# How does the HD picture quality of D* and E* actually compare?



## skatingrocker17 (Jun 24, 2010)

Okay, myself and everybody else knows that Dish Network downsizes their 1080i HD broadcasts. Now, this doesn't have to be a huge deal, I've ripped some Blu-rays to 720p MKVs that surpass any cable/satellite providers HD picture quality.

Is Dish Network giving these channels less bandwidth? Can anyone actually see a noticeable difference between the two? Dish Network has a lot of HD channels that us DirecTV subscribers desire. 

I'm not looking for a biased answer, I'm not even looking to switch providers. I would really just like to know because I'm curious. I don't really know anyone with Dish Network so I can't make the comparison myself. 

Thanks


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

More importantly, does the HD picture on DISH look better than the SD channel provided by DirecTV  Xfinity HD looks better than DirecTv on channels DirecTv doesnt have in HD. That is why I subscribed to their one year promo. Hopefully, DirecTv will have those missing HD channels I get now on cable, by the time that one year promo expires. If not, my choice is a no brainer.


----------



## skatingrocker17 (Jun 24, 2010)

Davenlr said:


> More importantly, does the HD picture on DISH look better than the SD channel provided by DirecTV  Xfinity HD looks better than DirecTv on channels DirecTv doesnt have in HD. That is why I subscribed to their one year promo. Hopefully, DirecTv will have those missing HD channels I get now on cable, by the time that one year promo expires. If not, my choice is a no brainer.


I agree with you, Dish could cut their 1080i resolution in half and obviously it's going to surpass DirecTVs SD picture quality, which is actually pretty poor compared to my local cable company. DirecTVs HD selection is also pretty poor compared to the local cable company. For some reason I just prefer having satellite, the cable boxes were awful. Of course as soon as I switched to DirecTV Time Warner wen't and released new Cisco boxes that are much faster than the old ones but the GUI is still ugly.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Dish's HD isn't bad at all, but I'd describe it as "different" and ever so slightly softer.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Dish's HD isn't bad at all, but I'd describe it as "different" and ever so slightly softer.


Bottom line, and most important to me, is that the Yankees don't play on Dish.

No Yankees, no Rich. Simple choice for me to make.....

Rich


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Bottom line, and most important to me, is that the Yankees don't play on Dish.
> 
> No Yankees, no Rich. Simple choice for me to make.....
> 
> Rich


That's another important factor for me, too. I need YES & MLB EI.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

I can barely tell any difference. Check out some existing threads in the Dish forums here and on satelliteguys.us. There are a few who have both. I never had both side by side, but I can do a side-by-side comparison with OTA which is as good as it gets. In that case I see no significant difference. Maybe a tiny bit softer on my 60" screen, as you'd expect, but no compression artifacts or bad macro blocking like on uverse and some cable systems. I dropped D* a while back due to the lack of HD nationals and am very happy to have AMC, TCM, BBCA, E!, G4, HLN, etc. I'm not a big sports fan, so less sports content doesn't bother me. FWIW, I've never seen anyone post about major disappointment with Dish HD PQ.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mdavej said:


> I can barely tell any difference. Check out some existing threads in the Dish forums here and on satelliteguys.us. There are a few who have both. I never had both side by side, but I can do a side-by-side comparison with OTA which is as good as it gets. In that case I see no significant difference. Maybe a tiny bit softer on my 60" screen, as you'd expect, but no compression artifacts or bad macro blocking like on uverse and some cable systems. I dropped D* a while back due to the lack of HD nationals and am very happy to have AMC, TCM, BBCA, E!, G4, HLN, etc. I'm not a big sports fan, so less sports content doesn't bother me. FWIW, I've never seen anyone post about major disappointment with Dish HD PQ.


I don't think I've ever read a thread or post about major PQ problems with D* either. I never even considered PQ when I chose D*. Just assumed they'd be the same. I've been very satisfied with D*'s PQ. And I haven't noticed much difference, if any, between Dish and D* PQ. Never saw them side but side, but I've seen a few programs and sports events on Dish and they look pretty much the same to me.

Rich


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

mdavej said:


> I can barely tell any difference. Check out some existing threads in the Dish forums here and on satelliteguys.us. There are a few who have both. I never had both side by side, but I can do a side-by-side comparison with OTA which is as good as it gets. In that case I see no significant difference. Maybe a tiny bit softer on my 60" screen, as you'd expect, but no compression artifacts or bad macro blocking like on uverse and some cable systems. I dropped D* a while back due to the lack of HD nationals and am very happy to have AMC, TCM, BBCA, E!, G4, HLN, etc. I'm not a big sports fan, so less sports content doesn't bother me. FWIW, I've never seen anyone post about major disappointment with Dish HD PQ.


Most of them will say DirecTV HD is slightly better in PQ, but most probably would not be able to notice much of a difference


----------



## awblackmon (May 20, 2009)

As an installer I get to compare the two providers all the time. I think Directv has the edge on PQ on the HD channels.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Dish HD PQ is not as good as DirecTV HD PQ. That's it. No doubt about it.


----------



## Kevin F (May 9, 2010)

"Hoosier205" said:


> Dish HD PQ is not as good as DirecTV HD PQ. That's it. No doubt about it.


+1


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

Depends on who you ask really. If you work for or have stock in company A of course its better than company B.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"rkr0923" said:


> Depends on who you ask really. If you work for or have stock in company A of course its better than company B.


Or we just look at the facts of which provider offers superior picture quality. Dish has decided to aim for quantity over quality.


----------



## Friendswood1 (Jan 31, 2011)

I had Dish a few years back.
Two things stand out.
The SD picture quality was much better than Directv's....the HD was very unimpressive! I was wondering if maybe my new flat-screen was not what Consumer Reports made it out to be.
I've heard they (Dish) have improved in that area however.....:whatdidid


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

Fact is its personal preference. Some people prefer Ford over Chevrolet, both have their advantages and disadvantages. Best thing anyone can do is judge for yourself.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

awblackmon said:


> As an installer I get to compare the two providers all the time. I think Directv has the edge on PQ on the HD channels.


You've formed that opinion based on seeing the same shows on the same models of TVs? Just curious. I realize this is really a subjective thread and can be skewed by the types of TVs people use for comparison. I would think you have a better chance of seeing the same TV models use D* or Dish than most of us do.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

awblackmon said:


> As an installer I get to compare the two providers all the time. I think Directv has the edge on PQ on the HD channels.





rich584 said:


> You've formed that opinion based on seeing the same shows on the same models of TVs? Just curious. I realize this is really a subjective thread and can be skewed by the types of TVs people use for comparison. I would think you have a better chance of seeing the same TV models use D* or Dish than most of us do.
> 
> Rich


From what I've read [which may have changed] Dish reduces 1080x1920 to 1080x1440 transmits this and then averages this back to 1080x1920 to the TV. So yes 25% is removed and then added/averaged back in, "but" if the missing "bit" [dot] has the same value as what is on either side, then the average would be the same as if it hadn't been removed.
This might explain the "softer" post earlier.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> From what I've read [which may have changed] Dish reduces 1080x1920 to 1080x1440 transmits this and then averages this back to 1080x1920 to the TV. So yes 25% is removed and then added/averaged back in, "but" if the missing "bit" [dot] has the same value as what is on either side, then the average would be the same as if it hadn't been removed.
> This might explain the "softer" post earlier.


Why does Dish do that?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Why does Dish do that?
> 
> Rich


As with most things, it comes down to "bandwidth".


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> As with most things, it comes down to "bandwidth".


I'm still trying to wrap my head around that (bandwidth). Seems like it's analogous to current flow in different size wires, but I'm not really sure, haven't read enough about it.

Rich


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

rich584 said:


> I'm still trying to wrap my head around that (bandwidth). Seems like it's analogous to current flow in different size wires, but I'm not really sure, haven't read enough about it.
> 
> Rich


The old water pipe analogy for current is useful in thinking of bandwidth.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I'm still trying to wrap my head around that (bandwidth). Seems like it's analogous to current flow in different size wires, but I'm not really sure, haven't read enough about it.
> 
> Rich


I can send a 10 lbs package.
In this package: 
I can put 4 2.5 lbs items, or put 5 2 lbs items. 
I can only send 10 lbs.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> I can send a 10 lbs package.
> In this package:
> I can put 4 2.5 lbs items, or put 5 2 lbs items.
> I can only send 10 lbs.


...and the 2 lb packages may be prettier with a bow on them...


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> From what I've read [which may have changed] Dish reduces 1080x1920 to 1080x1440 transmits this and then averages this back to 1080x1920 to the TV. So yes 25% is removed and then added/averaged back in, "but" if the missing "bit" [dot] has the same value as what is on either side, then the average would be the same as if it hadn't been removed.
> This might explain the "softer" post earlier.


Ok stupid question time, but how do you put something back if its removed at the beginning?


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

DodgerKing said:


> Most of them will say DirecTV HD is slightly better in PQ, but most probably would not be able to notice much of a difference


100% correct.

It all comes down to TV size, TV calibration and viewing distance.

Technically DIRECTV is better. However, this does not mean all will see a difference.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> The old water pipe analogy for current is useful in thinking of bandwidth.


Yeah, I get that, but then I don't see what prohibits more bandwidth. I know that #14 wire will carry more amperage than #16 wire will, and I understand why, but where does that fit into the bandwidth analogy? I get so far thinking about bandwidth then I go blank. Not enough knowledge. What's the bigger pipe carrying the water made of?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I can send a 10 lbs package.
> In this package:
> I can put 4 2.5 lbs items, or put 5 2 lbs items.
> I can only send 10 lbs.


What prohibits you from using a 20 pound package? That's what I don't get. I'm used to, "Oops, that's a 20 amp breaker, I have to use #12 wire with that to get the full amperage supplied thru the breaker."

Rich


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

"rkr0923" said:


> Fact is its personal preference. Some people prefer Ford over Chevrolet, both have their advantages and disadvantages. Best thing anyone can do is judge for yourself.


There are factual technical differences between the two and how they deliver HD. DirecTV actually does offer better HD picture quality. That is not a matter of opinion or preference.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Ok stupid question time, but how do you put something back if its removed at the beginning?


That confused me too, but I wanted to focus on one thing. This stuff drives me nuts.....:lol:

Or nuttier.

Rich


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Ok stupid question time, but how do you put something back if its removed at the beginning?


If it falls into the category of a "lossy" form of compression as down-rezzing does, then it can not actually be put back.

The trick therefore is to remove only those portions of the picture who's loss would be subjectively imperceptible to the average human eye response.

So considering that the eye is more sensitive to loss of vertical image resolution than horizontal. DN exploits this characteristic to conserve bandwidth by down-rezzing 1920x1080 programs to 1440x1080 resolution for transmission.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

rich584 said:


> *What prohibits you from using a 20 pound package?* That's what I don't get. I'm used to, "Oops, that's a 20 amp breaker, I have to use #12 wire with that to get the full amperage supplied thru the breaker."
> 
> Rich


That will broke a neck of the mule. 

Seriously, it would reduce for the 25% the other wire's load if you will keep same breaker max and rise to 1920x1080i. 
Remember, to the 'breaker' [mux] you connected many wires/loads [PIDs or channels].

Plus you will force changing all MPEG-4 encoders or at least reprogramming them.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> What prohibits you from using a 20 pound package? That's what I don't get. I'm used to, "Oops, that's a 20 amp breaker, I have to use #12 wire with that to get the full amperage supplied thru the breaker."
> 
> Rich


UPS won;t pickup a 20 lbs package, and you can't get them to pick up two either. :lol:
Look at this from having a #16 wire [bandwidth] instead of the other way, where you have a 20 amp breaker.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> If it falls into the category of a "lossy" form of compression as down-rezzing does, then it can not actually be put back.
> 
> The trick therefore is to remove only those portions of the picture who's loss would be subjectively imperceptible to the average human eye response.
> 
> So considering that the eye is more sensitive to loss of vertical image resolution than horizontal. DN exploits this characteristic to conserve bandwidth by down-rezzing 1920x1080 programs to 1440x1080 resolution for transmission.


I actually understood that! Thanx! Seems like Dish is kinda cheating, doesn't it?

Rich


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Doesnt matter if you use #10 wire, if you dont use the capacity, its a waste of money


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

I think we can stipulate that D* has superior HD (more pixels, more bandwidth, etc.). But the OP's question is how noticeable is that difference.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I actually understood that! Thanx! Seems like Dish is kinda cheating, doesn't it?
> 
> Rich


Fox, ABC, Disney etc, all do the same thing up front with 1280x720. Our local PBS actually goes as far as downrezzing 1920x1080 to 1280x720. Actually, whether you can actually see the difference depends on the size of your TV, and the distance you sit from it. Anyone sitting 12' from a 46" or smaller tv would probably not be able to tell the difference.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Ok stupid question time, but how do you put something back if its removed at the beginning?


How does a jpeg image do it?
if every fourth "dot" is removed, then the rest is transmitted, and then every fourth "dot" is an average of the dots on either side, you get back to the "full" image, but 25% is "made up" at the end.
This too caused me to wonder how it was done long ago.
"the key" is to be able to look at the transmitted image. This looks squished [distorted] and isn't something anybody would want.
Think of this like what "stretched" SD looks like, but going the other way.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

mdavej said:


> I think we can stipulate that D* has superior HD (more pixels, more bandwidth, etc.). But the OP's question is how noticeable is that difference.


Bingo!

It all comes down to TV size, TV calibration and viewing distance.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Bingo!
> 
> It all comes down to TV size, TV calibration and viewing distance.


"And" what the viewer has for a reference. 
"Most" may not know what they're missing.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

What's weird is our ABC (WFAA) is one of the rare ABC stations who sends out 1080i. I wonder if that's a good idea or not? The PQ is damn good, though.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> UPS won;t pickup a 20 lbs package, and you can't get them to pick up two either. :lol:
> Look at this from having a #16 wire [bandwidth] instead of the other way, where you have a 20 amp breaker.


OK, so I have a #14 wire capable of carrying 15 amps on a 20 amp breaker. Or do you mean I have a #14 wire on a 15 amp breaker?

In the first case the #14 wire will fail if you shoot 20 amps thru it. In the second case the 15 amp breaker will kick out if you try to shoot 20 amps thru it.

I don't get the analogy. I do understand that only so much bandwidth is available, but what governs that availability? That's where I go blank.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Doesnt matter if you use #10 wire, if you dont use the capacity, its a waste of money


Yeah, electricity I understand. What I don't get is what prohibits the production of more bandwidth?

Rich


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Bingo!
> 
> It all comes down to TV size, TV calibration and viewing distance.





veryoldschool said:


> "And" what the viewer has for a reference.
> "Most" may not know what they're missing.


For the longest time I kept Native 'off' and kept output at 1080i. One day after getting a new plasma I read that it's best to use 'Screen Fit' (tv option) and Native 'on.' WOW!!!!! I had no idea what I was missing.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "And" *what the viewer has for a reference*.
> "Most" may not know what they're missing.


Good point! That too.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

rich584 said:


> I actually understood that! Thanx! Seems like Dish is kinda cheating, doesn't it?
> 
> Rich


Technically cheating, yes, with the assumption you won't notice the cheat 

Dish really has no choice but to improvise on things this way to save on bandwidth since they have chosen not use the additional Ka band for their HD channels. Thereby everything, SD and HD, must be squeezed onto the Ku band somehow.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> OK, so I have a #14 wire capable of carrying 15 amps on a 20 amp breaker. Or do you mean I have a #14 wire on a 15 amp breaker?
> 
> In the first case the #14 wire will fail if you shoot 20 amps thru it. In the second case the 15 amp breaker will kick out if you try to shoot 20 amps thru it.
> 
> ...


Let's shift this to a pie.
The pie is a fix size [bandwidth, number of SATs, etc.] so all you can do is change the size of each slice to give everyone a piece.
More channels or a bigger pieces of the pie. Those are the only options.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Let's shift this to a pie.
> The pie is a fix size [bandwidth, number of SATs, etc.] so all you can do is change the size of each slice to give everyone a piece.
> More channels or a bigger pieces of the pie. Those are the only options.


See how simple you can make things when dealing with a dolt?....:lol:

I got it now. Thanx.

Rich


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

rich584 said:


> Yeah, I get that, but then I don't see what prohibits more bandwidth. I know that #14 wire will carry more amperage than #16 wire will, and I understand why, but where does that fit into the bandwidth analogy? I get so far thinking about bandwidth then I go blank. Not enough knowledge. *What's the bigger pipe carrying the water made of?*
> 
> Rich


Bandwidth is determined by a number of factors. To keep the analogy straightforward CAT5 might be #14, CAT6 #12, fiber optic #8, etc... It's not as simple as electricity where wire size is the main factor. Just as #12 is rated for 20 amps, CAT5 also has its "rating." This is drastically oversimplified, but I hope that makes sense.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Ok stupid question time, but how do you put something back if its removed at the beginning?





veryoldschool said:


> How does a jpeg image do it?
> if every fourth "dot" is removed, then the rest is transmitted, and then every fourth "dot" is an average of the dots on either side, you get back to the "full" image, but 25% is "made up" at the end.
> This too caused me to wonder how it was done long ago.
> "the key" is to be able to look at the transmitted image. This looks squished [distorted] and isn't something anybody would want.
> Think of this like what "stretched" SD looks like, but going the other way.


So I was thinking of how to show how this works.
If you connect an S-Video cable to your receiver and TV, then select an HD channel.
Change the TV input to the S-Video and don't have it set to stretch.
You'll see a scrunched image. This would be close to what the transmission image would look like.
Now change your TV to stretch this image to full screen.
How much difference, other than size, do you see?


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> Dish HD PQ is not as good as DirecTV HD PQ. That's it. No doubt about it.


Sure can't see the difference, which is what the OP originally asked, on my 40-inch screen with DirecTV vs. my daughter's 40-inch screen with Dish. Not a side-by-side comparison -- we're on different coasts. 

You may be right for larger screen sizes.


----------



## lparsons21 (Mar 4, 2006)

At one time, I had both D* and E* hooked to my 61" JVC rear projection HD TV. There is a difference between the two on that set. But the difference was minimal with only a very slight edge to D*, imo.

Others that saw it agreed that the difference was slight, and slightly better on D*. But for SD, E* wins hands down. D*'s SD is horrid.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

As noted above E* converts 1920x1080 to 1440x1080 and uses less bandwidth. Its somewhat softer than D*.

HOWEVER, D* has an issue with their MPEG4 encoders and 1280x720p channels where the top half of the frame shifts about every 30 minutes. You can clearly detect that something "flashed" on your screen, but cannot tell what it is unless you pause a DVR and step through it.

The 720p channels include all the ABC/Disney/ESPN HD Channels and Fox News/Sports/Entertainment Channels as well as a handfull of others.

This started probably 3+ years ago - and seemed to be corrected about 2 years ago, but it came back again about 12 months ago and has not been fixed for some odd reason (in fact it seem a bit more frequent than several years ago).

SD is downrezzed on D* to 480x480.....SD-LITE and it is the worse of any provider.

So its between a slightly better Non-Sports selection and slightly softer picture on E* 720p channels vs. a slightly better picture with a slight glitch roughly every 30 minutes on D* with not as much Non-Sports Variety (and worse SD Quality).

Obviously, the Sports fan will choose D*.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

TheRatPatrol said:


> Ok stupid question time, but how do you put something back if its removed at the beginning?


Think of it this way......1920x1080 is 16x9 with a 1.78 Ratio (1920/1080).

1.78 is the Proper Ratio for a 16:9 HDTV screen.

1440x1080 is a 1.33 Ratio, (1440/1080) which is the ratio you normally see in a 640/480 4:3 SD TV Screen.

To get 1920x1080 down to 1440x1080 you need to get rid of 25% of the lines (1.78 x 75%)

One the backside, get it to fill the 16:9 screen you need to STRETCH it.

Thus out of every 16 lines, E* needs to discard every 4th line and stretch the remaining lines to fill the screen.

That is one of the reasons why E* looks softer - just as a good quality SD DVD stretched out to 16:9 on a HDTV looks softer than a HD BluRay due in part to the number of missing lines in the SD DVD, E* has the same issue when compared to D* 1920x1080i HDTV.


----------



## br408408 (Jun 1, 2008)

rich584 said:


> I don't get the analogy. I do understand that only so much bandwidth is available, but what governs that availability? That's where I go blank.
> 
> Rich


Money and or the FCC


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> Bandwidth is determined by a number of factors. To keep the analogy straightforward CAT5 might be #14, CAT6 #12, fiber optic #8, etc... It's not as simple as electricity where wire size is the main factor. Just as #12 is rated for 20 amps, CAT5 also has its "rating." This is drastically oversimplified, but I hope that makes sense.


It does. Still a bit befuddled, gotta process all this.

Rich


----------



## JcT21 (Nov 30, 2004)

i am a new directv customer after being with dishnetwork for many years. hd quality is good on both and if there is a difference its minimal and not noticeable. however when it comes to sd, dishnetwork is best. the sd on directv is horrible. i cant believe how bad the sd really is on D* compared to dishnetwork and even cable. some sd channels on my 42 inch samsung is almost like watching blury internet video.


----------



## br408408 (Jun 1, 2008)

With satellite tv it's three competing issues:

1. Picture quality
vs
2. Number of channels
vs
3. Keeping the providers costs down.

You can't have all 3 at once. Adding more of 1 and 2 requires more bandwidth, and more bandwidth requires money (more satellites with more transponders, more ground equipment to uplink to the new satellites, and maybe new dishes and receivers to see the new satellites).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Or we just look at the facts of which provider offers superior picture quality. Dish has decided to aim for quantity over quality.


This argument only holds water if you're not relegated to watching something in SD.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

JcT21 said:


> i am a new directv customer after being with dishnetwork for many years. hd quality is good on both and if there is a difference its minimal and not noticeable. however when it comes to sd, dishnetwork is best. the sd on directv is horrible. i cant believe how bad the sd really is on D* compared to dishnetwork and even cable. some sd channels on my 42 inch samsung is almost like watching blury internet video.


I know the pixel count is very low, but the SD channels that I watch aren't that bad, but this may be due to my TV being able to scale them better.
Even the 16:9 SD programs I can zoom to full screen [46" TV] and don't look anywhere near as bad as internet video.
I use "native on" so all the scaling is don't by my TV. YMMV


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

It is important not to confuse sharpness on contrast with high quality as those aren't necessarily signs of _accurate reproduction_. "Punching up" and "contouring" are done by both providers to limit bandwidth requirements.

In the end, it comes down to which looks "better" and that can't be determined by comparing bandwidth.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I know the pixel count is very low, but the SD channels that I watch aren't that bad, but this may be due to my TV being able to scale them better.
> Even the 16:9 SD programs I can zoom to full screen [46" TV] and don't look anywhere near as bad as internet video.
> I use "native on" so all the scaling is don't by my TV. YMMV


I get pretty decent SD too. Except for BBCA. That's the worst SD picture I've ever seen. And yet, the same program that looks so crappy coming from D* looks pretty good on NetFlix upscaled by my Sammy BD players.

Rich


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> This argument only holds water if you're not relegated to watching something in SD.


What's the topic of the thread? HD picture quality...I guess the water is held.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I get pretty decent SD too. Except for BBCA. That's the worst SD picture I've ever seen. And yet, the same program that looks so crappy coming from D* looks pretty good on NetFlix upscaled by my Sammy BD players.
> 
> Rich


 "You know", Law & Order UK is one of the shows I "zoom" to full screen. It isn't HD, but isn't that bad either.
I found my Sony scales SD so much better than the receiver does.
When I'm on SD and it's 16:9, I select "original format" [on the receiver] which changes my TV to zoom mode and then cycle the receiver format back to pillarbar for 4:3 SD.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Think of it this way......1920x1080 is 16x9 with a 1.78 Ratio (1920/1080).
> 
> 1.78 is the Proper Ratio for a 16:9 HDTV screen.
> 
> ...


You mean *PIXELS*, not lines ?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> You mean *PIXELS*, not lines ?


Maybe he's looking at it sideways [so they're rows of pixels]. :lol:


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Anyway, MPEG have a deal with 8x8 or 4x4 pixles areas, not lines ... 

And only that manufacturer (Tandberg ?) knows how they removing 25% pixels off each line.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

rkr0923 said:


> Depends on who you ask really. If you work for or have stock in company A of course its better than company B.


I do work for both companies. That doesn't change what I see, nor does it change objective measurements.

Dish's SD is better than DirecTV's.

DirecTV's HD is better than Dish's.

Both of those are facts. On a quality TV, side-by-side, you can see the difference, and all of the things we know about how the signals are sent (resolution, bitrate, number of channels per transponder) all match up with those user perceptions.

At the same time, nearly everyone agrees that the differences are probably not great enough for MOST people to choose one carrier over the other based on PQ. Other factors will be more important to most people (content available, equipment/features, cost, etc.).


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

Still boils down to what your display is no matter where the source comes from. Take 2 TV's of different models with the same source, your get different opinions on which is best looking.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

When you reduce 1920x1080 to 1440 to 1080, you are reducing the pixels and thus the lines being sent out as the 1080 is consistent.

For example 16X9 1920x1080:

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.0.1.2.3.4.5.6

Essentially becomes looses 25% of the lines (or the equivalent of every 4th line) 1440x1080:

1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5
1.2.3.5.6.7.9.0.1.3.4.5

Reducing the lines by 25%, which is the point I was trying to get across.

Its then shown back stretched (or padded) something like 

1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5
1..2..3..5..6..7..9..0..1..3..4..5

to get the 16:9 Ratio back.

This is overly simplified, but should get the concept/point across.

Think of an Eye Chart on a Doctor's Wall. It doesn't matter on the big Things.....where it shows up is in the small print/details.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I know the pixel count is very low, but the SD channels that I watch aren't that bad, but this may be due to my TV being able to scale them better.
> Even the 16:9 SD programs I can zoom to full screen [46" TV] and *don't look anywhere near as bad as internet video*.
> I use "native on" so all the scaling is don't by my TV. YMMV


You must have a slow internet connection.

On my Apple TV, SD and HD smoke DIRECTV's SD quality. It's not even close. Flat-out, my internet video annihilates DIRECTV SD on my 52".


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

rkr0923 said:


> Still boils down to what your display is no matter where the source comes from. Take 2 TV's of different models with the same source, your get different opinions on which is best looking.


If your TV does not do 1920x1080, does not have 1:1 Pixel mapping (Mitsubishi DLPs and others STILL DO NOT) and/or has reduced resolution when motion is put on the screen, yes, even a full 1920x1080 resolution will be reduced in quality when you view it (Think of trying to read the smallest line on a Doctor's Eye Chart if the nurse was moving the chart instead of having it hang on the wall in a static position).

Luckily over the past 3-4 years, most TVs will do 1920x1080 and have 1:1 Pixel Mapping. Over the past 2 years, more and more sets are doing much better with resolution using moving objects.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> You must have a slow internet connection.


5 Mb/s DSL which didn't look all that bad off HULU last week.
I think the Sony XBR scaler is also fairly good too, which is better than the DirecTV receivers I have.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> 5 Mb/s DSL which didn't look all that bad off HULU last week.
> I think the Sony XBR scaler is also fairly good too, which is better than the DirecTV receivers I have.


Right on, we're both on a Sony XBR.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> Right on, we're both on a Sony XBR.


I know when I crop/zoom from the receiver it looks like crap, but doing the same with the XBR doesn't look that bad. 
I'd also guess those that only have a scaler the quality of the receivers would complain more about the crappy SD quality, since there really isn't much being sent and requires a lot of scaling to fit a HD screen.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

Exactly why everyone needs to personally check which configuration looks better - 

A) Setting the D* IRD to display 720 & 1080 (not checking the 480i/480p boxes) and having the D* IRD do the scaling for SD material

or

B) Setting the D* IRD to display 480i/480p/720p/1080 and making sure under HDTV/Video Native is ON and Screen Format is in Original Format so that the TV does the scaling of the SD material.

Compare both and determine what is best for your situation.

Every model TV scaler is different and what is right for one person can be different for another (depending on the TV Model and Scaler inside).

But then again, there is ONLY so much you can do with low PQ 480x480 SD-LITE via D*.


----------



## TDK1044 (Apr 8, 2010)

lparsons21 said:


> At one time, I had both D* and E* hooked to my 61" JVC rear projection HD TV. There is a difference between the two on that set. But the difference was minimal with only a very slight edge to D*, imo.
> 
> Others that saw it agreed that the difference was slight, and slightly better on D*. But for SD, E* wins hands down. D*'s SD is horrid.


I agree with this one hundred percent. I have seen the same channels from D* and E* displaying on two identical 46 inch flat screen televisions that have been identically calibrated and are in a controlled engineering environment.

D* had a very slight edge in overall HD definition....too small to really matter though, and certainly not an issue in terms of which provider to choose. The E* SD pictures were certainly better than D*.


----------



## good (Dec 6, 2010)

skatingrocker17 said:


> ...
> Is Dish Network giving these channels less bandwidth?
> Thanks


... than your rips? If that's what your asking, I suggest you to take a look a this chart (btw, good job, Smith!), with channels biterates:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2645719#post2645719
and compare it with yours.

Dish puts theirs HD channels in transponders using DVB-S modulation which is around 40 Mbps total biterate per TP. By simply dividing 40 at channels number, you'll get roughly ('cause it's VBR) biterate per channel. By comparison, Directv is using some proprietary modulation which is somewhere near to DVB-S2 efficiency, so around 60 Mbps. Using the same formula, see the biterates for those HD channels.

imho, as I've said before, the point is: 1440 is hardly the problem. Because the encoders barely can cope with those (well below average) low biterates, downscaling to 1440 it's a "desperate" measure. 
If the biterates were around 10 Mbps, you'll hardy see any difference.


----------



## skatingrocker17 (Jun 24, 2010)

good said:


> ... than your rips? If that's what your asking, I suggest you to take a look a this chart (btw, good job, Smith!), with channels biterates:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2645719#post2645719
> and compare it with yours.


No in general, compared to DirecTV.


----------



## good (Dec 6, 2010)

You got your answer right there.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Bit-rates aside, side by side comparison on 46"XBRs an extremely slight difference in HD pictures between DISH & Directv, sometimes in favor of Dtv, sometimes in favor of DISH. As another poster has stated the SD images more often than not are clearer on DISH. The determining factor in which provider to choose, in my opinion, rests with Dtv's sports offerings, including MLB network. 

HD DISH has, Directv doesn't:

5 STAR MAX
ACTION MAX
AMC (AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS)
BBC AMERICA
CENTRIC
COOKING 
DIY (DO IT YOURSELF)
E!
EPIX
EPIX 2
FASHION TV
G4
GALAVISION
HBO COMEDY
HBO FAMILY
HBO LATINO
HBO SIGNATURE
HISTORY iNTERNATIONAL
HLN (HEADLINE NEWS – CNN2)
ID (INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY)
INDIE MOVIES
LIFETIME MOVIE NETWORK
LOGO
MAV TV
NATGEO WILD
NFL RED ZONE
OWN (OPRAH WINFREY NETWORK)
PIXL
RETRO MOVIES
SHORTS MOVIES
SPORTSMAN CHANNEL
STYLE
TCM (TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES)
TELEFUTURA 
TRU TV
WORLD FISHING NETWORK

HD DIRECTV has DISH doesn’t

ESPU
FOX SOCCER PLUS
FUEL TV
GOL TV
MEGA TV
MLB TV
SHOWTIME BEYOND
SHOWTIME EXTREME
SHOWTIME NEXT
SHOWTIME WOMEN
SMITHSONIAN
STARZ BLACK
STARZ CINEMA
THE MOVIE CHANNEL EXTRA

Removed from DISH, but on DIRECTV – contract dispute
HD feed:
ABC FAMILY
DISNEY
ESPN NEWS

DISH had, then dropped:

SMITHSONIAN

Directv had, then dropped:

G4

Errors & omissions I'm sure will be pointed out


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

If you want service from a satellite provider and the best HD picture quality...DirecTV is your only choice. If you don't care about HD picture quality, Dish Network is the provider for you.


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

If you want HD service pick any provider. If you want to sit and count pixels, average bitrates or just not enjoy TV at all pick any provider.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> If you want service from a satellite provider and the best HD picture quality...DirecTV is your only choice. If you don't care about HD picture quality, Dish Network is the provider for you.


What if you want the best SD quality? :lol:


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> If you want service from a satellite provider and the best HD picture quality...DirecTV is your only choice. If you don't care about HD picture quality, Dish Network is the provider for you.


I wish it were that simple. It gets complicated when D* doesn't have your favorite channels in HD. Then you have to start making compromises, hence the reason for this thread. But the difference is so minimal, a reasonable person would choose providers based on content. To say Dish subs don't care about HD PQ is ridiculous. By your logic I could say D* subs don't care about HD PQ simply because they don't all have Fios.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mdavej said:


> I wish it were that simple. It gets complicated when D* doesn't have your favorite channels in HD. Then you have to start making compromises, hence the reason for this thread. But the difference is so minimal, a reasonable person would choose providers based on content. To say Dish subs don't care about HD PQ is ridiculous. By your logic I could say D* subs don't care about HD PQ simply because they don't all have Fios.


While I get your point, I don't see a fiber in my neighborhood, so it isn't an option.


----------



## Codeman00 (Dec 13, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> If you want service from a satellite provider and the best HD picture quality...DirecTV is your only choice. If you don't care about HD picture quality, Dish Network is the provider for you.


+1

I switched from Dish to DirecTV in December. The HD is night and day better with DirecTV than Dish (which I had for over 8 years). DishHD is very soft....DirecTV is much sharper all around.....there is really not a debate. Both were viewed on the same Panasonic plasma 3DTV. One very noticeable difference in HD is the regional sports broadcast of the NHL. There are some games that are so clear with DirecTV HD, that I might as well be at the game....jaw dropping, almost BluRay quality.

Thank you DirecTV...keep up the good work.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "You know", Law & Order UK is one of the shows I "zoom" to full screen. It isn't HD, but isn't that bad either.
> I found my Sony scales SD so much better than the receiver does.
> When I'm on SD and it's 16:9, I select "original format" [on the receiver] which changes my TV to zoom mode and then cycle the receiver format back to pillarbar for 4:3 SD.


I started to watch that and I guess it's buried in my UPL someplace. I did watch it, so it couldn't have been that bad.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> 5 Mb/s DSL which didn't look all that bad off HULU last week.
> I think the Sony XBR scaler is also fairly good too, which is better than the DirecTV receivers I have.


I've been wondering about the Panny plasma's ability to upscale. *Spartanstew* made a comment about upscaling with the TV the other day and I forgot to question him about it.

I'm not sure I see much upscaling happening on my Panny plasmas. For instance, if I play an old 4:3 episode of _L&O: SVU_ on my Roku, the PQ is pretty bad. On one of my Panny BD65s, it's much better, on one of my Sammy 5500s it's really good. All on the same TV. How much upscaling can a plasma do? Seems like it's a lot less than an LCD does.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I know when I crop/zoom from the receiver it looks like crap, but doing the same with the XBR doesn't look that bad.
> I'd also guess those that only have a scaler the quality of the receivers would complain more about the crappy SD quality, since there really isn't much being sent and requires a lot of scaling to fit a HD screen.


Which brings me back to the apparent lack of upscaling on the Panny plasmas. Or am I wrong again?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I've been wondering about the Panny plasma's ability to upscale. *Spartanstew* made a comment about upscaling with the TV the other day and I forgot to question him about it.
> 
> I'm not sure I see much upscaling happening on my Panny plasmas. For instance, if I play an old 4:3 episode of _L&O: SVU_ on my Roku, the PQ is pretty bad. On one of my Panny BD65s, it's much better, on one of my Sammy 5500s it's really good. All on the same TV. How much upscaling can a plasma do? Seems like it's a lot less than an LCD does.
> 
> Rich


This has nothing to do with plasma or LCD.
It has to do with what scaler is doing the heavy lifting.
If on your DirecTV receiver, you have all resolutions checked and native turned on, then the receiver is sending out the signal "as it came" from the broadcaster. Now SD won't fill your TV screen and without scaling it would be a postage stamp. This means the TV has to scale it to fit.
You could deselect all but 1080 in the receiver and then it will scaler everything to 1080 and the TV doesn't do anything.
Not sure what settings are in your other devices, so I can't say which is doing the scaling, but if they look better, then they must have a better scaler than the TV and you're using theirs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> If you want service from a satellite provider and the best HD picture quality...DirecTV is your only choice. If you don't care about HD picture quality, Dish Network is the provider for you.


I don't care much about SD. I didn't go thru all this to watch SD. That long list of HD shows is interesting, but is trumped by one channel that D* has that Dish doesn't. *Yes*.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Hutchinshouse said:


> What if you want the best SD quality? :lol:


Ewwww!

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> This has nothing to do with plasma or LCD.
> It has to do with what scaler is doing the heavy lifting.
> If on your DirecTV receiver, you have all resolutions checked and native turned on, then the receiver is sending out the signal "as it came" from the broadcaster. Now SD won't fill your TV screen and without scaling it would be a postage stamp. This means the TV has to scale it to fit.
> You could deselect all but 1080 in the receiver and then it will scaler everything to 1080 and the TV doesn't do anything.
> Not sure what settings are in your other devices, so I can't say which is doing the scaling, but if they look better, then they must have a better scaler than the TV and you're using theirs.


Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You would not believe the difference between an SD program on a Roku and the same program on a 5500 using the same plasma. I don't really see the plasma doing much upscaling at all.

Rich


----------



## good (Dec 6, 2010)

rich584 said:


> How much upscaling can a plasma do?


Up to the panel native resolution. It's not a question of "how much", it's rather how good.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

good said:


> Up to the panel native resolution. It's not a question of "how much", it's rather how good.


OK, my plasmas don't seem to upscale too good....:lol:

Rich


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

mdavej said:


> To say Dish subs don't care about HD PQ is ridiculous.


No it isn't. Dish Network HD PQ is inferior. If you want superior HD PQ from a satellite provider, DirecTV is the only option. If you want the HD channels that Dish provides (that DirecTV does not currently provide) and you do not care about HD PQ, Dish Network is the way to go. Dish Network obviously doesn't consider HD PQ to be a priority. If a consumer considers HD PQ to be a priority, they will choose DirecTV over Dish Network. The differences between the two are real and they are obvious. DirecTV is the HD leader. Dish Network is the HD-Lite leader.


----------



## good (Dec 6, 2010)

Hoosier205 said:


> Dish Network obviously doesn't not consider HD PQ to be a priority.


... or they think that many 'see' but few will notice ...


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Hoosier205 said:


> The differences between the two are real and they are obvious.


Perhaps real but certainly not obvious unless you have a big TV screen.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

I value HD PQ very much, which is why I refuse to watch AMC, BBC, TCM, etc. in SD. What if you want the HD channels that Dish provides (that D* doesn't) and you want the best HD PQ, what do you choose? Logically, neither provider can meet both requirements. So you have to compromise or give up tv. It is possible to compromise and still "care" about HD PQ. If I didn't care about HD PQ I never would have gotten D* to begin with. I'd still have cable and an SD tv.

We all accept the fact that D* HD PQ is best. I hate the fact that Dish starves their HD, so I really do care. But the thread is about how noticeable the difference is. So far most have said it's not very noticeable. A few say it's night and day. So "noticeable" appears to be highly subjective.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

good said:


> ... or they think that many 'see' but few will notice ...


That's a good point. I've heard several TV salesmen say that if you have nothing else to compare it to, every TV will look good.

I'm sure that applies here too.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mdavej said:


> I value HD PQ very much, which is why I refuse to watch AMC, BBC, TCM, etc. in SD.


I feel the same way, I know I'll get a chance to see all that content eventually in HD. We do watch _Madmen_ in SD. And we get a really good SD picture on it. I don't bother to blow it up to a larger size.



> We all accept the fact that D* HD PQ is best. I hate the fact that Dish starves their HD, so I really do care. But the thread is about how noticeable the difference is. So far most have said it's not very noticeable. A few say it's night and day. So "noticeable" appears to be highly subjective.


Any thread like this is gonna be subjective. And interesting......

Rich


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

The fact that DirecTV offers superior HD PQ is factual. To what degree is subjective. If and when Dish Network decides that they value HD picture quality, they can come on over and sit with the big boys and girls. Until then, they'll remain as an afterthought.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> If you want the HD channels that Dish provides (that DirecTV does not currently provide) and you do not care about HD PQ, Dish Network is the way to go.


Because DIRECTV's HD quality is noticeably better it is necessary to sacrifice enjoyment of other channels of interest?

DIRECTV has bandwidth available (assuming the 39 Cinema HD channels are untouchable for all but seasonal subscription sports programming) for less than half of the national HD channels it doesn't carry, so I guess they must choose very deliberately.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

harsh said:


> Because DIRECTV's HD quality is noticeably better it is necessary to sacrifice enjoyment of other channels of interest?
> 
> DIRECTV has bandwidth available (assuming the 39 Cinema HD channels are untouchable for all but subscription sports programming) for less than half of the national HD channels it doesn't carry, so I guess they must choose very deliberately.


As opposed to Dish, a provider that appears to have a hard time keeping what channels they do have and doesn't appear to place much emphasis on picture quality. Have fun when they shut their DVR service down. We really shouldn't attempt to talk anyone out of subscribing to Dish Network. Charlie needs all the help he can get paying for all those attorneys, especially if subscribers continue to leave that second rate provider at such a high rate.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> The fact that DirecTV offers superior HD PQ is factual.


Recent objective evidence to support your oft-repeated claim is available where?


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

harsh said:


> Recent objective evidence to support your oft-repeated claim is available where?


Dish Network hasn't offered a single 1080i channel in its full resolution in more than three years. Were you not aware of this? This is not new information. It is readily available. Seek it out for yourself if you are so far behind. Call Dish Network. They will admit to this glaring shortcoming. The evidence isn't based on opinion. Their overzealous compression methods are also well known.


----------



## rkr0923 (Sep 14, 2006)

Just say to heck with both and go with BUD


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> Dish Network hasn't offered a single 1080i channel in its full resolution in more than three years.


You claim that DISH Network HD PQ is inferior to DIRECTV HD PQ. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim.

I asked that you go one step further and offer _recent_ documentation.

You have repeatedly answered with aspersions toward other posters, Charlie Ergen and DISH Network. Other rationalizations have included noting absence of certain RSNs and observations of past and/'or ongoing carriage disputes. None of these represents documented evidence (recent or otherwise) of objective PQ findings.

In summary, link or lie.


----------



## good (Dec 6, 2010)

rich584 said:


> I've heard several TV salesmen say that if you have nothing else to compare it to, every TV will look good.
> Rich


That's also a good point but when even rips surpass the PQ of HD channels (as thread starter remark) than quality is right down the drain. There's also blu rays, retail stores with tv sets running, I suppose all those should strike you and ask yourself 'why I see crap in my home?'



Hoosier205 said:


> Dish Network hasn't offered a single 1080i channel in its full resolution ...


I totally agree with you about PQ but, as I've said before, 1440 is not the problem. If biterates were higher (around 12 Mbps per channel, which is about 'normal' - subjective speaking), an "untrained" eye couldn't make a difference between 1920 and 1440.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

good said:


> I totally agree with you about PQ but, as I've said before, 1440 is not the problem. If biterates were higher (around 12 Mbps per channel, which is about 'normal' - subjective speaking), an "untrained" eye couldn't make a difference between 1920 and 1440.


1440 is part of the problem. When combined with low bitrates...the problem turns into a full blown disaster for PQ. They are taking programing with a particular resolution, which may have already been altered by the content provider, and then screwing with it twice more. You have the resolution it was filmed in, the resolution the content provider distributes it in, the resolution Dish Network applies, and then the resolution subscribers receive it in before their display scales it.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

harsh said:


> You claim that DISH Network HD PQ is inferior to DIRECTV HD PQ. The burden of proof is on you to back up your claim.
> 
> I asked that you go one step further and offer _recent_ documentation.
> 
> ...


No, what I have posted is common knowledge based on overwhelming evidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. You won't however. You never do. You can even call Dish Network and ask them. They will admit to it. Apparently, they don't believe that their customers have very high standards.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Hoosier205 said:


> No, what I have posted is common knowledge based on overwhelming evidence. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. You won't however. You never do. You can even call Dish Network and ask them. They will admit to it. *Apparently, they don't believe that their customers have very high standards.*


That's funny, I saw the very same remark regarding DIRECTV HD (and SD) in the FiOS thread. :lol:

If you want the very best HD quality, FiOS is the best. This is a fact. Just call DIRECTV and ask them. :lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Hutchinshouse said:


> If you want the very best HD quality, FiOS is the best. This is a fact. Just call DIRECTV and ask them. :lol:


I agree.


----------



## good (Dec 6, 2010)

Hoosier205 said:


> You have the resolution it was filmed in, the resolution the content provider distributes it in, ...


Not necessarily 'cause, even today, most videoservers store programs in HDCam and DVCProHD format. I recall that even at World Cup 2010, which was btw one of the most advanced events in terms of HD (and 3D!) production, storage format was at 1440
Not talking about 720p/60 content, which has to be upscaled in case of channel format is different so, in that case, will fare better at 1440 rather than 1920


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

good said:


> Not necessarily 'cause, even today, most videoservers store programs in HDCam and DVCProHD format. I recall that even at World Cup 2010, which was btw one of the most advanced events in terms of HD (and 3D!) production, storage format was at 1440
> Not talking about 720p/60 content, which has to be upscaled in case of channel format is different so, in that case, will fare better at 1440 rather than 1920


Yes, but how is that 1440 content distributed? Not in 1440. Adding yet another layer of resolution manipulation is a mistake and Dish Network's PQ is an example of that mistake.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Hoosier205 said:


> No, what I have posted is common knowledge based on overwhelming evidence.


Don't confuse hyperbole and repetition with "overwhelming evidence".

I haven't been able to find the evidence that you assure us exists. Whether that's a failure on my part or it doesn't exist, I'm asking your help in setting the record straight.

Link or lie.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

harsh said:


> Don't confuse hyperbole and repetition with "overwhelming evidence".
> 
> I haven't been able to find the evidence that you assure us exists. Whether that's a failure on my part or it doesn't exist, I'm asking your help in setting the record straight.
> 
> Link or lie.


Just as I predicted Harsh. You never fail to disappoint. :lol: Get back to your HD-Lite and enjoy using those DVR's while you still can. !rolling


----------



## ProgPic (Sep 13, 2009)

harsh said:


> Don't confuse hyperbole and repetition with "overwhelming evidence".
> 
> I haven't been able to find the evidence that you assure us exists. Whether that's a failure on my part or it doesn't exist, I'm asking your help in setting the record straight.
> 
> Link or lie.


+1

I've been looking for some sort of proof too but can't find anything.

Come on, Hoosier...where's it at!


----------



## good (Dec 6, 2010)

harsh said:


> I haven't been able to find the evidence that you assure us exists.





ProgPic said:


> I've been looking for some sort of proof too but can't find anything.


If you're happy with what you all see, than don't worry 'bout a thing. Just sit back and enjoy.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

ProgPic said:


> +1
> 
> I've been looking for some sort of proof too but can't find anything.
> 
> Come on, Hoosier...where's it at!


Well, guys, it's out there ... It's proven fact - all dish HD are totally 1440x1080.
Some channels sometimes coming as unencrypted (that's why SatcoDX-ers exist  ), some ppl seen recorded files where H.264 headers are shows the 1440x1088i info (those additional 8 horiz lines are not for TV  ).


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Isn't the proof at AVS?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

P Smith said:


> Well, guys, it's out there ... It's proven fact - all dish HD are totally 1440x1080.
> Some channels sometimes coming as unencrypted (that's why SatcoDX-ers exist  ), *some ppl [have] seen recorded files where H.264 headers show the 1440x1088i info *(those additional 8 horiz lines are not for TV  ).


Just to keep apples to apples here, the same header was also read from the files of DirecTV and they showed they weren't reduced. This happened while the was a hole in the software and Nero could be used to view recordings.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

P Smith said:


> Well, guys, it's out there ... It's proven fact - all dish HD are totally 1440x1080.


So where is the recent documentation?

Is it reasonable to extend/extrapolate data regarding in-the-clear channels to those channels that are not in-the-clear?

There exists documentation that places all national DIRECTV 1080i channels at 1280x1080i, but it is outdated by any scientific or industry standard.

As a demonstration of what I'm hoping to see, here's a link supporting the 1280 "facts" from five plus years ago:

http://www.widemovies.com/dfwbitrate.html

I not concerned with who offers the data as long as it is current, representative of all of the channels in question (in-the-clear and otherwise) and scientifically derived.


----------



## marquitos2 (Jan 10, 2004)

The SD is pretty good on my 46" Sony LCD, that is on D*. My daddy have E* and the picture sucks.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

If one could see the image being transmitted through the SAT feed before the receiver scales it to the output, they would look like this:


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

The HD-Lite Wiki states that all Dish 1920x1080 has been down-rezed to 1440x1080 since 2007. On several occasions I asked DIRT (Dish Internet Response Team) if this was true. While they responded to each query, they never answered. I take their lack of an answer as an implied yes. However, since BBC broadcasts in 1440x1080 anyway, and BBCA was a major reason I got Dish, I'm not losing anything PQ-wise. I've also tried to detect aliasing with my naked eye and have found it impossible to detect (should see stair-stepping on nearly horizontal lines across 2 pixels where there would have been 3). While I don't like HD-Lite, I can't tell much difference and think it's a reasonable compromise to deal with limited bandwidth. Considering cable totally destroys it's HD, and D* lacks too many HD nationals, Dish is the best choice for me for the most national HD content and very good (although not the best) HD picture quality.


----------



## levibluewa (Aug 13, 2005)

Here's Directv's HD-Lite:

5 STAR MAX
ACTION MAX
AMC (AMERICAN MOVIE CLASSICS)
BBC AMERICA
CENTRIC
COOKING 
DIY (DO IT YOURSELF)
E!
EPIX
EPIX 2
FASHION TV
G4
GALAVISION
HBO COMEDY
HBO FAMILY
HBO LATINO
HBO SIGNATURE
HISTORY iNTERNATIONAL
HLN (HEADLINE NEWS – CNN2)
ID (INVESTIGATION DISCOVERY)
INDIE MOVIES
LIFETIME MOVIE NETWORK
LOGO
MAV TV
NATGEO WILD
NFL RED ZONE
OWN (OPRAH WINFREY NETWORK)
PIXL
RETRO MOVIES
SHORTS MOVIES
SPORTSMAN CHANNEL
STYLE
TCM (TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES)
TELEFUTURA 
TRU TV
WORLD FISHING NETWORK

...Wikipedia: In November 2006, News Corporation announced its intention to transfer its managing interest in The DirecTV Group to John Malone's Liberty Media

...that's when Directv lost its reputation. It use to be that you could count on Dtv to NOT get into contract disputes & lose channels. It use to be that you could count on them to be the 1st to add channels and new HD channels shortly after the channels became available. All that changed. Malone & his ilk continue to suck dry their subs and pocket the $$$$. And why should they care, the subs are still happy with crumbs. They probably have AMCHD, BBCAHD, etc., in their homes via DISH. 

I sub to Dtv for MLBHD (213). The picture is great. The rest of the time I'm watching IDHD, BBCAHD, TRUTVHD, G4HD, EPIX1&2HD, RETROHD, INDIEHD, and SHORTSHD, etc., on DISH...and the picture quality is great.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

levibluewa said:


> Here's Directv's HD-Lite:


 since DirecTV dropped MPEG-2 HD, this isn't any "HD-Lite", unless you mean missing HD channels.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Some folks have a lower standard for what constitutes quality HD picture quality. That's fine. Some folks believe that DVD's provide adequate picture and audio quality for them, while others have moved on to Blu-ray. Dish Network provides a service that is good enough for some. Good for them.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

The thread topic was PQ between the two.
I'd say this has been defined fairly well by now.

Now which service one wants, is totally up to them. 
If you like what one service offers over the other, then it makes perfect sense to go with that one, as you're getting "what you want".


----------



## Curtis0620 (Apr 22, 2002)

levibluewa said:


> Here's Directv's HD-Lite:
> 
> 5 STAR MAX
> ACTION MAX
> ...


Short list, considering ALL DISH HD Channels are HD-Lite.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> since DirecTV dropped MPEG-2 HD, this isn't any "HD-Lite", unless you mean missing HD channels.


I just wonder if the people that are so vocal now regarding Dish's HD-Lite were as vocal three years or so ago in calling out D* when D* was the king of HD-Lite.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

raott said:


> I just wonder if the people that are so vocal now regarding Dish's HD-Lite were as vocal three years or so ago in calling out D* when D* was the king of HD-Lite.


"Some were", but it was more like 4 years ago.
All [but Discovery HD & HDNet] were pretty poor back then, unless you had OTA.
Since the launch & activation of the Ka SATs, DirecTV has improved. 
Can the same be said about Dish?

To give an idea of how bad it was back then [though not HDNet], this is what 1080i MPEG-2 looked like in the SAT feed:


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

mdavej said:


> I've also tried to detect aliasing with my naked eye and have found it impossible to detect (should see stair-stepping on nearly horizontal lines across 2 pixels where there would have been 3).


Good quality scaling does not work that way. A decent quality scaler isn't just going to duplicate every 3rd column of pixels to get from 1440 to 1920.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> Good quality scaling does not work that way. A decent quality scaler isn't just going to duplicate every 3rd column of pixels to get from 1440 to 1920.


Or every 4th, for Dish.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Or every 4th.


No, a dumb scaling algorithm would be duplicating every 3rd column to create the 4th column to get from 1440 to 1920.

You need to create 480 columns to get from 1440 to 1920. 
1440 = 480/3
1920 = 480/4

So you would duplicate every 3rd column of a 1440x1080i frame to expand it out to 1920x1080i, which is exactly what doesn't happen.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> No, a dumb scaling algorithm would be duplicating every 3rd column to create the 4th column to get from 1440 to 1920.
> 
> You need to create 480 columns to get from 1440 to 1920.
> 1440 = 480/3
> ...


"You're right", I was looking at "filling" the 4th column.


----------



## ShapeGSX (Sep 17, 2006)

And if you are looking for the 5th column, the Visitors had them eliminated.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

ShapeGSX said:


> And if you are looking for the 5th column, the Visitors had them eliminated.


!rolling

I wonder if this thread really has anything left in it.

Those that like DirecTV & those that like Dish, aren't going to change their mind/opinion.

The question about PQ should have been beat to death by now.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

As it's proven by opening such thread once in a quarter.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I think this thread is about played out.

Mike


----------

