1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Which Has Higher Quality HD...cable or D*?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by johnp292, Mar 26, 2009.

  1. speedy5662

    speedy5662 New Member

    4
    0
    Mar 31, 2009
    so let's compare fire vs. water or apples to peas...SD is going to look bad no matter what type of provider you have, on an HDTV. I know that on DTV, if I "pillar box" an SD channel the picture is almost as sharp as HD full screen. Watch a standard DVD from a standard DVD (no upconversion) and you will see the same poor quality as your claiming about TV providers.

    In topic though, I live in a Cox market and my roomie noticed in 30 secs. The difference of our pathetic cable vs DTV. She could have cared less until she saw it for herself.
     
  2. mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    I made the comment that cable HD in my area looks as bad as D* SD, that's all. A jab at cable HD and D* SD in one sentence. It's a valid comparison because the OP can tune in a D* SD channel to preview what cable HD might look like, without having cable. I don't know what kind of TV you have, but D* SD is nowhere near as good as standard DVD on my TV, which is certainly a valid comparison, since at least the number of lines is supposed to be the same. Cable SD and E* SD are pretty good by comparison. Uverse and FIOS blow D* SD away. I admit D* SD looks fine on a small screen, but is nearly unwatchable on a big screen. I certainly don't expect SD to equal HD by any means, but if they would just ease up on the compression, it would look ok.

    So, in summary, cable HD and D* SD suck. Both would benefit immensely from less compression. SD on many other systems is better than D* SD.
     
  3. computersecguy

    computersecguy Legend

    108
    0
    Aug 10, 2007
    I just switched to Bresnan from D*. I will echo the statements that D* has the better picture quality and more HD channels. I think that most of Bresnan's channels are still MPEG2, but it seems that the receivers are capable of MPEG4. Hopefully in the future they will start rolling to MPEG4, which should bring their pq close to D*. The only reason I switched is that I get nearly the same package, with an HD DVR, and Internet for less than I was spending with D*.
     
  4. Artwood

    Artwood Legend

    176
    1
    May 29, 2006
    Nobody does SD worse than DirecTV.
     
  5. ajc68

    ajc68 Icon

    667
    0
    Jan 23, 2008
    ...especially with sports! Any time a game on the NBA League Pass is only available in SD I cringe because I know it's going to be almost unwatchable. It literally makes my eyes hurt as I'm trying to watch on either a 40" or 46" LCD TV.
     
  6. dreadlk

    dreadlk Hall Of Fame

    1,538
    0
    Sep 18, 2007
    LOL this forum is sooo touchy when it comes to certain questions.

    I love the post about Bandwidth does not matter, it's how it looks to you :) The other one about you can't compare mpeg2 to mpeg4 :)

    To the orginal poster I would just say, that your in the wrong place to find an objective answer to your question, you are much better off posting this on AVS.

    That Bandwidth comment kind of reminds me of an argument I once had with a guy who said Directv 1080P was as good as BluRay, it was the old 1080P is 1080P argument.

    I had to carry out my BluRay deck and hook it up to his TV to collect my $20 Bet. I left him there mumbling "I don't understand, they are both 1080P, whats Bandwidth have to do with it?"
     
  7. Nicholsen

    Nicholsen Godfather

    391
    0
    Aug 18, 2007
    10 years ago D* SD quality was noticeably better than cable or analog OTA. Today, the SD seems to run from pretty average to not that great.

    On the other hand, D* HD quality on HBO, SHO, etc. is very, very good. Good enough I wound not bother with a blue-ray player for my 42" LCD.

    HD quality on my MPEG-4 local channels does seem noticeably poorer than OTA. The NCAA finals on MPEG-4 were really poor. Lots of pixelation and blurring. I am sticking with my HR10-250 and OTA for locals until D* fixes this.

    I recently watched cable at a friends house in Northern California and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the HD picture on local sports. Whatever the technical reasons, it appears D* has some real competition on its hands in the area of PQ now.
     
  8. hummer1823

    hummer1823 Mentor

    35
    0
    Apr 6, 2009
    I dont know... I think the the SD on D* is better than my comcast i just switched from. HD PQ is just as good or a little better than CC. i think the local HD on D* are just fine too. :confused:

    One thing thats for sure is D* has more blurps than CC. That kinda sucks.

    Some day everyone will switch to FiOS and then that will suck too. :rolleyes:
     
  9. TrixStar

    TrixStar Cool Member

    15
    0
    Apr 8, 2009
    DirecTV definitely looks better than Comcast did.
     
  10. rcodey

    rcodey AllStar

    65
    1
    May 28, 2007
    I'm in Northern New Jersey with Comcast, Directv and FIOS. I've checked back and forth with my eyes on the same channels and I would rate the HD quality as 1)FIOS 2)Directv and 3)Comcast.
     
  11. thestaton

    thestaton Legend

    233
    0
    Aug 14, 2008
    FIOS > D* > Cable.
     
  12. thestaton

    thestaton Legend

    233
    0
    Aug 14, 2008
    Im still trying to figure this out. Is it because SD is just not made to be viewed on a LCD / Plasma, or is D* really just that pathetic. I have nothing to compare it to.
     
  13. hokie93

    hokie93 Mentor

    42
    0
    Aug 20, 2007
    I can easily tell the difference between OTA and Directv. The pixilation on movement is not the problem but the Directv channel has less contrast. On the OTA the colors are more vibrant, but on the bluring side their is no difference in my opinion.
     
  14. mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    DVD's are SD and look pretty good on LCD/Plasma. D* SD is pathetic. The frustrating part is that it doesn't have to be. D* could make it better if they wanted. It used to be much better. Cable at least has a reasonable excuse since many systems are simply out of bandwidth.
     
  15. Wildgift

    Wildgift Cool Member

    10
    0
    Nov 18, 2006
    Unquestionably, the HD on DTV is much better and the SD considerably worse. Yet, the HUGE increase in HD channels (well, helllloooo there, Comedy Central HD), along with the fantastic HR22 (as opposed to the miserable motorola DCH 3416) makes DTV the obvious choice and a major upgrade.
     
  16. dubber deux

    dubber deux Icon

    716
    0
    Mar 7, 2009
    The biggest problem isn't with compression but with incorrect VIDEO LEVELS (black, white, chroma, luminance, ect) these can be easily corrected with little time and effort, they have NO excuse for this issue on quite a number of channels)

    See my thread here.
    http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=157062
     
  17. Artwood

    Artwood Legend

    176
    1
    May 29, 2006
    Why not just show all SD channels at full resolution and eliminate however many of them you have to to get to that point.

    It's not like the world is going to lay down and die if you get rid of a bunch of SD channels!

    The few left would at least be not painful to watch.

    Exactly how much money does DirecTV make from all the pay channel crap?
     
  18. harsh

    harsh Beware the Attack Basset

    21,192
    182
    Jun 14, 2003
    Salem, OR
    DIRECTV didn't offer specific numbers in their latest reporting; only that PPV and premium movie revenues didn't meet their expectations.
     
  19. BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    8,969
    1
    Nov 13, 2007
    Keep in mind that probably 75% of the DirecTV receivers currently in use are MPEG2/SD only. Those customers would be VERY upset if a bunch of their channels were arbitrarily eliminated, and you would be too.

    While DirecTV is reporting that about 60% of their customers have HD service, meaning at least one HD receiver, few customers are ALL HD; most still have several SD boxes in use. That's a LOT of recievers for 18 million customers!
     
  20. djrobx

    djrobx Godfather

    507
    2
    Jan 26, 2009
    There's no good answer to the OPs question because it varies from place to place.

    When Comcast had our cable system, the HD choices were limited, but the PQ was outstanding. It was simply a remux of the OTA feed with no additional compression added. The PQ was slightly better than DirecTV. Time Warner took over and after a long wait, added 20 new HD channels. When they did this, the HD PQ went to hell. It became way worse than DirecTV or U-verse.
     

Share This Page