What size television?

What size television are you watching satellite broadcasts on?

After you have voted, please add a response to this thread stating the size of your television and whether you find the picture quality generally good, acceptable or poor. Also, please state whether your television is standard definition or high definition.

The goal of this poll is to very clearly point out the picture quality problem to the satellite providers that read this forum.

I watch on a 27" standard def television, and on this size I find the picture quality generally acceptable.

I'm watching on a 57" 16X9 Toshiba HDTV. The picture quality on standard definition channels is barely acceptable. There are motion artifacts (blurring) and a generally soft picture.

I'll be moving to a 100+ inch front proj. I would like the SD signal to be acceptable at this size

There are a bunch of tvs in my house.
A 27" Sony KV27V10 with S-video input, a 20" Sony KV20V80 with S-video input in my bedroom. A 10 year old Toshiba 20" stereo tv, a 19" Toshiba mono tv, a Mystery brand 19" tv/vcr combo, 13" tv/vcr combo, and a 16 year old 13" Sears tv. I watch the 20" Sony in my bedroom the most because it has the best picture for Dish network because of it's small size, high resolution, and because I use a thick S-Video cable and have the television properly calibrated via VE.
The thing that really helps is that a smaller high quality ntsc tv will have a much better DOT PITCH than a large ntsc tv, so that will help with very low quality sources like Dish Network. The bigger the tv, the worse Dish Network's already bad picture will look.
I rate Dish Network's picture acceptable on Pay Per View channels and only some other higher quality channels, and poor on the majority of channels.
That's on the Sony KV-20V80 via S-Video.

Dish Network looks a little bit worse on the 27" Trinitron in the living room via S-Video because of the worse dot pitch on the mid sized tv.
On the 19" Toshiba via RF input, ALL dish network channels look like crap like a mystery brand 2 head vcr on slp.
You know the really werid thing, analog cable looks not bad on that same 19" toshiba.

32" Philips using SVHS connections all around. PQ from where I sit isnt too bad on most channels. My mom has a 48" Sony TV and the PQ is terriable. She mostly watchs Lifetime and LMN :rolleyes: (God forbid if E* ever adds Oxygen) and it just looks like crap, the supers are even worse.

BTW- Both Tvs I mentioned are SD and I voted for 28" to 36" since my TV is the one I watch most.

Steve

If you've voted in this poll, please add a reply listing your television size and whether or not you are satisfied with the picture.

27 inch sharp SD rf inputs set near 10 years old is our primary tv. We have a bunch of 19 and 25 inch sets and PQ on E is generally acceptable. Although blinkouts on our #@! DP is getting bad.

I am glad to report reloading my dps software has it much more stable. E tech said the only jenny code was for loading 2 day guide:( ........

I feel sorry for the DP tech reps, they have a neverending challenge.

just bought a 31 inch sanyo at walmart about a month ago i am very satisfied with dishnetwork picture.use s video for dish but is also wired through vcr via coax.still using orignal 2700 receiver i got 2 years ago.

I have a 27" Toshiba SD in my main room hooked to E*2000 via Pro-Logec receiver and composite video and its also connected to my 25" Sharp SD in my bedroom via rf and channel 4 signal combiner, my dvd player uses the S-Video connection on my Toshiba. The pq is good on most channels, some better then others, not as good as it was in 96 when I first got E* and blink out problems have re-appeared recently. I also have a E* 2700 receiver hooked up via composite through my VCR which is connected to my Pro-Logic via composite and to my 25" sharp in the bedroom, no blinkouts on the 2700 but pq is the same as 2700, since everything on 25'' Sharp is by rf and the TV is not the same quality of TV as my Toshiba, pq of course is not as good but not bad on most channels. A friend of mine has a big screen with Comcast digital, most of my channels on E* are about = with Comcast digital channels but superior to Comcast analog channels which are grainy.

32" Sony, about 6 yrs old. The Dish Network AT100 channels vary from fair to poor. I would be happy if the AT100's looked like the premium movie channels, and the premiums looked like the PPV's. If Charlie delivered that I'd consider my $75/mo bill to be fair value. As it stands now, I resent writing the check every month.

I have a 65' HDTV widescreen tv, and the dbs picture is great on it.

xxx

" The goal of this poll is to very clearly point out the picture quality problem to the
satellite providers that read this forum."



Mark "


The earlier poll showed more than half were content with PQ, and the comments in this thread are reinforcing that point. I know you guys wanna see a better picture...I do too...but I just don't think it's gonna happen when most people are satisfied with what they get now. I anticipate it getting worse as the must carry stations get added. The only reason I still have Dish Network at my home is the wife is a TV addict and she earns half the household income. I regret introducing into our home 4 years ago...it's just never been as good as it CAN be.

I'm watching on a 42" Sony rptv. The picture quality has been deteriorating lately. There are many more motion artifacts and pixalating. WSBK/WWOR are very soft of late. I've had E* for almost 5 years.

36" Philips-Magnavox SD with S-video from RCA DTC100, DVD, and Super-VHS deck through a switcher. PQ very satisfying on DirecTV PPV movies and "Starz!", and generally good with other programming at my customary viewing distance of just over 9'. While not germain to general DBS, the PQ of HD DBS and OTA signals downconverted to S-video is literally DVD quality. I can live with this arrangement quite comfortably, which is a good thing, since this TV was purchased too recently to consider replacing it with an HD TV yet.

3-19", 4-13" and 1 5" TV's here in the apartment. All 7 receivers (6 from DirecTV and 1 from Dish) running RCA audio cables to remote control Emerson 4-way splitters that go to the surround sound system. All video running straight coaxial from the receivers to the TV's.

Picture quality is better on some channels on both DirecTV and Dish compared to others. My 5 ft c-band and 2 Ku dishes picture quality on my 3 big dish receivers still is better than the little systems though. All picture quality is great though as I can live with snow from my Ku dishes on the satellites I can't get very well and rabbit ears for the San Diego OTA stations that come in here in Anaheim. The picture quality on the little dish systems is just not as sharp as the big dish quality.

I have a VERY crisp, clear, standard-def 27" TV. Calibrated against the THX test screens on many DVDs (I'm to cheap to buy VE, and it can't be rented locally). Satellite picture is blurry and relatively unacceptable. It's a million times better than VHS, 1000 times better than cable, and 10 times better than local, but a billion times worse than DVD.

By the way, my set is a 1994 Mitsubishi, and I am using S-Video connections with a DISHPLAYER (FIX THE BLINKOUTS DISH!!!).

GummyBear2001
DBSTalk Legend
Posts: 159
Posted: 10/29/01 7:44:34 pm****
Re: What size television?
I have a VERY crisp, clear, standard-def 27" TV. Calibrated against the THX test screens on many DVDs (I'm to cheap to buy VE, and it can't be rented locally). Satellite picture is blurry and relatively unacceptable. It's a million times better than VHS, 1000 times better than cable, and 10 times better than local, but a billion times worse than DVD.

You must have a really crappy cable television company, or you must be like a million miles away from the cable company.
I have Dish Network(recievers connected via S-Video to calibrated televisions) and I also have analog cable and analog cable has a much better picture even vs Dish Network's stronger channels. Starz East looks way better on analog cable than it does on Dish Network, and Starz East is one of Dish Network's better quality channels.
Enterprise on UPN 57 on Cable looks literally a BILLION TIMES better than it does on WWOR or WBSK on Dish network.
I can do a head to head comparison because they're on at the same time on cable and on Dish. Michael Jordan's return to the NBA on Tuesday night on TBS will look razor sharp on analog cable, but it will be a blurry overcompressed mess on TBS on Dish Network. All the channels on Dish Network have like NO VISUAL DETAIL whatsover. I'll watch a nice good quality DVD or a good quality analog cable channel, and then when I watch Dish Network after that I get a headache because there's like no visual detail in the image on Dish Network channels and that hurts my eyes.
I think that many people mistake the lack of dot crawl, ghosting, etc in the Dish Network picture for a high quality high resolution picture. People don't the understand the concept of what a detailed high resolution picture is supposed to look like. Dish Network certainly does NOT have a high resolution highly detailed picture on ANY standard definition channel PERIOD.
Even the Pay Per View channels on Dish are still below a good analog cable system, and lightyears below Laserdisc or DVD.

<You must have a really crappy cable television company, or you must be like a million miles away from the cable company.>

I live in the middle of nowhere, of course it's a really really crappy cable tv company!

<I have Dish Network(recievers connected via S-Video to calibrated televisions) and I also have analog cable and analog cable has a much better picture even vs Dish Network's stronger channels.>

Analog cable around here looks worse than a piece of thin copper wire as an antenna! Digital is still really bad.

<I think that many people mistake the lack of dot crawl, ghosting, etc in the Dish Network picture for a high quality>

It depends on "quality". Personally I find almost any half-decent digital picture more pleasing on my eyes than most (typically noisy) analog pictures. That's why I put DISH above an antenna (cable around here is terrible).

< high resolution picture. People don't the understand the concept of what a detailed high resolution picture is supposed to look like. Dish Network certainly does NOT have a high resolution>

YES, It does. Resolution is not quality. Dish is 480x480. DirecTV is 720x480 (same as DVD). Cable/antenna is about 330x525 (but part of that goes to v-sync and stuff making it closer to 330x500 actual picture). VHS is around 240x525 (again closer to an actual of 240x500). As you can see, resolution DOES NOT EQUAL PICTURE QUALITY. Picture quality is also affected in the digital world by compression, and in the analog world by noise.

< highly detailed picture on ANY standard definition channel PERIOD.>

Define highly detailed. Compared to VHS or local cable, it certainly IS highly detailed.

Im in the same boat as Gummy, when I compare TW analog to E* its like comparing VHS to DVD. TW is my area sucks in so many ways. All the channels are noisy and I can pick up locals better with a cheap *ss pair of rabbit ears better then cable. A few years ago before we got E* we called TW and complained about the terrible PQ on locals (spef. ABC, NBC) They said it do to interference of either an outdoor antenna (did not have one up until 2 years later when we go E*). And the other reason was the biggest BS Iv ever heard, they said it had to do with interference with Lake Erie. Go figure :rolleyes:

Steve

My local cable company claims ghosting is impossible because of the fact it's a closed system. They also said the noise was a problem with my wiring (not true, it was RG-6 and all good, only went to two TVs and I even tried removing the splitter and doing my main TV only - didn't help at all). This was in a different city, when I moved I went right away to satellite. But it's the same cable co. (AT&T) with a very similar lineup, and all the people I know with cable (lots) - it looks WORSE than cable at my old house. AT&T truly doesn't know how to provide good cable. And it's missing many popular channels.

GummyBear2001
DBSTalk Legend
Posts: 162
Posted: 10/30/01 8:00:51 pm****
Re: Re:
<You must have a really crappy cable television company, or you must be like a million miles away from the cable company.>
I live in the middle of nowhere, of course it's a really really crappy cable tv company!
<I have Dish Network(recievers connected via S-Video to calibrated televisions) and I also have analog cable and analog cable has a much better picture even vs Dish Network's stronger channels.>
Analog cable around here looks worse than a piece of thin copper wire as an antenna! Digital is still really bad.
<I think that many people mistake the lack of dot crawl, ghosting, etc in the Dish Network picture for a high quality>
It depends on "quality". Personally I find almost any half-decent digital picture more pleasing on my eyes than most (typically noisy) analog pictures. That's why I put DISH above an antenna (cable around here is terrible).
< high resolution picture. People don't the understand the concept of what a detailed high resolution picture is supposed to look like. Dish Network certainly does NOT have a high resolution>
YES, It does. Resolution is not quality. Dish is 480x480. DirecTV is 720x480 (same as DVD). Cable/antenna is about 330x525 (but part of that goes to v-sync and stuff making it closer to 330x500 actual picture). VHS is around 240x525 (again closer to an actual of 240x500). As you can see, resolution DOES NOT EQUAL PICTURE QUALITY. Picture quality is also affected in the digital world by compression, and in the analog world by noise.
< highly detailed picture on ANY standard definition channel PERIOD.>
Define highly detailed. Compared to VHS or local cable, it certainly IS highly detailed



You haven't done enough research on Dish Network. It can broadcast it's standard definition channels at many different resolutions depending on what level of compression is used.
Here are the different resolutions Dish network can broadcast at.

Video Resolution
- 704 pixels x 480 lines x 30 frames/sec
- 480 pixels x 480 lines x 30 frames/sec
- 352 pixels x 480 lines x 30 frames/sec
- 352 pixels x 240 lines x 30 frames/sec

You can see that Dish Network certainly CAN broadcast at lower than Analog Cable resolution.
352 pixels is equal to 264 lines of horizontal resolution which is MUCH LOWER than analog cable's 330 lines of horizontal resolution. You also realize that when Dish Network turns the compression up, the percieved resolution is MUCH MUCH lower than the actual resolution. So even if Dish Network is broadcasting at 480x480(which is equal to 360 lines of horizontal resolution), the percieved resolution might only be like 220 lines of horizontal resolution.
WWOR looks MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than a good THX VHS video tape to me.
Get a good THX Certified VHS video tape, get a good VCR and use a good ntsc tv with a good 3D Digital Comb Filter and I bet you that at least 99 out of a hundred people will say that the vhs tape looks better than WWOR on Dish Network.
WWOR on Dish Network migh have a higher than vhs resolution when you test it with a pixel meter, but the percieved resolution of WWOR on Dish Network is about 140 lines of horizontal resolution, while VHS on sp has a percieved resolution of 240 lines of horizontal resolution, and VHS also has an actual resolution of 240 lines of horizontal resolution.
You see with analog sources the ACTUAL resolution and the percieved resolution is always the same. With digital video the picture can look like garbage if too much compression is used even with the resolution is high. I bet you've never seen a proper analog cable picture in your life. Analog cable does have a MUCH MUCH MUCH more detailed picture than what you currently get on Dish Network.
Dish Network had about an equally detailed picture as analog cable years ago when Dish Network didn't have local channels. Directv had a MUCH better than analog cable picture back in 1994 when they didn't use tons of compression the way they use now. I have analog cable and Dish Network and I compare them head to head on identical properly calibrated tvs at least once a week so NOBODY is going to convince me that Dish Network(on standard def channels) has a better picture than my analog cable company has. BTW, the myth that Digital video is always better than analog video is JUST THAT A MYTH. Compare a C-Band analog picture to a Dish Network picture of the same channel and your jaw will hit the floor at just how much worse Dish Network's picture really is on its standard definition channels.
Being Digital doesn't mean anything unless there's very little or no compression being used.
70mm IMAX film is in the analog domain, a 20kbps Real Video movie is in the digital domain. Which one do you think looks better?

I have a Mitsubishi 46" RPTV and Dish. It has been carefully calibrated first by me on things I could do, and then by an "ISF" tech. Prior to any calibrations the movie channels (HBO...) looked pretty good, with only some of the other channels looking good and others looking fair to poor. Since the calibrations not only my self but anyone who comes over cannont get over how good most of the channels look. Sometimes HBO looks very close to watching a DVD. Fox News, MSNBC and others look very good, while some just look good but nothing to write home about. The difference between Dish and our cable company - digital - (Charter) PQ is unbelievable. Dish has a better picture - less pixalization and somehow just clearer. I believe others when they say it used to be better, but I really am pretty happy with the PQ at this time. I believe a merger will only help all of us get what we want - better PQ and more channels.

Just because they CAN broadcast low-res does not mean they DO. ALL DISH Network channels are currently broadcast at 480x480

BTW, how did u get 352 pixels = 264 lines? Pixels IS lines. it's the same.

Oh, and yes, I comepletely know what you mean by lower "perceived resolution" due to the compression. And no, I have never seen a good analog cable picture. They aren't too common in the middle of nowhere!


Admin note: Combined 3 posts into one.

tampa8, while DISH is certainly a million times better than both my local analog cable and local digital cable, comparing it to DVD is going too far. The DISH picture loses lots of detail in compression.

Originally posted by Jack:

You must have a really crappy cable television company, or you must be like a million miles away from the cable company.
I have Dish Network(recievers connected via S-Video to calibrated televisions) and I also have analog cable and analog cable has a much better picture even vs Dish Network's stronger channels. Starz East looks way better on analog cable than it does on Dish Network, and Starz East is one of Dish Network's better quality channels.
Enterprise on UPN 57 on Cable looks literally a BILLION TIMES better than it does on WWOR or WBSK on Dish network.
I can do a head to head comparison because they're on at the same time on cable and on Dish. Michael Jordan's return to the NBA on Tuesday night on TBS will look razor sharp on analog cable, but it will be a blurry overcompressed mess on TBS on Dish Network. All the channels on Dish Network have like NO VISUAL DETAIL whatsover. I'll watch a nice good quality DVD or a good quality analog cable channel, and then when I watch Dish Network after that I get a headache because there's like no visual detail in the image on Dish Network channels and that hurts my eyes.
I think that many people mistake the lack of dot crawl, ghosting, etc in the Dish Network picture for a high quality high resolution picture. People don't the understand the concept of what a detailed high resolution picture is supposed to look like. Dish Network certainly does NOT have a high resolution highly detailed picture on ANY standard definition channel PERIOD.
Even the Pay Per View channels on Dish are still below a good analog cable system, and lightyears below Laserdisc or DVD.


Are u the same Jack from DBS forums? The Jack from DBSForums mentions he's from a rural area, and is very scared of losing supers. Are you talking about UPN 57 from Philadelphia? I get this channel OTA and WB 17. WB17 and FOX 29 look excellent, and all my other Philly stations look very good.

I have a 27" Sony still, although may get a new TV set. I wonder sometimes why I spend so much on stuff like a TiVo, Showstopper, new Dish receivers, HT setup, DirecTV receiver now, but still have a 27" set. Sometimes I feel I wasted money on stuff like certain equipment and could have bought a bigger TV set.

PQ, I have DirecTV now, and Dish only for their Dish CD package. DirecTV's PQ is about same as Dish's. Both are acceptable.

I'm getting a free year of DVD rentals through Blockbuster, so that alone is worth my activation of DirecTV TC.

BrettR wrote:

Unregistered
Posted: 11/4/01 11:05:10 pm****
Are u the same Jack from DBS forums? The Jack from DBSForums mentions he's from a rural area, and is very scared of losing supers. Are you talking about UPN 57 from Philadelphia? I get this channel OTA and WB 17. WB17 and FOX 29 look excellent, and all my other Philly stations look very good.
I have a 27" Sony still, although may get a new TV set. I wonder sometimes why I spend so much on stuff like a TiVo, Showstopper, new Dish receivers, HT setup, DirecTV receiver now, but still have a 27" set. Sometimes I feel I wasted money on stuff like certain equipment and could have bought a bigger TV set.
PQ, I have DirecTV now, and Dish only for their Dish CD package. DirecTV's PQ is about same as Dish's. Both are acceptable.
I'm getting a free year of DVD rentals through Blockbuster, so that alone is worth my activation of DirecTV TC.

Yes, I am Jack from the DBS forums, but I'm not the Jack you're thinking of.
If you read all the posts there then you'll notice that there is more than 1 Jack there.
BTW, I also live in the Philly burbs, and I get WB17 and UPN57 on my analog cable. Enterprise on UPN57 on analog cable looks BEAUTIFUL, but it looks really bad on WSBK and WWOR superstations on Dish.

This thread has been quite good because so many have stayed away from mud slinging and given some good honest answers!

Dish (or Directv) have an immediate advantage here because cable is sooooo horible. With that in mind, I really do find Dish channels overall to be quite good. There are some exceptions, as this weekend for whatever reason the Tampa/Packers game on either of the fox stations I get on Dish were not very good. Other weeks however the picture can be very good on these same channels. HBO is always very good, many times excellent while other channels can be only good. I have a 46" TV and it has been calibrated and the calibration made a difference. While of course "Garbage in - garbage out" still applies, a "Decent picture in now is a better picture out" Using the Svideo connection makes a difference over component, and miles of difference over the old style anntenna type cable hookup. In fact that connection makes a very muddy picture that indeed would be almost unwatchable on some Dish channels. The best indication of the overall good PQ is when neighbors/friends come over and can't say enough about "How good the picture looks." I'm sure it can be even better, but it is better than anything I had before.

I'm with you, tampa8. I really wish that we had a cable system here in Denver that could match the quality of some of the others that people have been talking about. Here, Dish looks much better than any of the cable channels, analog or digital. I watch Buffy and Enterprise on WWOR because the picture is watchable, as opposed to watching it on our local KTVD off of cable. Well, except for Enterprise 2 weeks ago that is...

Oh, and I think you meant to write composite connection as opposed to component connection. Component would be better than svideo if any of the dish receivers other than the 6000 had it.

Thanks - composite is just below Svideo. Component would be better still.

Composite is "just" below SVideo? Except on extemely high end applications (high end TVs, LCD projectors, people using an external comb filter, etc...) the composite filtering is so lousy that SVideo is light years ahead! Component provides a small increase still (but a massve increase if used for a progressive signal or high res signal as svid can't handle those). RGB (computer connection) is a tiny touch above component.

Gummy, i disagree with you conditionally. Composite can be better than svideo if (and only if) the device sending the video signal has a better comb filter than the television. And if the svideo output from that filter bypasses the comb filter. Output from my laserdisc player actually looks better on my television from the composite output than from the svideo output.

Of course, that's the only way that composite can look better than svideo.

You are assuming that all devices with an SVideo output have it due to an internal comb filter. This is the case with LaserDisc, BUT it is not the case with:

Digital Satellite
Digital Cable
DVD
SVHS (or any other tape format for that matter)
Game Console
Computer

As you can see LaserDisc is the exception, not the rule. Perhaps I should have said SVideo is always better ASSUMING using SVideo means there is no comb filter (which it does on anything except LaserDisc or some very unusual applications). Bypassing comb filtering is always better than comb filtering, no matter how good the comb filter is.