# Comcast: Dish Owners Prefer Our HD Picture



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

*Comcast: Dish Owners Prefer Our HD Picture*



TVPredictions said:


> Washington, D.C. (May 1, 2007) -- Comcast has launched an advertising campaign saying that satellite TV viewers like its High-Definition picture better than what they see on the dish.
> 
> The ad, which appears in today's editions of The Washington Post, includes the headline, "Comcast Wins the HD Picture Challenge...Satellite customers agree: HD looks better with Comcast."
> ....


See the rest of the TVPredictions article: *HERE*http://www.tvpredictions.com/comcastdish050107.htm


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

So the order of Comcast, DirecTV, Dish for HD PQ? It would be interesting to find out how they conducted this survey since the D* and E* ranking is usually reversed based on all the comments on the internet forums.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

I'm a satellite subscriber and I don't like there picture better. Maybe Directv should sue the cable company now like they got sued earlier this year.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Has anyone seen anything else about the "challenge"? 
Or more so... did anyone here at DBSTalk participate in the challenge...

I wonder if this survey was just done in the Washington Market?
Comparing what: HD Locals or HD Nationals?

Was it pre-recorded material? or live broadcasts... and using what equipment?


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> *Comcast: Dish Owners Prefer Our HD Picture*
> 
> See the rest of the TVPredictions article: *HERE*http://www.tvpredictions.com/comcastdish050107.htm


It is also being discussed at length here

Read this message for specifics & screencaps of the PDF document they released. Test seems legit.

Oh, and it is SO true


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't think you can interpolate Dish vs DirecTV from this survey.

If more Dish customers preferred Comcast than DirecTV customers... that is not a direct relationship equating Dish to DirecTV... If those same customers compared Dish and DirecTV without Comcast, in a blind test of course, the results could be different.

Since Dish and DirecTV were not being directly compared to each other... I don't see how to interpolate anything of the kind from that survey.

That said... this survey only means something in an area serviced by Comcast. I am in a Time Warner area, so it means nothing to me... but it seems reasonable to me that a cable company could compete well with satellite. Cable has never really been completely up to par with the level of quality they should be able to provide in my opinion.

So if Comcast in that area is competing well vs Dish and DirecTV in terms of picture quality... then good for them and customers in that area! Seriously. Good competition is a good thing for all.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

After reading the PDF (BTW.. thanks for the link)...
I am very curious on what... the COMCAST customers results were.

We have only see the results for SAT customers...
Did COMCAST customers prefer SAT?

The results for 146 of the participants are not in the results... (1/4 from D*, E*, Comcast Digital, Comcast Analog)... would mean if 146 SAT subscribers, there are 146 Comcast subscribers not represented in the results.

Anyone know were the tests took place? As that is a vital piece to the Locals (ABC, NBC, CBS)... were they the MPEG-4 locals? The MPEG-2 DNS Nationals? Or OTA's (thus questioning the hardware).

While I don't think the testing companing did anything improper or incorrect, as it looks like they did do their job well...

Why not just post..... the raw results for all 292 respondants:
Respondant #1: HBO - Prefered DirecTV; DSC - Preferec Comcast; ESPN - Dish; ABC- ect... and ect..
Respondant #2: ....
Respondant #292 ....

If the want the "truth" out there... then why hide 146 respondants... and the details about each individual channel... 

Couldn't there be cases where they prefered the national channels on the SAT carriers, and the Locals on Cable? or a mix?

If 6 channels were tested... what if it was 3 and 3... which way did that go?

I hated STATs class... but one thing I did learn... you can make the results state what ever you want... it is all about how you phrase the question, and summarize the results.


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

My neighbor has Comcast and I've had E* for years. After seeing his PQ a number of times, E* doesn't have to worry about losing my business.

John


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

I have both Comcast HD through a CableCard, AND DISH HD Gold.

After comparing picture quality for an identical channel (e.g. tried Discovery HD, ESPN-HD etc.) on an identical display under identical ambient lighting conditions etc., I can unequivocally state that:

Comcast HD through Cablecard > DISH HD.

If someone can explain me how to do bitrate measurements, I can actually do such an experiment to compare findings.

Comparing DISH HD on your display with Comcast HD on your neighbors display is a comparison which will be thrown out without consideration in a scientific lab. First of all, do you even know if your neighbor's and/or your display are properly calibrated? Are they identical displays? Are they using same cabling techniques, e.g. HDMI, DVI or Component? Are the output resolutions of both set-top boxes set to identical setting, either 1080i or 720p? Were you comparing identical content from the same channel?


----------



## JM Anthony (Nov 16, 2003)

Chandu said:


> ... Comparing DISH HD on your display with Comcast HD on your neighbors display is a comparison which will be thrown out without consideration in a scientific lab. ...


Good point. The comparisons have been totally subjective. We've got different sizes, different environments, different technologies, as well as watching different shows. So I'm sure Comcast would argue that I'm comparing apples to oranges. And I'd have to agree with them.

John


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Chandu said:


> I have both Comcast HD through a CableCard, AND DISH HD Gold.
> 
> After comparing picture quality for an identical channel (e.g. tried Discovery HD, ESPN-HD etc.) on an identical display under identical ambient lighting conditions etc., I can unequivocally state that:
> 
> Comcast HD through Cablecard > DISH HD.


To be fair... Time Warner in my area looks better through a Cablecard than it does through an HD set-top cable box on the same TV. I have a relative who tried both Cablecard and set-top with his same HDTV... and the Cablecard always produced a better picture from Time Warner... Unfortunately, Time Warner could not get the cablecard to work reliably so he had to go back to using the set-top converter.

Too bad satellite doesn't have an equivalent "cablecard" type of thing for compatible TVs.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Yes, that's exactly why I took the effort to explicitly stress "with CableCard" qualifier. I have heard the same thing in general for Comcast, that picture quality with CableCard is better than with Comcast HD set-top box.

Don't get me wrong. Channels like Equator HD, HDNet etc. look very beautiful on DISH HD. But channels like InHD, MHD look even more incredibly beautiful with Comcast CableCard. I use a resolution setting of 1080i in general for all of these channels.

Now hopefully somebody who gets HD through Fios or AT&T U-Verse could chime in this discussion and tell what their impressions of picture quality are. Is their a CableCard equivalent with those 2 platforms?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

So those that are seeing better PQ with CableCard.... has more to do with the electronics of your TV (the decoder and the video processors), then it does with the signal being sent.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So those that are seeing better PQ with CableCard.... has more to do with the electronics of your TV (the decoder and the video processors), then it does with the signal being sent.


It bypasses the provider supplied equipment, cable box etc. But you have to have a good signal to begin with. By comparison, if DirecTV had "cablecard" style STBs it probably wouldn't matter as the best you're going to get is 1280x1080 anyways.


----------



## Hound (Mar 20, 2005)

Chandu said:


> Yes, that's exactly why I took the effort to explicitly stress "with CableCard" qualifier. I have heard the same thing in general for Comcast, that picture quality with CableCard is better than with Comcast HD set-top box.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. Channels like Equator HD, HDNet etc. look very beautiful on DISH HD. But channels like InHD, MHD look even more incredibly beautiful with Comcast CableCard. I use a resolution setting of 1080i in general for all of these channels.
> 
> Now hopefully somebody who gets HD through Fios or AT&T U-Verse could chime in this discussion and tell what their impressions of picture quality are. Is their a CableCard equivalent with those 2 platforms?


I watched the Nets/ Raptor basketball game last night on TNT HD. I have both
Verizon Fios HD DVR and Dish 622 hooked up to 61" NEC plasma via component 
cables. The Verizon Fios HD picture was noticeably better than the Dish HD
picture. I switched between both feeds to compare.

I also have a 65" Panasonic 1080P plasma. I have a Dish 622 hooked up to that
via HDMI and a Sony DHG-HDD500 hooked up via HDMI. Into the Sony HDD500,
I have local cable coax and scan NY local HD channels on the QAM tuner. Comcast
has announced that it is buying my local cable company. Smart Travels with
Rudy broadcasts on PBS channel 13 out of NY. It also is on Dish's Equator HD
Channel. Smart Travels through the QAM tuner is a noticeably sharper picture
than Dish Equator HD.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

keenan said:


> It bypasses the provider supplied equipment, cable box etc. But you have to have a good signal to begin with. By comparison, if DirecTV had "cablecard" style STBs it probably wouldn't matter as the best you're going to get is 1280x1080 anyways.


But that is exactly it...

Because you spent the extra bucks to get a better TV, that has better decoding and video processing equipment... doesn't necessarily make... Comcasts picture better then DirecTV's...

That TV could (and I do say could), be adjusting and improving the image based on it's chipset and other factors....


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But that is exactly it...
> 
> Because you spent the extra bucks to get a better TV, that has better decoding and video processing equipment... doesn't necessarily make... Comcasts picture better then DirecTV's...
> 
> That TV could (and I do say could), be adjusting and improving the image based on it's chipset and other factors....


Earl you are correct on PQ being up to what the set can do----for instance I get great SD picture on my sony 40XBR2 from dish while I have read posts from other folks that the 622 produce an unwatchable SD picture.


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> But that is exactly it...
> 
> Because you spent the extra bucks to get a better TV, that has better decoding and video processing equipment... doesn't necessarily make... Comcasts picture better then DirecTV's...
> 
> That TV could (and I do say could), be adjusting and improving the image based on it's chipset and other factors....


Umm, Earl - you're missing the point.

The CableCard is MERELY, Entirely & Completely a decoder - NOT a tuner. It strips the encryption off channels based on what channels it ahs been programmed to do so for.

Cable transmits the locals unencrypted, and in most Comcast locations, all these unencrypted channels are IDENTICAl to the local OTA feed, and therefore VASTLY betetr PQ than the Dish/D* versions of the same. I've compared this in April or thereabouts when I switched from E*'s 811 receiver, connected to my HDTV via HDMI(DVI) and tuned the same channels off my cable feed using the built-in ATSC tuner. (edit to clarify - same TV, same environment, same PQ settings)

(In the interest of full disclosure) Of course, the whole 811->211 issue I then had was another primary motivator to my switch (and giving up my installation/cancellation fee to Dish!) as well as the impending arrival of the Series 3 TiVo (which I now have, and which is easily the most elegant HD DVR solution in the US). Just bringing this up to clarify I never did get a chance to compare MPEG4 Dish channels to MPEG2 cable channels.

Oh - over the days as I called and tried to get a free 811->211 replacement as I'd only been with dish since December (& had NOT been informed about the impending obsolescence of the 811) they refused to drop the 'upgrade' fee below $200 UNTIL I cancelled and switched to Cable. After that, Dish called me for months, even offering me a $100 credit, a refund of my $50 installation/cancellation fee and a free 211 and required new Dish installation, plus a plethora of premium channels for free for 3-6 months. Pity this horse had already bolted!

Aside:
Satellite could EASILY switch to CableCard based decryption of their signal - but (a good chunk of) their profit lies in the boxes/DVRs/fees etc and they would never want to (with current bandwidth limitations) cmopete on a completely even footing with Cable (because then folks could get satellite or Cable on their 3rd Party HD devices - like my Series 3 HD TiVo (yes it handles MPEG4 as well) - and see the difference in quality right there


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ashu said:


> Umm, Earl - you're missing the point.
> 
> The CableCard is MERELY, Entirely & Completely a decoder - NOT a tuner. It strips the encryption off channels based on what channels it ahs been programmed to do so for.


Sorry... maybe I am not describing my thoughts correctly.

After the CableCard... the TV's hardware is responsible for the decoding of the compressed signal, scalling, and other "adjustments" to the hardware...

Where as a non-cable card, external box...does all that, and send that signal to the TV... (which then the TV may or may not do any of that)...

So you could have one TV with a cable card setup, that is AMAZING.... but if you use the same TV, but an external box... the results may not be the same...

So it is may be something "other" then the signal/image... but a difference at the time of decoding/scalling ect...


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry... maybe I am not describing my thoughts correctly.
> 
> After the CableCard... the TV's hardware is responsible for the decoding of the compressed signal, scalling, and other "adjustments" to the hardware...
> 
> ...


You're still, IMHO, missing the point.

ALL that is merely preceisely whatt he CableCard does. The CC is not some magical elixir handed down from the Gods that makes signal cleaner and betetr to view.

If (we believe your conjecture and postulate that) Dish/DTV had equally good tuners/decryptors in tehir boxes, then the PQ should be as good (the medium of signal transfer from the box to the TV is digital - whether DVI or HDMI). This is NOT the case.

(So, it doesn't matter whether) You (could) blame their tuners, their boxes, their decryptors, their satellites, their dishes - all of it is moot. I blame the company. And I took my $$$ away from them based on this 

And the S3 HD TiVo with CableCards inserted blows away the quality of Dish/DirectTV HD.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry... maybe I am not describing my thoughts correctly.
> 
> After the CableCard... the TV's hardware is responsible for the decoding of the compressed signal, scalling, and other "adjustments" to the hardware...
> 
> ...


You need to look back a step or two. If the signal coming from the provider has been manipulated to it's detriment in any fashion(reduced resolution-reduced bandwidth) then it doesn't matter what the receiving/display equipment can or can't do. To put it bluntly, garbage in-garbage out.

All a CableCARD does is "unlock" or decrypt an encrypted signal, it has nothing to do with the quality of that signal. It's a gatekeeper, either allowing the signal to pass or not pass.

At present, Comcast does not manipulate the signal they receive in any way other than to re-modulate by using QAM which allows them to fit a 6MHz ATSC signal into a 3MHz 256QAM slot of RF bandwidth.

DirecTV, OTOH, manipulates the signal by reducing the resolution for bandwidth savings, and since I've focused on locals here, re-encoded the ATSC MPEG2 signal to MPEG4 resulting in an even smaller bandwidth payload. Now, without getting into a debate as to whether that MPEG2>MPEG4 conversion has been detrimental to the quality of that signal(personally, I don't see how it couldn't be but I'm not an engineer) the resulting signal presented to the display device is still of lesser quality than the original simply by the fact that the resolution itself has been reduced.

I have Comcast, DirecTV, Dish and Star Choice, and use a Mits 73" 9" gun RPTV and when comparing Dish locals(I don't have DirecTV's locals yet) with the Comcast locals there is a definite reduction in sharpness and detail. The Dish locals image is softer and has less "pop" than the Comcast fed image.

Cable STBs are notorious for crushing blacks, reduced resolution output and an assortment of other issues, CableCARD allows one to bypass all that nastiness to enable one to get all the quality that the cable company is sending down the line.

Now, the STBs that DirecTV/Dish use may have issues of their own, but going back to the source, the original signal being manipulated before it's even sent to those STBs, precludes the STBs being the main factor in the resulting PQ, they can only pass the manipulated signal as is, possibly make it worse, but never make it better.


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So you could have one TV with a cable card setup, that is AMAZING.... but if you use the same TV, but an external box... the results may not be the same...
> 
> So it is may be something "other" then the signal/image... but a difference at the time of decoding/scalling ect...


One assumption you seem to be making is all these CableCard setups are with TVs with CableCard slot. That is not true.

A number of us are using our own external set-top boxes that have CableCard slots. I have a Sony HDD500 with such a slot. Someone else in the thread above also mentioned using this box. Someone else mentioned using Series Tivo 3.

So I don't think the improvement is necessarily because of the display hardware.

I think the problem lies in the cable company supplied set-top boxes (Comcast, Time Warner all of them). They are somehow inferior and not spitting out a quality signal even when their own incoming cable signal is of good quality. With a CableCard you're bypassing these problems.

Now, I have no idea if DISH 622 and DirecTV HR20 also have similar issues. There are 2 different things at issue here. The quality of the incoming signal itself (which is known to be inferior at least for DirecTV HD), and the quality of the set-top box itself.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Yes, I totally understand what a Cable Card does... Basically it is the same thing as the Access Card in a DirecTV tuner.

---

What I was alluding too....
You spend $20,000 on a TV with a cable-card slot... it is possible that it's decoding hardware, software in TV is != the decoding hardware, software that is in an external box...

Say the Comcast Digital HD tuner, for those that don't have cable-card.

That's it....

That part of the "equation" plays in when you are doing the analysis on "why" the PQ may be different between the different providers.

So say on that same $20k TV:
Would the HD picture produced by a Cable-Card setup = that of one that was driven by the External Comcast Digital HD tuner connected via Component or HDMI...


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

Umm - $20K on a CableCard TV?

Does this forum have a ROTFLMFAO smiley?

Please - I KNOW you're more objective than that and can use more realistic baseline comparisons


----------



## Chandu (Oct 3, 2005)

ashu said:


> Does this forum have a ROTFLMFAO smiley?


:rotfl: :rolling: !rolling


----------



## tomcrown1 (Jan 16, 2006)

Chandu said:


> :rotfl: :rolling: !rolling


:kisscheek :welcome_s :goodjob: :love1: :icon_lol: :thats: :rolling: :cheers2: :new_smili

Now is that enough smilies for you I think I broke the bank of smilies.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Yes, I totally understand what a Cable Card does... Basically it is the same thing as the Access Card in a DirecTV tuner.
> 
> ---
> 
> ...


Yes, every component in the chain will likely have some impact of the resulting picture.

But that's not what's being discussed here. Forget the equipment, it's the inbound signal from the provider that ultimately lays the groundwork for how good the image will be once it's displayed on the screen.

If the image coming from DirecTV is reduced in resolution(1280X1080i), and/or it has been re-encoded from it's native format to say MPEG4, it will _never_ be an exact duplicate of the original signal as sent from the broadcaster.

Focusing on locals, DirecTV is reducing resolution on 1920x1080i ATSC MPEG2 signals and re-encodes them at 1280x1080 using MPEG4 compression.

Comcast, OTOH, does nothing to the signal, if it's 1920x1080i at 17mbps for example, then that's what you get at your in-home equipment. At that point, it's up to the quality and performance of that equipment to reproduce the signal as close as possible to the original.

DirecTV has removed the possibility that the signal can be reproduced as close as possible to it's original quality. They've reduced resolution on 1920x1080i channels to 1280x1080i _and_ re-encoded the MPEG2 signal to MPEG4.

None of that happens with a Comcast supplied signal, what you get at your equipment is what is sent out of the broadcaster's encoder, after being remodulated from ATSC to QAM which is among other things a way to send the signal through a hard-wired closed system which has little to no effect of the quality or structure of that signal.

Look at it this way, Comcast gives you the full pound of hamburger, if you decide to feed it to your dog(the equipment in your home), that's your business. DirecTV has removed a third of a pound or so of that hamburger, and regardless of what equipment you have, you'll never get that full pound back.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

OTA Digital SD channels look _*way*_ better than D* SD channels on My Sammy DLP. They look almost as good as some of the HD stuff I have seen, and much better than the analog OTA. I had cable since it first hit Phoenix in "78. First American Cable, bought by Dimension, then bought by Cox. Cox analog is awful. I have friends who had cox digital and did not like it, so I went with D*. The D* SD stuff looks great on my Sony 27' SD set, just ok on my DLP. It looks better since I tweaked the settings , though


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

I have Adelphia/Comcast and D*. On the same set, I can't see much difference between the signals coming out of each box. Each has their strengths, and each has their weaknesses.

We don't get the full complement of Comcast programming since we're the recently purchased stepchild, part of the sale of Adelphia.

I suspect that once we get full service from Comcast, all their channels, all their HD, all the DVR features that they have on the Motorola boxes and all the On Demand, I will have to seriously consider my relationship with D*.

Even as bad as programming the SA 8300 HD box is, and the lack of features in the guide that we have relative to other Comcast markets, I like the trickplay features of Comcast's DVR much better. It's smooth, and it works and I don't have freezes in trick play etc. like I have on my HR-20. Makes no difference between HD and SD, trick play works and works well.

Now, if D* get's their act together on trick play, Comcast is gone since I get more programming from D* that I want, right now and hopefully in the future.

Just my opinion, having both Comcast and D* on the same TV in the same room with the same conditions.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You spend $20,000 on a TV with a cable-card slot... So say on that same $20k TV....


Sheeeesh, I didn't realize when your location says Tinley Park, you meant on the corner of 183rd and Harlem.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

heisman said:


> Sheeeesh, I didn't realize when your location says Tinley Park, you meant on the corner of 183rd and Harlem.


About 3 miles from that intersection... Yes..


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

keenan said:


> Yes, every component in the chain will likely have some impact of the resulting picture.
> 
> But that's not what's being discussed here. Forget the equipment, it's the inbound signal from the provider that ultimately lays the groundwork for how good the image will be once it's displayed on the screen.
> 
> ...


Forget the equipment? Why?
All I asked if someone knew what equipment was used during the tests?
Was it a first generation HD unit from DirecTV? and the latest from Comcast?

It is a valid data point. And one that should not have been hard for Comcast to include in their summary of the testing procedures... TV Brand, Receiver, and connection method should have been listed in the testing procedures declaration.

As for your statement about the locals being changed on resolution:
Do you have definitive proof that they are changing the resolution of the locals? All I have ever seen is people do the math, based on what they determin to be in the data stream... I have not seen a single posting where someone definitively proved (like they have with then MPEG2 Nationals), that the resolution has been altered for the MPEG-4 locals.

And yes, you are correct they receive the OTA, decode it and then re-encode it... so it can be no better then equal to the OTA at this point.

And the location on where they did the tests, does have an impact...
Here in Chicago... I can look at the OTA locals and the MPEG-4 locals, and there is no visible difference between the two, on my TV... with my eyes.

So either I don't have 20/20 vision anymore, and can't see the one bad pixel in my plasma from 10 feet... or there is no visual difference in the picture...

There may be "Mathematically"... but that doesn't necessarily translate to something that can be seen on the screen.

And if Comcast gave me the full pound... then it is probably raw... and I wouldn't want to eat it...
I'll take the slightly cooked DirecTV 2/3 pound, and get my belly full on a pretty good picture.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> About 3 miles from that intersection... Yes..


:lol: You know what I meant.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

If Comcast is not processing the picture, and is providing full resolution as provided by the channels... then they should and would be better quality than satellite (not better than OTA but perhaps equal). This assumes their hardware is up to snuff, but I'll take that assumption for the sake of the argument.

If this is Comcast's policy, then good for them and their customers!

I can definately say Time Warner in my area does not send full resolution. I do not know to what degree they play with the signal... but I know that the SD channels are not as good via Time Warner as they are via Dish for me as I have compared. HD is a closer comparison, as Time Warner does a pretty good job there especially having locals that Dish does not have right now... but also they do not have the amount of nationals that Dish does right now so there is a tradeoff.


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And yes, you are correct they receive the OTA, decode it and then re-encode it... so it can be no better then equal to the OTA at this point.


Let me correctly re-word that for you, as keenan has so painstakingly and precisely been attempting to explain ... "And yes, you are correct they receive the OTA, decode it and then re-encode it... *retransmission of a re-encoded signal reconstructed from (the decoded version of) an already lossy compression cannot ever, EVER be as good as the original signal (the OTA).*."



Earl Bonovich said:


> And if Comcast gave me the full pound... then it is probably raw... and I wouldn't want to eat it...
> I'll take the slightly cooked DirecTV 2/3 pound, and get my belly full on a pretty good picture.


OK.

There's logic, and then there's DirecTV fanboi-ism. Please don't stoop to discarding logic in favor of the latter!


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

HDMe said:


> If Comcast is not processing the picture, and is providing full resolution as provided by the channels... then they should and would be better quality than satellite (not better than OTA but perhaps equal). This assumes their hardware is up to snuff, but I'll take that assumption for the sake of the argument.
> 
> If this is Comcast's policy, then good for them and their customers!
> 
> I can definately say Time Warner in my area does not send full resolution. I do not know to what degree they play with the signal... but I know that the SD channels are not as good via Time Warner as they are via Dish for me as I have compared. HD is a closer comparison, as Time Warner does a pretty good job there especially having locals that Dish does not have right now... but also they do not have the amount of nationals that Dish does right now so there is a tradeoff.


HDMe - you DO get it.

And you're right, Time Warner is largely guilty of re-encoding and reshaping OTA signal as well. While it is incredibly unlikely they are as aggressive (or their practices as detrimental to signal quality) as D* (and even E*) - they still have less right than Comcast to sue the satcos for falsely advertising superior HD transmission. Apparently they are unaware that they are the pot, as they call the satco kettle black.

Comcast is largely quite good about retransmitting the same OTA signal they receive (sometimes they get it over dedicated to their headend - and not OTA, at least as far as I understand it)

In the interest of full disclosure, some folks have mentioned it is likely Comcast does also reshape/reencode or at least recompress in a few small localities as well - likely where they have older headends and inferior bandwidth on old cabling. Such is the nature of any business cobbled together from many small components. In this (business plan) respect the satellite companies easily have the advantage, because once they finally DO get their bandwidth lined up, they are not limited or spotty in their delivery of whatever it is they are capable of!

In MY area, however, my Series 3 HiDef TiVo confirms the precisely identical sizes of the digitally recorded signal off of local channels from both sources - OTA and Comcast Cable. Whew!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Imagine if it read DirecTV: Cable customers Prefer Our HD Picture. Then you'd have everyone on here giving virtual high fives with the typical cable sucks posts. There'd be no second guessing, there be no question of was the comparison done on the same TV set, equipment differences, yada yada. That wouldn't even be an issue because they're telling you what you want to hear that DirecTV is the best thing since sliced bread and the picture quality is so razor sharp it will slice your eyes when looking at it.



> I can definately say Time Warner in my area does not send full resolution.


Are you sure? With any Scientific Atlanta digital terminal hold down the select and info buttons on the box and page through the hidden diagnostic screens. Eventually you get to one showing the resolution of the channel your viewing. Unlike DirecTV, all HD channels here in Time Warner that are in 1080i are actually at 1920x1080i and all 720p channels are 1280x720p.

DirecTV SD picture is terrible compared to TW here. I did an A-B comparison when I first went back to cable and didn't cancel D* yet, Comedy Central and ESPN were better on DirecTV, just about everything else Time Warner was much less compressed. All the movie channels, FX, CNN and a few other are sent out at 528 x 480.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

ashu said:


> Let me correctly re-word that for you, as keenan has so painstakingly and precisely been attempting to explain ... "And yes, you are correct they receive the OTA, decode it and then re-encode it... *retransmission of a re-encoded signal reconstructed from (the decoded version of) an already lossy compression cannot ever, EVER be as good as the original signal (the OTA).*."


Why? Why can't the PQ be equal? The actual mathematics of it can't be equal by definition... but the PQ (which is a visual perception, as we don't see 1's and 0's)... can certainly be "equal".



ashu said:


> OK.
> 
> There's logic, and then there's DirecTV fanboi-ism. Please don't stoop to discarding logic in favor of the latter!


It's a freaking joke/humor... laugh a bit...
It's also partially... there is a lot more to a "better HD" baggage that I have experience with COMCAST, then I have with DirecTV...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

IMHO:

You have the "math"... you can clearly define which services get's the most 1's and 0's between the distribution point, and your home...
Then you have what you "see"... and that is where you can't use the "math" to define it... what *YOU* see and hear... is what ultimately maters..
How many people out there, can tell the difference between a picture, printed out at 300dpi and one printed out at 600dpi.... from 1ft, from 10ft...
So by "math" the 600dpi is "technically" the better picture... but as you back away, to a normal viewing depth... by "math and physics", your eyes can't see the difference.

As to this thread, and really what I wanted to discuss here:
I am still *VERY* (and growing more curious)... on why COMCAST doesn't release the results of all 300 participants... by channel.
If it was so "clear", there should be no reason not to.
There should be no reason why they don't describe all the equipment being used...
What city the testing was done in... As we all know COMCAST in Denver != COMCAST in Chicago

My growing curiosity, is based on the latest radio ad I heard this morning, where they touted the results and gave the weblink on air...


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Forget the equipment? Why?
> All I asked if someone knew what equipment was used during the tests?
> Was it a first generation HD unit from DirecTV? and the latest from Comcast?
> 
> It is a valid data point. And one that should not have been hard for Comcast to include in their summary of the testing procedures... TV Brand, Receiver, and connection method should have been listed in the testing procedures declaration.


You have a point, although the "latest" from Comcast, to the best of my knowledge, is the same equipment they've been using since the DirecTV HR10-250 was released, Moto/SA STB and CableCARD both. So if the DirecTV feed was using newer equipment it should only improve their chances of having a better picture, one would hope anyways.



> As for your statement about the locals being changed on resolution:
> Do you have definitive proof that they are changing the resolution of the locals? All I have ever seen is people do the math, based on what they determin to be in the data stream... I have not seen a single posting where someone definitively proved (like they have with then MPEG2 Nationals), that the resolution has been altered for the MPEG-4 locals.


Well wouldn't the math be the "proof" enough that the signal is being altered? What other way would you find out? If DirecTV is not altering the signal why don't they say so as Comcast has done? Seems silly to not take advantage of a marketing point like that just like Comcast as done. As far as "proof", I don't have proof but I know someone who does, maybe I can get them to provide some input here.


> And yes, you are correct they receive the OTA, decode it and then re-encode it... so it can be no better then equal to the OTA at this point.
> 
> And the location on where they did the tests, does have an impact...
> Here in Chicago... I can look at the OTA locals and the MPEG-4 locals, and there is no visible difference between the two, on my TV... with my eyes.
> ...


Obviously, subjective perception of PQ will vary depending on the viewer, the equipment being used and the size of the viewing display. Comcast has stated repeatedly, publicly, that they do not alter the signal they receive. If DirecTV takes issue with Comcast's claims that their PQ is better than sat, why don't they back it up? Has DirecTV ever publicly stated that they don't alter the signal? To the best of my knowledge they haven't.

As far as details of where, what, and who, I'd be interested in those details as well, but I tend to doubt we'll see them. Couldn't hurt to contact Comcast and ask for the details.
l


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

AFAIR, D* folks have even defended converting 1080i to 1280x1080i and 1440x1080i (nonw of which is 1080i as defined)

The thread bfdtv referred to over on avsforum had someone with (a; or more?) hacked D* and E* boxes and had confirmed the actual resolution (and the subsampling), in addition to posting a plethora of screen photos in the same settings of the inferior Picture quality.


----------



## HarleyJoel (Dec 10, 2005)

Nice try Comcast.... yeah and Cingular has the fewest dropped calls too. I'm satisfied with D*.


----------



## steelhorse (Apr 27, 2004)

All I know is that I had comcast before dish. I had their top package. Picture on the majority of channels sucked. I had them to my house three times to fix it. Then ordered dish, told comcast to come pick up their stuff. The guy asked why I dumped comcast. I turned the tv on, and said "look". He goes we can do that. I just told him to check my service order history and tell it to the guys that came out.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

That test has zero credibility because Comcast paid for it. 

Why did they exclude testers who don't subscribe to a service? Wouldn't these viewers be less biased? What instructions were given to the participants? Why wasn't the test conducted at several locations around the country? Did Comcast turn down compression on the channels that the participants watched? The list of questions goes on and on.

These kinds of tests always raise lots of questions.

--- CHAS


----------



## twistedT (Jan 11, 2007)

Blah blah blah.... sure comcasts 15 - 20 hd channels probally have better PQ right now. Sure they have more bandwidth right now for each channel, but wait till the new birds go up for D*. Wait till comcast tries to put up more hd channels to compete with D*, and they start strechting out their bandwidth. Then the shoe will be on the other foot!!! I am with Earl, directv Rocks!! COME ON SEPT. 5TH!!!!


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Not so fast. Comcast has issued press releases about removing analog channels in some areas. For every analog channel removed, two (maybe even three, but that's pushing it) HD channels can be added.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> Not so fast. Comcast has issued press releases about removing analog channels in some areas. For every analog channel removed, two (maybe even three, but that's pushing it) HD channels can be added.


Correct, as Comcast removes Expanded Basic(about 30-35 analog channels) and continues to deploy SDV, along with node/headend upgrades, they'll have plenty of room for every national channel that may be available. Comcast is not worried about having enough bandwidth to compete with DirecTV, and remember, these will be full/true HD channels, not HD-Lite.

By mid 2008(some some SF systems sooner) SF bay area Comcast systems will have room for over 200 HD channels, plus all the other stuff they'll be running, phone, internet, and still have room for Limited Basic analog channels.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

keenan said:


> ...Comcast systems will have room for over 200 HD channels, plus all the other stuff they'll
> be running, phone, internet, and still have room for Limited Basic analog channels.


It is absolutely amazing to me how much stuff they can shove through a thin
copper wire. I even get my local daily newspaper delivered through that wire.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Nick said:


> It is absolutely amazing to me how much stuff they can shove through a thin
> copper wire. I even get my local daily newspaper delivered through that wire.


It is rather amazing, look at what AT&T is doing with two skinny little copper phone wires not much larger than a strand of hair.

That delicate little hard wire connection provides cable/telcos the ability to provide services sat/OTA will never be able to compete with.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

keenan said:


> It is rather amazing, look at what AT&T is doing with two skinny little copper phone wires not much larger than a strand of hair.
> 
> That delicate little hard wire connection provides cable/telcos the ability to provide services sat/OTA will never be able to compete with.


What, one single HDTV signal at a time and folks call it amazing? DBS will never be able to compete on the phone and internet side of things but cable's coax going into the home can handle way more bandwidth then a copper pair.


----------



## rictorg (Feb 2, 2007)

IMHO, Comcast can and should tout their picture quality over the satellite companies. In the Seattle area, the PQ on Comcast trumps anything E* and D* can produce. 

However, I am and remain a happy E* customer, because their DVR is far superior, and their programing package is a much greater value.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

RAD said:


> What, one single HDTV signal at a time and folks call it amazing? DBS will never be able to compete on the phone and internet side of things but cable's coax going into the home can handle way more bandwidth then a copper pair.


Never said it was the ultimate solution, just that given the size of that copper pair it's quite a feat.

Definitely, a hard-wired system will always have those advantages over DBS and OTA, I believe I said that above.


----------



## twistedT (Jan 11, 2007)

keenan said:


> Correct, as Comcast removes Expanded Basic(about 30-35 analog channels) and continues to deploy SDV, along with node/headend upgrades, they'll have plenty of room for every national channel that may be available. Comcast is not worried about having enough bandwidth to compete with DirecTV, and remember, these will be full/true HD channels, not HD-Lite.
> 
> By mid 2008(some some SF systems sooner) SF bay area Comcast systems will have room for over 200 HD channels, plus all the other stuff they'll be running, phone, internet, and still have room for Limited Basic analog channels.


SDV requires that ALL digital converter boxes be switched to new SDV capable boxes. Every single last one has to be swapped in order for the system to work, even standard cable boxes. This will be very expensive, and besides the system may not get FCC approval because it doesnt work with cable cards. They might possibly get a waiver or something for the cable card. If your lucky enough to be in one of the areas that gets swapped to SDV you will have access to many HD channels. Meanwhile I will be watching hundreds of HD channels on my directv sat. in full hd (no hd-lite) and it will be available to everyone no matter where they live. You should be happy that D* is forcing cable co.s to step up and get it done. So if your so happy with your cable co. , why are you here in a dbs forum bashing D* and or E*. I might have browsed through a cable forum but never stopped to cut em down.


----------



## twistedT (Jan 11, 2007)

keenan said:


> It is rather amazing, look at what AT&T is doing with two skinny little copper phone wires not much larger than a strand of hair.
> 
> That delicate little hard wire connection provides cable/telcos the ability to provide services sat/OTA will never be able to compete with.


At&t U-verse uses two methods to get tv to your house, one is fiber directly to your stb (Verizon Fios does this with all of its tv services), which is more costly. The other is to bring the fiber optic service with in 3000 feet of your house and then use kind of an sdv delivery system to bring only the channels you want to watch over the copper phone lines via your stb. Both methods allow for large amounts of hd. In order for cable co.s across the country to do the same as Verizon and At&t, they must switch out a huge amount of stbs in order to get more bandwidth which will be very very costly. Agian if your lucky enough to be in one of the areas to get these services, thats great. But for the rest of us D* is the way to go for HD.


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

> So if your so happy with your cable co. , why are you here in a dbs forum bashing D* and or E*. I might have browsed through a cable forum but never stopped to cut em down.


I don't see where you read Keenan is 'bashing' DBS.

BTW - Swicthed digial video works well here on Time Warner, no special equiptment needed, I just have a normal 8300HD. My franchise is a test market, MHD, A&E HD and Universal HD are SDV alsong with SD digital simulcast.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

twistedT said:


> SDV requires that ALL digital converter boxes be switched to new SDV capable boxes. Every single last one has to be swapped in order for the system to work, even standard cable boxes. This will be very expensive, and besides the system may not get FCC approval because it doesnt work with cable cards. They might possibly get a waiver or something for the cable card. If your lucky enough to be in one of the areas that gets swapped to SDV you will have access to many HD channels. Meanwhile I will be watching hundreds of HD channels on my directv sat. in full hd (no hd-lite) and it will be available to everyone no matter where they live. You should be happy that D* is forcing cable co.s to step up and get it done. So if your so happy with your cable co. , why are you here in a dbs forum bashing D* and or E*. I might have browsed through a cable forum but never stopped to cut em down.





twistedT said:


> At&t U-verse uses two methods to get tv to your house, one is fiber directly to your stb (Verizon Fios does this with all of its tv services), which is more costly. The other is to bring the fiber optic service with in 3000 feet of your house and then use kind of an sdv delivery system to bring only the channels you want to watch over the copper phone lines via your stb. Both methods allow for large amounts of hd. In order for cable co.s across the country to do the same as Verizon and At&t, they must switch out a huge amount of stbs in order to get more bandwidth which will be very very costly. Agian if your lucky enough to be in one of the areas to get these services, thats great. But for the rest of us D* is the way to go for HD.


There's so much inaccuracy in both of these posts I'm not going to take the time to respond to each point but I will respond to a few.

You say you will be watching 100's of HD channels-not HD-Lite....Prove it.

I don't bash DBS services, I make comparisons, and in fact have DirecTV, Dish and Star Choice along with Comcast and a few OTA HD channels, so whether you want to believe it or not I am at least somewhat qualified to make comparisons on what I see on my screen.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> _"...why are you here in a dbs forum bashing D* and or E*. I might have browsed through a cable forum but never stopped to cut em down."_


I don't consider keenan's comments to be bashing either. This is the HD
Programming Forum and, as such, it is not provider or platform specific.

Bottom line: We're all looking for the same thing - more HD channels and
programming. Personally, I get excited when a new HD channel launchs,
regardless of which provider, because I know I will get it sooner or later.


----------



## twistedT (Jan 11, 2007)

Steve Mehs said:


> I don't see where you read Keenan is 'bashing' DBS.
> 
> BTW - Swicthed digial video works well here on Time Warner, no special equiptment needed, I just have a normal 8300HD. My franchise is a test market, MHD, A&E HD and Universal HD are SDV alsong with SD digital simulcast.


Well, your right I shouldn't take it out on keenan. I just gets old, We all know that D* is strapped for bandwidth right now. I am willing to wait a few more months for the new sats. If they still have HD- Lite then, I'll be on your side!!

And also go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and type in Swicthed digital video. Just so you know where I got most of the Info. Also I have read a few other articles on sdv in the past. I wish I had other options like you do, but I am satisfied with what I get from D

Yes your bottom line is 100% correct


----------



## twistedT (Jan 11, 2007)

keenan said:


> There's so much inaccuracy in both of these posts I'm not going to take the time to respond to each point but I will respond to a few.
> 
> You say you will be watching 100's of HD channels-not HD-Lite....Prove it.
> 
> I don't bash DBS services, I make comparisons, and in fact have DirecTV, Dish and Star Choice along with Comcast and a few OTA HD channels, so whether you want to believe it or not I am at least somewhat qualified to make comparisons on what I see on my screen.


Dude, Its straight from Wikipedia except for the part about the cable card. I read that in another article but I couldn't find It again. So I went to Wikipedia to make sure I was on the up and up. 
Sorry, I can't prove it, but I am sure someone in this forum will. Hopefully it won't be HD-Lite, or I'll have to start wishing for sdv in my area (which will probally be 2015) and join with you bashing D*!!!

I shouldn't have called you a D* basher. My bad, I just get frustrated with hearing HD-Lite over and over.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

"My bad, I just get frustrated with hearing HD-Lite over and over" - I can't get/agree the twisted logic;
IMO should be: 'get frustrated with the channels in HD-Lite over and over' !


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

twistedT said:


> Dude, Its straight from Wikipedia except for the part about the cable card. I read that in another article but I couldn't find It again. So I went to Wikipedia to make sure I was on the up and up.
> Sorry, I can't prove it, but I am sure someone in this forum will. Hopefully it won't be HD-Lite, or I'll have to start wishing for sdv in my area (which will probally be 2015) and join with you bashing D*!!!
> 
> I shouldn't have called you a D* basher. My bad, I just get frustrated with hearing HD-Lite over and over.


I wasn't really talking about the SDV, I know what that is and how it works, and it works with currently deployed STBs, so no huge deployment of STBs will be needed.

In any case, I would love to see DirecTV's PQ get better as well, let's face it, they have some sports packages that I like very much and it's aggravating to get subpar PQ while spending all that money on those packages. I want them to be better just as much as the next person.


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> As for your statement about the locals being changed on resolution:
> Do you have definitive proof that they are changing the resolution of the locals? All I have ever seen is people do the math, based on what they determin to be in the data stream... I have not seen a single posting where someone definitively proved (like they have with then MPEG2 Nationals), that the resolution has been altered for the MPEG-4 locals.


The head of CBS's HDTV department has said so based on their own measurements. As far as who that is, and the actual data, you'll just have to trust me unless the individual feels inclined to comment themselves.

Look at it this way, if DirecTV wasn't down-rezzing/bit-reducing don't you think they would say so as they have been getting blasted publicly about it for the last 3 years? Not only on the internet, but on TV news as well as the print media?

Plus, remember that DirecTV has a lawsuit pending against them about this very thing, if they came out and proved that there is no validity to the claims the lawsuit would have washed out from the beginning, yet that hasn't happened.

Earl, bottom line, you can believe what you want to believe, and more importantly, if it looks good to you that's all that really matters, after all this is only entertainment we're talking about. 

My only issue is that you're making a statement of fact that is simply not true as has been proven visually by many and scientifically by a few.


----------



## ashu (Mar 9, 2006)

It's been a while, Earl & the rest of you ... hope you've been reading the news today 

FCC Yields to Dish, DTV on HD carriage (aka Keep sending HD-Lite and keep rural areas non-HD for a few more years, why don'tcha?)

Choice excerpts



"article quoted above" said:


> ... the FCC plans to allow DirecTV and Dish to down convert broadcasters' HD signals to a less pristine picture resolution for several years.


Wasn't someone asking for 'definitive proof' that they are changing the resolution of the locals.  (Hiya, Earl)



"article quoted above" said:


> Because the FCC didn't specify the markets that had to be served, DirecTV and Dish Network are free to pursue a large-market strategy, which could keep rural consumers waiting a long time for their local TV signals in HD via satellite.


So much for satellite being the best option in rural areas. It may yet remain the case, but don't expect to see your locals in HD for a while.

Even worse - there may be HD channels (on satellite) no longer carried in SD at all - even mainstream ones that are currently carried.


"article quoted above" said:


> At least for the time being, if digital TV stations demand HD carriage, the satellite carriers are not require to provide a standard definition copy to customers that do not have HD set-top boxes. In others words, none of the dual must carry obligations that the FCC imposed on cable would apply to DirecTV and Dish.


I'm hardly saying cable broadcasters are saints - *many* cable cos and even localities down-res, down-convert and bit-reshape. But so far, fortunately, my Comcast doesn't. Recordings in HD from OTA channels in the DC metro area are the same size/bitrate as the Comcast re-broadcasts of those shows, at least in prime time which is where I've compared them (all on my Series 3 HD TiVo)

Nor am I implying Cable will remain the superior quality option for HD
- They'll start down-res-ing to, to compete with satellite's excellent channel count
- OR, SDV will kick in, making life more difficult (until the USB dongle is released) for "give-me-TiVo-or-give-me-no-TV" fans like myself.
But Cable remains the better option for me. For now. Until FiOS finally lights up the fiber they've installed in my backyard months ago, that is


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Yes, we have been discussing it in a few other threads.

As for your comment about HD-LIte... don't think it will be HD-Lite...
It won't be HD at all... this gives them permission to take the HD signal, downconvert it to SD standards.. and send that.

(And I am still looking for proof that they are modifying the existing MPEG-4 signals)

---

There is another choice
Don't offer locals at all in the market (not even down converted).

Land-Line offerings are under a very different distribution model then both DirecTV and DishNetwork.

They only have to distribute the signals for their small areas... So basically... they can allocate the same about of bandwith in every market, specifically for locals.

Where the SAT providers... that bandwith is cumulative (spotbeams help, but ultimately a single sat can only handle) so much.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Kind of odd that AVSforum seems to say that Comcast is actually worse, and they've got screenshots:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Those with HR20's, OTA and an ATSC capable display can easily test whether or not the HR20 hardware degrades picture quality at all.

OTA through the HR20 will pass throught the HR20 video processing h/w and s/w and the display's video processing h/w and s/w. OTA direct to the display will bypass the HR20's electronics entirely. Whatever degradation you see, if any, will be directly attributable to the HR20's role in the signal chain.

Then as a further test, you can compare HR20 MPEG-4 to ATSC OTA to see what effect DirecTV encoding has on picture quality. This won't be as fair a test, tho, because if you notice in the first (OTA vs ATSC) test that the HR20 hardware itself degrades PQ at all, you can assume the MPEG-4 picture quality is being similarly degraded by the h/w, in addition to any loss incurred in the MPEG-4 conversion.

/steve


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

I do this regularly and most often the D* LIL HD feed is the same PQ as the OTA feed. On some occasions, however, there are noticeable differences, such as minor pixelating. I think D* does a pretty good job with HD locals (at least for our HD locals).


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Kind of odd that AVSforum seems to say that Comcast is actually worse, and they've got screenshots:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271


Sorry but it only 'shows the results for a particular set of equipment and signals'. That's the response I got when I posted a link to a thread at AVS comparing E*, D* and cable HD picture with screencaps, since D* PQ was clearly worse that didn't count for you D* fanboys and now that it's Comcast in question it's gospel.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> Sorry but it only 'shows the results for a particular set of equipment and signals'. That's the response I got when I posted a link to a thread at AVS comparing E*, D* and cable HD picture with screencaps, since D* PQ was clearly worse that didn't count for you D* fanboys and now that it's Comcast in question it's gospel.


Simple screen shots are always questionable...
Regardless of the comparison systems.

There are so many factors that go into it.... PQ that is.
All I care about is what it looks like on my TV.. And that was my feeling backwhen DirecTV's PQ was definently lower then others.

I will always question the factors that go into gathering PQ questions


----------



## Austin316 (Dec 9, 2007)

Comcast tried a ad stunt like this in the local mall . I scream how it was not far...

Comcast was setup at the mall with 4 big screens.... ones with little signs covered up in front of them. 

According to the guy they took 4 HD Tivos and recorded the same channel ( Discovery Channel ) and was play them all on the 4 tvs. 

I could tell there was something not quite right with the tvs they were kinda off .... Except one. The one that looked like it had a calibrated screen was the comcast connection. The third was Dish only reason I knew it was because I saw a charlie chat promo during a commerical break. Then the 2nd was DTV I guess it looked more pixelated then the 4th which was fios. But when I mention to the guy that the TV did not look right and to be fair all 4 boxes should be on the TV he tried shooing me away and I hate comcast I really really really hate comcast. So I started yelling it was rigged. That comcast was trying to fool people with there little stunt and they turn off the tvs and I came back to yell some more ( as that saturday I spent 4 hours in front of the comcast booth. ) So that sunday they were packing up there stuff early sunday morning and comcast guy said some things to me that I cant repeat here something about his sales bla bla bla


----------



## homeskillet (Feb 3, 2004)

The HD offerings via AT&T U-Verse may be high, but they compress the "heck" out of it and it looks terrible on-screen. I had U-Verse for 6 months here in KC before I left for TWC (again).

I'm looking at Dish Network now with the AT&T bundle for DSL.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

There's been much discussion about that avsforum posting on other forums that I've been on. What Comcast is apparently doing is sacrificing quality for quantity. It hasn't been rolled out in all areas yet, but apparently will be soon. Traditionally a QAM channel has enough bandwidth to carry 2 HD channels without doing further compression on those channels (one QAM can handle a little less than 40 Mbps, and each HD channel takes just under 20). Until now Comcast has, in most if not all areas, kept with the standard that FiOS does for HD - 2 HD channels per QAM.

They're apparently feeling the bandwidth crunch, so they opted to go for quantity over quality - they're going to start squeezing 3 HD channels per QAM. While I agree with Earl in that a couple of screenshots aren't enough to indicate degraded PQ, this move by Comcast should trouble existing customers. I can understand the pressure that Comcast is feeling - DirecTV just launched D11, and Verizon is going already starting to go all digital (creating enough space for 150 HD channels in the process, without the need for additional compression). I just happen to think that it's interesting that the company that touted their quality of HD not all that long ago is taking this course.

And while you can't base everything on screenshots, the average bitrate numbers that are listed in that initial posting indicate what Comcast is doing, and how degraded their PQ is likely to be.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

According to the New York Times's Saul Hansell, Comcast is quietly upping compression ratios. /steve

_March 31, 2008, 3:38 pm

*Comcast's Blurry High Definition Picture*

By Saul Hansell

Not only has Comcast been slowing down Internet users exchanging files with the BitTorrent protocol, it has been quietly reducing the quality of some high definition television networks it carries as well.

[...]_

The rest of the article is here.

/steve


----------



## kfcrosby (Dec 17, 2006)

jpl said:


> There's been much discussion about that avsforum posting on other forums that I've been on. What Comcast is apparently doing is sacrificing quality for quantity.


news feed this morning
http://www.dailytech.com/Comcast+Trades+Quality+for+Quantity+with+HDTV+Offerings/article11312.htm

Kevin


----------



## keenan (Feb 8, 2005)

Original posting that all these articles are based on,

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271


----------

