Just keep in mind that I have been a HD-DVD owner and am now a Blu-Ray owner. However, I have never had HD on cable, D* or E*. Although I have watched HD on cable and D*, I have never witnessed E*.

I ordered one of the new TurboHD packages from E*, and after reading these forums it seems that people dog satellite HD PQ, particulary E*.

My mom had D* HD, and I think it looks fine. It isn't Blu-Ray quality, but it is very nice. I just get a bad feeling that PQ is blown out of proportion on this forum. I understand these services don't have the clearest picture, but I think it's pretty darn good.

So is it videophiles that really notice this stuff? I think it's good quality and a heck of a lot better than SD. Am I alone here?

Most people are happy with DVD quality video, however I don't think these people should ruin HDTV for the rest of us.

PQ is to videophiles as AQ is to audiophiles.

While I can casually listen to an .mp3 in the car or via my Palm Centro, it is nothing like a good SACD surround experience.

For me, excellent HD PQ removes the distraction of fuzziness/distortion and lets me concentrate on the film itself.

So is it videophiles that really notice this stuff? I think it's good quality and a heck of a lot better than SD. Am I alone here?Here, maybe not alone, but in a definite small minority.

First, keep in mind this is an enthusiasts forum. Good enough isn't good enough.

Second, also keep in mind some of the more senior members here have been watching HD for almost 10 years. My first HD viewing experience was in 1989, 10 years before the consumer system we now use (ATSC) was available. Much of HD programming available in the first few years of ATSC was absolutely breathtaking; in some cases drastically better than what we have now come to know in the last few years as 'HDLite' (see AVS Glossary). As over-the-air, Cable, and DBS HD providers are trying to squeeze more and more programming into the limited bandwidth available, quality suffers.

The constant provider bashing you read here is nothing new, and as long as providers are insistent on reducing HD image quality, you're going to hear about it here. On the other hand, you'll also hear when it's great, like Verizon FiOS, which passes HD as they receive it from the various sources.

Is what we see better than SD? Sure, usually a lot better.
Is it as good as HD can be? These days not usually.

Once you get some HD mileage under your belt, you'll understand better.

As far as specific providers, Dish Network is generally considered at this time slightly worse than DirecTV. Both are not as good as FiOS, and depending on the cableco, either better or worse.

I'd say Ken pretty much hit it right on the head. Having only really experienced HD with Verizon, I used to think like Gio that any HD was "good enough." People, for instance, often criticize NBC's presentation of SNF. I've never really had a problem with it.

Then I spent a few weeks this summer sitting through Comcast's disaster of a service. No thank you. The difference between Comcast and Verizon is shocking.

Also, after watching Euro 2008, I've noticed that the difference between an uncompromised ESPN feed and the ABC feed hampered by multiple subchannels is very noticeable. Almost disappointingly so.

All your comments here are understandable. I understand that this is an enthusiast forum, and I appreciate that. I am a computer enthusiast, so I understand how some people are at a different "skill" level than others.

I am not trying to be harsh here or anything, I'm just trying to see if my purchase was justifiable. My install is on Sunday, so I guess I can make up my mind then. I guess it's just unfortunate that there are probably a lot of casual people who come in here and they might get turned off from one company or another due to videophiles.

And believe me, I am not saying anything bad about videophiles. I actually love "philes" in anything. Like I said, I am one myself with computers among other things. I am just hoping this is better than the SD I had and I can enjoy it. What do you all think?

I am not trying to be harsh here or anything, I'm just trying to see if my purchase was justifiable. My install is on Sunday, so I guess I can make up my mind then.Exactally. Only you can decide if you like what you see. Once you see HD on a regular basis, pretty much everyone I've ever come across finds it akin to video crack; flat out addictive.

I guess it's just unfortunate that there are probably a lot of casual people who come in here and they might get turned off from one company or another due to videophiles.Doesn't really work this way. It would be very rare for someone to read and ask questions here, and then decide nope, no HD for me. I can't ever remember it happening, although I'm sure it probably did at some point.

I am just hoping this is better than the SD I had and I can enjoy it. What do you all think?Like I said above, wait until you've seen it first, should definitely be better than SD. What usually happens is this: HD viewer gets HD. HD viewer falls in love with HD. HD viewer's provider reshuffles the HD image quality deck. HD viewer looks for another provider.

Plenty happy with DTV HD quality...never really give it a second thought...it looks good...I watch the shows I like...life goes on.

If I spent a fraction of the time and money some foks do worrying about and tweaking their TV's etc just to squeeze out one more pixel out of them,I'd go nuts (as would my family :)) and I'd be broke.

So yes imo PQ can be WAY overblown here and on many other sites....

Oh and yes for now SD DVD causes me no grief either..I pop a movie in and enjoy every minute..life is good. :)

So yes imo PQ can be WAY overblown here and on many other sites....
And you my friend may be on the wrong forum. Try www.anything they give me is OK with me.com......

Let's put it this way. If Dish's HD quality is something between DVD quality and Blu-Ray, I will be very happy. If it is hovering around DVD quality, I may be disappointed. I of course am talking about HD feeds here.

Let's put it this way. If Dish's HD quality is something between DVD quality and Blu-Ray, I will be very happy.Good HD on D* is like a slightly below average BD disc.

Bad HD on D* is often no better than a DVD.

Of course this is almost exclusively a result of the source, not D*.

God, I may sound old but.... I remember when HD was new and everything popped off the screen, then it got squeezed and now it's just OK.

At this point I really don't watch any movies on D's HD feeds, just too compressed, Blu is the only way to watch movies, but even there now and then you get a clinker. Last week Netflix crashed and they sent me the wrong version of "Chicago". I complained and I guess I timed it right and got the Blu version the next day. I had both versions available, roughly synced them up on my Panny and my hacked Oppo and I'd be hard pressed to tell which was which. Not the case with other movies.

Point is quality varies in all formats, you have to define what is acceptable to you.

Depends on what you're watching on Dish and what DVD you're watching.

For instance, a fast-moving basketball game in mpeg2 HD on ESPN on Dish might not be as acceptable or tolerable to some as a good, non-action flick SD DVD, if you're seeing a lot of macroblocking and jaggies on the game.

...I am just hoping this is better than the SD I had and I can enjoy it. What do you all think?

Even poor HD is better than SD anything. But Ken H. is right, those of us who got our first taste of HD in 1986 (I think that was the year that NAB had their HD World demonstrations), or started watching HD around 2000, know that what we see today is way worse than the early days. The sad truth is that except for the amount of HD programming available, we are going backwards in terms of PQ quality.

You can connect that with the drop in SD quality from the first digital satellite systems to what satellite and cable offer now. I was one of the first DBS early adopters with the original Primestar and the quality was indeed breathtaking, better than DVD quality (because of high frequency filtering in the DVD format). But they insisted on shoehorning more and more channels into a more or less fixed bandwidth and the result is the fuzzy, muddy, washed-out mess we see on SD channels today. They did it so gradually, over so many years, that the average DBS customer died the death of a thousand small cuts, not even aware he was being nicked, until he finally noticed his formerly pristine TV images now looked like crap. In fact, SD channels back in the mid-90's often looked as good as a lot of HD today due to over-compression.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in the cable world, they simply re-transmit the broadcast OTA signals which are themselves often compressed or marginalized due to multicasting. Garbage in, garbage out.

You can connect that with the drop in SD quality from the first digital satellite systems to what satellite and cable offer now. I was one of the first DBS early adopters with the original Primestar and the quality was indeed breathtaking, better than DVD quality (because of high frequency filtering in the DVD format). But they insisted on shoehorning more and more channels into a more or less fixed bandwidth and the result is the fuzzy, muddy, washed-out mess we see on SD channels today. They did it so gradually, over so many years, that the average DBS customer died the death of a thousand small cuts, not even aware he was being nicked, until he finally noticed his formerly pristine TV images now looked like crap. In fact, SD channels back in the mid-90's often looked as good as a lot of HD today due to over-compression.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in the cable world, they simply re-transmit the broadcast OTA signals which are themselves often compressed or marginalized due to multicasting. Garbage in, garbage out.I so miss the days when I first joined this forum and most of my locals were going HD for the first time(2003). The PQ was absolutely stunning! I could watch grass grow with PQ like that. Shows like smart travels on PBSHD, movies and sitcoms on ABCHD and CBSHD...I ate that stuff up. Then, they all slowly but surely started multicasting which was just gut wrenching to see when you'd seen what COULD be. Shoot, for awhile, you could even call the local affiliate and beg that they turn the subs off for a particular show, and sometimes they'd do it. Now, they have policies and rules, and there isn't even a point in calling.

Then I got HD cable(2005). I was pleasantly surprised by the PQ. Not like the original OTA, but still pretty good. Now, since I got cable three years ago, they've added like 20 channels and it looks like crap during motion and often soft with motion, or not.

It sounds stupid, but when they first started watering down the OTA PQ I was emotionally upset when I would watch it, knowing what I was missing. Now I'm simply nostalgic for the way it used to be and just happy I got a chance to see it at all. I figure someday they'll apply new tech or something that will bring the PQ back to where it should be. Wishful thinking maybe but one has to hope.

And just to give an idea how much things have changed, when one of my locals went HD, they had issues that apparently no one but I could see. You could call down there and troubleshoot the issue with the engineer...to the point that he was calling ME at night asking if the issues were fixed, if I had other issues, etc..

I had that local looking perfect until they added the subs which really hurt after all the effort we'd put in getting it right. Luckily this particular engineer really cared about PQ as he had a new HD set of his own at home. I still had to point out the issues to him, but when he'd get home, sure enough, he would check for what I was seeing and eventually see it too, and work to fix it. Now those were the good old days. I haven't talked to him in years and don't even know if he's still there. I doubt he's forgotten me anymore than I've forgotten him. Hell of a guy.

Depends on what you're watching on Dish and what DVD you're watching.

For instance, a fast-moving basketball game in mpeg2 HD on ESPN on Dish might not be as acceptable or tolerable to some as a good, non-action flick SD DVD, if you're seeing a lot of macroblocking and jaggies on the game.

Aren't the new TurboHD packages Mpeg-4 or at least moving that way?

And just to give an idea how much things have changed, when one of my locals went HD, they had issues that apparently no one but I could see. You could call down there and troubleshoot the issue with the engineer...to the point that he was calling ME at night asking if the issues were fixed, if I had other issues, etc..

I had that local looking perfect until they added the subs which really hurt after all the effort we'd put in getting it right. Luckily this particular engineer really cared about PQ as he had a new HD set of his own at home. I still had to point out the issues to him, but when he'd get home, sure enough, he would check for what I was seeing and eventually see it too, and work to fix it. Now those were the good old days. I haven't talked to him in years and don't even know if he's still there. I doubt he's forgotten me anymore than I've forgotten him. Hell of a guy.

Man, that's a great story. I wish I could have experienced the beginning days of HD! I am 29 years old, but I never remember watching HD back in the 80's. My stepdad had a huge dish back then I remember, I will have to ask him about it. Remember when the dishes were like 10x the size that they are now? LOL.

Sorry, but this thread is depressing! I too still clamour for the HD PQ I first saw 5 years ago. Now I need to go for a walk and clear my head.

Let's put it this way. If Dish's HD quality is something between DVD quality and Blu-Ray, I will be very happy.

Depends on what you're watching on Dish ...
For instance, a fast-moving basketball game in mpeg2 HD on ESPN on Dish might not be as acceptable or tolerable to some as a good, non-action flick SD DVD, if you're seeing a lot of macroblocking and jaggies on the game.
Rammitinski pretty much nailed it- if the bitrate for a high/fast motion content isn't sufficient... you will see all types of motion artifacts. In contrast, low/slow motion content can look amazing with lower bitrate feeds. I watched Bikini Destinations on HDNet last night via DishNet- and it was probably the best HD I've ever seen from Dish and it was right up there with the best cable picture quality because of the slow panning techniques used filming the beautiful scenery (Cobo Mexico) and the girls.

I actually think that some of the overcompressed "HD" that I receive with E* can actually look worse than 480p dvd because of the artifacts. I have also noticed the degradation of the SD channels on satellite and wonder if the SD from ten years ago might have been roughly equivalent to today's "HD". I remember when the satellites were marketing their superior digital quality as compared to cable - and back then it was. Not so today.

I so miss the days when I first joined this forum and most of my locals were going HD for the first time(2003). The PQ was absolutely stunning! I could watch grass grow with PQ like that. Shows like smart travels on PBSHD, movies and sitcoms on ABCHD and CBSHD...I ate that stuff up. Then, they all slowly but surely started multicasting which was just gut wrenching to see when you'd seen what COULD be.
What bothers me the most are my local stations that throw away bandwidth as if they were multicasting but they aren't. NBC has Weather Plus -- OK, that's a legitimate channel. PBS of course has many subchannels that serve real purposes, but what about these...

Our CBS station has an SD subchannel that no one uses. In fact it's turned off during sporting events so more bandwidth can be given to the HD channel, proving it's not being used for anything.

Our ABC station got a new encoder and dropped their HD feed to 15 Mbps so they could... do nothing with it. The bandwidth they saved is going into null packets. Maybe their old Harris encoder was starting to die.

Our CW station, for complicated reasons, limits HD to 12 Mbps, barely watchable for filmed content. They didn't even bother to switch off their subchannel when the Tube went under -- it's a black screen.

By design FOX limits its feed to all stations as if they were all multicasting.

The lone station in town that throws all of their bits into HD is... the MyTV affiliate, the network with the least amount of HD!

Arrrgghh!

I actually think that some of the overcompressed "HD" that I receive with E* can actually look worse than 480p dvd because of the artifacts. I have also noticed the degradation of the SD channels on satellite and wonder if the SD from ten years ago might have been roughly equivalent to today's "HD". I remember when the satellites were marketing their superior digital quality as compared to cable - and back then it was. Not so today.

I wonder if it will ever get to a breaking point and the sat companies will start improving their quality? Shouldn't the E* TurboHD packages be really good quality? Didn't they send up a new satellite for those packages or am I mistaken?

What bothers me the most are my local stations that throw away bandwidth as if they were multicasting but they aren't. NBC has Weather Plus -- OK, that's a legitimate channel. PBS of course has many subchannels that serve real purposes, but what about these...

Our CBS station has an SD subchannel that no one uses. In fact it's turned off during sporting events so more bandwidth can be given to the HD channel, proving it's not being used for anything.

Our ABC station got a new encoder and dropped their HD feed to 15 Mbps so they could... do nothing with it. The bandwidth they saved is going into null packets. Maybe their old Harris encoder was starting to die.

Our CW station, for complicated reasons, limits HD to 12 Mbps, barely watchable for filmed content. They didn't even bother to switch off their subchannel when the Tube went under -- it's a black screen.

By design FOX limits its feed to all stations as if they were all multicasting.

The lone station in town that throws all of their bits into HD is... the MyTV affiliate, the network with the least amount of HD!

Arrrgghh!

Wow, thanks for the info! That was very informative. Well, let's just hope that something happens for improvement.

I bought my HDTV in October 1999 along with an mpeg2 HD satellite receiver. The first HD show I received was an early ABC Monday Night Football game. I went on to receive ABC, CBS, and NBC HD programming via satellite. There was ample bandwidth and no sub-channels. The pictures were gorgeous.

Soon the locals came on in HD with no sub-channels and they were still very good. Now I have D* HD along with OTA locals which is a big letdown from the early days.

I still use my HD satellite receiver occasionly to watch first rate HD programming.

Most people will never see what HD can be. Most people don't care.

What is this "high definition" thing you all are referring to?!:)

I actually think that some of the over-compressed "HD" that I receive with E* can actually look worse than 480p DVD because of the artifacts.
I agree 100%
When "Enterprise" was on HDNet the PQ from DishNet was far worse than the 480p "Enterprise" factory DVD's I own. It was a huge disappointment to me when I saw the putrid "HD" quality of those episodes. Others that saw the exact same episodes showing at the exact same time on HDNet via FIOS and Cable said the quality was quite good. I believe DishNet over-compressed the feed tremendously...

I think there is still hope guys.:)

If I remember right(I might not) Ken has said in the past that someday, with new technology implementation and more HD customers(complaining), things could get great again.

I know less about this stuff than most of you, see scowl's and others posts in particular. It goes without saying Ken knows more than all of us regarding HD. I'm just a guy who likes to watch HD too, like you guys.

This whole issue is why I don't talk bad about BD/HD DVD re: DNR, EE, etc..

It used to be a tradition here to tread lightly on whoever provided the best HD source. It may not have been perfect but it was the best we had. IMO, BD is the best we've got now. Yeah, there is FiOS but not everyone can get that. But everyone can get BD and right now it's as good as anything out there and should be promoted as such, or at least be cut some slack this early on. It will get better just the same as DVD got better over the years, and us buying less than perfect DVD's didn't stop them from improving it. If BD doesn't succeed we'll end up with HD downloads and I'm not looking forward to that. We may end up there anyway, but..

I'm going off topic here, but to answer the original question, no , PQ is NOT blown out of proportion.:D

I think there is still hope guys.:)

If I remember right(I might not) Ken has said in the past that someday, with new technology implementation and more HD customers(complaining), things could get great again.

I know less about this stuff than most of you, see scowl's and others posts in particular. It goes without saying Ken knows more than all of us regarding HD. I'm just a guy who likes to watch HD too, like you guys.

This whole issue is why I don't talk bad about BD/HD DVD re: DNR, EE, etc..

It used to be a tradition here to tread lightly on whoever provided the best HD source. It may not have been perfect but it was the best we had. IMO, BD is the best we've got now. Yeah, there is FiOS but not everyone can get that. But everyone can get BD and right now it's as good as anything out there and should be promoted as such, or at least be cut some slack this early on. It will get better just the same as DVD got better over the years, and us buying less than perfect DVD's didn't stop them from improving it. If BD doesn't succeed we'll end up with HD downloads and I'm not looking forward to that. We may end up there anyway, but..

I'm going off topic here, but to answer the original question, no , PQ is NOT blown out of proportion.:D
One would think that at some point there is a marketing angle of "we've got quality" to exploit for competitive advantage, as opposed to "quantity" (how much tv can you watch anyway?). Of course, Zenith has gone the way of LG, so what do I know. One other point -- if I were an art director or otherwise responsible for that damn gold NBC olympics bug (just dial it down, will ya?), or the foul macroblocking of the olympics ring transition wipe, I would be ashamed at the product I was putting out. Is it because I'm a videophile? Maybe - my wife could could care less, but I would like to beleive that somewhere within NBC (or any other station for that matter) there is someone who has at least a grain of artistic integrity, be they videophile or otherwise.

I so miss the days when I first joined this forum and most of my locals were going HD for the first time(2003). The PQ was absolutely stunning! I could watch grass grow with PQ like that.Nowadays that would be impossible, because the grass is swimming too much.

One would think that at some point there is a marketing angle of "we've got quality" to exploit for competitive advantage, as opposed to "quantity" (how much tv can you watch anyway?). Of course, Zenith has gone the way of LG, so what do I know. One other point -- if I were an art director or otherwise responsible for that damn gold NBC olympics bug (just dial it down, will ya?), or the foul macroblocking of the olympics ring transition wipe, I would be ashamed at the product I was putting out. Is it because I'm a videophile? Maybe - my wife could could care less, but I would like to beleive that somewhere within NBC (or any other station for that matter) there is someone who has at least a grain of artistic integrity, be they videophile or otherwise.

Well, I am in marketing and I agree with you 100%. I agree, I mean how many channels does someone need? I am actually downsizing from over 200 channels to 32 with the Dish TurboHD package. I honestly found it useless and I found myself watching maybe 5 channels regularly.

I think one of these companies needs to stand up and market quality over quantity. I know a lot of people would jump on ship with that.

It seems like Dish did it with their HD only TurboHD packages. Did they send up a new bird just for their new TurboHD packages? If so, shouldn't the quality be great?

One would think that at some point there is a marketing angle of "we've got quality" to exploit for competitive advantage, as opposed to "quantity" (how much tv can you watch anyway?).Well, I am in marketing and I agree with you 100%. I agree, I mean how many channels does someone need? I am actually downsizing from over 200 channels to 32 with the Dish TurboHD package. I honestly found it useless and I found myself watching maybe 5 channels regularly.Are you willing to give up two or three of those five (picked at random) just so the other two or three would be slightly higher quality? I wouldn't.

We need lots of channels because everyone has their own favorites. For example, you might be glued to ESPN, whereas I couldn't care less if it existed. I'm betting most people, like me, would not want to give up half their favorites so that the rest can have double bandwidth.

Besides, MPEG-4 now allows you to almost have the best of both worlds -- more channels, while maintaining reasonable quality.

It seems like Dish did it with their HD only TurboHD packages. Did they send up a new bird just for their new TurboHD packages? If so, shouldn't the quality be great?

They added a satellite but that was to make up for one that crashed, I believe. I haven't seen any noticeable improvement in PQ lately, but they did add some new content. I've been watching the Olympics a lot lately and I don't think I can blame them for that macroblock mess.

hd signals from the cable co.s and the satcos are all now highly compressed and significantly degrade what could be a great hd signal.

just check out the olympics. when there is no movement or panning on the screen, some of the hd shots are quite impressive. but add any motion and the signal macros to pieces, at times the scenes become unrecognizeable. motion means more information in your signal which has inadequate bandwith to broadcast it.

fios is the only provider that sends out a signal that comes close to illustrating how wonderful an hd broadcast can be

Just keep in mind that I have been a HD-DVD owner and am now a Blu-Ray owner. However, I have never had HD on cable, D* or E*. Although I have watched HD on cable and D*, I have never witnessed E*.
....

So is it videophiles that really notice this stuff? I think it's good quality and a heck of a lot better than SD. Am I alone here?

Therein lies your problem. You can't make a blanket statement along the lines that it's "good enough" unless you've seen HD on different formats and broadcasters.

Better it maybe, but the first time your experience action sequences, fast motion or strong colors go nuts with MPEG artifacts you might see where some of the criticism comes from. It rarely happens on disc media unless it's a bad transfer but watching live it can happen a lot depending on where you live and who you have.

When you start to watch a lot of broadcast HD you'll see the issues that happen. And it's not the sole problem of satellite either. Cablecos have very different approaches per market as well.

hd signals from the cable co.s and the satcos are all now highly compressed and significantly degrade what could be a great hd signal.

just check out the olympics. when there is no movement or panning on the screen, some of the hd shots are quite impressive.

I don't know about you, but in my case that highly compressed and significantly degraded video of the Olympics is coming straight from my NBC affiliate. The cable company does nothing to it.

And you my friend may be on the wrong forum. Try www.anything they give me is OK with me.com......

LOL, that is funny Ken..Unfortanetely this guy is in the huge majority of HD viewers, and we are in the huge minority. Hence the reason broadcast HD has become a complete joke. (Unless one happens to live in one of the few FIOS areas, and Im sure they will probably become a joke eventually as well).

He is definitley in the wrong place though. If one wishes to support the lackluster broadcast HD we're seeing today this really isnt the place to do it, IMO...

Sure, life goes on, hes right about that. It doesent change the fact that broadcast HD is totally in the dumper though.

Who is P.Q.? :confused:

Who is P.Q.? :confused:

Hahaha!! :p

...Sure, life goes on, hes right about that. It doesent change the fact that broadcast HD is totally in the dumper though.

I think a lot depends upon when someone enters the HD arena.

I got my first Mitsubishi HD RPTV just in time for the 2002 Olympics and was amazed and disappointed at the same time. It was a 1080i set and on fairly static images was amazing. However, the picture turned to confetti with any serious motion.

When the picture was good, it was very good. When it was bad, very bad.

I suspect that today, someone going from a 27" analog to, say a 42" LCD or plasma, will be vey much impressed initially with what s/he is seeing. At least until a really good Blu-ray is played on that same set.

I suspect that today, someone going from a 27" analog to, say a 42" LCD or plasma, will be vey much impressed initially with what s/he is seeing. At least until a really good Blu-ray is played on that same set.

Though I suspect that if the 27" analogue set is 4:3 SD and has been running on an analogue composite connection, then a switch to a 16:9 SD component/RGB picture source, with decent compression and full SD resolution (i.e. close to DVD quality) will also appear to be a major improvement.

I think a lot depends upon when someone enters the HD arena.

I got my first Mitsubishi HD RPTV just in time for the 2002 Olympics and was amazed and disappointed at the same time. It was a 1080i set and on fairly static images was amazing. However, the picture turned to confetti with any serious motion.

When the picture was good, it was very good. When it was bad, very bad.

I suspect that today, someone going from a 27" analog to, say a 42" LCD or plasma, will be vey much impressed initially with what s/he is seeing. At least until a really good Blu-ray is played on that same set.

I agree, it does depend on when one entered the HD arena.

Im not sure how seeing an HD telecast in 2002, and seeing that it kinda sucked backs up your claim though. To me it sounds like youre saying it sucked in 2002, and it still sucks today :)

Anyways, I first viewed HD around 2002, on a Mits CRT RP. It was an NFL playoff game on ESPNHD and my jaw about hit the ground. I was sold instantly on HD. Within a month I had my own HD set, and this was back when D* had about 4 HD channels. The HD continued to be breathtaking for a year or so, then it slowly began to degrade as channels were added.

New HD subs just simply dont realize what HD can and should look like. The HD from 2002 does not even remotely compare to what we are seeing today. So it really is perfectly understandable that new HD subs think todays HD is outstanding. Its obviously way better than SD, and that makes most new subs plenty happy.

I think a lot depends upon when someone enters the HD arena.

I got my first Mitsubishi HD RPTV just in time for the 2002 Olympics and was amazed and disappointed at the same time. It was a 1080i set and on fairly static images was amazing. However, the picture turned to confetti with any serious motion.

When the picture was good, it was very good. When it was bad, very bad.

I suspect that today, someone going from a 27" analog to, say a 42" LCD or plasma, will be vey much impressed initially with what s/he is seeing. At least until a really good Blu-ray is played on that same set.

Well, I've already had my HDTV for over a year now. It's a 32" Samsung that I think has pretty darn good picture quality. I know it's small, but it does the job for us. I've also been a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray owner for over a year.

So I have witnessed some pretty darn good HD quality material. So I won't be going into this E* HD stuff totally blind. As I mentioned though, besides the Blu-Ray, I am coming into it off SD programming. So I'm sure I will be semi-impressed by it compared to that.

At the same token, I probably won't be as impressed compared to what I've watched on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. Ultimately, while the programming should be of better quality like most of you have said, I think I will be satisfied overall. It will be better than I've had and it will do me good until I can afford something better.

I got my first 1080i RPTV in 01 or 02, practically soiled myself in joy while watching the early PBS over Italy and ESPN football. Then in about 05 and 06...I just wasnt impressed anymore. Visitors were, but I wasn't. Of course my mid 40's eyesight degraded at an equally impressive rate, so I blamed myself!
I'm no videophile by any measure, but I have a good optometrist. Thank you for affirming "IT's not me"!

To be Clintonesque, maybe it depends on how you define PQ. In recent years folks seem to be mixing the concepts of frequent MPEG artifacts, such as noticeable blocking, with good resolution, color, etc. There's a link, it seems, since with lossy MPEG resolution falls off with the bit rate, and finally gross artifacts appear. But IMO, MPEG artifacts severe enough to spoil watching HD means the delivery system, or the display system, is 'broken'. -- John

I agree, it does depend on when one entered the HD arena.

Im not sure how seeing an HD telecast in 2002, and seeing that it kinda sucked backs up your claim though. To me it sounds like youre saying it sucked in 2002, and it still sucks today :)

Well, truth is, it was an NBC broadcast and those motion issues have continued to this day, unfortunately. However, those scenes with little motion looked really, really good. I know OTA is supposed to be right up there in PQ, but unfortunately some of our local stations insist on subchannels. Most of the time, they just don't look all that great.

When I subscribed to DirecTV, HDNet became the new "gold standard" at that time.



New HD subs just simply dont realize what HD can and should look like. The HD from 2002 does not even remotely compare to what we are seeing today. So it really is perfectly understandable that new HD subs think todays HD is outstanding. Its obviously way better than SD, and that makes most new subs plenty happy.

All too true, unfortunately.

Well, I've already had my HDTV for over a year now. It's a 32" Samsung that I think has pretty darn good picture quality. I know it's small, but it does the job for us. I've also been a HD-DVD/Blu-Ray owner for over a year.

So I have witnessed some pretty darn good HD quality material. So I won't be going into this E* HD stuff totally blind. As I mentioned though, besides the Blu-Ray, I am coming into it off SD programming. So I'm sure I will be semi-impressed by it compared to that.

At the same token, I probably won't be as impressed compared to what I've watched on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. Ultimately, while the programming should be of better quality like most of you have said, I think I will be satisfied overall. It will be better than I've had and it will do me good until I can afford something better.

From that standpoint, I believe you are right. Nothing against smaller sets, but unless you are sitting really close to them you are most likely not going to see a lot of issues. It is when you get into larger screen sizes, or sit closer than recommended for a particular size, that the major issues arise.

For the longest time, I was happy with a 720p display (well, two of them actually). It wasn't until I recently upgraded to a 1080p display for the HT that a lot of the "magic" returned, especially on Blu-ray. At the same viewing distance as the old 720p, there is just a lot more detail as can be expected.

Now, I have nothing against a 720p display. I still have a 42" one in the bedroom and am not about to replace it any time soon. Partly because it is only about a year and a half old, but more so because it is about 12 feet away from the bed, well beyond "recommended viewing distance". Of course, at that distance, the PQ is way more than satisfactory.

From that standpoint, I believe you are right. Nothing against smaller sets, but unless you are sitting really close to them you are most likely not going to see a lot of issues. It is when you get into larger screen sizes, or sit closer than recommended for a particular size, that the major issues arise.
I only buy this thinking up to a point.

When it comes to resolution and sharpness, a small set isn't going to reveal too much overall difference. So, DVD vs. BluRay isn't going to have a marked difference if both are well mastered.

Even some frequency noise will be hidden by a set's size.

However, macroblocking doesn't get hidden by the size of the set. Blocky video will look just as bad on any size set. When the bit rate starts getting crunched, fast motion scenes will break up just as badly on the small screen as they do on the big one.

Just keep in mind that I have been a HD-DVD owner and am now a Blu-Ray owner. However, I have never had HD on cable, D* or E*. Although I have watched HD on cable and D*, I have never witnessed E*.

I ordered one of the new TurboHD packages from E*, and after reading these forums it seems that people dog satellite HD PQ, particulary E*.

My mom had D* HD, and I think it looks fine. It isn't Blu-Ray quality, but it is very nice. I just get a bad feeling that PQ is blown out of proportion on this forum. I understand these services don't have the clearest picture, but I think it's pretty darn good.

So is it videophiles that really notice this stuff? I think it's good quality and a heck of a lot better than SD. Am I alone here?

A lot of it also depends on the size of the HDTV and the sitting distance. Poor quality HD broadcast on a 42" TV while you're sitting at 10' isn't going to bother you near as much as poor quality HD broadcast on a 65" TV sitting at 10'.

TAZ427

I only buy this thinking up to a point.

When it comes to resolution and sharpness, a small set isn't going to reveal too much overall difference. So, DVD vs. BluRay isn't going to have a marked difference if both are well mastered.

Even some frequency noise will be hidden by a set's size.

However, macroblocking doesn't get hidden by the size of the set. Blocky video will look just as bad on any size set. When the bit rate starts getting crunched, fast motion scenes will break up just as badly on the small screen as they do on the big one.


I agree with this assesment completely. I have a 26" el cheapo HDTV in one of my bedrooms. It shows every bit as much motion artifacting issues as my 40" and my 50".

I think sitting at a farther distance than reccomended for ones panel size can make a big difference as far as seeing motion artifacts. But if one is sitting at or around the reccomended distance on a 26" and a 50", they are both going to show the same motion artifacting, if artifacting is present in the first place.