# The decline of DirecTV's picture quality



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I hate to say it, but I fear that D*'s picture quality seems to be declining. Example - last night, I was watching the Duke/UCLA game on ESPN. Thought the picture looked a bit washed out, so I flipped on my alternate source, and the PQ on the same TV with the same video settings was a LOT better. Everything from color to detail was noticeably better. My wife actually asked what I did to improve the picture.

Do you think that the launch and activation of the new D14 satellite will help PQ by increasing available bandwidth? If not, I'm seriously thinking for the first time of jumping ship over PQ.

It's a real shame, because when I started with D* in 1996, the PQ was significantly better than anything else I could get my hands on. Then, when the new birds were first lit up, channels like HDNET were like watching a BluRay - amazingly great picture quality.

But today's D* has decreased its picture quality.

In a world where a low-bitrate MP3 played through cheap earbuds passes for high quality, I know I'm probably in the minority here. But I rue the loss of what brought me to DirecTV in the first place - great picture quality.

For details, I was watching on a Panny 65VT25 plasma that was ISF-calibrated earlier this year.


----------



## JohnBoy (Sep 9, 2011)

I had D* in 08-10 and the picture quality was out of this world back then and I just recently came back in July 2013 and have noticed the picture quality was not like how i remembered it.

I compared my local ota to D* locals and it was not even close.The compression on my D* locals made fleshtones a bit hot compared to the natural look of the ota feed.Back then the two feeds were almost identical,you could be hard pressed to tell the difference.

I too have a Panny GT30 calibrated set and learned through ocd on whats great pq.


----------



## randyk47 (Aug 21, 2006)

Maybe I'm not observant enough but I don't sense or think I see a decline in the PQ from DirecTV. What I think I see is actually an increase in the PQ from other providers, almost like DirecTV set the standard early on and the rest have scrambled to catch up. I changed to DirecTV back in 1999 when the PQ from our cable provider was just plain poop. At that time we were in a brand new house in Fairfax County in Northern Virginia and were on one of the oldest cable systems in the US. Not only were they dealing with original cable buried in the 70's but it had been dug up, spliced, repaired, extended, boasted, etc., etc., to the point it was barely watchable. I never got around to installing an OTA in that house so I can't compare or speak to PQ in that respect. Moved to Texas some ten years ago and stuck with DirecTV as I'd become a NFL Sunday Ticket fan and didn't want to give that up. I have the choice here to go with cable (TWC) or OTA and the previous owner of the house installed a good antenna in the attic that I use with my AM21s and my one guest room TV that only has OTA. (NOTE: We have U-verse Internet here but they're not able or willing to provide U-verse TV yet.) Now my neighbors have everything from just OTA to TWC to Dish/DirecTV. The ones who have watched games with me are complementary about the PQ but then again that could be nothing more than I'm the only one with Sunday Ticket. Then again they watch that with me in my media room so there's the seating, the lighting, and the surround sound system. May not be totally state-of-the-art or perfect but it's darn good.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I hate to say it, but I fear that D*'s picture quality seems to be declining. Example - last night, I was watching the Duke/UCLA game on ESPN. Thought the picture looked a bit washed out, so I flipped on my alternate source, and the PQ on the same TV with the same video settings was a LOT better. Everything from color to detail was noticeably better. My wife actually asked what I did to improve the picture.
> 
> Do you think that the launch and activation of the new D14 satellite will help PQ by increasing available bandwidth? If not, I'm seriously thinking for the first time of jumping ship over PQ.
> 
> ...


ESPN is in 720p and my 1080p Panny plasmas do not put out nearly as good a picture on 720p content as they do on 1080i content.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

randyk47 said:


> Maybe I'm not observant enough but I don't sense or think I see a decline in the PQ from DirecTV. What I think I see is actually an increase in the PQ from other providers, almost like DirecTV set the standard early on and the rest have scrambled to catch up.


Netflix's Super HD is a good example of that. It blows away D*'s 1080i PQ. It takes me a few minutes to adjust to D*'s PQ after watching streaming NF SHD.

Rich


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I too agree with the HD PQ seeming to be not as good as it once was. 

Sent from my PantechP8010 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

You should see Dish... Locals do kinda stink IMO, comparing them to OTA on my Tivo, but Cable networks arent bad. Sporting events are hard to eval, because they vary on the source end. Just watch ESPN all day during football and you will see what I mean.


----------



## itzme (Jan 17, 2008)

On my Samsung 59D8000 plasma I especially notice Directv's lower bitrate when there are dark scenes or lots of black. On directv they look blotchy and irregular, but if I watch the same content OTA or from a video file, I don't see those issues.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

randyk47 said:


> Maybe I'm not observant enough but I don't sense or think I see a decline in the PQ from DirecTV. What I think I see is actually an increase in the PQ from other providers, almost like DirecTV set the standard early on and the rest have scrambled to catch up.
> Snipped


What I suspect is that it has nothing to do with not being observant. It has to do with it happening gradually enough so that You do not notice it. What do You see if You compare recordings from years ago to the same channel no?

Some of the best PQ I see is from Cable on locals tuned in on the TV set's ClearQam tuner.
Then I Have satellite TV. I can compare recordings from back in 2006 when I got the HD DVR. Knock Wood, 7+ years and still working BTW. followed by the DVD recorder with hard drive when recording the HD locals. The Satellite TV quality still looks just as good to me. However I am on a 32" HDTV and a 24" HDTV and a Sony SDTV. I find the Sony is still the best way to watch SD content from Satellite and DVDs.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I'd never chose a espn live broadcast to determine pq. 

Look at discovery and HBO etc and compare there and see if you see these differences and then check the settings on your tv. So often people have higher contrast and brightness on other inputs. Maybe you need to do some tweaking.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I hate to say it, but I fear that D*'s picture quality seems to be declining. Example - last night, I was watching the Duke/UCLA game on ESPN. Thought the picture looked a bit washed out, so I flipped on my alternate source, and the PQ on the same TV with the same video settings was a LOT better. Everything from color to detail was noticeably better. My wife actually asked what I did to improve the picture.


What was the alternative source?

I was appalled at the PQ in the recent 49er's football game on Fox. Dunno how much was Fox, how much DIRECTV....


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

inkahauts - I have both sources going through a Denon AVR-4311 with video processing disabled and sent to the same input on my TV. To me, that's an equal test.

The decline in PQ is like the old "boiling frog" metaphor to me.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

To those comparing to OTA - That's a ridiculous comparison between technology. Two different things with too many variables.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Dumb question # 897.43:

When you change source does it switch inputs on your TV? If so are your individual inputs independently set for picture settings? Are these different? Whoops just read your response to inkahauts. OK. . .

When using a live sporting event as a baseline you are on slippery ground between carriage agreements, actual program source quality, and technical/weather issues between the source, its broadcast, Direct TV's receive/retransmit .

I've not seen any degradation on any of my "haunts".

Don "and I'm looking for em too" Bolton


wilbur_the_goose said:


> I hate to say it, but I fear that D*'s picture quality seems to be declining. Example - last night, I was watching the Duke/UCLA game on ESPN. Thought the picture looked a bit washed out, so I flipped on my alternate source, and the PQ on the same TV with the same video settings was a LOT better. Everything from color to detail was noticeably better. My wife actually asked what I did to improve the picture.
> 
> Do you think that the launch and activation of the new D14 satellite will help PQ by increasing available bandwidth? If not, I'm seriously thinking for the first time of jumping ship over PQ.
> 
> ...


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I guess I would never use ESPN as a measuring stick of PQ...their PQ usually sucks on every provider. I do occasionally compare PQ between OTA and sat delivered locals, or try to see how a sat delivered picture compares to one of my BD's....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> inkahauts - I have both sources going through a Denon AVR-4311 with video processing disabled and sent to the same input on my TV. To me, that's an equal test.
> 
> The decline in PQ is like the old "boiling frog" metaphor to me.


Anything that's live id not use as a measuring stick because you don't know if they take significantly different routes that aren't equal and can't be balanced to be equal either. Just to many what ifs. I'd be curios if you had the same issues with all channels is really my point. Espn has issue IMHO.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> inkahauts - I have both sources going through a Denon AVR-4311 with video processing disabled and sent to the same input on my TV. To me, that's an equal test.


What is the alternative source for ESPN?


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> What is the alternative source for ESPN?


I dont know what his was, but I get ESPN on my Roku, or computer via internet after logging in with my Comcast password.
I havent really noticed the Roku stream was better than DirecTv, nor can I say the Comcast (Xfinity) cable feed is better/worse. 
Pretty much all 720p content looks the same on my 60" LCD. Only on the 1080i stuff do I notice a difference, and even then its not that large a difference, but DirecTv is slightly better than Comcast on identical channels, and for those channels that have a C band feed that is not scrambled, the C band feed blows both DirecTv and Comcast away. Watch Fox football games on CTV on Sundays is the only source of 720p material I have see that is noticably better. The C band 720p channels look MUCH better than any other source I have.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

ESPN looks good to me 720p or 1080i, maybe the tv settings needs adjusting, however some of the Viacom cable channels in particular MTV looks degraded somewhat but not horribly bad, But I never noticed until now, But I'll put up with it since it's a crappy channel anyway.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

My alternate source is Verizon FiOS. Both signals go into the same input on the TV (They are passed unprocessed through a Denon receiver - HDMI all the way).

I used to think ESPN always had PQ issues before I saw ESPN on FiOS.

For what it's worth, it's better across the board.

I'm not planning on giving up D* because of NFLST combined with the horrible channel number mapping on FiOS (seems like the channel numbers were plucked out of a hat). BUT - if D*'s PQ doesn't get better after D14 launches, I'm going to think long and hard about ending my 15+ year relationship with D*.


----------



## westview (Dec 27, 2011)

The problem might be will ESPN's older equipment. I notice the difference in some games. As many games as ESPN does, some of the equipment is a lot older than others.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I used to think ESPN always had PQ issues before I saw ESPN on FiOS.


Interesting. I wonder if ESPN is providing a high quality MPEG2 feed to FiOS and a crappy MPEG4 feed to everyone else?

If not, and everyone's getting the same (MPEG2) feed, then what you're seeing would indicate DirecTV's doing a lousy job transcoding ESPN's MPEG2 to MPEG4. That would surprise me, tho, since DirecTV does a pretty good converting broadcast network MPEG2 to MPEG4, IMHO. Why would they drop the ball with ESPN? :scratchin


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I hate to say it, but I fear that D*'s picture quality seems to be declining. Example - last night, I was watching the Duke/UCLA game on ESPN. Thought the picture looked a bit washed out, so I flipped on my alternate source, and the PQ on the same TV with the same video settings was a LOT better. Everything from color to detail was noticeably better. My wife actually asked what I did to improve the picture.
> 
> Do you think that the launch and activation of the new D14 satellite will help PQ by increasing available bandwidth? If not, I'm seriously thinking for the first time of jumping ship over PQ.
> 
> ...


The good news is they are charging us more to make up for it...... Hey wait a minute......


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> What was the alternative source?
> 
> I was appalled at the PQ in the recent 49er's football game on Fox. Dunno how much was Fox, how much DIRECTV....


It's Fox. Worst 720p PQ I get.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich said:


> It's Fox. Worst 720p PQ I get.
> 
> Rich


It was worse than the normal Fox fare. Gosh, I wish they'd never gotten into sports. They are the worst at it. Our local Comcast Sports is better.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> My alternate source is Verizon FiOS. Both signals go into the same input on the TV (They are passed unprocessed through a Denon receiver - HDMI all the way).


You might be seeing the prestine signal I am seeing when watching on C Band, which is mpeg2. If FIOS is just feeding the channel directly without conversion, then you would see the same great PQ I do, whereas, DirecTv has to reencode the mpeg2 to mpeg4. No matter how good the equipment is, every reconversion introduces artifacts and more loss. I am not sure how FIOS works i.e. do they send down the full channel bandwidth or compress it like Comcast's mpeg2? In any case, its great having multiple sources. We dont have FIOS here, so in our area, DirecTv offers the best available PQ for commercial non-hobby pay TV at the moment.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> It was worse than the normal Fox fare. Gosh, I wish they'd never gotten into sports. They are the worst at it. Our local Comcast Sports is better.


I know what you mean. YES carries most of the Yankees games and I see many problems watching them.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Yesterday, I wanted to watch an episode of _Homeland_ that I had seen the previous day went to On Demand and hit the Watch Now option. I knew the show was in 1080i but the PQ was really shabby. Then I glanced up at the two 24-100s I have stacked in that room and the resolution lights weren't in the right places. I grabbed a flashlight and checked the front panel of the 100 I was watching and what I "knew" was 1080i turned out to be 720p.

I suffered thru that episode, saw the parts I needed to see and turned on the next episode and got it in 1080i. That episode had been downloaded a couple days prior to all this. The PQ was pretty good on that, nothing to complain about, not as good as NF's SHD, but very watchable.

Just like my other two 1080p plasmas, the 42" really doesn't seem to like 720p. It also throws a hissy fit if I use component wires on it. Never tried component on my other two 1080p sets, so I don't know if that is common to all the Panny plasma 1080p sets.

I really think _*Randyk47*_ (hope that's correct) hit it on the nose in his post about comparing the 1080i PQ to other higher resolution content, such as BDs, NF's SHD and, even, D*'s 1080p On Demand content. 1080i is just not as good as a good 1080p picture. Perhaps we spoil ourselves in this regard. Comparing 720p sports events viewed on any of my three 1080p sets is really a downer.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Rich said:


> Yesterday, I wanted to watch an episode of _Homeland_ that I had seen the previous day went to On Demand and hit the Watch Now option. I knew the show was in 1080i but the PQ was really shabby. Then I glanced up at the two 24-100s I have stacked in that room and the resolution lights weren't in the right places. I grabbed a flashlight and checked the front panel of the 100 I was watching and what I "knew" was 1080i turned out to be 720p.
> 
> Rich


The "watch now" option does reduce the resolution to 720p.
Recording gives you the full resolution.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> I know what you mean. YES carries most of the Yankees games and I see many problems watching them.
> 
> Rich


What problem? YES has a top notch PQ better than almost everything I've seen.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> The "watch now" option does reduce the resolution to 720p.
> Recording gives you the full resolution.


I didn't know that. I do now. Wonderful. You'd think they do the same thing they do when you download, ask if you want the best resolution or a faster download. Last time I ever hit that Watch Now option.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> What problem? YES has a top notch PQ better than almost everything I've seen.


We're a pretty good distance apart, that might have something to do with it. I watch every game of the season and I see all kinds of glitches. The PQ's fine, it's the glitches I was referring to. Don't see the glitches very much on home games, figured it had something to do with being in a different environment.

Rich


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Rich said:


> We're a pretty good distance apart, that might have something to do with it. I watch every game of the season and I see all kinds of glitches. The PQ's fine, it's the glitches I was referring to. Don't see the glitches very much on home games, figured it had something to do with being in a different environment.
> 
> Rich


Ohok. I watch every game, too, via EI on yes or the My9 alternate feed. My9 usually looks worse.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Ohok. I watch every game, too, via EI on yes or the My9 alternate feed. My9 usually looks worse.


We don't see any difference between My9 and YES. If it weren't for the logos, I wouldn't know the difference. Same announcers.

Rich


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

It still looks good to me, I compare locals on directv to OTA and I can't see a difference. I can see a difference in Blue ray 1080P and direct.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I sometimes think that it depends on the time of day, In the daytime to me it looks average, while in the nighttime it looks good to me, But I attribute that from the Samsung plasma tv's glare and low entry level not the PQ, but some channels are a bit more compressed than others, But I also have a Panasonic plasma which doesn't have that problem and actually looks better than the Samsung in terms of SD PQ and sharpness, For some weird reason it all looks better in the weekend day or night.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Rich said:


> I didn't know that. I do now. Wonderful. You'd think they do the same thing they do when you download, ask if you want the best resolution or a faster download. Last time I ever hit that Watch Now option.
> 
> Rich


The problem with that Rich, is that if you truly want to watch it now, the Record option is spotty and inconsistent with the speed it is actually delivered. See my thread in the programming section regarding what I found with Homeland.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/209383-directv-really-needs-to-work-on-on-demand-consistency/

Also, others (a Directv employee) previously posted that "Watch Now" is nothing more than a shortcut rather than a different resolution. That conflicts with what VOS is saying - so not sure which is correct. My experience is more in line with what VOS says and there is definitely a difference in that the "Watch Now" delivery is usually pretty consistent whereas "Record" deliver is spotty.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

raott said:


> Also, others (a Directv employee) previously posted that "Watch Now" is nothing more than a shortcut rather than a different resolution. That conflicts with what VOS is saying - so not sure which is correct. My experience is more in line with what VOS says and there is definitely a difference in that the "Watch Now" delivery is usually pretty consistent whereas "Record" deliver is spotty.


I doubt this DirecTV "employee" has bothered to look.
When your TV reports what resolution it's getting, it's quite clear some 1080 programs are 720p with watch now and the same program is 1080 if recorded.
I'm not a constant user of VOD, but I've also never had record delivery being "spotty". It's always seemed to match the program bit-rates.

Since Homeland seemed to be your problem, I just finished downloading one that was 55 mins in length. It took 55 mins.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

^^^
I have both D* and V* set to output native. Both are reporting 720p on the TV.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

raott said:


> The problem with that Rich, is that if you truly want to watch it now, the Record option is spotty and inconsistent with the speed it is actually delivered. See my thread in the programming section regarding what I found with Homeland.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/209383-directv-really-needs-to-work-on-on-demand-consistency/
> 
> Also, others (a Directv employee) previously posted that "Watch Now" is nothing more than a shortcut rather than a different resolution. That conflicts with what VOS is saying - so not sure which is correct. My experience is more in line with what VOS says and there is definitely a difference in that the "Watch Now" delivery is usually pretty consistent whereas "Record" deliver is spotty.


Yeah, but I can wait a half hour or so for anything and I'll be downloading from now on.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> ^^^
> I have both D* and V* set to output native. Both are reporting 720p on the TV.


And if your Panny plasma is anything like mine, you won't like the 720p PQ.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> ^^^
> I have both D* and V* set to output native. Both are reporting 720p on the TV.


D* & V* ???
Showtime is a 1080i channel.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> D* & V* ???
> Showtime is a 1080i channel.


Directv and Verizon?

Rich


----------



## Bradman (Aug 8, 2011)

PCampbell said:


> It still looks good to me, I compare locals on directv to OTA and I can't see a difference. I can see a difference in Blue ray 1080P and direct.


My experience as well. I A/B it all the time and DTV is every bit as good.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Rich said:


> Directv and Verizon?
> 
> Rich


I got a PM suggesting the same.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> I doubt this DirecTV "employee" has bothered to look.
> When your TV reports what resolution it's getting, it's quite clear some 1080 programs are 720p with watch now and the same program is 1080 if recorded.
> I'm not a constant user of VOD, but I've also never had record delivery being "spotty". It's always seemed to match the program bit-rates.
> 
> Since Homeland seemed to be your problem, I just finished downloading one that was 55 mins in length. It took 55 mins.


"Spotty" means the delivery speeds from Directv are all over the place of late. See my other thread.

I have significant experience watching VOD lately, especially Homeland. I've had Homeland "Record Now" download at a faster ratio than viewing. I've also had Homeland download so slowly using "Record Now" that it has to buffer within 2 or 3 minutes only to immediately switch to "Watch Now" and have it download at about a 5-1 ratio. Something is up on Directv's end with the delivery.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

raott said:


> Something is up on Directv's end with the delivery.


There could be and since I don't work for them... :shrug:
The only thing "I know" is once I dumped a poor ISP, I haven't had any problems with the 3 ISPs I've had since, "and still don't seem to".


----------



## lesz (Aug 3, 2010)

raott said:


> "Spotty" means the delivery speeds from Directv are all over the place of late. See my other thread.
> 
> I have significant experience watching VOD lately, especially Homeland. I've had Homeland "Record Now" download at a faster ratio than viewing. I've also had Homeland download so slowly using "Record Now" that it has to buffer within 2 or 3 minutes only to immediately switch to "Watch Now" and have it download at about a 5-1 ratio. Something is up on Directv's end with the delivery.


When I've watched VOD via the "watch now" option, I've always been able to immediately watch the program being recorded without issues, and the recording takes place at speeds significantly faster than real time. On the other hand, when I've chosen to record a program for later viewing, there have been times when it has recorded faster than real time, but there are other times when it has taken, say, 4 hours to record a 1 hour program.

There have been a few times when I've seen the slow recording and have, while the recording was taking place, done a speed test on my internet connection, and, even while the DIRECTV recording was taking place, the speed test run on my laptop has shown speeds that are virtually at my full available maximum speed. That tells me that, even though I had the speed available from my internet connection, The DIRECTV download was choosing not to use it.

It has been my theory that, at times when demand for VOD exceeds the available DIRECTV server capacity, the "watch now" downloads are given priority and they proceed at maximum speed, but the watch later downloads get lower priority and record at whatever speed server capacity will allow.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> There could be and since I don't work for them... :shrug:
> The only thing "I know" is once I dumped a poor ISP, I haven't had any problems with the 3 ISPs I've had since, "and still don't seem to".


My ISP is fine. 30 down bandwidth is plenty of overhead for anything I can throw at it. All other streaming options work fine (including Directv "Watch Now" and most of the time "Record"). The issue is using "Record" rather than "Watch Now".

So as to not hijack this thread, I'll again, refer you to my other thread where I did some testing. The issue rests solely with Directv.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

lesz said:


> When I've watched VOD via the "watch now" option, I've always been able to immediately watch the program being recorded without issues, and the recording takes place at speeds significantly faster than real time. On the other hand, when I've chosen to record a program for later viewing, there have been times when it has recorded faster than real time, but there are other times when it has taken, say, 4 hours to record a 1 hour program.


That is consistent with my experience.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

I don't think the PQ of D*'s On Demand 1080i is as good as the broadcast content. Not really all that much of a difference, but it seems to me that it is there.

Rich


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

For example, MNF looks outstanding tonight. ESPN has variance and it doesnt have anything to do with what you display likes, all ESPN live content is not created equally.

For the record, my HR44 sends out Native into the Oppo, which sends everything as 1080p/60 to my plasma.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The variables in production far exceed the differences in 720p v 1080i. 

Right now the picture is horrible on ESPN: Falcons lead the Niners by a TD vs a FG.

But it was just fine a few minutes before.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

Also depends on the camera. In many games, the far away side view of the field can be quite bad, as well as the wire cam, but any closeups pf players on and off the field look great. Just the way it is.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

Darn, I just went to check my LED 720p and the HD pq is pretty bad. Then I went to check on my 1080I CRT which only displays HD in 1080i, and the pq is also crappy. Not the same as before. Better pq is the only reason I got a genie and extended my contract. I guess it was so gradual that I didn't notice it until now. Had I known, I would have switched to Dish for the discounts.

That's pretty crappy of D* to downgrade the HD Pq.


----------



## F1aReD (Sep 27, 2011)

I've also noticed that the PQ has degraded, somewhat...but it's barely noticeable. Could just be my imagination I guess.

It's funny, my locals, especially Fox, look horrible OTA, they actually look better through D*, although they still look pretty bad.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

F1aReD said:


> I've also noticed that the PQ has degraded, somewhat...but it's barely noticeable. Could just be my imagination I guess.
> 
> It's funny, my locals, especially Fox, look horrible OTA, they actually look better through D*, although they still look pretty bad.


Wouldn't you think Fox could send out its content in 1080i? Sure be nice to see ESPN and History do the same.

Rich


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Here in DFW the PQ on locals used to be almost as good as off-air. Now it is incredibly variable, some days is OK but sometimes very poor, particularly with chroma noise (you can see the noise in areas of dark color). We've got the same number of HD locals per transponder so I guess it's a problem with the new encoders.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

n3vino said:


> Darn, I just went to check my LED 720p and the HD pq is pretty bad. Then I went to check on my 1080I CRT which only displays HD in 1080i, and the pq is also crappy. Not the same as before. Better pq is the only reason I got a genie and extended my contract. I guess it was so gradual that I didn't notice it until now. Had I known, I would have switched to Dish for the discounts.
> 
> That's pretty crappy of D* to downgrade the HD Pq.


Your conclusion may be premature and with no basis. May. 
No one has any definitive info. on this. There will be no PQ differences in most receivers. Only the 24-500 has a different gamma.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rich said:


> Wouldn't you think Fox could send out its content in 1080i? Sure be nice to see ESPN and History do the same.
> 
> Rich


That alone wouldn't fix it. Need better cameras, camera-persons, transcoders, uplink, lighting (and announcers!)

Last night's ESPN MNF showed what can be done using 720p. PQ was excellent, esp. in the second half.....


----------



## Tom Servo (Mar 7, 2007)

I've noticed the deterioration as well. It's still better than my local utility company, whose 20 channel HD lineup was fuzzy soft and dull. 

I finally watched the 3 hour Galapagos special recorded off NGWHD and it looked terrible. Flipped to the live channel and it looked pretty bad. I can't say if that's a DirecTV problem or a NatGeo problem, though.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that pq has gone downhill; we went through this years ago with the standard definition channels, to. I've got S-VHS recordings from the early days that blow today's SD out of the water. 

Sent from my Droid DNA via the DBSTalk app.


----------



## swyman18 (Jan 12, 2009)

Tom Servo said:


> I've noticed the deterioration as well. It's still better than my local utility company, whose 20 channel HD lineup was fuzzy soft and dull. I finally watched the 3 hour Galapagos special recorded off NGWHD and it looked terrible. Flipped to the live channel and it looked pretty bad. I can't say if that's a DirecTV problem or a NatGeo problem, though.It shouldn't surprise anyone that pq has gone downhill; we went through this years ago with the standard definition channels, to. I've got S-VHS recordings from the early days that blow today's SD out of the water. Sent from my Droid DNA via the DBSTalk app.


Seems to me we are at the point where HD should be considered the new "Standard" Definition. Current SD should be considered "Low" Definition, because let's be honest, that's really what it is.

Then maybe we would stop having to pay the monthly HD fee.

But then again, as many have pointed out, current SD is still the norm in a large percentage of households.


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

I set the receiver resolution so all content is upsynced to 1080i and 1080p. I am sending the signal through HDMI, as well. This seems to work for me. A coup;e channels, like Chiller, have too much contrast, but I think this is how is its uplinked, as opposed to a DirecTv issue. My locals come in nice, as well. Of course, I have a 46" LCD set. The larger the set, the more one will notice poor quality images.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

texasbrit said:


> Here in DFW the PQ on locals used to be almost as good as off-air. Now it is incredibly variable, some days is OK but sometimes very poor, particularly with chroma noise (you can see the noise in areas of dark color). We've got the same number of HD locals per transponder so I guess it's a problem with the new encoders.


Just because you have the same number of locals per transponder doesn't mean they aren't compressing them more. Directv receives locals via antenna or gets them delivered via fiber. Then they travel through a complicated path (I'm not sure anyone has the full picture of exactly how) via fiber in places and via satellite uplink and downlink, before they are uplinked to the satellite that spot beams them down to you.

There may not be any incentive for them to compress your locals further if they already fit in the transponder providing your locals, but there is plenty of incentive for them to compress them further if it makes room on the uplink/downlink from 101 (via Ka band) or saves bandwidth when traveling around via fiber.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Just because you have the same number of locals per transponder doesn't mean they aren't compressing them more.


There's "a whole bunch" you seem to be missing.
Locals are changed to MPEG-4 and then "muxed" for the transponder.
The quality of the transcoding may be what texasbrit is commenting on.

Another problem locals can have is some are adding more sub channels and this takes away from the HD bandwidth.

I had an OTA channel with so many subs that the HD was total crap.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> Here in DFW the PQ on locals used to be almost as good as off-air. Now it is incredibly variable, some days is OK but sometimes very poor, particularly with chroma noise (you can see the noise in areas of dark color). We've got the same number of HD locals per transponder so I guess it's a problem with the new encoders.


I think PQ has really improved for NBC here in Dallas via DirecTV. When we first got it there was horrible blocking. It's really great now. ABC does have that chroma issue it seems, I notice it during Grey's Anatomy because it's filmed dark.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> There's "a whole bunch" you seem to be missing.
> Locals are changed to MPEG-4 and then "muxed" for the transponder.
> The quality of the transcoding may be what texasbrit is commenting on.
> 
> ...


Yes - the transcoding is what I referred to. They can do a high quality MPEG2 -> MPEG4 transcoding, or can crank up the MPEG4 compression at a cost to quality.

While you're right that adding subs can make locals lower quality, texasbrit was talking about a comparison of quality between OTA and what he received from Directv. Adding subs should drop the quality of both equally.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> Yes - the transcoding is what I referred to. They can do a high quality MPEG2 -> MPEG4 transcoding, or can crank up the MPEG4 compression at a cost to quality.


Better/newer transcoders claim to keep the quality, but the muxing can be where "the bits" get lost.
MPEG-4 bit rates vary significantly and the mux tries to vary bit rates by need, to optimize the bandwidth, "BUT" if they all need a lot of bandwidth, "something" gets the short end.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

veryoldschool said:


> Better/newer transcoders claim to keep the quality, but the muxing can be where "the bits" get lost.
> MPEG-4 bit rates vary significantly and the mux tries to vary bit rates by need, to optimize the bandwidth, "BUT" if they all need a lot of bandwidth, "something" gets the short end.


Yes, you're correct, it can all get very complicated when everything is VBR, especially in that [email protected] path where all the locals are competing for 2000 MHz (assuming that's a path traveled by locals on their way to us, and isn't simply used for broadcast center monitoring...I'm really not sure about that)

I wonder if people notice a quality drop (versus OTA) on Saturday and Sunday afternoons? All those local stations carrying football games want a lot of bits, and something's gotta give.


----------



## n3vino (Oct 2, 2011)

VOS, The genie has nothing to do with the TV's I checked. The led is on a H25 and the CRT is on a hr24-500 that is a replacement for an HR24-100. The genie is on another set. I checked the PQ this morning when I read the posts. PQ seems to be better now. But PQ seems to be a little fuzzy and not as sharp as before. Maybe it's my imagination. I remember TW looking a little fuzzy and when I got D*, it looked sharper. My sharp controls are still the same.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I had an OTA channel with so many subs that the HD was total crap.


They "tried" to mux two HD channels here for about 3 months. Both channels looked like crap. One was UPN 1080i and the subchannel was ABC 720p. Glad they gave up on that idea, and installed a separate transmitter for the second channel.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I'm not saying the D* PQ is horrible. All I'm saying is that it's not as good as it used to be, and it's certainly not as good as Verizon FiOS at my house in Chester County, PA.

The reason I want with D* was simple - they had the BEST PQ. They've now lost the PQ battle and I'm actually, for the first time since 1997, thinking about dropping them. But I won't make a move till I see if D14 improves things. Hopefully they'll bet the PQ to where it used to be.

PS - Want proof? Go way back on your DVR and find an OLD HD show. HDNET is a good channel to look for. If you honestly think the PQ is OK now, check out an HDNET recording from, say, 2011 (yeah, I have some from that far back)


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> PS - Want proof? Go way back on your DVR and find an OLD HD show. HDNET is a good channel to look for. If you honestly think the PQ is OK now, check out an HDNET recording from, say, 2011 (yeah, I have some from that far back)


AXSrv, formerly HDNet still looks great.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> That alone wouldn't fix it. Need better cameras, camera-persons, transcoders, uplink, lighting (and announcers!)
> 
> Last night's ESPN MNF showed what can be done using 720p. PQ was excellent, esp. in the second half.....


Yeah, I didn't mind watching ESPN for a change. Netflix has been pumping out good 720p since I've had it.

I know that new cameras, etc would be needed, Fox can't afford that?

Good game, I'm glad they won. Kapernicknack would sure look good in Jersey Jets green, wouldn't he?

Rich


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

nmetro said:


> I set the receiver resolution so all content is upsynced to 1080i and 1080p. I am sending the signal through HDMI, as well. This seems to work for me. A coup;e channels, like Chiller, have too much contrast, but I think this is how is its uplinked, as opposed to a DirecTv issue. My locals come in nice, as well. Of course, I have a 46" LCD set. The larger the set, the more one will notice poor quality images.


Yes, this is a sad fact. And I am still surprised when people have SD and THINK they have HD. "I got a HDTV. That makes it HD!" *facepalm


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I'm not saying the D* PQ is horrible. All I'm saying is that it's not as good as it used to be, and it's certainly not as good as Verizon FiOS at my house in Chester County, PA.
> 
> The reason I want with D* was simple - they had the BEST PQ. They've now lost the PQ battle and I'm actually, for the first time since 1997, thinking about dropping them. But I won't make a move till I see if D14 improves things. Hopefully they'll bet the PQ to where it used to be.
> 
> PS - Want proof? Go way back on your DVR and find an OLD HD show. HDNET is a good channel to look for. If you honestly think the PQ is OK now, check out an HDNET recording from, say, 2011 (yeah, I have some from that far back)


+1. This is the truth, 100%.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

ejbvt said:


> Yes, this is a sad fact. And I am still surprised when people have SD and THINK they have HD. "I got a HDTV. That makes it HD!" *facepalm


I wouldn't have believed that if I hadn't seen it happen. Really makes you wonder how stupid some people can be.

We stayed at the Margate in Ocean City, MD. last year and I called before we went and asked if they had upgraded to HD in their rooms. "Sure, we've got new flat screen TVs in each room. I asked if they had HD service and was told that all flat screens they have are, of course, in HD. Just to be safe, I brought my own TV with me and all they had were flat screens in SD. There's one place I'll never stay at again.

Rich


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> I'm not saying the D* PQ is horrible. All I'm saying is that it's not as good as it used to be, and it's certainly not as good as Verizon FiOS at my house in Chester County, PA.
> 
> The reason I want with D* was simple - they had the BEST PQ. They've now lost the PQ battle and I'm actually, for the first time since 1997, thinking about dropping them. But I won't make a move till I see if D14 improves things. Hopefully they'll bet the PQ to where it used to be.
> 
> PS - Want proof? Go way back on your DVR and find an OLD HD show. HDNET is a good channel to look for. If you honestly think the PQ is OK now, check out an HDNET recording from, say, 2011 (yeah, I have some from that far back)


I just think pq varies a lot by channel Like it always has.

Discovery is still excellent for me. I see my locals are similar, some better than others but so many have added sub channels it ticks me off.


----------



## Sea bass (Jun 10, 2005)

I tend to think it`s mainly the quality of the network feed that`s the issue. For as long as I can remember Univision has been one of the best channels for pq, even going back to the SD days. I just flipped over to it, pq is still fantastic.


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

Rich said:


> Wouldn't you think Fox could send out its content in 1080i? Sure be nice to see ESPN and History do the same.
> 
> Rich


Some media providers (channels) decided to go with 720p instead of 1080i because of the smoothness of the PQ. a 720p (or 1080p) signal will have less video artifacts than 1080i during high speed action scenes.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject from another online forum: 
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1076689/abc-and-espn-hd-only-720p-why-not-1080i


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

WB4CS said:


> Some media providers (channels) decided to go with 720p instead of 1080i because of the smoothness of the PQ. a 720p (or 1080p) signal will have less video artifacts than 1080i during high speed action scenes.


That is a non-issue for plasmas and h.q. LEDs.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I think they are referring to 720p being slightly better for action sports, which has nothing to do with display tech. That being said, football on 1080i channels looks good to me


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Jason Whiddon said:


> I think they are referring to 720p being slightly better for action sports, which has nothing to do with display tech. That being said, football on 1080i channels looks good to me


That was the justification for offering the lower resolution, and there was merit to action blur when the decisions were made years ago to choose that format. Now, however, it's not an issue for mid-higher end TV sets. Or even on smaller low end sets, I believe.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Rose Bowl looks superb here today on ESPN.


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

I've been with DirecTV for almost 3 months now and have been very impressed with the HD PQ. Hands down it's better PQ than any cable provider I've been with, most recently Comcast. 

Now that being said, I have noticed that if I stand really close to the TV (51" Samsung plasma) there is actually some macroblocking and still images such as trees in the background seem to have blurry spots, but it's not noticeable at viewing distances. I think the HD PQ could be better with less compression, but it's still very good in my opinion. I can't compare DirecTV's HD PQ to what it used to be, the last time I was a subscriber everything was in SD coming from one satellite. But compared to the HD PQ from Comcast, DirecTV is much better in my opinion. 

If it were up to me, I'd suggest that DirecTV drop all of the duplicate SD feeds located on 101W. I don't understand why in 2014 there's still both a SD and HD feed of the same channels. I know it's because there are probably thousands of legacy SD receivers still in use, but maybe it's time to "force" those people to come into the 21st Century. If they phased out SD duplicates they could spread out the HD channels over to 101W and allow for much more available bandwidth and use less compression. It's possible I don't fully understand the technology, but it seems like it would work.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

WB4CS said:


> If it were up to me, I'd suggest that DirecTV drop all of the duplicate SD feeds located on 101W. I don't understand why in 2014 there's still both a SD and HD feed of the same channels. I know it's because there are probably thousands of legacy SD receivers still in use, but maybe it's time to "force" those people to come into the 21st Century. If they phased out SD duplicates they could spread out the HD channels over to 101W and allow for much more available bandwidth and use less compression. It's possible I don't fully understand the technology, but it seems like it would work.


Good point. From a PQ standpoint, the HD signal in 480p often looks better on a 4:3 CRT than the SD signal, IMHO. Unfortunately, there are probably a gizallion SD boxes still out there that would have to be replaced.


----------



## WB4CS (Dec 12, 2013)

Steve said:


> Good point. From a PQ standpoint, the HD signal in 480p often looks better on a 4:3 CRT than the SD signal, IMHO. Unfortunately, there are probably a gizallion SD boxes still out there that would have to be replaced.


Very true on the HD on SD PQ.

Yeah, there probably are thousands of those old SD receivers. So what? I know DTV is "better" than cable, but when I had Comcast and they upgraded their system from analog to all digital they told everyone to pony up - if you want to keep watching TV you have to get a new cable box. It would probably make a few people mad to do a forced upgrade to HD receivers, but it's 2014, time to let go of SD.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

WB4CS said:


> Yeah, there probably are thousands of those old SD receivers. So what? I know DTV is "better" than cable, but when I had Comcast and they upgraded their system from analog to all digital they told everyone to pony up - if you want to keep watching TV you have to get a new cable box. It would probably make a few people mad to do a forced upgrade to HD receivers, but it's 2014, time to let go of SD.


Not "thousands" but millions and besides the receiver upgrade would be the dish and wiring requiring a service call too.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

out of four installs last Monday, 3 of them were all SD equipment. so yeah, they are still out there, by the "tons"


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

peds48 said:


> out of four installs last Monday, 3 of them were all SD equipment. so yeah, they are still out there, by the "tons"


Just curious but what kind of TV's did you hook up to, SD or HD TV's?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

peds48 said:


> out of four installs last Monday, 3 of them were all SD equipment. so yeah, they are still out there, by the "tons"


You'd think new installs would all use HD receivers tho, even if connecting to SD displays. At least that way DirecTV would be on a path to phasing out SD.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Steve said:


> You'd think new installs would all use HD receivers tho, even if connecting to SD displays. At least that way DirecTV would be on a path to phasing out SD.


the display does not matter, the HD fee does!!!!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

peds48 said:


> the display does not matter, the HD fee does!!!!


Ahhh. Another reason they want to keep SD around.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Just like the Rose Bowl, another superb PQ from ESPN for tonight's championship.


----------



## bidger (Nov 19, 2005)

OK, but that still doesn't change the fact that a long-time member here using the same input and screen tested two sources and found one to be superior. Personally, I don't see any reason to doubt him.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

bidger said:


> OK, but that still doesn't change the fact that a long-time member here using the same input and screen tested two sources and found one to be superior. Personally, I don't see any reason to doubt him.


Directv as well as some - but not all! - cable companies, are capable of using variable bit rate for all their channels (at least for MPEG4) You could do the comparison at different times of the day/week, and get different results, depending on what is on. When there's a big game on ESPN, everyone who can will crank the bit rate for it at the cost of the other channels sharing with it (sharing the transponder on Directv, sharing the RF channel on cable)

If he did the comparison several times and found one source is always better, then it is easy to choose one or the other. If one is better sometimes and the other is better other times, then it wouldn't be quite so easy.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Rich said:


> Netflix's Super HD is a good example of that. It blows away D*'s 1080i PQ. It takes me a few minutes to adjust to D*'s PQ after watching streaming NF SHD.
> 
> Rich


I binged on Breaking Bad for a month via Netflix/Chromecast then watched the final season from DVR recordings and it looked terrible in comparison. So much softer and washed out. I was hoping it was just AMC but other channels seem to not look very good. Hopefully DirecTV will step up their game when D14 goes live.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SPACEMAKER said:


> I binged on Breaking Bad for a month via Netflix/Chromecast then watched the final season from DVR recordings and it looked terrible in comparison. So much softer and washed out. I was hoping it was just AMC but other channels seem to not look very good. Hopefully DirecTV will step up their game when D14 goes live.


Hard going from NF Super HD to our 1080i, it is. I bet D* is just waiting to see if 4K takes off.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Rich said:


> Hard going from NF Super HD to our 1080i, it is. I bet D* is just waiting to see if 4K takes off.


If it's that good on 1080p displays, hopefully NF Super HD will be a wake-up call for DirecTV. Based on what I see viewing OTA through existing DirecTV equipment, hardware is not limiting PQ, so there is room for improvement with the current boxes.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

My son bought me a Chromecast for Christmas, and I recently discovered my TV also has a built-in netflix app. Prior to my 13 yr old spending his own hard-earned money on his dad, I paid little attention to streaming services. I have to now say, PQ was excellent, DD 5.1 worked brilliantly, and high priced pay TV at my house took one more step towards the grave. My internet provider routinely gives me 60Mbs down, and has suspended all bandwidth limits. Yet another step.....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> If it's that good on 1080p displays, hopefully NF Super HD will be a wake-up call for DirecTV. Based on what I see viewing OTA through existing DirecTV equipment, hardware is not limiting PQ, so there is room for improvement with the current boxes.


NF's Super HD is that good. It simply blows away D*'s 1080i PQ. Takes a few minutes for my eyes to readjust to D*'s picture after watching streaming content from NF.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Rich said:


> NF's Super HD is that good. It simply blows away D*'s 1080i PQ. Takes a few minutes for my eyes to readjust to D*'s picture after watching streaming content from NF.


And it's "only" 5.8mbps, from what I can see, which shows you can deliver primo quality at reasonable bit rates with the proper tweaking.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> My son bought me a Chromecast for Christmas, and I recently discovered my TV also has a built-in netflix app. Prior to my 13 yr old spending his own hard-earned money on his dad, I paid little attention to streaming services. I have to now say, PQ was excellent, DD 5.1 worked brilliantly, and high priced pay TV at my house took one more step towards the grave. My internet provider routinely gives me 60Mbs down, and has suspended all bandwidth limits. Yet another step.....


The problem with that Google dongle and the rest of the streaming boxes is they don't upscale as a BD player does. Yeah, you'll still see a really good picture when you play Super HD content from NF, but their content isn't all SHD, yet. And none of the streaming boxes that I've tried upscale as the BD players do, so some NF content isn't gonna give you that really sharp picture you see in SHD.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> And it's "only" 5.8mbps, from what I can see, which shows you can deliver primo quality at reasonable bit rates with the proper tweaking.


I don't have any way to tell other than what my eyes see and I certainly see a really good picture when I'm viewing NF SHD. My TVs only show the resolution.

Rich


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

My TV does a decent job at upscaling. I simply pass the HDMI unmolested through my AVR. While I appreciate a good picture, in reality, I'm just not that much of a fan of the current crap content spewing from providers to care that much.



Rich said:


> The problem with that Google dongle and the rest of the streaming boxes is they don't upscale as a BD player does. Yeah, you'll still see a really good picture when you play Super HD content from NF, but their content isn't all SHD, yet. And none of the streaming boxes that I've tried upscale as the BD players do, so some NF content isn't gonna give you that really sharp picture you see in SHD.
> 
> Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Rich said:


> I don't have any way to tell other than what my eyes see and I certainly see a really good picture when I'm viewing NF SHD. My TVs only show the resolution.


Some folks over at AVS actually measured the throughput, and this article from September seems to jive with their results: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1716312-Netflix-Doubles-Video-Quality-Making-6Mbps-SuperHD-Streams-Available-To-Everyone


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Rich said:


> NF's Super HD is that good. It simply blows away D*'s 1080i PQ. Takes a few minutes for my eyes to readjust to D*'s picture after watching streaming content from NF.
> 
> Rich


I must be missing something...I have Netflix, I have been watching in Super HD, and its just slightly better than SOME channels on Directv, and it doesnt hold a candle to actual BD....I have a Panny plasma 60GT50 well calibrated, so its not the tv....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> I must be missing something...I have Netflix, I have been watching in Super HD, and its just slightly better than SOME channels on Directv, and it doesnt hold a candle to actual BD....I have a Panny plasma 60GT50 well calibrated, so its not the tv....


You must be missing something. None of my sets are calibrated, I just changed the settings on the 1080p sets a little and I can really see a difference. Pretty close to BD quality, I think.

Rich


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

JeffBowser said:


> My son bought me a Chromecast for Christmas, and I recently discovered my TV also has a built-in netflix app. Prior to my 13 yr old spending his own hard-earned money on his dad, I paid little attention to streaming services. I have to now say, PQ was excellent, DD 5.1 worked brilliantly, and high priced pay TV at my house took one more step towards the grave. My internet provider routinely gives me 60Mbs down, and has suspended all bandwidth limits. Yet another step.....


Getting closer is right. Live sports and a handful of Premium shows are all that's holding me back from canceling DirecTV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Rich said:


> The problem with that Google dongle and the rest of the streaming boxes is they don't upscale as a BD player does. Yeah, you'll still see a really good picture when you play Super HD content from NF, but their content isn't all SHD, yet. And none of the streaming boxes that I've tried upscale as the BD players do, so some NF content isn't gonna give you that really sharp picture you see in SHD.
> 
> Rich





Rich said:


> I don't have any way to tell other than what my eyes see and I certainly see a really good picture when I'm viewing NF SHD. My TVs only show the resolution.
> 
> Rich





Rich said:


> You must be missing something. None of my sets are calibrated, I just changed the settings on the 1080p sets a little and I can really see a difference. Pretty close to BD quality, I think.
> 
> Rich


I'm starting to wonder if it's NF's "super HD" or your blu-ray player's processing/scaler.
The Darbee processor has been added to some.
There is a Darbee here and it's main impact on the image is sharpness/improvement of detail.
Blu-ray disk bit-rates are in the 30 Mb/s range here [a menu reports it]
While 6 Mb/s can look good, it's only 20& of a Blu-ray disk.

DirecTV transcodes "on the fly", where streaming can be processed and reprocessed many times before it's output to a file for streaming. "Time" should be the advantage streaming has with bit-rates.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

I watched the NCAA FB Championship game on Verizon and on DirecTV. Verizon was better, but I wanted to try to describe the difference we see (my wife picked the Verizon picture in a blind A/B comparison)

To me, the D* picture seems to lack "color depth" compared to Verizon. The Verizon picture was more vibrant, had better contrast and "oomph" (an abstract term). Both receivers are fed into a Denon AVR-4311 with NO picture adjustment - they are then sent with ONE HDMI cable to my 65" Panny plasma.

PS - You want to see amazing HD PQ - Check out the ABC "app" on Apple TV (probably works as well on Roku). Watched last week's episode of "The Middle", and it looked like what you see in a movie theater. My wife said, "Wow. That's what it's supposed to look like?"

PS - I've been with DirecTV since 1996 back in the USSB/DirecTV days when there were no locals. I really like DirecTV a LOT, but I sure wish they'd improve their PQ to what it used to be.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> To me, the D* picture seems to lack "color depth" compared to Verizon. The Verizon picture was more vibrant, had better contrast and "oomph" (an abstract term). Both receivers are fed into a Denon AVR-4311 with NO picture adjustment - they are then sent with ONE HDMI cable to my 65" Panny plasma.


Back in late 2006, I did a similar A/B/C comparison of a HD local channel.
OTA, DirecTV, and cable.
The color of grass was "less green" on DirecTV, and brown on cable.

Given that this was seven years ago, has the PQ really degraded or is it that we're just noticing the MPEG4 problems more?

"For example" the audience channel has been showing the _24 _seasons and in some images the noise makes it look like it's raining "indoors".


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

There's another possibility: The V signal is sent out with boosts to vibrance and saturation. This will make the picture appear better on some sets, and worse on others. Then there are personal differences in what each of us likes as to the above.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I'm starting to wonder if it's NF's "super HD" or your blu-ray player's processing/scaler.
> The Darbee processor has been added to some.
> There is a Darbee here and it's main impact on the image is sharpness/improvement of detail.
> Blu-ray disk bit-rates are in the 30 Mb/s range here [a menu reports it]
> ...


As far as I know there is no Darbee in any of my BD players. I do run NF from my BD players. I'm not criticizing D*'s PQ, all I'm saying is NF SHD is better. If my Sammy BD players make the PQ even better, then that makes me happier.

You know, I ran a thread about what I should ask for at Xmas. If you would have suggested the Darbee, I would have gotten one. That would have been the perfect opportunity. Then, I could have gotten another one for Father's day and one for my birthday. I've been wanting one.

Rich


----------

