# How good is E*'s HD PQ with the new channels?



## purtman (Sep 19, 2006)

How good is E*'s HD picture quality now that it has added new channels? I'd appreciate any feedback, especially from those who have seen both E* and D* lately.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

They are pretty good, I think E* has been making progress with their Mpeg4 encoders and the picture quality has seemingly steadily improved over the last year, despite the fact they are cramming more channels on each transponder.

I still think D* has a slight edge in picture quality though. E* still has a bit more motion artifacts and breakup during fast movement, which is pretty much non-existent with D* from what I have seen, but it has been reduced greatly from where it was a few months ago where ANY motion would cause it.


----------



## Bobby H (Mar 23, 2008)

PQ seems to vary from channel to channel. It's certainly a lot better than SD, but it isn't "Blu-ray Quality" either.

My HBO channels seem to look better than some of the other national network channels. I haven't noticed any downgrade in image quality in the last two days since the extra channels were added.

Fast motion seems to be the big hangup on image quality. I see less macro-blocking and banding on the premium channels versus other channels, such as Animal PlanetHD.

Hopefully, as E* adds more satellites and replaces older satellites we'll see PQ continue to improve. I think we'll also see a lot of those old SD channels go bye bye within a couple years after the February 2009 switch to 100% DTV broadcasting. There's a good chance E* will start starving them for bits (like I see with my SD local channels) and then they'll just get removed once enough people own HD-capable TVs.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

I think E*'s HD PQ is better than D*'s, although not by much.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

grooves12 said:


> They are pretty good, I think E* has been making progress with their Mpeg4 encoders and the picture quality has seemingly steadily improved over the last year, despite the fact they are cramming more channels on each transponder.
> 
> I still think D* has a slight edge in picture quality though. E* still has a bit more motion artifacts and breakup during fast movement, which is pretty much non-existent with D* from what I have seen, but it has been reduced greatly from where it was a few months ago where ANY motion would cause it.


I don't know if HBO followed through, but at one time they said they were going to do the mpeg4 encoding for there HD channels and require those carrying to send it through unchanged. At about 8 Mbps I think they said.


----------



## grooves12 (Oct 27, 2005)

tnsprin said:


> I don't know if HBO followed through, but at one time they said they were going to do the mpeg4 encoding for there HD channels and require those carrying to send it through unchanged. At about 8 Mbps I think they said.


I don't know if that is the case, but I have noticed premium channels to have distinctly better picture quality than the "normal" channels.

It is most noticeable on the SD versions... I think the HD versions it is mostly because the type of programming on the premium channels usually does not involve much fast movement, but it could be better encoding/bandwidth.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

grooves12 said:


> I don't know if that is the case, but I have noticed premium channels to have distinctly better picture quality than the "normal" channels.
> 
> It is most noticeable on the SD versions... I think the HD versions it is mostly because the type of programming on the premium channels usually does not involve much fast movement, but it could be better encoding/bandwidth.


Note HBO Technical Operations page
http://www.homeboxoffice.com/cmp/index_ato.shtml

Apparently they are being very specific on how their feeds can be handled.

I find lots of references on other sites about them requiring minimum handling of their signal at about 8 Mbps, but nothing specific on their site.
e.g
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/06/22/hbo-to-use-mpeg-4-and-mandate-a-minimum-bit-rate/


----------



## tcatdbs (Jul 10, 2008)

I think PQ is great on all. I switched from TWC a week a go, and all Dish HD much more consistent from channel to channel, and it's worst channel is about equal to TWC's best channel (worst being CBS College sports, best being any of the premiums). Never had Direct.

The bad thing about the great PQ is I'm watching 3X more TV... probably not a good thing.


----------



## clyde sauls (Nov 16, 2007)

I did notice the pq on dish seems to have improved . Especially on Wgn hd.The new channels seems to need some adjustments. Especially Cbs sports.I am sure they probably will be in the next few days or wks. Also on this 1080p can your eyes tell the difference between 1080p and 1080i?


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

I did not get my HD upgrade until 8-2-08 so I can not tell you a before and after but, I see my best PQ on HDNet, HDTheater, and the STARZ channels.


----------



## kucharsk (Sep 20, 2006)

tcatdbs said:


> I think PQ is great on all.


Depends on what you're used to; they're still softer than what is put up for their use as E* still recompresses them at reduced resolution.


----------



## aloishus27 (Aug 8, 2006)

I can't whether or not what I am experiencing has anything to do with the added channels because I never watch Universal HD, but this weekend I did, And I must say the PQ while watching the Olympic trials for the men's an 10M diving competition was so bad that I had to turn it off. the macro-blocking was so awful that it actually hurt my eyes. 

I then turned on the X-Games on ABC and that was much better. My ABC was also a satellite feed and not from OTA.

So like I said I am not sure if Universal HD is always that bad or what, but I was not very happy about it.


----------



## ICBM99 (Apr 4, 2007)

I haven't watched any of the trials on UniversalHD, but the PQ for me has always been above average. I watched 2001:A Space Odyssey, that I had DVR'd and thought it was great. But of course thats my opinion.


----------



## bnewt (Oct 2, 2003)

I noticed yesterday that the quality on HDNet from Direct wasn't very good either


----------

