Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo

Dish & Direct tv--Any signal or Picture difference?


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#41 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,822 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 21 June 2013 - 04:40 PM

For some reason The History Channel has sharp picture..

 

Yes it does, Pickers in particular always looks great. HBO looks better than most cable channels also.



...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#42 OFFLINE   Laxguy

Laxguy

    Fortuna! Fameux des Halles

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 12,585 posts
  • LocationWinters, California
Joined: Dec 02, 2010

Posted 22 June 2013 - 08:40 AM

There is none. Well there is of course but there may be good reason people don't see a difference and I often question those who say they do. Unless the screen is big enough and you sit close enough, there is no difference to the human eye. In fact given a smaller screen size and sitting at a normal viewing distance even 480 looks no worse than 1080. It's fact.

 

 

Simply untrue. You'd have to understand how pixels affect resolution, where it makes a difference and where it doesn't. While one can construct scenarios where some pictures of different resolutions look equivalent by varying the distance, it doesn't mean they are the same in all situations. 


"Laxguy" means a guy who loves lacrosse.

#43 OFFLINE   tampa8

tampa8

    Godfather/Supporter

  • Registered
  • 1,822 posts
Joined: Mar 30, 2002

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:15 AM

I respectfully disagree. Saying it's simply untrue doesn't change facts. Do some research on what the human eye can see on the subject of resolution. A 480 signal WILL LOOK NO DIFFERENT THAN 1080 at even a reasonable smaller screen size and from a reasonable distance. It's not some theory it's fact.

Now take a much larger screen and sit reasonably close enough or even too close and the difference in resolution can be seen. So as I posted while there is a difference of course seeing it is another matter.



#44 OFFLINE   gov

gov

    Legend

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 1,097 posts
Joined: Jan 10, 2013

Posted 22 June 2013 - 09:29 AM

I've had both services now for a few more weeks, and love them both.  Wish I had done this years ago.  There are things I really like about both boxes. 

 

I am getting more adept at running the Dish 722 now, and it does what I want.  The programming differences are interesting, I was watching WBZ local coverage of the Hernandez brouhaha, and I have Molly B on in (Dish) HD right now.   

 

I've been using the DirecTV HDDVR fleet I have (5!) and am looking forward to getting an HR34 next year and some clients.

 

I need to 'permanetize' my Dish 722 location, I have had it sitting on a speaker so far, just was trying to put off the ordeal of dragging the TV stand out from the wall for a reconfiguration.

 

 

 

I, for one, would like to see more of the posters here with both services.  If you are independent and work on both E* and D*, it will make you better at what you do, and even for folks dedicated to one over the other, the differences between the services, while actually few, are still interesting and significant.

 

And the cool factor when you mention to your peers that have you have both services is considerable!

 

 

:coffee



#45 OFFLINE   satinstallerguy

satinstallerguy

    AllStar

  • Registered
  • 72 posts
  • LocationCleveland
Joined: Apr 21, 2013

Posted 22 June 2013 - 02:13 PM

Do you have any recent authoritative documentation to support these claims? You're wording suggests objective evidence exists.

I install both and have to admit Directv HD picture quality is better than Dish Network...............     

 

SIG



#46 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,318 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 22 June 2013 - 02:33 PM

I respectfully disagree. Saying it's simply untrue doesn't change facts. Do some research on what the human eye can see on the subject of resolution. A 480 signal WILL LOOK NO DIFFERENT THAN 1080 at even a reasonable smaller screen size and from a reasonable distance. It's not some theory it's fact.

Now take a much larger screen and sit reasonably close enough or even too close and the difference in resolution can be seen. So as I posted while there is a difference of course seeing it is another matter.


And there are things you simply fail to consider in your assessment as well. There is a difference in that resolutions and its easy to see even at reasonable distances.

For one thing, motion will look different and that makes the overall picture look different. You may be able to say they'd look the same (although that's not true either generally, otherwise the retina display in cell phones wouldn't look so much better) on a static image, but when you have movement, a higher resolution will hide artifacts and color movements from one pixel to the next much better. Must smoother and more natural. There is a definet difference that the human eye can see. Quoting a statistic (that has some interpretation to it anyway) about static images isn't valid in the argument for picture quality of resolutions of movement across a TV screen.

#47 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,695 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 22 June 2013 - 10:42 PM

For most of us, this is really a moot discussion.

 

The only way for any of us to prove whether or not Dish or DirecTV looks better... would be to have both and have the same HDTV model side-by-side so that we could do a direct comparison of channels carried by both providers.

 

Based on everything said... IF you believe the metrics about 1440 instead of 1920... and I'm not saying I doubt those, I'm just saying *I* have no way to measure that and you will not find anyone from Dish who will tell you they are sending 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080...  but accepting that as a possible fact for a moment...  Nobody has suggested that Dish does anything to the SD or to the 720p broadcasts... so we are left with the 1080i channels as possibly being better on DirecTV.

 

Without a side-by-side comparison, I couldn't say.

 

What I can say...

 

1. Dish looks pretty good to me most of the time.  IF I'm sitting at a proper distance (i.e. not within 1 foot of my 60" HDTV!!) then my Dish HD channels look pretty sharp and colorful and I have no complaints.

 

2. I have been a Dish customer long enough that I do believe their HD was better than it is now.  I can't say *why* that is... or how much is my own imagination vs the 1440/1920 thing... but I do remember the picture being even better in the early HD days with Dish.

 

3. My Blu-rays look better... as I would expect them to look... compared to the same or similar programming on Dish.

 

So...  I can't imagine DirecTV looking SO much better than Dish to be worth switching... when I'm happy with most of the rest of what I get with Dish.  IF I was a DirecTV customer, I would likely have the same answer... because I'm not prone to switch on a whim.  It is as much laziness and love for status quo as it is any sense of loyalty, though.


-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#48 OFFLINE   P Smith

P Smith

    Mr. FixAnything

  • Registered
  • 19,916 posts
  • LocationMediterranean Sea
Joined: Jul 25, 2002

Posted 22 June 2013 - 11:30 PM

I did measures and I coud go into any place to prove that fact: all dish HD are 1440x1088i or 1280x720p now.

 

Also I keep some old recordings, that was a  real sat HDTV (!) 1920x1080i 15-17 Mbps in MPEG-2 !

 

Argumatation like "I'm" or "anyone from Dish" is not versed well - the stream in your hands. Measure it ! Play with ch5710, it's free HD, a mirror from other sub channel. Be creative. Do some proof by measures. Set R5000-HD and analyze stream of all your subbed HD channels. Do it.


Edited by P Smith, 22 June 2013 - 11:32 PM.


#49 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 599 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 23 June 2013 - 04:37 AM

A 480 signal WILL LOOK NO DIFFERENT THAN 1080 at even a reasonable smaller screen size and from a reasonable distance. It's not some theory it's fact.

 

Who determines what is reasonable?  Reasonable for you may be a 32" television viewed from 10'.  If you go to ISF or one of the other companies that have done the research, you will find that if you are at recommended viewing distances, the signal will look different at 1080 than 480.


Edited by sregener, 23 June 2013 - 04:38 AM.


#50 OFFLINE   domingos35

domingos35

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 536 posts
Joined: Jan 11, 2006

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:12 AM

no diference at all



#51 OFFLINE   damondlt

damondlt

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 4,340 posts
Joined: Feb 27, 2006

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:13 AM

For most of us, this is really a moot discussion.

 

The only way for any of us to prove whether or not Dish or DirecTV looks better... would be to have both and have the same HDTV model side-by-side so that we could do a direct comparison of channels carried by both providers.

 

Based on everything said... IF you believe the metrics about 1440 instead of 1920... and I'm not saying I doubt those, I'm just saying *I* have no way to measure that and you will not find anyone from Dish who will tell you they are sending 1440x1080 instead of 1920x1080...  but accepting that as a possible fact for a moment...  Nobody has suggested that Dish does anything to the SD or to the 720p broadcasts... so we are left with the 1080i channels as possibly being better on DirecTV.

 

Without a side-by-side comparison, I couldn't say.

 

What I can say...

 

 

 

2. I have been a Dish customer long enough that I do believe their HD was better than it is now.  I can't say *why* that is... or how much is my own imagination vs the 1440/1920 thing... but I do remember the picture being even better in the early HD days with Dish.

 

 

 

So...  I can't imagine DirecTV looking SO much better than Dish to be worth switching... when I'm happy with most of the rest of what I get with Dish.  IF I was a DirecTV customer, I would likely have the same answer... because I'm not prone to switch on a whim.  It is as much laziness and love for status quo as it is any sense of loyalty, though.

As for your Number 2 , Fact is Dish down rezzes its HD. My guess so they can cram more HD on their transponders!  Charlie always looking to save a buck while trying to keep up with Directv!

 

As for your last Paragraph.  I agree !


 

 

 


#52 OFFLINE   Stewart Vernon

Stewart Vernon

    Excellent Adventurer

  • Moderators
  • 19,695 posts
  • LocationKittrell, NC
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Posted 23 June 2013 - 03:20 PM

Again, for the record...  I'm not saying I am challenging the metrics...  I'm just saying that my equipment doesn't show me that... and while it may be possible to buy equipment that would...  I don't have money to spend on that, and frankly it wouldn't help me any to be able to measure it...

 

All I can say is that Dish HD doesn't look as crisp as it used to... I just can't say why...  but it looks pretty nice to me... and since I can't do a side-by-side comparison with DirecTV without signing up...  I can't do a direct comparison... and I suspect most people can't do that either.... and even the most vigorous on this forum who do make such comparisons, I'm not seeing a "night and day" situation where anyone is raving A=awesome and B=crap...  so I'm not sure the metrics or comparisons even mean much to most of us except for as a fun conversation... certainly not worth uprooting and switching out equipment over.


  • Inkosaurus likes this

-- Respect the S.H.I.E.L.D.


#53 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,896 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 23 June 2013 - 03:55 PM

All I can say is that Dish HD doesn't look as crisp as it used to... I just can't say why...


You can tell us. We're friendly. :)

Personally I do not like the numbers games ... I prefer perception. Even though perception is variable - what looks good to me may look bad to you. But looking at the numbers ... seeing the number of DBS transponders with 9 and even 10 HD channels per transponder when we used to see 8 or less on the busiest transponders. DISH is using less bits per channel than they once did. And while these less bits come from improved compression techniques we are still getting further and further away from the "crisp" pictures of old.

I'm not going to say that DirecTV having only 5 or 6 HD channels per transponder makes them better simply on the numbers. I have not looked at the bit rates and error correcting on their transponders to see what sort of throughput they are getting. And poorly compressing a signal can happen even if you give it more bandwidth in the output stream. But as far as DISH goes ... I believe they have taken quality down a notch to add more channels.

Whether that notch is important is up to the customers. If the average customer doesn't notice the difference perhaps the current level is good enough. Perhaps if I update my HDTV I'll notice the difference. (I have an older HDTV that does fairly good on SD ... I understand some HD sets don't display upconvert as well as my set. Every set seems to be different.)

The videophile shouldn't be happy with any satellite or cable provider. They should be looking for something better.
  • Inkosaurus likes this
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#54 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,318 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:29 PM

You can tell us. We're friendly. :)

Personally I do not like the numbers games ... I prefer perception. Even though perception is variable - what looks good to me may look bad to you. But looking at the numbers ... seeing the number of DBS transponders with 9 and even 10 HD channels per transponder when we used to see 8 or less on the busiest transponders. DISH is using less bits per channel than they once did. And while these less bits come from improved compression techniques we are still getting further and further away from the "crisp" pictures of old.

I'm not going to say that DirecTV having only 5 or 6 HD channels per transponder makes them better simply on the numbers. I have not looked at the bit rates and error correcting on their transponders to see what sort of throughput they are getting. And poorly compressing a signal can happen even if you give it more bandwidth in the output stream. But as far as DISH goes ... I believe they have taken quality down a notch to add more channels.

Whether that notch is important is up to the customers. If the average customer doesn't notice the difference perhaps the current level is good enough. Perhaps if I update my HDTV I'll notice the difference. (I have an older HDTV that does fairly good on SD ... I understand some HD sets don't display upconvert as well as my set. Every set seems to be different.)

The videophile shouldn't be happy with any satellite or cable provider. They should be looking for something better.


Yeah, the resolution pixels is part of the equation, but there's more to it than just that that can affect picture quality.

i have a machine with some scenery recorded on it that was used to display Hi Definition for tvs at the store I worked at a decade ago that has better picture quality than pretty much anything I can see over the air or via sat or cable today. And its mpeg2. Its all in how much care they take to make it look good in the first place.

Im sad to hear people saying dishes quality has dropped, but I wonder if its still the lingering affects of the sat that failed a few years ago and maybe it will get better when they get another couple satelites up...

#55 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,896 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:40 PM

Im sad to hear people saying dishes quality has dropped, but I wonder if its still the lingering affects of the sat that failed a few years ago and maybe it will get better when they get another couple satelites up...


That satellite is out of service ... most of DISH's satellites are new (61.5 in 2013, 77 in 2012, 119 in 2010, 129 in 2009, 72.7 in 2009, 110 in 2008 - spot 110 in 2006).
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#56 OFFLINE   sregener

sregener

    Godfather

  • Registered
  • 599 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2012

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:09 AM

The videophile shouldn't be happy with any satellite or cable provider. They should be looking for something better.

 

Well, there's a bit of a conundrum here.  If you want to watch something that is on ESPN, your choices are cable or one of the small-dish providers.  ESPN is no longer available on BUD.  Short of opening your own satellite or cable company and putting a satellite farm in your yard, I don't see the typical videophile as having much choice in the matter.



#57 OFFLINE   Inkosaurus

Inkosaurus

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 678 posts
Joined: Jul 29, 2011

Posted 24 June 2013 - 07:08 AM

Well, there's a bit of a conundrum here.  If you want to watch something that is on ESPN, your choices are cable or one of the small-dish providers.  ESPN is no longer available on BUD.  Short of opening your own satellite or cable company and putting a satellite farm in your yard, I don't see the typical videophile as having much choice in the matter.

 

 

And even then the quality would still not be any higher then 1080i lol.



#58 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,318 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:08 PM

That satellite is out of service ... most of DISH's satellites are new (61.5 in 2013, 77 in 2012, 119 in 2010, 129 in 2009, 72.7 in 2009, 110 in 2008 - spot 110 in 2006).


yes I know, my point is they have yet to launch a new sat to replace the one they lost during launch, and I wonder if when that does happen if it will make a difference.

#59 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 15,318 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:16 PM

And even then the quality would still not be any higher then 1080i lol.


The FCC screwed up in approving the atsc standard. They made it far to complicated with far to many options. It should have been 1080p only for Hi Definition, and 480p only for standard. Then make them both either 24fps or 30fps. id lean towards Both having to be 30fps and be done with it. Nothing else. And then give everyone only enough space for one 1080p Hi Definition channel over the air, so they have to go all Hi Definition, or all sd, but not both and bit starve and screw up some Hi Definition broadcasts by squeezing in more channels than they should. Plus it would have been cheaper for everyone if they had done that.

#60 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,896 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 24 June 2013 - 04:06 PM

yes I know, my point is they have yet to launch a new sat to replace the one they lost during launch, and I wonder if when that does happen if it will make a difference.

 

That one has already been replaced.


Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.




Protected By... spam firewall...And...