# Vip622: SD quality is really, really bad.



## sofakng (Oct 12, 2006)

I've just switched from Adelphia/Comcast to Dish Network and the SD quality is really, really bad. It looks very blurry and not clear at all. I'm somewhat familar with video encoding and to me the quality looks over-compressed.

However, on my SDTV with an SD DVR (is it the 522 receiver or something like that?), the SD looks CRISP and VERY nice.

Also, I can tell the SD quality is bad on the Vip622 because the quality of SD with Adelphia/Comcast was MUCH, much better.

Can I improve the SD quality at all? I've only had Dish Network installed for about 3 days and my wife wants me to go back to Comcast!


----------



## Ken Green (Oct 6, 2005)

Have you tried switching the input/output to 480i while viewing SD?


----------



## sofakng (Oct 12, 2006)

In the HDTV Setup screen? Yes, I've tried switching it from 1080i to 480i and 480p but it didn't make any difference


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

I have the same issues, and have not found a fix for the 622... Its posted in the 622 support forum here if you want to check it out.

Basically i have tried every combinations from s-video to 480i output, etc... and I am convinced that there is an issue with the 622's SD signal... depending on your HDTV, it probably does a better job upconverting the signal than the 622 does, and the 622 will always output either 720p or 1080i, depending on what you have it set to for your HDTV.... bottom line, folks have mentioned in the support forum that dish might be working on a "native passthrough" option in the set up, so that sd programming would come through at 480i, and 720p and 1080i content would come through as they are... 

You are not alone on this, but im sorry to say that I have seen no fix as of yet... Im crossing my fingers for "native passthrough" from Dish. In the meantime, i am enjoying my HD, and getting use to the SD.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If sofakng set his output to 480i and 480p that would be the same as having "native pass through" for a SD channel.

Two quick questions: What type of HDTV do you own and how big is the screen?


----------



## sofakng (Oct 12, 2006)

I have a Sony 34HS420. (34" Sony CRT HDTV, 1080i native resolution)

In a few weeks I'll be hooking up my projector (Sanyo PLV-Z5 LCD projector), but my wife might not want me to keep Dish Network if I can't improve the SD quality, heh.


----------



## IDRick (Feb 16, 2007)

Interesting thread, Sofaking. I have not yet switched to Dish. I have the same tv and we love HD on this tv from cable. Analog/SD is only so,so. Just curious, it seems from my minimal reading that HDMI output is a problem with the 622. What connection did you use to the 622, component or HDMI? Switching to component may make a difference... Big SWAG on my part but may worth checking out...

I'll be watching these threads closely. The wife loves to timeshift tv programming on our main tv. If the 622 can't provide reasonable picture on SD shopping network shows, I'm in big trouble for recommending a change in TV service provider.

Best,

Rick


----------



## sofakng (Oct 12, 2006)

I'm using component cables... (fairly high quality ones)

I didn't try HDMI yet... (my receiver doesn't support it, and I don't want to hook it to my TV directly because then I'd have to switch inputs on the TV and the receiver everytime I wanted to watch TV)


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

sofakng said:


> the SD quality is really, really bad. It looks very blurry and not clear at all.


Not sure what to tell you other than my own experience.

Got my 622 installed 2 weeks ago and hooked it to my 65" Hitachi via Componenet. HD is amazing. SD is very good depending on the channel. Seems some channels have more aritfacts than others but over all my SD content on the Hitachi CRT RPTV is NOT blurry and is very usable. I dare say a bit better than D*.

Even when using the Expanded 4:3 mode of the Hitachi the picture is quite acceptable.

YMMV

-Funk


----------



## Mathew (Aug 29, 2006)

I switched from Comcast to Dish and was very happy with the results. Perhaps it varies by location? Example: With Comcast, I couldn't zoom a letterboxed picture - BSG on SciFi for example - to fit the 16x9 screen without an unwatchable picture... With Dish, it's quite acceptable. (Note I had the latest HD/DVR box with Comcast and now have the VIP622).


----------



## Virus (Sep 22, 2005)

I switched from DTV and found Dish's SD on my 622 and 211 are vastly better. SD looks quite good and watchable. This wasn't the case with DTV.


----------



## rustamust (Feb 22, 2006)

My five year old Mits. 55" with component to my 2 week old 622 has outstanding SD in strecth mode and HD is great. OTA HD is even better. Moved up from 211 after a year which was a move up after 18 months with a 811 and each move was a improvment in PQ both HD & SD.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

sofakng said:


> I have a Sony 34HS420. (34" Sony CRT HDTV, 1080i native resolution)
> 
> In a few weeks I'll be hooking up my projector (Sanyo PLV-Z5 LCD projector), but my wife might not want me to keep Dish Network if I can't improve the SD quality, heh.


What is your viewing distance? Something seems a muck here. Also is this across all channels or just certain channels. Some SD will be worse than others.

Would be curious what the 522 compares hooked up to your 622 on this same set. Might be something worth trying.

Other things to look at. Check to make sure that your display mode did not get switched. I know some of my modes will make the picture appear softer. I would also calibrate the input with AVIA or some other DVD disk to make sure I have a good starting point. If sharpness is turned up... turn it down and see if that improves things.

Other than that.. not sure what else to try.... Are you sure you are on the component input and not the svideo one? <- Sorry dumb question, but it has happend before here.

Might even do a svideo to component comparision to see if there is any difference.


----------



## thefunks67 (Feb 4, 2007)

Ron,

Good point about viewing distance. I sit 11' from my 65" Hitachi.

-Funk


----------



## archer75 (Oct 13, 2006)

I switched from my direct Tivo to the 622, I view on a 119" screen with a panansonic projector. 

On average I find that SD is looking better.


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

I had an dual tuner 625 (SD) and upgraded to the 622. I did side by side comparisons before returning the 625 to dish, and the quality of SD was better on the 625 than on the 622. the 622 seems to create alot of what I call ghosting, that makes the picture look soft... its so suttle you can only see it on black screen with a bright logo. I have tried every combination and nothing seems to work... I'm beginning to think that perhaps the 622 has an issue with the power supply, though its the same one as the 625... so not sure why it would affect it, and also why HD would be unaffected and look great..

bottom line, i have just accepted the fact that SD will not look very good, and have moved on... I feel like I've tried everything...

For example... a show on one of the locals that is broadcast in SD on the HD channell looks SO much better than the one broadcast on the SD channell. why this is, i can't seem to figure out. I have a sony 46" e2000 from 11'.....


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

One other thing to try is to consider using one of the SD-only connections for watching SD. Some folks like the softer signal provided by an S-Video cable, as opposed to a component or DVI/HDMI connection. Hence, you can check the picture provided by the S-Video connection (which is always 480i) and see how that appeals to you.

Note that you wouldn't be getting high definition over S-Video, so you'd need to make sure to switch back to the "HD" output mode (at 720p or 1080i) over component or HDMI when watching HD programming.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

farleyville said:


> For example... a show on one of the locals that is broadcast in SD on the HD channell looks SO much better than the one broadcast on the SD channell. why this is, i can't seem to figure out. I have a sony 46" e2000 from 11'.....


I could be wrong here.. But I figured the difference is that the content is being scaled at the source and delivered in HD resolution versus being sent at a lower resolution and then scaled by the TV or receiver.

AT least that is what I figured given that my Survivor OTA looks so much better than my SD dish version of Survivor.


----------



## Slordak (Dec 17, 2003)

The reason why the dish standard definition version of Survivor looks so poor is because Dish compresses the heck out of locals. This gives a lot of softening and compression artifacts as compared to the relatively clean digital OTA broadcast. Locals actually get the most compression out of any of the channel types; national channels get less compression, and premium channels get even less compression.


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

Locals is probably a bad example... but i have tried the s-video hook up for SD and still the older 625 had a better picture in A/B comparisons with the 622. It sounds like others expieriences are different than mine, so something in my setup is obvioulsly causing it? who knows... I've learned to live with it, and the wife is happy. Thats all I can ask for.


----------



## Spirit (Dec 14, 2006)

IMHO Dish compresses their SD programming to such a great degree, that it looks like a jpeg image saved in the lowest quality mode possible... a degree of compression, which, if I were emailing a .jpg picture... I wouldn't email it to my worst enemy in that poor a quality!!
The compression artifacts at the edges of all the internal content of the picture are washed out (smudgy looking) like a watercolor painting.
I also think that since I originally got Dish HD a couple years ago, they've compressed the HD signals more, to such a degree, that my OTA SD signals in 4:3 look nearly as crisp as their HD ones (at least on the HD Mpeg4 signals)!
Does Dish really think we are all that blind?!


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

Spirit said:


> IMHO Dish compresses their SD programming to such a great degree, that it looks like a jpeg image saved in the lowest quality mode possible... a degree of compression, which, if I were emailing a .jpg picture... I wouldn't email it to my worst enemy in that poor a quality!!
> The compression artifacts at the edges of all the internal content of the picture are washed out (smudgy looking) like a watercolor painting.
> I also think that since I originally got Dish HD a couple years ago, they've compressed the HD signals more, to such a degree, that my OTA SD signals in 4:3 look nearly as crisp as their HD ones (at least on the HD Mpeg4 signals)!
> Does Dish really think we are all that blind?!


The answer is probably YES. Most folks are happy that the picture actually fits their new 16:9 TV, and dont know what they are missing. Heck, I'm happy with my Dish quality, HD that is, so maybe I am one of the lemmings I mentioned above. ?


----------



## AVITWeb (Jan 3, 2007)

I also recall a recap from the last chat I think, saying to avoid using S-Video....Althought why, I am not sure...if its that crappy, why have it there as an option?


----------



## colavsfaninnwia (Jan 25, 2006)

AVITWeb said:


> I also recall a recap from the last chat I think, saying to avoid using S-Video....Althought why, I am not sure...if its that crappy, why have it there as an option?


Only reason they said to avoid S-Video is that it does not support any kind of HD signal. However, I have a 510 hooked up to an HD TV (30 inch) via S-Video, and SD looks great on it.


----------



## dartonviper (Mar 10, 2004)

sofakng said:


> I'm using component cables... (fairly high quality ones)
> 
> I didn't try HDMI yet... (my receiver doesn't support it, and I don't want to hook it to my TV directly because then I'd have to switch inputs on the TV and the receiver everytime I wanted to watch TV)


Try bypassing your receiver you can always run digital optical for your sound.


----------



## M5Guy (Jun 24, 2006)

I always use S-Video for SD. It is sharper to me than HDMI or component. I switch to HDMI for HD. Just a click with the remote.

If you have a 16x9 display, the SD will look vastly better in 4x3 pillarbox mode, as well. This is assuming you are using a non-phosphor based display such as DLP or LCD. Be careful doing this if you run plasma or crt based displays (burn-in potential).


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

It seems that SD quality on HDTV's is more dependent on the TV than it is on the receiver.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> It seems that SD quality on HDTV's is more dependent on the TV than it is on the receiver.


True. I have a 2005 HDTV set that was specifically designed to have 1080i and 480i as native resolutions. I can't help but believe that having a 480 format as native helps when displaying 480 content.

Why it looks good when 480i is delivered to the set in 1080i is beyond me. That relies on the upconversion in the receiver (in my case, a ViP-622 DVR). If the upconversion is good for me why don't other people like it? My personal favorite answer is screen size. I am at 37" (which fits my living room). I suspect that most who are noticing problems have larger screens, or are using monitors that don't handle upscaled content very well.


----------



## whatchel1 (Jan 11, 2006)

James is getting close to the answer. Now that the ppl have seen what pq can be they are comparing SD to HD and seeing how bad it really looks. When there was no HD then a blown up large screen looked OK to them. Now that they have the top of the line HD big screen they see how bad it looks when spread out on a 42, 50 or 65 inch HD display. Boy what do they think of VHS now bet they can't even watch it anymore. I have a 32" and it is hard for me to watch SD. So what a larger screen looks like would be almost unwatchable.


----------



## dbconsultant (Sep 13, 2005)

Jim5506 said:


> It seems that SD quality on HDTV's is more dependent on the TV than it is on the receiver.


That has not been our experience. We have had a Sony 34XBR HDTV for several years. Originally it was hooked up via s-video to our 510. Last year we upgraded to the 622 and hooked up the Sony with all of the different connections (s-vid, component, hdmi via dvi) because I wanted a comparison. While the HD stuff is great, programs in SD on most of the SAT Locals and some channels like TLC look horrible and, no, it's not because I'm just "used to HD" now. We noticed the difference right out of the box and the only difference is the 622 and no amount of changing settings made the SD broadcasts any better. Some channels are ok, Animal Planet still looks almost like HD just like it did with the 510. But some channels are really awful - mostly SAT Locals (don't have OTA here) and TLC. So, in our case, it wasn't the TV but the way the 622 handles sending the SD signal to the TV. That's why I'm hoping for native pass through sometime in the near future.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

dbconsultant said:


> So, in our case, it wasn't the TV but the way the 622 handles sending the SD signal to the TV. That's why I'm hoping for native pass through sometime in the near future.


But if you dont like the way most of the SD channels look now when using s-video, I'm not sure what native pass through will have to do with it.

S-video for all intents and purposes *is* native pass through. It only does 480i so it's showing you what standard 480i looks like coming out of that receiver for better or worse.

I'm not sure how allowing 480i to pass through the Component or HDMI output is gonna change anything.

Now for those who do think s-video based 480i looks good right now (at least better than the upconverted version) but dont like the hassle of having to change inputs on the tv every time they go from SD to HD, yeah, I could see where they'd like native pass through.


----------



## late_nights (Mar 1, 2007)

I currently have both Comcast and DISH ((942), for auditioning purposes, and had just about decided to drop Comcast and go with DISH and a 622. Part of my reason for doing so is that DISH SD looks much better than Comcast, at least with the 942. I had previouisly read that the 622 was a better receiver than the 942, and now I'm reading in this thread that Comcast in SD is better than DISH with a 622. So I'm confused.

I am using a new MItsubishi 62-inch DLP which upconverts everything to 1080p, and I receive signals from the 942 in 1080i. Maybe it's true as one poster said that the key is what kind of TV I'm using? I would appreciate some suggestions.


----------



## kkozma (Mar 1, 2007)

whatchel1 said:


> James is getting close to the answer. Now that the ppl have seen what pq can be they are comparing SD to HD and seeing how bad it really looks. When there was no HD then a blown up large screen looked OK to them. Now that they have the top of the line HD big screen they see how bad it looks when spread out on a 42, 50 or 65 inch HD display. Boy what do they think of VHS now bet they can't even watch it anymore. I have a 32" and it is hard for me to watch SD. So what a larger screen looks like would be almost unwatchable.


I think this is exactly it. I bought my HDTV back on black friday before I had any means of watching anything in HD on it. It's an Olevia 332H which has no tuner and I was quite happy with the SD picture I was getting through s-video with my 301 reciever. Then I scored an old D* HD reciver to use it's OTA capabilities to recieve local HD programming. Upon doing so I immediately observed that the SD signal I was seeing from my old 301 is completely unnaceptable!

I had hoped that when I eventually upgraded to Dish HD that the SD channels would be somewhat better due to having a better connection than s-video to the TV, but after reading this I don't know if it will be! I guess I just have to cross my fingers and hope it'll be ok when my 622 gets installed on Monday. It certainly couldn't be any worse than the 301, eh?


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

kkozma said:


> I think this is exactly it. I bought my HDTV back on black friday before I had any means of watching anything in HD on it. It's an Olevia 332H which has no tuner and I was quite happy with the SD picture I was getting through s-video with my 301 reciever. Then I scored an old D* HD reciver to use it's OTA capabilities to recieve local HD programming. Upon doing so I immediately observed that the SD signal I was seeing from my old 301 is completely unnaceptable!
> 
> I had hoped that when I eventually upgraded to Dish HD that the SD channels would be somewhat better due to having a better connection than s-video to the TV, but after reading this I don't know if it will be! I guess I just have to cross my fingers and hope it'll be ok when my 622 gets installed on Monday. It certainly couldn't be any worse than the 301, eh?


My 622 was worse than my 625... and it isnt becuase Im "used to HD" now...


----------



## kkozma (Mar 1, 2007)

Hey, I'm grasping at straws here to make myself feel good about blowing $150 on my 622.

I can hope, right? lol


----------



## farleyville (Jan 8, 2007)

kkozma said:


> Hey, I'm grasping at straws here to make myself feel good about blowing $150 on my 622.
> 
> I can hope, right? lol


If you spent $150 for a 622 for better SD, then you will be drastically dissappointed :nono:

If you spent the $150 for the close to 30 HD channells, then you will be happy.


----------



## DP1 (Sep 16, 2002)

I'm just glad my TV viewing has pretty much evolved into 95% HD anyway.

Mostly just out of coincidence because the vast majority of what I watch is sports, movies and some Network primetime. Mix in a little nature/travel and thats bout it. All of which are well represented in HD. Certainly compared to CNN, USA, Comedy Central or the myriad of other channels on the system that arent in HD. Which I didnt spent any real amount of time watching even before HD came along.

Good thing because my display is a 100" projector that I sit 10-12' from.

Now mind you when I do turn CNN on to watch some breaking news event or something I'm still not freaking out about the PQ cause I'm just there to be clued in anyway. Maybe I'll just move from the front row to the back row or whatever to smooth things out a lil. Extra 8 feet away makes a decent difference.


----------



## kkozma (Mar 1, 2007)

farleyville said:


> If you spent $150 for a 622 for better SD, then you will be drastically dissappointed :nono:
> 
> If you spent the $150 for the close to 30 HD channells, then you will be happy.


No, I got it primarily because I've never had a DVR before and I wanted HD as well. I was hoping that the SD pq would be better than my 301 which is ancient by today's standards.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

kkozma said:


> No, I got it primarily because I've never had a DVR before and I wanted HD as well. I was hoping that the SD pq would be better than my 301 which is ancient by today's standards.


I am surprised about your results. Of course it is dependent on your combination of equipment, but I rate the 622 SD at least equal of any of the SD dish receivers. Note that 480p (thru HDMI or Component) normally looks the best to me for SD channels.


----------



## bigthrust (Feb 21, 2007)

Most final results are a combination of equipment, connection and skill.
I have my 622 connected to a 40" LCD via HDMI set to 1080i/16:9 and SD looks really good. I had to calibrate and tune my TV to get the best picture.


----------



## podder320 (Mar 4, 2007)

late_nights said:


> ...now I'm reading in this thread that Comcast in SD is better than DISH with a 622. ... I am using a new MItsubishi 62-inch DLP which upconverts everything to 1080p, and I receive signals from the 942 in 1080i.


You need to check out my thread in the 622 forum called "Deinterlace problem with 1080i and non-HD channels on Samsung," which explains that my 622 does SD better at 720p than 1080i. I believe this is a software bug in the 622. The exact same thing has been reported on at least three brands of 1080p TV: Samsung, Sony, and JVC. But some Samsung owners also report they are *not* seeing this effect, so it could depend on the particular 622 or software version or something.

I'd love to gather data (please reply in that thread) from owners of 1080p displays who are seeing (or not seeing) the same problem I see, to get traction from Dish tech support.


----------



## kkozma (Mar 1, 2007)

tnsprin said:


> I am surprised about your results. Of course it is dependent on your combination of equipment, but I rate the 622 SD at least equal of any of the SD dish receivers. Note that 480p (thru HDMI or Component) normally looks the best to me for SD channels.


I hadn't recieved any of my equipment when I posted my response above. I was hoping the SD quality on the 622 would be better than my old 301, but then I was hearing it wasn't. Goes to show that I should just wait and offer up my own opinion. The SD quality for me is much better than my 301 ever was on this particular TV. I set my TV (Olevia 332h) to 1:1 pixel mode and just use the scaling features of the 622 to make it fit my screen. I find that partial zoom looks best to me.

Another thing to metion here is that for the people who are having pq problems with dish sd content, take a look at the sd content from yout OTA if you have it. The SD content from my OTA antenna is a tremendously better than the SD Dish content. If I think about it, I'll post some screen shots...


----------



## Mr.72 (Feb 2, 2007)

I think the big difference with Dish is the compression artifacts, at least compared with OTA SD content.

Now, having said that, I have watched DVDs on my 37" LCD with a non-progressive-scan DVD player that are basically 480i and they look stunning. So the TV itself can do a bang up job of converting 480i. The problem comes when you have multiple conversions or a system doing a bad job of converting it to begin with. I don't think the SD broadcast on Dish is likely 480i. Can anyone confirm this? Are these channels really sent interlaced at 60 Hz? I am not sure that makes any sense for MPEG-2. More likely the content comes out of the MPEG decoder looking something like 480p at 25 or 30 frames per second, and then the 622 turns it into 480i or 480p on transport to the TV. So the interlacing/deinterlacing, frame buffering is done by the 622. It would only be interlaced if being sent to the S-Video or composite output (TV2 etc). If you have the receiver set for 720p then there is no more filtering or reconstruction going on, just scaling from 480->720 lines. So I think maybe artifacts of the interlacing and frame buffering process are maybe smoothing out the signal on the S-Video. 

I suspect that if you choose 1080i output it employs a different piece of hardware to interlace the HD outputs, different than the hardware to interlace the 480i on the S-Video output.

This is of course all conjecture but I can think of many technical reasons why the S-Video and HDMI/component outputs would look very different when displaying a SD channel.

FWIW native pass-thru is not likely to fix this IMHO ... well not if my assumptions are close to correct, which is the decoded MPEG-2 channel stream is really a 25 or 30 fps 480p stream. Native pass-thru would make it transmit these as 480p but it would not employ the interlacing step that may improve the appearance of the picture quality on the S-Video cable ... Now if this 480p picture passed to the TV for scaling results in a better picture (i.e. the TV scaler is better than the 622 scaler, which I guess could happen), then maybe you will get a better picture with native pass-thru. However if it is true that the S-Video output looks better, then there is some kind of processing done to convert the likely 480p to interlaced and I bet that's what's improving the PQ. So unless you can turn on that processing on the HDMI or component output, you are not going to get this benefit.


----------

