# Voom MonstersHD resolution issues ...



## Gary Murrell (Jan 11, 2005)

Guys I have a sort of weird finding here to tell and (actually show you), I have been watching MonstersHD over the past few days and it has been looking pretty darn good, well I seriously think that MonstersHD is back at 1920x1080i, so I pulled up a old capture of "The Wicker Man" from MonstersHD when the channel first started on Dish, it is 1920x1080i
The MonstersHD channel is still listed as 1280x1080i in the headers, we all know this is useless info
so this evening at 10:30 I captured some of MonstersHD, from "The Wicker Man"
I would almost be willing to bet that MonstersHD is 1920x1080i and not 1280x1080i
Want Proof, the screenshots below are virtually identical and my display and eyes are agreeing
here is a screenshot to compare:
1280x1080i from this evening from Monsters HD:








1920x1080i from 5 months back on MonstersHD:








Zoomed in area:








if this is in appropriate, mods please delete, I also posted in the Voom thread
I viewed Wicker man a few weeks back after the change to 1280x1080i and it looked like **** compared to this evening and months back

here is one more:

1280x1080i from this evening from Monsters HD:








1920x1080i from 5 months back on MonstersHD:









Identical in every aspect

we have 1920x1080i on MonstersHD as of now folks 

-Gary


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Cool. Thanks for the update.
Do you have a stream rate?

JL


----------



## Gary Murrell (Jan 11, 2005)

I am getting mpeg2 header of 1280x1080i still, which is weird(but menas nothing of course), video bitrate is around 14.5 - 15 Mbps or so, a 1920x1080i movie channel at that bitrate is fine, and as you can see the screen grabs are identical

if this lasts until Road Warrior Saturday night, I will be a happy man 

-Gary


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ok, I have to ask a dumb question...

I seem to remember some folks posting on the other forum recently that they thought their Voom looked better... but several people resoundingly told them that "no, it is still the same"... yet it would seem based on this new thread, that perhaps the channels (or at least MonstersHD) did improve.

Which makes me wonder how much of this has been psychological... A bunch of folks didn't notice until people started telling them how crappy it was... and then when people thought it looked better, they were told it was still crappy... but now after this thread, I bet there will be a switch and suddenly people that thought it was crappy will realize it isn't crappy after all, because they read a post saying it isn't crappy.

NOW... this isn't to say that Dish didn't tweak things down a while back... and has now perhaps tweaked them back up... but I see a whole bunch of people not relying on what they are seeing but on what other people are telling them they are seeing.

Fact of the matter is... I saw the freezes and the pixellations that everyone else saw... but there have been times I thought it looked blocky when others thought it was fine and other times when I thought it looked fine when others said it looked blocky.

Go figure.

But maybe there will be light at the end of the tunnel in any event.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm not sure how much E* has been tweeking the signal and how much they have been tweeking Gary by listing 1280x1080i in the headers.  The bit rate is a positive improvement.

JL


----------



## Gary Murrell (Jan 11, 2005)

there is no tweaking when resolution is involved, it is either 1280x1080i or 1920x1080i

they can run the bitrate of 1280x1080i up to 25 Mbps and it will still look like total ass compared to the true 1920x1080i image at even 12 Mbps(this would apply to the above comparison), it's becuase the 1280x1080i was obtained by converting/scaling/downrezzing the original 1920x1080i

-Gary


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

But as far as the headers are concerned, it's still 1280x1080i ?
(I'm not questioning the real video signal, just the headers.)

JL


----------



## Ghostwriter (Oct 11, 2005)

Yes the headers are still listed a t the old 125x1080.


----------



## Gary Murrell (Jan 11, 2005)

Headers are still 1280x1080i, GalleryHD headers were at 1920x1080i and the channel was HD-Lite
Here are untouched full size caps for purists:

1280x1080i from this evening from Monsters HD:








1920x1080i from 5 months back on MonstersHD:









-Gary


----------



## boylehome (Jul 16, 2004)

Here is another dumb question:

Are the VOOM channels offered at the same format and bit rate on both satellites, 61.5 and 129? The reason I ask is because I have viewed the channels on both and it seems that the quality is crisper on the 61.5 and fuzzier on the 129.


----------



## Tom in TX (Jan 22, 2004)

In the sample pictures in Gary's post#1, In the one with the guy in a turtleneck sweater... If you look at the second screen, and look at the bottom, there is a hand holding a piece of paper. I see a "noticeably" clearer image than on the first sample. I can see the paper more clearly, as well as the outline of the hand is sharper. Anyone else see the difference?
Tom in TX


----------



## moman19 (Oct 22, 2004)

Tom in TX said:


> In the sample pictures in Gary's post#1, In the one with the guy in a turtleneck sweater... If you look at the second screen, and look at the bottom, there is a hand holding a piece of paper. I see a "noticeably" clearer image than on the first sample. I can see the paper more clearly, as well as the outline of the hand is sharper. Anyone else see the difference?
> Tom in TX


You are correct.....although it's probably not noticeable in anything but a close-up, freeze-frame, side by side comparison. Also notice the border along the man's light sweater and his dark jacket. There is much less of a saw-tooth effect with the higher res. image. But this is to be expected and probably not noticeable with a moving image viewed from 10 feet back.

True, it's a compromise away from perfection. But if it gets me 10 more QUALITY HD channels, it's worth the trade off, IMHO.


----------



## LtMunst (Aug 24, 2005)

MonstersHD is definitely better today that it has been (even on my 1280x720p). And yes, I noticed this before viewing this thread, so no power of suggestion at work this time. I am watching Sinbad for like the 4th time and noticed the difference right away.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Now I was just reading at the "other" site how he was wrong after all, and Monsters is still 1280x1080i.

So... posted screen captures compared from yesterday and a month ago that appear to show very little difference between Dish now vs then... but I bet everyone will go back to "it's all crap" after seeing the "I was wrong" messages instead of actually watching the channel (as I notice several people who have been saying its crap haven't even been watching in a while)...

Waiting for the shoe to drop...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I've renamed the thread accordingly. Thanks for posting the correction HDMe.

Based on the pictures posted above many won't be able to tell the difference between 1920x1080i and 1280x1080i. Perhaps it was the increased bitrate that helped clear the signal.

JL


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

Is any one paying close attn to clip 1 vs clip 2 I see more green tint in area on the 1 where 2nd pic don't show it as much.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

SHS,

If I really stare at the two latest images... and try to remind myself not to trick myself into thinking anything...

I believe I do see more detail in the older/earlier capture. Keeping in mind Gary said these weren't exactly the same frames... and I expect it would be miraculous to actually do that to have a direct comparison... I still think I see more detail in his older screen capture.

I do, however, see more contrast difference in the new picture.... which might be what you are seeing. The green looks greener, and the black looks blacker... or one looks moreso and therefor makes the other appear moreso as well.

I also agree with someone else (can't remember if it was here or the other place) who saw some minute differences in the old lady hanging out the window... her eyes seem a bit less detailed in the newer picture.

However, these are comparisons noted on a still frame that has been zoomed in and stared at for a long time by me now. IF I was watching this live, I think my reaction would be just what Gary originally posted... and I would think I was watching the same thing.

Which kind of leads us back to one of the original discussions... of whether the bitrate and MPEG compression was more important than the starting resolution. If they have turned down compression and/or increased bitrate but still are slightly downconverting to a lower resolution... that could explain the picture quality improvement.

Granted, I would LOVE and want full 1920x1080i resolution on all channels that have that as their source material... but in lieu of another choice at the moment, I would like to see them put forth the best quality they can. I realize that if we ever went truly HD across the board (many many many years in the future) there would either have to be a whole lot fewer channels OR a major technology change for satellite to be able to deliver them in high quality.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

Hi HDMe I don't know if show this post by me here
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=622488
and one I post here which pettey much the same thing which I think they mess with around with SD channel which my be cuasing odd thing maybe some of you not see or not paying closes eougth attn to it that I do see but one thing I do know is that cable didn't do that.

I still don't get why some people are cry about 1920x1080i vs 1280x1080i resolution when key thing had more to do with MPEG compression then any else after all that what cuases a lot artifact in first place and would nice if dish would bump the SD channel up a bit more, But if they start mess with Vertical Resolution like taking org source material 1920x1080i resolution and then down convter it to 1280x720p we should see odd thing happing unlike if the org source material was all ready 1280x720p, It really not all that much difference then doing let say doing 352x480 HalfD1 vs 720x480 FullD1 at the very same bitrate.


----------



## AdamGott (Nov 30, 2005)

SHS said:


> Hi HDMe I don't know if show this post by me here
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=622488
> and one I post here which pettey much the same thing which I think they mess with around with SD channel which my be cuasing odd thing maybe some of you not see or not paying closes eougth attn to it that I do see but one thing I do know is that cable didn't do that.
> 
> I still don't get why some people are cry about 1920x1080i vs 1280x1080i resolution when key thing had more to do with MPEG compression then any else after all that what cuases a lot artifact in first place and would nice if dish would bump the SD channel up a bit more, But if they start mess with Vertical Resolution like taking org source material 1920x1080i resolution and then down convter it to 1280x720p we should see odd thing happing unlike if the org source material was all ready 1280x720p, It really not all that much difference then doing let say doing 352x480 HalfD1 vs 720x480 FullD1 at the very same bitrate.


I am not really trying to be an ******* but it's called a period. Use it. It is pretty hard to decipher what you meant.

I would say that overall I would like to see more bitrate at any resolution over a higher resolution at lower bitrate. I know that Gary disagrees but I have seen what happens with SD material as they have gradually decreased the bitrate over the years.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

AdamGott said:


> I would say that overall I would like to see more bitrate at any resolution over a higher resolution at lower bitrate. I know that Gary disagrees but I have seen what happens with SD material as they have gradually decreased the bitrate over the years.


I agree with you, and think a lot of people miss the big picture.

If Dish gives us 1920x1080 but compresses it heavily with MPEG2 (or MPEG4) which is a lossy compression algorithm... then starve the bitrate... what is the effective resolution that survives to our TVs?

Vs perhaps if they scale down the resolution a bit, don't compress it as much and give it higher bitrate.

IF we were getting pure uncompressed 1920x1080 then I feel confident that most of us would truly see a huge difference! Fact is, however, we aren't getting that and will never get that I bet... so the more proper comparision isn't about the source but about what we get in the end.

I want the best we can get with the current technology... and I know that I don't know enough about their equipment to say for sure just what that configuration is at this time.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I have to agree about bitrate... When it comes down to it there are a number of factors that feed into a qood quality picture. 

1) Resolution
2) Bit Rate (How much compression is occuring for a given
3) Encoding (How well is the source material encoded)

Of the three. I would say #2 and #3 are the biggest contributors to PQ. Reason I say that.. Look at what people see on DVDs. A good DVD is well below HD but can deliver a very stunning picture. I have also seen some DVDs that are horriable transfers. Same technology, Same output resolution, but bad final output. (Yes I know about all the different types of DVDs one can have and I am talking the same type of DVD just different Encoding and final bit rates). 

In the end, It is my opinion it is all about perceived PQ. Resolution is part of the picture, but only small piece of the whole picture. In the end what matters is that you get a nice picture that looks impressive to


----------

