# Dish Network HD Quality



## applegbt

So, I just recently finished a new home theater room in our new house. In my previous home I had a home theater room with a 104" diagonal in the 16:9 portion of the screen and an Epson 8350 projector. I had DirecTV and felt that the picture quality was absolutely outstanding. 

Fast forward 2 years to present day, I've now finished my home theater room in a brand new house and the new screen is slightly bigger at 126" diagonal. I now have a Sony VPLHW40ES projector and decided to go with Dish Network for satellite tv instead of DirecTV. I hooked up the Hopper receiver to my system a couple days ago and was instantly depressed in seeing the picture quality. At first I was afraid the difference might be the projectors, or possibly the screen causing the artifacts I was seeing. But as I switched the input material between the Satellite TV, Netflix streaming, Xbox One, and Blu-ray dvd's I noticed that it was only the satellite TV that looked poor. Everything else was tack sharp. So, now I'm just trying to figure out if there is really a decrease in quality between DirecTV and Dish, or if perhaps my screen is just too large and is exposing the compression artifacts of satellite.

It's somewhat difficult to explain what i'm seeing in the picture, but I'll do my best. Overall the picture just looks soft. The hi-def detail that I was used to seeing is lost. In programming that has a lot of on-screen graphics (like sporting events) I can see what appears to be compression artifacts around the on screen logos, sports ticker, scoreboard graphic, etc. 

If anyone has any thoughts on this I'd love to hear them. I love the Hopper interface and Dish in general, but what I'm experiencing picture wise is truly disappointing.


----------



## mdavej

Dish is lower resolution than all those other sources (1440x1080 vs. 1920x1080). A gigantic screen like yours is also going to make compression artifacts very obvious.

FWIW, DirecTV, while technically better than Dish, has always looked soft to me as well. So even DirecTV isn't going to blow you away, IMO. My advice is to live with it until 4k is mainstream.


----------



## ejbvt

applegbt said:


> So, I just recently finished a new home theater room in our new house. In my previous home I had a home theater room with a 104" diagonal in the 16:9 portion of the screen and an Epson 8350 projector. I had DirecTV and felt that the picture quality was absolutely outstanding. Fast forward 2 years to present day, I've now finished my home theater room in a brand new house and the new screen is slightly bigger at 126" diagonal. I now have a Sony VPLHW40ES projector and decided to go with Dish Network for satellite tv instead of DirecTV. I hooked up the Hopper receiver to my system a couple days ago and was instantly depressed in seeing the picture quality. At first I was afraid the difference might be the projectors, or possibly the screen causing the artifacts I was seeing. But as I switched the input material between the Satellite TV, Netflix streaming, Xbox One, and Blu-ray dvd's I noticed that it was only the satellite TV that looked poor. Everything else was tack sharp. So, now I'm just trying to figure out if there is really a decrease in quality between DirecTV and Dish, or if perhaps my screen is just too large and is exposing the compression artifacts of satellite.It's somewhat difficult to explain what i'm seeing in the picture, but I'll do my best. Overall the picture just looks soft. The hi-def detail that I was used to seeing is lost. In programming that has a lot of on-screen graphics (like sporting events) I can see what appears to be compression artifacts around the on screen logos, sports ticker, scoreboard graphic, etc. If anyone has any thoughts on this I'd love to hear them. I love the Hopper interface and Dish in general, but what I'm experiencing picture wise is truly disappointing.


It should be illegal for Dish to call that garbage HD. It doesn't matter what size screen, Dish is awful. The other reply says why. But Directv isn't soft... It's sharp and looks great.


----------



## lparsons21

First of all it isn't garbage, I've had Dish and Direct at the same time on the same tv and the difference between them on those 73" is noticeable, but not by enough to matter to me.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## scooper

technically - anything at 720P or better is HD. What the OP should do is make sure their Hopper is set to output 1080i/p - the default is something like 480i/p. Do the same on their new display device. Between the 2 of them that should relieve most of the "softness", but as was stated - that big screen will tend to magnify that effect.


----------



## FarmerBob

I check every so often and right now DISH's picture quality is far less than antenna direct OTA. The OTA, not through the box, is brighter, crisper, richer in color and more depth. The DISH picture is darker and flat. Until this post came along I just thought my Samsung DLP, which I watch the most, with a brand new bulb was just aging. But when I switched over to OTA direct it was beautiful. This is the same with both my Samsung and Mitsubishi (Laser) DLP's.

When I first read this thread, I thought the same about the box being set up properly. But just now flipping back and forth on the set itself with everything in its proper place, the difference is quite noticeable. Oh and I have noticed that as you step down in outputs the quality gets worse and I mean bad. Whereas, my old 722 had a bit of a visible difference that I use to gripe about, but not this much. All the outputs were pretty close. Not so much with the HwS.


----------



## camo

You will need to adjust TV for Dish which does come in darker. Nothing you can do about the softness, it is what it is.


----------



## applegbt

Yes the output resolution on the Hopper is fine. I'm not talking about standard definition level of softness here, it's more subtle than that. But still quite noticeable. My old home theater with DirecTV had a cheap DIY screen and still looked leaps and bounds better than what I'm seeing today with Dish. And just because the output quality is 720p or better, it doesn't mean Dish isn't overly compressing the source before it gets to your Hopper. Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## lparsons21

Yet most that bother to comment about the difference between Dish and Direct in general say that the difference is fairly minimal. And that's been my experience too over the years. With rear projectors and plasma tvs, the difference is just not enough to make it part of deciding which service I will have. Direct's off my list because I just got tired of the slowness that creeps in on seemingly every DVR they make and I don't like the UI at all.

Currently I have cable w/Tivo and Dish w/Hopper and prefer both over Direct for differing reasons.


----------



## camo

I think its a little more than a minimal difference, on my 70" especially with sports (football) the distant camera when they zoom out for a pass downfield it looks grainy even SD quality on ESPN & ABC channels which is already lower resolution 720p. With Direct the quality is noticeably better and easier on your eyes.


----------



## lparsons21

If Dish looks that bad on your 70" then something is either wrong with your Hopper or you TV. My 73" showed little, but noticeable, difference when either a Hopper or Genie was running it.


----------



## camo

Compared to what? Theirs nothing wrong with my TV I have both services. You can't convince me they look the same especially watching sports like I described.


----------



## lparsons21

Comparing Genie to Hopper. Ther is a difference but no nearly as much as you describe to my eyes. I'm viewing a 73" DLP from around 9.5 feet away.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## bnewt

applegbt said:


> Yes the output resolution on the Hopper is fine. I'm not talking about standard definition level of softness here, it's more subtle than that. But still quite noticeable. My old home theater with DirecTV had a cheap DIY screen and still looked leaps and bounds better than what I'm seeing today with Dish. And just because the output quality is 720p or better, it doesn't mean Dish isn't overly compressing the source before it gets to your Hopper. Garbage in, garbage out.


I have never had Direct, so I can't comment on their quality. If you are unhappy, then it may be worth the cost to dump Dish in favor of Direct. It's sad to look forward to something, only to be disappointed


----------



## Jim5506

The reason Dish can get away with reducing horizontal resolution from 1920 to 1440 is that for the most part, the human eye is not as well suited to discerning horizontal resolution as it is vertical resolution.

Have you ever tried laying down with your eyes vertically matched to watch a TV show - it messes with your brain.

Most people will not be bothered with a little lower horizontal resolution even in a larger screen size.

A few others will be bothered and this is what we are seeing here.


----------



## david_jr

Also do not discount the fact that you went from 104 to 126 inches. That is a huge difference. Directv is sharper we're told, but their resolution is also not the same as BD either from what I have gathered. If you're not happy you should go back to Direct. No use suffering. If you jumped to Dish for the discounts shame on you as it is well established in internet lore that Direct has better PQ.


----------



## Willh

well, i too noticed that some channels in HD on Dish look worse then others, as the channels that look more grainy in HD, and this is cause Dish is upconverting these 720p broadcast channels. if you watched Fox Sports 1, or ESPN on a 1080p/1080i TV, then you would see it look more compressed and a lot of artifacts is more noticeable, but for a 1080p broadcast channel on Dish you would notice less artifacts, but more noticeable on local channels after seeing the OTA version of the local channels.


----------



## Grandude

Good grief. A new house, a 126" screen driven by a $3000 projector just to watch football. Maybe I'm a bit jaded.
I watch on a 32 inch screen from 3 feet and get a really great picture. Seems that ESPN distant shots of football is less 'great' than other scenes of various sorts. But count me as quite happy with my Hopper feeding the 32 inch Samsung TV.

Me and the cat are just happy to be alive! :grin: 

I forgot to mention that this was typed on my old IBM keyboard, not form tapatalk or other mentioned divices so numerously by some folkes.

Oh sorry. Just in a grumpy mood today as it is too cold to go outside. Everything out there is in HD for sure!


----------



## applegbt

Grandude said:


> Good grief. A new house, a 126" screen driven by a $3000 projector just to watch football. Maybe I'm a bit jaded.
> I watch on a 32 inch screen from 3 feet and get a really great picture. Seems that ESPN distant shots of football is less 'great' than other scenes of various sorts. But count me as quite happy with my Hopper feeding the 32 inch Samsung TV.
> 
> Me and the cat are just happy to be alive! :grin:
> 
> I forgot to mention that this was typed on my old IBM keyboard, not form tapatalk or other mentioned divices so numerously by some folkes.
> 
> Oh sorry. Just in a grumpy mood today as it is too cold to go outside. Everything out there is in HD for sure!


Grandude: Wow, not sure what I did to deserve that. But just so we're clear, I spent several decades of my life watching television on a screen that would fit inside a mini fridge and was damn happy to have it. But I'm not going to apologize for having a home theater now that I've reached a stage in my life that I have the means. And for what it's worth, it's not "just to watch football". That was just an example.

david_jr: Yes, I had the same thought so I zoomed the image back so that it was the same size as my old screen. While obviously not as pronounced, it still did not have the clean HD image that I was used to.

I'm not ruling out something else in my setup may be contributing to this. But trying to systematically test the components to see where the problem might lie, if not in the source. I just wanted to get some thoughts from those here who may have first hand experience in comparing the two services on a large display. Just to rule that out if possible. I don't consider myself to be overly sensitive to visual imperfections, I'm nearsighted as heck from spending years behind a computer. I don't typically see screendoor effect and other anomalies that I hear others complain about when reviewing projectors. Wish I could show everyone what I'm seeing, because I think all would agree that it is subpar...regardless of the cause.

Edit: Watching the Peach Bowl today and the picture is the worst that I've seen so far.


----------



## Grandude

applegbt said:


> Grandude: Wow, not sure what I did to deserve that. But just so we're clear, I spent several decades of my life watching television on a screen that would fit inside a mini fridge and was damn happy to have it. But I'm not going to apologize for having a home theater now that I've reached a stage in my life that I have the means. And for what it's worth, it's not "just to watch football". That was just an example.


Sorry that I responded to you that way. Guess I had just hit my tipping point. Seems as if just about every day or so someone says that Direct has a better picture than Dish and then the usual suspects pop in to say this is true and give a myriad of reasons why you should get Direct instead. I just get tired of hearing that story. 
I wish everyone could have a perfect picture on a perfect TV with no artifacts, etc. I have a very nice picture on very nice TVs and enjoy the sports, shows, and whatever. Normally I'm caught up in the fun of the game or show and don't notice that my picture isn't 100% perfect.
Maybe in my next life, all will be perfect for everybody and there will be no more sour apples anywhere.
Anyway, applegbt, I sincerely apologize for picking on you this time.


----------



## SeaBeagle

DISH network here is perfect using HD. 


Sent from my iPad 4 128GB using DBSTalk mobile application.


----------



## ericknolls

Grandude said:


> Sorry that I responded to you that way. Guess I had just hit my tipping point. Seems as if just about every day or so someone says that Direct has a better picture than Dish and then the usual suspects pop in to say this is true and give a myriad of reasons why you should get Direct instead. I just get tired of hearing that story.
> I wish everyone could have a perfect picture on a perfect TV with no artifacts, etc. I have a very nice picture on very nice TVs and enjoy the sports, shows, and whatever. Normally I'm caught up in the fun of the game or show and don't notice that my picture isn't 100% perfect.
> Maybe in my next life, all will be perfect for everybody and there will be no more sour apples anywhere.
> Anyway, applegbt, I sincerely apologize for picking on you this time.


Well are the people lying when they say the picture quality is better on DIRECTV? I have read a lot of posts that suggest that Dish's HD and picture quality is not great. It's not something to get tired of: It's just facts!! People listen to what the person posts then they make a comment of their personal experience. Some post side by side comparisons of both services. You must be tired of them too...

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


----------



## mdavej

ericknolls said:


> Well are the people lying when they say the picture quality is better on DIRECTV? I have read a lot of posts that suggest that Dish's HD and picture quality is not great. It's not something to get tired of: It's just facts!! People listen to what the person posts then they make a comment of their personal experience. Some post side by side comparisons of both services. You must be tired of them too...
> 
> Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


I don't think anybody disputes whether DirecTV is better. It was proven years ago that it is. The question is to what degree. As for myself and many others, I can see virtually no visible difference even though I know the resolution and bitrates on DirecTV are higher. If I were in the market for satellite TV, Dish would still be my top choice for many reasons (better hardware, more features, better interface, lower price, etc.). Slightly inferior PQ is of no consequence to me since my eyes and my TVs are also slightly inferior.

What is tiresome is the reports that Dish PQ is not great. This simply isn't true. It may not be perfect (DirecTV isn't perfect either), but it's still excellent. Such exaggerations are indeed annoying to those of us who live in the real world where nothing is perfect.


----------



## ericknolls

I won't respond to this "TIRED" person directly about seeing posts about Dish having poor picture quality. I will let you be the judge. Go to Google.com: type: Which television provider has the best picture quality? The results will come back: best HD carrier. You may see best picture quality too. The verdict after you read some of the posts: hands down: DIRECTV and Verizon FiOS!!! See for yourself. Nothing to get "TIRED" about. Just facts!!

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


----------



## James Long

The trouble with your Google (or other search) results is that a lot of people simply do not care who has the best picture. They are more like mdavej with many influences affecting the provider they choose.

For those people, the battle isn't who has the absolute best PQ as measured on a calculator using data from other users. The fight is to have acceptable PQ that fits their needs. Paying $30-$40 more per month for "better PQ" when one cannot tell the difference without being told one is better doesn't make sense.

Monster Cable manages to stay in business selling their ridiculously priced products to people who "need" the "best" despite having no noticeable improvement over more affordable cables. DISH Network manages to stay in business by selling affordable subscription television with decent receivers and an acceptable picture.


----------



## david_jr

Anyone have a link to a recent side by side comparison of E* and D* picture quality conducted double blind under matched and controlled conditions?


----------



## Grandude

ericknolls said:


> I won't respond to this "TIRED" person directly about seeing posts about Dish having poor picture quality. I will let you be the judge. Go to Google.com: type: Which television provider has the best picture quality? The results will come back: best HD carrier. You may see best picture quality too. The verdict after you read some of the posts: hands down: DIRECTV and Verizon FiOS!!! See for yourself. Nothing to get "TIRED" about. Just facts!!
> 
> Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


I forgot to mention that I am tired of all the folks who have to tell us with every post they make that they are sending their important message to us via Tapatalk.

Sent from my IBM keyboard using my fingers.

Oh, did I mention that my dad is stronger than your dad.

This reply is from the resident curmudgeon.


----------



## James Long

Grandude said:


> This reply is from the resident curmudgeon.


We seem to have more than one of those.


----------



## Grandude

James Long said:


> We seem to have more than one of those.


AT 78 I am sure that I qualify but can't seem to find a curmudgeon smiley :nono2: .


----------



## ericknolls

http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/02/fcc-votes-to-unlock-the-cable-box-over-republican-opposition/ Too late!!! I found this article the day before. Read it and rejoice.

Sent from my XT1028 using Tapatalk


----------



## Jhon69

Sure is alot of arguing over 1080i.


----------



## xmguy

I switched from a 8 year sub of DirecTV to Charter Cable, then last week to Dish for the first time. Between all 3, yes Dish isn't as clear, some artifacts are present. But then again I have a 55" 4K Vizio and am 8-10 FT away. So I will see more artifacts than someone with a smaller picture. I've had Dish a week, I've gotten used to it. I grew up like most, with smaller TVs, I can recall as a kid getting a 19" to a 20" upgrade was awesome. This was all the world of SD. I didn't get my first HDTV til 2009. I'm 31 now. 

So I'd say go with what makes you happy and you can live with.


----------



## Jhon69

xmguy said:


> I switched from a 8 year sub of DirecTV to Charter Cable, then last week to Dish for the first time. Between all 3, yes Dish isn't as clear, some artifacts are present. But then again I have a 55" 4K Vizio and am 8-10 FT away. So I will see more artifacts than someone with a smaller picture. I've had Dish a week, I've gotten used to it. I grew up like most, with smaller TVs, I can recall as a kid getting a 19" to a 20" upgrade was awesome. This was all the world of SD. I didn't get my first HDTV til 2009. I'm 31 now.
> 
> So I'd say go with what makes you happy and you can live with.


Excellent post!

And if anyone wants to know who has the best picture quality available:

It's not DirecTV.

It's not Dish.

It's not cable.

It's watching a program with an Over The Air Antenna.


----------



## P Smith

Jhon69 said:


> Excellent post!
> 
> And if anyone wants to know who has the best picture quality available:
> 
> It's not DirecTV.
> 
> It's not Dish.
> 
> It's not cable.
> 
> It's watching a program with an Over The Air Antenna.


it's BR disks has best PQ in HD !


----------



## tsmacro

Jhon69 said:


> Excellent post!
> 
> And if anyone wants to know who has the best picture quality available:
> 
> It's not DirecTV.
> 
> It's not Dish.
> 
> It's not cable.
> 
> It's watching a program with an Over The Air Antenna.


Even that varies, if they carry sub-channels that can take away from the picture quality of the main channel.


----------



## MysteryMan

P Smith said:


> it's BR disks has best PQ in HD !


Used to, not any more. Now it's 4K Ultra HD discs that have the best picture quality.


----------



## lparsons21

MysteryMan said:


> Used to, not any more. Now it's 4K Ultra HD discs that have the best picture quality.


Which you can see if you have the right TV, and/or the right AVR, and the right player. Also holding your mouth right helps too!! 

4K is great, it is also a hot mess at the moment as they diddle around trying to get standards set in stone. For me, a 4K player is not on the radar until something stabilizes in the 4K world. In the meantime I'll enjoy the 4K streams...


----------



## MysteryMan

lparsons21 said:


> Which you can see if you have the right TV, and/or the right AVR, and the right player. Also holding your mouth right helps too!!
> 
> 4K is great, it is also a hot mess at the moment as they diddle around trying to get standards set in stone. For me, a 4K player is not on the radar until something stabilizes in the 4K world. In the meantime I'll enjoy the 4K streams...


As was the case when Blu-ray came out. One needed a HDTV and or the right AVR and a Blu-ray Player to see the advantages of a Blu-ray disc over DVDs. That said, whether one has the proper equipment or not does not negate 4K Ultra HD discs having the best picture quality.


----------



## shadough

I'll say this, in watching the Tourney, the TBS channel seems to have a crappy picture than any other 3 channels (TruTV, CBS, TNT)


----------



## lparsons21

MysteryMan said:


> As was the case when Blu-ray came out. One needed a HDTV and or the right AVR and a Blu-ray Player to see the advantages of a Blu-ray disc over DVDs. That said, whether one has the proper equipment or not does not negate 4K Ultra HD discs having the best picture quality.


True, it is the best PQ.

When Blu-ray came out it was a mess also as there was the HDDVD format also to contend with. But it stabilized pretty quickly when the 'war' was over with most things being firmware/software upgradeable fairly easily. So far with 4K this is not the case it seems, or at least the mfgs are either being mum about keeping up on older equipment or just saying no it won't happen.

So confusion and a mish mash of issues in the source devices and the presentation devices. And nothing at all like the PS3 'cure' that most of us found in the earlier Blu-Ray days.


----------



## Jhon69

Yes when you get into the Blurays the 4K UHD Bluray DVDs do have the best picture especially when you want HDR and WCG to come through.

I'm cheap though so I got a 4K upconverting Bluray player that upconverts my 1080p Blurays to 3840x2160p.

4K Internet speeds are not available where I live,so no joy there or here.


----------



## P Smith

any hint what model you bought ?
WCG: Wide Color Gamut - right ? If I've seen different TV with enchanced HDR [4:2:2 & 4:4:2, not yet 4:4:4], but I don't remember any advanced model with WCG feature ...


----------



## Jhon69

P Smith said:


> any hint what model you bought ?
> WCG: Wide Color Gamut - right ? If I've seen different TV with enchanced HDR [4:2:2 & 4:4:2, not yet 4:4:4], but I don't remember any advanced model with WCG feature ...


I bought the Vizio M55-C2 which does not do HDR or WCG.

It was a need a TV buy in 2015, my other one took a dump.

My 1080p Vizio M55S0V took a dump after 4 years(after extra warranty expired).

Hopefully this Vizio 4K UHDTV will last another 4 years(have the extra warranty) and then I will buy a Vizio 8K SUHDTV.


----------



## P Smith

> I got a 4K upconverting Bluray player


I mean this one


----------



## Jhon69

P Smith said:


> I mean this one


Sony BDP S6500 3D 4K upconverting Bluray player.


----------



## david_jr

david_jr said:


> Anyone have a link to a recent side by side comparison of E* and D* picture quality conducted double blind under matched and controlled conditions?


I didn't think so.


----------



## Jhon69

david_jr said:


> I didn't think so.


Sorry it has been stated that Dish's HD is 1440x1080i.

DirecTV is 1920x1080i.

Hope that helps.


----------



## lparsons21

That's the technical response, and I think it is still correct. But the question was had a double blind test with exactly the same equipment been done recently. And so far the answer has been 'crickets'


Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

Jhon69 said:


> Sorry it has been stated that Dish's HD is 1440x1080i.
> 
> DirecTV is 1920x1080i.
> 
> Hope that helps.


there are more then that
if you could see bitrates for same channels of both providers at same time (see my old posts, I did measure by member's requests), you would tell why dish is at bottom in PQ list of sat providers


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> there are more then that
> if you could see bitrates for same channels of both providers at same time (see my old posts, I did measure by member's requests), you would tell why dish is at bottom in PQ list of sat providers


It is a short list ... who is the the #3 HD satellite provider?

Looking at bitrates only does not determine PQ. Looking at PQ (visual comparisons, etc.) is how humans determine PQ. Humans are not computers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The only meaningful way to do this is a side-by-side visual comparison on identical equipment (save the Dish vs DirecTV equipment of course). Calibrate all the HDTVs and AVRs the same way and compare channels that both providers carry.

All the other dialog is not that helpful. Dish and DirecTV are using different compression schemes and technology at their uplink sites and in their receivers... and while you might want to say 1440x1080 is less data than 1920x1080 that would only be true if that's the only factor. When you figure in the other MPEG compression and transmission schemes + possible data loss and error correction... it's entirely possible for Dish to start out with less initial data but lose less of it along the way if their transmission is more efficient... meaning a virtual "wash" to the consumer/viewer watching on his screen.

$10 is > $7 but if it is delivered in pennies, the bigger haul of pennies has a greater chance of loss along the way... so maybe at the end of the trip, $6.50 of the $7 gets to you but only $7 of the $10 gets to you... so yeah, it's better, but not as much better as you might have originally thought!


----------



## P Smith

Stewart Vernon said:


> The only meaningful way to do this is a side-by-side visual comparison on identical equipment (save the Dish vs DirecTV equipment of course). Calibrate all the HDTVs and AVRs the same way and compare channels that both providers carry.
> 
> All the other dialog is not that helpful. Dish and DirecTV are using different compression schemes and technology at their uplink sites and in their receivers... and while you might want to say 1440x1080 is less data than 1920x1080 that would only be true if that's the only factor. When you figure in the other MPEG compression and transmission schemes + possible data loss and error correction... it's entirely possible for Dish to start out with less initial data but lose less of it along the way if their transmission is more efficient... meaning a virtual "wash" to the consumer/viewer watching on his screen.
> 
> $10 is > $7 but if it is delivered in pennies, the bigger haul of pennies has a greater chance of loss along the way... so maybe at the end of the trip, $6.50 of the $7 gets to you but only $7 of the $10 gets to you... so yeah, it's better, but not as much better as you might have originally thought!


well, let me make other analogy:
- comparing glasses of milk, say both companies claimed it as high quality
- so, you're saying only tasting by your tongue would be last word
OK
- but we knew/can see some pre-sale preparations:
- compression technology is the same [H.262 or H.264]
- one mfg taking out 1/3 of fat [1920/1440]
- and the company is using homogenization process from a few sources by utilizing lower power pipes [bitrate]

Blind test is OK, but most of time it using by mfgs to push own product while hiding technology to convince average Joe, who don't know about the bitrates, resolution,video codec, etc

The forum has a lot of advanced members, perhaps hidden pros to get into details and analyze !

I don't understand some of those who deliberately dismissing facts and pushing own view as a final.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> I don't understand some of those who deliberately dismissing facts and pushing own view as a final.


The same could be said about those pushing your side of the argument ... so wrapped up in numbers that they forget to look at the picture on the screen.

Breaking down the chemical formulas for the milk you mentioned in your post may suggest which milk would taste better. But it is ONLY a taste test that will reveal which milk tastes better.

That being said, it would be good to know if one milk was 0.001% feces and the other milk was feces free. That is where science can really be of assistance! Just because I could not taste the feces in my milk would not mean that I would want to drink it (or even taste it).


----------



## P Smith

no, I'm not against comparing pict-by-pict, just want remember what and how the pictures created

it's same point as judging upscaling, compare sat vs DVD/BR streams, etc


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Picture "quality" is an inherently inexact and intangible thing, though... that's the real point that gets glossed over too often. Let me switch gears for a second...

I draw. When I draw something, it's easy to want to draw every little line and detail of a thing... but sometimes, when you take a step back... you realize that too much attention to detail can result in a drawing that actually looks less realistic. Sometimes, in order to get a drawing that looks better... you have to actually, skillfully, omit some details to bring it to life.

So back to the bits of video transmission... The perfect image would be the original uncompressed source if that could be transmitted without loss... but lots of factors contribute to that not being a reality/possibility right now... so they have to start deciding which bits to toss out along the way in order to get something to the viewer. MPEG compression is lossy by design... so even if you start out with full resolution source, after you compress and transmit then decompress, you don't have full resolution again at the end. How much did you lose? There's math for that... but that math never gets discussed in these quality discussions.

It's entirely possible, that someone could take a qualitative look at the start/end and say... hmmm... we're going to lose these bits anyway... so lets just toss some of them at the start and compress a little more and see if that really affects the output in a meaningful way. Again, there's math for that too... but that math is also never discussed.

Who knows if this has been done... but as I've said before, it is entirely possible that a 1440x1080 input on one system could look virtually the same as a 1920x1080 input on another system once the "process" happens and we compare outputs on identical equipment at the other end. This is why people need to do the side-by-side tests. You can scream "math" all you want... but you're only ever looking at part of the math... not the whole thing... and even then, there's the subjective part of the viewer's interpretation that weighs the most in the end.


----------



## P Smith

without long discussion, I would say just a few words what will tell you the point of PQ in less subjective manner:
- lets go back to our video pictures (from amateur drawing, milk, etc analogies) on our TV screens;
- why/when we need preserve dots and bits and pixels ?
Because of details what make the PQ bad in our head; our brain telling us (by memory):
- if you see closeup of an actor, your brain expect to recognize lashes, small wrinkles, mustaches/hair as set of hairs - not a blob;
- if you're watching football game - there are people on back , not a set of dots; and grass is not a green flat surface...

While a math involved into compression (MPEG versions), it was approved by human experts who did visual tests before the standards been set.

Cutting dots for 1/3 is real diminishing PQ fact - no one (de)compression algo (BTW, H.26x are standards, have no variations !) will nor get back those pixels !!!

Reducing bitrate (as dish doing) is a other diminishing factor - affecting dynamic aspect PQ of TV shows !


----------



## Stewart Vernon

You're completely ignoring that MPEG compression is lossy so the 1920x1080 image you get at the end is NOT the same as the 1920x1080 image you started with. You lose bits in the MPEG process. That's how it works... now, it tries to be smart about it... and some "experts" agreed on algorithms that resulted in lost bits and details that the human eye either could not distinguish OR would mentally fill in the gaps to preserve the illusion.

So... with that in mind... unless you ALSO do the math on the 1440x1080 Dish images AFTER processing and reconstruction to see IF that regenerated image at the viewer has significantly more lost bits than a 1920x1080 one... then you are not arguing the correct technical aspects as much as you claim to be. That's the point I and some others have been making.

Sure... the 1440x1080 image has less data than the 1920x1080 one... IF you compare the source it should be more noticeable... BUT after you compress, transmit, and decompress... which FINAL image looks better? That final image from the 1440x1080 source is probably not still 1440x1080 worth of original data, but neither is the 1920x1080 one still a 1920x1080 data set either.

IF you cherry pick parts of the process, you aren't considering the whole thing. The only way to measure and compare is at the end-game, side by side... IF you then want to measure pixels and effective vs actual resolution, please do... but don't make the mistake of assuming that just because you started with less data means you end with the same proportional amount less data by comparison. I argue that might not be the case... especially with a LOT of people saying they see little to no apparent difference between Dish and DirecTV.


----------



## P Smith

it's not an argument for me at all !


> especially with a LOT of people saying they see little to no apparent difference between Dish and DirecTV


and never will be as the words represent "a cloud"'s marginal opinion not a result of side-by-side tests

as to 1/3 initial loss of pixels/dots/bits - that wouldn't be any a math what will prove a compression-decomression pair by SAME MPEG standard algo for different source will produce practically SAME picture as your "a LOT" crowd stated
nay, not going to be ...


----------



## James Long

I believe Stewart's point is that it would be just as easy to lose 1/3rd of the picture quality through other compression methods as some assume is lost by using a 1440x1080i frame side. DISH could return to 1920x1080i (making the "HD Lite" claim obsolete) and still have the same PQ. The lower resolution is just another compression technique.

What compression techniques work best returns to the strict matter of opinion.


----------



## P Smith

compression techniques are the same, defined by MPEG committee and implemented by mfg of chips [same co - Broadcom] - you or dish can't use non standard H.264 algo


----------



## James Long

Compression techniques are a choice. What DISH is doing doesn't violate the standards.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

We don't really know what they are doing... and even if they are using MPEG4 "standards"... there are different settings. Without even having to reach to an imaginary example... We already know that there's a different compression setting they use for the on-the-fly live broadcasts vs what they use for pre-compressed VOD. The VOD files are much larger (compressed less) than the equivalent broadcast version you might record from any particular channel.

So... we don't know if Dish and DirecTV are using the exact same settings for their MPEG compression... and we don't know if all aspects of the hardware/software are configured and performing the same... and we don't know how well the error-correction of each companies' respective algorithms is working. Lots of unknowns.

AND even if all those things are the same... I haven't seen a mathematical comparison of the final 1920x1080 video as compared to the initial 1920x1080 video from DirecTV to see if what you the viewer gets is the same that DirecTV gets from the channel... I doubt that it is... so, how much is "lost" along the way to the viewer? Nobody is quantifying that.

Meanwhile, Dish is probably losing bits too... but maybe they aren't losing proportionally as many. Again, here's a real-world non-video example.

A large pizza has 12 slices. I live alone. I can't eat all 12 slices. DirecTV brings me a large pizza, but along the way the driver drops it and 3 of those slices are now inedible... so I only got 9. Meanwhile, Dish doesn't even sell a large pizza. All I can get from them is a medium... that only has 9 slices... but their driver is more careful, so I get 8 edible slices from Dish. So, yeah, I get less pizza from Dish... but not as much less as you might think from the size of the initial order.

Since nobody is even attempting to "do the math" on the concepts I'm suggesting... I get tired of seeing the old "the math proves Dish is worse than DirecTV" argument, because it simply doesn't. Nobody I've ever seen has "done the math" that would prove it.

And... even IF such math ever happens... if the end result is that a viewer of both in a side-by-side "taste test" can't tell much difference... does the math matter? I suspect Dish has done the math and realized there isn't a large enough difference to be worth it... and if they can get a couple or more extra channels per transponder as a result they are giving more bang for buck in their transmission system.


----------



## P Smith

are you aware of many posts why people switching to or prefer sub to dtv ? - PQ

as to [unknown] tweaks and settings of encoders ... you're doing more fuzz to attempt make a candy from guano 

well, regardless of your attempt to convince there is worst processing by dtv's settings and best settings by dish,
cutting 33% of original (I'm not saying UNcompeseed source) material will not help compensate degradation of dish PQ
it's not just a simple math, it's a digital processing of real bits and its absence


----------



## James Long

All systems have compression. The best way to decide whether the PQ is adequate is to turn on the TV and watch. Once one exceeds the PQ that a human eye can see it is all a numbers game.


----------



## P Smith

Sure, that's why people (who are looking for better PQ) taking dtv.


----------



## lparsons21

Some do, some don't. I have great PQ on my 70" Sharp UHD TV with a Hopper 3. Every bit as good as D*'s IMO. And since it is my eyes and my TV that's the only opinion that counts.

Feel free to go back to counting pixels... 


Lloyd


----------



## P Smith

yeah, still you can't get them back regardless what your could see in your mind


----------



## lparsons21

P Smith said:


> yeah, still you can't get them back regardless what your could see in your mind


Correct. But since I can't see them even when they are there, why would I care?? 

Sent from my App Runtime for Chrome using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

you shouldn't, but it doesn't mean other shouldn't to


----------



## gmid2006

I am currently with direct TV and since my new house is going to be finished in about 1 month I am thinking about moving to Dish.

One of the reason why I like Dish is that they offer a 2 year price lock unlike Direct TV which will give you a good price for 1 year, then will double the rate after your lock up. I don't watch sports so Direct TV doesn't have the edge there. However I am worried about the picture quality. Talked to Dish and they said that since they are installing Hopper 3 on all new customers, the picture quality should be the same of better than Direct TV.

I have been doing a lot of google search and most of the people like Dish except for the picture quality. Other reports says that the Hopper 3 makes a big difference in picture quality.

I have a 75" Samsung TV and will be about 12 feet away. I am really worried about the picture quality since Dish is pretty sure that is will not be a problem but I have to sign a 2 year contract which I would need to pay to get out even if the picture quality is not good.

I am assuming that most people on this forum is with Dish and just would like to hear from people who have the Hooper 3 on what they think of the picture quality.

Thanks for any help.


----------



## cgking114

Let me tell you, I just switched from Directv to Dish yesterday and I can tell you there is a very noticeable difference in HD quality. I am using same TV and you can see the degradation in the quality. I sure hope they make it better or else it will be a long two years and I wont renew.


----------



## P Smith

the hope died soon as words came out about "damaged fiber cable" as a reason for resize 1920x1080 (19:9) to 1440x1080 (4:3 NAR)
::


----------



## lparsons21

The picture quality issue between Dish and Direct is always good for lots of pros and cons, and no end of personal opinions! 

I have a Hopper 3 connected to a 70" Sharp 4K tv and find it to be every bit as good or better than anything from Direct. IOW, both are excellent pictures IMO.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gmid2006

cgking114 said:


> Let me tell you, I just switched from Directv to Dish yesterday and I can tell you there is a very noticeable difference in HD quality. I am using same TV and you can see the degradation in the quality. I sure hope they make it better or else it will be a long two years and I wont renew.


This is what I am worried about. I watch TV a lot and would like a good picture quality but just hate the way Direct TV just keep raising their rate all the time after the 1 year lockup. I would stay with them if I can get the 2 year price lock like dish.

Can you tell me whether the picture quality bother you a lot or just a little? Thanks


----------



## gmid2006

lparsons21 said:


> The picture quality issue between Dish and Direct is always good for lots of pros and cons, and no end of personal opinions!
> 
> I have a Hopper 3 connected to a 70" Sharp 4K tv and find it to be every bit as good or better than anything from Direct. IOW, both are excellent pictures IMO.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Information like this is what gives me hope about switching to Dish. I have one more month to decide.

Just got a call from my contractor and it seems that they are having a hard time finding labor so my house won't be ready until July so it looks like I have about 2 months to decided.


----------



## James Long

cgking114 said:


> Let me tell you, I just switched from Directv to Dish yesterday and I can tell you there is a very noticeable difference in HD quality. I am using same TV and you can see the degradation in the quality. I sure hope they make it better or else it will be a long two years and I wont renew.


Knowing monitor size and viewing distance would be helpful.

I am assuming that you checked to make sure your cables are connected correctly and the receiver is set up correctly?


----------



## cgking114

James Long said:


> Knowing monitor size and viewing distance would be helpful.I am assuming that you checked to make sure your cables are connected correctly and the receiver is set up correctly?


I have a 50" display and am about 9' away. I have all cables connected correctly and setup is spot on. Trust me.


----------



## cgking114

gmid2006 said:


> This is what I am worried about. I watch TV a lot and would like a good picture quality but just hate the way Direct TV just keep raising their rate all the time after the 1 year lockup. I would stay with them if I can get the 2 year price lock like dish.
> 
> Can you tell me whether the picture quality bother you a lot or just a little? Thanks


I won't lie and tell you it doesn't take some enjoyment out of watching HD. The Hopper 3 is one great piece of equipment but if they don't do something about picture quality it won't keep customers that switch from Directv.


----------



## cgking114

Okay just to be fair, I made some adjustments to my TV settings and it actually made a big difference in the picture. I still don't think it is quite as good but it is close. Most notably the sharpness setting on my TV. If you make the switch I don't think it will be something you will regret. I love the Hopper and it is leaps and bounds better than the Genie.


----------



## James Long

cgking114 said:


> Okay just to be fair, I made some adjustments to my TV settings and it actually made a big difference in the picture. I still don't think it is quite as good but it is close. Most notably the sharpness setting on my TV. If you make the switch I don't think it will be something you will regret. I love the Hopper and it is leaps and bounds better than the Genie.


I am glad that you were able to make an improvement to your picture.


----------



## gmid2006

cgking114 said:


> Okay just to be fair, I made some adjustments to my TV settings and it actually made a big difference in the picture. I still don't think it is quite as good but it is close. Most notably the sharpness setting on my TV. If you make the switch I don't think it will be something you will regret. I love the Hopper and it is leaps and bounds better than the Genie.


This is great news. Can you tell me what adjustment you made to your TV? Is it just sharpness adjustment or others like color and contrast? Thanks


----------



## gmid2006

Another question for experts here.

Can I transfer videos that I recorded on the Hooper 3 to my DVD recorder? I normally recorder regular TV programs like Grimm, The big bang theory, etc on DVR then I would transfer the programs onto my DVD recorder so I can burn it onto a DVD which I would take with me to watch when I travel overseas. I am hoping I can do this with Dish? Thanks


----------



## lparsons21

To a DVD recorder I suspect the quality would not be very good. But you can transfer recordings from the Hopper to an iPad and maybe to an android tablet though I don't know that for sure.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mdavej

I used a DVD recorder with satellite (both Dish and DirecTV) for years. In fact, a DVD recorder was my primary DVR for about 5 years (because I'm a tightwad). The quality of SD recordings from an HD source is excellent, on par with a commercial DVD. Drawback is you have to play back on the Hopper and record in real time. So a 2 hr movie ties up your Hopper and your recorder for 2 hrs. I've made hundreds of DVDs that way and would do most of my transfers unattended overnight. Back then, I could use the TV2 output of a 722k without tying up my main DVR. I suppose recording from a Joey these days would accomplish the same thing.

If you have internet where you're going, I'd recommend just streaming them or using a slingbox. Doesn't Hopper still have sling built in?


----------



## gmid2006

mdavej said:


> I used a DVD recorder with satellite (both Dish and DirecTV) for years. In fact, a DVD recorder was my primary DVR for about 5 years (because I'm a tightwad). The quality of SD recordings from an HD source is excellent, on par with a commercial DVD. Drawback is you have to play back on the Hopper and record in real time. So a 2 hr movie ties up your Hopper and your recorder for 2 hrs. I've made hundreds of DVDs that way and would do most of my transfers unattended overnight. Back then, I could use the TV2 output of a 722k without tying up my main DVR. I suppose recording from a Joey these days would accomplish the same thing.
> 
> If you have internet where you're going, I'd recommend just streaming them or using a slingbox. Doesn't Hopper still have sling built in?


Thanks for your post. I know about the real time dubbing which doesn't really bother me. I just set the dubbing and watch something on either another DVD player or WD TV. Just want to make sure that I can dub which you have answered.

Just waiting to see if Direct TV will have a 2 years price lock like Dish. My home won't be completed until July so I have a little time.


----------



## cgking114

gmid2006 said:


> This is great news. Can you tell me what adjustment you made to your TV? Is it just sharpness adjustment or others like color and contrast? Thanks


Sorry took so long to reply. I just raised my sharpness a little and went up on my tint a little. It's acceptable.


----------



## camo

The longer you're away from Directv the better Dish starts looking so just give it time. :rolling:


----------



## Jaspear

camo said:


> The longer you're away from Directv the better Dish starts looking so just give it time. :rolling:


LOL! Especially when I watch an SD channel.


----------



## n3vino

James Long said:


> For those people, the battle isn't who has the absolute best PQ as measured on a calculator using data from other users. The fight is to have acceptable PQ that fits their needs. Paying $30-$40 more per month for "better PQ" when one cannot tell the difference without being told one is better doesn't make sense.


Some people are not as critical as others. I had Time Warner cable at one time and I could see that the picture was a little soft. So could my family members. But having nothing to compare to, I thought, oh well. What is there to do. Then I made the jump to Direct TV because they offered me a good deal. We all instantly saw the difference in PQ. It was great. So to me, having an acceptable PQ does not work for me. Believe me, I would be able to see the difference. That's why I haven't made the switch to Dish. Those that are critical about their PQ, would rather pay the extra dollars.

My sister just switched from Cable to Direct TV and she commented that she felt the PQ was a lot better on Direct TV. If Dish were to improve their PQ, I would jump at it in a second to save the dollars. I did look at Dish's offerings and they were quite tempting, but then I lost interest because of Dish's HD lite(1440 x 1080I) as opposed to Direct's Full HD (1920 x 1080I).


----------



## n3vino

gmid2006 said:


> Just waiting to see if Direct TV will have a 2 years price lock like Dish. My home won't be completed until July so I have a little time.


I believe they do.


----------



## bnewt

I have never had Direct, but a relative does & honestly I could not see much of a difference..........granted I was not able to check any settings on the tv, but just the few times that I have seen the picture, there doesn't seem to be much if any difference


----------



## P Smith

bnewt said:


> I have never had Direct, but a relative does & honestly I could not see much of a difference..........granted I was not able to check any settings on the tv, but just the few times that I have seen the picture, there doesn't seem to be much if any difference


did you set both system for side-by-side comparison ?

if not, your result is not count here


----------



## MysteryMan

Very few of us had the opertunity to see a true side-by-side system (same TVs, settings, channel) comparison between DIRECTV and Dish HD. I did years ago and back then there was a noticeable difference. So before anyone makes any claims please back it with true side-by-side comparisons.


----------



## lparsons21

P Smith said:


> did you set both system for side-by-side comparison ?
> 
> if not, your result is not count here


He may not have, but I have on some occasions. The differences are slight with that very slight edge going to Direct. But the differences are slight enough that it isn't even a consideration for me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

lparsons21 said:


> He may not have, *but I have on some occasions*. The differences are slight with that very slight edge going to Direct. But the differences are slight enough that it isn't even a consideration for me.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


please post date of the tests and short description of all equpment


----------



## lparsons21

P Smith said:


> please post date of the tests and short description of all equpment


Since the 'tests' weren't formal, just off the cuff since I happened to have an HR44 and HWS at the same time for a bit, I couldn't tell you dates. Closest I could come is sometime last year as the tv was a Mitsi 73" DLP 3D set.

Both sat DVRs were connected via HDMI through a Denon S900W AVR to the Mitsi. The Denon was set to pass-through and not massage the video.

Switching between the 2 SAT DVRs showed a slight softness of the HWS compared to the HR44, but it was very slight.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## P Smith

that's good if it happened with latest DVR models... hope you did not compare SD pictures 
was it talking heads of dynamic movies ?


----------



## lparsons21

P Smith said:


> that's good if it happened with latest DVR models... hope you did not compare SD pictures
> was it talking heads of dynamic movies ?


Since I seldom watch talking heads, I'm sure I didn't do any comparison with them. 

Movies, shows and sports. For sports mostly golf and boxing.

Dish's SD on the EA has been pretty good overall, and downright excellent compared to SD on Direct. Hell, even cable does SD better.

The gear I used was the latest at the time. The 54 and H3 weren't out yet. Since then I've gotten an H3 and it was even better than the HWS, and then a bit later a Sharp 4K 70" TV, and even better.

Unless and until D* gets their hardware/software vastly improved I'll never come back to them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bnewt

P Smith said:


> did you set both system for side-by-side comparison ?
> 
> if not, your result is not count here


no I did not see them side by side, but as I stated, I did not see the great difference between the two that some have seen

But my result DOES count to me & that is all that matters


----------



## P Smith

well, your experience was very subjective and should easy discarded in public discussion
thanks for sharing it with us


----------



## Troch2002

P Smith said:


> well, your experience was very subjective and should easy discarded in public discussion
> thanks for sharing it with us


Only seems fair.


----------



## tylorert

Is it east arc or west? I know some people say there is a difference.


----------



## lparsons21

P Smith said:


> well, your experience was very subjective and should easy discarded in public discussion
> thanks for sharing it with us


Well, that's your opinion. Mine differs.

While it is nice to count pixels and such to make the observations more objective, my eyes are subjective as are yours. That means that to my eyes the quality of Dish's HD on the Hopper 3 is as good as anything Direct has. And my opinion carries exactly the same weight as yours.


----------



## rgage

I am researching moving to Dish (have had DirecTV or Comcast Xfinity X1) but am concerned as reading this topic earlier a poster called Dish HD lite at 1440 X 1080I? Dish's website is claiming 1080P now. Has the resolution improved to a genuine 1080P with Hopper 3?

Rick in Tucson, AZ


----------



## P Smith

nope, all what you did read here (I hope) still in place - no changes !


----------



## bmetelsky

Both DISH and Directv have a limited amount of true 1080p programming, usually limited to video on demand. I have had both Directv and DISH (currently with DISH) and am very happy with the picture quality. I really can't tell the difference, to be honest.


----------



## camo

I once could easily tell, but using 2 Sony TV's 55& 65" I really can't tell anymore. I also wonder if Dish hasn't went up in resolution. I tried to take a couple photo's from phone but color is off (phones fault) but resolution looks really close. In real life color and even brightness are the same when before Dish was way different.... I think something is different.


----------



## James Long

rgage said:


> Dish's website is claiming 1080P now.


DISH does not claim any channel is 1080P. The only 1080P DISH has (and claims) is VOD.

DIRECTV has a few 1080P PPV channels as well as 1080P VOD.

Both systems deliver 1080i and 720p HD signals to their receivers. Both systems use compression between the source 1080i and 720p feeds and the receiver outputs. The claimed reduction in resolution is one of the compression techniques DISH used. The receiver output is always the full resolution (1920x1080, 1280x720 - if set to HD).


----------



## rgage

Thank you both!


----------



## Bronxiniowa

Stumbled on this thread as I was considering whether to select DISH or DirecTV. Heard a lot of great things about DISH hardware but some iffy things about PQ compared with DirecTV.

But I was impressed with DISH's packages, and the service's other features. Having had DirecTV before and not being happy with their pricing and customer service, I was looking for a reason to go with DISH, in fact.

I visited the local installer I'm going to use, and they made it easy for me to compare the two, since they have twin 60" Sony Bravias set up side by side in their showroom, one for each service. I verified that each TV's menu settings were exactly the same, and that each service receiver was set comparably. I asked to look at about a dozen channels, some showing live sports, some of my local OTA channels, etc. And I stood back to about my den's viewing distance, about 10 feet.

Frankly, from the comments I have seen here and on other forums, I was anticipating seeing very little if any difference in picture quality. Not so.

From my normal viewing distance, about 10 feet away, it was instantly very easy for me to tell that the DISH picture was far softer -- almost blurry -- compared with DirecTV's. All you had to do was look at faces. Freckles, lines, creases, even zits were far more apparent on DirecTV than on the same DISH channel. And it wasn't on only a few channels: they were all like that.

So, with all due respect to those who say that both have about the same PQ, I am not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs. I only know what I saw.


----------



## P Smith

camo said:


> but resolution looks really close


analyzing dish video PID info ... 1440x1088i is max for 1080i streams [channels]


----------



## Bronxiniowa

To paraphrase Groucho Marx: "Who are you gonna believe -- the numbers, or the evidence of your own two eyes?"


----------



## chuckf1

I'm in the same situation as Bronxiniowa. I'm moving from an apartment with no LOS to a condo, which the present owner is, apparently, leaving his DTV satellite behind. I'm a PQ guy first, second and last and in examining Camo's two photos, at first the PQ quality of both providers seemed very close. 

But......take a look at Billy Bob Thornton's beard. It's much easier to differentiate the individual hair's in the DTV picture than in the image from Dish. Therefore even though Dish's DVR is superior the DTV, the PQ is not.

And please don't ever tell anyone how closely I examined B.B. Thornton's beard.


----------



## FarmerBob

Got a DLP TV in 2008, upgraded to DISH HD from regular (since 1995), a month later for that unit. Standalone (OTA) on this set was already amazing, local OTA programming was absolutely incredible. Now DLP is a totally different animal and part of that is it makes most everything look great. Too bad they are not making consumer versions anymore. But I have enough of them already. My first unit out of the box was breathtaking. It's the platform that they are using more/mostly in movie theaters now. So as we have added others and LED TV's throughout the house and have had HwS system for years, I have been noticing and saying for a long time that local OTA programming, even through the OTA section of the HwS, is far better than DISH's regular signal which is softer, flatter and a bit washed out. But it does fluctuate, there are times that it is great. Use to get a 1080p VOD movie every so often in the early days and was blown away. 

Well the chip in my DLP started to fail after an almost unheard of over 15,000 hours, and just put in a new bulb that also was part of that great timeline, so I just got a 4K Quantum Dot Samsung to replace it until I can fix it. Plus I want Widgets/Apps. What a change. LED doesn't make all things look as good as the DLP did. Programming from the set itself is great, including OTA, but programming from DISH is hit and miss. And I have heard that over the years, and agree, that it all depends on what they get as a signal to retransmit. BUT also it's what they do to it to get it to us that also plays into the PQ. So when I read this, I said to myself that I hope that as I have read the rumors that the new H3 has the PQ upgrade that is being claimed. And that it may trickle down to the HwS with the CUI. Fingers Crossed! But my neighbors who I take care of all things IT and AV, have DTV and the picture on even lower level large screens is really nice and not all the variation that I have noticed with DISH.

So right now I am trying to settle into this new LED unit in my office, otherwise I'd watch one of the other DLP's, and it's not proving too easy with a HwS. BUT all the streaming content that I can get it is pretty great. Especially the 4K content on Youtube. There's some amazing stuff up there. SO, I have been watching all streaming lately and neglecting my DISH recordings. This is something that will make "cutting the cord" so much easier. And it has occurred to me that even though technology is getting there and doing amazing things, it's just like vinyl. I feel that we are slowly being conditioned to a "dumbed down" product such as CD/mp3 has been/was done with vinyl. But vinyl is making a huge come back and kids these days are wising up to the ploy and the fact that there's something that was already great and not taking the bait. So . . .


----------



## camo

chuckf1 said:


> I'm in the same situation as Bronxiniowa. I'm moving from an apartment with no LOS to a condo, which the present owner is, apparently, leaving his DTV satellite behind. I'm a PQ guy first, second and last and in examining Camo's two photos, at first the PQ quality of both providers seemed very close.
> 
> But......take a look at Billy Bob Thornton's beard. It's much easier to differentiate the individual hair's in the DTV picture than in the image from Dish. Therefore even though Dish's DVR is superior the DTV, the PQ is not.
> 
> And please don't ever tell anyone how closely I examined B.B. Thornton's beard.


I see what your saying but very close. Dish does have a slightly softer look.


----------



## scottchez

I can confirm DISH is HD LITE. (HDLITE)

I have a 121 Inch Projection screen. You can really tell the difference when you stand One foot away.
You can count the DOT and look if the lines and curves are straight on Letters like the Score or lines on the sports field.
It is a software picture, NO POP

I can say for sure on some HD Channels Dish is HD Light compare to my Cable.
Dish looks really bad on some channels.

Put the same show on and Hit Pause, I thin switched back and forth.
Locals were better on Cable and so were all the Sports channels.
SD was better on DISH, but who cares about SD these days.
Movie channels were all the same.
Both Boxes were set to out put at 1080i for the test. Tester on a Hopper 3 with a Cable HD box.
Time to re think which provider to keep.
If you get a TIVO Bolt on Cable it sure does act a lot like a Dish Hopper, they have have Joeys (they call them Minis). Last Law Suite Dish had to pay Tivo a lot of money to use some of their tech. They recently paid Dish again to keep using the Tivo Tech.

Hummm Get a Tivo Bolt Plus 6 Tuner DVR on Cable and get the good DVR and Good Picture quality. Tempting. No rental fees, Cable card is only $1.99 month. Worth researching all the options out there I think. There are many.


----------



## lparsons21

Thanks for the write-up. But who watches a 120 inch screen from one foot away?

From my 10' away from a 70 4K Sharp TV the differences between Dish and DirecTV are so minimal that it isn't even on my 'things to consider' when picking a provider.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer

Let's be honest, folks. Both Dish & DirecTV suck PQ wise. Both providers heavily compress, and on lots of shows, you can see MPEG compression artifacts and pixilation. Neither comes close to BR quality.


----------



## Troch2002

SledgeHammer said:


> Let's be honest, folks. Both Dish & DirecTV suck PQ wise. Both providers heavily compress, and on lots of shows, you can see MPEG compression artifacts and pixilation. Neither comes close to BR quality.


I agree, the HD PQ is nothing like it was in 2007.


----------



## camo

If you look up HD lite on Wikipedia.

_In 2004, DirecTV subscribers reported that DirecTV broadcasts some HDTV-programming at a reduced resolution of 1280 x 1080i.

In September 2007, Dish Network reduced the resolution on HBO-HD and Showtime-HD from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080. These were the last two channels that Dish Network was still offering in the "full" 1920x1080 resolution.
_
So both compress, some channels on Directv do look better like Smithsonian Channel I feel looks substantially better than Dish. I'm thinking the channels in HD pack Directv may be full HD 1920x1080, but that's just a guess.


----------



## texasbrit

DirecTV stopped using "hdlite" several years ago...


----------



## camo

texasbrit said:


> DirecTV stopped using "hdlite" several years ago...


Could you post sources and update the WIKI.


----------



## James Long

DIRECTV invented HDLite ... but DISH perfected it. 

DIRECTV dropped HD channels on the weekend as needed for Sunday Ticket. They have stopped doing that as well.

The fun thing about Wikipedia is that the source of the claim that DIRECTV and DISH ever used HDLite is just as valid as the source of the claim that the practice has stopped.


----------



## P Smith

it would be easy to prove for DTV by just using Native ON mode [eg pass-through video] and press on TV remote Info button, while dish secrecy made it impossible, duh !


----------



## HobbyTalk

That is as long as you believe that "native" mode is really native mode.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> it would be easy to prove for DTV by just using Native ON mode [eg pass-trough video] and press on TV remote Info button, while dish secrecy made it impossible, duh !


You are assuming that DIRECTV would pass through the exact encoding used on their satellite transmission. They do not. They (like DISH) only output formats that are compatible with the connected TVs. Are you expecting DISH or DIRECTV to send 1440x1080 or 1280x1080 to a TV?


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> Are you expecting DISH or *DIRECTV* to send 1440x1080 or *1280x1080* to a TV?


I've not seen such format for DTV recently.
So, no need to mix two companies and the two formats in one phrase - it's too much for speculation.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The whole thing is speculation! And, it's relatively meaningless speculation too... since MPEG compression is lossy by design... So end-resolution is not as important as how it looks to the human brain. MPEG depends on being able to throw away some data, to compress the remaining data more, and then attempt to reconstruct something that gives the illusion of having the same resolution as the original uncompressed image. The fact that this works to any reasonable degree says that we don't really need all of those bits to enjoy the images.

So... does a 1920x1080 signal compressed by MPEG on DirecTV look substantially better than a 1440x1080 signal on Dish? Who knows. It's subjective, not objective. I can certainly make a case for an objective possibility of there being very little difference technically in the signal received by the end-users... because DirecTV users are not seeing a 1920x1080 "full resolution" image by the time they get it. What do they see as an effective resolution after MPEG throws away some bits? I don't know. But we do know that Blu-rays use less compression than DirecTV and they look a lot better in comparison to many people...

So, I tend to think that Dish and DirecTV are closer to each other in appearance than either are to Blu-ray OR to the original uncompressed signal.


----------



## Carolina

All I know is that my DIRECTV TV picture is to die for! It is just amazing how sharp it is now. I always thought it was good, but somehow some way it went to great!


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> I've not seen such format for DTV recently.
> So, no need to mix two companies and the two formats in one phrase - it's too much for speculation.


I'll make it easier for you: Have you EVER seen DIRECTV send 1280 x 1080 out of their receivers to a TV?
Or do the receiver outputs (not the satellite transport streams but receiver output) use 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720 for HD?


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> I'll make it easier for you: Have you EVER seen DIRECTV send 1280 x 1080 out of their receivers to a TV?


I don't remember it.


> Or do the receiver outputs (not the satellite transport streams but receiver output) use 1920 x 1080 or 1280 x 720 for HD?


 Well, it's rhetoric question. Yes. Especially if Native=On.


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> Well, it's rhetoric question. Yes. Especially if Native=On.


Define "native". Passing through the satellite transport stream directly to the TV and hoping that the TV can handle whatever compression format is used for satellite transport? Or setting the receiver output to match the defined screen size of the channel?

Considering that DIRECTV puts overlays on their channels at the receiver level (banners, menus, inserted commercials) I'd go with the second definition. At some point DIRECTV has a 720 or 1080 channel (their point of reception). They pass that channel, with any conversion required for their satellite transmission and any content inserts they need to do at the uplink, to the receiver. In "native" mode the receiver output changes to match the original format as closely as possible.

Or in short: The receiver output format is not the satellite transport stream format.


----------



## P Smith

James Long said:


> Or in short: The receiver output format is not the satellite transport stream format.


exactly opposite way when native mode is on


----------



## James Long

P Smith said:


> exactly opposite way when native mode is on


So you are claiming that the satellite transport stream is being sent to the TV without any modification?


----------



## P Smith

yes, when native is on, in part of video and audio PIDs


----------

