# Any way to improve SD?



## smackboy1 (Oct 9, 2006)

OK, it's only been 3 days, but SD broadcasts look like crap to me now. I've been spoiled by HD. Is there any way to improve the PQ of SD broadcasts (upconvert?)? Can the SD PQ be improved using HDMI output? I've read that people find SD looks worse through HDMI, which seems a little counter intuitive.

Also, does the 622 just record the raw digital stream of SD and HD broadcasts? In other words there is no choice of recording video quality like the TiVo (Basic, Medium, High Quality, Best)?


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

SD via satellite could look much better on many stations if bandwidth were added back. Currently, Local into Locals and other satellite channels are greatly compressed thus making a fuzzy, washed out, and macro-blocked picture. You will find that some SD satellite channels are very good. There is a sure fire way to make the SD channels look better. This is accomplished by using the smallest screen size you can find. Sometimes the composite or S-video may render a better SD picture than use of HDMI or Component.


----------



## John W (Dec 20, 2005)

smackboy1 said:


> OK, it's only been 3 days, but SD broadcasts look like crap to me now. I've been spoiled by HD. Is there any way to improve the PQ of SD broadcasts (upconvert?)? Can the SD PQ be improved using HDMI output? I've read that people find SD looks worse through HDMI, which seems a little counter intuitive.
> 
> Also, does the 622 just record the raw digital stream of SD and HD broadcasts? In other words there is no choice of recording video quality like the TiVo (Basic, Medium, High Quality, Best)?


Well, since my hdmi died on my 211 today I'm running through component cables and the sds look a bit better.Not sure the hds look much worse.BTW, csr wouldn't send me a new receiver but an email to [email protected] was answered-on a Sunday-in 10 minutes and one is coming.


----------



## Rovingbar (Jan 25, 2005)

Part of the reason that SD looks so bad is because your excellent display faithfully transmists all the compression artifacts. Keep in mind that SD will NEVER look as good as HD. You cannot hope to improve PQ by upconverting a highly compressed SD video stream. Your best bet may be to smooth out the artifacts. I've had some success watching SD over the composite video output. This blurs a lot of the artifacts. Depending on your set and how far away you sit, this may be a good option for you.

Good luck,
Jeff


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Ok.. here goes my SD PQ story and advice. This is definitely a YMMV and some of it might be a bit on the Halloween side. 

1) How far are you from your TV? for a 60" set I am setting about 11 feet away. The father away the SD is the better as someone mentioned. THis also goes for SD.

2) Is your TV calibrated properly? What display mode are you running. If you are on Vivid.. Get off vivid. Also if you have some edge enhancement technology you might want to turn it off and see if it improves things. 

3) How high is your Sharpness turned up? That might also do more damage than good. 

4) The one thing that seem to make the biggest jump in SD PQ on my 60" set was using a power conditioner. This is the Halloween portion of my post, but everyone noticed a noticeable improvment when I added the power conditioner

5) SD PQ was never meant for 60" displays. Originally I believe it was optimized for a 27" TV. On my 32" 4x3 set in the bedroom the SD looks great.. As you grow the image you grow the pixels and eventually something has to give. Add the fact you are switching between wonderful HD and SD and it even makes it more noticeable. 

Well that is my thoughts. View tips in there but a lot of it is the nature of the beast type stuff. For my viewing on my 60" Sony Grand Wega, I have gotten my SD to be pretty much watchable given where I set my expectations. I can tell you that originally this was not the case when I installed my HD system and through TV calibration and a power conditioner I was able to get mine to meet my expectations. 

Like I said.. YMMV.


----------



## JSIsabella (Oct 20, 2006)

Sorry to ask this but, YMMV?


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

No problem.... I am lazy.. YMMV... Your mileage may vary.


----------



## teddy (Jun 9, 2006)

smackboy1 said:


> OK, it's only been 3 days, but SD broadcasts look like crap to me now. I've been spoiled by HD. Is there any way to improve the PQ of SD broadcasts (upconvert?)? Can the SD PQ be improved using HDMI output? I've read that people find SD looks worse through HDMI, which seems a little counter intuitive.
> 
> Also, does the 622 just record the raw digital stream of SD and HD broadcasts? In other words there is no choice of recording video quality like the TiVo (Basic, Medium, High Quality, Best)?


I totlly agree, SD from the 622 looks like crap. I hate to say this on the present forum. But the answer to your question may be to switch to cable. SD on *most* SD channels is excellant on cable, almost as good as HD. At least that was my experience. I guess this is because of less compression.

However, I also have a separate Dish SD receiver and PQ from that receiver is great. So, is the real problem something with the 622?


----------



## smackboy1 (Oct 9, 2006)

I also have a 60" Sony Grand Wega. I'm sitting 9' away. The PQ of SD through the 622 is the same as through the 301 so it's not worse. It's just poor relative to HD. I set up my TV using Digital Video Essentials, it's not truly calibrated but it's better than out of the box (sharpness is set to zero). TV power runs through a UPS. Just upgraded to HD because compared to cable, Dish gave me a really good deal and I get more HD programming.

What kind of a difference can a professional calibration make compared to optimizing the standard menu settings (as opposed to the service menu)?


----------



## ArtV (Jun 10, 2006)

If you are running a 16x9 HD TV then the best way to improve the picture quality is to set the 622 to 480p and 4X3 #2. This allows your TV to do the upconvert, if necessary and on my TV anyway it allows the TV to do the stretching, if desired. At least in my case, this gives a nice improvement in the picture, though there is no easy way to change the settings. I hate to say it but you do get used to the picture quality. You can also try adjusting the brightness as I found that it varies greatly from HD to SD. As said earlier, YMMV.

Art


----------



## bobrap (Dec 17, 2005)

Ron, may i ask what power conditioner you use. I'm thinking of adding one myself. TIA.


----------



## Mx_Rider (Jul 14, 2006)

I have a 3K scaler/processor and still looks like crap. I'm gonna try hooking up to via svid and see if that helps. Kind of sucks for me to switch inputs just to view SD to HD. 

Locals look horrible in SD. Was trying to watch the Laker game and it was completely blurry.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

The 1 thing that all of you are forgetting is you are now used to HD. So no matter what you do the SD is going to look like crap in comparison. One of the only thing that can be done would to be to see if you can find a used line doubler. Farjouda used to make one for projectors. That is about the only thing I can think of is something that will do some kind of up converting.


----------



## ebaltz (Nov 23, 2004)

watch it on an SD TV of 27'' or less. It will look like SD always looked before we knew what HD looked like.


----------



## primetimeguy (Sep 30, 2006)

teddy said:


> SD on *most* SD channels is excellant on cable, almost as good as HD. At least that was my experience. I guess this is because of less compression.
> QUOTE]
> 
> If you don't see much difference you either have really bad HD or your box/TV are not setup properly.
> ...


----------



## teddy (Jun 9, 2006)

primetimeguy said:


> I recently switched from Charter to Dish and the SD channels actually improved for me, which I was not expecting. SD channels on cable will vary by provider and area but in no way should they be any where near as good as HD.


I also changed from Charter Cable (in Connecticut). I have a Sony WEGA KV-30XBR910. 32"- hardly any comparison to the 50-60" plasmas people have. The deterioration in SD PQ was immediately obvious to me after the 622 was installed. It was so bad I called DISH. They sent out an installer but he wasn't any help.

I really don't think it is just a matter of getting used to HD. In this thread alone, enough people are complaining that I think we should be taken seriously. There is something very wrong with at least some 622's when it comes to SD. I have tried the 480i (480p)-4X3 #2 solution and it does not help much if at all.

I would be happy to find a solution if one exists. I am very close to going back to cable. The SA8300HD I had with cable had more recording features and was more flexible too. Satellite has more HD channels but quite frankly I am not interested in most of them.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

bobrap said:


> Ron, may i ask what power conditioner you use. I'm thinking of adding one myself. TIA.


I think it is a Monster Control Center 2500 or something like that. I will take a look when I get home and report back. Got a good deal on it a while back and it did make a difference in my configuration.

Ok guys... Lets not turn this thread into a SD PQ comparison to Cable. There is a number of threads already that have cropped up from time to time and it always turns out as a YMMV depending on the channels you frequent and your previous cable company. Lots of factors involved in PQ.

One thing I am not sure that everyone is aware of is that as i understand it the bit rate is not consistent across channels and times so PQ will differ as you change channels and the same channel could look better or worse depending on when you are viewing it. How much this makes a difference, I am not sure, but it is a difference so when doing a comparison as you tweak it might be a good idea to record one show and use that as a tool for checking to see if any changes you make actually made a difference.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

whatchel1 said:


> The 1 thing that all of you are forgetting is you are now used to HD. So no matter what you do the SD is going to look like crap in comparison. One of the only thing that can be done would to be to see if you can find a used line doubler. Farjouda used to make one for projectors. That is about the only thing I can think of is something that will do some kind of up converting.


When I had my overly buggy and many-times-replaced 510, SD looked great on my Sony 34" XBR widescreen. So when I see the SD coming out of the 622, my comparison is to what SD looked like from the 510. I love my 622 for the HD but why can't the SD look as good as it did with the 510? And, yes, I have tried switching to the s-video input but it really didn't make any difference nor did switching to 4x3 480 - still a very lousy picture!


----------



## Rovingbar (Jan 25, 2005)

When you sat lousy... what exactly do you mean? Are colors off? Is the image too bright, or too dark? Is the image blurry? Is the image over-sharp (hard edges with shadows)? Do you see little squares? Big squares? etc.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Rovingbar said:


> When you sat lousy... what exactly do you mean? Are colors off? Is the image too bright, or too dark? Is the image blurry? Is the image over-sharp (hard edges with shadows)? Do you see little squares? Big squares? etc.


Overall, it just looks fuzzy - mostly I notice this on sat locals. Things viewed on channels like Animal Planet have the beautiful sharpness to them that I am accustomed to seeing but things like the football games broadcast in SD are really poor in clarity.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

The more movement the worse the image will be. 

By chance have you pressed the zoom button to fill the screen. The zoom button has two settings, one set for HD channels and another set for Sd channels. Zooming a low rez Sd channel will make it look worse.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

TBoneit said:


> The more movement the worse the image will be.
> 
> By chance have you pressed the zoom button to fill the screen. The zoom button has two settings, one set for HD channels and another set for Sd channels. Zooming a low rez Sd channel will make it look worse.


I know about the movement thing but I watch Meerkat Manor on Animal Planet and it still looks crisp and clean even when they are running all over the place (they're much faster than the ballplayers!:lol: ). Animal Planet almost looks HD which is what all of the SD from the 510 used to look like - we kept asking ourselves how much better could HD be than the picture we were seeing and so took several years of going through the bugginess of the 510 before making the leap to the 622.

Yes I have noticed the zoom makes it look worse (and cuts off the info bars as well!) but even in normal with black bars on the side, it looks so much worse than the SD did with the 510. Guess I'm wishing for the best of all worlds - great HD that I get from the 622 and great SD like I had with the 510! Hopefully, when/if they go 'native passthrough', the SD gets better (and hopefully no worse!).


----------



## jcrobso (Mar 30, 2005)

Cool Aid effect: Cool Aid, one pack, two cups of sugar, two quarts of water. Now add two more quarts of water! SD on a HDTV is kinda like this. john


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Upconversion results depend on the hardware being used. If your TV has a Faroudja chip, it will do a pretty good job of conversion. Some proprietary circuitry does as well. My Panasonic projector does a nice job of putting SD on an 8' screen. I keep the video output from the receiver set at 1080i and let the projector clean it up. SD is noticeably softer on the edges, but that is about it. I don't get any compression artifacts or other distortion.


----------



## SonicBee777 (Aug 2, 2006)

We've noticed distinct quality differences between SD stations, similar to the differences we used to see when we relied on an antenna. Some SD stations are very clear and sharp, and others soft and fuzzy. Lately I notice that those SD stations that use a 16:9 rectangle (black bars all 4 sides) for the picture seem to be clearer. Could be an illusion due to smaller overall area, but if nothing else, I like that I can zoom in on that 16:9 rectangle and not lose edge area.

I've learned to remember as I read posts that "PQ" is not only subjective to begin with, but also the size and technology of the display can influence "PQ" as much or more so than the 622. Our 50" XBR1 displays HD beautifully. Some SD, however, looks better on our three-year-old 27" CRT TV.


----------



## Mx_Rider (Jul 14, 2006)

I did an A/B between the 622 and another box, I won't mention the name. The 622 was more blurry then the "other" box. The 622 is hooked via component (at 720p) and the "other" is 480i via svid. The "other" was definately more sharp and vivid compared to the622. I'm not very happy about this...

Box boxes were hooked up to a DVDO vp50, using a 27" westinghouse HD and a Sanyo Z4 120" HP screen.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

Mx_Rider said:


> I did an A/B between the 622 and another box, I won't mention the name. The 622 was more blurry then the "other" box. The 622 is hooked via component (at 720p) and the "other" is 480i via svid. The "other" was definately more sharp and vivid compared to the622. I'm not very happy about this...
> 
> Box boxes were hooked up to a DVDO vp50, using a 27" westinghouse HD and a Sanyo Z4 120" HP screen.


Did you also try setting to 480i/p (you don't have to change the wires) and see what you think?


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

If you have a PQ problem with an OTA digital SD channel, call them and report it, I did that to a local and they said they had a component failure and had the replacement on order.


----------



## Mx_Rider (Jul 14, 2006)

tnsprin said:


> Did you also try setting to 480i/p (you don't have to change the wires) and see what you think?


I have done the 480i switch on the 622, but that was before the vp50. What I can remember about the switch was HD channels would not work in 480i.

My plan for the weekend is to leave the HDMi in and use the svid out to the vp50 and manually change inputs between HD and SD. Well see how that goes, but I'm not expecting much from this 622.

I'm pretty unpleased about the quality from Dish. Hd looks ok, but not WOW. Cable seemed more crisp in HD and SD. I'm stuck with Dish for another year. By that time hopefully someone will come out with more HD channnels then Dish. I should've cancelled my account during the first month. I never expected the HD channels to run the same programming 24/7.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Mx_Rider said:


> I have done the 480i switch on the 622, but that was before the vp50. What I can remember about the switch was HD channels would not work in 480i.
> 
> My plan for the weekend is to leave the HDMi in and use the svid out to the vp50 and manually change inputs between HD and SD. Well see how that goes, but I'm not expecting much from this 622.
> 
> I'm pretty unpleased about the quality from Dish. Hd looks ok, but not WOW. Cable seemed more crisp in HD and SD. I'm stuck with Dish for another year. By that time hopefully someone will come out with more HD channnels then Dish. I should've cancelled my account during the first month. I never expected the HD channels to run the same programming 24/7.


The way you performed the test was an unfair comparison. To be correct you would have to run both of the unit out of the s video of the two different units then that would be sending the same type of signal to the unit from both of them. BTW it is unnecessary to change the scan type to 480i in the receiver. If you come out of the s video output on the 622 it will be showing 480i. Also the HD channels not showing out of the sd output. The HD channels will show out either of the SD outputs except for the OTA digitals which will only show out of the TV 1 output in either SD or HD. If you were seeing nothing thru the DVDO vp50 then there was a setting that was not correctly set for the unit to be a pix that was all black. Something was not syncing correctly.


----------



## debpasc (Oct 20, 2005)

I have been thinking that I am seeing a deterioration in SD. When I first got the 622 back in April, it all looked really good -- both SD and HD. Lately, SD on CBS sat looks pretty bad. I have a 50" Samsung DLP hooked with Component and sit about 10 feet away. The CBS SD is really "soft" almost to the point of being out-of-focus. I thought it might be that I watch so much HD of really good quality that it was just the let-down of SD vs. HD, but other SD (Food Network, TLC, Bravo) doesn't look anywhere near as bad as CBS SD over the sat.


----------



## Mx_Rider (Jul 14, 2006)

whatchel1 said:


> The way you performed the test was an unfair comparison. To be correct you would have to run both of the unit out of the s video of the two different units then that would be sending the same type of signal to the unit from both of them. BTW it is unnecessary to change the scan type to 480i in the receiver. If you come out of the s video output on the 622 it will be showing 480i. Also the HD channels not showing out of the sd output. The HD channels will show out either of the SD outputs except for the OTA digitals which will only show out of the TV 1 output in either SD or HD. If you were seeing nothing thru the DVDO vp50 then there was a setting that was not correctly set for the unit to be a pix that was all black. Something was not syncing correctly.


How can the HD channels output over SVID? 1080i can only output through component, VGA and HDMI/DVI, so in theory svid cannot output HD.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

HD channels are downconveted to 480i when viewed from the svideo connection.


----------



## Hookem (Nov 1, 2006)

Has anyone actually tried using the same connection (svid or composite) out of their 622 and older SD receiver and seen a difference in picture quality on the same TV using the same connection? Until this is done, you can't say that the 622 SD is crap, only that somewhere in the chain from Dish to your receiver to your display is crap.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

Mx_Rider said:


> How can the HD channels output over SVID? 1080i can only output through component, VGA and HDMI/DVI, so in theory svid cannot output HD.


The channels come out cown converter to 480i is how. They are no longer sd when they are output but the channels still come out of the s-vid output. Another case of read the manual.


----------



## jgurley (Feb 1, 2005)

Got my 622 installed today and I'm very impressed with PQ on SD. After reading this thread this was my greatest concern. Here's the bottom line for me:

I upgraded from a 522 which I thought offered good to very good SD PQ using S-vid

I have my 622 connected with components on one TV input and S-vid on another (this way I could make a comparison)

I would rate my SD picture using the components as very good to excellent and the S-vid as good to very good (I am still surprised at this)

I have a Panasonic 42" plasma EDTV with the 622 set at 1080i (I can't really see any difference between 480p and 1080i but time may prove different and that shouldn't effect SD quality anyway)

And last, I set about 10 to 12 feet back from the TV.

I spent much of this afternoon settings things up and playing with my new toy. A lot of that time was spent switching back and forth between TV inputs before posting this. The only advantage for me in using the S-vid input is I can use the panny's "Just" aspect ratio which I like but cannot use on an input connected with hdmi, dvi or components. 

The rest of the afternoon was spent trying to figure out when would be a good time for me to severly trim or cut down a tree with is preventing me from getting a strong signal from 129. But that's for another thread.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

jgurley said:


> I have a Panasonic 42" plasma EDTV with the 622 set at 1080i (I can't really see any difference between 480p and 1080i but time may prove different and that shouldn't effect SD quality anyway)


EDTVs are only 480p so that is probably why you don't see a difference between 480p and 1080i.


----------



## jgurley (Feb 1, 2005)

Rob, you're right about you 480p vs. 1080i and I'll probably experiment with these settings some more, not really expecting any difference. Since 480p is native to my panny I'll probably end up leaving it there.

When researching digital TVs a couple of years ago, three factors became primarily important to me. Overall quality and reputation, price, and the sets ability to handle SD programming since most programs are SD today and will probably be so for some years to come.

I purchased the Panasonic edtv in May of 2005 and have not once regretted it. Both HD and SD really look terrific to me. My viewing distance likely plays a major roll here.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Mark Lamutt said:


> HD channels are downconveted to 480i when viewed from the svideo connection.


I do video capture once in a while, and get excellent DVD quality burns by outputting HD programming to the SVideo port. My theory is that it gives a true 720 x 480 picture, which is hard to find with SD satellite programming.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Hookem said:


> Has anyone actually tried using the same connection (svid or composite) out of their 622 and older SD receiver and seen a difference in picture quality on the same TV using the same connection? Until this is done, you can't say that the 622 SD is crap, only that somewhere in the chain from Dish to your receiver to your display is crap.


Yup, been there, done that. I upgraded from a 510 connected via svid to a Sony 34"XBR widescreen HDTV. Same Tv, just upgraded from a 510 to 622. Since I wanted to see the differences and had read many differing opinions on this forum, I connected the svid same as I had connected it with the 510 and yes, the SD coming out of the 622 is much worse. With the 510, SD looked almost like HD. Some stations' SD is worse than others. As I mentioned in another post, Animal Planet still looks great, but FSN and CBS SD looks horribly fuzzy. Tried all the changes suggested (changing to 480i, 4x3, etc.) but the SD still looks bad. Viewing the SD through HDMI, component or svid looks equally as bad.

So, yes, this has been tried.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I do video capture once in a while, and get excellent DVD quality burns by outputting HD programming to the SVideo port. My theory is that it gives a true 720 x 480 picture, which is hard to find with SD satellite programming.


I agree. HD looks great when recorded to DVD's. We do this all the time to offload movies to take travelling.


----------



## Mx_Rider (Jul 14, 2006)

Did the 622 svid out last night. Same (a little brighter) as the component out. Both outputs, video is a tad blurry. Watched the Laker game last night on KCAL (local LA station) and it looked horrible. Also did an A/B on VH1, garbage.

I can test this on a different TV as well, a Pionner 700HD, but at this point, I really don't care anymore. I just have to settle for a blurry picture for my $90 a month ...


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Mx_Rider said:


> Did the 622 svid out last night. Same (a little brighter) as the component out. Both outputs, video is a tad blurry. Watched the Laker game last night on KCAL (local LA station) and it looked horrible. Also did an A/B on VH1, garbage.
> 
> I can test this on a different TV as well, a Pionner 700HD, but at this point, I really don't care anymore. I just have to settle for a blurry picture for my $90 a month ...


Locals are nowhere near SD. If you record an hour of local programming and note the amount of hard drive space it takes up, you will see that it only occupies about half the space of true SD programming. That's one of the reasons I continue to subscribe to the Superstations package, even though my local stations have pretty much the same programming. The resolution on locals is horrible.

I don't often watch VH1, but my impression is that lots of their source material is pretty low quality. Channels like SciFi or AMC seem to provide a pretty decent SD signal.


----------



## Rob Glasser (Feb 22, 2005)

jgurley said:


> I purchased the Panasonic edtv in May of 2005 and have not once regretted it. Both HD and SD really look terrific to me. My viewing distance likely plays a major roll here.


That is definetly the major roll. I too had a 42" Panny EDTV for about a week back at the tail end of 2004. At 10 - 12+ feet it looked great, both SD and HD content. However, my viewing distance is only about 7 feet. At that distance the screen door effect was horrible. I saw all the pixel structure.

It also does a great job with SD content.


----------



## Lnd Svyr (Mar 19, 2006)

Well, this thread seems to confirm my fears. I just switched to Dish from Directv and my first thought was, "These SD channels are nowhere near Directv clarity." As has been observed in this thread, some SD channels, in my case with a seven year-old Hughes D* receiver, were near HD quality. No more now with the 622. Fortunately, my wife does not care and I just don't watch that much TV that isn't on HD. Alas, goodbye to my fine Sci Fi channel Directv picture. Having a DVR vs. a VCR is a great plus, though! I am running through component with the 622. I may try other settings and cables in an attempt to refine picture quality. At least I am not stuck with Dish for two years as I would have been with a D* upgrade to HD. Other than SD pic quality, I like Dish a lot. I may also hook the 625 up to the same TV and see if there's a big difference but it would not matter anyway since I have to keep the 622 with the HDTV.

It's too bad there is no one to call who may know how to properly setup the 622--at Dish, I mean (if there is even a way to fix the SD problem).

It's just a shame that my satellite bill has doubled and the picture quality has halved. For me the trade-off is I can record my off-air locals and see shows in HD I would have missed because the better half wants to watch Idol.

Thanks for the input.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lnd Svyr said:


> I just switched to Dish from Directv and my first thought was, "These SD channels are nowhere near Directv clarity".


Did this transition to the ViP622 come with any other system upgrades (like a new HDTV or connecting through an AV receiver) that may have some bearing on your PQ?


----------



## apco25 (Oct 2, 2005)

Lnd Svyr said:


> Well, this thread seems to confirm my fears. I just switched to Dish from Directv and my first thought was, "These SD channels are nowhere near Directv clarity." As has been observed in this thread, some SD channels, in my case with a seven year-old Hughes D* receiver, were near HD quality. No more now with the 622. Fortunately, my wife does not care and I just don't watch that much TV that isn't on HD. Alas, goodbye to my fine Sci Fi channel Directv picture. Having a DVR vs. a VCR is a great plus, though! I am running through component with the 622. I may try other settings and cables in an attempt to refine picture quality. At least I am not stuck with Dish for two years as I would have been with a D* upgrade to HD. Other than SD pic quality, I like Dish a lot. I may also hook the 625 up to the same TV and see if there's a big difference but it would not matter anyway since I have to keep the 622 with the HDTV.
> 
> It's too bad there is no one to call who may know how to properly setup the 622--at Dish, I mean (if there is even a way to fix the SD problem).
> 
> ...


That's funny. Did you have an H20 from D* before? I went from D* H20 to E* ViP622 and BOTH the SD and HD were much better (same TV of course using HDMI).

Also, how has the bill doubled?

I would have to agree, the connection to your TV might have changed.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Lnd Svyr said:


> I may try other settings and cables in an attempt to refine picture quality.


Set the 622 to output 1080i. Both HD and SD should look better at that setting.

HDMI will be marginally sharper than component, so give it a try.

Set your TV's sharpness adjustment to the middle of its range.


----------



## Lnd Svyr (Mar 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> Did this transition to the ViP622 come with any other system upgrades (like a new HDTV or connecting through an AV receiver) that may have some bearing on your PQ?


Same HDTV, only now I have gone from using svideo cable to component cables--should be a whole lot better, right? I am going to try running straight to HDTV instead of through receiver.


----------



## Lnd Svyr (Mar 19, 2006)

apco25 said:


> That's funny. Did you have an H20 from D* before? I went from D* H20 to E* ViP622 and BOTH the SD and HD were much better (same TV of course using HDMI).
> 
> Also, how has the bill doubled?
> 
> I would have to agree, the connection to your TV might have changed.


The D* Hughes box is 7 years old-- I don't know if it's an H20 or if they even made H20s back then. I will have to check. I can only run one HDMI so that is reserved fro the upconverting DVD. But, if I was using an svideo before and getting a better picture than now with new tech and component cables...I don't know. I going to see if I can run both svideo and component and use component for HD and svideo for SD. Anyone here know if that's even possible?

The bill doubling meaning I was just basic SD with D* and got my HD off-air (there's just not that much HD on satellite, anyway. I also did not have DVRs (and I am not complaining about extra cost for that--well worth it).

And, while I am editing: is it customary for E* to bill me for two months on the first bill?

Thanks.


----------



## lujan (Feb 10, 2004)

Lnd Svyr said:


> ..
> 
> And, while I am editing: is it customary for E* to bill me for two months on the first bill?
> 
> Thanks.


Yes


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Lnd Svyr said:


> Same HDTV, only now I have gone from using svideo cable to component cables--should be a whole lot better, right?


Not necessarily. Quite often cramming the signal through a composite or Y/C connection smooths out the rough stuff that a component or digital connection passes on happily. If your HDTV isn't very good at processing SD signals (many are positively unbearable), giving it a "sharp" signal can accentuate the negatives. If you're not upconverting, the responsibility for poor SD PQ rests squarely with the HDTV.


> I am going to try running straight to HDTV instead of through receiver.


I had a feeling that you were taking the long way home. Until you leave the analog domain, the more switches and other devices that you pass the signal through, the more the result will be mangled.

All of this said, it is also possible that your receiver is defective.


----------



## Lnd Svyr (Mar 19, 2006)

harsh said:


> Not necessarily. Quite often cramming the signal through a composite or Y/C connection smooths out the rough stuff that a component or digital connection passes on happily. If your HDTV isn't very good at processing SD signals (many are positively unbearable), giving it a "sharp" signal can accentuate the negatives. If you're not upconverting, the responsibility for poor SD PQ rests squarely with the HDTV.I had a feeling that you were taking the long way home. Until you leave the analog domain, the more switches and other devices that you pass the signal through, the more the result will be mangled.
> 
> All of this said, it is also possible that your receiver is defective.


Absolutely not the HDTV! It processed D*s SD signal perfectly (this was through a 7 year-old receiver through an svideo cable. CNN was almost HD Quality--now, it is fuzzy. So, you can imagine what the rest of the SD channels look like. I am certain the 622 has some kind of problem stretching the 4:3 SD pictures and that is what is causing a lot of the fuzziness. I tried running the 622 with svideo straight to the 60" Panasonic HDTV as I did with the old D* box--no comparison. I can't believe the rest of you guys aren't seeing this. Granted, you're not going to notice it so much on TVs 36" or less. But, I still see the lesser quality on mu old 36" Panny SDTV. To be honest, what I am seeing on most of the Dish HD channels on programs that weren't MADE_FOR HD is the same PQ that I was getting on the old D* box in SD. Of course, the MADE-FOR HD programs are excellent. The only thing I have left to try is using the HDMI cable which I save for the upconverting DVD. But I am not going to do that. If I could get near HD in SD with D*, I should get that with E*. Sorry to be the lone dissenter here, just looking to see if there's anyway to fix this problem. I am not even watching SD channels now because the PQ is so bad. Debating on giving up my favorite Friday night shows on SciFi because of this. Guess I'll have to wait for them on DVD.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Lnd Svyr said:


> I can't believe the rest of you guys aren't seeing this. Granted, you're not going to notice it so much on TVs 36" or less.


I have a Sony 34" and, as I've posted, the SD I got through the extremely buggy 510 I had before (hooked up via s-video) looked almost like HD. And, yes, I have the s-video hooked up with the 622 just for comparison (I also have the component and HDMI/DVI hooked up - I wanted to see it all!) and the SD picture quality on some of the stations is really bad on all the hook-ups and with all the variations on resolution I can make - mostly on the sat locals (no OTA available). Animal Planet still looks really good.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

Lnd Svyr said:


> Absolutely not the HDTV! It processed D*s SD signal perfectly (this was through a 7 year-old receiver through an svideo cable. CNN was almost HD Quality--now, it is fuzzy. So, you can imagine what the rest of the SD channels look like. I am certain the 622 has some kind of problem stretching the 4:3 SD pictures and that is what is causing a lot of the fuzziness. I tried running the 622 with svideo straight to the 60" Panasonic HDTV as I did with the old D* box--no comparison. I can't believe the rest of you guys aren't seeing this. Granted, you're not going to notice it so much on TVs 36" or less. But, I still see the lesser quality on mu old 36" Panny SDTV. To be honest, what I am seeing on most of the Dish HD channels on programs that weren't MADE_FOR HD is the same PQ that I was getting on the old D* box in SD. Of course, the MADE-FOR HD programs are excellent. The only thing I have left to try is using the HDMI cable which I save for the upconverting DVD. But I am not going to do that. If I could get near HD in SD with D*, I should get that with E*. Sorry to be the lone dissenter here, just looking to see if there's anyway to fix this problem. I am not even watching SD channels now because the PQ is so bad. Debating on giving up my favorite Friday night shows on SciFi because of this. Guess I'll have to wait for them on DVD.


I'm not sure what I should be seeing. I have a front projector with an 8' screen, and SD programming is generally acceptable. The only objectionable PQ I notice is on locals, and the locals that are broadcasting a digital signal provide the same PQ as the national channels.

I don't understand what you mean by "stretching the 4:3 pictures." Does your TV not display a SD program full height? Check the setup and make sure you have the correct screen aspect ratio set, and check your TV manual for an "auto" setting. I set the receiver at 16:9 1080i and the projector aspect ratio to "auto", and rarely have to zoom or stretch an image. 4:3 programming is full height on the screen, with black bars on the side. 16:9 programming is full screen.

From your description, there is certainly something wrong with your picture, but it may be unique to your system. How does your TV do if you play a standard DVD using the same component inputs? Your satellite signal should be a bit softer than the DVD, but the difference is not extreme.

If you are sure that the TV and the 622 are configured correctly, then there may be something wrong with the 622. Have you called HD tech support? They may swap your receiver.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Lnd Svyr. 

Interesting post. When I originally hooked up my 811 HD Dish receiver to my 60" GWII Sony the SD PQ was unacceptable through component and DVI. Placing a power conditioner really did improve the SD quality for me, but the problem is that toggling back and forth between HD and SD I always get the UGH feeling because of the PQ difference. I personally am really skeptical when people make comments like my SD was HD like though I can understand where that comment comes from. 

I have 622 HD receivers running on 480p on a 4x3 32" Sony CRT tube in the room and the SD PQ from my viewing point is excellent. Two reasons why.. One, it is a 32" TV and two I am about 13' from it while viewing. All help perceived PQ. 

Of course SD PQ is going to Differ between vendors and also between channels. What SD channel on Dish might look good will look bad on DirecTV and visa versa. There are so many posts discussing what company has the best SD PQ and everyone has different opinions on that. 

Couple points.. (Apologize if I am duplicating what you mentioned)

1) How is your PQ if you hook up your 622 via svideo and let the TV do the scaling? Is it any better? worse? 

2) I see a big difference on OTA SD channels compared to the SD versions from Dish.. If you don't see this difference then I would suspect something is wrong here...

3) What is the 622 output set to? Have you tried changing the settings to see if it makes any difference? With the 921, 1080i looked a ton better than 720p on my machine. 

4) Is the poor PQ that you are seeing across all SD channels? Do you have HBO? is it bad there because the premiums should have the best SD PQ. 

5) Having the 622 do the stretching of the 4x3 is not the best way to acheive PQ for your SD. more pixels you have to run that SD picture across the softer the image.

Well thats my thoughts for now...


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> I personally am really skeptical when people make comments like my SD was HD like though I can understand where that comment comes from.


We should have had you visit before we upgraded from the 510 , then you wouldn't be skeptical because you would have seen the beautiful picture we were getting on all channels (would even have fed you dinner)!!:lol: And, yes, it did look like HD, sharp, clear, beautiful colors. But we wanted true HD, where available, and didn't realize that the SD channels we watch would not have the same quality as they did with the 510.

And going from exactly the same setup with the 510 to the same setup with the 622 (same tv, 34" Sony, same seating distance, same hookup), I know where the problem lies and it's not my eyesight - I see the difference in the SD picture and simply wish that Dish would improve it to what I was getting with the 510. I had some hope for this with Native Passthrough but now that looks like it has been put on the backburner so oh well.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Never had my 508 hooked up to my GWII so I have to take your word for it. So you are saying that through the exact same svideo port you noticed a big PQ difference between your 510 and 622? Interesting.. For me it was a step up from my 811, but we are talking apples and oranges here and in my situation the scaling is done on the receiver for the most part. 

My point was mainly that with a smaller TV the differences between SD and HD become less noticeable, but based on your experiences dbconsultant sounds like for your situation the SD quality is very different on your 622 vs. your 510x. 

Interesting....


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Ron Barry said:


> Never had my 508 hooked up to my GWII so I have to take your word for it. So you are saying that through the exact same svideo port you noticed a big PQ difference between your 510 and 622? Interesting.. For me it was a step up from my 811, but we are talking apples and oranges here and in my situation the scaling is done on the receiver for the most part.
> 
> My point was mainly that with a smaller TV the differences between SD and HD become less noticeable, but based on your experiences dbconsultant sounds like for your situation the SD quality is very different on your 622 vs. your 510x.
> 
> Interesting....


Yeah, like I said, I wish you could have seen it before. And your first paragraph is the correct understanding. So I just keep whining because I want the best of both worlds - fabulous HD and high-quality SD on all channels, too. OTA not an option because we live up in the hills and couldn't get reception from any digital stations (I checked). So I'll just keep on whining - hey, at least it makes me feel better to be heard!!!:lol:


----------



## Lnd Svyr (Mar 19, 2006)

Larry Caldwell said:


> I don't understand what you mean by "stretching the 4:3 pictures." Does your TV not display a SD program full height? Check the setup and make sure you have the correct screen aspect ratio set, and check your TV manual for an "auto" setting. I set the receiver at 16:9 1080i and the projector aspect ratio to "auto", and rarely have to zoom or stretch an image. 4:3 programming is full height on the screen, with black bars on the side. 16:9 programming is full screen.
> 
> From your description, there is certainly something wrong with your picture, but it may be unique to your system. How does your TV do if you play a standard DVD using the same component inputs? Your satellite signal should be a bit softer than the DVD, but the difference is not extreme.
> 
> If you are sure that the TV and the 622 are configured correctly, then there may be something wrong with the 622. Have you called HD tech support? They may swap your receiver.


I may look into a swap out on the 622.

As far as stretching, I don't watch the SD channels in 4:3. My old D* box sent the 4:3 to my HDTV and I set the HDTV to "FULL." That was using svideo which allow the HDTV to change aspect ratio. However, let me add that when set to "FULL" the old D* box PQ was still great and I never watched SD at 4:3, always at "FULL."

Now, using component with the 622, my HDTV will not allow me to use anything but "FULL" and the 622 does all of the aspect ratio changing (normal, stretch, etc).


----------



## Lnd Svyr (Mar 19, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> Couple points.. (Apologize if I am duplicating what you mentioned)
> 
> 1) How is your PQ if you hook up your 622 via svideo and let the TV do the scaling? Is it any better? worse?
> 
> ...


Thanks for your thoughts. Again. I like Dish. I like the 622--all except my PQ is not getting the job done.


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

Lnd Svyr said:


> Now, using component with the 622, my HDTV will not allow me to use anything but "FULL" and the 622 does all of the aspect ratio changing (normal, stretch, etc).


Pretty sure that you can force your 622 to output 4:3 so that your TV can do the scaling. You need to tinker a bit with the settings. As I have a 921 I don't know firsthand what the 622 versions say.

(of course, I can't imagine WANTING to see stretched out SD, but there you go... personally I want to see 4:3 material with black bars and widescreen materials full width. Aspect ratios should follow the programming.


----------



## Lnd Svyr (Mar 19, 2006)

koralis said:


> Pretty sure that you can force your 622 to output 4:3 so that your TV can do the scaling. You need to tinker a bit with the settings. As I have a 921 I don't know firsthand what the 622 versions say.
> 
> (of course, I can't imagine WANTING to see stretched out SD, but there you go... personally I want to see 4:3 material with black bars and widescreen materials full width. Aspect ratios should follow the programming.


Yeah, I kinda agree. HOWEVER, the wife refuses to watch with the black bars. So, I relented and we always watch 4:3 at full--and, I even got used to that. But with the 622, even at 4:3 (I HAVE tried) I can still see the Difference in PQ. I can even see it on my old 36" Panny 4:3 SDTV.

Obviously, I can't get the $199 lease upgrade fee refunded so I'll stick with 'em until I feel the cost is amortized--and, like I said, I really like E* otherwise. I'll keep tweaking this and that ditching my favorite shows to watch the kung fu channel with subtitles (oh joy)--at least its HD!:grin:

I even might look at this as an opportunity to revise my viewing habits and see what else is out there. I am really surprised that local TV networks appear to be putting out some better stuff these days--and I can get them in HD.


----------



## jerryyyyy (Jul 19, 2002)

Hello Everyone,

I have not posted for a while, but now am the (proud?) owner of a 622 to feed into my new Sony Bravia and Sony 5200es receiver. The 5200es has the Faroudja chip. This mass of expensive electronics is "PS3 ready".

I know I can figure this out by reading the 80 page manual, but I assume the best way to deal with all the scaling issues raised here is to run the HDMI output at 1080i from the 622 to the 5200es for scaling and then up to the Bravia. Or, is there another way to "pass through" the raw signal and avoid all 622 internal scaling. 

BTW, I get a good OTA signal on many HD channels and Dish is really screwing us on the compression for local stations... you should see Fox in SF Bay Area OTA (I came to that conclusion in 30sec). I guess I can record the OTA on the same box, at least that's what is alleged.

Cheers, and if anyone wants info on the 5200, please ask I have pages of research... it is still on approval and I am still closely evaluating.

PS As of today have the inputs figured out through the 5200.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jerryyyyy said:


> Or, is there another way to "pass through" the raw signal and avoid all 622 internal scaling.


Not at this time.

Unless you watch a whole lot of 720p content, I'd suggest setting the ViP622 for 1080i. If your TV isn't 1080p, you can try using the receiver to downscale.

Don't assume that the ViP622 or your TV have decidedly inferior scalers.


----------



## richbogrow (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> Not at this time.
> 
> Unless you watch a whole lot of 720p content, I'd suggest setting the ViP622 for 1080i. If your TV isn't 1080p, you can try using the receiver to downscale.
> 
> Don't assume that the ViP622 or your TV have decidedly inferior scalers.


I think the SD channels look better when the VIP st set to 720p.


----------



## HDlover (Jul 28, 2006)

The 622 upconverts sd to 1080i, looks good on my set. Blows away Comcast's SD and analog.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

I watch Midsomer Murders via a 622 on a 32" LCD.

Letterboxed so I Zoom it to fill the screen. This would be the worst case scenario as I am zooming a SD letterboxed show so I am blowuing up part of the channel to fill the screen. The first couple of minutes it looks a little poorly, then My eyes (brain?) adjusts and it looks OK from 6 to 7 foot away.

I won't watch a HD channel just because it is HD, I watch TV for content. In this case the content is Midsomer Murders. If the show if 4:3 then I leave it that way. If it is letterboxed then I zoom it. I have the HD Gold package. Now that the new shows are ending on the networks and also now that I've decided most of them aren't worth watching..... I'm watching mostly SD content.

I've seen complaints about HD lite, It looks good to me, Better than the SD channels ever looked. I suspect that the complainers are large screen owners. I sit 3 to 7 feet away from the screen. 32" is large enough. 3 foot distance is where I am now as I type this using it as a computer monitor. Switching back and forth to TV sometimes (PIP). Kind of wild having the Computer as main display and then using the TVs PIP, and then using the 622s PIP inside that pip windows. The TVs largest of 3 PIP window is 13" Easy to read the guide and Dvr title and desfriptions. I get the audio via a Digital Audio/Video Control Center so I get the Optical sound to go along with the Pip window. 

I think I digressed enough. Bottom line,Black bars on the sides don't bother me and in general SD looks decent to me even when zoomed.


----------



## jerryyyyy (Jul 19, 2002)

harsh said:


> Not at this time.
> 
> Unless you watch a whole lot of 720p content, I'd suggest setting the ViP622 for 1080i. If your TV isn't 1080p, you can try using the receiver to downscale.
> 
> Don't assume that the ViP622 or your TV have decidedly inferior scalers.


Now have been watching this combo 622/5200 and the scaling of SD from the 622 to my Bravia is very nice. It goes through my SONY 5200es receiver but that box does not process digital signals (they are passed through). It only reprocesses analog signals. I did set the 622 to 1080i as suggested. 

If anyone is using this equipment combo, have they figured out IR codes to control (shut down) the 5200es from the 622 remote?


----------



## BobaBird (Mar 31, 2002)

Some Sony AV receivers have addressable remotes, similar to Dish receivers. Try changing AV1 to AV2 (or is it the other way?).


----------



## riverawynter (Aug 10, 2006)

All I am going to say is that just search the forum for this topic. It is obvious that there are some issues with E* and SD. I had the opportunity to do a side by side comparison with the 622 and the SA8300HD. I tried every single setting and input(s-video, composite, component, hdmi) and it was obvious that the quality from cable was much better as far as the SD channels. I am still with E* due to the amount of HD channels that they carry.


----------



## teddy (Jun 9, 2006)

riverawynter said:


> All I am going to say is that just search the forum for this topic. It is obvious that there are some issues with E* and SD. I had the opportunity to do a side by side comparison with the 622 and the SA8300HD. I tried every single setting and input(s-video, composite, component, hdmi) and it was obvious that the quality from cable was much better as far as the SD channels. I am still with E* due to the amount of HD channels that they carry.


I just want to confirm what others have said here concerning PQ on SD channels. They look terrible to me, definitely unacceptable. I have tried to fix the problem by all the methods mentioned in this thread without any success. Apparently not everyone has this problem or else I don't think Dish would have any customers left.


----------



## veeper2006 (Dec 9, 2006)

teddy said:


> I just want to confirm what others have said here concerning PQ on SD channels. They look terrible to me, definitely unacceptable. I have tried to fix the problem by all the methods mentioned in this thread without any success. Apparently not everyone has this problem or else I don't think Dish would have any customers left.


Another point not mentioned that affects quality is the ommission of the vip622 to allow for Native Pass-Through. Although the vip622 is a good unit there are displays out there with better scalers/de-interlacers. What occurs is that we now must set our vip622 to a specific scale/resolution -- when this happens and your display receives it -- the signals are on a roller coaster -- up and down then back up. Ergo -- degradation.

Charlie has promised that they are working to allow native pass-through -- but the question remains -- when??


----------



## poopoonation (Dec 14, 2006)

The main reason SD content looks bad on a HDTV is the interpolation process involved. The information for a SD signal is a 640x480 pixel grid. When the SD image is projected onto (for example) a 1366x768 pixel TV (about 3.5 times more pixels), there are essentially 3 way it can be done:

1: Use a 1 to 1 mapping. This involves using only 640x480 (307,200) pixels out of 1,049,088 total pixels. Each pixel displays its value as assigned by the original source. This method results in black bars on all 4 sides, and only about 30% of the screen is used. This method preserves all the original information, and produces a perfect images with no additional pixilation or fussiness. However, assuming your HD TV is 42", your new effective viewing area would be the equivalent of a 21.4" SD TV. But the picture would be perfect. Increasing your TV to a 50" TV (same resolution) would increase your effective viewing area to that of about a 25.5" SD TV, and upgrading to a 60" TV would increase your effective viewing area to that of about a 30.6" SD TV. This is probably the best way to view SD content.


2: Map the 640x480 image onto a 1024.5x768 pixel grid via interpolation (not sure what the tv does with the half pixel). This method is probably the most popular. It essentially stretches the image until the top and bottom edges align with the top and bottom of the screen, and 70% of the screen is used. However, to project 640X480 pixels onto a 1024.5x768 grid some sort of interpolation scheme must be employed, at the very least, and this is where the blurriness arises. The two most common schemes are 2D linear and 2D cubic spline interpolations. A two dimensional linear interpolation is less accurate and gives rise to pixillation. The cubic spline interpolation method is more accurate, but introduces blurriness. Consequentially both methods cause information loss. Therefore an interpolated picture will always look at least a little bit worse than the non-interpolated image, if not a lot worse. Furthermore, when the interpolated image is not an integer multiple of the original number of pixels the information loss becomes more substantial. I.e. a HD TV with 960 (480x2) horizontal lines of resolution would would do a better job displaying SD signals than one with 768 lines.

3. The other ways involve either non-linear distortions of the images to project the 640x480 images onto all 1366x768 pixels, or cropping the 640x480 image to 640x360 and projecting that onto the full 1366x768 pixels. Both of these methods introduce significantly more information loss than method number 2. These schemes should be avoided at all cost, regardless of spousal complaining.

Also, it's important to note that the final output is digital, assuming your TV is LCD or plasma (tube TVs out put an analog signal). Therefore the very best picture will be achieved by keeping the entire process digital. I.e. using the HDMI or DVI inputs. Connecting the receiver to the TV via S-video or RCA cables will only introduce more error and more information loss.


----------



## Larry Caldwell (Apr 4, 2005)

poopoonation said:


> The main reason SD content looks bad on a HDTV is the interpolation process involved. The information for a SD signal is a 640x480 pixel grid. When the SD image is projected onto (for example) a 1366x768 pixel TV (about 3.5 times more pixels), there are essentially 3 way it can be done:
> 
> 1: Use a 1 to 1 mapping. This involves using only 640x480 (307,200) pixels out of 1,049,088 total pixels. Each pixel displays its value as assigned by the original source. This method results in black bars on all 4 sides, and only about 30% of the screen is used. This method preserves all the original information, and produces a perfect images with no additional pixilation or fussiness. However, assuming your HD TV is 42", your new effective viewing area would be the equivalent of a 21.4" SD TV. But the picture would be perfect. Increasing your TV to a 50" TV (same resolution) would increase your effective viewing area to that of about a 25.5" SD TV, and upgrading to a 60" TV would increase your effective viewing area to that of about a 30.6" SD TV. This is probably the best way to view SD content.
> 
> ...


Interpolation schemes are considerably more sophisticated than you think. The most popular interpolation scheme uses last frame-current frame-next frame information to calculate probable pixel values for display. The video processor then applies edge sharpening and smoothing algorithms before sending the picture to the display. Single frame line doubling or pixel averaging is only used on very low end or obsolete equipment.


----------



## JimK (Dec 13, 2006)

dbconsultant said:


> Yeah, like I said, I wish you could have seen it before. And your first paragraph is the correct understanding. So I just keep whining because I want the best of both worlds - fabulous HD and high-quality SD on all channels, too. OTA not an option because we live up in the hills and couldn't get reception from any digital stations (I checked). So I'll just keep on whining - hey, at least it makes me feel better to be heard!!!:lol:


I had my 2 year old 510 hook-up to new tv 1 month before i got the 622,
first thing i noticed was the color was more vivid and somewhat better PQ
on SD 1080i hdmi.

My locals on sat are very poor


----------



## teddy (Jun 9, 2006)

teddy said:


> I just want to confirm what others have said here concerning PQ on SD channels. They look terrible to me, definitely unacceptable. I have tried to fix the problem by all the methods mentioned in this thread without any success. Apparently not everyone has this problem or else I don't think Dish would have any customers left.


I may have found the answer to my SD PQ problem. I had the incoming cable from the satellite to the 622 and the power cable going through a surge protector. I recently discovered that the surge protector was making an audible buzzing noise, so I replaced it. That seemed to solve the PQ problem.
Others with this problem might try temporarily removing the surge protector from their system to see if this helps.

I hope this helps.


----------



## donmurray (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm also not pleased with the 622. It was installed yesterday to replace 2 501's. Same Toshiba rear projector TV as used with the 501. SD, expecially on local channels, is worse. Picture is not as sharp, like out of focus. Have tried all the suggestions in this thread, and no improvement. Tried comparing svideo and component, different settings on receiver and TV. Newer, more expensive receiver should plug in an give at least same PQ. 

So I have more recording time, which I didn't really need, and 4 or 5 HD channels that we may watch. Maybe better recording control via name based recording. Not much improvement for the cost. 

Has anyone run this problem by Dish. With this many people complaining it's not likely to be a setup or cabling issue.

Also TV will no longer show closed captions. Any ideas on that?


----------



## donmurray (Dec 15, 2006)

CC working now. It was not enabled in the 622.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

I have a Hitachi 57F59 RPCRT and the SD channels, especially from Dish like History Channel, etc. have a very good SD picture.

My connection is component.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

My SD looks fine. I hate to watch an SD program anymore after being used to watching HD for a while, but when you consider you are watching SD it's not bad at all.


----------



## richbogrow (Nov 13, 2006)

I have found a great difference in SD quality. Some channels like HBO are quite good. Others like my local channels are very poor.


----------



## donmurray (Dec 15, 2006)

SD PQ was improved when I used the Dish remote ctl to set screen format. Pressed the remote "Format" button until it was at standard format. This causes Black side bars when viewing SD, but full screen in HD. It may be that reducing the screen to 4x3 with black bars increased the effective resolution. 

BTW my screen size button on the TV remote now displays "Not available", so apparently the 622 format setting (or the component cables) disabled the screen size option on the Toshiba rear projecting set. The TV format now appears to adjusts the size according to the program format. 

Maybe someone else knows what is controlling my screen format now


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

I have a toshiba 57 " rear projection tv and when you place the hd receiver in 720p or 1080i and you use hdmi /dvi cable from the receiver to the tv , you will get "Not available" on the screen when you try to format with the tv remote. IF you leave the receiver in 480p , the tv will format the picture along with the dish format/ aspect ratio. I don't know about the component cables since I don't use them .


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

Does HDMI auto format the screen?


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

It does on my toshiba tv. It allows the dish 622 dvr to format everything if it is set to 720p or 1080i.


----------



## donmurray (Dec 15, 2006)

On my Toshiba rear projection the 622 480 setting will allow the tv to control format. with the 622 set to 1080, it controls the tv format and the screen size button on the tv remote gets a "not available". This is with component cables. I'm guessing that when the TV receives a 1080 image signal it does not allow it's format to be modified because there's no logic onboard for reducing the image. It can streach, but not shrink?

I've read that an HDMI connection can allow the source box to control tv format. It has two way communication capability.


----------



## odawgx (Dec 12, 2006)

I was experiencing problems as described above by many people. I can tell you that one suggestion has really helped my problem of watching SD. 

It is much better looking now than it was without this product.

I went out and bought a power conditioner. I beleive this one was made by Monster Cable and around $145. It is not the best one they make but it does the trick. It's the HTS2500 II and I got it on Amazon.

Just a suggestion but I never realized dirty power could case so many problems.

The HD picture looks much better now too. I think no set up should be without this!

Best of luck!


----------



## Rod (Jan 9, 2003)

veeper2006 said:


> Another point not mentioned that affects quality is the ommission of the vip622 to allow for Native Pass-Through. Although the vip622 is a good unit there are displays out there with better scalers/de-interlacers. What occurs is that we now must set our vip622 to a specific scale/resolution -- when this happens and your display receives it -- the signals are on a roller coaster -- up and down then back up. Ergo -- degradation.
> 
> Charlie has promised that they are working to allow native pass-through -- but the question remains -- when??


Actually this feature was promised on a Tech Chat earlier this year (I believe it was March or April) by Dan Minnick who is the Vice President of Engineering. He mentioned on that show he had just discussed native resolution pass through with a co-worker and that it would be implemented by this summer. I vividly remember the answer because I am the one who asked him the question.

When Dan answered the question it was done in a very confident upbeat manner with a certain degree of swagger, that gave me the impression this was a minor upgrade that should be very easy to implement. This must not have been the case because it appears at some point the native resolution pass through train derailed and no one has successfully put it back on the track. I wonder what really happened. Did it get lost in the shuffle or did it prove to be a more difficult challenge than the dish engineers were capable of resolving?


----------



## Mike D-CO5 (Mar 12, 2003)

MAybe they looked at Directv's hd receiver and saw how long it takes to change a channel with native pass through. MAybe they realized this would cause more problems if they did it.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

odawgx said:


> I was experiencing problems as described above by many people. I can tell you that one suggestion has really helped my problem of watching SD.
> 
> It is much better looking now than it was without this product.
> 
> ...


I actually had a similar experience when I put in the 3500 power center. Thought it was snake oil but got a good price so I decided to give it a try. I was very pleased with the results.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Mike D-CO5 said:


> MAybe they looked at Directv's hd receiver and saw how long it takes to change a channel with native pass through. MAybe they realized this would cause more problems if they did it.


After reading some of the D* threads on Native Pass through I thought the same thing Mike. I have been a big fan of it, but if it really slows down channel changing I am not sure I would want to enable it.

Ofcourse.. My gut is that having this as an option is a good thing and it still is on my short list.

As for getting derailed, Well obviously there was some stability issues with audio that took cycles from the team to address and I like anything else in engineering, other priorities get pushed up to the top. Hopefully Native Pass through will happen, the big question is when.


----------



## odawgx (Dec 12, 2006)

Ron Barry said:


> I actually had a similar experience when I put in the 3500 power center. Thought it was snake oil but got a good price so I decided to give it a try. I was very pleased with the results.


I'm glad I am not the only one. It does seem to make a big difference and they will protect your equipment from power issues.


----------

