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

ISn't Picture Quality the most important feature of DTV HD?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by Impala1ss, Jul 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jul 27, 2007 #41 of 167
    Impala1ss

    Impala1ss Godfather

    284
    0
    Jul 22, 2007

    I'm in Melbourne also (Suntree) and my PQ is excellent. MAybe you need a service call? I am talkin g about PQ of HD channels though. I have a 61" Sony that beats everything I've seen, plus I've had it properly tuned by a technician at a cost of $300.

    That's not HD is it? I don't get those channels but I have never had one second of pixilation./macroblocking, either in Cocoa Beach or Melbourne, either in SD or HD.

    Simply not rrue. Brighthouse adds no compression to what is delivered to them. Most do though, and I believe that is the problem with the DTV picture. Their bitrate is also larger than DTV's, I believe..


    I agree. That';s why me, and a lot of others are looking elsewhere for our HD service.

    I
    Most of the graininess comes from very large tv's versus the smaller ones we used to have. The smaller the picture the better it looks; The pixels are closer together. But bitrate contributes also and I have heard that DTV has reduced teirh bitrate to unacceptable PQ levels.
     
  2. Jul 27, 2007 #42 of 167
    Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,499
    4
    Mar 21, 2002
    Using analog picture quality to make comparative assumptions on digital SD and HD programming is a little unfair. If I were to hook my cable line directly to my TV and tune to analog channels, they would look terrible. I did it before. Nothing but a grainy, snowy picture with shadows. Analog picture quality is terrible. But digital picture quality beats DirecTV and HD is amazing. Just because analog sucks doesn’t mean the whole systems like that. My cableco does digital simulcast, so with the exceptions of the community access channels, going through the cable box all channels (including 2-78) are digital and beat D*.
     
  3. Jul 27, 2007 #43 of 167
    Impala1ss

    Impala1ss Godfather

    284
    0
    Jul 22, 2007

    Neither, I want to see Nip/Tuck in pristine HD, and not an upconvert. I also want to see as many channels as I can in good HD. I currently probably watch 75% of my programming in SD because it isn't available in HD. If it was I would want it in full bitrate, and no pixilation/macroblocking; simply clear HD.
     
  4. Jul 27, 2007 #44 of 167
    man_rob

    man_rob Hall Of Fame

    1,439
    0
    Feb 21, 2007
    Comcast's digital quality was very bad as well. I had it for the first month, and so was frustrated that I was paying that much for such a horrible picture that I dropped it. But you have a point, D* is 100% digital versus, Comcast's get a couple dozen or so digital channels with horrible PQ. I've seen decent cable offerings, but where I live, Comcast offers crap. For me, D* has, by far, superior PQ.
     
  5. Jul 27, 2007 #45 of 167
    stogie5150

    stogie5150 Godfather

    343
    0
    Feb 21, 2006

    Go big or go home. :lol: :D


    1440X1088 at 8 mbps mpeg 2 is NOT HD. Its HD lite. :) And it looks terrible.
     
  6. Jul 27, 2007 #46 of 167
    richiephx

    richiephx Godfather

    335
    1
    Jan 18, 2006
    Assuming all plans stay on schedule, in 6 months, we will have a much better understanding of what all providers will have. All providers will be adding more HD channels. Who will be the HD leader? Who cares. IMO, the provider who clearly steps up picture quality and offers the most HD at the best price will get my business.
     
  7. Jul 28, 2007 #47 of 167
    Farsight

    Farsight Mentor

    48
    0
    Jul 16, 2007
    I swear some people don't even like watching TV, they just want to flex and preen next to their expensive toy.

    Putting unrealistic requirements like all channels in 1080p is just setting yourself up to be miserable. Unless you have a spare few billion dollars laying around, it's not happening. Use your game console or HD DVD player for that, where the signal only has to travel 5 feet.

    All I care about is who carries all the channels I want with the best picture at the lowest price. I'm a statistics freak, but even I just don't care about the numbers.

    Heck, right now my 1080p TV isn't even getting an HD signal from D*, since the only channel I like that D* carries in HD is ESPN. When that changes (soon), I'll pay for HD/HDLite/HDpoopoo/whatever. And 99% odds are I'll keep DirecTV, because no other provider will be able to match their combination of quantity (the channels I LIKE, not total # of garbage channels), quality and price.

    Unless someone else can deliver the channels I actually watch in higher quality and/or a better price, I have no reason to throw tantrums at D". Sure we'd all love an uncompressed signal beamed directly into our retinas, but until then, I'll just keep happily paying whoever's doing it the best.
     
  8. Jul 28, 2007 #48 of 167
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Psh, why would you settle for that crap? Bypass the retinas and jack directly into the optic nerves!
     
  9. Jul 28, 2007 #49 of 167
    Da_Pops

    Da_Pops New Member

    2
    0
    Jul 28, 2007
    Don't fall for the BS advertizing on the number of HD channels. DirecTV is counting their NFL Ticket Games as "channels" (read the Cook Cty Cease and Desist Order requested by Comcast yesterday). Currently there are not 150 HD channels out there (I know as I am in the industry) Expects some major announcements from the Left Coast folks beginning 9/1 -- most major content providers are launching HD Networks.. which those with the crystal ball - predict the demise of Ananlog channels... now, don't everyone say it won't happen due to the number of analog TV sets out there.. Motorola current markets an HD set top box that is intelligent enough to realize it is connected to an non-HD TV, so it down-converts the signal ... the reason Bright House is not interested in adding any more HD channels is techincal limitations (read bandwith).. they can't. Thus the whole MPEG4 development. The sole purpose fo MPEG4 is to allow more HD content to be deliever down the same "pipe" ... MPEG4 (H.264) compress is the new standard. (there are already additional formats in R&D right now).. as some one who is employed in the "industry" as well as an AT&T | DISH customer (since their SBC alliance) they are fairly close in most customer satisfaction polls with DirectTV, with a slight edge in picture quality.

    MPEG4 is here to stay.. why do you think the 2 new big boys are going with IPTV? If you want to get a ton of HD channels with great channels and unlimited potential application expansions and interactive TV... then you ought to look that way... (If you are in their "footprint") .. hopefully the Telco giants will expand far enough out so us country boys can get U-verse
     
  10. Jul 28, 2007 #50 of 167
    Da_Pops

    Da_Pops New Member

    2
    0
    Jul 28, 2007
    HGTV already has an HD channel .. Golf Channel is launching in the very near furture .. as a time shifted channel with VERSUS (the old OLN).. 1/2 day Versus 1/2 day Golf Channel
     
  11. Jul 28, 2007 #51 of 167
    JLucPicard

    JLucPicard Hall Of Fame

    3,985
    0
    Apr 27, 2004
    And all privders use fuzzy math in counting their "channels", such as counting an individual VOD as a channel.

    DirecTV does not advertise that they will be broadcasting 150 channels (if that is the BS that you are talking about). They have said all along that they will have the capacity to broadcast 150 channels. And if they didn't have the Sunday Ticket HD feeds, they would STILL have the CAPACITY for 150 channels.

    Oh, and by the way, most of the people who read these threads are aware that there currently, and into the near future, are not 150 HD channels - and we're not "in the industry". :rolleyes:
     
  12. Jul 28, 2007 #52 of 167
    UTVLamented

    UTVLamented Legend

    226
    0
    Oct 18, 2006
    If it made business sense (i.e. profit) they would do it. They aren't intentionally depriving you of full HD because they enjoy the posts complaining about it.
     
  13. Jul 28, 2007 #53 of 167
    NickD

    NickD Legend

    168
    0
    Apr 5, 2007
    For the most part I am happy with the picture, but what really irritates me is the pixelation during action scenes. This drives me up a wall. I never had this problem with SD. I do not have this problem watching Blue Rays or video content downloaded to my 360, why should I have this problem for a service that I am paying a premium for and not getting the pristine picture that I was told I would get. Yes I want more channels, but I want quality over quantity.
     
  14. Jul 28, 2007 #54 of 167
    Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,499
    4
    Mar 21, 2002
    Golf/Versus HD already exists, it's been around since the beginning of the year at least.
     
  15. Jul 29, 2007 #55 of 167
    Drako60

    Drako60 Cool Member

    15
    0
    Jul 29, 2007
    this is all very interesting, but there are a few points that have not been hit upon, that should be.

    1. Processing power taken to decode MPEG-4 (H.264) is very high, even a computer with a 2Ghz CPU when playing a MPEG-4(H.264) video at that high a bit-rate and resolution, and the additional options that is supported to make the PQ look better, will have trouble playing it, these include video/audio sync and down right stalling.

    2. MPEG-4 is average bit-rate, slow motion takes much lower bit-rate to look good, while fast motion takes much higher bit-rate to look as good (thus more processoring power to decompress)

    Take these two facts, and look at D* do you really think they want to send out hundreds of receivers with 3Ghz Core 2 duo's and 8800GTS, all for a 2 year commitment. no the money is not there for them.
    In another year to year and a half they could do it easily, but by them most people will forget about and won't be complaining any more, or atleast far less people will be.

    That is all based on if D* is using MPEG-4(H.264), its entirely possible that they are using MPEG-4 (DIVX or similiar) if they are using MPEG-4(DIVX) then there is no helping them, that layer of MPEG-4 has terrible fast motion and even worse red color, red has been known for years as the bane of MPEG-4.

    The other thing to consider, is the cameras being used, and the compress and codec that the networks are using, its not all D*'s fault, if you have someone behind the camera who doesn't know what they are doing or an encoder who doesn't know how to compress the video properly then it will result in a bad PQ no matter what D* does to it

    Oh and viewing SD on a LCD or Plasma TV is not worth it, the DPI is so much higher on the TV then the video was made for that it will also look bad.

    well this should spark some interesting comments
     
  16. Jul 29, 2007 #56 of 167
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    Do you realize that DirecTV has two receivers out today that decode MPEG4? They have dedicated decoding chips, so they don't need a super-powerful CPU.
     
  17. Jul 29, 2007 #57 of 167
    Bill Johnson

    Bill Johnson Legend

    104
    0
    Apr 3, 2003
    Why can't it be fairly easily determined which they're using? Or is this indeed rocket science?
     
  18. Jul 29, 2007 #58 of 167
    Jeremy W

    Jeremy W Hall Of Fame

    13,447
    0
    Jun 19, 2006
    They're using H.264, aka MPEG4 AVC.
     
  19. Jul 30, 2007 #59 of 167
    Hutchinshouse

    Hutchinshouse Hall Of Fame

    4,632
    0
    Sep 27, 2006

    +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    It is called HD for a reason. I could not agree more!!

    It is like gasoline, if I'm paying for 91 octane, I better get 91 octane.
     
  20. Jul 30, 2007 #60 of 167
    HDTVFanAtic

    HDTVFanAtic Banned User

    534
    0
    Jul 23, 2005

    Brighthouse does compress and if you compare even OTA to what they deliver, there is a "clear" difference - just as there is with Directv (and as someone said in post #2, mpeg2 and mpeg4 are both compressed - so I am speaking of compressing more than what they are given from the source).

    The best way to describe it in writing is that several layers of light fog are removed from the picture. Many will not notice it until you see the better signal and compare the 2.

    A station in town went with HD News over the weekend and the head of engineering asked me what I thought of it - to which I asked him if they were using a filter on the studio camera as it looked soft - and he agreed.

    I am sure most thought it looked great.

    After discussing it, we think the issue was Brighthouse shaving their bitrate.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page