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

Vip622: SD quality is really, really bad.

Discussion in 'DISH™ High Definition Discussion' started by sofakng, Feb 19, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Spirit

    Spirit Cool Member

    28
    0
    Dec 13, 2006
    IMHO Dish compresses their SD programming to such a great degree, that it looks like a jpeg image saved in the lowest quality mode possible... a degree of compression, which, if I were emailing a .jpg picture... I wouldn't email it to my worst enemy in that poor a quality!!
    The compression artifacts at the edges of all the internal content of the picture are washed out (smudgy looking) like a watercolor painting.
    I also think that since I originally got Dish HD a couple years ago, they've compressed the HD signals more, to such a degree, that my OTA SD signals in 4:3 look nearly as crisp as their HD ones (at least on the HD Mpeg4 signals)!
    Does Dish really think we are all that blind?!
     
  2. farleyville

    farleyville AllStar

    61
    0
    Jan 8, 2007
    The answer is probably YES. Most folks are happy that the picture actually fits their new 16:9 TV, and dont know what they are missing. Heck, I'm happy with my Dish quality, HD that is, so maybe I am one of the lemmings I mentioned above. ?
     
  3. AVITWeb

    AVITWeb Mentor

    47
    0
    Jan 3, 2007
    I also recall a recap from the last chat I think, saying to avoid using S-Video....Althought why, I am not sure...if its that crappy, why have it there as an option?
     
  4. colavsfaninnwia

    colavsfaninnwia Godfather

    292
    0
    Jan 25, 2006
    Only reason they said to avoid S-Video is that it does not support any kind of HD signal. However, I have a 510 hooked up to an HD TV (30 inch) via S-Video, and SD looks great on it.
     
  5. dartonviper

    dartonviper Legend

    201
    0
    Mar 10, 2004
    Try bypassing your receiver you can always run digital optical for your sound.
     
  6. M5Guy

    M5Guy Mentor

    40
    0
    Jun 24, 2006
    I always use S-Video for SD. It is sharper to me than HDMI or component. I switch to HDMI for HD. Just a click with the remote.

    If you have a 16x9 display, the SD will look vastly better in 4x3 pillarbox mode, as well. This is assuming you are using a non-phosphor based display such as DLP or LCD. Be careful doing this if you run plasma or crt based displays (burn-in potential).
     
  7. Jim5506

    Jim5506 Hall Of Fame

    3,679
    36
    Jun 7, 2004
    It seems that SD quality on HDTV's is more dependent on the TV than it is on the receiver.
     
  8. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,113
    1,066
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    True. I have a 2005 HDTV set that was specifically designed to have 1080i and 480i as native resolutions. I can't help but believe that having a 480 format as native helps when displaying 480 content.

    Why it looks good when 480i is delivered to the set in 1080i is beyond me. That relies on the upconversion in the receiver (in my case, a ViP-622 DVR). If the upconversion is good for me why don't other people like it? My personal favorite answer is screen size. I am at 37" (which fits my living room). I suspect that most who are noticing problems have larger screens, or are using monitors that don't handle upscaled content very well.
     
  9. whatchel1

    whatchel1 Hall Of Fame

    1,086
    0
    Jan 10, 2006
    James is getting close to the answer. Now that the ppl have seen what pq can be they are comparing SD to HD and seeing how bad it really looks. When there was no HD then a blown up large screen looked OK to them. Now that they have the top of the line HD big screen they see how bad it looks when spread out on a 42, 50 or 65 inch HD display. Boy what do they think of VHS now bet they can't even watch it anymore. I have a 32" and it is hard for me to watch SD. So what a larger screen looks like would be almost unwatchable.
     
  10. dbconsultant

    dbconsultant Hall Of Fame

    1,262
    0
    Sep 13, 2005
    Temecula, CA
    That has not been our experience. We have had a Sony 34XBR HDTV for several years. Originally it was hooked up via s-video to our 510. Last year we upgraded to the 622 and hooked up the Sony with all of the different connections (s-vid, component, hdmi via dvi) because I wanted a comparison. While the HD stuff is great, programs in SD on most of the SAT Locals and some channels like TLC look horrible and, no, it's not because I'm just "used to HD" now. We noticed the difference right out of the box and the only difference is the 622 and no amount of changing settings made the SD broadcasts any better. Some channels are ok, Animal Planet still looks almost like HD just like it did with the 510. But some channels are really awful - mostly SAT Locals (don't have OTA here) and TLC. So, in our case, it wasn't the TV but the way the 622 handles sending the SD signal to the TV. That's why I'm hoping for native pass through sometime in the near future.
     
  11. DP1

    DP1 Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 15, 2002
    But if you dont like the way most of the SD channels look now when using s-video, I'm not sure what native pass through will have to do with it.

    S-video for all intents and purposes *is* native pass through. It only does 480i so it's showing you what standard 480i looks like coming out of that receiver for better or worse.

    I'm not sure how allowing 480i to pass through the Component or HDMI output is gonna change anything.

    Now for those who do think s-video based 480i looks good right now (at least better than the upconverted version) but dont like the hassle of having to change inputs on the tv every time they go from SD to HD, yeah, I could see where they'd like native pass through.
     
  12. late_nights

    late_nights Cool Member

    11
    0
    Mar 1, 2007
    I currently have both Comcast and DISH ((942), for auditioning purposes, and had just about decided to drop Comcast and go with DISH and a 622. Part of my reason for doing so is that DISH SD looks much better than Comcast, at least with the 942. I had previouisly read that the 622 was a better receiver than the 942, and now I'm reading in this thread that Comcast in SD is better than DISH with a 622. So I'm confused.

    I am using a new MItsubishi 62-inch DLP which upconverts everything to 1080p, and I receive signals from the 942 in 1080i. Maybe it's true as one poster said that the key is what kind of TV I'm using? I would appreciate some suggestions.
     
  13. kkozma

    kkozma Mentor

    46
    0
    Mar 1, 2007

    I think this is exactly it. I bought my HDTV back on black friday before I had any means of watching anything in HD on it. It's an Olevia 332H which has no tuner and I was quite happy with the SD picture I was getting through s-video with my 301 reciever. Then I scored an old D* HD reciver to use it's OTA capabilities to recieve local HD programming. Upon doing so I immediately observed that the SD signal I was seeing from my old 301 is completely unnaceptable!

    I had hoped that when I eventually upgraded to Dish HD that the SD channels would be somewhat better due to having a better connection than s-video to the TV, but after reading this I don't know if it will be! I guess I just have to cross my fingers and hope it'll be ok when my 622 gets installed on Monday. It certainly couldn't be any worse than the 301, eh?
     
  14. farleyville

    farleyville AllStar

    61
    0
    Jan 8, 2007
    My 622 was worse than my 625... and it isnt becuase Im "used to HD" now...
     
  15. kkozma

    kkozma Mentor

    46
    0
    Mar 1, 2007
    Hey, I'm grasping at straws here to make myself feel good about blowing $150 on my 622.

    I can hope, right? lol
     
  16. farleyville

    farleyville AllStar

    61
    0
    Jan 8, 2007
    If you spent $150 for a 622 for better SD, then you will be drastically dissappointed :nono:

    If you spent the $150 for the close to 30 HD channells, then you will be happy.
     
  17. DP1

    DP1 Godfather

    297
    0
    Sep 15, 2002
    I'm just glad my TV viewing has pretty much evolved into 95% HD anyway.

    Mostly just out of coincidence because the vast majority of what I watch is sports, movies and some Network primetime. Mix in a little nature/travel and thats bout it. All of which are well represented in HD. Certainly compared to CNN, USA, Comedy Central or the myriad of other channels on the system that arent in HD. Which I didnt spent any real amount of time watching even before HD came along.

    Good thing because my display is a 100" projector that I sit 10-12' from.

    Now mind you when I do turn CNN on to watch some breaking news event or something I'm still not freaking out about the PQ cause I'm just there to be clued in anyway. Maybe I'll just move from the front row to the back row or whatever to smooth things out a lil. Extra 8 feet away makes a decent difference. ;)
     
  18. kkozma

    kkozma Mentor

    46
    0
    Mar 1, 2007
    No, I got it primarily because I've never had a DVR before and I wanted HD as well. I was hoping that the SD pq would be better than my 301 which is ancient by today's standards.
     
  19. tnsprin

    tnsprin Hall Of Fame

    2,130
    1
    Mar 15, 2003
    I am surprised about your results. Of course it is dependent on your combination of equipment, but I rate the 622 SD at least equal of any of the SD dish receivers. Note that 480p (thru HDMI or Component) normally looks the best to me for SD channels.
     
  20. bigthrust

    bigthrust Cool Member

    27
    0
    Feb 21, 2007
    Most final results are a combination of equipment, connection and skill.
    I have my 622 connected to a 40" LCD via HDMI set to 1080i/16:9 and SD looks really good. I had to calibrate and tune my TV to get the best picture.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page