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

ESPN HD's Picture quallity issues

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by kenkraly2004, Sep 14, 2010.

  1. Nov 9, 2010 #121 of 167
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Agree.

    I've seen many, many great displays of ABC, ESPN, and FOX HD without fancy scalers or overly-expensive HDTV's....and yes...using DirecTV.
     
  2. Nov 9, 2010 #122 of 167
    BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Honestly, the scalers in the HDTVs have little (please note I said "little" not "nothing") to do with the overall quality of the HD images. Is the same source going to look a little better on that $5K Sammy vs. my $1K Panny? Sure, but not to the point where it looks "crappy" on one and not the other. They are far more relevant to the displaying of the SD images where there is a lot of re-processing required to reformat the image. A good quality HD source (regardless of 1080i or 720p) is going to look good on a decent quality, properly functioning HD set. Where the higher end units start to shine is the image quality when displaying the poorer quality SD video.

    I'm not trying to deminish the value of higher end sets, if you want the best go pay for it, I have no problem with that. I'm also not trying to say there's "no difference" at all in HD image quality between those models.

    My point is only that when dealing with these issues of "Crappy HD" on one channel vs. another (or one game vs. another in the case of ESPN) what we are dealing with is mainly a difference in source quality. Obviously ESPN is capable of providing a high quality HD image at 720p, but they are also capable of feeding a lower quality image into the same 720p channel and what we see is just the "crappy result". Scalers and settings just aren't going to overcome that.

    If you watched last nights NFL game on ESPN and it looked "crappy", then you have something wrong with your set, your setup or your eyes.
     
  3. Nov 9, 2010 #123 of 167
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    I didn’t watch the game. I couldn’t tell you if the quality was good or bad. I fully agree with you, “source quality” is paramount and the definitive factor in overall picture quality.
     
  4. Nov 9, 2010 #124 of 167
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Which is why I am looking forward to this Thursday's game on NFL Network. Their PQ is usually great, they will offer DD 5.1 this year...finally, and the rumored 16:9 production possibly with new graphics or framing.
     
  5. Nov 9, 2010 #125 of 167
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006
    Now you're talking. NFL Network has phenomenal quality. I wish all channels would follow in their footsteps.
     
  6. Nov 9, 2010 #126 of 167
    hdtvfan0001

    hdtvfan0001 Well-Known Member

    32,456
    258
    Jul 28, 2004
    Of course it is....nothing new there...

    The issues raised, however, seem to be comparison of most folks seeing HD just fine on ESPN HD as opposed to the few who do not. To this point, there is nothing supporting the real/root cause of the disparate results.
     
  7. Nov 9, 2010 #127 of 167
    Richierich

    Richierich Hall Of Fame

    8,489
    7
    Jan 10, 2008
    I think it has more to do with Bitrate Starving rather then the Actual Telecast because I am seeing Great Stuff but what Puzzles me is why others are not so there is a piece of the puzzle in the link that needs to be figured out.
     
  8. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    I don't think there's anything missing really.

    Maybe sometimes it's "crappy" because they have SD cameras or "older" HD cameras providing the source.

    Maybe sometimes it's "crappy" because they only had an old SD production truck available for the "Bourbon Bowl".

    Maybe sometimes it's "crappy" because there's a alot of acitvity on that particular transponder and the signal is getting over-compressed.

    Maybe sometimes it's "crappy" because someone has their resolution locked at 480i.

    Anyone who says that 720p is always "crappy" while 1080i is always "great" either has a TV that sucks at displaying 720p images or they're just spouting hooey. The bottom line is that there really aren't any "settings" that can drastically effect the display of 720p while not affecting 1080i as well (please note that i said "drastically effect" and not "effect at all").

    As for the rest of the debate, if 1080i was so superior to 720p in every way, why would we need 1080p?
     
  9. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,057
    153
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Another scam by the TV manufacturers to push folks to buy new hardware, IMHO. I've got a 65" 1080p plasma, and I have to be standing a foot away to see the difference between DirecTV 1080p native and 1080i or 720p. And even then, I could be imagining the difference. :) Just me, tho. YMMV.
     
  10. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Well, that's probably going to start a whole other debate about /24 vs. /60, yadda-yadda-yadda.

    My point was that the "p" (progressive) in 1080p yields a better experience over 1080i because it is the best of both worlds, increased detail of the higher pixel count with smoother motion of the progressive display method.
     
  11. Maruuk

    Maruuk Hall Of Fame

    1,951
    9
    Dec 4, 2007
    Have to agree, the difference between 1080i and 1080p is quite subtle, but noticeable. Difference between excellent and stunning. I'll always grab a 1080p version on the PPV movie list if it's available.
     
  12. Richierich

    Richierich Hall Of Fame

    8,489
    7
    Jan 10, 2008
    One of the Best Posts if not The Best Post I have ever read on this topic!!! Very well stated!!!
     
  13. Steve

    Steve Well-Known Member

    23,057
    153
    Aug 22, 2006
    Lower...
    Are you using a projector? If so, that wouldn't surprise me.

    Otherwise, I'm sure not seeing that on a calibrated 65" Panny plasma, especially from normal viewing distance (8'-10'). It could also be because my display does a good job upconverting 1080i and 720p to it's native 1080p, which may be nullifying the difference, in my set-up.
     
  14. Jason Whiddon

    Jason Whiddon Hall Of Fame

    2,314
    34
    Aug 17, 2006
    HD is rarely "just fine" on ESPN, when compared to RSN's and CBS. Thats the only point I wanted to make. If you look at a consistency basis, ESPN is sub par, period.

    I think it comes down to stadium setups and camera availability. Alsd, HD cameras require calibration, just like TV's.
     
  15. Jason Whiddon

    Jason Whiddon Hall Of Fame

    2,314
    34
    Aug 17, 2006
    I think 720p vs 1080i, is ridiculous. ABC/ESPN have their good games, the RSN's look GREAT in 720p, and CBS/NFL looks GREAT in 1080i.

    The bold comments above are what it boils down to for me, and I'd like to see them work on it. ESPN has locked a lot of business up, cost subs a lot of money, and I expect higher quality.

    Calibrated 58", Duo Pre/Pro calibrated, and ESPNU generally looks like crap.
     
  16. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Not to defend them too much, I wan't the best too. But between ABC/ESPNs/ESPNU/Gameday/ etc. they do have to cover an AWFUL LOT of College games. From a business perspective, it can't be a cheap proposition to have state of the art cameras and remote trucks at all of them.
     
  17. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    I was hanging a clock in my bathroom and fell and hit my head on the sink. When I woke up, I wrote this... :)
     
  18. Jason Whiddon

    Jason Whiddon Hall Of Fame

    2,314
    34
    Aug 17, 2006

    I dont disagree, but they are charging over $4 per sub just for ESPN :)

    I think all that money went to what they are paying the SEC and ACC, and not to quality.
     
  19. Richierich

    Richierich Hall Of Fame

    8,489
    7
    Jan 10, 2008
    +1. I think they have spread themselves a little too thin because they have Grown So Much with the Interest in Sports and particularly College Football so perhaps they are doing the best they can until they catch up.
     
  20. Jason Whiddon

    Jason Whiddon Hall Of Fame

    2,314
    34
    Aug 17, 2006
    Well, here's hoping they get better. I think GamePlan still being SD says a lot. I have no problem with what they charge, but they need to improve.
     

Share This Page