# PQ, Has it Really Changed?



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

It's the time of the year for us to watch all the shows we've saved from the ending season and I gotta say, so far, I don't see any fall off or degradation of PQ on our recorded content. Yeah, it's not as good as NF's Super HD, but what is? Doesn't seem fair to compare them.

I watched _Black Sails_ last week and the PQ was fine. We almost finished _Rosemary's Baby_ last night and the PQ on that was more than acceptable. Pretty good show, so far. They really managed to pull off a good show even tho everyone knows what's gonna happen.

The Yankees' games look really good on YES, worse on My9 and Fox and ESPN, but only YES is in 1080i and I can cope with a few games that aren't quite as good as YES gives us.

I have to admit I really haven't watched much content from D* for a few months and I'm wondering what everyone was complaining about concerning the PQ.

Rich


----------



## Stevies3 (Jul 22, 2004)

Jimmy Fallon (tonight Show) looks awesome on my tv, much better than with Leno. My guess is that they have new equipment (cameras) with Fallon's new setup here in NY. Overall I think Directv's picture quality is very good. 


Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I think it looks great. I think they recently improved it.


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

CraigerM said:


> I think it looks great. I think they recently improved it.


I agree. This has come up several times on this and the other site recently but the Fanboys will dismiss it.


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

I have to say I've been pretty disappointed in what I've seen lately; I just got a new projector a couple months ago so maybe I'm looking more critically. 

I don't watch most of the normal channels though. Watching the Americans on FX last week, I was kind of shocked how blocky the picture was.

And I watch a lot of nature programming; god forbid a flock of birds takes off--the whole 100" screen becomes a mess of noise.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

I can tell you that the PQ has gotten softer compared to FiOS over the last 12 months.


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

skoolpsyk said:


> I have to say I've been pretty disappointed in what I've seen lately; I just got a new projector a couple months ago so maybe I'm looking more critically.
> 
> I don't watch most of the normal channels though. Watching the Americans on FX last week, I was kind of shocked how blocky the picture was.


Have encountered the same thing. Thought the compression on FX during THE AMERICANS was deplorable and way below standard...some of the worst I've ever seen on Directv.


----------



## AMike (Nov 21, 2005)

I have noticed a difference in picture quality recently. Yesterday, I watched the same movie on both Comcast and D* on the same television with the same settings. The Comcast program was viewed via a Tivo Roamio and the D* on an HR24. The PQ on Comcast was clearer than D* as there was noise on the screen.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Agree I'm still sticking with Directv's PQ seems softer.
Certainly not better then my cable .

Sent from my Galaxy S5


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

DMRI2006 said:


> Have encountered the same thing. Thought the compression on FX during THE AMERICANS was deplorable and way below standard...some of the worst I've ever seen on Directv.


You guys do realize Americans is shot this way (obviously not)? It's made to look like the time period, same thing director's have done with movies. "Oh no, I disagree, how could you know this?". I'm glad you asked. It is because I have seen it downloaded to my tivo in a 1080p/24 file (not streamed), and while it looks a little more sharp, all that grain and block is there. Fx has some issues as well.

I'd compare it to NCIS on CBS. It's been shot soft and overly red since it started, it's not Directv's fault. Son's of Anarchy looks good, and so does Fargo for that matter. My recordings off Nat Geo are nice, the first episode of Dead Catch looked good when I watched it last night (better than it did on Dish last year), Game of Thrones looks good, Turn and Walking Dead on AMC look good.

While you are complaining about the Americans looking bad, why not offer the same gripe about the grainy 70's show look they chose for Walking Dead? Guess what, in a 1080p/24 file from Amazon, looks the same!

I'm not saying Directv has the best PQ out there, but IMO it looks pretty good with what I've seen from Dish and Uverse. I do not have FIOS or cable options in my area. Dish is soft enough it annoys me a little, at least with Directv I know Im getting the best PQ I can with my options, and I have not seen one ounce of proof to think that have lowered PQ since resigning in Oct 2013.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

FX has been HORRIBLE lately. Its not just the Americans. The same type of over-compressed macroblocking is showing up in Louie and other shows. There are _other _sources of the same shows without the macroblocking, so you can't just dismiss it as Director's intent. I understand that The Americans may be using some gritty filters, but that has nothing to do with the macroblocked, poor/over-compressed garbage. I'm watching on a 120" screen so I think I notice it more than most people.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

skoolpsyk said:


> I have to say I've been pretty disappointed in what I've seen lately; I just got a new projector a couple months ago so maybe I'm looking more critically.
> 
> I don't watch most of the normal channels though. Watching the Americans on FX last week, I was kind of shocked how blocky the picture was.
> 
> And I watch a lot of nature programming; god forbid a flock of birds takes off--the whole 100" screen becomes a mess of noise.


Not a plasma, then. What type and make and year, please.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

edpowers said:


> FX has been HORRIBLE lately. Its not just the Americans. The same type of over-compressed macroblocking is showing up in Louie and other shows. There are _other _sources of the same shows without the macroblocking, so you can't just dismiss it as Director's intent. I understand that The Americans may be using some gritty filters, but that has nothing to do with the macroblocked, poor/over-compressed garbage. I'm watching on a 120" screen so I think I notice it more than most people.


I saw some of that with Dish and Sons last year, IMO FX has fallen off on their own.


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Not a plasma, then. What type and make and year, please.


benq w1080st 2013 100" 1:1.1 diy screen


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

you seriously think we don't know the difference between grain/stylistic cinematography and video artifacts? I was talking about the Americans because that is the show that is displaying macroblocking even on static shots--you think they are doing that on purpose? It is the only show I'm watching currently on FX so I can't speak for the others.

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one seeing this. I thought I was being overly picky.



Jason Whiddon said:


> You guys do realize Americans is shot this way (obviously not)? It's made to look like the time period, same thing director's have done with movies. "Oh no, I disagree, how could you know this?". I'm glad you asked. It is because I have seen it downloaded to my tivo in a 1080p/24 file (not streamed), and while it looks a little more sharp, all that grain and block is there. Fx has some issues as well.
> 
> I'd compare it to NCIS on CBS. It's been shot soft and overly red since it started, it's not Directv's fault. Son's of Anarchy looks good, and so does Fargo for that matter. My recordings off Nat Geo are nice, the first episode of Dead Catch looked good when I watched it last night (better than it did on Dish last year), Game of Thrones looks good, Turn and Walking Dead on AMC look good.
> 
> ...


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

skoolpsyk said:


> benq w1080st 2013 100" 1:1.1 diy screen


Thanks. I have no recent experience with a front projector. If the flock of birds always pixelates, I'm guessing that fast moving sports also has artifacts.....(?)


----------



## DMRI2006 (Jun 13, 2006)

> you seriously think we don't know the difference between grain/stylistic cinematography and video artifacts? I was talking about the Americans because that is the show that is displaying macroblocking even on static shots--you think they are doing that on purpose? It is the only show I'm watching currently on FX so I can't speak for the others.


Indeed, I also can tell the difference between "how a show is shot" and clear compression and artifacting. I've seen The Americans on Blu-Ray, it has none of those issues.


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm torn on this subject. 

All-in-all I think the HD PQ on DIRECTV is great. It's not the best, but I'm happy with it - and I'm a Videophile. 

This past weekend I was at a friends house, who has Comcast, and I would have to say that the HD PQ there was a bit better than what I have at home with D*. However, last year I moved from Comcast to D* and my HD PQ with Comcast was horrible. It's possible that my friend is on a different headend than where I am when I had Comcast, so it's hard to say. 

In all honesty, it's nearly impossible to achieve BluRay quality with any provider, due to the high number of channels available to us. It comes down to usable bandwidth. If only 25 or 30 HD channels existed, I'm sure each provider would have near BluRay quality of their HD channels. But when you try to cram 200+ HD channels into the available bandwidth of current cable or satellite systems, something's got to give. This means all providers have to compress their feeds to make everything fit. 

Now, as for the show The Americans, I've noticed the horrible macroblocking as well. While it may be possible that the show was filmed to match the cinematography of the 1980's, this doesn't account for the severe macroblocking in still scenes of the show. The Americans is the only show I watch on FX so I've not compared the PQ to other FX shows, so I'm not sure if it's FX that's too highly compressed - or if during the time slot that the show runs DIRECTV has to increase the compression in order to allow another PT HD feed in the bandwidth.

While it's nice to compare PQ with different providers, it's nearly a moot point. Every provider across the country will have different PQ, even the same company can have differing PQ in different markets. Also, comparing PQ is so subjective to each person, it's hard to get a true representation of the PQ across the board.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

DMRI2006 said:


> Have encountered the same thing. Thought the compression on FX during THE AMERICANS was deplorable and way below standard...some of the worst I've ever seen on Directv.


If you don't like the PQ on FX that's probably because it's another 720p channel. I usually wait until NF gets the FX shows and watch them in their Super HD.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Not a plasma, then. What type and make and year, please.


That's the difference, I think. Different TVs show different PQ.

Rich


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

skoolpsyk said:


> I have to say I've been pretty disappointed in what I've seen lately; I just got a new projector a couple months ago so maybe I'm looking more critically.
> 
> I don't watch most of the normal channels though. Watching the Americans on FX last week, I was kind of shocked how blocky the picture was.
> 
> And I watch a lot of nature programming; god forbid a flock of birds takes off--the whole 100" screen becomes a mess of noise.


I have really been noticing bad PQ on "The Americans" as well. Blocky, pixelated, just plain bad PQ. I check to make sure I recorded the HD program 4-5 times while I am watching it. Not sure if it is just FX, this particular show, or what. There are some other shows I have watched recently that are bad PQ to me as well, but I can't remember which ones they are. I remember "The Americans" because it is bad week after week and I am constantly double checking to make sure I recorded HD (which I did).

I'm not one that usually complains about the PQ I see, but I have been noticing more and more often that I have bad PQ. Perhaps it's my TV, a 3 year old Vizio 55 inch LED.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Thanks. I have no recent experience with a front projector. If the flock of birds always pixelates, I'm guessing that fast moving sports also has artifacts.....(?)


I have the perfect room for a large projector, the money to buy one and yet I've never seen a projector that equaled the PQ of a plasma. Just my opinion.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WB4CS said:


> I'm torn on this subject.
> 
> All-in-all I think the HD PQ on DIRECTV is great. It's not the best, but I'm happy with it - and I'm a Videophile.
> 
> ...


This whole thing is subjective. If you only have one TV and are happy with it and think its got great PQ, then you're always gonna support that TV and the provider. Side by side comparisons are difficult to do, especially in stores. I bought quite a few TVs before I settled on Panny plasmas and I've never regretted it. Yeah, the 720p stations are noticeable almost immediately on them, but I kinda expected that. My eyes adjust and life goes on.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mrdobolina said:


> I have really been noticing bad PQ on "The Americans" as well. Blocky, pixelated, just plain bad PQ. I check to make sure I recorded the HD program 4-5 times while I am watching it. Not sure if it is just FX, this particular show, or what. There are some other shows I have watched recently that are bad PQ to me as well, but I can't remember which ones they are. I remember "The Americans" because it is bad week after week and I am constantly double checking to make sure I recorded HD (which I did).
> 
> I'm not one that usually complains about the PQ I see, but I have been noticing more and more often that I have bad PQ. Perhaps it's my TV, a 3 year old Vizio 55 inch LED.


No, it's not your TV, it's the channel and the show. In a previous post, a member stated that he saw a good picture when he watched _The Americans_ on BDs. That's a true test. I get a pretty dismal picture on that particular show too.

Rich


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

Not being as TV saavy as a lot of the folks here, is it possible to tweak settings on either my TV or my HR44 when watching a known 720p channel? I believe my Vizio is native 1080i, but not 100% sure. Also, it seems like ESPN (aren't they also 720p?) live sports is just fine when I watch baseball or MNF in season. 

Or am I thinking of this wrong, and it's simply FX that is the weak link in the chain?

I have Native set to OFF on my HR44.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mrdobolina said:


> Not being as TV saavy as a lot of the folks here, is it possible to tweak settings on either my TV or my HR44 when watching a known 720p channel? I believe my Vizio is native 1080i, but not 100% sure. Also, it seems like ESPN (aren't they also 720p?) live sports is just fine when I watch baseball or MNF in season.
> 
> Or am I thinking of this wrong, and it's simply FX that is the weak link in the chain?
> 
> I have Native set to OFF on my HR44.


I can see the difference between the Yanks on YES and the Yanks on ESPN. Mostly on the long shots. Some of the 720p channels, ABC for instance, aren't as bad, but I can still tell the difference. I think the better your TV is, the more difference you'll see. Aside from getting a better TV, I don't know what else you can do.

Rich


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

The ability to notice poor source quality increases exponentially with the size and brightness of your display. I have a JVC RS-4810 combined with a 120" Dalite Highpower screen. Big Screen, Plasma brightness. There are some Directv shows/channels that look pretty decent, like HBO and Showtime. Others like FX, are unwatchable. I also have a few Panasonic plasmas and a 50" Pioneer Kuro KRP-500M. I still think FX looks bad on my Kuro, but I can at least watch The Americans without being too distracted. 

I feel like PQ had gone up and down all the way back to the MPEG2 days with periods of decent quality and periods of bad quality. Right now it seems like a bad period. 

Even if the quality isn't going down ... As Big TV prices continue to fall with 80" dropping below the $2500 line, more and more people will begin to notice these issues.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

edpowers said:


> The ability to notice poor source quality increases exponentially with the size and brightness of your display. I have a JVC RS-4810 combined with a 120" Dalite Highpower screen. Big Screen, Plasma brightness. There are some Directv shows/channels that look pretty decent, like HBO and Showtime. Others like FX, are unwatchable. I also have a few Panasonic plasmas and a 50" Pioneer Kuro KRP-500M. I still think FX looks bad on my Kuro, but I can at least watch The Americans without being too distracted.
> 
> I feel like PQ had gone up and down all the way back to the MPEG2 days with periods of decent quality and periods of bad quality. Right now it seems like a bad period.
> 
> Even if the quality isn't going down ... As Big TV prices continue to fall with 80" dropping below the $2500 line, more and more people will begin to notice these issues.


I've seen some of those huge TVs in homes, all LCDs, mostly Sharps, and I haven't been impressed. Sometimes, bigger isn't better.

Rich


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've seen some of those huge TVs in homes, all LCDs, mostly Sharps, and I haven't been impressed. Sometimes, bigger isn't better.
> 
> Rich


I'm the last person who will defend LED/LCDs with their sub-par black levels and contrast. Its a real shame that Panasonic bailed on plasma. However, the fact remains that people are buying larger and larger TVs. Those big, bright TVs will expose these compression problems to a larger population. The problem is that most people have no idea WHY they are seeing it on their new 80" TV when they couldn't see it on their old 50".

Also, the macroblocking that is appearing on FX shows like The Americans has nothing to do with the fact that its 720p. 720p can look ugly on very large displays simply due to the lack of resolution, but these massive compression issues are an entirely different issue.


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

Is there any hope that these issues will significantly improve when the new sat goes up or is that mostly for new HD channels?

Another question: is VOD solely done over the internet or is it a combo of satellite and internet download? I've only used it for HBO and have been happy with the results. Is there any reason that VOD couldn't be 1080p with zero compression? sure it would take longer, but would be worth the wait; I used to wait for blu-rays on netflix for shows but too many people just love spoiling what happens; I can avoid the internet for a day or two but not six months!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

skoolpsyk said:


> Is there any hope that these issues will significantly improve when the new sat goes up or is that mostly for new HD channels?
> 
> Another question: is VOD solely done over the internet or is it a combo of satellite and internet download? I've only used it for HBO and have been happy with the results. Is there any reason that VOD couldn't be 1080p with zero compression? sure it would take longer, but would be worth the wait; I used to wait for blu-rays on netflix for shows but too many people just love spoiling what happens; I can avoid the internet for a day or two but not six months!


VOD is solely done over the Internet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Could one get uncompressed VOD- HD @ 1080p, that is, over the net? If anyone wanted to dedicate the bandwidth to send it, yes, but highly unlikely.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

skoolpsyk said:


> Is there any hope that these issues will significantly improve when the new sat goes up or is that mostly for new HD channels?


No.



skoolpsyk said:


> Is there any reason that VOD couldn't be 1080p with zero compression? sure it would take longer, but would be worth the wait; I used to wait for blu-rays on netflix for shows but too many people just love spoiling what happens; I can avoid the internet for a day or two but not six months!


1080p with zero compression = ~200 MB/sec or around 1.5 TB for a 2 hour movie. It would take A LOT longer and I doubt your internet provider would be too happy. I'm guessing you meant _less _compression like Blu Ray quality. Its at least within the realm of possibilities, but still too big for that avg. high speed internet line (at least in the US).


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

got it; and yes, I did mean _less _compression, lol.

right now it takes me about half a day to download an hour long HBO show, via VOD, but it is worth the wait. Which is why I don't know why Netflix and others don't get into the VOD business--streaming a quality signal seems all but impossible for most people--I guess most people aren't that patient and watch everything on a 4" cell phone screen these days.


----------



## lokar (Oct 8, 2006)

I noticed last night when downloading a show from D* On Demand there was a new option, higher quality but wait for download and lower quality HD but quicker download or straight streaming. I think this is awesome and wanted to applaud D* for giving people the option. Now snobs and non-snobs can be happy.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

skoolpsyk said:


> got it; and yes, I did mean _less _compression, lol.
> 
> right now it takes me about half a day to download an hour long HBO show, via VOD, but it is worth the wait. Which is why I don't know why Netflix and others don't get into the VOD business--streaming a quality signal seems all but impossible for most people--I guess most people aren't that patient and watch everything on a 4" cell phone screen these days.


hmmm,, Netflix main business is VOD. Their mail in business is second hand

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

lokar said:


> I noticed last night when downloading a show from D* On Demand there was a new option, higher quality but wait for download and lower quality HD but quicker download or straight streaming. I think this is awesome and wanted to applaud D* for giving people the option. Now snobs and non-snobs can be happy.
> 
> 
> > the downside of this feature seems that you only get that message once and applies it to every time you want to download
> ...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

skoolpsyk said:


> got it; and yes, I did mean _less _compression, lol.


and just so there is no confusion, DirecTV does have some VOD on 1080p

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

peds48 said:


> VOD is solely done over the Internet.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I thought there was some VOD (new releases, for example) that are downloaded to the DTV portion of DVR hard drives via the satellite feed? Aren't the 1080p movies done that way? That's considered VOD, no?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

mrdobolina said:


> I thought there was some VOD (new releases, for example) that are downloaded to the DTV portion of DVR hard drives via the satellite feed? Aren't the 1080p movies done that way? That's considered VOD, no?


Because they are already downloaded to your DVR, those shows would not fall under "VOD" that is no difference then you recording a particular show of your liking.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

edpowers said:


> No.


Why would you think that the new satellite won't help matters? D14 will add a lot of bandwidth, basically the current 99c will become 99cb, and a new 99ca with 16 or so transponders will be added, and possibly more (if they use RDBS for customer content)

Unless you think all that capacity will only be used to offer new channels, there is going to be "spare" capacity that can be used to increase the bit rate of HD channels.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> Why would you think that the new satellite won't help matters? D14 will add a lot of bandwidth, basically the current 99c will become 99cb, and a new 99ca with 16 or so transponders will be added, and possibly more (if they use RDBS for customer content)
> 
> Unless you think all that capacity will only be used to offer new channels, there is going to be "spare" capacity that can be used to increase the bit rate of HD channels.


Indeed. That is my fervent hope. Also, management will breathe easier as there'll be a lot more back up capacity.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

peds48 said:


> > I noticed last night when downloading a show from D* On Demand there was a new option, higher quality but wait for download and lower quality HD but quicker download or straight streaming. I think this is awesome and wanted to applaud D* for giving people the option. Now snobs and non-snobs can be happy.
> 
> 
> the downside of this feature seems that you only get that message once and applies it to every time you want to download
> ...


Not been my experience. I've seen it multiple times even right after I've said I wanted either one. It does not appear to me that it is a one time setting. I've already downloaded a show and it came down at 720. Stopped it and did it again and got 1080, for example.

Watch it now speeds are always a bit lower quality. I tested that with House of Lies. Could see the difference.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Why would you think that the new satellite won't help matters? D14 will add a lot of bandwidth, basically the current 99c will become 99cb, and a new 99ca with 16 or so transponders will be added, and possibly more (if they use RDBS for customer content)
> 
> Unless you think all that capacity will only be used to offer new channels, there is going to be "spare" capacity that can be used to increase the bit rate of HD channels.





Laxguy said:


> Indeed. That is my fervent hope. Also, management will breathe easier as there'll be a lot more back up capacity.


Because I've been a customer for a really long time and never experienced any major improvement in PQ after a sat launch. Unless A LOT more people start complaining about PQ, Directv has no reason to increase bit rate. I just don't see a lot of people complaining about these issues. And even if they are, where will they go? Dish Network? Cable? The grass isn't any less pixelized over there.

My guess is that Directv will figure out more profitable ways to use the extra bandwidth. Like adding a batch of worthless channels in a new EXTRA-HD $10 package or more informercial channels. I'd be really happy if I'm wrong and PQ suddenly improves after D14 comes online but I won't be holding my breath.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

edpowers said:


> Because I've been a customer for a really long time and never experienced any major improvement in PQ after a sat launch. Unless A LOT more people start complaining about PQ, Directv has no reason to increase bit rate. I just don't see a lot of people complaining about these issues. And even if they are, where will they go? Dish Network? Cable? The grass isn't any less pixelized over there.
> 
> My guess is that Directv will figure out more profitable ways to use the extra bandwidth. Like adding a batch of worthless channels in a new EXTRA-HD $10 package or more informercial channels. I'd be really happy if I'm wrong and PQ suddenly improves after D14 comes online but I won't be holding my breath.


An old phrase states "One man's candy can be another man's poison". Given that please provide a list of worthless channels.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Could one get uncompressed VOD- HD @ 1080p, that is, over the net? If anyone wanted to dedicate the bandwidth to send it, yes, but highly unlikely.


Netflix does just that beautifully.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

lokar said:


> I noticed last night when downloading a show from D* On Demand there was a new option, higher quality but wait for download and lower quality HD but quicker download or straight streaming. I think this is awesome and wanted to applaud D* for giving people the option. Now snobs and non-snobs can be happy.


They've had that option for quite a while. What you don't want to do is use the View Now option, or whatever it's called.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich, I seriously doubt there's no compression.....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Rich, I seriously doubt there's no compression.....


I have no idea what that means. Seriously.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Oh, I see what you meant. I don't know if they compress anything, I don't really understand that. All I know is that the Super HD that NF pumps out is damn near as good as a BD. Sorry I didn't understand. 

Rich


----------



## mrdobolina (Aug 28, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Because they are already downloaded to your DVR, those shows would not fall under "VOD" that is no difference then you recording a particular show of your liking.


You say potato, I say potahto. :grin:


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Rich said:


> Oh, I see what you meant. I don't know if they compress anything, I don't really understand that. All I know is that the Super HD that NF pumps out is damn near as good as a BD. Sorry I didn't understand.
> 
> Rich


Netflix Super HD = 4 Mbps topping out at 6 Mbps
Blu ray = 20-30 Mbps topping out at 40 Mbps

Netflix Super HD is better than anything on Directv but not close to Blu Ray in my opinion. The difference is very noticeable on large displays. Noticeable compression artifacts in shadows, washed out details, minor macroblocking. None of these problems exist in a high quality BD transfer. Not to mention the better audio on BD. That being said, I'd be THRILLED if Directv HD was at Netflix Super HD quality.

The frustrating part with Netflix is that they are now marketing their 4K streaming at 15 Mbps. That means 4k resolution with potentially worse compression artifacts than their 1080p Super HD streaming. Its too bad they can't offer a Super Super HD+ 1080p at 15 Mbps. That would be the ultimate streaming experience for the 99% of subscribers without 4K displays.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

edpowers said:


> The frustrating part with Netflix is that they are now marketing their 4K streaming at 15 Mbps. That means 4k resolution with potentially worse compression artifacts than their 1080p Super HD streaming. Its too bad they can't offer a Super Super HD+ 1080p at 15 Mbps.


They could. They just decided to join the PR bandwagon that says we have the latest whiz bang rather than just delivering quality to the greatest number.

We will see how it plays out. Netflix jumped on the 3D bandwagon then jumped off.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

edpowers said:


> The frustrating part with Netflix is that they are now marketing their 4K streaming at 15 Mbps. That means 4k resolution with potentially worse compression artifacts than their 1080p Super HD streaming. Its too bad they can't offer a Super Super HD+ 1080p at 15 Mbps. That would be the ultimate streaming experience for the 99% of subscribers without 4K displays.


Have you-or anyone- seen 4k streaming @15Mbps? And what would prevent that stream from looking excellent on a standard HD display?


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Have you-or anyone- seen 4k streaming @15Mbps? And what would prevent that stream from looking excellent on a standard HD display?


That will be interesting. Downrezz from HD to SD for HD signals is sometimes hard to discern.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Agree I'm still sticking with Directv's PQ seems softer.
> Certainly not better then my cable .
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S5


I think it depends the channel. I think some channels have flat out made their channels and shows softer on purpose. Not all but a few where and there.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Have you-or anyone- seen 4k streaming @15Mbps? And what would prevent that stream from looking excellent on a standard HD display?


I personally have not, which is why I used the word "potentially". But people with the right equipment have. Here is a review from last month ...

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-streaming-201404063713.htm

"_So how does it look? You can't cheat the physics of compression, especially given Netflix's 4K streaming bitrate of 15.6 Mbps which is lower than that of well-transferred Blu-rays, albeit using the more efficient HEVC/h.265 codec. The opening shot of Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey_) and his wife (_Robin Wright_) running in a park at night is a testing sequence with lots of gradients and camera noise, and we saw minor posterization during the fade in, and around the street lamps. To our eyes, the [2160 HD] layer did not look visibly more detailed than the [1080 HD] one in this fairly dark scene.
_Where the 4K version did shine was with bright, colourful scenes. On-screen images were rendered with greater sharpness and smoother gradients, receiving a very slight boost in intra-scene gamma and contrast in the process too. Every time the video stream switched from [1080p HD] to [2160 HD], it's as if a veil had been lifted from the front of the screen, bringing objects - even faraway ones in long shots - into breathtaking clarity._"

Again, for the 99% of us without a 4K TV, it would be really nice if Netflix pushed a 1080p Super HD++ at 15Mbps. Take it a step further and use the new HEVC/h.265 codec and they'd probably be edging into near-Blu Ray quality in a 15Mbps stream. From what I've read, the h.265 codec is roughly 40% more efficient than h.264. " Just for comparison's sake, on my 120" screen, I see significant posterization in that same House of Cards scene with Netflix Super HD 1080p. They are likely using a smaller display at a further seating ratio, but its possible that the h.265 codec is just that much better.

I would gladly pay another ~$1000 for a bunch of h.265 capable Directv boxes if it meant I could get 2x bitrate quality compared to what they use today. Of course, I think I'm in the extreme minority, so that won't happen anytime soon!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Rich said:


> Netflix does just that beautifully.
> 
> Rich


Assuming that you have sufficient bandwidth on your internet "pipe" otherwise you would not have that option.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Just hope 4K don't fade out like 3D.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

edpowers said:


> I personally have not, which is why I used the word "potentially". But people with the right equipment have. Here is a review from last month ...
> 
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-streaming-201404063713.htm
> << Snipped bits out >>
> ...


Not so extreme, but a minority!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

acostapimps said:


> Just hope 4K don't fade out like 3D.


it has not even started and you are already killing it..... :rotfl:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

edpowers said:


> Netflix Super HD = 4 Mbps topping out at 6 Mbps
> Blu ray = 20-30 Mbps topping out at 40 Mbps
> 
> Netflix Super HD is better than anything on Directv but not close to Blu Ray in my opinion. The difference is very noticeable on large displays. Noticeable compression artifacts in shadows, washed out details, minor macroblocking. None of these problems exist in a high quality BD transfer. Not to mention the better audio on BD. That being said, I'd be THRILLED if Directv HD was at Netflix Super HD quality.
> ...


Ed, I gotta tell you, I had a BD and NF streaming the same movie at the same time and was switching back and forth between them on my 42" 1080p Panny plasma and we couldn't see any differences. I suppose I should have done the test on my 60" plasma but the inconvenience of doing that made me use the 42" set. We could see no difference between the BD disc and the streaming PQ.

I don't doubt anything you posted, but the eye sees what the eye sees. Yeah, I'd be thrilled if D* started pumping out the same quality PQ as NF does too.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Assuming that you have sufficient bandwidth on your internet "pipe" otherwise you would not have that option.


Of course I do and I pay quite a bit for it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Not so extreme, but a minority!


Yeah, I'd be jumping into that.

Rich


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

peds48 said:


> it has not even started and you are already killing it..... :rotfl:


I don't think 4K will catch on with broadcasting, I think it will only catch on in the home video department.

Providing 4K content by home video (Blu-Ray or some other kind of media) is easily done.

But providing 4K via streaming is difficult unless the subscriber has a high enough data connection and unlimited monthly data. For example, with my current 15M connection capped at 250GB a month, I don't think that would allow me to watch a lot of 4K at full resolution via streaming.

Delivering 4K via DBS or cable TV is also very difficult to do with our current technology. On DBS we barely have enough bandwidth to provide FULL HD service, there's certainly not enough bandwidth to deliver 4K as well - unless a new satellite arc was dedicated to just 4K broadcasts. Cable TV also finds itself in the same boat, not enough bandwidth to provide both HD and 4K on the same same copper, and if so, it would require major compression rates to accomplish it.

Then you've got to take into consideration the cost of a 4K TV. I don't know the numbers, but I imagine 4K sales have not even broke the double digits in market share percentage. Maybe 6% of the US has 4K? Broadcast providers are not going to make 4K a priority when 90+% of their customer base does not even have the needed TV to view 4K. And 4K sales are not going to rise until the price drops WAY lower than it currently is.

Unless there's a huge shift in the price of 4K TV's, I think they will continue to be considered top-of-the-line products that only videophiles with a hefty bank account will purchase. That niche market can be filled by 4K Blu-Ray home movies, but don't expect the major TV providers to cater to that small of a percent of their customer base.

And one other issue about 4K - content providers. TV providers can't offer 4K channels if the channels don't exist. I think we may see a small handful of 4K channels become available, but probably only to showcase and show off the technology. I doubt we'll ever see Comedy Central or HGTV in 4K. Maybe HBO, Showtime, and premium channels. I don't even think the national networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) will go 4K. I'm not sure of the standards, but I imagine that a 4K OTA broadcast would exceed the needed bandwidth that an RF TV channel can carry - unless high compression was added. (If I'm wrong in that statement please correct me, my broadcast TV knowledge isn't very good past what was standard in the analog TV days.)


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

Rich said:


> Ed, I gotta tell you, I had a BD and NF streaming the same movie at the same time and was switching back and forth between them on my 42" 1080p Panny plasma and we couldn't see any differences. I suppose I should have done the test on my 60" plasma but the inconvenience of doing that made me use the 42" set. We could see no difference between the BD disc and the streaming PQ.
> 
> I don't doubt anything you posted, but the eye sees what the eye sees. Yeah, I'd be thrilled if D* started pumping out the same quality PQ as NF does too.
> 
> Rich


What is it with your obsession over Neftlix? The Super HD I've seen from Netflix is horrible, most of the time the Super HD programs downrez to SD. I have a 15M internet connection, but I believe my ISP uses bandwidth shaping and slows down some streaming services. You must be lucky to have an ISP that gives Netflix bandwidth priority, because this Super HD you speak of is pretty crappy on my internet connection.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WB4CS said:


> What is it with your obsession over Neftlix? The Super HD I've seen from Netflix is horrible, most of the time the Super HD programs downrez to SD. I have a 15M internet connection, but I believe my ISP uses bandwidth shaping and slows down some streaming services. You must be lucky to have an ISP that gives Netflix bandwidth priority, because this Super HD you speak of is pretty crappy on my internet connection.


I get 80 down at times, mostly in the 60s and have no problem getting the NF Super HD. What's with my obsession? Better PQ, that's what. Simply put, NF blows away D*'s 1080i. That's not just my opinion, I think that's a fact.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

WB4CS said:


> I don't think 4K will catch on with broadcasting, I think it will only catch on in the home video department.
> 
> Providing 4K content by home video (Blu-Ray or some other kind of media) is easily done.
> 
> ...


I agree with your premise that 4K isn't going to amount to much as far as broadcasting. They're still paying the bills from the HD upgrade and don't want to upgrade again just because TV makers can make 4K TVs cost effectively.

I will point out though that going to 4K broadcasts in a big way wouldn't be quite as difficult as you make it sound. Ignoring 110/119, Directv has 2000 MHz of bandwidth on 101 dedicated to MPEG2/SD, and 3250 MHz (soon to be 4000 MHz when D14 launches) of bandwidth dedicated to MPEG4/HD. Using h.265/HEVC encoding, 4K requires about double the bit rate of MPEG4.

So when SD is switched off, they'll be able to use that 2000 MHz for other purposes. If they wanted to use it for 4K, they'd be able to upgrade the modulation to used to 8PSK or possibly 16PSK, and the reduced error correction required for Ku versus Ka would mean they could get at least 33% of the HD channels in 4K. They've got licenses for another 1600 MHz of RDBS (just below Ka frequency) which could get them to over 50% of HD channels in 4K.

Personally, I'd rather they use most of that of that bandwidth for better HD, including maybe some 1080p HD if providers give them 1080p feeds, and when SD is shut off move the highly watched HD channels like ESPN and HBO to 101 to make them a bit more resistant to rain fade.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

WB4CS said:


> What is it with your obsession over Neftlix? The Super HD I've seen from Netflix is horrible, most of the time the Super HD programs downrez to SD. I have a 15M internet connection, but I believe my ISP uses bandwidth shaping and slows down some streaming services. You must be lucky to have an ISP that gives Netflix bandwidth priority, because this Super HD you speak of is pretty crappy on my internet connection.


I saw the same as you until I used the NF app on my TV. I was using the one on my Oppo 93 and Roku XS... both were very underwhelming. After using the app on my Panasonic ST60 and a Roku 3, I was shocked at the improvement. Below is my speeds.


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

sigma1914 said:


> I saw the same as you until I used the NF app on my TV. I was using the one on my Oppo 93 and Roku XS... both were very underwhelming. After using the app on my Panasonic ST60 and a Roku 3, I was shocked at the improvement. Below is my speeds.


I'm using a Roku hardwired into my router. I get a pretty consistent 15 Mb/s down. I haven't confirmed it with my ISP but my gut feeling is they are throttling down NF streaming. (My ISP is a Cable TV provider that's pretty proud of their On Demand) Why I think it's my ISP is because Amazon Prime streaming from the Roku is solid and always in HD. Amazon rarely ever has to stop and buffer, but watching anything on NF will usually warrant a few pauses to buffer during the stream.

If only there was a law called Net Neutrality that would stop such things from happening. Maybe someone should look into that


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

WB4CS said:


> I'm using a Roku hardwired into my router. I get a pretty consistent 15 Mb/s down. I haven't confirmed it with my ISP but my gut feeling is they are throttling down NF streaming. (My ISP is a Cable TV provider that's pretty proud of their On Demand) Why I think it's my ISP is because Amazon Prime streaming from the Roku is solid and always in HD. Amazon rarely ever has to stop and buffer, but watching anything on NF will usually warrant a few pauses to buffer during the stream.
> 
> If only there was a law called Net Neutrality that would stop such things from happening. Maybe someone should look into that


Just curious, which Roku?


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

sigma1914 said:


> Just curious, which Roku?


Roku 1 http://www.roku.com/products/roku-1

And actually, once I saw the picture of the unit on the website I realized it doesn't have an Ethernet port  I have the little guy tucked away behind my TV so I haven't seen it since the day I installed it. I was thinking of my Blu Ray player that's hardwired into the router. The NF app on my Samsung Blu Ray player also experiences terrible picture quality and most "Super HD" content downrezes to SD. I had the Blu Ray player on wireless, then changed it to Ethernet to try and resolve the PQ issue. When that didn't work I got the Roku box (which is wireless only) and still had NF PQ issues, but discovered that Amazon Prime works just fine in HD.

Also in my troubleshooting I tried two different routers, and even bypassed the router and ran the Blu Ray player directly to the modem by Ethernet. No matter what I tried, NF just doesn't work that well. That was when I decided it is probably my ISP.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

peds48 said:


> it has not even started and you are already killing it..... :rotfl:


I said Just Hope not 4K is not gonna make it :biggrin:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

WB4CS said:


> What is it with your obsession over Neftlix? The Super HD I've seen from Netflix is horrible, most of the time the Super HD programs downrez to SD. I have a 15M internet connection, but I believe my ISP uses bandwidth shaping and slows down some streaming services. You must be lucky to have an ISP that gives Netflix bandwidth priority, because this Super HD you speak of is pretty crappy on my internet connection.


Then it really isn't "Super HD"....


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Rich said:


> Ed, I gotta tell you, I had a BD and NF streaming the same movie at the same time and was switching back and forth between them on my 42" 1080p Panny plasma and we couldn't see any differences. I suppose I should have done the test on my 60" plasma but the inconvenience of doing that made me use the 42" set. We could see no difference between the BD disc and the streaming PQ.
> 
> I don't doubt anything you posted, but the eye sees what the eye sees. Yeah, I'd be thrilled if D* started pumping out the same quality PQ as NF does too.
> 
> Rich


Most eyes aren't going to see a difference on a 42" display unless they are sitting REALLY close. But you really start to see Netflix Super HD compression flaws compared to BD when you have a larger display (and at/near THX recommended seating distances), particularly in the shadow detail in dark scenes. By far the most common thing I notice is posterization but I also often notice the "clay face" effect. But its still miles ahead of the PQ on Directv HD and doesn't show any of the distracting macroblocking that I see all the time on shows like The Americans.


----------



## skoolpsyk (May 24, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Assuming that you have sufficient bandwidth on your internet "pipe" otherwise you would not have that option.


Screw it, I'm just going to go ahead at get Google Fiber...

"Google offers three tiers of home broadband service: 5Mbps/1Mbps service for free (that's right, free Internet), 1Gbps service for $70 per month, and 1Gbps service with 150 TV channels for $120 per month."

(in 150 years when it comes to my area...)


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

WB4CS said:


> I'm using a Roku hardwired into my router. I get a pretty consistent 15 Mb/s down. I haven't confirmed it with my ISP but my gut feeling is they are throttling down NF streaming. (My ISP is a Cable TV provider that's pretty proud of their On Demand) Why I think it's my ISP is because Amazon Prime streaming from the Roku is solid and always in HD. Amazon rarely ever has to stop and buffer, but watching anything on NF will usually warrant a few pauses to buffer during the stream.
> 
> If only there was a law called Net Neutrality that would stop such things from happening. Maybe someone should look into that


If you haven't already checked this, do a Netflix search for "23" and select the first poster that has a Netflix thumbnail. You might want to lower your volume, because it also does an audio frequency sweep. It will display the resolution and bit rate you're seeing via your ISP. My results are posted below.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

skoolpsyk said:


> Screw it, I'm just going to go ahead at get Google Fiber...
> 
> "Google offers three tiers of home broadband service: 5Mbps/1Mbps service for free (that's right, free Internet), 1Gbps service for $70 per month, and 1Gbps service with 150 TV channels for $120 per month."
> 
> (in 150 years when it comes to my area...)


let's not get carried away. while is free internet, there is a one time cost of $30.00. yeah, nothing is free.


----------



## anex80 (Jul 29, 2005)

I was flipping through the sports channels on D* yesterday (which I rarely do this time of year) and I could have sworn the HD quality looked much better than I've noticed before. perhaps absence makes the heart grow fonder but I think at least the sports channels have improved since last Fall.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

anex80 said:


> I was flipping through the sports channels on D* yesterday (which I rarely do this time of year) and I could have sworn the HD quality looked much better than I've noticed before. perhaps absence makes the heart grow fonder but I think at least the sports channels have improved since last Fall.


I see nothing wrong with the PQ on any of the channels. Even ABC and FX, both at 720p, seem quite good. The Yankees' game on Fox (also 720p) last night was fine. My problem is going from NF's Super HD to D*. Takes a few minutes for the eyes to adjust. Aside from that, I'm satisfied.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Rich said:


> I see nothing wrong with the PQ on any of the channels. Even ABC and FX, both at 720p, seem quite good. The Yankees' game on Fox (also 720p) last night was fine. My problem is going from NF's Super HD to D*. Takes a few minutes for the eyes to adjust. Aside from that, I'm satisfied.
> 
> Rich


Just curious. What devices are you using for Netflix? I see a huge range in PQ from different devices.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> Just curious. What devices are you using for Netflix? I see a huge range in PQ from different devices.


I can stream Netflix via my Sony Blu-ray players and Roku and like you see a difference in PQ with Roku having the best PQ.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> I can stream Netflix via my Sony Blu-ray players and Roku and like you see a difference in PQ with Roku having the best PQ.


My sony blu rays are having issues with streaming netflix recently. Do very good on everything else. Quality is/was better than on my roku. Best quality I get is on my sony TV itself. By far the worst is chrome from any device.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

My Roku XS had crap PQ, but the 3 and the app on my Panasonic ST60 are excellent ... better than many DirecTV and Uverse channels.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Just curious. What devices are you using for Netflix? I see a huge range in PQ from different devices.


I use only Samsung BD players. I've tried most other streaming methods, but the BD players upscale everything to 1080p. I also have the most expensive Net service my ISP can give me. There are times when I get around 80 down. That high speed is, apparently, crucial for streaming NF's Super HD. Older Sammy BD players won't play Super HD. Gotta be a newer BD player. I know others have had problems viewing NF content in Super HD and I'm really glad I stumbled onto the Sammys when I did.

Rich


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> If you haven't already checked this, do a Netflix search for "23" and select the first poster that has a Netflix thumbnail. You might want to lower your volume, because it also does an audio frequency sweep. It will display the resolution and bit rate you're seeing via your ISP. My results are posted below.


I'm a little late on a reply, but I'm here 

After you mentioned the "23" test video, I gave it a try. (Thanks for that info!) It hardly ever went above SD resolution, and the few times it buffered to HD it was 720 and then quickly went back to SD resolution.

Just yesterday I had to replace my aging and dying wireless router. The new one I purchased has a lot more RAM and bandwidth than the one I replaced. Once I got everything set up I did another test with the "23" video from my Roku box. At first it was still in SD, but after about 2 minutes it buffered all the way up to 1080 and stayed there for the duration of the video!

I haven't yet tested watching a movie or TV show on Netflix, but I'm betting that my old router was to blame for my poor Netflix picture quality. It does still seem odd that Amazon Prime streamed perfectly in HD while Netfilx never did, so it may still be my ISP doing some kind of bandwidth shaping or throttling of Netfilx. But I'm hoping the new router has solved some or all of the issue.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

WB4CS said:


> It does still seem odd that Amazon Prime streamed perfectly in HD while Netfilx never did, so it may still be my ISP doing some kind of bandwidth shaping or throttling of Netfilx. But I'm hoping the new router has solved some or all of the issue.


It's also possible that Amazon's HD was streaming at a lower bit rate than Netflix's HD. Depending on your screen size and the source content, you can still see "HD-like" picture quality at rates as low as 2500-3500 kbps, IMHO.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

FWIW - Last night's NBA game, Verizon FiOS gets an A+ for PQ, and D* gets a B+.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Rich said:


> I use only Samsung BD players. I've tried most other streaming methods, but the BD players upscale everything to 1080p. I also have the most expensive Net service my ISP can give me. There are times when I get around 80 down. That high speed is, apparently, crucial for streaming NF's Super HD. Older Sammy BD players won't play Super HD. Gotta be a newer BD player. I know others have had problems viewing NF content in Super HD and I'm really glad I stumbled onto the Sammys when I did.
> 
> Rich


I only get the Super HD (bad name, it is just 1080p) on my TV. Not from any other device. And it is only on a few things (one of the few I watched it with was the last season of Return of the Jedi).

You really don't need super high speed for the Super HD stuff. Most decent fiber or cable modems deliver well enough.


----------



## widmark (Sep 4, 2012)

I have DirecTV and probably getting Dish TV due to price/programming. I have 720p tvs only no 1080s. Should I set the Genie/Hopper to output max of 720p or 1080i? I read somewhere a few months back that 1080i can actually look worse than 720p. I have a Yamaha 673 AV receiver that currently acts as hdmi passthrough but could use it instead to process the signal if there is a way to turn processing off in Hopper/Genie. I have always assumed D* and E* setboxes will do a better job of processing their own signals than a AV receiver.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Don't know about the Hoppa, but the DirecTV DVRs will pass through the received resolution if you set the video to "native".

I have found that DirecTV DVRs do a pretty good job of format conversions...better than our Visio but not as good as our Panasonic Plasma. So, it depends on the unit itself...your receiver may be better, equal or worse. Only way to be sure is to try it.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

WB4CS said:


> ?..Once I got everything set up I did another test with the "23" video from my Roku box. At first it was still in SD, but after about 2 minutes it buffered all the way up to 1080 and stayed there for the duration of the video!


Check it a few times at different times of day. Our Rokus and TiVos all stream Netflix at 1080p in the morning, but none of them get above 720x1280 in the evening (when everyone on east coast is streaming Netflix and clogging routers all over the internet).


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Check it a few times at different times of day. Our Rokus and TiVos all stream Netflix at 1080p in the morning, but none of them get above 720x1280 in the evening (when everyone on east coast is streaming Netflix and clogging routers all over the internet).


True dat. I just tried that channel (first time at night) and I'm seeing 3k, 720p. Daytime, it's always been 5.8k, 1080p.


----------



## charlie460 (Sep 12, 2009)

All 720p content on DirecTV looks far inferior to the same channels on other providers. Directly comparing Comcast and DirecTV on 720p content, whether it be local channels or cable networks, and there is simply no comparison - the PQ on DirecTV is extremely soft in comparison.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Don't know about the Hoppa, but the DirecTV DVRs will pass through the received resolution if you set the video to "native".
> 
> I have found that DirecTV DVRs do a pretty good job of format conversions...better than our Visio but not as good as our Panasonic Plasma. So, it depends on the unit itself...your receiver may be better, equal or worse. Only way to be sure is to try it.


The Hopper does not have "pass through" ... it outputs everything at the setting the customer chooses in the menus (1080i, 720p or 480i) except for 1080p VOD and 3D VOD which are passed through on a program by program basis.

Even with "pass through" the signal is processed by the receiver. The output is not bit by bit what is coming down the satellite feed. But pass through eliminates the additional processing of changing between 720 and 1080. Whether the receiver does a better job of that than the monitor/TV is a personal opinion.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

charlie460 said:


> All 720p content on DirecTV looks far inferior to the same channels on other providers. Directly comparing Comcast and DirecTV on 720p content, whether it be local channels or cable networks, and there is simply no comparison - the PQ on DirecTV is extremely soft in comparison.


Something is wrong with your "testing" method, or your set up with DIRECTV®. Almost no one has said this with a straight face before! -Although it's been two years since I have been able to directly compare the two.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Check it a few times at different times of day. Our Rokus and TiVos all stream Netflix at 1080p in the morning, but none of them get above 720x1280 in the evening (when everyone on east coast is streaming Netflix and clogging routers all over the internet).


I have no problems at any time on my Sammy BD players. Very dependable.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Something is wrong with your "testing" method, or your set up with DIRECTV®. Almost no one has said this with a straight face before! -Although it's been two years since I have been able to directly compare the two.


Agreed, but we don't know what kind of TV he's using. We're in the middle of _Justified _and the PQ is fine. That's a 720p channel.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Something is wrong with your "testing" method, or your set up with DIRECTV®. Almost no one has said this with a straight face before! -Although it's been two years since I have been able to directly compare the two.


The inherent problem with comparing PQ with a cable system is that they vary so much by location. Except *maybe* a system like fios which is a more standard distribution.

Throw in differences in settings and setups. Even tvs themselves. I have identical paths for fios and directv to my tv. I see no difference between them side by side in HD. But sometimes a fios channel looks better. Sometimes a directv one does. But the different boxes have different outputs (not all hdmi is the same) so you may need to adjust between them. I used to say fios SD was much much better than directv's and i say it still is but with my new tv, it takes the directv SD and has made it watchable. They are closer in quality now even though fios is still obviously better.

Then throw in other factors like when locals are compared. The feed of the local can differ greatly from one provider to another.

Then there is the time factor. No one can ever say "ESPN is good or bad." Even a single channel like ESPN varies greatly. It depends on what the channel throws out at the time. Particularly with sports.

I've also seen certain types of picture vary the quality. Fios changes hbo MPEG4 to MPEG2 and it gets more grainy, more mosaic in dark stationary scenes than does directv.

Some systems have bad PQ for sure but things vary so much that in a general class, it is pretty damned close.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Rich said:


> I have no problems at any time on my Sammy BD players. Very dependable.
> 
> Rich


The players do not determine download speed. I see the same variations Diana sees on netflix. It is not dependable for PQ. Its best can be very good but it can drop in a second to not so good.

I do get better reproduction from my tv than other devices but the speeds are the same.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

charlie460 said:


> All 720p content on DirecTV looks far inferior to the same channels on other providers. Directly comparing Comcast and DirecTV on 720p content, whether it be local channels or cable networks, and there is simply no comparison - the PQ on DirecTV is extremely soft in comparison.


It's much worse on Uverse.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Thanks, Tony, for outlining all the variables in comparing PQ. I suspect another one is variable bit rates by the distributors, and in turn feeds from the content providers might vary from place to place, depending on distance and how they are uplinked, or cable or fibre feed- or OTA.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Thanks, Tony, for outlining all the variables in comparing PQ. I suspect another one is variable bit rates by the distributors, and in turn feeds from the content providers might vary from place to place, depending on distance and how they are uplinked, or cable or fibre feed- or OTA.


Yes. I thought about including that.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> The players do not determine download speed. I see the same variations Diana sees on netflix. It is not dependable for PQ. Its best can be very good but it can drop in a second to not so good.
> 
> I do get better reproduction from my tv than other devices but the speeds are the same.


I do have a fairly fast Net connection. But I tried Rokus and the rest of the boxes and found them wanting in some respect.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Rich said:


> I do have a fairly fast Net connection. But I tried Rokus and the rest of the boxes and found them wanting in some respect.
> 
> Rich


I can agree with that. The worst rendering I get of the picture is from my roku. But the speed is not the factor. Nor is the resolution. I've run the tests and all the units are seeing the same relative speed and resolution at the same time. Yet the roku PQ is the worst of the devices I have in house.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> _*The players do not determine download speed.*_ I see the same variations Diana sees on netflix._* It is not dependable for PQ. Its best can be very good but it can drop in a second to not so good.*_
> 
> I do get better reproduction from my tv than other devices but the speeds are the same.


I don't think I ever said the players do that. I don't have any problems with the content dropping out or changing quality. When I get a show going it never stops or drops in resolution. I don't have any Rokus or other boxes because they don't work as well as BD players and Sammy BD players in particular (I've tried a lot of BD players, too) do. Yeah, they don't have all those apps as the Rokus do, but I never used any of them. I just use NF and rarely Amazon. I can't possibly live very far from Diana, we both live in NJ and it ain't that big. I simply don't have any issues using my Sammy BD players.

I really don't want to argue about this, Tony. It is what it is. I'm not a huge Sammy fan, I just stumbled upon their BD players and was stunned by how much better they worked than anything else I had tried for streaming. I'm not impressed by them mechanically, I'm having problems getting one of my E6500s to start streaming (I've got two E6500s and the other one works fine) and I know I'll be replacing that one soon. Upsides and downsides to every device. NF also renders older models obsolete with their OS upgrades and if I can get 2 or 3 years out of them I'll consider myself lucky.

Rich


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> ...Fios changes hbo MPEG4 to MPEG2 and it gets more grainy, more mosaic in dark stationary scenes than does directv...


As an aside, I thought FiOS was using MPEG4 for HBO now...they are converting everything to MPEG4, so I assumed (I guess incorrectly) that the first channels they would do that with would be the ones they receive in MPEG4.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Diana C said:


> As an aside, I thought FiOS was using MPEG4 for HBO now...they are converting everything to MPEG4, so I assumed (I guess incorrectly) that the first channels they would do that with would be the ones they receive in MPEG4.


No. They are moving some newer channels to MPEG 4 but only those on certain packages because a lot of their boxes can't decode MPEG 4. They still deliver the majority of their channels, including hbo as MPEG 2.

They are doing it based upon customer not what they get in 4. For example, most, if not all, their Baseball package channels and other sports subs are in 4 because they did that when they went from 2 per sport to the 8 or so they have now. That was part of the deal. You want more channels, you swap your box.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Yup, cable companies are having a lot of problems migrating to MPEG4 because they have so many outdated receivers. Same problem as Directv will have getting rid of MPEG2, except many cable companies have HD equipment that can't do MPEG4.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Yup, cable companies are having a lot of problems migrating to MPEG4 because they have so many outdated receivers. Same problem as Directv will have getting rid of MPEG2, except many cable companies have HD equipment that can't do MPEG4.


Directv has less need to get rid of MPEG 2. Their only MPEG 2 is SD. They are ahead of many on that as they pioneered MPEG 4 for HD.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Cablevision here in NY has that older HW vs newer hardware issue. I use their Samsung boxes that support either MPEG-2 or H.264, but I guess there are some older Scientific Atlanta boxes in use that only support MPEG-2. As a result live TV here is MPEG-2, but my "cloud DVR" recordings are all H.264, as of a few weeks ago.

Good news is I can switch between live MPEG-2 and an H.264 "recording in progress" of the same show, and PQ is virtually identical. :up: My cloud storage also increased from ~75 to ~95 hours of HD as well.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

edpowers said:


> Most eyes aren't going to see a difference on a 42" display unless they are sitting REALLY close.


Yes in theory, but not correct actually. Although most will not see full resolution UHD, they are also not seeing true HDTV now for the exact same reason (distance from screen versus size of screen).

By starting with a better picture resolution, as the resolution "degrades" the further back one moves, one will still see better resolution than they would see with HDTV...as it was a better resolution source to begin with.

For example, most are out of the sweet spot with their HDTV and do not see 1920x1080.....but a lower quality resolution.

The UHD and future 8K while perhaps not full resolution, will be better than 1920 x1080 outside the sweet spot - unless one is REALLY far back.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

edpowers said:


> Because I've been a customer for a really long time and never experienced any major improvement in PQ after a sat launch. Unless A LOT more people start complaining about PQ, Directv has no reason to increase bit rate. I just don't see a lot of people complaining about these issues. And even if they are, where will they go? Dish Network? Cable? The grass isn't any less pixelized over there.
> 
> My guess is that Directv will figure out more profitable ways to use the extra bandwidth. Like adding a batch of worthless channels in a new EXTRA-HD $10 package or more informercial channels. I'd be really happy if I'm wrong and PQ suddenly improves after D14 comes online but I won't be holding my breath.


DirecTV went from HD-Lite 1440x1080 to 1920x1080 when they went to the Ka / MPEG4 satellites, so you have seen PQ improvements after a satellite launch.

However, as we have seen from AT&T, they chose quantity over quality, so I agree that PQ will probably not improve this time with new launches - and will probably degrade with AT&T given their history.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes in theory, but not correct actually. Although most will not see full resolution UHD, they are also not seeing true HDTV now for the exact same reason (distance from screen versus size of screen).
> 
> By starting with a better picture resolution, as the resolution "degrades" the further back one moves, one will still see better resolution than they would see with HDTV...as it was a better resolution source to begin with.
> 
> ...


Resolution does not degrade when one moves further away. Resolution, specifically, doesn't change, but the perception does-the *further back one is, the sharper the picture looks,* (differences in apparent size of the pixels become indistinguishable the further away one is.)


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ...By starting with a better picture resolution, as the resolution "degrades" the further back one moves, one will still see better resolution than they would see with HDTV...as it was a better resolution source to begin with...


That's not the way it works. Let's assume you have 20/20 vision. That means you can resolve two black lines on a white background down to 5 arc minutes each (IOW, be able to tell that they are two lines and not one). It doesn't matter if the those two lines are each 4 pixels wide (in HD) or 8 pixels wide (in UHD), they will look equally clear and sharp. If the apparent distance between the lines becomes less than 5 arc minutes it makes no difference how high the screen resolution becomes, the viewer will not be able to resolve them into two distinct lines. IOW, at a given viewing distance and screen size, there is a point at which increasing the resolution of the display ceases to improve apparent resolution. To appreciate the improved resolution, you must either increase the screen size, or move closer (in other words, increase how many arc-minutes wide the finest details appear to the eye).


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Diana C said:


> That's not the way it works. Let's assume you have 20/20 vision. That means you can resolve two black lines on a white background down to 5 arc minutes each (IOW, be able to tell that they are two lines and not one). It doesn't matter if the those two lines are each 4 pixels wide (in HD) or 8 pixels wide (in UHD), they will look equally clear and sharp. If the apparent distance between the lines becomes less than 5 arc minutes it makes no difference how high the screen resolution becomes, the viewer will not be able to resolve them into two distinct lines. IOW, at a given viewing distance and screen size, there is a point at which increasing the resolution of the display ceases to improve apparent resolution. To appreciate the improved resolution, you must either increase the screen size, or move closer (in other words, increase how many arc-minutes wide the finest details appear to the eye).


Huh. I actually understood that! You did that very well.

Rich


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> Resolution does not degrade when one moves further away. Resolution, specifically, doesn't change, but the perception does-the *further back one is, the sharper the picture looks,* (differences in apparent size of the pixels become indistinguishable the further away one is.)


Using that logic, one should just get a small screen TV and sit far away.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Using that logic, one should just get a small screen TV and sit far away.


Whatever.

There's a sweet spot for everyone, given x number of pixels and y size of real estate on the screen.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Diana C said:


> That's not the way it works. Let's assume you have 20/20 vision. That means you can resolve two black lines on a white background down to 5 arc minutes each (IOW, be able to tell that they are two lines and not one). It doesn't matter if the those two lines are each 4 pixels wide (in HD) or 8 pixels wide (in UHD), they will look equally clear and sharp. If the apparent distance between the lines becomes less than 5 arc minutes it makes no difference how high the screen resolution becomes, the viewer will not be able to resolve them into two distinct lines. IOW, at a given viewing distance and screen size, there is a point at which increasing the resolution of the display ceases to improve apparent resolution. To appreciate the improved resolution, you must either increase the screen size, or move closer (in other words, increase how many arc-minutes wide the finest details appear to the eye).


Agree that at some point it does not matter. However, that distance is not reached in a normal room of a normal house.

Simply put a SD channel on a screen and walk to the other side of a room - farther back than THX or SMPTE recommends for the screen size - and then change the remote to the HD channel.

The HD will be sharper than the SD picture.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> Whatever.
> 
> There's a sweet spot for everyone, given x number of pixels and y size of real estate on the screen.


There is a difference in "sweet spot" - and where a 99% of Americans actually sit in relation to their TV.

Again, there is a "zone" behind the sweet spot where increased resolution can be perceived as can be seen by changing between SD and HD.

At some point past that zone, agreed, there is no perception difference no matter the source resolution, but that is further back than the dimensions of most rooms.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Don't disagree, but I don't see anyone talking SD vs. HD except you. 

The exception I took with what you wrote was primarily the notion that resolution "degrades" with increasing distance.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> However, as we have seen from AT&T, they chose quantity over quality, so I agree that PQ will probably not improve this time with new launches - and will probably degrade with AT&T given their history.


Uverse is IPTV over a bandwidth limited connection. They have no choice but to degrade the quality. It isn't because of the number of channels they provide in total, it is because of the number of channels they provide per household at a time. They'd have the same PQ if they offered 5,000 channels or only 50.

With Directv and other "traditional" cable/satellite providers there is a certain amount of bandwidth they have to provide all channels, and assuming the compression stays the same, adding more channels mean reducing PQ if they don't find a way to add additional bandwidth (i.e. launching a new satellite, or using higher frequencies for cable)


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> Don't disagree, but I don't see anyone talking SD vs. HD except you.
> 
> The exception I took with what you wrote was primarily the notion that resolution "degrades" with increasing distance.


I am pointing to SD to HD as a simple test anyone can do in their own home. It is identical to a HD to UHD test.

I was walking down the aisle in Best Buy on Saturday (see other thread), glanced up from 20 feet away and immediately realized a 4K TV was on the wall as the resolution was much better than the other TVs around it, that is what caused me to walk over and examine it (and the photo that started the other thread).

By your definition (and others), I could not have seen that the TV that got my attention was UHD because I was 20 feet away and it's resolution should have looked the same as all the rest of the TVs on the wall.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Uverse is IPTV over a bandwidth limited connection. They have no choice but to degrade the quality. It isn't because of the number of channels they provide in total, it is because of the number of channels they provide per household at a time. They'd have the same PQ if they offered 5,000 channels or only 50.
> 
> With Directv and other "traditional" cable/satellite providers there is a certain amount of bandwidth they have to provide all channels, and assuming the compression stays the same, adding more channels mean reducing PQ if they don't find a way to add additional bandwidth (i.e. launching a new satellite, or using higher frequencies for cable)


Take EVERY SD channel on DTV and move them to HD. Still think there will be "infinite" bandwidth for high quality PQ?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Agree that at some point it does not matter. However, that distance is not reached in a normal room of a normal house.
> 
> Simply put a SD channel on a screen and walk to the other side of a room - farther back than THX or SMPTE recommends for the screen size - and then change the remote to the HD channel.
> 
> The HD will be sharper than the SD picture.


Not necessarily...depending on the screen size and viewing distance there could be no perceptible difference, while still well within normal household conditions.

This chart has been floating around for a long time: http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006/11/1080p-does-matter

As it shows, at a viewing distance of 10 feet, nothing above 720p will seem like an improvement in resolution on a 50" screen. You have to go up to a 70" screen before you fully appreciate even 1080p. To fully see the improved resolution of 1440p requires a 100" screen - and that is still less than the resolution of 4K. At 10 feet you would need a 12 foot diagonal screen to appreciate the difference.

Using your example of looking at a display from across the room (say 20 feet away) and using the average home display size of 50", you could not tell difference between 480p, 720p and 1080p. Moving away from the screen, while staying well within the normal distances inside a home, makes high resolution LESS visible, not more. Your eyes, nor matter how good your vision, simply can't resolve the details that are on the screen.

This is the problem 4K faces: unless you sit REALLY close (unreasonably close for most people - something like 4 feet) you simply can't see the difference between HD and UHD unless you have a wall sized (10 feet diagonal or larger) screen. For the vast majority of viewers, that makes 4K irrelevant.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Not necessarily...depending on the screen size and viewing distance there could be no perceptible difference, while still well within normal household conditions.
> 
> This chart has been floating around for a long time: http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006/11/1080p-does-matter
> 
> ...


While one of my pet peeves with HDTVs is people sitting way to far away from the sets (such that their eyes can no longer resolve the difference in definition they just paid for), I did have an experience that somewhat contradicts the formulas and "rules of thumb". Generally, I go by "sit no further than 2.5 times the diagonal" of the TV screen, if you want to be able to resolve the detail the picture is showing you. This has always gotten me in the ballpark. However, the other day I was in a Big Box store and saw a 4K TV with a 4K source. It was around 55" or so. What caught me is that while I was approaching the TV section, not knowing what TVs were there, and certainly not being aware that one of the TVs was 4K with a 4K source, my eyes jumped to the 4K TV and just stuck there. I was at least 15 to 20 feet away when the screen literally grabbed me. The difference between it an all the others was dramatic in "smoothness" and detail. When I got closer, I saw it was 4K and my jaw dropped, as I did not anticipate the difference from 1080p to be so dramatic. I moved around quite a bit to see how close I had to view the screen to see any difference and consistently was impressed at more than 15'.

I don't see the 4' mathematical limit or recommendation holding at all, not even close. At 13' on a 55" 4K I was bowled over by the stunning clarity of the video. This was glaringly obvious on faces near and far, scenery, sharpness, color saturation, everything was dramatically better at this distance, almost TRIPLE the 4 feet mentioned above.

Something else is going on here. Perhaps there is more going on than just "detail" on a pixel by pixel basis. There is an "overall" effect that holds as distance increased beyond the theoretical ideal of 4 feet, quite a bit beyond 4'.

I can't explain what it is, but my eyes don't lie to me, especially since I was predisposed to the mathematical/theoretical approach which told me I should not be able to see the difference beyond "x' feet.

All that aside, 4K sources at proper bit rates are not going to be around soon (at reasonable cost). I don't see them working on DirecTV in real time without being bit-starved. On Demand with some download delay would work.

4K is much better than 3D. 3D has flopped over and over for several reasons. 4K when affordable with 4K sources is dramatically better.than what we see now. If it became as affordable as HD 1080p is now, and the infrastructure were there to take advantage of it, it should succeed. Those are presently big qualifiers. From what I saw, 4K will sell itself when it is price competitive AND source material is common/readily available. I don't see people buying new players and new disks as their only source. Downloadable has a future as the infrastructure improves. Over the air and satellite are going to have to work really hard. OTA has bandwidth issues that cannot be overcome without new spectrum, and satellite has the self-destructive approach of bit-starving to contend with.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hasan said:


> While one of my pet peeves with HDTVs is people sitting way to far away from the sets (such that their eyes can no longer resolve the difference in definition they just paid for), I did have an experience that somewhat contradicts the formulas and "rules of thumb". Generally, I go by "sit no further than 2.5 times the diagonal" of the TV screen, if you want to be able to resolve the detail the picture is showing you. This has always gotten me in the ballpark. However, the other day I was in a Big Box store and saw a 4K TV with a 4K source. It was around 55" or so. What caught me is that while I was approaching the TV section, not knowing what TVs were there, and certainly not being aware that one of the TVs was 4K with a 4K source, my eyes jumped to the 4K TV and just stuck there. I was at least 15 to 20 feet away when the screen literally grabbed me. The difference between it an all the others was dramatic in "smoothness" and detail. When I got closer, I saw it was 4K and my jaw dropped, as I did not anticipate the difference from 1080p to be so dramatic. I moved around quite a bit to see how close I had to view the screen to see any difference and consistently was impressed at more than 15'.
> 
> I don't see the 4' mathematical limit or recommendation holding at all, not even close. At 13' on a 55" 4K I was bowled over by the stunning clarity of the video. This was glaringly obvious on faces near and far, scenery, sharpness, color saturation, everything was dramatically better at this distance, almost TRIPLE the 4 feet mentioned above.
> 
> ...


Well, that's good news and a good post! Now I've gotta get to a store and see for myself what I see. One of our local retailers, PC Richard's, is selling a 65" 4K for...huh. They have three 65" sets for $3300, $3500 and $4300. They've also got an 85" 4K set for only $40,000. Those are all Sammys. A 65" Sony 4K is $5000. I'd probably lean towards the Sony. Maybe this year for Xmas. I realize that will blow away my vow to never buy another TV for more than 2 grand, but the heart wants what the heart wants. And my heart lusts for better PQ. Perhaps by Xmas we'll have a better idea when we can expect some 4K content other than using an upscaler, which I already have. I'd really like to use that upscaler on a 4K set.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Take EVERY SD channel on DTV and move them to HD. Still think there will be "infinite" bandwidth for high quality PQ?


Where did I say there was "infinite" bandwidth? All I said was that the PQ constraints on Uverse due to the way it delivers TV are different than the constraints for traditional cable/satellite providers. It doesn't matter how big the selection of channels is for Uverse, the constraint on PQ is based on the four channels they can get at once over a limited bandwidth pipe to the customer's home.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> Well, that's good news and a good post! Now I've gotta get to a store and see for myself what I see. One of our local retailers, PC Richard's, is selling a 65" 4K for...huh. They have three 65" sets for $3300, $3500 and $4300. They've also got an 85" 4K set for only $40,000. Those are all Sammys. A 65" Sony 4K is $5000. I'd probably lean towards the Sony. Maybe this year for Xmas. I realize that will blow away my vow to never buy another TV for more than 2 grand, but the heart wants what the heart wants. And my heart lusts for better PQ. Perhaps by Xmas we'll have a better idea when we can expect some 4K content other than using an upscaler, which I already have. I'd really like to use that upscaler on a 4K set.
> 
> Rich


You should really consider Panasonic AX800U series - the http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1532039-panasonic-beats-plasma-picture-quality-tc-ax800u-series.html
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1534965-official-panasonic-tc-58ax800u-tc-65ax800u-4k-owners-thread.html


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> You should really consider Panasonic AX800U series - the http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1532039-panasonic-beats-plasma-picture-quality-tc-ax800u-series.html
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1534965-official-panasonic-tc-58ax800u-tc-65ax800u-4k-owners-thread.html


Hmm. The only LCDs by Panasonic I've seen looked pretty terrible. But, if you say so, I'll surely look at them. The pictures in that link did look superb. Never been a big fan of anything Panasonic until I saw their plasmas, but if they make a 4K set as well as they did plasmas...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

The Panny 4K is 4 grand. That should go down by Xmas, or shortly after. I gotta get out and look.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

hasan said:


> While one of my pet peeves with HDTVs is people sitting way to far away from the sets (such that their eyes can no longer resolve the difference in definition they just paid for), I did have an experience that somewhat contradicts the formulas and "rules of thumb". Generally, I go by "sit no further than 2.5 times the diagonal" of the TV screen, if you want to be able to resolve the detail the picture is showing you. This has always gotten me in the ballpark. However, the other day I was in a Big Box store and saw a 4K TV with a 4K source. It was around 55" or so. What caught me is that while I was approaching the TV section, not knowing what TVs were there, and certainly not being aware that one of the TVs was 4K with a 4K source, my eyes jumped to the 4K TV and just stuck there. I was at least 15 to 20 feet away when the screen literally grabbed me. The difference between it an all the others was dramatic in "smoothness" and detail. When I got closer, I saw it was 4K and my jaw dropped, as I did not anticipate the difference from 1080p to be so dramatic. I moved around quite a bit to see how close I had to view the screen to see any difference and consistently was impressed at more than 15'.
> 
> I don't see the 4' mathematical limit or recommendation holding at all, not even close. At 13' on a 55" 4K I was bowled over by the stunning clarity of the video. This was glaringly obvious on faces near and far, scenery, sharpness, color saturation, everything was dramatically better at this distance, almost TRIPLE the 4 feet mentioned above.
> 
> ...


What's going on here is that big box stores fool you by providing two different sources that have been encoded at different qualities. If you looked at a HDTV based on a Blu Ray source you'd probably have higher expectations than what is actually delivered when you watch broadcast HD content. Similarly, what you see on the 4K source in the store demo is not what you're going to see in the real world.

I saw a demo in Vegas a while ago that accidentally revealed to me how much difference this makes. They had a 4K TV side by side with a HDTV, showing the "same" content. Only it wasn't, from up close the artifacting in the HD content was plain to see. The demo was about 7 minutes long, but at one point it had a split screen where it showed the 4K content in "1080p" on one side to compare. You didn't have to move back all that far before you couldn't see the difference on the split screens - but at the same distance the difference between the 4K TV and the HDTV was apparent - because of the lower quality source used for the HDTV. I asked the rep how they displayed 1080p on the 4K set, he said they showed four of the same pixel, so that half of the TV truly was 1080p.

The TV makers and big box stores are trying to push 4K as a premium feature, hoping to get everyone to upgrade their TVs all over again. You don't think they're rigging the demos to make the difference look as great as possible for naive consumers? The demo I saw accidentally revealed this when it showed the split screen and the 4K content downscaled to 1080p looked much better than the 1080p (if it was even that?) content shown on the HDTV next to it.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The point I was about to make. The source material for such demos is very carefully crafted, and comparison to any feeds in a big box store has to be taken with several grains of salt. Maybe a pallet.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I was going to say the same...I know my local Best Buy feeds all their HDTVs with DirecTV content, while they feed the UHDTVs with 4K demo loops.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

hasan said:


> While one of my pet peeves with HDTVs is people sitting way to far away from the sets (such that their eyes can no longer resolve the difference in definition they just paid for), I did have an experience that somewhat contradicts the formulas and "rules of thumb". Generally, I go by "sit no further than 2.5 times the diagonal" of the TV screen, if you want to be able to resolve the detail the picture is showing you. This has always gotten me in the ballpark. However, the other day I was in a Big Box store and saw a 4K TV with a 4K source. It was around 55" or so. What caught me is that while I was approaching the TV section, not knowing what TVs were there, and certainly not being aware that one of the TVs was 4K with a 4K source, my eyes jumped to the 4K TV and just stuck there. I was at least 15 to 20 feet away when the screen literally grabbed me. The difference between it an all the others was dramatic in "smoothness" and detail. When I got closer, I saw it was 4K and my jaw dropped, as I did not anticipate the difference from 1080p to be so dramatic. I moved around quite a bit to see how close I had to view the screen to see any difference and consistently was impressed at more than 15'.
> 
> I don't see the 4' mathematical limit or recommendation holding at all, not even close. At 13' on a 55" 4K I was bowled over by the stunning clarity of the video. This was glaringly obvious on faces near and far, scenery, sharpness, color saturation, everything was dramatically better at this distance, almost TRIPLE the 4 feet mentioned above.
> 
> ...


It's actually quite simple. You saw a better tv shown off in its best light. Most stores I go to do not feed HD sets with HD signals. They use down converted SD from an HD source and they don't tweak the tvs at all. The 4K sets use actual 4K sources, the tvs are calibrated and placed in perfect locations.

As for the better TV, it is not just 4K. They tend to be better displays.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> The point I was about to make. The source material for such demos is very carefully crafted, and comparison to any feeds in a big box store has to be taken with several grains of salt. Maybe a pallet.


Yup, went thru that when I upgraded all my TVs. I'm sure most of us are aware of that and I would be surprised if Hasan didn't take that into consideration.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

tonyd79 said:


> It's actually quite simple. You saw a better tv shown off in its best light. Most stores I go to do not feed HD sets with HD signals. They use down converted SD from an HD source and they don't tweak the tvs at all. The 4K sets use actual 4K sources, the tvs are calibrated and placed in perfect locations.
> 
> As for the better TV, it is not just 4K. They tend to be better displays.


Yes, aside from Seiki, the only 4K TVs out there are fairly high end to very high end. Do the big box stores even stock/display very high end HDTVs any more? Probably not, they want to sell those high end customers 4K sets. So the 4K TVs will be surrounded by TVs of lesser quality, using lower quality sources, to maximize the difference.

Big box stores also don't always have a way to view them at the distance you'll have in your home, if they're in an aisle. Of course they look great from a couple feet away. A cell phone with a 1080p screen looks better than one with a 720p screen if you hold it a few inches from your face, but no one uses them that way.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I think most people sit between 8 and 12 feet from their TVs (sure, some are closer and some are further, but at least 75% must fall in that range). I also find it hard to believe that more than a few percent of the viewing public is going to tolerate more than a 8 foot diagonal screen in their main viewing area. That just isn't going to blow anyone away on real world sources.


OTA broadcast can't do 4K on a single channel (if the government wanted to promote 4K broadcasts, they would have to grant every TV station at least one more channel).
Cable is struggling to fit regular HD into their QAM stack (with the resulting over compression) and have no room for 4K.
Satellite has the ability to deliver SOME 4K content, but they don't have the capacity to do any significant 4K linear broadcasting either.
IP based delivery, even with the most advanced compression, will run smack into data caps and bandwidth throttling (Netflix is already a sizable portion of all internet traffic in the evenings - with a significant amount of that streaming in 4K Netflix could overwhelm many routers and segments)

So where will the 4K content come from? Without some major infrastructure changes it won't come from broadcasting. What does that leave, BluRay discs? That sounds an awful lot like the situation with 3D - very limited linear content available, most content availble only on BD. That's not a great place to be.

I'm sorry but I just don't see how 4K will expand beyond the videophile market - the sort of people that have real home theaters (not just a surround sound system in their family room). Without the content to show it off, and with simply massive screens needed to see the difference between it and 1080p in the real world, I don't see it becoming significantly mainstream.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Netflix is streaming 4K in 16Mb/s, ATSC has 19Mb/s usable bit rate, so 4K would be doable for OTA on a single channel. The problem is that a station doing 4K can't also provide HD, so they'd cut off all their current customers for the half dozen or so who might have 4K TVs capable of decoding a h.265 broadcast


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, aside from Seiki, the only 4K TVs out there are fairly high end to very high end. Do the big box stores even stock/display very high end HDTVs any more? Probably not, they want to sell those high end customers 4K sets. So the 4K TVs will be surrounded by TVs of lesser quality, using lower quality sources, to maximize the difference.


Best Buy and hhGregg both have a variety of sets on display. I bought one of the better Sony 65 HDTVs last year and it was on display. Of course, it was set to all the stupid auto-adjusments and looked like crap. Which was odd because it was reviewed all over as one of the best and brightest and sharpest TVs on the market for "standard" HD. I turned off the autodim and POW! It looked better than anything around it.

The thing is, while they still have higher end HD TVs on display, they treat them like garbage. That was the point I was making about the 4K standing out at the store. They make sure those look good (probably company reps check on them).


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm grateful I was able to snag a Panny 65ZT60 at a good price before they got out of the plasma business. Really gorgeous picture quality, IMHO, from any angle in the room. And even though I own a colorimeter and have calibrated a couple of my other displays, I find no need to touch this one. Color looks spot-on, to my eyes.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> It's actually quite simple. You saw a better tv shown off in its best light. Most stores I go to do not feed HD sets with HD signals. They use down converted SD from an HD source and they don't tweak the tvs at all. The 4K sets use actual 4K sources, the tvs are calibrated and placed in perfect locations.
> 
> As for the better TV, it is not just 4K. They tend to be better displays.


I wouldn't have bothered to post my observations if it were that simple. The first thing I looked for was a bogus garbage set or deliberately mis-adjusted SET A vs. Optimally Adjusted SET B. In other words, I checked for the simple "tricks" and manipulations some places (many) do, and that was not the case in this situation. One was HDTV driven by a 1080p source, the other was 4K with a 4K source. What I observed was dramatic and at a distance that would not have been predicted by simple "rules of thumb" or mathematical expressions. The normal HDTVs were good Samsung displays. I don't recall who made the 4K job, as I wasn't interested in making a purchase. I know what a good 1080p looks like, I'm used to an outstanding HDTV picture. I have a 60" Sammy LCD/LED and its pix is superb. The same TV that I have in this store was running standard HDTV and it looked great. However, when I compared it to the 4K TV with a 4K source, it was more than apparent that the pix quality was astounding on the 4K set, even at 13 feet. A face is a face. One looked great, the other was amazing and that difference held well beyond 4 feet, and was still quite obvious at 13' . I use that number because that is the distance between our seating area and the 60" Sammy we currently have.

Side by side, settings optimized for eye candy effect on BOTH sets, the 4K was clearly, very clearly more pleasing to me. It was a surprise. I don't lust for it, I was just surprised.

Actually, the only reason I posted was to describe my experience which was inconsistent with the 4 foot comment.. At 13' one couldn't miss how much better the 55": 4K TV looked with a 4K source than the same sized Sammy 1080p at 13'.

Whatever is going on it isn't simple math, it involves perceptual issues that need to be looked at in a more nuanced manner to explain why I saw what I saw. Good vs bad brands and adjustments were NOT what I was seeing...

All that aside, one needs to go look for oneself, live, and make one's own judgments, as the simple explanations I've seen so far don't work for me. The rest of my comments about 4K not being practical for a considerable length of time and for a variety of reasons stand.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

If you truly saw the 4k tv versus well displayed, good hdtv's, we just gave to disagree on the quality from any distance. I have seen several 4K sets and the overall PQ on standard material (concerts, movies) from any reasonable distance was not that stunning. What is stunning is the demo reels they run that show individual details on a city scape. But it was cool but a who cares to me. It was interesting only in a "that's cool" way. But the extra detail would not really add to the enjoyment of a movie. You don't get that detail at a theater, for example. 

BTW, I cannot find anyone driving 1080p to display sets. Must've been a high end store.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> If you truly saw the 4k tv versus well displayed, good hdtv's, we just gave to disagree on the quality from any distance. I have seen several 4K sets and the overall PQ on standard material (concerts, movies) from any reasonable distance was not that stunning. What is stunning is the demo reels they run that show individual details on a city scape. But it was cool but a who cares to me. It was interesting only in a "that's cool" way. But the extra detail would not really add to the enjoyment of a movie. You don't get that detail at a theater, for example.
> 
> BTW, I cannot find anyone driving 1080p to display sets. Must've been a high end store.


Blu-Ray source.

I'm not saying that 1080p to a 4K set looks any better, I'm saying a 4K source to a 4K TV looks way better than 1080p on a 1080p HDTV out to a distance of 13'. All I'm trying to get across is the DISTANCE equation doesn't hold up if it says I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K unless I'm within 4' of the display. That is my only assertion.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

hasan said:


> Blu-Ray source.
> 
> I'm not saying that 1080p to a 4K set looks any better, I'm saying a 4K source to a 4K TV looks way better than 1080p on a 1080p HDTV out to a distance of 13'. All I'm trying to get across is the DISTANCE equation doesn't hold up if it says I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K unless I'm within 4' of the display. That is my only assertion.


And I am disagreeing. The numbers are backed by known quantities of tests of eyes and humans. And I have seen the sets. They don't look better from distance.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

sigma1914 said:


> You should really consider Panasonic AX800U series - the http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1532039-panasonic-beats-plasma-picture-quality-tc-ax800u-series.html
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1534965-official-panasonic-tc-58ax800u-tc-65ax800u-4k-owners-thread.html


This is why you should not believe everything you read on the web. The first generation Panasonics cannot even play Netflix 4k.

The new models in October will correct the problem....but buying a current Panasonic model will be a BIG waste of money.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

tonyd79 said:


> And I am disagreeing. The numbers are backed by known quantities of tests of eyes and humans. And I have seen the sets. They don't look better from distance.


And there have been 2 people now on this thread noting that they could tell the difference in a set from a long distance away.

And btw, as you can see from the picture this is NOT UNDER OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, it was under the full lighting of the main showroom on a wall with other HDTV. It was NOT in the Magnolia part of Best Buy. And I was walking down the main aisle at least 20+ feet from the wall and was unaware that the units were UHD....and only went over to investigate because it looked so much better than the other TVs.

The base of the TV which says "UHD" is visible on the base - as is the harsh lighting condition which are clearly NON-OPTIMAL. You can even see the overhead florescent reflection in the picture! So please stop the "optimized condition" mumbo jumbo.

Again, if the picture did not stand out from the others on the wall from 20+ feet away, I would not have gone down to see why the picture was so superior. According to you I just imagined the picture was superior from the other TVs around it from 20+ feet - and happened to be right? Yeah....

Guess you need your vision checked. I can see how those with vision issues would not be able to see the details.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And there have been 2 people now on this thread noting that they could tell the difference in a set from a long distance away.


I guess the Sony marketing folks need to update their own 4k FAQs, then: https://blog.sony.com/2013/04/4k-faq/



> *How close to the TV must I sit to appreciate 4K?*
> The short answer is that between 5 and 6 ft. is the ideal viewing distance for a 55" or 65" Sony 4K Ultra HD TV.


I have no doubt that set looked better than the others. My guess is it was due to superior color, brightness and contrast calibration, out of the box.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Steve said:


> I guess the Sony marketing folks need to update their own 4k FAQs, then: https://blog.sony.com/2013/04/4k-faq/
> 
> I have no doubt that set looked better than the others. My guess is it was due to superior color, brightness and contrast calibration, out of the box.


There is nothing in that statement that contradicts what I said or has any reason for "Sony marketing folks need to update their own 4k FAQ then".

The IDEAL distance they state is correct.

That does NOT mean you will not see an improvement outside the "ideal" distance.

Move far enough back from the "ideal distance "and one cannot tell the difference in a NTSC 16:9 picture and HD. However, behind the "ideal" distance, one can certainly tell the difference in NTSC and HDTV. There is not a "drop dead zone" at 6 feet.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I probably should have posted Sony's _entire _answer to that question. It extols the 4K benefits being closer to the screen, not further away.



> *How close to the TV must I sit to appreciate 4K?*
> The short answer is that between 5 and 6 ft. is the ideal viewing distance for a 55" or 65" Sony 4K Ultra HD TV.
> 
> However, on a 55", you can now sit as close as 3.6 ft and enjoy a visibly smoother and more detailed picture (e.g you won't see the individual pixels). On a 65" TV, you can sit as close as 4.2 ft. to appreciate 4K.
> ...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hasan said:


> I wouldn't have bothered to post my observations if it were that simple. The first thing I looked for was a bogus garbage set or deliberately mis-adjusted SET A vs. Optimally Adjusted SET B. In other words, I checked for the simple "tricks" and manipulations some places (many) do, and that was not the case in this situation. One was HDTV driven by a 1080p source, the other was 4K with a 4K source. What I observed was dramatic and at a distance that would not have been predicted by simple "rules of thumb" or mathematical expressions. The normal HDTVs were good Samsung displays. I don't recall who made the 4K job, as I wasn't interested in making a purchase. I know what a good 1080p looks like, I'm used to an outstanding HDTV picture. I have a 60" Sammy LCD/LED and its pix is superb. The same TV that I have in this store was running standard HDTV and it looked great. However, when I compared it to the 4K TV with a 4K source, it was more than apparent that the pix quality was astounding on the 4K set, even at 13 feet. A face is a face. One looked great, the other was amazing and that difference held well beyond 4 feet, and was still quite obvious at 13' . I use that number because that is the distance between our seating area and the 60" Sammy we currently have.
> 
> Side by side, settings optimized for eye candy effect on BOTH sets, the 4K was clearly, very clearly more pleasing to me. It was a surprise. I don't lust for it, I was just surprised.
> 
> ...


Good post. I believe every word.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And there have been 2 people now on this thread noting that they could tell the difference in a set from a long distance away.
> 
> And btw, as you can see from the picture this is NOT UNDER OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, it was under the full lighting of the main showroom on a wall with other HDTV. It was NOT in the Magnolia part of Best Buy. And I was walking down the main aisle at least 20+ feet from the wall and was unaware that the units were UHD....and only went over to investigate because it looked so much better than the other TVs.
> 
> ...


I've had several conversations about my "obsession" with NF's SHD content. People just don't seem to believe what I see plainly. All I care about is PQ. And I'm quite able to discern the differences in NF SHD and D*'s 1080i offerings. Nothing against D*'s 1080i PQ, it's fine but there's a very noticeable difference between the two. Remember, I played a BD and compared it to NF's SHD using two Sammy BD players and didn't see very much, if any difference. Try that using D*'s 1080i and stream the same thing in SHD from NF and you'll see the difference too. If people think every streaming device does exactly the same as the rest of them, they're wrong or I would have never sprung for the relatively more expensive Sammy E6500s and my F7500. The F7500 is a superb machine and streams NF better than my E6500s do.

A couple years ago, I got into an argument on another forum about the superiority of streaming with a BD player over many of the cheaper devices. After reading many posts by those guys about how, technically, a BD player can't possibly upscale, I asked them how many BD players they had and what kind they were. After listening for almost a week to tech BS that I didn't understand, they admitted that they had no BD players and had never tried one. There's a lesson here. Baffle me with BS all you want, but I know what I see. And I believe Hasan and know him well enough that I see no reason to doubt him or you at all.

Yeah, I want to believe that the 4K sets will be a good thing. That doesn't mean that I'll just go out and buy one, the final test will be made by my own eyes before I make a purchase.

Good posts, BTW, your user name belies your posts. Very well written and thought out.

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> And there have been 2 people now on this thread noting that they could tell the difference in a set from a long distance away.
> 
> And btw, as you can see from the picture this is NOT UNDER OPTIMAL CONDITIONS, it was under the full lighting of the main showroom on a wall with other HDTV. It was NOT in the Magnolia part of Best Buy. And I was walking down the main aisle at least 20+ feet from the wall and was unaware that the units were UHD....and only went over to investigate because it looked so much better than the other TVs.
> 
> ...


No, I'm saying that something else caught your eye. No one has claimed they were watching the same production, for example. Most of the 4K stuff on those TVs are productions designed to catch the eye. While the HD tvs are usually showing a standard movie or espn.

As for my vision, it is excellent with my glasses. And I am highly critical of PQ.

Finally, I believe the science, not the story of a couple of Internet posters who got lured in by a sales display.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Steve said:


> I probably should have posted Sony's _entire _answer to that question. It extols the 4K benefits being closer to the screen, not further away.


Again, there is nothing there that disputes what i posted.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Rich said:


> I've had several conversations about my "obsession" with NF's SHD content. People just don't seem to believe what I see plainly. All I care about is PQ. And I'm quite able to discern the differences in NF SHD and D*'s 1080i offerings. Nothing against D*'s 1080i PQ, it's fine but there's a very noticeable difference between the two. Remember, I played a BD and compared it to NF's SHD using two Sammy BD players and didn't see very much, if any difference. Try that using D*'s 1080i and stream the same thing in SHD from NF and you'll see the difference too. If people think every streaming device does exactly the same as the rest of them, they're wrong or I would have never sprung for the relatively more expensive Sammy E6500s and my F7500. The F7500 is a superb machine and streams NF better than my E6500s do.
> 
> A couple years ago, I got into an argument on another forum about the superiority of streaming with a BD player over many of the cheaper devices. After reading many posts by those guys about how, technically, a BD player can't possibly upscale, I asked them how many BD players they had and what kind they were. After listening for almost a week to tech BS that I didn't understand, they admitted that they had no BD players and had never tried one. There's a lesson here. Baffle me with BS all you want, but I know what I see. And I believe Hasan and know him well enough that I see no reason to doubt him or you at all.
> 
> ...


Its been this way since the beginning of home electronics.

When transistors first came out, even though they "spec'd" the same and every technical person told you that you could not hear the difference, there was a noticeable difference for anyone that used their ears. Turns out the ears were right all along. Transistors had IM Distortion, which tubes did not. It was not a spec - as tubes did not need to look for it. It became a standard spec for transistors in electronic equipment since the 70s.

In the early 80s Sony Engineers told us that 16 bit CD quality was perfect - it was the brunt of their advertising. Yet many of us were told we were stupid and imagining things as the specs proved us wrong. Yet the ears knew something was wrong. Then when the DAT came out with an increase of 44.1k to 48k sample rate, one could again hear the difference. And once again, the ears had it right. Turns out digital jitter reduced the 16 bit stream to the equivalent of 9 bit or lower with timing issues. Digitial jitter became an important spec to look for. Again, the techs did not measure for it - and insisted it was not there. Later, Sony came out with the Super CD - which begs the question if CDs were perfect, why do you need a Super CD?

I could go on and on.

But bottom lines, the eyes and ears do not lie. Specs don't either - its just often the specs are not measuring everything that they eyes and ears can perceive.

Tech eventually catches up to the human senses.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes in theory, but not correct actually. Although most will not see full resolution UHD, they are also not seeing true HDTV now for the exact same reason (distance from screen versus size of screen).
> 
> By starting with a better picture resolution, as the resolution "degrades" the further back one moves, one will still see better resolution than they would see with HDTV...as it was a better resolution source to begin with.
> 
> ...


I'm a bit late to reply, but my original post had nothing to do with resolution. I was referring to seating distance as it relates to compression artifacts and the QUALITY of the HD signal. You can have a highly compressed 1080p video source that looks pretty darn good on a 42" TV if you are viewing from 12 feet back. That same video source will look like garbage on a 120" TV at 12 feet.

The problem is that too many people think that resolution is the single factor in determining PQ when in reality compression quality is every bit as important. Especially when you get into the 70"+ displays where people tend to sit closer (in relative terms).

That's why _most _people would be better served if Directv and Netflix replaced lower bitrate 1080p with higher bitrate 1080p, instead of lower bitrate 4k.



tonyd79 said:


> It's actually quite simple. You saw a better tv shown off in its best light. Most stores I go to do not feed HD sets with HD signals. They use down converted SD from an HD source and they don't tweak the tvs at all. The 4K sets use actual 4K sources, the tvs are calibrated and placed in perfect locations.
> 
> As for the better TV, it is not just 4K. They tend to be better displays.


Not only are they using 4k sources on the 4k displays, but they are using HIGH BITRATE 4k sources. Use that same bitrate with a 1080p source on a high quality 1080p display and suddenly it looks STUNNING, just like the 4k model. Is there a PQ difference with the 4k resolution? Absolutely. But only if you sit close enough.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

But, if you are saying you can see a difference, and since it CAN be conclusively proven that a human being cannot possibly see a resolution difference between 4K and 1080p at the distance and screen size involved, then what you are seeing is NOT related to resolution. Perhaps it is a larger color space or, perhaps being far less compressed, it is deeper effective color depth. Whatever it is, if you saw it from across the store, it was NOT resolution (unless of course you are a golden eagle or some other raptor).

If it is not related to resolution, then we don't need 4K to make video look just as good.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Perhaps someone should post a definitive definition of "resolution".


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

In common usage, we refer to the dimensions of a display in pixels as its resolution (i.e. 1080x1920). However, strictly speaking resolution refers to "lines of resolution" which means the finest line pitch that a display can produce as distinct black and white lines.

But the common usage is fine. A 4K display is 2160x3840 pixels (4x the number of pixels on a 1080x1920 display.

The retina of the human eye can only resolve a line down to 5 arc minutes in width. How wide that line has to be in pixels to be 5 arc minutes wide varies depending upon the observers distance from the display. It is simple trigonometry to calculate how many millimeters a line must be to appear 5 arc minutes wide from a given distance. From there it is simple division to calculate how many pixels that will take given a certain size screen and its respective pixel dimensions.

For example, let's take a 60 inch wide display. From 20 feet away, the screen is located on an imaginary circle with a radius of 20 feet. That means that the circumference of that circle is about 125 feet (c=2*Pi*r). So, a 5 foot display represents 5/125 of that circle or about 14.4 degrees (5/125*360) or 864 arc minutes (14.4x60). Each arc minute is .07 inches (60/864) so 5 arc minutes is about .35 inches. So, at 20 feet away, the human eye can't resolve anything on this screen smaller than about 1/3 of an inch. If that display is an a 4K display, there are 64 horizontal pixels per inch, or about 21 in our .35 inch line. The fact that the display could produce a thinner line quite easily is irrelevant, since no person with 20/20 vision could see it as more than a gray blur. If the display were an HD display, then there are 32 pixels per inch and our line would be about 10 pixels wide. The point is that from 20 feet away you can't tell the difference between 10 larger pixels and 20 smaller ones. Anything smaller than 1/3 of an inch on the display is just a blur, no matter the screen resolution since you have reached the limit of human vision.

So, if you are walking through a store and, from across the store (which, for the sake of argument we're saying means 20 feet away), the 4K displays look "better" than a 1080p display the reason is NOT the fact the the 4K screen has 4 times as many pixels. It may be that the content is higher quality, or that there are more subtleties of color, or it is calibrated differently or some other reason having nothing to do with how many pixels the screen is displaying.

My point is that color fidelity, higher visual quality of the content or better calibration can be applied to a 1080p TV as well. Since the characteristic that made the 4K TV stand out could not have been the screen resolution at that distance, whatever it was could be applied to standard HD with the same results (at least from 20 feet away).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Sony came out with the Super CD - which begs the question if CDs were perfect, why do you need a Super CD?


Because they wanted to sell everyone the same content again. The only people who could hear the difference were audiophiles, who mysteriously failed to do so in the rare occasions they'd be willing to consent to a double blind test.

These are the same people who think that oxygen free speaker cables are worth spending hundreds of dollars on, so I don't give their opinions much validity.

Nor do I give the opinions of those here talking about 4K much weight, either pro or con. If it is scientifically tested, using identical sources (downconvert the same 4K stream for both the 4K TV and HD TV) and the sets are chosen and calibrated to be as identical as possible, and a double blind test is given, then I'll believe 4K makes a difference at distances further than what the science says.

Until then, I regard such stories in the same way I regard the claims of my audiophile friend who "heard the difference" when he upgraded his speaker cables.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Diana C said:


> So, if you are walking through a store and, from across the store (which, for the sake of argument we're saying means 20 feet away), the 4K displays look "better" than a 1080p display the reason is NOT the fact the the 4K screen has 4 times as many pixels. It may be that the content is higher quality, or that there are more subtleties of color, or it is calibrated differently or some other reason having nothing to do with how many pixels the screen is displaying.
> 
> My point is that color fidelity, higher visual quality of the content or better calibration can be applied to a 1080p TV as well. Since the characteristic that made the 4K TV stand out could not have been the screen resolution at that distance, whatever it was could be applied to standard HD with the same results (at least from 20 feet away).


In my experience, its almost always the source material. In rarer cases, a 4K TV may look better from 20 feet away simply because it has better off-angle viewing angles or its a well designed FALD next to a bunch of edge-lit models. In even rarer cases, a 4K TV may look better because its an OLED ($$,$$$) next to a bunch of LED LCD models. When comparing current 4K flat panel models to the best 1080p models with the same sources, the best 1080p models typically win due to the display technology (Plasma and OLED vs. LED LCD), not the resolution. This changes once you get into much larger screens and projectors because people are sitting close enough to actually appreciate the additional resolution with 4k.

Here is just one example of a recent shootout between various 4k flat panels and high-end 1080p models
http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/result-201406013793.htm

"_On the whole, any minor advantage in resolution on the 4K models was trumped by the superior contrast performance of the 1080p OLED and plasma televisions._"

_"None of the 4K LED LCDs received any vote for "Best TV", suggesting that they still have some way to go before approaching the picture quality of the as-good-as-dead plasma and the not-yet-fully-fledged OLED TVs. "_


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

edpowers said:


> In my experience, its almost always the source material. In rarer cases, a 4K TV may look better from 20 feet away simply because it has better off-angle viewing angles or its a well designed FALD next to a bunch of edge-lit models. In even rarer cases, a 4K TV may look better because its an OLED ($$,$$$) next to a bunch of LED LCD models. When comparing current 4K flat panel models to the best 1080p models with the same sources, the best 1080p models typically win due to the display technology (Plasma and OLED vs. LED LCD), not the resolution. This changes once you get into much larger screens and projectors because people are sitting close enough to actually appreciate the additional resolution with 4k.
> 
> Here is just one example of a recent shootout between various 4k flat panels and high-end 1080p models
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/result-201406013793.htm
> ...


Nice to read the Panny ZT plasma still won that particular shoot-out, even though it's a 2-year old design.

As we discussed in another thread, it's a shame 4k killed plasma from a marketing standpoint, because up until last year, the PQ continued to improve.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I don't think 4K killed plasma, the weight and power consumption did that, coupled with the majority of the buyers not understanding black levels and what it means to image quality. Plus, the lighting in big box stores does not treat plasma displays well.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Diana C said:


> I don't think 4K killed plasma, the weight and power consumption did that, coupled with the majority of the buyers not understanding black levels and what it means to image quality. Plus, the lighting in big box stores does not treat plasma displays well.


Not to mention highly reflective screens and the (not true anymore) fear if burn in.

Plasma was dying way before 4K hit the showroom floors.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

The prohibitive cost of building a 4k plasma was the final nail in the coffin, IMHO.

A shame, because my 2013 65" ZT plasma weighs exactly the same as the 2014 65" AX 4k, at 90.4 pounds.

The 4k consumes 179 watts on average, the plasma 189 watts. Here's my energy sticker, posted in another thread.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> The prohibitive cost of building a 4k plasma was the final nail in the coffin, IMHO.
> 
> A shame, because my 2013 65" ZT plasma weighs exactly the same as the 2014 65" AX 4k, at 90.4 pounds.
> 
> The 4k consumes 179 watts on average, the plasma 189 watts. Here's my energy sticker, posted in another thread.


This is what I understand to be the case, too. For LCDs when you hit 60 or 65 inches, there is no longer any difference in cost to fabricate a 3840x2160 panel instead of 1920x1080. The electronics to drive it still cost more, of course, but that premium will shrink due to economies of scale over the next several years. In 5 years I'll bet every LCD over 50" is 4K.

Then the difference between 4K and HD will be harder to spot, because instead of only high end 4K TVs like today (excluding Seiki) they'll be everywhere from the low end to the high end.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steve said:


> The prohibitive cost of building a 4k plasma was the final nail in the coffin, IMHO.
> 
> A shame, because my 2013 65" ZT plasma weighs exactly the same as the 2014 65" AX 4k, at 90.4 pounds.
> 
> The 4k consumes 179 watts on average, the plasma 189 watts. Here's my energy sticker, posted in another thread.


The comparisons are reasonable but NOT why plasma died. The marketplace killed it a while back. And it was NOT because consumers were buying 4K sets. It was because they were buying LCD and LED sets. LCD/LED also killed off the rear projection business. Plasma hung on a bit longer for high end systems and for certain sizes, but the tipping point was long reached prior to 4K.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> Because they wanted to sell everyone the same content again. The only people who could hear the difference were audiophiles, who mysteriously failed to do so in the rare occasions they'd be willing to consent to a double blind test.
> 
> These are the same people who think that oxygen free speaker cables are worth spending hundreds of dollars on, so I don't give their opinions much validity.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but they never tried to resell the catalog product again via Super CD.

Perhaps the next time instead of being so critical of your friend, you should have gone over to his house and listen to both and determined for yourself if there was a difference instead of being so closed mind about it.

Maybe you would also try this simple test.

1) Determine the sweet spot for HDTV viewing by using a SMPTE chart for your screen size.

2) Take 1 DirecTV unit and plug it into input one and tune to a HD channel of your choice

3) Take a second DirecTV unit and plug it into input two and tune to the SD channel of the HD channel you tuned to in #2. Then go into setting > display > video, Native = off, Screen Format = stretch, back out to TV Ratio and make sure you are still in Widescreen 16:9.

4) Go sit in the "sweet spot" and compare both channels using your TV remote to change between input 1 and input 2.

5) Now go back another 10 feet and compare the inputs.

According to what you and others have said, you should not be able to see 1920x1080 at twice the difference from the sweet spot (which i do disagree with).

However, can you still tell the difference between the input 1 or input?

Of course you can, because the resolution does not magically drop from 1920x1080 to 640x480 when you move 1 inch behind the sweet spot (which is what you and the nay sayers are claiming).

The resolution drops off gradually.

Accordingly, the 4k also drops off gradually. At some point they would look the same....but the resolution does not magically drop down to the next lowest resolution 6 inches behind the sweet spot - as people are arguing on this thread.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> This is what I understand to be the case, too. For LCDs when you hit 60 or 65 inches, there is no longer any difference in cost to fabricate a 3840x2160 panel instead of 1920x1080.


Incorrect.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

edpowers said:


> In my experience, its almost always the source material. In rarer cases, a 4K TV may look better from 20 feet away simply because it has better off-angle viewing angles or its a well designed FALD next to a bunch of edge-lit models. In even rarer cases, a 4K TV may look better because its an OLED ($$,$$$) next to a bunch of LED LCD models. When comparing current 4K flat panel models to the best 1080p models with the same sources, the best 1080p models typically win due to the display technology (Plasma and OLED vs. LED LCD), not the resolution. This changes once you get into much larger screens and projectors because people are sitting close enough to actually appreciate the additional resolution with 4k.
> 
> Here is just one example of a recent shootout between various 4k flat panels and high-end 1080p models
> http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/result-201406013793.htm
> ...


Could you point me to a store that has a 4K OLED on display?

LG announced a 77" one at this years CES but it still is not available (or even on their website).

Samsung also claimed one 9 months ago - but again, it is no where to be seen.

So I'd love to know where this 4K OLED TV in a showroom is.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Steve said:


> Nice to read the Panny ZT plasma still won that particular shoot-out, even though it's a 2-year old design.
> 
> As we discussed in another thread, it's a shame 4k killed plasma from a marketing standpoint, because up until last year, the PQ continued to improve.


No surprise that a Plasma beat out LED (and as noted, the HD OLED was very close). I would not have expected anything less.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> 3) Take a second DirecTV unit and plug it into input two and tune to the SD channel of the HD channel you tuned to in #2. Then go into setting > display > video, Native = off, Screen Format = stretch, back out to TV Ratio and make sure you are still in Widescreen 16:9.


But of course stretching the picture will distort the image.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Sorry, but they never tried to resell the catalog product again via Super CD.
> 
> Perhaps the next time instead of being so critical of your friend, you should have gone over to his house and listen to both and determined for yourself if there was a difference instead of being so closed mind about it.
> 
> ...


Except you aren't just comparing resolutions, you are comparing compression. DirecTV compresses the hell out of their SD channels. The PQ gap between the HD channel and the SD channel will be MASSIVE.

A better resolution test is to stay on the same HD channel for step 3 and change the 2nd receiver to only output 480p. The PQ gap between the 1080 output and 480 output on the same HD channel will still exist, but not nearly as huge.



SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Could you point me to a store that has a 4K OLED on display?
> 
> LG announced a 77" one at this years CES but it still is not available (or even on their website).
> 
> ...


I never said anything about a showroom. I saw both the Sony and Panasonic 4K OLED prototypes at CES 2013 along with plenty of LCD LED 4K models. Quite a rare case, which is why I wrote "in even rarer cases".


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

edpowers said:


> A better resolution test is to stay on the same HD channel for step 3 and change the 2nd receiver to only output 480p. The PQ gap between the 1080 output and 480 output on the same HD channel will still exist, but not nearly as huge.


True.

I have an H24 attached to my TV along side my Genie. It is there for TV PIP (Genie PIP is not that good). I often switch it to SD output (as I use composite for the PIP on my TV and I can see the graphics that way). Sometimes I use the H24 via HDMI as a tuner and I can see the difference when I switch from SD to HD and back. It is there with my 65 inch TV about 8 feet (and that is close) from the set but it is not huge; it basically looks like "bad" HD. If I were 20 feet back, I would not be able to see the difference.

Bandwidth is very important. Full bandwidth DVDs can look pretty good. Even OTA SD can look decent even with subchannels if the bandwidth is sufficient.

Resolution is only part of the equation.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Sorry, but they never tried to resell the catalog product again via Super CD.
> 
> Perhaps the next time instead of being so critical of your friend, you should have gone over to his house and listen to both and determined for yourself if there was a difference instead of being so closed mind about it.
> 
> Maybe you would also try this simple test...


You got it all backwards. The (apparent) resolution does not drop "magically" when you move a few inches back - of course the drop off is gradual. But you DO reach a point at which both images are so far away that you can't tell the difference between them (and that is the point at which the higher resolution image has gotten small enough that finest details in the image are below the resolution limit of your eye - 5 arc-minutes for someone with 20/20 vision).

Besides, what you are really proving with your proposed exercise is that the *content* is what matters. You would be putting inferior content onto a high resolution screen.

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not denying that UHD *can *look significantly better than HD, but it requires larger displays than most people have today and/or sitting MUCH closer to the screen than most people do today.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I am not denying that UHD *can *look significantly better than HD, but it requires larger displays than most people have today and/or sitting MUCH closer to the screen than most people do today.


^^THIS

There were so many problems with his proposed test I didn't even bother to go into it, since others already have. Suffice to say that on a fixed resolution screen, which all non-CRTs are, nothing that involves using a HD output and a SD output is a fair test, because 480i/480p are NOT native resolutions on a 1080p screen. Either he's not very smart, or he's trying to rig the test in his favor.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> No surprise that a Plasma beat out LED (and as noted, the HD OLED was very close). I would not have expected anything less.


Yeah, there's a very real reason why I bought all my plasmas. I have never regretted it. Altho, I have to admit I do wish I had bought them all in 1080p, but even the 720p sets I have put out an amazingly good picture. But I'm all about PQ not the science behind the sets.

Rich


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

slice1900 said:


> ^^THIS
> 
> There were so many problems with his proposed test I didn't even bother to go into it, since others already have. Suffice to say that on a fixed resolution screen, which all non-CRTs are, nothing that involves using a HD output and a SD output is a fair test, because 480i/480p are NOT native resolutions on a 1080p screen. Either he's not very smart, or he's trying to rig the test in his favor.


I was lost at "Stretch" ...


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

edpowers said:


> Except you aren't just comparing resolutions, you are comparing compression. DirecTV compresses the hell out of their SD channels. The PQ gap between the HD channel and the SD channel will be MASSIVE.
> 
> A better resolution test is to stay on the same HD channel for step 3 and change the 2nd receiver to only output 480p. The PQ gap between the 1080 output and 480 output on the same HD channel will still exist, but not nearly as huge.


I thought of that - unfortunately, tried it before I posted.

DirecTV, unlike Dish, will not display a HD Channel at 480 resolution. It continues to display at native even with 1080p, 1080i, and 720p unchecked.

I agree that would be the best way and that was the way I originally posted instructions, until trying it to find it does not work.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

slice1900 said:


> ^^THIS
> 
> There were so many problems with his proposed test I didn't even bother to go into it, since others already have. Suffice to say that on a fixed resolution screen, which all non-CRTs are, nothing that involves using a HD output and a SD output is a fair test, because 480i/480p are NOT native resolutions on a 1080p screen. Either he's not very smart, or he's trying to rig the test in his favor.


As I stated up front, I did not expect you to try it.....but continue posting. You proved me correct.

Just like your incorrect statement on panel cost of UHD v HD.

Comical people are thinking everything that is wrong with the test when according to their posts, you should not be able to tell the difference in resolution of a HD signal and another 1 inch past the "sweet spot".


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> ...*Comical people* are thinking everything that is wrong with the test when according to their posts, you should not be able to tell the difference in resolution of a HD signal and another 1 inch past the "sweet spot".


Really? Is that where you're going?

Besides, I don't think ANYONE has said any such thing.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I thought of that - unfortunately, tried it before I posted.
> 
> DirecTV, unlike Dish, will not display a HD Channel at 480 resolution. It continues to display at native even with 1080p, 1080i, and 720p unchecked.
> 
> I agree that would be the best way and that was the way I originally posted instructions, until trying it to find it does not work.


I don't know what you are doing wrong with us checking the resolutions as that should work. You have to change the channel for it to take affect.

But the quicker way to switch between HD and SD is to hold down the exit key. It will switch back and forth.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> I don't know what you are doing wrong with us checking the resolutions as that should work. You have to change the channel for it to take affect.
> 
> *But the quicker way to switch between HD and SD is to hold down the exit key. It will switch back and forth.*


+1
If I am not mistaken when you use the Exit button on the remote to go into SD mode and you are on an HD channel it goes into 480p, not 480i.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> DirecTV, unlike Dish, will not display a HD Channel at 480 resolution. It continues to display at native even with 1080p, 1080i, and 720p unchecked.
> 
> .


Not true at all

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

jimmie57 said:


> +1
> If I am not mistaken when you use the Exit button on the remote to go into SD mode and you are on an HD channel it goes into 480p, not 480i.


480p is SD.

And it goes to 480p is you have it checked. If you only have 480i checked, it goes to 480i.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> I thought of that - unfortunately, tried it before I posted.
> 
> DirecTV, unlike Dish, will not display a HD Channel at 480 resolution. It continues to display at native even with 1080p, 1080i, and 720p unchecked.
> 
> I agree that would be the best way and that was the way I originally posted instructions, until trying it to find it does not work.


That works fine. Don't know why you are having trouble. Sometimes if you are in a station you have to manually change the resolution after changing what resolutions can be used but DIRECTV will absolutely output a Hi Definition channel at 480i or p


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Comical people are thinking everything that is wrong with the test when according to their posts, you should not be able to tell the difference in resolution of a HD signal and another 1 inch past the "sweet spot".


This thread is not here to talk about "people".

As far as the "one inch", not everyone is 20/20 ... some are better, some worse. The math explains the concept but the results vary by person.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

I tend to agree w/the original post. I haven't really seen much (if any) degradation of HD on D*. Seems to me improvement, if anything, especially with the newest HD channels.

I recently purchased 60" plasma and WOW. To say I was blown away is an understatement (Finally upgraded from old direct-view CRTs)! I have many recordings in the HR going back to 2008 and I can't find anything (now that I have a 1080p screen) from the past that looks any better. If anything, many of the older recordings look a little fuzzier (mpeg2 locals, for example).

I wouldn't say the same for SD, but I've not compared many of those, yet. In my case I've discovered best PQ with HR set to "native" and let the TV do all the upconverting. Unfortunately, regional FSN in 720p does expose deficiencies, but still acceptable. (Filmed content in 720p is just fine in most cases.)

Probably the most dramatic (and likely intentional) effect [from the new TV] are the graphics and pictures in commercials. They're nothing short of attention-grabbing. All this from the lowly old HR. I can even read much of the small print in the "posters!"

I was warned by a relative upon asking how is 1080p and was told "life-changing." Didn't disagree upon my first personal experience connecting the BD player and viewing a few movies. (Granted I was used to being over a decade behind in viewing technology with my CRTs, and only one mid 2000s vintage 32" 720p panel set in the household to compare with anything.

Most of the time, viewing distance is probably 7 to 10 feet. I've got probably another 20 to 25 feet I could go back from the screen if I ever care to try any of the afore mentioned resolution perception comparison experiments. You've all got me intrigued, now...

(This thread kind of reminds me of another one, I think in this forum, where we're arguing the merits of VHS tape against DirecTV SD!)


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

tonyd79 said:


> 480p is SD.
> 
> And it goes to 480p is you have it checked. If you only have 480i checked, it goes to 480i.


I can't check 480i, it says that my TV doesn't support it.


----------



## Delroy E Walleye (Jun 9, 2012)

ejbvt said:


> I can't check 480i, it says that my TV doesn't support it.


My BD player does this, but I don't have any problem with the HR. It will put out 480i just fine. Try disconnecting the HDMI and using the front panel to change res.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

ejbvt said:


> I can't check 480i, it says that my TV doesn't support it.


How odd.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

tonyd79 said:


> How odd.


I just did an experiment on my Sharp TV. I only had the 720p and the 1080i checked in resolutions. I pressed and held the Exit button on the remote until it switched to SD. My TV said it was 480p mode. I went into setup and checked. Sure enough it had only the 480p checked. I then checked the 480i box and exited the menu. Changed a channel to send it a different signal and it went to 480i.
Pressed the Exit button and held it to put the receiver back in HD mode.
I had to back into the settings and add the 720p and the 1080i and uncheck the 480i ( I do not send anything less than 720p to the TV ).

I have seen some writings about HDMI and not doing 480i on some TVs but I do not recall which ones it was.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

ejbvt said:


> I can't check 480i, it says that my TV doesn't support it.


'Its entirely possible that your tv does not accept anything less than 480p on hdmi. I have seen that before.


----------



## edpowers (Aug 17, 2006)

Article from last year that gives a good idea of the screen size / seating distance where 4K makes a difference. The calculator is based on the same math that Diana C wrote about earlier in this thread.

http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

Notice that a person with 20/20 vision needs to be sitting 9 feet away from a 70" TV to begin to notice the difference between 4K and 1080p.

Most of my seating is 12-13 feet away from a 120" TV and I know that I would benefit from 4K, but I'd still rather see higher bit-rate 1080p from DirecTV and Netflix vs. bit-starved 4K.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

edpowers said:


> Article from last year that gives a good idea of the screen size / seating distance where 4K makes a difference. The calculator is based on the same math that Diana C wrote about earlier in this thread.
> 
> http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
> 
> ...


I have 20/20 vision, and the chart that comes closest to my personal experience comparing displays says under *5 feet* for 70". Pretty large discrepancy.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

edpowers said:


> Article from last year that gives a good idea of the screen size / seating distance where 4K makes a difference. The calculator is based on the same math that Diana C wrote about earlier in this thread.
> 
> http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
> 
> ...


Yes, but let's shoot for good 4k!

One thing about the charts is they seem to talk about resolution only. Better displays do a better job with luminance which alone can make the picture seem richer and more detailed.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Steve said:


> I have 20/20 vision, and the chart that comes closest to my personal experience comparing displays says under *5 feet* for 70". Pretty large discrepancy.
> 
> http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png


The charts are identical, you're just not reading them right.

Your chart shows a bit under 5 feet for the full benefit of 4K. To start noticing it is more like 7.5 feet, and full benefit of 1080p is reached at about 9 feet. This matches the other one, which simply shows ranges from each, so 1080p reaches up to 9.1 feet and 4K starts there and goes to 4'7".


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, but let's shoot for good 4k!
> 
> One thing about the charts is they seem to talk about resolution only. Better displays do a better job with luminance which alone can make the picture seem richer and more detailed.


"Better displays" that provide more greyscale bpp are possible with HD just as much as 4K. That's like saying that bigger TVs look better than smaller TVs, and since the average 4K set is larger than the average HD set, 4K is better


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

No, it's not like saying that at all. With more pixels in the mix, luminance can be more subtly shaded than they could in a lesser mix.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> No, it's not like saying that at all. With more pixels in the mix, luminance can be more subtly shaded than they could in a lesser mix.


How that's separate in any way from the fact of more pixels itself? You're talking about this as if this is a feature that goes above and beyond the 4x more pixels, but it is entirely dependent on and the result of 4x more pixels. The chart takes that into account - if your eye can't distinguish two adjacent pixels, neither can it distinguish a subtle difference in brightness of two adjacent pixels.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Unfortunately, Luminance is precisely where the biggest hit is taken in compression. After all the lossless techniques have been applied, the first lossy step is to start reducing sample size and the luminance channel is the most effective place to do that. This produces the most common digital artifact - macroblocking.

This is why all TVs (regardless of manufacturer, size or resolution, will look better with demo loop material (because it is far more lightly compressed) or BluRay sources (for the same reason).


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Arguing simply over pixels as being the sole reason a 4k tv is better and saying that limits at what distance it will be better isn't a good way to discuss it. I've seen a 13 inch LCD that was absolutely incredible and better than any other LCD I have ever seen. Why? Contrast ratio. (Ces prototype several years ago).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> Arguing simply over pixels as being the sole reason a 4k tv is better and saying that limits at what distance it will be better isn't a good way to discuss it. I've seen a 13 inch LCD that was absolutely incredible and better than any other LCD I have ever seen. Why? Contrast ratio. (Ces prototype several years ago).


But that has to do with the quality of the TV, and has nothing to do with 4K vs HD!

If you're discussing whether 4K is better you have to separate out unrelated factors like that. Unless you're going to argue that all 4K TVs now and forever will have better picture quality than HD TVs now and forever, you can't take that stuff into account. There are low quality 4K TVs, BTW - Seiki is one. The review I read said the quality was worse than a good HDTV.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

slice1900 said:


> How that's separate in any way from the fact of more pixels itself? You're talking about this as if this is a feature that goes above and beyond the 4x more pixels, but it is entirely dependent on and the result of 4x more pixels. The chart takes that into account - if your eye can't distinguish two adjacent pixels, neither can it distinguish a subtle difference in brightness of two adjacent pixels.


It's not separate from more pixels; it's wholly dependent on there being more.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> It's not separate from more pixels; it's wholly dependent on there being more.


Well to be entirely accurate, it is more dependent on the actual pixel sampling size. If you look at ANY HD broadcast (even OTA) and you can spot signs of macro blocking. This is even visible in BluRay content if you look carefully. There is no reason to believe that 4K broadcasts won't have this as well.

The simple truth is the average user is hard pressed to find content that really shows off 1080p (the only shot you have at all is BD and then only if some care went into the preparation). If you had a wall of HDTVs all playing a movie on DirecTV or FiOS and then had one TV playing the same movie from a high bit rate source (up around 15 Mbits/sec) it would stand out just like a 4k source does.

What makes 4K look great in the showrooms is the quality of the content. We need to wait until we can compare 2160p broadcasts to 1080p broadcasts before anyone can claim that they can tell the difference from across the store.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> My sony blu rays are having issues with streaming netflix recently. Do very good on everything else. Quality is/was better than on my roku.* Best quality I get is on my sony TV itself.* By far the worst is chrome from any device.


Same here. _The Killing, _streamed directly to our 65" Panny 1080p plasma, looks great. Amazing PQ, IMO.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Same here. _The Killing, _streamed directly to our 65" Panny 1080p plasma, looks great. Amazing PQ, IMO.


I'm binging on that show right now. And, in SHD, it does have amazing PQ. Same as you'd get on a BD.

I'm gonna send you something.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Thanks for that link, Rich. I have used it in the past. I was even getting 5800 kbps PQ last night, which is unusual. Maybe because it was a summer week-end?

For those that want to check their streaming bit rate, do a Netflix search for "23" and select the first poster that has a Netflix thumbnail. You might want to lower your volume, because it also does an audio frequency sweep. It will display the resolution and bit rate you're receiving ATM.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Thanks for that link, Rich. I have used it in the past. I was even getting 5800 kbps PQ last night, which is unusual. Maybe because it was a summer week-end?


Huh. You're not getting 5800 kbps all the time? I am. And I use CV for my ISP.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I do not get the message on bitrate, which would be a nice little gauge. I was using this one: Link.
I turned on subtitles and "There's no crying in baseball" - with the quotes is static on all clips.

Could popup blockers knock it out?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I do not get the message on bitrate, which would be a nice little gauge. I was using this one: Link.
> I turned on subtitles and "There's no crying in baseball" - with the quotes is static on all clips.
> 
> Could popup blockers knock it out?


Wrong clip:
http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70136810


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Aaaaah! Many thanks, Mr. School! That is sweet, to see in some cases the picture looks pretty good at some very low bitrates. In this case, it started out at 512, and built to 3000, and the step ups in PQ were quite apparent. I wish there were an app or Safari extension that'd show that for every stream.....


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Rich said:


> Huh. You're not getting 5800 kbps all the time? I am. And I use CV for my ISP.
> 
> Rich


In the past, during prime time, week nights, I sometimes didn't see 5800. Haven't checked recently, though. I just knew from seeing "blu-ray" quality I was getting it, last night.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steve said:


> In the past, during prime time, week nights, I sometimes didn't see 5800. Haven't checked recently, though. I just knew from seeing "blu-ray" quality I was getting it, last night.


This past week or so (maybe two) has been much better for me. Quicker loads, higher res, better PQ. At least via the TV. Roku still has issues. I get 5800 instantly on tv. Roku takes some time to get there. Still occasional issues with loading via Blu Ray.

It also appears that most of my appliances have an update of Netflix. Now a white icon rather than red.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> In the past, during prime time, week nights, I sometimes didn't see 5800. Haven't checked recently, though. I just knew from seeing "blu-ray" quality I was getting it, last night.


CV might be the cause of that. I know NF has been fighting with Verizon about choking the stream. I rarely get a chance to watch NF during prime time, but I'll check and see if they're doing that to me.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> This past week or so (maybe two) has been much better for me. Quicker loads, higher res, better PQ. At least via the TV. Roku still has issues. I get 5800 instantly on tv. Roku takes some time to get there. Still occasional issues with loading via Blu Ray.
> 
> It also appears that most of my appliances have an update of Netflix. Now a white icon rather than red.


 I get the 5800 on my TV too, but the picture is not as good as the PQ from my Sammy BD players. And, I can't get 5.1 sound from my TV, so I just don't use the Smart features. Didn't buy the TV for the Smart features, so that doesn't bother me. Apparently, my Sammy BD players have a better processor than the TV does. (Not my idea, I got it from our resident genius.)

Rich


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Rich said:


> I get the 5800 on my TV too, but the picture is not as good as the PQ from my Sammy BD players. And, I can't get 5.1 sound from my TV, so I just don't use the Smart features. Didn't buy the TV for the Smart features, so that doesn't bother me. Apparently, my Sammy BD players have a better processor than the TV does. (Not my idea, I got it from our resident genius.)
> 
> Rich


My Sony does full 5.1 and consistently gives me better PQ than my roku or blu Ray for every app they have in common. It's funny how things work out. (I didn't really care that much about the apps when i bought it.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> My Sony does....


I can't see a difference between my new Sony & a Sammy BD player.
This only means they both have good processors.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

My 2013 Panny ZT does 5.1, it's hard-wired to my router and the Netflix app PQ = Blu-Ray, so I can't imagine Netflix via my Chromecast, Roku or BD player looking any better.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> My 2013 Panny ZT does 5.1, it's hard-wired to my router and the Netflix app PQ = Blu-Ray, so I can't imagine Netflix via my Chromecast, Roku or BD player looking any better.


The question might be if Chomecast & Roku handle 12bit color.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The question might be if Chomecast & Roku handle 12bit color.


Good question. I'll watch the next _Kiilling _episode via Chromecast and see what my AVR reports.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

FWIW, Chromecast is sending 12 bit to the AVR. Also 5800 kbps Netflix.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steve said:


> My 2013 Panny ZT does 5.1, it's hard-wired to my router and the Netflix app PQ = Blu-Ray, so I can't imagine Netflix via my Chromecast, Roku or BD player looking any better.


Everything I have that is not mobile is hard wired.


----------

