Supercast Quality

[Stryker412]

Will they ever improve the quality of the online streams? Compared to Youtube and Hulu, the quality is horrible.

[jonbad]

I agree that the Supercast quality is poor. You can read my full review of the service here

jonbad.wordpress.com/review-of-directv-supercast

Let's get the word out. I think the only way to get Directv to fix this wil be to embarrass them.

[Doug Brott]

I agree that the Supercast quality is poor. You can read my full review of the service here

jonbad.wordpress.com/review-of-directv-supercast

Let's get the word out. I think the only way to get Directv to fix this wil be to embarrass them.

The standard price for Sunday Ticket without SuperFan is $299. This does not include the HD broadcasts or SuperCast.That is an another $100 which gets you to your $400.

Many fans received SuperCast for free this year. In addition, many folks also received a discount on the base NFLST package. Very few subscribers had access to Internet Only subscriptions this year.

Comparing SuperCast to Hulu is a bit misleading. Hulu can optimize their videos with multiple passes as it is not real time. The NFL games have to be encoded and delivered on the fly with as little buffer time as possible so that you can keep up with the action in real time.

[ccsoftball7]

Comparing SuperCast to Hulu is a bit misleading. Hulu can optimize their videos with multiple passes as it is not real time. The NFL games have to be encoded and delivered on the fly with as little buffer time as possible so that you can keep up with the action in real time.

Comparing to Hulu may be misleading; however, comparing to mlb.tv is not. MLB blows away the quality of the NFL games.

If you following the link: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index.jsp?c_id=mlb&affiliateId=mlbMENUBANNERNAV and do a view demo, it quite simply is fantastic video. Plus, the player allows multiple games at a time.

[dacoop2]

The PQ isn't all that great, but I'll say that I had no issues with lagging or hanging when going from game-to-game this week on the PC version. Last week I had quite a bit of that.

[Stryker412]

Comparing to Hulu may be misleading; however, comparing to mlb.tv is not. MLB blows away the quality of the NFL games.

If you following the link: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index.jsp?c_id=mlb&affiliateId=mlbMENUBANNERNAV and do a view demo, it quite simply is fantastic video. Plus, the player allows multiple games at a time.

Yes sorry, Hulu was misleading. However like ccsoftball said, the MLB player blows Supercast away it isn't even funny. Also, the NHL one is very nice as well.

[jonbad]

The standard price for Sunday Ticket without SuperFan is $299. This does not include the HD broadcasts or SuperCast.That is an another $100 which gets you to your $400.

Many fans received SuperCast for free this year. In addition, many folks also received a discount on the base NFLST package. Very few subscribers had access to Internet Only subscriptions this year..

As far as the pricing goes, I guess my point is that you must pay $400 before you have the ability to view games via the Internet, but you are not paying $400 just for the Internet component - other services are included in that price. I did find that Directv is offering an Internet-only subscription to the NFL Sunday Ticket in New York for approximately $350. If anyone pays that price for this service they will be sorely disappointed.


Comparing SuperCast to Hulu is a bit misleading. Hulu can optimize their videos with multiple passes as it is not real time. The NFL games have to be encoded and delivered on the fly with as little buffer time as possible so that you can keep up with the action in real time..

I haven't found any data that shows there are any major technical differences between streaming a live event vs. on-demand streaming. Let's compare Supercast to the NCAA Basketball Tournament (March-Madness) games that were streamed by CBS.com earlier this year then. I watched several games online and the picture was crystal clear, no buffering, widescreen, and free too. I would imagine that CBS.com had to serve more than two million viewers also - they did a great job. It is possible to stream a live sporting event in good quality and for Directv to charge even one cent for Supercast while the quality is so substandard is a joke.

[Justin23]

I think the quality will depend on your ISP speed...when I watched the Supercast app on my iPhone using 3G it took about 5 minutes but the PQ cleared up. When I switched to my wifi that is much faster than the 3G, the PQ cleared up in less than a minute. I think I saw on the D* website that they are sending the Supercast stream at different speeds depending on each individual user to make sure the video doesn't buffer. So if your ISP speed is low, you might not have the best PQ...

J

[ccsoftball7]

I think the quality will depend on your ISP speed...<snip> So if your ISP speed is low, you might not have the best PQ...

J

I disagree. The feed is fine. However, the resolution is not on par with content from other providers (including CBS NCAA tournament basketball).

[nchan50]

I registered just to say how bad the online feed is. I'm one of the Manhattan subscribers so the online version is the only way I could get Sunday Ticket. For $380 (after taxes) I was expecting much better quality than this - it's far worse than standard digital tv. Not to mention there was no way to test out the quality before buying it.

NFL's game pass is HD, MLB is HD, the US Open was shown online by CBS in HD and the first game of the season (Steelers vs. Titans) was also shown online in HD. It's disappointing that Direct TV has a monopoly and can't even provide adequate video quality as others have done.

Is there any chance Direct TV improves the quality this season? Do they monitor this board because everyone I've called is in a foreign calling center and has no idea what I'm talking about.

[Stryker412]

Try posting here too:

http://forums.directv.com/pe/action/forums/displaythread?rootPostID=10594738

[tcusta00]

I agree that the Supercast quality is poor. You can read my full review of the service here

jonbad.wordpress.com/review-of-directv-supercast

Let's get the word out. I think the only way to get Directv to fix this wil be to embarrass them.



From your blog post:

"I have my computer connected to my widescreen HDTV and not only was the picture not in widescreen, it was very blurry."

:scratchin Why are you doing this? Of course it's going to look blurry, it's meant for a (relatively) smaller computer screen. I'm not defending the PQ as I think it can use improvement, but you're making it worse for yourself.

[Doug Brott]

I haven't found any data that shows there are any major technical differences between streaming a live event vs. on-demand streaming. Let's compare Supercast to the NCAA Basketball Tournament (March-Madness) games that were streamed by CBS.com earlier this year then. I watched several games online and the picture was crystal clear, no buffering, widescreen, and free too. I would imagine that CBS.com had to serve more than two million viewers also - they did a great job. It is possible to stream a live sporting event in good quality and for Directv to charge even one cent for Supercast while the quality is so substandard is a joke.

Comparing to a Live Event is a much better comparison. Something that is on-demand can be encoded using algorithms that are better, but take longer to run. For example, they can take 4 hours of real time to encode a 1 hour program. Clearly there would be no way to do this for a Live event so compromises would need to be made somewhere.

Certainly compared to MLB.tv and NCAA Basketball, etc. that has been mentioned is much more realistic. In addition, the technology will likely be different again next year. The quality of the broadcast seems as good as or better than it was last year, so they don't seem to be going backward.

[jonbad]

From your blog post:

"I have my computer connected to my widescreen HDTV and not only was the picture not in widescreen, it was very blurry."

:scratchin Why are you doing this? Of course it's going to look blurry, it's meant for a (relatively) smaller computer screen. I'm not defending the PQ as I think it can use improvement, but you're making it worse for yourself.

My HDTV has a built-in PC connection (i.e. a connection on the back of the TV specifically meant to handle connecting a computer to the HDTV). Also, in my blog post I said that other streaming content (Hulu for example) is in widescreen and crystal clear. In fact, most online content streams these days are very good quality – some excellent, and I seldom see poor quality. That's why Directv's bush-league service is so shocking.

[tcusta00]

My HDTV has a built-in PC connection (i.e. a connection on the back of the TV specifically meant to handle connecting a computer to the HDTV). Also, in my blog post I said that other streaming content (Hulu for example) is in widescreen and crystal clear. In fact, most online content streams these days are very good quality – some excellent, and I seldom see poor quality. That's why Directv's bush-league service is so shocking.

Perhaps I wasn't clear:

DirecTV designed this software for a PC, not a TV. They have the best quality HD available through your HR2x or H2x receivers. Why would you choose to connect your PC to your TV?

[jonbad]

Perhaps I wasn't clear:

DirecTV designed this software for a PC, not a TV. They have the best quality HD available through your HR2x or H2x receivers. Why would you choose to connect your PC to your TV?
This discussion is specifically about Supercast, not whether Directv can provide a clear HD picture for the NFL Sunday Ticket by using their HD receivers.

Supercast is an online service which can be viewed using a PC and that's what we are discussing here, and the quality of Supercast is the same whether I have my PC connected to my HDTV or my HD computer monitor.

[tcusta00]

This discussion is specifically about Supercast, not whether Directv can provide a clear HD picture for the NFL Sunday Ticket by using their HD receivers.

Supercast is an online service which can be viewed using a PC and that's what we are discussing here, and the quality of Supercast is the same whether I have my PC connected to my HDTV or my HD computer monitor.

Exactly. It's not meant for viewing on TV - there's a better source for that: Which is why I questioned your criticizing why it wasn't in 16:9 format (which is a common TV aspect ratio, not as common for PC screens) and why it was blurrier on a bigger screen.

It's designed for a smaller, 4:3 computer screen. Yes, I agree it's still not the best picture, but you're exacerbating the situation by reviewing it this way. It's not right.

It's akin to bagging on Apple for not making Snow Leopard compatible with PC hardware.

[jonbad]

Exactly. It's not meant for viewing on TV - there's a better source for that: Which is why I questioned your criticizing why it wasn't in 16:9 format (which is a common TV aspect ratio, not as common for PC screens) and why it was blurrier on a bigger screen.

It's designed for a smaller, 4:3 computer screen. Yes, I agree it's still not the best picture, but you're exacerbating the situation by reviewing it this way. It's not right.

It's akin to bagging on Apple for not making Snow Leopard compatible with PC hardware.
As I said, the Supercast picture quality is the same on both my computer monitor and HDTV. I’m not stretching the picture to 16:9, I’m viewing it in the aspect ratio in which Directv streams it – it appears in a box on my screen with black bars on each side. Viewing Supercast on an HDTV does not degrade the picture in any way; it is a digital TV displaying a digital signal. Home Theater PCs (HTPC) have been around for 10 years; PC makers want us to connect PCs to our televisions. My HDTV is nothing more than a big computer monitor, which is why it has a specific computer connector and automatically sets its resolution to be compatible with the PC.

I am also comparing Supercast, which provides Internet streaming video of a live sporting event, with other Internet streaming services such as CBS.com’s NCAA Basketball Tournament and Hulu.com, both of which I watched on my HDTV – so it is a fair comparison. Both Hulu and CBS’s streams automatically scale to widescreen when I view them full-screen, and the picture quality of both is crystal clear, so it is fair to state that Supercast does not do these things in comparison.

[tcusta00]

As I said, the Supercast picture quality is the same on both my computer monitor and HDTV. I’m not stretching the picture to 16:9, I’m viewing it in the aspect ratio in which Directv streams it – it appears in a box on my screen with black bars on each side. Viewing Supercast on an HDTV does not degrade the picture in any way; it is a digital TV displaying a digital signal. Home Theater PCs (HTPC) have been around for 10 years; PC makers want us to connect PCs to our televisions. My HDTV is nothing more than a big computer monitor, which is why it has a specific computer connector and automatically sets its resolution to be compatible with the PC.

I am also comparing Supercast, which provides Internet streaming video of a live sporting event, with other Internet streaming services such as CBS.com’s NCAA Basketball Tournament and Hulu.com, both of which I watched on my HDTV – so it is a fair comparison. Both Hulu and CBS’s streams automatically scale to widescreen when I view them full-screen, and the picture quality of both is crystal clear, so it is fair to state that Supercast does not do these things in comparison.

Ok.

[sko58]

Exactly. It's not meant for viewing on TV - there's a better source for that: Which is why I questioned your criticizing why it wasn't in 16:9 format (which is a common TV aspect ratio, not as common for PC screens) and why it was blurrier on a bigger screen.

It's designed for a smaller, 4:3 computer screen. Yes, I agree it's still not the best picture, but you're exacerbating the situation by reviewing it this way. It's not right.

It's akin to bagging on Apple for not making Snow Leopard compatible with PC hardware.

A "smaller, 4:3 computer screen"??? Uh, what?! I stopped using 4:3 monitors like, I don't know, 4 to 6 years ago. If they're developing streaming capabilities (hardware & software) for "smaller, 4:3 computer screen(s)" then they're in trouble.

Outside of that ridiculous portion of your statement, let's take a look at the part just before that - in reference to 16:9 format screens:

"Which is why I questioned your criticizing why it wasn't in 16:9 format (which is a common TV aspect ratio, not as common for PC screens)".

Again - uh, what?! I have to search harder to find a 4:3 format monitor than I do for one in 16:9 format! Have you even bothered to notice what's going on with today's technology?!

How much HD video do you watch in 4:3 format? Heck, standard 420p DVD's are meant for 16:9 monitors. How many *new* (current) PC games do you find/play in 4:3 format? How many new PC's or Mac's can you go buy today - notebooks included - that come with monitors/screens in 4:3 format?

Are you kidding me?! The 4:3 aspect ratio is pretty much just about officially dead. It's 2009 after all.

Lastly, there are more and more people - EVERY DAY - who are hooking up their PC's, Mac's, Xbox 360's, Playstation 3's and countless other media hubs to their HDTV's for the sole purpose of watching streaming video from the net! I mean, seriously. Where have you been???

To say that it's "not meant for viewing on TV" is out of touch with the way people utilize technology - especially since major corporations are working hard to find ways to offer *more* video streaming to end-users' televisions - in 16:9 format by the way.

For crying out loud, my Xbox 360 and PS3 are media streaming workstations as much as they are gaming consoles! I can stream HD (and SD) movies from Netflix directly through my Xbox 360 - to my TV, of course. Microsoft added that capability on their own. I find it hard to believe they thought people would be watching it on "smaller, 4:3 screens".

Please, explain to me where I'm missing your point here. As I see it right now, the only thing you should be questioning is:

1. Why you're still using a 4:3 format monitor.
2. Why you totally missed the digital transition - which pretty much marked the death of the 4:3 SD format.
3. Why you've missed the fact that new technology is released every single day that enables people to watch streamed video on their TV's - not to mention the fact that many new TV's have internet connections *built in*!
4. Why you evidently believe it's so unusual for people to watch streamed video by hooking up their PC's and Mac's to their TV's.

Geesh! It seems you're only just a liiiiiitle bit out of touch.

Now...back to my TV to finish watching a streamed video I just started a bit ago...

[MountainMan10]

Last year supercast was 16:9 on some games and 4:3 on others. I have only used it once this year for the RZC.

I wonder how many people are using Supercast on a Sunday. And how does this compare to how many are watching MLB?

[Stryker412]

This is a bit off topic but will Supercast work outside of the US? We might be doing some traveling soon.

[Stryker412]

This is a bit off topic but will Supercast work outside of the US? We might be doing some traveling soon.

bump anyone?

[Wisegoat]

This is a bit off topic but will Supercast work outside of the US? We might be doing some traveling soon.

Haven't used it outside the US, but the answer is Maybe.

DirecTV may be blocking any non US IP addresses. It wouldn't surprise me.

If not, it should work anywhere you have an Internet connection.

[Zixxer]

It works everywhere I've traveled....Germany, Japan, Korea, Iraq, Italy....qaulity depends on connection speed but I've never had a problem getting logged in.

[HerntDawg]

Sorry if i sound sour, but comparing a LIVE NFL game to a LIVE MLB game is completely absurd. The action in baseball is not even comparable to football. So it would seem like the baseball stream could be better.

[ccsoftball7]

Sorry if i sound sour, but comparing a LIVE NFL game to a LIVE MLB game is completely absurd. The action in baseball is not even comparable to football. So it would seem like the baseball stream could be better.

Unless I'm reading your thread wrong...that would imply football isn't as good as baseball on TV either? The baseball streaming feeds are HD quality. The NFL streaming feeds are at best low-rate SD quality. The resolution isn't as high, the quality isn't as good. This is not even debatable.

[kstefanec]

Perhaps I wasn't clear:

DirecTV designed this software for a PC, not a TV. They have the best quality HD available through your HR2x or H2x receivers. Why would you choose to connect your PC to your TV?

Ever hear of watching more than one game at a time? Main game is on the 120" screen and the red zone is on the 32" LCD.

Funny, I read a lot in these forums about "why would I watch internet content on a TV?" We gotta get these people up to speed.:rolleyes:

[Luck255]

Just thought I'd add NBA broadband, which is included in NBA League Pass for free, has incredibly better PQ as well.

[FarNorth]

Just came back from holidays overseas and tried to hook up wirelessly to SuperCast from both Johannesburg and the island of Mauritius.

My iPhone would not load.

SuperCast on my PC laptop would log in and show the scores and updates screen but would not 'boot up' to the actual video screen.

My SlingBox HD would, though, from the same Direct HR21 and the same router/ cable modem. The SB quality was pretty fair with some buffetting.

I know the incoming wireless signal was pretty slow but the bottom line is that I was able to watch the games on my SlingBox and not on SuperCast.