Here in Detroit, there is no significant difference. OTA does look better, but not enough to really make a difference.
It's compressed, just not by DirecTV. Your local station is compressing it. It'll also take up more space on the hard drive compared to the ones from DirecTV.Oliwa said:I know my signal over the antenna is uncompressed.
Well, it is not necessarily a direct comparison.S. DiThomas said:OTA vs. MPEG 2 locals (They look like.... !pu****! ) - no comparison.
The MPEG-2 feeds often look slightly better than good SDTV some days.
Can't speak to the MPEG4 but until I get it I am sticking with my antenna (once it is officially installed that is).
I am anxious to see how good MPEG4 looks - but given the recording issues that it seems are still present with the HR-20 even in its 0x10b iteration I can wait for ever with OTA.
Anyone else with MPEG2 locals care to chime in on this topic?
I must say - late last week I did see a significant difference between channel 7 via D* as compared to OTA 7. The D* feed had a noticeable 'haze' that the OTA didn't. That said, it doesn't seem to on-going and, as you noted, the difference is generally small.Earl Bonovich said:I have only been using OTA when watching LIVE TV, kinda still to just test teh box when I am sitting there.
OTA vs DTV supplied, at least for me.. on my TV... in Chicago... VERY little difference. I have been lucky enough with my MPEG-4 signal, and don't have many cases of rain-fade so, I have just stayed with MPEG-4 for the SL's
I'll second your sentiments Earl. I spent some time comparing OTA vs. MPEG-4 here over the weekend and to my dismay the OTA feeds look identical to the MPEG-4 feeds. Even watching football I couldn't tell the difference and often forgot which was which while I was trying to compare the two.Earl Bonovich said:I have only been using OTA when watching LIVE TV, kinda still to just test teh box when I am sitting there.
OTA vs DTV supplied, at least for me.. on my TV... in Chicago... VERY little difference. I have been lucky enough with my MPEG-4 signal, and don't have many cases of rain-fade so, I have just stayed with MPEG-4 for the SL's
Earl, My guess is that he was referring to the Mpeg-2 locals that he gets because he lives in LA. Therefore it is a direct comparison.Earl Bonovich said:Well, it is not necessarily a direct comparison.
As you have two different sources; two different programs, from two different channels.
So sure, the "locals" be it MPEG4 or OTA; do look better then some of the other channels that are part of the HD pack.
Please help me understand why this would cause dismay. Maybe I don't understand the technology well enough - but if D*'s MPEG4 HD signals looked as good as the OTA - and could (ultimately) provide the subs - then why keep the OTA at all?drmorley said:I'll second your sentiments Earl. I spent some time comparing OTA vs. MPEG-4 here over the weekend and to my dismay the OTA feeds look identical to the MPEG-4 feeds. Even watching football I couldn't tell the difference and often forgot which was which while I was trying to compare the two.
I can't speak for other markets, but here in Chicago the MPEG4 feeds look pretty darn good.