E SD vs HD

[dude2]

Something that really confuses me is this simple statement.
In my opinion the SD broadcasts really look like crap compared to HD. Is this because HD just plain looks so great? Since I dumped my 508 for my 622 I no longer even like to watch SD? SD looked really good on the 508.
I can switch to Sioux Falls SD and watch SD live off the air and it looks good, certainly better than SD does off the 622.
Anyone else feel this way and is dish really sending us a crappy sd picture?
Dave.

[James Long]

SD is a lot less picture information. It generally looks passable on an SD monitor (regular TV) but the larger the screen and the more resolution you have (HD monitors) the more likely it is you will notice the tiny imperfections in the feeds.

OK, not so tiny at times. There is a limited amount of bandwidth available for channels and occasionally it isn't enough for a 100% picture. You can email dishquality@dishnetwork.com with specific complaints.

[wkomorow]

Try using the S-Video output on the 622 and then use your TVs zoom or stretch . If you are using the 622 to fill your screen for SD channels you are relying on the 622's ability to extrapolate the picture. Most televisions can do it better.

[dude2]

I've go a 51 inch tv so I suppose that is one of the problems. I looked carefully at walmart today to their tv's. They use direct tv as their hd feed and when the sets changed to sd commercials they all looked very blury, actually worse than E.
Also the small 32 inch tv in HD looked super sharp and the bigger they got the poorer they looked. A 61 inch plasma looked no better on hd than a 32 inch does on sd.