View Full Version : Quantity vs. Quality
Doug Brott
04-19-09, 03:36 PM
In light of this request:
In Reply to your post 2069976
If a poll of the members of this forum was quality of channels versus number of channels how would it come out?
Let's find out ..
For DIRECTV service, which is more important .. You can only choose one or the other if you choose to vote.
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 03:39 PM
My "true vote":
Better quality and drop the channels "I don't watch". :lol:
Easy, easy, easy ...
100% ... Quality.
Doug Brott
04-19-09, 03:42 PM
Easy, easy, easy ...
100% ... Quality.
Then perhaps we should stop worrying comparing channel count between providers :)
dubber deux
04-19-09, 03:43 PM
100% Quality.
dcowboy7
04-19-09, 03:43 PM
easy....quality....what good is it if it looks like garbage.
Voted quality but i am not going to watch something i am not interested
in just because of pq.
Then perhaps we should stop worrying comparing channel count between providers :)Agree completely.
That's why I personally never compare ... :) (and just post the facts of the great Quality that is available).
BattleScott
04-19-09, 03:52 PM
What is meant by "Quality"?
Is this refering to the programming on the channel or the actual picture quality?
What is meant by "Quality"?
Is this refering to the programming on the channel or the actual picture quality?Picture Quality.
baratono
04-19-09, 03:55 PM
Quality,.... DTV and others all package channels no one would pay for if they were not in the package.
dcowboy7
04-19-09, 03:56 PM
Then perhaps we should stop worrying comparing channel count between providers :)
nope....because the other 98% of the dopey population goes by that.
mhayes70
04-19-09, 03:57 PM
Definitely Quality
Maybe another way to think about the question ...
Example: If you had a choice between x channels of HD or x+10 channels of HD, with the exact same overall bandwidth, which would you pick. x at high quality, or x+10 with lesser quality.
I'd pick quality (x) every time.
And then wait for D12 for more :)
tcusta00
04-19-09, 04:06 PM
nope....because the other 98% of the dopey population goes by that.
We should worry about what concerns us though, not the other "dopes," right?
Artwood
04-19-09, 04:07 PM
This is quite encouraging so far.
Does anyone that works for DirecTV ever pay attention to such discussions as these?
Maybe when they send out their bills they could offer a survey and ask people which channels they would most like DirecTV to get rid of--I don't know if that would work or not.
I don't know how a campaign that would ask them to consider a little more quality even if it meant slightly less channels would go?
Wll if any of the BIG people at DirecTV are listening please monitor this poll--with so many different channel claims from the different providers--maybe quality would be a better route than number of channels since no one can really figure out those numbers anyway.
The real competition for DirecTV is DISH since FIOS is so limited in scope.
I for one hope when it comes to quality they will strive to kick DISH's a$$!
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 04:13 PM
This is quite encouraging so far.
Does anyone that works for DirecTV ever pay attention to such discussions as these?
Maybe when they send out their bills they could offer a survey and ask people which channels they would most like DirecTV to get rid of--I don't know if that would work or not.
I don't know how a campaign that would ask them to consider a little more quality even if it meant slightly less channels would go?
Wll if any of the BIG people at DirecTV are listening please monitor this poll--with so many different channel claims from the different providers--maybe quality would be a better route than number of channels since no one can really figure out those numbers anyway.
The real competition for DirecTV is DISH since FIOS is so limited in scope.
I for one hope when it comes to quality they will strive to kick DISH's a$$!
As you can see "my slam dunk" is coming to pass, BUT none of us are stockholders and so "the bottom line" isn't being voted on here.
Quality! In fact there are not too many more channels I even want right now, mainly Travel HD, BBC HD, and IFC HD (when they come) and then I would be very happy. I could also lose a lot of the boutique like channels that I never even watch (my guide only has ~145 channels).
Though I have no problem with some shopping channels and infomercial channels that I can take out of the guide yet they still are there to help subsidize some of the costs ;)
dcowboy7
04-19-09, 04:27 PM
We should worry about what concerns us though, not the other "dopes," right?
but they use channel counts as a big decider in choosing a provider.
bobkvjr
04-19-09, 04:30 PM
Quality :jumpingja
CG Tustin
04-19-09, 04:34 PM
...Is in the eye of the viewer...quality to one may not be to another. In that case quantity may be better..kinda like a "shotgun" approach.:confused:
tcusta00
04-19-09, 04:41 PM
but they use channel counts as a big decider in choosing a provider.
So? That doesn't have any bearing on you. ;)
dcowboy7
04-19-09, 04:45 PM
So? That doesn't have any bearing on you. ;)
yes it does....the more people that pick directv, then my directv cost doesnt go "up as much"....at least in theory. :D
tcusta00
04-19-09, 04:48 PM
yes it does....the more people that pick directv, then my directv cost doesnt go "up as much"....at least in theory. :D
I think you're good there... DirecTV has been in net additions mode while Dish is now in net subscriber loss (I believe, and a Dish customer will surely correct me if I'm wrong).
BattleScott
04-19-09, 04:50 PM
I chose quality, but that's mainly becaue the channels that we regularly watch are in HD. If I were one of those who is anxiously awaiting some of the nationals that are currently not (WGN, Travel , Chiller, AMC, etc.) my answer would likely be different...
David MacLeod
04-19-09, 05:00 PM
minority here, picked # due to getting more variety.
does not mean more ppv channels btw.
NOLANSKI
04-19-09, 05:04 PM
100% QUALITY TOO HOPE TO BE BACK SOON...:grin:
IndyMichael
04-19-09, 05:05 PM
100% Quality.
Yet you ask in your sig for another channel to be added ;)
JACKIEGAGA
04-19-09, 05:06 PM
Quality I want people to come to my house and Wow what a picture!
TBlazer07
04-19-09, 05:38 PM
Well, when you say "quality vs quantity" you really need to define what the "quality" loss would be. If you're talking SD "quality" vs HD "quality" that's one issue, but if you are talking giving up a little bit of "quality" (like 1080P vs 1080I or even 720P vs 1080I) which the average person couldn't discern that would be another issue. "Quality" is very subjective so I chose "quantity" assuming a small amount of loss which wouldn't affect the AVERAGE person's enjoyment of programming which is probably just what the providers do anyway.
TBlazer07
04-19-09, 05:40 PM
Why do you care what "other" people think? :confused: Sounds like a "mine is better then yours" competition. :D Quality I want people to come to my house and Wow what a picture!
I would take 50 HD channels over 1,000 HD channels with constant brrrrrippp problems.
This is a very easy question to answer when looking at it from your own point of view: I would want quality. I want the channels *I* watch in the best quality possible. Someone else might want the channels THEY watch in the best quality ever. But if we don't both want the same channels, maybe we can't both have what we want. That's where quantity comes in. One or both of us have to give up quality and/or quantity.
There's absolutely no reason why I can't have ALL the channels I want at great quality. Just drop all the sports and PPV channels. ;)
armophob
04-19-09, 05:57 PM
I voted quality. As long as that does not mean 5 QVC channels in 1080p
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 06:02 PM
I voted quality. As long as that does not mean 5 QVC channels in 1080p
I think you mean "in place of" channels you watch. I could give a "blank" about what quality or quantity QVC has/is, since I'll NEVER watch them. :lol:
dubber deux
04-19-09, 06:15 PM
Yet you ask in your sig for another channel to be added ;)
Sure, lets see there are about 50 mindless junkomercial channels, oh wait they added one more when they dropped AFN just last month, so if not anything else why not replace one of those wasteland slots with something worthwhile?
:p
SteveHas
04-19-09, 06:18 PM
I voted for "quality"
but, three questions come to mind
1.) who is the arbiter of "quality" channels?
2.) is quality for the basis of the poll being measured by quality of signal, (picture), or quality of programming?
and
3.) does this mean we won't be seeing more HD channels added?
DarinC makes a good point. We all want OUR channels in the best quality possible, at the sacrifice of some other channels as needed. But what if those other channels are important to someone else?
I voted quality, but what I want is reasonable quality on a large quantity of channels. I don't want or expect "perfect" quality. In my personal experience 720P is every bit as good as 1080i. I don't watch a lot of sports. What would be the right level of quality and right mix of channels probably would be totally unsatisfactory for others.
So, in order to make as many people as possible happy, DirecTV has to provide quantity, as much quantity as possible while balancing quality issues.
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 06:21 PM
does this mean....?
Even though Doug made this poll, it means NOTHING. [actually I made a statement, in another thread, and this "poll" is just confirming it]
dubber deux
04-19-09, 06:29 PM
Even though Doug made this poll, it means NOTHING. [actually I made a statement, in another thread, and this "poll" is just confirming it]
Why is that so? I would think that D* would be interested in what it's most vocal customers have to say regarding this subject. After all folks here are the same ones likely to sound off to their friends, neighbors and co workers ( many of these are potential D* customers)about the D* experience.
If I were D* I would be much less concerned about the silent majority.
Personally I won't vote because it's just too ill defined. Sure I'd love to have uncompressed 1080p video with uncompressed audio but there is no way they could do that. The bandwidth would just be far too huge.
On the other hand it doesn't do a whole lot of good to have tons and tons of channels that are so compressed they are blurry and show macroblocking etc.
Personally I think DirecTV is at a pretty good point right now. They are providing top tier quality and a very large number of channels. Could the quality be better? possibly. Are there channels they could add? sure. Over all the balance is good I think.
You know what? I voted "quality", but if after thinking about it, I really should have voted "more channels". I'd much rather have 50 channels of 85% quality than 5 channels of 100% quality. These numbers are pulled from thin air, so don't even try to analyze them, as my point is that I'm more likely to find programs on channels I want to watch if there are 50 channels than I'm like to find if there are only 5 channels. There has to be a balancing point, and quality at the expense of choice is much TOO expensive if there is nothing on I would choose to watch.
Doug Brott
04-19-09, 06:44 PM
There has to be a balancing point, and quality at the expense of choice is much TOO expensive if there is nothing on I would choose to watch.
Drew, this is the root of it all .. My personal belief is that as long as quality is good enough .. folks want more channels .. If quality starts suffering, then folks would be willing to forgo any new channels and/or remove some existing channels.
You're right too .. 50 channels at 85% quality would be significantly more appealing than 5 channels at 100% quality .. assuming of course that 85% quality is good enough for most people.
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 06:46 PM
Why is that so? I would think that D* would be interested in what it's most vocal customers have to say regarding this subject. After all folks here are the same ones likely to sound off to their friends, neighbors and co workers ( many of these are potential D* customers)about the D* experience.
If I were D* I would be much less concerned about the silent majority.
"A little background":
This really started about SD PQ quality, which "is what it is" and most likely won't change.
HD is now MPEG-4, which has both good PQ and "small bandwidth", so this poll doesn't relate really to HD "new channels", and the old HD are also going by the wayside, so no changes are expected there either.
"Hence" this poll means nothing.
DirecTV has their plans and as more agreements with providers are signed and "match" the bandwidths available, we'll continue seeing "more HD channels with good PQ".
my view ...
you set a certain standard for quality. such as 6-8Mbps for MPEG4 HD (5 HD per D10/D11 transponder - with the current technology used). and then you stay strict and live with it and never give into the urge to sacrifice quality for quantity.
this maybe isn't the best example because "quality" is subjective and can be debated, but you get the idea. set a standard for good-to-great quality and then stick to it.
if you need more channels, then spend the $ (and charge the $) to get the capacity.
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 06:53 PM
...my point is that I'm more likely to find programs on channels I want to watch if there are 50 channels than I'm like to find if there are only 5 channels.
You make a good point, but I always end up having Bruce Springsteen's song "57 channels and nothing on" running through my head.
Give me 30 days "tops" and I don't care how many channels I have, "there's nothing good to watch". It's been that way since I first started watching TV. ;)
richardmb
04-19-09, 07:06 PM
I vote for quality and I'm still waiting for it. Since I've had my hd tv I've had Comcast & D*. Quality is lacking in both, burps & delays from Comcast and pixilaction and audio break ups plus gray screens from my hr20 700 from d*
and I hear Dish isn't any better
.. BUT none of us are stockholders and so "the bottom line" isn't being voted on here.
Hey, speak for yourself.
scottchez
04-19-09, 07:20 PM
Quality om 1080P please,
remember guys we all have HD DVRs.
We one of each major provider.
Examples
ONE HBO in 1080P
ONE of all the Discovery Networks in 1080P
We then record the shows we want even if they are on at 2am. THey just need to play the show once a week, as our DVRs can record them anytime , day or night.
I voted "quality", of course, but since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the more channels there are, the more chance there will be channels every subscriber will want to watch.
So the number of channels is important, to insure there are "quality" channels available for everyone. /steve
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 07:23 PM
Quality om 1080P please,
remember guys we all have HD DVRs.
We one of each major provider.
Examples
ONE HBO in 1080P
ONE of all the Discovery Networks in 1080P
We then record the shows we want even if they are on at 2am. THey just need to play the show once a week, as our DVRs can record them anytime , day or night.
Since HBO shows movies [24 fps] this could be possible, while Discovery maybe not as much.
dubber deux
04-19-09, 07:23 PM
You make a good point, but I always end up having Bruce Springsteen's song "57 channels and nothing on" running through my head.
Give me 30 days "tops" and I don't care how many channels I have, "there's nothing good to watch". It's been that way since I first started watching TV. ;)
Although not completely OT, you are soooooo right.
I think things have become worse over time as the few top media conglomerates (Newscrap:nono: , Disney/ABC, CBS Viacom, NBC Universal) have taken over total control of the broadcast media in the USA over the past two decades or so.
The overall QUALITY of programming has tumbled, with the exception of nature programs, and some PBS content, IMO.
If I had any real issue with my mainstream D* package it would be that there is only LINK TV as a source of independent news and information. LINK TV is great though, I wish there were more content like it.
veryoldschool
04-19-09, 07:24 PM
I voted "quality", of course, but since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the more channels there are, the more chance there will be channels every subscriber will want to watch.
So the number of channels is important, to insure there are "quality" channels available for everyone. /steve
You're being too PC, I only care about "my channels" :lol:
Could not vote because I believe that DirecTV's goals should be both Quality&Quantity.There also should be a fine line between the two as if Quantity starts to infringe on Quality adjustments should apply to maintain the best product available.:sure:
twistedT
04-19-09, 07:39 PM
1000% quality!!! DO NOT forget the days of HD-LITE!!! I'd more then happy to wait for D-12...... as long as it doesn't take to long! :biggrin:
roadrunner1782
04-19-09, 07:41 PM
I think quality is more important.
Quality over quantity any day.
Hutchinshouse
04-19-09, 08:35 PM
Quality over quantity any day.
100% agree........!
I want my HD to be HD :rolleyes:
spartanstew
04-19-09, 08:41 PM
As I said in another thread, D* could stop adding more HD channels tomorrow and I'd be perfectly happy (in fact, they probably could have stopped adding 1 year ago). The vast majority of the channels I watch are in HD.
Artwood
04-19-09, 10:35 PM
I say that if the overall average average of the top 75% of HD channels shown in HD that are viewed most has to drop in quality in any amount to add an additional HD channel--then don't add it!
I'd also say that the top 10% of HD channels viewed--that their quality should INCREASE--even if only minutely--and if there is no way to do that other than dropping other HD channels--then so be it--HD channels should be dropped!
I would even be willing to pay more for DirecTV if they signed contracts with channels that many people would watch and those contracts included higher quality--if DirecTV passed on those costs to me for doing so--I would pay them!
I also want the #1 most watched SD channel to be shown in FULL SD quality--even if that would mean that some other SD channels would be dropped--if for nothing else than to prove that DirecTV was capable of doing such a thing!
And lastly--if Chillers can't be in HD--I wish that DirecTV would provide 1 quality horror dedicated channel in HD quality equivalent to whatever the best that they're offering is.
I believe that a horror channel is not that small of a niche.
I don't know that it would make any difference but I'll give this suggestion--everytime you have to speak to customer service let them know about picture quality concerns--if they hear it a billion times maybe the quality cause may be advance one small bit!
One small bit is better than no bits!
And lastly I want to express my thanks to everyone here who may not agree with the level of my opinions and individually DOWNREZZES them which only goes to show that sometimes there are things that are better expressed DOWNREZZED!
Then perhaps we should stop worrying comparing channel count between providers :)
Do you have a mouse in your pocket Doug? :)
(quality over quantity for me)
spartanstew
04-19-09, 11:49 PM
Do you have a mouse in your pocket Doug? :)
Maybe he's just happy to see you.
100% agree........!
I want my HD to be HD :rolleyes:
Yeah, and I want my Ice Cream to be Ice Cream too, dang it! :D
Do you have a mouse in your pocket Doug? :)I really hope he doesn't answer the real answer cause it is Monday and man, it could be weird hearing what is in his packet, only because you asked. :eek:
Stuart Sweet
04-20-09, 07:01 AM
I voted quality as well, and I presume the question is about picture quality. But, I think we all agree that it also applies to the quality of the programming, its relevance and entertainment value.
You're being too PC, I only care about "my channels" :lol:Me too, of course. :) That said, one's definition of quality is subjective. From NASCAR to golf, and country to classical, everyone's got their own tastes.
So to the extent the OP was trying to make a point that it's not how many channels there are, but how good they are... if your particular interests aren't being served, then there probably aren't enough HD channels (for you)! /steve
kevinwmsn
04-20-09, 08:10 AM
I want quality with a sufficient channel count. I remember the HDLite days when we had nothing but MPEG2HD. I'm hoping that D12 will provide HD versions of the few channels I watch in SDLite.
I voted quality as well, and I presume the question is about picture quality. But, I think we all agree that it also applies to the quality of the programming, its relevance and entertainment value.
I think it could mean both. For instance, Liberty owns the Discovery channels. They could drop 50% of those channels and put the worthwhile programming from the on the other 50% and stop so many reruns. They could then provide a quality VoD solution for their shows and stop reruns completely and drop probably all but one or two of their channels.
Advantages:
1. Less channels would mean less compression necessary
2. Better VoD would mean less DVRs/Hard Drive space necessary
Disadvantages:
1. Less advertising dollars for Liberty ...oops game over.
Quality.
I look over many "D* vs. E*" threads, and it is not all about channel count. My next door neighbor has E* and I am not impressed by the PQ at all compared to D*. And, as others have said, D* carries a good majority of what I watch in HD. I will take a few more in HD, but not going to switch tommorow just because I am impatient.
Quality! You can have a lot of channels airing **** or have only a few channels airing great programming!
Mike Bertelson
04-20-09, 11:02 AM
Quality above all else! :)
What good is a large number of channels if the picture sucks? None!
I paid for an HDTV for the HD quality not to see how many channels I could get.
I’d rather have fewer high quality channels then to increase the number of channels while sacrificing PQ...but that’s just me. ;)
Mike
randyk47
04-20-09, 11:39 AM
Quality without question. Picture quality first then quality channels in terms of content second. There are already more channels than I can or desire to watch so the number or quantity of channels is not an issue for me.
It would have been nice to have a couple more choices:
Quantity of receiver features.
Quality of receiver software.
I voted "quality".(of course)
Brennok
04-20-09, 08:47 PM
I voted quantity assuming quality stays the same. I would rather have more channels to choose from than have one perfect looking channel.
inkahauts
04-20-09, 11:39 PM
I think it could mean both. For instance, Liberty owns the Discovery channels. They could drop 50% of those channels and put the worthwhile programming from the on the other 50% and stop so many reruns. They could then provide a quality VoD solution for their shows and stop reruns completely and drop probably all but one or two of their channels.
Advantages:
1. Less channels would mean less compression necessary
2. Better VoD would mean less DVRs/Hard Drive space necessary
Disadvantages:
1. Less advertising dollars for Liberty ...oops game over.
:lol:
inkahauts
04-20-09, 11:40 PM
I say that if the overall average average of the top 75% of HD channels shown in HD that are viewed most has to drop in quality in any amount to add an additional HD channel--then don't add it!
I'd also say that the top 10% of HD channels viewed--that their quality should INCREASE--even if only minutely--and if there is no way to do that other than dropping other HD channels--then so be it--HD channels should be dropped!
I would even be willing to pay more for DirecTV if they signed contracts with channels that many people would watch and those contracts included higher quality--if DirecTV passed on those costs to me for doing so--I would pay them!
I also want the #1 most watched SD channel to be shown in FULL SD quality--even if that would mean that some other SD channels would be dropped--if for nothing else than to prove that DirecTV was capable of doing such a thing!
And lastly--if Chillers can't be in HD--I wish that DirecTV would provide 1 quality horror dedicated channel in HD quality equivalent to whatever the best that they're offering is.
I believe that a horror channel is not that small of a niche.
I don't know that it would make any difference but I'll give this suggestion--everytime you have to speak to customer service let them know about picture quality concerns--if they hear it a billion times maybe the quality cause may be advance one small bit!
One small bit is better than no bits!
And lastly I want to express my thanks to everyone here who may not agree with the level of my opinions and individually DOWNREZZES them which only goes to show that sometimes there are things that are better expressed DOWNREZZED!
What makes you think they are downresing the top tier channels (or any others) from what they are already receiving? Especially HBO... I don't believe they are touch those channels at all...
paulman182
04-21-09, 05:13 AM
I think most people would vote for quality as long it does not mean losing, or never getting, channels that they want.
Of course, we would have no say in the matter.
Artwood
04-21-09, 03:28 PM
Is it true that DirecTV doesn't touch HBO at all--that it sends the same quality as it receives?
I wished all channels looked like MGM--that's a great channel.
CG Tustin
04-21-09, 08:42 PM
Is it true that DirecTV doesn't touch HBO at all--that it sends the same quality as it receives?
I wished all channels looked like MGM--that's a great channel.
Amen to that..one of the major (if not only) reasons I get the HD extra pack..
jrmichael
04-21-09, 09:44 PM
Quality. I probably only really have about 15 or so channels I watch on a regular basis.
Is it true that DirecTV doesn't touch HBO at all--that it sends the same quality as it receives?
I wished all channels looked like MGM--that's a great channel.
I like Smithsonian Channel and Discovery HD Theater, they are very comparable to MGM.
Artwood
04-22-09, 04:10 PM
I think Smithsonian and Discovery HD are great, too.
Mike Bertelson
04-22-09, 04:35 PM
Is it true that DirecTV doesn't touch HBO at all--that it sends the same quality as it receives?
I wished all channels looked like MGM--that's a great channel.
I like Smithsonian Channel and Discovery HD Theater, they are very comparable to MGM.I think those are great.
I also like the quality of HDnet and HDnet Movies. :)
Mike
joe diamond
04-22-09, 07:55 PM
"Quality" requires a qualifier.
I want the best damn wrestling channel money can buy! You go and dump some of those shows that look at how a house gets built or some symphony plays. Just get me bloody wrestlers in little tight suits.
I demand quality!
Joe
dubber deux
04-25-09, 03:07 PM
Although there seem to be a number of folks who seem to believe that there is a vagueness to the question in the poll, I believe that the folks responding on this site know exactly what is being referred to.
Sure there has to be a balance for an operation that is essentially a "broadcaster of many services" yet so to does there need to be a pause by D*, E* and other providers to consider the most elemental of factors when providing their service, namely picture quality. However, I don't believe anyone here would argue that blizzard of informercial channels have ANY amount of value when it comes to what we are discussing either.
Christopher Gould
04-25-09, 05:55 PM
Got to be quanitity of channels. No use having quality if your channel isn't available.
machavez00
04-26-09, 12:06 AM
quality
Sgt. Slaughter
04-26-09, 05:50 AM
I voted quality(assuming it ment picture wise), but in reality, they should also look at the quality of the channel they offer, as in how many people actually watch the offered channel.
I know everyone likes differnt stuff, but there are some things they could trim out of the stream (like the obscene amount of duplicate PPV's for one) and some channels that people rarely watch at all that are just eating up the bandwidth.
We all know they still have room to add a few more channels in HD, least from what Sixto reports.
Another thing to keep in mind is they can only do so much about the "quality" of the picture. To this day there are still many things that are not produced with the high quality HD camera's. DiscoveryHD and the likes have been filming with the high quality HD camera's for awhile now, which is why they tend to be some of the best looking.
Ever notice how you can watch a NFL football game on Fox and then one on CBS or NBC and the difference between the quality of the picture is there. I would assume this difference is completely due to how the game is filmed and not what DirecTV does to the stream.
Tom Servo
04-27-09, 02:09 AM
Quality is overwhelmingly winning the poll, too bad DirecTV has given us quantity instead when it comes to SD channels. At least they seem to be taking the opposite approach with the HD channels, perhaps out of savvy marketing experience (make the SD look bad to entice people to the more expensive tier.)
That being said, quality is so subjective it's a useless term. Lots of folks think D*'s SD channels are super good looking, but to me they are awful. They may be great compared to fuzzy analog cable but compared to what the provider is sending DirecTV, what we see on some channels is a crime.
Surveyor40
04-27-09, 08:51 AM
Quality.
Shades228
05-02-09, 12:32 AM
I didn't vote because it's not as black and white really. People will vote quality mainly on here but if you look at one of the most active threads it's the More HD in 2009 thread. Obviously people want more HD so the poll really isn't that accurate because it's asking a blanket question to a complex situation.
...the poll really isn't that accurate because it's asking a blanket question to a complex situation.
Isn't that true of most polls??
gslater
05-02-09, 05:18 PM
No option for me if I understand what you mean. My priority is quality of content not quality of picture. While I'd prefer to watch a program in HD, I'll watch a program in SD if it's a quality program I enjoy watching. Put all the shopping channels in HD and I still won't watch them.
Artwood
05-10-09, 11:12 PM
What if people had to choose between full resolution SD with a few less of the least watched HD channels or more HD and leave the SD crappy like it is now?
Come on DirecTV--I'm sure you can get some people to post in saying that they're in favor of more HD and leave the SD crappy like it is now!
What makes you think they are downresing the top tier channels (or any others) from what they are already receiving? Especially HBO... I don't believe they are touch those channels at all...I don't know what the deal with HBO and Cinemax is. To me it looks like DirecTV's source is a low bitrate MPEG-2 feed for those. When they show the old HBO "flyover" intro, it's quite a mess. Showtime, Starz and TMC look great.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.