I was watching the Karate Kid in HD on Comcast on demand today and was amazing at how many artifacts there were. I don't remember noticing it before. I think it is because I have gotten used to HD media.

Furthermore, I was watching smallville SD DVD upconverted on my HD-A3 and was thinking that even this near HD upconversion from SD looks so much better than what I have seen from comcast HD too.

Is the Comcast HD on demand the really HD, because it doesn't look like it. It looks better than the SD version on their on demand, but I honestly think my upconverted SD looks better.

Is it because they have to highly compress it or something? Is it cable's poor encoding techniques or something?

I am viewing on a 92 screen with 720p so I guess that i can really notice the difference. I remember thinking SD on demand looked fine on my old 27" CRT TV a few years ago.

The strangest thing is that I think netflix on demand looks pretty good for alot of their new stuff as long as you are getting the 2250 bnadwidth which I usually do.

if we watch all the hd stuff on a 26"er, it'll all look fine.:eek::D

I have watched some and was pleasantly surprised at the PQ. Of course not as good as my HD DVD, but it really was not that bad either. As always with cable though, local issues do affect the net result and I,m sure it varies from system to system.

Overall it looks good,not as good as HD DVD but much better than SD.
Now if Comcast would add more free movies...

Well, the answer to this is pretty simple.The reason that the HD on Comcast isn't looking "the same" to you as your BR or HD-DVD movies is because there's alot of signal compression used by cable companies, PERIOD(in all programming) and that effects picture and audio quality to varying degrees.The quality of your cabling and length from the cable junction outdoors also effects signal quality to an extent.When you are watching an HD-DVD or BR movie and that's being piped to your tv with little to no signal loss/compression via HDMI, there's obviously going to be a noticeable difference in quality.

Tune into different HD channels on Comcast and you'll see some are very good(like Discovery Theater and National Geographic)and some HD channels are barely as good as their digital counterparts(like USA and TBS).

Funny, I was very impressed how Shoot'em Up and RE:Extinction looked on HD on Demand. I've only watched 3 or 4 movies all together from HD on Demand, but they all seem as good or better than HD movie channels.

Do individual cable/satellite boxes affect PQ?

Well, the answer to this is pretty simple.The reason that the HD on Comcast isn't looking "the same" to you as your BR or HD-DVD movies is because there's alot of signal compression used by cable companies, PERIOD(in all programming) and that effects picture and audio quality to varying degrees.The quality of your cabling and length from the cable junction outdoors also effects signal quality to an extent.When you are watching an HD-DVD or BR movie and that's being piped to your tv with little to no signal loss/compression via HDMI, there's obviously going to be a noticeable difference in quality.

Tune into different HD channels on Comcast and you'll see some are very good(like Discovery Theater and National Geographic)and some HD channels are barely as good as their digital counterparts(like USA and TBS).

I don't think anyone is debating if it looks as good as our physical media, that was not the question if you read the OP. We are all aware of everything you mentioned in your post but I don't think the difference in PQ is as much as we would have expected at least it isn't on my system.

It really depends on what you're watching. Go watch their HD OnDemand anime like Samurai 7 and you'll be stunned.

One thing that is overlooked with this is that BR or HD DVD usually has a better sound track than plain old DD. DD+, TruHD, LPCM, DTS HD and DTS HD MA will in many cases provide a noticable improvement in SQ over the broadcast DD 5.1. In fact a lot of broadcast DD is not 5.1 but stereo PLII even on the HD channels (especiallly VOD).

Most people don't realize how bad US HDTV is. Comcast and their premiums are 11-14 Mbps. The only thing that comes close to watchable is HDNet when it's full bitrate.

I'd take a well upscaled DVD over a HD blockfest sometimes.

Most people don't realize how bad US HDTV is. Comcast and their premiums are 11-14 Mbps. The only thing that comes close to watchable is HDNet when it's full bitrate.

I'd take a well upscaled DVD over a HD blockfest sometimes.

I agree about the DVD over some of their HD stuff. I watched HD in the line of fire today on Comcast. It wasn't bad.

We have fiber optical comcast here. I get about 18-22 Mbits on my modem. I don't think the connection is the problem. It must be that bad encoding. If I had to guess, the cable must take these and reencode them to 1080i or 720p and send them out which Is why I can see artifacts on it that I don't see on my disks.

If you have a really good up converter, it is amazing how good SD can look. In some ways, It think it looks just as good as the on demand HD. But you really need a good upscaler. Most people either let their TV do it or expect the $60 "upconverter" at walmart to do the job. I have an HTPC that I have used various software packages including PowerDVD, WinDVD. Nero Showtime, Zoom Player with the CCCD codec pack. I think the last two looked the best in my opinion. My HD-A3 really looks very good. About as good as my HTPC I would say, and good enough to use it over my HTPC for convenience mst of the time. I used to have a phillips DVP642/37 and it did good for a progressive scan unit but no where near what either of my two current systems use.

I don't blame comcast as they are doing the best the can with the infrastructure they have. As a relatively new HD DVD user, I am hoping that BR is able to gain widespread acceptance. I cringe at the idea of it losing to HD cable services.

Amazingly, I think what looks best on my Comcast HD is sports and Fox news.

Makes me think, do you think it has something to do with my comcast box. Maybe it can't convert as well from 1080i to 720p. Perhaps that is what is creating the artifacts? Unfortunately, I would be at the mercy of the cable company then if this is the case as I don't think there is anyway of sending the Comcast stuff through my HTPC for better conversion. I mean besides the free stuff.

I have FIOS, and I have to say their HD VOD (1080i) is rock solid. FIOS doesn't do any compression on regular channels, handles up to 20 MBits per second, so the bit rates are not a problem.

Their HD VOD is IPTV based, so it may be a different delivery vehicle, but I've watched concert films with lots of motion and pyrotechnics, and seen no pixelation, macroblocking. I compared the '300' HD VOD and my HD-DVD version (HD-A35, to a 1080P 47" display), and although I saw a clear difference in favor of the HDM version, it was not significant enough on the video that it took away from the experience. Probably just showed the difference between 1080i and 1080p. It was certainly much better than SD or upscaled SD (even on a good upscaler like the HD-A35). The biggest different IMO is on the sound - I can process TrueHD, and the FIOS box only handles 5.1.

Still, a good clear version of the movie, with no artefacts and good sound. Very competitive, especially if it's not a movie you're likely to see again.

last night i was checking out Bourne Supremacy on TNTHD. i changed the channel after about 5 minutes because it didnt look any better then the original twister dvd upscaled on my ps3. it wasnt impressive at all. the dvd of bourne supremacy upscaled looked better. So its all going to depend on what cable service you have, what the studio is doing with the media, what your service provider then does with it. I have yet to see a movie without macroblocking on cable so i have not watched many and am usually disapointed in it so much so that i have not even bothered to get the movie channels.

That is the same way I felt ab out karate kid in HD on demand. I started to what it and turned it off the artifacts were so bad. I deciding that I would wait to get it on HDM.

On the other hand, I watched HD in the line looked just fine.

last night i was checking out Bourne Supremacy on TNTHD. i changed the channel after about 5 minutes because it didnt look any better then the original twister dvd upscaled on my ps3. it wasnt impressive at all. the dvd of bourne supremacy upscaled looked better. So its all going to depend on what cable service you have, what the studio is doing with the media, what your service provider then does with it. I have yet to see a movie without macroblocking on cable so i have not watched many and am usually disapointed in it so much so that i have not even bothered to get the movie channels.

TNT HD is AWFUL!!! It is mostly 4:3 material STRETCHED to fit! I've watched a couple of things on there and went to the SD TNT channel to get it not stretched. The Matrix was terrible - the HD DVD version puts it to shame but I'd rather have a 480i DVD OAR Matrix versus a stretched 1080i version.

TNT HD is AWFUL!!! It is mostly 4:3 material STRETCHED to fit! I've watched a couple of things on there and went to the SD TNT channel to get it not stretched. The Matrix was terrible - the HD DVD version puts it to shame but I'd rather have a 480i DVD OAR Matrix versus a stretched 1080i version.

Agree! Anything compared to TNTHD will look good. Fact is whats on HDonDemand is much better than what some of those channels present as HD. Not even close!

My biggest complaint from the HD channels is the zoom and crop of 2.35:1 films to 16:9 (or 1.87:1) which leaves a good chunk of the movie out. In one scene of "Drumline", my girlfriend was asking why she couldn't read the whole word that the marching band was spelling out, it turned into a 10 minute discussion about aspect ratio's....:)

BD has been noticeably better than HD movies and more importantly it doesn't contain commercial breaks. VoD isn't a bad choice, but aspect ratios aren't always respected stilll and audio is still a step down from BD in my experience.

-Splints

My biggest complaint from the HD channels is the zoom and crop of 2.35:1 films to 16:9 (or 1.87:1) which leaves a good chunk of the movie out. In one scene of "Drumline", my girlfriend was asking why she couldn't read the whole word that the marching band was spelling out, it turned into a 10 minute discussion about aspect ratio's....:)

:( - agree

That said is primarily HBO that does it. Cinemax and Strarz have a MUCH better track record of offerring scope HD movies as OAR.

BTW - Once upon a time in the west . . . stunning!:)

BD has been noticeably better than HD movies and more importantly it doesn't contain commercial breaks. VoD isn't a bad choice, but aspect ratios aren't always respected stilll and audio is still a step down from BD in my experience.

-Splints

Yes - if you are a film afficiondo - totally understand your position. But do all people agree with us?

they may not agree right now. but once they watch and get used to the picture on cable (or other provider) and then watch blu i believe they will see a difference. I think this is one reason so many people bought dvds. SD cable channels just suck and dvd just blows them away. I think this will be the same for Blu-ray eventually. The blu ray picture quality has no where to go but up (using dvd as a benchmark) and the cable (or other provider) picture quality has no where to go but down.

You believe the success of DVD is based on PQ? Not even close. It was based on issues like:

No rewinding and no rewinding fees
No tracking adjustment necessary
No wearing out over multiple plays
Menu's for chapter selection - favorite scenes

Just to name a few.

the aspect ratio thing will come to pass. people will want the entire picture. they may not know why the original aspect ratio looks better but they will notice it does. if anything will sell them on OAR tnt will. hehehehe

It has been well over 20 years since the issue of letterboxing has come out and they still sell full screen DVD's. We may actually see "full screen" BD's in the near furture . . . 2.40 films presented as 1.78 . . zoomed . . . as an addition to OAR as they do with DVD.

Can't wait for the threads to erupt the day THAT happens:D

they may not agree right now. but once they watch and get used to the picture on cable (or other provider) and then watch blu i believe they will see a difference. I think this is one reason so many people bought dvds. SD cable channels just suck and dvd just blows them away. I think this will be the same for Blu-ray eventually. The blu ray picture quality has no where to go but up (using dvd as a benchmark) and the cable (or other provider) picture quality has no where to go but down.

the aspect ratio thing will come to pass. people will want the entire picture. they may not know why the original aspect ratio looks better but they will notice it does. if anything will sell them on OAR tnt will. hehehehe

I think you live in AVS fantasy world if you think people care.

People DONT EVEN CARE about widescreen vs full screen.

People think SD DVD moves are good enough and always will think that.

10% of the population has HD so 90% dont even care to get it.

It seems people here are constantly disconnected from what is true out in the real world.

If you force BD upon everyone then they will have too buy BUT dont for a second think that J6P cares about BD and they never will. Talk to your friends and families. The ones that do not read an AV forum or an AV magazine. Ask them what they really care about.


I do comparisons for my friends and family ....BD for 10 minutes then HD HBO movie.....guess what?!?! there is not a big difference at all. AV tweakers always think there is a huge difference. This is like arguing about $2K AVRs vs $600 AVRs....we dont think there is much of a difference but the fickle, placebo chewing AV tweaker does.

last night i was checking out Bourne Supremacy on TNTHD. i changed the channel after about 5 minutes because it didnt look any better then the original twister dvd upscaled on my ps3. it wasnt impressive at all. the dvd of bourne supremacy upscaled looked better. So its all going to depend on what cable service you have, what the studio is doing with the media, what your service provider then does with it. I have yet to see a movie without macroblocking on cable so i have not watched many and am usually disapointed in it so much so that i have not even bothered to get the movie channels.


See this is the difference between you and 99% of the population..

The rest of us just watch the movie and we dont care about what you just described. Movies are for the story and not the picture. I thought it was fine myself and I have the HD version of it.


You as in many AVSers not just actually you.

Im just trying to point out that you guys are not J6P so why do you even try to think about what they will do.

Think the opposite of what you want and maybe you will get closer to the truth.

See this is the difference between you and 99% of the population..

The rest of us just watch the movie and we dont care about what you just described. Movies are for the story and not the picture. I thought it was fine myself and I have the HD version of it.


You as in many AVSers not just actually you.

Im just trying to point out that you guys are not J6P so why do you even try to think about what they will do.

Think the opposite of what you want and maybe you will get closer to the truth.

You don't speak for me or anybody else including j6p. There is no such thing as a generic j6p. Only in your mind you are able to classify people into some type of group minded folks. I know peoples who makes minimum wages work blue collars jobs with only an high school education and they only watch oar material on their 12yrs old 21" crt tv. I think you are confused by the tiny extremelly vocal minority of trailer trash who stopped evolving in the reagan era.

i believe that the dvd success was based on the things you mentioned and on picture quality. i stated it was one more thing that led to the success of dvd. if dvds looked like hell then they wouldnt have been adopted. plain and simple. would you as an early adopter have spent 800 to a 1000 bucks on something that looked like hell? i dont think so. if the early adopters dont buy into it then it goes away. plain and simple. i wonder why j6p didnt buy into umd? because the early adopters didnt. thats why.

PQ like AQ was definitely better. But both were down on the list as far as why DVD succeeded so quickly over VHS . . . and it didn't record for many years.

DVD had a built in "EA" market - the LD owners - 2 million strong. They were the ones buying DVD in 1997.

letterboxing came out 20 years ago? dang im getting old. well i guess its going to take some time but its going away. one person at a time. every person that learns what looks good and what doesnt is another person on our side. hehehehe.

Over 20 years! The VHS tape of Woody Allen's Manhattan was the very first LBTX movie offered to the public - it had blue bars not black. Blade Runner from Criterion was I believe the first LD with LTBX and did have the black bars.

LTBX is NOT going away. It is just as strong as it always has been.

Anyone have any data on the sales of full screen DVD's versus widescreen DVD's? Hollywood seems to have kept this data very close to their vest - also SE's versus POV (plain old vanilla:D) DVD's.

Personally, I think comcast HD sucks. I hade directv in AZ (TW Cable before that) but here where I am now I can't have a dish. So I am stuck with comcast. Comcast sucks compared to directv and TW as far as PQ goes. And, I have never had an issue with blocking, skipping or dropped audio with directv. ALL of those are issues for me with comcast cable, particuarly with the HD content (which they BY FAR are NOT the leader in as they falsely claim.) But, this of course is all subjective. Perhaps its just my area that sucks, or maybe my box... but it is my third box so I don't know anymore.

Justin

I don't blame comcast as they are doing the best the can with the infrastructure they have.


I blame them They made a decision to transmit most shows at 10-12mbps. This is because they chose to sent twice as many channels rather than sending shows at 20-25mbps. 10mbps is no better than DVD. DVD at 480p has less potential resolution, but it is then able to use the bits to have less blocky artifacts. To have 1920x1080 without a ton of artifacts takes 20mbps. 30mbps if you want almost no artifacts.

When I watched '24' last year, the blocking artifacts were about as bad as a typical bit-torrent download and much lower than DVD quality. I called and complained. They said they had to send a tech to check my house. I said my house was fine, that they needed to turn down compression. They did not seem to know what that meant. It is better now, but as soon as I can get FIOS I am going to. They seem to use 30% more bits.

I blame them They made a decision to transmit most shows at 10-12mbps. This is because they chose to sent twice as many channels rather than sending shows at 20-25mbps. 10mbps is no better than DVD. DVD at 480p has less potential resolution, but it is then able to use the bits to have less blocky artifacts. To have 1920x1080 without a ton of artifacts takes 20mbps. 30mbps if you want almost no artifacts.

When I watched '24' last year, the blocking artifacts were about as bad as a typical bit-torrent download and much lower than DVD quality. I called and complained. They said they had to send a tech to check my house. I said my house was fine, that they needed to turn down compression. They did not seem to know what that meant. It is better now, but as soon as I can get FIOS I am going to. They seem to use 30% more bits.

Unfortuneately, I don't know that you will have any more luck with FIOS. I have comcast HD fiberoptics.... my net speed is 28mbits. I still get artifacts. Even though FIOS has a 50mbit peak, it doesn't mean this is the cap for a show. You are still dependent on the original broadcaster too.

they may not agree right now. but once they watch and get used to the picture on cable (or other provider) and then watch blu i believe they will see a difference. I think this is one reason so many people bought dvds. SD cable channels just suck and dvd just blows them away. I think this will be the same for Blu-ray eventually. The blu ray picture quality has no where to go but up (using dvd as a benchmark) and the cable (or other provider) picture quality has no where to go but down.

the aspect ratio thing will come to pass. people will want the entire picture. they may not know why the original aspect ratio looks better but they will notice it does. if anything will sell them on OAR tnt will. hehehehe

Boy...are you way off base. Most average CE consumers will be quite content with HD content off satellite/cable/whatever/DVD and never go beyond these mediums. Why buy Blu-ray when you can get the same movies on HDNET for "free."

FIOS has been documented as 30% more bits per second for TV shows than Comcast cable. I am sure I will still see artifacts, but 30% more bits is still significant.

What is the latest on DirectTV bitrates? I have seen reports that they don't suck now.

My scale is like this:
Bluray>>Comcast HD>>>>Comcast HD on demand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Upscaled DVDs>>>>>>>SD.

Boy...are you way off base. Most average CE consumers will be quite content with HD content off satellite/cable/whatever/DVD and never go beyond these mediums. Why buy Blu-ray when you can get the same movies on HDNET for "free."

One of the main reasons is that you cant see new releases on HDnet. Rarely anything newer than a few years.

There is a (ongoing) topic in the HDTV Programming forum about how broadcast services are now playing around with "tri-casting" 3 feeds into the bandwidth normally reserved for 1. So not only is the effective bitrate 1/3 what it should be, but it is yet another realtime transcoding stage in the chain to impact pq. It's a long topic, but an interesting read...

As a sidenote, a fios sample is presented which demonstrates that even it doesn't achieve the end all/be all status for digital broadcast that is suggested by its tech specs.

It's an all too convenient explanation, imo. Basically, we can let fios blame "tnt" and tnt will blame fios- ultimately, it gets us nowhere if the result is the same, either way. Something is lacking somewhere in the chain that prevents ultimate pq on even fios.

My scale is like this:
Bluray>>Comcast HD>>>>Comcast HD on demand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Upscaled DVDs>>>>>>>SD.

I would go this

Bluray>>>>>>>>Upscaled DVDs (with a really good upscaler - bluray upscalers often get bad reviews - an oppo or XA2 is really good, ps3 isn't supposed to be all that bad either)>>Comcast HD>>>>Comcast HD on demand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>SD

All comcast is not created the same. My comcast nearly double in quality and quadrupled in bandwidth when they laid down their Fiberoptic cable instead of what they were using before. I went from about 6mbits to 28mbits overnight. problem with comcast is that they their quality is dependent on the weakest link... with the exception of broadcast. Broadcast looks the same to me between OTA and cable.... but the on demand HD is worse than upconverted DVD IMO. The advantage that Verizon has it there content is most likely made for FIOS only... but I would still think you would get artifacts.

I think the government should pass a law stating a minimum bitrate for TV channels. Actually, maybe there could be 2 minimum bitrates, a high one for major channels and a lower one for more minor channels as I know they've obviously got less money to compete with the big guys.

I think the government should pass a law stating a minimum bitrate for TV channels. Actually, maybe there could be 2 minimum bitrates, a high one for major channels and a lower one for more minor channels as I know they've obviously got less money to compete with the big guys.

I would be happy if they started with a law mandating that commercials are not 100 times louder than TV programs. Its the worst thing about TV right now.

I would be happy if they started with a law mandating that commercials are not 100 times louder than TV programs. Its the worst thing about TV right now.

+1

I am always scrambling for the remote when a commercial comes on.

Boy...are you way off base. Most average CE consumers will be quite content with HD content off satellite/cable/whatever/DVD and never go beyond these mediums. Why buy Blu-ray when you can get the same movies on HDNET for "free."

Except those who don't even bother to upgrade to HD satellite/cable even though they have HDTV's :)

My scale is like this:
Bluray>>Comcast HD>>>>Comcast HD on demand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Upscaled DVDs>>>>>>>SD.

Mine is:

Blu Ray> Apple TV HD > Up-scaled DVD (LG BH 200) > Cox HD OnDemand > Cox HD > Amazon Unbox > Cox SD (which is close to unwatchable).

I'd say Blu Ray and Apple TV look very close on a 52 inch LCD from 8 ft. Upconverted SD DVD is in the same league on a 47 inch LCD also from 8 ft. Cox SD is terrible even on my 24 inch monitor from 2 ft!

My internet download speed is around 20mbps usually, gets as low as 2.5mbps sometimes.

+1

I am always scrambling for the remote when a commercial comes on.

+1000000! :D

Except those who don't even bother to upgrade to HD satellite/cable even though they have HDTV's :)

To be fair it's quite expensive to get SKY HD (the satellite company here in the UK) since you need to buy the SKY HD box and an extra £10 a month on top of the regular subscription so if you're going from terrestrial TV to SKY HD then you're going from just the TV license fee to the TV license fee + possibly installation fee (although that might be free when you subscribe now) + £300 (I think) for the SKY HD box + about £40 or £50 a month for the whole subscription including HD. (I'm sort of guessing based on what I can remember though, anybody with SKY HD can correct me.) Cable's cheaper as you just pay for installation (although again that might be free if you use a subscription offer) then you pay £40 or so a month for the full subscription + £10 a month for the V+ subscription which pays for both the box (I guess you're renting it) and the HD content. The problem is that cable has hardly any HD content at all. :( (I have cable unfortunately, lol! My parents pay for it as it's for the family but I pay the extra V+ subscription as that's just for me.)

Late back to the thread.

Everyone famaliar with CBL's goal to migrate to Switched Digital Video to solve the bandwidth issue?

To be fair it's quite expensive to get SKY HD (the satellite company here in the UK) since you need to buy the SKY HD box and an extra £10 a month on top of the regular subscription so if you're going from terrestrial TV to SKY HD then you're going from just the TV license fee to the TV license fee + possibly installation fee (although that might be free when you subscribe now) + £300 (I think) for the SKY HD box + about £40 or £50 a month for the whole subscription including HD. (I'm sort of guessing based on what I can remember though, anybody with SKY HD can correct me.) Cable's cheaper as you just pay for installation (although again that might be free if you use a subscription offer) then you pay £40 or so a month for the full subscription + £10 a month for the V+ subscription which pays for both the box (I guess you're renting it) and the HD content. The problem is that cable has hardly any HD content at all. :( (I have cable unfortunately, lol! My parents pay for it as it's for the family but I pay the extra V+ subscription as that's just for me.)

I was also surprised how little HD content there is. If you take out the broadcast channels, there is almost nothing. And the HD on demand on comcast is just ridiculous. Even if you add the HBO and Showtime, there still isn't all that much. I have a really good deal though. I have fiberoptic comcast cable internet (28mbits), digital cable and the HD box with the on demand stuff as well (no HBO or Showtime) for $49.55 per month. I keep negotiating them down from about $80 every 12 months.

I mainly watch it for my broadcast shows, Fox29 news and of course my Dr. Phil

This is the thread on Comcast HD picture quality:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271

I find the picture quality on Comcast VOD to be better than their standard HD channels. With the way VOD works their is less compression and HD on VOD looks better to me.

Some of the earlier Blu-ray releases have been less than stellar, but the quality of the current Blu-ray releases is much higher than Comcast.

Since cable (or FiOS) uses Mpeg-2 and has a much lower bit rate, Blu-ray if done properly should look much better on a large 1080p HDTV.

I was also surprised how little HD content there is. If you take out the broadcast channels, there is almost nothing. And the HD on demand on comcast is just ridiculous. Even if you add the HBO and Showtime, there still isn't all that much. I have a really good deal though. I have fiberoptic comcast cable internet (28mbits), digital cable and the HD box with the on demand stuff as well (no HBO or Showtime) for $49.55 per month. I keep negotiating them down from about $80 every 12 months.

I mainly watch it for my broadcast shows, Fox29 news and of course my Dr. Phil

You're lucky you're in America. I'm in the UK. Here there's just 1 HD channel on cable and that's BBC HD which is only on for half a day (well, it's on 24 hours a day really but the rest of the time is just previews, not full shows) and doesn't have much on. The only other HD content are a few free On Demand HD shows (mainly documentaries) and a few PPV HD movies. Satellite is better as SKY HD have more channels in HD like SKY HD, Discovery HD, Channel 4 HD and SKY Sports HD, also they have SKY Movies in HD. :mad:

HDNet and HDNet movies are wonderful channels. However, I have Dish.

Therefore it is something like:

Blu-Ray/HD DVD>OTA HD via rabbit ears>>>Upscaled SD DVD (LG BH200)~Upscaled SD DVD(Toshiba HD-A20)>>>>HD-lite on Dish (oh... PPV movies tend to be open matte or cropped not OAR)>>>>>>>>Upscaled SD DVD via my Philips 3575/37>SD-lite on Dish

.... but the on demand HD is worse than upconverted DVD IMO.

When you are comparing the two, is this based on blocking artifacts during high motion scenes, or resolution as well?

I watched Black Snake Moan via ONDemand and it looked exceptional. I watch an 8' screen from 8' away fed by a 1080p FP.

Fast motion on any 1080i channel on Comcast will have blocking, but the resolution is much greater than upconverted dvd. Depending on the title, some become unwatchable - making any artifact free version superior.

Art

My scale is like this:
Bluray>>Comcast HD>>>>Comcast HD on demand>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Upscaled DVDs>>>>>>>SD.

I'm with you for the most part, except in my experiences Comcast HD on demand is better than Comcast HD. And E* HD is better than either of those.

I'm with you for the most part, except in my experiences Comcast HD on demand is better than Comcast HD. And E* HD is better than either of those.

whats E*?

And Comcast live HD varies, sometimes its stellar, sometimes it sucks (streth-o-vision TBS???), but I based my scale on the best I have seen.

E* = dish network

And yes, sometimes Comcast live HD is very impressive, but my experience is that most of the time it's not up to that standard while the on demand HD content tends to be pretty consistent.

When you are comparing the two, is this based on blocking artifacts during high motion scenes, or resolution as well?

I watched Black Snake Moan via ONDemand and it looked exceptional. I watch an 8' screen from 8' away fed by a 1080p FP.

Fast motion on any 1080i channel on Comcast will have blocking, but the resolution is much greater than upconverted dvd. Depending on the title, some become unwatchable - making any artifact free version superior.

Art

92" screen. 8 feet away.

I am not saying that the HD on demand is not higher resolution... usually. Some flicks are ok. I watched starship troopers on the HD on demand the other day and it was fine. On the other hand Karate Kid had so many artifacts that is was almost unwatchable. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to which ones they overcompress.

I am not saying that 480i looks better. But my HTPC and HD-A3 are really good at upconverting and I think they often produce a better image overall. I am not saying they add extra resolution, but the PQ is much more complete overall. for all intensive purposes 1080i should really be called 540p.

A bad test is comparing sd on demand to hd on demand... Ones that I come across that have too much artifacting, I will take a look at how the sd looks if I have it.