 
> ...


Don't fall for the BS advertizing on the number of HD channels. DirecTV is counting their NFL Ticket Games as "channels" (read the Cook Cty Cease and Desist Order requested by Comcast yesterday). Currently there are not 150 HD channels out there (I know as I am in the industry) Expects some major announcements from the Left Coast folks beginning 9/1 -- most major content providers are launching HD Networks.. which those with the crystal ball - predict the demise of Ananlog channels... now, don't everyone say it won't happen due to the number of analog TV sets out there.. Motorola current markets an HD set top box that is intelligent enough to realize it is connected to an non-HD TV, so it down-converts the signal ... the reason Bright House is not interested in adding any more HD channels is techincal limitations (read bandwith).. they can't. Thus the whole MPEG4 development. The sole purpose fo MPEG4 is to allow more HD content to be deliever down the same "pipe" ... MPEG4 (H.264) compress is the new standard. (there are already additional formats in R&D right now).. as some one who is employed in the "industry" as well as an AT&T | DISH customer (since their SBC alliance) they are fairly close in most customer satisfaction polls with DirectTV, with a slight edge in picture quality.

MPEG4 is here to stay.. why do you think the 2 new big boys are going with IPTV? If you want to get a ton of HD channels with great channels and unlimited potential application expansions and interactive TV... then you ought to look that way... (If you are in their "footprint") .. hopefully the Telco giants will expand far enough out so us country boys can get U-verse


----------



## Da_Pops (Jul 28, 2007)

Dusty said:


> When I first got HD, I was so excited that I would tune into any HD channels just to admire the pictures. The novelty has worn off on me. If the program sucks, even in HD, it still sucks. It will be a waste of my time to watch it. However, I am very impatient with SD programs. I hate not being able to see golf balls on the Golf Channel. I hate the food not looking as appetiting as it supposed to be. I think HGTV that my wife forces me to watch may be more tolerable if it's in HD.
> 
> I think we should demand both. We want contents and we want them in HD.


HGTV already has an HD channel .. Golf Channel is launching in the very near furture .. as a time shifted channel with VERSUS (the old OLN).. 1/2 day Versus 1/2 day Golf Channel


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

Da_Pops said:


> Don't fall for the BS advertizing on the number of HD channels. DirecTV is counting their NFL Ticket Games as "channels". Currently there are not 150 HD channels out there (I know as I am in the industry).


And all privders use fuzzy math in counting their "channels", such as counting an individual VOD as a channel.

DirecTV does not advertise that they will be broadcasting 150 channels (if that is the BS that you are talking about). They have said all along that they will have the *capacity* to broadcast 150 channels. And if they didn't have the Sunday Ticket HD feeds, they would STILL have the CAPACITY for 150 channels.

Oh, and by the way, most of the people who read these threads are aware that there currently, and into the near future, are not 150 HD channels - and we're not "in the industry".


----------



## UTVLamented (Oct 18, 2006)

Impala1ss said:


> Neither, I want to see Nip/Tuck in pristine HD, and not an upconvert. I also want to see as many channels as I can in good HD. I currently probably watch 75% of my programming in SD because it isn't available in HD. If it was I would want it in full bitrate, and no pixilation/macroblocking; simply clear HD.


If it made business sense (i.e. profit) they would do it. They aren't intentionally depriving you of full HD because they enjoy the posts complaining about it.


----------



## NickD (Apr 5, 2007)

For the most part I am happy with the picture, but what really irritates me is the pixelation during action scenes. This drives me up a wall. I never had this problem with SD. I do not have this problem watching Blue Rays or video content downloaded to my 360, why should I have this problem for a service that I am paying a premium for and not getting the pristine picture that I was told I would get. Yes I want more channels, but I want quality over quantity.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Da_Pops said:


> HGTV already has an HD channel .. Golf Channel is launching in the very near furture .. as a time shifted channel with VERSUS (the old OLN).. 1/2 day Versus 1/2 day Golf Channel


Golf/Versus HD already exists, it's been around since the beginning of the year at least.


----------



## Drako60 (Jul 29, 2007)

this is all very interesting, but there are a few points that have not been hit upon, that should be.

1. Processing power taken to decode MPEG-4 (H.264) is very high, even a computer with a 2Ghz CPU when playing a MPEG-4(H.264) video at that high a bit-rate and resolution, and the additional options that is supported to make the PQ look better, will have trouble playing it, these include video/audio sync and down right stalling.

2. MPEG-4 is average bit-rate, slow motion takes much lower bit-rate to look good, while fast motion takes much higher bit-rate to look as good (thus more processoring power to decompress)

Take these two facts, and look at D* do you really think they want to send out hundreds of receivers with 3Ghz Core 2 duo's and 8800GTS, all for a 2 year commitment. no the money is not there for them.
In another year to year and a half they could do it easily, but by them most people will forget about and won't be complaining any more, or atleast far less people will be.

That is all based on if D* is using MPEG-4(H.264), its entirely possible that they are using MPEG-4 (DIVX or similiar) if they are using MPEG-4(DIVX) then there is no helping them, that layer of MPEG-4 has terrible fast motion and even worse red color, red has been known for years as the bane of MPEG-4.

The other thing to consider, is the cameras being used, and the compress and codec that the networks are using, its not all D*'s fault, if you have someone behind the camera who doesn't know what they are doing or an encoder who doesn't know how to compress the video properly then it will result in a bad PQ no matter what D* does to it

Oh and viewing SD on a LCD or Plasma TV is not worth it, the DPI is so much higher on the TV then the video was made for that it will also look bad.

well this should spark some interesting comments


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Drako60 said:


> Take these two facts, and look at D* do you really think they want to send out hundreds of receivers with 3Ghz Core 2 duo's and 8800GTS, all for a 2 year commitment. no the money is not there for them.


Do you realize that DirecTV has two receivers out today that decode MPEG4? They have dedicated decoding chips, so they don't need a super-powerful CPU.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

Drako60 said:


> That is all based on if D* is using MPEG-4(H.264)...if they are using MPEG-4(DIVX) then there is no helping them, that layer of MPEG-4 has terrible fast motion and even worse red color, red has been known for years as the bane of MPEG-4.


Why can't it be fairly easily determined which they're using? Or is this indeed rocket science?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> Why can't it be fairly easily determined which they're using? Or is this indeed rocket science?


They're using H.264, aka MPEG4 AVC.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

NickD said:


> For the most part I am happy with the picture, but what really irritates me is the pixelation during action scenes. This drives me up a wall. I never had this problem with SD. I do not have this problem watching Blue Rays or video content downloaded to my 360, why should I have this problem for a service that I am paying a premium for and not getting the pristine picture that I was told I would get. Yes I want more channels, but I want quality over quantity.


+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

It is called HD for a reason. I could not agree more!!

It is like gasoline, if I'm paying for 91 octane, I better get 91 octane.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Impala1ss said:


> First, while I am new here, I have been on other HD sites for years and have had HDTV for at least 5 years. That being said, most discussions always center around the number of channels available, their cost, who is better, etc. NO ONE seems to care about Picture Quality (PQ) which to me is the premium.
> 
> I don't want a lot of crappy , low PQ channels. I want as many HD channels I can get; and not just HD but crystal clear HD. Not HD Lite either.
> 
> ...


Brighthouse does compress and if you compare even OTA to what they deliver, there is a "clear" difference - just as there is with Directv (and as someone said in post #2, mpeg2 and mpeg4 are both compressed - so I am speaking of compressing more than what they are given from the source).

The best way to describe it in writing is that several layers of light fog are removed from the picture. Many will not notice it until you see the better signal and compare the 2.

A station in town went with HD News over the weekend and the head of engineering asked me what I thought of it - to which I asked him if they were using a filter on the studio camera as it looked soft - and he agreed.

I am sure most thought it looked great.

After discussing it, we think the issue was Brighthouse shaving their bitrate.


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Brighthouse does compress and if you compare even OTA to what they deliver, there is a "clear" difference - just as there is with Directv
> After discussing it, we think the issue was Brighthouse shaving their bitrate.


I think you are wrong but Brighthouse could be lying to us. Our Central Florida High Definition group has had several tours of Brighthouse's facilities, and interviewed their head people. They have always claimed that they add no compression to the signals they receive and forward on to the consumer. We have some very sophisticated people in the group who can discuss HD at the most technical levels and they believe there is no compression added. I guess they could simply be lying, or playing other tricks but our experts say no.:nono:


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I found this info about cable companies and compression:



> PRESSING THE CASE
> 
> ...*Every HD signal transmitted over a cable network or satellite must be compressed.* That's because *a single, uncompressed HD stream at 1080i, currently the highest-resolution specification in wide use, consumes about 1.4 Gigabits of bandwidth per second - 36 times the capacity available via one channel in a modern cable network... *
> 
> ...


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

man_rob said:


> I found this info about cable companies and compression:


+1


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

That article can be a little mis-leading, not ALL cable systems downrezz 1080i to 10 mbps. And yes it does get compressed many many times by the time it gets to us. But from the feed that the cable or sat co, or local affiliate gets to us is where most of the problems lie.


----------



## HDTVFanAtic (Jul 23, 2005)

Impala1ss said:


> I think you are wrong but Brighthouse could be lying to us. Our Central Florida High Definition group has had several tours of Brighthouse's facilities, and interviewed their head people. They have always claimed that they add no compression to the signals they receive and forward on to the consumer. We have some very sophisticated people in the group who can discuss HD at the most technical levels and they believe there is no compression added. I guess they could simply be lying, or playing other tricks but our experts say no.:nono:


Well, If you know anything about HDNET, you would know the video bitrate is sent out on both HDNET and HDNET Movies at a constant 17.57Mbps. Add in your audio and data you are pushing past 18.00Mbps....not what Brighthouse is sending out on their QAM....and this is just one of many......including the OTA channels that they are reducing the bitrate on:

-----Original Message-----
From: Cxxx, Mxxxl [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:01 AM
To: xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: HDNET

QAM 561MHz "HDNet" has the following channels on it:

SD 113 IFC 3.13Mb
SD 124 G4/TechTV 3.22Mb
SD 132 FUSE 3.44Mb
HD 705 HDNet1 12.98Mb
HD 706 HDNet2 16.53Mb

This QAM is division-zoned (one QAM on each side of the bay) and not ad-inserted. Current bitrate is 38.7Mb


----------



## NYSmoker (Aug 20, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> How much better than SD, a little?


You are kidding right?

The crappiest HD quality, yeah I'm talking to you ESPN HD, is 100x better than SD.


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

HDTVFanAtic said:


> Well, If you know anything about HDNET, you would know the video bitrate is sent out on both HDNET and HDNET Movies at a constant 17.57Mbps.





NYSmoker said:


> ...yeah I'm talking to you ESPN HD, is 100x better than SD...


ESPN-HD is sent out at full bitrate (which IIRC is 19.39 minus 1.5 for audio/null packets). Also, I believe ESPN has contracts with some cable cos. that prohibit bit shaving/compression or whatever awful things can be done to digital signals. And I know experientially that Comcast Staunton, Va. and TWC Albany, NY have great HD PQ for ESPN-HD. Not the case with D* unfortunately!


----------



## kenglish (Oct 2, 2004)

I don't think the average viewer has a clue about "good" quality. After all, where is he going to go for a standard of comparison? His point of reference is usually an in-store SDTV feed off of DirecTV...usually passed set-to-set as an NTSC analog modulated signal.

We should all demand that our local retail stores have a good OTA antenna, and a few good-quality HDTV sets connected to it. Then, J6P would have a reference point.

Bug the stores until they get with it!


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Well, I dunno about you, but, while I appreciate HD enough to hang out up here and discuss it, making it a mission to demand retail stores show a good reference signal is indicative of misplaced priorities. There are more important things in life than whether we are getting "full" HD or not. It is just TV, after all.

Now, time to duck and run :lol:



kenglish said:


> I don't think the average viewer has a clue about "good" quality. After all, where is he going to go for a standard of comparison? His point of reference is usually an in-store SDTV feed off of DirecTV...usually passed set-to-set as an NTSC analog modulated signal.
> 
> We should all demand that our local retail stores have a good OTA antenna, and a few good-quality HDTV sets connected to it. Then, J6P would have a reference point.
> 
> Bug the stores until they get with it!


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

NYSmoker said:


> You are kidding right?
> 
> The crappiest HD quality, yeah I'm talking to you ESPN HD, is 100x better than SD.


I watched the entire Cubs/Phillies game on Monday night on ESPNHD thru D*. The PQ was terrible and the EE was freaking amazing (in a too much way). To me, it wasn't that much better that WS MLB FOX has been doing this year. Shoot, comparing it to Hell's Kitchen I'd think HK was HD.

So in a way yes I am kidding, but also no I'm not.

ESPNHD looked better when D* first carried it. Which still isn't saying much.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> I watched the entire Cubs/Phillies game on Monday night on ESPNHD thru D*. The PQ was terrible and the EE was freaking amazing (in a too much way). To me, it wasn't that much better that WS MLB FOX has been doing this year. Shoot, comparing it to Hell's Kitchen I'd think HK was HD.
> 
> So in a way yes I am kidding, but also no I'm not.
> 
> ESPNHD looked better when D* first carried it. Which still isn't saying much.


What did you find horrible about the PQ? I watched some of the game and it looked good to me. No pixilization, blocking, ect. Maybe i just caught the good scenes though.
I really havent had much trouble with ESPN when i watch it that i can recall


----------



## Bill Johnson (Apr 3, 2003)

JeffBowser said:


> There are more important things in life than whether we are getting "full" HD or not. It is just TV, after all.


So true, but each of us has different priorities -- families, jobs, religion, hobbies, etc. -- and it's easy to look down on someone who has television as an important priority. But living in a rural area as a retiree with grown children and being a football and sports in HDTV nut, I must confess I have television up there at about number 3 or 4.

So I think that's a good idea to urge retail stores to get better OTA. There ought to be a law against the PQ of some of this stuff passed off by providers as high definition. :flaiming


----------



## MikeR (Oct 6, 2006)

Bill Johnson said:


> ESPN-HD is sent out at full bitrate (which IIRC is 19.39 minus 1.5 for audio/null packets). Also, I believe ESPN has contracts with some cable cos. that prohibit bit shaving/compression or whatever awful things can be done to digital signals. And I know experientially that Comcast Staunton, Va. and TWC Albany, NY have great HD PQ for ESPN-HD. Not the case with D* unfortunately!


from the multichannel article posted earlier....



> On the other hand, bandwidth guarantees may be written into carriage agreements. Cable networks and broadcasters that are in a position to make such demands - including The Walt Disney Co.'s ESPN - require distributors to carry high-definition channels at about 19.4 Mbps each, according to executives at operators and equipment vendors.
> 
> That's true for ESPN. It transmits its high-definition channels at 19.3 Mbps and carriage agreements "generally require" that distributors carry the signal unaltered, according to Rebecca Gertsmark, director of communications for the sports network.


Add HBO as another "minimum bandwidth" broadcaster, and maybe D* subscribers will get better PQ in the near future - or maybe just less choices?

another old article (01/07) for fodder..
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/ar...82&article_id=2061&page_number=1&print_page=y

good thread from avsforum regarding the same subject


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> What did you find horrible about the PQ? I watched some of the game and it looked good to me. No pixilization, blocking, ect. Maybe i just caught the good scenes though.
> I really havent had much trouble with ESPN when i watch it that i can recall


There was so much edge enhancement the picture didn't really pop, but you could see the different dimensions in teh screen. It was almost as if the players that the camera was focused on gad borders around them. Shots of the Cubs uniforms were blooming, especially from the pitchers. The color just seemed weird.

And yes, saw the video dropouts and artifacting at various times.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> There was so much edge enhancement the picture didn't really pop, but you could see the different dimensions in teh screen. It was almost as if the players that the camera was focused on gad borders around them. Shots of the Cubs uniforms were blooming, especially from the pitchers. The color just seemed weird.
> 
> And yes, saw the video dropouts and artifacting at various times.


If you dont mind me asking, is the sharpness or any artificial enhancements turned on or up too high? What kind of tv are you using? Lcd, plamsa? crt? ect


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> There was so much edge enhancement the picture didn't really pop, but you could see the different dimensions in teh screen. It was almost as if the players that the camera was focused on gad borders around them. Shots of the Cubs uniforms were blooming, especially from the pitchers. The color just seemed weird.
> 
> And yes, saw the video dropouts and artifacting at various times.


Ah just saw you were in Bartlett. I lived there for a while in 2001.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> If you dont mind me asking, is the sharpness or any artificial enhancements turned on or up too high? What kind of tv are you using? Lcd, plamsa? crt? ect


I'm using a 42" Mitsuibishi WT-42A RPTV with the sharpness turned way down. I spent probably 40 hours researching, documenting, and finally calibrating my tv a few years ago. I check them every now and then to make sure they are still good. So far they are. Service menus are fun! You can see pictures in my sig.

Apparently Bartlett was placed 95th out of the top 100 places to live with populations between 7k and 50k, http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2007/snapshots/PL4703440.html

Woo-hoo! Yeah.


----------



## Sparks (Jul 11, 2007)

I just got D* because of their additional HD channels coming this fall and becasue I just hated Adelphia's (now Time Warner) service when I had it installed in our new house 2 years ago. However, I've had D* for two weeks now and am dissapointed. I had D* when it first came out and loved it. I switched to cable at the time because to get high speed internet you had to have cable service...so I switched. After watching D* for two weeks I can tell the difference in PQ. I'm technical so I usually pick up on those type of things quickly. However, my wife who is very non-technical asked me last night why the TV shows don't look as good as they did when we had cable. Only after getting on this forum and checking the D* support forums did I learn of the compression that D* uses. Hopefully the MPQG-4 compression will fix this issue. I want lots of HD channels...but not at the cost of PQ. Maybe for those that have only had D* HD, you don't know the difference. But I've watched HD for the last 2 years and am very frustrated now when I watch and see pixilation. I'm going to get an OTA antenna so I can again watch local channels without pixilation and will give D* a chance with the new MPQG-4 HD channels. People on this forum speak of HD-Lite....if that is the case then D* should let people know that before they sign up. If PQ doesn't improve with the new HD channels, I'll eat the cancellation fee (after a fight, letters to local TV consumer reporters, etc) and switch back to cable. However I do have faith that D* will get it right.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

I can't believe how many people here accept low quality HD. I hope when the new sattellite sends its signal we get high quality HD or i'll have to consider switching to verizon.


----------



## Sparks (Jul 11, 2007)

celticpride said:


> I can't believe how many people here accept low quality HD. I hope when the new sattellite sends its signal we get high quality HD or i'll have to consider switching to verizon.


I agree completely...but I guess if you've never seen the way it should be, you don't know the difference.

Also, someone on the D* Support Forum suggested that the dish needs to be realigned to fix pixilation issues. I was under the assumption that if you had a poor signal, you would get the block effect (my term) such as when you lose signal in a bad storm. If that is the case...maybe my dish needs to be realigned.


----------



## FreeBaGeL (Aug 12, 2006)

MLBurks said:


> I don't know if it's just me but I am not having HD orgasims like everyone else seems to be having. It appears that most think that EVERYTHING HAS GOT TO BE HD NOW AND IF IT ISN'T I WON'T WATCH IT!!!:lol: For me IMHO, the content is more important than the quality of picture. I grew up watching TV over rabbit ears while one stands in an awkward position with the ears while the other enjoys the program (taking turns). Sometimes Duct Tape would work for a day or two but usually not for long. With my S-Video hook up, my SD picture (in my eyes) looks good enough for me (better than I ever thought possible growing up). I probably will not go HD unless I am forced to if everything switches over (which I am sure it will as some point in the distant future).


I'm sure everyone here is very happy for you. You save a lot of money and a lot of headache by not caring about PQ and sticking to SD.

Personally, I care little about luxury cars or fast cars. But that doesn't mean I go into a forum discussing the different models of BMW cars and tell them I'm perfectly happy with my 1996 Corolla either.

I'm just wondering why in the world you saw fit to come into a thread about HD picture quality and say what amounts to "Hey guys I don't even need HD. Just thought I'd tell you!" You don't care about PQ just like I don't care about luxury cars, we get it. Obviously other people do.

Perhaps next you could head into a thread on the E* boards where they're discussing which package to order and tell them "Hey guys I don't even have E*. Just thought I'd let you know!"

Given that you have no interest in HD I'm guessing your bill and your setup are fairly cheap, so I can see where PQ would be less of a concern to you. But to some who have spent thousands on their home theater setup and pay D* a hefty bill every month, it certainly matters. What good is having a nice, expensive TV if you picture your getting from your TV provider is bottlenecking it anyway?

Further, once you get to these large digital televisions, difference in PQ are much greater. Standard def stuff looks a loooootttttttttttt (I can't stress that enough) worse on a 61" DLP than it does on a 27" plasma. Likewise, the bigger your screen gets the more you're going to notices difference in PQ even amongst things that are both "HD".

Even further, some people are just more sensitive to this kind of thing than others. I have very sensitive eyes. I can see every defect in a TV or TV technology (SSE, SDE, etc) from much further away than most people, and once I see something it bugs the heck out of me. I wish I weren't that way, but I am, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Great content is great. But you don't always have great content, and even when you do it's that much better when it's great content that also looks stunning.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

FreeBaGeL said:


> I'm sure everyone here is very happy for you. You save a lot of money and a lot of headache by not caring about PQ and sticking to SD.
> 
> Personally, I care little about luxury cars or fast cars. But that doesn't mean I go into a forum discussing the different models of BMW cars and tell them I'm perfectly happy with my 1996 Corolla either.
> 
> ...


Geez, did I hit a nerve with you or what? First of all, the title of this thread is "*ISn't Picture Quality the most important feature of DTV HD?*" So my post was an answer to that question (which was *my opinion*, not the gospel truth). Secondly, my setup is not fairly cheap as you say. I have a very nice 32" CRT TV. It's not BIG screen, but it's good enough for me. And I have a Panasonic home theater surround sound unit hooked up. So no, my setup is not cheap. It may not have cost me "thousands" but it has cost me over a thousand. Thirdly, my bill with D* is about $120 a month because I get everything except Cinamax.

So, anything else you want to complain about _FreeBaGeL_?:lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

See, HD, HD-Lite, and all such picture quality discussion nearly always end up in emotional battles. Useless to argue, it's nearly on par with arguing religion and politics.


----------



## Sparks (Jul 11, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> See, HD, HD-Lite, and all such picture quality discussion nearly always end up in emotional battles. Useless to argue, it's nearly on par with arguing religion and politics.


That appears to be true. 
I just want to find out if this could be a dish realignment problem or is this something I have to live with until the new MPEG-4 channels come out. If so, I'm just happy that I haven't had to put up with an inferior product for the last 2 years because I basically had all the HD channels that I watch that were offered by the other sat/cable companies. And to answer the thread title..*to me quality is more important than quantity*. I made the switch to D* because of the quantity of HD channels coming this fall. Had I know the current quality was inferior, I probably would have waited. But it's not a huge deal for me to add an OTA antenna for locals until I see if the new channels will solve the issue. My guess is it will and then we can argue about something else.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Sparks said:


> That appears to be true.
> I just want to find out if this could be a dish realignment problem or is this something I have to live with until the new MPEG-4 channels come out. If so, I'm just happy that I haven't had to put up with an inferior product for the last 2 years because I basically had all the HD channels that I watch that were offered by the other sat/cable companies. And to answer the thread title..*to me quality is more important than quantity*. I made the switch to D* because of the quantity of HD channels coming this fall. Had I know the current quality was inferior, I probably would have waited. But it's not a huge deal for me to add an OTA antenna for locals until I see if the new channels will solve the issue. My guess is it will and then we can argue about something else.


You will need to have your dish aligned if the audio/video is dropping out. If the video is blocking, then you are just experiencing normal D* terrible HD PQ.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Um, I gotta disagree with the terrible HD PQ comment. Some channels are terrible due to bit starving, but others, while they may not be full bore technically defined HD, do not look bad at all.

Arrgh, now I've gone and gotten myself in this again. :nono2: But, I just cannot stand by and let people use words like "terrible" with HD. Terrible is bit-starved SD - check out Superstation WGN sometime - that's terrible. Perspective, people, perspective.



mx6bfast said:


> You will need to have your dish aligned if the audio/video is dropping out. If the video is blocking, then you are just experiencing normal D* terrible HD PQ.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Um, I gotta disagree with the terrible HD PQ comment. Some channels are terrible due to bit starving, but others, while they may not be full bore technically defined HD, do not look bad at all.
> 
> Arrgh, now I've gone and gotten myself in this again. :nono2: But, I just cannot stand by and let people use words like "terrible" with HD. Terrible is bit-starved SD - check out Superstation WGN sometime - that's terrible. Perspective, people, perspective.


Here I go stepping into it also.
If anybody has constant video/audio breakup, I'd go into the setup menu and look at the transponder levels to start with. They should be close to or in the 90s for most of them.
TNT HD can be one of the worst HD channels to watch. Discovery HD or HDnet while not as good as an OTA channel, should look very good.
If the new HD channels coming in MPEG-4, look anything like my local HD MPEG-4 channels do, then while they may not meet the demands of the purest, will [do] look great on my super-duper-pooper-scooper TV.
I hope everyone can/will take a step back with their posts and realize we all have spent more than we should have for our entertainments systems and it shouldn't require a "minimum" to be a member here and posts our questions, thoughts, or opinions.


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> super-duper-pooper-scooper TV.


What's the make & model... maybe it can help my neighbor with the dog crap in his yard!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

VeniceDre said:


> What's the make & model... maybe it can help my neighbor with the dog crap in his yard!


This is the type posting we need more of in these threads. 
!rolling


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

MLBurks said:


> Geez, did I hit a nerve with you or what? First of all, the title of this thread is "*ISn't Picture Quality the most important feature of DTV HD?*" So my post was an answer to that question (which was *my opinion*, not the gospel truth). Secondly, my setup is not fairly cheap as you say. I have a very nice 32" CRT TV. It's not BIG screen, but it's good enough for me. And I have a Panasonic home theater surround sound unit hooked up. So no, my setup is not cheap. It may not have cost me "thousands" but it has cost me over a thousand. Thirdly, my bill with D* is about $120 a month because I get everything except Cinamax.
> 
> So, anything else you want to complain about _FreeBaGeL_?:lol:


You don't think $120/month for TV that is just "good enough" is too high?

The PQ may seem fine to you because your setup sounds like what D* is aiming for: middle-of-the-road users. Your setup is similar to what is in my bedroom - certainly not high end but not cheap either. And the PQ in there is "good enough". But when I move to the living room with the big HD screen, it suddenly becomes obvious where all the corners are being cut, even on HD channels.

It seems like, when I first got a D* unit, picture quality was a priority for the company. Now it's just "how many shopping channels and locals can we cram onto one satellite?" When the "why can't you carry my local channels in Bumfunk, Texas?" overtook "I want cable-beating PQ" that's when the slide started. I don't blame the folks on here for not wanting the same thing to happen to the HD channels, considering how much even a basic 'big' HD set still costs to those of us in the lower income brackets.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Servo said:


> You don't think $120/month for TV that is just "good enough" is too high?


Personally, I think $120 a month for TV is too much even if it were for absolutely perfect picture on all channels 100% of the time.

Having said that, I must also admit that I just paid my $121.26 monthly DirecTV bill.:lol:

I am very satisfied with the HD content on my local mpeg4 channels, and on some of the 70-series channels such as Discovery HD. I agree some of the other 70-series channels are not as good, and would hope (and expect) the new HD offerings via D10 will be at least as good as my locals are in HD.

Carl


----------



## Michael D'Angelo (Oct 21, 2006)

carl6 said:


> Personally, I think $120 a month for TV is too much even if it were for absolutely perfect picture on all channels 100% of the time.
> 
> Having said that, I must also admit that I just paid my $121.26 monthly DirecTV bill.:lol:
> 
> ...


$121.26 thats all?  Mine has been $192 the last few of months and I have one more to go. Normally $143 but I have had NFL Sunday Ticket on my bill the last couple of months.


----------



## MLBurks (Dec 16, 2005)

Tom Servo said:


> You don't think $120/month for TV that is just "good enough" is too high?
> 
> The PQ may seem fine to you because your setup sounds like what D* is aiming for: middle-of-the-road users. Your setup is similar to what is in my bedroom - certainly not high end but not cheap either. And the PQ in there is "good enough". But when I move to the living room with the big HD screen, it suddenly becomes obvious where all the corners are being cut, even on HD channels..


That's why the PQ looks good for me. On my SD TV, I don't have cut off corners. My full screen is being used unless the program I am watching is in widescreen format which doesn't bother me. I'm sure if I had an HD set, I would agree that PQ would be high on my list because I have seen that SD programming looks like crap on an HD set but not as bad on an SD set. Right now I just don't want to spend the extra money on an HD set when not everything is in HD. When everything does go HD, I will make the jump. For me, I just don't want to spend the extra money and then stress out that my MLB or NFL game is not in HD or that this channel or that channel is not HD. I'd rather just enjoy the program and not worry about it. I'm sure I'm in the minority and that's fine. But like I said, If I did make the jump to HD, I would be in the same camp as most people on this topic. But I don't and I'm not. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Sparks (Jul 11, 2007)

mx6bfast said:


> You will need to have your dish aligned if the audio/video is dropping out. If the video is blocking, then you are just experiencing normal D* terrible HD PQ.


Looks like I'm in the same boat as most people...having to put up with inferior PQ until the new channels come out. Next step....install OTA antenna for locals.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

HD lite, etc is still much better than SD. Let's not all act so entitled but instead understand HD roll out is a work in progress.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

Sparks said:


> Looks like I'm in the same boat as most people...having to put up with inferior PQ until the new channels come out. Next step....install OTA antenna for locals.


And sometimes local HD isn't all that good either.

Here is Memphis our 4 1080i stations multicast, one side converts to 720p, and the 2 720p's don't multicast.

And yes I deem D* HD PQ terrible. I'll even add that tag to SD. I've seen what D* can provide for HD PQ and this looks awful.

And for the record, I've noticed blocking on the D* HD local feed of my 2 720p stations when at the same point from OTA there wasn't any blocking.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

JFHughes08088 said:


> HD lite, etc is still much better than SD. Let's not all act so entitled but instead understand HD roll out is a work in progress.


HD-Lite is better than SD is a true statement, but it sounds like you are conceding real HD. I'm sure D* would be happy with that statement. HD has been around for a while, D* has had it for at least 4 1/2 years. I'm fairly certain they know what they are doing.


----------



## Sparks (Jul 11, 2007)

JFHughes08088 said:


> HD lite, etc is still much better than SD. Let's not all act so entitled but instead understand HD roll out is a work in progress.


If I wanted HDLite, then that's what I would have signed up for. This is what is on their website:

"The future of television has arrived. DIRECTV brings you our new HD DVR, soon with the capacity to offer 150 HD channels, that's three times more than cable. Images are sharper. Sound is crisper."

Images are not sharper. That is a fact. And I don't know why so many people accept that. HD PQ is not a work in progress.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sparks said:


> Images are not sharper.


Yes, they are sharper than SD.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

The worse Lite HD image is much sharper and cleaner than the best SD image.


----------



## Sparks (Jul 11, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Yes, they are sharper than SD.


And that's the same type of deceptive advertising that has some of the bottled water companies getting their spinmeisters working.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sparks said:


> And that's the same type of deceptive advertising that has some of the bottled water companies getting their spinmeisters working.


How is it deceptive at all?


----------



## Sparks (Jul 11, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> How is it deceptive at all?


The inference is that they are comparing to cable from the previous statment.

Anyway, as someone mentioned below, this is an emotional issue and it wasn't my intend to get emotional..but I have. One of my biggest pet peeve is people not doing things right and that's what it looks like D* has done. Hopefully the MPEG-4 channels will resolve this. No one is forcing people to stay with D* and I sure wouldn't if this was 2 years ago when I first got HD. If it doesn't get better with the new HD rollout, then I'm back to cable.

I do appreciate the help and information or education this thread has provided.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sparks said:


> The inference is that they are comparing to cable from the previous statment.


I can see how it could be confusing, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're deliberately trying to be misleading.


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Yes, they are sharper than SD.


Sharper than D*'s current SD offerings? Yes.

Sharper than D*'s channels pre-locals? No practical difference.

All one needs to compare is an upconverted SD picture on ESPN versus ESPN-HD, where it is pillarboxed. The HD upconvert can't look any better than the original picture, yet it is light years above the ESPN SD feed on DirecTV. That alone should be telling people what they are missing, SD wise...

I guess no one will notice a difference on the HD channels until they see something better (FiOS, BluRay/HD-DVD, etc.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I think this will shine some light on all of this:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=94277


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

loudo said:


> The worse Lite HD image is much sharper and cleaner than the best SD image.


I have to disagree.

I have seen MLB on ESPN thru D* that I thought looked worse than shows like So You Think You Can Dance and Hell's Kitchen.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

If you look at the thread VOS references, you can see cold, hard numbers. 480 x480 cannot look better than 1280x720 or 1280x1080 unless your viewing set is limited to 480x480 itself - there are simply not enough pixels. This is especially true when you get into large sets, 50" and up.



mx6bfast said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> I have seen MLB on ESPN thru D* that I thought looked worse than shows like So You Think You Can Dance and Hell's Kitchen.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

Opinions vary. I have a hard time agreeing that a 720P, 1080P, or 1080I looks worse than 480P. Take a look at this link http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5137915-1.html. It talks about the different factors affecting picture quality. On a very large TV (mine is 65 Inch 16:9), I can tell a difference between 720 and 1080 but on my smaller one (53 inch 4:3), its a lot harder. If I have to really look close to tell the difference, I'm just nit picking.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

mx6bfast said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> I have seen MLB on ESPN thru D* that I thought looked worse than shows like So You Think You Can Dance and Hell's Kitchen.


MLB, on ESPN HD, looks good on my TV, it looks a lot better than any SD channel that I get from D*. If you have SD channels that looks cleaner and sharper than HD channels, you better get your TV checked, there must be something wrong with it.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

JFHughes08088 said:


> Opinions vary. I have a hard time agreeing that a 720P, 1080P, or 1080I looks worse than 480P.


My TV set shows D*s SD channels aas 480i, not 480p.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

My point was 480 vs. 720 an 1080, not whether it's i or p. Also, the correct callibration of the TV, etc.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

If it starts out crappy, it's going to look that way, no matter what resolution/bit rate it is sent to the viewer.
I can see how an ESPN [720p] show could look like crap and a network SD show might look better, but it isn't an issue of HD, HD-Lite, SD, but the fact that the source material is that bad or good.
True comparison needs to be done with the same source material, to mean anything. IMO
I would guess the poor ESPN HD program would have looked as bad in SD too, compared to the other SD program(s).


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> If it starts out crappy, it's going to look that way, no matter what resolution/bit rate it is sent to the viewer.
> I can see how an ESPN [720p] show could look like crap and a network SD show might look better, but it isn't an issue of HD, HD-Lite, SD, but the fact that the source material is that bad or good.
> True comparison needs to be done with the same source material, to mean anything. IMO
> I would guess the poor ESPN HD program would have looked as bad in SD too, compared to the other SD program(s).


I can see your point VOS, although I have never, even on the worst bit starved days out there, actually seen one of D* HD channels, then swapped to a SD channel and said, wow that looks better. Of course im talking about different shows. Obviously the sd version will pale compared to the HD of the same channel


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> I can see your point VOS, although I have never, even on the worst bit starved days out there, actually seen one of D* HD channels, then swapped to a SD channel and said, wow that looks better. Of course im talking about different shows. Obviously the sd version will pale compared to the HD of the same channel


This whole topic seems to push people's "buttons". Without pushing them any farther, I'm just trying to give some perspective to some of the postings.
"Should" SD look better than HD? Of course not. "Can" SD look better than another show in HD? Well yes, as I've seen some horrible HD programs where the broadcaster had their heads up somewhere they shouldn't have.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> This whole topic seems to push people's "buttons". Without pushing them any farther, I'm just trying to give some perspective to some of the postings.
> "Should" SD look better than HD? Of course not. "Can" SD look better than another show in HD? Well yes, as I've seen some horrible HD programs where the broadcaster had their heads up somewhere they shouldn't have.


where.....lol

I got ya, hope mine didnt come across as having my buttons pushed. Ive just never personally seen it on my set up. I guess anything is possible


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

msmith198025 said:


> where.....lol
> I got ya, hope mine didnt come across as having my buttons pushed. Ive just never personally seen it on my set up. I guess anything is possible


!rolling
Not at all [pushing buttons], there is some good info in the thread I linked & hopefully facts can come into the discussion to help everyone understand.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> !rolling
> Not at all [pushing buttons], there is some good info in the thread I linked & hopefully facts can come into the discussion to help everyone understand.


yeah i glanced at the thread. and will take a better look later. looked like some good info.
Alot of people it seems get hung up on the Resolution aspect of PQ though when that is actually, according to several sources, closer to the bottom of the list in importance. I admit to not being as inclined when it comes to the really really technical aspects though.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

loudo said:


> The worse Lite HD image is much sharper and cleaner than the best SD image.


Hogwash!


----------



## donshan (Jun 18, 2007)

I am a newbie on this forum, but have been actively seeking HDTV since I bought my first Toshiba 65 in HDTV in 1999. I would like to add some perspective representing those millions of people in small TV markets who can't get HDTV programming of any quality because it isn't available.

I can state unequivocally that access to HDTV signals is the most important factor. If you don't have HD signals and programs available in your area, you are screwed regardless of your HDTV set quality, your cable company, your satellite company or OTA.


Those fortunate to live in the top 30 DMA markets have a bunch of choices for HD programming services, and I can understand the discussion here about which has the best PQ. Even those in the top 100 DMA markets now are getting a pretty good selection of HD programming. Be thankful for what you receive. A lot of people in the small DMA markets from 101 to 210 are still waiting for any HD at all, and the new D* HD channels will be great for them. 

I had to wait until 2006 for our local digital OTA stations to convert their SD digital signals to HD. Our Charter Cable had zero HD content until 2005 and still only has 10- channels in their HD tier ( including three networks plus PBS but no FOX HD).

So I have enjoyed D* HDTV offerings enormously for years, since it has been the only HD in my DMA market until recently, and only E* has provided any HD competition. Finally, a month ago FOX went HD locally and now I get all four networks and PBS via antenna, but won't get the D* HD locals until D11 goes operational. I will then get to compare my OTA to D* sometime in 2008, but I am not expecting any speedy D* HD locals , since the HD uplinks to D* from our local stations may delay things further. 

The new D* HD expansion program looks great to me compared with our Charter cable with only 10 channels and I am eager for D10 to light up.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Well, as aptly named "harsh" so tactfully and elegantly drives home, this subject is as emotional as it is technical. I learn my lesson to stay out of these discussion once again. When will I ever retain this learning ?


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

loudo said:


> The worse Lite HD image is much sharper and cleaner than the best SD image.


That may be true for a static image but certainly is not true for any movement on the screen. I'd rather watch a football game on SD than watch one that is so bit starved that, not only is the resolution degraded, but there is motion artifacting all over the screen because of compression.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

raott said:


> That may be true for a static image but certainly is not true for any movement on the screen. I'd rather watch a football game on SD than watch one that is so bit starved that, not only is the resolution degraded, but there is motion artifacting all over the screen because of compression.


While it is true that the picture quality may degrade with bit starving, i doubt it alters the resolution any. And bit starving effects SD content in the same way.


----------



## chopperjc (Oct 2, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Well, as aptly named "harsh" so tactfully and elegantly drives home, this subject is as emotional as it is technical. I learn my lesson to stay out of these discussion once again. When will I ever retain this learning ?


No evidence to suggest.........


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> While it is true that the picture quality may degrade with bit starving, i doubt it alters the resolution any. And bit starving effects SD content in the same way.


Huh? It's been shown over and over, that a portion of the bandwidth savings is being accomplished by lowering the resolution on MPEG2. Going as low as 1280x1080.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

raott said:


> Huh? It's been shown over and over, that a portion of the bandwidth savings is being accomplished by lowering the resolution on MPEG2. Going as low as 1280x1080.


That i understand, but cutting the resolution is just one of the methods that they use to be able to transmit more . Bit starving is another. By my understanding they are two totally different things. Lowering the bit rate doesnt lower the resolution. am i off here?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

msmith198025 said:


> While it is true that the picture quality may degrade with bit starving, i doubt it alters the resolution any. And bit starving effects SD content in the same way.


Resolution in the TV sense* suffers horribly due to bit starving. It also suffers with scaling. The application of both is probably somewhere between additive and multiplicative.

*Resolution is measured by the largest number of vertical lines that can be stacked on a horizonal scan line just before they can no longer be seen as distinct lines.

Here's a more detailed discussion TV7 & Video resolution


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

harsh said:


> Resolution in the TV sense* suffers horribly due to bit starving. It also suffers with scaling. The application of both is probably somewhere between additive and multiplicative.
> 
> *Resolution is measured by the largest number of vertical lines that can be stacked on a horizonal scan line just before they can no longer be seen as distinct lines.
> 
> Here's a more detailed discussion TV7 & Video resolution


again i think people are confusing resolution with pq. you can send a full hd signal of 1920X1080 out at a low bit rate and look crappy, true enough, or you can send a "hd lite" signal out at a high bit rate and get a pretty good picture. 
A lower bit rate doesnt have to equate to a low resolution is the point i was trying to make. The poster said that bit starving lowered or degraded the resolution. Maybe he meant picture quality or i just misread him. Ill check out your link now


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

msmith198025 said:


> again i think people are confusing resolution with pq. you can send a full hd signal of 1920X1080 out at a low bit rate and look crappy, true enough, or you can send a "hd lite" signal out at a high bit rate and get a pretty good picture.
> A lower bit rate doesnt have to equate to a low resolution is the point i was trying to make. The poster said that bit starving lowered or degraded the resolution. Maybe he meant picture quality or i just misread him. Ill check out your link now


We are saying the same thing, I wasn't clear when I wrote it.

My point was, with HD-Lite in its present form (meaning both reduced resolution and low bit rates) - there are times (not always or even often) where I would rather watch an SD picture.

For me an HD-Lite picture, especially in sports, is not always better than a SD picture factoring in both reduced resolution and motion artifacting.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

raott said:


> We are saying the same thing, I wasn't clear when I wrote it.
> 
> My point was, with HD-Lite in its present form (meaning both reduced resolution and low bit rates) - there are times (not always or even often) where I would rather watch an SD picture.
> 
> For me an HD-Lite picture, especially in sports, is not always better than a SD picture factoring in both reduced resolution and motion artifacting.


ok glad we got it cleared up.

And i will agree with you to the point that there are times when they do both it doesnt look as good as id like, but i still want the HD verson.
To each his own


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

BMoreRavens said:


> $121.26 thats all?  Mine has been $192 the last few of months and I have one more to go. Normally $143 but I have had NFL Sunday Ticket on my bill the last couple of months.


Mine's $166 while I pay for the "Ticket"


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

I'm the guy who started this thread and it has answered many of my questions about HDTV PQ on D*. I'd like to suggest one more thing to help us with what you are seeing/happy with/unhappy with. It will still be subjective of course, and is directed toward those concerned with PQ b ut it should be better.

Instead of saying "I am happy with my HD picture", "my HD PQ is good enough for me", etc, how about trying to use a scale of 1-10 with 10 meaning it's "like looking out my picture window", and 1 meaning "I can't see anything" Maybe that way we'd know how to better guage your PQ. Especially those who see/have seen a good cable HD picture and can compare it to D*'s PQ.

From all my reading here, and on other forums, and it's been extensive, I'm of the feeling that D*'s HD PQ is about a 7-8 compared to a full bit rate, non-compressed (by thecable/satellite provider) 1920x1080 HD picture.

The PQ on my Sony 61" HD TV from Brighthouse Network is a 9-10, almost like looking out a window. To shortcircuit any *****es, I am seriously thinking about switching to D* because of the new HD channels coming, foresaking my excellent PQ.

Please contribute your PQ with D* or cable, or both. Thanks.


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Id say for me with D* average around 7-8. i have seen it crystal clear before, but thats my average. Still great!
Worst ive seen was the Hall of Fame game the other night, i give that a 5. It was horrible.

Edit: for my scale, Blu-ray/hd-dvd is 10, OTA is 9.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

My "10" reference would be OTA local HD.
My D* local MPEG-4 would be 9
Local cable a 5
Looking out my window here, in the Sierra Nevada mountains, would be like Discovery HD or PBS DT-HD, due to content.


----------



## man_rob (Feb 21, 2007)

I'd say for the most part D* is a 8 or 9, compared to OTA signal as a 10. Locally, Comcast is really, _really_ bad, about a 4 or 5, and they are years away from even being close to D* in terms of HD programming starting in Sept.

If Comcast offered a better product, I'd definitely consider it. Right now, it's over priced, and it under-delivers. Maybe when FiOS makes it to my area, I'll reconsider.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> If you look at the thread VOS references, you can see cold, hard numbers. 480 x480 cannot look better than 1280x720 or 1280x1080 unless your viewing set is limited to 480x480 itself - there are simply not enough pixels. This is especially true when you get into large sets, 50" and up.


I have a 42" RPTV HDTV. I realize based on numbers it doesn't make sense. But I promise it did. I don't purposely say stuff to make it up. 



loudo said:


> MLB, on ESPN HD, looks good on my TV, it looks a lot better than any SD channel that I get from D*. If you have SD channels that looks cleaner and sharper than HD channels, you better get your TV checked, there must be something wrong with it.


My TV is fine. If it was messed up wouldn't those shows I mention look bad also? I check the calibration via service menus as needed. At the time it didn't need it. I'm not talking about all games, I've seen a handful that didn't look good to me.

VOS answered the question.



veryoldschool said:


> If it starts out crappy, it's going to look that way, no matter what resolution/bit rate it is sent to the viewer.
> I can see how an ESPN [720p] show could look like crap and a network SD show might look better, but it isn't an issue of HD, HD-Lite, SD, but the fact that the source material is that bad or good.
> True comparison needs to be done with the same source material, to mean anything. IMO
> I would guess the poor ESPN HD program would have looked as bad in SD too, compared to the other SD program(s).


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

I can't speak for any distribution format other than D*. I will admit there is a difference between, say, Discovery HD and TNT HD. In every D* program, the worst HD is still better than the best SD. If someone can suggest otherwise, I'm all ears.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

mx6bfast said:


> I have to disagree.
> 
> I have seen MLB on ESPN thru D* that I thought looked worse than shows like So You Think You Can Dance and Hell's Kitchen.


I don't mean to quote myself, but if anyone does not agree with this statement put it on ESPN2HD for the MLS game. From wide shots the players have very little detail on them at all.


----------



## loudo (Mar 24, 2005)

mx6bfast said:


> I don't mean to quote myself, but if anyone does not agree with this statement put it on ESPN2HD for the MLS game. From wide shots the players have very little detail on them at all.


Then turn on ESPN2 SD (Channel 209) and they are blurry, ten times worse.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JFHughes08088 said:


> I can't speak for any distribution format other than D*. I will admit there is a difference between, say, Discovery HD and TNT HD. In every D* program, the worst HD is still better than the best SD. If someone can suggest otherwise, I'm all ears.


TNT-HD is known for the stretch-o-vision or worst the variable stretch that drives me crazy as thing change size as they move from the sides to the center of the screen and then back to the side. Just drives me nuts.
Compare this to a new season of Discovery Mythbusters in letterbox [which I can zoom/crop to full screen image]. While one is SD [Mythbusters] and the other is HD [SD upconverted], the Mythbusters looks good, and the TNT looks bad.
Not every SD looks this good & not every HD looks this bad.
You don't have to be "all ears" to see this.
Again, I think the source material has everything to do with this. Even SD with good source can look "not bad" while HD can look bad with a poor source. As they say: YMMV


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

loudo said:


> Then turn on ESPN2 SD (Channel 209) and they are blurry, ten times worse.


Why would I do that? ESPN2 isn't the best SD PQ.


----------



## Bizarroterl (Oct 20, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> TNT-HD is known for the stretch-o-vision or worst the variable stretch that drives me crazy as thing change size as they move from the sides to the center of the screen and then back to the side. Just drives me nuts.
> Compare this to a new season of Discovery Mythbusters in letterbox [which I can zoom/crop to full screen image]. While one is SD [Mythbusters] and the other is HD [SD upconverted], the Mythbusters looks good, and the TNT looks bad.
> Not every SD looks this good & not every HD looks this bad.
> You don't have to be "all ears" to see this.
> Again, I think the source material has everything to do with this. Even SD with good source can look "not bad" while HD can look bad with a poor source. As they say: YMMV


I agree. I got so tired of trying to catch something that is HD sourced on TNTHD I gave up and removed it from my favorites. The SD TNT is clearly superior because the picture isn't stretched/distorted/cropped to fit into a 16*9 format.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Gotta agree about TNT-HD. One looks at it and wonders "why?" I hope they have bigger plans for it.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

I still have not seen a "good" SD look better than a "bad" HD. I have seen a bad HD look worse than a good HD, but that is to be expected.


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

JeffBowser said:


> Gotta agree about TNT-HD. One looks at it and wonders "why?" I hope they have bigger plans for it.


(Unsubstantiated rumor mill grinding...) I thought I read on here that the guy who makes the decision at TNT about how their HD is done is one of those "I have an HDTV and I want the entire screen used" people. I certainly hope that's NOT the case. But I totally agree that stretch-o-vision and whatever other picture-distorting conversion process you want to use just isn't right - it's not necessarily HD because it's 16:9.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JLucPicard said:


> I thought I read on here that the guy who makes the decision at TNT about how their HD is done is one of those "I have an HDTV and I want the entire screen used" people.


You did [as I did] and it does seem to be their intent as I've never seen anything that doesn't fill the screen on this channel, and most of the time it is a distorted image used to fill the screen. Whoever gave the "command", surely has never watched the channel.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Whoever gave the "command", surely has never watched the channel.


On the contrary, he's probably overjoyed with TNT-HD. He probably watches other HD channels and cries because the sides of his TV are going to waste.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> On the contrary, he's probably overjoyed with TNT-HD. He probably watches other HD channels and cries because the sides of his TV are going to waste.


Watching other channels isn't quite the same as getting motion sickness watchings "his".


----------



## DawgLink (Nov 5, 2006)

TNTHD golf for the British Open/PGA Championship isn't TOO BAD

Not great but not terrible either


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

yeah i wouldnt paint the whole channel as bad, they do some things very well. The majority of it is watchable, small parts are great and small parts are pretty bad as stated here. Id still rather watch what little of TNT i watch on the hd version. Of course when there is more hd available on the other channels I may change my tune


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

funhouse69 said:


> I've been with D* for a very long time and I think that for me there is a balance. I most certainly do want the best possible picture quality possible but would also like a selection of channels providing good HD content.
> 
> That said take a look at the summer line up of all 3 National Stations (ABC, CBS & NBC) they have so little HD Programming on it almost doesn't matter that the stations are in HD.
> 
> ...


Interesting. My SD PQ is so good I have a hard time believing how good it is. Perhaps the difference is in the TVs? All three of my Panasonic plasmas put out SD better than a CRT. A couple of people have mentioned Panasonic's upscaling ability on the posts. Doesn't mention it in the manual, but... Maybe Sony's don't upscale. I'm really amazed at the PQ the Panasonics put out. I just got rid of a 40" Sony CRT HD that I thought put out a pretty good picture, but the Panny's are much better. I still have a 36" CRT HD Sony and comparing the SD picture to a 50" plasma is easily accomplished by standing in a particular spot. The Panasonic is much clearer. Never had much luck with Panasonic products, but...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Interesting. My SD PQ is so good I have a hard time believing how good it is. Perhaps the difference is in the TVs? All three of my Panasonic plasmas put out SD better than a CRT. A couple of people have mentioned Panasonic's upscaling ability on the posts. Doesn't mention it in the manual, but... Maybe Sony's don't upscale. I'm really amazed at the PQ the Panasonics put out. I just got rid of a 40" Sony CRT HD that I thought put out a pretty good picture, but the Panny's are much better. I still have a 36" CRT HD Sony and comparing the SD picture to a 50" plasma is easily accomplished by standing in a particular spot. The Panasonic is much clearer. Never had much luck with Panasonic products, but...


There must be good and not so good from every maker.
I have a [great] Sony flat panel LCD. One member posted about how his was crap on SD & I posted how well mine is. Well looking at his on the Sony site, showed everything was the same but the price and that mine had the "pro" [pooper-scooper] scaler & his didn't. If his had been out when I bought mine, I'd have bought his model instead.
There is just so much "stuff" in TVs these days to make some look better and others to look like a better price. Of course the guy's in the blue vests are no help either.


----------



## JFHughes08088 (Mar 24, 2007)

Judge with your own eyes. In the end, thats the only thing that counts


----------



## Impala1ss (Jul 22, 2007)

I'm not much of football fan but last night I watched some of the Bills' game just to see how the PQ was. I was very impressed by the PQ for about 45 minutes that I watched.Colors were outstanding and the picture was razor sharp.The Bills' helmets were the best visual on the program, beautiful blues and reds. You could even see the individual stadium lights reflecting off the Bills' helmets. Grass was clear and individual blades could be seen. There was absolutely NO pixilation, macroblocking, bluriness, etc. Just excellent PQ. This is the way HD is meant to be seen :hurah: - not HD-Lite. :nono2:


----------



## msmith198025 (Jun 28, 2007)

Impala1ss said:


> I'm not much of football fan but last night I watched some of the Bills' game just to see how the PQ was. I was very impressed by the PQ for about 45 minutes that I watched.Colors were outstanding and the picture was razor sharp.The Bills' helmets were the best visual on the program, beautiful blues and reds. You could even see the individual stadium lights reflecting off the Bills' helmets. Grass was clear and individual blades could be seen. There was absolutely NO pixilation, macroblocking, bluriness, etc. Just excellent PQ. This is the way HD is meant to be seen :hurah: - not HD-Lite. :nono2:


Agree!
That game and the Saints game were GREAT as far as PQ is concerned anyway...lol
Thats how it should be done, and i hope it is what we have to look forward to!


----------



## donshan (Jun 18, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Interesting. My SD PQ is so good I have a hard time believing how good it is. Perhaps the difference is in the TVs? All three of my Panasonic plasmas put out SD better than a CRT. A couple of people have mentioned Panasonic's upscaling ability on the posts. Doesn't mention it in the manual, but... Maybe Sony's don't upscale. I'm really amazed at the PQ the Panasonics put out. I just got rid of a 40" Sony CRT HD that I thought put out a pretty good picture, but the Panny's are much better. I still have a 36" CRT HD Sony and comparing the SD picture to a 50" plasma is easily accomplished by standing in a particular spot. The Panasonic is much clearer. Never had much luck with Panasonic products, but...


I just upgraded from the very first 1999 Toshiba rear projection HDTV model with 3 CRT guns to a new Sony 1080P KDS-60A2020 rear projection with the SXRD light projection. While the HD performance improved greatly vs. the 8 year old Toshiba, the improvement in the SD quality was even more of an improvement. So both the display type and the scaler are important. It is hard to find this out while shopping since store displays usually only show you the HD channels and it is hard to compare how they will do upscaling SD content. I had the opportunity to help a friend install the Sony KDS 60A2000 last year and was impressed then, especially the black/gray scale and shadow detail.

Each HDTV seems to be optimized for its HD picture, but when you feed 480 (i or p) signal in the internal up-scaler quality becomes very important to convert that to the native display resolution. From what I have read some sets do up-scaling well and others do it poorly, possibly even within the same brand from model to model. This new Sony also has a cable tuner in it too, and the PQ of our rather poor analog cable channels improved greatly too to an amazing degree vs the old Toshiba which had a built in line doubling that I thought was great in 1999, but not nearly as good as the new Sony..

We also upgraded an old TV in our bedroom to a small Toshiba LCD HDTV, and it does not scale the SD channels nearly as well as the big Sony.

This scaler issue is also one reason a good upscaling DVD player connected by HDMI is usually superior in PQ because they bypass the scaler in the HDTV.

Edit: I am getting HD/SD content OTA off antenna plus D* HR20-700 for HD and SD channels and still have analog cable. All are better on the Sony. We keep cable because they have several local channels not carried by D* plus a Northwest regional news channel and local TWC. However our local cable only has 10 HD channels so it is no contest vs D* on HD content or HD quality.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> There must be good and not so good from every maker.
> I have a [great] Sony flat panel LCD. One member posted about how his was crap on SD & I posted how well mine is. Well looking at his on the Sony site, showed everything was the same but the price and that mine had the "pro" [pooper-scooper] scaler & his didn't. If his had been out when I bought mine, I'd have bought his model instead.
> There is just so much "stuff" in TVs these days to make some look better and others to look like a better price. Of course the guy's in the blue vests are no help either.


My three Panny plasmas are all different models and the SD picture is good on all of them. Guess I just got lucky for a change. Did you see where Panasonic has announced it's new 1080p plasma will last 42 years? How could they possibly know that? I either saw that claim on CNet or Swanni's report (which is getting pretty boring, don't you think?)

The most interesting claim I have read recently is that D* expects the price of the HR20 to fall to $99. Pretty soon too. And the H20 is going to be $50 cheaper for a while and then get even cheaper. Again either CNet or Swanni. Must have been CNet since Swanni's reports have pretty much degenerated to restatements of CNet's articles.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> There must be good and not so good from every maker.
> I have a [great] Sony flat panel LCD. One member posted about how his was crap on SD & I posted how well mine is. Well looking at his on the Sony site, showed everything was the same but the price and that mine had the "pro" [pooper-scooper] scaler & his didn't. If his had been out when I bought mine, I'd have bought his model instead.
> There is just so much "stuff" in TVs these days to make some look better and others to look like a better price. Of course the guy's in the blue vests are no help either.


You don't have any SD TiVos?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> You don't have any SD TiVos?


No TiVos at all and I want some of whatever either CNet or Swanni is smoking, cause it must be some good stuff. :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> No TiVos at all and I want some of whatever either CNet or Swanni is smoking, cause it must be some good stuff. :lol:


Did you get the two links I sent you? Here's the one on the price of the HR20:

http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvhd080907.htm

It is on the second page of the report.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Did you get the two links I sent you? Here's the one on the price of the HR20:
> 
> http://www.tvpredictions.com/directvhd080907.htm
> 
> It is on the second page of the report.


Now one must wonder when the HR-20 has been out only since Aug 06 and their numbers are based on 2 quarter last year, what the numbers would have been with local HD channels if they had been in MPEG-2, for the HR-10-250.
It seems more that the "numbers" are used to project something, but not to explain the reasons why [IMO].
If the channels are there, then the people will "buy" the [only] equipment to receive them.
If there were the channels last year, in MPEG-2, then the HR10-250 would have sold better.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Now one must wonder when the HR-20 has been out only since Aug 06 and their numbers are based on 2 quarter last year, what the numbers would have been with local HD channels if they had been in MPEG-2, for the HR-10-250.
> It seems more that the "numbers" are used to project something, but not to explain the reasons why [IMO].
> If the channels are there, then the people will "buy" the [only] equipment to receive them.
> If there were the channels last year, in MPEG-2, then the HR10-250 would have sold better.


Do you think D* wanted the TiVo to succeed? I don't understand why the TiVo people don't make an HD TiVo that can receive MPEG-4 and allow use of an eSATA. Costco is selling the HR20-700s for $269 (or thereabouts) and that article I sent you is the second one I have seen projecting the price by the end of the year to be around $100. That's a really large reduction in price and will probably drive the present HD TiVo into retail extinction. I almost bought 2 more HR20s a couple of weeks ago and now I'm going to wait. I can buy another eSATA with the difference in price.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Now one must wonder when the HR-20 has been out only since Aug 06 and their numbers are based on 2 quarter last year, what the numbers would have been with local HD channels if they had been in MPEG-2, for the HR-10-250.
> It seems more that the "numbers" are used to project something, but not to explain the reasons why [IMO].
> If the channels are there, then the people will "buy" the [only] equipment to receive them.
> If there were the channels last year, in MPEG-2, then the HR10-250 would have sold better.


They based those "numbers" on the second quarter of this year. April, May and June, 2007.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> They based those "numbers" on the second quarter of this year. April, May and June, 2007.


This year's numbers compared to last year's numbers [was my point if I read it correctly].
Now if they were fourth quarter numbers, then it would seem to be more "apples to apples". 
And it would "drop" $100 from today's price [but not to $100], so maybe Costco can sell [the lease] for $168.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> This year's numbers compared to last year's numbers [was my point if I read it correctly].
> Now if they were fourth quarter numbers, then it would seem to be more "apples to apples".
> And it would "drop" $100 from today's price [but not to $100], so maybe Costco can sell [the lease] for $168.


I reread that release and you are correct about the price. The first release, the one I can't find, had the price set at $99. In any event, it looks like the price will go down and will be worth waiting for. Hope it's $99, I do love bargains.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I reread that release and you are correct about the price. The first release, the one I can't find, had the price set at $99. In any event, it looks like the price will go down and will be worth waiting for. Hope it's $99, I do love bargains.


Fred says "more baseballs". :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Fred says "more baseballs". :lol:


Been raining for two days. If this continues tomorrow I will never make it. NJ in August, priceless.


----------

