D*/E* Picture Quality today versus 2000??

[tkrandall]

I have only been with DirecTV for a month or so. Let me say I am very pleased with the overall product: signal reliability, equipment, and channels. I was iffy-analog OTA before that.

The only real "complaint" I have is that the picture quality is not near the standard I have been hearing it hyped up to be for years. Granted it is better than the local cable my neighbors use to have, but it does not consistently live up anywhere near the hype.

Given the digital nature/inconsistency of what I am seeing, It appears obvious that the DBS bandwidth is oveloaded and too much compression is going on. With a high quality standard TV, the digitalness can be quite noticable and at times annoying. Especially when you see the picture coming in and out of "focus" as the image quality vascillates.

It seems improvements in data compression technology and use of the spot beam sats is only serving to cram more channels in, rather than improve, much less maintain, signal quality. This goes with D* and E*, as I have noticed my brother with E* has a similar phenomenon. It makes one wonder about uncompressed C-Band after all.

Two questions:

1) For you long time DBSers - how does E* and D* PQ compare today vesus 2, 3, or 4 years ago? I cannot help but suspect that the DBS PQ hype is based on the fact that PQ used to be better andmore consistent.

2) Have the powers that be a D* or E* acknowledged that PQ is becoming a problem that needs to be addressed, either through channel reductions or some technical solution?

[Ken_F]

1) For you long time DBSers - how does E* and D* PQ compare today vesus 2, 3, or 4 years ago? I cannot help but suspect that the DBS PQ hype is based on the fact that PQ used to be better andmore consistent.I don't think it's that much different from 2-3 years ago. In some cases, it could even be an improvement. However, it's certainly inferior to the picture quality seen on both services within a few years of their launch; it is also inferior to the quality we had on DirecTV around six years ago. Back then, both providers had only 6-8 channels per transponder, compared to the 10-11 that is typical today.

Even when accounting for today's higher power satellites and reduced FEC levels, that's still an average reduction of 0.75Mbps to 1.25Mbps per channel. With the drop in bit rate, they've also reduced color resolution and pixel resolution on most standard channels from the original 640x480 to 544x480 (Dish) and 480x480 (DirecTV).

I do remember thinking the the picture quality was excellent on CNN (DirecTV) during the impeachment trial in early 1999. I hadn't seen that good a picture on CNN since early to mid 1998. And I haven't seen that good a picture on CNN since -- on either provider.

2) Have the powers that be a D* or E* acknowledged that PQ is becoming a problem that needs to be addressed, either through channel reductions or some technical solution?The multichannel providers long ago determined that the public at large--with their 20" to 27" televisions--prefers quantity over quality when it comes to SDTV.

Barring a DirecTV/Echostar merger or a receiver swapout for 8PSK/MPEG-4 costing billions of dollars, the picture quality on SD channels will not make a return to its earlier form. There is virtually no chance of either provider dropping SD channels to improve quality in the current competitive climate for multichannel service.

HDTV is the last great hope for quality over quantity on DBS and cable. For now at least, SDTV is targetted to those who an abundance of programming choices, while HDTV is generally marketed as a premium service to those who appreciate better picture quality and sound.

[Mike D-CO5]

I can remember when I first got Dish after having Primestar how stunning the picture quality was. And that was with out calibrating my tv to get the best possible picture . Today I have my 50 inch calibrated to the best possible picture I can get and the Sat picture with Dish is very good , not as good as it was back in 97 but very good none the less.

If the sat providers would do a basic calibration of the tvs for satellite reception with their services then these complaints would go away or at least be less than today. It wouldn't cost that much more to train the installers with the basic knowledge of what the picture should look like with Dish and Directv.


I know my tvs were always turned way up on contrast , brightness, and sharpness. Now I realize that the picture looks best with very little of these three turned up. I don't even see compression or artifacting at all now. The picture is quite good now , now it probably isn't as good as dvd but I do like watching tv now.


In the next 10 years I figure the hd channels will be more abundant and the sd channels will be in the minority. It makes sense that as they add more hd channels of the same content in sd they will need more bandwith and will need more sats etc. When they finally get all channels in hd then the picture quality issues of today will be no more. Unless of course they try to compress the hd channels like they have done the sd channels. Then picture quality will be about the same. People complain of high compression of the hd channels on Directv so I guess it wouldn't be to much of a reach to imagine that they will compress the hd channels as well as the sd. Of course they could come up with better compression techniques that will fix this problem in the near future.

Either way the sat providers should remember with hd signal that the viewers want the best possible picture quality they can get, not necessarily more channels but better picture quality.

[lee120]

i have a directv for 2 years i don't see much change

[Bif]

both dbs providers suck. Digital cable is crystal clear, and the way to go. digital rocks.

[Mark Holtz]

And, exactly how many channels are really "digital" in digital cable? Does your cable system have intergrated DVRs in their set top boxes?

[Martyva]

DIgital cable=more stations=more money=whadya mean your picture stinks its gotta be the TV. Your TVs new and you have a VCR hooked up? To many things hooked up.

[Jacob S]

I do not think the average Joe user will notice any change in the picture quality from what it was a while back. If HD were to be compressed I bet it would be a bit more noticable than what SD compression would be, therefore I would think that they would not compress HD as much, especially when people are having to pay a premium to get the HD content.

[RichW]

"I do not think the average Joe user will notice any change in the picture quality from what it was a while back."

Exactly! When DBS evolved from a high-end content provider to a mass media, the picture standards went down, but only a few people cared then. In fact most folks with direct-view (CRT) sets are still "blown away" by DBS quality. Echostar, for the most part, has generally lagged DirecTV with respect to picture quality (PQ) but they continue to gain market share over DirecTV. This is disappointing top the High PQ devotees, but high PQ is not where the DBS profit is.

[Bob_Roth]

"I do not think the average Joe user will notice any change in the picture quality from what it was a while back."

Exactly! When DBS evolved from a high-end content provider to a mass media, the picture standards went down, but only a few people cared then. In fact most folks with direct-view (CRT) sets are still "blown away" by DBS quality. Echostar, for the most part, has generally lagged DirecTV with respect to picture quality (PQ) but they continue to gain market share over DirecTV. This is disappointing top the High PQ devotees, but high PQ is not where the DBS profit is.

That may be true but I certainly noticed the degradation of PQ in the past several years. Nor did I EVER buy into the DBS myth popular among many posters that the next few satellites going up would restore good PQ. Once the providers realized that they could use the "must-carry" excuse indefinitely to alibi their way through lousy PQ, they knew that they could emphasis quantity over quality anytime in the future. Most DBS forums posters ironically paved the way for this lowering of PQ by continuously excusing the providers in supporting their "must-carry is temporarily forcing lower PQ" wail. Once you allow a vendor to lower standards for any reason whatsoever, he realizes that he can get away with lower levels of service from then on. There is no such thing as a "temporary" lowering of standards or service levels. The "temporary" becomes the permanent (just like national taxation was once supposed to be just a "temporary" solution - allow a politician to tax and it never ends...).

The solution for me was not to count on the DBS providers for my local needs once I realized the games both D* & E* were playing. HDTV (OTA) was the answer for me. Now I can hardly stomach the PQ either D* or E* provide. Simply compare a program such as "Hack" on CBS in HD with what one sees on DBS or cable. The PQ of HD blows away what DBS offers so much so that one wonders what the hell one is paying the DBS providers for? They are getting money from us to essentially give us crap PQ. No amount of alibying or excusing them will cover up this fact. HD is going to spank their ass once it becomes universally available through a combination of OTA + cable. And DBS will have deserved it for their hypocritical "must-carry" ploy to lower service levels AND CONTINUE THEM.