DBSTalk Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 93 Posts

·
Mentor
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, it's only been 3 days, but SD broadcasts look like crap to me now. I've been spoiled by HD. Is there any way to improve the PQ of SD broadcasts (upconvert?)? Can the SD PQ be improved using HDMI output? I've read that people find SD looks worse through HDMI, which seems a little counter intuitive.

Also, does the 622 just record the raw digital stream of SD and HD broadcasts? In other words there is no choice of recording video quality like the TiVo (Basic, Medium, High Quality, Best)?
 

·
Hall Of Fame/Supporter
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
SD via satellite could look much better on many stations if bandwidth were added back. Currently, Local into Locals and other satellite channels are greatly compressed thus making a fuzzy, washed out, and macro-blocked picture. You will find that some SD satellite channels are very good. There is a sure fire way to make the SD channels look better. This is accomplished by using the smallest screen size you can find. Sometimes the composite or S-video may render a better SD picture than use of HDMI or Component.
 

·
Icon
Joined
·
597 Posts
smackboy1 said:
OK, it's only been 3 days, but SD broadcasts look like crap to me now. I've been spoiled by HD. Is there any way to improve the PQ of SD broadcasts (upconvert?)? Can the SD PQ be improved using HDMI output? I've read that people find SD looks worse through HDMI, which seems a little counter intuitive.

Also, does the 622 just record the raw digital stream of SD and HD broadcasts? In other words there is no choice of recording video quality like the TiVo (Basic, Medium, High Quality, Best)?
Well, since my hdmi died on my 211 today I'm running through component cables and the sds look a bit better.Not sure the hds look much worse.BTW, csr wouldn't send me a new receiver but an email to [email protected] was answered-on a Sunday-in 10 minutes and one is coming.
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
188 Posts
Part of the reason that SD looks so bad is because your excellent display faithfully transmists all the compression artifacts. Keep in mind that SD will NEVER look as good as HD. You cannot hope to improve PQ by upconverting a highly compressed SD video stream. Your best bet may be to smooth out the artifacts. I've had some success watching SD over the composite video output. This blurs a lot of the artifacts. Depending on your set and how far away you sit, this may be a good option for you.

Good luck,
Jeff
 

·
622 Tips & Trick Keeper
Joined
·
9,880 Posts
Ok.. here goes my SD PQ story and advice. This is definitely a YMMV and some of it might be a bit on the Halloween side.

1) How far are you from your TV? for a 60" set I am setting about 11 feet away. The father away the SD is the better as someone mentioned. THis also goes for SD.

2) Is your TV calibrated properly? What display mode are you running. If you are on Vivid.. Get off vivid. Also if you have some edge enhancement technology you might want to turn it off and see if it improves things.

3) How high is your Sharpness turned up? That might also do more damage than good.

4) The one thing that seem to make the biggest jump in SD PQ on my 60" set was using a power conditioner. This is the Halloween portion of my post, but everyone noticed a noticeable improvment when I added the power conditioner

5) SD PQ was never meant for 60" displays. Originally I believe it was optimized for a 27" TV. On my 32" 4x3 set in the bedroom the SD looks great.. As you grow the image you grow the pixels and eventually something has to give. Add the fact you are switching between wonderful HD and SD and it even makes it more noticeable.

Well that is my thoughts. View tips in there but a lot of it is the nature of the beast type stuff. For my viewing on my 60" Sony Grand Wega, I have gotten my SD to be pretty much watchable given where I set my expectations. I can tell you that originally this was not the case when I installed my HD system and through TV calibration and a power conditioner I was able to get mine to meet my expectations.

Like I said.. YMMV.
 

·
622 Tips & Trick Keeper
Joined
·
9,880 Posts
No problem.... I am lazy.. YMMV... Your mileage may vary.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
41 Posts
smackboy1 said:
OK, it's only been 3 days, but SD broadcasts look like crap to me now. I've been spoiled by HD. Is there any way to improve the PQ of SD broadcasts (upconvert?)? Can the SD PQ be improved using HDMI output? I've read that people find SD looks worse through HDMI, which seems a little counter intuitive.

Also, does the 622 just record the raw digital stream of SD and HD broadcasts? In other words there is no choice of recording video quality like the TiVo (Basic, Medium, High Quality, Best)?
I totlly agree, SD from the 622 looks like crap. I hate to say this on the present forum. But the answer to your question may be to switch to cable. SD on most SD channels is excellant on cable, almost as good as HD. At least that was my experience. I guess this is because of less compression.

However, I also have a separate Dish SD receiver and PQ from that receiver is great. So, is the real problem something with the 622?
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
I also have a 60" Sony Grand Wega. I'm sitting 9' away. The PQ of SD through the 622 is the same as through the 301 so it's not worse. It's just poor relative to HD. I set up my TV using Digital Video Essentials, it's not truly calibrated but it's better than out of the box (sharpness is set to zero). TV power runs through a UPS. Just upgraded to HD because compared to cable, Dish gave me a really good deal and I get more HD programming.

What kind of a difference can a professional calibration make compared to optimizing the standard menu settings (as opposed to the service menu)?
 

·
Cool Member
Joined
·
12 Posts
If you are running a 16x9 HD TV then the best way to improve the picture quality is to set the 622 to 480p and 4X3 #2. This allows your TV to do the upconvert, if necessary and on my TV anyway it allows the TV to do the stretching, if desired. At least in my case, this gives a nice improvement in the picture, though there is no easy way to change the settings. I hate to say it but you do get used to the picture quality. You can also try adjusting the brightness as I found that it varies greatly from HD to SD. As said earlier, YMMV.

Art
 

·
Cool Member
Joined
·
25 Posts
I have a 3K scaler/processor and still looks like crap. I'm gonna try hooking up to via svid and see if that helps. Kind of sucks for me to switch inputs just to view SD to HD.

Locals look horrible in SD. Was trying to watch the Laker game and it was completely blurry.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
The 1 thing that all of you are forgetting is you are now used to HD. So no matter what you do the SD is going to look like crap in comparison. One of the only thing that can be done would to be to see if you can find a used line doubler. Farjouda used to make one for projectors. That is about the only thing I can think of is something that will do some kind of up converting.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,433 Posts
watch it on an SD TV of 27'' or less. It will look like SD always looked before we knew what HD looked like.
 

·
New Member
Joined
·
9 Posts
teddy said:
SD on most SD channels is excellant on cable, almost as good as HD. At least that was my experience. I guess this is because of less compression.
QUOTE]

If you don't see much difference you either have really bad HD or your box/TV are not setup properly.

I recently switched from Charter to Dish and the SD channels actually improved for me, which I was not expecting. SD channels on cable will vary by provider and area but in no way should they be any where near as good as HD.
 

·
Mentor
Joined
·
41 Posts
primetimeguy said:
I recently switched from Charter to Dish and the SD channels actually improved for me, which I was not expecting. SD channels on cable will vary by provider and area but in no way should they be any where near as good as HD.
I also changed from Charter Cable (in Connecticut). I have a Sony WEGA KV-30XBR910. 32"- hardly any comparison to the 50-60" plasmas people have. The deterioration in SD PQ was immediately obvious to me after the 622 was installed. It was so bad I called DISH. They sent out an installer but he wasn't any help.

I really don't think it is just a matter of getting used to HD. In this thread alone, enough people are complaining that I think we should be taken seriously. There is something very wrong with at least some 622's when it comes to SD. I have tried the 480i (480p)-4X3 #2 solution and it does not help much if at all.

I would be happy to find a solution if one exists. I am very close to going back to cable. The SA8300HD I had with cable had more recording features and was more flexible too. Satellite has more HD channels but quite frankly I am not interested in most of them.
 

·
622 Tips & Trick Keeper
Joined
·
9,880 Posts
bobrap said:
Ron, may i ask what power conditioner you use. I'm thinking of adding one myself. TIA.
I think it is a Monster Control Center 2500 or something like that. I will take a look when I get home and report back. Got a good deal on it a while back and it did make a difference in my configuration.

Ok guys... Lets not turn this thread into a SD PQ comparison to Cable. There is a number of threads already that have cropped up from time to time and it always turns out as a YMMV depending on the channels you frequent and your previous cable company. Lots of factors involved in PQ.

One thing I am not sure that everyone is aware of is that as i understand it the bit rate is not consistent across channels and times so PQ will differ as you change channels and the same channel could look better or worse depending on when you are viewing it. How much this makes a difference, I am not sure, but it is a difference so when doing a comparison as you tweak it might be a good idea to record one show and use that as a tool for checking to see if any changes you make actually made a difference.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
whatchel1 said:
The 1 thing that all of you are forgetting is you are now used to HD. So no matter what you do the SD is going to look like crap in comparison. One of the only thing that can be done would to be to see if you can find a used line doubler. Farjouda used to make one for projectors. That is about the only thing I can think of is something that will do some kind of up converting.
When I had my overly buggy and many-times-replaced 510, SD looked great on my Sony 34" XBR widescreen. So when I see the SD coming out of the 622, my comparison is to what SD looked like from the 510. I love my 622 for the HD but why can't the SD look as good as it did with the 510? And, yes, I have tried switching to the s-video input but it really didn't make any difference nor did switching to 4x3 480 - still a very lousy picture!
 

·
Legend
Joined
·
188 Posts
When you sat lousy... what exactly do you mean? Are colors off? Is the image too bright, or too dark? Is the image blurry? Is the image over-sharp (hard edges with shadows)? Do you see little squares? Big squares? etc.
 

·
Hall Of Fame
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
Rovingbar said:
When you sat lousy... what exactly do you mean? Are colors off? Is the image too bright, or too dark? Is the image blurry? Is the image over-sharp (hard edges with shadows)? Do you see little squares? Big squares? etc.
Overall, it just looks fuzzy - mostly I notice this on sat locals. Things viewed on channels like Animal Planet have the beautiful sharpness to them that I am accustomed to seeing but things like the football games broadcast in SD are really poor in clarity.
 
1 - 20 of 93 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top